different prices?

Mar 7, 2007
16
0
0
#1
considering that it has already been confirmed that they are making an iPhone with 3G capability, do you think this iPhone at launch will be a lower price in June, or they will launch at announced price and lower the price of the iPhone without 3G, either way with a profit of $300 on each and a 3G enabled version, a price drop is inevitable.
 

wot_fan

New Member
Silver
Mar 7, 2007
586
0
0
48
Chicagoland
web.mac.com
#2
A 3G version was announced during the keynote. A time frame for its release was not. If you haven't had a chance to watch the keynote, I recommend you visit Apple's site and watch it. IMO, it is well worth the time.

What makes you think that Apple is making $300 on each iPhone? If you are referring to iSuppli's Analysis, take it with a huge grain of salt. You have to keep in mind that they are guessing on what components are in the iPhone. Even if they are right as far as the component cost, that does not take into consideration the money spent on R&D. According to Apple, it took over two and a half years to develop the iPhone. That cost has to be included in the price of the iPhone. There are other factors which add to the cost as well. Just be aware that the component cost is only one piece of the puzzle.

Basically what I am saying is I doubt that the future release of a 3G version or the component cost will cause Apple to release the iPhone at a lower price point than they have announced. The may do it for other reasons though. We can only wait and hope ;).


considering that it has already been confirmed that they are making an iPhone with 3G capability, do you think this iPhone at launch will be a lower price in June, or they will launch at announced price and lower the price of the iPhone without 3G, either way with a profit of $300 on each and a 3G enabled version, a price drop is inevitable.
 

Kabeyun

Member
Silver
Jan 10, 2007
665
0
16
Northeast US
#3
A 3G version was announced during the keynote.
Didn't Steve mention that the Cingular/GSM partnership would let them develop a 3G phone? I didn't think he went so far as to announce it. (I don't have the energy to sit through the whole keynote again just to check.)

-K
 

wot_fan

New Member
Silver
Mar 7, 2007
586
0
0
48
Chicagoland
web.mac.com
#4
Didn't Steve mention that the Cingular/GSM partnership would let them develop a 3G phone? I didn't think he went so far as to announce it. (I don't have the energy to sit through the whole keynote again just to check.)

-K
Maybe announce was the wrong word. I have the podcast version of the keynote. I will post the exact wording Steve used later (after I get home from work), but from memory he said that a 3G version was being developed.
 

Kabeyun

Member
Silver
Jan 10, 2007
665
0
16
Northeast US
#5
a 3G version was being developed.
That certainly does seem to be the buzz, driven by a trickle of information, a knowledge of existing technology, wishful thinking (myself included), and a healthy rumor mill.

An interesting offset is that using a 3G-compliant radio may drain battery 20% faster (not the download itself, but from frequent switching & searching by the phone).

Finally, I wonder how many folks craving a 3G iPhone (and criticizing it for not being so) realize that they may not be in the limited market for that service.

-K
 

wot_fan

New Member
Silver
Mar 7, 2007
586
0
0
48
Chicagoland
web.mac.com
#7
Steve’s comments weren’t as decisive as I remembered. At about 50 minutes into the keynote (at least on the podcast version from iTunes Store) he said “We have decided to go with the most popular international standard, which is GSM. We’re on that bandwagon, headed on that roadmap, and plan to make 3G phones and all sorts of amazing things in the future.

As Kabeyun pointed out, AT&T's 3G service is only in limited areas so EDGE makes sense for the US version. I don't think that is true for the rest of the world. To be competitive, I think the global version of the iPhone will have to have 3G. Let's hope that Apple finds a way to implement it more efficiently than the current technology allows. I certainly don't want any less battery life than what has already been published. I guess will have to add this one to "wait and see" bag (which is getting pretty full :laugh2: ).
 

TrippalHealicks

New Member
Gold
Mar 2, 2007
1,341
0
0
#8
Steve’s comments weren’t as decisive as I remembered. At about 50 minutes into the keynote (at least on the podcast version from iTunes Store) he said “We have decided to go with the most popular international standard, which is GSM. We’re on that bandwagon, headed on that roadmap, and plan to make 3G phones and all sorts of amazing things in the future.

As Kabeyun pointed out, AT&T's 3G service is only in limited areas so EDGE makes sense for the US version. I don't think that is true for the rest of the world. To be competitive, I think the global version of the iPhone will have to have 3G. Let's hope that Apple finds a way to implement it more efficiently than the current technology allows. I certainly don't want any less battery life than what has already been published. I guess will have to add this one to "wait and see" bag (which is getting pretty full :laugh2: ).

The only thing negative i have to say about this phone (technology-wise) is that I think it was stupid to put an Edge-only adapter in the phone, when the 3G adapter will fall back on to the Edge network when it's not available, anyway. That's just dumb.
 

wot_fan

New Member
Silver
Mar 7, 2007
586
0
0
48
Chicagoland
web.mac.com
#9
The only thing negative i have to say about this phone (technology-wise) is that I think it was stupid to put an Edge-only adapter in the phone, when the 3G adapter will fall back on to the Edge network when it's not available, anyway. That's just dumb.
I have to disagree with you. From what I have read, 3G is a power hog even when not in use. IOW, when it is just scanning to see if a 3G is source is present it uses significant power.

In a Windows Mobile phone forum, I have read threads about members who use 3rd party apps to force their phones to disable 3G and only use EDGE. Some have done this because 3G is not available where they are and others don't feel the trade off in battery life is not worth the bandwidth they gain using 3G instead of EDGE.
 

TrippalHealicks

New Member
Gold
Mar 2, 2007
1,341
0
0
#10
I have to disagree with you. From what I have read, 3G is a power hog even when not in use. IOW, when it is just scanning to see if a 3G is source is present it uses significant power.

In a Windows Mobile phone forum, I have read threads about members who use 3rd party apps to force their phones to disable 3G and only use EDGE. Some have done this because 3G is not available where they are and others don't feel the trade off in battery life is not worth the bandwidth they gain using 3G instead of EDGE.

Hmm, i would have to agree with that, now that I know that.
I didn't really think it was that bad.....although, I would have to say, I can remember one particular day when I used Googlemaps a lot during the day (on my Blackjack) and by the end of the work day, the battery was almost dead. It was using 3G all day, of course.
 

AK911dog

New Member
Mar 11, 2007
7
0
0
#11
Hmm, i would have to agree with that, now that I know that.
I didn't really think it was that bad.....although, I would have to say, I can remember one particular day when I used Googlemaps a lot during the day (on my Blackjack) and by the end of the work day, the battery was almost dead. It was using 3G all day, of course.
Yes it is a huge power drain. My aunt got about 10 hours battery life on her CDMA phone, because of the EV-DO high speed network, so she had me disable it and now she can go for two days without charging.