or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Apple's inexpensive iPhone to adopt colors from iPhone 4 Bumpers
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple's inexpensive iPhone to adopt colors from iPhone 4 Bumpers - Page 2

post #41 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

"There are a thousand no's"
 
"Now for us it's never been about making the most."
 
Someone doesn't pay any attention, it seems.

They are never going to reveal product plans, so if asked they will give those boiler plate answers. This is common in Apple's history. You wouldn't believe they were interested in Phones, streaming music, 7 inch tablets and much more if you took these comments seriously. And Apple talk about market share when they are leading it - like iPods, or iPads in the beginning.

 

They care.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #42 of 66

I must be in a "reality distortion field" as I know Tim spoke several time about NOT caring about market share but user experience. Sure, if Apple sees a user experience need as they did the iPod line, to introduce a new phone, I'm sure they will do it. But a cheap phone to gain market share, no, sorry, I will believe Apple over analyst any day! 

post #43 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

They are never going to reveal product plans, so if asked they will give those boiler plate answers. This is common in Apple's history. You wouldn't believe they were interested in Phones, streaming music, 7 inch tablets and much more if you took these comments seriously. And Apple talk about market share when they are leading it - like iPods, or iPads in the beginning.

 

They care.

 

Not accurate! 

 

The many iPods were introduced not for market share, but to address market needs via different form factors. Again, the iPad did the same thing and introduced a smaller form factor to meet a market need, more portability. The iPhone 5 being larger, I would think, is more because Apple noticed the advantage to seeing your content on a taller device. 

 

I'm not suggesting Apple does not look at market trends, of course they do, but their reaction is not like others and throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what works, but rather to do internal testing to see what makes sense. 

 

Totally agree on the iTunes Radio. Apple foresees too many users heading in this direction in the future and wanted to offer something to keep people in their ecosystem. But I still agree with Steve, people want to own their music. 

 

If Apple had a subscription service, introducing a method that would allow me to play music from my library and inject unowned music into the now playing list that matched the music being played, that would be awesome. This would allow me to own my music and discover new music at the same time. I would have the ability to adjust, via a slider, how much injection I wanted, and another slider for how far from the music style I am playing I am willing to allow. 

 

As I am listening to my own library, I hear a song that matches that I don't own and then have the ability to buy. That is where this should be heading. 

post #44 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I must be in a "reality distortion field" as I know Tim spoke several time about NOT caring about market share but user experience. Sure, if Apple sees a user experience need as they did the iPod line, to introduce a new phone, I'm sure they will do it. But a cheap phone to gain market share, no, sorry, I will believe Apple over analyst any day! 

I'm thinking iPod touch with 16GB storage at $399 for the new iPhone {something} and the iPhone 5 will be renamed simply iPhone?  

post #45 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post


iPhone market is not identical to iPod market. The differentiation amongst Shuffle, Nano, Touch and Classic cannot be duplicated with phones unless Apple wants to make a feature phone. The failure to understand that you're yelling about is entirely yours.

 

I am sure iPod or former iPod users are telling to themselves every morning in front of the mirror: "iPhone is not the same as iPod..." :)

 

Failure? Come on, love the Apple products, not he Apple, not for the Apple's sake....

 

- when iWatch, iPhone Cheaper and iPhone Bigger come out, will you still say "...iPhone market is not identical to iPod market.." ?   Probably not if you woudln't want to be ridiculous...

- there are no feature phones anymore, stop using this old fashioned terminology, and cheaper phones, any kind or anything less than Samcrap S4 or iPhone 5 are not "feature" phones...

- Apple makes great products, but as others, fails to place them correctly in time. As others. Apple actually does it seldom. But they do. Face that. 

post #46 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

I must be in a "reality distortion field" as I know Tim spoke several time about NOT caring about market share but user experience. Sure, if Apple sees a user experience need as they did the iPod line, to introduce a new phone, I'm sure they will do it. But a cheap phone to gain market share, no, sorry, I will believe Apple over analyst any day! 

 

Apple is known to be notoriously poor in market demand estimations. Actually, up to last year. Why would they suddenly become market experts today?

 

They are good in products that is why they were constantly surprised to see the actual demand on the market later. SJ explained this once regarding iPods...

