The new so called low cost phone will be the replacement for the 4s, iPhone 4/4s & ipad2 will be discontinued and all devices going forward will have the lightning connector.
The new so called low cost phone will be the replacement for the 4s, iPhone 4/4s & ipad2 will be discontinued and all devices going forward will have the lightning connector.
If a low-cost phone does appear, I wonder what processor it will use. Will it use the same processor as the 4S.
If I had to guess Island I would say an A5 or A5x, it wouldn't seem they would drop an A6 in it as that would be for the mid tier model iPhone 5. I'm assuming the next iPhone will have an A6x or A7 chip.
It really depends on your prospective. It will likely be a premium phone when it is compared to the smartphones that compete directly against it in the markets they intend to target. The word "premium" is relative and depends on who your competition is. <span style="line-height:1.231;">If you look at all the cell phones in the world as one giant market, then I guess Apple is making a cheap phone. If you break it down into individual markets, the way I believe Apple does, they are releasing a premium phone targeted to a specific market.</span>
I agree this is the way to look at it, well said. The "cheap" Apple phone will probably stand out in some way like the (cheap) iPad mini did.
Well, there are all sorts of people out there. Tallest is banned but someone will replace him. I know I have ignored people plenty of times. I rarely feel strong enough about the things I post on this forum to get upset over them. You can't do anything about the other person, but you can control how you handle the situation and treat them with the respect they refuse to show you.
Replace him? Don't know about that, he was, is, one of a kind, seems to me. I enjoyed the thrust and parry when it came to the obvious trolling, but I think the job of being forum cop got to him after a while. He was the mod who consistently went after the trolls. Trouble is he went after others too.
Maybe he'll come back in another, more circumspect incarnation.
Obviously you're missing the point of 'low cost'. In the U.S., a low cost phone purchased from a major carrier makes no sense since the total cost is only marginally different.
Base iPhone 5 - $199 -- plus $80 per month, 2 year total of $2320 (AT&T, etc)
iPhone 4S - $99 - plus $80 per month, 2 year total of $2220
iphone 4 - free -- plus $80 per month, 2 year total of $2120
None of those is a low cost option.
Alternatively, you could use
Unlocked base iPhone 5 - $649 -- plus $45 per month, 2 year total of $1730 (Straight Talk, Net 10)
Better, but still high.
What people are envisioning with a 'low cost" phone would be something like:
Unlocked base iPhone - $300 - plus $45 per month, 2 year total of $1380 (Straight Talk, Net 10)
Keep in mind that this is much closer to the situation in much of the world where they don't have the rate scheme like the US where there's little advantage to buying a cheaper phone. And if you keep the phone past the contract expiration, it gets even worse. In countries where phones are not subsidized by the carriers, the difference between a $300 phone and a $649 phone is very significant.
Very well explained. You could add to that list many other companies like Virgin Mobile, Boost, Ting, and many others. Ting I think offers the most interesting plans since they only charge you on what you actually use. If you are a heavy data and voice user you would probably be better off going with an unlimited plan but for very light users you could select a plan for as little as $15 a month. Solavei is another unique newcomer which pays you money back when you sign up your friends. If you sign up enough you could end up paying nothing for your phone bill or even receiving a monthly check.
The point is that finally we are beginning to see some variety in plans and options that we never had before. An iPhone with the guts of a 4S but with lightning and possibly a 4" screen to unify the platform on that size would sell very well and still allow a nice margin to Apple.
The point is that finally we are beginning to see some variety in plans and options that we never had before. An iPhone with the guts of a 4S but with lightning and possibly a 4" screen to unify the platform on that size would sell very well and still allow a nice margin to Apple.
China, India and Brazil are huge markets potential if apple could offer something there that is appealing to more than 2% of the population. Even in developped markets...
This is the problem. You cannot restrict sales of a 'low cost' phone to emerging markets.
Soon, people will opt to buy the lower-cost version over the top-of-the-line (or parents will buy the top, and kids will get low-cost).
