It should be a felony to display the profit margins of any company. Think about it. Like anyone wants to disclose cost of goods. I don't think so. I use to work for Tandy/Radio Shack back in 1980. I was privy to costs of goods. Margins were very impressive. Had I been blabbing about this, legal action would have ensued.
Public companies are required to report profit margins on their quarterly and annual reports. They do not need to break it down product by product, though.
Last time I checked, Apple had 30 or so BILLION dollars in cash, what is that money doing? Is it contributing to the jobs the economy needs which Apple depends upon?
Cash doesn't usually mean stacks of Benjamins in a vault somewhere; it's a measure of liquidity. Most of that money is invested in trading securities and such, which provide financing to other ventures, and those other ventures -- Guess what?! -- also employ people.
At this point there are 63 posts. Of which 17 are either posted by teckstud or a response to one of his ravings. That's more than 25% of the thread (which is actually low for him).
Personally, I have him on ignore, but it doesn't work if everyone replies to his inanities which is exactly what he wants anyway. He's an attention whore.
If everyone added him to their ignore list, the forum would work a lot better. Please?
But you still see his (or their as there are several of 'them') comments in the replies. The real problem is that people reply. I don't worry about stupid comments - its when people engage in stupid dialogue that it becomes annoying. There would be nothing wrong with a forum with stricter rules. It wouldn't need to be undemocratic, just a much tighter moderation based on a subjective criteria or policy. Then certain posters would / could be banished forever. If people didn't like the tone, or policy of the forum, or the enforcement of the above they wouldn't have to hang around. But this isn't that kind of forum, for better or worse. I do think the moderators could be a little more judgemental, personally. There are times when the conversations definitely would benefit from being closed down, or users 'told' to shut up. Like banished for the remainder of a thread, for instance, if that is possible. They would probably complain wildly which may result in again being banished and hopefully this would eventually make them leave for good of their own accord. Hmmm... nice thought, anyway.
There are high margins and then there are just plain immoral margins. iPhone txt'ers could do worse than switch to something like Ping, or Skype for free alternatives. Pop-corn is harder to beat. You can't really pop your own and bring them to the movies. I'd rather not buy but my wife and kids see it as an integral part of movie going, which is exactly why they charge what they do. :-(
Look how little extra the additional capacity ones cost Apple, and how much extra they charge for them. And you have to buy a separate adapter for SD card expansion! Terrible.
Anyways, Apple Insider seems not to have posted the Apple memo that they would be "nimble" on the pricing if sales were not good. Expect a sizeable price drop a few months after launch, like with the iPhone's 200 dollar price drop. If it IS 200 dollars or more, like the iPhone price drop, I would get one despite my bellyaching about it, for that would put it in low-end netbook territory instead of high-end netbook territory.
Look how little extra the additional capacity ones cost Apple, and how much extra they charge for them.
Or, look at how Apple makes less profit on their low-end product to appeal to buyers with less disposable income, and makes up for that loss in profit with their high-end product just like every company that knows a damn thing about business.
And, look at how Apple makes less profit on their low-capacity products because they know buyers will likely purchase upgrades sooner, and how they charge more for the high-capacity products that don't require upgrading or can be resold to customers much more easily.
Quote:
Expect a sizeable price drop a few months after launch, like with the iPhone's 200 dollar price drop.
Not gonna happen. It's already cheap. This is not even close to the risk Apple took with the iPhone. Much of this R&D is being paid for across iPhones and iPods, not just a a single new market segment. Hell, much of the iPad internals are already set for being great for the next AppleTV, too. Change the UI but keep the lightweight iPhone OS essentials and you're good to go.
True, but other companies producing IT tech go through same expenses, and still manage to sell with lesser difference between manufacturing costs and RRP. It is hardly a secret that Apple do keep fatter margins than most if not all IT brands.
That being said, they are free to set their prices, and if they can sell - good for them. Real question for me here is: with lower margins, would Apple sell more (enough) units to cover for profit loss per unit, and gather more market share?
