Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone XS Max This is why the new iPhones are failing
- Thread starter janeauburn
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m not seeing many with either an X or and XS in any vast quantity. I’ve seen around 20 since October 2017.
Probably depends on where you live. I’m in London and I see them everyday. Almost everyone around me is either on a X or Xs.
Well, Tim did tell the market that Apple would no longer report on unit sales so there is that... Apple will scream good news to the mountain tops. Everyone here knows that. And this BS about unit sales being misleading due to geography, competitor data, etc.. all BS.
The new X-line iPhones are not selling as well as Apple would like. I am torn on the XR. I cannot decide if the insane XR marketing campaign is due to poor sales for XR versus estimates or hammering the gas on good sales of the XR to offset less optimal sales of the XS/XSM.
I talk to everyone about phones. I pay attention to what phones people use as that analyst part of me never goes away. I have seen XSM in the wild. They are selling. However, what I have noticed (on both coasts.. not just where I live now) is that MORE people are keeping their phones longer. A 6S with a replaced battery will do most everything the average person needs from a phone. It’s a small segment of people who need the latest for gaming, photo/video editing, etc.
For fun we can go contrarian. Maybe Apple WANTS us to keep our phones longer. It is certainly better for the environment and I know that is important to Apple. There is less waste for sure if millions skip a year or two of upgrade. Also, the processing power of the recent phones is so good it supports those who who want to keep their phone for 3+ years.
They did bring out Lisa Jackson at the iPhone keynote event to discuss their efforts in making iPhones last longer.
I read an article that summed it up as "Fundamentally, Apple is betting on having customers not selling them products."
The idea is by making phones that last longer, Apple can continue to increase its active customer base even as iPhone sales flatten or even decline by 1% or 2%.
A $1,200 phone can be cheaper than a $600 phone if you use it twice as much and keep it twice as long.
http://www.asymco.com/2018/09/13/lasts-longer/
Yes on my commute into London I see them all the time and I live in Southend and I see one or two when I go into the town centre.
It’s interesting because I used to live in London and there was a mix of iPhones and Samsung phones and other androids but where I live now it’s about 98% iPhone.
[doublepost=1544798513][/doublepost]
I think their end game is services so it makes sense for customers to keep their phones for longer, staying in the ecosystem and consuming services.
Somewhat of an aside...
I think the mindset of the folks complaining about the current pricing structure for iPhones breaks down to the expectations that Apple had set in earlier years compared to the new reality. Here's what I mean.
From the iPhone 3GS through the iPhone 5s, anyone who wanted a flagship iPhone paid the same price (with adders for storage space). It didn't matter if you were super rich or a regular guy, you paid the same $650 (or $200 subsidized price) that LeBron James paid (yes, I know he was a Samsung shill).
Apple expanded the flagship offerings starting with the 6plus. The 6 was still $650, but if you wanted a bigger screen, you could get it for $750. At that price, if a regular guy wanted to "keep up with the Kardashians", it was only a 15% bump. Not too bad.
Then with the introduction of the X, that's when the complaints really started to come in. Apple decided to take the flagship up a level or two. The put in bleeding edge tech and a new design philosophy that really divided the user base. Then they slapped on a $350 price increase (from the iPhone 7) for a 54% price increase compared to the previous non-plus flagship. Now, it was much much harder for regular folks to afford the flagship iPhone. It was no longer a reality that regular folks could get the same iPhone that the rich folks could get.
And I really think that, subconsciously, that rubbed many users the wrong way. The X wasn't a new product (even though in many ways it was) in the public's mind. It was the new flagship and it carried a really big price tag.
Opinion #1 - perhaps, in hindsight, Apple could have marketed the X as an offshoot of the regular iPhone/plus line. Maybe the expectation that the flagship iPhone was "affordable luxury" could have been maintained. The iPhone X line could have had a psychological separation simply using a different moniker.
With the Xs/Max, Apple has put an even more expensive option of the table, combined with the available option of 512GB, makes the price comparison skew even worse, from a perception point of view.
Opinion #2 - the Xr was meant to allow a lower entry point for X level design. Instead of pricing the new flagship design at a price point that most people can afford (or at least had been accustomed too), Apple releases an iPhone that looks and functions (mostly) like the flagship. For Apple, I think they feel that this is a win-win. Price conscious shoppers have an option for a flagship-design phone at a more affordable price point. Price-is-no-option shoppers can spend to the moon and get the latest and greatest. We'll see how Apple's bet pans out come this February when they release numbers.
Anyways, this is probably a long winded way to say that many of the price-complainers probably, IMO, lament that it's getting more and more costly to own the flagship ... as they have done every year since the iPhone 3GS.
I think the mindset of the folks complaining about the current pricing structure for iPhones breaks down to the expectations that Apple had set in earlier years compared to the new reality. Here's what I mean.
