Apple's push for bigger iPhone screens expected to drive services profits

AppleInsider

The increased costs of making larger displays is small compared to the extra revenues they will bring by driving greater use of the iPhone and tailoring to Apple's forthcoming video services, according to a new analysis.

Apple's "Gather round" event is expected to see the company step up the screen size in two of its three new iPhones by an average of 23 percent compared to last year. According to the Wall Street Journal (article requires subscription), this increase in size will boost initial sales and then also increase owners' use of the phones.

The replacement for last year's iPhone X is expected to retain that phone's 5.8 inch display. However, the replacement for the iPhone 8 is believed to be increasing its screen to 6.1 inches and there's to be a Plus-sized version at 6.5 inches.

Phone size comparison, by Wall Street Journal

"The bigger the device, the more people are getting out of it," analyst Jennifer Chan of research firm Kantar Worldpanel told the Journal. "And the more opportunity there is for Apple to generate money from them."

Kantar Worldpanel claims that users with smartphone screens 6 inches or larger typically use twice as many apps as those with 5.5 inch screens..

The Journal says that it costs Apple $33 more to make Plus-sized models of the iPhone and that the company then charges $100 extra. "As a result, Apple pocketed nearly $77 more profit from the iPhone 8 Plus [than the iPhone 8]," says journalist Tripp Mickle.

Analyst Carolina Milanesi, previously of Kantar and now with research firm Creative Strategies, told the Wall Street Journal that: "The larger screen is not just about real estate. It's a much broader play that benefits the Apple ecosystem."

Milanesi believes the bigger screens make watching TV shows and films more appealing and so expects this to help with Apple's video streaming plans.

Currently there are 1.3 billion iPhones is use and Apple earns an average $30 per device annually from services such as Apple Music, according to estimates by Morgan Stanley.

hondamaker

Dude, $100 minus $33 is a $67, not nearly $77. Just sayin'.

cropr

AppleInsider said:

Kantar Worldpanel claims that users with smartphone screens 6 inches or larger typically use twice as many apps as those with 5.5 inch screens..

The question is: Have users, who are using a lot of apps, already chosen for a big screen or are bigger screens the driver for more app usage?  I am inclined to believe the former is correct. Meaning that pushing users who are currently using less apps than average to a bigger screen, won't necessarily make them use more apps.

dewme

I’m all in on bigger screens but Apple (especially) and most app developers need to make better use of the bigger screens. The Plus phones do make some reasonable accommodations in landscape orientation. The iPad is the worst offender in not taking advantage of the massive screen it has.  

nunzy

Apple did extensive testing and determined that the 3.5 inch screen was the optimal size. Samsung made screens the size of dinner plates that made Android fanboys look ridiculous. Apple knew better and kept the optimal screen size that they knew was the best.

What happened?

edited September 2018

lorin schultz

nunzy said:

Apple did extensive testing and determined that the 3.5 inch screen was the optimal size. Samsung made screens the size of dinner plates that made Android fanboys look ridiculous. Apple knew better and kept the optimal screen size that they knew was the best.

What happened?

Things changed over the ten years since then. Component costs, usage patterns, and user preferences.

I'll bet part of the "optimal" equation was the cost of larger screens making them less attractive to buyers not yet familiar with the concept of a touchscreen pocket computer that makes phone calls.

What buyers would most readily accept would also form part of the "optimal" assessment. In a world full of flip phones, consumers would have freaked out at the notion of something the size of an iPhone Plus because at that point they had no idea how they would benefit from the extra size. And there wasn't as much benefit then as there is now, as applications for the category hadn't yet evolved to exploit it. They have now, which further alters the "optimum" equation.

I'm sure it's frustrating for those who prefer a smaller device, but the fact that 3.5 inches was optimal back then does not mean it still is.

nunzy

lorin schultz said:

nunzy said:

Apple did extensive testing and determined that the 3.5 inch screen was the optimal size. Samsung made screens the size of dinner plates that made Android fanboys look ridiculous. Apple knew better and kept the optimal screen size that they knew was the best.

What happened?

Things changed over the ten years since then. Component costs, usage patterns, and user preferences.

I'll bet part of the "optimal" equation was the cost of larger screens making them less attractive to buyers not yet familiar with the concept of a touchscreen pocket computer that makes phone calls.

What buyers would most readily accept would also form part of the "optimal" assessment. In a world full of flip phones, consumers would have freaked out at the notion of something the size of an iPhone Plus because at that point they had no idea how they would benefit from the extra size. And there wasn't as much benefit then as there is now, as applications for the category hadn't yet evolved to exploit it. They have now, which further alters the "optimum" equation.

I'm sure it's frustrating for those who prefer a smaller device, but the fact that 3.5 inches was optimal back then does not mean it still is.

