I think this is the end of the home button. If iphone x profoundly out performs the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 plus then next year we will only see the iPhone x and and iPhone x plus.
Amd people will be told if they want a home button then can buy the iPhone 7/+ 8/+ or iPhone se
Hard to say.
I don't think Apple will make the only new iPhone $999 next year. That would be harsh.
I don't think the iPhone8 is selling bad because of the home button. I think its selling 'bad' because the front looks EXACTLY THE SAME as 4 years ago. People want something new. Personally I have the 6+ and I don't want to be looking at the same phone face for the next 2 years. I don't need the best, but I do want something new.
IMO, Apple should make an iPhone 9 with smaller bezels AND touch ID. Its not that hard. Just shrink the bezels by 20-30% just like the iPad Pro. Even shrink the TouchID button a bit or enlongate it. That phone should sell for $699.
Next years lineup:
iPhone X1 - $999 iPhone X1 Plus - $1099
iPhone 9 - $699 - smaller bezel with home button iPhone 9 Plus
This is ridiculous. No way is Apple going to have a spread of $300 between 2 iPhones models. And OLED is the future. Apple isn’t going to waste R&D and capital on an LCD screen with slightly smaller bezels just so the front of the phone looks slightly different. The iPhone 8 is a stop gap product period.
Of course Apple will do that. Just to please those people that cannot afford to pay $300 more. Have you forgotten that Indian government with 1.2 billion people demanding Apple to sell iPhones cheap?
Has Cook ever not been thrilled about something? Well when it comes to Apple not politics or something else. Realistically speaking a 30+% drop in the stock prices is coming just like in 12 and 15. Is this it or does it have one more new high in it? I was thinking it would drop after guidance for the next quarter came out (which I assume will be extremely strong) and people realized it had made another top. Thought it would hit 175-180 before the drop, but maybe 165 was the top this time. Constructive opinions or thoughts?
I agree we MAY be due another 30% drop.
I survived both drops and will survive the next one.
I don't think this is it. $165 is too low.
I'm thinking we hit $180 Jan/Feb 2018. Then we are poised for a 25% drop. Which means the stock will probably be at $135 mid 2018.
I don't think we will see a 40% drop like 2012/2015 because:
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years. In 2012 he was an unproven entity.
2. Apple services. Its become a massive part of the business.
Personally I got some Cash handy in case I'm wrong and the stock drops to $140 level. Then I will buy more shares.
If we hit $180 I'm going to sell 50% of my shares and wait for the big dip.
So your thought is more that it runs up through the Jan earnings call then it pulls back. Seems reasonable. I think the key is looking for the run up. Services revenue is a good point in terms of supporting the stock price, but I think that's part of making higher highs and higher lows. I planned on holding until $175 and selling at that point unless there was something new that I thought could drive it higher. If its not getting there now it's going to be a long wait to see it again since the cycle for new highs seems like it's getting established at 2-3 year intervals.
I waited too long to order the Apple Watch, so I had a wait time of 5 weeks, but I didn't want to wait. so on a whim I checked out the Grand Central New York store around 11am. It took me just over two hours to walk out. They still had quite a few versions in stock, but when it was my turn to put in my reservation, they didn't have my space gray aluminum 42 cellular with gray band. A few other models looked missing too. I just got the olive strap band instead. However, as I was waiting, after I put in my reservation, I saw two huge carts wheeled in with piles and piles of boxes. So they might've been temporarily out of the one I wanted when I put in my reservation, then maybe they replenished again. I think it was around 12:30pm when I saw the piles of boxes wheeled in.
I think this is the end of the home button. If iphone x profoundly out performs the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 plus then next year we will only see the iPhone x and and iPhone x plus.
Amd people will be told if they want a home button then can buy the iPhone 7/+ 8/+ or iPhone se
Hard to say.
I don't think Apple will make the only new iPhone $999 next year. That would be harsh.
I don't think the iPhone8 is selling bad because of the home button. I think its selling 'bad' because the front looks EXACTLY THE SAME as 4 years ago. People want something new. Personally I have the 6+ and I don't want to be looking at the same phone face for the next 2 years. I don't need the best, but I do want something new.
IMO, Apple should make an iPhone 9 with smaller bezels AND touch ID. Its not that hard. Just shrink the bezels by 20-30% just like the iPad Pro. Even shrink the TouchID button a bit or enlongate it. That phone should sell for $699.
