Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

fortune.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 226 posts

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#121

Post by valuearb »

rayiner wrote: post #95
michaelmrose wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's an intellectually dishonest way to de-emphasise how much it costs in total by showing you the smaller monthly amount. You are basically using a marketing trick on yourself to justify the money spent.

It also hides the opportunity cost. $10/month doesn't sound like much, but $400 could buy something else nice.

There is no lost opportunity cost. Apple or the service providers are proving zero interest purchase plans. My iPhone X costs around $42 a month for two years, then I own a phone that is likely still worth about $500.

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#122

Post by dkrich »

justaduder wrote: post #81
dkrich wrote: post #21

I think market analysts continue to miss the mark on this story. What I keep hearing over and over are variations of "people are turned off by the $1,000 price tag." I think this is a complete misread. People don't pay $1k for an iPhone because it's the practical thing to do. If practicality is the #1 priority for phone shoppers, they will simply buy a 7 or 8. I don't think this comprises the top of the market, thoug…

>"they want to be seen with it" How does this contradict the article? Demand is limited because fewer people will or can spend $1000 on a status symbol. Seems like basic economics.

Because the premise of the article is that people are balking at the price when I would argue the price and exclusivity are the main selling points.

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#123

Post by EpicEng »

scarface74 wrote: post #119
Joeri wrote: post #87

The iphone X is very overpriced when viewed as a utility object, because it doesn’t provide 4x the utility of a $250 phone. But it is very reasonable when viewed as a fashion accessory. A $1000 phone to go inside a $2000 purse is not crazy at all. People keep looking at apple as a tech company and struggling to understand them, but if you view them as a luxury/fashion company who happens to specialize in technology t…

Sustain the volume at what level? All indications are that Apple makes less profit on the iPhone X than the other phones. Apple would be quite happy if someone bought any iPhone that they sell from the 6s to the 8s Plus 256GB. I'm purposefully excluding the SE. I think that probably has a lower profit margin. And how is it overpriced ? There is no such thing as an overpriced item in a free market as long as the quant…

>There is no such thing as an overpriced item in a free market as long as the quantity that Apple can make in a given time period matches the quantity people are willing to buy.

That's the market perspective, but there's a value perspective as well. For example, my kid loves blind bags (no more youtube I think...) These companies want to sell him $0.05 plastic dolls for $5 and they prey on his gambling response to do so. These things are not worth anywhere near $5 except from the perspective that commercials can make my kid want them.

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#124

Post by piptastic »

olegkikin wrote: post #94
tlholaday wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What do people buy $1000 smartphones for? Consider the iPhone X a smartcamera instead of a smartphone. Consider the "portraits in low light" at the end of the side-by-side comparison section that Vanessa Hand Orellana and Lexy Savvides did for CNET here: https://www.cnet.com/news/iphone-x-vs-iphone-8-plus-is-the-c...

If I want a low-light camera, I will buy a DSLR/mirrorless, and no smartphone comes even close to something like Sony A7s (~$1100 used). I used to do commercial portrait photography, so I know. I also dislike the fake background blur / bokeh trend. I understand why the companies are doing it, but it's insanely hard to implement it right, and no phone has achieved it. Every time there's hair involved, they all fail.

Maybe for a specific event, but carrying around a DSLR everywhere you go is no fun. For candid shots, or traveling without carrying around a backpack everywhere, a phone that can take amazing pictures is awesome.

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#125

Post by nomel »

1123581321 wrote: post #100
PacketPaul wrote: post #20

Good. The phone is too damn expensive. My middle school son has a $64 BLU phone. It was subsidized by Amazon in return for ads on the lock screen. Non-subsidized price is around $100. Last week we went to a theme park with a lot of waiting for rides. He played plants vs zombies and YouTube videos non-stop while we waited for rides. I occasionally surfed the web on my $1049 iPhone X. By 3 PM my iPhone battery was dead…

I hope you won’t stay complacent about the battery issue. I would have 70-80% left in your scenario. Is it possible that sweat was leaking into your pocket and keeping the screen active?

Could you describe the sweat more? The screen is always active, that’s how the tap to wake works.

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#126

Post by touristtam »

valuearb wrote: post #121
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also hides the opportunity cost. $10/month doesn't sound like much, but $400 could buy something else nice.

There is no lost opportunity cost. Apple or the service providers are proving zero interest purchase plans. My iPhone X costs around $42 a month for two years, then I own a phone that is likely still worth about $500.

It is only true because there is a second hand market that trust this is the correct price. Seeing how those devices need to move technically with their time (more powerful hardware), I fail to see the attraction of a device that would be well passed its prime, specially with a battery that isn't replaceable.

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#127

Post by 1123581321 »

nomel wrote: post #125
1123581321 wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you won’t stay complacent about the battery issue. I would have 70-80% left in your scenario. Is it possible that sweat was leaking into your pocket and keeping the screen active?

Could you describe the sweat more? The screen is always active, that’s how the tap to wake works.

Listening for touch events but not displaying anything. If your pocket is wet, it records touches from your leg (or just the water?) and keeps the screen on. I’ve had this happen on other phones; the home button would get pressed in the pocket and then sweat would keep the screen on, draining the battery. Just something to look into.

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#128

Post by valuearb »

michaelmrose wrote: post #90
baddox wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why is that a terrible way to think about prices? Most people earn money at a predictable rate per month, so it’s perfectly reasonable to talk about these phone payment plans in the same terms. Obviously this isn’t true for things like credit card or mortgage payments, where interest is likely a significant factor, but AFAIK these cell phone payment plans are interest free.

It's an intellectually dishonest way to de-emphasise how much it costs in total by showing you the smaller monthly amount. You are basically using a marketing trick on yourself to justify the money spent.

Intellectually it's actually the most honest way to consider it, because phones don't evaporate in a month. They retain value over years. So what is your real life time cost, and how does it relate to other options, and how does it relate to benefits from the purchase?

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#129

Post by valuearb »

valuearb wrote: post #121
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also hides the opportunity cost. $10/month doesn't sound like much, but $400 could buy something else nice.

There is no lost opportunity cost. Apple or the service providers are proving zero interest purchase plans. My iPhone X costs around $42 a month for two years, then I own a phone that is likely still worth about $500.

Whether you see the value or not, there is a robust secondary market whose history shows that there is strong demand for used devices and that their entire value doesn't evaporate in a few years.

And if I'm wrong about 50% depreciation being typical over 2 years, I'm not wrong by much. There is not a huge difference between 70% depreciation and 50% in your monthly cost of ownership. Undamaged 64GB iPhone 6s are selling for between $230 and $310 on eBay, so that's 60-70% depreciation. On average the 6s cost about $20 per month.

Re: Apple iPhone X Demand Limited, Wall Street Analysts Say

#130

Post by michaelmrose »

valuearb wrote: post #121
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It also hides the opportunity cost. $10/month doesn't sound like much, but $400 could buy something else nice.

There is no lost opportunity cost. Apple or the service providers are proving zero interest purchase plans. My iPhone X costs around $42 a month for two years, then I own a phone that is likely still worth about $500.

The 6S Plus was $750 for the most basic model at launch and now ebays for about $200 which squares with losing about half the value per year which is pretty normal.

Consider also the fact that the battery life will be substantially decreased from new and that most people wont be able to replace it themselves.

Something that is overprice is actually more likely to decline because 2 years from now its just a comparatively slow device that no longer serves as a status symbol.

Post reply on HN