Is it not the case that whilst iPhone sales are growing, the world market for smart phones is growing faster. This is possibly true of Tablets to. If this is the case then Apple's percentage of total market in both categories will start to shrink. If that is the case, and its an if, It follows that Apple's percentage of the profits will also shrink unless Apple can increase their profits. I guess my concern is that Apple becomes a highly profitable irrelevance, having been the game changer that everyone sort to emulate. If it worked for Apple before, why not cut the market up into price points and make the best iPhone in each segment, with no need for discussion of "cheep" or "cannibalisation" ?
SJ also said a smaller tablet form factor doesn't make sense (sanding fingers etc.) yet the iPad mini was made and is selling like crazy. I'm not a business analyst so I have no idea if a cheap iPhone is a smart business move or not but I'm sure they would sell tens of millions. I really don't see the problem of giving users a choice of a premium iPhone or a cheap iPhone. Doesn't bother me at all.
You are taking Jobs comments out of context. He said the current at the time smaller form factor tablets were dead on arrival. He never said a smaller tablet under different circumstances wouldn't make sense. He was looking at the market at that point in time. In retrospect he was right. None of those tablets at the time did well.
Jobs was also famous for telling people one thing and doing another. Probably to keep the competition on its toes.
Could you provide a link or something that shows that Apple EVER had 50 percent of the smartphone market. They do right now in the U.S. but worldwide they have never been anywhere near 50%.
That person said 50% of the profits, which is very different from 50% of the units that you probably read it as.
SJ also said a smaller tablet form factor doesn't make sense (sanding fingers etc.)
He was referring to the competition at the time and for the uses he had in mind.
The iPad mini has the same pixel density as the iPhone 3GS, which means their interface elements are the exact same size. He obviously didn't think the iPhone wouldn't work well.
I don't get it. People have been saying that Apple neeeeeeeds to make a cheap iPhone since 2008. Meanwhile, the strength of iPhone sales just increased. When are people going to realize the Apple way isn't the traditional way, but it works.
"People" also said Apple needs to get out of the Mac hardware business and license Mac OS to Mac clone makers to win against Microsoft Windows 95.
I think the only reason that would make sense for Apple to release a lower-cost anything, is to protect their iOS platform (apps/music/etc.) in which users and developers are invested. But I might be wrong even in this one reason.
That person said 50% of the profits, which is very different from 50% of the units that you probably read it as.
He said both, which is easy to miss:
Originally Posted by Slicksim
Am I the only Apple lover who is worried by this news? It wasn't that long ago that Apple had 50 percent of the smart phone market.What happens when Apple has 50 percent of the profits and 10 percent of the market and App developers go else where and no one is using iAds? Should we continue to be thrilled?
There is a difference between "cheap" and "low cost." Cheap implies low quality. So, his statement is meaningless. Apple could very well come up with an iPad Mini like lower cost iPhone to address the prepaid and no contract markets.
That's certainly true.
However, consider that the iPod Touch starts at $299. Now, add cellular capability (extra electronics, antennae, microphone, and bigger battery) and explain how you can reduce the price enough to get it to sell for $99 to $149 as has been proposed.
Just can't happen - not without seriously cutting corners which Apple isn't likely to do.
Here's a hint: call it a "simpler" iPhone NOT a CHEAPER one!
"Simpler" still has implied quality, "cheaper", doesn't.
Note both terms can cost the same and have the same margins.....
Like the mini, not a "lesser" iPad, just a DIFFERENT one. Can we say Shuffle, Nano, Air, Macbook etc.? Yes we can.
Could they screw it up? Sure. But then again they don't have to do they?
Yes, he did not say "cheaper". He said "cheap"!
I bet they can make a decent phone for $300 and make a hefty profit. Their margins are already excellent on their current iPhone 5.
They will have to have a "cheaper" phone to address most of the world that can't afford an expensive phone. And anyone is better off with expensive product.
Google did it! (I know, it's not LTE).
Stuff always gets cheaper. My MacSE cost my $2500 (on sale, no hard drive). 20 meg HD on a fire sale: $400. My dot matrix printer was $500. A new 3rd party keyboard back in the early 90's was $150!!! The good ol' days.
I don't think so. The appeal of the iPhone is the Internet without compromise (flash notwithstanding). How would you limit it to sell as a feature phone? No apps? No camera?
I think they will just minor upgrade the 4 to be $300 with no contract when the 5S come out.
Just can't happen - not without seriously cutting corners which Apple isn't likely to do.
You mean like putting a non-retina display in their new iPad mini, when they are putting Retina displays in all of their other newly introduced products as fast as they can?
The iPad mini doesn't represent the best Apple can do in that area, they made compromises to hit a certain price point. Why, if not to gain market share? So why not in a phone as well?
