First look: Hands-on with Apple's iPhone X

18911131422

Comments

  • Reply 201 of 436
    I wonder if there will be a SIM free version sometime in the future.
  • Reply 202 of 436
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,125moderator
    MplsP said:

    For those bemoaning the "High Price" of the iPhone X...

    A loaded iPhone 8 Plus costs $45.75 per month under the IUP.  A loaded iPhone X costs $56.16 -- $10.41 per month more for the very best!
    That's exactly how companies want you to think about it - divide what you're paying into smaller, more frequent amounts to make it seem smaller. The bottom line is you're still paying over 40% more to get an iPhone X vs an iPhone 8. Even more than that if you finance it with a credit card like a lot of people unfortunately do. 
    More of what we consume is becoming service-like.  It doesn't make sense for Netflix, or Apple Music or Spotify to quote you an all-in price.  And our gadgets, because we replace them on a regular cycle, are perhaps better thought about as a service too.  It cost N amount per month to have the iPhone 8 experience versus N+? to have the IPhone X experience.  To think in terms of an all-in price you have to know how long you'll keep your phone, and what its resale value might be when you decide to replace it.  It's either one or the other; service-like monthly cost of the experience, or total cost of ownership.  Those who look only at the price are the ones who aren't thinking about it properly.
    edited September 2017
  • Reply 203 of 436
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,125moderator
    avon b7 said:
    asdasd said:

    sog35 said:
    schlack said:
    Interesting to see that Apple now has a phone lineup that spans from $350 to $1150, wow. That $1150 price point feels just absurd. Will be interesting to see how this sells. I guess I'll be holding on to my (perfectly awesome) iPhone 7 for at least another year or two.
    Well, Tim Cook did say the iPhone X is what Apple envisions for the next ten years.  So I assume, at some time, prices will come down to more mainstream levels once production ramps up to Apple's scale, probably two to three years.
    I don't think so.

    I thin Apple is breaking new ground: true luxury phones.

    I expect next year or the year after to offer an X phone with a 6.5+ inch screen that will start at $1099 or more.

    Apple has to do this. All the other brands are racing to the bottom.  Apple is racing to the top.
    I agree, Apple will come out with a bigger version of the iPhone X next year.  But there's only so far up you can go before you get consumer push back and sales start to hurt.
    It doesnt matter if sales "hurt" on the high level model,  however that can be measured on a new device model, because Apple doesn't want that to be the mass  or most popular model. But they will nevertheless sell millions, as it will probably become a veblen good. Thats a good where demand increase as the price increases. 

     The higher the price the more the upper middle class and paricularly the rich will buy it. Why? Because the highest cost phone is in fact a status symbol. Imagine two guys at a charity function for rich people. Person A takes out his iPhone X, top model. Cost $1200+. Person B takes out his cheaper Samsung. Immediately a man of lesser status. 

    (You can get status in other ways of course, drive a prius but I dont see the ability to virtue signal with a phone).

    This means the 8 will have less status, which is fine by me because it still beats all android devices. 
    They tried that initially with Apple Watch when they sold the Watch Edition in Gold & Rose Gold material. It was a disaster.  And in this interview, Tim Cook mentions he doesn't envision iPhone only for rich people:

    http://fortune.com/2017/09/11/apple-tim-cook-education-health-care/

    "Q: You say that Apple makes its products for everyone to be able to use. But Apple’s business strategy is to make premium-priced, high-margin, high-end products, which is why you’re the most valuable company in the world.

    A: Well it’s not high margin. I wouldn’t use that word. There’s a lot of companies that have much higher margins. We price for the value of our products. And we try to make the very best products. And that means we don’t make commodity kind of products. And we don’t disparage people that do; it’s a fine business model. But it’s not the business that we’re in.

    But if you look across our product lines, you can buy an iPad today for under $300. You can buy an iPhone, depending upon which one you select, for in that same kind of ballpark. And so these are not for the rich. We obviously wouldn’t have over a billion products that are in our active installed base if we were making them for the rich because that’s a sizable number no matter who’s looking at the numbers."

    That was a very, very poor response.

    Didn't anybody ruffle his feathers with an incision right to the bone with something like:

    Why do you eliminate the sweet spot storage option on a phone that has no expandable internal storage if that sweet spot is also a value point for the user?
    Apple is selling 8 models now, from SE to X (oops, hehe).  With that many models there's little doubt they want to limit to two storage configs.  And if you're going to make just two storage configs of a model, like the X, then which two sizes would you pick.  I think I would, after consideration of all combinations, end up deciding on, say... 64 and 256GB.  Hmmm.
    edited September 2017 netmage
  • Reply 204 of 436
    MplsP said:

    For those bemoaning the "High Price" of the iPhone X...

