iPhone 15 Pro Models Expected to Be $100 to $200 More Expensive

[The-Real-Deal82]

The Q3 2023 iPhone revenue decline might be more meaningful if it wasn't compared against a RECORD Q3 2022 number. $39.8 billion is still quite impressive and nearly 33% higher than five years ago (Q3 2018).

I would expect significant growth since 2018 due to Apple launching services like Apple Fitness, and further growth in Apple Music subscriptions, even if many of those services are given away free with purchases, much like Apple TV. It all adds to the figures and growth. Then again, most leading tech manufacturers have seen significant growth in the last 5 years, especially the Asian companies.

The only time I take an interest in things like this is if it has any effect on me abnd right now I'd like to see the prices of everything come down, much like inflation has in recent months.

 

[webkit]

I would expect significant growth since 2018 due to Apple launching services like Apple Fitness, and further growth in Apple Music subscriptions, even if many of those services are given away free with purchases, much like Apple TV. It all adds to the figures and growth. Then again, most leading tech manufacturers have seen significant growth in the last 5 years, especially the Asian companies.

The only time I take an interest in things like this is if it has any effect on me abnd right now I'd like to see the prices of everything come down, much like inflation has in recent months.

I was specifically referring to iPhone revenue which remains quite impressive at close to RECORD levels. It doesn't appear the overseas price increases (largely due to stronger USD) made too much of a dent in sales. Apple "services" don't necessarily lead to or require new iPhone purchases.

On the topic of Apple services, I believe that revenue has more than doubled in the last five years to new record levels. Of course, those "services" numbers include Google's hefty payment to Apple. Apple could end up losing close to $20 billion in annual services revenue if the DOJ case against Google ends up putting an end to those types of payments.

 

[BradMacPro]

The iPhone 15 Pro and iPhone 15 Pro Max will be at least $100 more expensive than their predecessors, according to DigiTimes.

​

The iPhone 14 Pro starts at $999 and the iPhone 14 Pro Max starts at $1,099. DigiTimes' forecast places the price of the iPhone 15 Pro at $1,099 to $1,199 and the iPhone 15 Pro Max at $1,199 to $1,299.

The significant price increase could suppress sales of the new Pro iPhone models this year, reduced to around 77 million units in 2023. Initial estimates placed shipments at around 83 million units. This corresponds to a wider decline in the smartphone industry of more than five percent year-on-year.

Earlier this year, Bloomberg's Mark Gurman reported that Apple was contemplating raising the price for both the iPhone 15 Pro and the iPhone 15 Pro Max. Analyst Jeff Pu has also said that the iPhone 15 Pro models could be more expensive than the iPhone 14 Pro models. Pu believes the iPhone 15 Pro could be priced starting at $1,099, up from the $999 starting price of the iPhone 14 Pro.

The iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro models are expected to be unveiled at an Apple event on Tuesday, September 12. With that timing, pre-orders would likely take place on Friday, September 15, with launch following on Friday, September 22.

Article Link: iPhone 15 Pro Models Expected to Be $100 to $200 More Expensive

It seems the default storage has gone up from 128 GB to 256 GB, which accounts for $100 of the price, and considering inflation and it's been a while since a price increase, it's not that surprising.

 

[Djones96]

If 256 is base storage, the price hike is fine by me.

 

[Heat_Fan89]

On the topic of Apple services, I believe that revenue has more than doubled in the last five years to new record levels. Of course, those "services" numbers include Google's hefty payment to Apple. Apple could end up losing close to $20 billion in annual services revenue if the DOJ case against Google ends up putting an end to those types of payments.

I've always been puzzled by that. I must be in the minority but I don't use Google's search engine and haven't on any of my devices for the last several years. I am really curious how many must switch to another search engine? It must be nice having Google's money to throw that much away at Apple.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I was specifically referring to iPhone revenue which remains quite impressive at close to RECORD levels. It doesn't appear the overseas price increases (largely due to stronger USD) made too much of a dent in sales. Apple "services" don't necessarily lead to or require new iPhone purchases.

