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 3

post #81 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post


In the first months, sales would likely explode. But then, when the product becomes mass, it will lose its appeal. Apple would be perceived just like "another phone manufacturer", just like Samsung (if you asked somebody who owns a Samsung phone why they bought it, they may answer "because it's a good phone", but they are unlikely to say "because it's a Samsung", unless they are implying with that a reference to the intrinsic quality of the product, not the brand).

I know of people who would answer to this question.
"Because it's not an iphone."

The sad part is, that there is almost nothing more mainstream than owning an iphone. So it's almost exclusive to not own one. There are some people out there that buy other smartphones instead of an iphone because
"owning an iphone is too mainstream."
post #82 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

SJ also said a smaller tablet form factor doesn't make sense (sanding fingers etc.) yet the iPad mini was made and is selling like crazy. I'm not a business analyst so I have no idea if a cheap iPhone is a smart business move or not but I'm sure they would sell tens of millions. I really don't see the problem of giving users a choice of a premium iPhone or a cheap iPhone. Doesn't bother me at all.

The difference is the iPad mini is not a cheap tablet.  They did not do what the analyst and so called experts expected and release a $199-$249 price point cheap tablet to compete with Kindle Fire and Nexus on price.  Plus the form factor is completely different than other small tablets.  They found a way to make a premium small tablet.  It fits the Apple brand perfectly.  A cheap iPhone to try to compete in emerging markets does not match the Apple way of doing things at all.

post #83 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent View Post

So, because of 34% in screen area, his comment is complete garbage?

That and the fact Jobs was quite specific in his comment that the current lot of 7" iPads are DOA.

Note he didn't state that all 7" tablets no matter when they are produced, what aspect ratio or within 1" of 7 inches would be DOA.

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

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

Reply

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

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

Reply
post #84 of 194

It's not a firm denial but I don't see a separate product being developed. The 4, 4S, and 5 will continue to be sold when the next version comes out. The 4 is still a great phone for emerging markets if that's what people keep coming up with. It won't have SIRI and some current iOS features but it can handle mostly every app. Why can't that be good enough? There's no point in having a newly-developed $350 off contract 8 GB iPhone being sold alongside a newly-developed $650 off contract 16 GB iPhone. I don't see a conceivable way to limit the iPhone Mini or whatever where it doesn't cannibalize the iPhone in 1st World Countries while also being economically viable in developing nations. This is not the same as the iPad --> iPad Mini. A person could buy an iPad for home and an iPad Mini for travel. They do serve two distinct purposes (I have both). Unless the iPhone Mini is bastardized to 8 GB as a new product I don't see it happening.

You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #85 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slicksim View Post


Why can't you do it with a phone and iOS?

Apple took the same OS and used it in the iPhone 4 and 5 and the iPod Touch, and the previous iPod Touch, and modified it for the Apple TV. In a more extreme fashion Android is used in a crazy number of different phones with different capabilities?

 

 

The Apple TV doesn't run iOS apps. It runs iOS probably just for "simplicity"...

 

You can't do it with a phone and iOS because that would be an iPhone.

Since Apple is already making LOTS of profits, their only interest in incrementing the market share of their phone is for the positive impact of the ecosystem. That is: the more iPhone users outside, the more and better apps, and this generates a positive feedback. As you can see, it's not about increasing the market share of the device itself, but of the operating system.

Because of this, their answer to the problem was clever.

First of all, there is the iPod Touch, which can be bought by children as well and also helps with a "lock-in" effect.

Second, they keep selling older models, for those who want an iPhone but can't afford it. In this way, they are not diluting the brand value, because everyone would still buy the newest model if they could.

 

An Apple-made phone without iOS not only would be useless to the purpose of maximizing the market share of the operating system, but would instead cannibalize the iPhone itself (which runs iOS).

An Apple-made phone with iOS would instead diluite the brand value and so on, as I explained above.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by changeover View Post


I know of people who would answer to this question.
"Because it's not an iphone."

