Apple predicted to offer $200 unsubsidized iPhone in 2013

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 75
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,207member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by al_bundy View Post


    no way, apple only does premium products



    You mean like this?


     


    http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_ipod/family/ipod_shuffle

  • Reply 42 of 75
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 3,207member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post





    I agree completely.

    Look at the iPhone 3GS. Even without changing a thing, they could probably offer this for $200. All of the tooling and design work is paid for many times over. Manufacturing should be a piece of cake because they've made millions. Bugs are all worked out so quality costs should be low. And so on. Yet a 3GS would easily compete with a $200 phone that the competitors are selling.


     


    Yup. This strategy is also used in game consoles. Sony has been selling the PS3 for years, but it gets cheaper for them all the time because the component costs keep coming down. Also, like the console makers, Apple could continue to upgrade the fab processes used to make the chips in the 3GS, lowering costs while holding performance constant. A smaller, more efficient SOC might also allow Apple to cut the size and cost of the battery while maintaining battery life. 


     


    In short, there are a lot of ways for Apple to keep the performance of the 3GS constant while lowering costs a lot. And it's still a perfectly good phone for a lot of users. And they get to add more customers to the ecosystem, who might buy higher margin products in the future. Makes perfect sense to keep selling it. 

  • Reply 43 of 75


    This is actually brilliant - they extend the product life while bringing more users into the family.  Those users will upgrade in the future as well.  Don't assume the margin is much less either.  As production volume increases and parts get consolidated to fewer chips, costs will continue to go down.  The increase in market share is a bonus.  The change in average margin irrelevant.  Its a boost to gross profit.  A year ago i was anti - Apple.  Got an iPad as a gift, so we bought the phone.  Now we'll upgrade to the "5" and pass the 4s to the missus.   Am I switching back   to a Windows phone or Android now? Not likely unless there's a real technological breakthrough.   Only caveat - with the 5 the product is mature.  Further personal upgrades will be less frequent in all likelihood.

  • Reply 44 of 75
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    Apple will make a profit... if they cut prices.. they cut costs by a proportional amount.

    The unsubsidized full retail price of a 3GS is $375. I doubt they'll be able to shave off $175 in production costs.
  • Reply 45 of 75


    Hey blastdoor.  Sorry, didn't see ur post - could saved the time. good thinking...

  • Reply 46 of 75
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    Originally Posted by Willy05 View Post

    Only caveat - with the 5 the product is mature.  Further personal upgrades will be less frequent in all likelihood.


     


    They've only just begun.

  • Reply 47 of 75


    It is possible to reach $130 in parts cost, but I doubt they will sell it for $200.  They most probably would start at $299 or at the lowest $249 giving them a much higher margin.


     


    They would probably do this with a phone that looked much like a 3gs (glass on only one side, plastic back) but with the A5 (32nm) and a 5mp camera.  They might add a front facing camera if budget allows but it probably would not be able to.

  • Reply 48 of 75
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    jmgregory1 wrote: »
    Yep.  Anyone who thinks Apple needs to make trashy, throw--away phones to compete with the trashy throw-away Android phones has completely misunderstood who Apple is and what value they bring to the equation.

    Who says that Apple would sell a trashy, throw-away phone?

    We're talking about keeping an older phone around slightly longer in order to go after the low priced market. The iPhone 3GS, for example, was a state of the art, high quality phone at one time. If they sold it today at a lower price, it would still be a high quality phone, albeit somewhat obsolete.

    For people who don't need all the latest features, it might be a very good solution. Or even the iPhone 4.
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    The unsubsidized full retail price of a 3GS is $375. I doubt they'll be able to shave off $175 in production costs.

    Take an economics course. Apple doesn't need to shave costs by anywhere near $175.