Spending is down in Europe so if revenue has been maintained, I would think that’s largely down to the US market which is Apples biggest. Increasing prices of their flagship iPhones by £150-£180 per unit across Europe most certainly would have had an effect. Apple aren’t immune from the effects of a severe cost of living crisis. Not all iPhone revenue is calculated by new/latest devices either. The iPhone 13 and SE is also sold throughout the developed world and all contribute to the revenue collected.

Strangely enough I’m aware that you can buy services whether you’ve bought the latest Apple product or not too. I would imagine that’s common knowledge among people who have been Apple customers present and past.

 

[LacrosseChic]

With the terrible exchange rate for Norwegian kroner, I'm expecting it to be even worse here...

But I'll probably replace my 11 pro, come September, no matter what.

Only question: Do I need to get the big one to get the best camera possible. I didn't like the size of my 7 plus, but I might unwillingly accept it, if the camera on the Pro Max/Ultra/Insert name here is considerably better than the "regular" Pro.

I am in Norway as well and will be holding on to my 14 pro max for a while!
For the best camera you will have to buy the 15 pro max/ultra

 

[webkit]

I've always been puzzled by that. I must be in the minority but I don't use Google's search engine and haven't on any of my devices for the last several years.

Google search market share is currently around 92% worldwide, and 89% in the U.S.

It must be nice having Google's money to throw that much away at Apple.

Yes. Mozilla/Firefox also makes a lot of money (for its size) from their Google search default contract. It accounts for around 85% of Mozilla's revenue.

 

[webkit]

Spending is down in Europe so if revenue has been maintained, I would think that’s largely down to the US market which is Apples biggest.

Actually, overall Apple revenue (not just iPhone) in Europe was up in Q3 2023 (versus Q3 2022) while U.S. revenue was down.

Strangely enough I’m aware that you can buy services whether you’ve bought the latest Apple product or not too. I would imagine that’s common knowledge among people who have been Apple customers present and past.

Which is why I was puzzled that you responded with a comment focusing on Apple services when my post was specifically about iPhones.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Actually, overall Apple revenue (not just iPhone) in Europe was up in Q3 2023 (versus Q3 2022) while U.S. revenue was down.

Well it’s reassuring to know despite the hardships people are going through, Apple are doing well out of it.

Which is why I was puzzled that you responded with a comment focusing on Apple services when my post was specifically about iPhones.

Well now you know I wasn’t specifically talking about iPhones in my response.

 

[GuruZac]

techinally not as just means base storage will be 256GB and not 128GB

Yeah, I’ve been saying the same thing. If the price goes up $100, but base storage moves from 128GB to 256GB, it’s not a price hike.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

Yeah, I’ve been saying the same thing. If the price goes up $100, but base storage moves from 128GB to 256GB, it’s not a price hike.

It is a price hike because the entry price would increase by £100, so those wishing to buy that option will have to pay an inflated price. Apple could offer the 256GB for the same price as the 128GB was, but they won’t, as shifting the entry price up is better for them and less great for the consumer, especially those not needing 256GB of storage.

 

[NARadyk]

It wouldn’t be so bad if outside of the US, we hadn’t already seen price hikes the past couple of years!

 

[GuruZac]

It is a price hike because the entry price would increase by £100, so those wishing to buy that option will have to pay an inflated price. Apple could offer the 256GB for the same price as the 128GB was, but they won’t, as shifting the entry price up is better for them and less great for the consumer, especially those not needing 256GB of storage.

But again, they didn’t raise the price. They eliminated the less expensive and less capable 128GB version. It can’t even shoot ProRes. I won’t disagree that it would be super nice if the 256GB started at 128GB levels but that would be a discount.

 

[I7guy]

Yes, fully agree with you there. Vanity is a big part of what keeps Apple’s coffers full.

I like hearing that as it virtually guarantees Apple will be keep performing. As long as vanity is a big part of why people buy into apple and brand reputation, corporate image, product excellence, longevity and support are at the bottom of the list…Apple will keep performing well.

 

[webkit]

It wouldn’t be so bad if outside of the US, we hadn’t already seen price hikes the past couple of years!

These rumors are specifically regarding U.S. prices. The price hikes in the UK were largely due to the stronger USD. Although UK prices in £ increased last year, they actually decreased in USD. At the pound's weakest level in September last year (month the 14's launched), the pre-VAT starting price of 14 Pro was actually lower in USD than the pre-sales tax price of the same phone in the U.S.; around $980 USD in the UK compared to $999 in the U.S.

