I'd struggle to give a clear explanation of this. Best one I read was that it offered an alternative to customers who will look at the 5s and think
"that's silly priced. I'm not buying that!"
"ah, but this 5c seems reasonable in comparison, I'll take two"
and it addresses the "how will anyone know I have a new iphone" dilemma satirised by Samsung in one of their adverts.
Samsung have a variety of phones to suit different budgets and markets.
That is very true, but as my daughters found when they first got a Galaxy Ace they were stuffed when it came to popular apps as their phones were not compatible.
As much stick as the iPhone seems to get in these forums by some, one thing I do like is that as theres not a market full of different spec iPhones then incompatible apps is much less of an issue.
What so many people are forgetting is they are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to Sim Free pricing. Rather than looking at the price the other phones were sim free upon release they are looking at the current price (and not always the same spec phone either, all I see is people comparing the Nexus 4 for example but the phone they are comparing is one that google are selling off as the new versions due in the next few weeks and its the 8GB version)
And I think the focus is more on selling phone on contract rather than sim free and the 5C should give the networks more room for offering lower cost contracts. At the moment that isn't happening but they were looking at £99 or £129 upfront for the iPhone 5 with plans starting at over £37 upon launch so it is marginally cheaper. Once its launched you would expect the monthly contracts to get cheaper unless the networks decide to get greedy
I think it is crazy how expensive the 5c is! What new market are they expecting to attract?
I currently pay £13/month for my contract (getting reduced to £10), and my phone was free, so over the two years I am paying over £100 less for phone + contract than the 5c handset is!
Obviously my phone isn't as good as an iPhone, but it is a decent enough smart phone and does everything I need.
Surely anyone with the money to buy an iPhone will just get the 5/5s
It's really no different than what they always do. The current model drops down to be the mid priced handset and is a bit cheaper. The only difference this time is it's being redesigned to appeal to a wider/different market AND it's getting an upgrade in the radio department.
That's an improvement and while it doesn't appeal to me it will appeal to a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise chose an iPhone.
At risk of sounding sexist, I think Wave is right, it will get a big female audience.
If Ive has designed it, I doubt it will feel plasticy and cheap in your hand.
It is simply a way to lower the production cost of the 5 for more profit and to continue selling a product apple have dumped without customers realising it.
What so many people are forgetting is they are comparing apples and oranges when it comes to Sim Free pricing. Rather than looking at the price the other phones were sim free upon release they are looking at the current price (and not always the same spec phone either, all I see is people comparing the Nexus 4 for example but the phone they are comparing is one that google are selling off as the new versions due in the next few weeks and its the 8GB version)
And I think the focus is more on selling phone on contract rather than sim free and the 5C should give the networks more room for offering lower cost contracts. At the moment that isn't happening but they were looking at £99 or £129 upfront for the iPhone 5 with plans starting at over £37 upon launch so it is marginally cheaper. Once its launched you would expect the monthly contracts to get cheaper unless the networks decide to get greedy
Even at the original price, the 16GB Nexus 4 SIM FREE was £230 cheaper than the now dumped iPhone 5. This is not an inconsiderable sum.
Even at the original price, the 16GB Nexus 4 SIM FREE was £230 cheaper than the now dumped iPhone 5. This is not an inconsiderable sum.
You could also compare the Apple iPhone 5C to the Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini or the HTC One Mini and both are considerably less expensive but neither have the branding or ultra strict distribution arrangements that ensure price maintenance that Apple enforce. It's a wonder the OFT have not investigated why prominent Apple products have such little price difference across the country to date.
I'm afraid most of you simply do not understand business. It's all about what the market will bear. If customers are willing to pay those prices then a company will charge whatever it considers it can get away with - simple as that.
Apple sells itself as a premium brand. It doesn't want to devalue the brand by producing or selling cheap and cheerful products. Take a look at the OEM PC market if you want to see where that can lead.
Although if you're going to argue that something is a mistake, and then argue that good sales of the product that was supposed to be a mistake somehow backs up your theory that its a mistake, then this could be difficult to follow.
Although if you're going to argue that something is a mistake, and then argue that good sales of the product that was supposed to be a mistake somehow backs up your theory that its a mistake, then this could be difficult to follow.
No more difficult than that was.
The mini is a different conversation for a different forum I think.
I think you have trouble following the simplest thread at the best of times. However we have already had this discussion before, my feeling on the 5c is that it devalues the brand that jobs created significantly, the more they sell the more it will be devalued in the long run. The 5c is not in any way at synonymous with his vision in my opinion.
I thought the iPad Mini took sales away from the regular iPad, didn't it, cutting profit margins and hence share price?
