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.
Yeah, I don't know why this is such a hard concept. It won't be a cheap product. In fact, I would bet they will use the smaller 3.5" screen on the 4/S to distinguish it from the top of the line 5, and thanks to the supply chain dominance, I don't think they will even have to drop retina from it. They essentially have that market cornered.
Anybody who says the iPad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version of the iPad intended for a low end segment, is deluding themselves. It has opened up a whole new market for the iPad which was previously out of reach for a low end segment interested in buying one. And one of the biggest criticisms was the lack of Retina display. That alone, when Apple is expanding the use of Retina displays across its entire product line, is proof positive that the iPad mini is a lower quality than any other new product Apple is producing. The fact that the iPad mini has uses more appropriate than the iPad is beside the point. The 6th generation iPod Nano was turned into a watch, but that's not what Apple designed it to do -- it was intended to get the low end segment of music users into the iTunes fold. Likewise so is the current marketing of iPhone 4/4S, but that only works in the US, where the phones are subsidized. Apple's already courting the low end segment in the US, so why wouldn't they look for a way to do that outside the US?
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.
Exactly.
But the clueless analyst don't help because they always conclude Apple needs to price match their competition. Analyst have been saying that about Apple for decades.
In the Mac market before the Mac Mini launched analysts were buzzing with rumors and predictions of a low cost Mac to compete with the bottom of the barrel PCs. Apple responded with a $500 machine that didn't come "bundled" with anything.
Last year, analyst said Apple MUST compete with the Kindle/Nexus at the $200 price point. Apple instead made their best effort and price it $130 higher.
We're seeing the same with this new low cost phone and people here are worried the analyst are right and Apple will actually make a $99 phone.
Well, the analyst have NEVER BEEN RIGHT. Plain and simple.
When the low cost iPhone comes it'll still be over $300, and of the highest quality. Apple doesn't care if their price is 3x higher than the competition. Their gonna do a "low cost" iPhone right.
I wonder if Apple would consider creating a different brand name for their budget phone. I'm thinking of something like the way a budget Gibson is called an Epiphone. (woohoo, I just noticed Epiphone has iphone in it )
I realize that the creators of whatever this is put zero thought whatsoever into the design beyond "it's a pear", but this not only looks like it would be quite ergonomic in a left hand, but also seems to directly cover the range of movement of a left (hitchhiker's) thumb that isn't stretching in any way…
What could be worrying the Wall Street crowd is the WSJ rumor made it sound like Apple was going to make a cheap plastic phone. Now we don't know if they got that from whoever their source is or if they're just making their own conclusion that a cheaper iPhone would have to be plastic. Not sure why they would draw that conclusion though. The iPad mini isn't plastic. How many current products from Apple are plastic? I can only think of 2 - ATV and their wi-fi base stations. I think the mini is a great reminder that Apple isn't interested in cheap design. Can't see why a less expensive iPhone would be any different.
Because capitalism is also about growing. In first world countries, there is not much growing potential left. So you have to expand into emerging markets even if there is not much money in it. Little money is still money.
I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make:
1. Apple doesn't want market share.
2. Customers don't want basic products.
Well...
1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share.
2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.
"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".
People on welfare think paying a $1 co-pay is too much also, so I guess it is what you consider being a great price as nothing is truly free, right. Everything always cost someone something. My point was for a not out of pocket purchase there is a Free iPhone. But yes, if people actually want to use that phone, they need a phone plan. Plans for iPhone have data charges built in, are are in fact more expensive than other plans.
But we were talking about a free phone, not a free plan, correct? Or when you say phone, you actually mean total yearly cost? So we need electric, accessories included in this overall price, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) They stopped the profit sharing experiment in less than a year.
2) Paying $400 and having a 2 year contract is not FREE.
I don't recall saying $400 is FREE. I said I paid something like $400 for my first iPhone so people have and will pay that amount for something of that value.
I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make:
1. Apple doesn't want market share.
2. Customers don't want basic products.
Well...
1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share.
2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.
If this was the first time Apple ever made a mini product, then I might agree, but Apple has made many smaller versions of originals as part of a product lifecycle. iPod has several sizes. Macbook Air was not to grab market share. Dare I say the Mac mini And now you will have different sizes of the iPhone and iPad.
