Hacker News Reader

Comment by neogodless | Hacker News Reader

It's been clear for quite some time that terms like "Extreme", "Pro" and "Max" are marketing terms. They are not accurate classifications of how they will be used.

If people feel strongly enough that the name is not accurate, they will have to buy a competing product that fulfills their needs at the price they are willing to pay.

I suppose what would be interesting, but highly proprietary, would be Apple's marketing research information on how the "Pro" marketing term is received by their target consumers.

All that being said, I personally have never bought from Apple, and think the $150 upgrade cost is ridiculous (not to mention the $300 jump from the XR, which is still $300 more than I paid for my Pixel)! So I could say the "Pro" marketing isn't working on me! But overall, they aren't hurting for customers.

View on HN

"Pro" has been pretty useful, I think, as a marker in Apple's other product lines.

"MacBook Pro" and "iPad Pro" are the ones you buy if you need it for work, because the increased price will pay for itself with increased productivity. But buy the "Air" or basic versions if you are primarily using it for more basic tasks and media consumption.

Not sure the "Pro" distinction will hold up for iPhone, though. I guess it depends if Pro Photographers actually will give up their "Pro" cameras for an iPhone 11 Pro. And I can't think of any other profession where the iPhone Pro will "pay for itself" in productivity increases relative to other iPhones.

“Pro” is not just for productivity but comfort of use as well. As an analogy if you sit on a chair 8 hours a day you’ll want a super nice chair, even if it wouldn’t have direct effects on productivity compared to a just decent one.

For most people relying on a smartphone for work, be it 700 or 1000 the device will pay for itself in a few months at most, so I think the price difference won’t matter much. Better battery performance could be significant though.

Honest question, who relies on a smartphone for work? I mean, obviously people rely on a phone for work, people rely on email for work, but what jobs are there where getting the iPhone pro model would make a difference to getting, say, the now much lower priced iPhone 8.. or for that matter a used 2/3 year old flagship android phone?

Instagram influencers of course.

I see where you’re coming from, but it also feels like asking ‘why do you want to work in a nice place ? what difference is it really making that your desk has smooth angles and is made of sturdy materials instead of a particle plank with feets we’d buy at IKEA ?’

People can be productive and do fantastic work on any working material. But why have it worse when you’ll be using the device day in day out and stare at it for years ?

I don’t think we are arguing the Pro is nicer, right ?

No, I definitely agree, in fact I was going to give that very caveat ('aside from the pro model just being nicer to use if you use a phone all the time at work') but didn't want to presume your point too much. Also I was genuinely interested, maybe there are jobs like this and I'm just not aware of them :-)

Working at a "nice place" is what you care about when you've already decided that everything else about the job is going to suck. When the rest of your working conditions are decent don't care what your desk is like.

Right but we're talking about SV jobs, which do suck and only get employees for the pay and perks.

Having ergonomic equipment is pretty important IMO regardless of the job.

There's a big difference between decent, ergononic equipment and high luxury though. The most expensive flagship phones compare to high luxury, not basic, functional, ergononic environments.

I decided long ago that I won’t work for places that can’t be bothered having decent offices, whatever they do, whatever they pay *

I don’t mean candy bowls or flashy sofas, but well lit, well ventilated, with decent toilets, noise isolation and living space between desks, and ergonomic chairs (at least adjustable in height and depth/inclination)

Cheaping out on work environment is the first sign of misplaced priorities IMO. Especially when it’s so easy to get penalties from work inspection.

* I’ll settle for a million dollar a year, I confess

Well sure, but the particle board thing tcompares to getting a cheap Android budget model though. Not last year's flagship at 40% of the cost. (Well, last year's iPhone hasn't dropped quite that much, but in the Android world they often do with some smart shopping.)

Why the weird extremes? Did the Iphone 8 or X or a android flagship from 2017 stop being nice? Is that your standard for an "IKEA particle plank"?

> I don’t think we are arguing the Pro is nicer, right ?

I didn't watch the entire presentation, but didn't seem very different from current high end phones, except for the camera.

Depends if you mean work on your phone, or on your phone at work.