From the iPhone 3GS through the iPhone 5s, anyone who wanted a flagship iPhone paid the same price (with adders for storage space). It didn't matter if you were super rich or a regular guy, you paid the same $650 (or $200 subsidized price) that LeBron James paid (yes, I know he was a Samsung shill).
Apple expanded the flagship offerings starting with the 6plus. The 6 was still $650, but if you wanted a bigger screen, you could get it for $750. At that price, if a regular guy wanted to "keep up with the Kardashians", it was only a 15% bump. Not too bad.
Then with the introduction of the X, that's when the complaints really started to come in. Apple decided to take the flagship up a level or two. The put in bleeding edge tech and a new design philosophy that really divided the user base. Then they slapped on a $350 price increase (from the iPhone 7) for a 54% price increase compared to the previous non-plus flagship. Now, it was much much harder for regular folks to afford the flagship iPhone. It was no longer a reality that regular folks could get the same iPhone that the rich folks could get.
And I really think that, subconsciously, that rubbed many users the wrong way. The X wasn't a new product (even though in many ways it was) in the public's mind. It was the new flagship and it carried a really big price tag.
Opinion #1 - perhaps, in hindsight, Apple could have marketed the X as an offshoot of the regular iPhone/plus line. Maybe the expectation that the flagship iPhone was "affordable luxury" could have been maintained. The iPhone X line could have had a psychological separation simply using a different moniker.
With the Xs/Max, Apple has put an even more expensive option of the table, combined with the available option of 512GB, makes the price comparison skew even worse, from a perception point of view.
Opinion #2 - the Xr was meant to allow a lower entry point for X level design. Instead of pricing the new flagship design at a price point that most people can afford (or at least had been accustomed too), Apple releases an iPhone that looks and functions (mostly) like the flagship. For Apple, I think they feel that this is a win-win. Price conscious shoppers have an option for a flagship-design phone at a more affordable price point. Price-is-no-option shoppers can spend to the moon and get the latest and greatest. We'll see how Apple's bet pans out come this February when they release numbers.
Anyways, this is probably a long winded way to say that many of the price-complainers probably, IMO, lament that it's getting more and more costly to own the flagship ... as they have done every year since the iPhone 3GS.
To be honest as well not sure i would take much notice for those who use what phone certainly on a daily basics.
Not sure why one city would have everybody owning them but be so sparse elsewhere? Is the need for one specific iPhone so centric depending on the city?
I think It comes down to rate of income / affordability/ lifestyle and culture of the place to some extent.
Last edited:
Not entirely sure that applies too much on something like an iPhone. I live in a poor area yet people still drive around in nice cars. In my line of work the wages are good and the cost of living is cheaper. I’m probably wealthier than most people in my line of work in London even if they are on a higher wage. I think it’s relative and I’m sceptical when it comes to things like iPhones as they are available everywhere, not just London.
So are you using anecdotal evidence from your neighborhood and extrapolating it to the rest of the world?
I do think lifestyle and culture matters. For example a wealthy farmer in wales might not care about owning the latest iPhone but an average salaried person working in London might.
People get influenced by their surroundings a lot.
No more than you are. If 45+% of iPhone X’s were sold in the United States as was reported, that suggests they would be a rarer sight in the rest of the world on the grounds of probability. I wouldn’t call Western Europe my neighbourhood as it’s a rather large place and pretty densely populated.
I have no idea about farmers in Wales but I do know I don’t see many in Cardiff and that’s a cosmopolitan and quite wealthy city on average. It’s every bit as fashionable as London if not a much nicer place too IMO. Then again it goes back to my point about different trends I suppose. Maybe people in London care more about phones than they would about cars?
So is anybody here who refers to the amount they personally see whether that’s a few or many. Do you have an issue with someone who says they see lots of them in London? I see you ‘like’ those posts.....
Shouldn’t you direct that point of yours at everyone?
If you look at Mixpanel data for activated iPhones, you'll see that 18.55% of all iPhones are the X-style (iPhone X, XS, XS Max, and XR).
The most recent quote I could find for iPhone installed user base is "750+ million," so that would indicate that in the last 13 months or so Apple has sold over 139,125,000 million iPhone X-style phones.
If you don't see them in your neighborhood, it doesn't mean no one is buying them.
I didn’t say nobody was buying them, I said I’ve seen around 20 since the X was released and not referring solely to my ‘neighbourhood’ whatever the context of that you’re referring to?. I find that surprising seeing as previous iPhones have been so obviously popular regardless of where you live.
A month out of date now but here’s a source that shows lower figures and Atlas are a trusted source usually.
https://deviceatlas.com/blog/most-popular-iphones
Your source does at least show older iPhones are much more popular so that does relate somewhat.
The link you provided doesn't show all the countries Apple launched iPhones in last year or this year, including China.
Yeah it’s tough to compare wages meaning latest and greatest phones
Anthony Davis who is on what 30-40 million a year in a wages but was spotted with an iPhone 7 Plus so to some having up to date phones doesn’t always mean much when it comes to total salary.