4 ms·

Because there are no non-flagship Apple phones.

by semiel 13y ago

guiambros 13y ago
What do you call the iPhone 4 or 4S then? Flagship-but-hundreds-of-dollars-less?
- jarek 13y ago
  Last year's model.
  - guiambros 13y ago
    Exactly. And what's the difference between last year's model and non-flagship? Both have old-ish processor, old form factor. But recent software, and all the basic functionality -- just without the bells and whistles. The problem is that Apple doesn't have (yet) a portfolio strategy, so you still thinking in terms of when this product started to sell. Like cars. Or fashion. Despite if last year's model is better than yesterday's launch. Once they stop using sequential numbers and migrate to models - e.g., iPhone Pro, iPhone Air, iPhone Lite - you'll clearly understand what is flagship or non-flagship. But that's pure marketing/product positioning, nothing to do with the product itself. TL;DR: Apple already has a non-flagship product; it's just not clearly positioned as such. This is not a mistake; this is by design [1]. [1] http://www.asymco.com/2013/05/29/tim-cooks-answer-to-my-first-question/ http://www.asymco.com/2013/05/29/tim-cooks-answer-to-my-firs...
    - Steko 13y ago
      The 3 year old phone 4 still costs $450 off contract while a Nexus 4 is $299.
      - guiambros 13y ago
        But Nexus 4 is not an iPhone. No trolling. The "flagship" iPhone (5) costs between $650-850 + tax. The "non-flagship" is a couple of hundred bucks less, which is reasonable. Apple charges more, simply because they can. I'm not making a judgement call here. I personally wouldn't pay that much, but I'm not the target. In fact, I don't think any individual person is the target of non-flagship devices for Apple; their strategy has always been to sell locked devices to carriers in bulk, so they can offer "for free" to customers upgrading from a dumb phone -- in exchange of a 2 yr agreement, ETFs, and an outrageously expensive data plan. That's essentially my reading of Tim Cook's answer in the link above. If they can charge what they charge, why change? Of course this strategy won't work forever. Eventually they will have to migrate to a portfolio strategy, OR enter the race to the bottom with Samsung, HTC, et al (unlikely). The only question is when.
        scott_s 13y ago
        He's not trolling. He's just saying that the non-flagship iPhone is still expensive compared to new Android phones. Which explains Apple's poor performance in a market which forces consumers to pay the actual price.
        threeseed 13y ago
        Apple's poor performance ? You do realise that Apple siphons the majority of the profit from the market and on every metric (except market share) is doing extremely well. If you want to see examples of poor performance then take a look at the Android ecosystem. It consists of effectively one player: Samsung and a bunch of other companies whom are either exiting or perilously close to bankruptcy.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        >poor performance in a market which forces consumers to pay the actual price The Russian market, not the market in general.
        Steko 13y ago
        "But Nexus 4 is not an iPhone. No trolling." Complete straw man. This sub-thread is about the price of non-flagship iphones vs alternatives in Russia. I provided two such prices for comparison. "The "non-flagship" is a couple of hundred bucks less, which is reasonable." You seem to be under the misconception that I am complaining that the iphone 4 is overpriced. Let me disabuse you of that notion: zonk "Apple charges more, simply because they can." Apple charges profit maximizing prices but due to secondary market realities it cannot charge radically different prices in different countries. One way of looking at the smartphone market is that there are <$100 smartphones, $100-$200 smartphones, $200-$300 smartphones, $300-$400 smartphones, $400-$500 smartphones, $500-$600 smartphones and >$600 smartphones (some overlap yes). We might observe Android has entries in all of these categories but that Apple has chosen, for profit maximization, focus, brand, whatever reasons not to participate in 4 of those 7 categories as of today. We could use fewer or more categories but the same basic truth will remain: Apple does not compete at the low end of the market. Another observation is that for many countries, of which Russia may be one, the majority of smartphone consumers don't buy from the top 3 categories that Apple participates in. Regardless of how you structure the categories, some markets cater toward the low or lower-middle end that Apple doesn't participate in.

