or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Insiders "now confident" Apple will launch lower-priced, lightweight iPhone as early as June
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Insiders "now confident" Apple will launch lower-priced, lightweight iPhone as early as June - Page 2

post #41 of 104

You have a good point with those products. My comment was for the product in the article.....We will see if they start offering a lower end phone.

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply

Tallest Skil:


"Eventually Google will have their Afghanistan with Oracle and collapse"

"The future is Apple, Google, and a third company that hasn't yet been created."


 


 

Reply
post #42 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

This is bs. And this is how the greed in Wall Street destroys companies like apple.
Apple is bringing in the cash like nobody else yet these analyst insist Apple must target the low end market. Please!

 

Apple is in business to make money. If its management believes it can make more money pursing the broader market with lower cost versions of their products (as they have done on previous occasions) they will do it. This is not "greed" it is good business. Furthermore it might be great for those millions who might find the current iPhone inaccessible but a lower cost one achievable.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

And if Apple does do a low end IPhone it'll only go so far because some wont buy Apple no matter what.

 

Using that reasoning Apple should never get into any market where they can sell to 100% of the customers. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

Next Apple will be accused of cannibolizing their high end stuff with low margin watered down sh** just to suffice some goddamn corner office , Wall Street schmucks.

 

My goodness we're a bit angry...and full of assumptions with no basis in fact.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry View Post

Give me an effing break.

 

You first.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #43 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I'm sure Apple could pull off something really nice in plastic, like Nokia did, only more tactile.

 

Indeed. I really don't think Apple plans to compromise their values in building products here. I find it interesting that assumption, by some, that even offering a lower cost product would compromise their values and standards. So far this has not been the case.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #44 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Why is this a consideration?

I am seeing the target market not as what we used to call white-collar workers with uncalloused hands, but the people who go out and do physically difficult things for a living. I spend part of my life doing these things, used to do it full time. I know how often the glass iPhone slips out of your coverall or shirt pocket on to the hard, wet concrete or asphalt, or into the muddy track. Every time it happens, you check to see if the chip on the edge of the glass has turned into a spider web. It just ain't a Third World-friendly design.
post #45 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


I am seeing the target market not as what we used to call white-collar workers with uncalloused hands, but the people who go out and do physically difficult things for a living. I spend part of my life doing these things, used to do it full time. I know how often the glass iPhone slips out of your coverall or shirt pocket on to the hard, wet concrete or asphalt, or into the muddy track. Every time it happens, you check to see if the chip on the edge of the glass has turned into a spider web. It just ain't a Third World-friendly design.

 

It's possible you have a stereotyped mis-perception of the market that is being considered. China, for example, has a huge and growing middle class. However this middle class is not what might be considered middle class in the fully developed western world...it is still not third world or people munging around on dirt paths and such.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #46 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post

A lower priced phone specifically designed for emerging markets like India/China makes sense. Just in China alone, this lower priced option would give you access to nearly half a billion more potential customers. What I would not do, is have it compete in the US, EU, etc... with the current full featured iPhone.

 

 

I agree. This phone is about making a deal with companies like China Mobile for emerging markets. Apple might not even sell it in the US. It could also be for prepaid markets. 

 

I am curious what Apple will be bringing to T-Mobile, which has gone on record saying a deal has been struck. 

post #47 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Apple is in business to make money. If its management believes it can make more money pursing the broader market with lower cost versions of their products (as they have done on previous occasions) they will do it. This is not "greed" it is good business. Furthermore it might be great for those millions who might find the current iPhone inaccessible but a lower cost one achievable.

 

 

 

Using that reasoning Apple should never get into any market where they can sell to 100% of the customers. 1rolleyes.gif

 

 

 

My goodness we're a bit angry...and full of assumptions with no basis in fact.

 

 

 

You first.

 

 

Show me one example of Apple ever doing this?

 

Product line is different then lower cost products. The Macbook vs. Macbook Pro was a product line difference for a different use. When people did not want the power of a Pro, they opted for the Macbook. Not having Pro components made it less expensive. But note how those sales moved to the Macbook Air. People showing Apple they are willing to pay the higher price while still not needing Pro components. 

 

iPod line is just that, a family of products to meet how consumers USE the product, not cheaper to get more consumers. 

