And in terms of iPhones / Population / Apple Store, the US has it most. While in Japan 60% of the Smartphone are iPhone ( i.e Higher the US usage ) they have less then 10 Apple Stores. And it is the same everywhere else, which means any mark up in a certain countries has nothing to do with its Operation with in, and more to do with a Sales Tax, Global Pricing structure.
For Example, HongKong used to have the cheapest iPhone around the world, it was priced the same as US and because there are no Sales tax, it was 10-15% cheaper. Making HK the trading ground for all of SEA region or mainly China. ( Hence Tim Cook continue to blame HK market is more of a delusion rather then fact. ) Around iPhone 5 Apple started to put up additional $100 USD to ALL iPhone price in HK, as a way to combat the black market trading, and if everyone else where making money of it, why not keep the profits itself?
What has all these got to do with $1K iPhone. Well Apple already knew certain people are buying at those prices, again why not make a product that fit those segment? And to re balance the prices across the Globe?
And we have known for long there is no way to make the cutting edge devices every 12 months and ship 200M+ of it. They will need a product that only 10-20% of those 200M will buy, and have the best technology in it.
And mind you, shipping cutting edge technology to 20-40M user a year isn't any easier then the 200M+ iPhone.
27% VAT <3
Check your cardholder agreements. Mine do.
Only some of us haven't kept those in many, many years. And the one I had back then certainly didn't have such things, but it might have changed since the late 90's. For myself personally, it doesn't seem worth the hassle. Another bill every month that is non-necessary when I could just save some money to cover such things or get it repaired. It kinda sucked not having an actual card in the US, but here it isn't.
Is this sort of thing common on credit cards nowadays? I saw two replies mentioning their banks, and I'm now wondering how widespread such a thing is.
Yeah, you can autopay on debit cards too, but I don't trust that as much.
Purchase protection is pretty common on good credit cards.
This is in addition to a year of additional warranty protection and various other purchase protections.
Purchase protection took care of a theft I had in my house last month. They just needed a receipt and a police report, and the purchase price was refunded a few days later.
VAT in the EU (or anywhere else really that has the concept of VAT) normally affords no additional consumer protections on its own. It's a tax, not dissimilar at a high level to sales tax in the US, applied to goods or services at time of sale.
"Salary in the US is higher"
- but heir healthcare sucks
"Weather in California is nicer than in Oslo"
- But you don't have healtcare
"New York is such a great city to live in"
- But you're left for dead
In addition, the fact that's part of every discussion gives a hint of how much of an issue this is.
We're at 8% uninsured, which is nothing to brag about, but its far from a free for all post-apocalypse where people keel over in their desks or in the unemployment line. Its also important to note that those numbers include illegals who can't or won't get insurance due to citizen status and 1/3rd to 2/3rd of that number actually qualify for various insurance programs, but for some reason aren't seeking it (aside from citizen status).
We absolutely have a big problem with the rural poor and insurance, which is a hefty 14-20% of that demographic. I'm not sure what the fix here is especially considering rural states are heavily conservative and fight off ACA and Medicare/Medicaid expansion regularly.
I imagine ACA mandated insurance is a net boon here even if the monthlies are more.
Watched this process with sick relatives in the 90s, and it was already fucked-up then. Gone through it with my wife's 3 pregnancies and a couple family illnesses in the last 5ish years. Same thing. It's a broken, evil system that ruthlessly exploits and crushes anyone without the time, wits, and wherewithal to fight it every step, and it has been for a long time. I think what changed is we have much better exposure to what it's like elsewhere, so more of us are aware that there is no reason whatsoever to keep hurting people this way.
Other than that, the patient-doctor match gets mostly allocated on the basis of location and narrow specialty, or with limited availability; e.g. if you want a particular popular doc, then (s)he might have a queue, so you either wait when they become available or pick someone else.
Look up how much US spends on healthcare and how much rest of the world does.
Is your point, "we spend so much today that we couldn't possibly spend more under a different legislative regime."??
Do you have a reference?
It's possible some other reforms that differ radically from those systems would improve things, and maybe even be better than anything other OECD states do, but since we have a wealth of real-world data about how the existing systems work and only speculation about most others, it's a much safer move to base reforms on the ones that are observably better than ours in the real world.
Personally I'd offer the somewhat-feeble defense that it isn't as bad as people say it is, but I'd stop far short of calling it good... because I've got my own political axes to grind too, even if they are nearly diametrically opposed to the local consensus. But it isn't actually true that the American health system requires you to sign into indentured servitude the moment you walk in the emergency room door, and injects you with strychnine and tosses you out the door if you can't pay enough to satisfy the bureaucracy this week. Ambulance crews do not prowl the street and abduct unsuspecting European tourists and force them to donate blood before they're allowed to escape. Doctors do not actually giggle with glee and make "chaching!" noises when giving you bad diagnoses.
