macplusplus

avon b7 said:

macplusplus said:

avon b7 said:

Rayz2016 said:

avon b7 said:

Rayz2016 said:

zoetmb said:

lkrupp said:

rogifan_new said:

pjs_socal said:

Microsoft has a P/E ratio of 45 and Apple has a P/E ratio of 15.

Apple and Microsoft have similar margins and Apple had better growth in 2018. Apple makes 2.5x more revenue and 3x more profits. So, why are Microsoft shares valued at 3x Apple’s? Because investors are morons.

In reality Microsoft is worth ⅓ the value of Apple.

Because Microsoft is diversified with recurring revenue streams which Wall Street loves. With Apple if iPhone sneezes the entire company gets a cold.

So when did the iPhone sneeze? I must have missed that. The only thing I’ve heard are the predictions of analysts based on supply chain reports which Tim Cook has consistently advised against using to provide meaningful data about Apple. So remind me, when did the iPhone sneeze and give the entire company a cold? In your wet dreams?

Reality doesn't matter.  It's about perception.   The iPhone is approximately 66% of Apple's gross revenue.  And Apple announcing that they're no longer going to break out iPhone units sales is sending the message, correct or not, that they expect declines in unit sales.  Wall Street doesn't like a lack of transparency and in that regard, I don't blame them.   Combine that with the insanity of believing supplier chain complaints and that's a recipe for killing the stock and that's if the stock is not being manipulated.   

Declines in iPhone sales wouldn't surprise me one bit.  At least in the U.S., the market is mature, phones are no longer subsidized and Apple keeps raising the prices.   Does Apple really think that their users are going to buy a new phone every two years for $1000 or more per pop?   

On the Mac side, Apple's price hikes combined with the inability to replace the battery, memory and storage as well as the fact that so many people don't really need a computer anymore is going to continue to affect sales, but the Mac is only about 10% of Apple now anyway.   Apple probably thought they could replace Mac sales with iPad sales, but that's only about 8% of Apple.    While I realize that Apple has never wanted to be the low-end, low-margin provider, I think the high salaries paid to Apple managers and executives has completely warped their perception of what most people are willing and able to spend, especially for a machine that can't be upgraded after purchase.    A 15" MBP now starts at $2400 and tops out at $6700.   That's ludicrous.   The MBA starts at $1000 at tops out at $2600.   The Mini tops out at $4300.   $5K for the 27" 5K Retina iMac (topping out at $13,200)?   IMO, this is either desperation to keep revenue high or unbelievable arrogance.     

There is of course, the third option: you have the details wrong.

Let's begin with the most obvious stumble (the real drop off the cliff is that Apple actually sells phones at a range of prices, but that's so obvious it doesn't really need covering):

Declines in iPhone sales wouldn't surprise me one bit.  At least in the U.S., the market is mature, phones are no longer subsidized and Apple keeps raising the prices.   Does Apple really think that their users are going to buy a new phone every two years for $1000 or more per pop? 

Er, no. Apple doesn't expect that because no one has ever done that.  What happens is that on each new release, Apple gets picks up customers from other platforms, but also gets a massive boost from people with folk with much iPhones much older than two years. I have just replaced my iPhone 6s, which means I missed out on the 7 and the X. The assumption that Apple thinks folk update their phone every two years is laughable. Which brings me to your other point:

Yes, the price. And here again, the problem is narrow thinking. Saying that no one would buy a $1000 phone is a bit like saying no one would buy a house for $300,000 or a $30,000 car. Clearly they will, because I've seen houses and cars that cost several times that amount. So how do they do it?
Well, I'm going to clue you in, but you have to keep it under your hat because I'm thinking of taking out a patent on the whole idea.

Ready?

This is going to amaze you, but people don't hand over the whole amount for houses and cars all at once. They pay it off in chunks. Buying a $1000 iPhone (which, by the way, is not the most expensive smart phone on the market) is best done on the Apple payment scheme: they throw in AppleCare and you can change the phone after a year if you want. Oh, and it's interest free, so if you're paying the whole cost up front then you're doing it wrong. 

But that's kind of an aside. The point is that folk have been saying Apple gear is insanely expensive for as long as I can remember, and for as long as I can remember, they've been shifting it. So that leads me to believe that Apple understands basic economic theory better than anyone here who comments on it. All this braying about  Apple pricing always misses one vital piece of information: Apple's demand curve.

