It's official - Apple iPhone + Cingular
01-11-2007 | 02:42 PM
#123
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 3
From: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Originally Posted by BEETROOT
Let me just throw out that the iPhone is no more expensive than a Treo ($600-700), Blackberry ($500), or even a Blackjack ($500).
Its not any more expensive than similar products on the market.
Its not any more expensive than similar products on the market.
these devices, contract price or full price, are supported more by companies than by personal consumers. Sure, there are people who buy these devices for personal use, but i bet that at least 80% of these devices are purchased and subsidized through someone's employer or business and has NOTHING to do with employee preference.
A device that costs $500-600 without a contract is big bucks, and neither Palm, Blackberry, or any other PDA/Phone producer would survive on private consumers alone. They REQUIRE corporate support to survive at these price levels.
A device that costs $500-600 WITH a contract is in an even worse scenario. And I don't think there will be many companies that will spend the money to shift to "Iphones" for the media capabilities or because it "looks cool". When was the last time a company switched to all Macs because that's what the employee wanted?
01-11-2007 | 02:48 PM
#124
Yeehaw
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,972
Likes: 26
From: Chandler, Arizona
I already said I was wrong about the prices, I thought that was the non contract price. Again, my bad.
Lots of companies use all Macs 
but ok, we get your point, you don't think the iPhone is going to sell. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
When was the last time a company switched to all Macs because that's what the employee wanted?
but ok, we get your point, you don't think the iPhone is going to sell. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
01-11-2007 | 03:10 PM
#125
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
And I don't think there will be many companies that will spend the money to shift to "Iphones" for the media capabilities or because it "looks cool". When was the last time a company switched to all Macs because that's what the employee wanted?
And large companies who buy phones for their employees, like you said, aren't on Mac's anyway. There's no incentive for them to use the iPhone above something with, say, Windows Mobile.
That said.
Apple is aiming for only 1% of the mobile phone market. Apple is aiming for merely 10 million sales.
They will have no problem finding 10 million consumers to pony up $599. Shit, I'd be surprised if they couldn't find 5 million people in Manhattan alone to pony up $599 for no other reason then to look cool before getting mugged on the subway.
01-11-2007 | 03:11 PM
#126
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 3
From: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Originally Posted by BEETROOT
I already said I was wrong about the prices, I thought that was the non contract price. Again, my bad.
Lots of companies use all Macs
but ok, we get your point, you don't think the iPhone is going to sell. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
Lots of companies use all Macs
but ok, we get your point, you don't think the iPhone is going to sell. I couldn't disagree more strongly. I guess we'll have to wait and see.
And this also applies to PDA's. the vast MAJORITY of companies use Treos or Blackberries. And this vast majority of these companies aren't going to change to a more expensive product because it's better at playing music and looks cool.
Do i think it won't sell? No, it'll sell ok, but I don't see mass adoption like some here are predicting, especially at these prices. No matter how good it may or may not be, it's not "revolutionary" enough to be asking $500-600 from consumers. $200 and this thing will sell like hotcakes, but I doubt it seeing that Cisco will end up getting a bigger chunk when Apple finally agrees to pay them more for use of the iphone trademark.
01-11-2007 | 03:15 PM
#127
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by mrdeeno
My argument isn't that companies don't use Macs, my argument is that the vast MAJORITY don't use macs, and this vast majority isn't going to change, whether one can argue superiority or not.
And this also applies to PDA's. the vast MAJORITY of companies use Treos or Blackberries. And this vast majority of these companies aren't going to change to a more expensive product because it's better at playing music and looks cool.
Do i think it won't sell? No, it'll sell ok, but I don't see mass adoption like some here are predicting, especially at these prices. No matter how good it may or may not be, it's not "revolutionary" enough to be asking $500-600 from consumers. $200 and this thing will sell like hotcakes, but I doubt it seeing that Cisco will end up getting a bigger chunk when Apple finally agrees to pay them more for use of the iphone trademark.
And this also applies to PDA's. the vast MAJORITY of companies use Treos or Blackberries. And this vast majority of these companies aren't going to change to a more expensive product because it's better at playing music and looks cool.
Do i think it won't sell? No, it'll sell ok, but I don't see mass adoption like some here are predicting, especially at these prices. No matter how good it may or may not be, it's not "revolutionary" enough to be asking $500-600 from consumers. $200 and this thing will sell like hotcakes, but I doubt it seeing that Cisco will end up getting a bigger chunk when Apple finally agrees to pay them more for use of the iphone trademark.
we & Apple are talking about 10 million units per year. it's well beyond realistic. they'll probably do 100x that, especially once it's available outside the U.S.
