I don't think it would be a good idea if Apple released a cheaper iphone. It would end up confusing the user and make everything more complicated. I think they should stick with the strategy that's worked for them since the first iphone was released by having yearly cycles. Apple shouldnt have to cater to emerging markets by making a completely different phone, if they want a less expensive phone they could choose a previous version iphone model as in the 4 or 4S.
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.
"Misdirection"??? Schiller made a statement about Apple's values. Take it out of context if you wish, but Phil had to respond because the Chinese and the lazy Western press were going around making/echoing claims that made it sound as if Apple had abandoned its values. Many people equate low cost to poor quality, poorly designed junk. And for good reason. You think Phil should let these people speak for Apple via unnamed (and therefore unattributable) sources?
It is moot to argue whether Apple *needs* a smaller or cheaper or larger iPhone. Apple doesn't *need* to do anything. It can close its doors for 2 years, and reopen with an awesome, copycat-inspiring product and its share price will likely recover.
Apple also didn't *need* to release an iPad Mini. But it did. It did so because the change in form factor did not restrict the company's ability or desire to imbue the premium qualities of choice (choice is important here because, as much as some will disagree, Apple also compromises). Of course, Apple also observed that the form factor was more utilitarian than originally assumed and there was very strong market potential. Anecdotal evidence suggests Eddy Cue was the one who pushed for this, and he has been proven right.
But what if Apple didn't release the iPad Mini just in time for the Christmas season? Pundits claim that the 7-8" form factor outsold the 9-10" size in the last 2-3 months. Be that as it may, I would argue that at least half of the Mini buys would not have defaulted to the Kindle, the Nexus 7 or Galaxy S Tab. Many would have bought iPad instead. Others might have settled for an iPod Touch or even a completely different products. (Lest we forget, Christmas shopping is not for need and, therefore, an iPad (Mini or not) can be replaced by a TV for the bedroom.)
So, what about a second iPhone in the lineup? It is not going to a more expensive one. The current product will be the flagship product, or *premium* one if you like. If it is going to be cheaper? What will be compromised? Well, you can't very well give up email, web surfing, reading, messaging (SMS or MMS) or media playing. Will Apple release an iPhone that can still do all of those very well, but lacks the ability to run apps? Such a product will compete with Nokia's Asha, for example, which has appeal in regions such as rural China, India, Africa and even pockets of South America - all markets that Apple has not invested in so far. So it's possible but unlikely.
Returning to the iPod analogy, the raison d'etre for the iPod Nano is not necessarily a lower price point. The form factor was (is) much more appealing both in physical and psychological terms (the cute factor cannot be ignored). In terms of functionality, capacity was reduced and video playing was lost (and came, went and returned). Neither was important compared to the gain in form factor. This also happens to be true of iPad Mini - the lack of Retina Display was more than offset by the greater portability.
In summary, if Apple releases a second phone in its lineup (not just an obsolete product), it will be cheaper. It will have reduced functionality. But it will likely also have something else that will make it compelling in its own right if not irresistible. It's hard to imagine if form factor will again be the difference maker (but Apple is very capable of surprising us). Whatever it will be, it will be the topic of debate/discussion, if not another why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment, more so than the price itself.
It is moot to argue whether Apple *needs* a smaller or cheaper or larger iPhone. Apple doesn't *need* to do anything. It can close its doors for 2 years, and reopen with an awesome, copycat-inspiring product and its share price will likely recover.
Indeed. Saying that their sales are okay now, is not a good argument against the idea of Apple making specialized or less expensive devices in order to breach new markets. The limited Apple-has-no-need-to-do-that kind of thinking was disproved with the CDMA iPhone, and later with the iPad mini.
So it's not out of the realm of possibility that they will make a less expensive iPhone model. Tim Cook even told everyone in 2009 that Apple has a plan to get into lower priced iPhone markets if a market requires it.
Quote:
So, what about a second iPhone in the lineup? It is not going to a more expensive one. The current product will be the flagship product, or *premium* one if you like. If it is going to be cheaper? What will be compromised? ...
