or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Phil Schiller says Apple would never make a 'cheap' iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Phil Schiller says Apple would never make a 'cheap' iPhone - Page 4

post #121 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


You mean like putting a non-retina display in their new iPad mini, when they are putting Retina displays in all of their other newly introduced products as fast as they can?

The iPad mini doesn't represent the best Apple can do in that area, they made compromises to hit a certain price point. Why, if not to gain market share? So why not in a phone as well?

 

 

This view is as common as it is wrong.

 

If they put a retina display on the mini, it would have required a substantially bigger and (more importantly) heavier battery.  Yet the biggest benefit of the mini over the standard iPad is its incredible light weight...more than the smaller size (although that is nice as well).

 

I think the majority of iPad mini users would chose lighter weight over retina, even if price weren't a factor.  Sure, it will be nice to have both.  And I'm sure that is exactly what Apple will do as soon as they can pull that off without a big gain in weight.

post #122 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by dillio View Post

I think the only reason that would make sense for Apple to release a lower-cost anything, is to protect their iOS platform (apps/music/etc.) in which users and developers are invested. But I might be wrong even in this one reason.

 

 

Well, the factors that matter to most quality developers are things like 1) money spent on apps, 2) web usage, 3) buying things via the phone.  And on all these fronts, iPhone still trounces Android.  Overall marketshare--when much of that share is relatively poor people--matters little (notice, didn't say "none").

 

Apple needs simply to keep doing its best to attract those customers that are attractive to the developers.

post #123 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slicksim View Post

Is there not s risk that always selling last years IPhone at a cheeper and cheeper price, dilutes your brand? Would it not be better to make a specific phone for a specific price point (like the iPods) and so avoid all possibility of feeling fobbed off with last years model? From my experience of living in the Middle and Far East , people looking to get a bit of the latest material thing, can be very sensitive to the notion that they have just spent their very very hard won cash on something nearly two years behind the curve.

 

 

But at least the two-year-old iPhone is still a very well-engineered device.  And the operating system is up-to-date.

 

If I had the choice of buying  a 2010 Porsche 911 new at 2/3 the original price, I'd much rather buy that than a current model Corvette.  But that's just me...

post #124 of 194
Originally Posted by commoncents View Post
But at least the two-year-old iPhone is still a very well-engineered device.  And the operating system is up-to-date.

 

If I had the choice of buying  a 2010 Porsche 911 new at 2/3 the original price, I'd much rather buy that than a current model Corvette.  But that's just me...

 

Comparing a Porsche to a corvette when the topic is about comparing different versions of iPhones makes no sense.

Would you rather buy a 2012 Porsche boxster for 2/3 of a 2012 Porsche 911? That would be the right comparison.


Edited by changeover - 1/13/13 at 2:23pm
post #125 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


If you say so ... I find it interesting that they were able to support retina in the iPad (3G) without a massive size increase from the iPad 2. I've never had any issues with the battery life in my iPad (3G).

But assuming there are factors there beyond my understanding that make one feasible and the other not, there's still the timing of the release.

If Apple isn't competing against Google and Amazon, and its generally assumed Apple will release a Retina iPad mini this year, then why rush a compromised product to market before it's ready? Why not just take their time and release the iPad mini when it was perfect? Why take a step back with a low-res display at all?

 

Well who says they're not competing against Google and Amazon?  Of course they are.

 

And from the numbers I've heard, looks like they're kicking their butts with the mini...despite what some complain of as cutting corners.  Seems like consumers are delighted with the mini.  It's mostly internet pundits who have a problem with it.

 

As far as iPad 2 to iPad 3, there was a weight gain.  But it was minimized by some good engineering tricks by Apple.  Still, the iPad 3 and 4 are quite heavy. 

post #126 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

 

It's not? Why not? The iPod nano has a fixed set of "apps" just as the AppleTV. Why couldn't there be a phone with a fixed set of "apps" as well? Sorry, if your head is stuck in the clouds, but a vast majority of people around the world don't need or even want a smart phone or could even afford the data plans.

 

 

Sure, there is a huge portion of the world who can't afford data plans.  Many struggle to obtain food and clean water too. 

 

And none of them can afford to buy Apple products.  Apple can't (or at least shouldn't) be all things to all people.  That is not their formula of success (more success, it should be pointed out) than any other technology business in the history of the world.

post #127 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by changeover View Post


How is apple not a volume dealer? They sell millions of devices each month. That's pretty volume to me.
I can see that people would like to see apple as a luxury brand to make them feel better about themselves. For me a luxury brand is not only defined by lacking lower-mid-end products but also of the limit number of a certain product.
So for me, apple isn't a luxury brand as for example a ferrari is (you don't see many ferraris around do you?).

