How is something a “luxury” that is owned by over 50% of the American market?

Since it is easy to pay for a phone on installment plan, anyone making $15-$20 a hour can pay for one with two hours a month. Even your typical fast food restaurant has to pay that much these days to attract workers.

It's luxury in the financial sense because it's one of the expensive options compared to the competition.

Someone making 20 dollar can also afford to eat caviar, that doesn't make it mainstream.

Apple just made sure that it's spoons, forks and plates only accept caviar and not cereal or lasagna.

If I walk into a store and buy the average Android phone for $300 on a no interest 24 month installment plan from T-mobile , I will be paying $12/month.

If I buy a midrange iPhone 13, it’s $24.95 a month.

That’s not even mentioning an iPhone SE that is still faster than high end Android phones for $429 or $17.95 a month.

And that “luxury” iPhone will have a better resale value and will get OS update for years (circa 2018) still runs the latest OS and the iPhone 5s (circa 2013) has had a security update in the last year.

These are all perceptions of status created by the marketing of these global companies.

Saying Apple is luxury is kinda like saying an Applebee’s is luxury - only because there is a cheaper McDonald’s across the street. Phones are definitely status symbols but their ceiling is relatively low.

That being said, in my country iPhones are a much more of a status symbol because everyone really is poorer. Scoffing at Apple’s pricing is the norm here.

Globally, an interesting question is what happens if you take a date to McDonald's. Living in America, that's gonna be the end of your date. Meanwhile, it depends on where in the rest of the globe you're talking about. There are plenty of places in the world where that's a decent, if not high status place to take a date. (There are also non-America places where it's not, mind you.) (A McDonald's-date index would be a fascinating bit of sociology research.)

So are people going to AppleBees only for “status” and not because the food is actually better than McDonalds?

Not everyone wants a $60 Blu R1 HD for $70 no more than everyone wants to eat off the $1 menu at McDonalds. Many people find the entire Android ecosystem janky.

Both, I would assume.

I don’t know what a “Blu R1” is so I can’t bother to go off with you on that tangent. But my point was only that all of these products are designed and priced for global-scale mass consumption. Apple isn’t a Michelin-star restaurant. They’re about as much better as that difference in price is.

I said "the luxury option", not that owning an iPhone is a luxury. Most people will spend whatever they can to get the look they want. Look at their advertising - it's much more about style than features - or notice how you can often tell when someone owns a pair of AirPods because they never take them off. Apple tech is as much about making a fashion statement as it is about the functionality.

They may now have over 50% US smartphone market share but that's only recently the case; however they've had the lion's share of the money for a long time.

So 50% plus of Americans only buy a phone because of the “look”?

Bluetooth headphones and not taking them off since they first became popular. Even before that as far back as the Walkman people have walked around with headphones.

> So 50% plus of Americans only buy a phone because of the “look”?

Again, not what I said. I feel like we're talking across each other really, sorry about that.

Incidentally I'm not an Apple fanboi if that's your concern - I own an iPod nano from about 2010 but that's it.

edit to add: nor do I intend to knock Apple products, just trying to make an objective assessment of their marketing strategy.

Maybe "premium" would be a better word than "luxury"? Apple are trying to be the premium option and people like showing off the premium items they own (which is referred to in scientific circles as 'costly signalling').

Does that make it clearer?

Again have you ever thought that something is “premium” based on its feature set and how well it works - not just to impress people?

The difference is that you can buy an iPhone for $17-$25/month compared to $4-$12/month for an Android phone. It’s like going to McDonalds and choosing not to eat off the value menu.

Over 50% of the market including my 80 year old mom are not buying iPhones to impress people.

Sure, but Apple usually don't market based on features and their feature set on paper is often less impressive than competing products.

Remember the iPod ads? https://youtu.be/NlHUz99l-eo

What does that advert say? We have the best sound quality? We have the most storage? We have the best value for money? None of those things - it says you should buy this because it will make you look cool.

I didn't say every single person who buys an iPhone is just trying to look cool. But that is first and foremost how they sell their products.

>How is something a “luxury” that is owned by over 50% of the American market?

Diamond rings are marketed as a luxury, and are probably owned by a similar proportion of the population.

Luxury is just one of their offerings. They are one of the few companies where the "cheap" version of their products is just last years. This is actually super nice and speaks not only to how they're not purely luxury but how they make stuff that lasts a long time.

I don't mean to imply that's it's all bling and no substance - their build quality is indeed generally very good but that's part of it isn't it? Good build quality is a luxury these days, especially in tech.