iPhone Too Expensive?

[HardOCP News]

I can’t believe it took a marketing research firm to do a study to figure out that paying $500 for the iPhone is just too much. If only 26% of the people in the study said they wanted an iPhone and only 1% of those people said they would pay $500…it is probably safe to assume the price is to high.

Among the 26 percent of respondents who said they're likely to buy an iPhone, only 1 percent said they'd pay $500 for it. When Apple introduced the iPhone in January, it said it would cost $500 on the low end. Forty-two percent of those who said they're likely to buy the phone said they'd pay $200 to $299.

 

[Ockie]

Heh, I paid way more for my phone.

I guess the iphone is out of the range of the general population, but usually all pda smart phones are. I think being an apple product, people expected to pay a little less for it as it's for the general population.

If they want that market share that they are aiming for, they will need to lower that price.

 

[MrE]

I don't know guys, anyone remember when the Blackberry debut? it was close to $600 before contract. And both LG and Nokia have models of phones in the $600-$700 range. Nokia with the N95 and LG with their new Prada phone that looks similar to the iPhone also chalked in at $700.

With more and more phone manufacturers making touch screen phones, it makes sense that they are going to want a piece of that space and make a larger amount of money on it. My guess is like all new tech toys, once the adoption rate goes up, the cost on this stuff should drop.

 

[Luxor]

I think everyone thinks $500 is too much, I hear that every time someone talks about it.

It's all hype... I'm not buying one that's for damn sure.... $300 is overpriced for it.... and they want $500?! Aaaaaahhahahaha.

 

[stonedwaldo420]

Personally, I would never buy an Apple product.

However, apple and iPod people are strange and different from the rest of us. I mean, a powerbook is nearly twice the price of an equivilant Dell or HP. Maybe we should compare the Nano and SanDisk e260?

EVERYTHING Apple makes is overpriced. That is what makes Jobs so smart (still hate the guy). He is able to convince a bunch of rich hippies that something is “cool” and “hip” and then they pay extra for it so they too can be “fashionable”.

Just wait until some looser celebrity gets sighted with an iPhone. You will have little rich kids (that applies to you 20 something’s still nursing from your parents financial teat) lining up to buy those things.

Bottom line: I agree.. it is way overpriced. Apple people don’t care though. I am sure if you did a survey, prospective apple customers would say that $2,300 is too much for a basic laptop… doesn’t keep any of them from buying it.

What really gets me though is when my non-wealthy friends (the dumb, creative hippy ones) get scammed into wasting their hard earned $$ on an Apple product.

 

[TheGeekFreek]

Some smart phones still sell for 400-500$ WITH contract.. So iPhone doesnt really supprise me.. I be the price will drop to 350-400$ before release..

 

[Mike Armstrong]

Oh, it'll sell. When the hugely popular iPod came on the market it was also 'overpriced', "no one wil ever buy one". When the hugely popular iTunes charging 99cents per song came out it was also way 'overpriced'. Judging by the massive sales numbers of both, there must be millions and millions of "rich hippies" trying to be cool and hip out there. The iPhone will be no different.

 

[swatbat]

Thing is business phones will go up that high in price. I see the iphone as a consumer device. Doesn't have the high speed support like verizon or sprint offer. Thing is just too expensive in my book for consumers.

 

[ComputerBox34]

I rather have a palm

 

[Lazybones]

The kicker is that it is $500 even with the 2year plus contract. There are many expensive PDA phones on the market and some people will pay more than $500 to get one without a contract. However With a long term contract $500 seems very high, especially when you consider many existing PDA phones have more functions and are mostly purchased by corporate users.

A was really impressed by the UI and presentation until I figured out:
a) Push email is only possible via Yahoo?
b) No 3rd party software access.

It seems the iPod is targeted at personal use not corporate use, but it is the corporate users that have the deep pockets or are able to write expensive hardware off.

 

[jmackay]

Bottom line: I agree.. it is way overpriced. Apple people don’t care though. I am sure if you did a survey, prospective apple customers would say that $2,300 is too much for a basic laptop…

Wow talk about a baseless rant. While I don't feel like wasting time to disprove the whole thing, where exactly is the $2,300 basic laptop?

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=A4791B5D&nclm=MacBook

Even the cheapest Pro is under $2k

Are these phones expensive?

Sure. Isn't everything thats targeted at the enthusiast?