If Samsung can sell a 3GS equivalent for around $155 (as they do now) with a probable 15-20% gross profit margin, and Apple is willing to drop to a 40% gross margin like they did with the iPad Mini, then Apple could sell a slightly nicer 3GS type for under $199.
Heck, maybe they already have, in a way. Last year in India, for example, Aircel offered the 3GS unlocked for $180 as long as you signed up for a $55 a year plan for one year. That's a total of just $235 to own the phone... with service to boot.
The biggest against-argument right now might be about screen resolution. Would Apple be willing to go backward in that area? However, the "retina" screen part cost is only about $8 more, so even that might not be a problem.
Quote:
In summary, if Apple releases a second phone in its lineup (not just an obsolete product), it will be cheaper. It will have reduced functionality. But it will likely also have something else that will make it compelling in its own right if not irresistible. It's hard to imagine if form factor will again be the difference maker (but Apple is very capable of surprising us). Whatever it will be, it will be the topic of debate/discussion, if not another why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment, more so than the price itself.
You might have something there. Apple does like to create new markets. For example, there are many places in the world where electricity to charge a phone is scarce. A slower, smaller display, less power hungry phone that lasts for days even using GPS, could be very useful. Or one with a solar charger in the screen. Or a shake-to-charge generator. Suddenly every camper in the USA would want one as well. Who knows. All sorts of possible additions to replace a subtraction in other capabilities/cost.
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.
I'll take the 10% of China anyday. 130M clients, sounds good to me.
You can't do that with an iPhone. At least, not as long as you run it with iOS (and the whole purpose of creating a mass iPhone is for increasing the market share of iOS).
The purpose of a mass market phone is to make money. Increasing iOS market share isn't a primary goal but an ends to a means.
An iPhone Nano with nothing more than Siri, iCloud, iMessage and Lightning still adds users to the Apple ecosystem. Just not the ios app store ecosystem.
An iPhone Nano with nothing more than Siri, iCloud, iMessage and Lightning still adds users to the Apple ecosystem. Just not the ios app store ecosystem.
Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.
An iPhone Nano with nothing more than Siri, iCloud, iMessage and Lightning still adds users to the Apple ecosystem. Just not the ios app store ecosystem.
Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.
Its not a vision it's a comment. I don't need to make a case for an iPhone Nano messaging phone, I just don't think it's ridiculous. Apple makes money selling hardware. If Apple can make the best messaging phone in the world for $199 with good margins then I think it's reasonable for them to pursue it for developing markets.
iPods are slowly dying out. An iPhone Nano/Mini/Whatever a little larger than the iPod Nano would be nice even without the apps but far be it for me to disagree with the echo chamber around here. You guys vehemently lack vision and it's tiresome.
Apple might not choose to make the world's best messaging phone but it's not stupid to think that it could or that lots of people would like it if they did.
Its not a vision it's a comment. I don't need to make a case for an iPhone Nano messaging phone, I just don't think it's ridiculous. Apple makes money selling hardware. If Apple can make the best messaging phone in the world for $199 with good margins then I think it's reasonable for them to pursue it for developing markets.
iPods are slowly dying out. An iPhone Nano/Mini/Whatever a little larger than the iPod Nano would be nice even without the apps but far be it for me to disagree with the echo chamber around here. You guys vehemently lack vision and it's tiresome.
Apple might not choose to make the world's best messaging phone but it's not stupid to think that it could or that lots of people would like it if they did.
I could eventually see apple having a multi tiered iPhone lineup similar to the iPod lineup starting with a Nano, then the classic and then an upgraded flagship model with a 5 inch screen.
Nothing is stopping them from expanding the lineup and I think now would be the best time for them to do so.
Its not a vision it's a comment. I don't need to make a case for an iPhone Nano messaging phone, I just don't think it's ridiculous. Apple makes money selling hardware. If Apple can make the best messaging phone in the world for $199 with good margins then I think it's reasonable for them to pursue it for developing markets.
iPods are slowly dying out. An iPhone Nano/Mini/Whatever a little larger than the iPod Nano would be nice even without the apps but far be it for me to disagree with the echo chamber around here. You guys vehemently lack vision and it's tiresome.