Next years lineup:
iPhone X1 - $999 iPhone X1 Plus - $1099
iPhone 9 - $699 - smaller bezel with home button iPhone 9 Plus
You think next years' phones will be called iphone (ten)(one) and iphone (ten)(one)plus- not a chance.
It will be called the iPhone X1 (ecks one)
just to screw with the tech media.
In 2019 Apple will release the iPhone 9s, which we be the last new phone with TouchID/LCD
From 2020 all the new iPhones will be OLED
Maybe OLED but the touchID or home button isn't going away on the mid/high mid range models.
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years.
Proven what, exactly? That he can ride existing momentum without instantly crashing? Sculley managed that too, remember?
I watched all of this happen in the early 1990s. By the late 80s the management was more focused on what Wall Street thought of them than anything to do with their products. To keep that ball rolling, they adopted the "high right" policy because that made the margins look good, and WS loves its margins. Within five years their customer base consisted entirely of high-end publishing and rich people. And they had all the machines and software they needed. The developers left the platform in droves. Anyone could get tickets to WWDC.
SJ came back and basically noted that they were a consumer company with no consumer products. He solved that with the $999 iMac. They followed with a stream of consumer products that were well priced and well built. That pushed up the stock price to the stratosphere. And now we have the same problem again. 20 years later, after the price of electronics has fallen in half, the cheapest iMac is $1299, and the bottom-of-the-line MacBook is the same price. They are eliminating every low-end product from their catalog, with the exception of the Apple TV, which is now the world's most expensive and least flexible streamer box.
I don't think he's doing a good job at all. I think he's cutting out the soul of the company, again.
I disagree, the soul of Apple is to innovate! What I think what your failing to realize, is Tim Cook has or is positioning Apple as a services company with a very sticky eco system. AR is the next evolution in this, The products that matter to Apple today are mainly the iPad and iPhone and Apple Watch and soon to be the homepod, the iMac and MacBook and other computer lines are not where apples money is generated today. In terms of the iPhone they have a price spread from 349 to 1149. Same for the iPad, and the Apple Watch is at a competive price to other watches of its type.
Nothing wrong with the 8, and as has been mentioned in many reviews there are a lot of things to love about it. People wouldn't be making a mistake buying one. But, it is second fiddle to the soon to be released (and quickly go into backordered status) iPhone X.
It's understandable that Apple needs to aggressively promote the 8, both because of the lower price point and because the 8's are something they can actually ship in volume.
It is like being married to jennifer anniston and then angelina jolie walks by....you don’t want to divorce her but you will.
I think this is the end of the home button. If iphone x profoundly out performs the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 plus then next year we will only see the iPhone x and and iPhone x plus.
Amd people will be told if they want a home button then can buy the iPhone 7/+ 8/+ or iPhone se
Hard to say.
I don't think Apple will make the only new iPhone $999 next year. That would be harsh.
I don't think the iPhone8 is selling bad because of the home button. I think its selling 'bad' because the front looks EXACTLY THE SAME as 4 years ago. People want something new. Personally I have the 6+ and I don't want to be looking at the same phone face for the next 2 years. I don't need the best, but I do want something new.
IMO, Apple should make an iPhone 9 with smaller bezels AND touch ID. Its not that hard. Just shrink the bezels by 20-30% just like the iPad Pro. Even shrink the TouchID button a bit or enlongate it. That phone should sell for $699.
Next years lineup:
iPhone X1 - $999 iPhone X1 Plus - $1099
iPhone 9 - $699 - smaller bezel with home button iPhone 9 Plus
This is ridiculous. No way is Apple going to have a spread of $300 between 2 iPhones models. And OLED is the future. Apple isn’t going to waste R&D and capital on an LCD screen with slightly smaller bezels just so the front of the phone looks slightly different. The iPhone 8 is a stop gap product period.
Of course Apple will do that. Just to please those people that cannot afford to pay $300 more. Have you forgotten that Indian government with 1.2 billion people demanding Apple to sell iPhones cheap?
I’m not talking about Apple’s cheapest phone. I’m talking about their price increments between models. It’s not going to be $300.
I think this is the end of the home button. If iphone x profoundly out performs the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 plus then next year we will only see the iPhone x and and iPhone x plus.
Amd people will be told if they want a home button then can buy the iPhone 7/+ 8/+ or iPhone se
Hard to say.
I don't think Apple will make the only new iPhone $999 next year. That would be harsh.
