Since at least 2009, to be exact. http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10314746-1.html
It really amazes me that this guy who is so consistently wrong gets any press at all.
You only have half the story.
The analysts can say that Apple will introduce a low cost phone that will hinder margins and AT THE SAME TIME say that Apple is in trouble because they don't have any new products coming. Whichever one of their stories you choose, Apple stock falls.
The same analysts who fretted that the iPad mini was too expensive while at the same time fretting about the mini cannabalizing the full size iPad and therefore bringing down margins.
Even $199 unsubsidized is out of the question. Apple would have to cut so many corners that it might as well be an Android crap-phone. That's not going to happen.
Some people keep using derisive phrases like "craptastic phone", which is strange considering that they're almost always better equipped than the original iPhone or even the 3G or 3GS.
Consider the Samsung Galaxy Mini 2, which is a popular first smartphone in many countries:
Contract free for ~ $150
3G, HSDPA
WiFi, DLNA, hotspot
320x480 screen, 3.27 inches
800 MHz Snapdragon
.5GB RAM, 4GB Flash, accepts another 32GB microSD
A-GPS
VGA videocam (no second cam)
Gorilla Glass screen
Here's a video of it:
Or the bigger screened Huawei Ascend G300, around $200:
3G HSPDA/HSUPA
480 x 800 LCD, 4"
1 GHz Cortex-A5
.5GB RAM, 4GB Flash, add 32GB microSD
5 MP camera, flash
A-GPS
These are just a couple of examples of what Apple has to compete with for sales (assuming they want to). Plus the ease of cheaply adding more storage.
You keep using phrases like "craptastic phone", which is strange considering that they're almost always better equipped than the original iPhone or even the 3G or 3GS.
I don't agree with calling it craptastic as I think that detracts for a valid argument but I don't think you can move the measure up 6 years and say something cheap qualifies as high-end or good when it's well below the state of the art. We can look at pretty much any technology driven industry to see features in the high-end trickle down to the low end. Automobiles are great examples of this.
I don't agree with calling it craptastic as I think that detracts for a valid argument but I don't think you can move the measure up 6 years and say something cheap qualifies as high-end or good when it's well below the state of the art. We can look at pretty much any technology driven industry to see features in the high-end trickle down to the low end. Automobiles are great examples of this.
Ahem. Strawman. No one claimed that under $200 phones were high end or state of the art.
I'm only pointing out that they're not "crappy", unless we want to call the first few iPhone plastic models the same thing.
I'm also trying to give everyone a feeling for what Apple has to compete with. Some presented a thought that the capability to download apps would have to be left out, for example. Or even a Gorilla Glass screen. Nope.
Ahem. Strawman. No one claimed that under $200 phones were high end or state of the art.
I'm only pointing out that they're not "crappy", unless we want to call the first few iPhone plastic models the same thing.
I didn't say that they had to be state of the art. I said you comparing technology from 6 years ago that was state of the art to technology today in order to draw some valid comparison on what is or isn't crappy. Would you take a $13 DVD player you can get from Amazon today and compare it favourably with the first DVD players with an argument of "Look, this $13 model has more options and features than the original state of the art DVD player." Of course not. You simply can't do a one-to-one breakdown of components, performance and capacities with technology over a wide divide of time.
As for what is or isn't crappy that will always be subjective. There are some things that we can look like build quality that often does stand the test of time. The original iPhone is probably better than any $200 contract-free smartphone. There has also been little movement in Lithium Polymer batteries so you can probably their overall reliability. Things like the processor used and the amount of RAM and NAND simply aren't a good measure.
I didn't say that they had to be state of the art. I said you comparing technology from 6 years ago that was state of the art to technology today in order to draw some valid comparison on what is or isn't crappy.
I'm still confused. You're saying that today, a phone like the 3GS should be considered crappy technology, because it was from a few years ago?
If so, I think I'd just call it "older" technology instead.
I'm still confused. You're saying that today, a phone like the 3GS should be considered crappy technology, because it was from a few years ago?
