Edit:
I'll admit its hard to tease out utility differences here. This isn't a rolex situation where the cheaper alternative is 'better'. Although I could cite the gold iPhones as purer examples.
The fact remains, a mid range android phone gets you 95% of what you want a smartphone to have. The iphone proposition is nice to have, not need to have.
> but there very few people where the better y is worth the extra $xx.
You did bring up Rolex, but it isn't that simple. Phones have much more variety and depth of utility than watches. While a watch's quality of function will not really vary between a $15 digital one and a $1000+ one, phones' functionality will. That's part of what makes expensive phones worth it, because they have good software and quality to go along with design.
> The iphone proposition is nice to have, not need to have.
Well yes, they're a status symbol, no need for the arm chair.
People may rationalise how it does y better than the competition, but there very few people where the better y is worth the extra $xx.
I'm reminded of this: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Rich
Edit: I'll admit its hard to tease out utility differences here. This isn't a rolex situation where the cheaper alternative is 'better'. Although I could cite the gold iPhones as purer examples.
The fact remains, a mid range android phone gets you 95% of what you want a smartphone to have. The iphone proposition is nice to have, not need to have.