or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple seen introducing mid-range contract-free $350 iPhone in Sept.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple seen introducing mid-range contract-free $350 iPhone in Sept. - Page 2

post #41 of 88
WWDC 2011 Session 131 is "Getting Your Apps Ready for China and Other Hot Markets."
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #42 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

My feelings exactly.

Apple's goals are rarely market/business-related at all. The goal is the product.

They may make all iPhones cheaper, and they may make a cheaper lower-end phone, but to make a "cheap iPhone" to sell alongside the current iPhone is not very Apple-like at all.

It would just be a slightly slower, crappier iPhone for less money.
Does that really sound like Apple?

Thats the way the iMac line works. I dont see what is un-Apple about it. There are lower end models in their computer line up, and higher specced models.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #43 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Predicting what Apple will do based on market analysis is like forecasting the weather based on whether it rained last week.

Actually - that works pretty darn well in western Oregon - especially in the winter.
post #44 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Sure, you don't want to dilute your brand, but if you have sufficiently saturated a market tier you have to move to grow the brand. Even as more people move to smartphones their is even more need to respond to these dumbphone to smartphone switchers.

Growing the iPhone into a new model is expected. We can see this with the iPod and Mac. I think we can assume Apple's helped their AppleTV brand, revenue, and profit with the $99 version so sometimes it can be good for business.

They are already going for this with the $49 iPhone 3GS on AT&T which is why I think this will be basically be an iPhone 4 from a component standpoint. Can you see how the iPhone 3GS would likely be about $350 out of contract right now? I can.

I suspect a 4GS first and a the addition of a higher priced more powerful 5 some months thereafter.
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #45 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

A cheap "mid-range" iPhone would dilute the product image, causing Apple to eventually appear no different than Dell or Acer in the eyes of the consumer.

Apple doesn't need market saturation to empower the brand name recognition that drives revenue for those companies. I sincerely hope Apple can find a different method to address the pre-paid market, assuming they even feel the need to enter that market.

You do know you can buy an iPod for under $50 bucks, right?

Few are willing to accept it, but Apple is a mass market player. They don't just want to make Porsches and sell like Porsches. They want to make Porsche quality cars, but sell them like Fords.
post #46 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by markvdrheijden View Post

So your job is to watch Apple and you come up with this? He obviously doesn't understand Apple. They'll never go for subpar.

Subpar, maybe not but they will cut costs with economies of scale just as much as the next guy. Perfect case in point is the advertising server grade HDs in Time Capsule or the idea of using a Mac Mini for an enterprise class mission.
post #47 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I suspect a 4GS first and a the addition of a higher priced more powerful 5 some months thereafter.

I'll explain why "4GS" is a name that will never be used.

G has come to be known as being short for 'generation'. Normally in computing, it's generation of device (fifth-gen iPod, third-gen iPod nano, etc.), but for the iPhone, Apple decided to designate it as generation of cellular telephony.

Because of this, we had the iPhone 3G as a second-gen product. 3G denoted 3G speed. The iPhone 3GS was a processor (and 3G speed) boost, as well as being a third-gen product.

The iPhone 4 was a processor speed boost as well. However, it doesn't have LTE. That's why it wasn't the iPhone 4G. Apple had to change naming conventions, because 3GSS sounds idiotic. Therefore, the 4 denoted product generation.

Which is why the next iPhone will be called the iPhone 5. Because IT, TOO, will not have LTE or any other 4G cellular technology.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #48 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

Predicting what Apple will do based on market analysis is like forecasting the weather based on whether it rained last week.

Using quantitative methods you can do a lot of accurate modeling.Of course it also helps to know the industry and the players. You can't depend on models alone.
post #49 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Thats the way the iMac line works. I dont see what is un-Apple about it. There are lower end models in their computer line up, and higher specced models.

You might think this too fine a distinction, but I would argue instead that the iMac line is the opposite of that.

