The problem is these aren't things that are new. Cheap, simple phones were popular long before the iPhone and the iPods reached their peak in 2009. It's not good enough to say "Apple has the ability" or "There is a market for it" you have to make a case that this would be a very profitable move for Apple to make, not just one that it could push a lot of units, be cool if they did so, note that others are doing it, or that they wouldn't lose money if they did it. Apple's growth has been very structured and controlled. If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device that HP, Dell, LG, Nokia, etc. typically do then one needs to make a case that makes it belivable to pull Apple out of their well worn modus operandi, which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device or create a separate App Store for this device.
Yes I agree, there as many potential concerns as there are advantages to bringing the nano phone to market. And as I complained about before, the last thing we need is increased fragmentation of Apple's mobile OS (app store/platform/strategy).
Apple will have to determine whether or not the nano phone will add enough to the addiction of the mobile platform (can you say "crack cocaine"?). If not, we won't see a nano phone. Because even in small amounts, dealers have a profit line to protect. Obviously, Apple doesn't and won't give freebies...leaving those dregs to the bottom feeders. Sorry for the drug reference.
Now that's what I'm talking about. That's a through argument. It's not helpful when you're called a dismissive asshole because someone else expects you to create their vision for you.
I've stated 1 and 2 elsewhere. They aren't a case. They are simple assertions. The obvious counter argument for #1 is that the market for feature/messaging phones is very price sensitive and the quality feature phone niche too small to be very profitable. #2 is predicated on #1 being true. #3 is offset by his observations that the "it just works" ecosystem is slipping.
Three debatable assertions are a "through argument"?
The funniest thing is that piot offers more than dreweys and you take him to task over as "not being good enough" when he provides actual points as opposed to opinion and then twisted his position to be "a high volume, low profit" when he clearly writes "Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever".
In what way is the most expensive feature phone idea anywhere close to the high volume, low profit strawman?
/shrug
This is simply another example of the behavior I find tiresome.
I've stated 1 and 2 elsewhere. They aren't a case. They are simple assertions. The obvious counter argument for #1 is that the market for feature/messaging phones is very price sensitive and the quality feature phone niche too small to be very profitable. #2 is predicated on #1 being true. #3 is offset by his observations that the "it just works" ecosystem is slipping.
Three debatable assertions are a "through argument"?
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">The funniest thing is that piot offers more than dreweys and you take him to task over as "not being good enough" when he provides actual points as opposed to opinion and then twisted his position to be "a high volume, low profit" when he clearly writes "Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever".</p>
<p style="margin-top:0px;margin-right:0px;margin-bottom:0px;margin-left:0px;padding-top:0px;padding-right:0px;padding-bottom:0px;padding-left:0px;">In what way is the most expensive feature phone idea anywhere close to the high volume, low profit strawman?</p>
/shrug
This is simply another example of the behavior I find tiresome.
1) We've all stated these cases many times but yours were not well done IMO. I don't understand why you think a halfassed argument from you should be taken as canon. If you have a case then make it but don't complain that others are dismissive assholes because you failed to make a viable case.
2) Case - an instance of a particular situation; an example of something occurring. Any scenario where you think a company should, would, or could do something based on a set of circumstances is your case.
3) Being an assertion doesn't preclude it from being a thorough argument. It's all debatable.
4) Being more verbose doesn't mean you've thought it through more.
5) Most expensive feature phone ever doesn't mean it's not low profit. You wanting some device that excluding the App Store and is a simply feature phone is making this a low profit device compared with the iPhone. That is not the same as a low margin phone but it's still low profit per unit.
6) I find it tiresome that people focus on one singular desire that they ignore all other hurdles, issues, and corporate philosophies so they can shoehorn a weak concept into some a winning idea. Having ability to do something is not proper reasoning for expecting them to do it.
The funniest thing is that piot offers more than dreweys and you take him to task over as "not being good enough" when he provides actual points as opposed to opinion and then twisted his position to be "a high volume, low profit" when he clearly writes "Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever".
Don't drag me into this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
This is simply another example of the behavior I find tiresome.
I sometimes feel the same, but posting and then complaining about it only makes you look like a drive-by shooter. Fight back with empathetic logic. It's worth it.
Yeah, they're either buying iPod touches or buying iPhones. The existing models.
iPods in general are in decline. That includes the touches. In any case, his statement remains true.
Quote:
So why should Apple enter the stupidphone market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
Restating your position is not a rebuttal. You can say this about every market that Apple has ever entered:
So why should Apple enter the MP3 market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
So why should Apple enter the video iPod market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
So why should Apple enter the phone market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
He is clearly stating that there is volume and profits to be made in the featurephone/messaging phone market. You have not shown in any way that this is a false point.
Quote:
Answers itself.
Except it doesn't. Using your same argument, because the Nokia Lumia only has moderate success Apple should not be in the smartphone market either.
It should not be a point of contention on an Apple fan site that Apple can execute better than Nokia can. If Nokia can manage moderate success it should not be a hard sell that Apple could do better.
Quote:
And that same research shows iPhones being used in a smart way. Smart makes Apple (and third parties) more money.
