Print 34 comment(s) - last by lawrance.. on Mar 18 at 12:49 PM

Apple hopes to lower the price of entry with the iPhone 5C by adding an 8GB variant

It was reported earlier this year that Apple’s latest current generation of smartphones have been somewhat of a mixed bag for the company. The $99, entry-level iPhone 5C (largely an iPhone 5 with a colorful plastic body) was apparently not the runaway sales success that Apple had predicted.
As Apple CEO Tim Cook put it, “It was the first time we ever ran that play, and demand percentage turned out to be different than we thought.”
Instead, most people just decided to pony up an extra $100 to get the superior-spec’d iPhone 5S with its faster A7 processor and Touch ID fingerprint scanner.

iPhone 5C
There is now word that Apple is looking to turn the tide by introducing a cheaper, 8GB variant of the iPhone 5C this week (the cheapest iPhone 5C currently available is equipped with 16GB of storage and is priced at $99 on contract). The only other iPhone model that Apple offers with 8GB of capacity is the nearly three-year-old iPhone 4S, which is available for free on contract. It is unknown if the 8GB iPhone 5C would replace the iPhone 4S as a “freebie” smartphone, or if it will occupy a highly plausible $49 price point.
The first option seems like the most likely scenario, as it would allow Apple to rid itself of smartphones using the older 30-pin dock connector (Apple’s current generation products connect are equipped with a Lightning dock connector). It would also align all of Apple’s smartphone screens to 4” – that is until the iPhone 6 hits the market later this year.

Source: Apple Insider

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

By mgilbert on 3/17/2014 9:50:10 AM , Rating: 2
If you get a 5S on contract for $99, you're not really paying $99 for it. Since a contract typically costs about $50 more a month than pay as you go service, you are really paying $50 a month for 24 months for the phone, plus $99. So, you are really paying $1299 for the phone! Contracts are foolish. Buy your phone up front, and go with Straight Talk for $45 a month for unlimited everything, or another similar service. If you can't afford the phone up front, save up. Going without a cell phone for a few weeks won't kill you.

RE: Contract
By DukeN on 3/17/2014 9:56:53 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks Captain Austerity!

RE: Contract
By mgilbert on 3/17/2014 10:00:28 AM , Rating: 2
Captain pragmatic...

RE: Contract
By retrospooty on 3/17/2014 10:03:55 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks pedantic duo ;)

RE: Contract
By aliasfox on 3/17/2014 10:07:54 AM , Rating: 4
Ambiguously pedantic duo?

RE: Contract
By Cheesew1z69 on 3/17/2014 1:43:28 PM , Rating: 2
Apologetically Ambiguously pedantic duo?

RE: Contract
By hughlle on 3/17/2014 10:05:19 AM , Rating: 2
Funny. I saved substantial money by getting a 24 month contract with a free htc one handset than if i had bought the handset and then a sim to go with it.

RE: Contract
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 3/17/2014 11:10:54 AM , Rating: 2
A 24 month contract with a bill that's $25/mo higher due to usage you wouldn't ordinarily consume will cost you $600 extra over the course of the contract. Most unlimited plans I'm aware of that have subsidized phones run more like $70 or higher, while you could get a limited prepaid plan for $25-30/mo, so it's more like $40/mo higher over 24 months, which would be $960.

Plus applicable taxes and fees, of course.

RE: Contract
By hughlle on 3/17/2014 11:42:07 AM , Rating: 2
I picked a data plan that would suit my needs without being overboard or leaving me having to ration my calls or such. My 2 year contract inc phone will cost me £300 less than if i had bought the phone, and then bought the sim-only variant of my tariff to use for 2 years.

So contrary to the OP's assertion, it was far cheaper for me to get a 2 year contract than to buy a handset and go sim-only.

RE: Contract
By GotThumbs on 3/17/2014 12:07:47 PM , Rating: 2
Page Plus (PP) through Kitty Wireless is my choice for low cost cellular. Yes, PP is a prepaid service, but Kitty Wireless takes care of everything and simply bills me monthly as verizon did. Just costs me less now.

I was paying $54.00mo through Verizon. Clark Howard forums went over PagePlus and that for $29.99 mo, you get 1,200 talk, 3,000 text and 500mb of data. No contract.

If you're not a fashionista about having the most recent phone, you can buy a good Motorla Droid phone like the RAZR for around 125.00 and get onto Page Plus for $30mo and no contract.

