I have always assumed that the delay was contractual with Verizon since they received the iPhone 4 late in the normal refresh cycle.
I like Apple's thinking in not changing the case appearance. It is sort of like the iMac line. Looks almost identical, lasts a long time, easily upgradable OS, and has continued performance enhancements. It proves that the quality of the hardware is so good it doesn't need a facelift.
I don't think Apple would agree to that. There are billions on the line and having one company stop the works for a 100 countries and all their carriers wouldn't make any sense.
I think there was a HW issue that caused the delay. Maybe something with the new antenna switching components, or the camera, or this low-power MDM6600, or the A5, or some other unknown component.
I don't think Apple would agree to that. There are billions on the line and having one company stop the works for a 100 countries and all their carriers wouldn't make any sense.
The CDMA market was very important to Apple as was mending their relationship with Verizon. I don't suppose we will ever know what the reason for the delay was for sure.
1) Profits are important to for-profit companies. Apple with it's low unit marketshare in iPhones and Macs is killing all their competition flooding the market with a cheap, race-to-the-bottom devices. You really think that's the position Apple wants to be in but can't figure out how to get it in. Hint: It's the easily business to be in.
Maybe, but profits can come just as well from lower margins and higher sales.
Quote:
2) They didn't have the majority of the industries profits in 1992.
true. That doesn't mean that they will maintain the majority of industries profits going forward. Most of the profit at the higher end has been saturated.
Quote:
3) Mindshare depends on mindshare, not how many people are actively using your product. You seriously think Rolls Royce has worse business model than Alliance Rubber Company simply because they sell units to customers. Insane!
For a software platform mindshare and market share are inextricably linked.
Quote:
4) Apple is gaining in share (which really should be happening) and Android should have gain more unit share faster than it did but they continually came to market with buggy, complex devices that typical users only begrudgingly use.
Really should not, I suppose you mean. In fact they are garnering market share in the world by aggressively going after some markets. That goes against your points.
Quote:
5) How can you not remember Apple wanting to get the top 1% of the handset market by unit? They didn't say they wanted the largest number of units sold without regard for dominating the top tier of the market or not making the highest profit from the market.
That was the original claim in the iPhone launch. Apple act conservatively at launch. When iTunes was launched they suggested selling a million a year. They sold a million in a week. Now that they own the music download market do you think they want to lose it? Far better to remember Jobs saying that Google wanted to destroy the iPhone and Apple weren't going to let them. This means - they want to sell as many as Android. In his last appearance at a financial conference call, Jobs said that Apple were ( then) selling as many as Android activated. He was clearly agitated by the android activation figures.
Quote:
6) You saturate the market from the top down (picture a pyramid) or you risk losing your mindshare and profits. Going in with multiple devices all over the map in a vein and haphazard attempt to capture the entire market at once is foolish. You build carefully! You shouldn't have to have any business education to understand this basic fact in life.
Nobody is talking about anything haphazard, Thats your spin, and straw man. I am merely saying that they will have different iPhone models much as they have different lap top models, covering most price points, including the lowest. In terms of iOS devices I can get one in the UK Apple store for £169 as it is - the iPod touch. However the market for smart phones is now much bigger than the market for MP3 players ( even if, in reality, all thats different is a GSM chip, and some telephony software). They have the ability to do this.
Quote:
7) Again, Why would Apple want to follow Google's model of making no money on Android over their model of making the majority of the world's profits?
Straw man.
The reaction to a fairly benign suggestion that Apple will produce more than "one model a year" at some time in the future always amuses me. Same group who deridied the 3GS continuing.
Apple is seeking to maintain profits and increase market share. Not maintain ( or drop) market share and increase profits.
You're the kind of Apple fan I dont like. I think Apple want to win this market - get around 30-40% of it, and stay tops in tablets and iPods - where they cater to "bottom-feeders".
In terms of getting Software and Dev mind-share, it's important to stay in the game.
If you saw the keynote on Tuesday, you'll see where apple's target is. They're not focusing on converting android fanboys. They're more interested in the huge piece of the pie that consists of consumers who do not own a smartphone yet.
The CDMA market was very important to Apple as was mending their relationship with Verizon. I don't suppose we will ever know what the reason for the delay was for sure.
