This is pretty meaningless info, considering it is estimates and does not include labor. If this was true, Apple would have a nearly 75% Gross Profit on each 16GB iPhone 5.
I don't think Apple has that high of gross margins.
Throwing in R&D, marketing, investments in infrastructure, etc. only applies to the net profit.
We can already see Apple using its wealth to clean up the world. From Asia, and Australia to All of Europe, Apple is battling corporate greed and corruption.
Fighting with legions of lawyers for Truth, Justice, and the Apple Way!!
nooge wrote: »
"The research firm presumes the new A6 processor has a gigabyte of RAM, and that the internal battery is 1,400 mAh."
The current iPhone has a 3400mAh battery. The (very accurate) leaks showed a 3500mAh battery. If they can't even get this basic fact right I don't put much stock in the rest of it.
And some people argue that Americans are not really as dumb as the tests of educational achievement shows, nor is there any good reason to ship jobs overseas because the workforce is too dumb to do the jobs required.
Just read the crap comments on this site and other sites and you begin to realize that the vast majority of Americans truly are inferior to rest of the world.
Maybe you might feel that way about yourself, but I can assure you, there are plenty of idiots around the world.
Hmm. I guess my memory is bad. I confused the voltage bump with a ampere capacity bump.
Different voltage does imply different cell technology which should probably have a different cost.
This guessing the material cost is meaningless. It doesn't include manufacturing, development, licensing, and marketing cost. Further, Apple generally shares its gross profit margins, which is about 28 to 38 percent.
macky the macky wrote: »
[SIZE=14px]We can already see Apple using its wealth to clean up the world. From Asia, and Australia to All of Europe, Apple is battling corporate greed and corruption.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=14px]Fighting with legions of lawyers for Truth, Justice, and the Apple Way!! [/SIZE]
waldobushman wrote: »
$168 is marginal cost. Doesn't include investment and other development costs.
solipsismx wrote: »
Your facts are axiomatically incorrect. The 4S is 1420mAh.
numoo wrote: »
Regardless of actual cost $80-$167.50 , if Apple could/would drop the price....would they dominate the emerging markets with a ~$250 4s just, because they can/could, to gain on Android?
Instead of whining about how much money the evil capitalist pig Apple makes, you should of bought the stock. I did !!!!!!
There was a study in the Economist some months back that suggested that essentially all smartphones cost between $160 and $180 to make when new. The glass and aluminum don't seem to actually drive up the component cost much (though I suspect they sharply increased the production cost in other ways: factory equipment, etc.).
tI doesn't include assembly cost either so the marginal cost is higher than $168.
The one problem I do have with Apple's pricing though, is the extra $100 for another 16 GB of memory.
This brings up an interesting, tangential point...
Amazon claims they aren't selling Kindle Fires at a loss. Previous articles on AI have mentioned the cost of the Fire's BOM, indicating that they were making a slim profit. But, once we add in the development, manufacturing and support costs, I suspect Jeff Bezos is lying when he says they aren't engaging in razor blade economics. This isn't surprising -- Amazon has never been the most straightforward and honest company when it comes to sales and profits -- but it makes the business model for the Fire seem even less tenable when you consider all the costs associated with it beyond the simple BOM.
that's where you're wrong... assembly costs absolutely nothing, as it's done by CHINESE SLAVES
Should stick to jokes that are at least funny.