Digitimes reverses stance on 2013 release of larger-screened iPhone

dt;dr
 

why bother?

"Hey, guys, look at me, I'm an idiot!"
 

"… We don't care."

"Just kidding; I was only pretending to be an idiot!"

"…"

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bregalad 

I think that the iPhone 4S costs more to make than the iPhone 5 does.

Oh, oh... you're asking for a lecture from the local business brainiac.

Originally Posted by jragosta 
RAM - iP5 has more RAM
Screen - IP5 has not only a larger screen, but also a more difficult to make (direct bonding) screen

So what logic would lead you (and Island Hermit who apparently has no desire to ever learn anything) conclude that the iPhone 4S costs more to make than the iPhone 5?

Old components start going back up in price after they've been off the market for long enough. RAM for a first-gen Mac Pro, for example, is more expensive than for the most recent one, and more expensive than it was at its cheapest.

Of course, that's because these components aren't being made anymore, unlike the iPhones'.

The problem is you can't unhear a rumor. It's irresponsible of DigiTimesInsider to spread lies unreliable gossip for the click traffic.

Originally Posted by jragosta 
That's just silly. Look at the components:

CPU - iP5's CPU is more expensive
RAM - iP5 has more RAM
Screen - IP5 has not only a larger screen, but also a more difficult to make (direct bonding) screen
Case - iP5 uses a burnishing that is apparently very difficult to achieve and had significant quality problems
Battery - IIRC, iP5 has a slightly larger battery
Radio - iP5 has LTE which undoubtedly adds cost
Assembly - iP4s has been made for over a year and they have more than twice as much experience making it which means lower cost for the iP4

So what logic would lead you (and Island Hermit who apparently has no desire to ever learn anything) conclude that the iPhone 4S costs more to make than the iPhone 5?

So, what you are saying is that no manufacturer has ever changed there manufacturing process so that it is cheaper. In other words Henry Ford's original lines had the same efficiencies as the lines that exist today at Ford. By your logic each MBP and every iMac should have been more expensive than the one that preceded it.

Brilliant.

Apple changes its processes, along with Foxconn, to make the product as efficiently and cheaply as possible. Maybe the 5 lines are cheaper than the 4S lines because of changes made to the manufacturing process... but we wouldn't know that, would we? Well, would we?

Yet you rant and rave and call me names... and all I've ever said is that I don't think the margins are higher. I even said they might be the same.

I don't think there is anyone outside of Cook and Oppenheimer who know the true costs... and especially not you and your inexperienced guesstimates.

By the way... you have not shown me one Apple document that shows definitively the costs of the 4S and the 5 to manufacture. You show me that and maybe I'll believe you. Otherwise you are just a big windbag.

To everyone else... I remember all the shouting and screaming when Amazon started producing the Fire. One crowd said that the Fire was being produced for $149 in parts, another had it pegged at $199 in parts and yet another had it pegged at $229. All of these estimates gave a list of parts and the corresponding price for each part... yet they all came in at different prices. So, can you see why I won't believe some hothead on the internet about costs. It's all very difficult to decipher without the actual figures.

[what did I tell you, Bregalad... business braiiac on the loose.... ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhh] 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bregalad 

...

3. A larger high resolution iPhone designed to beat large Android phones.
...

You're missing some obvious facts from your long list.

1. Out of all Android phones, most are the same size screen as an iPhone or smaller.  The larger ones are not actually the bulk of the market. 

2. The ones that are large, are currently not "beating the iPhone." 

If larger than 5" phones are all the rage like the detractors say, why would Apple take a few years to think about it and then come up with a 4.5" screen, only to change their mind less than a year later and decide they should have gone with a 5" screen?  If they truly believed that a bigger phone screen was better or if they truly thought that this was a segment of the market that they "needed to address" why wouldn't they do it when they changed the size of the original phone six months ago?  

Anyway you look at it, for the people pushing the 5" or bigger screen jazz are right, then you have to assume that Apple is not only almost criminally stupid, but that they are also cripplingly indecisive at the same time.  You have to believe they are all running around with their hair on fire reacting to every slight bump in the market like complete idiots.  You have to believe that they just have no idea what to do right now and are grasping at straws.  Is that likely?  

----

The only real legs the whole "It needs to be bigger" fantasy has, is the fact that there *might* be a small market developing for the so-called "phablet" as in a small 5-7" sitabletze device with a stylus that is also a phone.  What people don't seem to see however, is that this is the same market the iPad mini plays in.  

Apple could decimate/capture the entire "phablet" market overnight with two simple steps, one of which is likely already underway.  

1. Let the phone app reside on the iPad mini as well as the iPhone.

2. Add a stylus and an API for same.

This would immediately turn the iPad mini into a better "Phablet" than any of the competition.  They'd be wiped out.  It wouldn't cost Apple a thing and could be done in a month or two tops.  

