Let's also not forget that Apple also removed a $20-30 accessory from the box under the guise of saving the planet. Then not only decided to not pass that savings onto the customer, but actually secretively raised the price $30.
I am not suggesting that removing the power brick doesn't have any impact on the environment. What I am suggesting is that I don't buy for a second that it was the primary motivator for removing it. My guess is that the primary motivator is shipping cost. This has a tangible and significant impact on their profit per unit and that was the driving factor. The fact that they could spin the removal of this device as a painstaking decision they toiled over because they wanted to save the sea turtles is really just a PR spin and was a happy coincidence that they could use.
And all those tangible cost savings thanks to the removal of this accessory... not only have those savings not been passed onto the consumer, but they actually increased the price!
There is another aspect to this people might be missing:
If every phone that is shipped must come with a charger, but half the chargers are never used, then the marginal value gained by customers from the manufacturer improving that product is also halved.
So why bother making the charger good? Half the people won't use it! They'd have to pay for something that's not a direct benefit to the product they do want to buy: the phone.
This is one of the reasons the chargers that come with typical electronic devices are so bad. So very very bad.
They're big. They're odd shaped. They can't be plugged in side-by-side. They're heavy. The don't provide much power. They're inefficient. Etc... Some are downright dangerous.
It's a race to the bottom where noone wins.
Here's the thing: I like the "fancy" chargers Apple makes. They use very advanced technology such as gallium nitride circuitry to miniaturise their chargers. They're tiny, yet powerful! They don't get hot. They're light. They're safe.
But I only need one or two, but only when travelling. At home I need none because the IKEA power strips have USB charging ports built in!
I'd much rather concentrate my dollars into a couple of really good chargers instead of a bunch of mediocre chargers that's forced upon me on a one-to-one basis with the number of devices that I own.
Also: I haven't used a wired charger for my phone in about a year. Why include a wired charger if the customer has a choice of charging technologies? Should Apple include both a wireless and wired charger? Should they include a car-kit too?
No. This is the point of standards: it lets you mix and match components at will instead of getting a fixed combination.
> Except apple doesn't use standards. They use their own proprietary ports.
Actually Apple is pretty standards compliant, sometimes excessively so. I have no illusion that they are doing this out of the goodness of their hearts, but the idea that they "don't use standards" is a canard.
For video they long used open standards (DVI, Displayport, HDMI, now standard DisplayPort over Type C); they were one of the first to adoptt USB (much to the gnashing of teeth on the part of previous apple owners), the iPod originally used firewire; and lightning when it came out was the only insert-either-way connector (apple was on the USB board that designed Type C, but lightning predates type C) and now they use Type C (much to the gnashing of teeth of various parties). Their wireless chargers are Qi compatible, though their devices aren't :-(. Their USB implementations long required quite compliant devices rather than windows' "just install a flaky driver" leading to "hey this USB thingie doesn't work on Apple".
I had hoped this year they'd ditch lightning for type C on at least the high end phones but no luck.
On the software side, especially when they were the underdog they were quite standards compliant (image, music, video files, PDF, RTF etc) and are responsible for removing DRM from their music store. They didn't roll out their own formats until they were in a stronger position but have retained support for most of these old formats.
I think you may have overlooked the other side of those cables in your examples. While one side of the cable was FireWire or USB, the interface on the device was propriety. And that was true for over a decade worth of iPods, iPhones, and iPads.
I still have an original iPad and it had a big FireWire connector on it. It was FW on both ends. They rapidly switched to USB (w/30 pin at other end) in order to open up the PC market to the* iPod.
* I refuse to follow Apples pretentious (proprietary?) refusal to use the article “the” with the iPod and the iPhone.
A quick note, the iPhone 8 and later are all Qi compatible at 7W. I guess their new proprietary charger will be 15W. Supposition is that the watch and ipad dont support wireless charging due to space/heat. Still a pretty reasonable story. https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT208078
On the other side the 30pin device connectors and the active thunderbolt 2 cables are pretty crap and play in to the proprietary and expensive meme.
That's increasingly not true with the single exception of the iPhone (and even it now uses USB-C for the adapter and Qi for the wireless charge protocol). Every other new device (iPads, laptop and desktop) is 100% USB-C. And, again, you don't even strictly need a lightning cable for your iPhone for most scenarios (airport charging type scenarios used to be the big exception in olden times).
Some reviewers are guessing that iPhones will drop the wired charge port entirely at some point, so will become a moot point.
And as for squeezing customers, switching away from the Lightning port would "squeeze" quite a few iPhone customers with lightning cables and docks and such strewn around their house.
I just wish Apple had included a puck-type Qi charger and cable in the box. Could have kept the box pretty slim.
In fairness to Apple, they didn't just make other ports for the sake of it. When lightning mini was made, it was objectively better than mini-USB. When magsafe was made, it was objectively better than barrel plugs (and for charging, it's still better than USB-C.) Now that the standards are better, Apple is slowly transitioning to USB-C, which is a standard.
If by "slowly transitioning" you mean "massively and publicly driving adoption of USB-C", then yes, I agree.
Apple has been pushing for the interoperable USB standard for as long as it has existed. The original iPhone was either the first phone to charge from USB, or at minimum the first successful mass-market phone to do so.
The Galaxy Note 5, released in August of 2015, used a MicroUSB port. I think we'd both agree that is a premium Android device, and clearly, "standardized on" USB-C did not happen "long before".
In fact, Android only introduced support for USB-C in 6.0, officially released in October 2015:
Have windows laptops even standardized on USB-C now? I still see a lot of Windows laptops that come with barrel plug charging and all the legacy ports, and then have a sole USB-C port that you can also use for charging if you buy a separate charger
The problem is if they have the space for a USB-A plug, realize that tons of NEW consumer devices still use that! Apple can convince its customer base to buy dongles, but will all Windows PC users be happy with that?
I remember making the observation a few years back that when the MacBooks went USB-C, they marked the first time that, as far as I know, Apple ever shipped a machine that had no proprietary ports on it... and it was so ironic that people (including, I'd note, on HN) were really angry about it. I still get into arguments with people insisting that it was all just a plot for Apple to force you to buy dongles.
You can find usbc ports exclusively on newer macbooks and ipads, which is pretty significant, and they also come on the desktop macs. I'm guessing it will appear in iphones at some point; I believe Apple was considering a switch for the latest iphones but backed out in May. It's reasonably likelt that the next models will drop the lightning mini.
I feel weird about sort of defending this practice but ... I don't have a problem with it.
There it is, the phone without a charger is the offer, you know it, I know it. We all know the price and the product.
There's no mystery here. This stuff about if it was a hard decision or not, I don't see how it matters. Folks who take this kinda of marketing to heart, I just don't get it.
I kinda don't have a problem with the omissions, but the "marketing spin" seems a little over the top.
How standard are these usb-c bricks and are people going to be worried about cooking their phones? (Apple's chargers are of pretty high quality, but it seems weird to plug a phone into a usb c device that can charge a notebook).
Also I feel that the headphone ommission to save the environment would be more believable if they weren't selling $100 wireless earbuds without replaceable batteries.
Much like "Reuse your towels in the hotel" is as much about saving the hotel money as saving the environment.
Here's how I see it: the phone industry is in a bad Nash equilibrium.
Chargers should be sold separately, they tend to last longer than a phone, cheap ones are dangerous, and people buy phones, the chargers just come with because everyone sells phones with chargers.
Apple is big enough to shift out of that equilibrium, by pulling the good-ol' reality distortion field and encouraging everyone else to stop bundling chargers on environmental grounds. Which grounds are actually valid, though not the actual motive in play.
A world where chargers aren't included is better than one where every manufacturer feels bound to bundle one in to every single phone purchase. So I think Apple is doing a good thing here, just like when they were the first to stop including floppy drives.
The unfortunate part of this is that in a world where manufacturers compete independently on chargers, I think it will be a race to the bottom. Even apple users may accept the drastically lower cost of a $10 charger vs. Apple's. I expect to see more electrical fires in the future as a consequence. The build quality of some of the chargers that get sold online is downright dangerous.
I can't for the life of me see the relevance. Sealed phones aren't an industry Nash equilibrium, they're a good design that users and manufacturers both prefer.
There are also no ecological grounds whatsoever to prefer user-replaceable batteries. The fact that it requires a few professional tools and some patience is irrelevant: when the battery stops holding a charge, it can be replaced, and this happens routinely.
> There are also no ecological grounds whatsoever to prefer user-replaceable batteries.
Really? I used to routinely replace batteries in my family's phones. Now they're more inclined to get rid of an otherwise working phone since I no longer have the skills to keep up.
And the battery is usually the first thing to need attention as a device ages.
Optimistically I think that's just the process of rethinking everything and retooling every single industry and changing deeply ingrained consumer habits to tackle our enormous environmental problems. This "marketing spin" in the iPhone 12 keynote is a commitment that paves the way for truly environmental friendly products, behaviour and legislation.
