Apple Targeting Users of Older iPhones With iPhone XR Email Campaign

[Bacillus]

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.

That Design 101 class, at a later stage, may come up to see how innovation cycles & market maturity correlate with lifecycle mgt:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...xt-three-months.2164384/page-10#post-26992128
Nothing is impossible or self-evident, but Apple's merits seem to have become its weakest points now.

You took a dump on Cook, and your (misspelled) signature suggests you think there's some sort of Jobs-Cook dichotomy.

... merely 2 very different perspectives, that illustrate the status quo

I'm curious: have you ever done product development professionally?

Been in it for 20+ years. Various product/services combinations in telco/cable industries, mass markets but not on Apple's scale.

Neither of us has any idea what i7guy's "main aim" is. Only he can comment on that.

Check, you are right here. Should have rephrased that as "contributions".
But they're mostly breathing the same appeasement of the current status quo - which was my point. His other aims have been unclear to me.

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.

That's correct and is a main part of the problem. Apple's ehhhh...leadership (trying to avoid a certain name here...) is trying to deny/evade/ignore loyal but opinionated users, as the masses of the millions are the lower hanging fruit that they can get away easier with. I hear no complaints on hastily sweated out iOS iterations just to accomodate Intel modem problems.

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 object to the term proportionally. With luxury & cash reserves larger than some continents, inordinate amounts of wealth have been collected that the competition simply doesn't have.
Explain where that stems from, other than over- (premium) charges and excessive pricepoints.
Money that other companies redirect in their investment cycles - as loyal customers may expect.

I wish you could see how far my eyes just rolled back in my head.

Just don't. Maybe I should have stated: other brands deliver first because of Apple's wait and see attitude before "adopting":
(speaking of OLED, batt technology, foldables, Touch notebooks, converts, hi-res camera's, RAM, SSD's, Music, News, Media services, headphones, charging mats, Wifi speakers, fitness, self-driving vehicles, cab/taxi/automotive)
What my eyes roll over from: this variety of unrelated, non-exclusive, merely late initiatives that seem to divert attention from core issues/products.

What you seem to ignore: how to integrate, provision and merchandise this perplexing collection of things into a consistent, focused offering ?
Where's the leaderships supposed to do so ?

 

[john123]

That Design 101 class, at a later stage, may come up to see how innovation cycles & market maturity correlate with lifecycle mgt:
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...xt-three-months.2164384/page-10#post-26992128
Nothing is impossible or self-evident, but Apple's merits seem to have become its weakest points now.

... merely 2 very different perspectives, that illustrate the status quo

Been in it for 20+ years. Various product/services combinations in telco/cable industries, mass markets but not on Apple's scale.


Check, you are right here. Should have rephrased that as "contributions".
But they're mostly breathing the same appeasement of the current status quo - which was my point. His other aims have been unclear to me.


That's correct and is a main part of the problem. Apple's ehhhh...leadership (trying to avoid a certain name here...) is trying to deny/evade/ignore loyal but opinionated users, as the masses of the millions are the lower hanging fruit that they can get away easier with. I hear no complaints on hastily sweated out iOS iterations just to accomodate Intel modem problems.


I object to the term proportionally. With luxury & cash reserves larger than some continents, inordinate amounts of wealth have been collected that the competition simply doesn't have.
Explain where that stems from, other than over- (premium) charges and excessive pricepoints.
Money that other companies redirect in their investment cycles - as loyal customers may expect.


Just don't. Maybe I should have stated: other brands deliver first because of Apple's wait and see attitude before "adopting":
(speaking of OLED, batt technology, foldables, Touch notebooks, converts, hi-res camera's, RAM, SSD's, Music, News, Media services, headphones, charging mats, Wifi speakers, fitness, self-driving vehicles, cab/taxi/automotive)
What my eyes roll over from: this variety of unrelated, non-exclusive, merely late initiatives that seem to divert attention from core issues/products.

What you seem to ignore: how to integrate, provision and merchandise this perplexing collection of things into a consistent, focused offering ?
Where's the leaderships supposed to do so ?

