Not sure how cheap one needs to get. FREE with contract is quit cheap. Now if Apple wants to go with contract free phones, then what will the trade off be? iPhone 6 will see the iPhone 4 price at FREE with no contract and no camera/GPS?
I can see a no camera/GPS/contract "FREE" phone for $99ish when Tim smacks himself on the forehead and says "We forgot about the lowest end market! We need to provide a cheaper user experience that will reduce profit and increase support costs."
Until that day how about acknowledge that Apple is a high end product sold at a premium price.
¿Que? If it has a contract and a retail vale of $450 it's not free. There will be no free phone that is also contract free by removing the camera and GPS.
Most of the world's markets don't deal with subsidized phones which makes the initial investment much harder to swallow. Imagine how many people would be driving 25k, 50k, or more automobiles if they had to pay that up front at time of purchase. The subsidy acts like a payment plan I guarantee a fewer Americans would be buying an iPhone if they had to pay $450 to $850 out of pocket at time of purchase.
These are just a couple of examples of what Apple has to compete with for sales (assuming they want to). Plus the ease of cheaply adding more storage.
Ah yes, once again the "spec" argument. I see you don't mention which version of Android these phones come with or the ecosystem they are supported with, just the specs like that means everything. And I make the assumption that Apple does not want to "compete" in this market. Why should they when there's no money in it?
What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this. Who knows is they are actually going to do this to remain relevant in emerging markets.
kDarling showed the video of the SIII mini and while some of you may look down your nose at it, it a great smartphone and costs 1/4 of what an iPhone does and it adds to your arugment SolipsismX. Stuff that was great 2-3 years ago may now be 'boring' to people like us who spend time on forums dedicated to Smartphones but it's pretty darn amazing to people who have never had one and I know a lot of people who like to test the water at $150 before jumping in with $600.
If Apple doesn't come out with a more affordable phone, they will still be fine. They will always have their fans who will buy their products no matter if it's better or not. It's Apple and that is all that matters. They are not going to go away anytime soon so I don't think there are any worries except for the shareholders who don't like the price being tweaked by certain individuals.
1) That is a legitimate concern for investors since diluting a product's name can have longterm devastating affects, but that is something I think Apple is well aware of in how careful they have been to expand their product line. That said, I don't think it's a legitimate complaint for those whose only concern is how others will view their status symbol.
One solution is to give it a new name. This has worked well with the iPod line. I think my iPod Shuffle is great quality yet it's a low-priced and low-feature iPod. I still use mine for swimming. I think they've shown that the iPad mini has also shown they can make a cheaper and smaller iPad that uses year-old tech (also found in the iPod Touch) without sacrificing perceived quality and increasing their revenue, profits and market saturation.
I think they could do it with a cheaper iPhone although I wonder if they will since the older iPhone seem to fit that niche. I don't agree that a larger iPhone would somehow be a cheaper iPhone. They could go that route but I think making the components on par with the current iPhone would make more sense.
3) If Kdarling's argument was that it's still a great device for an uptapped market then I misread his reply to jargosta. My apologies to all.
¿Que? If it has a contract and a retail vale of $450 it's not free. There will be no free phone that is also contract free by removing the camera and GPS.
Most of the world's markets don't deal with subsidized phones which makes the initial investment much harder to swallow. Imagine how many people would be driving 25k, 50k, or more automobiles if they had to pay that up front at time of purchase. The subsidy acts like a payment plan I guarantee a fewer Americans would be buying an iPhone if they had to pay $450 to $850 out of pocket at time of purchase.
Not true. I paid what, $400 for my original iPhone with a 2-year contract.
I don't think Apple is concerned about cheap phones as they don't care about cheap computers, tables, music players, etc. They are a premium hardware/software company. Always has been, and I hope, always will be. I don't want someone walking around with a "free" phone that looks like my $400 phone no more than anyone buying a premium product wants to see knock-offs.
C'mon, iPhone 4s users were upset that their new fancy Siri phone looked like the 4 and this joker wants Apple to release a free phone. What's next, a Ferrari California for under $50,000?
What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this.
Oh, that is why they are the biggest company in the world with billions in cash, because they NEED to be like everyone else? I think they NEED to be who they are and others NEED to stop trying to make Apple a Microsoft or Samsung.
Stock was down nearly $9 today when most of the market was up so clearly not all of Wall Street is on board with a cheaper iPhone. It seems Wall Street doesn't know what it wants with Apple. I'm personally meh on this whole idea. And the way the WSJ reported it certainly didn't sound exciting. Hopefully Apple has Gmore up its sleeve than a cheaper plastic iPhone.