I'm a startup founder and I use my phone more than anything else to demo my company's technology. But any of the modern phones is fine for this (I've been rolling with a 7 Plus since it came out), and frankly I prefer the LCD screens to the new OLEDs because of ghosting/lag issues.

There may be other folks out there who want the fastest phone for the purposes of demoing technology. For me, I mostly just don't want to look like I'm a luddite (although I've seen a surprising number of founders/CEOs who rock the SE).

"I have to waste money on conspicuously consuming the most expensive phone on the market or else my partners won't think my company is a legitimate business" is a great ilustration of how SV is in a bubble of phony valuation for phony products.

> conspicuously consuming the most expensive phone on the market

This is an iPhone 7+ we’re talking about... Maybe not the best springboard for your complaint.

On OLED screens, the ROG "gaming" phone has an impressive 90hz. It's a little cheaper than most flagships too.

I'm with you here. Got a SE few years ago and it's doing great. Albeit I don't use it as much as I use my Mac, but it does the job.

1. No Camera bump (c'mon, this is simple)

2. Good photos (I'm not trying to replicate Mona Lisa, I just need an ok camera that captures day-to-day things)

3. Small, portable

Not even exclusively for work. If I'm away from my desk for any reason, be it in my vehicle, in the server room, at a friend's place, and I need to urgently know something I always reach for my phone. My phone has my passwords and credit card numbers. My phone gets me connected to all my friends, near and far, for whatever reason. I have access to my email and most critical documents. I use the cameras and microphone to document my life, my projects, and special moments to me. And let's not be glib about it, it's a great tool for passing time between when I'm doing useful and fun things. I can browse Reddit while waiting for my wife to get her hair done.

I find it odd how people will happily pull their wallets out for a PC they will spend a ton of time on, but then balk at the idea of spending half that on a device that lives in your pocket and can help you do practically anything that comes to mind, even if all that comes to mind is entertain you for a few moments. Is it just down to the physical size of the device?

I think because phones are largely still changed on a 2 year cycle in sync with contracts.

I’ve been handing down my iPhones since day one. All of them have got 6 years minimum use.

I mean, my gaming PC has roughly the same cycle, though I suppose that's only for given parts, not the entire thing each time.

I dunno, for all the uses and advantages my phone gives me, I'm happy to pay. My last one was an X and it's served me extremely well since I bought it at launch. I passed on the XS, but the 11 is tempting.

Most people buy cheap PC's, too.

Do “most people” even buy PCs, nowadays? I think most do, but also think it won’t take a decade for that to change.

You may “need” one when you’re at school or university, but i would think many people can easily do without a PC, after that.

I agree with you, that as one of your most used electronics, if youre constantly using it, that the little features add up at times when youre not expecting it.

But none of what you described explains why you would need a Pro instead of the standard. Its nice to have, but the base model isnt nerfed to a point that makes it unusable.

Frankly when it comes to phones at least (and often times any electronics) I just get the most powerful option available. Do I need it? Probably not. But in my experience:

1) They age better, and oftentimes are more not just useable, but actually a joy yo use, for a longer time

2) The price difference just isn't that much to justify taking a lower power device. Sure, the iPhone 11 would probably be just fine compared to an iPhone 11 Pro. But when you're talking about phones in that price caliber, honestly what's an extra $200? And I've never had a phone in my hand wishing it was less capable, so why chance wanting to replace it earlier?

Like I said, I bought the X at launch and that was to replace, in turn, a 6 Plus which was still very usable so I'm far from an every year upgrader, and I think that has to do with the fact that I always get the biggest and best, and then just age out a few cycles instead of continuously upgrading.

My 0.02.

This strategy has served me well. My cycle is 4 years though. 2010 most powerful blackberry -> 2014 iPhone 5s -> 2018 iPhone X

Yep. I wouldn't even say I necessarily have a cycle, I just upgrade when I wanted to. I passed on the 7 and 8 because they didn't have anything overly compelling. The X had FaceID, more gesture control which I like, and the better camera so I jumped on that one. Now I'm debating the 11 Pro just because that new camera also has my interest, and I really like the Midnight Green color, but I'm not sold just yet. I think I'll wait and see how long it takes Apple to start shifting units before I decide for sure.

