No one knows when it will be produced, as they haven't committed to a date, nor does anyone know how much it will cost, though there is always speculation.
SanDisk's speculation is $600 for OEMs. When the manufacturer makes that kind of speculation it sets expectations.
Quote:
But, your assumed pricing is wrong. Today, if Apple wanted to have their phones with double the FLASH, the prices would be at least $200 more for the current 4 GB model, because it would then become the 8 GB model, and at least $300 more for the 8 GB model, which would become the 16 GB model.
This would imply that going from a 4GB Nano to a 8GB Nano should also be $200 (no, its $50). And AT&T is playing with pricing. Yes the flash in the Nano is slow but I'm wondering why the iPhone needs fast flash. VM for OSX? Maybe.
Quote:
The Nano uses slow FLASH, which, as I said, is much cheaper.
I never said this wouldn't change in the future. I said that it will. But, not on a 6 month time schedule.
While Apple needs to recoup R&D there's headroom in the iPhone pricing from a build perspective unless they are going with the 2GB NAND parts already. IMHO it's more dependent on launch volume. If they are too constrained they will leave the product alone and bump it when volumes improve. But its certainly not a $200 jump from 4GB to 8GB...more like $75. The jump from 8GB to 16GB is more like $150.
6 months is a lot of time with many companies pushing aggressively on flash pricing for the last year. Mulitple large companies are pushing flash pricing toward the tipping point for replacement of hard drives. Toshiba is spending a trillion yen in flash despite a 70% price collapse in 2006. 70%.
This is because Toshiba is going to go head to head against Samsung on the 2GB chips using the 56nm process and already have their 1GB parts (70nm) in mass production.
Both Samsung and Toshiba have their eye on Apple and the iPhone. Apple constitutes 40% of Samsung's Flash business...they have serious leverage. Samsung was accused of selling flash at half their market value in 2005 to Apple...that was before Apple split their buys across 4 companies.
Yeah, 6 months is enough time for the landscape to change if you pick the right 6 months. Folks are "speculating" that by March that flash will cost no more than double the cost of a 1.8" HDD on a per-GB basis when the 2GB part is expected. Samsung first, followed by Toshiba who "speculates" that they'll be shipping 300K 2GB chips/month starting April. Intel/Micron is going to have to step up too in 2007.
Unlike any other phone the iPhone is designed to directly connect and easily download movies, television shows, music videos, music tracks, audio books, video games, podcasts. 8GB is clearly not enough if one indulged in all of this content.
The Sony Walkman phones do this already and do it quite well too. I've done it for 2 years already with my SE P910i which comes with a SyncStation and Windows software to sync pretty much anything.
So, I wouldn't say it was unlike any other phone in that regard. Some of the Sonys come with 4GB storage too now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
It seems much of the rationale that makes 8Gb ok is that people won't use much of this content or store it for very long. What would be the point of Apple setting up this business model only for people to not take full advantage of it.
Clearly they can't make the iPhone even more stupidly expensive than other phones no matter how good it is. In Europe, they're up against SE Walkman phones, P990i, Nokia N Series. Most of these you can get for free if you shop about. That's how it works here though - cheap phones with expensive contracts but ultimately the phone has to be around about the same price as other manufacturers phones for the carriers to make their money back on the phone.
In that dvnation page Mel linked to had 4GB flash for $399, which Apple uses in the $199 nano.
It's not the same FLASH,as I keep saying. Apple doesb't need hi performance FLASH. Those drives are .
But, the idea was to compare because that SanDisk FLASH drive was posted as an example of 32GB FLASH.
But, even if 4 GB of FLASH that Apple uses costs the consumer, say, $150 in the finished product from Apple, 8 GB will be $300, 16 GB will be close to $600, and 32 will hit close to $1,000.
A year from now, those prices will be cut in half, possibly more, depending on demand, manufacturing capacity, the fact that double the amount will consist of the same number of chips, a smaller process technology, etc.
SanDisk's speculation is $600 for OEMs. When the manufacturer makes that kind of speculation it sets expectations.
So that will be around $1,200 retail, assuming the price holds by the time sometime mid-year, when it might be produced That is what we would pay for it, if it were in a device. Good price for what it is, but far more than Apple, or any other manufacturer, would pay for these purposes.
