More affordable iPhone predicted to grab Apple 11% share of low-end market in 2014

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 103
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member


    It is very apparent that we have different views on product categories and as such we just keep saying the same thing over and over and I see no reason to keep doing that at the frustration of everyone. 


     


    We'll wait to see what Apple does. Thanks for the discussion. 


     


    PLUNK

  • Reply 82 of 103
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    Yo
    Apple no longer has a plastic MB. They did, but fazed it out for the better quality MBA which is opposite of what many are suggesting Apple to do. 

    I disagree that Apple chases low-price points. What I see is Apple offering new products into a growing family as needs warrants. Such as people saying I don't want to carry that huge iPod when I go jogging, thus smaller iPods are made. This is not to chase a price, but a market need. 

    Again, what would you take way from the current iPhone line to make a cheaper iPhone? 
    You wouldn't take anything way. If you were Apple, you would introduced a similar product that suits the same purpose but in a different way. The shuffle was created as a commuting and exercise iPod since the current offering at the time (iPod mini) was still too big to fit those needs. One could argue the watch iPod nano could have replaced the nano but even it was still too expensive to grab the market of low-end iPods and similar.

    Look at the Mac Mini, they took the guts of the Low end MacBook and removed the keyboard, monitor and Mouse and charged $499US for it. The "affordable" Mac.
    The iPad mini was a result of market demand vs. the need for a lower cost and more portable iPad without loosing functionality or quality.
    The current MacBook Airs could be seen as the replacement for the plastic MacBook. Lighter, thinner, less powerful MacBook Pros, yet still maintains the hight standard of Apple quality.

    I think the reason why Apple hasn't yet produced a low cost iPhone comes is multiple parts.
    First, there possibly wasn't a need for it in its first several generations because it was (and arguably still is) the most popular smartphone on the market.
    Second, before the iPhone became a global phenomenon, most countries that sold it did have subsidies driven by the local carriers and the method of selling the previous models at a discount suit its purposes better since the models get cheaper to build over time and production and components get cheaper.
    Third, in the early years of the iPhone, smartphones were (and arguably still are) too low % of total cell phone market for them to even consider branching off since they were the most popular smartphone and that was all that matters.
    Last, now this is totally a shot in the dark, perhaps Apple hasn't got a great idea on how to produce a phone that is less featured and lower cost than the iPhone and still have a successful product and high enough profit margin for it to be worth producing.

    That all being said. Look at the current market we have now in the cellular industry. Smartphones are slowly catching up to all other phones in market share but still not in the numbers that feature phones and go-phone have...GLOBALLY. Feature phones are still the most dominant piece of the pie because they are cheap and easily replaceable and provide the minimum of Internet service for the money.

    Now there's also the question of ecosystems and customer loyalty, which Apple highly desires. At this point, the android ecosystem has so much variety and you can literally buy an android phone for the same cost as a feature phone. Once those customers buy those lower cost Androids, their next phone might very well be an upgrade to a better Android phone. Then our will have a situation where Android will dominate two of the biggest segments of the cell phone market. If those customers stay with android, since its the familiar that keeps customers more times than not, then Apple will have a real problem.

    You see, the iPod was the gateway drug into the ecosystem, then the iOS devices (iPhone, iPod touch, iPad)...then finally the Macs. Build customer loyalty through value, quality and great user experience. One could argue that since the desire of the iPod line is now gone (minus the iPod Touch), the gateway drug is gone and now the most likely replacement would be the low cost phone.

    What would a low cost iPhone be like? I have several possible solutions, each with their own issues (ill admit).

    One, find a way (without pissing on the carriers too much) to crate an ALL-DATA LTE iPod touch and include a new phone app (similar to Google Voice). Now this might not be a low cost solution, but IMO its the future of smart phones. Take away the iron fist of insane voice plans by the carriers.

