Apple execs are now acknowledging the company is going to need to raises prices to cope with higher component costs, particularly memory. Apple has been battling to avoid doing so, but warned this week that those efforts are “unsustainable.”

The price pressure is being felt across the tech industry. Omdia predicts the average selling price (ASP) of smartphones globally will increase by around 20% this year — partly because AI industry demands have pushed up RAM prices and partly because of rapid cost increases in processor production as a direct consequence of war in the Middle East. This impacts anything that uses memory or processors.

Apple must raise prices, CEO warns

“We’re doing our best to mitigate the huge increases that are being passed to us, and we’ve been trying to shield our customers from the increases, but the situation has become unsustainable,” current Apple CEO Tim Cook told the Wall Street Journal.

OK, so prices are going to go up. But how?

If Apple must raise prices, the way it does so matters. Will it increase prices across the board, or choose a subtle, strategic approach that protects margins while also maintaining rapidly accelerating market share growth?

Until now, Apple has been benefiting from the rising tide in memory prices. While competitors have been steadily increasing prices across the board, Apple introduced its first $599 laptop even as it eats into mid-range smartphone sales. 

To grow, or to grow less?

The PC industry is not growing (outside of Cupertino), and Apple and its investors already know that the inordinately high customer satisfaction ratings its platforms enjoy mean that when people switch to them they tend to stick around. That’s why it matters that Cook highlighted record switchers and first-time platform users during the company’s most recent fiscal call. Apple is growing new customers, people who are likely to sign-up for services, accessories, and future upgrades. Winning the customer is an investment in future performance.

When it comes to increasing prices, we’ve seen some gentle experimentation in the Mac mini line, where the entry-level $599 model was effectively replaced by a more expensive $799 SKU. There have been suggestions Apple could do the same with the $599 MacBook Neo, dumping the entry-level build in favor of the (better) $699 model. I’m not certain that’s the best approach. 

A matter of choice

I’d argue that the $599 price point is psychologically the best bit of marketing Apple has ever done as it draws new users to look at its platforms. I also think substantial numbers of people already shift up to the $699 version, if they can, making that entry-level price an incredibly effective marketing tool with which to woo customers. It looks like that approach is working; the MacBook Neo has led the Amazon Laptop Sales chart ever since it was introduced and is selling in huge quantities globally.

Francisco Jeronimo, IDC vice president for data and analytics, sees this, writing: “It will be interesting to see whether Apple raises prices across its entire portfolio or plays strategically by subsidizing its more affordable products to gain market share and grow its installed base.”

If Apple raises prices at the price sensitive, entry-level end of its market, it runs the risk of slowing its own resurgence. Given that a 10% price hike here is only worth around $60, the revenue generated might not justify blunting Apple’s offer to new users.

Pricing and strategy

But Apple isn’t defined by its entry-level markets. Its biggest earning opportunities continue to be generated by the aspirational middle class, who, while feeling the pinch of declining living standards in many markets, can still handle the price of a top-of-the-range iPhone Pro. A 10% price increase at that end of the market will generate a much more significant chunk of revenue – and since rival vendors are raising their prices at this end of the market, Apple can follow suit while still seeming affordable. It’s an approach that maintains growth while optimizing margins.

Apple generates roughly half its revenue from iPhone sales, with the Pro and Pro Max devices accounting for a significant chunk of that money. Consumers looking to buy one of Apple’s high-end devices are likely to be less price-sensitive than those making purchases at the low- and mid-points of the company’s market range. 

With that in mind, it makes more sense for the company to raise prices at the top, while working to maintain the cost of entry at the lower end. It could, of course, raise prices universally, but doing so makes less sense.

What next?

Whatever strategy Apple adopts, company leadership is clear that component pricing is hitting hard. “We definitely need memory pricing and supply to return to reasonable levels for consumer products. That’s the bottom line,” Cook said.

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, Mastodon and subscribe to The Core for your daily fix of Apple News.