They make the base iMac, then they make a couple of models (the higher priced ones), with "extras" like more memory or a bigger screen. This rumour is the equivalent of Apple making a "budget" iMac with a low quality screen or using netbook hard drives in it or some such, just to make it four hundred bucks cheaper than the original and then selling both at the same time.
post #50 of 88
Why not instead release an iPod touch with 3G connectivity, allow it to purchase contract-free month-to-month data plans like the iPad, and launch an iCloud-driven VOIP service?
post #51 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post

I would LOVE to have an iPhone that only made calls and synced contacts and nothing else... for less than half the weight, size and price. I don't need to carry around a computer in my pocket 24/7.

Now that is an iphone mini rumor I could buy. Same interface but it just does the phone functions (voice and text) with the calendar, contacts, notepad, camera and that's it. No wifi, perhaps only like 1-2GB of storage for a few photos etc. Price it at $200 full retail unlocked GSM. No need for a data plan cause there's no data of any kind. Carriers could give it away for free like other dumb phones or folks could go no contract monthly or prepaid.

It would be great for you or I etc with our ipads and laptops who need to make calls or those older folks that want the iphone because they think it is easier than a regular phone. Or the parents that want to give their ten year olds phones when they bike to the park etc but they don't want them being able to get on Facebook and what not and the kids are whining about 'Joey has an iphone why can't I have one'. Perhaps there could even be new parental controls that let the parents restrict use of the camera and even perhaps making and taking calls and texts to only the folks the parents have put in the address book before it was locked down.

The beauty of it is that they won't have to worry about it diluting their share because they have the two fully featured iphone models that everyone typically wants. This will be the tool they will use to say that they listened to the public, many of whom have asked for a voice only iphone etc and here it is.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #52 of 88
I had to get rid of my iPhone to go prepaid. I would love to have it back, but I'll never go contract again. I would buy the iPhone in an instant if I could use it on prepaid. I wonder how many people out there are in a similar situation.
post #53 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post

I suspect a 4GS first and a the addition of a higher priced more powerful 5 some months thereafter.

1) We are getting to a point where differentiating the product line might be their best option. When you factor in LTE chip size and power efficiency with a larger display I can see how that might be on the table.

2) We can't rule out this $350 phone will be exclusively for China Mobile with their GSM/TD-SCDMA network. China is Apple's fastest growing market so it only makes sense to put additional focus there.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #54 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


HEY. IDIOTS. (Sorry, talking to the analysts now). You want Apple to release a "mid-range" phone? Hound the carriers to make data plans OPTIONAL.

Never happen. What could happen is more reasonable plans. And if someone had the balls to launch a law suit, a splitting of the device from the service plans so we can stop paying 'device costs' when we bring a phone in or have finished our contracts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by makingdots View Post

Just smack a 3G + GSM sim card on an iPod Touch.. Done!

That will worth around $400 I guess. :

Won't happen. That GSM etc comes with licensing costs. That's what raises the price of the iphone so high. And if they were going to smack 3g into the ipod touch it would be by getting rid of it. After all, that's what the iphone is, a touch with a phone antenna.

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply

A non tech's thoughts on Apple stuff 

(She's family so I'm a little biased)

Reply
post #55 of 88
I here ya, I currently have prepaid phone cost me 19.95 and I buy about $300 of prpeaid per year, so it saves me $2000 per year in fees.

I don't make many calls and I stop it recieving calls by google voice number so I can control when it receives calls and don't gve away the number much.

I'd love to be able to get an iphone prepaid, that way I could use it on my wif-fi to make long international call using skype and at wi-fi hots spots to use google maps, question is how does the prepaid contrat work with a data plan?

Alex


Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post

I would LOVE to have an iPhone that only made calls and synced contacts and nothing else... for less than half the weight, size and price. I don't need to carry around a computer in my pocket 24/7. I'm a freelancer but I spent 95% of my time at my iMac working. I don't need web and email and angry birds for the one hour that I might be away from my desk. And if I DO need web and email (for a meeting let's say)... I'll take along my iPad or MacBook Air. For now, I'm suffering with my crappy RAZR. Can't bring myself to get an iPhone. Too heavy. Too much. Don't need it. Hopefully this mid-range rumor is not just a cheaper iPhone 4 but a whole new form factor.

