→ Why talk of a $1000 iPhone is not overblown

September 12, 2017
by Riccardo Mori
Handpicked

Jan Dawson, in an article titled Why Talk of a $1000 iPhone is Overblown:

There’s been a lot of talk about Apple releasing a $1,000 iPhone next week, and a lot of pushback from financial analysts in particular on the idea that people would actually buy such a thing. […] But the reality is that talking about a phone in these terms is a bit old-fashioned at this point regardless of the actual price, especially in a US context.

Perhaps I’m oversimplifying, but what I took away from Dawson’s piece is that, since the iPhone is more and more frequently offered through instalment plans and leasing, the fact that the upcoming iPhone X will be likely priced at $1000 or more doesn’t really matter; that it doesn’t have the same impact it would have if paid upfront in full. 

I think this is nonsense.

I think $1000 for a phone is a stupidly high and unjustified price. You can talk about the great technology and that an iPhone is a powerful computer in your pocket all you want. I still think that $1000 — and the rumours talk about this as being the entry price — is an insanely high premium to pay for an iPhone. And since I live in Europe, that premium, once converted to euros and inflated by additional taxes, will be even higher.

Sure, monthly instalments make things more tolerable, but that’s hardly a justification for putting up with this kind of prices. By that logic, who cares if Apple next introduces a $2000 phone? You just pay a bit more every month. Except expenses are expenses, no matter how you frame them. I know, it’s a bit old-fashioned as a concept, but still.

It’s also not uncommon that instalment plans involve interest rates. So that $1000 iPhone X, which may be the €1200 iPhone X in Europe, may end up costing you €1500 after 2 years. It. Is. Insane.

Oh, but the value. Again, I cautiously agree: you get value from Apple products over the long term. This is especially true for Macs (I’m still using a 2009 MacBook Pro that has always worked very well until recently), and to a certain extent for iPads. But iPhones are another story. Speaking hypothetically, a €1200 iPhone should last you at least 4–5 years to be a valuable investment. We all know that iPhones don’t have that kind of upgrade cycle.

So really any survey that asks about a thousand dollar iPhone is asking the wrong question: the real question is whether customers are willing to pay a little extra (or perhaps none at all) for a great new phone. […]

This is the framing you can expect to see from Apple next week: affordable-looking monthly pricing, with the new phone probably coming in at around $40, or $8–10 more than the iPhone 7 Plus. And that’s going to be a lot more palatable than the “$1000 iPhone” headlines will lead people to believe. 

The real questions are: Is $1000 a ridiculous price to ask for a phone? And: Is it worth spending $1000 on an iPhone? My answers are ‘yes’ and ‘no’ respectively. The fact that there are people willing to spend that sum, whether as a one-off payment or in instalments, doesn’t justify turning these price tiers into the new normal. And frankly I’m appalled that a lot of Apple-oriented tech pundits are okay with it. As Adam Banks succinctly said on Twitter, I do get a bit fed up with tech folk on here assuming $1000 is small change to everyone or if you pay monthly it’s not real money.

The sad thing is, in a few hours the new iPhones will be unveiled, there will be aaahs and ooohs, everyone will be talking about the new features, the new technologies, the better cameras, the infrared sensors, the powerful CPU, and so on and so forth, and this kind of criticism towards the iPhone’s price will be buried under an avalanche of articles and reviews talking about how awesome the iPhone X is.

But price matters. And $1000 or more is simply too much, no matter how you look at it. Talking about this isn’t overblown. I think it’s an aspect we should insist on more frequently. The message Apple should get is Hey, you’re going too far now, and not Here, take my money no matter how much!

(Yeah, wishful thinking.)

→ The Home button is fading away

September 1, 2017
by Riccardo Mori
Handpicked

Mark Gurman, Bloomberg:

Apple is preparing three new iPhones for debut next month. One of the models, a new high-end device, packs in enough changes to make it one of the biggest iPhone updates in the product’s decade-long history. With a crisper screen that takes up nearly the entire front, Apple has tested the complete removal of the home button — even a digital one — in favor of new gesture controls for tasks like going to the main app grid and opening multitasking, according to the people and the images. 