Almost $1k for a single 8800GTX OC Water cooled card. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814143085

Most mobile phones w/ internet and full keyboards cost at least a few hundred, and they don't even support the ipod features (music and video) nor touch screens.

Once they have been out for a while prices will drop, and MIR or IR will come into play.

Anyway, this isn't your average phone. Its a do it all, small market they are going for and I think they have a very nice looking product that will succeed.

 

[stonedwaldo420]

Wow talk about a baseless rant. While I don't feel like wasting time to disprove the whole thing, where exactly is the $2,300 basic laptop?

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=A4791B5D&nclm=MacBook

Even the cheapest Pro is under $2k

The cheapest pro is $1999 (still overpriced). After adding tax and shipping, it comes to around $2,300. However, the VAST majority of consumers considering a Mac purchase opt for the protection plan (If you don’t have the protection plan and ANYTHING goes wrong, you are pretty much screwed. Macs are not very user serviceable). And besides, they already don't mind throwing money away.

Anyway, that puts the regular price even without taxes or shipping at $2,300. 2GB of ram also puts you pretty darn close to $2,300.(what I would consider basic if you are going to be “creative” and do more than just spreadsheets, such as video editing or fruity photo albums, or if you need all of your essential windows apps and have to run parallels).

That was not a baseless rant. The point is that people pay a large price premium for Apple hardware. Sure, apple justifies it by including a bunch of useless bloatware that most people will never touch (when have I EVER needed to make a photo album????). They then compare their half functional bloatware with a fully professional PC suite and claim that the Apple is a bargain….

However, in the future I will be more exact with the prices I use (I would hate to be $50 or $100 off and be accused of baseless ranting).

 

[idividebyzero]

Even if I was blessed with disposable income I would never in a million years pay $500 for a phone WITH 2 year contract.

 

[jmackay]

The cheapest pro is $1999 (still overpriced). After adding tax and shipping, it comes to around $2,300. However, the VAST majority of consumers considering a Mac purchase opt for the protection plan (If you don’t have the protection plan and ANYTHING goes wrong, you are pretty much screwed. Macs are not very user serviceable). And besides, they already don't mind throwing money away.

Anyway, that puts the regular price even without taxes or shipping at $2,300. 2GB of ram also puts you pretty darn close to $2,300.(what I would consider basic if you are going to be “creative” and do more than just spreadsheets, such as video editing or fruity photo albums, or if you need all of your essential windows apps and have to run parallels).

That was not a baseless rant. The point is that people pay a large price premium for Apple hardware. Sure, apple justifies it by including a bunch of useless bloatware that most people will never touch (when have I EVER needed to make a photo album????). They then compare their half functional bloatware with a fully professional PC suite and claim that the Apple is a bargain….

However, in the future I will be more exact with the prices I use (I would hate to be $50 or $100 off and be accused of baseless ranting).

Did you even click the link? It was for the regular (basic) laptops which start at just over $1k for a C2D. You can add in the extra ram (2 gigs) and care plan and still be under $1800 so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I wouldn't consider things like iPhoto bloatware, as they are simple to use and let people make some nice photo albums for family members and are easy to share with friends.

 

[harsaphes]

Im not an Apple person and im happy to pay my five hundred for the IPHONE. Hey, i have blown WAY more than that on lots of things..so, whats another 5?

 

[jacuzz1]

Wow talk about a baseless rant. While I don't feel like wasting time to disprove the whole thing, where exactly is the $2,300 basic laptop?

http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=A4791B5D&nclm=MacBook

Even the cheapest Pro is under $2k

Are these phones expensive?

Sure. Isn't everything thats targeted at the enthusiast?

Almost $1k for a single 8800GTX OC Water cooled card. http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16814143085

Most mobile phones w/ internet and full keyboards cost at least a few hundred, and they don't even support the ipod features (music and video) nor touch screens.

Once they have been out for a while prices will drop, and MIR or IR will come into play.

Anyway, this isn't your average phone. Its a do it all, small market they are going for and I think they have a very nice looking product that will succeed.

It is pretty alright but my 20 years in the cell phone business tells me it will fail. There has never been a phone to date that was all touch screen and succeded.

Samsung is releasing a similar phone that has a keyboard and the advantage of Verizon Broadband as opposed to the ATT slow as molasses Edge network. The Samsung will appeal to business and spank the iphone in sales. Buy one as a collectors item..........it will be dead in 180 days from launch because the Bell heads dont like Steve's attitiude.