Almost the same experience here. My old 6 has now gone to our son who continues to get tons of use out of it - all the iPhones in our family end up being given to kids for their phones when we upgrade. Usually the batteries are starting to degrade but the phones themselves? They last for years, and years, and years. iPhones are great

One thing the top end iPhone has is a better camera, and for tangentially-professional photographers, this makes a difference. ("Tangentially" meaning professionals that need photos, eg insurance claims adjuster, but that's it's not a primary focus of their job so an SLR doesn't make sense, eg wedding photographer.)

I'm a hobbyist/pseudo-pro(shot a couple of weddings) photographer that used to carry around SLRs, but have found the iPhone camera good enough to use for daily photography, so the best photography in a phone is a huge plus for myself as I can appreciate the photography enhancements.

Obviously for heavy lifting, I still would prefer an SLR with an assortment of lens options and such though.

A can see for some people where images are an important aspect, but not central to the work, the new cameras might come in handy - off the top of my head ...

I’m estate agent and I want to be able to photograph exteriors and interiors.

I’m a garden designer, I like to photograph my clients gardens for a portfolio.

I run a small bar, that has live music sometimes- I like to photograph and video the bands for my website.

Physicians - always on the go, need access to calendar, reference apps, communication (messages, email)... to me, having a fast phone with a big screen is a no-brainer.

Don't all of these work equally well on the non-Pro version?

The Pro is advertised as having significantly better battery life. If he is indeed always on the go then that will be a big plus.

The BBC make extensive use of the iPhone for news gathering. The photo, video and audio quality are all acceptable for online use (and broadcast use in many cases). LuCi Live is now almost the default option for radio outside broadcasts. The BBC have developed their own app to facilitate direct ingests of media content from iPhones to their asset management system. It's now entirely practical for a broadcast journalist to report on a story with nothing more than their iPhone.

I'm not sure how meaningful the "Pro" suffix really is, but the iPhone has undoubtedly become a piece of professional equipment in the media industry.

http://www.luci.eu/products/

https://www.bbc.co.uk/academy/en/collections/smartphone-jour...

Very interesting, I knew there would be job categories where it would be a completely obvious tool and you'd want every aspect of it to be the best possible and of course journalism is one.

Dictaphone, camera, editing and publishing, phone, notepad, email... arbitrary other software around all of these, all in your pocket. Makes total sense.

Photographers. Many will choose a smartphone that would work as a "b" camera. Is it really that difficult for you to come up with other examples?

Here is one: I'm a botanist. I take a lot of pictures of herbarium specimens (pressed plant specimens in natural history museums) to make morphological measurements. I have a Sony A7RM3 that is a MUCH higher resolution, better quality camera, but it's a lot bigger, requires more setup time, etc. With an iPhone, the pictures I take are automatically uploaded into Apple's cloud storage and available on my laptop. It's a very nice, simple, relatively seamless system.

I shot most of a City Council campaign this summer with just an iPhone. Took a DSLR to like two big events because I needed telephoto, but all our other official photos and social media stuff was phones.

If I'm shooting something for a billboard, yeah, I'll go get out a real camera. Almost anything smaller than that can absolutely be done on almost any modern flagship phone.

It's entirely the camera + case material that differentiates pro from non.

I had been a Windows phone user for 3 years from 2009 to 2012 (HTC HD7, Nokia Lumia 800 and 920). Then switched to android for 7 years. Had a OnePlus One, <one more android here>, then a Google Nexus 6p, a Motorola ( solely for a 5000mAh battery as I was fed up with the nexus battery). Finally got an iPhone XS Max this year and I don’t think I am going to switch. My needs are to have a reliable phone with good battery life to last a day and that will run for 4+ years and get full security upgrades (else I don’t get work email on my phone). I think if I get 5 years out of it, the iPhone even with its 1100$ price tag will be cheaper in the long run.

Agreed on the comfort aspect. I splurged and got the iPhone X a few years back, and in daily use it still feels snappier than even the most recent flagship Samsung phones.

Pro photographers that make bank by being instagram influencers will be all over the iPhone Pro. This will completely upend the vlogging industry too.