The sad part is, that there is almost nothing more mainstream than owning an iphone. So it's almost exclusive to not own one. There are some people out there that buy other smartphones instead of an iphone because
"owning an iphone is too mainstream."

"Because it's not an iPhone" just reinforces my thesis. A critical success factor of the iPhone is that it is an iPhone. So people buy or DON'T buy exactly because it's an iPhone!

Instead, it's hard to hear someone who admits he buys or doesn't buy a phone because it's a Samsung...

(By the way, in the past Nokia was probably in the same situation: people were buying Nokia phones just because they were made by Nokia: the brand was really the conditio sine qua non in this case).

post #86 of 194
Why not make a 3G only, 3.5" display, 5 megapixel, 16GB-only, A6-powered (512MB), Lightning-connected ultrathin replacement for the iPhone 4S for release later this year alongside the 5S. US$249 no contract unlocked. Call it iPhone mini.

The lack of size options, no LTE, different camera and no 4.0 inch display would prevent cannibalisation of the iPhone 5S. Using parts long in manufacture makes it cheap to make, but it brings iOS, and an ultrathin aluminum form factor to this segment of the market.

It would replace the iPhone 4 and 4S as the low end model and bring Lightning to all iPhone models. Never sold carrier locked, like the iPad cellular to keep inventory simple.

Apple can make fantastic ultra thin devices at low cost (iPod touch). I think this would be the way to go.
post #87 of 194

So not 'cheap', but I do think that a better value iPhone may be on the way.

 

It's mainly because of the greater divergence in design within the smartphone category as a whole. In particular there are lots of larger smartphones about withbigger screens. I wouldn't want one myself. I've not bought an iPhone 5 because I prefer the 4S size and proportions and I'm still very happy with it. But clearly lots of people do want larger smartphones. I don't see Apple being able to compete effectively in a divergent class with a single model.

 

In other categories Apple offers different sizes and price points - I see no reason why they shouldn't with iPhones.

 

Want a MacBook Air? Mine's a 11" but some people seem to prefer 13". Neither is 'cheap' . Both are quality. But one costs less than the other.

post #88 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post


"Because it's not an iPhone" just reinforces my thesis. A critical success factor of the iPhone is that it is an iPhone. So people buy or DON'T buy exactly because it's an iPhone!
Instead, it's hard to hear someone who admits he buys or doesn't buy a phone because it's a Samsung...
(By the way, in the past Nokia was probably in the same situation: people were buying Nokia phones just because they were made by Nokia: the brand was really the conditio sine qua non in this case).
I never looked it that way. But that makes sense.
But i wouldn't compare apple and nokia. Look where nokia is right now. I don't think that is going to happen to apple.
post #89 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by retroneo View Post

Why not make a 3G only, 3.5" display, 5 megapixel, 16GB-only, A6-powered (512MB), Lightning-connected ultrathin replacement for the iPhone 4S for release later this year alongside the 5S. US$249 no contract unlocked. Call it iPhone mini.

The lack of size options, no LTE, different camera and no 4.0 inch display would prevent cannibalisation of the iPhone 5S. Using parts long in manufacture makes it cheap to make, but it brings iOS, and an ultrathin aluminum form factor to this segment of the market.

It would replace the iPhone 4 and 4S as the low end model and bring Lightning to all iPhone models. Never sold carrier locked, like the iPad cellular to keep inventory simple.

Apple can make fantastic ultra thin devices at low cost (iPod touch). I think this would be the way to go.

I think if a less expensive iPhone is to be made it will follow along the lines you state but be for China Mobile. Most of their customers are still on 2G, and their 3G is homegrown, with LTE not reasonable for at least a few years by my estimate.
Edited by SolipsismX - 1/10/13 at 3:35pm

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

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

Reply

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

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

Reply
post #90 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by changeover View Post


I never looked it that way. But that makes sense.
But i wouldn't compare apple and nokia. Look where nokia is right now. I don't think that is going to happen to apple.

 

In terms of brand equity, Nokia had, in the mobile phones industry, the position that is held by Apple today (at least here in Europe).

