When the iPhone 5 comes out, just keep the 3GS (preferable at 16GB) available as a $200 no contract or free with contract model ! I'd also like to be able to have an iPhone without a data plan (for my kids).
I think the the edge to edge screen design enables this new iPhone to shrink considerably without creating an unusable interface. The screen doesn't have to shrink much at all!
It might even sell better then the regular iPhone. I believe it will be free with a 2 year contract. This is the phone for the masses.
Hopefully they'll take the regular iPhone5's screen edge to edge while keeping the same form factor (or something similar.) This is actually something i've been wanting for some time!
I can see a market for a different size iPhone like they did with the iPods, but with the integrated systems revolving around the display size going smaller or larger gets difficult. I certainly don?t see a need for a smaller iPhone at this point. The US market aside, are they saturated in other countries at this point?
Yeah, I don't see Apple doing this, simply because it would lead to a more fractured platform. That seems very un-Apple to me.
I also don't see how it would benefit them really. They make huge profits off of the iPhone. The next iteration will generation huge profits again. Let other companies sell low-margin phones.
But here's a question: if the phone case shrinks but keeps most of the screen real estate, where are the big savings in cost coming from? If Apple is going to sell this thing for half of what they're selling the iPhone 4 for, there must be some compromises in the BOM, but I'm not seeing where that would be. To tell you the truth, I'm not seeing that even if the screen shrank proportionately to the case-- a 2.5" screen isn't going to be $300 less than a 3.5" screen.
Not only that, but typically additional miniaturization of components costs more, not less, than the equivalent full sized device.
If this rumor is true, there has to be more to it than just a smaller iPhone. Lesser CPU, less memory, less functionality-- something.
This, and it would open the door to further fragmentation of the iOS platform when it comes to apps. Already there are some apps that require an iPhone 4 or iPad due the need of the A4's processing power. The number of apps that work with all the flavors of iPhone/iPod_Touch/iPad running iOS 3.x+ is already diminishing.
It would suck to get an underpowered, cheap A4-based phone that might only have App "support" for the latest apps for only a year or two.
iOS will always have some level of fragmentation although not as bad as Android. It's inevitable. The more they add features with each version the less likely older versions will not be supported.
But here's a question: if the phone case shrinks but keeps most of the screen real estate, where are the big savings in cost coming from? If Apple is going to sell this thing for half of what they're selling the iPhone 4 for, there must be some compromises in the BOM, but I'm not seeing where that would be. To tell you the truth, I'm not seeing that even if the screen shrank proportionately to the case-- a 2.5" screen isn't going to be $300 less than a 3.5" screen.
Not only that, but typically additional miniaturization of components costs more, not less, than the equivalent full sized device.
If this rumor is true, there has to be more to it than just a smaller iPhone. Lesser CPU, less memory, less functionality-- something.
and as others have pointed out a different experience. With a smaller screen I'm wondering if it would support 3rd party apps at all? Besides the obvious component swap out. 1MP camera, 8GB flash Maybe no gyro or compass? I don't know, but 3rd party Apps would be a feature I'd expect a nano iphone to not support. Maybe this is why they would push MM harder; to reinforce the strengths of the native apps. No third party apps, but you get great email, photos and videos pushed to the cloud, address book synching, music pulled from the cloud, Safari bookmark synching etc.
But here's a question: if the phone case shrinks but keeps most of the screen real estate, where are the big savings in cost coming from? If Apple is going to sell this thing for half of what they're selling the iPhone 4 for, there must be some compromises in the BOM, but I'm not seeing where that would be. To tell you the truth, I'm not seeing that even if the screen shrank proportionately to the case-- a 2.5" screen isn't going to be $300 less than a 3.5" screen.
Here's where I can see the cost saving coming from: No retina screen. Previous gen internals.
Also you have to consider Apple's margins must already be fantastic! Do you remember those graphs that showed apples market share by units and then by profit? It's killing everyone on profit. They could stand to lose a bit of their margins in a cheaper device if they have to.
Yeah, I don't see Apple doing this, simply because it would lead to a more fractured platform. That seems very un-Apple to me.
I also don't see how it would benefit them really. They make huge profits off of the iPhone. The next iteration will generation huge profits again. Let other companies sell low-margin phones.
Holy cow! Not only has this been answered already in this thread, it has been answers quite clearly in Apple's history!! The iPod was king, amounting to almost all of Apple's revenue growth when they introduced smaller, cheaper and (yes) less profitable versions. Why would Apple undercut itself? Because if they didn't somebody else would. In the case of phones, somebody else (obviously) already does!