I vlog with a DSLR and even with an iPhone X most people can’t tell when I use footage from that (running with a dslr is hard, for example). iPhone Pro likely makes better video than my T6i Rebel in many situations. Depth of field is usually where DSLRs shine

Why? Why wouldn't anyone with more than a passing interest in photography buy a dedicated camera for much less money that will work much better?

True, but even then, your best camera is the one you have with you. I have a nice Canon DSLR setup, but appreciate good camera quality from my phone, because even if I don't have my camera with me, I almost always have my phone.

How does that apply to 'pro photographers who make bank off of instagram'?

Because you iphone is accessible on seconds notice anytime anywhere. You have to plan to bring a DLSR with you.

> Because you iphone is accessible on seconds notice anytime anywhere.

Not if I'm travelling internationally, as then I'm concerned about the implications of having border officials demand access to my phone. Or if I'm participating in various watersports/snowsports/backcountry activities where a phone is problematically fragile and difficult to keep charged.

In either of those scenarios (which account for the majority of pictures I take) I'm more likely to have a camera accessible than a phone.

Okay, so you are an edge case... what's your point?

How would this 'revolutionize vlogging' for 'pro influencers who make bank off of instagram'?

Because why lug around all your serious gear all the time to make videos people watch on their phone when they’re bored on the crapper? Or for insta stories?

But the part it’s really going to revolutionize is the baseline level of expected image quality. Just like Casey Neistat forced everyone to start using DSLRs for vlogging with his famed 2 or 3 year experiment.

Compared to most new mirrorless or DSLR cameras, an iPhone is cheaper. A mirrorless or DSLR camera may have better sensor and optics (if you buy the right glass) BUT the computational capabilities of the phone far outstrip the computational capabilities of the camera.

I find that modern phones are better than traditional cameras a) by nailing exposure more consistently in tricky lighting conditions, b) having a far better display for proofing your shots, and c) can use computational photography tricks to create great HDR photos.

Kinda makes you wonder when somebody will release a DLSR body with minimal controls, no screen, and an iPhone mount.

Sigma cameras are getting close to that form factor. [1]

[1] https://www.sigma-global.com/en/cameras/dp-series/

you mean like the QX1?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_ILCE-QX1

It would need to mount pretty close to the CPU to take advantage of all the DSP hardware in the phone ...

Built in WiFi hotspot, an app on the phone...

You don't need the best gear for (that kind of) Instagram, an iPhone that takes fantastic photos _and_ lets you edit and post in a frictionless manner is probably a more productive platform.

People don't _look at_ Instagram posts in the same way they might a fine art photograph. It's a double tap while scrolling through hundreds of posts.

I say this as an avid amateur wildlife photographer who posts on Instagram and gets a handful of likes while friends get hundreds or thousands for an out-of-focus image of a milkshake and bagel.

The word that fits here is "lifestyle."

The iPhone is a lifestyle product. It does a lot of things, but it does some of them quite poorly.

The new camera is better than it used to be, but it's still a long way of short of the quality you'd expect from a high-end professional photo studio camera.

As a lifestyle product, the important factor is the narrative that buying it will put you within reach of that professional creative lifestyle.

In a sense it will, if your definition is limited to lifestyle social sites like IG and FB.

But in a more honest and realistic sense it won't, because it lacks the quality and the flexibility of real professional equipment. A good DSLR + glass will still kill it, and medium format - which is what the most successful full-time studio pros are likely to use - will absolutely destroy it.

There are still situations where that high end is needed. Fashion, ads, and high-end portraiture and photojournalism all rely on it. I don't think studio photographers working in those fields are going to be moving to an iPhone any time soon.

Correct.

My point was mostly that the definition of “pro photographer” is much wider these days than many people realize. For many values of “pro” an iPhone Pro is going to be absolutely fantastic and a better fit than higher-end pro.

> In a sense it will, if your definition is limited to lifestyle social sites like IG and FB.

That's precisely what I meant. It's what most people do most of the time.

Taking a shot of my breakfast smoothie with my 150mp Phase One, editing on a calibrated workstation and exporting to have it resized to 2mp for display on mobile phones is beyond pointless.

Accessibility and ease of workflow. I've had (and have) some nice cameras, but the phone is almost always with me and almost always more convenient to get at and use. The phone can also own much more of the lifecycle of the image than a stand alone camera. Viewing, editing, backing up, and sharing images are all much easier on a phone than at least the stand alone cameras I've used.