Nothing new or different here. Apple does not release a shotgun approach of products, but one really solid product, evaluates the market continually, and releases more products to match. It is not grabbing market share, but rather, filling in the product family.
I think many people contrary to real events, thinks Apple needs to care about market share. How much money do they have in the bank again?
Because capitalism is also about growing. In first world countries, there is not much growing potential left. So you have to expand into emerging markets even if there is not much money in it. Little money is still money.
Again, why? Do they not have enough money? Have they stopped inventing new things for us to buy? Is demand for their product so low that people stop standing in lines just to get the latest from Apple?
Why does Apple need to be this sell to the masses company like so many that sell junk just to sell it.
Let's get over to the Ferrari message board and inform them they NEED to sell a $50,000 California so more people can afford it.
Yeah, I don't know why this is such a hard concept. It won't be a cheap product. In fact, I would bet they will use the smaller 3.5" screen on the 4/S to distinguish it from the top of the line 5, and thanks to the supply chain dominance, I don't think they will even have to drop retina from it. They essentially have that market cornered.
Anybody who says the iPad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version of the iPad intended for a low end segment, is deluding themselves. It has opened up a whole new market for the iPad which was previously out of reach for a low end segment interested in buying one. And one of the biggest criticisms was the lack of Retina display. That alone, when Apple is expanding the use of Retina displays across its entire product line, is proof positive that the iPad mini is a lower quality than any other new product Apple is producing. The fact that the iPad mini has uses more appropriate than the iPad is beside the point. The 6th generation iPod Nano was turned into a watch, but that's not what Apple designed it to do -- it was intended to get the low end segment of music users into the iTunes fold. Likewise so is the current marketing of iPhone 4/4S, but that only works in the US, where the phones are subsidized. Apple's already courting the low end segment in the US, so why wouldn't they look for a way to do that outside the US?
You don't understand product life cycles. Releasing a smaller version of something does not equate to a cheaper version to grab mass market share. The iPod line as you mention is proof of a solid product life cycle where Apple, in the use of the parent product, finds other uses for child products to fill in the product family.
With the iPad, you have the showcase product, which is the new iPad with retina, and then two offerings without retina; iPad 2 and iPad mini. Next iteration of the iPad 2 and the mini will both go retina, while the new iPad will have all the new technology.
Simply filling in the product family without cannibalizing.
You don't understand product life cycles. ...
Next iteration of the iPad 2 and the mini will both go retina, while the new iPad will have all the new technology. Simply filling in the product family without cannibalizing.
I don't understand product life cycles?
There will be no iPad 2 when the next iPad is released, much less an iPad 2 with retina display!
Seriously, what NEW technology will the top of the line iPad have to differentiate it? A faster CPU? The retina display is the only other thing that distinguishes them now!
Again, why? Do they not have enough money? Have they stopped inventing new things for us to buy? Is demand for their product so low that people stop standing in lines just to get the latest from Apple?
Why does Apple need to be this sell to the masses company like so many that sell junk just to sell it.
Let's get over to the Ferrari message board and inform them they NEED to sell a $50,000 California so more people can afford it.
The Ferrari comparison is invalid. Or do you see the majority of western people driving around in a Ferrari?
Apple IS a sell to the masses company. They became one with the iPod/iPhone.
But yes, they would have enough money, but that's not the way (capitalistic) economy works. Sadly.
They want more (Shareholders, Analysts and shit), they always want more.
I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make:
1. Apple doesn't want market share.
2. Customers don't want basic products.
Well...
1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share.
2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.
If Apple really wanted market share, the iPad mini would be $200. Apple's goal is to make money. It saw a gap in its product line and decided to create a product that filled the gap and make a healthy profit.
If Apple really wanted market share, the iPad mini would be $200. Apple's goal is to make money. It saw a gap in its product line and decided to create a product that filled the gap and make a healthy profit.
Did you notice that it uses a more expensive screen, not to mention other more expensve internals.
Apple sells more touch tablets than all the other companies in the world put together - but somehow it still doesn't have 'market share'? How much of a market does one company need before it can be described as having 'market share'?
