iPhone 15 Pro Models Rumored to Be More Expensive

[wbeasley]

Every time apple unexpectedly raises the price on iPhones or doesn’t make a big enough update, I’m passing for a year.
so far I’m still on my iPhone X. I wished more people had the mental strength to punish apple for their nasty behavior.

It's getting harder to push the feature add envelope.

Apple facing exactly the same issue Microsoft has when Office upgrades biggest competitor was the previous version offering enough for most people.

We've already seen people upgrading less often. Two years has blown out to three as by then battery life and features offer a significant upgrade. Year on year are getting more minor and not work it for most people. People using phones longer is better for the environment too. But we are used to "throwing away" old things. Consumer behaviour encouraged by companies to sell more.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Disagree with your characterization of Cook and your interpretation of the rumor and a rumor is all it is at the moment.

They are running a business and I don't think a lot of people seem to understand that. If you judge Apple by your needs and desires and are not a stockholder, they are always going to come up short in your view. If you want everything just the way you want it and want it to be inexpensive and don't think the economy and their marketing should have a role in pricing decisions and profitability you are also going to be disappointed.

Up to now (you can't judge the future because it hasn't happened) Apple has been one of the best run and managed companies in the history of business. Just ask the stockholders/owners. I just have trouble understanding what a lot of people out there who are technophiles seem to think Apple's primary mission and goals actually are.

Juicing the stock price? Certainly seems to be Cooks priority.

 

[Lcgiv]

The pros are all already over 1000 dollars for anyone paying sales tax…

 

[Churchman]

Well said.
but, the question is, does said manager exist in Apple? If so, how impactful he/she is on company’s direction?
I sense none, and I don’t think Apple will bother Introducing one in their management department.

Human is bad at thinking for long term, especially the long term that can truly pay dividends, both For individual and for organisations. Short term gain is almost always favourable because you can immediately see the result, whereas long term investment Takes time to see the benefit, and after some years, if no benefit is seen, people gets upset.

While it is reasonable, the long term benefit is the one that we should build towards. But that’s not how our society see things. Apple, by furiously chasing after stock market, shareholder return and higher profit, has lost the core that keeps a tech company afloat: innovation and customer satisfaction. What they have right now I’d argue, probably is just a shell of what it once was. Thanks to the legacy left by Steve Jobs and the foundation built by his team, Apple can still reap profit for a while. But I doubt they can keep doing so for very long.

Apple is a gigantic ship that won’t turn to a New direction in an instant. However, once all the inertia is overcome, it is equally difficult to turn back to the correct direction if there is even one. Before we know it, world is changing faster than we can respond. It’s going to be interesting to see how this alleged iPhone 15 price increase pans out, and how much Apple’s service transition pays off.

Shiraski-san,

Thank you. If you don't mind, I will push back on a few points that you made.

On the day that Steve Jobs announced the iPhone in 2007, I was sitting in the US Consumer Marketing division within Dell Computer. I was watching that product launch, and thinking, "I WANT!!!!" Dell had a horrible reputation tied to their product quality. But they had MANY marketing and sales people and engineers that were angry at the reputation. I was one, and my job was to pilot a call center whose core goal was to solve every problem that angry premium US customers had when they called in so that when they hung up, 100% of them were satisfied with the outcome. I worked with engineers who began finding ways to force solutions for the bad reputation issue with executives, especially after Dell launched a thin notebook that caused people to get shocked when they touched the notebook in specific places. This was particularly important to me because I was recruited from Toyota North America, where quality and customer satisfaction are sacred. I wanted to see a change and make the change real. Most companies have managers who truly want to do what is best for the company and the brand and the customers. The question is how much noise are they willing to make? How uncomfortable are they willing to make it for leaders who approve crap product?

Yes - in American society, we are very short term focused. It is bad.

But one thing I learned from Toyota Motor Corp (in Japan), paying the price today to think long term about strategy makes doing business over the long term less expensive and less subject to uncertainty. I had the opportunity to work in Toyota's Global Knowledge Center in Tokyo. The GKC created a curriculum around every Toyota business philosophy, sales philosophy, manufacturing philosophy, and operations philosophy. We taught every global Toyota executive to live by those principles and to run their operations by those principles. It was great.