Why would anyone buy a 5" galaxy note when an only slightly bigger iPad mini with a stylus could do so much more?  Why would anyone who likes the idea of a large phone that's also a small tablet, not instantly prefer the iPad mini if you could also use it as a phone?  If your answer is that the smaller Galaxy note is easier to hold in your hand and therefore makes a better phone, then congratulations you've just argued in a complete circle and proven that in fact, "phones" should be smaller.  

Apple is making solid, rational choices with a definite long term plan in mind.  Everyone else is just reacting to whatever they think the market is doing.  

Who's winning?  And why is everyone arguing that Apple should stop with this silly long term planning and react like a chump to whatever the latest analyst *thinks* is happening?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by AppleInsider 

Hit-or-miss Taiwanese publication Digitimes In a report on Tuesday backpedaled on its previous claims that Apple would be launching a cheaper, yet larger-screened, iPhone variant in 2013 to combat a growing low-end "phablet" market.

Of course they backpedalled on that claim.

It was outrageously ridiculous.

Why would a larger screened iPhone be CHEAPER?

What kind of logic is that? Is the iPad 2 cheaper than the iPad Mini???

Originally Posted by blackbook 
What kind of logic is that? Is the iPad 2 cheaper than the iPad Mini???

*cough* It's probably cheaper to make. They could have easily not made a mini and sold the iPad 2 for $299… 

Also, compare 3.5" and 2.5" HDDs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bregalad 

I totally disregard everything from DigiTimes so here are some facts:

- iPhone 5 is selling better than any previous iPhone in the USA
- iPhone 4 and 4S are also selling well in the USA
- Android has the majority of the smartphone market in almost every other country
- Apple continues to earn most of the profits in the mobile phone industry
- Samsung is now making big profits
- The Galaxy SIII is larger than any iPhone both in physical size and screen resolution
- iPhone 4S uses the old 30-pin connector

I think that the Galaxy SIII is the main source of Samsung's profits.
I think that the iPhone 4S costs more to make than the iPhone 5 does.
I think Apple wants to get rid of the 30-pin connector soon.

Based on the above I believe that Apple is experimenting with three new phones:

1. iPhone 5S, the natural evolution of the existing iPhone 5
2. a repackaging of the iPhone 4S into a smaller, less expensive case with the Lightning connector

This is consistent with taking the iPad 2 and stuffing it into a smaller, thinner case with a Lightning connector and renaming it iPad mini. I expect Apple to do this in 2013.

3. A larger high resolution iPhone designed to beat large Android phones.

Such a device will be introduced if and only if Apple determines that selling two different sizes of new iPhone would be more profitable than continuing to sell just one. I'll believe it when I see it.

I agree with some of what you said.

Now would be the optimum time for Apple to add an "iPhone Min.i" I expect such a device to be a repackaged iPhone 4S. They'll probably remove the pricy and easily damaged glass back and replace it with either iPod style aluminum or as WSJ says polycarbonate plastic and add a lightning connector as well.

I imagine removing the glass back panel alone and using newer screen and battery technology should help it trim some weight, and potentially be thinner than the iPhone 5 (maybe the cheaper iPhone will have the "Air" moniker).

Anyway such a device could retail for $349, half the price of the 5S.

As far as a larger phone to "beat Android." I have one question. Is price the main driving factor of a smartphone purchase, or is screen size? Just using one example. In Verizon's latest reports half of all the iPhones they sold (meaning over 30% of ALL smartphones they sold) were iPhone 4/4S.

As you know the 4/4S have tiny screens yet they were flying off shelves and MANY people chose the 3.5 inch 4/4S over 4.5 inch Androids that were the same price. So obviously screen size alone isn't the main driving factor for most smartphone purchases.

Anyway aside from all that I wouldn't be surprised if Apple made a 5 inch iPhone. But I'll probably stick with the 4 inch size when the bigger one does come out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

*cough* It's probably cheaper to make. They could have easily not made a mini and sold the iPad 2 for $299… 

 

Also, compare 3.5" and 2.5" HDDs.

They could have but... They're still selling the iPad 2 for $399 and people are STILL BUYING THEM! Pure profit! 

Originally Posted by blackbook 
They could have but... They're still selling the iPad 2 for $399 and people are STILL BUYING THEM! Pure profit! 

Exactly. I wonder if they make more this way than the other.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Scrip 


The Moto Droid X and HTC Evo were also 4.3" way back in 2010 too. And both those companies have phones from 4.7" to 5" today.

So what do those companies know that Apple doesn't? If the increase in screen size was a mistake... the Galaxy SIII would have gone back to 4". But it didn't.
 

Well, it could be a case of what Apple knows that these companies don't.

Namely, how to design a phone that gets a decent day's work out of a relatively small battery. And how to design smaller, more power efficient components.

It could be that one reason that these phones are so large is because the manufacturers don't have any choice but to make them large.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Entropys 

While most a droid phones are smaller or similar in size to the iPhone, the flagship products are all big screen phablets. If apple chose to erode the market share of those products, would they make a larger phone, or an iPad nano?

