3 ms·
I'm not sure why introducing a lower price iPhone necessarily means the end of Apple. The iPod has had a whole line of products across the price range and seem
by rainsford 13y ago
I'm not sure why introducing a lower price iPhone necessarily means the end of Apple. The iPod has had a whole line of products across the price range and seems to have done reasonably well for itself. Nor do I think "lower price" is necessarily the same thing as "commodity" since having a lower price doesn't prevent a product from differentiating itself from the competition.
- uptown 13y agoThe low-price iPhone is precisely targeted at markets whose price-structure is setup differently than the United States (read Asia). In the United States, carries subsidize the device price in exchange for a multi-year contract with the consumer. In many other countries, this isn't the model. Consumers buy the phone up-front. There is no subsidy. In order to sell a product in that market, and make your pricing attractive, it can't be a $600 device - it needs to be more-affordable. That's why they're releasing a less-expensive device, and it's no coincidence that it's happening around the time they're striking a deal with China's largest carrier.
- potatolicious 13y agoI agree the doom and gloom is tiresome and poorly substantiated. That being said, the phone market is not the same as the music player market. The iPods segregated themselves among different use cases and different needs. The Shuffle was always pitched as the "active" iPod (see: the clip on the back), the Nano the everyday iPod, and the iPod Classic the one for the serious enthusiast who needs enormous storage above all else. The smartphone market lacks such segmentation. Everybody wants a phone that makes phone calls, receives texts, and runs apps. There's not really any room to segment price-wise except to simply make the same thing but cheaper.