"Pro" has been pretty useful, I think, as a marker in Apple's other product lines.
"MacBook Pro" and "iPad Pro" are the ones you buy if you need it for work, because the increased price will pay for itself with increased productivity. But buy the "Air" or basic versions if you are primarily using it for more basic tasks and media consumption.
Not sure the "Pro" distinction will hold up for iPhone, though. I guess it depends if Pro Photographers actually will give up their "Pro" cameras for an iPhone 11 Pro. And I can't think of any other profession where the iPhone Pro will "pay for itself" in productivity increases relative to other iPhones.
“Pro” is not just for productivity but comfort of use as well. As an analogy if you sit on a chair 8 hours a day you’ll want a super nice chair, even if it wouldn’t have direct effects on productivity compared to a just decent one.
For most people relying on a smartphone for work, be it 700 or 1000 the device will pay for itself in a few months at most, so I think the price difference won’t matter much. Better battery performance could be significant though.
Honest question, who relies on a smartphone for work? I mean, obviously people rely on a phone for work, people rely on email for work, but what jobs are there where getting the iPhone pro model would make a difference to getting, say, the now much lower priced iPhone 8.. or for that matter a used 2/3 year old flagship android phone?
The BBC make extensive use of the iPhone for news gathering. The photo, video and audio quality are all acceptable for online use (and broadcast use in many cases). LuCi Live is now almost the default option for radio outside broadcasts. The BBC have developed their own app to facilitate direct ingests of media content from iPhones to their asset management system. It's now entirely practical for a broadcast journalist to report on a story with nothing more than their iPhone.
I'm not sure how meaningful the "Pro" suffix really is, but the iPhone has undoubtedly become a piece of professional equipment in the media industry.
Very interesting, I knew there would be job categories where it would be a completely obvious tool and you'd want every aspect of it to be the best possible and of course journalism is one.
Dictaphone, camera, editing and publishing, phone, notepad, email... arbitrary other software around all of these, all in your pocket. Makes total sense.
Not even exclusively for work. If I'm away from my desk for any reason, be it in my vehicle, in the server room, at a friend's place, and I need to urgently know something I always reach for my phone. My phone has my passwords and credit card numbers. My phone gets me connected to all my friends, near and far, for whatever reason. I have access to my email and most critical documents. I use the cameras and microphone to document my life, my projects, and special moments to me. And let's not be glib about it, it's a great tool for passing time between when I'm doing useful and fun things. I can browse Reddit while waiting for my wife to get her hair done.
I find it odd how people will happily pull their wallets out for a PC they will spend a ton of time on, but then balk at the idea of spending half that on a device that lives in your pocket and can help you do practically anything that comes to mind, even if all that comes to mind is entertain you for a few moments. Is it just down to the physical size of the device?
I agree with you, that as one of your most used electronics, if youre constantly using it, that the little features add up at times when youre not expecting it.
But none of what you described explains why you would need a Pro instead of the standard. Its nice to have, but the base model isnt nerfed to a point that makes it unusable.
Frankly when it comes to phones at least (and often times any electronics) I just get the most powerful option available. Do I need it? Probably not. But in my experience:
1) They age better, and oftentimes are more not just useable, but actually a joy yo use, for a longer time
2) The price difference just isn't that much to justify taking a lower power device. Sure, the iPhone 11 would probably be just fine compared to an iPhone 11 Pro. But when you're talking about phones in that price caliber, honestly what's an extra $200? And I've never had a phone in my hand wishing it was less capable, so why chance wanting to replace it earlier?
Like I said, I bought the X at launch and that was to replace, in turn, a 6 Plus which was still very usable so I'm far from an every year upgrader, and I think that has to do with the fact that I always get the biggest and best, and then just age out a few cycles instead of continuously upgrading.
Yep. I wouldn't even say I necessarily have a cycle, I just upgrade when I wanted to. I passed on the 7 and 8 because they didn't have anything overly compelling. The X had FaceID, more gesture control which I like, and the better camera so I jumped on that one. Now I'm debating the 11 Pro just because that new camera also has my interest, and I really like the Midnight Green color, but I'm not sold just yet. I think I'll wait and see how long it takes Apple to start shifting units before I decide for sure.
