They won't lose any money by extending the iPhone line. People who now buy the normal iPhone will continue to for many reasons, the US subsidy, better screen and battery, LTE, better look, and for status reasons.
Many iPhone buyers buy the top model too. The brand is no more compromised by a cheaper alternative which looks good than the iPod touch is by the nano.
Apples success is recent , not Mac dependant and came about firstly with the iPod which is a cheap device which covers all angles.
Actually, Apple had success twice before the iPod with the initial release of the Apple computers in the late 70s and then again under the sugar water salesman from mid 80s to early 90s... and then it went away until Steve came back.
Most of the world by a very wide margin have to buy their phone outright. They don'y have the choice to get a free or $99 older iPhone modell. They currently would have to shell out around $450 to get even an older model iPhone.
Even here in the U.S. if you added up the total subscribers for all the pre-paid carriers like Pageplus, straight talk, Boost, Virgin mobile, Ting, etc. not to mention the pre-paid customers from the big carriers themselves, that would be a pretty large number of people. Probably 50 million or more in fact. Why not offer 65% of the world an affordable iPhone?
Yes, offering a lower cost iPhone for demographics where customers must buy the phone outright is a no-brainer!
However, isn't that specific demographic relatively small? If small, it doesn't surprise me that Apple is not addressing that market YET.
(for the U.S. anyway) an article like this one that does not address the total cost of ownership (i.e. monthly data/voice/text contract payments) is IDIOTIC.
Bottom line: Apple will address the lower end, but will address it not by proclaiming how cheap it is, but how it serves a completely new audience with the quality that Apple is known for. This new audience will be: pre-teens (and their parents), blue collar workers (and their employers), lower middle class, and those that also want cheaper monthly data plans (which U.S. networks will offer since this new device will be a smaller form factor and/or with crippled features).
Which, as a creative way of juicing an mp3 player to customers got Apple 70% of the market.
Apple can do the 'same' or 'similar' with the iPhone line.
Siri shuffle iPhone.
Nano iPhone
Normal iPhone...
iPhone 5 incher.
There's plenty. Each serving a different need.
If you look at the current Nano iPod and retina iPod...you've got two of the best engineered products out there. The ret' iPod is even better than the iPhone 5 in my view. It's very svelte.
If Apple wants world domination...it's up to them.
When I look at what they did with the iPod line...I'm left wondering what's taking them so long to emulate the same process with the iPhone.
We didn't just have 'one iPod' did we? Apple buried their competition comprehensively by squeezing the oxygen out of their competitors.
They can do that with iPhone.
'Cheap' or lower cost products addressing specific markets the iPhone 5 won't reach.
We've had this argument before. Yet we have a Mac Mini for £499 (when no Mac would ever be under £1k...yadda...) and we have an iPad for £399 when they were going to got '1k+' and we have the iPad Mini (they'll never, never etc...) Yet we have an 'iPad' for £260+ish or whatever...
There's plenty of space.
If Apple can't make 'cheaper' phones for a teen/ipod market, who else can? Just put a radio / phone transmitter in the iPod ret' line and you've got the slickest, trendiest multicoloured phone out there.
Add a 5+ version for 'embarrassingly large' people fans and you'll choke Samedung to death.
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.
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.
But the article talks about China and there are non-third world countries with a huge market. Great Apple makes 10s of billions but I don't think they will want to stop at that.
Yeah, couple of million - compared to 50 or 100 million with contracts. In India and China, subsidy is not the way it is done there. So it has to be less expensive and off-contract.
You don't seem to get the point that this is targetted for countries with different markets. Not that I think there is cheaper iphone is being planned, but the discussion is not about markets were subsidized phones are available.
Yeah, couple of million - compared to 50 or 100 million with contracts.
RIght, and when China Mobile finally gets the iPhone, we'll see that.
You don't seem to get the point that this is targetted for countries with different markets.
Well, with the three iPhone models already selling in these markets, I guess I don't see the point of crapping on the idea of the iPhone being "the-best-device-bar-none" just to sell more for less money.
Actually, I was thinking that Suddenly Newton wouldn't be giving me such a stupid answer. He/she has always been much brighter than that in my opinion.
The comparison to net books is the discussion-stopping point here. Apple responded to netbooks with the MacBook Air. Apple may respond to the cheapfone with an iPhone mini. Cut the LTE, keep it 8GB, keep it 256MB of RAM, keep a 480x320 smaller screen and full compatibility with all apps, and give it an A6 processor. Make it smaller, but with no compromises in build quality. Sell it for $300.
The comparison to net books is the discussion-stopping point here. Apple responded to netbooks with the MacBook Air. Apple may respond to the cheapfone with an iPhone mini. Cut the LTE, keep it 8GB, keep it 256MB of RAM, keep a 480x320 smaller screen and full compatibility with all apps, and give it an A6 processor. Make it smaller, but with no compromises in build quality. Sell it for $300.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
I meant 480x320, fixed my post. It's not terrible specs compared to the 3GS. With an A6, performance will not suffer.
Why would Apple give a cheap phone their latest processor?
Comments
They won't lose any money by extending the iPhone line. People who now buy the normal iPhone will continue to for many reasons, the US subsidy, better screen and battery, LTE, better look, and for status reasons.
Many iPhone buyers buy the top model too. The brand is no more compromised by a cheaper alternative which looks good than the iPod touch is by the nano.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Forums: giving voice to niche market interests.
Which niche market would that be?
Quote:
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.