01-11-2007 | 03:24 PM
#128
Yeehaw
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,972
Likes: 26
From: Chandler, Arizona
Like Soopa said, Apple isn't trying to replace the Treo or the Blackberry.
You seem to be really hung up on this price thing... yeah its expensive but its not out of this world expensive. An Apple computer isn't 'revolutionary', yet they fly off the shelves, even when a comparably equipped Dell costs half the price.
In my opinion, Apple products are top of the line. My iMac blows away my Dimension. My Macbook is leaps and bounds better than my Dell 700m was, or either the Toshiba or the Lenovo in my household. My iPod's are better than any of the other various mp3 players sitting unused in my desk drawer.
Based on this 'track record', I am assuming Apple will continue to produce a product at this level of quality. Yes, I will want to mess with the phone first, but I think it is reasonable to assume that the iPhone will do what it is designed to do very well. If Bentley decided to build a golf cart, isn't it safe to assume its going to be high quality?
Anyway my whole point is that people like myself are willing to pay for quality. If it is $500, $600, $800, so be it. Are we sheep? To a degree... but everything else out there sucks, and you have to pay to play.
You seem to be really hung up on this price thing... yeah its expensive but its not out of this world expensive. An Apple computer isn't 'revolutionary', yet they fly off the shelves, even when a comparably equipped Dell costs half the price.
In my opinion, Apple products are top of the line. My iMac blows away my Dimension. My Macbook is leaps and bounds better than my Dell 700m was, or either the Toshiba or the Lenovo in my household. My iPod's are better than any of the other various mp3 players sitting unused in my desk drawer.
Based on this 'track record', I am assuming Apple will continue to produce a product at this level of quality. Yes, I will want to mess with the phone first, but I think it is reasonable to assume that the iPhone will do what it is designed to do very well. If Bentley decided to build a golf cart, isn't it safe to assume its going to be high quality?
Anyway my whole point is that people like myself are willing to pay for quality. If it is $500, $600, $800, so be it. Are we sheep? To a degree... but everything else out there sucks, and you have to pay to play.
Last edited by BEETROOT; 01-11-2007 at 03:27 PM.
01-11-2007 | 03:26 PM
#129
Yeehaw
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 20,972
Likes: 26
From: Chandler, Arizona
Originally Posted by soopa
we & Apple are talking about 10 million units per year. it's well beyond realistic. they'll probably do 100x that, especially once it's available outside the U.S.
01-11-2007 | 03:43 PM
#130
I like to whistle in my
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,610
Likes: 1
From: Fort Washington, Md
I haven't read the whole thread but I AM SO FRICKIN' EXCITED ABOUT THIS!! especially snce im about to drop nextel. I don't know how many times i watched that video on YouTube and finally they come out with one. 
01-11-2007 | 03:50 PM
#131
It's not over yet
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,000
Likes: 0
From: Socal
Originally Posted by soopa
i just said this in the last post on the last page, but in case it was missed... were not talking about MASS adoption.
we & Apple are talking about 10 million units per year. it's well beyond realistic. they'll probably do 100x that, especially once it's available outside the U.S.
we & Apple are talking about 10 million units per year. it's well beyond realistic. they'll probably do 100x that, especially once it's available outside the U.S.
01-11-2007 | 04:01 PM
#132
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by AQUI NO!
10x is doable but hard to believe(at 500-600 a pop that is), but 100x at their price point, I'll have to see it to believe it, because I don't think apple has even sold that many Ipods, macs, newtons combined.
the idea is, they'll probably outsell their goals, as they usually do. and with a goal of 10 million per year, it's not hard to see them exceed that goal exponentially. 1 billion a year? nah. 100 million a year? maybe. 50 million in 2008? probably.
01-11-2007 | 04:07 PM
#134
It's not over yet
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,000
Likes: 0
From: Socal
Originally Posted by soopa
wasn't meant to be taken literally.
the idea is, they'll probably outsell their goals, as they usually do. and with a goal of 10 million per year, it's not hard to see them exceed that goal exponentially. 1 billion a year? nah. 100 million a year? maybe. 50 million in 2008? probably.
the idea is, they'll probably outsell their goals, as they usually do. and with a goal of 10 million per year, it's not hard to see them exceed that goal exponentially. 1 billion a year? nah. 100 million a year? maybe. 50 million in 2008? probably.