Almost the same experience here. My old 6 has now gone to our son who continues to get tons of use out of it - all the iPhones in our family end up being given to kids for their phones when we upgrade. Usually the batteries are starting to degrade but the phones themselves? They last for years, and years, and years. iPhones are great
I mean, my gaming PC has roughly the same cycle, though I suppose that's only for given parts, not the entire thing each time.
I dunno, for all the uses and advantages my phone gives me, I'm happy to pay. My last one was an X and it's served me extremely well since I bought it at launch. I passed on the XS, but the 11 is tempting.
Photographers. Many will choose a smartphone that would work as a "b" camera. Is it really that difficult for you to come up with other examples?
Here is one: I'm a botanist. I take a lot of pictures of herbarium specimens (pressed plant specimens in natural history museums) to make morphological measurements. I have a Sony A7RM3 that is a MUCH higher resolution, better quality camera, but it's a lot bigger, requires more setup time, etc. With an iPhone, the pictures I take are automatically uploaded into Apple's cloud storage and available on my laptop. It's a very nice, simple, relatively seamless system.
I shot most of a City Council campaign this summer with just an iPhone. Took a DSLR to like two big events because I needed telephoto, but all our other official photos and social media stuff was phones.
If I'm shooting something for a billboard, yeah, I'll go get out a real camera. Almost anything smaller than that can absolutely be done on almost any modern flagship phone.
I see where you’re coming from, but it also feels like asking ‘why do you want to work in a nice place ? what difference is it really making that your desk has smooth angles and is made of sturdy materials instead of a particle plank with feets we’d buy at IKEA ?’
People can be productive and do fantastic work on any working material. But why have it worse when you’ll be using the device day in day out and stare at it for years ?
I don’t think we are arguing the Pro is nicer, right ?
Well sure, but the particle board thing tcompares to getting a cheap Android budget model though. Not last year's flagship at 40% of the cost. (Well, last year's iPhone hasn't dropped quite that much, but in the Android world they often do with some smart shopping.)
No, I definitely agree, in fact I was going to give that very caveat ('aside from the pro model just being nicer to use if you use a phone all the time at work') but didn't want to presume your point too much. Also I was genuinely interested, maybe there are jobs like this and I'm just not aware of them :-)
Working at a "nice place" is what you care about when you've already decided that everything else about the job is going to suck. When the rest of your working conditions are decent don't care what your desk is like.
I decided long ago that I won’t work for places that can’t be bothered having decent offices, whatever they do, whatever they pay *
I don’t mean candy bowls or flashy sofas, but well lit, well ventilated, with decent toilets, noise isolation and living space between desks, and ergonomic chairs (at least adjustable in height and depth/inclination)
Cheaping out on work environment is the first sign of misplaced priorities IMO. Especially when it’s so easy to get penalties from work inspection.
* I’ll settle for a million dollar a year, I confess
There's a big difference between decent, ergononic equipment and high luxury though. The most expensive flagship phones compare to high luxury, not basic, functional, ergononic environments.
I had been a Windows phone user for 3 years from 2009 to 2012 (HTC HD7, Nokia Lumia 800 and 920). Then switched to android for 7 years. Had a OnePlus One, <one more android here>, then a Google Nexus 6p, a Motorola ( solely for a 5000mAh battery as I was fed up with the nexus battery). Finally got an iPhone XS Max this year and I don’t think I am going to switch. My needs are to have a reliable phone with good battery life to last a day and that will run for 4+ years and get full security upgrades (else I don’t get work email on my phone). I think if I get 5 years out of it, the iPhone even with its 1100$ price tag will be cheaper in the long run.
A can see for some people where images are an important aspect, but not central to the work, the new cameras might come in handy - off the top of my head ...
I’m estate agent and I want to be able to photograph exteriors and interiors.
