Apple seems to like it for whatever reason. They must think that tiny bit of screen space is a good thing. But it comes at a price. The notch is both futuristic looking and distracting at the same time. The eye is drawn to it often when looking at the new phones. It may be possible to deal with it but it remains distracting.
I'm slowly coming round to the conclusion that the notch hasn't aged well from a design perspective.
At the time it was a necessary compromise for the objectives at hand. All notches were, but two years later, the exact same design with basically no improvement is beginning to look 'clunky' when compared to alternative options.
Don't get me wrong, I never had a problem with them from the get go and my current phone has one. For me it is not a problem at all, but times change.
We now have some spectacular full screen (or almost full screen) options on the market and choice in how to get them (sliders, pop-ups, hole punches).
The main reason for Apple's notch was FaceID (a simple biometric) and that hasn't really changed to this date. They haven't really moved forward with it in other ways either. In fact, the hardware is basically the same. I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors but since the iPhone X, in-screen biometric options have come a long way. They are performing well.
Two years later you look at the iPhone 11 Pro and the bezels and notch look bigger than they should be when others are doing more in less space or eliminating notches altogether.
I'm not sure why reducing the notch space hasn't been tackled on the new iPhones.
You lost me at "I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors".
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors were awful ergonomic design from day one because it was unavailable with the screen face up on a table or other surface. "But look how easy it is to slide your finger behind the phone to use it" you would state, which is still by definition. awful ergonomics.
I would be surprised if any device maker still uses it.
For the record, Apple fussing with the size and configuration of the notch, which isn't currently an issue at all, isn't going to happen because Apple already has a roadmap in place to fully replace Face ID sans notch.
Why waste engineering resources shrinking it?
We've been down this road before and nothing has changed since then.
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors are perfect ergonomic options. Many phones still use them.
If you are are going to actually use your phone there is no better place than in your hand.
If it is on a flat surface there is no problem. Why do you think double tap to wake was implemented? If it is 'mounted' (sat nav) there is no problem either as the screen doesn't turn off in the first place.
It is strange that after using rear mounted scanners for years and having literally zero problems with ergonomics and use, the only people that tell me they are bad/wrong are those that have never even used one.
As for making the notch smaller, it would make a massive difference in how the phone looks, competitors have not only already done this with dramatic results but they have managed to cram more tech inside and given that tech more uses.
If Apple hasn't done the same it very probably only cost related and has little to do with engineering resources.
The result is that it currently takes up most of the top part of the screen, which, as I said further up, may have been reasonable in 2017 but two years later (and unchanged) is now looking clunky. Especially as competitors have managed to free up much more space around it.
As I've stated numerous times, Apple's iPhone mostly doesn't compete in the same market as Android OS Device makers have to compete in. Given that there is net transfer of users to iPhone, the user base continues to grow. To date, there has been very little crossover of Apple users to flagship Android OS devices, even in China, where nationalism has made Huawei the countries champion, especially over other Chinese OEM's. And yeah, I've seen your posts on that.
The constant change (chaos?) that is the Android OS device market, is really quite inefficient, and substantially effects margins, to the point that Apple's margins are over 4 times higher than Huawei's margins for its entire revenue (easily provable fact based on published revenue) while selling fewer iPhones at just under 3 times the ASP of Huawei (also an easily provable fact based on published revenue / units sold).
Apple makes substantially more revenue selling fewer iPhones, and magnitudes fewer models, and of course gains a massive difference in profitability for that. Given the you are always noting that "Apple had to reprice iPhones to compete", I would state that tactic has likely only cost them a single point of margin to date. Considering that Apple's margins are about 38% and Huawei's 8.7%, there's a lot of room for Apple to maneuver on price, it they decide to.
Huawei will ship about 240 Million units this year, and Apple probably about 180 Million units, but considering the ASP and margins of Apple, it's not even a close contest. Note that Huawei publishes its revenue for its "consumer" portion, which is about 55% of its overall revenue, and given that, Apple does in fact have a higher level of R&D devoted to it's consumer products, than Huawei does, and it's actually quite apparent that Apple is applying that R&D to new products, not just its "mature" iPhone product line. Huawei's feature set for it's flagships is certainly an impressive spec list, but given that Apple sells more of it's highest end iPhone by far that Huawei sells its Mate and P lines, again it really isn't a contest.
Oh, and that notch, why change it a little bit, if Apple can keep using the same screen and Facial ID components, given the increased quantities of the same components and the inevitable savings based on that?
Of course, you don't care about margins, ASP or profit!
Mike Wuerthele said: Con is a little strong. They are welcome to market their products any way that they want.
I don't remember the same skepticism for other Dolby audio formats that came to mobile or for Dolby Vision support on mobile screens. Simulating surround with the limited number of speakers in standard headphones has been around a long time. Atmos for mobile is just an updated version of it.
I don’t believe I have spoken on the matter here at AI before. Other staffers may have differing opinions.
Apple seems to like it for whatever reason. They must think that tiny bit of screen space is a good thing. But it comes at a price. The notch is both futuristic looking and distracting at the same time. The eye is drawn to it often when looking at the new phones. It may be possible to deal with it but it remains distracting.
I'm slowly coming round to the conclusion that the notch hasn't aged well from a design perspective.
At the time it was a necessary compromise for the objectives at hand. All notches were, but two years later, the exact same design with basically no improvement is beginning to look 'clunky' when compared to alternative options.
Don't get me wrong, I never had a problem with them from the get go and my current phone has one. For me it is not a problem at all, but times change.
We now have some spectacular full screen (or almost full screen) options on the market and choice in how to get them (sliders, pop-ups, hole punches).
The main reason for Apple's notch was FaceID (a simple biometric) and that hasn't really changed to this date. They haven't really moved forward with it in other ways either. In fact, the hardware is basically the same. I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors but since the iPhone X, in-screen biometric options have come a long way. They are performing well.
Two years later you look at the iPhone 11 Pro and the bezels and notch look bigger than they should be when others are doing more in less space or eliminating notches altogether.
I'm not sure why reducing the notch space hasn't been tackled on the new iPhones.
You lost me at "I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors".
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors were awful ergonomic design from day one because it was unavailable with the screen face up on a table or other surface. "But look how easy it is to slide your finger behind the phone to use it" you would state, which is still by definition. awful ergonomics.
I would be surprised if any device maker still uses it.
For the record, Apple fussing with the size and configuration of the notch, which isn't currently an issue at all, isn't going to happen because Apple already has a roadmap in place to fully replace Face ID sans notch.
Why waste engineering resources shrinking it?
We've been down this road before and nothing has changed since then.
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors are perfect ergonomic options. Many phones still use them.
If you are are going to actually use your phone there is no better place than in your hand.
If it is on a flat surface there is no problem. Why do you think double tap to wake was implemented? If it is 'mounted' (sat nav) there is no problem either as the screen doesn't turn off in the first place.
It is strange that after using rear mounted scanners for years and having literally zero problems with ergonomics and use, the only people that tell me they are bad/wrong are those that have never even used one.
As for making the notch smaller, it would make a massive difference in how the phone looks, competitors have not only already done this with dramatic results but they have managed to cram more tech inside and given that tech more uses.
If Apple hasn't done the same it very probably only cost related and has little to do with engineering resources.
The result is that it currently takes up most of the top part of the screen, which, as I said further up, may have been reasonable in 2017 but two years later (and unchanged) is now looking clunky. Especially as competitors have managed to free up much more space around it.
As I've stated numerous times, Apple's iPhone mostly doesn't compete in the same market as Android OS Device makers have to compete in. Given that there is net transfer of users to iPhone, the user base continues to grow. To date, there has been very little crossover of Apple users to flagship Android OS devices, even in China, where nationalism has made Huawei the countries champion, especially over other Chinese OEM's. And yeah, I've seen your posts on that.
