Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
I have a cell phone and an iPod. An iPhone would combine both devices
into one, but I only use the iPod where I have WiFi, so I don't really
have to have a data package.
I imagine this is a common problem and growing and I don't really see a
way around it. Do you? If not now, when?
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
"Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote in message
news:bob-BCC403.14090902022012@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>I have a cell phone and an iPod. An iPhone would combine both devices
> into one, but I only use the iPod where I have WiFi, so I don't really
> have to have a data package.
>
> I imagine this is a common problem and growing and I don't really see a
> way around it. Do you? If not now, when?
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
"Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote in message
news:bob-BCC403.14090902022012@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>I have a cell phone and an iPod. An iPhone would combine both devices
> into one, but I only use the iPod where I have WiFi, so I don't really
> have to have a data package.
>
> I imagine this is a common problem and growing and I don't really see a
> way around it. Do you? If not now, when?
I have exactly what you have: an iPod Touch (4th Gen) -- that I use with
WiFi -- and a cellphone.
Until recently I didn't have a smartphone. Now I do -- a Palm Pixi Plus --
and I moved my main Cell DID from Verizon to the Verizon Reseller Page Plus
last May. With this provider I can get "plans" that include no data/data "a
la carte" at a rather expensive rate; or a little data; or even a fair
amount: 500Mb (doubled to 1Gb through the end of 2012 if you sign up to
that particular plan this month).
Not officially supported, and I'm told it's frowned upon (but I haven't
heard this from PP directly): one could "tether" from a data-capable
cellphone on PP to, for example, an iPod. I've done it and it works well.
I believe there are "mifi" type devices and providers available that might
allow "casual/a la carte" data usage, but I think it is expensive.
So, to your point: yes, you can get cell service without a data plan; no,
you can't do that if you use a smartphone on Verizon.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
"Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote in message
news:bob-BCC403.14090902022012@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>I have a cell phone and an iPod. An iPhone would combine both devices
> into one, but I only use the iPod where I have WiFi, so I don't really
> have to have a data package.
>
> I imagine this is a common problem and growing and I don't really see a
> way around it. Do you? If not now, when?
Not with Verizon service. I see the PagePlus responders arrived ahead of
me.
Anyway, I once asked Verizon customer service why the company didn't offer a
"family" data plan. For example, if you and you wife share minutes, why not
share ONE date package? As long as you don't exceed your limits, what's the
difference? There was a long pause, so I told her nevermind, I think I
already know the answer.
That, btw, is why we need to keep Sprint, T-Mobile and all the other service
providers around. Without competition the only way the customer will get
benefit is through legislation, with all the corruption and unintended
consequences that brings. It's an imperfect system either way, but "the
market" almost always is superior to "the government". Just my opinion.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On 2/2/2012 11:09 AM, Robert Peirce wrote:
> I have a cell phone and an iPod. An iPhone would combine both devices
> into one, but I only use the iPod where I have WiFi, so I don't really
> have to have a data package.
>
> I imagine this is a common problem and growing and I don't really see a
> way around it. Do you? If not now, when?
With an iPhone, officially no. However some people have activated a
Verizon iPhone on Verizon MVNO Pageplus. Of course you have to buy a
Verizon iPhone, new or used, unsubsidized to do this. Pageplus could
decide to purge all the iPhones from their network, though they really
have no incentive to do that. For an Android phone it's not problem, and
you can use your iTunes music collection on an Android phone using
Doubletwist.
The other way to get relatively inexpensive service on an AT&T GSM
iPhone is to use StraightTalk. It's a bit complicated, you have to
purchase a specific Nokia smart phone (a refurb is okay) and then trim
the SIM card and put it into an AT&T iPhone that you modify some setting
on. Then you're at $30/month for 1000 minutes, 1000 texts, and 30 MB of
data, or $45 for unlimited everything ($42.50 if you pay yearly rather
than monthly). Just as with Pageplus, you need to purchase a new or
used, unsubsidized iPhone. See
<http://www.howardforums.com/showthread.php/1691930-HowTo-StraightTalk-and-iPhone!-Everything-you-need-to-know-to-make-it-work!>.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Thu, 2 Feb 2012 14:29:01 -0600, "NotMe" <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>"Robert Peirce" <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote in message
>news:bob-BCC403.14090902022012@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>>I have a cell phone and an iPod. An iPhone would combine both devices
>> into one, but I only use the iPod where I have WiFi, so I don't really
>> have to have a data package.
