iPhone SE

[poofyhairguy]

Any phone maker outside Apple would kill their mother for the sales figures of the "5C is epic fail" meme.

That doesn't mean anything though. Flop is a relative term. A big budget picture can make $20 million (when they expected $60) opening weekend, and an art film can make $2 million (when they expected $1 million) and the big budget picture is the flop based on expectations alone. Flop has always been a relative term, I am sure some Chinese phone maker out there would love to have freaking Fire Phone sales numbers if you are being pedantic about it.

The 5C was meant to be a big deal, it was meant to be a way to get an iPhone to a new class/market of customer. It was designed to compete with Android in the developing world trenches and it seemed to be intended to be the start of a product line given the hype, effort and design put into it. Ive doesn't get so excited about a one off iPod shuffle.

But then the sales didn't live up to expectations and the C got commonly associated with "cheap." By all rational expectations both from Apple and the journalist community the phone was a flop. And Apple learned from it, because I believe we wouldn't have seen a $10,000 Apple Watch without that failure. Apple learned to stop chasing marketshare and to chase margin instead.

I HATE the argument that anything Apple does is a ok because compared to any single Android OEM the profits/sales/etc. are still massive. That doesn't tell the whole story, or even part of the story when the majority of smartphones sold run Android. That line of thinking is how you justify dumbass opinions like "Apple might as well have invented the smartwatch" or "Apple popularized a large screen phone."

Bonus round: We also now know the Apple Watch isn't very successful too after Monday. Why?

Because when was the last time Apple dropped the price on a mobile product without having a successor?

The last I can think of is the iPhone 1 and that was a long time ago. This might be the first time since then Apple misjudged the market and demand, and therefore has to dial back expectations on wearables (even it they did sell millions more than any other smartwatch maker blah blah blah). Unlike laughing at the disgusting looking 5C, I am sad the Apple Watch flopped because I had hopes it would drive an economy of scale in wearables that we may never get now. And that sucks, I want a better and cheaper smartwatch.

 

[slackerinabox]

That doesn't mean anything though. Flop is a relative term. A big budget picture can make $20 million (when they expected $60) opening weekend, and an art film can make $2 million (when they expected $1 million) and the big budget picture is the flop based on expectations alone. Flop has always been a relative term, I am sure some Chinese phone maker out there would love to have freaking Fire Phone sales numbers if you are being pedantic about it.

The 5C was meant to be a big deal, it was meant to be a way to get an iPhone to a new class/market of customer. It was designed to compete with Android in the developing world trenches and it seemed to be intended to be the start of a product line given the hype, effort and design put into it. Ive doesn't get so excited about a one off iPod shuffle.

But then the sales didn't live up to expectations and the C got commonly associated with "cheap." By all rational expectations both from Apple and the journalist community the phone was a flop. And Apple learned from it, because I believe we wouldn't have seen a $10,000 Apple Watch without that failure. Apple learned to stop chasing marketshare and to chase margin instead.

I HATE the argument that anything Apple does is a ok because compared to any single Android OEM the profits/sales/etc. are still massive. That doesn't tell the whole story, or even part of the story when the majority of smartphones sold run Android. That line of thinking is how you justify dumbass opinions like "Apple might as well have invented the smartwatch" or "Apple popularized a large screen phone."

Bonus round: We also now know the Apple Watch isn't very successful too after Monday. Why?

Because when was the last time Apple dropped the price on a mobile product without having a successor?

The last I can think of is the iPhone 1 and that was a long time ago. This might be the first time since then Apple misjudged the market and demand, and therefore has to dial back expectations on wearables (even it they did sell millions more than any other smartwatch maker blah blah blah). Unlike laughing at the disgusting looking 5C, I am sad the Apple Watch flopped because I had hopes it would drive an economy of scale in wearables that we may never get now. And that sucks, I want a better and cheaper smartwatch.

Why are people so hung up on the sales under performance of the 5c? Every good company has some failures among the success... Stop beating a dead horse

 

[foghorn67]

This will probably be popular in the corporate world. I can see myself buying these to issue out.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Why are people so hung up on the sales under performance of the 5c? Every good company has some failures among the success... Stop beating a dead horse

Because its fun to judge Apple by crazy standards but everyone else is "oh you failed so hard it's A-OK because you ain't Apple!"

