I really just meant that it was quite unlike -- and a surprisingly lazy thing for -- Apple to do: to take an existing product, remove some (arguably) key functionality, leave the 'box' the same, lower the price and see if it sticks. I certainly don't recall their doing this with the iPod or iPad or iPhone lines before. Or with Macs (but I am less sure). They have always put a little more thought even into the process of 'downscaling' products.
And to others who are making the (trite) point that Apple is doing this hoping for a profit, well, duh. That's the primary reason profit-maximizing companies make such moves. However, that does not mean that the hope or expectation will always pan out. (I am speculating that this will be a bust. I could, of course, be wrong.)
Personally, I think this is a trial balloon on Apple's part to preview market reaction to a 'third world phone' by taking out some functionality in the iPhone 5. I am guessing Apple is particularly interested in seeing how markets such as India and China react to this.
Thanks I was going to state the same with concern to Indian market, but afraid, someone in forum will attack me, since it will never happen apparently.
The new 16GB model is simply a replacement for the previous generation iPod. It didn't make sense to keep selling a device with A4 - 3 years old now. Anyways the old gen models camera was quite crappy. They also need to do something about selling two year old devices for free with contract. If someone buys an iPhone 4 now, even a year later, it would feel so obsolete.
True but from a value perspective, even at full price the iPods fare poorly vs the iPad Mini. A 5" iPad Nano with LTE data would be killer filling the need for super sized iPhones and retain pocket ability.
I don't need to call my kid if I can as reliably iMessage them. Or even FaceTime.
I think you've pushed this point well past its sell-by date.
Is point is fallacious. He's doesn't seem to realize that a for-profit company works to increase profits so it needs not be stated that all business decisions are geared to maximize this base concept.
Agreed. Also doesn't help that he doesn't get sarcasm/irony.
Thanks I was going to state the same with concern to Indian market, but afraid, someone in forum will attack me, since it will never happen apparently.
You need to have a thick skin if you wish to post here. Take as good as you give.
As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen. ;-)
Indeed. It amazes me to see the ignorance of some (or just one?) who can't see this.
I don't know what your problem is, N8TERSWORLD (banned 3 times), but I don't see where you have a grasp of the realities of business and manufacturing, and a passive-aggressive stance isn't going to help you. Clue, you need some.
On the other point, no rear camera, I and many others are also wondering, but since when does Apple do something without thinking hard about why?
Many reasons for no rear camera are possible. It's meant as a Facetime spare for the coffee table, meant for education (e.g., Facetime language lessons), meant for baby's first camera for self-mirror neuron development, meant to test the waters for a world phone, and so on.
Basic point is I think they should be assumed to know what they're doing until proven otherwise, i.e. Cube, Ping, etc. Not that anyone here was questioning their competence.
Exactly. Apple has become the most successful company on the planet by some measures. Some anonymous person with absolutely no manufacturing or management experience criticizes them here. Who is more likely to be correct?
Reducing the size reduces the amount of materials used. It may also reduce the amount of time spent machining and packaging cost.
OTOH, miniaturized components are sometimes more expensive than larger components. But not always.
I agree. Most parts and materials are very cheap. The big thing that often makes smaller electronics cheaper is higher integration (fewer parts, easier assembly) and using less silicon circuit area. It's really very complicated as you suggest, and this only goes into the cost to make it.
To add to that, the price of the finished product doesn't have to reflect the cost to make it, you charge what you can. Smaller electronics might have a higher price just because it's more useful to the target market, even if it costs less to make.
So this would be part of a play to build out the Apple Network, giving us here the minimum entry device.
Tim Cook was referring to iMessage and Facetime as Apple's "social network" at All Things D. They're up to something.
I say let that dream die. No way is Apple going to be allowed to own any bandwidth without being forced to allow any phone from any manufacturer on it.
I say let that dream die. No way is Apple going to be allowed to own any bandwidth without being forced to allow any phone from any manufacturer on it.
