Particularly the part about: "Many who criticize Apple seem to think that's what is really going on"
But, with Macs, I think Apple is pushing the boundaries of what has become a commodity market with their ultra premium prices. For many people, myself included, the price cannot be justified no matter how good it feels to use... But, using your car analogy: I admit that see more BMWs on the road than Chevy's. So OK, you're probably right.
....
But, I think in many ways, that analogy also fits well to the computer market, as over the years, most of the PC people I interacted with made the decision on price alone, uninformed-bias, etc.... not actual sound calculated reasons.
For good or for bad that was drummed out of me as an IT analyst: I had a great boss who insisted on basing every decision on the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. Like Lombardi, for him it wasn't the best thing, it was the only thing...
So, to this day, my first and often last question is: What does it do? rather than: How does it do it? But weirdly, that tends to come full circle with Apple products because their incredible ecosystem tends to blend the two where the "How" enables the "What".
GeorgeBMac said: For good or for bad that was drummed out of me as an IT analyst:
I had a great boss who insisted on basing every decision on the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. Like Lombardi, for him it wasn't the best thing, it was the only thing...
So, to this day, my first and often last question is: What does it do? rather than: How does it do it? But weirdly, that tends to come full circle with Apple products because their incredible ecosystem tends to blend the two where the "How" enables the "What".
The problem is that when people hear 'sound calculated reasons' that often puts them into a mode of being too limited. The businesses and IT people who refused to consider Macs often thought they were using sound calculate reasons to make their decisions... but they were often also too limited and not very big-picture or having a good understanding of impact on the whole organization. You know... 100 employees x $900 = $90k vs 100 employees x $1200 = $120k
One would think they'd have included *at least* the cost of the IT services, but I don't think they typically did. I think that was just an assumed cost and/or they had no comparative to consider. Or, they didn't really consider workflow costs at the employee level in terms of frustration and lost productivity. I remember a meeting trying to convince the partners at a law firm that they were close to losing staff members due to trying to save a couple hundred bucks per computer. (And, telling them that while I was quite happy spending, and billing for, like 15-20 hours each week fixing stuff, that I'd rather spend some of that time actually improving their business processes.)
I've talked to IT staff who didn't think Macs could get on networks, be good network 'citizens', software installs couldn't be managed on them, etc. They were, in most cases, just ignorant or running off myths they'd heard about Macs. Or, I've run into some who simply hated Macs and their best reasons amounted to, 'oh, those toys?'
At least there were a few studies (in the mid-90s?) that actually attempted to measure productivity gains and and cost savings. Even those were a hard-sell, but they made a few w/o completely closed minds at least take notice. I don't think the gap is nearly as wide today, though every time I spend a reasonable amount of time on a Windows machine again, I go... yea, it's better, but it still has a way to go. The 'registry' is still there. You have to worry about viruses and other sorts of stuff I barely have had to on Mac. Simple things like even mouse movement or display rendering aren't as good.
Then there is stuff like apps and updates interrupting that was once a differentiator, but now Apple (and maybe influence on other apps) has gotten nearly as bad. I just had to write a software company for something I bought the other day, as once it was installed, it would pop up in the middle of making a tutorial screen recording. You just wouldn't have seen that (in my experience) a decade ago. Heck, Apple now even does this, even with tricky dialogs to get you to unknowing upgrade if you don't read closely!
Screen size of the SE is great. The SE2 would be a fantastic phone. I have the iPhone X and I'm disappointed with the fact I need to move my hand all the time to reach certain areas (plus Face ID is terrible, but that's a different subject).
Okay, maybe Apple should make a premium 5.2" iPhone that is the same size as the current 4" SE and a second 4" - the so called "budget" iPhone. That way, people would want a small form factor but like a more modern looking and updated technology can spring for the $1,000 model and then budget person can spring for the $500 model. Make a good marketing strategy.
Okay, maybe Apple should make a premium 5.2" iPhone that is the same size as the current 4" SE and a second 4" - the so called "budget" iPhone. That way, people would want a small form factor but like a more modern looking and updated technology can spring for the $1,000 model and then budget person can spring for the $500 model. Make a good marketing strategy.
I like that idea, as then we'd have better data on whether people want the form-factor vs price. Just as long as they keep the 3.5mm jack! But, by the time they add the notch, it wouldn't be all that much more usable screen space... a bit more vertical, I guess. I don't need that all that much, so I'd be buying it for the most recent tech, not the screen.
I think the SE2 will have a 4” model and the 4.7” model
I actually like this idea a lot. And it seems to make sense. So you have the easy to assemble iPhone SE case with 4" and 4.7". Using Touch ID from iPhone 6S / iPhone 7, whichever is cheaper. So it would segment into three market between iPhone SE and X Design. So the next year line up.