I really haven't had a problem charging an iPhone and all my other devices from a handful of USB bricks. I suppose the charging tech might mean they don't charge at optimal speed, but I've never noticed the difference.
We are not sheep we know the cost and we value the product. That is not being a sheep. I have tried and don't care for Android phones and tablets. Not because I feel like having an Apple on the product makes it better but because I enjoy using it more.
what you might not notice is that we all have the freakin chargers, too many of them!
even if you take just your malfunctioning device, by itself, to the store for repair, they give you a whole new phone with another set of headphones and chargers
maaaaybe there is a point about “and they raised the price anyway!” Yes, Apple has large margins, yes, new consumer goods cost more than they previously did. It is weird to reserve this argument for Apple or smartphones. I would pay more than +$30 for a Lidar sensor
I'm not responding with the parent in mind because it's already flagged at the time of writing this comment, but I really wanted to know if
>we all have the freakin chargers
is a correct assumption. Apple are recommending a 20W brick with a USB-C slot in it for the 12 series. No OEM I know has shipped such a charger with their phones. Apple themselves haven't either. The iPhone 11 Pro came the closest with an 18W USB C brick, but the others used USB A too as far as I know.
It's not to say that it won't charge on a 5/10/15/18W brick, but I believe the consensus is that the rating certified by the OEM and preferably the hardware certified by them should be used unless it's unavoidable.
"decided to not pass that savings onto the customer"
Do you have access to the BOM? Sure it was likely a cost-savings measure, but it may have been to combat rising prices elsewhere. It's a two-sided equation and we can't see the whole thing.
If Apple did want to be environmentally friendly though I would think offering a reasonably priced multi-device (4-ports?) charger would be more effective than just selling a single-device charger separately.
One charger for many devices for many years is a better story than "It's the same charger, just purchased separately now."
To be fair I've maintained for a while now that the reason Apple uses lightning on the phones is because it's quite frankly much more durable than USB-C.
Lightning ports are not more durable than USB-C. They are extremely prone to the device-side conductor corroding. USB mini made the mistake of making the device side contain a friction wear item, but USB micro fixed that but had other endurance issues due to its flimsiness. USB C doesn’t suffer from any of those drawbacks.
Every USB-C device I’ve ever owned—including my MacBook Pro—has suffered from cables failing to “click” into place and being held in noticeably more loosely than when they were brad new. This has happened from within a few weeks to a few months. And it’s not the simply the cables wearing out: new cables with old devices produces the same behavior. And when I remove my USB-C YubiKey, the port it uses produces the satisfying click (the port is effectively brand new, since the device is never removed in general use).
Every single Lightning device I’ve owned still connects as if brand new. The only people I ever seem to hear criticize Lightning are people who don’t even own Apple devices.
In my opinion, the form factor of USB-C was a massive mistake (even before considering the nightmare of competing cable incompatibilities) and they should have gone with the form factor of Lightning.
> The only people I ever seem to hear criticize Lightning are people who don’t even own Apple devices.
I've been exclusively iPhone since the 4S and its gorgeous retina display lured me away from my beloved Curve 8900. I am still not as proficient a typist nor as productive a person on the go as I was with my BlackBerry back in 2009.
(I did however ditch my rMBP years ago but I don't see how that could factor into a discussion about Lightning ports.)
I've had lots of trouble with lightning, mostly stemming from the power pin on cables corroding, which then causes arcing in any new device you use it in causing the problem to propagate
I've had my iPhone 11 Pro Max inside a Apple smart charging case since day 1, and for the past few months, the connection is really flakey, either one of the plugs is going bad. And its never left the case, the port looks very clean (no dust)
That's a really interesting counter-anecdote. Now that I think about it, my girlfriend has also had two Lightning cables die due to arcing (discovered black markings on the copper contacts) although I'm not sure it if it propagated the way you were saying.
Good to know, but that would still be a major design issue.
Thinking about it, the best common data connector for interment use might be those credit card chip readers. They can handle more connections in a week than you need to recharge your phone in years. Sure they eventually ware out, but that’s in a business setting.
USB-C cables are less durable than lightning cables. But the ports are more durable than lightning ports.
I'd say that's a good compromise given the relative costs of a phone vs a cable.
That said, my Nokia 6.1 had the USB-C port fail in just a couple of years. Apple's design for the USB-C ports on their laptops looks extra nice and durable though. They are machined out of the aluminium of the case itself.
My partner's 12" MacBook has a (single) USB-C port, which has become increasingly loose over time. To the point where she has to listen for the distinctive sound it makes when charging when she plugs it in, and wiggle the connector until it connects properly.
So despite the apparent solidity of the machined shell, something in the system wears over time.
I'm not trying to suggest that this is the answer/reason for your particular anecdote but it could have nothing to do with USB-C itself and simply be unnecessary physical wear put on by the user. I think you can find anecdotes in either direction for this particular case.
IMO, all connectors have issues, some more, some less.
USB-A has proven remarkably good, despite the "insert 3-times" problem, and it's now fairly large size.
Lightning is ok -- I have found that cables lose their "snap in" ness after a while, the arcing limits the connector lifetime, and I've snapped the tongue off a few (cheap) cables.
USB-B Micro has been pretty good for me, despite the "insert 5 times" problem.
USB-C has advantages of "insert-once", and smaller size, but (in my one-off anecdata) can have issues with losing its snug-ness over time. I thought it was notable, since it was with a MacBook -- so not something badly engineered, or cheap, or whatever.
I guess my view is that it's not a panacea, and arguably, on a par with things it's replacing.
They did, the cable which comes with the new phones is USB-C on the charge end.
Forcing an ecosystem of about a billion devices to throw away all their cables and accessories isn't environmentally responsible, however you want to spin it.
I am in the camp that they should just hand them out to anyone who has purchased a new phone. They cannot cost that much and this way new customers are not out an additional cost.
This is easily accomplished at the store and a good retailer could run with the idea to differentiate themselves for a low cost
This is one of the few criticisms I can get behind. I think Apple could deflect a lot of criticism here for a comparatively small amount of money by simply offering a standalone brick as a free accessory to anyone purchasing a new phone.
If it's a separate box that then the buyer has the option to say "no".
Why would everyone just take one when they have perfectly functioning charging cradles, docks, clocks, and travel accessories?
I have a 5-port charger on my desk which charges all my devices and organises them neatly. When we go travelling we have a USB charging bar which plugs into mains and provides half a dozen 2.4A USB ports. We don't need vendor-provided chargers.
I expect a vast majority of the market is in a similar position.
The only people who would take the free accessory are those that need one, or have a compulsion to acquire free stuff because it's free.
Studies show that people will almost always take something offered free with a purchase, even if they don't need it. While I do think there's probably a middle ground here, people do have the option to say "no" - they just don't buy it. I think the motivation behind that is both a financial one (Apple makes money on the bricks) but also a psychological one (people won't pay money for something they don't actually need, thereby reducing e-waste).
How is that environmentally friendly, though? Switching to USB-C now turns all the existing Lightning accessories into more e-waste and all the existing Lightning cables into e-waste. Given that wired charging will likely go away in a few years, it doesn't really make sense to change everything to USB-C now just to make it go away altogether in either an environmental sense or a business sense.
I doubt that USB-C would be more environmentally friendly. I am fairly sure that the vast majority of people buying new Apple phones today are people that currently have Apple phones. Lots of Apple's customer base have been iPhone loyalists for longer than USB-C has been commonplace.
Which doesn’t in any way shape or form negate the simple reality that there is currently an ecosystem of perfectly functioning Lightning accessories that will all need to be junked when Apple transitions the iPhone to USB-C.
It's not the same price because it's not the same device.
Did Apple increase or decrease their profit per iPhone on this round? Y'know, I have no idea. I do know that trying to come to a conclusion about it on the basis of not including a charger and headphones is impossible.
Fair point. They do have a significantly upgraded radio, however. I don't remember what happened to pricing when they went from 2G to 3G or 3G to 4G/LTE, but I would not have been surprised if pricing had gone up with the 5G upgrade (in a normal economy).
That said, the AT&T/Verizon giveaway/deception is absolute garbage.
I don't have a problem with them increasing price. We don't know the cost of the changes in this version and even more so users are not entitled that Apple keep the same profit margin even if the cost is the same.
The deception though is claiming that new new phone has all these new goodies with the same price. This is effectively all these new goodies with $50 increase in price ($30 career, $20 charger).
The iPhone 12 (and Mini) also both have OLED displays rather than the iPhone 11's LCD, so it's at least plausible that there's a bit of increased BOM there as well?
> That said, the AT&T/Verizon giveaway/deception is absolute garbage.
Question is, does Motorolas offering support the mmWave frequency band? I know that the Motorola Edge+ does support those bands, however it had an introductory price of 999$ so not exactly a bargain.
