upvote
I severely doubt your thesis around iPhones being Veblen goods.

You are claiming that if the price of the iPhone went down, apple would sell fewer phones?

Correspondingly, you are arguing that if they increased prices they could increase sales?

You are claiming that 100s of millions of people have all made the decision that the price of an iPhone is more than it is worth to them as a device, but is made up for by being seen with one in your hand?

Not all goods that signify status are Veblen goods.

reply
>Correspondingly, you are arguing that if they increased prices they could increase sales?

Veblen goods aren't like this. If they were, everything would be priced at infinity. Veblen goods have to take into account the amount of spending money their target customers have, and how much they're willing to spend. Apple products are priced this way. They're not targeted just at people who can afford Rolls-Royce Silver Shadows, they're targeted at regular people who are willing to spend too much money on a phone when they can get an equivalent Android phone for half the price. Those people have limited money, but they're willing to overpay, but only so much.

>You are claiming that if the price of the iPhone went down, apple would sell fewer phones?

Quite likely, yes. If they adopted razor-thin profit margins on iPhones, their phones would be seen as "cheap" and wouldn't have the cachet they have now. More people would start looking at alternatives, and start buying Samsung Galaxies and other flagship Android phones.

reply
> Veblen goods aren't like this.

Increasing demand with increasing prices is the very definition of a Veblen good. I never said anything like pricing them at infinity (an exceptionally stupid way of saying that something is not for sale).

I simply pointed out that there isn’t really any reason to believe that a mass produced easily available phone that holds a massive percentage of the entire global cell phone market would see increased demand from increased prices. It is an extraordinary claim with nothing resembling evidence. The most damning evidence is that the most expensive iPhone, the Pro Max, is outsold 2:1 by the base model for the last three generations, despite being visually distinguishable. (The 17 saw initial sales of Pro Maxes higher than base, but that appears to have corrected. Easily understandable that early adopters are more willing to pay for the best version of new tech)

There is an argument to be made that the Pro Max flirts with Veblen for small parts of the market, or that certain submarkets in poorer countries treat the iPhone that way, but that all looks more like conspicuous consumption. I still don’t believe that Pro Max sales increase if the price increases. A few individuals or submarket will not have the ability to invert a demand curve for an Apple device.

Again, I think that you are confusing conspicuous consumption with a Veblen good. This sentence is the giveaway:

> Those people have limited money, but they're willing to overpay, but only so much.

What you are describing is a normal demand curve. As price rises fewer people are willing to pay. People being unable to pay for something they still want does not make something a Veblen good (that would make insulin a Veblen good). You are describing a steep demand curve, not a reversed one.

Just because you perceive that an equivalent android can be purchased for half the price does not mean that everyone uses your criteria. I tried switching to a lower priced android made by google. In no way was it equivalent for my purposes. and I still wouldn’t want it. I am happy to pay the price, not because I care about being seen with an iPhone, but because it is the tool that I have determined to best suit my purposes. Many people refuse to believe this, but many people like the Apple ecosystem.

reply
This is a conclusion that comes with some personal baggage you should identify and consider addressing.
reply
I mean, I think it's cultural. In US it seems like everyone has an iphone, it's almost kinda quirky not to have one. But in some other places, an iPhone is more than your monthly salary - having one is definitely a symbol of status. Less so than it used to be, but it still has that.
reply
iPhones in the US have an estimate ~55% market share depending on source. Owning an Android wasn't unusual in the least when I lived there, and appears to be pretty popular.

I don't think its unusual that a country with high median income and higher average income will tend to gravitate towards more expensive phones. Given that Apple doesn't make a cheap phone, it kind of follows that wealthier countries will buy more iPhones.

Of course the opposite is true as well, In a country where an iPhone is measured in months of salary, they won't sell well, but I'd be willing to bet that Androids in that price tier sell like shit in those countries too.

Is it a status symbol? arguably. But it also correlates pretty strongly with median income.

reply
Fair, but that’s a comment on a US-centric website, run by a US-centric company, in a US-centric industry, on a US-centric medium. So if they didn’t mean US, I think the onus is on them to clarify exactly where this applies.
reply
Admittedly, I hate companies that live off their marketing. Nintendo, Disney, Apple. I hate that these companies can weaponize psychology against humans.

Function > Form.

I think its a Hero Complex, if Jung is correct.

reply
Yes because 60% of US phone buyers buy an iPhone to stand out from the average US phone buyer and they shouldn’t because it doesn’t run local llm’s well?
reply
That's the least of the problems with using an iPhone.
reply
So exactly what problems do most people have with iPhones that could be solved with Android.
reply
Macbooks and iPhones are good devices though, saying this as a primarily linux user.

There is no way a company could exist purely on marketing, Apple backs it up with tech.

reply
Some companies definitely do just exist on marketing. Some clothing brands are objectively overpriced crap and pure wealth signalling. Or something like a juicero.

But I agree Apple doesn't even though they've gone into a direction I couldn't follow them in.

reply
Not really. They back it up with "good enough tech" that looks pretty and sucks people in with marketing, and then locks them into a closed ecosystem. Admittedly, some of their tech is actually very good (e.g. M-series ARM-based CPUs), but much of it is nothing special, or worse, just copying something else that competitors have been doing for years, presenting it as brand-new, and claiming credit for it.

They did this with the always-on screens for phones. My LGs had this many, many years ago. It was so bad that when Apple finally brought it out and acted like they had invented it, coworkers saw my LG and asked if I had gotten the latest iPhone, and I had to point out that it was a 5-year-old LG.

And then there's other stuff that Apple has which is just plain bad, but they present as new and wonderful, such as the "island" keyboard.

reply
deleted
reply
I'd almost say most companies live or die off their marketing. One could argue that understanding your customer as well as or better than they understand themselves is a strength.

To wit, some people do value form over function. Some people do prefer a safe, curated walled garden.

I am not among them--I say this as someone who cannot stand using most Apple products for more than a minute. But I respect what they offer(ed) and for some people even recommended them. (Now I'm less sure because it seems like everything tech has gone to shit, but I can't tell if that's just "old man yells at cloud" or what)

Ideally there would be enough competition for us all to find what we're looking for. I think anticompetitive behavior is a worse sin

reply
All three of these companies are supremely dedicated to the customer experience. It’s a weird thing to be annoyed at. Ninty is the only company really experimenting with gaming hardware. Disney parks are a thesis on hiding the “behind the scenes” stuff perfectly. Apple does its best to make things just kinda work well, and if you’re in their ecosystem fully, it usually does work out.

Not everyone cares for the most capable device on the planet. Sometimes people just want a pretty familiar and easy experience. I haven’t used my phone for anything more than browsing the web and texting in ages. I absolutely don’t care about whatever function you think I’m missing due to Apple, honestly.

As a side note, the fathers of Psychology were absolutely terrible scientists. The entire field almost failed because they took it so far into pseudo-science land. Of course Jung isn’t correct.

reply
Can you prove that is still the case with the iPhone SE by showing a comparable hardware with similar long support on software updates and lower price?
reply
> Its a demonstration of wealth. This is called Veblen good

Just the other day I was reminded of the poor little "I am rich" iOS app (a thousand dollar ruby icon that performed diddly squat by design), which Apple deep-sixed from the app store PDQ.

If misery loves company, Veblen goods sure don't.

reply