4 ms·

> It's a luxury product. 25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury. Neither here nor

by szvsw 2y ago

> It's a luxury product. 25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury. Neither here nor there but that’s part of your argument that seems pretty flawed (ie: it’s a luxury product so we shouldn’t have to worry about the vagaries of “anti/pro-consumer behavior, competition etc”). Sure most of Apple’s other products are in the more to much more expensive end of their categories, but the iPhone’s market penetration definitely makes the luxury categorization wrong IMO, even if it is expensive. Anyways, your entire argument effectively boils down to “this problem does not affect me, therefore it is not a problem; I don’t care if there is a monopoly on some product or service or lock-in or anything because I’m fine with it, I like the service and have no plans on leaving anyways” - which is a position plenty of people take, and also one plenty of people disagree with, so I won’t try to argue either way with you here since you seem committed. It does seem short-sighted and generally anti-consumer to me (or like you are just evidence that their various lock-in strategies work and are good for their business - which you self-identified as being correct in re: intentionally buying into walled-garden). Anyways, that’s not to say I totally disagree - I think most of your points are generally true/or something I could at least see being true even if I don’t feel convinced (ie potentially ending up in a sea of third party crap, creating a potentially undue burden on Apple engineering etc… tho even those I find questionable and not self-evident).

Dalewyn 2y ago
>25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury. iPhones cost somewhere in the realm of $1000 to $2000 give or take. Meanwhile, actually cheap smartphones still from a reputable manufacturer (eg: Samsung) can be had for at least $200 to $300 or so. So no, iPhones (and Apple products in general) are a luxury good. There is a lot more "want" than "need" involved when choosing to buy an iPhone.
- WWLink 2y ago
  iPhones are not a luxury good by any means. You can waltz right into an Apple Store TODAY and buy yourself a $429 iPhone SE or a $599 iPhone 14. Boost mobile was giving iPhone 12s away for $99. Virtually every carrier has a free-with 2-3 year commitment deal for the iPhone 16. I live in the US where iPhones were 61.26% of smartphones sold in the US in the most recent quarter https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/us-smartphone-market-share https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/us-smartphone-market-share If you want to be fancy, get a folding phone like a Galaxy Fold or a Pixel Fold. Those do have steep discounts at times, but you're still going to have to fork up $800-1200 or so for them. Or get one of those niche phones like an Xperia 1 or an Asus ROG phone or whatever that costs >$1000 and isn't subsidized by ANY carrier.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    When something like a Samsung Galaxy A15 can be had for $175[1] (and that's with no carrier commitments), any iPhone is a luxury good. Yes, even that $429 iPhone SE which is well over double the price of that Samsung. Smartphones as a general good are a life necessity at this point, but esoteric offerings among them like iPhones or Sony Xperias or the higher end Samsung Galaxys or Google Pixels are luxury goods because nobody needs the features brought by the much bigger price tag. It's like how a bottom trim Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord is a necessity because you probably need a car, but anything beyond it is a luxury because whether you want that car is different. Another example would be choosing name brand foodstuffs at the grocery store instead of the store brand, that's also choosing luxury goods assuming the store brand is cheaper. [1]: https://www.samsung.com/us/smartphones/galaxy-a15/buy/galaxy-a15-5g-128gb-unlocked-sm-a156ulbdxaa/ https://www.samsung.com/us/smartphones/galaxy-a15/buy/galaxy...
    - szvsw 2y ago
      I think you’ve articulated it pretty clearly here, but I still have minor quibbles. Back to the original point… I might be misconstruing it, but reads a bit like this to me: something should be free of consumer protections if consumers have cheaper alternatives; they chose the more expensive option, and therefore they should suffer the consequences of that good or bad; and furthermore, we shouldn’t care if the company selling the product (allegedly) actively works to make it harder for them to transition to the cheaper alternatives in the future should they so desire. Does that seem like a misconstruction of the part of the argument that we originally started this string of comments on? I think there are other slightly better arguments against it but this one seems pretty flawed to me. It seems reasonable to me that when a product hits some critical, hard-to-define adoption threshold, even if it is a “luxury” choice by your definition, there is still a good argument for placing consumer protections in place. It’s also reasonable to believe those actions would be nanny-state failings, stifle innovation, drive business away etc etc, but I do think the first point of view is reasonable.
      - Dalewyn 2y ago
        I'm not passing judgment one way or another regarding consumer protections here, though I personally find EU more draconian than my preferences and whether they're effective is up for debate (GDPR is a hilarious failure, USB-C mandate is a resounding success). Though, I think that when someone deliberately chooses to buy a luxury good (much less one that costs a 4 figure sum) they lose some of their standing to complain. Kind of like how I don't complain about my beer because someone will yell at me that I just shouldn't buy the beer if I don't like it and he would be absolutely right.
- szvsw 2y ago
  I guess I disagree that price alone makes something a luxury good. Is a 10 year old Honda civic a luxury good (typically around $10-13k) even though there are probably cheaper and comparable alternatives? I would say no? Not a perfect analog because I do think there is merit in your point that there are “actually cheap” contemporaneously manufactured phones (Samsung etc). but still, maybe it’s just semantic or pedantic but when 1.3b active iPhones are out there, to me that indicates it is something other than luxury and more importantly does cross a threshold where there are real reasons to consider larger anti-consumer patterns, even if the consumer is choosing the more expensive option. Anyways I don’t feel too strongly about this either way, I just think the argument here that the iPhone is a luxury device doesn’t absolve them. Other arguments I’m more sympathetic to is all.
- dismalaf 2y ago
  > iPhones cost somewhere in the realm of $1000 to $2000 give or take The upfront purchase price is $0 in most rich countries.
- Y_Y 2y ago
  Coca-Cola is luxury in this sense too.
  - Dalewyn 2y ago
    Absolutely.

