Apple Reportedly Plans to Cut Price of iPhone XR in Japan Due to Poor Sales and Restart iPhone X Production

[Rob_2811]

Do you have a source supporting the idea that photos were the reason people chose larger capacity storage in 2012?
c
Personally, music storage was always my primary concern back then before streaming my music became common.

No of course not.

Given that one photograph/video taken on a 2018 is larger than it was in 2012 and the obvious increase in use of social apps was barely even a thing in 2012, the likes of Snapchat and Instagram are huge now and barely existed in 2012 it makes sense.

 

[Rum_Becker]

Ok but you seem to be selectively picking your argument to suit whichever paints the rosiest picture for Apple.

Most analysts seem to think that the iPhone has peaked and that its only going one way but you don't seem to accept that. You seem fixated on how many "flagship" phones they sell. it doesn't really matter.

They lost their spot as second biggest seller of phones to Huawei this year after seven years, they aren't seeing any real growth and some of the Android manufacturers are seeing huge growth.

Regardless of whether you were referring to flagship phones or not your post implied that Android manufacturers weren't doing well, when in truth Xiaomi and Huawei relatively speaking have had a better last couple of years than Apple. They have gained huge market share they are making inroads in markets that Apple can't most notable China and India.

Apple are doing well in the here and now but the signs are there. People are being turned off by their pricing.

It's also worth noting that even though Samsung had a declining market share, their Smartphone division makes up only a minority of their profits. Samsung knows that that the market is saturated and is focusing on more profitable areas like semiconductors and displays. Smartphones are so powerful nowadays that no one needs a flagship Phone IMO, I personally buy whatever I can get a good deal on which happens to be Android most of the time. Yesterday I picked up a brand new iPhone 7 for $2.50 ($2.00 USD), its was either that or a Samsung A5 for free so I picked the iPhone since the iPhone 7 destroys the A5.

 

[Rob_2811]

Apple has always been an elitist brand. With the iphone 5 64gb in 2012 selling for $849, is proof of that. The Xr, with the obvious 6 year tech advantage is less than $849.

So you only get to have this one way. Apple was an elitist brand from the start as well as other manufacturers that sell expensive phones. You don't get to say Cook has turned apple into an elitist brand when Jobs was introducing phones 6 years ago more expensive than today's models.

I pay cash for my phones, but it seems people do opt for the various financing options available.

NB. By your definition of elitist any manufacturer that produces a wide range or products at various price points is elitist.

As above the technology vs the storage doesn't even remotely compare. The entry level SKU was 16gb at the time, that isn't remotely sufficient in 2018 which is why Apple got some much criticism when they were still pushing it in 2015.

You know this, your argument is completely disingenuous.
[doublepost=1543071149][/doublepost]

That's kind of a meaningless statement.

It's like me saying Most people don't love Samsung enough to buy their phone at any price.

Wow. Not really much you can say to that is there. Pom Poms out

 

[I7guy]

As above the technology vs the storage doesn't even remotely compare. The entry level SKU was 16gb at the time, that isn't remotely sufficient in 2018 which is why Apple got some much criticism when they were still pushing it in 2015.

You know this, your argument is completely disingenuous.

Your argument is hyperbolic as this is not about technology it's about price, by your own discussion. Your argument was apple is elitist based on price, I'm showing they were elitist in the Jobs era and now the goal posts are being moved.

 

[tromboneaholic]

Wow. Not really much you can say to that is there. Pom Poms out

I guess you missed the fact that I was showing how meaningless your statement was, even though both are equally true.

What "most people" think isn't as relevant as what the types of customers each company is trying to acquire.

You call Apple an elitist company, but they are an aspirational brand that still sells over 200 million phones a year. They are not competing on price. They are competing on features, which includes the ecosystem, software, services, hardware, and industrial design.

 

[Rum_Becker]

Your argument is hyperbolic as this is not about technology it's about price, by your own discussion. Your argument was apple is elitist based on price, I'm showing they were elitist in the Jobs era and now the goal posts are being moved.

I agree that the iPhone was elitist in the Jobs era but the market was very different back then the market was just starting and the competition was way behind IMO. I had the iPhone 3G, 3Gs, 4, and the 4s was the last iPhone that I purchased and used daily. If I remember correctly I paid about $400-$450 for my 4s and bought it used about a month after it was released. Today if I want want a 2018 iPhone it will cost me over $1000 and over $2500 for the top of the line with Applecare. I can get an android for with 95% the Value IMO for a fraction of that. So yes, the iPhone was always an elitist phone, but Tim Cook has brought that to an entire new level and has priced me not only out of buying iPhones but most Apple products as well.