If the SE2 is real, it'll have an A11, not an A10.
When the SE came out, it shipped with Apple's latest/best chip, the A9. When the 2015 iPod Touch came out, it featured Apple's latest/best chip, the A8. The pattern is pretty clear — when Apple releases a new product that isn't intended to be on an annual update schedule, they use their best tech, it's going to have a long shelf life.
Yes, not only have they done it with A10 during iPhone 6s era, another reason is the Custom GPU and Neural Engine, so assuming they dump iPhone 7 and 6s next year, every single iPhone in their line up will have their new Custom GPU and Neural Engine, important for AI and AR.
I am also hoping all iPhone SE and 8 will have Qualcomm X16, as currently being used in iPhone 8 and X. While The newer X will be all Intel, XMM7580. This is significant because it also means every iPhone sold next year will be capable of supporting FDD Massive MIMO, LAA, 4CA, Basically all the important pieces for 4.9G / LTE Advance Pro. This is a huge incentive for carrier to upgrade their network.
I am also secretly hoping next year X finally get 4GB Memory.
I'm skeptical that there would be two screen sizes. The current SE design was never made with a larger screen and the 6/6S design was never produced for the smaller screen size. I doubt they would scale up the old 5 design as much as I doubt they would create a new smaller design that looks like the 6. Therefore, I see one size, probably same size as current SE as the size was one of the key factors for purchase.
This is true. The cost of a CPU is the R&D; once that's done, there's nothing about the silicon that makes it magically more expensive than an older chip. Just look at the way Intel sells crippled high-performance chips to fill in their mid-tier market.
A funny and under-reported thing about the current line-up is the persistence of the 6S series. In the past, Apple would sell "the new generation, and the previous generation discounted." Now we've got the 8/X generation, the 7 gen, and the 6S still hanging around. That's nearly as big a change to Apple's strategy as introducing the X on top of the 8.
So the "low-end" tier looks like… 32gb SE $350 128gb SE $450 32gb 6S $450
If the 6S is the best-selling of these three models, consumers want affordable big phones. If it's the 128gb SE, there's a market for great small phones. If it's the 32gb SE, then yeah, it's all about budget.
Unfortunately none of us know what the results of this experiment are, but the fact that Apple released a 128gb SE at all (instead of keeping 16/64, or bumping to 32/64) tells me the market for great small phones is significant. If the 6S is outselling it, on the other hand, small phones are probably doomed.
Flawed logic. Just because sales of one model are higher doesn't mean the other is "doomed". The key question is how many iPhones will be sold. Period. If Apple believes they can sell more iPhones total across two models than they will with only one model, they will offer both sizes.
If there was any feature of the & and newer that will regrettably require extensive engineering; but I would still like to see, it's the IP67 water resistance. My work 5S and my wife's SE both live full-time in watertight cases, while my personal 7 lives in a Peel minimalist case. A water-resistant SE2 would be sorely compelling for my daughter, who uses my old personal 5S, which also sits, full-time, in a watertight case.
I think the SE2 will have a 4” model and the 4.7” model
I actually like this idea a lot. And it seems to make sense. So you have the easy to assemble iPhone SE case with 4" and 4.7". Using Touch ID from iPhone 6S / iPhone 7, whichever is cheaper. So it would segment into three market between iPhone SE and X Design. So the next year line up.
If the SE2 is real, it'll have an A11, not an A10.
When the SE came out, it shipped with Apple's latest/best chip, the A9. When the 2015 iPod Touch came out, it featured Apple's latest/best chip, the A8. The pattern is pretty clear — when Apple releases a new product that isn't intended to be on an annual update schedule, they use their best tech, it's going to have a long shelf life.
Yes, not only have they done it with A10 during iPhone 6s era, another reason is the Custom GPU and Neural Engine, so assuming they dump iPhone 7 and 6s next year, every single iPhone in their line up will have their new Custom GPU and Neural Engine, important for AI and AR.
I am also hoping all iPhone SE and 8 will have Qualcomm X16, as currently being used in iPhone 8 and X. While The newer X will be all Intel, XMM7580. This is significant because it also means every iPhone sold next year will be capable of supporting FDD Massive MIMO, LAA, 4CA, Basically all the important pieces for 4.9G / LTE Advance Pro. This is a huge incentive for carrier to upgrade their network.
I am also secretly hoping next year X finally get 4GB Memory.
