They've still not done this with phones, so they've left a giant hole for Android to fill, which in turn makes the platform more attractive to developers.
For example, the shuffle seemed more aimed at people who wanted something easy and light to clip on while exercising.
The nano seemed to cross-over slightly with that market, and also attract people who wanted something tiny but full-featured. (I.e., it was the size that differentiated it, not price.)
I don't think many people thought "Oh, I'll get a shuffle because I can't afford a regular iPod."
The fact that Apple continues to offer the previous years' iPhones is actually kind of unusual with regards to the structure of their past product lines. It's how they are trying to cater to different price brackets rather than use-cases.
Speaking for myself, the shuffle is definitely aimed at my use case (I actually used a zen stone). I want to control my in-car music by hooking up a player with a purely tactile interface. Using my phone means every time I want to interfere with the player, I have to look at the screen... a huge step backwards in usability.
The zen stone had an adavantage that an ipod shuffle might or might not also have... no one ever broke into my car to steal it (although it was taken when they broke into my car to steal my backpack).
As for use cases, phones are all for adults, or rather every age group. Apple and others have not brought out products that are for kids or old age folk, as in specifically for them, e.g. with restrictions on in app purchases and porn where some 'mothership' device can be asked to yay or nay an action. Also, there 'should' be a phone for old folks that is full featured yet only presents a simple dialler on the home screen.
I've just bought a Lumia 520 as a play phone / replacement while I send my HTC One back to be repaired (due to it continually rebooting / crashing - I'm otherwise generally very happy with it).
I had an iPhone 3GS and 4S as well before the HTC One, so I've tried the three main platforms.
Windows Phone is actually very nice for the basics of webbrowsing, sending texts, calling, etc. It has its faults (limited app selection, screen's not amazing, the font hinting is a bit poor), but I'm very impressed with it (and I'm a Linux dev by trade who hasn't touched Windows for many years).
Also there's no port of certain apps I rely on a lot like CityMapper, and the best guitar tuner app I've found on iOS or Android: Cleartune.
[1]http://www.windowsphone.com/en-gb/store/app/podcaster/f5a125...
I wish there was a way to make "Open in new link" tabs open in the background like on Android as well, but as far as I remember iOS had that annoyance too.
If you want to place your cursor in the middle of some text you've already written, tap and hold the screen near the text you want to change until a cursor appears, then drag your finger to move the cursor exactly where you want it.
If you feel that the default browser is not customizable enough, try UCBrowser[1], it provides an option to open new links in background.
[1]http://www.windowsphone.com/en-us/store/app/uc-browser/6cda5...
Of course it's different in emerging markets where contracts aren't the norm, but smartphone prices in the US are pretty damn close in terms of 2-year TCO.
I pay $5-$10 dollars per month on average for my cellphone on prepay. It doesn't make sense all to buy a phone on plan.
In China, I pay about US$15 every 3-4 months for a level of texting and voice talk that would easily cost $30 / month by itself in the US. (I don't have a data plan.)
I've tried going prepaid (also t-mobile) in the US. The economics worked out as long as I never expected to use my phone at all; if I expected anything, it was a money loss. And even while I expected nothing, I had to keep paying $10 / month so that all my paid credit wouldn't suddenly expire.
This situation is not helped by the fact that the carriers have steadfastly refused to standardize on wireless technologies. Even the two GSM carriers (AT&T and T-mobile) have never agreed on the same set of frequencies for data... so eg., AT&T HS(D)P(+) devices (e.g. Galaxy Nexus, iPhone 4) didn't quite work on T-mobile and vice-versa. The regulatory agency (FCC) has basically been either helpless or complicit and maintaining the status quo.
Things might get a bit more competitive with LTE (with more standardized hardware etc.) but there doesn't seem to be any incentives for the big carriers to stop this effective collusion to start a price war. T-mobile seems to be breaking ranks in some ways but I haven't really seen a pricing strategy designed to pull the crowds yet even from them.
The minutes are expensive and no data, but for light usage it's great. AT&T Go phone has the same $100 for 1000 minutes that last a year.
I did the math a while ago. Don't know how it holds up. As a datapoint, we pay between $90-$100 for two phone lines with T-mobile. Includes 500MB data/tethering per phone, unlimited minutes in the US and text messages.
The Moto G is $179 and is, honestly, quite a bit of phone. Compare that to the iPhone 5c which is $549, over 3 times the price. Macs are about as much of a premium over PCs (comparing entry level hardware costs, not equivalent builds, as that would be a lower multiple).
Realistically, Apple is setting themselves up for the same type of market share in the phone business they have in the PC business. Android is at 52.2% of the market and climbing in the US (where consumers are currently insulated from the actual cost of a phone though this is starting to change) and at over 80% and climbing internationally. It's looking like it will be Android in a position analogous to Windows in the smartphone market.
Finally, Google doesn't make any money on Android. Key difference from Microsoft and Windows.
Personally I wouldn't buy a 5C over a 5S....
Within those price points they're nowadays pretty reasonably priced. There used be a significant "mac tax" versus similarly specced PCs, but a MacBook Air or Pro these days compares pretty reasonably to the stuff Dell is putting out. If you want a dual i5 with 128 GB SSD and 8 hours of battery life, the Macbook Air's $999 price point is within the norm.
The main market they aren't competing in is sub-$1000 laptop form factors, like the Chromebooks. That seems to be less an unwillingness to compete on the low end, and more a disagreement over what it will look like: Google is betting on a netbook-esque form factor at ~$400, while Apple is betting on a tablet form factor in that price range.
For iMac, this is pretty much true, you can get computer equivalent to 27" iMac (except for Mac OS and all-in-one construction), for a lot less money than 21" iMac.
But with laptops, you would be hard pressed to find something as good or better and at the same time less expensive than rMBP 13. With 15", the prices are about comparable, but looking at our local eshops, for the price of 13", you get thinkpad or elitebook with 1600*900 TN panel and rotary storage. That sucks.
13 inch models aren't as easily comparable as the Dells don't offer a QHD display but feature a touchscreen. Also the SSDs seems to max out at 128GB, but still the Dells remain quite a bit cheaper.
Thinkpad/Elitebooks are usually lacking in cutting edge hardware in favor of stability and i think the MBP should be compared to premium consumer laptops like the XPS and HP Envy instead of thinkpads/elitebooks.
Dont get me wrong, id still favour Macbooks for various reasons, but you still seem to get more for less elsewhere.
Smartphones at the moment seem to have got 'good enough'.