Insiders "now confident" Apple will launch lower-priced, lightweight iPhone as early as June

1356

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 112
    geekdadgeekdad Posts: 1,131member


    You have a good point with those products. My comment was for the product in the article.....We will see if they start offering a lower end phone.

  • Reply 42 of 112
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maccherry View Post



    This is bs. And this is how the greed in Wall Street destroys companies like apple.

    Apple is bringing in the cash like nobody else yet these analyst insist Apple must target the low end market. Please!


     


    Apple is in business to make money. If its management believes it can make more money pursing the broader market with lower cost versions of their products (as they have done on previous occasions) they will do it. This is not "greed" it is good business. Furthermore it might be great for those millions who might find the current iPhone inaccessible but a lower cost one achievable.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maccherry View Post



    And if Apple does do a low end IPhone it'll only go so far because some wont buy Apple no matter what.


     


    Using that reasoning Apple should never get into any market where they can sell to 100% of the customers. image


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maccherry View Post



    Next Apple will be accused of cannibolizing their high end stuff with low margin watered down sh** just to suffice some goddamn corner office , Wall Street schmucks.


     


    My goodness we're a bit angry...and full of assumptions with no basis in fact.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by maccherry View Post



    Give me an effing break.


     


    You first.

  • Reply 43 of 112
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post



    I'm sure Apple could pull off something really nice in plastic, like Nokia did, only more tactile.


     


    Indeed. I really don't think Apple plans to compromise their values in building products here. I find it interesting that assumption, by some, that even offering a lower cost product would compromise their values and standards. So far this has not been the case.

  • Reply 44 of 112
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member
    Why is this a consideration?

    I am seeing the target market not as what we used to call white-collar workers with uncalloused hands, but the people who go out and do physically difficult things for a living. I spend part of my life doing these things, used to do it full time. I know how often the glass iPhone slips out of your coverall or shirt pocket on to the hard, wet concrete or asphalt, or into the muddy track. Every time it happens, you check to see if the chip on the edge of the glass has turned into a spider web. It just ain't a Third World-friendly design.
  • Reply 45 of 112
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post





    I am seeing the target market not as what we used to call white-collar workers with uncalloused hands, but the people who go out and do physically difficult things for a living. I spend part of my life doing these things, used to do it full time. I know how often the glass iPhone slips out of your coverall or shirt pocket on to the hard, wet concrete or asphalt, or into the muddy track. Every time it happens, you check to see if the chip on the edge of the glass has turned into a spider web. It just ain't a Third World-friendly design.


     


    It's possible you have a stereotyped mis-perception of the market that is being considered. China, for example, has a huge and growing middle class. However this middle class is not what might be considered middle class in the fully developed western world...it is still not third world or people munging around on dirt paths and such.

  • Reply 46 of 112
    tbelltbell Posts: 3,146member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan View Post



    A lower priced phone specifically designed for emerging markets like India/China makes sense. Just in China alone, this lower priced option would give you access to nearly half a billion more potential customers. What I would not do, is have it compete in the US, EU, etc... with the current full featured iPhone.


     


     


    I agree. This phone is about making a deal with companies like China Mobile for emerging markets. Apple might not even sell it in the US. It could also be for prepaid markets. 


     


    I am curious what Apple will be bringing to T-Mobile, which has gone on record saying a deal has been struck. 

  • Reply 47 of 112

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


     


    Apple is in business to make money. If its management believes it can make more money pursing the broader market with lower cost versions of their products (as they have done on previous occasions) they will do it. This is not "greed" it is good business. Furthermore it might be great for those millions who might find the current iPhone inaccessible but a lower cost one achievable.


     


     


     


    Using that reasoning Apple should never get into any market where they can sell to 100% of the customers. image


     


     


     


    My goodness we're a bit angry...and full of assumptions with no basis in fact.


     


     


     


    You first.



     


     


    Show me one example of Apple ever doing this?


     


    Product line is different then lower cost products. The Macbook vs. Macbook Pro was a product line difference for a different use. When people did not want the power of a Pro, they opted for the Macbook. Not having Pro components made it less expensive. But note how those sales moved to the Macbook Air. People showing Apple they are willing to pay the higher price while still not needing Pro components. 


     


    iPod line is just that, a family of products to meet how consumers USE the product, not cheaper to get more consumers. 


