There's a feeling of déjà vu about this product approach. Take yesteryear's technology, repackage it in a safe design that follows trends established by others, sell for a price that is more than twice what the competitors charge because, hey, you're Apple and your customers will happily pay for your increasing margins.
At least this time around, the MBAs didn't get to name it "iPhone Performa 551c".
You know, you are right. It is sad to see that Apple has no new ideas. I wonder if they will ever do something innovative again ?
I also wonder if Steve Jobs would ever put a fingerprint scanner in an iPhone, make a "Gold" iPhone or keep the same hardware design for 3 consecutive iphones.
The Gold iPhone actually looks tastefully done. However, I can't imagine even the great Jonny Ive making it out of a meeting with a job after presenting this to Steve Jobs as the future of Apple.
With this product alone, Apple has lost it's claim to good design.
We can also tell, from this hardware release, that Ive's redesigned IOS 7 was intended from the start to match the hideousness of the iPhone 5C as closely as possible.
The White iPhone 5C is OK (It's ridiculously expensive though), but the rest of those colors, and especially the cases, are bafflingly ugly.
I'm sure Apple will be successful as always, but if the world were just, the 5C would be a bigger flop than Microsoft's Surface RT.
I definitely think this is going to be a success. I don't actually doubt it.
The disappointment is that I usually look to Apple for inspiration, and lately, I don't feel it. I have been looking at other companies. Google and Tesla are increasingly inspiring me more often.
Lately, I feel more inspired by Nokia, than Apple, which is depressing to say the least.
Under Jobs Apple released many versions of the MacBook/Pro which had nearly the same external design. I'm not certain Jobs would have loved a gold iPhone, but I can imagine he'd have understood the business reasons for it, and it's not an unattractive device. He was large and in charge when they introduced the flower power iMac after all.
Innovation is a difficult thing to quantify, there wasn't likely to be an innovative step on these iPhones anymore than there was an innovative step to occur on the MacBook Air. The product line is now about absolute refinement. What's innovation? Having a 64bit processor in a phone is a new leap, but expected, but a massively improved motion tracker is innovative in it's own way.
Apple comes into new market segments/product rethinks on a very stretched out basis, from the iPod to the iPhone was a long period of time, they used that time to develop a product that was 'revolutionary' as it hit the market. They've not been in a hurry before, so why rush now? It wins them nothing, but could cost them everything.
I agree with you. Like I mentioned in another comment below, it is not that these phones are not going to be successful. They will be. For sure. And I understand Apple is a business.
My biggest problem with the latest form Cupertino is that I have not been able to find inspiration from their products. When I am looking for inspiration, Apple is simply not there anymore for me. It might for other people.
I guess the feeling that I am looking for when I am talking about "Innovation" is "Awe", "Inspiration", "Excitement". That is not there anymore when looking at Apple products.
This doesn't mean that these phone will be less successful, or worse than their previous counterparts. What it does mean, is that I will not be looking to Apple for inspiration in the future. I'll looking more to Google and Tesla.
Google Glass for starters. Self Driving Cars as a good second. Then we also have the ChromeCast and ChromeOS.
And Apple didn't use to iterate over existing concepts. They were actually innovative. The iPhone for one. It created a pocket sized computer that can also make calls. Some people might think that There were others doing that before, but they weren't. Every other "Smartphone" before the iPhone was a Super Phone.
But I do acknowledge that there is no real innovation out of thin air. All innovations stand on the shoulders of others. This is all a matter of distance. How much distance is there between a Palm Treo and the iPhone? That is where innovations hits.
The new iPhone 5S has a very small distance compared to the Galaxy 4 for example. Apple is a company that has been really good at releasing innovations that are far from current technologies. Lately that gap is very very small.
Google Glass is a follow on from previous work, and self driving cars have been a DARPA challenge for at least 8 years. They're not massively innovative except in the context of being refined to a honed product.
The iPhone was innovative because it packaged existing concepts in a way that was inntuitive to use, previous smartphones (and I had many) were often the opposite of that. Apple still doesn't radically enter a product category on that regular a basis, I imagine next year or after we may see them do it again.
That is right. That is why Google and Tesla are so inspiring for me. Even thought the idea for Glass is not new, they way Google solved it is. I know it is not ready, but it is still an amazing idea.
Fingerprint readers have been out for a while for the desktop and hasn't taken off. Some laptops have a sensor as well, and I know few companies that actually use it. I don't see it as an important milestone.