Two things will happen: Apple's ASP and average margins will sink like a stone, affecting its valuation (at least 50% of which is currently from iPhones); Apple will be swamped with a multitude of low-end consumers that, frankly, it will not know how to deal with, since their needs, consuming habits, online habits, etc. will be very different from that of its current consumer.
Great advice......for all of us....but there are times when a response is needed...but under control and by the rules...
Well certainly. I didn't say ignore everything and never respond. Just know when to quit and when to be the better person. There comes a point when you're just wasting your time and the conversation can go nowhere but downhill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Maybe he'll come back in another, more circumspect incarnation.
Not the first forum he's been banned from. I think he likes to move on and find fresh blood, though he might be running out of Apple forums to hang around at this point.
They already do. Not sure of the pricing as it varies, but I think the 4 is only 8GB and is sold new for about $399. The 16GB 4S is sold off contract for around $549 new. The problem with these devices is that they still use the old dock connector and I am sure Apple would prefer to transition to all lightning to save costs. They also use the 3.5" display and again I think Apple would prefer to transition all phones to 4" as soon as possible.
This is the problem. You cannot restrict sales of a 'low cost' phone to emerging markets.
Soon, people will opt to buy the lower-cost version over the top-of-the-line (or parents will buy the top, and kids will get low-cost).
Two things will happen: Apple's ASP and average margins will sink like a stone, affecting its valuation (at least 50% of which is currently from iPhones); Apple will be swamped with a multitude of low-end consumers that, frankly, it will not know how to deal with, since their needs, consuming habits, online habits, etc. will be very different from that of its current consumer.
Just to get it out of the way, they can restrict it by not agreeing to let carriers sell it. If Apple didn't make agreements with any US carriers, that would limit its availability to imported, unlocked phones, and I hardly think people will by clamoring to get their hands on the unlocked, cheaper iPhone from China. I just don't see it. People can already buy iPhone 4S for cheap or get a 4 for free under contract.
Let's assume they sell the iPhone in the US as an unlocked or prepaid device (I really don't see this being available under contract). Paying $299 for a phone is still a hefty price tag. There are plenty of cheaper Android phones. If you are the type of person you describe (cheap, low-end), I think you'll get an Android phone for $199 or less. So, for an unlocked or prepaid phone, iPhone is still carries a premium price.
I really don't see why some people hate this phone. Apple built a smaller, cheaper Mac (the Mac Mini). They built a smaller, cheaper iPod (iPod Nano). They built a smaller, cheaper iPad (iPad Mini). Everyone is acting like this new territory when it is simply Apple doing what it always does.
Just to get it out of the way, they can restrict it by not agreeing to let carriers sell it. If Apple didn't make agreements with any US carriers, that would limit its availability to imported, unlocked phones, and I hardly think people will by clamoring to get their hands on the unlocked, cheaper iPhone from China. I just don't see it. People can already buy iPhone 4S for cheap or get a 4 for free under contract.
Let's assume they sell the iPhone in the US as an unlocked or prepaid device (I really don't see this being available under contract). Paying $299 for a phone is still a hefty price tag. There are plenty of cheaper Android phones. If you are the type of person you describe (cheap, low-end), I think you'll get an Android phone for $199 or less. So, for an unlocked or prepaid phone, iPhone is still carries a premium price.
I really don't see why some people hate this phone. Apple built a smaller, cheaper Mac (the Mac Mini). They built a smaller, cheaper iPod (iPod Nano). They built a smaller, cheaper iPad (iPad Mini). Everyone is acting like this new territory when it is simply Apple doing what it always does.
It is also unlikely that this phone would be an LTE model. It would be restricted to 3G and likely have many more limitations that would not be attractive to current iPhone customers like a slower CPU/GPU, less storage, lower quality camera, etc.. Apple are very good at clearly delineating their lines and giving you a clear difference in the cheaper vs. more expensive models of their products. Like you I also fail to understand why some people fail to grasp this concept and predict doom and gloom while failing to appreciate that such a phone would likely have as good if not better margins than the 4 and 4S already being sold. This cheaper iPhone would not cannibalize current iPhone sales but it would likely steal many sales away from Android competitors.
