Maybe. But probably not. Apple needs to keep growing.
True enough, but too much of short-term focus in an industry where the dominant player can basically relegate everyone else to also-rans could be extremely short-sighted. Apple, I think, learned this lesson from the Mac vs. Windows battle.
yup. that's why Apple is trying to deal with China's #1 carrier with 600 million subscribers. Once that's done, then it'll deal with the lower end. However, still selling previous year's model seems to be working for Apple.
I live in the what the story refers to as 'developing nations', ie. Bangkok. This place is Samsung central. If this were in any part true (and given the source it seems highly unlikely), this would be a terrible decision. The iPhone should be the best piece of hardware around. And this is coming from a bloke that owns zero Apple products (and about 10 Samsung products!)
I can't see Apple producing a low end phone. I think they're quite happy with the upper end of the market. Then again, the iPad mini could be be viewed as a defensive move for a "cheaper" tablet.
I won't believe it until more credible sources than Gene Munster and Digitimes report it, anyway.
yup. that's why Apple is trying to deal with China's #1 carrier with 600 million subscribers. Once that's done, then it'll deal with the lower end. However, still selling previous year's model seems to be working for Apple.
I agree. I believe that's the approach they'll take. But it doesn't mean they are not actively working on the next 2-3 steps of the overall strategy. Apple seems to a pretty friggin' smart company. I'm fairly confident they have product plans going out 10 years. Granted, those plans will change and be affected by market and technology conditions that develop between now and then. But they are thinking ahead.
-- It hasn't been for a long time. iPod, iPad and iPhone are not exactly "niche" products. Apple is a mass market company.
But Apple only has 20% market share of smartphones worldwide... and only 10% of ALL phones worldwide. That's the niche I was talking about.
Yet Apple is so far from bankruptcy it's not even funny.
Let Samsung sell $100 garbage phones across the globe. Apple is a premium hardware maker.
-- Except that approach almost bankrupt the company at one point. Yes, NOW they'd like to exchange balance sheets...after Apple transformed itself away from being a niche player.
It's silly to compare the Apple of 1996 to the Apple of today. Bad CEOs... bad products... horrible decisions in the 90's.
Yeah... it stings to think about those times... but Apple is nowhere near the same kind of company today.
-- Because that market is probably the future.
And that market will continue to demand cheap phones with almost no profit margin for the manufacturer.
Like I said... Apple's been down this road with the Mac. It ended up that selling fewer premium products is better than selling lots of garbage products.
We're focusing on hardware here. But many people would argue that the Android OS has caught up with iOS as of Jelly Bean. I've seen it - I love Apple, but Android 4.x is the smoothest I've seen of Android so far. Google Now is a decent enough answer to Siri. And in a creepy way, it is even a bit more advanced than Siri.
So while we're talking about hardware, what about OS? If Google/Android win on the OS war, will hardware ultimately matter? Most of us here are probably Apple fans, I am. But I am concerned that the Android OS will outpace iOS in the future, at some point. Really hoping Ive has a few tricks up his sleeve!
Next people will be suggesting Apple will release a smaller format iPad. As if! Anyone who's ever seen a Samsung Galaxy tab would just laugh. 7 inches? ... Puhleeze ... Apple will never go there.
And that's truth and you know it, unless you are stupid.
Your drawing a false dichotomy between where Apple's products are right now and "$100 garbage phones." It needn't play out like that. Apple could find some way to create products that are more affordable without driving to "$100 garbage phones."
Next people will be suggesting Apple will release a smaller format iPad. As if! Anyone who's ever seen a Samsung Galaxy tab would just laugh. 7 inches? ... Puhleeze ... Apple will never go there.
Apple never does cheap. Let the Android crapware lovers have their 7 inch tablets and their synthetic jeans.
Your drawing a false dichotomy between where Apple's products are right now and "$100 garbage phones." It needn't play out like that. Apple could find some way to create products that are more affordable without driving to "$100 garbage phones."
But I'm asking why they need to.
Samsung makes dozens of phones ranging from $100 low-end to $700 high-end.... while Apple makes basically 3 phones from $450 mid-range to $900 high-end high-capacity.
Those are very two different philosophies.
And Apple is more profitable as a result... while Samsung wears the crown of sales numbers and/or market share.
Apple's (and any company's) goal is to maximize profit... not volume. I can't imagine a situation where someone says to Tim Cook "uh boss... we're not selling enough phones..."
It has been said before, but it may be worth repeating, in developing countries a large smartphone may serve two purposes. It is both a phone and a small tablet. Such a large phone and small tablet may have drawbacks where people can afford both devices, however, it is an economical way for a person to, in a sense, have both. Think of it more as an iPad nano with phone capabilities rather than an iPhone.
