The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
He didn't say the devices were a collection of 'good enoughs. He said there would be enough 'good enoughs' to dilute FaceID's uniqueness. That doesn't make them knock-offs.
'Good enough' is what is driving the industry. People are choosing to pay less and get 'good enough' instead of high end features at a far higher cost. There's a lot of logic in that.
The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
I agree with you. Knock-off's or not though the technology's marketing value is still diluted.
I'm not so sure. To discerning customers who are willing to spend more, not being a knockoff is a value add proposition. Thus, higher profit margin for Apple and much-less-to-peanuts for the knockoffs.
The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
I agree with you. Knock-off's or not though the technology's marketing value is still diluted.
I'm not so sure. To discerning customers who are willing to spend more, not being a knockoff is a value add proposition. Thus, higher profit margin for Apple and much-less-to-peanuts for the knockoffs.
I agree with you again. There will always be those that prefer the original, but having options whether they are new implementations or knock-off's will still mean that fewer folks will consider FaceID as the valuable defining feature that makes an iPhone X purchase worthwhile since it won't be uniquely Apple's feature. FaceID becomes less valuable as the honey to attract new Apple's users.
The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
He didn't say the devices were a collection of 'good enoughs. He said there would be enough 'good enoughs' to dilute FaceID's uniqueness. That doesn't make them knock-offs.
'Good enough' is what is driving the industry. People are choosing to pay less and get 'good enough' instead of high end features at a far higher cost. There's a lot of logic in that.
I didn't say Gatorguy said it would be a collection of good-enoughs -- *I* said these android devices with collections of good-enoughs are the definition of knockoffs. What I inferred is that knockoffs are cheaper and less desirable. This is why Apple sells more and earns more on iPhones than the knockoffs do -- people care.
So no, good-enough is not driving the industry. Apple is, and that's why they reap the largest profit in the industry. And then your knockoffs put out shoddier implementations that lower-tier customers buy. If that's your bag, great. But don't confuse that for displacing Apple's model any time soon.
The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
I agree with you. Knock-off's or not though the technology's marketing value is still diluted.
I'm not so sure. To discerning customers who are willing to spend more, not being a knockoff is a value add proposition. Thus, higher profit margin for Apple and much-less-to-peanuts for the knockoffs.
I agree with you again. There will always be those that prefer the original, but having options whether they are new implementations or knock-off's will still mean that fewer folks will consider FaceID as the valuable defining feature that makes an iPhone X purchase worthwhile since it won't be uniquely Apple's feature. FaceID becomes less valuable as a driver of new Apple's users.
The idea that Face ID will remain exclusive to the X is a curious one. Or that this is the primary feature of the X. I believe the primary feature of the X is its size-to-screen ratio, which was achieved by implementing Face ID. Which, it turns out has additional value add such as contextual computing.
As with all Kuo's notes, we have to keep in mind, his prediction on what happens is based on the limited information he had.
Like he got the phone screen size and pixels count correct very early on, but didn't know about the notch design or was wrong on controlling bottom bar.
But it is hard for me to think that next iPhone X Plus will start at $1099. The price of $1099 is actually not too bad if it was actually the selling price world wide, but when in most places, even including US, consumers will have to pay tax, VAT or different regional pricing, that is another 10 to 30% higher, this is just so far out of reach.
That's a problem people need to take up with their local governments.
The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
I agree with you. Knock-off's or not though the technology's marketing value is still diluted.
I'm not so sure. To discerning customers who are willing to spend more, not being a knockoff is a value add proposition. Thus, higher profit margin for Apple and much-less-to-peanuts for the knockoffs.
I agree with you again. There will always be those that prefer the original, but having options whether they are new implementations or knock-off's will still mean that fewer folks will consider FaceID as the valuable defining feature that makes an iPhone X purchase worthwhile since it won't be uniquely Apple's feature. FaceID becomes less valuable as a driver of new Apple's users.
The idea that Face ID will remain exclusive to the X is a curious one. Or that this is the primary feature of the X. I believe the primary feature of the X is its size-to-screen ratio, which was achieved by implementing Face ID. Which, it turns out has additional value add such as contextual computing.
There are several phones with higher size-to-screen ratios than the X, the best coming in at 84.9% currently AFAIK, and I don't recall Apple making that a focus in promotions and ads anyway. In fact the body-screen ratio has pretty much failed as the primary selling point on some of those "other" devices. Apple has been using FaceID and Portrait Lighting in marketing rather than screen-to-body, with some emphasis on the vibrant OLED display too in their watercolors ad.
The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
He didn't say the devices were a collection of 'good enoughs. He said there would be enough 'good enoughs' to dilute FaceID's uniqueness. That doesn't make them knock-offs.
