I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
It may be confusing, but the biometric functions are a major advance, which will be used for far more than just face recognition and Animojis. The photographic effects are very advanced, and this was most of my career, so to impress me with it means something.
obviously there was no way Apple could get Samsung to produce even more OLEDs this year. They produce between 50-60 million a year for themselves, or will, with the Note coming back. So rumor has it that Apple ordered 90 million. Well, no responsible manufacturer has 70% of their plants sitting idle. So Samsung had to rush to build more production for Apple. Are these the same Pentile screens Samsung uses for their own products? We don’t know, though I hope not. And that cut out is killing 40% of production. Does that mean 40% of the 90 million? Because that will just leave 54 million usable screens, unless they get better at it.
while Apple is working with LG for OLEDs, LG just produces a few for phones, with almost all their production going to large screens for the Tv market. We also know, from a hands on done in arstechnica, that their phone screen looks just terrible compared to Samsung’s, when a grey is used across the screen. No where near the quality Apple is going for.
so for that reason alone there was no way Apple could hope to produce a lot of phones using OLED for this year’s phones. And then we heard about problems producing enough sensors. Whether that was true or not, I don’t know.
the really interesting year will be next year. Hopefully, by then, OLED production will be worked out, either with Samsung alone, or with LG too. Sensor shortages, if any, should not be a problem, and also hopefully, costs will have come down. So, is the iPhone x a celebration of the tenth aniversiry of the iPhone, though Apple didn’t say that, though it does seem like a subtle hint that it is, or is it the start of a new line? John Gruber thinks Apple will also have three phones next year, but I’m not so sure.
if costs do come down, then an extra high priced model isn’t needed. If there are enough screens, then Apple could do two higher selling models. Both could have the sensors the x does now. So what would be the point of another phone, and what would they call it?
I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
"The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones."
Couldn't agree more. This is exactly what it feels like. It's a tough decision. i think Apple made the right one.
Let's consider if Apple had been able to obtain unlimited OLED displays and no OLED displays.
Unlimited: They have the most radical iPhone announcement to date. In many ways it's even more radical than when the iPhone was first introduced in comparison to other "smart"phones on the market, but for an YoY release it's just an amazing jump for a company that I'd argue has a history of soft-stepping radical, customer-facing innovations. Not having Touch ID, having Face ID, that display permitter, and price point are far too many things, in my opinion, even if we discount OLED panel availability as a factor.
None: They release an iPhone 8 series. It has Qi charging, USB 3.0 speeds over Lightning and fast charging, it has a better camera with OIS in both lenses and new SW features to go with it, it has a TrueTone display, and the A11 Bionic. That seems like a great update in and of itself, but there's also no reason—except that the iPhone X exists and that component supply may also be low-yield for Face ID—that Face ID could't have been added to it, had they wanted to.
So I agree that Apple made the right choice but I don't see how OLED supply not being a factor would mean the iPhone 8 series wouldn't still exist.
PS: If you adjust the factors so that the iPhone X displays is the same cost as the iPhone 7 then things get more interesting, but I can't see how that could ever be the case with what we know about OLED production right now. Perhaps the Toshiba factory was suppose to solve that, but then you still have the iPhone 8 series being $50 more than the iPhone 7 series last year. Where did that extra cost from? Is Apple just getting more profit because they're, like, super greedy? Is it just to make the price difference to the iPhone X seem like less of a jump? I'm guessing that adding Qi charging plays a big role in that.
Apple is probably getting HUGE profits by even Apple's standards because didn't they drop Qualcomm for Intel modems.
The iPhone 8 screen area is significantly smaller than the X.
You can be so silly. The OP plainly and obviously was comparing prices between the 8 and the X. For him the 8 will be fine and dandy if he can buy it for $699 , but 40% more for the X not so much. You're saying wrong does not make it so.
Sorry bro. You are wrong.
This is like someone bitching that a 70 inch TV cost more than a 50 inch TV. Duh. Of course its going to cost more.