I think the "promise" to make Facetime an open standard indicated that they were thinking about stuff like this from the beginning. But Google's moves and Microsoft's Skype acquisition must be surprise factors.
This is way too strategic for me. I just keep on dreaming, sort of by profession. Not that I get paid for it . . .
I say let that dream die. No way is Apple going to be allowed to own any bandwidth without being forced to allow any phone from any manufacturer on it.
Of course, they could do what AT&T and Verizon do and go out of their way to steer users away from any 'undesirable' phone.
But, I agree, it's not likely to happen. Not just for the reason you cited, but because it's not really a value added proposition for Apple. What could Apple do that's better than AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Straighttalk, Net10, et al? How could Apple make the user experience noticeably better? I just don't see anything obvious.
What could Apple do that's better than AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Straighttalk, Net10, et al? How could Apple make the user experience noticeably better? I just don't see anything obvious.
Unlimited everything, uncapped, unthrottled, and with absolutely no restrictions for cheaper than anyone else's capped, throttled, restricted plans. All features usable on all forms of the network.
But the problem, of course, is in getting said bandwidth worldwide, besides the fact that they wouldn't "legally" be allowed to limit it to iDevices.
True but from a value perspective, even at full price the iPods fare poorly vs the iPad Mini. A 5" iPad Nano with LTE data would be killer filling the need for super sized iPhones and retain pocket ability.
I don't need to call my kid if I can as reliably iMessage them. Or even FaceTime.
I agree in the sense that I'm basically just waiting for the day when I can ditch my iPhone and use one device, and I envision that device as an iPad mini size, or slightly smaller.
I disagree over the 5" designation though. It's too small for a proper tablet, and I see the value in "phablets" as being the value of a small tablet, not a large phone. I think there are a lot of folks, (especially the large Americans), that want a bigger phone simply because their fingers are too fat or they refuse to learn how to work the keyboard and the autocorrect properly. I don't think these folks should be listened to.
I do think there is a growing "pro" use case wherein people (like me, but there are many others I believe), want a small, pocketable tablet that covers off all their mobile needs and doesn't require them to also buy and manage some sort of phone. I think "phones" are soon going out of style, if they haven't already.
I think that the current iPad mini could easily lose half of it's side bezels again and be a better device for it. It could easily be slightly smaller in all dimensions. If it also had phone capability and a "proper" (separate digitiser), stylus it would be miraculous. I think a product in that form factor would dominate the market for a decade at least. It will probably arrive sometime around 2015 or 2016 but I'm having a hard time waiting.
I agree in the sense that I'm basically just waiting for the day when I can ditch my iPhone and use one device, and I envision that device as an iPad mini size, or slightly smaller.
I disagree over the 5" designation though. It's too small for a proper tablet, and I see the value in "phablets" as being the value of a small tablet, not a large phone. I think there are a lot of folks, (especially the large Americans), that want a bigger phone simply because their fingers are too fat or they refuse to learn how to work the keyboard and the autocorrect properly. I don't think these folks should be listened to.
I do think there is a growing "pro" use case wherein people (like me, but there are many others I believe), want a small, pocketable tablet that covers off all their mobile needs and doesn't require them to also buy and manage some sort of phone. I think "phones" are soon going out of style, if they haven't already.
I think that the current iPad mini could easily lose half of it's side bezels again and be a better device for it. It could easily be slightly smaller in all dimensions. If it also had phone capability and a "proper" (separate digitiser), stylus it would be miraculous. I think a product in that form factor would dominate the market for a decade at least. It will probably arrive sometime around 2015 or 2016 but I'm having a hard time waiting.
The iPad Mini is pocketable but only barely. Lab coats, jackets, sweat shirts. Even trimming the bezels a little wont help much. That said it's not much worse than most of the past portable consoles that were too thick to fit in anything but a jacket pocket as well.
An iPod that could text and surf would meet 90% of the needs for my kids but that's not currently an option. So a featurephone + iPad Mini is just as viable as a featurephone + iPod.