I don't think the iPhone8 is selling bad because of the home button. I think its selling 'bad' because the front looks EXACTLY THE SAME as 4 years ago. People want something new. Personally I have the 6+ and I don't want to be looking at the same phone face for the next 2 years. I don't need the best, but I do want something new.
IMO, Apple should make an iPhone 9 with smaller bezels AND touch ID. Its not that hard. Just shrink the bezels by 20-30% just like the iPad Pro. Even shrink the TouchID button a bit or enlongate it. That phone should sell for $699.
Next years lineup:
iPhone X1 - $999 iPhone X1 Plus - $1099
iPhone 9 - $699 - smaller bezel with home button iPhone 9 Plus
You think next years' phones will be called iphone (ten)(one) and iphone (ten)(one)plus- not a chance.
It will be called the iPhone X1 (ecks one)
just to screw with the tech media.
In 2019 Apple will release the iPhone 9s, which we be the last new phone with TouchID/LCD
From 2020 all the new iPhones will be OLED
Apple is calling it iPhone X (ten) not iPhone X (ex).
I think this is the end of the home button. If iphone x profoundly out performs the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8 plus then next year we will only see the iPhone x and and iPhone x plus.
Amd people will be told if they want a home button then can buy the iPhone 7/+ 8/+ or iPhone se
Hard to say.
I don't think Apple will make the only new iPhone $999 next year. That would be harsh.
I don't think the iPhone8 is selling bad because of the home button. I think its selling 'bad' because the front looks EXACTLY THE SAME as 4 years ago. People want something new. Personally I have the 6+ and I don't want to be looking at the same phone face for the next 2 years. I don't need the best, but I do want something new.
IMO, Apple should make an iPhone 9 with smaller bezels AND touch ID. Its not that hard. Just shrink the bezels by 20-30% just like the iPad Pro. Even shrink the TouchID button a bit or enlongate it. That phone should sell for $699.
Next years lineup:
iPhone X1 - $999 iPhone X1 Plus - $1099
iPhone 9 - $699 - smaller bezel with home button iPhone 9 Plus
I didn't say the price would be the same, in fact I suspect it will go down to 899. I honestly think Apple came out with the iPhone x to test the waters. AND the iPhone 8/8+ In case the change was to radical for most. But the iPhone x pre order and launch next month will be a test of how much better it sells. Like people are saying October 27 and nov 3rd is the real Date for the launch of the real iPhone.
Remember Apple isn't afraid to make a bold move.
$899 is still to expensive for the only new iPhone next year.
They need to release a new phone in the $699-$799 range next year or they will lose a ton of sales.
And how many times has Apple done what people say they need to do?
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years.
Proven what, exactly? That he can ride existing momentum without instantly crashing? Sculley managed that too, remember?
I watched all of this happen in the early 1990s. By the late 80s the management was more focused on what Wall Street thought of them than anything to do with their products. To keep that ball rolling, they adopted the "high right" policy because that made the margins look good, and WS loves its margins. Within five years their customer base consisted entirely of high-end publishing and rich people. And they had all the machines and software they needed. The developers left the platform in droves. Anyone could get tickets to WWDC.
SJ came back and basically noted that they were a consumer company with no consumer products. He solved that with the $999 iMac. They followed with a stream of consumer products that were well priced and well built. That pushed up the stock price to the stratosphere. And now we have the same problem again. 20 years later, after the price of electronics has fallen in half, the cheapest iMac is $1299, and the bottom-of-the-line MacBook is the same price. They are eliminating every low-end product from their catalog, with the exception of the Apple TV, which is now the world's most expensive and least flexible streamer box.
I don't think he's doing a good job at all. I think he's cutting out the soul of the company, again.
Good thing you aren’t in charge. Phew.
Youve completely missed the most important difference between Apple of then and today — leading sales and insane profit, vs, you know, near bankruptcy. Apple’s strategy is working just fine.
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years.
Proven what, exactly? That he can ride existing momentum without instantly crashing? Sculley managed that too, remember?
I watched all of this happen in the early 1990s. By the late 80s the management was more focused on what Wall Street thought of them than anything to do with their products. To keep that ball rolling, they adopted the "high right" policy because that made the margins look good, and WS loves its margins. Within five years their customer base consisted entirely of high-end publishing and rich people. And they had all the machines and software they needed. The developers left the platform in droves. Anyone could get tickets to WWDC.
