|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Cingular cell phone service > June 2007 > NEWS: Apple iPhone, not yet for sale, drives stock
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
NEWS: Apple iPhone, not yet for sale, drives stock
|
|
| John Navas 2007-06-10, 10:33 am |
| <http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4088236a6026.html>
Apple Inc has not yet sold a single iPhone, but investors are driving
up the company's shares to record highs as they bank that the
combined telephone and media player will be a major hit.
A slew of brokerages from UBS to Piper Jaffray are raising their
targets on Apple's stock to as much as $US160 ($NZ216) - equivalent
to about 40 times its expected fiscal 2008 profit.
That's high for a stock that has traded at multiples in the low 30s
the past couple of years.
The new target multiples, coming after the stock has already risen
nearly 30 per cent since the iPhone was unveiled in January, implies
that analysts see the new gadget as a break-out product for Apple
when it is launched on June 29.
Credit Suisse analyst Robert Semple forecast the iPhone could carry a
gross margin of at least 40 per cent, higher than overall margins at
Apple, which topped 35 per cent last quarter due in part to a drop in
component prices.
Earlier this week, Semple said in a research note the device could
sell 5 million units this year and 15 million in 2008 as people
overlook the hefty price tag in favor of the promised new features.
Skeptics say the product's success is far from guaranteed, noting
concerns over the lofty $US500-$US600 price tag, lack of a keyboard,
and the fact that it is restricted to use on AT&T Corp's wireless
network.
[MORE]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-10, 12:33 pm |
| On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:55:32 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
><http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/4088236a6026.html>
>
> Apple Inc has not yet sold a single iPhone, but investors are driving
> up the company's shares to record highs as they bank that the
> combined telephone and media player will be a major hit.
Not at retailm but rest assured AT&T has contracted already fir a
large number.
>
> A slew of brokerages from UBS to Piper Jaffray are raising their
> targets on Apple's stock to as much as $US160 ($NZ216) - equivalent
> to about 40 times its expected fiscal 2008 profit.
>
> That's high for a stock that has traded at multiples in the low 30s
> the past couple of years.
Wrong its been steadily tising due to success of iPods, and increased
Markwt share for profitible macintosh computers.
>
> The new target multiples, coming after the stock has already risen
> nearly 30 per cent since the iPhone was unveiled in January, implies
> that analysts see the new gadget as a break-out product for Apple
> when it is launched on June 29.
>
> Credit Suisse analyst Robert Semple forecast the iPhone could carry a
> gross margin of at least 40 per cent, higher than overall margins at
> Apple, which topped 35 per cent last quarter due in part to a drop in
> component prices.
>
> Earlier this week, Semple said in a research note the device could
> sell 5 million units this year and 15 million in 2008 as people
> overlook the hefty price tag in favor of the promised new features.
>
> Skeptics say the product's success is far from guaranteed, noting
> concerns over the lofty $US500-$US600 price tag, lack of a keyboard,
> and the fact that it is restricted to use on AT&T Corp's wireless
> network.
>
> [MORE]
The iPhone must certainly has a keyboard, a creen of its touch screen.
| |
|
| In article < 22do635rad9ogpumg0e0
kb4ma31rqr4r0q@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:55:32 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not at retailm but rest assured AT&T has contracted already fir a
> large number.
>
>
> Wrong its been steadily tising due to success of iPods, and increased
> Markwt share for profitible macintosh computers.
>
>
>
> The iPhone must certainly has a keyboard, a creen of its touch screen.
I'l tell you - nerds be damned - the iPhone will kick some serious XXX
despite the naysayers.
Announcement by Apple yesterday or today that third party developers
will be allowed to write programs.
My only fear is that Cingular/ATT will gouge for data services. That
will kill sales more than anything else. As long as Apple keeps them in
line with this, all will be good.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-12, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:02:17 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-D5914E.19021711062007@news.giganews.com>:
>Announcement by Apple yesterday or today that third party developers
>will be allowed to write programs.
Not quite -- they will only be allowed to write more limited browser
applets.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-12, 4:33 am |
| On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:02:17 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
wrote:
>In article < 22do635rad9ogpumg0e0
kb4ma31rqr4r0q@4ax.com>,
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>I'l tell you - nerds be damned - the iPhone will kick some serious XXX
>despite the naysayers.
>
>Announcement by Apple yesterday or today that third party developers
>will be allowed to write programs.
NOPE, same as PDA's: $39.99 for unlimited data.