    Current retail price is $375. On analyst indicates that average gross margins on Apple phones is 60%.
    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/02/what-doth-it-profit-an-iphone/
    That means that the manufacturing cost is 40% of $375 or $150. They could sell it at $200 and still make 25% gross margin. But let's say that they're willing to accept a margin of 50% in order to go after high volume markets overseas and domestically. They only need to reduce the manufacturing cost by $50 in order to get a 50% margin on a $200 sale. Given that all of their tooling, design costs, and overheads have been totally absorbed and that the components in the 3GS and 4 are a couple of generations old, it's not hard to imagine a 33% reduction in manufacturing costs.

    Even if the numbers vary from the above, the amount of cost savings needed is not all that great.
  • Reply 49 of 75

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


     


    But that's the thing...I wouldn't characterize it as any kind of iOS fork. iPod nano is not iOS in any way. It has the veneer of iOS-ness, that's it. They did this to bring iOS mojo to iPod nano without actually cramming iOS into that device. I'm suggesting the same possibility for an possible iPhone nano.


     


     


    If only it were that simple and easy. Sadly* these other companies also think about profits, not just revenue. Were it as easy as you suggest, it would have been done.


     


    *Sadly for your theory, but happily because unprofitable companies have a nasty habit of going away fairly quickly.



    first off, you wouldn't, but developers around the world would.  An iPhone is a 'computer that makes calls'  If it can't do what the 2012 iPhone 4s[++] can do, it's not a 'true' iOS device (marrying great HW with great SW for amazingly useful functionality for a 'reasonable' price)


     


    It was a step up from the previous 'nano'  == improvement


     


    I can't see apple creating a brand (iphone) then creating a device (iPhone nano) that doesn't do what all iPhones do, or requires them to bifurcate their message  (you got 2 choices... ).  No... simple message...


     


     


    Secondly, You're assuming these companies are just breaking even on a 'X year old' technology.  Apple spends top dollar to get their capacity year 1 (and block all others from that capacity).  Year 2, they renegotiate, year 3, the same, because there is no startup costs, there is scaling efficiencies, and most of all, there is competition (supply from other companies who now make the same thing because the original supplier was overbooked by Apple Year 1).


     


    Apple won't demand a company go out of business to satisfy them, but Tim is magical in cutting his supply chain cost.    I agree there is a limit of how low they can go, but in 2 years, component costs should drop by  more than 150% (moore's law).    


     


    It's not 'sad', it's 'business'.

  • Reply 50 of 75
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    first off, you wouldn't, but developers around the world would.  An iPhone is a 'computer that makes calls'  If it can't do what the 2012 iPhone 4s[++] can do, it's not a 'true' iOS device (marrying great HW with great SW for amazingly useful functionality for a 'reasonable' price)



     


    But I'm not claiming it would be an iOS device at all. You seem to be missing this point.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    I can't see apple creating a brand (iphone) then creating a device (iPhone nano) that doesn't do what all iPhones do, or requires them to bifurcate their message  (you got 2 choices... ).  No... simple message...



     


    Maybe they won't. Maybe they will. Even if you can't imagine it, I can.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    Secondly, You're assuming these companies are just breaking even on a 'X year old' technology.



     


    No I'm not.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    Apple won't demand a company go out of business to satisfy them, but Tim is magical in cutting his supply chain cost.



     


    What you call magical isn't.


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    I agree there is a limit of how low they can go, but in 2 years, component costs should drop by  more than 150% (moore's law).



     


    Except that not every component in the product is riding a Moore's Law cost curve. :sigh:


     


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    It's not 'sad', it's 'business'.



     


    I was being facetious. :rolleyes:

  • Reply 51 of 75

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    The unsubsidized full retail price of a 3GS is $375. I doubt they'll be able to shave off $175 in production costs.


    what jragosta said.


     


    key word... full retail.   


     


    and one more thing... meeting market demand.


     


    If you figure that the contract was the gating factor "I can't spend $3000 over 2 years on a phone, but I am willing to spend $200 up front, and $50 a month, the months you need a cell phone."


