digg

Join DiggAbout

The Digg Crew wants to hear your thoughts!
Please take our short survey about Digg and potential feature ideas.

Study: Apple iPhone 'too expensive'

digitmag.co.uk — Consumers aren't willing to pay what Apple may ask for the iPhone but if the price drops they'll switch their mobile service to AT&T in order to get it, according to results of a survey released Thursday.

show profanity settings
expand all
  • Arctirus, on 10/12/2007, -13/+125/obvious
    • cds0528, on 10/12/2007, -11/+80 agreed...

      in related news, if apple lowered the price of the ipod to 15 bucks, more people would buy it
    • mikev, on 10/12/2007, -8/+81I'd buy a Ferrari if they were $1,000. :|
    • kingfoot, on 10/12/2007, -22/+10you know, if it was a better carrier, i would be much more considering to buy it, but $600 for cingular... no thanks.

      edit: OK AT&T... but still, no difference...
    • Seidoger, on 10/12/2007, -26/+14The iPod is also 'too expensive' and yet...
    • aakrzemi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+97STUDY: 95% of studies result in conclusions that are obvious to begin with.
    • flamingmb, on 10/12/2007, -2/+30Speaking of obvious, this reminds me of the study that asked prisoners why they wanted to escape from prison.
    • auburnguy1000, on 10/12/2007, -8/+11Hello Captain
    • avcore, on 10/12/2007, -4/+79The stupid Razr was $500 when it came out and how often do we see those now?
    • nickerbocker, on 10/12/2007, -23/+17Apple in general is too expensive.
    • capiCrimm, on 10/12/2007, -9/+1@aakrzemi

      including yours. :D
    • Anorhc, on 10/12/2007, -10/+7Sounds like the PS3.
    • ig2nacho, on 10/12/2007, -18/+5Mac products means a social life, like Dolce & Gabbana, Ferrari, and others expensive brands. Not all can buy this things because their price. If you can't buy the iPhone... so, you know... you are an incorrect person who need to get an iPhone. Yeah, but... I have a Mac, but I haven't a Ferrari, why?, because Mac is the most expensive into computers business. I can't buy a Ferrari, but also, I can't buy a Chevrolet.

      Sorry about my English.
    • twit987, on 10/12/2007, -19/+20I paid $400 for my razr.. i'll easily drop 600 for my iphone
    • hoppdawg, on 10/12/2007, -17/+4Bull ***** *****. Millions of people will buy this phone and its only the beginning.

      think about how many cell phone subscribers there are...
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+21@hoppdawg

      This phone has great potential for success and failure. There will be a big initial inrush, there always is with EVERY new Apple product. Why? For lack of a better word, fanboyism. You have thousands (not millions of people, thousands) who are ready and willing to drop the money the moment it pops up on the Apple store. From there, now you're into the general populace, there's another interesting study that alot of people haven't heard of. Of the 5 major cellular carriers in the top fifty major US cities, cingular (now AT&T) averages a rank of 5th in customer satisfaction.

      Now statistically, a sample size of ~400 is well above the amount needed for a level of confidence in a survey, however the 400 people surveyed were not an even distribution. Which they said up front, the large majority knew what the iPhone was and what it did, and were familiar with other apple products. I'm not going to say the survey is rigged, it isn't, but it seems pretty poorly done for statistical purposes.

      Flop or not is going to come down to 3 things. Price, plan, and usability. Price and plan kind of go hand in hand, but it's a balance, plans should have flexability, something the iPhone's hardware cost may not give Apple the option to entertain. If apple is betting on the fact that they and AT&T can charge 80-90 bucks a month for unlimited calling assuming that no one is really going to use it. Well maybe i don't want to spend 80bucks a month for minutes i'll never use. Lastly is usability, i don't think there's any question about the elegance about how the iPhone functions. But its got some serious real life drawbacks. I'll point out just one for brevity, it's a touch screen, well that's nice, but what if my hands are dirty, what if i'm the foreman at the job site. I've got the money to buy one of these, but i'd just ruin it with my daily life. The idea is novel but not practical.

      Final verdict for me, flop, the iPhone will ultimately be a small niche product who's fans will declare it a success because initial sales will be large. Expect after 6+ months of release (just after the holidays) iPhone sales will plumit unless Apple drops the price into a more competative price range for the general populace.
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -2/+14lets see v60 $450 at launch razr $500+ Krzr $400+ black berry 8800 499.99 palm treo 750 $650...and the hp ipaq $749( at launch) lay of the crack ppl and do some research or did you fail at the internets
    • whitesaint, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13I remember when the iPod came out in 2001, it had a US$399 price point. Reviewers on the web and in magazines would go crazy and say "no one is going to buy it it's too expensive." Looks like their doing the same thing for the iPhone now. If history is any indication, the iPhone will get sweeped up quickly by early adopters and those who just gotta have it. Eventually prices will come down, just like they did for the iPod. This study is lame.
    • CanceledCzech, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Me: No *****...
    • Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5I'd pay more for it if only Apple would allow me :P
    • Ireland, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Really though, I'm holding out for just an iPod nano that's also a phone. Let's call it iPhone junior, for making calls and listening to music. And judging by Apple's recent relative history they should be able to make phone that looks good, is easy to use, and just works.
    • gcnaddict, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"lets see v60 $450 at launch razr $500+ Krzr $400+ black berry 8800 499.99 palm treo 750 $650...and the hp ipaq $749( at launch) lay of the crack ppl and do some research or did you fail at the internets"

      I got my pearl for free with a contract. Why can't apple do that?
    • aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1@GCNADDICT: Your Pearl is not free. Do you really believe anything in this world is free? You might not be paying upfront for the device but it is factored into your monthly bill and you will end up paying at least twice the full retail price over the period of your contract. You probably are also not allowed to keep the phone if you cancel before the half of your contract is up or the cancellation fees + how much you paid monthly for the phone will be more than the cost of the phone to the carrier.

