or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › More affordable iPhone predicted to grab Apple 11% share of low-end market in 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

More affordable iPhone predicted to grab Apple 11% share of low-end market in 2014 - Page 2

post #41 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

 

 


Contradiction on your part?

 

Would you care to point out what you think is contradictory? 

post #42 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

And my point stands. They removed that product for one of higher quality unlike what you suggest which is to take a higher quality and reduce it down.

it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.
Quote:
Apple reduces cost all the time by buying larger (or all) quantities, and buying early. Manufacturing processes and designing in-house also help.

Those are but a few ways companies reduce costs.
Quote:
But this has nothing to do with going cheaper.

If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
Quote:
All manufacturers reduce cost when they can, but they never reduce margin unless forced to by competition and currently in the high-end space, there is not competition to Apple.

This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.

The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.
Quote:
This is why they are always rated tops by consumers and why people stand in long lines for hours to get the next new thing from Apple. 

How to increase cost it to lower the quality of an item thus increasing service, repairs/replaces and customer confidence. 

They are rated the best because they are the best. That doesn't mean a less expensive model has to be crap. Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.

Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.

You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.

PS: Why do quote a post and then recopy the post in your text. It makes it difficult to follow. Can we at least agree that communication is key?
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/16/13 at 10:10am

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

 

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

Reply

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

 

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

Reply
post #43 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.
Those are but a few ways companies reduce costs.
If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.

The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.
They are rated the best because they are the best. That doesn't mean a less expensive model has to be crap. Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.

Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.

You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.

 

it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.

 

And it still stands!! Apple has had several plastic computers over time as that was the material of the time. Their higher end models were upgraded to aluminum and as cost came down, they removed all other plastics from the product line to increase the quality NOT LOWER IT! To my point again, Apple has upgraded the quality of their products, NOT lowered it over time, like you suggest they do. 

 

If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.

 

Okay, I am not going to argue this further as you and others fail to see that the MBA was not an introduction of a cheaper computer, but of a new product line of ultra thin computers. And over time it has been increased (not descreased) in ability and build to where it replaced the entry level plastic MB. If you don't see that, they we'll just go round and round forever. 

 

The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.

 

That is not what I said. I said Apple won't INTRODUCE a cheaper iPhone. Moving models down is not introducing. I have always argued that by doing this, less expensive iPhones enter the market. That is hugely different than Apple manufacturing a phone just for a lower end market. So the simplest way I can explain this comment from you, is it is not relevant to the conversation at hand. 

 

 Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.

 

Once again, the mini is not a cheaper version of the iPad but a new product to meet the consumer demand of a smaller form factor much like the iPod did with different size and shapes to meet demands. Apple just did not make some knock-off iPod or iPad to gain market share. Why don't you understand that? 

 

 

Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.

 

 

I'm starting to think you have no idea what this thread is about. Apple did not take the iPod and reduce specs to gain market. They did introduce products to meet the needs of people such as size. Did they use the same components as the iPhone? What does it matter, they are two different products for different needs. 

 

You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.

 

Where has Apple lowered the bar? Show me where Apple has lowered the specs of a product rather than increase them? 

post #44 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

AppleInsider would report what Gene had for breakfast, if it was Apple Jacks.
I get that this is a rumor site and all but most of the time these analyst predictions aren't based on any sort of inside knowledge or a well placed rumor or leak liked you'd get with, say John Gruber or 9to5 Mac. They're just predictions based on what someone thinks Apple might do, or needs to do to stay competitive in a certain market. And then they attach a dollar figure to it and send it out to their clients as "research".
post #45 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Where has Apple lowered the bar? Show me where Apple has lowered the specs of a product rather than increase them? 

Jesus Fucking Christ! I've given you at least a half dozen examples!

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

 

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

Reply

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

 

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

Reply
post #46 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Jesus Fucking Christ! I've given you at least a half dozen examples!

 

 

Great use of your words. 

 

No, actually you have given examples of Apple introducing NEW product CATEGORIES to meet market demand for size and usability, not taking an existing product, reducing its specs to introduce a cheaper model. 

 

Apparently you can't see that. 

post #47 of 100
Richard Getz.

1) learn to quote.
2) your original claim that there are "free" iPhones cheaper than the $300 quoted by Munster has been comprehensively defeated. You are now scurrying around trying to find minor quibbles in other peoples arguments.

I really don't get that people don't understand that.

