Apple said to unveil 'iPhone 8,' 'iPhone 7s' and more at Sept. 12 event

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 125
    These days I prefer to think of the fall iPhone events as a preview to what we're gonna get with the spring SE line-up
  • Reply 22 of 125
    wood1208 said:
    Hope, AppleTV 5th gen supports both Dolby Vision 12bit and HDR10+ format, my TV does.
    I don't know what either of those things are, but they sound good. :)

    Hopefully everyone else buys TV's that support that within the next 10 years or so.
  • Reply 23 of 125
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member

    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    Well unless you are a power engineer I don't think we know why Apple chose the lower standard (if they did, it's just a rumor for now). Of course this will be touted by the haters, if true, as some failure on Apple's part. But apparently Apple doesn't care one bit about what there haters say, or what some users say when they don't know why something is happening.
    StrangeDaysshark5150
  • Reply 24 of 125
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    Soli said:
    jax44 said:
    I wonder if the iPhone " Edition " will go with a USB C connector?.
    i know, probably not, but seeing as it is kind of an outlier model, maybe the first to transition.
    On the device or PSU? If you mean on the device then I wouldn't hold your breath.
    Don't hold your breath about the other end of the cable either. If you want one? Buy one. Nothing stopping you, if you value that cable so much.

    The iPhone market as a whole does not value that cable at all, which is why it does not (and will not) come with the product. USB-A is still far, far more appropriate.

    Again, nothing stopping you from buying that USB-C cable if you see fit.
    Sure. It will never come to the iPhone despite USB-C replacing more and more USB-A ports every day¡
  • Reply 25 of 125
    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    sog35 said:
    Prediction:  Apple will widen the gap between the top end and the mid tier.  Just like they did for iPad

    iPhone 7s - $549 - 32 GB, $649 128GB

    iPhone 7s+ $679 - 32 GB, $779 128 GB

    Apple won't be selling 7 and 7+.  The low tier will be the SE.

    iPhone X $949 - 128GB, $1049 256 GB, $1149 512 GB
    Strong statements.
    I can even see Apple making a bigger leap by selling the iPhone 7s for $499.  That would capture an even bigger market.

    The strategy of widening the gap between top and mid tier worked really well for the iPad this year.

    The question is will enough people buy the iPhoneX to make up the price drop with the 7s?

    And will enough new buys who would have not purchased the 7s for $649 buy the 7s for $499?
    You really don't understand Apple then, if you think that is even remotely feasible, or even smart in theory.

    Do you not understand that Apple does NOT need to sell a single unit more than what they will sell at the current prices? They have no reason to lower prices and maybe sell a couple more. That is a huge risk. All they need to do is maintain, and add a great product every year.
    edited August 2017 StrangeDays
  • Reply 26 of 125
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 33,407member
    kent909 said:
    Even something that is a given is presented as a rumor. "Said" and not announced?
    It's not announced yet.  This is a rumor about the date of an announcement.
    So make all rumored travel plans accordingly.  :)
  • Reply 27 of 125
    tmaytmay Posts: 6,244member
    sog35 said:
    Prediction:  Apple will widen the gap between the top end and the mid tier.  Just like they did for iPad

    iPhone 7s - $549 - 32 GB, $649 128GB

    iPhone 7s+ $679 - 32 GB, $779 128 GB

    Apple won't be selling 7 and 7+.  The low tier will be the SE.

    iPhone X $949 - 128GB, $1049 256 GB, $1149 512 GB
    Nope.

    While that lineup might look cleaner to a casual observer, Apple doesn't care about that. They care about having iPhones at several price points. Also, the 512 GB iPhone X will not be that cheap.

    iPhone 7 $549 - 32 GB, $599 128 GB.
    iPhone 7 Plus $649 32 GB, $699 - 128 GB.

    iPhone 7s - $649 - 32 GB, $749 - 128 GB, $849 - 256 GB.
    iPhone 7s Plus - $749 - 32 GB, $849 - 128 GB, $949 (this model will come down in price by $20).

    iPhone X - $969 - 64 GB, $1069 - 256 GB, $1269 512 GB.