Originally Posted by Rickers - 2014

Cook & Co will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost for so long.  Steve == Apple and Apple == Steve.  

Reply

Originally Posted by Rickers - 2014

Cook & Co will bury Apple.  They can only ride Steve's ghost for so long.  Steve == Apple and Apple == Steve.  

Reply
post #56 of 88
Why do they keep lumping in pre-paid with new hardware? The pre-paid portion is up to the carriers, not hardware makers. Any phone can have pre-paid capabilities through a simple software update.
post #57 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

I still don't entirely understand why this is such a scam. Without the 2 year contract I take to get a subsidy, the carrier plans remain the same price. I will strongly agree that those plans are ridiculously inflated, but they aren't any better from carrier to carrier, so how am I being scammed?

Basically the bundling of phone subsidies with the actual voice and data tariffs, the carriers (with the phone manufacturers supporting them) inhibit competition. Imagine the oil companies would start selling cars (and subsidise 50+% of their price) in exchange for a multi-year contract (and 'SIM'-lock) limiting users to their petrol stations. There would be much less price competition at the pumps but also for new cars. Essentially, the car manufacturers would see the oil companies as their customers and trying to please them.

It's a scam because it leaves the customer with little to no choice (whether she or he wants a subsidy or not) and herds customers into upgrading hardware every two years. I mean, if car manufacturers could find a way to get customers get a new car every two years, that would be heaven for the manufacturers. It is highly nontransparent pricing, see how difficult it is for people here to believe the amount of the subsidy as reported. And if highly nontransparent pricing leads to profit margins of 70% it can be described as taking customers for a ride.

If you want the lack of pricing differences between the carriers is evidence for their collusion. And if two (or more) parties collude to charge you more, that could be called a scam.
post #58 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post

Why not instead release an iPod touch with 3G connectivity, allow it to purchase contract-free month-to-month data plans like the iPad, and launch an iCloud-driven VOIP service?

I fail to see what the difference between an iPod touch with 3G and an unlocked iPhone is. Unless you mean an unlocked iPhone with the slightly cheaper body and display of the current iPod touch.
post #59 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir View Post

I mean, if car manufacturers could find a way to get customers get a new car every two years, that would be heaven for the manufacturers.

If the manufacturers would actually build vehicles that were different from those sold twenty years ago, people might actually update more often. Instead of worthless features, how about an internal combustion engine that is more than 30% efficient? How about a gigantic push into making battery tech smaller, lighter, and with greater storage? If the car manufacturers would do with their electric motor batteries what Apple did with laptop batteries, we'd have plug-in all-electric cars that could go 600 miles on a charge, get 80% charged in two hours, and even have batteries be light enough for a guy to lift and swap out himself if one went dead away from a plug.

I drive a seventeen year old van that I can still get 25 MPG out of. There's no reason for me to buy a newer vehicle because 1) the darn thing still runs perfectly because I take care of it and 2) even if I did buy a newer vehicle, none of them would give me 25 MPG because no one cares about building fuel efficient vehicles, apparently.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #60 of 88
Quote:
Why do they keep lumping in pre-paid with new hardware? The pre-paid portion is up to the carriers, not hardware makers. Any phone can have pre-paid capabilities through a simple software update.

I think it has to be agreed by carriers and manufacturers. In any case prepaid has to mean cheaper, too.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #61 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

I am really talking about the difference in price between an iPod touch and an iPhone.

Which features get scrapped? none. iOS 5 runs on the 3GS.

Photo editing, tabs in Safari are a couple of IOS 5 features not functional on my 3GS
post #62 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If the manufacturers would actually build vehicles that were different from those sold twenty years ago, people might actually update more often. Instead of worthless features, how about an internal combustion engine that is more than 30% efficient? How about a gigantic push into making battery tech smaller, lighter, and with greater storage? If the car manufacturers would do with their electric motor batteries what Apple did with laptop batteries, we'd have plug-in all-electric cars that could go 600 miles on a charge, get 80% charged in two hours, and even have batteries be light enough for a guy to lift and swap out himself if one went dead away from a plug.

