koiraHey Siri Walk Me Premium Member join:2004-02-16 |
to BigSensFan
Re: BB10 launches Jan 30said by BigSensFan:said by koira:Any word on the BB10 phones for the emerging markets (lower cost ) That is where RIM market share, popularity and growth still exist.
It wont happen in these markets with a $750 phone for the masses. The retail price is $649 ... on contract it is 149 (north america) I am not sure how they market to emerging markets but BB has some pretty good sales in places like India sales are good on the low end devices like 9360 but a $649 phone is too expensive for the general population |
|
BigSensFan Premium Member join:2003-07-16 Belle River, ON |
said by koira:said by BigSensFan:said by koira:Any word on the BB10 phones for the emerging markets (lower cost ) That is where RIM market share, popularity and growth still exist.
It wont happen in these markets with a $750 phone for the masses. The retail price is $649 ... on contract it is 149 (north america) I am not sure how they market to emerging markets but BB has some pretty good sales in places like India sales are good on the low end devices like 9360 but a $649 phone is too expensive for the general population outright you are probably right... but $150 on a contract would probably open it for alot of people |
|
TLS2000 Premium Member join:2004-02-24 Elmsdale, NS Ubiquiti UDM-Pro Ubiquiti U6-LR Ubiquiti UniFi UAP-nanoHD
|
to BigSensFan
said by BigSensFan:Why would Blackberry delay in a prime market? From what I hear it was the fact that the US carriers were late to the game, and did not initially want on board. I can't believe that every single US carrier dragged their feet on this launch. I'm guessing that BlackBerry decided to delay the US release until they were ready for EVERY carrier there. |
|
koiraHey Siri Walk Me Premium Member join:2004-02-16 |
to BigSensFan
said by BigSensFan:outright you are probably right... but $150 on a contract would probably open it for alot of people this may be a dilemma for them, low cost device cheapens the brand. Apple doesn't go there. Will be interesting if and when they release cheaper models. One of their problems was too many different SKUs. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2013-Feb-3 11:26 pm
RIM errr Blackberry probably doesn't care about brand perception beyond the fact that it's a Blackberry. Their motivation is probably to get a blackberry into the hand of every single person who used to have one before, reclaiming the high-end market from Apple and Samsung and the low-end market from every other cheap Android device out there.
Also, selling a high-end device like this isn't a low-cost option no matter how you slice it. Contracts and subsidized phones for the most part are a North American-centric thing. In the rest of the world, you pay for your phone in full or finance it as part of your monthly bill. They're going to need something cheap for the emerging markets where they're still popular. |
|
BigSensFan Premium Member join:2003-07-16 Belle River, ON |
to koira
said by koira:said by BigSensFan:outright you are probably right... but $150 on a contract would probably open it for alot of people this may be a dilemma for them, low cost device cheapens the brand. Apple doesn't go there. Will be interesting if and when they release cheaper models. One of their problems was too many different SKUs. actually I heard the other day that Apple is looking at making a smaller less featured iPhone specifically for emering markets (heard it on the radio during a business report, so no link) |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2013-Feb-3 11:30 pm
said by BigSensFan:actually I heard the other day that Apple is looking at making a smaller less featured iPhone specifically for emering markets (heard it on the radio during a business report, so no link) If that's true, Steve Jobs is rolling in his grave and Apple's business model will start crumbling at the seams worse than it already is. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant? Premium Member join:2006-09-05 Kelowna, BC |
It's supposed to be a full plastic device. No glass screen. |
|
|
koiraHey Siri Walk Me Premium Member join:2004-02-16 |
koira to Gone
Premium Member
2013-Feb-3 11:32 pm
to Gone
That's what I asked on page 15, they will need a cheap phone to carry momentum in emerging market countries, that's where their growth has been lately and I don't expect any changes in near future |
|
BigSensFan Premium Member join:2003-07-16 Belle River, ON |
to TLS2000
said by TLS2000:said by BigSensFan:Why would Blackberry delay in a prime market? From what I hear it was the fact that the US carriers were late to the game, and did not initially want on board. I can't believe that every single US carrier dragged their feet on this launch. I'm guessing that BlackBerry decided to delay the US release until they were ready for EVERY carrier there. This article seems to suggest the carriers dragging their feet on testing it » www.theglobeandmail.com/ ··· 8094628/ |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2013-Feb-3 11:38 pm
