Oh Mr. BMW, I can only afford a Civic, will you please lower your quality so I can buy your BMW. It does not matter if you have to lower the quality to the point of Civic, just as long as I can say I own a BMW.
Bad example because BMW makes the Mini Cooper, and don't say Benz either because they make the Smart Car.
Bad example because BMW makes the Mini Cooper, and don't say Benz either because they make the Smart Car.
are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz.
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">I thought that was remedially explained to you already in this thread? And you , remedially, understood it? </span>
Remedially the word of the day for you? And despite what you might want to believe, keeping a product at a lower price is NOT the same as introducing a new product with lower specs to meet a lower price point.
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">The rest of your argument is as remedially incorrect. You have seen apple produce lower cost models of all their products - the latest being the iPad mini - you've just decided to ignore this argument and keep repeating your childhood cry of "I've never SEEN IT MAMA!"</span>
Again, you are lost in reality. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs for a lower price point. The iPad mini is a new product of DIFFERENT size and specs to meet the demands of a form factor. The ONLY cheaper iPads are the older models.
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">I'd put you on ignore but something useful is being learned here by neutrals.</span>
I'd rather you understand basic business concepts.
<span style="background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">And do your own research on contracts worldwide. They are exactly as your opponents describe - even in most of Europe.</span>
Oh, now I get it. LOL sorry, I was late to the party here. So being you don't have contracts (I assume that is your argument) and have to pay full price, you rather Apple introduce something you can afford? Why don't you instead go to your carrier and demand that they offer the iPhone FREE with a contract as those do in America? Or offer a payment plan so you can afford the phone over time? Why does Apple have to introduce something you can afford?
Getz. You still haven't learned to quote.
You know that argument about the iPad mini? That's not an argument. If the cheap new iPhone modrel comes out you can make the same points about it not being, just, a lower specced model. I had this same debate when I was predicting the iPad mini.
As for the snide attack on me - when I said Europe it was an example of a rich continent where PAYG is common. Not me. I can afford the top level iPhone off contract. And a BMW. And an unmortgaged house.
If you think owning an iPhone gives you financial status you are middle income at best.
2) Apple is losing the low end market so claims that "apparantly" things are working for them is no sense. Because you need two data sets. How last years models compare against a new model. WE WON'T HAVE THAT DATA UNTIL RELEASE THE NEW MODELS SO WE CAN COMPARE.
I don't even get why Apple fans would not want more models of a device they use and welcome to ignore.
You can't lose that which you never had. Apple never had the low end market of anything, nor has it ever tried. Not in their DNA as I recall.
More models are great, let's get them! Just like the iPod line that introduced new models of different form factors to meet different needs, if there are different needs for the iPhone then do it.
Oh, wait, there is a smaller iPhone 4 and 4s and a larger iPhone 5 so there are different models of different form factors to meet different needs. Same with the iPad.
are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz.
A BMW is for rich people unlike an iPhone. Which is for middle income people in the developed world and the upper middle income in the poor world.
If your financial status comes from buying a mass market device - with 50% if the market in the US - it makes sense that you would oppose a greater penetration of the phone. For those of us who want the iOS platform to maintain its presence, and see apple increase share , we naturally would support cheaper models.
You know that argument about the iPad mini? That's not an argument. If the cheap new iPhone modrel comes out you can make the same points about it not being, just, a lower specced model. I had this same debate when I was predicting the iPad mini.
As for the snide attack on me - when I said Europe it was an example of a rich continent where PAYG is common. Not me. I can afford the top level iPhone off contract. And a BMW. And an unmortgaged house.
If you think owning an iPhone gives you financial status you are middle income at best.
Leaning and wanting to are different.
AGAIN, iPad mini is a different form factor like the iPhone 5 to meet a need. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs. No one can look at the two and say, yeah, I see where that one is cheaper. One is smaller, just like the iPod line and oops, like the iPhone line as well.
LOL I never brought up about the affordability of iPhone before others. I think it is priced just fine. Everyone else is suggesting a cheaper one is needed. My point is if you can't afford something, don't buy it, or save for it. But don't get upset at the manufacturer for not offering one you can afford.
