With a $1k Price, Apple’s iPhone Crosses a Threshold
nytimes.com
nytimes.com
And in terms of iPhones / Population / Apple Store, the US has it most. While in Japan 60% of the Smartphone are iPhone ( i.e Higher the US usage ) they have less then 10 Apple Stores. And it is the same everywhere else, which means any mark up in a certain countries has nothing to do with its Operation with in, and more to do with a Sales Tax, Global Pricing structure.
For Example, HongKong used to have the cheapest iPhone around the world, it was priced the same as US and because there are no Sales tax, it was 10-15% cheaper. Making HK the trading ground for all of SEA region or mainly China. ( Hence Tim Cook continue to blame HK market is more of a delusion rather then fact. ) Around iPhone 5 Apple started to put up additional $100 USD to ALL iPhone price in HK, as a way to combat the black market trading, and if everyone else where making money of it, why not keep the profits itself?
What has all these got to do with $1K iPhone. Well Apple already knew certain people are buying at those prices, again why not make a product that fit those segment? And to re balance the prices across the Globe?
And we have known for long there is no way to make the cutting edge devices every 12 months and ship 200M+ of it. They will need a product that only 10-20% of those 200M will buy, and have the best technology in it.
And mind you, shipping cutting edge technology to 20-40M user a year isn't any easier then the 200M+ iPhone.
27% VAT <3
#wordlclass
Only one of the tech toys stores that we visited had Samsung at the time.
Could you explain this differently? If it had the same price as the US (converted to HKD), and no sales tax, it would be the same price as buying it in (say) Oregon:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sales_taxes_in_the_United_Stat...
> Since January 2017, 5 states (Alaska, Delaware, Montana, New Hampshire and Oregon) do not levy a statewide sales tax
Once you correct for VAT and currency, you'll find a lot of foreign iphone sales aren't really expensive. USA pricing does not include taxes and the dollar is fairly strong now.
>Well Apple already knew certain people are buying at those prices, again why not make a product that fit those segment?
I think the larger issue here is that Apple can't maintain 2008 level pricing a decade later especially as China stops being so cheap for labor. Toss in US consumers buying on credit for 24 months and its a no-brainer we'd see price jumps. Apple isn't taking a cut on its margins, so it has to do a price increase eventually.
That's on top of the phones having expensive high quality components, NAND shortages, and the cost of rare earth elements going up every so often. Prices aren't scaling for components it seems. A high quality display in 2017 isn't the same price of one in 2008, plus inflation. A modern SoC now has to support HDMI, displayport, 4-8 cores, LTE, etc all come at a component cost as well as a licensing cost. Modern phones are more or less mini laptops now, so the dream of a 'simple' ARM device is long dead. We more or less have the desktop re-invented on ARM platforms and expect them to do anything from calls to word processing to 3D gaming. That's a far cry from the original iphone and its simple apps and simple OS.
Perhaps this is the old man part of me talking, but I absolutely fell in love with smartphones in the early days. My Treo was a wonder and the iPhone twice so. The simplistic aspects of it was incredible. Everything was snappy. Apps were a couple megabytes, if that. It did the minimum I needed and then some. Now, of course, that's all changed, but for a few years there I kind had the star-trek like device I always imagined. Now I'm back to a mini-desktop, lag, big complex apps, a near unusable mobile web, constant nags for reviews/notifications, etc. The only saving grace is that a lot of that is abstracted away from me as I move towards a lot of automation and voice interfaces (voice commands, google home, etc) and I simply developed lowered expectations of the mobile experience.
This post is informative, but can I suggest that we not adopt the "black market" nomenclature for cases where people buy hardware in one location, and then re-sell it?
Companies like Apple may brand this a "black market", but that implies that companies have a right to perform perfect price discrimination across the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_discrimination
I suggest we reserve the phrase "black market" for cases where contraband is being exchanged, or for cases where items were obtained through crime (e.g. the sale of stolen goods).
Is that the case we're talking about here? Buy in HK with no taxes, then sell in another country without paying the taxes? If so, that still sounds "black market" to me. I'd think you'd have to pay the taxes in the country of sale regardless of where you obtained the device. If that's not what we're talking about, then I agree it's probably not fair to label them "black market."
The sticky price structure of Apple was severely undercut by the price of the yen. They fixed it now, though.
It is interesting to note among Developed countries, the US has the cheapest everything.
Cars, computers, building materials, clothes, TVs. You name it, it is cheapest in the USA.
It is interesting to note this is because people in the US have much less disposable income than people in other developed countries. Companies can charge higher prices in other developed countries because people have enough money to pay it, but they can't in the US.
Is this true? I always heard it was the other way around:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Household_income
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090616/...
And median: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_income
I am curious did you just make this up? This is a completely bogus statement. The US is actually amongst highest per capita disposable income countries. See:
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets-economy/090616/...
https://www.currencyfair.com/blog/which-country-has-highest-...
US ~41k, Switzerland ~36k, France ~30k and Germany ~32k
Is this a commonly known thing? First I've heard it. I would have figured it would be the opposite given our overall tax rate compared to somewhere like Sweden is infinitesimally smaller. Can you point to some analysis/citations for this?
It does seem to make sense in my mind as, anecdotally, when I was in Germany I noticed a large number of high end Audis and BMWs. Cars that are $80k in the US would be well over $100k in Germany. (This is perhaps an oversimplification of the situation given that there are a great deal more factors involved in the pricing of German-made cars within Germany vs. selling the same cars in a much more competitive foreign market like the US'.)
pet peeve of mine is then vs than.
Let's say Apple wants to be as innovative in hardware as a company like Essential – and therefore use components or manufacturing processes that aren't available at the scale of tens of millions per quarter. What should Apple do?
* Not innovate. Leave this for smaller companies; wait for the price to come down. Risk: lose market, engineers, and ability to build competence, to other companies.
* Release in limited supply at a low price; leave the surplus to rent seekers (scalpers). Risk: Leaves money on the table; insert middleman in relationship between Apple and (ultimate) customers.
* Release in limited supply at a low price; attempt to control scalping by limiting sales per customer and locking phones to the original purchaser. Risk: Complicated mechanism that people will hate.
* Charge a higher price, in order to set demand to supply. Risk: Bad image; magnifies effects of wealth inequality.