This little bit of paper sitting on Tim Cook's desk will show you is that the demand for Apple kit is comparatively inelastic: movements in price have fairly negligible effects on demand.  If they increase the price, the sales will not drop significantly.

But far more importantly, dropping the price will not actually produce a significant increase in sales, and this increase may not be enough to cover the price drop.

So why is Apple's demand inelastic? Simply because the combination of hardware and software is perceived as unique in a very crowded market. 

The details aren't wrong. You are interpreting things wrong.

There are pricing ceilings on everything. Financing (including interest free) also has ceilings, or do you think someone will be willing to take on financing to pay for a phone over 5 years when it will be upgraded before it is paid off?

The increasing cost of iPhones (and every other phone in the same price band) is taking users one step further up to their individual ceilings.

You are taking his 1,000 dollar point completely out of context. He is speaking in general terms. We already know people buy 1,000 dollar phones every year. The point is those people aren't most people and three or four years of flat sales is telling in itself.

The higher the price the harder the sale in high numbers, even with financing and upgrade options but that ceiling becomes ever nearer or you are hitting it. And if the cheaper options mean sacfricing features or getting an older iPhone, then the sale is equally hard.

People argued that users were on longer upgrade cycles (provoked in part by pricing itself) and that is probably another reason while sales flattened, but how many people do you think are still using iPhone 6?

But that argument doesn't take into account the vast potential pool of Android users that are there for the taking, right? 80% of the market. 1,000 dollar Android phones sell in the millions even while they are a fraction of the 80%. Why isn't Apple able to take a slice of that premium Android Pie (sic)? Why aren't people switching from Android in enough numbers to move the Apple needle off 'flat'? It's clearly not price for those users. It's value (among other things). The longer upgrade cycle really isn't doing much except allowing Apple tread water.

Apple is on an 's' cycle - through its own choice - which only makes the sale look worse when compared to rival flagships that are pushing the pedal to the metal. So while Apple takes a breather on innovation and brings the A12 and little else to the table while still including a 5W charger in the box, others are innovating on everything and showing no signs of slowing down. That means 'new' tech is flowing down the lines into the middle ground at an incredible pace and upping the value proposition of those phones.

How can you say that movements in price have a 'fairly negligible effect on demand? Apple doesn't break down unit sales on price.

Price is the number one factor for most people when it comes to buying a Phone. The iPhone X hit new price highs for Apple. It was the 'most popular' 2018 iPhone for Q1, 2 and 3. But Q4? Estimates said demand for the 'most popular' iPhone dropped off sharply in Q4. Far more quickly than any other Apple flagship from previous years in the same quarter. But 'most popular' isn't truly quantifiable is it? 

That inelastic demand you are referring too is new found. From 2015, and really means FLAT but that inelasticity is shorn up at the other end of the spectrum. The middle and the low end. If Apple hadn't widened its spread in 2017, do you think things would have remained flat or that demand would have dropped? There was no such inelasticity in demand up to 2015.

You say that if they increase the price, 'sales will not drop significantly'. Given that prices on the new phones have inched up with regards to last year, shouldn't we be holding off on that kind of affirmative conclusion until at least September next year? Or are you happy to take Apple's traditional blowout quarter and use it as a guide for the whole year?  No one can possibly know -today- if what you are claiming will prove true or not.

Price elasticity doesn't state that there isn't a ceiling on price. All it says is that some products are relatively unaffected by price changes when compared to others, and nothing you've said actually disproves that.  This is why Apple can increase the price of the phone and knows that the amount of sales that they will lose will more than make up for the increase in revenue.

Secondly, as I pointed out in my post, the whole argument falls flat because Apple sells phones at various price points.

You are taking his 1,000 dollar point completely out of context. 

He said folk will not upgrade a $1000 every two years. There's no context.

That inelastic demand you are referring too is new found. From 2015, and really means FLAT but that inelasticity is shorn up at the other end of the spectrum. The middle and the low end. If Apple hadn't widened its spread in 2017, do you think things would have remained flat or that demand would have dropped? There was no such inelasticity in demand up to 2015.

Price inelasticity is new found? Nope. Apple products have always been considered irreplaceable by the most valuable and price insensitive areas of the population, and Apple tends to leave everyone else to the Android manufacturers. Can't say that's right or wrong, but they seem to make a lot more money than everyone else. So in general, Apple products, across the whole range enjoy greater price elasticity than the competition, which is why the competition fights like dogs at the lower end of the market, and Apple would rather not.