by szvsw 2y ago

Dalewyn 2y ago

>25-30% of smartphone owners have an iPhone. Something like 1.3b active iPhone users. That seems decidedly non-luxury. iPhones cost somewhere in the realm of $1000 to $2000 give or take. Meanwhile, actually cheap smartphones still from a reputable manufacturer (eg: Samsung) can be had for at least $200 to $300 or so. So no, iPhones (and Apple products in general) are a luxury good. There is a lot more "want" than "need" involved when choosing to buy an iPhone.

WWLink 2y ago
iPhones are not a luxury good by any means. You can waltz right into an Apple Store TODAY and buy yourself a $429 iPhone SE or a $599 iPhone 14. Boost mobile was giving iPhone 12s away for $99. Virtually every carrier has a free-with 2-3 year commitment deal for the iPhone 16. I live in the US where iPhones were 61.26% of smartphones sold in the US in the most recent quarter https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/us-smartphone-market-share https://www.bankmycell.com/blog/us-smartphone-market-share If you want to be fancy, get a folding phone like a Galaxy Fold or a Pixel Fold. Those do have steep discounts at times, but you're still going to have to fork up $800-1200 or so for them. Or get one of those niche phones like an Xperia 1 or an Asus ROG phone or whatever that costs >$1000 and isn't subsidized by ANY carrier.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  When something like a Samsung Galaxy A15 can be had for $175[1] (and that's with no carrier commitments), any iPhone is a luxury good. Yes, even that $429 iPhone SE which is well over double the price of that Samsung. Smartphones as a general good are a life necessity at this point, but esoteric offerings among them like iPhones or Sony Xperias or the higher end Samsung Galaxys or Google Pixels are luxury goods because nobody needs the features brought by the much bigger price tag. It's like how a bottom trim Toyota Corolla or Honda Accord is a necessity because you probably need a car, but anything beyond it is a luxury because whether you want that car is different. Another example would be choosing name brand foodstuffs at the grocery store instead of the store brand, that's also choosing luxury goods assuming the store brand is cheaper. [1]: https://www.samsung.com/us/smartphones/galaxy-a15/buy/galaxy-a15-5g-128gb-unlocked-sm-a156ulbdxaa/ https://www.samsung.com/us/smartphones/galaxy-a15/buy/galaxy...
  - szvsw 2y ago
    I think you’ve articulated it pretty clearly here, but I still have minor quibbles. Back to the original point… I might be misconstruing it, but reads a bit like this to me: something should be free of consumer protections if consumers have cheaper alternatives; they chose the more expensive option, and therefore they should suffer the consequences of that good or bad; and furthermore, we shouldn’t care if the company selling the product (allegedly) actively works to make it harder for them to transition to the cheaper alternatives in the future should they so desire. Does that seem like a misconstruction of the part of the argument that we originally started this string of comments on? I think there are other slightly better arguments against it but this one seems pretty flawed to me. It seems reasonable to me that when a product hits some critical, hard-to-define adoption threshold, even if it is a “luxury” choice by your definition, there is still a good argument for placing consumer protections in place. It’s also reasonable to believe those actions would be nanny-state failings, stifle innovation, drive business away etc etc, but I do think the first point of view is reasonable.
    - Dalewyn 2y ago
      I'm not passing judgment one way or another regarding consumer protections here, though I personally find EU more draconian than my preferences and whether they're effective is up for debate (GDPR is a hilarious failure, USB-C mandate is a resounding success). Though, I think that when someone deliberately chooses to buy a luxury good (much less one that costs a 4 figure sum) they lose some of their standing to complain. Kind of like how I don't complain about my beer because someone will yell at me that I just shouldn't buy the beer if I don't like it and he would be absolutely right.
szvsw 2y ago
I guess I disagree that price alone makes something a luxury good. Is a 10 year old Honda civic a luxury good (typically around $10-13k) even though there are probably cheaper and comparable alternatives? I would say no? Not a perfect analog because I do think there is merit in your point that there are “actually cheap” contemporaneously manufactured phones (Samsung etc). but still, maybe it’s just semantic or pedantic but when 1.3b active iPhones are out there, to me that indicates it is something other than luxury and more importantly does cross a threshold where there are real reasons to consider larger anti-consumer patterns, even if the consumer is choosing the more expensive option. Anyways I don’t feel too strongly about this either way, I just think the argument here that the iPhone is a luxury device doesn’t absolve them. Other arguments I’m more sympathetic to is all.
dismalaf 2y ago
> iPhones cost somewhere in the realm of $1000 to $2000 give or take The upfront purchase price is $0 in most rich countries.
Y_Y 2y ago
Coca-Cola is luxury in this sense too.
- Dalewyn 2y ago
  Absolutely.