Comparing the price between the 8 and X is dishonest.
Dishonest? The OP doesn't see the personal value for him in spending 40% more on the X, the 8 checking the boxes for the features he thinks he wants. Seems an honest enough opinion.
I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
"The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones."
Couldn't agree more. This is exactly what it feels like. It's a tough decision. i think Apple made the right one.
So are you guys saying there shouldn't be differing products based on differing needs and different constraints? Struggling to understand.
Not at all. What we're saying (or at least I am) is given an ideal situation of no supply constraints on components, Apple would've probably liked to have released two iPhone X models: 5.8" & 6.4" (starting at say $799 or $899), no iPhone 8 models, and lower prices on the rest of the line-up (SE, 6S, 7). Apple promotes the iPhone X as the future of the iPhone for the next ten years. If so, I'd imagine they want to get it in as many hands as possible, but as we know, key components are severely constrained right now.
That may not happen...
OLED is not a new tech, it is an old tech existing since many years. If that OLED tech didn't reach the level of yield to support the iPhone, after so many years, if the best producer's yield is only 60%, let’s admit it we may be done with OLED. There may be no more OLED with the iPhone. The X may be the first and last OLED iPhone. Don't let your opinions be manipulated by Kuo, try to see the big surface, composed of hundreds of millions of LCD iPhones, iPads, iPods, LCD Macbooks and iMacs.
May that change? It may. Apple is powerful enough to lead that change. But at what cost, in how many years, and will Apple choose to do that?
It wasn’t the yield. It was the quality and consistency. OLED has some advantages, but they’re mostly operational. In most cases, for example, you can’t see the difference in black levels between a modern LCD and OLED when actually viewing images, video and graphics. Our eyes can only see so much contrast when looking at a small screen, and so if the screen is bright enough, even a dark grey looks black.
oled has more variation in color at differing angles than the LCDs Apple now uses. They haven’t been as bright. They suffer burn in. All of this is better than it’s been before, and Apple apparently thinks that it’s reached the level they want to have.
the operational advantages are enabling always on time, weather and other information, without having to turn a power heavy backlight. Another is the simplicity of not needing that backlight and controller, making it thinner as well as simpler. Then there are the thinner borders, or no borders.
The iPhone X is the most amazing single piece of hardware EVER. EVER.
It doesn't have a memory card slot. Maybe not important to you, but important to many.
I'm not so sure about that. I don't have a lot of apps on my phone, but I take a ton of pictures and videos. All my videos are in 4K except the slow motion ones I've recorded. I bought the 128 gig 7 Plus and I haven't even come remotely close to using up all my hard drive space. I travel a lot so I always take a ton of pictures and videos. I can't possibly see who would need more than 256 gigs of hard drive space.
Pretty sure Bill Gates made that a similar comment concerning 640K RAM in a PC one time.
I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
"The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones."
Couldn't agree more. This is exactly what it feels like. It's a tough decision. i think Apple made the right one.
So are you guys saying there shouldn't be differing products based on differing needs and different constraints? Struggling to understand.
Not at all. What we're saying (or at least I am) is given an ideal situation of no supply constraints on components, Apple would've probably liked to have released two iPhone X models: 5.8" & 6.4" (starting at say $799 or $899), no iPhone 8 models, and lower prices on the rest of the line-up (SE, 6S, 7). Apple promotes the iPhone X as the future of the iPhone for the next ten years. If so, I'd imagine they want to get it in as many hands as possible, but as we know, key components are severely constrained right now.
That may not happen...
OLED is not a new tech, it is an old tech existing since many years. If that OLED tech didn't reach the level of yield to support the iPhone, after so many years, if the best producer's yield is only 60%, let’s admit it we may be done with OLED. There may be no more OLED with the iPhone. The X may be the first and last OLED iPhone. Don't let your opinions be manipulated by Kuo, try to see the big surface, composed of hundreds of millions of LCD iPhones, iPads, iPods, LCD Macbooks and iMacs.
