or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Can Apple afford to go cheaper with new iPhones?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Can Apple afford to go cheaper with new iPhones?

post #1 of 117
Thread Starter 
Conventional wisdom says Apple both desperately needs a cheaper iPhone model to compete with low end Android and Nokia offerings, while also holding that lower margins would destroy the company's profitability. Its history offers examples of reaching a middle ground.

iPhone5


Is Apple's high end iPhone 5 failing?



Apple's stock tumbled 5.3 percent this week after speculation that $20 million worth of extra inventory at a key supplier must mean iPhone 5 sales are slipping. Of course, it could also mean that Apple shifted to either a new supplier or a new generation of components.

At the same time, top U.S. carriers AT&T and Verizon Wireless released quarterly figures that indicate that not only are iPhone sales higher than the previous year, but that iPhone 5 continues to account for half of all iPhone sales.

Since Apple doesn't detail the exact mix of iPhone models being sold globally or for each region sales group (for competitive reasons), carrier reports are helping to illuminate the fact that most of the new iPhones being sold are Apple's latest and greatest model.

That's in sharp contrast to Samsung in Q4, when just 15.4 million, less than a quarter of its total 60 million phones sold, were its higher end Galaxy S3. The 2011 iPhone 4S by itself beat the Galaxy S3 by two million units globally and iPhone 5 sold 27.4 million units.


Source: Strategy Analytics


Apple continues to struggle to make enough iPhones to meet global demand, so finding a market for high end iPhones is not as much of problem for the company as its competitors, who continue to ship phones and tablets that often don't end up actually getting sold to end users.

Apple may however need to more aggressively target the low end of the market.

But Apple never competes on price, right?



Asked when Apple would build netbooks in 2008, Steve Jobs famously said "we don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk, and our DNA will not let us ship that."

A report by Jun Yang, Anand Krishnamoorthy and Jungah Lee, published by Bloomberg in February insisted that Apple's new chief executive Tim Cook "already reversed a vow by late founder Steve Jobs that the company wouldn?t introduce a scaled-back and cut-price version of the iPad."

Of course, Apple has actually cut its prices before. WebObjects dropped from $50,000 to $699, and then became free. Mac OS X Server unlimited dropped from $1,000 to $499 to $49.99. Final Cut Pro dropped from $1000 to $299. Aperture fell from $499 to $79.99.

Well perhaps Apple just doesn't lower prices in hardware, then? No that's not right either; the company extended its dominance in digital music players a decade ago by introducing the iPod mini and then the iPod nano and shuffle. Three years into the iPad, Apple similarly released its smaller, lighter, cheaper and slightly less profitable iPad mini.

GPS


And don't forget the Mac mini and Mac mini server, or the much cheaper $99 Apple TV that replaced the original priced at $229. And we don't even need to discuss cheaper Macs, iPods and iPads because Apple has also sharply discounted the iPhone itself, starting with the original model that was repriced from $599 to $399 within months of its unveiling.

Then, one year later, Apple introduced the improved iPhone 3G model with a cheaper build, packing more power and features in a plastic case that allowed it to sell for half the price, just $199 on contract.

Since then, each new generation of iPhone kept getting better at the same price, and previous years' models are now sold at a $100-200 discount. This pricing pattern has allowed Apple to offer a "good, better, best" selection that ranges from $0 to $199 with a contract.


Competing on price without a subsidy



Apple's not being significantly undersold in markets like the U.S. where carrier subsidies effectively erase the low end of the market in order to sell more expensive, data plan connected devices.

However, in emerging markets, developing countries and prepaid markets, Apple is being undercut by bargain bin feature phones such as Nokia's S40 platform, low end Android offerings, Windows Phone models, Blackberry and other cheaper options.

Without a subsidy, Apple's cheapest iPhone 4 remains around $450, or about $485 in the UK and just over $520 in France (at the prevailing exchange rates). At those prices, its not hard to see why Android is penetrating the budget market in Europe far more successfully than in America.




