Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
If you think that "Premium" is simply achieved by having a metal casing, then you should stop and think about things.

"Premium" (in this case) is the top of the line.

If the iPhone 4S is the "premium" Apple phone for 2011 and then in 2012 they come out with a new top of the line phone (iPhone 5) the 4S is no longer "premium" (despite being the same phone that was "premium" before)

The 4S is still a more premium design than the 5S. If you use it naked, you're the boss.
 
The 4S is still a more premium design than the 5S. If you use it naked, you're the boss.

This is what it is like to go crazy... :confused::eek:

The iPhone 4S is a better* design, that does not make the iPhone 4S a "premium phone" in 2013.

*That is my opinion and one shared by a lot of others but I am not claiming it as a fact.
 
Last edited:
This is what it is like to go crazy... :confused::eek:

The iPhone 4S is a better* design, that does not make the iPhone 4S a "premium phone" in 2013.

*That is my opinion and one shared by a lot of others but I am not claiming it as a fact.

It is a premium phone. There is no other like it.

Metal phone is more common.
 
Speaking of myopic visions, your reading of my post is evidence of your surface intake of my statements. Read closely, but not shortsightedly: I write specifically that the 5C, when compared to other 1) "new" products 2) by Apple (and strictly Apple), the 5C has been a failure. It is NOT garnering the attention of the masses in the ways the 5S is---a quality step forward, at that---find me a time when the launch of a "new" iPhone amounted to so much competition in the race to the bottom for pricing? Tell me why Apple (on their website and on their Television ads) are promoting the 5C much more than the 5S. It is simple: The 5S on its specs, build, and quality of design sell the phone itself; the 5C was a carefully planned launch, allowing the 5S to shine with more brilliance (when juxtaposed next to the 5C) and allowing the Apple to save money manufacturing the previous generation by repacking last year's specs in a plastic shell. Had Apple continued selling the 5 at $549 retail, they would have made the visual distinction between 5S and 5 more difficult to discern. As well, introducing the plastic colorful shell saves them money on their continuing manufacture of last year's phone. Thus, Apple makes out in yet another aspect as opposed to simply continuing to sell the previous generation at a $100 cut.

The problem is, the masses, clever as they may (or may not) be, are not impressed by the 5C. It's unusual to see a so-called new Apple product (and an iPhone at that) to be so seemingly desperate for sales. The iPhone 5C scheme has not caught on---its brightest days are gone.

Living in Hong Kong, I can tell you there are 3 multi-floor Apple stores, and numerous Apple premium resellers, and the 5C is readily available, in every color, and has been for weeks. The 5S has met a completely different demand.

Apple failed to make the 5C a "new" phone:

1) it's overpriced
2) the colors/shades are not modern world universal
3) it's last year's phone
4) it is being marketed to a degree like few other Apple products have been marketed, yet the demand (worldwide) is negligible compared to PREVIOUS iPhone launches.

It may seem there's a contradiction here: That the iPhone isn't selling as well as the 5S simply because it IS last year's phone, but when has that been an Apple objective? To introduce a "new" phone, touted as "new" at release, and proven to be a weak seller in terms of other launches.

Look at the iPad Mini. Yes, it was basically iPad 2 technology released next to the current iPad 4, yet it has been a very popular release--Apple's price was reasonable for the sleeker form factor, despite its non-Retina display.

The 5C is not a "new" release, and those readers who naively proclaimed they would choose the 5C over a 5S (despite owning a 5!) have realized it wasn't worth it, and they now are ...apologetically plastic.

You just used a lot more words to state the same unsupported opinions and assumptions. Nothing you said here is based on fact.
 
The problem is not only being plastic, the 5c shape looks like a toy, unlike an Xperia.
 
Should I mention that advertising the Apple cases make it look even worse, specially in those garish color combinations?

I agree. I'm personally not a fan of the colors (though white is fine) or the Apple cases. But then I might not be the target market. I see lots of people walking around with various clothes, shoes, accessories, phone cases, headphones, sunglasses, etc. that I personally consider garish and not at all to my taste. But someone is buying them.

Business owners make money by selling people what they (the people) want not what they (the business owners) want or want them to have.

Some people have little taste (in my opinion). Look at the folks buying the gold iPhone 5S for example.
 
I agree. I'm personally not a fan of the colors (though white is fine) or the Apple cases. But then I might not be the target market. I see lots of people walking around with various clothes, shoes, accessories, phone cases, headphones, sunglasses, etc. that I personally consider garish and not at all to my taste. But someone is buying them.

Business owners make money by selling people what they (the people) want not what they (the business owners) want or want them to have.

Some people have little taste (in my opinion). Look at the folks buying the gold iPhone 5S for example.

It is not gold. It is champagne. Fake gold would be tasteless. And I'm not even a fan of real gold. Well, real pink gold, yes.

Champagne is OK, like classic premium hifi components.
 