SJ came back and basically noted that they were a consumer company with no consumer products. He solved that with the $999 iMac. They followed with a stream of consumer products that were well priced and well built. That pushed up the stock price to the stratosphere. And now we have the same problem again. 20 years later, after the price of electronics has fallen in half, the cheapest iMac is $1299, and the bottom-of-the-line MacBook is the same price. They are eliminating every low-end product from their catalog, with the exception of the Apple TV, which is now the world's most expensive and least flexible streamer box.
I don't think he's doing a good job at all. I think he's cutting out the soul of the company, again.
Good thing you aren’t in charge. Phew.
Youve completely missed the most important difference between Apple of then and today — leading sales and insane profit, vs, you know, near bankruptcy. Apple’s strategy is working just fine.
You don't know your Apple history. Apple was making insane profits in the early years of Sculley's reign. They did keep prices high and eventually the market share collapsed.
I don't think that Apple 3.0 is doing that. Cook is experimenting with higher priced phones to subsidises the lower prices on the SE. Prices which might well be $50 lower next year if the flash memory prices come into line. The market that Apple are in (the old premium models) is stalling so Apple have invented a new higher priced model and created a new lower prices entry model. This will continue.
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years.
Proven what, exactly? That he can ride existing momentum without instantly crashing? Sculley managed that too, remember?
I watched all of this happen in the early 1990s. By the late 80s the management was more focused on what Wall Street thought of them than anything to do with their products. To keep that ball rolling, they adopted the "high right" policy because that made the margins look good, and WS loves its margins. Within five years their customer base consisted entirely of high-end publishing and rich people. And they had all the machines and software they needed. The developers left the platform in droves. Anyone could get tickets to WWDC.
SJ came back and basically noted that they were a consumer company with no consumer products. He solved that with the $999 iMac. They followed with a stream of consumer products that were well priced and well built. That pushed up the stock price to the stratosphere. And now we have the same problem again. 20 years later, after the price of electronics has fallen in half, the cheapest iMac is $1299, and the bottom-of-the-line MacBook is the same price. They are eliminating every low-end product from their catalog, with the exception of the Apple TV, which is now the world's most expensive and least flexible streamer box.
I don't think he's doing a good job at all. I think he's cutting out the soul of the company, again.
Good thing you aren’t in charge. Phew.
Youve completely missed the most important difference between Apple of then and today — leading sales and insane profit, vs, you know, near bankruptcy. Apple’s strategy is working just fine.
You don't know your Apple history. Apple was making insane profits in the early years of Sculley's reign. They did keep prices high and eventually the market share collapsed.
I don't think that Apple 3.0 is doing that. Cook is experimenting with higher priced phones to subsidises the lower prices on the SE. Prices which might well be $50 lower next year if the flash memory prices come into line. The market that Apple are in (the old premium models) is stalling so Apple have invented a new higher priced model and created a new lower prices entry model. This will continue.
I don't think it works like that. Subsidizing a product by another product is not a good way to do business and such a business would collapse eventually. Each product must subsidize itself. One proof it doesn't work as you described is Apple lets its products cannibalize each other sometimes. Your subsidization model cannot tolerate cannibalization.
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years.
Proven what, exactly? That he can ride existing momentum without instantly crashing? Sculley managed that too, remember?
I watched all of this happen in the early 1990s. By the late 80s the management was more focused on what Wall Street thought of them than anything to do with their products. To keep that ball rolling, they adopted the "high right" policy because that made the margins look good, and WS loves its margins. Within five years their customer base consisted entirely of high-end publishing and rich people. And they had all the machines and software they needed. The developers left the platform in droves. Anyone could get tickets to WWDC.
SJ came back and basically noted that they were a consumer company with no consumer products. He solved that with the $999 iMac. They followed with a stream of consumer products that were well priced and well built. That pushed up the stock price to the stratosphere. And now we have the same problem again. 20 years later, after the price of electronics has fallen in half, the cheapest iMac is $1299, and the bottom-of-the-line MacBook is the same price. They are eliminating every low-end product from their catalog, with the exception of the Apple TV, which is now the world's most expensive and least flexible streamer box.
I don't think he's doing a good job at all. I think he's cutting out the soul of the company, again.
I watched what happened in early 90s too. What caused the near-collapse in the 90s was the fragmentation of the product range, not "high right" or "low right" policies. Customer base consisting entirely of high-end publishing and rich people is just not true, you forget the LC, the Classic and Performa. Steve Jobs made it the right way by dismissing fragmentation, not by "discovering" that Apple was a consumer company with no consumer products. Apple was already a consumer company before Steve Jobs, but with wrong product range. Now this is what will happen again with your "low-end low price" suggestion because such a suggestion will necessarily re-introduce fragmentation. The only way to prevent fragmentation is to deliver highly integrated products which may not always be low-end low price.