1) selling last years model is a stop gap.
2) Apple sells cheaper models ( not cheaper configurations but models) ALL THE TIME.


And I really really really don't understand why Apple fans would oppose more iPhone models.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #48 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


Great use of your words. 

No, actually you have given examples of Apple introducing NEW product CATEGORIES to meet market demand for size and usability, not taking an existing product, reducing its specs to introduce a cheaper model. 

Apparently you can't see that. 

That's semantic crap. You have merely decided that all the different models of the Mac are NEW product CATEGORIES but any iPhone model - as yet unannounced. - is REDUCING ITS SPECS.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #49 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ Web View Post

You're joking, right? The collective musings of every Apple fanboi that opines on AI is easily eclipsed by Gene Munster's understanding of Apple and his recorded track record. Pull you pea brains out of the sand, please! 
The same Gene Muster who has been predicting an Apple television set for the past 2-3 years? Blows my mind why anyone takes him seriously. lol.gif

As far as a low cost iPhone, why does everyone assume it has to be plastic to be low cost? I know Apple has done plastic in the past, but how many of their flagship devices are plastic right now? Mac, iPhone, iPad and iPod are all aluminum and glass. Couldn't they produce an iPod touch like device with cellular capability that's cheaper than $450?
post #50 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Richard Getz.

1) learn to quote.
2) your original claim that there are "free" iPhones cheaper than the $300 quoted by Munster has been comprehensively defeated. You are now scurrying around trying to find minor quibbles in other peoples arguments.

I really don't get that people don't understand that.

1) selling last years model is a stop gap.
2) Apple sells cheaper models ( not cheaper configurations but models) ALL THE TIME.


And I really really really don't understand why Apple fans would oppose more iPhone models.

 

 

Not sure how FREE is more expensive than $300, but okay, I won't argue that any further. If someone shows me where most people in the world don't have a contract with their phone carrier, or needs to change carriers so often that every 2 years is absurd, then I might even agree. But really, who changes out their carrier that often? And if so, they can only do that so many times before they are back to the beginning. 

 

Again, selling last years models at a lower cost is not the same as being suggested by everyone. What is being suggested is for Apple to create a new phone, with lower specs, and introduce it to the market to gain massive shares. 

 

And I really don't understand why people insist that Apple does introduce a 'cheaper' iPhone model. I have never seen Apple introduce a cheaper version of a current model to gain market. 

 

I have seen them keep existing models at lower price points, but that is not the same as being suggested. 

post #51 of 100
@Dick Get - Never heard of the iPod line? Are you implying it's reincarnations are all new product categories?
post #52 of 100
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
Lol. Your continued hostility to Apple doing anything they haven't done before is amusing.

 

That IS funny, because I specifically offered up something Apple has never done before and yet you're still saying this. In fact, I've done that for years and you're still saying this.


There is a precedent for Apple having different models at different price levels cf the Mac.

 

Your point is what?


Selling last years stuff is sub optimal.

 

Hasn't been for four years. Why would it be now?


1) it's not supported for as long as a model produced this year.

 

People know that.


2) you are competing with your own secondary market.

 

Apparently not drastically.


3) last years model doesn't have the sexiness of this years model regardless of configuration.

 

Given that your argument is smoke, it makes sense that one of your points would be tenuous as well.


4) Apple doesn't have to have one BIG IPHONE EVENT a year.

 

… They have to have… two, then? Or what are you saying?

Originally Posted by asdasd

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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #53 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


Not sure how FREE is more expensive than $300, but okay, I won't argue that any further. If someone shows me where most people in the world don't have a contract with their phone carrier, or needs to change carriers so often that every 2 years is absurd, then I might even agree. But really, who changes out their carrier that often? And if so, they can only do that so many times before they are back to the beginning. 

Again, selling last years models at a lower cost is not the same as being suggested by everyone. What is being suggested is for Apple to create a new phone, with lower specs, and introduce it to the market to gain massive shares. 

And I really don't understand why people insist that Apple does introduce a 'cheaper' iPhone model. I have never seen Apple introduce a cheaper version of a current model to gain market. 

I have seen them keep existing models at lower price points, but that is not the same as being suggested. 

Um, free is more expensive than $300 because the lowest cost iPhone is not free (your claim) but $450.

I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it?

The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"

I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.

