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."
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.
So you don't see Apple's widening out of their iPhone lins as similar to what they did with iPods? Heck, they controlled the digital music player market and still made a $49 model. Over your theory I favor the idea that Apple has a great handle on fully amortizing R&D, component and manufacturing costs and uses the down market to milk even more profits out of those fully amortized costs, while inviting more users into its ecosystem from all strata of the market. All without compromising on build quality, performance, etc, because every iPhone they sell, with the exception of the 5c and SE, was once a flagship model. Actually, the 5c started life as the 5, so it somewhat qualifies as a flagship, and the SE is an amped up rendition of the 5S, so it more than qualifies as a former flagship.
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?
LG had announced this year that they're investing billions into OLED production just to meet Apple's needs. If what you say is true, then they're essentially flushing billions of dollars down the toilet. I'm not convinced OLED is done, at least in the near future (ie: 5 years).
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."
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.
In terms of the graph, the reduction of the SE to below $400 is significant and it might well go even lower if the problem with flash memory disappears.
Apple didnt used to fish in the lower ground. Now it is doing that because its once premium model has pretty much stalled even in terms of installed base. So it has added a new higher premium level, and can thus lower the prices on some models. And Apple realise that they have increasing revenue from services, and therefore unit sales matter, even if the margins on the original sales are lower.
What they are not worried about is new flagship phones from competitors. Those phones are rarely even as good as the previous year's iPhones and generally involve shoddy compromises, or half functioning features like the half assed samsun touch or faceID, or exploding phones. Of course Samsung buyers are pretty sticky already, they must be if they are happy with exploding phones, and Apple is not really going after that segment ( the tier the 8 is in) agressively. It is going after the newly created higher level, and is trying it out in the lower markets. They will expamd that over time
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?
LG had announced this year that they're investing billions into OLED production just to meet Apple's needs. If what you say is true, then they're essentially flushing billions of dollars down the toilet. I'm not convinced OLED is done, at least in the near future (ie: 5 years).
Announcements are made to support the stock. LG doesn't have to flush billions down the toilet if Apple passes on OLED: people will just put an OLED TV in every room and those billions will be still a wise investment.
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."
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.
In terms of the graph, the reduction of the SE to below $400 is significant and it might well go even lower if the problem with flash memory disappears.
Apple didnt used to fish in the lower ground. Now it is doing that because its once premium model has pretty much stalled even in terms of installed base. So it has added a new higher premium level, and can thus lower the prices on some models. And Apple realise that they have increasing revenue from services, and therefore unit sales matter, even if the margins on the original sales are lower.
What they are not worried about is new flagship phones from competitors. Those phones are rarely even as good as the previous year's iPhones and generally involve shoddy compromises, or half functioning features like the half assed samsun touch or faceID, or exploding phones. Of course Samsung buyers are pretty sticky already, they must be if they are happy with exploding phones, and Apple is not really going after that segment ( the tier the 8 is in) agressively. It is going after the newly created higher level, and is trying it out in the lower markets. They will expamd that over time
You're making the same mistake that Avon B7 is making.
Apple wouldn't do this if it lowered the ASP (average selling price) of the iPhone line, i.e., Apple won't have a lower entry level it doesn't boost its premium "flagship" pricing to maintain ASP, and more so, keep up with inflation. There may be a point in time where Apple will have to accept a lower ASP, and there are certainly quarters in the past when ASP has been down, but I'm not seeing why Apple would proactively lower ASP to gain marketshare, which is in fact what you and Avon B7 are arguing.
Apple is today in a consortium with Bain Capital in an attempt to purchase Toshiba; Apple's share is noted to be $3B. This would be an attempt to gain some control of the flash memory market.
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."
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.
In terms of the graph, the reduction of the SE to below $400 is significant and it might well go even lower if the problem with flash memory disappears.
Apple didnt used to fish in the lower ground. Now it is doing that because its once premium model has pretty much stalled even in terms of installed base. So it has added a new higher premium level, and can thus lower the prices on some models. And Apple realise that they have increasing revenue from services, and therefore unit sales matter, even if the margins on the original sales are lower.
