Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Targeting Users of Older iPhones With iPhone XR Email Campaign
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Noble. Whatever works best for you. I have a feeling none of the above will be happening. Well maybe c) might happen.
More effective if Apple sold the iPhone Xr outright for $549 and let people keep their existing iPhone so they can sell it to recoup the cost. Otherwise, very few will downgrade/sidegrade to lower resolution, 2nd class Intel baseband radio and Fisher Price colors and finish for $749.
Honestly, I think it has more to do with competing brands starting to offer half-way decent phones. While Apple initially crushed it, everyone else started catching up the past 2 years. The appeal of a new Apple phone doesn't seem to be what it was 5 years ago (and it's a lot more expensive now, too.) Apple missed the mark. But I don't think it's a bad thing at all. It's good to have comeptition to hold you accountable. Just the premium aspects of Apple's flagship device don't seem to matter as much today.
So if your current iPhone is not longer operating, you'll go to the upstanding and consumer-centric Google for your smartphone needs?
I would. If I had to buy a brand new smartphone tomorrow it would be a Pixel 3. I might also consider buying some Apple shares, though I'm not sure that's the Apple product the BOD would like me to spend my money on.
All phones look the same. Pixel 3 is a lot lighter than the XS and a few mm narrower which means I can hold it comfortably. Name a beautiful phone so I can lol at your strange beliefs.
I'll just leave this here.
That's what I said. A screen which takes up an increasing proportion of the front of the device and a narrow strip of stuff round it. Even harder to tell them apart in a case. I notice you didn't rise to the challenge of naming a beautiful phone, but I really appreciate you playing!
Haha, clearly the iphones look better, evidenced by their crushing sales over Pixel.
iOS is also far better.
Let’s not act like the Pixel screen looks close to good with that 2X notch and chin.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ha, there we are. I find iphone design a bit boring to be honest. Every August/September we get a load of renders that look exciting then the same old rectangle comes out. Can't blame Jony though, it's like trying to differentiate a flat screen TV, not possible. As I said, it's a big screen with a strip of non-screen next to it. They do need to lose the notch though but that counts for Apple as well.
You might be right about the OS but I'd be willing to give it a try. Pretty sure Chrome and WhatsApp will run just fine and it's not possible to mess up an email client. The photos will be better and nobody outside Cupertino uses Apple maps so I'm not sure I'd notice the switch to Android. They will always have services though so keep your chin up.
I think they should sell the Xr for $449....no wait $349....plus throw in a free iPad.
Where do people get these numbers? $549 would be $150 less than the launch price for the much smaller screen iPhone 8 last year, which was a second tier offering compared to the X.
Apple’s average margin is 35%. People expect Apple to sell the Xr at close to cost. Ain’t going to happen. They also read some silly article trying to estimate bill of material costs, and then think this is the same thing as profit margin....which it isn’t.
Last edited:
You're correct and I don't doubt the XR produces great photos. I was just pointing out that for the first time, a two year old Apple phone (the iPhone 7) has better capabilities (optical zoom, better digital zoom) in an area Apple usually pushes as a very important feature in iPhones (the camera).
You are correct. I think the Xr is for people that don't get very focused on the spec sheet, and probably don't care about the difference between optical and digital zoom. They just want the phone to takes great photos. Another example is the display. Folks on this forum are worked up about the resolution, but it is still retina......which means in normal use, most consumers probably think it looks terrific. Most tech reviewers say the screen looks great, and they are far more picky than the average user.
BTW - one of the advantages of the display is the battery life on the Xr is amazing......and that's a big plus fo a lot of people.
Honestly I think that is an advantage of the thickness of the phone, thickest phone in the line up. Pretty sure the iFixit teardown confirmed it had a bigger battery than the rest aswell.
Yeah, because my pricing model is totally in line with a HOUSE in Manhattan for 150k.
6 years ago Apple’s flagship phone did cost $650. Why is it so obsurd to want their tier 2 phone to have the same starting price?
Also, 6 years ago carrier subsidizing was in effect. So effectively an XR with a trade-in costs less than $650. Given the max is a large oled screen with all of the new bells and whistles the $1099 price doesn't seem so unreasonable. It's true you can get a 4K tv today for $300, however an LG OLED screen (even with the price cut) will still set one back $1,500. (For the tech prices always drop crowd)
I'm sorry Apple, but the iPhone 7 Plus I just got the battery swapped on runs like a champ. I'll wait for it to break.
At some point, "amazing" becomes good enough.
At some point, "amazing" becomes good enough.
Because the parts cost proportionally more today. Actually, that’s not true. Proportionally, the parts cost MORE today. Today’s markup relative to the parts cost is less than it was 6 years ago.
So there’s your answer. And there’s why your pricing was absurd. (“Obsurd” isn’t a word.)
Jobs knew what people wanted - by ignoring the abberatives
[doublepost=1547631167][/doublepost]
Shrugging about stagnation (and other‘s lacking progress) is something of the mental tired.
It isn’t helping the mobile sector any further and actually a very Cookette attitude, in a market where commodity sellers dominate while truckloads of unused patents and pilot projects exist but never see light as product, because incumbents use their patents mainly to deter competitors.