I never understood this complaint. We live in a capitalist society, companies have the right to charge whatever the market will bear. Microsoft charges 200-300 dollars for a Vista service pack called Windows 7. Adobe charges almost 2,500 dollars for CS4. GM charges you more for a Cadillac than a Chevrolet. Apple has every right to charge whatever they want for their products. Would I like to see it cheaper? Of course. I'd like to just be given one, but that's not how things work.
I agree with your assessment. Additionally, and I apologize if this has been mentioned already, but you are not just paying for the price of the components but for the cost of all the research and development that went into that device that Apple put into it without knowing if they would ever see a return on that investment. The first iPad that rolls off the line probably cost tens of millions of dollars to produce. Will they make that up over time? Probably but who knows till it launches how many people will buy it? Additionally, I think Apple had to buy a lot of the screens and RAM upfront and they then have to carry those costs till they start selling the product and I can't image that being cheap either. Finally, they are a business and will try and sell it for as much as they think they can get which is what their stockholder's expect of them - if you don't like it, the best thing you can do is not purchase an iPad (I don't know if I will purchase one but if I do, after buying the 1st gen iPhone, I will be holding off on the iPad till they release v2 at a minimum as I think that there may be some pricing changes depending on how well they sell, will ATT subsidize the 3G ones etc., and will let them work through the market forces before making a purchase, if any.)
Edit: My bad, Onhka did a much better job than me in breaking down all the other associated costs and solipsism did it with much more humor.
At this point there are 63 posts. Of which 17 are either posted by teckstud or a response to one of his ravings. That's more than 25% of the thread (which is actually low for him).
Personally, I have him on ignore, but it doesn't work if everyone replies to his inanities which is exactly what he wants anyway. He's an attention whore.
If everyone added him to their ignore list, the forum would work a lot better. Please?
Nah, that sounds like censorship, sort of.
I don't agree with him - not often, at least - but I do believe in freedom of speech. As long as he is not personally attacking individuals here.
Its a new product line mate, not a new company. Kinda blowing it our of all proportion. Apple is making a nice profit on its hardware simple as that. Its a big ipod touch, me thinks the same developers/engineers might have been used, along with legal and accounting, and the ipads will not get delivered in their own special trucks
True, but other companies producing IT tech go through same expenses, and still manage to sell with lesser difference between manufacturing costs and RRP. It is hardly a secret that Apple do keep fatter margins than most if not all IT brands.
That being said, they are free to set their prices, and if they can sell - good for them. Real question for me here is: with lower margins, would Apple sell more (enough) units to cover for profit loss per unit, and gather more market share?
You make it sound like the ability to keep margins up is a bad thing. Everybody wants high margins. Companies don't "manage" to keep them lower, they are forced to keep them lower. Chasing market share by trying to sell more product at lower margins is a dangerous game. Nobody does that if they have a choice.
Products are sold on a value added proposition. If the iPad produces $499 worth of value in your life, then it's worth $499. If it doesn't, then it's not. The answer to that question isn't based one little bit on how much the parts inside cost. Apple has been successful in recent years because they understand how to add value. This allows them to sell at higher margins than the companies which don't know how to add value. They are the ones forced to chase market share at low margins.
You make it sound like the ability to keep margins up is a bad thing. Everybody wants high margins. Companies don't "manage" to keep them lower, they are forced to keep them lower. Chasing market share by trying to sell more product at lower margins is a dangerous game. Nobody does that if they have a choice.
Products are sold on a value added proposition. If the iPad produces $499 worth of value in your life, then it's worth $499. If it doesn't, then it's not. The answer to that question isn't based one little bit on how much the parts inside cost. Apple has been successful in recent years because they understand how to add value. This allows them to sell at higher margins than the companies which don't know how to add value. They are the ones forced to chase market share at low margins.
No complains here.
