Why a low-cost iPhone might not be a bad idea

Discussion in 'iPhone' started by mossme89, Mar 12, 2013.

  1. mossme89 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    #1
    The more I'm thinking about it, the more it seems that a low-cost iPhone might not be such a bad idea. A couple of generations ago, a low-cost iPhone would have been a bad idea because there was such a jump in performance between generations. Imagine having an A5 in the regular iPhone vs an A4 in a low-cost iPhone. Eww, that would handicap the development of iOS.

    But now, the performance gap between generations isn't as large for the average user. Think of comparing a Core i3 vs a Core i7. For the average user, a Core i3 is more than sufficient. At the very least, with current and future Apple chips, UI performance should be minimal between generations. Think of OS X. I'm willing to bet the average user can't notice much of a difference between using OS X Mountain Lion on a Core 2 Duo VS a new i7 without doing heavy processing or rendering. Of course, you and I can notice a difference, but we're more technical users, and even then, the basic UI isn't majorly faster on an i7.

    To make a analogy in performance, think of the Nexus 4 vs the Galaxy S3. The Nexus 4 has a quad-core Snapdragon S4 (similar to the rumored A7), yet the US Galaxy S3 has a dual-core Snapdragon S4 (similar to the A6). The Nexus is clearly more powerful but the Galaxy S3 is still very capable and sufficient for the average user. Perhaps that's what Apple is aiming for with a low-cost iPhone. Have a low-cost phone for the average users, and a "Pro" version for power users. If Apple can put a quad-core A7 in the next-gen iPhone and have an A6 in the low-cost iPhone, and keep that pattern to be 1 chip behind, it would be a success.
     
  2. braddick macrumors 68040

    braddick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Location:
    Encinitas, CA
    #2
    Another analogy would be comparing the iPad3 with the iPad4. Sure, on paper the iPad4 rocks the 3's world, but for the average user, not so much.

    If the iPad3 was built with cheaper components it would then compare as a low-cost iPad like the low-cost iPhone is attempting to accomplish.
     
  3. mossme89 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    #3
    Exactly. I know someone, a more technical user actually, that bought a refurb iPad 3 over the iPad 4 and iPad Mini and loves it. It seems like we're getting to the point that computers got to in 08 and 09, where low-end vs high-end doesn't make a difference for many users.
     
  4. braddick macrumors 68040

    braddick

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2009
    Location:
    Encinitas, CA
    #4
    What you're stating makes sense, but if I ran Apple I'd shy away from producing a cheap iPhone and instead would concentrate on minting a luxury iPhone.
     
  5. mossme89 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    #5
    If the low-cost iPhone is 2 generations behind like the latest rumor, I'm with you. The A5 is starting to show its age.
     
  6. Italianblend macrumors 68000

    Italianblend

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2011
    Location:
    Fatima
    #6
    It's a good idea regardless of all this chip nonsense. People like to pay less for things.
     
  7. shenfrey macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    May 23, 2010
    #7
    They should call it a iPhone Air. A lower budget iPhone, sounds awesome!
     
  8. Auxo macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2013
    Location:
    A³tweaks
    #8
    You are forgetting about the very idea of bringing new buisness customers into the brand. That's very deceiving but clever.
     
  9. Ste Nova macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Location:
    LL22, UK
  10. 617aircav Suspended

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    #10
    Last gen iPhone. An iPhone stripped of the build quality of the iPhone is not really an iPhone. Apple won't do it.
     
  11. lulla01 macrumors 68020

    lulla01

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Location:
    U.S
    #11
    i consider 200.00 for a phone already low cost...a low cost iphone would kill the secondary market.
     
  12. Michael CM1 macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2008
    #12
    I'm curious as to why you didn't just say "China." It's more of a thing for places without two-year subsidies. Until something like T-Mobile's change of cheaper service and payment plans for phones gets put on Verizon, I'm sticking to a fancy new latest-model iPhone for however much I want to pay based on storage. And then I'm going to upgrade ASAP once that's up so I'm not jobbed into paying the same fee for a phone that is 2 years old.