Rather than continue the line by line, which I could do until the cows come home but is of interest to no one, let me condense this back to the two central points you’re making.

First is leadership and product vision. I’m of the (strong) opinion that the view is always really good from the cheap seats. Apple is huge and has plenty of young talent from a large cross section of backgrounds. You think the lack of “innovation” is a problem of leadership. I think it’s an artifact of a now-boring product in a heavily commoditized industry. Whether Apple is or is not an “innovator” anymore is a judgment that can’t be made until years from now. If nothing comes in the next few years, then indeed there has been a corporate shift. But the jury is out.

As for “proportionally” I am talking about markup from teardown cost to MSRP. That markup has actually gone down with time while unit sales have gone up, as has revenue from other product lines (like services). If Apple made a cheaper phone and had lower prices, you’d be crucifying them even more for lack of “innovation.” You’ve painted them into a no-win situation.

 

[Bacillus]

Rather than continue the line by line, which I could do until the cows come home but is of interest to no one, let me condense this back to the two central points you’re making.
First is leadership and product vision. I’m of the (strong) opinion that the view is always really good from the cheap seats. Apple is huge and has plenty of young talent from a large cross section of backgrounds. You think the lack of “innovation” is a problem of leadership. I think it’s an artifact of a now-boring product in a heavily commoditized industry. Whether Apple is or is not an “innovator” anymore is a judgment that can’t be made until years from now. If nothing comes in the next few years, then indeed there has been a corporate shift. But the jury is out.
As for “proportionally” I am talking about markup from teardown cost to MSRP. That markup has actually gone down with time while unit sales have gone up, as has revenue from other product lines (like services). If Apple made a cheaper phone and had lower prices, you’d be crucifying them even more for lack of “innovation.” You’ve painted them into a no-win situation.

You're confusing root causes and consequences.
"an artifact of a now-boring product in a heavily commoditized industry" => not the cause of innovation lag, but a consequence.
In an boring or commoditized industry, it's only easier to distinguish themselves.
With plenty of talented engineers and designers, Apple proved it can attract enough talent out of the market. But the associated fruit somewhere stalls along the line and I pictured why.
So: offer a better perspective on that, or accept it.
Imagine how it must be to work for Joni - and to have your pilot designs denied for years.
Did you get to see anything from Marc Newson after he started to work for Apple ? Did his productivity go to zero ?
So go figure and start adding 1 to 1. Is it talent or leadership that is the problem ?

Now we're in 2019 and I can very well make this judgement over the specific period I did. Read & comment that instead of deferring.
There is no cheaper phone (because there is no way back in their rise on the premium-ladder) but as long as they are able to have healthy margins, there is ample product development possible.
Currently, there is even abundance of budgets, so what's your point ?
The limiting factor is inspiration, focus, courage to risk disruptive innovation at cost of current earnings, etc.

I am not putting them anywhere, they're doing everything themselves.
So I can only observe, get myself surprised and conclude - with substantiation
You still ignore profit externalisation & external wealth accumulation - hundreds of billions withdrawn from product development into real estate and external things that customers never asked for. What is your assessment on that ?
Without that, your picture is incomplete - hampering your assessment

 

[I7guy]

You're confusing root causes and consequences.
"an artifact of a now-boring product in a heavily commoditized industry" => not the cause of innovation lag, but a consequence.
In an boring or commoditized industry, it's only easier to distinguish themselves.
With plenty of talented engineers and designers, Apple proved it can attract enough talent out of the market. But the associated fruit somewhere stalls along the line and I pictured why.
So: offer a better perspective on that, or accept it.
Imagine how it must be to work for Joni - and to have your pilot designs denied for years.
Did you get to see anything from Marc Newson after he started to work for Apple ? Did his productivity go to zero ?
So go figure and start adding 1 to 1. Is it talent or leadership that is the problem ?

Now we're in 2019 and I can very well make this judgement over the specific period I did. Read & comment that instead of deferring.
There is no cheaper phone (because there is no way back in their rise on the premium-ladder) but as long as they are able to have healthy margins, there is ample product development possible.
Currently, there is even abundance of budgets, so what's your point ?
The limiting factor is inspiration, focus, courage to risk disruptive innovation at cost of current earnings, etc.

