back
6 comments
Tl;DR: Upstarts given early access will probably (unjustifiably?) laud the phone moreso than reviewers and sites who actually try to give a fair review, useful when your phone now costs as much as mid-powered laptops.

My guess: Apple needs to justify a 4 figure pricetag after taxes. This isn't necessary with the other devices, but since the X probably needs a hand, this was the strategy: fish for higher odds of good reviews from the upstarts and ones who'd stand to gain traction by claiming "First to review!"

Source: I've been through this exercise in the late 00s with other hardware vendors.

The cheapest smart-phone you can buy right now costs $1,100. That’s the 2 year cost of a typical service plan, assuming you replace your phone every 2 years and the phone costs near zero.

By comparison, an iPhone X costs $1,700, only $600 ($25 per month) more than a “free” phone . The reason is in two years, you’ll be able to sell your used X for around $400.

What does this mean?

> Create a multitude of reasons for consumers, of all types, to justify spending $1,000 on a phone. Although it’s a subsidized cost, many consumers have not considered the true cost of their iPhone ever. Now, with many press outlets leading with the $1,000 total cost angle, Apple needs to combat that perception.

Who is subsidising the costs of iPhones? Apple? Do they sell them at a loss? And why would consumers want to consider the true cost if they never have to pay it themselves?

The carrier subsidizes the up front cost by charging more for a binding contract.

In the end, the consumer pays the subsidy.

Ah right. I think in Europe most people just buy the iPhone standalone from an Apple store without going through their carrier and put their own SIM in.
I don't think "most people" do that in Europe, though I do think it is a lot more common in Europe than in my impression is of how things are typically done in the states.