No addition of a 4th option at 128GB or doubling of capacities for the iPhone 6's to 32GB/64GB/128?
I considered the doubling notion, but I think Apple won't do that. The idea is that Apple could charge more for the 4.7" model and justify the higher price by doubling the storage at each price point. But what does raising the price of the 4.7" model imply for the price of the one year old iPhone 5S? It implies that Apple might leave the prices of that phone as they are now, for another annual cycle. No doubt Apple could get away with that and justify it with a doubling of capacity, if any company could, but I think it casts a shadow over the whole new model introduction to go this route with the pricing. Apple has trained its customer base to either pay up for the flagship this year, or wait a year to get it at a slightly discounted price. I don't believe the company will break that unwritten contract with customers and leave its loyal customers with a bad taste in their mouths.
I think it will discount previous year models just as it always has and not complicate the matter by also shifting the storage you get at each price point. Doing so would likely automatically reduce the resale value of older iPhones as they would be instantly stepped down a full pricing tier. This could alienate customers trading in or attempting to resell existing iPhones. As to the potential need for doubling storage tiers to provide needed storage in a world of 4G data download speeds and more and more media and app consumption, I think that this is mitigated by the fact that there are distinct classes of users and existing storage tiers to serve them. Many casual users likely never get close to running into the limit even on a 16GB model. And with cloud storage and streaming media more in vogue, I think the pressure on storage is abated to some extent. Those buying more storage are more aware of their level of usage - they are a different class of users - and therefore will go with the highest capacity they think they will need (self select into higher capacity). So, yes, Apple could add a 128GB storage option to certain models (I'm thinking the iPhablet) to serve those customers who need that much storage, but otherwise I think they won't mess with this aspect of the iPhone.
Ha Ha, that was my thought reading the article too.
To me it seems the '5c bashing,' at least on technical merits, is largely non-existent. It is a decent phone but just kind of 'meh'
If you do a search on 'iPhone 5c a failure' you get mostly two results: Apple fan sites, and financial sites. Oddly enough the few technical sites that aren't Apple fan sites are actually defending the 5c saying it is not as bad as Apple fan sites make it out to be.
Technically it is a solid phone, financially it made less money than it was projected to. The financial sites don't bash it as being a horrible phone, they just question what market it was really fulfilling. The 'nearly iPhone 5s priced phone that isn't as good as the 5s' market? But at least now Daniel has explained the genius of the 5c to us. It wasn't supposed to be a great consumer phone. It was an 'iterative learning experiment' Apple sold to its customers to teach Apple how to make bigger screen phones. Wait, what?
Bigger devices because they weren't engineered as well to take advantage of space savings but their deliberate footprint growth clearly started when added 1st gen LTE chips.
Galaxy S was 4", same as current iPhone, but didn't include LTE, while the Galaxy S II added LTE but moved up to 4.3" and 4.5", but I don't think the 4.3" models had that option.
I didn't say no phone larger than 4" existed without LTE, only that the push to larger display was done mostly to obfuscate less power efficient HW, like LTE.
I didn't say no phone larger than 4" existed without LTE, only that the push to larger display was done mostly to obfuscate less power efficient HW, like LTE.
Your implication was that the big screen was a direct result of needing a bigger battery to operate the power hungry LTE chips. I was merely pointing out that bigger screen phones had been produced before LTE chips were being used.
Your implication was that the big screen was a direct result of needing a bigger battery to operate the power hungry LTE chips. I was merely pointing out that bigger screen phones had been produced before LTE chips were being used.
Yes, that is what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean that there weren't larger devices already available just as the original iPad has larger display than the iPhone but didn't have LTE. I am not saying that you can't have a larger display without having LTE, I'm saying that vendors used a larger display to obfuscate the need for more internal space for the chip (minor) and the battery (major) without making it extra thick and therefore excessively chunky in order to do so.
Ha Ha, that was my thought reading the article too.
To me it seems the '5c bashing,' at least on technical merits, is largely non-existent. It is a decent phone but just kind of 'meh'
If you do a search on 'iPhone 5c a failure' you get mostly two results: Apple fan sites, and financial sites. Oddly enough the few technical sites that aren't Apple fan sites are actually defending the 5c saying it is not as bad as Apple fan sites make it out to be.
