or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple assails iSuppli iPhone 4 part cost estimates
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple assails iSuppli iPhone 4 part cost estimates - Page 3

post #81 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas View Post

if the lowered the price of the ip4 lets say 25% (using that it costs aprox 300 for cheapest model) ($600 unsubsidized) the price would be $450... that is still a $150 profit margin per phone... if people had to pay $50 up front for the ip4 i bet a lot more people would buy it...



I think that Steve knows how to price his products to yield the maximum total profits. And that is what he cares about most. That's his job.
post #82 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Nope! But the Chinese do it well, and do it cheap.

Savings from all that foreign manufacturing/outsourcing could be passed on to the consumer... from a more fiscally conscientious organization.



There is no reason why Steve should "pass on" his savings. Those go into his pocket, and the customer doesn't care. That is why Apple products sell so well.
post #83 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas View Post

if Apple can;t say something like the price is close to $100 under what they sell the phone its still a rip off, selling 9.5+ million phones at $100 made per phone would mean that any costs of design would be taken care of ove and over... so i still feel that it is outrageously priced (for sales they expect, if those sales were half or maybe even 2/3rds it would make more sense...)

The market (actual buyers) seems to say the price is fine. What's your argument that the price is a rip-off? Who else is selling a million of a single model of phone a month? It is not a basic need, if you feel the price is too high, you can choose not to buy it.

Quote:
i feel that Apple would make monay of the iphone if they sold it for a penny above the manufacturing cost... (not really, but if it was $25 then it would be at least 10m (ip4 should sell at least this much before thye make a new one) that would be 25 million dollars... not including app's (new costumer,think it was like 25% of ip4 users are new (that or around 75% of 3g/gs users are going to ip4)

i mean Apple is showing the world how much F***ing $ they have on hand, you can argue its not much in terms of costs for keeping a company going, but they keep making record profits... if the lowered the price of the ip4 lets say 25% (using that it costs aprox 300 for cheapest model) ($600 unsubsidized) the price would be $450... that is still a $150 profit margin per phone... if people had to pay $50 up front for the ip4 i bet a lot more people would buy it...

Thanks for telling us that you put so little effort into your argument that you can't be bothered to look at their balance sheet. Also, thanks for telling us that you take these bill of material estimates out of context and assume them to be something they are not. If you can't tell the difference between gross margin and net margin (a very basic concept to accounting), then maybe you shouldn't be talking as if you know what you are talking about.
post #84 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by mobility View Post

You're suggesting they charge less? Let's have you run a business, let you make ~35-40% GROSS margin (which is not profit, for details read up corp finance) and I'll tell you to drop your selling price by 25%. THEN, you can tell Apple to do the same, or anyone else for that matter.

I'm amazed, truly am.


Amazing. Unless he owns a manufacturing company and lowers his gross margin to 10%, THEN he can tell Apple to do the same.

Unless he STFU!!!!!!!
post #85 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831 View Post

Apple writes off R&D costs every quarter in their SG&A. It's a separate line item in their SEC form.

What's that got to do with anything? There is still the cost, no matter how it's reported.

BTW, there are often 2 sets of books in a company. One set of books uses different depreciation methods for tax purposes, to make the profit lower and, therefore, lower taxes. But, there's a second set of books that use depreciation methods that are more favorable toward the stockholders and the quarterly reports. It shows a higher profit to look good to investors. It's all perfectly legal accounting.
post #86 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

What's the big surprise...

How else do people think Apple keeps posting these (questionably) astronomical quarterly profits?

Hint: By charging 10 to 20 times more than the value of the actual hardware.


DaHarder... wow... ignorance is ... flabbergasting!

parts + manufacturing + supply channel costs + R&D + marketing + Retailing + etc.

You've only covered the "value of the actual hardware." What the heck does that mean?
post #87 of 125
1. Do you own an iPhone?
2. Did you pay for it?

If the answer to the above questions is "yes" then by definition you are one of the over 50 million people who agree Apple's iPhone margin is acceptable.

