If rumors are to be believed, apple's AR / VR goggles are only a few months away. Could be truly special, even if they're not affordable.
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.
Gurman: Apple Considering New High-End iPhone Alongside Pro and Pro Max
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't understand what people are finding so complicated about the iPhone lineup. Samsung's lineup by comparison has 2 or 3 times as many models and I don't see people complaining about that as much.
iPhones will need as much processing power as they can get if we are going to use them with the AR goggles. People will want to run the full adobe suite on the goggles. There could be no limit to the price of future iPhones. $50,000 for one with 300GB of RAM and more processing power than any Mac sold today.
They might put M3 and thunderbolt, so that I can hook the iPhone up on a display and use it like iPadOS (the touchscreen on iPhone acts as a trackpad and pop-up keyboard or connect a external one) 😂
Apple has reached the absolute pricing ceiling for the Pro line of phones especially in Europe and the UK.
They know any further increase on them will totally tank their sales in these countries.
So they are now trying to create a ridiculous Ultra tier just so that they can continue to increase prices.
They know any further increase on them will totally tank their sales in these countries.
So they are now trying to create a ridiculous Ultra tier just so that they can continue to increase prices.
Last edited:
Greedy! Why not include all that nonsense in regular Pro model?
Hope you fail, Apple! Soulless and greedy.
What will consumers do? Will they boycott that model because Apple is playing them for fools? Of course not.
Hope you fail, Apple! Soulless and greedy.
What will consumers do? Will they boycott that model because Apple is playing them for fools? Of course not.
I'm a bit late to this particular party, but as someone who doesn't buy Pro iPhones the introduction of yet another tier of iPhone makes me wonder how attractive Apple will be able to keep the regular line up.
The base iPhone used to be the one that got all the new stuff, while Apple kept an older model around to sell at a cheaper price. Then they added the SE, which was basically the same phone in a different form factor. They slowly started to fragment the Pro and temporarily give it exclusive features that would eventually trickle down to the base iPhone. The iPhone 14 introduced even more fragmentation by reusing last year's chip, which means the base is a sort of halfway house that's almost an iPhone 13.
If you add in an Ultra, depending on how Apple plays it, this could mean that the base iPhone is even more behind the curve than it already is in some respects. On the one hand, Apple could truly set it apart and create a new product category that's differentiated by features that you'd never expect to come to the base models and thus wouldn't constrain them -- that could be a pen like on the Samsung Ultras or it could be a foldable. But that would fragment iOS in a way that no previous model has done and I'm not sure Apple is willing to go down that way.
So, on the other hand, their general approach would suggest that the Ultra could be yet another piece of the ladder that's supposed to upsell you while providing the exact same iPhone experience as every other model. That's great for shareholders, I guess, but for us regular iPhone users it probably means that we have to wait even longer for certain improvements. This might work out for Apple and push people to "really stretch," as Tim Cooks expects, or it might push people elsewhere unless the competition equally pushes prices endlessly.
The base iPhone used to be the one that got all the new stuff, while Apple kept an older model around to sell at a cheaper price. Then they added the SE, which was basically the same phone in a different form factor. They slowly started to fragment the Pro and temporarily give it exclusive features that would eventually trickle down to the base iPhone. The iPhone 14 introduced even more fragmentation by reusing last year's chip, which means the base is a sort of halfway house that's almost an iPhone 13.
If you add in an Ultra, depending on how Apple plays it, this could mean that the base iPhone is even more behind the curve than it already is in some respects. On the one hand, Apple could truly set it apart and create a new product category that's differentiated by features that you'd never expect to come to the base models and thus wouldn't constrain them -- that could be a pen like on the Samsung Ultras or it could be a foldable. But that would fragment iOS in a way that no previous model has done and I'm not sure Apple is willing to go down that way.