Not the first forum he's been banned from. I think he likes to move on and find fresh blood, though he might be running out of Apple forums to hang around at this point.
I have already noticed a lot more calm around here and far more reasonable and intelligent discourse. You are right that he has pretty much run out of Mac forums and has now been banned by nearly all of them. If he wants to rejoin any he would have to retire that name and also learn to play well with others in in sandbox which seems unlikely. I notice he still shows as online though so he is still here to a degree. Ironic that in the end he became the very thing he tried to fight. New rule of the troll for his thread: Don't be a troll yourself or assume everyone else is one when they have a different opinion.
Just to get it out of the way, they can restrict it by not agreeing to let carriers sell it. If Apple didn't make agreements with any US carriers, that would limit its availability to imported, unlocked phones, and I hardly think people will by clamoring to get their hands on the unlocked, cheaper iPhone from China. I just don't see it. People can already buy iPhone 4S for cheap or get a 4 for free under contract.
Let's assume they sell the iPhone in the US as an unlocked or prepaid device (I really don't see this being available under contract). Paying $299 for a phone is still a hefty price tag. There are plenty of cheaper Android phones. If you are the type of person you describe (cheap, low-end), I think you'll get an Android phone for $199 or less. So, for an unlocked or prepaid phone, iPhone is still carries a premium price.
I really don't see why some people hate this phone. Apple built a smaller, cheaper Mac (the Mac Mini). They built a smaller, cheaper iPod (iPod Nano). They built a smaller, cheaper iPad (iPad Mini). Everyone is acting like this new territory when it is simply Apple doing what it always does.
The Mac mini isn't a cheaper iMac, it's a headless Mac. The iPod Shuffle isn't a cheaper iPod, it's an iPod without a screen so small it can be clipped on to your shirt collar. The iPad mini isn't a cheaper iPad, it's one so small and thin that you can more easily take it anywhere and hold it for hours while reading (plus it's a great size for games!). If you still don't get it, here's another example: the iMac isn't a cheaper Mac Pro, just as the Mac Pro isn't a more expensive iMac. These products differ in features and functionality first, that's how Apple does product differentiation and they are very, very good at it.
My point - this phone will not be a cheaper iPhone, that's not what Apple does. Some companies differentiate on price, but Apple does not. They will make this phone so different that it's feature set will be either a subset or a complement to the feature set and functionality of the current iPhone. Do not think of this as a cheaper iPhone, Apple didn't put "make a cheaper iPhone" as its objective, because if they did that their team would design something like a Galaxy.<wry grin>
When Apple expands any product family they don't put cost at the top of the list of objectives for any new model in the product family. Targeting cost as an objective mainly means: 1) shrinking profit margins and 2) reducing quality - there are myriad manufacturers out there who already do this and do it very well, much better than Apple could ever hope to achieve.
If this phone exists, it will not be a cheaper iPhone, it'll be an iPhone with a very different feature set. It has nothing to do with contracts, it has nothing to do with cheaper materials, it has nothing to do with old technology. It will be all about features and functionality. And, yes, all this will just happen to carry a lower price tag.
The Mac mini isn't a cheaper iMac, it's a headless Mac. The iPod Shuffle isn't a cheaper iPod, it's an iPod without a screen so small it can be clipped on to your shirt collar. The iPad mini isn't a cheaper iPad, it's one so small and thin that you can more easily take it anywhere and hold it for hours while reading (plus it's a great size for games!). If you still don't get it, here's another example: the iMac isn't a cheaper Mac Pro, just as the Mac Pro isn't a more expensive iMac. These products differ in features and functionality first, that's how Apple does product differentiation and they are very, very good at it.
My point - this phone will not be a cheaper iPhone, that's not what Apple does. Some companies differentiate on price, but Apple does not. They will make this phone so different that it's feature set will be either a subset or a complement to the feature set and functionality of the current iPhone. Do not think of this as a cheaper iPhone, Apple didn't put "make a cheaper iPhone" as its objective, because if they did that their team would design something like a Galaxy.<wry grin>
When Apple expands any product family they don't put cost at the top of the list of objectives for any new model in the product family. Targeting cost as an objective mainly means: 1) shrinking profit margins and 2) reducing quality - there are myriad manufacturers out there who already do this and do it very well, much better than Apple could ever hope to achieve.
