I kept reading before launch about the $100 phone Apple was launching and was excited. But to my disappoint I later realised it's $100 + ridiculous contract (apparently the notion of contract free phones doesn't exist in the US)
I think if Apple launched a "budget" phone it would destroy much of the Android market. Maybe it would damage their brand though, who knows.
#I think if Apple launched a "budget" phone it would destroy much of the Android market. Maybe it would damage their brand though, who knows.
The battle lines between IOS and Android are more around choice and configurability, not so much price. IOS has a standard set of highly polished features. Android has more features, but they don't integrate as well as they do in IOS, nor do they have the polish. Add hardware configurations, phone sizes, etc and you have a very diverse Eco-system with Android.
Most Android users I know wouldn't want an iPhone at almost any price. So, no market destroying would occur.
Contract-free phones do exist. But if you want a brand new expensive phone without paying full price and without a contract, it better be your birthday because otherwise I don't see who's going to pay the difference.
>>> I think if Apple launched a "budget" phone it would destroy much of the Android market.
Not likely. Apple core customers would shun it because it's not fancy enough, and Android core customers would shun it because it's Apple-built jail and because they want the apps they're used to. It's like saying if Windows were a bit cheaper Linux wouldn't exist. Not likely.
In the UK you can buy a good spec Android phone without contract for £100 (one of the Huawei models).
I personally wouldn't shun an iPhone at a similar price point (I find them more polished but too expensive for my budget), perhaps I'm an irregular customer though.
iPhone 5S base cost is estimated around $200-$300[1], so iPhone for £100 should be either seriously inferior model or seriously subsidized. Apple does not need to subsidize it - they sell fine as is. So either carrier subsidizes it and gets their money back in contract fees, or you are paying the cost plus margins of all the middlemen (unless you manage to buy it straight from the assembly line, which you can't).
"It's like saying if Windows were a bit cheaper Linux wouldn't exist." Actually, Windows can be had for free, while iOS devices can't. If it weren't that way, I bet that Linux would have a huge user base by now.
> I think if Apple launched a "budget" phone it would destroy much of the Android market. Maybe it would damage their brand though, who knows.
So long as they maintained quality their brand would be fine, but their profits would take a serious beating. To compete with low to mid range Android phones they'd have to seriously cut prices and margins on their low end devices. This means the low end devices would be better value than the higher end devices, sucking sales and therefore profits from them.
Apple simply doesn't need higher market share. It already has a much more dynamic and valuable app platform and media ecosystem. What Apple does need is a high market share in terms of paid apps and services. These are where the actual value of a platform come from.
Right now if you want the best apps and services, you buy Apple. If that changes, then they'll have a problem. However large volume sales of cheap Android phones that only ever run the pre-installed apps are simply not a threat in this regard. The market share platform argument against Apple only works if all those Android phones are actually being used as app and service platforms. If they're not, then they're irrelevant.
There will always be a contingent of sophisticated customers that will prefer Android, or even Windows phones. Those people will continue to buy flagship Android devices, and there's really nothing Apple can do that will change that. This is fine, and it's not a threat to anybody. Large scale sales of low end Android phones similarly isn't a threat to Apple. For now Apple is quite happy doing what it has always done, or tried to do. It's taken control of the high end of the market, making vast amounts of money and doubling down on quality and user experience. They're not a threat to high end Android phones, they're not a threat to low end Android phones, and those phones are not a threat to them. They're in competition, sure, and neither 'side' can afford to slip up.
Steve Job said many years ago that Apple and it's customers had to give up the notion that for Apple to win Microsoft had to loose. It's like than here. For Apple to win, Android does not have to lose. The problem with Apple adopting a low-profit scorched earth, market share first policy against Android is that it would only leave scorched earth left, and that's no basis for growing a strong business.
>Right now if you want the best apps and services, you buy Apple.
This argument is about 3 or 4 years stale and needs to stop IMHO. What at all will you call a best app today that will drive someone to buy an Iphone instead of say, android because an equivalent one or even the same app isn't available at the Play Store?
Yes, there are a lot of poor apps in the Play store but I can find similar ones on iTunes. Again there are a lot of great apps in the App Store but I find them at the Play Store as well.
I think if Apple launched a "budget" phone it would destroy much of the Android market. Maybe it would damage their brand though, who knows.