The constant change (chaos?) that is the Android OS device market, is really quite inefficient, and substantially effects margins, to the point that Apple's margins are over 4 times higher than Huawei's margins for its entire revenue (easily provable fact based on published revenue) while selling fewer iPhones at just under 3 times the ASP of Huawei (also an easily provable fact based on published revenue / units sold).
Apple makes substantially more revenue selling fewer iPhones, and magnitudes fewer models, and of course gains a massive difference in profitability for that. Given the you are always noting that "Apple had to reprice iPhones to compete", I would state that tactic has likely only cost them a single point of margin to date. Considering that Apple's margins are about 38% and Huawei's 8.7%, there's a lot of room for Apple to maneuver on price, it they decide to.
Huawei will ship about 240 Million units this year, and Apple probably about 180 Million units, but considering the ASP and margins of Apple, it's not even a close contest. Note that Huawei publishes its revenue for its "consumer" portion, which is about 55% of its overall revenue, and given that, Apple does in fact have a higher level of R&D devoted to it's consumer products, than Huawei does, and it's actually quite apparent that Apple is applying that R&D to new products, not just its "mature" iPhone product line. Huawei's feature set for it's flagships is certainly an impressive spec list, but given that Apple sells more of it's highest end iPhone by far that Huawei sells its Mate and P lines, again it really isn't a contest.
R&D efforts know no boundaries.
If the Mate 30 Pro managed to cram 21 antennas into it, the R&D behind it definitely came from a different part of the company, as did the graphene breakthroughs in the battery. There is a lot of crossover.
That is as far removed from the consumer division as you could imagine but there is Ascend silicon in earbuds!
Apple competes in exactly the same market as Android and runs exactly the same risks.
Given that Apple's share of the handset market is stable ir tending to fall I am not seeing the net transfer to iOS that you speak of and AFAIK Apple isn't exactly precise when it details iOS user base.
As for moving on price "if they want to", why on earth would they want to cheapen the product line?
You are claiming 38% margins, net Android to iOS transfer, 3 times the ASP of Huawei...
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
If they get rid of FaceID, you bet I would not be in line at all. You win some, you lose a few. That’s how it is.
I have a Motorola G7 Play phone that I bought brand new and unlocked for $145 on eBay. It has both “TouchID” and “FaceID” analogous features. I use the Motorola G7 Play in my car for Android Auto. If Motorola can do this in a $150 phone, Apple can do it for 10 times the price.
The fact that the iPhone 11 Pro can last 4-5 years is trouble for Apple. It means that sale volumes will continue to drop year after year unless Apple creates a sub-$500 iPhone to lure Android users into the Apple ecosystem and then try to upgrade them to the premium-tier iPhone that can last them 5 years.
Currently, the 2-year-old lower-tier iPhone 8 costs $499. It’s the third holiday season in a row that the iPhone 8 is offered as a lower-end alternative to the flagship that costs over $1,000. Android users can choose among mid-level modern Android phones or a two-year-old iPhone if they don’t want to spend more than $500 for a smartphone. For those in the Android ecosystem, making the jump to the 2-year-old iPhone for $500 makes no sense.
Let’s not forget that 10 years ago, a smartphone costing $500 was a shock to the consumer. We all remember what Steve Ballmer said about a $500 iPhone. Today Apple advocates present the notion of a $500 as a joke, as if were impossible to manufacture a decent smartphone and sell it at a profit for $500.
Apple seems to like it for whatever reason. They must think that tiny bit of screen space is a good thing. But it comes at a price. The notch is both futuristic looking and distracting at the same time. The eye is drawn to it often when looking at the new phones. It may be possible to deal with it but it remains distracting.
I'm slowly coming round to the conclusion that the notch hasn't aged well from a design perspective.
At the time it was a necessary compromise for the objectives at hand. All notches were, but two years later, the exact same design with basically no improvement is beginning to look 'clunky' when compared to alternative options.
Don't get me wrong, I never had a problem with them from the get go and my current phone has one. For me it is not a problem at all, but times change.
We now have some spectacular full screen (or almost full screen) options on the market and choice in how to get them (sliders, pop-ups, hole punches).
The main reason for Apple's notch was FaceID (a simple biometric) and that hasn't really changed to this date. They haven't really moved forward with it in other ways either. In fact, the hardware is basically the same. I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors but since the iPhone X, in-screen biometric options have come a long way. They are performing well.
Two years later you look at the iPhone 11 Pro and the bezels and notch look bigger than they should be when others are doing more in less space or eliminating notches altogether.
I'm not sure why reducing the notch space hasn't been tackled on the new iPhones.
You lost me at "I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors".
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors were awful ergonomic design from day one because it was unavailable with the screen face up on a table or other surface. "But look how easy it is to slide your finger behind the phone to use it" you would state, which is still by definition. awful ergonomics.
I would be surprised if any device maker still uses it.
For the record, Apple fussing with the size and configuration of the notch, which isn't currently an issue at all, isn't going to happen because Apple already has a roadmap in place to fully replace Face ID sans notch.
Why waste engineering resources shrinking it?
We've been down this road before and nothing has changed since then.
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors are perfect ergonomic options. Many phones still use them.
If you are are going to actually use your phone there is no better place than in your hand.
If it is on a flat surface there is no problem. Why do you think double tap to wake was implemented? If it is 'mounted' (sat nav) there is no problem either as the screen doesn't turn off in the first place.
It is strange that after using rear mounted scanners for years and having literally zero problems with ergonomics and use, the only people that tell me they are bad/wrong are those that have never even used one.
As for making the notch smaller, it would make a massive difference in how the phone looks, competitors have not only already done this with dramatic results but they have managed to cram more tech inside and given that tech more uses.
If Apple hasn't done the same it very probably only cost related and has little to do with engineering resources.
The result is that it currently takes up most of the top part of the screen, which, as I said further up, may have been reasonable in 2017 but two years later (and unchanged) is now looking clunky. Especially as competitors have managed to free up much more space around it.
As I've stated numerous times, Apple's iPhone mostly doesn't compete in the same market as Android OS Device makers have to compete in. Given that there is net transfer of users to iPhone, the user base continues to grow. To date, there has been very little crossover of Apple users to flagship Android OS devices, even in China, where nationalism has made Huawei the countries champion, especially over other Chinese OEM's. And yeah, I've seen your posts on that.
The constant change (chaos?) that is the Android OS device market, is really quite inefficient, and substantially effects margins, to the point that Apple's margins are over 4 times higher than Huawei's margins for its entire revenue (easily provable fact based on published revenue) while selling fewer iPhones at just under 3 times the ASP of Huawei (also an easily provable fact based on published revenue / units sold).
Apple makes substantially more revenue selling fewer iPhones, and magnitudes fewer models, and of course gains a massive difference in profitability for that. Given the you are always noting that "Apple had to reprice iPhones to compete", I would state that tactic has likely only cost them a single point of margin to date. Considering that Apple's margins are about 38% and Huawei's 8.7%, there's a lot of room for Apple to maneuver on price, it they decide to.
Huawei will ship about 240 Million units this year, and Apple probably about 180 Million units, but considering the ASP and margins of Apple, it's not even a close contest. Note that Huawei publishes its revenue for its "consumer" portion, which is about 55% of its overall revenue, and given that, Apple does in fact have a higher level of R&D devoted to it's consumer products, than Huawei does, and it's actually quite apparent that Apple is applying that R&D to new products, not just its "mature" iPhone product line. Huawei's feature set for it's flagships is certainly an impressive spec list, but given that Apple sells more of it's highest end iPhone by far that Huawei sells its Mate and P lines, again it really isn't a contest.
R&D efforts know no boundaries.