>but it may have been to combat rising prices elsewhere.
1. Qualcomm Modem is at least $8 more expensive than Intel according to last court filling. And generally inline with industry expectation of its BOM Cost. Those numbers were for 4G Modem. And I would expect 5G Modem to be even more expensive.
2. mmWave isn't Free. I am very surprised Apple put mmWave inside iPhone 12 as well.
The problem with Multi Port Charger is that it is very Un-Apple. What happens when you charge a MacBook and iPad Pro at the same time? You now either expect customers to add up their Wattage to see if your chargers fits or design a multiple port charger to include this scenario, and if you include Apple's normal accessories margin that Charger is going to be insanely expensive.
So it is better to leave it to third party to do it. Apple will just recommend you to use their own charger.
>Do you have access to the BOM? Sure it was likely a cost-savings measure, but it may have been to combat rising prices elsewhere. It's a two-sided equation and we can't see the whole thing.
Unless the cost of a powerbrick went up by $50-60, there are savings that Apple is not passing onto the consumer.
So you're saying the cost of the iPhone 11 and 12 is the same? Also, why does it matter? These devices were never sold anywhere near their real cost and people still bought them, and still will.
I do not buy for a second that environmental concerns were Apple's primary reason for removing the power brick and the lightning headphones from the box, though I think the decision makes sense. The lighting headphones are more of a pain than they are worth and most consumers have enough five watt power bricks floating around if they really need one. From a PR and messaging stand point environmentalism was really the most elegant explanation without diving into market research on consumer behavior and component costs.
The Verizon 5G presentation and the opaque pricing are real head-scratchers.
Why include Verizon at all? They are in last place in the US on 5G deployment and 5G is going to be largely meaningless for most consumers. So to have Verizon out there and then act like 5G is a huge deal says to me that they felt like they did not have enough to talk about with their new phones. It is faster, the cameras are better, they redesigned it, but it is kind of a mashup of the old design and new design, nothing revolutionary. They went hard on 5G because it is all they really have new to talk about. Verizon was needed filler and likely signed some kind of co-marketing deal to be on stage. I would expect a lot of iPhone-centric Verizon commercials over the next year.
And as far as the subsidy, I think it is fine to have carriers subsidize phone costs for their consumers, but $30 is peanuts on a $700+ phone and not worth any confusion or ill will generated by those who thought they were getting an unlocked phone for $699 as advertised.
Every year the new model has a gimmick - I mean, a new, unique, compelling selling point.
3G: 3G!
3GS: Speed!
4: Retina Display!
4S: Siri!
5: 4G!
5S: Touch ID! 64bit!
6: Finally bigger size! Also, Apple Pay!
6S: 3D Touch! (groan)
7: Dual camera!
X: Face ID!
Xs Max: Even bigger! Dual Sim!
11 ProMax: Triple camera!
12 ProMax: 5G, Lidar!
5G is meaningless to a lot of people, yours truly included, and will most likely stay meaningless for a couple years at least, given the tiny deployments and the minimal speed advantage. But it's a big deal so it had to be one new model year's gimmick. I'm happy we got over it, so maybe next year they'll have to come up with something I actually care to buy.
It's not the environment, the main reason was logistics efficiency. They can get more phones per standard pallet and will save millions in shipping and storage costs.
The environmental stuff is a nice bonus and excellent PR.
It's going to be incredibly frustrating for the average person to buy an almost-$1000 device, use it until it runs out of battery, and realize that a charger is a completely separate purchase. Especially because the included cable is USB-C, so it won't work with most old power bricks.
I feel like Steve wouldn't've let this happen... the UX is just so, so bad. It feels incredibly profit-motivated.
Are you serious? You think the average person a) doesn't know that you have to charge your phone and b) doesn't have like 50 of those stupid cubes and a bunch of cables sitting in a drawer somewhere?
Tech people's continued assumption that they're the only ones who aren't total troglodytes is ridiculous.
Most of thee existing Apple charging cubes are not USB-C. The cable included with the new phones is USB-C -> Lightning. So, the cable doesn't work with most existing chargers (unless you happen to also own an iPad Pro).
This is true and super annoying that they're doing it this way. However, it's not just iPad Pros that have compatible chargers. Anyone with a MacBook from the last several years (four?) can charge either via the computer or the wall plug (if they want to charge faster). Some people also have inductive chargers that they use, though this is probably a minority.
I won't be getting one of these phones, and I think the VZW/AT&T giveaway is garbage. But I don't mind not having another power brick for my next phone. I already have plenty of lightning cables sitting around and ways to plug them in.
Then why include the cable? Save a few more whales and leave it out as well.
If I were king... the phone would be sold “bare”, but for $30 less. If somebody needs a charger or cable, they can use that $30 to buy one. Instead, Apple remove the charger, includes a cable not compatible with most iPhone owner’s existing chargers, increased the price $30, and tell me it’s to save the planet? GTFO.
(Really, I’m not nearly as annoyed as I probably sound, I just hate the inconsistency)
Most people hold onto their laptops for longer than they go between phone upgrades. And many (most? all?) laptop manufactures have USB-C ports on their devices these days, all of which can be used to charge your phone.
The main thing that seems a bit odd to me is that they're including a cable but not the charger. Now, to be sure, there's an argument that they're providing something that goes between a proprietary connector and an industry-standard one (that Apple will increasingly use over time). But that industry-standard is still relatively new and therefore it's the "wrong" cable for a lot of people.
I agree it's a little strange, but the included cable is also the one most people won't have, and the forward-looking option. I would guess the vast majority of iPhone users have many USB A -> lightning cables, but few or no USB C -> lightning. The new cable fills a gap, in other words.
There's also the whole issue of universality of USB-C chargers and the like. Do you ship a big 100W charger with an iPhone? This issue has existed previously with USB but it seems trickier at the moment. Maybe better to punt from the perspective of Apple. And at least "we're providing a charging cable from an increasingly common standard plug."
(And yeah, if I bought this phone, I'd have a couple USB-C chargers but no cable though would probably use USB-A/wireless charging anyway.)
I don't think the USB-C charger thing is a big issue, Apple already has several different sizes of USB-C charger. I have an iPad pro, 13" MBP and work-issued 15" MBP, and all have different sized USB C chargers. You can charge them with any of the above, but the smaller chargers can't keep up with the more demanding devices. This was already the case with the iPad vs iPhone charger, and the older magsafe chargers as well that came in different sizes.
On the other hand, each of the phones I and the people around me have have different standard for fast charging. So even if I wanted to share the charger with someone or use one that I current own, I'd be losing on that benefit
The average person who buys a $1,000 phone in 2020 and has no USB charger at home or charging brick from a previous iPhone or laptop or computer or anything to plug in the cable. Sure.
There's probably someone like that, and they can buy a charging brick. The rest of us can do without the 300,000 tons[1] of e-waste per year these amount to.
Interesting, my experience has been different, though I haven’t actually checked this in several years (I just always charge electronics first).
It seems like electronics used to ship uncharged because partially charging NiCad batteries harms them, and shipping fully charged batteries is dangerous. Nowadays, Lithium batteries are typically charged at 30% capacity before shipping. Lithium batteries were sometimes sent uncharged for some period of time in between.
It's not bad that it's profit-motivated, it's bad because it is short-sighted, greedy and consumer-hostile.
This is the type of thing that is done because (many) someone's bonus is tied to some profit margin kpi, and they figured out the cheapest, most direct way to do it, customer be damned.
Removing the charger under the guise of helping the environment was disingenuous by Apple. They said they shipped a billion chargers so they’ll just include the cable from now on. Well, the cable is Lightning-to-USB-C, not USB-A. Apple shipped nearly zero USB-C chargers and many people getting an iPhone will have to buy one. In the end, Apple removed the charger but didn’t lower the price, and people still have to buy a charger.
True, but there's nothing from preventing you from using your old phones USB-A to lightning cord and brick to charge your new phone. That is what I plan on doing.
The problem is that the cables have a weakness that causes them to eventually break. Getting a new brick and cable to go with the phone solves that issue at least for a few years. With the new cable being USB-C, you can’t use the old brick with the new cable. The brick was also useful when traveling to places without USB-C ports or even other USB ports.
But that's the whole point. You'll buy one at that point because you need it. Giving people the brick whether they need it or not is what makes it wasteful and costly for all involved.
The point is that you will most likely immediately need it. Example, I charge my phone bedside. Now I need to either buy a brick or if I do what Apple wants me to do which is to buy the MagSafe charger.
This incentivizes people to buy yet another Apple accessory. That and margins are the real purpose. One more foot into the Apple ecosystem.
What is that based on? The vast majority of iPhone buyers are existing iPhone users and will not need the brick. I have 4 bricks and cables in a drawer right now and I don't need them at all because I have a Qi wireless charger on my nightstand.