 

[I7guy]

I agree that the iPhone was elitist in the Jobs era but the market was very different back then the market was just starting and the competition was way behind IMO. I had the iPhone 3G, 3Gs, 4, and the 4s was the last iPhone that I purchased and used daily. If I remember correctly I paid about $400-$450 for my 4s and bought it used about a month after it was released. Today if I want want a 2018 iPhone it will cost me over $1000 and over $2500 for the top of the line with Applecare. I can get an android for with 95% the Value IMO for a fraction of that. So yes, the iPhone was always an elitist phone, but Tim Cook has brought that to an entire new level and has priced me not only out of buying iPhones but most Apple products as well.

That an iphone 5 was $849 in 2012 and an Xs is $1000 in 2018 (and xR is $749), means Tim Cook didn't bring anything to a new level.

The carriers eliminated their subsidies, is what changed, more than the pricing. An iphone 5 64 gig always cost you $849, the price was hidden in your cell phone bill plus contract price. Technology has moved forward in 6 years, but the business behind cell phone sales also changed. In 2018 there are creative ways to finance your phone, as there were in 2018.

 

[Rob_2811]

Your argument is hyperbolic as this is not about technology it's about price, by your own discussion. Your argument was apple is elitist based on price, I'm showing they were elitist in the Jobs era and now the goal posts are being moved.

No it isn't, not at all. No goalposts being moved at all.

If you don't realise your argument is nonsense you must have very little grasp of technology at all.

You're comparing a phone with a vastly inferior camera which was released in an era where social media was nowhere close to as commonplace on mobile as it is now, particularly heavy photo/video based apps like Snapchat and Instagram (which barely had any presence at the time) and trying to imply that this years phones are better value now where as the fact is the storage requirement on phones is much more now.

It was an era where you could comfortably get by the 16gb entry SKU. That era is long since gone which is why they attracted so much criticism for it with the 6S

Like here

and here

and here

and here

and here

The 16gb 2012 iPhone was the equivalent SKU to the 64GB iPhone XR. Clearly.

There were no silly 30k watches or $1500 phones when Jobs was around. The cost of Apples top end phones has risen in the last three years (let alone since SJ was alive) beyond their actual value to most people and its starting to show.

 

[Exxhara]

Why do people whine about prices? Too expensive for you, don't buy it. Problem solved.

There are tons of Windows computers you can buy cheap, and crappy android phones that wont ever see one update to buy

Apple has far more insight into what consumers buy of their products and at what price points than a group of people chatting in a forum ever will. Apple, like all businesses, sets prices according to what they perceive the market will bear.

The iPhone you buy will last you a LONG time if you care, i've been keeping my iphones 3.5 years on average. Name me one android phone that gets support that long? Apple is likely charging more because they see consumers are using their phones years longer than they used to...

I totally get your argument and that was the reason why i switched from Samsung. But this is the problem, my first smartphone ever was a Samsung S3. Had for a year, it would get really hot when charging and opening apps would take forever. I called Samsung for help, they said i'm out of warranty so i'll have to buy a new phone. Fast forward, I got my first iphone with the 6+. It was perfect size, great software, hardware, lasted me 3 good years and I upgraded to the X. But honestly, the software has stayed the same, same icon look, same everything. But the only thing that has changed is the price of the product. How can you justify these increases? Makes no sense, especially since you can get the same phone at a lower price elsewhere. Apple willl need to take a long hard look at their current model for sustainability purposes. Pretty soon, a lot of people will leave, damn the ecosystem, for something better at an affordable price. It's only a matter of time. I have tons of apple products, iPX, Homepod, AW4, Macbook air (from 2012) but I cant afford to buy any of the new products anymore. This is the max for me, I'll more than likely stay with my current lineup for the next couple of years until the prices drop a bit, otherwise, I might have to sell my stuff and switch to cheaper manageable stuff.

 

[Rob_2811]

I agree that the iPhone was elitist in the Jobs era but the market was very different back then the market was just starting and the competition was way behind IMO. I had the iPhone 3G, 3Gs, 4, and the 4s was the last iPhone that I purchased and used daily. If I remember correctly I paid about $400-$450 for my 4s and bought it used about a month after it was released. Today if I want want a 2018 iPhone it will cost me over $1000 and over $2500 for the top of the line with Applecare. I can get an android for with 95% the Value IMO for a fraction of that. So yes, the iPhone was always an elitist phone, but Tim Cook has brought that to an entire new level and has priced me not only out of buying iPhones but most Apple products as well.

