• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The maxxed out iPhone 13 Pro Max is $1600.

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
manly said:
128GB NAND costs at most $20, so it has little to do with keeping the price down. It has all to do with profit margins of course. This is the ancient Apple strategy of keeping the base model just a little lacking so that consumers will pay more for a spec bump. It's part of why their gross margins have been healthy for such a long time.

CNN Biz actually praised the pricing of the iPhone 13 line-up. :tearsofjoy:

www.cnn.com

Apple's iPhone 13 secret weapon is, surprisingly, its price | CNN Business

Apple's new iPhone 13 and 13 Pro lineup features all of the predictable upgrades: faster performance, longer lasting battery life, better screen and new colors.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com
Click to expand...

The issue isn't the price of 128GB, though it's the price of 256GB. I'm sure Apple is hoping for upsells, but other vendors have definitely used 128GB to cut costs. See the Galaxy Z Flip 3 as an example. Samsung gave the original Flip a standard 256GB of storage, but dropped that to 128GB to help bring the Flip 3's price down to $999.

It's unlikely we'll get a definitive answer on this. Many of those bill of materials estimates are inaccurate and seldom reflect the price fluctuations and deals that often dictate costs.
 
Commodus said:
Keep in mind that Apple is partly pitching the iPhone 13 Pro line at filmmakers, not just well-off consumers. The 1TB models exist in part so creators can record more than a few minutes of ProRes footage. The $1,600 creators spend on a loaded phone could be worthwhile if it saves them from buying a far more expensive pro camera they don't really need.

My bigger beef is that Apple didn't bump capacity upgrades down the line. I would have liked to have seen the iPhone 13 Pro start at 256GB. Of course, 128GB is probably what helps Apple keep the price down, but when the company has to limit certain features for 128GB phone owners (ProRes is capped at 1080p)... that suggests capacities need to improve across the board.
Click to expand...

I assumed that the market for the pro line was for content creators where their iPhone is basically their primary recording device and for many it's just another business expense.
Then of course you have the people who buy these things every year just so the can to tell their friends that they bought the most expensive iPhone and then proceed to only use Whatapp, Instagram and Facebook.
 
repoman0 said:
You guys know that a perfectly usable regular iPhone 13 is like half this price, and even the Pro starts at $1000 right? And that the pricing quoted in the OP is for a new 1TB storage tier that the majority of people have no use for?

re: tools vs toys … at work we are seriously considering using two iphones as a stereo camera pair for high quality vehicle odometry for an underwater hull inspecting robot because it’s so much better and waaay cheaper than other purpose built options. Sounds like a tool to me.
Click to expand...
How many people do you think are buying iphones to use as cameras in their underwater hull inspection robots?
 
Greenman said:
How many people do you think are buying iphones to use as cameras in their underwater hull inspection robots?
Click to expand...

Not really the point. It’s a fully featured tiny computer millions of times faster than the ones that initially took us to the moon. On top of that it’s waterproof, extremely strong and durable, and the newer ones have batteries that will last days. Oh and it has semi-pro levels of photo and video capability. The majority of people could use one as their only computer. This goes for any modern high end smartphone. The point was that calling such a device a toy is just a little silly since it is highly capable of professional level uses, including some that most people wouldn’t even imagine.
 
repoman0 said:
Not really the point. It’s a fully featured tiny computer millions of times faster than the ones that initially took us to the moon. On top of that it’s waterproof, extremely strong and durable, and the newer ones have batteries that will last days. Oh and it has semi-pro levels of photo and video capability. The majority of people could use one as their only computer. This goes for any modern high end smartphone. The point was that calling such a device a toy is just a little silly since it is highly capable of professional level uses, including some that most people wouldn’t even imagine.
Click to expand...
I get that, phones can do some amazing things that the vast majority of users don't need to do.
My issue with every smart phone is how close they come to being a working tool. The primary failure is range, they have very little of it. The second issue is screen size, it's simply to small to be of real value. The third issue is the microscopic keyboard.
I use a smart phone every day in my work, and every day in my work, I'm frustrated by their limitations. The simple reality is that there is no practical difference between the cheapest and the most expensive phone for my use.
I would gladly pay a thousand bucks extra for a phone with double the range, but I assume that limitation is imposed by the FCC and not the manufacturer.
 
Greenman said:
I get that, phones can do some amazing things that the vast majority of users don't need to do.
My issue with every smart phone is how close they come to being a working tool. The primary failure is range, they have very little of it. The second issue is screen size, it's simply to small to be of real value. The third issue is the microscopic keyboard.
I use a smart phone every day in my work, and every day in my work, I'm frustrated by their limitations. The simple reality is that there is no practical difference between the cheapest and the most expensive phone for my use.
I would gladly pay a thousand bucks extra for a phone with double the range, but I assume that limitation is imposed by the FCC and not the manufacturer.
Click to expand...

