or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Low-cost iPhone seen generating $6.5B in 2013 revenue for Apple
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Low-cost iPhone seen generating $6.5B in 2013 revenue for Apple - Page 2

post #41 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I don't agree with calling it craptastic as I think that detracts for a valid argument but I don't think you can move the measure up 6 years and say something cheap qualifies as high-end or good when it's well below the state of the art. We can look at pretty much any technology driven industry to see features in the high-end trickle down to the low end. Automobiles are great examples of this.

What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this.  Who knows is they are actually going to do this to remain relevant in emerging markets.

 

kDarling showed the video of the SIII mini and while some of you may look down your nose at it, it a great smartphone and costs 1/4 of what an iPhone does and it adds to your arugment SolipsismX.  Stuff that was great 2-3 years ago may now be 'boring' to people like us who spend time on forums dedicated to Smartphones but it's pretty darn amazing to people who have never had one and I know a lot of people who like to test the water at $150 before jumping in with $600.

 

If Apple doesn't come out with a more affordable phone, they will still be fine.  They will always have their fans who will buy their products no matter if it's better or not.  It's Apple and that is all that matters.  They are not going to go away anytime soon so I don't think there are any worries except for the shareholders who don't like the price being tweaked by certain individuals.

post #42 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Not sure how cheap one needs to get. FREE with contract is quit cheap. Now if Apple wants to go with contract free phones, then what will the trade off be? iPhone 6 will see the iPhone 4 price at FREE with no contract and no camera/GPS?

I can see a no camera/GPS/contract "FREE" phone for $99ish when Tim smacks himself on the forehead and says "We forgot about the lowest end market! We need to provide a cheaper user experience that will reduce profit and increase support costs."

Until that day how about acknowledge that Apple is a high end product sold at a premium price.

¿Que? If it has a contract and a retail vale of $450 it's not free. There will be no free phone that is also contract free by removing the camera and GPS.

Most of the world's markets don't deal with subsidized phones which makes the initial investment much harder to swallow. Imagine how many people would be driving 25k, 50k, or more automobiles if they had to pay that up front at time of purchase. The subsidy acts like a payment plan I guarantee a fewer Americans would be buying an iPhone if they had to pay $450 to $850 out of pocket at time of purchase.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #43 of 87

 

These are just a couple of examples of what Apple has to compete with for sales (assuming they want to).   Plus the ease of cheaply adding more storage.

 

Ah yes, once again the "spec" argument. I see you don't mention which version of Android these phones come with or the ecosystem they are supported with, just the specs like that means everything. And I make the assumption that Apple does not want to "compete" in this market. Why should they when there's no money in it?

post #44 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this.  Who knows is they are actually going to do this to remain relevant in emerging markets.

kDarling showed the video of the SIII mini and while some of you may look down your nose at it, it a great smartphone and costs 1/4 of what an iPhone does and it adds to your arugment SolipsismX.  Stuff that was great 2-3 years ago may now be 'boring' to people like us who spend time on forums dedicated to Smartphones but it's pretty darn amazing to people who have never had one and I know a lot of people who like to test the water at $150 before jumping in with $600.

If Apple doesn't come out with a more affordable phone, they will still be fine.  They will always have their fans who will buy their products no matter if it's better or not.  It's Apple and that is all that matters.  They are not going to go away anytime soon so I don't think there are any worries except for the shareholders who don't like the price being tweaked by certain individuals.

1) That is a legitimate concern for investors since diluting a product's name can have longterm devastating affects, but that is something I think Apple is well aware of in how careful they have been to expand their product line. That said, I don't think it's a legitimate complaint for those whose only concern is how others will view their status symbol.

One solution is to give it a new name. This has worked well with the iPod line. I think my iPod Shuffle is great quality yet it's a low-priced and low-feature iPod. I still use mine for swimming. I think they've shown that the iPad mini has also shown they can make a cheaper and smaller iPad that uses year-old tech (also found in the iPod Touch) without sacrificing perceived quality and increasing their revenue, profits and market saturation.