Last edited by AQUI NO!; 01-11-2007 at 04:12 PM.
01-11-2007 | 04:11 PM
#135
99 TL, 06 E350
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,030
Likes: 164
From: Toronto
Iphone
Not sure if this is a repost. But a feature on the Iphone from CBS...i think RIM's days are numbered if this is a success:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk
01-11-2007 | 04:31 PM
#136
I like to whistle in my
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,610
Likes: 1
From: Fort Washington, Md
Originally Posted by BEETROOT
You hit the nail on the head. I don't want to carry a seperate phone, mp3 player, and a PDA, but it would be nice to have that functionality. So far there isn't anything on the market that does all three properly.
01-11-2007 | 04:47 PM
#138
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by AQUI NO!
I don't know soopa, even at 50 million it seems like wishful thinking, specially since apple hasn't even sold 50 million ipods in a single year yet, but they are projected to exceed that number by 2008 and how many years has that taken?
however. the iPod is not a good comparison.
if it were, we could expect the iPhone to sell WAY WAY WAY more then 50 million.
Think about it...
I'm not sure how many units the iPod sold in 2006 (i don't think we'll know until the end of Q1 07), but I know they sold about 30 million in 2005. So lets assume they broke 2005's sales and the sold a total of 40 million iPods in 2006 (that's probably conservative).
That means Apple was responsible for about 30% of the the total MP3 player market of 135 million units in 2006.
The mobile phone market is seven times the size of the MP3 market.
If Apple could acheive the same level of saturation with the iPhone as the iPod that means they'd be selling nearly 290 MILLION units per year.
That's crazy.
But is it so crazy to think Apple could sell 50 million (ok maybe not in 2008, but 2009) iPhone's? If the mobile phone market didn't grow at all, that would still only be about 5% of the total market.
I think Apple could steal 5% of the market. That's less market share then ANY other name-brand mobile phone manufacturer.
In reality, they wouldn't even need to. hit 5% to sell 50 million in 2009.
2006 broke all sales forecasts. If the trend continues, we may see as many as 1.5 BILLION phones sold worldwide in 2009.
Is it crazy to think Apple could have as little as 3.5% of that? 3.5% of the worlds largest consumer electronics market? Would less then HALF the market share of LG (the smallest of the name brands) be such a lofty goal? Maybe it's not so wishful after all.
01-11-2007 | 04:47 PM
#139
The funny thing with all of this is that what Apple considers as "reinventing" the phone is nothing new really. By Japanese standards it's yesterday's news. With the small selection we have here in the states we don't get to see all the great phones that are available in Japan (unless you buy an unlocked phone and use it over here). Even still, this doesn't mean the iPhone is going to be any good. I'm sure it will sell, I just wished consumers weren't so brainwashed into thinking it's cutting edge when it isn't.
Also to note, the battery life on these things ARE going to suck. Imagine taking it on a long flight to listen to music and watch video. by the time you land you'll be close to a dead battery if not already dead. And from what I've read the battery isn't replaceable so you can't just swap it out for a charged battery.
Add to it that it's only available through Cingular. People aren't going to drop their contracts just to switch phones. Especially one that is so expensive. My PDA phone was cheaper by $300 and it can already play MP3s and video. Also what about those that hate cingular. They haven't had the best rep in the past when it comes to Customer Service and due to that many of walked away from them, including myself.
Apple has always touted their stuff is user friendly and for the benefit of the consumer. Releasing a phone that is only accessible for one phone network is contradictory to what I feel their goals have been. I think they just wanted to have something on the market to add to their touting list that "oh look what ELSE we can do now".
Just my, I guess we'll really see when it hits the market.
I don't think it's anything special though.
Also to note, the battery life on these things ARE going to suck. Imagine taking it on a long flight to listen to music and watch video. by the time you land you'll be close to a dead battery if not already dead. And from what I've read the battery isn't replaceable so you can't just swap it out for a charged battery.
Add to it that it's only available through Cingular. People aren't going to drop their contracts just to switch phones. Especially one that is so expensive. My PDA phone was cheaper by $300 and it can already play MP3s and video. Also what about those that hate cingular. They haven't had the best rep in the past when it comes to Customer Service and due to that many of walked away from them, including myself.
