Apple rubbishes rumours of iPhone for the masses Apple has denied that it is considering increasing its market share and beating off competitors with a cheaper iPhone. Rumours went around earlier this week that the fruity firm was getting a cheap mobile ready for market, but marketing chief Phil Schiller told a Chinese newspaper that Apple was doing no such thing. "We are …
But one is fact, one is opinion. Sure we can debate what the best phone platform is, but that's opinion, and plenty of us Think Different.
And whilst appeal to popularity isn't valid for factual claims, it is informative for opinions, in showing us what people think - in this case, more people think Android is a better OS, or Samsung and even Nokia make better phones.
it is informative for opinions
but you're ignoring a vast array of other contributing factors.
if all the phones had the same features and cost the same price and were on the same networks, then, yes, you could say that more people prefer Android. But you need to know the numbers for a statement like that. If 90% of the Android devices sold are sub £200 phones or provided free on contract, then you're statement should be "more people with limited or no disposable income prefer the Android OS"
you can only make sweeping generalisations if all the items you are comparing are on the same level
I'm not sure someone who spends £200 on a phone has no disposable income, but sure, I see your point. Though even at the high end, I would have thought Android leads, and Samsung still does well. The leaders in the Android world are high end phones like the S3.
Another flaw in your argument is that many of Apple's iphone sales come from older phones, which become available at lower prices. So if you're only look at the high end Android sales, we also have to limit Apple to just the iphone 5.
It's also flawed to equate price with disposable income - that just rewards a product for being overpriced. A classic example would be the Nexus 4 - despite its low price, it's still arguably the best Android phone (if not best phone) on the market. So someone who is rich would still buy it, but you would say they don't count.
This is just a rehash of assuming people don't buy Apple because they are poor - I have money, it's just there are better uses for my money! (And if I really had more money than I could do with, I'd give it to charity, not help one of the richest companies make more profit.)
"or provided free on contract"
Phones aren't "free", as you pay in the contract. And I would imagine for more iphones are sold on contract than Android phones, anyway.
Actually I think AC might be right. Most Android phones at the same price point as an iPhone have considerably better specs. So this mythical Android phone with only the same spec as an iPhone but at the same price would probably not sell well, leaving the iPhone to outsell it (but with both being outsold by the better Android phones at that price point).
Phone specs aren't the be all and end all of the user experience... I wish that my Android phone had a range of headsets with 3-button (call end, vol up, vol dwon) remotes available, but they all seem to be for iDevices. Android devices even differ between themselves in how they implement the headset mic and buttons, which is pretty shocking.
If only Apple actually made the best phone, I'd buy one...
But they are seriously behind on iOS, display ratio, connectivity, storage expansion, battery options, and last not least, the fact that you need the aptly named 'Jailbreak' to even have a moderate level of control over the item you purchased.
Depends what it is they're wanting to "lead" in - sales, innovation, trends?
I believe that corporations are supposed to maximise profit - not (necessarily) market share. Apple have, so far, been doing quite well for themselves, by not using the scattergun approach of many other manufacturers - even as their percentage market share falls.
Market Leader in what..........................
If you look at pretty much all of Apples more portable devices iPhone, Pad and Pod they are all devices which increasingly drive Users to online content be that Music from ITunes or Apps from the Apps Store. Get it yet?
Apple if they are at all interested in being a Market Leader, I doubt it is in Mobes. More likely downloadable content. Apps Store brings in $10bn in revenue since it opened......... Thats market leading and I would suggest that iTunes is also a market leader in its segment. And of course Apple are doing quite well in the Mobes market also. Oh and before I forget they Leader the market in MP3 players having defined the market to start with.
I might recommend taking a wider perspective on what Apple is about; the many millionaires Apple has created amongst its staff and shareholders would also say its market leading in terms of shareholder value returned.