>
>My only fear is that Cingular/ATT will gouge for data services. That
>will kill sales more than anything else. As long as Apple keeps them in
>line with this, all will be good.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-12, 4:33 am |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:37:57 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:02:17 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
>in <labolide-D5914E.19021711062007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
>Not quite -- they will only be allowed to write more limited browser
>applets.
Brilliant discovery John, posted only 8 hours after I posted that
fact.
As on the Apple website:
iPhone to Support Third-Party Web 2.0 Applications
When it begins shipping on June 29, the revolutionary iPhone will run
applications created with Web 2.0 Internet standards Apple today
announced that developers can create Web 2.0 applications that look
and behave just like the applications built into iPhone and that can
seamlessly access iPhone’s services. That includes making a phone
call, sending an email and displaying a location in Google Maps.
Third-party applications created using Web 2.0 standards can extend
iPhone’s capabilities without compromising its reliability or
security. [Jun 11, 2007]
| |
| George Kerby 2007-06-12, 10:33 am |
|
On 6/10/07 12:28 PM, in article 22do635rad9ogpumg0e0
kb4ma31rqr4r0q@4ax.com,
" karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net" < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 10 Jun 2007 14:55:32 GMT, John Navas
> < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
> Not at retailm but rest assured AT&T has contracted already fir a
> large number.
>
>
> Wrong its been steadily tising due to success of iPods, and increased
> Markwt share for profitible macintosh computers.
>
>
>
> The iPhone must certainly has a keyboard, a creen of its touch screen.
Does it have a spell-checker?
| |
|
| In article < ucos63l8jopr2rs2n8a4
2jqig99e067m38@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
[color=darkred]
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:02:17 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> NOPE, same as PDA's: $39.99 for unlimited data.
>
>
I'd like to see in line with the MediaNet $20 unlimited _ I've got that
on my Treo.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
|
| In article < p8js639hjc3scg4sb2qe
1b6jhujoufu4pl@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jun 2007 19:02:17 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-D5914E.19021711062007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> Not quite -- they will only be allowed to write more limited browser
> applets.
But that's nit picking.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-12, 10:33 am |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:06:47 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< 3fos631sfe17bf3u8933
vde5a2kikmrem6@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:37:57 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Brilliant discovery John, posted only 8 hours after I posted that
>fact.
Not that it matters, but my post was actually well before yours.
>As on the Apple website:
>
>iPhone to Support Third-Party Web 2.0 Applications
>
>When it begins shipping on June 29, the revolutionary iPhone will run
>applications created with Web 2.0 Internet standards Apple today
>announced that developers can create Web 2.0 applications that look
>and behave just like the applications built into iPhone and that can
>seamlessly access iPhone’s services. That includes making a phone
>call, sending an email and displaying a location in Google Maps.
>Third-party applications created using Web 2.0 standards can extend
>iPhone’s capabilities without compromising its reliability or
>security. [Jun 11, 2007]
"Apple Underwhelms"
<http://www.forbes.com/technology/20...
are.html>
Jobs described the decision to allow developers to create Web-based
applications for the iPhone as a "sweet story," and used Google as an
example of a company whose products are able to succeed purely via a
Web browser.
He didn't convince the crowd. "This is almost no story," said Apple
software developer Wolf Rentzsch. "I didn't even think they could
offer us so little."
Rentzsch and most other developers wanted to be able to program
software that could be installed on the iPhone and take advantage of
its operating system. Failing that, they had hoped to be able to run
"plug-ins" in the Web-based programs they could develop for the
iPhone (see "Developers To Jobs: Give Me My iPhone").
<http://www.forbes.com/home/wireless..._0608apple.html>
[MORE]
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Kurt wrote:
> I'l tell you - nerds be damned - the iPhone will kick some serious XXX
> despite the naysayers.
Like most products, the first version has some issues and should be
avoided, but Apple will quickly be rolling out new versions that correct
the shortcomings of the original, including support for 3G.
Not every product Apple releases is successful, despite the iPod's
success. Just look at AppleTV!
> Announcement by Apple yesterday or today that third party developers
> will be allowed to write programs.
Unfortunately, this turned out not to be really true. See the CNET
story, "Apple opens iPhone to developers--kind of" at
"http://tinyurl.com/24jcsh".
> My only fear is that Cingular/ATT will gouge for data services. That
> will kill sales more than anything else. As long as Apple keeps them in
> line with this, all will be good.