BTW, it was not a dig on you personally (as I don't know you to do so), but a dig on the comment as it is Apple' responsibility to lower the cost of ownership and not the carriers. Although Apple is offering payment plans in some countries.
A BMW is for rich people unlike an iPhone. Which is for middle income people in the developed world and the upper middle income in the poor world.
If your financial status comes from buying a mass market device - with 50% if the market in the US - it makes sense that you would oppose a greater penetration of the phone. For those of us who want the iOS platform to maintain its presence, and see apple increase share , we naturally would support cheaper models.
I hardly think BMWs are for the rich, but the definition of rich is subjective. My status does not come from finances and no one else's should either in my opinion. Having money is a blessing, and fun, but not a status. But I admit, that is my opinion.
So why does Apple need to do this? Is it to increase their $140 Billion in cash? To be the #1 company in the world again and not #2? To claim they have the most phones out in the market? I'm sure they can with their cash if they wanted to. What does Apple gain, or anyone, to be a player in the lower end markets?
are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz.
You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.
You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.
Which is why I really hate, and therefore should not use, car analogies. Perhaps I should have used Corvette as they don't have a lower end version of itself.
A BMW is for rich people unlike an iPhone. Which is for middle income people in the developed world and the upper middle income in the poor world.
If your financial status comes from buying a mass market device - with 50% if the market in the US - it makes sense that you would oppose a greater penetration of the phone. For those of us who want the iOS platform to maintain its presence, and see apple increase share , we naturally would support cheaper models.
At some point you realize that the other person is willfully being ignorant (i.e.: trolling) and you just have to stop. There is clearly no intellectual conversation coming from him. It was bad enough that he though that the world gets iPhones for FREE but even after it was explained in detail he still went on about, and that's without looking at any of the other goalpost moving comments he's made. For whatever he wishes to remain ignorant so let him.
At some point you realize that the other person is willfully being ignorant (i.e.: trolling) and you just have to stop. There is clearly no intellectual conversation coming from him. It was bad enough that he though that the world gets iPhones for FREE but even after it was explained in detail he still went on about, and that's without looking at any of the other goalpost moving comments he's made. For whatever he wishes to remain ignorant so let him.
I like how you try to diss me by posting to someone else as if I am not right here. If you have something to say to me, be a big enough girl to say it to me.
Which is why I really hate, and therefore should not use, car analogies. Perhaps I should have used Corvette as they don't have a lower end version of itself.
That reminds me when I used to tell people "my boys and I drive around in a 'Vette, a Chevette" lol
AGAIN, iPad mini is a different form factor like the iPhone 5 to meet a need. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs. No one can look at the two and say, yeah, I see where that one is cheaper. One is smaller, just like the iPod line and oops, like the iPhone line as well.
LOL I never brought up about the affordability of iPhone before others. I think it is priced just fine. Everyone else is suggesting a cheaper one is needed. My point is if you can't afford something, don't buy it, or save for it. But don't get upset at the manufacturer for not offering one you can afford.
BTW, it was not a dig on you personally (as I don't know you to do so), but a dig on the comment as it is Apple' responsibility to lower the cost of ownership and not the carriers. Although Apple is offering payment plans in some countries.
The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.
I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
I hardly think BMWs are for the rich, but the definition of rich is subjective. My status does not come from finances and no one else's should either in my opinion. Having money is a blessing, and fun, but not a status. But I admit, that is my opinion.
So why does Apple need to do this? Is it to increase their $140 Billion in cash? To be the #1 company in the world again and not #2? To claim they have the most phones out in the market? I'm sure they can with their cash if they wanted to. What does Apple gain, or anyone, to be a player in the lower end markets?
Yet BMW clearly has different classes of cars at different price points. Why are they doing that when per your reasoning they are harming themselves? Are we supposed to believe that the 3 class is just made up nonsense that in no form or fashion has been engineered to meet a lower price point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
1. Are they?
2. They sell a $650 phone. WHAT ON EARTH makes you think they even WANT the market of people who can't afford data plans?
Why's it taking them seven years to do? That's longer than any other such timeframe.
Because that's part of what killed them in the '90s and one of the first things Jobs stopped when he came back. Maybe you've forgotten.
Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution. Likewise the commoditized solutions by PC vendors made Mac prices look uncompetitive. Why is it taking them seven years? Some of us would arguing that Apple is repeating the mistakes they made with the Mac rather than keeping the lessons they learned with the iPod. What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.
I can recall a friend of mine financed an Asus computer. It was early Windows 95 and it cost him $2200. Within 18 months we were building the same machine for less than $800. Apple in the same timeframe was still offering mostly $2200 solutions as their real choices with intentionally cripped machines making up their low end. (68040's with their math co-processor off and so forth.) It got ugly quick but Jobs turned it around by offering a few choices all built around common components and that helped Apple get their margins up and their prices down, all while helping the consumer understand what they were buying.
Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz.
You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.
You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.
show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs?
nice, you linked to the history of iPods, now show me which iPod had its specs lowered?
Let's start with the iPod Classic. Which one from 1 to 7 had its specs lowered?
Now the Mini?
Then the Nano?
Then the Shuffle?
Then the Touch?
Looks to me as though each CATEGORY of iPod has had its iterations increase in specs.
Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price. Apple explained the trade-offs and expanded their market each time. They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars. Apple made the best products they could at each price point but they made them across all price points.
I like how you try to diss me by posting to someone else as if I am not right here. If you have something to say to me, be a big enough girl to say it to me.
Do you seriously not understand how an open forum works? If I wanted to say something "
behind your back" I would said it as a private message to asdasd. This being an open forum you are free to read and respond to it as you see fit but don't be a dumb ass and suggest I was trying to direct anything toward you as my message was clearly addressed and worded for asdasd. If there is anything in this world I do exceptionally well it's being direct. if your reading comprehension was better you'd know that; but if your reading comprehension was better I wouldn't have had to tell you.
The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.
I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.
Yet BMW clearly has different classes of cars at different price points. Why are they doing that when per your reasoning they are harming themselves? Are we supposed to believe that the 3 class is just made up nonsense that in no form or fashion has been engineered to meet a lower price point?
Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution. Likewise the commoditized solutions by PC vendors made Mac prices look uncompetitive. Why is it taking them seven years? Some of us would arguing that Apple is repeating the mistakes they made with the Mac rather than keeping the lessons they learned with the iPod. What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.
I can recall a friend of mine financed an Asus computer. It was early Windows 95 and it cost him $2200. Within 18 months we were building the same machine for less than $800. Apple in the same timeframe was still offering mostly $2200 solutions as their real choices with intentionally cripped machines making up their low end. (68040's with their math co-processor off and so forth.) It got ugly quick but Jobs turned it around by offering a few choices all built around common components and that helped Apple get their margins up and their prices down, all while helping the consumer understand what they were buying.
Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.
You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.
Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price. Apple explained the trade-offs and expanded their market each time. They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars. Apple made the best products they could at each price point but they made them across all price points.
The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.
I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.
Do you not understand the difference?? I never said the iPad Mini did not have lower specs than the iPad, I said the iPad Mini is not a lowered specked iPad. The difference is the iPad Mini is a new product category, different size for a different use. It is NOT the same design as an iPad but with lower specs.
Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution.
And who has more money? Microsoft or Apple? Who? That's correct Apple. Do they sell more than Microsoft, nope, but they do sell it for larger margins and make lots more money then they do. So would you rather sell 10x more product or make 10x more profit. Well, actually, your stating you rather sell 10x more product, hell with the profit.
What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.
Yup, when they had too many product tiers, agreed. Now they have the iPhone 4, 4s, and 5 which is a new size. What more do you want? I'm not saying there is not room for more products, just not cheap versions to sell to the masses.
Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.
Sure, I agree that Apple can keep the iPhone 4 line as the consumer and move the 5x to the pro line. I don't see a reason to offer a NEW cheaper line for consumers (vs pros).
You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.
Apple currently has two iPhone lines. The 4 (4 and 4s) and the 5. I think it is great that Apple would CONTINUE to offer an older model for people who don't need high end specs, and would even agree with a older model having their drive downsized to 2GB to save cost. But I still don't see the need to offer a cheaper phone for a market segment that Apple has never gone after before.
Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price.
The iPod Touch did not. But again, there is a difference between a new product category that does have lower prices due to target markets (such as not having a screen so of course the cost would go down), and taking an existing product category and making it cheaper.
Example:
iPod Touch to iPod Touch lite with reduced specs.
iPod Nano/Shuffle are not cheaper versions of a parent, but new parents. They are for different markets. Touch for those who need more interaction, video, games, etc. and Nano/Shuffle for the active runners etc. Totally different products for totally different usages.
They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars
Again, they introduced new product categories to address needs based on size and capability, not so they could sell cheaper iPods to more people.
If everyone is going to use the same iPod to iPhone analogy, then the cheaper iPhone would have no screen (wait, that would be the iWatch). If you liken it to the iPad, then the cheaper phone would start at and always be a smaller form factor as people wanted the difference in size to meet a different need.
At no time did Apple use cheaper parts in their iPod classic to sell more. They have not taken the iPod Touch and make a non-retina screen version with lower specs to sell more.
Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution.
There are some big differences though. The iPhone and most if not all high end Android phones cost the same. Windows had the luxury of having the most software being developed for it, and while the Google Play store is catching up to the App Store I believe the App Store wins in the quality of apps.
Do you seriously not understand how an open forum works? If I wanted to say something "
behind your back" I would said it as a private message, but that's beside the point as my message was clearly directed at asdasd. This being an open forum you are free to read and respond to it as you see fit but don't be a dumb ass and suggest I was trying to direct anything toward you. If there is anything in this world I do exceptionally well it's being direct. if your reading comprehension was better you'd know that; but if your reading comprehension was better I wouldn't have had to tell you.
Comments
Bad example because BMW makes the Mini Cooper, and don't say Benz either because they make the Smart Car.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Bad example because BMW makes the Mini Cooper, and don't say Benz either because they make the Smart Car.
are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz.
Getz. You still haven't learned to quote.
You know that argument about the iPad mini? That's not an argument. If the cheap new iPhone modrel comes out you can make the same points about it not being, just, a lower specced model. I had this same debate when I was predicting the iPad mini.
As for the snide attack on me - when I said Europe it was an example of a rich continent where PAYG is common. Not me. I can afford the top level iPhone off contract. And a BMW. And an unmortgaged house.
If you think owning an iPhone gives you financial status you are middle income at best.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
2) Apple is losing the low end market so claims that "apparantly" things are working for them is no sense. Because you need two data sets. How last years models compare against a new model. WE WON'T HAVE THAT DATA UNTIL RELEASE THE NEW MODELS SO WE CAN COMPARE.
I don't even get why Apple fans would not want more models of a device they use and welcome to ignore.
You can't lose that which you never had. Apple never had the low end market of anything, nor has it ever tried. Not in their DNA as I recall.
More models are great, let's get them! Just like the iPod line that introduced new models of different form factors to meet different needs, if there are different needs for the iPhone then do it.
Oh, wait, there is a smaller iPhone 4 and 4s and a larger iPhone 5 so there are different models of different form factors to meet different needs. Same with the iPad.
A BMW is for rich people unlike an iPhone. Which is for middle income people in the developed world and the upper middle income in the poor world.
If your financial status comes from buying a mass market device - with 50% if the market in the US - it makes sense that you would oppose a greater penetration of the phone. For those of us who want the iOS platform to maintain its presence, and see apple increase share , we naturally would support cheaper models.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
Getz. You still haven't learned to quote.
You know that argument about the iPad mini? That's not an argument. If the cheap new iPhone modrel comes out you can make the same points about it not being, just, a lower specced model. I had this same debate when I was predicting the iPad mini.
As for the snide attack on me - when I said Europe it was an example of a rich continent where PAYG is common. Not me. I can afford the top level iPhone off contract. And a BMW. And an unmortgaged house.
If you think owning an iPhone gives you financial status you are middle income at best.
Leaning and wanting to are different.
AGAIN, iPad mini is a different form factor like the iPhone 5 to meet a need. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs. No one can look at the two and say, yeah, I see where that one is cheaper. One is smaller, just like the iPod line and oops, like the iPhone line as well.