I think they could do it with a cheaper iPhone although I wonder if they will since the older iPhone seem to fit that niche. I don't agree that a larger iPhone would somehow be a cheaper iPhone. They could go that route but I think making the components on par with the current iPhone would make more sense.

3) If Kdarling's argument was that it's still a great device for an uptapped market then I misread his reply to jargosta. My apologies to all.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #45 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


¿Que? If it has a contract and a retail vale of $450 it's not free. There will be no free phone that is also contract free by removing the camera and GPS.
Most of the world's markets don't deal with subsidized phones which makes the initial investment much harder to swallow. Imagine how many people would be driving 25k, 50k, or more automobiles if they had to pay that up front at time of purchase. The subsidy acts like a payment plan I guarantee a fewer Americans would be buying an iPhone if they had to pay $450 to $850 out of pocket at time of purchase.

Not true. I paid what, $400 for my original iPhone with a 2-year contract. 

 

I don't think Apple is concerned about cheap phones as they don't care about cheap computers, tables, music players, etc. They are a premium hardware/software company. Always has been, and I hope, always will be. I don't want someone walking around with a "free" phone that looks like my $400 phone no more than anyone buying a premium product wants to see knock-offs. 

 

C'mon, iPhone 4s users were upset that their new fancy Siri phone looked like the 4 and this joker wants Apple to release a free phone. What's next, a Ferrari California for under $50,000? 

post #46 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this.

 

Oh, that is why they are the biggest company in the world with billions in cash, because they NEED to be like everyone else? I think they NEED to be who they are and others NEED to stop trying to make Apple a Microsoft or Samsung. 

post #47 of 87
Stock was down nearly $9 today when most of the market was up so clearly not all of Wall Street is on board with a cheaper iPhone. It seems Wall Street doesn't know what it wants with Apple. I'm personally meh on this whole idea. And the way the WSJ reported it certainly didn't sound exciting. Hopefully Apple has Gmore up its sleeve than a cheaper plastic iPhone.
post #48 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this.  Who knows is they are actually going to do this to remain relevant in emerging markets.

Uh huh.

So you know more about running a computer company than Apple does. Their performance has been far beyond any major company for the past decade. They have the highest market cap of any public company in the world. The are among the most profitable companies in the world. They are being widely copied by most of their competitors.

But they should throw away all of their advantages and go for a "we'll sell crap if we have to in order to get the price low enough to gain market share" strategy that you espouse.

Explain again what your credentials are that make you more knowledgable about what Apple NEEDS to do than Apple's management team, please.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #49 of 87

Like I said yesterday the stock will tank today because of this horrible idea.  Definitely throwing Apple's brand and name alongside the trash bin with Android.  Apple loyalists whove been paying preimuims for years will jump ship in a heart beat.

 

And to make things worse, Apple's joke of a PR continues to let these rumors, dummy analysts, and smear sites go on with their rumor and fear mongering ignoring the pleas from investors and supporters to do something, say something to put an end or at least reduce the amount of daily crap and smear fest going on. 

 

Instead they prefer to do nothing absolutely nothing at all while their investors, supporters, fans are taking hits daily with Apple's stock and brand name rapidly descening into the gutter faster than you can say, 'what innovation'?

 

This company has become a joke!

post #50 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Not sure how cheap one needs to get. FREE with contract is quit cheap. Now if Apple wants to go with contract free phones, then what will the trade off be? iPhone 6 will see the iPhone 4 price at FREE with no contract and no camera/GPS?

"Free with contract" isn't really that cheap. For example, I was spending about $90 per month on AT&T - or about $2160 over 2 years. Even if I chose the 'free' phone, that's a lot of cash. AND, I'd be using an old iPhone 4.

By comparison, I am now spending $45 per month ($1080 over 2 years) on Straight Talk - which uses the same network. Even if I bought a used 4S for $300 or a new Android phone for the same amount, it would be $800 less than the "quite cheap" 2 year contract with "free" phone.

