Why Is The iPhone X So Expensive?

The iPhone X was revealed with much fanfare in Apple's new Cupertino HQ last week- but it wasn't just the personalised poop emojis, the wireless charging or the new display that stole the headlines...

The all-new iPhone X was proudly revealed by Apple CEO Tim Cook as the "biggest leap forward since the original iPhone". The device, which marks the 10-year anniversary of the iconic smartphone, features an all-new bezel-less OLED display, 'Face ID'- the most advanced facial recognition technology on a smartphone- and other new updates such as wireless charging.

Not only was iPhone X arguably the biggest leap in technology since the original iPhone, but it was in fact the greatest leap in price- at $999 dollars, it became the most expensive mass-market smartphone ever, $230 up from the iPhone 7 Plus. This significant price increase, and the landmark of the iPhone X becoming the first ever thousand-dollar smartphone, remains a significant talking point of the new device- and most of the coverage around the price has been negative. So, why exactly have Apple made the iPhone X so expensive?

The most obvious contributor to the increase in sale price is the increase in the cost of production. According to GSM Arena, the X costs $412.75 to produce- compared to the $220 production cost of the iPhone 7. This drastic increase in cost is the result of a significantly larger, OLED display, a new glass material, and also a larger standard storage of 64GB for the base iPhone X.

Interestingly, the only place Apple could source the new OLED display was from its smartphone rivals Samsung- no doubt, the Korean firm will have exercised this monopoly power to try to reduce the margins of its competitor.

The new design and technologies of the iPhone X has also limited production capacity. This is rumoured to be one of the reasons why there have only two colours offered at launch, as well as why the actual sale date is in November, despite the announcement coming in early September. As basic economics dictates, a lower supply is likely to induce higher prices, as people clamour to not miss out on this latest iPhone.

While this price increase is rather drastic, people often forget that it's not the first time Apple have introduced devices at a high price. Apple believe that the iPhone X is a whole new device- an iPad Pro to the iPad that is the iPhone 8, or a MacBook Pro to the iPhone 8's MacBook. This is especially evident when you see that the prices of the iPhone 8 and 8 Plus have actually increased from the iPhone 7 and 7 Plus.

The first MacBook Air (top) was succeeded by a
more successful and affordable generation.
Source: Engadget

Historically, new Apple products as revolutionary as the iPhone X have provoked controversy due to their costs- the first generation MacBook Air, the 2015 MacBook and the Apple Watch are just three such devices. Experiences from these products have arguably given Apple the confidence to set a high price for the new iPhone. Where successful, Apple have been able to sell high volumes at high prices- and in slightly less successful cases, such as the launch of the first MacBook Air, Apple reduced prices over time as the new technology introduced became standardised in its line-up.

Apple knows that many people unwilling to pay $999 for the iPhone X will opt for the cheaper iPhone 8 instead- and this doesn't necessarily present a financial loss to Apple, given the lower production cost of the latter device.

And Apple also knows people will still buy the iPhone X. The massive marketing buzz around the product, and the sheer difference it represents from the usual iPhone lineup means that the device is undoubtedly going to sell in high volumes. It's likely, in fact, that the higher $999 price will be attractive to many customers. At a sub-conscious level, the round pricing of $999, essentially a thousand dollars, the idea of having a thousand dollar device will appeal to people who may want to own the device as a status symbol as well as a phone.

This type of product is known as a Veblen good- a product for which demand increases with price, in contrast to standard economics. At a sub-conscious level, the round pricing of $999, essentially a thousand dollars, the idea of having a thousand dollar device will appeal to people who may want to own the device as a status symbol as well as a phone.

A high pricing brings other potential smaller benefits for Apple. For example, when people spend as much as $999, the smaller purchases seem even smaller, and thus more appealing, to the buyer. For example, spending $100 on Apple's new AirPower wireless charging station seems less of an expense when you've spent $999 on an iPhone X than when you've spent $500 on a previous generation iPhone.

So while the increased production costs have introduced a necessity for Apple to raise the sale price of the iPhone for the new iPhone X, the decision to increase the price to as high as $999 is likely to prove a shrewd business decision for Apple, especially given the release of an updated iPhone 8 at a cheaper price. What remains to be seen, however, is whether Apple will eventually reduce the price of future generations of the iPhone X, as its technology becomes standardised in the iPhone range, or whether Apple is preparing the market for a shift to a new level of price for smartphones.