May that change? It may. Apple is powerful enough to lead that change. But at what cost, in how many years, and will Apple choose to do that?
LG had announced this year that they're investing billions into OLED production just to meet Apple's needs. If what you say is true, then they're essentially flushing billions of dollars down the toilet. I'm not convinced OLED is done, at least in the near future (ie: 5 years).
OLED is a transitional technology. It’s still fairly new, and it has years ahead of it But it also has problems. Companies have been working on newer technologies, such as the MicroLED screens Apple is working on. Apple is making a big push in that area, and hopefully, we’ll see them at some point, likely in the Apple Watch at first. But when will that happen? Apple is considered to be ahead in that work, but we don’t know how far they’ve come. And making a small watch screen doesn’t mean they could suddenly move that up to phone size.
but by going OLED this year, we can assume they’ve got some time to go. I doubt they would make such a big deal about OLED this year, only to go MicroLED next year, or the year after that. If they can get enough screens next year, at a more reasonable price, I would expect all the flagship models (and there may only be two again) to use them, and to use them for at least a couple of years after that, if not longer.
I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
It may be confusing, but the biometric functions are a major advance, which will be used for far more than just face recognition and Animojis. The photographic effects are very advanced, and this was most of my career, so to impress me with it means something.
obviously there was no way Apple could get Samsung to produce even more OLEDs this year. They produce between 50-60 million a year for themselves, or will, with the Note coming back. So rumor has it that Apple ordered 90 million. Well, no responsible manufacturer has 70% of their plants sitting idle. So Samsung had to rush to build more production for Apple. Are these the same Pentile screens Samsung uses for their own products? We don’t know, though I hope not. And that cut out is killing 40% of production. Does that mean 40% of the 90 million? Because that will just leave 54 million usable screens, unless they get better at it.
while Apple is working with LG for OLEDs, LG just produces a few for phones, with almost all their production going to large screens for the Tv market. We also know, from a hands on done in arstechnica, that their phone screen looks just terrible compared to Samsung’s, when a grey is used across the screen. No where near the quality Apple is going for.
so for that reason alone there was no way Apple could hope to produce a lot of phones using OLED for this year’s phones. And then we heard about problems producing enough sensors. Whether that was true or not, I don’t know.
the really interesting year will be next year. Hopefully, by then, OLED production will be worked out, either with Samsung alone, or with LG too. Sensor shortages, if any, should not be a problem, and also hopefully, costs will have come down. So, is the iPhone x a celebration of the tenth aniversiry of the iPhone, though Apple didn’t say that, though it does seem like a subtle hint that it is, or is it the start of a new line? John Gruber thinks Apple will also have three phones next year, but I’m not so sure.
if costs do come down, then an extra high priced model isn’t needed. If there are enough screens, then Apple could do two higher selling models. Both could have the sensors the x does now. So what would be the point of another phone, and what would they call it?
The iPhone 8 screen area is significantly smaller than the X.
You can be so silly. The OP plainly and obviously was comparing prices between the 8 and the X. For him the 8 will be fine and dandy if he can buy it for $699 , but 40% more for the X not so much. You're saying wrong does not make it so.
Sorry bro. You are wrong.
This is like someone bitching that a 70 inch TV cost more than a 50 inch TV. Duh. Of course its going to cost more.
Comparing the price between the 8 and X is dishonest.
Dishonest? The OP doesn't see the personal value for him in spending 40% more on the X, the 8 checking the boxes for the features he thinks he wants. Seems an honest enough opinion.
The only one being dishonest is Sog with his comment about the screen size means you can't compare the iPhone 8 to the iPhone X when it comes to a purchase decision even though the unobstructed display size is 5.15", not 5.8", and the display width is the same as the iPhone 8 which means that size plays a big part in the purchase decision. Personally, I won't even consider the iPhone X design until there's a Plus equivalency.
