How Apple will sell 10 million iPhones in 2008

Yes Paul, because Apple never made any adjustments or additions to the iPod line and its pricing. Glad you're here to point that out to us. Veeery insightful. (all consumer electronics drop in price across their lifetime folks. Paul just wants to be able to claim that he said it first when it happens.)

Ocean: I'm not sure what you're referring to. My point is only that the iPhone has always been and is still too expensive. I'm not a genius for pointing that out, as it's obvious. My point is only that as the iPhone is priced now, it has a very limited audience. To hit 10 million--or more--the price will have to come down a lot. BrightrevCarl: See Ocean's reply above as a typical example. It's like the constant dripping of a leaky faucet. It never stops, and it never changes.

#1. iCabal gets lamer and lamer with each use. Stop trying to be cool and clever with this. It's dumb, and it's insulting. #2. How is Apple "aping Microsoft's PC strategy" by enabling exchange in the iPhone? I think you've confused the word "strategy" with the word "features". Apple, as everyone knows, is licensing exchange support from Microsoft. In order for this statement to make any sense, Apple would either need to license the iPhone OS, develop and exchange competitor for enterprise email or both. Those are the "strategies" Microsoft is employing. Enterprise email is a feature, and adding it doesn't mean Apple is "aping" anything. Again, the connotation of your writing is a problem. #3. As for Apple allowing subsidies... great. Bring it on. I get the sense with some of this commentary that it's all a setup so that when Apple DOES sell 10 million... detractors can be like "well... they had to drop the price to do it" as if that somehow takes away from the accomplishment. Speaking of accomplishments... I'd say that becoming the #3 selling smartphone worldwide with your first phone ever is pretty effing amazing. period. People need to remember that this contract with AT&T was a deal that enabled Apple to deliver a revolutionary new sales approach. Direct sales to customers with no BS and no carrier limitations on the device. No hassle at the store. No disabled hardware features. And yes, forgoing the subsidies was one of the ways Apple enabled this deal. When you're subsidized, you're a slave to your benefactor. It's as true in business as it is in politics and economics. This was HUGE and it came about BEFORE all this "open" talk from sprint and verizon. You could argue... that it brought the open talk about along with the prodding from Google. ...and, once again, Microsoft was nowhere to be found. No challenges to the carrier status quo from MS, just as they've not challenged the labels with Zune when they caved on money per unit. That's what happens when a company's customers are the businesses in the middle and not the users of the product. Apple's done more to forge a direct relationship between the device maker and the user than any company selling phones in the US. "BrightrevCarl: See Ocean's reply above as a typical example. It's like the constant dripping of a leaky faucet. It never stops, and it never changes." Dude, what are you talking about? So you think it makes sense to write about iPhone's pricing as if Apple's arm is going to need twisting because they're... well, I don't know what your point is, really... but when Ocean points out Apple's obvious willingness to be flexible, you group him into the "iCabal". Anyone that disagrees or finds fault in the tone of your posts is part of a Cabal? We're all conspiring, are we? Yeah. Lame. It stinks that your mental model of Apple as this unresponsive, despotic company clouds your thinking about them and your writing as well. "It’s amazing what a little challenge can do to spur new ways of thinking. This is long overdue." Why can't you see that Ocean is referring to this line? You're writing as if pricing changes would be a "new way of thinking" at Apple. That's demonstrably false as Ocean points out. Apple's far less ideological about strategy than your rigid view of them. THAT's what's obvious. I wish you wrote these apple posts while talking with Leo Laporte. Maybe then, your podcast's far more reasonable and less defensive and generalizing tone would emerge. Of course, the iPhone is a huge success. Period. That leverage will allow them to take subsidies without becoming a surf to the carrier the way every other phone maker has been.

@fivepoint, >From a purely marketing perspective... Apple is doing something VERY dangerous by pricing their product so low as is predicted ($200?). Your observation show the dangers to stockholders value in any company as presented in this blog post by Paul (Journalist/Blogger) who is also considered as an Expert/Analyst in the computer industry which includes MSFT and AAPL. Paul never stated that AAPL will sell the iPhone retail or wholesale for less then they do now. Paul did point to a link that does suggest that some retailers "agreed they can subsidize the latest iPhone" Meaning the retailer pay the difference between the wholesale price of the iPhone and the price a consumer pays. In most to all cases the retailer tacks on some type of contract for a 2 year period to offset the difference or in someway recaptures their payment to Apple for the cost of the phone. Note, there has been no discloser if AAPL will still receive some revenues from the 2 year agreement. As I stated before I could careless if Paul feels I am "iCabal" or if I feel he is a "Wintard" as it does not affect my wallet. But as you pointed out your by your understanding of this blog posted by someone whom is regarded as an industry expert can take money out of my wallet.

"iCabal" Are you trying to be clever, or are you just desperate to inject a new low into the discourse here? Perhaps there should be a way to describe the Waethorns of the world. Since you define "iCabal" as "the anything-but-Microsoft jokers who try to make a federal case out of anything Microsoft does, good or bad", methinks we need a similarly childish phrase for his ilk. How about "WinJihadists"? No, that would be ridiculous, childish and arrogant. Much like "iCabal" itself.

"No, that would be ridiculous, childish and arrogant. Much like "iCabal" itself." ....coming from the person that's used the term "STFU" on numerous occasions, as well as called someone a "dipsh_t admin".