If this phone exists, it will not be a cheaper iPhone, it'll be an iPhone with a very different feature set. It has nothing to do with contracts, it has nothing to do with cheaper materials, it has nothing to do with old technology. It will be all about features and functionality. And, yes, all this will just happen to carry a lower price tag.
Easy there. We're saying the EXACT same thing. You need to read the rest of my reply.
You are completely right that Apple does not compete on price, and I never suggested that they do. You read that into it what I was saying. Apple always has a target when it releases a lower cost device.
If you read the rest of what I said, and what I have said several times on this thread, I said it is a cheaper iPhone but it is also a premium phone. Overall, it is cheaper, but in the market it is targeting, it will be the premium device. The iPod Nano was a premium MP3 player compared to the flash based players at the time. Apple always kept the iPod Nano at the front of the pack in features. While the Mac Mini isn't near as cheap as a Dell desktop, there's no comparison in what you get from the two.
You actually restated what I said in an attempt to correct me. Apple produces products that are cheaper than some of its other devices, but that doesn't make them less than premium. They are just targeting a market segment where the price needs to be lower to compete at all.
Easy there. We're saying the EXACT same thing. You need to read the rest of my reply.
You are completely right that Apple does not compete on price, and I never suggested that they do. You read that into it what I was saying. Apple always has a target when it releases a lower cost device.
If you read the rest of what I said, and what I have said several times on this thread, I said it is a cheaper iPhone but it is also a premium phone. Overall, it is cheaper, but in the market it is targeting, it will be the premium device. The iPod Nano was a premium MP3 player compared to the flash based players at the time. Apple always kept the iPod Nano at the front of the pack in features. While the Mac Mini isn't near as cheap as a Dell desktop, there's no comparison in what you get from the two.
You actually restated what I said in an attempt to correct me. Apple produces products that are cheaper than some of its other devices, but that doesn't make them less than premium. They are just targeting a market segment where the price needs to be lower to compete at all.
Wait a minute, easy there. Er, scratch that, I hate that phrase, "easy there," I take it back.<wry grin>
Of course I read your post (all of it, more than once even!<smile>), and the reason I didn't quote any of it, is because it wasn't you in particular to whom I was replying. This wasn't a personal message to you - I would have quoted you if I'd meant to speak directly to you.
I've been following this story of a "cheaper iPhone" since it first hit the rumour mill and there seems to be (in the blogosphere) a lack of understanding of what is product differentiation, product positioning and product strategy as it relates to the world of Apple.
Your post went more than most in demonstrating an understanding, but if I can be honest, the one thing I still saw in your post was that you did attach the term "cheaper" to every product you mentioned, perhaps it was merely for illustration purposes to point out Apple produces products that sell at cheaper price points, but viewing Apple products on a scale of prices I think doesn't appropriately convey the world of Apple. Every time I have this discussion, people invariably say, "yes, but there is a cheaper iPod than the Touch, right?" still missing the point.
Let me explain another way (not necessarily to you, please don't take this as a personal message<grin>):
Let's assume there are two teams appointed to design and produce a new addition to the iPad family. One team gets the objective: create a cheaper iPad. The other team gets the objective: create a smaller iPad. Imagine the output from each team. Which objective do you think the team that actually produced the mini got? People quite often call the mini the cheaper iPad (cheaper being the only descriptive term they use), so why is that? I don't see the mini as the cheaper iPad, I see it as the smaller iPad. Apple and the iPad mini team made decisions in design and development having to do with size, not cost, so why do people still see this product in terms of price?
If Apple produces a new model for the iPhone family, assuming it's different than what they did with the iPod Touch recently, then this new iPhone will be something as different from the current iPhone as the Mac Pro is different from the iMac. I'm merely trying to get people to take away the cost and price blinders when looking at Apple products. A good test to put to someone would be: how would you describe these products if cost/price weren't terms you could use to describe them?