Now, I'm not saying Apple has to produce a $200 phone as I believe it would be a mistake to dilute their brand with a product that entail that many sacrifices. But I can easily see how someone could see the "free" iPhone 4 as not being "quite cheap".
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #51 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Not true. I paid what, $400 for my original iPhone with a 2-year contract. 

I don't think Apple is concerned about cheap phones as they don't care about cheap computers, tables, music players, etc. They are a premium hardware/software company. Always has been, and I hope, always will be. I don't want someone walking around with a "free" phone that looks like my $400 phone no more than anyone buying a premium product wants to see knock-offs. 

C'mon, iPhone 4s users were upset that their new fancy Siri phone looked like the 4 and this joker wants Apple to release a free phone. What's next, a Ferrari California for under $50,000? 

1) They stopped the profit sharing experiment in less than a year.

2) Paying $400 and having a 2 year contract is not FREE.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #52 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingChael View Post

Like I said yesterday the stock will tank today because of this horrible idea.  Definitely throwing Apple's brand and name alongside the trash bin with Android.  Apple loyalists whove been paying preimuims for years will jump ship in a heart beat.

And to make things worse, Apple's joke of a PR continues to let these rumors, dummy analysts, and smear sites go on with their rumor and fear mongering ignoring the pleas from investors and supporters to do something, say something to put an end or at least reduce the amount of daily crap and smear fest going on. 

Instead they prefer to do nothing absolutely nothing at all while their investors, supporters, fans are taking hits daily with Apple's stock and brand name rapidly descening into the gutter faster than you can say, 'what innovation'?

This company has become a joke!

More hysterics. On the other hand:
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
I expect the same to be true if the iPhone Mini

Someone who gets it.

This is the same discussion that went on when it looked like a new more affordable iPad was going to come out. Do you hystericals have no memory or ability to reason?

If Apple makes a cheaper phone it will be like the mini, a work of art. Think! Stop wringing your hands!
post #53 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes View Post

They will always have their fans who will buy their products no matter if it's better or not.  It's Apple and that is all that matters.  They are not going to go away anytime soon so I don't think there are any worries except for the shareholders who don't like the price being tweaked by certain individuals.
This sounds like history repeating itself.

I'm sure this is exactly what Gassee and Sculley thought when the Mac was riding high around about 1988.

Apple needs to compete. It can't simply charge a premium and sell only to the wealthy or those willing to sacrifice for the product. They are competing against ever improving Android products. Once Apple loses a new customer to Android, in the coming years it's going to be awfully hard to get them back once that person is invested in the Google ecosystem.

Slick hardware alone is not going to be enough to draw customers back once the OS begins to equalize. Google can build high quality products as well if need be. And it is is erosion Apple needs to be concerned about. At the end of the day, it's going to be about content, and where the customer is invested.

Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.
post #54 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

This sounds like history repeating itself.
I'm sure this is exactly what Gassee and Sculley thought when the Mac was riding high around about 1988.
Apple needs to compete. It can't simply charge a premium and sell only to the wealthy or those willing to sacrifice for the product. They are competing against ever improving Android products. Once Apple loses a new customer to Android, in the coming years it's going to be awfully hard to get them back once that person is invested in the Google ecosystem.
Slick hardware alone is not going to be enough to draw customers back once the OS begins to equalize. Google can build high quality products as well if need be. And it is is erosion Apple needs to be concerned about. At the end of the day, it's going to be about content, and where the customer is invested.
Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.

Yeah. That's why Apple has done so poorly over the past decade. And why their sales keep declining like they were under Sculley. /s
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #55 of 87
Quote:

Originally Posted by dreyfus2 View Post

 

The rumor (and I am not saying I necessarily believe it) is about creating a lower-cost model. If they build an iPhone out of cheaper materials (say plastic), drop Gorilla glass for plastic or cheaper glass, use a standard iso retina resolution, use previous, or even older, generation chipsets, reduce storage capacity and drop 4G (which is not available in many of these markets anyhow) and end up with a device costing clearly less than $100 to make, they could well retain their margins without alienating anyone. 

