Can Apple afford to go cheaper with new iPhones?

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 138
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    For a real analysis of what Apple needs to do, please read my article at . It's been critiqued by Greenlight Capital, and they said I was one smart guy! Maybe you will agree.

    Interesting, and one could hope that you're right, and wish for some evidence that Apple has been working with Sensig (sp?). In any case, it will eventually happen if the tech works.

    Edit: I guess i'd have to agree with Solipsism X above that you're on thin ice from the self-promotion point of view.
  • Reply 42 of 138
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,687member
    Apple's next iPhone portfolio :
    iPhone 4ish, $350, no contract. 8 GB
    iPhone 4S, $0 w 2 yr contract. 8 GB
    iPhone 5, $100 w 2 yr contract. 8 GB
    iPhone 5S, $200 w 2 yr contract. 16, 32, 64 GB
    iPhone 5S+, 5" screen $300 w 2 yr contract. 16, 32, 64 GB
  • Reply 43 of 138
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    mactel wrote: »
    For Apple to make a cheaper iPhone it has to be spun differently.  There needs to be a Prosumer model iPhone with all the leading edge gadgetry (e.g. larger screen and more mega-pixels in the cameras) then the regular Consumer iPhone. Both of course not compromising on quality but each taking Apple in different directions and remaining true to their past and corporate culture.  Apple has done this with the MacBook lines for years so why not the iPhone too?

    True, the polycarbonate MacBooks and 2nd generation iBooks were both very pleasant to look at and handle, in my opinion.

    If they do a polycarb iPhone I hope it will have the squarish edges of the iPad mini, rather that the softer edges of the old 3G phones and touches. Those shapes are slippery and have none of the "authority" that the squarish edges have. Square allows for a deeper camera element and a more camera-like feel as well.

    In any case, Apple isn't going to do anything that feels or looks cheap at this point.
  • Reply 44 of 138
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,796member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by unknownanalyst View Post



    For a real analysis of what Apple needs to do, please read my article at . It's been critiqued by Greenlight Capital, and they said I was one smart guy! Maybe you will agree.


    Interesting read and welcome to the forum. Hope you post more often as we could use some new blood. Reading the same fights and ideas between the multi-thousand post crowd every day gets very boring. 

  • Reply 45 of 138
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    I'm a bit confused by all this "cheap" iPhone talk. I can get an iPhone 4 for $0.99 or an iPhone 4s for $99.99 from AT&T. Seems pretty cheap to me. I'm not really sure what people expect from Apple these days. The stock is taking a beating for no good reason and the media is pumping Samsung, again, for no good reason. There's absolutely nothing revolutionary about the Galaxy S4. The new features are gimmicks.

    If Apple integrates a fingerprint sensor for unlocking, filling in web passwords and credit cards, etc., THAT will be something truly innovative. And then there's all this "iOS is stale" BS. It's coming from people online as well journalists. What do people expect? The second coming every two years? Maybe iOS isn't stale. Maybe it's just good? When people bash iOS for being stale, I never ever see them single out what makes Android/Samsung so much better. There seems to be this belief (among certain people) that if something is repeated often enough, it must be true.

    The public's expectations are way out of line with reality these days when it comes to our gadgets. Our gadget obsession is borderline sickness and we're putting unrealistic expectations on businesses to constantly deliver something DIFFERENT instead of simply appreciating how incredible these devices actually are.

    If anything, Apple needs to offer a larger screen iPhone, not a "cheap" one.
  • Reply 46 of 138
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Apple's next iPhone portfolio :
    iPhone 4ish, $350, no contract. 8 GB
    iPhone 4S, $0 w 2 yr contract. 8 GB
    iPhone 5, $100 w 2 yr contract. 8 GB
    iPhone 5S, $200 w 2 yr contract. 16, 32, 64 GB
    iPhone 5S+, 5" screen $300 w 2 yr contract. 16, 32, 64 GB

    I've said this before and don't want to be tiresome about it, but they can't sell an all-glass phone as a world phone. That design was for people who live protected lives. Domesticated, if you like.

    Maybe by "iPhone 4ish" you mean the old innards in a different case?
  • Reply 47 of 138
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,796member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post



    Edit: I guess i'd have to agree with Solipsism X above that you're on thin ice from the self-promotion point of view.