    Two, create an iFeature Phone. Basically limit the iPhone to a smaller screen (like the original 3.5") install the basic iOS Apps and that's it. Basically an iPhone gen 1 with updated internals. That won't happen because the App Store generates too much business for Apple and then can't just cut off the App Store.

    Third, something we haven't seen yet. A new type of device that takes advantage of iOS but is lower cost. As much as I hate the idea, an iWatch might be it, or some thing just as simple. If you look at the basics of the feature phone, you have voice, text, email, sometimes GPS, camera and possibly some games...not to mention the basic stuff like contacts and such. Real bare bones kind of stuff, like my first Nokia candy-bar phone from 2004 or even the first razor phone.

    Now I'm not saying any I'd these options are viable by any means, but there is something worth exploring in each of them.

    The idea of an all data iPhone would be great and it would really stick it to the carriers, but they might not support that kind of device because to literally takes away all the profit they make on phone plans. Even though most are literally giving away unlimited voice and text now just to compete...which tells me the data plans are outrageously overpriced.

    A bare bones iPhone with no App Store is basically the equivalent to today's feature phones but that takes too much away from Apple App Store profit margins.

    And I can't say anything about something we haven't seen yet like an iWatch or iPod nano phone.

    Either way these ideas are something to discuss at the very least and are far from the stupid predictions of a non-retina updated iPhone 3GSs.
  • Reply 83 of 103
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


    Apple will never add a SD slot to their phones. Perhaps iPads, but that I would say is a 20% chance. 



     


    I don't think Apple will add a memory slot either, and that could be a negative sales factor if (as you suggested) their low price phone came with little storage.


     


    Quote:


    Apple has never been in the business to beg people to buy their products. Apple is a high end manufacturer where people pay (and are happy to pay and stand in line to pay) the premium price. 


     


    Let the bottom feeders feed off the bottom, Apple does not have to. 




     


    Price war breaks out in India - Apple giving trade-in discounts and loans

  • Reply 84 of 103
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Bad example because BMW makes the Mini Cooper, and don't say Benz either because they make the Smart Car.
    Ford makes the fiesta ($14,000 USD avg.)
    The also made the GT40 ($140,000)

    Merc also has an "A-Class" (lower cost)

    VW makes the Up! And the Pheaton.

    They all do it
  • Reply 85 of 103
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    Which is why I really hate, and therefore should not use, car analogies. Perhaps I should have used Corvette as they don't have a lower end version of itself. 
    Yes but Chevrolet makes cars for all markets. Apple is no Chevy. Nor are they BMW. More like VW. Different sizes and different markets, but still use high quality at every price point.
  • Reply 86 of 103
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,454member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post



    Do you not understand the difference?? I never said the iPad Mini did not have lower specs than the iPad, I said the iPad Mini is not a lowered specked iPad. The difference is the iPad Mini is a new product category, different size for a different use. It is NOT the same design as an iPad but with lower specs. 


     


    And who has more money? Microsoft or Apple? Who? That's correct Apple. Do they sell more than Microsoft, nope, but they do sell it for larger margins and make lots more money then they do. So would you rather sell 10x more product or make 10x more profit. Well, actually, your stating you rather sell 10x more product, hell with the profit. 


     


    Yup, when they had too many product tiers, agreed. Now they have the iPhone 4, 4s, and 5 which is a new size. What more do you want? I'm not saying there is not room for more products, just not cheap versions to sell to the masses. 


     


    Sure, I agree that Apple can keep the iPhone 4 line as the consumer and move the 5x to the pro line. I don't see a reason to offer a NEW cheaper line for consumers (vs pros). 


     


    Apple currently has two iPhone lines. The 4 (4 and 4s) and the 5. I think it is great that Apple would CONTINUE to offer an older model for people who don't need high end specs, and would even agree with a older model having their drive downsized to 2GB to save cost. But I still don't see the need to offer a cheaper phone for a market segment that Apple has never gone after before. 