 

[poofyhairguy]

Why are people so hung up on the sales under performance of the 5c? Every good company has some failures among the success... Stop beating a dead horse

It's relevant because this new phone pretty much confirmed the 5C was a flop beyond any reasonable doubt. And quite frankly I was just explaining why it is considered a flop, if you already accept that than most of that post isn't speaking to you. I was speaking to someone who would still try to deny it despite the evidence Monday presented.

As far as the Apple Watch being a flop, again we didn't really have confirmation until the price drop on Monday at the same event this phone was announced at. Unless we want another thread just on how the Apple Watch is a flop I think that is also relevant to discuss here.

404 Dead Horse Not Found

 

[openwheel]

Becausets amusing to see the same people defending 5C and Apple Watch like Ammon Bundy protects Malheur National Wild Life Refuge.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Because its fun to judge Apple by crazy standards but everyone else is "oh you failed so hard it's A-OK because you ain't Apple!"

I judge Apple by their own standards. If the iPhone 5C was a success we wouldn't need this SE because they would have kept shoving new guts in the 5C. If the Apple Watch was a huge success then Apple wouldn't be lowering the prices prior to releasing a new model. The only reason to lower a price in the middle of a product cycle is to increase demand.

I don't see the point of judging Apple by the standards of other companies when their business decisions are going to be based only on their own expectations.

 

[senseamp]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bfktt22nUG4

 

[RossMAN]

/skimmed thread

Will the SE be LTE band friendly, in particular T-Mobile's band 12?

 

[beginner99]

At the same time, if size were really such a decider, Sony's compact line should have been a runaway success. Premium specs in a small package; didn't sell very well.

No idea if true but I considered Sony. However the compacts ones don't have premium specs. z5c has 720p screen at 4.6" so not great. It's the same as my 3 year old phone and at that size 1080p has some benefits. The main issue with sony however for me are on-screen buttons and their terrible UI. On-screen buttons reduce your screen-size. Add to that that Sony phones already are rather tall compared to their screensize. I applaud Samsung here. The lower bezel must be there anyway so why not but some real buttons there? You get more out of the same screen size.

 

[slackerinabox]

It's relevant because this new phone pretty much confirmed the 5C was a flop beyond any reasonable doubt. And quite frankly I was just explaining why it is considered a flop, if you already accept that than most of that post isn't speaking to you. I was speaking to someone who would still try to deny it despite the evidence Monday presented.

As far as the Apple Watch being a flop, again we didn't really have confirmation until the price drop on Monday at the same event this phone was announced at. Unless we want another thread just on how the Apple Watch is a flop I think that is also relevant to discuss here.

404 Dead Horse Not Found

Why do you get worked up about such silly shit? People define failure differently - if the "failure" of the 5c lead to the eventual success of the SE then, well, that's just how trial and error works. It's an exhausting and kinda old argument, and seems rather counter production - you may view selling millions of a product as failure, someone else might view it as the normal road to success (you know, we blew up a few rockets before getting to the moon). 5c sucks advocates just seem to have their panties in a wad.

 

[gorcorps]

I judge Apple by their own standards. If the iPhone 5C was a success we wouldn't need this SE because they would have kept shoving new guts in the 5C. If the Apple Watch was a huge success then Apple wouldn't be lowering the prices prior to releasing a new model. The only reason to lower a price in the middle of a product cycle is to increase demand.

I don't see the point of judging Apple by the standards of other companies when their business decisions are going to be based only on their own expectations.

Eh, I think you can go either way with the data at hand based on your own biases. I would argue that if they 5C was such a failure they wouldn't bother with a cheap phone ever again. Clearly it did well enough to try again, even if it's quite different than the last one (which isn't surprising, it's been a few years since that one). Apple critics will look for the bad, and Apple fans will look for the good.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Why do you get worked up about such silly shit? People define failure differently - if the "failure" of the 5c lead to the eventual success of the SE then, well, that's just how trial and error works.

It matters because the 5C was created to target a very specific market, a market Apple obviously doesn't want to chase anymore. The 5C as a product isn't relevant anymore, but what markets Apple is willing it chase is very relevant.

The 5C wasn't a speedbump on the path to success. The entire path the 5C was on (to the developing world) was not a success.

Eh, I think you can go either way with the data at hand based on your own biases. I would argue that if they 5C was such a failure they wouldn't bother with a cheap phone ever again. Clearly it did well enough to try again, even if it's quite different than the last one (which isn't surprising, it's been a few years since that one). Apple critics will look for the bad, and Apple fans will look for the good.

