Right now you aren’t required to upgrade but most people do upgrade within 4 years or so, because the new OS doesn’t work in their phone after 4 years or so. iPads are the same, and laptops and desktops last a few years more but eventually you can’t upgrade them either. And although you can keep using them you frequently can’t upgrade software and any security flaws discovered won’t get patched, although sometimes the patches work for a year or two beyond the OS limitation.
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.
Combined Hardware-Software Subscription Bundles a Logical Step for Apple, Analysts Argue
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Right now you aren’t required to upgrade but most people do upgrade within 4 years or so, because the new OS doesn’t work in their phone after 4 years or so. iPads are the same, and laptops and desktops last a few years more but eventually you can’t upgrade them either. And although you can keep using them you frequently can’t upgrade software and any security flaws discovered won’t get patched, although sometimes the patches work for a year or two beyond the OS limitation.
I'm sure some Intel Macs are feeling obsolete compared to the M1 macs.
I can’t imagine Apple will go all in on this, but if they do it might be the one thing that makes me reconsider my tech choices. This type of approach is aimed at the market segment that feels the need to always be “current”. I’m not in that segment for any of Apples products any more— the incremental utility benefit from generation to generation of hardware, for my uses, is small compared to the hassle of changing devices.
Everything I use from Apple is a few years old already and cost isn’t the reason I’m not updating. I simply don’t need to and thus don’t want to.
Maybe this makes sense for enterprise customers and applications where every ounce of performance matters.
It also gives Apple more incentive to slow down the hardware update cycle since they’re getting paid without needing to encourage users to keep buying new things.
The environmental risk would be if this encourages more frequent updates to the point that the increased turnover exceeds the benefit of Apple retrieving the obsolete hardware.
Everything I use from Apple is a few years old already and cost isn’t the reason I’m not updating. I simply don’t need to and thus don’t want to.
Maybe this makes sense for enterprise customers and applications where every ounce of performance matters.
Yep. So many people want to say the answer is to sell crappier stuff faster, and Apple keeps proving that the money is in selling better stuff that people can rely on.
Nothing goes to landfill, it all goes back to the source giving Apple control of the waste management chain. Environmentally, this works out well for the same people that frequent upgrades work out well for if it doesn‘t change people’s upgrade behavior. It would also further encourage Apple to design their products in a way that makes them easier to recycle if they know that they’ll now be responsible for accepting all of the end of life products.
It also gives Apple more incentive to slow down the hardware update cycle since they’re getting paid without needing to encourage users to keep buying new things.
The environmental risk would be if this encourages more frequent updates to the point that the increased turnover exceeds the benefit of Apple retrieving the obsolete hardware.
My new car is 11 years old. My old car is 16 years old. My really old car is 54 years old (1976). All run and I expect them to keep doing so. And I owe nothing on any of them.
This is the argument against any form of vertical integration, which Apple has been doing quite successfully.
I want you to think of the ways this would benefit Apple.
Indeed, especially if you factor in all the iPad peripherals (keyboard, pencil) that you cannot normally give back to Apple.
To be fair, there aren't values to look at when buying the phone originally. Apple usually doesn't post trade-in prices until the next release (I think). Also, getting rid of an old iPhone isn't a lengthy process in my experience. Within minutes of posting, I typically have 5-10 potential buyers.
True but most people are done paying their phone off around the 2 year mark and can turn around and resell it. The most you can get from Apple for an iPhone XS trade in is $300. You can easily sell that for more than that. Same with older phones. So to me it makes sense to pay it off and sell it yourself, but I 100% can see the convenience of not having to worry about an unknown person online.
A lot of people don't even own their cars like that these days (at least in the UK). They finance them via either just a lease, or PCP where they own it but end up with a huge payment at the end.
Not all countries have property tax, also I assume you've never heard of homestead protections?
Subscriptions are turning into serfdom. I'll continue to own my physical property thanks.
Not all consumers want regular upgrades, they will feel it is unnecessarily forced, more over they may end up paying subscription for the software if they have to keep upgrading the ecosystem. Not sure whether many App Store or otherwise stand alone software tools could support older versions in the newer hardware all the time. Hope this won't be made to replace out right purchase.
It's always going to be hard to figure out what the better way to do this is. Obviously, having the newest thing all the time is cool, but at what price.