And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #54 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Oh my God! Look, it is not some conspiracy or top secret. Google the stats for yourself but all the recent articles I have read suggest that around 80% of all consumers in the world do not get a carrier subsidy for your free iPhone 4. For those people it can cost them $500 or more for an iPhone 4. Cheaper doesn't equate to low quality, especially when you are talking about Apple. Besides wanting to transition away from 30 pin to lightning in one fell swoop how do you know that Apple couldn't use one of those new Rosetta Stone type Qualcomm chips that would allow them to sell a lower cost model in every since country in the world saving them even more money over trying to sell several different older iPhone models. They might even decide to offer a 8GB and 16GB version while the current iPhone jumps to 32/64/128. The point is you nor I nor anyone else know what Apple will do, but your reasons not to introduce this phone aren't very convincing. Your "Free" iPhone 4 costs about $500 or more for 80% of the world's population and who wouldn't rather have a current year model over one from 2 years ago unless the specs are far worse which is doubtful. It would likely be as good or slightly better than a 4S in terms of CPU/GPU. 

 

And carriers, as well as Apple, is addressing this with payment plans. But just because someone can't afford something, it does not mean the manufacturer has to produce a product they can afford. I can't afford a new Mac every time I want one, or even when I need one some times, but that does not mean I want Apple to lower the quality just so I can. 

 

I have also suggested and introduced the conversation as to what they can decrease to save money, but no one, aside from your post here, has even commented on that. If you read that post, you will see that I did suggest lowering the SDD as only one of the options I stated. Although I still would find it hard to think Apple would. 

 

 

 

Quote:
  • Camera? The Free iPhones do have older cameras and I don't see Apple taking that away? 
  • Build? By the time the phone becomes free, the build quality would become a far less cost hog as, I would imagine, all the R&D and process has been ironed out. Would moving to plastic make the phone that much cheaper? And with others moving to better materials, would that not make Apple look like they are going backwards? 
  • WiFi only and no GPS? With WiFi only you could save on the data plan and hardware with no GPS, but that really kills some major functions of the phone. 
  • Siri? Removing Siri would not reduce price. Unless the processor and RAM is greatly reduced. 
  • Retina display? Moving away from this would probably be more costly as having to use two different materials increases cost of production. 
  • Processor? Sure, they can save here by using processors that don't meet specs as they do in the Apple TV
  • Less RAM and less SSD space? Sure, that would be another area. (they already offer multiple sizes so adding another smaller size would not increase production complexity like adding non-retina screens would)

 

post #55 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

@Dick Get - Never heard of the iPod line? Are you implying it's reincarnations are all new product categories?

 

show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs? 

post #56 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


Um, free is more expensive than $300 because the lowest cost iPhone is not free (your claim) but $450.

I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it?

The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"

I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.

And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.

 

 

Again, lost in reality! 

 


I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it? 

 

Remedially the word of the day for you? And despite what you might want to believe, keeping a product at a lower price is NOT the same as introducing a new product with lower specs to meet a lower price point. 

 

The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"

 

Again, you are lost in reality. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs for a lower price point. The iPad mini is a new product of DIFFERENT size and specs to meet the demands of a form factor. The ONLY cheaper iPads are the older models. 

 

I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.

 

I'd rather you understand basic business concepts. 

 

And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.

 

Oh, now I get it. LOL sorry, I was late to the party here. So being you don't have contracts (I assume that is your argument) and have to pay full price, you rather Apple introduce something you can afford? Why don't you instead go to your carrier and demand that they offer the iPhone FREE with a contract as those do in America? Or offer a payment plan so you can afford the phone over time? Why does Apple have to introduce something you can afford? 

post #57 of 100

Oh Mr. BMW, I can only afford a Civic, will you please lower your quality so I can buy your BMW. It does not matter if you have to lower the quality to the point of Civic, just as long as I can say I own a BMW. 

post #58 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That IS funny, because I specifically offered up something Apple has never done before and yet you're still saying this. In fact, I've done that for years and you're still saying this.

Your point is what?

Hasn't been for four years. Why would it be now?

People know that.

Apparently not drastically.

Given that your argument is smoke, it makes sense that one of your points would be tenuous as well.

… They have to have… two, then? Or what are you saying?
There is only much idiocy I can handle so to rebut this trivial argument ( and then put mod on ignore - a first).