The same test applies to computers, cars, Harvard's tuition, BP's gasoline, etc.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #88 of 125
What's iSuppli's parts cost estimate for MS Windows 7?
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #89 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

1)
I know you arent one to use the ban hammer, but this thread has already been jacked by asinine comments that are clearly written to troll. I implore you to consider the option.

OT: I come here to read your stuff. Keep up the great work.
post #90 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

How else do people think Apple keeps posting these (questionably) astronomical quarterly profits?

Hint: By charging 10 to 20 times more than the value of the actual hardware.

Don't you ever get tired of being not just wrong but spectacularly wrong? Or are you just desperate for attention? If the latter, you're a rather sad person.
post #91 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Don't you ever get tired of being not just wrong but spectacularly wrong?

Perhaps he's a Wall Street analyst. Or John C. Dvorak.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #92 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

The market (actual buyers) seems to say the price is fine. What's your argument that the price is a rip-off? Who else is selling a million of a single model of phone a month? It is not a basic need, if you feel the price is too high, you can choose not to buy it.

I think it all comes from that "entitlement" mentality that's so prevalent these days. He has personally decided how much profit Apple is allowed to make and anything more is deemed a rip-off. You are absolutely right, if he feels the price is too high, he is free to choose not to buy it. To quote another post, 50+ million people have already decided that the price of the iPhone (past and present) is perfectly acceptable. Personally, I think $300 (with a 2 year contract) for the 32GB iPhone 4 is just fine. I voted with my purchase and my only regret was that there wasn't a 64GB version.
post #93 of 125
Still good to know how much over the cost of components I am paying. If only for curiosity.
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
--SHEFFmachine out
Da Bears!
Reply
post #94 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Apple's parts and mfg. costs are kept secret [as much as possible] because they provide Apple with an advantage-- similar to any other IP.

In the past, Apple has paid in advance, millions of dollars, to secure production of high demand parts: RAM SSD,. etc. They are taking a risk for the potential reward of a profit.

If apple were to publish their parts costs, production agreements, schedules... they would be providing competitors with valuable information that could be used against Apple.

As an Apple shareholder, I would be among the first to join a lawsuit against the corporate executives for releasing this information to my detriment!

I don't understand how a shareholder lawsuit would work, at least, I don't think it would work out to be any better than people shooting themselves in the foot. Shareholders would be suing their own company, and their own company will be using the company's resources (also owned by shareholders) to defend itself.
post #95 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't understand how a shareholder lawsuit would work, at least, I don't think it would work out to be any better than people shooting themselves in the foot. Shareholders would be suing their own company, and their own company will be using the company's resources (also owned by shareholders) to defend itself.

In some cases, yes-- sue Apple to remove the executives before they do more damage.

In other cases, the suit is against the individual executives, on behalf of the shareholders-- in that case it would be improper for the executives or Apple to use Apple resources to defend them.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #96 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

In some cases, yes-- sue Apple to remove the executives before they do more damage.

In other cases, the suit is against the individual executives, on behalf of the shareholders-- in that case it would be improper for the executives or Apple to use Apple resources to defend them.

.

As a shareholder, you can sue the execs for how they part their hair. That doesn't mean it would make it anywhere though. Also, you'd be suing other shareholders as the deep pockets group (someone's going to have to pay up: legal fees, assumed settlement). Why not just sell your shares? Do you think you'd have a hard time getting more than you paid originally?
post #97 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

In some cases, yes-- sue Apple to remove the executives before they do more damage.

In other cases, the suit is against the individual executives, on behalf of the shareholders-- in that case it would be improper for the executives or Apple to use Apple resources to defend them.

