well Samsung could sell me a phone if they had a battery that was say 9000Mah this part would cost less then 10USD and make it less then .250 of a inch thicker and have talk time in days not hours. the battery they currently use cost less then 4 dollars and makes the phone unusable. offer me a samsung galaxy S6 battery Plus will buy one for every member of my family.
This means its a wire news from Reuters reprinted by others. Reuters is probably just passing along a Samsung declaration from its PR department.
I don't think you have a grasp of actual production.
For the most part, and this is true for most high volume CE production, there's an up front cost for production, a BOM, and assembly.
Apple follows a production philosophy more in line with a fab such as Intel; each tries to have a very low unit production cost over the life cycle of the product, and are willing to make major investments upfront to have that happen. Essentially, the only significant cost variable is yield, or in Apple's case, failures. Yes, there are efficiencies with production experience, but even these are factored in based on previous production.
The other factor is the BOM or bill of materials, but these cost reductions are likely contractual based on some agreed target.
If you think about it, Apple has production lines that may run product for up to three years, so investments upfront make perfect sense. Since Apple has stable pricing throughout each yearly cycle, the only revenue side variables are product mix, volume and marketing costs. I'd bet Apple knows it's margins a year in advance within a few percentage points.
They come out next year. What the heck you talking 'bout?? Either way, even if Galaxy S7 were to come out next month this in no way justifies a price cut on a "over demand" phone.
You could absolutely be correct as we're only stating our opinions based on what we think we know. There is no absolute right/wrong answer for the price adjustments is there?
Anyway, here's a thank-you to you and another couple of posters who pointed out while these models are addressing deficiencies is the the current models they aren't actually mid-cycle updates. That part of my posts was absolutely wrong and I appreciate you and the others for pointing it out. I didn't pay attention to the current models being only 7 months old and not yet due for a model change based on past practices. In the case of the new Note it appears to be intended as a replacement for the current one. The S6+ is an additional version of the existing from what I'm reading now, but I won't swear to it.
Thanks again. On the point of these being typical mid-cycle models I was thinking wrong.
No sir I'm not at all confused. For Samsung this is considered a mid-cycle model update. The next from Apple will be too.That's why neither is using "7" IMO.
Apple's product cycle is not two years. They're on a yearly schedule, with one year giving a new design, and the next year giving completely new internals.
The only times Apple did mid-cycle "upgrades" to the iPhone line was when they finally added the dramatically delayed white iPhone 4, and when they added a CDMA model.
I wouldn't laugh about the situation they are in but they deserve it. Karma is a B%u2022cht and right now they are paying the price for playing dirty.
It's really just a result of becoming a supplier of commodity Android phones. It's easy to crank out tons of garbage, so China stole that subterranean-level of profit from them.
Ah, gotcha. I'm making the assumption that the new models won't start shipping until next month at the earliest. They aren't even officially announced. With the current ones revealed the first of March, new models shipping next month would be 7 months later.
<a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/141875/jungmark" style="display:inline-block;">@jungmark</a>
: yes, that's how this particular log base 6 chart works. the first 6 points increase by 1, or 60, then the next 6 points by 6, 61 (ie, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42), then the next 6 by by 36, or 62. But none of that really matters, we only care about the first 4 data points.
Now you're just making shit up. A log scale doesn't pause for a few axis tick marks.
Then what? Increase the price once everyone is out of business? Then the same competitors will re-enter and undercut you.
Name me a business that did this tactic and had long term success AFTER they got rid of competitors? This only works in industries that governments allow Monopolies. This will not and has NEVER worked in consumer electronics.
This is exactly what happened to the Briish motorcycle industry after cheap Japanese motorcycles took the majority market share. It was later repeated in the British car industry. Same with electrical items such as TVs, stereo's etc. It is an established practice in Asian cultures, where incidentally most of the worlds smartphones are manufactured.
@jungmark : yes, that's how this particular log base 6 chart works. the first 6 points increase by 1, or 60, then the next 6 points by 6, 61 (ie, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42), then the next 6 by by 36, or 62. But none of that really matters, we only care about the first 4 data points.
That's just flat out wrong. If you had a log (base 6) scale x-axis, 0 would represent 1 (60), 1 would represent 6 (61), and any log base 6 of any whole number in between would not be evenly distributed between 0 and 1, contrary to how it is depicted it in your graph.
I don't care about the first 4 points, though. If one looks through the inconsistencies of the graph, it is quite clear that Samsung is heading for trouble, at an accelerating pace.