The iPhone 8 screen area is significantly smaller than the X.
You can be so silly. The OP plainly and obviously was comparing prices between the 8 and the X. For him the 8 will be fine and dandy if he can buy it for $699 , but 40% more for the X not so much. You're saying wrong does not make it so.
Sorry bro. You are wrong.
This is like someone bitching that a 70 inch TV cost more than a 50 inch TV. Duh. Of course its going to cost more.
Comparing the price between the 8 and X is dishonest.
Dishonest? The OP doesn't see the personal value for him in spending 40% more on the X, the 8 checking the boxes for the features he thinks he wants. Seems an honest enough opinion.
The disagreement here is that most people compare the price of the 8+ to the X, not the 8 to the X. So Sog is right there. But this guy WAS comparing the price of the 8 to the price of the X, and so, you’re right there.
we bicker about a lot of things, but this one isn’t worth it, because from where you’re both coming from, you’re both right.
I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
It may be confusing, but the biometric functions are a major advance, which will be used for far more than just face recognition and Animojis. The photographic effects are very advanced, and this was most of my career, so to impress me with it means something.
obviously there was no way Apple could get Samsung to produce even more OLEDs this year. They produce between 50-60 million a year for themselves, or will, with the Note coming back. So rumor has it that Apple ordered 90 million. Well, no responsible manufacturer has 70% of their plants sitting idle. So Samsung had to rush to build more production for Apple. Are these the same Pentile screens Samsung uses for their own products? We don’t know, though I hope not. And that cut out is killing 40% of production. Does that mean 40% of the 90 million? Because that will just leave 54 million usable screens, unless they get better at it.
while Apple is working with LG for OLEDs, LG just produces a few for phones, with almost all their production going to large screens for the Tv market. We also know, from a hands on done in arstechnica, that their phone screen looks just terrible compared to Samsung’s, when a grey is used across the screen. No where near the quality Apple is going for.
so for that reason alone there was no way Apple could hope to produce a lot of phones using OLED for this year’s phones. And then we heard about problems producing enough sensors. Whether that was true or not, I don’t know.
the really interesting year will be next year. Hopefully, by then, OLED production will be worked out, either with Samsung alone, or with LG too. Sensor shortages, if any, should not be a problem, and also hopefully, costs will have come down. So, is the iPhone x a celebration of the tenth aniversiry of the iPhone, though Apple didn’t say that, though it does seem like a subtle hint that it is, or is it the start of a new line? John Gruber thinks Apple will also have three phones next year, but I’m not so sure.
if costs do come down, then an extra high priced model isn’t needed. If there are enough screens, then Apple could do two higher selling models. Both could have the sensors the x does now. So what would be the point of another phone, and what would they call it?
This goes to what I was saying. It looks like Apple is likely to have two OLED phones next year, not three. If the equivalent to the 8 and 8+ are the phones, then the X was indeed a one off. I can’t see a new model of the X as well as a + in OLED, while making a small non OLED flagship model. That would just be - odd.
Notch when playing video: really? I mean really? Steve Jobs (PBOH) would never have allowed it. You know this is true.
It actually works exactly like current iPhones, you can watch video at it's native aspect ratio, or zoom in and fill the screen while cropping part of the video.
Beautiful impressive product! Haven't upgraded since 6, ordering 256GB X, Day 1. The 6s and 7 didn't move me. Would upgrade to 8 but wouldn't have felt the exhilaration and anticipation I feel about the X. I deserve the best! That''s what $ is for.
The iPhone 8 screen area is significantly smaller than the X.
You can be so silly. The OP plainly and obviously was comparing prices between the 8 and the X. For him the 8 will be fine and dandy if he can buy it for $699 , but 40% more for the X not so much. You're saying wrong does not make it so.
Sorry bro. You are wrong.
This is like someone bitching that a 70 inch TV cost more than a 50 inch TV. Duh. Of course its going to cost more.