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years.
Proven what, exactly? That he can ride existing momentum without instantly crashing? Sculley managed that too, remember?
I watched all of this happen in the early 1990s. By the late 80s the management was more focused on what Wall Street thought of them than anything to do with their products. To keep that ball rolling, they adopted the "high right" policy because that made the margins look good, and WS loves its margins. Within five years their customer base consisted entirely of high-end publishing and rich people. And they had all the machines and software they needed. The developers left the platform in droves. Anyone could get tickets to WWDC.
SJ came back and basically noted that they were a consumer company with no consumer products. He solved that with the $999 iMac. They followed with a stream of consumer products that were well priced and well built. That pushed up the stock price to the stratosphere. And now we have the same problem again. 20 years later, after the price of electronics has fallen in half, the cheapest iMac is $1299, and the bottom-of-the-line MacBook is the same price. They are eliminating every low-end product from their catalog, with the exception of the Apple TV, which is now the world's most expensive and least flexible streamer box.
I don't think he's doing a good job at all. I think he's cutting out the soul of the company, again.
Good thing you aren’t in charge. Phew.
Youve completely missed the most important difference between Apple of then and today — leading sales and insane profit, vs, you know, near bankruptcy. Apple’s strategy is working just fine.
You don't know your Apple history. Apple was making insane profits in the early years of Sculley's reign. They did keep prices high and eventually the market share collapsed.
I don't think that Apple 3.0 is doing that. Cook is experimenting with higher priced phones to subsidises the lower prices on the SE. Prices which might well be $50 lower next year if the flash memory prices come into line. The market that Apple are in (the old premium models) is stalling so Apple have invented a new higher priced model and created a new lower prices entry model. This will continue.
I do know my apple history. If you think today’s apple and its financial success is akin to Sculley riding former momentum which petered out (Mac wasn’t even a big seller) as he claimed then you’re nuts. Apple isn’t just surviving under Cook, it’s thriving. Unequivocally.
No, the X isn’t high priced to make up for the SE. It’s high priced because it’s too high end to scale at the insane volume of the iphone.
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years.
Proven what, exactly? That he can ride existing momentum without instantly crashing? Sculley managed that too, remember?
I watched all of this happen in the early 1990s. By the late 80s the management was more focused on what Wall Street thought of them than anything to do with their products. To keep that ball rolling, they adopted the "high right" policy because that made the margins look good, and WS loves its margins. Within five years their customer base consisted entirely of high-end publishing and rich people. And they had all the machines and software they needed. The developers left the platform in droves. Anyone could get tickets to WWDC.
SJ came back and basically noted that they were a consumer company with no consumer products. He solved that with the $999 iMac. They followed with a stream of consumer products that were well priced and well built. That pushed up the stock price to the stratosphere. And now we have the same problem again. 20 years later, after the price of electronics has fallen in half, the cheapest iMac is $1299, and the bottom-of-the-line MacBook is the same price. They are eliminating every low-end product from their catalog, with the exception of the Apple TV, which is now the world's most expensive and least flexible streamer box.
I don't think he's doing a good job at all. I think he's cutting out the soul of the company, again.
Good thing you aren’t in charge. Phew.
Youve completely missed the most important difference between Apple of then and today — leading sales and insane profit, vs, you know, near bankruptcy. Apple’s strategy is working just fine.
You don't know your Apple history. Apple was making insane profits in the early years of Sculley's reign. They did keep prices high and eventually the market share collapsed.
I don't think that Apple 3.0 is doing that. Cook is experimenting with higher priced phones to subsidises the lower prices on the SE. Prices which might well be $50 lower next year if the flash memory prices come into line. The market that Apple are in (the old premium models) is stalling so Apple have invented a new higher priced model and created a new lower prices entry model. This will continue.
I don't think it works like that. Subsidizing a product by another product is not a good way to do business and such a business would collapse eventually. Each product must subsidize itself. One proof it doesn't work as you described is Apple lets its products cannibalize each other sometimes. Your subsidization model cannot tolerate cannibalization.
Subsidze is perhaps the wrong word. All of these lines will make a profit - what I mean is the higher models protect the average ASP. Apple have already started this model with the higher priced X and the lower priced SE.
Apple probably realises that to continue its service growth it needs more unit sales - and selling a cheaper iPhone to a 22 year old Indian who is starting his career could generate literally $1000s in sales over his lifetime if he is locked into the platform.
