Originally Posted by rednival
Easy there. We're saying the EXACT same thing. You need to read the rest of my reply.
You are completely right that Apple does not compete on price, and I never suggested that they do. You read that into it what I was saying. Apple always has a target when it releases a lower cost device.
If you read the rest of what I said, and what I have said several times on this thread, I said it is a cheaper iPhone but it is also a premium phone. Overall, it is cheaper, but in the market it is targeting, it will be the premium device. The iPod Nano was a premium MP3 player compared to the flash based players at the time. Apple always kept the iPod Nano at the front of the pack in features. While the Mac Mini isn't near as cheap as a Dell desktop, there's no comparison in what you get from the two.
You actually restated what I said in an attempt to correct me. Apple produces products that are cheaper than some of its other devices, but that doesn't make them less than premium. They are just targeting a market segment where the price needs to be lower to compete at all.
Wait a minute, easy there. Er, scratch that, I hate that phrase, "easy there," I take it back.<wry grin>
Of course I read your post (all of it, more than once even!<smile>), and the reason I didn't quote any of it, is because it wasn't you in particular to whom I was replying. This wasn't a personal message to you - I would have quoted you if I'd meant to speak directly to you.
I've been following this story of a "cheaper iPhone" since it first hit the rumour mill and there seems to be (in the blogosphere) a lack of understanding of what is product differentiation, product positioning and product strategy as it relates to the world of Apple.
Your post went more than most in demonstrating an understanding, but if I can be honest, the one thing I still saw in your post was that you did attach the term "cheaper" to every product you mentioned, perhaps it was merely for illustration purposes to point out Apple produces products that sell at cheaper price points, but viewing Apple products on a scale of prices I think doesn't appropriately convey the world of Apple. Every time I have this discussion, people invariably say, "yes, but there is a cheaper iPod than the Touch, right?" still missing the point.
Let me explain another way (not necessarily to you, please don't take this as a personal message<grin>):
Let's assume there are two teams appointed to design and produce a new addition to the iPad family. One team gets the objective: create a cheaper iPad. The other team gets the objective: create a smaller iPad. Imagine the output from each team. Which objective do you think the team that actually produced the mini got? People quite often call the mini the cheaper iPad (cheaper being the only descriptive term they use), so why is that? I don't see the mini as the cheaper iPad, I see it as the smaller iPad. Apple and the iPad mini team made decisions in design and development having to do with size, not cost, so why do people still see this product in terms of price?
If Apple produces a new model for the iPhone family, assuming it's different than what they did with the iPod Touch recently, then this new iPhone will be something as different from the current iPhone as the Mac Pro is different from the iMac. I'm merely trying to get people to take away the cost and price blinders when looking at Apple products. A good test to put to someone would be: how would you describe these products if cost/price weren't terms you could use to describe them?
Sorry if it appears you were the main target of my post, although I admittedly highjacked some elements of your post to make my point, I didn't intend you to the be the target of my rant diatribe words delivered from upon my soapbox. :) Hope that explains, and sorry for the long post (once again).
Edited by williamlondon - 6/19/13 at 1:42pm