Quote:
This would imply that going from a 4GB Nano to a 8GB Nano should also be $200 (no, its $50). And AT&T is playing with pricing. Yes the flash in the Nano is slow but I'm wondering why the iPhone needs fast flash. VM for OSX? Maybe.
You are likely correct. The iPhone is supposed to have at least 3 cpu's. That plus the video, and everything else, would require faster memory to keep up. If Apple is using Core anything in the phone, which I think they are, that would require fast memory as well.
Quote:
While Apple needs to recoup R&D there's headroom in the iPhone pricing from a build perspective unless they are going with the 2GB NAND parts already. IMHO it's more dependent on launch volume. If they are too constrained they will leave the product alone and bump it when volumes improve. But its certainly not a $200 jump from 4GB to 8GB...more like $75. The jump from 8GB to 16GB is more like $150.
Apple's price is less than half of what we will pay for the part. THat's SOP in manufacturing. Even assuming that your numbers are correct, that comes close to the pricing we see. Add a mere $25 to your number, going to 8, and we get the $200 difference easy.
6 months is a lot of time with many companies pushing aggressively on flash pricing for the last year. Mulitple large companies are pushing flash pricing toward the tipping point for replacement of hard drives. Toshiba is spending a trillion yen in flash despite a 70% price collapse in 2006. 70%. [/quote]
Nah, prices aren't even close yet for that. Almost ten times the price for SS. The higher speed SS drives cost much more than that.
Quote:
This is because Toshiba is going to go head to head against Samsung on the 2GB chips using the 56nm process and already have their 1GB parts (70nm) in mass production.
Both Samsung and Toshiba have their eye on Apple and the iPhone. Apple constitutes 40% of Samsung's Flash business...they have serious leverage. Samsung was accused of selling flash at half their market value in 2005 to Apple...that was before Apple split their buys across 4 companies.
Yeah, 6 months is enough time for the landscape to change if you pick the right 6 months. Folks are "speculating" that by March that flash will cost no more than double the cost of a 1.8" HDD on a per-GB basis when the 2GB part is expected. Samsung first, followed by Toshiba who "speculates" that they'll be shipping 300K 2GB chips/month starting April. Intel/Micron is going to have to step up too in 2007.
Vinea
I just don't see those prices for a while.
We can dispute this all week without coming to a conclusion, because we read the numbers, and movement in the industry. differently.
I've pretty much burned out my interest in it for now. Let's see what happens by June, when it comes out. We'll have a much better idea by then, and we can continue this to everyone's satisfaction.
Flash memory maker SanDisk is cutting 10 per cent of its work force to remain profitable while being forced to make steep price cuts. A 50 per cent reduction in NAND flash memory component prices in the last two months forced SanDisk to cut prices at the retail level and to original equipment manufacturers (OEMs) by between 30 per cent and 40 per cent, said Eli Harari, chairman and chief executive officer of SanDisk, in a prepared statement.
I agree this is a difficult argument to have and no way we really can know for sure. We are not privy to Apple's strategic discussions and long term plans. I believe they can increase the storage and keep iPhone's price the same. Even if Apple can it does not necessarily mean they will.
My preference would be to launch with at least 16GB of storage on the $600 configuration and prepare to move up from that point. That would extend the usability of the iPhone and help people feel they are getting a lot for their money. Basically the same they did with the Nano when it first shipped no one else had a 4GB flash player.
Announcing the iPhone so far ahead of its launch gives Apple the advantage of gauging consumer and competitive response and gives Apple a little time to adjust. They are entering a pretty well established but vulnerable market. Nokia, Motorola, RIM, Sony-Ericson and the rest are going to respond. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
So that will be around $1,200 retail, assuming the price holds by the time sometime mid-year, when it might be produced That is what we would pay for it, if it were in a device. Good price for what it is, but far more than Apple, or any other manufacturer, would pay for these purposes.
Actually, I was incorrect. $600 is retail cost bump to laptops meaning OEM prices will be far lower than $600.
Quote:
You are likely correct. The iPhone is supposed to have at least 3 cpu's. That plus the video, and everything else, would require faster memory to keep up. If Apple is using Core anything in the phone, which I think they are, that would require fast memory as well.
