Price of iPhones is so overblown. In Canada almost all the flagships are over $1000. The Note 8 retails for $1300, Pixel 2 XL $1299, S8+ is $1115, LG v30 $1100. I mean the Galaxy S7 is still $900. Meanwhile, iPhone 8plus 64gb $1089 & iPhone X $1349.
Due to certain regulations there is no reason to buy a phone at full retail, in Canada. All phones are now sold unlocked and are heavily subsidized on contract.
The Note 8 launched at $550 on a contract and has already been discounted down to $300 on some carriers. Pixel 2XL 64gb launched at $399 and has already been discounted by $200. The iPhone X 64gb launched at $599 and prices remains the same. iPhone 8plus 64gb is $360 and I am sure will see a sale price over Boxing Week.
The prices of all flagships are very high. But Apple takes all the flak. It is a terrible narrative.
I would love to be proven wrong, because from what I can tell iPhone X is no where near what the black market anticipation were in China. Basically they were expecting another iPhone 4 / 6 Plus volume, but it is definitely not anywhere close. iPhone 7 is doing surprisingly well though. Really cant wait to see those results.
You were in every street corner in China? Stop the bullshit. Tim Cook finally mastered the supplies and guess what, don't even mention $1000 because the X doesn't target budget buyers just like any other flagship iPhone. No budget buyer ever bought a top tier phone. I have been guessing for so many year about the same design of iPhone and I was wrong every time because Apple always beat it. That's why their stock price was almost doubled in less than 3 years.
So can we please, finally, start just laughing at the naysayers instead of trying to respond to them? I completely remember the cacophony surrounding the introduction of the iPhone X. Apple had crossed the line, Apple had jumped the shark, no one was going to pay $1K for a phone, the notch would kill sales left and right, the drum beating went on and on. They say the same things over and over again and they are always shown to be wrong.
Now comes the iMac Pro and those same critics are trashing it too. It’s not really a Pro machine because you can’t open it up and fiddle around inside, as if real professionals with deadlines have time to do that anyway. No one is going to buy it either, right? I can just imagine what will be said when the new Mac Pro is introduced next year. It will be more of the same from that crowd. And god forbid a new Mac mini is released next year. They will jump on that like flies on a bull's balls.
I think the naysayers and trolls have jumped the shark as they haven’t had anything new to say about Apple for years now. You can only predict failure so long until people start laughing at you. I put this crowd right up there with the deranged, self-taught theologians who regularly predict the end of the world and the coming of the Rapture. Next time, next time they’ll be right. No really, next time.
Those people sounded like Balmer (and a million other anti-Apple people) when the original iPhone was introduced.
Whatever Balmer touched would fail. Look at LA Clippers now...
I was skeptical of last year’s Porsche Design Mate 9, but even that device managed to stand out by offering a curved display, a notably different design, a front-facing finger scanner, a higher resolution display, and additional internal storage and RAM. Nothing life-changing to be sure, and certainly not worth its price tag, but it was still enough to differentiate itself from the standard Mate 9. Not so with the Porsche Design Mate 10. The Porsche Design Mate 10 takes the Mate 10 Pro, changes the pattern on the camera from horizontal to vertical, bumps the internal storage to 256 GB and that’s about it. Oh, you get wallpapers, and, umm, a Porsche Design theme. Because themes are really hard to come by and, of course, très expensive. It’s black too; a real rarity in smartphones these days.
Well.. sincerely thank you for making me feel much much better about my X price lol.
That one. And the one before it. Amazingly, it has buyers. If it were the only (or of a limited lineup) phone they sold it would be a problem. They don't make that mistake and Apple isn't either so the X pricing (and Porsche Design) isn't as big an issue. Of far more importance is how things play out in the bands below that price point.
avon b7 said: Even Huawei had 1,400 dollar phones (all sold out) a while before Apple.
I think this time you're purposely missing the point. You know damn well the "sold out" is interconnected to quantity, which is why we don't talk about the Mona Lisa being sold out despite it is since the only one isn't for sale. Hoow many units did Huawei produce? What's the percentage compared to mass produced, at least at several millions per month, iPhone X?