ATT is so far behind because it spends all its money on advertising instead of infrastructure. The old sign up 10 piss of 5 keep five mentality. The bent over for Steve because the had too.

just my .02

 

[jacuzz1]

EDit, it also has a touch screen

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/samsungs-iphone-killer-f700

 

[InorganicMatter]

Wait.

You mean people aren't willing to pay $500 for a locked-down smart phone without a real keyboard and an obligatory $900+ contract with the single worst service provider on planet earth using a communication network that belongs in 1998?! Say it isn't so!

Apple versus Microsoft is a razor-thin margin difference in the personal computer world, but Microsoft friggin owns the mobile world; nothing can even come close to offering what Windows Mobile 6 does.

 

[nilepez]

Did you even click the link? It was for the regular (basic) laptops which start at just over $1k for a C2D. You can add in the extra ram (2 gigs) and care plan and still be under $1800 so I have no idea what you are talking about.

I wouldn't consider things like iPhoto bloatware, as they are simple to use and let people make some nice photo albums for family members and are easy to share with friends.

I have to agree, that comparable Macs (well at least the 2 cheapest models) are not 2x a comparable PC. However, they are always more expensive than a comparable PC and while the cheapest model is roughly 100-200 more than a comparable HP or Dell, the next model up is something like $400.00 more. As I recall, hwen I did this comparison, I was comparing desktop PCs, not laptops. I've done it with laptops and the spread was more, but still not 2x as much.

 

[jmackay]

EDit, it also has a touch screen

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/samsungs-iphone-killer-f700

And how much is the samsung?

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/samsung-f700-vs-apple-iphone

And mega pixel doesn't mean as much as lens quality.

 

[jacuzz1]

And how much is the samsung?

http://www.techeblog.com/index.php/tech-gadget/samsung-f700-vs-apple-iphone

And mega pixel doesn't mean as much as lens quality.

It will cost even more, the difference is it is it will meet the need of the business sector (the traditional early adoptors of past smart phones becuase it can easily be expensed)

The main stream consumer wll balk at the iphone. Yes their will be Apple lovers that will second mortgage thier house to carry it but that is a small percentage.

The only real reason to offer the device is as a flagship to sell the lower cost crap that ATT offers. The harsh reality is that once the "Apple crowd " scoops it up ,,,,,it over and Stevey boy wil be sent packing along with his residual deal he extorted from ATT. I suspect he wont care since i am willing to bet he negotiated a life time usage residual on all Iphone account holders irrespective of change of device down the road. I beleive thats why Versizon, the carrier the iphone was originaly designed for turned down the device

 

[jacuzz1]

Note: Please forgive my spelling and grammer, had a few beers and well Editing is not possible in this section

 

[Mike Armstrong]

Cracks me up. If the iPhone is such a bad idea, what with its silly as touch screen and its exorbitant price tag, then why is it already being copied? (like that other crappy Apple product, the best selling iPod). First in the desperate line to catch up, the f700, costs even more with less features, nice try Samsung, next?

 

[nilepez]

It will cost even more, the difference is it is it will meet the need of the business sector (the traditional early adoptors of past smart phones becuase it can easily be expensed)

The main stream consumer wll balk at the iphone. Yes their will be Apple lovers that will second mortgage thier house to carry it but that is a small percentage.

The only real reason to offer the device is as a flagship to sell the lower cost crap that ATT offers. The harsh reality is that once the "Apple crowd " scoops it up ,,,,,it over and Stevey boy wil be sent packing along with his residual deal he extorted from ATT. I suspect he wont care since i am willing to bet he negotiated a life time usage residual on all Iphone account holders irrespective of change of device down the road. I beleive thats why Versizon, the carrier the iphone was originaly designed for turned down the device

It's certainly a niche (for now), but all expensive phones are.

But if you subtract 200 (the price of a Nano), you're down to 300. It's still too rich for me, but if they change things up Q1 next year and drop the price $150, it becomes a viable product for those that want an iPod AND a nice phone. And let's not forget that this thing comes with a much bigger screen than any $200 Nano.

I'm not an apple !!!!!! (don't own a single apple item and prior to last fall, constantly criticized the iPods for their lack of gapless support), but it's really only about $150.00 too much, which is basically the discount you typically get for signing a 2 year agreement.