What they are not worried about is new flagship phones from competitors. Those phones are rarely even as good as the previous year's iPhones and generally involve shoddy compromises, or half functioning features like the half assed samsun touch or faceID, or exploding phones. Of course Samsung buyers are pretty sticky already, they must be if they are happy with exploding phones, and Apple is not really going after that segment ( the tier the 8 is in) agressively. It is going after the newly created higher level, and is trying it out in the lower markets. They will expamd that over time
You're making the same mistake that Avon B7 is making.
Apple wouldn't do this if it lowered the ASP (average selling price) of the iPhone line, i.e., Apple won't have a lower entry level it doesn't boost its premium "flagship" pricing to maintain ASP, and more so, keep up with inflation. There may be a point in time where Apple will have to accept a lower ASP, and there are certainly quarters in the past when ASP has been down, but I'm not seeing why Apple would proactively lower ASP to gain marketshare, which is in fact what you and Avon B7 are arguing.
Apple is today in a consortium with Bain Capital in an attempt to purchase Toshiba; Apple's share is noted to be $3B. This would be an attempt to gain some control of the flash memory market.
No I am not saying what he is saying, we all agree they are going downmarket in some models, he is saying that they didnt need the higher level model to do that -- the unheralded iPhone 6 aside -- I am saying the opposite. (In the bolded bit if you open all replies.)
I think therefore they do care about ASP but also about service revenue.
IPhone X/10 is perfectly balanced in size and loaded with features. No doubt, 100% upgrade from 6S. This end-to-end screen and faceID opens door for even larger screen iphone for those OK with larger iPhone, for example similar to iPhone plus size frame.
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."
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.
In terms of the graph, the reduction of the SE to below $400 is significant and it might well go even lower if the problem with flash memory disappears.
Apple didnt used to fish in the lower ground. Now it is doing that because its once premium model has pretty much stalled even in terms of installed base. So it has added a new higher premium level, and can thus lower the prices on some models. And Apple realise that they have increasing revenue from services, and therefore unit sales matter, even if the margins on the original sales are lower.
What they are not worried about is new flagship phones from competitors. Those phones are rarely even as good as the previous year's iPhones and generally involve shoddy compromises, or half functioning features like the half assed samsun touch or faceID, or exploding phones. Of course Samsung buyers are pretty sticky already, they must be if they are happy with exploding phones, and Apple is not really going after that segment ( the tier the 8 is in) agressively. It is going after the newly created higher level, and is trying it out in the lower markets. They will expamd that over time
You're making the same mistake that Avon B7 is making.
Apple wouldn't do this if it lowered the ASP (average selling price) of the iPhone line, i.e., Apple won't have a lower entry level it doesn't boost its premium "flagship" pricing to maintain ASP, and more so, keep up with inflation. There may be a point in time where Apple will have to accept a lower ASP, and there are certainly quarters in the past when ASP has been down, but I'm not seeing why Apple would proactively lower ASP to gain marketshare, which is in fact what you and Avon B7 are arguing.
Apple is today in a consortium with Bain Capital in an attempt to purchase Toshiba; Apple's share is noted to be $3B. This would be an attempt to gain some control of the flash memory market.
No I am not saying what he is saying, we all agree they are going downmarket in some models, he is saying that they didnt need the higher level model to do that -- the unheralded iPhone 6 aside -- I am saying the opposite. (In the bolded bit if you open all replies.)
I think therefore they do care about ASP but also about service revenue.
Cool, I agree with you, of course, and apologize for missing that.
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.
How did you get 40%? iPhone X costs 999, and 8 costs 699. 699 is 70% of 999, not 60%.
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."
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.
So you don't see Apple's widening out of their iPhone lins as similar to what they did with iPods? Heck, they controlled the digital music player market and still made a $49 model. Over your theory I favor the idea that Apple has a great handle on fully amortizing R&D, component and manufacturing costs and uses the down market to milk even more profits out of those fully amortized costs, while inviting more users into its ecosystem from all strata of the market. All without compromising on build quality, performance, etc, because every iPhone they sell, with the exception of the 5c and SE, was once a flagship model. Actually, the 5c started life as the 5, so it somewhat qualifies as a flagship, and the SE is an amped up rendition of the 5S, so it more than qualifies as a former flagship.
