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

151–160 of 226 posts

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

#151

Post by walterbell »

chewz wrote: post #99
yladiz wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Apple is just as sensitive information greedy as Google As in Apple stores the information on their servers, forever? A lot of the sensitive information like a fingerprint or face scan is saved solely on the phone, as is a lot of the ML based features like content detection within a photo. Apple doesn't use a server farm to tell you there's a dog in your photo, it uses your phone. There aren't good excuses for some…

I agree that Google is evil regarding data collection. I have no illusions about Google. But I am dealing with it through blocking Google calling home mostly via DNS, firewall and some custom extensions in Chrome or using Firefox Focus and on the go via Raspberry Pi router and my private VPN. Apple however is calling home no less then Google and is quite secretive about why and what information is transferred so I am…

How do you generate an Apple IP blocklist while still permitting access to App Store, security updates, mail, etc?

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

#152

Post by evilduck »

reaperducer wrote: post #143
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…

Watching TV last night, I saw three ads for phones. One for the $1k iPhone, the other two for competitors, each of which in the fine print listed starting prices of $949. There's a market. Don't hate Apple because it went there first.

The Note 8 was released a few months ahead of the iPhone X for $930 too.

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

#153

Post by bdcravens »

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…

My 17 year old niece recently upgraded, and she could choose any phone. She chose the 8 Plus, as she perceived the iPhone X as being smaller. She said she'd happily get a "X Plus"

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

#154

Post by valuearb »

bunderbunder wrote: post #46
dkrich wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with you about what people should do, but the reality is that consumers have been this way for a long time, the only thing that changed is that phones shifted from commodities people bought for performance to fashion accessories. People pay more for cars, bags, clothing, etc. to elevate their feeling of status, now we can add phones to that list. Perhaps this has been Apple's greatest contribution to…

The part that irritates me is, I am actively punished for being someone who doesn't behave this way. It used to just be the hidden surcharges that phone companies tacked onto my bill to cover the cost of the "free" phone, calculated from the assumption that I'd get a new phone each year. Those surcharges are now gone. But they have been replaced with constant nagging to update the OS to a version that will harm the p…

Those updates are always optional, and also keep your 2+ year old phone secure.

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

#155

Post by valuearb »

rayiner wrote: post #97
aiofgniaotnio wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People buy the X because it's a status symbol and they want to be seen with it. I find this aspect of the tech industry so gross that I'm considering changing careers. Building a new tool that makes people's lives better is great, but much of the time it just becomes a status symbol. No one should feel bad for owning a machine that's a few years old but does everything they need. I'm not convinced that consumer gadg…

I'm okay with this aspect of the iPhone X. People buying $1,000 iPhone X's subsidize the technology that goes into a $350 iPhone SE.

They also pave the way for the third generation of the iPhone X to cost $350.

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

#156

Post by reaperducer »

smnrchrds wrote: post #59
valuearb wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Too expensive? It’s $10 a month more.

Phone contracts are 2-3 years. $10 a month would mean $240-360 in total. Is that correct? Here is Canada, the price tag from Apple is about $1300 (Canadian dollar is worth less than US dollars). I can buy it from a carrier for $1000 upfront plus $15 a month for 24 month. There are other options to pay less upfront and more each month, but the total is always the same. Can you really buy an iPhone X in the US with les…

If you're on the Apple plan in the U.S., the $10 works out to $120 because you can upgrade to a new phone after 12 payments.

AT&T has a similar plan. I don't think I've seen any two-year lock-in plans anymore in a couple of years.

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

#157

Post by pfranz »

Good? I feel like these "analyst" reports are often completely wrong and generally not useful. Who knows what Apple's goal with the iPhone X is, but as an observer I see it as a low volume, premium product, that allows them to innovate. If you have a crazy high volume product you can't do anything risky...even if you could you'd run into volume issues (acquiring parts) and any bad choice would affect a majority of your profits for the year.

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

#158

Post by GVIrish »

bluedino wrote: post #101
GVIrish wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have been using Nexus phones for about the last 5 years now, and I would say that a iPhone is clearly a better piece of hardware than a $100-200 Android phone. But for the top tier Android phones I'd agree that the reasons for paying the Apple premium are dwindling. Looking at something like the Essential phone that's retailing for $500, I think the many users would be hard-pressed to find an extra $500 of value ou…

>> then you look at a Pixel 2 XL, that's about $200 cheaper than the iPhone X And that's where the iPhone 8+ comes in.

Yep. I have to wonder whether the iPhone X is just Apple's way of taking advantage of the customer segment that is price insensitive and actually wants to spend more to get an iPhone that is rarer as sort of a status symbol.

The Wall Street Analysts may have just misunderstood what Apple was actually trying to do when they made their first sales estimates.

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

#159

Post by valuearb »

ShabbosGoy wrote: post #52
aiofgniaotnio wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>People buy the X because it's a status symbol and they want to be seen with it. I find this aspect of the tech industry so gross that I'm considering changing careers. Building a new tool that makes people's lives better is great, but much of the time it just becomes a status symbol. No one should feel bad for owning a machine that's a few years old but does everything they need. I'm not convinced that consumer gadg…

>No one should feel bad for owning a machine that's a few years old but does everything they need. That doesn’t bother me as much as planned obsolescence. Here’s why I had to upgrade to the iPhone X from my iPhone 6.[1] [1] https://techcrunch.com/2017/12/20/apple-addresses-why-people...

When were you planning to upgrade your three year old phone? I upgraded for same reason as you (6 plus), but when I found out I could have paid $85 for a new battery to restore much of my performance my reaction was, meh. I would have still upgraded anyways.

Even if there wasn't CPU throttling to keep old phones usable, software marches on adding features and benefits.

iPhone 3: 256 Mb ram

iPhone 4s: 512 Mb ram, 490 multicore Geekbench

iPhone 5: 1 Gb ram, 1,203 multicore Geekbench

iPhone 6s: 2 Gb ram, 3,888 multicore Geekbench

iPhone 7 Plus: 3 Gb ram, 5,763 multicore Geekbench

iPhone X: 3 Gb ram, 10,108 multicore Geekbench

I have always been amazed at Apple's ability to shoehorn iOS versions and new features into such limited memory capacities (compared to Android for example). But there is always a limit to what can be done.

My daughter's iPhone 5 shipped with iOS 6, and is currently running iOS 9. Is it slower? Yes. Does it have more features than when released, heck yea.

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

#160

Post by valuearb »

gruez wrote: post #54
TimTheTinker wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If practicality is the #1 priority for phone shoppers, they will simply buy a 7 or 8. Clever or particularly frugal shoppers may note that the SE has the same chip as the 6S (the A9) and can be had for $250 unlocked and in mint condition.

On Black Friday they were going for $150 brand new.

This is amazing, given they also have 2 Gb of RAM, a 6s processor & a 6s GPU with significantly less screen to push pixels through.

Believe it or not, I was split between an SE and an X. Either get the smallest phone that's still very powerful and useful, or get the best screen/processor/camera. Mainly went X because of the camera.

Post reply on HN