Oxymoron alert.
----------
Carriers want as much people as possible using LTE.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Another Alleged Image of the Low-Cost iPhone Rear Shell Surfaces
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oxymoron alert.
----------
Carriers want as much people as possible using LTE.
How do we know that these weren't "leaked" on purpose? It is totally plausible that Apple looks at the release schedule compared with their competitors and decided that they needed to seed some information about their upcoming offerings to retain some customers.
Even if there is no truth at all to the above, the leaks are coming from the supply chain. It isn't all that simple to manage.
Just gotta add my 2c worth. This is clearly the real deal, although I agree the black typing may have been added 'cos it looks a little harsh. If you have seen the video of the back cover - it is 100% clearly a real Apple part.
And of course it makes logical marketing sense. Apple cannot pretend that the opposition are not taking market share, so this is the perfect solution. Of course they will lose "some" sales from their higher end units, but will also win some sales back from Samsung etc.
The painful truth is that their profit margins are high, with an iPhone costing around $190 to make. So this one can only be maybe $30 less to actually make. But the issue is that they actually NEEEED it to look instantly cheaper and more plastic, or else they kill their high-end models (and the huge extra profit margins they produce).
Clearly this thing could never be 50% cheaper, or only a small % of punters would pay twice the price for a fingerprint reader, better camera, and a shiny metal surface.
So based on current prices I think the following:
iPhone 5S at same price as the current iPhone 5 as follows:
$649, $749, $849
and then the new plastic iPhone X as follows:
$449, $549, $649
That $200 difference is just enough to make you consider the extra toys on the higher end models. The 4S is currently $549 but this thing will be much better in terms of specs.
The colors might be "fun and funky" but also signal you couldn't afford the top model (if you care about that kinda stuff). We can assume 3rd parties will quickly be selling silver, gold and black covers to make 'em sexier.
But $250???? Dream on. Not in your wildest.
And of course it makes logical marketing sense. Apple cannot pretend that the opposition are not taking market share, so this is the perfect solution. Of course they will lose "some" sales from their higher end units, but will also win some sales back from Samsung etc.
The painful truth is that their profit margins are high, with an iPhone costing around $190 to make. So this one can only be maybe $30 less to actually make. But the issue is that they actually NEEEED it to look instantly cheaper and more plastic, or else they kill their high-end models (and the huge extra profit margins they produce).
Clearly this thing could never be 50% cheaper, or only a small % of punters would pay twice the price for a fingerprint reader, better camera, and a shiny metal surface.
So based on current prices I think the following:
iPhone 5S at same price as the current iPhone 5 as follows:
$649, $749, $849
and then the new plastic iPhone X as follows:
$449, $549, $649
That $200 difference is just enough to make you consider the extra toys on the higher end models. The 4S is currently $549 but this thing will be much better in terms of specs.
The colors might be "fun and funky" but also signal you couldn't afford the top model (if you care about that kinda stuff). We can assume 3rd parties will quickly be selling silver, gold and black covers to make 'em sexier.
But $250???? Dream on. Not in your wildest.
My take on this is we are probably seeing some fakes but based on the actual phone that apple will introduce.
To be honest I think they look good. At least in some of the colours. I've never really liked the iPhone 4, 4S and 5's more industrial look with the metal antenna on the outside (I have the 5). If this thing doesn't feel too thick (4S looks hideously bulky when I look at it now) and the spec is roughly on par with the 5 (main pre requisite is it had to be retina) then I'd actually go for this over the 5S. I've upgraded each year previously sounds as if the 5S will essentially be the same phone again with a spec upgrade and if that's limited to faster processor' double flash and finger print recognition then I really ain't that bothered. Would rather have a 'new look' iPhone even if the spec is no better than the current model.
To be honest I think they look good. At least in some of the colours. I've never really liked the iPhone 4, 4S and 5's more industrial look with the metal antenna on the outside (I have the 5). If this thing doesn't feel too thick (4S looks hideously bulky when I look at it now) and the spec is roughly on par with the 5 (main pre requisite is it had to be retina) then I'd actually go for this over the 5S. I've upgraded each year previously sounds as if the 5S will essentially be the same phone again with a spec upgrade and if that's limited to faster processor' double flash and finger print recognition then I really ain't that bothered. Would rather have a 'new look' iPhone even if the spec is no better than the current model.
Thank you. The casing is probably one of the smallest contributors to the cost of the device, so why in the world do they need to make it look like cheap crap? This makes the Galaxy look like a luxury product.
Since the case itself isn't saving Apple $100, what is? Just using year old components? So why not just keep with the iPhone5 as the low cost option since they have to work through extra inventory anyways?
Jobs never produced a cheapo, race-to-the-bottom, version of any of his hardware.
----------
Yeah dude, actually it is. Works great on the iphone 5, much more convenient.
