Sidebar Sidebar
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

Tiger8 said:
Yes mini has a smaller form factor, but you do realize that it has internals from two years ago, and the screen resolution of the original iPad, right? This was done of course for battery life, engineering, etc... but also to keep the price down.
Click to expand...

I'm so utterly aware of what a few negative nellies think of the mini, it's sickening actually. ;)

What Apple decided to do (brilliantly) with the mini is maximise its main feature, the feature which differentiates it from its big brother: the form factor. If they'd put a retina display in it, if they'd put a faster processor in it, if, if, if (pick another component to disparage) the form factor wouldn't be as amazing as it is, and the product wouldn't be as amazing as it is. The fact those parts they chose cost less, well that's a good thing and no they probably couldn't have made more expensive parts work (due to product and pricing strategy which play a part in product management), but to get back to what the main feature of the product is (and my point), it's all about the form factor, and if they do this with a phone, I'm intrigued to say the least.
 
a0me said:
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)?
Click to expand...

People may also not be obsessed with installing apps and taking amazing pictures and composing their hits on a mobile version of Garage Band. I myself have an old iPod Touch 4G, it does all I need. I got installed just a few apps, Skype, Mercury browser, a PDF reader, my favourite newspaper, TuneIn Radio, YouTube and Google Maps. I would not mind having a GSM chip installed on it, so I could just carry the Touch instead of Touch+dumbphone.

Also, you all seem to forget that somebody may not afford a contract because they are moving around the world for work. For example, I moved from Italy to UK to Germany to the Netherlands in less 3 years. I always wanted an iPhone but I cannot be tied to a 2 year contract! A less powerful PAYG iPhone, with the possibility of using a regular SIM or microSIM (instead of the hard to find nanoSIM) from different operators around the world would simply be perfect for people like me.
 
Okay Now...

I don't see the big deal if the iPhone is $199...Many phones are that price these days...I'd rather have there modern metal-type phones than plastic...I don't see Apple downgrading..
 
KnightWRX said:
I swear it's a disease. It's spreading too.
Click to expand...



You would think that people could at least take a fleeting glance at the discussion before repeatedly posting the same ignorant, US-centric and completely irrelevant reference to the cost of subsidized iPhones on two year contracts with big American providers.


The upfront cost of an iPhone 4 is not 0 $ unless all three of those boxes are ticked.
 
lovemyapple said:
I don't see the big deal if the iPhone is $199...Many phones are that price these days...I'd rather have there modern metal-type phones than plastic...I don't see Apple downgrading..
Click to expand...

Maybe the point it to produce a phone that needs no subsidy and a one year contract will still yield a profit for the carriers.

When customer's can buy a new iPhone every year without having to early terminate a contract then that means more potential profit for Apple (via the ecosystem) and higher sales numbers for new iPhone releases. Plus happier customers who want to always have the latest iPhone.

Maybe that is the strategy. I'm not sure it will work though. More volume at less profit per unit seems like a bad idea.

Apple is a premium brand. That is part of its appeal. Everybody wants to feel like they got a deal but only when it is a premium product.
 
winston1236 said:
Yea? The 4s is 100. Unless this will be a phone for the prepaid market?
Click to expand...

Wow, that's a great comment! 15 pages in and no one yet thought of this. Maybe it is a rumor about a low cost iPhone for the unsubsidized market like pre-paid or no contract subscriptions. :eek:

I can't believe winston1236 is the first guy to think about this, we should all be ashamed of ourselves.
 
lifeinhd said:
He was kidding. Oletro's comment was incomplete, should have said "Please, can you show me where I can buy an iPhone 4S or 5 without contract for $100 or $200?" and Darcy jumped on that.
Click to expand...



What he said.



Unless Oletros was genuinely curious where one could buy contract-free iPhones (from 450 $ upwards).

If that was the case: Glad to be of service!


;)
 
(Kerfuffle) said:
I still don't understand the point of this when you can get an iPhone 4 for free or a 4S for $100. Plus you get fancy glass and aluminum enclosures with those two.
Click to expand...

Because the fancy glass and metal is fragile and expensive. Apple needs to realize they sell these to "non tech friendly" customers. I went to my local AT&T store and the biggest complaint the salespeople had is that the iPhones are too fragile. I see the iPhone 5 guts moving to a plastic case as the only change. That would pull a lot of bucks out of manufacturing, and make phone companies happy they have to replace fewer units.

I could see Apple dropping other specs, like keeping the other parts like cameras at 4S/ipad mini levels to shave some bucks. But the core iPhone would need to be A6 to be future proof.
 