Then, they failed because of many, big strategical issues... And there are lots of studies on that. But that's a whole other story :)

post #91 of 194
Apple does make cheap iPhones, it just does not sell them direct to consumers!

Every time Apple release the next generation iPhone a whole raft of previous generation phones move through the supply system - I know I've passed at least two generation to friends and family for considerably less than the original retail price.

Perhaps this is one of the best reasons for Apple to maintain iOS compatibility through iOS device generation, which generally is very good.

Given market figures for handsets, our website stats for clients show iOS devices still dominate over 60% of the engagement with websites.
post #92 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

I agree, High-margin profit isn't everything.  I've said this in several other threads this week.
You can make all the profit in the world, but with smaller adoption rates you loose regardless of how much money you've made.
That being said, it's been shown in many articles that iPhone users generate a majority of mobile use/web traffic.  So Apple certainly hasn't got a lot to worry about...YET.  But I am worried every time I see the market share dropping.

Or you can say Apple is in 2nd place in market share to Android. Does that sound better?

Sure it's a distant 2nd place... but so what? Apple makes more than enough money to survive. And not just survive... they make an obscene amount of money for "only" being 2nd place. Apple is probably further from bankruptcy than any other company on the planet.

Market share is a ranking of all products in an entire industry. Unfortunately... you cannot pay your bills with market share.

If you owned a restaurant in your town... would you be more concerned with how many meals you sell compared to all other restaurants in your town?

No... because you cannot pay your rent with some chart listing the number of meals you sell. You have to make actual money to keep your doors open.

Market share is an "award" while profit is the "reward"
post #93 of 194
Thank you for putting this rumor to bed. I was dreading a cheap iPhone. Apple is a quality brand and it should always stay that way. If you want cheap Samsung and the others are waiting for you're money
post #94 of 194
Why don't people understand you don't have to be a volume dealer to be a success apple is a luxury brand. It's not dell or Samsung
post #95 of 194
Sure glad to hear this! let the people who want cheap stuff buy android and microgarbarge
post #96 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by theblackbubble View Post

Apple does make cheap iPhones, it just does not sell them direct to consumers!

Every time Apple release the next generation iPhone a whole raft of previous generation phones move through the supply system - I know I've passed at least two generation to friends and family for considerably less than the original retail price.

Perhaps this is one of the best reasons for Apple to maintain iOS compatibility through iOS device generation, which generally is very good.

Given market figures for handsets, our website stats for clients show iOS devices still dominate over 60% of the engagement with websites.

I caution your use of the word, "cheap".  Whenever people post about price (cheap or expensive) it's vital to specify what it buys...does that cheap cost include the total cost of ownership (i.e. data plan)?  A $0.99 iPhone in the U.S. requires a fairly expensive 2 year data plan.

 

Is it considerably less than a new iPhone?...yes.  But it's still not considered cheap to most.

 

Therefore, it has always been my contention that a different form factor (like an iPod nano but with a phone) which results in cheaper data plans is the most probably direction that Apple will take.  Unless major networks dramatically bring down the cost of GB of data, every iPhone from the 3GS to 5 is still relatively expensive.

 

Further, an iPod nano-like phone reaches an audience very different from the existing iPhone market.  The hardware will be cheaper than an iPhone and the data plans will be cheaper as well.

post #97 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sector7G View Post

Why don't people understand you don't have to be a volume dealer to be a success apple is a luxury brand. It's not dell or Samsung

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?).
post #98 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

 

AppleTV uses iOS... it doesn't have apps... Is it a pointless device?

 

I don't think people understand why Apple moved into the phone business to begin with. The portable media player market was dwindling - it was shifting towards mobile phones; smart phones in particular. Apple saw this happening before it did and was able to gracefully make the transition.

 

Media players as media players are going to completely die off soon. The best selling iPod is the iPod touch right now. If Apple wants to get the iTunes ecosystem into more hands, then why not tap into the massive feature phone market?


Bingo!...it's not just iOS, it's actually the entire Apple platform that is in play.

