I remain unclear about this (and have seen no lucid, irrefutable rationalization anywhere): What is it about 5C that will win over more Chinese customers (or India, Russia and other places where iPhone is less than dominant) than 4 or 4S? I don't think it will be much cheaper than those two? And if it will be cheaper, what will Apple sacrifice to hit the lower price points? Are they simply sacrificing margins? If so, why not just sacrifice greater margins on 4 and 4S?
Is it just the illusion that they are getting a new, cheaper iphone rather than last year's iphone?
Or is it because iPhone 4 are 4S are being both retired and the current iPhone 5 will become the only "older" model, but they still want/need 3 models in their lineup? With the 5, 5C and 5S, they will have 3 phone models with the same screen size and connector. Is that the rationale?
And what about next year? Will they market 4 models - 5C, 5S, 6 and 6C? What will the successor to 6C be called when they release 6S in 2015?
The 5C will be a much better phone than the 4 currently is for the same price. Also the 5C has the benefit of being Apple's newest iPhone plus all of the new colors will add a lot of appeal as well.
I don't think you can really compare the impact of the 5C to the iPhone 4 on the low end because both are completely different products designed to address different needs
The 5C will be a much better phone than the 4 currently is for the same price. Also the 5C has the benefit of being Apple's newest iPhone plus all of the new colors will add a lot of appeal as well.
Not to mention that the rumored baseband chip in the 5C may be necessary to cover all the required frequencies in China - at least for one or two of the larger networks.
However, there's enough information to ignore the conversion factor:
Quote:
That number was higher than what Chinese customers are willing to pay for a Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini (2,600-3,800 RMB) or HTC One Mini (2,000-3,000 RMB)
True, but that completely changes the assumptions implicit in the pricing discussions here and elsewhere. An ASP of $650 is squarely in the region of where Apple is now with its iPhones.
If that were true, the discussion of 5C as 'low cost' is moot (unless the 5S was slated to be like $900 or some such thing)?
I think as the smartphone market matures, Apple will need to lower their margins and cut the prices, just to maintain enough market share to keep the iOS platform and ecosystem viable. I think this is inevitable. Otherwise, they will again be relegated to a niche. There's nothing wrong with niche per se, but when developers won't see the need to develop for a niche, then we will have a problem. I know, I know, we're not there yet. However, looking to the future, Apple should not underestimate the effects of people choosing "good enough" over "the best there can be and then some, at a higher price"... And cut the BS. Going out of their way with special welding to make the iMac look thin around the edges, and passing that cost to the customers is BS. Do that with a laptop maybe, not with a desktop.
I think as the smartphone market matures, Apple will need to lower their margins and cut the prices, just to maintain enough market share to keep the iOS platform and ecosystem viable.
Or maybe they like selling high-end products.
I think this is inevitable. Otherwise, they will again be relegated to a niche.
Let's see… that happened with Macs in roughly, oh… five years, was it? Dick and others would remember. And yet now, even with tech adoption moving ludicrously faster, Apple still has… something like 40% of the marketshare in the western world with cell phones. Doesn't sound like that will ever happen. Ever.
And cut the BS. Going out of their way with special welding to make the iMac look thin around the edges, and passing that cost to the customers is BS. Do that with a laptop maybe, not with a desktop.
I can't wait to see the looks on all these peoples' faces when Apple finally shows us the reason they're doing that.
How is it that in China, where you hear all the time about what tiny amounts of money many workers make (the ones that assemble iPhones for instance), the acceptable price for the mid tier next gen iphone is so close to price of the current top in iPhone in the US?
How is it that in China, where you hear all the time about what tiny amounts of money many workers make (the ones that assemble iPhones for instance), the acceptable price for the mid tier next gen iphone is so close to price of the current top in iPhone in the US?
Apparently, the study focused on the well-to-do in China only, and not the general populace. I guess this is still a huge market. If everyone in China was going to get a smartphone at that price, the market would be astronomically big.
I hope the "5C" (if true) is priced around $400 and has updated internals (like the 5 at least). I would definitely consider getting one over the 5S although the talk about this fingerprint sensor is intriguing and may sway my choice. It just sucks to have to pay $900 for a phone to get a cheap $35 plan (or pay $200 and pay $80 a month).
How is it that in China, where you hear all the time about what tiny amounts of money many workers make (the ones that assemble iPhones for instance), the acceptable price for the mid tier next gen iphone is so close to price of the current top in iPhone in the US?
What often gets lost is that China's middle class is larger than the entire US population. (Or, as my daughter's engineering teacher pointed out, the top 25% of China's citizens in intelligence outnumber the entire US population).
Apple's not going to sell anything to the farmer who earns $10 per month. But there are tens or hundreds of million people who CAN afford a product like the iPhone.
Going out of their way with special welding to make the iMac look thin around the edges, and passing that cost to the customers is BS. Do that with a laptop maybe, not with a desktop.
Why don't you tell us what extra cost they're passing on to consumers?