But let's go back to the real point here. The problem you have is the one I have highlighted again and again. Apple sells a range of phones at a range of prices. But oddly enough, everyone always homes in on the most expensive flagship phone as if this is the only one available. Even Gruber has stated that the XR is better deal because it's almost as good and way cheaper. Apple has even said that the XR is it's best selling phone. 
So the problem isn't that Apple's phones are too expensive. The problem is that folk want the top of the range phone, but want to tell Apple how much they want to pay for it.

Ah, do want to look at one more point:

You say that if they increase the price, 'sales will not drop significantly'. Given that prices on the new phones have inched up with regards to last year, shouldn't we be holding off on that kind of affirmative conclusion until at least September next year? Or are you happy to take Apple's traditional blowout quarter and use it as a guide for the whole year?  No one can possibly know -today- if what you are claiming will prove true or not.

Riigggghty-ho then. So what you're basically asking us to wait long enough to give you a better chance of being right. Got it.

Well, we could do that, but I'm not sure I see the point. Because the thing about Apple is that it will not stick doggedly to its plans in the face of changing conditions. They never have. They won't keep increasing the price of the phone until they are not bringing in enough revenue to make up for the loss in sales units. The fact is they make these adjustments all the time, but because you're so focussed on the phone at the very top of the range, you completely miss that folk are buying the cheaper phones too.

I am certainly not asking anyone to wait for a better chance of being right. I have been proven right already. Flat sales says a lot. The market has spoken. Growth ended in 2015. 

That in spite of Apple widening its model spread and now releasing three new models each year.

I have never focussed solely on the premium priced phones and was probably the first person here to highlight the shift in business model as a result of the 2017 iPhone refresh. To the point that I praised Apple for trying that option. All increasing prices has done is increase ASP, (which the vast majority of buyers have no interest in anyway) and help to stifle growth which remains flat.

"He said folk will not upgrade a $1000 every two years. There's no context."

This is what he really said:

"Declines in iPhone sales wouldn't surprise me one bit.  At least in the U.S., the market is mature, phones are no longer subsidized and Apple keeps raising the prices.   Does Apple really think that their users are going to buy a new phone every two years for $1000 or more per pop?"

There is plenty of context there if you had wished to see it.

OK let's see that context then:

The key point of the "context" is that sentence: "Does Apple really think that their users are going to buy a new phone every two years for $1000 or more per pop?"

Otherwise why they keep launching iPhones at $1000 range? 

Because they can !.. Because they are Apple and they can do that!... They can control the upper end of the competition that way. They give the competition a false target to struggle with, they throw a bait in front of the competition to keep them busy devouring.  While the competition lay out the blueprints of 16-camera OLED phones, Apple silently launches a 1-camera state-of-the art LCD iPhone ! And novices like you jump over that 16-camera beast like a thing and applaud the "innovation"! Your reading of contexts is totally wrong because you are new to Apple culture. Think about these to understand the context instead of obsessing yourself with high-prices: why Apple has put the same A11 in the 8 series and the same A12 in the XR? The context lies there...

Please take a look a the 'old' P20 Pro and tell me how it compares to the 'new' XR. When you are done with that, move onto the Mate 20 Pro.

How will you squeeze x3 or x5 optical zoom out of that state of the art machine? Have you seen why those phones are leading the pack in so many areas? You do realise that the top players mix and match OLED and LCD at the top end too, don't you? 

Pricing is one of the biggest reasons Apple is flat on unit sales. No one is 'obsessed' with it but to ignore it wouldn't make a lot of sense.

avon b7 said:

Rayz2016 said:

avon b7 said:

Rayz2016 said:

zoetmb said:

lkrupp said:

rogifan_new said:

pjs_socal said:

Microsoft has a P/E ratio of 45 and Apple has a P/E ratio of 15.

Apple and Microsoft have similar margins and Apple had better growth in 2018. Apple makes 2.5x more revenue and 3x more profits. So, why are Microsoft shares valued at 3x Apple’s? Because investors are morons.

In reality Microsoft is worth ⅓ the value of Apple.

Because Microsoft is diversified with recurring revenue streams which Wall Street loves. With Apple if iPhone sneezes the entire company gets a cold.

