charlesn

About

Username
charlesn
Joined
Visits
119
Last Active
Roles
member
Points
6,776
Badges
2
Posts
1,554
  • Only the base iPhone 17 may escape a $50 price hike

    Reality check:

    The iPhone 7 Plus 256GB cost $969 in 2016 -- accounting for inflation, that works out to $1293 in 2025 dollars. 

    The iPhone 16 256GB--which has a much bigger screen than the 7 Plus and is an exponentially better phone in pretty much every measurable way costs $899 in 2025 dollars. Not only is that less in actual dollars, it's a little over 30% cheaper than an iPhone 7 Plus when accounting for inflation and you're getting a hugely better phone. Even if you slap a $50 increase on the iPhone 17/256 for tariffs, it's still ten bucks cheaper in actual dollars than the iPhone 7 Plus. 

    When we consider the base model Pro, it's the same $999 price it was when introduced in 2019... accounting for inflation, that's $1255 in 2025 dollars, so the Pro has actually decreased in price by a little over 20% in terms of inflation-adjusted dollars. Again, hard to argue with a $50 price increase given the brutal tariffs, and what I suspect Apple may do is sweeten a price increase with an increase in base memory from 128gb to 256gb. We know that storage prices are a massive profit center for Apple, bordering on criminal, so it probably costs Apple little to do the bump up and keeps customers happier than they would be with just a price increase. In fact, if the base 17 Pro goes to $1049 with 256 storage, that would be $50 cheaper than what that configuration costs for the 16 Pro. This is not just wishful thinking--the last revision of the base iPad Mini went from 128GB storage to 256GB with no increase in price at all. Of course, similar to what it did with the Pro Max, Apple could also make 256GB the new base model Pro and charge the same $1099 that it does now, and claim "no price increase," which would technically be true.  
    ronnwillettlukei
  • No India tariff deal means Apple will face iPhone import fees eight times higher than befo...

    It's impossible to run a business seriously under Trump, no surprise from an idiot who knows nothing about business and operates by whim of the moment. with six bankruptcies and counting to prove it. (Bankrupting America will be his crowning achievement.) And even if a deal with India is struck, as well as the deals already concluded, why should anyone take them seriously? Because he signs them? You're kidding, right? Look no further than the Trump-negotiated and signed USMCA--his fabulous deal that he touted as so much better than NAFTA, when it was nothing of the sort--which he proceeded to torch almost as soon as he got back into office. His signature and word mean NOTHING--they're worthless--and are subject to being disregarded at any moment for reasons Trump will happily fabricate when no good reasons exist. 
    muthuk_vanalingamVictorMortimer
  • iPhone 17 may have been spotted in the wild


    charlesn said:
    I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing. 
    Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.

    Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.

    I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.
    Not sure if you missed the point or intentionally avoiding it. I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice. This person now has their pictures splattered around the internet. The news value?  That there is a new phone and if you put in a giant case no one will see what it looks like? Stop the presses! 
    Stabitha, I hear the Photography Police are actively recruiting. Give it some thought. Seems like you'd be an enthusiastic candidate. 
    Yes, suggesting that we should respectful of people's privacy is really just me being overbearing. What a terrible world it would be if we respected each other.
    This is YOUR idea of what's respectful and how the world should work. And I fully support your right to live your life this way! Have at it! But like most pompous, overbearing people, you believe your POV is correct and that anyone who doesn't abide by it is wrong--in this particular case, they're being disrespectful. No--we just don't agree with your opinion, that's all. 
    lordjohnwhorfinwilliamlondonmacguironn
  • iPhone 17 may have been spotted in the wild

    I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing. 
    Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.

    Like I said in the piece, it's not something that's going to be a problem because these kinds of design changes are very rare. Nearly every other prototype iPhone has looked identical to its predecessor with the exception of iPhone X, which was prototyped in a literal brick-sized box IIRC.

    I wouldn't worry about this becoming a common way to leak iPhone information.
    Not sure if you missed the point or intentionally avoiding it. I clearly stated it wasn’t illegal but legality doesn’t make it right. People should be able to go out in public without someone photographing them. When you use the photos you are ultimately enabling the behavior. Cool that you didn’t break the law but did y’all make the right choice. This person now has their pictures splattered around the internet. The news value?  That there is a new phone and if you put in a giant case no one will see what it looks like? Stop the presses! 
    Stabitha, I hear the Photography Police are actively recruiting. Give it some thought. Seems like you'd be an enthusiastic candidate. 
    muthuk_vanalingamking editor the gratene1williamlondonronn
  • iPhone 17 may have been spotted in the wild

    bobonet said:
    I love a good rumor as much as the next person but can we not normalize this kind of behavior? While it isn't illegal to take someone's photo in public is still an invasion of privacy and promoting this kind of thing will only lead to more instances of this kind of thing. 
    Sorry to say, but the law is quite clear, when in public, it is fair game. While I can't take a photo of someone and use it commercially, there's nothing stopping anyone from taking photos, recording video, or capturing audio of anyone in public.

    Would this article count as commercial use?
    Nope. This is an Apple news site and this is news. 
    williamlondonStrangeDaysronn