That's just flat out wrong. If you had a log (base 6) scale x-axis, 0 would represent 1 (60), 1 would represent 6 (61), and any log base 6 of any real number in between would not be evenly distributed between 0 and 1, contrary to how it is depicted it in your graph.
I don't care about the first 4 points, though. If one looks through the inconsistencies of the graph, it is quite clear that Samsung is heading for trouble, at an accelerating pace.
@basjhj : Are you f'ng kidding me? Of course, log() is a non-linear function and the unit values represented in the graph aren't uniformly distributed. Are you complaining because the graph in the marketing, non-scientific research paper is not drawn precisely down to a few decimals places?
Glad that you don't care about the first 4 points -- it explains why you have nothing to say on the topic we are discussing here.
@basjhj : Are you f'ng kidding me? Of course, log() is a non-linear function and the unit values represented in the graph aren't uniformly distributed. Are you complaining because the graph in the marketing, non-scientific research paper is not drawn precisely down to a few decimals places?
Glad that you don't care about the first 4 points -- it explains why you have nothing to say on the topic we are discussing here.
Ah, I see you have been catching up on the subject in the meantime. Good!
Ah, I see you have been catching up on the subject in the meantime. Good!
@basjhj : just goes on to show that you are still trying to BS your way out. For the time interval values chosen for between log6(6) and log6(36) in the graph, the five-decimial x-values are
they are fairly close to how they are represented in the rough graph (especially given the absolute size and scale, and, most importantly, the expected audience/reader)
try harder if you are going to make a point.
but again this doesn't cancel out the fact that you absolutely have zero, ziltz idea what we are talking about, or your rant is completely irrelevant.
@basjhj : just goes on to show that you are still trying to BS your way out. For the time interval values chosen for between log6(6) and log6(36) in the graph, the five-decimial x-values are
they are fairly close to how they are represented in the rough graph (especially given the absolute size and scale, and, most importantly, the expected audience/reader)
try harder if you are going to make a point.
but again this doesn't cancel out the fact that you absolutely have zero, ziltz idea what we are talking about, or your rant is completely irrelevant.
I will give you that a correct log scale would still be deceptive with regard to your graph. Posting deceptive, manipulative graphs in combination with claims that nothing is wrong makes some question your claim that all is rosy in Samsung land. And that is a very relevant observation for the discussion.
The irony here being that that very same graph you posted shows that Samsung has a serious problem maintaining high average prices for their new phones, and that this problems is getting bigger with each new release. And believe me, that big picture is far more telling than the navel-gazing regarding 'the first four points'.
Comments
well Samsung could sell me a phone if they had a battery that was say 9000Mah this part would cost less then 10USD and make it less then .250 of a inch thicker and have talk time in days not hours. the battery they currently use cost less then 4 dollars and makes the phone unusable. offer me a samsung galaxy S6 battery Plus will buy one for every member of my family.
I don't think you have a grasp of actual production.
For the most part, and this is true for most high volume CE production, there's an up front cost for production, a BOM, and assembly.
Apple follows a production philosophy more in line with a fab such as Intel; each tries to have a very low unit production cost over the life cycle of the product, and are willing to make major investments upfront to have that happen. Essentially, the only significant cost variable is yield, or in Apple's case, failures. Yes, there are efficiencies with production experience, but even these are factored in based on previous production.
The other factor is the BOM or bill of materials, but these cost reductions are likely contractual based on some agreed target.
If you think about it, Apple has production lines that may run product for up to three years, so investments upfront make perfect sense. Since Apple has stable pricing throughout each yearly cycle, the only revenue side variables are product mix, volume and marketing costs. I'd bet Apple knows it's margins a year in advance within a few percentage points.
Anyway, here's a thank-you to you and another couple of posters who pointed out while these models are addressing deficiencies is the the current models they aren't actually mid-cycle updates. That part of my posts was absolutely wrong and I appreciate you and the others for pointing it out. I didn't pay attention to the current models being only 7 months old and not yet due for a model change based on past practices. In the case of the new Note it appears to be intended as a replacement for the current one. The S6+ is an additional version of the existing from what I'm reading now, but I won't swear to it.
Thanks again. On the point of these being typical mid-cycle models I was thinking wrong.
No sir I'm not at all confused. For Samsung this is considered a mid-cycle model update. The next from Apple will be too.That's why neither is using "7" IMO.
