StrangeDays said: No it isn't, and no it shouldn't. I consider myself an advanced user (I'm an enterprise software dev), and I discovered I didn't use much of my 128gb iPhone, so got the 64gb this time -- and I'm only using ~40gb of that. I use iCloud for all my photos, videos, music, and many of my documents. Therefore, why should I be forced to pay for more storage that I simply don't need?
Exactly.
I think when it was 8, maybe 16 GB that argument was valid (as the OS took up nearly all, or more than half the storage). But, I bought my iPhone SE with 64 GB and it is over half empty. I bought my 2018 iPad with 32 GB and it is over half empty as well (almost 18 GB free). I have more to put on the latter, so it will be under half eventually, but plenty of working-space room for the things I do with it.
Basically, I don't think Apple should make the base level be enough to cover everyone's situation, but it should be enough not to hamper the average user. I suppose it could be argued that the average user keeps more photo/video on it, but Apple does have solutions for that (even though I don't like them). I certainly would say 64GB is too little for a base model, though.
This release changed something else not mentioned here: Whether it was propagated by the media or by Apple, the Mini has always had the reputation as being "The budget iPad". And, much like the iPhone SE, it was both the smallest and the cheapest (at least until they increased the minimum storage to 128Gb and released the 9.7' iPad Gen6).
This seems to change that: It seems to be priced commensurately with the new iPad Air in the 'moderate' range -- neither super cheap nor super expensive. I think that shows the value of its smaller form factor -- it's just a lot easier to hold and manage.
I really hope they decouple the screen size from pricing. Screen size and form-factor have more to do with how one wants to use the device and what is comfortable for a particular person. I suppose bigger screens cost a bit more to manufacture, but it shouldn't be all that much. And, as someone who loves the iPhone SE, and has family members who'll only use the iPad mini, the price wasn't even a factor in our choices. In fact, as I've said many times, I'd LOVE to see a full-featured model in those form-factors (even if at the exact same prices as their bigger siblings).
melgross said: Yes, and I’m not happy about that. With Apple straining to increase iPad sales again, and releasing the $329 iPad for that purpose, it seems to be going backwards with the new Mini. What people need is a $229 Mini. Yeah, yeah, that’s not going to satisfy everyone either, but Apple could do both.
... apple has been eliminating the lower priced products from their lineups. That’s not good. I know people who have had an iPhone, for instance, but who won’t buy another because of the pricing. The SE had a good market, and they need to replace it. Not everyone lives in a prosperous country.
Agreed... but ONLY if they do both. If they won't do both, then I think this is better for those of us who already appreciate the brand and will spend more for their products.
This release changed something else not mentioned here: Whether it was propagated by the media or by Apple, the Mini has always had the reputation as being "The budget iPad". And, much like the iPhone SE, it was both the smallest and the cheapest (at least until they increased the minimum storage to 128Gb and released the 9.7' iPad Gen6).
This seems to change that: It seems to be priced commensurately with the new iPad Air in the 'moderate' range -- neither super cheap nor super expensive. I think that shows the value of its smaller form factor -- it's just a lot easier to hold and manage.
But, that also opens the door to the next step: An update using the same external form factor but with a larger bezeless screen -- which will make the Mini screen almost the same size as that in the current 9.7" iPads.
Yes, and I’m not happy about that. With Apple straining to increase iPad sales again, and releasing the $329 iPad for that purpose, it seems to be going backwards with the new Mini. What people need is a $229 Mini. Yeah, yeah, that’s not going to satisfy everyone either, but Apple could do both.
most tablets around the world these days sell for $100, or less. Apple is priced well out of that market. I’m not saying they should have a $100 tablet. But we’ve seen that the brand is worth something. If the product costs little enough, even if it’s a lot more expensive than a competitor’s, then it will sell. I’d bet that most people wanting a 7”, or Apple’s larger 7.9” product, don’t need a lot of performance. A retina screen with a lessor SoC would do just fine.
apple has been eliminating the lower priced products from their lineups. That’s not good. I know people who have had an iPhone, for instance, but who won’t buy another because of the pricing. The SE had a good market, and they need to replace it. Not everyone lives in a prosperous country.
We here tend to think that technology and innovation are complicated. But, marketing is equally as complicated and has just as big an impact. You can build a better mouse trap -- but you still have to market it effectively.
Yes. But it’s quite a job to market something that costs 4 times what another product costs.
StrangeDays said: No it isn't, and no it shouldn't. I consider myself an advanced user (I'm an enterprise software dev), and I discovered I didn't use much of my 128gb iPhone, so got the 64gb this time -- and I'm only using ~40gb of that. I use iCloud for all my photos, videos, music, and many of my documents. Therefore, why should I be forced to pay for more storage that I simply don't need?
Exactly.
I think when it was 8, maybe 16 GB that argument was valid (as the OS took up nearly all, or more than half the storage). But, I bought my iPhone SE with 64 GB and it is over half empty. I bought my 2018 iPad with 32 GB and it is over half empty as well (almost 18 GB free). I have more to put on the latter, so it will be under half eventually, but plenty of working-space room for the things I do with it.