I’m a garden designer, I like to photograph my clients gardens for a portfolio.
I run a small bar, that has live music sometimes- I like to photograph and video the bands for my website.
I'm a startup founder and I use my phone more than anything else to demo my company's technology. But any of the modern phones is fine for this (I've been rolling with a 7 Plus since it came out), and frankly I prefer the LCD screens to the new OLEDs because of ghosting/lag issues.
There may be other folks out there who want the fastest phone for the purposes of demoing technology. For me, I mostly just don't want to look like I'm a luddite (although I've seen a surprising number of founders/CEOs who rock the SE).
"I have to waste money on conspicuously consuming the most expensive phone on the market or else my partners won't think my company is a legitimate business" is a great ilustration of how SV is in a bubble of phony valuation for phony products.
Physicians - always on the go, need access to calendar, reference apps, communication (messages, email)... to me, having a fast phone with a big screen is a no-brainer.
One thing the top end iPhone has is a better camera, and for tangentially-professional photographers, this makes a difference. ("Tangentially" meaning professionals that need photos, eg insurance claims adjuster, but that's it's not a primary focus of their job so an SLR doesn't make sense, eg wedding photographer.)
I'm a hobbyist/pseudo-pro(shot a couple of weddings) photographer that used to carry around SLRs, but have found the iPhone camera good enough to use for daily photography, so the best photography in a phone is a huge plus for myself as I can appreciate the photography enhancements.
Obviously for heavy lifting, I still would prefer an SLR with an assortment of lens options and such though.
Agreed on the comfort aspect. I splurged and got the iPhone X a few years back, and in daily use it still feels snappier than even the most recent flagship Samsung phones.
I get that's the marketing intent, but the last iteration of MacBook Pros (with the gimmicky taskbar, the fail-prone keyboard, and glued items) has failed on that regard, at least for me. I had to replace the keyboard on mine, and it took Apple 10 days to do it. How is that "pro"?
Twice during this summer, I was not able to share my screen with coworkers using Zoom because my MacBook pro would overheat and throttle the processors. It might be that there's some dust inside the fan (I have a cat) but I am not able to open and clean it up. How is that "Pro"?
Our servers are all linux based and virtualization in mac is spotty (especially if you want to share a Docker-based setup via Zoom on a mildly hot day).
I strongly doubt I will go back to Mac when the time comes for renewing. I really do need to get stuff done, and this machine has gotten in my way too many times.
I don't think any professional photographers will give up their DSLRs or Mirrorless/System Cameras in favor of an image sensor smaller than their fingernails.
The Pro iPhones are definitely for 'prosumers' rather than actual professionals. You know, the type that has a semi-professional DSLR, but just uses it to take better pictures than anyone else when they're at a party or going about the city.
However, with the growth of more organic looking content on social media, there are a lot of other types of "pros" using iPhones daily for commercial content creation.
Where I work, for example, the social media team are looking to buy an iPhone for IG Story content, as well as internal videos.
Whilst it obviously won't replace a pro photographer's equipment for static, paid shoots, it will be used often in a "pro" setting.
Pro photographers that make bank by being instagram influencers will be all over the iPhone Pro. This will completely upend the vlogging industry too.
I vlog with a DSLR and even with an iPhone X most people can’t tell when I use footage from that (running with a dslr is hard, for example). iPhone Pro likely makes better video than my T6i Rebel in many situations. Depth of field is usually where DSLRs shine
Compared to most new mirrorless or DSLR cameras, an iPhone is cheaper. A mirrorless or DSLR camera may have better sensor and optics (if you buy the right glass) BUT the computational capabilities of the phone far outstrip the computational capabilities of the camera.
I find that modern phones are better than traditional cameras a) by nailing exposure more consistently in tricky lighting conditions, b) having a far better display for proofing your shots, and c) can use computational photography tricks to create great HDR photos.
Accessibility and ease of workflow. I've had (and have) some nice cameras, but the phone is almost always with me and almost always more convenient to get at and use. The phone can also own much more of the lifecycle of the image than a stand alone camera. Viewing, editing, backing up, and sharing images are all much easier on a phone than at least the stand alone cameras I've used.