      The iPhone will not be subsidized and you will receive technical support directly from Apple. That is what sets it apart from you "free" device.

      Apple did not want the phone subsidized because they did not want to lose control of the device and the software installed on it.

      PS. It's also a widescreen iPod with a multi-touch interface.
      PPS. Name another GSM provider that does not use AT&T (Cingular) infrastructure.
    • sam10685, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1uhh... i'm going to need to dis-agree. if it was just a phone then i'd say yes, it's too much.
  • Rethcir, on 10/12/2007, -15/+27Inaccurate.
    • drouk1556, on 10/12/2007, -2/+53Don't digg him down. He may be right. The iPhone wasn't intended to be marketed to 12 year old girls, and the study doesn't provide a breakdown of demographics.
    • subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -21/+56Completely inaccurate. I fully intend to have one in my pocket the day they come out. 600 bucks? Eh, that's like a month's bar tab... Big friggin' deal. Two year contract? Well, duh, if I'm going to buy it, I'd like to use it for a couple of years.....

      Sure, there's a whole world out there crying about how they "just want a basic phone".... They cry about other things, too, like how they can't wait to get moved to the front counter from the drive thru window 'cuz it's so damn cold this time of year......

      What's more, I'm fully prepared to toss it in the trash and fork over for iPhone v2 6 months later, complete with 3G networking.... And then iPhone v3 with video conferencing....

      I'm not an Apple fanboy, I don't own a Mac. I don't even own an iPod. I'm just someone who is tired of PalmOS being the best I can find for computing power and connectivity on the go, and I'm willing to put my money where my mouth is to encourage what appears to be the first step in the right direction in over a decade.
    • gafasiesornivek, on 10/12/2007, -17/+1I think a time like this calls for:

      a Sexy LESBIAN biker film: The Spread Eagles

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?search=&mode=related&v=VnCzv_hrMik
    • samssf, on 10/12/2007, -7/+21@subliminalurge:

      You spend $600 a month on alcohol? Good for you. I doubt many of us have that kind of money. Perhaps in your world everyone spends $600 a month on alcohol.

      As for the iPhone and AT&T... screw them. I wouldn't switch to AT&T even if the phone was $200.
    • heiesuke, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3We needed a study to tell us that?
    • signal15, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2A $600 a month bar tab is not that much, especially if you are buying wine, mixed drinks, or GOOD beer. Or if you like to pick up the tab for your friends once in awhile, it's real easy to get there.
    • schoate09, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2subliminalurge likes to talk like he's rich on the internet in hopes that people will think he's cool. What people don't realize is that hes 25, works at TGI Fridays, likes to make fun of jobs better than his, and live's in his mom's basement.

      Seriously, I only want a basic phone, I can afford an iPhone if I want it, but money does have a limit, and I'd rather put my money where I want something else more. I just don't need the other crap, I make plenty enough to get it, I just choose not to.
    • aristotle0dude, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@samssf: Name another GSM carrier in the US. Name another system besides GSM that has wide support globally. You need to start thinking globally. The US != the world.

      You guys are either clueless of the rest of the world or you simply do not seem to care about anyone but yourselves.
    • samssf, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@aristotle0dude:

      T-Mobile. I use them and am completely satisfied.

      You don't know what you are talking about. Just because a person might not have a GSM service does not mean they are worldly and appreciate other cultures. Grow up.
  • SgtBeavis, on 10/12/2007, -9/+6/obvious

    I'm not switching carriers and paying that much for it. Maybe when the 2nd gen phone comes out but it had best be 3G.
  • osage, on 10/12/2007, -28/+5FU All - You will buy the phone.
    Because is rocks!
  • 1KrazyKorean, on 10/12/2007, -4/+28Ok I can see paying 500 for this phone because of all the features, but i cant see myself also switching carriers and signing up for a 2 year contract with cingular...
    • dasluvaluva, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6As somebody who's tired of Sprint's BS (when Cingular is much better in my particular area), I'm willing. However, I wish they would allow a developer (Microsoft) to allow a Remote Desktop Connection client to be developed.
    • agilethumbs, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2Why would Apple use Microsoft's complete crap version of Remote Desktop when Apple Remote Desktop is 30x better?
  • desantim, on 10/12/2007, -7/+17I find myself to be an "Early Adopter" of technology, but i wouldn't pay that much for the iPhone... That is ridiculous to me... Apple has blatantly said they wouldn't support third party software or addins which willfully makes the iPhone a glorified closed ended cell phone that you have to rely on a single source for all your software needs. $500, for pretty interface isn't worth it to me. Don't get me wrong, it is a revolutionary device in my opinion, but for that price, I'll buy a windows mobile device and save a hundred dollars and live with one of my three ipods i've blown my money on already.. lol.

    To each their own, but I can't imagine switching cell providers, getting locked into 2 years with that phone or the service, and it being a revision one device.

    ~m
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13Apple said they would support downloading software through ITMS - just like you can download games for the iPod today. They also said that Apple would be keeping control over who they would let write applications. So it's not like you can't download any applications, just a more limited number...

      The thing to think about is, what do people buy for smartphones anyway? The ones I know are buying software to do things the phone is supposed to do in the first place (like better email clients). If the phone software does not suck in the first place, how many third party apps do you really need?
    • pixelbender, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2"It is a revolutionary device in my opinion."
      "$500, for pretty interface."