There are technologies, like process nodes, that improve on several dimensions, and while I'm sure the military has access to "future" process nodea, the yields are just so dramatically low (and also therefore dramatically more expensive), that it's not really feasible for a mainstream product.
The adgances it will have will be much less profound: more CPU cores, more GPU cores, maybe higher clocking, and a heavier battery to power it all. So, it's simply an attempt to broaden the product line, like the "plus" and (unsuccessful) "C" models.
Also, given that Apple sold a $10,000+ watch, they probably don't mind charging more. Though, it'll be priced to sell (which that watch didn't).
However, given that phones have overshot most people's needs (e.g. 5s iPhones are still selling well), Apple will soon need a killer app that requires all that power... like AR. Unfortunately, there's no indication that AR is a killer app. Who knows, maybe Apple will change that.
In India, the SE was recently on sale for Rs. 18500 after discounts and cashbacks are accounted for... with budget alternatives.
Cash reserves make it easier for them to make a riskier play into the luxury market. But in the long-run the reserve is only a temporary fallback not a sustainable model.
Pushing the price up makes it easier to play with the price margins and add more expensive parts.
It could also be fueled by the output of their R&D but they could also see the value proposition they offer as justifying a higher price from entirely non-functional aspects (ie non-software/hardware innovation), just merely the emotional draw of the product via design and branding. The measure is whether people still want the product as much rather than whether it does x & y better than the competitors.
People tend to discount the utility of emotional appeal and the connection people have to the products they use daily. Instead focusing on CPU speeds or raw feature comparisons.
This is basically the S-class phone (To make a car analogy, because that's what we do). The S-class Mercedes costs twice as much as the "Normal" E-class, and each time they launch a new model, it contains the most exotic and expensive new gadgets. It's sold to the very price insensitive. This offloads a lot of the R&D costs of these technical gadgets to the S-class customers. The following year, their E-class (Which is upscale but not a super luxury car) sees most of those S-class features at a much lower price point.
I'm suspecting this is what will happen with a new, expensive iPhone. It will be a testing ground for new features, and if the features work they will be introduced at much lower risk and cost to 10x the number of customers next year. This year it's oled screens, facial recognition etc.
Most of my friends have a nicer, more expensive, car than I do. Buying a previous-year showroom-demo Nissan SUV from the dealer saved me something like $20,000, compared to buying a Lexus or Audi, even one a few years old.
That's two decades of having the best phone. I'm not generally price insensitive. I'm specifically price-insensitive about devices that I spend a huge amount of time using, namely (in my case) my smartphone and computers.
And those things are also objectively way cheaper than luxury cars, so they aren't really comparable. A lot more people can decide to go high-end than can with cars, For instance, I noticed my housekeeper, a nice old lady who works for $15 an hour cash, also rocks a 256GB iPhone 7 Plus just like I do, and she doesn't even have a car.
If you don't drive much, try smaller cars: A1, Mini-cooper, BMW series 1, etc...
1. a cheap stripper model used to bring people into the showroom
2. an expensive deluxe model with every bell and whistle. It's primary purpose is to frame the next one as being affordable:
3. the mid-price mid-range one you're expected to buy.
Of course, the price-is-no-object people will buy (2) anyway, and that's just extra gravy.
You'll see this technique used across all sorts of product lines.
I mean 1,000$ seems bad, but that can translate to under 30 cents an hour if you're spending 4 hours a day on your phone.
You may look at spending $$$ on a keyboard or chair that you use a lot as a similar purchase, but they are far less likely to dangle carrots in-front of you to take more of your money and give you questionable value in return.
But if $500 gets you 90% of the way there, is that last $500 really worth it? Same with shoes - I regularly spend less than $100 on my shoes and find that they are perfectly comfortable, last a long time, and fit all my needs. 0 complaints. Spending another $100 might give me a better experience (at the very least it might make me feel happier when I put them on the first time), but the returns are so low that it isn't worth it.
These days, the money bar for a "good enough" smartphone is very very low.
there is objectively no reason to spend more than 200 Euro on a smartphone - except for attempting to inflate one's ego.
In that way I think he ends up paying maybe $200 every other year for his new phone. In the last 6 years I've spent WAY more than that on the Androids I used to get and break/lose every year or so. I've finally seen the light and got an iPhone myself and plan to adopt the same strategy.
One consequence is that he has no option but treat is carefully, use a case, a screen protector, etc.. which is kind of ironic considering how much effort is put on the exterior design of the phone.
Selling the phone also has a non-zero cost : you have to find a buyer and make the transaction. In that guy's case, when he sells his own iPhone, he doesn't sell something else from his shop. And he has the advantage of being an experienced salesman and having a shop.
As for the tax write-off, sure, but I suppose that if you write off your phone as a business expense, you also need to declare the sale as business income. I doubt it is as straightforward as one may think. That guy, who is presumably a business owner, probably has an accountant to deal with such issues.
What I am trying to say is that that guy strategy probably works very well for him but how it will work for you is another story.
I'm using a cheap, Chinese Android phone for 2 weeks every other year to bridge the gap between selling my iPhone and getting the new one. I have to say: cheapy Android phones are getting better. Sure, they're nowhere near the quality and experience of iPhones, but my Doogee Shoot 2 ($54,-) performs pretty decently and actually shoots some nice photos in daylight. I won't be converting anytime soon (show me an Android phone that performs like new after 2 years of everyday usage, without lagging) but it does make me wonder sometimes that the price difference can't really be justified...
Unfortunately the nexus is now no more, it's the Pixel which just seems like a rip-off, if I'm going to spend that kind of money I'll go back to iPhones.
You've got to have the folding to start the ball rolling in the first place though.
However, the price of the lowest-tier of the latest model has been going up steadily over time, which seems not natural at all. I'd expect them to keep the price of the lower-tier constant, at least. OTOH, if they push out an Apple Watch with LTE, you can combine it with an iPad and the AirPods, and there will be no need for the iPhone at all. How much either of these combinations is "reasonable," only time can tell.
The base model iPhone has been $649 for as long as I can remember, which means it's technically gone down in price when you account for a decade of inflation...
Because just relying on the watch (for modes of communication, consumption etc) might have other constraints like battery life, reading, other forms of ease etc.