     


    Assume that is say 250Million people saying that around the world. 100Million are going to buy a month-to-month smartphone next year.


     


    you're currently selling 5 million phones a year at $375, with a net profit 40% . (profit: 750M a year)


     


    you drop cost to $200 (and production costs drops to 120), and sacrifice some markup to get 30% net margin (60/phone)


     


    you get currently get ~20% of the general  smart phone market... so assume 25%of this market (and only this market) because now your competing on equal terms with those cheap android phones.


     


    So... now you are selling 25MILLION phones at 60 profit = 1.5Billion in profit 


     


    You doubled your annual profit on the Same SKU.


     


    More importantly, You've   C*ckBlocked Android at this entry level, and these users are likely very entry level  (first apple product, save for an iPod)


     


    You've increased the number of Apple iCloud users


    You've increased the number of App Store buyers


    You've increase the value of your 'network'   (for app developers, for analysts, for other users)


     


    This is why you need to keep your pricing umbrella low.

  • Reply 52 of 75

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    I would buy one - even if it's a 3GS. My daughter has been asking to get an iPhone to replace her POS Android phone. I'd pay $200, but not $400 or more.


    They are not that bad. I have an xperia mini next to a fleet of Apple products and when roaming abroad it's always the xperia who gets the foreign sim, for the very simple reason that tethering has never been an issue and google maps is just fine whereever you go.

  • Reply 53 of 75

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


     


    But I'm not claiming it would be an iOS device at all. You seem to be missing this point.


     



    and I'm claiming it is.  


     


    Anything with the iPhone branding will


      make calls


      runs iOS.


      runs iOS apps built for an iPhone.


     


     


    Apple's brand discipline (say 'no' more often than not) demands this.

  • Reply 54 of 75
    mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff View Post


    and I'm claiming it is.  


     


    Anything with the iPhone branding will


      make calls


      runs iOS.


      runs iOS apps built for an iPhone.


     


     


    Apple's brand discipline (say 'no' more often than not) demands this.



     


    So we disagree on what options Apple might consider and how flexible that brand definition is. OK.

  • Reply 55 of 75
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Who says that Apple would sell a trashy, throw-away phone?
    We're talking about keeping an older phone around slightly longer in order to go after the low priced market. The iPhone 3GS, for example, was a state of the art, high quality phone at one time. If they sold it today at a lower price, it would still be a high quality phone, albeit somewhat obsolete.
    For people who don't need all the latest features, it might be a very good solution. Or even the iPhone 4.
    Take an economics course. Apple doesn't need to shave costs by anywhere near $175.
    Current retail price is $375. On analyst indicates that average gross margins on Apple phones is 60%.
    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/02/what-doth-it-profit-an-iphone/
    That means that the manufacturing cost is 40% of $375 or $150. They could sell it at $200 and still make 25% gross margin. But let's say that they're willing to accept a margin of 50% in order to go after high volume markets overseas and domestically. They only need to reduce the manufacturing cost by $50 in order to get a 50% margin on a $200 sale. Given that all of their tooling, design costs, and overheads have been totally absorbed and that the components in the 3GS and 4 are a couple of generations old, it's not hard to imagine a 33% reduction in manufacturing costs.
    Even if the numbers vary from the above, the amount of cost savings needed is not all that great.

    That 60% profit margin was on the higher capacity iPhone 4s not the 3GS, they're current profit margin on the 3GS is probably at 25% now. So at the current retail price of $375, the cost is $200 with a 47% profit margin.
  • Reply 56 of 75
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    That 60% profit margin was on the higher capacity iPhone 4s not the 3GS, they're current profit margin on the 3GS is probably at 25% now. So at the current retail price of $375, the cost is $200 with a 47% profit margin.

    Really? Then please explain how it is that the chart in the article I provided estimated a 57.8% gross margin in 2009 - which was before the iPhone 4 was even introduced? And where in the world did you come up with your imagined 25% figure? I don't believe Apple has EVER sold a major product line at 25% gross margin - certainly not in the past decade or so.