I'm actually very happy they did because every time I upgraded, the headphones and the adapter would end up in a box. I have enough adapters to build a fort, which is kind of cool, but also kind of useless.
I'm surprised. Do people not sell their old iPhones? Since it's significant money I always sell my old device and obviously I include the (unused) headphones as well as the charger (which I actually do use)
Regardless of their reasoning, I don't mind it because I have a box filled with unused phone charges and headphones from my families phone purchases.
My only real concern is first time phone buyers. I think Apple stores (online or in person) should ask if you need headphones/wall charger when you purchase and just include a free set if you do.
I have an old SE. I'm considering upgrading to the new SE. The SE (which has already been out for months at $399) used to come with earpods and now doesn't, at the same price.
But the phones are clearly not the same and we have no idea what the real cost is yet. Just building a device this year, where transportation and shipping from country to country has been excessive, could account for that difference in cost minus the earpods.
> Everyone (to some approximation) has a charger already!
Yeah, but I could always use more for various places around the house, travel, one or more inevitably getting lost, etc. And haven’t they in the past few years started bundling better chargers than those lame 5W ones they used to bundle for the longest time? Wouldn’t mind getting one of those and ditching and old 5W one.
Then they should have dropped the price of the phone, no? At least, they should have bundled it in some way, considering that very few people probably have a USB-C brick designed for charging iPhones.
Why should they have dropped the price on the phone?
They are clearly stating what does and does not come in the box at the price. They clearly state the price. You either think what comes is worth it in the box or you don’t. They could exclude the power adapter while simultaneously increasing the price by $200 per unit. If people do not like it, they won’t buy it.
I don’t understand why there is this expectation that something is “owed” to the consumer market. If this was a bad decision on their part, and it drives a lot of consumers away from their products, it will show up in their sales numbers and they will course correct. Sort of how they did on their Mac keyboards.
My guess is that no one will care about the missing power adapter. I certainly don’t. If it increases their margin, good for them. If it is offsetting increased build expenses elsewhere, fine.
Also I would imagine $30 on a $700-$1000 device doesn’t really move the needle for most buyers. My sales taxes on that device will add up to more than that.
Because this is something they have done for many years and now they are claiming they're doing it for the environment when that is clearly not the full story. Arguments that bad decisions only show up in sales numbers are meaningless because consumer decisions do not occur in a vacuum, so pointing to sales numbers and trying to reverse engineer whether "this was a bad decision" doesn't work.
> Why should they have dropped the price on the phone?
Because price gouging is immoral.
If Apple was on the margins financially and needed to raise prices to stay in business, that would be one thing. Apple, however, is replete with surplus assets and is taking hard-earned money from other peoples' pockets simply because it can.
There are an awful lot of far more economically productive uses the proceeds of Apple's defacto price increase could be put towards instead of further enriching Apple senior management and shareholders.
That's not an equivalent issue. Employees, like consumers, need their money much more than employers (or more to the point, senior managers and shareholders) need it.
Wealth and income both have a decreasing marginal utility.[0]
The latest iPhone is not even remotely an essential item. 'Price gouging' as a concept does not apply, and you're watering down the term by trying to do that, which is dangerous.
You don't have to have an essential item to price gouge, though, you just need to charge more money than you otherwise would have to make extra profit. Whether the choice to remove the adapter in this iPhone was just for the profit margin can't be known for certain, but the fact that they removed it in other phones while keeping the price the same makes it seems like it was.
When you rise prices, you lose sales. When you drop prices, you gain sales. The market price is where a product of these two maximizes. You cannot make more profit by simply rising prices beyond the equilibrium point. That was economics 101 when I was taught it. Is that knowledge now deprecated? Or is iphone now an essential item?
I don't think the definition of price gauging is simply 'it's a bit more expensive than I think it should be compared to what it used to be for this optional luxury item' - if it is then it's a useless concept and we shouldn't worry about it!
> Then they should have dropped the price of the phone, no?
But it's a different phone with different components? Are you expecting that the price should otherwise be exactly the same? That's never what happens that's not a reasonable assumption.
> considering that very few people probably have a USB-C brick designed for charging iPhones
This is not a truthful statement. It can be charged by Lightning, which plugs into any USB-A charger. Anyone buying an iPhone has that.
The Lightning cable is Lightning->USB-C. So all the old USB-A chargers won't work...
Which means that people will through this cable in a drawer and use their old one (if it still works properly).
One reason I loved getting a new iPhone was getting a new cable, charger and headphones since my old one's were usually beat after 2-3 years. So this is a huge pain in the wallet, as well as inconvenient.
Did you watch the presentation? The new cables (if you buy an iPhone today) are Lightning at one end, and USB-C at the other. So you can't use them with your old adapter. This means a new iPhone buyer is getting a phone with no charger, and any of the old chargers they have won't be usable with this cable.
And cheap USB-A Lightning cables are crap. Even expensive ones from Anker are crap. Apple made ones are okay, but have poor strain relief, so eventually they crap out too.
Unplugging by pulling the cable (and not where you’re supposed to: the plug) stretches the silicone sheathe ever so slightly. Over time, that can cause the sheathe to rip. I’ve seen it many times and done it myself too.
I don't think all USB-A chargers are created equal. I know that if I plug my iPhone in with the official charging brick, it'll charge maybe in an hour or so. If I plug it into the USB outlet in my car ... I'm looking at much longer.
Some background on how Apple "detects" their own charging bricks:
What % of iphone users already have (multiple) charger bricks? I would intuit a large % of buyers already have multiple which personally I think gives more credit to in Apple's excuse
Dozens of USB-A charger bricks sure. Heck, I've added them to our bedroom wall sockets to save having to have extra things plugged in. USB-C? One for my work MacBook.
I’m overflowing with USB-A to lightning cables. Apple bundled USB-A to lightning cables with their wireless trackpad and keyboard even after they dropped USB-A ports on their laptops. And if you don’t have any, they cost like $3 from the supermarket or drug store.
I’m going the other way. I think my phone charger is one of the last USB-A chargers in my house, and it’s days are numbered. I love being able to throw my laptop charger in my bag when I travel and charge all my devices with the same brick.
> And all those tangible cost savings thanks to the removal of this accessory... not only have those savings not been passed onto the consumer, but they actually increased the price!
With all due respect, this isn’t insightful; it’s asinine.
The iPhone 12 is a completely new device, yet you’re acting like they took the existing product, removed a piece from the box, and jacked up the price. When planning this new device, the designers were constrained by a cost budget for both the bill of materials and manufacturing. By not including a charging brick, those designers had extra headroom in the budget, and neither you nor I have any idea what this headroom was used for (or to be fair, if it was used at all). They may have had even more extra headroom than the nominal cost of the brick due to increased shipping efficiencies driving down overall costs further. 70% more devices per pallet (if I remember the figures correctly) is no joke!
I’d argue the most likely scenario is that if the charging brick had been included, the price would be $10-$20 higher than it is, for a device that many of us already own five or more of and have no use for. Your assertion that they’re simply pocketing the difference is to be frank completely unfounded.
>70% more devices per pallet (if I remember the figures correctly) is no joke!
I think that was the figure they used and it was more of a spin. ( Unless Flight has changed in recent years ) They were already flying at max load before the packaging got smaller. I did a calculation on HN some months ago and expect may be 30% increase in shipment unit due to weight saving from box, charger and earpiece.
Pretty Decent, but not 70% as they did like you to think.
You already mentioned shipping cost, which is improved by better shipping density with the smaller boxes. Shipping is a huge carbon producer, so it makes sense to me that increasing density both makes it more cost effective for Apple and reduces the amount of impact on the environment. It's not only about e-waste.
This is the key fact. It demonstrates that they're not interested in passing along cost savings, even where they clearly exist. This isn't just about new phones, it affects the SE as well.
If you're going to repeatedly insinuate in your comments to me and others that the price to manufacture could have gone up over time, you should have some theory to back it. It's not my job to disprove pure speculation, especially when it goes against the general and well-known trend that manufacturing yields go up over time, and this drives down cost.
They have removed two items from the box. That saves them money. The price is the same. That means that they are saving money, unless there is evidence that the cost of the phone manufacturing went up. You have provided zero evidence of this, even in the face of the well-known trend that manufacturing costs go down over time. Good day, friend. You can continue having this argument with other folks on the thread, but I'm signing off here.
Considering my family actually buys extra chargers, cables, and earpods, I also don't buy their env argument at all. Perhaps if you buy phones each year that'd be true, but then, you are having a much bigger impact by buying the extra phones and the accessories are marginal. Anyways, they could just say that they'd give one away for free to anyone who wanted it with their phone purchase.
