Tim Cook on iPhone XS: People Want the Most Innovative Phone Possible and 'It's Not Cheap to Do That'

[iSayuSay]

If I were a stockholder, i'd be worried about any company that did price gouging.
Its not like Apple are a fashion house or perfume where the product price bears no relation to the materials so have no need to charge the Apple tax for extra storage in the phone.
To have 64 gig in a flagship device is just a joke.

Problem is, Apple is not the only one doing this. Samsung on the other side is also doing the same. Their flagship costs just as much as Apple but their support is piss poor at best. Their S and Note annual series priced accordingly with iPhone's price. They may seem a bit cheaper or throw in freebies to make it seems more valuable. But in the end, people pay hefty dollars for flagship phones, no matter the brand.

A few exception maybe Huawei, Oppo, Vivo and other chinese brands. Those are trying but really, you don't want to buy them to get the best support and experience.

 

[pmau]

especially if you amortize it (either in your head or actually) over a period of years.

Absolutely. This is why I believe they should stop releasing a flagship phone every year.
Even I would probably buy an XS, but I know that there will be one next year.
That is also a big difference to a BMW.

They’ll cannibalizes some Xs sales via the Xr and be delighted to do so since they probably command very similar margins.

I also believe the margins of the Xr are much higher than we can estimate.
Apple is very good at producing the 7/8/Xr series with standard components they can source cheap.
In my opinion the Xr is the real cash cow, since the price tag does not reflect how mass production will bring cost down.

By the way, I do believe the following and I think you might too.

Cost does not determine price. it is the other way around.
Price dictates the cost, if Apple cannot sell a certain number of units at a certain price they will make them cheaper to produce.

You are correct that it is brilliant, but I can still not like it ....

 

[dilbert99]

Problem is, Apple is not the only one doing this.

Other companies doing bad things is never a good reason for one to do it too.

Samsung on the other side is also doing the same. Their flagship costs just as much as Apple

Not true. The Samsung note 9 is $1799 AUD for 512GB before discount.
The iPhone XS Max is $2369 AUD for 512GB and you get no discount.

but their support is piss poor at best.

Can't comment on Samsungs support as I have only ever used Apples support, and I have been a regular customer at the genius bar, while Apples support is good, I spend more time there than I have with any other company.

Their S and Note annual series priced accordingly with iPhone's price.

iPhone is significantly more than the note. 37% more to be precise and that is before discount.

They may seem a bit cheaper

37% before discount is more than a bit.

 

[spacemnspiff]

No it is not FREE or ZERO COST! Samsung has to implement many of the of features and functionalities in their own ways - good amount of development and testing. BTW, it has something called Knox, many other features NOT available out of the box in Android OS. For this reason, they cannot keep upgrading the OS forever like iOS.

Wouldn't that be validating my point, Samsung takes free Android and then adds their customization to it, that's definitely not creating an OS from scratch. So that cost of the phone should reflect the amount of resources that went into.

Samsung might not have as big of a task as Apple, but they do have to create software for these devices

Agree that they have to make it work, so their phone should reflect the lesser cost of developing software for the phone in comparison to the iPhone. If I am being simplistic and split the cost of phone evenly between hardware and software, then a Samsung flagship should cost around 60% of an Apple flagship.

You could make the same argument for iOS since Darwin is free. Android is free, but Google services are not. It's been that way since the first Android phones.

I could extend that argument further to Marconi - radio, Bell Labs - transistor or Tim Beners-Lee - web, which are essentially free, so semiconductor industry should not charge for microprocessors or cellular industry should make services free because they are using a 'free' invention or technology. That argument is not going too far.

Anyway, Google services are free and users pay by selling their data in exchange for the services and Google then is only answerable to the advertising industry customers, thus Google is an ad agency providing services to serve advertisements.

 

[brofkand]

I could extend that argument further to Marconi - radio, Bell Labs - transistor or Tim Beners-Lee - web, which are essentially free, so semiconductor industry should not charge for microprocessors or cellular industry should make services free because they are using a 'free' invention or technology. That argument is not going too far.

Anyway, Google services are free and users pay by selling their data in exchange for the services and Google then is only answerable to the advertising industry customers, thus Google is an ad agency providing services to serve advertisements.

Your argument makes no sense. Google services are free to the user, but not to the OEMs. They have to pay license fees to be able to load the Play Store, Play Services, etc., onto their devices.

I really don't see how Marconi relates to a mobile OS like Android or iOS.

No argument from me re: Google selling user data. That's how they've made their living basically from the start. The question is, do users care. Considering the billions of Google users around the world, the likelihood of any one person being able to be singled out is low (or zero) so I guess most people don't care, or don't even think about it.

 

[ocnitsa]

What are you thinking? Price points, specs, etc.? It seems the only real differentiators these days are screen size, 1 camera or 2, notch or notchless (old design), storage capacity.

IMO, 500 is a reasonable entry level for a lower storage device. But, it should be new technology, even if it's limited compared to flagship...meaning I should expect iOS support for 5 years from date of purchase. I think they've commodified the hell out of the feeling of a new iPhone, offering gradations in that via their "line up." But, that's another issue.

 

[Peperino]

To be fair, I don’t think Tim Cook mentioned that you can get the XS Max for $30 a month.

To be fair, Apple customers are tired of Tim Cook lies and trying to do PR damage control to excuse the high iPhone prices.
And to be even more fair, there are NO new iPhones that you can get for $30 a month.
[doublepost=1537549697][/doublepost]

Did the max exist last year? How can they raise the price on an item that is brand new? Also it is $1100, but of course look at the most expensive one to fit the narrative.