Which doesn't disprove that a well designed feature phone could not be priced the same as a low end smartphone and still sell well. The fact that a feature phone costs a lot less to make means the margins on an iPhone Nano will not be anemic like low end smartphones.
This is the same model that Apple successfully used against netbooks. A high quality, far more focused product over a low quality more general product. On paper a netbook can do everything a laptop can. In practice the iPad is far better in the narrow feature set it addresses.
Likewise a very focused iPhone Nano feature phone could more efficiently and elegantly do the large majority of tasks done with a low end Android smartphone without requiring a data plan.
Quote:
Exactly, so why should Apple snub their developers by making a phone that can't run their apps?
A PixoOS SDK exists. It is possible that Apple could allow general app development for a PixoOS based iPhone Nano. Or they might keep it limited to specific 3rd party developers.
You can say this about every market that Apple has ever entered:
Except they did all these things you're pretending they didn't do.
He is clearly stating that there is volume and profits to be made in the featurephone/messaging phone market.
There's value and profit to be made in the textiles market. Guess Apple's gonna make a line of mock turtlenecks.
If Nokia can manage moderate success it should not be a hard sell that Apple could do better.
They already are. With the iPhone.
Which doesn't disprove that a well designed feature phone could not be priced the same as a low end smartphone and still sell well.
See many $99 flip phones these days? No? Huh. How about that.
A high quality, far more focused product over a low quality more general product.
High quality, far more general product over a low quality, more focused product. The MacBook Air can do things netbooks can't even dream, and it does it better.
Likewise a very focused iPhone Nano feature phone could more efficiently and elegantly do the large majority of tasks done with a low end Android smartphone without requiring a data plan.
So no app environment, making it desirable to what facet of Apple's audience? No data plan, so iCloud and Siri lose functionality…
A PixoOS SDK exists. It is possible that Apple could allow general app development for a PixoOS based iPhone Nano.
I can't find any information about what this is anywhere. Why would they use anything but their own software?
1) We've all stated these cases many times but yours were not well done IMO. I don't understand why you think a halfassed argument from you should be taken as canon. If you have a case then make it but don't complain that others are dismissive assholes because you failed to make a viable case.
Strawman. I never asked it should be taken as canon.
Quote:
2) Case - an instance of a particular situation; an example of something occurring. Any scenario where you think a company should, would, or could do something based on a set of circumstances is your case.
Been there, done that but this still isn't a "case". Just a more wordy opinion.
Quote:
3) Being an assertion doesn't preclude it from being a thorough argument. It's all debatable.
By definition it does: "apositivestatementordeclaration,oftenwithoutsupport or reason"
Simply stating that there is a market for quality feature phones isn't an argument. It is a premise that he hopes you accept.
Quote:
4) Being more verbose doesn't mean you've thought it through more.
Exactly. Neither does shouting or endlessly saying the same thing over and over.
Quote:
5) Most expensive feature phone ever doesn't mean it's not low profit. You wanting some device that excluding the App Store and is a simply feature phone is making this a low profit device compared with the iPhone. That is not the same as a low margin phone but it's still low profit per unit.
LOL...really, that's your justification? Of course the profit is lower on a $200-$300 phone than on a $650 one. That doesn't make it "low profit" any more than the iMac makes the Mac Mini "low profit".
If little to no cannibalization occurs then the profit difference between the smart iPhone and the feature iPhone Nano is unimportant because it addresses a completely different market. A market that is of some strategic importance.
Quote:
6) I find it tiresome that people focus on one singular desire that they ignore all other hurdles, issues, and corporate philosophies so they can shoehorn a weak concept into some a winning idea. Having ability to do something is not proper reasoning for expecting them to do it.
Again strawman. First, I don't EXPECT them to do it. I believe it is PLAUSIBLE that they do it.
Several examples of how a feature phone iPhone Nano fits into corporate philosophy has been provided multiple times by multiple posters. The most obvious is the iPod product line that has a range of products, form factors and prices.
Another obvious example is Apple using the iPad to address the netbook market vs releasing a cheap notebook. A rich messaging phone is the same kind of solution to the cheap smartphone.
And of course the iPad product line has also been diversified to have a high/low product mix of different sizes. Many if not all the arguments advanced against a iPhone Nano were advanced against the iPad Mini and yet that product is here.
Simply asserting that it is weak does not make it so.
Simply asserting that it is against Apple corporate philosophy does not make it so.
Simply asserting that there are some vague insurmountable hurdles or issues (which you have failed to provide) does not make it so.
You are free to hold these opinions and they are quite possibly correct but in no way does that mean that the opinion that a iPhone nano can be released in 2013 is in any way less valid or less supported than your own.
Strawman. I never asked it should be taken as canon.
You did when you complained that people opined against your case.
So your magical device is high volume low cost high profit and yet you still have no justification as to why Apple would do this now after 6 years when everything you've mentioned has existed long before the iPhone (they even had the Pixo OS then), why not a larger iPhone first for the markets that are eating up those high priced devices, and why you know what Apple doesn't. All I see is a wishful thinking with no solid foundation for a reasonable product. You could your case work for the JooJoo and we all know what happened to that piece of crap.
See many $99 flip phones these days? No? Huh. How about that.
