What (some) people want is not a low-priced iPhone <i>on contract</i>, or even free on contract; they want a cheap (i)Phone available <i>sans</i> contract.<p>I want a cheap iPhone available without contract, because:<p>- I don't want a contract<p>- I tend to break things (me or my kids) and want the freedom of being able to buy a new device without asking anyone if they would be so kind as to subsidize it, or having bought "insurance", or having to pay north of $600 for the privilege!<p>So, if 3GS is the device for the lower-end of the market, fine: just sell it at an acceptable price with no contract.
Well, that's a fairly obnoxious article.<p><i>And even those spitting with fury at the disappointment will glance with envy at the guy who in a meeting quietly asks Siri to order him coffee for the lunchtime break.</i><p>Really? I think it's far more likely people will glance with annoyance at the guy <i>talking</i> to his phone PA app during a meeting. There are a lot of good use cases for smart voice input, none of them take place in a meeting.
I'm not sure how relevant it is that Apple's move in the lower cost market was letting the iPhone 3GS drift down rather than introducing a specific model.<p>My view on why they've done it this way is that they've retained a clear visual deliniation between the higher end iPhone 4s and the low end 3GS. No-one who has a 4 or a 4S is going to be annoyed that they guy with the cheap iPhone looks like he's got the same thing as they have.<p>That comes with the downside of making the cheaper model a slightly tougher sell - it's visibly "old" - but that's Apple protecting their key market, the high end stuff.<p>But it will be interesting to see how the cheap [1] 3GS performs commercially against more modern Android phones in the same price bracket. Will Apple's brand have people going "wow, I can get an iPhone" or will people be saying "I don't want a two / three year old phone regardless of who makes it".<p>Obviously the attitude will vary from person to person but it will be an interesting test of Apple's name value to see if it can give a boost to older hardware.[2]<p>[1] I say cheap not free as it's free on a relatively pricey contract.<p>[2] I'm not running the 3GS down - I have one in my pocket right now, it's my primary phone, just it is older hardware and I think over the next 12 months will begin to show it's age more and more.
"The equivalent of Aston Martin releasing a competitor to the smartcar." Sorry, but I need to LMAO here. Please meet the Aston Martin Cygnet: <a href="http://www.cygnet-astonmartin.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.cygnet-astonmartin.com/</a>
Emerging countries don't have contracts. So making it free on a 2 year plan isn't the same as targeting emerging markets. Its the cost of the unlocked phone that would matter. I would also argue paying 70-80$ a month for a phone plan isn't exactly "low end" .<p>For comparison, I got a Galaxy S(captivate) phone for free when I renewed my contract a year ago.
" The equivalent of Aston Martin releasing a competitor to the smartcar."<p>Hmmm.... <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_Cygnet" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aston_Martin_Cygnet</a>
Bad example. I know the underlying motivation for Aston wasn't to compete with Smartcar, but that's what they released nonetheless.
<i>And, quite frankly, the iPhone 4 is probably years ahead in features, quality and design than the equivalently-priced Android, Nokia, or RIM device.</i><p>I don't understand how one can write this.
><i>"Apple is all about the brand. About image. About quality."</i><p>That's what makes Siri such a concern.<p>When was the last time Apple released a <i>beta</i> product? Have they been hiring too many Googlers?<p>Or, given that "Siri" alledgedly sounds like slang for buttocks according to today's interwebs, bought an outside technology and didn't immediately rebrand it to sound Apple like?
I think they still need to release an iPhone Nano for the masses. The iPod was big, but the moment Apple brought out the iPod Mini, the iPod went mainstream, because it became affordable.<p>Apple needs to do the same for the iPhone...
I think it's a great move by Apple to make the 3gs seem free because it says the following:<p>1. 3gs owners: it's time to upgrade to the 4/4s (that's me)<p>2. It'll burn down existing stocks a lot faster. What was more valuable, an HP TouchPad in production or an HP TouchPad when the production was stopped?<p>3. Parents who have an iPhone will be able to get their kids one on the cheap, thus reclaiming ownership of the ir own phone. This also indoctrinates the child into the world of the iPhone, a strategy Apple has pursued with all of its products since the very beginning.<p>4. Lastly: get the phone into the hands of a holdout, at least on a trial basis, and hope for an upgrade after a couple of months, if not the same day in-store.<p>Market share is very important to Apple as it bears on their bottom line and while not compromising on quality (low-end iphone) they can still get a portion of that share by unloading old 3gs stock and maybe even removing 1 & 2 stock still out there in the wild that does nothing to promote present-day Apple products. Walk into any of their stores with an ugly piece of hardware and they'll try hard enough to get you to hand it over.