For many of us, our phones are one of our most personal and important possessions. These devices provide a connection to not just the internet, but the people and data that underlie modern society. To call the iPhone just a "phone" is a gross understatement, and such devices are available of one desires.
Many price guesses have been floated, none of which offer anything but speculation. One logical guarantee, advancements in technology and material engineering will continue. Historically, Apple always shares advancements down product lines as it becomes cost effective and supply improves. No one should really expect Apple to implode their margins by pricing the iPhone Pro lower than the technology and market allows. Such expectations within a free market are dangerous to far more than just Apple's margins. Every year Apple pushes their devices further along the bleeding edge, regardless of a buyers intelligence or care to appreciate such relentless pursuit. If one cannot appreciate the cohesive result of such engineering combined with quantifiable planetary betterment, perhaps another manufacturer would suit.
Personally, if the iPhone Pro can provide next generation technology with beautiful aesthetics, I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars more. I'm waiting for an iMac Pro as well, yet nobody seems to be upset that such an advanced device costs more than the iMac.
At the end of the day, the current iPhone 7 series is an amazing product family that will handle fluid AR technology and takes great pictures. As each generation iterates throughout the world, I'm excited that Apple champions such noble pursuit among all technology companies.
This seems reasonable, we can't both simultaneously expect significant advancement and significant price decline...
It's like letting the user choose if they want the slow lane or the fast lane to the future of personal computing.
While it is entirely possible for Apple to deliver advanced functionality at a lower cost I think most would be satisfied with more value (same price for better features/capabilities ).
Your slow lane / fast lane analogy is laughable. What is Apple's #1 go-to critique of Android? How fragmented they are, right? You think Apple should purposely cultivate a fragmented user base? That's insane.
Read the article again, and tell me what the similarities are between these products, and how they relate to this conversation:
Macintosh IIfx Original Powerbook 3500 (G3) Twentieth Anniversary Mac PowerMac Cube iMac Pro
A friend of mine worked for Apple back in the IIfx days. He had one on his desk, alpha hardware in a IIx case. It was referred to by everyone on his team as the "Too F*cking eXpensive". (They also cussed the black SCSI terminators.)
Amusingly, I own both a TAM and a Cube. They were free, because they were both kinda crap machines that, while they sold for too much money initially, they also depreciated very quickly. I don't have a Kanga, but I do have a 3400, which I eventually intend to sacrifice for repair parts for the TAM.
The only reason the iMac Pro will sell is that it's coming out before the first release of what will hopefully be an actual Mac Pro since 2012, and people need to get work done.
And if Apple actually does a $1200 iPhone? Yeah, I know people who will buy one. But I don't know many.
And those are all interesting comparisons. The IIfx was a really good machine, Apple pushed the boundaries of the possible with the tech then. It had a lot of quirks because of that, and it was stupid expensive, but worth it for the few people who needed it right then - but the Quadras were better.
The Kanga was kind of similar, pushing what could be done without a complete redesign - and the redesign (Wallstreet) was much better.
The TAM was a compromised machine from the beginning, never meant to be a performance machine, never meant to be anything but pretty and have good speakers.
The Cube was the same, aesthetics were given priority over everything else, it was a low-end G4 in a pretty case. The attempt at quiet operation was foiled by the bad bearings in the hard drives they shipped with, you could frequently hear a cube over everything else in the room even though it had no fan.
And the iMac Pro is another inherently compromised design. There is no sane reason to put a top of the line computer in a super-thin case behind a screen. It's not portable, a 27 inch computer is not intended to be portable, put the guts in a box, give the box plenty of expansion capability and cooling.
I don't understand how you'd relate any of that to a stupid-expensive phone, though.
This is people not remembering that Macs used to cost $3000+ back in the 80's. Today's computers are 1000x more powerful for 1/10th the price.
This. This is in part what the chart of macs on the previous page had in common. very expensive computers not produced in any great quantity -- but if you've got the money, you'll buy one.