    Actually it would be a good opportunity for Apple to enter the "mid-range" by reducing the prices of regular iPhone <n> and iPhone <n> Plus models and keep the high ASP by having a separate "Premium" product under the "X/Pro" lineup. This would help Apple in the long-term once the super-cycle is done and dusted.
    ARKit is going to be a huge driver this year, so no, it doesn't make any sense to enter the "mid-range" any time soon. Apple only needs to do so when they have run out of innovations, a point in time which I'm not seeing on the horizon. If anything, Apple needs to work on ramping up production for "Pro" products, and specifically deliver the product that no one seems to want to acknowledge, a "Pro" version in an iPhone 4 form factor. 
  • Reply 28 of 125
    kent909 said:
    Even something that is a given is presented as a rumor. "Said" and not announced?
    It's not announced yet.  This is a rumor about the date of an announcement.
    While what you say is undoubtedly true, the fact that it's in the WSJ is as good as money in the bank (for me).
  • Reply 29 of 125
    jax44jax44 Posts: 79member
    Soli said:
    jax44 said:
    I wonder if the iPhone " Edition " will go with a USB C connector?.
    i know, probably not, but seeing as it is kind of an outlier model, maybe the first to transition.
    On the device or PSU? If you mean on the device then I wouldn't hold your breath.
    On the device, that's why I said " probably not".
    Definitely not holding my breath.

    Either way, I'm getting this bad boy.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 125
    jdgazjdgaz Posts: 403member
    sog35 said:
    2 iPhone X
    2 HomePods
    2 iPad 2017
    2 LTE Watches
    1 ATV5

    DAMN!

    good thing AAPL stock is on fire.


    Thank you very much.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 125
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    lkrupp said:

    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    Well unless you are a power engineer I don't think we know why Apple chose the lower standard (if they did, it's just a rumor for now). Of course this will be touted by the haters, if true, as some failure on Apple's part. But apparently Apple doesn't care one bit about what there haters say, or what some users say when they don't know why something is happening.
    That’s just making excuses. And I designed a fair amount of electronics professionally. I understand power as well as most anyone.

    the point is that the standard Apple is using has two levels. Obviously, Apple made a decision here, it wasn’t random. I’m questioning why they made that decision. Some flagship Android phones are using level 2. Since the iPhone can easily charge with chargers higher than 15 watts without any problems, it’s a valid question as to why Apple went with the lower number, assuming that it’s correct, as I said in my other post. I would be happy if it was incorrect.

    but Apple’s devices are known for slow charging times with the supplied chargers. That’s nothing new. Just look at the review comparisons at the sites that do that.
  • Reply 32 of 125
    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    see Samsung Note 7.

    Apple rarely does something for no reason

    "Exploding" was a one-off among the 100+ models that support quick charging, so safety issue "only due to" quick charging support can be ruled out. However I wouldn't rule out the possibility of reduced battery longevity and life due to quick charging. I have read in many websites where many people have complained about the amount of heat generated while quick-charging their Android phones, but they continue to use it because it is so "convenient" to use. What effects that quick charging has on their battery over a long time - I have no idea.


    While common sense dictates that this (quick charging negatively affecting the longevity of battery and/or phone) would be true, my view is that there is not enough research done into this aspect. Or may be I am not reading enough articles about this. Can someone point out to articles which discuss in detail about "fast charging" and the effect that it has on Battery AND/OR the Phones which support them? In this context, Apple taking a conservative approach is the "right" thing to do in my view.

    Edit: Wherever I have mentioned quick charging, it should be read as fast charging. Thanks to @Melgross for explaining the right terminology to use in this context.

    edited August 2017
  • Reply 33 of 125
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member
    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:

    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    Well unless you are a power engineer I don't think we know why Apple chose the lower standard (if they did, it's just a rumor for now). Of course this will be touted by the haters, if true, as some failure on Apple's part. But apparently Apple doesn't care one bit about what there haters say, or what some users say when they don't know why something is happening.
    That’s just making excuses. And I designed a fair amount of electronics professionally. I understand power as well as most anyone.

    the point is that the standard Apple is using has two levels. Obviously, Apple made a decision here, it wasn’t random. I’m questioning why they made that decision. Some flagship Android phones are using level 2. Since the iPhone can easily charge with chargers higher than 15 watts without any problems, it’s a valid question as to why Apple went with the lower number, assuming that it’s correct, as I said in my other post. I would be happy if it was incorrect.

    but Apple’s devices are known for slow charging times with the supplied chargers. That’s nothing new. Just look at the review comparisons at the sites that do that.
    another clueless person who thinks they can engineer iPhones better than Apple......
    Oh please, your post shows that you are far more clueless than I am. You think, like a fanboy, where everything Apple does is always the best, and that every decision is always the right one, no matter what.

    i’m questioning why they did it, because the phones can obviously charge at much higher rates. It’s a very fair question to,ask.

    what’s not fair is people who know nothing, attacking me for asking it.
    edited August 2017 anantksundaramchiaargonauth2p
  • Reply 34 of 125
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,508member

    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    see Samsung Note 7.

