Would Apple really make an iPhone mini?

[xendula]

I would totally get a tiny tiny iPhone. My 4G iPad is literally attached to my hip anyway, so I just need an iOs or Android device that I can put music and some select apps (Overdrive, tunein) on and that I can take running with me without a wristwallet to put it in. I find phone screens too small to browse or read on anyway.

[forsooth]

iNano phone
iPod phone
iMini phone
iPhone Mini
iAir phone
Airphone

[Ti-Ron]

Iphone mini? I don't know, but an iWatch... maybe:
http://crave.cnet.co.uk/accessories/...ntel-50010069/

Should be able to connect it (via bluetooth) to answer your phone (iPhone, for sure) or check your sms without using your actual phone!

P.S. Sony already have one in the process: http://www.sonymobile.com/gb/product...es/smartwatch/

[WillysJeepMan]

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Apple can easily afford to lose market share...
...as long as they're racking up a cool billion a month in net profit.

Marketshare is a significant component of corporate profits. It's actually the silent killer... because once the erosion of marketshare is noticed it becomes too late to address it.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

There are plenty of successful, influential, and *profitable* companies who live off niche products. There are also a lot of irrelevant money-losing niche vendors. "Niche product" is a not an insult the way "poorly run company" is.

Originally Posted by fjtorres

Check the history of Palm Computing (if you're not familiar with it) for a case study of how the blind pursuit of market share can destroy a company.

Short version: they focused on high volume/low margin connected organizers while MS focused on corporate Pocket computers and cherry-picked the best (read:affluent) customers. At one point, Palm had 70% market share and zero profits while PocketPC had 30% unit share and 100% of the profits.

You see Palm's story as a case study about blindly pursuing marketshare, I see it as a cautionary tale about resting on marketshare. By that I'm referring to the hubris that comes with market dominance. I've been a software developer for over 30 years and during the 2000's had the opportunity to get into "pocket computing" and had corporate interaction with the various players. Very interesting and exciting times.

[forsooth]

I want 1 that fits on ear like Bluetooth receiver

[SeaKing]

The question is would Apple make an iPhone Mini?

I think the questions has been already answered.
The answer is the same as to the question:

Would Apple make an iPad Mini?

The answer is YES
and again YES!

[HansTWN]

Once they go down that road they lose most of their advantages --- economies of scale in manufacturing and components sourcing, simple stock planning for devices and spare parts, no cannibalization of one of their product lines by other products they make, etc. It will also be a challenge for app developers to deal with different screen sizes.

Then again, what choice do they have? Either they introduce different models or they will face steadily declining market share.

[HansTWN]

deleted

[SeaKing]

There is an old saying on the water.

"Fish or cut bait."

In truth, you have to do both.

You fish with the bait you cut. You can't stop doing either one
or the whole process stops.

Unless Apple can come up with a great new magical thing, they will have to just tweak the parameters of the devices they have and sell them to the same old crowd of customers but that will get old.

So even if they can't get a great new magical thing, they might be able to bring in a not so great or new but still different thing that will be magical to a brand new crowd of customers.

[DuckieTigger]

SeaKing, that is what I am thinking. If they had a new magic thing, they would already be making it. Or at least hype everybody up already.

New brand recognition: iBabybottle with free download of some baby books from the iBooks store (start 'em young)

[Ti-Ron]

The new magical thing is the Apple branded TV, isn't it?

Maybe they will move fast since STEAM annonced that:

[ApK]

Originally Posted by SeaKing

"Fish or cut bait."

In truth, you have to do both.

No, you can fish while some one else cuts bait, or you can cut bait for someone else to fish with.

The point of that saying is 'Either step up and be in active ("lead"), or at least do something useful ("follow").' Otherwise you'd just be in the way. ("...or get out of the way.")

It is often confused with the dichotomy of "do or don't" as in the expression "P!$$ or get off the pot."

ApK

[kennyc]

Lead, follow or get out of the way. Tim? Tim? can you hear me Tim?

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by WillysJeepMan

You see Palm's story as a case study about blindly pursuing marketshare, I see it as a cautionary tale about resting on marketshare. By that I'm referring to the hubris that comes with market dominance.

That's not quite as I remember it; what I remember are the repeated comments of the Palm execs insisting they would *not* yield any market share to Microsoft and they would always be way cheaper.

And they kept on doing it after PocketPC was eating their lunch and dinner with the mutimedia features and color displays. They kept on sending out B&W $199 organizers to do battle with $499 Pocket commputers and braging about their marketshare even as their losses piled up. "We're still the leaders!"
(shrug)

I also remember a comment from Bill Gates about Microsoft understanding their 90%-plus DOS marketshare was something of an oddity and that they didn't seek that kind of domination everywhere, that they just wanted to do as well as they could in a given market segment. If that meant 90% fine and dandy--it it meant 30%, so be it, too. Implied in that being that as long as they remained relevant to the market and made a profit they would fight but they wouldn't be wasting time and effort just to make a statement.

In well-run businesses, pragmatism trumps "High-minded principle".

With the iPhone I can more easily see an iWatch than an iPhone mini and not just because the iPhone4 *is* effectively a mini already. It's just that if we look at the Pod-line, the models aren't just different-sized versions of the same product; the have differet features and usage models.

The original iPod was "all your music in the palm of your hand" while the Shuffle is "load up a playlist for a workout".

Similarly the iPad is more of a in-house media consumption device than it is a giant iPhone. Even the iPad Mini profiles differently (more as an eReader than a media device).

So anybody that wants to make a case for a 3in iPhone first needs to identify a rationale other than "cheaper". Especially since Apple is already doing cheaper iPhones.

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by DuckieTigger

On the other hand, Apple cannot afford to lose market share either. Soon the iPhone is going to be a niche product. If you cannot compete with features, you are going to have to compete with price. If you are not willing to do that, then you might hope that clever advertising is going to drag new customers and keep old ones in the ever more expensive growing iLifestye (compared to continuously improving and cheaper alternatives).

A rebuff from Apple:

Apple has denied that it is considering increasing its market share and beating off competitors with a cheaper iPhone.

Rumours went around earlier this week that the fruity firm was getting a cheap mobile ready for market, but marketing chief Phil Schiller told a Chinese newspaper that Apple was doing no such thing.

"We are not like other companies, launching multiple products at once and hoping that one of them becomes popular with consumers," Schiller told the Shanghai Evening News ...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01..._cheap_iphone/