Is this 1988 Rolls Royce Phantom at $27k a low-end car? No! It's a low cost for a Rolls Royce because it's used and a quarter century old. When we're talking about low-end without qualifiers we are specifically talking about products that were designed and marketed for the low-end of the market upon arrival, not because they were made cheaper because newer products naturally came to market. Saying that the iPhone 3GS from 2009 is the low-end of the iPhone family is not same as calling the iPhone 3GS a low-end phone.
Bad example. A 3GS iPhone bought today was not built in 2009. The question isn't why it was built and sold back in 2009 its why is it being built and sold in 2012? The answer's not one and the same.
Bad example. A 3GS iPhone bought today was not built in 2009.
I'll give you that, not my best exampling, but you're still not seeing it as an older high-end phone that has been deprecated to the low-end market due to advancement in the market, you are seeing it as a low-end phone without qualifying how it got there. That's disingenuous at best. I wouldn't call the Nexus phones low-end phones even though I can buy them cheaply and doubt Google's partners still make the older models.
I'll give you that, not my best exampling, but you're still not seeing it as an older high-end phone that has been deprecated to the low-end market due to advancement in the market, you are seeing it as a low-end phone without qualifying how it got there. That's disingenuous at best. I wouldn't call the Nexus phones low-end phones even though I can buy them cheaply and doubt Google's partners still make the older models.
I'd like no I'd love for you to show me a cheap Nexus 1. Nowhere did I say the 3GS has since inception been low end, I'm just arguing against Apple]['s statement that Apple does not have a device for the low end market when they clearly do and if you ask me its a brilliant move. That many people choose and iPhone over something else.
I'd like no I'd love for you to show me a cheap Nexus 1. Nowhere did I say the 3GS has since inception been low end, I'm just arguing against Apple]['s statement that Apple does not have a device for the low end market when they clearly do and if you ask me its a brilliant move. That many people choose and iPhone over something else.
Apple didn't MAKE the iPhone 3GS (or the iPhone 3G before it and the iPhone 4 and 4S after it) for the low-end market. They MADE it for the premium smartphone market. It's only through the advancement of the tech and popularity of the platform that the older iPhone generations still have a viable market at the lower-end. That is Apple continuing production, not doing R&D for the low-end of the market, which is how I would interpret your statements.
Also note that the 3GS still retails for $375 for only 8GB. That is not a low-end price point, it's just low-end from the consumer's subsidized price point. I'd call that the medium price level for the carrier to pay for a smartphone and high-end for a carrier to pay for a handset to a vendor.
Apple didn't MAKE the iPhone 3GS (or the iPhone 3G before it and the iPhone 4 and 4S after it) for the low-end market. They MADE it for the premium smartphone market. It's only through the advancement of the tech and popularity of the platform that the older iPhone generations still have a viable market at the lower-end. That is Apple continuing production, not doing R&D for the low-end of the market, which is how I would interpret your statements.
Also note that the 3GS still retails for $375 for only 8GB. That is not a low-end price point, it's just low-end from the consumer's subsidized price point. I'd call that the medium price level for the carrier to pay for a smartphone and high-end for a carrier to pay for a handset to a vendor.
Again the question isn't why they made it back in 2009, and all the way until 2010 when the iPhone 4 came out. There are 3 markets, Premium-4S, Middle-iP4, low-3GS. Show me refutable evidence that I'm wrong. And I'm still waiting for the link for that cheap nexus 1.
Again the question isn't why they made it back in 2009, and all the way until 2010 when the iPhone 4 came out. There are 3 markets, Premium-4S, Middle-iP4, low-3GS. Show me refutable evidence that I'm wrong. And I'm still waiting for the link for that cheap nexus 1.
Yes, those are the categories for the devices in the current market of iPhones. That is a very limited scope. It's not a low-end device in the smartphone market at $375 and it's not a low-end device in the handset market. It's like saying the 13" MBP with a 2.4GHz Core i5, 4GB 1333MHz, 500GB 5400-rpm and Intel HD Graphics 3000 is a low-end notebook when it's just the low-end MBP and low-end within the 13" MBP categories, but at $1,199 it's not a low-end notebook, even though you can call the HDD and iGPU low-end within their market categories. Those are very specific categorizations. If that's what you meant, then so be it, but calling it a general low-end phone or smartphone for the entire market I will never agree with.
