Apple Reportedly Reassigned Some Marketing Staff to Work on Bolstering Sales of iPhone XS and iPhone XR

[Abazigal]

Let’s be realistic. Apple is far from being doomed, so you can discard any doomsayers about that. I’d argue you fit into the camp where your personal experience and lack of awareness outside of financial landscapes creates a superior experience for you. People will continue to buy and cry about it at the same time. Apple has a lot of people by the balls due to how much they have vested in the ecosystem.

Critics are emotionally invested because from a financial perspective you HAVE to be vested. This is where the psychology aspect comes into play. If I bought a top of the line product, I will for sure hone in on more nuances than if I bought a cheap product. That is the average buyer’s persona.

There is nothing wrong with being greedy, and there is nothing wrong with Apple charging more. The rise in people’s voice is justifiably louder now because Apple is making more money and increasing their profits. Instead of seeing things as black/white, perhaps observe from the gray area for once, and maybe you will understand beyond reading your favorite pro Apple writers.

The loudest merits I’ve seen is that they have sold a lot of X units and made a lot of Y dollars. As a consumer and not an investor, does that really help me?

I don't think it's as simple as just "I spent a lot of money on Apple products, that gives me the right to complain any way I deem fit".

I have had my suspicions before, and I am now more sure than ever. To put it bluntly, these critics are still coming to terms (or unable / unwilling to) with the simple fact that they don't matter anymore, in the bigger scheme of things.

They used to be this tiny little flock that loyally followed Apple (and Steve Jobs) to the gates of hell and beyond. Now, the Apple user base consists increasingly of average consumers who have the power in this new relationship with Apple, because of their larger numbers (and greater spending power overall). Apple now caters to an audience with a dramatically different set of needs and wants than this group of Apple users would care to admit. While Apple is forging new grounds with wearables and AirPods and Animoji, they are still going "Where is my new Mac mini?"

If you have watched the movie "Fight Club", you will know where I am going with this. History has proven that there's no way to break the rules without creating new rules. Those who are rebels turn eventually into part of the system or the system itself. Apple is transitioning into a more traditional company, and its behaviour will more closely resemble that of a traditional company.

I won't go so far as to say that Apple has lost its way though. That's just the way she goes. Times change, Apple is changing in keeping with the times, and maybe it's time you all did too.

 

[0388631]

I wouldn't say Apple is doomed. They're doing fine. Though, they also have all their eggs in one basket. Which isn't the brightest idea in today's world.

 

[KevinN206]

Laugh. So, technology was the same. So a 720p TV cost as much then as a OLED TV today? Try again.

TVs were pretty expensive back in 2007 assuming this link is to be believed: https://www.freedomisknowledge.com/tvreport/retailpricechart2007.html

A 720p 42" LCD from LG was like $1300 MSRP. You can buy a much better TV nowaday for the same price.

 

[john123]

The frequent claims of higher ASPs is not one of them? What about claims of Apple dominance but conveniently leave out global numbers? How about the lack of emerging market penetration because the cost is not worth cutting to get new users? What about the luxury branding partnerships with stores and fashion designers?

These all seem pretty grey to me. Now, I personally don’t think Apple is greedy per se with your definition. However I find it hypocritical when they talk about increase in profit as a result of higher ASPs. To me, the underlying message is they want to see how far they can charge before pulling back.

I get why it seems that way to you, but you have the tail wagging the dog. The overall company gross profit margins for each quarter have been remarkably consistent for over a decade, since the original iPhone was released. Like within a point or two pretty much every quarter. So they're not setting the price arbitrarily at all. Rather, price is directly a function of (1) what they've historically pegged themselves at, and (2) what the components cost.

You could certainly argue that the finance people made the decision that Apple would maximize overall profit and EPS by selling fewer high-end devices. But that doesn't necessarily point to any special form of "greed," and it's certainly not unique to the Tim Cook era as so many on here would have you think. The reality is that industry and trends make this strategy the only logical one for Apple, as a company, to take.

I have the XS max and it's certainly not worth the extra $300 over our Xr.

That's a personal opinion and you're welcome to it. But per the above, based on what the components cost, it's priced correctly.