Apple has always touted their stuff is user friendly and for the benefit of the consumer. Releasing a phone that is only accessible for one phone network is contradictory to what I feel their goals have been. I think they just wanted to have something on the market to add to their touting list that "oh look what ELSE we can do now".
Just my
, I guess we'll really see when it hits the market.I don't think it's anything special though.
01-11-2007 | 04:50 PM
#140
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Oh, and btw, IF the iPhone is as popular as the iPod is now in 2009, Apple will sell almost HALF A BILLION units that year.
So yea, the iPhone/iPod comparison is not a good one... and 50 million units in 2009 is not at all crazy. Just a small piece of the pie. The smallest piece, actually.
So yea, the iPhone/iPod comparison is not a good one... and 50 million units in 2009 is not at all crazy. Just a small piece of the pie. The smallest piece, actually.
01-11-2007 | 05:08 PM
#141
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Sly Raskal
The funny thing with all of this is that what Apple considers as "reinventing" the phone is nothing new really. By Japanese standards it's yesterday's news. With the small selection we have here in the states we don't get to see all the great phones that are available in Japan (unless you buy an unlocked phone and use it over here). Even still, this doesn't mean the iPhone is going to be any good. I'm sure it will sell, I just wished consumers weren't so brainwashed into thinking it's cutting edge when it isn't.
Also to note, the battery life on these things ARE going to suck. Imagine taking it on a long flight to listen to music and watch video. by the time you land you'll be close to a dead battery if not already dead. And from what I've read the battery isn't replaceable so you can't just swap it out for a charged battery.
Add to it that it's only available through Cingular. People aren't going to drop their contracts just to switch phones. Especially one that is so expensive. My PDA phone was cheaper by $300 and it can already play MP3s and video. Also what about those that hate cingular. They haven't had the best rep in the past when it comes to Customer Service and due to that many of walked away from them, including myself.
Apple has always touted their stuff is user friendly and for the benefit of the consumer. Releasing a phone that is only accessible for one phone network is contradictory to what I feel their goals have been. I think they just wanted to have something on the market to add to their touting list that "oh look what ELSE we can do now".
Just my, I guess we'll really see when it hits the market.
I don't think it's anything special though.
Also to note, the battery life on these things ARE going to suck. Imagine taking it on a long flight to listen to music and watch video. by the time you land you'll be close to a dead battery if not already dead. And from what I've read the battery isn't replaceable so you can't just swap it out for a charged battery.
Add to it that it's only available through Cingular. People aren't going to drop their contracts just to switch phones. Especially one that is so expensive. My PDA phone was cheaper by $300 and it can already play MP3s and video. Also what about those that hate cingular. They haven't had the best rep in the past when it comes to Customer Service and due to that many of walked away from them, including myself.
Apple has always touted their stuff is user friendly and for the benefit of the consumer. Releasing a phone that is only accessible for one phone network is contradictory to what I feel their goals have been. I think they just wanted to have something on the market to add to their touting list that "oh look what ELSE we can do now".
Just my
, I guess we'll really see when it hits the market.I don't think it's anything special though.
Let me explain.
Part 1:
The iPhone IS cutting edge. There is NOTHING which provides a similar interactive experience or a similar GUI on the planet.
The "cutting edge" thing about it is it's simplicity.
It's just like "Web 2.0". Web 2.0 is the new hot cutting-edge thing. But all Web 2.0 is is simplicity. Remove the crud and over complexity from Web 1.0, add a dash of interaction improvement (Ajax), and you have Web 2.0.
Apple is bringing Web 2.0 into the mobile phone world. Multi-touch looks to be to mobile phones what Ajax is to Web 2.0. the iPhone is Mobile 2.0.
I was at "Samsung World" in the TimeWarner center a couple weeks ago. They have EVERY PHONE they make there. Every Japanese, Korean, and European phone. Even some of their "future phones". You can pick them up and play with them all. There's some REALLY REALLY cool stuff. There's nothing like the iPhone.
Find me a phone that provides an interaction experience like the iPhone. Find me a phone with the GUI simplicity that is Apple's trademark. Find me a phone that pay's any attention to something as CRUCIAL, yet often overlooked, as typography.
Everything is not about functionality alone. The ability to do everything and anything is not what Apple is known for. The ability to provide a way of doing things easier is what Apple is known for.
That's part of what makes Apple products revolutionary, time and time again.