Macintosh IIfx -- $9900 Original Powerbook 3500 (G3) - $6900 Twentieth Anniversary Mac - $7499 PowerMac Cube - $1800 for single processor, when dual G4 towers were less iMac Pro - $4499 and likely way, way up.
Should the iPhone 8 be $1300, it's not atypical, nor even particularly crazy, given what Apple has done in the past for boutique Macs loaded with all the tech Apple could bring to bear.
That was a cheap Mac IIfx, I paid well over $12,000 tricked out.
Those prices are just crazy. Apple will be pricing themselves right out of the market if this rumor is true. If Apple is going to release a so called iPhone 7s and 7s Plus and a iPhone 8, well then the iPhone 7s and 7s Plus are already outdated!!! The 8 is over priced, and I'd stick with my iPhone 6 for a 4th year.
The difference between an $800 iPhone and a $1200 iPhone (on a 24 month purchase agreement) is less than $17/month. Considering that is is a rare bird that pays cash for an iPhone this price increase is a non-issue (except for Android shills).
I'm no fan of Android. but another $400 on top of the current price is CRAZY! You're now forking out $50 a month for the phone on top of your calling plan for 2 years. Make it sound not bad at $17 a month, but it's really $50 a month. Why don't you just come out and tell it as it is. Not that it's just going to add a little $17 a month to your bill. That doesn't sound so bad when you put it that way.
Apple over charged on the Original iPhone and ended up having to drop the price.
Apple probably overcharged on the original iPhone to keep demand in check while supplies and yields were low. Otherwise, why give the refund later?
Apple overcharged, but only in the sense that sales dropped off too much after the initial demand. The refund that was half that of the price drop was calculated move, and I wish they hadn't done because it sends a message of entitlement that's all too familiar today with people that purchase Apple products, not that it didn't exist then as we heard stories of people buying the 4GB model because the 8GB model was sold out and then complaining that Apple sold them the 4GB model. The transaction itself is all that should be considered. The seller offers a product at a certain price and the buyer decides that he agrees to that price when he makes a purchase.
Those prices are just crazy. Apple will be pricing themselves right out of the market if this rumor is true. If Apple is going to release a so called iPhone 7s and 7s Plus and a iPhone 8, well then the iPhone 7s and 7s Plus are already outdated!!! The 8 is over priced, and I'd stick with my iPhone 6 for a 4th year.
What's crazy is the demand. Based on the scarcity of the product it's much easier to argue that the price is too low for the market than the price is too high.
Read the article again, and tell me what the similarities are between these products, and how they relate to this conversation:
Macintosh IIfx Original Powerbook 3500 (G3) Twentieth Anniversary Mac PowerMac Cube iMac Pro
I guess people don't expect Apple would treat iPhone with a special "Pro" price. I, on the other hand would pay any amount for the latest iPhone. I am just that bad, and I suspect I am not the only one.
This is people not remembering that Macs used to cost $3000+ back in the 80's. Today's computers are 1000x more powerful for 1/10th the price.
This. This is in part what the chart of macs on the previous page had in common. very expensive computers not produced in any great quantity -- but if you've got the money, you'll buy one.
Macintosh IIfx -- $9900 Original Powerbook 3500 (G3) - $6900 Twentieth Anniversary Mac - $7499 PowerMac Cube - $1800 for single processor, when dual G4 towers were less iMac Pro - $4499 and likely way, way up.
Should the iPhone 8 be $1300, it's not atypical, nor even particularly crazy, given what Apple has done in the past for boutique Macs loaded with all the tech Apple could bring to bear.
And don't forget RED's phone will be $1300 and $1600, so it's not like Apple is the first to go to these kind of price points.
Frankly, i don't get that people don't get Gruber's argument about supply. It makes 100% sense.
This seems reasonable, we can't both simultaneously expect significant advancement and significant price decline...
It's like letting the user choose if they want the slow lane or the fast lane to the future of personal computing.