      Perhaps, its MORE than a "pretty interface?" Perhaps it is a..... wait for it..... REVOLUTIONARY interface? I don't know, you have me confused.

      Somebody has to "design" revolutions in the first place, and I'll be damned if I don't *prefer* them to be "prettier."
    • galore, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"They also said that Apple would be keeping control over who they would let write applications."

      Well, if Apple wants to retain control then it really isn't mine after I buy it, isn't it?

      If I am expected to pay a premium for a product, then I expect that this product doesn't come with big mommy retaining control over it.
    • EtherGnat, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5"If the phone software does not suck in the first place, how many third party apps do you really need?"

      Off the top of my head an app that would allow for full wireless Exchange synchronization, a remote desktop client, an RSS app, an awesome mobile app), a Slingbox client, Orb compatibility, Skype, a multi-protocol IM client, apps that can read Word/Excel/PDF and other file types, third party media codecs, and I would kind of hate to give up my universal remote app and free games too.
    • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2"Off the top of my head an app that would allow for full wireless Exchange synchronization"

      You mean like a mail client that use use the Exchange IMAP interface? Covered. And most people outside of work would rather have things like Yahoo push mail than exchange support. Deep Exchage support is a nice niche but it's a larger market Apple is going after. I cetainly have no use for it; there are many peole at work with Blackberries linked into exchange but I'm fine with a more hands-off approach.

      "a remote desktop client"

      OS X supprts VNC, we may see a VNC client included.

      "an RSS app, an awesome mobile app"

      Safari is an RSS reader.

      "a Slingbox client"

      Load media on the device, or stream it from a server to the phone.

      "Orb compatibility, Skype, a multi-protocol IM client, "

      Orb and skype probably not. But then, it is a phone you know... it also comes with iChat I believe.

      "apps that can read Word/Excel/PDF and other file types"

      Most of that is covered, only the Excel bit is questionable. TextEdit on the Mac can already read Word docs, and DF files are handled native by OS X.

      "third party media codecs"

      You mean Divx. Sorry, transcode, or just burn to H.264 using handbrake.

      "and I would kind of hate to give up my universal remote app and free games too."

      A huge loss? Not realy. It is bluetooth enabled so some of the same bluetooth control abilities should still work.
  • idiggeverything, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12No *****.
    • guytoronto, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1Ya, they said the same thing about the iPod. Too expensive. Mac only. Nobody will buy it. It's a dud. And they were right!
  • sexualaj, on 10/12/2007, -29/+5I Like iPhone
    I Like iPod
    I Like Bush
  • eddigg, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31Wow, they surveyed 379 people. That's got to be statistically significant! Bury this trash.
    • krazytom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8but most of them heard of it...

      I also like the fact that 26% said they would buy it, but only 1% of that 26% said they would pay $500 for it. 26% of 397 would be ~98 people and 1% of ~98 people would be ~1 person! Data holds strong when your 1% is represented by one person.

      I want to be the president of this survey company.
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11A sample size of 379 is (approximately) statistically what you need to have a 95% confidence level, with an error of about 5 points +/-. (The size of the total population can have some bearing, not not all that much) This is assuming that they got there samples from the proper demographic, of course. http://www.surveysystem.com/sscalc.htm
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Freaking edit time out. Anyway, I was going to add that if your population of people that could buy the phone is, say, 10,000,000 (not an unreasonable figure) then you could say with 95% confidence that 2.6 million want to buy it, but only 100,000 would buy it at this price, plus or minus 5%
    • krazytom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2@craigj

      I agree with your first post, but this survey takes into account the entire U.S. population, they didn't only survey people who might buy an iPhone. Not even everyone in the survey had heard of it. So really wouldn't you be taking 26% of all of America not just 10mil? thus leading to selling ~780,000 (taking a US pop of 300mil) @ $500
    • shibubu, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1379 people?
      why not 380...
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I don't see in the story how they picked the population but this part seems to indicate they did some qualification "most of whom had heard of the iPhone and have shopped for an iPod, " Standard survey practice it to start with a screener that asks questions designed to find people in your target population and weed everyone else out. Questions like, household income, do you use a cellphone, etc. I would be very surprised if they didn't follow this practice. without them divulging the screener or indicating the population it is impossible to know for sure.
    • krazytom, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@craigj

      I see your point. and I love your musk.
    • Jumangi, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2You do realize most studies are with a small number of people right?

      You know how many people get asked when they do one of those polls about the next president? Usually between one and two thousand people. Take a college class on statistics and learn something.
    • noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2@OP

      I'm not sure you understand what "statistically significant" means. It's used to describe correlation between two variables, thus a correlation (such as favorite food vs. body mass index) can be statistically significant, not a sample group. In fact, one can attain statistically significant data from small sample groups given that they use the right formulae.

      I'm not saying that the survey is without bias (although I can't see any reason for them to be biased, or see where they could have manipulated answers mathematically), but claiming that the conclusion is invalid based on their sample size is as pertinent as saying a wine is terrible because it's "too slow."
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4@eddigg

      379 people is significant. This II statistics so read carefully. In a truly random sample (for a standard Z style deviation), it takes roughly 30 people to estimate results of massive populations to +-3%. Where do you think all those survey numbers come from on the news, and why do you think they always say +-3%, statisticians calculated it.