I try not to compare iPods with iPhones from a business strategy perspective because Apple had an unassailable advantage for many years. One of the most important factors was device capacity and Apple was at times sucking production capacity out of the market for the highest capacity storage modules. It was immune from the effects of real competition as long as it could shift the capacity it was buying. It could because pricing was attractive, the design was great and the interface was well known. When things like the Nano came along they were pretty much hitting perfection. I think the only dud was the shuffle. The 49€ model was because it was a truly simple device that served its purpose and still have Apple it's margins. By the time the iPod Touch came along it simply picked up from where the regular iPod left off. All that said, the iPod was a simple, specialised device.
The opposite of the iPhone where Apple (and everybody else) has far more points of attack on a device that has evolved to be very complex.
It's very difficult to compare the two because Apple has taken a completely different approach to selling the iPhone, where keeping prices 'high' was a trait for many years.
On R&D, the first question that comes to mind is why now? Why not last year, the year before or from the beginning?
I think the strategy makes sense as there is relatively little to lose - at the moment and the bigger the return on R&D, the better.
It will depend on just how many people are willing to buy into 'older' hardware in exchange for a lower price. Definitely worth giving a shot and that's why I haven't criticised that aspect (I've praised it) and have even been less harsh on the upsell angle. 32GB today is far better than 16GB not too long ago.
I don't have an issue with the mega expensive prices either. If people want to pay them, fine.
For me it's about options and I think if you absolutely want to be in the walled garden you now have options on both price and hardware.
When I switched, it was precisely because the options we have today, didn't exist. I was effectively priced out of the Apple iPhone market.
This new product matrix could go a long way to reducing lost users and even temp some over from Android.
Steve Jobs would NEVER have condoned this BIG BROTHER crap, you know it.
Steve wanted all of your files stored on Apple’s servers and shot to you across the Internet when you logged into any Apple product anywhere. At least, that’s how he had things set up at NeXT, and he gushed about that format at the 1996 and 1997 WWDCs.
The iPhone 8 screen area is significantly smaller than the X.
You can be so silly. The OP plainly and obviously was comparing prices between the 8 and the X. For him the 8 will be fine and dandy if he can buy it for $699 , but 40% more for the X not so much. You're saying wrong does not make it so.
Face ID was not some one off Plan B because they couldn't get the yields high enough on the OLED screens. This is intense programming that was years in the making (they tested Hollywood makeup and masks for heavens sake!). Just like Touch ID evolved (speed, accuracy, etc), Face ID will only get better and better.
REALLY? REALLY? People were CLAPPING when Schiller told them that you now can't access your MONEY or any of your personal info without FACIAL RECOGNITION?
Are you still going to be clapping when the government takes away YOUR ABILITY TO ACCESS YOUR OWN MONEY because it considers you a "terrorist threat" or says you have an "illegal" political view?
Steve Jobs would NEVER have condoned this BIG BROTHER crap, you know it. This is the creepiest thing since the fingerprint BS in the iPhone 5, 6 and 7. Apple is changing for sure, and not in a good way.
I don't want to have to wear a watch that reports how healthy I am and how much money I have to "the cloud." You might as well ask how much SLAVE LIFE a person has left in them.
You really live up to your screen name don’t you?
what are you talking about? Do you even know? Apple is going for more security, not less. You know that you don’t have to use any biometric security if you don’t want to. You can stick to the password.
"Rumor has it" that Apple couldn't get the fingerprint scanner in the display technology to work, so I'm hoping this means a future version of this phone actually will have such a capability. A combination of Touch ID, Face ID and password would be pretty hard to beat.
Yes, we know that too. And I’m one who is still disappointed that they couldn’t get it working. I won’t suddenly change my opinion about that. But we’ll have to see how well this works in the “real world”. I was concerned that we would have to hold the phone straight up, and at a specific distance. That doesnt seen to be true.
i’m less concerned than I was, and this has to do with Apple Pay. While someone said that you had to open the Apple Pay app manually, I don’t see why we would. Maybe I missed that in the presentation, but I hope not. If I can get the phone out of my belt holder, move it up, face up, as I do anyway when using Apple Pay, it faces my face at an angle. If I just have to move it to the scanner and press the side button twice, then it’s about as easy as before. I see no reason why anything else would be different. Face scan unlocks Apple Pay as before, and it should open it as before. The rest is just a double click.
i’m still coming to grips with this. It’s an in between year for us here, so we haven’t had plans to buy new phones this year. Unless it suddenly becomes compelling, and the photo features are pretty compelling, we’ll wait until next year, when much of this will be settled.
but, both my wife and daughter very surprisingly want the Apple Watch Series 3 with cell. That really was a surprise, so maybe I’ll upgrade mine too, instead of next year.
