you can get an iPhone 5 on sale at bestbuy right now for 150.00 dollars on contract or a 4s for 50 dollars- the "Premium" price point that the iphone could not go under is already over. Making a 300 dollar iPhone will not change much at this point.
I like the new iPhone 5. It's a stunningly understated monolith. Supreme elegance. So light in the hand. A beautiful screen and blisteringly fast after using an iPhone 4 for the last 2 years.
I don't see the 5S bringing us vast improvements. Faster cpu? Cpu x6? Quad core?
Personally, I'd make the 5 thinner...and 'Nano' it.
Make a 4.8 tall and an inch wide phone.
There you have a similar strategy to when Apple had the iPod and the Nano.
Bring back colours.
Make a cheaper phone? Sure.
That's what the iPod Touch is. Just add a phone antennae and you have a contract less phone in mucho varied colours. Some may even say the iPod Touch design is better than the iPhone 5.
But the 3 options I highlight would broaden Apple's appeal...and consumer choice.
There's plenty of choice in iPod.
Why not iPhone?
(I guess the gouging of iPhone profits is making them weight up any cannibalisation products thoughtfully.)
Much as the S3 is the inferior phone on all levels. It has a bigger screen and many seem to want that.
We'll see. They don't need 100 models. 3 would do. iPod Touch Phone. iPhone Nano. iPhone+
A. B. C.
Easy.
If they want more growth...they're going to have to become more creative with the iPhone portfolio. Many kids have phones now. No reason why an iPod touch phone wouldn't be on a Christmas list..?
you can get an iPhone 5 on sale at bestbuy right now for 150.00 dollars on contract or a 4s for 50 dollars- the "Premium" price point that the iphone could not go under is already over. Making a 300 dollar iPhone will not change much at this point.
You realize that this has nothing to do with the argument about a cheaper iPhone, right?
Apple doesn't do audio, so if it has speakers in it, it will just be plain Jane audio that will only be used by some people that don't have it hooked up to a Soundbar or a REAL home theater system.
They have to at least be able to connect to a cable/satellite box with AirPlay to stream from iPad, iPhone, computer, iPod.
I can see a DVR a la Tivo capability with POTENTIALLY a large capacity Fusion drive or SSD storage.
If they used an A6X or better chip, they could do games, but maybe they can either figure out how to do multiple processors, or they have a new generation A-whatever chip they are working on. But I see them using at least an A6X or maybe an X86 chip? It would be nice to make it a full blown Mac, but I think they'll probably go ARM due to cost.
When you are talking wireless speakers, I can see AirPlay to a Home Theater processor and/or Soundbar and the Soundbar would hook up to a sub.
An ATV with a6x and Fusion would rock. ATV...be nice to have a proper App store for it...and games etc. It's Apple's call (which may be dependent on Content TV wise...)
You realize that this has nothing to do with the argument about a cheaper iPhone, right?
You're right- but in his defense- most people think the new iPhone is $200. People are idiots and don't realize or comprehend its subsidized. When I sold my 4S for $380 a couple months back, I had half a dozen people ask "why would anyone pay that, it's only $100 new".
Again- the bottom line is people are idiots. Off contract cheap phone might be ok for people who break their phone. its a terrible idea- the cheap iPhone. For a dozen reasons.
All three of these seem like terrible ideas compared to the two devices they already sell.
'Terrible' in your opinion. HATE, HATE, HATE...etc.
They have 3 iPod ranges. It democratised music playing at all price points.
There's room for a bit more creativity in the iPhone range. It's very pricey with a contract. They could certainly take out the opposition with a contract less phone.
And to have one nano and one + iPhone?
Some may argue the current iPhone is neither one thing nor the other.
Personally, I think it demolishes the opposition. But it's a pricey piece of kit. And there's many millions of phone buyers Apple aren't reaching.
They don't have to make junk. There's nothing wrong per se with the current strategy except they're selling 'out of date' phones at cheaper prices. The cheaper prices of 4, 4S...not bad.
But to really 'shake things up', I'd go with my idea.
Add a phone antennae to an iPod Touch and you have a very sexy phone. Prices at Touch prices? ish? It would have been an option I would have looked at seriously.
Making the current phone slimmer ala Nano would be good.
But many millions like the bigger screen. So a plus model makes sense to me.
They've handled 3 models before in the Mp3 market with very different but 'common' players that cornered the market.
We'll see what Apple does with the iPhone. Great product.