Well it wont run out of the 4-8GB of flash but likely have 256MB or 512MB. 3 cpus? That would just be odd unless they are counting things like the graphics processor as a CPU.
Quote:
Apple's price is less than half of what we will pay for the part. THat's SOP in manufacturing. Even assuming that your numbers are correct, that comes close to the pricing we see. Add a mere $25 to your number, going to 8, and we get the $200 difference easy.
No, it doesn't. If the part costs 50% less in June than January they can maintain margins while dropping the price OR they can increase the flash and keep the price.
Quote:
Nah, prices aren't even close yet for that. Almost ten times the price for SS. The higher speed SS drives cost much more than that.
70% price drop in 2006. The top 2 manufacturers will have new plants and processes online by march. Their STATED goal is to reach that tipping point to create massive growth to justify the huge investements they are making because otherwise they've just flushed millions of yen down the toilet.
Quote:
We can dispute this all week without coming to a conclusion, because we read the numbers, and movement in the industry. differently.
I've pretty much burned out my interest in it for now. Let's see what happens by June, when it comes out. We'll have a much better idea by then, and we can continue this to everyone's satisfaction.
I doubt it. The probability that you'll admit you were mistaken in this thread even if proven wrong in June approaches zero. Even if we have 32GB $600 flash SSDs you'll claim you were correct anyway.
I doubt it. The probability that you'll admit you were mistaken in this thread even if proven wrong in June approaches zero. Even if we have 32GB $600 flash SSDs you'll claim you were correct anyway.
Vinea
Vinea, you're a hopeless case. You just like to argue, and be snide. That's why most people don't like to respond to you.
Yeah right. We'll see in 6 months. I have yet to see you graciously admit that you've ever been wrong on this board.
Vinea
I've admitted I'm wrong a number of times. You seem to like to argue, and insult, when things don't go your way.
If you provide evidence, then I will "graciously" admit that those prices are correct. I don't know what your problem is.
I provided a page of high end, fast, SS drives, mostly with pricing. That particular drive isn't being made yet, and it isn't known when production will start. I haven't seen pricing for it yet. If you can confirm your stated pricing, then why don't you just do that, rather than acting so silly about it? If I don't provide a link about something, you get upset. I'm not upset that you didn't provide one, but you seem to be upset.
Yeah right. We'll see in 6 months. I have yet to see you graciously admit that you've ever been wrong on this board.
Vinea
I'm sure I've seen several. I think your crusade against Melgross is a grudge that you are trying to nurse. It makes you look irritable and irrational.
But, even if 4 GB of FLASH that Apple uses costs the consumer, say, $150 in the finished product from Apple, 8 GB will be $300, 16 GB will be close to $600, and 32 will hit close to $1,000.
Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.
Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.
I'm sure it can, but at the expense of what? iPhone has a lot more functionality than the nano, and to hit a desired price target, they balance out all the costs to give them a certain gross margin. Given the curent prices that you stated, 16GB of flash would make up more than half of the cost of the parts.
The possibility of Apple upping the stated specs on shipment is still there (they upped the original MacBook Pro before shipping), but it's not a given. There may only be room for so many flash chips in the design, a certain size flash chip might have a given cost, but doubling the capacity may have a lot more than double the cost, depending on how new the chip design is.
Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.
Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.
What I'm finding to be difficult to understand, is why anyone would think that Apple would compromise the sales of these units by artificially raising the prices beyond where they would have to go.
Basically, if the cost of this FLASH is the same as the FLASH in the Nano's, then why wouldn't Apple price it so? Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?
Surely, Apple knows very well that those lower prices would result in much greater sales more quickly. That would result in other manufacturers scrambling to lower their prices, resulting in the competition being pressed on profits, as MS was surprised by the pricing of the 5.5 G's, and had to lower its prices. Unlike MS, other companies are not willing to simply break even on products, or to lose money. Sony may do that for future products as important as the PS line, but that's different. I don't see anyone doing that over a phone model. Likely, they would have to go back to the drawing board, and hopefully, by that time, Apple will have a sufficiently updated model waiting?with more memory.
