View Single Post
El Gallo
Formerly “MumboJumbo”
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
 
2019-08-12, 15:16

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robo View Post
I think they still do, though. Like, comparing the iPhone 8 to the iPhone XR, the iPhone XR offers a much larger screen (addressing the most obvious way the 8 was behind its rivals), advanced features like Face ID, and the same aluminum and glass design for $749. As a successor to the iPhone 6/7/8, it's a huge improvement to anyone who can stomach the larger size — it honestly offers so many of the XS's features that it makes that phone look like a bad deal in comparison. It has one camera, but so did the iPhone 6/7/8.
When the phone was released no one was knocking the build materials. The screen and lack of cameras are the key deficits. Also it isn’t like they didn’t sell any of them. The overall smartphone market is stagnant with regard to growth and they have shrinking market share within a stagnating market. Apple did replace Touch ID with Face ID but by the time the Xr arrived competitors had moved on to under the screen Touch ID so a larger percentage of that innovation was blunted, especially when available on phones as low as $350. Apple themselves have complicated this issue because they offer a combination of both Touch and Face ID. Finally normally we would be arguing about Apple not purchasing market share and not racing to the bottom with regard to pricing. That isn’t what happened here. We aren’t talking about why Apple should still be able to charge $750 for a flagship phone while others are offering the same for less. Rather Apple raised their prices into such markets forces.

Quote:
They didn't just take the X and drop the price $250 because the X and XS were designed from the start as a new higher tier of products — it's not like polished stainless steel gets dramatically cheaper a year later. Designing a new "mainstream" iPhone with the X's all-screen design was the right call — Apple was able to give it the latest SoC, which the $750 tier iPhone should always have, and they were able to give it a different personality more appropriate for the mass market. The latest rumor is that this year the stainless steel XS successors are going to be called "iPhone Pro," and that's not a bad way to think about them. This doesn't mean that the $750 tier is "demoted" — it's still every bit the latest iPhone — there's just a premium tier with a more luxurious design on top of it, as has been the case for the last two years.
Again no one has complained about stainless steel vs aluminum. For me personally the issues were expensive repairs. The move to glass backs were generated insane claims for repairs. The only way to mitigate that is purchase AppleCare which drove the price even higher. The screen was good for an LCD but competitors were doing the same with AMOLED at much lower price points.

Pro for Apple in other iOS lines has often been related to refresh rates. If the iPhone PRO had a screen with a 120 hertz refresh rate that would be “Pro” in the same way as for the iPad and would also make the higher end line feel dramatically different from say... an iPhone XR successor with an AMOLED screen but at 60 hertz refresh rate.

Quote:
Face ID? You have Face ID in the XR already.
Multiple back cameras? All the leaks say you'll get that in the XR successor this fall.
AMOLED? You probably won't get that this year. But that's sort of a weird ask, because it's not like AMOLED is an out-and-out improvement over LCD, they're just different. I'd rather they use a good LCD than a bad AMOLED, even if that keeps them from checking of that box on your list of musts.
Face ID, sure and the next phones better get whatever improvements across the entire line. By year three the current complaints and prior limitations of Face ID should not be tolerated on a phone that is “ONLY” $750. Any improvements in speed, field for recognition, etc. had better be across the entire line. Multiple back cameras, hopefully but not with any intentional crippling. If as an example you get two cameras but they intentionally remove OIS to drive you up to the $1000 tier then people will see right past that.


Quote:
I think the XR is the exact opposite of Apple "keeping their innovation at a certain price tier."
You’re welcome to your opinion but Apple is responding in a mixed fashion right now. Clearly with the Mac they sort of lost their way for a bit and now their improved response is....honestly still on the edge of marginal but improved from embarrassing. Many of their services are of questionable value so far. I suspect Apple Music and the Card will do well while we will continue to talk about Apple not getting a real good return on news and TV.

Understand that with this refresh we will be on year three of Face ID, AMOLED iPhones, duel camera set ups, etc. All of the features claimed to be necessary to charge $1000 for because they were so new will now be a couple years old. There should be new innovation for the higher level iPhones and the phone that would have the iPhone X level specs should be available at that $750 price point. If they aren’t then it is as problem. For example if Apple doesn’t give not only dual cameras but dual OIS then that will be a form of holding that innovation to a higher price tier. AMOLED would be similar in my view again as everything everyone has been doing including Apple is a couple years along now. This is why so many competitors are able to offer it at a lower price point. Again I’m not saying Apple should go sell it for $550 or $350 as other competitors are doing. However if two years later they can’t sell it at $750 then the problem lies with Apple.
  quote