But it's not reaching everybody. 'Terrible' and 'Hate' don't get those millions of customers who aren't buying because...
The iPhone isn't 'streamlined...' or they 'dont' like the shape...' or 'too pricey...'
Little things? Millions of customers going begging.
People are idiots and don't realize or comprehend its subsidized. When I sold my 4S for $380 a couple months back, I had half a dozen people ask "why would anyone pay that, it's only $100 new". Again- the bottom line is people are idiots.
I'd say it's definitely more ignorance than idiocy. We often forget that the layman doesn't have the understanding of tech that we do. They see an iPhone as a wondrous device that "just does that stuff" without knowing how it does it or even the means by which it does it. They don't know because they don't need to know, and that extends outward.
Sad, but true, and it's only ignorance.
Originally Posted by Ireland
Love his interface 'guesses'. My guess is it'll have a simple Bluetooth Remote.
I figure IR still. Bluetooth is way too power-hungry, yeah? And what would require Bluetooth over IR?
These guys are turds, and all this is to manipulate the stock. First, Apple provides conservative guidance on what it expects to accomplish, and these knuckle heads get the idea that they need to continuously completely disregard Apple's guidance and double expectations. When Apple sails through its guidance numbers, but falls short of the completely made up fairy tale numbers, Apple gets hammered. I understand Apple's guidance is conservative, but that is what guidance should be. Second, how does a company like Amazon that is way overvalued, makes very little profit, and owes money continuously get rewarded? Apple owes no debt, is growing its business, is buying stock back, and pays a dividend.
With all that said, I think Apple will change the formula and offer more than one update to its products a year. The reality is that Google and Amazon take advantage of Apple's upgrade schedule and both have become better at software and hardware. Currently, Apple's hardware gets long in the tooth for about six months as competitors match and exceed Apple's products (at least in terms of specifications). If Apple wants to keep its lead, it has to be more aggressive. Apple used to update its Macs more frequently. I for one also would like to see Apple have three sizes for its Phones. I doubt that will happen soon, but I expect Apple to release another iPhone before summer. Another reason for that expectation, is Apple is aware that it needs something special every quarter to meet earnings expectations. Now that it updated most of its products at the end of the year, it will need some updates in the interim.
Apple also should consider making two iOS updates as well. A minor feature and/or refinement update, and a more significant update later. The reality is that software defines Apple's products, and Google has been getting pretty good with software. It also releases products much quicker than Apple.
If I may carry this a bit further, I recall Apple having an aversion to cables. I would expect everything to be in the tv set: Apple TV, tuner/cable, a good sized audio amp including an AV type device, multiple HMDI connections, wifi, and good front speakers (I just don't see a separate sound bar as part of the deal. Put that functionality in the TV and reduce the number of boxes). Couple that with a single UI remote.
You buy one box, it has two things: TV and Remote. If you have external devices (do you really need them?), connect them to HDMI. At that point, you're good to go. If you really want cable, maybe hook it to TV.
I know that if you buy a TV now, you get exacctly that: TV and Remote. But then you bring it home and connect it to an array of other boxes. Throw them out--and their remotes. I have at least five remotes sitting on my living room coffee table now--if we can find them all...
I'm not sure about cable. I have an Apple TV and I'm not sure I really need cable anymore. I can spend, say, $30 a month on purchased content and be ahead of my current cable bill.
If you really want surround sound, I would expect Apple to sell optional rear (wireless) speakers. If you want a sub, an optional (wireless) Apple Sub-Woofer.
Games: expect the TV set to have an enhanced AppleTV that lets you play games from the App Store. Do you really need a console for that?
I just don't see the need for an AV receiver in the vast majority of living rooms that would have an Apple TV.
but if you pack all the Apple wizardry inside a TV plus remote audio system, you have a maxmium cost/price product. and most people already have an HDTV by now, so hardware turnover is slow. so overall sales will be slow. too slow.
wheras soundbars are growing fast in popularity, but stil most don't have one - yet. also less expensive than a TV + sound system. so pack al the wizardly inside a soundbar, and overall sales could take off much faster.
Apple I doubt would do what is predicted here. First of all why are we ignoring the name IPhone 5 speed because we're talking external differences a better display and stuff. I believe in the display the same at least till IPhone 7. But it probably is till October due to a similar action to IPhone 4.(try to keep major upgrade as long as possible. Then talking IPad so the IPad and IPhone trade release dates well might as well release a Mac Pro every day and that will help Apple alright(however it would be soon three times the second best in the market, yet you would not buy a product where it is outdated soon. Not to mention likely hood of problems. A full Apple TV is actually in ball park.