Part 2:
Yep, going Cingular only is so not Apple-ish. The Apple way would have been to sell the iPhone as flat-priced hardware only through the Apple Store.
OR, at the very least, Apple should have become an MVNO. Providing their own services, contracts, and support on top of some random providers network (like Virgin Mobile or Helio).
BUT, the realities of the American mobile phone business, and the features Apple wished to provide (call merging, visual voicemail, etc) prevented these options.
They couldn't go it alone, hardware only, because Apple wanted to make changes to the way the network worked.
They couldn't create their own network, for obvious reasons.
And they probably couldn't find a network that would allow an MVNO like Apple to have the freedoms they wanted to have on the network.
The situation is no more ideal for Apple then it is for the consumer. It's not a perfect scenario. I agree.
That said, given no other choice then to get in bed with an established network, *I* feel like Cingular was the best choice. I would have been disappointed were it anyone else. That of course is just personal opinion and based off personal experience. Experiences that are very localized and wildly different from region to region.
Like I've said though, this gets their foot in the door. They've a device which, once you use it, you'll want to have. I'm sure of. And, IMHO, they've a "service" which is the lesser of all the evils.
Give them some time to become a player in the market, some time to have some pull, and you'll see changes.
01-11-2007 | 05:14 PM
#142
I like to whistle in my
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 1,610
Likes: 1
From: Fort Washington, Md
i dont think the price is a big issue. The same people, like I, who spend 2200 plus on a Powerbook/MacbookPro would spend it on the iPhone. I dont know how many people eyes pop out their head when they hear how much i paid for my laptop and say i got a dell for $400...different market.
Also the same people who buy those phones on ebay months before the come out will spend it
Those who spend $350 on exclusive NikeSB's would..
..and if you could sell your nano and cut the price of the phone nearly in half.
I would still keep mine iPod because I have over 20 Gigs on mp3's and I wouldn't even want to think of putting all that on the phone...only the latest and greatest...everything else can wait til i get back home...
they will definitely surpass their current goal
Also the same people who buy those phones on ebay months before the come out will spend it
Those who spend $350 on exclusive NikeSB's would..
..and if you could sell your nano and cut the price of the phone nearly in half.
I would still keep mine iPod because I have over 20 Gigs on mp3's and I wouldn't even want to think of putting all that on the phone...only the latest and greatest...everything else can wait til i get back home...
they will definitely surpass their current goal
01-11-2007 | 05:19 PM
#143
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Black Tire
Not sure if this is a repost. But a feature on the Iphone from CBS...i think RIM's days are numbered if this is a success:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk
really, watch all these videos people are posting before you make up your mind about this thing.
there's nothing else like it.
note: by revolutionary i mean "radically new or innovative; outside or beyond established procedure, principles, etc.". i don't mean it's for everyone, needed by everyone, or will be understood by everyone.
i consider OSX a revolutionary product. yet, most the world still uses Windows. most don't "get it", and most never will until they've had the opportunity to really live with it.
the iPhone is OSX. OSX is the iPhone. the revolution is OSX, the iPhone is revolutionary.
01-11-2007 | 05:20 PM
#144
I hadn't given the GUI proper credit, and you are correct. The GUI, just like on the iPod are great. Simple yet effective.
Hopefully in time they will be able to offer iPhones that can work on multiple networks so people can go to an Apple store, buy an iPhone that is meant for their network and voila they are in business. When that happens I would [possibly] consider it when I need to change phones.
The funny thing is, apple is now in competition with themselves. they could very likely see a drop in iPod sales IF people jump on the iPhone instead of buying the iPod. Personally, I don't see it making sense for people to want to own both. Unless they keep one in their car to play through their stereo all the time, but with an "i" interface, why not make the iPhone car capable as well.
Hopefully in time they will be able to offer iPhones that can work on multiple networks so people can go to an Apple store, buy an iPhone that is meant for their network and voila they are in business. When that happens I would [possibly] consider it when I need to change phones.
The funny thing is, apple is now in competition with themselves. they could very likely see a drop in iPod sales IF people jump on the iPhone instead of buying the iPod. Personally, I don't see it making sense for people to want to own both. Unless they keep one in their car to play through their stereo all the time, but with an "i" interface, why not make the iPhone car capable as well.
01-11-2007 | 05:25 PM
#145
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by Sly Raskal
I hadn't given the GUI proper credit, and you are correct. The GUI, just like on the iPod are great. Simple yet effective.