Have thumbs gotten longer?

exceptionhandler

I would dearly appreciate a 4 to 4.3” iPhone.  My 7 is way toooo big, and... they are only going to get bigger?  My hand aches now as it is with one hand use... and I’ve dropped this phone more times than I did my 5s trying several one handed gymnastics to reach areas on the screen.

cest la vie.  I’ll still buy whatever smallest flagship iPhone there is.  Just wishful thinking to have a sub 4.5” iPhone that is not an SE.

foggyhill

nunzy said:

lorin schultz said:

nunzy said:

Apple did extensive testing and determined that the 3.5 inch screen was the optimal size. Samsung made screens the size of dinner plates that made Android fanboys look ridiculous. Apple knew better and kept the optimal screen size that they knew was the best.

What happened?

Things changed over the ten years since then. Component costs, usage patterns, and user preferences.

I'll bet part of the "optimal" equation was the cost of larger screens making them less attractive to buyers not yet familiar with the concept of a touchscreen pocket computer that makes phone calls.

What buyers would most readily accept would also form part of the "optimal" assessment. In a world full of flip phones, consumers would have freaked out at the notion of something the size of an iPhone Plus because at that point they had no idea how they would benefit from the extra size. And there wasn't as much benefit then as there is now, as applications for the category hadn't yet evolved to exploit it. They have now, which further alters the "optimum" equation.

I'm sure it's frustrating for those who prefer a smaller device, but the fact that 3.5 inches was optimal back then does not mean it still is.

Have thumbs gotten longer?

Many people use their phone sideways these days, and they use it for a lot more things than dialing, which was the main thing done in 2007.

Even texting is either done sideways or on the bottom of the screen in portrait; typing works just as well on big screens and small screens.

Phone interfaces have adapted by putting more things on the bottom, or enabling a richer interface when the phone is sideways.

The type of things done phones these days are so different these days that where the fingers need to hit has likely changed a lot.

bestkeptsecret

I maybe simplifying things too much here, having not read the linked story, but I don't think people are going to subscribe to Netflix or Apple Music simply because they have a larger screen. I don't know how this will drive services revenue.

radarthekat

nunzy said:

lorin schultz said:

nunzy said:

Apple did extensive testing and determined that the 3.5 inch screen was the optimal size. Samsung made screens the size of dinner plates that made Android fanboys look ridiculous. Apple knew better and kept the optimal screen size that they knew was the best.

What happened?

Things changed over the ten years since then. Component costs, usage patterns, and user preferences.

I'll bet part of the "optimal" equation was the cost of larger screens making them less attractive to buyers not yet familiar with the concept of a touchscreen pocket computer that makes phone calls.

What buyers would most readily accept would also form part of the "optimal" assessment. In a world full of flip phones, consumers would have freaked out at the notion of something the size of an iPhone Plus because at that point they had no idea how they would benefit from the extra size. And there wasn't as much benefit then as there is now, as applications for the category hadn't yet evolved to exploit it. They have now, which further alters the "optimum" equation.

I'm sure it's frustrating for those who prefer a smaller device, but the fact that 3.5 inches was optimal back then does not mean it still is.

Have thumbs gotten longer?

Nicely obtuse.  Are we done here?

blah64

radarthekat said:

nunzy said:

lorin schultz said:

nunzy said:

Apple did extensive testing and determined that the 3.5 inch screen was the optimal size. Samsung made screens the size of dinner plates that made Android fanboys look ridiculous. Apple knew better and kept the optimal screen size that they knew was the best.

What happened?

Things changed over the ten years since then. Component costs, usage patterns, and user preferences.

I'll bet part of the "optimal" equation was the cost of larger screens making them less attractive to buyers not yet familiar with the concept of a touchscreen pocket computer that makes phone calls.

What buyers would most readily accept would also form part of the "optimal" assessment. In a world full of flip phones, consumers would have freaked out at the notion of something the size of an iPhone Plus because at that point they had no idea how they would benefit from the extra size. And there wasn't as much benefit then as there is now, as applications for the category hadn't yet evolved to exploit it. They have now, which further alters the "optimum" equation.

I'm sure it's frustrating for those who prefer a smaller device, but the fact that 3.5 inches was optimal back then does not mean it still is.

Have thumbs gotten longer?

Nicely obtuse.  Are we done here?

Sigh.  Is there a reasonable way to toss out the chaff here on AI?

Nunzy doesn't quite cross the line of clearly breaking rules, but his/her posts are of such an incredibly bad quality that there should be some kind of limit.  Nearly every story he bursts in with some inane one-liner, usually near the top of the comments, and then leaves.  Frankly, his first post here on this thread was one of his best, and that's not saying much.  Followed up by another one-liner inane comment.

At one point I actually wondered if Nunzy is actually an experimental bot.

Ultimately, commenters here either make the site more interesting or less interesting.  There are a few PITA commenters (we all know who they are) that we mostly disagree with, but at least they bring conversation to the table.  I don't feel like there's any question that Nunzy is a drag on the site.  I realize I don't get a "vote", but if I did, he'd be off the island.

I'm not sure what else to do or say, but maybe if others of you agree you could give this comment a thumbs-up (faster/easier than taking the time to write a comment).  If several people do, maybe there's something to be done, if no one cares, I'll shut back up.

edited September 2018