1) you were totally opposed to the idea of the continuation of the 3GS when the 4S came out. Apple never did this before. Yada yada yada. Why you follow a company which is going to upset you by doing different things all the time is a mystery. And let's not mention the utter trainwreck about the iPhone 6. And the iPad mini. If I were as wrong as you I would learn some damn humility.

2) Apple is losing the low end market so claims that "apparantly" things are working for them is no sense. Because you need two data sets. How last years models compare against a new model. WE WON'T HAVE THAT DATA UNTIL RELEASE THE NEW MODELS SO WE CAN COMPARE.

of course apple are going to have more than one model of iPhone. As they do with all other products.

But, getting this wrong, as you will you will continue to be arrogant about your next stupid - it wasn't like this in the last 2 years - opinion.

I don't even get why Apple fans would not want more models of a device they use and welcome to ignore.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #59 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Oh Mr. BMW, I can only afford a Civic, will you please lower your quality so I can buy your BMW. It does not matter if you have to lower the quality to the point of Civic, just as long as I can say I own a BMW. 

Bad example because BMW makes the Mini Cooper, and don't say Benz either because they make the Smart Car.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #60 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


Bad example because BMW makes the Mini Cooper, and don't say Benz either because they make the Smart Car.

 

are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz. 

post #61 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


Again, lost in reality! 


I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it? 


Remedially the word of the day for you? And despite what you might want to believe, keeping a product at a lower price is NOT the same as introducing a new product with lower specs to meet a lower price point. 

The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"


Again, you are lost in reality. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs for a lower price point. The iPad mini is a new product of DIFFERENT size and specs to meet the demands of a form factor. The ONLY cheaper iPads are the older models. 

I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.


I'd rather you understand basic business concepts. 

And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.


Oh, now I get it. LOL sorry, I was late to the party here. So being you don't have contracts (I assume that is your argument) and have to pay full price, you rather Apple introduce something you can afford? Why don't you instead go to your carrier and demand that they offer the iPhone FREE with a contract as those do in America? Or offer a payment plan so you can afford the phone over time? Why does Apple have to introduce something you can afford? 

Getz. You still haven't learned to quote.

You know that argument about the iPad mini? That's not an argument. If the cheap new iPhone modrel comes out you can make the same points about it not being, just, a lower specced model. I had this same debate when I was predicting the iPad mini.
As for the snide attack on me - when I said Europe it was an example of a rich continent where PAYG is common. Not me. I can afford the top level iPhone off contract. And a BMW. And an unmortgaged house.


If you think owning an iPhone gives you financial status you are middle income at best.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #62 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


2) Apple is losing the low end market so claims that "apparantly" things are working for them is no sense. Because you need two data sets. How last years models compare against a new model. WE WON'T HAVE THAT DATA UNTIL RELEASE THE NEW MODELS SO WE CAN COMPARE.

I don't even get why Apple fans would not want more models of a device they use and welcome to ignore.

 

You can't lose that which you never had. Apple never had the low end market of anything, nor has it ever tried. Not in their DNA as I recall. 

 

More models are great, let's get them! Just like the iPod line that introduced new models of different form factors to meet different needs, if there are different needs for the iPhone then do it. 

 

Oh, wait, there is a smaller iPhone 4 and 4s and a larger iPhone 5 so there are different models of different form factors to meet different needs. Same with the iPad. 

post #63 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz. 

A BMW is for rich people unlike an iPhone. Which is for middle income people in the developed world and the upper middle income in the poor world.

If your financial status comes from buying a mass market device - with 50% if the market in the US - it makes sense that you would oppose a greater penetration of the phone. For those of us who want the iOS platform to maintain its presence, and see apple increase share , we naturally would support cheaper models.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #64 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


Getz. You still haven't learned to quote.

You know that argument about the iPad mini? That's not an argument. If the cheap new iPhone modrel comes out you can make the same points about it not being, just, a lower specced model. I had this same debate when I was predicting the iPad mini.
As for the snide attack on me - when I said Europe it was an example of a rich continent where PAYG is common. Not me. I can afford the top level iPhone off contract. And a BMW. And an unmortgaged house.


If you think owning an iPhone gives you financial status you are middle income at best.

 

 

Leaning and wanting to are different. 

 

AGAIN, iPad mini is a different form factor like the iPhone 5 to meet a need. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs. No one can look at the two and say, yeah, I see where that one is cheaper. One is smaller, just like the iPod line and oops, like the iPhone line as well. 