I am not putting them anywhere, they're doing everything themselves.
So I can only observe, get myself surprised and conclude - with substantiation
You still ignore profit externalisation & external wealth accumulation - hundreds of billions withdrawn from product development into real estate and external things that customers never asked for. What is your assessment on that ?
Without that, your picture is incomplete - hampering your assessment

I as well was wondering about the agendas here and the apparent cognitive dissonance with Apple mgmt.

You offer no proof there is not innovation at Apple only an opinion. Nobody has the last word on what innovation is or looks like.

Android adds more memory and a pop up flash and look at that, innovation! And the next question is why can’t apple add a pop up flash instead of the beastly notch?

Apple isn’t perfect, but in my belief they are run better than many here (and blogs) give them credit for. I don't see the board of directors firing Cook and replacing Cook with his greatest critics; some here on MR and all who know better than Cook how to run a large corporation.

One of the things the board is tasked to do is to look after the company, and they do that by hiring an appropriate CEO.

If that CEO believes certain expenses are warranted, I personally am okay with that especially if a longer term need is met.

Like you, I call ‘em as I see ‘em. But I (try to) keep the insults out of the conversation.

 

[burgman]

Long since past are those days I'm afraid.
Now its more 'buy the latest iToy so you can stay fashionable'. I'll pass on that noise.

How quickly do $900 Samsung flagships go on sale after release? Goth attitudes crack me up

 

[s15119]

No need for the salt. Stop defending them, the most successful company in the world does not need you as defendant.

The lineup IS a mess. That's not an opinion.
QUOTE]

It's actually an opinion. Saying it's not an opinion doesn't change anything. It's not a fact, it's a subjective opinion. One that is not shared by me. Oh, and I will defend anyone I like. I have no problem with the lineup.

 

[john123]

You're confusing root causes and consequences.
"an artifact of a now-boring product in a heavily commoditized industry" => not the cause of innovation lag, but a consequence.
In an boring or commoditized industry, it's only easier to distinguish themselves.
With plenty of talented engineers and designers, Apple proved it can attract enough talent out of the market. But the associated fruit somewhere stalls along the line and I pictured why.
So: offer a better perspective on that, or accept it.
Imagine how it must be to work for Joni - and to have your pilot designs denied for years.
Did you get to see anything from Marc Newson after he started to work for Apple ? Did his productivity go to zero ?
So go figure and start adding 1 to 1. Is it talent or leadership that is the problem ?

Now we're in 2019 and I can very well make this judgement over the specific period I did. Read & comment that instead of deferring.
There is no cheaper phone (because there is no way back in their rise on the premium-ladder) but as long as they are able to have healthy margins, there is ample product development possible.
Currently, there is even abundance of budgets, so what's your point ?
The limiting factor is inspiration, focus, courage to risk disruptive innovation at cost of current earnings, etc.

I am not putting them anywhere, they're doing everything themselves.
So I can only observe, get myself surprised and conclude - with substantiation
You still ignore profit externalisation & external wealth accumulation - hundreds of billions withdrawn from product development into real estate and external things that customers never asked for. What is your assessment on that ?
Without that, your picture is incomplete - hampering your assessment

I'm not confused about cause and effect. We merely disagree.

You offering one possibly hypothesis doesn't make your hypothesis right. I (based on both formal education and a career that's spanned finance, product development, and business strategy) proposed the alternative hypothesis that there's simply not a lot left to do—of a substantial, game-changing nature anyway. You've decided to reject that. You then ask me to prove a negative. If you're familiar with core tenets of logic, you know I can't do that—but that doesn't make my hypothesis wrong either.

The evidence supporting your theory is speculative and circumstantial at best. It is not causal.

You say, "hundreds of billions withdrawn from product development" -- please cite the sources showing a "withdrawal" of product R&D.