 

They are good in many things but they are not gods. They've always made mistakes as well. Don't be soooo religious....

post #47 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

Not accurate! 

The many iPods were introduced not for market share, but to address market needs via different form factors. Again, the iPad did the same thing and introduced a smaller form factor to meet a market need, more portability. The iPhone 5 being larger, I would think, is more because Apple noticed the advantage to seeing your content on a taller device. 

I'm not suggesting Apple does not look at market trends, of course they do, but their reaction is not like others and throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what works, but rather to do internal testing to see what makes sense. 

Totally agree on the iTunes Radio. Apple foresees too many users heading in this direction in the future and wanted to offer something to keep people in their ecosystem. But I still agree with Steve, people want to own their music. 

If Apple had a subscription service, introducing a method that would allow me to play music from my library and inject unowned music into the now playing list that matched the music being played, that would be awesome. This would allow me to own my music and discover new music at the same time. I would have the ability to adjust, via a slider, how much injection I wanted, and another slider for how far from the music style I am playing I am willing to allow. 

As I am listening to my own library, I hear a song that matches that I don't own and then have the ability to buy. That is where this should be heading. 

Rubbish. Same argument every year. The iPad won't be cheaper because Apple don't do cheap. The iPod will never be less than $400 - although you have to go back to 2007.

And then the cheaper stuff comes out and... The arguments change to the next device. The older devices which were cheaper? That wasn't cheapness that was product differentiation.

Look apple are not going to produce one phone a year for ever - no company ever fits that
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #48 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

 

Apple is known to be notoriously poor in market demand estimations. Actually, up to last year. Why would they suddenly become market experts today?

 

They are good in products that is why they were constantly surprised to see the actual demand on the market later. SJ explained this once regarding iPods...

 

They are good in many things but they are not gods. They've always made mistakes as well. Don't be soooo religious....

 

ha, I am not at all religious and point out Apple's flaws all the time, example, why is the Airport Express on wireless N and not AC?. If I can attach to ethernet, it should be AC and not just N. 

 

I don't see how I am being religious in this instance? 


Edited by Richard Getz - 6/13/13 at 1:38pm
post #49 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


Rubbish. Same argument every year. The iPad won't be cheaper because Apple don't do cheap. The iPod will never be less than $400 - although you have to go back to 2007.

And then the cheaper stuff comes out and... The arguments change to the next device. The older devices which were cheaper? That wasn't cheapness that was product differentiation.

Look apple are not going to produce one phone a year for ever - no company ever fits that

 

You must be from the Microsoft Marketing camp! 

 

A cheaper product due to form factor is not the same as a cheaper version of the same. If you reduce the size of something, remove the screen, the of course it will be cheaper. But the fact that the shuffle can be clipped to you, or the nano is a smaller form factor, but without the function of a Touch is not Apple trying to reduce the price to gain market, but to introduce additional form factors to meet market demand. Same with the iPad mini as the smaller form factor is to reach demand, not to reduce price. 

post #50 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by poksi View Post

 

I am sure iPod or former iPod users are telling to themselves every morning in front of the mirror: "iPhone is not the same as iPod..." :)

 

Failure? Come on, love the Apple products, not he Apple, not for the Apple's sake....

 

- when iWatch, iPhone Cheaper and iPhone Bigger come out, will you still say "...iPhone market is not identical to iPod market.." ?   Probably not if you woudln't want to be ridiculous...

- there are no feature phones anymore, stop using this old fashioned terminology, and cheaper phones, any kind or anything less than Samcrap S4 or iPhone 5 are not "feature" phones...

- Apple makes great products, but as others, fails to place them correctly in time. As others. Apple actually does it seldom. But they do. Face that. 

 

I guess that is why Apple only has $150 BILLION is cash laying around because, just face it, Apple apparently does not know what they are doing. They don't know market demand, or how to correctly time products. They simply are less talented than Samsung, Google, and Microsoft. It's a wonder, shear dumb luck that they are even in business today. 

 

/S

post #51 of 66
Take a look at Apple's iOS 7 - Features page.

Down the page at the "iTunes Radio" the image shows iPhones with a light blue colored bezel/body and the volume buttons on the left side are the same blue color. The volume buttons are also oblong in shape rather than the smaller round buttons on the current iPhone 5.