 If the phablets aren't selling so well then what would be the point of making another phablet that doesn't sell so well?

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

There are, however, many, many reports that a number of things in the iPhone 5 are difficult to do, but I'm not basing my argument on that. I'm simply stating a well-established business principle that as you make more of something, you get better at it and the costs fall. Furthermore, after your fixed costs are amortized, further production becomes less expensive because the fixed costs are already recovered.

All the comments about amortized costs only directly apply to Foxconn's internal profit margin.   Apple isn't the manufacturer.  Apple pays Foxconn a fixed assembly price.  

Foxconn might give them a break after a certain amount, or they might not.   After all, they need to profit, too, and their margin is below 2% these days.

You're bashing him for not listening to your experience while "bragging" about it, yet you yourself recently posted to me that, while you were not experienced in touch systems, you still thought you knew more than someone who is:

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 

I'm not going to get into whether it was obvious or not because I'm not familiar enough with the technology to know. I do know, however, that your statement is false.

 

Attach petard.  Hoist self.

 

Actually, I don't blame you.   This place has a toxic atmosphere that seems to affect everyone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jragosta 


Here's a hint for you. When you make things up and pretend the other person said them, it's a straw man argument and is just one of many signs that you don't know what you're talking about. Since I never made such a foolish claim, there's really no need to respond to it.
Maybe they simply grow them on trees, too. Maybe they purchased the elf from Keebler and he waves his magic wand to make them. Maybe they found them in a cave in China and all they need to do is collect them.

BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN, everything you claim is false. There's not a single report that would suggest any thing like what you are claiming. There are, however, many, many reports that a number of things in the iPhone 5 are difficult to do, but I'm not basing my argument on that. I'm simply stating a well-established business principle that as you make more of something, you get better at it and the costs fall. Furthermore, after your fixed costs are amortized, further production becomes less expensive because the fixed costs are already recovered.

But, then, you don't seem to have any concept of the relevant costs in manufacturing and would rather brag about your ignorance, so that won't mean anything to you.
I didn't call you names. I simply pointed out that you were wrong and were wallowing in your ignorance - both of which are obvious facts.
I never said that I knew their costs. It is, however, possible to determine trends. And you seem to be confused. You're the one who's inexperienced and has no manufacturing experience.
I don't need to show you Apple documents. There are certain trends that are well established in manufacturing, but since you apparently don't know anything about it and refuse to learn, I guess that doesn't concern you.
If by "business brainiac" you mean "someone who knows enough about business based on decades of experience to form an informed opinion", then your accusation is correct.

I always have to wonder what is is about people like you who somehow think that ignorance is better than experience - and then brag about their ignorance.

Straw man argument? You said that an older product costs less because of experience and amortization. I was only showing you examples of why this isn't necessarily true.

... and if you would have listened instead of spouting off from your ass you would have seen that I actually agreed with you but that I didn't believe that margins would be higher on the older products, either the same or lower... because of exactly what you were saying and because the units had been reduced in price proportionately.

Your so called established business practices just don't make sense. I've already given a couple of examples that show that as a business continues to operate it finds new ways to make items cheaper. It works exactly as you say but those economies aren't passed along to just the old tech, they are passed along to the new tech as well. This is why a Mac Classic with 16mb of storage and 1 mb of ram cost more by far than almost any iMac sold today. It sounds to me, though, like you are saying that it should cost less. Hell, they are used to making Mac Classics. They should be able to pump them out for much cheaper than iMacs today. Right? No. As Apple becomes more and more experienced, and as Foxconn becomes more experienced, as Samsung becomes more experienced, all of the costs get reduced because of new manufacturing processes... except for facility and manpower costs, which increase, which is why the other costs must come down. Hell, gluing instead of screwing can save you millions when you are making 40 million units a quarter. Robotics is another area that has reduced costs dramatically. I'm sure that if you actually thought about it you could give me lots of areas where costs are reduced because of new manufacturing processes. Foxconn aint static, as their labour costs increase, they are looking for ways to decrease costs. It's every company's responsibility to do this.

Older screen processes, older chip processes can all cost more than new processes, regardless of how much you have amortized the cost of the product. Someone mentioned R & D. Actually, that's a separate line on Apple's quarterly report. So don't go adding that into the mix. Apple doesn't amortize r & d into each separate product. It's amortized over the entire line. As far as fixed costs in manufacturing. Huh? I didn't know Apple was manufacturing anything. Designing, yes.

All of this horseshit that you've written and you still cannot show me one document that absolutely shows that the 4S costs less than the 5 to make. I don't care about some report from Digitimes or even someone at Foxconn that says that something is difficult to do. I want to see the actual cost. Until then YOU are just making things up.

Anyway... I'm moving on so have at er.

jrag bragging and saying he knows something about everything?  Who would've thunk it? /s