I think if a less expensive iPhone is to be made it will follow along the lines you state but be for China Mobile. Most of their customers are still on 2G, and their 3G is homegrown, with LTE not reasonable for at least a few years by my estimate.
Unfortunately, the only Qualcomm baseband and chipset pair that supports TD-SCDMA also supports LTE. I'd think they'd be more likely to release a CDMA/EDGE/HSPA+ iPhone using a derivative of the 4S's 6610 for all carriers, and the 5S may well be the only model that works on China Mobile's 3G (with the new WTR1605L transceiver).
Of course, this hypothetical 3G-only iPhone mini would only work on EDGE and WiFi on China Mobile, but that's still a better experience than using an iPod touch.
Such a model would be popular in many countries, not just China - prepaid is huge globally. Apple also needs to transition away from the 30-pin dock connector completely this year, so hanging on to the 4 and 4S as low cost models isn't an option.
I sure hope Apple does exactly what you're saying: just keep making the best iDevices they can. Don't worry about market share. Let people who want cheap go to the multitude of suppliers of cheap.
I think they'll do fine with profits if they do that. But even if for some reason their profits suffer because of that approach, so be it. It's what makes Apple, Apple.
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."
Well, one big problem with your reasoning here is that $300 is far from inexpensive to the millions and millions in developing countries who are eating up Android. From what I've read, the vast majority of those phones are under $100. $300 is still far out of reach of most of those.
Moreover, what changes do you propose they would make to the iPhone to make it so cheap. And if it weren't drastically more limited than the iPhone 5, then they would lose a lot of those premium sales to the cheaper product.
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?
This view is as common as it is wrong.
If they put a retina display on the mini, it would have required a substantially bigger and (more importantly) heavier battery. Yet the biggest benefit of the mini over the standard iPad is its incredible light weight...more than the smaller size (although that is nice as well).
I think the majority of iPad mini users would chose lighter weight over retina, even if price weren't a factor. Sure, it will be nice to have both. And I'm sure that is exactly what Apple will do as soon as they can pull that off without a big gain in weight.
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.
Well, the factors that matter to most quality developers are things like 1) money spent on apps, 2) web usage, 3) buying things via the phone. And on all these fronts, iPhone still trounces Android. Overall marketshare--when much of that share is relatively poor people--matters little (notice, didn't say "none").
Apple needs simply to keep doing its best to attract those customers that are attractive to the developers.
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.
But at least the two-year-old iPhone is still a very well-engineered device. And the operating system is up-to-date.
If I had the choice of buying a 2010 Porsche 911 new at 2/3 the original price, I'd much rather buy that than a current model Corvette. But that's just me...
But at least the two-year-old iPhone is still a very well-engineered device. And the operating system is up-to-date.
If I had the choice of buying a 2010 Porsche 911 new at 2/3 the original price, I'd much rather buy that than a current model Corvette. But that's just me...
Comparing a Porsche to a corvette when the topic is about comparing different versions of iPhones makes no sense.
Would you rather buy a 2012 Porsche boxster for 2/3 of a 2012 Porsche 911? That would be the right comparison.
If you say so ... I find it interesting that they were able to support retina in the iPad (3G) without a massive size increase from the iPad 2. I've never had any issues with the battery life in my iPad (3G).
But assuming there are factors there beyond my understanding that make one feasible and the other not, there's still the timing of the release.
If Apple isn't competing against Google and Amazon, and its generally assumed Apple will release a Retina iPad mini this year, then why rush a compromised product to market before it's ready? Why not just take their time and release the iPad mini when it was perfect? Why take a step back with a low-res display at all?
Well who says they're not competing against Google and Amazon? Of course they are.
And from the numbers I've heard, looks like they're kicking their butts with the mini...despite what some complain of as cutting corners. Seems like consumers are delighted with the mini. It's mostly internet pundits who have a problem with it.
As far as iPad 2 to iPad 3, there was a weight gain. But it was minimized by some good engineering tricks by Apple. Still, the iPad 3 and 4 are quite heavy.
It's not? Why not? The iPod nano has a fixed set of "apps" just as the AppleTV. Why couldn't there be a phone with a fixed set of "apps" as well? Sorry, if your head is stuck in the clouds, but a vast majority of people around the world don't need or even want a smart phone or could even afford the data plans.
Sure, there is a huge portion of the world who can't afford data plans. Many struggle to obtain food and clean water too.