>>
>> I imagine this is a common problem and growing and I don't really see a
>> way around it. Do you? If not now, when?
>
>www.pagepluscellular.com
>
I don't think Page Plus is doing iPhones yet.
The data package requirement is to get back some of the cost of a
subsidized phone. An iPhone is about $200 on a plan, close to $600
without one. How much more would you be willing to pay for the phone
to avoid a data plan?
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
In article <0jlmi71tsfjn7fbnjkpoajnh8ifls7u65d@4ax.com>, nobody@nada.com wrote:
> The data package requirement is to get back some of the cost of a
> subsidized phone. An iPhone is about $200 on a plan, close to $600
> without one. How much more would you be willing to pay for the phone
> to avoid a data plan?
I'm not sure since I never had the opportunity. Based on the price of
the iPod, I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
market. Unfortunately, we don't have that. I guess I would have to see
what it would cost and decide, but I would like the opportunity to
decide.
I think I am stuck with Verizon because I am on a one-bill plan where I
get phone, DSL, DTV and wireless. I'm not sure what would happen if I
switched wireless providers, but I wouldn't want to give up all the
discounts.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
<bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>In article <0jlmi71tsfjn7fbnjkpoajnh8ifls7u65d@4ax.com>,
> nobody@nada.com wrote:
>
>> The data package requirement is to get back some of the cost of a
>> subsidized phone. An iPhone is about $200 on a plan, close to $600
>> without one. How much more would you be willing to pay for the phone
>> to avoid a data plan?
>
>I'm not sure since I never had the opportunity. Based on the price of
>the iPod, I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>market. Unfortunately, we don't have that. I guess I would have to see
>what it would cost and decide, but I would like the opportunity to
>decide.
Look at Ebay. If you want an older version 3, yes, but still about
$300. The 4S about $500. These are the lowest prices and have
conditions like shipped from the Domincan Republic or not returnable
if you open the box.
>
>I think I am stuck with Verizon because I am on a one-bill plan where I
>get phone, DSL, DTV and wireless. I'm not sure what would happen if I
>switched wireless providers, but I wouldn't want to give up all the
>discounts.
If you do the math, I'd bet that the savings from PP wpuld make up
more than the discounts.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
"AaronJ" <125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote in message
news:ls4oi7drtm396v4q4bih3d0relhpn3168q@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
> <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>
>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>market.
>
> The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>
> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
Add to that amortized R&D, reasonable proportional recovery of all of
Apple's fixed and variable costs, and a reasonable (not excessive) return
for investors, and you have a much higher number under the best of
situations.
You suggest that they should sell it at cost of materials only? Naive...
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:16:15 -0700, AaronJ
<125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
><bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>
>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>market.
>
>The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>
>http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
Good luck buying one for anywhere near that. As the link points out,
that's just for the parts at Apple's prices, no labor or other company
overhead (or cult markup). Not a useful number for a consumer looking
to buy one.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
tycho wrote on [Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:43:34 -0600]:
>
> "AaronJ" <125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote in message
> news:ls4oi7drtm396v4q4bih3d0relhpn3168q@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
>> <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>>market.
>>
>> The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>>
>> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
>
> Add to that amortized R&D, reasonable proportional recovery of all of
> Apple's fixed and variable costs, and a reasonable (not excessive) return
> for investors, and you have a much higher number under the best of
> situations.
>
> You suggest that they should sell it at cost of materials only? Naive...
Do like everyone else does, double the price.
Or are you suggesting the iphone should cost more than the iPad?
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:43:34 -0600, "tycho" <this@wont-work.com> wrote:
>
>"AaronJ" <125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote in message
>news:ls4oi7drtm396v4q4bih3d0relhpn3168q@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
>> <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>>market.