      The only problem is the group of people wasn't truly random, so it's actually impossible to know how the deviation will work out.
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -12/+4FOR A POP OF 300 MILLION ITS TAKES MORE THAN 30 PPL YOU RETARD!!!! GO BACK TO STATISTICS 101, THE GOING RATE IS MORE IN THE 1500 TO 4500 RANGE OVER A WIDE GEOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC SCALE...GET AN EDUCATION!!!! FFFFUUUUUUCCCCCKKKKK!!!!
    • Flon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@epiccollision
      go back to internet etiquette 101
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1Hey flon STFU how's that for ya...when ppl spread this disinformation they deserve to get yelled at...and i like my high horse...
    • SpacedCowboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3You can claim that "379" is the magic number all you want, but I still don't believe it. Unless you can *prove* (and not just *state* that it's probabilistically so) that the sample set is representative, I can't see you have a leg to stand on.

      379 / 360,000,000 =~ 0.0001% of the population of the USA. The variances in affluence, culture, living-standards are larger than 0.0001% if you walk from one street to another 4 blocks away! How then can 379 people accurately (to +/- 5%, no less!) convey the wishes of the entire population ? Just because some (self-interested) company that performs surveys says it is so, doesn't make it so.

      There is a difference between interpolation and extrapolation, with the latter being a lot less reliable than the former. A survey like this is an extrapolation from the small data-set (the "survey") to the larger one (the population at large). What people tend to forget (or not mention) is that as the extrapolation gets larger, so does the corresponding error-bar on the measurement.

      In short, it sure sounds like pseudo-scientific crap to me.
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3@spacecowboy

      Just because you don't believe it doesn't make it untrue. Any college statistics course teaches you all the math you need to know to calculate things like confidence level and confidence interval. Not that i really remember how to do that still..
      I hate to site wikipedia on a topic like this, but they provide a 25 term example that results in a cofidence level of 95% or +-5% about ANYTHING it predicts, regardless of the size of the population it predicts for.
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval

      The only thing this method requires is a completely random sample set, therefore it does not apply to the study here, but since the study isn't necessarily random, we can't really tell anything about the distribution anyway. Never the less, 379 is plenty of people in any normal survey. Why do you think they survey a 100 random people and the like, if it wasn't enough to reflect larger populations, you'd take a bigger sample!
    • SpacedCowboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1If you actually read that wikipedia page, and scroll down to the Neptune example, it shows (far more elegantly than I was trying to say) just how useless those "+/- 5%" figures are. The survey company is exploiting the "prosecutors fallacy" in assuming that just because something has a 90% probability, it is 90% likely to happen - that's an intuitive and completely wrong interpretation of the figure.

      Really. Read the Neptune example. Most people are "frequentists", not "baysian", and therein lies the loophole that allows these people to say what they do.

      In the general election in the UK where Labour came to power, the polls were predicting a Tory victory, backed by exactly the same mathematics, and using a far larger sample. Given that the actual result was several standard deviations away from the predicted one, one has to infer that the prediction was complete and utter rubbish. Same maths.
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@spacecowboy

      to quote myself
      "the only thing this method requires is a completely random sample set, therefore it does not apply to the study here"

      To say you have a truly random sample set is very very difficult. And as i said many many times before, because we can not be certain of the distribution, we can not know exactly how accurate this "survey" is, we also don't know in what means it was conducted since people can answer to different opinions based on how a question is phrased. Never-the-less, in traditional statistics in idealized conditions, 400 people is plenty.
  • thebrokenlight, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1It didn't take a study to figure that one out.
  • kellsworth, on 10/12/2007, -8/+3Lol @ a survey of 379 ppl. That hardly counts as a "study." All 379 of those jerks could be from a town that doesn't even know what Apple is.

    With that said, i think its too expensive too.
    • samssf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3You moron. As said previously, the sample of 379 people is indeed sufficient for this study.
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3@kellsworth
      I feel i have to say this again.

      379 people is significant. This II statistics so read carefully. In a truly random sample (for a standard Z style deviation), it takes roughly 30 people to estimate results of massive populations to +-3%. Where do you think all those survey numbers come from on the news, and why do you think they always say +-3%, statisticians calculated it.

      The only problem is the group of people wasn't truly random, so it's actually impossible to know how the deviation will work out.
    • epiccollision, on 10/12/2007, -6/+1@samssf @maninblac1 your both idiots go back and get a a clue 379 ppl IS NOT SIGNIFICANT IN A POP OF 300,000,000
  • offwhite, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Apple does not want or expect everyone to buy the first revision of the iPhone. The early adopters who have the money for the announced price will have enough money to buy the second revision with all of the improved features, and then they can drop the price to allow for more people to purchase it. And they will likely release trimmed down versions just like the iPod so they can include even more people. I think if you have been paying attention the past few years this is the model they are using and it is working well for them. (And those used phones from the early adopters will quickly make their way onto EBay.)
  • emmanuelsotelo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+15When the iPod first came out, alot of people thought it was too expensive.
    But look what happend, people ended up buying it because it was such a great product, and eventually the price came down.

    If you think the price is TOO high, then simply don't purchase it or wait until there is a price drop.

    Also, the initial high price adds to the iPhone's 'Elite' cool factor.
    • 1jaxstate1, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3People start buying them because the price came down and they made lower end modules.
    • iTorrey, on 10/12/2007, -3/+5People started buying them when it came to windows and got those nifty dancing silhouette ads.
    • subliminalurge, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12No, people started buying them because they saw the demo model in the store and said "Just this little wheel? That's all I have to do? Awesome! What about this other brand over there? What are all those extra buttons for? Oh, this simple little wheel will let me do all the same things? ***** yeah, give me one. Oh, better have one for my wife, too...."

