OMG, this again? The iPhone 4, which runs rings around "free" phones, is $1 or less with a contract.
I think the tech media wags the dog with some of these stories.
i bought my mother in law a 4S this weekend but my first choice was a free on contract Galaxy S2 Sky Rocket. radio shack was out so i bought a refurb 4S for $50, got a $50 gift card and gave it to my father in law who bought a Galaxy S3. he looked at the iphone but wanted a larger screen
my iphone 5 is better than the S3, but on older phones Android is better since last year.
What we don't understand is why the up front cost matters when you still pay out the ear monthly regardless of how you get the phone. And yes, even on PAYG, with no data or anything else but voice*, you pay more than these third world countries can handle. So even if Apple makes a magical iPhone that is $200 off-contract with worthless build quality and utterly destroys their brand mindshare, they'd still whine that it's too expensive monthly.
*See, here's the thing: APPLE MAKES A SMARTPHONE. If you want just voice, go buy something else.
Of course, Apple will do this, since they're now in the market of just doing whatever the analysts say they "have" to do.
If you think India and China are third world countries, you gotta be kidding. You just don't seem to understand the mobile phone business there. Do you think if iphone has to be bought full price (and of course no contract), it will be having these many buyers? $650+ every two years (which is what most of the users do) is a very high cost.
In India (and may be in China too), they go with pay as you use model 90% of the time. They don't have to pay for incoming calls and the outgoing is pretty cheap. Data wise they go with smaller chunks or per MB charges and also they use it only when required. Now iphone costs around Rs 37000 or so ($700+). I don't know if they get the older models, if so, it could be Rs 25000 or so upfront, which is still very high. But if it is say Rs 15000 a huge mass will be able to reach that.
As somebody else mentioned, even though there can be a huge following for iphone, it is being ignored there because it out of many people's reach. And if they get apple's taste (pun intended), there might be a lot more to gain for apple.
If you think India and China are third world countries, you gotta be kidding.
I don't recall saying that. There's a lot more to the world than just India and China. Apple's making tens of billions without even catering to them.
Do you think if iphone has to be bought full price (and of course no contract), it will be having these many buyers? $650+ every two years (which is what most of the users do) is a very high cost.
Couple million do already, despite restrictions. And that's just because they can't get it subsidized. With subsidy, a host more would buy it. You don't need it to be a "cheap, off-contract" phone.
If Apple can make a 32GB iPod touch for $299 and presumably make their profit margin, there is no reason why they couldn't make a cheaper iphone with maybe even less memory of around 8 or 16 GB and not make similar margins. Whether they choose to do that or not is up to them and I really don't have a dog in that race as it wouldn't effect me. But I don't think it would be a bad decision at all if they chose to offer a product in the largest market segment where they currently aren't really competing.
The thing about these super cheap Android phones is they get people into the ecosystem. They get people familiar with Google apps and how to feel comfortable using an Android phone. When these people upgrade their phones and have more money to afford more expensive models they will probably stick with Android because that is what they are familiar using. Apple would be smart to offer a cheaper alternative to get them into the iOS ecosystem.
By not including LTE and using older specs they could make a very nice phone at a reasonable price and still make their typical margins. But the real reason to do this would be to give that customer a good reason to buy the regular iPhone model later down the road.
As I've posted in other threads, I think the key is to look at who would be buying these phones -- and why?
I suspect that for many emerging [technology] countries a smart phone is a major purchase... and it may be the first/only "personal computer" available to that person or home/family.
If Apple can make the iPad Mini into a useable phablet with Voice/Texting (BT mic/earphone or hold to ear in a pinch) -- I think that the iPad Mini would be a better choice for many of the above people.
The iPad Mini is already price competitive *
$459 iPad Mini WiFi + Cellular --16 GB A5
$549 unlocked iPhone 4S --16 GB A5
$450 unlocked iPhone 4 -- 8 GB A4
If you could afford/choose only one -- which would it be?
I suspect that there will be 2 refreshes of the iPad Mini in 2013 -- and the current 16 GB WiFi Cellular model will be sold at $199-$249
* High import tariffs for countries like Brazil can be address by doing some manufacturing, assembly, distribution, support within those countries.
Audi, BMW, and Mercedes are not interested in the low-end of the car market. And it would hurt their brands if they went after that market.