>>
>> The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>>
>> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
>
>Add to that amortized R&D, reasonable proportional recovery of all of
>Apple's fixed and variable costs, and a reasonable (not excessive) return
>for investors, and you have a much higher number under the best of
>situations.
>
>You suggest that they should sell it at cost of materials only?
No suggestions made by me. Just factual info provided.
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:16:15 -0700, AaronJ
><125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
>><bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>>
>>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>>market.
>>
>>The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>>
>>http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
>
>Good luck buying one for anywhere near that.
Agreed.
>As the link points out,
>that's just for the parts at Apple's prices, no labor or other company
>overhead (or cult markup). Not a useful number for a consumer looking
>to buy one.
As anyone with a 4th grade (or less) reading ability can read and
understand. That's why I gave the link. Thought it was interesting.
But since everyone seems argumentative this morning, do you really
think that if Apple products weren't in so much demand they would have
the price so high? I'll bet there's lots of wiggle room. Supply and
demand usually rules and will in this case too. When Apple starts
losing more market share the prices will come down. But you never
know, they almost went broke once before...
I've seen both sides of the fence. I have an iPad on one side and an
Amazon Kindle Fire (Android) on the other. I gave my wife the iPad
since the Fire (at half the price) serves my needs well. I've bought
my last Apple product. Time will tell if others follow...
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
"AaronJ" <125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote in message
news:up9oi79fem11de3dd2jn5hnp6j50mnecfh@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:43:34 -0600, "tycho" <this@wont-work.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AaronJ" <125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ls4oi7drtm396v4q4bih3d0relhpn3168q@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
>>> <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>>>market.
>>>
>>> The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>>>
>>> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
>>
>>Add to that amortized R&D, reasonable proportional recovery of all of
>>Apple's fixed and variable costs, and a reasonable (not excessive) return
>>for investors, and you have a much higher number under the best of
>>situations.
>>
>>You suggest that they should sell it at cost of materials only?
>
> No suggestions made by me. Just factual info provided.
Sorry; I thought when you said "I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open
competitive market" followed by "The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188" you were
indeed making a suggestion, not just stating facts. "I doubt" is not fact,
it is opinion, yes? Following it with the facts, is, well, "suggestive."
>>Naive...
>
> Reading comprehension problems?
Based on the above, not at all. But perhaps unnecessary, and for that I
apologize...
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On 2/2/2012 1:09 PM, Robert Peirce wrote:
> I have a cell phone and an iPod. An iPhone would combine both devices
> into one, but I only use the iPod where I have WiFi, so I don't really
> have to have a data package.
>
> I imagine this is a common problem and growing and I don't really see a
> way around it. Do you? If not now, when?
I prefer to continue to use my iPod. It's a Nano and really tiny. I
also have an iPod shuffle that is loaded with walking music that I
programmed for power walking and the treadmill. I think the smartphone
uses up too much battery when it's playing music. I know mine eats
battery when I have it on Pandora.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 14:23:14 -0600, "tycho" <this@wont-work.com> wrote:
>"AaronJ" <125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote in message
>news:up9oi79fem11de3dd2jn5hnp6j50mnecfh@4ax.com.. .
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:43:34 -0600, "tycho" <this@wont-work.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"AaronJ" <125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:ls4oi7drtm396v4q4bih3d0relhpn3168q@4ax.com ...
>>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
>>>> <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>>>>market.
>>>>
>>>> The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>>>>
>>>> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
>>>
>>>Add to that amortized R&D, reasonable proportional recovery of all of
>>>Apple's fixed and variable costs, and a reasonable (not excessive) return
>>>for investors, and you have a much higher number under the best of
>>>situations.
>>>
>>>You suggest that they should sell it at cost of materials only?
>>
>> No suggestions made by me. Just factual info provided.
>
>Sorry; I thought when you said "I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open
>competitive market"
But I didn't say that. That statement was by Robert Peirce. Check the
attributes above again.
>followed by "The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188"
That I did say.
>you were
>indeed making a suggestion, not just stating facts.
