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

181–190 of 226 posts

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

#181

Post by patrickaljord »

user5994461 wrote: post #172
jrs95 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't necessarily need to be a fashion accessory to justify that price. You're not just getting aesthetics for the money, you're getting performance, battery life, display quality, etc. I'm using my phone a lot on a daily basis, so it's worth paying a bit more to get the best available. There's nothing functionally different about a $2000 purse. Besides, comparing iPhones to purses is basically the same sort of…

A purse can last a lifetime, if not lost or stolen. An iPhone will be unusable within 5 years no matter what.

> A purse can last a lifetime,

People who spend more than $2k on a purse rarely use it for more than a season, sometimes just for a night.

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

#182

Post by logicallee »

HugoDaniel wrote: post #180
logicallee wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>An iPhone will be unusable within 5 years no matter what. your comment makes a lot more sense if you substitute "50 years". This is what a 50 year old LV suitcase looks like: https://i.pinimg.com/236x/1d/cf/2e/1dcf2e4b6dc46d851095f477b... This is what a 2012 iPhone looks like: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_5 they're about equally useable today (2017/early 2018). After 50 years, though, the iPhone would be a…

quite the pedantic answer. lets interpret "within 5 years" as Now pick an IPhone 4 and good luck with installing/updating anything in ios 7.

The millions of people using iPhone 4's and the price of same on used market show they're far from "unusable."

For a non-durable consumer good, the difference between 5 and 8 years (i.e. 1.6x useable lifetime) is hardly "pedantic".

Would you say there isn't much difference between a 15 and 24 year mortgage in terms of length of commitment?

A phone might be the second largest personal investment many lower-income people make in any object, and it matters at what point it becomes literally unusable.

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

#183

Post by hrktb »

user5994461 wrote: post #170
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…

>>> it doesn’t provide 4x the utility of a $250 phone That is not correct. Try taking a photo of a text document with a $250 phone, the text is not readable because the camera and the software is terrible. A better phone would allow you to not have a dedicated scanner.

Motorola G Plus[0] is 184$ with a 12Mp back camera. You won’t catch a cat jumping in pixel perfect beauty, but that’s plenty enough to scan a text document.

Same for your mail, maps, browsing, messaging, light gaming. It won’t be blazingly fast under the latest OS, but will do any important task with decent performance.

[0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01N6NTIRH/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=...

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

#184

Post by Steko »

ramshanker wrote: post #55

I swear this post seems to have suddenly dropped out of HN. I saw it on the phone. Than came to laptop only to find it no where. As it can be seen, some many comments were posted in last few minutes of this post. Is there some moderation or something?

It seems like most articles about Apple are quickly flagged off the front page by a small cadre of haters.

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

#185

Post by user5994461 »

patrickaljord wrote: post #181
user5994461 wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A purse can last a lifetime, if not lost or stolen. An iPhone will be unusable within 5 years no matter what.

> A purse can last a lifetime, People who spend more than $2k on a purse rarely use it for more than a season, sometimes just for a night.

My last tinder dates would disagree with that, but they're just normal middle class women.

The amount of people renewing luxury bags as fast as you say is very tiny.

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

#186

Post by jakebasile »

grepthisab wrote: post #88
DSingularity wrote: post #80

Goodness. Everyone is speaking with such authority. I bought my X because I wanted to switch out of Android and because I only buy a phone once every three years it pays to buy the best phone I can buy. Why should I care that it’s 1000$ when I buy a phone once every three years?

Because $1000 is a lot of money to most people.

That's true, but why should that color someone's decision on what they buy?

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

#187

Post by make3 »

jrs95 wrote: post #145
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…

It doesn't necessarily need to be a fashion accessory to justify that price. You're not just getting aesthetics for the money, you're getting performance, battery life, display quality, etc. I'm using my phone a lot on a daily basis, so it's worth paying a bit more to get the best available. There's nothing functionally different about a $2000 purse. Besides, comparing iPhones to purses is basically the same sort of…

I hope you aren't claiming there is anything from a utility perspective that would make the iPhone X a rational purchase, aside from the appearance of wealth which can be utility depending on which business you're in. otherwise there is simply none, let's please cut the bullshit here. well all in all, the premium is purely for the fashion/wealth thing

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

#188

Post by user5994461 »

logicallee wrote: post #182
HugoDaniel wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

quite the pedantic answer. lets interpret "within 5 years" as Now pick an IPhone 4 and good luck with installing/updating anything in ios 7.

The millions of people using iPhone 4's and the price of same on used market show they're far from "unusable." For a non-durable consumer good, the difference between 5 and 8 years (i.e. 1.6x useable lifetime) is hardly "pedantic". Would you say there isn't much difference between a 15 and 24 year mortgage in terms of length of commitment? A phone might be the second largest personal investment many lower-income peop…

They are unusable or will be very soon.

Old applications refuse to start, the vendor blocks the old version or retired the remote API. New applications don't support older phones, they can't be installed.

Batteries die. Screens are broken. Spare parts stop being available after a while.

A phone has a life expectancy around 5 years, top.

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

#189

Post by pier25 »

valuearb wrote: post #162
pier25 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are not wrong, but that's like arguing that a Porsche is the only way to drive.

Well, it is. If you can afford one. And if you can, can you give me a ride?

I could afford a more expensive car, but I'm very happy with my Honda... and my Android phone.

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

#190

Post by user5994461 »

hrktb wrote: post #183
user5994461 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> it doesn’t provide 4x the utility of a $250 phone That is not correct. Try taking a photo of a text document with a $250 phone, the text is not readable because the camera and the software is terrible. A better phone would allow you to not have a dedicated scanner.

Motorola G Plus[0] is 184$ with a 12Mp back camera. You won’t catch a cat jumping in pixel perfect beauty, but that’s plenty enough to scan a text document. Same for your mail, maps, browsing, messaging, light gaming. It won’t be blazingly fast under the latest OS, but will do any important task with decent performance. [0] https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/B01N6NTIRH/ref=mp_s_a_1_3?ie=...

The number of pixels has zero relevance to the quality of a photo.

The world is filled with cheap phones that will make a blurry picture if there isn't perfect lighting or if you move by a single millimeter when you press the button.

Post reply on HN