But what about Google include Verizon's mmWave in the Pixel 5, even the Google Store version, increasing the price by $100? Strangely enough, the 4a 5G on the Google Store doesn't have it, but there's a special Verizon version of the 4a 5G that costs $100 more. I honestly don't understand why they didn't do the same thing and sell the Pixel 5 for $600 on the Google Store...
I feel mixed about the price going up. On one hand, it feels like gouging. There’s no way the phone costs that much more to manufacture. On the other hand, I’ve been using an iPhone 6s+ since it came out (5 years now) and it still works really well and still gets software updates. I’m thinking of getting an iPhone 12 but I still don’t actually need to - a battery replacement every few years keeps it working as it did when it was brand new.
How long will my next phone last? At least 5 more years. Probably longer. Spread over 5 years the price is fine, and I’d rather buy something that’s designed to last (and remains supported) than buy a series of cheap phones that get ruined or ignored every couple years by software updates. (Looking at you, Samsung). If my phone lasts 50% longer, a 30% bump in price is reasonable. Even if I don’t use it that long, I can make that money back on the second hand market when I upgrade.
But… you have no idea what the reasons were and how much each argument weighed.
The CEO of Anker (they make chargers and charging accessories) estimates that 1 year of smartphone sales leads to 300,000 tons of e-waste from charging bricks. This matters way more than speculations about shipping costs. Have you seen Apple packaging? Nothing about it is light or cheap.
For what it is worth, I noticed that there are a lot of little bits added to the phone with the 12 however. The display is an OLED like the Pro, honestly the new phone seems like a lot of bang for the buck. They even came out with a smaller $100 cheaper model.
Why doesn't the US have universal laws that cover price transparency in general?
There are so many industries that get into shady territory: rental cars ("facility use fees"), hotels ("resort fees"), internet access ("mandatory equipment rental fees"), even SF restaurants ("SF mandate").
I'm saying Apple is wrong, and so are many other companies, and shouldn't we have fixed this with a law by this point?
Maybe not corporations, but the wealthy were definitely kicking up a storm over British taxes and import restrictions, and then later driving a lot of the pro-slavery arguments.
No, but powerful slaveholding interests were a major factor in the design of our government. It's the reasons our voting system favors low-population states--because slaves only counted as 3/5 of a person and the slaveholders were worried this would mean less representation in government and the danger that owning slaves would be outlawed.
That's really not true. US political and economic thought heavily centered around individual proprietors and farmers before the civil war, and was deeply suspicious of large corporations. In some states you could only form a joint stock company for time & scope limited things, such as building a canal.
It's only after the Civil War and into the Gilded Age do we see the rise and acceptance of large scale corporations, but not without conflict. Modern readers will be surprised to know that Marx was relatively popular among Americans in the west during his lifetime (among those that read, naturally), certainly in part due to the increasingly corporate focus that the American economic system was taking at the time.
Another thing worth noting is the push back against the inequality and corruption of the Gilded Age. This time period is when we had our anti-trust laws and improvements to them [1].
The narrative that the government was always broken or in the control of corporate interests takes away agency and responsibility from individual citizens. It may be mostly true, but there's enough glimpses of when citizens were able to corral these interests that it's worth not giving up on.
David Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs, a Theory, around page 524 or so.
> The mechanics and tradesmen who became the foot soldiers of the American War of Independence represented themselves as producers of the wealth that they saw the British crown as looting, and after the Revolution, many turned the same language against would-be capitalists.
> When US President Abraham Lincoln delivered his first annual message to Congress in 1861, for instance, he included the following lines, which, radical though they seem to a contemporary ear, where really just a reflection of the common sense of the time:[189] “Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration.”
> In 1880 a Protestant “home missionary” who had spent some years traveling along the Western frontier reported that: “You can hardly find a group of ranchmen or miners from Colorado to the Pacific who will not have on their tongue’s end the labor slang of Denis Kearney, the infidel ribaldry of [atheist pamphleteer] Robert Ingersoll, the Socialistic theories of Karl Marx”
Every state has the right to pass laws that apply within it's borders.
The state approach is more fine-grained so a negative outcome is localized, and if the outcome is positive people in other states can enact similar laws if they want.
Couldn't the same logic be applied to every issue? How different is your argument from the one advanced by "states rights" segregationists in the 1960s and earlier?
I asked straight up before seeing the doc about the cost and nobody knew. They finally estimated "about $1,500" and my total bill was around $5,000. And if I refuse to pay it, they send me to collections. It's insane what they are allowed to do.
watch what happens to that bill when you tell them you are going to pay out of pocket instead of using insurance. suddenly, everything has a different price.
I've heard this before and so I tried it, but unfortunately it was not true in my case. They didn't seem to give a crap about that. In one case they actually told me "you should run it through insurance so you get their negotiated price. otherwise it will a lot more expensive"
The real kicker: Before the doc will even see you, you need to sign an agreement that basically says: "You agree to be responsible for paying whatever amount this doctor decides to charge, which could be any amount from $0 to $infinity, and which the doctor will not know prior to treatment."
I've always wondered which part of the medical supply chain is causing healthcare prices to rise so rapidly. There's no way these are natural market rates being driven by supply/demand, it's gotta be something artificial. My guess is something along the lines of medical device companies colluding to prop up prices to hospitals.
It's not collusion, it's a natural consequence of the way healthcare billing is structured in the US. You don't get to comparison shop but also have a captive audience (you're not just going to decide to be blind right?) so there's no pressure to keep prices reasonable.
This makes a lot of money for powerfully connected companies, so don't expect it to change anytime soon. This is why our congress and mass media treat Medicare For All as a joke or something to attack politicians on even though it's popular with a majority of Americans.
You might take a look at some things from e.g. this result[1] around what parts of USA healthcare are negotiatiable and which are fixed. The "$1500 for a gauze bandage" meme makes a little more sense if you view it from the perspective of "we can't charge market price for expensive things like an MRI since Medi___ pays a flat $1.5k/ea, so lets gouge everywhere we can to make up for it". In addition, the business setup of hospitals/providers and lack of a single customer-facing entity/provider that charges you for services makes these even more Kafkaesque.
On top of this, my friends who work at (private, non-general) hospitals work a lot and are not paid what someone on HN might expect for what they put in. This isn't even necessarily ownership vs labor, since afaik the hospitals themselves are not usually in the best of places financially.
To me, the short version is: can't easily negotiate, information asymmetry, and captured regulators. Imo, this isn't helped that in USA we say "healthcare insurance" but what we mean/want seems to actually be "healthcare subsidy/guarantee".
There is no one part, the excessive costs can only be analyzed as a symptom of the system as a whole. One fellow online dubbed this "Coasian hell" and has a good writeup explaining where it comes from: http://www.harrowell.org.uk/blog/2018/01/31/in-the-eternal-i...
The opposite unknown is also part of the problem -- the facility doesn't necessarily know what procedures are going to happen until you're in the facility being seen by a professional with the authority to order any procedures. Any speculations about what procedures might be necessary by anyone not qualified to order them is akin to practicing medicine without a license, and so is highly avoided.
Especially if you don't pay for a really good insurance policy or your employer provides you with a really good insurance policy. You will get screwed with no remorse.
Interestingly I did the math last benefit cycle and if your employer doesn't fully pay for it the better insurance may not be worth it. The additional per month cost cancels out any savings no matter how much usage you get out of it (if you take the out of pocket max into account).
The expectation with all forms of useful insurance (health, auto, umbrella, home/renter's, life, etc.) is that for most people most of the time, they'd be better off not having it.
But in the rare cases when someone does genuinely need it (e.g. your house and all of your possessions burn down, you need treatment for cancer, etc.), it prevents financial ruin.
My point isn't insurance vs. no insurance. My point is that the type of insurance doesn't actually matter that much if you're the one paying for it (versus having premiums covered by your employer). If you get a bad accident on the low end company insurance you pay your $10k out of pocket max. On the top end insurance you pay $4k but also paid $8k more in premiums during the year. The insurance companies did the math to make sure they come out ahead no matter what you choose.
A $10k medical bill is not what I would call catastrophic. Highly unusual, yes. But not catastrophic.
A catastrophic event would be something like you get run over by a car and have to spend weeks in urgent care racking up a six figure bill. Of course, such an event is highly unusual and the vast majority of people will never make a claim of that size or even approaching that size.
By design, people who don't make very much in claims pay for the people who do make those claims but also get the benefit of knowing if such an event ever occurred to them, they wouldn't be financially ruined.
> The insurance companies did the math to make sure they come out ahead no matter what you choose.
That's plainly false. See any true medical catastrophe.
This doesn't sound like a consumer protection issue to me. The fees are transparently listed in advance of attendance aren't they? You can choose to pay them or decline to attend. Different from a hotel where you get hit with unexpected fees when checking out and it's too late to negotiate or decline to stay.
You’re still cornered by the need. If every other place also adds random inexplicable fees then you end up paying them anyway. I guess you could argue that it’s just the same as a price increase, but like tax in the US, those weird fees are only disclosed at the checkout, not upfront.