I drive a seventeen year old van that I can still get 25 MPG out of. There's no reason for me to buy a newer vehicle because 1) the darn thing still runs perfectly because I take care of it and 2) even if I did buy a newer vehicle, none of them would give me 25 MPG because no one cares about building fuel efficient vehicles, apparently.

Cars are certainly a mature technology. You are, however, missing out on power steering.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #63 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

If the manufacturers would actually build vehicles that were different from those sold twenty years ago, people might actually update more often.

And in the phone market pre-iPhone, enough people nevertheless got a new Razr every two years (despite not really having any improvements either). Simply because not getting a new phone would have meant leaving money (the subsidy) on the table.
post #64 of 88
I think a lot of people here need to think of the mobile market outside of the US. The strange US market is the anomaly. not the rest of the world.

In Europe and elsewhere, the iPhone is not tied to a data contract. Hell, it's not tied to a contract necesarily. I have a SIM only plan that costs me (after various discounts) around £12 a month. For that I get 600 minutes, unlimited SMS and effectively unlimited data. And this is because my carrier is not loaning me any money for a phone. Similarly, I could junk the SIM only plan tomorrow, and put in a PAYG SIM. No problem. No hardware limiting what I can do.

So, to the important bit. Could Apple offer a significantly cheaper phone aimed at the prepay market? Yes, but I think one or two other things would have to happen:

1) Apple do not simply re-hash the 3GS; but design the phone from the ground up to be cheap to assemble. I suspect something like a combination of 3GS res (but 4 quality) 3-3.5" display; an A4 based SoC that includes some of the other capabilities (e.g baseband) on current iPhones (and thus reduce manufacturing costs); reduced or no buttons; and lower memory. You can also include iPod touch quality cameras too.
2) Leverage iCloud. You need less memory if you don't need to carry your music or photo collection with you.
3) Some way of linking top-ups to iTunes. This is a biggie, and would be the most challenging for Apple to accomplish. If top-up balance is held within (or somehow are linked to) iTunes, then Apple have access to a payment mechanism other than credit card. This is important for prepaid where credit card penetration is significantly lower.

Looking at the tear-downs of cheaper iPods, what strikes me is the simplicity of them. Despite being high quality pieces of kit, the components requiring assembly have been pared back to the absolute minimum. Despite the high quality of materials, this (and Apple's volume purchasing) are the reasons Apple can make iPods so cheap.

Whether Apple will or not is difficult to say. I imagine they'd only do it when the market for top-tier iPhones was saturated. Maybe in China first, using Chinese specific radios (and thus not much use selling in the grey market in the rest of the world).
post #65 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichyS View Post

I think a lot of people here need to think of the mobile market outside of the US. The strange US market is the anomaly. not the rest of the world.

In Europe and elsewhere, the iPhone is not tied to a data contract. Hell, it's not tied to a contract necesarily. I have a SIM only plan that costs me (after various discounts) around £12 a month. For that I get 600 minutes, unlimited SMS and effectively unlimited data. And this is because my carrier is not loaning me any money for a phone. Similarly, I could junk the SIM only plan tomorrow, and put in a PAYG SIM. No problem. No hardware limiting what I can do.

So, to the important bit. Could Apple offer a significantly cheaper phone aimed at the prepay market? Yes, but I think one or two other things would have to happen:

1) Apple do not simply re-hash the 3GS; but design the phone from the ground up to be cheap to assemble. I suspect something like a combination of 3GS res (but 4 quality) 3-3.5" display; an A4 based SoC that includes some of the other capabilities (e.g baseband) on current iPhones (and thus reduce manufacturing costs); reduced or no buttons; and lower memory. You can also include iPod touch quality cameras too.
2) Leverage iCloud. You need less memory if you don't need to carry your music or photo collection with you.
3) Some way of linking top-ups to iTunes. This is a biggie, and would be the most challenging for Apple to accomplish. If top-up balance is held within (or somehow are linked to) iTunes, then Apple have access to a payment mechanism other than credit card. This is important for prepaid where credit card penetration is significantly lower.