 

 

Whatever.

 

You can argue about terms all you want, but the fact is that if you use Apple's products and you make use of Apple's stores, anyone with half a brain and a bit of objectivity will admit that Apple is categorically different than any other technology company out there.  You can label that however you will, but they are indeed in a class by themselves. 

post #128 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

 

 

I do not know if Apple is interested in the market or not, but there are plenty of people who are not interested in Apps. They want to make phone calls, send texts, and read email. You couldn't get either one of my parents to use a so called smart phone. They probably would go for an iPhone Nano though that used a more Nano like interface. Moreover, that probably would make them more comfortable using full featured smart phones. 

 

 

Well the magic for Apple has been getting all of these people to pay $650 (though often "financed" through subsidies) even though they barely make use of the iPhone's capabilities.  Why would Apple want to mess that up??

post #129 of 194
Originally Posted by commoncents View Post
Whatever.

 

You can argue about terms all you want, but the fact is that if you use Apple's products and you make use of Apple's stores, anyone with half a brain and a bit of objectivity will admit that Apple is categorically different than any other technology company out there.  You can label that however you will, but they are indeed in a class by themselves. 

 

Apple is categorically different yes, but still mainstream.

post #130 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by commoncents View Post

 

 

Sure, there is a huge portion of the world who can't afford data plans.  Many struggle to obtain food and clean water too. 

 

And none of them can afford to buy Apple products.  Apple can't (or at least shouldn't) be all things to all people.  That is not their formula of success (more success, it should be pointed out) than any other technology business in the history of the world.

 

If Apple wants to lock people in, it will get in there now. That's why Cook is in China. They hope China to be their future "biggest market". thats all you need to know, Schiller is engaging in mis-direction. Nobody in China is starving, and Apple is not targeting sub-Saharan Africa. However only 10% of China can afford a $750 phone off contract. China is however growing at 10% a year, y-o-y. The gap per capita is about $5000. in 2003 it was about $1000.

 

At 10% a year you doulbe about every 7 years. China will be a middle income country per capita in less than a decade, and low level rich in another decade. Get them into iOS now and they will be in iOS in 20 years buying expensive iPhones.


Edited by asdasd - 1/11/13 at 3:19am
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #131 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm View Post

This is also not necessarily accurate. It's common to see "smartphone" plan pricing. This is not exclusive to the iphone. As an example Verizon charges more for "smartphone" line access. They carry a range of products that are subject to this.

 

My carrier has different plans. With the basic one, for example, you can have smartphones from 3€/month. If you want the iPhone 5, it's 15€/month, for 24 months.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm View Post

That doesn't happen months after the launch in a given country. You're looking at US launch dates and comparing to other markets where it's released later.

 

No, I'm not. The iPhone 4S was released on October 14, 2011. On December 7-8 I was in New York City and decided to buy mine there (unlocked, of course): I had to reserve it online the night before in order to be able to pick it up the following day. And still I had to wait 30 mins in the queue, and so on.

That's just because it's always sold out!

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by hmm View Post

Those people are remarkably stupid, and I think the illusion is wearing off at this point. I viewed it as a mass market product from the beginning. Subsidized pricing in certain markets only reinforced this. In markets without subsidies, you still have secondhand options. Whether or not it makes sense for Apple to pursue a greater range of price points outside of heavily subsidized markets, it's important to recognize that you can't expect to maintain a feeling of exclusivity with a product that ships millions of units per quarter. No one is going to marvel at your new device, as they likely own some variant of it.

 

No, it's not that people are stupid. It's that Apple marketing function is awesome.

And I'm writing this from one of those markets where carrier subsidizes are of little importance, as majority of iPhone owners paid them cash (730€). They could buy a Lumia 920 for a sensibly lower price.

post #132 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by commoncents View Post

Well, one big problem with your reasoning here is that $300 is far from inexpensive to the millions and millions in developing countries who are eating up Android.  From what I've read, the vast majority of those phones are under $100.  $300 is still far out of reach of most of those.

Moreover, what changes do you propose they would make to the iPhone to make it so cheap.  And if it weren't drastically more limited than the iPhone 5, then they would lose a lot of those premium sales to the cheaper product.

Quote:
Originally Posted by commoncents View Post

Sure, there is a huge portion of the world who can't afford data plans.  Many struggle to obtain food and clean water too. 

And none of them can afford to buy Apple products.  Apple can't (or at least shouldn't) be all things to all people.  That is not their formula of success (more success, it should be pointed out) than any other technology business in the history of the world.