So, overall, I just don't see the purpose Apple would have to charge so much when they don't have to, unless, somehow, they would lower the price by June's introduction, the way he gleefully announced the price after having shown the features. That's certainly possible, but, I like to wait and see if it happens.
Otherwise, for all the armchair economists out there, it's just a guessing game. Once we see the actual physical breakdown of the product, we will know exactly which memory chips and controller is involved.
Then, as I said before, we can begin this again. Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.
Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.
Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.
Quote:
Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?
Their have been theories that the iPhone is priced well over what it costs Apple to make. This headroom could provide space for Apple to lower the price or improve the specs. But ultimately only Apple knows.
Quote:
Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.
Yes anything could change at any time, or nothing may change at all, its impossible to say with Apple. But in the real world using a software, audio, video player 8 GB is not enough.
Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.
Just as you refuse to acknowledge that Apple likely doesn't have a choice for the time being.
Just as you refuse to acknowledge that Apple likely doesn't have a choice for the time being.
Alright I'll acknowledge Apple maybe using more expensive flash in the iPhone than the nano. But that certainly is not the only choice and I'm not convinced that is the best choice. Apple is choosing to use this expensive type of flash and not include a mini flash slot.
Mini SDHC flash memory has a minimum data rate of 2MBps which is more than enough for iTunes video. SDHC flash prices have recently been cut in half to around $50 for 4GB and $100 for 8GB.
Consumers are free to choose a competing smartphone for $99 with a contract. They have the option of purchasing a 4GB memory card for $50 which will equal the amount of storage in the $500 iPhone. Or purchase an 8GB card for $100 that will equal the storage in the $600 iPhone.
Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.
Not at all. I recognize that there are people who will need more. I said that in several posts. But, you are not recognizing that most people won't need more. Even with video, most people just don't put that much stuff on their handhelds. Those who do can wait, or keep their iPods, until Apple upgrades this model.
Quote:
Their have been theories that the iPhone is priced well over what it costs Apple to make. This headroom could provide space for Apple to lower the price or improve the specs. But ultimately only Apple knows.
Hypothesis. A theory is a proven hypothesis. These aren't proven, just guesses.
But, as I said earlier, Apple has to pay off their massive R&D on these models. That comes off the top of the first number of units Apple assumes they will sell withing a certain period, if they are successful.
After that is paid off, or mostly paid off, the price can come down by a chunk of change.
Then perhaps, if Apple IS paying less for their memory, they can either lower prices, or add more memory. But, even that doesn't explain the $200 disparity between the two versions.
Quote:
Yes anything could change at any time, or nothing may change at all, its impossible to say with Apple. But in the real world using a software, audio, video player 8 GB is not enough.
For some people.
You know, we will only find out if you are right, by the sales numbers. If they suck, it could be one of the reasons. If they sell well, then memory isn't holding people back.
Alright I'll acknowledge Apple maybe using more expensive flash in the iPhone than the nano. But that certainly is not the only choice and I'm not convinced that is the best choice. Apple is choosing to use this expensive type of flash and not include a mini flash slot.
Mini SDHC flash memory has a minimum data rate of 2MBps which is more than enough for iTunes video. SDHC flash prices have recently been cut in half to around $50 for 4GB and $100 for 8GB.
Consumers are free to choose a competing smartphone for $99 with a contract. They have the option of purchasing a 4GB memory card for $50 which will equal the amount of storage in the $500 iPhone. Or purchase an 8GB card for $100 that will equal the storage in the $600 iPhone.
You should be comparing this to equal priced competition, not cheap versions.
See how much memory they come with, and what they cost.
Most phones won't accept more than a 2 GB memory card right now. That's not exactly a great option. I would rather have 8 GB inside all of the time, rather than a Gb, plus another 2 Gb, or even 4 Gb on cards.
It's safe to say that the two upcoming first-revision iPhone models are early adopter products. They are too high-priced and low-specced for broad appeal, and are really more of a glimpse or peek into what the iPhone will one day be.
Within two or three years, that'll be sharply different. There will be a smaller model ?*an iPhone mini or nano, if you will ?*as well as a current-size model with much more capacity and many more capabilities.
Debating whether 8 GBs is enough or not is really a waste of time, because this won't even be an issue in the long run.
Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.