By range do you mean cell service or wifi? Not sure you’d see much of a difference between a full sized laptop and phone for the latter, at some point it’s physics and the power that either endpoint is allowed to transmit. If you mean cell service, that’s more on your carrier.

re: your second two points — on the Apple side at least the cheapest is a mini and most expensive is a max. So that thousand extra bucks does indeed get you 20% more screen and keyboard 😉
 
repoman0 said:
By range do you mean cell service or wifi? Not sure you’d see much of a difference between a full sized laptop and phone for the latter, at some point it’s physics and the power that either endpoint is allowed to transmit. If you mean cell service, that’s more on your carrier.

re: your second two points — on the Apple side at least the cheapest is a mini and most expensive is a max. So that thousand extra bucks does indeed get you 20% more screen and keyboard 😉
Click to expand...
I mean transmit range. I assume that's determined by the FCC.
Most of the places I work cell service is very spotty, and this is in the bay area, not out in the sticks.
 
Greenman said:
I mean transmit range. I assume that's determined by the FCC.
Most of the places I work cell service is very spotty, and this is in the bay area, not out in the sticks.
Click to expand...

FCC, physics, battery life requirements and your carrier. It’s mostly on the carrier to have enough towers to provide consistent coverage given the first three requirements. My buddy in the Bay Area says Verizon is garbage there and apparently ATT is the best in that area. Sucks if you already have them!
 
I spent less money on my gaming computer.
And I use my gaming computer EVERY FUCKIN DAY!

Do people honestly think they will get 1,300 dollars of utility from their phone before they replace it in 10 months?
Or are Americans just fuckin stupid??
 
My phone's going into it's fourth year, and I'm still using it. It was a cheapy(Galaxy J7 Perx) when I got it, but it still works fine(ish). I notice the slowness now, especially since I bought a Moto E for $60 to use as my internet phone, and it's better than the Galaxy even though it's a bottom end phone. I could get value out of a $1.6k phone. I'd estimate it would be less than $1/day over it's full lifespan.
 
Greenman said:
I mean transmit range. I assume that's determined by the FCC.
Most of the places I work cell service is very spotty, and this is in the bay area, not out in the sticks.
Click to expand...
Technically, RF travels forever until its blocked by something and it turns into line current or heat.

Whats more important is the sensitivity of the receiver, thats what actually determines the effective range of any radio.
 
Lost_in_the_HTTP said:
But for how long? Months? Years? And are they user replaceable?
Click to expand...

Years. My current one is three years old now and is noticeably degrading. Phone claims health is 84% which seems about right against the capacity loss. My buddy has an X one year older than this that’s still over 90% so YMMV. Not technically user replaceable although I have done it on older phones and it’s not too bad. I’d rather pay Apple to do it … it’s pretty reasonable IIRC.

The new “pro max” will have like twice the life this thing had when new if it degrades to 84% in three years
 
Limiting charge helps a lot in battery life, and slow's better than fast. With root you can limit charge the easy way, but my phone's aren't rooted, so I have a program that sets an alarm when set charge level is reached(I use 80%). Another way to make them less toy-like is to give the user the tools to handle charging. I'd like to see charging stop when the predefined level is reached, and I'd like to see the charging rate able to be adjusted. Set it to trickle charge overnight, and your phone is at the capacity you desired when you wake up, and the battery wasn't stressed.
 
lxskllr said:
Limiting charge helps a lot in battery life, and slow's better than fast. With root you can limit charge the easy way, but my phone's aren't rooted, so I have a program that sets an alarm when set charge level is reached(I use 80%). Another way to make them less toy-like is to give the user the tools to handle charging. I'd like to see charging stop when the predefined level is reached, and I'd like to see the charging rate able to be adjusted. Set it to trickle charge overnight, and your phone is at the capacity you desired when you wake up, and the battery wasn't stressed.
Click to expand...

iphones do that automatically. No reason for the user to have to worry about that when an algorithm can handle that job.
 
lxskllr said:
Do they? Can you set it stop charging before 100%? If so, that's cool.
Click to expand...

hmm they don’t have that option looks like but they do limit charge rate based on what it thinks your habits are. Mine definitely charges much slower overnight from the little graph it gives me. Basically takes all night and really takes its time getting the last 10%. Normally it will charge fully in an hour or two.
 
I was just thinking that myself actually, I have a new phone and it would be nice if I could set the charge rate and where to stop. I notice it has a fast charge mode as sometimes it says it's fast charging, I would prefer if I could just turn that off.

Do EVs give more control when it comes to this? For something that costs 40+ grand I would hope so as I want every level of control possible to preserve the battery.
 
repoman0 said:
hmm they don’t have that option looks like but they do limit charge rate based on what it thinks your habits are. Mine definitely charges much slower overnight from the little graph it gives me. Basically takes all night and really takes its time getting the last 10%. Normally it will charge fully in an hour or two.
Click to expand...

Google has a feature like that too.
 
shortylickens said:
when your phone says "100%" its not actually at 100 percent.

And thats been true for ALL phones for many many years.
Click to expand...
Still too close. 50% is ideal, but not as practical, so I compromise with 80%. My battery's still great after 3+ years. Aside from a handful or two of fuckups when I let it go to 100%(or whatever the phone states is 100%), it's been shortstroked the whole time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top