So when did the iPhone sneeze? I must have missed that. The only thing I’ve heard are the predictions of analysts based on supply chain reports which Tim Cook has consistently advised against using to provide meaningful data about Apple. So remind me, when did the iPhone sneeze and give the entire company a cold? In your wet dreams?

Reality doesn't matter.  It's about perception.   The iPhone is approximately 66% of Apple's gross revenue.  And Apple announcing that they're no longer going to break out iPhone units sales is sending the message, correct or not, that they expect declines in unit sales.  Wall Street doesn't like a lack of transparency and in that regard, I don't blame them.   Combine that with the insanity of believing supplier chain complaints and that's a recipe for killing the stock and that's if the stock is not being manipulated.   

Declines in iPhone sales wouldn't surprise me one bit.  At least in the U.S., the market is mature, phones are no longer subsidized and Apple keeps raising the prices.   Does Apple really think that their users are going to buy a new phone every two years for $1000 or more per pop?   

On the Mac side, Apple's price hikes combined with the inability to replace the battery, memory and storage as well as the fact that so many people don't really need a computer anymore is going to continue to affect sales, but the Mac is only about 10% of Apple now anyway.   Apple probably thought they could replace Mac sales with iPad sales, but that's only about 8% of Apple.    While I realize that Apple has never wanted to be the low-end, low-margin provider, I think the high salaries paid to Apple managers and executives has completely warped their perception of what most people are willing and able to spend, especially for a machine that can't be upgraded after purchase.    A 15" MBP now starts at $2400 and tops out at $6700.   That's ludicrous.   The MBA starts at $1000 at tops out at $2600.   The Mini tops out at $4300.   $5K for the 27" 5K Retina iMac (topping out at $13,200)?   IMO, this is either desperation to keep revenue high or unbelievable arrogance.     

There is of course, the third option: you have the details wrong.

Let's begin with the most obvious stumble (the real drop off the cliff is that Apple actually sells phones at a range of prices, but that's so obvious it doesn't really need covering):

Declines in iPhone sales wouldn't surprise me one bit.  At least in the U.S., the market is mature, phones are no longer subsidized and Apple keeps raising the prices.   Does Apple really think that their users are going to buy a new phone every two years for $1000 or more per pop? 

Er, no. Apple doesn't expect that because no one has ever done that.  What happens is that on each new release, Apple gets picks up customers from other platforms, but also gets a massive boost from people with folk with much iPhones much older than two years. I have just replaced my iPhone 6s, which means I missed out on the 7 and the X. The assumption that Apple thinks folk update their phone every two years is laughable. Which brings me to your other point:

Yes, the price. And here again, the problem is narrow thinking. Saying that no one would buy a $1000 phone is a bit like saying no one would buy a house for $300,000 or a $30,000 car. Clearly they will, because I've seen houses and cars that cost several times that amount. So how do they do it?
Well, I'm going to clue you in, but you have to keep it under your hat because I'm thinking of taking out a patent on the whole idea.

Ready?

This is going to amaze you, but people don't hand over the whole amount for houses and cars all at once. They pay it off in chunks. Buying a $1000 iPhone (which, by the way, is not the most expensive smart phone on the market) is best done on the Apple payment scheme: they throw in AppleCare and you can change the phone after a year if you want. Oh, and it's interest free, so if you're paying the whole cost up front then you're doing it wrong. 

But that's kind of an aside. The point is that folk have been saying Apple gear is insanely expensive for as long as I can remember, and for as long as I can remember, they've been shifting it. So that leads me to believe that Apple understands basic economic theory better than anyone here who comments on it. All this braying about  Apple pricing always misses one vital piece of information: Apple's demand curve.

This little bit of paper sitting on Tim Cook's desk will show you is that the demand for Apple kit is comparatively inelastic: movements in price have fairly negligible effects on demand.  If they increase the price, the sales will not drop significantly.

But far more importantly, dropping the price will not actually produce a significant increase in sales, and this increase may not be enough to cover the price drop.

So why is Apple's demand inelastic? Simply because the combination of hardware and software is perceived as unique in a very crowded market. 

The details aren't wrong. You are interpreting things wrong.

There are pricing ceilings on everything. Financing (including interest free) also has ceilings, or do you think someone will be willing to take on financing to pay for a phone over 5 years when it will be upgraded before it is paid off?