Why would they? The US produces a surplus of blood and tissue, to the point that many other countries (particularly in Europe) have to purchase to from the US to address their own shortages.
It's been horrible for a long time (and there's been outrage for a long-time: while it got derailed and we got nothing out of it but HIPAA, the bad state of healthcare and plans to reform it were central to the Clinton campaign in 1992—and while Clinton tried for a complicated scheme involving insurance companies, polling showed majority support for single-payer even then; the ACA is often pointed out to be a copy of Romneycare in Massachusetts, but what is less commonly pointed out is that both are copies of something proposed by the insurance industry and embraced by the Republican Party as a desirable national reform direction shortly after Clinton's reform effort failed, because even then it was widely perceived that something had to be done.)
> I'm not saying the status quo is best, but we didn't suddenly plunge into a crisis.
No, we've been in a crisis for more than a generation.
It's less-commonly pointed out because it's not really true.
It's true that there was one bill, in 1993, that was proposed by a Republican and which happened to somewhat resemble the Affordable Care Act at a very high level. However:
a) It was proposed by a Republican senator from a very blue state (Rhode Island)
b) That Republican senator lost his next re-election bid
c) The bill never received a vote
e) The bill was only one of many GOP-sponsored healthcare bills that year
f) Conservative and moderate Republicans strongly criticized the bill
g) While it bore some resemblance to the ACA at a very high level, it was a very different bill in details and implementation, so it's misleading to suggest that supporting one and not the other would be hypocritical. There were a lot of things Democrats like about the ACA that weren't in Chafee's bill, and there are a lot of things that Republicans might like in Chafee's bill (or the ANHRA in the House) that were not present in the ACA.
> so it's misleading to suggest that supporting one and not the other would be hypocritical
I wasn't suggesting that, I was illustrating that the perceived problem and many elements of the potential solution space have been part of the national dialogue for a long time.
Regulation in turn is driven by lobbying efforts of large professional groups (trial lawyers, AMA, large pharma etc).
In another word it is a corrupted system that manages stay afloat as people in power legally able to get their cut through lobbying.
That's not really true; total expenditures have increased, but that's largely because the treatments and care that people are choosing are different (and more expensive) than previous ones.
Put another way: today you can still get the same type and quality of care that was available in the 1960s, and it'll be cheaper than it was in the 1960s (measured in 2017 dollars). You just probably don't want it, because it's nowhere near the current expectations and standards of quality of care.
No, in many cases you can't because the techniques and absence of procedural and other safeguards are no longer up to the standard of care in the profession, older drugs are no longer produced, etc.
My view of the mainstream story is that things went from ok to chaos within the past, say, 3 years.
Instead, the costs have been steadily rising while voters have repeatedly opted not to make changes.
Thought experiment: what if gas or milk prices had increased at the same rate? Education cost has increased a lot, but that's mostly inflated by student loans that I predict will implode like subprime mortgages.
Have voters done that, though? I mean look at the trouble Republicans are having repealing the ACA. Voters seem to not want to repeal it. It seems like only the Republican leadership actually wants it repealed. My understanding is that when you ask individual voters of all stripes, they agree that pre-existing conditions should not stop you from getting affordable healthcare, and that lifetime limits are unfair across the board. But those are the things the Republican leadership wants to axe first.
It's always harder to repeal a law, versus blocking it from passing. As soon as a law is passed, it's the new status quo. And recall how close the recent repeal vote was.
Why haven't we repealed the laws against weed and poker yet?
you buy subsidized insurance. do Europeans really think the USA is just a free for all ?
And by the way, I do not buy subsidized insurance. I pay my taxes, and I have health insurance. My taxes pay for health insurance. There is nothing else to pay to get that, other than a small fee for the doctor out of pocket up to a certain amount. No doctor, no medicine = no payment. Other than taxes, assuming I'm working and paying taxes.
EDIT: The less it costs for the same quality.
Your salary requirements factor into the price. Someone making only 17k a year is capped at $54 a month premium. There are caps at certain salary intervals.
> Whereas in the part of Europe where I live, the less you have the less healthcare costs you.
100% true for the US as well. Please don't listen to news or internet comments. Verify the facts!
I was buying plans from health care exchange for 2 years and my last plan for two (parent and child) cost me 500$ per month with 6500 deductible per person - 13000$ total.
So effectively I had only a catastrophic insurance but was forced to pay for some subsidized guys who had a platinum plan with no deductible for 54$ per month. Worst situation for people like me!
The system has warts. There are good reasons to criticize it. But saying we leave the poor dying in the streets because, well, fuck 'em they're poor, is both untrue and insulting.