Actually, Apple had success twice before the iPod with the initial release of the Apple computers in the late 70s and then again under the sugar water salesman from mid 80s to early 90s... and then it went away until Steve came back.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
Most of the world by a very wide margin have to buy their phone outright. They don'y have the choice to get a free or $99 older iPhone modell. They currently would have to shell out around $450 to get even an older model iPhone.
Even here in the U.S. if you added up the total subscribers for all the pre-paid carriers like Pageplus, straight talk, Boost, Virgin mobile, Ting, etc. not to mention the pre-paid customers from the big carriers themselves, that would be a pretty large number of people. Probably 50 million or more in fact. Why not offer 65% of the world an affordable iPhone?
Yes, offering a lower cost iPhone for demographics where customers must buy the phone outright is a no-brainer!
However, isn't that specific demographic relatively small? If small, it doesn't surprise me that Apple is not addressing that market YET.
(for the U.S. anyway) an article like this one that does not address the total cost of ownership (i.e. monthly data/voice/text contract payments) is IDIOTIC.
Bottom line: Apple will address the lower end, but will address it not by proclaiming how cheap it is, but how it serves a completely new audience with the quality that Apple is known for. This new audience will be: pre-teens (and their parents), blue collar workers (and their employers), lower middle class, and those that also want cheaper monthly data plans (which U.S. networks will offer since this new device will be a smaller form factor and/or with crippled features).
Originally Posted by asdasd
They won't lose any money by extending the iPhone line.
Not about losing money; about making enough money for the work done.
Originally Posted by island hermit
Which niche market would that be?
Don't play dumb.
Cheap vs 'Lower' cost are different things.
See the iPod line.
Which, as a creative way of juicing an mp3 player to customers got Apple 70% of the market.
Apple can do the 'same' or 'similar' with the iPhone line.
Siri shuffle iPhone.
Nano iPhone
Normal iPhone...
iPhone 5 incher.
There's plenty. Each serving a different need.
If you look at the current Nano iPod and retina iPod...you've got two of the best engineered products out there. The ret' iPod is even better than the iPhone 5 in my view. It's very svelte.
If Apple wants world domination...it's up to them.
When I look at what they did with the iPod line...I'm left wondering what's taking them so long to emulate the same process with the iPhone.
We didn't just have 'one iPod' did we? Apple buried their competition comprehensively by squeezing the oxygen out of their competitors.
They can do that with iPhone.
'Cheap' or lower cost products addressing specific markets the iPhone 5 won't reach.
We've had this argument before. Yet we have a Mac Mini for £499 (when no Mac would ever be under £1k...yadda...) and we have an iPad for £399 when they were going to got '1k+' and we have the iPad Mini (they'll never, never etc...) Yet we have an 'iPad' for £260+ish or whatever...
There's plenty of space.
If Apple can't make 'cheaper' phones for a teen/ipod market, who else can? Just put a radio / phone transmitter in the iPod ret' line and you've got the slickest, trendiest multicoloured phone out there.
Add a 5+ version for 'embarrassingly large' people fans and you'll choke Samedung to death.
Lemon Bon Bon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
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.
But the article talks about China and there are non-third world countries with a huge market. Great Apple makes 10s of billions but I don't think they will want to stop at that.
Yeah, couple of million - compared to 50 or 100 million with contracts. In India and China, subsidy is not the way it is done there. So it has to be less expensive and off-contract.
You don't seem to get the point that this is targetted for countries with different markets. Not that I think there is cheaper iphone is being planned, but the discussion is not about markets were subsidized phones are available.
Originally Posted by Takeiteasy
Yeah, couple of million - compared to 50 or 100 million with contracts.
RIght, and when China Mobile finally gets the iPhone, we'll see that.
You don't seem to get the point that this is targetted for countries with different markets.
Well, with the three iPhone models already selling in these markets, I guess I don't see the point of crapping on the idea of the iPhone being "the-best-device-bar-none" just to sell more for less money.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Don't play dumb.
Was I responding to your comment? No. Unless you have multiple aliases.
I would like it clarified which niche market has been talked about in this thread.
Originally Posted by island hermit
Was I responding to your comment? No.
And?
I would like it clarified which niche market.
Maybe read the title of the thread. Again: don't play dumb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Maybe read the title of the thread. Again: don't play dumb.
The title of the thread?
Doesn't sound like a niche market to me. A lower profit market compared to Apple's usual business plan, yes... niche, no.
Don't play stupid.
65% of the market in pieces, 6.5% of the market in money.
Yeah, sure the way Apple will go!
Originally Posted by island hermit
Doesn't sound like a niche market to me, a lower profit market compared to Apple's usual business plan, yes... niche, no.
Don't play stupid.
Then that's your opinion. No reason to be uppity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Then that's your opinion. No reason to be uppity.
Actually, I was thinking that Suddenly Newton wouldn't be giving me such a stupid answer. He/she has always been much brighter than that in my opinion.
Originally Posted by ton ton
…256MB of RAM, keep a 640x400 smaller screen…
So terrible specs and a brand new screen resolution…
…and full compatibility with all apps…
How, when it's a brand new screen resolution?
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Which niche market would that be?
Fandroids, with no one to talk to.
Cheers
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
The comparison to net books is the discussion-stopping point here. Apple responded to netbooks with the MacBook Air. Apple may respond to the cheapfone with an iPhone mini. Cut the LTE, keep it 8GB, keep it 256MB of RAM, keep a 480x320 smaller screen and full compatibility with all apps, and give it an A6 processor. Make it smaller, but with no compromises in build quality. Sell it for $300.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton
I meant 480x320, fixed my post. It's not terrible specs compared to the 3GS. With an A6, performance will not suffer.
Why would Apple give a cheap phone their latest processor?