Where the standalone cameras are useful are where you need a capability that you just can't get in a phone. (And that's a set of capabilities that's been greatly diminished over the years, although it will never fully go away.)

It's not less money, though. I can buy a telephoto, wide angle, and super wide lens and not have any money left over if my budget is the cost of an iPhone. The point isn't that the phone can replace those things in every situation it's that it's so good that it's more than good enough to replace those things for a significant percentage of the times I need them.

Case in point, I have an iPhone X and a DSLR with all of the above lenses and the camera kit + lenses were more expensive than the new iPhone and I probably would use them less.

> Not sure the "Pro" distinction will hold up for iPhone, though

It does, you need to be able to charge its cost as a business expense to be able to afford it. The "Pro" signals to the tax auditors that Apple approves of this :-)

I think apple "Pro" has been equivalent to "Prosumer" for years now.

More like "Prosumer" digital cameras, without removable lenses.

Don't know if the new mac pro will shake that up.

> any other profession where the iPhone Pro will "pay for itself"

Self-styled "influencers". They'll be all in.

I don't think any professional photographers will give up their DSLRs or Mirrorless/System Cameras in favor of an image sensor smaller than their fingernails.

It could have some niche applications in low-budget films / advertisement, as well as in the "meme" sphere.

Yes, agreed there, but in any sort of high budget capacity, I'd rather get an actual camera or film equipment.

The Pro iPhones are definitely for 'prosumers' rather than actual professionals. You know, the type that has a semi-professional DSLR, but just uses it to take better pictures than anyone else when they're at a party or going about the city.

However, with the growth of more organic looking content on social media, there are a lot of other types of "pros" using iPhones daily for commercial content creation.

Where I work, for example, the social media team are looking to buy an iPhone for IG Story content, as well as internal videos.

Whilst it obviously won't replace a pro photographer's equipment for static, paid shoots, it will be used often in a "pro" setting.

I get that's the marketing intent, but the last iteration of MacBook Pros (with the gimmicky taskbar, the fail-prone keyboard, and glued items) has failed on that regard, at least for me. I had to replace the keyboard on mine, and it took Apple 10 days to do it. How is that "pro"?

Twice during this summer, I was not able to share my screen with coworkers using Zoom because my MacBook pro would overheat and throttle the processors. It might be that there's some dust inside the fan (I have a cat) but I am not able to open and clean it up. How is that "Pro"?

Our servers are all linux based and virtualization in mac is spotty (especially if you want to share a Docker-based setup via Zoom on a mildly hot day).

I strongly doubt I will go back to Mac when the time comes for renewing. I really do need to get stuff done, and this machine has gotten in my way too many times.

The finger reader thingie is nice, though.

>It's been clear for quite some time that terms like "Extreme", "Pro" and "Max" are marketing terms.

A great example of this is the "PS4 Pro"

Listen pal, my eSports Twitch career won't go anywhere with just the base model /sarcasm

> All that being said, I personally have never bought from Apple, and think the $150 upgrade cost is ridiculous (not to mention the $300 jump from the XR, which is still $300 more than I paid for my Pixel)! So I could say the "Pro" marketing isn't working on me! But overall, they aren't hurting for customers.

I love it when people complain about the prices Apple charge, especially given the experiences I've had with customer service at Apple, so... story time!

I had an iPhone 5 when it first came out. At the time I was a heavy motorbike rider to and from work. One day when I was riding home it rained heavily (this was in England, so yeah...) and my pocket had been left open. When I got home my iPhone was completely submerged in water for at least 20 minutes.

I took it to Apple the next day and they replaced it for free. Try that with your Pixel... oh that's right, you don't have any stores to take it into world wide. Shame.

Fast forward to only two years ago...

I was in Vienna for Christmas a few years back. We'd gone through Italy to get there. During my time in Italy I noticed my iPhone 6S' battery was dropping quickly. I couldn't work out why. By the time we got to Vienna it would drop by 20% every 15-20 minutes. I found a premium reseller who took it in and replaced the battery in 45 minutes for free. I bought the phone in Australia.

