Edit: @AaronJ, Big news for you. It isn't the bottom of the market that these phones will be aimed at. It's the young taste-driven segment of the market, the ones who in my day used to buy records, record players and Walkmans. They used to buy iPods, maybe in your day. Very important slice of the market, in case you haven't noticed.
Yes, that's my day as well. But I'm still not seeing the advantage here. To me, all it says is: We're damaging the brand to sell cheaper phones. It seems like a HUGE step backwards. If it isn't aiming toward a lower end of the market, then why have it be cheaper? And if it IS cheaper, then how is it *not* aiming at a lower end of the market?
There are all sorts of "very important slices of the market" frankly. The $300 laptop is probably an important slice of the market. Is that next for Apple?
Yes, that's my day as well. But I'm still not seeing the advantage here. To me, all it says is: We're damaging the brand to sell cheaper phones. It seems like a HUGE step backwards. If it isn't aiming toward a lower end of the market, then why have it be cheaper? And if it IS cheaper, then how is it *not* aiming at a lower end of the market?
There are all sorts of "very important slices of the market" frankly. The $300 laptop is probably an important slice of the market. Is that next for Apple?
Yes, you ARE talking about Apple making a netbook, in the sense that you're entire argument -- "as their answer to the low end market" -- is saying that Apple should engage in some race to the bottom. If you really believe that, then good. And, as I said, the second they start doing that I'm done as a shareholder. That wasn't the company I signed up for.
Not even close. Netbooks were products that were so crippled that they were barely useful for anything but the most basic tasks - in order to cut price to the bone. It is entirely possible to make a lower priced product without sacrificing quality or performance if you're intelligent about it. I've done it. Apple has done it (can you say 'iPad Mini'?).
More importantly, the entire iPad market disproves your point. Apple could have made a $300 laptop, but they chose not to because it would be crap. In fact, Jobs set the bar higher - saying that Apple didn't know how to make a $500 laptop that wasn't crap. So, instead of trying to make a $300 laptop, they threw out the entire concept and made the iPad - which most certainly is not crap.
It is quite possible to offer a lower priced product without it being crap. Based on both of your posts, you seem to be completely incapable of understanding that simple concept.
Just like the iPad Mini (and the iPod Touch and other products before that), I would expect that if Apple decides to expand into a new segment of the market, they will NOT product a crappy product. They will never produce anything less than a very good product (usually a great product). If they can't get the price to a competitive point without turning the product into crap, they won't do it.
But considering Apple's incredible supply chain performance, high volume, and minimal number of SKUs, Apple can make price competitive without sacrificing quality other than the very lowest end of the market - but no one is suggesting that Apple should be making $39 cell phones, so that's irrelevant.
Do you really think that you know more about brand building, technology, and marketing than Apple?
Not even close. Netbooks were products that were so crippled that they were barely useful for anything but the most basic tasks - in order to cut price to the bone. It is entirely possible to make a lower priced product without sacrificing quality or performance if you're intelligent about it. I've done it. Apple has done it (can you say 'iPad Mini'?).
More importantly, the entire iPad market disproves your point. Apple could have made a $300 laptop, but they chose not to because it would be crap. In fact, Jobs set the bar higher - saying that Apple didn't know how to make a $500 laptop that wasn't crap. So, instead of trying to make a $300 laptop, they threw out the entire concept and made the iPad - which most certainly is not crap.
It is quite possible to offer a lower priced product without it being crap. Based on both of your posts, you seem to be completely incapable of understanding that simple concept.
Just like the iPad Mini (and the iPod Touch and other products before that), I would expect that if Apple decides to expand into a new segment of the market, they will NOT product a crappy product. They will never produce anything less than a very good product (usually a great product). If they can't get the price to a competitive point without turning the product into crap, they won't do it.
But considering Apple's incredible supply chain performance, high volume, and minimal number of SKUs, Apple can make price competitive without sacrificing quality other than the very lowest end of the market - but no one is suggesting that Apple should be making $39 cell phones, so that's irrelevant.
Do you really think that you know more about brand building, technology, and marketing than Apple?
No, I don't think that. I don't even think anywhere close to that.
