Quote:
Originally Posted by RockdaMan
iPhones are no more expensive that other smartphones...no one can touch the price of the iPod touch...
|
Taking a look at Verizon:
iPhone 4 16GB $199/2yr or $649
iPhone 4 32GB $299/2yr or $749
Samsung Fascinate Galaxy S $199/2yr or $579
The $199 contract price on the 16GB iPhone is on a par with Verizon's other top-end smartphones, and the $649 retail price is higher than every non-iPhone smartphone they offer.
Since the entry level iPhone's contract price is no higher than those of other top-end smartphones, it's fair to say that it's competitively priced.
However, since Verizon does not offer any other smartphones that cost more than the 16GB iPhone, it's not competing on price.
Competing on price means using the fact your product costs less than your competitor's product as a selling point. It's saying, theirs may be better, but ours is cheaper.
Apple doesn't do that: No Apple ad will admit that anything is better than their products. Apple's selling points are the "cool factor," and "it just works." It's not "Get Apple because we're cheaper."
That's competing on price, and Apple doesn't do it. That's how they avoid the low-margin end of the market, by selling quality, user experience and intangibles.
Competing on price is not the same as being competitively priced - and while I'm more than willing to ascribe one to Apple, you won't get me to agree to the other.