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? - Page 3

post #81 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/



 


4 reelz. U no what ur talkin bout. Lol 💩

Not to mention they can't make eye contact while they talk to save their life. Not only are they illiterate but they're socially retarded. At least my dad taught me to look into a persons eyes and shake their hand- you know- like you have to communicate in the real world- no in Facebook of texting.


Back to the subject- why not just have an "export only" cheap phone. Still keep their premium image in America and just sell the cheapo to emerging markets. Tons of alcohol companies do this- several car manufacturers, etc.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #82 of 117

With more developed countries reaching a point of saturation or at least slowing growth, the growth markets demand a lower cost phone.

 

It is a challenge for Apple.  If they do release one, is it going to be full featured?  If it has all of the features of the high end phone, they are going to cannibalize.  Consumers even in the more developed countries:

 

'Hmmm do I want to buy the high end one for $800 which is beautiful Aluminum and thin which I am going to spend $40 on a case which is extra fat and plastic in order to protect it, or spend $300 on one which is plastic to start with and has all the functionality'

 

If they build it so it is lacking a lot of functionality that would probably be even worse for Apple.

 

 

After an initial surge of cheap iPhones are sold, it is not going to take long for those ultra cost conscious consumers to realize they have entered the most expensive ecosystem by far.  Apple fans are quite proud to point out that they are 20% of the market yielding 70% of the profits.  Is that going to create a backlash and/or increase demand for budget Apps to whom paying the  iTunes 'Apple tax' of 10-40 bucks a month is going to be significant?

 

If Apple can pull it off and get budget users a great experience in their ecosystem, they will do tremendously.  I think last year was the first they broke out their ecosystem/iTunes profits separately and that is significant.  As Apple revenue from software and services grow it will provide a larger (but still small) percentage of their revenues from 'software&services' as opposed to hardware.  Software and services in turn can justify a much higher p/e ratio.  As Apple continues to report it, I think we'll see an increased focus on App store percentage growth which can mitigate the impact of hardware margins.

post #83 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frood View Post

With more developed countries reaching a point of saturation or at least slowing growth, the growth markets demand a lower cost phone.

It is a challenge for Apple.  If they do release one, is it going to be full featured?  If it has all of the features of the high end phone, they are going to cannibalize.  Consumers even in the more developed countries:

'Hmmm do I want to buy the high end one for $800 which is beautiful Aluminum and thin which I am going to spend $40 on a case which is extra fat and plastic in order to protect it, or spend $300 on one which is plastic to start with and has all the functionality'

That's the problem and it's not quite the same as the iPad mini. If you look at the following:



The one on the left is based on the iPod Touch design with a plastic shell, much like the photo that was posted earlier. I used a photo of the Nokia Lumia 820 to mockup the plastic case.

We know that the current iPhone 5 to the right sells for $650. We also know that the iPhone 4 currently sells for $450. Given that the iPod Touch 5G is $299, it's likely that the price would be above it, even though they can cut the 32GB of storage to 16GB. There's little point in making it the same price as the iPhone 4 - it would have to be significantly lower in price. IMO, this would point to a $350 price point.

The question is not how they build a phone for $350. The question is how do they sell a $650 phone when they have one that isn't much different for $350?

They'd both have 16GB storage, same display, the cheap one would have the A5 (which is the same CPU as the iPhone 4S), both have Facetime, both have wifi, both have decent cameras.

The iPad mini is different because it has a lower resolution screen, smaller size and the price difference is $170.

They could start having just two iPhone models - basic and premium and somehow lower the price of the top model so that you'd end up with say $350 and $550. That would allow them to get rid of the naming conventions.

Will that be enough to satisfy the prepaid markets though? $350 is still expensive when prepaid smartphones start as low as $100.
post #84 of 117

N.B. in furtherance of your keen observation that ... high school graduates need to relearn basic skills of

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

... Not to mention they can't make eye contact while they talk to save their life. Not only are they illiterate but they're socially retarded. At least my dad taught me to look into a persons eyes and shake their hand- you know- like you have to communicate in the real world- no in Facebook of texting...
 