There are other companies that operate in the same manner as Toyota. Not that Toyota gets everything right. But they do get a lot fewer things wrong over time. One thing I will say, Elon Musk is that type. He is a very flawed and imperfect example. A lot of things about Tesla product quality and software are not right. But he thinks long term about his business. He invests for the long term as it relates to innovation. Others can duplicate these principles as well if they are not afraid of stockholders and large investors that fund those companies. And it is absolutely possible to turn a big ship around. Again, Elon Musk is turning Twitter in a very different direction almost overnight. We will learn if the strategy is correct in a few years. Discovery is turning Warner Brothers around almost overnight. Likewise, we will learn in a few years if the strategy is right. Every 4 years, a new president of the USA turns the country in a new direction almost overnight. And Americans learn very quickly if the strategy reflects wisdom or not.

Miracles can happen. We simply must fight hard for them. Ganbatte!

 

[v0lume4]

Pigs get fed, hogs get killed.

 

[RecentlyConverted]

Let's see. I paid $599 for my first iPhone in 2007 (which in today's dollars is about $860). My iPhone 14 Pro, as configured, cost me $1,099. Which is 28% more. Divided over 16 years that's an inflation rate of less than 2% per year. Which seems fair, considering the tremendous increase in capability and value these devices have. The iPhone has also saved me money by performing functions that obviate the need for 3rd party electronics. I also upgrade my phone every year and, as I take meticulous care of my phones, they retain a lot of resale value. So in the end, having the latest iPhone hardware for a year costs me $300-$400. And though I never do, I always have the option of skipping a year. But in the end, I imagine that Apple would really have to increase the price to a crazy level to erode the value proposition for me. As I appreciate a vertically integrated product (with software and hardware made by the same manufacturer) and a company that offers me a solid level of security and does not aggressively commoditize my private personal information, I can't see any other choice that would make as much sense for me.

You took $599 in 2007 and state its equivalent value is $860 in 2023. Thats due to inflation. You then state the new phone is 28% higher than the indexed price ($860). That isn't due to general inflation, that is a cost increase in real terms. Apple inflation.

 

[Abazigal]

Juicing the stock price? Certainly seems to be Cooks priority.

I have a hard time seeing this as anything else other than business 101.

Here’s my take.

1) iPhones cost more because they cost more to make.

2) Apple products are priced to maximise profits, like many businesses.

3) People are holding to their phones longer. At the same time, the iPhone install base continues to grow (well over a billion at this point). This translates to well over 200 million iPhones sold every year, even taking into account the slower paces of upgrades by users.

4) Apple continues to make iPhones accessible via a number of methods. Multiple models stretching over a variety of price points. Good resale values (in part from its long software support and good build quality) Instalment plans. You can’t just look at the most expensive iPhone model that Apple sells and conclude that all their products are unaffordable as a result, when alternatives do exist.

5) iPhones serve as the gateway to the Apple ecosystem. As Apple releases more complementary accessories and products, this value can only increase.

I think Apple will do just fine. People do need to realise that nobody runs a successful business by giving customers everything they want, because one of those things would almost assuredly by lower pricing.

 

[ApplesAreSweet&Sour]

Apple will raise prices until consumers can't/won't pay, just like every other smartphone maker.

Or, to be more precise, they will raise them as long as the installments over 24 months are not too much for the average consumer.

That's what you see stores or on apple.com. Phrases like "just $45 over 24 months + up to $1000 credit after trade-in"

It's not about total cost but about the monthly installments after trade-in.

I'm not saying it's right or wrong. But that's how the cost is being presented to us by the carriers and smartphone brands and that's how the average consumer now thinks about the cost of buying a new smartphone.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

I have a hard time seeing this as anything else other than business 101.

I think it's more the enormous amount on money that they spend on stock buybacks to inflate the share price while churning out near identical phones for years on end often at increasing price points.

Where is the focus on product? Why don't they do something bold? Make a major acquisition. They could put some of that money to work to make Apples offering interesting but it seems Cook would rather use it to appease stock holders.

They talk about Homepod but the product lineup is a flop, why didnt they try to get Sonos? We keep hearing about their car ambitions why don't they do and get one of the major auto makers? They talk about TV but then Amazon gobbles up MGM, they talk about gaming but its Microsoft buying Activision.

They seem to be playing in some of these markets.

 

[Pezimak]

Sure you can. When you're self-employed, you can either buy without VAT or decrease the VAT you collected from customers by the amount of VAT on the phone before you deliver it to the tax authorities. The type of employment is usually one's own choice.

Having said that... even without taxes an iphone pro is around 1162$ (€1082) over here. 10% difference. OTOH, apple employees over here have to fear no repressions when joining a union, so that alone is probably worth a price increase.