And none of them can afford to buy Apple products. Apple can't (or at least shouldn't) be all things to all people. That is not their formula of success (more success, it should be pointed out) than any other technology business in the history of the world.
How is apple not a volume dealer? They sell millions of devices each month. That's pretty volume to me.
I can see that people would like to see apple as a luxury brand to make them feel better about themselves. For me a luxury brand is not only defined by lacking lower-mid-end products but also of the limit number of a certain product.
So for me, apple isn't a luxury brand as for example a ferrari is (you don't see many ferraris around do you?).
Whatever.
You can argue about terms all you want, but the fact is that if you use Apple's products and you make use of Apple's stores, anyone with half a brain and a bit of objectivity will admit that Apple is categorically different than any other technology company out there. You can label that however you will, but they are indeed in a class by themselves.
I do not know if Apple is interested in the market or not, but there are plenty of people who are not interested in Apps. They want to make phone calls, send texts, and read email. You couldn't get either one of my parents to use a so called smart phone. They probably would go for an iPhone Nano though that used a more Nano like interface. Moreover, that probably would make them more comfortable using full featured smart phones.
Well the magic for Apple has been getting all of these people to pay $650 (though often "financed" through subsidies) even though they barely make use of the iPhone's capabilities. Why would Apple want to mess that up??
You can argue about terms all you want, but the fact is that if you use Apple's products and you make use of Apple's stores, anyone with half a brain and a bit of objectivity will admit that Apple is categorically different than any other technology company out there. You can label that however you will, but they are indeed in a class by themselves.
Apple is categorically different yes, but still mainstream.
Sure, there is a huge portion of the world who can't afford data plans. Many struggle to obtain food and clean water too.
And none of them can afford to buy Apple products. Apple can't (or at least shouldn't) be all things to all people. That is not their formula of success (more success, it should be pointed out) than any other technology business in the history of the world.
If Apple wants to lock people in, it will get in there now. That's why Cook is in China. They hope China to be their future "biggest market". thats all you need to know, Schiller is engaging in mis-direction. Nobody in China is starving, and Apple is not targeting sub-Saharan Africa. However only 10% of China can afford a $750 phone off contract. China is however growing at 10% a year, y-o-y. The gap per capita is about $5000. in 2003 it was about $1000.
At 10% a year you doulbe about every 7 years. China will be a middle income country per capita in less than a decade, and low level rich in another decade. Get them into iOS now and they will be in iOS in 20 years buying expensive iPhones.
This is also not necessarily accurate. It's common to see "smartphone" plan pricing. This is not exclusive to the iphone. As an example Verizon charges more for "smartphone" line access. They carry a range of products that are subject to this.
My carrier has different plans. With the basic one, for example, you can have smartphones from 3€/month. If you want the iPhone 5, it's 15€/month, for 24 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
That doesn't happen months after the launch in a given country. You're looking at US launch dates and comparing to other markets where it's released later.
No, I'm not. The iPhone 4S was released on October 14, 2011. On December 7-8 I was in New York City and decided to buy mine there (unlocked, of course): I had to reserve it online the night before in order to be able to pick it up the following day. And still I had to wait 30 mins in the queue, and so on.
That's just because it's always sold out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Those people are remarkably stupid, and I think the illusion is wearing off at this point. I viewed it as a mass market product from the beginning. Subsidized pricing in certain markets only reinforced this. In markets without subsidies, you still have secondhand options. Whether or not it makes sense for Apple to pursue a greater range of price points outside of heavily subsidized markets, it's important to recognize that you can't expect to maintain a feeling of exclusivity with a product that ships millions of units per quarter. No one is going to marvel at your new device, as they likely own some variant of it.
No, it's not that people are stupid. It's that Apple marketing function is awesome.
And I'm writing this from one of those markets where carrier subsidizes are of little importance, as majority of iPhone owners paid them cash (730€). They could buy a Lumia 920 for a sensibly lower price.
Well, one big problem with your reasoning here is that $300 is far from inexpensive to the millions and millions in developing countries who are eating up Android. From what I've read, the vast majority of those phones are under $100. $300 is still far out of reach of most of those.
Moreover, what changes do you propose they would make to the iPhone to make it so cheap. And if it weren't drastically more limited than the iPhone 5, then they would lose a lot of those premium sales to the cheaper product.