But that doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on a possible product, right? Look: The last thing I would hope for is for me to be right. And I don't think that the iPad Mini is a good example, because other than the processor and the Retina display -- unless I'm forgetting something -- it's basically a smaller iPad. It's the iPad in a different form factor, right?
The "cheaper" iPhone, though, is something different. At least that's the way it seems to me. Hey, maybe you'll be right, in the end. But it sounds like an awful idea on many fronts to me.
No, I don't think that. I don't even think anywhere close to that.
But that doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on a possible product, right? Look: The last thing I would hope for is for me to be right. And I don't think that the iPad Mini is a good example, because other than the processor and the Retina display -- unless I'm forgetting something -- it's basically a smaller iPad. It's the iPad in a different form factor, right?
The "cheaper" iPhone, though, is something different. At least that's the way it seems to me. Hey, maybe you'll be right, in the end. But it sounds like an awful idea on many fronts to me.
Considering your inability to grasp even the most basic marketing concepts, I don't think Apple's worried about your opinion.
The people whining about the colors are the same people who whined about the original iMac. And we all know how that worked out.
It did sell well and is now a pop culture icon, but I think it would be fair to call it a P.T. Barnum "can't argue with success" kind of thing... like "Geez, translucent fruit colors and it sold. Go figger." Did it sell because it looked weird, or was it because it was such a great idea and great value that even people who thought it was unattractive bought it anyway?
The 5C may very well sell extremely well in whatever colors Apple offers, but that doesn't necessarily mean the colors are pleasing or attractive. It might sell well to people who have poor taste, or it may sell well in spite of the ugly colors.
Or maybe those of us who dislike what we've seen so far are out to lunch and those colors really are exactly what the world is waiting for. At least there appears to be a very nice looking white one for anyone who doesn't like whatever Apple actually winds up offering, if anything.
And that's why I put the picture of the iMacs. You said they should used anodized aluminum because colored plastic looks cheap. The iMacs show that you're wrong.
Just one man's opinion, but I don't think they do. I think the iMacs *DO* look "cheap."
I'm NOT maligning the iMac, I think it was a great idea (duh -- obviously) and I'm NOT saying Apple made a mistake, just that its success does not equate to it not looking cheap. I believe that's a subjective call.
Edit: P.S. I think the supposed 5C case looks great except for the colors shown so far. I don't care if it's plastic, aluminum or stainless steel as long as it looks good and holds up well.
These iPhones would like look 1,000,000,000 times better if they were made of anodized aluminum regardless of what the color selection was.
If apple can afford to use anodized aluminum on the $49 iPod Shuffle why would they resort to barf inducing plastic on a $450 iPhone?
Perhaps making them look a billion times better is counterproductive.
Maybe they want to reserve aluminium enclosures for the premium models and use this model to attract new kinds of users.
If you were Jonny Ive how else would you differentiate between the iPhone 5 and a new, cheaper phone with iPhone 5 internals without removing features or software?
We are in agreement on the colour selection. I much prefer the forest green, burnt orange and purples that have graced their anodised products. But you and I likely aren't the target market and primary colours + grass green are a decent place to start. I predict red, blue and white will sell well.
If you were Jonny Ive how else would you differentiate between the iPhone 5 and a new, cheaper phone with iPhone 5 internals without removing features or software?
I find it funny that a lot of people here think that the only way to differentiate the 5C from the 5S is to make the 5C ugly so that the 5S looks more attractive next to it.
Well how about differentiate the phones by making the 5C excellent and beautiful in its own regard with an anodized aluminum exterior, and then making the 5S that much better with innovations that are so lust worthy even the capable beautiful 5C pales in comparison!
You people seem to have forgotten what makes "Apple" Apple. It's about pressing the limits with the high end pro products that make the extra $$$ worth it.
That's what differentiates the MacBook Air from the Retina Pro Line. Same screen size, similar thinnest, but a completely upgraded experience worth the higher cost. And guess what? It's done without cheapening the Air to make the Pro look good.