So what about the other 80% of consumers? I stated in my other comment you can claim the VAT back if you buy through a business. They are still expensive though and if they dare out the price up, again, in the U.K. and Europe, then I fully expect their sales to drop.

 

[Pezimak]

I bought an iPhone 13 Pro Max once the 14 came out and took advance of the price drop. It was still £949 mind you. As iPhones increase again next year and the year after, it’ll soon be pointless for me sticking with the iPhone. It’s a buyers market and that’s something Apple is rather arrogant about, they assume iPhone users will just accept price hikes because it’s an iPhone. Maybe it’s time to get more for my money?

I am going to go this route I think, buy last years model or get the standard none Pro one. Trouble is I’ve read the camera on the 14 Pro isn’t as good as the 13 because of the new sensor and Apple not reducing the enhancement the software does. I got a pair of the original AirPods Pro for Christmas and they are fantastic, and quite a few quid off. Best way to make your money work when buying Apple now. I dread to think how much they’ll try to charge for this AR / VR headset that’s rumoured.

 

[Abazigal]

I think it's more the enormous amount on money that they spend on stock buybacks to inflate the share price while churning out near identical phones for years on end often at increasing price points

They are both separate matters.

There is nothing wrong with using stock buybacks as a mechanism for returning excess cash to shareholders so long as the company is generating more revenue than it has use for. Which is precisely the scenario Apple finds itself in. It’s also preferable to dividends because shareholders don’t need to pay any taxes until they have sold their existing stock.

Apple churning out seemingly identical phones every year is a separate discussion (which in all fairness does seem to be working). My explanation is that technology doesn’t improve quickly enough for every new iPhone model to be a radically improved version compared to the previous one. And it would be wasteful because Apple wouldn’t be able to make enough iPhones to meet the demand of consumers opting to upgrade every year or every other year anyways.

Where is the focus on product? Why don't they do something bold? Make a major acquisition, they could put some of that money to work to make Apples offering interesting but it seems Cook would rather use it to appease stock holders.

It is not in Apple’s best interests to make giant acquisitions for the sake of acquiring users or adding revenue streams. That’s not how they operate. Instead, Apple remains extremely disciplined in acquiring small companies that possess technology or talent which they can use to improve their ecosystem.

An example would be choosing to grow TV+ from the ground up rather than acquire Netflix, which turned out to be a giant financial sinkhole.

They talk about Homepod but the product lineup is a flop, why didnt they try to get Sonos? We keep hearing about their car ambitions why don't they do and get one of the major auto makers? They talk about TV but then Amazon gobbles up MGM, they talk about gaming but its Microsoft buying Activision.

They seem to be playing in some of these markets.

The counter point is - why should they? None of the companies you mentioned add anything of value to Apple, and as mentioned above - that’s just not how Apple operates.

 

[kiranmk2]

Disagree with your characterization of Cook and your interpretation of the rumor and a rumor is all it is at the moment.

They are running a business and I don't think a lot of people seem to understand that. If you judge Apple by your needs and desires and are not a stockholder, they are always going to come up short in your view. If you want everything just the way you want it and want it to be inexpensive and don't think the economy and their marketing should have a role in pricing decisions and profitability you are also going to be disappointed.

Up to now (you can't judge the future because it hasn't happened) Apple has been one of the best run and managed companies in the history of business. Just ask the stockholders/owners. I just have trouble understanding what a lot of people out there who are technophiles seem to think Apple's primary mission and goals actually are.

Exatly, it's a business and this is the classic sign of a dominant business - one that, as sales fall, can put up prices to compensate and push customers towards more expensive models. Poor businesses are ones that can't do that.

This has happened many times over the last few years. Let's look at the iPad. The iPad was $499 every year from launch; even massive innovations such as the retina display (3rd gen), new screen technology to narrow the bezels (Air) and additional RAM and CPU core (Air 2) didn't put this price up. The the iPad sales started to drop (https://www.statista.com/statistics/269915/global-apple-ipad-sales-since-q3-2010/) and the next model (iPad Pro 9.7") was launched at $599. Next up is the iPhone - in the UK the price of the iPhone went up only 20% between the 3GS and the iPhone 6s (£449 to £539) and since then has increased by 60% (the UK pound has lost 25% of its value against the US$ so accounting for that, the price has increased by 45%) - again look at the sales numbers (https://dazeinfo.com/2018/08/24/apple-iphone-sales-worldwide-by-quarter-graphfarm/) and you can see the numbers start to stagnate around the iPhone 7 which is when the price increases started...

