Cheap Android phones 'crushing' Apple's iPhone in countries without subsidies - Page 2

Originally Posted by asdasd

Southern European countries are not poor, they are all in the top 10% in the world.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

There is no way for anyone outside Apple to know the "true cost".

Originally Posted by jragosta

OK. Now, all you have to do is show us your resume and point out where you have experience that indicates that you know how to run Apple better than the existing Board and management team.

Originally Posted by Michael Scrip

Steve jobs has spoken about this before.

This video is talking about computers... but you can easily translate this philosophy to all of their products:

"Our goal is the make the best personal computers in the world, and to make products we are proud to recommend to our family and friends. But there is some stuff in our industry that we wouldn't be proud to ship. We can't do it... we just can't ship junk" - Steve Jobs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...8gnUCWzE#t=32s

Greece's top-selling smartphone last year was the Samsung Galaxy Mini, which sells for just $188 without a contract. For comparison, an older model 8-gigabyte iPhone 4 sells new for $680 without a subsidy in Portugal.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is a strawman argument, the iPod touch is not junk. For its price it is a fantastic machine.

Originally Posted by jhromeror

Need be Apple could just go and buy some countries. Put all that cash in the bank to good use!:

lol:

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is a strawman argument, the iPod touch is not junk. For its price it is a fantastic machine.

the 3GS is pretty great too.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

The Touch has a lower margin than the iPhone but the Touch also has fewer and less expensive components.

For instance, people think the Touch and iPhone have the same display because they both have 960x480 3.5" "Retina Displays" but we know that the iPhone uses an IPS panel and the Touch a TN panel. Then there is quality of the backlight, the speed of the NAND flash, the A4 CPU, RAM, speaker, mic, vibrator, battery, GPS, cellular HW, and on and on and on...

Originally Posted by asdasd

Typical fanboy sneering nonsense. I always hear you as sounding a bit like comic book guy.

I am not saying I could run Apple better than the existing incumbents ( although I have worked in Cupertino and have demoed on campus there to Employees, and know about 20-30 people who work there). What I am saying that the existing incumbents are interested in market share, and they keep saying they are ( like for instance Cook's mention of the 95% yet to be decided in the smart phone war) .

Here is what the actual CEO, not some muppet on the internet had to say

A: 37 million is a big number. It was a decent quarter. It was 37 million more than wed ever done before. We were pretty happy with that, but let me give you the way I look at the numbers. As I see it, that 37 million for last quarter represented 24% of the smartphone market. Theres 3 out of 4 people buying something else. 9 out of 10 phone buyers are buying something else.

Handset market is projected to go from 1.5 to 2 billion units. Take it in the context of these numbers, the truth is that this is a jaw-dropping industry with enormous opportunity. Up against those numbers, the numbers dont seem so large anymore. What seems so large to me is the opportunity.

So if you think you can run the place better than Cook, jump up on stage and tell him to go fuck himself with his market share concerns, you want Margins.

Originally Posted by Shaun, UK

There is a huge revenue potential for selling PAYG (non-contract) phones in the emerging markets like China, India, Brazil and Russia. Together they account for almost half the world's population. I don't think Apple will want to walk away from that. They don't have to build a "crap" product - just keep the iPhone 3GS and lower the price to an acceptable level for the PAYG smartphone market. Even if they just target the emerging middle class in those countries thats still a lot of money to be made.

Originally Posted by nagromme

Almost everyone I know who uses Windows pays $100 plus at least once a year to get their system working again or cleaned of malware. Theyre not tech-savvy like us, but were not the majority. They pay MORE in the end with their cheap PCs that need frequent replacement and cant be sold. And then they have a machine theyre afraid of and hate. But would they consider Apple? Many never would. Go figure.)

Originally Posted by jragosta

Let's see if we can make sense of your twisted logic:

You say that you aren't claiming to know more about running Apple than the management team - yet you keep saying that they're doing it wrong and should do something different.

OTOH, I say that the management team should be left alone to make the decisions that they clearly know how to make - and you accuse me of thinking I can run the place better than Apple.

Nope. There's no way that I can make sense of your twisted logic.

Originally Posted by Vision33r

Who cares about cheap android phones they are cheap. Poor people with cheap phones does not equal vertical sales.

These are people that buy the $5 fake cases on the street, download only free apps with malware, and play pirated media. Why should Apple care.

Originally Posted by Mr. H

No. Consumers do not "pay much less than that". Consumers pay more than that if they go with a contract - they pay much less up front but essentially what they've done is taken out a high-interest loan from their carrier and used it to pay Apple for the phone.

