“The news comes from two famously reliable sources: Mac Otakara which was the first site to state Apple would remove the headphone jack from the iPhone 7 (though I was first to predict it in 2014). And KGI Securities’ Ming-Chi Kuo who is widely regarded as ‘the best Apple analyst on the planet,'” Gordon Kelly writes for Forbes. “Together they complete two halves of an intriguing puzzle: what Apple will do with the iPhone in 2017 – and it is going to cost you.”
“Filling in its half Mac Otakara says Apple will once again only iterate with its 2017 iPhones and an ‘iPhone 7S’ and ‘iPhone 7S Plus’ will look virtually identical to every iPhone since the iPhone 6 in 2014,” Kelly writes. “But before you despair, in jumps Kuo who says the iPhone 7S and iPhone 7S Plus will only be the base models with an all new ‘iPhone 8’ at the top. This will feature a completely overhauled design with no home button, an OLED display, wireless charging and more.”
“Those already struggling to justify the cost of owning an iPhone should probably look away now, because the iPhone 7S and iPhone 7S Plus are expected to retain the current price points of the iPhone 7 and iPhone 7 Plus ($649 – $969), while the iPhone 8 will sit above them both as the new flagship,” Kelly writes. “Would a circa $1200 256GB iPhone 8 seem overpriced?”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: iPhone is an aspirational device. The loaded flagship model should be priced aspirationally as it increases the perceived value of the brand all the way down the line. We’ll get what we can for our Jet Black 256GB iPhone 7 Plus units (should be a healthy price) and apply the proceeds toward purchasing units of Apple’s next-gen flagship outright, as usual. We just paid $1098 per unit ($969+$129 AppleCare+) per unit before tax, so $1200 wouldn’t be that shocking for the world’s most advanced pocket computer.
Sorry, but I aspirated on that “aspirational” pricing. That’s simply nuts. Mebbe I’ll go with the 7 instead of waiting for the 8. You can get an iPad Pro with cellular for that much money.
I don’t believe it. If it is true, then soon Apple’s Angela Ahrendts will have turned Apple into such a luxury brand that it can no longer be said to make products for everyone.
If Ming-Chi Kuo is ‘the best Apple analyst on the planet’ then don’t believe a single word you read on any website about Apple, period.
lol..
well….. he works for a securities trading company… i leave the rest to everyones intellect and imagination.. …..
Apple doesn’t make products for everyone, especially Republicans.
Premium products.
Premium users.
Premium prices.
This is nothing but a controlled leak by Apple to stymie people from waiting for iPhone 8. It also serves to set the stage where customers will be more delighted when pricing for the iPhone is less than this.
😉🙈🙉🙊
Yep, ridiculous. “Aspirational” you have to be kidding me
We agree again! That kind of pricing for a phone just stops making sense. I’ve got money to burn but wouldn’t buy it.
A faster phone, at this point, is sort of pointless. The only lag experienced is in data connections (carriers, what gives?). Live photos were a neat gimmick. Will the screen be edge to edge? So what. Thinner? You can keep that. Significantly better battery life? Not in our lifetimes it seems after waiting several generations. For me, 128Mb is perfect for a phone, 256Mb more appropriate for an iPad to hold movies. Jet Black? Will have a light leather case on it for slippage already, so who cares.
Know what would be neat? A phone that charges wirelessly when placed next to an iMac or laptop. Throw in keyboard which never needs batteries or connection and you’ve got something to upgrade for. Otherwise, think I’ll pass. If Apple sees fit to only upgrade its computers every 1000+ days, why should they expect we ought to purchase their devices any more frequently ourselves? Gravitating towards generation skipper (or more) here after years of annual upgrades/replacements.
1000+ days. Bitch, please.
Cool. Sell half as many at twice the price. How will our severely challenged analysts wrap their heads around that one?
Unfortunately that’s now how price elasticity works.
There is a small market for the bragging rights crowd, the ones Apple tried to reach with the $10k watch. Unfortunately there is little strategic point in doing so. The most affluent spenders already own iPhones. So by crafting a more expensive model that few can justify buying, Apple misses the opportunity to attract more customers into its ecosystem in emerging markets where Apple does have a fight on its hands getting sales traction (or past corrupt regulators). India and China both want cheaper phones with longer lasting batteries. They don’t want fancier cameras and headjack removal. Look at what sells there compared to North America. They are:
1. Huawei
2. OPPO
3. BBK-vivo
4. Lenovo
5. Xiaomi
http://www.gizmochina.com/2016/07/21/huawei-chinese-phone-market-q2-2016-trendforce/
Notice Apple and Samsung aren’t even on the list. In China, Android has growing share, now over 84%. iOS has fallen below 15%. Apple would be wise to address this sooner rather than later.
How much profit are they making?
Hello, hellooo, helllloooooo…..
Apparently enough to stay in the game. Are Apple profits growing in China?
Chinese companies are like Amazon. They slowly and methodically kill their competitors with “good enough” knockoffs and/or slim margins until the competition is left with a niche market or none at all. A decision by Apple to go even more high priced only plays into the strategy of the competition.
Is the $17K watch still available? No, why? Take a wild guess…no market, and if this is try, Apple competitors will have a field day…
This will enable a moderated shift to LQMT. Makes lots of sense.
Liquidmetal rules!
The longer Apple takes to actually use LiquidMetal significantly in their products just gives the competition time to find/develop just-as-good or better alternative tech to use.
That is a 24% increase over the iPhone 7 Plus pricing. It’s doubtful the components of wireless charging at a distance are going to be that much more expensive, unless that price includes the base transmitter.
Another reason for the increase could be because of the all glass rumor. Will there be a display on both sides? If yes, does this mean the device will fold from an iPad size into an iPhone size?