It is more than quite different, the SE is based on the premium phone (the 5) that the 5C was meant to be a cheaper version of. Even if the SE is a "cheap" iPhone today, its intent is obviously not to go after the developing world like the 5C was supposed to or Apple would have used the 5C shell instead (it would have been just as hard to shove all that in the 5C shell as the 5 shell). Any metal phone is more expensive to make.

Dancing on the grave of the 5C might be fun but it isn't relevant. What is relevant is that this device is meant to serve the clients Apple already has, not go chase new customers in parts of the world with less money. That is a clear pivot to Apple strategies that seemed clear before but is now crystal clear. Apple just wants to be a luxury product, even with the cheap models- the developing world can enjoy its Android and they don't care. That matters as we try to extrapolate what they will do next, and how they will handle themselves in a market that is soon to be saturated with smartphones.

On the flipside the Apple Watch price cut shows us the upper limit of Apple as a luxury brand.

 

[Eug]

???

I consider the SE a direct replacement to the 5C.

 

[Rakehellion]

???

I consider the SE a direct replacement to the 5C.

Why are people so hung up on the 5C? That was two generations ago.

Th 5C is a replacement for the 4S, the 5s was a replacement for the 5C.

 

[poofyhairguy]

???

I consider the SE a direct replacement to the 5C.

Really?

It is the "cheap" iPhone but $500 is still towards the high-end of smartphones in 2016. Plus the fact that it still uses premium materials means I don't see it eventually becoming a $400 or $300 smartphone like a plastic 5C could. The 5C was a non-flagship phone of non premium materials that could still have decent margins even at a very low price. It was created to get into a place like India, not appeal to your mom that loves a small smartphone.

The SE is obviously targeting a different market than the 5C. The 5C was Apple's marketshare play, the offering for the developing world. The SE is Apple's way of pleasing the customers it already has on its path to be a luxury brand. The distinction matters only because it shows us Apple has given up trying to make an affordable product for the developing world.

I mean I guess someone could argue this is meant to be a premium product for developing markets, I can see merit in that.

 

[vi edit]

The SE is obviously targeting a different market than the 5C. The 5C was Apple's marketshare play, the offering for the developing world. The SE is Apple's way of pleasing the customers it already has on its path to be a luxury brand. The distinction matters only because it shows us Apple has given up trying to make an affordable product for the developing world.

Some googling that I've been able to do shows the 5s user base still being almost 20% of the total iPhone market. Once you account for 5 and 5c users it's almost 1/3 of the iPhone market. With a market the size of Apples....that's a buttload of phones.

http://9to5mac.com/2016/03/21/iphone-se-4-inch-market-one-third/

I really do think the SE will sell well with those that were holding out for something small and not totally gimped. These aren't people that need a fancy phone to impress others. They just need a phone. Their current one is either beat up or they are short on space. Or the battery is starting to show wear after 3 years of cycling.

Between that consumer group and the corporate purchases I think this will sell very well. I would not be surprised if the 64GB version outsells the 16 in the consumer market and the 16gb is the standard in corporate.

 

[sweenish]

No idea if true but I considered Sony. However the compacts ones don't have premium specs. z5c has 720p screen at 4.6" so not great. It's the same as my 3 year old phone and at that size 1080p has some benefits. The main issue with sony however for me are on-screen buttons and their terrible UI. On-screen buttons reduce your screen-size. Add to that that Sony phones already are rather tall compared to their screensize. I applaud Samsung here. The lower bezel must be there anyway so why not but some real buttons there? You get more out of the same screen size.

iPhone 5 SE screen is 640p. I don't think 0.6" of screen difference would magically make 640p acceptable to you, then. 720p at under 5 inches is perfectly acceptable. I like how you think comparing the display (in resolution only) to what was shipping 3 years ago somehow justifies the argument. It's a smaller screen. The benefits of a higher resolution screen at such a small size are in the plateau range of diminishing returns. Might even be a negative given the extra battery strain on a device that already has a smaller battery.

The bottom bezel is there anyway? Sure it is, because Samsung sticks a physical button there. I'm not going to argue the whole on-screen vs. not for Android's navigation bar. I will say that it's not objective, so stop trying to make it objective. I'd rather have a speaker, myself. Can't really fit your capacitive buttons while having a speaker. I mean, you could, but then you get extra tall and awkward HTC-like design.

Sony's compact line has bezels that you think are too big? What about Apple?