    • sn0re, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2It took two years and the much cheaper iPod Mini before Apple even sold 1 million iPods. In contrast, Jobs expects to sell 10 million iPhones in the first year. Maybe if they introduce a cheaper "iPhone Mini", but this 1G iPhone is going to sell, well, pretty much just like the 1G iPod.

      Also, people predicting huge price cuts aren't looking at the situation from Apple's perspective. You may want a cheap iPhone, but Apple wants large profits. It's pretty much guaranteed that the iPhone will never be cheaper than the most expensive iPod, otherwise it'll cut into the iPod sales.
  • nick34, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I dont know about you guys, but i would pay that much for a phone that can hold 150 kabillion contacts.
  • 1jaxstate1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1How much do people think smartphones cost. You get a video iPod and a nice celly. I do think the overall cost should be around 500 - 600 bucks. But I also think if you sign a 2 year contract, that cost should be dropped 150 bucks, like they do with other highend smartphones.
  • PAJK, on 10/12/2007, -2/+15This is *****. Everyone thinks everything is too expensive. If you give them the option to pay less, what do you think they're going to say? I highly doubt the iPhone will have any sales problems. I know I'm getting one. The web browser is PC quality, and the WiFi just seals the deal. I haven't even accounted for the iPod functionality and camera.

    $500 is perfectly the reasonable. The BlackBerry costs the same.
    • CraigJ, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2and some of the other phones cost more. The big factor I see, and I'm not sure it is all that big, is the ability to interface with corporate exchange / Lotus Notes, however, Apple doesn't don't seem to care much about that group. I have a Blackberry and I hate the friggen thing - it is like an infinitely long leash held by my employer and the web browser is marginal IMHO.
    • Jumangi, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Uhh?? You can get a Blackberry for $200 these days with a 2 yr agreement.
    • noreturn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The BlackBerry costs $500 without a service rebate, and have things like GPS or 3G. And since they're geared towards business users, they sync with Outlook, not iTunes, with business users typically being the kind of people that would actually pay 500 bucks for a feature laden phone.
    • cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2@noreturn: "they're geared towards business users, they sync with Outlook, not iTunes--"
      Let me share something with you, that kind of farts on what you said. My iPod...? It syncs with Outlook. When I look at my iPod screen, there's little checkboxes that let me sync all my contacts and calendar events with my iPod's contacts and calendar system. Did you even know that before making your Outlook comment? Just guess how many other things you don't know. I could thumb down the features that I'd like, are in the iPhone, that these devices you're talking about DON'T HAVE, but I'm sure if you ignored Steve Jobs, you'll miss my words too (koff, WiFi Internet browsing...).
    • cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Keep denying it, bud.
    • j_bellone, on 10/12/2007, -3/+9The BlackBerry costs $500 without a service contract. The iPhone is starting at $500 with a two-year agreement. Overpriced? I think so. For a phone that will not be able to run unsigned third party software (see: Palm applications, Blackberry applictions, and Windows Mobile applications) it is a true rip-off for any corporate world. Its not going to be corporate though. If Apple were going for the corporate they would not have chosen Cingular with one of the ***** data packages on the face of the earth. Then again, Verizon saw the bluff, and told them to stick it up their ass.

      You're putting too much faith in the iPhone. Its an unproven product in a proven playground. This isn't five or six years ago when the MP3 player market was latent with crappy products, and, to introduce a semi-good product with crappy software would go over well. They are coming into a market where absolutely no player dominates but every player is a veteran. I wouldn't put that much faith in this product before you have it in your hands. I most definitely wouldn't get binded into a two-year service agreement with no apparently no ability to buy insurance plan. By the way, syncing a phone with iTunes? That's a joke. iTunes is already bloatware.

      With that said. Its a cool toy. But business people need a phone that can actually handle what they want it to do. Finger gestures will get old fast when you can't run the software that you need to be able to run without paying Steve Jobs' and Co. a hefty price. Sorry. Not for me. Mind you, I am writing this off my Macbook, so this isn't Apple directed hate. Use the brain. Think it out. iPhone (as of right now) is a bad buy even before it comes out.
    • logic, on 10/12/2007, -3/+3Proven playground? -ALL- current phones suck. Have you ever used windows mobile? In my opinion the best phone available at the moment is my 6700 from utstarcom, and it's got some serious issues, mostly caused by WM5. Ditto across the shelf as far as I can tell. I doubt I'll buy an iPhone (not a mac user), but I look forward to the market-wide push forward it will hopefully bring with it.
  • JavertHolmes, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I remember a time when reception and (a lack of) dropped calls were selling points for cell phones. We were so gullible back then.
    • dasluvaluva, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2We know that isn't likely to improve. What we do know is that the U.K. is several years ahead of us in terms of quality cellphones, since they're not tied to carriers. The cellphone is the best innovation to (potentially) reach the American marketplace.
    • crveatch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0Welcome to the new world grandpa.
  • TheRealDeal, on 10/12/2007, -4/+11Study: Apple iPhone 'too expensive'

    Not for me it isn't...
    • zdiggler, on 10/12/2007, -4/+2you got some extra money to give to fellow diggers?
    • cleverboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@therealdeal: "Not for me it isn't..."
      Not for a lot of value-oriented people that can actually read spec sheets. Imagine that.
      Mm. Kind of tiring to see Digg pan-handlers that don't know how to assess a unique-value-proposition.

      zdiggler, yes, I mean you. Try this... find me a phone that retails cheaper than the iPhone, with the following three killer iPhone features: 400x300 screen or larger, 2 MP camera, Wi-Fi internet browsing (802.11 b/g/ and/or n). Let me know when you find it. You'll notice a smile on my face when you realize most phones that support Wi-Fi Internet browsing need to be the "unlocked" version., immediately eliminating your subsidy comments. Funny, huh? Also, you'll see me unmoved by criticism of Wi-Fi, as most people wanting Internet on their phone, have already experienced HIGH access fees, especially for 3G networks. Sitting in a coffee shop like Starbucks, or in the average home environment, let's pretend that's going to be more than sufficient.
    • robdazomba, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2The price is fine for me too. I always imagine the readership of sites like Digg and Slashdot to be a higher paid group of people (better educated, tech workers and all) but maybe not. $500 is about right for a high-end mobile device, but not really too much for everything the iPhone does.
  • WalkerBurgin, on 10/12/2007, -4/+1No ***** Sherlock...
  • consonance, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3The responses to these results are boggling my mine.