I was about to reply with "Apple can't be all things to all people" to your first comment... but you said it yourself with the second comment 1smile.gif

Apple... for the most part... doesn't do inexpensive. Their phones start at $450... and their laptops start at $1000.

And all this while other companies sell phones for $100 and laptops for $500.

Apple tends to have laser-like focus on the mid and high-end markets... raking in tons of money in the process. They've never really spent time on the low-end market.

It couldn't hurt to add the low-end market... as long as it doesn't wreck their high-end margins.

Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

If Apple wants to lock people in, it will get in there now. That's why Cook is in China. They hope China to be their future "biggest market". thats all you need to know, Schiller is engaging in mis-direction. Nobody in China is starving, and Apple is not targeting sub-Saharan Africa. However only 10% of China can afford a $750 phone off contract. China is however growing at 10% a year, y-o-y. The gap per capita is about $5000. in 2003 it was about $1000.

At 10% a year you doulbe about every 7 years. China will be a middle income country per capita in less than a decade, and low level rich in another decade. Get them into iOS now and they will be in iOS in 20 years buying expensive iPhones.

You make it sound like you can never get into iOS unless you start with it.

I've seen people in the US go from Android to an iPhone in less than 2 years... why couldn't someone in China do that after 5 years or more?

Android isn't as sticky as you think it is. For the most part... Android users aren't investing in a lot of paid apps. Maybe streaming music is their thing... which is available on both platforms. Or they basically skip apps and just use their phone like a featurephone.

The point is... there's not really a lot of "lock in" on Android.

And Apple will always be there if they decide to switch.
post #133 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maestro64 View Post

 That is all that matters, but yet again Wall Street will award the 80% who are fighting over the 25% profits. It makes no sense why Wall Street likes high market share at low margins.

Coz they are very naive and stupid . That is it . They like charity which helps a lot of people .
post #134 of 194
With 20% Market share to eat 75% profit , Apple has reached almost prefect balance. Doing more or making more wont help Apple earns more but may even affect Apple . Apple is a genius !!! Why the hell doesht the market treasure such a business genius !!! Why does the market only like market share in number but not profit share ? Analysist should stop dreaming !!
post #135 of 194
Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller said his company is not interested in making cheap, low-profit products.
 

 

But, that does not rule out cheap HIGH profit products...   Cheap is not necessarily bad.  Low profit is always bad...   

post #136 of 194
I live in China. Apple doesn't need a cheaper iPhone to sell them here. Tons of people already have them and everyone wants one. They are very expensive relative to the wages, but people still find a way to buy them. The nationals are always asking Americans to buy them in the US when they go home because they can get a better price.
post #137 of 194
These so-called analysts continue to miss the point. Prada could sell more bags if they made cheaper bags, but it's not their objective, they want the high ground and margins, and despite all the competition among cheaper bags are doing well by preserving the value of their brand. Apple is the same, they garner 75% of the smartphone profits with 20% of the market. They will never make a cheap phone, just like Prada would never make a cheap bag, as it would dilute the brand. What they will do though is introduce an innovative product which knocks the socks off the competition, as they did with the MacBook Air when at a time that everything was getting smaller and cheaper they launched an alternative at a higher price which was simply more compelling. This is what they will do in the smartphone wars, although I don't yet know what the product will be or look like.
post #138 of 194
I don't think it would be a good idea if Apple released a cheaper iphone. It would end up confusing the user and make everything more complicated. I think they should stick with the strategy that's worked for them since the first iphone was released by having yearly cycles. Apple shouldnt have to cater to emerging markets by making a completely different phone, if they want a less expensive phone they could choose a previous version iphone model as in the 4 or 4S.
post #139 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

If Apple wants to lock people in, it will get in there now. That's why Cook is in China. They hope China to be their future "biggest market". thats all you need to know, Schiller is engaging in mis-direction. Nobody in China is starving, and Apple is not targeting sub-Saharan Africa. However only 10% of China can afford a $750 phone off contract. China is however growing at 10% a year, y-o-y. The gap per capita is about $5000. in 2003 it was about $1000.

At 10% a year you doulbe about every 7 years. China will be a middle income country per capita in less than a decade, and low level rich in another decade. Get them into iOS now and they will be in iOS in 20 years buying expensive iPhones.

"Misdirection"??? Schiller made a statement about Apple's values. Take it out of context if you wish, but Phil had to respond because the Chinese and the lazy Western press were going around making/echoing claims that made it sound as if Apple had abandoned its values. Many people equate low cost to poor quality, poorly designed junk. And for good reason. You think Phil should let these people speak for Apple via unnamed (and therefore unattributable) sources?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #140 of 194

It is moot to argue whether Apple *needs* a smaller or cheaper or larger iPhone. Apple doesn't *need* to do anything. It can close its doors for 2 years, and reopen with an awesome, copycat-inspiring product and its share price will likely recover.