 

Of course, that is not to say, when Apple can save money they won't. Of course they do, but time and time, and time again, their customers have shown Apple, we are willing to pay a higher price. 

 

This all misses the bigger picture, which I have posted on before. Apple will NOT allow any seemingly cheap product to enter into their lineup as this will tarnish their brand!!!! Much like the fashion industry where high end names stay high end. Example: there are fashion brands out there that will not allow defected products to be sold in discount stores as that will allow "anyone" to wear them and thus lower the brand. 

 

What you are thinking of is the auto industry where they make a really nice Mustang and then put out a crap version to sell to the masses. This actually brings down the entire brand. 

 

Let's compare with a name game. 

 

Mustang ...... Dodge Viper

 

With the Mustang you could have envisioned that junk model or the GT, or the Cobra, or the Shelby, but with the Viper, there is only one cool, high performance model. Get what I am saying? 

 

Apple has a brand, and I, myself, would be less willing to buy into the brand if it becomes cheap. People stand in lines for hours/days for a reason. 

post #48 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Why not?

 

Apple moved away from plastic. I don't see it going back. Once you go to a "premium", you can't go back to plastic.

post #49 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

It's possible you have a stereotyped mis-perception of the market that is being considered. China, for example, has a huge and growing middle class. However this middle class is not what might be considered middle class in the fully developed western world...it is still not third world or people munging around on dirt paths and such.

It's very possible that I'm biasing my sterotypes downclass toward working people, because I spent many years doing things like wrenching, woodsy stuff, and still do a lot of tinkering. Like much of the world.

I love it when I see a tow truck driver pull an iPhone out of his jacket, but I know from experience how out of place a glass back and face, with exposed edges, are in that environment. The mechanics I know appreciate the technology of the Apple build, but they put that beautiful glass design into thick, rubberized non-slip cases.

It's an indoor design, and its appeal is based partially on its jewel-like precision. Same with the 5. But I think it's possible for Apple to do something tougher but still beautiful for people who get out in the world for a living. Like Ferdinand Porsche's approach when he designed his peoples' car: rugged and simple, but beautifully finished.

Anyway, glass with exposed edges is no material for a world phone.
post #50 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

 

Apple moved away from plastic. I don't see it going back. Once you go to a "premium", you can't go back to plastic.

 

Hmmm. Interestingly logical reasoning there.

 

1oyvey.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #51 of 104
I don't see why Apple needs to create a new cheaper iPhone when they're currently selling 4 and 4S for cheaper price.
post #52 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by capoeira4u View Post

I don't see why Apple needs to create a new cheaper iPhone when they're currently selling 4 and 4S for cheaper price.

See, nobody gets it. Glass is simply out of place.
post #53 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Show me one example of Apple ever doing this?

 

Product line is different then lower cost products. The Macbook vs. Macbook Pro was a product line difference for a different use. When people did not want the power of a Pro, they opted for the Macbook.

 

You appear to be assuming that they wouldn't be making some kind of similar move (product line differentiation/segmentation) with the phone. I don't know why you'd assume that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

but time and time, and time again, their customers have shown Apple, we are willing to pay a higher price. 

 

True, but you assume that Apple is not interested in pursuing additional customers.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

This all misses the bigger picture, which I have posted on before. Apple will NOT allow any seemingly cheap product to enter into their lineup as this will tarnish their brand!!!!

 

I'm not sure anyone is claiming that.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

What you are thinking of is the auto industry where they make a really nice Mustang and then put out a crap version to sell to the masses. This actually brings down the entire brand. 

 

It helps if you don't tell me what I'm thinking. I'm not thinking any such thing.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Apple has a brand, and I, myself, would be less willing to buy into the brand if it becomes cheap. People stand in lines for hours/days for a reason. 

 

*sigh*

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #54 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Apple is in business to make money. If its management believes it can make more money pursing the broader market with lower cost versions of their products (as they have done on previous occasions) they will do it. This is not "greed" it is good business. Furthermore it might be great for those millions who might find the current iPhone inaccessible but a lower cost one achievable.