If the Mate 30 Pro managed to cram 21 antennas into it, the R&D behind it definitely came from a different part of the company, as did the graphene breakthroughs in the battery. There is a lot of crossover.
That is as far removed from the consumer division as you could imagine but there is Ascend silicon in earbuds!
Apple competes in exactly the same market as Android and runs exactly the same risks.
Given that Apple's share of the handset market is stable ir tending to fall I am not seeing the net transfer to iOS that you speak of and AFAIK Apple isn't exactly precise when it details iOS user base.
As for moving on price "if they want to", why on earth would they want to cheapen the product line?
You are claiming 38% margins, net Android to iOS transfer, 3 times the ASP of Huawei...
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
No. It isn't if Apple "wants to".
It is Apple "has" to.
"Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc..."
I've acknowledged that flat sales of from 180 million to 200 million iPhones for at least 4 or 5 quarters, and since the profit warning was some 9 months ago, I'm not seeing its relevance today. As for falling behind on technology, how do you explain Apple's revenue at almost double Huawei's and just over 4 times the margins?
One would have to assume that Huawei is buying marketshare, in 5G and in smartphones, which there is evidence of (and I have posted it before),
The fact that the iPhone 11 Pro can last 4-5 years is trouble for Apple. It means that sale volumes will continue to drop year after year unless Apple creates a sub-$500 iPhone to lure Android users into the Apple ecosystem and then try to upgrade them to the premium-tier iPhone that can last them 5 years.
Currently, the 2-year-old lower-tier iPhone 8 costs $499. It’s the third holiday season in a row that the iPhone 8 is offered as a lower-end alternative to the flagship that costs over $1,000. Android users can choose among mid-level modern Android phones or a two-year-old iPhone if they don’t want to spend more than $500 for a smartphone. For those in the Android ecosystem, making the jump to the 2-year-old iPhone for $500 makes no sense.
Let’s not forget that 10 years ago, a smartphone costing $500 was a shock to the consumer. We all remember what Steve Ballmer said about a $500 iPhone. Today Apple advocates present the notion of a $500 as a joke, as if were impossible to manufacture a decent smartphone and sell it at a profit for $500.
If Apple's users base is considered 900 million and growing, that's 180 million units a year at 5 years of life. Pretty much where we sit today, and growing means that the iPhone is already picking up net users. I agree that it makes no sense for those in the Android ecosystem to jump to the iPhone, but then again, jumping to Apple's ecosystem does in fact make sense for some Android OS users, especially those that are looking for an iPad, or Apple Watch, given the limited state of Android OS devices compared to those in Apple's ecosystem.
I don't find just comparing Apple's iPhone to Android OS devices as being particularly useful, hence, why I usually consider the whole Apple ecosystem vs Android.
The fact that the iPhone 11 Pro can last 4-5 years is trouble for Apple. It means that sale volumes will continue to drop year after year unless Apple creates a sub-$500 iPhone to lure Android users into the Apple ecosystem and then try to upgrade them to the premium-tier iPhone that can last them 5 years.
Currently, the 2-year-old lower-tier iPhone 8 costs $499. It’s the third holiday season in a row that the iPhone 8 is offered as a lower-end alternative to the flagship that costs over $1,000. Android users can choose among mid-level modern Android phones or a two-year-old iPhone if they don’t want to spend more than $500 for a smartphone. For those in the Android ecosystem, making the jump to the 2-year-old iPhone for $500 makes no sense.
Let’s not forget that 10 years ago, a smartphone costing $500 was a shock to the consumer. We all remember what Steve Ballmer said about a $500 iPhone. Today Apple advocates present the notion of a $500 as a joke, as if were impossible to manufacture a decent smartphone and sell it at a profit for $500.
If Apple's users base is considered 900 million and growing, that's 180 million units a year at 5 years of life. Pretty much where we sit today, and growing means that the iPhone is already picking up net users. I agree that it makes no sense for those in the Android ecosystem to jump to the iPhone, but then again, jumping to Apple's ecosystem does in fact make sense for some Android OS users, especially those that are looking for an iPad, or Apple Watch, given the limited state of Android OS devices compared to those in Apple's ecosystem.
I don't find just comparing Apple's iPhone to Android OS devices as being particularly useful, hence, why I usually consider the whole Apple ecosystem vs Android.
The Android ecosystem is much more solid than Apple’s. Apple’s iCloud is child play compared to similar Google services. Entire companies, including large ones, run on Google cloud services. It’s impossible to run even a small business on the Apple cloud services. It’s only good enough for the household, not for any business. School systems use Google cloud services almost exclusively.
Airplay is analogous to ChromeCast. HomeKit is analogous to Google Home. CarPlay is analogous to Android Auto. Google has YouTube and YouTube TV. Apple has no YouTube , and Apple TV+ is a joke compared to Google TV. Apple Music is analogous to Google Music. Apple Find My is analogous to a similar Google service. Apple Pay is analogous to Google Pay. iPhone has dozens of Android competitors, but Google’s own Pixel is a solid alternative to the iPhone. Samsung smart watches are behind the Apple Watch but still a solid alternative that obviates the necessity to switch to Apple just to get a decent smart watch.
The only concern one may have about the Google ecosystem is their perceived lax attitude toward privacy concerns, but for many people it’s a nothing burger.
It’s really fascinating how many Apple fans make false claims about the Google ecosystem without ever trying to use an Android phone or any Google services. Those few who switch from Apple to Android find that the Android ecosystem is refreshingly solid and much more advanced than that of Apple even though it may not be as polished as the Apple ecosystem.
It’s never helpful to be arrogant about the competition and downplay the competition’s achievements.
Mike Wuerthele said: I don’t believe I have spoken on the matter here at AI before. Other staffers may have differing opinions.
The article that I'm commenting on is skeptical of the mobile version of Atmos as well. That's why I originally mentioned that it works with headphones, since the article only focused on the iPhone's built-in speakers. Seemed like an oversight, as articles involving music formats don't limit the experience to how it sounds playing through iPhone speakers.
Apple seems to like it for whatever reason. They must think that tiny bit of screen space is a good thing. But it comes at a price. The notch is both futuristic looking and distracting at the same time. The eye is drawn to it often when looking at the new phones. It may be possible to deal with it but it remains distracting.
I'm slowly coming round to the conclusion that the notch hasn't aged well from a design perspective.
At the time it was a necessary compromise for the objectives at hand. All notches were, but two years later, the exact same design with basically no improvement is beginning to look 'clunky' when compared to alternative options.
Don't get me wrong, I never had a problem with them from the get go and my current phone has one. For me it is not a problem at all, but times change.
We now have some spectacular full screen (or almost full screen) options on the market and choice in how to get them (sliders, pop-ups, hole punches).
The main reason for Apple's notch was FaceID (a simple biometric) and that hasn't really changed to this date. They haven't really moved forward with it in other ways either. In fact, the hardware is basically the same. I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors but since the iPhone X, in-screen biometric options have come a long way. They are performing well.
Two years later you look at the iPhone 11 Pro and the bezels and notch look bigger than they should be when others are doing more in less space or eliminating notches altogether.
I'm not sure why reducing the notch space hasn't been tackled on the new iPhones.
You lost me at "I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors".
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors were awful ergonomic design from day one because it was unavailable with the screen face up on a table or other surface. "But look how easy it is to slide your finger behind the phone to use it" you would state, which is still by definition. awful ergonomics.
I would be surprised if any device maker still uses it.
For the record, Apple fussing with the size and configuration of the notch, which isn't currently an issue at all, isn't going to happen because Apple already has a roadmap in place to fully replace Face ID sans notch.
Why waste engineering resources shrinking it?
We've been down this road before and nothing has changed since then.
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors are perfect ergonomic options. Many phones still use them.
If you are are going to actually use your phone there is no better place than in your hand.