Is this a "goof" by someone at Apple, or are they subtly stoking the rumor mill?
post #52 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jurassic View Post

Take a look at Apple's iOS 7 - Features page.

Down the page at the "iTunes Radio" the image shows iPhones with a light blue colored bezel/body and the volume buttons on the left side are the same blue color. The volume buttons are also oblong in shape rather than the smaller round buttons on the current iPhone 5.

Is this a "goof" by someone at Apple, or are they subtly stoking the rumor mill?

Are you sure that isn't an iPod Touch?
post #53 of 66
No matter what apple does for the inexpensive phone the screen will still be small and they have to many apps that cost money. People dont care about price but they do like color style and size. Until they offer that they will still be runner up to android
post #54 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

A cheaper product due to form factor is not the same as a cheaper version of the same. If you reduce the size of something, remove the screen, the of course it will be cheaper. But the fact that the shuffle can be clipped to you, or the nano is a smaller form factor, but without the function of a Touch is not Apple trying to reduce the price to gain market, but to introduce additional form factors to meet market demand. Same with the iPad mini as the smaller form factor is to reach demand, not to reduce price. 

You're deluding yourself if you don't think the iPod Nano and Shuffle were introduced to increase market share. You're right that iPod Nano isn't a cheaper version of the iPod Touch but only because your comparison is wrong. The Nano was the cheap version of the Classic. The iPad Mini was introduced to increase market share by providing an option for a more portable version. And Apple keeps the non retina iPad around as a cheap option just like it has begun doing with iPhone models. It's to give cheaper options to increase market share.
post #55 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post

And people will be bored if they see Apple products everywhere even in the place it should not be, like in the lower class populations'

Did I miss the announcement that Apple was bought out by Abercrombie and Fitch? Some Apple fans might be elitist snobs but I don't think that is who Apple is targeting.
post #56 of 66

I think these suckers to going to appeal to a lot of folks simply because of their durability, regardless of whether it's less expensive or not. I want one simply because I don't want to baby a prissy and delicate iPhone. I think just like the iPad mini's, these are going to take a huge bite out of the flagship 5s sales.

post #57 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ingela View Post

I want one simply because I don't want to baby a prissy and delicate iPhone.

Glass screen, plastic back. Good luck pretending it's any less delicate than a real iPhone when you drop it. Instead of shattering and denting, it will shatter and shatter. Maybe just don't drop it.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #58 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post


You're deluding yourself if you don't think the iPod Nano and Shuffle were introduced to increase market share. You're right that iPod Nano isn't a cheaper version of the iPod Touch but only because your comparison is wrong. The Nano was the cheap version of the Classic. The iPad Mini was introduced to increase market share by providing an option for a more portable version. And Apple keeps the non retina iPad around as a cheap option just like it has begun doing with iPhone models. It's to give cheaper options to increase market share.

 

And therein lies my point. You look at market share and what products to introduce to increase it, while Apple looks at user experience and what to introduce to increase it. Both increase market share, but for different reason. And sure, Apple wants market share like anyone else, but not at the expense of user experience. 

 

We are both looking at a silver dollar, but from different perspectives. 


Edited by Richard Getz - 6/18/13 at 10:37am
post #59 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

 

And therein lies my point. You look at market share and what to introduce products to increase it, while Apple looks at user experience and what to introduce to increase it. Both increase market share, but for different reason. And sure, Apple wants market share like anyone else, but not at the expense of user experience. 

 

We are both looking at a silver dollar, but from different perspectives. 

 

 

More so, I think this highlights the difference between Apple and Microsoft, Samsung, Google, whereby those only want market share and therefore try to introduce products to gain marketshare. Apple looks at the problem from the other side of the coin. If we build products that meet user demands, and have high quality user experience, we also get to market share. 

 

One only needs to look at the quality of product to determine which is best. 

post #60 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by AaronJ View Post

I'm still confused as to waht the advantage is to selling a bunch of low-margin phones that -- assuming people only bought them because they are cheap -- won't even produce much in iTunes sales is.

What does this gain Apple?

And multi-colored iPhones? Really? Hideous.