Well, except that it's exactly true that that’s why the “warts” that you acknowledge which do, in fact, deny swaths of the poor access to care are tolerated.
No, and you don't want an emergency room treating you, because emergency physicians aren't trained to provide anything other than acute care.
That said, the point is moot, because once a patient is stabilized, if they need further care, they'll be admitted, and receive care from an internist.
Afterwards, they'll receive a bill for a rather large amount, which the hospital doesn't expect them to actually pay (but for legal reasons is required to present them with). If they know about this, the uninsured patient can almost always get away with paying less than 5-10% of the total (initial) bill, and the hospital writes off the remainder so the bill is paid in full (ie, it does not get sent to collections). Of course, most patients don't know any of that.
The billing situation is 100% fucked, and the reasons for that are way too long to explain here, but it's not true to say that an unemployed person without insurance can't receive anything but acute care from a hospital, or that they would necessarily have to end up in debt for doing so.
No, they often won't, because while ER stabilization without regard to ability to pay is mandatory, subsequent admission and treatment is not.
If the condition is not stabilized in the ER, they may be admitted for stabilization to fulfill the mandate, but there is no mandate for admission for treatment after stabilization.
That's not really true, and it's a common misconception that arises due to the way the ER mandate is specified in law (explicitly, and via a single bill), as opposed to the confluence of a few different regulations.
In short, because of the intersection of ways in which hospitals are and are not allowed to discriminate against patients by insurance status, what ends up happening in practice is that the decision to admit a patient is rarely made with the patient's insurance status as a determining factor.
That's especially true for public hospitals, but it's true of many private hospital situations as well. (Note that this doesn't apply to the decision of which hospital to admit a patient to - a single ER which has more than one associated hospital may decide to admit a patient to the public hospital instead of the private one based on their insurance status).
To the curious Europeans out there, if you lose your job you can stay on your job's health plan for 18 months while you look for new work. If you're unemployed that long then you'd qualify for Medicaid after that, the government insurance program for the poor. If for whatever reason you really didn't have insurance you will nevertheless never be turned away from any hospital emergency room. This "die in he street because you have no insurance" is a myth and total hogwash.
If you can pay the full premiums, including the part your employer paid while you were employed.
> If unemployed that long then you'd qualify for Medicaid after that, the government insurance program for the poor.
You don't qualify for Medicaid based on duration of unemployment; whether, and in what form, you would qualify for Medicaid depends on income, assets, and state you live in (Medicaid is a state-run program with some federal standards, though even the most basic broad-strokes qualifications differ between states, especially between those participating in the expansion under the ACA and those not.)
> If for whatever reason you really didn't have insurance you will nevertheless never be turned away from any hospital emergency room.
But will be booted into the street from the ER after stabilization without treatment of the underlying condition.
> This "die in he street because you have no insurance" is a myth and total hogwash.
Except that people do, in fact, die because of lack of health insurance in the US.
You've clearly never, ever been in a position where money was an issue for you. Especially not to the point where you felt your life was in danger because of it.
If you had been, you wouldn't be handwaving away legitimate concerns over the system of healthcare. Considering you didn't even address any of the points I mentioned, I have a feeling you have no response.
"Like many musicians, Matheny went years with minimal health insurance, or none at all. In Germany, with no insurance, he wound up in debt of about €30,000 — roughly $35,000. That's what Matheny calculated he would have owed in the U.S. if he did have insurance."
So back to the $1,000 phone. If all phones cost $1000 - I'd be more likely to go without one.
I just want to say that at the end of the day there is no solution other than reducing the cost: be it healthcare or education or retirement...
The hospital that did it was religiously affiliated and knocked a huge amount off my total hospital stay, but I still paid a lot out of pocket.
What's worse is, until the ACA came along, that bout of uninsured surgery made me uninsurable from then on--I had "pre-existing condition". The ACA has made it possible for me to actually buy health insurance at all again.
Of course, I'm still hoping the Medicare for All movement starts gaining steam...
My idea is that it is not something that you should have to think about. I mean I understand it is a difficult topic because you have these outliers that can totally destroy your life if you have a baby with a malfunctioning heart or whatever but it comes back to the question of what we think is fair. I sincerely believe that healthcare is too expensive. The problem is that nobody who is in a position to cut costs has the incentive to do so.
I mean I hear all these complaints about medicare from providers like oh there are restrictions on what you can bill and what you can't and I am just thinking "good" because otherwise the doctor will put every single patient who comes in with a stomach ache through an MRI without using any of her judgment. I mean it looks badly on her if one out of a thousand patients turns out to have something she didn't catch but it doesn't hurt her at all for all those 999 useless MRI and the cost of those. The hospital is happy because they already have the machine and the technician who is there so is drawing salary so they have an incentive to maximize the use of the machine and the technician.