As for CapEx, this is pretty standard again for mature companies and especially those with lots of cash. You insist "customers never asked for" it. If you've really done product development, including studying the Jobs philosophy, then you should already know that customer-driven product development is an inferior model. What's the reason for that CapEx? What do they plan to do with these new facilities for the next 20 years? Unless you've been having secret dinner with Timmy and Jonny, you don't know either. You're just assuming it's pointless opulence.

Everything you write is assumption masquerading as "fact" and "substantiation," but when you break it down, it fails all logical tests. You've made an affirmative claim. The burden of proof rests on you, not me. Come back please when you have some.

 

[Bacillus]

I as well was wondering about the agendas here and the apparent cognitive dissonance with Apple mgmt.
You offer no proof there is not innovation at Apple only an opinion. Nobody has the last word on what innovation is or looks like....

There’s 17 product/categories and instances that are proven (see below), just 3 posts before yours (concentration span?)
I will not repeat them here as you will ignore it anyway. With a single search you can find countless others yourself. But you won’t because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
That prevents from any substantial discussion.
[doublepost=1547669966][/doublepost]

I'm not confused about cause and effect. We merely disagree.
You offering one possibly hypothesis doesn't make your hypothesis right. I (based on both formal education and a career that's spanned finance, product development, and business strategy) proposed the alternative hypothesis that there's simply not a lot left to do—of a substantial, game-changing nature anyway. You've decided to reject that. You then ask me to prove a negative. If you're familiar with core tenets of logic, you know I can't do that—but that doesn't make my hypothesis wrong either.
The evidence supporting your theory is speculative and circumstantial at best. It is not causal.
You say, "hundreds of billions withdrawn from product development" -- please cite the sources showing a "withdrawal" of product R&D.
As for CapEx, this is pretty standard again for mature companies and especially those with lots of cash. You insist "customers never asked for" it. If you've really done product development, including studying the Jobs philosophy, then you should already know that customer-driven product development is an inferior model. What's the reason for that CapEx? What do they plan to do with these new facilities for the next 20 years? Unless you've been having secret dinner with Timmy and Jonny, you don't know either. You're just assuming it's pointless opulence.
Everything you write is assumption masquerading as "fact" and "substantiation," but when you break it down, it fails all logical tests. You've made an affirmative claim. The burden of proof rests on you, not me. Come back please when you have some.

Those 17 product/categories and instances (where Apple got itself outpaced) are all well documented and can be found everywhere Apple blogs, on MR, Google, The Verge, Ars Technica.
You might find a couple more - if you would search or read independent (product)reviews.
That neither yourself nor i7guy want to follow the news (beyond Apple PR?) is your choice.
You must have been lying under a stone for 5 years to miss Apple’s disappointing wireless charging and Siri history. If else, come up with contrasting facts.
You are very, very confused if you take market conditions as an inhibiting factor for innovation at the by then wealthiest company in the world. That’s fluff in its purest form. As of Cook’s tenure, R&D budgets, patents, staffing, resources never have been limiting factors. And inspiration has to come from inside the company, so how can you get restricted by other’s mental inertia ?

Every financial I quoted can be found and checked in annual reports over the years.
Given your reactions, you probably didn’t read those (and probably even can’t without assistance)
Go Google for Apple/fiscal avoidance/premium premises/historic buildings to see what their scope of operation is (and what customers never asked for, as it comes at cost of things benefiting business)

Or either, remain uninformed.
I am not your secretary.

 

[I7guy]

There’s 17 product/categories and instances that are proven (see below), just 3 posts before yours (concentration span?)
I will not repeat them here as you will ignore it anyway. With a single search you can find countless others yourself. But you won’t because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
That prevents from any substantial discussion.
[doublepost=1547669966][/doublepost]
Those 17 product/categories and instances (where Apple got itself outpaced) are all well documented and can be found everywhere Apple blogs, on MR, Google, The Verge, Ars Technica.
You might find a couple more - if you would search or read independent (product)reviews.
That neither yourself nor i7guy want to follow the news (beyond Apple PR?) is your choice.
“For wireless charging we invested in 2013, to see it with other brands in 2015, and be glad to get it delivered by 2017“ => you must have been lying under a stone for 3 years to miss Apple’s disappointing wireless charging history over the years. Or come up with contrasting facts if else.
You are very, very confused if you take market conditions as an inhibiting factor for innovation at the, by then, wealthiest company in the world. That’s fluff in its purest form. As of Cook’s tenure, R&D budgets, patents, staffing, resources never have been a limiting factor. And inspiration has to come from inside the company, not from the market.