 

[Radon87000]

There is no PR that can solve the price tag of 1600 euros for a f* phone. Apple have decided to climb the mount everest of prices. A few years ago I was able to buy a top iPhone for 800 euros. Now I have to pay 1600 euros. No way. I can buy a top iMac for 1800.

This insane policy of prices have to stop. 130 euros for a pen, 250 euros for an earbud. **** that.

The prices will only drop once the higher prices no longer compensate for the lower unit sales. Apple has a lot of mindshare. So there are customers who are ready to pay $2000 for an iPhone as well.

 

[Abazigal]

I wouldn't say Apple is doomed. They're doing fine. Though, they also have all their eggs in one basket. Which isn't the brightest idea in today's world.

Apple as a company has chosen to make a few large bets, unlike other companies such as amazon who tend to make numerous smaller bets.

I can see why this might unnerve some investors, because it means that if Apple does screw up on any of their bets, the fallout is potentially greater.

However, I believe that Apple’s leadership structure and design-led culture predisposes it towards making fewer, bigger bets, and they tend to do a really good job of removing as much risk out of the equation as they can during the product development process.

You are looking at roughly 1-2 new product categories from Apple every decade. Maybe 3, but that’s par the course for Apple, and I think critics really need to get their expectations in order.

As such, I think that Apple is in an inherently less risky position than people paint them out to be. I won’t say that Apple is invincible, but IMO, what has always made the “Apple is doomed” argument so dumb in my eyes is that it has always implied that Apple was some sort of special snowflake, incapable of leveraging its massive user base or demonstrated ability to iterate on its industry-leading products.

That, though, is my point: Apple has had a special run, thanks to its special ability to start with the user experience and build from there. It is why the company is dominant and will continue to be so for many years.

 

[0388631]

Apple as a company has chosen to make a few large bets, unlike other companies such as amazon who tend to make numerous smaller bets.

I can see why this might unnerve some investors, because it means that if Apple does screw up on any of their bets, the fallout is potentially greater.

However, I believe that Apple’s leadership structure and design-led culture predisposes it towards making fewer, bigger bets, and they tend to do a really good job of removing as much risk out of the equation as they can during the product development process.

You are looking at roughly 1-2 new product categories from Apple every decade. Maybe 3, but that’s par the course for Apple, and I think critics really need to get their expectations in order.

As such, I think that Apple is in an inherently less risky position than people paint them out to be. I won’t say that Apple is invincible, but IMO, what has always made the “Apple is doomed” argument so dumb in my eyes is that it has always implied that Apple was some sort of special snowflake, incapable of leveraging its massive user base or demonstrated ability to iterate on its industry-leading products.

That, though, is my point: Apple has had a special run, thanks to its special ability to start with the user experience and build from there. It is why the company is dominant and will continue to be so for many years.

Desktops. Laptops. Mobiles. Digital tablets.

That was the prior decade. In the current decade they're doing the same stuff. Apple got into the smartphone biz at the right time. Jobs' marketing convinced people the PDA style phone wasn't dorky or overpriced. It was the "it" item. And he was right.

Amazon and just about any similar company makes various smaller bets, not small, but smaller. Diversifying your interests never meant to water down your offerings. Even with Apple's close web of product lines, they still manage to disappoint or come short. The question is whether or not Apple should place so much emphasis on their mobile phones rather than all their products. Yes, they've gotten recent updates, but letting products stale for years before updating them isn't wise.

And at some point, Apple will have to introduce new, unique and usable features in their phones instead of gimmicks.

Apple needs to hit a homerun with their upcoming Mac Pro. There are many professionals out there waiting to see if Apple learned their lesson and whether they deserve $5-30K of someone's income to continue producing the work they make.

 

[Abazigal]

Desktops. Laptops. Mobiles. Digital tablets.

That was the prior decade. In the current decade they're doing the same stuff. Apple got into the smartphone biz at the right time. Jobs' marketing convinced people the PDA style phone wasn't dorky or overpriced. It was the "it" item. And he was right.

Amazon and just about any similar company makes various smaller bets, not small, but smaller. Diversifying your interests never meant to water down your offerings. Even with Apple's close web of product lines, they still manage to disappoint or come short. The question is whether or not Apple should place so much emphasis on their mobile phones rather than all their products. Yes, they've gotten recent updates, but letting products stale for years before updating them isn't wise.

