I’m adding this thread like I should have done months ago. It’s because of my previous post. Or actually, a side-effect of it.

You see, I wrote a reply to leebase at Tomi’s blog. Nothing evil, nothing revealing Tomi’s falsified numbers, just a reply to other commenter. It’s gone and I have no clue if leebase read my reply. I don’t have a backup of it.

I hate this.

So here is the big question:

Where should we go to have the discussion that originates from blog of Tomi Ahonen as it is now clear that we cannot have that discussion over there?

Feel free to propose ideas below. I’m now making my comment HERE so it won’t be deleted.

Comment from leebase:

I hope you spare Baron as he provides the best counter points on your blog. It can be easy to mix up your words verses those of your regular commentators who so frequently agree with you. While YOU may not have said that the iPhone sales depend on subsidies, it is a frequently repeated meme in the threads.

Frankly, I don’t disagree with the meme. On the contrary, I think the iPhone being “too expensive” is a MAJOR part of why the carriers love the iPhone subsidies/financing so much. The carriers have a very expensive product as well — high speed mobile data. By making the iPhone affordable via subsidies/financing, they are able to lock customers into long term contracts for their premium services.

The iPhone isn’t needed at all to sell minutes on a prepaid phone card. It also doesn’t further the carriers agenda by putting the worlds’ best “hand held wifi web device” in people’s hands. The carriers want people using mobile data and paying good money for that.

The iPhone is proven to deliver those customers like none other. That’s why carriers give up branding the phone, putting their own apps and services on the phone, and commit to multi-year volume agreements. A low cost iPhone would deliver none of that. Oh, it’d be a great selling device…but the carriers couldn’t care less about which cheap phone their customers buy as those phones don’t sell the most profitable services.

If the high end Android phones truly delivered what the iPhone does — from the carriers pov, they’d drop Apple like a bad habit. Apple pulls people into highly profitable data services because of the desire to have the iPhone (ease of use, ecosystem, fashion, whatever you think). For Apple to give folks the “Apple experience” at a price where customers could forgo the high speed data and just use the iPhone on wifi…is for Apple to destroy the value they are offering carriers. Then Apple would be the same as Android.

Posted by: LeeBase | February 04, 2014 at 07:18 PM

My reply (rewritten from what I remember):

There is one small thing you miss in the “For Apple to give folks the ‘Apple experience’ at a price where customers could forgo the high speed data and just use the iPhone on wifi…is for Apple to destroy the value they are offering carriers.”
Carriers want to lock their customers into multi-year contracts with expensive data plan, naturally. But at the same time carriers don’t want to spend billions of dollars to build the network infrastructure.

CEO of Sonera (consider it as Verizon of Finland) said their current business model for data needs to change into something where those who use exceptionally lot of data also pay more than others. Carriers do not want people to use lots of data, they want people to pay for the possibility to do so. One very important aspect of iPhone was that it switched from cellular data to Wi-Fi and back without informing the user. Symbian failed this for years.
To carriers it was a gold mine: people pay obscene monthly rate for data package and at the end their phone is most of the time accessing web through some free Wi-Fi hotspot. People paying for a service they do not claim is best business case possible.

I could not replace the subscription I have for my Lumia with non-data subscription since I browse web daily from bus stop, local restaurant where I go for lunch, swimming hall when I wait for my kids… I spend less than 10% of my day in those places and consume even less of the data there. But since I need data access there, I better have it everywhere. I cannot go “WiFi only” so I’m a profitable customer to my service provider.

Advertisements