Ramblings on Apple’s iPhone XS/XR Event
If you follow me on Twitter you have already seen my arguments in shortform.
On Naming
Back in 2016 I wrote a piece where I argued Apple needs to (re)gain a simple and straightforward portfolio logic.
That’s what I said about naming schemes:
Simplicity in naming is important as well. Product names should be $category $modifier $releaseyear, e.g. MacBook Plus ’17. (iPhone 82S sounds silly in comparison.)
I stand corrected. iPhone 82S sounds way better (and more logical) than iPhone XS MAX. (I don’t even know what the correct camel case is. At least you can’t hear my mispronunciation.)
So far, even the die-hard Apple fans have no defense for that naming. It is indeed Android-like.
On Phone Sizes
It’s not that black or white.
Some people want the smaller, some want the larger size. Just as some people want 11' laptops, and some want 17'.
Remember, not only did Apple took away the SE size, they also made the smallest model slightly bigger (XS > 8).
Which is a shame, since the new screen-to-body ratio on a smaller body would be enough for a lot of folks.
Unfortunately, nobody can really tell what the real demand for what screen size is, because screen sizes were always coupled with other factors, such as different price or fewer features. And Apple nor any Android manufacturer never tried to decouple it.
But it think it’s safe to say that there would be a market for a small, but somewhat powerful iPhone.
And yes, it’s definitely large enough for Apple, otherwise they would have to stop selling other things with way smaller market sizes (like Smart Covers) first.
On Pricing
That Apple made all of their current phones “big” is a strong indicator they value their message to shareholders (“ASP has risen again”) more than their message to consumers (“we offer the choice you want”).
Yes, doing spec comparisons was never satisfying for smartphones.
- Value-for-money was always better on Android.
- But that doesn’t matter if the XP is still better on iOS (e.g. smooth scrolling).
Having said that, the value-for-money gap seems to be widening over the last few years.
Even more so if you are living outside the US. It seems that Apple’s currency converter has already factored in the Trump trade tariffs.
As if Apple realised for themselves that they aren’t here to transform all the peoples lives — just the ones that can afford it.
Otherwise they would offer a “medium-cost” iPhone as well, and not only cater the luxury niche (where margins are high).
You can’t really praise yourself for democratizing technology, if your pricing targets only wealthy people.
On Positioning
From stratechery, emphasis mine:
Thus the first lesson: Apple wouldn’t go down-market, nor did its customers want it to.
This is a common fallacy because the iPhone 5c was such a flawed (only slightly cheaper while obviously old tech) product. Of course people want a low-price entry point for Apple products — just look at the begging for a new MacBook Air or the Mac Mini.
Basically Apple now has a portfolio of smartphones where everything is up and to the right: Size, Price, Status. Compare that to Apple’s classic product grid where most found their choice.
Another confusing thing that could have been avoided: There’s no clear segmentation. For example I would certainly want the (perfect) red color and the battery life of the XR, but I also want the dual camera system and smaller size from the XS.
A relatively good value-for-money alternative could be a refurbished iPhone X in the fall. (If Apple decides to sell some for a decent price.)
On Dual SIM
To be fair, there is also a lot applaudable stuff from the Keynote, e.g. Steven Sinofsky lists most points in this podcast. But I think Apple should be held to a higher standard.