[…]

Across the bottom of the screen there’s a thin, software bar in lieu of the home button. A user can drag it up to the middle of the screen to open the phone. When inside an app, a similar gesture starts multitasking. From here, users can continue to flick upwards to close the app and go back to the home screen. An animation in testing sucks the app back into its icon. The multitasking interface has been redesigned to appear like a series of standalone cards that can be swiped through, versus the stack of cards on current iPhones, the images show. 

I really don’t like that the Home button is becoming a software feature instead of remaining a hardware control. I’m sure that Apple’s famously tight integration between hardware and software will create a reliable user experience in general, but software controls can become unresponsive and unreliable in case something goes wrong software-wise (maybe due to a misbehaving third-party app). 

This leaving behind the Home button as a physical, mechanical control also strikes me as a step back with regard to accessibility. When I first handled the iPhone 7 in an Apple Store, I was pretty underwhelmed by the new force-touch Home button, no matter the intensity setting. It felt weak and weird. If the new deluxe iPhone even lacks a hardware area to use as a button and goes all-in with the software, I’d really like to know what people with sight disabilities think of this new direction.

Of course, a phone without a physical Home button is nothing new. My favourite implementation has to be Palm’s: the ‘Gesture area’ on the Palm Pre phone family was well designed (see this bit from CES 2009, where Matías Duarte is demoing the Pre’s UI and gestures) and maintains a great reliability and responsiveness. In a few instances where my Palm Pre 2 had a software hiccup, I was still able to go back and quit the app that was acting up, and retain control of the smartphone. I think that an iPhone with a similar gesture area (Apple could have called it Touch Area) would have been more interesting and user friendly; but hey, apparently ‘big, bezel-less display’ is the priority now.

I’m also curious to know the reasoning behind introducing a new user interaction model on the new deluxe iPhone, while presumably keeping the old one on the other ‘regular’ iPhones that will be introduced along with it in a few days. We’ll have:

  • The new deluxe iPhone with these new software gestures (and probably the new facial recognition feature instead of Touch ID).
  • The iPhone 7, 7s, 7 Plus, and 7s Plus with the force-touch Home button and Touch ID.
  • The iPhone SE with a physical Home button, Touch ID, but without 3D Touch.

I guess it’s going to be an interesting transition period.

→ Dropbox will drop support for older operating systems

September 1, 2017
by Riccardo Mori
Handpicked

Michael E. Cohen, at TidBITS:

Dropbox has begun notifying users of its service to inform them that as of 16 January 2018 it will automatically sign out any computers running certain older operating systems. The Mac systems include those running OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard through 10.8 Mountain Lion; Windows Vista systems will also lose desktop support on that date. Not that it matters much, but you won’t be able to download or install the Dropbox desktop app on those systems after 3 November 2017.

Although the vast majority of Mac users have updated their Macs to more-recent versions of OS X and macOS, some continue to run older versions. Many tend to be folk who, like me, have kept a Snow Leopard system operating in order to run PowerPC-based applications; Snow Leopard was the last Mac OS that supported Rosetta, the PowerPC emulator that enabled Intel-based Macs to run such apps.

Then there are folks who, while having a more up-to-date desktop Mac, perhaps keep using an older laptop that’s still working great and can take the occasional rough handling when out and about. Or vice-versa, their older desktop Mac is still useful, but their preferred machine to keep updated is the laptop. These people may need Dropbox to keep in sync two or more Macs of very different vintages. Then there are people like me, who still put even older Macs to good use, and would like to keep relying on services like Dropbox for basic syncing and file exchange. As time passes, however, Dropbox doesn’t seem to be a suitable solution for such needs.

If you’re among these people, my suggestion is to switch to Box. Maybe their pricing plans are nothing to write home about, but for me Box’s killer feature is its WebDAV support. As I’ve reported on my System Folder blog, this means you can connect to your Box storage ‘drive’ even with very old versions of Mac OS X (WebDAV’s support is built into Mac OS X since version 10.0); if you use a WebDAV client like Goliath, you can connect to Box even under Mac OS 9 and earlier (down to Mac OS 8.1!). Read my afore-linked System Folder article for more information.