Again the question isn't why they made it back in 2009, and all the way until 2010 when the iPhone 4 came out. There are 3 markets, Premium-4S, Middle-iP4, low-3GS. Show me refutable evidence that I'm wrong. And I'm still waiting for the link for that cheap nexus 1.
I think you and Solip are missing each others point. If you would have used the qualifier: iPhone 3GS is Apple's *current* low end model, he wouldn't be jumping at you for calling it a low-end phone. In it's heyday, the 3GS was at the head of the class and the fact that a 3+ year old phone still shows strong demand proves how high-end Apple's low-end phone really is.
I think you and Solip are missing each others point. If you would have used the qualifier: iPhone 3GS is Apple's *current* low end model, he wouldn't be jumping at you for calling it a low-end phone. In it's heyday, the 3GS was at the head of the class and the fact that a 3+ year old phone still shows strong demand proves how high-end Apple's low-end phone really is.
Yes, those are the categories for the devices in the current market of iPhones. That is a very limited scope. It's not a low-end device in the smartphone market at $375 and it's not a low-end device in the handset market. It's like saying the 13" MBP with a 2.4GHz Core i5, 4GB 1333MHz, 500GB 5400-rpm1 and Intel HD Graphics 3000 is a low-end notebook when it's just the low-end MBP and low-end within the 13" MBP categories. Very specific categorizations. If that's what you meant, then so be it, but calling it a general low-end phone or smartphone for the entire market I will never agree with.
Another bad example. A MBP is not subsidized. Very few people pay $375 for a 3GS. If I could purchase a MBP for the same price as a Acer netbook then yes it would be low end market.
Another bad example. A MBP is not subsidized. Very few people pay $375 for a 3GS. If I could purchase a MBP for the same price as a Acer netbook then yes it would be low end market.
Subsidization is irrelevant to whether a product was developed to enter the low-end of a market or not. Are you really saying that only subsidization products can be categorized as low-, middle-, and high-end for a market?
I think he meant *current* as the qualifier, and is not 2012 current?
he emphasised current but he also added the word Apple. Both are qualifiers but "Apple" is needed to note that one is looking only at Apple's selection. As for being current, that does help make the communication more complete but that is a given with humans; we use qualifiers to note when we aren't talking about the here and/or now.
Subsidization is irrelevant to whether a product was developed to enter the low-end of a market or not. Are you really saying that only subsidization products can be categorized as low-, middle-, and high-end for a market?
No just that using a MBP as an example was bad. None my posts state that the 3GS was originally made for the low end market but I've repeatedly stated that now in 2012 Apple continues to make it for the low end market.
No just that using a MBP as an example was bad. None my posts state that the 3GS was originally made for the low end market but I've repeatedly stated that now in 2012 Apple continues to make it for the low end market.
That's the qualifier I was looking for. Your original response to me was qualifying it poorly. You even used plastic to note it's low-end even though that would then mean the original iPhone is still higher-end than the 3GS despite the performance increase the 3GS had over the original iPhone.
That's the qualifier I was looking for. Your original response to me was qualifying it poorly. You even used plastic to note it's low-end even though that would then mean the original iPhone is still higher-end than the 3GS despite the performance increase the 3GS had over the original iPhone.
It doesn't negate the fact that I've been correct since the beginning and I've repeatedly posed the question why do they continue to make it if not for the lower end market. And yes even when it was a premium phone it had a cheap plastic back lol.
It doesn't negate the fact that I've been correct since the beginning and I've repeatedly posed the question why do they continue to make it if not for the lower end market. And yes even when it was a premium phone it had a cheap plastic back lol.
1) You're not arguing that the 3GS is an inexpensive subsidized smartphone otherwise you would have specified that. It's $375 for 8GB. That's not a low-end device. You can't use the subsidized price as the measure because you know very well even the newest iPhone is given for free on contract in many countries.
