Samsung i500 - Who has in Stock?

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "P Reality" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >
> > > > All their phones are subsidized in the sense that they don't charge
> > twice
> > > > the price they currently do to make a larger profit. I highly doubt
> > Sprint
> > > > loses too much money (if any at all) on any phone they sell. And
> > there's
> > > > nothing wrong with that, they're in business to make money. Like
> > someone
> > > > else posted, once it's been done for so long, giving deep discounts
on
> > the
> > > > phones becomes an expected behavior.
> > >
> > > Based on Sony selling Clie for $200 with more features (minus phone)
> > > than the any Palm Phone, do the math.
> >
> > SprintPCS Tech did an excellent comparison. As far as I can remember,
SPCS
> > has never sold a phone to the public at their cost. They have subsidized
> the
> > cost to their customers by $50 to $150.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> Maybe for new subscribers that might be true.

Just for new customers? Stop speculating Justin.

Every phone they've sold in the past, whether it be to a new or current
customer, has been a higher cost to SPCS than what SPCS charges to the
customer. Same thing goes to all the wireless carriers.

Bob

---

› See More: Samsung i500 - Who has in Stock?

P Reality <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> > The units are starting to come in slowly now.
>
> Why only slowly now?
>
> Stores are up to their armpits in N400's, which keep pouring in !

Several reasons, the biggest are:

I500 is new, Samsung wants to make sure its going to be a hit before
they mass market it, so individual stores will only be able to get a
couple in stock
(And the I500 will not be as big of a seller as the N400 was)

The N400 has been out for a while, and the warehouse is pushing out all
old stock to make room for new phones, and it was very popular, so
Samsung could push out a gazillion units.

Price (cost)


[posted via phonescoop.com]

P Reality <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> > Looks
> > like the loss is roughly $50 per unit. So, the price is cut a little
> > right off before any "new activation" price. (If you don't like the
> > price, talk to the people who make it and decide the price, Samsung).
> >
> > As for the holding off to make it more appealing, trust me, in the PC
> > industry (including PDAs) holding off like this only bites you in the
> > rear later on, people wait for it, someone comes out with something
> > better, they jump on that band wagon. You've just lost a bunch of
> > sales. Sprint PCS would love to have a good supply of these to meet the
> > demand in each store.
>
>
> You're guessing here. The evidence weighs against your guess.
>
>

You're only guessing that I'm guessing. I manage and monitor the
inventories of roughly 2 dozen stores, I have access to the cost on
these items. There is roughly a $50 loss on each unit SprintPCS sells,
before any promotions and/or discounts, no matter who they sell it to.

When you first put out a phone, its a bad marketing idea to push out as
many of them as possible (from the manufacturer's view) since you don't
know how well it will do. If you sell out quickly, boost up production,
if not, cut back a little. I highly doubt you'd take the risk of
producingseveral thousands of a new unit just to see how it sells when
you have no idea how it will sell, risk the hundereds of thousands to
millions of dollars.

The only evidence you have is that there isn't a huge supply of these in
the stores. I offer the truth. Take it or leave it.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> > SprintPCS Tech did an excellent comparison. As far as I can remember, SPCS
> > has never sold a phone to the public at their cost. They have subsidized
> the
> > cost to their customers by $50 to $150.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> Maybe for new subscribers that might be true.
>
>

For everyone that is true. I've only seen one phone sold at a profit
with SprintPCS, and that was 2 years ago. Every phone now is being sold
at a loss, regardless of who buys it, before any promotions or
discounts.

