iPhone Announced! Wow....

[quote name='gunm']I wonder if one of the CAG lawyers-by-trade can speak to this situation. It looked for a moment like there'd be some peace over the name, but I guess Apple is either stalling for more time or honestly believes they have a strong case here.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I just showed my dad this. He's a lawyer. He said theyre fucked. Of course the trademark pertains to cell phones and landline phones, it's the same industry. He's dealt with this kind of stuff for years. Cisco's gonna get a lotta moola for Apple's idiocy.
 
People that are saying the price is too steep, etc, have no idea how much of a consumerist nation America has become.

My last phone was $400 and I was only 6 months into a new contract. At the price point of $500-600, I think Apple will have a TON of people lined up. I'll EAT my cell phone if they don't hit 1% market share easy.

I won't be buying the iPhone, but I think it's ludicrous that people are saying the phone is too expensive. Remember the PS3 E3 backlash cuz of the price? That was justified, and more significantly, I don't see that kind of pricing backlash except in this thread.
 
Suffah, theyll have to sell 10M phones to hit a percent share. That's pretty hard, but they think they can. I'm not so sure. They made a major mistake by not syncing it with MSOE. What businessman uses Yahoo! Mail? I mean I use it, but I assume that once I make it into the business world i'll cease to.
 
[quote name='shipwreck']It will be mine when it comes to Verizon.[/QUOTE]


yea thats what I was going to say too, but with Apple revising there stuff every few months, a better version will be out hopefully by next June (2008), that's when I can do early upgrade :p
For now the 8300 from LG is fine for me :)
 
[quote name='jPoD']Yeah, I just showed my dad this. He's a lawyer. He said theyre fucked. Of course the trademark pertains to cell phones and landline phones, it's the same industry. He's dealt with this kind of stuff for years. Cisco's gonna get a lotta moola for Apple's idiocy.[/quote]

Well, they haven't actually shipped anything under the name iPhone. Can they be sued for just saying they will?
 
[quote name='Kayden']Well, they haven't actually shipped anything under the name iPhone. Can they be sued for just saying they will?[/QUOTE]
[quote name='Article I linked to']Cisco has owned a trademark on the iPhone name since 2000, and last month it launched a range of voice-over-internet telephone handsets under the iPhone brand.[/QUOTE].
 
[quote name='jmcc']Hmm. This, or the "free" phone that comes with a plan and a game console of my choice...[/quote]Exactly. Why people are going nuts over a $500 frickin' phone is nuts. Do people need to be that "plugged in", that their phones needs to do almost everything that their damn home computer can do? I guess if you're one of those vain gadget dorks who has to have everything new, just to make yourself feel special, then go for it. But for the more practical person, it's just crazy.
 
[quote name='VanillaGorilla']Exactly. Why people are going nuts over a $500 frickin' phone is nuts. Do people need to be that "plugged in", that their phones needs to do almost everything that their damn home computer can do? I guess if you're one of those vain gadget dorks who has to have everything new, just to make yourself feel special, then go for it. But for the more practical person, it's just crazy.[/quote]

I'm sure that's what they said about iPod and iPod with video. But companies have been trying to make this convergence device for years (whether the public really wants it or not), and people are going apeshit because it looks like Apple has finally done it. Is $500 steep for a phone? Yeah, but when you consider it's practically a Mac in a Nano-form factor, it's pretty much on par with what I'd expect to pay. Will people buy enough of these to make it a success? No one knows yet, but with Apple, they've been releasing the high-end shit first then putting out the cheaper shit later.

As for the name fiasco, I think it's a stall. They haven't shipped anything yet, so there's still time to figure something out. If they keep the name, they will have to settle with Cisco for sure. Either way, it's not a deal breaker for the product IMO. I really think Apple's "iPhone" will trump Cisco's in the long run regardless.
 
[quote name='2poor']Wow. $500 + Contract is steep. This probably won't live up to Apples expectations, but then again everyone buys anything Apple nowadays.[/QUOTE]


It's $500 with a 2 year contract.

which is not a bad deal. Hell, blackberry and other smart phones are $299 alone without 2/3 of the stuff the iPhone offers.
 
It looks great. I hope they have a CDMA version out soon with verizon, even though there's no way I'd pay that much for it, hopefully it'll drop. I'd pay $300 for the 4gb (I wouldn't use it as an mp3 or vid player anyway).
 
[quote name='ahmedmalik']This thing will definitely be a status symbol when it launches. Expect Paris to Britney to Lohan all be flashing this thing when it hits.[/QUOTE]

Considering they've been flashing everything else already.


Uhh yeah. anyways... the Sidekick did pretty well as a 'status symbol' phone, and that didn't have the cache as the iPod brand does. People will definitely flock to buy it, and end up regretting it when they realize they signed up with AT&T (no longer Cingular).

Someone mentioned that they are going to wait until the phone goes to Verizon. Unfortunately, I don't think it will ever happen because of the restrictions they have with VCast, not to mention the different technology (GSM vs CDMA) between the two carriers. However I think once Verizon has Mobile TV up and running, people are going to think twice about the iPhone.
 