Sorry if it appears you were the main target of my post, although I admittedly highjacked some elements of your post to make my point, I didn't intend you to the be the target of my rantdiatribe words delivered from upon my soapbox. Hope that explains, and sorry for the long post (once again).
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jamesv
The new so called low cost phone will be the replacement for the 4s, iPhone 4/4s & ipad2 will be discontinued and all devices going forward will have the lightning connector.
If a low-cost phone does appear, I wonder what processor it will use. Will it use the same processor as the 4S.
Hmmmmm...
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
They must do something for about 70% of the world that just cant afford current iphone models.
Why?
Every penny of profit in the mobile phone business comes from the top 20% of phones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad
Why?
Every penny of profit in the mobile phone business comes from the top 20% of phones.
This is the reason why I think this supposed low-cost phone is for 1 customer's satisfaction only... China Mobile.
Can't sell high end phones to customers you don't have and to be able to crack China Mobile's market maybe a low-cost alternative was required.
I guess we'll find out soon enough.
I agree this is the way to look at it, well said. The "cheap" Apple phone will probably stand out in some way like the (cheap) iPad mini did.
Replace him? Don't know about that, he was, is, one of a kind, seems to me. I enjoyed the thrust and parry when it came to the obvious trolling, but I think the job of being forum cop got to him after a while. He was the mod who consistently went after the trolls. Trouble is he went after others too.
Maybe he'll come back in another, more circumspect incarnation.
Apple is about PROFIT and all other arguments are secondary!
They are not in business to supply all things to all masses (That problem is for Samesung, Dell and HP).
If they create a low cost iPhone it will only be generate a profit center not a cost center just so they can 90% of the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Obviously you're missing the point of 'low cost'. In the U.S., a low cost phone purchased from a major carrier makes no sense since the total cost is only marginally different.
Base iPhone 5 - $199 -- plus $80 per month, 2 year total of $2320 (AT&T, etc)
iPhone 4S - $99 - plus $80 per month, 2 year total of $2220
iphone 4 - free -- plus $80 per month, 2 year total of $2120
None of those is a low cost option.
Alternatively, you could use
Unlocked base iPhone 5 - $649 -- plus $45 per month, 2 year total of $1730 (Straight Talk, Net 10)
Better, but still high.
What people are envisioning with a 'low cost" phone would be something like:
Unlocked base iPhone - $300 - plus $45 per month, 2 year total of $1380 (Straight Talk, Net 10)
Keep in mind that this is much closer to the situation in much of the world where they don't have the rate scheme like the US where there's little advantage to buying a cheaper phone. And if you keep the phone past the contract expiration, it gets even worse. In countries where phones are not subsidized by the carriers, the difference between a $300 phone and a $649 phone is very significant.
Very well explained. You could add to that list many other companies like Virgin Mobile, Boost, Ting, and many others. Ting I think offers the most interesting plans since they only charge you on what you actually use. If you are a heavy data and voice user you would probably be better off going with an unlimited plan but for very light users you could select a plan for as little as $15 a month. Solavei is another unique newcomer which pays you money back when you sign up your friends. If you sign up enough you could end up paying nothing for your phone bill or even receiving a monthly check.
The point is that finally we are beginning to see some variety in plans and options that we never had before. An iPhone with the guts of a 4S but with lightning and possibly a 4" screen to unify the platform on that size would sell very well and still allow a nice margin to Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by herbapou
China, India and Brazil are huge markets potential if apple could offer something there that is appealing to more than 2% of the population. Even in developped markets...
This is the problem. You cannot restrict sales of a 'low cost' phone to emerging markets.
Soon, people will opt to buy the lower-cost version over the top-of-the-line (or parents will buy the top, and kids will get low-cost).
Two things will happen: Apple's ASP and average margins will sink like a stone, affecting its valuation (at least 50% of which is currently from iPhones); Apple will be swamped with a multitude of low-end consumers that, frankly, it will not know how to deal with, since their needs, consuming habits, online habits, etc. will be very different from that of its current consumer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geekdad
Great advice......for all of us....but there are times when a response is needed...but under control and by the rules...Well certainly. I didn't say ignore everything and never respond. Just know when to quit and when to be the better person. There comes a point when you're just wasting your time and the conversation can go nowhere but downhill.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Maybe he'll come back in another, more circumspect incarnation.
