First of all, I'm not a fan of the use of cheap as it not only implies inexpensive within its category but also of poor quality. I think that misses the point of what a less expensive device could offer.
Second, consider the older iPhones Apple sells at a lower price. Up to 3 years old* and still selling well. There is clearly a market for a less expensive device with less features. These are still high-quality, just not the latest tech. We on this forum aren't likely to buy them but we are not representative of the market.
Finally, at $450 off contract the iPhone 4 is still quite expensive (and that's not considering tariffs for selling in countries where such a device would thrive). I can see how Apple want a less expensive model for markets where subsidies don't exist. I can also see a path that would cause Apple to build a less expensive device before China Mobile wanted them to.
Surely they would make a healthy profit per unit but the important question they would have to answer to go this route would be whether they would make more profit than they would by otherwise not investing in such a device. That goes back to your previous concern about affecting sales of the higher-end models, but as already stated they have made that move with older iPhones (and with the iPad mini). I think they would and I don't necessarily think that such a device sold in China, India, and Brasil would need to be sold in The US, Canada, or the UK. That would be the really atypical thing for Apple to do but I think their "boutique" style needs some shaving.
* Perhaps even older with the season change of the iPhone 4S if they were still selling the 3GS.
edit: I see I've been pipped by several people. Oops.
As for pricing, I don't see Apple pricing a less expensive iPhone at the same level as the current iPod Touch and think they can get away with something even more expensive than the iPad mini and it's hard for me to believe Apple would ship a phone less expensive than the $299 Nexus 4. I see an 8 GB model somewhere in the $349-$379 range with LTE.
In terms of marketing, I can imagine a global rollout of a less expensive iPhone, not one limited at all by region. If EU and BRIC nations desire the less expensive off-contract model over the full-featured model (and there happen to be relatively few sales of the less expensive model in the US and Canada) so be it. Apple would be very ok with that. I'm fairly certain that there are already significant sales differences by product and region.
And my point stands. They removed that product for one of higher quality unlike what you suggest which is to take a higher quality and reduce it down.
it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.
Apple reduces cost all the time by buying larger (or all) quantities, and buying early. Manufacturing processes and designing in-house also help.
Those are but a few ways companies reduce costs.
But this has nothing to do with going cheaper.
If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
All manufacturers reduce cost when they can, but they never reduce margin unless forced to by competition and currently in the high-end space, there is not competition to Apple.
This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.
The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.
This is why they are always rated tops by consumers and why people stand in long lines for hours to get the next new thing from Apple.
How to increase cost it to lower the quality of an item thus increasing service, repairs/replaces and customer confidence.
They are rated the best because they are the best. That doesn't mean a less expensive model has to be crap. Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.
Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.
You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.
PS: Why do quote a post and then recopy the post in your text. It makes it difficult to follow. Can we at least agree that communication is key?
it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.
Those are but a few ways companies reduce costs.
If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.
The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.
They are rated the best because they are the best. That doesn't mean a less expensive model has to be crap. Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.
Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.
You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.
it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.
And it still stands!! Apple has had several plastic computers over time as that was the material of the time. Their higher end models were upgraded to aluminum and as cost came down, they removed all other plastics from the product line to increase the quality NOT LOWER IT! To my point again, Apple has upgraded the quality of their products, NOT lowered it over time, like you suggest they do.
If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.
Okay, I am not going to argue this further as you and others fail to see that the MBA was not an introduction of a cheaper computer, but of a new product line of ultra thin computers. And over time it has been increased (not descreased) in ability and build to where it replaced the entry level plastic MB. If you don't see that, they we'll just go round and round forever.
The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.
That is not what I said. I said Apple won't INTRODUCE a cheaper iPhone. Moving models down is not introducing. I have always argued that by doing this, less expensive iPhones enter the market. That is hugely different than Apple manufacturing a phone just for a lower end market. So the simplest way I can explain this comment from you, is it is not relevant to the conversation at hand.
Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.
Once again, the mini is not a cheaper version of the iPad but a new product to meet the consumer demand of a smaller form factor much like the iPod did with different size and shapes to meet demands. Apple just did not make some knock-off iPod or iPad to gain market share. Why don't you understand that?
Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.
I'm starting to think you have no idea what this thread is about. Apple did not take the iPod and reduce specs to gain market. They did introduce products to meet the needs of people such as size. Did they use the same components as the iPhone? What does it matter, they are two different products for different needs.
You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.
Where has Apple lowered the bar? Show me where Apple has lowered the specs of a product rather than increase them?
AppleInsider would report what Gene had for breakfast, if it was Apple Jacks.
I get that this is a rumor site and all but most of the time these analyst predictions aren't based on any sort of inside knowledge or a well placed rumor or leak liked you'd get with, say John Gruber or 9to5 Mac. They're just predictions based on what someone thinks Apple might do, or needs to do to stay competitive in a certain market. And then they attach a dollar figure to it and send it out to their clients as "research".
Jesus Fucking Christ! I've given you at least a half dozen examples!
Great use of your words.
No, actually you have given examples of Apple introducing NEW product CATEGORIES to meet market demand for size and usability, not taking an existing product, reducing its specs to introduce a cheaper model.
1) learn to quote. 2) your original claim that there are "free" iPhones cheaper than the $300 quoted by Munster has been comprehensively defeated. You are now scurrying around trying to find minor quibbles in other peoples arguments.
I really don't get that people don't understand that.
1) selling last years model is a stop gap. 2) Apple sells cheaper models ( not cheaper configurations but models) ALL THE TIME.
And I really really really don't understand why Apple fans would oppose more iPhone models.
No, actually you have given examples of Apple introducing NEW product CATEGORIES to meet market demand for size and usability, not taking an existing product, reducing its specs to introduce a cheaper model.
Apparently you can't see that.
That's semantic crap. You have merely decided that all the different models of the Mac are NEW product CATEGORIES but any iPhone model - as yet unannounced. - is REDUCING ITS SPECS.
You're joking, right? The collective musings of every Apple fanboi that opines on AI is easily eclipsed by Gene Munster's understanding of Apple and his recorded track record. Pull you pea brains out of the sand, please!
The same Gene Muster who has been predicting an Apple television set for the past 2-3 years? Blows my mind why anyone takes him seriously.
As far as a low cost iPhone, why does everyone assume it has to be plastic to be low cost? I know Apple has done plastic in the past, but how many of their flagship devices are plastic right now? Mac, iPhone, iPad and iPod are all aluminum and glass. Couldn't they produce an iPod touch like device with cellular capability that's cheaper than $450?
2) your original claim that there are "free" iPhones cheaper than the $300 quoted by Munster has been comprehensively defeated. You are now scurrying around trying to find minor quibbles in other peoples arguments.
I really don't get that people don't understand that.
1) selling last years model is a stop gap.
2) Apple sells cheaper models ( not cheaper configurations but models) ALL THE TIME.
And I really really really don't understand why Apple fans would oppose more iPhone models.
Not sure how FREE is more expensive than $300, but okay, I won't argue that any further. If someone shows me where most people in the world don't have a contract with their phone carrier, or needs to change carriers so often that every 2 years is absurd, then I might even agree. But really, who changes out their carrier that often? And if so, they can only do that so many times before they are back to the beginning.
Again, selling last years models at a lower cost is not the same as being suggested by everyone. What is being suggested is for Apple to create a new phone, with lower specs, and introduce it to the market to gain massive shares.
And I really don't understand why people insist that Apple does introduce a 'cheaper' iPhone model. I have never seen Apple introduce a cheaper version of a current model to gain market.
I have seen them keep existing models at lower price points, but that is not the same as being suggested.