Should You Get Free Lunch In The Office?

By providing free meals, are offices providing gratuitous nourishment to their staff, or just locking them down in the office?

We've all heard (and, admit it, envied) those offices in which lies the promise of free food for all staff. Breakfast, lunch, and even dinner in some companies, is offered to employees, without a single penny leaving their pockets. These meals are not only free, but they are known generally to be higher quality than paid meals in other offices. 

But, like they say, there is no such thing as a free lunch. Free food at work has a variety of effects on a workers' life- from obvious things like their weight, their time spent at the office, to the more subtle things, like how staff interact with each other and how the food can affect worker performance.

The most obvious benefit of this particular perk is that it makes the office a more welcoming place for employees, both increasing the satisfaction of current employees and making a job at that company more appealing for potential recruits. 

Similarly, the most obvious cost of free meals at work, from an employers' perspective, is the cost of giving away food to employees. This cost has multiple layers: firstly, the employer must give up the cost of the staff, the facilities, and ingredients to make the meals themselves. Secondly, the employer gives up the potential for a small profit to be made by selling meals to employees at more than their cost price. And thirdly, the employer runs the risk of abuse of the system, which can lead to unexpected additional costs.

Despite this, massively successful companies such as Google are well-known to incorporate this practice into their offices. So the question is- why?

Perhaps even more significant than the direct benefits mentioned earlier, is the ability of a free meal in the office to win the employers more of its staff time. This starts with breakfast: providing the most important meal of the day for free increases the probability that staff will come to work sooner, reducing the level of tardiness. When it comes to lunch, employees are able to stay in the office, rather than head out to the shop to buy a meal deal. Removing this travel time, and keeping employees in the office, means lunch breaks are likely to be shorter when lunch is provided in the office.

Some companies like Google take the food offer further- even offering free dinner on-site. This increases the likelihood of late working nights- especially, in the case of Google, because many employees will be young and no doubt become dependent on meals provided by the office.

The numbers can prove that providing office meals genuinely brings greater benefits than cost*. Assume that, given the costs of ingredients, cooking facilities, staff, an economy of scale whatnot, the average cost of producing a meal is £6. Furthermore, reasonably assume lunch provided in the office increases an employee's working time by 15 minutes every day.

An example of the fine food on offer at Google
(Credit: Michael Krehan, Quora)

Google's average salary in the UK is reportedly £160,000- though it's highly likely that this figure is skewed by the number of staff being paid 7 figure salaries, so assume a lower average salary of £120,000. This means roughly £2300 a week- £640 per working day, and thus, given a 9 hour working day, £71 an hour. By offering free meals, Google increases each employee's working time by 15 minutes- bringing an extra £17.75 of value, according to the £71 an hour pay estimation. The cost of this, according to our assumption, is £6- bringing a net benefit of £11.25. So, the cost of providing the free food is more than paid for by the additional productivity!

According to the above assumptions, a minimum average wage of £56,160 is required for a business to breakeven in their offer of free lunch. For most large businesses, this is not an unreasonable level.

From an employee perspective however, free hot meals can have negative effects, if not executed properly. A heavy meal can negatively impact worker performance, and in the long run, can lead to weight gain. Furthermore, some argue the shorter lunch breaks caused by on-site meals can negatively impact employee wellbeing over time.

Free lunch also brings intangible benefits. We emphasised in a previous article the significance of community spirit in any office. By offering lunch in a single place, employees are more likely to eat with each other, rather than head their own separate ways, increasing the likelihood of relationships across the country developing.

So we have (loosely) proven that free lunch can bring net benefits to a successful business like Google. But does free lunch work for all businesses? No.

Massive businesses, hiring thousands of employees on a single site, may enjoy a larger economy of scale, but equally they may find it harder to monitor and control the free food. Smaller businesses are the least likely to offer free meals. Though it may be an emerging trend, particularly with Silicon Valley startups, most small businesses may not be able to invest in the facilities and staff for free office meals. Such businesses may instead decide to invest in something similar, like free snacks.

Free lunch works for most businesses that demand a lot from workers. Some businesses take the investment in such perks even further- for example, Google offers free laundry services in many offices for its employees. Such perks are luxuries- but through increasing employee satisfaction, and minimising time wasted by employees, investment in these things can provide significant benefits for the firm.

*warning- an avalanche of assumptions is imminent...

The Office - To Hot Desk, Cold Desk, or not Desk At All?