Basically, I don't think Apple should make the base level be enough to cover everyone's situation, but it should be enough not to hamper the average user. I suppose it could be argued that the average user keeps more photo/video on it, but Apple does have solutions for that (even though I don't like them). I certainly would say 64GB is too little for a base model, though.
This release changed something else not mentioned here: Whether it was propagated by the media or by Apple, the Mini has always had the reputation as being "The budget iPad". And, much like the iPhone SE, it was both the smallest and the cheapest (at least until they increased the minimum storage to 128Gb and released the 9.7' iPad Gen6).
This seems to change that: It seems to be priced commensurately with the new iPad Air in the 'moderate' range -- neither super cheap nor super expensive. I think that shows the value of its smaller form factor -- it's just a lot easier to hold and manage.
I really hope they decouple the screen size from pricing. Screen size and form-factor have more to do with how one wants to use the device and what is comfortable for a particular person. I suppose bigger screens cost a bit more to manufacture, but it shouldn't be all that much. And, as someone who loves the iPhone SE, and has family members who'll only use the iPad mini, the price wasn't even a factor in our choices. In fact, as I've said many times, I'd LOVE to see a full-featured model in those form-factors (even if at the exact same prices as their bigger siblings).
melgross said: Yes, and I’m not happy about that. With Apple straining to increase iPad sales again, and releasing the $329 iPad for that purpose, it seems to be going backwards with the new Mini. What people need is a $229 Mini. Yeah, yeah, that’s not going to satisfy everyone either, but Apple could do both.
... apple has been eliminating the lower priced products from their lineups. That’s not good. I know people who have had an iPhone, for instance, but who won’t buy another because of the pricing. The SE had a good market, and they need to replace it. Not everyone lives in a prosperous country.
Agreed... but ONLY if they do both. If they won't do both, then I think this is better for those of us who already appreciate the brand and will spend more for their products.
I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
melgross said: I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't make much overall sense. Maybe they are just trying to raise the average selling price to make the Wall Street people happy.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
melgross said: I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't make much overall sense. Maybe they are just trying to raise the average selling price to make the Wall Street people happy.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
There are ramifications there... Selling a cheap product also means one that doesn't have the quality or reserve power of a standard product. That would drag Apple down to be just another manufacturer of junk -- which would impact the reputation (how people think) of the core products. It's why car manufacturers have separate companies for high end vs lower end products. The name "Cadillac" still has meaning...
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
GeorgeBMac said: There are ramifications there... Selling a cheap product also means one that doesn't have the quality or reserve power of a standard product. That would drag Apple down to be just another manufacturer of junk -- which would impact the reputation (how people think) of the core products. It's why car manufacturers have separate companies for high end vs lower end products. The name "Cadillac" still has meaning...
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
Yes, I understand that. I don't mean make it cheaply (poor quality, bad materials, etc.), but differentiate via features instead of old vs new (like LCD vs OLED, or higher end camera, etc.). Cadillac, IMO, is kind of a bad example because it is (or used to be) just the same junky car with some fancy trim and upholstery for more money.
It also doesn't have exactly match the very latest top end model, but I think it should be close... not more than a generation back in the A-chip or such. I don't think when the iPhone SE came out, it was that far behind... maybe 1 gen. My 2018 iPad is an A10, so I guess that is just 2 gen, fairly recently (can't remember if it was 1 or 2 gen when it was introduced). The new iPad Air and iPad mini are current gen, just cheaper as they don't have all the bling. That's more what I'm talking about.
melgross said: I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't make much overall sense. Maybe they are just trying to raise the average selling price to make the Wall Street people happy.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
There are ramifications there... Selling a cheap product also means one that doesn't have the quality or reserve power of a standard product. That would drag Apple down to be just another manufacturer of junk -- which would impact the reputation (how people think) of the core products. It's why car manufacturers have separate companies for high end vs lower end products. The name "Cadillac" still has meaning...
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
That’s just doesn’t make sense. I repeat, why make a major sales, and manufacturing push (required there to sell independently) in a poor, but very large country, if you have no products that more than a tiny part of the population can buy? Not everyone wants to but 4 years old products at a lower price. Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
yes, if Apple was only selling in wealthy countries, that experience shows will but these products in good numbers, then it makes sense to not sell a lower priced product. But not when we’re talking about India, and other countries Apple is trying to have a major impact in since the China angle is becoming difficult, both politically, and competitively.
this is very simple, and well understood business sense. Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
melgross said: ... Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
... Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
They did with the original iPhone SE. They did it with the iPad (2018) and now the mini (2019). They have done it in the past for various desktops and laptops. They have never been cheap, or competed with the lowest end of a market, but they were competitive and not just high-end.