 

Apple also didn't *need* to release an iPad Mini. But it did. It did so because the change in form factor did not restrict the company's ability or desire to imbue the premium qualities of choice (choice is important here because, as much as some will disagree, Apple also compromises). Of course, Apple also observed that the form factor was more utilitarian than originally assumed and there was very strong market potential. Anecdotal evidence suggests Eddy Cue was the one who pushed for this, and he has been proven right.

 

But what if Apple didn't release the iPad Mini just in time for the Christmas season? Pundits claim that the 7-8" form factor outsold the 9-10" size in the last 2-3 months. Be that as it may, I would argue that at least half of the Mini buys would not have defaulted to the Kindle, the Nexus 7 or Galaxy S Tab. Many would have bought iPad instead. Others might have settled for an iPod Touch or even a completely different products. (Lest we forget, Christmas shopping is not for need and, therefore, an iPad (Mini or not) can be replaced by a TV for the bedroom.)

 

So, what about a second iPhone in the lineup? It is not going to a more expensive one. The current product will be the flagship product, or *premium* one if you like. If it is going to be cheaper? What will be compromised? Well, you can't very well give up email, web surfing, reading, messaging (SMS or MMS) or media playing. Will Apple release an iPhone that can still do all of those very well, but lacks the ability to run apps? Such a product will compete with Nokia's Asha, for example, which has appeal in regions such as rural China, India, Africa and even pockets of South America - all markets that Apple has not invested in so far. So it's possible but unlikely.

 

Returning to the iPod analogy, the raison d'etre for the iPod Nano is not necessarily a lower price point. The form factor was (is) much more appealing both in physical and psychological terms (the cute factor cannot be ignored). In terms of functionality, capacity was reduced and video playing was lost (and came, went and returned). Neither was important compared to the gain in form factor. This also happens to be true of iPad Mini - the lack of Retina Display was more than offset by the greater portability.

 

In summary, if Apple releases a second phone in its lineup (not just an obsolete product), it will be cheaper. It will have reduced functionality. But it will likely also have something else that will make it compelling in its own right if not irresistible. It's hard to imagine if form factor will again be the difference maker (but Apple is very capable of surprising us). Whatever it will be, it will be the topic of debate/discussion, if not another why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment, more so than the price itself.

post #141 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

It is moot to argue whether Apple *needs* a smaller or cheaper or larger iPhone. Apple doesn't *need* to do anything. It can close its doors for 2 years, and reopen with an awesome, copycat-inspiring product and its share price will likely recover.

 

Indeed.  Saying that their sales are okay now, is not a good argument against the idea of Apple making specialized or less expensive devices in order to breach new markets.   The limited Apple-has-no-need-to-do-that kind of thinking was disproved with the CDMA iPhone, and later with the iPad mini.
 
So it's not out of the realm of possibility that they will make a less expensive iPhone model.   Tim Cook even told everyone in 2009 that Apple has a plan to get into lower priced iPhone markets if a market requires it.
 
Quote:
So, what about a second iPhone in the lineup? It is not going to a more expensive one. The current product will be the flagship product, or *premium* one if you like. If it is going to be cheaper? What will be compromised? ...

 

If Samsung can sell a 3GS equivalent for around $155 (as they do now) with a probable 15-20% gross profit margin, and Apple is willing to drop to a 40% gross margin like they did with the iPad Mini, then Apple could sell a slightly nicer 3GS type for under $199.
 
Heck, maybe they already have, in a way.  Last year in India, for example, Aircel offered the 3GS unlocked for $180 as long as you signed up for a $55 a year plan for one year.   That's a total of just $235 to own the phone... with service to boot.
 
The biggest against-argument right now might be about screen resolution.  Would Apple be willing to go backward in that area?   However, the "retina" screen part cost is only about $8 more, so even that might not be a problem.  
 
Quote:
In summary, if Apple releases a second phone in its lineup (not just an obsolete product), it will be cheaper. It will have reduced functionality. But it will likely also have something else that will make it compelling in its own right if not irresistible. It's hard to imagine if form factor will again be the difference maker (but Apple is very capable of surprising us). Whatever it will be, it will be the topic of debate/discussion, if not another why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment, more so than the price itself.

 

You might have something there.  Apple does like to create new markets.   For example, there are many places in the world where electricity to charge a phone is scarce.  A slower, smaller display, less power hungry phone that lasts for days even using GPS, could be very useful.  Or one with a solar charger in the screen.  Or a shake-to-charge generator.   Suddenly every camper in the USA would want one as well.   Who knows.  All sorts of possible additions to replace a subtraction in other capabilities/cost.