And at some point, Apple will have to introduce new, unique and usable features in their phones instead of gimmicks.

Apple needs to hit a homerun with their upcoming Mac Pro. There are many professionals out there waiting to see if Apple learned their lesson and whether they deserve $5-30K of someone's income to continue producing the work they make.

The number of professionals who are genuinely in the market for a new Mac Pro is a very small percentage of Apple's user base overall (I estimate about 2-4% max, assuming they haven't already migrated over to the iMac Pro). Truth be told, I don't think Apple is going to earn any money from this venture (after deducting R&D and support costs). It's there solely to appease the pro market. It's not going to have any impact on Apple's bottom line.

Like it or not, Apple's future is predicated on mobile.

Look at their wearables. Apple Watch is tied to the iPhone, not the Mac. Any new health-tracking wearables which Apple does introduce is going to sync to the health app on your iPhone (or even the Apple Watch, if and when it becomes a standalone device). Imagine a network of wearable devices you wear on your body, all hooked up to your watch which serves as the brains of the entire operation.

While people here laugh at features like Animoji, it ties in closely with Apple's focus on making technology more personal and rethinking how you interact with the people around you (which I believe is why Apple is betting on AR over VR, because AR augments how you interact with your surroundings, while VR divorces you from it). What you all dismiss as childish gimmicks is the very bedrock of Apple's whole design-led culture.

The iPad shares the same OS and app base as the iPhone. I don't think it's any coincidence that Apple is pushing the iPad as a alternative to PCs (and Macs). I would be more surprised if Apple didn't. The iPad simply represents a more personal and intimate means of computing compared to the Mac.

While AirPods do work with Macs, they are marketed as a complement to the iphone. Where else have we seen the W1 chip? Apple Watch. Where else can we expect to see it? Every other wearable device released by Apple.

Apple is rumoured to be working on a pair of AR glasses. Like the Apple Watch, it's likely going to pair with your iPhone (and maybe the Apple Watch, when it gets powerful enough). That Apple started pushing AR aggressively since iOS 11 is no coincidence. They are almost certainly using the iPhone to mainstream AR so that a case can be made for the existence of AR glasses. Face ID (gesture / facial controls) will likely be the primary means of interacting with this device. Again, it builds on technology stemming from the iPhone, not the Mac.

Any self-driving car Apple does release (be it part of an autonomous, ride-sharing initiative or car-dealership like Tesla) is going to run CarPlay, which is again, a derivative of iOS, not macOS.

Apple TV and HomePod, likewise, run modified versions of iOS and are more iPhone accessories than Mac ones. Again, they present more value to users who own iOS devices over Macs.

When you look at everything Apple is doing, it all stems from the iPhone, and for good reason, because the iPhone is their most successful product, with the largest user base, so it makes perfect sense to capitalise on this. Conversely, the Mac line looks more and more like a dead-end product line. Yes, it's there because PCs still have a dominant place in today's computing landscape, you need a Mac to develop iOS apps, and Apple has no way of migrating pro users to iPad (yet), and that's all there is to it.

The Mac does not represent the future at Apple, so I don't think it's unreasonable for the attention devoted to it to be proportionate to its value in the larger scheme of things. It appears that we are already moving towards a 2-year refresh cycle for the iMac, and I wouldn't be surprised if it even slips beyond that subsequently.

From what I have read, Apple does seem to be rethinking the entire Mac Pro design, and I am intrigued to see what they come up with, but I would advise the pro users not to hold their breath. It's likely not going to be what they think or hope it will be. I won't be surprised if Apple might already have given us a sneak peak via the Mac mini...

 

[0388631]

And you summarized what I said by pointing out gimmicks Apple will invest in. Thanks.

 

[Macist]

In 2008 it was a different universe. The MacBook Pro made every PC laptop took like clunky, cheap junk and yet was only a bit more money than any higher end Windows machine. iPhones were just plain the best.

In 2018 the MacBook Pro is only an 'okay' laptop and infuriating in many ways with lack of ports, zero upgradability, frustrating crap like the Touch Bar, etc. And cost hundreds upon hundreds more than machines with more spec - not even clunky machines, but machines that are pretty sexy in their own right. Similar story with iPhones.