I started off with buying a friends Droid R2D2 over 3 years ago for 150.00 with all the accessories including car dock. I find the Google Maps Navigation does a great job for me and have never exceeded my data plan. Just moved up to a Motorola RAZR. Yes, it's not the newest phone on the market, but it does exactly what the new ones do. It' makes calls and gets me my emails.

I don't tweet,facebook or browse the web on the phone, so data consumption has never been an issue. I use the data mostly for navigation.

I figure I've conservatively saved just over $2,000 since moving to PagePlus. PP uses the verizon network, so no change in quality of service.

~Best wishes on your choices and keeping what you earned.

RE: Contract
By dsraa on 3/17/2014 10:08:49 AM , Rating: 2
Oh right...because everyone can make an extra 500-600 in a few weeks to buy a phone......You know not all of us have jobs where we can do that. Especially when a few weeks only equates to 1 month. Now if you said a few months, than maybe that would make sense. A $50 phone is all some can afford, which is specifically the people that use Simple Talk, Virgin mobile, or Boost.

RE: Contract
By mgilbert on 3/17/2014 10:14:41 AM , Rating: 5
If it takes three or four months to save up, that's better than paying $1300 for a phone on contract. Anyone who can't save up a few hundred dollars in that length of time either cannot afford an expensive phone in the first place and needs to be saving up for emergencies instead anyway, or doesn't know how to budget. Living on credit cards without any money in savings is irresponsible, unnecessary, and just plain stupid.

RE: Contract
By daboom06 on 3/17/2014 10:22:12 AM , Rating: 3
buying things that cost less than $10K with loans is stupid. if you can't afford to buy those things with cash, then you can't afford to buy them.

RE: Contract
By mgilbert on 3/17/2014 10:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
Agreed. A car or house should be the only thing anyone buys on credit. Even a car loan should be avoided if possible - buy something old, and pay cash for as much of it as possible.

RE: Contract
By aliasfox on 3/17/2014 10:46:07 AM , Rating: 3
Paying in cash depends on your credit. If you can qualify for a subsidized car loan (say, 2.9% or better), it might be worth it to take the note and let your money earn interest/dividends/returns at a higher rate. You end up making a little bit of money (your returns - cost of loan), and may end up in a new car (with new tires, battery, and warranty) that may be cheaper to run and more reliable.

But even if you get a very low interest loan, paying for a car for more than three (maybe 4 years on the outside) is definitely stupid. Who wants a car note when other big bills start coming in? Or after you're tired of the car and want a change...

RE: Contract
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 3/17/2014 11:18:26 AM , Rating: 2
But even if you get a very low interest loan, paying for a car for more than three (maybe 4 years on the outside) is definitely stupid. Who wants a car note when other big bills start coming in? Or after you're tired of the car and want a change...

Or, you can trade in and hopefully not be too far underwater on the old car's loan. If you're going to do that regularly, it's probably worth leasing though, but the last few years used cars were at a ridiculous premium and buying new with cheap money to have a fresh, efficient vehicle with modern safety engineering and a warranty was not a bad way to go.

RE: Contract
By Nutzo on 3/17/2014 1:32:10 PM , Rating: 2
If you still have a loan on your old car, you shouldn't be looking for another car.

I kept my last few cars for over 10 years. \ll the years without a car payment let me save up a large down payment on the next car.

Even though I could have payed cash for the car I bought last year, I went with a 5 year loan because the dealer was offering 0%. Might as well keep the money in the bank when someone else will give me free use of thier money for 5 years.

If you traded your car into the dealer, you probably got even further ripped off. I sold my old car to a used car dealer for almost 2x what the new car dealer offered in trade. I usually resell to a private party, but the used car dealer made me such a good offer, it wasn't worth the effort to sell it privately.

RE: Contract
By Dr. Kenneth Noisewater on 3/17/2014 11:15:31 AM , Rating: 2
It depends.

1.55% rate for $0 down/60 months is a price that I decided was worth paying to have liquid cash available vs. buying a car outright and being in a position to borrow that much $$ at a much higher rate in case of emergency.

Plus, while interest rates these days are anemic, you can still get "high yield" accounts approaching 1%, so if you borrow at 1.55% and have equivalent deposit at say 0.90%, you have liquid cash available and it only costs you .65% interest.

RE: Contract
By Solandri on 3/17/2014 5:13:43 PM , Rating: 2
Most high yield accounts don't let you keep your cash liquid. CDs are a good example - you get the interest rate in exchange for agreeing not to withdraw the money for a certain period of time.