Apple might not choose to make the world's best messaging phone but it's not stupid to think that it could or that lots of people would like it if they did.
Many have suggested how Apple could make a simpler phone, including myself. You are not even close to being the first to suggest it. What you're not seeing is that don't think Apple will see it as a viable option at this point can't "visualize" how it could happen. You need to consider why Apple would want to make this phone. You also need to consider why Apple wouldn't want to make this phone.
You start off saying it's not a vision but a comment, just to later slam anyone who doesn't agree with you by saying we all lack vision. It's up to you make a strong case for your vision. And, yes, it's a vision which you express by commenting. If others don't see your vision you either aren't presenting well or haven't' thought it all the way through. No one else can be blamed for your lack of persuasiveness but you. If you have a case then you should make it but instead you felt it better to say we're all tiresome for having a different vision. I can't imagine why you think that's fair or appropriate.
Many have suggested how Apple could make a simpler phone, including myself. You are not even close to being the first to suggest it. What you're not seeing is that don't think Apple will see it as a viable option at this point can't "visualize" how it could happen. You need to consider why Apple would want to make this phone. You also need to consider why Apple wouldn't want to make this phone.
You start off saying it's not a vision but a comment, just to later slam anyone who doesn't agree with you by saying we all lack vision. It's up to you make a strong case for your vision. And, yes, it's a vision which you express by commenting. If others don't see your vision you either aren't presenting well or haven't' thought it all the way through. No one else can be blamed for your lack of persuasiveness but you. If you have a case then you should make it but instead you felt it better to say we're all tiresome for having a different vision. I can't imagine why you think that's fair or appropriate.
It's tiresome because you guys are endlessly dismissive of everyone else's opinions because of some narrow view of what Apple will and will not do despite repeated wrong predictions (iPad Mini, name of the iPhone 5, etc). Not because of whatever "vision" you have.
Neither you nor I have a "vision", we have an opinions. There's no "case" to be made because there's no hard data on costs, profits and more importantly bandwidth for Apple to maintain product focus. There's only conjecture that many times there is no agreement over.
You've gotten more and more shrill over dissenting opinion and frankly I don't feel the need to justify anything or make a "case" for you because I have zero belief that you'll change your position regardless. When I made a comment that updating the iPad Mini with the A6 would be an improvement you started pontificating about how wrong that is because of retina. I hadn't mentioned retina. Just that the A6 would be a welcome update to the current Mini. This is tiresome.
I said iPhone Nano and you wen't out of your way to correct it as "iPod Nano with cellular capabilities". This is tiresome.
An iPhone Nano based on the iPod Nano is technically possible in 2013 and is consistent with Apple strategy when viewed from the perspective of the strategy employed by Apple with the iPod. Will they do so? Only time will tell. It would not surprise me either way.
Personally, I prefer they concentrate on tablets as Apple has a better chance of maintaining iPod-like dominance in tablets. A dominance they never had in phones or computers.
Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.
Not trying to bail NHT out of this one, but in my mind, 3 things:
1. There is a substantial/large market for a quality device in this form factor and function (text/email/voice/camera/media).
2. Because of (discriminating) demand, there is profit potential (and not just a market looking for the cheapest tool to put in their belt).
3. the iTunes/iOS ecosystem along with the Apple brand is strong enough to lure people by the millions. It's an ecosystem that just works, is seamless to their other devices, and is more durable than competitors products (i.e. can be used as an iPod-like-device-only for years after it's been shelved as a phone).
But I'm going to take this opportunity to vent about a big concern of mine. In the last year, while Apple has tried to make improvements to its various ecosystems, I've seen and heard nothing but complaints in regards to iCloud, Time Machine/Time Capsule, iTunes, and overall quality of experience (namely maps, Siri, and iTunes match/cloud). Apple's high reputation in this regard has gone down....therefore, #3 above which could be its largest asset, is becoming a thorn in its side. If Apple makes dramatic improvements in this regard, then sky is the limit...watch out, because it can then dominate in almost any consumer computing hardware/appliance form factor!