You don't need to be rich to afford a new iPhone every 24 months. $1000 over 24 months is a little under $42 per month. After the first time, you won't spend that much anyway, because you can sell your current 24-month-old iPhone for a few hundred dollars when you buy the next one.
I think it's mostly because base E-class comes with way smaller engine than base S-class, not to mention less standard equipment. When you start comparing apples to apples (say the 400 4MATIC variant for both cars), the price difference becomes suprisingly small.
Put it in the flagship, make it at a higher per-unit cost, and work the kinks out to get the manufacturing process down. Then by year two it can be economically added to lower tier phones.
On a different note, E-Class seeing most of the features of previous year's S-Class may be a bit far fetched, don't you think so? Maybe couple of features that make the newly launched E-Class visibly an upgrade from last E-Class but "most" and that too at half the price of S-Class seems slightly off. I would assume that the previous year model of S-Class would still cost the same (a little more or less) and will be in market - unless a new S-Class model is released every year.
PS. Know very little about cars (def. too little luxury ones). Just had some general doubts. And I hope E in E-Class doesn't stand for "economy".
"Executive" I think. But it's just a symbol that means their second highest model.
People are ready to pay for expensive cars for a better experience and higher "social standing". Phones are not that different in this regard
Nowadays the difference is really marginal for every day use. You are only going to take better photos in marginal low light conditions, if you even take lots of photos, everything else will be pretty much the same experience. I'd argue that we are even in removal of features mode (audio jack, touch id) which is putting off people like me who normally wouldn't mind a high price tag for a smartphone.
There are enough apple fans out there to buy any piece of plastic that apple will sell at the price of gold. But for a wider wealthy and techie audience, I think the value added of spending more on an iphone is becoming hard to justify.
This is part of why I stopped buying the latest flagship, just didn't make sense for me to worry so much when I could avoid that entirely, and get 98% of the same performance and features.
You can say the exact same for PCs, which could have stopped getting any performance improvements about 5 years ago and the general populace wouldn’t have complained at all.
The amazing thing isn't that phones cost so much but that competition is such that you can get an excellent product with top-of-the-line CPU, radio, RAM, screen, everything for $1,000 instead of $100,000 or $1,000,000.
The really interesting part is that for ~$1000 you get the best product available at any price.
That's the magic of economies of scale in consumer markets, especially technology. It's so incredibly expensive and largely fruitless to step out of the economy of scale, that practically speaking no-one does it.
I don't have a yacht like Paul Allen, I bet my house isn't as nice as Bill Gates' and my bank account looks nothing like Zuckerberg's. But it's quite possible I have the same phone!
I assume things will go the same way as the PC. Cheaper hardware for most, Apple still holding onto a niche in the market.
For the first week, at least. Then they start to accumulate cruft and slow down, eventually becoming barely usable.
I've experienced it in the past. I see it happen for my friends and family. I decided some time ago to save up that $750 - $1k and go for the high-range phones, so that I can use them for two or three years without daily frustrations.
The top-most commenter is right. Phones are used even more frequently than cars; for many, even more frequently than other types of computers combined. It's one of those things it's not worth to cheap out on - like a mattress or an office chair.
(Now, of course part of me is happy for the mid-range phones costing what they do, because this is why high-end phones cost $1k and not $10k.)
I mostly just don't get the loyalty people have to operating systems or particular manufacturers. When there is an application that I need and it's exclusive to some platform, then that decides what OS I need.
I also am not bothered by a $1000 phone and I'm surprised that it's a topic of contention here. Many of us spend more than that on coffee in a year and the phone is probably just as important. $3 / day is well within reach for most of us. My life isn't going to be any different if I choose the $1 / day phone.
I use Apple Music, WhatsApp, and the camera. However, WhatsApp is available on Android and the camera on the iPhone 6s still doesn't even come close to that of an SLR so I tend to use that and keep the iPhone in my pocket. When I take photos, I have gone out with the intention of taking photos, so there is no convenience factor of an iPhone for me.
However, I also love cars. You can take them out for fun on a weekend, show them off and talk to other owners at meets, drive them on tracks all over the world, and, if you made sensible choices, have the depreciation of an iPhone make a car look like an investment. Meanwhile, everyone and their mother has an iPhone - there is no novelty to owning one.
Thus, until I start getting more out of an iPhone, I can't help but think how a Moto G and an extra $800 in pocket to spend on something else would give me so much more pleasure than the next iPhone.
That's my reasoning when I buy a new computer. I can buy a MBP for $2000, use it for 3 years and sell it used for $1000. $30 a month is a bargain considering I use it between 5-10 hours a day. I may pay a mac a little more (20%?) than the competition but it's worth it considering it's subjectively better (and objectively different, Mac OS / design / size -- arguably less and less so).
However, I'd never buy an iphone (or an expensive smartphone). Iphone users may disagree, but for what I've seen they provide almost the same experience as much cheaper phones (typically two times cheaper). Another issue I have with the price is that I don't feel confortable walking around with such a small expensive item. So easy to lose it or forget it.
I agree if you plan to use iPhone for less than 2 years it's probably expensive.
I've used a refurbed Thinkpad T420 for about a year now. It cost me $350 to buy, and I expect it to last at least 2-3 years. Less than $10 a month, and it's more than fast enough to do absolutely everything I need to do. Not too shabby for a 6 year old machine.
The only reason for buying a brand-new computer is if you absolutely need the highest end of computing power, or need the very newest peripheral ports for some reason.
Or break it. After I broke my Nexus4's screen three times I gave up and bought some cheap Zenfone (and it cost as much as one screen repair for Nexus).
Better keyboard/mouse/display integration. Support for laptop-like apps. Then it could be worth laptop-like pricing.
1) A CAN$100 phone gives you 75% of the experience, a CAN$250 gives your 95% of the experience
2) Android doesn't lock you to use a single app depot
3) Android doesn't require 2 or 3 login / password (iCloud + iTunes)
4) Android accounts work worldwide, it doesn't fail to log you in if you change countries (I had to re-create an AppleID when I moved to Canada because the US one no longer worked)
5) You don't have to use an extra step when migrating, just log-in et voila ! (ie. not iTunes shenanigans)
6) generally poor software full of UI glitches
7) No pressure sensitive touch-ID which fails to work with aging users (try to explain the concept to a +80 yo).