The USD isn't as strong this year so even if there are price increases in the U.S., there may not be in the UK.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

But again, they didn’t raise the price. They eliminated the less expensive and less capable 128GB version. It can’t even shoot ProRes. I won’t disagree that it would be super nice if the 256GB started at 128GB levels but that would be a discount.

By not offering the cheaper 128GB they have raised the price of owning that particular iPhone though. Clever marketing seems to work even before it’s announced.

 

[GuruZac]

By not offering the cheaper 128GB they have raised the price of owning that particular iPhone though. Clever marketing seems to work even before it’s announced.

I know it’s a matter of semantics, but the iPhone price doesn’t appear to be going up, but the cost to buy the Pro model goes up by virtue of starting with a higher storage. I don’t see that as a price hike, but we have yet to see what Apple actually prices these things at anyway.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I know it’s a matter of semantics, but the iPhone price doesn’t appear to be going up, but the cost to buy the Pro model goes up by virtue of starting with a higher storage. I don’t see that as a price hike, but we have yet to see what Apple actually prices these things at anyway.

We had a significant price hike last year where Pro models went up £150 from the year before. The 128GB model is £1099 currently and the 256GB is £1209, so yeah it’s semantics but for those who get the base storage, it would be an increase of £110 by default. That’s if they keep last years prices and don’t increase them again, in which case it could be even more again. It’s becoming less and less appealing buying a Pro iPhone for many in these times and no amount of ‘but you get a bit more storage for 100 quid more than you want to pay’ is going to cut it.

 

[SnowCrocodile]

“We’re approaching a decline in sales because people upgrade less often, so we’ll increase the price to make up for the difference thus encouraging people to upgrade even less often so we’ll increase the prices again and see who blinks first…”

 

[Abazigal]

“We’re approaching a decline in sales because people upgrade less often, so we’ll increase the price to make up for the difference thus encouraging people to upgrade even less often so we’ll increase the prices again and see who blinks first…”

I am puzzled as to why people continue to argue that lower prices is somehow the magical solution to declining sales.

The iPhone business is all about continuous refinement and advancement with new features aimed at improving the user experience. The iPhone business in the 2020s is not dependent on year-over-over upgrades and changes that are so shocking and momentous that a billion iPhone users run out and upgrade. Apple would not be able to handle that kind of demand. It's simply not sustainable for Apple's R&D.

Likewise, the reality is that people are already holding on to their smartphones longer and upgrading less frequently, because smartphone technology has more or less matured. Apple's response over the last few years has been the right one. A higher price doesn't really matter when you are intending on hold on to your iPhone for a longer period of time. Apple also makes this feasible by making their iPhones out of durable materials, supporting them with software updaters longer (5-6 years), while also making it easy to replace the battery when its capacity gets too low. There is nothing wrong with people deciding to hold on to an iPhone for 4-5 years before upgrading, yet people love to spin it as some sort of failure in innovation on Apple's part.

Apple doesn't need us to keep buying iPhones. They just need us to keep using them. And data shows that people simply aren't switching. In the meantime, Apple continues to earn from their user base in the form of accessories, services and subscriptions. Heck, they even get a cut from Apple Pay. Apple has shifted from selling iPhones to selling to people with iPhones. This isn't the early 2010s anymore.

This is turn also helps to preserve the resale value of iPhones, in the event that users wish to sell them in order to fund the purchase of a new iPhone. Which in turn provides Apple with a steady supply of gently-used iPhones which they can then resell in the grey market (which again works because of the long support). Another small but easy source of revenue.

It's not a question of who blinks first. By virtue of just holding on to an iPhone, no matter how old, you already have.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

I am puzzled as to why people continue to argue that lower prices is somehow the magical solution to declining sales.

The iPhone business is all about continuous refinement and advancement with new features aimed at improving the user experience. The iPhone business in the 2020s is not dependent on year-over-over upgrades and changes that are so shocking and momentous that a billion iPhone users run out and upgrade. Apple would not be able to handle that kind of demand. It's simply not sustainable for Apple's R&D.