Looking at the tear-downs of cheaper iPods, what strikes me is the simplicity of them. Despite being high quality pieces of kit, the components requiring assembly have been pared back to the absolute minimum. Despite the high quality of materials, this (and Apple's volume purchasing) are the reasons Apple can make iPods so cheap.

Whether Apple will or not is difficult to say. I imagine they'd only do it when the market for top-tier iPhones was saturated. Maybe in China first, using Chinese specific radios (and thus not much use selling in the grey market in the rest of the world).



Good post. I too see top-ups linked to iTunes, or vice versa as important long term. Doesn't need to be fixed immediately.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #66 of 88
Another analysis who has no clue, they are all assuming Apple is going to follow the iPod model with the phones, they may, but it is not a sure bet at this point. Apple could be following another completely different business model for the Phone than what they did on the iPod space.

The middle and low grounds are rip for better product, the problem in that space most all end users have been too condition on getting a free phone verse paying for them.

The question could apple offer a phone with no data services so make it a texting phone with music and apps for kids. My kids have our hand me down iPhones and we unlocked them so they could use them without data plan, they do not like this, but they can not afford to pay for data.

The other things the iPhone has no other product on the market has, the iPhone generate about 10X the cost of the phone in extra revenue for Apple in the way of apps and music and such. The iPhone is becoming the modern day inkjet printer, Epson and HP make so much money from selling ink than they make from selling the printer. That is the same for the iPhone, Apple is leaving very few dollars on the table for others to make.
post #67 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by brutus009 View Post

The problem with the "cheap" iPhone is this: which features get scrapped to differentiate the pre-paid iPhone from the "full-featured" iPhone? What can Apple do to cut costs while maintaining the user experience?

The most expensive components of the iPhone/iPod touch are: touchscreen display and the main silicon: SoC (CPU+GPU+RAM) and NAND flash memory for storage. Using older components (e.g. non-Retina Display panel) and reducing storage (less NAND flash) would accomplish much toward reducing cost.

To further cut costs, other components that could be dumped would be the camera, GPS module, magnetometer (digital compass), and gyroscope.

I'm still skeptical about this rumor though. Proceeding this direction would reduce margins.
post #68 of 88
Apple needs to think hard about this one,

how to make the phone for less money so they add a phone just wired to work with pre-pay...
this could be the new sim less phone where you can switch between networks, 3g and 4g, and prepay, that be sweet....

can't see Steve Jobs eating his own words, when he stated smaller screens was not a good idea, so i see the pre-pay iphone being of same size, maybe even look the same on front or whole, they are looking into Liquid Mental Tech,,, TERMINATOR and man, this phone would be for the others.... some say ipod touch with phone capabilities??? like my title "Tricky One" for Apple but a necessity if they want to break the east (main target at the moment)......

Best tactic is to focus on bringing the costs further lower and utilise one design, and let the iso software lock/unlock features between all configurations.... some say introduce the previous gen iPhone for pre-pay? i think it will workout to cost more to run to separate design in production as if you was just to make one, running two wont help in reducing supply demand levels, as we all know about this....

ANY IDEAS ANYONE?
post #69 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

The most expensive components of the iPhone/iPod touch are: touchscreen display and the main silicon: SoC (CPU+GPU+RAM) and NAND flash memory for storage. Using older components (e.g. non-Retina Display panel) and reducing storage (less NAND flash) would accomplish much toward reducing cost.

They are also rumours that the display would be smaller and hence cheaper. There's also another really significant number that we really don't know, which is how much a highly advanced design like the iPhone-4 costs to manufacture. The iSuppli teardown only covered components, but the assembly of something like the iPhone-4 is almost certainly more than the assembly of a Nexus-1 or even an iPhone 3GS.
post #70 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by MMTM1983 View Post

can't see Steve Jobs eating his own words, when he stated smaller screens was not a good idea,

Jobs has changed directions about these things in the past, and he may well have only meant that small screens were silly for developed western markets. Asian consumers have demonstrably different preferences in some areas, and seem to have a love of super tiny devices.
post #71 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post


If this hypothetical phone didn't do apps at all, but instead just did the basic phone functions, plus texts, music and picture taking like any feature phone, it would sell like hotcakes. Give it a tiny little square screen like the iPod nano, hell, maybe it even runs iPod nano games. It doesn't need a keyboard if it has (virtual) T9 like any flip phone, it doesn't need a contract, and it won't suck data.