 

 

This. People should relax. Apple has done this successfully before. They are never going to do 'cheap and nasty', or join or a race to the bottom. They brought out iPods at different price points, and maintained quality. They've brought the iPad mini, and that's selling well at a lower price point without being 'cheap'. Sure, there are compromises by comparison with the top models, but gains in terms of portability.

 

It is not only good business sense because Apple could sell here, even if the profit margins aren't quite as good. But it would also bolster the share of users using iOS which is vital to the platform as a whole, maintaining developer, accessory support etc. This cannot be underestimated.

post #55 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

*sigh*

Indeed.
post #56 of 104
I see no problem with Apple making a cheaper iPhone as long as it isn't a piece of shit. Look at the iPad mini. Build quality is top notch. Apple's biggest weapon is iOS, ecosystem, Appstore, support, ease of use, etc. Believe it or not most people who buy iPhone do not care how precisely engineered it is. Personally, and only speaking for myself, I would have no problem with a plastic iPhone as long as it was good quality.
post #57 of 104
Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


Let's compare with a name game. 

 

Mustang ...... Dodge Viper

 

With the Mustang you could have envisioned that junk model or the GT, or the Cobra, or the Shelby, but with the Viper, there is only one cool, high performance model. Get what I am saying? 

 

Apple has a brand, and I, myself, would be less willing to buy into the brand if it becomes cheap. People stand in lines for hours/days for a reason. 

The flaw in your theory is assuming Apple is still a 'niche' company that only makes 'niche' products like the Viper.  Dodge is part of Chrysler.  They also make less expensive cars like the Dart.  But offer a premium badge like SRT.  Ford also sold the GT for a while, very premium product but also sells the Fiesta.

 

I think the comparison you're trying to make to the auto industry is between the Mustang and Ferrari.  You have the Mustang with it's various name plates, but then there is the Ferrari 458.  However, again, you're missing the key issue in this comparison to Apple.  Apple is no longer Ferrari.  They are like an Audi or Lexus or Acura...but even those companies are still owned by larger parent companies like VW Group, Toyota and Honda.  Still premium brands but offer less expensive models to gain a greater reach of the market.

 

They're still no Ford, but even Ford has premium brands like Lincoln.  All these companies use parts from one another to help streamline the supply chain.  It's most obvious in Audi and VW.  But really that is the best comparison to Apple, since VW produces cars that share common parts, but they are all fairly premium parts at that.  And they sell a very wide range of products from the premium affordable (GOLF) to the ultra premium (PHEATON).  However, the same quality is prevalent across the board.

 

Edit: note I'm using the USA range of VW cars only...I know in most other countries VW sells even more affordable options like the UP! and the Polo.  Also note that the in hindsight, the best comparison to Apple in the Auto industry would be Porsche.  They make the affordable Boxster and Cayman, but then the premium model 911.

 

A less expensive (contract free) iPhone is an inevitability.  And there are still ways to make it less expensive without sacrificing quality.  That's why I still hold that the key to a less expensive iPhone is in it's assembly and availability of components, not in reducing quality or eliminating feature.  If they reduce features (iOS, Camera, etc.) there are still other products that consumers will flock to primarily on price alone.  Apple has to find ways to make their products in larger quantities at lower production costs (manufacturing and labor)  Really the parts they can compromise on can be screen/battery/camera and processors only.  And even then the market will balk at that.


Edited by antkm1 - 2/11/13 at 9:17am
post #58 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The success of the iPad mini could be pushing them in this direction.

 

I don't see how there is any logical relationship between these two things. If you think there is one, please establish it. If you can't establish it, that should be a clue that one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

post #59 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

I don't see how there is any logical relationship between these two things. If you think there is one, please establish it. If you can't establish it, that should be a clue that one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

And I would ask, how are they not?

post #60 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by scott1612 View Post

Apple can't really believe that a cheaper iphone is the way forward. The problem is the iphone is a premium product with a price tag to match which offers very little from its ios. You could buy a galaxy s3 mini get more from it than a 529 pound iphone 5. Apple talk a good story but not much else

Thank you for joining. Your provided valuable insight no one here has seen before. Do you get paid for this work or are you a volunteer?
post #61 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by BoxMacCary View Post

APPLE ALREADY HAS CHEAP PHONES!!

THEY'RE CALLED iPHONE 4 & iPhone 4S!!!!!!