>"I doubt" is not fact, it is opinion, yes?
Yes, but it is the opinion of Mr Robert Peirce, not me. (I'm AaronJ)
>Following it with the facts, is, well, "suggestive."
You just have to be careful about the attributes.
>
>
>>>Naive...
>>
>> Reading comprehension problems?
>
>Based on the above, not at all. But perhaps unnecessary, and for that I
>apologize...
Apology accepted. But after I questioned your reading comprehension I
figured we were already even...
BTW buying a new tablet for the hardware cost is unlikely, but it's
been reported that Amazon is selling its Kindle Fire tablet below cost
to increase market share, so such things are not as impossible as they
might seem.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On 2/2/2012 4:36 PM, stevev wrote:
> Anyway, I once asked Verizon customer service why the company didn't
> offer a "family" data plan. For example, if you and you wife share
> minutes, why not share ONE date package? As long as you don't exceed
> your limits, what's the difference? There was a long pause, so I told
> her nevermind, I think I already know the answer.
When Verizon announced that they would be getting rid of unlimited data
last year, one of their execs said that there would be a family data
plan at some point. Obviously we have yet to see that.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:31:08 -0700, AaronJ
<125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 3 Feb 2012 11:43:34 -0600, "tycho" <this@wont-work.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"AaronJ" <125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ls4oi7drtm396v4q4bih3d0relhpn3168q@4ax.com. ..
>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
>>> <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>>>market.
>>>
>>> The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>>>
>>> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
>>
>>Add to that amortized R&D, reasonable proportional recovery of all of
>>Apple's fixed and variable costs, and a reasonable (not excessive) return
>>for investors, and you have a much higher number under the best of
>>situations.
>>
>>You suggest that they should sell it at cost of materials only?
>
>No suggestions made by me. Just factual info provided.
It's also a fact that iPhones exist. Is that helpful information? What
was you poin in posting these "facts"?
>
>>Naive...
>
>Reading comprehension problems?
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:47:36 -0700, AaronJ
<125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 09:47:55 -0800, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 10:16:15 -0700, AaronJ
>><125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
>>><bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>>>market.
>>>
>>>The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>>>
>>>http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
>>
>>Good luck buying one for anywhere near that.
>
>Agreed.
>
>>As the link points out,
>>that's just for the parts at Apple's prices, no labor or other company
>>overhead (or cult markup). Not a useful number for a consumer looking
>>to buy one.
>
>As anyone with a 4th grade (or less) reading ability can read and
>understand. That's why I gave the link. Thought it was interesting.
Maybe, but not very useful considering the topic.
>
>But since everyone seems argumentative this morning, do you really
>think that if Apple products weren't in so much demand they would have
>the price so high? I'll bet there's lots of wiggle room. Supply and
>demand usually rules and will in this case too. When Apple starts
>losing more market share the prices will come down. But you never
>know, they almost went broke once before...
>
>I've seen both sides of the fence. I have an iPad on one side and an
>Amazon Kindle Fire (Android) on the other. I gave my wife the iPad
>since the Fire (at half the price) serves my needs well. I've bought
>my last Apple product. Time will tell if others follow...
The iPad is nice, but I got an ASUS tablet for half the price, and
it's just as nice. The new android phones are way ahead of Apple at
this point and don't require joining the iCult.
>It's also a fact that iPhones exist. Is that helpful information?
I agree that your statement "iPhones exist" is not helpful because
most everyone already is aware of that fact. But I understand your
motivation in making it, that of sarcasm.
>What was you poin in posting these "facts"?
But my motivation on the other hand was, as I said, to give further
information. I found the link interesting and hoped others did also.
Being attacked for posting it is, well, just Usenet. You know, kill
the messenger. Being 'naive' and getting rude sarcastic replies is
just part of the game I guess.
Pierce opined that if Apple had any real competition they would not be
able to sell their products as such a high retail price.
So was he right? The hardware price link I posted gives a good idea of
where they were unlikely to go below.