Technically it is a solid phone, financially it made less money than it was projected to. The financial sites don't bash it as being a horrible phone, they just question what market it was really fulfilling. The 'nearly iPhone 5s priced phone that isn't as good as the 5s' market? But at least now Daniel has explained the genius of the 5c to us. It wasn't supposed to be a great consumer phone. It was an 'iterative learning experiment' Apple sold to its customers to teach Apple how to make bigger screen phones. Wait, what?
... and this is the third or fourth article he has written explaining to us all how the poor itty bitty wittle 5C is actually a mighty lion.
The iPhone 3G was the flagship phone and the 3GS was the next flagship phone with that same case design. I don't see how that's in any way comparable to the midrange iPhone 5C becoming the iPhone 5CS. I don't put it past Apple but I hoping they don't go with that.
I guess it depends on how you interpret the "S". Since the 3G, Apple has added an "S" to the Second version of each model. Up until the 5C all Apple ever sold were flagship phones, so we can assume the "S" has nothing to do with flagship status; it's just a designator to differentiate the latest phone from the previous model.
So the "s" in "iPhone 5Cs" would just mean it's the second version of the "5C", just as the "5s" is the second version of the "5".
How easy will it be for Apple to muscle its way into the larger screen phone market pioneered by Motorola and Samsung? While we have to wait for Apple's new products to launch and then wait a bit longer for the sales numbers, there is already convincing evidence that should leave Android makers very concerned. The next segment will look at what's involved in the trend toward new sizes of phones, and how the groundwork laid by iPhone 5c in moving Apple into more direct competition with its phone industry competitors has historical precedence.
I'm looking forward to this next segment, because the first segment felt a bit like a long preamble. I'm not saying that it wasn't valid - and didn't have a lot of truths behind it - but I'm not yet seeing the connection between iPhone 5c and Apple's attempt to broaden its product range with larger-screened phones.
I can imagine the iPhone 5c laying groundwork in terms of a) being a second phone to manufacture and b) being a phone that contains different materials rather than just a different configuration and c) being a phone with a slightly different marketing focus, but this could be said of almost any Apple product.
My view is that on the question of larger screen sizes, there are much broader things to consider, which the iPhone 5c doesn't really touch on. I think the key point for the 5c is just the way in which Apple differentiate their lineup enough to make both segments (5c and 5s) viable as stand alone products.
A larger-screened phone may not have the same potential issues that the 5c has had in terms of differentiation if Apple produce the next iPhone in two sizes (a cheaper entry level model with a standard screen size, and a slightly larger "premium" or high-end model). The physical size difference is something that Apple could use as a differential in terms of marketing, and at a physical level I think it's easier for a customer to relate to (whereas the differences between 5c and 5s - apart from the colours - may be too subtle for the average consumer to care about).
I'm looking forward to this next segment, because the first segment felt a bit like a long preamble. I'm not saying that it wasn't valid - and didn't have a lot of truths behind it - but I'm not yet seeing the connection between iPhone 5c and Apple's attempt to broaden its product range with larger-screened phones.
I can imagine the iPhone 5c laying groundwork in terms of a) being a second phone to manufacture and b) being a phone that contains different materials rather than just a different configuration and c) being a phone with a slightly different marketing focus, but this could be said of almost any Apple product.
My view is that on the question of larger screen sizes, there are much broader things to consider, which the iPhone 5c doesn't really touch on. I think the key point for the 5c is just the way in which Apple differentiate their lineup enough to make both segments (5c and 5s) viable as stand alone products.
A larger-screened phone may not have the same potential issues that the 5c has had in terms of differentiation if Apple produce the next iPhone in two sizes (a cheaper entry level model with a standard screen size, and a slightly larger "premium" or high-end model). The physical size difference is something that Apple could use as a differential in terms of marketing, and at a physical level I think it's easier for a customer to relate to (whereas the differences between 5c and 5s - apart from the colours - may be too subtle for the average consumer to care about).
I think DED in his next segment will touch on the point I made in message #41 regarding creation of tiers of distribution for the iPhone which will allow the company to continue to penetrate the mid-market. Here's that excerpt from my earlier message:
I see the iPhone 5C 8GB model rolling out in select markets as part of a plan to create two tiers within Apple’s distribution network:
Tier 1 carriers cover markets where the demographic will support healthy sales of the latest flagship iPhones. These are the approximately 270 existing iPhone carriers around the world, expanding to maybe 300 carriers.