2) You keep qualifying the plastic as being cheap which can only means you are comparing it other plastics for phones, otherwise you would have only stated plastic in comparison to other materials used for the casing. I can assure you that is not the case.
I do wonder if Apple might do better in the long term if they dropped the price of the iPhone.
Obviously the profitability they have at the moment is frankly stunning - it's hard to believe that data is possible! WIth that said, as lower end of the market increasingly becomes smart phone based as well, is it possible that Apple might find themselves losing out in app development, due to their lower volumes?
What I'm getting at is, is there a tipping point where application developers, who don't make any money on hardware sales, will decide to focus all of their efforts on the high volume platform, as opposed to the platform that makes most money for the hardware manufacturer?
Your comment makes no sense. Application developers don't and never cared how much the hardware manufacturer makes they only care how much they make. Application developers like everyone else follow the money and will write apps for whatever platform makes them the most profit whether that is Android, iOS, RIM, Symbian or whoever.
"Those people aren't important to Apple's bottom line and Apple should never pursue that demographic."
I?ve been a poor Apple geek from 1991 on. I have scrimped and saved and for awhile lived off used outdated Apple devices. Just so I could experience it!
All I have to ask you is ?fascist much??
I am in that ?demographic? yet I appreciate beauty. Don?t deny beauty. And also don?t cattle crowd your fellow man into a ?demographic?. There is allot of beauty to be found out there from the business succeeder to the hobo that has fallen off his way. Lots of beauty. Its a BIG world.
I really don?t like to get into flame wars but the way you framed your comment seemed worthy of a response.
I am happy that Apple is doing so well. Especially as I evangelized the company to friends and family through the dark ages of Apple.
Hope your weekend is splendid and that you get time to contemplate the worth of poor working people, who love great design and superior products.
Comments
Is this 1988 Rolls Royce Phantom at $27k a low-end car? No! It's a low cost for a Rolls Royce because it's used and a quarter century old. When we're talking about low-end without qualifiers we are specifically talking about products that were designed and marketed for the low-end of the market upon arrival, not because they were made cheaper because newer products naturally came to market. Saying that the iPhone 3GS from 2009 is the low-end of the iPhone family is not same as calling the iPhone 3GS a low-end phone.
Bad example. A 3GS iPhone bought today was not built in 2009. The question isn't why it was built and sold back in 2009 its why is it being built and sold in 2012? The answer's not one and the same.
Bad example. A 3GS iPhone bought today was not built in 2009.
I'll give you that, not my best exampling, but you're still not seeing it as an older high-end phone that has been deprecated to the low-end market due to advancement in the market, you are seeing it as a low-end phone without qualifying how it got there. That's disingenuous at best. I wouldn't call the Nexus phones low-end phones even though I can buy them cheaply and doubt Google's partners still make the older models.
I'll give you that, not my best exampling, but you're still not seeing it as an older high-end phone that has been deprecated to the low-end market due to advancement in the market, you are seeing it as a low-end phone without qualifying how it got there. That's disingenuous at best. I wouldn't call the Nexus phones low-end phones even though I can buy them cheaply and doubt Google's partners still make the older models.
I'd like no I'd love for you to show me a cheap Nexus 1. Nowhere did I say the 3GS has since inception been low end, I'm just arguing against Apple]['s statement that Apple does not have a device for the low end market when they clearly do and if you ask me its a brilliant move. That many people choose and iPhone over something else.
I'd like no I'd love for you to show me a cheap Nexus 1. Nowhere did I say the 3GS has since inception been low end, I'm just arguing against Apple]['s statement that Apple does not have a device for the low end market when they clearly do and if you ask me its a brilliant move. That many people choose and iPhone over something else.
Apple didn't MAKE the iPhone 3GS (or the iPhone 3G before it and the iPhone 4 and 4S after it) for the low-end market. They MADE it for the premium smartphone market. It's only through the advancement of the tech and popularity of the platform that the older iPhone generations still have a viable market at the lower-end. That is Apple continuing production, not doing R&D for the low-end of the market, which is how I would interpret your statements.