I'm pretty sure when Steve was talking about 'not making junk' he wasn't saying he wanted the products only to be affordable for the wealthy. He was saying pretty much what he said... don't make junk. There is a difference between junk and creating a quality product for different market positions. Sure, depending on the product, you might not ever be able to go under some $ amount, but I really doubt $350 is it for a phone.
melgross said: ... Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
... Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
They did with the original iPhone SE. They did it with the iPad (2018) and now the mini (2019). They have done it in the past for various desktops and laptops. They have never been cheap, or competed with the lowest end of a market, but they were competitive and not just high-end.
I'm pretty sure when Steve was talking about 'not making junk' he wasn't saying he wanted the products only to be affordable for the wealthy. He was saying pretty much what he said... don't make junk. There is a difference between junk and creating a quality product for different market positions. Sure, depending on the product, you might not ever be able to go under some $ amount, but I really doubt $350 is it for a phone.
Nobody is talking about them making junk. A $350 phone isn’t junk. An $80 phone may be junk, when you’re talking about a smartphone. When we talk about these countries, we’re talking about people who can’t often even spend $350 on a phone. If Apple expects to do well there they have to sell what people can buy. That’s pretty simple, and nobody saying otherwise gets it. We have to stop being so stuck up about this. Apple, I’m sure, is looking into this. But if they’re so worried about their image, then they’ll never succeed there.
melgross said: I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't make much overall sense. Maybe they are just trying to raise the average selling price to make the Wall Street people happy.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
There are ramifications there... Selling a cheap product also means one that doesn't have the quality or reserve power of a standard product. That would drag Apple down to be just another manufacturer of junk -- which would impact the reputation (how people think) of the core products. It's why car manufacturers have separate companies for high end vs lower end products. The name "Cadillac" still has meaning...
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
That’s just doesn’t make sense. I repeat, why make a major sales, and manufacturing push (required there to sell independently) in a poor, but very large country, if you have no products that more than a tiny part of the population can buy? Not everyone wants to but 4 years old products at a lower price. Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
yes, if Apple was only selling in wealthy countries, that experience shows will but these products in good numbers, then it makes sense to not sell a lower priced product. But not when we’re talking about India, and other countries Apple is trying to have a major impact in since the China angle is becoming difficult, both politically, and competitively.
this is very simple, and well understood business sense. Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
I don't think that they can -- because of two things: 1) Expected quality of materials, design and manufacture. 2) The cost of the software and ecosystem that accompanies every phone -- but is too often ignored. Instead, we compare a knock-off to an iPhone. It's not the hardware that makes iPhones great. It's the software and ecosystem -- and they cost money.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Could Apple make a brand new, state of the art phone for $350? YES! But only if they installed an Android OS and omitted all of Apple's ecosystem.
melgross said: ... Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
... Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
They did with the original iPhone SE. They did it with the iPad (2018) and now the mini (2019). They have done it in the past for various desktops and laptops. They have never been cheap, or competed with the lowest end of a market, but they were competitive and not just high-end.
I'm pretty sure when Steve was talking about 'not making junk' he wasn't saying he wanted the products only to be affordable for the wealthy. He was saying pretty much what he said... don't make junk. There is a difference between junk and creating a quality product for different market positions. Sure, depending on the product, you might not ever be able to go under some $ amount, but I really doubt $350 is it for a phone.
Nobody is talking about them making junk. A $350 phone isn’t junk. An $80 phone may be junk, when you’re talking about a smartphone. When we talk about these countries, we’re talking about people who can’t often even spend $350 on a phone. If Apple expects to do well there they have to sell what people can buy. That’s pretty simple, and nobody saying otherwise gets it. We have to stop being so stuck up about this. Apple, I’m sure, is looking into this. But if they’re so worried about their image, then they’ll never succeed there.
A $350 phone without iOS and Apple's ecosystem is junk. Apple could put out a quality $350 phone and then charge you hundred or two or three for the software and ecosystem needed to make it great.
melgross said: I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't make much overall sense. Maybe they are just trying to raise the average selling price to make the Wall Street people happy.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
There are ramifications there... Selling a cheap product also means one that doesn't have the quality or reserve power of a standard product. That would drag Apple down to be just another manufacturer of junk -- which would impact the reputation (how people think) of the core products. It's why car manufacturers have separate companies for high end vs lower end products. The name "Cadillac" still has meaning...
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
That’s just doesn’t make sense. I repeat, why make a major sales, and manufacturing push (required there to sell independently) in a poor, but very large country, if you have no products that more than a tiny part of the population can buy? Not everyone wants to but 4 years old products at a lower price. Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
yes, if Apple was only selling in wealthy countries, that experience shows will but these products in good numbers, then it makes sense to not sell a lower priced product. But not when we’re talking about India, and other countries Apple is trying to have a major impact in since the China angle is becoming difficult, both politically, and competitively.
this is very simple, and well understood business sense. Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
I don't think that they can -- because of two things: 1) Expected quality of materials, design and manufacture. 2) The cost of the software and ecosystem that accompanies every phone -- but is too often ignored. Instead, we compare a knock-off to an iPhone. It's not the hardware that makes iPhones great. It's the software and ecosystem -- and they cost money.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Could Apple make a brand new, state of the art phone for $350? YES! But only if they installed an Android OS and omitted all of Apple's ecosystem.