I know this is another long rant, but that's how I would have envisioned a cheaper iPhone. Capable and beautiful on its own, with the pro level iPhone reaching new heights of innovation and grandeur. And yes that could have been done even with both maintaining the same screen size.
I find it funny that a lot of people here think that the only way to differentiate the 5C from the 5S is to make the 5C ugly so that the 5S looks more attractive next to it.
Well how about differentiate the phones by making the 5C excellent and beautiful in its own regard with an anodized aluminum exterior, and then making the 5S that much better with innovations that are so lust worthy even the capable beautiful 5C pales in comparison!
You people seem to have forgotten what makes "Apple" Apple. It's about pressing the limits with the high end pro products that make the extra $$$ worth it.
That's what differentiates the MacBook Air from the Retina Pro Line. Same screen size, similar thinnest, but a completely upgraded experience worth the higher cost. And guess what? It's done without cheapening the Air to make the Pro look good.
I know this is another long rant, but that's how I would have envisioned a cheaper iPhone. Capable and beautiful on its own, with the pro level iPhone reaching new heights of innovation and grandeur. And yes that could have been done even with both maintaining the same screen size.
So you think you know more about design than Apple?
And what's with all the silly begging the question arguments? OK, YOU think that the designs are ugly. So? Does that make them ugly? Of course not. You don't get to dictate everyone's designs.
If Apple releases a colored iPhone (which isn't a certainty, of course), I have every confidence that they'll do a good job of it. I couldn't care less whether it meets your silly demands. They know what they're doing. You don't.
Rubber chiclet buttons on an upcoming Apple product (unpleasant flashbacks of the Sinclair Spectrum home computer come to mind!) - terrible! blackbook's comment here is very true - it was only the metal buttons and switches on the 3G/3GS that lifted it from feeling like a piece cheap plastic crap. This is a very bad idea!
Rubber chiclet buttons on an upcoming Apple product (unpleasant flashbacks of the Sinclair Spectrum home computer come to mind!) - terrible! blackbook's comment here is very true - it was only the metal buttons and switches on the 3G/3GS that lifted it from feeling like a piece cheap plastic crap. This is a very bad idea!
I might be completely wrong, but I think that one could compare the cheaper iPhone with the "New Gent" collection from Swatch. They are minimalistic watches made from plastic and have very few features (telling time, date and day of the week).
They have a variety of colours, sell for very little, even here in Uruguay they go for 90 dollars which is quite low for a branded watch.
And the most important factor on those watches are the colours. I ended up buying the all-black one because the other colours available at the time were to much for me. But it is obvious that they are ment to be sold to people 30 years-old or less that want to differentiate themselves from the rest of the herd. Or to fashion driven people that one to match their clothes and their accessories.
And of course you have to consider that the cheaper iPhone would have to be advertised outside of the US much more than in the US.
There are 3 carriers in my 3.7 million people country, and only one of those carriers has a deal to sell iPhones(Telefonica, which probably got the iPhone to Uruguay as part of a regional deal and not a national deal). This iPhone could mean getting more deals with the rest of the carriers that until now found the idea of selling iPhones just to risky.
It is so glad to find that your guys found what I`m selling in my store....If your guys want to know more information about I5C or iPhone 6 accessories and parts...just feel free to view my site and leave your comments below those products..tks~!
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Edit: @AaronJ, Big news for you. It isn't the bottom of the market that these phones will be aimed at. It's the young taste-driven segment of the market, the ones who in my day used to buy records, record players and Walkmans. They used to buy iPods, maybe in your day. Very important slice of the market, in case you haven't noticed.
Yes, that's my day as well. But I'm still not seeing the advantage here. To me, all it says is: We're damaging the brand to sell cheaper phones. It seems like a HUGE step backwards. If it isn't aiming toward a lower end of the market, then why have it be cheaper? And if it IS cheaper, then how is it *not* aiming at a lower end of the market?
There are all sorts of "very important slices of the market" frankly. The $300 laptop is probably an important slice of the market. Is that next for Apple?
Not even close. Netbooks were products that were so crippled that they were barely useful for anything but the most basic tasks - in order to cut price to the bone. It is entirely possible to make a lower priced product without sacrificing quality or performance if you're intelligent about it. I've done it. Apple has done it (can you say 'iPad Mini'?).
