"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9A9898553D640noonehomecom@208.49.80.253...
> "Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in news:fvv70t$nsn$1
> @aioe.org:
>
>> The whole "$199 for 3G iPhone" is a ridiculous internet rumor.
>
> I would think it would be in response to the jailbreaking, causing a
> failed
> marketing strategy that failed miserably.

I disagree- it was brilliant. Sell ALL iPhones at an above-cost inflated
rate, so if one is unlocked and "misses" activation on the partner carrier,
you make a pile of money. If it's activated on the partner carrier you make
two piles of money. Where's the "failure" in that?

A worse scenario (for Apple) would be heavily discounted iPhones- then AT&T
customers could snag one cheap, keep using their old phone, and unlock the
iPhone and sell it on eBay for a profit, which AT&T wouldn't mind, since
they'd still have the user under 2-year contract, but might be able to get
out of paying Apple their cut if the phone is never activated on the AT&T
network via iTunes.

> Sellphone companies have a long
> history of subsidized phones. Why should the now-older iPhone be any
> different.

Subsidized phones were an attempt to make the upfront cost of cellular
cheaper and lower the barrier to entry. If people are willing to line up
around the block for an unsubsidized phone, why should the carrier subsidize
it? (Particularly in the goofy Apple revenue-sharing arrangement- AT&T is
essentially giving the "subsidy" to Apple in the form of commissions.)

> Googly-eyed buyers are no longer staring longingly with their
> noses pressed up against the door glass panting to get into ATT
> stores.....

True. But wait until the 3G model hits- to paraphrase the sage Yogi Berra,
it'll be Deja Vu all over again! The same Apple fans who ponied up $500
last time have had over a year to save their pennies for the next model.





>
> I would have said $350, but that may be dreaming in today's DEPRESSION
> market.
>