Yeah since AAPL is tanking and losing grip of their own market share a smart move would to start selling low end iphones or IOS devices in general. Any smart company would do that to survive. Just my opinion. Thanks.
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.
Low-Cost iPhone to Use Plastic or Hybrid Plastic/Metal Design, Due in Late 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah since AAPL is tanking and losing grip of their own market share a smart move would to start selling low end iphones or IOS devices in general. Any smart company would do that to survive. Just my opinion. Thanks.
Wow, relax. My point still stands, not everyone is so absolutely insane like you that they freak out over 3 year terms. This rumor has already been debunked and goes against almost everything Apple stands for.
Chill, please.
I know this has been repeated, but no, the phone don't cost $99 or $0 (over the contract). Why do you think the plan i so expensive?
If the phone was cheaper, you could still pay $99 or $0 up front, but with a much lower monthly cost for the same plan => affordable for more people.
Not everybody can GET a 2- or 3-year contract, e.g. third world countries where this phone will be targeted. As has been discussed 50 times in this thread.
Something tells me that people living in third world countries don't wake up in the morning thinking about how they are going to get an iPhone.
There needs to be a cheaper iPhone for the Asian market (China and India). In India the latest iPhone costs $1000+. If Apple does not gain market share there it will loose out to Android. And you know what happens when 95% of the market is owned by one OS...developers will support the dominant OS first.
The Asian market is 2 billion people. You cannot give up that big of a market share.
And you can't say the 3GS or the 4/4S is a cheaper iPhone. People will know it's an older iPhone. They can easily buy a newer Android for the same price with more/better features.
----------
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/world/asia/china-kidney-ipad-trial/index.html
China is 2nd world country, but still close enough.
The Asian market is 2 billion people. You cannot give up that big of a market share.
And you can't say the 3GS or the 4/4S is a cheaper iPhone. People will know it's an older iPhone. They can easily buy a newer Android for the same price with more/better features.
----------
Something tells me that people living in third world countries don't wake up in the morning thinking about how they are going to get an iPhone.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/10/world/asia/china-kidney-ipad-trial/index.html
China is 2nd world country, but still close enough
.Minor point of contention here: This phone will NOT be targeted towards "3rd World Countries" it will be targeted towards developing countries, such as those in South America and Asia
Third world countries are so impoverished they may not even know what an iPhone is, surely couldn't afford one and likely don't have any sort of wireless phone service in their country.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm
Third world countries are so impoverished they may not even know what an iPhone is, surely couldn't afford one and likely don't have any sort of wireless phone service in their country.
http://www.nationsonline.org/oneworld/third_world.htm
Surely thats neither here nor there as you're basing your views on 'I think' methodology. Do you have a source that confirms that a large percentage of that Samsung spending was on the Galaxy line?
I'm not disputing it but:
A) It's got bugger all to do with this thread
and
B) It's a throwaway comment without any proof.
I actually like the design of the white 3GS more than any other iPhone. Love the smoothness and the curves. Not a huge fan of the angular 4 and 5, although it's hard to beat the solid build of the 4, which I also enjoy. Wouldn't mind seeing the 3GS design make a return as an option with updates internally and externally (lightening port, FaceTime camera, flash and better rear camera, updated internals, maybe even retina display).
In the US maybe. In France we have a unlimited voice/data/text for 20 (25$). So cheaper iPhone will have a great success, because the iPhone 5 16GB cost 679 (900) on the Apple Store. But it's still cheaper to pay full price + 20 each month than 199 with a more expensive 2 years contract
Fair enough. I was responding to someone who seemed worried about Apple's profit margins.
And Apple earns its profits from hardware, and thus has an incentive to see its devices get into as many hands as possible. So market-share is important to the bean counters at Apple.