Except the people buying the phones.

post #56 of 87
Apple doesn't make cheap (in both senses of the word) products. They focus on quality, and quality is never cheap
post #57 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingChael View Post

Like I said yesterday the stock will tank today because of this horrible idea.  Definitely throwing Apple's brand and name alongside the trash bin with Android.  Apple loyalists whove been paying preimuims for years will jump ship in a heart beat.

And to make things worse, Apple's joke of a PR continues to let these rumors, dummy analysts, and smear sites go on with their rumor and fear mongering ignoring the pleas from investors and supporters to do something, say something to put an end or at least reduce the amount of daily crap and smear fest going on. 

Instead they prefer to do nothing absolutely nothing at all while their investors, supporters, fans are taking hits daily with Apple's stock and brand name rapidly descening into the gutter faster than you can say, 'what innovation'?

This company has become a joke!
How exactly does Apple put a stop to this other than becoming like other companies and announcing their product roadmap well in advance?
post #58 of 87
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post
How exactly does Apple put a stop to this other than becoming like other companies and announcing their product roadmap well in advance?


They don't have to do that; just don't make products based on what people on forums want. People don't have a clue what they actually want.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #59 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


This sounds like history repeating itself.

I'm sure this is exactly what Gassee and Sculley thought when the Mac was riding high around about 1988.

Apple needs to compete. It can't simply charge a premium and sell only to the wealthy or those willing to sacrifice for the product. They are competing against ever improving Android products. Once Apple loses a new customer to Android, in the coming years it's going to be awfully hard to get them back once that person is invested in the Google ecosystem.

Slick hardware alone is not going to be enough to draw customers back once the OS begins to equalize. Google can build high quality products as well if need be. And it is is erosion Apple needs to be concerned about. At the end of the day, it's going to be about content, and where the customer is invested.

Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.

 

 

This won't be like the Ipad case at all.  Ipad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version intended for the low end segment and has at least a couple useful and quality advantages over the ipad.  Plus, the tablet market is far from saturated unlike the smartphone market.

 

What's a cheaper/lower cost iphone going to accomplish other than a desperate, late attempt at cash grabbing from the low end segment?  You do realize a lot of appleholics buy their products because of the supposed brand and image, and this does what to bolster this image?  We got enough cheap Android phones competing and threatening the newest IP and you think its a good idea for Apple to join in and do the same, but to itself? 

 

If I'm hysterical you are dellusional.

post #60 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post




Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.

Wow, they sell the # cell phone on the planet. How is Android eroding the iphone?

post #61 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingChael View Post


This won't be like the Ipad case at all.  Ipad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version intended for the low end segment and has at least a couple useful and quality advantages over the ipad.  Plus, the tablet market is far from saturated unlike the smartphone market.

What's a cheaper/lower cost iphone going to accomplish other than a desperate, late attempt at cash grabbing from the low end segment?  You do realize a lot of appleholics buy their products because of the supposed brand and image, and this does what to bolster this image?  We got enough cheap Android phones competing and threatening the newest IP and you think its a good idea for Apple to join in and do the same, but to itself? 

If I'm hysterical you are dellusional.

I think you meant to quote me, because I'm the one seeing hysteria where ther should be reason based on Apple's history. You are underestimating how they work.

They don't have it in them to make anything shabby enough to tarnish their reputation for making the finest out there. Look at something as humble as the 4th gen nano: video camera, one hour recording time, FM radio, slick little aluminum and glass package, 200 bucks.