Hopefully in time they will be able to offer iPhones that can work on multiple networks so people can go to an Apple store, buy an iPhone that is meant for their network and voila they are in business. When that happens I would [possibly] consider it when I need to change phones.
The funny thing is, apple is now in competition with themselves. they could very likely see a drop in iPod sales IF people jump on the iPhone instead of buying the iPod. Personally, I don't see it making sense for people to want to own both. Unless they keep one in their car to play through their stereo all the time, but with an "i" interface, why not make the iPhone car capable as well.
Hopefully in time they will be able to offer iPhones that can work on multiple networks so people can go to an Apple store, buy an iPhone that is meant for their network and voila they are in business. When that happens I would [possibly] consider it when I need to change phones.
The funny thing is, apple is now in competition with themselves. they could very likely see a drop in iPod sales IF people jump on the iPhone instead of buying the iPod. Personally, I don't see it making sense for people to want to own both. Unless they keep one in their car to play through their stereo all the time, but with an "i" interface, why not make the iPhone car capable as well.
01-11-2007 | 05:35 PM
#146
Because Of You
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,456
Likes: 0
From: California
I would love to get myself a iPhone but...
I dropped my Sony Ericsson many times and it didn't crack or die.
The iPhone looks very flimsy like the original iPod Nano.
It doesn't seem to be able to take the beating...
I dropped my Sony Ericsson many times and it didn't crack or die.
The iPhone looks very flimsy like the original iPod Nano.
It doesn't seem to be able to take the beating...
01-11-2007 | 05:36 PM
#147
It's not over yet
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,000
Likes: 0
From: Socal
Originally Posted by soopa
of course its wishful thinking.
however. the iPod is not a good comparison.
if it were, we could expect the iPhone to sell WAY WAY WAY more then 50 million.
Think about it...
I'm not sure how many units the iPod sold in 2006 (i don't think we'll know until the end of Q1 07), but I know they sold about 30 million in 2005. So lets assume they broke 2005's sales and the sold a total of 40 million iPods in 2006 (that's probably conservative).
That means Apple was responsible for about 30% of the the total MP3 player market of 135 million units in 2006.
The mobile phone market is seven times the size of the MP3 market.
If Apple could acheive the same level of saturation with the iPhone as the iPod that means they'd be selling nearly 290 MILLION units per year.
That's crazy.
But is it so crazy to think Apple could sell 50 million (ok maybe not in 2008, but 2009) iPhone's? If the mobile phone market didn't grow at all, that would still only be about 5% of the total market.
I think Apple could steal 5% of the market. That's less market share then ANY other name-brand mobile phone manufacturer.
In reality, they wouldn't even need to. hit 5% to sell 50 million in 2009.
2006 broke all sales forecasts. If the trend continues, we may see as many as 1.5 BILLION phones sold worldwide in 2009.
Is it crazy to think Apple could have as little as 3.5% of that? 3.5% of the worlds largest consumer electronics market? Would less then HALF the market share of LG (the smallest of the name brands) be such a lofty goal? Maybe it's not so wishful after all.
however. the iPod is not a good comparison.
if it were, we could expect the iPhone to sell WAY WAY WAY more then 50 million.
Think about it...
I'm not sure how many units the iPod sold in 2006 (i don't think we'll know until the end of Q1 07), but I know they sold about 30 million in 2005. So lets assume they broke 2005's sales and the sold a total of 40 million iPods in 2006 (that's probably conservative).
That means Apple was responsible for about 30% of the the total MP3 player market of 135 million units in 2006.
The mobile phone market is seven times the size of the MP3 market.
If Apple could acheive the same level of saturation with the iPhone as the iPod that means they'd be selling nearly 290 MILLION units per year.
That's crazy.
But is it so crazy to think Apple could sell 50 million (ok maybe not in 2008, but 2009) iPhone's? If the mobile phone market didn't grow at all, that would still only be about 5% of the total market.
I think Apple could steal 5% of the market. That's less market share then ANY other name-brand mobile phone manufacturer.
In reality, they wouldn't even need to. hit 5% to sell 50 million in 2009.
2006 broke all sales forecasts. If the trend continues, we may see as many as 1.5 BILLION phones sold worldwide in 2009.
Is it crazy to think Apple could have as little as 3.5% of that? 3.5% of the worlds largest consumer electronics market? Would less then HALF the market share of LG (the smallest of the name brands) be such a lofty goal? Maybe it's not so wishful after all.
