Comments on: Why the Missing iPhones Really Matter

By: Rene Ritchie

Rene Ritchie — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:15:36 +0000

And as a counter-point, with Apple's share of the market rising like this, maybe they would eat some of the subsidy just to increase it further:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/02/05/iphonesshareofussmartphonemarketrisesto28_percent.html

By: Rene Ritchie

Rene Ritchie — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:11:05 +0000

I think the restrictions worked to a point, as local pre-hacked iPhones briefly jumped from C$699 to C$899 before they relaxed the numbers back to 5 and the prices went back down.

That does make the numbers surprising.

And I would guess Apple cares to the extent that the revenue share with AT&T = subsidy on the handset. If they make $400 per set, they are.

We could make them care if there's a revenue stream to otherwise compensate them (though, I think we'd all love an unlocked GSM option, even if it has a +400 premium but comes with full support from Apple).

By: Dieter Bohn

Dieter Bohn — Tue, 05 Feb 2008 10:26:32 +0000

almost forgot, rener's point:

What's also interesting is that, at least for the latter part of the quarter, those numbers should include the more restrictive selling terms Apple imposed (no cash, limit between 2-5 iPhones per buyer).

...either those restrictions didn't work, or they did and these numbers are all the more surprising. It seems clear Apple was forced to put those restrictions on because they saw the tidal wave of unlocked phones.

So NOW the question is: does Apple love unlocked phones or not? If not (and I have to say I'm leaning that way), then how could we make them?