    A loaded iPhone 8 Plus costs $45.75 per month under the IUP.  A loaded iPhone X costs $56.16 -- $10.41 per month more for the very best!
    That's exactly how companies want you to think about it - divide what you're paying into smaller, more frequent amounts to make it seem smaller. The bottom line is you're still paying over 40% more to get an iPhone X vs an iPhone 8. Even more than that if you finance it with a credit card like a lot of people unfortunately do. 
    More of what we consume is becoming service-like.  It doesn't make sense for Netflix, or Apple Music or Spotify to quote you an all-in price.  And our gadgets, because we replace them on a regular cycle, are perhaps better thought about as a service too.  It cost N amount per month to have the iPhone 8 experience versus N+? to have the IPhone X experience.  To think in terms of an all-in price you have to know how long you'll keep your phone, and what its resale value might be when you decide to replace it.  It's either one or the other; service-like monthly cost of the experience, or total cost of ownership.  Those who look only at the price are the ones who aren't thinking about it properly.
    If Apple takes care of the buyback (by simply taking the old phone after X time), the selling at the end of service part is already taken into consideration in your service price (and thus could be lower as a consequence than financing it and then having the bother of selling the phone).
    radarthekat
  • Reply 205 of 436
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:

    For those bemoaning the "High Price" of the iPhone X...

    A loaded iPhone 8 Plus costs $45.75 per month under the IUP.  A loaded iPhone X costs $56.16 -- $10.41 per month more for the very best!
    That's exactly how companies want you to think about it - divide what you're paying into smaller, more frequent amounts to make it seem smaller. The bottom line is you're still paying over 40% more to get an iPhone X vs an iPhone 8. Even more than that if you finance it with a credit card like a lot of people unfortunately do. 
    Is there a problem with divide what you're paying into smaller, more frequent amounts to make it seem smaller doable?

    Do you pay rent or a mortgage, utilities, car payments, your phone bill?

    To me, it makes more sense to spread the $1,150 over 24 months (interest free loan) and invest the remaining $thousand and change in something like AAPL. At the end of 24 months I can resell the iPhone for $250-$400.

    Just like you pay for your phone service monthly, why shouldn't you pay for the device that consumes that service on a monthly basis?


    Back in the days of yesteryear -- circa 1980-1998, pre cellular phones (pre millennials):

    ...
    Looks like a great deal to me... 
    Are you seriously trying to compare a cell phone payment with a mortgage payment or a car payment??? Your cell phone company may let you pay for the phone interest free, but you are still paying for it, no matter how you slice it. But then, the car salesmen must love you, since all you care about is the monthly payment. 

    I remember well the days of Ma Bell. Before cell phones we were paying $24/month for our landline - $288 per year. We had sprint for our long distance that charged $0.10/minute and rarely used more than a couple bucks a month. Now we pay $1800 per year for cell and data for 4 lines. Assuming we get a new phone every 3 years that's about $900 per year for hardware, so we've gone from $288 to $2700 per year. Add $720 per year for broadband and you're up over $3400 per year. It's a totally unfair comparison though. You can't compare 4 individual smart phones with LTE & broadband to a single land line, but it's a good example of how technology costs creep into our lives. 
    It only creeps up if you are comparing dissimilar things. You don't have to buy that phone, just like you didn't have to buy this $10K (in todays money) Apple desktop in the 1980s.
    netmage
  • Reply 206 of 436
    Here’s something else I don’t get: if there is a persistent bar at the bottom of the screen to indicate swipe up to go home why not have that entire bottom area be black, same width as the camera notch so then you could haves black bar on top as well. I actually think a small black border on top and bottom would look better than a camera notch on top and a thin white or black bar on the bottom. Would it look too much like a copy of Samsung?
  • Reply 207 of 436
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 3,179member
    boeyc15 said:
     Rayz2016 said:
    Seems that this "Steve wouldn't have done/liked this" crap is still a popular hissyfit round here. 

    If you don't like what Apple is doing then fine; but don't try and make your argument with that tired old meme. You didn't know the guy, so it's just embarrassing. 


    Fine -- lets phrase it this way--- IMO (In my opinion) historically I can infer by past interviews, design criteria etc---  Jonny I and Steve J has shown a preference  for smooth continuity lines, low key aesthetics etc etc. so for the iPhone X to have donkey ear tabs screen that sticks out like crazy-- it seems incredible and not too far fetched Steve would have said 'this is crap'.