There are feature phones the MSRP from $200 to $280. They get discounted pretty fast and start subsidized down to the $80 level on contract.
Go look on Verizon, pick "basic phones" and then switch to "month to month" and you'll see several phones shoot up to $200+. Samsung and LG have a couple that MSRP above $200.
Quote:
So no app environment, making it desirable to what facet of Apple's audience? No data plan, so iCloud and Siri lose functionality…
The audience that likes the Apple ecosystem (iMessage, iTunes, etc) but don't want to pay $50 a month for a data plan.
As for Siri:
"If you use Siri 2-3 times per day at an average of 63KB per instance, you might expect to use 126KB to 189KB per day, or 3.7 to 5.5MB per month. For 4-6 times a day, that might come out to 252KB to 378KB per day, or 7.4 to 11MB per month. If you use it 10-15 times per day, you might end up using 630KB to 945KB per day, or 18.5 to 27.7MB per month."
Carrier could simply require that you have unlimited texting on your plan which probably covers such low data usage. For AT&T that's $30 for the whole family...a lot cheaper than a data plan for every kid and offsets iMessage circumventing the texting fees.
Quote:
I can't find any information about what this is anywhere. Why would they use anything but their own software?
Try searching with a space between Pixo and OS. It is the OS used by iPods since the beginning and still used on the current iPod except the iPod Touch. They bought it from Pixo so it is their own software.
"Some engineers who worked on the first iPod got scooped up by Apple, which has since taken over iPod's software development."
The SDK was never publicly released but certain 3rd party developers had it until it was discontinued on the iTunes store in 2011. I still have a couple iPod games sitting in my iTunes folder.
There's is reportedly very good OpenGL ES support in the Pixo.
It's not good enough to say "Apple has the ability" or "There is a market for it" you have to make a case that this would be a very profitable move for Apple to make, not just one that it could push a lot of units, be cool if they did so, note that others are doing it, or that they wouldn't lose money if they did it. Apple's growth has been very structured and controlled. If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device that HP, Dell, LG, Nokia, etc. typically do then one needs to make a case that makes it belivable to pull Apple out of their well worn modus operandi, which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device or create a separate App Store for this device.
I think Tim Cook and Apple might be interested in growing their business. The iPod is only heading in one way.
It would be really interesting to see a breakdown of iPod sales in more detail than just "iPod Touch accounts for about 50%". But at least with that info, we can assume that the Nano is < 50%. That could mean anywhere between maybe 10 and 15 million in 2012. And falling every year. How long before half of the iPod business is simply not worth it?
I am simply suggesting replacing/adapting a business and moving it into another market. "If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device..." Who said that? Keep the Apple margins..... and just sell comfortably more units than an iPod Nano. That's why I mentioned Asha. Already selling in higher numbers than the Nano.
Quote:
.....which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device
"If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device..." Who said that? Keep the Apple margins.....
Low profit doesn't mean low profit margin. If you sell a phone that ranges from $650 to $850 and another that is $200 (iPod Nano price + $50 for cellular radios) you will make less money per device.
No App Store. No iPhone cannibalization.
Simples!
There will always be cannibalization. When you introduce a product with a subset of another products features.
These scenarios are never simple. Even to suggest that it's simply shows that it hasn't been ripped apart and laid bare. I am certain Apple has done this many times over many years to determine if such a device would be the right move for them. The only thing here that's simple is that its complex.
PS: If no App Store then no apps. Users would be forced to use web apps which are often inferior, even to Android apps. For $200 in many countries you can get an Android-based phone that allows apps. Why completely ignore a low-cost 3.5" touchscreen or an App Store for 2.5" (or other sized) device?
The audience that likes the Apple ecosystem (iMessage, iTunes, etc) but don't want to pay $50 a month for a data plan.
So you're saying it's a phone for me?
I refuse to sacrifice apps just to not have to pay a data plan. And since some countries already allow iPhone purchases without data, is this really Apple's problem?
As for Siri:
"If you use Siri 2-3 times per day at an average of 63KB per instance, you might expect to use 126KB to 189KB per day, or 3.7 to 5.5MB per month. For 4-6 times a day, that might come out to 252KB to 378KB per day, or 7.4 to 11MB per month. If you use it 10-15 times per day, you might end up using 630KB to 945KB per day, or 18.5 to 27.7MB per month."
And if I don't have a data plan, I can't use it at all. How about that.
Carrier could simply require that you have unlimited texting…
See, I don't want this. So I still wouldn't buy one. What's the point of having iMessage on the device (because that was one of the apps on the gimped thing that was mentioned to remain) if I'm forced to pay for texting? That question can also be asked the other way.
Try searching with a space between Pixo and OS. It is the OS used by iPods since the beginning and still used on the current iPod except the iPod Touch. They bought it from Pixo so it is their own software.
Okay, cool. So why would developers write for a gimped, soon to be completely replaced OS, when they could just make iOS apps?
Yeah, they're either buying iPod touches or buying iPhones. The existing models.
No! They are buying music and video capable phones in the hundreds of millions. And the vast majority are not iPhones.
Quote:
So why should Apple enter the stupidphone market? Why?
Because, I believe, the "stupidphone" market is not so stupid.... and it is vastly greater than the high end ($300+) smartphone market.