Also note that the 3GS still retails for $375 for only 8GB. That is not a low-end price point, it's just low-end from the consumer's subsidized price point. I'd call that the medium price level for the carrier to pay for a smartphone and high-end for a carrier to pay for a handset to a vendor.
The big takeaway from all this is that Apple spent time and money over 3 years ago developing the iPhone 3GS... and it continues to sell today.
People wonder why Apple makes a lot of profit... this is just one example.
R&D for the iPhone 3GS was paid off years ago... and now it's Apple budget phone.
Other companies spend lots of money releasing new "cheap" phones every week.
Apple didn't MAKE the iPhone 3GS (or the iPhone 3G before it and the iPhone 4 and 4S after it) for the low-end market. They MADE it for the premium smartphone market. It's only through the advancement of the tech and popularity of the platform that the older iPhone generations still have a viable market at the lower-end. That is Apple continuing production, not doing R&D for the low-end of the market, which is how I would interpret your statements.
Also note that the 3GS still retails for $375 for only 8GB. That is not a low-end price point, it's just low-end from the consumer's subsidized price point. I'd call that the medium price level for the carrier to pay for a smartphone and high-end for a carrier to pay for a handset to a vendor.
Again the question isn't why they made it back in 2009, and all the way until 2010 when the iPhone 4 came out. There are 3 markets, Premium-4S, Middle-iP4, low-3GS. Show me refutable evidence that I'm wrong. And I'm still waiting for the link for that cheap nexus 1.
Again the question isn't why they made it back in 2009, and all the way until 2010 when the iPhone 4 came out. There are 3 markets, Premium-4S, Middle-iP4, low-3GS. Show me refutable evidence that I'm wrong. And I'm still waiting for the link for that cheap nexus 1.
Yes, those are the categories for the devices in the current market of iPhones. That is a very limited scope. It's not a low-end device in the smartphone market at $375 and it's not a low-end device in the handset market. It's like saying the 13" MBP with a 2.4GHz Core i5, 4GB 1333MHz, 500GB 5400-rpm and Intel HD Graphics 3000 is a low-end notebook when it's just the low-end MBP and low-end within the 13" MBP categories, but at $1,199 it's not a low-end notebook, even though you can call the HDD and iGPU low-end within their market categories. Those are very specific categorizations. If that's what you meant, then so be it, but calling it a general low-end phone or smartphone for the entire market I will never agree with.
Again the question isn't why they made it back in 2009, and all the way until 2010 when the iPhone 4 came out. There are 3 markets, Premium-4S, Middle-iP4, low-3GS. Show me refutable evidence that I'm wrong. And I'm still waiting for the link for that cheap nexus 1.
I think you and Solip are missing each others point. If you would have used the qualifier: iPhone 3GS is Apple's *current* low end model, he wouldn't be jumping at you for calling it a low-end phone. In it's heyday, the 3GS was at the head of the class and the fact that a 3+ year old phone still shows strong demand proves how high-end Apple's low-end phone really is.
I think you and Solip are missing each others point. If you would have used the qualifier: iPhone 3GS is Apple's *current* low end model, he wouldn't be jumping at you for calling it a low-end phone. In it's heyday, the 3GS was at the head of the class and the fact that a 3+ year old phone still shows strong demand proves how high-end Apple's low-end phone really is.
Yep, adding "Apple" as a qualifier makes it true.
Yes, those are the categories for the devices in the current market of iPhones. That is a very limited scope. It's not a low-end device in the smartphone market at $375 and it's not a low-end device in the handset market. It's like saying the 13" MBP with a 2.4GHz Core i5, 4GB 1333MHz, 500GB 5400-rpm1 and Intel HD Graphics 3000 is a low-end notebook when it's just the low-end MBP and low-end within the 13" MBP categories. Very specific categorizations. If that's what you meant, then so be it, but calling it a general low-end phone or smartphone for the entire market I will never agree with.
Another bad example. A MBP is not subsidized. Very few people pay $375 for a 3GS. If I could purchase a MBP for the same price as a Acer netbook then yes it would be low end market.
Another bad example. A MBP is not subsidized. Very few people pay $375 for a 3GS. If I could purchase a MBP for the same price as a Acer netbook then yes it would be low end market.
