17 ms·
The real prices of the iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 mini
- mangoman 6y agoI 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.
- ralph84 6y agoAt least they didn't force a U2 album on you this time
- vineyardmike 6y agoListening to U2 Album >>> Listening to Verizon talk about 5g
- buzzerbetrayed 6y agoNot when listening to Verizon talk only lasts for 5 minutes, but the U2 Album is stuck in your library for years.
- tomjakubowski 6y agoThe 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.
- noizejoy 6y agoInteresting - 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.
- alteria 6y agoThe 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.
- WWLink 6y agoI wonder if that means we'll start seeing iPhones with carrier branding.
- cglong 6y agoLike the whole AT&T "5Ge" thing that Apple gave in on? :(
- orev 6y agoThe carrier contracts likely don’t give any leeway on that. They just provide the image and Apple has to show it.
- kindatrue 6y agoContracts never stopped Steve Jobs from doing what he thought was right for his customers.
- Schiendelman 6y agoThey most certainly did - like having Maps go out half-baked because they couldn't get a contract for what they wanted.
- geerlingguy 6y agoI know he was sad to see his TV/Movies/VOD plans fall through and eventually the 'meh' Apple TV concept was born.
- roamerz 6y agoI 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.
- rgovostes 6y agoThe first four models of iPhone were exclusive to Cingular/AT&T in the US until 2011. The first unlocked devices were sold in 2012.
- lotsofpulp 6y agoThat was back when they were trying to break the mobile networks hold on phone software. There’s no reason for Apple to sell out now, except for being a sell out. It’s a shameful look for Apple.
- Bud 6y agoNormally 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.
- whoisburbansky 6y agoAgreed 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"?
- vineyardmike 6y agoPick your apple-sheep/skeptic variety: 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.
- floatingatoll 6y agoI 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?
- 2bitencryption 6y agoAh, Cingular wireless, gobbled up by AT&T after the iPhone announcement.
- acheron 6y agoThat’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.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y agoI 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?
- FireBeyond 6y agoPlus Visual Voicemail, if I recall.
- orev 6y agoYes. 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.
- rblatz 6y agoAt 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.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago> I wonder how much verizon paid for that placement My guess is either buildout commitments or prioritisation for iPhones.
- kindatrue 6y agoSteve Jobs was rolling in his grave
- tchalla 6y agoAT&T also has the same "Special Offer" as Verizon for iPhone 12 and iPhone 12 Mini. No difference for Pro and Pro Max models. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24780791 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24780791
- PascLeRasc 6y agoI 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.
- serjester 6y agoSlightly 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.
- enragedcacti 6y agoactually it is on a phone that costs $699 i.e. a 4.3% price increase
- serjester 6y agoThat's assuming everyone buys the cheaper version with no memory upgrades. Apple's average sales price is significantly higher than that. This seems marginal.
- enragedcacti 6y agoWe might as well assume that everyone buys the pro and then there is no markup at all.
- _qulr 6y agoThe last known iPhone ASP (from AAPL 2018 Q4 results) was $793
- tomcam 6y agoHow about there being nothing misleading at all? It ain’t rocket surgery.
- save_ferris 6y agoIf 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.
- gnicholas 6y agoFor 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.
- wyldfire 6y agoPhone subsidies are bad and should go away. Showing the post-subsidy price is dishonest.
- samatman 6y agoIf 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.
- ianai 6y agoIt 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.
- samatman 6y agoJust to be clear, are you saying paying for things on an installment plan is a shady practice? Easy to say if you can afford a new phone up front...
- decker 6y agoI'm going to go out on a limb and guess that the majority of people buying an iPhone 12 already have a mobile phone plan.
- samatman 6y agoSure, 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.
- VibrantClarity 6y agoIn 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.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoI understand Apple’s approach to Verizon here. 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).
- wmf 6y agoIt's a slap in the face to T-Mobile which has had nationwide 5G for a while.
- mensetmanusman 6y agoThe 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.
- jankyxenon 6y agoAre 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
- chrisseaton 6y ago$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!)
- iso1631 6y agoyup, so it looks like $6xx rather than $7xx.
- jonathanberger 6y agoWhy 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?
- aylmao 6y agoAdding to the industries that get into shady territory: universities. Campus fees, "activity" fees, etc. Now apparently COVID-related fees too [1]. [1]: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/20/college-students-get-hit-with-new-pandemic-related-extra-fees.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/20/college-students-get-hit-wit...
- chrisseaton 6y ago> COVID-related fees That's a dark phrase.
- farisjarrah 6y agoThe Honda dealership in my town charged me $19 for a Covid Cleaning Fee.