If so, I think I'd just call it "older" technology instead.
What's to be confused about. The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 and Huawei Ascend G300 are, comparatively, to the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III crappy phones. If these were released 6 years years ago.
Note that the Huawei Ascend G300 uses an Cortex-A5. That is cheapest and weakest ARMv7 chip available. When Apple moved to ARMv7 back in 2009 with the 3GS they started with the Cotex-A8. That is a huge technology improvement over the A5 and that was 3 years ago. That alone would make me say the Ascend G300 is a crap. Now is it crap in other words a poor value for the $200 price? That depends on completely different factors.
I'm also trying to give everyone a feeling for what Apple has to compete with. Some presented a thought that the capability to download apps would have to be left out, for example. Or even a Gorilla Glass screen. Nope.
I'm sure Apple has discussed the idea excessively because at some point the iPhone market will get saturated and they will have to let it sit because there is something new to tackle (like the PMP shift to smartphones) or they will have to move further down in their tiering. Now I don't see anything else replacing the smartphone at this time and we've already seen Apple move to the cheaper, more excessive sales tiers with the older model iPhones.
I don't think leaving out apps is on the table. If there is anything I would consider to be non-option it's getting rid of the App Store support. I can't imagine they will make any phone that doesn't fit into that hole fairly well, like they did with the iPad mini.
Gorilla Glass is a prime example of how technology moves. It was state of the art in 2007 but now it's a staple for any touchscreen device. I would not suggest any "cheap" touch-based smartphone that didn't have that.
Big mistake for Apple. People will pay a higher price for the name, build quality, and infrastructure. If this option comes to light, might as well throw the Apple name in the bargain discount bin with Android.
Big mistake for Apple. People will pay a higher price for the name, build quality, and infrastructure. If this option comes to light, might as well throw the Apple name in the bargain discount bin with Android.
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
Big mistake for Apple. People will pay a higher price for the name, build quality, and infrastructure. If this option comes to light, might as well throw the Apple name in the bargain discount bin with Android.
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
Big mistake for Apple. People will pay a higher price for the name, build quality, and infrastructure. If this option comes to light, might as well throw the Apple name in the bargain discount bin with Android.
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
Big mistake for Apple. People will pay a higher price for the name, build quality, and infrastructure. If this option comes to light, might as well throw the Apple name in the bargain discount bin with Android.
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
Big mistake for Apple. People will pay a higher price for the name, build quality, and infrastructure. If this option comes to light, might as well throw the Apple name in the bargain discount bin with Android.
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
Big mistake for Apple. People will pay a higher price for the name, build quality, and infrastructure. If this option comes to light, might as well throw the Apple name in the bargain discount bin with Android.
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
In Munster's models, the $6.5 billion in revenue a hypothetical inexpensive iPhone would add to Apple's bottom line would be about 3 percent of the company's total revenue.
...
He believes that Apple's previous entries into lower priced market segments have demonstrated a "measurable positive impact on overall revenue" for the company.
3% of total company revenue does not sound that measurable to me. $6.5b is less than 5 million regular iPhone. Apple is expected to sell over 100 million iPhones in 2013, right? 5 million is definitely within the noise of Apple's production planning for 2013.
Put the resources into making a better "normal" iPhone and surrounding platform services!
Not sure how cheap one needs to get. FREE with contract is quit cheap. Now if Apple wants to go with contract free phones, then what will the trade off be? iPhone 6 will see the iPhone 4 price at FREE with no contract and no camera/GPS?
I can see a no camera/GPS/contract "FREE" phone for $99ish when Tim smacks himself on the forehead and says "We forgot about the lowest end market! We need to provide a cheaper user experience that will reduce profit and increase support costs."
Until that day how about acknowledge that Apple is a high end product sold at a premium price.
Apple being advised to play the market share game once again. These analysts and business experts have never understood what Apple's DNA is and they never will. Yet they keep trying to pigeonhole Apple into traditional business models.