I think it would have to be something a lot more serious than releasing specific part cost information for the company to not defend them. Keeping component costs secret is to Apple's advantage, but I'm not convinced that it's nearly to the same degree as keeping upcoming product designs and feature lists secret. It would probably hurt their suppliers far more than Apple, such a breach may be a matter of contract violation between companies and not much more, in my opinion.
post #98 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas View Post

if Apple can;t say something like the price is close to $100 under what they sell the phone its still a rip off, selling 9.5+ million phones at $100 made per phone would mean that any costs of design would be taken care of ove and over... so i still feel that it is outrageously priced (for sales they expect, if those sales were half or maybe even 2/3rds it would make more sense...)

i feel that Apple would make monay of the iphone if they sold it for a penny above the manufacturing cost... (not really, but if it was $25 then it would be at least 10m (ip4 should sell at least this much before thye make a new one) that would be 25 million dollars... not including app's (new costumer,think it was like 25% of ip4 users are new (that or around 75% of 3g/gs users are going to ip4)

i mean Apple is showing the world how much F***ing $ they have on hand, you can argue its not much in terms of costs for keeping a company going, but they keep making record profits... if the lowered the price of the ip4 lets say 25% (using that it costs aprox 300 for cheapest model) ($600 unsubsidized) the price would be $450... that is still a $150 profit margin per phone... if people had to pay $50 up front for the ip4 i bet a lot more people would buy it...

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

What's the big surprise...

How else do people think Apple keeps posting these (questionably) astronomical quarterly profits?

Hint: By charging 10 to 20 times more than the value of the actual hardware.

Both of you need to read a little Business 101. COGS or BoM only set a floor for pricing. The market sets the actual price and if that price is less than your costs then you're quickly going out of business. In Apples case the market price is quite high. In fact, looking at the shortages they still have on iPads and iPhone4s, I could argue the prices are too LOW. But, since Apple doesn't do variable pricing they have to set prices at what they feel is right for the entire life of a product and then deal with the near term shortages.
post #99 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

What's the big surprise...

How else do people think Apple keeps posting these (questionably) astronomical quarterly profits?

Hint: By charging 10 to 20 times more than the value of the actual hardware.

Also people buying their products might have something to do with it, regardless if you're correct about pricing.

Think before you post a comment please, thanks.
post #100 of 125
Last time I checked the Droid X and the Droid Incredible are being sold by Verizon on a two year contract for $199-- just like the iPhone. And that two year contract will cost you pretty much exactly what the comparable plan on AT&T will cost you.

So given that the cost of ownership of the current marquee Android phones are the same as the current marquee iPhone, why are we even having a discussion about Apple's margins or rip-off pricing or greed or whatever? It's as if certain people have become so enamored with the idea of Apple's "premium pricing" that they are incapable of adjusting their responses to match reality and just keep hammering away at that idea even when it actually doesn't make any sense.

Same goes for the iPad-- most people were stunned at how aggressively Apple priced it at release, yet somehow we've drifted back to the idea that it's somehow too expensive-- even though there (still) isn't anything else like it on the market to serve as a basis of comparison. We seem to operating under the general theorem that if Apple makes it, it's overpriced-- regardless of what that price is or how it stacks up in the market.

None of which matters much, of course, since the buying public is perfectly capable of making their own estimates of relative cost and relative value, no matter how many times dreary internet pundits try to convince them that Apple, and Apple alone, should be giving away their gear at cost.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #101 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

That's only because that all you're looking for... the adverse.

Closer observation would reveal that I comment/blog/post on numerous products/services, Apple included, both favorably and otherwise.

Have a nice night...

Citation please!

I have read many of your posts an several forums. I don't recall any that were other than anti-Apple or sarcasm.

Would you post links to 5 posts that are neutral or pro Apple. (Defending yourself for posting anti-Apple FUD is not neutral).

Otherwise, all we have to go on is to Click on your Alias and review your posts.

TIA

Dick
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #102 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

I don't understand how a shareholder lawsuit would work, at least, I don't think it would work out to be any better than people shooting themselves in the foot. Shareholders would be suing their own company, and their own company will be using the company's resources (also owned by shareholders) to defend itself.