Comments
Yeah, I don't know why this is such a hard concept. It won't be a cheap product. In fact, I would bet they will use the smaller 3.5" screen on the 4/S to distinguish it from the top of the line 5, and thanks to the supply chain dominance, I don't think they will even have to drop retina from it. They essentially have that market cornered.
Anybody who says the iPad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version of the iPad intended for a low end segment, is deluding themselves. It has opened up a whole new market for the iPad which was previously out of reach for a low end segment interested in buying one. And one of the biggest criticisms was the lack of Retina display. That alone, when Apple is expanding the use of Retina displays across its entire product line, is proof positive that the iPad mini is a lower quality than any other new product Apple is producing. The fact that the iPad mini has uses more appropriate than the iPad is beside the point. The 6th generation iPod Nano was turned into a watch, but that's not what Apple designed it to do -- it was intended to get the low end segment of music users into the iTunes fold. Likewise so is the current marketing of iPhone 4/4S, but that only works in the US, where the phones are subsidized. Apple's already courting the low end segment in the US, so why wouldn't they look for a way to do that outside the US?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
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.
Exactly.
But the clueless analyst don't help because they always conclude Apple needs to price match their competition. Analyst have been saying that about Apple for decades.
In the Mac market before the Mac Mini launched analysts were buzzing with rumors and predictions of a low cost Mac to compete with the bottom of the barrel PCs. Apple responded with a $500 machine that didn't come "bundled" with anything.
Last year, analyst said Apple MUST compete with the Kindle/Nexus at the $200 price point. Apple instead made their best effort and price it $130 higher.
We're seeing the same with this new low cost phone and people here are worried the analyst are right and Apple will actually make a $99 phone.
Well, the analyst have NEVER BEEN RIGHT. Plain and simple.
When the low cost iPhone comes it'll still be over $300, and of the highest quality. Apple doesn't care if their price is 3x higher than the competition. Their gonna do a "low cost" iPhone right.
I'm thinking of something like the way a budget Gibson is called an Epiphone. (woohoo, I just noticed Epiphone has iphone in it
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
I wonder if Apple would consider creating a different brand name for their budget phone.
Pear Phone! (and the Pear Pad)
Sigh. Yes, I spend too much time watching TV with my youngest daughter.
Originally Posted by KDarling
I realize that the creators of whatever this is put zero thought whatsoever into the design beyond "it's a pear", but this not only looks like it would be quite ergonomic in a left hand, but also seems to directly cover the range of movement of a left (hitchhiker's) thumb that isn't stretching in any way…
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Why should they when there's no money in it?
Because capitalism is also about growing. In first world countries, there is not much growing potential left. So you have to expand into emerging markets even if there is not much money in it. Little money is still money.
I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make:
1. Apple doesn't want market share.
2. Customers don't want basic products.
Well...
1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share.
2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
"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".
People on welfare think paying a $1 co-pay is too much also, so I guess it is what you consider being a great price as nothing is truly free, right. Everything always cost someone something. My point was for a not out of pocket purchase there is a Free iPhone. But yes, if people actually want to use that phone, they need a phone plan. Plans for iPhone have data charges built in, are are in fact more expensive than other plans.
But we were talking about a free phone, not a free plan, correct? Or when you say phone, you actually mean total yearly cost? So we need electric, accessories included in this overall price, yes?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) They stopped the profit sharing experiment in less than a year.
2) Paying $400 and having a 2 year contract is not FREE.
I don't recall saying $400 is FREE. I said I paid something like $400 for my first iPhone so people have and will pay that amount for something of that value.
Profit sharing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave2012
I think there's two misconceptions that a lot of the posters here make:
1. Apple doesn't want market share.
2. Customers don't want basic products.
Well...
1. Apple is proving with the Ipad that it wants market share.
2. The Ipod has a price range between £329 and £40 so some customers are opting for simplicity, I don't see a reason why some phones can't be really simple too.
If this was the first time Apple ever made a mini product, then I might agree, but Apple has made many smaller versions of originals as part of a product lifecycle. iPod has several sizes. Macbook Air was not to grab market share. Dare I say the Mac mini
Nothing new or different here. Apple does not release a shotgun approach of products, but one really solid product, evaluates the market continually, and releases more products to match. It is not grabbing market share, but rather, filling in the product family.