What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this. Who knows is they are actually going to do this to remain relevant in emerging markets.
Uh huh.
So you know more about running a computer company than Apple does. Their performance has been far beyond any major company for the past decade. They have the highest market cap of any public company in the world. The are among the most profitable companies in the world. They are being widely copied by most of their competitors.
But they should throw away all of their advantages and go for a "we'll sell crap if we have to in order to get the price low enough to gain market share" strategy that you espouse.
Explain again what your credentials are that make you more knowledgable about what Apple NEEDS to do than Apple's management team, please.
Like I said yesterday the stock will tank today because of this horrible idea. Definitely throwing Apple's brand and name alongside the trash bin with Android. Apple loyalists whove been paying preimuims for years will jump ship in a heart beat.
And to make things worse, Apple's joke of a PR continues to let these rumors, dummy analysts, and smear sites go on with their rumor and fear mongering ignoring the pleas from investors and supporters to do something, say something to put an end or at least reduce the amount of daily crap and smear fest going on.
Instead they prefer to do nothing absolutely nothing at all while their investors, supporters, fans are taking hits daily with Apple's stock and brand name rapidly descening into the gutter faster than you can say, 'what innovation'?
Not sure how cheap one needs to get. FREE with contract is quit cheap. Now if Apple wants to go with contract free phones, then what will the trade off be? iPhone 6 will see the iPhone 4 price at FREE with no contract and no camera/GPS?
"Free with contract" isn't really that cheap. For example, I was spending about $90 per month on AT&T - or about $2160 over 2 years. Even if I chose the 'free' phone, that's a lot of cash. AND, I'd be using an old iPhone 4.
By comparison, I am now spending $45 per month ($1080 over 2 years) on Straight Talk - which uses the same network. Even if I bought a used 4S for $300 or a new Android phone for the same amount, it would be $800 less than the "quite cheap" 2 year contract with "free" phone.
Now, I'm not saying Apple has to produce a $200 phone as I believe it would be a mistake to dilute their brand with a product that entail that many sacrifices. But I can easily see how someone could see the "free" iPhone 4 as not being "quite cheap".
Not true. I paid what, $400 for my original iPhone with a 2-year contract.
I don't think Apple is concerned about cheap phones as they don't care about cheap computers, tables, music players, etc. They are a premium hardware/software company. Always has been, and I hope, always will be. I don't want someone walking around with a "free" phone that looks like my $400 phone no more than anyone buying a premium product wants to see knock-offs.
C'mon, iPhone 4s users were upset that their new fancy Siri phone looked like the 4 and this joker wants Apple to release a free phone. What's next, a Ferrari California for under $50,000?
1) They stopped the profit sharing experiment in less than a year.
2) Paying $400 and having a 2 year contract is not FREE.
Like I said yesterday the stock will tank today because of this horrible idea. Definitely throwing Apple's brand and name alongside the trash bin with Android. Apple loyalists whove been paying preimuims for years will jump ship in a heart beat.
And to make things worse, Apple's joke of a PR continues to let these rumors, dummy analysts, and smear sites go on with their rumor and fear mongering ignoring the pleas from investors and supporters to do something, say something to put an end or at least reduce the amount of daily crap and smear fest going on.
Instead they prefer to do nothing absolutely nothing at all while their investors, supporters, fans are taking hits daily with Apple's stock and brand name rapidly descening into the gutter faster than you can say, 'what innovation'?
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
I expect the same to be true if the iPhone Mini
Someone who gets it.
This is the same discussion that went on when it looked like a new more affordable iPad was going to come out. Do you hystericals have no memory or ability to reason?
If Apple makes a cheaper phone it will be like the mini, a work of art. Think! Stop wringing your hands!
They will always have their fans who will buy their products no matter if it's better or not. It's Apple and that is all that matters. They are not going to go away anytime soon so I don't think there are any worries except for the shareholders who don't like the price being tweaked by certain individuals.
This sounds like history repeating itself.
I'm sure this is exactly what Gassee and Sculley thought when the Mac was riding high around about 1988.
Apple needs to compete. It can't simply charge a premium and sell only to the wealthy or those willing to sacrifice for the product. They are competing against ever improving Android products. Once Apple loses a new customer to Android, in the coming years it's going to be awfully hard to get them back once that person is invested in the Google ecosystem.
