1. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Nope. Different price points.

    But then again, Apple already does. I don't think it cheapens the brand.
    The 5c received undeserved negative attention when released because it DIDN'T fall in the lower spectrum group of phones...something that half the reporters assumed it would before it's release. The 5c was nothing like what people are suggesting Apple do with an entry level device...it was a "cheaper" option...not a "cheap" option, like Android capitalizing with.

    The bottom line is...you offer a sub $200 "smart phone", you cheapen the brand by denying the kind of quality, features, function and development people expect with Apple products. The only positive side would be that a person buying that product would get the top tier customer service without the investment...something that should speak worlds as to another reason this kind of entry level device would degrade the Apple brand.
    taz323 likes this.
    08-18-2014 10:01 PM
  2. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    The 5c received undeserved negative attention when released because it DIDN'T fall in the lower spectrum group of phones...something that half the reporters assumed it would before it's release. The 5c was nothing like what people are suggesting Apple do with an entry level device...it was a "cheaper" option...not a "cheap" option, like Android capitalizing with.

    The bottom line is...you offer a sub $200 "smart phone", you cheapen the brand by denying the kind of quality, features, function and development people expect with Apple products. The only positive side would be that a person buying that product would get the top tier customer service without the investment...something that should speak worlds as to another reason this kind of entry level device would degrade the Apple brand.
    Fair points.

    I agree that the media did prematurely subvert 5C's fortunes, but only temporarily.

    If a company could do it, it would be Apple. It has made a living with premium-priced products, and frankly, the whole "marketshare lost" thingie is a red herring IMHO.

    I do feel the 5C was a successful experiment, and shows that Apple can adjust without losing its identity.
    08-18-2014 10:45 PM
  3. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    Fair points.

    I agree that the media did prematurely subvert 5C's fortunes, but only temporarily.

    If a company could do it, it would be Apple. It has made a living with premium-priced products, and frankly, the whole "marketshare lost" thingie is a red herring IMHO.

    I do feel the 5C was a successful experiment, and shows that Apple can adjust without losing its identity.
    I still stand by the idea that the 5c was the Macbook Air of the smart phone world...adjusted, but not entry level.
    08-18-2014 11:14 PM
  4. AAA1337's Avatar
    The 5c received undeserved negative attention when released because it DIDN'T fall in the lower spectrum group of phones...something that half the reporters assumed it would before it's release. The 5c was nothing like what people are suggesting Apple do with an entry level device...it was a "cheaper" option...not a "cheap" option, like Android capitalizing with.

    The bottom line is...you offer a sub $200 "smart phone", you cheapen the brand by denying the kind of quality, features, function and development people expect with Apple products. The only positive side would be that a person buying that product would get the top tier customer service without the investment...something that should speak worlds as to another reason this kind of entry level device would degrade the Apple brand.
    I'm curious as to why you think having a cheaper phone would degrade the Apple brand. No one's forcing you to buy the $200 iPhone, you can stick with the $700-900 ones. I know I would. Even if I were to switch to Android I wouldn't buy some random $200 phone, I'd buy an HTC or LG. Worst case scenario, I'd buy a Nexus, which is cheaper with many of the same features. Either way, many of us buy premium phones for a reason.

    Say Apple were to introduce a $200 iPhone next month along with the $700-900 iPhone 6 and 6L (I know they won't, but suppose they did) how would that reduce the quality of Apple products, and "cheapen" the brand as you say? I couldn't care less whether Apple actually follows into the entry-level market or not, that's their decision, but I am curious as to why you think their choice would affect your products.
    08-19-2014 12:26 AM
  5. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    I never said it would affect my products as a consumer (yet), and never said it would affect their products in terms of what the upper tier devices bring to the table (yet). Not sure where you deduced that, but for clarities sake, I don't think Apple's products would suffer if they brought an entry level device (at least not immediately...I do feel that over time, a cheaper product would, in turn, bring cheaper workmanship to the upper tier by exposing cheaper ways of manufacturing things that most consumers wouldn't notice. It's almost a given when a cheap product is made...just look at the nightmare GM is going through right now across the lineup of their cars from going with cheaper parts, even in the luxury line vehicles).

    I feel it cheapens the brand by putting the devices in the spectrum of consumers from bottom to top, where as right now, the device exists in what can be considered the top (by standards of smart phones and their pricing). Does it really bother me that a person who is in a lower financial situation could have an iPhone of some sort? Not really...it isn't as "personal" as you'd like to think in that regard. Where I start to get irked is what follows such movement...you can see it everywhere in consumer electronics.

    A great example would be Sony. Sony, at one time, was considered a very luxury tier electronics manufacturer. They made the more expensive product, and people bought it because of the quality and confidence the name instilled...and then they moved to a more general approach, releasing mid grade products (from receivers to tape players and everything in between)...then they wanted a piece of the less tech savvy consumer market, targeting the store brand products pricing point, and offering bare bones devices at just a slight increase over generic brand product cost.

    Now...Sony is just another brand you see in a sea of electronics. Frankly, you probably wouldn't know a Sony receiver from a Harman Kardon (another generalized market casualty) or a bottom barrel Jensen. It's lost in the ocean of generic, money first products. Half the time they could probably rebrand some knock off product with similar specs as Sony, and you'd never know. This goes for TV's, radios, computers, etc.

