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 3

post #81 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Apple will never add a SD slot to their phones. Perhaps iPads, but that I would say is a 20% chance. 

 

I don't think Apple will add a memory slot either, and that could be a negative sales factor if (as you suggested) their low price phone came with little storage.

 

Quote:

Apple has never been in the business to beg people to buy their products. Apple is a high end manufacturer where people pay (and are happy to pay and stand in line to pay) the premium price. 

 

Let the bottom feeders feed off the bottom, Apple does not have to. 

 

Price war breaks out in India - Apple giving trade-in discounts and loans

post #82 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.
Ford makes the fiesta ($14,000 USD avg.)
The also made the GT40 ($140,000)

Merc also has an "A-Class" (lower cost)

VW makes the Up! And the Pheaton.

They all do it
post #83 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. 
Yes but Chevrolet makes cars for all markets. Apple is no Chevy. Nor are they BMW. More like VW. Different sizes and different markets, but still use high quality at every price point.
post #84 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

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. 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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). 

 

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. 

 

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. 

 

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? 

 

I can see, as others have noted how you are claiming to be semantically right, but no it doesn't make sense to most people to say that an iPod nano is a completely separate product from the classic iPod. They are both iPods with different capabilities and price points. This is exactly what people want Apple to do with the iPhone. Per your reasoning, Apple wouldn't have a Nano or Shuffle. They would just have progressively older Touches and below that, they would write off the market as an example.

 

As for who has more money now, it isn't a fair comparison. At the time in question, Apple was in danger of going out of business and Microsoft was at the top of the heap. Apple rebounded by being the best and basically first real modern smartphone. The market right now is much like 1993-1994. Apple actually made loads of money those years if you do the research back to then. There was a clear tipping point and Apple took the worst of it.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

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.

 

The real issue isn't right this moment. The real issue, in my opinion is 12-18 months from now. The smartphone/tablet providers on the Android side are quickly consolidating around several standards and soon their combined purchasing power will drive the prices at which they can purchase and sell components and solutions to dramatically lower levels.

 

Right now as an example I have the Nexus 7 and an iPad Mini. While the Apple solution is better and the case can be made for the higher price (bigger screen, camera, etc.) this is just the first round. Run it out to the next round and by next Christmas we might have a $100 current Nexus 7 specs while the $200 version has 8 cores/32 gigs standard, or retina level display, etc.

 

We've also seen the specs for the Samsung Galaxy S4. It looks like all the high end phones are going to 1080p. It doesn't just mean Apple looks behind there spec-wise. It means that everyone purchasing 1080p screens drives down the cost of said screens.

"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 #85 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

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.

 

Some carriers have been planning that for a while.  Verizon has stated many times that it believes that VoIP is the future for both land and wireless phone calls, because of FiOS and LTE.

 

Quote:
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. 

 

The only problem with voice over data, is how do you charge for it?   Regular voice calls are charged by time, because they tie up roughly the same amount of resources per second, whether you're talking or not.

 

Data calls are always charged by byte, because that's how those resources are used up.  And I sure don't think that people want to be charged per byte for voice calls.  Can you imagine?  "Honey, please turn off the music in the background, it's costing us extra!"

 

Quote:
Even though most are literally giving away unlimited voice and text now just to compete...which tells me the data plans are outrageously overpriced.

 

Last time I checked the financial statements, carriers were averaging something like $3.50 a week profit off data plans.  A Whopper meal might make more.

 

It's the quantity of customers that makes them money (which they usually plow right back into more infrastructure, instead of stashing billions away like some other "overpriced" companies do).

post #86 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

The only problem with voice over data, is how do you charge for it?   Regular voice calls are charged by time, because they tie up roughly the same amount of resources per second, whether you're talking or not.

There have been methods in place for decades. This is complex stuff but it's well worn ground.

"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 #87 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I can see, as others have noted how you are claiming to be semantically right, but no it doesn't make sense to most people to say that an iPod nano is a completely separate product from the classic iPod. They are both iPods with different capabilities and price points. This is exactly what people want Apple to do with the iPhone. Per your reasoning, Apple wouldn't have a Nano or Shuffle. They would just have progressively older Touches and below that, they would write off the market as an example.