The point was simply that it was a success. No units left unsold. The amount actually sold is irrelevant in this context as they are selling 'status' and there seems to be a market. For this kind of marketing what you don't want, is to see them everywhere.
I was defending the X pricing as well as the Huawei pricing in their different contexts.
Maye a touch off topic. Call me a sheep. I buy a new iPhone for myself and my wife yearly and have had all interations of Apple Watch. Also iPad updates regularly. Mac every few years. Resale on Apple products is pretty good to help recoup some money on my new purchases. iPhone 7 plus 869 iPhone X 999. I love my X and face id its a 130 bucks more, and on iPhone upgrade or carrier installments the increase is minimal. Some people gamble etc. I rather travel and upgrade my Apple products. Also resting heart rate monitor on Series 3 lte helped to save my life alerting me of elevation in resting heart rate. I was having a heart attack. Apple is doomed my ass.
Huh, it's almost like Apple knows what they're doing and the armchair CEOs don't.
Depends on which armchair CEOs you read.
Apple has made possibly its most radical mobile strategic shift ever with the release of the 2017 iPhones.
The armchair CEOs that said that would never happen (mostly those who blindly defend Apple, whatever it does) clearly got that one wrong.
The presence of a 1,000 dollar phone in that context means very little. Even Huawei had 1,400 dollar phones (all sold out) a while before Apple.
The big risk for Apple (not for competitors) was if leaving a large spread of lower priced phones would eat into the top end.
You won't see any answer to that question until after the Christmas quarter.
What radical shift was that?
I was referring to Apple's decision to offer a price spread that ranges from 369€ (sales tax included) right up to the plus 1,000 dollar mark. The first time in iPhone history.
The developed market was showing signs of saturation (even Apple's sales could be considered flat) and the very top end was even showing a possible contraction. That with new major competitors stomping all around that segment. Things weren't looking rosy and Apple's profit share of the phone market was also seemingly dropping.
Meanwhile, the 300-399 dollar band was showing spectacular growth at the start of 2017. Not bad in a saturated market. Apple wasn't really in that group.
Apple was also getting bruised in large parts of Europe and not really performing in China.
Competitors had already set their sights on developing markets and, the Note 7 debacle aside, phones in 2017 have been very good.
Only a fool would say, "forget market conditions, look at our profits". 2018 wasn't looking very nice for Apple. It is even suggested that the X was not even planned for 2017 (this by Apple itself).
Try to imagine a 2017 release without the X.
The new offer and price spread has provided an answer to many of these issues. It is a significant strategic move and, at least in my book, the right first choice.
Some could say that offering 'older' phones in lower bands isn't enough. That's valid but you won't know until you try. It's only three months so far. Too early to tell. I'm not going to criticise this tactic and I won't if it fails. Whether it pays off or not, it was the easiest option to try. If it doesn't work then they can also produce newer phones at those same price points - just like everyone else. 'Not Apple' some might say but that's exactly what those same people said about the current situation. It would never happen because Apple was only interested in Premium etc.
If that were the case Apple wouldn't have been heavily promoting the iPhone 6 in its key markets last Christmas.
Huh, it's almost like Apple knows what they're doing and the armchair CEOs don't.
Depends on which armchair CEOs you read.
Apple has made possibly its most radical mobile strategic shift ever with the release of the 2017 iPhones.
The armchair CEOs that said that would never happen (mostly those who blindly defend Apple, whatever it does) clearly got that one wrong.
The presence of a 1,000 dollar phone in that context means very little. Even Huawei had 1,400 dollar phones (all sold out) a while before Apple.
The big risk for Apple (not for competitors) was if leaving a large spread of lower priced phones would eat into the top end.
You won't see any answer to that question until after the Christmas quarter.
What radical shift was that?
I was referring to Apple's decision to offer a price spread that ranges from 369€ (sales tax included) right up to the plus 1,000 dollar mark. The first time in iPhone history.