 

please, kindly note/observe that:

 

Mark Zuckerberg Says It's Totally OK To Ignore Dinner Guests While Checking Your Phone:

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-ignore-dinner-guests-check-your-phone-2013-4

post #85 of 117
Originally Posted by a2gsg View Post

Mark Zuckerberg Says It's Totally OK To Ignore Dinner Guests While Checking Your Phone:

 

That must mean it's perfectly fine¡

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #86 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by a2gsg View Post

N.B. in furtherance of your keen observation that ... high school graduates need to relearn basic skills of

 

please, kindly note/observe that:

 

Mark Zuckerberg Says It's Totally OK To Ignore Dinner Guests While Checking Your Phone:

http://www.businessinsider.com/mark-zuckerberg-ignore-dinner-guests-check-your-phone-2013-4


I always look to Mark Zuckerberg for my rules of etiquette.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #87 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


I always look to Mark Zuckerberg for my rules of etiquette.

Whomever looks to Zuckerberg for how to behave in society is etiphuqked.

"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 #88 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by currentinterest View Post

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.

iPod Classic.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #89 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post



Will that be enough to satisfy the prepaid markets though? $350 is still expensive when prepaid smartphones start as low as $100.


 These things always get too absolute, and it's partly an artifact of Apple's marketing and keynotes. The iPad mini costs more than a lot of alternatives. The sole point isn't typically price points. That is something that is left for products that are somewhat misaligned with their market or simply lacking in differentiation. I don't think it's just price. They likely figure out how many could be sold at a particular price point and whether a different design would better align with that market. The older one also competes with used sales, which would be less of a factor with something more compelling.

post #90 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

3) Again (because I'm familiar with you), if you want to promote your site or link to another site feel free but if you post a link with no lead in as to why one should click the link you don't yourself any favours. Even a summary of what is stated would be sufficient otherwise you come across as someone trying to increase their page rank (at best) to some but that hands out his manifesto on street corners between yelling at his own shadow (worst).

Couldn't agree more.

 

Otherwise, it is simply cheap, self-promoting spam that should be taken elsewhere.

post #91 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by erann View Post

As far as "cheap" is concerned, is e.g. BMW Mini Cooper or BMW 1 series or Audi A1 or Mercedes Benz A class cars cheap or low cost? Do you think that BMW, Audi or MB can afford those models?

I generally hate car analogies. But this one is spot on: car companies use this strategy based on their assessment of lifetime value of a consumer. Perhaps, based on that logic, there is something to be said for Apple pursuing such a strategy as well.

 

I am still dubious, but your post makes me go "hmmm......"

post #92 of 117

Any article which starts with the sentence "can apple afford to.." has got to be a pile of shite.

post #93 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

I generally hate car analogies. But this one is spot on: car companies use this strategy based on their assessment of lifetime value of a consumer. Perhaps, based on that logic, there is something to be said for Apple pursuing such a strategy as well.

 

I am still dubious, but your post makes me go "hmmm......"


The thing I still abhor about car analogies is that they don't follow well. Whether someone can afford a $40k+ car isn't indicative of whether they can afford an iphone.

post #94 of 117

The future of mobile devices is in monetizing content. Apple is already the king of that, and the best thing they can do is expand their user base to maximize profits inside the walled garden and with phone company payouts.

 

Getting bigger payouts from telecoms and suck(er)ing more people into the iTunes ecosystem.

 

The average person with an iPhone in the UK spends £345/$525 in iTunes, not including in-App purchases. Apple gets 30% of that, which is over $150 per phone.

 

http://www.gadgetlist.co.uk/news/average-itunes-account-is-worth-345/

 

That's a more money than Apple makes for the hardware, isn't it? Sure, cheaper iPhones would probably cannibalize a lot of the high-margin top of the line userbase, but Apple's business model is all about maximizing people inside the iTunes walled garden, and then extracting their 30% from the music/programming/film/tv/gaming industries.

post #95 of 117
Apple can afford to take every human on earth to a steak dinner.
post #96 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

The future of mobile devices is in monetizing content. Apple is already the king of that, and the best thing they can do is expand their user base to maximize profits inside the walled garden and with phone company payouts.

Getting bigger payouts from telecoms and suck(er)ing more people into the iTunes ecosystem.