I wonder if an iPod Nano featurephone + iPad Mini isn't a viable strategy.
Unlimited everything, uncapped, unthrottled, and with absolutely no restrictions for cheaper than anyone else's capped, throttled, restricted plans. All features usable on all forms of the network.
How is that different than what Net10 or Straighttalk offer?
Yes, I realize that a tiny fraction of super-heavy users claim that they're throttled on those networks after they hit a few gazillion GB per month, but for 99% of users, they already have that. So why would they buy it from Apple when they can already get it for $45 per month? And with those two networks, they have access to a full-blown network that's already in place rather than having to wait for Apple to build one.
How is that different than what Net10 or Straighttalk offer?
Both capped, both restricted, and both throttled. It's wholly different.
Unless I'm to understand that you're personally vouching for Straight Talk in that they neither throttle nor cut off your service entirely for committing the crime of using YouTube or streaming video from any other service?
Both capped, both restricted, and both throttled. It's wholly different.
I do not believe that after the huge CapEx that Apple could afford to be that generous. Verizon capex in q1 2013 was 3.6B. Network buildouts take years. Even Apple's treasure horde would feel the hit.
Both capped, both restricted, and both throttled. It's wholly different.
Unless I'm to understand that you're personally vouching for Straight Talk in that they neither throttle nor cut off your service entirely for committing the crime of using YouTube or streaming video from any other service?
Maybe you should use it before commenting.
I use Straight Talk on my phone and my daughter's phone. For $45, you get unlimited phone calls, unlimited texts, unlimited MMS, and unlimited data. No caps, no limits, no restrictions. I most certainly access YouTube and other streaming video on the device without problems..
As I said, some people claim that they get throttled for extremely high usage, but there's no mention of that on Straight Talk's web site - and no one that I know has run into it. If it does happen, it's only for a tiny fraction of users. But even then, there's still no cap or limits.
I use Straight Talk on my phone and my daughter's phone. For $45, you get unlimited phone calls, unlimited texts, unlimited MMS, and unlimited data. No caps, no limits, no restrictions. I most certainly access YouTube and other streaming video on the device without problems..
As I said, some people claim that they get throttled for extremely high usage, but there's no mention of that on Straight Talk's web site - and no one that I know has run into it. If it does happen, it's only for a tiny fraction of users. But even then, there's still no cap or limits.
EFF YES. THANK YOU. And SUCK IT to whoever that was claiming otherwise in that thread months ago. Abject nonsense, that was. Like I'm going to be treated like that and forget it.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Oh, don't get your panties in a bunch.
I really just meant that it was quite unlike -- and a surprisingly lazy thing for -- Apple to do: to take an existing product, remove some (arguably) key functionality, leave the 'box' the same, lower the price and see if it sticks. I certainly don't recall their doing this with the iPod or iPad or iPhone lines before. Or with Macs (but I am less sure). They have always put a little more thought even into the process of 'downscaling' products.
And to others who are making the (trite) point that Apple is doing this hoping for a profit, well, duh. That's the primary reason profit-maximizing companies make such moves. However, that does not mean that the hope or expectation will always pan out. (I am speculating that this will be a bust. I could, of course, be wrong.)
Personally, I think this is a trial balloon on Apple's part to preview market reaction to a 'third world phone' by taking out some functionality in the iPhone 5. I am guessing Apple is particularly interested in seeing how markets such as India and China react to this.
Thanks I was going to state the same with concern to Indian market, but afraid, someone in forum will attack me, since it will never happen apparently.
The new 16GB model is simply a replacement for the previous generation iPod. It didn't make sense to keep selling a device with A4 - 3 years old now. Anyways the old gen models camera was quite crappy. They also need to do something about selling two year old devices for free with contract. If someone buys an iPhone 4 now, even a year later, it would feel so obsolete.
True but from a value perspective, even at full price the iPods fare poorly vs the iPad Mini. A 5" iPad Nano with LTE data would be killer filling the need for super sized iPhones and retain pocket ability.
