John Gruber wants the iPhone X to start at $1500

[JulesJam]

Record sales numbers probably won't happen anyway do to limited oled availability this year.

Which will justify the price. You can charge more for something in limited supply that people want.
[doublepost=1499269421][/doublepost]

It's not just that it wouldn't sell that many, its the psychology of what it would do to iPhone users.

Right now you have 100's of millions of users who find a way to buy a brand new, top of the line iPhone, every 1-2 years but suddenly if only 20-50% of users can/will buy the "iPhone Pro" it leaves the rest of users disappointed in their "brand new" iPhone 7S which they always know isn't the best even the day they buy it.

Part of the satisfaction of owning a product like the iPhone is that first experience when you know you are getting the "best cellphone" (I know you can argue about Android etc.) in the world and now you tell your giant user base that well, that feeling is only for the highest disposable income folks. It will create a bunch of disappointed folks even when they buy their new iPhone.

This is completely wrong. People who buy the cheapest mercedes don't feel disappointed. Do they want the more expensive model? Sure but they can't afford it and are happy that they are driving a mercedes even though it is not the top of the line model.

What is going on here is that those of you who can't afford the top of the line are trying to make a case for why Apple should be more egalitarian as if they have some duty to provide top of the line iPhones to the masses. iSheep will still buy iPhones and will be happy with them even if they aren't the top of the line model. And some who can't afford the top of the line will buy them anyhow through loans and skimp on things like saving for retirement or saving to buy a house. THAT is how important these phones are to them. Apple should do what any business in their position would do - charge as much as the market will bear.

 

[Cryates]

What is going on here is that those of you who can't afford the top of the line are trying to make a case for why Apple should be more egalitarian as if they have some duty to provide top of the line iPhones to the masses. iSheep will still buy iPhones and will be happy with them even if they aren't the top of the line model. And some who can't afford the top of the line will buy them anyhow through loans and skimp on things like saving for retirement or saving to buy a house. THAT is how important these phones are to them. Apple should do what any business in their position would do - charge as much as the market will bear.

Ding ding ding
[doublepost=1499273625][/doublepost]Let's also not forget that these new iPhones will undoubtedly be expensive to produce, moreso than the previous models. Apple already has clearly high margins on products, so you can expect them to continue that. Let's say this new iPhone costs Apple an additional ~$100 to manufacture per device, you're looking at additional ~$400 to the consumer for the end product to maintain their margins.

They aren't going to invest more in manufacturing costs without recouping some return on investment.

 

[craigio85]

Which will justify the price. You can charge more for something in limited supply that people want.
[doublepost=1499269421][/doublepost]
This is completely wrong. People who buy the cheapest mercedes don't feel disappointed. Do they want the more expensive model? Sure but they can't afford it and are happy that they are driving a mercedes even though it is not the top of the line model.

What is going on here is that those of you who can't afford the top of the line are trying to make a case for why Apple should be more egalitarian as if they have some duty to provide top of the line iPhones to the masses. iSheep will still buy iPhones and will be happy with them even if they aren't the top of the line model. And some who can't afford the top of the line will buy them anyhow through loans and skimp on things like saving for retirement or saving to buy a house. THAT is how important these phones are to them. Apple should do what any business in their position would do - charge as much as the market will bear.

It isn't wrong. Ultimately, if the the mainstream option later this year is a souped up version of the existing iPhone 7 lacking an edge to edge, OLED display then it leaves the core iPhone customer-base significantly shortchanged. This would make the new device DOUBLE the price of its main competitor, while the £700+ "7s" would basically be a glorified iPhone 6. Surely anybody can see the lunacy of this suggestion; consumers would be angry and rightly so.

As it is, I think it's all academic as I don't believe 3 new iPhones will launch this year - I think it will just be the new redesigned model with the 7 and 7plus dropping down a tier as the cheaper option.

 

[Cryates]

As of a few days ago, the Note 8 was rumored to be priced around $1,100, and what's it adding? A dual lens camera? It's not inconceivable to think that Apple will charge even more for the iPhone 8/Pro than that. There's going to be a lot of never-before-seen-on-a-smartphone tech packed into this thing, and Apple is ALWAYS the one to charge more.