    During that whole damn presentation video I'm staring at those ears (should call it the Dumbo phone).... wait that's it, that's why they did it---- To keep the phone in unlock, they have you staring into those ugly fugly sensors/donkey ears. Knew there was a rationale reason to make it so ugly... whew-- way to go Apple! /s

    BTW- with present Touch id, I can unlock and hand the phone over for someone to see pictures etc, or that person can text or look  up something while Im driving etc. Will that be possible if FaceID is engaged?


    Right, so in an attempt to validate your argument by, once again, invoking the ghost of Steve Jobs, you are now saying that you are in a better position to infer interpret his vision than Jony Ive? The man who actually knew Steve Jobs? Is that what you're saying?

    This is precisely what I'm talking about. If you don't' like the phone then just say so; trying to prove you're right by pretending you know more about the man than the people who worked next to him for more than a decade is just ... desperately sad.
    netmage
  • Reply 208 of 436
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 2,125moderator
    foggyhill said:
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:

    For those bemoaning the "High Price" of the iPhone X...

    A loaded iPhone 8 Plus costs $45.75 per month under the IUP.  A loaded iPhone X costs $56.16 -- $10.41 per month more for the very best!
    That's exactly how companies want you to think about it - divide what you're paying into smaller, more frequent amounts to make it seem smaller. The bottom line is you're still paying over 40% more to get an iPhone X vs an iPhone 8. Even more than that if you finance it with a credit card like a lot of people unfortunately do. 
    Is there a problem with divide what you're paying into smaller, more frequent amounts to make it seem smaller doable?

    Do you pay rent or a mortgage, utilities, car payments, your phone bill?

    To me, it makes more sense to spread the $1,150 over 24 months (interest free loan) and invest the remaining $thousand and change in something like AAPL. At the end of 24 months I can resell the iPhone for $250-$400.

    Just like you pay for your phone service monthly, why shouldn't you pay for the device that consumes that service on a monthly basis?


    Back in the days of yesteryear -- circa 1980-1998, pre cellular phones (pre millennials):

    ...
    Looks like a great deal to me... 
    Are you seriously trying to compare a cell phone payment with a mortgage payment or a car payment??? Your cell phone company may let you pay for the phone interest free, but you are still paying for it, no matter how you slice it. But then, the car salesmen must love you, since all you care about is the monthly payment. 

    I remember well the days of Ma Bell. Before cell phones we were paying $24/month for our landline - $288 per year. We had sprint for our long distance that charged $0.10/minute and rarely used more than a couple bucks a month. Now we pay $1800 per year for cell and data for 4 lines. Assuming we get a new phone every 3 years that's about $900 per year for hardware, so we've gone from $288 to $2700 per year. Add $720 per year for broadband and you're up over $3400 per year. It's a totally unfair comparison though. You can't compare 4 individual smart phones with LTE & broadband to a single land line, but it's a good example of how technology costs creep into our lives. 
    It only creeps up if you are comparing dissimilar things. You don't have to buy that phone, just like you didn't have to buy this $10K (in todays money) Apple desktop in the 1980s.
    Plus he no longer has to buy an alarm clock for each bedroom in the house, point and shoot cameras for himself or any family members, MP3 players, portable gaming systems, heldheld GPS units, stopwatches, portable radios or those old portable DVD players some folks used to have, video cameras, and some family members don't even need a PC anymore, as everything from email to web surfing to picture and video editing can be done right on the phone.  It's not just a comparison to an oldie landline phone or basic cell phone.  It's a comparison of the cost of a convenient, always with you does-everything super computer to a whole host of separate products, each of which requires its own power source; plug, charger or batteries (sold separately).  Oh, and you no longer need to organize a shelf full of recipe books, or any books.  Or magazines, or maps, or CDs, or DVDs, etc.  Life is so much better, for us and for the environment (think landfills not receiving al those bulky separate products we're no longer producing) and the cost isn't all that much higher than it ever was.
    edited September 2017 tmayGG1netmage
  • Reply 209 of 436
    iPhone X Rocks!  Love it!  Wallet is open.  It'll sell huge.
  • Reply 210 of 436
    I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
    "The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones."

