Rumor: Apple's inexpensive iPhone to adopt colors from iPhone 4 Bumpers

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 66
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by matrix07 View Post



    "There are a thousand no's"


     


    "Now for us it's never been about making the most."


     


    Someone doesn't pay any attention, it seems.



    They are never going to reveal product plans, so if asked they will give those boiler plate answers. This is common in Apple's history. You wouldn't believe they were interested in Phones, streaming music, 7 inch tablets and much more if you took these comments seriously. And Apple talk about market share when they are leading it - like iPods, or iPads in the beginning.


     


    They care.

  • Reply 42 of 66
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member


    I must be in a "reality distortion field" as I know Tim spoke several time about NOT caring about market share but user experience. Sure, if Apple sees a user experience need as they did the iPod line, to introduce a new phone, I'm sure they will do it. But a cheap phone to gain market share, no, sorry, I will believe Apple over analyst any day! 

  • Reply 43 of 66
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post


    They are never going to reveal product plans, so if asked they will give those boiler plate answers. This is common in Apple's history. You wouldn't believe they were interested in Phones, streaming music, 7 inch tablets and much more if you took these comments seriously. And Apple talk about market share when they are leading it - like iPods, or iPads in the beginning.


     


    They care.



     


    Not accurate! 


     


    The many iPods were introduced not for market share, but to address market needs via different form factors. Again, the iPad did the same thing and introduced a smaller form factor to meet a market need, more portability. The iPhone 5 being larger, I would think, is more because Apple noticed the advantage to seeing your content on a taller device. 


     


    I'm not suggesting Apple does not look at market trends, of course they do, but their reaction is not like others and throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what works, but rather to do internal testing to see what makes sense. 


     


    Totally agree on the iTunes Radio. Apple foresees too many users heading in this direction in the future and wanted to offer something to keep people in their ecosystem. But I still agree with Steve, people want to own their music. 


     


    If Apple had a subscription service, introducing a method that would allow me to play music from my library and inject unowned music into the now playing list that matched the music being played, that would be awesome. This would allow me to own my music and discover new music at the same time. I would have the ability to adjust, via a slider, how much injection I wanted, and another slider for how far from the music style I am playing I am willing to allow. 


     


    As I am listening to my own library, I hear a song that matches that I don't own and then have the ability to buy. That is where this should be heading. 

  • Reply 44 of 66
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


    I must be in a "reality distortion field" as I know Tim spoke several time about NOT caring about market share but user experience. Sure, if Apple sees a user experience need as they did the iPod line, to introduce a new phone, I'm sure they will do it. But a cheap phone to gain market share, no, sorry, I will believe Apple over analyst any day! 



    I'm thinking iPod touch with 16GB storage at $399 for the new iPhone {something} and the iPhone 5 will be renamed simply iPhone?  

  • Reply 45 of 66
    poksipoksi Posts: 482member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ankleskater View Post





    iPhone market is not identical to iPod market. The differentiation amongst Shuffle, Nano, Touch and Classic cannot be duplicated with phones unless Apple wants to make a feature phone. The failure to understand that you're yelling about is entirely yours.


     


    I am sure iPod or former iPod users are telling to themselves every morning in front of the mirror: "iPhone is not the same as iPod..." :)


     


    Failure? Come on, love the Apple products, not he Apple, not for the Apple's sake....


     


    - when iWatch, iPhone Cheaper and iPhone Bigger come out, will you still say "...iPhone market is not identical to iPod market.." ?   Probably not if you woudln't want to be ridiculous...


    - there are no feature phones anymore, stop using this old fashioned terminology, and cheaper phones, any kind or anything less than Samcrap S4 or iPhone 5 are not "feature" phones...


    - Apple makes great products, but as others, fails to place them correctly in time. As others. Apple actually does it seldom. But they do. Face that. 

  • Reply 46 of 66
    poksipoksi Posts: 482member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


    I must be in a "reality distortion field" as I know Tim spoke several time about NOT caring about market share but user experience. Sure, if Apple sees a user experience need as they did the iPod line, to introduce a new phone, I'm sure they will do it. But a cheap phone to gain market share, no, sorry, I will believe Apple over analyst any day! 



     


    Apple is known to be notoriously poor in market demand estimations. Actually, up to last year. Why would they suddenly become market experts today?


     


    They are good in products that is why they were constantly surprised to see the actual demand on the market later. SJ explained this once regarding iPods...


     


    They are good in many things but they are not gods. They've always made mistakes as well. Don't be soooo religious....

  • Reply 47 of 66
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Not accurate! 