Where the standalone cameras are useful are where you need a capability that you just can't get in a phone. (And that's a set of capabilities that's been greatly diminished over the years, although it will never fully go away.)
You don't need the best gear for (that kind of) Instagram, an iPhone that takes fantastic photos _and_ lets you edit and post in a frictionless manner is probably a more productive platform.
People don't _look at_ Instagram posts in the same way they might a fine art photograph. It's a double tap while scrolling through hundreds of posts.
I say this as an avid amateur wildlife photographer who posts on Instagram and gets a handful of likes while friends get hundreds or thousands for an out-of-focus image of a milkshake and bagel.
The iPhone is a lifestyle product. It does a lot of things, but it does some of them quite poorly.
The new camera is better than it used to be, but it's still a long way of short of the quality you'd expect from a high-end professional photo studio camera.
As a lifestyle product, the important factor is the narrative that buying it will put you within reach of that professional creative lifestyle.
In a sense it will, if your definition is limited to lifestyle social sites like IG and FB.
But in a more honest and realistic sense it won't, because it lacks the quality and the flexibility of real professional equipment. A good DSLR + glass will still kill it, and medium format - which is what the most successful full-time studio pros are likely to use - will absolutely destroy it.
There are still situations where that high end is needed. Fashion, ads, and high-end portraiture and photojournalism all rely on it. I don't think studio photographers working in those fields are going to be moving to an iPhone any time soon.
My point was mostly that the definition of “pro photographer” is much wider these days than many people realize. For many values of “pro” an iPhone Pro is going to be absolutely fantastic and a better fit than higher-end pro.
> In a sense it will, if your definition is limited to lifestyle social sites like IG and FB.
That's precisely what I meant. It's what most people do most of the time.
Taking a shot of my breakfast smoothie with my 150mp Phase One, editing on a calibrated workstation and exporting to have it resized to 2mp for display on mobile phones is beyond pointless.
True, but even then, your best camera is the one you have with you. I have a nice Canon DSLR setup, but appreciate good camera quality from my phone, because even if I don't have my camera with me, I almost always have my phone.
Because why lug around all your serious gear all the time to make videos people watch on their phone when they’re bored on the crapper? Or for insta stories?
But the part it’s really going to revolutionize is the baseline level of expected image quality. Just like Casey Neistat forced everyone to start using DSLRs for vlogging with his famed 2 or 3 year experiment.
> Because you iphone is accessible on seconds notice anytime anywhere.
Not if I'm travelling internationally, as then I'm concerned about the implications of having border officials demand access to my phone. Or if I'm participating in various watersports/snowsports/backcountry activities where a phone is problematically fragile and difficult to keep charged.
In either of those scenarios (which account for the majority of pictures I take) I'm more likely to have a camera accessible than a phone.
It's not less money, though. I can buy a telephoto, wide angle, and super wide lens and not have any money left over if my budget is the cost of an iPhone. The point isn't that the phone can replace those things in every situation it's that it's so good that it's more than good enough to replace those things for a significant percentage of the times I need them.
Case in point, I have an iPhone X and a DSLR with all of the above lenses and the camera kit + lenses were more expensive than the new iPhone and I probably would use them less.
> Not sure the "Pro" distinction will hold up for iPhone, though
It does, you need to be able to charge its cost as a business expense to be able to afford it. The "Pro" signals to the tax auditors that Apple approves of this :-)
"MacBook Pro" and "iPad Pro" are the ones you buy if you need it for work, because the increased price will pay for itself with increased productivity. But buy the "Air" or basic versions if you are primarily using it for more basic tasks and media consumption.
Not sure the "Pro" distinction will hold up for iPhone, though. I guess it depends if Pro Photographers actually will give up their "Pro" cameras for an iPhone 11 Pro. And I can't think of any other profession where the iPhone Pro will "pay for itself" in productivity increases relative to other iPhones.