|
Posted by Joseph Singer on June 15, 2008, 11:07 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
(Edited to make sources of quaoted material more clear - bh)
Lisa Hancock recently wrote:
>> But as Jobs neglected to mention, getting your hands on a new
>> iPhone will mean signing, at the moment of purchase, a two-year
>> AT&T contract. Tough news for the free iPhone movement.
> Would you rather pay the full retail price necessary to eliminate the
> contract commitment? I doubt it. Of course, if you like toys, you
> could always develop such a phone yourself, right?
> Sorry fellow, but there's no such thing as a free lunch.>>
Evidently you were not aware of the terms which you had to accept to
get V.1 of the iPhone. For the privilege of paying $600 up front you
were obliged to AT&T for two years paying at least $1,440 over the
course of two years with no particular benefit to you other than being
one of the first adopters to get this wunderfone.
Even with the "new and improved" 3G iphone it won't be any better for
the buyer. Sure, you'll be able to get it for $200 with the actual
cost subsidized by AT&T but instead of paying $60 for service which
also includes 200 text messages included you'll be paying $70 ($1,680
for a two year term) with no text message allowance and to get the
same level of service you'll have to buy a text message package for $5
a month so you won't be paying "just" $70 you'll be paying $75 ($1,800
over two years) to get the same level of service.
Sounds to me like nobody got any "free lunch."
|
  | |
Posted by on June 15, 2008, 5:02 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> Evidently you were not aware of the terms which you had to accept to
> get V.1 of the iPhone. For the privilege of paying $600 up front you
> were obliged to AT&T for two years paying at least $1,440 over the
> course of two years with no particular benefit to you other than being
> one of the first adopters to get this wunderfone.
Thanks for the clarification.
But I still have no sympathy for the Slate article writer. I still
felt his comparisons to the old Ma Bell were inaccurate and
irrelevent.
Frankly, i fail to see what a phone could possibly offer to justify
its high cost. If someone is willing to pay the money for the phone,
fine, go and enjoy, but no one is forcing you; it is clearly a luxury
item, not a necessity.
To me, it's like complaining about the costs or sales terms of a high
end automobile (e.g. $40,000 on up), when one can get a very nice car
for much less.
***** Moderator's Note *****
I think the underlying idea is that "they" (the big telcos, the big
manufacturers, etc.) will offer services and/or advantages with
"their" products, that "everyone" will "have to have one" in order to
be considered a serious professional.
If enough users believe it, then it becomes a self-fulfilling
prophecy. If enough users shake their heads and laugh, then it becomes
more marketing background noise.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
(Please put [Telecom] at the end of the subject line of your post, or
I may never see it. Thanks!)
|
|
Posted by Geoffrey Welsh on June 16, 2008, 12:53 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options > ***** Moderator's Note *****
> I think the underlying idea is that "they" (the big telcos, the big
> manufacturers, etc.) will offer services and/or advantages with
> "their" products, that "everyone" will "have to have one" in order to
> be considered a serious professional.
>
> If enough users believe it, then it becomes a self-fulfilling
> prophecy. If enough users shake their heads and laugh, then it becomes
> more marketing background noise.
Just to emphasize Bill's point, back in the early '90s the owner of the
company where I worked told me that we needed a web page. We didn't, I
explained, because we don't sell anything online or mail order, and no one
would buy our high-end products based on an online brochure. Doesn't matter,
he replied: at sales pitches people ask for your web site address and, if you
don't have one, they think you're nobody... even if they have no intention of
visiting the web site. Same as years earlier, he went on, when people asked
for your FAX number.
I can see a day when people in industries will need to brandish mobile data
devices to get any technical respect, and executives will have to show off a
stylish device such as an iPhone.
--
Geoffrey Welsh <Geoffrey [dot] Welsh [at] bigfoot [dot] com>
***** Moderator's Note *****
Not necessarily: there are as many factors working against such
devices becoming status symbols as are pushing for it.
First, and foremost, the population is aging: we're all getting older
and wiser. At a certain point in our lives, we realize that the only
thing money can really buy is _time_, and we start paying to get more
of it to ourselves. Portable electronic devices are, in effect, an
electronic leash which binds us to our desks and our jobs more
effectively than a ball and chain - but an older and wiser group of
corporate bureaucrats knows that the important people are the ones on
the _other_ end of the line.
Second, consultants and other efficiency experts are already advising
corporations to limit their employee's exposure to email and web,
because it's becoming common knowledge that both waste huge amount of
time. Some corporations are already embargoing emails for delivery
only once per day, or even once or twice per week: they are, in
effect, returning to the "good old days" when employees were expected
- and had the time to - think before they responded to a customer's
inquiry.