To which, as I said, I suspect the "delay" has absolutely nothing to do with carrier testing. One can put two and two to figure out who it is. After all, there's really only one company who is so entrenched in the carrier's finances that would have both the motivation and the ability to call the shots on something like this. |
|
BigSensFan Premium Member join:2003-07-16 Belle River, ON |
So you are saying apple or google are causing the delay? (I think that is what I am getting from you ) |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2013-Feb-3 11:44 pm
Google doesn't have their hands in the pockets of the carriers. |
|
shaner Premium Member join:2000-10-04 Calgary, AB |
to BigSensFan
Probably because the US market would put serious strain on their supply. I'm guessing they rolled out in high value secondary markets first to ensure they had enough stock. I was absolutely shocked when we got all 30 devices we pre-ordered delivered to us today. That didn't happen with the iPhone5. |
|
|
The iPhone 5 also sold 5 million in 3 days which to my knowledge is the single biggest phone launch in history. I highly doubt the BB10 phone will sell that much in 3 months. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
Gone
Premium Member
2013-Feb-4 7:47 pm
Right, and sales iPhone 5 nosedived shortly thereafter once all the zealots who would buy a piece of bark for $700 so long as it had a silver apple painted on it had purchased theirs.
Initial sales are great for hype, but useless as far as an indicator of a company's growth. Same thing applies to BB10 devices. We'll have to wait and see. |
|
|
Did you even read the quarterly reports? iPhone 5 sales are still on ramp up with new markets adding sales. The only thing that went down slightly was the profit margin and that was including the lower priced iOS devices which was why the margin went down. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
to Gone
said by Gone:Right, and sales iPhone 5 nosedived shortly thereafter once all the zealots who would buy a piece of bark for $700 so long as it had a silver apple painted on it had purchased theirs.
Initial sales are great for hype, but useless as far as an indicator of a company's growth. Same thing applies to BB10 devices. We'll have to wait and see. i wouldn't say it nosedived...top phone sales for Q4 2012: 1) iPhone 5 2) Samsung Galaxy SIII 3) iPhone 4S 4) iPhone 4 5) Samsung Galaxy SII i think what is most surprising is the 30 month old iPhone 4 was the 4th highest selling phone...like seriously, why on Earth would anyone buy that phone???...maybe carriers are flogging them on prepaid, i don't get it. » www.npd.com/wps/portal/n ··· r-sales/ |
|
|
The iPhone 4 is lower priced so people are buying on that but it's actually a great phone even today. Siri isn't an absolute must have feature so really only the hardcore users need a newer phone. |
|
dirtyjeffer0Posers don't use avatars. Premium Member join:2002-02-21 London, ON |
since you "need" comparable plans on either phone, and most people do contracts to get the phones for the lowest price, you aren't really saving that much, to get something so old...our iPhone 5s (plural, not 5S) were $179 on a 3 year contract, and we got a $50 credit, bring our price down to $129...we could have got the 4S for free (i don't even recall what Rogers did with the 4, if they even still offered it, but the 4S was already free anyway)...i figured over the 3 year term, $130 was marginal to ensure having something current to keep me happy longer. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to BACONATOR26
said by BACONATOR26:iPhone 5 sales are still on ramp up with new markets adding sales. The only thing that went down slightly was the profit margin and that was including the lower priced iOS devices which was why the margin went down. Ramp up? You mean significantly reducing orders for iPhone 5 components last month due to reduced demand? Is that what Apple is calling "ramp up" these days? |
|
Riamen Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Calgary |
Riamen
Premium Member
2013-Feb-4 8:12 pm
said by Gone:Ramp up? You mean significantly reducing orders for iPhone 5 components last month due to reduced demand? Gotta love supply chain rumours and speculation. Forty-eight million iPhones sold (not shipped) in the last quarter. Nosediving my ass. |
|
|
to Gone