This stems from an oligarchy situation where 2 corporations or OSses dominate the market, and essentially want to endure that situation, leading to defense of market share and milking/monetizing their dominance.
For them, innovation has become unattractive and merely impossible due to gigantic volumes and associated risk. Now the only way out of this situation is when their prominence starts to evade and smaller, innovative companies come with up (disruptive) innovation to shake up the whole market.
Hopefully Apple can survive with a timely, innovative response (...) but that won’t be a third camera lens or anything else from Tim Cook’s merely empty pipeline.
That will require someone with more motivation/inspiration
(btw not me, thanks - I am in a different business)
[doublepost=1547631623][/doublepost]
This lack of more affordable phones, with electronics seeing price drops across the line, can only be explained by this monopoly/oligarch market dominated by a very few molochs, moderating competition.
If you find that ”reasonable”, go pay your surplus (that’s exactly what the molochs want from you...)
Last edited:
Orrrr it stems from the fact that there just isn't a hell of a lot more to do with mobile phones right now, and we're years away from the kind of technological leaps that can fundamentally change that experience.
Calling others "mentally tired" because they point out reality is a cheap ad hominem parlor trick. It's crazy to think anything would be that different if Jobs were at the helm now. It's a cute narrative, but it's not supported by any facts—and is contradicted by the nature of pipelines and roadmaps for product development for any mature company, which happens years in advance—even in fast-moving tech.
Also, your comment about "electronics seeing price drops across the line" is generally true but in the case of the iPhone absolutely false. The current lineup costs quite a bit MORE to make, just in parts alone (i.e., ignoring R&D amortization), than the iPhones of years ago.
Ah - no innovation because innovation stalled. Great reasoning - but you may want to know why. So if you disagree with my points let know (instead of rephrasing the problem)
"Being years away from technological leaps" => quite rightly so, as billions on R&D and pilots get abandoned as explained. Feel free to add.
I haven't used the word Jobs in this post. Innovation today must come from others than Jobs. There's lots of talent and idea's that get absorbed in blankets of vested interests of loaded billionaire VP's in the Board. And Apple needs younger guys/gals with the same unrest, focus, inspiration and perseverance that made it great.
Look at how Microsoft's Nadella turned around the company as it had come into an intellectual sleep.
So? We're now in 2019 and suffering the lack of inspiration in 2015/2017.
How cute it is - this isn't today's narrative, but has been going on for years.
What happened to the lukewarm received TouchBar, 3DTouch, MagicMouse charged from behind, selfiestick Apple Pencil 1....?
Orphaned, because Apple was not inspired or committed itself, despite Phil's orations.
One exception: AirPods, which is a great Apple-like product.
But in the main course, Apple purposely left fast-moving tech, turning things into luxury commodity. Because Apple now wants more money out of the same stuff.
Look how Angela pushed AppleWatch marketing that way, in vain, as no luxury boutique would sell it.
Apple hardly is fast-moving tech anymore. Look at the keynotes.
Commodity stuff being overhauled. More obligatory events.
I was referring to someone whose main aim is defending Apples status quo, shrugging shoulders when challenged about lamentation.
That really adds little to the discussion, which isn't about Cook vs. Jobs but merely business policies preferable for the Board or us, customers/shareholders.
This argument holds, but is also misused to the extreme. With price increases being passed on to customers 3,5 to 10-fold.
Look at the Qualcomm case. That war with started over $35/device, which was passed multiple times onto customers (now rewarded with cheaper and less reliable Intel modems while now paying at Qualcomm++ level)
If you find it hard to believe what gross margins are, look at the hundreds of billions in real-estate, over-premium locations, huge amounts on the bank, insane luxury, top-designers like Ive being busy mainly with interior- instead of product design etc. etc.
Overcapitalist abundance at cost of returning value to customers.
I am happy to pay for R&D/amortization.
The difference is that Apple customers pay, while other brands deliver.
For wireless charging we invested in 2013, to see it with other brands in 2015, and be glad to get it delivered by 2017
Last edited:
The "why" should be self-evident. It's a phone and mobile communications device. This is what happens with mature products. It's a standard part of product life cycles and is taught to every enterprising young student taking any Product Design 101 class. Tons of books have been written about it. Disruption happens infrequently. You're expecting the impossible. You can call that intellectually lazy if that makes you feel smug. I call it knowing how the world works.
You took a dump on Cook, and your (misspelled) signature suggests you think there's some sort of Jobs-Cook dichotomy.
I'm curious: have you ever done product development professionally?
Neither of us has any idea what i7guy's "main aim" is. Only he can comment on that.
Yeah, companies are in it to make money. People don't buy products unless they're mostly satisfied with them or there's a monopoly. The quarterly numbers suggest that most people are pretty satisfied with how things have been going.
Red herring. The price increases proportionally are the same as they've always been. To criticize Apple today is to criticize it 10 years ago under Jobs. The only difference really is that a lot more people are buying Apple stuff, and more of it. That's a pretty good measure of success—and that's coming from me, a pretty vocal critic of Apple in recent years.
I wish you could see how far my eyes just rolled back in my head.