    The many iPods were introduced not for market share, but to address market needs via different form factors. Again, the iPad did the same thing and introduced a smaller form factor to meet a market need, more portability. The iPhone 5 being larger, I would think, is more because Apple noticed the advantage to seeing your content on a taller device. 

    I'm not suggesting Apple does not look at market trends, of course they do, but their reaction is not like others and throw a bunch of stuff out there and see what works, but rather to do internal testing to see what makes sense. 

    Totally agree on the iTunes Radio. Apple foresees too many users heading in this direction in the future and wanted to offer something to keep people in their ecosystem. But I still agree with Steve, people want to own their music. 

    If Apple had a subscription service, introducing a method that would allow me to play music from my library and inject unowned music into the now playing list that matched the music being played, that would be awesome. This would allow me to own my music and discover new music at the same time. I would have the ability to adjust, via a slider, how much injection I wanted, and another slider for how far from the music style I am playing I am willing to allow. 

    As I am listening to my own library, I hear a song that matches that I don't own and then have the ability to buy. That is where this should be heading. 

    Rubbish. Same argument every year. The iPad won't be cheaper because Apple don't do cheap. The iPod will never be less than $400 - although you have to go back to 2007.

    And then the cheaper stuff comes out and... The arguments change to the next device. The older devices which were cheaper? That wasn't cheapness that was product differentiation.

    Look apple are not going to produce one phone a year for ever - no company ever fits that
  • Reply 48 of 66
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poksi View Post


     


    Apple is known to be notoriously poor in market demand estimations. Actually, up to last year. Why would they suddenly become market experts today?


     


    They are good in products that is why they were constantly surprised to see the actual demand on the market later. SJ explained this once regarding iPods...


     


    They are good in many things but they are not gods. They've always made mistakes as well. Don't be soooo religious....



     


    ha, I am not at all religious and point out Apple's flaws all the time, example, why is the Airport Express on wireless N and not AC?. If I can attach to ethernet, it should be AC and not just N. 


     


    I don't see how I am being religious in this instance? 

  • Reply 49 of 66
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by asdasd View Post





    Rubbish. Same argument every year. The iPad won't be cheaper because Apple don't do cheap. The iPod will never be less than $400 - although you have to go back to 2007.



    And then the cheaper stuff comes out and... The arguments change to the next device. The older devices which were cheaper? That wasn't cheapness that was product differentiation.



    Look apple are not going to produce one phone a year for ever - no company ever fits that


     


    You must be from the Microsoft Marketing camp! 


     


    A cheaper product due to form factor is not the same as a cheaper version of the same. If you reduce the size of something, remove the screen, the of course it will be cheaper. But the fact that the shuffle can be clipped to you, or the nano is a smaller form factor, but without the function of a Touch is not Apple trying to reduce the price to gain market, but to introduce additional form factors to meet market demand. Same with the iPad mini as the smaller form factor is to reach demand, not to reduce price. 

  • Reply 50 of 66
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by poksi View Post


     


    I am sure iPod or former iPod users are telling to themselves every morning in front of the mirror: "iPhone is not the same as iPod..." :)


     


    Failure? Come on, love the Apple products, not he Apple, not for the Apple's sake....


     


    - when iWatch, iPhone Cheaper and iPhone Bigger come out, will you still say "...iPhone market is not identical to iPod market.." ?   Probably not if you woudln't want to be ridiculous...


    - there are no feature phones anymore, stop using this old fashioned terminology, and cheaper phones, any kind or anything less than Samcrap S4 or iPhone 5 are not "feature" phones...


    - Apple makes great products, but as others, fails to place them correctly in time. As others. Apple actually does it seldom. But they do. Face that. 



     


    I guess that is why Apple only has $150 BILLION is cash laying around because, just face it, Apple apparently does not know what they are doing. They don't know market demand, or how to correctly time products. They simply are less talented than Samsung, Google, and Microsoft. It's a wonder, shear dumb luck that they are even in business today. 


     


    /S

  • Reply 51 of 66
    jurassicjurassic Posts: 94member
    Take a look at Apple's iOS 7 - Features page.

    Down the page at the "iTunes Radio" the image shows iPhones with a light blue colored bezel/body and the volume buttons on the left side are the same blue color. The volume buttons are also oblong in shape rather than the smaller round buttons on the current iPhone 5.

    Is this a "goof" by someone at Apple, or are they subtly stoking the rumor mill?
  • Reply 52 of 66
    quinneyquinney Posts: 2,528member
    jurassic wrote: »
    Take a look at Apple's iOS 7 - Features page.