Comparing the price between the 8 and X is dishonest.
Dishonest? The OP doesn't see the personal value for him in spending 40% more on the X, the 8 checking the boxes for the features he thinks he wants. Seems an honest enough opinion.
The disagreement here is that most people compare the price of the 8+ to the X, not the 8 to the X. So Sog is right there. But this guy WAS comparing the price of the 8 to the price of the X, and so, you’re right there.
we bicker about a lot of things, but this one isn’t worth it, because from where you’re both coming from, you’re both right.
Go read the original post again.
The first poster said the $999 price isn't so high if you compare it to the $799 8-Plus.
Then the person in question twisted the comment and compared the X to the 8 and said it was 40% more expensive.
It was the guy claiming 40% more expensive is the one who moved the goal post.
Sog, give it a break. There will be a whole lotta new iPhone buyers who might want an X but can't personally see the value of spending upwards of 40% more for one and opt for an 8. Or an 8+. Or even an older 7 series. In all those cases Apple makes a sale at a great margin.
I swear you can sometimes seem so petty and petulant. It's increasingly hard to tell when you're being sincere and when you're commenting just to get a reaction.
Beautiful impressive product! Haven't upgraded since 6, ordering 256GB X, Day 1. The 6s and 7 didn't move me. Would upgrade to 8 but wouldn't have felt the exhilaration and anticipation I feel about the X. I deserve the best! That''s what $ is for.
Agree!
Getting the best without compromise is worth it.
You definitely get what you pay for with Apple.
256GB Grey for me.
Sure $1149 is alot of money. But this device will easily deliver more value than $1149 over 2 years.
Most mainstream users would keep iPhone X for at least 3 years
Beautiful impressive product! Haven't upgraded since 6, ordering 256GB X, Day 1. The 6s and 7 didn't move me. Would upgrade to 8 but wouldn't have felt the exhilaration and anticipation I feel about the X. I deserve the best! That''s what $ is for.
Agree!
Getting the best without compromise is worth it.
You definitely get what you pay for with Apple.
256GB Grey for me.
Sure $1149 is alot of money. But this device will easily deliver more value than $1149 over 2 years.
I would most mainstream users would keep iPhone X for at least 3 years
quite possible.
really depends on what the iPhone looks in 2 years.
Other than trying to integrate the FaceID cameras behind the screen, as you suggested earlier, what more can Apple do. It seems like smartphone design has reached its zenith. All I can think of is possibly foldable smartphones or going beyond the smartphone via wearables.
Am I the only one that's disappointed with the memory configurations on both the iPhone 8 and X? 64GB and 256GB? What happened to 128GB? Last year was the first year I opted for a 128GB iPhone. Seemed like a perfect price point between plenty of storage without being too expensive. Dropping 128 this year is quite disappointing. No way I can go backwards to 64, so if I want to upgrade I have to opt for the most expensive model. I really think the phones should have been 128 (for the price of 64) and 256. I guess this is the way they get all those millions of phones they sold in the last couple of years at 128 to opt for the most expensive models. bummer.
paying $50 more for 128 additional GB is a great deal.
If a 128GB phone was available it would have been $1099. With more 4k video and larger photo's you will be happy you bought the 256GB phone.
Which is why Apple does it. Phil Schiller’s middle name is upsell.
Nonsense. There's a low-end capacity, and a high-end (4x more). Which do you need? Low end needs? Great, get the low-end capacity. High-end needs? Great, get the high-end capacity for 150 more. Which type of user are you?
Just maybe he was the one in the middle?
You know, low, mid, high?
It's upsell. Trying to spin it any other way is foolish IMO.
One in the middle?
The Samsung S8 only come with 64GB. Thats it.
Why the hell are you grumbling about the iPhone having 2 storage sizes while the competition only has one?
S8 takes a micro SD card up to 256GB so the user can add additional storage if they want. A Samsung user that needs 128 GB has that option, an Apple user doesn't.