Tier 2 carriers cover markets where the demographic supports a mid-priced lower-premium iPhone model. These are the approximately 50 carriers Apple indicated in its January earnings call that it was bringing on during the Jan-Mar quarter, plus markets like India where Apple is growing its presence. Apple's sales into markets served by these carriers will mostly be comprised of the iPhone 5C and 4S (until the latter is discontinued).
Ha Ha, that was my thought reading the article too.
To me it seems the '5c bashing,' at least on technical merits, is largely non-existent. It is a decent phone but just kind of 'meh'
If you do a search on 'iPhone 5c a failure' you get mostly two results: Apple fan sites, and financial sites. Oddly enough the few technical sites that aren't Apple fan sites are actually defending the 5c saying it is not as bad as Apple fan sites make it out to be.
Technically it is a solid phone, financially it made less money than it was projected to. The financial sites don't bash it as being a horrible phone, they just question what market it was really fulfilling. The 'nearly iPhone 5s priced phone that isn't as good as the 5s' market? But at least now Daniel has explained the genius of the 5c to us. It wasn't supposed to be a great consumer phone. It was an 'iterative learning experiment' Apple sold to its customers to teach Apple how to make bigger screen phones. Wait, what?
Yeah, I don't understand the logic in saying that it was a learning experience for Apple as far as building bigger screens is concerned, especially since Apple has been making products with different sizes, colors, and specs for years now.
The problem with the 5C is that people expected it to fulfill some market segment that the 5 could not have. It had all the same components as the 5, and the same price the 5 would've been. Why would anyone expect it to sell any better or worse then the 5? Because it came in different colors? Big whoop! You can just get a case if you want that. People just assumed it was a brand new device from Apple and therefor should've sold like hotcakes. The reality is, it sold just as well as all the other "last year's model" iPhones have. Honestly, nothing on the market, not even another Apple iPhone is going to come out from under the shadow of their latest flagship model.
Personally, deep down inside, I tend to think that Apple released the 5C, to help push customers towards the 5S. Anyone who liked the design of the 5 had no choice but to go with a 5S, unless they bought used. However, I do believe the next "C" model, with an A7, Touch ID and larger screen will sell very well.
Comments
No addition of a 4th option at 128GB or doubling of capacities for the iPhone 6's to 32GB/64GB/128?
I considered the doubling notion, but I think Apple won't do that. The idea is that Apple could charge more for the 4.7" model and justify the higher price by doubling the storage at each price point. But what does raising the price of the 4.7" model imply for the price of the one year old iPhone 5S? It implies that Apple might leave the prices of that phone as they are now, for another annual cycle. No doubt Apple could get away with that and justify it with a doubling of capacity, if any company could, but I think it casts a shadow over the whole new model introduction to go this route with the pricing. Apple has trained its customer base to either pay up for the flagship this year, or wait a year to get it at a slightly discounted price. I don't believe the company will break that unwritten contract with customers and leave its loyal customers with a bad taste in their mouths.
I think it will discount previous year models just as it always has and not complicate the matter by also shifting the storage you get at each price point. Doing so would likely automatically reduce the resale value of older iPhones as they would be instantly stepped down a full pricing tier. This could alienate customers trading in or attempting to resell existing iPhones. As to the potential need for doubling storage tiers to provide needed storage in a world of 4G data download speeds and more and more media and app consumption, I think that this is mitigated by the fact that there are distinct classes of users and existing storage tiers to serve them. Many casual users likely never get close to running into the limit even on a 16GB model. And with cloud storage and streaming media more in vogue, I think the pressure on storage is abated to some extent. Those buying more storage are more aware of their level of usage - they are a different class of users - and therefore will go with the highest capacity they think they will need (self select into higher capacity). So, yes, Apple could add a 128GB storage option to certain models (I'm thinking the iPhablet) to serve those customers who need that much storage, but otherwise I think they won't mess with this aspect of the iPhone.
Someone has an inferiority complex about the 5C.
Ha Ha, that was my thought reading the article too.
To me it seems the '5c bashing,' at least on technical merits, is largely non-existent. It is a decent phone but just kind of 'meh'
If you do a search on 'iPhone 5c a failure' you get mostly two results: Apple fan sites, and financial sites. Oddly enough the few technical sites that aren't Apple fan sites are actually defending the 5c saying it is not as bad as Apple fan sites make it out to be.
