The Moto G is a perfect example of cheap but not junk. It's a fantastic device that makes very few compromises to reach its $180 price point. Apple could match that phone in design and capabilities and sell it for $250 or less off contract to maintain its high margins.
There is only one American newspaper of record. It is the New York Times.
I quote from the wiki page:
A "newspaper of public record", sometimes referred to as an "official newspaper", refers to a publicly available newspaper that has been authorised by a government to publish public or legal notices.[2] It is often established by statute or official action and publication of notices within it, whether by the government or a private party, is usually considered sufficient to comply with legal requirements for public notice.[3]
A variation of this type are those newspapers controlled by governments or political parties that serve as official newspapers of record reflecting the positions of their controlling bodies. State organs such as theSoviet-era Izvestia (the name of which translates to "delivered messages", derived from the verb izveshchat which means "to inform", "to notify")[4] and the People's Daily in China[5][6][7][8][9] are examples of this type.
I completely agree that NYT is the "party line" newspaper, just like Pravda was. That does not make either of them trustworthy. My personal experience with NYT is that whenever they publish something about a field I know about (science, technology, finance, local news about parts of NYC and NJ I lived in) they generally get it wrong. WSJ is much better, Financial Times and Bloomberg better yet.
A "newspaper of public record", sometimes referred to as an "official newspaper", refers to a publicly available newspaper that has been authorised by a government to publish public or legal notices.[2] It is often established by statute or official action and publication of notices within it, whether by the government or a private party, is usually considered sufficient to comply with legal requirements for public notice.[3]
A variation of this type are those newspapers controlled by governments or political parties that serve as official newspapers of record reflecting the positions of their controlling bodies. State organs such as theSoviet-era Izvestia (the name of which translates to "delivered messages", derived from the verb izveshchat which means "to inform", "to notify")[4] and the People's Daily in China[5][6][7][8][9] are examples of this type.
I completely agree that NYT is the "party line" newspaper, just like Pravda was. That does not make either of them trustworthy. My personal experience with NYT is that whenever they publish something about a field I know about (science, technology, finance, local news about parts of NYC and NJ I lived in) they generally get it wrong. WSJ is much better, Financial Times and Bloomberg better yet.
Please read the section of the Wikipedia article that distinguishes between the paper "of public record" and the paper, simply, "of record (by reputation)". For your convenience, I provide a quotation, here:
The most common definition of a "newspaper of record" (also known as a "journal of record", or by the French terms Presse de référence and de référence) is not defined by any formal criteria and its characteristics can be variable. The category typically consists of those newspapers that are considered to meet higher standards of journalism than most print media, including editorial independence and attention to accuracy, and are usually renowned internationally.[14][15] Despite changes in society, such newspapers have historically tended to maintain a similar tone, coverage, style and traditions.[14]
it might not have lived upto Apple's expectations - which infact is very very good thing that has happened for Apple. 5c is pushing people to 5s which is better for Apple. talk about flop being a good thing for a company...
And you REALLY think that launching a flop was a deliberate Apple strategy to push 5S sales? Now that's some hardcore RDF you're into.
They can charge $199 for the regular 4 inch size and $249-$299 for the bigger iPhone
but the competition from samsung does not allow apple to raise iPhone price too much. current 5s/c's pricings are inline with samsung's offers, if not more. if bigger iPhone is required another $100 more, it would defeat the whole purpose.
it is a good run for apple keeping the same iPhone production line for almost 7 years. for bigger iPhone, it is hard for apple to recover from those overhead cost for new production line in shorter term, except a new category device with new brand and pricing scheme.
anyway, what i am saying is that apple can not just provide a bigger size iPhone for sake of providing it. it has to have something extra to surprise us.
Last year, Apple _had_ to make a cheap(er) iPhone model or they would lose all their sales in China and overseas.
Cook, being less hardheaded (or more easily misled) than Jobs, complied, and guess what? The cheap iPhone waaay undersold the expensive, full featured, non-plastic one.
This year, the same crew has been saying Apple _has to_ make an iPhone with a phablet-like screen, or Apple is doooomed!
My prediction? Next year's _smaller_ iPhone, assuming the other specs are the same, will easily outsell the big one.
Although he had impossible shoes to fill, I think Cook is pretty smart. I think he will eventually learn to ignore the noise, like Jobs could.
They just needed to stop the recent trend of too many people opting out of the top end model and buying the previous years model thats 'good enough'. I think last year the 4S/4 sold over 50% of phones(when the 5 was the top end). That had to end. The top end phone has to be the best seller to preserve margins and profits.