 

[willmtaylor]

I'm a big Gruber fan, but this is probably the most ridiculous thing he has ever written. Nobody wants the redesigned iPhone to start at $1500.

https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/07/03/kuo-iphone-2017-touch-id

...so you'll cherry pick the quote but not explain the context or finish the sentence? Sounds about right for these forums.​

 

[noobinator]

This guy is an idiot. He also tweeted yesterday that no one gives a crap about the Galaxy S8 and that it's irrelevant.

 

[Cryates]

This guy is an idiot. He also tweeted yesterday that no one gives a crap about the Galaxy S8 and that it's irrelevant.

In theory, and looking at the big picture, he's not wrong.

 

[willmtaylor]

This guy is an idiot. He also tweeted yesterday that no one gives a crap about the Galaxy S8 and that it's irrelevant.

Tweeting/posting controversial statements doesn't make one an idiot.

Look at Topolsky's comments last week. In this day and age, it's all about remaining visible and getting the clicks. Both are doing just that.

You may disagree with either one of them, but it doesn't make them stupid.

 

[blairh]

...so you'll cherry pick the quote but not explain the context or finish the sentence? Sounds about right for these forums.

Spare me your unnecessary smugness. I did provide a link to the full comments. And he is backing up this claim because he wants to 'see what Apple can do with a higher price'. Does that sentence really make the $1500 comment more valid? Please.

 

[willmtaylor]

Spare me your unnecessary smugness. I did provide a link providing the full comments.

Stating facts isn't smug. Omitting them to fit your narrative and attacking those who disagree with you on the other hand....​

And he is backing up this claim because he wants to 'see what Apple can do with a higher price'. Does that sentence really make the $1500 comment more valid? Please.

He said he'd like to see, and if you can't understand the context, that's on you. It's his prerogative on his blog. Neither Apple nor Gruber needs to validate anything to you I'd imagine.​

 

[blairh]

Stating facts isn't smug. Omitting them to fit your narrative and attacking those who disagree with you on the other hand....



He said he'd like to see, and if you can't understand the context, that's on you. It's his prerogative on his blog. Neither Apple nor Gruber needs to validate anything to you I'd imagine.

Jesus H. He said he wants the iPhone to start at $1500 or more. I started a thread saying how ridiculous this was. Please tell me what more I could have done?

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm replying to others. This is a forum. That's the whole point of it existing.

Yes this is all about how John Gruber needs to validate his opinion with me. You got me mate.

 

[willmtaylor]

Jesus H. He said he wants the iPhone to start at $1500 or more. I started a thread saying how ridiculous this was. Please tell me what more I could have done?

Already addressed.​

I'm not attacking anyone. I'm replying to others. This is a forum. That's the whole point of it existing.

See your opening statement of your reply to me.​

Yes this is all about how John Gruber needs to validate his opinion with me. You got me mate.

Sarcasm aside, context of a statement--even with 1 statement--does make all the difference.
​

I think I'll go ahead and see myself out.

 

[cbreze]

IMO, I really don't care what they charge. if I need a new phone I take price into consideration and measure the price to value (to me) ratio. Perhaps Apple will be seeing what the market will bear. Some will pay up and some won't. There are lots of phones to choose from. Folks need to be practical and if the most expensive is what they have to have then they can either wait for the dust to settle and get it for less or they can make payments if they don't have the cash. Alot of people on phone forums are addicted to getting the latest and greatest. Fine, this is still a free country, get whatever you like, but if you think Apple gives 2 shats about you your mistaken. Money is all they and every other corporation is interested in. People stuck in Apple eco-system and Android haters because of it are missing out on another option. Thumb your nose at Apple's pricing policies, Give em the finger. You have a choice, but don't just blindly step up with cash in hand yet again. Reminds me of the old movie from the sixties, "The Time Machine". Apple is like the Morlocks and the Isheep are the Eloi. The Eloi always hear the siren call. Don't be the Eloi.

 

[The_Machine]

He said he'd like to see, and if you can't understand the context, that's on you. It's his prerogative on his blog. Neither Apple nor Gruber needs to validate anything to you I'd imagine.​

Eh... Based on reading the posts here, I think many people in this thread understand the context of Gruber's original post more than you believe. It's fairly easy to go take a look at some of Gruber's recent Tweets on the topic if one was really all that confused.