    Couldn't agree more. This is exactly what it feels like. It's a tough decision. i think Apple made the right one.
    So are you guys saying there shouldn't be differing products based on differing needs and different constraints? Struggling to understand.
    Not at all. What we're saying (or at least I am) is given an ideal situation of no supply constraints on components, Apple would've probably liked to have released two iPhone X models: 5.8" & 6.4" (starting at say $799 or $899), no iPhone 8 models, and lower prices on the rest of the line-up (SE, 6S, 7).  Apple promotes the iPhone X as the future of the iPhone for the next ten years. If so, I'd imagine they want to get it in as many hands as possible, but as we know, key components are severely constrained right now.

    That may not happen...

    OLED is not a new tech, it is an  old tech existing since many years. If that OLED tech didn't reach the level of yield to support the iPhone, after so many years, if the best producer's yield is only 60%, let’s admit it we may be done with OLED. There may be no more OLED with the iPhone. The X may be the first and last OLED iPhone. Don't let your opinions be manipulated by Kuo, try to see the big surface, composed of hundreds of millions of LCD iPhones, iPads, iPods, LCD Macbooks and iMacs.

    May that change? It may. Apple is powerful enough to lead that change. But at what cost, in how many years, and will Apple choose to do that?

  • Reply 211 of 436
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,883member
    I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
    "The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones."

    Couldn't agree more. This is exactly what it feels like. It's a tough decision. i think Apple made the right one.
    So are you guys saying there shouldn't be differing products based on differing needs and different constraints? Struggling to understand.
    Not at all. What we're saying (or at least I am) is given an ideal situation of no supply constraints on components, Apple would've probably liked to have released two iPhone X models: 5.8" & 6.4" (starting at say $799 or $899), no iPhone 8 models, and lower prices on the rest of the line-up (SE, 6S, 7).  Apple promotes the iPhone X as the future of the iPhone for the next ten years. If so, I'd imagine they want to get it in as many hands as possible, but as we know, key components are severely constrained right now.

    That may not happen...

    OLED is not a new tech, it is an  old tech existing since many years. If that OLED tech didn't reach the level of yield to support the iPhone, after so many years, if the best producer's yield is only 60%, let’s admit it we may be done with OLED. There may be no more OLED with the iPhone. The X may be the first and last OLED iPhone. Don't let your opinions be manipulated by Kuo, try to see the big surface, composed of hundreds of millions of LCD iPhones, iPads, iPods, LCD Macbooks and iMacs.

    May that change? It may. Apple is powerful enough to lead that change. But at what cost, in how many years, and will Apple choose to do that?

    how did Kuo lead this exactly?


    I dont get the excitement over OLED either. But I cant see Apple removing it from their high end models any time soon. 
  • Reply 212 of 436
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,883member
    foggyhill said:
    MplsP said:
    MplsP said:

    For those bemoaning the "High Price" of the iPhone X...

    A loaded iPhone 8 Plus costs $45.75 per month under the IUP.  A loaded iPhone X costs $56.16 -- $10.41 per month more for the very best!
    That's exactly how companies want you to think about it - divide what you're paying into smaller, more frequent amounts to make it seem smaller. The bottom line is you're still paying over 40% more to get an iPhone X vs an iPhone 8. Even more than that if you finance it with a credit card like a lot of people unfortunately do. 
    Is there a problem with divide what you're paying into smaller, more frequent amounts to make it seem smaller doable?

    Do you pay rent or a mortgage, utilities, car payments, your phone bill?

    To me, it makes more sense to spread the $1,150 over 24 months (interest free loan) and invest the remaining $thousand and change in something like AAPL. At the end of 24 months I can resell the iPhone for $250-$400.

    Just like you pay for your phone service monthly, why shouldn't you pay for the device that consumes that service on a monthly basis?


    Back in the days of yesteryear -- circa 1980-1998, pre cellular phones (pre millennials):

    ...
    Looks like a great deal to me... 
    Are you seriously trying to compare a cell phone payment with a mortgage payment or a car payment??? Your cell phone company may let you pay for the phone interest free, but you are still paying for it, no matter how you slice it. But then, the car salesmen must love you, since all you care about is the monthly payment. 