The 5C is not a failure. It has a very specific target market. Its for those who are very price sensitive and don't care about having high end tech. Its also great for kids because of its plastic case.
So... are you saying that the 5c isn't as good as the 4 or 4s, so more people would prefer the 5s?
Didn't you say the 5c sold better than the 4 from the year before?
Or... wait... hold it... okay... uh... just a minute...
My prediction? Next year's _smaller_ iPhone, assuming the other specs are the same, will easily outsell the big one.
Although he had impossible shoes to fill, I think Cook is pretty smart. I think he will eventually learn to ignore the noise, like Jobs could.
And my prediction is an equally priced larger iPhone with the same specs would easily outsell the 4" version. But our predictions mean squat until it happens. The only way I think the 4" could beat a larger one in sales if if they price it higher by $100 or more.
So... are you saying that the 5c isn't as good as the 4 or 4s, so more people would prefer the 5s?
Didn't you say the 5c sold better than the 4 from the year before?
Or... wait... hold it... okay... uh... just a minute...
I'm not quite getting your argument.
Ditto here...perhaps he means "well, Apple had to launch a POS so that everyone moves to the 5S" - it's amazing that people still believe this "deliberate crap" theory...not even SJ had a RDF that strong.
And my prediction is an equally priced larger iPhone with the same specs would easily outsell the 4" version. But our predictions mean squat until it happens. The only way I think the 4" could beat a larger one in sales if if they price it higher by $100 or more.
If they priced it $100 higher then it might take off in China.
You do realize Apple is already sacrificing margins selling the 5C vs the 5S? They are also sacrificing revenue and profits. The MSRP for the 5C is $550. How the HELL are they going to drop the price by $200!!!
Sure the Nexus 5 is nice. But Google ain't making ANY MONEY AT ALL on that phone. ZERO!!! Just like Amazon makes ZERO on their tablets.
Also I don't think they will just bring out the 5C again. I think they will add the A7 to make the entire lineup 64 bit.
Just simple math:
iPhone 5C has about a 50% gross margin
MSRP: $550
Gross Margin: $275
Cost of materials: $275
You want to price the 5C at $350
MSRP = $350
Gross Margin: $175
Cost of materials: $175
Now tell me how in HELL is Apple going to shave $100 off of the cost of making the 5C? That's almost taking off 40% of the cost. Impossible!! Only if they are willing to sell it at an ultra thin margin or lose money with every sale like Amazon/Google clowns.
You need to clam down and also learn to read. I never suggested that Apple lower the price by $200 and never suggested they would or should. You have no idea what their margins are anymore than I. For all you know their cost to make a 5c is $200. All those reports are nothing more than guesses. Apple knows their margins and at what price points they can or cannot sell a product. Your prediction that they will keep the 5c also seems unlikely. The 5c will become the 6c and have the internals of the 5s along with Touch ID since Apple wants Touch ID to gain in popularity with apps. Why in the hell would they leave that out? why wouldn't they also continue the trend hat the 5c started and continue to offer it for $549? The iPhone 6 will include the A8 or whatever it is called and will likely be far faster than the current A7. That along with a better camera, probably more storage, and several more updated features will be more than enough to differentiate their high end phones from a 6c with 5s internals.
Typical "let's change the subject" argument - now what matters for them is that the 5S is selling well...the 5C is just an accessory to that.
The arguments for why the 5c is the best thing since IHOP aren't quite as prevalent as they used to be. Why, just the other day I heard someone say that they rarely see a 5c in the wild... or something to that effect. A total reversal from past rants.
The Moto G is a perfect example of cheap but not junk. It's a fantastic device that makes very few compromises to reach its $180 price point. Apple could match that phone in design and capabilities and sell it for $250 or less off contract to maintain its high margins.
The Moto G is more similar in performance to the 4S (which sells for $479 right now) than to the 5c.
Because? I'm curious what wisdom you've been blessed with that allows you to know what Steve would/wouldn't have done.
Also do you really think the 5C wasn't on a product roadmap while Steve was still alive? Do you really think Apple just came up with it on the fly (for what reason I have no idea)?
I may be wrong, he is Steve Jobs the man himself that's how he knows.
Comments
The Moto G is a perfect example of cheap but not junk. It's a fantastic device that makes very few compromises to reach its $180 price point. Apple could match that phone in design and capabilities and sell it for $250 or less off contract to maintain its high margins.
And to you, I say this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspaper_of_record
There is only one American newspaper of record. It is the New York Times.