Not the first forum he's been banned from. I think he likes to move on and find fresh blood, though he might be running out of Apple forums to hang around at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Why not release the 4 off contract?
They already do. Not sure of the pricing as it varies, but I think the 4 is only 8GB and is sold new for about $399. The 16GB 4S is sold off contract for around $549 new. The problem with these devices is that they still use the old dock connector and I am sure Apple would prefer to transition to all lightning to save costs. They also use the 3.5" display and again I think Apple would prefer to transition all phones to 4" as soon as possible.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
This is the problem. You cannot restrict sales of a 'low cost' phone to emerging markets.
Soon, people will opt to buy the lower-cost version over the top-of-the-line (or parents will buy the top, and kids will get low-cost).
Two things will happen: Apple's ASP and average margins will sink like a stone, affecting its valuation (at least 50% of which is currently from iPhones); Apple will be swamped with a multitude of low-end consumers that, frankly, it will not know how to deal with, since their needs, consuming habits, online habits, etc. will be very different from that of its current consumer.
Just to get it out of the way, they can restrict it by not agreeing to let carriers sell it. If Apple didn't make agreements with any US carriers, that would limit its availability to imported, unlocked phones, and I hardly think people will by clamoring to get their hands on the unlocked, cheaper iPhone from China. I just don't see it. People can already buy iPhone 4S for cheap or get a 4 for free under contract.
Let's assume they sell the iPhone in the US as an unlocked or prepaid device (I really don't see this being available under contract). Paying $299 for a phone is still a hefty price tag. There are plenty of cheaper Android phones. If you are the type of person you describe (cheap, low-end), I think you'll get an Android phone for $199 or less. So, for an unlocked or prepaid phone, iPhone is still carries a premium price.
I really don't see why some people hate this phone. Apple built a smaller, cheaper Mac (the Mac Mini). They built a smaller, cheaper iPod (iPod Nano). They built a smaller, cheaper iPad (iPad Mini). Everyone is acting like this new territory when it is simply Apple doing what it always does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
Just to get it out of the way, they can restrict it by not agreeing to let carriers sell it. If Apple didn't make agreements with any US carriers, that would limit its availability to imported, unlocked phones, and I hardly think people will by clamoring to get their hands on the unlocked, cheaper iPhone from China. I just don't see it. People can already buy iPhone 4S for cheap or get a 4 for free under contract.
Let's assume they sell the iPhone in the US as an unlocked or prepaid device (I really don't see this being available under contract). Paying $299 for a phone is still a hefty price tag. There are plenty of cheaper Android phones. If you are the type of person you describe (cheap, low-end), I think you'll get an Android phone for $199 or less. So, for an unlocked or prepaid phone, iPhone is still carries a premium price.
I really don't see why some people hate this phone. Apple built a smaller, cheaper Mac (the Mac Mini). They built a smaller, cheaper iPod (iPod Nano). They built a smaller, cheaper iPad (iPad Mini). Everyone is acting like this new territory when it is simply Apple doing what it always does.
It is also unlikely that this phone would be an LTE model. It would be restricted to 3G and likely have many more limitations that would not be attractive to current iPhone customers like a slower CPU/GPU, less storage, lower quality camera, etc.. Apple are very good at clearly delineating their lines and giving you a clear difference in the cheaper vs. more expensive models of their products. Like you I also fail to understand why some people fail to grasp this concept and predict doom and gloom while failing to appreciate that such a phone would likely have as good if not better margins than the 4 and 4S already being sold. This cheaper iPhone would not cannibalize current iPhone sales but it would likely steal many sales away from Android competitors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
Not the first forum he's been banned from. I think he likes to move on and find fresh blood, though he might be running out of Apple forums to hang around at this point.