Subsidization is irrelevant to whether a product was developed to enter the low-end of a market or not. Are you really saying that only subsidization products can be categorized as low-, middle-, and high-end for a market?
Yep, adding "Apple" as a qualifier makes it true.
I think he meant *current* as the qualifier, and is not 2012 current?
Yep, adding "current" as a qualifier makes it true.
There, fixed it for ya....wisenheimer.
Edit: Better yet, the 3GS is Apple's low-end phone in their current lineup. It is, by no means, low-end.
I think he meant *current* as the qualifier, and is not 2012 current?
he emphasised current but he also added the word Apple. Both are qualifiers but "Apple" is needed to note that one is looking only at Apple's selection. As for being current, that does help make the communication more complete but that is a given with humans; we use qualifiers to note when we aren't talking about the here and/or now.
Subsidization is irrelevant to whether a product was developed to enter the low-end of a market or not. Are you really saying that only subsidization products can be categorized as low-, middle-, and high-end for a market?
No just that using a MBP as an example was bad. None my posts state that the 3GS was originally made for the low end market but I've repeatedly stated that now in 2012 Apple continues to make it for the low end market.
No just that using a MBP as an example was bad. None my posts state that the 3GS was originally made for the low end market but I've repeatedly stated that now in 2012 Apple continues to make it for the low end market.
That's the qualifier I was looking for. Your original response to me was qualifying it poorly. You even used plastic to note it's low-end even though that would then mean the original iPhone is still higher-end than the 3GS despite the performance increase the 3GS had over the original iPhone.
That's the qualifier I was looking for. Your original response to me was qualifying it poorly. You even used plastic to note it's low-end even though that would then mean the original iPhone is still higher-end than the 3GS despite the performance increase the 3GS had over the original iPhone.
It doesn't negate the fact that I've been correct since the beginning and I've repeatedly posed the question why do they continue to make it if not for the lower end market. And yes even when it was a premium phone it had a cheap plastic back lol.
It doesn't negate the fact that I've been correct since the beginning and I've repeatedly posed the question why do they continue to make it if not for the lower end market. And yes even when it was a premium phone it had a cheap plastic back lol.
1) You're not arguing that the 3GS is an inexpensive subsidized smartphone otherwise you would have specified that. It's $375 for 8GB. That's not a low-end device. You can't use the subsidized price as the measure because you know very well even the newest iPhone is given for free on contract in many countries.
2) You keep qualifying the plastic as being cheap which can only means you are comparing it other plastics for phones, otherwise you would have only stated plastic in comparison to other materials used for the casing. I can assure you that is not the case.
I do wonder if Apple might do better in the long term if they dropped the price of the iPhone.
Obviously the profitability they have at the moment is frankly stunning - it's hard to believe that data is possible! WIth that said, as lower end of the market increasingly becomes smart phone based as well, is it possible that Apple might find themselves losing out in app development, due to their lower volumes?
What I'm getting at is, is there a tipping point where application developers, who don't make any money on hardware sales, will decide to focus all of their efforts on the high volume platform, as opposed to the platform that makes most money for the hardware manufacturer?
Your comment makes no sense. Application developers don't and never cared how much the hardware manufacturer makes they only care how much they make. Application developers like everyone else follow the money and will write apps for whatever platform makes them the most profit whether that is Android, iOS, RIM, Symbian or whoever.
I?ve been a poor Apple geek from 1991 on. I have scrimped and saved and for awhile lived off used outdated Apple devices. Just so I could experience it!
All I have to ask you is ?fascist much??
I am in that ?demographic? yet I appreciate beauty. Don?t deny beauty. And also don?t cattle crowd your fellow man into a ?demographic?. There is allot of beauty to be found out there from the business succeeder to the hobo that has fallen off his way. Lots of beauty. Its a BIG world.
I really don?t like to get into flame wars but the way you framed your comment seemed worthy of a response.
I am happy that Apple is doing so well. Especially as I evangelized the company to friends and family through the dark ages of Apple.
Hope your weekend is splendid and that you get time to contemplate the worth of poor working people, who love great design and superior products.