4 ms·

Apple used to cover all bases. There was iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, all the way up to the biggest iPod. So in the early 2000s, people at every level of the MP3 p

Apple used to cover all bases. There was iPod Shuffle, iPod Nano, all the way up to the biggest iPod. So in the early 2000s, people at every level of the MP3 player market could be part of Apple's universe (which led to more PC sales and further MP3 sales and upgrading). They've still not done this with phones, so they've left a giant hole for Android to fill, which in turn makes the platform more attractive to developers.

krakensden 13y ago
There are two editions of the 5, so they are probably moving in that direction. That, and older models do a reasonable job of filling the low end niche...
- JohnTHaller 13y ago
  Not really. The 5c just took the place of the 5. It's the same older hardware and build just with a cheaper to build case. So, instead of continuing to make the older versions of iPhones and marketing them as the less expensive alternative, Apple has switched to having the 5c fulfill that role with the same ~$100 price difference... so the phones on contract in the US start at $99 (5c) instead of $199 (5s) and are discounted appropriately.
hayksaakian 13y ago
the problem here, is that they make SO MUCH MONEY that offering a (truely) low end model, or making any drastic changes is a great risk to their bottom line
- jedc 13y ago
  And remembering the lessons of "The Innovators Dilemma", this strikes me as a potentially dangerous place for Apple to be in. (A company should always try to disrupt their own industry... instead of others doing it for them.)
  - craigyk 13y ago
    You took the wrong lesson home. Disruption isn't "low-cost" same product category. Disruption is totally new product category that obviates old category. Between iPods -> iPhones, Macs -> iPads, I'm not worried about Apple being scared to take these leaps as long as they get to own the profit margins.
interpol_p 13y ago
Apple wasn't really covering all price ranges with those products — they were covering all use-cases. For example, the shuffle seemed more aimed at people who wanted something easy and light to clip on while exercising. The nano seemed to cross-over slightly with that market, and also attract people who wanted something tiny but full-featured. (I.e., it was the size that differentiated it, not price.) I don't think many people thought "Oh, I'll get a shuffle because I can't afford a regular iPod." The fact that Apple continues to offer the previous years' iPhones is actually kind of unusual with regards to the structure of their past product lines. It's how they are trying to cater to different price brackets rather than use-cases.
- thaumasiotes 13y ago
  > For example, the shuffle seemed more aimed at people who wanted something easy and light to clip on while exercising. Speaking for myself, the shuffle is definitely aimed at my use case (I actually used a zen stone). I want to control my in-car music by hooking up a player with a purely tactile interface. Using my phone means every time I want to interfere with the player, I have to look at the screen... a huge step backwards in usability. The zen stone had an adavantage that an ipod shuffle might or might not also have... no one ever broke into my car to steal it (although it was taken when they broke into my car to steal my backpack).
- akennberg 13y ago
  Offering previous iPhones as a price-reduced version works well for the development ecosystem (i.e. minimize fragmentation).
- Theodores 13y ago
  If you are buying for someone else - a child - then you might buy a low end shuffle because you are cheapskate. As for use cases, phones are all for adults, or rather every age group. Apple and others have not brought out products that are for kids or old age folk, as in specifically for them, e.g. with restrictions on in app purchases and porn where some 'mothership' device can be asked to yay or nay an action. Also, there 'should' be a phone for old folks that is full featured yet only presents a simple dialler on the home screen.

krakensden 13y ago

There are two editions of the 5, so they are probably moving in that direction. That, and older models do a reasonable job of filling the low end niche...

JohnTHaller 13y ago
Not really. The 5c just took the place of the 5. It's the same older hardware and build just with a cheaper to build case. So, instead of continuing to make the older versions of iPhones and marketing them as the less expensive alternative, Apple has switched to having the 5c fulfill that role with the same ~$100 price difference... so the phones on contract in the US start at $99 (5c) instead of $199 (5s) and are discounted appropriately.

hayksaakian 13y ago

the problem here, is that they make SO MUCH MONEY that offering a (truely) low end model, or making any drastic changes is a great risk to their bottom line

jedc 13y ago
And remembering the lessons of "The Innovators Dilemma", this strikes me as a potentially dangerous place for Apple to be in. (A company should always try to disrupt their own industry... instead of others doing it for them.)
- craigyk 13y ago
  You took the wrong lesson home. Disruption isn't "low-cost" same product category. Disruption is totally new product category that obviates old category. Between iPods -> iPhones, Macs -> iPads, I'm not worried about Apple being scared to take these leaps as long as they get to own the profit margins.

interpol_p 13y ago

Apple wasn't really covering all price ranges with those products — they were covering all use-cases. For example, the shuffle seemed more aimed at people who wanted something easy and light to clip on while exercising. The nano seemed to cross-over slightly with that market, and also attract people who wanted something tiny but full-featured. (I.e., it was the size that differentiated it, not price.) I don't think many people thought "Oh, I'll get a shuffle because I can't afford a regular iPod." The fact that Apple continues to offer the previous years' iPhones is actually kind of unusual with regards to the structure of their past product lines. It's how they are trying to cater to different price brackets rather than use-cases.

thaumasiotes 13y ago
> For example, the shuffle seemed more aimed at people who wanted something easy and light to clip on while exercising. Speaking for myself, the shuffle is definitely aimed at my use case (I actually used a zen stone). I want to control my in-car music by hooking up a player with a purely tactile interface. Using my phone means every time I want to interfere with the player, I have to look at the screen... a huge step backwards in usability. The zen stone had an adavantage that an ipod shuffle might or might not also have... no one ever broke into my car to steal it (although it was taken when they broke into my car to steal my backpack).
akennberg 13y ago
Offering previous iPhones as a price-reduced version works well for the development ecosystem (i.e. minimize fragmentation).
Theodores 13y ago
If you are buying for someone else - a child - then you might buy a low end shuffle because you are cheapskate. As for use cases, phones are all for adults, or rather every age group. Apple and others have not brought out products that are for kids or old age folk, as in specifically for them, e.g. with restrictions on in app purchases and porn where some 'mothership' device can be asked to yay or nay an action. Also, there 'should' be a phone for old folks that is full featured yet only presents a simple dialler on the home screen.