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.
But if Apple has to make a cheap phone to do it is it worth it? I mean who is going to get excited about a plastic phone with low res display? And how does that fit into Apple's brand of a maker of premium products? When Tom Cook was asked about this at that Goldman Sachs conference he brought up the iPod and how they created the Shuffle to address the lower price point. Which makes me think Apple is thinking differently about this and what they might do won't be the obvious plastic phone.
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.
This issues has been beaten to death here: many of the Android phones have a pentile display, where you have to multiply the resolution figure by 2/3, which makes all the "retina" phones roughly the same res.
But if Apple has to make a cheap phone to do it is it worth it? I mean who is going to get excited about a plastic phone with low res display? And how does that fit into Apple's brand of a maker of premium products? When Tom Cook was asked about this at that Goldman Sachs conference he brought up the iPod and how they created the Shuffle to address the lower price point. Which makes me think Apple is thinking differently about this and what they might do won't be the obvious plastic phone.
Again...
It's the OS.
Why force people in emerging markets into buying an Android phone if they really want iOS but can't afford the present offerings.
Even if the phone is cheaper it doesn't mean that it has to be fragile and the OS is still premium.
Not to say that it's going to happen or anything...
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.
I disagree with this. Most people maybe can't see the pixels on a non-retina display, but the retina display looks better (and on the iPad makes it much less tiring to read, though this is less of an issue for the phone.
There is much fretting about what Apple MUST do to regain market share. Well, there are already signs that the combination of iP5, iP4 is gaining grounds on Android. Furthermore, what is wrong with the status quo of 20-25% of market share in units and 70% in profits?
As for the issue of the "emerging" markets? Why does Apple have to play in those markets? Should they? Selling cheaper phones in those markets, however it is done (smaller, non-RD, plastic instead of Al), will mean lower margins overall. Is that good for the easily combustible $AAPL shareholders here?
Remember how we all fretted about what a smaller iPad would look like and how it had to be $299 or cheaper? Well, except for the display, it turned out to be a premium device with the same quality in fit and trim as the iPhone. And it is a bestseller for Apple, even if the price is > $299. So let's not declare what Apple will and will not do, must or must not do. Let's just wait, watch and be pleasantly surprised.
Your implication seems to be it would be "cheap"? Who is claiming they'd make a "cheap" phone? There's a difference between "cheap" and "lower cost" or "more affordable."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
...is it worth it?
This depends on a lot of factors not the least of which is if Apple a) sees an opportunity to bring a boatload of new customers into their fold, b) make a bunch of money in the process, and c) hold off any threat of cheaper smart phones for the Android platform basically relegating them to also-ran status a few years down the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I mean who is going to get excited about a plastic phone with low res display?
People who want an iPhone but cannot afford the current offerings for some reason.
P.S. It isn't a "low-res" display. Sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And how does that fit into Apple's brand of a maker of premium products?
It is possible Apple doesn't even bring a low end phone to the US, but keeps it in developing markets. Apple to date doesn't need a lower priced iPhone in the US. I would say Apple could get more market share in the US with a bigger screen.
It is possible Apple doesn't even bring a low end phone to the US, but keeps it in developing markets. Apple to date doesn't need a lower priced iPhone in the US. I would say Apple could get more market share in the US with a bigger screen.
But if Apple has to make a cheap phone to do it is it worth it? I mean who is going to get excited about a plastic phone with low res display? And how does that fit into Apple's brand of a maker of premium products? When Tom Cook was asked about this at that Goldman Sachs conference he brought up the iPod and how they created the Shuffle to address the lower price point. Which makes me think Apple is thinking differently about this and what they might do won't be the obvious plastic phone.
Rogifan....No one is sayng make a "cheap" phone...I'm sure any phone they make will be of good quality, but it doesn't need to be a top of the line phone either. Apple could make an "entry level" phone that doesn't have all the bells and whistles in it, but is still well made and designed for particular markets like China or India. These markets right now are mostly closed to Apple because the people in these markets cannot afford a $600 phone and the carriers do not subsidize them enough to make up the difference. Remember, we are talking about countries where middle class workers might make $8k-$10k a year. Perhaps Apple could redesign the iPhone 3G with a slightly larger screen...to make it work in these countries...that wouldn't be so bad, would it? A $300 phone would allow Apple entry into these markets in a big time way. They don't even need to sell them outside of the emerging markets if they don't want to. And even with a $300 "entry level" phone, there is still plenty of margin room for Apple to make a nice profit! It's a win win for everyone!
…China/India/Asia, where the average cell phone user cannot afford a premium product like the iPhone 5.
Incorrect.
This is the WHOLE reason why Apple is even considering a "low cost alternative".
NO. Don't get mired in that fog; don't get dragged down with these devils. Apple is NOT considering ANYTHING. Apple is doing NOTHING. ANALYSTS have MANIFESTED this BELIEF that Apple MUST cater to a market that DOESN'T exist.