I am hopeful for medicare for all but we should remember that this is not the end of the problem. There are no silver bullets. As a society, we have to constantly make difficult choices and I for one support "death panels" which to me means that certain cases where the cost is too great AND the outcome is not good enough can and should get denied.
I'm not completely clear on the point you're trying to make, but this is how things work in socialised healthcare. Not everything is paid for - instead the money that is available is spent on those that return the best value-for-money balanced against not being unfair on an individual level. The question of whether to MRI everyone with tummy pain is translatable into a clinical question and can be tested in clinical studies.
In the UK we work on using a QALY - or quality-adjusted life-year to help with these sorts of decisions. They are used on boards in NICE (for general health-provisioning guidance) and the cancer drugs fund  which aims to give quick guidance on the fast-developing and expensive field of anti-cancer therapies.
Sure there are no silver bullets, but issues you bring up are being tackled to a relatively sophisticated degree in other countries.
That's perfect! One more question: how do you handle things like tobacco, alcohol, sugar, daredevils (think jackass the TV show)?
I don't really know how to compare countries like that- but I would wager somebody has tried.
In the US you get your phone cheaper. But you buy your healthcare.
Most Europeans would prefer to pay more for their phone and know everybody in their neighbourhood gets free medical for life in return.
The US system was cheaper and comparable. Now it's dramatically more expensive for the same cost. All we got from the government is expense. This is why many here are not pro-single payer.
Take a look at the U.S. public healthcare expenditure per capita. It's higher than countries like the U.K. (with fully tax-funded healthcare), probably even Germany. And that's before accounting for private funds.
Again your example is a poor way of comparing things, but you didn't even factor in how much you pay towards Medicare/Medicaid.
Last time I checked, in the UK I pay less towards the NHS and the best private health insurance I could find, combined, than I'd be paying in the U.S. in taxation towards healthcare alone.
All these comparisons between the US and Europe regarding healthcare are useless. The common suggestion that the US would need a 20% VAT or higher income tax to afford universal healthcare is absolutely false.
Or not at all, depending on pre-existing conditions, continuity of past coverage, and other factors.
In Europe you pay more taxes but pay less at the doctor.
In US you pay less taxes but might pay more if you need to go to a doctor.
Sales tax is a state thing and many US states don't have it. For example Florida doesn't have Sales Tax or Income Tax.
Only one of the tech toys stores that we visited had Samsung at the time.
I think the largest stores are Elgiganten, Mediamarkt, Netonnet and all of those sell a mixture.
A quick look at price comparison site for my area shows 80 stores selling iPhone 7 and 72 sellingg Galaxy S8. And that includes the Apple stores.
Could you explain this differently? If it had the same price as the US (converted to HKD), and no sales tax, it would be the same price as buying it in (say) Oregon:
> Since January 2017, 5 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon) do not levy a statewide sales tax
Once you correct for VAT and currency, you'll find a lot of foreign iphone sales aren't really expensive. USA pricing does not include taxes and the dollar is fairly strong now.
>Well Apple already knew certain people are buying at those prices, again why not make a product that fit those segment?
I think the larger issue here is that Apple can't maintain 2008 level pricing a decade later especially as China stops being so cheap for labor. Toss in US consumers buying on credit for 24 months and its a no-brainer we'd see price jumps. Apple isn't taking a cut on its margins, so it has to do a price increase eventually.
That's on top of the phones having expensive high quality components, NAND shortages, and the cost of rare earth elements going up every so often. Prices aren't scaling for components it seems. A high quality display in 2017 isn't the same price of one in 2008, plus inflation. A modern SoC now has to support HDMI, displayport, 4-8 cores, LTE, etc all come at a component cost as well as a licensing cost. Modern phones are more or less mini laptops now, so the dream of a 'simple' ARM device is long dead. We more or less have the desktop re-invented on ARM platforms and expect them to do anything from calls to word processing to 3D gaming. That's a far cry from the original iphone and its simple apps and simple OS.
Perhaps this is the old man part of me talking, but I absolutely fell in love with smartphones in the early days. My Treo was a wonder and the iPhone twice so. The simplistic aspects of it was incredible. Everything was snappy. Apps were a couple megabytes, if that. It did the minimum I needed and then some. Now, of course, that's all changed, but for a few years there I kind had the star-trek like device I always imagined. Now I'm back to a mini-desktop, lag, big complex apps, a near unusable mobile web, constant nags for reviews/notifications, etc. The only saving grace is that a lot of that is abstracted away from me as I move towards a lot of automation and voice interfaces (voice commands, google home, etc) and I simply developed lowered expectations of the mobile experience.
