Analyst: New low-cost iPhone based on ‘retooled’ iPhone 4 awaiting green light at Apple

“A low-cost iPhone is awaiting approval at Apple, and could be launched in 2013, according to new reports,” Ashleigh Allsopp reports for Macworld UK.

“Jefferies analyst Peter Misek said in a research note on Monday that the cheaper iPhone could be offered at a $200 to $250 price point unsubsidised,” Allsopp reports, “which could translate to around £200 here in the UK.”

Allsopp reports, “Misek says that the low-cost iPhone is just waiting to be given the green light by Apple.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: What do you think, is it time for Apple to move downmarket?

52 Comments

    1. Apple has already moved “downmarket ” with the zero upfront cost (with a contract) of the iPhone 4.

      The iPhone 4 represents 2 year old technology, and if breakdown firms are accurate has ~50% gross margins. That means Apple’ cost to make one is ~$240. Retooling will only add cost to such a ‘low cost’ unit.

      With a PT of $250 where does Apple profit from addressing the bottom feeder market?

      Using sales from iTunes might be one way to profit with a ‘no profit’ handset, except for two things: bottom feeders don’t buy anything, and such a business model doesn’t fit with Apple’s DNA (hasn’t done well with Amazon either).

      Apple is not looking to address the low priced spread, rather they are going to continue to produce handsets that everybody wants. For sure Apple isn’t interested in unit market share, they are #2 worldwide, with #1 share in profits. Profits people, that’s where it’s at at, it’s what makes it possible for Apple to produce what they do.

    1. ‘THEY make a profit’ but they will dilute the other lines and Apple will join the other companies in the race to the bottom with the focus on market share rather than profits.

      Dell still makes a profit but . . .

    2. yea they make a profit…

      the tech inside an iPhone 4 (even with a few updates), would be cheaper to make than in iPhone 5… and the components should be cheaper as well…

      1. Just put the latest cpu into the iPod 4S body and of course use the smaller Lighting connector.
        1. Not everyone wants or needs the latest “widescreen” iPhone.
        2. Apple wants the Lightning connector on as many devices as possible.
        3. In six months Apple really shouldn’t be selling any gizmos with the old iPod connector.

  1. Maybe as soon as TSMC is online and Apple wants the ding Samsung. Although, this maybe for the emerging markets where Apple’s price point is higher and expand the Eco system. That would hurt Samsung more as the iPhone and Apps would expand into markets that are now safe. Even cutting profit and production.

    Green light that phone in Asia, Central / south America, and Europe.

  2. Apple will not hurt its sales of the premium models by doing so … The only one to suffer will be Samsung as there will be no reason to settle for a knockoff when the real thing is available at the same price… Albeit an older model … But I would buy a brand new last years model BMW at the same price as this years new Suzuki …

      1. unsubsidized. If that was a subsidized price, it would be more expensive than current iPhone 4S prices.

        Thanks for explaining what subsidized means, except it is totally different than a mortgage.

        1. It can be spelled with a z or an s. Look it up. And no, I wasn’t suggesting that it is literally a mortgage. Just the same basic idea- you don’t own the property in question, until you’ ve completely paid for it. And the 4 is that much. The 4s is still 500 and the 5 even higher.

    1. It’s free in America and some other countries where buying on contract is the norm, but there is a bit more world beyond the US and in many countries, the customer buys the phone outright and then pays for usage as they use it.

      For the pay as you go sector, the cost of buying an Apple phone outright is pretty high, but that market is huge. If Apple can find a way to sell a phone profitably in that market, it will do very well.

      Such a phone wouldn’t cannibalise Apple’s market because Apple is much less prominent in PAYG operations, it would simply mean additional customers for Apple who would otherwise have bought from rivals.

  3. A good way to introduce new people to the whole ecosystem when they would probably not see it otherwise. Next, as finances permit, it would be a current iPhone, then an iPad, the an iMac. I’ve seen it happen many times.

  4. A big NO for me. One sale of a low cost iPhone is one lost sale of a regular iPhone. Its not like people arent willing o pony up. We lose our luxury status in other parts of the world, our premier branding. Most of all we lose our profits. It’s about profit per handset not market share, remember folks?

    All Tim Cook needs to worry about is cranking enough regular iPhones to meet the demand, not create a new product category.

  5. “We make tools for these kinds of people.
    While some see them as the crazy ones, we see genius. Because the people who are crazy enough to think they can change the world, are the ones who do.”

    Getting better tech into the hands of more people only makes things better. (:

  6. I don’t think it will cut into higher end iPhone sales too much. 1) people on family plans don’t benefit as much from switching to no-contact plans 2) most Americans are too stupid to realize they could save anyway so they won’t understand why people are “paying the same for a cheaper phone. 3) People want to latest, faster, most storage even when they don’t need it just for atatus. 4) I’m still rockin my unlocked 3gs and will for some time to come. A $200 unlocked option might make me upgrade more often.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.