The increasing cost of iPhones (and every other phone in the same price band) is taking users one step further up to their individual ceilings.

You are taking his 1,000 dollar point completely out of context. He is speaking in general terms. We already know people buy 1,000 dollar phones every year. The point is those people aren't most people and three or four years of flat sales is telling in itself.

The higher the price the harder the sale in high numbers, even with financing and upgrade options but that ceiling becomes ever nearer or you are hitting it. And if the cheaper options mean sacfricing features or getting an older iPhone, then the sale is equally hard.

People argued that users were on longer upgrade cycles (provoked in part by pricing itself) and that is probably another reason while sales flattened, but how many people do you think are still using iPhone 6?

But that argument doesn't take into account the vast potential pool of Android users that are there for the taking, right? 80% of the market. 1,000 dollar Android phones sell in the millions even while they are a fraction of the 80%. Why isn't Apple able to take a slice of that premium Android Pie (sic)? Why aren't people switching from Android in enough numbers to move the Apple needle off 'flat'? It's clearly not price for those users. It's value (among other things). The longer upgrade cycle really isn't doing much except allowing Apple tread water.

Apple is on an 's' cycle - through its own choice - which only makes the sale look worse when compared to rival flagships that are pushing the pedal to the metal. So while Apple takes a breather on innovation and brings the A12 and little else to the table while still including a 5W charger in the box, others are innovating on everything and showing no signs of slowing down. That means 'new' tech is flowing down the lines into the middle ground at an incredible pace and upping the value proposition of those phones.

How can you say that movements in price have a 'fairly negligible effect on demand? Apple doesn't break down unit sales on price.

Price is the number one factor for most people when it comes to buying a Phone. The iPhone X hit new price highs for Apple. It was the 'most popular' 2018 iPhone for Q1, 2 and 3. But Q4? Estimates said demand for the 'most popular' iPhone dropped off sharply in Q4. Far more quickly than any other Apple flagship from previous years in the same quarter. But 'most popular' isn't truly quantifiable is it? 

That inelastic demand you are referring too is new found. From 2015, and really means FLAT but that inelasticity is shorn up at the other end of the spectrum. The middle and the low end. If Apple hadn't widened its spread in 2017, do you think things would have remained flat or that demand would have dropped? There was no such inelasticity in demand up to 2015.

You say that if they increase the price, 'sales will not drop significantly'. Given that prices on the new phones have inched up with regards to last year, shouldn't we be holding off on that kind of affirmative conclusion until at least September next year? Or are you happy to take Apple's traditional blowout quarter and use it as a guide for the whole year?  No one can possibly know -today- if what you are claiming will prove true or not.

Price elasticity doesn't state that there isn't a ceiling on price. All it says is that some products are relatively unaffected by price changes when compared to others, and nothing you've said actually disproves that.  This is why Apple can increase the price of the phone and knows that the amount of sales that they will lose will more than make up for the increase in revenue.

Secondly, as I pointed out in my post, the whole argument falls flat because Apple sells phones at various price points.

You are taking his 1,000 dollar point completely out of context. 

He said folk will not upgrade a $1000 every two years. There's no context.

That inelastic demand you are referring too is new found. From 2015, and really means FLAT but that inelasticity is shorn up at the other end of the spectrum. The middle and the low end. If Apple hadn't widened its spread in 2017, do you think things would have remained flat or that demand would have dropped? There was no such inelasticity in demand up to 2015.

Price inelasticity is new found? Nope. Apple products have always been considered irreplaceable by the most valuable and price insensitive areas of the population, and Apple tends to leave everyone else to the Android manufacturers. Can't say that's right or wrong, but they seem to make a lot more money than everyone else. So in general, Apple products, across the whole range enjoy greater price elasticity than the competition, which is why the competition fights like dogs at the lower end of the market, and Apple would rather not.

But let's go back to the real point here. The problem you have is the one I have highlighted again and again. Apple sells a range of phones at a range of prices. But oddly enough, everyone always homes in on the most expensive flagship phone as if this is the only one available. Even Gruber has stated that the XR is better deal because it's almost as good and way cheaper. Apple has even said that the XR is it's best selling phone. 
So the problem isn't that Apple's phones are too expensive. The problem is that folk want the top of the range phone, but want to tell Apple how much they want to pay for it.