    1. If what craigj said is true, a survey of this size has a sample error rate of +/-5%. This is not ideal, but for our purposes, let's assume it's accurate. Why are you questioning the participants? Do you question the demographics of every poll you hear about, or do you want to know more because the results aren't what you like?

    2. The question about the price a person would purchase the iPhone is not the question you think it's asking. Here's a better version: At what price level would your consumer surplus from buying the iPhone be equal to zero? Meaning, what do you think the iPhone is worth to you? Only 1% of 26% of survey participants would bu the iPhone at $500. When you do the math, you find that ~1 person thinks the iPhone is worth $500. That means that ~0.264% of people surveyed think the iPhone is worth $500.

    But lo and behold, multiple 0.264% by 300 million, and you get 800,000 people. Add in momentum, and you've got a target audience of millions. Bear in mind that 1-5% of cell phones in the U.S. are smart phones. Now, if only I knew the number of people in the U.S. with cell phones, I'd know what to compare that 800,000 people statistic to.
  • PATSCRU, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4*****, people will pay ANYTHING for consumer electronics...just look at the PS3. Apple just needs to keep doing what they're doing and pretty soon they'll have a PS3 sized success story in the hands of millions of consumers...
    • samssf, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1A PS3 sized success story would be pretty small, wouldn't it?
  • ScrumFritter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I suppose this seems kind of obvious, really. Still, it's a very high end product considering the target of getting 1% of all mobile sales... and as a result, the price is a bit... lucrative. I have to admit, I've wondered why they didn't come out with a smaller phone first, with less functionality, at a lower price - y'know, a sort of iPhone Nano. I can tell you, you'd get a lot more sales with that phone, the kind of phone a teenager (well, average teenager, at least) would buy. It would probably have been the better phone to break into the market with.

    I guess that's the way of Apple though - they wow you with the high end product, the fancy graphics and all that pap, then they reel in more customers when they release a lower end model. Worked with the iPod and the MacBooks... works on me, at the very least - but then, I am, as they say, an Apple Fanboy. :p

    I think the average customer will be more likely to buy an iPhone when there's the 'Nano version', as such. I hope we see that soon, actually. Not long after the iPhones release, surely. That's all this survey says to me, it's out of a lot of peoples range of what they want, or what they'll pay through the nose to get, but I think a lot of us understood that straight away. Personally? If it's is £250, like the $500 dollars price would suggest (despite Apple's track record of royally screwing us Brits) then I think it's very fair. It is, after all, state of the art.
  • robogobo, on 10/12/2007, -2/+0Let's talk AT&T for a second. Cingular made this deal, now it's AT&T. Remember, they're the guys who let Bush tap their customer's phones. Now, starting from there, you'll pay $500, plus a 2 yr contract, plus crappy service, plus slow data. for what? a closed platform blinged Treo.

    I'm a Cingular customer. their service sucks. I get poor voice quality, high latency data, and dropped calls all the time. I used to be a, AT&T wireless customer. They had the worst customer service on the planet and were completely out of touch with their customers needs. Combining the two is horrifying.

    I am an apple fanboy. I was so geeked about the iPhone until I heard all the details. Expensive, no 3rd party apps, and exclusive deal with the worst provider around. No thanks.
  • steve_s, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1No.
  • steve_s, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2By no i mean the iphone cost to much. And i wont switch to at&t. I like cingular way too much :)
    • crveatch, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4I hope you're being puposefully moronic, cause if not let me clue you in, Cingular is now AT&T.
    • samssf, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1In case you've just awoken from an 18 year slumber, AT&T = Cingular.
  • Ratteler, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Just as I have relentlessly bashed Micro$oft, and the Micro$laves who bury the truth about Vista's malevolent DRM while spreading lies about how great every feature knocked off OS X is...

    I have to stand against AT&T, and therefor the iPhone. AT&T are pioneers alright, in tiered Internet and removing our privacy on line.

    Just like M$ they have forgotten who they serve, and should call master. The customer.

    I will not consider an iPhone so long as AT&T is carrier of choice.
  • superkendall, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7The iPhone is the device Palm should have come out with about two years ago.

    Instead, they split efforts between supporting Windows Mobile, and Palm on handsets. With no focus, they were just wandering in the desert. The Palm of old (when they still owned the OS) could have built something just as cool as the iPhone.

    It should be an embarassment to the entire world of cell phone makers that Apple had to build this phone.
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Obviously you haven't been to japan. What they can do in japan with their cell phones would make you want to take a dump on an iPhone. They can stream live TV 24/7 to their phones!!! And that's not THAT expensive of an option, a phone with that plan still goes for less than an iPhone. And that's only the beginning, we're 2-3 years behind japan in cell phone technology.

