Since when is turning bluetooth, wifi, or airplane on/off geeky? Anyone that uses a bluetooth headset might do that several times a day when you are trying to save every drop of battery life you can.
Probably plastic back like the iPhone 3G/3GS. Less top-notch as an iPhone 5, but cheap to build. It's can be just about the OS.
no no no... are you guys blind? There's a brand new iPod touch with great margins for 329. put only 8gb, put a 3.5" retina (much cheaper), 800mhz a5 and you have an amazing new and great phone with 0 R&D, BOM of less than 160, machinery ready.
299, GREAT BUILD QUALITY, margins of more than 40%, much more marketshare so stronger ecosystem revenue. Same stuff they did with the mini.
You can be assured that if there is a cheap plastic phone, there is no way that Apple can restrict it to 'developing markets.' It'll also be the handset for kids or the less well-off in the richer countries.
This is a path down which Apple should not want to go, and likely will not. So I am calling b/s on that part of the rumor.
There are many ways to do that: 1) it can be a different brand name phone, say "pineapple". The Tifanny people will pays a higher price for the personal statement whereas the walmart people can get the phone with similar functionalities; 2) network locked - China Mobile has a complete different network than the rest of world; 3) language locked - a chinese only phone.
When talking about a redesigned cheaper model I hate it when people say "they can just keep selling the iPhone 4 / 4S"
The thing is, as a marketer (which I am) it is so much better to be selling a redesigned 2013 iPhone Mini than it is a 2010/2011 iPhone 4/4S.
It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more.
This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill... the fact that it is different to the last years model, no matter that it is a minor change and simply cosmetic guarantees enhanced sales.
I understand this as a marketer and a consumer, I am not sure why so many people on this site miss it entirely.
An iPhone Mini (with plastic shell if you like) will outsell an iPhone 4/4S with identical specs simply because it is something new for the public to fall in love with.
The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.
An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.
Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S but it should be noted that this is not necessary for success but would help shift additional units if the price remained reasonable.
Someone please repost my thoughts in rebuttal the next time this argument evolves because I am tired of seeing it made and not refuted.
It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more. This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill...
I understand this as a marketer and a consumer, I am not sure why so many people on this site miss it entirely.
That's because this doesn't work in the tech industry. As a marketer, you should know this.
The GT120 didn't sell well. With good reason; it was a rebranded 9400 GT, which itself was a rebranded 8-… what, ?800 GT(?).
The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.
The iPhones 4/S already do that.
An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.
Nonsense. Make a phone call with it. Put it in your pocket.
Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S…
One is a tablet. One is a phone. They have nothing to do with one another.
Horwitz speculated that Apple will have to adopt new screen technology, like Sharp's IGZO panels, in order to achieve the "noticeably thinner" design he saw, which he characterized as a "stretched iPad mini."
New screen technology is probably essential to reducing iPad size now (and iPhone size later.) More efficient electronics and / or more efficient battery technology are the other two ways. Apple is probably working on all three, but I'd guess that IGZO will make the biggest difference in energy efficiency. IGZO conductors are 40 times more efficient than amorphous silicon conductors, and more transparent as well. The "invisible wires" will need less power and will require less backlighting to achieve the same brightness.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The report also made mention of a new iPhone with a plastic body that would be targeted at emerging markets like China.
If Apple really wanted to, they could cut a deal with China Mobile with the iPhone 5 and the rumored low-cost iPhone. And how could Apple prevent gray market cannibalization, world-wide? By making the low-cost iPhone China Mobile-only. China Mobile uses an oddball 3G variant that is incompatible with everyone else's 3G implementation. So a phone built specifically for CM won't work anywhere else. Zero gray market.
But does Apple really want to do that? Especially since we're eventually going to see "real 4G," which will replace the current LTE and HSPA+, which are still just legacy 3G-based technologies. Apple and China Mobile might just be dawdling until the "real 4G" spec is finalized, then rolled out around the world. Could take years. If so, maybe the China Mobile-only low-cost iPhone would make sense.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Finally, it was also mentioned that the so-called "iPhone Math" detailed in a report earlier this week may have been given its bizarre rumored name because of a mistranslation. It was instead suggested to Horwitz that the test device, which purportedly features a 4.7-inch screen, may instead be known as an "iPhone +" ? a device that may not make it to market, but was characterized as a "plan B" for Apple against big-screen Android handsets.