Jesus ....

But they're made of glass, front and back. Not an appropriate material for people who lead tougher lives than you. We learned with the mini that the aluminum back cost as much as the display, so that sort of machined precision is probably out.

I envision a Volksfone should have a rugged plastic case, with a water-resistant case-to-screen seal, maybe with squared edges like the present aluminum cases rather than the slippery backs of the iPhone 3 and 3S. It wouldn't need a case because nothing would be any tougher that the phone itself.

Of course it's doubtful Apple would go in this direction, but who knows.

I would like an iPhone like you describe for use in outdoor activities such as skiing, boating, even gardening. But how do you make it water-resistant with the speakers and audio jack openings?

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #62 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

And I would ask, how are they not?

 

Prima facie they are not. The iPad mini is simply a smaller iPad, built to the same, or higher standards as the iPad. It's essentially priced the same as an iPad, given the size difference

 

This rumored, lower priced iPhone is supposedly essentially the same size as an IP4, but, necessarily, built to a lower standard in order to be able to sell it for less than an IP4 at full price, not subsidized.

 

So, I ask again, what does the success of the iPad mini have to do with this? The answer appears to be nothing since there is no analogy between the mini and this rumored "cheap" iPhone.

post #63 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

 

Hmmm. Interestingly logical reasoning there.

 

1oyvey.gif

 

it's very logical. To gain more PC marketshare, would Apple release an iMac with a plastic design to be cheaper than the aluminum one?

 

No it won't. Same with the iphone.

post #64 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Prima facie they are not. The iPad mini is simply a smaller iPad, built to the same, or higher standards as the iPad. It's essentially priced the same as an iPad, given the size difference

 

This rumored, lower priced iPhone is supposedly essentially the same size as an IP4, but, necessarily, built to a lower standard in order to be able to sell it for less than an IP4 at full price, not subsidized.

 

So, I ask again, what does the success of the iPad mini have to do with this? The answer appears to be nothing since there is no analogy between the mini and this rumored "cheap" iPhone.

I suppose the real issue here is that nobody knows what a less expensive iPhone will be.  So arguing any comparison to any other product line Apple sells is probably a moot point until we see this rumored device.

 

However, I see the iPad Mini as a valid comparison.  It's a different form factor, has a slower processor, no retina, lesser camera.  But, it's lighter, smaller, thinner and less expensive and it's still the same experience as the standard iPad.  There are trade-offs.  And to many on this forum, these aspects (maybe not feature for feature comparisons) will be much like what we see in a less expensive device...should one surface.  I for one think the biggest difference we'll see is in the manufacturing process and key costly components like screen (comparing from iPhone 5 to iPod Touch current gen).

 

I also see [even more-so] the Macbook Pro Retina 13" and Air 13" as a good comparison too.  One is much more powerful, faster, better screen, more I/O's, and heavier...the other is much lighter, thinner, more portable, but has fewer features than it's sibling...but they both run the same OS and are very similar in customer experience.

 

How Apple might accomplish this in the iPhone is a good question.  We can only speculate, but it's not that we haven't seen something like this before from Apple, and I think looking at other product families for hints is good speculation.

 

iPhone Air it might be, Mini it will not...IMO

 

Oh, and I think eveyone is looking at the word "cheap" and seeing the negative connotations.  One may ask, when has Apple EVER produced a "cheap" product?  They make less expensive with fewer features...and but still maintain a high level of quality, design and user experience.


Edited by antkm1 - 2/11/13 at 9:48am
post #65 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by capoeira4u View Post

I don't see why Apple needs to create a new cheaper iPhone when they're currently selling 4 and 4S for cheaper price.

 

Check the street prices for an iPhone 4, 4S and 5 in India.  Then compare those to prices for other popular top end phones, such as the HTC One S, and Galaxy S3.

 

Not to mention mid-range phones.  $200 buys a 4" WVGA screen these days, and some other pretty nice specs.   And most such phones have memory slots, so larger memory is far less costly than with the iPhone. 

 
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

The success of the iPad mini could be pushing them in this direction.

 

True, compared to the larger iPad, the iPad mini is an example of getting less cash profit per device, but a higher percentage profit margin... which Wall Street seemed to love.