For Apple One, I had a hard time figuring out if it made sense for me based on what I knew I used (or wanted to use). I couldn't find anything that easily figured it out for me, so I built my own thing.
www.bravoitc.com
For Apple One, I had a hard time figuring out if it made sense for me based on what I knew I used (or wanted to use). I couldn't find anything that easily figured it out for me, so I built my own thing.
Apple One | Bravo IT Consulting, San Carlos, CA
Personalized training, IT Support and professionally built Web sites and hosting solution from Frank Bravo and Bravo IT Consulting.
When they were developing the first iPhone, Steve originally wanted Apple to become their own carrier as he honestly did not trust any of the Big Four to deliver the customer experience that he wanted to provide on it. However, given the amount of cash that Apple had back in the day as well as legal hurdles involved to create one from scratch, plus Apple's lack of expertise in the industry at that time, he abandoned that idea.
When he realized that they HAD to go with one of the carriers for the iPhone, he went to Verizon first, but the fact they wanted to pre-load their crapware onto iPhone just like they did on all other phones sold through them did not sit well with Steve; up to the point that he walked away and went to AT&T instead, who was doing the very same thing with the phones they sold, but agreed not to do on iPhone.
However, with the cash Apple has today, they just might make that happen.
Last edited:
I agree. It would be interesting if a software bundle came into play with the hardware purchase, that could maybe sway me. I just hope that by turning it into a subscription service, that we still have the ability to buy it outright. And that the prices don’t go up (hidden behind a subscription where nobody really can tell they went up in price)
I’ve probably been one of the best “analysts” of Apple the last 6 years.
My analysis has been simple.
Cook is the best CEO in the world.
Trust in Apple’s management to make great decisions.
The buyback is extremely powerful and a catalyst for the shares.
Apple’s financial position is without equal.
Buy shares on any dip.
Profit.
Analysts throw stuff out all the time. This may indeed happen, or it may not, but Apple has already thought about it and will implement it it’s a good decision and won’t if it’s not.
My analysis has been simple.
Cook is the best CEO in the world.
Trust in Apple’s management to make great decisions.
The buyback is extremely powerful and a catalyst for the shares.
Apple’s financial position is without equal.
Buy shares on any dip.
Profit.
Analysts throw stuff out all the time. This may indeed happen, or it may not, but Apple has already thought about it and will implement it it’s a good decision and won’t if it’s not.
Nah. No way this happens.
Just going off my gut instinct and it’s been pretty right in the past with Apple. If it does happen I’ll be…disappointed.
EDIT: Two minutes later…this could just be an evolution of their upgrade program with iPhone. Extending it to other devices and bundling their services (which they’ve made clear are their top priority right now…said as I watch Hulu PIP and an ATV+ commercial comes on!). Maybe they will do it.
Isn’t “gut instinct” a funny thing?
Just going off my gut instinct and it’s been pretty right in the past with Apple. If it does happen I’ll be…disappointed.
EDIT: Two minutes later…this could just be an evolution of their upgrade program with iPhone. Extending it to other devices and bundling their services (which they’ve made clear are their top priority right now…said as I watch Hulu PIP and an ATV+ commercial comes on!). Maybe they will do it.
Isn’t “gut instinct” a funny thing?
Aaaaaaand this is how you make 100%+ returns…right there with ya.
Let’s focus on fixing the Apple Upgrade Program first.
It could be a better experience for consumers: making AppleCare optional rather than mandatory could help make it a better deal more in-line with doing Apple iPhone Payments, and there should be a consistent release schedule. Consumers either end up paying too much or too little if an iPhone is released earlier/later than the previous year. I wouldn’t like to make additional payments on a phone just because next year’s phone is delayed.
For all of those reasons and more even though I would have been the ideal consumer for a program like this having owned every iPhone up until iPhone X, I don’t find the Apple Upgrade Program to be appealing.
It could be a better experience for consumers: making AppleCare optional rather than mandatory could help make it a better deal more in-line with doing Apple iPhone Payments, and there should be a consistent release schedule. Consumers either end up paying too much or too little if an iPhone is released earlier/later than the previous year. I wouldn’t like to make additional payments on a phone just because next year’s phone is delayed.
For all of those reasons and more even though I would have been the ideal consumer for a program like this having owned every iPhone up until iPhone X, I don’t find the Apple Upgrade Program to be appealing.
Multi tier subscriptions Including Services, Software and Hardware...
Id subscribe in a heart beat.
Id subscribe in a heart beat.