Apple has a long history of creating internal test products. Many of which are never released as products. This just might be one of them.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Friday's report largely aligns with what analyst Ming-chi Kuo of KGI Securities shared with AppleInsiderlast week. The analyst, who has a respectable track record in predicting Apple's future product plans, indicated that Apple plans to release a new "iPhone 5S," along with a redesigned iPhone 5, in the third quarter of 2013.
Tick (3G). Tock (3GS).
Tick (4). Tock (4S).
Tick (5). Tock ___ ?
Fill in the blank.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Around the same time he also expects Apple to debut a redesigned fifth-generation iPad, as well as a second-generation iPad mini with a high-resolution Retina display.
Same deal. A Retina iPad mini, with reasonable pricing and same or slimmer form factor, needs IGZO technology in its screen.
Just FYI: IGZO can be used in OLED screens as well as LCD screens. IGZO is just a (very efficient) transparent conductor material.
When talking about a redesigned cheaper model I hate it when people say "they can just keep selling the iPhone 4 / 4S"
The thing is, as a marketer (which I am) it is so much better to be selling a redesigned 2013 iPhone Mini than it is a 2010/2011 iPhone 4/4S.
It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more.
This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill... the fact that it is different to the last years model, no matter that it is a minor change and simply cosmetic guarantees enhanced sales.
I understand this as a marketer and a consumer.
An iPhone Mini (with plastic shell if you like) will outsell an iPhone 4/4S with identical specs simply because it is something new for the public to fall in love with.
The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.
An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.
Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S but it should be noted that this is not necessary for success but would help shift additional units if the price remained reasonable.
When talking about a redesigned cheaper model I hate it when people say "they can just keep selling the iPhone 4 / 4S"
The thing is, as a marketer (which I am) it is so much better to be selling a redesigned 2013 iPhone Mini than it is a 2010/2011 iPhone 4/4S.
It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more.
This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill... the fact that it is different to the last years model, no matter that it is a minor change and simply cosmetic guarantees enhanced sales.
I understand this as a marketer and a consumer, I am not sure why so many people on this site miss it entirely.
An iPhone Mini (with plastic shell if you like) will outsell an iPhone 4/4S with identical specs simply because it is something new for the public to fall in love with.
The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.
An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.
Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S but it should be noted that this is not necessary for success but would help shift additional units if the price remained reasonable.
Someone please repost my thoughts in rebuttal the next time this argument evolves because I am tired of seeing it made and not refuted.
Only thing that makes sense is the iPhone 5S which we all already knew was coming.
iPad 5? Some of what he said makes sense, but I don't think Apple is going to ditch the bezels, unless the iPad 5 is as light as the Mini (not likely).
Plastic iPhone? No.
iPhone +? "Plan B" against Android? Now he's just making stuff up.
I think we're all assuming when the analyst said it looks like a "stretched iPad Mini" he means including the bezels. But I think the opposite. I could see Apple reducing the bezels a LITTLE bit, but not a lot. I personally like the current bezels and it makes a lot of sense that they are about the average width of your thumbs.
About the plastic iPhone. I doubt it now that every iDevice Apple makes is metal unibody. That being said, I am one of the few left that really loved the form factor of the iPhone 3G(S). I still use mine when I travel overseas, and every time I pick it up, it instantly feels more comfortable and more natural to hold in my hand. I even remember how SJ pointed this out in the Keynote when he launched the 3G. I think he said something like "how wonderful it feels in your hand". The 4 and the 5's just feel cold and rigid. I'd love to see them update the form factor for a "lower priced" iphone to be something more like a hybrid of the iphone 3G(S) and the current Gen iPod Touch/iPad Mini. Maybe a tad thicker. I love the design, just not as comfortable to hold.
As a side note. I love my MBP, but i hate the sharp edge next to the trackpad. Just not comfortable either. Looks beautify but not ergonomic.