In the end, a status symbol can't be ubiquitous, which is why the rich
and powerful take great pains to _avoid_ being bothered by all the
beeping, snarling, buzzing electronic wasps that now plague us during
every waking moment. If everyone has one, then it can't be a symbol of
status, quod erat demonstrandum.
The young and imprssionable have grown up without the quiet we older
types once enjoyed, and they may be customers for every irritating
device Steve Jobs offers, and that sort of "gotta have it" mindset is
_exactly_ what Apple et al are trying to encourage. But the more they
buy, the less cachet attaches to them. You heard it here first: the
status symbol of the future might just be an answering machine.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
(Please put [Telecom] at the end of the subject line of your post, or
I may never see it. Thanks!)
|
|
Posted by Geoffrey Welsh on June 16, 2008, 7:27 pm
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options >In the end, a status symbol can't be ubiquitous
It's not about having a status symbol like, say, a Ferrari. It's about
something being viewed as a sign of professionalism or preparedness. As I
was told all those years ago, if you didn't have a FAX machine at one point,
potential customers inferred that you were running a penny-ante business, and
web pages were gaining the same status.
We'll see whether the marketing people convince 'us' that the same is true of
mobile data solutions.
--
Geoffrey Welsh <Geoffrey [dot] Welsh [at] bigfoot [dot] com>
.
|
|
Posted by on June 17, 2008, 7:36 am
If you were Registered and logged in, you could reply and use other advanced thread options
> ***** Moderator's Note *****
> The young and imprssionable have grown up without the quiet we older
> types once enjoyed, and they may be customers for every irritating
> device Steve Jobs offers, and that sort of "gotta have it" mindset is
> _exactly_ what Apple et al are trying to encourage. But the more they
> buy, the less cachet attaches to them. You heard it here first: the
> status symbol of the future might just be an answering machine.
You make excellent points. Indeed, I myself [am] just not answering the
phone anymore and letting the answering machine do it. Part of it is
that many calls are solicitors or surveys that I don't want to deal
with. Part of it is I just want 'me' time.
But every generation thinks its [youth] doesn't have the quiet they
enjoyed. When I was growing up the telephone was everywhere. That
is, almost every home had service and most middle class homes had
extensions throughout the house, some with multiple lines. Businesses
had extensions throughout their building, and a PA system to page
people. We didn't have electronics, but we did have secretaries who
would hunt people down to take a call.
As kids, we wanted our own phones. If cell phones were available we
would've grabbed them. A friend of mine got a job as a driver [for]
someone who had a mobile phone in the [car] and we were all jealous.
My generation also had television and transistor radios that were
always on. We also embraced high end stereo music, blasting out of
multi-story sized speakers.
My parents' generation came to have phones and even years ago they
were seen as a potential source of annoyance and an invasion. They
also had radio in a big way.
The prior generation came from the farm to the city to escape the
rural isolation. But the city, especially with people packed in
housing, had lots of noises on the street.
***** Moderator's Note *****
The point I'm trying to make is that we're all realizing that we can't
make everybody else happy at our expense, and for a while that's what
we were trying to do. Staying constantly in touch with the world means
that the world gets to grope you any time it pleases, and while that
might be exciting for some, it's just not the way normal people live.
We don't just need "Me" time (although there's precious little of
that), we also need "Just Us" time: time for our spouses, our
families, and out friends. For the past ~20 years, corporations have
been expecting their employees to give up that time and put their
shoulders to a grindstone which has become a Sisyphean rock.
Bill Horne
Temporary Moderator
(Please put [Telecom] at the end of the subject line of your post, or
I may never see it. Thanks!)
|
| Similar Threads | Posted | | Mergers do not Equal Monopolies in Telecom World | July 29, 2005, 8:28 pm |
| APPLE-SA-2008-09-12 iPhone v2.1 [Telecom] | September 14, 2008, 10:10 am |
| BlackBerry's Quest: Fend Off the iPhone [Telecom] | April 28, 2008, 1:08 am |
| Big problems between AT&T and Apple at 3G iPhone launch [Telecom] | July 11, 2008, 3:36 pm |
| Apple iPhone 2.0 VPN Connectivity to Cisco Adaptive Security Appliances (ASA) [Telecom] | October 13, 2008, 10:33 am |
| So Maybe Apple Was onto Something / Rivals trying to come up with an iPhone slayer will need more than fancy features to outdo the leader [Telecom] | April 22, 2008, 12:15 am |
| iPhone TV Ads | June 4, 2007, 9:35 am |
| iPhone Ads | July 2, 2007, 2:08 am |
| New iPhone Is Already Here | June 1, 2008, 10:55 am |
| Apple iPhone | January 9, 2007, 2:32 pm |
|
|
![Re: Monopolies and iPhone [Telecom]](/images/header.jpg)
Yahoo! 
Google 
Windows Live 
del.icio.us 
digg 
Netscape 
XML site map