Every financial I quoted can be found and checked in annual reports over the years.
Given your reactions, you probably didn’t (and probably even can’t) read those without assistance.
Go Google for Apple/fiscal avoidance/premium premises/historic buildings to see what their scope of operation is (and what customers never asked for, as it comes at cost of things benefiting business)

Or remain uninformed.
I am not your secretary.

My agenda is Apple is doing fine and Cook is doing a good job. That however, doesn't fit your agenda. (And that isn't to say, Apple shouldn't improve in certain areas).

As for the rest of the manifesto, it's all subjective. Touch id is a perfect example. Apple was late to the party with a fingerprint reader, yet it changed the landscape of how a finger print reader should work.

Your statement regarding the building of new premises, that is subjective as there isn't any real proof other than other peoples subjective opinions. Additionally if Tim thinks new buildings benefit Apple in the long run, I'm behind him.

 

[Bacillus]

My agenda is Apple is doing fine and Cook is doing a good job. That however, doesn't fit your agenda. (And that isn't to say, Apple shouldn't improve in certain areas).

As for the rest of the manifesto, it's all subjective. Touch id is a perfect example. Apple was late to the party with a fingerprint reader, yet it changed the landscape of how a finger print reader should work.

Your statement regarding the building of new premises, that is subjective as there isn't any real proof other than other peoples subjective opinions. Additionally if Tim thinks new buildings benefit Apple in the long run, I'm behind him.

For you, let’s pray that papa Tim won’t fall off the fence anytime soon. You may fall into a state of complete mental disorientation
(disclaimer: subjective opinion)

 

[I7guy]

For you, let’s pray that papa Tim won’t fall off the fence anytime soon. You may fall into a state of complete mental disorientation
(disclaimer: subjective opinion)

Nah, I’m only discussing from my (subjective) viewpoint and believe there is more right than Apple than wrong. (Again, Not to say there is more room for improvement)

 

[john123]

There’s 17 product/categories and instances that are proven (see below), just 3 posts before yours (concentration span?)
I will not repeat them here as you will ignore it anyway. With a single search you can find countless others yourself. But you won’t because it doesn’t fit your agenda.
That prevents from any substantial discussion.
[doublepost=1547669966][/doublepost]
Those 17 product/categories and instances (where Apple got itself outpaced) are all well documented and can be found everywhere Apple blogs, on MR, Google, The Verge, Ars Technica.
You might find a couple more - if you would search or read independent (product)reviews.
That neither yourself nor i7guy want to follow the news (beyond Apple PR?) is your choice.
You must have been lying under a stone for 5 years to miss Apple’s disappointing wireless charging and Siri history. If else, come up with contrasting facts.
You are very, very confused if you take market conditions as an inhibiting factor for innovation at the by then wealthiest company in the world. That’s fluff in its purest form. As of Cook’s tenure, R&D budgets, patents, staffing, resources never have been limiting factors. And inspiration has to come from inside the company, so how can you get restricted by other’s mental inertia ?

Every financial I quoted can be found and checked in annual reports over the years.
Given your reactions, you probably didn’t read those (and probably even can’t without assistance)
Go Google for Apple/fiscal avoidance/premium premises/historic buildings to see what their scope of operation is (and what customers never asked for, as it comes at cost of things benefiting business)

Or either, remain uninformed.
I am not your secretary.

One of us has an MBA from a top 3 university.

Have fun with your ad hominems. I’m sure they will take you far in life.

 

[Bacillus]

One of us has an MBA from a top 3 university.
Have fun with your ad hominems. I’m sure they will take you far in life.

That degree didn’t help you in missing 25+ opportunities to counterargue or otherwise engage in reviving a boring industry.
Shrugging shoulders instead.

