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

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


¿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? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by zippy2shoes 

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. 

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!

Except the people buying the phones.

Originally Posted by Rogifan 
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac_128 


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac_128 




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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flaneur 


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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quinney 

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.

Originally Posted by KDarling 

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…

Quote:

Originally Posted by lkrupp 
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.

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.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by dave2012 

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? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by changeover 

 

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. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac_128 


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. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Getz 

 

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.

Originally Posted by changeover 
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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

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.