This post is informative, but can I suggest that we not adopt the "black market" nomenclature for cases where people buy hardware in one location, and then re-sell it?
Companies like Apple may brand this a "black market", but that implies that companies have a right to perform perfect price discrimination across the world.
I suggest we reserve the phrase "black market" for cases where contraband is being exchanged, or for cases where items were obtained through crime (e.g. the sale of stolen goods).
Is that the case we're talking about here? Buy in HK with no taxes, then sell in another country without paying the taxes? If so, that still sounds "black market" to me. I'd think you'd have to pay the taxes in the country of sale regardless of where you obtained the device. If that's not what we're talking about, then I agree it's probably not fair to label them "black market."
The sticky price structure of Apple was severely undercut by the price of the yen. They fixed it now, though.
It is interesting to note among Developed countries, the US has the cheapest everything.
Cars, computers, building materials, clothes, TVs. You name it, it is cheapest in the USA.
It is interesting to note this is because people in the US have much less disposable income than people in other developed countries. Companies can charge higher prices in other developed countries because people have enough money to pay it, but they can't in the US.
Is this true? I always heard it was the other way around:
And median: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
I am curious did you just make this up? This is a completely bogus statement. The US is actually amongst highest per capita disposable income countries. See:
US ~41k, Switzerland ~36k, France ~30k and Germany ~32k
Is this a commonly known thing? First I've heard it. I would have figured it would be the opposite given our overall tax rate compared to somewhere like Sweden is infinitesimally smaller. Can you point to some analysis/citations for this?
It does seem to make sense in my mind as, anecdotally, when I was in Germany I noticed a large number of high end Audis and BMWs. Cars that are $80k in the US would be well over $100k in Germany. (This is perhaps an oversimplification of the situation given that there are a great deal more factors involved in the pricing of German-made cars within Germany vs. selling the same cars in a much more competitive foreign market like the US'.)
Past there, I'd suspect that it comes down to society as a whole having a more positive outcome, while individuals potentially having slightly worse outcomes. If we lower everyone's income in taxes but reinvest that money in healthcare and mental health services, quality education, etc, then we lift a lot of unproductive members of society up and have them all producing for us as well. The middle class may earn slightly less, but we can basically chop the lower classes/poverty stricken individuals right out of the equation - Sweden has 1% of the population below the poverty line, while the US has 15% - that's going to skew the average upward quite a bit.
pet peeve of mine is then vs than.
Let's say Apple wants to be as innovative in hardware as a company like Essential – and therefore use components or manufacturing processes that aren't available at the scale of tens of millions per quarter. What should Apple do?
* Not innovate. Leave this for smaller companies; wait for the price to come down. Risk: lose market, engineers, and ability to build competence, to other companies.
* Release in limited supply at a low price; leave the surplus to rent seekers (scalpers). Risk: Leaves money on the table; insert middleman in relationship between Apple and (ultimate) customers.
* Release in limited supply at a low price; attempt to control scalping by limiting sales per customer and locking phones to the original purchaser. Risk: Complicated mechanism that people will hate.
* Charge a higher price, in order to set demand to supply. Risk: Bad image; magnifies effects of wealth inequality.
There are technologies, like process nodes, that improve on several dimensions, and while I'm sure the military has access to "future" process nodea, the yields are just so dramatically low (and also therefore dramatically more expensive), that it's not really feasible for a mainstream product.
The adgances it will have will be much less profound: more CPU cores, more GPU cores, maybe higher clocking, and a heavier battery to power it all. So, it's simply an attempt to broaden the product line, like the "plus" and (unsuccessful) "C" models.
Also, given that Apple sold a $10,000+ watch, they probably don't mind charging more. Though, it'll be priced to sell (which that watch didn't).
However, given that phones have overshot most people's needs (e.g. 5s iPhones are still selling well), Apple will soon need a killer app that requires all that power... like AR. Unfortunately, there's no indication that AR is a killer app. Who knows, maybe Apple will change that.
In India, the SE was recently on sale for Rs. 18500 after discounts and cashbacks are accounted for... with budget alternatives.
Cash reserves make it easier for them to make a riskier play into the luxury market. But in the long-run the reserve is only a temporary fallback not a sustainable model.
Pushing the price up makes it easier to play with the price margins and add more expensive parts.
It could also be fueled by the output of their R&D but they could also see the value proposition they offer as justifying a higher price from entirely non-functional aspects (ie non-software/hardware innovation), just merely the emotional draw of the product via design and branding. The measure is whether people still want the product as much rather than whether it does x & y better than the competitors.
People tend to discount the utility of emotional appeal and the connection people have to the products they use daily. Instead focusing on CPU speeds or raw feature comparisons.