    Apple rarely does something for no reason

    "Exploding" was a one-off among the 100+ models that support quick charging, so safety issue "only due to" quick charging support can be ruled out. However I wouldn't rule out the possibility of reduced battery longevity and life due to quick charging. I have read in many websites where many people have complained about the amount of heat generated while quick-charging their Android phones, but they continue to use it because it is so "convenient" to use. What effects that quick charging has on their battery over a long time - I have no idea.


    While common sense dictates that this (quick charging negatively affecting the longevity of battery and/or phone) would be true, my view is that there is not enough research done into this aspect. Or may be I am not reading enough articles about this. Can someone point out to articles which discuss in detail about "fast charging" and the effect that it has on Battery AND/OR the Phones which support them? In this context, Apple taking a conservative approach is the "right" thing to do in my view.

    Quick charging is something else. The idea there is to charge for 15 minutes, or so, and get up to at least 50% charge. That does shorten battery life. Though, for Pro power tool batteries, 15 minute chargers actually give longer total battery life. Different kind of charger, and different kind of lithium battery.

    but fastER charging just cuts down on long charge times. High quality batteries can handle that without a problem.
    chia
  • Reply 35 of 125
    tmay said:
    sog35 said:
    Prediction:  Apple will widen the gap between the top end and the mid tier.  Just like they did for iPad

    iPhone 7s - $549 - 32 GB, $649 128GB

    iPhone 7s+ $679 - 32 GB, $779 128 GB

    Apple won't be selling 7 and 7+.  The low tier will be the SE.

    iPhone X $949 - 128GB, $1049 256 GB, $1149 512 GB
    Nope.

    While that lineup might look cleaner to a casual observer, Apple doesn't care about that. They care about having iPhones at several price points. Also, the 512 GB iPhone X will not be that cheap.

    iPhone 7 $549 - 32 GB, $599 128 GB.
    iPhone 7 Plus $649 32 GB, $699 - 128 GB.

    iPhone 7s - $649 - 32 GB, $749 - 128 GB, $849 - 256 GB.
    iPhone 7s Plus - $749 - 32 GB, $849 - 128 GB, $949 (this model will come down in price by $20).

    iPhone X - $969 - 64 GB, $1069 - 256 GB, $1269 512 GB.

    Actually it would be a good opportunity for Apple to enter the "mid-range" by reducing the prices of regular iPhone <n> and iPhone <n> Plus models and keep the high ASP by having a separate "Premium" product under the "X/Pro" lineup. This would help Apple in the long-term once the super-cycle is done and dusted.
    ARKit is going to be a huge driver this year, so no, it doesn't make any sense to enter the "mid-range" any time soon. Apple only needs to do so when they have run out of innovations, a point in time which I'm not seeing on the horizon. If anything, Apple needs to work on ramping up production for "Pro" products, and specifically deliver the product that no one seems to want to acknowledge, a "Pro" version in an iPhone 4 form factor. 
    As I mentioned in my post, there is NO issue for Apple this year (2017-2018). But Apple has to plan for life after super-cycle. Even if ARKit is going to take iPhones next level compared to ANY other phone in the world (which I agree it will), the sales of iPhones will level-off or slow down a little bit post super-cycle. That is unavoidable given that iPhone sales have peaked all the highs that it possibly can in a world with "finite" number of people who can afford the higher prices. And entering mid-range "slowly" by reducing the entry-level prices gradually is the best way to mitigate for the eventual slow-down. Just my opinion. Let us see what Apple does!!!
    avon b7
  • Reply 36 of 125
    SoliSoli Posts: 10,035member
    melgross said:
    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:

    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    Well unless you are a power engineer I don't think we know why Apple chose the lower standard (if they did, it's just a rumor for now). Of course this will be touted by the haters, if true, as some failure on Apple's part. But apparently Apple doesn't care one bit about what there haters say, or what some users say when they don't know why something is happening.
    That’s just making excuses. And I designed a fair amount of electronics professionally. I understand power as well as most anyone.

    the point is that the standard Apple is using has two levels. Obviously, Apple made a decision here, it wasn’t random. I’m questioning why they made that decision. Some flagship Android phones are using level 2. Since the iPhone can easily charge with chargers higher than 15 watts without any problems, it’s a valid question as to why Apple went with the lower number, assuming that it’s correct, as I said in my other post. I would be happy if it was incorrect.

    but Apple’s devices are known for slow charging times with the supplied chargers. That’s nothing new. Just look at the review comparisons at the sites that do that.
    another clueless person who thinks they can engineer iPhones better than Apple......
    Oh please, your post shows that you are far more clueless than I am. You think, like a fanboy, where everything Apple does is always the best, and that every decision is always the right one, no matter what.

    i’m questioning why they did it, because the phones can obviously charge at much higher rates. It’s a very fair question to,ask.

    what’s not fair is people who know nothing, attacking me for asking it.
    It’s a fair question, but it’s mostly academic unless we make a case that Apple doesn’t know what they’re doing with battery chemistry.

    As you note in another post, the rate at which these batteries are charged varies at different stages of charging. Maybe Apple is being overly cautious, but could considering Apple’s position in the market I can’t fault them for that. So what changed this year if we assume the rumors are truse?
  • Reply 37 of 125
    melgross said:

    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    see Samsung Note 7.

    Apple rarely does something for no reason

    "Exploding" was a one-off among the 100+ models that support quick charging, so safety issue "only due to" quick charging support can be ruled out. However I wouldn't rule out the possibility of reduced battery longevity and life due to quick charging. I have read in many websites where many people have complained about the amount of heat generated while quick-charging their Android phones, but they continue to use it because it is so "convenient" to use. What effects that quick charging has on their battery over a long time - I have no idea.


    While common sense dictates that this (quick charging negatively affecting the longevity of battery and/or phone) would be true, my view is that there is not enough research done into this aspect. Or may be I am not reading enough articles about this. Can someone point out to articles which discuss in detail about "fast charging" and the effect that it has on Battery AND/OR the Phones which support them? In this context, Apple taking a conservative approach is the "right" thing to do in my view.

    Quick charging is something else. The idea there is to charge for 15 minutes, or so, and get up to at least 50% charge. That does shorten battery life. Though, for Pro power tool batteries, 15 minute chargers actually give longer total battery life. Different kind of charger, and different kind of lithium battery.

    but fastER charging just cuts down on long charge times. High quality batteries can handle that without a problem.
    Ok, I mixed up the terms there. Thanks for the clarification. I have a question on the statement highlighted - When we use fast charging (say a 20W charger as against a 5W charger) to charge a phone battery over a period of 2 years once everyday, how well the battery would retain its capacity after that in both the cases? Based on your post, I assume both batteries would have similar life left in them. Is that a fair statement to make? Has enough research done on that? Are there articles which present the research findings?
  • Reply 38 of 125
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,786member
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:

    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    Well unless you are a power engineer I don't think we know why Apple chose the lower standard (if they did, it's just a rumor for now). Of course this will be touted by the haters, if true, as some failure on Apple's part. But apparently Apple doesn't care one bit about what there haters say, or what some users say when they don't know why something is happening.
    That’s just making excuses. And I designed a fair amount of electronics professionally. I understand power as well as most anyone.

    the point is that the standard Apple is using has two levels. Obviously, Apple made a decision here, it wasn’t random. I’m questioning why they made that decision. Some flagship Android phones are using level 2. Since the iPhone can easily charge with chargers higher than 15 watts without any problems, it’s a valid question as to why Apple went with the lower number, assuming that it’s correct, as I said in my other post. I would be happy if it was incorrect.