I don't need to call my kid if I can as reliably iMessage them. Or even FaceTime.
Agreed. Also doesn't help that he doesn't get sarcasm/irony.
You need to have a thick skin if you wish to post here. Take as good as you give.
As the saying goes, if you can't stand the heat, don't go into the kitchen. ;-)
I don't know what your problem is, N8TERSWORLD (banned 3 times), but I don't see where you have a grasp of the realities of business and manufacturing, and a passive-aggressive stance isn't going to help you. Clue, you need some.
While that CAN be true, ti can also be false.
Reducing the size reduces the amount of materials used. It may also reduce the amount of time spent machining and packaging cost.
OTOH, miniaturized components are sometimes more expensive than larger components. But not always.
It's impossible to make a blanket statement like that - it may or may not be true, depending on circumstances.
Exactly. Apple has become the most successful company on the planet by some measures. Some anonymous person with absolutely no manufacturing or management experience criticizes them here. Who is more likely to be correct?
I agree. Most parts and materials are very cheap. The big thing that often makes smaller electronics cheaper is higher integration (fewer parts, easier assembly) and using less silicon circuit area. It's really very complicated as you suggest, and this only goes into the cost to make it.
To add to that, the price of the finished product doesn't have to reflect the cost to make it, you charge what you can. Smaller electronics might have a higher price just because it's more useful to the target market, even if it costs less to make.
So this would be part of a play to build out the Apple Network, giving us here the minimum entry device.
Tim Cook was referring to iMessage and Facetime as Apple's "social network" at All Things D. They're up to something.
Originally Posted by Flaneur
So this would be part of a play to build out the Apple Network, giving us here the minimum entry device.
Tim Cook was referring to iMessage and Facetime as Apple's "social network" at All Things D. They're up to something.
I say let that dream die. No way is Apple going to be allowed to own any bandwidth without being forced to allow any phone from any manufacturer on it.
I think the "promise" to make Facetime an open standard indicated that they were thinking about stuff like this from the beginning. But Google's moves and Microsoft's Skype acquisition must be surprise factors.
This is way too strategic for me. I just keep on dreaming, sort of by profession. Not that I get paid for it . . .
Of course, they could do what AT&T and Verizon do and go out of their way to steer users away from any 'undesirable' phone.
But, I agree, it's not likely to happen. Not just for the reason you cited, but because it's not really a value added proposition for Apple. What could Apple do that's better than AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Straighttalk, Net10, et al? How could Apple make the user experience noticeably better? I just don't see anything obvious.
Originally Posted by jragosta
What could Apple do that's better than AT&T, Verizon, Sprint, Straighttalk, Net10, et al? How could Apple make the user experience noticeably better? I just don't see anything obvious.
Unlimited everything, uncapped, unthrottled, and with absolutely no restrictions for cheaper than anyone else's capped, throttled, restricted plans. All features usable on all forms of the network.
But the problem, of course, is in getting said bandwidth worldwide, besides the fact that they wouldn't "legally" be allowed to limit it to iDevices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
True but from a value perspective, even at full price the iPods fare poorly vs the iPad Mini. A 5" iPad Nano with LTE data would be killer filling the need for super sized iPhones and retain pocket ability.
I don't need to call my kid if I can as reliably iMessage them. Or even FaceTime.
I agree in the sense that I'm basically just waiting for the day when I can ditch my iPhone and use one device, and I envision that device as an iPad mini size, or slightly smaller.
I disagree over the 5" designation though. It's too small for a proper tablet, and I see the value in "phablets" as being the value of a small tablet, not a large phone. I think there are a lot of folks, (especially the large Americans), that want a bigger phone simply because their fingers are too fat or they refuse to learn how to work the keyboard and the autocorrect properly. I don't think these folks should be listened to.
I do think there is a growing "pro" use case wherein people (like me, but there are many others I believe), want a small, pocketable tablet that covers off all their mobile needs and doesn't require them to also buy and manage some sort of phone. I think "phones" are soon going out of style, if they haven't already.
