Shortcuts

Apple Tries to Silence Low Cost iPhone Chatter

rated by 0 users
This post has 3 Replies | 0 Followers

Top 10 Contributor
Posts 26,383
Points 1,192,230
Joined: Sep 2007
ForumsAdministrator
News Posted: Fri, Jan 11 2013 9:39 AM
Trying to predict what Apple will do next is a little like playing Pin the Tail on the Donkey. If you get lucky, you're spot with your prediction, and the odds go up exponentially if you receive some guidance. So, when rumors surfaced from seemingly reliable sources that Apple was building a low cost iPhone model to compete with Android, there were plenty of reasons to believe it was true. Hold the boat, says Apple.

In an interview with Chinese language Shanghai Evening News, Apple senior VP of worldwide marketing Phil Schiller cast a wet blanket over dreams of owning a lower-end and inexpensive iPhone device, Information Week reports. Schiller stated that lower cost iPhones would "never be the future of Apple products."

Apple iPhone 5

One of the rumors originated from The Wall Street Journal, which claims to have received its information from "people briefed on the matter." As it was told, the new iPhone device would use a "different, less expensive body," perhaps constructed of polycarbonate plastic rather than aluminum. Internal hardware would likely be built around previous generation iPhone devices, much in the same way the iPad mini is essentially a smaller version of the iPad 2.

Schiller's comments don't completely extinguish the red hot rumors, however, as he could simply be stating that low cost iPhones won't replace standard iPhone models. It just depends on how you interpret his remarks.
  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 164
Points 1,630
Joined: Nov 2010
MCaddick replied on Fri, Jan 11 2013 3:08 PM

Apple will never make low cost items. Low value yes, but not low cost.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 500 Contributor
Posts 214
Points 2,215
Joined: Feb 2010

I'll give them credit for releasing a lower cost iPad (iPad mini), but you're right, it's now really "low cost" at $329.

  • | Post Points: 20
Top 150 Contributor
Posts 756
Points 7,645
Joined: Nov 2012
Location: Dallas, Tx
Dorkstar replied on Fri, Jan 11 2013 7:54 PM

I don't know.  While it would probably "cheapen" the value of their name, surely it would make gains in a market they once were unable or unwilling to enter.

  • | Post Points: 5
Page 1 of 1 (4 items) | RSS