Actually there's no indication that its any different. It holds music and videos...
Quote:
What I'm finding to be difficult to understand, is why anyone would think that Apple would compromise the sales of these units by artificially raising the prices beyond where they would have to go.
Because pricing denotes quality. Whatever discounts follow later Apple believes that its brand (already a premium one) and product is a $600 product.
In any case, if they can only make so many to begin with they'll sell at $600 as easily as at $400.
Quote:
Basically, if the cost of this FLASH is the same as the FLASH in the Nano's, then why wouldn't Apple price it so? Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?
Regardless, this doesn't mean that the price of the flash is the limiting factor nor does it imply that Apple wont do a bump at release.
Quote:
Surely, Apple knows very well that those lower prices would result in much greater sales more quickly. That would result in other manufacturers scrambling to lower their prices, resulting in the competition being pressed on profits, as MS was surprised by the pricing of the 5.5 G's, and had to lower its prices.
Given that the product has announced at $600 doesn't mean that Apple can't and won't drop prices. The trial ads show that other price points are being considered.
Quote:
Otherwise, for all the armchair economists out there, it's just a guessing game. Once we see the actual physical breakdown of the product, we will know exactly which memory chips and controller is involved.
Then, as I said before, we can begin this again. Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.
We may not know the specifics but it is fact that Flash pricing collapsed in 2006 and the top two manufacturers are opening up new lines in March adding to the current volume. It doesn't take even an armchair economist to understand that flash demand in 2007 will be far lower than flash supply. Nor does it take even an armchair economist to realize that Apple, being a major flash buyer, is in the dominant negotiating position with regards to pricing.
Comments
No one knows when it will be produced, as they haven't committed to a date, nor does anyone know how much it will cost, though there is always speculation.
SanDisk's speculation is $600 for OEMs. When the manufacturer makes that kind of speculation it sets expectations.
But, your assumed pricing is wrong. Today, if Apple wanted to have their phones with double the FLASH, the prices would be at least $200 more for the current 4 GB model, because it would then become the 8 GB model, and at least $300 more for the 8 GB model, which would become the 16 GB model.
This would imply that going from a 4GB Nano to a 8GB Nano should also be $200 (no, its $50). And AT&T is playing with pricing. Yes the flash in the Nano is slow but I'm wondering why the iPhone needs fast flash. VM for OSX? Maybe.
The Nano uses slow FLASH, which, as I said, is much cheaper.
I never said this wouldn't change in the future. I said that it will. But, not on a 6 month time schedule.
While Apple needs to recoup R&D there's headroom in the iPhone pricing from a build perspective unless they are going with the 2GB NAND parts already. IMHO it's more dependent on launch volume. If they are too constrained they will leave the product alone and bump it when volumes improve. But its certainly not a $200 jump from 4GB to 8GB...more like $75. The jump from 8GB to 16GB is more like $150.
6 months is a lot of time with many companies pushing aggressively on flash pricing for the last year. Mulitple large companies are pushing flash pricing toward the tipping point for replacement of hard drives. Toshiba is spending a trillion yen in flash despite a 70% price collapse in 2006. 70%.
This is because Toshiba is going to go head to head against Samsung on the 2GB chips using the 56nm process and already have their 1GB parts (70nm) in mass production.
Both Samsung and Toshiba have their eye on Apple and the iPhone. Apple constitutes 40% of Samsung's Flash business...they have serious leverage. Samsung was accused of selling flash at half their market value in 2005 to Apple...that was before Apple split their buys across 4 companies.
Yeah, 6 months is enough time for the landscape to change if you pick the right 6 months. Folks are "speculating" that by March that flash will cost no more than double the cost of a 1.8" HDD on a per-GB basis when the 2GB part is expected. Samsung first, followed by Toshiba who "speculates" that they'll be shipping 300K 2GB chips/month starting April. Intel/Micron is going to have to step up too in 2007.
Vinea
Unlike any other phone the iPhone is designed to directly connect and easily download movies, television shows, music videos, music tracks, audio books, video games, podcasts. 8GB is clearly not enough if one indulged in all of this content.
The Sony Walkman phones do this already and do it quite well too. I've done it for 2 years already with my SE P910i which comes with a SyncStation and Windows software to sync pretty much anything.