About "Plan B". This has got to be a test model Apple has made, just in case they want to. Could be that it was a test model from when they were dev'ing the iPhone 5. Playing with screen sizes and shapes...I'm sure Team Ive has about a dozen test models like this. Personally I'd rather they stick with a 4:3 display for the iP5, but i can see the ergonomics of the solution. So, if we see a larger screen, it might not be the iPhone, it could be a future iPod touch. I've always said the Touch is never going to be an iPhone, so why try to copy it? Sure, economy of scale and production, but for what most use them for, makes more sense for them to be a tad bigger screen.
No Tallest Ski the 4/4S doesn't do all that I mentioned.
I specifically said that it needed to be new!
The GT item you are talking about.. I presume you are referring to a graphics card? Your example does not apply because it is referring to an item which is sold to nerds, I am particularly addressing items sold to the general public.
Even the most successful "add on" graphics card sells in the what, tens? hundreds of thousands? they are not at the level of a mass-market consumer mobile.
To restate it for you -> you will not get the sales from a 3 year old phone that you would from a brand new phone with the same specs at the same price.
BTW in my post when I referred to the "Mini" I was referring to the hypothetical new iPhone (like the rest of the post) not the iPad Mini, so your last point is redundant.
My final note - you refer to iPhone sales as the "tech industry" - it is not.
The tech industry is computer parts, do it yourself media servers, app programming, nerdy stuff.
The reason Apple is successful is that take items that had previously only existed as part of the tech industry and transformed them into consumer items, items that have lost all their techyness.
When sold to the average consumer the specs have melted away and the consumer is merely consuming the product for its function in their life: playing games, listening to music, staying in touch with friends -> as these functions exist outside of the tech industry so to do the products that enable their fulfilment.
Tech purchases do not meet this criteria ->those that play with "tech" do so to fulfill a range of other criteria often not solely derived from its function.
An example would be buying computer parts to build a computer ->many do this out of personal pride and interest, or in a competitive or creative spirit which is quiet separate to an ordinary consumers desire to merely "game".
Whether I am right or wrong I tell you I am at least expressing to you Apples methodology and their own thinking - as an administrator on an Apple focussed site I would have thought that you would have a better grasp of Apple products.
Does it makes sense for Apple to release basically everything in Q3? I mean, it's not like we're likely to run into any supply or production issues right? Because that certainly hasn't happened before. Just for the sake of conversation, let's say that the chart is real.
So basically, there aint crap happening in Q1 and Q2. And when Q3 comes, everything will get updates, and Apple won't be selling as much as they can, because supply will be constrained and production not fully ramped up. So what is there to look forward to then, from an investor's point of view? I can already see the headlines that I'll be reading in the coming months and for 2013.
I agree. There must be something left for them to update.
My prediction, we'll see something in Q2. I for one am surprised we haven't seen any invites for a keynote yet. The Apple TV needs some kind of update (please let it be an updated universal remote and an App store...or at least add Amazon Instant to it).
If the "Lower Cost" iPhone debuts, we might see it in Q2 as well. I was thinking if there was going to be a late Q1 or Q2 product launch, Apple always reserves that slot of totally new devices, and then years later will move those updates to the Q3. Happened with the iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, then back to Q1/2. So I think Apple will announce/launch something soon, the question is what?
I really doubt we'll see a full HDTV from them this year, so at least an Generational Leap for the STB would be really welcomed!
Everyone I know that has an android phone (the ones that Apple is after) do that.
I've known Android users (many of whom have since switched to iPhone) who've kept their WiFi switched off all the time. I know very few iPhone users, who aren't techies, who ever switch their radios off/on independently. A few may occasionally use AP mode, but nothing more.
Does it makes sense for Apple to release basically everything in Q3? I mean, it's not like we're likely to run into any supply or production issues right? Because that certainly hasn't happened before. Just for the sake of conversation, let's say that the chart is real.
So basically, there aint crap happening in Q1 and Q2. And when Q3 comes, everything will get updates, and Apple won't be selling as much as they can, because supply will be constrained and production not fully ramped up. So what is there to look forward to then, from an investor's point of view? I can already see the headlines that I'll be reading in the coming months and for 2013.
If there is no new product in the near-term, the company is in trouble. Apple needs to re-establish a dominant position in the market so that they can ask the Telcos to continue the subsidy. If they lose the subsidy or get reduced, the entire business model will be seriously affected.