The other type of high yield account is a debit checking account. In exchange for the 1%-1.5% interest rate, they require you to make a dozen or so debit card transactions each month. The interest you're earning isn't paid by the bank - it's paid by the merchants you're buying from in the form of debit transaction fees. So while yes you are earning higher interest, if everyone did this, the interest you're "earning" would just be paid back to the merchants in the form of higher prices. i.e. It only works if most people don't know about it and help subsidize your merchant prices.

RE: Contract
By cknobman on 3/17/2014 11:10:57 AM , Rating: 1
Then you don't deserve a phone like that then.

I'm sick and tired of everyone feeling self entitled to things these days.

RE: Contract
By retrospooty on 3/17/2014 11:07:25 AM , Rating: 1
"Since a contract typically costs about $50 more a month than pay as you go service "

I agree, its best to buy your phone outright, but it's not quite equal to compare a normal contract service vs. pay as you go.

T-Mobile has a great option for this. You pick your phone and you can either buy up front, or you can choose to pay $15, 20, 25(ish) extra a month depending on the phone's price. No contract, but if you leave you have to pay off the remainder of the phone. It's overall far cheaper and better, if they have decent service where you live/travel to.

RE: Contract
By Nutzo on 3/17/2014 1:50:17 PM , Rating: 2
Even better bring your own phone.

I have the T-Mobile family plan, 3 lines for $90

Unlimited talk, text and 500MB data. (unlimited data at 2g speeds)

Bought a couple Nexus 4 phones when they where on clearance for $249 last year
(T-Mobile wanted $480 for the same phone!)

RE: Contract
By retrospooty on 3/17/2014 2:35:58 PM , Rating: 2
Yup. If I weren't on a company paid Verizon phone I would have a Nexus 5 at T-Mo right now.

Also, at some point this month, that 500mb goes up to 1GB.

RE: Contract
By Rukkian on 3/17/2014 2:42:14 PM , Rating: 2
It's overall far cheaper and better, if they have decent service where you live/travel to.

That is the big difference here. Several people here are judging others saying you are stupid for doing this or stupid for doing that based on their own situation. For those of us living in the middle of nowhere (in my case Iowa), there really is only a choice between Verizon and ATT if you want data. Some people actually use their devices (I use 10+GB/month) without ever tethering or downloading large files. It is all due to streaming, which is a big no-no for many of the low cost providers, and most of them still use tmobile.

There is the old adage, you get what you pay for. In the case of Verizon, it is definitely true imo if you do not live in a big city, as nobody else can provide data for my commute, or where I work. Once you are with Verizon (due to coverage in my case) it is actually stupid to buy your own, as you get no break in price. You pay the subsidized price either way.

Tells us about Apple users
By Dorkyman on 3/17/2014 11:46:08 AM , Rating: 2
The fact that the 5C has not been a big draw tells us about people drawn to Apple--they are more or less minions drawn to the magic Apple brand. After all, a colorful 5C looks more like a Samsung or Brand X than an "Apple." And Apple users want something that instantly brands themselves as Apple users and thus a part of the crowd that Gets It. Simple as that.

As for lease-versus-buy: Most people should buy if they have the money, because one pays dearly for the privilege of using someone else's money. As true for phones as for cars. The highest priority though is to build up a cash fund, enough to cover maybe six months of living expenses.

It's also true that leasing involves fewer hassles.

RE: Tells us about Apple users
By aliasfox on 3/17/2014 11:59:14 AM , Rating: 3
It's not necessarily that Apple people are minions - if they were minions, they would've purchased it regardless. The value proposition simply isn't there. It's almost the same story as the Moto X - both perform fine and have a little bit of customization, but once you step back, you realize you're paying (nearly) top-of-the-line prices for relatively midrange hardware, no matter how pretty it is. Might as well chip in the extra nickels for true top of the line, or save a bunch and get something actually cheap.

Of course, the Nexus line goes and messes that up for everyone else because Google doesn't care about per-handset profits and can sell near top of the line hardware for distinctly midrange prices...

RE: Tells us about Apple users
By tonyswash on 3/17/14, Rating: 0
RE: Tells us about Apple users
By name99 on 3/17/2014 3:29:25 PM , Rating: 3
What do you define as a "failure".

In both cases we don't have good numbers BUT
- best estimates for total sales of Samsung GS4 (released Q2 2013) are about 40 million so far
- best estimates for total sales of iPhone 5C (released Q3 2013) are about 30 million so far (they're about 1/4 the sales of iPhone 5S sales, and iPhone 5S+C sales are about 50 million a quarter, three quarters so far of sales)

So Apple released a niche product that sells around the same number per quarter as Samsung's high end phone. This hardly strikes me as a failure.