"We are not like other companies, launching multiple products at once and hoping that one of them becomes popular with consumers,"
True. Apple makes one flawed product line with propriatary hardware and services. Then they get their marketing people to convince the masses that it is "cool" to use cell data when WiFi is active, have no maps and pay 40% higher prices than comparable product from their competitors.
"to use cell data when WiFi is active, have no maps and pay 40% higher prices than comparable product from their competitors"
Plain BS - never had mine use cell data if wifi were available, I've always had 'maps' now I have both Google Maps and Apple Maps and as for 40% more expensive - yes an iPhone 5 is more an a Galaxy S3 but factor in the superior service / support, Apple have to pay for iCloud themselves (I assume Samsung do not pay Google to do it) and also factor in TCO.
Superior Service - like fleecing customers for an extended warranty they don't need in Europe?
Superior Support - "you're holding it wrong" or "here, have a rubber band"
TCO - i'm not sure what else you want to include in that figure? Usability is about the same regardless of which smartphone OS you use; phone contracts are a fixed cost regardless of handset and so on. What else would you like to try and shoe-horn in??
"40% more expensive - yes an iPhone 5 is more an a Galaxy S3 but factor in the superior service / support"
One could argue that it'd better to have a product that doesn't NEED support and after-sale service. Like by... y'know: Not making something out of glass.
But I'm glad you're getting such great value by spending 40% more and getting that extra support.
*pats £100 Wildfire, which has never needed anything more than fingermarks wiped off it*
Well I can tell you service / support matters - had a Samsung that had to go back to Samsung = no phone for 3 weeks = dead happy at having to buy a new phone - so yes it cost me more even though the phone was initially cheaper. Wife's iPhone got a fault and was replaced in minutes at the Apple store.
"As opposed to all those cheap plastic android phones that hit concrete and fly apart?"
I hate to break this, but plastic is stronger than glass. I've bounced my 'cheap' phone off the floor a dozen times already. And you're inferring that all being equal in fragility then it's the CHEAP one that's inferior. That's...wrong: The cheap one can be smashed 4 times for the price of doing it once to the glass one.
Using the word 'cheap' as a derogatory term is a bit of a non-sequitur.
"Coincidently, people who own those are usually considered idiots with more money than sense, too."
I think I got down-voted by a Beemer driving iPhone owner. :D
quote: "We are not like other companies, launching multiple products at once and hoping that one of them becomes popular with consumers"
Quick question, how close were the launches of the iPhone 5, iPad 7" (Mini), new iPad 10", and the MacBook retina update? I seem to recall at least 2 of the above being in the same launch, and therefore technically "multiple products at once". I also seem to recall that for MacBook updates, the 11" and 13" models are generally updated (and therefore launched) at the same time.
Admittedly, it's no "here are 35 seperate products from Shenzen Consumer Products Inc. for the Fall season" but Apple do have multiple products, and they do release multiple products at the same launch (e.g. iPhone 5 and iPad Mini). For a company whose usual launch cycle is twice per year, and with more than 2 active products, surely it is disingenuous to claim otherwise?
Or am I just too stupid to understand the original intent of the claim?
In Product Management speak, the iPhone would be one product line, the iPad would be another product line and the MacBook would be a third product line. Generally because the people who work one on one line, don't work on the other (although there is some cross-over with the operating system between iPhone and iPad).
With the exception of the iPad, each line only had one product.
The iPad may have had two pieces of hardware, but since the software was the same for both pieces of hardware, they probably considered that bit a single item too.
(usual disclaimer about not actually working for Apple, so I could be completely wrong)
Might have to actually start innovating and stop playing catch-up to Androids features if they want to do that. The Apple ecosystem has been stagnating for the last couple of years with each product really just being a rather unimpressive minor improvement on the last and with nothing new that hasn't already been done by the competition.
How do you suggest they play catch up with many more (and probably better) apps, especially individualised apps for both the phone and tablet devices? Why change something when it actually isn't broken? Apple are still selling shed-loads of iOS devices every day, week, month... A major change to the OS would mean a major change to the hardware. That's the point... it's a package unlike Android's fragmented approach.