I think that the current iPad mini could easily lose half of it's side bezels again and be a better device for it. It could easily be slightly smaller in all dimensions. If it also had phone capability and a "proper" (separate digitiser), stylus it would be miraculous. I think a product in that form factor would dominate the market for a decade at least. It will probably arrive sometime around 2015 or 2016 but I'm having a hard time waiting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I agree in the sense that I'm basically just waiting for the day when I can ditch my iPhone and use one device, and I envision that device as an iPad mini size, or slightly smaller.
I disagree over the 5" designation though. It's too small for a proper tablet, and I see the value in "phablets" as being the value of a small tablet, not a large phone. I think there are a lot of folks, (especially the large Americans), that want a bigger phone simply because their fingers are too fat or they refuse to learn how to work the keyboard and the autocorrect properly. I don't think these folks should be listened to.
I do think there is a growing "pro" use case wherein people (like me, but there are many others I believe), want a small, pocketable tablet that covers off all their mobile needs and doesn't require them to also buy and manage some sort of phone. I think "phones" are soon going out of style, if they haven't already.
I think that the current iPad mini could easily lose half of it's side bezels again and be a better device for it. It could easily be slightly smaller in all dimensions. If it also had phone capability and a "proper" (separate digitiser), stylus it would be miraculous. I think a product in that form factor would dominate the market for a decade at least. It will probably arrive sometime around 2015 or 2016 but I'm having a hard time waiting.
The iPad Mini is pocketable but only barely. Lab coats, jackets, sweat shirts. Even trimming the bezels a little wont help much. That said it's not much worse than most of the past portable consoles that were too thick to fit in anything but a jacket pocket as well.
An iPod that could text and surf would meet 90% of the needs for my kids but that's not currently an option. So a featurephone + iPad Mini is just as viable as a featurephone + iPod.
I wonder if an iPod Nano featurephone + iPad Mini isn't a viable strategy.
How is that different than what Net10 or Straighttalk offer?
Yes, I realize that a tiny fraction of super-heavy users claim that they're throttled on those networks after they hit a few gazillion GB per month, but for 99% of users, they already have that. So why would they buy it from Apple when they can already get it for $45 per month? And with those two networks, they have access to a full-blown network that's already in place rather than having to wait for Apple to build one.
Originally Posted by jragosta
How is that different than what Net10 or Straighttalk offer?
Both capped, both restricted, and both throttled. It's wholly different.
Unless I'm to understand that you're personally vouching for Straight Talk in that they neither throttle nor cut off your service entirely for committing the crime of using YouTube or streaming video from any other service?
I do not believe that after the huge CapEx that Apple could afford to be that generous. Verizon capex in q1 2013 was 3.6B. Network buildouts take years. Even Apple's treasure horde would feel the hit.
Maybe you should use it before commenting.
I use Straight Talk on my phone and my daughter's phone. For $45, you get unlimited phone calls, unlimited texts, unlimited MMS, and unlimited data. No caps, no limits, no restrictions. I most certainly access YouTube and other streaming video on the device without problems..
As I said, some people claim that they get throttled for extremely high usage, but there's no mention of that on Straight Talk's web site - and no one that I know has run into it. If it does happen, it's only for a tiny fraction of users. But even then, there's still no cap or limits.
Originally Posted by jragosta
I use Straight Talk on my phone and my daughter's phone. For $45, you get unlimited phone calls, unlimited texts, unlimited MMS, and unlimited data. No caps, no limits, no restrictions. I most certainly access YouTube and other streaming video on the device without problems..
As I said, some people claim that they get throttled for extremely high usage, but there's no mention of that on Straight Talk's web site - and no one that I know has run into it. If it does happen, it's only for a tiny fraction of users. But even then, there's still no cap or limits.
EFF YES. THANK YOU. And SUCK IT to whoever that was claiming otherwise in that thread months ago. Abject nonsense, that was. Like I'm going to be treated like that and forget it.