The fallacy is that Apple doesn't care about market share. Sure they do. They want all they can get--but only at a decent profit with a decent product. If this rumor is true, apple must have found a way to make a phone that they like that is much more economical. The debate should be about how that would be possible and what it would be like, not whether Apple would do it or not...
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Nice mock-ups, mjayer. Very well done.
here here!
Quote:
But here's a question: if the phone case shrinks but keeps most of the screen real estate, where are the big savings in cost coming from? <snip>
Not only that, but typically additional miniaturization of components costs more, not less, than the equivalent full sized device.
If this rumor is true, there has to be more to it than just a smaller iPhone. Lesser CPU, less memory, less functionality-- something.
This is more like it! Every question here deserves some thought.
This rumor has some merit. A smaller iPhone would require getting rid of the Home button area as rumored with new gestures coming to iOS that would replace the home button. That would cut about 3/4 of an inch off of the iPhone's face. Then get rid of the bezel altogether and reduce the amount of black non-screen realestate at the top.
Basically a mostly screen phone without sacrificing the screen dimensions. That would be acceptable.
am i the only one who thinks that this is a stupid idea?!
releasing a cheaper iphone only serves to undercut their own business model. apple doesn't need and has never really needed market share since they've focused on profit margins. releasing a cheaper iphone will probably mean that a significant portion of their own customer base would go for the cheaper model when they next purchase a phone and therefore reduce income for Apple. Of course, I don't know the estimated profit margin on each unit sold, but still...
The reasons do not make sense. Size is not the only difference distinguishing different iPods. In order to cut cost Apple need to offer less functionality for iPod nano and iPod mini. So the question really is what functionality will Apple cut from a smaller cheaper iPhone? But a smaller phone with less functionality is essentially a feature phone.
Well some people just want a feature phone and don't need maps and things or they have an Ipad so really just want a phone/music player.
I believe Apple is pursuing this strategy. It is the same thing it did with the iPod. However, I am concerned that Apple will go overboard on striving to make its devices smaller. For example, the Shuffle with the Lanyard really stunk. It was too small. Further, the refreshed Nano is kind of cool, but it would have been a better shuffle replacement. My gym instructor was a big fan of the Nano, however, the screen on the refresh was too small to see while teaching classes. Accordingly, she bought a used Nano with a larger screen.
The iPhone is about as small as it can go to be a comfortable fit for most people. Some guys with larger hands probably prefer some other phones because the iPhone 4 isn't great for these people.
Seems to have worked in the iPod arena. Apple owns the top end of the market. It now wants to own the middle as well. If it had bluetooth and integrated with Mac applications like the address book, my girlfriend would be interested.
Many people do not want a data plan, nor do they want to be tied to a contract. That is why I am using an unlocked phone.
Further, Apple needs to keep its stores with new and interesting things.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hellopanda3088
am i the only one who thinks that this is a stupid idea?!
releasing a cheaper iphone only serves to undercut their own business model. apple doesn't need and has never really needed market share since they've focused on profit margins. releasing a cheaper iphone will probably mean that a significant portion of their own customer base would go for the cheaper model when they next purchase a phone and therefore reduce income for Apple. Of course, I don't know the estimated profit margin on each unit sold, but still...
Those of you screaming that such a move makes no sense aren't seeing the bigger picture here...
A smaller phone, as one earlier poster said, a 'feature phone' that works primarily as a phone and an ipod and can serve as a wireless tethering device for an ipad makes perfect sense.
Lots of people have both an iphone and an ipad; why duplicate the functionality of the ipad in the iphone when you don't need it if you already have an ipad?
For those of you who don't want to carry two devices, you don't have to; just buy the larger full featured iphone.
But for those people who already carry an ipad with them most of the time, again, why have that feature duplication, the extra weight, bulk, cost, etc. of a full size/featured iphone when you're already carrying an ipad with you most of the time?
It also opens up the lower cost market to Apple, giving them an opening to lead people to buy the full size device or an ipad.
Makes perfect sense.
I have thought about this iPhone/iPad before. It makes much sense.
That sums it up. Apple would rather cannibalize itself then have somebody else do it. As Cook said at the last earnings call, the iPad is taking some sales from Apple in terms of Macs, but Apple would rather have that happen then somebody go spend money on another companies product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bageljoey
Why would Apple undercut itself? Because if they didn't somebody else would. In the case of phones, somebody else (obviously) already does!
When the iPhone 5 comes out, just keep the 3GS (preferable at 16GB) available as a $200 no contract or free with contract model ! I'd also like to be able to have an iPhone without a data plan (for my kids).