It costs Apple very little to put iOS on a phone, or their software. All of which is being given away for free, and that costs very little to supply.
just remember that it’s Apple that’s trying very hard to break into these markets. What I’m reading here makes no sense once you consider that. It’s not as though we’re talking about Apple breaking into those markets with Apple not being interested. Then it would just be our discussion. But it’s not. It’s Apple. So the question is why they’re not successful now. The main reason is price. It’s pretty simple. So there has to be a way for them to break into that market in a big enough way.
if you don’t like the idea of a less expensive product line, what is it that you do suggest? And try to be realistic.
melgross said: ... Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
... Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
They did with the original iPhone SE. They did it with the iPad (2018) and now the mini (2019). They have done it in the past for various desktops and laptops. They have never been cheap, or competed with the lowest end of a market, but they were competitive and not just high-end.
I'm pretty sure when Steve was talking about 'not making junk' he wasn't saying he wanted the products only to be affordable for the wealthy. He was saying pretty much what he said... don't make junk. There is a difference between junk and creating a quality product for different market positions. Sure, depending on the product, you might not ever be able to go under some $ amount, but I really doubt $350 is it for a phone.
Nobody is talking about them making junk. A $350 phone isn’t junk. An $80 phone may be junk, when you’re talking about a smartphone. When we talk about these countries, we’re talking about people who can’t often even spend $350 on a phone. If Apple expects to do well there they have to sell what people can buy. That’s pretty simple, and nobody saying otherwise gets it. We have to stop being so stuck up about this. Apple, I’m sure, is looking into this. But if they’re so worried about their image, then they’ll never succeed there.
A $350 phone without iOS and Apple's ecosystem is junk. Apple could put out a quality $350 phone and then charge you hundred or two or three for the software and ecosystem needed to make it great.
George, that makes no sense. A phone without software is an incomplete device. So you’re still talking about a $550 phone. I’m not sure if you were serious with this or something else.
apple can make a $350 phone. The selling price of the SE proves it. It doesn’t need the latest SoC. It doesn’t need the most expensive LCD. It doesn’t need the most storage. It can use a polycarbonate case. Apple has already done that, and it proved more popular than they expected.
melgross said: Nobody is talking about them making junk. A $350 phone isn’t junk. An $80 phone may be junk, when you’re talking about a smartphone. When we talk about these countries, we’re talking about people who can’t often even spend $350 on a phone. If Apple expects to do well there they have to sell what people can buy. That’s pretty simple, and nobody saying otherwise gets it. We have to stop being so stuck up about this. Apple, I’m sure, is looking into this. But if they’re so worried about their image, then they’ll never succeed there.
Yes, I agree. And, maybe the $350 is too high. But, I bet they could make another 'SE' type phone that wouldn't have to cost that much, even with current chip. It would just need certain features stripped out. And, they could also make a higher-end 'SE' for those of us like me who want the form-factor. I just don't want them to be the same phone.
GeorgeBMac said: I don't think that they can -- because of two things:
1) Expected quality of materials, design and manufacture. 2) The cost of the software and ecosystem that accompanies every phone -- but is too often ignored. Instead, we compare a knock-off to an iPhone. It's not the hardware that makes iPhones great. It's the software and ecosystem -- and they cost money.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Could Apple make a brand new, state of the art phone for $350? YES! But only if they installed an Android OS and omitted all of Apple's ecosystem.
I think I disagree here. While there are a few parts on their high-end models that probably cost more money, the core isn't all that expensive other than the R&D which they do anyway. I don't think they'll make a $100 phone, but they can do way better than $1000. They just put old chips in as a differentiator. It doesn't impact the manufacturing cost much, in fact, having them all be the same chip would likely save money (on quantity).
They could 'cheapen' them via the screens, storage, and other features that aren't needed on a lower-market-target device. I don't know what the end price might be, but certainly as low as the SE was, and lower.
melgross said: I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't make much overall sense. Maybe they are just trying to raise the average selling price to make the Wall Street people happy.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
There are ramifications there... Selling a cheap product also means one that doesn't have the quality or reserve power of a standard product. That would drag Apple down to be just another manufacturer of junk -- which would impact the reputation (how people think) of the core products. It's why car manufacturers have separate companies for high end vs lower end products. The name "Cadillac" still has meaning...
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
That’s just doesn’t make sense. I repeat, why make a major sales, and manufacturing push (required there to sell independently) in a poor, but very large country, if you have no products that more than a tiny part of the population can buy? Not everyone wants to but 4 years old products at a lower price. Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
yes, if Apple was only selling in wealthy countries, that experience shows will but these products in good numbers, then it makes sense to not sell a lower priced product. But not when we’re talking about India, and other countries Apple is trying to have a major impact in since the China angle is becoming difficult, both politically, and competitively.
this is very simple, and well understood business sense. Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
I don't think that they can -- because of two things: 1) Expected quality of materials, design and manufacture. 2) The cost of the software and ecosystem that accompanies every phone -- but is too often ignored. Instead, we compare a knock-off to an iPhone. It's not the hardware that makes iPhones great. It's the software and ecosystem -- and they cost money.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Could Apple make a brand new, state of the art phone for $350? YES! But only if they installed an Android OS and omitted all of Apple's ecosystem.
