A $200 3G iPhone? Yeah right.
Why is everyone making such a big deal about this $200 iPhone report from Fortune? Evidently, the same folks who are praising AT&T and Apple didn't read the report and are naive enough to believe that this is ever going to happen. There's no chance that the next iteration of the iPhone, presumably featuring 3G, will sport such a low price tag.
According to Fortune, "When the 3G iPhone is introduced this summer, AT&T, the exclusive U.S. iPhone sales partner with Apple, will cut the price by as much as $200, according to a person familiar with the strategy."
That price cut will put the two versions of the iPhone -- an 8GB model and a 16GB model -- at $199 and $299, respectively.
Fortune said that a person close to the dealings believes the subsidy will only apply to AT&T stores and if anyone purchases the 3G iPhone in an Apple store, they will be forced to pay full price. According to the report, all cash lost on the subsidy would be recouped on the service charges after a few months.
Fortune and its hotshot source is kidding, right?
Why would Apple agree to a deal that would see the subsidized iPhone only be available in AT&T stores? Did everyone just happen to miss that special piece of this report? What this source claims is that the iPhone will have two different prices -- one for AT&T customers signing a two-year contract and one for Apple customers looking for the latest iPhone. I just don't see why Apple would be willing to give up its position of power to AT&T on the retail front and allow the carrier to charge less for the same device.
Further, why would AT&T agree to that deal? People were more than happy to purchase the first-generation iPhone at a ridiculous price, why wouldn't they want to do the same with a 3G iPhone featuring a host of new features?
Subsidizing the price of a cell phone isn't ideal for a carrier; it's the result of a struggle between all the companies looking for more customers. But if you have the most popular device on your own service, there's no reason to worry about enticing more people to your side. In other words, AT&T will do just fine with the higher price, especially considering the 3G iPhone should be more business-friendly.
I know some have said that this could be a reaction to Apple's decision to unlock the iPhone, but that's pure rubbish. AT&T would never allow that to happen and I'm sure that neither company would really want to deal with that headache.
The second problem with this report is that the economics of the deal don't make any sense. If AT&T is sharing plan profits with Apple at a rate of anywhere between 9 percent and 25 percent, according to Fortune, why would the company want to lose even more on the deal?
Invariably, most would claim that it would sell more iPhones and it would all work out, but that would only help if Apple stops sharing the profit on the plans. And with such a unique deal already in place that allows both companies to profit exceptionally well, I just don't see why either company would agree to something that would effectively take cash out of both of their pockets.
The idea that AT&T will sell the iPhone for $200 less than its current price is both ridiculous and outlandish. The company would have no reason to do such a thing and would probably lose out significantly if it ever did.
When Steve Jobs announces the new iPhone in June, look for (at most) a $100 break in price for every retail location; not $200.
Don Reisinger is a technology columnist who has written about everything from HDTVs to computers to Flowbee Haircut Systems. Don is a member of the CNET Blog Network, and posts at The Digital Home. He is not an employee of CNET. Disclosure.







They give a blog to every idiot now a days....
Keep in mind the $200 subsidy rumor is from a single source - Scott Moritz - who has a very poor track record of forecasting Apple rumors....and that's putting it kindly.
I agree with the CNET piece that it makes no sense that Apple would allow any subsidy to only be available if purchased at AT&T stores - and that's IF there is any subsidy at all.
With that said, I don't believe this to be true. Apple has a differentiated product and has no reason to compete on price. Slashing the price will only have a negative impact on the perceived value of the phone. Have you ever seen a mail in rebate on an ipod at best buy? Have you ever seen a set of Bose speakers "on sale." NO. Because their products hold a significant perceived value in the consumers mind and competing on price only has a negative impact on the perceived value. Apple is smarter than that.
The GPS navigation and location messaging features are impressive and its' free. I have been using it for 9 months.
My phone company's is AT&T while my friends with Nextel, Sprint and others are all using it.
Apple plan to ship 6 million units from their contract manufacturer Hong-Hai ( a Taiwanese company with huge facilities in China). The high end one is much more expensive.
Apples stores will be selling at same price.
Having the $200-$300 price would let people who couldn't afford the iPhone (or refused to pay $500 for one) be able to get it now. AT&T wants more customers. They make their money on the services they provide.
Apple can make money on the software that people will purchase in the future for the phone. It's like when game manufacturers sell their systems at lowered prices even though they are losing money on each system bought. They know they are going to make that money back on the games they sell.
I for one, would buy it right away if it were $200-$300. I was surprised that the iPhone didn't come at a discount originally, but not so since it was Apple. Now, I'm not saying for sure that it will be in that price range, but it doesn't sound ridiculous especially with the LG Vu and Sony Ericsson Xperia x1 coming out this year ... there is more competition than last year.
As for making the iPhone more attractive to individual consumers: face it, from the seller's standpoint it's NOT the phone that's important with any deal, it's that two-year commitment to providing the cell company a near guaranteed revenue stream. As much as Apple may beam and thump their chest proudly over their demonic little creation, raking in $100 per month over the next 24 (and perhaps beyond) is what it's all about. Having to sell iPhones at "full price" does cut a LOT of interested consumers out of the loop because of the steep initial sticker price. Getting the phone down to a more palatable starting price will certainly make the monthy fee seem less daunting if only because the cheaper iPhone itself becomes a much more seductive inducement that will (hopefully) cause normally reticent people to be tempted to throw caution to the wind. The iPhone makes for a heck of a powerful loss leader.
- by elkjam May 4, 2008 10:39 PM PDT
- To Don: Why does it seem so unbeleivable that the iPhone would be subsidized in ATT stores only? (your quote: "Why would Apple agree to a deal that would see the subsidized iPhone only be available in AT&T stores?"). This $200 price tag would obviously require a new 2 year contract!!! People would only go to the Apple store if they already have a contract and want the latest greatest and put their year old iPhone v1 on ebay. Also, realize that Apple gets up to 9% of the revenue from phone contracts from ATT in their 5 year deal with them - so Apple will still make money on the new contracts for 5 years!
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
Showing 1 of 2 pages (27 Comments)A little more logic here before jumping to conclusions. But it will remain to be seen if happens - fortune seems like a trust-worthy source IMO.