I have already noticed a lot more calm around here and far more reasonable and intelligent discourse. You are right that he has pretty much run out of Mac forums and has now been banned by nearly all of them. If he wants to rejoin any he would have to retire that name and also learn to play well with others in in sandbox which seems unlikely. I notice he still shows as online though so he is still here to a degree. Ironic that in the end he became the very thing he tried to fight. New rule of the troll for his thread: Don't be a troll yourself or assume everyone else is one when they have a different opinion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
Just to get it out of the way, they can restrict it by not agreeing to let carriers sell it. If Apple didn't make agreements with any US carriers, that would limit its availability to imported, unlocked phones, and I hardly think people will by clamoring to get their hands on the unlocked, cheaper iPhone from China. I just don't see it. People can already buy iPhone 4S for cheap or get a 4 for free under contract.
Let's assume they sell the iPhone in the US as an unlocked or prepaid device (I really don't see this being available under contract). Paying $299 for a phone is still a hefty price tag. There are plenty of cheaper Android phones. If you are the type of person you describe (cheap, low-end), I think you'll get an Android phone for $199 or less. So, for an unlocked or prepaid phone, iPhone is still carries a premium price.
I really don't see why some people hate this phone. Apple built a smaller, cheaper Mac (the Mac Mini). They built a smaller, cheaper iPod (iPod Nano). They built a smaller, cheaper iPad (iPad Mini). Everyone is acting like this new territory when it is simply Apple doing what it always does.
You make a valid argument, better than most.
You changed my opinion ... good job sir.
The Mac mini isn't a cheaper iMac, it's a headless Mac. The iPod Shuffle isn't a cheaper iPod, it's an iPod without a screen so small it can be clipped on to your shirt collar. The iPad mini isn't a cheaper iPad, it's one so small and thin that you can more easily take it anywhere and hold it for hours while reading (plus it's a great size for games!). If you still don't get it, here's another example: the iMac isn't a cheaper Mac Pro, just as the Mac Pro isn't a more expensive iMac. These products differ in features and functionality first, that's how Apple does product differentiation and they are very, very good at it.
My point - this phone will not be a cheaper iPhone, that's not what Apple does. Some companies differentiate on price, but Apple does not. They will make this phone so different that it's feature set will be either a subset or a complement to the feature set and functionality of the current iPhone. Do not think of this as a cheaper iPhone, Apple didn't put "make a cheaper iPhone" as its objective, because if they did that their team would design something like a Galaxy.<wry grin>
When Apple expands any product family they don't put cost at the top of the list of objectives for any new model in the product family. Targeting cost as an objective mainly means: 1) shrinking profit margins and 2) reducing quality - there are myriad manufacturers out there who already do this and do it very well, much better than Apple could ever hope to achieve.
If this phone exists, it will not be a cheaper iPhone, it'll be an iPhone with a very different feature set. It has nothing to do with contracts, it has nothing to do with cheaper materials, it has nothing to do with old technology. It will be all about features and functionality. And, yes, all this will just happen to carry a lower price tag.
Quote:
Originally Posted by williamlondon
The Mac mini isn't a cheaper iMac, it's a headless Mac. The iPod Shuffle isn't a cheaper iPod, it's an iPod without a screen so small it can be clipped on to your shirt collar. The iPad mini isn't a cheaper iPad, it's one so small and thin that you can more easily take it anywhere and hold it for hours while reading (plus it's a great size for games!). If you still don't get it, here's another example: the iMac isn't a cheaper Mac Pro, just as the Mac Pro isn't a more expensive iMac. These products differ in features and functionality first, that's how Apple does product differentiation and they are very, very good at it.
My point - this phone will not be a cheaper iPhone, that's not what Apple does. Some companies differentiate on price, but Apple does not. They will make this phone so different that it's feature set will be either a subset or a complement to the feature set and functionality of the current iPhone. Do not think of this as a cheaper iPhone, Apple didn't put "make a cheaper iPhone" as its objective, because if they did that their team would design something like a Galaxy.<wry grin>
When Apple expands any product family they don't put cost at the top of the list of objectives for any new model in the product family. Targeting cost as an objective mainly means: 1) shrinking profit margins and 2) reducing quality - there are myriad manufacturers out there who already do this and do it very well, much better than Apple could ever hope to achieve.