Don't know why I missed this story? Anyway, not surprised one tiny bit, what did they expect if they recycled old parts at top premium prices? Because it is very expensive still.
Meh I'm on the way to my next phone now that the Sony Xperia Z1f is real, a spec like that in a phone not a lot bigger than the iPhone. Yes please :D I bet it's a lot cheaper then the 5C too, just one competitor to the 5C.

Plus the 5C TV advert campaign is truly terrible, not a patch on the old ones like the iPhone 4 advert.
 
It is not gold. It is champagne. Fake gold would be tasteless. And I'm not even a fan of real gold. Well, real pink gold, yes.

Champagne is OK, like classic premium hifi components.

Whatever.

(where is the eye rolling emoticons when I need it?)

I consider it ugly. I consider people who like it to have poor taste. These are my opinions, just like your opinions about people who might offend you by having the temerity to purchase a 5C because that's what they like/want/need/etc.
 
Whatever.

(where is the eye rolling emoticons when I need it?)

I consider it ugly. I consider people who like it to have poor taste. These are my opinions, just like your opinions about people who might offend you by having the temerity to purchase a 5C because that's what they like/want/need/etc.

Gold plated is also tasteless.

I remember not liking champagne hifi components at the time.
 
The problem is not only being plastic, the 5c shape looks like a toy, unlike an Xperia.

What I don't understand about these sorts of comments is who cares, really?

Are you surrounded by friends that judge you by the type of phone you use?

Those are some really shallow friends, and you're best off finding better ones.
 
For all those who hate the 5C colors I present you this:

BWRVCOiCAAA45KF.png:large
 
It is not gold. It is champagne. Fake gold would be tasteless. And I'm not even a fan of real gold. Well, real pink gold, yes.

Champagne is OK, like classic premium hifi components.

e0sz.png


Apple must have just misspelled the word "Champagne":rolleyes:
 
My point is: people did not complain the price was too high because it was plastic.
The price isn't too high because its plastic, the price is too high because its not worth that much. :D
People still called the iPhone 3G and 3Gs the "best phone out there" at the time.
Yes, at their time. But the iPhone 5c is not the best phone at its time. The 5s is way better at only a little more and the 5 is one year old and still equally good. Because of that the 5c will never have its great days. It starts as an old phone on the day of its introduction. Thats a burden heavier than $100.

When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone 4 he called it the "biggest leap since original iPhone". You could still buy an 3GS and save $100 and miss out on Retina and the new form factor. That wasn't a good deal and people said: "This isn't a good deal." I remember Gizmodo warning that no one should buy the 3GS.

It was an old plastic phone, with cheap old technologies, but not cheap enough in price. History is repeating itself. The plastic iPhone 5c would have been the best phone of its time, if it would have been released a year ago.
 
The price isn't too high because its plastic, the price is too high because its not worth that much. :D

To you perhaps. To others, maybe not.


But the iPhone 5c is not the best phone at its time.

I don't think anyone has claimed it is. Apple has positioned it as second tier below what they consider their "best." Obviously "best" carries subjective aspects with it and must be applied for varying values rankings. Best for you and best for me might be different things for different reasons. For example best for me might mean less out of pocket up front when outfitting a whole family. Best for me might mean having colors to chose from. Best for me might mean "hey the features on this one are good enough (for me) and costs me $100 less."


The 5s is way better...

In your evaluation. See above for explanation why "best" is not necessarily a completely objective measurement.


the 5 is one year old and still equally good. Because of that the 5c will never have its great days. It starts as an old phone on the day of its introduction.

Not sure what you are saying here. You seem to be saying the 5 is good even though it is 1 year old technology, but the 5C is old even though it is basically the same technology with some minor technological improvements.



Thats a burden heavier than $100.

Again, in your value ranking. For me, I'm not sure the features of the 5S are enough of a pull for me to part with another $100. At some point the phone is good enough and the additional bells and whistles don't excite that much.


When Steve Jobs introduced the iPhone 4 he called it the "biggest leap since original iPhone".

I'm just going to laugh at this. LOL


The plastic iPhone 5c would have been the best phone of its time, if it would have been released a year ago.

Whatever.

Obviously you don't get what Apple is targeting with the 5C. Just admit that and move on.
 
Again, in your value ranking. For me, I'm not sure the features of the 5S are enough of a pull for me to part with another $100. At some point the phone is good enough and the additional bells and whistles don't excite that much.
The iPhone 5c is more than good enough for me. While I like the A7, I could live without it on a phone, not so much on a tablet. I don't need Touch-ID. I could quit on camera features. I love the design of the body. I think its the nicest iPhone design ever. I don't mind plastic. I hate all the colors, except white, which I love. (Yes I'm a racist). And I can't stand iOS7 icons.