Ah, do want to look at one more point:

You say that if they increase the price, 'sales will not drop significantly'. Given that prices on the new phones have inched up with regards to last year, shouldn't we be holding off on that kind of affirmative conclusion until at least September next year? Or are you happy to take Apple's traditional blowout quarter and use it as a guide for the whole year?  No one can possibly know -today- if what you are claiming will prove true or not.

Riigggghty-ho then. So what you're basically asking us to wait long enough to give you a better chance of being right. Got it.

Well, we could do that, but I'm not sure I see the point. Because the thing about Apple is that it will not stick doggedly to its plans in the face of changing conditions. They never have. They won't keep increasing the price of the phone until they are not bringing in enough revenue to make up for the loss in sales units. The fact is they make these adjustments all the time, but because you're so focussed on the phone at the very top of the range, you completely miss that folk are buying the cheaper phones too.

I am certainly not asking anyone to wait for a better chance of being right. I have been proven right already. Flat sales says a lot. The market has spoken. Growth ended in 2015. 

That in spite of Apple widening its model spread and now releasing three new models each year.

I have never focussed solely on the premium priced phones and was probably the first person here to highlight the shift in business model as a result of the 2017 iPhone refresh. To the point that I praised Apple for trying that option. All increasing prices has done is increase ASP, (which the vast majority of buyers have no interest in anyway) and help to stifle growth which remains flat.

"He said folk will not upgrade a $1000 every two years. There's no context."

This is what he really said:

"Declines in iPhone sales wouldn't surprise me one bit.  At least in the U.S., the market is mature, phones are no longer subsidized and Apple keeps raising the prices.   Does Apple really think that their users are going to buy a new phone every two years for $1000 or more per pop?"

There is plenty of context there if you had wished to see it.

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

henrybay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

The weird thing about the keyboard issue is:  While there are a ton that hate it, very few prefer it.  I really wonder why Apple has stuck by it and even doubled and tripled down on it.   I sadly have to wonder if it's an internal political issue -- where somebody with power is backing it.

...
People also prefer a good quality physical keyboard - that is, one where the keys actually move up and down a reasonable distance when you press them. 

The keys on the new keyboards just do that: move up and down. On previous keyboards so much sublimated by some people, all corners of a key pitch, yaw and roll almost independently until the key goes down  !!! I know because I use one right now on my 2015 MBP. I want a keyboard that I will not feel under my fingers, If the keyboard makes itself noticeable then there is something wrong with that design. This MBP keyboard I am using right know is supposed to be silent but it is not, it is clickety clack. That doesn't fit into Apple's design aesthetics and more importantly, the expected functionality.

The entire point is people want feedback. You're obviously trolling yet again since Apple's new keyboards are considerably louder than the older 2015 ones.

"As someone who types a a lot, I don't mind Apple's keyboard. In fact, I'd go as far as to say I actually likethem. They are quick, responsive (when not sticking), and the 3rd gen one is noticeably quieter than my late-2016 MacBook Pro that sound loud in comparison."

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/11/06/macbook-air-2018-review-apples-most-popular-mac-gets-an-impactful-upgrade

”This new keyboard features a silicone barrier which helps prevent debris from making its way under the keyboard. Because of the silicone, the keyboard has a different kind of feel to it, softer and less "clicky," which we personally prefer, but some may not like it.

The previous MacBook Air featured the traditional chiclet-style keys, which we like, but to be honest, the new keyboard is definitely better.”

https://appleinsider.com/articles/18/11/10/compared-2018-macbook-air-versus-13-inch-macbook-pro-and-2017-macbook-air

Yeah great job there you've found a really non-biased site to get your quotes from. Try looking outside the AI bubble. Despite this, AI isn't exactly raving about them. Quite a few AI reviews have commented on the keyboard, and have said they aren't keen. Also, it's still not a comparison with the 2015 MBP, which is what the discussion was about. Your subterfuge won't pass here, sorry.

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

sebastian37 said:

radarthekat said:

avon b7 said:

macplusplus said:

avon b7 said:

macplusplus said:

avon b7 said:

I can only speak about pricing from my own perspective and state that I backed off from a new XR purely on that point.

If it had topped out at 749€ I would have got one. The problem is that tha final retail price is touching 900€ after sales tax here.

It wouldn't surprise me if Europeans have reacted in the same way as me.

In terms of value I feel the XR is lacking but 749€ would have got the sale nevertheless for other reasons. At current end-pricing it is a no go.