But to be fair it is innovative because of the size and form factor. But I expected more from Apple.
Yes.... I still don't see what "3 consecutive phones" is referring to. Apple has generally kept the same physical design for two consecutive models before changing it, and that still holds.
Yes you are right.. I was mostly considering the iPhone 4, 4S and 5 as 3 different models. But I agree. It is more like 2 (4 & 5). Considering the iPhone 5C is a quite different.
Certainly your comment evokes deja vu -- same old criticism of Apple that is based on tired old characterizations from 15 years ago. I don't think there are any competitive phones available for half the price (there are certainly inferior phones available for half the price).
I do think it's priced a bit high. I'm surprised it's not $50-100 cheaper. Maybe they have iPhone 4S inventory to get rid of (I don't understand why they're keeping an old phone with obsolete cables and screen format around otherwise).
I am a big fan of the Nexus 4, but it is objectively inferior: it lacks LTE, battery life is probably far worse, and it has worse screen than 5c (just look at the screen in sunlight and see the visible digitizer dots).
Also, Nexus 4 pricing is the exception, not the rule.
It's the kind of vintage criticism that didn't generally apply to products that Apple made in 2002-12.
Look at the iPod nano. When it came out, it replaced the very popular iPod mini with a completely different design and internals, and the price was part of the surprise. It certainly didn't leave room for comments like "same old tech sold at higher margin, safe design borrowed from Samsung, twice the price of the Samsung Yepp."
In Mac OS 8, the 'yum!' Gestalt selector returned a value corresponding to the case color. The OS tinted based on this value (at least on first install.)
Nokia's bragging point is that Apple caught up to them on...color? Hey, how's the processing power on those industry-leading colorful devices? and the biometric security?
Since Jobs died there have been countless stupid things people have pointed to as evidence that Apple has changed since then. This is the first one I actually buy, this is the exact type of thing Jobs would have flipped the fuck out about.
First it was Cheap, then it was Crappy, now it is Clown? I mean, the idea that there will be a real, actual funny joke around what the "C" stands for seems only real in the sense that people are talking about how there is going to be people talking about what the "C" stands for.
I agree that there's too much absurdity around these types of product launches in general. That being said, Apple has always enjoyed lambasting the competition as being aesthetically challenged. Apple has probably more than earned the blow-back for this rather lame design.
Wow yeah, that is very unlike Apple. Especially if you choose the same color case as your iPhone, the black letters really stand out. With case, it looks like ‘non’.
This is the man who wouldn't put a speaker hole in the case of his computer because it ruined the looks. He also called Google to have them change the color of their logo because it didn't fit with the iPhone style.
With that in mind, would he have approved of holes in cases that only partially obscured the logo?
Just because it's been done before in a silly fashion doesn't mean this case is silly. You need something more detailed than just "People have talked about Jobs before about completely different things, so your reference is wrong."
Time will tell, but for the sake of argument: at c. $550 for the unsubsidised version this is a very high price point for the "iPhone for emerging markets" argument. I'm just very curious to see the market expansion with this "lower" tier model.
This is an example of how rumors can be bad when they don't come true. It was rumored that the 5C would be much cheaper for emerging markets, but clearly that's not Apple's strategy (at least not yet).
"Regardless, very disappointing price point they have for all their phones. Apple apparently sees no need to compete on price."
Apple has never really put competing on price at the top of their priority list, whether it was phones, laptops, tablets, etc. It's important to them, but ultimately they make premium devices. They're at the top end of price, and that's where they want to be. Consumers have proven that they will pay for the Apple experience/infrastructure, so until that changes, I'm not sure why they'd change.
Not to mention that from an investor's standpoint, the price point has been great so far: people have spent money hand-over-fist on Apple products. There hasn't really been a need for aggressive cost-cutting yet.
I never understood the expectation for the 5C to be introduced so cheaply.
Apple's M.O. has been good/better/best, with increasingly older models making up the cheaper slots. Without a 5C, everyone would have expected 5S/5/4S. So with a 5C in the 'good' slot, that would imply 5S/5/5C -- but who would buy a 5 for $100 more, if it's barely distinguishable from the 5C?
And they couldn't have stripped a 5C down much further to build more separation -- at its core a 5 needs the internals it has to drive its display with the performance and battery life Apple aims for and advertises.
So as soon as we saw the screen dimensions and assumed 5C (vs 4SC), people really ought to have expected 5S/5C/4S.