So, I wouldn't say it was unlike any other phone in that regard. Some of the Sonys come with 4GB storage too now.
It seems much of the rationale that makes 8Gb ok is that people won't use much of this content or store it for very long. What would be the point of Apple setting up this business model only for people to not take full advantage of it.
Clearly they can't make the iPhone even more stupidly expensive than other phones no matter how good it is. In Europe, they're up against SE Walkman phones, P990i, Nokia N Series. Most of these you can get for free if you shop about. That's how it works here though - cheap phones with expensive contracts but ultimately the phone has to be around about the same price as other manufacturers phones for the carriers to make their money back on the phone.
In that dvnation page Mel linked to had 4GB flash for $399, which Apple uses in the $199 nano.
It's not the same FLASH,as I keep saying. Apple doesb't need hi performance FLASH. Those drives are .
But, the idea was to compare because that SanDisk FLASH drive was posted as an example of 32GB FLASH.
But, even if 4 GB of FLASH that Apple uses costs the consumer, say, $150 in the finished product from Apple, 8 GB will be $300, 16 GB will be close to $600, and 32 will hit close to $1,000.
A year from now, those prices will be cut in half, possibly more, depending on demand, manufacturing capacity, the fact that double the amount will consist of the same number of chips, a smaller process technology, etc.
SanDisk's speculation is $600 for OEMs. When the manufacturer makes that kind of speculation it sets expectations.
So that will be around $1,200 retail, assuming the price holds by the time sometime mid-year, when it might be produced That is what we would pay for it, if it were in a device. Good price for what it is, but far more than Apple, or any other manufacturer, would pay for these purposes.
This would imply that going from a 4GB Nano to a 8GB Nano should also be $200 (no, its $50). And AT&T is playing with pricing. Yes the flash in the Nano is slow but I'm wondering why the iPhone needs fast flash. VM for OSX? Maybe.
You are likely correct. The iPhone is supposed to have at least 3 cpu's. That plus the video, and everything else, would require faster memory to keep up. If Apple is using Core anything in the phone, which I think they are, that would require fast memory as well.
While Apple needs to recoup R&D there's headroom in the iPhone pricing from a build perspective unless they are going with the 2GB NAND parts already. IMHO it's more dependent on launch volume. If they are too constrained they will leave the product alone and bump it when volumes improve. But its certainly not a $200 jump from 4GB to 8GB...more like $75. The jump from 8GB to 16GB is more like $150.
Apple's price is less than half of what we will pay for the part. THat's SOP in manufacturing. Even assuming that your numbers are correct, that comes close to the pricing we see. Add a mere $25 to your number, going to 8, and we get the $200 difference easy.
6 months is a lot of time with many companies pushing aggressively on flash pricing for the last year. Mulitple large companies are pushing flash pricing toward the tipping point for replacement of hard drives. Toshiba is spending a trillion yen in flash despite a 70% price collapse in 2006. 70%. [/quote]
Nah, prices aren't even close yet for that. Almost ten times the price for SS. The higher speed SS drives cost much more than that.
This is because Toshiba is going to go head to head against Samsung on the 2GB chips using the 56nm process and already have their 1GB parts (70nm) in mass production.
Both Samsung and Toshiba have their eye on Apple and the iPhone. Apple constitutes 40% of Samsung's Flash business...they have serious leverage. Samsung was accused of selling flash at half their market value in 2005 to Apple...that was before Apple split their buys across 4 companies.
Yeah, 6 months is enough time for the landscape to change if you pick the right 6 months. Folks are "speculating" that by March that flash will cost no more than double the cost of a 1.8" HDD on a per-GB basis when the 2GB part is expected. Samsung first, followed by Toshiba who "speculates" that they'll be shipping 300K 2GB chips/month starting April. Intel/Micron is going to have to step up too in 2007.
Vinea
I just don't see those prices for a while.
We can dispute this all week without coming to a conclusion, because we read the numbers, and movement in the industry. differently.
I've pretty much burned out my interest in it for now. Let's see what happens by June, when it comes out. We'll have a much better idea by then, and we can continue this to everyone's satisfaction.
