Incidentally, there's a rumor that the iPhone 14 is going to use a new A16 processor in the iPhone Pro, but stick to last year's A15 for the non-pro version.
That's a big change from Apple where they've historically put their newest processor in every single phone they launch (even the $430 iPhone SE announced last week has the A15 now).
I wonder if it's purely a cost cutting measure, or if they're not expecting good enough yields to supply them for every iPhone, or if they're holding some fab capacity back to have room for the higher end chips alongside the A16.
I'd guess that they are having product differentiation issues between the iphone and the iphone Pro. Most people just don't see the value in faster screen, stainless band, and a not-so-great telephoto camera (I own a pro, but I'm hardly their primary market). An entire processor generation difference would give a big selling point to average consumers for paying the extra few hundred dollars.
There's been rumors that they'll be skipping A15 cores for the upcoming M2 processors.
If they skipped over the best-selling iphone, that would give them a TON of extra space for M2 chips. This would allow them to put a little more ground between the new Air with the M1 and the pro iPads. It would also allow them to drop a new version of the macbook air and drive a lot of sales there. I know I'd gladly upgrade to a M2 model -- especially with a decent CPU bump and a 24/32GB RAM option.
Then again, they could just stick with what people expect. I wouldn't be surprised either way.
I feel like I can see increased efforts at differentiation on the 13 Pro compared to the 12 Pro.
The iPhone 12 Pro was perhaps the least differentiated high-end model Apple has ever put out.
I think the 13 Pro has a few features that make it a bit more of a compelling buy:
- The new telephoto lens is a massive improvement (I wonder if your last experience was with the 12 or older? The new camera is actually worth something while the old one had mediocre quality compared to the main lens).
- ProMotion has no tangible benefit, but it makes every interaction with the screen look smoother. When you go back to old phones that don't have it, it's jarring. I can see why some of the Android-using tech enthusiasts have criticized Apple for not delivering high refresh rate for so long.
- The previous iPhone 12 had identical main/wide cameras with the Pro model unless you got the Max variant, which is no longer the case. The iPhone 13 Pro has different/better cameras all around over the 13.
- The GPU of the 13 Pro has an extra core over the 13, which was not the case for the iPhone 12 lineup. Anyone who does mobile gaming on graphically intense games should probably choose the Pro model over the regular one.
- Significantly better battery life over the non-Pro version, which was not the case for the 12 models, which had identical ratings.
For an average consumer, are those things worth hundreds of dollars?
I know the value, but I work in tech and spend tons of time digging into hardware as a hobby. Camera matters to some, but most of the rest are pretty bare features compared to the $200 (20%) increase in price.
When I list all the things I can buy with $200, where do these features rank in comparison to those other things? I'm blessed with a good job, so I can afford the luxury. I was poor when I was younger and I definitely wouldn't be spending that for those features. $220 out the door would be almost 20 hours of work at $15/hr (after taxes).
I think that's a valid question. Objectively, no, those features are not necessarily worth the literal dollar value the price segmentation is commanding.
But, there are some other points to consider:
- It seems like most people in the USA who buy mid to high-end phones finance their phones from carriers, and pay 0% interest for it. So, what the consumer is really considering is "is the Pro model worth $5-8/month more to me?" or "Would I pay $200 extra over 2-3 years?" and I think that's an easier justification for many people.
- Carriers offer a number of financial incentives and discounts in exchange for loyalty (there aren't any contracts anymore, but there are "bill credits" that function the same way).
- You did use $15/hour as an example, which around the median US salary, but Pro models are not intended to be the top selling model for the median earner in the US. They're marketed at, I would guess, the top 20% of earners, which lines up with the Pro/Pro Max models only making up 20% of iPhone sales in 2020 [1]. That would mean that Apple would expect individuals buying the iPhone Pro models to make about $75,000/year or greater. About 10% of the population makes a 6-figure salary. [2]
- Smartphones are the primary communication and computing device for many if not most people. I think that there are many people who see the smartphone as the most valuable possession they own.
> So, what the consumer is really considering is "is the Pro model worth $5-8/month more to me?" or "Would I pay $200 extra over 2-3 years?" and I think that's an easier justification for many people.