      Why don't we have that tech here? Price, infrastructure, and market. In japan practically (a huge percentage of) everyone has a phone, some people have many phones with lots of different colors at the same time, and alot of the time, they don't use it as a phone, but rather as email, internet, and camera. Could those companies sell them here, yeah, but we don't have an infrastructure to support it, and most of all, nobody here wants to buy one that does all that, that's why we have Mac's and PC's.
    • logic, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I live in rural New Hampshire and can watch live tv on my windows mobile phone just fine thanks (EVDO + Orb/Slingbox)... but why would I?
  • websurfer, on 10/12/2007, -3/+2OpenMoko is an open source alternative to iPhone.
    http://www.openmoko.org/
  • archcvd, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5go ahead and pretend that it's not "economical" to buy this thing... but don't ***** yourself... when you see your friends with one and you're all starry eyed... your little Nokia[filled in random numbers/letters here] is going to look like a piece of [profanity]....

    Apple is setting the new standard for phones. You can run from apple all you want, but sooner or later... Steve's going to get you (and your money) !

  • richardiscool, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1It won't go down well in the UK... we don't like paying for phones.
    • ScrumFritter, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0True enough. I hope I don't have to get a contract over here. In fact, I'll take my hopes a step further and hope that they make a deal with Virgin. Apple and Virgin just seem like two companies that go great together, plus the customer service (in my experience) can't be beat. (Also, I could use my old SIM card, for the 3rd phone in a row o/).
    • SpacedCowboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I dunno - I bought a Nokia 9000i for £500 when it came out. That's roughly double what the iPhone will cost. For me, it meant I could ssh into a server from the pub rather than running across London when something went wrong. Well worth it.

      I expect to be able to do the same thing with the iPhone - even if I can't develop my own apps, someone will come out with an ssh client. I'm going to get one.

      Simon.
  • inkswamp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1It sounds like Apple did the same research. Steve Jobs himself implied that Apple was shooting for a mere 1% of the market when he unveiled the iPhone as it's an enormous market and even such a small slice would be massive, especially to a newcomer in the field.

    But... with 1% of such a lucrative market, such a product could be considered enough of a success for Apple to get moving on the iPhone Mini/Nano (or some similar spin-off product) that would compete in the lower price range--exactly what they did with the iPod. I remember lots of people (myself included) complaining about the high price of the iPod when it first came out, but Apple was quick to rectify that. I'm betting that by the early '08, there will be several iPhones to pick from, some in the lower price range and Apple will gradually start to take a bigger and bigger piece of the pie.
  • crveatch, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1A poll of this size is way too easy to skew to what ever is the desired outcome. Within just a few hours more people read this poll's results than actually took it.
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1That's true, but assuming the surveyors are honost, i know a big leap. 400 people is more than enough to be certain of results within +-1%, now the problem is this, in a Z style statistical analysis, you assume your sample is random, this sample set was not random, so it's really impossible to know the nature of the Z curve of this sample, it's probably geared pro apple given what the article said, which means that the findings of being too expensive are probably more so than the study projects.
  • ricsad, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1I work at Futureshop and I enjoy using these devices. I looked at the iPhone, but it looks like it's aimed more towards casual users.

    When you compare the iPhone to similar priced PDA's, you'll understand why the iPhone is expensive. People need to understand that the iPhone isn't a new device and that there are alternatives such as Pocket PC's, Palms, Blackberries, and recently an Open Source PDA (which doesn't really look professional).

    Many of our customers thought iPhone was a one-of-a-kind device; as if it was the best phone ever made. But when I told them that Pocket PC phones were in the market way before the iPhone, most of them said "oh yeah, I forgot".
  • derwarnochfrei, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2They have to be "too expensive" at the beginning 'cause the demand will be very high - otherwise they won't be able to deliver.... its so simple.
    • maninblac1, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Obviously demand causes price flucations in supply. But what planet are you living on. Apple will have more than enough phones for everyone who wants to buy one. Just like they do with all their products. Apple never has problems shipping.
      "but they couldn't ship the new mac mini's", -> they said they couldn't ship them, it's bad to sell a product you can't make, ever noticed how apple doesn't do preorders on anything? What better way to forcast demand than to take preorders now you know exactly how much you need to make.

      It's all to give the illusion of high demand.
      "but half of all macs sold in Q4 were not previous mac users", which means that half of all macs sold in Q4 WERE from previous mac owners.
      What does this tell us, apple users buy new apple products when apple releases a really new hot product. Where was the demand to upgrade your macbook on PPC, where each new chip wasn't that much better than the last. Oh! new hot intel chips amazingly fast, it's a worthwhile upgrade this time go go go! See how it works, apple's doing well but they're puffing their chest and flexing their muscles to make sure it looks like they're doing very very well.
  • ebola, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Apple iPhone too expensive" isn't that frickin obvious at $600 a pop? For a phone which doesn't have a replaceable battery? You need a survey to tell us this?
  • amekage, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0I find the iPhone really intriguing, but I have no desire to leave my current provider for Cingular/AT&T. If the iPhone eventually comes to my current provider (with whom I'm quite pleased) I'll happily buy one, even if it is a little pricey...although I certainly wouldn't complain about a price drop.
  • Nysul, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1iphone positives: good camera, lots of memory, good interface
    samsung i760 positives: can install thousands of different windows mobile applications, syncs with outlook

    I'm going to pick up the i760 because I need the apps, but if I didn't I would pick up the iphone. I think they would sell alot more if they lowered the flash to 2gig, added a micro sd slot, and took $100 off the price.
  • monkeyrun, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Study: BMW too expensive.
    • Cronus6, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Study : BMW and Apple owners both smug assholes.
  • Ranker2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3Why buy something that has nothing on the competition nor will be competitive when released. Competitors are already releasing touch screen LCD phones, wi-fi, 3G, EXCHANGE support, etc. Drop it to the $200-250 range and then it'll stand a chance to change the market.