I don't agree with calling it craptastic as I think that detracts for a valid argument but I don't think you can move the measure up 6 years and say something cheap qualifies as high-end or good when it's well below the state of the art. We can look at pretty much any technology driven industry to see features in the high-end trickle down to the low end. Automobiles are great examples of this.
What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this. Who knows is they are actually going to do this to remain relevant in emerging markets.
kDarling showed the video of the SIII mini and while some of you may look down your nose at it, it a great smartphone and costs 1/4 of what an iPhone does and it adds to your arugment SolipsismX. Stuff that was great 2-3 years ago may now be 'boring' to people like us who spend time on forums dedicated to Smartphones but it's pretty darn amazing to people who have never had one and I know a lot of people who like to test the water at $150 before jumping in with $600.
If Apple doesn't come out with a more affordable phone, they will still be fine. They will always have their fans who will buy their products no matter if it's better or not. It's Apple and that is all that matters. They are not going to go away anytime soon so I don't think there are any worries except for the shareholders who don't like the price being tweaked by certain individuals.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Even $199 unsubsidized is out of the question. Apple would have to cut so many corners that it might as well be an Android crap-phone. That's not going to happen.
Some people keep using derisive phrases like "craptastic phone", which is strange considering that they're almost always better equipped than the original iPhone or even the 3G or 3GS.
Consider the Samsung Galaxy Mini 2, which is a popular first smartphone in many countries:
Contract free for ~ $150
3G, HSDPA
WiFi, DLNA, hotspot
320x480 screen, 3.27 inches
800 MHz Snapdragon
.5GB RAM, 4GB Flash, accepts another 32GB microSD
A-GPS
VGA videocam (no second cam)
Gorilla Glass screen
Here's a video of it:
Or the bigger screened Huawei Ascend G300, around $200:
3G HSPDA/HSUPA
480 x 800 LCD, 4"
1 GHz Cortex-A5
.5GB RAM, 4GB Flash, add 32GB microSD
5 MP camera, flash
A-GPS
These are just a couple of examples of what Apple has to compete with for sales (assuming they want to). Plus the ease of cheaply adding more storage.
I don't agree with calling it craptastic as I think that detracts for a valid argument but I don't think you can move the measure up 6 years and say something cheap qualifies as high-end or good when it's well below the state of the art. We can look at pretty much any technology driven industry to see features in the high-end trickle down to the low end. Automobiles are great examples of this.
I found Munster's low cost iPhone
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't agree with calling it craptastic as I think that detracts for a valid argument but I don't think you can move the measure up 6 years and say something cheap qualifies as high-end or good when it's well below the state of the art. We can look at pretty much any technology driven industry to see features in the high-end trickle down to the low end. Automobiles are great examples of this.
Ahem. Strawman. No one claimed that under $200 phones were high end or state of the art.
I'm only pointing out that they're not "crappy", unless we want to call the first few iPhone plastic models the same thing.
I'm also trying to give everyone a feeling for what Apple has to compete with. Some presented a thought that the capability to download apps would have to be left out, for example. Or even a Gorilla Glass screen. Nope.
I didn't say that they had to be state of the art. I said you comparing technology from 6 years ago that was state of the art to technology today in order to draw some valid comparison on what is or isn't crappy. Would you take a $13 DVD player you can get from Amazon today and compare it favourably with the first DVD players with an argument of "Look, this $13 model has more options and features than the original state of the art DVD player." Of course not. You simply can't do a one-to-one breakdown of components, performance and capacities with technology over a wide divide of time.
As for what is or isn't crappy that will always be subjective. There are some things that we can look like build quality that often does stand the test of time. The original iPhone is probably better than any $200 contract-free smartphone. There has also been little movement in Lithium Polymer batteries so you can probably their overall reliability. Things like the processor used and the amount of RAM and NAND simply aren't a good measure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I didn't say that they had to be state of the art. I said you comparing technology from 6 years ago that was state of the art to technology today in order to draw some valid comparison on what is or isn't crappy.