As for who has more money now, it isn't a fair comparison. At the time in question, Apple was in danger of going out of business and Microsoft was at the top of the heap. Apple rebounded by being the best and basically first real modern smartphone. The market right now is much like 1993-1994. Apple actually made loads of money those years if you do the research back to then. There was a clear tipping point and Apple took the worst of it.


The real issue isn't right this moment. The real issue, in my opinion is 12-18 months from now. The smartphone/tablet providers on the Android side are quickly consolidating around several standards and soon their combined purchasing power will drive the prices at which they can purchase and sell components and solutions to dramatically lower levels.

Right now as an example I have the Nexus 7 and an iPad Mini. While the Apple solution is better and the case can be made for the higher price (bigger screen, camera, etc.) this is just the first round. Run it out to the next round and by next Christmas we might have a $100 current Nexus 7 specs while the $200 version has 8 cores/32 gigs standard, or retina level display, etc.

We've also seen the specs for the Samsung Galaxy S4. It looks like all the high end phones are going to 1080p. It doesn't just mean Apple looks behind there spec-wise. It means that everyone purchasing 1080p screens drives down the cost of said screens.

But Google still lacks the quality tablet apps that the iPad mini has. They would have to make great strides in the next 12-18 months in order to be as close a competitor as competing smartphones have gotten.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #88 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post


But Google still lacks the quality tablet apps that the iPad mini has. They would have to make great strides in the next 12-18 months in order to be as close a competitor as competing smartphones have gotten.

 

I agree, but then again,  the mainstream apps are available, and that's all that matters to most people.

 

Both my Apple and Android tablets have Netflix, Flipboard, Mint, Optimum TV, and all the usual news and book readers, games, etc.

post #89 of 100
Y
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

There have been methods in place for decades. This is complex stuff but it's well worn ground.
You wouldn't charge by time. Data is data. They don't charge iMessages as texting because its data. I'd assume VoD would be similar to FaceTime. It's all part of the data plan. If you're on wifi, it's virtually free of data usage.
post #90 of 100
I actually took the time to read this entire thread... and am surprised that so many people here just don't get why Apple should NOT be concerning themselves with an inexpensive iPhone.

My main reason: the 80% of the world that they are developing for, do NOT HAVE CREDIT CARDS... and I seriously doubt whether they will be purchasing App Cards either. Then: Apple ID? What for? These people are not going to be... nor are interested in any App Store... and certainly not one that is American/English centric.

Someone mentioned that an iPhone "Cheap" would have to come with an SD card slot: not going to happen, and even if it did, Apple would have to open up the system to allow side-loading of apps and entertainment. Just. Not. Happening. Because... for roughly $25.00 you can purchase an SD card with 100's of Android apps, games, movies, music, etc. already loaded on it... which works on a $50.00 PAYG Android.... but not on an Apple iOS device.

iPhone is similar to iPod: not true! You could always "side-load" your music as MP3's from alternative sources and/or your own ripped collection. You can NOT do this with iPhone Apps. Entertainment? Also not so easily for this 80%... because their phone is the only computing device they own. In BRIC countries, it's common to use Internet Cafés to load things onto your phone. How's that going to work with iTunes? Answer: it's not.

Could Apple make an inexpensive "feature phone"? Of course they could, and make a profit as well. But it would still not see the marketshare that the Droids have, because for the 80% mentioned above... ANY iPhone with iOS, Apple Store, and Apple ID is NOT WANTED....even if it was completely FREE due to the "strings" I highlighted.

Apple's strength with the iPhone is it's ecosystem. Period. This is what needs to be understood in this debate. Take away the App Store and the far superior App experience... and it's just a freakin' phone... in fact, you may have a hard time even calling it a "smart phone" at all if you do that.

With that in mind, it is absolutely necessary to build on the App Store experience, flesh out a really great iOS 7, and build the next "super smart" iPhone to take over the rest of the profits at the high-end of the market. Pull back some of those Samsung, HTC, Nexus jumpers with a far superior experience and useful modern features. If that ends up costing $600, $700 or even $1000,- for the end-user, in a western economy with access to mobile plans... So. Be. F****ing. It.