If it is on a flat surface there is no problem. Why do you think double tap to wake was implemented? If it is 'mounted' (sat nav) there is no problem either as the screen doesn't turn off in the first place.
It is strange that after using rear mounted scanners for years and having literally zero problems with ergonomics and use, the only people that tell me they are bad/wrong are those that have never even used one.
As for making the notch smaller, it would make a massive difference in how the phone looks, competitors have not only already done this with dramatic results but they have managed to cram more tech inside and given that tech more uses.
If Apple hasn't done the same it very probably only cost related and has little to do with engineering resources.
The result is that it currently takes up most of the top part of the screen, which, as I said further up, may have been reasonable in 2017 but two years later (and unchanged) is now looking clunky. Especially as competitors have managed to free up much more space around it.
As I've stated numerous times, Apple's iPhone mostly doesn't compete in the same market as Android OS Device makers have to compete in. Given that there is net transfer of users to iPhone, the user base continues to grow. To date, there has been very little crossover of Apple users to flagship Android OS devices, even in China, where nationalism has made Huawei the countries champion, especially over other Chinese OEM's. And yeah, I've seen your posts on that.
The constant change (chaos?) that is the Android OS device market, is really quite inefficient, and substantially effects margins, to the point that Apple's margins are over 4 times higher than Huawei's margins for its entire revenue (easily provable fact based on published revenue) while selling fewer iPhones at just under 3 times the ASP of Huawei (also an easily provable fact based on published revenue / units sold).
Apple makes substantially more revenue selling fewer iPhones, and magnitudes fewer models, and of course gains a massive difference in profitability for that. Given the you are always noting that "Apple had to reprice iPhones to compete", I would state that tactic has likely only cost them a single point of margin to date. Considering that Apple's margins are about 38% and Huawei's 8.7%, there's a lot of room for Apple to maneuver on price, it they decide to.
Huawei will ship about 240 Million units this year, and Apple probably about 180 Million units, but considering the ASP and margins of Apple, it's not even a close contest. Note that Huawei publishes its revenue for its "consumer" portion, which is about 55% of its overall revenue, and given that, Apple does in fact have a higher level of R&D devoted to it's consumer products, than Huawei does, and it's actually quite apparent that Apple is applying that R&D to new products, not just its "mature" iPhone product line. Huawei's feature set for it's flagships is certainly an impressive spec list, but given that Apple sells more of it's highest end iPhone by far that Huawei sells its Mate and P lines, again it really isn't a contest.
R&D efforts know no boundaries.
If the Mate 30 Pro managed to cram 21 antennas into it, the R&D behind it definitely came from a different part of the company, as did the graphene breakthroughs in the battery. There is a lot of crossover.
That is as far removed from the consumer division as you could imagine but there is Ascend silicon in earbuds!
Apple competes in exactly the same market as Android and runs exactly the same risks.
Given that Apple's share of the handset market is stable ir tending to fall I am not seeing the net transfer to iOS that you speak of and AFAIK Apple isn't exactly precise when it details iOS user base.
As for moving on price "if they want to", why on earth would they want to cheapen the product line?
You are claiming 38% margins, net Android to iOS transfer, 3 times the ASP of Huawei...
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
No. It isn't if Apple "wants to".
It is Apple "has" to.
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
I've acknowledged that flat sales of from 180 million to 200 million iPhones for at least 4 or 5 quarters, and since the profit warning was some 9 months ago, I'm not seeing its relevance today. As for falling behind on technology, how do you explain Apple's revenue at almost double Huawei's and just over 4 times the margins?
One would have to assume that Huawei is buying marketshare, in 5G and in smartphones, which there is evidence of (and I have posted it before),
The relevance of the profit warning wasn't the point in time that it happened (although falling right on Apple's blowout quarter was in itself supremely significant). The 'relevance' before, during and after was that something wasn't right.
Seeing as Apple vastly improved trade-in options worldwide for the whole year (while describing the promotion as 'limited time') and allowed direct discounts in China is a clear indicator that price was one of the big factors. They also designed a China specific true dual SIM model only for the Chinese market.
Don't let Apple's overall business performance cloud your view. We are focusing on iPhone here.
Huawei has always been competitive on price without being afraid to put $2,000 dollar phones on the market for that small segment that wants them. Every single one of those special lines has sold out (so, obviously meeting expectations). That's why we got another PD Mate RS at 2,000€ last week.
They have done far, far more than Apple with far less revenue but obviously billion+ dollars a year seems to get them by.
In contrast, Apple has hoarded its cash while offering a limited spread (two phones a year for many years), failed to make the correct strategic moves (virtually zero investment in its core reliance - cellular technology - and not being able to deliver its 5G modem in the forecast timeframe etc). It also fell behind in what has become its speciality (handset technology).
The one area where it has had great technical success (SoC) simply went unnoticed in the hands of both Apple and Android users, as nothing compelling has arrived to really take things up another level. Yes, we got ARKit with a lot of fanfare and instant support for 500 million devices but none of them actually had anything to actually use it on. We went up to ARKit 3 and saw it promptly do the exact opposite of ARKit1 in terms of support. Not even the most expensive iPhone ever from exactly one year before would support all its features. In spite of its SoC and price, it clearly wasn't future proofed enough.
Until something compelling comes around to make the performance usable, people will be oblivious to it. Just like they are now.
However, look at how much cowing is going on with the 'new' Night Mode. Clearly people will appreciate that more than the performance of the SoC. Clearly people get a lot out of that. Shame it took an eternity to appear!
The truth is that you don't need to compare the A13 to Android an SoC at all to see this. Each successive A Series SoC has seen important gains on previous generations but iOS users aren't clamouring for the new SoCs simply because they won't really notice the speed enhancements. That is reality. Even iOS users would accept lower specs in exchange for more features.
The iPhone 11 series has finally provided some of those features.
Let’s not forget that 10 years ago, a smartphone costing $500 was a shock to the consumer. We all remember what Steve Ballmer said about a $500 iPhone. Today Apple advocates present the notion of a $500 as a joke, as if were impossible to manufacture a decent smartphone and sell it at a profit for $500.
If you want the features of what was new 10 years ago I’m sure you can find a $500 phone. But if you want the features of a modern flagship smartphone, which incur higher development costs, it will cost more. In early days development was less expensive because it was all low-hanging fruit then. Also factor in inflation - $500 in 2007 is $617 today. Not too far off from the iPhone 11, a premium phone at $699.
The fact that the iPhone 11 Pro can last 4-5 years is trouble for Apple. It means that sale volumes will continue to drop year after year unless Apple creates a sub-$500 iPhone to lure Android users into the Apple ecosystem and then try to upgrade them to the premium-tier iPhone that can last them 5 years.
Currently, the 2-year-old lower-tier iPhone 8 costs $499. It’s the third holiday season in a row that the iPhone 8 is offered as a lower-end alternative to the flagship that costs over $1,000. Android users can choose among mid-level modern Android phones or a two-year-old iPhone if they don’t want to spend more than $500 for a smartphone. For those in the Android ecosystem, making the jump to the 2-year-old iPhone for $500 makes no sense.
Let’s not forget that 10 years ago, a smartphone costing $500 was a shock to the consumer. We all remember what Steve Ballmer said about a $500 iPhone. Today Apple advocates present the notion of a $500 as a joke, as if were impossible to manufacture a decent smartphone and sell it at a profit for $500.
If Apple's users base is considered 900 million and growing, that's 180 million units a year at 5 years of life. Pretty much where we sit today, and growing means that the iPhone is already picking up net users. I agree that it makes no sense for those in the Android ecosystem to jump to the iPhone, but then again, jumping to Apple's ecosystem does in fact make sense for some Android OS users, especially those that are looking for an iPad, or Apple Watch, given the limited state of Android OS devices compared to those in Apple's ecosystem.