Originally Posted by asdasd

No I didn't. I did suggest that they make the 3GS cheaper, which they already have done and will continue to do. This is the kind of wish list which gets said on Apple Insider, and which the site is here for. Stuff like "I wish the iPhone had NFC", or "I wish the iPhone had a larger screen". It isn't an ex cathedra instruction to management of Apple who probably aren't reading.



Saying the management should be "left alone to do what they want" is to curtail all discussion on Apple's market strategy. However if they say there are interested in market share it makes no sense to say they are not interested in market share.

The discussion here is on the fact that Apple is getting spanked in the pre-paid market. There are two responses to this.

1) The less popular response ( on AI): Apple needs a lower priced model.
3) The more popular response - Apple doesn't care, its got LOADSAMONEY!


You ( and others) say that Apple are not interested in market share. I post a link from the CEO saying he is very very interested in market share and thinks the 37M is just the beginning, that there is a 2B unit per year market out there. Thats not an instruction to management, it is a reference on what they themselves say, it is a clear refutal of the argument to profit matters above all else.

Apple does care about market share, ( and it also cares about margins), hence we can dicsuss what they have to do to get traction in the pre-paid market which is most of the 90% which Tim Cook is eying.

Originally Posted by jragosta

And that nicely points out why your posts are useless. You make things up and then argue against your fantasies instead of what people actually said.

No one said that Apple is not interested in market share (or, if someone did, I missed it). I certainly never made such a claim.

What I have said agrees completely with what Apple's stated position is - that market share is nice, but not if you have to sacrifice profits or quality to get it. And selling a phone that would compete with a $190 unsubsidized phone would do both.

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil

Apple, force all carriers to drop the forced data plans. Simple.

Originally Posted by Apple ][


Apple needs to remain a premium brand, selling premium products to customers who appreciate it.

There's also a rumor going around today about the iPad 3 being priced at $579! Awesome! All that extra technology and the amazing screen comes at a price! Apple is not for cheapskates!

Originally Posted by nagromme

Cheap product = users get a poor device and the company gets little profit. Id rather be crushed!

(As for $250 Windows laptops... I recommended one to an out-of-work friend. Never again. Its Russian Roulette just how bag the experience will be... does it run slow and have a bad viewing angle, but at least last you a while? Or does it just die, one part after another, almost immediately so you spend your warranty period losing data and fighting to get service... until it dies again after the warranty ends? My friend has a doorstopcomplete with virusesand $250 down the drain. Shed rather use a rock as a doorstop and file the $250 away for a MacBook Air. And how many of those $250 units do you have to buy in 10 years, vs. how many $999+ MacBook Airs? And whats the resale value like on them vs. the Airs? And the support costs? Almost everyone I know who uses Windows pays $100 plus at least once a year to get their system working again or cleaned of malware. Theyre not tech-savvy like us, but were not the majority. They pay MORE in the end with their cheap PCs that need frequent replacement and cant be sold. And then they have a machine theyre afraid of and hate. But would they consider Apple? Many never would. Go figure.)

Originally Posted by Hyandlofty1

If US no contract carriers would carry the any of the iPhones I would have bought one. I settled regrettably on a Android powered LG till I can get an iPhone on a no contract carrier.

Originally Posted by lkrupp

If heading toward half a trillion dollars in market capitalization and gobbling up the majority of profits in the mobile market, Mac sales soaring, iPads becoming ubiquitous is being "crushed" then let's have some more "crushing" please. You trolls have never accepted the fact that Apple doesn't seem to notice or care that it is doomed.

Originally Posted by jungmark

Because Apple is the only smart phone vendor to have a 2 year contract.

/s

Originally Posted by Santoanderson

When I first bought my iPhone 3GS three years ago, my brother-in-law chastised me for buying such an expensive phone. I spent $300, and that was the last phone I bought.

Three years later that same brother-in-law has gone through 6, count'em SIX Android phones, totaling about $1,000.

So with Apple, you may be spending more in the short term, but you're paying for life-span and quality.

Originally Posted by hmm

I remember your irritation with this in the past. They should let you do this if they're not subsidizing the phone or it's out of contract.

Originally Posted by anantksundaram

No need for sarcasm. In many markets, Apple's monthly contract is a few dollars/euros/quids higher. Even if it is 5/mo, that is 180 extra on a three year contract (without allowing for time value of money, of course).