Likewise, the reality is that people are already holding on to their smartphones longer and upgrading less frequently, because smartphone technology has more or less matured. Apple's response over the last few years has been the right one. A higher price doesn't really matter when you are intending on hold on to your iPhone for a longer period of time. Apple also makes this feasible by making their iPhones out of durable materials, supporting them with software updaters longer (5-6 years), while also making it easy to replace the battery when its capacity gets too low. There is nothing wrong with people deciding to hold on to an iPhone for 4-5 years before upgrading, yet people love to spin it as some sort of failure in innovation on Apple's part.

Apple doesn't need us to keep buying iPhones. They just need us to keep using them. And data shows that people simply aren't switching. In the meantime, Apple continues to earn from their user base in the form of accessories, services and subscriptions. Heck, they even get a cut from Apple Pay. Apple has shifted from selling iPhones to selling to people with iPhones. This isn't the early 2010s anymore.

This is turn also helps to preserve the resale value of iPhones, in the event that users wish to sell them in order to fund the purchase of a new iPhone. Which in turn provides Apple with a steady supply of gently-used iPhones which they can then resell in the grey market (which again works because of the long support). Another small but easy source of revenue.

It's not a question of who blinks first. By virtue of just holding on to an iPhone, no matter how old, you already have.

The increased prices do mean even those who keep their iPhones for 4+ years face a significant outlay initially though. Even the standard models are around £1k+, and there’s less incentives from retailers and carriers compared to android phones. Trade-in values are awful unless you live in the US where it seems to be very fair. I’m certainly reevaluating whether I continue with the iPhone when my next upgrade is up for renewal. Maybe globally people aren’t switching in any considerable number, but I’m noticing people certainly are in my circles. Smartphones have become quite bland and due to a very mature market, which makes it even more puzzling as to why prices are rising so sharply in recently years. If the rumours are to be believed, my next iPhone will cost between £1200 and £1500! It’s becoming ridiculous.

 

[Abazigal]

Smartphones have become quite bland and due to a very mature market, which makes it even more puzzling as to why prices are rising so sharply in recently years. If the rumours are to be believed, my next iPhone will cost between £1200 and £1500! It’s becoming ridiculous.

My honest take - iPhones cost more because they cost more to make. Like you said, I agree that smartphones have matured, and it’s the constant iteration and refinement that costs ever more every year, even as it brings about diminishing improvements in the end user experience. It’s like the student who already has 98/100 for his test straining to eke out one more mark in the next one.

The problem isn’t that Apple has changed, but that Apple hasn’t changed. Their continued success is proof that conventional disruption theory doesn’t apply to consumer driven markets where outstanding design and integration trump modularity and low prices.

We should study it, understand it, describe it and teach it, not deny that it is happening.

 

[The-Real-Deal82]

My honest take - iPhones cost more because they cost more to make. Like you said, I agree that smartphones have matured, and it’s the constant iteration and refinement that costs ever more every year, even as it brings about diminishing improvements in the end user experience. It’s like the student who already has 98/100 for his test straining to eke out one more mark in the next one.

The problem isn’t that Apple has changed, but that Apple hasn’t changed. Their continued success is proof that conventional disruption theory doesn’t apply to consumer driven markets where outstanding design and integration trump modularity and low prices.

We should study it, understand it, describe it and teach it, not deny that it is happening.

Apple make more than 50% margin on every iPhone they sell, more than many car manufacturers make on a car. I don’t buy into that excuse, unless Apple simply justify higher prices because they aim to maintain that enormous margin. I don’t deny Apple is very successful with their ruthless approach, but I view it from a consumer point of view and what I have to pay at the end of the day. I couldn’t care less about Apples success in all honesty.

 

[Abazigal]

Apple make more than 50% margin on every iPhone they sell, more than many car manufacturers make on a car. I don’t buy into that excuse, unless Apple simply justify higher prices because they aim to maintain that enormous margin. I don’t deny Apple is very successful with their ruthless approach, but I view it from a consumer point of view and what I have to pay at the end of the day. I couldn’t care less about Apples success in all honesty.

Apple’s recent gross margin was about 45%. Their iPhone margins are definitely not more than this (I estimate it at around 30-35%), considering that this is mixed with their services revenue, which likely have higher margins. Stuff like Google’s payment to them is pure profit at this point as well.