This is basically the S-class phone (To make a car analogy, because that's what we do). The S-class Mercedes costs twice as much as the "Normal" E-class, and each time they launch a new model, it contains the most exotic and expensive new gadgets. It's sold to the very price insensitive. This offloads a lot of the R&D costs of these technical gadgets to the S-class customers. The following year, their E-class (Which is upscale but not a super luxury car) sees most of those S-class features at a much lower price point.
I'm suspecting this is what will happen with a new, expensive iPhone. It will be a testing ground for new features, and if the features work they will be introduced at much lower risk and cost to 10x the number of customers next year. This year it's oled screens, facial recognition etc.
Most of my friends have a nicer, more expensive, car than I do. Buying a previous-year showroom-demo Nissan SUV from the dealer saved me something like $20,000, compared to buying a Lexus or Audi, even one a few years old.
That's two decades of having the best phone. I'm not generally price insensitive. I'm specifically price-insensitive about devices that I spend a huge amount of time using, namely (in my case) my smartphone and computers.
And those things are also objectively way cheaper than luxury cars, so they aren't really comparable. A lot more people can decide to go high-end than can with cars, For instance, I noticed my housekeeper, a nice old lady who works for $15 an hour cash, also rocks a 256GB iPhone 7 Plus just like I do, and she doesn't even have a car.
If you don't drive much, try smaller cars: A1, Mini-cooper, BMW series 1, etc...
1. a cheap stripper model used to bring people into the showroom
2. an expensive deluxe model with every bell and whistle. It's primary purpose is to frame the next one as being affordable:
3. the mid-price mid-range one you're expected to buy.
Of course, the price-is-no-object people will buy (2) anyway, and that's just extra gravy.
You'll see this technique used across all sorts of product lines.
there are two great books I recommend for those interested: predictably irrational  and the upside of irrationality . personally, I think the first is better than the second as a layman's introduction to it.
(FTA:) "The company will also enter new territory on price: The latest phone will start at about $1,000, compared with the $769 minimum for its current top phone, the iPhone 7 Plus."
So they are comparing 'top' to 'top' here. Got it.
My guess is we get a 7 replacement (named 7S or 8) and an ultra-premium (named 8 or iPhone Edition).
Or, maybe not, and there is no real 7 replacement. Just the ultra-premium, and the 7 stays on as the mid-level, maybe with $100 price reduction (and the 6S is retired).
I mean 1,000$ seems bad, but that can translate to under 30 cents an hour if you're spending 4 hours a day on your phone.
You may look at spending $$$ on a keyboard or chair that you use a lot as a similar purchase, but they are far less likely to dangle carrots in-front of you to take more of your money and give you questionable value in return.
But if $500 gets you 90% of the way there, is that last $500 really worth it? Same with shoes - I regularly spend less than $100 on my shoes and find that they are perfectly comfortable, last a long time, and fit all my needs. 0 complaints. Spending another $100 might give me a better experience (at the very least it might make me feel happier when I put them on the first time), but the returns are so low that it isn't worth it.
These days, the money bar for a "good enough" smartphone is very very low.
PS: Dropping a phone should not destroy it. Over the last 20 years I have never used a case and shattered exactly one screen when fumbling it onto concrete. The new screen was not that expensive.
Instead I buy a ~$200 phone (which is just as good to me than a $1,000 phone) and when that one breaks I get another ~$200 phone.
I don't care about a broken screen though, if the screen cracks then I'll just use it until the phone isn't functional anymore.
These phones really aren't that expensive if you look for a deal.
In 20 years of owning different mobile phones, I've never accidentally destroyed or lost one. Maybe you are just clumsy or careless.
> Maybe you are just clumsy or careless.
People with physical restrictions, muscle deterioration, neural impairment can have difficulty with fine motor control, and drop things. Implying that someone is 'clumsy' is implicitly judging their physical ability.
Additionally, modern smartphones are fragile (glass fronts, water damage) and discreet (wallet sized). They are broken more often than old dumbphones, and get left behind/dropped into inaccessible places.
> The world is full of small, fragile things.
Those things usually don't cost hundreds of dollars AND are an everyday item. You don't carry your fine china to the shops in case you have the need for a cup of tea, and watches are water/shock resistant (& are physically tethered to you).
Who are you arguing against? No one said that people shouldn't have phones; just that their cost/risk benefit of phones has convinced them to stick beneath a certain price point.
I'm not sure what point you are trying to make here. If someone has difficulty with fine motor control that's called 'clumsy'. How is that 'judging'?
All I'm saying that if you're constantly dropping your phone that is a problem with you and not the phone. This is as dumb as someone in a wheelchair saying we shouldn't make bicycles anymore because they can't use them.
> Those things usually don't cost hundreds of dollars AND are an everyday item.
So I guess you don't wear glasses ?
