Pegatron CEO: Apple's 'low-cost iPhone' will not be cheap

124»

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 70
    wigginwiggin Posts: 2,265member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    You haven't been paying attention to anything Apple has said in recent years.



    Apple is all about maximizing user experience. Profits follow. Profits are not the short term goal.


     


    Point taken...your first point. I amend my statement to Apple will maintain it's incredibly high profit margins. I have been paying attention to Apple for quite some time. Yes, Apple said about a year ago that there might be slightly lower profit margins...a foreshadowing of the release of the iPad mini. But your previous past that price has nothing to do with cost, and an example of a lower priced item actually costing more, are quit irrelevant to Apple. They would simply never do that.


     


    To your second point about maximizing user experience, yes Apple tries to do that. But THAT has very little to do with the price-cost ratio. I am not so naive to believe that Apple is still the altruist company they used to be, championing the user above all else. Profit is very much a goal of theirs, as it should be for any public company. But you are correct that Apple, unlike so many other companies, does not treat it as a short term goal. But it is a goal nonetheless.

  • Reply 62 of 70
    timbittimbit Posts: 331member
    What would differentiate the "lite" version and the 5S? The case alone? Would it really be a ~$400 case? I don't think they would take out LTE as 3G is unbearably slow on my iPhone 4. Reduced camera quality? No Siri?
    I love having the newest gadget but the 5S will be expensive and if this "less expensive" version is still high quality with no real drawbacks then I would highly consider it over the 5S
  • Reply 63 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,674member
    ireland wrote: »
    They need to obliterate 3.5" displays ASAP.

    They already have; they only allow apps with 1136*640 px now.
  • Reply 64 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,674member
    ireland wrote: »
    They need to obliterate 3.5" displays ASAP.

    They already have; they only allow apps with 1136*640 px now.
    Who says it want still be 3.5 inch display, like the iPad mini keeping the old resolution, unless it turns to be non retina 4 inch

    Apple does ^
  • Reply 65 of 70
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,924member
    philboogie wrote: »
    They already have; they only allow apps with 1136*640 px now.

    I must have missed that memo. Apple requires updates to support the 5 but they didn't end support for the 3.5" models, Considering the vast majority of active iPhones have a 3.5" screen.
  • Reply 66 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,674member
    jungmark wrote: »
    philboogie wrote: »
    They already have; they only allow apps with 1136*640 px now.

    I must have missed that memo. Apple requires updates to support the 5 but they didn't end support for the 3.5" models, Considering the vast majority of active iPhones have a 3.5" screen.

    Stupid me! Of course they can't have discontinued the 3.5" screen. I'm searching for the article I read, can't find it, but it must have been that they discontinue apps written for 640*320 resolution. My bad.

    While looking for the article, I saw this:
    List of iOS devices (wiki) which has a table with supported and discontinued models.
  • Reply 67 of 70
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Since when did Apple follow its competitors? I must have missed the iNetbook announcement.



    Apple doesn't do it with Macs because you can build to order with select options.


    Apple doesn't do it with Macs because you can build to order? Ridiculous. They don't do it with Macs because thats not how you compete in the PC space. If they did and they kept the High Premium tab all you guys want to keep they would have


     


    1) One Mac - a Pro


    2) Updated once per year


    3) last years model is the middle version. The year's before is the cheap version.


     


    They don't do that because that would be nuts.


     


    And I said 3 models, they don't have to compete in all categories in the Phone market no more than they do in the PC market. So the iNetBook argument also fails.

  • Reply 68 of 70
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


     


    Point taken...your first point. I amend my statement to Apple will maintain it's incredibly high profit margins. I have been paying attention to Apple for quite some time. Yes, Apple said about a year ago that there might be slightly lower profit margins...a foreshadowing of the release of the iPad mini. But your previous past that price has nothing to do with cost, and an example of a lower priced item actually costing more, are quit irrelevant to Apple. They would simply never do that.


     


    To your second point about maximizing user experience, yes Apple tries to do that. But THAT has very little to do with the price-cost ratio. I am not so naive to believe that Apple is still the altruist company they used to be, championing the user above all else. Profit is very much a goal of theirs, as it should be for any public company. But you are correct that Apple, unlike so many other companies, does not treat it as a short term goal. But it is a goal nonetheless.



    Profit is not the same as margins. Apple in fact never ever guaranteed margins in any conference call, nor make any statements about being a high margin company.  People assume Apple want high margins, but they keep high margins until they can't, and then they don't. See the margins on the iPod. On release the only model cost $399, and the next year prices went up not down, to $499 for a higher specced model. Ignoring the shuffle etc, the "standard" iPod is the touch and this years model is $229. ( Another confusing point for people who think it is all about profits, or margin. I don't think that removing the camera saved $70, ergo margins decreased).


     


    What they do say is that they are prepared to cannibalize themselves. Which means that if the market for phones is being commoditised they will have to cannibalize themselves, or somebody else will. Saying "we are prepared to cannibalize ourselves" is code for "we are prepared for lower margins".


     


    As for the market it has already priced in lower margins, and Apple can maintain stock with buybacks, so it is safe there. In fact all of its actions seem to indicate they are going to reduce margins, or expect to have to.





    WebRep



     


    currentVote


     


     


    noRating


    noWeight



     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     


     



     



  • Reply 69 of 70

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post





    They already have; they only allow apps with 1136*640 px now.


     


    Untrue.


     


    All new and updated apps must support the new 4" screen but they can still support 3.5" as well.

  • Reply 70 of 70
    philboogiephilboogie Posts: 7,674member
    philboogie wrote: »
    They already have; they only allow apps with 1136*640 px now.

    Untrue.

    All new and updated apps must support the new 4" screen but they can still support 3.5" as well.

    Tell me about it: it was my dumbest post ever!
Sign In or Register to comment.