Financial Times: iPhone 2 to Be Sold "at Significantly Lower Prices"

Image for article titled Financial Times: iPhone 2 to Be Sold "at Significantly Lower Prices"

Financial Times is like the UK's Wall Street Journal, so they don't print things lightly-truth likelihood is very high. And they're saying that the next iPhone will be subsidized and much cheaper than the current one, like we already knew:

The new version of the Apple iPhone is set to be sold at significantly lower prices than the existing one, in a tacit acknowledgement by the US technology company that its previous sales strategy was not sustainable. Apple has bowed to pressure from mobile phone operators and agreed they can subsidise the latest iPhone, expected to be unveiled by Steve Jobs, Apple's chief executive, on Monday.


While the confirmation of the cheaper, subsidized iPhone comes from their own undoubtedly rock solid sources, they don't have specific numbers from them and point to squishy analysts on how much cheaper it'll be, such as speculation it'll be $199 in the US, with a $200 subsidy from AT&T. Either way, AT&T will definitely be bearing some of the costs for us: "Apple has accepted that the new iPhone should be subsidised in the US and western Europe by the mobile operators who sell it to consumers, according to people familiar with the matter."

But $200 does sound right.

Dude, I didn't expect people to camp out for the next iPhone, but I think if anything will drive people to not shower for a day in the middle of summer, it'll be a $200 iPhone. [FT via Ars]


I'm A Different Bird

@tasset: Wait... are you arguing that Apple was trying to break the market stranglehold of subsidized phones with mandatory, long-term, draconian service agreements by making a non-subsidized phone with a mandatory, long-term, draconian service agreement? Because it seems to me that Apple, in getting rid of the only part of the arrangement that gave the consumer any benefit at all, only made the situation worse. That's innovation for you.

If they're restoring the subsidy, I'm all for it. Of course, I'd be even more for it if they sold a factory-unlocked phone for the original, non-subsidized price, but I doubt that'll happen, if only due to the legal headaches.