Although not mentioned in the article, the same analyst is saying the multiple iPhone-6 prototypes are floating around including the one with 4.8" screen and no home button (fully gesture controlled):
Although not mentioned in the article, the same analyst is saying the multiple iPhone-6 prototypes are floating around including the one with 4.8" screen and no home button (fully gesture controlled).
iPhone 6, the 8th iPhone, which is either 1 or 2 years away. I don't buy that there'd be prototypes yet, much less that they'd get rid of the only button needed to use the phone.
Wait a minute. The price target changes from $900 to $800, so people sell the stock now because it's at 530? Does that make any sense? If it goes from 530 to 800, that's a 33.75% return over the period. I'm assuming he meant the target is 2014 - I'll assume the end. That's still at an almost 17% annual gain. What other stock is going to achieve that performance over the next two years?
Wait a minute. The price target changes from $900 to $800, so people sell the stock now because it's at 530? Does that make any sense? If it goes from 530 to 800, that's a 33.75% return over the period. I'm assuming he meant the target is 2014 - I'll assume the end. That's still at an almost 17% annual gain. What other stock is going to achieve that performance over the next two years?
This is (will be) a failing on Apple's part. If Apple had (will have had) not failed (will failing), the stock target would be (wioll haven being) the same or higher. Since Apple has (will haves hadden) failed, the stock should be (will have used to be) sold now (then).
I love it when I have to reference the works of Dan Streetmentioner to properly explain the logic the idiots on real Wall Street use.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If we see iOS 7 in the spring, get ready for (idiotic) 6-month cycles.
imo they need to random the cycle, neither 1 year or 6 months is good. Unpredictable is key here so they can stabilize demand.
you can get an iPhone 5 on sale at bestbuy right now for 150.00 dollars on contract or a 4s for 50 dollars- the "Premium" price point that the iphone could not go under is already over. Making a 300 dollar iPhone will not change much at this point.
I like the new iPhone 5. It's a stunningly understated monolith. Supreme elegance. So light in the hand. A beautiful screen and blisteringly fast after using an iPhone 4 for the last 2 years.
I don't see the 5S bringing us vast improvements. Faster cpu? Cpu x6? Quad core?
Personally, I'd make the 5 thinner...and 'Nano' it.
Make a 4.8 tall and an inch wide phone.
There you have a similar strategy to when Apple had the iPod and the Nano.
Bring back colours.
Make a cheaper phone? Sure.
That's what the iPod Touch is. Just add a phone antennae and you have a contract less phone in mucho varied colours. Some may even say the iPod Touch design is better than the iPhone 5.
But the 3 options I highlight would broaden Apple's appeal...and consumer choice.
There's plenty of choice in iPod.
Why not iPhone?
(I guess the gouging of iPhone profits is making them weight up any cannibalisation products thoughtfully.)
Much as the S3 is the inferior phone on all levels. It has a bigger screen and many seem to want that.
We'll see. They don't need 100 models. 3 would do. iPod Touch Phone. iPhone Nano. iPhone+
A. B. C.
Easy.
If they want more growth...they're going to have to become more creative with the iPhone portfolio. Many kids have phones now. No reason why an iPod touch phone wouldn't be on a Christmas list..?
Lemon Bon Bon.
Originally Posted by agramonte
you can get an iPhone 5 on sale at bestbuy right now for 150.00 dollars on contract or a 4s for 50 dollars- the "Premium" price point that the iphone could not go under is already over. Making a 300 dollar iPhone will not change much at this point.
You realize that this has nothing to do with the argument about a cheaper iPhone, right?
Originally Posted by Lemon Bon Bon.
We'll see. They don't need 100 models. 3 would do. iPod Touch Phone. iPhone Nano. iPhone+
All three of these seem like terrible ideas compared to the two devices they already sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
Apple doesn't do audio, so if it has speakers in it, it will just be plain Jane audio that will only be used by some people that don't have it hooked up to a Soundbar or a REAL home theater system.
They have to at least be able to connect to a cable/satellite box with AirPlay to stream from iPad, iPhone, computer, iPod.
I can see a DVR a la Tivo capability with POTENTIALLY a large capacity Fusion drive or SSD storage.
