Like Mark said, its definitely more about profit. However, somebody should be trying to figure out what AT&T's margins are on every Iphone and Iphone contract, especially since A)Apple is taking a cut of both the Iphone sales and a % of AT&T's monthly subscriber income B)Not every Iphone bought is being activated C) AT&T isn't making any money selling songs, Apple is making all the money through their Itunes store. Verizon Wireless may be subsidizing the Chocolate (which is costing them money), but they are making 100% of the monthly subscriber income and they are also making money selling songs from their VCast Music store. It may also be beneficial to find out what % of Chocolate users subscribe to VCast. If you take all of this information into account, you may find that the Chocolate is doing much better against the Iphone than most people assume in terms of how much profit it brings to each company. Now I don't know for certain what these numbers come out to but its just something to think about.
What Verizon is trying to show is that the consumer desire for a Chocolate is somewhat comparable with the iPhone (regardless of whether that's true or not). Sales figures is the best way to show that. It has nothing to do with how well the company itself maximizes its profits on the sale of the phone. Simple business concepts.
Simple PR: "We've sold x Chocolates this quarter." or "We made x dollars on sales of the Chocolate this quarter."
First for potential customers, second for shareholders.
“There's a certain feeling of wading through water with this phone, as every time we went exploring the menus, we were met with a delay long enough to make us doubt our keystrokes registered.”
Now that we've thrown 'em off the trail, use the form below to get in touch with the people at Engadget. Please fill in all of the required fields because they're required.
Uh, what? It costs about $300 less too, more like $500 less when the iPhone first came out.
Since when do people compare success only by units sold and not the cost or profit ratio?
Like Mark said, its definitely more about profit. However, somebody should be trying to figure out what AT&T's margins are on every Iphone and Iphone contract, especially since A)Apple is taking a cut of both the Iphone sales and a % of AT&T's monthly subscriber income B)Not every Iphone bought is being activated C) AT&T isn't making any money selling songs, Apple is making all the money through their Itunes store. Verizon Wireless may be subsidizing the Chocolate (which is costing them money), but they are making 100% of the monthly subscriber income and they are also making money selling songs from their VCast Music store. It may also be beneficial to find out what % of Chocolate users subscribe to VCast. If you take all of this information into account, you may find that the Chocolate is doing much better against the Iphone than most people assume in terms of how much profit it brings to each company. Now I don't know for certain what these numbers come out to but its just something to think about.
What Verizon is trying to show is that the consumer desire for a Chocolate is somewhat comparable with the iPhone (regardless of whether that's true or not). Sales figures is the best way to show that. It has nothing to do with how well the company itself maximizes its profits on the sale of the phone. Simple business concepts.
Simple PR: "We've sold x Chocolates this quarter." or "We made x dollars on sales of the Chocolate this quarter."
First for potential customers, second for shareholders.