Why the Apple phone will fail, and fail badly

It's the Pippin all over again


Who will pay for the Apple phone?

A new player coming into the market is either going to have to offer the phone unsubsidised, at its true retail cost, subsidise it itself, or find a way to convince network operators they can gain from subsidising the handset.

A few companies have tried to offer phones without subsidy; relying on stylish design and branding to off-set the high cost and lack of features. Most notable was Xelibri, a range of good-looking phones which Siemens tried to sell direct to the public before giving up in 2004. It is possible for very high end handsets such as the Vertu range from Nokia, but when your handsets start at $4,500 a couple of hundred quid subsidy is neither here nor there.

The Apple phone will be able to charge a premium for style, but put a £330 iPod phone on the shelf next to a Sony Walkman handset with similar capabilities which is free and it will be a tough sell for anyone.

Some have suggested that Apple will simply set up their own Mobile Virtual Network Operator (MVNO) and just fund the subsidy; making the money back on calls and use of the iTunes service. However, iTunes has always existed to sell hardware, not subsidise its production. The service isn't supposed to make money, and while it might or might not lose a great deal of money it certainly can't be called upon to cover the cost of a stylish handset any more than it could cover the cost of handing out iPods for free.

So we are left with Apple trying to sell its phone to existing network operators using the same tactics as its competitors. It might make play of its simple interface, and easy access to operator services, but far more likely Apple will use network exclusivity to sell the idea to a single operator in each territory.

The iPod is now a valuable brand, and one associated with the youth market operators are so keen to attract. This alone could make the Apple phone attractive, especially if only one operator has such an association.

By limiting the distribution of the handset in this way Apple will be spared the need to negotiate with dozens of different operators, and can share the promotional costs with the operator of choice - who will be hoping customers will switch networks just to get one. Such a deal would reduce the number of handsets Apple would be able to sell, but that might be no bad thing as it would reduce Apple's exposure while (hopefully) demonstrating its ability in the market.

But it would also make Apple dependent on that operator, and on that operator's commitment to the project; particularly when the first flush of publicity is past.

It's business, not pleasure

Apple will launch a mobile phone in January, and it will become available during 2007. It will be a lovely bit of kit, a pleasure to behold, and its limited functionality will be easy to access and use.

The Apple phone will be exclusive to one of the major networks in each territory and some customers will switch networks just to get it, but not as many as had been hoped.

As customers start to realise that the competition offers better functionality at a lower price, by negotiating a better subsidy, sales will stagnate. After a year a new version will be launched, but it will lack the innovation of the first and quickly vanish.

The only question remaining is if, when the iPod phone fails, it will take the iPod with it. ®

Similar topics


Other stories you might like

  • Stolen university credentials up for sale by Russian crooks, FBI warns
    Forget dark-web souks, thousands of these are already being traded on public bazaars

    Russian crooks are selling network credentials and virtual private network access for a "multitude" of US universities and colleges on criminal marketplaces, according to the FBI.

    According to a warning issued on Thursday, these stolen credentials sell for thousands of dollars on both dark web and public internet forums, and could lead to subsequent cyberattacks against individual employees or the schools themselves.

    "The exposure of usernames and passwords can lead to brute force credential stuffing computer network attacks, whereby attackers attempt logins across various internet sites or exploit them for subsequent cyber attacks as criminal actors take advantage of users recycling the same credentials across multiple accounts, internet sites, and services," the Feds' alert [PDF] said.

    Continue reading
  • Big Tech loves talking up privacy – while trying to kill privacy legislation
    Study claims Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, Microsoft work to derail data rules

    Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft often support privacy in public statements, but behind the scenes they've been working through some common organizations to weaken or kill privacy legislation in US states.

    That's according to a report this week from news non-profit The Markup, which said the corporations hire lobbyists from the same few groups and law firms to defang or drown state privacy bills.

    The report examined 31 states when state legislatures were considering privacy legislation and identified 445 lobbyists and lobbying firms working on behalf of Amazon, Apple, Google, Meta, and Microsoft, along with industry groups like TechNet and the State Privacy and Security Coalition.

    Continue reading
  • SEC probes Musk for not properly disclosing Twitter stake
    Meanwhile, social network's board rejects resignation of one its directors

    America's financial watchdog is investigating whether Elon Musk adequately disclosed his purchase of Twitter shares last month, just as his bid to take over the social media company hangs in the balance. 

    A letter [PDF] from the SEC addressed to the tech billionaire said he "[did] not appear" to have filed the proper form detailing his 9.2 percent stake in Twitter "required 10 days from the date of acquisition," and asked him to provide more information. Musk's shares made him one of Twitter's largest shareholders. The letter is dated April 4, and was shared this week by the regulator.

    Musk quickly moved to try and buy the whole company outright in a deal initially worth over $44 billion. Musk sold a chunk of his shares in Tesla worth $8.4 billion and bagged another $7.14 billion from investors to help finance the $21 billion he promised to put forward for the deal. The remaining $25.5 billion bill was secured via debt financing by Morgan Stanley, Bank of America, Barclays, and others. But the takeover is not going smoothly.

    Continue reading

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022