Slick hardware alone is not going to be enough to draw customers back once the OS begins to equalize. Google can build high quality products as well if need be. And it is is erosion Apple needs to be concerned about. At the end of the day, it's going to be about content, and where the customer is invested.
Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.
This sounds like history repeating itself.
I'm sure this is exactly what Gassee and Sculley thought when the Mac was riding high around about 1988.
Apple needs to compete. It can't simply charge a premium and sell only to the wealthy or those willing to sacrifice for the product. They are competing against ever improving Android products. Once Apple loses a new customer to Android, in the coming years it's going to be awfully hard to get them back once that person is invested in the Google ecosystem.
Slick hardware alone is not going to be enough to draw customers back once the OS begins to equalize. Google can build high quality products as well if need be. And it is is erosion Apple needs to be concerned about. At the end of the day, it's going to be about content, and where the customer is invested.
Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.
Yeah. That's why Apple has done so poorly over the past decade. And why their sales keep declining like they were under Sculley. /s
The rumor (and I am not saying I necessarily believe it) is about creating a lower-cost model. If they build an iPhone out of cheaper materials (say plastic), drop Gorilla glass for plastic or cheaper glass, use a standard iso retina resolution, use previous, or even older, generation chipsets, reduce storage capacity and drop 4G (which is not available in many of these markets anyhow) and end up with a device costing clearly less than $100 to make, they could well retain their margins without alienating anyone.
Like I said yesterday the stock will tank today because of this horrible idea. Definitely throwing Apple's brand and name alongside the trash bin with Android. Apple loyalists whove been paying preimuims for years will jump ship in a heart beat.
And to make things worse, Apple's joke of a PR continues to let these rumors, dummy analysts, and smear sites go on with their rumor and fear mongering ignoring the pleas from investors and supporters to do something, say something to put an end or at least reduce the amount of daily crap and smear fest going on.
Instead they prefer to do nothing absolutely nothing at all while their investors, supporters, fans are taking hits daily with Apple's stock and brand name rapidly descening into the gutter faster than you can say, 'what innovation'?
This company has become a joke!
How exactly does Apple put a stop to this other than becoming like other companies and announcing their product roadmap well in advance?
I'm sure this is exactly what Gassee and Sculley thought when the Mac was riding high around about 1988.
Apple needs to compete. It can't simply charge a premium and sell only to the wealthy or those willing to sacrifice for the product. They are competing against ever improving Android products. Once Apple loses a new customer to Android, in the coming years it's going to be awfully hard to get them back once that person is invested in the Google ecosystem.
Slick hardware alone is not going to be enough to draw customers back once the OS begins to equalize. Google can build high quality products as well if need be. And it is is erosion Apple needs to be concerned about. At the end of the day, it's going to be about content, and where the customer is invested.
Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.
This won't be like the Ipad case at all. Ipad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version intended for the low end segment and has at least a couple useful and quality advantages over the ipad. Plus, the tablet market is far from saturated unlike the smartphone market.
What's a cheaper/lower cost iphone going to accomplish other than a desperate, late attempt at cash grabbing from the low end segment? You do realize a lot of appleholics buy their products because of the supposed brand and image, and this does what to bolster this image? We got enough cheap Android phones competing and threatening the newest IP and you think its a good idea for Apple to join in and do the same, but to itself?
Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.
Wow, they sell the # cell phone on the planet. How is Android eroding the iphone?
This won't be like the Ipad case at all. Ipad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version intended for the low end segment and has at least a couple useful and quality advantages over the ipad. Plus, the tablet market is far from saturated unlike the smartphone market.
What's a cheaper/lower cost iphone going to accomplish other than a desperate, late attempt at cash grabbing from the low end segment? You do realize a lot of appleholics buy their products because of the supposed brand and image, and this does what to bolster this image? We got enough cheap Android phones competing and threatening the newest IP and you think its a good idea for Apple to join in and do the same, but to itself?
If I'm hysterical you are dellusional.
I think you meant to quote me, because I'm the one seeing hysteria where ther should be reason based on Apple's history. You are underestimating how they work.
They don't have it in them to make anything shabby enough to tarnish their reputation for making the finest out there. Look at something as humble as the 4th gen nano: video camera, one hour recording time, FM radio, slick little aluminum and glass package, 200 bucks.
Picture something between the new $300 iPod touch, which is gorgeous, and the iPad mini, which is even moreso, $329, with phone capability. That's all they need to do. It doesn't need a Retina screen. With their supply chain dominance, they can make a desireable mini iPad/miniphone for under $400, betcha. Call me delusional if you want, but every time a new device is rumored like this, you guys start predicting that Apple has lost it before you even see what they come up with.