Quote:
They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention, but in the last three markets that Apple entered they started at the top and worked their way down. It's better that way!
Quote:
Answers itself.
Yes. Moderate compared to iPhone sales, but already higher than iPod sales.
Quote:
And that same research shows iPhones being used in a smart way. Smart makes Apple (and third parties) more money.
Exactly, so why should Apple snub their developers by making a phone that can't run their apps?!
Over 1.5 billion people will buy a cell phone this year. It won't be an iPhone. How much will Apple and their developers make from those sales?
You did when you complained that people opined against your case.
Nope.
Quote:
So your magical device is high volume low cost high profit and yet you still have no justification as to why Apple would do this now after 6 years when everything you've mentioned has existed long before the iPhone (they even had the Pixo OS then), why not a larger iPhone first for the markets that are eating up those high priced devices, and why you know what Apple doesn't. All I see is a wishful thinking with no solid foundation for a reasonable product. You could your case work for the JooJoo and we all know what happened to that piece of crap.
High volume low cost high profit are all vague.
A $199 iPhone Nano that makes more profit than the iPod Touch is what in your scale? Given that the 6th gen iPod Nano BOM was in the $43 range. Lets double it to $80 and that still less than the estimated BOM for the 4th gen iPod Touch. Given the much smaller touch screen, the vastly cheaper CPU, 3G vs LTE radio and so forth around an $80 isn't an unreasonable expectation.
Is the iPod Touch low profit in your mind?
Justification? Saturation of the US Smartphone market (80%) expected in 2014.
You might argue that entry into the feature phone market to be counter intuitive given this scenario and I would agree. Counter intuitive doesn't mean wrong though. It just means zigging when everyone else is zagging.
Thus far Apple and Android hasn't REALLY gone head to head. They've both been snarfing up Nokia, RIM and feature phones users. The low hanging fruit is running out and that IS different from six years ago.
In any case, there are multiple official statements from Apple that the pre-paid market is of great interest to Apple. One not very well addressed by year old iPhone models. There's as much justification for a high end feature phone as some new TV related product.
Plausible but far from certain. Apple has many irons in the fire and only so much focus available.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention, but in the last three markets that Apple entered they started at the top and worked their way down. It's better that way!
Sure, and they've done it with the iPhone, too. They have 3 generations ranging from $450 to $850. What you want something substantially less expensive and yet a new design from the ground up which implies additional costs as well no ecosystem lock-in to keep it tied to the App Store. That makes it seem harder for Apple to swallow than simply offering another, older generation iPhone that's less expensive.
Over 1.5 billion people will buy a cell phone this year. It won't be an iPhone. How much will Apple and their developers make from those sales?
Why so many fallacious arguments in this thread? Do you think Apple cares more about the number of people buying phones and how many "activations" Android makes or how much profit they make from the handset market? With a 75% take and no product to compete with the barrel scraping anything I'm going with the latter.
Again, it's possible but I think the most likely avenue is to strengthen their iOS ecosystem not chip away at it. I also think getting in with China Mobile with a proper iPhone is more profitable and therefore more important than the low-cost options presented in this thread. Note: No one has done a cost analysis of this iPhone nano and yet you're all so sure of it.
PS: Why do so many of you choose to use HTML markup instead of BB code? You know you can add HTML in the other editor anytime you'd like, right?
PS: If no App Store then no apps. Users would be forced to use web apps which are often inferior, even to Android apps. For $200 in many countries you can get an Android-based phone that allows apps. Why completely ignore a low-cost 3.5" touchscreen or an App Store for 2.5" (or other sized) device?
An app store is possible but neither the current Nano nor the aTV support apps. It is also a point of differentiation to segment the two products to reduce cannibalization. Kinda like not providing a GPU option in the Mac Mini.
The advantage of no general app store comes in having very tailored apps that run VERY well on the limited Nano class CPU as opposed to a bunch of apps that run poorly. That is the problem with $200 Android smartphones.
A $199 iPhone Nano that makes more profit than the iPod Touch is what in your scale? Given that the 6th gen iPod Nano BOM was in the $43 range. Lets double it to $80 and that still less than the estimated BOM for the 4th gen iPod Touch. Given the much smaller touch screen, the vastly cheaper CPU, 3G vs LTE radio and so forth around an $80 isn't an unreasonable expectation.
You're using an iSuppli BOM to make a case for imaginary product's profitability. :sigh: I give up. :no:
Low profit doesn't mean low profit margin. If you sell a phone that ranges from $650 to $850 and another that is $200 (iPod Nano price + $50 for cellular radios) you will make less money per device.
Exactly.
The iPad mini is a perfect example. Because of its lower build cost, it has a higher estimated gross profit margin (40%) than the larger iPad (37%), although it makes less money (~$130 vs ~$200) per device.
(When people pay the ridiculous memory upgrade prices that Apple charges, the profit margins skyrocket into the high 50s on both.)
Over 1.5 billion people will buy a cell phone this year.
How's that possible?
How much will Apple and their developers make from those sales?
Well, the developers aren't losing anything from phones that can't even run apps. And Apple's making 75% of the profits in the industry with only 15% of the sales, so…
Originally Posted by nht
Thus far Apple and Android hasn't REALLY gone head to head.
