Slashdot Mirror
Did Apple Make a Mistake By Releasing Two New iPhones?
Nerval's Lobster writes "As noted by CNET, Apple hasn't released data on the number of iPhone 5C units it presold in the device's first 24 hours of availability—a first for the iPhone since 2009. Why is that? Reporter Josh Lowensohn speculates that iPhone 5C sales 'may not be as impressive when stacked up against tallies from previous years,' with one outside analyst suggesting that Apple racked up 1 million iPhone 5C preorders last Friday, or roughly half the 2 million presales scored by the iPhone 5 on its first day of ordering availability last year. However well the iPhone 5C ends up performing on the open market, Apple's decision to launch two iPhones this year—rather than a single 'hero' device—could result in self-cannibalism, as users who would've bought the iPhone 5S instead gravitate toward the cheaper option. Cannibalism is a topic that Apple knows well, as it's been dealing with the iPhone cannibalizing the iPod for the past several years; but a new iPhone eating away at another new iPhone is fresh territory for the company. During earnings calls, Apple CEO Tim Cook likes to argue that cannibalization—whether iPhones feeding off the iPod, or the iPad taking the place of MacBooks—is a good thing, so long as it's Apple products eating other Apple products. But it's far more questionable whether he would welcome the iPhone 5C—almost certainly a low-margin device, despite its current-generation components and plastic body—taking a bite out of the more expensive, and presumably higher-margin iPhone 5S. Margin erosion remains a prime concern of investors and Apple watchers; anything that contributes to that erosion is bound to be viewed unfavorably."
Would you rather sell X number of one product or some factor of X (larger than 1) of two products?
Also, when you sell two new products, at the same time, it is not cannibalization, otherwise, the entire effing PC market is full of cannibals. Hell, how many similar products does Samsung have?
It's market segmentation, idiots.
Do these people even have a damned clue?!
http://www.informationweek.com/mobility/smart-phones/foxconn-iphone-5-is-hard-to-make/240009249
If you want a device you can sell for 99 bucks on contract it needs to be easier to make.
Also, when you sell two new products, at the same time, it is not cannibalization [...] It's market segmentation
It might be cannibalization.
Its segmentation if the new lower tier product picks up millions of new buyers who just couldn't afford the high tier one.
But its cannibalization if millions of users who would have bought the high tier one if it was the only one one on offer, but now buy the low tier one because its available and good enough.
The key to segmentation is to make sure nobody who can afford the high end model would be satisfied with the low end one, that they would rationalize spending the extra to stay in the premium product.
Moving to a 64 bit word size has other effects than simply increasing the amount of memory that can be addressed. When doing mathematical computations, if a number doesn't fit in your word you have to fake it. 64 bit words allow for much bigger numbers that can now be handled natively by the CPU. This might make a big difference in crypto performance, like on your SSL connections.
Not the bits themselves, but changing the architecture gave ARM a chance to clean up the instruction set and double the registers. And that IS an advantage. It's very similar to what AMD did with x86-64.
Timing... for developers.
You want to get your 64-bit processor out the door so that people who make apps that might benefit from more than 4gb of memory can start to write their apps for 64-bit BEFORE you actually start shipping phones with more than 4gb of memory. This allows them time to convert to 64-bit without being rushed into it. It also gives your OS developers time to get the 64-bit OS out the door. If the 64-bit OS isn't ready when you ship the product, you release with a 32-bit OS and you just don't advertise the 64-bit feature. (Or you say "64-bit ready" or something like that and promise the next OS release will bring 64-bit to existing phones.
In short, as a consumer, you don't care... yet. You want the 64-bit in a year or two when you have 8 gigs of memory in your phone. In order to have applications for that 8-gig phone, you want Apple to release a 64-bit phone now, so that developers will be ready with 64-bit applications to put on that 8-gig phone.
The other aspect here is that most architectures tend to clean things up when they move to 64-bit, and ARM is no exception. Some of those architectural changes that come with 64-bit will be more valuable sooner, and could translate to performance boosts right now on some applications that switch to the 64-bit architecture.
How this keeps getting trotted out as fact every time there is a story about these phones I'll never know. And of all places, here on slashdot where people should know better.
There are many other reasons why a 64 bit architecture is helpful. You may not know of them, but they exist. Many of them apply to game development, which was a big push if you watched the initial product announcement.
Culture is more than commerce
Except Apples profits are falling
IIRC (I don't have the figures in front of me), it is their profit growth that is falling, not their profits themselves.
Dan Aris
Last two quarters
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/07/23Apple-Reports-Third-Quarter-Results.html
"The Company posted quarterly revenue of $35.3 billion and quarterly net profit of $6.9 billion, or $7.47 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $35 billion and net profit of $8.8 billion"
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2013/04/23Apple-Reports-Second-Quarter-Results.html
"The Company posted quarterly revenue of $43.6 billion and quarterly net profit of $9.5 billion, or $10.09 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $39.2 billion and net profit of $11.6 billion,"
Is your screen size too small to do a search before posting false information. Profits are simply falling YonY and by quarter from apples own financial statements.
Yeah, because Apple never had a history of introducing lower-end colored models into their lineup.
iPod. iMac.
when I'm going to be paying for a carrier contract anyway
Because the math has changed recently and pre-pay is now cheaper than post-pay, unless you have some special use case. The only network where you can use your "free" 5C is on Sprint.
But once you are on Sprint, you are stuck with a 2-year contract at $80/month (let's pretend there's not a bunch of extra fees and taxes for the moment). That gets you unlimited talk, text, and data on Sprint's network. Or you could do Boost on Sprint's network for $55/month initially, with $5 reductions every 6 months until you get to $40/month.
Sprint: $0 + 24x$80 = $1920
Boost: $549 + 6x$55 + 6x$50 + 6x$45 + 6x$40 = $1689
So you are paying an extra $231 for the post-pay on the same network, all just to get a "free" phone. And with pre-pay, you can walk away at any time and just sell the phone on eBay.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.