Despite Tim Cook being a supply chain guy, the execution of the new products in the December quarter is far from ideal. Many products, like the mini, iPhone, iMac, are constraint in the most important selling season. On the demand side, it does not work well because the consumer wallet is limited. Even if the world all worship Apple, and wants to contribute all their hard earned money to Apple. There is a limit. The company can see more demand for its products if new products are introduced around the year. The line will be longer as well.
I've known Android users (many of whom have since switched to iPhone) who've kept their WiFi switched off all the time. I know very few iPhone users, who aren't techies, who ever switch their radios off/on independently. A few may occasionally use AP mode, but nothing more.
Even if that was true (it isn't), so what? It's an extremely useful feature that can provide a better experience.
No Tallest Ski the 4/4S doesn't do all that I mentioned.
I specifically said that it needed to be new!
The GT item you are talking about.. I presume you are referring to a graphics card? Your example does not apply because it is referring to an item which is sold to nerds, I am particularly addressing items sold to the general public.
Even the most successful "add on" graphics card sells in the what, tens? hundreds of thousands? they are not at the level of a mass-market consumer mobile.
To restate it for you -> you will not get the sales from a 3 year old phone that you would from a brand new phone with the same specs at the same price.
BTW in my post when I referred to the "Mini" I was referring to the hypothetical new iPhone (like the rest of the post) not the iPad Mini, so your last point is redundant.
My final note - you refer to iPhone sales as the "tech industry" - it is not.
The tech industry is computer parts, do it yourself media servers, app programming, nerdy stuff.
The reason Apple is successful is that take items that had previously only existed as part of the tech industry and transformed them into consumer items, items that have lost all their techyness.
When sold to the average consumer the specs have melted away and the consumer is merely consuming the product for its function in their life: playing games, listening to music, staying in touch with friends -> as these functions exist outside of the tech industry so to do the products that enable their fulfilment.
Tech purchases do not meet this criteria ->those that play with "tech" do so to fulfill a range of other criteria often not solely derived from its function.
An example would be buying computer parts to build a computer ->many do this out of personal pride and interest, or in a competitive or creative spirit which is quiet separate to an ordinary consumers desire to merely "game".
Whether I am right or wrong I tell you I am at least expressing to you Apples methodology and their own thinking - as an administrator on an Apple focussed site I would have thought that you would have a better grasp of Apple products.
Don't waste your breath. You haven't been here long enough to know that any opinion that contradicts or challenges his narrow views of what Apple should or should not do will be met with derision and ridicule. If you are looking for a mature debate you will be disappointed. It is unfortunate that as an administrator we cannot block his post from view but we can ignore them. But you made some great points and I agree. I think if they take the guts from the 4S and possibly update a few components or even leave them largely the same, then put it in a new and cheaper case it would sell very well. People like new products even if they are essentially old phones from 2 years ago. If they could sell the iPhone 4 in the range of $300 then this might not be needed, but that looks unlikely so create a brand new model.
Even if that was true (it isn't), so what? It's an extremely useful feature that can provide a better experience.
Please, let's not be blind here.
It is true. And it's not a "useful" feature if people don't use it. These features are gimmicks, not things that ought to be the focus of iOS development. Please, let's not be ridiculous here.
Unless Apple has advanced alien technology that throws out basic mass/matter principles, a full-size iPad will never be as light as a mini.
Again, people taking the words too literally. I don't believe he said as light as the iPad mini, just lighter than the iPad 2, 3 or 4..."reduced weight" were the exact words.
personally, if that lightness means no Retina, I could care less. I love my iPad 2, never upgraded because it got noticeably heavier. If they just made a non-retina 9.7" iPad "air" i'd be happy. Can't do the Mini, just too small. I actually feel the 9.7" ipad is too small but it's a good compromise.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
Since when is turning bluetooth, wifi, or airplane on/off geeky? Anyone that uses a bluetooth headset might do that several times a day when you are trying to save every drop of battery life you can.
No, most users really don't do that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pfisher
Probably plastic back like the iPhone 3G/3GS. Less top-notch as an iPhone 5, but cheap to build. It's can be just about the OS.
no no no... are you guys blind? There's a brand new iPod touch with great margins for 329. put only 8gb, put a 3.5" retina (much cheaper), 800mhz a5 and you have an amazing new and great phone with 0 R&D, BOM of less than 160, machinery ready.