Before that would happen, the stockholders would insist that the BOD fire the officers and replace them. If that didn't work, they would vote the BOD out of office.
post #103 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

In some cases, yes-- sue Apple to remove the executives before they do more damage.

In other cases, the suit is against the individual executives, on behalf of the shareholders-- in that case it would be improper for the executives or Apple to use Apple resources to defend them.

.


Generally, the execs are indemnified by the company for shareholder suits. It is much harder to recruit talent if they are constantly in jeopardy of being sued personally for making an incorrect decision.
post #104 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder

How else do people think Apple keeps posting these (questionably) astronomical quarterly profits?

Hint: By charging 10 to 20 times more than the value of the actual hardware.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ktappe View Post

Don't you ever get tired of being not just wrong but spectacularly wrong? Or are you just desperate for attention? If the latter, you're a rather sad person.

Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Perhaps he's a Wall Street analyst. Or John C. Dvorak.

Best post yet!

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #105 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Weren’t they the ones that did a BOM cost of the “Apple Tablet” weeks before there was any official announcement of a tablet, its name, size, features or specs back in early January?


PS: DaHarder has always posted stupid comments, but to claim the $600 iPad only costs Apple $30 to $60 is phenomenally doltish.

A couple of possibilities:

1. DaHarder is a troll.

2. DaHarder is a tech writer with typical mathematical abilities exhibited by such creatures.
post #106 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter02l View Post

Don't give him a hard time. He is right. Apple should adjust its margins to the same level as Microsoft. Microsoft sold XP for 10 years at the same price. That is the proper way to take care of our customer. Office too has stayed a bargain for decades.

The general level of economic ignorance in this thread is astounding.

Not only do the cost figures not include design, hardware R&D (they don't just pick some random set of parts from a bin and say "there's our new phone" after all, and in the case of the CPU, they've done the custom engineering), test facilities (e.g., the now revealed highly advanced isolated signal labs), product testing on the line, defective units, etc. - they also leave out simple things like packaging, shipping, order-taking and processing (at the wholesale, company store and retail level), warehousing, marketing/advertising, returns, warranty service, tech support (consistently rated best in their industries, year after year, so you know they're putting more into it).

And beyond simple things, there are the costs of building, designing/architecting, maintaining and frequently refreshing a network of innovative, attractive upscale stores, sales staff, geniuses, stock, Apple.com, testing and vetting apps, etc., etc.

And beyond that there's the whole massive software development effort that leads to iOS 4 (and 5 and 6, etc.) - which, if it were simple, MS and Nokia would've gotten right years ago. Both at the kernel and UI levels (and everywhere between) - which has to be integrated across an increasing range of device - and interface reasonably seamlessly with OS X, Windows, the app, tunes and bookstores - and the phone networks in umpteen countries and a gaggle of languages. This could be the biggest single "cost" of making the devices.

And then there's economics - which seems to utterly elude many posters. For one example, by concentrating on a relatively small number of intensively engineered SKU's compared to the cranking out of endless quickly engineered (and quickly abandoned) models by companies like Motorola, HP, Dell, HTC, Samsung, Sony, etc., etc., Apple literally bets the store on each new product - a business model requiring a high gross margin. While it's working, it, yes, produces a high net profit, but when it's not (as in the '90's), the company can easily begin to skate the edge of a near-death experience.

E.g., if "Antennagate" was more than the smallish kerfluffle it now appears to be, the damage to the entire company could be significant and lasting.

Suggesting Apple "adjust its margins to the same level as Microsoft" - which loses money on most of its products except for its effective near monopoloy in Windows, Office and server software, while constantly throwing money down ratholes like Kin, Pink, UMPC, Plays for Sure, Zune, WinPhone, Money, photo-editing software -- and Bob! (and one could go on and on with this list) - is not only naive, but would, of course be illegal price-fixing, assuming Apple even had access to all the MS data necessary.