Bottom line is gouge them while you can and lower prices when you must.

 

[jacuzz1]

It's certainly a niche (for now), but all expensive phones are.

But if you subtract 200 (the price of a Nano), you're down to 300. It's still too rich for me, but if they change things up Q1 next year and drop the price $150, it becomes a viable product for those that want an iPod AND a nice phone. And let's not forget that this thing comes with a much bigger screen than any $200 Nano.

I'm not an apple !!!!!! (don't own a single apple item and prior to last fall, constantly criticized the iPods for their lack of gapless support), but it's really only about $150.00 too much, which is basically the discount you typically get for signing a 2 year agreement.

Bottom line is gouge them while you can and lower prices when you must.

The LG Chocolate already meets that need @ $99

 

[jacuzz1]

Cracks me up. If the iPhone is such a bad idea, what with its silly as touch screen and its exorbitant price tag, then why is it already being copied? (like that other crappy Apple product, the best selling iPod). First in the desperate line to catch up, the f700, costs even more with less features, nice try Samsung, next?

My point is that the most important feature is high speed internet, I dont see people eating up 15 minutes or more at a clip downloading music. My other point is that 500 or 700 is pennies to a company as opposed to the individual consumer. There are many small businessmen that would never spend that money out of their family budget but would not hesitate to have thier own company purchase a productivity device that can double as a personal entertainment device.

 

[stabilep]

I still don't see the iPhone being a useful business tool. While $700 is "pennies" to a company they are also slow adopters. Why should they dump their Blackberries which cost less to purchase and have already established a system for deployment of them for a new device that can cost more per unit and then needs a whole new rollout for?

 

[Martyr]

It's certainly a niche (for now), but all expensive phones are.

But if you subtract 200 (the price of a Nano), you're down to 300. It's still too rich for me, but if they change things up Q1 next year and drop the price $150, it becomes a viable product for those that want an iPod AND a nice phone. And let's not forget that this thing comes with a much bigger screen than any $200 Nano.

I'm not an apple !!!!!! (don't own a single apple item and prior to last fall, constantly criticized the iPods for their lack of gapless support), but it's really only about $150.00 too much, which is basically the discount you typically get for signing a 2 year agreement.

Bottom line is gouge them while you can and lower prices when you must.

its $500 with 2 year contract.

 

[thenixhex311]

It's certainly a niche (for now), but all expensive phones are.

But if you subtract 200 (the price of a Nano), you're down to 300. It's still too rich for me, but if they change things up Q1 next year and drop the price $150, it becomes a viable product for those that want an iPod AND a nice phone. And let's not forget that this thing comes with a much bigger screen than any $200 Nano.

I'm not an apple !!!!!! (don't own a single apple item and prior to last fall, constantly criticized the iPods for their lack of gapless support), but it's really only about $150.00 too much, which is basically the discount you typically get for signing a 2 year agreement.

Bottom line is gouge them while you can and lower prices when you must.

this is COMPLETELY off-topic, and i do apologize, but I've always wondered WHY f-a-n-b-o-y is always replaced with !!!!'s when I've seen F-bombs and every other word under the sun on these boards.

just curious!

 

[nilepez]

The LG Chocolate already meets that need @ $99

Come on. The Chocolate isn't even in the same class of phones. It's competition is a Samsung A900 or Sanyo's Katana or M1.

The LG Chocolate doesn't have a video screen that's as large as the iPhone and it doesn't have gapless playback. That's a HUGE difference. The iPhone has 2x the resolution of the Chocolate (320x480 vs 320x240). The iPhone has significantly more storage when you buy it and the max that the Chocolate can hold, if you buy a card, is 2GB. yes you can swap it out (and that's certainly an advantage), but nevertheless the phone doesn't come with it.

I wouldn't buy an iPhone at that price, but if I was in the market for a phone and a DAP, the chocolate wouldn't be in the running. Only the iPhone has the potential to get in my pocket. Now if I want a phone and music is somethign that'd be nice, but I've already got a good DAP (recent iPods or most DAPs based on the Sigmatel chipset), then the Chocolate, M1, Katana or any number of other phones might be ok.