… Really.
…the pre-paid market is of great interest to Apple. One not very well addressed by year old iPhone models.
The world isn't the US. Plenty of places already do this. It has nothing to do with Apple.
Gartner as 419 million phones solid in 1Q2012. That's almost 1.7 billion for the year all thing being equal. Even with a decline as people move from less disposable phones 1.5 billion is quite reasonable.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The problem is these aren't things that are new. Cheap, simple phones were popular long before the iPhone and the iPods reached their peak in 2009. It's not good enough to say "Apple has the ability" or "There is a market for it" you have to make a case that this would be a very profitable move for Apple to make, not just one that it could push a lot of units, be cool if they did so, note that others are doing it, or that they wouldn't lose money if they did it. Apple's growth has been very structured and controlled. If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device that HP, Dell, LG, Nokia, etc. typically do then one needs to make a case that makes it belivable to pull Apple out of their well worn modus operandi, which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device or create a separate App Store for this device.
Yes I agree, there as many potential concerns as there are advantages to bringing the nano phone to market. And as I complained about before, the last thing we need is increased fragmentation of Apple's mobile OS (app store/platform/strategy).
Apple will have to determine whether or not the nano phone will add enough to the addiction of the mobile platform (can you say "crack cocaine"?). If not, we won't see a nano phone. Because even in small amounts, dealers have a profit line to protect. Obviously, Apple doesn't and won't give freebies...leaving those dregs to the bottom feeders. Sorry for the drug reference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Now that's what I'm talking about. That's a through argument. It's not helpful when you're called a dismissive asshole because someone else expects you to create their vision for you.
I've stated 1 and 2 elsewhere. They aren't a case. They are simple assertions. The obvious counter argument for #1 is that the market for feature/messaging phones is very price sensitive and the quality feature phone niche too small to be very profitable. #2 is predicated on #1 being true. #3 is offset by his observations that the "it just works" ecosystem is slipping.
Three debatable assertions are a "through argument"?
The funniest thing is that piot offers more than dreweys and you take him to task over as "not being good enough" when he provides actual points as opposed to opinion and then twisted his position to be "a high volume, low profit" when he clearly writes "Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever".
In what way is the most expensive feature phone idea anywhere close to the high volume, low profit strawman?
/shrug
This is simply another example of the behavior I find tiresome.
1) We've all stated these cases many times but yours were not well done IMO. I don't understand why you think a halfassed argument from you should be taken as canon. If you have a case then make it but don't complain that others are dismissive assholes because you failed to make a viable case.
2) Case - an instance of a particular situation; an example of something occurring. Any scenario where you think a company should, would, or could do something based on a set of circumstances is your case.
3) Being an assertion doesn't preclude it from being a thorough argument. It's all debatable.
4) Being more verbose doesn't mean you've thought it through more.
5) Most expensive feature phone ever doesn't mean it's not low profit. You wanting some device that excluding the App Store and is a simply feature phone is making this a low profit device compared with the iPhone. That is not the same as a low margin phone but it's still low profit per unit.
6) I find it tiresome that people focus on one singular desire that they ignore all other hurdles, issues, and corporate philosophies so they can shoehorn a weak concept into some a winning idea. Having ability to do something is not proper reasoning for expecting them to do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
The funniest thing is that piot offers more than dreweys and you take him to task over as "not being good enough" when he provides actual points as opposed to opinion and then twisted his position to be "a high volume, low profit" when he clearly writes "Apple released, the most expensive.... feature phone ever".
Don't drag me into this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
This is simply another example of the behavior I find tiresome.
I sometimes feel the same, but posting and then complaining about it only makes you look like a drive-by shooter. Fight back with empathetic logic. It's worth it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, they're either buying iPod touches or buying iPhones. The existing models.
iPods in general are in decline. That includes the touches. In any case, his statement remains true.
Quote:
So why should Apple enter the stupidphone market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
Restating your position is not a rebuttal. You can say this about every market that Apple has ever entered:
So why should Apple enter the MP3 market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
So why should Apple enter the video iPod market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
So why should Apple enter the phone market? Why? They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
He is clearly stating that there is volume and profits to be made in the featurephone/messaging phone market. You have not shown in any way that this is a false point.
Quote:
Answers itself.
Except it doesn't. Using your same argument, because the Nokia Lumia only has moderate success Apple should not be in the smartphone market either.
It should not be a point of contention on an Apple fan site that Apple can execute better than Nokia can. If Nokia can manage moderate success it should not be a hard sell that Apple could do better.
Quote:
And that same research shows iPhones being used in a smart way. Smart makes Apple (and third parties) more money.
Which doesn't disprove that a well designed feature phone could not be priced the same as a low end smartphone and still sell well. The fact that a feature phone costs a lot less to make means the margins on an iPhone Nano will not be anemic like low end smartphones.
This is the same model that Apple successfully used against netbooks. A high quality, far more focused product over a low quality more general product. On paper a netbook can do everything a laptop can. In practice the iPad is far better in the narrow feature set it addresses.
Likewise a very focused iPhone Nano feature phone could more efficiently and elegantly do the large majority of tasks done with a low end Android smartphone without requiring a data plan.