Can businesses increase their employee productivity if they let them work from anywhere- even from home?

Last week we discussed how businesses can work to keep their employees satisfied- we learnt how features of a job such as a trusting employee-employer relationship, the design of an office space, and a community atmosphere were crucial in keeping employees happy.

But this is not the end of the story- productivity is key, as it is the ultimate result of all the satisfaction and hard work put in by employees. Productivity is arguably the ultimate aim of any firm- it directly determines the overall output.

Like with employee satisfaction, the methods of improving productivity range from massive scale to very small details. The first feature we'll talk about today is

We mentioned last week that the atmosphere and design of an office can have significant psychological effects on those working in it. But the design of an office is equally crucial in determining productivity.

The traditional office that we are perhaps accustomed to is one that is desk-based, perhaps in cubicles or small sections, with each employee assigned their own desk to keep. However, a recent trend has emerged of what is called 'hot-desking'- where no employee actually has their own desk, but they are instead expected to come into work, unpack their things onto any open desk, and pack everything back up at the end of the day.

Could empty desks be part and parcel of the office
of the future?

On the plus side, hot-desking is argued to save employers rather significant amounts of money. A study from Vodafone UK, whose Newbury HQ is entirely hot-desk based, £5,746 could be saved per desk per year if an office is hot-desked. What's more, many argue that the nomadic behaviour brought on by hot-desking increases the opportunity for employees in a business to work with and get to know more people in the company, improving office relations.

However, hot-desking has a number of reasons to be unpopular for. Some employees see their desk as a 'home away from home', often adorning it with photos, decorations, and also organisational aids, like a whiteboard. The lack of their own desk also reduces the potential for employees to store their items at work- instead they have to take things home each day. Hot desking removes this possibility, due to the fact that employees have to clear their desks at the end of every day. From a direct productivity standpoint, there are time savings to be had from a traditional assigned desk policy, particularly when accounting for the time each employee must spend setting and packing up each day, which may be small on a daily basis but add up over time.

What's more, many argue that hot-desking doesn't always open the door for more relationships to be built. On the contrary, sitting next to new colleagues each day for some can make every day feel like their first, especially when considered that people in the office are not always so free as to get to know new people every day.

Some argue that no desk at all is the way forward- ie., the office is a thing of the past, and benefits can be enjoyed by letting employees work from home. Though one can envisage issues with this proposal- notably the lowered opportunities of communication between teams, and the potential for employee distraction- there are well-defined benefits to enabling employees to work from home. Firstly, by allowing employees to work from home, businesses can hire the best talent, regardless of any other commitments potential employees may have (most notably, having kids to drop and pick up from school). Employees can enjoy a better work-life balance, improving their satisfaction with their job and opening potential for increased productivity. Employees save time and money on commuting, too.

Businesses stand to save even more on office space and maintenance by allowing employees to work from home, and the wealth of video conferencing and document sharing platforms mean that employees can maintain communication wherever they are. Fewer sick days are expected to be taken by employees, and the lack of a trudge to the office every day may also reduce the employees' demand for leave days. And employees can use that hour or two spent commuting daily to do more work.

All this adds up to improved productivity caused by allowing employees to work from home- as much as 13.5%, according to a study by Nicholas Bloom of Stanford University.

So, what should businesses do? The answer, as it so often does, depends largely on the individual circumstances of a business. Businesses whose work is done entirely digitally, like many modern tech firms, stand to benefit perhaps most from allowing employees to work from home, while of course working from home is not such a viable option for businesses involved in face to face sales. Whatever the business, the future of the office seems to be becoming far more dynamic and less building-based. Particularly due to its cost and productivity benefits, more and more businesses appear to be shifting focus from their physical offices to alternative workplaces.

What's The Best Way To Keep Employees Satisfied?

There's a reason why The Office is such a popular hit TV show, that has been subject to numerous remakes from around the world. While often exaggerated, the life of seemingly regular office workers relates to many, many people who can see glimpses of their own office in the TV show.



86% of American workers sit all day at work- and the majority of these, like Michael Scott and co., are likely to be office workers. Given that the economy is driven by people working, the office is a generator for growth and economic success, and thus plays a key role in any nation's fortunes, let alone a company's.

When it comes to how offices should be run, however, there is a distinctive lack of uniformity across businesses and countries. From the renowned 'Google-plex', the Silicon Valley HQ of Google, to the more traditional cubicle based offices that have existed for decades, the office today arguably plays the greatest role it ever has in the lives of employees.