The 9155 is / was $19.99. That is a huge hit. The A500 is $199 that
is also a big hit. The 8100 is $240, the cost on it is over $300. You
don't see anyone paying $300 for the 8100 now.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > >
> > > "P Reality" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news[email protected]...
> > > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > > "Justin" <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > All their phones are subsidized in the sense that they don't
charge
> > > twice
> > > > > the price they currently do to make a larger profit. I highly
doubt
> > > Sprint
> > > > > loses too much money (if any at all) on any phone they sell. And
> > > there's
> > > > > nothing wrong with that, they're in business to make money. Like
> > > someone
> > > > > else posted, once it's been done for so long, giving deep
discounts
> on
> > > the
> > > > > phones becomes an expected behavior.
> > > >
> > > > Based on Sony selling Clie for $200 with more features (minus phone)
> > > > than the any Palm Phone, do the math.
> > >
> > > SprintPCS Tech did an excellent comparison. As far as I can remember,
> SPCS
> > > has never sold a phone to the public at their cost. They have
subsidized
> > the
> > > cost to their customers by $50 to $150.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> >
> > Maybe for new subscribers that might be true.
>
> Just for new customers? Stop speculating Justin.
>
> Every phone they've sold in the past, whether it be to a new or current
> customer, has been a higher cost to SPCS than what SPCS charges to the
> customer. Same thing goes to all the wireless carriers.
>
> Bob


That's just bull**** Bob. And you know it. Basically, you're telling me
that existing customers who get absolutely no discount on phones are still
not paying Sprint's cost? That's just hard to believe without some proof,
Bob. Of course, since you don't work for Sprint, how caould you prove it?

"SprintPCS Tech" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > > SprintPCS Tech did an excellent comparison. As far as I can remember,
SPCS
> > > has never sold a phone to the public at their cost. They have
subsidized
> > the
> > > cost to their customers by $50 to $150.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> >
> > Maybe for new subscribers that might be true.
> >
> >
>
> For everyone that is true. I've only seen one phone sold at a profit
> with SprintPCS, and that was 2 years ago. Every phone now is being sold
> at a loss, regardless of who buys it, before any promotions or
> discounts.
>
> The 9155 is / was $19.99. That is a huge hit. The A500 is $199 that
> is also a big hit. The 8100 is $240, the cost on it is over $300. You
> don't see anyone paying $300 for the 8100 now.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]

If that's the case, then Sprint is getting ripped off.

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...

<snipped>

> > > Maybe for new subscribers that might be true.
> >
> > Just for new customers? Stop speculating Justin.
> >
> > Every phone they've sold in the past, whether it be to a new or
current
> > customer, has been a higher cost to SPCS than what SPCS charges to
the
> > customer. Same thing goes to all the wireless carriers.
> >
> > Bob
>
>
> That's just bull**** Bob. And you know it. Basically, you're
telling me
> that existing customers who get absolutely no discount on phones are
still
> not paying Sprint's cost? That's just hard to believe without some
proof,
> Bob. Of course, since you don't work for Sprint, how caould you
prove it?
>
Justin, it's not yours truly who has to prove anything. You are the
one making the accusations. Where is your proof?

Bob

"Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
>
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > "Bob Smith" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
>
> <snipped>
>
> > > > Maybe for new subscribers that might be true.
> > >
> > > Just for new customers? Stop speculating Justin.
> > >
> > > Every phone they've sold in the past, whether it be to a new or
> current
> > > customer, has been a higher cost to SPCS than what SPCS charges to
> the
> > > customer. Same thing goes to all the wireless carriers.
> > >
> > > Bob
> >
> >
> > That's just bull**** Bob. And you know it. Basically, you're
> telling me
> > that existing customers who get absolutely no discount on phones are
> still
> > not paying Sprint's cost? That's just hard to believe without some
> proof,
> > Bob. Of course, since you don't work for Sprint, how caould you
> prove it?
> >
> Justin, it's not yours truly who has to prove anything. You are the
> one making the accusations. Where is your proof?
>
> Bob


We just had Sprint PCS Tech admit they sold phones for a profit a few years
ago. And you said they never have.

"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> We just had Sprint PCS Tech admit they sold phones for a profit a few years
> ago. And you said they never have.
>
>

Don't put words into my mouth or lie about my posts. I said (copy and
pasted from that):

***
For everyone that is true. I've only seen one phone sold at a profit
with SprintPCS, and that was 2 years ago. Every phone now is being sold
at a loss, regardless of who buys it, before any promotions or
discounts.
****

ONE phone, not PHONES, and that is ONE phone in the past two years, I've
been with the company three years and it was the only one, so we can say
three years, one phone was sold at a profit, and that was for a short
period of time, and the profit was less than $20 per unit ($300 phone).