 

LOL I never brought up about the affordability of iPhone before others. I think it is priced just fine. Everyone else is suggesting a cheaper one is needed. My point is if you can't afford something, don't buy it, or save for it. But don't get upset at the manufacturer for not offering one you can afford. 

 

BTW, it was not a dig on you personally (as I don't know you to do so), but a dig on the comment as it is Apple' responsibility to lower the cost of ownership and not the carriers. Although Apple is offering payment plans in some countries. 

post #65 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


A BMW is for rich people unlike an iPhone. Which is for middle income people in the developed world and the upper middle income in the poor world.

If your financial status comes from buying a mass market device - with 50% if the market in the US - it makes sense that you would oppose a greater penetration of the phone. For those of us who want the iOS platform to maintain its presence, and see apple increase share , we naturally would support cheaper models.

 

I hardly think BMWs are for the rich, but the definition of rich is subjective. My status does not come from finances and no one else's should either in my opinion. Having money is a blessing, and fun, but not a status. But I admit, that is my opinion. 

 

So why does Apple need to do this? Is it to increase their $140 Billion in cash? To be the #1 company in the world again and not #2? To claim they have the most phones out in the market? I'm sure they can with their cash if they wanted to. What does Apple gain, or anyone, to be a player in the lower end markets? 

post #66 of 100
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
1) you were totally opposed to the idea of the continuation of the 3GS when the 4S came out. Apple never did this before. Yada yada yada.

 

Except I never said that. I do recall saying they wouldn't drop the 4 and keep the 3GS. HEY LOOK AT THAT, they didn't do it.


2) Apple is losing the low end market.

 

1. Are they? 

2. They sell a $650 phone. WHAT ON EARTH makes you think they even WANT the market of people who can't afford data plans?

 

of course apple are going to have more than one model of iPhone. As they do with all other products.

 

Why's it taking them seven years to do? That's longer than any other such timeframe. 


I don't even get why Apple fans would not want more models of a device…

 

Because that's part of what killed them in the '90s and one of the first things Jobs stopped when he came back. Maybe you've forgotten.

Originally Posted by asdasd

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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #67 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz. 

You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #68 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.

 

Which is why I really hate, and therefore should not use, car analogies. Perhaps I should have used Corvette as they don't have a lower end version of itself. 

post #69 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

A BMW is for rich people unlike an iPhone. Which is for middle income people in the developed world and the upper middle income in the poor world.

If your financial status comes from buying a mass market device - with 50% if the market in the US - it makes sense that you would oppose a greater penetration of the phone. For those of us who want the iOS platform to maintain its presence, and see apple increase share , we naturally would support cheaper models.

At some point you realize that the other person is willfully being ignorant (i.e.: trolling) and you just have to stop. There is clearly no intellectual conversation coming from him. It was bad enough that he though that the world gets iPhones for FREE but even after it was explained in detail he still went on about, and that's without looking at any of the other goalpost moving comments he's made. For whatever he wishes to remain ignorant so let him.

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

 

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

Reply

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

 

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

Reply
post #70 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


At some point you realize that the other person is willfully being ignorant (i.e.: trolling) and you just have to stop. There is clearly no intellectual conversation coming from him. It was bad enough that he though that the world gets iPhones for FREE but even after it was explained in detail he still went on about, and that's without looking at any of the other goalpost moving comments he's made. For whatever he wishes to remain ignorant so let him.

 

I like how you try to diss me by posting to someone else as if I am not right here. If you have something to say to me, be a big enough girl to say it to me. 

post #71 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Which is why I really hate, and therefore should not use, car analogies. Perhaps I should have used Corvette as they don't have a lower end version of itself. 

That reminds me when I used to tell people "my boys and I drive around in a 'Vette, a Chevette" lol
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #72 of 100

heres the whole list

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iPod_models

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs? 

post #73 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

heres the whole list

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iPod_models

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs? 

 

nice, you linked to the history of iPods, now show me which iPod had its specs lowered? 

 

Let's start with the iPod Classic. Which one from 1 to 7 had its specs lowered? 

 

Now the Mini? 

 

Then the Nano? 

 

Then the Shuffle? 

 

Then the Touch? 

 

Looks to me as though each CATEGORY of iPod has had its iterations increase in specs. 

post #74 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Leaning and wanting to are different. 

 

AGAIN, iPad mini is a different form factor like the iPhone 5 to meet a need. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs. No one can look at the two and say, yeah, I see where that one is cheaper. One is smaller, just like the iPod line and oops, like the iPhone line as well. 

