Not the most aggressive price considering that Amazon (AMZN) is currently offering the Pre, the Pixi’s elder, more robust sibling, for $99 (see image below; click to enlarge) with a two-year contract as well. Remember, the Pixi has a slower processor and a smaller screen than the Pre. And it doesn’t support Wi-Fi. Has some neat back covers though!

Worse, Pixi requires $200 to get out the door, and statistically speaking, there will be quite a few people who will fail to cash in that second $100 rebate. As I noted back when the Pre launched with a similar rebate program, redemption rates for offers like these typically run around 58 percent, thanks to customers who either find the process too cumbersome or forget about it entirely.

This can end up being quite lucrative for the issuing company. Consider this: In 2004, TiVo (TIVO) promised customers a $100 mail-in rebate within six to eight weeks of the purchase of a new DVR. About 50,000 of the 104,000 eligible for that offer failed to take advantage of it. That saved TiVo about $5 million.

PREVIOUSLY:

• Palm Pre: $199 After a $100 Rebate We Hope You Lose

“There have been some suggestions that the decision was based on allegations and not facts,” said Jonathan Todd, a commission spokesman. “With the publication of this decision, you can see precisely the details of the facts and how Intel broke the law.”

Below, a few of those details:

From a series of 2006 Lenovo e-mails:
“As you know I have been negotiating a special deal with Intel. The net is that Intel has made us a very attractive offer that we will end up taking. Our part of this deal is that we will award all business of shipments for the rest of this calendar year to Intel. In exchange, Intel will give us a special deal for both [geographical area] and [geographical area]. The deal is worth millions of dollars.”

“[two Lenovo executives] had a dinner with [an Intel executive] tonight (…). […] When we asked Intel what level of support we will get on NB [notebook] in next quarter, [he] told us (…) the deal is base[d] [sic] on our assumption to not launch AMD NB [notebook] platform. (…) Intel deal will not allow us to launch AMD.”

From a 2002 HP e-mail concerning the company’s negotiation of a rebate agreement with Intel:
“PLEASE DO NOT… communicate to the regions, your team members or AMD that we are constrained to 5 percent AMD by pursuing the Intel agreement.”

From a 2004 HP e-mail:
“You can NOT use the commercial AMD line in the channel in any country, it must be done direct. “If you do and we get caught (and we will) the Intel moneys (each month) is gone (they would terminate the deal). The risk is too high.”

From a 2004 Dell e-mail:
“[Intel senior executives] are prepared for [all-out war] if Dell joins the AMD exodus. We get ZERO MCP for at least one quarter while Intel ‘investigates the details’ (…) We’ll also have to bite and scratch to even hold 50%, including a commitment to NOT ship in Corporate. If we go in Opti [Optiplex corporate desktop line], they cut it to <20% and use the added MCP to compete against us" and "It looks 100% certain that Intel will take MCP to ZERO for at least one quarter while they 'review all of the numbers and implications.' (...) Appears likely that Intel would take MCP to <25% of current levels UNLESS we agree up front not to ship into [Product line]. If we do that, we're in 'détente' mode and can keep MPC [sic] at 50%. However, we don't meet [AMD Senior Executive]'s T&Cs [Terms and Conditions]. So, I would plan on MCP at <20% levels if we execute AMD across [Product line]and [Product line] as AMD wants."

Sounds pretty damning, no? Well, Intel doesn’t think so. In a hastily issued response, the company dismissed the EC’s release of the documents saying, “there’s nothing new here.”

“This Decision reflects the underlying bias we have come to expect from the case team that ran this investigation,” Intel said. “The Commission relied heavily on speculation found in e-mails from lower level employees that did not participate in the negotiation of the relevant agreements. At the same time, they ignored or minimized hard evidence of what actually happened, including highly authoritative documents, written declarations and testimony given under oath by senior individuals who negotiated the transactions at issue.”

That’s how Intel describes the record $1.45 billion antitrust fine levied against it by the European Union, one the company evidently believes was meted out in error.

In an appeal filed with the European Court of First Instance, Intel asks that the European Commission’s antitrust ruling against it be annulled on the grounds that the EC failed “to meet the required standard of proof.”