Source: ben-evans.com


So far, Apple has focused on releasing new models that either extend the state of the art or expand carrier options. Since the release of the original iPhone 4, Apple has significantly revised the design only a few times: first to make it compatible with Verizon (and later Sprint) via CDMA, then to release a global iPhone 4S model, then to offer the LTE-capable iPhone 5.

Apple hasn't made an intentionally cheaper new version of the iPhone since the 3G in 2008. That appears to have been the optimal strategy over the past four years, given that it has enabled Apple to earn 73 percent of the industry's profits as Samsung, Nokia and others have less effectively pursued market share via lower end phones.

Mobile hardware profits


Going forward however, it appears the iPhone is now reaching the turning point the iPod hit in its fourth generation: a position of dominance over the high end that makes it increasing sensible to turn the company's attention toward reaping the lower end of the market.

The 2004 iPod mini allowed Apple to rapidly eat up remaining market share among lower end MP3 players. Last fall's iPad mini appears to have similarly helped the company to hold onto and even expand its wide lead in tablets. A cheaper iPhone would very likely help the company's efforts in making traction in markets like India and China, where vast markets are demanding a cheaper device.

What about the less successful Mac mini?



In addition to the iPod mini and iPad mini, there's also another recent example of Apple addressing the lower end of the market with less success: the Mac mini.

Originally released in 2005, Apple appeared hopeful that PC users would buy the $599 model to replace their existing box, potentially reusing their same keyboard. mouse and display. The new model wasn't nearly as successful as is mini siblings in the iPod and iPad families. Most desktop Mac buyers continue to buy iMacs.Would a cheap new iPhone work out as well as lower end iPods and iPads have, or might it sell as unexceptionally as the Mac mini?

So the question remains: would a cheap new iPhone work out as well as lower end iPods and iPads have, or might it sell as unexceptionally as the Mac mini?

This all happened before



In addition, there's also a warning example further back in Apple's past. Way back in 1991, the company decided it needed cheaper Macs to compete with the expanding array of lower end DOS PCs.

Existing Macs had been selling from $3,800 to $10,000, equal to higher end IBM PCs. But no-name clone PC were being offered for closer to $1,000.

Apple's plan to offer lower cost Macs back then was to simply repackage old models. It recycled the 1986 Mac Plus as the Mac Classic for $999, and sold its 1987 Mac II in a new box it called the Mac LC, for $2,500. This helped Apple expand its offerings and sell more machines, but overall consumers weren't really that impressed with Apple's approach to the low end of the PC market.

In modern day terms, the "cheap Macs" plan of 1991 would amount to Apple today offering its original 2007 iPhone for $99, and its iPhone 3G for $199. Those models would technically be very price competitive, but they would be terrible phones to sell today, given users' current expectations.

They couldn't run today's iOS software or apps (much the same way the 1991 cheap Macs couldn't run a variety of titles popular at their release), and such repackaged old iPhones wouldn't compare well in perceived performance to the intentionally low end models Nokia is currently selling.

Cheap new iPhones might instead just enhance the notion that Apple's products are overpriced (as the 1991 Classic and LC did) while helping the company to earn less money while dealing with more product models and the operational headaches that come with that.

Apple needs to be cautious in developing a cheaper iPhone today not to make the same mistakes.

Another example of targeting a low priced iPhone



There's yet another example of Apple targeting a specific segment of customers who need a lower price: educational iMacs.

Apple actually developed a special eMac model in 2002 just for education. Today, the company continues to sell a lower end iMac model specifically for the education market, with lower specs that drive the price down but also make it in general a poor value for most general purpose users.

Following that model, rather than just recycling old existing iPhones at lower prices, Apple would need to develop an intentionally cheaper version of the iPhone, which it could potentially market exclusively in developing countries or attach to low end prepaid carriers such as WalMart, MetroPCS and Virgin Mobile, reducing the risk of eating into higher profit models.