Spring 2018 : Tim Cook announces that from now on, the Apple enormous recurrent revenues driven from immaterial content (advertising, music, films, press ..) enable the company to distribute its electronic consumer products at 99 cents unique price (at this point, the French people, who always like to complain, argue that this is unfair, because 99 Euros cents are a lot more than 99 US $ cents.
At this point, analysts just give up : recognizing that they will never understand Apple business, except that it is exceptionnaly profitable, they simply strongly advise to buy Apple shares at any price.
You mean like putting a non-retina display in their new iPad mini, when they are putting Retina displays in all of their other newly introduced products as fast as they can?
The iPad mini doesn't represent the best Apple can do in that area, they made compromises to hit a certain price point. Why, if not to gain market share? So why not in a phone as well?
They weren't aiming for a price point when they went non retina, they were aiming for a battery life.
Retina displays are battery monsters. Even with the battery in an iPad 3 or 4 it can get dicey. Putting that tech in a device with half the battery would be insane as that 'up to' is the one tech spec that everyone can understand and looks for.
SJ also said a smaller tablet form factor doesn't make sense (sanding fingers etc.) yet the iPad mini was made and is selling like crazy. I'm not a business analyst so I have no idea if a cheap iPhone is a smart business move or not but I'm sure they would sell tens of millions. I really don't see the problem of giving users a choice of a premium iPhone or a cheap iPhone. Doesn't bother me at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slickdealer
Complete garbage.
The tablets SJ was talking about were the 16:9 7" variety like the Nexus 7 and smaller kindle.
The iPad Mini is a 4:3 7.9" tablet that has 34% more screen area than the 16:9 7"ers. 34% is immediately noticeable when you hold them side by side.
So, because of 34% in screen area, his comment is complete garbage?
They weren't aiming for a price point when they went non retina, they were aiming for a battery life.
Retina displays are battery monsters. Even with the battery in an iPad 3 or 4 it can get dicey. Putting that tech in a device with half the battery would be insane as that 'up to' is the one tech spec that everyone can understand and looks for.
Not only that, but I am pretty sure they were concerned about yields. Just my .02.
I don't think so. The appeal of the iPhone is the Internet without compromise (flash notwithstanding). How would you limit it to sell as a feature phone? No apps? No camera?
I think they will just minor upgrade the 4 to be $300 with no contract when the 5S come out.
The appeal of such a phone would be the same as it is to those people who prefer using a feature phone over a smart phone. Or an iPod nano over an iPod touch. Not everyone needs apps or even the internet on their phone, in fact a majority of mobile phone owners don't. There is clearly a market there and what is currently available is complete crap.
Furthermore, who's to say Apple couldn't put mobile Safari on a feature phone?
The appeal of such a phone would be the same as it is to those people who prefer using a feature phone over a smart phone. Or an iPod nano over an iPod touch. Not everyone needs apps or even the internet on their phone, in fact a majority of mobile phone owners don't. There is clearly a market there and what is currently available is complete crap.
Furthermore, who's to say Apple couldn't put mobile Safari on a feature phone?
What is the point of having iOS on a phone without apps??
Is there not s risk that always selling last years IPhone at a cheeper and cheeper price, dilutes your brand? Would it not be better to make a specific phone for a specific price point (like the iPods) and so avoid all possibility of feeling fobbed off with last years model? From my experience of living in the Middle and Far East , people looking to get a bit of the latest material thing, can be very sensitive to the notion that they have just spent their very very hard won cash on something nearly two years behind the curve.
They weren't aiming for a price point when they went non retina, they were aiming for a battery life.
Retina displays are battery monsters. Even with the battery in an iPad 3 or 4 it can get dicey. Putting that tech in a device with half the battery would be insane as that 'up to' is the one tech spec that everyone can understand and looks for.
And reasonable battery life translates to thinner and lighter.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
SJ also said a smaller tablet form factor doesn't make sense (sanding fingers etc.) yet the iPad mini was made and is selling like crazy. I'm not a business analyst so I have no idea if a cheap iPhone is a smart business move or not but I'm sure they would sell tens of millions. I really don't see the problem of giving users a choice of a premium iPhone or a cheap iPhone. Doesn't bother me at all.
You are taking Jobs comments out of context. He said the current at the time smaller form factor tablets were dead on arrival. He never said a smaller tablet under different circumstances wouldn't make sense. He was looking at the market at that point in time. In retrospect he was right. None of those tablets at the time did well.
Jobs was also famous for telling people one thing and doing another. Probably to keep the competition on its toes.
That person said 50% of the profits, which is very different from 50% of the units that you probably read it as.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
SJ also said a smaller tablet form factor doesn't make sense (sanding fingers etc.)