The ONLY reason people are going on and on about this as a failure is because they're assuming that the ONLY way Apple can succeed is with single blockbuster phones. This is, quite frankly, an insane theory. Apple has been quite happy, in other spaces, to ship a variety of different items which appeal to different users. iPods, for example, for many years have come in a variety of flavors.

There APPEARS to have been (we, let's remember, don't know the details) a failure in demand estimation. But even there, don't get carried away. It's quite plausible that iPhone 5S production was throttled by the number of fingerprint readers available. Given this situation, Apple provided more iPhone 5C's than they believed they could immediately sell because, why not? They'd sell them anyway, at some point --- it's not like they go stale in three months --- and better to have SOMETHING on the shelves which some customers want to buy than to have nothing.
In other words, it is quite plausible that the primary production problem was not a mis-estimation of demand, but an inability to create enough fingerprint sensors. This is a real problem, which needs to be (probably has already been) fixed, but which also has NOTHING to do with the iPhone 5C.

Apple expanded the iPhone business by something that is basically the size of the GS4 market and that's a failure?
Tough crowd...

RE: Tells us about Apple users
By lawrance on 3/17/2014 11:48:49 PM , Rating: 2
The fact that the 5C has not been a big draw tells us about people drawn to Apple--they are more or less minions drawn to the magic Apple brand. After all, a colorful 5C looks more like a Samsung or Brand X than an "Apple." And Apple users want something that instantly brands themselves as Apple users and thus a part of the crowd that Gets It. Simple as that.

You moron, that's not it at all. The 5C doesn't sell well because Apple's core demographic demands quality. If we were satisfied with plastic, we'd be Samdung owners. The price difference between the 5C and 5S ($100) is pretty paltry for the difference in what you get. Over the course of a typical 2-year contract or phone cycle, we're talking $4.17 / month to get the top-of-line phone vs. a plastic backed version with last year's processor and no finger print ID among other things.

Calling 5C buyers "minions" says much more about you than the people who choose to save $100 on a phone they are likely buying for their daughter or son.

RE: Tells us about Apple users
By KoolAidMan1 on 3/18/2014 12:18:32 AM , Rating: 2
People here have a big inferiority complex. They can't just enjoy what they have, they need to mock people who use what they don't have.

RE: Tells us about Apple users
By robinthakur on 3/18/2014 8:18:59 AM , Rating: 2
Actually that's not entirely correct. Apple users tend to have more disposable income and generally want the best thing available (from Apple). The ability to make other people look longingly at what you're using is just gravy, as we say in the UK.

The iPhone 5C was described in the media prior to announcement as iPhone Cheap, iPhone Cr*p and iPhone China, that their usual target market did not want anything to do with that, it's a premium brand! Its like Vertu bringing out a new $5000 phone with a case made of recycled loo roll. When I went to buy a 64GB 5S recently as a present for my other half I did ask the Apple guy what the response was like on the 5C and he said we wasn't sure he understood the strategy either. It looks cheap and gaudy from a distance and those holey cases don't scream great design either (sorry Jonny Ive).

I have now seen a few people with them though and having owned an iPhone 5, I at least know the guts are nice and speedy even if the outside makes the product look cheaper than it actually is. I also suspect that its more targeted at women, teens and children along with emerging markets, as I have yet to see a man using one. This colourful approach probably worked for iPods, largely because an iPod costs considerably less.

I think Apple definitely should have a cheaper iPhone in their product line for those that want the Apple experience but can't afford $650. If it sells well in emerging markets, then great, but don't target them specifically with specific models which you sell worldwide. Whilst posibly a stroke off genius from a supply chain perspective, the fact that it was literally last years model (possibly remanufactured from parts of returned phones) with a plastic case is just a bit too blatant a proposition, even as an Apple fan.

To make the 5c sell...
By kmmatney on 3/18/2014 12:02:03 AM , Rating: 2
If they gave the 5C a 5" screen, it would fly off the shelves.

RE: To make the 5c sell...
By lawrance on 3/18/2014 12:49:33 PM , Rating: 2
Not if they had a superior 5" version for another $100. I think it would be the same boat.

If I wanted a plastic phone...
By lawrance on 3/17/2014 11:34:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'd buy a Samdung.

"Young lady, in this house we obey the laws of thermodynamics!" -- Homer Simpson

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki