Yeah, except that it would make a ton of sense to do a low cost iPhone without a retina display.
I know what I'm about to say is inconceivable to a vocal minority, but most people cannot perceive the difference between retina and non-retina displays unless they break out a magnifying glass. It's just silly for Apple to increase the cost of a product (both the cost for them to make it and the cost for people to buy it) over a feature that so few people are able to perceive.
I think it makes much more sense to use the retina display as a lever for price discrimination (in the economist use of the term). That is, offer retina and non-retina versions of all products and charge a nice premium for the retina versions.
Please! If you yourself have a eyesight disfunction, don't project this problem to the majority of all the other people.
I don't have the best eyesight myself, but as long as I wear my glasses, I see a substantial difference between retina and non retina.
Something that must be true even more so for younger people. And younger people are from my point of view definitely the majority.
I don't believe they will release a non retina iphone, I just don't see it happening. Maybe a cheaper iphone made out of plastic makes sense for emerging markets even though I disagree with Apple coming out with a cheaper product to appeal to certain markets.
I suppose anything is possible with a Steve Jobs-less Apple (didn't think the iPad Mini would happen) but these rumors of a cheaper iPhone are absolutely ridiculous....especially this one. Last I checked, the iPhone 4 is being offered for ZERO ($0) DOLLARS with contract ($449 unlocked) and it has a glass/aluminum casing AND a retina display. How much cheaper can you get than $0?....for something that's already better than what's being described by this "analyst".
If this phone is launched, low-cost will *not* be its defining feature, that's so very un-Apple. Just because an item costs less doesn't mean that's what it was designed to be, it'd be like saying the mini is Apple's low cost iPad, completely misunderstanding what differentiates the mini from its larger brethren. If the mini had been designed to be low-cost from the outset, it would never have ended up with its most wonderful form factor, it would have been merely "smaller" and very likely with cheaper components. That Apple might be releasing a phone that is cheaper seems to be missing something, like what the essence of the phone is supposed to be and how it is to be differentiated from the iPhone 5/5S.
All these rumours, if true, are missing something.
This does not make too much sense. Historically, Apple just made the previous generation (in this case, the iPhone 5) the cheap model. Why bother developing a sleazy version, when there is a perfectly good phone with machinery already mostly amortized in production?
Plastic non-retina. Can't apple just refresh the iPhone 3GS?
That sounds basically like what they're going to do. But perhaps rebuilt on the inside. Perhaps faster? Newer parts? Other design and implementation changes that enable them to make it more affordable?
I mean, shit, the 3GS was "all that" when it came out and for the market Apple is trying to address with a more affordable phone (assuming they are...and they probably are), it is probably just fine.
Update, refresh, tweak it a bit. It would be great for many people.
Doesn't seem to make sense and given that the iPhone5's 'retina' display already has the lowest resolution/ppi of any of the 2013 'high end' smartphones, one can't help but wonder just how much lower can they possibly go than the (already less than 720p) 1136 x 640 they currently use?
Seems like this it'd be a pretty strange move on Apple's part that might actually harm its reputation as a maker of 'premium' products.
A "cheaper" iPhone is directly aimed at the emerging markets of China/India/Asia, where the average cell phone user cannot afford a premium product like the iPhone 5. This is the WHOLE reason why Apple is even considering a "low cost alternative". We don't know if this model will even be available outside of the emerging markets. It's not a bad strategy, either....there are nearly two billion consumers in these markets that could be potential new customers to introduce to the Apple ecosystem....could be worth billions to the company and significantly increase the share price.
A "cheaper" iPhone is directly aimed at the emerging markets of China/India/Asia, where the average cell phone user cannot afford a premium product like the iPhone 5. This is the WHOLE reason why Apple is even considering a "low cost alternative". We don't know if this model will even be available outside of the emerging markets. It's not a bad strategy, either....there are nearly two billion consumers in these markets that could be potential new customers to introduce to the Apple ecosystem....could be worth billions to the company and significantly increase the share price.
Pat, can I buy a vowel.... oh wait, wrong game show. This is the Rumor Game Show, where everyone throws words into a ring and makes stuff up... Or is it words on Post-It notes on a wall, and they throw metal tipped darts at them to make a sentence.
Serious - I read, and then laugh, and then wait for actual OFFICIAL word from Apple on their products. When it is announced, then I decide to buy or not and then plan accordingly. Maybe jaded, but I for one am sick of the the sky is falling stick. When I see the stuff myself, then I will duck for cover.
Comments
After a thousand iterations this rumor get's kind of stale. IMO
The low-cost, plastic, non-Retina iPhone will be the iWatch.