It's a hard sell at their price point. if he really wanted to sell 50 million units all he had to do was price the iphone at around $300-400? At that price point even I would have a hard time not picking one up, even if it wasn't 3g and it didn't have ms exchange support. Of course the high price is also probably a result of not being able to build a high number of units on the first year. So yes, I find hard to believe that apple can sell 50 million iphones at 500-600 a pop, but would have no problem reaching that goal at a lower price point. Will just have to agree to disagree and wait for time to tell what steve jobs has in mind
Th
01-11-2007 | 06:25 PM
#148
Suzuka Master
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 5,349
Likes: 3
From: Lower Nazzie, Pa
Originally Posted by Black Tire
Not sure if this is a repost. But a feature on the Iphone from CBS...i think RIM's days are numbered if this is a success:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=YgW7or1TuFk
Unless companies using blackberries are going to drop their PDA-centric devices because they want better media players that also function as a PDA and phone and looks really cool, why would RIM's days be numbered?
Last edited by mrdeeno; 01-11-2007 at 06:29 PM.
01-11-2007 | 08:06 PM
#150
The Creator
Joined: Apr 2000
Posts: 37,950
Likes: 8
From: Albany, NY
Originally Posted by bz268
They changed their name from Apple Computer, Inc. To Apple Inc.
Do you think The Beetles (Apple Corps.) will let Steve Jobs get away with that?
Do you think The Beetles (Apple Corps.) will let Steve Jobs get away with that?
01-11-2007 | 08:53 PM
#152
Drifting
Joined: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,681
Likes: 1
From: ny
random thoughts...
I just got done watching the entire nearly 2 hour key note intro to the iPhone from the Apple site. That device is simply sensational!! As revolutionary a product as I have ever scene in terms of amount of goodies, and absolute ease of use.
The scroll feature, conference calling, real web capabilities(not the baby watered down shit on everything else) and all around ease of use with the touch screen is enough to have me sold.
I have never purchase an Apple product in my life
I believe that Macs and Ipods are gorgeous and the best in their respective fields
So in one step I will be getting an iPod, video, email and web, cool phone, and a 2 mega pixel camera all in one. sign me up
I know that Apple will destroy their projected target of 10 million(1% market). Steve Jobs could hardly contain himself when he spoke of this, he had a smirk like of course this projection is so pathetically low its laughable
I just got done watching the entire nearly 2 hour key note intro to the iPhone from the Apple site. That device is simply sensational!! As revolutionary a product as I have ever scene in terms of amount of goodies, and absolute ease of use.
The scroll feature, conference calling, real web capabilities(not the baby watered down shit on everything else) and all around ease of use with the touch screen is enough to have me sold.
I have never purchase an Apple product in my life
I believe that Macs and Ipods are gorgeous and the best in their respective fields
So in one step I will be getting an iPod, video, email and web, cool phone, and a 2 mega pixel camera all in one. sign me up
I know that Apple will destroy their projected target of 10 million(1% market). Steve Jobs could hardly contain himself when he spoke of this, he had a smirk like of course this projection is so pathetically low its laughable
01-11-2007 | 10:09 PM
#154
Originally Posted by kensteele
ok, i just got done with 2 days of answering "will sprint be getting the i-phone?" the answer is NO. but it's a cool device so I'll be getting one for sure. 
if you walk into the sprint office with an iPhone. side note, any new news on if they will merge the networks? I've only heard of them coming out with hybrid phones. (that is all)
the reception on my 6700 sucks. the features are great though.
01-12-2007 | 01:47 AM
#155
Because Of You
Joined: Aug 2004
Posts: 1,456
Likes: 0
From: California
Originally Posted by kensteele
ok, i just got done with 2 days of answering "will sprint be getting the i-phone?" the answer is NO. but it's a cool device so I'll be getting one for sure.
Steve Jobs said that the next version would use 3G network. That meant the iPhone would be on another network other than Cingular.
01-12-2007 | 08:55 AM
#156
on to the next one...
Joined: May 2004
Posts: 4,872
Likes: 0
From: Mpls. MN
Originally Posted by bz268
Steve Jobs said that the next version would use 3G network. That meant the iPhone would be on another network other than Cingular.
How do you deduct that? Cing already offers a number of 3G phones...
01-12-2007 | 12:00 PM
#159
It's not over yet
Joined: Nov 2002
Posts: 3,000
Likes: 0
From: Socal
It's official, there will be no third party support for the iphone. 