Sure, there is a huge portion of the world who can't afford data plans. Many struggle to obtain food and clean water too.
And none of them can afford to buy Apple products. Apple can't (or at least shouldn't) be all things to all people. That is not their formula of success (more success, it should be pointed out) than any other technology business in the history of the world.
I was about to reply with "Apple can't be all things to all people" to your first comment... but you said it yourself with the second comment
Apple... for the most part... doesn't do inexpensive. Their phones start at $450... and their laptops start at $1000.
And all this while other companies sell phones for $100 and laptops for $500.
Apple tends to have laser-like focus on the mid and high-end markets... raking in tons of money in the process. They've never really spent time on the low-end market.
It couldn't hurt to add the low-end market... as long as it doesn't wreck their high-end margins.
If Apple wants to lock people in, it will get in there now. That's why Cook is in China. They hope China to be their future "biggest market". thats all you need to know, Schiller is engaging in mis-direction. Nobody in China is starving, and Apple is not targeting sub-Saharan Africa. However only 10% of China can afford a $750 phone off contract. China is however growing at 10% a year, y-o-y. The gap per capita is about $5000. in 2003 it was about $1000.
At 10% a year you doulbe about every 7 years. China will be a middle income country per capita in less than a decade, and low level rich in another decade. Get them into iOS now and they will be in iOS in 20 years buying expensive iPhones.
You make it sound like you can never get into iOS unless you start with it.
I've seen people in the US go from Android to an iPhone in less than 2 years... why couldn't someone in China do that after 5 years or more?
Android isn't as sticky as you think it is. For the most part... Android users aren't investing in a lot of paid apps. Maybe streaming music is their thing... which is available on both platforms. Or they basically skip apps and just use their phone like a featurephone.
The point is... there's not really a lot of "lock in" on Android.
And Apple will always be there if they decide to switch.
That is all that matters, but yet again Wall Street will award the 80% who are fighting over the 25% profits. It makes no sense why Wall Street likes high market share at low margins.
Coz they are very naive and stupid . That is it . They like charity which helps a lot of people .
With 20% Market share to eat 75% profit , Apple has reached almost prefect balance. Doing more or making more wont help Apple earns more but may even affect Apple . Apple is a genius !!! Why the hell doesht the market treasure such a business genius !!! Why does the market only like market share in number but not profit share ? Analysist should stop dreaming !!
I live in China. Apple doesn't need a cheaper iPhone to sell them here. Tons of people already have them and everyone wants one. They are very expensive relative to the wages, but people still find a way to buy them. The nationals are always asking Americans to buy them in the US when they go home because they can get a better price.
These so-called analysts continue to miss the point. Prada could sell more bags if they made cheaper bags, but it's not their objective, they want the high ground and margins, and despite all the competition among cheaper bags are doing well by preserving the value of their brand. Apple is the same, they garner 75% of the smartphone profits with 20% of the market. They will never make a cheap phone, just like Prada would never make a cheap bag, as it would dilute the brand. What they will do though is introduce an innovative product which knocks the socks off the competition, as they did with the MacBook Air when at a time that everything was getting smaller and cheaper they launched an alternative at a higher price which was simply more compelling. This is what they will do in the smartphone wars, although I don't yet know what the product will be or look like.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I think if a less expensive iPhone is to be made it will follow along the lines you state but be for China Mobile. Most of their customers are still on 2G, and their 3G is homegrown, with LTE not reasonable for at least a few years by my estimate.
Unfortunately, the only Qualcomm baseband and chipset pair that supports TD-SCDMA also supports LTE. I'd think they'd be more likely to release a CDMA/EDGE/HSPA+ iPhone using a derivative of the 4S's 6610 for all carriers, and the 5S may well be the only model that works on China Mobile's 3G (with the new WTR1605L transceiver).
Of course, this hypothetical 3G-only iPhone mini would only work on EDGE and WiFi on China Mobile, but that's still a better experience than using an iPod touch.
Such a model would be popular in many countries, not just China - prepaid is huge globally. Apple also needs to transition away from the 30-pin dock connector completely this year, so hanging on to the 4 and 4S as low cost models isn't an option.
Wonderfully stated.
I sure hope Apple does exactly what you're saying: just keep making the best iDevices they can. Don't worry about market share. Let people who want cheap go to the multitude of suppliers of cheap.