Doubt it. A ton of R&D and sleepless nights went into making FaceID & I think Apple is all-in with facial recognition. Don't be surprised to eventually see it on Macs. Imagine flipping open your laptop screen or sitting down in front of your iMac & voila, your Mac automatically unlocks.
It’s tough to drop what works well for something else that’s very different. I’m usually the first to be enthusiastic about almost any new tech, and one of the first to buy in. But, what we’ve been seeing from other manufacturers has been just so dismal, that it was hard to visualize Apple’s as being much better, using the same technologies. Looking back at Apple purchases, we can see that the tech they bought wasn’t the same as what Samsung, LG and others are using. What they’re doing is much more advanced.
it reminds me, in a backwards way, of Touch ID. Apple had plenty of time to develop it after buying two companies with the best tech. Theirs worked very well from the get go.
then Samsung had to have it too, and came out with that horrible swipe sensor which hardly worked. The next year, a new touch sensor did, and others used similar ones.
but here, it’s the opposite, Samsung and LG, maybe others that I’m not familiar with, have them. But they hardly work. You would think that since they didn’t have to catch up to anyone, they would have taken their time with it to get it working really well, but, they didn’t. That’s really surprising, and it’s why I was somewhat skeptical of Apple’s efforts, particularly since they had apparently, like Samsung, worked mightily to get the sensor functioning behind the screen, which could have meant that it would have been the primary way of getting the biometric functions, with face recognition as secondary.
finding that, suddenly, face was the only way, was therefor, disturbing. Was this a second best technology that Apple is using, because their preferred way didn’t come through for them? It was difficult to understand.
but in seeing it work, and the technical descriptions of how, I feel much better about it. I would still have liked Touch ID behind the screen, but hopefully this will work as easily.
Face ID was not some one off Plan B because they couldn't get the yields high enough on the OLED screens. This is intense programming that was years in the making (they tested Hollywood makeup and masks for heavens sake!). Just like Touch ID evolved (speed, accuracy, etc), Face ID will only get better and better.
No! This is it! iOS and iPhone design are both frozen for all time! We must protest this! /s
Does anyone know if Face ID recognize more than one face? My wife and I have each others' thumb prints saved on our phones so we can quickly & easily unlock them. It would be nice to do the same with Face ID
Nothing I've seen points to recognizing more than one face.
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?
LG had announced this year that they're investing billions into OLED production just to meet Apple's needs. If what you say is true, then they're essentially flushing billions of dollars down the toilet. I'm not convinced OLED is done, at least in the near future (ie: 5 years).
Well, Apple isn't the only client. Once the high paying clients get their due (like Apple), the downmarket clients use the production (so, OLED in a $150 dollar phone eventually).
That's been the case for fabs for a long while and fabs are expensive as hell.
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.
Android makers do it because it makes their devices seem cheaper, which is, after all, a major issue for Android buyers. But buying cheap flash slows your device down. So you have fast (for Android) Flash in your phone, and then slow flash in a card. Great! And if you have more than one card, and you forget the right card, or lose it, you’ve got problems. But fast Flash is expensive, and according to reviews, Apple uses very fast flash, and a very fast memory subsystem.
sony has just come out with a new fast 256GB flash card. How much does it cost - $350!
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."
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.
I know a couple of people who bought the SE because of its size. But elsewhere around the world, people will buy it because of price. It’s pretty obvious that large growing markets in China, India, Brazil and other places can’t afford, in large numbers, Apple’s higher priced goods. Apple knows this too when it tried, and so far failed, to get the Indian government to allow them to import refurbished phones.
dropping the price by $50 is a significant price drop. It’s still a lot higher than the average Android phone, at about $210. But it’s closer to what people might want to upgrade to. I don’t know what you mean by saying that it isn’t a big seller. I’ve seen estimates that, at $399, it sells about 10 million a year, which is about the sales level of Samsung’s Note. If Apple can increase sales with this drop, that would make it a fairly popular phone. And for Apple to get some real grip on these markets, it sees that it has to come in at lower prices. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this at $299 someday.