Subscriptions for apps — the uneasy deal

August 25, 2017
by Riccardo Mori
Software

Ever since the idea of a subscription model for apps started circulating, it has always felt wrong to me. Perhaps ‘wrong’ is too strong a term. How can I say this in other words? I’ve always felt a kind of mismatch, as if ‘subscription model’ is the square peg, and ‘app’ is the round hole. In my life, the things I have usually subscribed to are services and magazines. Services include, obviously, essential utilities (electricity, gas, water) and de facto utilities like Internet connection and mobile phone service. But more specific to the matter at hand, by services I mean things like Spotify, or subscribing to a bookmarking service like Pinboard, etc. And by magazines, I generally mean print magazines, though the example could also be extended to digital publications.

With services and magazines, the subscription option has always made sense to me. Music or video streaming services generally offer quite the advantageous deal for a customer: for reasonable prices, they provide an ample choice of content to be consumed (apologies for the use of these trite terms). For print magazines that can typically be purchased at a newsstand, a subscription can be a handy option not because it’s particularly cheaper, but because it gives customers the convenience of not missing any issues of the publication they love. They don’t need to remember to rush to the newsstand to get next week’s or next month’s issue, nor they have to hunt for an issue when a newsstand has sold them all. (In the 1980s, my parents subscribed me to a couple of obscure computer magazines I loved because tracking down their issues had become a nightmare).

Maybe I’m being old-school here, but I always considered software applications to be products you buy and that’s it. Apart from an initial period when I was young and foolish and obtained pirated versions of apps and games I was interested in (or kept using shareware ignoring its reminders to pay for it), I then quickly understood the value of software, and started paying for it, happily, because no matter how immaterial software is, it is a product, it is a tool, and you pay for it just like you pay for the bread you eat, the books you want to read, the utensils you need in your home, and so on. Since my early conversion, since I understood the rightness of it, I’ve always paid for software, whether it was the $19.95 shareware utility or the almost $900 of QuarkXPress 3 back in the early 1990s (I needed it for work, and poured all my savings into it at the time). Back then, software (especially Mac software) was generally more expensive, paid updates were rather normal and not cause for minor online uproars like today, and, if I remember well, it was rare for a single developer to be able to support themselves with their shareware. There were big software companies, and small software companies. A lot of applications coming from single developers were the fruit of their spare time; they charged what they thought was fair; most of the time it was really fair; and I guess that, with what they earned, they were able to keep cultivating their tech-related hobby.

Like every other product I’ve ever purchased, I’ve always enjoyed the ‘no strings attached’ aspect of the transaction. I pay for the product, I use the product, and if I’m satisfied with it I’ll choose that manufacturer / producer / author / artist / developer again, recommend them to other people, and that’s that. Restricting the context to software: is there a new, paid version of an application I love and enjoy? I’ll pay for it, gladly. Does said application evolve in ways I don’t particularly like? I’ll keep using the old version until I can, and then maybe one day I’ll try a similar application from another developer if it seems to be focused on the same features I’m after. No strings attached.

It’s the same with every other product you can think of. I get my coffee at that place over there because I enjoy how they brew it, or the exotic selection of coffees they offer. I have a favourite bakery. I have favourite shops I go to, to buy the stuff I like. If one day my favourite bakery changed its business model and offered only a subscription service where I pay a monthly fee and every Monday I receive enough bread to last the week, that would feel awkward. (I know, there’s always someone who would consider this arrangement very convenient, but bear with me here.) If, on top of that, the baker told me that by subscribing, I’d help him support his business and his family and he would have the time to develop new and exciting recipes to make bread and pastries, I would probably return a polite smile and leave the shop, thinking that — while there’s nothing inherently wrong in the proposition — it does sound really awkward. I would also have the feeling the baker is having issues running his business and wants me to participate in solving them.