Try that with your Pixel... oh that's right, you have to post your phone to the manufacturer and wait for them to fix it or replace it, a process I know to take weeks. Shame. But you saved $300 though!

I personally don't think it's worth counting the pennies in that manner given the services you're getting outside of the hardware. It's not much of a price hike at all, in the grand scheme of things.

So are you saying you got a new phone and battery for free?

I somehow managed to get an almost invisible crack on the inside of the Gorilla glass a few years ago via a drop. Took it into an Apple Store for a screen replacement; they gave me a fresh out of the box phone for free (partially because they'd never seen that failure mode before, partially because they were busy and my slot got delayed 45 minutes.)

(Admittedly, the bloke next to me with the iPhone 4 arguing that the back glass had shattered "all on its own; I didn't drop it, honestly!" probably wasn't going to get a new phone for free...)

I am saying that, because it happened. I'm OK with you not believing me, because it'll still be the truth at the end of the day.

So, you have very expensive insurance?

As it turns out, I've never destroyed any of my own phones, so I saved $300 every two years since I started buying smart phones 12 years ago. So $1800. If my phone gets submerged and Google won't replace it, I guess I'll have to buy another phone with my $1800 budget!

Also, when I got my Pixel 3, the back had some waves in the paint. It literally did not matter at all, because I put a case on it, and it couldn't affect functionality at all, but I told them I wasn't happy, and they shipped a new one that did not have the cosmetic imperfections. Try that with your iPhone! Oh yeah, it would probably work.

shrug This isn't a competition. Just be smart with your money (or do with your money as you choose, whether someone else thinks it smart or not!)

> So, you have very expensive insurance?

Expensive compared to what, exactly? Car insurance, which doesn't have a world wide chain of stores you can walk into when your car is smashed up? House insurance, which also does not afford you the luxury of world wide stores with commission free staff to assist you when your house burns down?

Most "insurance", if you want to call it that, doesn't offer you the same level of experience, so in what way is it expensive?

My house insurance doesn't teach me how a boiler works so I can use it correctly, or my dish washer, TV, or anything else about the property I own. Apple DO run classes for learning to do just about anything on your iPhone, iPad, Mac, etc. I'd have to only attend one, perhaps two, of those classes for the staff member's time to be worth more than what I paid for my "insurance".

So what are you comparing it to that makes it expensive?

> As it turns out, I've never destroyed any of my own phones

Which of course means no else does, neither.

> shrug This isn't a competition.

Then why did you argue price as a competitive factor in your purchasing decision? That's literally a competition.

It's expensive to pay nearly double for a phone just because they have physical stores where you've gotten phones that you've destroyed replaced for free.

It's expensive to pay nearly double for a phone because you feel you need classes to learn how to use it.

I'm saying it is perfectly fine if you want to spend more money for the Apple experience. And obviously you are fine with that, too. I prefer to use my money on other things. It's not a competition between rabid fans. It's a market for selling chunks of hardware. So yes, they are competing for our dollars. I prefer to maintain my decision-making over where those dollars go. Having special in-store luxury experiences is not why I buy a phone that takes pictures and does other things nicely, too. But it's fine if you spend that money.

Insurance is betting you're going to have something bad happen. Expensive insurance is when the ones calculating the insurance make a bunch of money off you because you pay a lot more than you get out of it. Paying a ton for a low deductible but never making a claim. If you personally don't destroy phones, paying a lot for insurance on them doesn't make sense. I never said no one else should do so, or that no one else destroys phones. Obviously you do. But still not enough to make up for the price premium.

Overall it's not a solid argument for the phone, but you have your reasons for buying it. It just does nothing to discount my reasons for saving my money and buying a different phone.

> It's expensive to pay nearly double for a phone

Now you're just being dishonest. You know right well that a flag ship Android is near the same price.

I'm not being dishonest. I'm basing it on availability. The Pixel 3 I own was purchased from Google Fi for $400. The price right now is $500. Technically the Pixel 3 XL ($600) is the flagship just like the iPhone XS Max / iPhone 11 Max are the flagship. (Looks like you can't buy the XS Max direct any more, so I can't find current pricing.) The iPhone 11 Max starts at $1100. That seems like "nearly double" to me.

