Why must you force the 2 products into separate categories?
Okay, let's say that the new iPod Touch won't be called the iPod, it's called the Phoneless iPhone. Is it now okay to release it, since it will be increasing iPhone sales?
I'm being facetious of course. But I don't recall Apple positioning the 2 in any particular way (as luxury vs. starter level), because they are different products. This is NOT MacBook vs. MacBook Pro, which have the same feature set with a different casing. These are products that differ in actual functionality.
Why is a $600 100GB wifi iPod of less stature than a $600 iPhone? Especially if they make the same money for Apple?
The iPod ALREADY competes with the iPhone, because there are plenty of people out there who have a cell phone and an iPod, thus don't feel the need to buy an iPhone. Which is fine for Apple, because they already got a sale from them. The solution is not to stop selling iPods in hopes they will now buy an iPhone, because there's a great chance they will buy a competitor's mp3 player instead. Purposefully throttling down customer choices is not a winning strategy.
Apple releases new product variants and adds new features when the market is there, that has always been the case. If anything, the debate is over whether adding a certain functionality (such as wifi) will significantly add to Apple's total revenues.
Okay, let's say that the new iPod Touch won't be called the iPod, it's called the Phoneless iPhone. Is it now okay to release it, since it will be increasing iPhone sales?
I'm being facetious of course. But I don't recall Apple positioning the 2 in any particular way (as luxury vs. starter level), because they are different products. This is NOT MacBook vs. MacBook Pro, which have the same feature set with a different casing. These are products that differ in actual functionality.
Why is a $600 100GB wifi iPod of less stature than a $600 iPhone? Especially if they make the same money for Apple?
The iPod ALREADY competes with the iPhone, because there are plenty of people out there who have a cell phone and an iPod, thus don't feel the need to buy an iPhone. Which is fine for Apple, because they already got a sale from them. The solution is not to stop selling iPods in hopes they will now buy an iPhone, because there's a great chance they will buy a competitor's mp3 player instead. Purposefully throttling down customer choices is not a winning strategy.
Apple releases new product variants and adds new features when the market is there, that has always been the case. If anything, the debate is over whether adding a certain functionality (such as wifi) will significantly add to Apple's total revenues.
Because they have positioned the iPhone as their top gadget, that's why. The ipods will slowly over the next few updates be positioned as a entry device as more and more adults and young adults get an iPhone. That is Apple's plan, that the iPhone will replace the iPod. Convergence is the future, not standalone music playing devices.
The ipod won't ever compete with the iPhone, instead it will transgress as the player people buy who can't afford an iPhone or a different music phone. Or, it will be for children or elderly who have no need for a higher end convergence device.
The iPod landscape is changing.