I dunno. If it were just one or two isolated rumors stretched months apart, that'd be one thing. But when a bunch of pictures of the same design start poring in from various sources like this, they usually end up being real.
Jobs never produced a cheapo, race-to-the-bottom, version of any of his hardware.
Yea, exactly!
Wait, no. The iMac was what brought Apple back from the brink of bankruptcy. A cheap alternative to their more expensive models to get them in the hands of more customers at a lower price point.
If you zoom in on the pik there seems to be some shopping going on. For me the BLACK of the word iPhone is just too dark, and there is evidence of weird pixels at the 1st word of the last line.
Added to the fact that they are AGAIN only showing the rear, seems to me that they have just taken another unfinished rear cover and tried to Photoshop it onto a further stage. So it's the real back, but the writing is bogus.
Added to the fact that they are AGAIN only showing the rear, seems to me that they have just taken another unfinished rear cover and tried to Photoshop it onto a further stage. So it's the real back, but the writing is bogus.
@cube - this is a weird argument? I didn't write the thread title!!! But I can still comment on the item being discussed without agreeing with the wording of the title.
It's also a non-discussion anyway as by definition even if it ends up 20 cents cheaper than an iPhone 6 it will be still be the LOW COST model in the range.
Whether you think $449 is low cost is a mute point. I am just saying that anyone thinking this thing will start with a $2xx is on crack.
Doh! Because they MUST differentiate it from the high end models. It needs a lower spec and a lower visual value to maintain the difference. In manufacturing terms of course it would technically be cheaper just to churn out MORE of the current iPhone 5 casings, rather than have all the aggro and costs of a complete new plastic case. Production costs for the iPhone 5 and the new iPhone plastic are probably almost identical - it's just down to marketing.
It's also a non-discussion anyway as by definition even if it ends up 20 cents cheaper than an iPhone 6 it will be still be the LOW COST model in the range.
Whether you think $449 is low cost is a mute point. I am just saying that anyone thinking this thing will start with a $2xx is on crack.
Doh! Because they MUST differentiate it from the high end models. It needs a lower spec and a lower visual value to maintain the difference. In manufacturing terms of course it would technically be cheaper just to churn out MORE of the current iPhone 5 casings, rather than have all the aggro and costs of a complete new plastic case. Production costs for the iPhone 5 and the new iPhone plastic are probably almost identical - it's just down to marketing.
Last edited:
I don't mind the look, for me it will come down to features v cost over the 5s.
Bingo! It's a tricky game because in truth the new iPhone Plastic model will in all honesty do 99% of stuff that anyone needs. It's gonna be pretty much an iPhone 5.
So they won't allow the prices to be toooooo far apart. Just enough to have you thinking........hmmmmmm.........extra $200 but I do use it every day. Hmmmmmm........being able to unlock the screen with my thumb would be sooooo convenient. Hmmmmmmm..........I like the idea of a better camera. Hmmmmmmm.......my buddy just got an iPhone Plastic so I could piss on his chips.
I'm definitely interested in a "lower cost" iphone. I'm still on an iphone4 which, despite my best efforts, is starting to give up the ghost (battery already replaced. Home button no. 2 already on way out etc). I would seriously consider any cheaper iPhone (even if it is a pig in lipstick) to stay in the ecosystem. I'm not in a position anymore to go top end for my apple products (aaah those were the days) and it seems apple realises that this is a common situation (assuming these lower cost rumours are true)
I only hope it will be available freely (as it seems to be addressing other markets than the uk)
The pics above are vaguely reminiscent of my old white MacBook (which still works but is languishing somewhere having been usurped by an HTPC Mac mini and an iPad) which is no bad thing. That MacBook was my first non-iPod apple product so evokes good memories of being free of the ****** PC I had at the time.
----------
Precisely. I used to work for a company that distributed a product with 2 specifications. You could pay to upgrade the basic model but all you were doing was paying to open up features that already existed in the software, just weren't turned on
I only hope it will be available freely (as it seems to be addressing other markets than the uk)
The pics above are vaguely reminiscent of my old white MacBook (which still works but is languishing somewhere having been usurped by an HTPC Mac mini and an iPad) which is no bad thing. That MacBook was my first non-iPod apple product so evokes good memories of being free of the ****** PC I had at the time.
----------
Precisely. I used to work for a company that distributed a product with 2 specifications. You could pay to upgrade the basic model but all you were doing was paying to open up features that already existed in the software, just weren't turned on
Aw why are the labels and logo solid black? I'd like it better if they were grey. Especially the labels.
It would serve you well to know that Apple is public company and must do whatever they have to to make more money for their investors. I know we would like to believe that Apple is uber high end, they are in some regards, but they have numbers to meet and if putting out a cheap ass phone like this and then selling it as unique, which they will, then so be it. I can already see Sir. Ive talking his crap about starting over with something new in order to bring about something simpler, more refined. You know the drill. Apple does this like no one else.