     


    The iPod Touch did not. But again, there is a difference between a new product category that does have lower prices due to target markets (such as not having a screen so of course the cost would go down), and taking an existing product category and making it cheaper. 


     


    Example: 


    iPod Touch to iPod Touch lite with reduced specs. 


    iPod Nano/Shuffle are not cheaper versions of a parent, but new parents. They are for different markets. Touch for those who need more interaction, video, games, etc. and Nano/Shuffle for the active runners etc. Totally different products for totally different usages. 


     


    Again, they introduced new product categories to address needs based on size and capability, not so they could sell cheaper iPods to more people. 


     


    If everyone is going to use the same iPod to iPhone analogy, then the cheaper iPhone would have no screen (wait, that would be the iWatch). If you liken it to the iPad, then the cheaper phone would start at and always be a smaller form factor as people wanted the difference in size to meet a different need. 


     


    At no time did Apple use cheaper parts in their iPod classic to sell more. They have not taken the iPod Touch and make a non-retina screen version with lower specs to sell more. 


     


    Does that make sense? 



     


    I can see, as others have noted how you are claiming to be semantically right, but no it doesn't make sense to most people to say that an iPod nano is a completely separate product from the classic iPod. They are both iPods with different capabilities and price points. This is exactly what people want Apple to do with the iPhone. Per your reasoning, Apple wouldn't have a Nano or Shuffle. They would just have progressively older Touches and below that, they would write off the market as an example.


     


    As for who has more money now, it isn't a fair comparison. At the time in question, Apple was in danger of going out of business and Microsoft was at the top of the heap. Apple rebounded by being the best and basically first real modern smartphone. The market right now is much like 1993-1994. Apple actually made loads of money those years if you do the research back to then. There was a clear tipping point and Apple took the worst of it.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by trumptman View Post



    Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution.




    There are some big differences though. The iPhone and most if not all high end Android phones cost the same. Windows had the luxury of having the most software being developed for it, and while the Google Play store is catching up to the App Store I believe the App Store wins in the quality of apps.


     


    The real issue isn't right this moment. The real issue, in my opinion is 12-18 months from now. The smartphone/tablet providers on the Android side are quickly consolidating around several standards and soon their combined purchasing power will drive the prices at which they can purchase and sell components and solutions to dramatically lower levels.


     


    Right now as an example I have the Nexus 7 and an iPad Mini. While the Apple solution is better and the case can be made for the higher price (bigger screen, camera, etc.) this is just the first round. Run it out to the next round and by next Christmas we might have a $100 current Nexus 7 specs while the $200 version has 8 cores/32 gigs standard, or retina level display, etc.


     


    We've also seen the specs for the Samsung Galaxy S4. It looks like all the high end phones are going to 1080p. It doesn't just mean Apple looks behind there spec-wise. It means that everyone purchasing 1080p screens drives down the cost of said screens.

  • Reply 87 of 103
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post



    One, find a way (without pissing on the carriers too much) to crate an ALL-DATA LTE iPod touch and include a new phone app (similar to Google Voice). Now this might not be a low cost solution, but IMO its the future of smart phones. Take away the iron fist of insane voice plans by the carriers.


     


    Some carriers have been planning that for a while.  Verizon has stated many times that it believes that VoIP is the future for both land and wireless phone calls, because of FiOS and LTE.


     


    Quote:


    The idea of an all data iPhone would be great and it would really stick it to the carriers, but they might not support that kind of device because to literally takes away all the profit they make on phone plans. 



     


    The only problem with voice over data, is how do you charge for it?   Regular voice calls are charged by time, because they tie up roughly the same amount of resources per second, whether you're talking or not.


     


    Data calls are always charged by byte, because that's how those resources are used up.  And I sure don't think that people want to be charged per byte for voice calls.  Can you imagine?  "Honey, please turn off the music in the background, it's costing us extra!"


     


    Quote:


    Even though most are literally giving away unlimited voice and text now just to compete...which tells me the data plans are outrageously overpriced.