My point there was that people shouldn't keep trying to excuse Apple for keeping high margins by listing expenses everyone else in the industry has.
Of course every company wants to make as much profit as they can - no one of them is registered as charitable, non-profit organization. For various reasons, Apple can do that more than the others. Good on them. I don't have any doubts HP, Dell... would not go for even higher margins if they could.
Its a new product line mate, not a new company. Kinda blowing it our of all proportion. Apple is making a nice profit on its hardware simple as that. Its a big ipod touch, me thinks the same developers/engineers might have been used, along with legal and accounting, and the ipads will not get delivered in their own special trucks
So you're saying that there is no extra work and therefore no extra costs associated with new products because they already employ these people despite the fact Apple has not dropped any other area of their business and is in fact growing rapidly? I'm amazed at how many people here have no acuity for business whatsoever. This isn't complex stuff, people!
I don't agree with him - not often, at least - but I do believe in freedom of speech. As long as he is not personally attacking individuals here.
It might sound like censorship, but it actually isn't. Censorship is someone imposing speech rules on someone else. My request was more along the lines of "don't feed the troll."
Comments
It should be a felony to display the profit margins of any company. Think about it. Like anyone wants to disclose cost of goods. I don't think so. I use to work for Tandy/Radio Shack back in 1980. I was privy to costs of goods. Margins were very impressive. Had I been blabbing about this, legal action would have ensued.
Public companies are required to report profit margins on their quarterly and annual reports. They do not need to break it down product by product, though.
Last time I checked, Apple had 30 or so BILLION dollars in cash, what is that money doing? Is it contributing to the jobs the economy needs which Apple depends upon?
Cash doesn't usually mean stacks of Benjamins in a vault somewhere; it's a measure of liquidity. Most of that money is invested in trading securities and such, which provide financing to other ventures, and those other ventures -- Guess what?! -- also employ people.
Who'da thunk it?
At this point there are 63 posts. Of which 17 are either posted by teckstud or a response to one of his ravings. That's more than 25% of the thread (which is actually low for him).
Personally, I have him on ignore, but it doesn't work if everyone replies to his inanities which is exactly what he wants anyway. He's an attention whore.
If everyone added him to their ignore list, the forum would work a lot better. Please?
But you still see his (or their as there are several of 'them') comments in the replies. The real problem is that people reply. I don't worry about stupid comments - its when people engage in stupid dialogue that it becomes annoying. There would be nothing wrong with a forum with stricter rules. It wouldn't need to be undemocratic, just a much tighter moderation based on a subjective criteria or policy. Then certain posters would / could be banished forever. If people didn't like the tone, or policy of the forum, or the enforcement of the above they wouldn't have to hang around. But this isn't that kind of forum, for better or worse. I do think the moderators could be a little more judgemental, personally. There are times when the conversations definitely would benefit from being closed down, or users 'told' to shut up. Like banished for the remainder of a thread, for instance, if that is possible. They would probably complain wildly which may result in again being banished and hopefully this would eventually make them leave for good of their own accord. Hmmm... nice thought, anyway.
I still believe Apple should have the right to keep their data private. On the other hand we have this:
http://finance.yahoo.com/family-home...iggest-ripoffs
There are high margins and then there are just plain immoral margins. iPhone txt'ers could do worse than switch to something like Ping, or Skype for free alternatives. Pop-corn is harder to beat. You can't really pop your own and bring them to the movies. I'd rather not buy but my wife and kids see it as an integral part of movie going, which is exactly why they charge what they do. :-(
Anyways, Apple Insider seems not to have posted the Apple memo that they would be "nimble" on the pricing if sales were not good. Expect a sizeable price drop a few months after launch, like with the iPhone's 200 dollar price drop. If it IS 200 dollars or more, like the iPhone price drop, I would get one despite my bellyaching about it, for that would put it in low-end netbook territory instead of high-end netbook territory.