The iPhone 5c is made for me. What stops me from buying it right now, is only the price. No way I am paying 6/7 of the money for 1/2 of the cpu power. And I'm not buying the 5s either, because its ugly designed and I don't need that speed. But it sets expectation on what things are worth. And devices with 32-bit chips need to be way cheaper now to get me interested.
 
And was he GOD .. or perfect? Or never make mistakes during his position at Apple?

Like I said HE WAS INSPIRING, dude. Meaning I respect him, but does that mean he's flawless with his decisions?

Tim handles the bigger Apple more than Steve ever dreamed of. 5/5S/5C sell much more the 4/4S or any iPhone ever was. He did great considering the scale of iOS product logistics. He deserves a credit for being an efficient executive. Both of them good at what they're doing. And in your case that makes Tim "ordinary" CEO just as CEO of some random companies? Who's out of mind exactly?
I never claimed he was a god nor that he was perfect.but he was a extra ordinary human begin,an inventor.he built the company,he saved it from bankruptcy,he came with the idea of iMac,iPod,iPhone,iPad from scratch..and these products made Apple what Apple is today.Tim Cook just took over,it was all handled to him.he became the boss of a super successful and super wealthy company.
when Jobs -came- to Apple..well there was nothing..when he returned to Apple,Apple was a mess..it was his ideas that made Apple what it is today.the success of whatever product you see in these last few years are all continuation of Jobs work,made by an already proven and established company..Cook has not yet shown his own capability..wait another 5 years and then you can comment or relate Apple's situation to him.
Jobs made people queuing in front of Apple stores not Tim Cook.
again,I have nothing against the man,I'm sure he was the best available,Jobs approved him,but you are just denying facts and are to forgetful and unfair.
 
People still called the iPhone 3G and 3Gs the "best phone out there" at the time.

Yes, at their time. But the iPhone 5c is not the best phone at its time. The 5s is way better at only a little more and the 5 is one year old and still equally good. Because of that the 5c will never have its great days. It starts as an old phone on the day of its introduction. Thats a burden heavier than $100.

Please show me ANYONE saying the iPhone 5c is the best phone at any time.

And newsflash: The iPhone 5c is an iPhone 5!

You say the iPhone 5 is "one year old and still equally good" (compared to 5s?) and you say the iPhone 5c "starts as an old phone on the day of its introduction" which means you acknowledge that the iPhone 5c is an iPhone 5, you can the iPhone 5 equally as good as an iPhone 5s (which is not true) but then say the iPhone 5c is not?:confused:

----------

I don't care what Apple calls it.
What about all those other people who also call it gold? You probably do not care what they call it either.

By the way. "Gold" in this case is the color, not the element. Apple NEVER claimed it was made of gold. It is still aluminum just like the "Silver" (also not the element, just the color silver) and "Space Grey" (which Apple does not claim comes from some element found in space)

You may not call it gold, but that is what it is. Just get over it.:rolleyes:
 
I never claimed he was a god nor that he was perfect.but he was a extra ordinary human begin,an inventor.he built the company,he saved it from bankruptcy,he came with the idea of iMac,iPod,iPhone,iPad from scratch..and these products made Apple what Apple is today.Tim Cook just took over,it was all handled to him.he became the boss of a super successful and super wealthy company.
when Jobs -came- to Apple..well there was nothing..when he returned to Apple,Apple was a mess..it was his ideas that made Apple what it is today.the success of whatever product you see in these last few years are all continuation of Jobs work,made by an already proven and established company..Cook has not yet shown his own capability..wait another 5 years and then you can comment or relate Apple's situation to him.
Jobs made people queuing in front of Apple stores not Tim Cook.
again,I have nothing against the man,I'm sure he was the best available,Jobs approved him,but you are just denying facts and are to forgetful and unfair.

Both Tim and Steve is good at their own expertise is what I'm saying. Steve is great person with extraordinary talent, he pro-motored a lot of successful products (along with some bad ones, remember?). He brought Apple from its knees back up and even better. He is a great salesman and presenter alright. Throw in some "magical" words and you are guaranteed to be struck. Yes he was a hero for this company. Nobody should ever forget that. All those talents for a little trade off because he's not as good as a human being. He is kind of egoistic and acting jerk at times.

Now Tim is totally different league. He was made to manage and improve the company. He is not as charming nor charismatic as his predecessor, but certainly a great operational manager. His presentation skill is not as good (although I see he's improving over time). He's not a great salesman but he practically replaced Steve 2 or 3 years before his death so his leadership at Apple actually is a bit longer than you thought. He handles a bigger Apple than Steve ever was, bigger iPhone/iPad sales, bigger responsibility. As a bonus, he is a better human being than Steve ever was.

So again, they're two different people for two different situation. That doesn't make one is less or greater than the other. It's so ridiculous every time I read "Steve would have never done that" kind of posts in a more serious manner because come to think of it "Steve made a lot of mistakes too". Tim is not Steve nor he's trying to be and he's proving it very well. It's unfair to always put him under his shadow.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.