Personally I am looking forward to the next iPad. I bought the 1, skipped the 2, bought the 3, skipped the 4... and this year is the 5.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blastdoor
Yeah, except that it would make a ton of sense to do a low cost iPhone without a retina display.
I know what I'm about to say is inconceivable to a vocal minority, but most people cannot perceive the difference between retina and non-retina displays unless they break out a magnifying glass. It's just silly for Apple to increase the cost of a product (both the cost for them to make it and the cost for people to buy it) over a feature that so few people are able to perceive.
I think it makes much more sense to use the retina display as a lever for price discrimination (in the economist use of the term). That is, offer retina and non-retina versions of all products and charge a nice premium for the retina versions.
Please! If you yourself have a eyesight disfunction, don't project this problem to the majority of all the other people.
I don't have the best eyesight myself, but as long as I wear my glasses, I see a substantial difference between retina and non retina.
Something that must be true even more so for younger people. And younger people are from my point of view definitely the majority.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
When the 4" iPhone 5 and the 4.9" iPhone+ are released, a reconfigure 3.5" iPhone 4 will be release with lightning connection for $350.
I hope it is 100 dollars cheaper than that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
The low-cost, plastic, non-Retina iPhone will be the iWatch.
Personally I am looking forward to the next iPad. I bought the 1, skipped the 2, bought the 3, skipped the 4... and this year is the 5.
Yeah perhaps the iWatch. But will it be cheap? I believe if it is coming, it will be priced reasonable, but not cheap.
And yes the iPad 5 is going to be very interesting.
If this phone is launched, low-cost will *not* be its defining feature, that's so very un-Apple. Just because an item costs less doesn't mean that's what it was designed to be, it'd be like saying the mini is Apple's low cost iPad, completely misunderstanding what differentiates the mini from its larger brethren. If the mini had been designed to be low-cost from the outset, it would never have ended up with its most wonderful form factor, it would have been merely "smaller" and very likely with cheaper components. That Apple might be releasing a phone that is cheaper seems to be missing something, like what the essence of the phone is supposed to be and how it is to be differentiated from the iPhone 5/5S.
All these rumours, if true, are missing something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimbo123
3Gs making a return????
If at all, let it be the 3GSs please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by matt45
Plastic non-retina. Can't apple just refresh the iPhone 3GS?
That sounds basically like what they're going to do. But perhaps rebuilt on the inside. Perhaps faster? Newer parts? Other design and implementation changes that enable them to make it more affordable?
I mean, shit, the 3GS was "all that" when it came out and for the market Apple is trying to address with a more affordable phone (assuming they are...and they probably are), it is probably just fine.
Update, refresh, tweak it a bit. It would be great for many people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wurm5150
He lost me at "no retina display"..
Doesn't seem to make sense and given that the iPhone5's 'retina' display already has the lowest resolution/ppi of any of the 2013 'high end' smartphones, one can't help but wonder just how much lower can they possibly go than the (already less than 720p) 1136 x 640 they currently use?
Seems like this it'd be a pretty strange move on Apple's part that might actually harm its reputation as a maker of 'premium' products.
perhaps apple should break up the pro and consumer market on the mobile front much like they used to do with the Mac product line.
iPhone/iPad/iPad mini/iPod Pro: Retina display, 32/64/128gb, LTE, Aluminum enclosure, A6, 8mp camera
$699/$599/$429/$299
iPhone/iPad/iPad mini/iPod: non-retina, 8/16/32gb, wifi only (4G iPhone), plastic enclosure, A5, 5mp camera
$299/$399/$329/$199
Quote:
Originally Posted by THEMAC1NT0SH
Cause that makes sense considering that they're going to require that all apps fill the screen and have retina display beginning May 1st.
Will they be requiring all apps to be retina display only?
Doubtful. More likely: Requiring that all apps are required to support retina display. It will no longer be an option to not support it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan
A "cheaper" iPhone is directly aimed at the emerging markets of China/India/Asia, where the average cell phone user cannot afford a premium product like the iPhone 5. This is the WHOLE reason why Apple is even considering a "low cost alternative". We don't know if this model will even be available outside of the emerging markets. It's not a bad strategy, either....there are nearly two billion consumers in these markets that could be potential new customers to introduce to the Apple ecosystem....could be worth billions to the company and significantly increase the share price.
Bingo!
Pat, can I buy a vowel.... oh wait, wrong game show. This is the Rumor Game Show, where everyone throws words into a ring and makes stuff up...
Serious - I read, and then laugh, and then wait for actual OFFICIAL word from Apple on their products. When it is announced, then I decide to buy or not and then plan accordingly. Maybe jaded, but I for one am sick of the the sky is falling stick. When I see the stuff myself, then I will duck for cover.