Apple has spent billions of dollars to develop satellite connectivity for iPhone; I very much doubt it did so solely to rescue stranded hikers. The company will most certainly have had a bigger prize in its sights when it first began working with GlobalStar (now owned by Amazon).

The most logical reason to invest in satellite coverage for its devices is the most obvious — to provide network infrastructure for new breeds of device and new service models. You don’t acquire access to massive amounts of bandwidth for nothing. And Apple’s steady introduction of new satellite-supported services shows it is interested in introducing these services, even though the offer isn’t extensive enough yet to require iPhone users to pay for access, yet.

The decision not to charge for those satellite services suggests they’re just the thin end of the company’s plans for satellite deployment.

It’s possible the company’s ambitions were limited by GlobalStar’s ability to put satellite constellations in orbit. That work was ongoing last time I looked, and I fully expect existing Apple satellite services will be extended to new nations, even under Amazon’s watch.

Amazon enters the room

Amazon’s recent $11.6 billion acquisition of GlobalStar is interesting. You can see that Apple is now forced to work with its old frenemy, even as both partners already profit from strong, steady Apple hardware sales via the online retailer. So they know they can make money together.

“Apple and Amazon have a long and proven track record of working together through Amazon’s core infrastructure services, and we look forward to building on that collaboration with Amazon Leo,” Greg Joswiak, Apple’s senior vice president of worldwide product marketing, said when the deal was announced. (The transaction isn’t expected to close until next year.)

Making money together is often seen as a strength in business relationships and Amazon has agreed to continue supporting Apple products and to collaborate with Apple on future satellite services.

When it comes to mobile telecoms, Amazon isn’t the only game in town, and neither is Starlink. Cellular operators are inking deals with satellite providers all over the world, all with the intention of bringing network access to those who otherwise can’t get a decent connection.

Just today in the UK, Virgin Media O2 announced plans to switch on the O2 Satellite service for iPhone users tomorrow, enabling customers — particularly in rural areas — to get a satellite connection where traditional cellular coverage is unavailable. It could simply identify new ways to enhance the Find My service.

Orange last year offered its own satellite comms to French customers, while Deutsche Telekom partners with others to provide SMS via satellite in Europe and the US. You’ll find similar alliances in most key territories, including Australia and Japan. The direction of travel exposes an industry embracing satellite as a way to widen existing cellular infrastructure, which makes sense given the relative cost of installing conventional masts in some regions. 

Many ways to crack it

There’s speculation Apple could become a satellite carrier, a move that would put it in competition with carrier partners. But Apple doesn’t need to do to provide satellite communication services to iPhone users, nor would it want to relinquish the symbiotically profitable relationships it’s developed with carriers.

It could, for example provide satellite calling as a hardware feature available with every iPhone across all supported carriers, possibly as an additional service that guarantees customers can get a connection, even in the countryside. It could evangelize the service as being “Private by Design,” and supplement this with data over satellite to support apps, particularly agentic AI apps. 

Combined with the next wave of AI enhancements Apple is expected to deliver for its systems, the combination of an always-on, resilient, private data connection and AI could prove invaluable to many customers. That’s particularly true for enterprise customers seeking global solutions that respect sovereign data, privacy, data retention policy and managed AI services – especially as terrestrial infrastructure becomes an attack target. Such scenarios will only become more widely understood as 6G emerges, with its built-in support for satellite infrastructure.

What will Apple do?

Will Apple move in that direction, or maintain its focus on the consumer markets? Will it decide that rather than deploying its own part-owned satellite constellations as it was with GlobalStar, it is better to work with carrier partners? Will it wait for 6G with its enhanced, standards-based support for satellite communications? 

Those are answers we don’t yet have. But it is quite clear that as satellite communications truly enter the mass market, Apple has put together many of the technical, hardware, software and infrastructure pieces it will need to ensure the iPhone is a peer player in whatever use cases emerge. 

You can follow me on social media! Join me on BlueSky,  LinkedIn, and Mastodon.