Many still love Mac OS X. Sometimes Apple have rested on their laurels with it but Mojave is solid, a great update.

Apple isn't doomed yet but their 'Rolls Royce' image is long gone. I'm shocked how many Apple fans (not even young iGenners but older Apple-since-the90s people) are now on Android and Windows 10. Even people of affluence will still choose to save 100s on each device they buy if the do not perceive Apple as superior in any way. Most are happy enough with the switch - it'll be hard to bring them back unless Apple can be more realistic with pricing AND offer market-leading products again. Otherwise I can't seem them stemming the trickle away and it'll become a flood.

 

[AppleHaterLover]

In 2008 it was a different universe. The MacBook Pro made every PC laptop took like clunky, cheap junk and yet was only a bit more money than any higher end Windows machine. iPhones were just plain the best.

In 2018 the MacBook Pro is only an 'okay' laptop and infuriating in many ways with lack of ports, zero upgradability, frustrating crap like the Touch Bar, etc. And cost hundreds upon hundreds more than machines with more spec - not even clunky machines, but machines that are pretty sexy in their own right. Similar story with iPhones.

This. We should give you a Pullitzer,I couldn't have said it better myself.

I love my 2017 MBP but for my corporate workflow, the Dell Ultrabooks (are Ultrabooks still a thing?) that IT hands out are better.

We'll see Dell, HP and the like put a USB-C port -AND- a USB-A port. See, courage but no compromise! Plus they'll give you an HDMI port, so you don't need to carry a dongle in case you need to deliver a PowerPoint presentation.

And the dongle doesn't solve this lack of convenience. If you're going to deliver said PowerPoint presentation in another town, it is highly likely that you will forget the ****ing dongle at home and only notice it after landing. Which means that's $69 for a new dongle that you absolutely need right now. Now you have two dongles, and still the same possibility of having to buy a third one next time. Ugh.

 

[dilbert99]

That’s a garbage dictionary but sure, let’s use that definition. It says it “costs more than it should.”

Really, well we could go with another.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/overprice - "Charge too high a price for"

Overpriced is in the eye of the beholder and no amount of reasoning that you put will change what a lot of people think

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

I have paid 32inch CRT TV Sony around $3000 in 2002......and I am sure OLED TV 32 Inches today would cost lesser(or even few years back)....

Exactly!

 

[john123]

Really, well we could go with another.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/overprice - "Charge too high a price for"

Overpriced is in the eye of the beholder and no amount of reasoning that you put will change what a lot of people think

Did you even read what I typed? Apparently not. I used your definition and applied it.

But hey let’s use this one too. “In the eye of the beholder.” Logically, if the market thinks a discretionary item is overpriced, then people won’t buy it.

And yet Apple will have a record-breaking Q1.

Chew on that.

 

[I7guy]

Really, well we could go with another.
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/overprice - "Charge too high a price for"

Overpriced is in the eye of the beholder and no amount of reasoning that you put will change what a lot of people think

Overpriced is a subjective value judgment.

 

[Abazigal]

And you summarized what I said by pointing out gimmicks Apple will invest in. Thanks.

Time will tell.

Either way, Apple showed their hand with regards to what they feel on the future of the Mac long ago and I have no reason to believe that Apple will do an about-face anytime soon.

 

[aka777]

That's a personal opinion and you're welcome to it. But per the above, based on what the components cost, it's priced correctly.

The market (and reviews) also agree with my sentiment about the overpriced Xs max and better value of the Xr.

Interesting assumption though, as the s9 is priced a few hundred less and the onePlus 6T costs a good $500 less. They also have the better Qualcomm wireless chipset for data transmission.

The build costs for an phone xs max 256 that sells for $1249 is $453. Labor is not much more considering that the liberal apple is exploiting quasi-slave labor in China.

Even apple is smart enough to not BS and claim it's because of component cost.

 

[I7guy]

I think they lost their way in marketing. Too many price increases at one time. They still can’t market why Apple. Too deceitful in interviews and events. These products should be selling themselves basically. What they need to market is ecosystem.

Apple is trying to delight cost accounting and marketing departments more than consumers. They know we hate the kb on mbps for example. They keep doing it. Pro apps for iPad? Nothing. External storage access for iPad? Nada.