I think they'll do fine with profits if they do that. But even if for some reason their profits suffer because of that approach, so be it. It's what makes Apple, Apple.
"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."
Well, one big problem with your reasoning here is that $300 is far from inexpensive to the millions and millions in developing countries who are eating up Android. From what I've read, the vast majority of those phones are under $100. $300 is still far out of reach of most of those.
Moreover, what changes do you propose they would make to the iPhone to make it so cheap. And if it weren't drastically more limited than the iPhone 5, then they would lose a lot of those premium sales to the cheaper product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
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?
This view is as common as it is wrong.
If they put a retina display on the mini, it would have required a substantially bigger and (more importantly) heavier battery. Yet the biggest benefit of the mini over the standard iPad is its incredible light weight...more than the smaller size (although that is nice as well).
I think the majority of iPad mini users would chose lighter weight over retina, even if price weren't a factor. Sure, it will be nice to have both. And I'm sure that is exactly what Apple will do as soon as they can pull that off without a big gain in weight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dillio
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.
Well, the factors that matter to most quality developers are things like 1) money spent on apps, 2) web usage, 3) buying things via the phone. And on all these fronts, iPhone still trounces Android. Overall marketshare--when much of that share is relatively poor people--matters little (notice, didn't say "none").
Apple needs simply to keep doing its best to attract those customers that are attractive to the developers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slicksim
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.
But at least the two-year-old iPhone is still a very well-engineered device. And the operating system is up-to-date.
If I had the choice of buying a 2010 Porsche 911 new at 2/3 the original price, I'd much rather buy that than a current model Corvette. But that's just me...
Originally Posted by commoncents
But at least the two-year-old iPhone is still a very well-engineered device. And the operating system is up-to-date.
If I had the choice of buying a 2010 Porsche 911 new at 2/3 the original price, I'd much rather buy that than a current model Corvette. But that's just me...
Comparing a Porsche to a corvette when the topic is about comparing different versions of iPhones makes no sense.
Would you rather buy a 2012 Porsche boxster for 2/3 of a 2012 Porsche 911? That would be the right comparison.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128
If you say so ... I find it interesting that they were able to support retina in the iPad (3G) without a massive size increase from the iPad 2. I've never had any issues with the battery life in my iPad (3G).
But assuming there are factors there beyond my understanding that make one feasible and the other not, there's still the timing of the release.
If Apple isn't competing against Google and Amazon, and its generally assumed Apple will release a Retina iPad mini this year, then why rush a compromised product to market before it's ready? Why not just take their time and release the iPad mini when it was perfect? Why take a step back with a low-res display at all?
Well who says they're not competing against Google and Amazon? Of course they are.
And from the numbers I've heard, looks like they're kicking their butts with the mini...despite what some complain of as cutting corners. Seems like consumers are delighted with the mini. It's mostly internet pundits who have a problem with it.
As far as iPad 2 to iPad 3, there was a weight gain. But it was minimized by some good engineering tricks by Apple. Still, the iPad 3 and 4 are quite heavy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjtomlin
It's not? Why not? The iPod nano has a fixed set of "apps" just as the AppleTV. Why couldn't there be a phone with a fixed set of "apps" as well? Sorry, if your head is stuck in the clouds, but a vast majority of people around the world don't need or even want a smart phone or could even afford the data plans.
Sure, there is a huge portion of the world who can't afford data plans. Many struggle to obtain food and clean water too.
And none of them can afford to buy Apple products. Apple can't (or at least shouldn't) be all things to all people. That is not their formula of success (more success, it should be pointed out) than any other technology business in the history of the world.
Quote:
Originally Posted by changeover
How is apple not a volume dealer? They sell millions of devices each month. That's pretty volume to me.
I can see that people would like to see apple as a luxury brand to make them feel better about themselves. For me a luxury brand is not only defined by lacking lower-mid-end products but also of the limit number of a certain product.
So for me, apple isn't a luxury brand as for example a ferrari is (you don't see many ferraris around do you?).
Whatever.
You can argue about terms all you want, but the fact is that if you use Apple's products and you make use of Apple's stores, anyone with half a brain and a bit of objectivity will admit that Apple is categorically different than any other technology company out there. You can label that however you will, but they are indeed in a class by themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
I do not know if Apple is interested in the market or not, but there are plenty of people who are not interested in Apps. They want to make phone calls, send texts, and read email. You couldn't get either one of my parents to use a so called smart phone. They probably would go for an iPhone Nano though that used a more Nano like interface. Moreover, that probably would make them more comfortable using full featured smart phones.