[quote name='usickenme']It's $500 with a 2 year contract.

which is not a bad deal. Hell, blackberry and other smart phones are $299 alone without 2/3 of the stuff the iPhone offers.[/QUOTE]


But this is not a smart phone correct? It can only run what apple puts out and allows you to run I heard.
 
[quote name='jPoD']Suffah, theyll have to sell 10M phones to hit a percent share. That's pretty hard, but they think they can. I'm not so sure. They made a major mistake by not syncing it with MSOE. What businessman uses Yahoo! Mail? I mean I use it, but I assume that once I make it into the business world i'll cease to.[/QUOTE]

But Apple isn't targeting businessmen with this device. I can see them doing so down the road, especially since this phone does everything business needs and does it better than anything else out there, but for now they want Joe-Shmoe that has the disposable income to purchase it.

Oh, and it runs OS X, so it's reconfigurable at Apple's whim! Need to add an application that is compatible with M$oft Office? Boom! No problem.

They're going to sell MUCH more than 10M, just wait and see.
 
[quote name='SpazX']It looks great. I hope they have a CDMA version out soon with verizon, even though there's no way I'd pay that much for it, hopefully it'll drop. I'd pay $300 for the 4gb (I wouldn't use it as an mp3 or vid player anyway).[/QUOTE]

Not going to happen (see my previous post). Cingular has the exclusive contract for several years to provide service.
 
When it becomes T-Mobile compatible and has a larger storage capacity, I'll get one. It looks amazing, but 1st gen Apple hardware is laughable. This thing is going to be a technical nightmare for the next couple years.
 
i don't understand the love affair with convergence
it so rarely works, because something suffers- whether it is pricepoint, functionality, or battery life
people talk and text on the phone- pictures, movies, music and games are all tertiary attributes. The phone is a communications device, all this other stuff gets in the way. I don't want my dvd player built into my tv. I don't want my bed to turn into a chair. I'm a guy, I can handle a cellphone, wallet, set of keys and either a gaming device or dap in my pocket at the same time.
maybe the iphone should sync to doors and replace my housekeys. Or function as a credit card fast pass for making purchases.
it's silliness, the original ipod played music well, it didn't try to wear too many hats and end up looking foolish.
 
[quote name='suffah']People that are saying the price is too steep, etc, have no idea how much of a consumerist nation America has become.

My last phone was $400 and I was only 6 months into a new contract. At the price point of $500-600, I think Apple will have a TON of people lined up. I'll EAT my cell phone if they don't hit 1% market share easy.

I won't be buying the iPhone, but I think it's ludicrous that people are saying the phone is too expensive. Remember the PS3 E3 backlash cuz of the price? That was justified, and more significantly, I don't see that kind of pricing backlash except in this thread.[/QUOTE]

You have no idea what you are talking about. None whatsoever. All you're hearing right now is the cries of Apple fans. In reality, they are outpricing the highest priced market - only 5% of global handsets are priced at a wholesale value of $300 or more (which could be as low as $100 retail after subsidies and rebates). In the US in particular, Cingular only sells about 400K "premium" phones per year. Also consider that the majority of premium phones sold internationally are to business users, who would pay Apple's price but would actively avoid the integrated iPod and lack of Exchange support. They are going to have to drop their prices fast to gain traction, but Apple won't for fear of cannibalizing iPod sales.

Also, I have heard the argument (from Apple zealots) that when people equate "iPhone==iPod" then they'll sell at the $600 price. However, you have to realize how slow the initial uptake of the iPod was - they didn't even sell 1 million units until the 4G model was annouced 3 years later - and that the iPod didn't become the cultural phenomenon that it is today until the average sale price of a given iPod dropped below $300. The iPod mini at $200 made the iPod ubiquitous, not the iPod/photo/video at $300-500. Also, the mini and now the nano were the fastest selling iPod models and, of course, push the highest volume. An iPhone nano is inevitable, but it would need to show a significantly lower price to drive consumer purchase.
 
[quote name='alongx']You have no idea what you are talking about. None whatsoever. All you're hearing right now is the cries of Apple fans. In reality, they are outpricing the highest priced market - only 5% of global handsets are priced at a wholesale value of $300 or more (which could be as low as $100 retail after subsidies and rebates). In the US in particular, Cingular only sells about 400K "premium" phones per year. Also consider that the majority of premium phones sold internationally are to business users, who would pay Apple's price but would actively avoid the integrated iPod and lack of Exchange support. They are going to have to drop their prices fast to gain traction, but Apple won't for fear of cannibalizing iPod sales.

Also, I have heard the argument (from Apple zealots) that when people equate "iPhone==iPod" then they'll sell at the $600 price. However, you have to realize how slow the initial uptake of the iPod was - they didn't even sell 1 million units until the 4G model was annouced 3 years later - and that the iPod didn't become the cultural phenomenon that it is today until the average sale price of a given iPod dropped below $300. The iPod mini at $200 made the iPod ubiquitous, not the iPod/photo/video at $300-500. Also, the mini and now the nano were the fastest selling iPod models and, of course, push the highest volume. An iPhone nano is inevitable, but it would need to show a significantly lower price to drive consumer purchase.[/QUOTE]


I have to agree with this, sadly. It'll be a few years until I can afford one of these (and I will buy it the second it hits $250-300.) That is, unless there are some crazy discount deals with contracts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top