 

[jacuzz1]

I still don't see the iPhone being a useful business tool. While $700 is "pennies" to a company they are also slow adopters. Why should they dump their Blackberries which cost less to purchase and have already established a system for deployment of them for a new device that can cost more per unit and then needs a whole new rollout for?

I said it would not be a useful tool thats why it will fail

 

[jacuzz1]

Come on. The Chocolate isn't even in the same class of phones. It's competition is a Samsung A900 or Sanyo's Katana or M1.

The LG Chocolate doesn't have a video screen that's as large as the iPhone and it doesn't have gapless playback. That's a HUGE difference. The iPhone has 2x the resolution of the Chocolate (320x480 vs 320x240). The iPhone has significantly more storage when you buy it and the max that the Chocolate can hold, if you buy a card, is 2GB. yes you can swap it out (and that's certainly an advantage), but nevertheless the phone doesn't come with it.

I wouldn't buy an iPhone at that price, but if I was in the market for a phone and a DAP, the chocolate wouldn't be in the running. Only the iPhone has the potential to get in my pocket. Now if I want a phone and music is somethign that'd be nice, but I've already got a good DAP (recent iPods or most DAPs based on the Sigmatel chipset), then the Chocolate, M1, Katana or any number of other phones might be ok.

I jumped the gun before finishing your text, I thought you were saying all you want is an mp3 player and a phone

 

[stabilep]

I said it would not be a useful tool thats why it will fail

I see I misunderstood your post sorry.

 

[CyberDeus-RagDoll]

I have to agree, that comparable Macs (well at least the 2 cheapest models) are not 2x a comparable PC. However, they are always more expensive than a comparable PC and while the cheapest model is roughly 100-200 more than a comparable HP or Dell, the next model up is something like $400.00 more. As I recall, hwen I did this comparison, I was comparing desktop PCs, not laptops. I've done it with laptops and the spread was more, but still not 2x as much.

Really? They aren't? Amazing. When I dig it up, it seems to be exactly that.

Toshiba Satellite :
Core2Duo t5200 (2mb, 1.6 Ghz, 533 mhz)
160 GB sata2 HDD
1 GB Ram
Vista Home Premium
8x Dual Layer burner
802.11 a/b/g
15.4" widescreen
Integrated 10/100/1000 + Modem

$849before tax/shipping


Vs.
Apple Macbook pro
Core2duo ??? @ 2.16 Ghz [sorry, can't find a lower end processor], so processor is a bit faster, in all fairness
160 Gb hdd
1 Gb Ram
MacOSX
6X burner
External modem
I can only assume it has wireless networking
15" widescreen (smaller screen)

$2148 before tax/shipping

I don't think that the 1.6 Ghz cpu versus 2.16 Ghz cpu = $225 difference it would take to make the toshiba HALF the price of the apple

(2148 / 2 = 1074. 1074 - 849 = 225) but even if the 2.16 Ghz cpu WAS $225 more than the 1.6 Ghz cpu, then you'd still be at 50% of the price.



The toshiba has a BETTER burner, a BETTER screen, has integrated modem (which, in this day and age, for travellers, sadly, is still a requirement. I use DIALUP on the road probably 6 or 7 times a year)

 

[nilepez]

Really? They aren't? Amazing. When I dig it up, it seems to be exactly that.

Toshiba Satellite :
Core2Duo t5200 (2mb, 1.6 Ghz, 533 mhz)
160 GB sata2 HDD
1 GB Ram
Vista Home Premium
8x Dual Layer burner
802.11 a/b/g
15.4" widescreen
Integrated 10/100/1000 + Modem

$849before tax/shipping


Vs.
Apple Macbook pro
Core2duo ??? @ 2.16 Ghz [sorry, can't find a lower end processor], so processor is a bit faster, in all fairness
160 Gb hdd
1 Gb Ram
MacOSX
6X burner
External modem
I can only assume it has wireless networking
15" widescreen (smaller screen)

$2148 before tax/shipping

I don't think that the 1.6 Ghz cpu versus 2.16 Ghz cpu = $225 difference it would take to make the toshiba HALF the price of the apple

(2148 / 2 = 1074. 1074 - 849 = 225) but even if the 2.16 Ghz cpu WAS $225 more than the 1.6 Ghz cpu, then you'd still be at 50% of the price.