Here's another link (though old) that estimates the iPhone 3GS profit
at over 60%. I don't doubt that it is much different today.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
AaronJ wrote on [Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:21:45 -0700]:
>
> Pierce opined that if Apple had any real competition they would not be
> able to sell their products as such a high retail price.
I think the actual argument was that if the US was not dominated by
fake phone prices with any competition hidden behind 2 year contracts
that all phone prices would be less than the $500 and $600 fantasy prices
that very few people, if any, pay for the devices up front.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:21:45 -0700, AaronJ wrote:
>
> BTW when I worked as a TV tech in the 50s the standard retail markup
> for vacuum tubes was 100%. So this in not a new practice.
In those days I'd buy my vacuum tubes from Hatry Electronics, at 50% off
list, and I'm sure Hatry's was still getting profit on the sale -- from
that I infer markup for vacuum tubes was rather *more* than a mere 100%.
Cheers, -- tlvp
--
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 14:37:06 -0500, tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net>
wrote:
>On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:21:45 -0700, AaronJ wrote:
>
>>
>> BTW when I worked as a TV tech in the 50s the standard retail markup
>> for vacuum tubes was 100%. So this in not a new practice.
>
>In those days I'd buy my vacuum tubes from Hatry Electronics, at 50% off
>list, and I'm sure Hatry's was still getting profit on the sale -- from
>that I infer markup for vacuum tubes was rather *more* than a mere 100%.
I don't remember Hatry Electronics. I got the discount price where I
worked of course.
The 100% tube markup was the charge found listed on the bill when
fixing a TV in the shop or in the customers home. Very few actually
came into the shop to buy their tubes at that price.
In those days people often tried to fix their own TV sets. Most of the
time the fix was just a bad tube and so lots of times they were
successful.
Where to get tubes? There were many stand alone tube testing machines
found in drug and grocery stores. The public brought in all their
tubes to test and if they found a bad one they could buy a new one on
the spot at reduced prices. The problem was that these machines often
showed a tube as being bad when it wasn't. So instead of saving money
fixing their own sets, they sometimes actually spent more by buying
unnecessary tubes.
In the shop we seldom used a tube tester. The best way to check for a
bad tube was to plug in a new one. If the TV worked that was the fix,
if not the old tube was left in.
Then there was a mail order place called Major Brand Tubes. They had
very cheap tubes and warranted them for *life*. When the bought tube
failed all the replacement tubes from then on were 'free'. All you had
to do was pay postage and handling to return the old tube and get the
new one. Well they were true to their word. Only problem was that
their tubes were very poor quality and generally failed within a few
months. After the 5th or 6th time you sent it back you finally gave
up. The S&H would eat you alive.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:21:45 -0700, AaronJ
<125567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:
>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 19:26:34 -0800, nobody@nada.com wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 11:31:08 -0700, AaronJ
>><125333567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:>
>
>>>>> On Fri, 03 Feb 2012 08:45:27 -0500, Robert Peirce
>>>>> <bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>>I doubt an iPhone would cost $600 in an open competitive
>>>>>>market.
>
>>>>> The iPhone 4 Hardware Costs $188
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.maximumpc.com/article/new...ware_costs_188
>
>>It's also a fact that iPhones exist. Is that helpful information?
>
>I agree that your statement "iPhones exist" is not helpful because
>most everyone already is aware of that fact. But I understand your
>motivation in making it, that of sarcasm.
>
>>What was you poin in posting these "facts"?
>
>But my motivation on the other hand was, as I said, to give further
>information. I found the link interesting and hoped others did also.
>Being attacked for posting it is, well, just Usenet. You know, kill
>the messenger. Being 'naive' and getting rude sarcastic replies is
>just part of the game I guess.
You posted something irrelevant to show off.
>
>Pierce opined that if Apple had any real competition they would not be
>able to sell their products as such a high retail price.
>
>So was he right? The hardware price link I posted gives a good idea of
>where they were unlikely to go below.
The hardware costs do not give a realistic idea of what an iPhone
might sell for. Apple's demand guarantees that they don't need to sell
even close to their total allocated cost much less the cost of the
parts.
