4 ms·

Yup its just that they have become the largest seller of status signalling veblan goods in history, in times where inequality is at its highest. It would be ni

by gsatic 4y ago

Yup its just that they have become the largest seller of status signalling veblan goods in history, in times where inequality is at its highest. It would be nice instead, if they used their cash hoard to stop wasting time upgrading the iphone with more superficial shit. Bring prices of the phones down to 50 bucks. Put it in the hands of everyone. And kill the toxic advertising supported attention economy that has caused chaos all over the world. Now its just another group of unimaginative optimizing corporate robots, with no actual compass heading beyond hoarding cash.

midoridensha 4y ago
>Bring prices of the phones down to 50 bucks. Put it in the hands of everyone. 60% of Americans already have them, and are perfectly happy to spend $1300 on them every few years, even if it means not paying rent or having to starve themselves. Why would they want to bring the price down?
- cableshaft 4y ago
  I have an iPhone, but I'm not willing to spend $1300 on one. I bought my last one refurbished for about $250, an iPhone 7 Plus, about three years ago, and I still have no issues with it. And Boost Mobile (where I got mine) is currently advertising a deal for an iPhone 8 for $80, or an iPhone 11 for $350. Not all of that 60% are paying the full price for a brand new iPhone, probably not even the vast majority of them. iPhones tend to last (and continue to receive updates -- I'm still getting updates on mine) for quite a while. That being said, I agree with you that they don't need to bring the price down. And I disagree with the parent, because there's already ways to get (older) iPhones pretty cheap, almost as cheap as they were calling for.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  >60% of Americans already have them, and are perfectly happy to spend $1300 on them every few years, even if it means not paying rent or having to starve themselves. Why would they want to bring the price down? Source? This comment sounds hyperbolic when many very capable iPhones versions are available for $700+ and 90% of people would not know the difference between a $700 and $1,300 iPhone. In my family, we have an iPhone 6, X, XS, XR and 2020 SE still working.
  - andsoitis 4y ago
    And those phones were very expensive, relatively, at the time you bought them. But they also last very long. So people are willing to fork over lots of money. And then many many people, though of course not everyone (like yourself), upgrade very few years.
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      They were never $1,300. And there has always been a perfectly viable non top of the line option for around $800, but still very future proof option. Some people like to claim that everyone is buying a new maxed out iPhone every couple years, but that is nowhere near the truth. If you do not need the latest and greatest camera, people can and do buy the much cheaper models.
      - andsoitis 4y ago
        I didn’t say they were 1,300. I said they were very expensive for their time, relative to the competition. In fact, started at $649. Also, the specs are just not comparable to the latest. From battery life, to screen quality, to storage. https://venturebeat.com/mobile/iphone-prices-from-the-original-to-iphone-x/ https://venturebeat.com/mobile/iphone-prices-from-the-origin...
        lotsofpulp 4y ago
        I disagree they were expensive relative to their competition, if you define competition as phones that have a decade+ long history of lasting at least 4 years (including software updates). It has been many years since 90% of people need the “latest” specs. For the purposes of messaging, taking photos, browsing the internet, and watching media, an iPhone 13 serves just the purpose just as well as a 14 pro. Even a $500 SE will do everything most require, except have a bad battery life, but that is fine for people who are not out in the field like retired people.
quickthrower2 4y ago
Cannibals prefer to eat others, not themselves
kergonath 4y ago
> Bring prices of the phones down to 50 bucks. Put it in the hands of everyone. A $50 reduction on a $1000 price tag won’t “put it in the hands of everyone”. People who cannot afford it still won’t and it won’t change anything to people who can. $50 over the life of a device is nothing. Besides, that’s what previous generations are for: usability is pretty much identical to the latest and greatest, and the discount is much more than $50.
- swores 4y ago
  You misread their suggestion, which was to bring it down TO $50 not BY $50 (ie a $950 reduction on a $1000 product). Though easy to see how you read it that way as their way isn't remotely realistic.
acdha 4y ago
> Yup its just that they have become the largest seller of status signalling veblan goods in history, in times where inequality is at its highest. This assertion falls apart under even basic sober analysis. It may sound tautological but entire point of status signaling is that other people notice it. iPhones look very similar to the equivalents and most people aren't going to be able to tell which model or year you have without a close examination – contrast with a luxury sports car which is audibly and visibly distinct from a fair distance. If you look at what actual rich people do, you can really understand the point: there's no better phone available at any price due to how the product segment works so they buy the same phone as everyone else but they get things like high-ended designer cases because that's where there's room to demonstrate how much money you have. Tim Cook has essentially the same phone as half the people in line at your local coffee shop; that's decidedly not true of actual luxury goods. It also has two other fundamental flaws: the first is the assertion that there's a substantial price difference when even a bit of research would show that equivalent phones cost roughly the same amount even before you adjust for the extra years of service an iPhone will provide. These comparisons can also be complicated because, for example, if you care about battery life or CPU performance the comparison for a Pixel 7 isn't the iPhone 14 but a much cheaper iPhone 11 but the same probably isn't true if your primary buying criteria is camera quality. The second is trying to look at this in isolation: the price differential between one phone and another just isn't that much compared to other things people spend money on — a phone costs significantly less than what most people will spend on cell service over the same timeframe, and for perspective the total lifetime cost for that phone is likely to be 1-2 months worth of rent. For something which people derive heavy value from throughout the day, that's definitely not conspicuous consumption. The U.S. median income is something like $50k so even if you're buying the most expensive model sold you're looking less than one percent of median income over the average 40 months that Americans keep their phones. Contrast that with, say, cars where the average new vehicle buyer is spending the equivalent of that purchase price _every month_ on something they use on average less than one hour per day and most of them are paying significant premiums for models which aren't more useful for the things they actually do just to present an aesthetic style. If you want to talk about Veblen goods, ask why so many people are commuting to office jobs in $60-90k trucks in showroom condition.

