Posted on 09/21/2017 2:14:55 PM PDT by dennisw
Apple's new iPhone X $999 price tag only looks expensive, according to Apple chief Tim Cook.
Asked by ABC's Good Morning America presenter Robin Roberts whether the iPhone X's price tag was "out of reach for the average American", Cook replied that it was "a value price actually for the technology you're getting".
After explaining that most people pay don't pay the full sum upfront and often receive carrier subsidies and trade-in discounts, Cook also suggests that whether the iPhone X is out of reach for most people is beside the point.
That's because Apple's goal has never been to sell the most phones. The technology it packs into its phone, which explains the price, merely reflects what phone addicts want.
"The iPhone in particular has become so essential in our daily lives, people want it to do more and more, and so we built more and more technology in to be able to do that," said Cook.
"Apple has never been about selling the most of anything. Our objectives aren't big revenues. Our objective is to make products that enrich people's lives. We want to help people."
(Excerpt) Read more at zdnet.com ...
I listen to music, talk radio, all sorts of things with my Bluetooth headphones and my phone in my pocket!
Come on. No one is saying some won’t think it’s worth that much money. Hell note8 costs about as much too.
The issue is cook saying it’s value priced. Value price is the old iPhone which does all the same things for a lot less money. If the X is value priced what is the iphone6/7?
No, you can't. Here's what you find on Amazon. "You can buy all sorts of brand-new (Certified Refurbished) iPhone 6’s for well under $300."
There. Fixed it for you. NOT "Brand New". There is a big difference between "Certified Refurbished" and "Brand New".
Tracfone iPhones are refurbs in new boxes. . . as are the ones being sold at Target. Apple had amassed a lot of iPhone 5, 5S, and 6 models for sale in India, but the Indian government refused to allow sales of refurbished phones. Apple instead worked out an agreement to manufacture iPhones in India to meet their requirements. Now Apple was stuck with a lot of new looking refurbished iPhones. They sold them to the monthly phone service type companies.
Yes, I don’t rush to get the newest thing, anyway. I’d like a new iPad with more storage tho.
Ah...., that explains how we got them so cheap! After one year, they still work great and we're happy we bought them. I checked, and not all Target stores have them now, just a few stores. They do have iPhone SE's for $199, which is a step up from the 5s.
I didn’t know they were rehabbed until recently. I should have known when my Tracfone transmitted a caller ID that didn’t even look like the same race as me.
Sounds like a good feature to have! I like being anonymous, that’s partly why I use TracFones with no contract.
Cook has also said, in the past, that published estimates (guesses) about Apple’s cost of building iPhones have been way off — the current estimate for the cost of the OLED display in the X is $120-130.
Also refurbs.
You're mistaking the hype meaning of "value priced," i.e. "discounted off regular retail price," for the classic economic meaning of priced by value, meaning the value it offers the buyer determines its price, which is the definition Cook was using.
Here is treatise on the difference between Luxury phones and the value of expensive phones in reference to the iPhone X that may give you some insight on the differences of value pricing, although it doesn't address that issue per se.
Is there any stupid comment you won’t try to spin for Cook? Do you also defend gay marriage and DACA?
I am educated as an Economist. I know what "Value priced" means. That is a fact of economics. You have a layman's grasp of what the "hype" meaning is from advertising distortions. I provided the explanation of what the term means in business and provided you with a link where the terms were discussed which you obviously ignored. You can use the educational opportunity or not. Your choice.
No, I don't defend "gay" marriage. Regardless of the religious and moral issues involved, societally, marriage is an economic construct designed for the security of children and raising children. Extending that economic construct to people of the same sex who have little potential to procreate who merely want to co-habitate for their sexual or mutual pleasure, or even their financial benefit, when they can do that contractually without the structure of marriage, is a distortion of the societal purpose of marriage. Permitting same sex marriage has no societal benefit worthy of distorting the institution of marriage.
However, I can make a strong argument for Trump's position on voiding Obama's illegal legislation via un-Constitutional Executive order DACA. By voiding DACA, Trump has put the status back to the point so that Congress can properly address the problem of children—many of whom are now adults—who have been raised and educated as American children in American culture by their illegal alien parents and know no other culture (those who were close to adulthood when brought here as minors is another matter) in a Constitutional, and legal, manner. If Congress can find a way through this conundrum, especially if it concludes with a border wall finally being built, great. However, with intractable Demoncrats and Rinos I am not putting much hope for that happening anytime soon. My thought is that the logical resolution is permanent resident status with a VERY DIFFICULT PATH TO CITIZENSHIP, due to the criminal nature of their entry, and end visitor birth citizen ship to stop the anchor baby issue.
The concept that any child born on American soil gained American citizenship was dicta (commentary) found in a MINORITY Supreme Court opinion of a single Justice. Minority opinion, especially dicta, do not have the force of law. . . but this dicta was adopted by Liberal bureaucrats latched onto it and accepted the concept that such birthright citizenship actually existed, contrary to every other nation on Earth's policies, giving rise to the anchor baby concept.
I will give Cook credit where credit is due. You, however, will view anything Cook does through a lens of your negative Gay or Liberal light filter, no matter if what he does or says is actually the logical or right thing to do, because you are blinded by Cook's idiocy of putting his personal Liberal agenda before Apple's best business interests, because the fact is that he, himself—like most Liberals—is blind in that area, unable to separate his own Liberal bias from what is actually good for the welfare of Apple, its stockholders, its stakeholders, or its customers, conflating his Liberal bias as being somehow integral and necessary with Apple's position and success. Steve Jobs never made that mistake. Tim Cook views everything through his biases. You apparently do the same thing. I am more discerning.
lulz on Tim Cook saying his buggery being a gift from God. Insane talk in my book.
Really, so why did I complement Apple for their stand on privacy? It’s the one reason I was considering the iPhone was their stand on security and privacy.
I hate google too, but for me I’m actually going to have to choose the greater evil because I like the freedom their OS gives me.
I was hoping Microsoft would get their heads out of their butts and get their Windows on Arm working soon so they could release a mini-surface with LTE. I’m still lamenting windows phone never taking off...it was truly the best OS.
BTW I ended up buying a note 8. Incredible screen. And android has came a long way over the past couple years. But still no icon notification counters. Windows phone had those since day 1. But they are coming with oreo.
Also its a bit confusing with Samsung putting their stuff on top of Google. I like that it’s nearly 100%customizable.
You use the lighting port for headphones/earbuds etc.
Transmit calls and receive calls.
A proper phone these days should also be a mobile internet terminal.
You should be able to say, "OK, Google, 'When was the 16th Amendment passed?'" And your phone should answer with the dark day, 3 February 1913, when Congress gained a right is should never have had.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.