>
>Here's another link (though old) that estimates the iPhone 3GS profit
>at over 60%. I don't doubt that it is much different today.
>
>http://www.pcworld.com/article/18819...g_it_down.html
>
>So with that much wiggle room, Apple could likely come down if they
>someday get any real competition, and Pierce was probably right.
And if in the future sometime amd if maybe there is real competition
(another cult), then perhaps the prices will come but to the cost of
parts?
>
>BTW when I worked as a TV tech in the 50s the standard retail markup
>for vacuum tubes was 100%. So this in not a new practice.
And they got cheaper because they were fairly generic and you could
buy them from multiple makers and vendors. And nobody smart even
called a tech unless they already tested the tubes at the drug store.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 18:39:32 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
wrote:
>AaronJ wrote on [Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:21:45 -0700]:
>>
>> Pierce opined that if Apple had any real competition they would not be
>> able to sell their products as such a high retail price.
>
>I think the actual argument was that if the US was not dominated by
>fake phone prices with any competition hidden behind 2 year contracts
>that all phone prices would be less than the $500 and $600 fantasy prices
>that very few people, if any, pay for the devices up front.
Phone prices are high even if the up front price is low because it
requires a contract which builds in amortization of the phone price.
It's you have some real need for a particular carrier's services.
These devices do cost more the subsidized contract amount. iPhone
parts as $188. Do you think Verizon pays less than the $200 they
charge for one on a plan?
The only way I see for a consumer to get one below the current levels
is to buy used/older phones. If you can convince someone to upgrade to
an iPhone at the subsidized price and sell it to you under market,
that's another way, and some of the new ones on ebay are like that. Of
course the seller in this transaction will pay the full price in his
plan payments.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
nobody@nada.com wrote on [Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:57:31 -0800]:
> On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 18:39:32 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
> wrote:
>
>>AaronJ wrote on [Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:21:45 -0700]:
>>>
>>> Pierce opined that if Apple had any real competition they would not be
>>> able to sell their products as such a high retail price.
>>
>>I think the actual argument was that if the US was not dominated by
>>fake phone prices with any competition hidden behind 2 year contracts
>>that all phone prices would be less than the $500 and $600 fantasy prices
>>that very few people, if any, pay for the devices up front.
>
> Phone prices are high even if the up front price is low because it
> requires a contract which builds in amortization of the phone price.
> It's you have some real need for a particular carrier's services.
>
> These devices do cost more the subsidized contract amount. iPhone
> parts as $188. Do you think Verizon pays less than the $200 they
> charge for one on a plan?
Nobody said they didn't, however a current iphone 4s is listed at $649
Droid Razr Maxx is the exact same price.
The argument is that the unsubsidized prices are fiction because there's
no competition to drive them into a realistic place.
Many states charge sales tax based on this fiction, too
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
In article <82qqi7huti9vkdc27vn4un7vvgsnqtvpdu@4ax.com>,
AaronJ <125567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:
> BTW when I worked as a TV tech in the 50s the standard retail markup
> for vacuum tubes was 100%. So this in not a new practice.
There's an awful lot that goes into markup. A key factor is turnover.
If you have to hold the inventory for a long time before it turns over
you will need to get more for it. Pianos have a higher markup then
groceries not because the piano dealer is trying to gouge you but
because he may only sell a few a year rather than a few dozen a day.
Turnover isn't an issue with iPhones but production could be. If more
are demanded then Apple can (or is willing to) produce the price will
stay high to bring supply and demand into balance. Sometimes other
producers will enter to drive prices down (android). There is often an
alternate produce for just about any use. maybe not right away but
eventually.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 23:43:01 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
wrote:
>nobody@nada.com wrote on [Sat, 04 Feb 2012 14:57:31 -0800]:
>> On Sat, 4 Feb 2012 18:39:32 +0000 (UTC), Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>AaronJ wrote on [Sat, 04 Feb 2012 11:21:45 -0700]:
>>>>
>>>> Pierce opined that if Apple had any real competition they would not be
>>>> able to sell their products as such a high retail price.