I'm still confused. You're saying that today, a phone like the 3GS should be considered crappy technology, because it was from a few years ago?
If so, I think I'd just call it "older" technology instead.
What's to be confused about. The Samsung Galaxy Mini 2 and Huawei Ascend G300 are, comparatively, to the iPhone 5 and Galaxy S III crappy phones. If these were released 6 years years ago.
Note that the Huawei Ascend G300 uses an Cortex-A5. That is cheapest and weakest ARMv7 chip available. When Apple moved to ARMv7 back in 2009 with the 3GS they started with the Cotex-A8. That is a huge technology improvement over the A5 and that was 3 years ago. That alone would make me say the Ascend G300 is a crap. Now is it crap in other words a poor value for the $200 price? That depends on completely different factors.
I'm sure Apple has discussed the idea excessively because at some point the iPhone market will get saturated and they will have to let it sit because there is something new to tackle (like the PMP shift to smartphones) or they will have to move further down in their tiering. Now I don't see anything else replacing the smartphone at this time and we've already seen Apple move to the cheaper, more excessive sales tiers with the older model iPhones.
I don't think leaving out apps is on the table. If there is anything I would consider to be non-option it's getting rid of the App Store support. I can't imagine they will make any phone that doesn't fit into that hole fairly well, like they did with the iPad mini.
Gorilla Glass is a prime example of how technology moves. It was state of the art in 2007 but now it's a staple for any touchscreen device. I would not suggest any "cheap" touch-based smartphone that didn't have that.
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
I expect the same to be true if the iPhone Mini
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
I expect the same to be true if the iPhone Mini
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
I expect the same to be true if the iPhone Mini
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
I expect the same to be true if the iPhone Mini
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
I expect the same to be true if the iPhone Mini
I think like the iPad mini Apple will make this low cost phone high end with a high build quality.
They'll probably price it higher than the competition and still succeed. The iPad Mini is selling amazingly in China and it cost quite a but more than its competition.
I expect the same to be true if the iPhone Mini
Quote:
In Munster's models, the $6.5 billion in revenue a hypothetical inexpensive iPhone would add to Apple's bottom line would be about 3 percent of the company's total revenue.
...
He believes that Apple's previous entries into lower priced market segments have demonstrated a "measurable positive impact on overall revenue" for the company.
3% of total company revenue does not sound that measurable to me. $6.5b is less than 5 million regular iPhone. Apple is expected to sell over 100 million iPhones in 2013, right? 5 million is definitely within the noise of Apple's production planning for 2013.
Put the resources into making a better "normal" iPhone and surrounding platform services!
I can see a no camera/GPS/contract "FREE" phone for $99ish when Tim smacks himself on the forehead and says "We forgot about the lowest end market! We need to provide a cheaper user experience that will reduce profit and increase support costs."
Until that day how about acknowledge that Apple is a high end product sold at a premium price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't agree with calling it craptastic as I think that detracts for a valid argument but I don't think you can move the measure up 6 years and say something cheap qualifies as high-end or good when it's well below the state of the art. We can look at pretty much any technology driven industry to see features in the high-end trickle down to the low end. Automobiles are great examples of this.
What people are upset with is that a brand that they consider to be top quality will now be a range of products considered 'average' to 'great' and I think some people are having a hard time accepting that Apple needs to do this. Who knows is they are actually going to do this to remain relevant in emerging markets.
kDarling showed the video of the SIII mini and while some of you may look down your nose at it, it a great smartphone and costs 1/4 of what an iPhone does and it adds to your arugment SolipsismX. Stuff that was great 2-3 years ago may now be 'boring' to people like us who spend time on forums dedicated to Smartphones but it's pretty darn amazing to people who have never had one and I know a lot of people who like to test the water at $150 before jumping in with $600.
If Apple doesn't come out with a more affordable phone, they will still be fine. They will always have their fans who will buy their products no matter if it's better or not. It's Apple and that is all that matters. They are not going to go away anytime soon so I don't think there are any worries except for the shareholders who don't like the price being tweaked by certain individuals.