Not sure how FREE is more expensive than $300, but okay, I won't argue that any further. If someone shows me where most people in the world don't have a contract with their phone carrier, or needs to change carriers so often that every 2 years is absurd, then I might even agree. But really, who changes out their carrier that often? And if so, they can only do that so many times before they are back to the beginning.
Again, selling last years models at a lower cost is not the same as being suggested by everyone. What is being suggested is for Apple to create a new phone, with lower specs, and introduce it to the market to gain massive shares.
And I really don't understand why people insist that Apple does introduce a 'cheaper' iPhone model. I have never seen Apple introduce a cheaper version of a current model to gain market.
I have seen them keep existing models at lower price points, but that is not the same as being suggested.
Oh my God! Look, it is not some conspiracy or top secret. Google the stats for yourself but all the recent articles I have read suggest that around 80% of all consumers in the world do not get a carrier subsidy for your free iPhone 4. For those people it can cost them $500 or more for an iPhone 4. Cheaper doesn't equate to low quality, especially when you are talking about Apple. Besides wanting to transition away from 30 pin to lightning in one fell swoop how do you know that Apple couldn't use one of those new Rosetta Stone type Qualcomm chips that would allow them to sell a lower cost model in every since country in the world saving them even more money over trying to sell several different older iPhone models. They might even decide to offer a 8GB and 16GB version while the current iPhone jumps to 32/64/128. The point is you nor I nor anyone else know what Apple will do, but your reasons not to introduce this phone aren't very convincing. Your "Free" iPhone 4 costs about $500 or more for 80% of the world's population and who wouldn't rather have a current year model over one from 2 years ago unless the specs are far worse which is doubtful. It would likely be as good or slightly better than a 4S in terms of CPU/GPU.
Lol. Your continued hostility to Apple doing anything they haven't done before is amusing.
That IS funny, because I specifically offered up something Apple has never done before and yet you're still saying this. In fact, I've done that for years and you're still saying this.
There is a precedent for Apple having different models at different price levels cf the Mac.
Your point is what?
Selling last years stuff is sub optimal.
Hasn't been for four years. Why would it be now?
1) it's not supported for as long as a model produced this year.
People know that.
2) you are competing with your own secondary market.
Apparently not drastically.
3) last years model doesn't have the sexiness of this years model regardless of configuration.
Given that your argument is smoke, it makes sense that one of your points would be tenuous as well.
4) Apple doesn't have to have one BIG IPHONE EVENT a year.
… They have to have… two, then? Or what are you saying?
Not sure how FREE is more expensive than $300, but okay, I won't argue that any further. If someone shows me where most people in the world don't have a contract with their phone carrier, or needs to change carriers so often that every 2 years is absurd, then I might even agree. But really, who changes out their carrier that often? And if so, they can only do that so many times before they are back to the beginning.
Again, selling last years models at a lower cost is not the same as being suggested by everyone. What is being suggested is for Apple to create a new phone, with lower specs, and introduce it to the market to gain massive shares.
And I really don't understand why people insist that Apple does introduce a 'cheaper' iPhone model. I have never seen Apple introduce a cheaper version of a current model to gain market.
I have seen them keep existing models at lower price points, but that is not the same as being suggested.
Um, free is more expensive than $300 because the lowest cost iPhone is not free (your claim) but $450.
I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it?
The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"
I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.
And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.
Oh my God! Look, it is not some conspiracy or top secret. Google the stats for yourself but all the recent articles I have read suggest that around 80% of all consumers in the world do not get a carrier subsidy for your free iPhone 4. For those people it can cost them $500 or more for an iPhone 4. Cheaper doesn't equate to low quality, especially when you are talking about Apple. Besides wanting to transition away from 30 pin to lightning in one fell swoop how do you know that Apple couldn't use one of those new Rosetta Stone type Qualcomm chips that would allow them to sell a lower cost model in every since country in the world saving them even more money over trying to sell several different older iPhone models. They might even decide to offer a 8GB and 16GB version while the current iPhone jumps to 32/64/128. The point is you nor I nor anyone else know what Apple will do, but your reasons not to introduce this phone aren't very convincing. Your "Free" iPhone 4 costs about $500 or more for 80% of the world's population and who wouldn't rather have a current year model over one from 2 years ago unless the specs are far worse which is doubtful. It would likely be as good or slightly better than a 4S in terms of CPU/GPU.