I see no real counter arguments here. Sony's compact line does have premium specs, and you still didn't get one. You can forget to mention the SoC and RAM and camera all you want. Like I said, the 5 SE will sell based more on price than size.

Sony is a prime example that size is not this highly demanded thing. People think it is, but once they actually get a bigger phone, the majority adapt with no problems. Most people saying they don't want larger phones simply don't like the idea in theory, but have never tried it in practice.

 

[lopri]

I agree with poofyhairguy. The "c" moniker screamed cheap, crap, crippled, etc. And its introductory pricing was absurd. ($550 for 16 GB, iirc, basically $100 less than the 5s) It might have been successful if the price had been right, but the hindsight is 50/50.

 

[lopri]

It is the "cheap" iPhone but $500 is still towards the high-end of smartphones in 2016. Plus the fact that it still uses premium materials means I don't see it eventually becoming a $400 or $300 smartphone like a plastic 5C could. The 5C was a non-flagship phone of non premium materials that could still have decent margins even at a very low price. It was created to get into a place like India, not appeal to your mom that loves a small smartphone.

I disagree with this diagnosis, though. As I pointed out above, the 5c was $550 when it was out, just $100 below the new flagship, the 5s. Many at the time thought Apple was moving to maximize its margins on below-flagship tier by introducing the 5c instead of selling the vanilla 5 for $100 less than the 5s. I think the 5c could have been a success if it were priced right.

 

[blairharrington]

SE will be a huge hit for Apple.

 

[Eug]

Really?

It is the "cheap" iPhone but $500 is still towards the high-end of smartphones in 2016. Plus the fact that it still uses premium materials means I don't see it eventually becoming a $400 or $300 smartphone like a plastic 5C could. The 5C was a non-flagship phone of non premium materials that could still have decent margins even at a very low price. It was created to get into a place like India, not appeal to your mom that loves a small smartphone.

The SE is obviously targeting a different market than the 5C. The 5C was Apple's marketshare play, the offering for the developing world. The SE is Apple's way of pleasing the customers it already has on its path to be a luxury brand. The distinction matters only because it shows us Apple has given up trying to make an affordable product for the developing world.

I mean I guess someone could argue this is meant to be a premium product for developing markets, I can see merit in that.

It's US$399. While it is the replacement for the 5S, it is in a way also conceptual replacement for the 5C. It's a revamped phone at the bottom end of the Apple phone market, but they've smartened up and realized that they need decent performance and specs not only to appease the masses but also to ensure proper upgradability. This bodes well for future iPhone updates.

The odd one out now is the iPhone 6. I suspect what will happen is when Apple introduces the iPhone 7, they will delete the iPhone 6 completely, and replace it with the iPhone 6s, and keep the iPhone SE around. That way all iPhones will have (at least) 2 GB.

Yes, the SE does have aluminum, but it's also missing key features like TouchID 2 and Force Touch, which still puts it in the lower end for Apple. However, they've now updated it to include 2 GB RAM (for future upgrades) and Apple Pay.

Expect the iPad Air and the iPad mini 2 to be deleted next. That will purge the iPad lines of all 1 GB models. (The iPad mini 3 is already gone.)

 

[senseamp]

Most people still using the 4" iPhones are using them because they still work and they don't want to spend more money. Just because SE is out, doesn't mean they are going to throw out their iPhone 5S, to get one, not unless they break. My wife has a 5S, and she has zero interest in the SE.

 

[poofyhairguy]

I disagree with this diagnosis, though. As I pointed out above, the 5c was $550 when it was out, just $100 below the new flagship, the 5s. Many at the time thought Apple was moving to maximize its margins on below-flagship tier by introducing the 5c instead of selling the vanilla 5 for $100 less than the 5s. I think the 5c could have been a success if it were priced right.

Fair enough, I can't disagree with that.

The odd one out now is the iPhone 6. I suspect what will happen is when Apple introduces the iPhone 7, they will delete the iPhone 6 completely, and replace it with the iPhone 6s, and keep the iPhone SE around. That way all iPhones will have (at least) 2 GB.

I would rather have a SE over a 6 for sure.

 

[Rakehellion]

Most people still using the 4" iPhones are using them because they still work and they don't want to spend more money. Just because SE is out, doesn't mean they are going to throw out their iPhone 5S, to get one, not unless they break. My wife has a 5S, and she has zero interest in the SE.

But they might get one in a year or two when they drop their phones on the sidewalk.