Apple Event September 12th

Bob24

challengemaster wrote: »

Mobile phones have been a luxury product since the day they launched.

Incorrect statement as far as I am concerned.

They were a luxury product on the day they launched alright. But they stopped being one a long time ago (sometimes in the late 90s).

DivingDuck

traco wrote: »

How will the X face recognition thing work when its mounted in a car holder? Current 7+ is really handy, just touch with thumb and away it goes. Maybe I'm missing something??

Also what will be plan here with the cellular watch, does it replicate your existing number or is it a new number and will you need a second connection either way? Haven't looked to see if there are any updates from providers on that front.

Same phone number I believe; I'm assuming there'll be a divert setting in the Watch app or something. It's a $10 add-on to your plan in the US, though I'm not sure about the UK. Only EE are offering it there.

$10 is a little steep, to be honest. Apparently the Samsung Watch-equivalent (I forget the name) add-on is only $5 with the same provider in the US, which I can't understand at all. The service is literally identical, surely? The providers are really hobbling Apple there, for some reason.

Four Winds

Bob24 wrote: »

Incorrect statement as far as I am concerned.

They were a luxury product on the day they launched alright. But they stopped being one a long time ago (sometimes in the late 90s).

Exactly. How is a 200e Android phone a luxury product?

Bob24

Definitely couldn't justify the X but maybe the 8. I moved away from an iPhone 6 last year due to the headphone jack and got a Galaxy S7 but at the end of the day, I prefer iOS over Android.

Bob24 wrote: »

Yes it'll be cheaper. But I'd say even on a very expensive 24 months contract you're looking at least at paying 500-600 euros (knowing that of course this is because your contract really is a packaged subscription and loan and you're gonna pay the rest of the cost over 24 months).

I'd wonder if we'll even start seeing 36 month contracts due to the cost of this thing?

challengemaster

Four Winds wrote: »

Exactly. How is a 200e Android phone a luxury product?

Because even if it's 200 or 1000e, it's unnecessary expenditure. Smartphones aren't a necessary product. You can argue the necessity of mobile phones nowadays for sure, and that most people require one - but you can buy a cheap non-smartphone for a fraction of the price.

Smart phones are still luxury products. The gap between low end and high end luxury products exists in every area, not just smartphones.

Bob24

Karsini wrote: »

I'd wonder if we'll even start seeing 36 month contracts due to the cost of this thing?

Good question but I'd certainly hope not! In a way people do what they like with their money, but if someone needs 3 years to repay their phone they should really pick a cheaper one! Also being tight to a network for 3 years is *very* long.

I might be biased though as I hate credit and commitments so I've always been a sim-free iPhone and prepaid/30 days contract type of person.

Bob24

challengemaster wrote: »

Mobile phones have been a luxury product since the day they launched.

challengemaster wrote: »

Because even if it's 200 or 1000e, it's unnecessary expenditure. Smartphones aren't a necessary product.
Smart phones are still luxury products.

You're already changing tune. You were saying mobile phones and now you say smart phones.

I also think you are confused with what luxury is. Because something is not an absolute necessity doesn't mean it's a luxury. Otherwise going to the cinema once a year would be considered a luxury.

Bob24

Bob24 wrote: »

Good question but I'd certainly hope not! In a way people do what they like with their money, but if someone needs 3 years to repay their phone they should really pick a cheaper one! Also being tight to a network for 3 years is *very* long.

I might be biased though as I hate credit and commitments so I've always been a sim-free iPhone and prepaid/30 days contract type of person.

I'd be the same so I don't think you're biased. What also bothers me is that other service providers (e.g. TV and broadband) started implementing 18 and 24 month contracts afterwards because they saw that people were willing to sign them for expensive phones.

Four Winds

challengemaster wrote: »

Because even if it's 200 or 1000e, it's unnecessary expenditure. Smartphones aren't a necessary product. You can argue the necessity of mobile phones nowadays for sure, and that most people require one - but you can buy a cheap non-smartphone for a fraction of the price.

Smart phones are still luxury products. The gap between low end and high end luxury products exists in every area, not just smartphones.

And you can buy a smartphone for a fraction of the price of other smartphones.

I guess it depends on what you consider necessary. I'd say a smartphone is a necessity to most people these days, especially if they're less inclined to use a computer (older people).

challengemaster

Bob24 wrote: »

I also thing you are confused with what luxury is. Because something is not an absolute necessity doesn't mean it's a luxury.

Actually that's exactly what it means in economics terms... demand goes up in accordance with income levels. Because it's commonplace doesn't mean its not luxury goods.

Bob24

challengemaster wrote: »

Actually that's exactly what it means in economics terms... demand goes up in accordance with income levels. Because it's commonplace doesn't mean its not luxury goods.

