jonesy

http://www.seekingalpha.com
Total Rating:
0 / 0

25 Comments

    • Wed Oct 24th 23:31 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is AT&T An iPhone Sales Anchor?
      Here's another article Todd: www.reghardware.co.uk/.../

      Echoing my point about data - Yahoo: "In terms of internet usage nothing is holding a candle to the iPhone."

      Echoing my point about how the other carriers will follow - Motorola: "For us, it's been quite beneficial, because wireless carriers are now willing to talk about all kinds of new experiences on handhelds that they wouldn't consider in the past." Plus, "It opened up a whole new pricing tier. There are [people] who are willing to pay a lot for a phone. They're willing to do more than sign up for a wireless plan and get four phones for free - which is where the market was headed."

      Really, Todd, the impact of the iPhone on carriers is being talked about and written about by "experts" everywhere except here. From these articles, Jobs' comments (at preview, All Things D, and at launch), and Stephenson's (AT&T CEO) comments (at launch), you can see where AT&T (and other iPhone partners) has to go.

      Last point: The carriers are spending (and risking) really big bucks building out higher speed cell (and wifi) networks. Once built, almost all customer revenue goes toward paying off the investment, then when that is done, it is just profit. So until the network is completely saturated, every additional customer is beneficial (and desired). iPhone will bring in those customers who will pay for data use. (BTW, this is largely analogous to investing in expensive flash production factories.)
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 24th 22:44 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is AT&T An iPhone Sales Anchor?
      Did you listen to the call? It's arguable whether the stock price jump and subsequent analyst revisions are due to a) profit (yes, driven largely by Mac sales) in the last quarter, b) Apple's north-of-consensus forecast for this quarter, OR c) the huge cash flow being generated by sales, especially iPhone sales, that will become a torrent of profit in the coming years. Of course, it's all three, but I think it's mostly c) since a) is old news, and b) is short term news.

      See www.blackfriarsinc.com...

      Based on Gene Munster's and Dan Frommer's analyses, each iPhone sold and on contract is possibly generating over $800 in revenue (and $550 in profit) over 2 years, So 10 million phones leads to 5.5 billion in profit. Yes, there's iPhone software development cost that wasn't accounted for, but that will be almost negligible if they sell lots of iPhones, and because it's shared across Macs and iPods.

      I don't think Apple conceded anything on price, since the drop was clearly preplanned, as there's no way Apple could sell a $599 8GB iPhone, when the 8GB iPod touch is priced at $299. And there's no way the iPod touch could be more expensive if the 8GB iPod nano is $199. And there's no way the 8GB iPod nano could be more expensive if the 4GB iPod nano is $149. So why is the iPod nano at 149 - because the number of mobile video players sold so far is really small, and Apple wants a huge huge market for mobile video. Why? To drive content owners to put video (esp. movies) into the iTunes Store, which will then drive future sales of AppleTV, which Apple hopes will turn its hobby into a business. And what does Apple's huge forecast tell us? That between Sep 5 and Oct 22, Apple has seen huge sales of its iPods (surely, nanos and up) and iPhones, thus, validating its pricing strategy.

      Apple is not just a bunch of unrelated parts. This incredible Jobs-led strategy is thoroughly integrated in every which way, with each product driving other products, and leverage everywhere (i.e., OS X, Quicktime-based content, consuming devices-production devices).
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 24th 22:05 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is AT&T An iPhone Sales Anchor?
      Here's the easy ones that have already happened: Apple (handset maker) has established itself as the primary relationship with the customer (sale, activation, upgrades, warranty service). It's also established that wifi Internet is free (with some limitations) and that data must be included in the carrier plan. Just watch all the new iPhone ads - what do they emphasize?

      So Todd, you really need to listen more to others, who are not even Apple "fans", objectively recognizing the impact of the iPhone and its relationship with the carriers.

      Here's some reading for some more ideas:
      communities-dominate.b... (site has other related articles as well)
      www.news.com/8301-1357...
      www.rcrnews.com/apps/p...