I could eventually see apple having a multi tiered iPhone lineup similar to the iPod lineup starting with a Nano, then the classic and then an upgraded flagship model with a 5 inch screen.
Nothing is stopping them from expanding the lineup and I think now would be the best time for them to do so.
Depends.
Apple's strategy is based on product focus. (Skating to the where the puck will be) They are very successful.
Samsung is based on a broad product base. (Sticking a guy everywhere the puck could possibly go) They are very successful.
The folks struggling seem to have neither a razor focus or sufficiently broad product base. IMHO it would not be a good idea for Apple to move toward that middle ground.
Is this the right time to broaden their iPhone product line? Depends on how strategically important Tim Cook feels it is to capture phone market share.
My opinion is that tablet market share is strategically more important. Maybe they have the product focus bandwidth to do both at the same time.
But given the very weird iMac refresh, the missed Mac Pro update, and the rapid update of the iPad 3 to iPad 4, the addition of the iPad Mini my feeling is that the company is on the edge of how many products they can maintain focus on.
If there is a revolutionary product waiting in the wings FAR better for Apple to maintain a good amount of slack in their abilities than max out their focus bandwidth. Slack is what lets people and organizations do new, innovative things.
More phone or tablet market share isn't worth losing agility and missing the next big thing.
3. the iTunes/iOS ecosystem along with the Apple brand is strong enough to lure people by the millions. It's an ecosystem that just works, is seamless to their other devices, and is more durable than competitors products (i.e. can be used as an iPod-like-device-only for years after it's been shelved as a phone).
But I'm going to take this opportunity to vent about a big concern of mine. In the last year, while Apple has tried to make improvements to its various ecosystems, I've seen and heard nothing but complaints in regards to iCloud, Time Machine/Time Capsule, iTunes, and overall quality of experience (namely maps, Siri, and iTunes match/cloud). Apple's high reputation in this regard has gone down....therefore, #3 above which could be its largest asset, is becoming a thorn in its side. If Apple makes dramatic improvements in this regard, then sky is the limit...watch out, because it can then dominate in almost any consumer computing hardware/appliance form factor!
The more moving parts the harder it is to make it all "simply work".
From this perspective the iPhone Nano is a bad idea...unless Apple decides to drop iPods in favor of just iPhones and iPads...
Not trying to bail NHT out of this one, but in my mind, 3 things:
1. There is a substantial/large market for a quality device in this form factor and function (text/email/voice/camera/media).
2. Because of (discriminating) demand, there is profit potential (and not just a market looking for the cheapest tool to put in their belt).
3. the iTunes/iOS ecosystem along with the Apple brand is strong enough to lure people by the millions. It's an ecosystem that just works, is seamless to their other devices, and is more durable than competitors products (i.e. can be used as an iPod-like-device-only for years after it's been shelved as a phone).
But I'm going to take this opportunity to vent about a big concern of mine. In the last year, while Apple has tried to make improvements to its various ecosystems, I've seen and heard nothing but complaints in regards to iCloud, Time Machine/Time Capsule, iTunes, and overall quality of experience (namely maps, Siri, and iTunes match/cloud). Apple's high reputation in this regard has gone down....therefore, #3 above which could be its largest asset, is becoming a thorn in its side. If Apple makes dramatic improvements in this regard, then sky is the limit...watch out, because it can then dominate in almost any consumer computing hardware/appliance form factor!
Now that's what I'm talking about. That's a through argument. It's not helpful when you're called a dismissive asshole because someone else expects you to create their vision for you.
Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.
1. Falling sales of non-iPod Touch-iPods.
2. Still one billion sales of dumb/feature phones. (2012)
3. The recent, moderate, success of Nokia's Asha line.
4. Plenty of evidence showing low end Androids being used in a non 'smart' way
5. ... as well as, said Androids, adding virtually nothing to the app economy.
Can't you just imagine the uproar it would cause amongst the bloggerati and the phandroids if Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever?
PS. What about the addition of a few, free, built in apps. Twitter, FB, a couple of games etc.