Seems the chip giant feels the Commission’s analysis of its discounts and rebate programs was too shoddy to be trusted–especially when it’s being used as justification for the largest single penalty imposed on a company for antitrust breaches in Europe.

“The Commission fails to prove that Intel engaged in a long-term strategy to foreclose the competitors,” Intel (INTC) argues in its appeal. “Such a finding is not supported by the evidence and is impossible to reconcile with the fragmented nature of the Commission’s allegations (in relation to both products covered and time period) in respect of each Intel customer….The applicant also submits that all or part of the Decision should be annulled on the basis that the Commission infringed essential procedural requirements during the administrative procedure, which materially infringed Intel’s rights of defence.”

Clearly, former Intel general counsel Bruce Sewell, who left the company to take a job with Apple (AAPL) Tuesday, was busy right up until the time he packed up his desk.

Anyway, Intel asks the court to annul “whole or in part” the EC’s ruling and, barring that, to at least annul or reduce the fine imposed. Finally, it would also like to see the EC ordered to pay its legal expenses.

“We still have a backlog of subscribers but it’s not unmanageable and we get shipments every week,” Brust told attendees of the Wachovia Equity Conference. “We’ll be short for a while but we’re catching up.”

Good thing. The new Palm (PALM) handset is not going to be much good at stemming subscriber losses if you can’t keep it in inventory. And as Sprint (S) well knows, there are other phones on the market, including one that’s $100 cheaper than the Pre, without the rebate.

Oh, and speaking of the iPhone 3GS, Brust says Apple’s latest handset hasn’t been having much of an impact on sales the Pre, though Apple (AAPL) sold one million units compared with a reported 50,000 for the Pre during its first weekend at market. “We don’t see any big change since the iPhone came out yet,” Brust said. “That may happen.”

That may happen. Heh.

“[The Pre is ] extremely competitively priced.”

– Sprint exec. Kevin Packingham

The great truism about rebates is that anything less than 100 percent redemption is free money for the companies offering them. That’s something Palm and Sprint are clearly counting on as they bring Palm’s new Pre handset to market with a $100 rebate.

The companies tout the Pre’s selling price as $199, but really that’s a bit disingenuous. If you intend to buy one, you still have to walk into the store with $299. Sure, you’ll be given that rebate, but Palm (PALM) and Sprint (S) are both hoping you won’t use it. And statistically speaking, you may not. Sahir Anand, Research Director at Aberdeen Group, says rebate redemption rates among the 175 organizations he recently surveyed were just 58 percent. Customers who failed to submit their rebates either found them too cumbersome or simply forgot about them. And that can end up being quite profitable for the companies that issue them. Consider this: In 2004, TiVo (TIVO) promised customers a $100 mail-in rebate within six to eight weeks of the purchase of a new DVR. About 50,000 of the 104,000 eligible for that offer failed to take advantage of it. That saved TiVo about $5 million.

How much might Palm and Sprint save on the Pre rebate program? It’s impossible to say with any degree of specificity, but certainly enough to raise the average selling price of the device above $199. Perhaps even well above it, if Aberdeen’s metrics are borne out.

Seems that in the end, Palm (PALM) decided it would be folly not to match the $199 price of Apple’s (AAPL) iPhone, though according to CEO Ed Colligan, the Pre is far superior to it. Asked at the Consumer Electronics Show if Palm would try to take market share by undercutting the iPhone on price, Colligan told MediaMemo’s Peter Kafka, “Why would we do that when we have a significantly better product?”

Perhaps, because you must? As J.P. Morgan analyst Paul Coster noted this morning, “The $199 price point was absolutely necessary, in our view, to go head to head with RIM and Apple.”

Interestingly, this means the Pre will indeed ship just days before Apple’s Worldwide Developers Conference, the event at which the company is expected to announce its next-generation iPhone. Which suggests that perhaps, as I theorized yesterday, Palm is hoping the Pre will benefit from the iPhone halo. “By debuting so close to the presumed announcement of the iPhone, Palm would be ensuring that its new device is fresh in the minds of anyone mulling the purchase of Apple’s latest offering–or writing about it,” I wrote. “It would be parasitically riding on the back on the Apple media juggernaut. Question is, can it hang on without getting trampled?”