      And this is what I think is the long-term change to AT&T and carriers? (Hasn't happened yet!) As soon as broadband data is somewhat viable over cell networks, (definitely not with EDGE, possibly with 3G, more likely with 4G or even WiMax), Apple will get the carrier to charge for being a pipe from your mobile device to anywhere on the Web (not just the walled garden), just like telcos/cablecoms charge for being the broadband pipe from your home to the Web (where those walled gardens have already disappeared). If iPhone is the best device for using the mobile Internet, it will persuade many who do not bother with data to become willing to pay from $20 to $200 for various speeds/capacities/serv... of mobile data. Especially corporations. So you can bet iPhone will be tying in to more and more enhanced data services, some through .Mac, some like Salesforce. As other carrier competitors see the writing on the wall, they'll have to also have open data plans (initially using other phones of course).

      And if the carrier can bundle this with home broadband or corporate wired networking, this becomes even more valuable to the carrier. I'm sure you can imagine further tie-ins that will eclipse anything Blackberries do today.
      View article »
    • Wed Oct 24th 12:02 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Total Music Threatens Apple’s Music Distribution Revenue
      My real fear here is that the labels are aiming to lock distribution into their own DRM scheme.

      The labels have never been good at distribution; that's why we had independent brick-and-mortar retail stores. Now that it's digital, they are beginning to think they can get together and control it; just as we move toward DRM-free. Will they also get together and institute DRMed CDs; this time, not just Sony, but all of them together?

      Anyway, it's not just AAPL, it's also AmazonMP3; note that the Universal DRM-free trial is just 6 months.

      Sure, let's revisit when they get the details out.
      View article »
    • Tue Oct 23rd 20:00 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Total Music Threatens Apple’s Music Distribution Revenue
      Radiohead has already been exposed as a cynical ruse. The digital download was of poor quality, included no liner notes or album cover. And Radiohead was quoted as saying that this was intended to get people to buy the higher-quality CD. Cynical.

      But do let me bring up Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus as an example. The TV show and music which is played on Disney Radio, disney.com, and Disney Channel over and over, could be seen as marketing to get people to go to her concerts, which are pretty much sold out with tickets getting scalped all over. Or High School Musical could be seen as marketing to get people to go to the play. And they could give it away at disney.com or at iTunes.

      So yes, it is possible to succeed without "selling the music", and that's what the labels need to do - be creative.
      View article »
    • Tue Oct 23rd 19:53 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Total Music Threatens Apple’s Music Distribution Revenue
      First, I'm not an Apple mega-bull, and it wouldn't matter if I was or wasn't. It's discredits your argument to label those who (paritally) disagree with you when you have no clue about whether the label is true or not.

      Second, if you're original piece included some of the thoughts that you wrote in response to criticism, then I wouldn't have called it a puff piece.

      Third, you call Apple greedy for charging more for distribution yet below you say you had no idea that Apple claims to just break even, which Apple has been saying for a long time. So do you or don't you know how much it actually costs to distribute? There's sunk infrastructure cost (servers, facility, networking equipment, marketing, site maintenance, etc), and a per-sale unit cost (bandwidth, credit card/paypal fee). Apple actually bundles multiple purchases into one to decrease the impact of the credit card fee. Most analysts believe Apple loses money, but Apple insists they break-even, which they may now that much of the infrastructure is paid for. It's also unclear how much infrastructure is accounted for (vs. capital expense) when Apple says that. So just because other companies charge less doesn't mean crap - they could be taking a loss (most of them regularly report losses anyway), or they could have a server/network system that doesn't scale and would need to be ripped out and redone if they were to grow (have more customers or have a larger catalog). And how is giving the labels $.70 on the dollar not appropriate? That's the same portion they got when they had to press the CDs and send them out. Now they do nothing but send a master digital file to Apple. Didn't the labels just gain 25 cents of profit per sale?

      In any case, no matter how cheap hardware gets, someone will offer that hardware without the "FREE" music for $90 cheaper than with it. So the consumer will see it. But that's not the real problem. The issue is that PEOPLE DON"T WANT EXPIRING MUSIC. Expiring music is almost the same as radio to most people. BUT if that $90 included the purchase of 90 (or 80 or 100) non-expiring songs as well as the 1 year free all-you-can-eat music, then people might go for it. Almost like emusic.