So, on the other hand, their general approach would suggest that the Ultra could be yet another piece of the ladder that's supposed to upsell you while providing the exact same iPhone experience as every other model. That's great for shareholders, I guess, but for us regular iPhone users it probably means that we have to wait even longer for certain improvements. This might work out for Apple and push people to "really stretch," as Tim Cooks expects, or it might push people elsewhere unless the competition equally pushes prices endlessly.
So I have a 12 Pro that has been a great phone for me overall, but I admittedly spent more on it than I probably should have. However, just this morning due to bugs (I guess?) my Spotify would not play any of my songs on CarPlay during my morning commute. This has happened previously and the only way to fix is to force quit the app on the phone itself and then try to reopen. I was driving so didn't bother. I also was unable to order my coffee using the Panera app with CarPlay, it could not find my location for some reason. Overall I'm still happy with the phone, but definitely cannot see myself paying over 1k for a new phone that will likely have these same or similar bugs/issues in the future. I'm not a pro photographer and don't believe I would see any better of an experience with the Pro Ultra Max.
How about sitting on a train or park bench with a 50k phone while blinding yourself with 5k goggles?
I'm a shareholder, and yes, it is embarrassing.Not embarrassing the shareholders though
No, it's market segmentation. Let's say you have 3 features, A, B, and C, that appeal to 3 different customer types. You could make a phone with just A and sell it to A customers for a euro. You could make a phone with A, B, and C and sell it to B and C customers for 2 euros; netting 5 euros. However, if C customers would pay 3 euros you could sell an AB 2 euro phone to B customers and a 3 euro C phone to C customers; netting 6 euros. That's why segementing products by features that can command difference price points makes sense.
You must like living dangerously knowing a lost phone potentially means losing all your photos.
Then again I'm paranoid about backups and do multiple ones on different clouds/drives after, years ago, I took my company laptop to IT to fix a minor problem, reminded them the HD was dual partitioned and was assured all would be backed up before fixing it. Got it back and sure enough, all the files on the second partition were lost and all IT could say was "Sorry."
You simply don't understand Apples philosophy - or at least you do not understand Apples philosophy when Steve led the company.
Simplicity or KISS is on of the basic principles of Apple. That is why the iPhone had only ONE button, the "Homebutton" - while Android needed at least three buttons to achieve the same functionality.
Also Steve (and its customers) hated a huge line of products. On stage he used to say things like "we simply call it the iPhone". Also, when Steve returned to Apple, he removed 90% of the products. Apple also used to implement only 80% of all the possible features, but those features ... they "just works". This was the "think different" compared to other companies and products.
TC cares only about money, not the products. Features are a way to sell more devices, but too many features kill the simplicity and usability. In the meantime iOS is a feature hell and most people probably use only 20% of the features. TC just sells the things Jobs "invented" but he is unable to drive innovations himself.
Tim Cook makes lots of money, but in the end he will kill Apple ...
Last edited:
apples philosophy about everything Steve when Steve led the company is irrelevant in the about 12 years Tim Cook has been in charge. Yes, some core principles remain, but shift happens.
I understand people are still stuck in the Steve years but time to move on. Apple is doing great under Tim. It’s not that they are too big to fail, but they are now too smart to fail.
VR hype is completely gone. No one wants wear a helmet all day. I doubt Apple will be able to change this with an Apple only $3000 VR device.If rumors are to be believed, apple's AR / VR goggles are only a few months away. Could be truly special, even if they're not affordable.
Apple and Steve Jobs were the same thing. TC moves on, but the wrong way. He didn't understand Jobs.
The above is illogical. What is not good for customers is NOT, I repeat, is NOT good for shareholders. People here act like apple sales are guaranteed. They aren’t guaranteed. Apple has to give their customers what they want.
It's not to you, but it is to me. So yes, it is embarrassing to some shareholders.
Of course he didn’t. He took apple in a different way that SJ evangelists don’t like…is my observation.
I definitely don’t expect people who do t like “this new apple” to hold onto their shares. Why hold onto shares when the company “is embarrassing “. At any rate we all are entitled to our opinions.