    I remember well the days of Ma Bell. Before cell phones we were paying $24/month for our landline - $288 per year. We had sprint for our long distance that charged $0.10/minute and rarely used more than a couple bucks a month. Now we pay $1800 per year for cell and data for 4 lines. Assuming we get a new phone every 3 years that's about $900 per year for hardware, so we've gone from $288 to $2700 per year. Add $720 per year for broadband and you're up over $3400 per year. It's a totally unfair comparison though. You can't compare 4 individual smart phones with LTE & broadband to a single land line, but it's a good example of how technology costs creep into our lives. 
    It only creeps up if you are comparing dissimilar things. You don't have to buy that phone, just like you didn't have to buy this $10K (in todays money) Apple desktop in the 1980s.
    Plus he no longer has to buy an alarm clock for each bedroom in the house, point and shoot cameras for himself or any family members, MP3 players, portable gaming systems, heldheld GPS units, stopwatches, portable radios or those old portable DVD players some folks used to have, video cameras, and some family members don't even need a PC anymore, as everything from email to web surfing to picture and video editing can be done right on the phone.  It's not just a comparison to an oldie landline phone or basic cell phone.  It's a comparison of the cost of a convenient, always with you does-everything super computer to a whole host of separate products, each of which requires its own power source; plug, charger or batteries (sold separately).  Oh, and you no longer need to organize a shelf full of recipe books, or any books.  Or magazines, or maps, or CDs, or DVDs, etc.  Life is so much better, for us and for the environment (think landfills not receiving al those bulky separate products we're no longer producing) and the cost isn't all that much higher than it ever was.
    this is often lost in the debate re the iPhone ( or other top level smart phones). It is actually saving some people money - digitial camera nerds, people who abandon cable for the phone, airplay and netflix, music lovers who used to buy 3+ CDs a month, and many others. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 213 of 436
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 1,826member
    avon b7 said:
    asdasd said:

    sog35 said:
    schlack said:
    Interesting to see that Apple now has a phone lineup that spans from $350 to $1150, wow. That $1150 price point feels just absurd. Will be interesting to see how this sells. I guess I'll be holding on to my (perfectly awesome) iPhone 7 for at least another year or two.
    Well, Tim Cook did say the iPhone X is what Apple envisions for the next ten years.  So I assume, at some time, prices will come down to more mainstream levels once production ramps up to Apple's scale, probably two to three years.
    I don't think so.

    I thin Apple is breaking new ground: true luxury phones.

    I expect next year or the year after to offer an X phone with a 6.5+ inch screen that will start at $1099 or more.

    Apple has to do this. All the other brands are racing to the bottom.  Apple is racing to the top.
    I agree, Apple will come out with a bigger version of the iPhone X next year.  But there's only so far up you can go before you get consumer push back and sales start to hurt.
    It doesnt matter if sales "hurt" on the high level model,  however that can be measured on a new device model, because Apple doesn't want that to be the mass  or most popular model. But they will nevertheless sell millions, as it will probably become a veblen good. Thats a good where demand increase as the price increases. 

     The higher the price the more the upper middle class and paricularly the rich will buy it. Why? Because the highest cost phone is in fact a status symbol. Imagine two guys at a charity function for rich people. Person A takes out his iPhone X, top model. Cost $1200+. Person B takes out his cheaper Samsung. Immediately a man of lesser status. 

    (You can get status in other ways of course, drive a prius but I dont see the ability to virtue signal with a phone).

    This means the 8 will have less status, which is fine by me because it still beats all android devices. 
    They tried that initially with Apple Watch when they sold the Watch Edition in Gold & Rose Gold material. It was a disaster.  And in this interview, Tim Cook mentions he doesn't envision iPhone only for rich people:

    http://fortune.com/2017/09/11/apple-tim-cook-education-health-care/

    "Q: You say that Apple makes its products for everyone to be able to use. But Apple’s business strategy is to make premium-priced, high-margin, high-end products, which is why you’re the most valuable company in the world.

    A: Well it’s not high margin. I wouldn’t use that word. There’s a lot of companies that have much higher margins. We price for the value of our products. And we try to make the very best products. And that means we don’t make commodity kind of products. And we don’t disparage people that do; it’s a fine business model. But it’s not the business that we’re in.

    But if you look across our product lines, you can buy an iPad today for under $300. You can buy an iPhone, depending upon which one you select, for in that same kind of ballpark. And so these are not for the rich. We obviously wouldn’t have over a billion products that are in our active installed base if we were making them for the rich because that’s a sizable number no matter who’s looking at the numbers."

    That was a very, very poor response.

    Didn't anybody ruffle his feathers with an incision right to the bone with something like:

    Why do you eliminate the sweet spot storage option on a phone that has no expandable internal storage if that sweet spot is also a value point for the user?
    Apple is selling 8 models now, from SE to X (oops, hehe).  With that many models there's little doubt they want to limit to two storage configs.  And if you're going to make just two storage configs of a model, like the X, then which two sizes would you pick.  I think I would, after consideration of all combinations, end up deciding on, say... 64 and 256GB.  Hmmm.
    Yes, the key word here being 'now'. And I think it's a wise and necessary move. I've argued for it for a long while but I wouldn't have let him off the hook so easily :-)
  • Reply 214 of 436

    For those bemoaning the "High Price" of the iPhone X...