by gsatic 4y ago

midoridensha 4y ago

>Bring prices of the phones down to 50 bucks. Put it in the hands of everyone. 60% of Americans already have them, and are perfectly happy to spend $1300 on them every few years, even if it means not paying rent or having to starve themselves. Why would they want to bring the price down?

cableshaft 4y ago
I have an iPhone, but I'm not willing to spend $1300 on one. I bought my last one refurbished for about $250, an iPhone 7 Plus, about three years ago, and I still have no issues with it. And Boost Mobile (where I got mine) is currently advertising a deal for an iPhone 8 for $80, or an iPhone 11 for $350. Not all of that 60% are paying the full price for a brand new iPhone, probably not even the vast majority of them. iPhones tend to last (and continue to receive updates -- I'm still getting updates on mine) for quite a while. That being said, I agree with you that they don't need to bring the price down. And I disagree with the parent, because there's already ways to get (older) iPhones pretty cheap, almost as cheap as they were calling for.
lotsofpulp 4y ago
>60% of Americans already have them, and are perfectly happy to spend $1300 on them every few years, even if it means not paying rent or having to starve themselves. Why would they want to bring the price down? Source? This comment sounds hyperbolic when many very capable iPhones versions are available for $700+ and 90% of people would not know the difference between a $700 and $1,300 iPhone. In my family, we have an iPhone 6, X, XS, XR and 2020 SE still working.
- andsoitis 4y ago
  And those phones were very expensive, relatively, at the time you bought them. But they also last very long. So people are willing to fork over lots of money. And then many many people, though of course not everyone (like yourself), upgrade very few years.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    They were never $1,300. And there has always been a perfectly viable non top of the line option for around $800, but still very future proof option. Some people like to claim that everyone is buying a new maxed out iPhone every couple years, but that is nowhere near the truth. If you do not need the latest and greatest camera, people can and do buy the much cheaper models.
    - andsoitis 4y ago
      I didn’t say they were 1,300. I said they were very expensive for their time, relative to the competition. In fact, started at $649. Also, the specs are just not comparable to the latest. From battery life, to screen quality, to storage. https://venturebeat.com/mobile/iphone-prices-from-the-original-to-iphone-x/ https://venturebeat.com/mobile/iphone-prices-from-the-origin...
      - lotsofpulp 4y ago
        I disagree they were expensive relative to their competition, if you define competition as phones that have a decade+ long history of lasting at least 4 years (including software updates). It has been many years since 90% of people need the “latest” specs. For the purposes of messaging, taking photos, browsing the internet, and watching media, an iPhone 13 serves just the purpose just as well as a 14 pro. Even a $500 SE will do everything most require, except have a bad battery life, but that is fine for people who are not out in the field like retired people.

quickthrower2 4y ago

Cannibals prefer to eat others, not themselves

kergonath 4y ago

> Bring prices of the phones down to 50 bucks. Put it in the hands of everyone. A $50 reduction on a $1000 price tag won’t “put it in the hands of everyone”. People who cannot afford it still won’t and it won’t change anything to people who can. $50 over the life of a device is nothing. Besides, that’s what previous generations are for: usability is pretty much identical to the latest and greatest, and the discount is much more than $50.

swores 4y ago
You misread their suggestion, which was to bring it down TO $50 not BY $50 (ie a $950 reduction on a $1000 product). Though easy to see how you read it that way as their way isn't remotely realistic.

acdha 4y ago

> Yup its just that they have become the largest seller of status signalling veblan goods in history, in times where inequality is at its highest. This assertion falls apart under even basic sober analysis. It may sound tautological but entire point of status signaling is that other people notice it. iPhones look very similar to the equivalents and most people aren't going to be able to tell which model or year you have without a close examination – contrast with a luxury sports car which is audibly and visibly distinct from a fair distance. If you look at what actual rich people do, you can really understand the point: there's no better phone available at any price due to how the product segment works so they buy the same phone as everyone else but they get things like high-ended designer cases because that's where there's room to demonstrate how much money you have. Tim Cook has essentially the same phone as half the people in line at your local coffee shop; that's decidedly not true of actual luxury goods. It also has two other fundamental flaws: the first is the assertion that there's a substantial price difference when even a bit of research would show that equivalent phones cost roughly the same amount even before you adjust for the extra years of service an iPhone will provide. These comparisons can also be complicated because, for example, if you care about battery life or CPU performance the comparison for a Pixel 7 isn't the iPhone 14 but a much cheaper iPhone 11 but the same probably isn't true if your primary buying criteria is camera quality. The second is trying to look at this in isolation: the price differential between one phone and another just isn't that much compared to other things people spend money on — a phone costs significantly less than what most people will spend on cell service over the same timeframe, and for perspective the total lifetime cost for that phone is likely to be 1-2 months worth of rent. For something which people derive heavy value from throughout the day, that's definitely not conspicuous consumption. The U.S. median income is something like $50k so even if you're buying the most expensive model sold you're looking less than one percent of median income over the average 40 months that Americans keep their phones. Contrast that with, say, cars where the average new vehicle buyer is spending the equivalent of that purchase price _every month_ on something they use on average less than one hour per day and most of them are paying significant premiums for models which aren't more useful for the things they actually do just to present an aesthetic style. If you want to talk about Veblen goods, ask why so many people are commuting to office jobs in $60-90k trucks in showroom condition.