299, GREAT BUILD QUALITY, margins of more than 40%, much more marketshare so stronger ecosystem revenue. Same stuff they did with the mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
You can be assured that if there is a cheap plastic phone, there is no way that Apple can restrict it to 'developing markets.' It'll also be the handset for kids or the less well-off in the richer countries.
This is a path down which Apple should not want to go, and likely will not. So I am calling b/s on that part of the rumor.
There are many ways to do that: 1) it can be a different brand name phone, say "pineapple". The Tifanny people will pays a higher price for the personal statement whereas the walmart people can get the phone with similar functionalities; 2) network locked - China Mobile has a complete different network than the rest of world; 3) language locked - a chinese only phone.
When talking about a redesigned cheaper model I hate it when people say "they can just keep selling the iPhone 4 / 4S"
The thing is, as a marketer (which I am) it is so much better to be selling a redesigned 2013 iPhone Mini than it is a 2010/2011 iPhone 4/4S.
It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more.
This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill... the fact that it is different to the last years model, no matter that it is a minor change and simply cosmetic guarantees enhanced sales.
I understand this as a marketer and a consumer, I am not sure why so many people on this site miss it entirely.
An iPhone Mini (with plastic shell if you like) will outsell an iPhone 4/4S with identical specs simply because it is something new for the public to fall in love with.
The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.
An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.
Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S but it should be noted that this is not necessary for success but would help shift additional units if the price remained reasonable.
Someone please repost my thoughts in rebuttal the next time this argument evolves because I am tired of seeing it made and not refuted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
No, most users really don't do that.
Everyone I know that has an android phone (the ones that Apple is after) do that.
Originally Posted by lghulm
It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more. This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill...
I understand this as a marketer and a consumer, I am not sure why so many people on this site miss it entirely.
That's because this doesn't work in the tech industry. As a marketer, you should know this.
The GT120 didn't sell well. With good reason; it was a rebranded 9400 GT, which itself was a rebranded 8-… what, ?800 GT(?).
The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.
The iPhones 4/S already do that.
An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.
Nonsense. Make a phone call with it. Put it in your pocket.
Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S…
One is a tablet. One is a phone. They have nothing to do with one another.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Horwitz speculated that Apple will have to adopt new screen technology, like Sharp's IGZO panels, in order to achieve the "noticeably thinner" design he saw, which he characterized as a "stretched iPad mini."
New screen technology is probably essential to reducing iPad size now (and iPhone size later.) More efficient electronics and / or more efficient battery technology are the other two ways. Apple is probably working on all three, but I'd guess that IGZO will make the biggest difference in energy efficiency. IGZO conductors are 40 times more efficient than amorphous silicon conductors, and more transparent as well. The "invisible wires" will need less power and will require less backlighting to achieve the same brightness.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The report also made mention of a new iPhone with a plastic body that would be targeted at emerging markets like China.
If Apple really wanted to, they could cut a deal with China Mobile with the iPhone 5 and the rumored low-cost iPhone. And how could Apple prevent gray market cannibalization, world-wide? By making the low-cost iPhone China Mobile-only. China Mobile uses an oddball 3G variant that is incompatible with everyone else's 3G implementation. So a phone built specifically for CM won't work anywhere else. Zero gray market.
But does Apple really want to do that? Especially since we're eventually going to see "real 4G," which will replace the current LTE and HSPA+, which are still just legacy 3G-based technologies. Apple and China Mobile might just be dawdling until the "real 4G" spec is finalized, then rolled out around the world. Could take years. If so, maybe the China Mobile-only low-cost iPhone would make sense.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Finally, it was also mentioned that the so-called "iPhone Math" detailed in a report earlier this week may have been given its bizarre rumored name because of a mistranslation. It was instead suggested to Horwitz that the test device, which purportedly features a 4.7-inch screen, may instead be known as an "iPhone +" ? a device that may not make it to market, but was characterized as a "plan B" for Apple against big-screen Android handsets.
Apple has a long history of creating internal test products. Many of which are never released as products. This just might be one of them.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Friday's report largely aligns with what analyst Ming-chi Kuo of KGI Securities shared with AppleInsider last week. The analyst, who has a respectable track record in predicting Apple's future product plans, indicated that Apple plans to release a new "iPhone 5S," along with a redesigned iPhone 5, in the third quarter of 2013.