Apple's product cycle is not two years. They're on a yearly schedule, with one year giving a new design, and the next year giving completely new internals.
The only times Apple did mid-cycle "upgrades" to the iPhone line was when they finally added the dramatically delayed white iPhone 4, and when they added a CDMA model.
It's really just a result of becoming a supplier of commodity Android phones. It's easy to crank out tons of garbage, so China stole that subterranean-level of profit from them.
Now you're just making shit up. A log scale doesn't pause for a few axis tick marks.
But that's besides the point.
Now you're just making shit up. A log scale doesn't pause for a few axis tick marks.
But that's besides the point.
@jungmark : yes, you are an idiot.
When trolls are too afraid to admit they are wrong, they resort to name calling.
the chart is visual manipulation.
This is exactly what happened to the Briish motorcycle industry after cheap Japanese motorcycles took the majority market share. It was later repeated in the British car industry. Same with electrical items such as TVs, stereo's etc. It is an established practice in Asian cultures, where incidentally most of the worlds smartphones are manufactured.
@jungmark : yes, that's how this particular log base 6 chart works. the first 6 points increase by 1, or 60, then the next 6 points by 6, 61 (ie, 12, 18, 24, 30, 36, 42), then the next 6 by by 36, or 62. But none of that really matters, we only care about the first 4 data points.
That's just flat out wrong. If you had a log (base 6) scale x-axis, 0 would represent 1 (60), 1 would represent 6 (61), and any log base 6 of any whole number in between would not be evenly distributed between 0 and 1, contrary to how it is depicted it in your graph.
I don't care about the first 4 points, though. If one looks through the inconsistencies of the graph, it is quite clear that Samsung is heading for trouble, at an accelerating pace.
@basjhj : obviously you are unfamiliar with the notion of log scale?
I am very familiar with the 'notion' of the log scale. I deal with them on a daily basis.
That's just flat out wrong. If you had a log (base 6) scale x-axis, 0 would represent 1 (60), 1 would represent 6 (61), and any log base 6 of any real number in between would not be evenly distributed between 0 and 1, contrary to how it is depicted it in your graph.
I don't care about the first 4 points, though. If one looks through the inconsistencies of the graph, it is quite clear that Samsung is heading for trouble, at an accelerating pace.
@basjhj : Are you f'ng kidding me? Of course, log() is a non-linear function and the unit values represented in the graph aren't uniformly distributed. Are you complaining because the graph in the marketing, non-scientific research paper is not drawn precisely down to a few decimals places?
Glad that you don't care about the first 4 points -- it explains why you have nothing to say on the topic we are discussing here.
@basjhj : Are you f'ng kidding me? Of course, log() is a non-linear function and the unit values represented in the graph aren't uniformly distributed. Are you complaining because the graph in the marketing, non-scientific research paper is not drawn precisely down to a few decimals places?
Glad that you don't care about the first 4 points -- it explains why you have nothing to say on the topic we are discussing here.
Ah, I see you have been catching up on the subject in the meantime. Good!
Ah, I see you have been catching up on the subject in the meantime. Good!
@basjhj : just goes on to show that you are still trying to BS your way out. For the time interval values chosen for between log6(6) and log6(36) in the graph, the five-decimial x-values are
they are fairly close to how they are represented in the rough graph (especially given the absolute size and scale, and, most importantly, the expected audience/reader)
try harder if you are going to make a point.
but again this doesn't cancel out the fact that you absolutely have zero, ziltz idea what we are talking about, or your rant is completely irrelevant.
@basjhj : just goes on to show that you are still trying to BS your way out. For the time interval values chosen for between log6(6) and log6(36) in the graph, the five-decimial x-values are
they are fairly close to how they are represented in the rough graph (especially given the absolute size and scale, and, most importantly, the expected audience/reader)
try harder if you are going to make a point.
but again this doesn't cancel out the fact that you absolutely have zero, ziltz idea what we are talking about, or your rant is completely irrelevant.
I will give you that a correct log scale would still be deceptive with regard to your graph. Posting deceptive, manipulative graphs in combination with claims that nothing is wrong makes some question your claim that all is rosy in Samsung land. And that is a very relevant observation for the discussion.
The irony here being that that very same graph you posted shows that Samsung has a serious problem maintaining high average prices for their new phones, and that this problems is getting bigger with each new release. And believe me, that big picture is far more telling than the navel-gazing regarding 'the first four points'.