Yeah, something to be said for those smaller, one-hand-friendly iPhones. I've only been saying that for about six years now.
The alleged reason alleged sales are allegedly down on the iPhone 12 mini is because they goofed up by making that model small. For $699, customers don't want small. Nobody wants to pay that Cadillac price for a Pinto body. The flagships can, and probably should, be on the full-size, larger side of things. Right or wrong, people equate that with "worth it" and can swallow those prices better on a larger, proper device.
The day they put that size in the $399 third-generation(?) SE - single camera, standard display tech, a one-generation older processor, etc. (whatever helps them make up that $300 difference between the SE and 12 mini), they'll have a strong seller. I'd wager my left lung on it. It isn't the "small size" that makes the 12 mini lag behind in sales (according to every article I've ever read about it), but how it was positioned/priced. Nobody was asking for a small $700 iPhone. They'd like a small, compact $400 one that equals the performance/specs of the current SE, just with a large-as-possible full-face display (doesn't have to be OLED and all the rest, I know that).
I'd LOVE to own such an iPhone. It's been my dream model for several years now...a smaller, one-hand-friendly, full-face iPhone at an affordable, SE-ish price. Not this $699+ horseshit.
|