If this phone exists, it will not be a cheaper iPhone, it'll be an iPhone with a very different feature set. It has nothing to do with contracts, it has nothing to do with cheaper materials, it has nothing to do with old technology. It will be all about features and functionality. And, yes, all this will just happen to carry a lower price tag.
Easy there. We're saying the EXACT same thing. You need to read the rest of my reply.
You are completely right that Apple does not compete on price, and I never suggested that they do. You read that into it what I was saying. Apple always has a target when it releases a lower cost device.
If you read the rest of what I said, and what I have said several times on this thread, I said it is a cheaper iPhone but it is also a premium phone. Overall, it is cheaper, but in the market it is targeting, it will be the premium device. The iPod Nano was a premium MP3 player compared to the flash based players at the time. Apple always kept the iPod Nano at the front of the pack in features. While the Mac Mini isn't near as cheap as a Dell desktop, there's no comparison in what you get from the two.
You actually restated what I said in an attempt to correct me. Apple produces products that are cheaper than some of its other devices, but that doesn't make them less than premium. They are just targeting a market segment where the price needs to be lower to compete at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rednival
Easy there. We're saying the EXACT same thing. You need to read the rest of my reply.
You are completely right that Apple does not compete on price, and I never suggested that they do. You read that into it what I was saying. Apple always has a target when it releases a lower cost device.
If you read the rest of what I said, and what I have said several times on this thread, I said it is a cheaper iPhone but it is also a premium phone. Overall, it is cheaper, but in the market it is targeting, it will be the premium device. The iPod Nano was a premium MP3 player compared to the flash based players at the time. Apple always kept the iPod Nano at the front of the pack in features. While the Mac Mini isn't near as cheap as a Dell desktop, there's no comparison in what you get from the two.
You actually restated what I said in an attempt to correct me. Apple produces products that are cheaper than some of its other devices, but that doesn't make them less than premium. They are just targeting a market segment where the price needs to be lower to compete at all.
Wait a minute, easy there. Er, scratch that, I hate that phrase, "easy there," I take it back.<wry grin>
Of course I read your post (all of it, more than once even!<smile>), and the reason I didn't quote any of it, is because it wasn't you in particular to whom I was replying. This wasn't a personal message to you - I would have quoted you if I'd meant to speak directly to you.
I've been following this story of a "cheaper iPhone" since it first hit the rumour mill and there seems to be (in the blogosphere) a lack of understanding of what is product differentiation, product positioning and product strategy as it relates to the world of Apple.
Your post went more than most in demonstrating an understanding, but if I can be honest, the one thing I still saw in your post was that you did attach the term "cheaper" to every product you mentioned, perhaps it was merely for illustration purposes to point out Apple produces products that sell at cheaper price points, but viewing Apple products on a scale of prices I think doesn't appropriately convey the world of Apple. Every time I have this discussion, people invariably say, "yes, but there is a cheaper iPod than the Touch, right?" still missing the point.
Let me explain another way (not necessarily to you, please don't take this as a personal message<grin>):
Let's assume there are two teams appointed to design and produce a new addition to the iPad family. One team gets the objective: create a cheaper iPad. The other team gets the objective: create a smaller iPad. Imagine the output from each team. Which objective do you think the team that actually produced the mini got? People quite often call the mini the cheaper iPad (cheaper being the only descriptive term they use), so why is that? I don't see the mini as the cheaper iPad, I see it as the smaller iPad. Apple and the iPad mini team made decisions in design and development having to do with size, not cost, so why do people still see this product in terms of price?
If Apple produces a new model for the iPhone family, assuming it's different than what they did with the iPod Touch recently, then this new iPhone will be something as different from the current iPhone as the Mac Pro is different from the iMac. I'm merely trying to get people to take away the cost and price blinders when looking at Apple products. A good test to put to someone would be: how would you describe these products if cost/price weren't terms you could use to describe them?
Sorry if it appears you were the main target of my post, although I admittedly highjacked some elements of your post to make my point, I didn't intend you to the be the target of my rant diatribe words delivered from upon my soapbox.