Quote:
Exactly, so why should Apple snub their developers by making a phone that can't run their apps?
A PixoOS SDK exists. It is possible that Apple could allow general app development for a PixoOS based iPhone Nano. Or they might keep it limited to specific 3rd party developers.
Originally Posted by nht
You can say this about every market that Apple has ever entered:
Except they did all these things you're pretending they didn't do.
He is clearly stating that there is volume and profits to be made in the featurephone/messaging phone market.
There's value and profit to be made in the textiles market. Guess Apple's gonna make a line of mock turtlenecks.
If Nokia can manage moderate success it should not be a hard sell that Apple could do better.
They already are. With the iPhone.
Which doesn't disprove that a well designed feature phone could not be priced the same as a low end smartphone and still sell well.
See many $99 flip phones these days? No? Huh. How about that.
A high quality, far more focused product over a low quality more general product.
High quality, far more general product over a low quality, more focused product. The MacBook Air can do things netbooks can't even dream, and it does it better.
Likewise a very focused iPhone Nano feature phone could more efficiently and elegantly do the large majority of tasks done with a low end Android smartphone without requiring a data plan.
So no app environment, making it desirable to what facet of Apple's audience? No data plan, so iCloud and Siri lose functionality…
A PixoOS SDK exists. It is possible that Apple could allow general app development for a PixoOS based iPhone Nano.
I can't find any information about what this is anywhere. Why would they use anything but their own software?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) We've all stated these cases many times but yours were not well done IMO. I don't understand why you think a halfassed argument from you should be taken as canon. If you have a case then make it but don't complain that others are dismissive assholes because you failed to make a viable case.
Strawman. I never asked it should be taken as canon.
Quote:
2) Case - an instance of a particular situation; an example of something occurring. Any scenario where you think a company should, would, or could do something based on a set of circumstances is your case.
Been there, done that but this still isn't a "case". Just a more wordy opinion.
Quote:
3) Being an assertion doesn't preclude it from being a thorough argument. It's all debatable.
By definition it does: "a positive statement or declaration, often without support or reason"
Simply stating that there is a market for quality feature phones isn't an argument. It is a premise that he hopes you accept.
Quote:
4) Being more verbose doesn't mean you've thought it through more.
Exactly. Neither does shouting or endlessly saying the same thing over and over.
Quote:
5) Most expensive feature phone ever doesn't mean it's not low profit. You wanting some device that excluding the App Store and is a simply feature phone is making this a low profit device compared with the iPhone. That is not the same as a low margin phone but it's still low profit per unit.
LOL...really, that's your justification? Of course the profit is lower on a $200-$300 phone than on a $650 one. That doesn't make it "low profit" any more than the iMac makes the Mac Mini "low profit".
If little to no cannibalization occurs then the profit difference between the smart iPhone and the feature iPhone Nano is unimportant because it addresses a completely different market. A market that is of some strategic importance.
Quote:
6) I find it tiresome that people focus on one singular desire that they ignore all other hurdles, issues, and corporate philosophies so they can shoehorn a weak concept into some a winning idea. Having ability to do something is not proper reasoning for expecting them to do it.
Again strawman. First, I don't EXPECT them to do it. I believe it is PLAUSIBLE that they do it.
Several examples of how a feature phone iPhone Nano fits into corporate philosophy has been provided multiple times by multiple posters. The most obvious is the iPod product line that has a range of products, form factors and prices.
Another obvious example is Apple using the iPad to address the netbook market vs releasing a cheap notebook. A rich messaging phone is the same kind of solution to the cheap smartphone.
And of course the iPad product line has also been diversified to have a high/low product mix of different sizes. Many if not all the arguments advanced against a iPhone Nano were advanced against the iPad Mini and yet that product is here.
Simply asserting that it is weak does not make it so.
Simply asserting that it is against Apple corporate philosophy does not make it so.
Simply asserting that there are some vague insurmountable hurdles or issues (which you have failed to provide) does not make it so.
You are free to hold these opinions and they are quite possibly correct but in no way does that mean that the opinion that a iPhone nano can be released in 2013 is in any way less valid or less supported than your own.
You did when you complained that people opined against your case.
So your magical device is high volume low cost high profit and yet you still have no justification as to why Apple would do this now after 6 years when everything you've mentioned has existed long before the iPhone (they even had the Pixo OS then), why not a larger iPhone first for the markets that are eating up those high priced devices, and why you know what Apple doesn't. All I see is a wishful thinking with no solid foundation for a reasonable product. You could your case work for the JooJoo and we all know what happened to that piece of crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
See many $99 flip phones these days? No? Huh. How about that.
There are feature phones the MSRP from $200 to $280. They get discounted pretty fast and start subsidized down to the $80 level on contract.
Go look on Verizon, pick "basic phones" and then switch to "month to month" and you'll see several phones shoot up to $200+. Samsung and LG have a couple that MSRP above $200.
Quote:
So no app environment, making it desirable to what facet of Apple's audience? No data plan, so iCloud and Siri lose functionality…
The audience that likes the Apple ecosystem (iMessage, iTunes, etc) but don't want to pay $50 a month for a data plan.