The developed market was showing signs of saturation (even Apple's sales could be considered flat) and the very top end was even showing a possible contraction. That with new major competitors stomping all around that segment. Things weren't looking rosy and Apple's profit share of the phone market was also seemingly dropping.
Meanwhile, the 300-399 dollar band was showing spectacular growth at the start of 2017. Not bad in a saturated market. Apple wasn't really in that group.
Apple was also getting bruised in large parts of Europe and not really performing in China.
Competitors had already set their sights on developing markets and, the Note 7 debacle aside, phones in 2017 have been very good.
Only a fool would say, "forget market conditions, look at our profits". 2018 wasn't looking very nice for Apple. It is even suggested that the X was not even planned for 2017 (this by Apple itself).
Try to imagine a 2017 release without the X.
The new offer and price spread has provided an answer to many of these issues. It is a significant strategic move and, at least in my book, the right first choice.
Some could say that offering 'older' phones in lower bands isn't enough. That's valid but you won't know until you try. It's only three months so far. Too early to tell. I'm not going to criticise this tactic and I won't if it fails. Whether it pays off or not, it was the easiest option to try. If it doesn't work then they can also produce newer phones at those same price points - just like everyone else. 'Not Apple' some might say but that's exactly what those same people said about the current situation. It would never happen because Apple was only interested in Premium etc.
If that were the case Apple wouldn't have been heavily promoting the iPhone 6 in its key markets last Christmas.
With Avon Apple is always “beleaguered” and “bruised”.
Great article -- except, they're not "fearing" Apple's failure they're "desiring" it. As in, longing for, wishing, hastening, and precipitating -- or trying to. Many want to bring down the mighty. They want to short the stock. They want to potentiate the competition. But whatever the motivation, the predictions of doom and gloom for Apple are wrong.
I was skeptical of last year’s Porsche Design Mate 9, but even that device managed to stand out by offering a curved display, a notably different design, a front-facing finger scanner, a higher resolution display, and additional internal storage and RAM. Nothing life-changing to be sure, and certainly not worth its price tag, but it was still enough to differentiate itself from the standard Mate 9. Not so with the Porsche Design Mate 10. The Porsche Design Mate 10 takes the Mate 10 Pro, changes the pattern on the camera from horizontal to vertical, bumps the internal storage to 256 GB and that’s about it. Oh, you get wallpapers, and, umm, a Porsche Design theme. Because themes are really hard to come by and, of course, très expensive. It’s black too; a real rarity in smartphones these days.
Well.. sincerely thank you for making me feel much much better about my X price lol.
..so the X pricing (and Porsche Design) isn't as big an issue..
Interesting. I always think the price could be big issue, especially for mass produced like X but I think it’s already exceeeding Apple expectation. (it’s already exceeding mine from the long of the line to buy it)
avon b7 said: Even Huawei had 1,400 dollar phones (all sold out) a while before Apple.
I think this time you're purposely missing the point. You know damn well the "sold out" is interconnected to quantity, which is why we don't talk about the Mona Lisa being sold out despite it is since the only one isn't for sale. Hoow many units did Huawei produce? What's the percentage compared to mass produced, at least at several millions per month, iPhone X?
The point was simply that it was a success. No units left unsold. The amount actually sold is irrelevant in this context as they are selling 'status' and there seems to be a market. For this kind of marketing what you don't want, is to see them everywhere.
I was defending the X pricing as well as the Huawei pricing in their different contexts.
1) Units sold (and profit margins) always matter. This notion that Apple can sell 100MM units of a product over a year with some supply being available from time-to-time as being worse than a very limited supply product that is sold out with the company never reinvesting in starting up production again is a ridiculous comparison.
2) Sure, companies hate their products being sold everywhere and being wildly profitable and popular. Maybe Apple will make something of themselves when they figure this out¡ :eyeroll:
avon b7 said: Even Huawei had 1,400 dollar phones (all sold out) a while before Apple.