Apple doesn't like to design lots of new model variety, as every new model creates new complexity in operations: forecasting, component procurement, inventory management and so on. Were Apple to create a specially value engineered iPhone, it might likely take the place of the iPhone 4

The design of the iPod touch demonstrates how Apple can build a lower end device with some component compromises to reach a lower price target. While a 32GB iPhone 5 has an unlocked price of $749, the similar generation 32GB iPod touch costs just $299.

iPodtouch5.101512.001.jpg


The price gets that much lower not just by dropping its mobile hardware, but also through the use of a cheaper A5 with less system RAM and lower end camera. But the new iPod touch doesn't come across as a low end, cheap device.

The advancement of new generations of hardware components is occurring at such a rapid pace that it now may make more sense for Apple to design both a new high end "iPhone 5S" and a new low end iPhone, rather than just continuing to sell the iPhone 4S and 5 at a discount at existing price tiers.

The broad price range of iPods, including the fact that Apple now sells two generations of iPod touch, gives the appearance that a cheaper new specially designed iPhone is overdue. If it makes sense to custom value-engineer the low end of the iPhone range, this is the time to do it.

At the same time, Apple may also achieve a similar result by discounting or even financing its existing models for users, making iPhones more readily affordable to price sensitive users without complicating its supply chain operations with an entirely new model.
post #2 of 117
Another reason to introduce a new, less expensive iPhone mini is to unite everything this year with the lightning connector. Apple replaces the iPad 2 at $399 with the current iPad (4) when introducing the new iPad, and no more 30 pin connectors.
post #3 of 117

Bingo. Great article. If the iPhone 4 only costs $200 or so to make (guessing here), then if they sell it for $300, they are making their typical profits.

 

Prices for technological products always come down, of course. Even for Apple. Its their game to lose or win. And winning doesn't mean more than 50 percent share. And losing could be a 10 percent share. 30 would be healthy - worldwide.

 

The rest of the world loves the iPhone, too, but it's more than a months income for a lot of people. So they buy Samsung or Blackberry at 1/4th the price. Yeah, not the greatest phones, crappy in fact, having used them, but people do what they can do.

 

Apple doesn't need to be the premium brand. They can have a cheaper model of stuff.

post #4 of 117
" Tim Cook "already reversed a vow by late founder Steve Jobs that the company wouldn%u2019t introduce a scaled-back and cut-price version of the iPad."

That's the stupidest comment I ever heard. By this guys logic Apple, then has done it with virtually every product they make.
13" Macbook Pro
11" Macbook Air
21" low end iMac

All "scaled-back" "cut-price" versions of their full versions.
(again; if you are going by this logic)
post #5 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

"Tim Cook "already reversed a vow by late founder Steve Jobs that the company wouldn't introduce a scaled-back and cut-price version of the iPad."

I'm with you. Steve Jobs never made such a vow. All he said was that their competitors were going down the wrong road with their 7" tablets running scaled up mobile phone software. iPad Mini doesn't do that.

post #6 of 117
Apple's no.1 rule is: don't make junk products. It follows that there are 2 ways they might move forward from here:
 
(1) They figure out how to make a low-cost iPhone that's not junk
(2) They just can't figure it out
 
(1) is self explanatory.
(2) is where it gets interesting. Remember Steve said they "Didn't know how to make a $500 computer that was not junk." But that didn't mean they abandoned the market, rather they invented a whole alternative product: the iPad.
 
So what entirely new (not the iPhone) product could they come up with to address the low cost phone market?
post #7 of 117
Apple will release a new low cost iPhone only if it makes sense/cents.
post #8 of 117

Apple already makes a "cheap" iPhone by selling last year's (and the year before that) models.  This is their "cheaper iPhone" strategy.  

 

IMO the only way it makes sense for Apple to come out with a cheaper iPhone is if the cheaper iPhone essentially replaces this "old model" sales strategy that fills the cheap phone spot already.  What I would envision is that they might simply put last years iPhone internals in a cheap plastic case.  With a slight downward revision of their margin, this kind of device could easily sell for just a couple of hundred bucks off contract and be free on contract.  