It's interesting to see the different strategies at work and how it has played out over time. Microsoft used to dominate, by licensing and selling expensive software to everyone. Apple gave Microsoft and its software-only approach the middle finger by dropping the price of Apple's own desktop OS to $30 and presiding over a mobile platform where users now expect to pay less than $1 for many apps. Microsoft (and other software giants like Adobe) can wish all they like that people will keep paying big money for their programs, but they can't live inside this bubble forever. Now Google sticks it to Apple and Microsoft by profiting from the advertising in a way that no one else can, while most of its hardware and software partners scrap over what little profit can be had in a very competitive industry. Apple can wish that people will keep paying big money for its hardware by trying to differentiate itself from the rabble any way it canbut one feels they must be feeling the pressure to drop prices as hard-fought market-dominance starts to slip away. I hope they're feeling the pressure to drop prices.
Apple's never been good with online services unfortunately, whether they have few or many customers. They have more than enough money now to throw at it, but still they struggle.
I hope that's not what they're doing. I've said elsewhere that a new, lower-spec phone isn't a good strategy for them. I would like to see them be more competitive on important specs AND price. If that sounds impossible, consider the disproportionate profits they make on their hardware compared to the rest of the industry. In fact, they boast about it. They have room to move.
Ah!
Maybe we're talking about even cheaper than that - aiming at the entry level cellphone market (kids, older folks), and the 3rd and 4th world.
Maybe we're talking about even cheaper than that - aiming at the entry level cellphone market (kids, older folks), and the 3rd and 4th world.
Take that, plastic haters
----------
Yeah, and BMW aren't growing at a ridiculous rate, are they?
Actually yes, they just had their best sales year ever in the history of the company.
Last edited:
AAPL isn't tanking, if you look at stock price versus revenue it's much lower than it's been historically speaking.
AAPL is the biggest company in the world, it isn't struggling to "survive".
Not to be nitpicky, but there's no aluminum on the iPhone 4 or 4S - it's stainless steel (which I actually prefer)
People in developing countries aren't buying any PCs at anywhere near the adoption rate for mobile devices, so if Apple doesn't compete, then what? The business will go to Samsung or another player.
The iPod shuffle is low-cost but it's still a music player, with less features than the higher end iPod sure, but it plays music as well as the other models.
I just don't see what features Apple could remove from the iPhone without causing confusion and fragmentation in the iOS market. LTE not being available in many parts of the world, I could see a 3G+Wi-Fi only model, but then again, that's what the cheaper iPhone 4S is for.
What kind of "iPhone mini" with lower specs would not introduce more fragmentation to the platform? An iPhone on which you can't install any apps other than the stock ones? (could this still be called a smartphone?) An iPhone without cameras? An iPhone with pre-Retina resolution? An iPhone with a 2" screen (smaller than a dumbphone)?
20% market share, 75% profits anyone?
i would hate seeing them making something thats not the best they can make.
its a matter of principle
i want iphone to be more exclusive, not less
i guess steve jobs left for real this time
**** consumerism, its driving this world into ****
i would hate seeing them making something thats not the best they can make.
its a matter of principle
i want iphone to be more exclusive, not less
i guess steve jobs left for real this time
**** consumerism, its driving this world into ****
Since plastic is more RF transparent, I would expect to see the antennas integrated in the casing itself.
Maybe this rumored move is a way to capitalize on the trend of carriers to stop subsidizing phones and therefore offer a less expensive model that will satisfy both the carrier and their customers. Using the A5 processor(which is still more than capable and cheaper than the A6) in a less expensive model that only has one OS update cycle is not a very bad idea.
I wonder though if this new cheaper iPhone might still include better wifi(like the 802.11ac). It might seem like a long shot, but didn't Steve Jobs originally want to bypass the carriers as much as possible and build a phone that was primarily reliant on wifi?
So maybe use older 3G hardware and the newer wireless standard MIT make a really good alternative to the more expensive unit but also give apple a chance to test the market and the reliability of newer technology.
I wonder though if this new cheaper iPhone might still include better wifi(like the 802.11ac). It might seem like a long shot, but didn't Steve Jobs originally want to bypass the carriers as much as possible and build a phone that was primarily reliant on wifi?
So maybe use older 3G hardware and the newer wireless standard MIT make a really good alternative to the more expensive unit but also give apple a chance to test the market and the reliability of newer technology.