While it is entirely possible for Apple to deliver advanced functionality at a lower cost I think most would be satisfied with more value (same price for better features/capabilities ).
Your slow lane / fast lane analogy is laughable. What is Apple's #1 go-to critique of Android? How fragmented they are, right? You think Apple should purposely cultivate a fragmented user base? That's insane.
You don’t understand what fragmented means. Apple has referred to android phone OS fragmentation, since different devices run differ versions of Android with different support options and functionality. iOS doesn’t have that problem – the current version is on the vast majority of devices and developers have far fewer things to worry about. Apple supports all devices the current couple versions run on, unlike the android vendors who drop support almost immediately, including Pixels if I recall.
Read the article again, and tell me what the similarities are between these products, and how they relate to this conversation:
Macintosh IIfx Original Powerbook 3500 (G3) Twentieth Anniversary Mac PowerMac Cube iMac Pro
The only reason the iMac Pro will sell is that it's coming out before the first release of what will hopefully be an actual Mac Pro since 2012, and people need to get work done. [...]
And the iMac Pro is another inherently compromised design. There is no sane reason to put a top of the line computer in a super-thin case behind a screen. It's not portable, a 27 inch computer is not intended to be portable, put the guts in a box, give the box plenty of expansion capability and cooling.
Wrong. Loaded 5k iMacs are popular with pros because they’re fast enough and take up very little space. For us pros who work in our homes an iMac is a great choice because it’s a very clean system that takes me up very little space. My loaded iMac uses a VESA mount and floats above my desk, with no box on or under. I love this.
Craig said most of their pros are running Xcode and a great number are iMacs. So thank god you aren’t making the decisions over there.
I agree most of the time with your articles. BUT I think that it is true that prices has gone up the past few years also it has been related to the bigger iPhones introduction. If we take the 4.7 iPhone 7 with 32GB is 649.00, The iPhone 6 had similar price and so it did the 5. That is the only size that you could possibly compare to the older models cause "the size matters" For example in prosumer or professional photography you have companies like canon that releases cameras without 4k and no touch interface in cameras supposed to be profesional and an iPhone does. Sony always push the price a bit higher and cameras like the @6500 you have to pay extra money for time-lapse apps. etc. My point is that when Apple raise the prices also comes with an added value like bigger screen size, sensors, battery life, etc etc. So you are getting more for the same price or very very close to last generation.
Isn't this the same "OMG! The price!" argument we see time and time again?
Perhaps someone could elaborate as to why the naysayers will be right this time. Why will the unannounced price for an unannounced product spell doom for Apple?
Those prices are just crazy. Apple will be pricing themselves right out of the market if this rumor is true. If Apple is going to release a so called iPhone 7s and 7s Plus and a iPhone 8, well then the iPhone 7s and 7s Plus are already outdated!!! The 8 is over priced, and I'd stick with my iPhone 6 for a 4th year.
What's crazy is the demand. Based on the scarcity of the product it's much easier to argue that the price is too low for the market than the price is too high.
You're trying to explain basic economic theory here. Trust me. It won't work. If Apple launches at this price then they will face a barrage of criticism while folk are waiting six weeks for their phone.
Those prices are just crazy. Apple will be pricing themselves right out of the market if this rumor is true. If Apple is going to release a so called iPhone 7s and 7s Plus and a iPhone 8, well then the iPhone 7s and 7s Plus are already outdated!!! The 8 is over priced, and I'd stick with my iPhone 6 for a 4th year.
The difference between an $800 iPhone and a $1200 iPhone (on a 24 month purchase agreement) is less than $17/month. Considering that is is a rare bird that pays cash for an iPhone this price increase is a non-issue (except for Android shills).
Not everyone buys on an installment plan and every tech/news site on the planet will report the full cost, especially if $1199 is the starting point. If the phone doesn’t have some amazing new feature(s) that no other phone has it will be a PR disaster for Apple. a 64GB 12.9” iPad Pro is $799 yet Gruber wants us to believe Apple will have no problem selling an iPhone that starts at $1199? Seriously?