The average person with an iPhone in the UK spends £345/$525 in iTunes, not including in-App purchases. Apple gets 30% of that, which is over $150 per phone.

http://www.gadgetlist.co.uk/news/average-itunes-account-is-worth-345/

That's a more money than Apple makes for the hardware, isn't it? Sure, cheaper iPhones would probably cannibalize a lot of the high-margin top of the line userbase, but Apple's business model is all about maximizing people inside the iTunes walled garden, and then extracting their 30% from the music/programming/film/tv/gaming industries.
Has Apple ever provided information on how much profit they make off iTunes/ App Store? I'd be curious to know what that figure is. How much of that 30% goes to the bottom line?
post #97 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

but Apple's business model is all about maximizing people inside the iTunes walled garden, and then extracting their 30% from the music/programming/film/tv/gaming industries.

 

No it isn't.

post #98 of 117

Would not work out well for them.

post #99 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

 

No it isn't.

 

So dropping optical drives, not supporting blu-ray, integration of the App Store into OSX and putting what seems like 95% of marketing focus on the iPad, iPod and iPhone (all of which require users to give Apple their 30% commission on any content bought for the device) is just a coincidence? And blocking any app that emulates functions of iTunes while allowing apps that emulate other core functions such as mail, VOIP and messaging was also just a coincidence? The whole product and UI design is being driven by making iTunes the only place people go for to purchase music/applications/video/etc.

 

2012 profits from iTunes were close to $13 billion, not including developer payouts. Growth was something like 40% in iTunes revenues.

post #100 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post

 

2012 profits from iTunes were close to $13 billion, not including developer payouts.

 

Look, sorry, but your figures are wrong. Very wrong.

 

That 13 Billion is REVENUE. And it includes rev from the Mac App store plus it includes Apple's own software. iWork, Aperture, Final Cut etc.

post #101 of 117
Originally Posted by Superbass View Post
…is just a coincidence?

 

No, it's just random information you're pretending fits your argument.


The whole product and UI design is being driven by making iTunes the only place people go…

 

Wow, that's just completely and utterly wrong.

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #102 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

So presumably between $3BN and $4BN profit. Not too shabby.

 

Actually... more like $2 Billion.

 

Just think about that (Superbass!).... divided by around, what around 650 million, iPhones, iPads, iPads and Macs out there. That's about $3.00 profit per device, per year.

 

Not the most lucrative business plan. Ask Amazon how it's working out.

post #103 of 117

Opinion: Can Apple afford to go cheaper with new iPhones?

Interesting question.  Based on how Apple has branded itself it can't go cheaper.  They are doing fine with their current marketing strategy.  What they should do is expand the screen size up to 5 inches but keep the same premium materials.  Too be honest they should do with the iPhone what they have done with the iPad.  Make two different models.  Keep the current model / screen size and just make bigger one.

 

That will steal market share from the bigger phone screen makes and still be true to the apple brand. 

post #104 of 117
Who knows, maybe Apple will release an iPhone without storage, i.e. just a phone no app store. People on low incomes who can't afford a smartphone don't buy from apps or from iTunes anyway so why give them storage space for things they don't need.
post #105 of 117
Originally Posted by aderutter View Post
Who knows, maybe Apple will release an iPhone without storage, i.e. just a phone no app store.

 

That makes zero sense.


People on low incomes who can't afford a smartphone don't buy from apps or from iTunes anyway so why give them storage space for things they don't need.

 

People on low incomes who can't afford a smartphone (anyone can afford a smartphone if they want to game the system hard enough) don't have iPhones in the first place! This isn't a concern for them! 1confused.gif1oyvey.gif

 

Why would Apple make a product for a MARKET THAT BY DEFINITION CANNOT BUY SAID PRODUCT?!

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply

Originally Posted by helia

I can break your arm if I apply enough force, but in normal handshaking this won't happen ever.
Reply
post #106 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

That makes zero sense.

People on low incomes who can't afford a smartphone (anyone can afford a smartphone if they want to game the system hard enough) don't have iPhones in the first place! This isn't a concern for them! 1confused.gif1oyvey.gif

Why would Apple make a product for a MARKET THAT BY DEFINITION CANNOT BUY SAID PRODUCT?!

They would be making a cheaper product. We've remedially explained this.

And most of the world can afford a smart phone if they are cheap enough. At about $200 you hit the world mass market. A market where incomes aren't stagnating.