Never mind.
I am where I want to be (w/o referring to my MBA), thx for the concern

About key innovation

while this is what Tim pretends to do for you, as a customer

 

[john123]

That degree didn’t help you in missing 25+ opportunities to counterargue or otherwise engage in reviving a boring industry.
Shrugging shoulders instead.

Never mind.
I am where I want to be (w/o referring to my MBA), thx for the concern

About key innovation

while this is what Tim pretends to do for you, as a customer

View attachment 816138

Quite the contrary. It did that quite well (not that I wasn't excellent at it before, mind you). You chose to gloss over the substance of what I said previously. Sometimes I will repeat myself for the benefit of the masses on here, usually when it comes to specific facts and statistics.

It also helped me better understand the intransigence of stubborn people with an agenda. It's nearly impossible to change the mind of someone engaged in emotional reasoning, so unless I'm getting a kick out of it, I generally speaking don't bother anymore.

I see you fixed your signature typo. Well done! I think when you get a little older, you'll find that attention to detail is very important to success.

(P.S. If you really do have an MBA, I suggest you go back and review your notes from any marketing and finance classes about the value of "brand equity." No, really, do it. Yeah....)

 

[scottinlexky]

Went to the CrApple store today to have my phone's battery checked and possibly replaced. The rather joyful, and helpful apple genius told me it would be a waste to add 6% battery life to my phone, but at the current trade in value would make more sense to jump to an XR. Not today apple gal.

 

[Spizike9]

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)

Carrier subsidies were in effect but I’m just talking purely MSRP to MSRP. Obviously I don’t know a ton about components costs but I see the screen and Face ID sensor being some of their biggest costs. Still I don’t see the reason for $649 base model flagship phone to $999 base model flagship phone price increase.
[doublepost=1547776487][/doublepost]

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.)

Thanks for the spelling/vocabulary lesson.


So batteries, RAM, flash memory, speakers, lightening ports cost MORE than they did 6 years ago? I highly doubt it. Most of the components cost less now than they did back but there are some pieces that cost more like OLED vs LCD. Still they haven’t increased their base flagship phone component cost $350 in that time. You’re the exact type of consumer that Tim WAS hoping for when thy started increasing the prices of the phones. As sales are showing I’m not wrong in my thought process.

 

[john123]

So batteries, RAM, flash memory, speakers, lightening ports cost MORE than they did 6 years ago? I highly doubt it. Most of the components cost less now than they did back but there are some pieces that cost more like OLED vs LCD. Still they haven’t increased their base flagship phone component cost $350 in that time. You’re the exact type of consumer that Tim WAS hoping for when thy started increasing the prices of the phones. As sales are showing I’m not wrong in my thought process.

No, but the rest of it costs more. Teardown costs of the iPhone X at launch were about $370. The iPhone 5S had a teardown cost of $200.

That means the teardown-to-MSRP markup on the iPhone X was 2.7X, while on the iPhone 5S it was a whopping 3.25x. The iPhone XS and XS Max numbers are similar to the X numbers.

And hey, since you want to talk about sales, let's look at the numbers:
2019Q1: $84 billion (guidance)
2018 Q1: $88 billion
2017 Q1: $78 billion
2016 Q1: $75 billion
2015 Q1: $74 billion
2014 Q1: $58 billion
2013 Q1: $55 billion

Looks like with those "overpriced" phones, Apple's doing quite well for itself.

And before someone tries the, "well it's all services revenue" or similar nonsense:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/

Damn, I love cold hard facts.

 

[john123]

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.

Going back a few days here, but am I the only one who doesn’t mind a chin? The biggest thing I’ve found I don’t like about the X series after playing with them for a while isn’t the lack of a home button. It’s how tough it is to reliably swipe up from the bottom since you have to get it juuuust right.

Is that something you folks got used to relatively quickly and isn’t an issue? Does the choice of case matter? It’s actually the #1 concern for me. I think I can live with everything else.

 

[Spizike9]

No, but the rest of it costs more. Teardown costs of the iPhone X at launch were about $370. The iPhone 5S had a teardown cost of $200.