Great post and the bold bit is key. iPhones and iOS just aren't leaps and bounds ahead anymore. Trying to compare the smartphone market in 2012 to what it is now is one of the most silly arguments I've seen on here.

The iPhone was miles ahead of anything any Android phone offered then.

 

[tromboneaholic]

You're comparing a phone with a vastly inferior camera which was released in an era where social media was nowhere close to as commonplace on mobile as it is now, particularly heavy photo/video based apps like Snapchat and Instagram (which barely had any presence at the time) and trying to imply that this years phones are better value now where as the fact is the storage requirement on phones is much more now.

It was an era where you could comfortably get by the 16gb entry SKU.

Source?

Most people in 2012 were buying music from iTunes and storing it on their phones. Music streaming wasn't as popular as it is today. For much of Apple's customers, 16GB was more of a constraint in 2012 than 64 GB is in 2018.

 

[Rum_Becker]

That an iphone 5 was $849 in 2012 and an Xs is $1000 in 2018 (and xR is $749), means Tim Cook didn't bring anything to a new level.

The carriers eliminated their subsidies, is what changed, more than the pricing. An iphone 5 64 gig always cost you $849, the price was hidden in your cell phone bill plus contract price. Technology has moved forward in 6 years, but the business behind cell phone sales also changed. In 2018 there are creative ways to finance your phone, as there were in 2018.

I completely agree, this has had a huge impact but in Canada a base iPhone Xs is close to $1600 after tax and that does not include Applecare ($250 plus tax) which IMO is almost mandatory. I paid less for my Essential phone than what it would have cost for me to buy Applecare for an iPhone Xs. The fact you need to finance a phone in 2018 says it all to me.

 

[I7guy]

No it isn't, not at all. No goalposts being moved at all.

If you don't realise your argument is nonsense you must have very little grasp of technology at all.

You're comparing a phone with a vastly inferior camera which was released in an era where social media was nowhere close to as commonplace on mobile as it is now, particularly heavy photo/video based apps like Snapchat and Instagram (which barely had any presence at the time) and trying to imply that this years phones are better value now where as the fact is the storage requirement on phones is much more now.

It was an era where you could comfortably get by the 16gb entry SKU. That era is long since gone which is why they attracted so much criticism for it with the 6S

Like here

and here

and here

and here

and here

The 16gb 2012 iPhone was the equivalent SKU to the 64GB iPhone XR. Clearly.

There were no silly 30k watches or $1500 phones when Jobs was around. The cost of Apples top end phones has risen in the last three years (let alone since SJ was alive) beyond their actual value to most people and its starting to show.

You're again moving the goal posts in your own discussion. Yes the price of phones has risen since Jobs in 2012, the price of everything has risen since 2012. And going from $849 to $1,000 in 6 years in not unreasonable; with one model costing less.

This is your logic. You were called out, argument dismembered and now you have a logical fallacy.

 

[Rob_2811]

Source?

Most people in 2012 were buying music from iTunes and storing it on their phones. Music streaming wasn't as popular as it is today. For much of Apple's customers, 16GB was more of a constraint in 2012 than 64 GB is in 2018.

Sorry no you're right it wasn't really enough than either. They still carried on with it for another three years
.
[doublepost=1543074318][/doublepost]

You're again moving the goal posts in your own discussion. Yes the price of phones has risen since Jobs in 2012, the price of everything has risen since 2012. And going from $849 to $1,000 in 6 years in not unreasonable; with one model costing less.

This is your logic. You were called out, argument dismembered and now you have a logical fallacy.

No but then you're comparing the highest SKU of the iPhone 5 to the iPhone X base model which as everybody realises is a completely disingenuous argument.

 

[Rum_Becker]

You're again moving the goal posts in your own discussion. Yes the price of phones has risen since Jobs in 2012, the price of everything has risen since 2012. And going from $849 to $1,000 in 6 years in not unreasonable; with one model costing less.

This is your logic. You were called out, argument dismembered and now you have a logical fallacy.

Wasn't the iPhone 5 $649?

 

[Rob_2811]

Wasn't the iPhone 5 $649?

i7guy is talking about the top end highest storage capacity 64gb model and comparing it with this years base configuration.

 

[run1976]

Except they don’t have to. Somebody who wants to upgrade the Galaxy S6 to the S9 can do so today in Germany for 460€ while someone coming from an iPhone 7 needs to pay 1149€ to get the Xs. A decision a lot more consequential, isn’t it?