    Oh please. People post links here all the time. It is fine to post links to roughlydrafted or daring fireball and all the other sites but not to this website? He could have lied and said he read that article and pretended not to be the author but he was upfront and honest. No one was forced to click it and he made a lot more sense than many here and it tied in well with the topic at hand. 

  • Reply 48 of 138
    gtrgtr Posts: 3,231member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    If you want to participate in the conversation and have something to add to the thread then by all means do so but please don't post spam to other sites that aren't germane or don't carry the conversation. Your post will self destruct in 5… 4… 3… 2…

    Germane?

    Dammit, man.

    Stop making me look up words and get edumacated!
  • Reply 49 of 138
    hmmhmm Posts: 3,405member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by robbyx View Post



    I'm a bit confused by all this "cheap" iPhone talk. I can get an iPhone 4 for $0.99 or an iPhone 4s for $99.99 from AT&T. Seems pretty cheap to me. I'm not really sure what people expect from Apple these days.


     


     


    The US is not the only the important market, and these prices are US specific. Apple's sales are far more distributed than that. Subsidized purchases are not the norm in every country. Even here you have things like prepaid services such as straight talk and virgin with lower plan rates. The question for Apple would be if they are better off addressing these markets with one and 2 year old models starting at $450 and $550 off contract or by a variation in design. The overall final matrix of features and price points is up  to Apple, but this is about what is good for the company, just like any other decision.

  • Reply 50 of 138
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,650member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by robbyx View Post



    I'm a bit confused by all this "cheap" iPhone talk. I can get an iPhone 4 for $0.99 or an iPhone 4s for $99.99 from AT&T. Seems pretty cheap to me. 


    That is on a 2 year contract.


     


    Nobody is getting any iPhone for only 99 cents. You are paying many hundreds of dollars for that iPhone which costs 99 cents.

  • Reply 51 of 138
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,687member
    flaneur wrote: »
    I've said this before and don't want to be tiresome about it, but they can't sell an all-glass phone as a world phone. That design was for people who live protected lives. Domesticated, if you like.

    Maybe by "iPhone 4ish" you mean the old innards in a different case?

    Yes, glass is expensive but plastic is cheap looking.
  • Reply 52 of 138
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gwmac wrote: »
    Oh please. People post links here all the time. It is fine to post links to roughlydrafted or daring fireball and all the other sites but not to this website? He could have lied and said he read that article and pretended not to be the author but he was upfront and honest. No one was forced to click it and he made a lot more sense than many here and it tied in well with the topic at hand. 

    1) You've based your argument on a presumption that he didn't read the article but wants others to go to his site. Brilliant defense!

    2) Member post links a the time but they usually add to the conversation at hand. The link supports one's position. No one has taken issue with one having their own website — save for AI not linking to 9to5mac — but when you add nothing you don't do yourself any favour in attracting people to understand your PoV (see gemac posts for examples).

    3) Again (because I'm familiar with you), if you want to promote your site or link to another site feel free but if you post a link with no lead in as to why one should click the link you don't yourself any favours. Even a summary of what is stated would be sufficient otherwise you come across as someone trying to increase their page rank (at best) to some but that hands out his manifesto on street corners between yelling at his own shadow (worst).
  • Reply 53 of 138
    gwmacgwmac Posts: 1,796member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Yes, glass is expensive but plastic is cheap looking.


    I don't think the 3 or 3GS looked cheap. Since many if not most people use cases does it really matter what it looks like? Phones are disposable items that few people keep longer than 20 - 24 months and them sell them. I think too big of a deal is being made about materials. If they can make a phone that is more scratch and drop proof than anything on the market right now that could obviate the need for a case I couldn't care less what materials were used. I and most people use cases for one main reason, to get the highest resale value we can with the added benefit of protecting it while we own and use it.  Until then I will stick with a case and realize I bought my phone to use and not to admire like an art piece.  