It's all relative. I'm hoping that we're about to reach the situation
where DSL was a few years ago, where the RBOCs dropped the bottom out of
DSL pricing in order to increase the market penetration. In that case
they were battling against broadband cable, as well as trying to seed
the market for IPTV, but maybe with Cingular and Verizon they'll drop
the pricing before Sprint deploys WiMax.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:36:49 -0500, George Kerby
< ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>On 6/10/07 12:28 PM, in article 22do635rad9ogpumg0e0
kb4ma31rqr4r0q@4ax.com,
>" karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net" < karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net> wrote:
>
>Does it have a spell-checker?
When you use Google's Web based apps, it sure will.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:43:56 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 04:06:47 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< 3fos631sfe17bf3u8933
vde5a2kikmrem6@4ax.com>:
>
>
>Not that it matters, but my post was actually well before yours.
>
No your earlier post was onlythatt 3rd party apps would exist,
My post that beat yours by 8 hours was that those apps would only be
Web 2.0 apps inside Safari.
And of course being John navas you'd NEVEr apologize for being wrong,
buts thats why people hate you.
>
>"Apple Underwhelms"
><http://www.forbes.com/technology/20...
are.html>
>
> Jobs described the decision to allow developers to create Web-based
> applications for the iPhone as a "sweet story," and used Google as an
> example of a company whose products are able to succeed purely via a
> Web browser.
>
> He didn't convince the crowd. "This is almost no story," said Apple
> software developer Wolf Rentzsch. "I didn't even think they could
> offer us so little."
>
> Rentzsch and most other developers wanted to be able to program
> software that could be installed on the iPhone and take advantage of
> its operating system. Failing that, they had hoped to be able to run
> "plug-ins" in the Web-based programs they could develop for the
> iPhone (see "Developers To Jobs: Give Me My iPhone").
><http://www.forbes.com/home/wireless..._0608apple.html>
>
> [MORE]
| |
|
| In article < 466ecd1e$0$27189$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> Kurt wrote:
>
>
> Like most products, the first version has some issues and should be
> avoided, but Apple will quickly be rolling out new versions that correct
> the shortcomings of the original, including support for 3G.
>
> Not every product Apple releases is successful, despite the iPod's
> success. Just look at AppleTV!
It's also not for everyone. I love Mac products, but I don't need one.
The iPhone is an elegant way to give the ordinary person a phone with
web and music. Apple knows how to make a great intuitive user interface
- something all the current phone makers fall flat on their faces with.
>
>
> Unfortunately, this turned out not to be really true. See the CNET
> story, "Apple opens iPhone to developers--kind of" at
> "http://tinyurl.com/24jcsh".
>
>
> It's all relative. I'm hoping that we're about to reach the situation
> where DSL was a few years ago, where the RBOCs dropped the bottom out of
> DSL pricing in order to increase the market penetration. In that case
> they were battling against broadband cable, as well as trying to seed
> the market for IPTV, but maybe with Cingular and Verizon they'll drop
> the pricing before Sprint deploys WiMax.
Anything to level the playing field. $40 is still too much for data -
especially when you're paying for airtime to access that data.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 941u639vvuu6a19pmenb
6gt45dhdv93soc@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:36:49 -0500, George Kerby
> < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote:
>
>
> When you use Google's Web based apps, it sure will.
Can you possibly trim your posts?
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 941u639vvuu6a19pmenb
6gt45dhdv93soc@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:36:49 -0500, George Kerby
> < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote:
>
>
> When you use Google's Web based apps, it sure will.
Because it's RUDE to quote everything and respond with one line.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 941u639vvuu6a19pmenb
6gt45dhdv93soc@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 07:36:49 -0500, George Kerby
> < ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote:
>
>
> When you use Google's Web based apps, it sure will.
Got it?
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:00:33 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-B8D3A5.14003312062007@news.giganews.com>:
>Anything to level the playing field. $40 is still too much for data -
>especially when you're paying for airtime to access that data.
You're _not_ paying for airtime to access that data.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:39:58 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< 941u639vvuu6a19pmenb
6gt45dhdv93soc@4ax.com>:
>
>When you use Google's Web based apps, it sure will.
Only when online, a serious limitation, and not a terribly good spell
checker.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:39:15 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< a01u639vkpo9nfvek4de
7tv3nv7becv63b@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 14:43:56 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>No your earlier post was onlythatt 3rd party apps would exist,
>My post that beat yours by 8 hours was that those apps would only be
>Web 2.0 apps inside Safari.
Not that it matters, but that's not correct.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:21:28 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:39:15 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< a01u639vkpo9nfvek4de
7tv3nv7becv63b@4ax.com>:
>
>
>
>Not that it matters, but that's not correct.