Tick (3G). Tock (3GS).
Tick (4). Tock (4S).
Tick (5). Tock ___ ?
Fill in the blank.
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
Around the same time he also expects Apple to debut a redesigned fifth-generation iPad, as well as a second-generation iPad mini with a high-resolution Retina display.
Same deal. A Retina iPad mini, with reasonable pricing and same or slimmer form factor, needs IGZO technology in its screen.
Just FYI: IGZO can be used in OLED screens as well as LCD screens. IGZO is just a (very efficient) transparent conductor material.
When talking about a redesigned cheaper model I hate it when people say "they can just keep selling the iPhone 4 / 4S"
The thing is, as a marketer (which I am) it is so much better to be selling a redesigned 2013 iPhone Mini than it is a 2010/2011 iPhone 4/4S.
It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more.
This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill... the fact that it is different to the last years model, no matter that it is a minor change and simply cosmetic guarantees enhanced sales.
I understand this as a marketer and a consumer.
An iPhone Mini (with plastic shell if you like) will outsell an iPhone 4/4S with identical specs simply because it is something new for the public to fall in love with.
The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.
An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.
Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S but it should be noted that this is not necessary for success but would help shift additional units if the price remained reasonable.
When talking about a redesigned cheaper model I hate it when people say "they can just keep selling the iPhone 4 / 4S"
The thing is, as a marketer (which I am) it is so much better to be selling a redesigned 2013 iPhone Mini than it is a 2010/2011 iPhone 4/4S.
It can have the exact same chip, the exact same screen, the exact same OS, camera, the lot, but by virtue of being 'new' it will sell bucket loads more.
This is why new car models come out year after year with merely a change to the headlight shape or the front grill... the fact that it is different to the last years model, no matter that it is a minor change and simply cosmetic guarantees enhanced sales.
I understand this as a marketer and a consumer, I am not sure why so many people on this site miss it entirely.
An iPhone Mini (with plastic shell if you like) will outsell an iPhone 4/4S with identical specs simply because it is something new for the public to fall in love with.
The general public are not technology nerds (like us) and are looking for the latest product (not necessarily the best specs) at an affordable price, that looks attractive, works as advertised and fulfils the needs they have for purchasing the product: surfing the web, taking photos, making calls.
An iPhone Mini meets these criteria an iPhone 4/4S does not.
Of course Apple can further enhance the Mini's attractiveness by upping select specs above the 4/4S but it should be noted that this is not necessary for success but would help shift additional units if the price remained reasonable.
Someone please repost my thoughts in rebuttal the next time this argument evolves because I am tired of seeing it made and not refuted.
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Tick (3G). Tock (3GS).
Tick (4). Tock (4S).
Tick (5). Tock _6_ ?
Fill in the blank.
????
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
Only thing that makes sense is the iPhone 5S which we all already knew was coming.
iPad 5? Some of what he said makes sense, but I don't think Apple is going to ditch the bezels, unless the iPad 5 is as light as the Mini (not likely).
Plastic iPhone? No.
iPhone +? "Plan B" against Android? Now he's just making stuff up.
I think we're all assuming when the analyst said it looks like a "stretched iPad Mini" he means including the bezels. But I think the opposite. I could see Apple reducing the bezels a LITTLE bit, but not a lot. I personally like the current bezels and it makes a lot of sense that they are about the average width of your thumbs.
About the plastic iPhone. I doubt it now that every iDevice Apple makes is metal unibody. That being said, I am one of the few left that really loved the form factor of the iPhone 3G(S). I still use mine when I travel overseas, and every time I pick it up, it instantly feels more comfortable and more natural to hold in my hand. I even remember how SJ pointed this out in the Keynote when he launched the 3G. I think he said something like "how wonderful it feels in your hand". The 4 and the 5's just feel cold and rigid. I'd love to see them update the form factor for a "lower priced" iphone to be something more like a hybrid of the iphone 3G(S) and the current Gen iPod Touch/iPad Mini. Maybe a tad thicker. I love the design, just not as comfortable to hold.
As a side note. I love my MBP, but i hate the sharp edge next to the trackpad. Just not comfortable either. Looks beautify but not ergonomic.