Mr Darcy said:
What he said.
Click to expand...

Oletros is not a native english speaker, so sometimes you have to interpret some of his posts. We all got however that what he meant was to show lovemyapple he didn't read the 15 previous pages were we already addressed the fact that mentionning "0$ iPhone 4s and 99$ iPhone 4Ss" was quite irrevelant.
 
Last edited:
bungiefan89 said:
But... they're not really getting an iPhone. They'll be getting a cheap plastic piece of crap like every other smartphone on the market.
Click to expand...

That's the idea. You don't want the fans who can afford to buy an iPhone 5 or better to want the new cheap version. It has to be a piece of cr*p to fans, but still have enough iOS features for the people who want to buy Apple, but can't afford an unlocked (for use on a super discount cheap cellular provider) 4/4S/5.

One wild guess is a cheap 3GS-like plastic shell with an iP4 camera, shrunk iP4S processor, iP5 lightening connector, and only 8GB of storage. Maybe even a 4" non-retina display since down market buyers often like larger items. Should be cheaper to manufacture than an iPhone 4 or an iPad Mini for a price around or below that of the Mini. That should be ugly enough to prevent people from buying one (unless that's all they can afford).
 
guru_ck said:
I thought they already offered an older model that's $0 with contract?
Click to expand...

The did, but most low income people can't afford the $80/mo contract to get a free phone with the big carriers. If they sold something like this for the walmart StraightTalk crowd, it'd likely be a pretty good seller.
 
KnightWRX said:
Oletros is not a native english speaker, so sometimes you have to interpret some of his posts. We all got however that what he meant was to show you you didn't read the 15 previous pages were we already addressed the fact that mentionning "0$ iPhone 4s and 99$ iPhone 4Ss" was quite irrevelant.
Click to expand...

But that isn't true, look at Darcy's post #354 on this page. He knows :)

Not to mention Oletros wasn't responding to Darcy initially.
 
lifeinhd said:
But that isn't true, look at Darcy's post #354 on this page. He knows :)

Not to mention Oletros wasn't responding to Darcy initially.
Click to expand...

Sorry, lovemyapple is who Oletros was initially responding to, nor Darcy's. I have edited my original post to reflect that more accurately.
 
surma884 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Do we know that?

Android already has 75% smartphone market share to Apple's 15%

Yet developers still prefer iOS and make much more beautiful apps.

And games.

Don't forget... the overall smartphone market is still growing. So even if Apple has a lower number... they are still gaining iOS customers.

iOS customers tend to spend more money on apps... and they even use their devices for web browsing much more than competitors' devices. In many markets people simply use their Android phone for calls and texts. A glorified featurephone.

From a developer standpoint... I don't think Apple's deficiency in market share is any sign of weakness in the platform.

BTW... do you think all those people in China and India who buy those cheap $100 Android phones are spending a ton of money on apps?

And... does the Google Play Store even work across the globe? You may think China is the hotbed of Android app sales. But if people cannot buy your app... this whole point is moot.

If you're an Android app developer... and your app can't be purchased in China... does it matter if Android gets to 95% market share there?
 
firewood said:
That's the idea. You don't want the fans who can afford to buy an iPhone 5 or better to want the new cheap version. It has to be a piece of cr*p to fans, but still have enough iOS features for the people who want to buy Apple, but can't afford an unlocked (for use on a super discount cheap cellular provider) 4/4S/5.
Click to expand...

That's not how Apple operates. Apple doesn't mind cross line-up cannabilization :

http://bgr.com/2012/10/26/apple-ceo-tim-cook-comments-q4-2012-earnings/
“We have learned over the years not to worry about cannibalization of our own product. It’s much better for us to do that than for somebody else to do it,” the [Tim Cook, CEO of Apple] said.
Click to expand...

In fact, that's something right out of Steve Jobs' own playbook :

One of Jobs's business rules was to never be afraid of cannibalizing yourself. "If you don't cannibalize yourself, someone else will," he said. So even though an iPhone might cannibalize the sales of an iPod, or an iPad might cannibalize the sales of a laptop, that did not deter him.
Click to expand...

The quote is from the Isaacson book. So frankly, yes, Apple doesn't care that iPhone fans would flock to this new, lower cost iPhone as long as it meant keeping them onboard, rather than having them defect towards other competitor's offerings.
 
The problem isn't the price, Apple. The reason people are caring less and less about the iPhone is because the OS is awful/weak and the phones pale in comparison to much much much better phones from Samsung.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back