I don't find just comparing Apple's iPhone to Android OS devices as being particularly useful, hence, why I usually consider the whole Apple ecosystem vs Android.
The Android ecosystem is much more solid than Apple’s. Apple’s iCloud is child play compared to similar Google services.
Let’s not forget that 10 years ago, a smartphone costing $500 was a shock to the consumer. We all remember what Steve Ballmer said about a $500 iPhone. Today Apple advocates present the notion of a $500 as a joke, as if were impossible to manufacture a decent smartphone and sell it at a profit for $500.
If you want the features of what was new 10 years ago I’m sure you can find a $500 phone. But if you want the features of a modern flagship smartphone, which incur higher development costs, it will cost more. In early days development was less expensive because it was all low-hanging fruit then. Also factor in inflation - $500 in 2007 is $617 today. Not too far off from the iPhone 11, a premium phone at $699.
I bought a $150 brand new Motorola G7 Play, which for $150 is a phenomenal phone. In fact, had we not been so deeply entrenched in the Apple ecosystem for over a decade now, I would NEVER consider getting my kids anything beyond a $150 Android phone. Again, the Motorola G7 Play is phenomenal.
For $500, you can get an amazing Android phone that rivals iPhone 11. By the way, the iPhone 11's price of $699 is a 64GB model, which really insufficient for a phone in this price range. It's true that the Android hardware manufacturers don't make quite as much profit margin as Apple does. We are not here discussing profit margins, though. We are discussing the price that the consumer pays.
Apple seems to like it for whatever reason. They must think that tiny bit of screen space is a good thing. But it comes at a price. The notch is both futuristic looking and distracting at the same time. The eye is drawn to it often when looking at the new phones. It may be possible to deal with it but it remains distracting.
I'm slowly coming round to the conclusion that the notch hasn't aged well from a design perspective.
At the time it was a necessary compromise for the objectives at hand. All notches were, but two years later, the exact same design with basically no improvement is beginning to look 'clunky' when compared to alternative options.
Don't get me wrong, I never had a problem with them from the get go and my current phone has one. For me it is not a problem at all, but times change.
We now have some spectacular full screen (or almost full screen) options on the market and choice in how to get them (sliders, pop-ups, hole punches).
The main reason for Apple's notch was FaceID (a simple biometric) and that hasn't really changed to this date. They haven't really moved forward with it in other ways either. In fact, the hardware is basically the same. I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors but since the iPhone X, in-screen biometric options have come a long way. They are performing well.
Two years later you look at the iPhone 11 Pro and the bezels and notch look bigger than they should be when others are doing more in less space or eliminating notches altogether.
I'm not sure why reducing the notch space hasn't been tackled on the new iPhones.
You lost me at "I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors".
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors were awful ergonomic design from day one because it was unavailable with the screen face up on a table or other surface. "But look how easy it is to slide your finger behind the phone to use it" you would state, which is still by definition. awful ergonomics.
I would be surprised if any device maker still uses it.
For the record, Apple fussing with the size and configuration of the notch, which isn't currently an issue at all, isn't going to happen because Apple already has a roadmap in place to fully replace Face ID sans notch.
Why waste engineering resources shrinking it?
We've been down this road before and nothing has changed since then.
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors are perfect ergonomic options. Many phones still use them.
If you are are going to actually use your phone there is no better place than in your hand.
If it is on a flat surface there is no problem. Why do you think double tap to wake was implemented? If it is 'mounted' (sat nav) there is no problem either as the screen doesn't turn off in the first place.
It is strange that after using rear mounted scanners for years and having literally zero problems with ergonomics and use, the only people that tell me they are bad/wrong are those that have never even used one.
As for making the notch smaller, it would make a massive difference in how the phone looks, competitors have not only already done this with dramatic results but they have managed to cram more tech inside and given that tech more uses.
If Apple hasn't done the same it very probably only cost related and has little to do with engineering resources.
The result is that it currently takes up most of the top part of the screen, which, as I said further up, may have been reasonable in 2017 but two years later (and unchanged) is now looking clunky. Especially as competitors have managed to free up much more space around it.
As I've stated numerous times, Apple's iPhone mostly doesn't compete in the same market as Android OS Device makers have to compete in. Given that there is net transfer of users to iPhone, the user base continues to grow. To date, there has been very little crossover of Apple users to flagship Android OS devices, even in China, where nationalism has made Huawei the countries champion, especially over other Chinese OEM's. And yeah, I've seen your posts on that.
The constant change (chaos?) that is the Android OS device market, is really quite inefficient, and substantially effects margins, to the point that Apple's margins are over 4 times higher than Huawei's margins for its entire revenue (easily provable fact based on published revenue) while selling fewer iPhones at just under 3 times the ASP of Huawei (also an easily provable fact based on published revenue / units sold).
Apple makes substantially more revenue selling fewer iPhones, and magnitudes fewer models, and of course gains a massive difference in profitability for that. Given the you are always noting that "Apple had to reprice iPhones to compete", I would state that tactic has likely only cost them a single point of margin to date. Considering that Apple's margins are about 38% and Huawei's 8.7%, there's a lot of room for Apple to maneuver on price, it they decide to.
Huawei will ship about 240 Million units this year, and Apple probably about 180 Million units, but considering the ASP and margins of Apple, it's not even a close contest. Note that Huawei publishes its revenue for its "consumer" portion, which is about 55% of its overall revenue, and given that, Apple does in fact have a higher level of R&D devoted to it's consumer products, than Huawei does, and it's actually quite apparent that Apple is applying that R&D to new products, not just its "mature" iPhone product line. Huawei's feature set for it's flagships is certainly an impressive spec list, but given that Apple sells more of it's highest end iPhone by far that Huawei sells its Mate and P lines, again it really isn't a contest.
R&D efforts know no boundaries.
If the Mate 30 Pro managed to cram 21 antennas into it, the R&D behind it definitely came from a different part of the company, as did the graphene breakthroughs in the battery. There is a lot of crossover.
That is as far removed from the consumer division as you could imagine but there is Ascend silicon in earbuds!
Apple competes in exactly the same market as Android and runs exactly the same risks.
Given that Apple's share of the handset market is stable ir tending to fall I am not seeing the net transfer to iOS that you speak of and AFAIK Apple isn't exactly precise when it details iOS user base.
As for moving on price "if they want to", why on earth would they want to cheapen the product line?
You are claiming 38% margins, net Android to iOS transfer, 3 times the ASP of Huawei...
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
No. It isn't if Apple "wants to".
It is Apple "has" to.
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
I've acknowledged that flat sales of from 180 million to 200 million iPhones for at least 4 or 5 quarters, and since the profit warning was some 9 months ago, I'm not seeing its relevance today. As for falling behind on technology, how do you explain Apple's revenue at almost double Huawei's and just over 4 times the margins?
One would have to assume that Huawei is buying marketshare, in 5G and in smartphones, which there is evidence of (and I have posted it before),
The one area where it has had great technical success (SoC) simply went unnoticed in the hands of both Apple and Android users, as nothing compelling has arrived to really take things up another level. Yes, we got ARKit with a lot of fanfare and instant support for 500 million devices but none of them actually had anything to actually use it on. We went up to ARKit 3 and saw it promptly do the exact opposite of ARKit1 in terms of support. Not even the most expensive iPhone ever from exactly one year before would support all its features. In spite of its SoC and price, it clearly wasn't future proofed enough.
Until something compelling comes around to make the performance usable, people will be oblivious to it. Just like they are now.
However, look at how much cowing is going on with the 'new' Night Mode. Clearly people will appreciate that more than the performance of the SoC. Clearly people get a lot out of that. Shame it took an eternity to appear!
What you fail to realize, is that the A13 is precisely the reason that Night Mode has been raved about. It is easy to use, gives warm colors, and is exceedingly fast. Night Mode compares favorably to Google Night Sight, and compares better than Huawei or Samsung, due to the poor color and texture on those two. Oh, and Night Mode give the user a preview.