It makes sense to you because you will save money. It makes no sense to Apple because it will not make money.
Hey Apple. Don't focus on another smaller phone. Finally make one that has a removable battery for once. That is truely my biggest problem with iPhone design. I have the special tools to remove one but shouldn't have to. Probably voids the warranty doing it yourself anyway.
Why would you be removing the battery when it's covered by warranty and can be replaced for free anyway?
Comments
When the iPhone 5 comes out, just keep the 3GS (preferable at 16GB) available as a $200 no contract or free with contract model ! I'd also like to be able to have an iPhone without a data plan (for my kids).
I'm sorry, but I don't believe this for a second (re: the smaller phone).
Think of it as the iPhone equivalent of the iPod Nano. Or the MacBook Air of iPhones. Does that help?
Apple tends to sell product families. So far the iPad and iPhone are the only child in their respective families. That won't last.
It might even sell better then the regular iPhone. I believe it will be free with a 2 year contract. This is the phone for the masses.
Hopefully they'll take the regular iPhone5's screen edge to edge while keeping the same form factor (or something similar.) This is actually something i've been wanting for some time!
I can see a market for a different size iPhone like they did with the iPods, but with the integrated systems revolving around the display size going smaller or larger gets difficult. I certainly don?t see a need for a smaller iPhone at this point. The US market aside, are they saturated in other countries at this point?
Yeah, I don't see Apple doing this, simply because it would lead to a more fractured platform. That seems very un-Apple to me.
I also don't see how it would benefit them really. They make huge profits off of the iPhone. The next iteration will generation huge profits again. Let other companies sell low-margin phones.
But here's a question: if the phone case shrinks but keeps most of the screen real estate, where are the big savings in cost coming from? If Apple is going to sell this thing for half of what they're selling the iPhone 4 for, there must be some compromises in the BOM, but I'm not seeing where that would be. To tell you the truth, I'm not seeing that even if the screen shrank proportionately to the case-- a 2.5" screen isn't going to be $300 less than a 3.5" screen.
Not only that, but typically additional miniaturization of components costs more, not less, than the equivalent full sized device.
If this rumor is true, there has to be more to it than just a smaller iPhone. Lesser CPU, less memory, less functionality-- something.
This, and it would open the door to further fragmentation of the iOS platform when it comes to apps. Already there are some apps that require an iPhone 4 or iPad due the need of the A4's processing power. The number of apps that work with all the flavors of iPhone/iPod_Touch/iPad running iOS 3.x+ is already diminishing.
It would suck to get an underpowered, cheap A4-based phone that might only have App "support" for the latest apps for only a year or two.
iOS will always have some level of fragmentation although not as bad as Android. It's inevitable. The more they add features with each version the less likely older versions will not be supported.
Nice mock-ups, mjayer. Very well done.
But here's a question: if the phone case shrinks but keeps most of the screen real estate, where are the big savings in cost coming from? If Apple is going to sell this thing for half of what they're selling the iPhone 4 for, there must be some compromises in the BOM, but I'm not seeing where that would be. To tell you the truth, I'm not seeing that even if the screen shrank proportionately to the case-- a 2.5" screen isn't going to be $300 less than a 3.5" screen.
Not only that, but typically additional miniaturization of components costs more, not less, than the equivalent full sized device.
If this rumor is true, there has to be more to it than just a smaller iPhone. Lesser CPU, less memory, less functionality-- something.
and as others have pointed out a different experience. With a smaller screen I'm wondering if it would support 3rd party apps at all? Besides the obvious component swap out. 1MP camera, 8GB flash Maybe no gyro or compass? I don't know, but 3rd party Apps would be a feature I'd expect a nano iphone to not support. Maybe this is why they would push MM harder; to reinforce the strengths of the native apps. No third party apps, but you get great email, photos and videos pushed to the cloud, address book synching, music pulled from the cloud, Safari bookmark synching etc.
Nice mock-ups, mjayer. Very well done.
But here's a question: if the phone case shrinks but keeps most of the screen real estate, where are the big savings in cost coming from? If Apple is going to sell this thing for half of what they're selling the iPhone 4 for, there must be some compromises in the BOM, but I'm not seeing where that would be. To tell you the truth, I'm not seeing that even if the screen shrank proportionately to the case-- a 2.5" screen isn't going to be $300 less than a 3.5" screen.
Here's where I can see the cost saving coming from: No retina screen. Previous gen internals.