Why did I know you'd lie?
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:16:45 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article < 941u639vvuu6a19pmenb
6gt45dhdv93soc@4ax.com>,
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>Can you possibly trim your posts?
It's good USENET etiquette to selectively SNIP a post
one is responding to. That's a Navas trick.
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:20:49 GMT, John Navas
< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 20:39:58 GMT, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
>< 941u639vvuu6a19pmenb
6gt45dhdv93soc@4ax.com>:
>
>
>Only when online, a serious limitation, and not a terribly good spell
>checker.
Sum of usns are colige gradu8tes dont realli nede a spele chicker.
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < g65u63t4fc65dfj5a98f
ggogu9ge3g9vvl@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:16:45 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's good USENET etiquette to selectively SNIP a post
> one is responding to. That's a Navas trick.
Quoting everything for one line?
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < g65u63t4fc65dfj5a98f
ggogu9ge3g9vvl@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:16:45 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's good USENET etiquette to selectively SNIP a post
> one is responding to. That's a Navas trick.
Or selectively snipping a post?
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < g65u63t4fc65dfj5a98f
ggogu9ge3g9vvl@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:16:45 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's good USENET etiquette to selectively SNIP a post
> one is responding to. That's a Navas trick.
Either way, you don't know anything
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < g65u63t4fc65dfj5a98f
ggogu9ge3g9vvl@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:16:45 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's good USENET etiquette to selectively SNIP a post
> one is responding to. That's a Navas trick.
Get the picture?
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < g65u63t4fc65dfj5a98f
ggogu9ge3g9vvl@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:16:45 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's good USENET etiquette to selectively SNIP a post
> one is responding to. That's a Navas trick.
Or are you just being lazy?
| |
| Elmo P. Shagnasty 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| In article < g65u63t4fc65dfj5a98f
ggogu9ge3g9vvl@4ax.com>,
karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
> On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 17:16:45 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
> <elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> It's good USENET etiquette to selectively SNIP a post
> one is responding to. That's a Navas trick.
Either way, get the picture?
| |
| karlkrandall@sbcglobal.net 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 19:03:15 -0400, "Elmo P. Shagnasty"
<elmop@nastydesigns.com> wrote:
>In article < g65u63t4fc65dfj5a98f
ggogu9ge3g9vvl@4ax.com>,
> karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote:
>
>
>Quoting everything for one line?
Surely more mature than childish repeating 6 times like a 4 year old
in a snit.
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-12, 10:33 pm |
| On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 16:48:25 -0500, karlkrandall@sbcglob
al.net wrote in
< k45u635bb4n71ueo0dov
oerisr49s550f1@4ax.com>:
>On Tue, 12 Jun 2007 21:21:28 GMT, John Navas
>< spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>
>Why did I know you'd lie?
Why did I know you'd be a jerk?
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| Kurt wrote:
> My only fear is that Cingular/ATT will gouge for data services. That
> will kill sales more than anything else.
It might appear so. That $59.95/mo unlimited data plan isn't shown anymore
on the data connection card pages.
| |
|
|
|
| John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 04:26:27 GMT, DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob>
> wrote in <TlKbi.16431$296.69@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
>
> It actually still is:
> <http://www.wireless.att.com/busines...-comp-table.jsp>
http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...nnect-plans.jsp
Data Connect (10MB) $29.99
PDA Personal 20 MB $34.99
PDA Connect (Unlimited) $44.99
PDA Personal Max with 1500 Messages $44.99
PDA Personal Max with 1500 Messages w/UNLIMITED M2M Messaging $49.99
Data Connect (Unlimited) $79.99 Unlimited
Data Connect (Unlimited) w/Wi-Fi $99.99
| |
|
| Kurt wrote:
> My only fear is that Cingular/ATT will gouge for data services. That
> will kill sales more than anything else. As long as Apple keeps them in
> line with this, all will be good.
I don't think Apple would have allowed gouging in their agreement.
Perhaps the reason the iPhone is not 3G is so AT&T has a way to offer a
lower cost, lower speed, data plan for the iPhone without dropping the
price for using the 3G HSDPA network.
| |
|
| In article <TlKbi.16431$296.69@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
> Kurt wrote:
>
> It might appear so. That $59.95/mo unlimited data plan isn't shown anymore
> on the data connection card pages.
