WhatNowPremium
join:2009-05-06
Charlotte, NC | Why share Why does a business need to share every success. If it was your business and you had an exclusive deal on a successful product would you like it if you were forced to share with all your competitors. The successes pay for the break even and failures.
If everybody had the iPhone would the Pre be successful. We are becoming a society of I want and I will force someone to give it to me cheap.
You can not have everything you want so get over it.
By the way I want a Billion dollars because all those rich people have it. |
|
 jmn1207Premium
join:2000-07-19
Ashburn, VA | said by WhatNow:If everybody had the iPhone would the Pre be successful. The Pre was successful?  |
|
 BF69Premium
join:2004-07-28
Camden, TN | reply to WhatNow
said by WhatNow:Why does a business need to share every success. If it was your business and you had an exclusive deal on a successful product would you like it if you were forced to share with all your competitors. The successes pay for the break even and failures. If everybody had the iPhone would the Pre be successful. We are becoming a society of I want and I will force someone to give it to me cheap. You can not have everything you want so get over it. By the way I want a Billion dollars because all those rich people have it. I think as a busines I would want to make my customers happy. I'm not sure how restricting choice does that. |
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
 ·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
 ·Comcast
| reply to jmn1207
said by jmn1207:The Pre was successful? Yup. |
|
djeremy
join:2004-07-12
San Francisco, CA | reply to WhatNow
I just don't understand why manufacturers lock themselves into these deals to begin with. If Apple sold the iPhone on all carriers, they'd probably have several million more customers.
I have an unlocked Android on T-Mobile right now, but I'd probably have an iPhone if it wasn't exclusively on America's worst network. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | said by djeremy:If Apple sold the iPhone on all carriers, they'd probably have several million more customers. But significantly less earnings per device sold. |
|
 antwanpBeyond FM, Beyond AM, XM Satellite RadioPremium
join:2002-05-14
Cedar Hill, TX | reply to pandora
YOU LIE!
--
Follow me on Twitter: »www.twitter.com/antwanp |
|
|
|
pandoraPremium
join:2001-06-01
Outland
kudos:1 Reviews:
·ooma
·Google Voice
·Future Nine Corp..
·Comcast
| »money.cnn.com/2009/09/17/technol···09091717
Palm Inc.'s smartphone sales rose 134% to 823,000 units during the latest quarter on the back of the new Pre, but the company still reported its ninth consecutive quarterly loss and sales fell 81%.
The company also announced that it will offer approximately 16 million shares of common stock for "working capital and general corporate purposes."
Shares of Palm (PALM) fell slightly after rising by as much as 9% after hours.
The much-hyped Pre smartphone helped boost Palm's smartphone shipments from 351,000 in the prior quarter. The company did not separate Pre sales from other Palm phones, but experts forecasted Pre shipments of about 520,000, according to Matthew Thornton, analyst at Avian Securities.
--
"People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use." |
|
| reply to WhatNow
Lolwthbbq???~!!!
Phone manufacturers don't compete with other wireless carriers. They compete with other phone manufacturers.
If the Pre isn't good enough on its own to compete with the iPhone, then IT SHOULD FAIL. Duuuuuuuhhhhh! |
|
| reply to openbox9
said by openbox9:But significantly less earnings per device sold. Less earnings from a carrier exclusive deal, sure, but Apple would stand to make more money from the iPhone App Store and iTunes with millions more iPhones sold. Easily making up that lost revenue from an exclusive contract with AT&T. |
|
| reply to pandora
Doesn't matter. It still won't help Sprint in the long run. They're still bleeding customers. Most who bought the Pre were due for an upgrade anyway
said by pandora:» money.cnn.com/2009/09/17/technol···09091717Palm Inc.'s smartphone sales rose 134% to 823,000 units during the latest quarter on the back of the new Pre, but the company still reported its ninth consecutive quarterly loss and sales fell 81%. The company also announced that it will offer approximately 16 million shares of common stock for "working capital and general corporate purposes." Shares of Palm (PALM) fell slightly after rising by as much as 9% after hours. The much-hyped Pre smartphone helped boost Palm's smartphone shipments from 351,000 in the prior quarter. The company did not separate Pre sales from other Palm phones, but experts forecasted Pre shipments of about 520,000, according to Matthew Thornton, analyst at Avian Securities. |
|
| reply to WhatNow
Exclusive deals serve 3 purposes regardless of the industry they are in.
1.) Make your product / service attractive.
2.) Raise the price of the product and/or service.
3.) Attempt to "lock" the customer in for a longer period of time
I would agree with above statement in that a business should not be forced to make their product to accommodate all systems. However, it is my opinion, that if their product supports a system by default then it should be available on all carriers of that system. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | reply to skuv
Apple's cut on the apps in the store is 30%. I doubt that an extra few app sales on an influx of a million new iPhones is enough to counteract the drop in earnings kickbacks on handset sales. Apple makes a very handsome profit with thick margins, I'm sure they've done the math and determined that exclusivity is more financially viable from their perspective. |
|
Reviews:
 ·AT&T Southwest
| reply to sprintsucks
said by sprintsucks :
Doesn't matter. It still won't help Sprint in the long run. They're still bleeding customers. Most who bought the Pre were due for an upgrade anyway If most "were due for an upgrade" chose to get the Pre then they must be happy with their service, as they didn't move away to another provider and more than likely choose to accept the $150 rebate locking them into a two year contract.
Your experience with Sprint, does not equal his, or anyone else's experience. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to openbox9
According to this article, AT&T may be paying Apple $18 per month per subscriber:
»news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9803657-37.html
That's a lot of recurring revenue, and probably why Apple has an interest in keeping this exclusivity agreement. I think they could satisfy the legal concerns IF they changed the exclusivity requirement to be optional. Like, "for every month that Apple is exclusive, AT&T will pay them $18/month/subscriber". Then either side can end the arrangement when they please, which could happen if another carrier waved some money in Apple's face.
Assume AT&T gives them $18/mo./sub. Also assume that they sell $10 of apps/month/subscriber, and get to keep $2 of that. To simplify, say its one subscriber, so they get $20 per month.
If they ended exclusivity and sold 200% more iPhones, they'd now have 3 subs. That's $6/mo from the App Store profit, pretty weak compare to $20/mo. They could make up for exclusivity loss by asking for $6/mo/sub kickback from any carrier who wants to sell iPhones, problem solved. Now they're making $24/month, with more market share. |
|
openbox9
join:2004-01-26
Alexandria, VA
kudos:2 | But if exclusivity goes away and "everyone" has the iPhone, do you seriously believe that Apple can command the kickback you're suggesting? I don't. Also, I believe your "$10 worth of apps/mth/subscriber" claim is extremely optimistic. During initial ownership that may very well be correct, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that sales rate is sustainable over the life of an iPhone subscriber. I still stand by my claim that Apple has done the math and is confident the exclusive sales arrangement is currently the best way to healthy profits. |
|
axus
join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC Reviews:
·Verizon Online DSL
2 edits | Here's a recent article about their total monthly sales:
»moconews.net/article/419-admob-a···h-month/
Also:
»lsvp.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/ap···p-store/
Let's say that 15 million have iphones (hard to tell who replaced vs. new customer). High estimate of profit is $3 per user, but that's over many months. So, you're right, they are keeping less than $2 per month per user.
I don't think we should prevent them from being exclusive if that's in their best interest, I think we should prevent AT&T from contractually obligating them to. I do think they can charge a premium on what they sell iPhones for, above the rate AT&T is getting. How many people buy phones without a contract? Of course its easier to go with the guaranteed income stream than assuming. |
|