And carriers, as well as Apple, is addressing this with payment plans. But just because someone can't afford something, it does not mean the manufacturer has to produce a product they can afford. I can't afford a new Mac every time I want one, or even when I need one some times, but that does not mean I want Apple to lower the quality just so I can.
I have also suggested and introduced the conversation as to what they can decrease to save money, but no one, aside from your post here, has even commented on that. If you read that post, you will see that I did suggest lowering the SDD as only one of the options I stated. Although I still would find it hard to think Apple would.
Quote:
Camera? The Free iPhones do have older cameras and I don't see Apple taking that away?
Build? By the time the phone becomes free, the build quality would become a far less cost hog as, I would imagine, all the R&D and process has been ironed out. Would moving to plastic make the phone that much cheaper? And with others moving to better materials, would that not make Apple look like they are going backwards?
WiFi only and no GPS? With WiFi only you could save on the data plan and hardware with no GPS, but that really kills some major functions of the phone.
Siri? Removing Siri would not reduce price. Unless the processor and RAM is greatly reduced.
Retina display? Moving away from this would probably be more costly as having to use two different materials increases cost of production.
Processor? Sure, they can save here by using processors that don't meet specs as they do in the Apple TV
Less RAM and less SSD space? Sure, that would be another area. (they already offer multiple sizes so adding another smaller size would not increase production complexity like adding non-retina screens would)
Um, free is more expensive than $300 because the lowest cost iPhone is not free (your claim) but $450.
I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it?
The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"
I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.
And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.
Again, lost in reality!
I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it?
Remedially the word of the day for you? And despite what you might want to believe, keeping a product at a lower price is NOT the same as introducing a new product with lower specs to meet a lower price point.
The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"
Again, you are lost in reality. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs for a lower price point. The iPad mini is a new product of DIFFERENT size and specs to meet the demands of a form factor. The ONLY cheaper iPads are the older models.
I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.
I'd rather you understand basic business concepts.
And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.
Oh, now I get it. LOL sorry, I was late to the party here. So being you don't have contracts (I assume that is your argument) and have to pay full price, you rather Apple introduce something you can afford? Why don't you instead go to your carrier and demand that they offer the iPhone FREE with a contract as those do in America? Or offer a payment plan so you can afford the phone over time? Why does Apple have to introduce something you can afford?
Oh Mr. BMW, I can only afford a Civic, will you please lower your quality so I can buy your BMW. It does not matter if you have to lower the quality to the point of Civic, just as long as I can say I own a BMW.
That IS funny, because I specifically offered up something Apple has never done before and yet you're still saying this. In fact, I've done that for years and you're still saying this.
Your point is what?
Hasn't been for four years. Why would it be now?
People know that.
Apparently not drastically.
Given that your argument is smoke, it makes sense that one of your points would be tenuous as well.
… They have to have… two, then? Or what are you saying?
There is only much idiocy I can handle so to rebut this trivial argument ( and then put mod on ignore - a first).
1) you were totally opposed to the idea of the continuation of the 3GS when the 4S came out. Apple never did this before. Yada yada yada. Why you follow a company which is going to upset you by doing different things all the time is a mystery. And let's not mention the utter trainwreck about the iPhone 6. And the iPad mini. If I were as wrong as you I would learn some damn humility.
2) Apple is losing the low end market so claims that "apparantly" things are working for them is no sense. Because you need two data sets. How last years models compare against a new model. WE WON'T HAVE THAT DATA UNTIL RELEASE THE NEW MODELS SO WE CAN COMPARE.
of course apple are going to have more than one model of iPhone. As they do with all other products.