So you would say going to the cinema once a year is indeed a luxury?

I would disagree and honestly if it was the case we would be living in a crap society.

challengemaster

Bob24 wrote: »

So you would say going to the cinema once a year is indeed a luxury?

I would disagree and honestly if it was the case we would live in a crap society.

The rate of use doesn't come into it at all, so "once a year" is irrelevant. You're just talking about the product or service being offered.

As I said previously, demand goes up with income levels is what defines it, so yes, cinemas are luxuries. That's no secret. In fact it's probably one of the most obvious places where people tend to cut back when income levels dip.

murpho999

challengemaster wrote: »

Because even if it's 200 or 1000e, it's unnecessary expenditure. Smartphones aren't a necessary product. You can argue the necessity of mobile phones nowadays for sure, and that most people require one - but you can buy a cheap non-smartphone for a fraction of the price.

Smart phones are still luxury products. The gap between low end and high end luxury products exists in every area, not just smartphones.

I don't get really what all the fuss is about.

The iPhone 8 is out as a top end phone with similar pricing to last year's 7.

The X is the high end/luxury product and is therefore more expensive, which is the same as any other product.

Do people complain when cars come up with more expensive models and additions?

Bob24

challengemaster wrote: »

The rate of use doesn't come into it at all, so "once a year" is irrelevant. You're just talking about the product or service being offered.

As I said previously, demand goes up with income levels is what defines it, so yes, cinemas are luxuries. That's no secret. In fact it's probably one of the most obvious places where people tend to cut back when income levels dip.

I'm not going to get into a long discussion about this here is it is not the right forum, but these are a lot of convolutions to justify your original statement.

I will just quote the Oxford dictionary definition of luxury and say that to me it definitely doesn't apply when you say "Mobile phones have been a luxury product since the day they launched" or when you say that in 2017 going to the cinema once a year or buying a smartphone is a luxury:

Oxford dictionary wrote:

An inessential, desirable item which is expensive or difficult to obtain

When pretty much 100% of the adult population has one, it certainly can't be considered expensive or difficult to obtain.

traco

DivingDuck wrote: »

Same phone number I believe; I'm assuming there'll be a divert setting in the Watch app or something. It's a $10 add-on to your plan in the US, though I'm not sure about the UK. Only EE are offering it there.

$10 is a little steep, to be honest. Apparently the Samsung Watch-equivalent (I forget the name) add-on is only $5 with the same provider in the US, which I can't understand at all. The service is literally identical, surely? The providers are really hobbling Apple there, for some reason.

Just on the .ie site and no mention of the cellular option that I can see. Does that mean it won't be supported here and that then begs teh question of one from the US working?

Seriously considering a smart watch, the cellular might be of interest but wondering if the new fitbit ionic is a better buy especially if bought in the US as it would be around €280-290 depending on exchange rates. (USD300 ex tax)

challengemaster

Bob24 wrote: »

I'm not going to get into a long discussion about this here is it is not the right forum, but these are a lot of convolutions to justify your original statement.

Lol, I'm not trying to convolute anything to justify my statements because I don't give a flying fúck what you think :pac:

ozmo

Genuine question - Has any one any ideas of what you can use all this new phone power for?

If you are not into the sword swinging, hack and slash role playing Iphone games - has anyone found a good game or demo that will stretch the iphones capability?

Bob24

traco wrote: »

DivingDuck wrote: »

Same phone number I believe; I'm assuming there'll be a divert setting in the Watch app or something. It's a $10 add-on to your plan in the US, though I'm not sure about the UK. Only EE are offering it there.

$10 is a little steep, to be honest. Apparently the Samsung Watch-equivalent (I forget the name) add-on is only $5 with the same provider in the US, which I can't understand at all. The service is literally identical, surely? The providers are really hobbling Apple there, for some reason.

Just on the .ie site and no mention of the cellular option that I can see. Does that mean it won't be supported here and that then begs teh question of one from the US working?

Seriously considering a smart watch, the cellular might be of interest but wondering if the new fitbit ionic is a better buy especially if bought in the US as it would be around €280-290 depending on exchange rates. (USD300 ex tax)

GSM on the watch won't work here initially and when it eventually does (could be months or years, we don't know), you'll probably have to pay something like an extra 10 euros per month for the service.

traco

Bob24 wrote: »

GSM on the watch won't work here initially and when it eventually does (could be months or years, we don't know), you'll probably have to pay something an extra 10 euros per month for the service.

Thanks for that - guess that makes my mind up

murpho999

Bob24 wrote: »

GSM on the watch won't work here initially and when it eventually does (could be months or years, we don't know), you'll probably have to pay something like an extra 10 euros per month for the service.

