Skip to main content

iPhone Subscription Was Apple's Big Win


There might have been a whole heap of announcements in Tim Cook's keynote speech earlier, but the biggest and most important seems to be getting little discussion.

Apple launched a monthly payment service that lets you get a new iPhone every year.

Why is this so important? It's because the iPhone accounts for two-thirds of Apple's top and bottom lines. Which makes anything that means more iPhone sales a very big deal indeed.

The iPhone subscription doesn't just mean more iPhone sales, it potentially means twice as many iPhone sales. Current iPhone upgrade cycles are driven by carrier contracts and subsidies and run two years. Now Apple is able to cut carriers and their contracts out of the deal and reap the benefits directly via an annual upgrade cycle.

Currently customers don't see the true price of the iPhone they buy because it's hidden in their monthly carrier payment. In future customers won't see the true price of the iPhone they buy because it will be hidden in their iPhone subscription.

For Apple the opportunity to push iPhone sales skywards (in the US anyway) is a huge win. Especially as it appears that the net value of your returned iPhone is low and could itself lead to a profitable refurbishment business for Apple.

The entry-level 16GB iPhone 6S will cost $32.45 a month on the plan, with the phone being replaced annually. Those looking for an easy life and no big upfront payment will be on to a winner here.

However if you can run to the $649 outright purchase price then selling your iPhone at one year old is sure to get you more than the $260 which would be required to match the lifetime cost of Apple's deal.

For Apple and its diehard fans that's unlikely to be a problem. For its executives and shareholders it looks like another license to print money.

Which is pretty much what Apple is all about.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

F1: Robert Kubica Impresses In Renault Test Run

The car may be old but its the performance of the driver that's the story here. Robert Kubica returned to F1, after a fashion, earlier this week with an extensive test run in a 2012 Lotus Renault F1 car at Valencia.
The age of the car and the circuit were likely determined by F1's current rules which ban testing, but the reason for Kubica being in the car is far more interesting. Considered by many to be a potential World Champion and certainly one of the fastest drivers of his generation, Kubica's F1 career seemed to be over after a 2011 crash whilst driving in the Rally of Andora. His Skoda Fabia was penetrated by a guardrail in the high speed accident partially severing his right arm.
Up until last year Kubica has been competing in rallying, with the expectation that the limited movement in his repaired arm would prohibit a return to single seater racing.
So this week's test is both interesting and confusing. Interesting because Kubica completed 115 laps of the ret…

F1: Robert Kubica's Williams Test Asks More Questions Than It Answers

Comparing driver's times at a tyre evaluation test like last week's Abu Dhabi event is difficult at the best of times, but when trying to assess the performance of a driver who has been out of the sport for six years, that difficulty level is raised even higher.
On the face of it Robert Kubica's test for Williams was a success. Fastest of the three Williams drivers present the headlines look promising. However, taking into consideration the different tyres used to set those times muddies the water considerably.
Kubica ran a three lap qualifying simulation on the new 'hyper-soft' tyre - which should have given him a two-second advantage. Correcting for tyres it would appear that Kubica was significantly slower than Sergei Sorotkin - who was on the harder 'soft' tyre - and marginally quicker than Lance Stroll, the team's only contracted driver.

Stroll's family fortune currently funds Williams, so there' no chance that he will be anywhere but in a…

Panos Panay's Defence Of Microsoft Surface Hardware Sounds Eerily Familiar

This weekend I went out with my ten year old daughter to select a laptop for her school year beginning in January. The schools requirements are quite specific, requiring a Windows 10 device, with a preference for a touchscreen and a stylus. She chose a Surface Pro, after trying a large number of different options. Having seen the way I use my own Surface Pro - and tried it herself there was only ever going to be two options - and the other was a Surface Laptop.
I tell you this so that you understand I am a buyer of Microsoft's products through choice, not compulsion. I'm on my third Surface device now. 
So when Panos Panay dismissed reports of the death of the Surface hardware line, I was very interested to see exactly how strong these denials were. Especially how they reflect what has gone before. To whit: Windows 10 Mobile.
Panay claimed that Microsoft is in hardware for the long haul. Almost exactly mirroring the words of Terry Myerson, when he claimed Windows Mobile was g…