Further, Apple's finally landed a few highly-sought-after carriers in the East, which will bring a ton of sales all by itself. So why would anyone expect them to take a margin hit pitching a more attractive $450 model (and at the expense of having any clear $550 offering) when they haven't soaked the early adopters yet?
Next year, the 5C will flow down naturally to the 'good' slot: 6/5S/5C. And its construction likely allows Apple to shoot even lower than the 4Ss $450 slot. That's when I'd expect to see Apple make a price play.
Perhaps even sliding everything down the scale a little, to make room for the rumored larger-screen iPhone at the new premium price point.
In any event, it will be interesting to see how they move forward from that. 6/5S/5C -> 6S/6/... 5SC?
Would the larger-screen variant flow down the way the larger screen of the 5 is simply becoming 'standard'? Or would it remain an essentially separate product that simply got refreshed at its existing price point and didn't have a deep bench of older models, ala iPod Touch?
I'm actually imagining that Apple would be rushing more to drop the 4S since they made breaking changes between the 4S and the 5 in terms of the screen size and the lightning connector.
Having owned a Nexus 4, it is really no comparison to the build quality of an iphone 4/5. It has amazing innards and the best mobile OS, but the case is cheap and fragile.
I've dropped my iPhone 4 dozens of times and it never broke the back. I dropped the Nexus 4 once and it cracked all the way down the back of the device.
Nexus 4 is still a great device overall (especially for the price), but the iPhone build quality is seemingly worth the premium.
This kind of comment really brings down the level of discourse on this site. If the Nexus 4 is cheap and fragile, then the iPhone 4 is broken, cheap and fragile. They are built with the same materials, but the Nexus doesn't suffer from the embarrassingly bad antenna design of the iphone.
While this is somewhat subjective, you cannot be talking about the Nexus 4. There is nothing cheap about its case. And this is somewhat bizarre when we're talking about a device that you've never touched (the iPhone 5c), which we already know is made of the much reviled plastic.
I think it's a safe assumption that the 5C/S will be at least as solid as their predecessors.
I owned an N4 for a year. I replaced the back and front glass on it. I have two kids, and my iPhones have suffered no end of abuse - with very little damage. The Nexus on the other hand - I barely knocked it against a table and the back shattered. I dropped it a few inches onto my work desk, and the front shattered. Taking it apart, I could see firsthand how flimsy and thin the case and glass are, especially the back. This is well documented on the web.
Granted it's my own little anecdote. I still think it's a great device otherwise - Android flies on it, and I far prefer Android to iOS. I doubt I'll buy another iPhone again no matter how nice the hardware is.
I own a Nexus 4, and there is: the backside. It scratches very, very easily. Plus (even though this is anedoctal), it appears to crack just as easily if dropped. That was absolutely not the case with my old iPhone 4.
I think this lineup may backfire. People with a 4S wanting to upgrade will probably opt for the coloured, cheaper version. People who previously wouldn't have bought the iPhone because too expensive (mostly in Europe where subsidized planes aren't always available) won't buy it now anyway because the 5c is in the same ballpark of the 5s.
They have basically introduced a cheaper alternative to old customers.
I doubt Apple will be at all upset if people flock to the 5C, for which they still get $550 apiece, made from cheaper components than the iPhone 5 that they otherwise would have been selling at that price point.
I think they're targeting young customers. Think of all the parents of teens that wouldn't shell out $199 for an iPhone but would happily shell out $99. Neither the kids, nor their parents, are particularly interested in quality and whether this phone has the same value as the 5s. Plus the kids would presumably be attracted to the colors.
Apple breaking the scroll bar themselve? Could the site instead gives a real scroll bar experience on desktop and give this "tablet-style" scrolling experience to tablets/phones only?
Not sure what browser you are using, but Apple apparently doesn't test their site on firefox. It's not the first time I've noticed something broken on their site. Seems pretty lazy when the browser has a 20-30% market share.
At the unlocked price of $550 for the iPhone 5c and $650 for the considerably-better iPhone 5s, it doesn't seem like there's a huge price gap here. I have doubts whether it'll sell that well as the mid-level smartphone. The 4s is $450, which is closer to the price point I would have expected.
It's basically for the American market. The after-provider-subsidy price difference will appear humongous, and consumers aren't rational about provider subsidies.
I think it is kind of a bummer that Apple is going this route.
It will be too bad if people get their first smartphone because it is $100 instead of $200, but fail to realize that they are changing their 2-year mobile phone expenses from ~$1200 to ~$2400.