But, getting this wrong, as you will you will continue to be arrogant about your next stupid - it wasn't like this in the last 2 years - opinion.
I don't even get why Apple fans would not want more models of a device they use and welcome to ignore.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
First of all, I'm not a fan of the use of cheap as it not only implies inexpensive within its category but also of poor quality. I think that misses the point of what a less expensive device could offer.
Second, consider the older iPhones Apple sells at a lower price. Up to 3 years old* and still selling well. There is clearly a market for a less expensive device with less features. These are still high-quality, just not the latest tech. We on this forum aren't likely to buy them but we are not representative of the market.
Finally, at $450 off contract the iPhone 4 is still quite expensive (and that's not considering tariffs for selling in countries where such a device would thrive). I can see how Apple want a less expensive model for markets where subsidies don't exist. I can also see a path that would cause Apple to build a less expensive device before China Mobile wanted them to.
Surely they would make a healthy profit per unit but the important question they would have to answer to go this route would be whether they would make more profit than they would by otherwise not investing in such a device. That goes back to your previous concern about affecting sales of the higher-end models, but as already stated they have made that move with older iPhones (and with the iPad mini). I think they would and I don't necessarily think that such a device sold in China, India, and Brasil would need to be sold in The US, Canada, or the UK. That would be the really atypical thing for Apple to do but I think their "boutique" style needs some shaving.
* Perhaps even older with the season change of the iPhone 4S if they were still selling the 3GS.
edit: I see I've been pipped by several people. Oops.
As for pricing, I don't see Apple pricing a less expensive iPhone at the same level as the current iPod Touch and think they can get away with something even more expensive than the iPad mini and it's hard for me to believe Apple would ship a phone less expensive than the $299 Nexus 4. I see an 8 GB model somewhere in the $349-$379 range with LTE.
In terms of marketing, I can imagine a global rollout of a less expensive iPhone, not one limited at all by region. If EU and BRIC nations desire the less expensive off-contract model over the full-featured model (and there happen to be relatively few sales of the less expensive model in the US and Canada) so be it. Apple would be very ok with that. I'm fairly certain that there are already significant sales differences by product and region.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
Contradiction on your part?
Would you care to point out what you think is contradictory?
it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.
Those are but a few ways companies reduce costs.
If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.
The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.
They are rated the best because they are the best. That doesn't mean a less expensive model has to be crap. Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.
Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.
You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.
PS: Why do quote a post and then recopy the post in your text. It makes it difficult to follow. Can we at least agree that communication is key?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.
Those are but a few ways companies reduce costs.
If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.
The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.
They are rated the best because they are the best. That doesn't mean a less expensive model has to be crap. Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.
Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.
You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.
it really doesn't. You're original comment stated that "Apple never has gone after quantity but quality and higher margins" to which point I've shown they have introduced devices with both lower margins and quality components. I've shown that they done so before, after and during Steve Jobs's return to Apple.
And it still stands!! Apple has had several plastic computers over time as that was the material of the time. Their higher end models were upgraded to aluminum and as cost came down, they removed all other plastics from the product line to increase the quality NOT LOWER IT! To my point again, Apple has upgraded the quality of their products, NOT lowered it over time, like you suggest they do.
If by cheaper you mean less expensive, again, Apple has offered less expensive options over the years. The MBA is a great example.
This is not true by any measure. Apple has reduced margins and Apple has competition. It also has chosen to become competition to others.
Okay, I am not going to argue this further as you and others fail to see that the MBA was not an introduction of a cheaper computer, but of a new product line of ultra thin computers. And over time it has been increased (not descreased) in ability and build to where it replaced the entry level plastic MB. If you don't see that, they we'll just go round and round forever.
