People who criticize Apple for forcing their users to spend tons of money on new phones every year (via forced obsolescence) should be cheering this decision.
The techno-libertarian wing of HN will be incensed about this decision, but this move by Apple is clearly within their thoughts about reducing their environmental impact through reusing more of their iphones. When a user wants to upgrade, they can just return their phone to apple without the friction of having to resell it.
Because that group values personal ownership of technology, and their aversion to the "you will own nothing and be happy" philosophy as antithetical to their own.
Ah ok. I at least sympathize with this group, if not outright support it, but didn't see an issue with Apple offering this as a service. If they stop selling stand-alone devices I think that might be a red flag though.
I don’t get this argument iPhones are the phones with the highest longevity 4-5 years software upgrades. Repair shops have displays and batteries on hand and the labor is cheaper than for most android phones. Even years into the product cycle you get new accessories and parts. I used my SE for 5 years with two battery changes for 50 per pop and my wife used her 7 for 4 with one battery and display change. Even after the 3-4 years of use you can get good money for your phone from resellers which refurbish the phones and sell them again. This is not happening in the android space at all. It’s FOMO from users and nothing else. Calling it forced obsolescence is hybris.
I see the logic of this argument. This would presumably increase the raw number of previously used devices in circulation. It would allow Apple to capture more of the resale market while also growing it as a whole. Right?
When are we ever going to learn that our activities are needlessly destroying the planet? Make a phone. Sell it. Make it repairable and upgradeable. Let people keep it for a long time. The only drawback is the company won't get all the money that exists, just most of it.
But what good is all the money when we, the animals, the insects, and the planet in general, are dead?
The only reason you want a new phone at this point is to reinforce your feeling of superiority over the other monkeys. Neither that, nor the money, is worth what we have to pay for it.
Where do you draw the line though? You obviously are impacting the planet by being in this thread. Not trying to call you out, I agree with you in a deeper sense, but I’m also conflicted because the peak effectiveness of this idea would be to stop everything you’re doing, not ever buying anything, and if you can, stop existing and transforming energy into heat.
That’s if we want to leave the planet for animals and insects to enjoy it… or are we the dominant ones that should enjoy it?
> Make a phone. Sell it. Make it repairable and upgradeable. Let people keep it for a long time.
True. I remember going to the "electronics shop" in my neighbourhood to have the family VCR and CD player repaired. My family has a Sony CRT TV that lasted from 1998-2018, needing only occasional repairs, doable with parts available at the local shop.
Toyota and Honda 'dumb' cars are still this way; repairable at any body shop, with parts that don't cost an arm and a leg. I'm never going to purchase a Tesla or some other car (BMW/Mercedes/others) that give you little choice about where to go for service.
The article doesn't provide any details, but a "subscription" would imply that you lease the device monthly from Apple, which owns it.
iPhone Upgrade Program involves you buying a phone outright, financed via a loan from Citizens Bank. The loan is written so that you have certain rights to turn in the phone, buy a new one, and that clears out the remaining original loan balance regardless of the phone's value.
Ok, so the major difference from the current setup is that instead of you owning the phone, Apple will retain ownership. That is a pretty big difference. Especially if they start offering iPads that way too.
I see it the same way. And if it’s cheaper I would be completely ok with it. I don’t necessarily upgrade every year but I’m still paying monthly. However with the modest feature upgrade year after year it’s becoming harder to justify.
Is this what Apple’s customers really want? Im not sure. Personally, I like to own things outright.
Americas economy is in a rat race where large corporations must demonstrate year over year growth. This is incentivizing this dark pattern behavior, where ultimately, the consumer will lose.
Most smartphones are sold on a kind-of-subscription basis currently, it’s just organised by the phone carriers and bundled with their service cost (technically it’s a finance agreement and you own the phone, but in reality people don’t buy phones fully outright and it’s closer to a subscription service than outright purchase for most people).