Illogically though, I suspect I would have less of a problem with what they are doing if they priced the 5s starting at $300.
if people get their first smartphone because it is $100 instead of $200
I.e. people are more likely to get an iPhone 5C because it's cheaper and thus "only" $99 more than the free phone they'd get otherwise. But this is not specific to the 5C, since the same scenario was in place as soon as Apple started offering two kinds of iPhones at the same time.
I wasn't very clear, but that was my point, that the marketing angle seems to be that it is an option for more budget-conscious first-time smartphone buyers. And yet, there are negligible actual savings compared to the 5s, since the major part of switching to smartphone is the cost of a two-year service agreement.
The marketing angle is not cynical on the scale of, say, BlueHippo[1][2], or pay day loans, but it is different for Apple to be creating bad value proposition that will have to be dismissed as the customers' fault for not doing their research.
And sure, it actually is customers' fault, but I don't think Apple customers have had to watch out for being tricked by Apple as much in the past.
While, it is simple to say: you can use this phone for two years for $2500, or this phone for two years for $2400, and it will be obvious that you'd only choose the plastic one with half as powerful a CPU if you really like the colors, I don't think salespeople will be saying this in stores to potential customers.
The idea of a "budget" iPhone that looks like it starts at half the price, but actually only represents a 4% discount on the TCO, just seems like a departure from their past, and towards becoming a slimier company. (again, unless you just really like the colors)
Are they playing this up any more than they played up the "$100" 4S last year, or the "$100" 4 the year before, or the "$100" 3GS before that? Maybe they are and I missed it. I will admit that I zoned out on much of the "marketing" parts of the 5C presentation.
I will agree with the general premise that smartphone pricing in the US is fairly deceptive, with huge emphasis given to the up-front price of ~$200, and almost no attention paid at all to the whole-contract cost of ~$2,500. This is certainly intentional and intentionally deceptive. But, alas, it's not new, not even for Apple.
I think you're right, and that I just haven't been paying attention. I've seen headlines talking about a cheaper iPhone coming, and was surprised that the opaque costs are essentially the same.
The industry seems ripe for disruption from someone, whether it's someone like T-Mobile or Apple/Google/Facebook buying itself a network and advertising in terms of the annual cost of ownership, perhaps even bundling the service with the device, like Amazon's Whispernet on a larger scale.
T-Mobile seems to be trying. They're fairly heavily advertising cheap bring-your-own-phone plans, particularly targeted at getting people to switch their smartphones from other carriers. People do care about their monthly cost, they just don't seem to weight it properly. Targeting people who already have a phone seems like a good move in that respect, because a lot of people wouldn't spend $400 up front to save $30/month, but they're often happy to save $30/month by switching carriers even though it means they don't get a phone upgrade.
The biggest problem for me with what T-Mobile is doing is simply that their network coverage is not that great. Seems like it's kind of inherent when it comes to attempting to disrupt the industry: the smaller players will necessarily be those with the worst networks, and the large players with good networks have no incentive to make any changes.
Maybe it allows Apple to play both sides of the whole male/female marketing angle - the 5C is safe to be a bit more "feminine" while the 5S is angular and masculine.
The price gap is in a way even worse subsidized because it is still just a $100 discount up front but the same price per month for the same contract length for a lesser phone.
The 5C doesn't make much sense to me beyond people that really want more choice in the color of their phone.
In the USA, considering the true cost of a phone contract is rather pointless because you can't get a contract that discounts monthly cost by buying the phone up front. You're going to pay the $2500 either way.
You're only going to pay $2500 if you plan to spend $104/mo. for one person. Is that a 'discount'? Of course not.
If people spend that much, it is totally unnecessary. If you are going to budget $2500 for every two years, you could get an unlimited talk plan for $40/mo. and buy a $1540 phone every two years.
If you put it to most people that they should buy a phone for $1500 every two years, they would think it was excessive.
T-Mobile USA has decoupled devices and plans. You can BYOD, or buy one of their phones by putting down money and then paying a portion monthly until it's paid off.
For example, the Galaxy S4 is $99.99 up front, and $21/month for 20 months totaling $519.99. At the end of 20 months your bill will be reduced by $21.
Ultimately, this is barely a tweak of their old strategy. This is last year's model, a little bit cheaper. Except now Apple has cheapened the cost while upgrading the battery and front facing camera.