I find this attitude bizarre. It's not any cheaper! I guess it can make a difference if you have cash flow issues. But an iPhone Pro is decidedly a luxury, so if you have cash flow issues then you probably just shouldn't buy one?
Your point about cash flow is absolutely why this happens. I think that a lot of people operate on monthly budgets, not total cost.
It's not really about the total price paid, it's about whether the item is affordable on a monthly basis.
I agree with your philosophy where a lot of people are way too willing to let easy financing change their budget. I also assume that free financing would inflate prices (e.g.: cars and homes).
Would the iPhone and other flagship phones cost $700-1000 if financing wasn't so common? I don't think so, personally.
The other aspect of this is that, mathematically, $200 paid now is objectively worth more than $200 paid over time thanks to the time value of money. [1]
Let's say we're at a "normal" 2% rate of inflation. If I buy a $30,000 car today with 0% financing over 6 years, by the time I hit year 6 my monthly payment is representing a 12% lower value (inflation compounded yearly) than when I started.
Technically, even if you have $1000 in cash to buy your new iPhone, you "should" just finance it and invest/save/use the rest elsewhere.
>The generally long battery of the ProMax in particular (I had issue with my phone dying midday, forgetting to charge)
>iOS 15 Focus mode
>UWB wireless trackers
>The most effective ANC in any wireless headphones
>Apple watch for notifications, timers, etc
Are all very helpful and the promax is just good for pragmatic and practical reasons. I would definitely say it's a high priced item but I wouldn’t frame it as a luxury. I fundamentally see my phone as assistive technology, it can’t die on me, Apple makes their longest lasting phone their most expensive.
I'd imagine if anything it's a capacity issue now that they're producing mac chips in addition to iPhone chips. I suspect the fact the current chip is already so fast may also be a factor. Pretty much nobody using an iPhone is clamouring for a faster CPU. I have an iPhone 6s, and even the A9 in that is fast enough that my phone never feels slow.
> I have an iPhone 6s, and even the A9 in that is fast enough that my phone never feels slow.
Last year I upgraded from a 6s+ to a 12 and I can confirm this the other way around: my old phone did feel slow for a couple of key apps; turns out they are still slow on the new phone. They are just poorly written, and one is basically just a CRUD app with no excuse.
So my lesson is to likely keep this phone for a decade. It's not like I couldn't afford to upgrade but why bother?
I will echo this, I was on a 7 and it broke, so I got a regular model 12. The phone itself feels much faster, it loads quicker, the batteries last longer and the screen is much nicer to look at--but some of the apps I use are about the same for opening/loading time. I blame the apps not the phone; some are much better--Pokemon Go for example loads in just a second or two on the 12 but takes 30 or so on the 7.
I found the biggest difference to be the display. I changed from iPhone 7 Plus to iPhone 13 mini. From 7 on the display is wide color and the newer phones are all OLED with true blacks. They’re impressive.
Another big difference is 5G. I can easily get 500+ MBit/s downstream while outside.
I found that I can adapt to any display size. I used to have an iPhone 5s which I replaced with a 6s Plus and a 7 Plus. Recently I have changed my mind and I wanted a compact phone again to carry less weight and to distract me less. I thought it might deter me from watching videos all the time. I like how the small phone feels like, it’s more elegant.
Oh, and about the cameras: the one update I especially like is the night photography, I can now even take photos of the starry night sky.
Besides that: it’s just a phone, it just has an absurdly powerful CPU in it, and now it does text detection in images. Screenshots and photos have selectable text in it.
The camera is better at low light photos but I don't really care about that. Camera plays no role in my selection of phone and I wish the lenses didn't protrude (which they could address by putting more battery in!).
Yes, the battery was kinda shot but I could have replaced it.
Honestly, my guess is that the fab production issues impact everyone. I wonder if they get the same number of runs per $ as they used to pre-covid, my guess would be no. If that’s the case, that drives BoM up and Apple is hyper margin conscious.
That's a big change from Apple where they've historically put their newest processor in every single phone they launch (even the $430 iPhone SE announced last week has the A15 now).
I wonder if it's purely a cost cutting measure, or if they're not expecting good enough yields to supply them for every iPhone, or if they're holding some fab capacity back to have room for the higher end chips alongside the A16.