I hope the rumor for a larger iPhone is true but I certainly do not hope it will be some low end version with a slower CPU and other limitations. I think this rumor is just too jumbled and inaccurate to be credible.
I think around $300 is about the maximum Apple can hope to get in many developing markets if they really want to compete in that space. Can they make a profit off of a $300 iPhone? I don't know. For richer people in those and other countries and for pre-paid I think you could probably put that number around $450.
The only reason Apple might want to even bother is to get them hooked into the whole Apple ecosystem. Those people buying a cheaper $300 iPhone today might buy the more expensive version down the road. Apple probably is also worried that if their global market share drops to the low single digits it would ultimately have some collateral damage here as well.
Apple can continue their statu quo model for a few more years and still reap huge profits. But eventually this model will plateau and the sheer volume of Android users all over the world might be just too big for one company to fight. I don't think a cheaper iPhone would weaken the brand any more than the iPod shuffle did for the iPod line. Since Apple will continue to be the only hardware maker for iOS phones, I think it would be smart of them to cover as many market segments as possible.
Apple sells millions of phones world wide, that's enough for them. They don't need to rule the world. As the wise man said 'Us winning doesn't mean everyone else must lose'. Apple doesn't look at the zero sum game of market share, they look at their profits. And that is doing just fine
But they do have to compete.
The problem with ignoring the entry-level market is that many of those users will one day be more affluent. Sell a teenager a cheap Samsung phone today, improve the OS over their 2 or 3 years of ownership and they are likely to buy another one, especially if they are still poor. By the time they can afford an iPhone, they are fully immersed in the Android ecosystem, with Apple holding little interest for them (especially because they tend to be "cultures" -- got to hand it to Android for taking a page from Guy Kawasaki) ... Until the Next Big Thing comes out.
Steve Jobs knew this. This is why he placed so much emphasis on education. Get the kids, get the future market. Gassee didn't get this, and surprisingly, neither did Sculley. The problem was illuminated for me in the late 90s when a relative was complaining about how awful Macs were. What she was actually complaining about we're the outdated Macs in her school district, and how they couldn't do most of the things the kids parents Windows laptops could do -- new PCs given to the parents by their companies. The parents knew how to use PCs, not Macs, to help their kids, and the perception for the kids was that the PCs were so much more powerful as a platform, yet cost so much less! So schools started buying PCs to replace their aging Macs.
Now translate that to an entire emerging population ... Ignore them and one day the largest markets in the world will not be interested in your product if the competition has given them something they have gotten used to which works more or less as well as yours, if not better in some cases.
Microsoft rests on their laurels, not Apple. Apple reinvents markets -- the Mac in particular, which attempted to gouge the customer during the Gassee years, and it ended badly for the Mac. Then the iPod, followed by the iPhone and then the iPad. TV looks like the next area. I have a hard time imaging what comes after that though. And the mini really didn't introduce anything new, nor did the iPhone 5 -- mainly different sizes of the same idea. The iOS continues its slow incremental improvements over time. So if this is the best Apple can do, while their competitors have more or less caught up and are now introducing features Apple does not have, all for significantly less, then it won't be long before Apple begins losing market share, or profit margins as the less affluent Android users mature and start spending more. (Anybody seen Idiocracy?)
So yeah, they'd better care about servicing all markets, or they'd better start reinventing themselves every three or four years, in which case ideas like the iPad mini alone just aren't going to cut it.
The problem with ignoring the entry-level market is that many of those users will one day be more affluent. Sell a teenager a cheap Samsung phone today, improve the OS over their 2 or 3 years of ownership and they are likely to buy another one, especially if they are still poor.
Why, when iDevices remain the thing that everyone buys in the first world? To affluence from poverty, they'll go the way of the already-rich.
Samsung makes dozens of phones ranging from $100 low-end to $700 high-end.... while Apple makes basically 3 phones from $450 mid-range to $900 high-end high-capacity.
Those are very two different philosophies.
And Apple is more profitable as a result... while Samsung wears the crown of sales numbers and/or market share.
Apple's (and any company's) goal is to maximize profit... not volume. I can't imagine a situation where someone says to Tim Cook "uh boss... we're not selling enough phones..."
I notice AI seems to be steering well clear of mentioning Samsung's latest profit forecast for the Dec. quarter $8.3 Bn - a 90% increase over the same period last year.
Apple and Samsung have different strategies, and they both seem to work.