If they used an A6X or better chip, they could do games, but maybe they can either figure out how to do multiple processors, or they have a new generation A-whatever chip they are working on. But I see them using at least an A6X or maybe an X86 chip? It would be nice to make it a full blown Mac, but I think they'll probably go ARM due to cost.
When you are talking wireless speakers, I can see AirPlay to a Home Theater processor and/or Soundbar and the Soundbar would hook up to a sub.
An ATV with a6x and Fusion would rock. ATV...be nice to have a proper App store for it...and games etc. It's Apple's call (which may be dependent on Content TV wise...)
Using a 'nano' as a remote.
Lemon Bon Bon.
You're right- but in his defense- most people think the new iPhone is $200. People are idiots and don't realize or comprehend its subsidized. When I sold my 4S for $380 a couple months back, I had half a dozen people ask "why would anyone pay that, it's only $100 new".
Again- the bottom line is people are idiots. Off contract cheap phone might be ok for people who break their phone. its a terrible idea- the cheap iPhone. For a dozen reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
All three of these seem like terrible ideas compared to the two devices they already sell.
'Terrible' in your opinion. HATE, HATE, HATE...etc.
They have 3 iPod ranges. It democratised music playing at all price points.
There's room for a bit more creativity in the iPhone range. It's very pricey with a contract. They could certainly take out the opposition with a contract less phone.
And to have one nano and one + iPhone?
Some may argue the current iPhone is neither one thing nor the other.
Personally, I think it demolishes the opposition. But it's a pricey piece of kit. And there's many millions of phone buyers Apple aren't reaching.
They don't have to make junk. There's nothing wrong per se with the current strategy except they're selling 'out of date' phones at cheaper prices. The cheaper prices of 4, 4S...not bad.
But to really 'shake things up', I'd go with my idea.
Add a phone antennae to an iPod Touch and you have a very sexy phone. Prices at Touch prices? ish? It would have been an option I would have looked at seriously.
Making the current phone slimmer ala Nano would be good.
But many millions like the bigger screen. So a plus model makes sense to me.
They've handled 3 models before in the Mp3 market with very different but 'common' players that cornered the market.
We'll see what Apple does with the iPhone. Great product.
But it's not reaching everybody. 'Terrible' and 'Hate' don't get those millions of customers who aren't buying because...
The iPhone isn't 'streamlined...' or they 'dont' like the shape...' or 'too pricey...'
Little things? Millions of customers going begging.
I have an iPhone 5(!!!!!) It's awesome.
But it isn't all conquering...yet.
Lemon Bon Bon.
For the record, my Sony Ericson from 4 years back+? Cost me £145. I thought that was expensive for a phone...THEN.
An iPhone 5 with contract is going to cost me £900 over two years. That isn't cheap.
The smart phone market is huge...and I'm an Apple user. But I think they could reach far more people.
*Looks to the recent price hike of the iMac in 2008 and this year and wonders if Apple actually understands we're in a double dip+ recession.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Love his interface 'guesses'. My guess is it'll have a simple Bluetooth Remote. Well, that's my hope.
"I hope. I hope. I hope".
Originally Posted by Andysol
People are idiots and don't realize or comprehend its subsidized. When I sold my 4S for $380 a couple months back, I had half a dozen people ask "why would anyone pay that, it's only $100 new". Again- the bottom line is people are idiots.
I'd say it's definitely more ignorance than idiocy. We often forget that the layman doesn't have the understanding of tech that we do. They see an iPhone as a wondrous device that "just does that stuff" without knowing how it does it or even the means by which it does it. They don't know because they don't need to know, and that extends outward.
Sad, but true, and it's only ignorance.
Originally Posted by Ireland
Love his interface 'guesses'. My guess is it'll have a simple Bluetooth Remote.
I figure IR still. Bluetooth is way too power-hungry, yeah? And what would require Bluetooth over IR?
These guys are turds, and all this is to manipulate the stock. First, Apple provides conservative guidance on what it expects to accomplish, and these knuckle heads get the idea that they need to continuously completely disregard Apple's guidance and double expectations. When Apple sails through its guidance numbers, but falls short of the completely made up fairy tale numbers, Apple gets hammered. I understand Apple's guidance is conservative, but that is what guidance should be. Second, how does a company like Amazon that is way overvalued, makes very little profit, and owes money continuously get rewarded? Apple owes no debt, is growing its business, is buying stock back, and pays a dividend.