8) I can still use my $2 earplugs without an adapter
9) Android does not care what OS you use on your main desktop
10) MULTIPLE SIM ! Dual SIM phone is pretty much getting standard. I wish there was triple or quadruple SIM phones
11) External storage
12) Removable batteries
etc.
I do think that there are markets for $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 iphone, but they must provide functional enhancements over $1,000 model, be it insanely good camera, insanely good display, 1TB storage, or 50% more battery life in same form factor.
With computers and devices, it's more about practical utility.
So why doesn't Apple do this? Because the market for $2-$5,000 phone is too small, and given Apple's reliance on parts maker, they can only have so much competitive edge. (i.e. if they can do it, then so can Android)
Apple can't do much wrong: removed the audio jack did not hurt iPhone sales. The new mac book pro, ridiculously priced, a very 'particular' keyboard, was the fastest selling laptop ever.
If you see the reactions on let's say, The Verge, on any post regarding new Apple products - it's insane.
So I think Apple is still in a very comfortable position to keep on doing this artificial pricing for the time being, and for the foreseeable future as well - and get away with it. Their tandem of hard & software, though much flawed, still seems to be worth the premium price for many people.
They have me because of OSX but I won't stand another crappy laptop of them anymore.
However it's not reliable. A single speck of dust under the keycap then you have misfires. Keys get mushy for no reason, get stuck etc. My b key does not work reliably now for example.
9 months later I kind of hate it again. You get used to the short travel, and the clickiness is very pleasant. The problem I have now is that sometimes you can feel a click and it doesn't trigger - most commonly with the arrow keys. Also occasionally a few keys would "jam" and not fully click.
Overall my typing speed and accuracy has definitely decreased.
I seldom (never?) have to worry about reinstalling device drivers. Everything works, all the time, on my windows laptop somethings don't work and I have to do convoluted things to make them work - e.g. pdf's no longer open in adobe reader, I keep saying yes make adobe reader the default but it never works, I've never looked into it cause who cares. With my mac I seldom have to fiddle with something because it's not working - it is a lot smoother experience, with windows bits are broken everywhere and I just work around them.
Edit: oh also the 2d graphics are so much nicer and crisper - core graphics makes gdi/gdi+/direct2D a joke (I spend a lot of time writing graphics code), cocoa is superior.
Beyond that, I've just got a lot of random applications for streamlining my workflow and day-to-day usage that would take a long time to find equivalent tools for, and I'm long past the days when "spending a weekend fucking with settings" was something I want to do. OSX, I just back up my machines and if/when I need to replace them, it's just "plug the new one into the backup drive, restore from backup".
Maybe someday the year of the linux desktop will actually happen, but I'm not holding my breath either.
And then there's the Windows telemetry stuff. Apple's actually talking about ways to incorporate identity anonymization (sp?) into its browser. They've stayed out of trying to reap side income off device usage in multiple ways.
- That it has Unix and its tools underneath
- That app guis look consistently good on it (although I will admit that Windows has caught up to Mac OS X in this regard)
- That I don't have to worry about catching viruses as easily when browsing the Internet. Yes, I know there are viruses for Mac, but I've not come across them. Not the same with Windows. In fact, I made the switch after catching a nasty one using Windows Vista and losing more than half of my stuff.
- A corollary is not having to use Antivirus on a Mac
- That even though Macs have little in terms of specs, that the OS doesn't fucking lag something fierce. Last Windows I used, Windows 8, was still a memory hog for a machine having twice the RAM as my Mac. It was a work machine, not a personal machine.
And Most importantly, that I don't have to worry about maintaining the machine for all the aforementioned reasons and that I just get stuff done.
I have a personal 2012 macbook air and a lenovo thinkpad whatever from work. If I have to use the trackpad on windows I'm miserable. It's just so bad, the OS itself isn't made with it in mind: things like dragging and click-holding don't work anywhere near as well as it does on the macbook, the multi finger gestures are a miserable experience; I spend most of my time frustrated that I don't have a mouse. Compare it to the macbook: I do have a magic mouse somewhere but I haven't used in years; it offers me no better experience than that amazing trackpad support does.
This isn't even related to trackpad hardware because the experience was equally bad when I ran windows on the macbook using bootcamp. The Windows trackpad experience is just years behind OSX.
edit: as a related sidenote, I'm planning on dumping the macbook next year becase it's aging (4gb ram doesn't cut anymore). I'm planning on replacing it with a MS Surface; I found that touchscreen+pen are a suitable replacement for the macbook trackpad when you're on the go for my type of usage.
- I'm now used to the "inverse mouse scrolling". To enable this for my mouse (logitech something?) I needed to edit the registry. Every time I plug it into a new USB port it's now a new device with a new registry entry to hack.
- I installed the various device drivers that came with my hardware. The Realtek on-motherboard network card had some driver, which actually stopped the hardware from working - Microsoft's own standard driver was better. But every time I rebooted, Windows would helpfully install the "updated" driver from it's local cache. I ended up fixing this by setting the permissions on some c:\windows\system32 file to such that the system itself could not update it
I'm also not yet familiar with the changes to the Start menu and Windows Explorer, so those also feel confusing. But it's a gaming computer, I turn it on, play games, then turn it off. Presumably if it was a development workstation I'd have more opinions on the rest of it.
No advertising built into OS X on a fresh install. No default collection of usage. Faster boot times, faster wake up from sleep and faster shut down (ever been stuck on shutdown?). Forced updates, with a count down to save my work before a forced reboot (seriously, what decade is this?!). Windows Trackpads suck compared to Mac (even with the Precision Touchpad enabled laptops... and so much more.
Not to mention that since it's more popular every device manufacturer wants to "customize" your experience with some BS app, the amount of bad practices in app development is abundant (remember when Windows 2000/XP came out how long did it take developers to make their products run without being Administrator? And then with Vista?)
MS helps developers, shames them sometimes (IIRC Vista had a "Windows is not shutting down because of this app ) and sometimes "virtualizes" things so developers can still not clean up after themselves, but it gets old.
In the end, I settled for a Moto Z Play, at the recommendation of a programming blog, and that it had excellent reviews on the outlets I could find it. But, even with that, I accidentally bought an international version from Amazon unknowingly until I tried to purchase accident protection from Motorola, and they had to direct me to Indian support, which their phoneline was offline for all the times I tried to call. After ordering the proper U.S. version through motorolas site, though, everything has been fine. But thats a lot of technical stuff and throwing direct money (no monthly payments) at a single item. I can understand why people would just go to their providers site, and order an Iphone after trying, or not trying, to do research into smartphones.