That is patently untrue. All three of those manufacturers have "budget" models designed to get the less affluent into their products. In case you haven't noticed, the majority of the cash in the world today is in fewer hands than it was only a decade ago. That means fewer rich people to buy their brands, which means fewer cars sold, which means fewer profits. If you don't think the European luxury automakers aren't well aware of the Lower-priced Asian luxury brands breathing down their necks and aren't doing something about it, then you aren't looking.
While I don't agree about the price tag these analysts are slapping on such a product, I didn't agree about the price tag they were slapping on the iPad mini either. Turns out they were wrong about that as usual, but not about the product itself. Just because Apple would never price a product that low doesn't mean they shouldn't address the market for one.
Like the car manufacturers Apple has to worry about the future. While they are selling a high-end product, their longevity rests on the expansion of their ecosystem, something that could be severely curtailed by a generation or two of Android adopters investing in Google's ecosystem instead.
Apple should offer a trade in program, with a credit toward a new phone; then sell the used phones off contract to these developing countries. Make $$ twice on each phone, the used phone at a lower margin.
Except all the used and broken iPhones are already used by Apple for stock replacements. Every used iPhone that is returned to a store is sent back to Apple, reconditioned and then shipped back to the store for use as replacement units when you have a problem with your phone.
So they basically have no "used" stock left to use for anything else, or to send to developing countries or whatever.
I agree that Apple could make another phone. That phone would need to be substantially different such as in your example.
A cheap phone won't happen because if there is a cheap phone why would anyone buy the expensive one? If you get the same services just in a cheap package I suspect most people would go for the cheaper model because:
Apple's cheaper model would still be very nice (No way could Apple afford to make a really cheap and crappy phone that is so poor its not worth owning)
Apple's cheaper phone would have all the same services (Producing a limited iPhone would damage the Apple brand - clue: user experience)
There are high end product makers that make cheaper models but they tend to be really expensive, such as high end car manufacturers. But a phone is hardly in the same bracket. How many people would pay and extra $200.- just to have a nicer looking phone? I know, some people buy $200.- (and up) cases but I have personally never seen one.
Makes no sense
People pay for the top end iPhone at the moment to get $40 worth of memory for$400.
Apple should protect the brand as "elite" and not offer lower cost models. What they should do is make a model with a larger screen size! 5" would be perfect.
I'm not sure if 5" is perfect but after thinking about it I think you are absolutely right about protecting the "elite" tag of the brand by going after the larger smartphone market.
I was originally thinking 4.3" but I've bumped it up a bit to 4.5" and a small part of me says 4.65".
I think that a premium large phone would snag quite a few consumers that aren't considering an iPhone at present.
If Apple introduces a low cost line of food products (perhaps rice and corn), they could address 99% of the eating market - which is larger than the phone market.
But that wouldn't make any more sense than getting into the cheap crapware phone market.
Apple should buy Frito-Lay or vice versa...
There is a difference between "cheap crapware" and "value at a good price"...
If Apple introduces a low cost line of food products (perhaps rice and corn), they could address 99% of the eating market - which is larger than the phone market.
But that wouldn't make any more sense than getting into the cheap crapware phone market.
iSoft... a new line of toilet paper from Apple. True crapware.
Interviewer Huang Yinlong spoke to Schiller about Apple’s products in China who said that “every product that Apple creates, we consider using only the best technology available. This includes the production pipeline, the Retina display, the unibody design, to provide the best product to the market.”
“At first, non-smartphones were popular in the Chinese market, now cheap smartphones are more popular and non-smartphones are out,” Schiller added later. “Despite the popularity of cheap smartphones, this will never be the future of Apple’s products. In fact, although Apple’s market share of smartphones is just about 20%, we own the 75% of the profit.”
OMG, this again? The iPhone 4, which runs rings around "free" phones, is $1 or less with a contract.
I think the tech media wags the dog with some of these stories.
True, but the prepaid and no contract markets are big. There you have to pay for the phone outright.
One way to address prepaid and no contract markets is for:
Apple to become a MVNO in those markets -- if needed
sell unlocked phones through the iTMS -- financed as needed
sell monthly Apple (or carrier) prepaid service through the iTMS
Based on the existing technology, Apple has the ability to minimize the risk by disabling the iPhones as necessary -- or tying them to Approved Apple services only. Say, you buy an unlocked iPhone -- financed by Apple. That iPhone would work on Apple's MVNO (for a monthly fee) or other approved (by Apple) carriers -- where Apple gets a piece of the carrier's monthly fee until the iPhone financing is paid off.