 

Re: phone business...may I also hypothesize that a specific prediction made by Apple at that time was the inevitability that people would choose between carrying their iPod or carrying their mobile phone.  Apple could've just slapped a phone on the iPod (a shortcut) to respond to this inevitability, instead they took a gamble and reinvented the phone.  In contrast, and as you recall, many of the phone companies did take a shortcut and just slapped on a MP3 player to their phones.

post #99 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I don't think so. The appeal of the iPhone is the Internet without compromise (flash notwithstanding). How would you limit it to sell as a feature phone? No apps? No camera?

I think they will just minor upgrade the 4 to be $300 with no contract when the 5S come out.


I just read mjtomlin's blog...and agree (in fact advocating the same ideas for about a year now).

The only thing missing (albeit potentially obvious) from his blog in support of an Apple feature phone is the resulting reduction in the TOTAL COST OF OWNERSHIP...i.e. the monthly plans as compared to smartphone data plans.

P.S. it would have a camera.

post #100 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?).

I think the comment was referring to the iPhone only holding 15% of smartphone market.

So... tiny market share and rather expensive hardware could be considered luxury.
post #101 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

 

Agreed. 

 

Personally, I think Apple will enter the feature phone market.

 

Been writing my thoughts on it... http://www.obviouslogic.com:8080/opinions/iphone-nano.php


Just read your thoughts on this...wish I knew it was there earlier, I'd have just referred people to your blog instead of frantically typing.

I do think you should address the effect of data plan and total cost of ownership as I think that is an appealing aspect of a feature phone.

Then again, addressing phone networks is a risky thing as many often respond with emotional comments since networks are so different around the world.

post #102 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


The rumor mill is just getting started. Notice how Phil carefully phrased his response ...

He did not say Apple will not make a less expensive iPhone, he just said they won't make a cheap one. He confirmed that's not how Apple does things.

But there will be a less-expensive iPhone mini. Guaranteed.

I agree, Jobs used to play games with the media too. I wish I could have seen Phils face as he spoke to get the nuance. Interesting though that it was him who said it and not others. I think they are playing a pseudo plausible denaibility gambit ie  If an opponent lacks incontrovertible proof (evidence) of their allegation, one can "plausibly deny" the allegation even though it may be true. In this case Apple is denying they are making a cheap iPhone, even though they may be working on something similar at lower cost , not cheap. I have no idea what they will call it. iPhoneMini meh! nah . It also gives the false  impression to the competiton that they having nothing to worry about with apple competing in the low cost phone space. hmmmm don't bank on that! They just went half way with the iPadMini and took a lot of money . Who knows? its all SPECULATION.

post #103 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?).

 

First, don't confuse luxury with premium. And yes, it is a premium brand, because prices are really higher than the industry average (as someone else said, remember to refer to the TCO, and not just the amount you pay in cash to buy the phone).

 

And "volume dealer" means little.

Usually, companies who aim at big volumes are the aggressive players in the industry, who pursue a cost leadership strategy. And this is definitely not Apple's case, because Porter says so :)

post #104 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


That's certainly true.

However, consider that the iPod Touch starts at $299. Now, add cellular capability (extra electronics, antennae, microphone, and bigger battery) and explain how you can reduce the price enough to get it to sell for $99 to $149 as has been proposed.

Just can't happen - not without seriously cutting corners which Apple isn't likely to do.

 

The iPad Touch is Apple's top of the line entertainment device. It roughly matches up with the iPhone 5 in terms of features including the expensive Retina Display. Ask the iPad Mini, Apple could drop the Retina Display. Additionally, why assume a less expensive iPhone for the prepaid market needs to be similar to Apple's current offerings? For example, Apple could do something more akin to the iPod Nano, which comes with a limited set of apps. If so, a less capable processor would be fine. Apple also wouldn't have to subsidize free app downloads.