 

That way there would only ever be two iPhones on sale at any given time:

 

- this years model (expensive but worth it)

- last years model in the cheap plastic case (practically free for the cheapskates) 

post #9 of 117
I honestly think in their next update, Apple needs to drop both the 4 and the 4S, and come out with one "lower end" phone to replace those, and one "higher end" to replace the succeed the 5.

For the iPad, they should drop both the iPad 2 and the iPad4, update the mini to retina, and introduce the iPad 5 ("new iPad) for $399. This will simplify the product line and make the full sized iPad more lucrative. I doubt they want the mini eating most of the sales of the regular sized iPad, and right now the price gap between the 2 is too large. So they would have:

- new lower end iPhone (polycarbonate?)
- iPhone 5
- new higher end iPhone (5S? Larger screen?)

- iPad mini (retina)
- iPad (using mini design)

This would also serve to deprecate all non lightning products, and I think make it easier for people to make a decision. I understand the need for the "in between" products because of pricing dynamics, but I think they can move past that now. Oh, and they should also drop the old style MBPs soon.
Edited by Slurpy - 4/20/13 at 10:22am
post #10 of 117
I am not sure if a low cost iphone is needed in developped markets, but its badly needed in emerging markets. The emerging markets needs are diffrerent than developped markets, so serving the old iphone doesnt fit there need at all.

Emerging market parameters:

Unrelyable power grid
Limited wired internet access.
Low income, unable to afford multiple devices.

From those parameters, what they need is a low cost phablet with either long battery life or replacable batteries. Retina displays or deluxe casings are irrelevant for those markets, it doesnt fit there needs.
post #11 of 117

I'm still trying to figure out what the endgame is here, because that is not at all clear to me.

 

I mean, what is Apple's purpose and why do they exist?

post #12 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by chabig View Post

I'm with you. Steve Jobs never made such a vow. All he said was that their competitors were going down the wrong road with their 7" tablets running scaled up mobile phone software. iPad Mini doesn't do that.

 

Actually, he said the opposite, that scaled DOWN tablet apps wouldn't work. 

 

"The reason we [won't] make a 7-inch tablet isn't because we don't want to hit that price point, it's because we think the screen is too small to express the software."  - AI : Steve Jobs squashes rumors of smaller, 7-inch tablet from Apple

post #13 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

 

Actually, he said the opposite, that scaled DOWN tablet apps wouldn't work. 

 

"The reason we [won't] make a 7-inch tablet isn't because we don't want to hit that price point, it's because we think the screen is too small to express the software."  - AI : Steve Jobs squashes rumors of smaller, 7-inch tablet from Apple

First of all, the iPad Mini is not a 7" tablet. It's 7.9", so it's more accurate to call it an 8 inch tablet, as even one inch makes a huge difference in tablet size and usability. And also, the iPad Mini's aspect ratio gives it a much larger screen area than that of crappy 7" Android tablets.

post #14 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

Actually, he said the opposite, that scaled DOWN tablet apps wouldn't work. 

"The reason we [won't] make a 7-inch tablet isn't because we don't want to hit that price point, it's because we think the screen is too small to express the software."  - AI : Steve Jobs squashes rumors of smaller, 7-inch tablet from Apple


No, he didn't say that. He very clearly stated, "We know developers aren't going to [...] change their software every time the screen size changes," he added. "When we make decisions on 7-inch tablets it's not about cost, it's about the value of the product when you factor in the software." On top of that he stated exactly what chabig paraphrased, that the current lot of 7" tablets are DOA.

Apple didn't make a 16:9 7" tablet that required nearly as many developer contortions to get apps to work as you write on AI, but instead made an ≈ 8" tablet with the same aspect ratio and resolution as a currently shipping iPad that required no additional effort by developers thereby making the App Store options for the iPad mini over 200,000 strong on the very first day.


Other comments of interest you ignored from that article:
  • "As a software driven company we think about the software strategies first."
  • "When we make decisions on 7-inch tablets it's not about cost, it's about the value of the product when you factor in the software."
  • "Sorry, I'm not going to write a watered down version of my app just because you can sell this version of your phone for $50 less."