Still waiting for an oled iPad. Or an oled MacBook. Dell can do oled laptops. So can hp and others. Samsung can do an oled tablet. Where apple? They’re too concerned with cutting costs and milking its core customers. That’s the wrong approach if they want to be seen as a premium brand.

How does a company who lost its way keep making record breaking profits. That’s a sign of a shrewd company who knows its market...despite the analysis on this forum.
[doublepost=1544102709][/doublepost]

The market (and reviews) also agree with my sentiment about the overpriced Xs max and better value of the Xr.

Interesting assumption though, as the s9 is priced a few hundred less and the onePlus 6T costs a good $500 less. They also have the better Qualcomm wireless chipset for data transmission.

The build costs for an phone xs max 256 that sells for $1249 is $453. Labor is not much more considering that the liberal apple is exploiting quasi-slave labor in China.

Even apple is smart enough to not BS and claim it's because of component cost.

The market is fickle and generally does what it wants.

 

[Ramchi]

The market (and reviews) also agree with my sentiment about the overpriced Xs max and better value of the Xr.

Interesting assumption though, as the s9 is priced a few hundred less and the onePlus 6T costs a good $500 less. They also have the better Qualcomm wireless chipset for data transmission.

The build costs for an phone xs max 256 that sells for $1249 is $453. Labor is not much more considering that the liberal apple is exploiting quasi-slave labor in China.

Even apple is smart enough to not BS and claim it's because of component cost.

$453 BOM is if you procure individually! When you are Apple, sign contract for multi-year, in millions NOT just for ONE Product; but for a variety of products (example, Memory module could be used across XS, X, iPhone 7, iPhone 8, XS Max) the cost optimization would be far more significant.....TC is an excellent negotiator and has proved as supply chain LEGEND in this era. Lets not underestimate that.

 

[dilbert99]

Overpriced is a subjective value judgment.

I agree and that is what I said, overpriced is in the eye of the beholder.
[doublepost=1544104151][/doublepost]

Did you even read what I typed? Apparently not. I used your definition and applied it.

But hey let’s use this one too. “In the eye of the beholder.” Logically, if the market thinks a discretionary item is overpriced, then people won’t buy it.

And yet Apple will have a record-breaking Q1.

Chew on that.

calm down mate...

Yes I read what you typed and it doesn't matter what you put, it is a subjective term and there are people out there that thing Apple gear is overpriced and what ever you think doesn't come in to it.

 

[IdentityCrisis]

TVs were pretty expensive back in 2007 assuming this link is to be believed: https://www.freedomisknowledge.com/tvreport/retailpricechart2007.html

A 720p 42" LCD from LG was like $1300 MSRP. You can buy a much better TV nowaday for the same price.

You may be able to buy a better TV today for $1300, but an OLED TV wil cost you $2k plus.

 

[groadyho]

I'm giving this perspective as an android user. I've said this many times here at MR, I'll be making the switch to iPhone as my next phone. Why because I'm the only android user left in my family. The pressure on me to have iMessage and face time is growing.

The number of professionals who are genuinely in the market for a new Mac Pro is a very small percentage of Apple's user base overall (I estimate about 2-4% max, assuming they haven't already migrated over to the iMac Pro). Truth be told, I don't think Apple is going to earn any money from this venture (after deducting R&D and support costs). It's there solely to appease the pro market. It's not going to have any impact on Apple's bottom line.

Like it or not, Apple's future is predicated on mobile.

Look at their wearables. Apple Watch is tied to the iPhone, not the Mac. Any new health-tracking wearables which Apple does introduce is going to sync to the health app on your iPhone (or even the Apple Watch, if and when it becomes a standalone device). Imagine a network of wearable devices you wear on your body, all hooked up to your watch which serves as the brains of the entire operation.

While people here laugh at features like Animoji, it ties in closely with Apple's focus on making technology more personal and rethinking how you interact with the people around you (which I believe is why Apple is betting on AR over VR, because AR augments how you interact with your surroundings, while VR divorces you from it). What you all dismiss as childish gimmicks is the very bedrock of Apple's whole design-led culture.

The iPad shares the same OS and app base as the iPhone. I don't think it's any coincidence that Apple is pushing the iPad as a alternative to PCs (and Macs). I would be more surprised if Apple didn't. The iPad simply represents a more personal and intimate means of computing compared to the Mac.