The Apple instalment plan is interest-free, includes AppleCare+, and gives you the option of upgrading your phone after a year. If you can get on it then it sounds like a no-brainer. If you can't get on it then I think that your next priority is not owning an iPhone too expensive for you to buy.
A PR disaster? You know, Apple should find some way to make a dollar when someone says that that what they're doing will be a disaster. The profits from the "Armchair CEO Disaster Prediction Division" will dwarf iPhone revenues in the space of a year.
Read the article again, and tell me what the similarities are between these products, and how they relate to this conversation:
Macintosh IIfx Original Powerbook 3500 (G3) Twentieth Anniversary Mac PowerMac Cube iMac Pro
The only reason the iMac Pro will sell is that it's coming out before the first release of what will hopefully be an actual Mac Pro since 2012, and people need to get work done. [...]
And the iMac Pro is another inherently compromised design. There is no sane reason to put a top of the line computer in a super-thin case behind a screen. It's not portable, a 27 inch computer is not intended to be portable, put the guts in a box, give the box plenty of expansion capability and cooling.
Wrong. Loaded 5k iMacs are popular with pros because they’re fast enough and take up very little space. For us pros who work in our homes an iMac is a great choice because it’s a very clean system that takes me up very little space. My loaded iMac uses a VESA mount and floats above my desk, with no box on or under. I love this.
Craig said most of their pros are running Xcode and a great number are iMacs. So thank god you aren’t making the decisions over there.
Until Craig puts some absolute numbers on the table his claims are very much open to speculation which could swing wildly in either direction.
I doubt many Pros give much importance to boxes vs AIO but given the choice I bet many would prefer to separate the screen and the rest of the machine. Especially, as to expand on the AIO, it has to be external anyway which involves 'clutter' (which again, most pros are happy with as the clutter of today is not the clutter of yesteryear).
To support my point, I wonder how many Pros (not just developers) would opt for something to this over an iMac?
I'm not talking about the innards, just the styling, overall size and upgrade options.
If Apple had taken that ball and ran with it, many people, not just pros, would have jumped on it for way under $2,000.
That will never happen with this Apple because it would likely chop the legs off the iMac line but that has little to do with satisfying users' preferences and everything to do with Apple wanting to keep revenues up.
I think Apple should be trying to reach both goals in every segment.
Comments
For many of us, our phones are one of our most personal and important possessions. These devices provide a connection to not just the internet, but the people and data that underlie modern society. To call the iPhone just a "phone" is a gross understatement, and such devices are available of one desires.
Many price guesses have been floated, none of which offer anything but speculation. One logical guarantee, advancements in technology and material engineering will continue. Historically, Apple always shares advancements down product lines as it becomes cost effective and supply improves. No one should really expect Apple to implode their margins by pricing the iPhone Pro lower than the technology and market allows. Such expectations within a free market are dangerous to far more than just Apple's margins.
Every year Apple pushes their devices further along the bleeding edge, regardless of a buyers intelligence or care to appreciate such relentless pursuit. If one cannot appreciate the cohesive result of such engineering combined with quantifiable planetary betterment, perhaps another manufacturer would suit.
Personally, if the iPhone Pro can provide next generation technology with beautiful aesthetics, I'm willing to pay a few hundred dollars more. I'm waiting for an iMac Pro as well, yet nobody seems to be upset that such an advanced device costs more than the iMac.
At the end of the day, the current iPhone 7 series is an amazing product family that will handle fluid AR technology and takes great pictures. As each generation iterates throughout the world, I'm excited that Apple champions such noble pursuit among all technology companies.
Thank you Apple.
Your slow lane / fast lane analogy is laughable. What is Apple's #1 go-to critique of Android? How fragmented they are, right? You think Apple should purposely cultivate a fragmented user base? That's insane.
He had one on his desk, alpha hardware in a IIx case.
It was referred to by everyone on his team as the "Too F*cking eXpensive". (They also cussed the black SCSI terminators.)