>a premium reseller replaced the battery in 45 minutes for free. I bought the phone in Australia. Try that with your Pixel...

Actually on a (Samsung) Galaxy 5 you could've just popped open the back of the phone and replaced the battery yourself in a few seconds.

At a cost to you.

Did you pay for Applecare?

Most people do not get free replacements or repairs for their iPhones.

Honestly I never really understood the need to chase the newest flagship given the premium price. I probably upgrade about once a year to 18 months, and purchasing the prior model flagship saves me about 60% to 70%. I upgraded to the pixel 2xl shortly after the 3 came out for about $260. Even being able to afford it I just feel I'm getting ripped off at $1000.

If it was a need they would probably not be able to charge so much.

You then pay somewhere around 175 to 260 usd per year for your phone. The newest iPhones are about $1000. From my experience, and from others, they last a very long time, and a 4 year cycle can be expected, as well as passing the phones on to their kids and so on. There is also the possibility to sell it used down the line, and the iPhones keep their value much better than any Android phone.

Thus the "expensive" iPhones are $250 or less per year. And they are, in my opinion, usually better than the Android equivalent.

You might say; "but what if I have the same upgrade cycle with iPhones". Well, then you can have a look at what a used version of the last gen iPhone costs. Where I live; it is something like $100-200 less than what it was new. That means; some people are having the newest version of the iPhone for only $100-200 / year. That is, at least, roughly the same price as your are getting (or better, depending on resale value of the specific Android phone), but with the newest version of a more premium product.

In other words. You might be getting ripped off at $260. It all comes down to money over time, not amount at a defined moment, unless the amount is prohibitive.

Mostly sound logic and I switched to the iPhone 5 years back after a similar calculation. Only, the 6s started becoming wonky in 3 years and I most definitely missed _some_ Android features.

When it was time to upgrade, it apparently also became time for apple to jack up the price of their flagship to a thousand bucks and I just vehemently avoided that out of principle.

Looking at alternatives,the Galaxy seemed like a reasonably similar premium (not polished software fosho) phone, but sticker price was similar to iPhones. However thos things go on sale a lot. Nabbed a S9 few months after release for 500 and looks like it'll last me three years at least. Super happy with the hardware (and software actually) as well.

The only "flaw" in your logic above is that in principle an iPhone probably can last 4 years but that's not constant - models from them are sometimes just not as reliable (we talking 4 year reliability vs 3) and it's not just a thousand dollars, it's thousand and tax and bells and whistles (which for apple is always more). Plus you now have a premium phone that you better don't break or scratch (if you want to sell) or you're out a very large number of Benjamins.

That is true, but then again, you can probably repair it 3 years down the line. Repairing a 3-year old Android is usually not as easy.

Don't get me wrong, I am writing this on a Sony Android phone, which I expect to get 0 dollars for if I try to sell it. But from an economic perspective I don't think there is a clear advantage to Android devices.

Looking on ebay, you can get a new or lightly used iPhone XS 64GB (the only option that was as little as $999) for around $700. So if you bought it a year ago, your annual cost after selling it is about $300. The Pixel 2 XL goes for about $200 on ebay. Looks like it costs as much as $200 per year more to have the flagship iPhone new than it does to have a year old flagship Pixel.

In your opinion, the iPhone is better, so it's OK that you're spending more, but it's weird to say someone's getting ripped off by buying an excellent one year old phone for much, much less.

The money over time argument rarely works out as better for a more expensive item. Anecdotally, the people I know that buy a brand new flagship do not wait four years between phones. The ones that are OK with a one year old flagship are also OK with a three year old one. And even if they upgrade more often, it's just so much less expensive (over time.)

Real estate agents, industrial photographers, people who make money affiliate marketing, maintaining a (whatever) review channel on YouTube, journalists, heck even sales or running a small business, lots of professional use cases. The difference between good and great is the little things.

The photos I see on real estate listings are horrendously compressed and have a potato-like quality. I have no idea if they were taken 15 years ago on a $10 point and shoot or on a brand new professional DSLR. Only thing you can sometimes tell is that they used a wide-angle lens.