It could also have been a change to move the iPhone release to 6 months from the iPad release so their two largest arms can be most effective in their respective markets. It's also a way to shore up the declining iPod interest by tagging it to the beginning of the iPhone presentation. After all the iPod Touch is essentially an iPhone without the cellular HW.
I'll weigh in now and say we will wait less than 17 months for the next iPhone release. I'll even say that when the iPhone 3GS with it's 480x360 display is finally dropped getting a new iPhone with a larger display may happen.
If you saw the keynote on Tuesday, you'll see where apple's target is. They're not focusing on converting android fanboys. They're more interested in the huge piece of the pie that consists of consumers who do not own a smartphone yet.
Yes. i am the person suggesting that they have cheaper models. It is exactly that speech by Cook which indicates that is what they are going to do. Hint: he said the market was only 5% smart - that is not true in the developed world, where the smartphone market is > 40%.
So to go after the rest Apple have to.....
?
Thats right. Cheaper models. The "bottom feeder" comment I was opposed to. They can maintain margins with higher priced models, in fact the top of the line 4S is higher priced - offsetting the lower priced 3GS.
That said overall margins have to fall.
Or do you think they are going after the 95% of the market, with $399-800 handsets?
It could also have been a change to move the iPhone release to 6 months from the iPad release so their two largest arms can be most effective in their respective markets. It's also a way to shore up the declining iPod interest by tagging it to the beginning of the iPhone presentation. After all the iPod Touch is essentially an iPhone without the cellular HW.
I'll weigh in now and say we will wait less than 17 months for the next iPhone release. I'll even say that when the iPhone 3GS with it's 480x360 display is finally dropped getting a new iPhone with a larger display may happen.
I was a day one adopter of the iPhone and iPad, but now I am content with the devices I have and will wait until I see compelling reasons to upgrade. The unlocked version coming in November is interesting since I do a fair amount of international travel, but I wonder why it doesn't work on CDMA, which doesn't really matter to me, but I find it curious. Is it a new non CDMA chipped version or is the CDMA just not activated?
The reaction to a fairly benign suggestion that Apple will produce more than "one model a year" at some time in the future always amuses me. Same group who deridied the 3GS continuing.
Apple is seeking to maintain profits and increase market share. Not maintain ( or drop) market share and increase profits.
You're completely misunderstanding how markets work. Apple is selling the 3GS this year. They are still still the iPhone 4. They will continue to sell less expensive iPhones so long as it doesn't hurt their brand and increases their profit in the market. Why you think this doesn't work or that Apple should drop profit seeking for unit marketshare seeking is asinine.
I really don't know why some of you can't understand the logic behind building well. You can look at Acer as a prime example. Gateway is another one. Apple was told their ideas for stores was dumb because Gateway failed at it and they had thousand more stores than Apple had planned. But Apple built slowly and built well and now their tiny stores in shopping centers are anchors taking in more profit per square foot than any other retail space. And yet they don't have the most square footage of any retail outlet. Funny how they keep applying the same smart concepts to all areas of their business.
It could also have been a change to move the iPhone release to 6 months from the iPad release so their two largest arms can be most effective in their respective markets. It's also a way to shore up the declining iPod interest by tagging it to the beginning of the iPhone presentation. After all the iPod Touch is essentially an iPhone without the cellular HW.
I'll weigh in now and say we will wait less than 17 months for the next iPhone release. I'll even say that when the iPhone 3GS with it's 480x360 display is finally dropped getting a new iPhone with a larger display may happen.
Why would they "drop" the 3GS? The only way they would do this is if they had a new cheaper model in production. More likely the 3GS chasis becomes the model for the cheaper model.
I was a day one adopter of the iPhone and iPad, but now I am content with the devices I have and will wait until I see compelling reasons to upgrade. The unlocked version coming in November is interesting since I do a fair amount of international travel, but I wonder why it doesn't work on CDMA, which doesn't really matter to me, but I find it curious. Is it a new non CDMA chipped version or is the CDMA just not activated?
The baseband hardware has to be flashed for a specific CDMA-based carrier and your phone has to be put into that carrier's system. I see no reason why a carrier wouldn't want you as a customer so I hope the clever JB community will work that out.