I think you forgot that everytime Apple use to put a new computer (or ipad), they usually release them with the same price although it was a brand new computer and bring down the prices of the old ones. So your narrative does not make sense. Especially considering that it is an "S" upgrade and not many brand new features have been introduced.
[doublepost=1537550211][/doublepost]

This is the first year the Max has been offered. It is an original product with an original price. Your problem is you seem to want the Max for the price of last year's X.

Sorry, but the Xs Max it is NOT an original product. Making a larger phone it is not "original". It is just a larger version of the Xs. Furthermore, it is an "S" cycle upgrade that is not introducing breaking new features.
You are only trying to excuse Apple high prices.
In addition, the XR has the same pixels-per-inch than the old iPhone 4 from 2010.

I guess you also believe that you can get an iPhone for $30.00 a month...
[doublepost=1537551537][/doublepost]

There was not a price increase on the phones.

No? so what is the $1100-1450??
Usually, when Apple releases new products, they keep it at the same price although it was a brand new computer/ipad and bring down the prices of the old ones, regardless that they have a larger Hardrive, more RAM, etc.
So having a larger phone with a larger capacity, should not cost the same as a Macbook...
Especially considering, this is an "S" upgrade and not many new features were introduced.

 

[bbednarz]

Usually, when Apple releases new products, they keep it at the same price although it was a brand new computer/ipad and bring down the prices of the old ones, regardless that they have a larger Hardrive, more RAM, etc.
So having a larger phone with a larger capacity, should not cost the same as a Macbook...
Especially considering, this is an "S" upgrade and not many new features were introduced.[/COLOR]

Again, the Max did not exist last year. They cant raise the price on a product that did not exist before. When the 6 Plus came out it was more expensive than the regular 6 was too. Was that also a price increase? I'm not thrilled with the prices either. I was hoping the Xs would drop down to $899 and the Max would start at $999. However, they did not raise prices on the phones as the Max and Xr are brand new phones.

There is a price difference between the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8+.
There is a price difference between the 13" and 15" MacBook Pros.
There is a price difference between the 44mm and 40mm watch.
There is a price difference between the 21.5" and 27" iMacs.
There is a price difference between the 10.5" and 12.9" iPad Pros.

 

[I7guy]

To be fair, Apple customers are tired of Tim Cook lies and trying to do PR damage control to excuse the high iPhone prices.

Which Apple customers? The masses that will probably make this fiscal quarter a record breaker. I agree some people on-line claim they are "tired of Tim Cook lies", but I lump them into the "some people say things to hear themselves talk bucket". The price is the price. Want to buy a Ferrari? Pony up the money and wait on-line.

Sorry, but the Xs Max it is NOT an original product. Making a larger phone it is not "original". It is just a larger version of the Xs. Furthermore, it is an "S" cycle upgrade that is not introducing breaking new features.
You are only trying to excuse Apple high prices.
In addition, the XR has the same pixels-per-inch than the old iPhone 4 from 2010.

Exactly where did you see the exact Xs max prior to the launch? Think of if like the 750i and the 750il. Same exact car? No. Different vehicles, different phones. Same concept, label it as you please.

As far as the differences between the X and the Xs models, yes it is a new phone. Enough of the internals have been upgraded to make it a new phone with new breaking features. Saying the contrary doesn't make it true. And there is nothing to excuse about the price of the phone, buy it or don't.

The Xs may have the same ppi as the iphone 4, but the resolution, color gamut and color reproduction sure aren't the same.

 

[Peperino]

Again, the Max did not exist last year. They cant raise the price on a product that did not exist before. When the 6 Plus came out it was more expensive than the regular 6 was too. Was that also a price increase? I'm not thrilled with the prices either. I was hoping the Xs would drop down to $899 and the Max would start at $999. However, they did not raise prices on the phones as the Max and Xr are brand new phones.

There is a price difference between the iPhone 8 and iPhone 8+.
There is a price difference between the 13" and 15" MacBook Pros.
There is a price difference between the 44mm and 40mm watch.
There is a price difference between the 21.5" and 27" iMacs.
There is a price difference between the 10.5" and 12.9" iPad Pros.

I am not talking about the difference in price between different SIZES...

I am talking baout the difference in prices with previous generation.
The X was already quite expensive.
Also the Xr has the same amount of pixels than the iphone 4 circa 2010.

Apple prices for an S upgrade are ridiculuous.
I agree with you 899 and 999 for the Max would have been way more reasonable.

 

[F1Mac]

When he says $30 a month, I guess that doesn’t include the carrier plan, it’s just the price of the iPhone. In which case that sounds about right, and the complaints such as “there’s no iPhone at $30 a month” don’t make much sense. The point is that your iPhone costs you about $30 a month for 2 years so his statement is correct.

 

[Peperino]

When he says $30 a month, I guess that doesn’t include the carrier plan, it’s just the price of the iPhone. In which case that sounds about right, and the complaints such as “there’s no iPhone at $30 a month” don’t make much sense. The point is that your iPhone costs you about $30 a month for 2 years so his statement is correct.

He statement is NOT correct. Please provide proof that there is a plan for $30 a month for iPhone XR, XS or MAx.

There you go...another case of Apple's bad PR to try to justify the new ridiculous iPhone prices.

 

[F1Mac]

He statement is NOT correct. Please provide proof that there is a plan for $30 a month for iPhone XR, XS or MAx.

um, like I said, there is NO plan for $30 a month. There's a $30 (or so) INCLUDED in your monthly bill that is the price of the phone. My plan is about $100 CAN a month. Roughly 1/3 of it is the price of the iPhone. He never said there was a plan for $30 a month. He was referring to the amount you pay monthly FOR THE PHONE. His statement IS correct.