Because there are no non-flagship Apple phones.

by semiel 13y ago

Because there are no non-flagship Apple phones.

guiambros 13y ago

What do you call the iPhone 4 or 4S then? Flagship-but-hundreds-of-dollars-less?

jarek 13y ago
Last year's model.
- guiambros 13y ago
  Exactly. And what's the difference between last year's model and non-flagship? Both have old-ish processor, old form factor. But recent software, and all the basic functionality -- just without the bells and whistles. The problem is that Apple doesn't have (yet) a portfolio strategy, so you still thinking in terms of when this product started to sell. Like cars. Or fashion. Despite if last year's model is better than yesterday's launch. Once they stop using sequential numbers and migrate to models - e.g., iPhone Pro, iPhone Air, iPhone Lite - you'll clearly understand what is flagship or non-flagship. But that's pure marketing/product positioning, nothing to do with the product itself. TL;DR: Apple already has a non-flagship product; it's just not clearly positioned as such. This is not a mistake; this is by design [1]. [1] http://www.asymco.com/2013/05/29/tim-cooks-answer-to-my-first-question/ http://www.asymco.com/2013/05/29/tim-cooks-answer-to-my-firs...
  - Steko 13y ago
    The 3 year old phone 4 still costs $450 off contract while a Nexus 4 is $299.
    - guiambros 13y ago
      But Nexus 4 is not an iPhone. No trolling. The "flagship" iPhone (5) costs between $650-850 + tax. The "non-flagship" is a couple of hundred bucks less, which is reasonable. Apple charges more, simply because they can. I'm not making a judgement call here. I personally wouldn't pay that much, but I'm not the target. In fact, I don't think any individual person is the target of non-flagship devices for Apple; their strategy has always been to sell locked devices to carriers in bulk, so they can offer "for free" to customers upgrading from a dumb phone -- in exchange of a 2 yr agreement, ETFs, and an outrageously expensive data plan. That's essentially my reading of Tim Cook's answer in the link above. If they can charge what they charge, why change? Of course this strategy won't work forever. Eventually they will have to migrate to a portfolio strategy, OR enter the race to the bottom with Samsung, HTC, et al (unlikely). The only question is when.
      - scott_s 13y ago
        He's not trolling. He's just saying that the non-flagship iPhone is still expensive compared to new Android phones. Which explains Apple's poor performance in a market which forces consumers to pay the actual price.
        threeseed 13y ago
        Apple's poor performance ? You do realise that Apple siphons the majority of the profit from the market and on every metric (except market share) is doing extremely well. If you want to see examples of poor performance then take a look at the Android ecosystem. It consists of effectively one player: Samsung and a bunch of other companies whom are either exiting or perilously close to bankruptcy.
        pessimizer 13y ago
        >poor performance in a market which forces consumers to pay the actual price The Russian market, not the market in general.
      - Steko 13y ago
        "But Nexus 4 is not an iPhone. No trolling." Complete straw man. This sub-thread is about the price of non-flagship iphones vs alternatives in Russia. I provided two such prices for comparison. "The "non-flagship" is a couple of hundred bucks less, which is reasonable." You seem to be under the misconception that I am complaining that the iphone 4 is overpriced. Let me disabuse you of that notion: zonk "Apple charges more, simply because they can." Apple charges profit maximizing prices but due to secondary market realities it cannot charge radically different prices in different countries. One way of looking at the smartphone market is that there are <$100 smartphones, $100-$200 smartphones, $200-$300 smartphones, $300-$400 smartphones, $400-$500 smartphones, $500-$600 smartphones and >$600 smartphones (some overlap yes). We might observe Android has entries in all of these categories but that Apple has chosen, for profit maximization, focus, brand, whatever reasons not to participate in 4 of those 7 categories as of today. We could use fewer or more categories but the same basic truth will remain: Apple does not compete at the low end of the market. Another observation is that for many countries, of which Russia may be one, the majority of smartphone consumers don't buy from the top 3 categories that Apple participates in. Regardless of how you structure the categories, some markets cater toward the low or lower-middle end that Apple doesn't participate in.