"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 #15 of 117
Originally Posted by pfisher View Post

Bingo. Great article. If the iPhone 4 only costs $200 or so to make (guessing here), then if they sell it for $300, they are making their typical profits.

 

That's the problem with discounting older iPhones.  Component costs come down over time, but probably not fast enough to offset the $100 price drop of the year-old iPhone model and the $200 price drop of the two-year-old model.  So Apple probably can't maintain new-iPhone margins with their older phones.  

 


Originally Posted by pfisher View Post

Prices for technological products always come down, of course. Even for Apple. Its their game to lose or win.

 

Yes.  In (probably) less than 20 years, Apple will need to replace their hardware revenue with something else.  Maybe technology licensing (Siri in cars and home automation, camera software, chip designs, etc.) but most likely digital content distribution and iCloud services.  As they say in Hollywood, "Content is king, but distribution is King Kong."

 

I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple's "TV solution" is their key to success in this century.  Not just a television set.  An infrastructure combining elements of iTunes and iCloud, but with vastly more live and pre-recorded content than is now available.  Apple would make their money through rental, subscription, and sales of audio and video content.  And I think Apple might wait until 4K TV sets are commonplace.  That could be catalyst for change in the TV industry, and Apple could be planning to further disrupt the industry.  To re-make TV in their own image the way they remade the music industry.  So don't hold your breath for an "iTV" any time soon.


Edited by SockRolid - 4/20/13 at 11:16am

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #16 of 117
@ DED,

What's with changing the title of these Saturday pieces from Editorial to Opinion? Did not enough people understand that editorial is an opinion piece?

"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 #17 of 117
The iPod touch 5 gen. + a good ol' Nokia combo is a few magnitudes better than any cheap smartphones...
post #18 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Apple already makes a "cheap" iPhone by selling last year's (and the year before that) models.  This is their "cheaper iPhone" strategy.  

 

IMO the only way it makes sense for Apple to come out with a cheaper iPhone is if the cheaper iPhone essentially replaces this "old model" sales strategy that fills the cheap phone spot already.  What I would envision is that they might simply put last years iPhone internals in a cheap plastic case.  With a slight downward revision of their margin, this kind of device could easily sell for just a couple of hundred bucks off contract and be free on contract.  

 

That way there would only ever be two iPhones on sale at any given time:

 

- this years model (expensive but worth it)

- last years model in the cheap plastic case (practically free for the cheapskates) 

 

 

I agree with the strategy but the word "cheapskates" irks me.  Poor people aren't cheap by choice, which is implied with the word you used.  

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by isaidso View Post

" Tim Cook "already reversed a vow by late founder Steve Jobs that the company wouldn%u2019t introduce a scaled-back and cut-price version of the iPad."

That's the stupidest comment I ever heard. By this guys logic Apple, then has done it with virtually every product they make.
13" Macbook Pro
11" Macbook Air
21" low end iMac

All "scaled-back" "cut-price" versions of their full versions.
(again; if you are going by this logic)

 

I doubt Jobs made a "vow" as phrased by the article.  But it did take some convincing for Jobs to accept the need for a different sized iPad at all.  I believe e-mails from Eddie Cue have surfaced that showed Jobs was "receptive" to that idea - eventually.  Jobs also strongly opposed the iPod on Windows and wasn't keen on the idea of the iPod Mini at first either.  Judging by the sales figures of all of those devices, he was right to change his mind.  

post #19 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I'm still trying to figure out what the endgame is here, because that is not at all clear to me.

I mean, what is Apple's purpose and why do they exist?

I'll bite.

Apple's stated purpose, from both Jobs and Cook, is just to make great products that enrich people's lives. That would include people in the so-called developing world who don't have as much cash as those in the richer countries, the "poor people" you often refer to. Their lives can be enriched as much as, or more than, the guy in his New York apartment presiding over thousands of dollars worth of Apple equipment.
post #20 of 117
There should be 3 iPhones $359., $599. and a top of the line 5" 799.00 flagship
post #21 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


I'll bite.