Edited by KDarling - 1/13/13 at 2:14pm
post #142 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

 

If Apple wants to lock people in, it will get in there now. That's why Cook is in China. They hope China to be their future "biggest market". thats all you need to know, Schiller is engaging in mis-direction. Nobody in China is starving, and Apple is not targeting sub-Saharan Africa. However only 10% of China can afford a $750 phone off contract. China is however growing at 10% a year, y-o-y. The gap per capita is about $5000. in 2003 it was about $1000.

 

At 10% a year you doulbe about every 7 years. China will be a middle income country per capita in less than a decade, and low level rich in another decade. Get them into iOS now and they will be in iOS in 20 years buying expensive iPhones.

 

I'll take the 10% of China anyday. 130M clients, sounds good to me.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #143 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post

You can't do that with an iPhone. At least, not as long as you run it with iOS (and the whole purpose of creating a mass iPhone is for increasing the market share of iOS).

 

The purpose of a mass market phone is to make money.  Increasing iOS market share isn't a primary goal but an ends to a means.

 

An iPhone Nano with nothing more than Siri, iCloud, iMessage and Lightning still adds users to the Apple ecosystem.  Just not the ios app store ecosystem.

post #144 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

An iPhone Nano with nothing more than Siri, iCloud, iMessage and Lightning still adds users to the Apple ecosystem.  Just not the ios app store ecosystem.

Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #145 of 194
Originally Posted by nht View Post

An iPhone Nano with nothing more than Siri, iCloud, iMessage and Lightning still adds users to the Apple ecosystem.  Just not the ios app store ecosystem.

 

An iPhone without iOS isn't.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #146 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.

 

Its not a vision it's a comment.  I don't need to make a case for an iPhone Nano messaging phone, I just don't think it's ridiculous.  Apple makes money selling hardware.  If Apple can make the best messaging phone in the world for $199 with good margins then I think it's reasonable for them to pursue it for developing markets. 

 

iPods are slowly dying out.  An iPhone Nano/Mini/Whatever a little larger than the iPod Nano would be nice even without the apps but far be it for me to disagree with the echo chamber around here.  You guys vehemently lack vision and it's tiresome.

 

Apple might not choose to make the world's best messaging phone but it's not stupid to think that it could or that lots of people would like it if they did. 

post #147 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Its not a vision it's a comment.  I don't need to make a case for an iPhone Nano messaging phone, I just don't think it's ridiculous.  Apple makes money selling hardware.  If Apple can make the best messaging phone in the world for $199 with good margins then I think it's reasonable for them to pursue it for developing markets. 

iPods are slowly dying out.  An iPhone Nano/Mini/Whatever a little larger than the iPod Nano would be nice even without the apps but far be it for me to disagree with the echo chamber around here.  You guys vehemently lack vision and it's tiresome.

Apple might not choose to make the world's best messaging phone but it's not stupid to think that it could or that lots of people would like it if they did. 

I could eventually see apple having a multi tiered iPhone lineup similar to the iPod lineup starting with a Nano, then the classic and then an upgraded flagship model with a 5 inch screen.

Nothing is stopping them from expanding the lineup and I think now would be the best time for them to do so.
post #148 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

Its not a vision it's a comment.  I don't need to make a case for an iPhone Nano messaging phone, I just don't think it's ridiculous.  Apple makes money selling hardware.  If Apple can make the best messaging phone in the world for $199 with good margins then I think it's reasonable for them to pursue it for developing markets. 

iPods are slowly dying out.  An iPhone Nano/Mini/Whatever a little larger than the iPod Nano would be nice even without the apps but far be it for me to disagree with the echo chamber around here.  You guys vehemently lack vision and it's tiresome.

Apple might not choose to make the world's best messaging phone but it's not stupid to think that it could or that lots of people would like it if they did. 

Many have suggested how Apple could make a simpler phone, including myself. You are not even close to being the first to suggest it. What you're not seeing is that don't think Apple will see it as a viable option at this point can't "visualize" how it could happen. You need to consider why Apple would want to make this phone. You also need to consider why Apple wouldn't want to make this phone.

You start off saying it's not a vision but a comment, just to later slam anyone who doesn't agree with you by saying we all lack vision. It's up to you make a strong case for your vision. And, yes, it's a vision which you express by commenting. If others don't see your vision you either aren't presenting well or haven't' thought it all the way through. No one else can be blamed for your lack of persuasiveness but you. If you have a case then you should make it but instead you felt it better to say we're all tiresome for having a different vision. I can't imagine why you think that's fair or appropriate.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #149 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Many have suggested how Apple could make a simpler phone, including myself. You are not even close to being the first to suggest it. What you're not seeing is that don't think Apple will see it as a viable option at this point can't "visualize" how it could happen. You need to consider why Apple would want to make this phone. You also need to consider why Apple wouldn't want to make this phone.