    Down the page at the "iTunes Radio" the image shows iPhones with a light blue colored bezel/body and the volume buttons on the left side are the same blue color. The volume buttons are also oblong in shape rather than the smaller round buttons on the current iPhone 5.

    Is this a "goof" by someone at Apple, or are they subtly stoking the rumor mill?

    Are you sure that isn't an iPod Touch?
  • Reply 53 of 66
    00lokey00lokey Posts: 2member
    No matter what apple does for the inexpensive phone the screen will still be small and they have to many apps that cost money. People dont care about price but they do like color style and size. Until they offer that they will still be runner up to android
  • Reply 54 of 66
    caliminiuscaliminius Posts: 944member
    A cheaper product due to form factor is not the same as a cheaper version of the same. If you reduce the size of something, remove the screen, the of course it will be cheaper. But the fact that the shuffle can be clipped to you, or the nano is a smaller form factor, but without the function of a Touch is not Apple trying to reduce the price to gain market, but to introduce additional form factors to meet market demand. Same with the iPad mini as the smaller form factor is to reach demand, not to reduce price. 

    You're deluding yourself if you don't think the iPod Nano and Shuffle were introduced to increase market share. You're right that iPod Nano isn't a cheaper version of the iPod Touch but only because your comparison is wrong. The Nano was the cheap version of the Classic. The iPad Mini was introduced to increase market share by providing an option for a more portable version. And Apple keeps the non retina iPad around as a cheap option just like it has begun doing with iPhone models. It's to give cheaper options to increase market share.
  • Reply 55 of 66
    caliminiuscaliminius Posts: 944member
    matrix07 wrote: »
    And people will be bored if they see Apple products everywhere even in the place it should not be, like in the lower class populations'

    Did I miss the announcement that Apple was bought out by Abercrombie and Fitch? Some Apple fans might be elitist snobs but I don't think that is who Apple is targeting.
  • Reply 56 of 66
    ingelaingela Posts: 217member


    I think these suckers to going to appeal to a lot of folks simply because of their durability, regardless of whether it's less expensive or not. I want one simply because I don't want to baby a prissy and delicate iPhone. I think just like the iPad mini's, these are going to take a huge bite out of the flagship 5s sales.

  • Reply 57 of 66
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    ingela wrote: »
    I want one simply because I don't want to baby a prissy and delicate iPhone.

    Glass screen, plastic back. Good luck pretending it's any less delicate than a real iPhone when you drop it. Instead of shattering and denting, it will shatter and shatter. Maybe just don't drop it.
  • Reply 58 of 66
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by caliminius View Post





    You're deluding yourself if you don't think the iPod Nano and Shuffle were introduced to increase market share. You're right that iPod Nano isn't a cheaper version of the iPod Touch but only because your comparison is wrong. The Nano was the cheap version of the Classic. The iPad Mini was introduced to increase market share by providing an option for a more portable version. And Apple keeps the non retina iPad around as a cheap option just like it has begun doing with iPhone models. It's to give cheaper options to increase market share.


     


    And therein lies my point. You look at market share and what products to introduce to increase it, while Apple looks at user experience and what to introduce to increase it. Both increase market share, but for different reason. And sure, Apple wants market share like anyone else, but not at the expense of user experience. 


     


    We are both looking at a silver dollar, but from different perspectives. 

  • Reply 59 of 66
    richard getzrichard getz Posts: 1,142member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post


     


    And therein lies my point. You look at market share and what to introduce products to increase it, while Apple looks at user experience and what to introduce to increase it. Both increase market share, but for different reason. And sure, Apple wants market share like anyone else, but not at the expense of user experience. 


     


    We are both looking at a silver dollar, but from different perspectives. 



     


     


    More so, I think this highlights the difference between Apple and Microsoft, Samsung, Google, whereby those only want market share and therefore try to introduce products to gain marketshare. Apple looks at the problem from the other side of the coin. If we build products that meet user demands, and have high quality user experience, we also get to market share. 


     


    One only needs to look at the quality of product to determine which is best. 

  • Reply 60 of 66
    isteelersisteelers Posts: 738member
    aaronj wrote: »
    I'm still confused as to waht the advantage is to selling a bunch of low-margin phones that -- assuming people only bought them because they are cheap -- won't even produce much in iTunes sales is.

    What does this gain Apple?

    And multi-colored iPhones? Really? Hideous.

    Agreed. Now I wouldn't be opposed if they made the aluminum case in a choice of colors similar to the iPod touches as long as the finish was durable and you could have the black fronts on them as well. Personally, I would like to see the silver backing with the black face on them. Those Fisher-Price colors in the mock-up would make a cheap iPhone look even cheaper.
Sign In or Register to comment.