We don't know
Never forget that. We DON'T know. We includes analysts.
It's not a bad strategy, either….there are nearly two billion consumers in these markets…
Many of these people struggle to buy food. Still more only have very, very simple lifestyles, able to afford the barest of necessities (but all of them). They are NOT BUYING CELL PHONES WITH DATA PLANS.
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan
And even with a $300 "entry level" phone, there is still plenty of margin room for Apple to make a nice profit! It's a win win for everyone!
All plausibility aside, that is the only number I've considered. But it's not being sold to "China and India" at that price.
Gotta love Apple. They're the great equalizer. They don't show any favoritism and give these analysts a clue about future products. These Wall Street analysts are about as clueless as the rest of us. Except we're not dumb enough to predict Apple will come out with a plastic iPhone with no Retina display.
Will say it again, this will sell more iPhone 5's. It's a psych issue, people want choice, but when the rubber hits the road, they bend and purchase the nicer unit.
I think it was the 3GS, when the 3 was held in the market, they expected demand to go nuts since everyone was clamoring for a $99 iPhone, but in the end, the clamoring stopped and the sales didn't materialize.
Your implication seems to be it would be "cheap"? Who is claiming they'd make a "cheap" phone? There's a difference between "cheap" and "lower cost" or "more affordable."
This depends on a lot of factors not the least of which is if Apple a) sees an opportunity to bring a boatload of new customers into their fold, b) make a bunch of money in the process, and c) hold off any threat of cheaper smart phones for the Android platform basically relegating them to also-ran status a few years down the road.
People who want an iPhone but cannot afford the current offerings for some reason.
P.S. It isn't a "low-res" display. Sheesh.
*sigh*
I'm sorry but a non-retina phone in a plastic casing will be perceived as cheap. What helped the mini keep that premium feel while not having retina is the glass and aluminum and chamfered edge detailing. Maybe Apple can find a way to make this low cost phone look and feel premium. If they do no doubt prople outside of China and India will want it.
But if these rumors pan out and we get a 3GS type phone for China I think the question many will have is WTF took you so long? If that's all you're doing why did it take you 6 years to figure it out? And the media will spin it as a reactionary move; Apple being on defense.
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.
You obviously haven't used a Retina display for any length of time. Try using one for a week then go back to your 3GS or iPad 2. Then you'll be able to "see" the difference. Once you've used Retina, everything else becomes pixelated.
Comments
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.
But if Apple has to make a cheap phone to do it is it worth it? I mean who is going to get excited about a plastic phone with low res display? And how does that fit into Apple's brand of a maker of premium products? When Tom Cook was asked about this at that Goldman Sachs conference he brought up the iPod and how they created the Shuffle to address the lower price point. Which makes me think Apple is thinking differently about this and what they might do won't be the obvious plastic phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by OllieWallieWhiskers
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
They'd get killed in the low end models, since the Android phones all have retina displays and 8-13mp cameras now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
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.
This issues has been beaten to death here: many of the Android phones have a pentile display, where you have to multiply the resolution figure by 2/3, which makes all the "retina" phones roughly the same res.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
In before someone says "the iPhone 4 is free, you cants get cheaper than free."
Not in before someone wonders why there are rumors on a rumor site.
We could post it in.
Free WITH CONTRACT. In the emerging markets people apparently mostly go prepaid.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
But if Apple has to make a cheap phone to do it is it worth it? I mean who is going to get excited about a plastic phone with low res display? And how does that fit into Apple's brand of a maker of premium products? When Tom Cook was asked about this at that Goldman Sachs conference he brought up the iPod and how they created the Shuffle to address the lower price point. Which makes me think Apple is thinking differently about this and what they might do won't be the obvious plastic phone.
Again...
It's the OS.
Why force people in emerging markets into buying an Android phone if they really want iOS but can't afford the present offerings.
Even if the phone is cheaper it doesn't mean that it has to be fragile and the OS is still premium.
Not to say that it's going to happen or anything...
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.
I disagree with this. Most people maybe can't see the pixels on a non-retina display, but the retina display looks better (and on the iPad makes it much less tiring to read, though this is less of an issue for the phone.
There is much fretting about what Apple MUST do to regain market share. Well, there are already signs that the combination of iP5, iP4 is gaining grounds on Android. Furthermore, what is wrong with the status quo of 20-25% of market share in units and 70% in profits?
As for the issue of the "emerging" markets? Why does Apple have to play in those markets? Should they? Selling cheaper phones in those markets, however it is done (smaller, non-RD, plastic instead of Al), will mean lower margins overall. Is that good for the easily combustible $AAPL shareholders here?
