Wonderfully stated.
I sure hope Apple does exactly what you're saying: just keep making the best iDevices they can. Don't worry about market share. Let people who want cheap go to the multitude of suppliers of cheap.
I think they'll do fine with profits if they do that. But even if for some reason their profits suffer because of that approach, so be it. It's what makes Apple, Apple.
"Yes, he did not say "cheaper". He said "cheap"!
I bet they can make a decent phone for $300 and make a hefty profit. Their margins are already excellent on their current iPhone 5.
They will have to have a "cheaper" phone to address most of the world that can't afford an expensive phone. And anyone is better off with expensive product."
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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??
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.
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.
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:
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:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.
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.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
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.
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.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
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.
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!
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.
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
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
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.
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"
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?!
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.
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.