Because the thing is, we can. Remember how in the early days of Expedia, flights were listed as crazy cheap, and then when you clicked through to buy, you discovered they'd tack on another 30-50% in fees and taxes? But that changed in 2012 when advertised airfares were forced to include all mandatory charges.
Why they don't do that with all industries -- the ones you've listed, plus making it so cell phone and internet providers can't start randomly tacking on new "network maintenance fees" and other BS -- is beyond me. It shouldn't just be airfare, it should be everything.
I mean, you'd think one of the political parties -- presumably Democrats -- would say, hey that'd be a popular move with voters, and make it part of their platform? But no.
the stranglehold of the two party system buoyed by corporate cash means that they only have to seem a tiny bit less bad than the other party.
for better representation and a better society, we need election and campaign finance reform asap. unfortunately that doesn't serve the desires of the politicians or the entrenched parties, so we need to get creative about how to realign those incentives.
> We need election and campaign finance reform asap
It’s never going to happen, see Citizens United v FEC and the upcoming 6-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court. This is most unfortunate, and will only get worse.
"We" don't like regulation these days. Airlines, for example, were treated like public utilities with tariff schedules approved by some board.
Flights were more expensive, but the business was sustainable. Now you have airlines like Norwegian Airlines where you could fly from an out of the way airport in NY to London for less than long-term parking.
You jest, but my 2 week parking at Stewart was double the price of the round-trip flight to Edinburgh. We only lived 1 exit down on the interstate, I should have just had a taxi drop me off.
But they closed that down a couple of years ago (Thanks Boeing). Now the only route from NY to UK is JFK to LGW, but the flights were still so cheap (and hopefully they don't go under) that my wife and I always upgraded to their "premium economy" which was still only $1200 round trip NYC to London, and you get leg room, 2 checked bags, and guaranteed overhead space.
Over the past couple of decades, our elected representatives have prioritized the welfare of corporations over the welfare of human beings. Price transparency laws harm corporations and benefit consumers; therefore, they are unlikely to be approved for law by the elected representatives.
It’s an incomplete statement if you leave out the “why”. Lobbying. If that were regulated and corporation money didn’t indirectly buy votes through ad-spent but votes were won through actual policies and independent voter thinking, representatives would represent what voters (or a slice of them) wanted.
As it stands, they win elections by catering to a very, very small slice that can bring them into power: Corporations. Their donations are a more sure-fire bet to winning elections than trying to win over regular people.
Yep, it’s a definite ying and yang. Sapiens (the book) spends a few very interesting chapters on the inner workings of this dynamic and how it shaped the world as we know it.
> Why doesn't the US have universal laws that cover price transparency in general?
And that's just the beginning. In any modern country citizens would have access to things called "courts". Not in the US, not if you want to sue a business. In the US, courts have been replaced with "arbitration" where businesses have a heavy advantage. See: https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/02/business/dealbook/in-arbi... In what other modern country is citizens denied access to courts, when they have been wronged by a business?
"Starting at $x" ads like this are by far the least egregious any of those examples. I don't really see much of a problem with advertising configurable products like this, especially when it is called out specifically as a starting price. The F150 can be priced from $28,745 all the way to $81,000+ and anything in-between. People know trucks have options, and they know that when Ford says it's "starts at $28,745" they're not talking about the top of the line trim. Nobody is being hurt by these practices.
Fun fact; the F150 is so customizable that there are times and places where it's impossible for some car websites to parse their VINs back into a make, model, and style (trim). This is an issue that we didn't have with any other OEM, but it required that all systems assume that Style was optional.
Price obfuscation makes it nearly impossible to do a like-for-like price comparison between two manufacturers. If the consumer isn't being hurt by these practices, then why do car dealership groups need to continue lobbying the government to uphold laws preventing direct-to-consumer sales? They know that open-pricing would drive competition and erode their middleman profits.
The price isn't obfuscated. Manufacturers even publish nice tools that transparently explain their pricing model. The pricing is necessarily varied because the product configuration is varied.
Dealers are a whole different story; I agree dealer protection laws shouldn't exist, and manufacturers aren't really a fan of those laws either.
The key test to me is - can the thing actually be purchased at the listed price or not. In the case of hotels, for example, the resort fee often isn't optional.
Studies have shown that people spend less money when prices are higher/all inclusive. Check out the story of Stubhub and their attempt to be all inclusive. (tldr: people stopped buying tickets until they unbundled the mandatory fees)
You don’t need a law for something a consumer can vote with their money. If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal. Adding laws increases the complexity to comply.
The whole point is that the competitor can't compete because the consumer is being lied to about the price in the first place—which they don't know until it's too late.
People think they have a lot more say with their insignificant purchases then they really do. Insignificant purchases by individuals can't sway how businesses run.
This is about as bad an argument as saying that voting is pointless because one individual vote is not going to change anything. Individual purchases summed up amount to a lot.
If it was comparable we wouldn't need regulation to protect consumers.
Voting is answering a direct question. Yes or no with direct results. Your purchase isn't like that, they're not votes. Business behavior is decided by what is more profitable. That also assumes there is a choice to be made. There's nothing you can do if all options behave the same way.
Your vote doesn't matter if the two options you vote for are the same. Often not true for politics, frequently can be true when making purchases
I literally thought I knew what the prices were until I read this article. I saw the "from $699" and "knew" it meant the cheapest model (the mini) was $699. Turns out I was wrong. I was wrong because they mislead me. Knowing the truth matters for me both in purchasing decisions and in recommendations to others, which I do a lot of.
I don’t think so. I wasn’t looking at media. I was looking at Apple content. Is the lowest priced iPhone $699? No it isn’t. What exactly does “from $699” mean when the cheapest one is actually $729?
> If annoying price structures are that bad, a competitor will create a superior pricing system that takes away marketshare. If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal.
Post hoc ergo propter hoc
Just because it happens, doesn't mean it is not a big deal.
> If that doesn’t happen, then it’s probably not a big deal.
This assumes that agents in the market are rational actors, which they are not. Even when deception becomes the norm enough fall for the lower advertised prices to make the tactic optimal, despite the tactic's negative impact on marks and savvier consumers' alike.
I saw that on their page - I wasn't as offended about the pricing differential as the post, but I was groaning during the whole verizon pitch. I wonder how much verizon paid for that placement. It felt extremely out of place and very cringy IMO.
The whole presentation I was wondering how much Verizon paid as well.
Between the pricing reveal and the conflation of their 28GHz deployment as a standard 5G experience, it seemed like it was the iPhone sponsored by Verizon.
I remember the iPhone launching as an AT&T exclusive or something back in the day. Did whichever US carrier it was get the same duration of exclusive placement?
I understand that was more because AT&T/Cingular was the only carrier willing to allow a phone that they literally weren’t allowed to see until launch day onto their network. Didn’t the other carriers baulk at Apple and tell them to pound-sand for thinking they’d let them use their network without any oversight of their phone’s software system or similar?
In Europe (and, I would guess, everywhere) everybody can launch a GSM phone without cooperation of phone companies.
You do need to pass certification tests, but those are set by governments. Those tests may be defined with lots of input from industry and may be executed by institutes created by manufacturers as a group, but AFAIK, those institutes are so independent from the manufacturers that they won’t let commercial interests affect test results.
The issue with the original iPhone was that consumers were used to get a ‘free’ phone with their subscription. To do that, manufacturers need to work with a phone company.
The iPhone’s success was not a given and Steve Jobs had fairly stringent ideas about pricing. That made it hard to find a phone company to work with. IIRC, AT&T was a bit of an underdog in the market. That made them fall for Steve’s offer.
Yes. At the time, Verizon was doing things like completely blocking Bluetooth for anything other than headsets, because they wanted to force people to use their mobile data to get pictures off their phones.
At the time Verizon also mandated every phone on their network had a whip style antenna. The networks had a stranglehold on the handset market, and it took the iPhone to break it.
The whip antenna thing is absolutely not true, at least for smartphones. I had a Palm Treo and multiple BlackBerries on Verizon, predating the iPhone, which definitely didn't have whip antennas. The Treo had a little nub, and the BlackBerries had no external antenna.
Verizon only got two-thirds as much time as AT&T did for the iPhone launch — 4 minutes instead of 6 minutes.
MacWorld keynote, 2007, the CEO of Cingular is given the stage at 78m23s, in front of a giant Cingular logo. He leaves the stage at 84m23s, in front of a pair of Cingular and AT&T logos. So that's precisely 6 minutes on stage, out of precisely 80 minutes total.
In the 71-minute iPhone 12 keynote, the CEO of Verizon is brought on stage at 15m55s, and speaks until Tim boots him at 19m55s. So that's precisely 4 minutes on stage. Additionally, millimeter-wave 5G is given airtime, but says Verizon's product title for that a total of 5 seconds only.
ps. All iPhones offer carrier branding in the top-left corner of the screen when cellular service is active and control center is open (non-notch phones may not need to open control center).