Technically it is a solid phone, financially it made less money than it was projected to. The financial sites don't bash it as being a horrible phone, they just question what market it was really fulfilling. The 'nearly iPhone 5s priced phone that isn't as good as the 5s' market? But at least now Daniel has explained the genius of the 5c to us. It wasn't supposed to be a great consumer phone. It was an 'iterative learning experiment' Apple sold to its customers to teach Apple how to make bigger screen phones. Wait, what?
The Droid X was 4.3" and didn't have LTE.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Droid_X
I didn't say no phone larger than 4" existed without LTE, only that the push to larger display was done mostly to obfuscate less power efficient HW, like LTE.
Your implication was that the big screen was a direct result of needing a bigger battery to operate the power hungry LTE chips. I was merely pointing out that bigger screen phones had been produced before LTE chips were being used.
Yes, that is what I'm saying, but that doesn't mean that there weren't larger devices already available just as the original iPad has larger display than the iPhone but didn't have LTE. I am not saying that you can't have a larger display without having LTE, I'm saying that vendors used a larger display to obfuscate the need for more internal space for the chip (minor) and the battery (major) without making it extra thick and therefore excessively chunky in order to do so.
Ha Ha, that was my thought reading the article too.
To me it seems the '5c bashing,' at least on technical merits, is largely non-existent. It is a decent phone but just kind of 'meh'
If you do a search on 'iPhone 5c a failure' you get mostly two results: Apple fan sites, and financial sites. Oddly enough the few technical sites that aren't Apple fan sites are actually defending the 5c saying it is not as bad as Apple fan sites make it out to be.
Technically it is a solid phone, financially it made less money than it was projected to. The financial sites don't bash it as being a horrible phone, they just question what market it was really fulfilling. The 'nearly iPhone 5s priced phone that isn't as good as the 5s' market? But at least now Daniel has explained the genius of the 5c to us. It wasn't supposed to be a great consumer phone. It was an 'iterative learning experiment' Apple sold to its customers to teach Apple how to make bigger screen phones. Wait, what?
... and this is the third or fourth article he has written explaining to us all how the poor itty bitty wittle 5C is actually a mighty lion.
Wait, what...
When you're scoring as the 2nd and 3rd most popular phone for over 6 months straight in the US I'd say that's a sign of being mighty.
The iPhone 3G was the flagship phone and the 3GS was the next flagship phone with that same case design. I don't see how that's in any way comparable to the midrange iPhone 5C becoming the iPhone 5CS. I don't put it past Apple but I hoping they don't go with that.
I guess it depends on how you interpret the "S". Since the 3G, Apple has added an "S" to the Second version of each model. Up until the 5C all Apple ever sold were flagship phones, so we can assume the "S" has nothing to do with flagship status; it's just a designator to differentiate the latest phone from the previous model.
So the "s" in "iPhone 5Cs" would just mean it's the second version of the "5C", just as the "5s" is the second version of the "5".
How easy will it be for Apple to muscle its way into the larger screen phone market pioneered by Motorola and Samsung? While we have to wait for Apple's new products to launch and then wait a bit longer for the sales numbers, there is already convincing evidence that should leave Android makers very concerned. The next segment will look at what's involved in the trend toward new sizes of phones, and how the groundwork laid by iPhone 5c in moving Apple into more direct competition with its phone industry competitors has historical precedence.
I'm looking forward to this next segment, because the first segment felt a bit like a long preamble. I'm not saying that it wasn't valid - and didn't have a lot of truths behind it - but I'm not yet seeing the connection between iPhone 5c and Apple's attempt to broaden its product range with larger-screened phones.
I can imagine the iPhone 5c laying groundwork in terms of a) being a second phone to manufacture and b) being a phone that contains different materials rather than just a different configuration and c) being a phone with a slightly different marketing focus, but this could be said of almost any Apple product.
My view is that on the question of larger screen sizes, there are much broader things to consider, which the iPhone 5c doesn't really touch on. I think the key point for the 5c is just the way in which Apple differentiate their lineup enough to make both segments (5c and 5s) viable as stand alone products.