For reference, I was able to return the international version even though I had used it for a week or so, and once refunded bought the U.S. one. Motorola tries to provide a monthly payment mechanism through 'Affirm', but Affirm was... Firm in that I didn't have a checking account in my bank, because my bank gives it a different name (though still is a checking.). The main saving grace of motorola is that AFAIK, their accident protection can send me a new phone before I have to send a broken one back in the future if(when) it does break.
And after all of this, still no 4G on it, because AT&T doesn't do that unless you have an 'AT&T' phone IMEI supposedly.
My SO actually has the Moto Z Play and that phone has one feature that even none of the Apple iPhones had - the battery will easily live for three days, pretty much eliminating battery anxiety when traveling or staying somewhere for extended periods of time. It really feels wierd again to not have to worry about dragging cables, chargers and battery packs around on every minor event.
This. I buy iPhones because I know that every released version will be bought by several tens of millions. I don't want a smartphone that only a couple of million bought. If something is wrong with it I don't want to find a few unhappy souls on some forum complaining about the same thing, and a manufacturer that's already pushing ten new models. The "Just works" feature is worth so much to people.
Obviously some of the the flagship android phones are also big sellers, and also tend to "just work" - but those also cost about the same as the iPhone.
Not sure if serious ...
If I can replace a MacBook with an iPhone X + Apple screen then I'm definitely going to do that. Price point is higher compared to a single phone, but lower compared to phone + laptop. Solves almost all of the portability issues and makes app dev easier - which is where they want to push people anyway.
If they are going hard towards AR glasses, they need people to get used to having a single device for desktop and mobile. The glasses just become a peripheral at that point for early adopters.
1.http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/mobile-accessories/phones/d...
According to rumors, they're still going to have various models and price points.
Also, iPhones are extremely economical because no other phones receive OS updates for as long. My iPhone 6, which cost $749 at the time, is coming up to 3 years old. It's still flawless, no speed issues or any issues. The only thing bad is that the battery isn't as good as before, but I still get through the day just fine.
I might upgrade this year just because "new & shiny", but I'll probably pass the iPhone 6 to family. And because it's still very good and receive updates, that means if I get 4 years of life out of it, its cost is actually only $375 when compared to other phones that stop getting updates 2 years in. That's really good!
Uh, what? I'm on my second ~$70 Android smart phone in eight years. It's a tad slow, but we're talking about literally a few seconds of waiting, nothing truly inconvenient. I have honestly never been impressed by anything a $600+ iPhone can do beyond what my phone can. The only drawback is that it isn't compatible with Apple group texts, but that is more than made up for by the fact that I truly don't care if my phone gets lost or breaks (I back up my files, so I'm only out 70 bucks). I have no idea why people spend so much money on phones.
A few seconds of waiting is not "truly inconvenient"? I suppose you're either a zen master, or not doing much with the phone (possibly because it's "a tad slow").
For me, the phone is something I use constantly during the day, in lots of brief bursts. Few seconds of lag may be the difference between me staying in or leaving the flow. It would often make a significant fraction of the length of a single interaction with a phone. Those kinds of frustrations add up for me over time. Avoiding all of that is worth the $700, if I can afford it.
No, he just isn't possessed by the ridiculous "must go faster, must go faster" mindset that plagues most people today.
A website takes more than a second to load? ARGH it must be down, now my day is ruined!
Just relax, if a small delay is enough to make you "leave the flow", maybe you need to reevaluate your priorities. If your "flow" is interrupted that easily, maybe it wasn't particularly important, anyway.
Edit: For that matter, interacting with your phone for a few seconds at a time is probably an attention deficit issue in and of itself. I admit that it's common, but that doesn't mean it isn't a problem.
Few seconds waiting for what? There's a big difference between a few seconds waiting for an app to load and, say, for it to register that you've tapped a key on its on-screen keyboard.
Would you make the argument that everyone should be using $200 chromebooks?
If not, then why would one make the argument that anything more expensive than a chromebook is crossing some kind of threshold?
What are those different needs? What do the top end phones do that the mid range phones do not, other than take better photos? Battery life is comparable, screen size is comparable, they run the same apps. I'm struggling to think of a single reason (other than the camera) why people buy high end phones anymore. There used to be a big difference in quality, but that gap has pretty much evaporated.
Yes it sucks when a windows xp machine catches a massive virus from a random website.
But here I am with an iphone 5 that cost me $xxx, it gets updates that slow the phone down and break a lot of functionality, and my ssn isn't keylogged from my device, it's just leaked by someone else!
Now luckily my passwords aren't being keylogged but- wait! damnit!
$250 gets you a Xiaomi Mi A1 - a phone with a 1080p display, a full metal body, 4GB of RAM, 64GB of flash, a fast 8-core processor and guaranteed software updates directly from Google.
Is a $750 iPhone really three times better than that phone? Is it even 5% better? If I were an Apple shareholder, I'd be giving some serious thought to Apple's future in the growing middle-income economies. Apple are clearly going gangbusters right now, but I'm highly sceptical about their continued relevance.
Yes, it is. Three times better might be an exaggeration, but it has unique features that basically no other phone has currently, and that's worth different things to different people.
I've done the Windows/Android thing, it's a pain in the ass to keep up with all the stuff. As I get older, I just need my things to work (especially smartphone and computer) and I'm willing to pay a premium. I don't even want to have to research what I'm buying, and Apple has been executing on that for quite a few years now.
I switched from a custom-built desktop PC to a laptop then to a Macbook a while back. I switched from an Android phone with super heavy customization and a flashed ROM to a Windows Phone (and after that platform died, an iPhone). Did I give up some flexibility? Yes. Did I spend more money? Yes. But I made a conscious choice to do so because I hate to be my own IT guy.
If I need a new computer, I don't comparison shop to see if Lenovo or Asus or Acer or HP has the best features for the price or reliability scores or any of that. I buy the latest Macbook. If I need a new cell phone, I don't look up who the best is. I buy an iPhone. I pay a little bit more for peace of mind. It makes me happy.
Good point. Also they sell extremely well on the second-hand market.