This is an approximate picture of how the subscription model applied to apps makes me feel in general.

Subscriptions demand a mutual dependence: obviously developers present such dependence as a mutually beneficial pact. But the fact is, there is now a dependence where before there was none. And that makes me uncomfortable, because there is now a new, uncomfortable atmosphere: I’m not simply buying your product, I become regularly involved in your support. I become part of your plan to make a living through the development of a software application. And I agree with iA when — in their musings about the next version of iA Writer — they write [emphasis mine]:

The elephant in the room is: Who will pay for this? Will there be a paid upgrade? Do we ask for subscriptions? Talking to other devs you can get tough guy advice like:

“People always complain, they don’t understand technology, you need to live, you have tons of fans, you lose some, win others, who cares?”

Trust is earned in drops and lost in buckets. Yes, we need to live. But that’s our problem. Explaining that dev costs and comparing software to coffee, sandwiches or cars is not convincing. The only ones that will feel you are friends, family and other indie devs. Friends don’t count money. Customers do. To own, we pay more. To rent, we pay less. Strangers don’t genuinely care about our wellbeing — they compare prices and pick the best value. Subscriptions are tough. They are not bad or impossible, but they need to meet real life expectations:

a) Renting is less expensive than buying

b) Expensive products hold longer than cheap products

c) Buying vs renting should be a fair choice

 

I become involved in someone else’s business problem, hopefully as the continued solution to such problem. And, in a sense, I’m not even a customer anymore, I become a subscriber, a patron. I’m not sure I want this kind of involvement. This may sound cynical and all, but it also has to do with something I already mentioned — the unsustainability of the subscription model for apps if applied on a large scale:

And my early guess is that — if abused — [subscription is] going to be an option that has the potential of driving customers away. Not necessarily cheapskates or people who don’t understand the costs of app development, but also people who (like me) usually pay for apps but are on a budget and can’t afford supporting every app they like. And people who simply can’t justify a recurring subscription for apps they love to use, but don’t use frequently enough.

I believe the right way to approach customers with a subscription model for apps is to offer such subscription as an option, not as the sole way to sell rent your product. People should be given the choice to be just customers, no strings attached; or supporters (subscribers) if they really love the product, if they’re fans of the developers, and want to be more actively involved in solving the sustainability problem of someone else’s business.

That third iPhone

July 11, 2017
by Riccardo Mori
Tech Life

Thanks to the Apple rumour industry, by now it seems rather obvious that Apple will introduce three iPhones in September, two being the usual ‘speed bump’ versions of the current iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. The third iPhone — which many refer to as the ‘iPhone 8’ — is the one sporting a significant redesign, with a bezel-less display taking up most of the front of the device, and apparently a new authentication technology based on facial recognition replacing Touch ID.

The possible positioning and pricing of this all-new iPhone has been the subject of recent speculation, and John Gruber has made a compelling argument in favour of the concept of a high-end iPhone ‘Pro’, with a ‘Pro’ price tier. Where his piece got me thinking was here:

Let’s take a serious look at this. $1,500 as a starting price is probably way too high. But I think $1,200 is quite likely as the starting price, with the high-end model at $1,300 or $1,400.

and here:

Furthermore, why shouldn’t there be a deluxe “Pro” tier for phones? For many people, phones are every bit as much an essential professional tool as their laptops. For some people, even more so. And I’d bet my bottom dollar there are more people who consider their iPhone a “pro” tool (and be willing to pay “pro” prices) than who think so regarding their iPad, and we’ll have had iPad Pros for two years by the time new iPhones are announced in September. If there are iPad Pros and MacBook Pros, why not iPhone Pros?

Well, the idea of an iPhone Pro sounds a bit ludicrous to me. As I tweeted the other day, in the common-sense world I live in, current iPhones already are Pro devices with Pro prices. The iPad line is a bit different: Pro iPads have certain hardware characteristics that set them apart from regular iPads. (Although I can’t but point out how the iPad Pro line looks more ‘pro’ now mostly because the 5th-generation iPad is a dumbed-down device; the lines were more blurred when Apple was selling the 9.7″ iPad Pro and the iPad Air 2).