A larger-screened phone may not have the same potential issues that the 5c has had in terms of differentiation if Apple produce the next iPhone in two sizes (a cheaper entry level model with a standard screen size, and a slightly larger "premium" or high-end model). The physical size difference is something that Apple could use as a differential in terms of marketing, and at a physical level I think it's easier for a customer to relate to (whereas the differences between 5c and 5s - apart from the colours - may be too subtle for the average consumer to care about).
I think DED in his next segment will touch on the point I made in message #41 regarding creation of tiers of distribution for the iPhone which will allow the company to continue to penetrate the mid-market. Here's that excerpt from my earlier message:
I see the iPhone 5C 8GB model rolling out in select markets as part of a plan to create two tiers within Apple’s distribution network:
Tier 1 carriers cover markets where the demographic will support healthy sales of the latest flagship iPhones. These are the approximately 270 existing iPhone carriers around the world, expanding to maybe 300 carriers.
Tier 2 carriers cover markets where the demographic supports a mid-priced lower-premium iPhone model. These are the approximately 50 carriers Apple indicated in its January earnings call that it was bringing on during the Jan-Mar quarter, plus markets like India where Apple is growing its presence. Apple's sales into markets served by these carriers will mostly be comprised of the iPhone 5C and 4S (until the latter is discontinued).
When you're scoring as the 2nd and 3rd most popular phone for over 6 months straight in the US I'd say that's a sign of being mighty.
Hmmm... 2nd and 3rd for 6 months straight in the US? Not from the Cannacord figures I've seen for the top 4 carriers.
If you've got the proof I'd like to see it.
All I can find is this article that shows it topped the results for 3 months.
Since I can locate the additional results I will have to concede that I could be mistaken until otherwise proven correct.
All I can find is this article that shows it topped the results for 3 months.
Since I can locate the additional results I will have to concede that I could be mistaken until otherwise proven correct.
1. That article doesn't say 3 months... it says 2 1/3 at best.
2. Let me help you with January through March
The chart shows September, October, and November with the 5C in the number 2 and 3 spots for US carriers.
The chart shows September, October, and November with the 5C in the number 2 and 3 spots for US carriers.
Yes... that's true. It doesn't matter if it was only out for 10 days in September... it was still number 2.
Ha Ha, that was my thought reading the article too.
To me it seems the '5c bashing,' at least on technical merits, is largely non-existent. It is a decent phone but just kind of 'meh'
If you do a search on 'iPhone 5c a failure' you get mostly two results: Apple fan sites, and financial sites. Oddly enough the few technical sites that aren't Apple fan sites are actually defending the 5c saying it is not as bad as Apple fan sites make it out to be.
Technically it is a solid phone, financially it made less money than it was projected to. The financial sites don't bash it as being a horrible phone, they just question what market it was really fulfilling. The 'nearly iPhone 5s priced phone that isn't as good as the 5s' market? But at least now Daniel has explained the genius of the 5c to us. It wasn't supposed to be a great consumer phone. It was an 'iterative learning experiment' Apple sold to its customers to teach Apple how to make bigger screen phones. Wait, what?
Yeah, I don't understand the logic in saying that it was a learning experience for Apple as far as building bigger screens is concerned, especially since Apple has been making products with different sizes, colors, and specs for years now.
The problem with the 5C is that people expected it to fulfill some market segment that the 5 could not have. It had all the same components as the 5, and the same price the 5 would've been. Why would anyone expect it to sell any better or worse then the 5? Because it came in different colors? Big whoop! You can just get a case if you want that. People just assumed it was a brand new device from Apple and therefor should've sold like hotcakes. The reality is, it sold just as well as all the other "last year's model" iPhones have. Honestly, nothing on the market, not even another Apple iPhone is going to come out from under the shadow of their latest flagship model.
Personally, deep down inside, I tend to think that Apple released the 5C, to help push customers towards the 5S. Anyone who liked the design of the 5 had no choice but to go with a 5S, unless they bought used. However, I do believe the next "C" model, with an A7, Touch ID and larger screen will sell very well.
Is that sarcasm? Being out less time and still making the top of the ranks makes it more impressive to come in 2nd place for the entire month.
Is that sarcasm? Being out less time and still making the top of the ranks makes it more impressive to come in 2nd place for the entire month.
You'll know when I'm being sarcastic.
I think you were being sarcastic and since you claim I'lll know when you are the only conclusion is that you definitely were. Good to know.