The fact that the iPhone 11 Pro can last 4-5 years is trouble for Apple. It means that sale volumes will continue to drop year after year unless Apple creates a sub-$500 iPhone to lure Android users into the Apple ecosystem and then try to upgrade them to the premium-tier iPhone that can last them 5 years.
Currently, the 2-year-old lower-tier iPhone 8 costs $499. It’s the third holiday season in a row that the iPhone 8 is offered as a lower-end alternative to the flagship that costs over $1,000. Android users can choose among mid-level modern Android phones or a two-year-old iPhone if they don’t want to spend more than $500 for a smartphone. For those in the Android ecosystem, making the jump to the 2-year-old iPhone for $500 makes no sense.
Let’s not forget that 10 years ago, a smartphone costing $500 was a shock to the consumer. We all remember what Steve Ballmer said about a $500 iPhone. Today Apple advocates present the notion of a $500 as a joke, as if were impossible to manufacture a decent smartphone and sell it at a profit for $500.
If Apple's users base is considered 900 million and growing, that's 180 million units a year at 5 years of life. Pretty much where we sit today, and growing means that the iPhone is already picking up net users. I agree that it makes no sense for those in the Android ecosystem to jump to the iPhone, but then again, jumping to Apple's ecosystem does in fact make sense for some Android OS users, especially those that are looking for an iPad, or Apple Watch, given the limited state of Android OS devices compared to those in Apple's ecosystem.
I don't find just comparing Apple's iPhone to Android OS devices as being particularly useful, hence, why I usually consider the whole Apple ecosystem vs Android.
The Android ecosystem is much more solid than Apple’s. Apple’s iCloud is child play compared to similar Google services.
Hahahah. Ohohohoho.. Good one, mate.
What kind d of business can you run on Apple’s iCloud? Can you share any folders and give different people different access level to the files in the folder? Can you use iCloud as the platform for a public or private school?
iCloud lacks even in a home setting, as you can’t share a folder with a family member. I have a 2TB iCloud storage plan but yet have to use Dropbox to share folders with my wife.
Apple seems to like it for whatever reason. They must think that tiny bit of screen space is a good thing. But it comes at a price. The notch is both futuristic looking and distracting at the same time. The eye is drawn to it often when looking at the new phones. It may be possible to deal with it but it remains distracting.
I'm slowly coming round to the conclusion that the notch hasn't aged well from a design perspective.
At the time it was a necessary compromise for the objectives at hand. All notches were, but two years later, the exact same design with basically no improvement is beginning to look 'clunky' when compared to alternative options.
Don't get me wrong, I never had a problem with them from the get go and my current phone has one. For me it is not a problem at all, but times change.
We now have some spectacular full screen (or almost full screen) options on the market and choice in how to get them (sliders, pop-ups, hole punches).
The main reason for Apple's notch was FaceID (a simple biometric) and that hasn't really changed to this date. They haven't really moved forward with it in other ways either. In fact, the hardware is basically the same. I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors but since the iPhone X, in-screen biometric options have come a long way. They are performing well.
Two years later you look at the iPhone 11 Pro and the bezels and notch look bigger than they should be when others are doing more in less space or eliminating notches altogether.
I'm not sure why reducing the notch space hasn't been tackled on the new iPhones.
You lost me at "I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors".
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors were awful ergonomic design from day one because it was unavailable with the screen face up on a table or other surface. "But look how easy it is to slide your finger behind the phone to use it" you would state, which is still by definition. awful ergonomics.
I would be surprised if any device maker still uses it.
For the record, Apple fussing with the size and configuration of the notch, which isn't currently an issue at all, isn't going to happen because Apple already has a roadmap in place to fully replace Face ID sans notch.
Why waste engineering resources shrinking it?
We've been down this road before and nothing has changed since then.
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors are perfect ergonomic options. Many phones still use them.
If you are are going to actually use your phone there is no better place than in your hand.
If it is on a flat surface there is no problem. Why do you think double tap to wake was implemented? If it is 'mounted' (sat nav) there is no problem either as the screen doesn't turn off in the first place.
It is strange that after using rear mounted scanners for years and having literally zero problems with ergonomics and use, the only people that tell me they are bad/wrong are those that have never even used one.
As for making the notch smaller, it would make a massive difference in how the phone looks, competitors have not only already done this with dramatic results but they have managed to cram more tech inside and given that tech more uses.
If Apple hasn't done the same it very probably only cost related and has little to do with engineering resources.
The result is that it currently takes up most of the top part of the screen, which, as I said further up, may have been reasonable in 2017 but two years later (and unchanged) is now looking clunky. Especially as competitors have managed to free up much more space around it.
As I've stated numerous times, Apple's iPhone mostly doesn't compete in the same market as Android OS Device makers have to compete in. Given that there is net transfer of users to iPhone, the user base continues to grow. To date, there has been very little crossover of Apple users to flagship Android OS devices, even in China, where nationalism has made Huawei the countries champion, especially over other Chinese OEM's. And yeah, I've seen your posts on that.
The constant change (chaos?) that is the Android OS device market, is really quite inefficient, and substantially effects margins, to the point that Apple's margins are over 4 times higher than Huawei's margins for its entire revenue (easily provable fact based on published revenue) while selling fewer iPhones at just under 3 times the ASP of Huawei (also an easily provable fact based on published revenue / units sold).
Apple makes substantially more revenue selling fewer iPhones, and magnitudes fewer models, and of course gains a massive difference in profitability for that. Given the you are always noting that "Apple had to reprice iPhones to compete", I would state that tactic has likely only cost them a single point of margin to date. Considering that Apple's margins are about 38% and Huawei's 8.7%, there's a lot of room for Apple to maneuver on price, it they decide to.
Huawei will ship about 240 Million units this year, and Apple probably about 180 Million units, but considering the ASP and margins of Apple, it's not even a close contest. Note that Huawei publishes its revenue for its "consumer" portion, which is about 55% of its overall revenue, and given that, Apple does in fact have a higher level of R&D devoted to it's consumer products, than Huawei does, and it's actually quite apparent that Apple is applying that R&D to new products, not just its "mature" iPhone product line. Huawei's feature set for it's flagships is certainly an impressive spec list, but given that Apple sells more of it's highest end iPhone by far that Huawei sells its Mate and P lines, again it really isn't a contest.
R&D efforts know no boundaries.
If the Mate 30 Pro managed to cram 21 antennas into it, the R&D behind it definitely came from a different part of the company, as did the graphene breakthroughs in the battery. There is a lot of crossover.
That is as far removed from the consumer division as you could imagine but there is Ascend silicon in earbuds!
Apple competes in exactly the same market as Android and runs exactly the same risks.
Given that Apple's share of the handset market is stable ir tending to fall I am not seeing the net transfer to iOS that you speak of and AFAIK Apple isn't exactly precise when it details iOS user base.
As for moving on price "if they want to", why on earth would they want to cheapen the product line?
You are claiming 38% margins, net Android to iOS transfer, 3 times the ASP of Huawei...
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
No. It isn't if Apple "wants to".
It is Apple "has" to.
"Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc..."
I've acknowledged that flat sales of from 180 million to 200 million iPhones for at least 4 or 5 quarters, and since the profit warning was some 9 months ago, I'm not seeing its relevance today. As for falling behind on technology, how do you explain Apple's revenue at almost double Huawei's and just over 4 times the margins?