The toshiba has a BETTER burner, a BETTER screen, has integrated modem (which, in this day and age, for travellers, sadly, is still a requirement. I use DIALUP on the road probably 6 or 7 times a year)

As I recall, I said I was referring to desktops. I did do a comparison almost 1 year ago with HP vs Apple, and the difference wasn't 2x. In this case, I think it's pointless to use the toshiba, since it's a different processor. We'd need to look at graphics cards and whatever else. It may be that you're right (I don't feel like trudging through Apples and Toshiba's sites to argue about laptops). If it's 2x on laptops, that's fine, but I'd find a Dell or HP configured to roughly the same specs to prove the point.

 

[CyberDeus-RagDoll]

As I recall, I said I was referring to desktops

Yes, and you also said :

[color]I've done it with laptops and the spread was more, but still not 2x as much.[/color]

I did do a comparison almost 1 year ago with HP vs Apple, and the difference wasn't 2x.

You never specified a brand. You said "Laptops vs Apple Laptops" to paraphrase

In this case, I think it's pointless to use the toshiba,

No, it's not. I offered up the adjustment to compare the toshiba. I have not found an EXACT COPY of that apple, since, technically, it's impossible, since almost NOBODY uses 15" screens anymore (15.4" would be the screen of choice)

Unfortunately, HP/COMPAQ doesn't seem to offer a 15.4" equipped model with a C2D of the same speed as the macbook pro. They do offer a 17" model with it, and it's only $1299, but, that's not a match, so I can't give you an IDENTICAL configuration. However, here is my closest match from HP/COMPAQ : with a SLIGHTLY slower processor (2 ghz, 4mb cache instead of 2.13 ghz 2mb cache)

Presario V6000t
Vista Home Premium
Core2Duo T7700 (4mb cache/2.0 ghz/) arguably equivalent cpu, pricewise & performancewise = more cache, less mhz
15.4" Widescreen (better screen than on the macbook)
1 Gb Ram
160GB Sata drive
8x Dual Layer (faster burner than on the macbook)
Wireless

$1133.99. Free shipping.

1134 / 2148 = 52.## % or "around half the price"

HP DV6000T
Vista Home Premium
C2d T7700
15.4" WIDE
1 Gb
160GB
8x Dual
Wireless

$1145.99

1146 / 2148 = 53.## %

That's what HP has to offer.

Now, lets move on to dell.

E1505
Core2Duo T7200 2Ghz, 4mb Cache, 667Mhz fsb
Vista Home Premium
160 GB sata hdd
1 Gb Ram
8x Dual Layer Burner
15.4" Widescreen
Wireless, yada yada
2 Year warranty (couldn't select the 90 day warranty which is typical for apple)

1229

1229 / 2148 = 57%

but I'd find a Dell or HP configured to roughly the same specs to prove the point.

I think I've found "roughly" the same configurations, since it's impossible to get 'IDENTICAL' configurations.

 

[CyberDeus-RagDoll]

Slight amendment to the previous post. I stated the apple used a 2.13 Ghz processor. It uses a 2.16 Ghz processor. Merom, probably. ~$425

Look at apples pricing..


$599 to add a 750 gb internal harddrive to a Tower
$450 at dell
$399 for the drive @ the egg

Please tell me what makes the seagate 750GB s-ata harddrive in an apple $599 when the EXACT same drive is 25% less @ dell.

It's not as if they are DIFFERENT PRODUCTS or something.


Everything that was unique about apple is now GONE

From the hardware end.. they are "IBM COMPATIBLES"
From the software end, they are *nix boxes.

I can site you side-by-side comparisons of laptops, desktops, mp3 players, etc where they are charging 50% more MINIMUM for an inferior product, and 100% or more for an EQUAL product.

Ipod shuffle anyone? No screen, no user replacable battery, no fm, no voice recording.. 1 Gb = $149

Sandisk sansa.. 2Gb = $89, has all the previously mentioned features.

 

[drizzt81]

I can’t believe it took a marketing research firm to do a study to figure out that paying $500 for the iPhone is just too much. If only 26% of the people in the study said they wanted an iPhone and only 1% of those people said they would pay $500…it is probably safe to assume the price is to high.

I am surprised that they did not do a marketing or pricing study beforehand. What I can see happening is a discriminating pricing structure (if that is legal in the USA) where the early adopters will pay the $500 and over the course of a couple of months the price will drop of the "acceptable" level of $250.