    A loaded iPhone 8 Plus costs $45.75 per month under the IUP.  A loaded iPhone X costs $56.16 -- $10.41 per month more for the very best!

    Hell, I spill more than that a month!

    In our household of 4 (2 adults, 2 teenagers) we are all under the iUP with iPhone 7 costing the $45.75 for 128GB.

    I suspect that we will all opt for the iPhone X at 256GB -- as they become available.



    A curiosity question?  In what part of the world do you reside?  I only ask because my iPhone 7/128 iUP is only 36 and some change.
  • Reply 215 of 436
    jasenj1 said:
    sog35 said:
    The iPhone X is the most amazing single piece of hardware EVER. EVER.
    It doesn't have a memory card slot. Maybe not important to you, but important to many.

    I understand their reasons for not doing it, and frankly agree with those reasons for the most part, but adding a micro-SD card slot would almost certainly make me get one of the new ones.  I'm only one guy, and apparently a minority, though.
  • Reply 216 of 436
    jasenj1 said:
    sog35 said:
    The iPhone X is the most amazing single piece of hardware EVER. EVER.
    It doesn't have a memory card slot. Maybe not important to you, but important to many.
    I'm not so sure about that. I don't have a lot of apps on my phone, but I take a ton of pictures and videos. All my videos are in 4K except the slow motion ones I've recorded. I bought the 128 gig 7 Plus and I haven't even come remotely close to using up all my hard drive space. I travel a lot so I always take a ton of pictures and videos. I can't possibly see who would need more than 256 gigs of hard drive space. 


    Pretty sure Bill Gates made that a similar comment concerning 640K RAM in a PC one time. :)


  • Reply 217 of 436
    GG1GG1 Posts: 126member
    macseeker said:
    I wonder if there will be a SIM free version sometime in the future.
    I have always hoped Apple would release a dual SIM iPhone (for international travelers), but a dual eSIM iPhone would be better.
  • Reply 218 of 436
    avon b7 said:
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:
    sog35 said:
    avon b7 said:

    sog35 said:
    rattlhed said:
    Am I the only one that's disappointed with the memory configurations on both the iPhone 8 and X?  64GB and 256GB?  What happened to 128GB?  Last year was the first year I opted for a 128GB iPhone.  Seemed like a perfect price point between plenty of storage without being too expensive.  Dropping 128 this year is quite disappointing.  No way I can go backwards to 64, so if I want to upgrade I have to opt for the most expensive model.  I really think the phones should have been 128 (for the price of 64) and 256. I guess this is the way they get all those millions of phones they sold in the last couple of years at 128 to opt for the most expensive models.  bummer.
    paying $50 more for 128 additional GB is a great deal.

    If a 128GB phone was available it would have been $1099.   With more 4k video and larger photo's you will be happy you bought the 256GB phone.
    Which is why Apple does it. Phil Schiller’s middle name is upsell.
    Nonsense. There's a low-end capacity, and a high-end (4x more). Which do you need? Low end needs? Great, get the low-end capacity. High-end needs? Great, get the high-end capacity for 150 more. Which type of user are you?
    Just maybe he was the one in the middle?

    You know, low, mid, high?

    It's upsell. Trying to spin it any other way is foolish IMO.


    One in the middle?

    The Samsung S8 only come with 64GB. Thats it.

    Why the hell are you grumbling about the iPhone having 2 storage sizes while the competition only has one?
    Could it have something to do with the user being able to add up to 256GB of their choice?
    SD cards are not a good alternative to on board memory.

    i can say the same thing that Apple offers iCloud space.

    Just stop.

    Name me another phone brand that gives 3 storage tiers on their FLAGSHIP?
    SD cards are perfect for adding to onboard memory.

    They also make tiers far less of an issue and that is precisely why many Android phones have just one onboard memory allocation.