Yeah, the iPad Mini cannibalised sales of the larger iPad, and ultimately did nothing to help Apple regain their shares in the tablet market. It was a reactionary measure which failed.
The 5C will also cannibalise sales, there's less incentive for customers to buy the more expensive model, especially those that are cost driven.
People can go on about the 5C being "good business", but it really isn't. Apple isn't in a position to get away with charging sky-high prices anymore. They are doing so at the expense of leverage within the market. And with all the lawsuits and attacks on competitors, it appears that Apple heavily values leadership within the market. Something which they are yet to regain.
The mini is a different conversation for a different forum I think.
I think you have trouble following the simplest thread at the best of times. However we have already had this discussion before, my feeling on the 5c is that it devalues the brand that jobs created significantly, the more they sell the more it will be devalued in the long run. The 5c is not in any way at synonymous with his vision in my opinion.
You're the one who flipping brought up the iPad Mini! :rolleyes:
Given that the 5C isn't actually a budget product, how exactly does it devalue the brand anymore than the Macbook or the iMac?
Yeah, the iPad Mini cannibalised sales of the larger iPad, and ultimately did nothing to help Apple regain their shares in the tablet market. It was a reactionary measure which failed.
The 5C will also cannibalise sales, there's less incentive for customers to buy the more expensive model, especially those that are cost driven.
People can go on about the 5C being "good business", but it really isn't. Apple isn't in a position to get away with charging sky-high prices anymore. They are doing so at the expense of leverage within the market. And with all the lawsuits and attacks on competitors, it appears that Apple heavily values leadership within the market. Something which they are yet to regain.
You do seem to be assuming that every sale of the Mini or the 5C is a lost sale of the full size iPad or the 5S. That probably isn't the case.
You do seem to be assuming that every sale of the Mini or the 5C is a lost sale of the full size iPad or the 5S. That probably isn't the case.
That's obviously not what I was assuming at all. The term "cannibalising" in this case means to "eat into". Sales of the iPad Mini did take away potential sales of the standard iPad, but not "every sale". That's just an over-exaggeration of the point on your part.
You do seem to be assuming that every sale of the Mini or the 5C is a lost sale of the full size iPad or the 5S. That probably isn't the case.
I'm not sure anyone has stated that every Ipad Mini sale is a lost sale for the iPad, have they? But even Apple themselves are admitting the Mini HAS cannibalised sales of the iPad (although they claim not to be worried about it)
During Apple's January earnings call, Apple executives addressed cannibalization fears, indicating that the company is not worried about iPad mini sales overtaking iPad sales.
Cannibilization is a huge opportunity for us. We never fear it because if we do, someone else will do it. iPhone has cannibalized iPod, that doesn't worry us. iPad has on the Mac, and that doesn't concern us.
I'm not sure anyone has stated that every Ipad Mini sale is a lost sale for the iPad, have they? But even Apple themselves are admitting the Mini HAS cannibalised sales of the iPad (although they claim not to be worried about it)
That's obviously not what I was assuming at all. The term "cannibalising" in this case means to "eat into". Sales of the iPad Mini did take away potential sales of the standard iPad, but not "every sale". That's just an over-exaggeration of the point on your part.
The only figure that matters is the profit they make on each device, you never know the profit on the mini might not be too bad as there's no retina screen to pay for and it is lower spec.
As we don't know what profit Apple makes on each device it's hard to say, but the parts costs on the 'C' might be lower and hence the profit for the C vs the S might not really be different. You can't judge it purely on the retail price as that's turnover, and turnover isn't the important number.
Comments
I'd struggle to give a clear explanation of this. Best one I read was that it offered an alternative to customers who will look at the 5s and think
"that's silly priced. I'm not buying that!"
"ah, but this 5c seems reasonable in comparison, I'll take two"
and it addresses the "how will anyone know I have a new iphone" dilemma satirised by Samsung in one of their adverts.
That is very true, but as my daughters found when they first got a Galaxy Ace they were stuffed when it came to popular apps as their phones were not compatible.
As much stick as the iPhone seems to get in these forums by some, one thing I do like is that as theres not a market full of different spec iPhones then incompatible apps is much less of an issue.
Sorry, I was being ironic in reply to the question "how the hell do Apple expect to sell the 5C as a cheap phone?"
The point being that no more expect to sell the 5C as a cheap phone than Samsung expect to sell the S4 as a cheap phone.
As in why the hell do people think Apple expected to sell it as a cheap phone, when they never once said that it was meant to be a cheap phone?
Basically, this article.