 

[I7guy]

...
No but then you're comparing the highest SKU of the iPhone 5 to the iPhone X base model which as everybody realises is a completely disingenuous argument.

Your argument is still a logically fallacious. You made a claim as to price and how apple was elitist and now you are moving the goal-posts. Period.
[doublepost=1543075021][/doublepost]

Wasn't the iPhone 5 $649?

Even if the lowest model was $649, the lost cost Xr is $749. Not an unreasonable increase in 6 years.

 

[Rum_Becker]

i7guy is talking about the top end highest storage capacity 64gb model and comparing it with this years base configuration.

So using that logic, I can say the iphone more that doubled since 2012, going from $649 to $1449

 

[Rob_2811]

Even if the lowest model was $649, the lost cost Xr is $749. Not an unreasonable increase in 6 years.

But again this is disingenuous because the iPhone 5 was probably the best smartphone on the market at the time, the iPhone XR isn't is it.

Carry on..

 

[I7guy]

So using that logic, I can say the iphone more that doubled since 2012, going from $649 to $1449

That would be a true statement if apple only produced one model. But in 2018 apple phones start at $449 with the lowest iphone 7 and end up in the stratosphere with the xs max 512. Basically in 2018 you can buy an iphone for less money than in 2012 and which beats the pants off of most of the competition.

 

[Wando64]

If you look closer you will see that a lot of the stock price gains (not just AAPL, but most of the stock market) have been a combination of PE expansion and stock buybacks.
https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL
https://ycharts.com/companies/AAPL/pe_ratio
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/01/business/dealbook/apple-stock-buybacks.html
Unfortunately, all that financial engineering (again for all companies, not just AAPL) has an expiration date approaching with the tightening of monetary conditions.
Have you tried looking at the other FAANG stocks?
[doublepost=1543049338][/doublepost]

It would be good if it worked that way, but the only time companies sacrifice their margin is to gain market share and in some cases to put competitors out of business so that they can then increase prices. If they lower their margins it's akin to cutting the branch they are sitting on. Typically it's a temporary thing, although temporary can be a multiyear strategy, kind of like Amazon selling stuff cheap to put brick and mortar out of business.

There are repercussions everywhere with respect to how much they can invest in R&D, how much stock they will buy back, etc. The bulk of R&D for low margin businesses is done by 3rd parties. Apple could go that route if they build their iPhones around Snapdragon processors and build an iOS-like UI on top of Android. Is that the type of iPhone we're looking for?

As I said, I do realise the complexities at play, however nobody is suggesting Apple should sell them cheap, only slightly less expensively.

 

[citysnaps]

I agree that the iPhone was elitist in the Jobs era but the market was very different back then the market was just starting and the competition was way behind IMO. I had the iPhone 3G, 3Gs, 4, and the 4s was the last iPhone that I purchased and used daily. If I remember correctly I paid about $400-$450 for my 4s and bought it used about a month after it was released. Today if I want want a 2018 iPhone it will cost me over $1000 and over $2500 for the top of the line with Applecare. I can get an android for with 95% the Value IMO for a fraction of that. So yes, the iPhone was always an elitist phone, but Tim Cook has brought that to an entire new level and has priced me not only out of buying iPhones but most Apple products as well.

"I can get an android for with 95% the Value IMO for a fraction of that."

Sounds pretty good. So why not open your wallet and reward that manufacturer with your dollars? And then be happy.

 

[tromboneaholic]

i7guy is talking about the top end highest storage capacity 64gb model and comparing it with this years base configuration.

You were comparing the margins on the 2018 top storage tier and to the margins on previous entry level models while failing to make a point.

AT least 64 GB = 64 GB which is directly comparable.
[doublepost=1543076401][/doublepost]

As I said, I do realise the complexities at play, however nobody is suggesting Apple should sell them cheap, only slightly less expensively.

But then Apple would have to "cut corners" and build less expensive hardware.

For example, Apple's profit margin is actually less on iPhone XS than it was on iPhone 7.

 

[Rob_2811]

You were comparing the margins on the 2018 top storage tier and to the margins on previous entry level models while failing to make a point.

AT least 64 GB = 64 GB which is directly comparable.

Ok but none of that matters to people in the real world its a debating topic on a forum. People just see the cost of Apples new phone $350 more than the new phone was two years ago.

Nobody in the real world thinks that a 64gb iPhone 5 from 2012 is directly comparable to a 64gb iPhone XR. Thats absurd.