This post has been deleted by its author
"Why change something when it actually isn't broken? Apple are still selling shedloads..,"
Wind back a few years, and check out how well that plan worked for Palm, RIM, Nokia, and even Microsoft in the cellphone market.
Corporations are like sharks, if they don't keep moving, they die.
Since the iPod (75% market share) Apple has been trying (quite successfully) to go for the mass market. The iPad had 90% of the tablet market for a while and the iPhone still has 50% in the US. Yes, they are not cheap, but they're not in a premium niche either. And IF Apple will shrink into a 10% segment of the market, mindshare will just break away and people won't be willing to pay a premium for something nobody cares for.
Apple surely wasn't a healthy company when they sold expensive computers to 5%-10% of the market. It nearly killed them.
Or rather: We are not like other companies, launching a range of products to give people a choice, which would make us popular.
The unprofessional sneering is apparent - and untrue; Samsung even with their range of many products, have had many massively successful hits. Whilst their flagship S3 became the single most popular device - quite telling given they have many products, to Apple's one per generation - even their "niche" devices like the Note have sold millions. They outsell Apple 2-to-1 on Android phones alone, that's before we consider the extra 10s of millions of other phones they sell a quarter. "Hope one becomes popular"? Yeah right.
"We are not like other companies, launching multiple products at once and hoping that one of them becomes popular with consumers".
No.. instead you release the same phone at difference prices, charging $100 more depending on which $10-$20 SD card you have installed. And that price is full retail, I imagine Apple might be able to get a better price on SD ram than I can. So there you go, if Apple were to buy their SD Ram from Walmart at full retail they could probably shave around $150 off the price of their most expensive phone and still make a 100-200% profit on the RAM upgrade between models and at the same time present the cheaper model for the masses.
The gap between Android and IOS application numbers is neglible - Google Play hit 700,000 only one month after Apple, and last I heard was growing faster. Though comparing raw numbers has always been a poor comparison anyway, especially as on Android, Google Play isn't the only place to get applications.
"individualised apps for both the phone and tablet devices"
So wait - there are 700,000 for Android that work on a range of devices, but how many of the IOS 700,000 work on all? Does this mean the new iphad mini doesn't have many apps yet?
And phone/tablet aren't two distinct categories, rather there's a continuum of sizes - plus in fact, Apple now have _4_ sizes (3.5", 4", 8", 10"). So now do developers have to write 4 versions of each application? Or perhaps having a UI that intelligently works on a range of sizes (as all modern UIs do) was the more sensible approach long term.
"A major change to the OS would mean a major change to the hardware."
It would? Well that's a problem for them then.
Sure, no one has to catch up; Nokia sell shed loads of dumb phones all year round too.
The thing that you're missing is that most models in a given range only differ by their DPI. iPhone 3GS -> iPhone 4 was a simple doubling of resolution in each direction. Update an apps resource file to include extra bitmaps with the same name as the existing ones but with @2x on the end of the name and the system automatically picks the right one for you. The same when it came from moving to the iPad 2 -> iPad 3, just add extra bitmaps. The iPad Mini looks to software like an iPad 2, so no changes there. With the iPhone 5 Apple update the SDK so that it could automatically reflow forms on larger screens. Code had to be updated to use this.
So developers need to write code to support the iPhone (using the reflow) with two sets of bitmaps, plus if they want to support the iPad they need a set of forms designed for that (again with 2 bitmaps for everything). One program, two sets of forms (phone and iPad versions of the app), a maximum of 4 bitmaps for each item on the form (if you can't share the bitmaps between phone and pad) otherwise 2 (low and high DPI).
The problem that Android has is the concept that one size suits all. In practice iOS developers have made significant changes to their forms to make use of the extra screen real-estate. That's where Android is at a disadvantage in the App marketplace - there are only something like 10,000 apps that have been coded for Android to make use of a bigger tablet screen vs 300,000 for the iPad, and many of the gaps are from big-name providers.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