The simplest way I can explain it to think about a pyramid. Apple starts at the top. These are highest margins with the highest prices but also the lowest number of potential buyers. Once that segment is nearing its saturation point they grow down. This brings in less profit per unit but they have expanded their pool of buyers which may afford them more profits over the higher tier or may not. Either way it's still profit with a lot of the R&D and risk being resolved long ago with the higher tier model(s). Look at the iPhone 4 still being sold today. That isn't as built as well as the iPhone 5 and clearly uses "cheaper" components in both cost and quality but you say that isn't possible because Apple doesn't do such a thing.
That is not what I said. I said Apple won't INTRODUCE a cheaper iPhone. Moving models down is not introducing. I have always argued that by doing this, less expensive iPhones enter the market. That is hugely different than Apple manufacturing a phone just for a lower end market. So the simplest way I can explain this comment from you, is it is not relevant to the conversation at hand.
Look at the iPad mini. It uses the same resolution as the iPad 2 as well as the same internals despite its big brother being on the 4th gen with a Retina display. If what you say is true this product (along with half of what Apple sells) would never have existed. It does, and it's apparently outselling the 10" iPad.
Once again, the mini is not a cheaper version of the iPad but a new product to meet the consumer demand of a smaller form factor much like the iPod did with different size and shapes to meet demands. Apple just did not make some knock-off iPod or iPad to gain market share. Why don't you understand that?
Finally (to really drive home the point even even more evidence), look at the iPod Touch. It came out months after the iPhone and it's less refined than the iPhone. Even in 2010 when Apple moved to Retina IPS displays the iPod Touch still had a TN panel with poor viewing angles and color accuracy. It wasn't until 2012 after being on the market for 2 years did the iPod Touch get IPS. They are probably displays not good enough for the iPhone 5 but still well within their QA specs. Did Apple lose their PMP market because of it? Of course not. People love the iPod Touch.
I'm starting to think you have no idea what this thread is about. Apple did not take the iPod and reduce specs to gain market. They did introduce products to meet the needs of people such as size. Did they use the same components as the iPhone? What does it matter, they are two different products for different needs.
You seem to think that any lowering of the bar even a little bit (like the have done with countless product already)means that bar is now sitting is Marina's Trench and is on par with other vendors. Going to some extreme in your thinking isn't helpful.
Where has Apple lowered the bar? Show me where Apple has lowered the specs of a product rather than increase them?
Jesus Fucking Christ! I've given you at least a half dozen examples!
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Jesus Fucking Christ! I've given you at least a half dozen examples!
Great use of your words.
No, actually you have given examples of Apple introducing NEW product CATEGORIES to meet market demand for size and usability, not taking an existing product, reducing its specs to introduce a cheaper model.
Apparently you can't see that.
1) learn to quote.
2) your original claim that there are "free" iPhones cheaper than the $300 quoted by Munster has been comprehensively defeated. You are now scurrying around trying to find minor quibbles in other peoples arguments.
I really don't get that people don't understand that.
1) selling last years model is a stop gap.
2) Apple sells cheaper models ( not cheaper configurations but models) ALL THE TIME.
And I really really really don't understand why Apple fans would oppose more iPhone models.
That's semantic crap. You have merely decided that all the different models of the Mac are NEW product CATEGORIES but any iPhone model - as yet unannounced. - is REDUCING ITS SPECS.
As far as a low cost iPhone, why does everyone assume it has to be plastic to be low cost? I know Apple has done plastic in the past, but how many of their flagship devices are plastic right now? Mac, iPhone, iPad and iPod are all aluminum and glass. Couldn't they produce an iPod touch like device with cellular capability that's cheaper than $450?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Richard Getz.
1) learn to quote.
2) your original claim that there are "free" iPhones cheaper than the $300 quoted by Munster has been comprehensively defeated. You are now scurrying around trying to find minor quibbles in other peoples arguments.
I really don't get that people don't understand that.
1) selling last years model is a stop gap.
2) Apple sells cheaper models ( not cheaper configurations but models) ALL THE TIME.
And I really really really don't understand why Apple fans would oppose more iPhone models.