'Good enough' is what is driving the industry. People are choosing to pay less and get 'good enough' instead of high end features at a far higher cost. There's a lot of logic in that.
I didn't say Gatorguy said it would be a collection of good-enoughs -- *I* said these android devices with collections of good-enoughs are the definition of knockoffs. What I inferred is that knockoffs are cheaper and less desirable. This is why Apple sells more and earns more on iPhones than the knockoffs do -- people care.
So no, good-enough is not driving the industry. Apple is, and that's why they reap the largest profit in the industry. And then your knockoffs put out shoddier implementations that lower-tier customers buy. If that's your bag, great. But don't confuse that for displacing Apple's model any time soon.
I didn't say you said Gatorguy said whatever. I quoted you quoting him and commented on your comment.
The phones that drove the market weren't knock-offs as you like to claim. A collection of good enoughs is not the definition of a knock-off.
They were cheaper but not less desirable at all. The complete opposite was true. They were the most desirable. They drove the market and it's one of the reasons Apple has its current spread at its current price points.
The reason is that at the middle of last year (when the data became available) it tore down some of the constant claims here on the forums. That Android manufacturers were selling huge quantities of phones but they were simply trash at that bargain bucket end and that the premium end was some kind of oasis owned by Apple.
The research note painted a completely different picture. Both the premium end and the bottom end were contracting but affordable premium was exploding.
Q2 and Q3 2017 saw Huawei overtake Apple in shipments. Q3 saw Apple jump back but when you look at the data it was by just 8 million units. Apple's share of profits was also in steady decline.
I'm speaking from memory on some of this but I've given all the links in other posts.
So, how did Apple react? It moved the puck closer to where the action was - even at the risk of hurting its own high end. A good move.
Devices with 'good enoughs' don't define knock-offs. They define knowing what consumers want and at what price.
Well, now we need a Mac Pro that Apple can call a "strategic success" for pioneering technologies that few buy, but those that do love. Wave that flag.
The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
He didn't say the devices were a collection of 'good enoughs. He said there would be enough 'good enoughs' to dilute FaceID's uniqueness. That doesn't make them knock-offs.
'Good enough' is what is driving the industry. People are choosing to pay less and get 'good enough' instead of high end features at a far higher cost. There's a lot of logic in that.
Indeed, you can see that "good enough" is everywhere. It is a primary reason why Apple is rapidly seeing their business erode, why the installed base of "iAnything" is dropping rapidly, and why Apple is seeing a major depletion of their cash reserves. Apple has lost the cheap fitness tracker market, is nowhere in the Chrome book market, and might as well not enter the $29 smart speaker market.
It can turn out good strategy to offer parallel iPhones lines at various features and price points. iPhone XI and XI Plus and iPhone 8S and 8S Plus than 3rd LCD 6.1 iPhone X in-between. Let people buy based on there beliefs,interest and pocket. Trend is large screen phones but would be very popular if 4.7" frame has no home button screen. When iPhone XI is released at the same price point as current iPhone X and iPhone X has no reduction in price than obviously iPhone X will be out of favor,die down. Unless some carriers start offering BOGO deal. Can't wait to find out in September.
I still say the iPhone X is an IQ test. Are people stupid enough to pay $1k for something Apple makes for a little over $300. That is one hell of a markup. If I had a Jeff Bezos $100 Billion I would not pay that much for a cell phone and I have no interest in any face recognition system.
Cannot for the life of me understand the BFD being made over an OLED screen. As to cameras, I have Leicas that smoke any cell phone snapshot camera.
Price Consciousness should be translated to rational, sentient being. In the end, your $1k does not buy you faster internet, better sound, better battery life or more storage capacity. It does get you a lighter wallet
Nike’s TxShirt costs around 2 USD to produce. They sell it for over 40 USD. I agree. Apple has one hell of a markup. Quite low actipually. Apple is doomed.
I still say the iPhone X is an IQ test. Are people stupid enough to pay $1k for something Apple makes for a little over $300. That is one hell of a markup. If I had a Jeff Bezos $100 Billion I would not pay that much for a cell phone and I have no interest in any face recognition system.
Cannot for the life of me understand the BFD being made over an OLED screen. As to cameras, I have Leicas that smoke any cell phone snapshot camera.
Price Consciousness should be translated to rational, sentient being. In the end, your $1k does not buy you faster internet, better sound, better battery life or more storage capacity. It does get you a lighter wallet
So you're perfectly fine with spending so much on your Leica or your Focal speakers, but wouldn't recommend that for a phone?
You want the absolute best in photography and audio, but don't believe in doing the same for a smartphone?
What do you think the profit margins are on your Focals and Leica? Do you actually own those? And why are you settling for Leica? Can't you afford a Hasselblad?
