Low-cost iPhone seen generating $6.5B in 2013 revenue for Apple - Page 3

Apple sells more touch tablets than all the other companies in the world put together - but somehow it still doesn't have 'market share'? How much of a market does one company need before it can be described as having 'market share'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mac_128 


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!

Sorry, inserted '2' by mistake. It was a typo. 

Dunno, I'm not an analyst LOL 

Areas to improve are (iPhone or iPad): 

• Faster processor always to keep ahead of competition. 
• Perhaps hardware for Siri (dedicated core on a new chip). 
• More memory always helps in speed with large apps and/or multitasking.  
• Retina + screen
• Thinner touch screen
• Scratch proof case
• Better batter life
• Less weight

• Improved camera lens and hardware/software (you can never be good enough in this area)
• Better speakers/mic (again, always room for improvements) 
• New stuff that Apple just thinks up.... 

To keep ahead of competition, you can always improve upon specs. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by changeover 

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.

Most don't drive a Ferrari, but there are MANY BMWs out here in SoCal that if a Ferrari was equally priced, they would buy it. The main takeaway was build quality and overall wow of a product. An iPhone / iPad / iWhatever and is not meant to be vending machine junk. 

Again, mass market was not implying selling to the masses of the upper 20% income level (of phone buyers), but to all of China and India which would force lower product quality to sell more to "the masses". 

They always want more? When did you start following Apple, yesterday? Please show me one report that mentions anyone from Apple stating they are doing anything to gain shareholders, analysts, or mass market share? Jobs by far was too arrogant to care about these things. Contrary to that, they always will say they are about quality, user experience, and the legacy at Apple. To Apple, making enough money means having enough to better control the supply chain (Mr. Cook, you are awesome sir!) and having the money to hire the very best they can find and equipment to R&D. 

Sure, you need money to grow and for general business and Apple wants to sell more product because to them, that is more people liking what they do, but Apple has never put money or marketshare as a higher priority over the very best products and user experience they can produce.

Again, to Apple, more sales means they are winning minds and hearts. Money is just a byproduct of that. 

Originally Posted by changeover 
Totally sell it to the masses but not stuffing the channel.

That's what Apple is already doing. So why do they need a cheaper model?

Yes, there are many BMW. And they sell a lot of different cars in different price classes. And as you pointed out, it's about quality. Just because something is less expensive (e.g. BMW 1 series - about 30'000$) than the premium (7 series - about 75'000$) doesn't mean it lacks in quality. It's still a BMW right? But it's still 50% of the price of the premium product and affordable to more people. What's wrong with that? Would you go over to them and say: "You need to only make one car serie every year (the premium one) because otherwise people would think you make cheap products and you loose your image as a quality car manufacturer."?

I didn't mean Apple wants more shareholders.

I meant shareholders and analysts always want more profit from the company they're investing in or gambling with (probably true for most analysts).

Quote:

Originally Posted by changeover 

Yes, there are many BMW. And they sell a lot of different cars in different price classes. And as you pointed out, it's about quality. Just because something is less expensive (e.g. BMW 1 series - about 30'000$) than the premium (7 series - about 75'000$) doesn't mean it lacks in quality. It's still a BMW right? But it's still 50% of the price of the premium product and affordable to more people. What's wrong with that? Would you go over to them and say: "You need to only make one car serie every year (the premium one) because otherwise people would think you make cheap products and you loose your image as a quality car manufacturer."?

 

 

I didn't mean Apple wants more shareholders.

I meant shareholders and analysts always want more profit from the company they're investing in or gambling with (probably true for most analysts).

Sure, I agree and suggest that is the difference between the cellular and just wifi. 

BMW makes the 1 series but they do not make a $9-12,000 car as would be suggested for Apple to do by way of selling a phone affordable to some of the poorest people (by western standards). 

Apple has enough on their hands leveling out what they have, and enough money to last them 10 years. They would be best to work on removing the competition from the smartphone market (such as the iPod market) then to try and compete for the cheaper end that could tarnish the Apple name. 

Remember, lines outside the Apple stores are in part due to marketing the company as a premium brand. You start cheapening even part of a product line, and the whole brand risks being tarnished.