    but Apple’s devices are known for slow charging times with the supplied chargers. That’s nothing new. Just look at the review comparisons at the sites that do that.
    Unless you’re an EE at Apple, i’m not sure i understand your challenge of the rumored decision. Nobody here is going to have the answer, at least at this point in time. As always I’m confident it’s about engineering and not any kooky conspiracy to screw their own customers as others have proclaimed in the last couple weeks. 
    tmaywatto_cobra
  • Reply 39 of 125
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 12,786member
    melgross said:
    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    lkrupp said:

    melgross said:
    If true, I wonder why Apple isn’t going to use level 2 wireless charging, at 15 watts, rather than level 1 charging, at 7.5 watts. I can say for certain that my 7+ charges a lot faster using a 12 watt iPad charger than the measly 5 watt charger that comes with it. It even charges a bit faster using the 29 watt Macbook charger that I bought as the primary charger for my iPad Pro 12.9”, which charges a lot faster with that than the 12 watt charger.

    i hope Apple is giving up on those old chargers this year. The iPhone really needs at least an 8 watt charger, and the iPad Pro 12.9”, a 16 watt model.
    Well unless you are a power engineer I don't think we know why Apple chose the lower standard (if they did, it's just a rumor for now). Of course this will be touted by the haters, if true, as some failure on Apple's part. But apparently Apple doesn't care one bit about what there haters say, or what some users say when they don't know why something is happening.
    That’s just making excuses. And I designed a fair amount of electronics professionally. I understand power as well as most anyone.

    the point is that the standard Apple is using has two levels. Obviously, Apple made a decision here, it wasn’t random. I’m questioning why they made that decision. Some flagship Android phones are using level 2. Since the iPhone can easily charge with chargers higher than 15 watts without any problems, it’s a valid question as to why Apple went with the lower number, assuming that it’s correct, as I said in my other post. I would be happy if it was incorrect.

    but Apple’s devices are known for slow charging times with the supplied chargers. That’s nothing new. Just look at the review comparisons at the sites that do that.
    another clueless person who thinks they can engineer iPhones better than Apple......
    Oh please, your post shows that you are far more clueless than I am. You think, like a fanboy, where everything Apple does is always the best, and that every decision is always the right one, no matter what.

    i’m questioning why they did it, because the phones can obviously charge at much higher rates. It’s a very fair question to,ask.

    what’s not fair is people who know nothing, attacking me for asking it.,
     I flagged you for calling him a fanboy. That’s a stupid ad hominem fallacy/attack. Didnt you used to be a mod here? And you’re going to call people fanboys?
    edited August 2017 Soli
  • Reply 40 of 125
    sog35 said:
    melgross said:
    sog35 said:
    Prediction:  Apple will widen the gap between the top end and the mid tier.  Just like they did for iPad

    iPhone 7s - $549 - 32 GB, $649 128GB

    iPhone 7s+ $679 - 32 GB, $779 128 GB

    Apple won't be selling 7 and 7+.  The low tier will be the SE.

    iPhone X $949 - 128GB, $1049 256 GB, $1149 512 GB
    Strong statements.
    I can even see Apple making a bigger leap by selling the iPhone 7s for $499.  That would capture an even bigger market.

    The strategy of widening the gap between top and mid tier worked really well for the iPad this year.

    The question is will enough people buy the iPhoneX to make up the price drop with the 7s?

    And will enough new buys who would have not purchased the 7s for $649 buy the 7s for $499?
    You really don't understand Apple then, if you think that is even remotely feasible, or even smart in theory.

    Do you not understand that Apple does NOT need to sell a single unit more than what they will sell at the current prices? They have no reason to lower prices and maybe sell a couple more. That is a huge risk. All they need to do is maintain, and add a great product every year.

    I would like to disagree with your statement. Apple has to plan for long-term future, not just the current year 2017-18 when super-cycle occurs. Post super-cycle, Apple has to plan for countering the possibility of reduction in sales. The best way forward is to reduce the entry level prices.


    Just a question to you - If Apple is able to sell only 200 million iPhones in 2018-19 with the current high prices as against 230 million for 2017-18, would you be satisfied? Even assuming Yes to it, would Apple be satisfied with that? Apple DOES have pressure to achieve "goal" of X billion in sales. Just by increasing ASP and selling less iPhones, Apple cannot achieve those goals - NOT in the long-term EVERY YEAR, particularly in non-super cycle years. To expand or to even retain parity in the long-term, the entry level prices have to come down eventually.

    edited August 2017
Sign In or Register to comment.