Apple could adjust these offerings country by country as needs dictate.
I can see this as a win-win-win...
Customer gets the best smart phone/ecosystem at a low entry price and a low monthly price
Apple gets the iPhone sale, financing, MVNO fees, App and Content fees
Carriers get profitable customers delivered to their network (as an MVNO provider or carrier) with no subsidies or contracts
While Cinnabon owns first-to-market position for small to mid-size cinnamon rolls, a sizable untapped market remains for high-quality, premium priced sticky buns in the United States and abroad. THEREFORE, BEYOND ANY DOUBT, tech giant Apple will add iBuns to its expanding ecosystem.
"Existing Apple customers will be able to easily find iBuns from their favorite Apple Store locations or by using GPS on their iOS device, and request them online for in-store pick up" said no one. Additionally, use of iBuns will expand Cupertino's audience further into the diabetes market - known to be heavy tech users.
"It's a no-brainer. Apple will do this. I have bet my children's future on this fact. It's guaranteed."
LOL! I don't care if your name is Apple -- get your sticky buns off my desk!
Now, Have you seen the muffin man... He lives on Drury Lane?
I agree that Apple could make another phone. That phone would need to be substantially different such as in your example.
A cheap phone won't happen because if there is a cheap phone why would anyone buy the expensive one? If you get the same services just in a cheap package I suspect most people would go for the cheaper model because:
Apple's cheaper model would still be very nice (No way could Apple afford to make a really cheap and crappy phone that is so poor its not worth owning)
Apple's cheaper phone would have all the same services (Producing a limited iPhone would damage the Apple brand - clue: user experience)
There are high end product makers that make cheaper models but they tend to be really expensive, such as high end car manufacturers. But a phone is hardly in the same bracket. How many people would pay and extra $200.- just to have a nicer looking phone? I know, some people buy $200.- (and up) cases but I have personally never seen one.
Makes no sense
People pay for the top end iPhone at the moment to get $40 worth of memory for$400.
Ha! It's just a variation of an old joke...
He: "Will you sleep with me, for $1 million?"
She: "Sure!"
He: "How about for $50?"
She: "What do you think I am?"
He: "Madam, we have already established what you are -- we're just negotiating a price!"
Comments
Originally Posted by Captain J
Ah yes, the same crew that said Apple will never launch an ipad mini or a larger screen iphone are at it again.
There's a reason we don't want Apple to be everything. I'm sorry you don't know why that is, but it's also the reason Apple has ever been successful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordy
OMG, this again? The iPhone 4, which runs rings around "free" phones, is $1 or less with a contract.
I think the tech media wags the dog with some of these stories.
i bought my mother in law a 4S this weekend but my first choice was a free on contract Galaxy S2 Sky Rocket. radio shack was out so i bought a refurb 4S for $50, got a $50 gift card and gave it to my father in law who bought a Galaxy S3. he looked at the iphone but wanted a larger screen
my iphone 5 is better than the S3, but on older phones Android is better since last year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
What we don't understand is why the up front cost matters when you still pay out the ear monthly regardless of how you get the phone. And yes, even on PAYG, with no data or anything else but voice*, you pay more than these third world countries can handle. So even if Apple makes a magical iPhone that is $200 off-contract with worthless build quality and utterly destroys their brand mindshare, they'd still whine that it's too expensive monthly.
*See, here's the thing: APPLE MAKES A SMARTPHONE. If you want just voice, go buy something else.
Of course, Apple will do this, since they're now in the market of just doing whatever the analysts say they "have" to do.
If you think India and China are third world countries, you gotta be kidding. You just don't seem to understand the mobile phone business there. Do you think if iphone has to be bought full price (and of course no contract), it will be having these many buyers? $650+ every two years (which is what most of the users do) is a very high cost.
In India (and may be in China too), they go with pay as you use model 90% of the time. They don't have to pay for incoming calls and the outgoing is pretty cheap. Data wise they go with smaller chunks or per MB charges and also they use it only when required. Now iphone costs around Rs 37000 or so ($700+). I don't know if they get the older models, if so, it could be Rs 25000 or so upfront, which is still very high. But if it is say Rs 15000 a huge mass will be able to reach that.