Interesting to see that Apple now has a phone lineup that spans from $350 to $1150, wow.
That $1150 price point feels just absurd. Will be interesting to see how this sells.
I guess I'll be holding on to my (perfectly awesome) iPhone 7 for at least another year or two.
Well, Tim Cook did say the iPhone X is what Apple envisions for the next ten years. So I assume, at some time, prices will come down to more mainstream levels once production ramps up to Apple's scale, probably two to three years.
I don't think so.
I thin Apple is breaking new ground: true luxury phones.
I expect next year or the year after to offer an X phone with a 6.5+ inch screen that will start at $1099 or more.
Apple has to do this. All the other brands are racing to the bottom. Apple is racing to the top.
I agree, Apple will come out with a bigger version of the iPhone X next year. But there's only so far up you can go before you get consumer push back and sales start to hurt.
We are not even close to that level.
just look at it this way: iPhone cycles seem to be extending to over 2 years. Many iPhone users are holding their phones for 3 years. That means they should be willing to pay a higher price for a new iPhone since its going to cost them the same amount per year.
$700 phone last 2 years - $350 per year
$1200 phone last 3 years - $400 per year
Don't think people will blink paying $50 more per year
The amount of tech and value stuffed into the X definitely justifies its higher price.
I would be willing to pay $1500 for a new iPhone if it provides $1500 in value.
Why would the length of service have a substantial effect on price? Cars are lasting twice as long as they did in 1980 yet are stable in price when adjusted for inflation even as safety and efficiency have gotten much better. Computers that cost $2,000 in 1990 and were obsolete in a year or two have been replaced by computers that cost half that amount and remain in service for five or six years.
In a competitive environment the greatest effect on price is the cost to manufacturer the goods. A product that lasts twice as long and is priced twice as high yet doesn't cost any more to produce does not justify that price increase in the long term. Companies may get away with it in the short term, but eventually the increased profit margins will bring in more competition and prices will fall back down. Gains in production efficiency and technology will eventually benefit the customer much more than the manufacturer.
Apple's value in the iPhone X is in fashion and exclusivity, not in technology and capability.
Interesting to see that Apple now has a phone lineup that spans from $350 to $1150, wow.
That $1150 price point feels just absurd. Will be interesting to see how this sells.
I guess I'll be holding on to my (perfectly awesome) iPhone 7 for at least another year or two.
Well, Tim Cook did say the iPhone X is what Apple envisions for the next ten years. So I assume, at some time, prices will come down to more mainstream levels once production ramps up to Apple's scale, probably two to three years.
I don't think so.
I thin Apple is breaking new ground: true luxury phones.
I expect next year or the year after to offer an X phone with a 6.5+ inch screen that will start at $1099 or more.
Apple has to do this. All the other brands are racing to the bottom. Apple is racing to the top.
I agree, Apple will come out with a bigger version of the iPhone X next year. But there's only so far up you can go before you get consumer push back and sales start to hurt.
We are not even close to that level.
just look at it this way: iPhone cycles seem to be extending to over 2 years. Many iPhone users are holding their phones for 3 years. That means they should be willing to pay a higher price for a new iPhone since its going to cost them the same amount per year.
$700 phone last 2 years - $350 per year
$1200 phone last 3 years - $400 per year
Don't think people will blink paying $50 more per year
The amount of tech and value stuffed into the X definitely justifies its higher price.
I would be willing to pay $1500 for a new iPhone if it provides $1500 in value.
Why would the length of service have a substantial effect on price? Cars are lasting twice as long as they did in 1980 yet are stable in price when adjusted for inflation even as safety and efficiency have gotten much better. Computers that cost $2,000 in 1990 and were obsolete in a year or two have been replaced by computers that cost half that amount and remain in service for five or six years.