I don't think anyone would disagree with the simple reality that it's Gruber's prerogative to use his blog as he wishes. It's also anyone who so chooses prerogative to comment on what he says on his blog or Twitter. Keeping in mind that over the years he has worked hard to make himself a fairly "famous" figure among the Apple community. So it's not like his words being under scrutiny should be unexpected by anyone. I doubt anyone is expecting him to validate them.

 

[michael9891]

I'm definitely looking forward to the keynote more than I usually would be.

Probably not the right thread to discuss this but why are people expecting a shortage of OLED displays? An OLED iPhone has been expected this year since at least 6 months before the 7 was released last year. Surely enough time to sort enough out.

 

[JulesJam]

Let's also not forget that these new iPhones will undoubtedly be expensive to produce, moreso than the previous models. Apple already has clearly high margins on products, so you can expect them to continue that. Let's say this new iPhone costs Apple an additional ~$100 to manufacture per device, you're looking at additional ~$400 to the consumer for the end product to maintain their margins.

They aren't going to invest more in manufacturing costs without recouping some return on investment.

And Apple has a high level of customer support with B&M stores and US based phone support. That's expensive to maintain.
[doublepost=1499282635][/doublepost]

I'm definitely looking forward to the keynote more than I usually would be.

Probably not the right thread to discuss this but why are people expecting a shortage of OLED displays? An OLED iPhone has been expected this year since at least 6 months before the 7 was released last year. Surely enough time to sort enough out.

Because the manufacturing process is inefficient and IIRC, LG and Samsung are the main producers and they prioritize their own products. Don't forget Google is now in the hardware game too.
[doublepost=1499282725][/doublepost]

It isn't wrong.

Yes it is for the reasons I stated.
[doublepost=1499282792][/doublepost]

This would make the new device DOUBLE the price of its main competitor

You obviously haven't kept up with Android news. The Note 8 is going to be hella expensive and Samsung doesn't even have B&M stores or US based phone support.
[doublepost=1499282942][/doublepost]

As of a few days ago, the Note 8 was rumored to be priced around $1,100, and what's it adding? A dual lens camera? It's not inconceivable to think that Apple will charge even more for the iPhone 8/Pro than that. There's going to be a lot of never-before-seen-on-a-smartphone tech packed into this thing, and Apple is ALWAYS the one to charge more.

Exactly and Samsung doesn't even have B&M stores nor does it have US based phone support so they don't have the same expenses that Apple has. Apple's warranty support is 1000 times better than Samsungs and I say this as an S8 owner. FFS, Samsung charges $12/mo for its extended warranty/accidental damage protection, that is $288 for 24 months compared to Apple's $129.
[doublepost=1499283314][/doublepost]

Alot of people on phone forums are addicted to getting the latest and greatest.

And given the resale value/trade in value of a 2 year old iPhone, they have gotten it fairly inexpensively. Typically I can net about $450 for a 1 year old mid-tier storage model iPhone in pristine condition so if it costs $750 initially, that is $300 per year. Of course there is sales tax and upgrade fee too.

Even when you factor in the sales tax and upgrade fee, it works out to be about $400/year or about $33/mo. Not bad for your cell phone, handheld computer, camera that keeps you connected to everyone you love and depend on not to mention many use them for work.

 

[KeanosMagicHat]

It's not just that it wouldn't sell that many, its the psychology of what it would do to iPhone users.

Right now you have 100's of millions of users who find a way to buy a brand new, top of the line iPhone, every 1-2 years but suddenly if only 20-50% of users can/will buy the "iPhone Pro" it leaves the rest of users disappointed in their "brand new" iPhone 7S which they always know isn't the best even the day they buy it.

Part of the satisfaction of owning a product like the iPhone is that first experience when you know you are getting the "best cellphone" (I know you can argue about Android etc.) in the world and now you tell your giant user base that well, that feeling is only for the highest disposable income folks. It will create a bunch of disappointed folks even when they buy their new iPhone.

Very good post, sums up pretty much everything really if you are tech geek like most of us on this forum.

 

[avanpelt]

Interestingly enough, In the article Gruber states "I hope the iPhone Pro starts at $1500.00." His mindset doesn't seem logical at all. The iPhone is a commodity and not an investment. His thoughts are skewed on this one.