About "Plan B". This has got to be a test model Apple has made, just in case they want to. Could be that it was a test model from when they were dev'ing the iPhone 5. Playing with screen sizes and shapes...I'm sure Team Ive has about a dozen test models like this. Personally I'd rather they stick with a 4:3 display for the iP5, but i can see the ergonomics of the solution. So, if we see a larger screen, it might not be the iPhone, it could be a future iPod touch. I've always said the Touch is never going to be an iPhone, so why try to copy it? Sure, economy of scale and production, but for what most use them for, makes more sense for them to be a tad bigger screen.
No Tallest Ski the 4/4S doesn't do all that I mentioned.
I specifically said that it needed to be new!
The GT item you are talking about.. I presume you are referring to a graphics card? Your example does not apply because it is referring to an item which is sold to nerds, I am particularly addressing items sold to the general public.
Even the most successful "add on" graphics card sells in the what, tens? hundreds of thousands? they are not at the level of a mass-market consumer mobile.
To restate it for you -> you will not get the sales from a 3 year old phone that you would from a brand new phone with the same specs at the same price.
BTW in my post when I referred to the "Mini" I was referring to the hypothetical new iPhone (like the rest of the post) not the iPad Mini, so your last point is redundant.
My final note - you refer to iPhone sales as the "tech industry" - it is not.
The tech industry is computer parts, do it yourself media servers, app programming, nerdy stuff.
The reason Apple is successful is that take items that had previously only existed as part of the tech industry and transformed them into consumer items, items that have lost all their techyness.
When sold to the average consumer the specs have melted away and the consumer is merely consuming the product for its function in their life: playing games, listening to music, staying in touch with friends -> as these functions exist outside of the tech industry so to do the products that enable their fulfilment.
Tech purchases do not meet this criteria ->those that play with "tech" do so to fulfill a range of other criteria often not solely derived from its function.
An example would be buying computer parts to build a computer ->many do this out of personal pride and interest, or in a competitive or creative spirit which is quiet separate to an ordinary consumers desire to merely "game".
Whether I am right or wrong I tell you I am at least expressing to you Apples methodology and their own thinking - as an administrator on an Apple focussed site I would have thought that you would have a better grasp of Apple products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by umrk_lab
no plastic, no fragile material, please .... I want something ROBUST
A bit like Klingon design :
Speck makes cases in this nature:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I don't know about that prediction chart.
Does it makes sense for Apple to release basically everything in Q3? I mean, it's not like we're likely to run into any supply or production issues right? Because that certainly hasn't happened before. Just for the sake of conversation, let's say that the chart is real.
So basically, there aint crap happening in Q1 and Q2. And when Q3 comes, everything will get updates, and Apple won't be selling as much as they can, because supply will be constrained and production not fully ramped up. So what is there to look forward to then, from an investor's point of view? I can already see the headlines that I'll be reading in the coming months and for 2013.
I agree. There must be something left for them to update.
My prediction, we'll see something in Q2. I for one am surprised we haven't seen any invites for a keynote yet. The Apple TV needs some kind of update (please let it be an updated universal remote and an App store...or at least add Amazon Instant to it).
If the "Lower Cost" iPhone debuts, we might see it in Q2 as well. I was thinking if there was going to be a late Q1 or Q2 product launch, Apple always reserves that slot of totally new devices, and then years later will move those updates to the Q3. Happened with the iPhone, iPad, Apple TV, then back to Q1/2. So I think Apple will announce/launch something soon, the question is what?
I really doubt we'll see a full HDTV from them this year, so at least an Generational Leap for the STB would be really welcomed!
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Everyone I know that has an android phone (the ones that Apple is after) do that.
I've known Android users (many of whom have since switched to iPhone) who've kept their WiFi switched off all the time. I know very few iPhone users, who aren't techies, who ever switch their radios off/on independently. A few may occasionally use AP mode, but nothing more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
I don't know about that prediction chart.
Does it makes sense for Apple to release basically everything in Q3? I mean, it's not like we're likely to run into any supply or production issues right? Because that certainly hasn't happened before. Just for the sake of conversation, let's say that the chart is real.