    In fact 'tiers' themselves aren't the issue here. The issue is upsell, although as you seem to have quickly and conveniently forgotten, I said with a base of 32GB or 64GB is nowhere near as problematic as before.
    A couple of issues with SD cards.  Currently, they're slow.  So saving and accessing data takes far longer than onboard storage chips.  And as so many people seem to be pushing for it, water and dust resistance is more challenging with yet another opening in a phone case - especially one sized even bigger than a micro-sim card.
    tmayGG1pscooter63netmagebrucemc
  • Reply 219 of 436
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 1,826member
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:
    tmay said:
    avon b7 said:

    sog35 said:
    rattlhed said:
    Am I the only one that's disappointed with the memory configurations on both the iPhone 8 and X?  64GB and 256GB?  What happened to 128GB?  Last year was the first year I opted for a 128GB iPhone.  Seemed like a perfect price point between plenty of storage without being too expensive.  Dropping 128 this year is quite disappointing.  No way I can go backwards to 64, so if I want to upgrade I have to opt for the most expensive model.  I really think the phones should have been 128 (for the price of 64) and 256. I guess this is the way they get all those millions of phones they sold in the last couple of years at 128 to opt for the most expensive models.  bummer.
    paying $50 more for 128 additional GB is a great deal.

    If a 128GB phone was available it would have been $1099.   With more 4k video and larger photo's you will be happy you bought the 256GB phone.
    Which is why Apple does it. Phil Schiller’s middle name is upsell.
    Nonsense. There's a low-end capacity, and a high-end (4x more). Which do you need? Low end needs? Great, get the low-end capacity. High-end needs? Great, get the high-end capacity for 150 more. Which type of user are you?
    Just maybe he was the one in the middle?

    You know, low, mid, high?

    It's upsell. Trying to spin it any other way is foolish IMO.
    Not half as foolish as an Android user trying to bag on Apple on an Apple site all day, but that's just my opinion.

    Let me revise my terms -- Apple sells three other models (7, 6s, SE) that have options for 32gb. 32gb, which is by definition the low-end capacity. The new 8 and X are flagships phones and come in 64gb and 256gb. 64 is double the low-end capacity and is by definition medium-capacity, and 256gb is high-capacity. Thus the flagship devices come in medium- and high-capacity only. So now that they've eliminated low-end on the flagship devices, you're going to complain about there not being a mid-medium-capacity? That's beyond reason.

    It's just proof that no matter what, people will complain. Even if they're using Android knockoffs and have no intention to buy any of the new devices.

    Before the iPhone event, it was Snagdragon 835, and face recognition, and under screen touch ID, and Kirin 970 and AI processor, all from the usual Android loving suspects on AI.

    Now all these losers are left with is complaining about "upsell" storage, and why isn'r removable storage a thing with Apple.

     Post Apple Event Headline;

    "Apple gives impressive beatdown to rivals posing as tech companies".


    Nope. You will remember, if you bother to take a moment, that what has been celebrated is COMPETITION.

    IMO, the only reason the new iPhone price spread is so wide now, is the result of competition. It is the sole reason but supported by Apple's desire to widen the user base to which it can offer services.

    You will also remember that this particular Android (and iOS!) user also bet on Apple including an NPU, the notch and even the elimination of black as an option.

    This particular user also argued for, and backed up, Apple needing to move down through the pricing tiers (something that was basically met with howls of disbelief and accusations of trolling), only for Apple to leave us with a completely revamped pricing lineup that now covers 379€ up through to, and over 1000€ on possibly the widest spread of active hardware it has ever offered.

    This 'loser' was somehow able to get so much right but isn't smug about it because he never said any of this would happen.

    He simply gave an opinion and bet on some options while others jumped up and down emphatically affirming 'this' or 'that' would never happen. So sure of themselves and happy to try and discredit other users - just as you just did with your 'losers' comment.

    Weird how some people just can't accept another person's opinions (and simply offer their own) without disparaging the original opinion.



    "IMO, the only reason the new iPhone price spread is so wide now, is the result of competition."

    If only that were true;



    https://twitter.com/BenBajarin?ref_src=twsrc^tfw&ref_url=http://www.asymco.com/

    There wouldn't be a lower priced iPhone SE without the iPhone X, Which Ben Bajarin believes will see some 40-50 million units shipped in the 2H of 2017, all because Apple wants to keep its ASP increasing. I would note that the SE is hardly the big seller.

    As for Qualcomm and Huawei and their pre-Apple event announcements, which you describe as "competitive", i would describe as massively failed PR attempts. The fact that no one is talking about their "innovations" or "technology" after the Apple Event says it all.

    Apple totally dominated them with its technology in both the iPhones 8, and the iPhone X, the Apple Watch, AirPods. More to the point, I'll argue right now that Apple's profits are looking up, not because of a super cycle, but due to the fact that Apple has the highest engagement and customer loyalty, and frankly, a growing population of users; a virtuous cycle that benefits Apple, and its customers.

    Edit: the 40-50 million should have been 2H 2017 rather than 2H 2018; corrected.
    "If only it were true"????