Apple and MS have entirely different business models and practices - MS being primarily a software company dependent on the enterprise market for reliable revenue streams, and Apple a device maker which supplies its own software depending primarily on the consumer and niche markets. It has to make its money and support all of the above from profits on selling devices.

I chose this particular post (among many low-hanging fruits of ignorance) because while jumping on the Apple's-margins-are-too-high bandwagon, it gives MS Office as an example of "a bargain." So what is MS's cost of "making" Office? A couple of plastic discs in a box (or a long download) - based on engineering and coding mostly done many years ago (throwing in a few new features and interface tweaks in infrequent new versions - many of which are arguably not advances at all, e.g., the ribbon interface, and others intended mostly to guide users into other MS products - the Live initiative, Exchange, etc.) - which they sell over and over for years between versions - for a likely "cost" of what, $20 (maybe) a pop? And sold for hundreds. Now there's a bargain!!
Full disclosure: Apple obviously also designs its ecosystem to direct people to its other offerings - as does Sony. The question is whether those other products also appeal and add to the collective momentum. How's that Memory Stick, Mini-Disc, Atrac, etc. stuff working out for you, Sony? And the same is true of Windows itself - a box of bits with a shelf life of years. The margins are fantastic, with the company's bottom line pulled down only by its failure to make popular, innovative products in any other areas.

And pointing to the price stability of XP ignores that Apple's OS prices haven't risen either - nor have the price of their machines in general - computers, pods, phones, etc. - or have fallen even as their functionality has increased.

What's next? An Apple Czar at the federal level deciding what's "fair" for Apple to make from its amazing, unique organization? Listen, if Apple stumbles in usability, functionality and appeal to Android, Windows or any other of the many competitors around the world, no one has to buy their stuff, and people will abandon them. So enough with talk of how they need to be humbled, shackled or regulated for the public good.

Apple's far from perfect, their goods aren't right for everyone and not everyone can afford them, but I'm more than willing to leave their fate in the hands of their decisions and practices and the world's collective willingness to buy in or not. It'll all sort itself out in the real world. Not everyone can afford a BMW either, and their gross margins are probably higher than a Ford Focus, and I'm wonderfully happy with my Camry, but I'm willing to allow them to work out their own fate as well.

\

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #107 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
You're doing all the instigation. I'm being very moderate in not throwing you off.

Thank You, though I always endeavor to adhere to all forum rules/guidelines.

I was right, you are a troll. A very successful one. You have managed to highjack the thread. Congratulations.
post #108 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by sheff View Post

Still good to know how much over the cost of components I am paying. If only for curiosity.

Yes, but the parts costs estimates, are just that: estimates. They, easily, could be off 20%-30% in either direction. And they change during the life-cycle of the products.

How can they estimate the cost of the A4 processor -- it is custom silicon made exclusively for Apple. It is different, and manufactured in different quantities, on different production line setups than off-the shelf equivalents.

Because of this, Apple, likely, must pay a premium to reserve/schedule manufacturing capacity so that there are no shortages of this critical "part".

This takes real expertise! Tim Cook and his reports are doing a fantastic job, IMO.

.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #109 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

What's the big surprise...

How else do people think Apple keeps posting these (questionably) astronomical quarterly profits?

Hint: By charging 10 to 20 times more than the value of the actual hardware.

Those numbers are available and prove morons like you wrong. If you had actually read and comprehended the article you would know that.
post #110 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

Nope! But the Chinese do it well, and do it cheap.

Savings from all that foreign manufacturing/outsourcing could be passed on to the consumer... from a more fiscally conscientious organization.

I'm not sure where you seem to get the idea that making less money is an obligation of a company, moral or otherwise. If you could get by on less money, do you tell your boss to cut your salary? You know, to be a more fiscally conscientious person?


Quote:
Originally Posted by peter02l View Post

Don't give him a hard time. He is right. Apple should adjust its margins to the same level as Microsoft. Microsoft sold XP for 10 years at the same price. That is the proper way to take care of our customer. Office too has stayed a bargain for decades.