Well the magic for Apple has been getting all of these people to pay $650 (though often "financed" through subsidies) even though they barely make use of the iPhone's capabilities. Why would Apple want to mess that up??
Originally Posted by commoncents
Whatever.
You can argue about terms all you want, but the fact is that if you use Apple's products and you make use of Apple's stores, anyone with half a brain and a bit of objectivity will admit that Apple is categorically different than any other technology company out there. You can label that however you will, but they are indeed in a class by themselves.
Apple is categorically different yes, but still mainstream.
Quote:
Originally Posted by commoncents
Sure, there is a huge portion of the world who can't afford data plans. Many struggle to obtain food and clean water too.
And none of them can afford to buy Apple products. Apple can't (or at least shouldn't) be all things to all people. That is not their formula of success (more success, it should be pointed out) than any other technology business in the history of the world.
If Apple wants to lock people in, it will get in there now. That's why Cook is in China. They hope China to be their future "biggest market". thats all you need to know, Schiller is engaging in mis-direction. Nobody in China is starving, and Apple is not targeting sub-Saharan Africa. However only 10% of China can afford a $750 phone off contract. China is however growing at 10% a year, y-o-y. The gap per capita is about $5000. in 2003 it was about $1000.
At 10% a year you doulbe about every 7 years. China will be a middle income country per capita in less than a decade, and low level rich in another decade. Get them into iOS now and they will be in iOS in 20 years buying expensive iPhones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
This is also not necessarily accurate. It's common to see "smartphone" plan pricing. This is not exclusive to the iphone. As an example Verizon charges more for "smartphone" line access. They carry a range of products that are subject to this.
My carrier has different plans. With the basic one, for example, you can have smartphones from 3€/month. If you want the iPhone 5, it's 15€/month, for 24 months.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
That doesn't happen months after the launch in a given country. You're looking at US launch dates and comparing to other markets where it's released later.
No, I'm not. The iPhone 4S was released on October 14, 2011. On December 7-8 I was in New York City and decided to buy mine there (unlocked, of course): I had to reserve it online the night before in order to be able to pick it up the following day. And still I had to wait 30 mins in the queue, and so on.
That's just because it's always sold out!
Quote:
Originally Posted by hmm
Those people are remarkably stupid, and I think the illusion is wearing off at this point. I viewed it as a mass market product from the beginning. Subsidized pricing in certain markets only reinforced this. In markets without subsidies, you still have secondhand options. Whether or not it makes sense for Apple to pursue a greater range of price points outside of heavily subsidized markets, it's important to recognize that you can't expect to maintain a feeling of exclusivity with a product that ships millions of units per quarter. No one is going to marvel at your new device, as they likely own some variant of it.
No, it's not that people are stupid. It's that Apple marketing function is awesome.
And I'm writing this from one of those markets where carrier subsidizes are of little importance, as majority of iPhone owners paid them cash (730€). They could buy a Lumia 920 for a sensibly lower price.
I was about to reply with "Apple can't be all things to all people" to your first comment... but you said it yourself with the second comment
Apple... for the most part... doesn't do inexpensive. Their phones start at $450... and their laptops start at $1000.
And all this while other companies sell phones for $100 and laptops for $500.
Apple tends to have laser-like focus on the mid and high-end markets... raking in tons of money in the process. They've never really spent time on the low-end market.
It couldn't hurt to add the low-end market... as long as it doesn't wreck their high-end margins.
You make it sound like you can never get into iOS unless you start with it.
I've seen people in the US go from Android to an iPhone in less than 2 years... why couldn't someone in China do that after 5 years or more?
Android isn't as sticky as you think it is. For the most part... Android users aren't investing in a lot of paid apps. Maybe streaming music is their thing... which is available on both platforms. Or they basically skip apps and just use their phone like a featurephone.
The point is... there's not really a lot of "lock in" on Android.
And Apple will always be there if they decide to switch.
Coz they are very naive and stupid . That is it . They like charity which helps a lot of people .
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Apple marketing chief Phil Schiller said his company is not interested in making cheap, low-profit products.
But, that does not rule out cheap HIGH profit products... Cheap is not necessarily bad. Low profit is always bad...