In order to calculate that, you'll need to know the difference in manufacturing cost (everything - materials, labor and overheads) as well as the difference in support costs.
So what's the difference? And how do you know that the welded design isn't cheaper?
Why don't you tell us what extra cost they're passing on to consumers?
In order to calculate that, you'll need to know the difference in manufacturing cost (everything - materials, labor and overheads) as well as the difference in support costs.
So what's the difference? And how do you know that the welded design isn't cheaper?
I don't know exact numbers, but I know the iMac was delayed because of the new welding method used. I assume it was expensive, given that they were struggling to meet demand. I'm sure it was not cheaper to manufacture. Maybe it'll get cheaper over time and larger scale. But it is still unnecessary. It would be better to create a beautiful, simple design that's more affordable, rather than go to great lengths to make it good looking just for the sake of it.
I see some people are laughing at my post about Apple's market share, but look how well that went before Steve Jobs came back to the company. I know they say they don't care about market share, but in actuality it's important. After all, that's why Windows was impossible to dislodge, because market share which meant everyone was locked in economically to that platform and all developers were coding for it. Now Apple was leading in some segments they redefined (the next big thing), and the other guys are catching up with them with "good enough" devices/services. Apple should lower the profit margins of the mature segments (iPad and iPhone) and trade that for market share, while re-defining new markets and making their profits from these new markets.
The 5C will be a much better phone than the 4 currently is for the same price. Also the 5C has the benefit of being Apple's newest iPhone plus all of the new colors will add a lot of appeal as well.
I don't think you can really compare the impact of the 5C to the iPhone 4 on the low end because both are completely different products designed to address different needs
You seem to know a lot about a product that hasn't seen the light of day. Can you explain what the different needs are? IPhone 4 can be used to read/write emails, surf the net, read books, play games, buy/sell, take photos, etc. How different are the needs addressed by 5C from these?
No one wants a 2 or 3 year old phone. The 5C is BRAND NEW.
I can see your logic ... sort of. But then, Tim Cook was pretty clear that Apple sells decent numbers of 4 and 4S. That's a lot of nobodies, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
There will be only two models: 5C and 5S. All the same screen size and lightning adapter. This will save manufacturing costs big time. Next year we will probably have 3 phones: 6, 6C, and 6L (large screen). I don't think we will be seeing 2 year old phones anymore. The C line will be the 'budget' phone.
Big time? Sounds like you have put a lot of thought to calculate the savings. Can you elaborate how big the savings are and how they are achieved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
I don't think we will be seeing 2 year old phones anymore. The C line will be the 'budget' phone.
Well, a lineup of 5, 5C and 5S do not include a 2 yr old phone, does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Next year we will probably have 3 phones: 6, 6C, and 6L (large screen). I don't think we will be seeing 2 year old phones anymore. The C line will be the 'budget' phone.
6L - large screen. So they eliminate the 4 and 4S this year to have a product lineup with a consistent form factor, only to mess it up again next year?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by StruckPaper
Is it just the illusion that they are getting a new, cheaper iphone rather than last year's iphone?
Bingo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TokyoJimu
Umm, 4000 RMB is US$650, not $486.
I believe you're right.
Where the heck does AI (or this analyst) get $486?!
The 5C will be a much better phone than the 4 currently is for the same price. Also the 5C has the benefit of being Apple's newest iPhone plus all of the new colors will add a lot of appeal as well.
I don't think you can really compare the impact of the 5C to the iPhone 4 on the low end because both are completely different products designed to address different needs
Not to mention that the rumored baseband chip in the 5C may be necessary to cover all the required frequencies in China - at least for one or two of the larger networks.
Agreed - their conversion appears to be wrong.
However, there's enough information to ignore the conversion factor:
If consumers are willing to pay 3-4,000 RMB for an iPhone vs these much lower numbers for competitors' phones, it's a good sign for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
However, there's enough information to ignore the conversion factor:
Quote:
That number was higher than what Chinese customers are willing to pay for a Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini (2,600-3,800 RMB) or HTC One Mini (2,000-3,000 RMB)
True, but that completely changes the assumptions implicit in the pricing discussions here and elsewhere. An ASP of $650 is squarely in the region of where Apple is now with its iPhones.
If that were true, the discussion of 5C as 'low cost' is moot (unless the 5S was slated to be like $900 or some such thing)?
Originally Posted by sog35
This will save manufacturing costs big time.
Except that they're different cases and internal designs and hardware.
I think as the smartphone market matures, Apple will need to lower their margins and cut the prices, just to maintain enough market share to keep the iOS platform and ecosystem viable. I think this is inevitable. Otherwise, they will again be relegated to a niche. There's nothing wrong with niche per se, but when developers won't see the need to develop for a niche, then we will have a problem. I know, I know, we're not there yet. However, looking to the future, Apple should not underestimate the effects of people choosing "good enough" over "the best there can be and then some, at a higher price"... And cut the BS. Going out of their way with special welding to make the iMac look thin around the edges, and passing that cost to the customers is BS. Do that with a laptop maybe, not with a desktop.