One would have to assume that Huawei is buying marketshare, in 5G and in smartphones, which there is evidence of (and I have posted it before),
Please remember that @"avon b7" b7 is more enlightened than us. He said so in an earlier post. He is one of the enlightened ones who have moved to the superior Android platform. This he also has told us many times. So when he states that iPhone sales are tending down we MUST believe him. In reality, though, he is the proverbial wolf in sheep’s clothing here in these forums. He always presents half truths and spin as if they are unassailable fact. He claims he wants lower prices and competition so is that why he constantly trashes Apple here? Apple iPhones can’t compete with Android phones is a well known fact now? No longer a customer of Apple he is here to save us from our delusions that the company is successful and growing. Why these types feel compelled to evangelize the Android platform in Apple centric tech blogs has always made me scratch my head. I have no inner urging to frequent Android blogs and evangelize iOS. I guess I’m not enlightened enough.
Apple seems to like it for whatever reason. They must think that tiny bit of screen space is a good thing. But it comes at a price. The notch is both futuristic looking and distracting at the same time. The eye is drawn to it often when looking at the new phones. It may be possible to deal with it but it remains distracting.
I'm slowly coming round to the conclusion that the notch hasn't aged well from a design perspective.
At the time it was a necessary compromise for the objectives at hand. All notches were, but two years later, the exact same design with basically no improvement is beginning to look 'clunky' when compared to alternative options.
Don't get me wrong, I never had a problem with them from the get go and my current phone has one. For me it is not a problem at all, but times change.
We now have some spectacular full screen (or almost full screen) options on the market and choice in how to get them (sliders, pop-ups, hole punches).
The main reason for Apple's notch was FaceID (a simple biometric) and that hasn't really changed to this date. They haven't really moved forward with it in other ways either. In fact, the hardware is basically the same. I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors but since the iPhone X, in-screen biometric options have come a long way. They are performing well.
Two years later you look at the iPhone 11 Pro and the bezels and notch look bigger than they should be when others are doing more in less space or eliminating notches altogether.
I'm not sure why reducing the notch space hasn't been tackled on the new iPhones.
You lost me at "I'm a big fan of rear mounted fingerprint sensors".
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors were awful ergonomic design from day one because it was unavailable with the screen face up on a table or other surface. "But look how easy it is to slide your finger behind the phone to use it" you would state, which is still by definition. awful ergonomics.
I would be surprised if any device maker still uses it.
For the record, Apple fussing with the size and configuration of the notch, which isn't currently an issue at all, isn't going to happen because Apple already has a roadmap in place to fully replace Face ID sans notch.
Why waste engineering resources shrinking it?
We've been down this road before and nothing has changed since then.
Rear mounted fingerprint sensors are perfect ergonomic options. Many phones still use them.
If you are are going to actually use your phone there is no better place than in your hand.
If it is on a flat surface there is no problem. Why do you think double tap to wake was implemented? If it is 'mounted' (sat nav) there is no problem either as the screen doesn't turn off in the first place.
It is strange that after using rear mounted scanners for years and having literally zero problems with ergonomics and use, the only people that tell me they are bad/wrong are those that have never even used one.
As for making the notch smaller, it would make a massive difference in how the phone looks, competitors have not only already done this with dramatic results but they have managed to cram more tech inside and given that tech more uses.
If Apple hasn't done the same it very probably only cost related and has little to do with engineering resources.
The result is that it currently takes up most of the top part of the screen, which, as I said further up, may have been reasonable in 2017 but two years later (and unchanged) is now looking clunky. Especially as competitors have managed to free up much more space around it.
As I've stated numerous times, Apple's iPhone mostly doesn't compete in the same market as Android OS Device makers have to compete in. Given that there is net transfer of users to iPhone, the user base continues to grow. To date, there has been very little crossover of Apple users to flagship Android OS devices, even in China, where nationalism has made Huawei the countries champion, especially over other Chinese OEM's. And yeah, I've seen your posts on that.
The constant change (chaos?) that is the Android OS device market, is really quite inefficient, and substantially effects margins, to the point that Apple's margins are over 4 times higher than Huawei's margins for its entire revenue (easily provable fact based on published revenue) while selling fewer iPhones at just under 3 times the ASP of Huawei (also an easily provable fact based on published revenue / units sold).
Apple makes substantially more revenue selling fewer iPhones, and magnitudes fewer models, and of course gains a massive difference in profitability for that. Given the you are always noting that "Apple had to reprice iPhones to compete", I would state that tactic has likely only cost them a single point of margin to date. Considering that Apple's margins are about 38% and Huawei's 8.7%, there's a lot of room for Apple to maneuver on price, it they decide to.
Huawei will ship about 240 Million units this year, and Apple probably about 180 Million units, but considering the ASP and margins of Apple, it's not even a close contest. Note that Huawei publishes its revenue for its "consumer" portion, which is about 55% of its overall revenue, and given that, Apple does in fact have a higher level of R&D devoted to it's consumer products, than Huawei does, and it's actually quite apparent that Apple is applying that R&D to new products, not just its "mature" iPhone product line. Huawei's feature set for it's flagships is certainly an impressive spec list, but given that Apple sells more of it's highest end iPhone by far that Huawei sells its Mate and P lines, again it really isn't a contest.
R&D efforts know no boundaries.
If the Mate 30 Pro managed to cram 21 antennas into it, the R&D behind it definitely came from a different part of the company, as did the graphene breakthroughs in the battery. There is a lot of crossover.
That is as far removed from the consumer division as you could imagine but there is Ascend silicon in earbuds!
Apple competes in exactly the same market as Android and runs exactly the same risks.
Given that Apple's share of the handset market is stable ir tending to fall I am not seeing the net transfer to iOS that you speak of and AFAIK Apple isn't exactly precise when it details iOS user base.
As for moving on price "if they want to", why on earth would they want to cheapen the product line?
You are claiming 38% margins, net Android to iOS transfer, 3 times the ASP of Huawei...
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
No. It isn't if Apple "wants to".
It is Apple "has" to.
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
I've acknowledged that flat sales of from 180 million to 200 million iPhones for at least 4 or 5 quarters, and since the profit warning was some 9 months ago, I'm not seeing its relevance today. As for falling behind on technology, how do you explain Apple's revenue at almost double Huawei's and just over 4 times the margins?
One would have to assume that Huawei is buying marketshare, in 5G and in smartphones, which there is evidence of (and I have posted it before),
<snip>
Don't let Apple's overall business performance cloud your view. We are focusing on iPhone here.
Huawei has always been competitive on price without being afraid to put $2,000 dollar phones on the market for that small segment that wants them. Every single one of those special lines has sold out (so, obviously meeting expectations). That's why we got another PD Mate RS at 2,000€ last week.
They have done far, far more than Apple with far less revenue but obviously billion+ dollars a year seems to get them by.
<snip>
What?
Sure. Let's go ahead and look at Wal*Mart's overall business as a function of cereal sales. Related, let's go ahead and call Apple doomed because iPod Touch sales aren't what they were previously.
The fact that the iPhone 11 Pro can last 4-5 years is trouble for Apple. It means that sale volumes will continue to drop year after year unless Apple creates a sub-$500 iPhone to lure Android users into the Apple ecosystem and then try to upgrade them to the premium-tier iPhone that can last them 5 years.
Currently, the 2-year-old lower-tier iPhone 8 costs $499. It’s the third holiday season in a row that the iPhone 8 is offered as a lower-end alternative to the flagship that costs over $1,000. Android users can choose among mid-level modern Android phones or a two-year-old iPhone if they don’t want to spend more than $500 for a smartphone. For those in the Android ecosystem, making the jump to the 2-year-old iPhone for $500 makes no sense.
Let’s not forget that 10 years ago, a smartphone costing $500 was a shock to the consumer. We all remember what Steve Ballmer said about a $500 iPhone. Today Apple advocates present the notion of a $500 as a joke, as if were impossible to manufacture a decent smartphone and sell it at a profit for $500.