Apple's stated purpose, from both Jobs and Cook, is just to make great products that enrich people's lives. That would include people in the so-called developing world who don't have as much cash as those in the richer countries, the "poor people" you often refer to. Their lives can be enriched as much as, or more than, the guy in his New York apartment presiding over thousands of dollars worth of Apple equipment.

 

I don't disagree with what you write, regarding the stated purpose from Jobs and Cook.

 

However, I don't quite understand all of the interest in poor people all of a sudden, because Apple has certainly not cared about poor people or about providing for that particular market for most of their history. This newly found interest in poor people seems to be a change in strategy for Apple, if they do go ahead with a super cheap phone.

 

If a cheap Apple iPhone can help Apple recover it's stock price, then I am all for it. I just hope that it doesn't turn into something that people can use to hurt Apple's stock even more.

post #22 of 117
I saw a problem with this article in the first two words:

Conventional wisdom.

If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #23 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

@ DED,

What's with changing the title of these Saturday pieces from Editorial to Opinion? Did not enough people understand that editorial is an opinion piece?

 

I find this distasteful also. It's kind of like how we used the word "Exit" to indicate … an  exit for hundreds of years, but now more often than not, public signs say "Out" now.  

 

Everything has to be dumbed down for the new illiterate generation I suppose.  

post #24 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

I find this distasteful also. It's kind of like how we used the word "Exit" to indicate … an  exit for hundreds of years, but now more often than not, public signs say "Out" now.  

Everything has to be dumbed down for the new illiterate generation I suppose.  

Wood u mnd repeeting dat yousing smllr wurds?

"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 #25 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Everything has to be dumbed down for the new illiterate generation I suppose.  

 

That is one of the disadvantages of technology and new social trends I guess. Kids are dumber today, no doubt about that. And it seems as if many of the newer generation can barely write or spell correctly, even if their lives depended upon it.

 

Fortunately, we'll all be dead by the time that this happens, but I can definitely see some sort of idiocracy type of society happening in the not too distant future. 

post #26 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That is one of the disadvantages of technology and new social trends I guess. Kids are dumber today, no doubt about that. And it seems as if many of the newer generation can barely write or spell correctly, even if their lives depended upon it.

Fortunately, we'll all be dead by the time that this happens, but I can definitely see some sort of idiocracy type of society happening in the not too distant future.

This is such bullshit! Not knowing what you know doesn't mean one is dumber. Each generation gets exposed to things you will never understand. The old meme of the child being able to do something with technology with ease that the parent or adult can't grasp is not a new concept nor one that will go away.

Do you think you write well? Go back 200 years and see if English speaking people think you write well. They would probably say you're mostly literate, which is still uncommon, but you wouldn't be seen as a scholar with your style of writing and use of words. You're more illiterate to the way children communicate today than they are to the way you communicate. The primary difference is you think the way you write is somehow the right way.




• Elementary's Sherlock on texting, "Language is evolving, Watson, becoming a more efficient version of itself. I love text shorthand. It allows you to convey context and tone without losing velocity." : http://tvline.com/2012/10/24/elementary-season-1-spoilers-video/
Edited by SolipsismX - 4/20/13 at 12:22pm

"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 #27 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Wood u mnd repeeting dat yousing smllr wurds?

I fink he insalted us!

Giv me a weak to confirm if he did or not, then I'll get bac 2 u.
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
If you're going to be original, then you can count on being copied.
Reply
post #28 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


This is such bullshit!

 

Nope.

 

 

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — It’s an education bombshell.

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/officials-most-nyc-high-school-grads-need-remedial-help-before-entering-cuny-community-colleges/

 

post #29 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Nope.

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — It’s an education bombshell.

Nearly 80 percent of New York City high school graduates need to relearn basic skills before they can enter the City University’s community college system.