> Most smartphones are sold on a kind-of-subscription basis currently
> technically it’s a finance agreement and you own the phone, but in reality people don’t buy phones fully outright and it’s closer to a subscription service than outright purchase for most people
A finance model and a subscription model are two different things. I’m baffled why you’re conflating the two and especially this comment, “it’s closer to a subscription service than outright purchase for most people”.
When you finance a purchase, you agree to make small payments over some period. At the end of the period, assuming your balance is paid off, you own the product. Not the bank. Not Apple. You.
A subscription model is where you pay every month in exchange for the right to use or access something. For example, I wanted to watch some TV shows my friends have been raving about. I subscribed to Apple TV+ for one month, watched both seasons, and then cancelled my subscription. I can no longer watch the show. I have no remaining claim unless I restart my subscription.
Well it isn't an outright purchase for most people buying a phone on contract - i.e. they don't pay for it upfront, don't own the device upfront (typically you only own the device at the end of the contract term), and they pay a monthly subscription/contract charge to the carrier (who offers them a set of services in exchange for a monthly charge).
So I'm a little baffled as to why you are baffled that a 'pay monthly for a service where you don't own the phone for 3 years' could be considered more similar to the concept of a subscription than the concept of outright ownership.
Would you prefer the term 'Phone contract subscription with an inclusive phone hire-purchase agreement'? (Which I still think is more similar to a subscription than outright ownership).
> Well it isn't an outright purchase for most people buying a phone on contract - i.e. they don't pay for it upfront, don't own the device upfront
Yes, this how is how a finance model works. Why are you giving us an example of financing works when the real question is on purchasing (with or without financing) vs leasing?
> So I'm a little baffled as to why you are baffled that a 'pay monthly for a service where you don't own the phone for 3 years' could be considered more similar to the concept of a subscription than the concept of outright ownership.
Your statements are inaccurate.
For all practical purposes, if I purchase a new iPhone from ATT or T-Mobile on contract, I do own the phone. It’s now mine. I can’t skip my contractual obligations and just ask ATT to take the phone back. I keep the phone but the full balance becomes immediately due.
> For all practical purposes, if I purchase a new iPhone from ATT or T-Mobile on contract, I do own the phone.
What do you think owning something outright means?
(If i can own something outright while it not legally being mine, and me paying for its use monthly via a contract, you have a more flexible definition of outright ownership than me!)
With this definition, I own my home outright with a mortgage. (This is of course nonsense, and by definition owning outright means it is unencumbered).
guarantee you that consumership will go up significantly once they roll this out. The iPhone is just the beginning. This will make more "overpriced" stuff like the XDR Display and Mac Pro more "accessible" to consumers while making Apple significantly more money in the long run (since many people would rather commit to a monthly cost than a high upfront price or higher monthly payments with an end date)
Whatever happened to "owning" stuff? Today, I saw some ads from Volvo trying to sell me a "subscription" to a vehicle. ...as if we (we = average Joe) weren't already sufficiently starved of all manner of agency in this world, the next thing to be thrown out the door is the very idea of buying stuff in return for the right to do with it whatever you want.
Leasing is legally not the same thing at all as a subscription.
I clicked through on the ad just now (it seems to be following me), and the landing page actually has a section, explaining the difference between this subscription that they're selling versus leasing.
The page also doesn't have the disclosures that would be legally required if it were a consumer credit product that they were selling.
So it does seem like it's something quite distinct.
- Pressure from stockholders for Apple to find more avenues for recurring revenue
- Price of iPhones is going to go up even further, and "subscriptions" are a convenient way to mask the full increase.
Wouldn't be surprised if we are seeing "ad-supported" iPhones (like Kindle tablets have done for years), what with Apple becoming a 'services' company.
34 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 95.2 ms ] threadThe techno-libertarian wing of HN will be incensed about this decision, but this move by Apple is clearly within their thoughts about reducing their environmental impact through reusing more of their iphones. When a user wants to upgrade, they can just return their phone to apple without the friction of having to resell it.
But what good is all the money when we, the animals, the insects, and the planet in general, are dead?