1. Falling sales of non-iPod Touch-iPods.
2. Still one billion sales of dumb/feature phones. (2012)
3. The recent, moderate, success of Nokia's Asha line.
4. Plenty of evidence showing low end Androids being used in a non 'smart' way
5. ... as well as, said Androids, adding virtually nothing to the app economy.
Can't you just imagine the uproar it would cause amongst the bloggerati and the phandroids if Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever?
PS. What about the addition of a few, free, built in apps. Twitter, FB, a couple of games etc.
The problem is these aren't things that are new. Cheap, simple phones were popular long before the iPhone and the iPods reached their peak in 2009. It's not good enough to say "Apple has the ability" or "There is a market for it" you have to make a case that this would be a very profitable move for Apple to make, not just one that it could push a lot of units, be cool if they did so, note that others are doing it, or that they wouldn't lose money if they did it. Apple's growth has been very structured and controlled. If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device that HP, Dell, LG, Nokia, etc. typically do then one needs to make a case that makes it belivable to pull Apple out of their well worn modus operandi, which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device or create a separate App Store for this device.
Comments
"Misdirection"??? Schiller made a statement about Apple's values. Take it out of context if you wish, but Phil had to respond because the Chinese and the lazy Western press were going around making/echoing claims that made it sound as if Apple had abandoned its values. Many people equate low cost to poor quality, poorly designed junk. And for good reason. You think Phil should let these people speak for Apple via unnamed (and therefore unattributable) sources?
It is moot to argue whether Apple *needs* a smaller or cheaper or larger iPhone. Apple doesn't *need* to do anything. It can close its doors for 2 years, and reopen with an awesome, copycat-inspiring product and its share price will likely recover.
Apple also didn't *need* to release an iPad Mini. But it did. It did so because the change in form factor did not restrict the company's ability or desire to imbue the premium qualities of choice (choice is important here because, as much as some will disagree, Apple also compromises). Of course, Apple also observed that the form factor was more utilitarian than originally assumed and there was very strong market potential. Anecdotal evidence suggests Eddy Cue was the one who pushed for this, and he has been proven right.
But what if Apple didn't release the iPad Mini just in time for the Christmas season? Pundits claim that the 7-8" form factor outsold the 9-10" size in the last 2-3 months. Be that as it may, I would argue that at least half of the Mini buys would not have defaulted to the Kindle, the Nexus 7 or Galaxy S Tab. Many would have bought iPad instead. Others might have settled for an iPod Touch or even a completely different products. (Lest we forget, Christmas shopping is not for need and, therefore, an iPad (Mini or not) can be replaced by a TV for the bedroom.)
So, what about a second iPhone in the lineup? It is not going to a more expensive one. The current product will be the flagship product, or *premium* one if you like. If it is going to be cheaper? What will be compromised? Well, you can't very well give up email, web surfing, reading, messaging (SMS or MMS) or media playing. Will Apple release an iPhone that can still do all of those very well, but lacks the ability to run apps? Such a product will compete with Nokia's Asha, for example, which has appeal in regions such as rural China, India, Africa and even pockets of South America - all markets that Apple has not invested in so far. So it's possible but unlikely.
Returning to the iPod analogy, the raison d'etre for the iPod Nano is not necessarily a lower price point. The form factor was (is) much more appealing both in physical and psychological terms (the cute factor cannot be ignored). In terms of functionality, capacity was reduced and video playing was lost (and came, went and returned). Neither was important compared to the gain in form factor. This also happens to be true of iPad Mini - the lack of Retina Display was more than offset by the greater portability.
In summary, if Apple releases a second phone in its lineup (not just an obsolete product), it will be cheaper. It will have reduced functionality. But it will likely also have something else that will make it compelling in its own right if not irresistible. It's hard to imagine if form factor will again be the difference maker (but Apple is very capable of surprising us). Whatever it will be, it will be the topic of debate/discussion, if not another why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment, more so than the price itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stelligent
It is moot to argue whether Apple *needs* a smaller or cheaper or larger iPhone. Apple doesn't *need* to do anything. It can close its doors for 2 years, and reopen with an awesome, copycat-inspiring product and its share price will likely recover.
Indeed. Saying that their sales are okay now, is not a good argument against the idea of Apple making specialized or less expensive devices in order to breach new markets. The limited Apple-has-no-need-to-do-that kind of thinking was disproved with the CDMA iPhone, and later with the iPad mini.
So it's not out of the realm of possibility that they will make a less expensive iPhone model. Tim Cook even told everyone in 2009 that Apple has a plan to get into lower priced iPhone markets if a market requires it.
Quote:
So, what about a second iPhone in the lineup? It is not going to a more expensive one. The current product will be the flagship product, or *premium* one if you like. If it is going to be cheaper? What will be compromised? ...
If Samsung can sell a 3GS equivalent for around $155 (as they do now) with a probable 15-20% gross profit margin, and Apple is willing to drop to a 40% gross margin like they did with the iPad Mini, then Apple could sell a slightly nicer 3GS type for under $199.
Heck, maybe they already have, in a way. Last year in India, for example, Aircel offered the 3GS unlocked for $180 as long as you signed up for a $55 a year plan for one year. That's a total of just $235 to own the phone... with service to boot.
The biggest against-argument right now might be about screen resolution. Would Apple be willing to go backward in that area? However, the "retina" screen part cost is only about $8 more, so even that might not be a problem.
Quote:
In summary, if Apple releases a second phone in its lineup (not just an obsolete product), it will be cheaper. It will have reduced functionality. But it will likely also have something else that will make it compelling in its own right if not irresistible. It's hard to imagine if form factor will again be the difference maker (but Apple is very capable of surprising us). Whatever it will be, it will be the topic of debate/discussion, if not another why-didn't-I-think-of-that moment, more so than the price itself.
You might have something there. Apple does like to create new markets. For example, there are many places in the world where electricity to charge a phone is scarce. A slower, smaller display, less power hungry phone that lasts for days even using GPS, could be very useful. Or one with a solar charger in the screen. Or a shake-to-charge generator. Suddenly every camper in the USA would want one as well. Who knows. All sorts of possible additions to replace a subtraction in other capabilities/cost.
Yeah, sure. It usually isn't a guarantee that XXX will happen when a high-ranking exec says "XXX will not happen", actually.
AI, step up your proofreading, please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
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.
I'll take the 10% of China anyday. 130M clients, sounds good to me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EgoAleSum
You can't do that with an iPhone. At least, not as long as you run it with iOS (and the whole purpose of creating a mass iPhone is for increasing the market share of iOS).
The purpose of a mass market phone is to make money. Increasing iOS market share isn't a primary goal but an ends to a means.
An iPhone Nano with nothing more than Siri, iCloud, iMessage and Lightning still adds users to the Apple ecosystem. Just not the ios app store ecosystem.
Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.
Originally Posted by nht
An iPhone Nano with nothing more than Siri, iCloud, iMessage and Lightning still adds users to the Apple ecosystem. Just not the ios app store ecosystem.
An iPhone without iOS isn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.
Its not a vision it's a comment. I don't need to make a case for an iPhone Nano messaging phone, I just don't think it's ridiculous. Apple makes money selling hardware. If Apple can make the best messaging phone in the world for $199 with good margins then I think it's reasonable for them to pursue it for developing markets.
iPods are slowly dying out. An iPhone Nano/Mini/Whatever a little larger than the iPod Nano would be nice even without the apps but far be it for me to disagree with the echo chamber around here. You guys vehemently lack vision and it's tiresome.
Apple might not choose to make the world's best messaging phone but it's not stupid to think that it could or that lots of people would like it if they did.
I could eventually see apple having a multi tiered iPhone lineup similar to the iPod lineup starting with a Nano, then the classic and then an upgraded flagship model with a 5 inch screen.
Nothing is stopping them from expanding the lineup and I think now would be the best time for them to do so.
Many have suggested how Apple could make a simpler phone, including myself. You are not even close to being the first to suggest it. What you're not seeing is that don't think Apple will see it as a viable option at this point can't "visualize" how it could happen. You need to consider why Apple would want to make this phone. You also need to consider why Apple wouldn't want to make this phone.
You start off saying it's not a vision but a comment, just to later slam anyone who doesn't agree with you by saying we all lack vision. It's up to you make a strong case for your vision. And, yes, it's a vision which you express by commenting. If others don't see your vision you either aren't presenting well or haven't' thought it all the way through. No one else can be blamed for your lack of persuasiveness but you. If you have a case then you should make it but instead you felt it better to say we're all tiresome for having a different vision. I can't imagine why you think that's fair or appropriate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Many have suggested how Apple could make a simpler phone, including myself. You are not even close to being the first to suggest it. What you're not seeing is that don't think Apple will see it as a viable option at this point can't "visualize" how it could happen. You need to consider why Apple would want to make this phone. You also need to consider why Apple wouldn't want to make this phone.
You start off saying it's not a vision but a comment, just to later slam anyone who doesn't agree with you by saying we all lack vision. It's up to you make a strong case for your vision. And, yes, it's a vision which you express by commenting. If others don't see your vision you either aren't presenting well or haven't' thought it all the way through. No one else can be blamed for your lack of persuasiveness but you. If you have a case then you should make it but instead you felt it better to say we're all tiresome for having a different vision. I can't imagine why you think that's fair or appropriate.
It's tiresome because you guys are endlessly dismissive of everyone else's opinions because of some narrow view of what Apple will and will not do despite repeated wrong predictions (iPad Mini, name of the iPhone 5, etc). Not because of whatever "vision" you have.
Neither you nor I have a "vision", we have an opinions. There's no "case" to be made because there's no hard data on costs, profits and more importantly bandwidth for Apple to maintain product focus. There's only conjecture that many times there is no agreement over.
You've gotten more and more shrill over dissenting opinion and frankly I don't feel the need to justify anything or make a "case" for you because I have zero belief that you'll change your position regardless. When I made a comment that updating the iPad Mini with the A6 would be an improvement you started pontificating about how wrong that is because of retina. I hadn't mentioned retina. Just that the A6 would be a welcome update to the current Mini. This is tiresome.
I said iPhone Nano and you wen't out of your way to correct it as "iPod Nano with cellular capabilities". This is tiresome.
An iPhone Nano based on the iPod Nano is technically possible in 2013 and is consistent with Apple strategy when viewed from the perspective of the strategy employed by Apple with the iPod. Will they do so? Only time will tell. It would not surprise me either way.
Personally, I prefer they concentrate on tablets as Apple has a better chance of maintaining iPod-like dominance in tablets. A dominance they never had in phones or computers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.
Not trying to bail NHT out of this one, but in my mind, 3 things:
1. There is a substantial/large market for a quality device in this form factor and function (text/email/voice/camera/media).
2. Because of (discriminating) demand, there is profit potential (and not just a market looking for the cheapest tool to put in their belt).
3. the iTunes/iOS ecosystem along with the Apple brand is strong enough to lure people by the millions. It's an ecosystem that just works, is seamless to their other devices, and is more durable than competitors products (i.e. can be used as an iPod-like-device-only for years after it's been shelved as a phone).
But I'm going to take this opportunity to vent about a big concern of mine. In the last year, while Apple has tried to make improvements to its various ecosystems, I've seen and heard nothing but complaints in regards to iCloud, Time Machine/Time Capsule, iTunes, and overall quality of experience (namely maps, Siri, and iTunes match/cloud). Apple's high reputation in this regard has gone down....therefore, #3 above which could be its largest asset, is becoming a thorn in its side. If Apple makes dramatic improvements in this regard, then sky is the limit...watch out, because it can then dominate in almost any consumer computing hardware/appliance form factor!
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
I could eventually see apple having a multi tiered iPhone lineup similar to the iPod lineup starting with a Nano, then the classic and then an upgraded flagship model with a 5 inch screen.
Nothing is stopping them from expanding the lineup and I think now would be the best time for them to do so.
Depends.
Apple's strategy is based on product focus. (Skating to the where the puck will be) They are very successful.
Samsung is based on a broad product base. (Sticking a guy everywhere the puck could possibly go) They are very successful.