 

However, a big difference is that iPhone margins are much higher than for the iPad.   It's what, something like 55% gross with the iPhone, and 30% with the iPad.   The iPad mini only went up to soemthing like 33%.  Keeping the same or higher phone margin seems much more difficult.

 

So the question becomes, IF Apple did want to follow the same model with a phone, how could Apple accomplish it without marring the brand?   Perhaps keep a nice case, but skimp on everything else?

post #66 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

 

it's very logical. To gain more PC marketshare, would Apple release an iMac with a plastic design to be cheaper than the aluminum one?

 

No it won't. Same with the iphone.

 

Stunning. 1oyvey.gif 1rolleyes.gif

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #67 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Check the street prices for an iPhone 4, 4S and 5 in India.  Then compare those to prices for other popular top end phones, such as the HTC One S, and Galaxy S3.

 

 

So the question becomes, IF Apple did want to follow the same model with a phone, how could Apple accomplish it without marring the brand?   Perhaps keep a nice case, but skimp on everything else?

agreed, some on this forum don't look beyond their boarders at the larger perspective.

 

See my posts about how they might reduce costs but keep margins up in the manufacturing process.

 

Speaking of, here's a crazy thought.  What if the current iPod touch added a cellular radio chip and they drop the storage to 8gb and call it the iPhone Air?  The current Touch (7.2mm) is thinner than the iPhone 5 (7.6mm) so there is room for it to expand a bit.  It already has everything else the iphone 5 has, except for the slightly less featured components.  Plus the current iPod Touch starts at $299 for 32gb....+$100 for 64gb.  So drop that down a couple notches and you have an iPhone Air for $199 with 8gb and LTE.  They could essentially merge the touch and the iPhone into a single device family...more like the iPad.

 

To save money in tooling and making all new parts, they would just add the most obvious part left out of the Touch, retool the case a bit and you've essentially have an iPod Touch LTE.  That would save a lot of money in manufacturing and keep the current supplier happy.


Edited by antkm1 - 2/11/13 at 10:04am
post #68 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

... I see the iPad Mini as a valid comparison.  It's a different form factor, has a slower processor, no retina, lesser camera.  But, it's lighter, smaller, thinner and less expensive and it's still the same experience as the standard iPad. ...

 

Where by "standard iPad" you mean, at different times, the 4th gen iPad and the iPad 2, as it suits your argument. The rumor essentially is:

 

Quote:
As for how Apple plans to shave down the retail price of this so-called lower-cost iPhone, White believes the device will adopt a more cost affordable display, case, memory, wireless, camera and processor.

"The case would be an interesting area of cost savings with a lower priced material (e.g., plastic) versus the aluminum unibody casing on the iPhone 5, while adding colors to excite consumers," he said.

 

which is nothing like what they did with the iPad mini vs the iPad 2, which is the valid comparison. The success of the mini doesn't bear on whether they will do this at all, the two are entirely different. And it certainly doesn't put pressure on them to do this, as was claimed.

post #69 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

 

Where by "standard iPad" you mean, at different times, the 4th gen iPad and the iPad 2, as it suits your argument. The rumor essentially is:

 

 

which is nothing like what they did with the iPad mini vs the iPad 2, which is the valid comparison. The success of the mini doesn't bear on whether they will do this at all, the two are entirely different. And it certainly doesn't put pressure on them to do this, as was claimed.

I think you and I are arguing two different point about the same thing.  I've stated my opinion pretty clearly.  And no, I was using the iPad Mini compared to the iPad 4th gen.  but my POV doesn't come from this rumor, more from the general comparison in strategy.  I am stating my take...not what this White thinks.


Edited by antkm1 - 2/11/13 at 10:32am
post #70 of 104

In what sense are the cited analysts "insiders"?  They're the same people with terrible tracks records that repackage rumor and dubious "supply chain checks" that we've been hearing from forever, and they're almost never right. 

 

They have to keep coming up with so-called analysis and guidance because that's what they're payed to do-- they're not allowed to fall silent just because they have no info.  So they go with the conventional wisdom, which amounts to little more than a circle-jerk of tech pundits, wishful thinking and deeply average ideas about what Apple "ought to do."