      I agree with you the music industry needs to find a new way to monetize their music in this age of digital copying. Digital goods may have to be a marketing tool to sell a service (even advertising is an information service) or other physical, tangible goods. But baking the cost of expiring music (which nobody wants) into the player (in order to fruitlessly "hide" the cost) is cynical and deceptive.

      The labels need to realize that as long as they sell CDs, people will have music to put on their iPods (from CDs and torrents). Shut down the iTunes store; who does it hurt? Apple, who barely makes money on it? Nope (because if there is no iTunes, someone will spend more energy making torrents easier to use). Or the labels, who get $.70 per sale? Yup.

      The labels need to stop thinking of the distributor (Apple or others) as the enemy because they're not. They need to realize they know little about distribution (did they run the brick-and-mortar retail stores themselves? Hell no.) They need to realize people will pay some nominal amount not for the music itself but for the convenience of getting the music.
      View article »
    • Tue Oct 23rd 14:32 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Total Music Threatens Apple’s Music Distribution Revenue
      Sorry for the duplicate. When I submitted earlier today, it locked up. When I returned to the site, it didn't show it. Sorry!
      View article »
    • Tue Oct 23rd 14:30 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Total Music Threatens Apple’s Music Distribution Revenue
      You're just regurgitating the puff piece for Total Panic, uh, Total Music. So explain to me how the mp3 hardware mfr or cell carrier will be able to absorb the $90 a year that the labels want without the consumer seeing it (remember it's supposed to be seen as FREE, right?). Or is that mfr going to be Microsoft who can just put it in with their other loss-making businesses. If you said it was ad-supported, I'd be much more likely buy your argument about viability, but that's not what Rubin or Morris is peddling. For now and the foreseeable future, Amazon is more of a threat.

      Note also it's the device, not the "store", that people buy. Do you know what incredible devices are coming to use Total Music?
      Not Apple devices. Not Nokia devices; they're starting their own store. By the way, Apple said yesterday that iPods gained 10-15% share in the big EU markets since the iPod refresh in Sept. (Side note: Big MS mistake. The Zune killed off MS' PlaysforSure partners' devices, while the Zune wasn't ready to be sold in Europe.)

      As for greed, can you also explain what Apple is doing that is sinfully greedy? iPod prices going down; even MS can't underprice them. iTunes DRM-free song prices are going down. Make sure you explain how it is that Apple, and not the music labels, that is being greedy. (Ringtones? Labels.)
      View article »
    • Tue Oct 23rd 14:17 PM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Is AT&T An iPhone Sales Anchor?
      First, note that the 23% is still higher than it was before iPhone was mentioned (14%). 22% in Jan was after iPhone preview. So it's not as bad as it looks.

      Second, Apple is aiming to change the cellular industry, not just sell handsets. For now, it needs its carrier partners to make the change happen. You need to take a broader, big-picture, strategic view instead of such a short-sighted, tactical, next-quarter revenue view.



      View article »
    • Tue Oct 23rd 11:20 AM | Rating: 0 0
      Commented on:
      Total Music Threatens Apple’s Music Distribution Revenue
      You're just regurgitating the puff piece. Explain to me how the mp3 hardware mfr or cell carrier will be able to absorb the $90 a year that the labels want without the consumer seeing it (remember it's FREE, right?). Or is that mfr going to be Microsoft who can just put it in with their other loss-making businesses. If you said it was ad-supported, I'd more likely buy your argument about viability, but that's not what Rubin or Morris is peddling. For now and the foreseeable future, Amazon is more of a threat.

      As for greed, can you also explain what Apple is doing that is sinfully greedy? Make sure you explain how it is Apple that is doing it, and not the labels driving it from the rear.
      View article »
Loading...
Symbols:
Authors:
Quick Links:
Contribute an Article Become a Seeking Alpha Contributor

Transcripts

More Transcripts»