Look how little extra the additional capacity ones cost Apple, and how much extra they charge for them.
Or, look at how Apple makes less profit on their low-end product to appeal to buyers with less disposable income, and makes up for that loss in profit with their high-end product just like every company that knows a damn thing about business.
And, look at how Apple makes less profit on their low-capacity products because they know buyers will likely purchase upgrades sooner, and how they charge more for the high-capacity products that don't require upgrading or can be resold to customers much more easily.
Expect a sizeable price drop a few months after launch, like with the iPhone's 200 dollar price drop.
Not gonna happen. It's already cheap. This is not even close to the risk Apple took with the iPhone. Much of this R&D is being paid for across iPhones and iPods, not just a a single new market segment. Hell, much of the iPad internals are already set for being great for the next AppleTV, too. Change the UI but keep the lightweight iPhone OS essentials and you're good to go.
I gather you have the expertise to price out the variables and other fixed costs.
What do you think that they should charge/assign/account just for:
- Research & Development
- Packaging
- Advertising/Promotion
- Sales & Marketing
- Distribution/Shipping
- Accounting
- Legal
- On-line/In-Store Support
- OS
- Apps
- iTunes App/iBook Book Store
- Third-Party Licenses
- Liability Insurance
- Fixed Overheads, e.g., equipment depreciations/property taxes/salaries
- Keeping Green
Or don't you believe in free enterprise?True, but other companies producing IT tech go through same expenses, and still manage to sell with lesser difference between manufacturing costs and RRP. It is hardly a secret that Apple do keep fatter margins than most if not all IT brands.
That being said, they are free to set their prices, and if they can sell - good for them. Real question for me here is: with lower margins, would Apple sell more (enough) units to cover for profit loss per unit, and gather more market share?
Here's another...
iWork Numbers or MS Office Excel..?
iWork Numbers or MS Office Excel..?
Numbers. First time ever using it.
I never understood this complaint. We live in a capitalist society, companies have the right to charge whatever the market will bear. Microsoft charges 200-300 dollars for a Vista service pack called Windows 7. Adobe charges almost 2,500 dollars for CS4. GM charges you more for a Cadillac than a Chevrolet. Apple has every right to charge whatever they want for their products. Would I like to see it cheaper? Of course. I'd like to just be given one, but that's not how things work.
I agree with your assessment. Additionally, and I apologize if this has been mentioned already, but you are not just paying for the price of the components but for the cost of all the research and development that went into that device that Apple put into it without knowing if they would ever see a return on that investment. The first iPad that rolls off the line probably cost tens of millions of dollars to produce. Will they make that up over time? Probably but who knows till it launches how many people will buy it? Additionally, I think Apple had to buy a lot of the screens and RAM upfront and they then have to carry those costs till they start selling the product and I can't image that being cheap either. Finally, they are a business and will try and sell it for as much as they think they can get which is what their stockholder's expect of them - if you don't like it, the best thing you can do is not purchase an iPad (I don't know if I will purchase one but if I do, after buying the 1st gen iPhone, I will be holding off on the iPad till they release v2 at a minimum as I think that there may be some pricing changes depending on how well they sell, will ATT subsidize the 3G ones etc., and will let them work through the market forces before making a purchase, if any.)
Edit: My bad, Onhka did a much better job than me in breaking down all the other associated costs and solipsism did it with much more humor.
At this point there are 63 posts. Of which 17 are either posted by teckstud or a response to one of his ravings. That's more than 25% of the thread (which is actually low for him).
Personally, I have him on ignore, but it doesn't work if everyone replies to his inanities which is exactly what he wants anyway. He's an attention whore.
If everyone added him to their ignore list, the forum would work a lot better. Please?
Nah, that sounds like censorship, sort of.
I don't agree with him - not often, at least - but I do believe in freedom of speech. As long as he is not personally attacking individuals here.
I gather you have the expertise to price out the variables and other fixed costs.