If you're going to say that I said something, don't re-write what I
posted, state WHAT I said, not a mis-quote.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

"SprintPCS Tech" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > We just had Sprint PCS Tech admit they sold phones for a profit a few
years
> > ago. And you said they never have.
> >
> >
>
> Don't put words into my mouth or lie about my posts. I said (copy and
> pasted from that):
>
> ***
> For everyone that is true. I've only seen one phone sold at a profit
> with SprintPCS, and that was 2 years ago. Every phone now is being sold
> at a loss, regardless of who buys it, before any promotions or
> discounts.
> ****
>
> ONE phone, not PHONES, and that is ONE phone in the past two years, I've
> been with the company three years and it was the only one, so we can say
> three years, one phone was sold at a profit, and that was for a short
> period of time, and the profit was less than $20 per unit ($300 phone).
>
> If you're going to say that I said something, don't re-write what I
> posted, state WHAT I said, not a mis-quote.
>
> [posted via phonescoop.com]


Bob said never. You said otherwise. We'll leave it at that.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

>
>
> "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > We just had Sprint PCS Tech admit they sold phones for a profit a few years
> > ago. And you said they never have.
> >
> >
>
> Don't put words into my mouth or lie about my posts. I said (copy and
> pasted from that):
>
> ***
> For everyone that is true. I've only seen one phone sold at a profit
> with SprintPCS, and that was 2 years ago. Every phone now is being sold
> at a loss, regardless of who buys it, before any promotions or
> discounts.
> ****
>
> ONE phone, not PHONES, and that is ONE phone in the past two years, I've
> been with the company three years and it was the only one, so we can say
> three years, one phone was sold at a profit, and that was for a short
> period of time, and the profit was less than $20 per unit ($300 phone).
>
> If you're going to say that I said something, don't re-write what I
> posted, state WHAT I said, not a mis-quote.

I refuse to belive Sprint is losing money on the Samsung I500, selling
it at $600.

In article <[email protected]>,
"Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
> "SprintPCS Tech" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > "Justin Green" <[email protected]> wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> > > > SprintPCS Tech did an excellent comparison. As far as I can remember,
> SPCS
> > > > has never sold a phone to the public at their cost. They have
> subsidized
> > > the
> > > > cost to their customers by $50 to $150.
> > > >
> > > > Bob
> > >
> > >
> > > Maybe for new subscribers that might be true.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > For everyone that is true. I've only seen one phone sold at a profit
> > with SprintPCS, and that was 2 years ago. Every phone now is being sold
> > at a loss, regardless of who buys it, before any promotions or
> > discounts.
> >
> > The 9155 is / was $19.99. That is a huge hit. The A500 is $199 that
> > is also a big hit. The 8100 is $240, the cost on it is over $300. You
> > don't see anyone paying $300 for the 8100 now.
> >
> > [posted via phonescoop.com]
>
> If that's the case, then Sprint is getting ripped off.

No, Sprint is just paying dearly for the churn that ensues from the bad
customer service, if they have to subsidize the Sanyo 8100 by $200
to entice new customers.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:

>
>
> P Reality <[email protected]> wrote in article
> <[email protected]>:
> > > Looks
> > > like the loss is roughly $50 per unit. So, the price is cut a little
> > > right off before any "new activation" price. (If you don't like the
> > > price, talk to the people who make it and decide the price, Samsung).
> > >
> > > As for the holding off to make it more appealing, trust me, in the PC
> > > industry (including PDAs) holding off like this only bites you in the
> > > rear later on, people wait for it, someone comes out with something
> > > better, they jump on that band wagon. You've just lost a bunch of
> > > sales. Sprint PCS would love to have a good supply of these to meet the
> > > demand in each store.
> >
> >
> > You're guessing here. The evidence weighs against your guess.
> >
> >
>
> You're only guessing that I'm guessing. I manage and monitor the
> inventories of roughly 2 dozen stores, I have access to the cost on
> these items. There is roughly a $50 loss on each unit SprintPCS sells,
> before any promotions and/or discounts, no matter who they sell it to.
>
> When you first put out a phone, its a bad marketing idea to push out as
> many of them as possible (from the manufacturer's view) since you don't
> know how well it will do. If you sell out quickly, boost up production,
> if not, cut back a little. I highly doubt you'd take the risk of
> producingseveral thousands of a new unit just to see how it sells when
> you have no idea how it will sell, risk the hundereds of thousands to
> millions of dollars.
>
> The only evidence you have is that there isn't a huge supply of these in
> the stores. I offer the truth. Take it or leave it.