- zachberger 6y agoI occasionally use the Rinse laundry service and they have a bizarre $5 COVID safety fee which is refunded 3 months later. https://www.rinse.com/blog/rinse/health-and-safety-fee/ https://www.rinse.com/blog/rinse/health-and-safety-fee/
- unishark 6y agoThis 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.
- jrsj 6y agoThis is clearly listed on their site and the vast majority of customers buy through major carriers anyways.
- e_tm_ 6y agoThis isn't cool, but.... Every slide that has a price has the keyword "From" right before it.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- saagarjha 6y agoUsually "From" has meant "it might cost more if you put in more storage", not "if you buy don't buy this through a carrier it costs $30 more".
- e_tm_ 6y agoFor sure. I guess the new definition is "somebody can technically purchase for this price, even if it is 1 out of a million, and requires a blood sacrifice". I am not a marketer, but I assume that is the definition they are using.
- markdown 6y ago> Apple fibs about... 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.
- larkost 6y agoNo, 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.
- mthoms 6y ago>... 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. Lies by omission are still lies.
- kube-system 6y agoIt seems odd to call a $30 subsidy a lie when the industry standard was a 50%, 75%, or 100% subsidy just a few years ago.
- kevingadd 6y agoA 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
- kube-system 6y agoWhat part of "starting at $699" is a lie? You will be able to exchange $699 for an iPhone 12 Mini.
- bgorman 6y agoAnd then you will be charged a 30 dollar mandatory activation fee once you attempt to use your phone. Wheras on T-Mobile you pay 729, and then do not have an activation fee. It is basically a scam, much like how hotels are allowed to charge "resort fees" to have lower prices in online search engines.
- kube-system 6y agoApple doesn't operate cell networks, nor do they sell that service.
- gpm 6y agoOk, 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...
- kube-system 6y ago
- dangus 6y agoThe 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.
- MattGaiser 6y agoIsn'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.
- stetrain 6y agoOnly if you don't count T-Mobile/Sprint as a major carrier.
- manigandham 6y agoMobile carriers in the US stopped using contracts years ago. The price is subsidized by monthly discounts on a payment plan for the phone, but you can leave anytime and pay off the remaining balance.
- yumraj 6y agoAnyone 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 $7xx pricing, which has a psychological impact. This is why a very very large percentage of prices end in .90-.99 - This seems to be the first time Apple has done this and it sets a bad precedent. - More than the precedent, it seems Apple is willing to do this to derive a little extra revenue, which at least in my mind is a negative for their brand. So, it's interesting that they are OK with this. - Based on this, In future, will they also be open to selling Data?? Who knows...
- rchaud 6y agoI think the difference from a marketing perspective is the big issue, as there is a big psychological inertia people have with Apple prices not ending in a neat "$__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.
- joshstrange 6y agoEh... 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.
- davio 6y agoThe AT&T advertised monthly prices are also based on 30 months of payments. Getting into car loan territory (in the 1980s)
- _qulr 6y agoEveryone 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.
- adventured 6y ago> 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.
- cwhiz 6y agoI 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.
- tofuahdude 6y agoHow soon will Apple be a carrier themselves? Acquire Verizon, vertically integrate, spread 5g, beat everyone?
- goodluckchuck 6y agoPrice-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.
- tchalla 6y agoI 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). [0] https://imgur.com/rKNDwyd https://imgur.com/rKNDwyd
- strin 6y agoWell “starting at 799” nothing wrong with that
- jacurtis 6y agoLet'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!
- stetrain 6y ago"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."
- saagarjha 6y agoThey pulled it from all their other iPhones and kept the price the same. I think it's pretty clear it's profit for Apple.
- gnicholas 6y agoFair 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.
- cwhiz 6y agoIt 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.
- gnicholas 6y agoYes, 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.
- dwighttk 6y agoMeh. 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.
- stephc_int13 6y agoApple is really disapointing lately. I bet that they won't be milking the cow for so long.
- hristov 6y agoOne 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.
- ziftface 6y agoIt'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.
- saagarjha 6y agoThe 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.
- morpheuskafka 6y agoSaw 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.
- Hippocrates 6y agoAgree this fees non-Apple and the screen time allotted to the VZ guy was cringeworthy. Feels like a big sell-out.
- loop0 6y agoI 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?
- oflannabhra 6y agoThe "prepare and save your preorder" option requires Apple Card monthly payments to be pre-approved, and does not allow carrier "special offers".
- cycop 6y agoApple 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.
- robertlf 6y agoC'mon folks. It's _always_ about money.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- thisarticle 6y agoLook, 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.
- mrwnmonm 6y agoSo what about international prices?
- ksec 6y agoYou 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.