iPhone 5c + 5s require 'nano sim'. What will be next? I still remember using a full size sim card (the left one here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/GSM_SIM_... )
This is nothing new, as the 5 also takes a nano SIM.
iPhone 5c
121–130 of 184 posts
Re: iPhone 5c
#122Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having owned a Nexus 4, it is really no comparison to the build quality of an iphone 4/5. It has amazing innards and the best mobile OS, but the case is cheap and fragile.
While this is somewhat subjective, you cannot be talking about the Nexus 4. There is nothing cheap about its case. And this is somewhat bizarre when we're talking about a device that you've never touched (the iPhone 5c), which we already know is made of the much reviled plastic.
I own a Nexus 4, and there is: the backside. It scratches very, very easily. Plus (even though this is anedoctal), it appears to crack just as easily if dropped. That was absolutely not the case with my old iPhone 4.
The front glass is fine, but the back is crap.
Re: iPhone 5c
#123Time will tell, but for the sake of argument: at c. $550 for the unsubsidised version this is a very high price point for the "iPhone for emerging markets" argument. I'm just very curious to see the market expansion with this "lower" tier model.
I think this lineup may backfire. People with a 4S wanting to upgrade will probably opt for the coloured, cheaper version. People who previously wouldn't have bought the iPhone because too expensive (mostly in Europe where subsidized planes aren't always available) won't buy it now anyway because the 5c is in the same ballpark of the 5s. They have basically introduced a cheaper alternative to old customers.
I doubt Apple will be at all upset if people flock to the 5C, for which they still get $550 apiece, made from cheaper components than the iPhone 5 that they otherwise would have been selling at that price point.
Re: iPhone 5c
#124Earlier quoted context omitted.
The price gap is in a way even worse subsidized because it is still just a $100 discount up front but the same price per month for the same contract length for a lesser phone. The 5C doesn't make much sense to me beyond people that really want more choice in the color of their phone.
Most people don't consider the true cost of a phone contract. They're only truly considering the up front cost - and a mid-range phone "costs half". It's really hard to get the average smartphone buyer to understand the price isn't $100 vs $200, but really $2500 vs $2600 over two years.
In the USA, considering the true cost of a phone contract is rather pointless because you can't get a contract that discounts monthly cost by buying the phone up front. You're going to pay the $2500 either way.
Re: iPhone 5c
#125iPhone 5c + 5s require 'nano sim'. What will be next? I still remember using a full size sim card (the left one here: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e0/GSM_SIM_... )
This is nothing new, as the 5 also takes a nano SIM.
Thanks for the info, I am obviously far behind ...
Re: iPhone 5c
#126Lots of disappointment on iphone 5c pricing, here is my theory. I think iphone 5c was never intended to match prices of android phones, it was created to allow Apple to expand its market share in Chinese market. From what is suggested in media, one of the reason Apple had a hard time getting China Mobile on board, was the high cost of subsidizing flag ship iphones. By creating a mid tier phone Apple may have been abl…
This idea is also supported by the livestreams available to an Asian audience.
Re: iPhone 5c
#127Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's basically for the American market. The after-provider-subsidy price difference will appear humongous, and consumers aren't rational about provider subsidies.
I think it is kind of a bummer that Apple is going this route. It will be too bad if people get their first smartphone because it is $100 instead of $200, but fail to realize that they are changing their 2-year mobile phone expenses from ~$1200 to ~$2400. Illogically though, I suspect I would have less of a problem with what they are doing if they priced the 5s starting at $300.
Where do you get a change from $1200 to $2400?
The monthly plans cost the same, so the 5S versus 5C will cost you roughly $2300 versus $2400 over two years.
Re: iPhone 5c
#128Now with fingerprint sensor, so when the NSA politely asks Apple for it, they'll be able to send them your fingerprints, a log of all activity and voice print (siri). Such a cool technology (harder to steal phones), just wish it didn't come with this catch.
Send all your fingerprints? How many fingers do you need to unlock your phone?
I'd actually want it to have at least several fingerprints. Fingers get injured, bandaged, [shudder] removed...
Re: iPhone 5c
#129There's a feeling of déjà vu about this product approach. Take yesteryear's technology, repackage it in a safe design that follows trends established by others, sell for a price that is more than twice what the competitors charge because, hey, you're Apple and your customers will happily pay for your increasing margins. At least this time around, the MBAs didn't get to name it "iPhone Performa 551c".
Certainly your comment evokes deja vu -- same old criticism of Apple that is based on tired old characterizations from 15 years ago. I don't think there are any competitive phones available for half the price (there are certainly inferior phones available for half the price). I do think it's priced a bit high. I'm surprised it's not $50-100 cheaper. Maybe they have iPhone 4S inventory to get rid of (I don't understan…
It's the kind of vintage criticism that didn't generally apply to products that Apple made in 2002-12.
Look at the iPod nano. When it came out, it replaced the very popular iPod mini with a completely different design and internals, and the price was part of the surprise. It certainly didn't leave room for comments like "same old tech sold at higher margin, safe design borrowed from Samsung, twice the price of the Samsung Yepp."
Re: iPhone 5c
#130Earlier quoted context omitted.
I was thinking exactly that. I don't think Jobs with his extreme perfectionism would've let this come out to the market. It's so "un-Apple".
There we go again with the Jobs reference.
Just because it's been done before in a silly fashion doesn't mean this case is silly. You need something more detailed than just "People have talked about Jobs before about completely different things, so your reference is wrong."