     


    Of course, that is not to say, when Apple can save money they won't. Of course they do, but time and time, and time again, their customers have shown Apple, we are willing to pay a higher price. 


     


    This all misses the bigger picture, which I have posted on before. Apple will NOT allow any seemingly cheap product to enter into their lineup as this will tarnish their brand!!!! Much like the fashion industry where high end names stay high end. Example: there are fashion brands out there that will not allow defected products to be sold in discount stores as that will allow "anyone" to wear them and thus lower the brand. 


     


    What you are thinking of is the auto industry where they make a really nice Mustang and then put out a crap version to sell to the masses. This actually brings down the entire brand. 


     


    Let's compare with a name game. 


     


    Mustang ...... Dodge Viper


     


    With the Mustang you could have envisioned that junk model or the GT, or the Cobra, or the Shelby, but with the Viper, there is only one cool, high performance model. Get what I am saying? 


     


    Apple has a brand, and I, myself, would be less willing to buy into the brand if it becomes cheap. People stand in lines for hours/days for a reason. 

  • Reply 48 of 112
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


     


    Why not?



     


    Apple moved away from plastic. I don't see it going back. Once you go to a "premium", you can't go back to plastic.

  • Reply 49 of 112
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member
    mj1970 wrote: »
    It's possible you have a stereotyped mis-perception of the market that is being considered. China, for example, has a huge and growing middle class. However this middle class is not what might be considered middle class in the fully developed western world...it is still not third world or people munging around on dirt paths and such.

    It's very possible that I'm biasing my sterotypes downclass toward working people, because I spent many years doing things like wrenching, woodsy stuff, and still do a lot of tinkering. Like much of the world.

    I love it when I see a tow truck driver pull an iPhone out of his jacket, but I know from experience how out of place a glass back and face, with exposed edges, are in that environment. The mechanics I know appreciate the technology of the Apple build, but they put that beautiful glass design into thick, rubberized non-slip cases.

    It's an indoor design, and its appeal is based partially on its jewel-like precision. Same with the 5. But I think it's possible for Apple to do something tougher but still beautiful for people who get out in the world for a living. Like Ferdinand Porsche's approach when he designed his peoples' car: rugged and simple, but beautifully finished.

    Anyway, glass with exposed edges is no material for a world phone.
  • Reply 50 of 112
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


     


    Apple moved away from plastic. I don't see it going back. Once you go to a "premium", you can't go back to plastic.



     


    Hmmm. Interestingly logical reasoning there.


     


    image

  • Reply 51 of 112
    I don't see why Apple needs to create a new cheaper iPhone when they're currently selling 4 and 4S for cheaper price.
  • Reply 52 of 112
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member
    capoeira4u wrote: »
    I don't see why Apple needs to create a new cheaper iPhone when they're currently selling 4 and 4S for cheaper price.

    See, nobody gets it. Glass is simply out of place.
  • Reply 53 of 112
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


    Show me one example of Apple ever doing this?


     


    Product line is different then lower cost products. The Macbook vs. Macbook Pro was a product line difference for a different use. When people did not want the power of a Pro, they opted for the Macbook.



     


    You appear to be assuming that they wouldn't be making some kind of similar move (product line differentiation/segmentation) with the phone. I don't know why you'd assume that.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


    but time and time, and time again, their customers have shown Apple, we are willing to pay a higher price. 



     


    True, but you assume that Apple is not interested in pursuing additional customers.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


    This all misses the bigger picture, which I have posted on before. Apple will NOT allow any seemingly cheap product to enter into their lineup as this will tarnish their brand!!!!



     


    I'm not sure anyone is claiming that.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


    What you are thinking of is the auto industry where they make a really nice Mustang and then put out a crap version to sell to the masses. This actually brings down the entire brand. 



     


    It helps if you don't tell me what I'm thinking. I'm not thinking any such thing.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


    Apple has a brand, and I, myself, would be less willing to buy into the brand if it becomes cheap. People stand in lines for hours/days for a reason. 



     


    *sigh*

  • Reply 54 of 112
    kevtkevt Posts: 195member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


     


    Apple is in business to make money. If its management believes it can make more money pursing the broader market with lower cost versions of their products (as they have done on previous occasions) they will do it. This is not "greed" it is good business. Furthermore it might be great for those millions who might find the current iPhone inaccessible but a lower cost one achievable.