This feeds the scond hand market.
If I bust an android phone I lose it for three to four weeks, have to buy a stopgap phone and tend to end up with a botched repair from a 3rd party repairer the vendor have hired. On top of that the OS updates usually stop after a year and roll out about a month after they are announced unless I buy a Nexus which is completely non repairable anyway.
Oh, the thing is waterproof and 'shock-proof' (although the latter is to be taken with a grain of salt, my wife managed to break the glass on hers after about three years).
In other words, it does not take an expensive iPhone to last longer than a contract period. Well-built phones can last a long time, much longer than the 2 years which most people seem to consider as normal.
Oh, the thing is bulletproof (although it must be taken with a grain of salt, chuck norrys managed to break the glass on his after about three years).
In other words, it does not take an expensive iPhone to last longer than a contract period. Well-built phones can last a long time, much longer than the 10 years which most people seem to consider as normal.
Perhaps if the 1100 had WhatsApp we can talk about this comparison, but otherwise this is like comparing your phone battery life to a flashlight's. Sure, a flashlight will last longer for the light, but I still like use the light on my phone because it's a thing I use for other things as well.
...actually, it wouldn't quite be useless - I could still play Snake!
If you’re going to try to capitalize on an internet meme, at least try to do the job properly.
Yes, I too have a Nexus 4 (bought in 2012) and it still works fine. But no more updates. I don't consider that on par with say my previous work laptop, which was also 3 years before I upgraded.
I also own a Moto E (2nd Gen, $60-ish) and bought a Moto G+ for my brother this year, but I can't count on them to receive OS updates for as long.
You could buy a new Moto G every 2 years and you would still have an up-to-date phone that is more economical than an iPhone, if OS-updates are your main worry (on average, I believe Apple supports devices up to 5 years, which objectively is a lot).
That without considering how well old phones work with newer OSs, my iPhone 4 did technically work with the last supported update, but the performance hit was so big it made it a pain to use.
I had a Moto G for over 3 years that cost $150 in 2014 and which continued to work perfectly with zero updates (Android 4.4) during that period.
It finally died last month when I tried to recharge it on an USB cable that I wired backwards (on a motorcycle). Replaced it with a $120 Lenovo that's fantastic, does everything I could think of and more.
I think people who are ready to buy an iPhone for over $1000 would in fact pay any price; Apple should try to sell those for $2500 and see what happens.
For the rest of us, a $120 Android phone is more than enough.
I realize that "flashing" the ROM is not what normal user would do, but it has become very easy to do, and it does extend the (usable) life of the phone..
I have one of those and an iPhone 7.
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
The thing with OS updates is, it was supposed to be the other way around. We were told that being open source meant Android phones could never be abandoned like this. Owners would have the freedom to update the OS themselves and would truly own their device and it's software. There's no way a proprietary OS vendor would provide long terms support because it would be uneconomical and deter upgrades to new devices, but with Android that wouldn't matter.
What an utter crock of shit that turned out to be! What went wrong? How can Android fans that bought that line not be storming the gates of the vendors and Google that sold them these lies for being deceived and betrayed? But no, it's all about the new Samsung (factory worker poisoning, embezzling CEO, explodaphone coverup) shiny. Just roll over and be grateful for your new dose of utopian Android open source goodness, the best possible phones in the best of all possible open source worlds.
Un-effing-believable.
https://android-developers.googleblog.com/2017/05/here-comes...
In 2011 I bought a Motorola Droid 2 and I it's been one of the best phones I've used, but I don't think I've ever got any system update. It's been stuck on 2.1 forever.
Even with Android 4.4 it will be a very insecure phone. With Android 2.3 it will be laughably insecure. Visit one wrong webpage and your phone is owned. No thanks.
While there is lots of talk about 'Android being insecure' it is hard to find actual examples of Android devices which are used in a sensible way (i.e. which do not get fed whatever APK just downloaded from getfreestuff.cooldoodz.biz) being exploited.
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
The ting with OS updates is, it was supposed to be the other way around. We were told that being open source meant Android phones could never be abandoned like this. Owners would have the freedom to update the OS themselves and would truly own their device and it's software. There's no way a proprietary OS vendor would provide long terms support because it would be uneconomical and deter upgrades to new devices. What an utter crock of shit! What went wrong?
All my iPhones get handed down. The only one out of (er, 5 devices I think?) that's properly busted is my other daughter's 4s. It started falling apart at the seams this summer and is currently held together with sliced strips of sticky tape. Still, it's lasted 5 years and was still getting OS updates last year!
so, not flawless? i can replace the battery on my phone, which is very reassuring and also practical for times away from a charger.
We can all imagine theoretical situations where one would need to swap batteries, but they're just that - theoretical. In practice you can either find/borrow/buy/steal a charger or you carry an USB powerbank with you if running out of battery is an issue for you.
so it's not theoretical at all. the person i replied to literally listed a reason why it's nice to be able to swap out a battery: their battery no longer works correctly.
This is kinda the case with phones too, you can buy a $450 phone with 2 years of updates, or a $700 with 5 years.
Which one is more economical over time?
Six years ago I paid $170 for an equivalent phone (older version of android than current, slower, less ram, space, etc). On sale. And used it for almost a year and a half. So the low-end has really gone down in price.
> Which one is more economical over time?
My sub-100USD android apparently. What the heck kind of math do you have going on for "economical?"
The trouble with iOS devices is that they stop being usable the moment you can no longer update the OS in the way that most applications only support the newest OS (happened to several iPads here with e.g. Amazon app, Twitter, Youtube) - because updates roll out to the majority of users so fast compared to Android.
"stop getting updates 2 years in."
With Android most applications still support 4.X when Oreo comes out.
I love my MotoX 2013, but it never got updates (Sprint model, Sprint blamed Motorola, Motorola blamed Sprint); it's succeptible to Stagefright so I can't use it anymore. And it will never receive an update for it.
As much as we use our phones and as much personal information is on them, security updates should be first and foremost.
Yes, AOSP exists for some devices, but 9 times out of 10, something breaks when using it.
When Android moves to a new way of doing audio or video, drivers stop working, and some people try to come up with shims, but as others point out. The developer of it gets a new phone and the project dies.
My Nexus 5 (November 2013) hasn't gotten a security update since October 2016. My iPhone 5 (September 2012) just got an update to 10.3.3 in July.