    Are you implying someone on the outside of Apple has the absolute truth on this move?

    I hope you realise that that is why I made a point of inserting 'IMO'. I wasn't going to, because I don't think it should be necessary with a statement that is clearly an opinion but some people here are so pedantic that often it's better to make things crystal clear just in case.

    As for the graph.

    Firstly, it confirms what we all know and I highlighted at the start of this thread. This is the largest price spread of iPhones and models ever, and covers a large part of the price spectrum. I don't think it would be over the top to call it a radical change.

    The graph fails to include the iPhone 6 today which is still being pushed by Apple at 379€.

    In fact the iPhone 6 has been getting pushed by Apple (albeit under the radar) for many months now. Long before the Tuesday announcement of iPhone X.

    That's why I disagree with your claim that the SE wouldn't have seen a price reduction without the X. We don't, and can't, know the exact reasons.

    No one outside Apple can know this for sure.

    But that is all besides the point.

    It is not why they now have this wide product offering at those prices but the fact that it even exists at all!

    Very many people here argued blindly that what we now have was not even possible because Apple simply didn't play that game. It was a premium only seller and didn't fish in the middle to lower ground. Let me drive that home: I was told over and over that what we now have simply wouldn't happen. Were you one of those people?

    Well. It did happen and now what you are trying to do is justify it but it is not really all that important to know why they did this. What is significant is that it exists at all.

    For me. I have already given my thinking and in great detail. Nothing has changed for as much as you attempt to paint my words in a different light with your Huawei comments.

    If I say Huawei has set a goal of ousting Apple from the number two spot in world unit sales (a simple fact), I am sure that a few months down the line you will try to argue that I said Huawei would topple Apple in unit sales. 

    I've seen that closed mentality with wilful attempts to distort what people actually say, again and again. All too often with replies that start with something like 'nonsense!'. Sigh.

    So, if someone dares question 'Apple's way,' that opinion - however well laid out - is automatically labelled as 'wrong', discredited and smart arse comments get tagged on along the lines of 'so, you think you know better than Tim'.

    I always believed in the so-called supercyle and always believed it would provide a nice boost to numbers. As for your claim of a 'growing population' of users, I believe that if it happens it will be due to this new product spread and all the pricing options more than anything else but I have argued for that all along anyway.

    I still think we need to wait a little for the dust to settle on these new offerings but I'm optimistic.

    Qualcomm and Huawei are failed PR attempts?

    Hardly! Everything is marketing at some level. Apple included.

    Whether you want to admit it or not (and you clearly don't) Android is giving Apple some headaches.

    Huawei came from out of nowhere and has disrupted the entire market. The duopoly has ended. That is a major change.

    The market itself has evolved to a point where the vast majority of users (and even users who want quality and features) are perfectly catered to by affordable premium phones. This was validated by the 49% growth in that segment which I mentioned many times and the 4% contraction in premium for the same period.

    So we have Samsung launching great phones and shifting them. We have Samsung reporting best ever profits. We have Huawei almost erasing Apple in many markets it once dominated and topping Apple in world unit sales two quarters running. We have Apple playing catch up in many areas and you only dare criticise Samsung and Huawei once Apple's cards were on the table. Just in case, eh?

    And you didn't even wait to see what the Mate 10 series would offer, ha! You are so confident now.

    If Apple follows its habitual pattern, what we got Tuesday will serve us though to September 2018. Would you care to guess the amount of flagships the competition will put out between now and then?

    That is COMPETITION, it is very real and Apple is responding. That is great but I don't have the slightest doubt that if Apple thought it could keep the boat afloat and chugging along as it has up to now, it wouldn't have left us with this new product matrix.

    That is why competition is so important.








    GG1
  • Reply 220 of 436
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,883member
    jasenj1 said:
    sog35 said:
    The iPhone X is the most amazing single piece of hardware EVER. EVER.
    It doesn't have a memory card slot. Maybe not important to you, but important to many.
    I'm not so sure about that. I don't have a lot of apps on my phone, but I take a ton of pictures and videos. All my videos are in 4K except the slow motion ones I've recorded. I bought the 128 gig 7 Plus and I haven't even come remotely close to using up all my hard drive space. I travel a lot so I always take a ton of pictures and videos. I can't possibly see who would need more than 256 gigs of hard drive space. 


    Pretty sure Bill Gates made that a similar comment concerning 640K RAM in a PC one time. :)


    sure but that doesnt mean that there isn't a limit to how much storage you need now, in 2017.
Sign In or Register to comment.