     


    Last time I checked the financial statements, carriers were averaging something like $3.50 a week profit off data plans.  A Whopper meal might make more.


     


    It's the quantity of customers that makes them money (which they usually plow right back into more infrastructure, instead of stashing billions away like some other "overpriced" companies do).

  • Reply 88 of 103
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    kdarling wrote: »
    The only problem with voice over data, is how do you charge for it?   Regular voice calls are charged by time, because they tie up roughly the same amount of resources per second, whether you're talking or not.

    There have been methods in place for decades. This is complex stuff but it's well worn ground.
  • Reply 89 of 103
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    trumptman wrote: »
    I can see, as others have noted how you are claiming to be semantically right, but no it doesn't make sense to most people to say that an iPod nano is a completely separate product from the classic iPod. They are both iPods with different capabilities and price points. This is exactly what people want Apple to do with the iPhone. Per your reasoning, Apple wouldn't have a Nano or Shuffle. They would just have progressively older Touches and below that, they would write off the market as an example.

    As for who has more money now, it isn't a fair comparison. At the time in question, Apple was in danger of going out of business and Microsoft was at the top of the heap. Apple rebounded by being the best and basically first real modern smartphone. The market right now is much like 1993-1994. Apple actually made loads of money those years if you do the research back to then. There was a clear tipping point and Apple took the worst of it.


    The real issue isn't right this moment. The real issue, in my opinion is 12-18 months from now. The smartphone/tablet providers on the Android side are quickly consolidating around several standards and soon their combined purchasing power will drive the prices at which they can purchase and sell components and solutions to dramatically lower levels.

    Right now as an example I have the Nexus 7 and an iPad Mini. While the Apple solution is better and the case can be made for the higher price (bigger screen, camera, etc.) this is just the first round. Run it out to the next round and by next Christmas we might have a $100 current Nexus 7 specs while the $200 version has 8 cores/32 gigs standard, or retina level display, etc.

    We've also seen the specs for the Samsung Galaxy S4. It looks like all the high end phones are going to 1080p. It doesn't just mean Apple looks behind there spec-wise. It means that everyone purchasing 1080p screens drives down the cost of said screens.

    But Google still lacks the quality tablet apps that the iPad mini has. They would have to make great strides in the next 12-18 months in order to be as close a competitor as competing smartphones have gotten.
  • Reply 90 of 103
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    But Google still lacks the quality tablet apps that the iPad mini has. They would have to make great strides in the next 12-18 months in order to be as close a competitor as competing smartphones have gotten.


     


    I agree, but then again,  the mainstream apps are available, and that's all that matters to most people.


     


    Both my Apple and Android tablets have Netflix, Flipboard, Mint, Optimum TV, and all the usual news and book readers, games, etc.

  • Reply 91 of 103
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member
    Y
    solipsismx wrote: »
    There have been methods in place for decades. This is complex stuff but it's well worn ground.
    You wouldn't charge by time. Data is data. They don't charge iMessages as texting because its data. I'd assume VoD would be similar to FaceTime. It's all part of the data plan. If you're on wifi, it's virtually free of data usage.
  • Reply 92 of 103
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    I actually took the time to read this entire thread... and am surprised that so many people here just don't get why Apple should NOT be concerning themselves with an inexpensive iPhone.

    My main reason: the 80% of the world that they are developing for, do NOT HAVE CREDIT CARDS... and I seriously doubt whether they will be purchasing App Cards either. Then: Apple ID? What for? These people are not going to be... nor are interested in any App Store... and certainly not one that is American/English centric.

    Someone mentioned that an iPhone "Cheap" would have to come with an SD card slot: not going to happen, and even if it did, Apple would have to open up the system to allow side-loading of apps and entertainment. Just. Not. Happening. Because... for roughly $25.00 you can purchase an SD card with 100's of Android apps, games, movies, music, etc. already loaded on it... which works on a $50.00 PAYG Android.... but not on an Apple iOS device.