To begin looking at what kind of office brings the best results, we have to first determine what the desired result is. This will, of course, differ between businesses- but a safe assumption to make would be that a business seeks to maximise the productivity of its employees, taking cost into account. That is, the business wants to maximise output, while relatively minimising how much it pays for it.

And to go deeper, what determines productivity? Again, there are an abundance of factors- but, for simplicity, we'll look at two of the biggest- employee satisfaction, and employee organisation. We'll be exploring the first of the two today.

Employee satisfaction
The term 'satisfaction' is highly subjective, of course. Many people, usually those on the lower end of the income spectrum, will not be overly concerned with job satisfaction- sadly because many will not have the luxury of doing so. For people struggling financially, or with a lack of alternatives, hard work is a must.

Recently, a trend of 'job-hopping' has emerged, particularly among the younger generation, who seem more willing than ever to switch between jobs. They seek new challenges, new experiences, and for the more educated there is arguably more choice than ever, especially given the globalisation of the jobs market.

Thus, some younger workers today are more sensitive to their satisfaction at work- which is why companies nowadays must invest significantly in their offices if they want to recruit the brightest young people.

Not only does the prospect of job satisfaction help a business' recruitment, but it has been proven to improve performance on the job. A recent study from the University of Split in Croatia concluded that "there was an impact of the majority of job satisfaction factors on organisational performance". This is rather common sense- people who feel happier at work are likely to spend more time at work, likely to be more willing to work and thus are likely to perform better (though there is little consensus on whether more hours = better results).

The atmosphere of the office plays perhaps the most obvious role in determining employee satisfaction. This starts with the design of the office itself. Apple is not spending an expected $5bn on its beautiful new Apple Campus just for the sake of publicity- but research has proven repeatedly that a more scenic environment helps to improve wellbeing, and thus productivity at work.

Apple's new 'Spaceship' head office in Palo Alto, California

Psychology is key here- features of an office like an abundance of natural light, tall ceilings and even sufficient distance between workers and screens can impact the productivity of a worker. Evidently, this is not a discovery that works in favour of cubicle offices.

The mental wellbeing of an employee also has to be cared for- gone are the days when a worker was just counted as a number. Businesses now have to realise the full human aspect of their employees, and this is where the support system in an office is crucial. A good HR department, and sufficient pastoral support for employees can generate substantial improvements in productivity.

The employer-employee relationship must be a positive one. Bosses can no longer rely on fear, and their position of authority to bring sustainable results- they must be a lot smarter than that. They must take an active interest in their employees, and develop relationships that engender trust and loyalty from those who work for them. Different bosses will naturally have different styles that bring their results, but generally it is crucial that a boss is honest, considerate and open to their employees. Hating one's boss is such a common phenomenon that Hollywood got 2 films out of it- but in the real office, the boss-employee relationship is perhaps the most important of them all.

Maintenance of a good work-life balance is also very important. Schemes such as paid maternity and paternity leave are in vogue, and for good reason. Offering employees a 'sabbatical', time off to pursue other positive interests, also has a positive impact.

A positive community atmosphere helps massively. Whether it is through creation of communal lunch spaces, office events and competitions, or perhaps most importantly a strong bond between employer and employee, a business must invest both time and money into the office community. Not only does it improve the team harmony, which can lead to more positive results in work, but it gives employees another reason to want to work. Of course, the time dedicated to such activities must be balanced with the actual time spent working. Anyone who has watched 'The Office' will know that practically nothing actually gets done when employees are too chummy with each other. But there is a school of thought that believes once employees are taken care of and in a positive state of mind, the employees themselves will be motivated, and feel a duty, to self-regulate and ensure they get their work complete.

A positive workplace can have drastic impact on employee tenure- how long an employee stays with the business. As we mentioned earlier, the average tenure of an employee is decreasing these days- and there are both benefits and losses associated with these, that largely depend upon the firm. On the one hand, a high employee turnover rate can lead to a dynamic, fresh firm that does not get so entrenched in any old, perhaps flawed ways. On the other hand, such a high turnover requires significant investment by way of recruitment and induction, and perhaps has the adverse effect of reducing employees' loyalty to the firm.