NOTE 1: regarding car analogies: no one mentioned the disaster that Mercedes is still working on reversing, when they thought they had to go "down-market" with their products and thru purchases and "partnerships" in the 90's and Naughts. The brand suffered terribly, and is only recently starting to recover.

NOTE 2: just looked on Ebay.de: new iPhone 3GS/16gb still going for €299,99. Please tell me again WHY Apple has to pull the rug out from under themselves to dev. an inexpensive, feature-crippled iPhone at US$300.-...!?!

NOTE 3: @antkm1 - on the right track with his post. A completely different approach and product, and not even called an iPhone.

NOTE 4: From The Register: Chinese iOS pirate Kuaiyong launches web app store. Bad news for Apple developers targeting PRC.
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #91 of 100
Before someone beats me to it, I want to say that I realize that for example, in India, Apple has allowed certain deviations and payment methods for those without a credit card or a computer at home.

I still don't think it's worth it for them to chase the low end though.

I as many here on this forum witnessed the take over of the PC market by MS, for some of the very same fundamental reasons that Android has exploded in growth.

That being: MS was available (or cracked) and installed on any computer you could throw together with the cheapest throw away parts you could find. Then, all of the applications, games and content was "shared" among Windows enthusiasts. Floppy trading and selling in back alleys across the world made Windows what it is today, and hence their "world-wide marketshare".

You can't ignore the fact that it is for exactly the above reason today, why Android is so popular and growing "worldwide". It "runs" on darn near anything, and the apps/content are readily available to be installed WITHOUT an account, app store, anything other than a "floppy drive"... uhm... SD card slot.

Me personally: let 'em have at it as long as Apple continues to produce the "Poster Product*". The one you have on the wall that you aspire to owning some day.

* Poster Product - I recently gave a Branding presentation using the new Mercedes A-Class as an example, when it was a huge hit at the 2011 China Auto Show. It put something affordable, within reach, and cool on a neglected demographic's "I Want Wall". Not your Mom's or Dad's, or some-day-when-I-strike-gold-with-my-new-App I'll get an SL 65 AMG Black Series.

Although... aspirations should always be striven for.... 1smoking.gif

Edited: before someone points out the hypocrisy in my post and correlates the A-Class with an SL65AMG: A-Class is a different product. It is NOT an inexpensive version of the aforementioned Dream Car. So don't even go there. 1oyvey.gif
Edited by ThePixelDoc - 4/17/13 at 3:49am
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
Knowing what you are talking about would help you understand why you are so wrong. By "Realistic" - AI Forum Member
Reply
post #92 of 100

It would make sense, i've always thought it quite annoying and lazy of Apple just to keep the older versions of the iPhones live, only reducing the cost by a small amount.

 

Something with a worse camera, slower processor around the £250 mark would be good.

post #93 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by iCollectionShop View Post

It would make sense, i've always thought it quite annoying and lazy of Apple just to keep the older versions of the iPhones live, only reducing the cost by a small amount.

Something with a worse camera, slower processor around the £250 mark would be good.

The older versions already have a worse camera and a slower processor. Any worse and you cripple the user experience.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #94 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

You wouldn't charge by time. Data is data. They don't charge iMessages as texting because its data. I'd assume VoD would be similar to FaceTime. It's all part of the data plan. If you're on wifi, it's virtually free of data usage.

That's not correct in any regard. It's not going to clomped together in with IP data, it's simply going to use IP as the method of transport. Again, there have been methods in place for decades to deal with this. The data for voice you now consider different from IP data isn't changing in the ways you are assuming, and I can't fathom how in 2013 and on a tech forum that anyone would say that vice date and HTTP data is the same. Do you even know what TCP and UDP are? Do you why we two two of them at the Transport layer above IP? Do you know why VoIP uses an additional Transport layer protocol? Look, no one expects you to be an expert in VoIP but at least have a rudimentary idea of how it works. You can start by not using the pointless tautology: data is data.