As for Siri:
"If you use Siri 2-3 times per day at an average of 63KB per instance, you might expect to use 126KB to 189KB per day, or 3.7 to 5.5MB per month. For 4-6 times a day, that might come out to 252KB to 378KB per day, or 7.4 to 11MB per month. If you use it 10-15 times per day, you might end up using 630KB to 945KB per day, or 18.5 to 27.7MB per month."
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/11/how-data-heavy-is-siri-on-an-iphone-4s-ars-investigates/
Carrier could simply require that you have unlimited texting on your plan which probably covers such low data usage. For AT&T that's $30 for the whole family...a lot cheaper than a data plan for every kid and offsets iMessage circumventing the texting fees.
Quote:
I can't find any information about what this is anywhere. Why would they use anything but their own software?
Try searching with a space between Pixo and OS. It is the OS used by iPods since the beginning and still used on the current iPod except the iPod Touch. They bought it from Pixo so it is their own software.
"Some engineers who worked on the first iPod got scooped up by Apple, which has since taken over iPod's software development."
http://www.sfgate.com/default/article/Little-known-startup-was-behind-iPod-s-2733248.php
The SDK was never publicly released but certain 3rd party developers had it until it was discontinued on the iTunes store in 2011. I still have a couple iPod games sitting in my iTunes folder.
There's is reportedly very good OpenGL ES support in the Pixo.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2011/01/6g-ipod-nano-hack-just-beginning-of-long-road-to-nano-apps/
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's not good enough to say "Apple has the ability" or "There is a market for it" you have to make a case that this would be a very profitable move for Apple to make, not just one that it could push a lot of units, be cool if they did so, note that others are doing it, or that they wouldn't lose money if they did it. Apple's growth has been very structured and controlled. If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device that HP, Dell, LG, Nokia, etc. typically do then one needs to make a case that makes it belivable to pull Apple out of their well worn modus operandi, which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device or create a separate App Store for this device.
I think Tim Cook and Apple might be interested in growing their business. The iPod is only heading in one way.
It would be really interesting to see a breakdown of iPod sales in more detail than just "iPod Touch accounts for about 50%". But at least with that info, we can assume that the Nano is < 50%. That could mean anywhere between maybe 10 and 15 million in 2012. And falling every year. How long before half of the iPod business is simply not worth it?
I am simply suggesting replacing/adapting a business and moving it into another market. "If one thinks they will go with a high volume, low profit device..." Who said that? Keep the Apple margins..... and just sell comfortably more units than an iPod Nano. That's why I mentioned Asha. Already selling in higher numbers than the Nano.
Quote:
.....which includes a feasible reason why Apple would completely want to remove the App Store from the device
No App Store. No iPhone cannibalization.
Simples!
Low profit doesn't mean low profit margin. If you sell a phone that ranges from $650 to $850 and another that is $200 (iPod Nano price + $50 for cellular radios) you will make less money per device.
There will always be cannibalization. When you introduce a product with a subset of another products features.
These scenarios are never simple. Even to suggest that it's simply shows that it hasn't been ripped apart and laid bare. I am certain Apple has done this many times over many years to determine if such a device would be the right move for them. The only thing here that's simple is that its complex.
PS: If no App Store then no apps. Users would be forced to use web apps which are often inferior, even to Android apps. For $200 in many countries you can get an Android-based phone that allows apps. Why completely ignore a low-cost 3.5" touchscreen or an App Store for 2.5" (or other sized) device?
Originally Posted by nht
The audience that likes the Apple ecosystem (iMessage, iTunes, etc) but don't want to pay $50 a month for a data plan.
So you're saying it's a phone for me?
I refuse to sacrifice apps just to not have to pay a data plan. And since some countries already allow iPhone purchases without data, is this really Apple's problem?
As for Siri:
"If you use Siri 2-3 times per day at an average of 63KB per instance, you might expect to use 126KB to 189KB per day, or 3.7 to 5.5MB per month. For 4-6 times a day, that might come out to 252KB to 378KB per day, or 7.4 to 11MB per month. If you use it 10-15 times per day, you might end up using 630KB to 945KB per day, or 18.5 to 27.7MB per month."
And if I don't have a data plan, I can't use it at all. How about that.
Carrier could simply require that you have unlimited texting…
See, I don't want this. So I still wouldn't buy one. What's the point of having iMessage on the device (because that was one of the apps on the gimped thing that was mentioned to remain) if I'm forced to pay for texting? That question can also be asked the other way.
Try searching with a space between Pixo and OS. It is the OS used by iPods since the beginning and still used on the current iPod except the iPod Touch. They bought it from Pixo so it is their own software.
Okay, cool. So why would developers write for a gimped, soon to be completely replaced OS, when they could just make iOS apps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Yeah, they're either buying iPod touches or buying iPhones. The existing models.
No! They are buying music and video capable phones in the hundreds of millions. And the vast majority are not iPhones.
Quote:
So why should Apple enter the stupidphone market? Why?
Because, I believe, the "stupidphone" market is not so stupid.... and it is vastly greater than the high end ($300+) smartphone market.
Quote:
They specifically didn't, and that was for a reason.