As somebody else mentioned, even though there can be a huge following for iphone, it is being ignored there because it out of many people's reach. And if they get apple's taste (pun intended), there might be a lot more to gain for apple.
Originally Posted by Takeiteasy
If you think India and China are third world countries, you gotta be kidding.
I don't recall saying that. There's a lot more to the world than just India and China. Apple's making tens of billions without even catering to them.
Do you think if iphone has to be bought full price (and of course no contract), it will be having these many buyers? $650+ every two years (which is what most of the users do) is a very high cost.
Couple million do already, despite restrictions. And that's just because they can't get it subsidized. With subsidy, a host more would buy it. You don't need it to be a "cheap, off-contract" phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
If Apple can make a 32GB iPod touch for $299 and presumably make their profit margin, there is no reason why they couldn't make a cheaper iphone with maybe even less memory of around 8 or 16 GB and not make similar margins. Whether they choose to do that or not is up to them and I really don't have a dog in that race as it wouldn't effect me. But I don't think it would be a bad decision at all if they chose to offer a product in the largest market segment where they currently aren't really competing.
The thing about these super cheap Android phones is they get people into the ecosystem. They get people familiar with Google apps and how to feel comfortable using an Android phone. When these people upgrade their phones and have more money to afford more expensive models they will probably stick with Android because that is what they are familiar using. Apple would be smart to offer a cheaper alternative to get them into the iOS ecosystem.
By not including LTE and using older specs they could make a very nice phone at a reasonable price and still make their typical margins. But the real reason to do this would be to give that customer a good reason to buy the regular iPhone model later down the road.
As I've posted in other threads, I think the key is to look at who would be buying these phones -- and why?
I suspect that for many emerging [technology] countries a smart phone is a major purchase... and it may be the first/only "personal computer" available to that person or home/family.
If Apple can make the iPad Mini into a useable phablet with Voice/Texting (BT mic/earphone or hold to ear in a pinch) -- I think that the iPad Mini would be a better choice for many of the above people.
The iPad Mini is already price competitive *
$459 iPad Mini WiFi + Cellular --16 GB A5
$549 unlocked iPhone 4S --16 GB A5
$450 unlocked iPhone 4 -- 8 GB A4
If you could afford/choose only one -- which would it be?
I suspect that there will be 2 refreshes of the iPad Mini in 2013 -- and the current 16 GB WiFi Cellular model will be sold at $199-$249
* High import tariffs for countries like Brazil can be address by doing some manufacturing, assembly, distribution, support within those countries.
While I don't agree about the price tag these analysts are slapping on such a product, I didn't agree about the price tag they were slapping on the iPad mini either. Turns out they were wrong about that as usual, but not about the product itself. Just because Apple would never price a product that low doesn't mean they shouldn't address the market for one.
Like the car manufacturers Apple has to worry about the future. While they are selling a high-end product, their longevity rests on the expansion of their ecosystem, something that could be severely curtailed by a generation or two of Android adopters investing in Google's ecosystem instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
Apple should offer a trade in program, with a credit toward a new phone; then sell the used phones off contract to these developing countries. Make $$ twice on each phone, the used phone at a lower margin.
Except all the used and broken iPhones are already used by Apple for stock replacements. Every used iPhone that is returned to a store is sent back to Apple, reconditioned and then shipped back to the store for use as replacement units when you have a problem with your phone.
So they basically have no "used" stock left to use for anything else, or to send to developing countries or whatever.
They are already used for handset replacements.
People pay for the top end iPhone at the moment to get $40 worth of memory for$400.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ex iPhone Owner
Apple should protect the brand as "elite" and not offer lower cost models. What they should do is make a model with a larger screen size! 5" would be perfect.
I'm not sure if 5" is perfect but after thinking about it I think you are absolutely right about protecting the "elite" tag of the brand by going after the larger smartphone market.
I was originally thinking 4.3" but I've bumped it up a bit to 4.5" and a small part of me says 4.65".
I think that a premium large phone would snag quite a few consumers that aren't considering an iPhone at present.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If Apple introduces a low cost line of food products (perhaps rice and corn), they could address 99% of the eating market - which is larger than the phone market.
But that wouldn't make any more sense than getting into the cheap crapware phone market.
Apple should buy Frito-Lay or vice versa...
There is a difference between "cheap crapware" and "value at a good price"...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
If Apple introduces a low cost line of food products (perhaps rice and corn), they could address 99% of the eating market - which is larger than the phone market.