Picture something between the new $300 iPod touch, which is gorgeous, and the iPad mini, which is even moreso, $329, with phone capability. That's all they need to do. It doesn't need a Retina screen. With their supply chain dominance, they can make a desireable mini iPad/miniphone for under $400, betcha. Call me delusional if you want, but every time a new device is rumored like this, you guys start predicting that Apple has lost it before you even see what they come up with.
post #62 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Picture something between the new $300 iPod touch, which is gorgeous, and the iPad mini, which is even moreso, $329, with phone capability. That's all they need to do. It doesn't need a Retina screen. With their supply chain dominance, they can make a desireable mini iPad/miniphone for under $400, betcha.

Yeah, I don't know why this is such a hard concept. It won't be a cheap product. In fact, I would bet they will use the smaller 3.5" screen on the 4/S to distinguish it from the top of the line 5, and thanks to the supply chain dominance, I don't think they will even have to drop retina from it. They essentially have that market cornered.

Anybody who says the iPad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version of the iPad intended for a low end segment, is deluding themselves. It has opened up a whole new market for the iPad which was previously out of reach for a low end segment interested in buying one. And one of the biggest criticisms was the lack of Retina display. That alone, when Apple is expanding the use of Retina displays across its entire product line, is proof positive that the iPad mini is a lower quality than any other new product Apple is producing. The fact that the iPad mini has uses more appropriate than the iPad is beside the point. The 6th generation iPod Nano was turned into a watch, but that's not what Apple designed it to do -- it was intended to get the low end segment of music users into the iTunes fold. Likewise so is the current marketing of iPhone 4/4S, but that only works in the US, where the phones are subsidized. Apple's already courting the low end segment in the US, so why wouldn't they look for a way to do that outside the US?
post #63 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


I think you meant to quote me, because I'm the one seeing hysteria where ther should be reason based on Apple's history. You are underestimating how they work.

They don't have it in them to make anything shabby enough to tarnish their reputation for making the finest out there. Look at something as humble as the 4th gen nano: video camera, one hour recording time, FM radio, slick little aluminum and glass package, 200 bucks.

Picture something between the new $300 iPod touch, which is gorgeous, and the iPad mini, which is even moreso, $329, with phone capability. That's all they need to do. It doesn't need a Retina screen. With their supply chain dominance, they can make a desireable mini iPad/miniphone for under $400, betcha. Call me delusional if you want, but every time a new device is rumored like this, you guys start predicting that Apple has lost it before you even see what they come up with.

 

Exactly.

 

But the clueless analyst don't help because they always conclude Apple needs to price match their competition. Analyst have been saying that about Apple for decades.

 

In the Mac market before the Mac Mini launched analysts were buzzing with rumors and predictions of a low cost Mac to compete with the bottom of the barrel PCs. Apple responded with a $500 machine that didn't come "bundled" with anything.

 

Last year, analyst said Apple MUST compete with the Kindle/Nexus at the $200 price point. Apple instead made their best effort and price it $130 higher.

 

We're seeing the same with this new low cost phone and people here are worried the analyst are right and Apple will actually make a $99 phone.

 

Well, the analyst have NEVER BEEN RIGHT. Plain and simple.

 

When the low cost iPhone comes it'll still be over $300, and of the highest quality. Apple doesn't care if their price is 3x higher than the competition. Their gonna do a "low cost" iPhone right.

post #64 of 87
I wonder if Apple would consider creating a different brand name for their budget phone.
I'm thinking of something like the way a budget Gibson is called an Epiphone. (woohoo, I just noticed Epiphone has iphone in it 1tongue.gif)
post #65 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney View Post

I wonder if Apple would consider creating a different brand name for their budget phone.

 

Pear Phone!  (and the Pear Pad)

 

 

Sigh.  Yes, I spend too much time watching TV with my youngest daughter.

post #66 of 87
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

I realize that the creators of whatever this is put zero thought whatsoever into the design beyond "it's a pear", but this not only looks like it would be quite ergonomic in a left hand, but also seems to directly cover the range of movement of a left (hitchhiker's) thumb that isn't stretching in any way…

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #67 of 87
What could be worrying the Wall Street crowd is the WSJ rumor made it sound like Apple was going to make a cheap plastic phone. Now we don't know if they got that from whoever their source is or if they're just making their own conclusion that a cheaper iPhone would have to be plastic. Not sure why they would draw that conclusion though. The iPad mini isn't plastic. How many current products from Apple are plastic? I can only think of 2 - ATV and their wi-fi base stations. I think the mini is a great reminder that Apple isn't interested in cheap design. Can't see why a less expensive iPhone would be any different.
post #68 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post
Why should they when there's no money in it?