I quote from the wiki page:
A "newspaper of public record", sometimes referred to as an "official newspaper", refers to a publicly available newspaper that has been authorised by a government to publish public or legal notices.[2] It is often established by statute or official action and publication of notices within it, whether by the government or a private party, is usually considered sufficient to comply with legal requirements for public notice.[3]
A variation of this type are those newspapers controlled by governments or political parties that serve as official newspapers of record reflecting the positions of their controlling bodies. State organs such as theSoviet-era Izvestia (the name of which translates to "delivered messages", derived from the verb izveshchat which means "to inform", "to notify")[4] and the People's Daily in China[5][6][7][8][9] are examples of this type.
I completely agree that NYT is the "party line" newspaper, just like Pravda was. That does not make either of them trustworthy. My personal experience with NYT is that whenever they publish something about a field I know about (science, technology, finance, local news about parts of NYC and NJ I lived in) they generally get it wrong. WSJ is much better, Financial Times and Bloomberg better yet.
I quote from the wiki page:
A "newspaper of public record", sometimes referred to as an "official newspaper", refers to a publicly available newspaper that has been authorised by a government to publish public or legal notices.[2] It is often established by statute or official action and publication of notices within it, whether by the government or a private party, is usually considered sufficient to comply with legal requirements for public notice.[3]
A variation of this type are those newspapers controlled by governments or political parties that serve as official newspapers of record reflecting the positions of their controlling bodies. State organs such as theSoviet-era Izvestia (the name of which translates to "delivered messages", derived from the verb izveshchat which means "to inform", "to notify")[4] and the People's Daily in China[5][6][7][8][9] are examples of this type.
I completely agree that NYT is the "party line" newspaper, just like Pravda was. That does not make either of them trustworthy. My personal experience with NYT is that whenever they publish something about a field I know about (science, technology, finance, local news about parts of NYC and NJ I lived in) they generally get it wrong. WSJ is much better, Financial Times and Bloomberg better yet.
Please read the section of the Wikipedia article that distinguishes between the paper "of public record" and the paper, simply, "of record (by reputation)". For your convenience, I provide a quotation, here:
Newspapers of record (by reputation)[edit]
The most common definition of a "newspaper of record" (also known as a "journal of record", or by the French terms Presse de référence and de référence) is not defined by any formal criteria and its characteristics can be variable. The category typically consists of those newspapers that are considered to meet higher standards of journalism than most print media, including editorial independence and attention to accuracy, and are usually renowned internationally.[14][15] Despite changes in society, such newspapers have historically tended to maintain a similar tone, coverage, style and traditions.[14]
Thanks for an example.
Didn't Apple swiftly discontinuing their first best-selling iPod mini after a year?
Totally different situation.
it might not have lived upto Apple's expectations - which infact is very very good thing that has happened for Apple. 5c is pushing people to 5s which is better for Apple. talk about flop being a good thing for a company...
And you REALLY think that launching a flop was a deliberate Apple strategy to push 5S sales? Now that's some hardcore RDF you're into.
Totally different situation.
Indeed. The Mini's discontinuation was a courageous move to reinvent and innovate - just the OPPOSITE of what the 5C represents.
larger screens will help margin.
They can charge $199 for the regular 4 inch size and $249-$299 for the bigger iPhone
but the competition from samsung does not allow apple to raise iPhone price too much. current 5s/c's pricings are inline with samsung's offers, if not more. if bigger iPhone is required another $100 more, it would defeat the whole purpose.
it is a good run for apple keeping the same iPhone production line for almost 7 years. for bigger iPhone, it is hard for apple to recover from those overhead cost for new production line in shorter term, except a new category device with new brand and pricing scheme.
anyway, what i am saying is that apple can not just provide a bigger size iPhone for sake of providing it. it has to have something extra to surprise us.
Last year, Apple _had_ to make a cheap(er) iPhone model or they would lose all their sales in China and overseas.
Cook, being less hardheaded (or more easily misled) than Jobs, complied, and guess what? The cheap iPhone waaay undersold the expensive, full featured, non-plastic one.
This year, the same crew has been saying Apple _has to_ make an iPhone with a phablet-like screen, or Apple is doooomed!
My prediction? Next year's _smaller_ iPhone, assuming the other specs are the same, will easily outsell the big one.
Although he had impossible shoes to fill, I think Cook is pretty smart. I think he will eventually learn to ignore the noise, like Jobs could.
Not a flop.
They just needed to stop the recent trend of too many people opting out of the top end model and buying the previous years model thats 'good enough'. I think last year the 4S/4 sold over 50% of phones(when the 5 was the top end). That had to end. The top end phone has to be the best seller to preserve margins and profits.
The 5C is not a failure. It has a very specific target market. Its for those who are very price sensitive and don't care about having high end tech. Its also great for kids because of its plastic case.