With all that said, I think Apple will change the formula and offer more than one update to its products a year. The reality is that Google and Amazon take advantage of Apple's upgrade schedule and both have become better at software and hardware. Currently, Apple's hardware gets long in the tooth for about six months as competitors match and exceed Apple's products (at least in terms of specifications). If Apple wants to keep its lead, it has to be more aggressive. Apple used to update its Macs more frequently. I for one also would like to see Apple have three sizes for its Phones. I doubt that will happen soon, but I expect Apple to release another iPhone before summer. Another reason for that expectation, is Apple is aware that it needs something special every quarter to meet earnings expectations. Now that it updated most of its products at the end of the year, it will need some updates in the interim.
Apple also should consider making two iOS updates as well. A minor feature and/or refinement update, and a more significant update later. The reality is that software defines Apple's products, and Google has been getting pretty good with software. It also releases products much quicker than Apple.
so they are the new Microsoft, well not quite it takes Microsoft > 3OS upgrade cycles to fix its bugs, oh well
Quote:
Originally Posted by jm6032
If I may carry this a bit further, I recall Apple having an aversion to cables. I would expect everything to be in the tv set: Apple TV, tuner/cable, a good sized audio amp including an AV type device, multiple HMDI connections, wifi, and good front speakers (I just don't see a separate sound bar as part of the deal. Put that functionality in the TV and reduce the number of boxes). Couple that with a single UI remote.
You buy one box, it has two things: TV and Remote. If you have external devices (do you really need them?), connect them to HDMI. At that point, you're good to go. If you really want cable, maybe hook it to TV.
I know that if you buy a TV now, you get exacctly that: TV and Remote. But then you bring it home and connect it to an array of other boxes. Throw them out--and their remotes. I have at least five remotes sitting on my living room coffee table now--if we can find them all...
I'm not sure about cable. I have an Apple TV and I'm not sure I really need cable anymore. I can spend, say, $30 a month on purchased content and be ahead of my current cable bill.
If you really want surround sound, I would expect Apple to sell optional rear (wireless) speakers. If you want a sub, an optional (wireless) Apple Sub-Woofer.
Games: expect the TV set to have an enhanced AppleTV that lets you play games from the App Store. Do you really need a console for that?
I just don't see the need for an AV receiver in the vast majority of living rooms that would have an Apple TV.
but if you pack all the Apple wizardry inside a TV plus remote audio system, you have a maxmium cost/price product. and most people already have an HDTV by now, so hardware turnover is slow. so overall sales will be slow. too slow.
wheras soundbars are growing fast in popularity, but stil most don't have one - yet. also less expensive than a TV + sound system. so pack al the wizardly inside a soundbar, and overall sales could take off much faster.
Originally Posted by Curtis Hannah
I believe in the display the same at least till IPhone 7.
To clarify, that's the 10th iPhone, yeah? ????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
To clarify, that's the 10th iPhone, yeah? ????
Although not mentioned in the article, the same analyst is saying the multiple iPhone-6 prototypes are floating around including the one with 4.8" screen and no home button (fully gesture controlled):
http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-6-with-a-big-screen-being-prototyped-says-jefferies-2012-12
TS, you can save your time by not posting how the hardware out is so important
Originally Posted by jason98
Although not mentioned in the article, the same analyst is saying the multiple iPhone-6 prototypes are floating around including the one with 4.8" screen and no home button (fully gesture controlled).
iPhone 6, the 8th iPhone, which is either 1 or 2 years away. I don't buy that there'd be prototypes yet, much less that they'd get rid of the only button needed to use the phone.
Wait a minute. The price target changes from $900 to $800, so people sell the stock now because it's at 530? Does that make any sense? If it goes from 530 to 800, that's a 33.75% return over the period. I'm assuming he meant the target is 2014 - I'll assume the end. That's still at an almost 17% annual gain. What other stock is going to achieve that performance over the next two years?
Originally Posted by zoetmb
Wait a minute. The price target changes from $900 to $800, so people sell the stock now because it's at 530? Does that make any sense? If it goes from 530 to 800, that's a 33.75% return over the period. I'm assuming he meant the target is 2014 - I'll assume the end. That's still at an almost 17% annual gain. What other stock is going to achieve that performance over the next two years?
This is (will be) a failing on Apple's part. If Apple had (will have had) not failed (will failing), the stock target would be (wioll haven being) the same or higher. Since Apple has (will haves hadden) failed, the stock should be (will have used to be) sold now (then).
I love it when I have to reference the works of Dan Streetmentioner to properly explain the logic the idiots on real Wall Street use.