Home
News
You are here

Do we really need an iPhone 14 or a vanilla Galaxy S23? The problem with non-Pro, non-Ultra flagship

By Dzhoro Ivanov

Updated: Jun 02, 2023, 3:44 PM

11comments

This article may contain personal views and opinion from the author.

Do we really need an iPhone 14 or a vanilla Galaxy S23? The problem with non-Pro, non-Ultra flagship

Over the last year or so, I have spent a disproportionate amount of time discussing devices like the iPhone 14 Pro, the iPhone 14 Pro Max, the Galaxy Z Fold 4 and the Galaxy S23 Ultra. What do all four of these devices have in common, besides the fact that they are manufactured by the two biggest players on the smartphone market (i.e. Apple and Samsung respectively)?

They are what I like to call ‘flagship flagships’. By this I mean that modern-day tech giants increasingly no longer settle for a be-all and end-all device which they brand as their golden child. Instead, they have an entire flagship line, which comes in a variety of shapes, sizes and price points.

There is a strict hierarchy in the series, with a single smartphone labeled as ‘the most premium’, while its brethren are considered as, relatively speaking, second-rate devices. We have dedicated enough of our attention to the Pros and the Ultras and the Pro Maxes of the smartphone world.

This article will, instead, focus on the vanillas and Pluses - the excellent devices that are oftentimes underlooked and left behind. Most importantly, I will examine the problems that condemn them to living in the shadows of their ultra-premium counterparts.

What is wrong with the vertical hierarchy in flagship smartphone series?

I will start by pinpointing the most obvious problem with flagship lineups - the fact that they emphasize a strict vertical hierarchy of good, better and best. In order to illustrate my argument I will use Apple as an example.

In the beginning, we had a single iPhone. Increasingly, Apple recognized that not all people were comfortable with a universal size footprint, so it gave users a choice. Thus, the Plus lineup was born and later on the mini one which has since been unfortunately extinguished.

This is what I call horizontal differentiation. The iPhone 13 mini is not necessarily better than the vanilla iPhone 13 and vice versa. Rather, they serve a different purpose and cater to a different audience. The same parallel can be drawn between the iPhone 14 and the iPhone 14 Plus.

By extension, the price discrepancies between these variations primarily reflect the differences in production costs. After all, a 5.4” smartphone likely costs less to make than a 6.7” one. The pricing is not created in order to incentivise users to upgrade and splurge, which makes it much more customer-friendly… and less profitable.

This is why companies have opted for another way of product differentiation, which has the potential to make users spend more on their smartphones - hence, the iPhone Pro, the iPhone Pro Max and even, potentially, the iPhone Ultra.

Hierarchical Differentiation: Premium, More Premium and the Most Premium

I have described the iPhone 14 lineup on many occasions as consisting of Premium, More Premium and the Most Premium devices Apple can offer. But what is the problem with (or in this case, the benefit of) that approach?

Firstly, creating separate ‘tiers’ of exclusivity eases some of the psychological stress of having to spend $1000 on a smartphone. Creating more options than what is strictly necessary is an effective business strategy. It is not the notorious decoy effect per se, because the price differences (for the most part) are symmetrical, but the sentiment is somewhat similar.

To put this in smartphone terms, just take a look at the Galaxy S23 lineup. Suppose you have $800 to spend on a smartphone. Obviously, the vanilla Galaxy S23 is the best fit for your budget. However, you go to the store and you see the Galaxy S23 Plus, with its fancy bigger screen. The latter costs ‘just’ $200 more. However, $1000 is ‘just’ $200 less than the price tag of the Galaxy S23 Ultra. And we all know which one of the three is the best just by looking at the name.

Naturally, this is an oversimplification. The thought processes of the vast majority of smartphone buyers are a lot more complex and most users do not fall for this trick outright. This is why companies give you the option to pay in many installments. Now, we are not looking at a price difference of $200 or $400 dollars. Instead, the choice is between $34, $42 and $50 a month. The decision just got a lot more difficult, didn’t it?

The problem is that all three of these S-series smartphones are supposed to be flagships. Why have three ‘tiers’ of flagships, when you already have dedicated entry-level and midrange options? Why not make flagships different, instead of superior?

This goes beyond size. For example, some people would prefer a more durable smartphone. Others would be willing to own a heavier device, which comes with a bigger battery. I personally would gladly sacrifice camera quality to be rid of the hideous camera bumps on most iPhones.

Instead of a plus, a pro, a pro max, an ultra and the likes we could have versions focused on specific selling points. Which would also eliminate another problem that the current strategy engenders.

Incremental Updates and Artificial Differentiation

The idea that there can be a single, ‘supreme’ flagship is problematic because it implies all other members of the series are inferior in some way. The truth is that all S23 smartphones are exceptional. However, some models must be kept less expectational in order for other, more expensive ones, to sell better.

Part of the reason why we feel smartphone progress is slowing down is because manufacturers are gatekeeping particular features in order to artificially widen the gap between the different models. No one is as guilty of this as Apple.

What was the point of the vanilla iPhone 14? It offers the same performance as its predecessor, launched at the same identical price and lacks virtually all of the exciting upgrades that the iPhone 14 Pro received.

If companies like Apple and Samsung insist on making some of their ‘flagship’ smartphones less high-end than the golden child in the lineup, I simply see no reason in annual updates to devices like the vanilla iPhone.

If you have no intention of giving a handset the latest features because you are afraid that will jeopardize the sales of the more premium options, that entirely defeats the purpose of refreshing it in the first place.

Conclusion

In short, I sincerely believe product options are meant to suit the user and not the company. A smartphone lineup should be structured in such a way so as to give buyers a meaningful choice which does not come down solely to the price point.

Those in the market for a flagship have money to spend by definition. But when a company does everything in its power to make users spend more on the most premium device in the series, this comes at the expense of calling into question the ‘flagship’ status of the less high-end smartphone. And, before you know it, you are stuck with a $800 entry-level flagship.