Mostly I see this targeting precisely the US customers that would buy the old iPhone in years past - people that aren't interested in the latest and greatest features very well might be induced to upgrade by a fun color that stands out from their friends's iPhones.
Before people write off the price point lets wait and see what Apple is announcing tomorrow in China. I could imagine that the unlocked price is a red herring and most buyers will be getting it cheap with contracts on China Mobile.
It's cheaper to buy the 5S off contract at $650 and take it to Straight Talk ($45 a month AYCE data/minutes) than to buy the 5C and pay $100 a month at AT&T for two years.
Correction: with no MMS text messaging (I think? I've never had anyone try to send me an MMS in the year I've had it). LTE is a go, for the same $45 a month[1].
Fair enough, I imagine there are some edge cases where paying half as much for cell service doesn't justify the marginally lower internet speeds during the occasions when wifi isn't around. It's definitely working out fantastically in my case.
WiFi works great for me at home and work since I control those networks. But finding & connecting to public hotspots is often a pain and my effort's frequently rewarded with a slow, unstable connection (even for paid ones). In my area, LTE isn't marginally faster, it's way faster than 3G. For me, it's absolutely worth the extra money.
I really don't think having fast, hassle-free internet access on the go is an edge case. Isn't that one of the main reasons people buy smartphones?
For the most part, when I'm out, I'm getting around 6Mbps. The difference between 6Mbps and my friend's (on LTE) 14Mbps isn't exactly staggering when you're reading HN or downloading a photo here and there, and even streaming audio or watching youtube. Mobile sites are already very stripped-down in terms of data usage. If I were, on a daily basis, uploading 100MB videos or whatnot it might make a difference, but for my purposes HSPA+ is plenty.
Travelling through the SE US recently, moving in and out of LTE, 3G, EDGE and no network areas with Maps as my guide, I really missed both LTE and 3G when I was stuck in EDGE territory. Where I live now, my apartment is not a fun place to spend time, I'm not always able to be on a wi-fi network, so having fast data service when I'm out and about is also fantastic.
ha - I had 6mb dl on 4g w/ AT&T iPhone 4S and moving to the iPhone 5 w/ LTE made it 24mb dl. Overrated? Maybe for you but, whenever a company triples my service and doesn't charge me more money, I'm happy to take that deal.
Sure, the speed is faster, but that just means you'll be hitting your cap all the quicker. I'm much happier not having to worry about running out of internets in the middle of my billing cycle.
4S is probably not long for this world. Right now, its filling a gap both in the product shelf (free) and in an amortization-of-development-costs schedule somewhere. Plus, it allows for some extra profit taking from the 5C for the moment as people eschew the 4S.
I'll bet as 5C production ramps, the 4S goes away in X months. Its in Apple's long term best interests to get everyone on the same screen anyway...
Lots of people complaining about the lack of innovation. What exactly were you expecting?
A fingerprint sensor, which will almost certainly replace passwords on every application once the API is exposed seems pretty innovative.
A chip dedicated to tracking movement for health / fitbit apps seems innovative.
A dual flash and other camera improvements is solid.
Smartphones are maturing. We might expect a holographic displays, non-touch 3d manipulation, tactile feedback, amorphous shapes, projectors, etc. in future versions. However the technology and battery life are not there yet.
Apple is somewhat behind in OS usability - particularly around notifications and inter-app communication.
Everyone wants to be wowed, and is bitching and moaning about the lack of innovation - yet has no ideas or suggestions for what Apple could do.
Personally I don't want much more out of my iPhone other than solidifying the hardware and interface improvements.
I'm very disappointed with the price. 599 euros. Holy F. That's a lot of money. Wasn't it supposed to be cheaper?
I guess it makes sense, profit margin-wise. But I was really hoping for a ~400 euro iPhone. That would have been something man... Instant panic at Samsung/Google/Microsoft. Too bad.
Lots of disappointment on iphone 5c pricing, here is my theory.
I think iphone 5c was never intended to match prices of android phones, it was created to allow Apple to expand its market share in Chinese market. From what is suggested in media, one of the reason Apple had a hard time getting China Mobile on board, was the high cost of subsidizing flag ship iphones. By creating a mid tier phone Apple may have been able to convince China Mobile to carry iphone.
Tim Cook has been very bullish about Chinese market, and this move may turn out very well.
Looking at both the 5s and the 5c they definitely have some cool features but I don't know if it's really enough to prompt me to change from a regular 5.