Bingo. It's like walking into the grocery store and wishing that milk cost $10.00 a gallon instead of $3.00 or $4.00 a gallon. Doesn't make much sense to wish that on yourself as an everyday consumer. Now, if you were a shareholder in a dairy farm, that's another story. I'm not sure if Gruber owns stock in Apple; but if he does, it seems to me that it would be a conflict of interest with his job.

Plus, as well-connected as Gruber is at Apple, he could probably pretty easily be the beneficiary of one or more new iPhones for either nothing or next to nothing. There again, though, ethics would come into play.

 

[JulesJam]

I'm not sure if Gruber owns stock in Apple; but if he does, it seems to me that it would be a conflict of interest with his job.

He's a blogger, not a journalist. The latter is a profession with a code of ethics, the former is not.

 

[44267547]

Bingo. It's like walking into the grocery store and wishing that milk cost $10.00 a gallon instead of $3.00 or $4.00 a gallon. Doesn't make much sense to wish that on yourself as an everyday consumer. Now, if you were a shareholder in a dairy farm, that's another story. I'm not sure if Gruber owns stock in Apple; but if he does, it seems to me that it would be a conflict of interest with his job.

Plus, as well-connected as Gruber is at Apple, he could probably pretty easily be the beneficiary of one or more new iPhones for either nothing or next to nothing. There again, though, ethics would come into play.

Given Apple can set the price at any dollar amount they so wish with the iPhone 8, some will find that no dollar amount will stop them from purchasing an iPhone at whatever cost Apple determines. And if somebody wants to pay a high dollar that Gruber is suggesting, then that's their right to do so. But you have to ask yourself, does it make sense to purchase an iPhone at that price depending on how often does the consumer upgrade and do they truly want the highest tier iPhone with the latest technology or is it just for the sake of having the newest iPhone.

I Find it interesting how the demographic is separated why someone truly purchases the latest iPhone and for what reasons. It really is a to each their own situation.

 

[The_Machine]

Let's say Apple fulfills Gruber's wish and the iPhone X (or as he calls it, the Pro) has a cost of entry of $1.5K. The cost of entry for a consumer for the the iPhone 7 Plus is $769. That's a $731 price difference the consumer has to put up to upgrade to this new "Pro" phone.

Let's compare the price differential here to Apple's other mobile products that that Pro versions.

iPad cost of entry is $329. iPad Pro's cost of entry is $649. The spread here is $320.

Macbook cost of entry is $1299. Macbook Pro's cost of entry is $1299 or $1799 depending if you want to only count the version with a touch bar or not. So anywhere from zero added cost up to $500.

Look at these numbers, it seems like Gruber's theoretical iPhone Pro would by far have the highest cost to the consumer for an upgrade of any of Apple's mobile Pro products.

So what kind of technology are we talking here? What is it that people are envisioning Apple could add to the iPhone Pro that the iPhone 7S line of products wouldn't have to warrant this extra cost? It's not simply the OLED as competitors have been selling phones with them for years without having to almost double their handset costs. Wireless charging? Nope. Touch ID under the screen? Maybe. I'll give this a slight chance of being the case, but somehow it doesn't sound like an addition to warrant this big a cost in entry jump. That's ignoring the latest rumors (I don't buy them) that say the phone won't even have it.

So what are we talking here?

I'm not seeing it. But feel free to take this as a challenge.

 

[Cryates]

The iPhone 8 could cost $1,000 or more, but analysts say there will be big discounts

http://www.businessinsider.com/iphone-8-will-have-carrier-discounts-analysts-say-2017-7

 

[Paddle1]

Because of payment plans this doesn't matter that much for the US. They still shouldn't though. The iPod touch can do 90% of what an iPhone can and costs $200. Same with the $400 SE except more like 96%. Don't encourage Apple to overprice things any further.

 

[avanpelt]

He's a blogger, not a journalist. The latter is a profession with a code of ethics, the former is not.

Conflicts of interest are applicable in all professions -- not just those with a 'formal' code of ethics. Upon doing some searching around online, it appears as though Gruber does not, in fact, own Apple stock. Gruber is well-known in Apple circles and has connections with several people on Apple's Executive Team. As I seem to recall, he has admitted after the fact to being privy to 'insider' information from Apple about new products before it was made known to the public. That alone would make it problematic/illegal for him to own Apple stock.

 

[ET iPhone Home]

There goes my 401K.