I get a fair amount of Westernised snobbery in the opposition to a cheaper model - otherwise the opposition doesn't make sense( why care if the manufacturer of your phone produces other models? In fact why not be in favour of it since it increase platform size and guarantees developer interest?).

It's a misguided financial snobbery.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #107 of 117
I still don't understand how this US centric websites insist on saying that the on-contract price of any phone, IS the actual price of the device.

Yes, the iPhone (the original one, the mistakenly known as "2G") was 599 at release, and then was slashed to 399 in the following months. However that was the price to own the device, not a subsidized price that has yet 2 years of monthly payments (including service) ahead, to fully own the device.

When the iPhone was released on 2007, it was handled completely different to any other device on existence: you had to pay the full price on the store, and later you could activate at home. You could bypass the need of a contract (sure, you were locked to AT&T, but this iPhone has to be the easiest to unlock in the history of mankind), and own the device for 399.

But then, the 3G came, and was offered at 199. But it was the subsidized price ON-CONTRACT. So realistically, the FULL PRICE of the iPhone 3G WAS NOT 199, nor it was "offered at half the price of the original iPhone".

And don't let me start on inflation... 399 2007-USD were more money than 399 nowadays-USD. But thats another story.

Just a clarification.
post #108 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

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.

 

Fully agree with this hi-lo strategy.  The problem in this plan is the risk.  Apple puts out one phone a year.  If they have issues ("your're holding it wrong"), then they won't have last year's tried and tested device to sell while fixing the current one.  The only work around is offsetting launches for the hi and lo products.

 

Beyond that, there's risk that a hi-lo strategy will hurt margins in a number of ways.  To start with, costs will be amortized over a much shorter run and new costs will be introduced.  Today Apple can design an iPhone and get a 3 year run out of it.  In the future, it'll get a one-year run before having to redesign the same internals in a plastic shell.

 

On the iPad, the strategy is less risky.  I think the iPad 2 probably hurts them.  I am willing to bet that if it wasn't offered, sales wouldn't suffer a ton.  Those who could afford it would upgrade to the full-size iPad and those who just wanted to enter the pool would go down to the Mini.

post #109 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

Your figure is over the lifetime of the account? In that case (at least in the US) Apple still makes a lot more money off the hardware (don't forget, there are carrier kickbacks).

 

What i was saying was that iTunes accounts + carrier kickbacks are the reason Apple will make a lower-cost phone.

 

Figure is over the lifetime of the account up until when the study was conducted. I have no idea what the "average age" of an iTunes account in England is, but i would assume something like 3-4 years; similar to how long most people keep their phones/iPads.

 

Also, I think iTunes sales have the potential for far more growth per-customer than hardware sales. Not sure how Apple can get more out of iPhone users on a per-customer basis besides getting people to replace phones more frequently or jacking up profit margins. On the other hand, they still have a ways to go before they get iPhone users to purchase 100% of their content via iTunes. 

post #110 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

 

So presumably between $3BN and $4BN profit. Not too shabby.

Between 12/9/12 and 6/2/13, iTunes sold 5 billion songs alone. If that pace is steady, that's about 15 billion songs/year (when in fact sales are rapidly accelerating). At 99 cents per song, apple's 30% cut is about $4.5 billion - just for music. iTunes is now the dominant retailer in the music industry, and getting to the same position in the video/television industry is only a matter of time.

 

It'll be interesting to check out the earnings report and see the year-over-year growth compared to phone sales and compared to computer sales.

post #111 of 117
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv View Post

Your figure is over the lifetime of the account? In that case (at least in the US) Apple still makes a lot more money off the hardware (don't forget, there are carrier kickbacks).

 

Just a note...

 

If you meant the monthly contract sharing, it stopped with the first iPhone.  That idea failed because of all the unlocked phones being sold to people on carriers with no monthly Apple payment deal.

 

Instead, with the iPhone 3G, Apple switched to the usual subsidy model, where carriers simply paid Apple full price up front.  As AT&T stated at the time:

 

"The new agreement between Apple and AT&T eliminates the revenue-sharing model under which AT&T shared a portion of monthly service revenue with Apple."

 

Now, there are minimum sales deals, such as the one that Sprint made with Apple where they promised to sell X amount of iPhones.