Did anyone figure out if this guy was actually agreeing with DH or having a joke at his expense? I couldn't figure out either way.


Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

It was merely a rough estimate (like 99.9% of every figure posted in here), and should be taken as such.

If you think we should ignore that initial comment, you can just come out and say that. It's charitable to even call it a rough estimate, it's a wild guess based on zero knowledge whatsoever. I might as well draw a bunch of numbers in the kitty litter and see which one she poops on.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Chopper View Post

And Apple's response, as for many things Apple, could and perhaps should have been "we don't comment on our costs of manufacture", but they chose instead to have a b!tch about it. There were other things questioned during that conference that they chose not to discuss, remember.

It just makes Apple look nervous. Poor form IMHO.

Seems like you're bringing your personal biases into it. If a company is asked about info they know to be wrong, isn't it perfectly justifiable to clarify that that information is in fact wrong? Frankly, it's hard to imagine a response that was more diplomatic.
post #111 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

What's the big surprise...

How else do people think Apple keeps posting these (questionably) astronomical quarterly profits?

Hint: By charging 10 to 20 times more than the value of the actual hardware.

10-20 times the value of the actual hardware?
Not 1.5x?
Not 2x?
Not even 3x?!!
10 to 20 times!

If I'd known that I should have paid a mere $100 for my Macbook, I'd never have bought it! To say nothing of my iPhone, which should have cost me only $10.
post #112 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

What's the big surprise...

How else do people think Apple keeps posting these (questionably) astronomical quarterly profits?

Hint: By charging 10 to 20 times more than the value of the actual hardware.

Hint: Since you or I (or anyone else outside of Apple, for that matter) can know the entire cost structure of any Apple product, with any degree of certainty, any statement like that can only be considered a viewpoint and should never be stated as 'tho it were a fact.

In your tag line you say: " Remember: Your View-Point Is Not The Only Perspective" ... (partial quote).

It seems to me there is a huge disconnect between what you write and what your tag line suggests you believe.

If you're doing it on purpose it would suggest you're not only a troll, but likely, not even a smart one.
If you're unaware of it ... then I would suggest a brain scan .... firstly, to see if one actually exists .. and secondly .... to see if it is working, because frankly, it would appear that not all of your neurons are traveling down the proper highway.
I personally don't think you're stupid or insane, but then .... I've been wrong before. Good luck !
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
See, in the record business, you can show someone your song, and they don’t copy it. In the tech business, you show somebody your idea, and they steal it. (Jimmy Iovine)
Reply
post #113 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by peter02l View Post

Don't give him a hard time. He is right. Apple should adjust its margins to the same level as Microsoft. Microsoft sold XP for 10 years at the same price. That is the proper way to take care of our customer. Office too has stayed a bargain for decades.

Great post.
post #114 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

What's next? An Apple Czar at the federal level deciding what's "fair" for Apple to make from its amazing, unique organization?

Actually, yes. Obama granted unelected regulators the power to do exactly that in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill he signed today.

Quote:
The general level of economic ignorance in this thread is astounding.

The general level of economic ignorance in Congress is equally astounding.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #115 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Werent they the ones that did a BOM cost of the Apple Tablet weeks before there was any official announcement of a tablet, its name, size, features or specs back in early January?


PS: DaHarder has always posted stupid comments, but to claim the $600 iPad only costs Apple $30 to $60 is phenomenally doltish.

Doad slarvingly doltish, I might add...
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #116 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Actually, yes. Obama granted unelected regulators the power to do exactly that in the Dodd-Frank financial reform bill he signed today.

This is the AppleInsider forum.

The "I'm a delusional, birther, right-wing nut-job" forum is located elsewhere on the web.
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #117 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by justflybob View Post

This is the AppleInsider forum.

The "I'm a delusional, birther, right-wing nut-job" forum is located elsewhere on the web.

So this one's reserved for the "I just want to whine about Apple without any considerations from the real world interfering with my delusions" crowd??