Not sure how FREE is more expensive than $300, but okay, I won't argue that any further. If someone shows me where most people in the world don't have a contract with their phone carrier, or needs to change carriers so often that every 2 years is absurd, then I might even agree. But really, who changes out their carrier that often? And if so, they can only do that so many times before they are back to the beginning.
Again, selling last years models at a lower cost is not the same as being suggested by everyone. What is being suggested is for Apple to create a new phone, with lower specs, and introduce it to the market to gain massive shares.
And I really don't understand why people insist that Apple does introduce a 'cheaper' iPhone model. I have never seen Apple introduce a cheaper version of a current model to gain market.
I have seen them keep existing models at lower price points, but that is not the same as being suggested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Not sure how FREE is more expensive than $300, but okay, I won't argue that any further. If someone shows me where most people in the world don't have a contract with their phone carrier, or needs to change carriers so often that every 2 years is absurd, then I might even agree. But really, who changes out their carrier that often? And if so, they can only do that so many times before they are back to the beginning.
Again, selling last years models at a lower cost is not the same as being suggested by everyone. What is being suggested is for Apple to create a new phone, with lower specs, and introduce it to the market to gain massive shares.
And I really don't understand why people insist that Apple does introduce a 'cheaper' iPhone model. I have never seen Apple introduce a cheaper version of a current model to gain market.
I have seen them keep existing models at lower price points, but that is not the same as being suggested.
Oh my God! Look, it is not some conspiracy or top secret. Google the stats for yourself but all the recent articles I have read suggest that around 80% of all consumers in the world do not get a carrier subsidy for your free iPhone 4. For those people it can cost them $500 or more for an iPhone 4. Cheaper doesn't equate to low quality, especially when you are talking about Apple. Besides wanting to transition away from 30 pin to lightning in one fell swoop how do you know that Apple couldn't use one of those new Rosetta Stone type Qualcomm chips that would allow them to sell a lower cost model in every since country in the world saving them even more money over trying to sell several different older iPhone models. They might even decide to offer a 8GB and 16GB version while the current iPhone jumps to 32/64/128. The point is you nor I nor anyone else know what Apple will do, but your reasons not to introduce this phone aren't very convincing. Your "Free" iPhone 4 costs about $500 or more for 80% of the world's population and who wouldn't rather have a current year model over one from 2 years ago unless the specs are far worse which is doubtful. It would likely be as good or slightly better than a 4S in terms of CPU/GPU.
Originally Posted by asdasd
Lol. Your continued hostility to Apple doing anything they haven't done before is amusing.
That IS funny, because I specifically offered up something Apple has never done before and yet you're still saying this. In fact, I've done that for years and you're still saying this.
There is a precedent for Apple having different models at different price levels cf the Mac.
Your point is what?
Selling last years stuff is sub optimal.
Hasn't been for four years. Why would it be now?
1) it's not supported for as long as a model produced this year.
People know that.
2) you are competing with your own secondary market.
Apparently not drastically.
3) last years model doesn't have the sexiness of this years model regardless of configuration.
Given that your argument is smoke, it makes sense that one of your points would be tenuous as well.
4) Apple doesn't have to have one BIG IPHONE EVENT a year.
… They have to have… two, then? Or what are you saying?
Um, free is more expensive than $300 because the lowest cost iPhone is not free (your claim) but $450.
I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it?
The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"
I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.
And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
Oh my God! Look, it is not some conspiracy or top secret. Google the stats for yourself but all the recent articles I have read suggest that around 80% of all consumers in the world do not get a carrier subsidy for your free iPhone 4. For those people it can cost them $500 or more for an iPhone 4. Cheaper doesn't equate to low quality, especially when you are talking about Apple. Besides wanting to transition away from 30 pin to lightning in one fell swoop how do you know that Apple couldn't use one of those new Rosetta Stone type Qualcomm chips that would allow them to sell a lower cost model in every since country in the world saving them even more money over trying to sell several different older iPhone models. They might even decide to offer a 8GB and 16GB version while the current iPhone jumps to 32/64/128. The point is you nor I nor anyone else know what Apple will do, but your reasons not to introduce this phone aren't very convincing. Your "Free" iPhone 4 costs about $500 or more for 80% of the world's population and who wouldn't rather have a current year model over one from 2 years ago unless the specs are far worse which is doubtful. It would likely be as good or slightly better than a 4S in terms of CPU/GPU.