Agreed. Now I wouldn't be opposed if they made the aluminum case in a choice of colors similar to the iPod touches as long as the finish was durable and you could have the black fronts on them as well. Personally, I would like to see the silver backing with the black face on them. Those Fisher-Price colors in the mock-up would make a cheap iPhone look even cheaper.
post #61 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by cwoloszynski View Post

I'd expect no LTE and a slower processor with 16 GB of FLASH as the only size and a low-end camera module (5MP-ish). The goal is to ensure that folks have an entry-level model to join the iOS community.

I think that there is a lot of value in iOS reaching a larger community base. There is a real possibility of iOS becoming the defacto mobile OS, if Apple can dominate the space. Then the 'walled garden' becomes a 'walled universe' and the outsiders become a rogue minority, not the unwashed masses. Being a dominant platform brings a lot of value to the user community; Windows won the OS wars because it was ubiquitous; System 7 was marginalized when it was not the dominant player.

I don't know if the answer is based on an OS war or if the end-game is HTML5 and web-apps, but Apple is playing both markets quite well. I'd almost suspect that their recent surge in saying 'we are not in the volume mantra is the classic Apple mis-information'.

I get what you are saying regarding entrance into the ecosystem, but I am not sure what that would gain Apple. If they run iOS for little profit, and the people who would buy these low cost iPhones haven't before because of the price, then how much in terms of Apps etc would these people buy to make it worth Apple's time and money? It is a bit of a pickle, because if they make it too functional then these people would not upgrade to the premium phone if they could afford to. If it is too stripped, those people would look elsewhere. Not saying it couldn't be done, but am curious how they would pull it off
post #62 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by hydr View Post

It helps keep IOS relevant in the silly "marketshare" bubble. By allowing vast amount of people in third-world countries to start using IOS, they win over users who will later stay in the ecosystem.

I agree with you. I see two markets, the lower income third world countries (politically incorrect term these days, developing world perhaps) and kids in Europe, Americas, Australasia etc. If they can take pictures and video and use iTunes, Photostream, Sharing, Airplay and so on ... the fact it can also make phone calls when needed makes it a no brainer if at a lower cost to families where mom and dad already have iPads and or iPhones. It is about the Eco system.
Edited by digitalclips - 6/14/13 at 6:24am
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
Enjoying the new Mac Pro ... it's smokin'
Been using Apple since Apple ][ - Long on AAPL so biased
nMac Pro 6 Core, MacBookPro i7, MacBookPro i5, iPhones 5 and 5s, iPad Air, 2013 Mac mini.
Reply
post #63 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

You must be from the Microsoft Marketing camp! 

A cheaper product due to form factor is not the same as a cheaper version of the same. If you reduce the size of something, remove the screen, the of course it will be cheaper. But the fact that the shuffle can be clipped to you, or the nano is a smaller form factor, but without the function of a Touch is not Apple trying to reduce the price to gain market, but to introduce additional form factors to meet market demand. Same with the iPad mini as the smaller form factor is to reach demand, not to reduce price. 

Can Appleinsider please ban idiots who call those of us HERE SINCE 2003 Microsoft trolls.

If not , say goodbye to your audience.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #64 of 66
Getz is on ignore. The reasons why Apple will introduce new iPhones can be summed up in two statements of fact.

1) they have more than one model of everything else.
2) if your existing market is saturated you introduce new products.
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #65 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


Can Appleinsider please ban idiots who call those of us HERE SINCE 2003 Microsoft trolls.

If not , say goodbye to your audience.

 

So you can't read? I said Marketing Camp, not trolls. And you being here since 2003 makes you correct in all your post? 

post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Getz is on ignore. The reasons why Apple will introduce new iPhones can be summed up in two statements of fact.

1) they have more than one model of everything else.
2) if your existing market is saturated you introduce new products.

 

No, seriously, you hurt my feelings by ignoring. /s

 

Again, you can't, or won't read. I did not say that Apple will not introduce new phones, but that they will not introduce a cheap phone to grab market share. If the market demands, larger (as they did) or smaller (as they did with the iPad) then Apple will meet those demands as long as they can without compromising user experience. Apple has said this many time so this is not me bloviating. 


Edited by Richard Getz - 6/18/13 at 10:38am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Rumor: Apple's inexpensive iPhone to adopt colors from iPhone 4 Bumpers