To be called ‘Pro’, the new bezel-less iPhone has to feature something much more compelling and groundbreaking than simply having a big display on the front and some kind of facial recognition technology. These aren’t features specifically aimed at pros. There has to be something else and something more to justify a ‘pro’ price tag of $1,300–1,400. “Apple Pencil support,” you say? That may work with the iPad, but an iPhone screen doesn’t have the ideal size to be considered an artist’s canvas, wouldn’t you agree? 

On the other hand, maybe it would be a little less ludicrous if Apple introduced such an iPhone as some sort of ‘Edition’ or ‘Deluxe’ variant[1]. Again, it would still need some sort of stand-out, defining feature to be considered a limited edition product. In the case of the Apple Watch Edition, we had an otherwise regular Watch but with a gold chassis. Perhaps Apple has something up its sleeve when it comes to the materials employed in manufacturing this new ‘iPhone Deluxe’, or some other cutting-edge technology that can’t yet be implemented on a large scale, making such iPhone a bit exclusive.

But whether it’s going to be a ‘Pro’ or ‘Deluxe’ iPhone, the problem is: what’s going to happen a year from now? 

If a new iPhone Pro line is introduced, is Apple going to operate in a similar way as with the iPad line? i.e. Keeping the ‘regular’ iPhones interesting enough but a bit dumbed down, so that the iPhone Pro can shine in all its Pro glory, which I assume it’s made of unique pro hardware capabilities and even specialised software features?

If it’s going to be an Edition/Deluxe iPhone, will Apple keep producing it as the high-end model with its own update cycle à la iPhone SE? Will it be a one-time product like the gold Apple Watch? And if this is the case, what is this iPhone Edition going to have that makes it so special?

But most importantly, how will this new iPhone impact the design progression of the whole iPhone line? In September 2018, will we see regular iPhones updated to the same bezel-less design and hardware characteristics, or is Apple going to maintain the design (and feature) differences, keeping the bezel and ‘soft’ Home button on regular iPhones, while pushing the design envelope with the Pro/Edition model? If Apple unifies the design, it’s interesting to see what will make high-end the high-end model. If Apple keeps the two designs, it’s interesting to see how long it can keep things sustainable design-wise. It feels quite challenging however you look at it, if you ask me.

On a closing note, I find the splitting of the iPad line in ‘regular iPads’ and ‘pro iPads’ to be rather unnecessary and a bit contrived. Before such split, customers would buy the latest iPad, certain that they were also buying the greatest. Now there’s this artificial and arbitrary division between the cutting-edge iPads and the dumbed-down budget versions. Sure, this gives people more choice, and access to decent iPads for those who can’t afford the more expensive, feature-rich ones. But again, how is this design/feature separation going to play out in the next iterations? Will the sixth-generation iPad get a bit of what the current iPad Pros offer now, while Apple continues to concentrate innovation on the Pro line? It’s an interesting design problem Apple created by themselves. I’m sure they know how to address it. At the same time, it’s something that could have been avoided by keeping the iPad product family more streamlined.

If indeed there is going to be a split of the iPhone line in ‘regular iPhones’ and an iPhone Pro, I have to say it’s a separation I find even more artificial than the iPad’s — the current iPhones are already advanced devices with Pro-level hardware (and Pro-level prices). The introduction of an iPhone Pro means Apple is ready to introduce a device that is two generations ahead of the current iPhone 7 and 7 Plus. The introduction of an iPhone Pro means having to deal with the same challenges related to maintaining two different sets of features (one for the regular iPhone, one for the iPhone Pro) across future iterations. I’m very curious to see what Apple’s approach will be. 

 

  • 1. A little less ludicrous because if this new iPhone has nothing inherently, truly ‘Pro’ to offer, at least calling it ‘Edition’ or something along these lines would be more honest than offering a redesigned iPhone that Apple arbitrarily labels Pro to justify the price tag. I hope I’m making sense. ↩︎