I have all the evidence that you have omitted, that the I500 is a combo
all the featiures of a $250 cell phone, and a $200 Palm device, being
inferior to a $200 Sony SJ22, take $250, add $200, add your $50
subsidation and you have $500. The i500 sells for $600.

P Reality <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> I have all the evidence that you have omitted, that the I500 is a combo
> all the featiures of a $250 cell phone, and a $200 Palm device, being
> inferior to a $200 Sony SJ22, take $250, add $200, add your $50
> subsidation and you have $500. The i500 sells for $600.

You can't go by that. By your logic, a laptop with the same specs as a
PC should have the same price, but they don't.

You're also paying for a much smaller form factor (two devices in one)
and the convenience of having one device instead of two.

You claim that Sprint PCS is making money off the I500, where is your
proof? Like I said, I have access to the actual numbers, and the cost
on the I500 is $630 when SprintPCS is selling it for $600. Despite what
your numbers say, thats a loss.

And for those who think its bad marketing, in every store of mine that
has sold the I500, the lowest plan was $80 per month. This phone is
designed and marketed for your high end user, who will make the money
back for the company in their MRC.

Selling phones at a loss is a very common practice with all the
carriers, they all offer a low priced phone and lock you in a 1 or 2
year contract. Why the contract? So the company knows they'll make
their money back, and if you break it, you pay the early termination
fee.

Its actualy a common practice in a lot of product lines, selling a
product at below cost just so you get a customer on the high profit
items / services.

[posted via phonescoop.com]

only wholesales for around 300.oo if retail is 600.00,wholesale is about
50% of any product in this countries retail price.can say different,but
have been in retail for 20 years and have seen actual costs of
products,and what costs a company to get product has always been 50% of
retail,and the bigger the company the smaller there cost is to get
product,and if it is imported from china there cost is even lower if
they are an american company,no import fees to have to pay.and no taxes
on product either.

P Reality <[email protected]> wrote in article
<[email protected]>:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] (SprintPCS Tech) wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > P Reality <[email protected]> wrote in article
> > <[email protected]>:
> > > > Looks
> > > > like the loss is roughly $50 per unit. So, the price is cut a little
> > > > right off before any "new activation" price. (If you don't like the
> > > > price, talk to the people who make it and decide the price, Samsung).
> > > >
> > > > As for the holding off to make it more appealing, trust me, in the PC
> > > > industry (including PDAs) holding off like this only bites you in the
> > > > rear later on, people wait for it, someone comes out with something
> > > > better, they jump on that band wagon. You've just lost a bunch of
> > > > sales. Sprint PCS would love to have a good supply of these to meet the
> > > > demand in each store.
> > >
> > >
> > > You're guessing here. The evidence weighs against your guess.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > You're only guessing that I'm guessing. I manage and monitor the
> > inventories of roughly 2 dozen stores, I have access to the cost on
> > these items. There is roughly a $50 loss on each unit SprintPCS sells,
> > before any promotions and/or discounts, no matter who they sell it to.
> >
> > When you first put out a phone, its a bad marketing idea to push out as
> > many of them as possible (from the manufacturer's view) since you don't
> > know how well it will do. If you sell out quickly, boost up production,
> > if not, cut back a little. I highly doubt you'd take the risk of
> > producingseveral thousands of a new unit just to see how it sells when
> > you have no idea how it will sell, risk the hundereds of thousands to
> > millions of dollars.
> >
> > The only evidence you have is that there isn't a huge supply of these in
> > the stores. I offer the truth. Take it or leave it.
>
> I have all the evidence that you have omitted, that the I500 is a combo
> all the featiures of a $250 cell phone, and a $200 Palm device, being
> inferior to a $200 Sony SJ22, take $250, add $200, add your $50
> subsidation and you have $500. The i500 sells for $600.

[posted via phonescoop.com]