The claim of a two year advantage may be correct but the “good enough” universe is already making equivalency pronouncements. Any article about Face ID or AR on the iPhone X is met with the “Samsung has had face unlocking for years” meme. Just the feature is touted, not the quality or usability of the feature. Apple was not first so therefore Apple is behind. And people accept that argument hook, line, and sinker.
A device that's a collection of "good enough's" is the definition of a knockoff.
He didn't say the devices were a collection of 'good enoughs. He said there would be enough 'good enoughs' to dilute FaceID's uniqueness. That doesn't make them knock-offs.
'Good enough' is what is driving the industry. People are choosing to pay less and get 'good enough' instead of high end features at a far higher cost. There's a lot of logic in that.
Indeed, you can see that "good enough" is everywhere. It is a primary reason why Apple is rapidly seeing their business erode, why the installed base of "iAnything" is dropping rapidly, and why Apple is seeing a major depletion of their cash reserves. Apple has lost the cheap fitness tracker market, is nowhere in the Chrome book market, and might as well not enter the $29 smart speaker market.
Good enough is all that matters.
I think you are missing the point. The point that Avon makes is fairly simple - People DO care about price tag of a phone AND the major growth in last 2 years is observed NOT in flagship category phones (>$600) but in mid-range (my terminology for phones with price tag from $300 to $600, Avon calls it "affordable premium"). And those phones with $300 to $600 price tag are "good enough" (not just Android phones, but iPhones as well) AND there is LOT of money to be made, which is why Apple is "offering" phones with price tag from $300 (16GB SE costs that much only in my country, including taxes), all the way upto $1600 (256GB iPhone X costs that much in my country), giving "choice" for users with various budgets to choose iPhones. So, yes - "Good enough" is what is driving the industry. Apple's strategy to offer phones with mid-range budget ($300 - $600) is a testament to that.
I still say the iPhone X is an IQ test. Are people stupid enough to pay $1k for something Apple makes for a little over $300.
Price Consciousness should be translated to rational, sentient being. In the end, your $1k does not buy you faster internet, better sound, better battery life or more storage capacity. It does get you a lighter wallet
actually my $1k did buy me better sound, battery life and storage capacity. I can’t believe how much sound my iPhone X pumps into a room...not hifi but for podcasts it eliminates the need for stand alone speakers.
Comments
'Good enough' is what is driving the industry. People are choosing to pay less and get 'good enough' instead of high end features at a far higher cost. There's a lot of logic in that.
I didn't say Gatorguy said it would be a collection of good-enoughs -- *I* said these android devices with collections of good-enoughs are the definition of knockoffs. What I inferred is that knockoffs are cheaper and less desirable. This is why Apple sells more and earns more on iPhones than the knockoffs do -- people care.
So no, good-enough is not driving the industry. Apple is, and that's why they reap the largest profit in the industry. And then your knockoffs put out shoddier implementations that lower-tier customers buy. If that's your bag, great. But don't confuse that for displacing Apple's model any time soon.
The phones that drove the market weren't knock-offs as you like to claim. A collection of good enoughs is not the definition of a knock-off.
They were cheaper but not less desirable at all. The complete opposite was true. They were the most desirable. They drove the market and it's one of the reasons Apple has its current spread at its current price points.
I have often linked to this article:
https://www.counterpointresearch.com/affordable-premium-smartphones-grew-49-annually-in-q1-2017/
The reason is that at the middle of last year (when the data became available) it tore down some of the constant claims here on the forums. That Android manufacturers were selling huge quantities of phones but they were simply trash at that bargain bucket end and that the premium end was some kind of oasis owned by Apple.
The research note painted a completely different picture. Both the premium end and the bottom end were contracting but affordable premium was exploding.
Q2 and Q3 2017 saw Huawei overtake Apple in shipments. Q3 saw Apple jump back but when you look at the data it was by just 8 million units. Apple's share of profits was also in steady decline.
I'm speaking from memory on some of this but I've given all the links in other posts.
So, how did Apple react? It moved the puck closer to where the action was - even at the risk of hurting its own high end. A good move.
Devices with 'good enoughs' don't define knock-offs. They define knowing what consumers want and at what price.
Good enough is all that matters.
As for IQ, I have top 3 percent quantile that smokes any your poor attempts to look smart or cool.
Did i say poor? Yep. Pun intended.
Muahahahahah ( laughs like a 9 year old who enjoys “winning” arguments over internet).
I agree. Apple has one hell of a markup. Quite low actipually. Apple is doomed.
So you're perfectly fine with spending so much on your Leica or your Focal speakers, but wouldn't recommend that for a phone?
You want the absolute best in photography and audio, but don't believe in doing the same for a smartphone?
What do you think the profit margins are on your Focals and Leica? Do you actually own those? And why are you settling for Leica? Can't you afford a Hasselblad?