I think this time you're purposely missing the point. You know damn well the "sold out" is interconnected to quantity, which is why we don't talk about the Mona Lisa being sold out despite it is since the only one isn't for sale. Hoow many units did Huawei produce? What's the percentage compared to mass produced, at least at several millions per month, iPhone X?
The point was simply that it was a success. No units left unsold. The amount actually sold is irrelevant in this context as they are selling 'status' and there seems to be a market. For this kind of marketing what you don't want, is to see them everywhere.
I was defending the X pricing as well as the Huawei pricing in their different contexts.
1) Units sold (and profit margins) always matter. This notion that Apple can sell 100MM units of a product over a year with some supply being available from time-to-time as being worse than a very limited supply product that is sold out with the company never reinvesting in starting up production again is a ridiculous comparison.
2) Sure, companies hate their products being sold everywhere and being wildly profitable and popular. Maybe Apple will mKe something of themselves when they figure this out¡ :eyeroll:
It's futile trying to reason logically with avon. He's clearly got an axe to grind.
I would love to be proven wrong, because from what I can tell iPhone X is no where near what the black market anticipation were in China. Basically they were expecting another iPhone 4 / 6 Plus volume, but it is definitely not anywhere close. iPhone 7 is doing surprisingly well though. Really cant wait to see those results.
You were in every street corner in China? Stop the bullshit. Tim Cook finally mastered the supplies and guess what, don't even mention $1000 because the X doesn't target budget buyers just like any other flagship iPhone. No budget buyer ever bought a top tier phone. I have been guessing for so many year about the same design of iPhone and I was wrong every time because Apple always beat it. That's why their stock price was almost doubled in less than 3 years.
Comments
Due to certain regulations there is no reason to buy a phone at full retail, in Canada. All phones are now sold unlocked and are heavily subsidized on contract.
The Note 8 launched at $550 on a contract and has already been discounted down to $300 on some carriers. Pixel 2XL 64gb launched at $399 and has already been discounted by $200. The iPhone X 64gb launched at $599 and prices remains the same. iPhone 8plus 64gb is $360 and I am sure will see a sale price over Boxing Week.
The prices of all flagships are very high. But Apple takes all the flak. It is a terrible narrative.
I was defending the X pricing as well as the Huawei pricing in their different contexts.
The developed market was showing signs of saturation (even Apple's sales could be considered flat) and the very top end was even showing a possible contraction. That with new major competitors stomping all around that segment. Things weren't looking rosy and Apple's profit share of the phone market was also seemingly dropping.
Meanwhile, the 300-399 dollar band was showing spectacular growth at the start of 2017. Not bad in a saturated market. Apple wasn't really in that group.
Apple was also getting bruised in large parts of Europe and not really performing in China.
Competitors had already set their sights on developing markets and, the Note 7 debacle aside, phones in 2017 have been very good.
Only a fool would say, "forget market conditions, look at our profits". 2018 wasn't looking very nice for Apple. It is even suggested that the X was not even planned for 2017 (this by Apple itself).
Try to imagine a 2017 release without the X.
The new offer and price spread has provided an answer to many of these issues. It is a significant strategic move and, at least in my book, the right first choice.
Some could say that offering 'older' phones in lower bands isn't enough. That's valid but you won't know until you try. It's only three months so far. Too early to tell. I'm not going to criticise this tactic and I won't if it fails. Whether it pays off or not, it was the easiest option to try. If it doesn't work then they can also produce newer phones at those same price points - just like everyone else. 'Not Apple' some might say but that's exactly what those same people said about the current situation. It would never happen because Apple was only interested in Premium etc.
If that were the case Apple wouldn't have been heavily promoting the iPhone 6 in its key markets last Christmas.
Lol.
2) Sure, companies hate their products being sold everywhere and being wildly profitable and popular. Maybe Apple will make something of themselves when they figure this out¡ :eyeroll:
It's futile trying to reason logically with avon. He's clearly got an axe to grind.
LoL,