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.
iPhone 15 Pro Max Likely to Start at $1,199 to $1,299, Says Analyst
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It may be better they increase the price for Pro Range by $200, So $1199 for Pro and $1299 for Pro Max and start with 256GB.
iPhone 15 starts at the same $799 and iPhone 15 Plus at $899, 256 adds $100 on top for $899 and $999.
So a $300 Price Gap between Normal and Pro Range. Sounds reasonably Apple.
The group who are buying Pro will likely not care about the $300 difference anyway. Especially those who buy them with 24 months payment.
iPhone 15 starts at the same $799 and iPhone 15 Plus at $899, 256 adds $100 on top for $899 and $999.
So a $300 Price Gap between Normal and Pro Range. Sounds reasonably Apple.
The group who are buying Pro will likely not care about the $300 difference anyway. Especially those who buy them with 24 months payment.
Someone may have already said this.
The original iPhone in 2007 sold for $499.
Adjusted for inflation that’s $730 today.
So $799 for the iPhone 15 seems very reasonable given the improvements made since the original.
Whether the extra features of the other new iPhone models is worth it is up to you.
The original iPhone in 2007 sold for $499.
Adjusted for inflation that’s $730 today.
So $799 for the iPhone 15 seems very reasonable given the improvements made since the original.
Whether the extra features of the other new iPhone models is worth it is up to you.
Highly unlikely. Apple seems to at least somewhat use pre-sales tax U.S. pricing (in USD) to gauge pre-VAT pricing in Europe (€ or £). Based on the current exchange rates (which may be different in September) and assuming the pre-sales tax starting price of the 15 Pro does increase to $1,099 in the U.S., I would imagine the pre-VAT € starting price in Spain (and other countries) will be about the same as it was for the 14 Pro which is far less than 1,700 euros.
This is specifically about Apple pricing not Apple pricing plus potential sales tax or VAT.
This is true, although it is also true that Apple dropped iPhone prices by $200 less than three months after launch.
However, it is also worth noting that those early iPhone prices were with a 2 year AT&T contract. Today's prices don't have any contract obligations.
If the 15 pro price increases the 16 pro isn't going to decrease in price...
Oh, fabulous! Because what the iPhone really needed was to be even pricier. This is the feature I’ve been waiting for. The wait is over! 🙄
Its not just the cost. It's the cost + increased margins. You think they raised the prices to only cover the increased cost of production? I don't think soooooooo. Do better on your examples because most are directly related to corporate greed and not to benefit the consumer. Especially the USB-C one
Courage!
I’m sure the number of people buying a new iPhone every year has dropped because £/$1200-1400 every year is no longer sustainable for many.
What an awful take
1. You think Apple should just increase prices to keep margins precisely flat? What so iPhones instead should cost $1,044.12?
2. When you increase prices, people flock over to lower priced (and therefore lower margin) phones. Loss of profits/revenue must be made up from somewhere. Apple has departments to figure this out and knows the price elasticity of their many of their customers.
3. You think costs and margins are going to be the same next year? What if Apple wants to add a 4th camera next year? A periscope camera? Double base storage? If costs are not the same next year, then from a PR perspective, does it make sense to increase prices every year? Apple doesn't.
Apple targets similar margins averaging across many years, not just one, to prevent many price increases. It's impossible to keep margins exactly flat as Apple doesn't have a crystal ball.
Apple thought this through. Do better next time.
Last edited:
Yep. It's funny when people compare iPhones to Androids when they don't realize Androids make you update in 3 years instead of 5. Keeping an iPhone for 5 years is cheaper than keeping an Android for 3 years
For me and seemingly billions others we don’t care about corporate greed or increased margins.
We look at the product and price and determine if this product is worth purchasing at this cost.
This discussion is getting interesting. So...
In regards to Pixel: sure, these are quite different phones, but it's kinda obvious that Apple's margins are much higher. Oh, and I bet $800 iPhone 15 will keep using slow and laggy 60 Hz screens that are unreadable in motion, on par with $150 Xiaomi phones.
Even Google allows for self-repair nowadays, being a small startup from Palo Alto that ships less than 10m phones per quarter and has no own manufacturing. If they can achieve that, then anyone else can. It's not even about infrastructure; Apple should simply stop serialising parts and restricting sales of chips they use, everything else will happen on its own. It costs zero to do that. Nil. Nothing.
But they deliberately chose not to; again, to screw their customers, because Tim doesn't really likes phones that easily last 5+ years, and because they want to destroy the planet, probably?..
Only a single publisher done that. And I'm certain that nobody wants to leave the App Store and Google Play; they simply want to provide option to install non-store-linked version of app that has 30% less prices on whatever digital goods they're selling.
And they have more protections in place, especially in latest versions, so the malware problem is basically non-existent at this point. Rare occurrences of illiterate individuals downloading stuff from warez websites and getting infected are a 100% worthwhile trade-off of everyone else enjoying freedom of using an actual useable and capable portable computing device instead of boring useless calculator which iPhone currently is.
Mobile apps don't have dependencies, so it won't be a problem. Though I think it would be nice to introduce them in order to keep binary sizes down...
I mean... I know how it works but I couldn't care less about capitalism and its practices. Charging cables cost less than $1 in production, they're incredibly cheap. Removing them from box forces people to buy them at retail price with 2000% markup. Unless you own Apple stock, please stop supporting these garbage practices.