It costs Apple very little to put iOS on a phone, or their software. All of which is being given away for free, and that costs very little to supply.
just remember that it’s Apple that’s trying very hard to break into these markets. What I’m reading here makes no sense once you consider that. It’s not as though we’re talking about Apple breaking into those markets with Apple not being interested. Then it would just be our discussion. But it’s not. It’s Apple. So the question is why they’re not successful now. The main reason is price. It’s pretty simple. So there has to be a way for them to break into that market in a big enough way.
if you don’t like the idea of a less expensive product line, what is it that you do suggest? And try to be realistic.
Yes, it costs very little to INSTALL iOS on a phone. with that I agree. But if you mean it costs very little to develop and maintain iOS I strongly disagree. It costs a lot. And, on a unit basis far more than either a Windows OS or Android because they go on so many more units. And, then you get to the cost of the ecosystem which is equally costly to Apple.
Because we think Apple gives them away, we tend to under estimate their cost and their value.
melgross said: ... Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
... Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
They did with the original iPhone SE. They did it with the iPad (2018) and now the mini (2019). They have done it in the past for various desktops and laptops. They have never been cheap, or competed with the lowest end of a market, but they were competitive and not just high-end.
I'm pretty sure when Steve was talking about 'not making junk' he wasn't saying he wanted the products only to be affordable for the wealthy. He was saying pretty much what he said... don't make junk. There is a difference between junk and creating a quality product for different market positions. Sure, depending on the product, you might not ever be able to go under some $ amount, but I really doubt $350 is it for a phone.
Nobody is talking about them making junk. A $350 phone isn’t junk. An $80 phone may be junk, when you’re talking about a smartphone. When we talk about these countries, we’re talking about people who can’t often even spend $350 on a phone. If Apple expects to do well there they have to sell what people can buy. That’s pretty simple, and nobody saying otherwise gets it. We have to stop being so stuck up about this. Apple, I’m sure, is looking into this. But if they’re so worried about their image, then they’ll never succeed there.
A $350 phone without iOS and Apple's ecosystem is junk. Apple could put out a quality $350 phone and then charge you hundred or two or three for the software and ecosystem needed to make it great.
George, that makes no sense. A phone without software is an incomplete device. So you’re still talking about a $550 phone. I’m not sure if you were serious with this or something else.
apple can make a $350 phone. The selling price of the SE proves it. It doesn’t need the latest SoC. It doesn’t need the most expensive LCD. It doesn’t need the most storage. It can use a polycarbonate case. Apple has already done that, and it proved more popular than they expected.
Yes, it is incomplete -- and to make it complete you have to spend (say) $550. I not only agree with that, but it was my point! That is: You are not considering the cost TO APPLE of their software and ecosystem because they bury it in the price of the "device". But the device is a combination of hardware, software and ecosystem -- each of which is non-trivial.
And yes, they did sell the SE for $350 -- but only by leveraging already existing technology and manufacturing processes. That means it looked new but was old -- or became old because it was never updated. Apple is using the same technique with the 2018 Gen6 iPad.
GeorgeBMac said: I don't think that they can -- because of two things:
1) Expected quality of materials, design and manufacture. 2) The cost of the software and ecosystem that accompanies every phone -- but is too often ignored. Instead, we compare a knock-off to an iPhone. It's not the hardware that makes iPhones great. It's the software and ecosystem -- and they cost money.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Could Apple make a brand new, state of the art phone for $350? YES! But only if they installed an Android OS and omitted all of Apple's ecosystem.
I think I disagree here. While there are a few parts on their high-end models that probably cost more money, the core isn't all that expensive other than the R&D which they do anyway. I don't think they'll make a $100 phone, but they can do way better than $1000. They just put old chips in as a differentiator. It doesn't impact the manufacturing cost much, in fact, having them all be the same chip would likely save money (on quantity).
They could 'cheapen' them via the screens, storage, and other features that aren't needed on a lower-market-target device. I don't know what the end price might be, but certainly as low as the SE was, and lower.
But, you are only talking about the cost of the hardware. An iPhone without Apple's software and ecosystem is not an iPhone -- and both of those, although buried in the price of the "device", is very costly to Apple. Rather, hey comprise a major part of the cost to Apple.
I agree that Apple can shave cost (and price) by using older components and leveraging their already amortized development costs and manufacturing facility costs (tooling and the like). They did it with the SE and they're doing it with the Gen6 iPad. But the discussion was about Apple selling a cheap NEW product instead of marketing older devices. If you are suggesting Apple dress up an old device with a new exterior and call it "new and improved" as GM did with their cars for decades, I think that would cheapen the brand to an undesireable level.
melgross said: I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't make much overall sense. Maybe they are just trying to raise the average selling price to make the Wall Street people happy.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
There are ramifications there... Selling a cheap product also means one that doesn't have the quality or reserve power of a standard product. That would drag Apple down to be just another manufacturer of junk -- which would impact the reputation (how people think) of the core products. It's why car manufacturers have separate companies for high end vs lower end products. The name "Cadillac" still has meaning...