I really don't think it will be years they just need to tie up deals with the networks.

Also, we don't know yet if the networks will charge anything for sharing the sim.

Will be interesting to keep an eye on EE in the UK and other networks in Europe to see what they do.

If they had sense they would not charge extra for using your same number.

DivingDuck

traco wrote: »

Thanks for that - guess that makes my mind up

I'm sure they'll release it here eventually, though considering that none of the English networks which are also here (Vodafone, Three) have taken it up there (only EE are offering it currently), it could be a while.

It would be nice if the monthly price weren't as offensive as in the US, though. Can't understand why the networks in the US are charging more for providing cellular to the Apple Watch than the Samsung equivalent when the service is, on their end, the same? Hopefully it won't happen that way here.

Bob24

murpho999 wrote: »

I really don't think it will be years they just need to tie up deals with the networks.

Also, we don't know yet if the networks will charge anything for sharing the sim.

Will be interesting to keep an eye on EE in the UK and other networks in Europe to see what they do.

If they had sense they would not charge extra for using your same number.

Yeah you'de hope they'll find an agreement with networks in the coming months. But having said that as opposed to other European countries Irish networks haven't been very keen on letting people use multiple devices with the same subscription (Orange France which is a launch partner for the Watch Series 3 has been issuing a second data simcard on the same account at no extra charge for customers with premium contracts for quite a while, and the service is also available with a 5 euros fee for other customers). So I don't expect them to lead the pack.

Also given the fact that US ones are charging $10 for adding the watch and that again our networks haven't been very friendly to customers with multiple mobile device compared to other countries, I am quite confident there will be an additional charge initially (the might change after a few years if everyone starts having a second device).

TinCool

DivingDuck wrote: »

Can't understand why the networks in the US are charging more for providing cellular to the Apple Watch than the Samsung equivalent when the service is, on their end, the same? Hopefully it won't happen that way here.

I would imagine Apple are taking a cut with the watch mobile subscription hence the higher cost.

Albert_Camus

Maybe not the correct thread but I see on reddit that the iPad pro prices for the 256gb and 512gb went up after the site came back.

70eur increase on 256gb 10inch.

Bob24

TinCool wrote: »

I would imagine Apple are taking a cut with the watch mobile subscription hence the higher cost.

Quite possible. And also since there is no simcard (hence no way for the customer to pick whichever generic off they like), networks probably thought it's a good chance to milk those captive premium customers (no moral judgement or anything but it is a fact that the average Apple user has more disposable income than the average Android user).

Evil Sausage

murpho999 wrote: »

Will be interesting to keep an eye on EE in the UK and other networks in Europe to see what they do.

If they had sense they would not charge extra for using your same number.

EE in the UK will be charging an extra £5 for using the cellular function

https://www.macrumors.com/2017/09/13/uk-ee-5-a-month-tariff-apple-watch-series-3/

Bob24

Albert_Camus wrote: »

Maybe not the correct thread but I see on reddit that the iPad pro prices for the 256gb and 512gb went up after the site came back.

70eur increase on 256gb 10inch.

Yeah apparently the justification is that flash storage is in short supply and increasing in price. But even if that's true I suspect the additional manufacturing cost is nowhere near the osé 70 euros.

McGrath5

Really doubting I will go ahead and purchase an iPhone X, having a very difficult time justifying that kind of spend.

Although when I see one in the flesh that may change my mind.

eeloe

Bob24 wrote: »

GSM on the watch won't work here initially and when it eventually does (could be months or years, we don't know), you'll probably have to pay something like an extra 10 euros per month for the service.

You're also going to need to purchase the cellular version of the watch which is more expensive.

There's going to be a lot of people upset when they buy the series 3 here on launch day hoping they they'll have access to the cellular option when the networks pick it up.

Bob24

eeloe wrote: »

You're also going to need to purchase the cellular version of the watch which is more expensive.

There's going to be a lot of people upset when they buy the series 3 here on launch day hoping they they'll have access to the cellular option when the networks pick it up.

Yes it depends on how much people need it but yes almost 100 euros more for the GSM version of the watch and then what is likely a 5-10 euros per month subscription will probably turn away people who see it as a nice to have but don't envision using it on a very regular basis. Someone who has a regular use case for it might find it a great deal though. If they improve health monitoring features and combine it to cellular data and GPS functionality it could become a great monitoring device for the elderly and people with health conditions. For exemple in the future if the watch detects abnormal heart rate activity it could automatically call emergency services and provide a pre-diagnosis as well as the patient's location even before a heart attack actually happens. Well worth a 10 euros subscriptions for someone with a heart condition!