Apple's Low-Cost iPhone to be an 'iCloud' iPhone?

[DTphonehome]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

No no no. The "cheaper" iPhone is mainly meant to tap into the developing market. 3G coverage is not nearly widespread enough or cheap enough for this to be feasible. Anyway, how much can 8GB of flash cost already? The iPod touch has 8GB and costs only $229. They can easily add cell radios and sell it for $350.

 

[zweigand]

Yeah right, an iPhone that wouldn't be able to use large apps. (e.g. GB Games, Navigation apps with local maps, Movie apps, etc.)

They'd use a discounted previous generation iPhone way before that.

 

[mrockm01]

I don't buy the rumor, but could see a lower-cost iPhone with less storage.

I have a feeling that 4GB or even 2GB of storage is enough for "most" users that simply want to use their phone with a few apps.

Exactly. People who surf macrumors do not use their iPhone like the majority of people

 

[HiRez]

8 GB onboard storage should cost almost nothing to produce nowadays and probably cover over 50% of potential users' needs. This would be a great phone for my girlfriend, for example. Good move.

 

[seamer]

Even if this is remotely true, it will have rudimentary storage - probably half of what we have in our current phones. Who uses their full storage capacity and actually needs it? I have 12gb of music and another 3gb of apps stored on my phone, yet I rarely even listen to 2-3 hours/day. Since I dock with my mac every night with some dynamic playlists, there's no real requirement to store it all on the phone.

I'm lucky enough to be grandfathered with the unlimited data plan, so these phones sound very interesting.

 

[winston1236]

sorry apple, but unless you force the carriers to ditch the idea that a tiny 2 gigs is a reasonable data cap this wont work. unless you want to create apple mobile. that would be sweet.

 

[nagromme]

Interesting idea—not for everyone, but for a lot of people, who just wouldn’t have that much “stuff” and wouldn’t need that much storage OR bandwidth.

I know a lot of people who would love having a browser, email, camera, and a few great games on their phone, maybe a little music/audiobooks, and be served really well by that. They’d love to have iPhone ease of use in a free/cheap phone.

And the most common bandwidth use, I’m guessing, would be music. Could that work with capped plans? Again, not for everyone, but I think it has the potential to be good option: whatever limited storage this iPhone had could still be big enough to cache a useful amount of most-listened-to music. And I already stream Pandora a LOT over 3D (it’s on 90% of the time I’m in the car), yet I never come close to my 2GB data cap, even with Pandora set to the higher quality option. iTunes music is probably more data per song than Pandora, BUT then it can be cached, so replays are “free.”

Then add the fact that WiFi usage is free, and many people do most of their surfing and media management at home where they have WiFi, and the limitations don’t sound intolerable. The iPhone can even be set to NOT synch with iCloud except on WiFi, and then accidental overages are prevented.

This would still be intolerable for many of us tech forum-goers—in which case this option is not for us—but I can see it being a great way to get iOS into some peoples’ hands.

I kind of hope it’s true.

 

[paul4339]

"Developing markets" don't buy $400 phones, they buy $20 phones. A smart phone without storage is a dumb idea.

In this case, when they say "Developing markets", they specifically mean China... and there is a demand, mainly because, with the vast population, even the smaller (but growing) percentage that can afford a $400 phone, it still represents alot of sales... I agree a phone with no storage isn't a good idea.


.

 

[stadlin]

even the apple tv 2 features 8GB of storage for buffering... I don't see a cheap iPhone below that. apple will find another way to reduce the cost for the low-cost market.

 

[notjustjay]

My 16 gig iPhone is still less than 1/4 full, mostly with apps. I have a couple of downloaded songs and some photos on board... everything else lives on my home computer or network anyway.

Plus the battery life is such that I try not to watch videos on it too much!

And a cheaper aluminum back would be just fine with me too -- who else but Apple could get away with making a phone out of glass on both sides!

 

[FriarNurgle]

I think a 3G iPod Touch would be a much more innovated device. Add in GPS and phone speaker/mic.

 

[CFreymarc]

In the era of data caps, this would not appeal to me

Plus I use my iphone for both as an ipod and a dedicated gps with maps on the device so this would not work well in that regard.

Hold your breath on this one. Apple is one of the few handset manufactures able to greatly influence if not dictate terms to carrier services. The future iPhone 4S / 4G going mostly cloud may work as a lower end phone. A similar product idea like this was a disaster with Palm with their swan song Pre line.

So it looks like the "it's an iPhone 4 derivative" vs. "it's a totally new design" fight here for the past year may end up having both parties right.