More importantly, the entire iPad market disproves your point. Apple could have made a $300 laptop, but they chose not to because it would be crap. In fact, Jobs set the bar higher - saying that Apple didn't know how to make a $500 laptop that wasn't crap. So, instead of trying to make a $300 laptop, they threw out the entire concept and made the iPad - which most certainly is not crap.
It is quite possible to offer a lower priced product without it being crap. Based on both of your posts, you seem to be completely incapable of understanding that simple concept.
Just like the iPad Mini (and the iPod Touch and other products before that), I would expect that if Apple decides to expand into a new segment of the market, they will NOT product a crappy product. They will never produce anything less than a very good product (usually a great product). If they can't get the price to a competitive point without turning the product into crap, they won't do it.
But considering Apple's incredible supply chain performance, high volume, and minimal number of SKUs, Apple can make price competitive without sacrificing quality other than the very lowest end of the market - but no one is suggesting that Apple should be making $39 cell phones, so that's irrelevant.
Do you really think that you know more about brand building, technology, and marketing than Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not even close. Netbooks were products that were so crippled that they were barely useful for anything but the most basic tasks - in order to cut price to the bone. It is entirely possible to make a lower priced product without sacrificing quality or performance if you're intelligent about it. I've done it. Apple has done it (can you say 'iPad Mini'?).
More importantly, the entire iPad market disproves your point. Apple could have made a $300 laptop, but they chose not to because it would be crap. In fact, Jobs set the bar higher - saying that Apple didn't know how to make a $500 laptop that wasn't crap. So, instead of trying to make a $300 laptop, they threw out the entire concept and made the iPad - which most certainly is not crap.
It is quite possible to offer a lower priced product without it being crap. Based on both of your posts, you seem to be completely incapable of understanding that simple concept.
Just like the iPad Mini (and the iPod Touch and other products before that), I would expect that if Apple decides to expand into a new segment of the market, they will NOT product a crappy product. They will never produce anything less than a very good product (usually a great product). If they can't get the price to a competitive point without turning the product into crap, they won't do it.
But considering Apple's incredible supply chain performance, high volume, and minimal number of SKUs, Apple can make price competitive without sacrificing quality other than the very lowest end of the market - but no one is suggesting that Apple should be making $39 cell phones, so that's irrelevant.
Do you really think that you know more about brand building, technology, and marketing than Apple?
No, I don't think that. I don't even think anywhere close to that.
But that doesn't mean that I can't have an opinion on a possible product, right? Look: The last thing I would hope for is for me to be right. And I don't think that the iPad Mini is a good example, because other than the processor and the Retina display -- unless I'm forgetting something -- it's basically a smaller iPad. It's the iPad in a different form factor, right?
The "cheaper" iPhone, though, is something different. At least that's the way it seems to me. Hey, maybe you'll be right, in the end. But it sounds like an awful idea on many fronts to me.
Considering your inability to grasp even the most basic marketing concepts, I don't think Apple's worried about your opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Considering your inability to grasp even the most basic marketing concepts, I don't think Apple's worried about your opinion.
When the $#%& did I ever say they were?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
The people whining about the colors are the same people who whined about the original iMac. And we all know how that worked out.
It did sell well and is now a pop culture icon, but I think it would be fair to call it a P.T. Barnum "can't argue with success" kind of thing... like "Geez, translucent fruit colors and it sold. Go figger." Did it sell because it looked weird, or was it because it was such a great idea and great value that even people who thought it was unattractive bought it anyway?
The 5C may very well sell extremely well in whatever colors Apple offers, but that doesn't necessarily mean the colors are pleasing or attractive. It might sell well to people who have poor taste, or it may sell well in spite of the ugly colors.
Or maybe those of us who dislike what we've seen so far are out to lunch and those colors really are exactly what the world is waiting for. At least there appears to be a very nice looking white one for anyone who doesn't like whatever Apple actually winds up offering, if anything.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
And that's why I put the picture of the iMacs. You said they should used anodized aluminum because colored plastic looks cheap. The iMacs show that you're wrong.