 

Further, six months from now it is likely the cost of components in the iPod, iPhone, and iPad are going to drop as new components destined for Apple's other higher end devices will drop. Moreover, it is possible such devices could be sold through carriers only and the carriers pay Apple a bounty (they already do this for other companies in some cases). This would make up for a decrease in margins. The iPhone 4 is $450 unlocked. It is built using expensive materials like glass and metal. It also has a retina display. Apple can probably shave a hundred dollars off a redesigned less expensive phone by dropping the retina display and moving to a high end plastic like Nokia (Lumia phones), Microsoft (Surface), and Google (Nexus) does. My point is just because you or I can't envision how Apple can bring a lessor expensive but not cheap phone to the market, doesn't mean Apple can't. I suspect many people would have not guessed Apple's iPad Mini would have forgone the Retina Display, yet Apple was willing to make that trade off. 

post #105 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post

I don't get it.  People have been saying that Apple neeeeeeeds to make a cheap iPhone since 2008.  Meanwhile, the strength of iPhone sales just increased.  When are people going to realize the Apple way isn't the traditional way, but it works.

What "people'?  I've never said they needed to make "cheap" phones.  Apple is typically not interested in making low profit products. They can't sustain their business model with low profit business.  Just look at IBM, Compaq, and others that sold off their businesses because of low profits.

 

Just because there are a bunch of cheap Android phones doesn't mean Apple wants to compete against them.  Apple is interested in those that purchase Apple products, and their sales of iPhones are going up year after year and they might need to focus on different screen sizes and constantly bringing new processor designs, screen technology, etc. to product line, but making cheaper phones that don't make much profit?

 

I would much rather have Apple focus on always coming out with better products on the high end and push down the models downward over time so their low end products are old flagship products, which seems to be doing well for them.  Eventually the iPhone 5 will be their $450 unlocked phone, $0 with 2 year service contract phone in the US.  

post #106 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


I don't think so. The appeal of the iPhone is the Internet without compromise (flash notwithstanding). How would you limit it to sell as a feature phone? No apps? No camera?

I think they will just minor upgrade the 4 to be $300 with no contract when the 5S come out.

 

 

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. 

post #107 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


I think the comment was referring to the iPhone only holding 15% of smartphone market.

So... tiny market share and rather expensive hardware could be considered luxury.

 

 

Yet when Apple entered the market, it's goal was to only take one percent of the smartphone market. 

post #108 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Why assume a less expensive iPhone for the prepaid market needs to be similar to Apple's current offerings? For example, Apple could do something more akin to the iPod Nano, which comes with a limited set of apps. If so, a less capable processor would be fine.

They could do that but I think the App Store tying in the ecosystem isn't something they'd want to readily give up. The iPhone 4 already has a 2 year old ASIC and the G4 iPod Touch despite being Retina is only a TN panel, not IPS.

The only way I can see this scenario working in any way is with China Mobile by reducing the baseband processor configuration but who knows if their homegrown 3G is better or worse for licensing.
Quote:
The iPhone 4 is $450 unlocked. It is built using expensive materials like glass and metal. It also has a retina display. Apple can probably shave a hundred dollars off a redesigned less expensive phone by dropping the retina display and moving to a high end plastic like Nokia (Lumia phones), Microsoft (Surface), and Google (Nexus) does. My point is just because you or I can't envision how Apple can bring a lessor expensive but not cheap phone to the market, doesn't mean Apple can't. I suspect many people would have not guessed Apple's iPad Mini would have forgone the Retina Display, yet Apple was willing to make that trade off. 

Not being cheap doesn't mean it can't be inexpensive. We now have a great iPad that starts are $329. It doesn't feel cheap or sacrifice anything reasonable. Let's remember that the first iPad with 264 PPI 2048x1536 display only arrive less than a year ago with a resolution on a tablet that gets 10 hours of battery life. Most PC monitors don't come close to that resolution.

Let's examine the foolishness people wanted with the iPad mini. A 326 PPI 2048x1536 IPS display in a form factor that is about half the volume of the iPad (3) and lasting 10 hours. Oh yeah, to be hundreds of dollars less expensive. No one who actually thought about the available technologies would have believed that was possible.