The AT&T exclusivity deal was quite different - it was both exclusive and it lasted years. But at the time, carriers also weren't making deals where they didn't control what software was on the device to begin with.
That’s not what happened. Cingular was jointly owned by SBC and BellSouth. The two companies merged, and SBC also bought out AT&T and rebranded themselves. Once Cingular was solely owned by a company named AT&T, it was rebranded to match the parent company.
The U2 album has some evil way of popping up and finding its way onto my Apple devices (and then auto playing) no matter how I try and remove it from my library. It is my albatross.
Interesting - but that hasn’t been my experience. I removed that U2 album shortly after it was included in my library, and it hasn’t shown up on any of my devices since then.
I agree with that. Apple should not appear to be in bed with any particular vendor. They have done a good job in the past maintaining their independence and it should continue. It’s just a chip off their armor but they are additive.
Normally I'd agree, but in this case there is one possible justification: Verizon is the only carrier supporting the highest-speed variant of 5G, at least for now and the foreseeable future. And Apple wanted to highlight those speeds.
Agreed that I think this is pretty much the only reason why, and it makes sense for them to do that; what's the point of selling 5G on a flagship phone if you can't even get past 4G speeds on other networks' "5G"?
Realistically, its a pandemic where they already delayed production and apple probably didn't have anything else big finished to present besides typical camera upgrades and a new body.
Or apple-cynically, apple stopped innovating and the iphone is now just playing catch up to android blah blah blah.
I had forgotten how much I hated Android manufacturers making "Verizon versions" with the carrier name on the forehead and back case. That part of the event felt really cheap.
Just like the initial iPhone needed one carrier to get things right, 5G infrastructure testing will be like that.
It is in Apple’s best interest if their users experience 5G as best as the current infrastructure allows (which isn’t great yet, because it will take a decade for a full rollout).
It makes sense to have the carriers bend over backwards to see who gets to be the main partner for Apple, because they wouldn’t be able to manage 4+ relationships simultaneously with something as complex as 5G/4G flipping (this has to happen on device, because 5G drains battery 10x faster than 4G, so the device has to use bursts of 5G. If it handles this incorrectly, millions of users will complain of horrible battery life and that would be a big black eye for Apple, something they don’t want to risk).
Why? It's apple, they not only have the resources and expertise to manage multiple relationships, but they have the market power to drain HUGE number of subscribers from the company by announcing the iPhone wouldn't be available at Verizon if they didn't play along with apple's demands.
This dishonesty (plus the huge verizon plug in keynote) doesn't look like having carriers bend over, it looks more like apple bending over. Which makes no sense, apple could probably (almost) buy verizon in all cash if they wanted.
What's crazier, is that (in 2020) 5g is just not that important or valuable. So why is any company (except infrastructure companies) really putting in this much marketing effort?
Are end-users even going to have a "5G experience"? The average user isn't going to really notice faster downloads or lower latency relative to good LTE.
If anything it seems like Apple is doing the wireless carriers a favor by carrying the marketing water for 5G
> If anything it seems like Apple is doing the wireless carriers a favor by carrying the marketing water for 5G
The iPhone has been on a very incremental upgrade cycle for years now and people have been hanging on to their phones longer and longer. So the new iPhone's biggest competitor is the iPhone people have in their pocket. This is one of the few years where Apple gets to point to a big-obvious difference between the model years.
So the 5G dog-and-pony show serves Apple as much as it does the carriers.
With symmetric 1Gbit internet at home, I noticed that other parts of the system become a bottleneck. E.g. my laptop built in SSD simply cannot handle these speeds, something to do with the drivers. I assume phone users may see similar issues.
What speeds are you seeing? 1Gbit internet is sort of like having LAN speeds for internet access and most machines deal with that fine. 100ish megabytes/sec is something most old SATA SSD's can typically do. But that aside, if phones are fine on LANs, it seems they ought to be just fine on WANs running at LAN speeds.
I do see the 1Gbit speeds. But what I meant with my comment is to say that 5G May expose other issues with the H/W or software. It’s possible that iPhones would be tuned for it, but other manufacturers or maybe even other apps may hit the limits before fully profiting from the high speeds.
I'm not sure I see all that much difference between a phone that works with high-speed WiFi (most higher-end phones today) and 5g.
Be that as it may, though! My Steam client is configured with with a background download rate cap of 1 MB/sec, and just a few minutes ago I noticed it downloading something and looked at the disk write rate, which the client also reports. Much of the time it's around 2 MB/s, give or take, but it can jump up to 5x, sometimes almost 10x that.
So I think you're right, something like a network installer slurping down at 1 Gbps could write saturate an SSD, not necessarily even a particularly slowpoke one.
That’s what my SSD says on the tin, but in practice my PC completely freezes during multi GB downloads, and looking at the charts SSD or it’s drivers appear to be the bottleneck here
But you will realistically only get those speeds so close to the cellular antenna that you can feel it melting your brain.
/s
but actually you do need to be within a few hundred feed of the antenna to get "impressive" 5G speeds. I heard reports that during the build out at NFL stadiums, the antenna coverage didn't even reach the field when placed at the top of the seating.
> Just like the initial iPhone needed one carrier to get things right
Except for the rest of the world, which did just fine.
Apple tried to do US-like deals with European carriers and it was just so fundamentally incompatible with the European mindset that many people simply did not understand what they were trying to sell or why.
It took a year or so before Apple realized Europeans buy phones and subscriptions separately and the iPhone-sales took off, because now people could actually buy a phone.
The operators brought this on themselves. There is no standard definition of 5G, even though the industry knows the rollout of features will be in waves.
Does 5G for T-mobile technically mean exactly the same thing as for Verizon? Probably not.
Verizon is the only carrier with mmWave 5G / Ultrawide Band. Their "5G Nationwide" is what T-Mobile and AT&T have, while only AT&T has the "5GE" abomination which is just 4G LTE.
I find it deeply fascinating that a certain percentage of Internet commenters feel compelled to make unprompted public predictions, rather than waiting for reality to unfold.
If I grant the second premise, could you explain your antipathy to the first?
If I want to have a mobile phone, I need a mobile phone plan to go with it. What's wrong with bundling those services for a slightly lower total bill? It strikes me as pretty standard business logic.
In Canada the carriers show the cost of the plan and then tell you how much extra is tacked on for the phone. The prices are still outrageous here, but it is nice to be able to quickly tell how much money you save or lose by bundling it.
Sure, and some large number of those people bundle in their new phone with their existing plan, to either save some money or spread out the payment over more paychecks.
It begins to muddy the water about what you’re buying. It also leads people to spending more on a phone than they set out or budgeted. It doesn’t seem like much, but it is a shady practice-the kind “old Apple” wouldn’t have done.
It's so bizarre that they lied over $30. Unless I am misunderstanding the motivation behind this decision. But if they really just lied to make the price appear to be $30 cheaper, it seems kind of strange. I don't think customers will be fooled or pleased when they find out the real price, and I'm not really sure if that was worth it.
Eh... it's $30, I'm not too concerned with that on it's own but I don't like seeing Apple get in bed with Verizon/AT&T. I was repulsed by seeing "Verizon" on the screen so much during that presentation and 5G is a joke right now for most Americans at least. It all felt very.... beneath Apple.
The practice itself doesn’t really bother me, but I do find it to be a strange and questionable marketing technique.
This amount of money represents a 4% price difference at most.
That means that someone in Apple marketing decided that increasing customer confusion and reducing goodwill was worth a gain of 4% on some but not all of the phones they sold.
I get it - being operational is important for the success of the business. Considering every single detail from the packaging to the included accessories to the way the product is sold and priced is incredibly important. But it seems like Apple is getting into the dangerous territory of sacrificing customer goodwill over it. Buying an iPhone now feels like signing a contract for cable rather than something that’s fun and exciting.
One should mention that the iphone 12s do not come with chargers or headphones in the box. So that is another effective price raise of about $30. It is a real shame because the fast charging feature of these phones really deserves an out of the box working charger so it can be immediately appreciated by ordinary non-tech people.
Now most people will use their old chargers, which will not support fast charging.
Everyone is talking about the $30, but the real story is that iPhone 12 is at least $100 more expensive than iPhone 11. The $30 thing seems almost like an intentional distraction from a huge price increase during a global depression and pandemic.
> The $30 thing seems almost like an intentional distraction from a huge price increase during a global depression and pandemic.
Apple's customers are largely not lacking for purchasing power. That's why you won't see their quarterly sales tanking through this mess.
In the US, the iPhone buyers as an economic class have not seen a large and sustained unemployment spike, as they did during the great recession (which severely hit a broad swath of labor). Nearly all of the big job hit this time around has been absorbed by the working poor or lower middle class, people that work at hotels, bars, restaurants, in hospitality broadly, and other lower pay jobs that were similarly exposed to a bad hit by Covid-related closings.