 

As for revenue kickbacks, Apple is said to share a small portion of App Store sales with the associated carriers.


Edited by KDarling - 4/22/13 at 7:50pm
post #112 of 117

Can't really measure this since we don't get iPhones directly from Apple. Apple officially don't sell to Sri Lanka. (One of Apple's issues) and we get through various channels that I am only the last link.

 

So new iPhone 5 16GB the best I can give is 750USD with about 30USD. Max I sell it for 790USD.

 

The other issue is Apple's own marketing is zero here, it's only vendors like us do the little marketing. Apple's presence is zero on local terms.

 

Against that Samsung is heavy on their marketing. They have official presence here. As a dealership and all carriers ties. So everyone is marketing Samsung. And of cause cheap Android knock offs gives Samsung a premium spot in the market.

 

Apple simply do not understand the real situation here on American perspectives, this is I am sure how India is, world's second largest mobile market. Where others also heavily market (RIM, NOKIA, Indian Brands)

 

So Apple is the disappearing kind. Unless they come of really new very soon.

 

Your question.

 

Samsung here have flooded the each and ever price point from cheap feature phones to Android 110USD Galaxy Y to 860USD Galaxy S4, Tabs, phablets, phones, TVs, printers, electronics everything...

 

It's the new SONY here.


Edited by Chandana - 4/23/13 at 2:54am
post #113 of 117

Simple. Don't make two products with the same features.

Make the iPhone cheaper, or figure out how to differentiate two enough.
 

post #114 of 117

If Apple don't respond. Don't worry. This will happen.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-people-who-think-apple-is-bmw-dont-understand-2013-4

 

More likely,

 

In the Asian market.

 

Someone who makes a smartphone that is basically as good as the iPhone--or at least "good enough"--will radically undercut the iPhone on price.

(happening - Samsung, Android)

 

That's what tends to happen in consumer technology markets. And Apple's massive profit margin leaves it highly exposed to this kind of competition.

 

If a high-end smartphone market radically undercuts the iPhone on price, Apple will either be forced to sit and watch as it loses sales to the cheaper competitor... or match the competitor's price.

 
(Starting to happen Amazon, nexus)
 
post #115 of 117

A big issue with a "cheaper" iPhone would be what features they could take away from, or what features they could add to the high-end phone.

 

They can't release a smaller-storage version, because that would handicap content sales via iTunes. -> full phones mean people are less likely to buy those TV episodes/movies/apps, especially the folks who aren't big on micromanaging what's on their phones. They can't release a non-retina phone or a slower processor phone because it would cause too much instability in the App Store - relying on all developers to support too many configurations would risk breaking the simplicity of the current product lines and the relative stability of everything on the store.

 

That basically leaves the camera, siri and materials as the only ways I can think of that would be places where apple could go 2-tier. Problem is, those things maybe wouldn't differentiate the high end phone enough for most people to justify spending an extra couple hundred bucks - really, if you could save $200 by going with a 6MP camera instead of 12MP, plexiglass/plastic backplate instead of aluminum, and no Siri support but otherwise same screen and internals, don't you think a lot of people will just go for the cheap version?

 

So, probably their best bet will be to continue the current "cheaper phone is last year's model" system, unless there is a new killer feature on future phones that might give them a better opportunity for a neutered/cheaper phone - maybe a much upgraded lens for the camera, "custom" or "luxury" back panels or something like 4G versions selling at a premium (would maybe only work until the majority of android phones were 4G, at which point it would become expected on all phones)?

post #116 of 117

You are "very"American color. The world is ultra luminous ;-D

 

Just look at the Samsung portfolio you will see how to differentiate. I know it is a soup of 90 devices a year. But it DID established the Android Platform for Google.

 

So ain't Apple smart enough to figure out at least three (5 ideally) market segments?

This is not a demographics on my view, rather price points or features, hardware or software.

 

Category 1
1. School (Safety/ Being in touch/ Locate)
2. Teenage (Fun)

 

Category 2

3. Worker/ Starter (Work)

4. Junior Executive/ Manager (Management/ Work)

 

Category 3

5. Affluent/ Celebrity (Hype)

6. Specific high-skill professional market (photographer, doctor, scientist)

post #117 of 117
stay the course and don't listen to idiots
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?