Comments
¿Que? If it has a contract and a retail vale of $450 it's not free. There will be no free phone that is also contract free by removing the camera and GPS.
Most of the world's markets don't deal with subsidized phones which makes the initial investment much harder to swallow. Imagine how many people would be driving 25k, 50k, or more automobiles if they had to pay that up front at time of purchase. The subsidy acts like a payment plan I guarantee a fewer Americans would be buying an iPhone if they had to pay $450 to $850 out of pocket at time of purchase.
These are just a couple of examples of what Apple has to compete with for sales (assuming they want to). Plus the ease of cheaply adding more storage.
Ah yes, once again the "spec" argument. I see you don't mention which version of Android these phones come with or the ecosystem they are supported with, just the specs like that means everything. And I make the assumption that Apple does not want to "compete" in this market. Why should they when there's no money in it?
1) That is a legitimate concern for investors since diluting a product's name can have longterm devastating affects, but that is something I think Apple is well aware of in how careful they have been to expand their product line. That said, I don't think it's a legitimate complaint for those whose only concern is how others will view their status symbol.
One solution is to give it a new name. This has worked well with the iPod line. I think my iPod Shuffle is great quality yet it's a low-priced and low-feature iPod. I still use mine for swimming. I think they've shown that the iPad mini has also shown they can make a cheaper and smaller iPad that uses year-old tech (also found in the iPod Touch) without sacrificing perceived quality and increasing their revenue, profits and market saturation.
I think they could do it with a cheaper iPhone although I wonder if they will since the older iPhone seem to fit that niche. I don't agree that a larger iPhone would somehow be a cheaper iPhone. They could go that route but I think making the components on par with the current iPhone would make more sense.
3) If Kdarling's argument was that it's still a great device for an uptapped market then I misread his reply to jargosta. My apologies to all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
¿Que? If it has a contract and a retail vale of $450 it's not free. There will be no free phone that is also contract free by removing the camera and GPS.
Most of the world's markets don't deal with subsidized phones which makes the initial investment much harder to swallow. Imagine how many people would be driving 25k, 50k, or more automobiles if they had to pay that up front at time of purchase. The subsidy acts like a payment plan I guarantee a fewer Americans would be buying an iPhone if they had to pay $450 to $850 out of pocket at time of purchase.
Not true. I paid what, $400 for my original iPhone with a 2-year contract.
I don't think Apple is concerned about cheap phones as they don't care about cheap computers, tables, music players, etc. They are a premium hardware/software company. Always has been, and I hope, always will be. I don't want someone walking around with a "free" phone that looks like my $400 phone no more than anyone buying a premium product wants to see knock-offs.
C'mon, iPhone 4s users were upset that their new fancy Siri phone looked like the 4 and this joker wants Apple to release a free phone. What's next, a Ferrari California for under $50,000?
Quote:
Originally Posted by zippy2shoes
What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this.
Oh, that is why they are the biggest company in the world with billions in cash, because they NEED to be like everyone else? I think they NEED to be who they are and others NEED to stop trying to make Apple a Microsoft or Samsung.
Uh huh.
So you know more about running a computer company than Apple does. Their performance has been far beyond any major company for the past decade. They have the highest market cap of any public company in the world. The are among the most profitable companies in the world. They are being widely copied by most of their competitors.
But they should throw away all of their advantages and go for a "we'll sell crap if we have to in order to get the price low enough to gain market share" strategy that you espouse.
Explain again what your credentials are that make you more knowledgable about what Apple NEEDS to do than Apple's management team, please.
Like I said yesterday the stock will tank today because of this horrible idea. Definitely throwing Apple's brand and name alongside the trash bin with Android. Apple loyalists whove been paying preimuims for years will jump ship in a heart beat.
And to make things worse, Apple's joke of a PR continues to let these rumors, dummy analysts, and smear sites go on with their rumor and fear mongering ignoring the pleas from investors and supporters to do something, say something to put an end or at least reduce the amount of daily crap and smear fest going on.
Instead they prefer to do nothing absolutely nothing at all while their investors, supporters, fans are taking hits daily with Apple's stock and brand name rapidly descening into the gutter faster than you can say, 'what innovation'?
This company has become a joke!
"Free with contract" isn't really that cheap. For example, I was spending about $90 per month on AT&T - or about $2160 over 2 years. Even if I chose the 'free' phone, that's a lot of cash. AND, I'd be using an old iPhone 4.