    For now it'll remain an expensive toy for wannabe hipsters to prove themselves to be cool. But of course, this is Digg... battlestations apple fan boys!
    • stevejobs, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1 Similar specs on paper do not properly convey the flow of the OS and the "this is how it should have been done" feeling you get from many Apple products. That's the thing with Apple products. The UI and functionality are well designed.
      I'm not going to try and argue any of this because you have to use the product for a while to really know, and it's not out yet. I know the Rev B will be the one to buy but I suffer from early adopter syndrome.
      I'll will wait for Leo Laporte to buy one first. Since we know his purchases cause price drops and/or product updates!

    • Ranker2, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0If I wanted to buy something with an OS, I'd purchase a computer/laptop. My phone is meant to be a phone, to function as a phone, and to make my life easier. Swirling pictures, 2-handed dialing, and lack of major standards does not make my life any easier and therefore does not justify the cost. I want to dial with one hand and perform phone duties with being forced to use strict hand motions. Apple got the MP3 player right with its shuffle and nano, but not the video imo.

      Like I said above, give me 3G and Wi-fi like the competitors for my net access needs at great speeds. Give me Exchange support for us business/health care/government workers. Give me the ability to swap batteries instead of having to buy a new phone or get it serviced (for those of us who've purchased Ipods, we know this basically costs the same amount). Give 3rd party software devs a dev kit. Drop the price to $200 and then you've got us sold. It'll be a moderately priced toy phone for the average technophile/teenager/hipster to enjoy. But it's current pricing puts it in the range of smartphones when it lacks all the major things smartphones already have.

      As it stands right now, this is just an expensive toy for apple fan boys to prove their fealty to Lord Steve Jobs or for the rich trust-fund babies to show off their wealth.
  • AimlessAbyss, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I can see why people think it's expensive. You could actually buy a PS3 with the Blu-Ray player built in, instead of a video/music/photos/phone/internet device. Not to promote Sony or anything, but I'd rather get a PS3 than an iPhone at these prices.
  • Radan, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2"Study: Apple X 'too expensive'"

    It's interesting how the history has a thing for repeating itself. iPod anyone?
  • Nameless1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2In other news, the sun is hot.
  • FRAGaLOT, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3I'd rather save my $600 and NOT get either a PS3 or an iPhone, and save it towards a new HDTV.

    Apple is banking on the fact that the Apple zealots will spend $1000 on anything made by Apple. But who figgin cares anyway, it's just a phone. If it wasn't branded by Apple no one would give rats ass.

    Only reason why the iPod got popular was because some celebrity was seen having one years ago, and it grew into a trend. It's not like Apple invented mp3 players, Diamond (Rio) did back in the 90s, yet everyone seems to think Apple invented mp3's and portable players. Hopefully people are stupid enough that; after 10 years of people using iPhones that Apple invented them.
  • dankCIA, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3yes the iphone is too expensive. yes the every apple fanboi will buy one even if it costs $500-$600.

    one major thing that everyone seems to be glancing over, besides bitching about switching to cingular (as if it were worse than verizon or tmobile), is that the cost of your cellphone bill is going to be insane if you want to be able to utilize all the great features on this phone. The costs of a minute plan as well as text messages and or a data plan can easily put your monthly bill into triple digits.

    i love new technology as much as anyone else, but i don't see the iphone being as huge as its hype. it is already being imitated. and as with current cellphones - people are NOT brand loyal. Look at all the razr knock offs just to mention one instance. people like the idea of the iphone and will jump on the much cheaper knock offs because you would have to be smoking crack to pay 600$ for a damn phone. As much as anyone says it will, the iphone will never replace a computer or your mp3 player. Phones have failed miserably at trying to be an all-in-one device. Think about yourself and your phone - many of us have phones that can easily surf the web or play mp3s but we still carry our phone AND our mp3 players AND our laptops. We buy phones to talk on, yes it's nice it can do other things but you will never have a device that multi tasks things as well as a device who's sole purpose is ONE thing.
  • thepagman, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0STUDY: no *****.
  • Niallgriff, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Apple sucks
  • 4eloBek, on 10/12/2007, -1/+0hype for nothing... waste of money tbo imo..
  • StephenCIreland, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1he explained the device costs, qhy it costs that much combined, and for me (imate jasjar $999) this aint bad
  • morphie, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Too expensive for what? For getting the (by Apple) expected market share of 1%? I mean, come on. Apple is very clear about it's expectations. This study seems to be based on an expectation that the iPhone will be as popular as the iPod.... but it won't be as popular. As I said, Apple's expected market share is 1%.
  • blakespot, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This is the stupidest poll ever:

    Online markeet research firm Compete Inc. has reportedly run one of the the most ridiculous and pointless surveys of all time. The group polled 379 individuals, most of whom were aware of the iPhone, to gauge their interest in the forthcoming product.

    We warn you, the results are disturbing. 26% of the respondents indicated that they are likely to purchase the iPhone, but only 1% of these people indicated that they would pay the $500 price of the low-end unit.

    The message here is clear - and sobering. One out of four people do not factor a basic and core consideration: the price of a product, into their decision making process as regards whether or not to purchase said product. We're not sure if it's something in the water, or maybe video games or too much TV that's to blame. Whatever the case, we really wish we hadn't seen this survey.

    http://www.ipodhacks.com/article.php?sid=2145
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 74 of 74 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.