Quote:
"Investors are a bit concerned that Samsung's momentum may slow in the first half after posting a series of record profits," said Kim Sung-Soo a fund manager at LS Asset Management.
"The smartphone market is unlikely to sustain its strong growth, as advanced markets are nearing saturation," he explained.
If that saturation comment is correct, Apple might well be considering pursuing less saturated markets to sustain growth, which would require a cheaper model. So DigiTimes might be inacurate on the details, but the logic is probably sound.
A cheaper iPhone with a 5 inch display, Snapdragon SoC and probably plastic construction (if it is to be cheaper than a 4 inch iPhone 5) is the way to go, if - Apple wants to completely destroy its premium brand status! DigiTimes are dicks. Mind you, a 5 inch plus high-end iPhone would actually float my boat, I saw a Galaxy-Note 2 recently and was really liking that screen, even though I still think the iPhone 5 is a beautiful piece of kit.
The S3 is heavier with a lower resolution screen than a 5. I'll take the lightweight hi-res product that's faster as well.
If I wanted to carry around a brick I'd move back to 1995. Oh and Apple makes two larger screens: on the iPad 4 and the iPad mini and there's no ridiculously expensive voice contract to lug around either.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Maybe. But probably not. Apple needs to keep growing.
True enough, but too much of short-term focus in an industry where the dominant player can basically relegate everyone else to also-rans could be extremely short-sighted. Apple, I think, learned this lesson from the Mac vs. Windows battle.
yup. that's why Apple is trying to deal with China's #1 carrier with 600 million subscribers. Once that's done, then it'll deal with the lower end. However, still selling previous year's model seems to be working for Apple.
I can't see Apple producing a low end phone. I think they're quite happy with the upper end of the market. Then again, the iPad mini could be be viewed as a defensive move for a "cheaper" tablet.
I won't believe it until more credible sources than Gene Munster and Digitimes report it, anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The source of the rumor is the much-maligned DigiTimes,
I've stop reading there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
yup. that's why Apple is trying to deal with China's #1 carrier with 600 million subscribers. Once that's done, then it'll deal with the lower end. However, still selling previous year's model seems to be working for Apple.
I agree. I believe that's the approach they'll take. But it doesn't mean they are not actively working on the next 2-3 steps of the overall strategy. Apple seems to a pretty friggin' smart company. I'm fairly confident they have product plans going out 10 years. Granted, those plans will change and be affected by market and technology conditions that develop between now and then. But they are thinking ahead.
Question, though:
We're focusing on hardware here. But many people would argue that the Android OS has caught up with iOS as of Jelly Bean. I've seen it - I love Apple, but Android 4.x is the smoothest I've seen of Android so far. Google Now is a decent enough answer to Siri. And in a creepy way, it is even a bit more advanced than Siri.
So while we're talking about hardware, what about OS? If Google/Android win on the OS war, will hardware ultimately matter? Most of us here are probably Apple fans, I am. But I am concerned that the Android OS will outpace iOS in the future, at some point. Really hoping Ive has a few tricks up his sleeve!
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui
What a joke.
Next people will be suggesting Apple will release a smaller format iPad. As if! Anyone who's ever seen a Samsung Galaxy tab would just laugh. 7 inches? ... Puhleeze ... Apple will never go there.
And that's truth and you know it, unless you are stupid.
the iPad has 35% more real estate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
Your drawing a false dichotomy between where Apple's products are right now and "$100 garbage phones." It needn't play out like that. Apple could find some way to create products that are more affordable without driving to "$100 garbage phones."
Apple never does cheap. Let the Android crapware lovers have their 7 inch tablets and their synthetic jeans.
But I'm asking why they need to.
Samsung makes dozens of phones ranging from $100 low-end to $700 high-end.... while Apple makes basically 3 phones from $450 mid-range to $900 high-end high-capacity.
Those are very two different philosophies.
And Apple is more profitable as a result... while Samsung wears the crown of sales numbers and/or market share.
Apple's (and any company's) goal is to maximize profit... not volume. I can't imagine a situation where someone says to Tim Cook "uh boss... we're not selling enough phones..."
I hope the rumor for a larger iPhone is true but I certainly do not hope it will be some low end version with a slower CPU and other limitations. I think this rumor is just too jumbled and inaccurate to be credible.
I think around $300 is about the maximum Apple can hope to get in many developing markets if they really want to compete in that space. Can they make a profit off of a $300 iPhone? I don't know. For richer people in those and other countries and for pre-paid I think you could probably put that number around $450.