Just one man's opinion, but I don't think they do. I think the iMacs *DO* look "cheap."
I'm NOT maligning the iMac, I think it was a great idea (duh -- obviously) and I'm NOT saying Apple made a mistake, just that its success does not equate to it not looking cheap. I believe that's a subjective call.
Edit: P.S. I think the supposed 5C case looks great except for the colors shown so far. I don't care if it's plastic, aluminum or stainless steel as long as it looks good and holds up well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Considering your inability to grasp even the most basic marketing concepts, I don't think Apple's worried about your opinion.
...and with that, pages of cogent, well-reasoned arguments are dismissed as just more vitriolic abuse from a very rude person.
Why you wanna do that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
These iPhones would like look 1,000,000,000 times better if they were made of anodized aluminum regardless of what the color selection was.
If apple can afford to use anodized aluminum on the $49 iPod Shuffle why would they resort to barf inducing plastic on a $450 iPhone?
Perhaps making them look a billion times better is counterproductive.
Maybe they want to reserve aluminium enclosures for the premium models and use this model to attract new kinds of users.
If you were Jonny Ive how else would you differentiate between the iPhone 5 and a new, cheaper phone with iPhone 5 internals without removing features or software?
We are in agreement on the colour selection. I much prefer the forest green, burnt orange and purples that have graced their anodised products. But you and I likely aren't the target market and primary colours + grass green are a decent place to start. I predict red, blue and white will sell well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Well, we'll see. I think they're going for middle tier myself.
Yes, we will see. And like with the iPad Mini, I will probably end up proven wrong.
I find it funny that a lot of people here think that the only way to differentiate the 5C from the 5S is to make the 5C ugly so that the 5S looks more attractive next to it.
Well how about differentiate the phones by making the 5C excellent and beautiful in its own regard with an anodized aluminum exterior, and then making the 5S that much better with innovations that are so lust worthy even the capable beautiful 5C pales in comparison!
You people seem to have forgotten what makes "Apple" Apple. It's about pressing the limits with the high end pro products that make the extra $$$ worth it.
That's what differentiates the MacBook Air from the Retina Pro Line. Same screen size, similar thinnest, but a completely upgraded experience worth the higher cost. And guess what? It's done without cheapening the Air to make the Pro look good.
I know this is another long rant, but that's how I would have envisioned a cheaper iPhone. Capable and beautiful on its own, with the pro level iPhone reaching new heights of innovation and grandeur. And yes that could have been done even with both maintaining the same screen size.
So you think you know more about design than Apple?
And what's with all the silly begging the question arguments? OK, YOU think that the designs are ugly. So? Does that make them ugly? Of course not. You don't get to dictate everyone's designs.
If Apple releases a colored iPhone (which isn't a certainty, of course), I have every confidence that they'll do a good job of it. I couldn't care less whether it meets your silly demands. They know what they're doing. You don't.
See the post before yours.
I might be completely wrong, but I think that one could compare the cheaper iPhone with the "New Gent" collection from Swatch.
They are minimalistic watches made from plastic and have very few features (telling time, date and day of the week).
They have a variety of colours, sell for very little, even here in Uruguay they go for 90 dollars which is quite low for a branded watch.
And the most important factor on those watches are the colours. I ended up buying the all-black one because the other colours available at the time were to much for me. But it is obvious that they are ment to be sold to people 30 years-old or less that want to differentiate themselves from the rest of the herd. Or to fashion driven people that one to match their clothes and their accessories.
And of course you have to consider that the cheaper iPhone would have to be advertised outside of the US much more than in the US.
There are 3 carriers in my 3.7 million people country, and only one of those carriers has a deal to sell iPhones(Telefonica, which probably got the iPhone to Uruguay as part of a regional deal and not a national deal).
This iPhone could mean getting more deals with the rest of the carriers that until now found the idea of selling iPhones just to risky.
It is so glad to find that your guys found what I`m selling in my store....If your guys want to know more information about I5C or iPhone 6 accessories and parts...just feel free to view my site and leave your comments below those products..tks~!
http://www.tvc-mall.com/product/wholesale-iphone-5c-cases/