FWIW, Credit Susie predicts Apple could raise the price of the new phone by ~$50 to cover costs.
Is that the model(s) with or without the design change?
Here’s the relevant part of the report (issued 12.6):
“Specifically, we believe Apple will need to raise the ASP of the OLED iPhone 8 line by ~$50 and keep the mix new phones to ~35% (close to current levels) to keep iPhone GMs stable (assuming a $25 BOM increase from OLED). Additionally, we believe, the services growth can also help offset this.”
MDN: If you call the iPhone an “aspirational” device, you are clearly more stupid than you sound.
Projecting… 😛
$1200 is absurd. Measured against the MacBooks it would give rise to charges of rip off and would do lasting damage to the brand even if a lower priced phone is available. With advances in design and production, phones should be getting less expensive, not more.
Then don’t buy it. Welcome to Capitalism.
Higo, don’t forget that product psychology is strong.
If Apple continues to let its mainstream products stagnate as they are and then starts to introduce products only at the highest end of the market, then the backlash could be abrupt. it could very well lose the mindshare of the middle market that keeps the lights on.
Extreme luxury goods are notorious for making a splash and then fizzling out soon. Kinda like a fancy gold Hermes band Apple Watch. Waste of Apple’s time to sell that kind of stuff.
Fuck capitalism.
The display components of the iPhone 7 cost Apple $39. Some of the previous rumors have suggested the new iPhone will have a glass back and front. I’m postulating that the large price increase could be do to the fact that the glass back is also another display. A doubling of the display size would increase the overall display costs.
If the device does has a display on the back then this probably means the device folds. This folding mechanism could contain additional components and costs. A foldable feature makes the device a convertible smartphone/tablet, which means the price increase would be justified.
The wireless charging at a distance components are probably $10-$20 at most, so that wouldn’t justify a large iPhone price increase. Add-in the price of a plug-in-the-wall wireless transmitter and the investment in the iPhone increases.
I doubt Apple is going to increase the price of the iPhone just because it looks different and has the same functionality of the current models. Even if they changed the design, and replaced the aluminum case with ceramic, the price increase wouldn’t be copacetic. There has to be some major new feature to justify that increase. Wireless charging at a distance, and/or a foldable form factor are some ideas.
Why not $2,000. That’s a price you are willing to pay. Look, 5 year financing. Think of it as a car, you can trade it in, get a little money on it. And, if traded in, it can be resold. What’s the problem. It’s only 34 a month, for 5 years. That’s cheap!
If the case was made out of the white ceramic and the guts were pretty much the same. Then the price would be justified.
However instead of making fancy Pro phones, why not make Pro Macs that have a better chance of making higher prices sales.
The phones cost too much, as its is. I buy a phone app very year and hold on to it for 4 years. As the price goes up it makes less echonomic sense.
Because a TON of people want phones and with all the trade up deals, a lot will get them for nothing extra over their subscription payment.
The number of folks that want a MacPro even if it beat ALL competition is minuscule by comparison.
Here’s a wild idea that may answer a question posed in an earlier article posted this morning:
“This brings the question, why isn’t Apple working to bring macOS support to its Ax line of processors?”
– What if the Pro model worked like what Microsoft is going to do with its ARM processors? That is let your phone work with a keyboard, mouse and display.
Is this what they mean by a fake news site?
Little point in complaining about prices. Either you can afford an iPhone or you can’t. I can’t but I’m happy for the people who can. I don’t hate Ferrari or Ferrari owners. That’s just how it is in life. There will always be the people who have and there will always be more people who don’t have. That’s nothing new to the world. I don’t know if Apple is pricing its products to lose customers but that’s their choice. As a shareholder, I have no say in the matter. Apple believes it can be an exclusive upscale brand by selling less products for more money. Good luck with that strategy.
What bothers me most is that the cost of SSD space has dropped drastically in the past couple years. Apple can no longer justify charging an additional $100 for an added 128 GB of SSD space. Clearly, it’s time to pass the cost savings down to the customer.
Apple. iPhones for just some of us.
I hope this iphone 8 has got something more than annoying curved glass and removed home button.
I’m getting worn down a bit with all of this “aspirational pricing.” I get the philosophy that if you charge more, people will value the product more, but eventually there is a limit.
I love Apple hardware for the most part (AppleTV aside for the moment) but I fear we’re about to hit “Peak Apple.” The reality distortion fog is starting to fade and some of us have a hangover akin to the 80’s when (as foolish college kids) we spent precious $ on the short lived delights from the coca leaf.
We have a bad headache and are broke. 😉
Apple is the most profitable company in the history of the multiverse, right? Now before we jump in and say, “That’s-because-they-don’t-compete-on-price,” at least consider that they could at least not keep RAISING the price of things while producing less. If we’re going to pay a premium, which we have been paying since the dawn of our love affair with Apple, then we should at least have the ability to maintain and upgrade these elegant machines for as many years as we used to, right?
So when Apple raises the price, solders and glues everything down it sends a message to those paying attention that they want us to buy new a lot more often. Designed obsolesce is something of a new card for Apple to play, but it’s not a new concept. And I know we’re supposed to be drooling over the exciting new hardware features of the latest Apple tech, but lately, even that has started to wane. Maybe the Touch Bar will turn out to be an essential productivity tool, or maybe it’s just a bell or a whistle. Too soon to tell.
Either way, if you’re going to change parts of the equation, the deal we make with Apple when we spend our money with them, then you need to pay attention to the stress that puts on other parts of the argument that all things Apple are great and should cost top dollar to participate in.
I’m just not seeing aspirational designs and products worthy of aspirational pricing. :-\
I wonder if the same sentiment is making the current Sprint commercials about paying so much more for Verizon service for only 1% difference so ‘sticky’.