>>>
>>>I think the actual argument was that if the US was not dominated by
>>>fake phone prices with any competition hidden behind 2 year contracts
>>>that all phone prices would be less than the $500 and $600 fantasy prices
>>>that very few people, if any, pay for the devices up front.
>>
>> Phone prices are high even if the up front price is low because it
>> requires a contract which builds in amortization of the phone price.
>> It's you have some real need for a particular carrier's services.
>>
>> These devices do cost more the subsidized contract amount. iPhone
>> parts as $188. Do you think Verizon pays less than the $200 they
>> charge for one on a plan?
>
>Nobody said they didn't, however a current iphone 4s is listed at $649
>Droid Razr Maxx is the exact same price.
>
>The argument is that the unsubsidized prices are fiction because there's
>no competition to drive them into a realistic place.
>Many states charge sales tax based on this fiction, too
>
>
>> According to
>> http://www.mygreatiphone.com/info/ho...iers-actually/
>> cariers pay MSRP.
>
>I doubt that, what retailer pays MSRP for items and then sells those
>same items at the same price to their customer?
Ones that make their money selling you something else that requires
the device. Verizon, T-Mobile, AT&T, etc are not in the selling phones
business. They are in the selling services that you need the phone to
use business.
The contract payments more than cover their phone cost even at MSRP
and the cost of services and still leave a nice profit.
Here's a case in point. A friend just upgraded to a Galaxy S 2 at
T-Mobile. Choice 1) Pay $230 for the phone (but tax on $530) and then
$80 a month for a plan. Choice 2) Pay $530 for the phone and $60 a
month for the exact same plan. So over a two year contract, you save
$180 by buying the phone outright.
That suggests that T-Mobile isn't too concerned about the cost of the
phone to them and their profits come from services. If you look at the
subsidized phone/contract plans there is competition. Just look at the
subsidized intial outlays among carriers.
To make things more crazy there's Choice 2a) Pay $230 down for the
phone and pay the $300 balance in monthly installments of $15 a month
plus $60 for the plan, or $75 a month for 20 months and $60
thereafter. Not only does this save $180 in the first two years but
also $20 a month thereafter.
Re: Any way around the requirement to have a data package?
On Sat, 04 Feb 2012 19:25:48 -0500, Robert Peirce
<bob@peirce-family.com> wrote:
>In article <82qqi7huti9vkdc27vn4un7vvgsnqtvpdu@4ax.com>,
> AaronJ <125567465no-mail@no-mail.com> wrote:
>
>> BTW when I worked as a TV tech in the 50s the standard retail markup
>> for vacuum tubes was 100%. So this in not a new practice.
>
>There's an awful lot that goes into markup. A key factor is turnover.
>If you have to hold the inventory for a long time before it turns over
>you will need to get more for it. Pianos have a higher markup then
>groceries not because the piano dealer is trying to gouge you but
>because he may only sell a few a year rather than a few dozen a day.
What does how many he sells have to do with the demand and market
prices? Every merchant is subject to the demands of the market and
competition.
>
>Turnover isn't an issue with iPhones but production could be. If more
>are demanded then Apple can (or is willing to) produce the price will
>stay high to bring supply and demand into balance. Sometimes other
>producers will enter to drive prices down (android). There is often an
>alternate produce for just about any use. maybe not right away but
>eventually.
Foxconn can just open new plants and hire more slaves and children to
make iPhones. Like Apple's computer, the market for iPhones is only
partially fueled by functionality. Marketing hype, the cult status of
new product announcements and releases, and the fact that they are
good if overpriced products are bigger factors.
Other makers, using android, windows, symbian, don't have that luxury.
Nobody lines up days ahead of time to get the newest Samsung at the
moment of release. It's the difference between a Mac and a PC, being
tethered to a single supplier or having an open market.
There already is an alternative to iPhone if all you want is function.
Android has made some inroads against Apple, but many cling to Apple
like it was amazingly better, based on little more than excellent
marketing. The only reason I could see, rationally, for buying Apple
is that everything is controlled from one source and you believe that
they will supply everything you will ever need or want.
Any way around the requirement to have a data package? 
Linear Mode