The average selling price of the iPhone 4 is $650. The iPhone 3GS still goes for $500.

Apple wanted to revolutionize the smartphone industry... not cater to the cheap dumbphone market.
post #72 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post


The other things the iPhone has no other product on the market has, the iPhone generate about 10X the cost of the phone in extra revenue for Apple in the way of apps and music and such. The iPhone is becoming the modern day inkjet printer, Epson and HP make so much money from selling ink than they make from selling the printer. That is the same for the iPhone, Apple is leaving very few dollars on the table for others to make.

10 times the cost of the iPhone?

A person would have to buy 2,000 songs to just equal the cost of one iPhone (remember... Apple only keeps 30 cents from each song)

And... the average person only buys roughly 60 apps. That's about $18 if the apps were $1 (again... only 30 cents per app)

Apple is a hardware company... they always have been. Apps and music are only there to help sell the iPhone.

The iPhone itself is still the big thing.
post #73 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prof. Peabody View Post

If this hypothetical phone didn't do apps at all, but instead just did the basic phone functions, plus texts, music and picture taking like any feature phone, it would sell like hotcakes. Give it a tiny little square screen like the iPod nano, hell, maybe it even runs iPod nano games. It doesn't need a keyboard if it has (virtual) T9 like any flip phone, it doesn't need a contract, and it won't suck data.

It will be a little piece of Apple magic in your hand and you will be able to buy it in India and Africa and all the other places where the feature phone is still king for next to nothing. It could be the iCloud gateway drug.

Apple is not in the business of selling phones just to sell phones. Their goal is to have their hardware and software tightly coupled with each other, so each will drive the adoption of the other. A feature phone that does not involve itself in Apple's environment will have no place in Apple, because it has little of the Apple magic you talk about.

I can see it not having mobile data, not having a large flash memory capacity, not having a hi-res screen, but processing power will be right up there with last years, or even this year's top model. This baseline phone could very well have similar spec as 3GS does, except with A5 or A6 chip, GSM/CDMA voice only, Wifi data. This should cut about $50-70 off the component price of the top of line model. They could even go with a SD card slot in place of flash memory all together to be even cheaper.

Operational wise, this phone would be little different from iPhone. And the configuration would be cheap enough to allow nearly 50% off the price of top of line model, and still keep close enough profit margine.
post #74 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

iPhone is and will always be a smartphone. This device would still be force to have a data plan. There would be nothing 'mid-range' about this device except for its utter lack of features from the real iPhone. No one would buy it when they have the option of the real iPhone. Case in point, the first-gen iPhone 4 GB. Discontinued in two months because people bought the eight. And a "mid-range, contract-free" iPhone would lack even more.


It's time for all analysts to be jailed.



I have a better one: Predicting what Apple will do based on market analysis is like forecasting the weather based on what you ate last week.

HEY. IDIOTS. (Sorry, talking to the analysts now). You want Apple to release a "mid-range" phone? Hound the carriers to make data plans OPTIONAL. The EXISTING iPhone instantly becomes mid-range, you get millions more subscribers from the people who couldn't care less about/don't need/couldn't afford a data plan, and Apple keeps their massive revenue stream because they're selling even more of the "expensive version" of the iPhone.


nano phone


9
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
whats in a name ? 
beatles
Reply
post #75 of 88
iPhone nano makes no sense. Apple likes to keep it simple for developers - 3.5" or 9.7" that's it. Not loads of different screen sizes.

iPhone 5 = Latest Spec + 4G/LTE + 4" screen > Target = Contract Market

iPhone 4s = Lower Spec + 3G + 4" screen > Target = Pre-Paid Market

iPod Touch = Same spec as iPhone 4s without the phone + 4" screen

Use same iOS Apps on all 3 = simplicity for app developers.