You start off saying it's not a vision but a comment, just to later slam anyone who doesn't agree with you by saying we all lack vision. It's up to you make a strong case for your vision. And, yes, it's a vision which you express by commenting. If others don't see your vision you either aren't presenting well or haven't' thought it all the way through. No one else can be blamed for your lack of persuasiveness but you. If you have a case then you should make it but instead you felt it better to say we're all tiresome for having a different vision. I can't imagine why you think that's fair or appropriate.

 

It's tiresome because you guys are endlessly dismissive of everyone else's opinions because of some narrow view of what Apple will and will not do despite repeated wrong predictions (iPad Mini, name of the iPhone 5, etc).  Not because of whatever "vision" you have.

 

Neither you nor I have a "vision", we have an opinions.  There's no "case" to be made because there's no hard data on costs, profits and more importantly bandwidth for Apple to maintain product focus.  There's only conjecture that many times there is no agreement over.

 

You've gotten more and more shrill over dissenting opinion and frankly I don't feel the need to justify anything or make a "case" for you because I have zero belief that you'll change your position regardless. When I made a comment that updating the iPad Mini with the A6 would be an improvement you started pontificating about how wrong that is because of retina.  I hadn't mentioned retina.  Just that the A6 would be a welcome update to the current Mini.  This is tiresome. 

 

I said iPhone Nano and you wen't out of your way to correct it as "iPod Nano with cellular capabilities".  This is tiresome. 

 

An iPhone Nano based on the iPod Nano is technically possible in 2013 and is consistent with Apple strategy when viewed from the perspective of the strategy employed by Apple with the iPod.  Will they do so?  Only time will tell.  It would not surprise me either way.

 

Personally, I prefer they concentrate on tablets as Apple has a better chance of maintaining iPod-like dominance in tablets.  A dominance they never had in phones or computers. 

post #150 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.


Not trying to bail NHT out of this one, but in my mind, 3 things:

1. There is a substantial/large market for a quality device in this form factor and function (text/email/voice/camera/media).

2. Because of (discriminating) demand, there is profit potential (and not just a market looking for the cheapest tool to put in their belt).

3. the iTunes/iOS ecosystem along with the Apple brand is strong enough to lure people by the millions.  It's an ecosystem that just works, is seamless to their other devices, and is more durable than competitors products (i.e. can be used as an iPod-like-device-only for years after it's been shelved as a phone).

 

But I'm going to take this opportunity to vent about a big concern of mine.  In the last year, while Apple has tried to make improvements to its various ecosystems, I've seen and heard nothing but complaints in regards to iCloud, Time Machine/Time Capsule, iTunes, and overall quality of experience (namely maps, Siri, and iTunes match/cloud).  Apple's high reputation in this regard has gone down....therefore, #3 above which could be its largest asset, is becoming a thorn in its side.  If Apple makes dramatic improvements in this regard, then sky is the limit...watch out, because it can then dominate in almost any consumer computing hardware/appliance form factor!

post #151 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

I could eventually see apple having a multi tiered iPhone lineup similar to the iPod lineup starting with a Nano, then the classic and then an upgraded flagship model with a 5 inch screen.

Nothing is stopping them from expanding the lineup and I think now would be the best time for them to do so.

 

Depends.  

 

Apple's strategy is based on product focus.  (Skating to the where the puck will be)  They are very successful.

Samsung is based on a broad product base.  (Sticking a guy everywhere the puck could possibly go)  They are very successful.

 

The folks struggling seem to have neither a razor focus or sufficiently broad product base.  IMHO it would not be a good idea for Apple to move toward that middle ground.

 

Is this the right time to broaden their iPhone product line?  Depends on how strategically important Tim Cook feels it is to capture phone market share.  

 

My opinion is that tablet market share is strategically more important.  Maybe they have the product focus bandwidth to do both at the same time.

 

But given the very weird iMac refresh, the missed Mac Pro update, and the rapid update of the iPad 3 to iPad 4, the addition of the iPad Mini my feeling is that the company is on the edge of how many products they can maintain focus on.  

 

If there is a revolutionary product waiting in the wings FAR better for Apple to maintain a good amount of slack in their abilities than max out their focus bandwidth.  Slack is what lets people and organizations do new, innovative things.  