I'm skeptical that there would be two screen sizes. The current SE design was never made with a larger screen and the 6/6S design was never produced for the smaller screen size. I doubt they would scale up the old 5 design as much as I doubt they would create a new smaller design that looks like the 6. Therefore, I see one size, probably same size as current SE as the size was one of the key factors for purchase.
To me if they can reengineer the 6 down to that price why wouldn’t that make a 6se in both sizes. Pair it back aim it at emerging markets that don’t have legacy standards so don’t have the cost of that legacy. Do an update to the touch at the same time that is basically the same device so they have ARKit devices they can aim at kids.
mattinoz said: To me if they can reengineer the 6 down to that price why wouldn’t that make a 6se in both sizes. Pair it back aim it at emerging markets that don’t have legacy standards so don’t have the cost of that legacy. Do an update to the touch at the same time that is basically the same device so they have ARKit devices they can aim at kids.
Yea, I don't really get the problem. Take the 8 hardware, and put it in the current SE case. Done. If there are a few features they can't physically fit (taptic?) or they feel they have to feature-degrade it and make it a 'budget' model to save face, then so be it. I would still much rather have that, than an 8 or X.
I thought I liked 4-inch phones for a long time until recently, I changed to iPhone 8 Plus. I'll never ever use back to 4-inch screen phones.
Oh, I'm absolutely positive I'd prefer a bigger screen. It's one of the big reasons I use a Mac instead of an iPad, or prefer an iPad to an iPhone.
The problem is that it's also a phone and I want it to fit well in my hand. My wife has an iPhone 7 and when holding it (while doable), it doesn't fit my hand as well as my SE (both shape and size). Since I nearly always *also* have a computer or tablet available, the phone is an assistant to those other devices. If it were my primary device, then I'd give up size/comfort to get the screen-space for sure.
I have no problem with Apple making bigger devices. It's clear a lot of people want them. My problem is with Apple moving to those big devices and then relegating the smaller ones to 'budget' models with less features.
Comments
I had a great boss who insisted on basing every decision on the facts, all the facts and nothing but the facts. Like Lombardi, for him it wasn't the best thing, it was the only thing...
So, to this day, my first and often last question is: What does it do? rather than: How does it do it?
But weirdly, that tends to come full circle with Apple products because their incredible ecosystem tends to blend the two where the "How" enables the "What".
One would think they'd have included *at least* the cost of the IT services, but I don't think they typically did. I think that was just an assumed cost and/or they had no comparative to consider. Or, they didn't really consider workflow costs at the employee level in terms of frustration and lost productivity. I remember a meeting trying to convince the partners at a law firm that they were close to losing staff members due to trying to save a couple hundred bucks per computer. (And, telling them that while I was quite happy spending, and billing for, like 15-20 hours each week fixing stuff, that I'd rather spend some of that time actually improving their business processes.)
I've talked to IT staff who didn't think Macs could get on networks, be good network 'citizens', software installs couldn't be managed on them, etc. They were, in most cases, just ignorant or running off myths they'd heard about Macs. Or, I've run into some who simply hated Macs and their best reasons amounted to, 'oh, those toys?'
At least there were a few studies (in the mid-90s?) that actually attempted to measure productivity gains and and cost savings. Even those were a hard-sell, but they made a few w/o completely closed minds at least take notice. I don't think the gap is nearly as wide today, though every time I spend a reasonable amount of time on a Windows machine again, I go... yea, it's better, but it still has a way to go. The 'registry' is still there. You have to worry about viruses and other sorts of stuff I barely have had to on Mac. Simple things like even mouse movement or display rendering aren't as good.
Then there is stuff like apps and updates interrupting that was once a differentiator, but now Apple (and maybe influence on other apps) has gotten nearly as bad. I just had to write a software company for something I bought the other day, as once it was installed, it would pop up in the middle of making a tutorial screen recording. You just wouldn't have seen that (in my experience) a decade ago. Heck, Apple now even does this, even with tricky dialogs to get you to unknowing upgrade if you don't read closely!
But, by the time they add the notch, it wouldn't be all that much more usable screen space... a bit more vertical, I guess. I don't need that all that much, so I'd be buying it for the most recent tech, not the screen.
The problem is that it's also a phone and I want it to fit well in my hand. My wife has an iPhone 7 and when holding it (while doable), it doesn't fit my hand as well as my SE (both shape and size). Since I nearly always *also* have a computer or tablet available, the phone is an assistant to those other devices. If it were my primary device, then I'd give up size/comfort to get the screen-space for sure.
I have no problem with Apple making bigger devices. It's clear a lot of people want them. My problem is with Apple moving to those big devices and then relegating the smaller ones to 'budget' models with less features.