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/officials-most-nyc-high-school-grads-need-remedial-help-before-entering-cuny-community-colleges/

Again, not having one skill doesn't mean one does not have other skills you don't nor the capacity to learn at least as well as you. You have completely ignored any and all reasons why primary and secondary education may not be preparing a child for higher education and in no way have you proved they are dumb, but your lack of reading comprehension and inability to even consider the larger scale issues does bring into question your intelligence.

"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 #30 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post
 
So what entirely new (not the iPhone) product could they come up with to address the low cost phone market?

 

Watch... this space, perhaps?  ;~/

post #31 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Again, not having one skill doesn't mean one does not have other skills you don't nor the capacity to learn at least as well as you. You have completely ignored any and all reasons why primary and secondary education may not be preparing a child for higher education and in no way have you proved they are dumb, but your lack of reading comprehension and inability to even consider the larger scale issues does bring into question your intelligence.

 

We are not going to agree, and neither of us will be alive in 100-200 years, so I guess that any further discussion about this topic will not be productive.

post #32 of 117

For Apple to make a cheaper iPhone it has to be spun differently.  There needs to be a Prosumer model iPhone with all the leading edge gadgetry (e.g. larger screen and more mega-pixels in the cameras) then the regular Consumer iPhone. Both of course not compromising on quality but each taking Apple in different directions and remaining true to their past and corporate culture.  Apple has done this with the MacBook lines for years so why not the iPhone too?

post #33 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

 

I don't disagree with what you write, regarding the stated purpose from Jobs and Cook.

 

However, I don't quite understand all of the interest in poor people all of a sudden, because Apple has certainly not cared about poor people or about providing for that particular market for most of their history. This newly found interest in poor people seems to be a change in strategy for Apple, if they do go ahead with a super cheap phone.

 

If a cheap Apple iPhone can help Apple recover it's stock price, then I am all for it. I just hope that it doesn't turn into something that people can use to hurt Apple's stock even more.

Its an interesting question that I think people (as so very often) tend to overlook in their eagerness to offer up 'solutions'. What is the endgame, or how does Apple stand to benefit? Apple never does anything for the short term, they always take the long view. So, my guess would be that a lower end iPhone will only come to pass if there is a clear strategic, long term benefit.

 

Also, Apple will not target 'poor' people as such. There would not be much value unless these people are likely to become 'not poor' for lack of a better term. Apple is seen as a premium product that bring in high revenues, not just for Apple but also for all the 3rd party developers and accessory makers. That in itself is valuable.

 

But I can see the value in have a two tier offering - iPhone and iPhone S, like MacBook and MacBook Pro. It is perhaps better to have a separate product than to simply flog a discontinued one, even if they are much the same. It is a matter of perception. My guess is that more people would buy an old phone repackaged as New, than would by an old model. 

post #34 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

That's the problem with discounting older iPhones.  Component costs come down over time, but probably not fast enough to offset the $100 price drop of the year-old iPhone model and the $200 price drop of the two-year-old model.  So Apple probably can't maintain new-iPhone margins with their older phones.  



Yes.  In (probably) less than 20 years, Apple will need to replace their hardware revenue with something else.  Maybe technology licensing (Siri in cars and home automation, camera software, chip designs, etc.) but most likely digital content distribution and iCloud services.  As they say in Hollywood, "Content is king, but distribution is King Kong."

I have a sneaking suspicion that Apple's "TV solution" is their key to success in this century.  Not just a television set.  An infrastructure combining elements of iTunes and iCloud, but with vastly more live and pre-recorded content than is now available.  Apple would make their money through rental, subscription, and sales of audio and video content.  And I think Apple might wait until 4K TV sets are commonplace.  That could be catalyst for change in the TV industry, and Apple could be planning to further disrupt the industry.  To re-make TV in their own image the way they remade the music industry.  So don't hold your breath for an "iTV" any time soon.