What do you think that they should charge/assign/account just for:
- Research & Development
- Packaging
- Advertising/Promotion
- Sales & Marketing
- Distribution/Shipping
- Accounting
- Legal
- On-line/In-Store Support
- OS
- Apps
- iTunes App/iBook Book Store
- Third-Party Licenses
- Liability Insurance
- Fixed Overheads, e.g., equipment depreciations/property taxes/salaries
- Keeping Green
Or don't you believe in free enterprise?Its a new product line mate, not a new company. Kinda blowing it our of all proportion. Apple is making a nice profit on its hardware simple as that. Its a big ipod touch, me thinks the same developers/engineers might have been used, along with legal and accounting, and the ipads will not get delivered in their own special trucks
Apple spends a lot time time refining their products, sometimes years before anything is ever sold. That time isn't exactly free!
Considering recent problems they had (and still have) with various products, I wonder.
True, but other companies producing IT tech go through same expenses, and still manage to sell with lesser difference between manufacturing costs and RRP. It is hardly a secret that Apple do keep fatter margins than most if not all IT brands.
That being said, they are free to set their prices, and if they can sell - good for them. Real question for me here is: with lower margins, would Apple sell more (enough) units to cover for profit loss per unit, and gather more market share?
You make it sound like the ability to keep margins up is a bad thing. Everybody wants high margins. Companies don't "manage" to keep them lower, they are forced to keep them lower. Chasing market share by trying to sell more product at lower margins is a dangerous game. Nobody does that if they have a choice.
Products are sold on a value added proposition. If the iPad produces $499 worth of value in your life, then it's worth $499. If it doesn't, then it's not. The answer to that question isn't based one little bit on how much the parts inside cost. Apple has been successful in recent years because they understand how to add value. This allows them to sell at higher margins than the companies which don't know how to add value. They are the ones forced to chase market share at low margins.
Please tell me how to ignore him....
Stop reading and replying to his posts..?
You make it sound like the ability to keep margins up is a bad thing. Everybody wants high margins. Companies don't "manage" to keep them lower, they are forced to keep them lower. Chasing market share by trying to sell more product at lower margins is a dangerous game. Nobody does that if they have a choice.
Products are sold on a value added proposition. If the iPad produces $499 worth of value in your life, then it's worth $499. If it doesn't, then it's not. The answer to that question isn't based one little bit on how much the parts inside cost. Apple has been successful in recent years because they understand how to add value. This allows them to sell at higher margins than the companies which don't know how to add value. They are the ones forced to chase market share at low margins.
No complains here.
My point there was that people shouldn't keep trying to excuse Apple for keeping high margins by listing expenses everyone else in the industry has.
Of course every company wants to make as much profit as they can - no one of them is registered as charitable, non-profit organization. For various reasons, Apple can do that more than the others. Good on them. I don't have any doubts HP, Dell... would not go for even higher margins if they could.
End of story.
Let's not forget any license fees
Apple don't pay them..remember?
You really think I believe that's the final cost? Literally? Did you get that out of a textbook?
It tells me you've never worked for a top tier OS company. I've worked for two. That list is simplified.
Its a new product line mate, not a new company. Kinda blowing it our of all proportion. Apple is making a nice profit on its hardware simple as that. Its a big ipod touch, me thinks the same developers/engineers might have been used, along with legal and accounting, and the ipads will not get delivered in their own special trucks
So you're saying that there is no extra work and therefore no extra costs associated with new products because they already employ these people despite the fact Apple has not dropped any other area of their business and is in fact growing rapidly? I'm amazed at how many people here have no acuity for business whatsoever. This isn't complex stuff, people!
Nah, that sounds like censorship, sort of.
I don't agree with him - not often, at least - but I do believe in freedom of speech. As long as he is not personally attacking individuals here.
It might sound like censorship, but it actually isn't. Censorship is someone imposing speech rules on someone else. My request was more along the lines of "don't feed the troll."