I doubt this. More likely is that everyone is financing their iPhone at 0% over 24-30 months. The number of people who can afford to pay cash for an iPhone is a tiny fraction of the people who can afford the monthly payments. The absolute most expensive iPhone configuration with the iPhone Upgrade Program is $66/month. You can get it for significantly less per month through a major carrier.
You know, for those of use not from US. This is pretty much the norm since Day 1. So I find it surprising it is the those from America that complains. ( That is not to say Apple is without its flaws here )
Before iPhone was available Sim-Free and Worldwide. Apple had always been using the same marketing. iPhone starts at $199 with AT&T. The same headline without AT&T get printed all around the Internet and during the iPhone 4 era, even on local news and paper press.
And all these price are without Tax, which is something new to those from EU of other part of the world, where everything included in the consumer pricing. So by the time Apple started publishing its Sim Free Price, most around the world are complaining ( and God Damn it they still do today ) the US price and EU / AUS / CA / UK price dont make sense.
So this really isn't anything new.
Then there is mmWave, which is only available in the US iPhone.
Judging from the Pricing around the world, it seems Apple really did price iPhone 12 at $799. The extra $30 seems to be trying to recoup the mmWave margin specifically for US. And personally I would much rather pay $30 more for mmWave so I could play around with it down the road when it is available than to upgrade my Phone again.
Saw this and was not pleased. We do not need to go back to the days of tying phones and carriers. At least they are still coming unlocked (except ATT installment plans), but this is NOT a move in the right direction, Apple.
$30 seems a trivial thing to mislead about. Who's making an iPhone buying decision based on $30 either way as their red line? People just see the first digit and the number of digits.
(I also think it's a trivial thing to complain about, but I think that's going to be a much more controversial opinion!)
The moment Tim allowed someone to get up on stage and unironically say the words "5G just got real" is the moment they lost that keynote. Literally everyone I know who watched the presentation thought it was an ad by Verizon to push their stupid 5G network with stupid examples that made it seem like you didn't have internet access before. This stupid thing is the reason why the iPhones have a little discolored patch on the right side. I hope Apple got paid well for it, because the amount of damage this entire thing has done to their brand is fairly deep.
I looked at the Apple Website for iPhone 12 Mini and I see this [0]. If you click on "Compare all Pricing and Special Offers" you will see $30 instant discount for AT&T and Verizon both. T-Mobile and Sprint cost $729. I notice the same for iPhone 12 too. The iPhone 12 Pro and Pro Max have no difference in pricing amongst all providers ($999 / $1099).
Slightly misleading yes, but we're talking about $30 on phones that cost nearly a $1000. Accusing Apple of playing "marketing games" with carriers is a bit of a stretch.
That's assuming everyone buys the cheaper version with no memory upgrades. Apple's average sales price is significantly higher than that. This seems marginal.
If you give companies an inch on stuff like this, they'll take a mile. There's no legitimate reason they should be able to play this kind of pricing game, regardless of the relative price increase.
For the record, it's not on the Pro models — just on the cheaper models. They're not "nearly a $1,000", and the fact that they're only doing it on some models shows what an artificial giveaway this is. There is no reason for it other than economics: they think they can get an extra few bucks out of these models, but they don't think they can raise the price even higher on the Pro models.
It is more annoying than misleading. The pricing is clearly "From $699." You choose your model, choose your color, and then choose your carrier. The price is listed next to each carrier with an orange "Special Offers Available" on top of AT&T and Verizon. The Sim-free device also has the $729 price.
As soon as you select your carrier the price on the top of the page adjusts to $729. I noticed this last night when I was prepping my pre-order.
Yes, but there has never been differential pricing based on carrier selection in the past (at least in the US). If anything, it was more expensive to go with AT&T/Verizon because they charged you a hefty (and completely unnecessary) 'upgrade fee' — even though upgrading takes zero employee intervention on their end.
Cellphone pricing and cell carrier shell games are not unexpected. There are like 49 different ways to pay for phones these days and I don’t have the energy to tell the difference. The only thing that irritates me is the fee my carrier charges if I’m not paying off a phone at the moment that is equal to the amount I would be paying them if I used one of their payment plans for a phone.
I was also worried when I started reading that it was like $100 we were talking about, not $30.
Apple will come out with an "enhanced" charger for $100. Then update all phones to slow charge anything that is not the "enhanced" charger. Then repeat again in 3 to 5 years.
For 15 years I bought nothing but Apple products and then kicked the habit. My bank account appreciates no longer having that addiction. Now that I have a clear head I can see the many ways they just suck more money from the Apple fans.
Price-discrimination and tying in support of monopoly?
Seems like an anti-trust nightmare for Apple and the relevant telecom. I guess they figure they're in the green since the conspiracy is slightly trans-industry and not simply telecoms fixing telecom prices.
However, to me, it's still price fixing when AT&T and Verizon agreeing to fix iPhone prices.
A lie that involves charging someone more money is still a lie even if it's $30 (not insignificant! the cost of a good meal or ~half a tank of gas!) instead of $300
Ok, I have $699 in a US bank account. Tell me how to exchange $699 for an iPhone 12 Mini?
My understanding from the article is I cannot, I would have to exchange $729 (with Apple), or something along the lines of $30 with one of those carriers and $699 with Apple for a total of approximately $729...
You don't "have to" spend more than $699. $699 is the price you pay for the phone on ATT or Verizon. This is spelled out clearly on their website, on the button you click to select the phone you want to order.
Look, if $30 makes the difference in purchasing a $1000 phone, maybe it’s time to re-evaluate your financial picture. If this is seriously the biggest thing people have to gripe about with the announcement then I’d say Apple did well.
I tried to prepare for preorder at Apple Store App like they direct, but I couldn't find a way to finish the process because it won't show the sim-free option (I'm on google fi). Anyone else had this issue?
Anyone who is saying, oh it's just $30 is living in a bubble..
- Many people buy these on a monthly installment, so $30 can be 1-2 months of installment. (not sure which exactly I have not verified).
- From a Marketing standpoint the difference is $6xx vs $7xx pricing, which has a psychological impact. This is why a very very large percentage of prices end in .90-.99
- This seems to be the first time Apple has done this and it sets a bad precedent.
- More than the precedent, it seems Apple is willing to do this to derive a little extra revenue, which at least in my mind is a negative for their brand. So, it's interesting that they are OK with this.
- Based on this, In future, will they also be open to selling Data?? Who knows...
I think the difference from a marketing perspective is the big issue, as there is a big psychological inertia people have with Apple prices not ending in a neat "$__99".
Are people really buying the latest iPhone on monthly installment plans? How much more do you pay for the device over the lifetime of the plan?
I'm still hanging on to my 2016 Galaxy S7 because it works great and phone prices seem to have spiked massively upwards over the last few years.
Isn't it practically $699 for most people? I would guess the vast majority of iPhone users have a contract with their phone with a major carrier. The $729 is the edge case pricing.
And phones have long been advertised at a subsidized price in exchange for a long term contract anyway.
You aren't an American television news network reporting on politicians, and you don't need to pretend that a mega-corporation told a cute little "fib". They lied. That's the word to use.
No, they mislead. They did not say something that is untrue. They said "starting at $699", which is technically true. They should have been more forthcoming, and said "when bought for carriers..." (which they did in small print), the absence of which was solidly misleading. But they did not "fib" or "lie", both of which mean an untrue statement.
The problem that U.S. media has been having is that President Trump probably does not know the real answer to most of the untruths he says... he seems to say them without knowing the truth either way, and does not seem to care. Pretending to know something probably counts as a lie (it certainly should from the President of the U.S.A.), but the mainstream media has been uncertain of how to treat that. But it is an obviously different situation than with Apple telling people the prices they themselves set.
>... was solidly misleading. But they did not "fib" or "lie", both of which mean an untrue statement.
The end result is the same. Being intentionally misleading _IS_ lying, with the only difference being that the liar now has plausible deniability.
If there's anything at all that my life experience has told me, it's that this is actually the worst kind of lying.
NB: I don't have strong feelings about this particular instance, it just irks me when people grant a pass because it wasn't "technically" lying. Even though the intention was exactly the same.
I am not suggesting that removing the power brick doesn't have any impact on the environment. What I am suggesting is that I don't buy for a second that it was the primary motivator for removing it. My guess is that the primary motivator is shipping cost. This has a tangible and significant impact on their profit per unit and that was the driving factor. The fact that they could spin the removal of this device as a painstaking decision they toiled over because they wanted to save the sea turtles is really just a PR spin and was a happy coincidence that they could use.
And all those tangible cost savings thanks to the removal of this accessory... not only have those savings not been passed onto the consumer, but they actually increased the price!