In a competitive environment the greatest effect on price is the cost to manufacturer the goods. A product that lasts twice as long and is priced twice as high yet doesn't cost any more to produce does not justify that price increase in the long term. Companies may get away with it in the short term, but eventually the increased profit margins will bring in more competition and prices will fall back down. Gains in production efficiency and technology will eventually benefit the customer much more than the manufacturer.
Apple's value in the iPhone X is in fashion and exclusivity, not in technology and capability.
Naw. That's a typical apple is a fashion house sneer. It is in the technology. Apples phones are always the best, blowing away the competition in all kinds of benchmarks .
And unlike you car analogy Apple may have extended the life of its products but cheap android devices havent. That does add value.
I hope Apple does more media to explain their thinking behind what they announced because it is kind of confusing. IPhone X is the future yet there is an iPhone 8 which has the same A11 chip, nearly the same camera as the X, wireless charging like the X, video recording the same as the.X, true tone and wide color display same as the X. But the 8 still has home button, Touch ID and bezels. The 8 really feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t mass produce enough of the OLED screens and the X feels like it exists because Apple couldn’t go another year with phone with large top and bottom bezels when all the competition is releasing near bezeless phones. I have a feeling it will all be a bit confusing to consumers.
It may be confusing, but the biometric functions are a major advance, which will be used for far more than just face recognition and Animojis. The photographic effects are very advanced, and this was most of my career, so to impress me with it means something.
obviously there was no way Apple could get Samsung to produce even more OLEDs this year. They produce between 50-60 million a year for themselves, or will, with the Note coming back. So rumor has it that Apple ordered 90 million. Well, no responsible manufacturer has 70% of their plants sitting idle. So Samsung had to rush to build more production for Apple. Are these the same Pentile screens Samsung uses for their own products? We don’t know, though I hope not. And that cut out is killing 40% of production. Does that mean 40% of the 90 million? Because that will just leave 54 million usable screens, unless they get better at it.
while Apple is working with LG for OLEDs, LG just produces a few for phones, with almost all their production going to large screens for the Tv market. We also know, from a hands on done in arstechnica, that their phone screen looks just terrible compared to Samsung’s, when a grey is used across the screen. No where near the quality Apple is going for.
so for that reason alone there was no way Apple could hope to produce a lot of phones using OLED for this year’s phones. And then we heard about problems producing enough sensors. Whether that was true or not, I don’t know.
the really interesting year will be next year. Hopefully, by then, OLED production will be worked out, either with Samsung alone, or with LG too. Sensor shortages, if any, should not be a problem, and also hopefully, costs will have come down. So, is the iPhone x a celebration of the tenth aniversiry of the iPhone, though Apple didn’t say that, though it does seem like a subtle hint that it is, or is it the start of a new line? John Gruber thinks Apple will also have three phones next year, but I’m not so sure.
if costs do come down, then an extra high priced model isn’t needed. If there are enough screens, then Apple could do two higher selling models. Both could have the sensors the x does now. So what would be the point of another phone, and what would they call it?
This goes to what I was saying. It looks like Apple is likely to have two OLED phones next year, not three. If the equivalent to the 8 and 8+ are the phones, then the X was indeed a one off. I can’t see a new model of the X as well as a + in OLED, while making a small non OLED flagship model. That would just be - odd.
Actually a 6:46 inch iPhone X in 16:9 makes more sense than the current one. This is somewhat a Plus size without bezels. Two OLED phones in the X range are welcome, as long as Apple doesn't touch already successful LCD models playing with fixing which is NOT broken...
Interesting to see that Apple now has a phone lineup that spans from $350 to $1150, wow.
That $1150 price point feels just absurd. Will be interesting to see how this sells.
I guess I'll be holding on to my (perfectly awesome) iPhone 7 for at least another year or two.
Well, Tim Cook did say the iPhone X is what Apple envisions for the next ten years. So I assume, at some time, prices will come down to more mainstream levels once production ramps up to Apple's scale, probably two to three years.
I don't think so.