The only reason Apple might want to even bother is to get them hooked into the whole Apple ecosystem. Those people buying a cheaper $300 iPhone today might buy the more expensive version down the road. Apple probably is also worried that if their global market share drops to the low single digits it would ultimately have some collateral damage here as well.
Apple can continue their statu quo model for a few more years and still reap huge profits. But eventually this model will plateau and the sheer volume of Android users all over the world might be just too big for one company to fight. I don't think a cheaper iPhone would weaken the brand any more than the iPod shuffle did for the iPod line. Since Apple will continue to be the only hardware maker for iOS phones, I think it would be smart of them to cover as many market segments as possible.
The problem with ignoring the entry-level market is that many of those users will one day be more affluent. Sell a teenager a cheap Samsung phone today, improve the OS over their 2 or 3 years of ownership and they are likely to buy another one, especially if they are still poor. By the time they can afford an iPhone, they are fully immersed in the Android ecosystem, with Apple holding little interest for them (especially because they tend to be "cultures" -- got to hand it to Android for taking a page from Guy Kawasaki) ... Until the Next Big Thing comes out.
Steve Jobs knew this. This is why he placed so much emphasis on education. Get the kids, get the future market. Gassee didn't get this, and surprisingly, neither did Sculley. The problem was illuminated for me in the late 90s when a relative was complaining about how awful Macs were. What she was actually complaining about we're the outdated Macs in her school district, and how they couldn't do most of the things the kids parents Windows laptops could do -- new PCs given to the parents by their companies. The parents knew how to use PCs, not Macs, to help their kids, and the perception for the kids was that the PCs were so much more powerful as a platform, yet cost so much less! So schools started buying PCs to replace their aging Macs.
Now translate that to an entire emerging population ... Ignore them and one day the largest markets in the world will not be interested in your product if the competition has given them something they have gotten used to which works more or less as well as yours, if not better in some cases.
Microsoft rests on their laurels, not Apple. Apple reinvents markets -- the Mac in particular, which attempted to gouge the customer during the Gassee years, and it ended badly for the Mac. Then the iPod, followed by the iPhone and then the iPad. TV looks like the next area. I have a hard time imaging what comes after that though. And the mini really didn't introduce anything new, nor did the iPhone 5 -- mainly different sizes of the same idea. The iOS continues its slow incremental improvements over time. So if this is the best Apple can do, while their competitors have more or less caught up and are now introducing features Apple does not have, all for significantly less, then it won't be long before Apple begins losing market share, or profit margins as the less affluent Android users mature and start spending more. (Anybody seen Idiocracy?)
So yeah, they'd better care about servicing all markets, or they'd better start reinventing themselves every three or four years, in which case ideas like the iPad mini alone just aren't going to cut it.
Does that mean it'll have to be slower and heavier?
There are trade offs.
Originally Posted by Mac_128
The problem with ignoring the entry-level market is that many of those users will one day be more affluent. Sell a teenager a cheap Samsung phone today, improve the OS over their 2 or 3 years of ownership and they are likely to buy another one, especially if they are still poor.
Why, when iDevices remain the thing that everyone buys in the first world? To affluence from poverty, they'll go the way of the already-rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
But I'm asking why they need to.
Samsung makes dozens of phones ranging from $100 low-end to $700 high-end.... while Apple makes basically 3 phones from $450 mid-range to $900 high-end high-capacity.
Those are very two different philosophies.
And Apple is more profitable as a result... while Samsung wears the crown of sales numbers and/or market share.
Apple's (and any company's) goal is to maximize profit... not volume. I can't imagine a situation where someone says to Tim Cook "uh boss... we're not selling enough phones..."
I notice AI seems to be steering well clear of mentioning Samsung's latest profit forecast for the Dec. quarter $8.3 Bn - a 90% increase over the same period last year.
Apple and Samsung have different strategies, and they both seem to work.
Quote:
"Investors are a bit concerned that Samsung's momentum may slow in the first half after posting a series of record profits," said Kim Sung-Soo a fund manager at LS Asset Management.
"The smartphone market is unlikely to sustain its strong growth, as advanced markets are nearing saturation," he explained.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-20942231
If that saturation comment is correct, Apple might well be considering pursuing less saturated markets to sustain growth, which would require a cheaper model. So DigiTimes might be inacurate on the details, but the logic is probably sound.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
And that's truth and you know it, unless you are stupid.
the iPad has 35% more real estate.
So Pedro, you're saying the iPad mini at 7.9" will be a commercial failure then?
If I wanted to carry around a brick I'd move back to 1995. Oh and Apple makes two larger screens: on the iPad 4 and the iPad mini and there's no ridiculously expensive voice contract to lug around either.