Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by xoa 2783 days ago
So I did a search in the article for the word "inflation" and found no hits, but I think it's something that the tech world is going to have to start getting used to after decades in the steep part of a S-curve that let it defy the normal. In most of the developed world at least inflation is generally quite low, but it's not zero (nor is zero or worse deflation a healthy sign). For electronics there has been a long time where constant improvements in process technology, efficiency, mass manufacturing tech, and just plain ever larger scales as it went global, meant that every year or two allowed more to be done cheaper.

But at this point that's heavily played out. Progress is certainly not "done" by any means, and the slowdown is uneven (GPUs still scale more easily for example), but it's not exponential or essentially "free" anymore either. Bumping into harder physics means process shrinks keep getting harder and vastly more expensive for less gains, the low hanging frequency improvements and IPC has been picked, a lot of the trivial vectorization and parallelism done, hyper cheap mass labor utilized, the easy parts of the global market gobbled up, etc. There are also softer issues like inequality to deal with and in turn a wider spread in prices people might pay.

So tech companies are going to face a more "normal" world, where no a device from a year ago or two years ago or even 5 or more years ago isn't necessarily "obsolete". That means they'll need to figure out how to start raising prices over time just to keep pace with inflation let alone secure more growth when expanding marketshare or cutting costs is ever harder. But the public has been conditioned for a very long time to expect prices to always stay the "same" (which really means it's falling in real terms over time) or outright drops on the sticker price. Figuring out how to navigate that to a new normal without promoting undue backlash is something everyone will need to grapple with. One approach that Apple may be going for is to just take some pages from mature areas like cars, where there is a huge premium for "brand new", and large percentages of the population are fine getting used or "last year's that didn't sell" (let alone an "old model but newly manufactured" which isn't really a thing with cars) and will never buy brand new their entire lives. But "old" models still get support for a long time and to the basic job fine.

Other strategies of course include trying to shift more into ongoing services revenue, platform monetization (be it a cut of software sales or ads), premium support offerings, etc. Different players will try different mixes. But nobody will be able to avoid it anymore then other industries, at least not unless some other huge productivity shift (automation related perhaps) happens.

3 comments

When I started seeing posts of people complaining about the price, it was mainly complaints about how the updated model was more expensive than the outdated model that languished for several years. I would argue that the new model still launched at a cheaper price but the rate of price reduction definitely slowed down enough for people to notice. Considering the first MacBook Air launched in 2008 at $1,799 starting price, that would be around $2,100 in today's dollars adjusted for inflation. Then the second gen launched at a reduced base price of $1,299 in 2010. That would be around $1,530 today. Compare that to the 2018 version that just launched for $1,199 which is still several hundred dollars cheaper.

I think the rate of price reduction in tech has slowed down enough that even though the prices are being reduced, the inflation offsets the perceived price reduction and ordinary people just get upset that Apple jacked up the prices yet again.

This was my thought too; even though the article is from a pro-Apple site, the author wasn't trying to make any excuses, he just laid out the facts. He didn't bother trying to address WHY one would try to raise ASP; margin is obviously one reason, but simply keeping up with inflation is another.
Inflation has been in the (low) single digits for about 20 years in most developed nations.

An iPhone cost $200 in 2008.

The combined rate of inflation in the US since 2008 is 17.2%. So an iPhone should cost less than $240 today, if inflation were the main driving factor.

The cheapest iPhone costs $450 now. The technological equivalent of that 2008 model costs almost 3x.

Inflation is not a driving factor. You could raise IT prices 5% YOY and nobody would bat an eyelid.

No, $200 was the "subsidized price" as part of an AT&T service plan: "AT&T, like most U.S. carriers, offers a variety of phones that we sell below our actual cost when customers agree to sign service agreements." [1]

The cheapest non-subsidized ("no commitment price") iPhone you could get back then was $499. At your 17% inflation rate, that's almost $600 in today's dollar, so Apple's entry level iPhone is actually a little cheaper than in 2008.

[1]: https://www.att.com/Common/merger/files/pdf/iPhone/Pricing_U...

The unsubsidized launch price of the base model iPhone was $499 in 2007, which would be $600~ today, not too far off from the $749 price of a base Xr, and worse than the $449 of a base 7 today.
The 2008 iPhone cost $200 + $480 of operator subsidies.
Was only that cheap with a contract, right?