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
That’s just doesn’t make sense. I repeat, why make a major sales, and manufacturing push (required there to sell independently) in a poor, but very large country, if you have no products that more than a tiny part of the population can buy? Not everyone wants to but 4 years old products at a lower price. Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
yes, if Apple was only selling in wealthy countries, that experience shows will but these products in good numbers, then it makes sense to not sell a lower priced product. But not when we’re talking about India, and other countries Apple is trying to have a major impact in since the China angle is becoming difficult, both politically, and competitively.
this is very simple, and well understood business sense. Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
I don't think that they can -- because of two things: 1) Expected quality of materials, design and manufacture. 2) The cost of the software and ecosystem that accompanies every phone -- but is too often ignored. Instead, we compare a knock-off to an iPhone. It's not the hardware that makes iPhones great. It's the software and ecosystem -- and they cost money.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Could Apple make a brand new, state of the art phone for $350? YES! But only if they installed an Android OS and omitted all of Apple's ecosystem.
It costs Apple very little to put iOS on a phone, or their software. All of which is being given away for free, and that costs very little to supply.
just remember that it’s Apple that’s trying very hard to break into these markets. What I’m reading here makes no sense once you consider that. It’s not as though we’re talking about Apple breaking into those markets with Apple not being interested. Then it would just be our discussion. But it’s not. It’s Apple. So the question is why they’re not successful now. The main reason is price. It’s pretty simple. So there has to be a way for them to break into that market in a big enough way.
if you don’t like the idea of a less expensive product line, what is it that you do suggest? And try to be realistic.
Yes, it costs very little to INSTALL iOS on a phone. with that I agree. But if you mean it costs very little to develop and maintain iOS I strongly disagree. It costs a lot. And, on a unit basis far more than either a Windows OS or Android because they go on so many more units. And, then you get to the cost of the ecosystem which is equally costly to Apple.
Because we think Apple gives them away, we tend to under estimate their cost and their value.
Then that’s missing the point. The more devices it’s distributed in the less it costs per device. I understand how this works from my own businesses. R&D costs, whether hardware of software related are fixed for the year. Distribute it to 300 million devices and it costs so much per device. Distribute it between 500 million devices and it costs considerably less per device. That works out for their most expensive devices to their least expensive ones. Usually, the most expensive devices are assigned more of those costs per device than the lower cost devices are.
and it’s strange, because you basically just destroyed your own argument.
melgross said: ... Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
... Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
They did with the original iPhone SE. They did it with the iPad (2018) and now the mini (2019). They have done it in the past for various desktops and laptops. They have never been cheap, or competed with the lowest end of a market, but they were competitive and not just high-end.
I'm pretty sure when Steve was talking about 'not making junk' he wasn't saying he wanted the products only to be affordable for the wealthy. He was saying pretty much what he said... don't make junk. There is a difference between junk and creating a quality product for different market positions. Sure, depending on the product, you might not ever be able to go under some $ amount, but I really doubt $350 is it for a phone.
Nobody is talking about them making junk. A $350 phone isn’t junk. An $80 phone may be junk, when you’re talking about a smartphone. When we talk about these countries, we’re talking about people who can’t often even spend $350 on a phone. If Apple expects to do well there they have to sell what people can buy. That’s pretty simple, and nobody saying otherwise gets it. We have to stop being so stuck up about this. Apple, I’m sure, is looking into this. But if they’re so worried about their image, then they’ll never succeed there.
A $350 phone without iOS and Apple's ecosystem is junk. Apple could put out a quality $350 phone and then charge you hundred or two or three for the software and ecosystem needed to make it great.
George, that makes no sense. A phone without software is an incomplete device. So you’re still talking about a $550 phone. I’m not sure if you were serious with this or something else.
apple can make a $350 phone. The selling price of the SE proves it. It doesn’t need the latest SoC. It doesn’t need the most expensive LCD. It doesn’t need the most storage. It can use a polycarbonate case. Apple has already done that, and it proved more popular than they expected.
Yes, it is incomplete -- and to make it complete you have to spend (say) $550. I not only agree with that, but it was my point! That is: You are not considering the cost TO APPLE of their software and ecosystem because they bury it in the price of the "device". But the device is a combination of hardware, software and ecosystem -- each of which is non-trivial.
And yes, they did sell the SE for $350 -- but only by leveraging already existing technology and manufacturing processes. That means it looked new but was old -- or became old because it was never updated. Apple is using the same technique with the 2018 Gen6 iPad.
No. YOURE saying it would cost that much. Frankly, that’s just your numbers, and they mean nothing. You need to look at reality, not what you believe is reality, which this isn’t. Are you really saying that all that time Apple was selling the SE for $350–$400, they were losing $200 per phone? Because if you are, then we can all have a good laugh at that.
melgross said: I think they should do both. Why shut themselves out of markets? Look at all the problems they have selling in India. They had a phone they were selling for $350. Then they discontinued it. There’s no sense in that. Why make a push in a country that can’t afford the products without having a product that they can afford? And the gold models were popular there, and elsewhere, and now they are no more either.