By comparison, I am now spending $45 per month ($1080 over 2 years) on Straight Talk - which uses the same network. Even if I bought a used 4S for $300 or a new Android phone for the same amount, it would be $800 less than the "quite cheap" 2 year contract with "free" phone.
Now, I'm not saying Apple has to produce a $200 phone as I believe it would be a mistake to dilute their brand with a product that entail that many sacrifices. But I can easily see how someone could see the "free" iPhone 4 as not being "quite cheap".
1) They stopped the profit sharing experiment in less than a year.
2) Paying $400 and having a 2 year contract is not FREE.
More hysterics. On the other hand:
Someone who gets it.
This is the same discussion that went on when it looked like a new more affordable iPad was going to come out. Do you hystericals have no memory or ability to reason?
If Apple makes a cheaper phone it will be like the mini, a work of art. Think! Stop wringing your hands!
I'm sure this is exactly what Gassee and Sculley thought when the Mac was riding high around about 1988.
Apple needs to compete. It can't simply charge a premium and sell only to the wealthy or those willing to sacrifice for the product. They are competing against ever improving Android products. Once Apple loses a new customer to Android, in the coming years it's going to be awfully hard to get them back once that person is invested in the Google ecosystem.
Slick hardware alone is not going to be enough to draw customers back once the OS begins to equalize. Google can build high quality products as well if need be. And it is is erosion Apple needs to be concerned about. At the end of the day, it's going to be about content, and where the customer is invested.
Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.
Yeah. That's why Apple has done so poorly over the past decade. And why their sales keep declining like they were under Sculley. /s
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
The rumor (and I am not saying I necessarily believe it) is about creating a lower-cost model. If they build an iPhone out of cheaper materials (say plastic), drop Gorilla glass for plastic or cheaper glass, use a standard iso retina resolution, use previous, or even older, generation chipsets, reduce storage capacity and drop 4G (which is not available in many of these markets anyhow) and end up with a device costing clearly less than $100 to make, they could well retain their margins without alienating anyone.
Except the people buying the phones.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
How exactly does Apple put a stop to this other than becoming like other companies and announcing their product roadmap well in advance?
They don't have to do that; just don't make products based on what people on forums want. People don't have a clue what they actually want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
This sounds like history repeating itself.
I'm sure this is exactly what Gassee and Sculley thought when the Mac was riding high around about 1988.
Apple needs to compete. It can't simply charge a premium and sell only to the wealthy or those willing to sacrifice for the product. They are competing against ever improving Android products. Once Apple loses a new customer to Android, in the coming years it's going to be awfully hard to get them back once that person is invested in the Google ecosystem.
Slick hardware alone is not going to be enough to draw customers back once the OS begins to equalize. Google can build high quality products as well if need be. And it is is erosion Apple needs to be concerned about. At the end of the day, it's going to be about content, and where the customer is invested.
Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.
This won't be like the Ipad case at all. Ipad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version intended for the low end segment and has at least a couple useful and quality advantages over the ipad. Plus, the tablet market is far from saturated unlike the smartphone market.
What's a cheaper/lower cost iphone going to accomplish other than a desperate, late attempt at cash grabbing from the low end segment? You do realize a lot of appleholics buy their products because of the supposed brand and image, and this does what to bolster this image? We got enough cheap Android phones competing and threatening the newest IP and you think its a good idea for Apple to join in and do the same, but to itself?
If I'm hysterical you are dellusional.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Does Apple NEED to build a cheap product? No. But they do need to address the erosion and should offer a competitive product. Just as the iPad mini competes directly with the Android tablets, yet still commands a premium, so too could an iPhone mini.
Wow, they sell the # cell phone on the planet. How is Android eroding the iphone?
I think you meant to quote me, because I'm the one seeing hysteria where ther should be reason based on Apple's history. You are underestimating how they work.
They don't have it in them to make anything shabby enough to tarnish their reputation for making the finest out there. Look at something as humble as the 4th gen nano: video camera, one hour recording time, FM radio, slick little aluminum and glass package, 200 bucks.
Picture something between the new $300 iPod touch, which is gorgeous, and the iPad mini, which is even moreso, $329, with phone capability. That's all they need to do. It doesn't need a Retina screen. With their supply chain dominance, they can make a desireable mini iPad/miniphone for under $400, betcha. Call me delusional if you want, but every time a new device is rumored like this, you guys start predicting that Apple has lost it before you even see what they come up with.