And carriers, as well as Apple, is addressing this with payment plans. But just because someone can't afford something, it does not mean the manufacturer has to produce a product they can afford. I can't afford a new Mac every time I want one, or even when I need one some times, but that does not mean I want Apple to lower the quality just so I can.
I have also suggested and introduced the conversation as to what they can decrease to save money, but no one, aside from your post here, has even commented on that. If you read that post, you will see that I did suggest lowering the SDD as only one of the options I stated. Although I still would find it hard to think Apple would.
Quote:
Camera? The Free iPhones do have older cameras and I don't see Apple taking that away?
Build? By the time the phone becomes free, the build quality would become a far less cost hog as, I would imagine, all the R&D and process has been ironed out. Would moving to plastic make the phone that much cheaper? And with others moving to better materials, would that not make Apple look like they are going backwards?
WiFi only and no GPS? With WiFi only you could save on the data plan and hardware with no GPS, but that really kills some major functions of the phone.
Siri? Removing Siri would not reduce price. Unless the processor and RAM is greatly reduced.
Retina display? Moving away from this would probably be more costly as having to use two different materials increases cost of production.
Processor? Sure, they can save here by using processors that don't meet specs as they do in the Apple TV
Less RAM and less SSD space? Sure, that would be another area. (they already offer multiple sizes so adding another smaller size would not increase production complexity like adding non-retina screens would)
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
@Dick Get - Never heard of the iPod line? Are you implying it's reincarnations are all new product categories?
show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Um, free is more expensive than $300 because the lowest cost iPhone is not free (your claim) but $450.
I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it?
The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"
I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.
And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.
Again, lost in reality!
I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it?
Remedially the word of the day for you? And despite what you might want to believe, keeping a product at a lower price is NOT the same as introducing a new product with lower specs to meet a lower price point.
The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"
Again, you are lost in reality. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs for a lower price point. The iPad mini is a new product of DIFFERENT size and specs to meet the demands of a form factor. The ONLY cheaper iPads are the older models.
I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.
I'd rather you understand basic business concepts.
And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.
Oh, now I get it. LOL sorry, I was late to the party here. So being you don't have contracts (I assume that is your argument) and have to pay full price, you rather Apple introduce something you can afford? Why don't you instead go to your carrier and demand that they offer the iPhone FREE with a contract as those do in America? Or offer a payment plan so you can afford the phone over time? Why does Apple have to introduce something you can afford?
Oh Mr. BMW, I can only afford a Civic, will you please lower your quality so I can buy your BMW. It does not matter if you have to lower the quality to the point of Civic, just as long as I can say I own a BMW.
1) you were totally opposed to the idea of the continuation of the 3GS when the 4S came out. Apple never did this before. Yada yada yada. Why you follow a company which is going to upset you by doing different things all the time is a mystery. And let's not mention the utter trainwreck about the iPhone 6. And the iPad mini. If I were as wrong as you I would learn some damn humility.
2) Apple is losing the low end market so claims that "apparantly" things are working for them is no sense. Because you need two data sets. How last years models compare against a new model. WE WON'T HAVE THAT DATA UNTIL RELEASE THE NEW MODELS SO WE CAN COMPARE.
of course apple are going to have more than one model of iPhone. As they do with all other products.
But, getting this wrong, as you will you will continue to be arrogant about your next stupid - it wasn't like this in the last 2 years - opinion.
I don't even get why Apple fans would not want more models of a device they use and welcome to ignore.