Android devices are notorious for being slow to get updates, if you ever get them at all.
Yeah it can be cheaper to get an Android device, and I have quite a few, but they simply aren't up to the same standards that iPhones are.
The only things I can't do involve hardware-based features for things I don't have in my phone.
If I'm being honest with myself, I just need a damn phone and an ok camera. The rest are frivolities.
I can just continue using my table for the rest.
Haha you're kidding me? They shut down the 2G networks in Australia this year!
https://www.cnet.com/news/nokia-3310-3g-us-launch-fcc-filing...
Those new Nokias are only carrying the brand name under typical chinese design and manufacturing process. The incentive would be to revive the brand in markets where Nokia had stronghold with its cheaper models and the average phone has poor quality. If that's the case it'd be very disappointing for what you are expecting.
This is going to be for the hitherto-unavailable third tier of new iPhone: we'll have iPhone 8, iPhone 8 Plus, and iPhone X. I expect this is referring to the X. Which may well only be offered in a 256GB configuration. A jet black iPhone 7 Plus in 256 GB is $969 today. So this might not be a huge increase for the X. I fully expect 8 and 8 Plus models to mirror current pricing.
And second, we've seen this "high price" reporting with other releases, notably the Apple Watch IIRC. Reputable outlets were floating high prices, and Apple announced "normal" pricing at the event. Other comments here have talked about anchoring: this may be more of the same Apple marketing FUD.
The progression of the smartphone is evidently to replace the personal computer and the iPhone X should be a step in that direction.
Yeah, I kept hearing the same thing about tablets till sales dropped off. I'll believe it when I see it.
My 2012 iOS device is now stuck on iOS9. I wouldn't mind except they bundle web browser updates with the OS. This is wrong.
The web browser on iOS9 does not support javascript ES6 features such as the "Let" statement. Any web sites that use let statements will fail on iOS 9. I discovered this recently when browsing on my iPad3, 2012 model. Apple doesn't care, they just want people throwing their old hardware in the trash and buying latest product.
I understand why I can't have iOS10 on an iPad3, but the web browser should be given updates separately.
5 years of updates for a smartphone is pretty good. From Android, I think only certain Sony phones even come close to that.
By now, the battery cells will be damaged, the CPU/RAM too slow or limited, the flash memory wearing out. Time for a new phone :)
As mentioned, I don't mind about OS updates, I care about browser updates or at least patches for iOS Safari.
> By now, the battery cells will be damaged, the CPU/RAM too slow or limited, the flash memory wearing out
Nope. The battery on my iPad3 is fine. iPads should not be classed as a "throw-away" replaceable product like phones seem to be. CPU and RAM is fine for web browsing and most apps. Flash memory wearing out? Gimme a break.
Every Steam game homepage gallery is broken now on browsers that don't support ES6 javascript. The highlight player doesn't display images or video since recent update to their website. I previously enjoyed browsing Steam on my iPad looking for new games. Example:
http://store.steampowered.com/app/449640/Bloody_Zombies/
Note, I partly blame Steam web devs for not making it backwards compatible, but also Apple for denying Safari any updates because of their dirty business model of abandoning their own products. Disgusting lack of modern environmentally concerned tech life-cycle standards. They boast about green packaging for products destined for the grave in only 5 years.
The official situation should change too - with the release of Android 8 there is now a more defined layer separating the HAL from the rest of the OS, allowing updates to be pushed out universally.
iPhone 7 32 GB
Australian price: AU$1,079 ... US Price: $649
[0] https://9to5mac.com/2017/05/04/cheapest-country-to-buy-an-ip...
So I pay an extra $300 to save me the trouble of putting my finger on the touchID sensor? That doesn't sound like a compelling value proposition to me.
It'll be interesting to see how this works out. I'm in the minority amongst my social group as an Android user, but I can't imagine many of the iPhone users I know shelling out $1k. But I'm sure there's a mid-range model. Right?
For all the truly amazing capabilities the basics are lacking.
This $1000 iPhone X may be nearly as expensive as a Macbook Air, but that's entirely reasonable: it's a far more powerful and sophisticated computer in a much smaller package. Why would you expect it to cost less?
Gruber seems to hint that the OLED display is still single-sourced by Samsung and incredibly expensive to boot:
https://daringfireball.net/linked/2017/09/06/samsung-oled-mo...
The price may just be what it is until the price of the display comes down. Apple could also be trying to modulate demand because of the low display availability, but in the case of iPhone it will probably backfire and cause demand to increase.
The bigger issue is at the moment its just taking productive income from the economy that could drive real economic activity and job growth and dumping it in Apple's already inflated bank balance which they don't know what to do with.
That's $704 2017 dollars, and look how much more of a device you will be getting.
Seems perfectly find to me. If people want to spend it, of course a company will make it.
I suppose that 'we're here to change the world' soda commercial isn't nearly as absurd when you consider the audience.
Apple next challenge is not making people pay $1,000 for an iPhone. People already do that. Apple next challenge is bringing globalization, breaking the VAT, and putting profits in safe havens away from the fiscal preys.
People already pay thousands, dozens and hundreds of them for luxury. Apple upping its price might have the reverse effect: People line up to buy the highest price iPhone because it is not "accessible for everyone". Apple always got your back with a cheaper version but you really want the expensive one otherwise you are out of line.
We are getting close everyday to the confrontation between IT giga-multi-nationals and the traditional countries/governments of the world. We are probably still too far from the real battle but everyday is showing more why these two are not friends.
This might be a case of under-promise, over-deliver.
Older articles, but they cover what I'm talking about: https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2016/03/09/why-stealing-ip...
http://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/issue-brie...
(I'm still running a 4-year old, super under-powered Android phone. I shelled out $150 for it when it was brand-spanking new. That was unsubsidized.)
I dont get it its like somebody in US buying it for 5000 usd.
But it is changing. With companies like xiaomi putting up phones for 100usd that do the same for those people and look nice... I believe apple is going to be going down if they increase prices even more. These people dont want second class iphone. They want THE iphone. If they cant afford THE iphone they wont buy the shitty 500usd one. They might aswell buy the 100usd xaomi then.
I think aple is not going right way with this.
So there's a new X line that will have all the best of the best and the regularly numbered ones below it will have more mainstream features / design and will be produced in greater numbers.