 

[silentnite]

Just another way to push iCloud not really low cost once you factor in the monthly plan

 

[manu chao]

It's not Flash storage that makes a device expensive, 8GB of storage today is almost free, and that's plenty for a low-cost iPhone. It's the other hardware that the iPod Touch lacks, such as the better camera, screen, extra sensors, more RAM and 3G.

And the $300 profit margin the iPhone brings to Apple. It is hard to have $400 retail price AND a $300 margin. Apple has average costs of $300 per iPhone (all costs included, including distribution I think) and average income of $650. The iPod touch might cost only $200 but then the average price is probably only $300.

click for larger​

 

[azentropy]

As stated by many before - a subsidized the phone cost is just a small part of the total cost of ownership. Most US customers usually get the subsidized iPhone at $199 and then pay ~$75 a month for phone/data/text for 24 months. So their 2 year cost is ~$1750. Even if iPhones were free it would still cost $1500+

A lower cost iPhone only works if there there is the ability to get more flexible plans. Those who don't want data shouldn't have to pay for data. Those who don't want voice shouldn't have to pay for voice etc.

 

[MrPineapples]

I listen to music on the tube... where there is currently no phone signal. This doesn't make sense.

 

[supermac96]

This rumor also seems to fall in line with the rumor of an apple movie streaming service. If there wasn't much local storage on the phone than it seems like apple would want to do a streaming service so people could watch movies and not have them stored on the phone. Anyone agree?

 

[bushido]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

yes cuz ppl who cant or wont afford the high end iPhone will shed out any money for iCloud

 

[ugahairydawgs]

When exactly did it become part of Apple's business model to make a low cost anything?

 

[manu chao]

8gb of flash storage would be dirt cheap for apple, why the hell would they try to reduce the price by doing this?

The point is not that Apple would save $250 with a 2 or 4 GB phone compared to the $650 16 GB iPhone. The point is that Apple could justify the $250 premium for a 16 GB over a 2 GB iPhone. It is about creating enough differentiation to protect the high-margin iPhone.

 

[deconstruct60]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; CPU iPhone OS 5_0 like Mac OS X) AppleWebKit/534.46 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/9A5288d)

8gb of flash storage would be dirt cheap for apple, why the hell would they try to reduce the price by doing this? .

Because they have played this game the last two cycles. The 3G and 3GS both got chopped down the 8GB when became the "last years iPhone". (well capped at 8GB in the 3G case). However, I doubt that is going to be enough. The current 3GS isn't the "low cost contract free' phone now. A chopped down iPhone 4 won't be either.

To get down the $200 level they'd have to tweak something like the 3GS into something less expensive to make. I would suspect the 3GS is not going to disappear but get a rework. Perhaps Apple will retreat all the way back to the original 4GB lower end limit. ( good enough for a couple of modest sized enhancement apps and some storage).


What Apple needs is a contract free phone to compete in countries where people's yearly income is not nearly as high as the US and the user base isn't addicted to long term contracts with subsidies. They need a less expensive phone. In the US they could market the network abilities to offset the low storage costs. In countries more cost sensitive folks will just buy it (and not the expensive network capabilities) because it is the only option they can afford.

 

[manu chao]

A lower cost iPhone only works if there there is the ability to get more flexible plans. Those who don't want data shouldn't have to pay for data. Those who don't want voice shouldn't have to pay for voice etc.

Yeah, but Apple cannot dictate the plans to the telcos (though they can try to lean on them and shift things a bit). To get more flexible plans you need better competition and if the free market cannot do this on its in markets which such huge barriers of entry, politics or regulators have to do something.

 

[DakotaGuy]

I don't buy this story for a second. I could however see Apple making a cheaper iPhone 4, and making that a free model with a contract, instead of the previous years $99 phone.


I just think it will be an iPhone 4 with 8gb of storage.

I don't either, but in the age of data caps and expensive plans for large amounts of data I am guessing the wireless carriers would make a handsome profit on this phone.

 

[paradox00]

I listen to music on the tube... where there is currently no phone signal. This doesn't make sense.

People generally buy phones for when they have a signal... Just saying.

Just because a phone doesn't fit your particular usage scenario, doesn't mean that something doesn't make sense. Many people wouldn't feel hampered by the lack of music when they are out of 3G range, as it may only happen rarely for them.

I'm not sure this is happening since iCloud is setup as an iTunes in the cloud that you can sync to, not stream from, but I think there are many people that would be interested in a cheaper iPhone with limited storage.

 

[bushido]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)

doesnt the apple iCloud let u "redownload" and not rly "stream" music? wouldnt that still require internal storage? plus how would apps work