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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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]
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.
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
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.
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.
<span style="font-size:13px;line-height:1.231;">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.
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.
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.
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Scrip
The Moto Droid X and HTC Evo were also 4.3" way back in 2010 too. And both those companies have phones from 4.7" to 5" today.
So what do those companies know that Apple doesn't? If the increase in screen size was a mistake... the Galaxy SIII would have gone back to 4". But it didn't.
Well, it could be a case of what Apple knows that these companies don't.
Namely, how to design a phone that gets a decent day's work out of a relatively small battery. And how to design smaller, more power efficient components.
It could be that one reason that these phones are so large is because the manufacturers don't have any choice but to make them large.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys
While most a droid phones are smaller or similar in size to the iPhone, the flagship products are all big screen phablets. If apple chose to erode the market share of those products, would they make a larger phone, or an iPad nano?
If the phablets aren't selling so well then what would be the point of making another phablet that doesn't sell so well?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
There are, however, many, many reports that a number of things in the iPhone 5 are difficult to do, but I'm not basing my argument on that. I'm simply stating a well-established business principle that as you make more of something, you get better at it and the costs fall. Furthermore, after your fixed costs are amortized, further production becomes less expensive because the fixed costs are already recovered.
All the comments about amortized costs only directly apply to Foxconn's internal profit margin. Apple isn't the manufacturer. Apple pays Foxconn a fixed assembly price.
Foxconn might give them a break after a certain amount, or they might not. After all, they need to profit, too, and their margin is below 2% these days.
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
I'm not going to get into whether it was obvious or not because I'm not familiar enough with the technology to know. I do know, however, that your statement is false.
Attach petard. Hoist self.
Actually, I don't blame you. This place has a toxic atmosphere that seems to affect everyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Here's a hint for you. When you make things up and pretend the other person said them, it's a straw man argument and is just one of many signs that you don't know what you're talking about. Since I never made such a foolish claim, there's really no need to respond to it.
Maybe they simply grow them on trees, too. Maybe they purchased the elf from Keebler and he waves his magic wand to make them. Maybe they found them in a cave in China and all they need to do is collect them.
BASED ON WHAT IS KNOWN, everything you claim is false. There's not a single report that would suggest any thing like what you are claiming. There are, however, many, many reports that a number of things in the iPhone 5 are difficult to do, but I'm not basing my argument on that. I'm simply stating a well-established business principle that as you make more of something, you get better at it and the costs fall. Furthermore, after your fixed costs are amortized, further production becomes less expensive because the fixed costs are already recovered.
But, then, you don't seem to have any concept of the relevant costs in manufacturing and would rather brag about your ignorance, so that won't mean anything to you.
I didn't call you names. I simply pointed out that you were wrong and were wallowing in your ignorance - both of which are obvious facts.
I never said that I knew their costs. It is, however, possible to determine trends. And you seem to be confused. You're the one who's inexperienced and has no manufacturing experience.
I don't need to show you Apple documents. There are certain trends that are well established in manufacturing, but since you apparently don't know anything about it and refuse to learn, I guess that doesn't concern you.
If by "business brainiac" you mean "someone who knows enough about business based on decades of experience to form an informed opinion", then your accusation is correct.
I always have to wonder what is is about people like you who somehow think that ignorance is better than experience - and then brag about their ignorance.
Straw man argument? You said that an older product costs less because of experience and amortization. I was only showing you examples of why this isn't necessarily true.
... and if you would have listened instead of spouting off from your ass you would have seen that I actually agreed with you but that I didn't believe that margins would be higher on the older products, either the same or lower... because of exactly what you were saying and because the units had been reduced in price proportionately.
Your so called established business practices just don't make sense. I've already given a couple of examples that show that as a business continues to operate it finds new ways to make items cheaper. It works exactly as you say but those economies aren't passed along to just the old tech, they are passed along to the new tech as well. This is why a Mac Classic with 16mb of storage and 1 mb of ram cost more by far than almost any iMac sold today. It sounds to me, though, like you are saying that it should cost less. Hell, they are used to making Mac Classics. They should be able to pump them out for much cheaper than iMacs today. Right? No. As Apple becomes more and more experienced, and as Foxconn becomes more experienced, as Samsung becomes more experienced, all of the costs get reduced because of new manufacturing processes... except for facility and manpower costs, which increase, which is why the other costs must come down. Hell, gluing instead of screwing can save you millions when you are making 40 million units a quarter. Robotics is another area that has reduced costs dramatically. I'm sure that if you actually thought about it you could give me lots of areas where costs are reduced because of new manufacturing processes. Foxconn aint static, as their labour costs increase, they are looking for ways to decrease costs. It's every company's responsibility to do this.
Older screen processes, older chip processes can all cost more than new processes, regardless of how much you have amortized the cost of the product. Someone mentioned R & D. Actually, that's a separate line on Apple's quarterly report. So don't go adding that into the mix. Apple doesn't amortize r & d into each separate product. It's amortized over the entire line. As far as fixed costs in manufacturing. Huh? I didn't know Apple was manufacturing anything. Designing, yes.
All of this horseshit that you've written and you still cannot show me one document that absolutely shows that the 4S costs less than the 5 to make. I don't care about some report from Digitimes or even someone at Foxconn that says that something is difficult to do. I want to see the actual cost. Until then YOU are just making things up.
Anyway... I'm moving on so have at er.
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.
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.
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.
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.
jrag bragging and saying he knows something about everything? Who would've thunk it? /s