I thin Apple is breaking new ground: true luxury phones.
I expect next year or the year after to offer an X phone with a 6.5+ inch screen that will start at $1099 or more.
Apple has to do this. All the other brands are racing to the bottom. Apple is racing to the top.
I agree, Apple will come out with a bigger version of the iPhone X next year. But there's only so far up you can go before you get consumer push back and sales start to hurt.
I honestly don't know why there aren't 13.5" screen Android phones today. Not sure why manufacturers are so hestitant to go above 6" - 7" screens. Once you enter ridiculous size territory, actual usability no longer holds manufacturers back, and it's just a mad grab for attention and bragging rights.
Comments
obviously there was no way Apple could get Samsung to produce even more OLEDs this year. They produce between 50-60 million a year for themselves, or will, with the Note coming back. So rumor has it that Apple ordered 90 million. Well, no responsible manufacturer has 70% of their plants sitting idle. So Samsung had to rush to build more production for Apple. Are these the same Pentile screens Samsung uses for their own products? We don’t know, though I hope not. And that cut out is killing 40% of production. Does that mean 40% of the 90 million? Because that will just leave 54 million usable screens, unless they get better at it.
while Apple is working with LG for OLEDs, LG just produces a few for phones, with almost all their production going to large screens for the Tv market. We also know, from a hands on done in arstechnica, that their phone screen looks just terrible compared to Samsung’s, when a grey is used across the screen. No where near the quality Apple is going for.
so for that reason alone there was no way Apple could hope to produce a lot of phones using OLED for this year’s phones. And then we heard about problems producing enough sensors. Whether that was true or not, I don’t know.
the really interesting year will be next year. Hopefully, by then, OLED production will be worked out, either with Samsung alone, or with LG too. Sensor shortages, if any, should not be a problem, and also hopefully, costs will have come down. So, is the iPhone x a celebration of the tenth aniversiry of the iPhone, though Apple didn’t say that, though it does seem like a subtle hint that it is, or is it the start of a new line? John Gruber thinks Apple will also have three phones next year, but I’m not so sure.
if costs do come down, then an extra high priced model isn’t needed. If there are enough screens, then Apple could do two higher selling models. Both could have the sensors the x does now. So what would be the point of another phone, and what would they call it?
oled has more variation in color at differing angles than the LCDs Apple now uses. They haven’t been as bright. They suffer burn in. All of this is better than it’s been before, and Apple apparently thinks that it’s reached the level they want to have.
the operational advantages are enabling always on time, weather and other information, without having to turn a power heavy backlight. Another is the simplicity of not needing that backlight and controller, making it thinner as well as simpler. Then there are the thinner borders, or no borders.
He didn’t. It’s a myth.
but by going OLED this year, we can assume they’ve got some time to go. I doubt they would make such a big deal about OLED this year, only to go MicroLED next year, or the year after that. If they can get enough screens next year, at a more reasonable price, I would expect all the flagship models (and there may only be two again) to use them, and to use them for at least a couple of years after that, if not longer.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2017/09/as-the-iphone-x-is-revealed-korean-suppliers-race-to-expand-production-for-strong-growth-in-oled-iphones-in-2018.html
we bicker about a lot of things, but this one isn’t worth it, because from where you’re both coming from, you’re both right.
I swear you can sometimes seem so petty and petulant. It's increasingly hard to tell when you're being sincere and when you're commenting just to get a reaction.
In a competitive environment the greatest effect on price is the cost to manufacturer the goods. A product that lasts twice as long and is priced twice as high yet doesn't cost any more to produce does not justify that price increase in the long term. Companies may get away with it in the short term, but eventually the increased profit margins will bring in more competition and prices will fall back down. Gains in production efficiency and technology will eventually benefit the customer much more than the manufacturer.
Apple's value in the iPhone X is in fashion and exclusivity, not in technology and capability.
And unlike you car analogy Apple may have extended the life of its products but cheap android devices havent. That does add value.