For example, a law firm is likely to desire greater employee tenure. It will want barristers who have experience in the court of law and the kind of clients the firm serves. On the other hand a management consultancy firm (for example McKinsey & Co., which has a notoriously low average tenure) may have an interest to refresh its workforce with new blood to keep up with the changing landscape of the business world. Of course, that's not to say firms with lower average tenure will deliberately create negative workplaces- they have 'other ways' to ensure a lower tenure.

In today's world, businesses have to focus on their employees' satisfaction more than ever, and to do so, many businesses will go to extraordinary lengths: whether it's Google's free gourmet meals for all employees (which we'll discuss more next week), or Uber's super-cool office, happier employees will generally perform better.

The challenge that exists for the majority of businesses who are not Google or Uber is having the capacity to invest in such things. For these businesses, the cost of building a trendy office, or giving free food to all employees may not be financially viable (at least in the short run). This is where the less material aspects come into play. Small businesses can still offer career development opportunities to employees. Most small businesses can still create an open office atmosphere. Small businesses are suaully better, in fact, at fostering team spirit.

So whether a company is a giant or a dwarf, it is key that it recognises the importance of employee satisfaction, and invest for long run productivity gains, one way or another.

The Dark Side of Supermarket Warfare

All competition is good competition... right?



Entering through the doors of your local Tesco, you are not just entering a supermarket. You are entering a battleground. But in this battle, there are no guns or swords- instead, you'll find weapons of words scattered around the place- "I'm cheaper", "Brand Guarantee", and the like.

The supermarket industry has reached saturation point, and as a result, the players are all scrambling to win the pound in your pocket. One of the most prominent tactics to do this, that has risen to fame in the past decade, is the phenomenon of 'Price Matching'. The essence of this is that if you go to your local Tesco, for example, and find that the cereal you are buying could be had for less money in Sainsbury's, if you can prove this to the cashier at Tesco, they will match the cheaper Sainsbury's price in store. In some stores, the offer is made to go even lower than the competitor price.

Seems great, doesn't it? On the surface, yes. Competition is very important in any market, especially one that is as large a part of our daily lives as our supermarkets. Competition leads to better service, better stores, and, perhaps most importantly, lower cost to customers.

And at first glance, price matching seems to be competition set in stone by the supermarkets- a written promise to compete with each other. Furthermore, one could argue that price matching means setting low prices is not enough to compete- it arguably puts stores on a level playing field to compete on other aspects of the customer experience, such as customer service.

But not all is as rosy as it seems, because in reality, price matching is unlikely to lead to a better outcome for the consumer.

Firstly, the notion of price matching allows stores to set higher prices than competitors in the first place. Price matching means stores can attract those who are so sensitive to higher prices that they may have avoided the store if it wasn't a policy. In the case of direct price matching, where one store exactly matches, and doesn't beat, another store's price, the incentive to 'compete' and set truly lower prices is dulled. Essentially, price matching weakens the link between demand and supply that otherwise would drive a store to cut prices.

There are more practical arguments against price matching too. These are well set out in Morten Hviid and Greg Shaffer's 1999 paper on the subject, but in reality these weaknesses are not too difficult to comprehend.

Firstly, the procedure for actually gaining the right to a price match is not so simple- this is usually designed to be an inconvenience by supermarkets. For example, the very act of providing another store offers the same product at a cheaper price is often a hassle. The customer must provide written proof of the competitor's offer, usually a difficult task unless the customer is willing to travel between multiple stores in search of the best price. And if he does so, why would he then not purchase the product at the originally cheapest store?



And once the proof is provided, the ultimate approval is given by the store- who may disagree that the two compared products are the same, or have some other quarrel with the proof provided. The terms and conditions make the process far less open than it first appears.

Furthermore, as Hviid and Shaffer point out, "In every instance it takes longer to complete a transaction when price matching is requested than when it is not". This means there is a non-financial cost to entering a price matching deal, and often the amount you are saving is not enough to make this a cost worth bearing.

So while price matching is indeed a form of competition, it is not as beneficial to the consumer as advertised. It arguably allows stores to be less proactive in setting low prices, and also provides many practical stumbles that to many consumers will just not be worth it. It's a form of what is called imperfect, oligopolistic Bertrand competition- in which there are a few firms who compete with each other on price. In theory, Bertrand competition leads to an optimal solution for the consumer. But the painstaking realities of the price matching process mean this, in practice, is far from the case.

As consumers wise up to this reality, it seems some supermarkets are too- Sainsburys announced the removal of their price matching program last year, highlighting the need for "clear, simple pricing". The question that remains is whether other supermarkets will follow suit.