Amusingly, I own both a TAM and a Cube. They were free, because they were both kinda crap machines that, while they sold for too much money initially, they also depreciated very quickly. I don't have a Kanga, but I do have a 3400, which I eventually intend to sacrifice for repair parts for the TAM.
The only reason the iMac Pro will sell is that it's coming out before the first release of what will hopefully be an actual Mac Pro since 2012, and people need to get work done.
And if Apple actually does a $1200 iPhone? Yeah, I know people who will buy one. But I don't know many.
And those are all interesting comparisons. The IIfx was a really good machine, Apple pushed the boundaries of the possible with the tech then. It had a lot of quirks because of that, and it was stupid expensive, but worth it for the few people who needed it right then - but the Quadras were better.
The Kanga was kind of similar, pushing what could be done without a complete redesign - and the redesign (Wallstreet) was much better.
The TAM was a compromised machine from the beginning, never meant to be a performance machine, never meant to be anything but pretty and have good speakers.
The Cube was the same, aesthetics were given priority over everything else, it was a low-end G4 in a pretty case. The attempt at quiet operation was foiled by the bad bearings in the hard drives they shipped with, you could frequently hear a cube over everything else in the room even though it had no fan.
And the iMac Pro is another inherently compromised design. There is no sane reason to put a top of the line computer in a super-thin case behind a screen. It's not portable, a 27 inch computer is not intended to be portable, put the guts in a box, give the box plenty of expansion capability and cooling.
I don't understand how you'd relate any of that to a stupid-expensive phone, though.
I guess people don't expect Apple would treat iPhone with a special "Pro" price. I, on the other hand would pay any amount for the latest iPhone. I am just that bad, and I suspect I am not the only one.
Put the bells whistles and do dads everybody wants and we 'll pay
Frankly, i don't get that people don't get Gruber's argument about supply. It makes 100% sense.
Wrong. Loaded 5k iMacs are popular with pros because they’re fast enough and take up very little space. For us pros who work in our homes an iMac is a great choice because it’s a very clean system that takes me up very little space. My loaded iMac uses a VESA mount and floats above my desk, with no box on or under. I love this.
Craig said most of their pros are running Xcode and a great number are iMacs. So thank god you aren’t making the decisions over there.
For example in prosumer or professional photography you have companies like canon that releases cameras without 4k and no touch interface in cameras supposed to be profesional and an iPhone does. Sony always push the price a bit higher and cameras like the @6500 you have to pay extra money for time-lapse apps. etc.
My point is that when Apple raise the prices also comes with an added value like bigger screen size, sensors, battery life, etc etc. So you are getting more for the same price or very very close to last generation.
Perhaps someone could elaborate as to why the naysayers will be right this time. Why will the unannounced price for an unannounced product spell doom for Apple?
You're trying to explain basic economic theory here. Trust me. It won't work. If Apple launches at this price then they will face a barrage of criticism while folk are waiting six weeks for their phone.
A PR disaster? You know, Apple should find some way to make a dollar when someone says that that what they're doing will be a disaster. The profits from the "Armchair CEO Disaster Prediction Division" will dwarf iPhone revenues in the space of a year.
I doubt many Pros give much importance to boxes vs AIO but given the choice I bet many would prefer to separate the screen and the rest of the machine. Especially, as to expand on the AIO, it has to be external anyway which involves 'clutter' (which again, most pros are happy with as the clutter of today is not the clutter of yesteryear).
To support my point, I wonder how many Pros (not just developers) would opt for something to this over an iMac?
https://www.tomsguide.com/us/dell-xps-tower,review-4499.html
I'm not talking about the innards, just the styling, overall size and upgrade options.
If Apple had taken that ball and ran with it, many people, not just pros, would have jumped on it for way under $2,000.
That will never happen with this Apple because it would likely chop the legs off the iMac line but that has little to do with satisfying users' preferences and everything to do with Apple wanting to keep revenues up.
I think Apple should be trying to reach both goals in every segment.