The folks struggling seem to have neither a razor focus or sufficiently broad product base. IMHO it would not be a good idea for Apple to move toward that middle ground.
Is this the right time to broaden their iPhone product line? Depends on how strategically important Tim Cook feels it is to capture phone market share.
My opinion is that tablet market share is strategically more important. Maybe they have the product focus bandwidth to do both at the same time.
But given the very weird iMac refresh, the missed Mac Pro update, and the rapid update of the iPad 3 to iPad 4, the addition of the iPad Mini my feeling is that the company is on the edge of how many products they can maintain focus on.
If there is a revolutionary product waiting in the wings FAR better for Apple to maintain a good amount of slack in their abilities than max out their focus bandwidth. Slack is what lets people and organizations do new, innovative things.
More phone or tablet market share isn't worth losing agility and missing the next big thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drewys808
3. the iTunes/iOS ecosystem along with the Apple brand is strong enough to lure people by the millions. It's an ecosystem that just works, is seamless to their other devices, and is more durable than competitors products (i.e. can be used as an iPod-like-device-only for years after it's been shelved as a phone).
But I'm going to take this opportunity to vent about a big concern of mine. In the last year, while Apple has tried to make improvements to its various ecosystems, I've seen and heard nothing but complaints in regards to iCloud, Time Machine/Time Capsule, iTunes, and overall quality of experience (namely maps, Siri, and iTunes match/cloud). Apple's high reputation in this regard has gone down....therefore, #3 above which could be its largest asset, is becoming a thorn in its side. If Apple makes dramatic improvements in this regard, then sky is the limit...watch out, because it can then dominate in almost any consumer computing hardware/appliance form factor!
The more moving parts the harder it is to make it all "simply work".
From this perspective the iPhone Nano is a bad idea...unless Apple decides to drop iPods in favor of just iPhones and iPads...
That would be one hell of a move now wouldn't it?
3" iPhone Nano replaces iPod Nano
4" iPhone
5" iPad Nano replaces iPod Touch
7.85" iPad Mini
9.7" iPad
Now that's what I'm talking about. That's a through argument. It's not helpful when you're called a dismissive asshole because someone else expects you to create their vision for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Sure, but you need to make a better case for an iPod Nano with a cellular capabilities. I can sorta see how that could work but I think you need a more comprehensive argument if you want to convince people to see your vision.
1. Falling sales of non-iPod Touch-iPods.
2. Still one billion sales of dumb/feature phones. (2012)
3. The recent, moderate, success of Nokia's Asha line.
4. Plenty of evidence showing low end Androids being used in a non 'smart' way
5. ... as well as, said Androids, adding virtually nothing to the app economy.
Can't you just imagine the uproar it would cause amongst the bloggerati and the phandroids if Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever?
PS. What about the addition of a few, free, built in apps. Twitter, FB, a couple of games etc.
The problem is these aren't things that are new. Cheap, simple phones were popular long before the iPhone and the iPods reached their peak in 2009. It's not good enough to say "Apple has the ability" or "There is a market for it" you have to make a case that this would be a very profitable move for Apple to make, not just one that it could push a lot of units, be cool if they did so, note that others are doing it, or that they wouldn't lose money if they did it. Apple's growth has been very structured and controlled. If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device that HP, Dell, LG, Nokia, etc. typically do then one needs to make a case that makes it belivable to pull Apple out of their well worn modus operandi, which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device or create a separate App Store for this device.
Originally Posted by piot
1. Falling sales of non-iPod Touch-iPods.
Yeah, they're either buying iPod touches or buying iPhones. The existing models.
2. Still one billion sales of dumb/feature phones. (2012)
Hey, as long as I can get a new battery for my VX5300, I'm good.
So why should Apple enter the stupidphone market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
3. The recent, moderate success of Nokia's Asha line.
Answers itself.
4. Plenty of evidence showing low end Androids being used in a non 'smart' way
And that same research shows iPhones being used in a smart way. Smart makes Apple (and third parties) more money.
5. ... as well as, said Androids, adding virtually nothing to the app economy.
Exactly, so why should Apple snub their developers by making a phone that can't run their apps?!