I agree about this Apple Network thinking. The only thing I would add is that Apple may be developing wearable 4K screens as a way of doing an end run around the 4K TV set problem.
post #35 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknownanalyst View Post

For a real analysis of what Apple needs to do, please read my article at ███████████████. It's been critiqued by Greenlight Capital, and they said I was one smart guy! Maybe you will agree.

If you want to participate in the conversation and have something to add to the thread then by all means do so but please don't post spam to other sites that aren't germane or don't carry the conversation. Your post will self destruct in 5… 4… 3… 2…

"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 #36 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by unknownanalyst View Post

For a real analysis of what Apple needs to do, please read my article at . It's been critiqued by Greenlight Capital, and they said I was one smart guy! Maybe you will agree.

Interesting, and one could hope that you're right, and wish for some evidence that Apple has been working with Sensig (sp?). In any case, it will eventually happen if the tech works.

Edit: I guess i'd have to agree with Solipsism X above that you're on thin ice from the self-promotion point of view.
post #37 of 117
Apple's next iPhone portfolio :
iPhone 4ish, $350, no contract. 8 GB
iPhone 4S, $0 w 2 yr contract. 8 GB
iPhone 5, $100 w 2 yr contract. 8 GB
iPhone 5S, $200 w 2 yr contract. 16, 32, 64 GB
iPhone 5S+, 5" screen $300 w 2 yr contract. 16, 32, 64 GB
post #38 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTel View Post

For Apple to make a cheaper iPhone it has to be spun differently.  There needs to be a Prosumer model iPhone with all the leading edge gadgetry (e.g. larger screen and more mega-pixels in the cameras) then the regular Consumer iPhone. Both of course not compromising on quality but each taking Apple in different directions and remaining true to their past and corporate culture.  Apple has done this with the MacBook lines for years so why not the iPhone too?

True, the polycarbonate MacBooks and 2nd generation iBooks were both very pleasant to look at and handle, in my opinion.

If they do a polycarb iPhone I hope it will have the squarish edges of the iPad mini, rather that the softer edges of the old 3G phones and touches. Those shapes are slippery and have none of the "authority" that the squarish edges have. Square allows for a deeper camera element and a more camera-like feel as well.

In any case, Apple isn't going to do anything that feels or looks cheap at this point.
post #39 of 117
I'm a bit confused by all this "cheap" iPhone talk. I can get an iPhone 4 for $0.99 or an iPhone 4s for $99.99 from AT&T. Seems pretty cheap to me. I'm not really sure what people expect from Apple these days. The stock is taking a beating for no good reason and the media is pumping Samsung, again, for no good reason. There's absolutely nothing revolutionary about the Galaxy S4. The new features are gimmicks.

If Apple integrates a fingerprint sensor for unlocking, filling in web passwords and credit cards, etc., THAT will be something truly innovative. And then there's all this "iOS is stale" BS. It's coming from people online as well journalists. What do people expect? The second coming every two years? Maybe iOS isn't stale. Maybe it's just good? When people bash iOS for being stale, I never ever see them single out what makes Android/Samsung so much better. There seems to be this belief (among certain people) that if something is repeated often enough, it must be true.

The public's expectations are way out of line with reality these days when it comes to our gadgets. Our gadget obsession is borderline sickness and we're putting unrealistic expectations on businesses to constantly deliver something DIFFERENT instead of simply appreciating how incredible these devices actually are.

If anything, Apple needs to offer a larger screen iPhone, not a "cheap" one.
post #40 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

Apple's next iPhone portfolio :
iPhone 4ish, $350, no contract. 8 GB
iPhone 4S, $0 w 2 yr contract. 8 GB
iPhone 5, $100 w 2 yr contract. 8 GB
iPhone 5S, $200 w 2 yr contract. 16, 32, 64 GB
iPhone 5S+, 5" screen $300 w 2 yr contract. 16, 32, 64 GB

I've said this before and don't want to be tiresome about it, but they can't sell an all-glass phone as a world phone. That design was for people who live protected lives. Domesticated, if you like.

Maybe by "iPhone 4ish" you mean the old innards in a different case?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Can Apple afford to go cheaper with new iPhones?