    In the end, I don't think that would happen to Apple in the same way, and the Sony example was an extreme case (to prove a point)...image degradation isn't all about a personal desire to have something nicer than another person...to that end I really couldn't care less...there are ripples that follow though, and they turn into waves and then into full out tsunamis at times. In the fickle world of consumer electronics...a companies image can make or break their future. Apple has such a solid and truly enviable image right now, venturing into the cheap phone market just compete with market share with Android just seems like the best idea of a person who doesn't really consider the bigger picture.
    kch50428 likes this.
    08-19-2014 12:50 AM
  6. AAA1337's Avatar
    I never said it would affect my products as a consumer (yet), and never said it would affect their products in terms of what the upper tier devices bring to the table (yet). Not sure where you deduced that, but for clarities sake, I don't think Apple's products would suffer if they brought an entry level device (at least not immediately...I do feel that over time, a cheaper product would, in turn, bring cheaper workmanship to the upper tier by exposing cheaper ways of manufacturing things that most consumers wouldn't notice. It's almost a given when a cheap product is made...just look at the nightmare GM is going through right now across the lineup of their cars from going with cheaper parts, even in the luxury line vehicles).

    I feel it cheapens the brand by putting the devices in the spectrum of consumers from bottom to top, where as right now, the device exists in what can be considered the top (by standards of smart phones and their pricing). Does it really bother me that a person who is in a lower financial situation could have an iPhone of some sort? Not really...it isn't as "personal" as you'd like to think in that regard. Where I start to get irked is what follows such movement...you can see it everywhere in consumer electronics.

    A great example would be Sony. Sony, at one time, was considered a very luxury tier electronics manufacturer. They made the more expensive product, and people bought it because of the quality and confidence the name instilled...and then they moved to a more general approach, releasing mid grade products (from receivers to tape players and everything in between)...then they wanted a piece of the less tech savvy consumer market, targeting the store brand products pricing point, and offering bare bones devices at just a slight increase over generic brand product cost.

    Now...Sony is just another brand you see in a sea of electronics. Frankly, you probably wouldn't know a Sony receiver from a Harman Kardon (another generalized market casualty) or a bottom barrel Jensen. It's lost in the ocean of generic, money first products. Half the time they could probably rebrand some knock off product with similar specs as Sony, and you'd never know. This goes for TV's, radios, computers, etc.

    In the end, I don't think that would happen to Apple in the same way, and the Sony example was an extreme case (to prove a point)...image degradation isn't all about a personal desire to have something nicer than another person...to that end I really couldn't care less...there are ripples that follow though, and they turn into waves and then into full out tsunamis at times. In the fickle world of consumer electronics...a companies image can make or break their future. Apple has such a solid and truly enviable image right now, venturing into the cheap phone market just compete with market share with Android just seems like the best idea of a person who doesn't really consider the bigger picture.
    I guess that's fair. I misunderstood you and though you meant it would reduce their overall quality, but you just said it would cheapen the brand.


    Sent from my iPhone using iMore Forums
    08-19-2014 08:30 AM
  7. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    I guess that's fair. I misunderstood you and though you meant it would reduce their overall quality, but you just said it would cheapen the brand.


    Sent from my iPhone using iMore Forums
    I do think that eventually it would lessen the quality...but I only reflect this based on what other companies have done after getting into entry level products...it's possible that Apple would continue a very high line of quality, even at an entry level pricing point.
    08-19-2014 12:09 PM
  8. Tre Lawrence's Avatar
    I do think that eventually it would lessen the quality...but I only reflect this based on what other companies have done after getting into entry level products...it's possible that Apple would continue a very high line of quality, even at an entry level pricing point.
    I think Apple would.

    We might not ever know, but it's fun to speculate.
    08-19-2014 03:56 PM
  9. nj1266's Avatar
    Nah, if Apple's market share came down to single digits, it IS cause for worry. Let's not fool ourselves...


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
    No it is not. Apple's share in the PC market is almost single digits and yet it makes more profits from PC sales than any other maker. The same should play out in the smart phone market.


    Sent from my 64 gig Retina IPad Mini
    08-20-2014 01:07 AM
  10. SeanHRCC's Avatar
    No it is not. Apple's share in the PC market is almost single digits and yet it makes more profits from PC sales than any other maker. The same should play out in the smart phone market.


    Sent from my 64 gig Retina IPad Mini
    He's ignoring the fact that the marketshare Android enjoys is primarily invested in a market that Apple doesn't even touch.
    08-20-2014 01:45 AM
  11. anony_mouse's Avatar
    The One-Horse Race: 85% Of The 300M Smartphones Shipped In Q2 Were Android | TechCrunch

    Now are they truly doomed this time? I think it's worth some discussion either way.
    Clearly Apple are not "doomed" by these numbers. In fact, I doubt whether either Apple or their competitors see unit market share as the most important measure of their position. There's another type of market share that these companies tend to be much more interested in, that does not get reported because the analyst companies don't give the data away for free... And where Android vendors will certainly have less than 85%...

    The more interesting question as a user is what this all means for me. So far, I would conclude not very much either way.
    Last edited by anony_mouse; 08-22-2014 at 08:18 AM.
    08-22-2014 07:57 AM
86 ... 234

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 120
    Last Post: 08-26-2014, 04:46 AM
  2. Apple allegedly shaving down Beats workforce
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 03:10 PM
  3. Russia wants Apple's source code to prove it's not used for spying
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 12:00 PM
  4. Apple Stores will help you save some dough during US state tax holidays
    By iMore.com in forum iMore.com News Discussion
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 11:00 AM
  5. Replies: 1
    Last Post: 07-30-2014, 08:48 AM
LINK TO POST COPIED TO CLIPBOARD