    Someone just please remind me in two years that 16GB is not enough for a phone. Why I thought I could get by on that two years ago is insane. I at least know better this time.
     
  13. mossme89 thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2009
    #13
    Have you considered MVNO's like Page Plus or Straight Talk and buying your phone outright? Might be a lot cheaper.
     
  14. lordofthereef macrumors G5

    lordofthereef

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2011
    Location:
    Boston, MA
    #14
    You are thinking only about te market you are in. Your phone wasn't $200. It was closer to $650. I say closer because I am sure the subsidy is somehwat of a deal for the company subsidizing. But what about those countries that don't subsidize phones. Apple is thinking of the global market.

    Is my statement evidence that a low budget iPhone is a good idea? Nope. Not saying that either. But saying that $200 is cheap enough isn't taking in the big picture.
     
  15. DarwinOSX macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2009
    #15
    There already is a low cost iPhone. They are called the iPhone 4 and 4s.
     
  16. wzz macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2013
    #16
    I would agree with DarwinOSX.

    Why do they need to waste money to make a low end one.
    Money involved in redesigning, changing supplies, changing manufacture processes, etc.

    They could have held onto the existing 3 and 3GS longer for (almost nothing.. or) free.
     
  17. kingalexthe1st macrumors 6502

    kingalexthe1st

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    #17
    I think it makes perfect sense - Apple are consolidating their line-up, just the way they did with the iPad. There are currently 2 different types of iPhone, broadly speaking; the 4/4S with a smaller screen and 30-pin plug, and the 5 with the big screen and lightening plug. I reckon Apple will get rid of the 4 and the 4S and replace it with the low-cost iphone, calling it the iPhone mini/air/plastic/whatever, and replace the iPhone 5 with the new 5S. Oh, and they'll probably drop the numbers too, and just have the 'new' iPhone like they did with the iPad (before the mini came out).

    I for one am looking forward to seeing this cheaer iPhone. I have a 4 at the moment but didn't see the 5 as worth my money for the upgrade. And I'll wait until the low-cost one is released before deciding if I want to buy the new 5S or whether the low-cost one will be better for what I use my phone for. I just use my phone these days as a phone, music player, plus a little internet use when i need to find the next train available train or something.

    My two cents
    Alex
     
  18. 617aircav Suspended

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    #18
    I can't put apple and low cost in the same sentence.
     
  19. iPad5 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
    #19
    Just look at how well the iphone 4 is doing in India
     
  20. srsub3 macrumors 6502

    srsub3

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Location:
    Boston
    #20
    technically speaking the low cost iphone is the best for those markets in which there is no subsidy.... I guess that many people in Europe, China and India want an iphone but can't afford that... You know... buying a 4s when the 5 is out and after all the advertisement is not the same of holding the latest thing... think about the ipad mini... is a shrunk ipad 2 but people don't care because is the latest one and it is also cheaper.... a big hit in those markets IMHO....
     
  21. 617aircav Suspended

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    #21
    How much would you recommend that it costs without subsidy, considering that a cheap smartphone cost like $300, and I would guess apple would charge more.
     
  22. iPad5 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2013
  23. kingalexthe1st macrumors 6502

    kingalexthe1st

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2013
    #23
    Absolutely, and Apple is great at that type of thing. They make you want the latest and greatest.

    I forgot to mention in my previous post that if they replace the 4/4S with the budget model with a big screen and lightening port (as the rumours suggest) then it would make app developers happy for sure. It would do great in India and China (2 *billion* people is quite a market to tap), but I'm sure a lot of shareholders are wondering if it will cannibalise sales of the iPhone 5 over here in the more developed part of the world.
     
  24. srsub3 macrumors 6502

    srsub3

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Location:
    Boston
    #24
    i think that in Europe people are willing to spend a 100+ premium over average for apple.... so 400 euros would be fine.... more or less a 400$ for USA and rest of the world...
    You know... in Italy 4s is still 600euros and 4 400... who wants to pay 400 euros for a 2 years old device?
     
  25. 617aircav Suspended

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2012
    #25
    So what features would it lack to cost so little? And will apple now stole selling the previous generations? Seems confusing
     

Share This Page