That means the teardown-to-MSRP markup on the iPhone X was 2.7X, while on the iPhone 5S it was a whopping 3.25x. The iPhone XS and XS Max numbers are similar to the X numbers.

And hey, since you want to talk about sales, let's look at the numbers:
2019Q1: $84 billion (guidance)
2018 Q1: $88 billion
2017 Q1: $78 billion
2016 Q1: $75 billion
2015 Q1: $74 billion
2014 Q1: $58 billion
2013 Q1: $55 billion

Looks like with those "overpriced" phones, Apple's doing quite well for itself.

And before someone tries the, "well it's all services revenue" or similar nonsense:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/

Damn, I love cold hard facts.

You mean people are actually buying iPhones and Apple is still growing as a company? [sarcasm] Most people I know that have been die hard upgrade people did not upgrade this year because the prices have gotten so high. Not to mention all the people that I speak to on a daily basis at work. Apple isn’t doomed but the day of them selling new phones to people just to have the latest and greatest is over.

 

[john123]

You mean people are actually buying iPhones and Apple is still growing as a company? [sarcasm] Most people I know that have been die hard upgrade people did not upgrade this year because the prices have gotten so high. Not to mention all the people that I speak to on a daily basis at work. Apple isn’t doomed but the day of them selling new phones to people just to have the latest and greatest is over.

Everything you typed speaks to the people you know. It says nothing whatsoever about Apple. The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

The numbers speak for themselves.

 

[Spizike9]

Everything you typed speaks to the people you know. It says nothing whatsoever about Apple. The plural of “anecdote” is not “data.”

The numbers speak for themselves.

You are right. I do know I’m only speaking on my first hand experience and realize it’s a sample of 1. However...
You are right. The numbers speak for themselves. Assembly plants cutting jobs way earlier than normal and Apple cutting forcasts. Seems kind of telling to me.

 

[I7guy]

...Just don't. Maybe I should have stated: other brands deliver first because of Apple's wait and see attitude before "adopting":
(speaking of OLED, batt technology, foldables, Touch notebooks, converts, hi-res camera's, RAM, SSD's, Music, News, Media services, headphones, charging mats, Wifi speakers, fitness, self-driving vehicles, cab/taxi/automotive)
What my eyes roll over from: this variety of unrelated, non-exclusive, merely late initiatives that seem to divert attention from core issues/products.

What you seem to ignore: how to integrate, provision and merchandise this perplexing collection of things into a consistent, focused offering ?
Where's the leaderships supposed to do so ?

Which one brand has delivered on each an every item you mentioned that can be had by the consumer?

 

[john123]

You are right. I do know I’m only speaking on my first hand experience and realize it’s a sample of 1. However...
You are right. The numbers speak for themselves. Assembly plants cutting jobs way earlier than normal and Apple cutting forcasts. Seems kind of telling to me.

I already pasted the quarterly numbers for the past several years. $84 billion is absurd. When someone takes a little bit off an absurd number, that doesn't mean the sky is falling. It just means the absurd number is ever-so-slightly-less-absurd.

This really should be common sense.

 

[HippyRabbitFish]

I didn't get an e-mail (apparently iPhone 4 is too old to warrant the e-mail), but I finally bit the bullet on replacing my iPhone 4. I was sold on battery life and the BOGO deal through my carrier. My SO was getting one, anyway, and told me she was getting one for me, so I should pick one out.

I'll miss being able to put my iPhone 4 in my back pocket without worrying about it breaking or falling out.

 

[Spizike9]

I already pasted the quarterly numbers for the past several years. $84 billion is absurd. When someone takes a little bit off an absurd number, that doesn't mean the sky is falling. It just means the absurd number is ever-so-slightly-less-absurd.

This really should be common sense.

It is common sense. Never once did I say the sky was falling. The only thing I ever said is Apple’s new phones are priced higher than they should be and based on lower than expected sales numbers it’s clear the market has also decided that. Apple is still a great company and I will continue to buy their tech. I just won’t as frequently as I used to due to the price increases.