Good to get that sorted out.

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply

An iPhone, a Leatherman and thou...  ...life is complete.

Reply
post #118 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

Suggesting Apple "adjust its margins to the same level as Microsoft" ... is not only naive, but would, of course be illegal price-fixing, assuming Apple even had access to all the MS data necessary.

You missed the sarcasm in his post. It was tongue-in-cheek.
post #119 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigpics View Post

So this one's reserved for the "I just want to whine about Apple without any considerations from the real world interfering with my delusions" crowd??

Good to get that sorted out.

One hint: PoliticalOutsider

Post the political drivel there or don't post.

The OP's post was a far cry from what really happened today and they should know that. If they don't, then there's the problem. But it still doesn't belong in this thread or this part of the forum and they should know that as well. if they want to be credible and post in PoliticalOutsider, they should post a link to the precise portion of what they were referring to - a neutral and factual link that would back up their absurd claim. They didn't, and they can't, but then again, NOT HERE.

As far as your post? I do not have an issue with anyone who is having a problem with an Apple product they actually own and choose to post it here. They would often be better off going to Apple's support forum, but sooner or later someone will point them in that direction.

I do have an issue with people who just make stuff up and can't support it. And if that was your point, then fine, but don't point it at me when I point out the obvious about where political posts belong.

The only wine I do is a nice Cabernet, preferably from the Napa Valley - specifically from Silver Oak Winery. The cheese? That I will vary. And if your response was directed at me? Boy, oh boy, you're just not paying attention.

That "real world" enough for you, or do I need to dumb it down some more?
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
Pity the agnostic dyslectic. They spend all their time contemplating the existence of dog.
Reply
post #120 of 125
Quote:
Originally Posted by nicolbolas View Post

if Apple can;t say something like the price is close to $100 under what they sell the phone its still a rip off,

They sort of did.

$3.25b profit per quarter
$15.7b in revenue
3.5 million Macs
revenue from Macs = $3.76b
3.3 million iPads
8.4 million iPhones
9.4 million iPods
Revenue from iOS devices = $12b

Total iOS devices = 21.1m

Even if the entire profit was divided by just the iOS devices, that comes to $154 per unit profit.

The profit share between Macs and iOS devices has been reported at about 50:50 in the past, which would suggest that the average profit margin per iOS device is about $80 and the average profit per Mac is about $464.

That seems a little skewed and given the revenue shares, it's more likely that the share is 70:30 profit share in favor of the iOS devices, which would suggest $278 per Mac and $108 per iOS device.

Just to verify:

3.5m Macs at average $278 profit each = $973m
21.1m iOS devices at average $108 profit = $2279m

Total profit = $3.25b

The share will vary so the profit per Mac and profit per iOS device will change but it's not nearly as high as companies like iSuppli led us to believe.

I actually included non-iOS devices in the iOS group of course and they will have a far lower profit margin than $108, which means the margin on the higher end devices will be more but iPod Touch sales have been reported on par with iPhone sales so this won't have a significant effect on the number - it would only shift to $140 in the worst case.

I guess Apple isn't evil after all, they just need to reduce manufacturing costs or whatever other costs are sucking up the money. Steve's jet can go for one thing. Just give him a kayak and have him paddle over. That's $200m. The convoy to bring all the magic in from Pluto can be reduced. Cut down the electricity bill on powering the reality distortion field by dropping it down to 20.1 jigawatts from 21.1 and get Steve a chauffeur to save on the speeding tickets. Then there's his $1 salary - get that down to 99c.

I imagine a lot of the expenses might be with the Apple Store rollouts and increasing numbers of employees, which should be around 40,000 by now.

While as a consumer, I prefer cheaper products, if I was in their shoes, I'd do the same thing and make the best products with whatever resources were available. At this point, I'd probably use the profit share from the mobile devices to reduce margins on the Macs subsequently increasing volume and profits for the Macs.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Apple assails iSuppli iPhone 4 part cost estimates