He was referring to the competition at the time and for the uses he had in mind.
The iPad mini has the same pixel density as the iPhone 3GS, which means their interface elements are the exact same size. He obviously didn't think the iPhone wouldn't work well.
"People" also said Apple needs to get out of the Mac hardware business and license Mac OS to Mac clone makers to win against Microsoft Windows 95.
Originally Posted by JeffDM
That person said 50% of the profits, which is very different from 50% of the units that you probably read it as.
He said both, which is easy to miss:
Originally Posted by Slicksim
Am I the only Apple lover who is worried by this news? It wasn't that long ago that Apple had 50 percent of the smart phone market. What happens when Apple has 50 percent of the profits and 10 percent of the market and App developers go else where and no one is using iAds? Should we continue to be thrilled?
That's certainly true.
However, consider that the iPod Touch starts at $299. Now, add cellular capability (extra electronics, antennae, microphone, and bigger battery) and explain how you can reduce the price enough to get it to sell for $99 to $149 as has been proposed.
Just can't happen - not without seriously cutting corners which Apple isn't likely to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jfc1138
Here's a hint: call it a "simpler" iPhone NOT a CHEAPER one!
"Simpler" still has implied quality, "cheaper", doesn't.
Note both terms can cost the same and have the same margins.....
Like the mini, not a "lesser" iPad, just a DIFFERENT one. Can we say Shuffle, Nano, Air, Macbook etc.? Yes we can.
Could they screw it up? Sure. But then again they don't have to do they?
Yes, he did not say "cheaper". He said "cheap"!
I bet they can make a decent phone for $300 and make a hefty profit. Their margins are already excellent on their current iPhone 5.
They will have to have a "cheaper" phone to address most of the world that can't afford an expensive phone. And anyone is better off with expensive product.
Google did it! (I know, it's not LTE).
Stuff always gets cheaper. My MacSE cost my $2500 (on sale, no hard drive). 20 meg HD on a fire sale: $400. My dot matrix printer was $500. A new 3rd party keyboard back in the early 90's was $150!!! The good ol' days.
I don't think so. The appeal of the iPhone is the Internet without compromise (flash notwithstanding). How would you limit it to sell as a feature phone? No apps? No camera?
I think they will just minor upgrade the 4 to be $300 with no contract when the 5S come out.
The iPad mini doesn't represent the best Apple can do in that area, they made compromises to hit a certain price point. Why, if not to gain market share? So why not in a phone as well?
Shaw Wu.
Spring 2018 : Tim Cook announces that from now on, the Apple enormous recurrent revenues driven from immaterial content (advertising, music, films, press ..) enable the company to distribute its electronic consumer products at 99 cents unique price (at this point, the French people, who always like to complain, argue that this is unfair, because 99 Euros cents are a lot more than 99 US $ cents.
At this point, analysts just give up : recognizing that they will never understand Apple business, except that it is exceptionnaly profitable, they simply strongly advise to buy Apple shares at any price.
They weren't aiming for a price point when they went non retina, they were aiming for a battery life.
Retina displays are battery monsters. Even with the battery in an iPad 3 or 4 it can get dicey. Putting that tech in a device with half the battery would be insane as that 'up to' is the one tech spec that everyone can understand and looks for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
SJ also said a smaller tablet form factor doesn't make sense (sanding fingers etc.) yet the iPad mini was made and is selling like crazy. I'm not a business analyst so I have no idea if a cheap iPhone is a smart business move or not but I'm sure they would sell tens of millions. I really don't see the problem of giving users a choice of a premium iPhone or a cheap iPhone. Doesn't bother me at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by slickdealer
Complete garbage.
The tablets SJ was talking about were the 16:9 7" variety like the Nexus 7 and smaller kindle.
The iPad Mini is a 4:3 7.9" tablet that has 34% more screen area than the 16:9 7"ers. 34% is immediately noticeable when you hold them side by side.
So, because of 34% in screen area, his comment is complete garbage?
Not only that, but I am pretty sure they were concerned about yields. Just my .02.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
I don't think so. The appeal of the iPhone is the Internet without compromise (flash notwithstanding). How would you limit it to sell as a feature phone? No apps? No camera?
I think they will just minor upgrade the 4 to be $300 with no contract when the 5S come out.
The appeal of such a phone would be the same as it is to those people who prefer using a feature phone over a smart phone. Or an iPod nano over an iPod touch. Not everyone needs apps or even the internet on their phone, in fact a majority of mobile phone owners don't. There is clearly a market there and what is currently available is complete crap.
Furthermore, who's to say Apple couldn't put mobile Safari on a feature phone?
What is the point of having iOS on a phone without apps??
And reasonable battery life translates to thinner and lighter.