     



     


    This. People should relax. Apple has done this successfully before. They are never going to do 'cheap and nasty', or join or a race to the bottom. They brought out iPods at different price points, and maintained quality. They've brought the iPad mini, and that's selling well at a lower price point without being 'cheap'. Sure, there are compromises by comparison with the top models, but gains in terms of portability.


     


    It is not only good business sense because Apple could sell here, even if the profit margins aren't quite as good. But it would also bolster the share of users using iOS which is vital to the platform as a whole, maintaining developer, accessory support etc. This cannot be underestimated.

  • Reply 55 of 112
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,510member
    mj1970 wrote: »
    *sigh*

    Indeed.
  • Reply 56 of 112
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,154member
    I see no problem with Apple making a cheaper iPhone as long as it isn't a piece of shit. Look at the iPad mini. Build quality is top notch. Apple's biggest weapon is iOS, ecosystem, Appstore, support, ease of use, etc. Believe it or not most people who buy iPhone do not care how precisely engineered it is. Personally, and only speaking for myself, I would have no problem with a plastic iPhone as long as it was good quality.
  • Reply 57 of 112
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member

    Quote:


    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post




    Let's compare with a name game. 


     


    Mustang ...... Dodge Viper


     


    With the Mustang you could have envisioned that junk model or the GT, or the Cobra, or the Shelby, but with the Viper, there is only one cool, high performance model. Get what I am saying? 


     


    Apple has a brand, and I, myself, would be less willing to buy into the brand if it becomes cheap. People stand in lines for hours/days for a reason. 



    The flaw in your theory is assuming Apple is still a 'niche' company that only makes 'niche' products like the Viper.  Dodge is part of Chrysler.  They also make less expensive cars like the Dart.  But offer a premium badge like SRT.  Ford also sold the GT for a while, very premium product but also sells the Fiesta.


     


    I think the comparison you're trying to make to the auto industry is between the Mustang and Ferrari.  You have the Mustang with it's various name plates, but then there is the Ferrari 458.  However, again, you're missing the key issue in this comparison to Apple.  Apple is no longer Ferrari.  They are like an Audi or Lexus or Acura...but even those companies are still owned by larger parent companies like VW Group, Toyota and Honda.  Still premium brands but offer less expensive models to gain a greater reach of the market.


     


    They're still no Ford, but even Ford has premium brands like Lincoln.  All these companies use parts from one another to help streamline the supply chain.  It's most obvious in Audi and VW.  But really that is the best comparison to Apple, since VW produces cars that share common parts, but they are all fairly premium parts at that.  And they sell a very wide range of products from the premium affordable (GOLF) to the ultra premium (PHEATON).  However, the same quality is prevalent across the board.


     


    Edit: note I'm using the USA range of VW cars only...I know in most other countries VW sells even more affordable options like the UP! and the Polo.  Also note that the in hindsight, the best comparison to Apple in the Auto industry would be Porsche.  They make the affordable Boxster and Cayman, but then the premium model 911.


     


    A less expensive (contract free) iPhone is an inevitability.  And there are still ways to make it less expensive without sacrificing quality.  That's why I still hold that the key to a less expensive iPhone is in it's assembly and availability of components, not in reducing quality or eliminating feature.  If they reduce features (iOS, Camera, etc.) there are still other products that consumers will flock to primarily on price alone.  Apple has to find ways to make their products in larger quantities at lower production costs (manufacturing and labor)  Really the parts they can compromise on can be screen/battery/camera and processors only.  And even then the market will balk at that.

  • Reply 58 of 112

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post



    The success of the iPad mini could be pushing them in this direction.


     


    I don't see how there is any logical relationship between these two things. If you think there is one, please establish it. If you can't establish it, that should be a clue that one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.

  • Reply 59 of 112
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post


     


    I don't see how there is any logical relationship between these two things. If you think there is one, please establish it. If you can't establish it, that should be a clue that one doesn't really have anything to do with the other.



    And I would ask, how are they not?

  • Reply 60 of 112
    wovelwovel Posts: 956member
    scott1612 wrote: »
    Apple can't really believe that a cheaper iphone is the way forward. The problem is the iphone is a premium product with a price tag to match which offers very little from its ios. You could buy a galaxy s3 mini get more from it than a 529 pound iphone 5. Apple talk a good story but not much else

    Thank you for joining. Your provided valuable insight no one here has seen before. Do you get paid for this work or are you a volunteer?
Sign In or Register to comment.