Why would they "drop" the 3GS? The only way they would do this is if they had a new cheaper model in production. More likely the 3GS chasis becomes the model for the cheaper model.
You're completely misunderstanding how markets work. Apple isselling the 3GS this year. They are still still the iPhone 4. They will continue to sell less expensive iPhones so long as it doesn't hurt their brand and increases their profit in the market.
Um, right. Thats my argument. And I suggested they would before they did, unlike you. I am saying that the 3GS, the 4/4S and the 5 will in the future constitute the market. The 3GS is the low end iPhone you decry. It will be continued next year.
Quote:
Why you think this doesn't work or that Apple should drop profit seeking for unit marketshare seeking is asinine.
My God you are a slipperly customer. You said in the thread on the 3GS a few days ago that the 3GS would be dumped because Apple would move away from non-retina displays. By keeping the 3GS they are following my model ( in part) by increasing unit market share at the expense of profit, or unit margins. You have just quoted a stat which argues against your own position - the 3GS is still selling. Thats all I am saying. The 3GS will continue to sell when the iPhone 5 is released.
Quote:
I really don't know why some of you can't understand the logic behind building well. You can look at Acer as a prime example. Gateway is another one. Apple was told their ideas for stores was dumb because Gateway failed at it and they had thousand more stores than Apple had planned. But Apple built slowly and built well and now their tiny stores in shopping centers are anchors taking in more profit per square foot than any other retail space. And yet they don't have the most square footage of any retail outlet. Funny how they keep applying the same smart concepts to all areas of their business.
Who said anything about the quality of build being reduced. I suggested the 3GS, the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 5 would be separate models. Thats all. The 3GS is still a stonking machine.Going forward it can even get updated processor - the price differential with the iPhone 4 could merely be the Retina display. And the 3GS can drop in price by $100, or more.
If Apple want the rest of the 95%, they have to do what I suggest. I have no idea why this is even controversial.
The story of the UK is the story in Europe, in fact. My experience is hardly unique, I contract for all major London companies. Android is winning mindshare here. This is hardly a radical claim.
There is nothing evident in your post. What was evident is that you opposed the 3GS being maintained in it's present iteration, and you and others think that Apple is going after the next 95% of the market - by definition the poorer 95 % - with high priced models. That's ludicrous.
Neither evidence, nor logic persuades you of much.
My God you are a slipperly customer. You said in the thread on the 3GS a few days ago that the 3GS would be dumped because Apple would move away from non-retina displays. By keeping the 3GS they are following my model ( in part) by increasing unit market share at the expense of profit, or unit margins. You have just quoted a stat which argues against your own position - the 3GS is still selling. Thats all I am saying. The 3GS will continue to sell when the iPhone 5 is released
I theorized ? just like I did in post #69 ? that if Apple adds a 2nd display size they will drop the older of the 2 display resolutions of the same size. I also theorized that if we only get the iPhone 4 casing again then the iPhone 3GS would likely be free on contract.
PS: The 5th generation iPhone is called the iPhone 4S and it makes no sense to think the 6th generation iPhone will be called iPhone 5 so please try to use some critical thinking when posting.
There is nothing evident in your post. What was evident is that you opposed the 3GS being maintained in it's present iteration, and you and others think that Apple is going after the next 95% of the market - by definition the poorer 95 % - with high priced models. That's ludicrous.
Neither evidence, nor logic persuades you of much.
1) Frak, your posts make you sound like an idiot! I clearly wrote: "I'll even say that when the iPhone 3GS with it's 480x360 display is finally dropped getting a new iPhone with a larger display may happen."
2) I think Apple is going after 100% of the market with their current iPhone offerings? yet I have clearly stated that a smart company treads carefully and slowly into lower tiers to increase their unit and profit marketshare. That's what is the opposite of what you claim.
Comments
I have always assumed that the delay was contractual with Verizon since they received the iPhone 4 late in the normal refresh cycle.
I like Apple's thinking in not changing the case appearance. It is sort of like the iMac line. Looks almost identical, lasts a long time, easily upgradable OS, and has continued performance enhancements. It proves that the quality of the hardware is so good it doesn't need a facelift.