  • Reply 54 of 138
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    gwmac wrote: »
    I don't think the 3 or 3GS looked cheap. And since many if not most people uses cases does it really matter what it looks like? Phones are disposable items that few people keep longer than 20 - 24 months. I think too big of a deal is being made about materials. If they can make a phone that is more scratch and drop proof than anything on the market right now that could obviate the need for a case I couldn't care less what materials were used. Until then I will stick with a case and realize I bought my phone to use and not to admire like an art piece. 

    1) The 2nd and 3rd gen iPhones did look cheaper than the original iPhone. You probably one of the people predicting Apple's demise back in 2008 for reducing quality and in 2009 for not radically changing the design after a year.

    2) Phones, in general, are disposable, and yet the iPhone holds it value quite well with a vibrant market for used devices.

    3) Who cares about materials? Again, look at Apple's resale value and continued use post first sale. Also look at others with no profits that feel as you do about quality. Finally, look at Samsung that plans to make a better quality device.

    4) I suspect the reason why you're so flummoxed by Apple's business success and mindshare across all product ranges is because you don't have a concept of quality.
  • Reply 55 of 138
    maccherrymaccherry Posts: 924member
    If Apple needed a cheap phone they would have introduced a cheap a** phone from the jump. This article just reflects what the guys on Wall Street want. They want a cheapo iPhone so they can move the stock up as a cheap iPhone sells.
    But who said the low end market needs Apple? The low end market always had cheap phones.
    And what will the analyst say once a saturate cheapo iPhone stalls in sales? Give the phone an expiration date like milk?
  • Reply 56 of 138
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    First of all, the iPad Mini is not a 7" tablet. It's 7.9", so it's more accurate to call it an 8 inch tablet, as even one inch makes a huge difference in tablet size and usability. And also, the iPad Mini's aspect ratio gives it a much larger screen area than that of crappy 7" Android tablets. ...



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    No, he didn't say that. He very clearly stated, "We know developers aren't going to [...] change their software every time the screen size changes," he added. "When we make decisions on 7-inch tablets it's not about cost, it's about the value of the product when you factor in the software." ... snip


     


    Those are all true, but have ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with what his or my comments were about.


     


    I was replying to the claim that, " All (Jobs) said was that their competitors were going down the wrong road with their 7" tablets running scaled up mobile phone software."


     


    Jobs did not talk about scaled up software, he talked about scaled down tablet apps.


     


    And, as you two pointed out, that's not "all Jobs said", either :)

  • Reply 57 of 138
    kdarlingkdarling Posts: 1,640member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    First of all, the iPad Mini is not a 7" tablet. It's 7.9", so it's more accurate to call it an 8 inch tablet, as even one inch makes a huge difference in tablet size and usability. And also, the iPad Mini's aspect ratio gives it a much larger screen area than that of crappy 7" Android tablets. ...



     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post



    No, he didn't say that. He very clearly stated, "We know developers aren't going to [...] change their software every time the screen size changes," he added. "When we make decisions on 7-inch tablets it's not about cost, it's about the value of the product when you factor in the software." ... snip


     


    Those are all true, but have very little or nothing to do with what his or my comments were about.


     


    I was only replying to the claim that, " All he said was that their competitors were going down the wrong road with their 7" tablets running scaled up mobile phone software."


     


    Jobs did not talk about scaled up software, he talked about scaled down tablet apps.  If you recall, he mentioned something about needing sandpaper to make tinier fingers.


     


    And, as you two pointed out, that's not all he said, either :)

  • Reply 58 of 138
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,509member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Yes, glass is expensive but plastic is cheap looking.

    Glass is breakable was my point, and Apple can do plastic that is not cheap looking. Samsing does cheap looking, Apple does classy, like old Bakelite or celluloid. Their white polycarbonite laptops were beautiful in their way.
  • Reply 59 of 138
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Why can't Apple make a phone out of the 5th gen iPod touch? Why does a cheaper iPhone have to be plastic (and no I won't use the word polycarbonate just to make it sound better).
  • Reply 60 of 138
    analogjackanalogjack Posts: 1,066member
    [quote]Conventional wisdom says Apple both desperately needs a cheaper iPhone model to compete with low end Android and Nokia offerings...[/quote]

    The article is based on the above flawed premise which is never explained and throws in a gratuitous editorialising "desperately" for added drama. So many words saying not very much at all, it's a lost art.
Sign In or Register to comment.