    [B]iPhone is similar to iPod: not true![/B] You could always "side-load" your music as MP3's from alternative sources and/or your own ripped collection. You can NOT do this with iPhone Apps. Entertainment? Also not so easily for this 80%... because their phone is the only computing device they own. In BRIC countries, it's common to use Internet Cafés to load things onto your phone. How's that going to work with iTunes? Answer: it's not.

    Could Apple make an inexpensive "feature phone"? Of course they could, and make a profit as well. But it would still not see the marketshare that the Droids have, because for the 80% mentioned above... [I][B]ANY iPhone with iOS, Apple Store, and Apple ID[/B][/I] is NOT WANTED....even if it was completely FREE due to the "strings" I highlighted.

    [B]Apple's strength with the iPhone is it's ecosystem. Period.[/B] This is what needs to be understood in this debate. Take away the App Store and the far superior App experience... and it's just a freakin' phone... in fact, you may have a hard time even calling it a "smart phone" at all if you do that.

    With that in mind, it is absolutely necessary to build on the App Store experience, flesh out a really great iOS 7, and [B]build the next "super smart" iPhone[/B] to take over the rest of the profits at the high-end of the market. Pull back some of those Samsung, HTC, Nexus jumpers with a far superior experience and useful modern features. If that ends up costing $600, $700 or even $1000,- for the end-user, in a western economy with access to mobile plans... So. Be. F****ing. It.

    NOTE 1: [B]regarding car analogies:[/B] no one mentioned the disaster that Mercedes is still working on reversing, when they thought they had to go "down-market" with their products and thru purchases and "partnerships" in the 90's and Naughts. The brand suffered terribly, and is only recently starting to recover.

    NOTE 2:[B] just looked on Ebay.de:[/B] new iPhone 3GS/16gb still going for €299,99. Please tell me again WHY Apple has to pull the rug out from under themselves to dev. an inexpensive, feature-crippled iPhone at US$300.-...!?!

    NOTE 3: [B]@antkm1[/B] - on the right track with his post. A completely different approach and product, and not even called an iPhone.

    NOTE 4: [B]From The Register:[/B] [URL=http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/17/apple_pirate_ios_store_goes_web/]Chinese iOS pirate Kuaiyong launches web app store. Bad news for Apple developers targeting PRC[/URL].
  • Reply 93 of 103
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    Before someone beats me to it, I want to say that I realize that for example, in India, Apple has allowed certain deviations and payment methods for those without a credit card or a computer at home.

    I still don't think it's worth it for them to chase the low end though.

    I as many here on this forum witnessed the take over of the PC market by MS, for some of the very same fundamental reasons that Android has exploded in growth.

    That being: MS was available (or cracked) and installed on any computer you could throw together with the cheapest throw away parts you could find. Then, all of the applications, games and content was "shared" among Windows enthusiasts. Floppy trading and selling in back alleys across the world made Windows what it is today, and hence their "world-wide marketshare".

    You can't ignore the fact that it is for exactly the above reason today, why Android is so popular and growing "worldwide". It "runs" on darn near anything, and the apps/content are readily available to be installed WITHOUT an account, app store, anything other than a "floppy drive"... uhm... SD card slot.

    Me personally: let 'em have at it as long as Apple continues to produce the "[B]Poster Product*[/B]". The one you have on the wall that you aspire to owning some day.

    * Poster Product - I recently gave a Branding presentation using the new Mercedes A-Class as an example, when it was a huge hit at the 2011 China Auto Show. It put something affordable, within reach, and cool on a neglected demographic's "I Want Wall". Not your Mom's or Dad's, or some-day-when-I-strike-gold-with-my-new-App I'll get an [URL=http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs28/f/2008/133/a/8/SL65_AMG_Black_Series_by_jonsibal.jpg]SL 65 AMG Black Series[/URL].