 

Apple may or may not introduce a cheaper by design iPhone (as opposed to continuing to sell previous models at a discount) but I think we can just assume that these "insiders" don't have any more information than the average blogger with an agenda.

They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #71 of 104
Oh AppleInsider. An "analyst" is not an "insider."

"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 #72 of 104
Apple now offers the option of paying in instalments for its products in developing markets where average income is lower. So why bother with producing a plastic low end iPhone for less money? And Schiller has already said that Apple won't produce such a product. This is all just wishful thinking on the part of analysts, I think.
post #73 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1983 View Post

Apple now offers the option of paying in instalments for its products in developing markets where average income is lower. So why bother with producing a plastic low end iPhone for less money? And Schiller has already said that Apple won't produce such a product. This is all just wishful thinking on the part of analysts, I think.

I don't believe it was ever shown that Schiller said they would not produce a less-expensive iPhone.

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #74 of 104
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
Oh AppleInsider. An "analyst" is not an "insider."

 

Should the site be renamed AppleAnalyst

 

I guess, due to the symmetric property of equality, the site could also be named DoomedAnalyst.

 

It's actually pretty fitting, when you think about it.

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 #75 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Cheaper doesn't have to mean "cheap". 

Many people that started off with an iPod nano or mini also moved up to an iPod touch or an iPhone, and in some cases even a Mac later so it is a good strategy not to ignore this huge segment. Get people into the ecosystem and lock them in early so they will buy more expensive models down the road.

The one size fits all iPhone strategy was great when Steve Jobs was hoping to get just 1% of the market. Now that it has taken off and is the largest profit generator for the whole company it is time to offer more choice. A cheaper one, the classic, and a big display version. Cover all the bases and show Samsung who is boss again.

Totally Agree.  I was one of those you speak of.  Pre-ordered the iPod Shuffle (Gen1) as my first Apple device.  If I liked iTunes, I'd buy a bigger iPod...it was a refurb-Mini (Gen2).  After that was both the iPod Classic and the iPhone 3G same year.  Then refurb iPhone4 and pre-order iPad 2.  Last year was my first MBP (even though I had been using my GF's for years) and she also got the pre-order iPad mini.  So 8 years later I'm looking at replacing my iPhone and my iPad with updated models this year.  that's assuming the Standard iPad is thinner and lighter, and they produce a less expensive iPhone.

 

For me, the one-size iPhone is long in the tooth.  I'm paying $85 just to be able to make phone calls and check email, text, maps and games on the go.  That for me is pointless and excessive.  So if no-less expensive iPhone and PaYG options, it might be to Walmart plan for me.  As much as I despise them, the subsidized model is highway robbery, and other PayG plans force you to buy an unlocked phone through them...total BS.  Even shared and bundling in my household is a wash in price.  The system is broken, we need an alternative, and I think this low-cost iPhone (rumored) will pave the way for more PaYG data/voice plans.

post #76 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell View Post


I agree. This phone is about making a deal with companies like China Mobile for emerging markets. Apple might not even sell it in the US. It could also be for prepaid markets. 

I am curious what Apple will be bringing to T-Mobile, which has gone on record saying a deal has been struck. 

I think that is the most likely reason for this device and seeing as how China Mobile's homegrown 4G isn't really established yet but their homegrown 3G is creating a device specific for China Mobile would appear to be advantageous.

"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 #77 of 104
I'm a bit perplexed, where is there ANY statement attributed to an "insider" in this article as the title would lead one to believe? I don't see one.

Apparently "after discovering several unreleased iPhone prototypes through its research back in December"?! Mwahahahaha wtf does that mean?!

Looks like yet another attempt by Hedge Funds and their Analyst lap dogs to manipulate the stock vie one of those anonymous whispers some vested trading interest made up? Jim Cramer says you can invent those all day because Apple will never deny them.

1) Insiders are super, super, super careful to talk to people at investment firms. It is potentially an SEC violation which can get you thrown in jail.

2) Apple does not compete on price, they never have and never will. Dell did, and we saw what happened to them.

This is BS.
post #78 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

This saves waste and increases margin, while providing a phone that is not 'cheap', but more entry level.

iPad mini is not a cheaper to market version of the iPad but a form factor change to fill out the product family.

