Posts by BjornofKelp 3 publicly visible posts • joined 16 Nov 2012
While I'm in no position to speak for the company in any way, you might also consider that, as a company based in the US, there might be more of an element of "Fixing up the homestead first" going on than your proposed "These guys are inherently worth more" angle. That is my first thought, at least.
"...pricing against the shift of growth towards entry level smartphones has been present for two years or more. It has not been convincingly addressed. The iPhone 5c was an attempt..."
HOW? How, in any light, was the 5c any kind of attempt at a lower priced phone?
(Note: I'm going to use US dollars for this post, because that's where I live and see the market. Numbers may vary from wherever you are, but I doubt the trend will.)
Sure, it cost $100 less, but that's no different than in previous years. In case someone wasn't paying attention, here's what I mean: When the iPhone 4 came out, the 3GS dropped to cost $100 less than the 4 did, for the same capacity. A year or so later, the release of the 4s shifted the 4 to selling for $100 less than a same-sized (GB) 4s. Ditto when the 5 came out, relative to the 4s.
What changed with the 5c? NOTHING, practically. Oh, yes, it was a "new" model, sure, but only in the same way that, say, Honda coming out with a new variant of the same-year Accord could be counted as a "new model of car."
The iPhone 5c is almost identical to the iPhone 5, as far as the computing portion goes. Furthermore, the iPhone 5 was discontinued at the time, or at least I never saw them selling again, and Apple removed them from it's iPhone store online. With the iPhone 4s still listed, I'm pretty secure in my statement.
Essentially, Apple repackaged the 5 and called it new again. But, did this "new" phone sell for a new, cheaper than ever (relatively) price? Nope. Both on contract, a new iPhone 5s costs $199, while a new iPhone 5c costs $99. Or, $649 vs $549, sans contract.
So, again I ask: How, in any way, is that an attempt at addressing a lower cost market? They didn't do anything differently than in years past, except to have changed the package the last-gen model came in.
Everyone BSs you and me about this stuff. Here's what I mean:
Nexus S vs Infuse 4G - Current situation.
Infuse runs Gingerbread as of April. Official, legit, no hacks/roots/nada. TouchWiz because it's Sammy, and so on.
Nexus S now has JellyBean available. Also legit and official. No Touchwiz, even though it's Sammy too, since it's the Nexus brand.
Both have 512MB RAM, and Hummingbird Cortex A8 processors, but the Infuse has a 1.2Ghz while the Nexus S is a 1.0Ghz.
In reality, the other specs of the phones have no relevance to the question of compatibility and power for the OS version. That leaves us with a clear reason why the older phones get left behind: $$$$$
All the carriers want you to buy a new phone every whenever-you-sneeze, because that's more money for them, either through cancellation fees, non-subsidized purchases, or contract-extensions. The phone makers want it, too, because that's more $ for them also.
Why would the combined might of AT&T and Samsung, or Verizon and Motorola, or whoever you care to think about, want me to be able to easily upgrade my early 2011 phone to Jelly Bean, or even ICS, when they've got their precious Galaxy S Eleventy, Droid Razr Super HemiMax H3D to sell you on?
No, this is one area where Apple has it right. Apple controls its hardware, and the carriers bow to Jobspawn. What Google needs to do to kill fragmentation is implement a policy something like this:
"All phones of XYZ minimum specs (mostly CPU & RAM defined) must have an official upgrade available for users to install that will update the device to the new OS version within three (3) months of the version's official release date."
Then there needs to be some sort of penalty for non-compliance.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