1. Wall Street trust Tim Cook more. He has proven himself the last 5 years.
Proven what, exactly? That he can ride existing momentum without instantly crashing? Sculley managed that too, remember?
I watched all of this happen in the early 1990s. By the late 80s the management was more focused on what Wall Street thought of them than anything to do with their products. To keep that ball rolling, they adopted the "high right" policy because that made the margins look good, and WS loves its margins. Within five years their customer base consisted entirely of high-end publishing and rich people. And they had all the machines and software they needed. The developers left the platform in droves. Anyone could get tickets to WWDC.
SJ came back and basically noted that they were a consumer company with no consumer products. He solved that with the $999 iMac. They followed with a stream of consumer products that were well priced and well built. That pushed up the stock price to the stratosphere. And now we have the same problem again. 20 years later, after the price of electronics has fallen in half, the cheapest iMac is $1299, and the bottom-of-the-line MacBook is the same price. They are eliminating every low-end product from their catalog, with the exception of the Apple TV, which is now the world's most expensive and least flexible streamer box.
I don't think he's doing a good job at all. I think he's cutting out the soul of the company, again.
Good thing you aren’t in charge. Phew.
Youve completely missed the most important difference between Apple of then and today — leading sales and insane profit, vs, you know, near bankruptcy. Apple’s strategy is working just fine.
You don't know your Apple history. Apple was making insane profits in the early years of Sculley's reign. They did keep prices high and eventually the market share collapsed.
I don't think that Apple 3.0 is doing that. Cook is experimenting with higher priced phones to subsidises the lower prices on the SE. Prices which might well be $50 lower next year if the flash memory prices come into line. The market that Apple are in (the old premium models) is stalling so Apple have invented a new higher priced model and created a new lower prices entry model. This will continue.
I do know my apple history. If you think today’s apple and its financial success is akin to Sculley riding former momentum which petered out (Mac wasn’t even a big seller) as he claimed then you’re nuts. Apple isn’t just surviving under Cook, it’s thriving. Unequivocally.
No, the X isn’t high priced to make up for the SE. It’s high priced because it’s too high end to scale at the insane volume of the iphone.
You know that link? I posted it on this thread a few days ago. Ive been arguing that the X model is not going away.
You are engaging in a false dilemma. Apple is both using the high end model to allow it to source components for the higher premium models without having to scale up to 70-80M in a quarter, and using that higher priced model to keep asp high as they lower prices on their lowest model - for now the SE. Expect more of that. The proof that they are interested in lowering prices is the fact that they lowered price on the SE.
And I'm clearly not comparing Sculley's Apple to today's Apple precisely because the company isn't just aiming solely for the high end of the market but is creating a pricing model from medium to very high That's the very post you are replying to where I said "I don't think that Apple 3.0 is doing that."
Comments
I'm eager for Dec. 31st to be here for a look back at how sales and shipments on the three phones have gone.
Apple is calling it iPhone X (ten) not iPhone X (ex).
Youve completely missed the most important difference between Apple of then and today — leading sales and insane profit, vs, you know, near bankruptcy. Apple’s strategy is working just fine.
I don't think that Apple 3.0 is doing that. Cook is experimenting with higher priced phones to subsidises the lower prices on the SE. Prices which might well be $50 lower next year if the flash memory prices come into line. The market that Apple are in (the old premium models) is stalling so Apple have invented a new higher priced model and created a new lower prices entry model. This will continue.
No, the X isn’t high priced to make up for the SE. It’s high priced because it’s too high end to scale at the insane volume of the iphone.
https://daringfireball.net/2017/07/speculation_on_new_iphone_pricing
Apple probably realises that to continue its service growth it needs more unit sales - and selling a cheaper iPhone to a 22 year old Indian who is starting his career could generate literally $1000s in sales over his lifetime if he is locked into the platform.
You are engaging in a false dilemma. Apple is both using the high end model to allow it to source components for the higher premium models without having to scale up to 70-80M in a quarter, and using that higher priced model to keep asp high as they lower prices on their lowest model - for now the SE. Expect more of that. The proof that they are interested in lowering prices is the fact that they lowered price on the SE.
And I'm clearly not comparing Sculley's Apple to today's Apple precisely because the company isn't just aiming solely for the high end of the market but is creating a pricing model from medium to very high That's the very post you are replying to where I said "I don't think that Apple 3.0 is doing that."
That = preferring profits over sales