> No one said that people shouldn't have phones; just that their cost/risk benefit of phones has convinced them to stick beneath a certain price point.
That's not what was said at all. What I am arguing against is the following statement: "Except it's really easy to accidentally destroy or lose a phone."
They are making a general statement implying that people accidentally destroy or lose their phone all the time, which is simply not true. It may be true for them, but that's not what they are saying.
Or search for "military grade phone cover".
there is objectively no reason to spend more than 200 Euro on a smartphone - except for attempting to inflate one's ego.
Also it depends on what you use it for. If you use it for web browsing/messaging/email/phone calls then most phones will do. But other features such as the camera might be very dependent on price. Adding $100 to the price doesn't add much to the ability to make calls, but photos actually get noticably better with each dollar still.
For example you can't use the iPhone as an usb disk.
An iPhone can do neither of those things.
That's simply not true, an "iPhone" most certainly can, just not with "stock iOS". Google "roqyUSB7" if you don't believe me.
No, you can't.
Try to connect your iPhone to the USB port of your smart TV and see what happens.
I am not sure if the difference between keyboards is that price dependant
Your $10 keyboard was better for you because you were more comfortable on it. My tenkeyless blue switch keyboard at home is nice, but I don't think it has much of an effect compared the Apple keyboard that I use at work.
Disclaimer: In the world of mechanical keyboards there are certainly keyboards that are better than others. That can't be said when comparing switch types, but within a certain switch type there are switches that are manufactured better than others. Here's a blog post with gifs that show the different switches: http://www.keyboardco.com/blog/index.php/2012/12/an-introduc...
Mechanical keyboards are objectively bettet in that all top competative touch typists use them.
In my case it reduces wrist fatigue
I'm 40, being using computers for 35 years now
A good keyboard literally makes my life better
My point is that a good keyboard can make the difference, while an "iPhone only" feature most probably won't
I tend to buy top of the line devices given a price range.
Mi5 was the flagship phone for Xiaomi when I bought it
I also was a owner of previous Xiaomi products and I wanted to test the new one
My point is that iPhone is a very limited platform
And its value for money is very low
I sure do, because I prefer the quality control and availability of municipally-supplied mains rather than sinking a well in my back yard.
Your point about conspicuous consumption is pretty unfocused. Should everyone use the same laptop, do the same job, be paid the same rate, lest be accused of propertarian tendencies?
I don't know where you live but here in Germany this water source is pretty cheap while of high quality. So this would rather be an example of pragmatic spending behaviour.
A $1000 smartphone would rather correspond to vanilla-flavored water filtered in a space ship using a high-tech-crystal-structure ...
> Should everyone use the same laptop, do the same job, be paid the same rate, lest be accused of propertarians tendencies?
Exactly - you are identifying yourself with those possessions. In my experience people with such materialist life philosophy are tedious and annoying.
Bottled water is basically the same thing just in slightly more convenient form yet it's ~1000x as expensive. Because it's not the relative price that's important it's the price relative to the benifit.
Better example is drinking bottled water rather than tap water. Which many people do but is IMO a total waste of money. To say nothing of environmentally wasteful.
I work with the material I get given.
That's literally the mineral water industry. So yes, lots of people do!
But getting to the water point: Yes, people spend too little on the water they drink. They should be more careful but generally speaking it is not that serious. (ie: Focusing on quitting smoking will have more significant health improvement)
In that way I think he ends up paying maybe $200 every other year for his new phone. In the last 6 years I've spent WAY more than that on the Androids I used to get and break/lose every year or so. I've finally seen the light and got an iPhone myself and plan to adopt the same strategy.
One consequence is that he has no option but treat is carefully, use a case, a screen protector, etc.. which is kind of ironic considering how much effort is put on the exterior design of the phone.
Selling the phone also has a non-zero cost : you have to find a buyer and make the transaction. In that guy's case, when he sells his own iPhone, he doesn't sell something else from his shop. And he has the advantage of being an experienced salesman and having a shop.
As for the tax write-off, sure, but I suppose that if you write off your phone as a business expense, you also need to declare the sale as business income. I doubt it is as straightforward as one may think. That guy, who is presumably a business owner, probably has an accountant to deal with such issues.
What I am trying to say is that that guy strategy probably works very well for him but how it will work for you is another story.
Yeah, but I do that too regardless of whether I'm planning to resell it, because cracked screens are a pain in the ass and that applies to any phone.
> Selling the phone also has a non-zero cost : you have to find a buyer and make the transaction. In that guy's case, when he sells his own iPhone, he doesn't sell something else from his shop. And he has the advantage of being an experienced salesman and having a shop.
He actually just sells them on facebook. He does have a shop, but he's not in the iPhone business anymore - he has a car dealership. Like I said, good salesman! He's the most active facebook user I've ever encountered, so he may be paying his "shop" rent that way.