So... are you saying that the 5c isn't as good as the 4 or 4s, so more people would prefer the 5s?
Didn't you say the 5c sold better than the 4 from the year before?
Or... wait... hold it... okay... uh... just a minute...
I'm not quite getting your argument.
My prediction? Next year's _smaller_ iPhone, assuming the other specs are the same, will easily outsell the big one.
Although he had impossible shoes to fill, I think Cook is pretty smart. I think he will eventually learn to ignore the noise, like Jobs could.
And my prediction is an equally priced larger iPhone with the same specs would easily outsell the 4" version. But our predictions mean squat until it happens. The only way I think the 4" could beat a larger one in sales if if they price it higher by $100 or more.
So... are you saying that the 5c isn't as good as the 4 or 4s, so more people would prefer the 5s?
Didn't you say the 5c sold better than the 4 from the year before?
Or... wait... hold it... okay... uh... just a minute...
I'm not quite getting your argument.
Ditto here...perhaps he means "well, Apple had to launch a POS so that everyone moves to the 5S" - it's amazing that people still believe this "deliberate crap" theory...not even SJ had a RDF that strong.
The percentage of 5S phones sold is higher than when 5 came out.
Thats the bottom line.
Thats what drives margins and profits.
So what is your reason why this is happening?
So what is your reason why this is happening?
Typical "let's change the subject" argument - now what matters for them is that the 5S is selling well...the 5C is just an accessory to that.
And my prediction is an equally priced larger iPhone with the same specs would easily outsell the 4" version. But our predictions mean squat until it happens. The only way I think the 4" could beat a larger one in sales if if they price it higher by $100 or more.
If they priced it $100 higher then it might take off in China.
You do realize Apple is already sacrificing margins selling the 5C vs the 5S? They are also sacrificing revenue and profits. The MSRP for the 5C is $550. How the HELL are they going to drop the price by $200!!!
Sure the Nexus 5 is nice. But Google ain't making ANY MONEY AT ALL on that phone. ZERO!!! Just like Amazon makes ZERO on their tablets.
Also I don't think they will just bring out the 5C again. I think they will add the A7 to make the entire lineup 64 bit.
Just simple math:
iPhone 5C has about a 50% gross margin
MSRP: $550
Gross Margin: $275
Cost of materials: $275
You want to price the 5C at $350
MSRP = $350
Gross Margin: $175
Cost of materials: $175
Now tell me how in HELL is Apple going to shave $100 off of the cost of making the 5C? That's almost taking off 40% of the cost. Impossible!! Only if they are willing to sell it at an ultra thin margin or lose money with every sale like Amazon/Google clowns.
You need to clam down and also learn to read. I never suggested that Apple lower the price by $200 and never suggested they would or should. You have no idea what their margins are anymore than I. For all you know their cost to make a 5c is $200. All those reports are nothing more than guesses. Apple knows their margins and at what price points they can or cannot sell a product. Your prediction that they will keep the 5c also seems unlikely. The 5c will become the 6c and have the internals of the 5s along with Touch ID since Apple wants Touch ID to gain in popularity with apps. Why in the hell would they leave that out? why wouldn't they also continue the trend hat the 5c started and continue to offer it for $549? The iPhone 6 will include the A8 or whatever it is called and will likely be far faster than the current A7. That along with a better camera, probably more storage, and several more updated features will be more than enough to differentiate their high end phones from a 6c with 5s internals.
Typical "let's change the subject" argument - now what matters for them is that the 5S is selling well...the 5C is just an accessory to that.
The arguments for why the 5c is the best thing since IHOP aren't quite as prevalent as they used to be. Why, just the other day I heard someone say that they rarely see a 5c in the wild... or something to that effect. A total reversal from past rants.
because there is a clear gap between the top end 5S and the mid end 5C
That gap was not present with the 5 vs the 4S. Both were metal and both looked and felt premium
Oh.. so the 5c doesn't look or feel premium?
This just gets better and better.
The Moto G is a perfect example of cheap but not junk. It's a fantastic device that makes very few compromises to reach its $180 price point. Apple could match that phone in design and capabilities and sell it for $250 or less off contract to maintain its high margins.
The Moto G is more similar in performance to the 4S (which sells for $479 right now) than to the 5c.
Because? I'm curious what wisdom you've been blessed with that allows you to know what Steve would/wouldn't have done.
Also do you really think the 5C wasn't on a product roadmap while Steve was still alive? Do you really think Apple just came up with it on the fly (for what reason I have no idea)?
I may be wrong, he is Steve Jobs the man himself that's how he knows.