I don't think Apple would agree to that. There are billions on the line and having one company stop the works for a 100 countries and all their carriers wouldn't make any sense.
I think there was a HW issue that caused the delay. Maybe something with the new antenna switching components, or the camera, or this low-power MDM6600, or the A5, or some other unknown component.
That's actually a very good tag line. I'm surprised Apple didn't use it themselves.
"The most amazing iphone ever..."
"The best phone on the market just got better."
It's a Snapple commercial. "The best stuff on earth just got better".
Android?
I thought so. We don't inhabit the same universe.
I don't think Apple would agree to that. There are billions on the line and having one company stop the works for a 100 countries and all their carriers wouldn't make any sense.
The CDMA market was very important to Apple as was mending their relationship with Verizon. I don't suppose we will ever know what the reason for the delay was for sure.
1) Profits are important to for-profit companies. Apple with it's low unit marketshare in iPhones and Macs is killing all their competition flooding the market with a cheap, race-to-the-bottom devices. You really think that's the position Apple wants to be in but can't figure out how to get it in. Hint: It's the easily business to be in.
Maybe, but profits can come just as well from lower margins and higher sales.
2) They didn't have the majority of the industries profits in 1992.
true. That doesn't mean that they will maintain the majority of industries profits going forward. Most of the profit at the higher end has been saturated.
3) Mindshare depends on mindshare, not how many people are actively using your product. You seriously think Rolls Royce has worse business model than Alliance Rubber Company simply because they sell units to customers. Insane!
For a software platform mindshare and market share are inextricably linked.
4) Apple is gaining in share (which really should be happening) and Android should have gain more unit share faster than it did but they continually came to market with buggy, complex devices that typical users only begrudgingly use.
Really should not, I suppose you mean. In fact they are garnering market share in the world by aggressively going after some markets. That goes against your points.
5) How can you not remember Apple wanting to get the top 1% of the handset market by unit? They didn't say they wanted the largest number of units sold without regard for dominating the top tier of the market or not making the highest profit from the market.
That was the original claim in the iPhone launch. Apple act conservatively at launch. When iTunes was launched they suggested selling a million a year. They sold a million in a week. Now that they own the music download market do you think they want to lose it? Far better to remember Jobs saying that Google wanted to destroy the iPhone and Apple weren't going to let them. This means - they want to sell as many as Android. In his last appearance at a financial conference call, Jobs said that Apple were ( then) selling as many as Android activated. He was clearly agitated by the android activation figures.
6) You saturate the market from the top down (picture a pyramid) or you risk losing your mindshare and profits. Going in with multiple devices all over the map in a vein and haphazard attempt to capture the entire market at once is foolish. You build carefully! You shouldn't have to have any business education to understand this basic fact in life.
Nobody is talking about anything haphazard, Thats your spin, and straw man. I am merely saying that they will have different iPhone models much as they have different lap top models, covering most price points, including the lowest. In terms of iOS devices I can get one in the UK Apple store for £169 as it is - the iPod touch. However the market for smart phones is now much bigger than the market for MP3 players ( even if, in reality, all thats different is a GSM chip, and some telephony software). They have the ability to do this.
7) Again, Why would Apple want to follow Google's model of making no money on Android over their model of making the majority of the world's profits?
Straw man.
The reaction to a fairly benign suggestion that Apple will produce more than "one model a year" at some time in the future always amuses me. Same group who deridied the 3GS continuing.
Apple is seeking to maintain profits and increase market share. Not maintain ( or drop) market share and increase profits.
I thought so. We don't inhabit the same universe.
Yes, I am in the real world. Read my last story.
( I dont want Android to dominate, in case I get accused of trolling).
You're the kind of Apple fan I dont like. I think Apple want to win this market - get around 30-40% of it, and stay tops in tablets and iPods - where they cater to "bottom-feeders".
In terms of getting Software and Dev mind-share, it's important to stay in the game.
If you saw the keynote on Tuesday, you'll see where apple's target is. They're not focusing on converting android fanboys. They're more interested in the huge piece of the pie that consists of consumers who do not own a smartphone yet.
The CDMA market was very important to Apple as was mending their relationship with Verizon. I don't suppose we will ever know what the reason for the delay was for sure.