So basically, there aint crap happening in Q1 and Q2. And when Q3 comes, everything will get updates, and Apple won't be selling as much as they can, because supply will be constrained and production not fully ramped up. So what is there to look forward to then, from an investor's point of view? I can already see the headlines that I'll be reading in the coming months and for 2013.
If there is no new product in the near-term, the company is in trouble. Apple needs to re-establish a dominant position in the market so that they can ask the Telcos to continue the subsidy. If they lose the subsidy or get reduced, the entire business model will be seriously affected.
Despite Tim Cook being a supply chain guy, the execution of the new products in the December quarter is far from ideal. Many products, like the mini, iPhone, iMac, are constraint in the most important selling season. On the demand side, it does not work well because the consumer wallet is limited. Even if the world all worship Apple, and wants to contribute all their hard earned money to Apple. There is a limit. The company can see more demand for its products if new products are introduced around the year. The line will be longer as well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
I've known Android users (many of whom have since switched to iPhone) who've kept their WiFi switched off all the time. I know very few iPhone users, who aren't techies, who ever switch their radios off/on independently. A few may occasionally use AP mode, but nothing more.
Even if that was true (it isn't), so what? It's an extremely useful feature that can provide a better experience.
Please, let's not be blind here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lghulm
No Tallest Ski the 4/4S doesn't do all that I mentioned.
I specifically said that it needed to be new!
The GT item you are talking about.. I presume you are referring to a graphics card? Your example does not apply because it is referring to an item which is sold to nerds, I am particularly addressing items sold to the general public.
Even the most successful "add on" graphics card sells in the what, tens? hundreds of thousands? they are not at the level of a mass-market consumer mobile.
To restate it for you -> you will not get the sales from a 3 year old phone that you would from a brand new phone with the same specs at the same price.
BTW in my post when I referred to the "Mini" I was referring to the hypothetical new iPhone (like the rest of the post) not the iPad Mini, so your last point is redundant.
My final note - you refer to iPhone sales as the "tech industry" - it is not.
The tech industry is computer parts, do it yourself media servers, app programming, nerdy stuff.
The reason Apple is successful is that take items that had previously only existed as part of the tech industry and transformed them into consumer items, items that have lost all their techyness.
When sold to the average consumer the specs have melted away and the consumer is merely consuming the product for its function in their life: playing games, listening to music, staying in touch with friends -> as these functions exist outside of the tech industry so to do the products that enable their fulfilment.
Tech purchases do not meet this criteria ->those that play with "tech" do so to fulfill a range of other criteria often not solely derived from its function.
An example would be buying computer parts to build a computer ->many do this out of personal pride and interest, or in a competitive or creative spirit which is quiet separate to an ordinary consumers desire to merely "game".
Whether I am right or wrong I tell you I am at least expressing to you Apples methodology and their own thinking - as an administrator on an Apple focussed site I would have thought that you would have a better grasp of Apple products.
Don't waste your breath. You haven't been here long enough to know that any opinion that contradicts or challenges his narrow views of what Apple should or should not do will be met with derision and ridicule. If you are looking for a mature debate you will be disappointed. It is unfortunate that as an administrator we cannot block his post from view but we can ignore them. But you made some great points and I agree. I think if they take the guts from the 4S and possibly update a few components or even leave them largely the same, then put it in a new and cheaper case it would sell very well. People like new products even if they are essentially old phones from 2 years ago. If they could sell the iPhone 4 in the range of $300 then this might not be needed, but that looks unlikely so create a brand new model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pedromartins
Even if that was true (it isn't), so what? It's an extremely useful feature that can provide a better experience.
Please, let's not be blind here.
It is true. And it's not a "useful" feature if people don't use it. These features are gimmicks, not things that ought to be the focus of iOS development. Please, let's not be ridiculous here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Unless Apple has advanced alien technology that throws out basic mass/matter principles, a full-size iPad will never be as light as a mini.
Again, people taking the words too literally. I don't believe he said as light as the iPad mini, just lighter than the iPad 2, 3 or 4..."reduced weight" were the exact words.
personally, if that lightness means no Retina, I could care less. I love my iPad 2, never upgraded because it got noticeably heavier. If they just made a non-retina 9.7" iPad "air" i'd be happy. Can't do the Mini, just too small. I actually feel the 9.7" ipad is too small but it's a good compromise.