More Claims of Apple Using Qualcomm's Snapdragon Chips for Lower-Cost iPhone

There's already a lower-cost iPhone. It's called the iPhone 4S.

There's an even cheaper option. It's called iPhone 4.

These claims are Page 2 garbage. Stop feeding the troll analysts. :cool:

There's already a lower-cost iPhone. It's called the iPhone 4S.

There's an even cheaper option. It's called iPhone 4.

These claims are Page 2 garbage. Stop feeding the troll analysts. :cool:

Sigh. They're not cheap when you buy outright without carrier subsidy.

Are we going through this again? One is 1.5 years old, the other is almost 3 years old.

Uh...that's why they are cheap.

What's more expense Apple to completely design a new lost-cost iPhone from scratch, get new machines, research materials OR have Apple sell an iPhone 4 at a reduced price?

I still don't get how a new low-cost iPhone (that will have a slower processor and only 3G) would be cheaper than the already mass-produced iPhone 4. But then again, I'm not an analyst.

There's already a lower-cost iPhone. It's called the iPhone 4S.

There's an even cheaper option. It's called iPhone 4.

These claims are Page 2 garbage. :cool:

Are we going through this again? One is 1.5 years old, the other is almost 3 years old.

There's already a lower-cost iPhone. It's called the iPhone 4S.

There's an even cheaper option. It's called iPhone 4.

These claims are Page 2 garbage. Stop feeding the troll analysts. :cool:

This again.

People seem to have trouble imagining that:

1. There's a world outside the U.S.
2. Cell phone market outside the U.S. is siginificant.
3. Pricing in other countries doesn't follow U.S. pricing.
4. In other countries, people may not be paying subsidized prices but rather full prices for their phones.
5. Average selling price of phones may be way different in another country given the average income is lower and the previous fact.

For example, here are prices of some smartphones at a major carrier in India:



See, even a 8GB iPhone 4 is 3x more expensive than a lot of popular options, and even it (the cheapest iPhone, almost considered obsolete with Apple not giving it new iOS 6 features) is a lot of money for the average Indian to drop on a phone.

By the way, those are not the cheapest smartphones I could find. Those are only brand names (known to americans), but otherwise there were unknown OEMs with way cheaper prices.

No wonder why Android is gaining marketshare in emerging countries with no carrier subsidies. The reality is totally different. A U.S.-centric vision won't allow you to understand the discrepancy of Android popularity in the U.S. and worldwide.

Are we going through this again? One is 1.5 years old, the other is almost 3 years old.

What would be the difference between a low-tech new iPhone and an old iPhone?

A new low-cost iPhone makes sense. Yes there's the iPhone 4, 4S, (or even the 3GS). But those are old models and they won't have the same perception of quality as a brand new designed iPhone, perhaps that's what Apple is going for.

So essentially this will be a slower iPhone running on the same iOS as the faster iPhone 5s. This means giving its users a slow and frustrating experience. I don't buy it. Apple wouldn't find it worthy to tap into a new market if that means making its introduction to new customers a painful experience.

If Apple indeed gets into a cheaper market, they'll do it without sacrificing the basic user experience and instead doing away with small luxuries like a metal case and thin design.

But all of this is unnecessary really. Apple needs only to enable iMessage voice and in that one action, cheap iPods and iPads become the cheap iPhone and gives Apple full control over the experience without telco contracts. This is an attractive option for parents and budget conscious customers. Its data only and contract free nature really does play into the demands of the low end of the market.

There's already a lower-cost iPhone. It's called the iPhone 4S.

There's an even cheaper option. It's called iPhone 4.

These claims are Page 2 garbage. Stop feeding the troll analysts. :cool:

But many people desire the latest and greatest. Even if internals are a bit old(4 and 4s era chips) it will be more attractive with a new case and a new name, and a "new device that just came out" will certainly be more popular than a 3-year-old phone.

There's already a lower-cost iPhone. It's called the iPhone 4S.

There's an even cheaper option. It's called iPhone 4.

The problem is that Apple can't keep playing this game forever. The iPhone 5 is harder to manufacture. The physical tolerances are getting to the limits of what workers can do at extremely high volumes. The never ending quest for thinner and harder to make is at fundamental conflict with larger production volumes. "Older is cheaper" is going to start to matter less and less as the phones are harder to make.

Apple needs a product that is designed from the start to be made at the volumes they will need to grow. The are starting to high the law of large numbers. It is going to be harder and harder to grow at double digit rates at the price points that they are at. Both the manufacture quantities in those ever larger numbers and get the price low enough to generate larger demand ( pre-paid ).

The iPad split into iPad and iPad mini. The selling "last year's" iPad 2 is likely going to get dropped as soon as mini's production stabilizes. The iPod evolved from just classic into shuffle , mini , iPod Touch sized products with different price points.

It doesn't have to be a "low quality" phone to be less expensive. Just easing a bit off of "thin as possible" is all that is required. Kuo's numbers (see link at start of the thread) are for a phone that roughly as thick as the iPhone 4 but probably easier to assemble and has a few less more expensive "value add" sensors on it ( fingerprint reader). they can play the "older" game with the sensors and Flash size without cracking the size down every year.