Also you have to consider Apple's margins must already be fantastic! Do you remember those graphs that showed apples market share by units and then by profit? It's killing everyone on profit. They could stand to lose a bit of their margins in a cheaper device if they have to.
Yeah, I don't see Apple doing this, simply because it would lead to a more fractured platform. That seems very un-Apple to me.
I also don't see how it would benefit them really. They make huge profits off of the iPhone. The next iteration will generation huge profits again. Let other companies sell low-margin phones.
Holy cow! Not only has this been answered already in this thread, it has been answers quite clearly in Apple's history!! The iPod was king, amounting to almost all of Apple's revenue growth when they introduced smaller, cheaper and (yes) less profitable versions. Why would Apple undercut itself? Because if they didn't somebody else would. In the case of phones, somebody else (obviously) already does!
The fallacy is that Apple doesn't care about market share. Sure they do. They want all they can get--but only at a decent profit with a decent product. If this rumor is true, apple must have found a way to make a phone that they like that is much more economical. The debate should be about how that would be possible and what it would be like, not whether Apple would do it or not...
Nice mock-ups, mjayer. Very well done.
here here!
But here's a question: if the phone case shrinks but keeps most of the screen real estate, where are the big savings in cost coming from? <snip>
Not only that, but typically additional miniaturization of components costs more, not less, than the equivalent full sized device.
If this rumor is true, there has to be more to it than just a smaller iPhone. Lesser CPU, less memory, less functionality-- something.
This is more like it! Every question here deserves some thought.
Basically a mostly screen phone without sacrificing the screen dimensions. That would be acceptable.
releasing a cheaper iphone only serves to undercut their own business model. apple doesn't need and has never really needed market share since they've focused on profit margins. releasing a cheaper iphone will probably mean that a significant portion of their own customer base would go for the cheaper model when they next purchase a phone and therefore reduce income for Apple. Of course, I don't know the estimated profit margin on each unit sold, but still...
The reasons do not make sense. Size is not the only difference distinguishing different iPods. In order to cut cost Apple need to offer less functionality for iPod nano and iPod mini. So the question really is what functionality will Apple cut from a smaller cheaper iPhone? But a smaller phone with less functionality is essentially a feature phone.
Well some people just want a feature phone and don't need maps and things or they have an Ipad so really just want a phone/music player.
The iPhone is about as small as it can go to be a comfortable fit for most people. Some guys with larger hands probably prefer some other phones because the iPhone 4 isn't great for these people.
Many people do not want a data plan, nor do they want to be tied to a contract. That is why I am using an unlocked phone.
Further, Apple needs to keep its stores with new and interesting things.
am i the only one who thinks that this is a stupid idea?!
releasing a cheaper iphone only serves to undercut their own business model. apple doesn't need and has never really needed market share since they've focused on profit margins. releasing a cheaper iphone will probably mean that a significant portion of their own customer base would go for the cheaper model when they next purchase a phone and therefore reduce income for Apple. Of course, I don't know the estimated profit margin on each unit sold, but still...
Those of you screaming that such a move makes no sense aren't seeing the bigger picture here...
A smaller phone, as one earlier poster said, a 'feature phone' that works primarily as a phone and an ipod and can serve as a wireless tethering device for an ipad makes perfect sense.
Lots of people have both an iphone and an ipad; why duplicate the functionality of the ipad in the iphone when you don't need it if you already have an ipad?
For those of you who don't want to carry two devices, you don't have to; just buy the larger full featured iphone.
But for those people who already carry an ipad with them most of the time, again, why have that feature duplication, the extra weight, bulk, cost, etc. of a full size/featured iphone when you're already carrying an ipad with you most of the time?
It also opens up the lower cost market to Apple, giving them an opening to lead people to buy the full size device or an ipad.
Makes perfect sense.
I have thought about this iPhone/iPad before. It makes much sense.
Why would Apple undercut itself? Because if they didn't somebody else would. In the case of phones, somebody else (obviously) already does!
Why would it have to be smaller???
When the iPhone 5 comes out, just keep the 3GS (preferable at 16GB) available as a $200 no contract or free with contract model ! I'd also like to be able to have an iPhone without a data plan (for my kids).
It makes sense to you because you will save money. It makes no sense to Apple because it will not make money.
Hey Apple. Don't focus on another smaller phone. Finally make one that has a removable battery for once. That is truely my biggest problem with iPhone design. I have the special tools to remove one but shouldn't have to. Probably voids the warranty doing it yourself anyway.
Why would you be removing the battery when it's covered by warranty and can be replaced for free anyway?
Talk about a stupid argument.