But that wouldn't make any more sense than getting into the cheap crapware phone market.
iSoft... a new line of toilet paper from Apple. True crapware.
http://thenextweb.com/apple/2013/01/10/apples-schiller-says-that-despite-the-popularity-of-cheap-smartphones-they-will-not-be-the-future-of-apples-products/
Interviewer Huang Yinlong spoke to Schiller about Apple’s products in China who said that “every product that Apple creates, we consider using only the best technology available. This includes the production pipeline, the Retina display, the unibody design, to provide the best product to the market.”
“At first, non-smartphones were popular in the Chinese market, now cheap smartphones are more popular and non-smartphones are out,” Schiller added later. “Despite the popularity of cheap smartphones, this will never be the future of Apple’s products. In fact, although Apple’s market share of smartphones is just about 20%, we own the 75% of the profit.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
Quote:
Originally Posted by gordy
OMG, this again? The iPhone 4, which runs rings around "free" phones, is $1 or less with a contract.
I think the tech media wags the dog with some of these stories.
True, but the prepaid and no contract markets are big. There you have to pay for the phone outright.
One way to address prepaid and no contract markets is for:
Apple to become a MVNO in those markets -- if needed
sell unlocked phones through the iTMS -- financed as needed
sell monthly Apple (or carrier) prepaid service through the iTMS
Based on the existing technology, Apple has the ability to minimize the risk by disabling the iPhones as necessary -- or tying them to Approved Apple services only. Say, you buy an unlocked iPhone -- financed by Apple. That iPhone would work on Apple's MVNO (for a monthly fee) or other approved (by Apple) carriers -- where Apple gets a piece of the carrier's monthly fee until the iPhone financing is paid off.
Apple could adjust these offerings country by country as needs dictate.
I can see this as a win-win-win...
Customer gets the best smart phone/ecosystem at a low entry price and a low monthly price
Apple gets the iPhone sale, financing, MVNO fees, App and Content fees
Carriers get profitable customers delivered to their network (as an MVNO provider or carrier) with no subsidies or contracts
Quote:
Originally Posted by NotScott
Apple to Release Mini Sticky "iBuns"
by Gene Munster
While Cinnabon owns first-to-market position for small to mid-size cinnamon rolls, a sizable untapped market remains for high-quality, premium priced sticky buns in the United States and abroad. THEREFORE, BEYOND ANY DOUBT, tech giant Apple will add iBuns to its expanding ecosystem.
"Existing Apple customers will be able to easily find iBuns from their favorite Apple Store locations or by using GPS on their iOS device, and request them online for in-store pick up" said no one. Additionally, use of iBuns will expand Cupertino's audience further into the diabetes market - known to be heavy tech users.
"It's a no-brainer. Apple will do this. I have bet my children's future on this fact. It's guaranteed."
LOL! I don't care if your name is Apple -- get your sticky buns off my desk!
Now, Have you seen the muffin man... He lives on Drury Lane?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
I agree that Apple could make another phone. That phone would need to be substantially different such as in your example.
A cheap phone won't happen because if there is a cheap phone why would anyone buy the expensive one? If you get the same services just in a cheap package I suspect most people would go for the cheaper model because:
Apple's cheaper model would still be very nice (No way could Apple afford to make a really cheap and crappy phone that is so poor its not worth owning)
Apple's cheaper phone would have all the same services (Producing a limited iPhone would damage the Apple brand - clue: user experience)
There are high end product makers that make cheaper models but they tend to be really expensive, such as high end car manufacturers. But a phone is hardly in the same bracket. How many people would pay and extra $200.- just to have a nicer looking phone? I know, some people buy $200.- (and up) cases but I have personally never seen one.
Makes no sense
People pay for the top end iPhone at the moment to get $40 worth of memory for$400.
Ha! It's just a variation of an old joke...
He: "Will you sleep with me, for $1 million?"
She: "Sure!"
He: "How about for $50?"
She: "What do you think I am?"
He: "Madam, we have already established what you are -- we're just negotiating a price!"
Apples success is recent , not Mac dependant and came about firstly with the iPod which is a cheap device which covers all angles.
Apple "would", but they won't.
Originally Posted by asdasd
Apples success is recent , not Mac dependant and came about firstly with the iPod which is a cheap device which covers all angles.
And yet they make the big money when they don't do that.