 

Because capitalism is also about growing. In first world countries, there is not much growing potential left. So you have to expand into emerging markets even if there is not much money in it. Little money is still money.


Edited by changeover - 1/10/13 at 6:55am
post #69 of 87

I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make:

1. Apple doesn't want market share.
2. Customers don't want basic products.

Well...

1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share.
2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.

 

post #70 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


"Free with contract" isn't really that cheap. For example, I was spending about $90 per month on AT&T - or about $2160 over 2 years. Even if I chose the 'free' phone, that's a lot of cash. AND, I'd be using an old iPhone 4.

By comparison, I am now spending $45 per month ($1080 over 2 years) on Straight Talk - which uses the same network. Even if I bought a used 4S for $300 or a new Android phone for the same amount, it would be $800 less than the "quite cheap" 2 year contract with "free" phone.

Now, I'm not saying Apple has to produce a $200 phone as I believe it would be a mistake to dilute their brand with a product that entail that many sacrifices. But I can easily see how someone could see the "free" iPhone 4 as not being "quite cheap".

 


People on welfare think paying a $1 co-pay is too much also, so I guess it is what you consider being a great price as nothing is truly free, right. Everything always cost someone something. My point was for a not out of pocket purchase there is a Free iPhone. But yes, if people actually want to use that phone, they need a phone plan. Plans for iPhone have data charges built in, are are in fact more expensive than other plans. 
 
But we were talking about a free phone, not a free plan, correct? Or when you say phone, you actually mean total yearly cost? So we need electric, accessories included in this overall price, yes? 
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


1) They stopped the profit sharing experiment in less than a year.

2) Paying $400 and having a 2 year contract is not FREE.

 


I don't recall saying $400 is FREE. I said I paid something like $400 for my first iPhone so people have and will pay that amount for something of that value. 
 
Profit sharing? 
post #71 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave2012 View Post

I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make:

1. Apple doesn't want market share.
2. Customers don't want basic products.

Well...

1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share.
2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.

 

 

If this was the first time Apple ever made a mini product, then I might agree, but Apple has made many smaller versions of originals as part of a product lifecycle. iPod has several sizes. Macbook Air was not to grab market share. Dare I say the Mac mini :)  And now you will have different sizes of the iPhone and iPad. 

 

Nothing new or different here. Apple does not release a shotgun approach of products, but one really solid product, evaluates the market continually, and releases more products to match. It is not grabbing market share, but rather, filling in the product family. 

 

I think many people contrary to real events, thinks Apple needs to care about market share. How much money do they have in the bank again? 

post #72 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by changeover View Post

 

Because capitalism is also about growing. In first world countries, there is not much growing potential left. So you have to expand into emerging markets even if there is not much money in it. Little money is still money.

 

Again, why? Do they not have enough money? Have they stopped inventing new things for us to buy? Is demand for their product so low that people stop standing in lines just to get the latest from Apple? 

 

Why does Apple need to be this sell to the masses company like so many that sell junk just to sell it. 

 

Let's get over to the Ferrari message board and inform them they NEED to sell a $50,000 California so more people can afford it. 

post #73 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


Yeah, I don't know why this is such a hard concept. It won't be a cheap product. In fact, I would bet they will use the smaller 3.5" screen on the 4/S to distinguish it from the top of the line 5, and thanks to the supply chain dominance, I don't think they will even have to drop retina from it. They essentially have that market cornered.