The fingerprint sensor seems like a very nice touch but I still don't see any NFC features (I guess apple isn't betting on this tech) which I love with the android phones. No wireless charging.
I just really don't see a killer feature in this phone that makes me want to upgrade. Am I missing something?
I don't think that you are in the target market. Apple is more on a two-year cycle than a one-year cycle. Those who switch year-to-year are pretty rare, I think.
So, I assume the new iPod will be modeled after the 5c? Pushing the iPod 5 price up to $300 seemed like a bad move, hopefully the 5c-based iPod will get that price back down again.
Then again, the phoneless-smartphone (pocket tablets? Media/app players?) market seems to have been eaten by tablets and cheaper smartphones, in spite of its popularity with the kids.
Now with fingerprint sensor, so when the NSA politely asks Apple for it, they'll be able to send them your fingerprints, a log of all activity and voice print (siri). Such a cool technology (harder to steal phones), just wish it didn't come with this catch.
Of all the vast quantities and kinds of data your phone could be reporting about you (all conversations held nearby, all e-mail, all passwords, etc.) my fingerprints are the least of my concerns.
Because the $549 price of the iPhone is typically subsidized, and can therefore command higher margins than the unsubsidized iPad without sacrificing too much volume?
Apple's been continually pushing this issue. The original iPhone had a mini SIM, which is the one we generally think of as the standard size. The iPhone 4 moved to a micro SIM, which is the next smaller one depicted in your picture, and the 4S shared that. The 5 then went for the nano SIM. Presumably they're short enough on internal space that shrinking the SIM card actually makes some noticeable difference to them. The downside is that us users get to play games with getting (or cutting to size!) the right kind of SIM card for our particular model of phone.
I recall talk of purely internal, reprogrammable "SIM cards", so maybe that's the next step for Apple.
No thanks Apple. I don't struggle to get my ass out of bed, go through a torturous 2 hour daily commute, sit on my ass and do something I dislike 8 hours a day to waste $500+ on a colorful iPhone.
And? That’s nothing new. Until today Apple sold the iPhone 4 for that price. They have been selling the two year old model for that price for a long time now.
Just speculating, but I would guess that the discounting will be hard and fast: Apple doesn't want to scare investors outright (there is a paranoia about any drop in the ASP, which has the longer-term effect of barring Apple from adapting to markets), but it is likely that Apple will do what is necessary to make this very price competitive.
It will be interesting to see what the imminent Nexus 4/5 is going to bring. I suspect that it will dramatically improve on the terrible camera in the original Nexus 4.
Apple will not compromise on this. Will not happen.
I personally think it’s a completely appropriate price. All I wanted to make clear is that this is not a cheap phone. Doesn’t mean it’s an overpriced phone or somehow worse than the S4. I wanted to make its place in the market clear, that’s all.
While I springboarded off of your comment, my comment is my own. And I absolutely think that Apple will "compromise" on this (where compromise apparently means "compete in the market"), and the whole "this is not cheap" line is absolute hubris that the Apple-sphere is inventing: This phone is designed to be cheaply manufactured, and you can be absolutely certain that Apple plans on doing what is necessary to maintain marketshare, and the price you see today has little to nothing to do with how it will be priced in China and elsewhere, or even in the US in a few months on no-contract plans.
The 16GB Nexus 4 is just 45% the cost of the 16GB iPhone 5C.
The new Nexus 5 will likely start at $300 as the Nexus 4or5 did when it first went on sale a year ago. I'm not sure what market the iPhone 5C is targeting. On contract, you might as well buy the 5S.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I also think the Nexus line is a great buy off contract but that the iPhone is better subsidized ($400 value for $200 on contract or $650 value for $200? The Nexus 4 on contract was stupid).
I'm excited about the Nexus 5, but if the rumors are true that it'll be based off the LG G2, I have a hard time seeing how it'll be offered for $300 when the G2 is the fastest phone on the market.
Yeah I remember this as well. Specs per price at the time blew everyone away. Corners were still cut though (I'm looking at you camera and battery life).
Speaking as a very happy N4 owner, it's not "in every way as capable". Specifically, the lack of reliable LTE (yes, I'm running a hybrid radio) and the camera isn't as good as the iPhone cameras tend to be.
It's a fantastic device, but the new iPhone is a fair bit stronger. I'm curious to see what the N5 has in store, though.
At least this time around, the MBAs didn't get to name it "iPhone Performa 551c".