Apple's scale is amazing but I don't really get this observation. Is this is because Samsung has been shipping OLED at Apple-level volumes for years, so they've already sucked up most of the supply?
Is that an exception ?
Because I see why Apple wants to sell the idea of the iPhone as a luxury product, but subsidization runs opposite to luxury.
However, it's still smaller monthly payments; few I suspect buy the device up-front.
Nonetheless I believe they will sell lots and lots of these models: It will be a status item.
Moreover, in a lot of countries, most people don't but smartphones fully upfront to own them, but pay monthly with their phone bill. So, its not $1k or $1.5k, but perhaps $50 more upfront compared to other high end smartphones and another $15 monthly surcharge on the phone bill. Doesn't seem sooo incredible that way, isn't it?
I doubt most of these people are doing phone based VR and play high end phone games.
I knew plenty of people who buy a new Android, priced anywhere from $400 to $700, every year, more often than not it was once every 9 months even.
So I might spend $1100 or so on the iPhone Pro / X / whatever the moniker is. But I'll use it at least 3 years.
Annual cost of owning an iPhone makes it cheaper than almost any Android.
Not everything is about upfront cost. iPhones get updated for 5 years and they don't start lagging in 8-12 months like almost all Androids do. If you don't bust it, you might sell it for 75-90% of its original cost even 3 years down the line.
Mostly philosophical article without much economical substance.
Although the iPhones might get updated for 5 years that does not make them fast. Each update makes the older device slower which at a point it becomes unusable. A 3 year old device just cant compare with the increase in features, how a newer device can.
But for Android, it all comes down to the provider. This has always been the issue. I have a Nexus 6 running 7.1 and working just fine. I could use it for another year if i wanted but it does show signals of getting old.
People used to change iphone every year as they did with Android. I believe that this is coming to an end and people will keep there phones longer as they become much more expensive (X:1100+, note8:1050, etc) and the increase in hardware is not that massive any more.
Yes the initial outlay is more painful, but i find £25 a month much more palatable than £74 (for the same plan with the phone)
back of the napkin maths says the following; iPhone 7+ 128G (my current phone) - £819 phone plan (unlimited data - 600mins - unlimited texts) - £25/month Over 2 years - 819+600 - £1419
phone + plan (unlimited data - unlimited minutes - unlimited texts, closest to what i currently have) - £74/month Over 2 years - £1850
And not only is it priced that way, thats actually what it is which is why in all likelihood I'm buying one tomorrow.
Every Android I've ever used has felt like cheap shit in my hands, and works like crap after 10 months or so. My current iPhone is knocking on 3 years old and works as well as the day I took it out of the box.
iPhone $1k iPhone $1.2k iPhone $2k ...
I would not mind paying $1000 for a phone if it offered any additional value over my $200 Android phone.
But I cannot see anything better in the form factor of the iPhone line.
And for the software - I have an iPad and I hate the software. It is so restricted. You cannot even do basic tasks like download an mp3/pdf/whatever in your browser and then open it in the app of your choice.
I think you can download pdf/mp3 files and open them in your favorite app on iOS too.
Now $1000 is a bit too much so unless it has a killer feature I will skip this upgrade.
(btw I don't get it either. But I don't see anything special about iPad, hence my question)
While I agree with your general sentiment I can save and open PDF:s from safari to third party applications just fine on my IPad.
(I'm not affiliated with Apple. However, I do think that it's kind of neat that Apple has way for people to get the latest iPhone each year without having to buy it outright, or be locked to a specific carrier).
Until then I'll stick to buying previous generation hardware for 70% the price.
(I would never pay $60/mo but lots of people do)
A $1k iPhone on it's own would cost ~ $40/mo if you spread it out over 24 months.
My issue is I can't see the benefit I'm getting extra. My 7+ seems to be about the same really. Lifestyle wise this latest black rectangle is going to change literally nothing as far as I can tell.
FaceID fulfills that role.
/s
Apple becoming a "fashion" company is such a horrible strategic mistake that I don't think Steve Jobs would've made. Apple will proportionally become less of a "tech" company as a it becomes a fashion company.
In other words, the technology it uses in its devices will feel less and less advanced (especially for the price) as time moves on. You can already see that with other companies developing (real) gold phones with crystals on them and such, while using specs from 2-3 years before, but charging many thousands or tens of thousands of dollars for the phone.
Like a Gucci handbag or a Rolex watch. With a smaller markup.
$1000 for two years. After two years, sell the phone for $300-$400.
That's $25-$29 per month. Around $1 per day.
I hope all of this hostility from Apple will result in lower marketshare and a slow fade into oblivion. I use Apple products because they're the best, but if I have to spend $1.4k for a phone and $3.5k for a computer I'll hope MS and GOOG have somewhat caught up to the quality because it's getting tiring.
Apple is not an innovative company anymore, but trying to be a Bentley in the phone market.
[1] https://www.tecmundo.com.br/iphone/118381-decisao-foxconn-ip...
PS: Why do I call fans stupid? The company isn't 1% as loyal to you as you are to them. If you still continue to be loyal, it can't be a smart decision.
The iPhone 7 which released last year is more powerful than the Galaxy S8. Android phones lag embarrassingly behind in terms of CPU performance, disk write speeds, and software updates. If those things don't matter to you, I suppose you could get an Android phone for the AMOLED screen(though the new iPhone is reportedly going to have that too) or customization.
But to say that the only reason people buy iPhones is because they're stupid is embarrassing, really. I mean Apple weren't the company that have customers refusing to give back a phone which literally catches on fire.
I know it might be nice to believe that if you're a die-hard Android fan, but this is frankly nonsense. iOS is as popular as it ever was.
At $1,000 sets a very high bar. Excited to see if they meet it!
I have an Oppo HA-2 and it works great with my iOS devices (though i use it as a portable amp for my work computer).
There's also the likes of Audeze who are shipping Headphones and Earphones with a Lightning cable DAC in addition to the usual 3.5mm TRS jack.
The story around current DAC's isn't good and certainly can (and hopefully will!) be improved.
So, yes, the audiophile experience with an iPhone isn't great, but I'd argue that's a function of the current DAC situation (as my sibling comment points out), not the removal of the 3.5mm jack.
Can't it send music via USB to an external DAC anymore?