Perhaps you weren't paying attention, but in the last three markets that Apple entered they started at the top and worked their way down. It's better that way!
Quote:
Answers itself.
Yes. Moderate compared to iPhone sales, but already higher than iPod sales.
Quote:
And that same research shows iPhones being used in a smart way. Smart makes Apple (and third parties) more money.
Exactly, so why should Apple snub their developers by making a phone that can't run their apps?!
Over 1.5 billion people will buy a cell phone this year. It won't be an iPhone. How much will Apple and their developers make from those sales?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You did when you complained that people opined against your case.
Nope.
Quote:
So your magical device is high volume low cost high profit and yet you still have no justification as to why Apple would do this now after 6 years when everything you've mentioned has existed long before the iPhone (they even had the Pixo OS then), why not a larger iPhone first for the markets that are eating up those high priced devices, and why you know what Apple doesn't. All I see is a wishful thinking with no solid foundation for a reasonable product. You could your case work for the JooJoo and we all know what happened to that piece of crap.
High volume low cost high profit are all vague.
A $199 iPhone Nano that makes more profit than the iPod Touch is what in your scale? Given that the 6th gen iPod Nano BOM was in the $43 range. Lets double it to $80 and that still less than the estimated BOM for the 4th gen iPod Touch. Given the much smaller touch screen, the vastly cheaper CPU, 3G vs LTE radio and so forth around an $80 isn't an unreasonable expectation.
Is the iPod Touch low profit in your mind?
Justification? Saturation of the US Smartphone market (80%) expected in 2014.
http://www.asymco.com/2013/01/04/when-will-smartphones-reach-saturation/
You might argue that entry into the feature phone market to be counter intuitive given this scenario and I would agree. Counter intuitive doesn't mean wrong though. It just means zigging when everyone else is zagging.
Thus far Apple and Android hasn't REALLY gone head to head. They've both been snarfing up Nokia, RIM and feature phones users. The low hanging fruit is running out and that IS different from six years ago.
In any case, there are multiple official statements from Apple that the pre-paid market is of great interest to Apple. One not very well addressed by year old iPhone models. There's as much justification for a high end feature phone as some new TV related product.
Plausible but far from certain. Apple has many irons in the fire and only so much focus available.
Sure, and they've done it with the iPhone, too. They have 3 generations ranging from $450 to $850. What you want something substantially less expensive and yet a new design from the ground up which implies additional costs as well no ecosystem lock-in to keep it tied to the App Store. That makes it seem harder for Apple to swallow than simply offering another, older generation iPhone that's less expensive.
Why so many fallacious arguments in this thread? Do you think Apple cares more about the number of people buying phones and how many "activations" Android makes or how much profit they make from the handset market? With a 75% take and no product to compete with the barrel scraping anything I'm going with the latter.
Again, it's possible but I think the most likely avenue is to strengthen their iOS ecosystem not chip away at it. I also think getting in with China Mobile with a proper iPhone is more profitable and therefore more important than the low-cost options presented in this thread. Note: No one has done a cost analysis of this iPhone nano and yet you're all so sure of it.
PS: Why do so many of you choose to use HTML markup instead of BB code? You know you can add HTML in the other editor anytime you'd like, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
PS: If no App Store then no apps. Users would be forced to use web apps which are often inferior, even to Android apps. For $200 in many countries you can get an Android-based phone that allows apps. Why completely ignore a low-cost 3.5" touchscreen or an App Store for 2.5" (or other sized) device?
An app store is possible but neither the current Nano nor the aTV support apps. It is also a point of differentiation to segment the two products to reduce cannibalization. Kinda like not providing a GPU option in the Mac Mini.
The advantage of no general app store comes in having very tailored apps that run VERY well on the limited Nano class CPU as opposed to a bunch of apps that run poorly. That is the problem with $200 Android smartphones.
You're using an iSuppli BOM to make a case for imaginary product's profitability. :sigh: I give up. :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Low profit doesn't mean low profit margin. If you sell a phone that ranges from $650 to $850 and another that is $200 (iPod Nano price + $50 for cellular radios) you will make less money per device.
Exactly.
The iPad mini is a perfect example. Because of its lower build cost, it has a higher estimated gross profit margin (40%) than the larger iPad (37%), although it makes less money (~$130 vs ~$200) per device.
(When people pay the ridiculous memory upgrade prices that Apple charges, the profit margins skyrocket into the high 50s on both.)
Originally Posted by piot
Over 1.5 billion people will buy a cell phone this year.
How's that possible?
How much will Apple and their developers make from those sales?
Well, the developers aren't losing anything from phones that can't even run apps. And Apple's making 75% of the profits in the industry with only 15% of the sales, so…
Originally Posted by nht
Thus far Apple and Android hasn't REALLY gone head to head.
… Really.
…the pre-paid market is of great interest to Apple. One not very well addressed by year old iPhone models.
The world isn't the US. Plenty of places already do this. It has nothing to do with Apple.
Gartner as 419 million phones solid in 1Q2012. That's almost 1.7 billion for the year all thing being equal. Even with a decline as people move from less disposable phones 1.5 billion is quite reasonable.
There are also about 6 billion phones in use according to one site at a ratio 86 out of 100 people on the planet.