And the first comment:
"Think of it this way:
MacBook Air / MacBook Pro.
iMac / Mac Pro.
iPhone 5C / iPhone 5S.
iPad mini / iPad."
It's a lower-cost alternative to the high-end model.
Still not "cheap" in the spectrum of devices on the market."
Was exactly what I was saying in a discussion with swordman before it was released.
Good job we all have differing tastes and needs then. I know which gives me the most pleasure which at the end of the day is what it's all about.
And I think the focus is more on selling phone on contract rather than sim free and the 5C should give the networks more room for offering lower cost contracts. At the moment that isn't happening but they were looking at £99 or £129 upfront for the iPhone 5 with plans starting at over £37 upon launch so it is marginally cheaper. Once its launched you would expect the monthly contracts to get cheaper unless the networks decide to get greedy
I currently pay £13/month for my contract (getting reduced to £10), and my phone was free, so over the two years I am paying over £100 less for phone + contract than the 5c handset is!
Obviously my phone isn't as good as an iPhone, but it is a decent enough smart phone and does everything I need.
Surely anyone with the money to buy an iPhone will just get the 5/5s
That's an improvement and while it doesn't appeal to me it will appeal to a lot of people who wouldn't otherwise chose an iPhone.
At risk of sounding sexist, I think Wave is right, it will get a big female audience.
If Ive has designed it, I doubt it will feel plasticy and cheap in your hand.
Nail hit firmly on the head.
Even at the original price, the 16GB Nexus 4 SIM FREE was £230 cheaper than the now dumped iPhone 5. This is not an inconsiderable sum.
You could also compare the Apple iPhone 5C to the Samsung Galaxy S4 Mini or the HTC One Mini and both are considerably less expensive but neither have the branding or ultra strict distribution arrangements that ensure price maintenance that Apple enforce. It's a wonder the OFT have not investigated why prominent Apple products have such little price difference across the country to date.
Apple sells itself as a premium brand. It doesn't want to devalue the brand by producing or selling cheap and cheerful products. Take a look at the OEM PC market if you want to see where that can lead.
As far as I'm aware the mini has sold well despite it's 'limitations'.
There are many reasons it is a mistake and I think the better it sells the worse that will be for some in the long run.
Although if you're going to argue that something is a mistake, and then argue that good sales of the product that was supposed to be a mistake somehow backs up your theory that its a mistake, then this could be difficult to follow.
No more difficult than that was.
The mini is a different conversation for a different forum I think.
I think you have trouble following the simplest thread at the best of times. However we have already had this discussion before, my feeling on the 5c is that it devalues the brand that jobs created significantly, the more they sell the more it will be devalued in the long run. The 5c is not in any way at synonymous with his vision in my opinion.
Yeah, the iPad Mini cannibalised sales of the larger iPad, and ultimately did nothing to help Apple regain their shares in the tablet market. It was a reactionary measure which failed.
The 5C will also cannibalise sales, there's less incentive for customers to buy the more expensive model, especially those that are cost driven.
People can go on about the 5C being "good business", but it really isn't. Apple isn't in a position to get away with charging sky-high prices anymore. They are doing so at the expense of leverage within the market. And with all the lawsuits and attacks on competitors, it appears that Apple heavily values leadership within the market. Something which they are yet to regain.
You're the one who flipping brought up the iPad Mini! :rolleyes:
Given that the 5C isn't actually a budget product, how exactly does it devalue the brand anymore than the Macbook or the iMac?
You do seem to be assuming that every sale of the Mini or the 5C is a lost sale of the full size iPad or the 5S. That probably isn't the case.
That's obviously not what I was assuming at all. The term "cannibalising" in this case means to "eat into". Sales of the iPad Mini did take away potential sales of the standard iPad, but not "every sale". That's just an over-exaggeration of the point on your part.
I'm not sure anyone has stated that every Ipad Mini sale is a lost sale for the iPad, have they? But even Apple themselves are admitting the Mini HAS cannibalised sales of the iPad (although they claim not to be worried about it)
http://www.macrumors.com/2013/02/28/ipad-mini-sales-overtaking-ipad-sales-faster-than-apple-expected/
If they see it as an opportunity perhaps they will now release a Mini with a Retina display?
So, apple will keep doing what they always have (even when SJ was around). To be expected really.
The only figure that matters is the profit they make on each device, you never know the profit on the mini might not be too bad as there's no retina screen to pay for and it is lower spec.
As we don't know what profit Apple makes on each device it's hard to say, but the parts costs on the 'C' might be lower and hence the profit for the C vs the S might not really be different. You can't judge it purely on the retail price as that's turnover, and turnover isn't the important number.