€859 incl. €151 tax. 859 - 151 = €708. 708 EUR in USD = 807.67. The difference from the US store is only $50. Now take this $50 and please shut up.

We are speculating on the possible reasons for a possible slackening of XR sales. I gave one. Now, please tell me - and everyone in Europe - how to avoid that tax because if you you can do that it might be a solution to that possible issue. 

People in Europe look at pricing based on product price plus sales tax. Regular consumers never ever, let me bold that, never ever view pricing without including the sales tax. 

There is no point claiming that the base price is less (after currency considerations) if the final retail price for the consumer is still high enough to dissuade a purchase, which is exactly my case and which I made very clear.

Is there any life without tax? Tax is everywhere, only the modality to display it differs. In Europe the VAT is included in the price, which is what I experience in my every shopping, but I don't complain because it is not Apple's duty to pay my tax. If the customer is dissuaded because of the tax included in the price then let him go, what can Apple or any other company do about that? Yet Apple displays the tax separately, if the customer is still dissuaded then there is nothing to do.

If the point is to speculate on the possible reasons for a possible slackening of XR sales in Europe, that may be just because of longer refresh cycles and the aged population of Europe. Yet the XR is just released and we are not at the peak of the shopping season, it is too early to come to such conclusions or to jump on rumors as if it is the end of the world.

Let me point out two things from my first post:

1. I can only speak about pricing from my own perspective.

2. It wouldn't surprise me if Europeans have reacted in the same way as me.

No one is asking Apple to pay the tax.

Incredible.  Your point #1 argues you’re speaking only from your own perspective, yet you than say “No one is asking Apple to pay the tax.”   That sounds like you’re speaking for everyone.  

Way to make fun of someone for whom English clearly is a second language. He meant “I did not ask for Apple to pay the tax” and with a little bit of good faith you could have accepted that instead of going for the cheap shot here. 

And what he means is that higher sales tax will amplify differences in pricing. A 50$ difference becomes a 60$ difference to the consumer when the tax is added. Some other products of Apple have even bigger differences in price. Now Apple can price their products however the company likes, but it should not expect sales to be unaffected. Samsung and other smartphone sellers manage to offer prices in Europe that equal US prices including VAT. Apple is not even close to that. 

Submit links, please...

£479 or $613 USD in the UK
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Samsung-Galaxy-Sim-Free-Smartphone-Unlocked/dp/B07BBSGP1D/ref=sr_1_5?s=telephone&ie=UTF8&qid=1542938867&sr=1-5&keywords=samsung+s9 ;

$619 USD or £483 for the same phone in the US
https://www.amazon.com/Samsung-SM-G9600-Unlocked-Smartphone-International/dp/B079X7DQ4Q/ref=sr_1_5?s=wireless&ie=UTF8&qid=1542938856&sr=1-5&keywords=samsung+s9

Now with Apple: 
iPhone Xs - £999 or $1280 USD
https://www.apple.com/uk/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-xs

iPhone Xs - $999 USD or £779
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-iphone/iphone-xs

The iPhone is £220 or $280 more expensive in the UK. What's your excuse for that when Samesung can sell the same phone for the same price in each country? Silence, no doubt as usual for you when someone gives you facts that're not pro-Apple, and you can't come up with another implausable excuse.

elijahg said:

macplusplus said:

henrybay said:

GeorgeBMac said:

The weird thing about the keyboard issue is:  While there are a ton that hate it, very few prefer it.  I really wonder why Apple has stuck by it and even doubled and tripled down on it.   I sadly have to wonder if it's an internal political issue -- where somebody with power is backing it.

...
People also prefer a good quality physical keyboard - that is, one where the keys actually move up and down a reasonable distance when you press them. 

The keys on the new keyboards just do that: move up and down. On previous keyboards so much sublimated by some people, all corners of a key pitch, yaw and roll almost independently until the key goes down  !!! I know because I use one right now on my 2015 MBP. I want a keyboard that I will not feel under my fingers, If the keyboard makes itself noticeable then there is something wrong with that design. This MBP keyboard I am using right know is supposed to be silent but it is not, it is clickety clack. That doesn't fit into Apple's design aesthetics and more importantly, the expected functionality.

The entire point is people want feedback. You're obviously trolling yet again since Apple's new keyboards are considerably louder than the older 2015 ones.