 

[nilepez]

Yes, and you also said :




You never specified a brand. You said "Laptops vs Apple Laptops" to paraphrase

The problem is the laptop you chose isn't comparable. It's hands down the slowest Core2 CPU I've ever seen in any PC.

I choose Dell or HP, because there are several models available that have many configuration options, which makes it much MUCH easier to get close to the same specs.

No, it's not. I offered up the adjustment to compare the toshiba. I have not found an EXACT

Given that the difference between a 1.7ghz and 2.16ghz from dell is $225 or $250, the adjustment was probably a bit low.

Regardless, I put together a dell with the following specs (it's an XPS, because that should have a GFX card that is closer to the mac pro which has an x1600.

Here are the dell specs:

XPS M1210


Date 2/25/2007 3:07:00 PM Central Standard Time
Catalog Number 29 Retail 19
Catalog Number / Description Product Code SKU Id
XPS M1210:
Intel® Core™ 2 Duo T7600 (2.33GHz, 4MB L2 Cache, 667 MHz FSB) BLM23HN [222-4762] 1
Operating System:
Genuine Windows Vista™ Home Premium VHP3E [313-4910][420-5769][420-5924][420-6436][420-6481][420-6813][463-2282] 11
A/V Communication Package:
None 12XGAL [320-4788] 2
Memory:
2GB Dual Shared Channel DDR2 SDRAM at 667MHz (2 Dimms) 2G2D6 [311-5989] 3
Hard Drive:
160GB 5400 RPM SATA Hard Drive 160GB [341-4218] 8
Optical Storage Device:
8x CD/DVD burner (DVD+/-RW) with double-layer DVD+R write capability 8XDVDRW [313-4222][420-6464] 16
Video Card:
256MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ Go 7400 TurboCache™ NVT256 [320-4790] 6
Sound Options:
Integrated Audio IS [313-4362] 17
Network Card:
Integrated 10/100 Network Card and Modem INTNIC [430-0493] 13
McAfee SecurityCenter with VirusScan, Firewall, Spyware Removal, 15-months VMCAF1Y [420-6591] 25
Photoshop Elements 5.0 and Premiere Elements 3.0 Bundle 691881
​

The only addition that I made was adding an adobe elements package. If the person subtract 80 bucks if you feel that nobody would use that function on either the Dell or the equivalent iLife app on the Mac.

Grand total $2,148 (or 2068 if you drop Elements).

Taking the middle tier apple (given the lack of games for the Mac, one could argue it's a waste to do this just to get an upgraded

Since there's no exact match, I picked the middle Mac Pro, which also has a 256mb video card (x1600) and the same processor. I also changed the HD to a 160gb SATA to match the dell.

Price was 2599 shipped. That's not 2x as much (and the screen on the dell is significantly smaller).

It's not a perfect comparison, because the screen on the dell is much smaller, but it does show that they're not 2x as much. You can't compare other models, because comparable screen sizes on the inspirions have lesser video cards and don't have CPUs that are clocked comparably and if you go with the larger XPS models, they clearly come with a 7900GS vs the x1600, which I assume is better than the latter card.

Slight amendment to the previous post. I stated
Please tell me what makes the seagate 750GB s-ata harddrive in an apple $599 when the EXACT same drive is 25% less @ dell.

why does a 1gb upgrade to 2gb costs 225 at dell vs 175 at Apple?
I can site you side-by-side comparisons of laptops, desktops, mp3 players, etc where they are charging 50% more MINIMUM for an inferior product, and 100% or more for an EQUAL product.

As you can see, that's not necessarilly true on PCs. And while I"m not big supporter of Apple's DAPs, I cna't htink of any other current DAP that has more than 20gb of storage and supports gapless playback. IMO, any player that doesn't support gapless is a defective POS (that includes all G1-G4 iPods).

 

[nilepez]

I am surprised that they did not do a marketing or pricing study beforehand. What I can see happening is a discriminating pricing structure (if that is legal in the USA) where the early adopters will pay the $500 and over the course of a couple of months the price will drop of the "acceptable" level of $250.

If they get 1% of 26%, that's still a pretty nice chunk of the market, given that the market segment they're shooting at is only 5% of the overall cell phone market.

My math may be off, but that means that out of every 500 phones purchased, they should sell 2 iphones. Out of that same 500, roughly 25 are smart phone sales. 8% of the market isn't that bad...especially with the markup as high as it must be.