Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by lucius_verus 1472 days ago
No one is saying that iphones are the most expensive flagships. A difference in maximum isn't the same as a difference in average.

Apple doesn't make a product that costs less than $430 (the SE). If you need a cheaper phone, you have to go Android. For lots of people, $400 is a lot of money (especially if you're also buying phones for your kids, who are likely to break whatever you buy them). In lots of families it's iphone for the grownups, android for the kids. And that's just within the US.

On a global scale, if you're selling phones outside of the US and European markets, some part of your product lineup has to be in the sub $200 range (in addition to the flagships you sell everywhere). For example, in India, Xiaomi sells the Redmi 9A for Rs 8,000 (about $100). They're competing with Samsung phones we don't see in the US, like the Galaxy M series, which are in the same price category. Those phones exist because (a) people need cell phones (especially in places where a phone might be your primary access to the internet) and (b) Apple is choosing not to go after those customers.

Even though Samsung makes a more expensive flagship, the average income of Android users will always be lower because (a) there are more poor people world-wide than rich people, and (b) Apple isn't making phones for poor people, while Samsung, Xiaomi, Oppo, etc. are. Apple's strategy is totally working for them (selling a luxury product at luxury prices works well) but it also means that most poor people (which is most people) won't ever have one, so the average income of an iOS user will always be higher (along with the other things that go along with a higher income, like higher spending).

1 comments

> On a global scale, if you're selling phones outside of the US and European markets,

We're not talking about a global scale. We're talking about a US-based survey about US-based people.

> Apple doesn't make a product that costs less than $430 (the SE). > $400 is a lot of money

Except every two years you can switch carriers and pay $0 out of pocket. Heck, if switch today you get a base iPhone 12 or iPhone 13 they don't even raise your contract vs BYOD. And if you want to pay for a more advanced iPhone (say, upgrade to the Max Pro for an additional $400), they finance that over 2 years.

> In lots of families it's iphone for the grownups, android for the kids.

That argues against what you're saying. Unless you think that kids as independent economic actors need to be accounted for separately than their parents, in a lot of families the people using Androids are children of parents rich enough to afford iPhones.

Which carriers are providing iPhones for free? How do those contracts compare to other carriers who don’t provide an iPhone for free every two years?

I know here in Australia the cheapest plans are prepaid SIM-only and the “free phone” contracts are the most expensive (because thousand dollar phones don’t grow on trees). We still have limited data plans in the lower price brackets.

As far as kids having iPhones vs androids, who is paying for those phones? Is it the parents? Do you think there might be some correlation between disposable income and the decision to get cheap androids versus expensive iPhones for the kids?