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.
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.
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
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
Perhaps he's a Wall Street analyst. Or John C. Dvorak.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
Reducing margins to increase volume is a tricky beast. It’s easy to make an item cheaper, it’s hard to make it more expensive again, and there is no guarantee it will increase your sales enough to make up that difference of net income losses.
It’s a tricky balancing act and there is a lot of accounting involved to know when you’ve reached a saturation point based when sales stagnate. Remember, Apple already takes the lion share of the PC profits so increasing marketshare at the risk of losing profits is a fruitless endeavor.
Some items, like the iPhone and iPad are actually priced too low for the market today. We know this because demand is outstripping supply despite the iPhone being the largest produced high-end smartphone on the planet.
The problem with starting with a higher price can be seen with the original iPhone when demand dropped after a couple months and they dropped the price by 33% creating public outrage from people glad (at the time) to be first to buy the device, so it behooves Apple to create the highest possible price point that is sustainable for entire year (in this case).
No publicly traded company should ever be against getting as much profit as they can get from consumers.
I have no idea where nicolbolas gets this figure from. That a smartphone should only make $100. It’s nonsense! Plus, this is an article about BOM, so his $100 value would probably make Apple lose money on each iPhone sold after everything is accounted for.
Comments
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.
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.
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?
Perhaps he's a Wall Street analyst. Or John C. Dvorak.
Best post yet!
.
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.
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!! 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.
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.
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.
.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 !
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.
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.
The general level of economic ignorance in this thread is astounding.
The general level of economic ignorance in Congress is equally astounding.
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.
Doad slarvingly doltish, I might add...
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
It’s a tricky balancing act and there is a lot of accounting involved to know when you’ve reached a saturation point based when sales stagnate. Remember, Apple already takes the lion share of the PC profits so increasing marketshare at the risk of losing profits is a fruitless endeavor.
The problem with starting with a higher price can be seen with the original iPhone when demand dropped after a couple months and they dropped the price by 33% creating public outrage from people glad (at the time) to be first to buy the device, so it behooves Apple to create the highest possible price point that is sustainable for entire year (in this case).