I suspect the strategy won't work quite as well for me - but I think I can expect to pay the same $2-400 every 1-2 years that I have been paying, plus I get an iPhone instead of a cheap Android. I didn't think it would win me over, but it has.
(I also don't buy the hassle of using screen protectors. I do not mind micro scratches all that much because I'm not trying to protect the resale value of a consumable item. I can put it in the same pocket with keys or many other sharp items if that's what's most convenient in a given situation. There is indeed a cost at trying to preserve any carryable item in mint condition.)
They're not really for "micro scratches", though - they're for when you drop the phone or otherwise catch the front with something heavy/sharp/etc. My last two screen protectors have saved my screen from damage - considering that's £30 of outlay compared with ~£270 for a new iPhone 7 screen each time, I would say they're vital.
It's similar to why I make DIY furniture for my home. While the cost of materials is lower than what I would pay for a finished piece at a furniture studio, that doesn't account for the time and effort I put into it. But for me the effort itself is a net positive that it's hard to put a price on, just like the joy of arbitraging iPhones might be for this person.
Honestly, the resale value for damaged iPhones is still pretty good. Even if the screen is cracked, you can get a few hundred dollars.
I just searched for "iPhone 7 cracked screen" on eBay and filtered by completed listings, and there are quite a few that sold in the past few days for over $300 after receiving quite a few bids.
I'm using a cheap, Chinese Android phone for 2 weeks every other year to bridge the gap between selling my iPhone and getting the new one. I have to say: cheapy Android phones are getting better. Sure, they're nowhere near the quality and experience of iPhones, but my Doogee Shoot 2 ($54,-) performs pretty decently and actually shoots some nice photos in daylight. I won't be converting anytime soon (show me an Android phone that performs like new after 2 years of everyday usage, without lagging) but it does make me wonder sometimes that the price difference can't really be justified...
I usually sell my iPhones and iPads after the new one has been delivered, preferably on the first weekend of the month. In my experience you won't have to expect a significant decrease in value after release. People know there's a new iPhone - it's not a surprise, even for non-tech audiences, and people will spent accordingly.
However the supply will be larger after release, no doubt, but one could argue that this applies to size of target audience as well. People will look for second hand iPhones after release.
In any case the resale value of Apple products is nothing short of amazing.
Unfortunately the nexus is now no more, it's the Pixel which just seems like a rip-off, if I'm going to spend that kind of money I'll go back to iPhones.
Even the much touted camera on the Pixel sucks. Worse, GPS is frequently off by as much as a mile from your actual location but accuracy is claimed to be <50ft, when it claims 200-1000ft accuracy is when it's actually the correct location.
You've got to have the folding to start the ball rolling in the first place though.
Hey, Samsung released July security patch to Samsung Galaxy S4!!! We are talking about April 27 of 2013. That's 4 years and a half! https://www.sammobile.com/firmwares/galaxy-s4/GT-I9505/NEE/d...
However, the price of the lowest-tier of the latest model has been going up steadily over time, which seems not natural at all. I'd expect them to keep the price of the lower-tier constant, at least. OTOH, if they push out an Apple Watch with LTE, you can combine it with an iPad and the AirPods, and there will be no need for the iPhone at all. How much either of these combinations is "reasonable," only time can tell.
The base model iPhone has been $649 for as long as I can remember, which means it's technically gone down in price when you account for a decade of inflation...
Because just relying on the watch (for modes of communication, consumption etc) might have other constraints like battery life, reading, other forms of ease etc.
You don't need to be rich to afford a new iPhone every 24 months. $1000 over 24 months is a little under $42 per month. After the first time, you won't spend that much anyway, because you can sell your current 24-month-old iPhone for a few hundred dollars when you buy the next one.
I think it's mostly because base E-class comes with way smaller engine than base S-class, not to mention less standard equipment. When you start comparing apples to apples (say the 400 4MATIC variant for both cars), the price difference becomes suprisingly small.
Put it in the flagship, make it at a higher per-unit cost, and work the kinks out to get the manufacturing process down. Then by year two it can be economically added to lower tier phones.
On a different note, E-Class seeing most of the features of previous year's S-Class may be a bit far fetched, don't you think so? Maybe couple of features that make the newly launched E-Class visibly an upgrade from last E-Class but "most" and that too at half the price of S-Class seems slightly off. I would assume that the previous year model of S-Class would still cost the same (a little more or less) and will be in market - unless a new S-Class model is released every year.
PS. Know very little about cars (def. too little luxury ones). Just had some general doubts. And I hope E in E-Class doesn't stand for "economy".
"Executive" I think. But it's just a symbol that means their second highest model.