"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 #95 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


 You can start by not using the pointless tautology: data is data.

no.  And you could try a better word choice.

 

tautology |tôˈtäləjē|noun ( pl. tautologies )the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession).• a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.


Edited by antkm1 - 4/22/13 at 10:34pm
post #96 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

no.

1) What a well thought-out rebuttal. How can anyone deny your argument that all data is treated the same on a network? Fucking brilliant¡

2) Next time try reading the whole definition when you need to look up a word.

tau•tol•o•gy |tôˈtäləjē|
noun
- Logic: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via late Latin from Greek, from tautologosrepeating what has been said,’ from tauto- ‘same’ + -logos.

"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 #97 of 100


Per`is`sol´o`gy
n. 1. Superfluity of words.


I like that.
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #98 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post



Per`is`sol´o`gy
n. 1. Superfluity of words.


I like that.

That's a new word for me. Merriam-Webster says it's archaic. I couldn't find the oldest known usage; I wish I still had access to the Online OED.

"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 #99 of 100
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePixelDoc View Post

Before someone beats me to it, I want to say that I realize that for example, in India, Apple has allowed certain deviations and payment methods for those without a credit card or a computer at home.

I still don't think it's worth it for them to chase the low end though.

I as many here on this forum witnessed the take over of the PC market by MS, for some of the very same fundamental reasons that Android has exploded in growth.

That being: MS was available (or cracked) and installed on any computer you could throw together with the cheapest throw away parts you could find. Then, all of the applications, games and content was "shared" among Windows enthusiasts. Floppy trading and selling in back alleys across the world made Windows what it is today, and hence their "world-wide marketshare".

You can't ignore the fact that it is for exactly the above reason today, why Android is so popular and growing "worldwide". It "runs" on darn near anything, and the apps/content are readily available to be installed WITHOUT an account, app store, anything other than a "floppy drive"... uhm... SD card slot.

Me personally: let 'em have at it as long as Apple continues to produce the "Poster Product*". The one you have on the wall that you aspire to owning some day.

* Poster Product - I recently gave a Branding presentation using the new Mercedes A-Class as an example, when it was a huge hit at the 2011 China Auto Show. It put something affordable, within reach, and cool on a neglected demographic's "I Want Wall". Not your Mom's or Dad's, or some-day-when-I-strike-gold-with-my-new-App I'll get an SL 65 AMG Black Series.

Although... aspirations should always be striven for.... 1smoking.gif

Edited: before someone points out the hypocrisy in my post and correlates the A-Class with an SL65AMG: A-Class is a different product. It is NOT an inexpensive version of the aforementioned Dream Car. So don't even go there. 1oyvey.gif

 

I am pretty sure that people in Apple are well aware of the 1992-1993 analogy, and don't want to do down that road again. it is a cosmic fluke that Apple survived at all in the late 1990's, and were it not for the other fluke that Jobs managed to come back and take over , that he had an OS which would work for Apple with much work, and his great visions it would be nowhere. 

 

In any case the car analogy is trite, a merc is for the top 5%. Apple has 50% penetration in the US, and 70% in iPods. Apple devices are mass market, like it or lump it. And a car is not a platform, Apple is selling both devices and an OS, with the added app store and lifetime payments.

 

Which answers your other points. If Apple gets into developing countries, it needs to make some other payment methods as well as credit cards. Like using the PAYG card itself work for payments, via the carrier, assuming they can be trusted. Much like Visa,  in that case the carriers get a percentage.

 

As for the consumers there, they are increasing wages, unlike the West, at 5-10% a year. Apple can't afford to lose a 20 year old Chinese guy because he will be rich when he is 80 - and long before. Unless we run out of oil etc.

 

And the new iPhone will be a "different product". Nobody is arguing any differently. They already have the same product cheaper ( last years models, and different configurations). It will look different, and therefore be a different product.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #100 of 100

I think the cheap phone, an "iPhordable", will happen late this summer. 

Essentially Apples response to Samsung gaining more of a global lead.  The cheap version opens China and doesn't require any new technology, just existing components packed into a plastic backed device...... with all that money out there, hard to believe they will pass it up.

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