or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Digitimes reverses stance on 2013 release of larger-screened iPhone
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Digitimes reverses stance on 2013 release of larger-screened iPhone

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
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.

iPhone 5
Apple current iPhone 5 features a 4-inch screen.


While DigiTimes reversed its original take on big-screen iPhone debut, the publication is hedging its bets and contends that Apple will eventually release such a handset, just not this year.

The report went on to agree with the The Wall Street Journal, which previously claimed that Apple is planning on releasing two separate iPhone models this year. In its piece, the WSJ cited sources as saying both a successor to the current iPhone 5 and a budget smartphone, possibly made of polycarbonate, would launch sometime in 2013.

Adding to Tuesday's rumor, DigiTimes noted that both the next-generation iPhone and rumored handset will feature in-cell touchscreen panels. The current iPhone 5 already boasts the advanced screen tech that allows for a thinner device by integrating touch sensing components within the LCD array. Yield rates of the complex displays caused supply constraints when the latest iPhone launched last year, but those production issues are said to have been corrected.

The latest rumor may be unfounded, however, as Apple is thought to have chosen older touchscreen tech, in addition to non-Retina resolution panels, with the iPad mini in attempts to capitalize on already slim margins. In-cell screens are not yet an industry standard and therefore substantially raise a device's bill of materials.
post #2 of 29

dt;dr
 

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #3 of 29

why bother?

post #4 of 29

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

"… We don't care."

 

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

 

"…"

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #5 of 29
Anything to get AI's uncritical continuing coverage.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #6 of 29
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.
post #7 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

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. 1cool.gif

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #8 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

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

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?
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #9 of 29
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
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'.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #10 of 29

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

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #11 of 29
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post
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]  lol.gif


Edited by island hermit - 1/22/13 at 9:14pm
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #12 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

...

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?  

post #13 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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???

post #14 of 29
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post
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.

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

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.

post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

*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! 1biggrin.gif

post #17 of 29
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post
They could have but... They're still selling the iPad 2 for $399 and people are STILL BUYING THEM! Pure profit! 1biggrin.gif


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

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply

Originally Posted by asdasd

This is Appleinsider. It's all there for you but we can't do it for you.
Reply
post #18 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

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. 

Correct... and the bulk of that market is actually a bunch of small, cheap, $100 phones in developing nations.

So maybe you should just focus on flagship phones from major manufacturers. (the market Apple is in)

Samsung's flagship Galaxy S was 4" in 2010... the GSII grew to 4.3" in 2011... and then to 4.8" with the GSIII today.

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.

I know, I know... Apple has the best selling single model in the world. And it's only 4"

All I'm saying is... it wouldn't kill them to make a larger phone. There is definitely a market for a phone beyond 4"
post #19 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bregalad View Post

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.

The iPad 2 was not renamed or repackaged, it's still on sale as it was originally. The iPad mini is a completely different product.
post #20 of 29
"business brainiac"... Now that's a nice title. Kind of like computer nerd, only worse.

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

Reply
post #21 of 29
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?
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
It's the heat death of the universe, my friends.
Reply
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip View Post


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.

post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

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?

post #24 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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?

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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.

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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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]  lol.gif

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.
Edited by jragosta - 1/23/13 at 6:27am
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

 

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.
 

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 View Post

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.
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


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.


Edited by island hermit - 1/23/13 at 6:58am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #27 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

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.

First, we don't know that Given the close relationship between Apple and Foxconn, I'd be surprised if it's true, but even if it is, it doesn't matter. Apple pays tooling costs. After those are amortized, the costs go down. Apple pays for the learning curve in indirect ways - yield, quality, warranty costs, etc. There are fixed costs even when you're paying a subcontractor to make the product for you. Not to mention, of course, that the component costs drop over time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

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:

Great job at not even understanding what I said.

The discussion was about prior art. Someone implied that pinch-to-zoom was not patentable because someone else had thought of it before Apple. My comment was that I didn't know if someone else had thought about it before Apple, but the statement was false. Patentability has absolutely nothing to do with who thought of it first. It's all about who reduced it to practice. In essence, I was not commenting on pinch to zoom at all, but rather on what is patentable and what isn't - a topic I do know about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

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.

Wow. You really are confused. I stated that a product that is one or two generations old (the iPhone 4s and 4, respectively) has component costs that are lower. That is a true statement.

You said that this means that EVERY older product must be less expensive than a new product. You're arguing that since I'm saying that the A5 is less expensive than the A6 that Henry Ford's production lines must have been more efficient than Ford's current production lines. That is a straw man argument.

Even you ought to be able to see the difference.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

All of this horseshit that you've written and you 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.

Once again, you're bragging about ignorance. One doesn't need to see a document that the sun is coming up tomorrow.

One doesn't need to see a document that if you increase the supply of a product with a fixed demand that the price will go down. One doesn't need a document to know that manufacturing has some fixed costs and once those costs are recovered that the cost of the product declines. One doesn't need a document to know that CPU prices decline over time until the chip goes out of production. One doesn't need a document to know that doubling the amount of RAM increases the cost when there's no change in process. At least, if one has even a shred of business experience, those things are obvious. But you'd rather parade your ignorance than learn something.
Edited by jragosta - 1/23/13 at 7:03am
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 29

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

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #29 of 29
Oh boy
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Digitimes reverses stance on 2013 release of larger-screened iPhone