Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

ClaraStahlbaum

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Since the "E" series is still rather expensive, do you guys think there should be an iPhone Neo? Perhaps made with an even older chip set, lower ram, bare bones phone for the lower end of the US market and foreign markets? The Samsung has the "F" series, I bet if Apple did something similar they could get a lot out of the foreign market by targeting the entry level consumers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Starfia
Yeah i dont think Apple want to compete in the already saturated £100-£300 phone price range, where you can get a whole load of Android phones with large 120 hz displays and fairly good specs for those on a very limited budget. The iPhone E is actually pretty good value for money and you can get it cheaper than £599 on third party sites.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Flowstates
A semi-regular topic here. And no reason for Apple to do so.

This News story shows that the pricey 16 (#6) is still doing well in sales and the 17s are really doing well (#1-3).

More important, with above, why would Apple want to have a phone with "thin" margins, and probably would be even thinner for the near term, what with flash shortage pricing, needed SoC fab slots (since Samsung has their own fabs for SoC, flash, displays, can easily keep running lines for their stuff), inflation, and priced relatively "cheap" (read: to move significant units) when the main models are doing solid business? And one less model to support and hear the gripes when the two year old device using a now five year old SoC is no longer supported is probably a-ok for Apple C-suites.

Gross margin for the quarter was 50.1 percent, compared to 46.5 percent in the year-ago quarter. Apple also declared a quarterly dividend payment of $0.27 per share, payable on August 13 to shareholders of record as of August 10.

Heck, Neo is no longer that great a deal: bare-bone Neo is now $100 less than the MBA M4 I got a year ago on sale (but yes, still a lot cheaper than current Airs).
 
I've been thinking this year: today's iPhone's are the supercomputers of 20 years ago, but many core functions remain fixed – making cellular calls, text messaging, listening to music, browsing the Web, checking e-mail, navigating maps – and those can all be done admirably by a device far worse than the original iPhone. And the effects of 20 years of non-stop connectivity seems to have heightened public consciousness around overuse and fixation – it seems to be trendy for companies to sell their products with the message "there's benefit in stepping away from the so-called latest and greatest."

How much of a profit could Apple today on a device that was worse than the original iPhone, but totally sufficient for many people's needs? Or even a device far better than the original iPhone, but using a chip not from two years ago, but ten?

I think it's a cool question, but it strikes me as something other companies – not Apple – would typically do. I took note that Craig Federighi answered a call-in question from a mom on a podcast recently which asked about all of this, specifically with kids in mind: would Apple make a more basic, limited-functionality phone just for them? Craig's answer was approximately "you're in luck: we do make a device like that, and it's the iPhone," referring to things like the updated family safety features from June.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ClaraStahlbaum
I don't think it will happen. As someone pointed out, the 17 (aka standard iPhone) is selling very well. Second, the memory shortage has been driving up costs so it would make no sense for Apple to sell a cheaper phone while their costs are rising. Especially since a cheap phone would still need 6-8GB RAM at minimum at 128GB or higher storage.
 
The 17e is $599, cheaper than MacBook Neo.

And unlike PC vs. Mac, the choice between Android vs. iPhone is much easier, so there’s no need for a Neo.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.