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

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

Reply

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

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

Reply
post #109 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

When asked about the possibility of a low-cost iPhone, Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller said his company is not interested in making cheap, low-profit products.

I will NEVER pay $679 for an 8GB plastic cell phone
Reply
I will NEVER pay $679 for an 8GB plastic cell phone
Reply
post #110 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yet when Apple entered the market, it's goal was to only take one percent of the smartphone market. 

Exactly.

So they've blown by that goal... and picked up tens of billions of dollars in the process.

That's why the "Apple is doomed" comments are absurd.
post #111 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post



What is the profit margin on the iPod Shuffle?

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

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

Reply

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

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

Reply
post #112 of 194

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post

 

"Exclusivity" is also about the difficulty of obtaining it.

As long as you have to pay 730€ for it, you likely have to save money somehow. True, with carrier subsides you can pay it much less... But, eventually, carriers have to get the money back (plans with the iPhone are much more expensive).

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.

 

Quote:

Exclusivity is also about being impossible to find iPhones in the months just after the launch of the new model.

 

 

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.

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by EgoAleSum View Post

The problem is that people buy the iPhone because it's "exclusive". If they were to release a low-end, cheap iPhone, they would lose many customers, instead, in my opinion.

The success of the iPhone relies, for a big portion, exactly on it being expensive and, in the first months after a new model comes out, hard to obtain (because it's always out of stock).

 

 

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. At least in the US, sold out stock hasn't been so much of an issue on recent releases. It doesn't really mean anything anyway. The Nexus 4 was sold out too for a while. That doesn't make it an exclusive device. All sold out really means is that demand is often higher early on, where production takes some time to ramp up fully.


Edited by hmm - 1/10/13 at 6:11pm
post #113 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post



Good point.

But the iPod Shuffle was just one model. Apple continued to sell the higher-margin Nano and Touch.

And... the Shuffle was great for the gym... but I don't think it can be a replacement for one of the bigger iPods. Plus... it's not unusual to think of someone owning an iPod Shuffle and another iPod, iPhone or iPad.
post #114 of 194
Just guessing here but if Apple offers another tablet/phone size it won't be 5" it will be 6" .. to fill the gap in the progression 4", 8", 10" (10, 20, 25 cm). A 15 cm touch device, prob running iPhone apps esp. games, eBooks, and for sat-nav. I'd get one as a book reader provided it wasn't too expensive (For which iPod touch is too small and the iPad is more than large enough.).
post #115 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post

Yet when Apple entered the market, it's goal was to only take one percent of the smartphone market. 

 

 

Well, it was all they were willing to predict.

 

Always better to set expectations low and let everyone be surprised, than to set them too high and be disappointed.

post #116 of 194

Well obviously Apple isn't going make anything "cheap" as in "cheapo"

 

But if Apple is enjoying success with an iPad Mini... why not enjoy success with an iPhone Mini?

post #117 of 194
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
What is the profit margin on the iPod Shuffle?

 

Hopefully $40. lol.gif

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #118 of 194
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I think if a less expensive iPhone is to be made it will follow along the lines you state but be for China Mobile. Most of their customers are still on 2G, and their 3G is homegrown, with LTE not reasonable for at least a few years by my estimate.

Unfortunately, the only Qualcomm baseband and chipset pair that supports TD-SCDMA also supports LTE. I'd think they'd be more likely to release a CDMA/EDGE/HSPA+ iPhone using a derivative of the 4S's 6610 for all carriers, and the 5S may well be the only model that works on China Mobile's 3G (with the new WTR1605L transceiver).

 

Of course, this hypothetical 3G-only iPhone mini would only work on EDGE and WiFi on China Mobile, but that's still a better experience than using an iPod touch.

 

Such a model would be popular in many countries, not just China - prepaid is huge globally. Apple also needs to transition away from the 30-pin dock connector completely this year, so hanging on to the 4 and 4S as low cost models isn't an option.

post #119 of 194

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.

post #120 of 194

"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.

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