 

LOL I never brought up about the affordability of iPhone before others. I think it is priced just fine. Everyone else is suggesting a cheaper one is needed. My point is if you can't afford something, don't buy it, or save for it. But don't get upset at the manufacturer for not offering one you can afford. 

 

BTW, it was not a dig on you personally (as I don't know you to do so), but a dig on the comment as it is Apple' responsibility to lower the cost of ownership and not the carriers. Although Apple is offering payment plans in some countries. 

 

The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.

 

I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I hardly think BMWs are for the rich, but the definition of rich is subjective. My status does not come from finances and no one else's should either in my opinion. Having money is a blessing, and fun, but not a status. But I admit, that is my opinion. 

 

So why does Apple need to do this? Is it to increase their $140 Billion in cash? To be the #1 company in the world again and not #2? To claim they have the most phones out in the market? I'm sure they can with their cash if they wanted to. What does Apple gain, or anyone, to be a player in the lower end markets? 

 

Yet BMW clearly has different classes of cars at different price points. Why are they doing that when per your reasoning they are harming themselves? Are we supposed to believe that the 3 class is just made up nonsense that in no form or fashion has been engineered to meet a lower price point?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


1. Are they? 

2. They sell a $650 phone. WHAT ON EARTH makes you think they even WANT the market of people who can't afford data plans?

 


Why's it taking them seven years to do? That's longer than any other such timeframe. 

 

Because that's part of what killed them in the '90s and one of the first things Jobs stopped when he came back. Maybe you've forgotten.

 

Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution. Likewise the commoditized solutions by PC vendors made Mac prices look uncompetitive. Why is it taking them seven years? Some of us would arguing that Apple is repeating the mistakes they made with the Mac rather than keeping the lessons they learned with the iPod. What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.

 

I can recall a friend of mine financed an Asus computer. It was early Windows 95 and it cost him $2200. Within 18 months we were building the same machine for less than $800. Apple in the same timeframe was still offering mostly $2200 solutions as their real choices with intentionally cripped machines making up their low end. (68040's with their math co-processor off and so forth.) It got ugly quick but Jobs turned it around by offering a few choices all built around common components and that helped Apple get their margins up and their prices down, all while helping the consumer understand what they were buying.

 

Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz. 

You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.

 

You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

heres the whole list

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iPod_models

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs? 

 

nice, you linked to the history of iPods, now show me which iPod had its specs lowered? 

 

Let's start with the iPod Classic. Which one from 1 to 7 had its specs lowered? 

 

Now the Mini? 

 

Then the Nano? 

 

Then the Shuffle? 

 

Then the Touch? 

 

Looks to me as though each CATEGORY of iPod has had its iterations increase in specs. 

 

 

Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price. Apple explained the trade-offs and expanded their market each time. They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars. Apple made the best products they could at each price point but they made them across all price points.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #75 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I like how you try to diss me by posting to someone else as if I am not right here. If you have something to say to me, be a big enough girl to say it to me. 

Do you seriously not understand how an open forum works? If I wanted to say something "
behind your back" I would said it as a private message to asdasd. This being an open forum you are free to read and respond to it as you see fit but don't be a dumb ass and suggest I was trying to direct anything toward you as my message was clearly addressed and worded for asdasd. If there is anything in this world I do exceptionally well it's being direct. if your reading comprehension was better you'd know that; but if your reading comprehension was better I wouldn't have had to tell you.
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/16/13 at 3:00pm

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

 

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

Reply

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

 

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

Reply
post #76 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

 

The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.

 

I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.

 

 

Yet BMW clearly has different classes of cars at different price points. Why are they doing that when per your reasoning they are harming themselves? Are we supposed to believe that the 3 class is just made up nonsense that in no form or fashion has been engineered to meet a lower price point?

 

 

Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution. Likewise the commoditized solutions by PC vendors made Mac prices look uncompetitive. Why is it taking them seven years? Some of us would arguing that Apple is repeating the mistakes they made with the Mac rather than keeping the lessons they learned with the iPod. What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.

 

I can recall a friend of mine financed an Asus computer. It was early Windows 95 and it cost him $2200. Within 18 months we were building the same machine for less than $800. Apple in the same timeframe was still offering mostly $2200 solutions as their real choices with intentionally cripped machines making up their low end. (68040's with their math co-processor off and so forth.) It got ugly quick but Jobs turned it around by offering a few choices all built around common components and that helped Apple get their margins up and their prices down, all while helping the consumer understand what they were buying.