Data plans are still way too high.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:11:03 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-A1038C.08110313062007@news.giganews.com>:
>In article <TlKbi.16431$296.69@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
> DTC < no_spam@move_along_f
olks.foob> wrote:
>
>
>Data plans are still way too high.
For what? For you? Many people obviously don't think so, since they
buy and use them. If the price were really too high, then demand would
drop, and the price might well come down.
I personally think the price isn't unreasonable for "unlimited" data,
but that what's missing is a middle tier data plan that's cheaper than
"unlimited" but much more affordable than the current bottom tier plans.
The problem is that consumers _hate_ metered plans (with good reason),
so it probably wouldn't get much uptake.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 12:33 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 07:49:36 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in < 467003ea$0$27163$742
ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Kurt wrote:
>
>
>I don't think Apple would have allowed gouging in their agreement.
>Perhaps the reason the iPhone is not 3G is so AT&T has a way to offer a
>lower cost, lower speed, data plan for the iPhone without dropping the
>price for using the 3G HSDPA network.
Makes no sense, since AT&T/Cingular doesn't distinguish between EGPRS
and UMTS/HSDPA in any of its data packages.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
| |
|
| In article < mj3073lgns3usfgt4ebb
srmeehkhrv3k9d@4ax.com>,
John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 08:11:03 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
> in <labolide-A1038C.08110313062007@news.giganews.com>:
>
>
> For what? For you? Many people obviously don't think so, since they
> buy and use them. If the price were really too high, then demand would
> drop, and the price might well come down.
>
> I personally think the price isn't unreasonable for "unlimited" data,
> but that what's missing is a middle tier data plan that's cheaper than
> "unlimited" but much more affordable than the current bottom tier plans.
> The problem is that consumers _hate_ metered plans (with good reason),
> so it probably wouldn't get much uptake.
I agree that a middle tier is needed. I just don't use my Treo that
much, but when I do, I use data most of the time. Not enough to warrant
the "unlimited" expense (though now that I have the unlimited MediaNet
for $20, it's not bad- but I don't even see it on their chart anymore).
5MB is too small these days -then all you need to do is go over
slightly, and the giant charge shows up on your bill.
I guess I should thank the Gods for still allowing me to have the $20
MediaNet on my Treo.
--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-13, 12:33 pm |
| At 13 Jun 2007 08:11:03 -0700 Kurt wrote:
> Data plans are still way too high.
Depends on your POV, I guess. Cellular had limited bandwidth compared to
fixed proiders, so I think $60/month for unlimited with "mobility" is
reasonable vs., say, $40 for home DSL/cable.
Arguments that wireless data is a "rip off" because it costs more than
DSL or cable are specious given the differences in the types of service-
it's like comparing the cost of supermarket food vs. a restaurant meal-
they're apples and oranges.
| |
| Todd Allcock 2007-06-13, 12:33 pm |
| At 13 Jun 2007 07:49:36 -0700 SMS wrote:
> I don't think Apple would have allowed gouging in their agreement.
Then why are they charging $600 for it? (insert rimshot here...)
Seriously, given the barrier to entry, AT&T won't be giving away data-
that's for sure.
> Perhaps the reason the iPhone is not 3G is so AT&T has a way to offer
> a lower cost, lower speed, data plan for the iPhone without dropping
> the price for using the 3G HSDPA network.
Speed has not been a pricing factor in the past, why now? A GPRS PDA
phone like an 8125 pays $40 sames as a 3G one like an 8525.
I suspect the iPhone will be considered a PDA phone for pricing purposes
and be charged $40/month for data.
| |
| John Navas 2007-06-13, 3:33 pm |
| On Wed, 13 Jun 2007 09:45:46 -0700, Kurt <labolide@spacegmail.com> wrote
in <labolide-5EE6BB.09454613062007@news.giganews.com>:
>In article < mj3073lgns3usfgt4ebb
srmeehkhrv3k9d@4ax.com>,
> John Navas < spamfilter1@navasgro
up.com> wrote:
>
>I agree that a middle tier is needed. I just don't use my Treo that
>much, but when I do, I use data most of the time. Not enough to warrant
>the "unlimited" expense (though now that I have the unlimited MediaNet
>for $20, it's not bad- but I don't even see it on their chart anymore).
>5MB is too small these days -then all you need to do is go over
>slightly, and the giant charge shows up on your bill.
Unlimited data is still available for $20/mo-- see MEdia Max 200 Bundle
<http://www.wireless.att.com/cell-ph...atId=cat1470003>
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/ Cingu...less_FA
Q>
|
|
|
|
|