    You really should stop just making things up.
  • Reply 57 of 75
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    jragosta wrote: »
    Really? Then please explain how it is that the chart in the article I provided estimated a 57.8% gross margin in 2009 - which was before the iPhone 4 was even introduced? And where in the world did you come up with your imagined 25% figure? I don't believe Apple has EVER sold a major product line at 25% gross margin - certainly not in the past decade or so.
    You really should stop just making things up.

    And I qoute from your previous post "They could sell it at $200 and still make 25% gross margin", so who's making it up? Show me where it says 2009 anywhere on that chart.
  • Reply 58 of 75
    misamisa Posts: 827member
    applegreen wrote: »
    There is a big market for a "messaging" Apple phone.  No data plan required.  The carriers here in the U.S. are colluding (I'm looking at you, AT&T and Verizon !!) to raise prices via these ridiculous "shared data" plans.  Have you seen their current offerings of messaging phones?  A bunch of crappy phones.  The selection used to be better.  The carriers want everyone, including kids on family plans, to move to smartphones, so they can increase what each family pays per month.  And, they have increased their upgrade fees substantially to discourage people from upgrading frequently.  They are also making a lot of noise about how much they would like to get rid of subsidies.

    In two to three years, we just may see the end of subsidies.  I am sure Apple has considered that this might happen.  In fact, they might take steps to accelerate this turn of events.  One thing they can do is offer a messaging phone with Wi-Fi but no 3G/4G.  With iMessage, no texting plan required.  Children are the heavy texters.  If all their friends have an Apple phone, why would anybody need a texting plan?  This phone would also be perfect for emerging markets.  In the U.S., smaller carriers may have a shot at eroding the duopoly of AT&T and Verizon.

    It baffles me why people think that every place has WiFi. Sure, not all iPad's need 3G/4G if the devices are only ever used at home (or at work), that doesn't help a whole lot in the while on foot, car, train, ferry, cruise ship or airplane.

    It really depends on what people use it for. An iPad mini or iPod Touch with only 3G/4G is likely targeting the music/book segment. But as a messaging/blogging/news capture tool, without the 3G/4G radio, this is a failure.

    What needs to happen, which we won't see for 20 years, is the patents on the 3G/4G radios to all expire (the 3G networks will be shut down long before this happens) before devices will be affordable. Almost 1/4 of a cost of a iPhone, and iPad goes into the radio equipment. At some point every device will come with all "current" generation radios, that you just add a sim card to. But at the current rate we're going we go through another "G" every 5 years, so the existing patents aren't going to expire until we're on 8G.

    I'm actually surprised there isn't a standard 802.11 series "anonymous use AP isolation" mode that would allow any access point to be used by any 802.11 device in this mode, without having to negotiate a billing plan or ToS screen first.
  • Reply 59 of 75
    garamondgaramond Posts: 109member


    Shut up and take my money!

  • Reply 60 of 75
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    And I qoute from your previous post "They could sell it at $200 and still make 25% gross margin", so who's making it up? Show me where it says 2009 anywhere on that chart.

    I never said they should sell it at 25%. I said that based on historic numbers, they COULD if they wished. Furthermore, I said that the margin would be 25% if they lowered the price to $200. There's absolutely nothing in anything I said or any published information that says that the CURRENT 3GS margin is 25% - which is what you claimed in post #56.

    Besides, it's irrelevant. You're the one who claimed that the link I provided was talking about the 4S. Since it has a reference to 2009, it obviously wasn't.

    As for the chart, click on the link I provided above. Look for the table marked exhibit 1.
    http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/03/02/what-doth-it-profit-an-iphone/

    I really don't think you should be attempting to discuss finances when you can't even follow a simple hyperlink and obviously would rather pull numbers out of your rear than use realistic numbers.
Sign In or Register to comment.