 

More phone or tablet market share isn't worth losing agility and missing the next big thing.

post #152 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post

3. the iTunes/iOS ecosystem along with the Apple brand is strong enough to lure people by the millions.  It's an ecosystem that just works, is seamless to their other devices, and is more durable than competitors products (i.e. can be used as an iPod-like-device-only for years after it's been shelved as a phone).

 

But I'm going to take this opportunity to vent about a big concern of mine.  In the last year, while Apple has tried to make improvements to its various ecosystems, I've seen and heard nothing but complaints in regards to iCloud, Time Machine/Time Capsule, iTunes, and overall quality of experience (namely maps, Siri, and iTunes match/cloud).  Apple's high reputation in this regard has gone down....therefore, #3 above which could be its largest asset, is becoming a thorn in its side.  If Apple makes dramatic improvements in this regard, then sky is the limit...watch out, because it can then dominate in almost any consumer computing hardware/appliance form factor!

 

The more moving parts the harder it is to make it all "simply work".

 

From this perspective the iPhone Nano is a bad idea...unless Apple decides to drop iPods in favor of just iPhones and iPads...

 

That would be one hell of a move now wouldn't it?

 

3" iPhone Nano replaces iPod Nano

4" iPhone

 

5" iPad Nano replaces iPod Touch

 

7.85" iPad Mini

9.7" iPad

post #153 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808 View Post


Not trying to bail NHT out of this one, but in my mind, 3 things:
1. There is a substantial/large market for a quality device in this form factor and function (text/email/voice/camera/media).
2. Because of (discriminating) demand, there is profit potential (and not just a market looking for the cheapest tool to put in their belt).
3. the iTunes/iOS ecosystem along with the Apple brand is strong enough to lure people by the millions.  It's an ecosystem that just works, is seamless to their other devices, and is more durable than competitors products (i.e. can be used as an iPod-like-device-only for years after it's been shelved as a phone).

But I'm going to take this opportunity to vent about a big concern of mine.  In the last year, while Apple has tried to make improvements to its various ecosystems, I've seen and heard nothing but complaints in regards to iCloud, Time Machine/Time Capsule, iTunes, and overall quality of experience (namely maps, Siri, and iTunes match/cloud).  Apple's high reputation in this regard has gone down....therefore, #3 above which could be its largest asset, is becoming a thorn in its side.  If Apple makes dramatic improvements in this regard, then sky is the limit...watch out, because it can then dominate in almost any consumer computing hardware/appliance form factor!

Now that's what I'm talking about. That's a through argument. It's not helpful when you're called a dismissive asshole because someone else expects you to create their vision for you.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #154 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.

 

1. Falling sales of non-iPod Touch-iPods.

2. Still one billion sales of dumb/feature phones. (2012)

3. The recent, moderate, success of Nokia's Asha line.

4. Plenty of evidence showing low end Androids being used in a non 'smart' way

5. ... as well as, said Androids, adding virtually nothing to the app economy.

 

Can't you just imagine the uproar it would cause amongst the bloggerati and the phandroids if Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever?

 

PS. What about the addition of a few, free, built in apps. Twitter, FB, a couple of games etc.

post #155 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

1. Falling sales of non-iPod Touch-iPods.
2. Still one billion sales of dumb/feature phones. (2012)
3. The recent, moderate, success of Nokia's Asha line.
4. Plenty of evidence showing low end Androids being used in a non 'smart' way
5. ... as well as, said Androids, adding virtually nothing to the app economy.

Can't you just imagine the uproar it would cause amongst the bloggerati and the phandroids if Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever?

PS. What about the addition of a few, free, built in apps. Twitter, FB, a couple of games etc.

The problem is these aren't things that are new. Cheap, simple phones were popular long before the iPhone and the iPods reached their peak in 2009. It's not good enough to say "Apple has the ability" or "There is a market for it" you have to make a case that this would be a very profitable move for Apple to make, not just one that it could push a lot of units, be cool if they did so, note that others are doing it, or that they wouldn't lose money if they did it. Apple's growth has been very structured and controlled. If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device that HP, Dell, LG, Nokia, etc. typically do then one needs to make a case that makes it belivable to pull Apple out of their well worn modus operandi, which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device or create a separate App Store for this device.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #156 of 194
Originally Posted by piot View Post
1. Falling sales of non-iPod Touch-iPods.

 

Yeah, they're either buying iPod touches or buying iPhones. The existing models.


2. Still one billion sales of dumb/feature phones. (2012)

 

Hey, as long as I can get a new battery for my VX5300, I'm good.

 

So why should Apple enter the stupidphone market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.


3. The recent, moderate success of Nokia's Asha line.

 

Answers itself.