The only reason you want a new phone at this point is to reinforce your feeling of superiority over the other monkeys. Neither that, nor the money, is worth what we have to pay for it.
That’s if we want to leave the planet for animals and insects to enjoy it… or are we the dominant ones that should enjoy it?
True. I remember going to the "electronics shop" in my neighbourhood to have the family VCR and CD player repaired. My family has a Sony CRT TV that lasted from 1998-2018, needing only occasional repairs, doable with parts available at the local shop.
Toyota and Honda 'dumb' cars are still this way; repairable at any body shop, with parts that don't cost an arm and a leg. I'm never going to purchase a Tesla or some other car (BMW/Mercedes/others) that give you little choice about where to go for service.
iPhone Upgrade Program involves you buying a phone outright, financed via a loan from Citizens Bank. The loan is written so that you have certain rights to turn in the phone, buy a new one, and that clears out the remaining original loan balance regardless of the phone's value.
Americas economy is in a rat race where large corporations must demonstrate year over year growth. This is incentivizing this dark pattern behavior, where ultimately, the consumer will lose.
> technically it’s a finance agreement and you own the phone, but in reality people don’t buy phones fully outright and it’s closer to a subscription service than outright purchase for most people
A finance model and a subscription model are two different things. I’m baffled why you’re conflating the two and especially this comment, “it’s closer to a subscription service than outright purchase for most people”.
When you finance a purchase, you agree to make small payments over some period. At the end of the period, assuming your balance is paid off, you own the product. Not the bank. Not Apple. You.
A subscription model is where you pay every month in exchange for the right to use or access something. For example, I wanted to watch some TV shows my friends have been raving about. I subscribed to Apple TV+ for one month, watched both seasons, and then cancelled my subscription. I can no longer watch the show. I have no remaining claim unless I restart my subscription.
So I'm a little baffled as to why you are baffled that a 'pay monthly for a service where you don't own the phone for 3 years' could be considered more similar to the concept of a subscription than the concept of outright ownership.
Would you prefer the term 'Phone contract subscription with an inclusive phone hire-purchase agreement'? (Which I still think is more similar to a subscription than outright ownership).
Yes, this how is how a finance model works. Why are you giving us an example of financing works when the real question is on purchasing (with or without financing) vs leasing?
> So I'm a little baffled as to why you are baffled that a 'pay monthly for a service where you don't own the phone for 3 years' could be considered more similar to the concept of a subscription than the concept of outright ownership.
Your statements are inaccurate.
For all practical purposes, if I purchase a new iPhone from ATT or T-Mobile on contract, I do own the phone. It’s now mine. I can’t skip my contractual obligations and just ask ATT to take the phone back. I keep the phone but the full balance becomes immediately due.
Financing and leasing are two different things.
What do you think owning something outright means?
(If i can own something outright while it not legally being mine, and me paying for its use monthly via a contract, you have a more flexible definition of outright ownership than me!)
With this definition, I own my home outright with a mortgage. (This is of course nonsense, and by definition owning outright means it is unencumbered).
Here (Israel) carriers sell phones, but that's optional and they have to compete with non-carrier stores.
E.g. Apple will want a device that doesn’t shatter when you drop it, maybe they will fix that if they own it…
I clicked through on the ad just now (it seems to be following me), and the landing page actually has a section, explaining the difference between this subscription that they're selling versus leasing.
The page also doesn't have the disclosures that would be legally required if it were a consumer credit product that they were selling.
So it does seem like it's something quite distinct.
We can split hairs, but you pay a monthly charge and you don’t own the item but get to use it.
The lease terms are different, but you are still effectively leasing it.
With phones most people buy them with a monthly charge anyway that’s embedded into the phone contract.
- Pressure from stockholders for Apple to find more avenues for recurring revenue
- Price of iPhones is going to go up even further, and "subscriptions" are a convenient way to mask the full increase.
Wouldn't be surprised if we are seeing "ad-supported" iPhones (like Kindle tablets have done for years), what with Apple becoming a 'services' company.