Comments
In terms of the graph, the reduction of the SE to below $400 is significant and it might well go even lower if the problem with flash memory disappears.
Apple didnt used to fish in the lower ground. Now it is doing that because its once premium model has pretty much stalled even in terms of installed base. So it has added a new higher premium level, and can thus lower the prices on some models. And Apple realise that they have increasing revenue from services, and therefore unit sales matter, even if the margins on the original sales are lower.
What they are not worried about is new flagship phones from competitors. Those phones are rarely even as good as the previous year's iPhones and generally involve shoddy compromises, or half functioning features like the half assed samsun touch or faceID, or exploding phones. Of course Samsung buyers are pretty sticky already, they must be if they are happy with exploding phones, and Apple is not really going after that segment ( the tier the 8 is in) agressively. It is going after the newly created higher level, and is trying it out in the lower markets. They will expamd that over time
Apple wouldn't do this if it lowered the ASP (average selling price) of the iPhone line, i.e., Apple won't have a lower entry level it doesn't boost its premium "flagship" pricing to maintain ASP, and more so, keep up with inflation. There may be a point in time where Apple will have to accept a lower ASP, and there are certainly quarters in the past when ASP has been down, but I'm not seeing why Apple would proactively lower ASP to gain marketshare, which is in fact what you and Avon B7 are arguing.
Apple is today in a consortium with Bain Capital in an attempt to purchase Toshiba; Apple's share is noted to be $3B. This would be an attempt to gain some control of the flash memory market.
I think therefore they do care about ASP but also about service revenue.
The opposite of the iPhone where Apple (and everybody else) has far more points of attack on a device that has evolved to be very complex.
It's very difficult to compare the two because Apple has taken a completely different approach to selling the iPhone, where keeping prices 'high' was a trait for many years.
On R&D, the first question that comes to mind is why now? Why not last year, the year before or from the beginning?
I think the strategy makes sense as there is relatively little to lose - at the moment and the bigger the return on R&D, the better.
It will depend on just how many people are willing to buy into 'older' hardware in exchange for a lower price. Definitely worth giving a shot and that's why I haven't criticised that aspect (I've praised it) and have even been less harsh on the upsell angle. 32GB today is far better than 16GB not too long ago.
I don't have an issue with the mega expensive prices either. If people want to pay them, fine.
For me it's about options and I think if you absolutely want to be in the walled garden you now have options on both price and hardware.
When I switched, it was precisely because the options we have today, didn't exist. I was effectively priced out of the Apple iPhone market.
This new product matrix could go a long way to reducing lost users and even temp some over from Android.
it reminds me, in a backwards way, of Touch ID. Apple had plenty of time to develop it after buying two companies with the best tech. Theirs worked very well from the get go.
then Samsung had to have it too, and came out with that horrible swipe sensor which hardly worked. The next year, a new touch sensor did, and others used similar ones.
but here, it’s the opposite, Samsung and LG, maybe others that I’m not familiar with, have them. But they hardly work. You would think that since they didn’t have to catch up to anyone, they would have taken their time with it to get it working really well, but, they didn’t. That’s really surprising, and it’s why I was somewhat skeptical of Apple’s efforts, particularly since they had apparently, like Samsung, worked mightily to get the sensor functioning behind the screen, which could have meant that it would have been the primary way of getting the biometric functions, with face recognition as secondary.
finding that, suddenly, face was the only way, was therefor, disturbing. Was this a second best technology that Apple is using, because their preferred way didn’t come through for them? It was difficult to understand.
but in seeing it work, and the technical descriptions of how, I feel much better about it. I would still have liked Touch ID behind the screen, but hopefully this will work as easily.
http://appleinsider.com/articles/17/09/14/face-id-on-apples-iphone-x-will-be-limited-to-one-person-per-device
That's been the case for fabs for a long while and fabs are expensive as hell.
dropping the price by $50 is a significant price drop. It’s still a lot higher than the average Android phone, at about $210. But it’s closer to what people might want to upgrade to. I don’t know what you mean by saying that it isn’t a big seller. I’ve seen estimates that, at $399, it sells about 10 million a year, which is about the sales level of Samsung’s Note. If Apple can increase sales with this drop, that would make it a fairly popular phone. And for Apple to get some real grip on these markets, it sees that it has to come in at lower prices. I wouldn’t be surprised to see this at $299 someday.