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36919
I do love this quote from the article though, draw your own conclusions.
"While many outfits like to pretend that they emphasis user freedom, Jobs tells the Times categorically that he will define everything that is on the phone and not those pesky customers.
Interestingly enough, he said that this lack of user control was taken from the iPod concept and is probably the first time that Jobs has admitted that he insists his users do as they are told. Fortunately for him they do.
I guess papa Jobs knows best
http://www.theinquirer.net/default.aspx?article=36919
I do love this quote from the article though, draw your own conclusions.
"While many outfits like to pretend that they emphasis user freedom, Jobs tells the Times categorically that he will define everything that is on the phone and not those pesky customers.
Interestingly enough, he said that this lack of user control was taken from the iPod concept and is probably the first time that Jobs has admitted that he insists his users do as they are told. Fortunately for him they do.
I guess papa Jobs knows best
Last edited by AQUI NO!; 01-12-2007 at 12:02 PM.
01-12-2007 | 01:06 PM
#160
http://blogs.cisco.com/news/2007/01/...ne_tradem.html
UPDATE on Cisco's iPhone Trademark
Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear’s registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple’s eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year.
For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark. We genuinely believed that we were going to be able to reach an agreement and Apple’s communications with us suggested they supported that goal. We negotiated in good faith with every intention to reach a reasonable agreement with Apple by which we would share the iPhone brand.
So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of “we’re too busy.” Despite being very close to an agreement, we had no substantive communication from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.
Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.
At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street.
This lawsuit is about Cisco's obligation to protect its trademark in the face of a willful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission.
Cisco Press Release on this issue can be viewed here: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html.
Commentary from Mark Chandler, Cisco's SVP and General Counsel, on Apple's infringement of Cisco's iPhone trademark.
Today’s announcement from Cisco regarding our suit with Apple over our iPhone trademark has spurred a lot of interesting questions. Most importantly, this is not a suit against Apple’s innovation, their modern design, or their cool phone. It is not a suit about money or royalties. This is a suit about trademark infringement. Cisco owns the iPhone trademark. We have since 2000, when we bought a company called Infogear Technology, which had developed a product that combined web access and telephone. Infogear’s registrations for the mark date to 1996, before iMacs and iPods were even glimmers in Apple’s eye. We shipped and/or supported that iPhone product for years. We have been shipping new, updated iPhone products since last spring, and had a formal launch late last year. Apple knows this; they approached us about the iPhone trademark as far back as 2001, and have approached us several times over the past year.
For the last few weeks, we have been in serious discussions with Apple over how the two companies could work together and share the iPhone trademark. We genuinely believed that we were going to be able to reach an agreement and Apple’s communications with us suggested they supported that goal. We negotiated in good faith with every intention to reach a reasonable agreement with Apple by which we would share the iPhone brand.
So, I was surprised and disappointed when Apple decided to go ahead and announce their new product with our trademarked name without reaching an agreement. It was essentially the equivalent of “we’re too busy.” Despite being very close to an agreement, we had no substantive communication from Apple after 8pm Monday, including after their launch, when we made clear we expected closure. What were the issues at the table that kept us from an agreement? Was it money? No. Was it a royalty on every Apple phone? No. Was it an exchange for Cisco products or services? No.
Fundamentally we wanted an open approach. We hoped our products could interoperate in the future. In our view, the network provides the basis to make this happen—it provides the foundation of innovation that allows converged devices to deliver the services that consumers want. Our goal was to take that to the next level by facilitating collaboration with Apple. And we wanted to make sure to differentiate the brands in a way that could work for both companies and not confuse people, since our products combine both web access and voice telephony. That’s it. Openness and clarity.
At MacWorld, Apple discussed the patents pending on their new phone technology. They clearly seem to value intellectual property. If the tables were turned, do you think Apple would allow someone to blatantly infringe on their rights? How would Apple react if someone launched a product called iPod but claimed it was ok to use the name because it used a different video format? Would that be ok? We know the answer – Apple is a very aggressive enforcer of their trademark rights. And that needs to be a two-way street.
This lawsuit is about Cisco's obligation to protect its trademark in the face of a willful violation. Our goal was collaboration. The action we have taken today is about not using people’s property without permission.
Cisco Press Release on this issue can be viewed here: http://newsroom.cisco.com/dlls/2007/corp_011007.html.