    Although... aspirations should always be striven for.... :smokey:

    Edited: before someone points out the hypocrisy in my post and correlates the A-Class with an SL65AMG: A-Class is a different product. It is NOT an inexpensive version of the aforementioned Dream Car. So don't even go there. :no:
  • Reply 94 of 103


    It would make sense, i've always thought it quite annoying and lazy of Apple just to keep the older versions of the iPhones live, only reducing the cost by a small amount.


     


    Something with a worse camera, slower processor around the £250 mark would be good.

  • Reply 95 of 103
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,976member
    It would make sense, i've always thought it quite annoying and lazy of Apple just to keep the older versions of the iPhones live, only reducing the cost by a small amount.

    Something with a worse camera, slower processor around the £250 mark would be good.

    The older versions already have a worse camera and a slower processor. Any worse and you cripple the user experience.
  • Reply 96 of 103
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    antkm1 wrote: »
    You wouldn't charge by time. Data is data. They don't charge iMessages as texting because its data. I'd assume VoD would be similar to FaceTime. It's all part of the data plan. If you're on wifi, it's virtually free of data usage.

    That's not correct in any regard. It's not going to clomped together in with IP data, it's simply going to use IP as the method of transport. Again, there have been methods in place for decades to deal with this. The data for voice you now consider different from IP data isn't changing in the ways you are assuming, and I can't fathom how in 2013 and on a tech forum that anyone would say that vice date and HTTP data is the same. Do you even know what TCP and UDP are? Do you why we two two of them at the Transport layer above IP? Do you know why VoIP uses an additional Transport layer protocol? Look, no one expects you to be an expert in VoIP but at least have a rudimentary idea of how it works. You can start by not using the pointless tautology: data is data.
  • Reply 97 of 103
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





     You can start by not using the pointless tautology: data is data.


    no.  And you could try a better word choice.


     


    tautology |tô?täl?j?|noun ( pl. tautologies )the saying of the same thing twice in different words, generally considered to be a fault of style (e.g., they arrived one after the other in succession).• a phrase or expression in which the same thing is said twice in different words.

  • Reply 98 of 103
    antkm1antkm1 Posts: 1,441member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    That's not correct in any regard. It's not going to clomped together in with IP data, it's simply going to use IP as the method of transport. Again, there have been methods in place for decades to deal with this. The data for voice you now consider different from IP data isn't changing in the ways you are assuming, and I can't fathom how in 2013 and on a tech forum that anyone would say that vice date and HTTP data is the same. Do you even know what TCP and UDP are? Do you why we two two of them at the Transport layer above IP? Do you know why VoIP uses an additional Transport layer protocol? Look, no one expects you to be an expert in VoIP but at least have a rudimentary idea of how it works. You can start by not using the pointless tautology: data is data.


     


    wow, you must have been really pissed off when you typed this.  or do you normally type with a stutter?  Sorry that was a jab.


     


    Seriously man, lighten up.  Not everyone is as knowledgable as you on Cellular technology.  And this isn't a forum just for tech nerds.  It's an open forum for anyone to partake in.  No need to be so grouchy to the lay people.  The fact that you "can't fathom how in 2013..." makes you look just as ignorant as the I.

  • Reply 99 of 103
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    antkm1 wrote: »
    no.

    1) What a well thought-out rebuttal. How can anyone deny your argument that all data is treated the same on a network? Fucking brilliant¡

    2) Next time try reading the whole definition when you need to look up a word.

    tau•tol•o•gy |tô?täl?j?|
    noun
    - Logic: a statement that is true by necessity or by virtue of its logical form.

    ORIGIN mid 16th cent.: via late Latin from Greek, from tautologosrepeating what has been said,’ from tauto- ‘same’ + -logos.
  • Reply 100 of 103
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,438member
    [IMG ALT=""]http://forums.appleinsider.com/content/type/61/id/23978/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

    Per`is`sol´o`gy
    n. 1. Superfluity of words.


    I like that.
Sign In or Register to comment.