And even if you do own Apple stock; we should strive to make the world a better place, aren't we? And in the better world, phone comes with charging cable in the box that connects to standardized plugs, period.
I'm daily driving both iPhone XS and Pixel 5. I won't be using Pixel if iPhone had sideloading. Or I won't be using iPhone if Apple finally makes iCloud apps for Android. Whichever comes first.
It does, and knock-off lightning to 3.5 mm adapters indeed work via USB Audio protocol. Still, the only device that I can't plug my USB headset into is the iPhone. It's kinda baffling to open computer every time I want to make a call on which I want to be heard perfectly clear; something I can't achieve with iPhone. Until iPhone 15...
Even for Apple ecosystem, Lightning is the cancer that made everything worse and less convenient. You can't plug MacBook charger into your phone. You can't plug your EarPods into MacBook. You can't charge Beats Studio Pro and AirPods Max with same cable. You have different 3.5 mm adapters for iPhone and iPad. This is such a stupid limitation, such non-Apple-ish way; you can't possibly be in favour of it?
You have it backwards.
People have been holding on to their smartphones longer and upgrading less for years. Apple’s response to this is higher prices, more accessories and more services, which is the correct one.
Their trade-in programme helps lower the final price of an iPhone, while providing Apple with a steady stream of gently-used iPhones that they can refurbish and resell in the gray market. You also have instalment plans to help make iPhones more affordable to a wider demographic of consumers.
People don’t have to buy the most expensive iPhones either, as Apple also offers a variety of cheaper alternatives. So the idea that Apple is greedy simply because consumers can no longer afford their most costly offering simply does not hold water.
A higher price is less of a deal when users are intending to hold on to their phones for 3-4 years (or longer). That’s why Apple is also making their phones out of more durable materials (metal and glass) and offering battery replacement services as well.
Because of the sheer number of active iPhone users today (well over 1 billion), even a slower pace of upgrading still works out to well over 200 million iPhones sold every year. The problem isn’t whether Apple can sell enough iPhones, but if they are capable of supplying that many!
Third, Apple doesn’t need you to keep buying iPhones, they just need you to keep using them, thanks to their ecosystem. Apple earns when you buy accessories like the Apple Watch or AirPods, when you purchase an app or subscribe to their services, and even when you make a transaction via Apple Pay.
People really need to look beyond the selling price of an iPhone when evaluating Apple today. That’s an advantage many android OEMs don’t have, which is why Apple can afford to do what it does, while they can’t.
Obviously but I don't understand the point you're trying to make. Are you saying that if one company has 5% margins, Apple should lower their 30% margin to match 5% margin?
And you'll vote with your wallet on which phone you prefer.
And modular phones exist too.
And Google gave up on their modular phone efforts. So why don't all phones be super modular so that you won't have to buy a new phone if you want a better camera?
Seriously this argument that all phones should water down their designs and business decisions to the lowest common denominator for the sake of supposedly "pro consumer" is ridiculous.
Only one single publisher was flushed with hundreds millions of dollars in profit per quarter from a single game that's not even their core product was able to risk being banned from both stores. And Epic Games core product is their engine which so far is not banned from both developer programs.
Once it is allowed under the rules of the store, forcibly, more companies will follow and force millions of customers to install many stores. So no, I don't believe they simply want to provide an option. 30% means extra hundreds of millions per year for Activision from candy crush alone.
Doesn't mean anything with respect to which platform is more secure. No third party app in iOS has full disk access for example.
There was a major Mac app developer who accidentally distributed infected copies. The malicious copy stole all the user's password including the 1Password vault because of the wide access of files by this app. Luckily notorization is able to shut down this copy but not after infecting some customers.
iOS apps don't have access outside the sandbox.
So to say Mac is more secure is practically false.
Well if you use a package manager, to cut down on size, an app will dynamically link libraries which will involve dependencies.
You don't care, but Apple is a publicly traded company so they have to care. So I have no idea what you're arguing about anymore.
You're basically asking Apple to be a charity at this point. Never going to happen.
Nope. I have 30+ lightning cables. Most veteran iPhone users have it too. Removing a lightning cable from the box is better for the environment and opens the budget for other features.
I support logical practices.
Yes, stop including cables with the box. It makes the box bigger, heavier, uses more carbon emissions just to get you the phone to which you already likely have a cable for anyways.
However, switching to usb-c means it's less likely the average iPhone user has a cable so now Apple has to continue including cables for the next several years instead of removing it.
Great? Don't really see the relevance.
Niche feature at this point. World is going wireless for casual listening.
I can't plug MagSafe into my future iPhone with usb-c either.
I absolutely can.
The people who want to charge Beats Studio Pro and AirPods Max with the same cable is likely <1% of all Apple customers.
Sounds like we need to delete 3.5mm entirely as it's not a good port to support in the future.[/QUOTE]
I agree. But even if Apple didn't think it through, and priced the increase frivolously, so what: either we buy the phone or we don't buy the phone; no one's holding a gun to our head.
Subjectivity of value.
Tripsync, you know, we're probably arguing with children here who are way past their bedtimes. Just hit the Igrone button.
Last edited:
TheYayAreaLiving 🎗️
Suspended
iPhone 11 lineup in 2019 was the *perfect* pricing strategy.