While AirPods do work with Macs, they are marketed as a complement to the iphone. Where else have we seen the W1 chip? Apple Watch. Where else can we expect to see it? Every other wearable device released by Apple.

Apple is rumoured to be working on a pair of AR glasses. Like the Apple Watch, it's likely going to pair with your iPhone (and maybe the Apple Watch, when it gets powerful enough). That Apple started pushing AR aggressively since iOS 11 is no coincidence. They are almost certainly using the iPhone to mainstream AR so that a case can be made for the existence of AR glasses. Face ID (gesture / facial controls) will likely be the primary means of interacting with this device. Again, it builds on technology stemming from the iPhone, not the Mac.

Any self-driving car Apple does release (be it part of an autonomous, ride-sharing initiative or car-dealership like Tesla) is going to run CarPlay, which is again, a derivative of iOS, not macOS.

Apple TV and HomePod, likewise, run modified versions of iOS and are more iPhone accessories than Mac ones. Again, they present more value to users who own iOS devices over Macs.

When you look at everything Apple is doing, it all stems from the iPhone, and for good reason, because the iPhone is their most successful product, with the largest user base, so it makes perfect sense to capitalise on this. Conversely, the Mac line looks more and more like a dead-end product line. Yes, it's there because PCs still have a dominant place in today's computing landscape, you need a Mac to develop iOS apps, and Apple has no way of migrating pro users to iPad (yet), and that's all there is to it.

The Mac does not represent the future at Apple, so I don't think it's unreasonable for the attention devoted to it to be proportionate to its value in the larger scheme of things. It appears that we are already moving towards a 2-year refresh cycle for the iMac, and I wouldn't be surprised if it even slips beyond that subsequently.

From what I have read, Apple does seem to be rethinking the entire Mac Pro design, and I am intrigued to see what they come up with, but I would advise the pro users not to hold their breath. It's likely not going to be what they think or hope it will be. I won't be surprised if Apple might already have given us a sneak peak via the Mac mini...

You nailed it. Ar n Vr are a means to the same end. Ar for the masses VR for gaming and r&d.

 

[IdentityCrisis]

I'm giving this perspective as an android user. I've said this many times here at MR, I'll be making the switch to iPhone as my next phone. Why because I'm the only android user left in my family. The pressure on me to have iMessage and face time is growing.

You nailed it. Ar n Vr are a means to the same end. Ar for the masses VR for gaming and r&d.

That's one of the reasons I left Android and came back. Everyone in my house has an iPhone except me. But with the Max, I am pretty happy again.

 

[Uofmtiger]

I don't know if it's me, but I see a lot of people in this thread that are upset because they can't afford the new iPhones. In 10 years from the original iPhone, with increase in inflation, the iPhone is actually cheaper than the original iPhone.

Apple has moved into a Luxury side for their products. They keep their older phones for those that can't afford the newest ones for a reason. If you want the newest thing, you will either have to fork up the money, or go to Android.

Personally, these phones are just not different enough for me to pay the luxury tax. They look different, which is wonderful for those that care and want to live with the notch and FaceID, but the basic functionally is too similar to justify that high price tag.

I think back to things like a Siri, TouchID, a larger phone, dual lenses, etc. that got me off the fence in the past. These things completely changed the way I used the phone. I just don't see it now with these new models and I especially don't think upgrading makes much sense until they have a model that changes how I use the phone. I would rather spend my money on something with more daily impact.

As for "affordability", this will simply be a $10 or $20 boost in what most of us were paying under contract. It is barely a tip on a night out. I don't think these phones are unaffordable for a lot of people as much as they don't offer the tangible benefits that you would expect to come along with that much higher price tag.

 

[I7guy]

I agree and that is what I said, overpriced is in the eye of the beholder.
[doublepost=1544104151][/doublepost]
calm down mate...

Yes I read what you typed and it doesn't matter what you put, it is a subjective term and there are people out there that thing Apple gear is overpriced and what ever you think doesn't come in to it.

And there are people who think you get what you pay for. A discussion based so much on perceived values will never go anywhere. Having one person declare an iPhone overpriced doesn’t mean it is.