3 ms·

I think it is kind of a bummer that Apple is going this route. It will be too bad if people get their first smartphone because it is $100 instead of $200, but

by rz2k 13y ago

I think it is kind of a bummer that Apple is going this route. It will be too bad if people get their first smartphone because it is $100 instead of $200, but fail to realize that they are changing their 2-year mobile phone expenses from ~$1200 to ~$2400. Illogically though, I suspect I would have less of a problem with what they are doing if they priced the 5s starting at $300.

mikeash 13y ago
Where do you get a change from $1200 to $2400? The monthly plans cost the same, so the 5S versus 5C will cost you roughly $2300 versus $2400 over two years.
- Timothee 13y ago
  if people get their first smartphone I think he means from a feature-phone plan to a smartphone plan.
  - mikeash 13y ago
    That would explain the numbers, but I don't see the connection to the 5C's pricing, then.
    - Timothee 13y ago
      if people get their first smartphone because it is $100 instead of $200 I.e. people are more likely to get an iPhone 5C because it's cheaper and thus "only" $99 more than the free phone they'd get otherwise. But this is not specific to the 5C, since the same scenario was in place as soon as Apple started offering two kinds of iPhones at the same time.
      - mikeash 13y ago
        Makes sense. I think it was the part where this is nothing new that was confusing me.
        rz2k 13y ago
        I wasn't very clear, but that was my point, that the marketing angle seems to be that it is an option for more budget-conscious first-time smartphone buyers. And yet, there are negligible actual savings compared to the 5s, since the major part of switching to smartphone is the cost of a two-year service agreement. The marketing angle is not cynical on the scale of, say, BlueHippo[1][2], or pay day loans, but it is different for Apple to be creating bad value proposition that will have to be dismissed as the customers' fault for not doing their research. And sure, it actually is customers' fault, but I don't think Apple customers have had to watch out for being tricked by Apple as much in the past. While, it is simple to say: you can use this phone for two years for $2500, or this phone for two years for $2400, and it will be obvious that you'd only choose the plastic one with half as powerful a CPU if you really like the colors, I don't think salespeople will be saying this in stores to potential customers. The idea of a "budget" iPhone that looks like it starts at half the price, but actually only represents a 4% discount on the TCO, just seems like a departure from their past, and towards becoming a slimier company. (again, unless you just really like the colors) [1] http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-05-20/the-poverty-business http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-05-20/the-poverty-b... OR http://web.archive.org/web/20070811233934/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_21/b4035001.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_best+of+bw+this+week http://web.archive.org/web/20070811233934/http://www.busines... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/14scam.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/14scam.html
        mikeash 13y ago
        Are they playing this up any more than they played up the "$100" 4S last year, or the "$100" 4 the year before, or the "$100" 3GS before that? Maybe they are and I missed it. I will admit that I zoned out on much of the "marketing" parts of the 5C presentation. I will agree with the general premise that smartphone pricing in the US is fairly deceptive, with huge emphasis given to the up-front price of ~$200, and almost no attention paid at all to the whole-contract cost of ~$2,500. This is certainly intentional and intentionally deceptive. But, alas, it's not new, not even for Apple.
        13y ago

by rz2k 13y ago

mikeash 13y ago

Where do you get a change from $1200 to $2400? The monthly plans cost the same, so the 5S versus 5C will cost you roughly $2300 versus $2400 over two years.

Timothee 13y ago
if people get their first smartphone I think he means from a feature-phone plan to a smartphone plan.
- mikeash 13y ago
  That would explain the numbers, but I don't see the connection to the 5C's pricing, then.
  - Timothee 13y ago
    if people get their first smartphone because it is $100 instead of $200 I.e. people are more likely to get an iPhone 5C because it's cheaper and thus "only" $99 more than the free phone they'd get otherwise. But this is not specific to the 5C, since the same scenario was in place as soon as Apple started offering two kinds of iPhones at the same time.
    - mikeash 13y ago
      Makes sense. I think it was the part where this is nothing new that was confusing me.
      - rz2k 13y ago
        I wasn't very clear, but that was my point, that the marketing angle seems to be that it is an option for more budget-conscious first-time smartphone buyers. And yet, there are negligible actual savings compared to the 5s, since the major part of switching to smartphone is the cost of a two-year service agreement. The marketing angle is not cynical on the scale of, say, BlueHippo[1][2], or pay day loans, but it is different for Apple to be creating bad value proposition that will have to be dismissed as the customers' fault for not doing their research. And sure, it actually is customers' fault, but I don't think Apple customers have had to watch out for being tricked by Apple as much in the past. While, it is simple to say: you can use this phone for two years for $2500, or this phone for two years for $2400, and it will be obvious that you'd only choose the plastic one with half as powerful a CPU if you really like the colors, I don't think salespeople will be saying this in stores to potential customers. The idea of a "budget" iPhone that looks like it starts at half the price, but actually only represents a 4% discount on the TCO, just seems like a departure from their past, and towards becoming a slimier company. (again, unless you just really like the colors) [1] http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-05-20/the-poverty-business http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2007-05-20/the-poverty-b... OR http://web.archive.org/web/20070811233934/http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/07_21/b4035001.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index_best+of+bw+this+week http://web.archive.org/web/20070811233934/http://www.busines... [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/14scam.html http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/14/us/14scam.html
        mikeash 13y ago
        Are they playing this up any more than they played up the "$100" 4S last year, or the "$100" 4 the year before, or the "$100" 3GS before that? Maybe they are and I missed it. I will admit that I zoned out on much of the "marketing" parts of the 5C presentation. I will agree with the general premise that smartphone pricing in the US is fairly deceptive, with huge emphasis given to the up-front price of ~$200, and almost no attention paid at all to the whole-contract cost of ~$2,500. This is certainly intentional and intentionally deceptive. But, alas, it's not new, not even for Apple.
        13y ago