LOL I never brought up about the affordability of iPhone before others. I think it is priced just fine. Everyone else is suggesting a cheaper one is needed. My point is if you can't afford something, don't buy it, or save for it. But don't get upset at the manufacturer for not offering one you can afford.
BTW, it was not a dig on you personally (as I don't know you to do so), but a dig on the comment as it is Apple' responsibility to lower the cost of ownership and not the carriers. Although Apple is offering payment plans in some countries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
A BMW is for rich people unlike an iPhone. Which is for middle income people in the developed world and the upper middle income in the poor world.
If your financial status comes from buying a mass market device - with 50% if the market in the US - it makes sense that you would oppose a greater penetration of the phone. For those of us who want the iOS platform to maintain its presence, and see apple increase share , we naturally would support cheaper models.
I hardly think BMWs are for the rich, but the definition of rich is subjective. My status does not come from finances and no one else's should either in my opinion. Having money is a blessing, and fun, but not a status. But I admit, that is my opinion.
So why does Apple need to do this? Is it to increase their $140 Billion in cash? To be the #1 company in the world again and not #2? To claim they have the most phones out in the market? I'm sure they can with their cash if they wanted to. What does Apple gain, or anyone, to be a player in the lower end markets?
Originally Posted by asdasd
1) you were totally opposed to the idea of the continuation of the 3GS when the 4S came out. Apple never did this before. Yada yada yada.
Except I never said that. I do recall saying they wouldn't drop the 4 and keep the 3GS. HEY LOOK AT THAT, they didn't do it.
2) Apple is losing the low end market.
1. Are they?
2. They sell a $650 phone. WHAT ON EARTH makes you think they even WANT the market of people who can't afford data plans?
of course apple are going to have more than one model of iPhone. As they do with all other products.
Why's it taking them seven years to do? That's longer than any other such timeframe.
I don't even get why Apple fans would not want more models of a device…
Because that's part of what killed them in the '90s and one of the first things Jobs stopped when he came back. Maybe you've forgotten.
You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.
Which is why I really hate, and therefore should not use, car analogies. Perhaps I should have used Corvette as they don't have a lower end version of itself.
At some point you realize that the other person is willfully being ignorant (i.e.: trolling) and you just have to stop. There is clearly no intellectual conversation coming from him. It was bad enough that he though that the world gets iPhones for FREE but even after it was explained in detail he still went on about, and that's without looking at any of the other goalpost moving comments he's made. For whatever he wishes to remain ignorant so let him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
At some point you realize that the other person is willfully being ignorant (i.e.: trolling) and you just have to stop. There is clearly no intellectual conversation coming from him. It was bad enough that he though that the world gets iPhones for FREE but even after it was explained in detail he still went on about, and that's without looking at any of the other goalpost moving comments he's made. For whatever he wishes to remain ignorant so let him.
I like how you try to diss me by posting to someone else as if I am not right here. If you have something to say to me, be a big enough girl to say it to me.
That reminds me when I used to tell people "my boys and I drive around in a 'Vette, a Chevette" lol
heres the whole list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iPod_models
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
heres the whole list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iPod_models
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs?
nice, you linked to the history of iPods, now show me which iPod had its specs lowered?
Let's start with the iPod Classic. Which one from 1 to 7 had its specs lowered?
Now the Mini?
Then the Nano?
Then the Shuffle?
Then the Touch?
Looks to me as though each CATEGORY of iPod has had its iterations increase in specs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Leaning and wanting to are different.
AGAIN, iPad mini is a different form factor like the iPhone 5 to meet a need. The iPad mini is not an iPad with lower specs. No one can look at the two and say, yeah, I see where that one is cheaper. One is smaller, just like the iPod line and oops, like the iPhone line as well.
LOL I never brought up about the affordability of iPhone before others. I think it is priced just fine. Everyone else is suggesting a cheaper one is needed. My point is if you can't afford something, don't buy it, or save for it. But don't get upset at the manufacturer for not offering one you can afford.
BTW, it was not a dig on you personally (as I don't know you to do so), but a dig on the comment as it is Apple' responsibility to lower the cost of ownership and not the carriers. Although Apple is offering payment plans in some countries.