Yeah, I don't know. It doesn't make much overall sense. Maybe they are just trying to raise the average selling price to make the Wall Street people happy.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
There are ramifications there... Selling a cheap product also means one that doesn't have the quality or reserve power of a standard product. That would drag Apple down to be just another manufacturer of junk -- which would impact the reputation (how people think) of the core products. It's why car manufacturers have separate companies for high end vs lower end products. The name "Cadillac" still has meaning...
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
That’s just doesn’t make sense. I repeat, why make a major sales, and manufacturing push (required there to sell independently) in a poor, but very large country, if you have no products that more than a tiny part of the population can buy? Not everyone wants to but 4 years old products at a lower price. Are you saying that Apple is incapable of designing, and making a new $350 phone, because I doubt that. It’s a matter of will, not ability.
yes, if Apple was only selling in wealthy countries, that experience shows will but these products in good numbers, then it makes sense to not sell a lower priced product. But not when we’re talking about India, and other countries Apple is trying to have a major impact in since the China angle is becoming difficult, both politically, and competitively.
this is very simple, and well understood business sense. Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
I don't think that they can -- because of two things: 1) Expected quality of materials, design and manufacture. 2) The cost of the software and ecosystem that accompanies every phone -- but is too often ignored. Instead, we compare a knock-off to an iPhone. It's not the hardware that makes iPhones great. It's the software and ecosystem -- and they cost money.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Could Apple make a brand new, state of the art phone for $350? YES! But only if they installed an Android OS and omitted all of Apple's ecosystem.
It costs Apple very little to put iOS on a phone, or their software. All of which is being given away for free, and that costs very little to supply.
just remember that it’s Apple that’s trying very hard to break into these markets. What I’m reading here makes no sense once you consider that. It’s not as though we’re talking about Apple breaking into those markets with Apple not being interested. Then it would just be our discussion. But it’s not. It’s Apple. So the question is why they’re not successful now. The main reason is price. It’s pretty simple. So there has to be a way for them to break into that market in a big enough way.
if you don’t like the idea of a less expensive product line, what is it that you do suggest? And try to be realistic.
Yes, it costs very little to INSTALL iOS on a phone. with that I agree. But if you mean it costs very little to develop and maintain iOS I strongly disagree. It costs a lot. And, on a unit basis far more than either a Windows OS or Android because they go on so many more units. And, then you get to the cost of the ecosystem which is equally costly to Apple.
Because we think Apple gives them away, we tend to under estimate their cost and their value.
Then that’s missing the point. The more devices it’s distributed in the less it costs per device. I understand how this works from my own businesses. R&D costs, whether hardware of software related are fixed for the year. Distribute it to 300 million devices and it costs so much per device. Distribute it between 500 million devices and it costs considerably less per device. That works out for their most expensive devices to their least expensive ones. Usually, the most expensive devices are assigned more of those costs per device than the lower cost devices are.
and it’s strange, because you basically just destroyed your own argument.
LOL... No, I didn't destroy anything. In addition to pointing out how volume impacts the per unit costs of mostly fixed costs, I acnowledged the reality of the situation -- that the quantities you are alluding to do not exist in the Apple world like they do in the Android or Windows worlds. And, to get there, Apple would need to take on a very different marketing model -- one that is very foreign to them.
In the meantime, leveraging the already paid for fixed expenses of older devices has been working well for them to increase the volume you are speaking of.
Comments
I think when it was 8, maybe 16 GB that argument was valid (as the OS took up nearly all, or more than half the storage). But, I bought my iPhone SE with 64 GB and it is over half empty. I bought my 2018 iPad with 32 GB and it is over half empty as well (almost 18 GB free). I have more to put on the latter, so it will be under half eventually, but plenty of working-space room for the things I do with it.
Basically, I don't think Apple should make the base level be enough to cover everyone's situation, but it should be enough not to hamper the average user. I suppose it could be argued that the average user keeps more photo/video on it, but Apple does have solutions for that (even though I don't like them). I certainly would say 64GB is too little for a base model, though.
I really hope they decouple the screen size from pricing. Screen size and form-factor have more to do with how one wants to use the device and what is comfortable for a particular person. I suppose bigger screens cost a bit more to manufacture, but it shouldn't be all that much. And, as someone who loves the iPhone SE, and has family members who'll only use the iPad mini, the price wasn't even a factor in our choices. In fact, as I've said many times, I'd LOVE to see a full-featured model in those form-factors (even if at the exact same prices as their bigger siblings).
Agreed... but ONLY if they do both. If they won't do both, then I think this is better for those of us who already appreciate the brand and will spend more for their products.
They certainly could do both, and I think they would be better for it. I'd much rather see a true lower cost model than selling outdated tech at lower prices.