I am a stockholder (have been since around 2015) but I can see that this game can only run so long. There are plenty of Apple fanboys on this site who will snap up whatever Apple releases, but everyone has a limit. How many people would still buy an iPhone when the cheapest "latest" model goes above $999? How about $1299? Throw in a global economic slowdown and rising cost of living and Apple could have a big problem.

Raising prices and pushing people to higher tier models works to prop up / increase revenues and profit (and therefore make Wall Street happy) up to a point. But it is only sustainable for so long...

 

[T Coma]

How expensive would you go? If the pro started at $2000 would you still purchase?

From $999? I imagine very few would.

From $1899 though? Most would, I’d guess.

Apple just needs to keep raising the heat on that frog on the stove just a little at a time. It won’t boil for a long while.

 

[xxr]

Remember the days when Apple made the best phone they could and called it the iPhone?

The day when they only sold one phone and everyone knew that it was a phone pushing boundaries?

That was a wildly different Apple to the one today, selling 148 variations of a piece of crap.

Unfortunately this new Apple still has the copyright to use the name iPhone.

Just change the name to the TiMobile and price it at $1m. Congruence is key here.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

The counter point is - why should they? None of the companies you mentioned add anything of value to Apple, and as mentioned above - that’s just not how Apple operates.

You don't think any of those companies add anything?!

You don't think MGMs catalogue and IP would add anything to Apple TV plus? Or Activisions to Apple Arcade? I'm not sure what to say..

They talk about services but none of them are considered the best in their respective market. Amazon spent double what they did on TV content, Amazon are serious in that market. How about live Sports? nope weren't serious there either and left Amazon and Google to fight over it.

Apple is dabbling and relying on those iPhone sales. They can't just keep jacking the prices up forever at some point you have to come with something new.

 

[Mrkevinfinnerty]

Exatly, it's a business and this is the classic sign of a dominant business - one that, as sales fall, can put up prices to compensate and push customers towards more expensive models. Poor businesses are ones that can't do that.

This has happened many times over the last few years. Let's look at the iPad. The iPad was $499 every year from launch; even massive innovations such as the retina display (3rd gen), new screen technology to narrow the bezels (Air) and additional RAM and CPU core (Air 2) didn't put this price up. The the iPad sales started to drop (https://www.statista.com/statistics/269915/global-apple-ipad-sales-since-q3-2010/) and the next model (iPad Pro 9.7") was launched at $599. Next up is the iPhone - in the UK the price of the iPhone went up only 20% between the 3GS and the iPhone 6s (£449 to £539) and since then has increased by 60% (the UK pound has lost 25% of its value against the US$ so accounting for that, the price has increased by 45%) - again look at the sales numbers (https://dazeinfo.com/2018/08/24/apple-iphone-sales-worldwide-by-quarter-graphfarm/) and you can see the numbers start to stagnate around the iPhone 7 which is when the price increases started...

I am a stockholder (have been since around 2015) but I can see that this game can only run so long. There are plenty of Apple fanboys on this site who will snap up whatever Apple releases, but everyone has a limit. How many people would still buy an iPhone when the cheapest "latest" model goes above $999? How about $1299? Throw in a global economic slowdown and rising cost of living and Apple could have a big problem.

Raising prices and pushing people to higher tier models works to prop up / increase revenues and profit (and therefore make Wall Street happy) up to a point. But it is only sustainable for so long...

Really good assessment. The price hikes are a short term game.

 

[webkit]

Sounds like we found out why they keep raising the prices on the Pro models
The buyers in that niche are fairly price insensitive it would seem

I trust Apple will fully explore the bounds of that insensitivity.
Stay tuned.

Keep raising prices on Pro models?? Apple hasn't raised U.S. iPhone Pro / Pro Max prices since they first launched in 2019. In fact, 256GB and 512GB versions are actually $50 cheaper.

 

[applepotato666]

I believe they are not far from the point where customers won’t accept the prices anymore

They already are at that point in Europe. I have a good salary but when I saw their ‘currency adjustment’ prices 🙅‍♂️ immediate no. If this raise makes them even more expensive in Europe only the crazy fans of the brand are buying that. I was shocked over the holidays at how many relatives have Samsung/Pixel/Huawei now compared to 2 years ago.

 

[webkit]

You took $599 in 2007 and state its equivalent value is $860 in 2023. Thats due to inflation. You then state the new phone is 28% higher than the indexed price ($860). That isn't due to general inflation, that is a cost increase in real terms. Apple inflation.

