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.

▲

shiroiuma an hour ago | parent [-]

>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.

	▲	dghlsakjg 42 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> 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.