It could also have been a change to move the iPhone release to 6 months from the iPad release so their two largest arms can be most effective in their respective markets. It's also a way to shore up the declining iPod interest by tagging it to the beginning of the iPhone presentation. After all the iPod Touch is essentially an iPhone without the cellular HW.
I'll weigh in now and say we will wait less than 17 months for the next iPhone release. I'll even say that when the iPhone 3GS with it's 480x360 display is finally dropped getting a new iPhone with a larger display may happen.
If you saw the keynote on Tuesday, you'll see where apple's target is. They're not focusing on converting android fanboys. They're more interested in the huge piece of the pie that consists of consumers who do not own a smartphone yet.
Yes. i am the person suggesting that they have cheaper models. It is exactly that speech by Cook which indicates that is what they are going to do. Hint: he said the market was only 5% smart - that is not true in the developed world, where the smartphone market is > 40%.
So to go after the rest Apple have to.....
?
Thats right. Cheaper models. The "bottom feeder" comment I was opposed to. They can maintain margins with higher priced models, in fact the top of the line 4S is higher priced - offsetting the lower priced 3GS.
That said overall margins have to fall.
Or do you think they are going after the 95% of the market, with $399-800 handsets?
It could also have been a change to move the iPhone release to 6 months from the iPad release so their two largest arms can be most effective in their respective markets. It's also a way to shore up the declining iPod interest by tagging it to the beginning of the iPhone presentation. After all the iPod Touch is essentially an iPhone without the cellular HW.
I'll weigh in now and say we will wait less than 17 months for the next iPhone release. I'll even say that when the iPhone 3GS with it's 480x360 display is finally dropped getting a new iPhone with a larger display may happen.
I was a day one adopter of the iPhone and iPad, but now I am content with the devices I have and will wait until I see compelling reasons to upgrade. The unlocked version coming in November is interesting since I do a fair amount of international travel, but I wonder why it doesn't work on CDMA, which doesn't really matter to me, but I find it curious. Is it a new non CDMA chipped version or is the CDMA just not activated?
The reaction to a fairly benign suggestion that Apple will produce more than "one model a year" at some time in the future always amuses me. Same group who deridied the 3GS continuing.
Apple is seeking to maintain profits and increase market share. Not maintain ( or drop) market share and increase profits.
You're completely misunderstanding how markets work. Apple is selling the 3GS this year. They are still still the iPhone 4. They will continue to sell less expensive iPhones so long as it doesn't hurt their brand and increases their profit in the market. Why you think this doesn't work or that Apple should drop profit seeking for unit marketshare seeking is asinine.
I really don't know why some of you can't understand the logic behind building well. You can look at Acer as a prime example. Gateway is another one. Apple was told their ideas for stores was dumb because Gateway failed at it and they had thousand more stores than Apple had planned. But Apple built slowly and built well and now their tiny stores in shopping centers are anchors taking in more profit per square foot than any other retail space. And yet they don't have the most square footage of any retail outlet. Funny how they keep applying the same smart concepts to all areas of their business.
It could also have been a change to move the iPhone release to 6 months from the iPad release so their two largest arms can be most effective in their respective markets. It's also a way to shore up the declining iPod interest by tagging it to the beginning of the iPhone presentation. After all the iPod Touch is essentially an iPhone without the cellular HW.
I'll weigh in now and say we will wait less than 17 months for the next iPhone release. I'll even say that when the iPhone 3GS with it's 480x360 display is finally dropped getting a new iPhone with a larger display may happen.
Why would they "drop" the 3GS? The only way they would do this is if they had a new cheaper model in production. More likely the 3GS chasis becomes the model for the cheaper model.
Yes, I am in the real world. Read my last story.
( I dont want Android to dominate, in case I get accused of trolling).
UK ≠ World.
Your one experience ≠ Everyone else's experience.
Your universe ≠ Everyone else's universe.
I was a day one adopter of the iPhone and iPad, but now I am content with the devices I have and will wait until I see compelling reasons to upgrade. The unlocked version coming in November is interesting since I do a fair amount of international travel, but I wonder why it doesn't work on CDMA, which doesn't really matter to me, but I find it curious. Is it a new non CDMA chipped version or is the CDMA just not activated?