One must consider that the iPhone 14 Pro is a different league or level of phone than what was offered in 2007. There simply weren't premium versions (or "Pro" models) available back then. At best, the original iPhone compares more closely to today's SE which starts at just $429 or about half the inflation adjusted price of the original iPhone. However, even a regular iPhone 14 at $829 is less than $860.

Additionally, the $599 price of the original iPhone required a 2 year AT&T contract. Without that contract requirement, the price may have been $749 (AT&T typically discounted new phones by $150 with contract back then) which is the equivalent of around $1,075 today. That's higher than the starting price of an iPhone 14 Pro and almost as much as a Pro Max.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Re: they need to come up with something new other than just jacking up prices…
I agree

But

If Apple thinks an AR headset is going to be the savior product, they are in trouble

 

[wbeasley]

You took $599 in 2007 and state its equivalent value is $860 in 2023. Thats due to inflation. You then state the new phone is 28% higher than the indexed price ($860). That isn't due to general inflation, that is a cost increase in real terms. Apple inflation.

But is it inflation when you not only look at the price but look at the phone spec?

The screen res and size in 2007. Now it's 4 time screen area and 8 times the res.
The processor is many many time fast and more battery efficient.
The memory is 16 times more (at least).

It's not apples vs apples at all.
The 2007 and 2022 devices are lightyears apart. a mere 28% price difference for something that feels and works so differently to me feel like a price drop rather then increase. Your view may differ of course.

 

[_Spinn_]

So instead of lowering the price of the phones that aren’t selling Apple is going to raise the price of the ones that are?

I hope this doesn’t happen. If it does there better be some serious upgrades to make it worth it.

 

[Abazigal]

You don't think any of those companies add anything?!

You don't think MGMs catalogue and IP would add anything to Apple TV plus? Or Activisions to Apple Arcade? I'm not sure what to say..

They talk about services but none of them are considered the best in their respective market. Amazon spent double what they did on TV content, Amazon are serious in that market. How about live Sports? nope weren't serious there either and left Amazon and Google to fight over it.

Apple is dabbling and relying on those iPhone sales. They can't just keep jacking the prices up forever at some point you have to come with something new.

It's too early to tell whether Amazon made the right choice in acquiring MGM, and Youtube with NFL. And too often, people conflate innovation with big, flashy acquisitions or shiny new tech designed to grab headlines more than provide a great user experience.

I also don't think those companies add much to Apple's overall strategy. Not saying that Apple's strategy is necessarily the right one, but suffice to say that Apple does have a long term roadmap, and they remain disciplined enough to not be distracted by huge flashy acquisitions that don't contribute to this strategy.

Take video streaming for instance. I believe the goal of TV+ is to get people to use the TV app. In this context, a back catalogue isn't useful (the purpose is more to retain existing subscribers, while Apple wants to grow its subscriber base, and it has Apple One to increase stickiness).

What Apple has opted to do is continue to bet on quality content, one of which has already won an Oscars. The only thing that would have been of value to Apple would be MGM's IP (which Apple can use to launch new shows in order to attract more subs), but given that MGM was intent on bundling the back catalogue in the deal, $10 billion was likely far more than what Apple was willing to shell out. And at the end of the day, you don't necessarily need to leverage on someone else's IP in order to tell a good story.

Same with Activision, where their gaming library wouldn't have made sense given the thrust and focus of Apple Arcade, which in their own words, "is designed to appeal to people who like videogames but aren’t likely to play console or desktop games and who would rather pay a monthly fee than be interrupted by ads or In-App Purchases."

Apple Arcade Has Carved Out a Unique Niche in the Videogame Market, but Is It Sustainable?

With the introduction of the App Store, mobile gaming took off, quickly becoming the number one driver of revenue for the store. By the time Apple Arcade was released, more than a decade later, mobile games were dominated by free-to-play titles supported with ads or In-App-Purchases, virtual...

www.macstories.net

With live sports, I view Apple losing NFL Sunday Ticket rights by remaining disciplined as to its demands is a positive development. It would be worrying if Apple were to suddenly start throwing around large sums of money for live sports programming (which they would likely never make back) while compromising on ways to stand out in the marketplace. I believe this will become even more crucial as bidding wars for live sports look to become even more intense so Apple doesn't end up paying more than they should because of FOMO.

A lot of what Apple does makes sense when we first start with Apple, then look outwards.

 

[svish]

Was expecting a price hike with 14 Pro models. Might be happening this year!!