said by Gone:said by BACONATOR26:iPhone 5 sales are still on ramp up with new markets adding sales. The only thing that went down slightly was the profit margin and that was including the lower priced iOS devices which was why the margin went down. Ramp up? You mean significantly reducing orders for iPhone 5 components last month due to reduced demand? Is that what Apple is calling "ramp up" these days? Could it be perhaps they already had a large number of component orders fulfilled last quarter? Seems to me you just read the headlines and have no idea how these companies work. See what Riamen said, check the Apple quarterly report and then tell me that. |
|
|
to Riamen
said by Riamen:Gotta love supply chain rumours and speculation. Forty-eight million iPhones sold (not shipped) in the last quarter. Nosediving my ass. Steve Jobs from the grave spreads the gospel through his devoted disciples! You're counting it wrong! |
|
|
to BACONATOR26
said by BACONATOR26:said by Gone:said by BACONATOR26:iPhone 5 sales are still on ramp up with new markets adding sales. The only thing that went down slightly was the profit margin and that was including the lower priced iOS devices which was why the margin went down. Ramp up? You mean significantly reducing orders for iPhone 5 components last month due to reduced demand? Is that what Apple is calling "ramp up" these days? Could it be perhaps they already had a large number of component orders fulfilled last quarter? Seems to me you just read the headlines and have no idea how these companies work. See what Riamen said, check the Apple quarterly report and then tell me that. I'd recommend you have a look at the latest Verizon report. Half of their 6.2 million iPhone sales were iPhone 4 and iPhone 4S sales. |
|
|
to CanadianRip
Numbers don't lie. The 48m might not be all iPhone 5 but it pushed them to #1 in the US (» www.forbes.com/sites/ora ··· -in-u-s/) and produced 2 million pre-orders in China (» news.cnet.com/8301-13579 ··· weekend/). To me that tells me iPhone 5 demand is strong. |
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to BACONATOR26
said by BACONATOR26:Could it be perhaps they already had a large number of component orders fulfilled last quarter? Seems to me you just read the headlines and have no idea how these companies work. See what Riamen said, check the Apple quarterly report and then tell me that. No, I know exactly how this works. You order your components based on projected manufacturing based on sales forecasts. If your sales forecasts aren't meeting your own expectations - no matter how "good" they otherwise might be - you reduce production which means that you also reduce component purchases rather than be stuck with a glut of unserviceable inventory on your balance sheet. If this is indeed true, it means that sales projections have been lower for a longer period of time than just the last quarter. As for the end result of something like this happening in January, we can discuss this further when the next quarterly report is released. Their sales might be strong, but they aren't nearly as strong as Apple themselves expected. In other words - they screwed up. And really, the writing was on the wall the day Lord Jobs was laid to rest. Tim Cook might be a smarter guy than John Sculley when it comes to running Apple, but no one commands control of the marketing gears (and in turn, the reality distortion field) the same way that Jobs did. It's starting to show. Anyone who refuses to acknowledge this is themselves living in that same reality distortion field. |
|
Riamen Premium Member join:2002-11-04 Calgary |
Riamen
Premium Member
2013-Feb-4 8:55 pm
said by Gone:No, I know exactly how this works. Yes but you're going on the assumption that the supply chain rumours are true. Apple is very secretive so it's not easy to know what's really going on. Still the numbers were huge last quarter, record sales of iDevices and Apple in 2012 was the most profitable company in history. Too bad Samsung doesn't release their unit sales, it'd be interesting to compare. |
|
JuggernautIrreverent or irrelevant? Premium Member join:2006-09-05 Kelowna, BC |
|
|
Gone Premium Member join:2011-01-24 Fort Erie, ON |
to Riamen
said by Riamen:Yes but you're going on the assumption that the supply chain rumours are true. Apple is very secretive so it's not easy to know what's really going on. Apple themselves might be secretive, but their suppliers aren't. People knew that the 7" iPad Mini was going to happen long before Apple even acknowledged its existence based on LCD orders to Samsung (or was it LG? Either way, you get the point). Based on this, I'm not so naive (nor living in the above-noted reality distortion field) as to outright dismiss numerous reports of what's going on up the supply chain just because Apple hasn't said anything about them. Operating on the assumption that Apple will forever be a darling and refusing to accept the potential for anything otherwise just because of their current (or, perhaps, "past") success is both foolish and delusional. As for Samsung sales figures, they're easily obtainable. Try harder. |
|