They might differentiate 5 & 4s with new names (iPhone Air / iPhone Classic) & different designs
post #76 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by cloudgazer View Post

They are also rumours that the display would be smaller and hence cheaper.

If Apple went with a smaller display, it would still have to have the same pixel dimensions as the 3GS or 4. In either case, it means the icons, keyboard, game controls and everything get smaller. I don't think the iPhone keyboard would be usable on a smaller screen.

Check for the availability of 2.5" or 3" LED LCD displays are 960x640 or 480x320. Do they even exist? They would have to exist and be in considerable volume for a iPhone mini rumor to hold any water.
post #77 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Takeo View Post

I would LOVE to have an iPhone that only made calls and synced contacts and nothing else... for less than half the weight, size and price. I don't need to carry around a computer in my pocket 24/7.

Oh, I'm SURE Apple would LOVE to sell a device that doesn't allow purchases from their App Store or iTunes Store.
post #78 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44 View Post

You do know you can buy an iPod for under $50 bucks, right?

Few are willing to accept it, but Apple is a mass market player. They don't just want to make Porsches and sell like Porsches. They want to make Porsche quality cars, but sell them like Fords.

No, that analogy doesn't work.

Yes, Apple is a mass market player, however they are still aiming for the premium side of the marketplace, even with their entry level models such as the iPod shuffle. The 2GB shuffle lists at $49 and you can find them discounted down to about $46 whereas you can find a 4GB Coby MP3 player for about $24 street price based on a quick Amazon search.
post #79 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by xsu View Post

Apple is not in the business of selling phones just to sell phones. Their goal is to have their hardware and software tightly coupled with each other, so each will drive the adoption of the other. A feature phone that does not involve itself in Apple's environment will have no place in Apple, because it has little of the Apple magic you talk about.

I can see it not having mobile data, not having a large flash memory capacity, not having a hi-res screen, but processing power will be right up there with last years, or even this year's top model. This baseline phone could very well have similar spec as 3GS does, except with A5 or A6 chip, GSM/CDMA voice only, Wifi data. This should cut about $50-70 off the component price of the top of line model. They could even go with a SD card slot in place of flash memory all together to be even cheaper.

Operational wise, this phone would be little different from iPhone. And the configuration would be cheap enough to allow nearly 50% off the price of top of line model, and still keep close enough profit margine.

I'm not sure why you chose me to reply to. Your assumptions are all the exact opposite of mine and more in line with what the analysts and the author of this article believe, yet you not only don't make a compelling case, you don't really say anything new either.

IMO the basic problem here is that everyone is confabulating two essentially different goals into one rumour of one product.

Goal 1) reduce the cost of the iPhone if possible.

Goal 2) make a cheap entry-level phone for those that can't afford iPhone.

These are not the same goal. You are making the same mistake as everyone else in thinking that a reduced cost iPhone would achieve "Goal 2." It can't. Unless Apple is about to also reduce it's margins and throw a ton of profit out the door, merely to achieve market penetration.

Whatever they may or may not do to reduce the overall cost of the iPhone, they can't sell it as a separate product because it destroys the brand and eviscerates sales of the "regular" iPhone. The only way it works is if they stop selling the original iPhone and the new cheap crappy-quality one with the low memory etc. becomes "the iPhone," which is just so unlikely it's not worth talking about.

It's most likely that all the rumours we have been hearing are really about "Goal 1." They are probably doing all they can to keep the cost down and *maybe* we will see a price drop in the near future for the iPhone. "Goal 2" may not even exist.

But if they are pursuing "Goal 2" at all, it can't be just a cheaper version of the iPhone (cheaper parts etc.), it has to be a different phone altogether, closer to a feature phone.
post #80 of 88
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post

The average selling price of the iPhone 4 is $650. The iPhone 3GS still goes for $500.

Apple wanted to revolutionize the smartphone industry... not cater to the cheap dumbphone market.

I've seen nothing that would suggest Apple is *only* interested in the smartphone portion of the market, nor have they said so themselves. They may be, they may not be.

We will likely find out when they produce their first feature phone.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple seen introducing mid-range contract-free $350 iPhone in Sept.