The baseband hardware has to be flashed for a specific CDMA-based carrier and your phone has to be put into that carrier's system. I see no reason why a carrier wouldn't want you as a customer so I hope the clever JB community will work that out.
Why would they "drop" the 3GS? The only way they would do this is if they had a new cheaper model in production. More likely the 3GS chasis becomes the model for the cheaper model.
"Why" should be evident in my post.
You're completely misunderstanding how markets work. Apple is selling the 3GS this year. They are still still the iPhone 4. They will continue to sell less expensive iPhones so long as it doesn't hurt their brand and increases their profit in the market.
Um, right. Thats my argument. And I suggested they would before they did, unlike you. I am saying that the 3GS, the 4/4S and the 5 will in the future constitute the market. The 3GS is the low end iPhone you decry. It will be continued next year.
Why you think this doesn't work or that Apple should drop profit seeking for unit marketshare seeking is asinine.
My God you are a slipperly customer. You said in the thread on the 3GS a few days ago that the 3GS would be dumped because Apple would move away from non-retina displays. By keeping the 3GS they are following my model ( in part) by increasing unit market share at the expense of profit, or unit margins. You have just quoted a stat which argues against your own position - the 3GS is still selling. Thats all I am saying. The 3GS will continue to sell when the iPhone 5 is released.
I really don't know why some of you can't understand the logic behind building well. You can look at Acer as a prime example. Gateway is another one. Apple was told their ideas for stores was dumb because Gateway failed at it and they had thousand more stores than Apple had planned. But Apple built slowly and built well and now their tiny stores in shopping centers are anchors taking in more profit per square foot than any other retail space. And yet they don't have the most square footage of any retail outlet. Funny how they keep applying the same smart concepts to all areas of their business.
Who said anything about the quality of build being reduced. I suggested the 3GS, the iPhone 4 and the iPhone 5 would be separate models. Thats all. The 3GS is still a stonking machine.Going forward it can even get updated processor - the price differential with the iPhone 4 could merely be the Retina display. And the 3GS can drop in price by $100, or more.
If Apple want the rest of the 95%, they have to do what I suggest. I have no idea why this is even controversial.
UK ≠ World.
Your one experience ≠ Everyone else's experience.
Your universe ≠ Everyone else's universe.
The story of the UK is the story in Europe, in fact. My experience is hardly unique, I contract for all major London companies. Android is winning mindshare here. This is hardly a radical claim.
But I do know more than you about the business.
"Why" should be evident in my post.
There is nothing evident in your post. What was evident is that you opposed the 3GS being maintained in it's present iteration, and you and others think that Apple is going after the next 95% of the market - by definition the poorer 95 % - with high priced models. That's ludicrous.
Neither evidence, nor logic persuades you of much.
My God you are a slipperly customer. You said in the thread on the 3GS a few days ago that the 3GS would be dumped because Apple would move away from non-retina displays. By keeping the 3GS they are following my model ( in part) by increasing unit market share at the expense of profit, or unit margins. You have just quoted a stat which argues against your own position - the 3GS is still selling. Thats all I am saying. The 3GS will continue to sell when the iPhone 5 is released
I theorized ? just like I did in post #69 ? that if Apple adds a 2nd display size they will drop the older of the 2 display resolutions of the same size. I also theorized that if we only get the iPhone 4 casing again then the iPhone 3GS would likely be free on contract.
PS: The 5th generation iPhone is called the iPhone 4S and it makes no sense to think the 6th generation iPhone will be called iPhone 5 so please try to use some critical thinking when posting.
There is nothing evident in your post. What was evident is that you opposed the 3GS being maintained in it's present iteration, and you and others think that Apple is going after the next 95% of the market - by definition the poorer 95 % - with high priced models. That's ludicrous.
Neither evidence, nor logic persuades you of much.
1) Frak, your posts make you sound like an idiot! I clearly wrote: "I'll even say that when the iPhone 3GS with it's 480x360 display is finally dropped getting a new iPhone with a larger display may happen."
2) I think Apple is going after 100% of the market with their current iPhone offerings? yet I have clearly stated that a smart company treads carefully and slowly into lower tiers to increase their unit and profit marketshare. That's what is the opposite of what you claim.