 

Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.

 

 

You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.

 

 

 

Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price. Apple explained the trade-offs and expanded their market each time. They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars. Apple made the best products they could at each price point but they made them across all price points.

 

 

 

The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.

 

I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.

 

Do you not understand the difference?? I never said the iPad Mini did not have lower specs than the iPad, I said the iPad Mini is not a lowered specked iPad. The difference is the iPad Mini is a new product category, different size for a different use. It is NOT the same design as an iPad but with lower specs. 

 

Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution.

 

And who has more money? Microsoft or Apple? Who? That's correct Apple. Do they sell more than Microsoft, nope, but they do sell it for larger margins and make lots more money then they do. So would you rather sell 10x more product or make 10x more profit. Well, actually, your stating you rather sell 10x more product, hell with the profit. 

 

What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.

 

Yup, when they had too many product tiers, agreed. Now they have the iPhone 4, 4s, and 5 which is a new size. What more do you want? I'm not saying there is not room for more products, just not cheap versions to sell to the masses. 

 

Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.

 

Sure, I agree that Apple can keep the iPhone 4 line as the consumer and move the 5x to the pro line. I don't see a reason to offer a NEW cheaper line for consumers (vs pros). 

 

You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.

 

Apple currently has two iPhone lines. The 4 (4 and 4s) and the 5. I think it is great that Apple would CONTINUE to offer an older model for people who don't need high end specs, and would even agree with a older model having their drive downsized to 2GB to save cost. But I still don't see the need to offer a cheaper phone for a market segment that Apple has never gone after before. 

 

Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price.

 

The iPod Touch did not. But again, there is a difference between a new product category that does have lower prices due to target markets (such as not having a screen so of course the cost would go down), and taking an existing product category and making it cheaper. 

 

Example: 

iPod Touch to iPod Touch lite with reduced specs. 

iPod Nano/Shuffle are not cheaper versions of a parent, but new parents. They are for different markets. Touch for those who need more interaction, video, games, etc. and Nano/Shuffle for the active runners etc. Totally different products for totally different usages. 

 

They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars

 

Again, they introduced new product categories to address needs based on size and capability, not so they could sell cheaper iPods to more people. 

 

If everyone is going to use the same iPod to iPhone analogy, then the cheaper iPhone would have no screen (wait, that would be the iWatch). If you liken it to the iPad, then the cheaper phone would start at and always be a smaller form factor as people wanted the difference in size to meet a different need. 

 

At no time did Apple use cheaper parts in their iPod classic to sell more. They have not taken the iPod Touch and make a non-retina screen version with lower specs to sell more. 

 

Does that make sense? 

post #77 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution.

There are some big differences though. The iPhone and most if not all high end Android phones cost the same. Windows had the luxury of having the most software being developed for it, and while the Google Play store is catching up to the App Store I believe the App Store wins in the quality of apps.
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"I got the answer by talking in my brain and I agreed of the answer my brain got" a 7 yr old explaining his math HW
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #78 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Do you seriously not understand how an open forum works? If I wanted to say something "
behind your back" I would said it as a private message, but that's beside the point as my message was clearly directed at asdasd. This being an open forum you are free to read and respond to it as you see fit but don't be a dumb ass and suggest I was trying to direct anything toward you. If there is anything in this world I do exceptionally well it's being direct. if your reading comprehension was better you'd know that; but if your reading comprehension was better I wouldn't have had to tell you.

 

:) LMAO

post #79 of 100

It is very apparent that we have different views on product categories and as such we just keep saying the same thing over and over and I see no reason to keep doing that at the frustration of everyone. 

 

We'll wait to see what Apple does. Thanks for the discussion. 

 

PLUNK

post #80 of 100
Yo
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Apple no longer has a plastic MB. They did, but fazed it out for the better quality MBA which is opposite of what many are suggesting Apple to do. 

I disagree that Apple chases low-price points. What I see is Apple offering new products into a growing family as needs warrants. Such as people saying I don't want to carry that huge iPod when I go jogging, thus smaller iPods are made. This is not to chase a price, but a market need. 