In my experience (Sydney, Australia) they tend to get professionals to shoot with a quality DSLR, then they get pimple-faced Photoshop jockeys to flatten the dynamics and punch in a fake blue sky.

This new extra-wide camera is interesting as it's fairly rare for a consumer-targeted camera to exceed a 24mm (FFE) focal length. Even in expensive professional lenses, getting to 13mm (FFE) is fairly unusual. Most ultra-wide glass stops at 16mm.

Or you know... bring a camera and be professional.

The idea that apple needs an extra $300 dollars to fit that into my phone, maybe i'll just get two pixel 3s. Or a nice point and shoot.

The 'bare minimum' that the consumer will accept vs 'the average feature set expected' vs 'lets sprinkle in some unicorn dust and charge people up the wazoo' model is getting a little old. Its why I have iPhone 6s, 7s, still in the fleet of devices I support. The consumer and businesses are simply tired of this bs.

Whilst I agree with your premise, the problem is that they explicitly made the distinction that this was for professionals. I can't remember the precise verbiage but when Cook introduced it he said that this was by and for professionals.

Well they specifically said it’s Pro users... and for everyone else who wants the best of what Apple has to offer. They could certainly remove the 64gb entry option and thus increase the base price but then everyone who only needs 64gb is paying more for a feature they don’t need or want. Rather Apple usually waits until part prices make it so they can both reduce the price and this remove the previous entry model which one can assume will happen in a few years.

Instgram influencers are professionals in their particular niche.

> It's been clear for quite some time that terms like "Extreme", "Pro" and "Max" are marketing terms. They are not accurate classifications of how they will be used.

The new iPhone Pros appear to mark a shift; it's the same shift the Mac Pro announcement did in June, and was also a source of contention on Hacker News.

Pro at this point is just key for "the expensier/fancier one".

It's hard to name the more expensive version to convey it's better without in turn suggesting the cheaper one is shittier.

"Pro" lets you do that by suggesting that it's for a different audience, allowing consumers of the budget model to save face so to speak (I don't need it because I'm not a professional).

"Pro" probably works great to bring in people trying to elevate their social media quality. It doesn't necessarily mean (in Apple's marketing terminology) actual, legitimate professional industry anymore.

I'd imagine people getting into vlogging and such, or even people who just want to be "that cool and popular" (especially younger people) that would buy in to the "Pro" moniker.

I think "Pro" is just admitting that they're running into two tiers now. They released the 8 and the X together, they released the XR and XS together. The iphone has diverged into two products and hopefully they've picked a consistent name to differentiate them - because the difference between XR and XS isn't obvious at all.

“XS” seemed to me like a blunder of a name. First off, I don’t know anyone who calls the X iPhones “ten” - they call them “x”. And so XS looks and sounds like “extra small.”

Without knowing anything about the X phones, I at first assumed that XR was the top of the line X phone. XR just... sounds like a better phone.

I think they resolved this with the 11 line.

To me I couldn't help but read it as "excess", as in this phone is excessive.

Exactly. It's the same as with iPad and Mac. The name "pro" is just a throw-back to an earlier Apple, and it works because customers already understand the term. It doesn't matter if it is for real professionals or not.

> It doesn't necessarily mean (in Apple's marketing terminology) actual, legitimate professional industry

I made the point elsewhere, but I think that ignores "professionals in the workplace doing this alongside other things". These can easily be "pro" for content creation teams, like editorial staff for capturing Stories from events and the like.

Just because they're not replacements for high-end commercial photography equipment doesn't mean they're not being used as intended by professionals.

Completely agree that their terminology might be skewing, but I wouldn't be so dismissive of their use in a professional context, even if the users aren't "photography professionals" themselves.

“Pro” means more powerful. That doesn’t mean that you buy it if you need it work work. I know Fellows making $1m/year who have a MacBook Air because they prefer the low weight when they’re doing emails etc, and code from a desktop workstation.

I suppose they could protest a 64GB pro version or they could buy a bigger one. I guess we all pick our battles.

If you need a "pro" phone but can't afford the iPhone, you could always get a UMIDIGI A3 Pro, or an ASUS ZenFone Max Pro M2, which are quite a bit cheaper.

Naturally it's just a marketing term.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com