The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.
I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
I hardly think BMWs are for the rich, but the definition of rich is subjective. My status does not come from finances and no one else's should either in my opinion. Having money is a blessing, and fun, but not a status. But I admit, that is my opinion.
So why does Apple need to do this? Is it to increase their $140 Billion in cash? To be the #1 company in the world again and not #2? To claim they have the most phones out in the market? I'm sure they can with their cash if they wanted to. What does Apple gain, or anyone, to be a player in the lower end markets?
Yet BMW clearly has different classes of cars at different price points. Why are they doing that when per your reasoning they are harming themselves? Are we supposed to believe that the 3 class is just made up nonsense that in no form or fashion has been engineered to meet a lower price point?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
1. Are they?
2. They sell a $650 phone. WHAT ON EARTH makes you think they even WANT the market of people who can't afford data plans?
Why's it taking them seven years to do? That's longer than any other such timeframe.
Because that's part of what killed them in the '90s and one of the first things Jobs stopped when he came back. Maybe you've forgotten.
Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution. Likewise the commoditized solutions by PC vendors made Mac prices look uncompetitive. Why is it taking them seven years? Some of us would arguing that Apple is repeating the mistakes they made with the Mac rather than keeping the lessons they learned with the iPod. What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.
I can recall a friend of mine financed an Asus computer. It was early Windows 95 and it cost him $2200. Within 18 months we were building the same machine for less than $800. Apple in the same timeframe was still offering mostly $2200 solutions as their real choices with intentionally cripped machines making up their low end. (68040's with their math co-processor off and so forth.) It got ugly quick but Jobs turned it around by offering a few choices all built around common components and that helped Apple get their margins up and their prices down, all while helping the consumer understand what they were buying.
Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
are you people that far off reality? A Mini Cooper is not a BMW even if made by the same company. Also a Mini is not a knock-off BMW, but it's own brand category. Same with the Smart Car being its own brand category and not a knock-off of a Benz.
You're correct but both BMW and Benz make cars that aren't that much more expensive than the competition. A 3 Series or a C Class can be purchased for less than $40K. Those are not rich people prices.
You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234
heres the whole list
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_iPod_models
Quote:
Originally Posted by Richard Getz
show me which iPod was a previous generation with lower specs?
nice, you linked to the history of iPods, now show me which iPod had its specs lowered?
Let's start with the iPod Classic. Which one from 1 to 7 had its specs lowered?
Now the Mini?
Then the Nano?
Then the Shuffle?
Then the Touch?
Looks to me as though each CATEGORY of iPod has had its iterations increase in specs.
Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price. Apple explained the trade-offs and expanded their market each time. They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars. Apple made the best products they could at each price point but they made them across all price points.
Do you seriously not understand how an open forum works? If I wanted to say something "
behind your back" I would said it as a private message to asdasd. This being an open forum you are free to read and respond to it as you see fit but don't be a dumb ass and suggest I was trying to direct anything toward you as my message was clearly addressed and worded for asdasd. If there is anything in this world I do exceptionally well it's being direct. if your reading comprehension was better you'd know that; but if your reading comprehension was better I wouldn't have had to tell you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.
I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.
Yet BMW clearly has different classes of cars at different price points. Why are they doing that when per your reasoning they are harming themselves? Are we supposed to believe that the 3 class is just made up nonsense that in no form or fashion has been engineered to meet a lower price point?
Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution. Likewise the commoditized solutions by PC vendors made Mac prices look uncompetitive. Why is it taking them seven years? Some of us would arguing that Apple is repeating the mistakes they made with the Mac rather than keeping the lessons they learned with the iPod. What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.
I can recall a friend of mine financed an Asus computer. It was early Windows 95 and it cost him $2200. Within 18 months we were building the same machine for less than $800. Apple in the same timeframe was still offering mostly $2200 solutions as their real choices with intentionally cripped machines making up their low end. (68040's with their math co-processor off and so forth.) It got ugly quick but Jobs turned it around by offering a few choices all built around common components and that helped Apple get their margins up and their prices down, all while helping the consumer understand what they were buying.
Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.
You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.
Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price. Apple explained the trade-offs and expanded their market each time. They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars. Apple made the best products they could at each price point but they made them across all price points.
The iPad mini absolutely has lower specs than the iPad. It has a non-retina display. It has a processor that is a full generation behind. It has a smaller screen with narrower viewing angles. It is available with more than double the storage capacity.
I don't see how an person can honestly claim what you've claimed here.
Do you not understand the difference?? I never said the iPad Mini did not have lower specs than the iPad, I said the iPad Mini is not a lowered specked iPad. The difference is the iPad Mini is a new product category, different size for a different use. It is NOT the same design as an iPad but with lower specs.
Apple is in danger of being swamped worldwide by Android. That is what I am seeing. We saw with Windows vs Mac that an inferior solution beat a superior solution.
And who has more money? Microsoft or Apple? Who? That's correct Apple. Do they sell more than Microsoft, nope, but they do sell it for larger margins and make lots more money then they do. So would you rather sell 10x more product or make 10x more profit. Well, actually, your stating you rather sell 10x more product, hell with the profit.
What killed Apple in the 90's wasn't just that Apple had too many and cross competing models. It was that they lacked a vision going forward, no one could understand their product tiers and solutions and finally Apple really got hurt when Windows 95 came out and the price of PC's, which were suddenly standardized around several common standards, plunged by more than half.
Yup, when they had too many product tiers, agreed. Now they have the iPhone 4, 4s, and 5 which is a new size. What more do you want? I'm not saying there is not room for more products, just not cheap versions to sell to the masses.
Pro towers, pro laptops, consumer desktops and consumer laptops. Apple has at least as much room in their phone choices.
Sure, I agree that Apple can keep the iPhone 4 line as the consumer and move the 5x to the pro line. I don't see a reason to offer a NEW cheaper line for consumers (vs pros).
You hit the nail on the head. No one is saying Apple needs to compete with Series 40 Nokia phones or Samsung Java/Bada crap. However they cant ignore the entire market. BMW didn't ignore Acura and Lexus.
Apple currently has two iPhone lines. The 4 (4 and 4s) and the 5. I think it is great that Apple would CONTINUE to offer an older model for people who don't need high end specs, and would even agree with a older model having their drive downsized to 2GB to save cost. But I still don't see the need to offer a cheaper phone for a market segment that Apple has never gone after before.
Each "CATEGORY" was also progressively lower in price.
The iPod Touch did not. But again, there is a difference between a new product category that does have lower prices due to target markets (such as not having a screen so of course the cost would go down), and taking an existing product category and making it cheaper.
Example:
iPod Touch to iPod Touch lite with reduced specs.
iPod Nano/Shuffle are not cheaper versions of a parent, but new parents. They are for different markets. Touch for those who need more interaction, video, games, etc. and Nano/Shuffle for the active runners etc. Totally different products for totally different usages.
They fully commoditized the iPod and offered solutions from $50 up to several hundred dollars. They didn't say something wasn't worth pursuing and leave it for other competitors to grab those dollars
Again, they introduced new product categories to address needs based on size and capability, not so they could sell cheaper iPods to more people.
If everyone is going to use the same iPod to iPhone analogy, then the cheaper iPhone would have no screen (wait, that would be the iWatch). If you liken it to the iPad, then the cheaper phone would start at and always be a smaller form factor as people wanted the difference in size to meet a different need.
At no time did Apple use cheaper parts in their iPod classic to sell more. They have not taken the iPod Touch and make a non-retina screen version with lower specs to sell more.
Does that make sense?
There are some big differences though. The iPhone and most if not all high end Android phones cost the same. Windows had the luxury of having the most software being developed for it, and while the Google Play store is catching up to the App Store I believe the App Store wins in the quality of apps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Do you seriously not understand how an open forum works? If I wanted to say something "
behind your back" I would said it as a private message, but that's beside the point as my message was clearly directed at asdasd. This being an open forum you are free to read and respond to it as you see fit but don't be a dumb ass and suggest I was trying to direct anything toward you. If there is anything in this world I do exceptionally well it's being direct. if your reading comprehension was better you'd know that; but if your reading comprehension was better I wouldn't have had to tell you.