Originally Posted by dillio
I think as the smartphone market matures, Apple will need to lower their margins and cut the prices, just to maintain enough market share to keep the iOS platform and ecosystem viable.
Or maybe they like selling high-end products.
I think this is inevitable. Otherwise, they will again be relegated to a niche.
Let's see… that happened with Macs in roughly, oh… five years, was it? Dick and others would remember. And yet now, even with tech adoption moving ludicrously faster, Apple still has… something like 40% of the marketshare in the western world with cell phones. Doesn't sound like that will ever happen. Ever.
And cut the BS. Going out of their way with special welding to make the iMac look thin around the edges, and passing that cost to the customers is BS. Do that with a laptop maybe, not with a desktop.
I can't wait to see the looks on all these peoples' faces when Apple finally shows us the reason they're doing that.
Originally Posted by Andrew Payne
How is it that in China, where you hear all the time about what tiny amounts of money many workers make (the ones that assemble iPhones for instance), the acceptable price for the mid tier next gen iphone is so close to price of the current top in iPhone in the US?
What does that have to do with anything?
Apparently, the study focused on the well-to-do in China only, and not the general populace. I guess this is still a huge market. If everyone in China was going to get a smartphone at that price, the market would be astronomically big.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dillio
Otherwise, they will again be relegated to a niche.
Funny! I thought here at Apple Insider no one believes what analysts say! Or you do believe the analysts only when its convenient to you?
Originally Posted by sog35
The iMac design is a prototype for the iTV
Touchscreen desktop OS…
What often gets lost is that China's middle class is larger than the entire US population. (Or, as my daughter's engineering teacher pointed out, the top 25% of China's citizens in intelligence outnumber the entire US population).
Apple's not going to sell anything to the farmer who earns $10 per month. But there are tens or hundreds of million people who CAN afford a product like the iPhone.
Why don't you tell us what extra cost they're passing on to consumers?
In order to calculate that, you'll need to know the difference in manufacturing cost (everything - materials, labor and overheads) as well as the difference in support costs.
So what's the difference? And how do you know that the welded design isn't cheaper?
Why don't you tell us what extra cost they're passing on to consumers?
In order to calculate that, you'll need to know the difference in manufacturing cost (everything - materials, labor and overheads) as well as the difference in support costs.
So what's the difference? And how do you know that the welded design isn't cheaper?
I don't know exact numbers, but I know the iMac was delayed because of the new welding method used. I assume it was expensive, given that they were struggling to meet demand. I'm sure it was not cheaper to manufacture. Maybe it'll get cheaper over time and larger scale. But it is still unnecessary. It would be better to create a beautiful, simple design that's more affordable, rather than go to great lengths to make it good looking just for the sake of it.
I see some people are laughing at my post about Apple's market share, but look how well that went before Steve Jobs came back to the company. I know they say they don't care about market share, but in actuality it's important. After all, that's why Windows was impossible to dislodge, because market share which meant everyone was locked in economically to that platform and all developers were coding for it. Now Apple was leading in some segments they redefined (the next big thing), and the other guys are catching up with them with "good enough" devices/services. Apple should lower the profit margins of the mature segments (iPad and iPhone) and trade that for market share, while re-defining new markets and making their profits from these new markets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
The 5C will be a much better phone than the 4 currently is for the same price. Also the 5C has the benefit of being Apple's newest iPhone plus all of the new colors will add a lot of appeal as well.
I don't think you can really compare the impact of the 5C to the iPhone 4 on the low end because both are completely different products designed to address different needs
You seem to know a lot about a product that hasn't seen the light of day. Can you explain what the different needs are? IPhone 4 can be used to read/write emails, surf the net, read books, play games, buy/sell, take photos, etc. How different are the needs addressed by 5C from these?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
No one wants a 2 or 3 year old phone. The 5C is BRAND NEW.
I can see your logic ... sort of. But then, Tim Cook was pretty clear that Apple sells decent numbers of 4 and 4S. That's a lot of nobodies, don't you think?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
There will be only two models: 5C and 5S. All the same screen size and lightning adapter. This will save manufacturing costs big time. Next year we will probably have 3 phones: 6, 6C, and 6L (large screen). I don't think we will be seeing 2 year old phones anymore. The C line will be the 'budget' phone.
Big time? Sounds like you have put a lot of thought to calculate the savings. Can you elaborate how big the savings are and how they are achieved?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
I don't think we will be seeing 2 year old phones anymore. The C line will be the 'budget' phone.
Well, a lineup of 5, 5C and 5S do not include a 2 yr old phone, does it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by sog35
Next year we will probably have 3 phones: 6, 6C, and 6L (large screen). I don't think we will be seeing 2 year old phones anymore. The C line will be the 'budget' phone.
6L - large screen. So they eliminate the 4 and 4S this year to have a product lineup with a consistent form factor, only to mess it up again next year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
I believe you're right.
Where the heck does AI (or this analyst) get $486?!
Maybe the analyst used to follow Intel, circa 1988?