This bears repeating. The iPad maxi to iPad mini strategy is wholly different. The iPad mini is cheaper for the cheaper components, yes, but margins do not suffer greatly. AAPL is not afraid of people buying the mini in lieu of the maxi. Camera and processor are good enough. Exact same OS. Screen is good enough.

 

Also, the iPod strategy is different as well. All the iPods have different OSs and user experiences. The Touch has (essentially) standard iOS. The Nano has a greatly bastardized iOS with no app store. The Classic has the click wheel (no apps). The shuffle has no screen.

 

But these analysts are saying Apple will sell a iPhone with the same iOS for ~$300 unlocked. And why wouldn't that greatly cannibalize the flagship iPhone? The iPad mini and iPad maxi are different form factors and the mini is, in fact, pretty costly with a price difference of only $170 at similar configs. Are people really thinking that a ~$300 off contract iPhone wouldn't deftly kill the flagship ~$650 model with a difference greater than $300? The differences would have to be immense which I don't see Apple doing. Put all the great components in the flagship you want. If it's still essentially the same iPhone user experience in the iPhone mini then people are getting unlocked phones for $300 instead of the on contract phones for $200 and taking the lower plan costs with it. Say goodbye to ~50% margins.

 

There would have to be a way to differentiate between the models enough so that the iPhone mini isn't a grand ASP and gross margin killer. That is the main question which no one has an answer to.To sell this effectively they'd have to do at least four things:

 

1. Limit the "cheaper" iPhone to certain markets.

2. Require AT&T et.al. to disallow a contract price to purchase the iPhone mini for, say ~$50 on contract in the American and Euro markets.

3. Create grand efficiencies on the price of components and build that are vastly below the flagship to keep up their margin.

4. Bastardize iOS on the lower end version. They'd have to remove Siri, remove Passbook, and maybe reserve other implementations for only the flagship model to make it more sought after.

 

If those steps aren't done why wouldn't I, as a consumer, get the cheaper (and newly released) model that looks the same, has the same OS, but just has a weaker processor and not-as-good-but-good-enough camera? These mini talks call for them release two new phones, at the same time, with one being cheaper to make and thus costing less, still keeping their margins, still keeping their "premium" status, while not having the mini cannibalize the flagship and greatly cannibalize their margins.

 

Just looking at the iPhone 4 they've limited the OS, use a "older" processor and not as good camera, and limit the space to 8GB. But that model is still $450 off contract. Where are the other $150 savings coming from on a newly-developed iPhone mini compared to a previous generation iPhone 4?

 

AND..is this phone supposed to be 3.5" or 5"? Thought we wanted developers to move off the 3.5" and on to the 4" resolution. If the iPhone mini proves to be a new 3.5" phone it'd be a new line of products for the forseeable future. Developers would have to plan to accept 3.5" for the next 5+ years?

 

For this to work it would have to become an iPhone Nano/Shuffle with limited features akin to the iPods of the same name. This would all seem like a grand proposition that I don't think Apple is willing to make. Unless someone can show how margins won't be dropped from ~50% to ~25% without doing the aforementioned steps I just don't see it.

You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
You can't spell appeal without Apple.
Reply
post #79 of 104

My god people, by the logic of many here if Apple was a jeweler you would say that they could only sell diamonds.  

 

Ruby's, Emeralds, Sapphira's, pearls, etc. would just appeal to the scum of the earth type and Apple should not be chasing their filthy dollars......

 

That type of argument is just silly....

post #80 of 104

What "insiders" are "confident"? What exactly did the insiders say? The "now confident" quote in the headline never actually appears in the article at all.

 

Topeka Capital is NOT an insider.

 

I call this more of the same pure speculation.

 

Apple is almost certainly pursuing special low-cost iPhone models. Whether they bring them to market or not is another matter, but Apple plans for many eventualities, and designs many products that don't end up on shelves.

 

And Apple certainly COULD put them on shelves. Past patterns don't prove what will make sense in the future. It's true that Apple would be unlikely to release a bad phone, but a plastic shell doesn't mean bad--the 3G/S was a nice design. It means less durable, but not to the point of being junk.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Insiders "now confident" Apple will launch lower-priced, lightweight iPhone as early as June
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Insiders "now confident" Apple will launch lower-priced, lightweight iPhone as early as June