Again, what would you take way from the current iPhone line to make a cheaper iPhone? 
You wouldn't take anything way. If you were Apple, you would introduced a similar product that suits the same purpose but in a different way. The shuffle was created as a commuting and exercise iPod since the current offering at the time (iPod mini) was still too big to fit those needs. One could argue the watch iPod nano could have replaced the nano but even it was still too expensive to grab the market of low-end iPods and similar.

Look at the Mac Mini, they took the guts of the Low end MacBook and removed the keyboard, monitor and Mouse and charged $499US for it. The "affordable" Mac.
The iPad mini was a result of market demand vs. the need for a lower cost and more portable iPad without loosing functionality or quality.
The current MacBook Airs could be seen as the replacement for the plastic MacBook. Lighter, thinner, less powerful MacBook Pros, yet still maintains the hight standard of Apple quality.

I think the reason why Apple hasn't yet produced a low cost iPhone comes is multiple parts.
First, there possibly wasn't a need for it in its first several generations because it was (and arguably still is) the most popular smartphone on the market.
Second, before the iPhone became a global phenomenon, most countries that sold it did have subsidies driven by the local carriers and the method of selling the previous models at a discount suit its purposes better since the models get cheaper to build over time and production and components get cheaper.
Third, in the early years of the iPhone, smartphones were (and arguably still are) too low % of total cell phone market for them to even consider branching off since they were the most popular smartphone and that was all that matters.
Last, now this is totally a shot in the dark, perhaps Apple hasn't got a great idea on how to produce a phone that is less featured and lower cost than the iPhone and still have a successful product and high enough profit margin for it to be worth producing.

That all being said. Look at the current market we have now in the cellular industry. Smartphones are slowly catching up to all other phones in market share but still not in the numbers that feature phones and go-phone have...GLOBALLY. Feature phones are still the most dominant piece of the pie because they are cheap and easily replaceable and provide the minimum of Internet service for the money.

Now there's also the question of ecosystems and customer loyalty, which Apple highly desires. At this point, the android ecosystem has so much variety and you can literally buy an android phone for the same cost as a feature phone. Once those customers buy those lower cost Androids, their next phone might very well be an upgrade to a better Android phone. Then our will have a situation where Android will dominate two of the biggest segments of the cell phone market. If those customers stay with android, since its the familiar that keeps customers more times than not, then Apple will have a real problem.

You see, the iPod was the gateway drug into the ecosystem, then the iOS devices (iPhone, iPod touch, iPad)...then finally the Macs. Build customer loyalty through value, quality and great user experience. One could argue that since the desire of the iPod line is now gone (minus the iPod Touch), the gateway drug is gone and now the most likely replacement would be the low cost phone.

What would a low cost iPhone be like? I have several possible solutions, each with their own issues (ill admit).

One, find a way (without pissing on the carriers too much) to crate an ALL-DATA LTE iPod touch and include a new phone app (similar to Google Voice). Now this might not be a low cost solution, but IMO its the future of smart phones. Take away the iron fist of insane voice plans by the carriers.

Two, create an iFeature Phone. Basically limit the iPhone to a smaller screen (like the original 3.5") install the basic iOS Apps and that's it. Basically an iPhone gen 1 with updated internals. That won't happen because the App Store generates too much business for Apple and then can't just cut off the App Store.

Third, something we haven't seen yet. A new type of device that takes advantage of iOS but is lower cost. As much as I hate the idea, an iWatch might be it, or some thing just as simple. If you look at the basics of the feature phone, you have voice, text, email, sometimes GPS, camera and possibly some games...not to mention the basic stuff like contacts and such. Real bare bones kind of stuff, like my first Nokia candy-bar phone from 2004 or even the first razor phone.

Now I'm not saying any I'd these options are viable by any means, but there is something worth exploring in each of them.

The idea of an all data iPhone would be great and it would really stick it to the carriers, but they might not support that kind of device because to literally takes away all the profit they make on phone plans. Even though most are literally giving away unlimited voice and text now just to compete...which tells me the data plans are outrageously overpriced.

A bare bones iPhone with no App Store is basically the equivalent to today's feature phones but that takes too much away from Apple App Store profit margins.

And I can't say anything about something we haven't seen yet like an iWatch or iPod nano phone.

Either way these ideas are something to discuss at the very least and are far from the stupid predictions of a non-retina updated iPhone 3GSs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • More affordable iPhone predicted to grab Apple 11% share of low-end market in 2014
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › More affordable iPhone predicted to grab Apple 11% share of low-end market in 2014