POST A COMMENT

16 Comments

Back to Article

  • danbob999 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    What about the no contract price? Reply
  • garadante - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    If this contract price lines up with other contract price phones, this thing must be somewhere in the region of $400-600 for the 16 GB version. Which isn't cheap at all, and definitely in the range of some high end Android phones. Reply
  • andykins - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    In the UK, the 16GB 5C has an off contract price for £469 which is 740 dollars or 592 dollars when you take out VAT.

    There's nothing cheap about the 5C. It's the price that the 4S got moved down to last year when the 5 was announced. It's just cheaper for Apple to produce than the 5 so they make even more profit.
    Reply
  • tipoo - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    I don't get it. The 5C just uglies up the guts inside the 5. The 5 looked great, this is ugly as sin, especially with that hole case. What does it add for the consumer? It just seems like cost cutting. Reply
  • kyuu - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Cost cutting is exactly what this is. Nothing to do with benefiting the customer. Reply
  • janderk - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Beside increasing margins on the $99 phone it forces people to buy the new 5S if they want a premium feel. A 5 at lower cost would have competed too much with the 5S.

    Problem of course is that people may now opt for a less expensive Android phone with a premium feel instead like a HTC One (mini) or a Moto X with wood finish.
    Reply
  • reuthermonkey1 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    "A 5 at lower cost would have competed too much with the 5S."

    That tells me that I should stick with an iPhone5 if it's close enough to a 5S that Apple feels it's 'competition'.
    Reply
  • Guspaz - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    One might argue that paying less benefits the customer. Reply
  • kyuu - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Except they're paying the same price they would have for the regular iPhone 5 had Apple kept the same process they've been using since the original iPhone of cutting the price on the previous model when the new one comes out.

    Also, $100 on-contract is pretty pricey for a "budget" device.
    Reply
  • steven75 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    That's some pretty twisted logic you have there.

    Do you also take into effect the future resale value of your phone when you buy one? My guess is no, as Apple wins that battle mightily.
    Reply
  • kwrzesien - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Disappointed that the 32GB model isn't $149. Reply
  • Mumrik - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    "The result is a device with comparable specs to the iPhone 5, but starting at $99."

    With contract. I know most people know it, but it really really should be pointed out that this thing absolutely doesn't cost $99.
    Reply
  • lowlymarine - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    You know, I was actually kind of interested in this when the rumors started spreading around a $300 off-contract price. Sure, it's still a touch too expensive for what you're getting, but not absurdly so, so it would make a nice device to maybe get into iOS development and keep as a spare phone in case something horrible befalls my Nexus 4. Then the rumors went up to $400 or so and my interest began to wane, but I decided to keep an eye on it anyway.

    And then they went and announced it at $550. I'm struggling to find the words to express how outrageous that is. Suffice it to say, you'd have to be absolutely insane to pay that much for a plastic iPhone 5 when the 16GB Nexus 4 is available for $249 with superior internals and arguably better build quality. And if LTE and a better camera mean enough to you for the difference to be worth it...I mean, the One GPe is only $50 more than this! Think about that for a second.
    Reply
  • steven75 - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    Superior internals to the 5/5C? It has a far worse camera, far worse GPU, no LTE, etc. Reply
  • lowlymarine - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    While I have to grant you the camera and LTE (though I have to say that coming from a Lumia 900 that had LTE to a Nexus 4 without it, I've never noticed the difference - it might matter more on a network like VZW or Sprint where 3G is laughably slow, but the difference between Cat14 HSPA+ and LTE isn't perceptible in most situations you'd want to use a capped data plan for anyway), I don't know where you get the idea that Adreno 320 is "far worse" than SGX543 MP3. Anandtech;s own benchmarks (http://www.anandtech.com/show/7251/lg-g2-and-msm89... show the various A320 devices, including the Nexus 4, matching or exceeding the iPhone 5 in T-Rex, Egypt, and Basemark both on- (where the iPhone's lower resolution should give it a leg up) and off-screen. The GLBenchmark synthetics have always produced very odd results on ImgTech GPUs that aren't reflected elsewhere. Reply
  • lowlymarine - Tuesday, September 10, 2013 - link

    So the comment mangled my link, should have been: http://www.anandtech.com/show/7251/lg-g2-and-msm89... Reply

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now