Remember how we all fretted about what a smaller iPad would look like and how it had to be $299 or cheaper? Well, except for the display, it turned out to be a premium device with the same quality in fit and trim as the iPhone. And it is a bestseller for Apple, even if the price is > $299. So let's not declare what Apple will and will not do, must or must not do. Let's just wait, watch and be pleasantly surprised.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
But if Apple has to make a cheap phone...
Your implication seems to be it would be "cheap"? Who is claiming they'd make a "cheap" phone? There's a difference between "cheap" and "lower cost" or "more affordable."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
...is it worth it?
This depends on a lot of factors not the least of which is if Apple a) sees an opportunity to bring a boatload of new customers into their fold, b) make a bunch of money in the process, and c) hold off any threat of cheaper smart phones for the Android platform basically relegating them to also-ran status a few years down the road.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I mean who is going to get excited about a plastic phone with low res display?
People who want an iPhone but cannot afford the current offerings for some reason.
P.S. It isn't a "low-res" display. Sheesh.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
And how does that fit into Apple's brand of a maker of premium products?
*sigh*
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Let's just wait, watch and be pleasantly surprised.
What fun is there in that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
But if Apple has to make a cheap phone to do it is it worth it? I mean who is going to get excited about a plastic phone with low res display? And how does that fit into Apple's brand of a maker of premium products? When Tom Cook was asked about this at that Goldman Sachs conference he brought up the iPod and how they created the Shuffle to address the lower price point. Which makes me think Apple is thinking differently about this and what they might do won't be the obvious plastic phone.
Rogifan....No one is sayng make a "cheap" phone...I'm sure any phone they make will be of good quality, but it doesn't need to be a top of the line phone either. Apple could make an "entry level" phone that doesn't have all the bells and whistles in it, but is still well made and designed for particular markets like China or India. These markets right now are mostly closed to Apple because the people in these markets cannot afford a $600 phone and the carriers do not subsidize them enough to make up the difference. Remember, we are talking about countries where middle class workers might make $8k-$10k a year. Perhaps Apple could redesign the iPhone 3G with a slightly larger screen...to make it work in these countries...that wouldn't be so bad, would it? A $300 phone would allow Apple entry into these markets in a big time way. They don't even need to sell them outside of the emerging markets if they don't want to. And even with a $300 "entry level" phone, there is still plenty of margin room for Apple to make a nice profit! It's a win win for everyone!
Originally Posted by matt45
Can't apple just refresh the iPhone 3GS?
That's an even worse idea.
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan
…China/India/Asia, where the average cell phone user cannot afford a premium product like the iPhone 5.
Incorrect.
This is the WHOLE reason why Apple is even considering a "low cost alternative".
NO. Don't get mired in that fog; don't get dragged down with these devils. Apple is NOT considering ANYTHING. Apple is doing NOTHING. ANALYSTS have MANIFESTED this BELIEF that Apple MUST cater to a market that DOESN'T exist.
We don't know
Never forget that. We DON'T know. We includes analysts.
It's not a bad strategy, either….there are nearly two billion consumers in these markets…
Many of these people struggle to buy food. Still more only have very, very simple lifestyles, able to afford the barest of necessities (but all of them). They are NOT BUYING CELL PHONES WITH DATA PLANS.
Originally Posted by Jordon Eagan
And even with a $300 "entry level" phone, there is still plenty of margin room for Apple to make a nice profit! It's a win win for everyone!
All plausibility aside, that is the only number I've considered. But it's not being sold to "China and India" at that price.
iPod Nano but as an iPhone. Just add the cell unit with a 2mp camera and a better battery.
I think it was the 3GS, when the 3 was held in the market, they expected demand to go nuts since everyone was clamoring for a $99 iPhone, but in the end, the clamoring stopped and the sales didn't materialize.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970
Your implication seems to be it would be "cheap"? Who is claiming they'd make a "cheap" phone? There's a difference between "cheap" and "lower cost" or "more affordable."
This depends on a lot of factors not the least of which is if Apple a) sees an opportunity to bring a boatload of new customers into their fold, b) make a bunch of money in the process, and c) hold off any threat of cheaper smart phones for the Android platform basically relegating them to also-ran status a few years down the road.
People who want an iPhone but cannot afford the current offerings for some reason.
P.S. It isn't a "low-res" display. Sheesh.
*sigh*
I'm sorry but a non-retina phone in a plastic casing will be perceived as cheap. What helped the mini keep that premium feel while not having retina is the glass and aluminum and chamfered edge detailing. Maybe Apple can find a way to make this low cost phone look and feel premium. If they do no doubt prople outside of China and India will want it.
But if these rumors pan out and we get a 3GS type phone for China I think the question many will have is WTF took you so long? If that's all you're doing why did it take you 6 years to figure it out? And the media will spin it as a reactionary move; Apple being on defense.
You obviously haven't used a Retina display for any length of time. Try using one for a week then go back to your 3GS or iPad 2. Then you'll be able to "see" the difference. Once you've used Retina, everything else becomes pixelated.