Originally Posted by jaben
I've always thought Apple was very strict about its margins, and now that they have lowered prices (which negatively affect margins) on many of there other products (justified because of gains on iphone), I find it very hard to believe that they would take on a brand new piece of hardware that's probably much pricier (because it's not being used by the masses yet), hence cutting into those margins.
I dont know where you are seeing Apple has lowered their prices. Every release a new model with more stuff takes the price-point of the previous model. The 32GB 3GS replaced the 16GB 3G at $299, the 16GB 3GS replaced the 8G 3G @ $199, and the old 8GB iPhone 3G found new life @ $99.
As for margins, they could have been reduced as you have more competition on the lower end, but they could have stayed the same or even gone up. When you lower the price in order to maintain the same net profit per unit you have to increase the margin. This can be countered increased sales in the new price-point which can lead to less costs per unit. Also, having a production in place that has worked out kinks for a year now and with components that are older and cheaper can all lead to Apple still making as much net profit per device, or even more. It all depends on many, many factors.
I love my iphone, but realistically, many aspects of the hardware are not cutting edge (a 3MP camera).
Cutting edge is used more in marketing to trick people into thinking they are getting something better than something else, but it usually requires scraping at the tree bark without looking at the forest. Apple has a 3Mpx camera in the 3GS while the Droid has a 5Mpx camera, but have you seen the quality of the photos?
The MacBook Air used a lot of "cutting edge features, though Id describe it as previously unused in mass-masrketed computers. The milled aluminium case, even though milling aluminium has been around for a long time.
Intel had invented the small-form-factor CPU awhile back but shelved it. Apple apparently asked for something small and power efficient, yet some say its a crappy processor because its not as fast as xyz
. Yet, its a $300 part that is a C2D that significantly small than other C2Ds and now being used in over a half dozen other such machines.
Having the biggest or fastest or coolest looking is not a sign of good design. Its about balance and more than silly pseudo-geeks think matters. If you only look at the CPU speed or the Megapixel size or the screen resolution then you really arent looking very closely. Not fitting ones needs is not the same as being an un-innovative piece of junk.
Check out the Droid v. iPhone image comparisons. That 5Mpx camera is pretty bad. Most of can be resolved in software by the looks of it, but that can be a tricky fix.
I could see the iPhone on T-Mobile, being that they are aggressively deploying 3G and they have great customer service; apple would only have to place an additional WCDMA antenna in the device, and slightly modify the software if they choose to go with T-Mobile. I guess we will have to wait and see.
Its more than an antenna, its the radio for that spectrum. Specifically, WCDMA 1700, Band IV. Seems a lot easier to add that than all the trouble with the hybrid chip and Qualcomms fees.
Originally Posted by mike12309
Id hardly call a new version of the Iphone a new product. More like an upgrade to an existing successful product.
Do you mean a new product category? Its certainly a new product. Has a new name, has a lot of new components with a re-engineered logic board. I dont think the exterior look not changing means that its the same product.