The iPad line is now kind of like that, so I'm not sure why they can't do the same with phones. The big thing for me, though, is decoupling the form-factor from the price. I don't want the size device I pick to determine the feature set (or limited features set) because some schmuck at Apple has decided small screens should be 'budget' devices. That's just a stupid notion they need to break free from.
Conversely, by selling older products they are leveraging existing facilities and technology without sacrificing quality. That is: the development work and manufacturing facilities and training for the iPhone 8 are done and paid for and they can use them for free or very low cost -- while supplying a high quality product.
And actually, both the iPhone SE and the iPad Gen 6 did just that: Although they were marketed as brand new products, the technology and internals were older and they did or will continue to leverage them for years. So, they can still sell a high quality product at a low cost.
It also doesn't have exactly match the very latest top end model, but I think it should be close... not more than a generation back in the A-chip or such. I don't think when the iPhone SE came out, it was that far behind... maybe 1 gen. My 2018 iPad is an A10, so I guess that is just 2 gen, fairly recently (can't remember if it was 1 or 2 gen when it was introduced). The new iPad Air and iPad mini are current gen, just cheaper as they don't have all the bling. That's more what I'm talking about.
yes, if Apple was only selling in wealthy countries, that experience shows will but these products in good numbers, then it makes sense to not sell a lower priced product. But not when we’re talking about India, and other countries Apple is trying to have a major impact in since the China angle is becoming difficult, both politically, and competitively.
this is very simple, and well understood business sense. Those of you who want to stick to the outdated notion that Apple MUST only compete on the high end should be seeing what problems that’s causing.
I'm pretty sure when Steve was talking about 'not making junk' he wasn't saying he wanted the products only to be affordable for the wealthy. He was saying pretty much what he said... don't make junk. There is a difference between junk and creating a quality product for different market positions. Sure, depending on the product, you might not ever be able to go under some $ amount, but I really doubt $350 is it for a phone.
1) Expected quality of materials, design and manufacture.
2) The cost of the software and ecosystem that accompanies every phone -- but is too often ignored. Instead, we compare a knock-off to an iPhone. It's not the hardware that makes iPhones great. It's the software and ecosystem -- and they cost money.
Or, to put it more succinctly: Could Apple make a brand new, state of the art phone for $350? YES! But only if they installed an Android OS and omitted all of Apple's ecosystem.
Apple could put out a quality $350 phone and then charge you hundred or two or three for the software and ecosystem needed to make it great.
just remember that it’s Apple that’s trying very hard to break into these markets. What I’m reading here makes no sense once you consider that. It’s not as though we’re talking about Apple breaking into those markets with Apple not being interested. Then it would just be our discussion. But it’s not. It’s Apple. So the question is why they’re not successful now. The main reason is price. It’s pretty simple. So there has to be a way for them to break into that market in a big enough way.
if you don’t like the idea of a less expensive product line, what is it that you do suggest? And try to be realistic.
George, that makes no sense. A phone without software is an incomplete device. So you’re still talking about a $550 phone. I’m not sure if you were serious with this or something else.
apple can make a $350 phone. The selling price of the SE proves it. It doesn’t need the latest SoC. It doesn’t need the most expensive LCD. It doesn’t need the most storage. It can use a polycarbonate case. Apple has already done that, and it proved more popular than they expected.
I think I disagree here. While there are a few parts on their high-end models that probably cost more money, the core isn't all that expensive other than the R&D which they do anyway. I don't think they'll make a $100 phone, but they can do way better than $1000. They just put old chips in as a differentiator. It doesn't impact the manufacturing cost much, in fact, having them all be the same chip would likely save money (on quantity).
They could 'cheapen' them via the screens, storage, and other features that aren't needed on a lower-market-target device. I don't know what the end price might be, but certainly as low as the SE was, and lower.
But if you mean it costs very little to develop and maintain iOS I strongly disagree. It costs a lot. And, on a unit basis far more than either a Windows OS or Android because they go on so many more units. And, then you get to the cost of the ecosystem which is equally costly to Apple.
Because we think Apple gives them away, we tend to under estimate their cost and their value.
That is: You are not considering the cost TO APPLE of their software and ecosystem because they bury it in the price of the "device". But the device is a combination of hardware, software and ecosystem -- each of which is non-trivial.
And yes, they did sell the SE for $350 -- but only by leveraging already existing technology and manufacturing processes. That means it looked new but was old -- or became old because it was never updated. Apple is using the same technique with the 2018 Gen6 iPad.
I agree that Apple can shave cost (and price) by using older components and leveraging their already amortized development costs and manufacturing facility costs (tooling and the like). They did it with the SE and they're doing it with the Gen6 iPad. But the discussion was about Apple selling a cheap NEW product instead of marketing older devices. If you are suggesting Apple dress up an old device with a new exterior and call it "new and improved" as GM did with their cars for decades, I think that would cheapen the brand to an undesireable level.
and it’s strange, because you basically just destroyed your own argument.
In the meantime, leveraging the already paid for fixed expenses of older devices has been working well for them to increase the volume you are speaking of.