If Apple's users base is considered 900 million and growing, that's 180 million units a year at 5 years of life. Pretty much where we sit today, and growing means that the iPhone is already picking up net users. I agree that it makes no sense for those in the Android ecosystem to jump to the iPhone, but then again, jumping to Apple's ecosystem does in fact make sense for some Android OS users, especially those that are looking for an iPad, or Apple Watch, given the limited state of Android OS devices compared to those in Apple's ecosystem.
I don't find just comparing Apple's iPhone to Android OS devices as being particularly useful, hence, why I usually consider the whole Apple ecosystem vs Android.
The Android ecosystem is much more solid than Apple’s. Apple’s iCloud is child play compared to similar Google services.
Hahahah. Ohohohoho.. Good one, mate.
What kind d of business can you run on Apple’s iCloud? Can you share any folders and give different people different access level to the files in the folder? Can you use iCloud as the platform for a public or private school?
iCloud lacks even in a home setting, as you can’t share a folder with a family member. I have a 2TB iCloud storage plan but yet have to use Dropbox to share folders with my wife.
That you think that Apple should cater to the same cloud businesses as Google and AWS is delusional. Apple is a consumer focused company, with the exception of supporting Enterprise customers in use of the iPad and iPhone.
The improved speed of the telephoto lens is nice. Night Mode is okay but often not very sharp results when handheld and moving objects are a blur. If you've never used a DSLR or (better yet) full-frame mirrorless camera (Sony A7r series or Nikon Z series), you're missing out on what real (not pretend) low-light sensitivity offers. Sharp photos, stopped action, great color, oh, and over 60 megapixels. Compared to a discrete camera, iPhone 11 cameras are still poor, but I upgraded from XS anyway.
The U1 ultra-wideband chip offers unprecedented levels of tracking without our knowledge or permission.
Comments
As I've stated numerous times, Apple's iPhone mostly doesn't compete in the same market as Android OS Device makers have to compete in. Given that there is net transfer of users to iPhone, the user base continues to grow. To date, there has been very little crossover of Apple users to flagship Android OS devices, even in China, where nationalism has made Huawei the countries champion, especially over other Chinese OEM's. And yeah, I've seen your posts on that.
The constant change (chaos?) that is the Android OS device market, is really quite inefficient, and substantially effects margins, to the point that Apple's margins are over 4 times higher than Huawei's margins for its entire revenue (easily provable fact based on published revenue) while selling fewer iPhones at just under 3 times the ASP of Huawei (also an easily provable fact based on published revenue / units sold).
Apple makes substantially more revenue selling fewer iPhones, and magnitudes fewer models, and of course gains a massive difference in profitability for that. Given the you are always noting that "Apple had to reprice iPhones to compete", I would state that tactic has likely only cost them a single point of margin to date. Considering that Apple's margins are about 38% and Huawei's 8.7%, there's a lot of room for Apple to maneuver on price, it they decide to.
Huawei will ship about 240 Million units this year, and Apple probably about 180 Million units, but considering the ASP and margins of Apple, it's not even a close contest. Note that Huawei publishes its revenue for its "consumer" portion, which is about 55% of its overall revenue, and given that, Apple does in fact have a higher level of R&D devoted to it's consumer products, than Huawei does, and it's actually quite apparent that Apple is applying that R&D to new products, not just its "mature" iPhone product line. Huawei's feature set for it's flagships is certainly an impressive spec list, but given that Apple sells more of it's highest end iPhone by far that Huawei sells its Mate and P lines, again it really isn't a contest.
Oh, and that notch, why change it a little bit, if Apple can keep using the same screen and Facial ID components, given the increased quantities of the same components and the inevitable savings based on that?
Of course, you don't care about margins, ASP or profit!
If the Mate 30 Pro managed to cram 21 antennas into it, the R&D behind it definitely came from a different part of the company, as did the graphene breakthroughs in the battery. There is a lot of crossover.
Take a look at the Atlas 900:
https://www.thenewsminute.com/article/huawei-launches-atlas-900-worlds-fastest-ai-training-cluster-109150
That is as far removed from the consumer division as you could imagine but there is Ascend silicon in earbuds!
Apple competes in exactly the same market as Android and runs exactly the same risks.
Given that Apple's share of the handset market is stable ir tending to fall I am not seeing the net transfer to iOS that you speak of and AFAIK Apple isn't exactly precise when it details iOS user base.
As for moving on price "if they want to", why on earth would they want to cheapen the product line?
You are claiming 38% margins, net Android to iOS transfer, 3 times the ASP of Huawei...
Seems hunky dory in your world where you skip around the flat sales, profit warning, falling behind on technology etc...
No. It isn't if Apple "wants to".
It is Apple "has" to.
I've acknowledged that flat sales of from 180 million to 200 million iPhones for at least 4 or 5 quarters, and since the profit warning was some 9 months ago, I'm not seeing its relevance today. As for falling behind on technology, how do you explain Apple's revenue at almost double Huawei's and just over 4 times the margins?
One would have to assume that Huawei is buying marketshare, in 5G and in smartphones, which there is evidence of (and I have posted it before),
I don't find just comparing Apple's iPhone to Android OS devices as being particularly useful, hence, why I usually consider the whole Apple ecosystem vs Android.
Seeing as Apple vastly improved trade-in options worldwide for the whole year (while describing the promotion as 'limited time') and allowed direct discounts in China is a clear indicator that price was one of the big factors. They also designed a China specific true dual SIM model only for the Chinese market.
Don't let Apple's overall business performance cloud your view. We are focusing on iPhone here.
Huawei has always been competitive on price without being afraid to put $2,000 dollar phones on the market for that small segment that wants them. Every single one of those special lines has sold out (so, obviously meeting expectations). That's why we got another PD Mate RS at 2,000€ last week.
They have done far, far more than Apple with far less revenue but obviously billion+ dollars a year seems to get them by.
In contrast, Apple has hoarded its cash while offering a limited spread (two phones a year for many years), failed to make the correct strategic moves (virtually zero investment in its core reliance - cellular technology - and not being able to deliver its 5G modem in the forecast timeframe etc). It also fell behind in what has become its speciality (handset technology).
The one area where it has had great technical success (SoC) simply went unnoticed in the hands of both Apple and Android users, as nothing compelling has arrived to really take things up another level. Yes, we got ARKit with a lot of fanfare and instant support for 500 million devices but none of them actually had anything to actually use it on. We went up to ARKit 3 and saw it promptly do the exact opposite of ARKit1 in terms of support. Not even the most expensive iPhone ever from exactly one year before would support all its features. In spite of its SoC and price, it clearly wasn't future proofed enough.
Until something compelling comes around to make the performance usable, people will be oblivious to it. Just like they are now.
However, look at how much cowing is going on with the 'new' Night Mode. Clearly people will appreciate that more than the performance of the SoC. Clearly people get a lot out of that. Shame it took an eternity to appear!
The truth is that you don't need to compare the A13 to Android an SoC at all to see this. Each successive A Series SoC has seen important gains on previous generations but iOS users aren't clamouring for the new SoCs simply because they won't really notice the speed enhancements. That is reality. Even iOS users would accept lower specs in exchange for more features.
The iPhone 11 series has finally provided some of those features.
Hahahah. Ohohohoho.. Good one, mate.
For $500, you can get an amazing Android phone that rivals iPhone 11. By the way, the iPhone 11's price of $699 is a 64GB model, which really insufficient for a phone in this price range. It's true that the Android hardware manufacturers don't make quite as much profit margin as Apple does. We are not here discussing profit margins, though. We are discussing the price that the consumer pays.
iCloud lacks even in a home setting, as you can’t share a folder with a family member. I have a 2TB iCloud storage plan but yet have to use Dropbox to share folders with my wife.
The U1 ultra-wideband chip offers unprecedented levels of tracking without our knowledge or permission.
btw: Face ID is vastly superior to Touch ID.