I think many people contrary to real events, thinks Apple needs to care about market share. How much money do they have in the bank again?
Quote:
Originally Posted by changeover
Because capitalism is also about growing. In first world countries, there is not much growing potential left. So you have to expand into emerging markets even if there is not much money in it. Little money is still money.
Again, why? Do they not have enough money? Have they stopped inventing new things for us to buy? Is demand for their product so low that people stop standing in lines just to get the latest from Apple?
Why does Apple need to be this sell to the masses company like so many that sell junk just to sell it.
Let's get over to the Ferrari message board and inform them they NEED to sell a $50,000 California so more people can afford it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
Yeah, I don't know why this is such a hard concept. It won't be a cheap product. In fact, I would bet they will use the smaller 3.5" screen on the 4/S to distinguish it from the top of the line 5, and thanks to the supply chain dominance, I don't think they will even have to drop retina from it. They essentially have that market cornered.
Anybody who says the iPad mini is not a cheaper/lower quality version of the iPad intended for a low end segment, is deluding themselves. It has opened up a whole new market for the iPad which was previously out of reach for a low end segment interested in buying one. And one of the biggest criticisms was the lack of Retina display. That alone, when Apple is expanding the use of Retina displays across its entire product line, is proof positive that the iPad mini is a lower quality than any other new product Apple is producing. The fact that the iPad mini has uses more appropriate than the iPad is beside the point. The 6th generation iPod Nano was turned into a watch, but that's not what Apple designed it to do -- it was intended to get the low end segment of music users into the iTunes fold. Likewise so is the current marketing of iPhone 4/4S, but that only works in the US, where the phones are subsidized. Apple's already courting the low end segment in the US, so why wouldn't they look for a way to do that outside the US?
You don't understand product life cycles. Releasing a smaller version of something does not equate to a cheaper version to grab mass market share. The iPod line as you mention is proof of a solid product life cycle where Apple, in the use of the parent product, finds other uses for child products to fill in the product family.
With the iPad, you have the showcase product, which is the new iPad with retina, and then two offerings without retina; iPad 2 and iPad mini. Next iteration of the iPad 2 and the mini will both go retina, while the new iPad will have all the new technology.
Simply filling in the product family without cannibalizing.
There will be no iPad 2 when the next iPad is released, much less an iPad 2 with retina display!
Seriously, what NEW technology will the top of the line iPad have to differentiate it? A faster CPU? The retina display is the only other thing that distinguishes them now!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Again, why? Do they not have enough money? Have they stopped inventing new things for us to buy? Is demand for their product so low that people stop standing in lines just to get the latest from Apple?
Why does Apple need to be this sell to the masses company like so many that sell junk just to sell it.
Let's get over to the Ferrari message board and inform them they NEED to sell a $50,000 California so more people can afford it.
The Ferrari comparison is invalid. Or do you see the majority of western people driving around in a Ferrari?
Apple IS a sell to the masses company. They became one with the iPod/iPhone.
But yes, they would have enough money, but that's not the way (capitalistic) economy works. Sadly.
They want more (Shareholders, Analysts and shit), they always want more.
If Apple really wanted market share, the iPad mini would be $200. Apple's goal is to make money. It saw a gap in its product line and decided to create a product that filled the gap and make a healthy profit.
Originally Posted by changeover
Apple IS a sell to the masses company. They became one with the iPod/iPhone.
How does this explain the iPhone being a single model, a flagship model, a high-end model, selling for $650?
Sounds like they're NOT a stuff-the-channel company, but rather that you want to make them one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
How does this explain the iPhone being a single model, a flagship model, a high-end model, selling for $650?
Sounds like they're NOT a stuff-the-channel company, but rather that you want to make them one.
Once again, you misunderstand me. Stuff-the-channel and sell to the masses are two different things.
It's like the same with girls and louis vuitton bags (at least where I come from).
Totally sell it to the masses but not stuffing the channel.
The number of units sold of ipods/iphones (300/250 mio) just show that it is in fact a mass product.
Apple sells more touch tablets than all the other companies in the world put together - but somehow it still doesn't have 'market share'? How much of a market does one company need before it can be described as having 'market share'?