Anybody who says the iPad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version of the iPad intended for a low end segment, is deluding themselves. It has opened up a whole new market for the iPad which was previously out of reach for a low end segment interested in buying one. And one of the biggest criticisms was the lack of Retina display. That alone, when Apple is expanding the use of Retina displays across its entire product line, is proof positive that the iPad mini is a lower quality than any other new product Apple is producing. The fact that the iPad mini has uses more appropriate than the iPad is beside the point. The 6th generation iPod Nano was turned into a watch, but that's not what Apple designed it to do -- it was intended to get the low end segment of music users into the iTunes fold. Likewise so is the current marketing of iPhone 4/4S, but that only works in the US, where the phones are subsidized. Apple's already courting the low end segment in the US, so why wouldn't they look for a way to do that outside the US?

 

You don't understand product life cycles. Releasing a smaller version of something does not equate to a cheaper version to grab mass market share. The iPod line as you mention is proof of a solid product life cycle where Apple, in the use of the parent product, finds other uses for child products to fill in the product family. 

 

With the iPad, you have the showcase product, which is the new iPad with retina, and then two offerings without retina; iPad 2 and iPad mini. Next iteration of the iPad 2 and the mini will both go retina, while the new iPad will have all the new technology. 

 

Simply filling in the product family without cannibalizing. 

post #74 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

You don't understand product life cycles. ...
Next iteration of the iPad 2 and the mini will both go retina, while the new iPad will have all the new technology. Simply filling in the product family without cannibalizing. 
I don't understand product life cycles?

There will be no iPad 2 when the next iPad is released, much less an iPad 2 with retina display!

Seriously, what NEW technology will the top of the line iPad have to differentiate it? A faster CPU? The retina display is the only other thing that distinguishes them now!
post #75 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

Again, why? Do they not have enough money? Have they stopped inventing new things for us to buy? Is demand for their product so low that people stop standing in lines just to get the latest from Apple? 

 

Why does Apple need to be this sell to the masses company like so many that sell junk just to sell it. 

 

Let's get over to the Ferrari message board and inform them they NEED to sell a $50,000 California so more people can afford it. 


The Ferrari comparison is invalid. Or do you see the majority of western people driving around in a Ferrari?

Apple IS a sell to the masses company. They became one with the iPod/iPhone.

But yes, they would have enough money, but that's not the way (capitalistic) economy works. Sadly.

They want more (Shareholders, Analysts and shit), they always want more.

post #76 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave2012 View Post

I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make:


1. Apple doesn't want market share.

2. Customers don't want basic products.


Well...


1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share.

2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.


 

If Apple really wanted market share, the iPad mini would be $200. Apple's goal is to make money. It saw a gap in its product line and decided to create a product that filled the gap and make a healthy profit.
post #77 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

If Apple really wanted market share, the iPad mini would be $200. Apple's goal is to make money. It saw a gap in its product line and decided to create a product that filled the gap and make a healthy profit.
Did you notice that it uses a more expensive screen, not to mention other more expensve internals.
post #78 of 87
Originally Posted by changeover View Post
Apple IS a sell to the masses company. They became one with the iPod/iPhone.

 

How does this explain the iPhone being a single model, a flagship model, a high-end model, selling for $650? 


Sounds like they're NOT a stuff-the-channel company, but rather that you want to make them one.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already f*ed.

 

Reply
post #79 of 87
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

How does this explain the iPhone being a single model, a flagship model, a high-end model, selling for $650? 


Sounds like they're NOT a stuff-the-channel company, but rather that you want to make them one.


Once again, you misunderstand me. Stuff-the-channel and sell to the masses are two different things.

It's like the same with girls and louis vuitton bags (at least where I come from).

Totally sell it to the masses but not stuffing the channel.

The number of units sold of ipods/iphones (300/250 mio) just show that it is in fact a mass product.

post #80 of 87
Apple will not built a low cost iPhone, they already have the iPhone 4 at 99 cents... how much cheaper can you get???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Low-cost iPhone seen generating $6.5B in 2013 revenue for Apple