4. Plenty of evidence showing low end Androids being used in a non 'smart' way

 

And that same research shows iPhones being used in a smart way. Smart makes Apple (and third parties) more money.

 

5. ... as well as, said Androids, adding virtually nothing to the app economy.


Exactly, so why should Apple snub their developers by making a phone that can't run their apps?!

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #157 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


The problem is these aren't things that are new. Cheap, simple phones were popular long before the iPhone and the iPods reached their peak in 2009. It's not good enough to say "Apple has the ability" or "There is a market for it" you have to make a case that this would be a very profitable move for Apple to make, not just one that it could push a lot of units, be cool if they did so, note that others are doing it, or that they wouldn't lose money if they did it. Apple's growth has been very structured and controlled. If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device that HP, Dell, LG, Nokia, etc. typically do then one needs to make a case that makes it belivable to pull Apple out of their well worn modus operandi, which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device or create a separate App Store for this device.


Yes I agree, there as many potential concerns as there are advantages to bringing the nano phone to market.  And as I complained about before, the last thing we need is increased fragmentation of Apple's mobile OS (app store/platform/strategy).

 

Apple will have to determine whether or not the nano phone will add enough to the addiction of the mobile platform (can you say "crack cocaine"?).  If not, we won't see a nano phone.  Because even in small amounts, dealers have a profit line to protect.  Obviously, Apple doesn't and won't give freebies...leaving those dregs to the bottom feeders.  Sorry for the drug reference.

post #158 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Now that's what I'm talking about. That's a through argument. It's not helpful when you're called a dismissive asshole because someone else expects you to create their vision for you.

 

I've stated 1 and 2 elsewhere.  They aren't a case.  They are simple assertions.  The obvious counter argument for #1 is that the market for feature/messaging phones is very price sensitive and the quality feature phone niche too small to be very profitable.   #2 is predicated on #1 being true.  #3 is offset by his observations that the "it just works" ecosystem is slipping.

 

Three debatable assertions are a "through argument"?

 

 

The funniest thing is that piot offers more than dreweys and you take him to task over as "not being good enough" when he provides actual points as opposed to opinion and then twisted his position to be "a high volume, low profit" when he clearly writes "Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever".

 

In what way is the most expensive feature phone idea anywhere close to the high volume, low profit strawman?

 

/shrug

 

This is simply another example of the behavior I find tiresome.

post #159 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

I've stated 1 and 2 elsewhere.  They aren't a case.  They are simple assertions.  The obvious counter argument for #1 is that the market for feature/messaging phones is very price sensitive and the quality feature phone niche too small to be very profitable.   #2 is predicated on #1 being true.  #3 is offset by his observations that the "it just works" ecosystem is slipping.

Three debatable assertions are a "through argument"?


The funniest thing is that piot offers more than dreweys and you take him to task over as "not being good enough" when he provides actual points as opposed to opinion and then twisted his position to be "a high volume, low profit" when he clearly writes "Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever".



 



In what way is the most expensive feature phone idea anywhere close to the high volume, low profit strawman?



 
/shrug

This is simply another example of the behavior I find tiresome.

1) We've all stated these cases many times but yours were not well done IMO. I don't understand why you think a halfassed argument from you should be taken as canon. If you have a case then make it but don't complain that others are dismissive assholes because you failed to make a viable case.

2) Case - an instance of a particular situation; an example of something occurring. Any scenario where you think a company should, would, or could do something based on a set of circumstances is your case.

3) Being an assertion doesn't preclude it from being a thorough argument. It's all debatable.

4) Being more verbose doesn't mean you've thought it through more.

5) Most expensive feature phone ever doesn't mean it's not low profit. You wanting some device that excluding the App Store and is a simply feature phone is making this a low profit device compared with the iPhone. That is not the same as a low margin phone but it's still low profit per unit.

6) I find it tiresome that people focus on one singular desire that they ignore all other hurdles, issues, and corporate philosophies so they can shoehorn a weak concept into some a winning idea. Having ability to do something is not proper reasoning for expecting them to do it.

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply

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

 

Goodbyeee jragosta :: http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/160864/jragosta-joseph-michael-ragosta

Reply
post #160 of 194
Quote:

Originally Posted by nht View Post

 

The funniest thing is that piot offers more than dreweys and you take him to task over as "not being good enough" when he provides actual points as opposed to opinion and then twisted his position to be "a high volume, low profit" when he clearly writes "Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever".

Don't drag me into this.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post
This is simply another example of the behavior I find tiresome.

I sometimes feel the same, but posting and then complaining about it only makes you look like a drive-by shooter.  Fight back with empathetic logic.  It's worth it.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Phil Schiller says Apple would never make a 'cheap' iPhone