I agree this is a difficult argument to have and no way we really can know for sure. We are not privy to Apple's strategic discussions and long term plans. I believe they can increase the storage and keep iPhone's price the same. Even if Apple can it does not necessarily mean they will.
My preference would be to launch with at least 16GB of storage on the $600 configuration and prepare to move up from that point. That would extend the usability of the iPhone and help people feel they are getting a lot for their money. Basically the same they did with the Nano when it first shipped no one else had a 4GB flash player.
Announcing the iPhone so far ahead of its launch gives Apple the advantage of gauging consumer and competitive response and gives Apple a little time to adjust. They are entering a pretty well established but vulnerable market. Nokia, Motorola, RIM, Sony-Ericson and the rest are going to respond. It'll be interesting to see what happens.
So that will be around $1,200 retail, assuming the price holds by the time sometime mid-year, when it might be produced That is what we would pay for it, if it were in a device. Good price for what it is, but far more than Apple, or any other manufacturer, would pay for these purposes.
Actually, I was incorrect. $600 is retail cost bump to laptops meaning OEM prices will be far lower than $600.
You are likely correct. The iPhone is supposed to have at least 3 cpu's. That plus the video, and everything else, would require faster memory to keep up. If Apple is using Core anything in the phone, which I think they are, that would require fast memory as well.
Well it wont run out of the 4-8GB of flash but likely have 256MB or 512MB. 3 cpus? That would just be odd unless they are counting things like the graphics processor as a CPU.
Apple's price is less than half of what we will pay for the part. THat's SOP in manufacturing. Even assuming that your numbers are correct, that comes close to the pricing we see. Add a mere $25 to your number, going to 8, and we get the $200 difference easy.
No, it doesn't. If the part costs 50% less in June than January they can maintain margins while dropping the price OR they can increase the flash and keep the price.
Nah, prices aren't even close yet for that. Almost ten times the price for SS. The higher speed SS drives cost much more than that.
70% price drop in 2006. The top 2 manufacturers will have new plants and processes online by march. Their STATED goal is to reach that tipping point to create massive growth to justify the huge investements they are making because otherwise they've just flushed millions of yen down the toilet.
We can dispute this all week without coming to a conclusion, because we read the numbers, and movement in the industry. differently.
I've pretty much burned out my interest in it for now. Let's see what happens by June, when it comes out. We'll have a much better idea by then, and we can continue this to everyone's satisfaction.
I doubt it. The probability that you'll admit you were mistaken in this thread even if proven wrong in June approaches zero. Even if we have 32GB $600 flash SSDs you'll claim you were correct anyway.
Vinea
I doubt it. The probability that you'll admit you were mistaken in this thread even if proven wrong in June approaches zero. Even if we have 32GB $600 flash SSDs you'll claim you were correct anyway.
Vinea
Vinea, you're a hopeless case. You just like to argue, and be snide. That's why most people don't like to respond to you.
Vinea, you're a hopeless case. You just like to argue, and be snide. That's why most people don't like to respond to you.
Yeah right. We'll see in 6 months. I have yet to see you graciously admit that you've ever been wrong on this board.
Vinea
Yeah right. We'll see in 6 months. I have yet to see you graciously admit that you've ever been wrong on this board.
Vinea
I've admitted I'm wrong a number of times. You seem to like to argue, and insult, when things don't go your way.
If you provide evidence, then I will "graciously" admit that those prices are correct. I don't know what your problem is.
I provided a page of high end, fast, SS drives, mostly with pricing. That particular drive isn't being made yet, and it isn't known when production will start. I haven't seen pricing for it yet. If you can confirm your stated pricing, then why don't you just do that, rather than acting so silly about it? If I don't provide a link about something, you get upset. I'm not upset that you didn't provide one, but you seem to be upset.
Link us to one, and we can all go away happy.
Yeah right. We'll see in 6 months. I have yet to see you graciously admit that you've ever been wrong on this board.
Vinea
I'm sure I've seen several. I think your crusade against Melgross is a grudge that you are trying to nurse. It makes you look irritable and irrational.
But, even if 4 GB of FLASH that Apple uses costs the consumer, say, $150 in the finished product from Apple, 8 GB will be $300, 16 GB will be close to $600, and 32 will hit close to $1,000.
Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.
Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.
I'm sure it can, but at the expense of what? iPhone has a lot more functionality than the nano, and to hit a desired price target, they balance out all the costs to give them a certain gross margin. Given the curent prices that you stated, 16GB of flash would make up more than half of the cost of the parts.
The possibility of Apple upping the stated specs on shipment is still there (they upped the original MacBook Pro before shipping), but it's not a given. There may only be room for so many flash chips in the design, a certain size flash chip might have a given cost, but doubling the capacity may have a lot more than double the cost, depending on how new the chip design is.
Apple uses 8GB of flash in the Nano for $250. Along this pricing structure 16GB can certainly fit in a $600 device.
Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.
What I'm finding to be difficult to understand, is why anyone would think that Apple would compromise the sales of these units by artificially raising the prices beyond where they would have to go.
Basically, if the cost of this FLASH is the same as the FLASH in the Nano's, then why wouldn't Apple price it so? Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?
Surely, Apple knows very well that those lower prices would result in much greater sales more quickly. That would result in other manufacturers scrambling to lower their prices, resulting in the competition being pressed on profits, as MS was surprised by the pricing of the 5.5 G's, and had to lower its prices. Unlike MS, other companies are not willing to simply break even on products, or to lose money. Sony may do that for future products as important as the PS line, but that's different. I don't see anyone doing that over a phone model. Likely, they would have to go back to the drawing board, and hopefully, by that time, Apple will have a sufficiently updated model waiting?with more memory.
So, overall, I just don't see the purpose Apple would have to charge so much when they don't have to, unless, somehow, they would lower the price by June's introduction, the way he gleefully announced the price after having shown the features. That's certainly possible, but, I like to wait and see if it happens.
Otherwise, for all the armchair economists out there, it's just a guessing game. Once we see the actual physical breakdown of the product, we will know exactly which memory chips and controller is involved.
Then, as I said before, we can begin this again. Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.
Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.
Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.
Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?
Their have been theories that the iPhone is priced well over what it costs Apple to make. This headroom could provide space for Apple to lower the price or improve the specs. But ultimately only Apple knows.
Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.
Yes anything could change at any time, or nothing may change at all, its impossible to say with Apple. But in the real world using a software, audio, video player 8 GB is not enough.
Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.
Just as you refuse to acknowledge that Apple likely doesn't have a choice for the time being.
Just as you refuse to acknowledge that Apple likely doesn't have a choice for the time being.
Alright I'll acknowledge Apple maybe using more expensive flash in the iPhone than the nano. But that certainly is not the only choice and I'm not convinced that is the best choice. Apple is choosing to use this expensive type of flash and not include a mini flash slot.
Mini SDHC flash memory has a minimum data rate of 2MBps which is more than enough for iTunes video. SDHC flash prices have recently been cut in half to around $50 for 4GB and $100 for 8GB.
Consumers are free to choose a competing smartphone for $99 with a contract. They have the option of purchasing a 4GB memory card for $50 which will equal the amount of storage in the $500 iPhone. Or purchase an 8GB card for $100 that will equal the storage in the $600 iPhone.
Yes that's true, I understand what you are saying. But you refuse to acknowledge that looking at all of the potential uses of the iPhone 8GB is not a lot of storage.
Not at all. I recognize that there are people who will need more. I said that in several posts. But, you are not recognizing that most people won't need more. Even with video, most people just don't put that much stuff on their handhelds. Those who do can wait, or keep their iPods, until Apple upgrades this model.
Their have been theories that the iPhone is priced well over what it costs Apple to make. This headroom could provide space for Apple to lower the price or improve the specs. But ultimately only Apple knows.
Hypothesis. A theory is a proven hypothesis. These aren't proven, just guesses.
But, as I said earlier, Apple has to pay off their massive R&D on these models. That comes off the top of the first number of units Apple assumes they will sell withing a certain period, if they are successful.
After that is paid off, or mostly paid off, the price can come down by a chunk of change.
Then perhaps, if Apple IS paying less for their memory, they can either lower prices, or add more memory. But, even that doesn't explain the $200 disparity between the two versions.
Yes anything could change at any time, or nothing may change at all, its impossible to say with Apple. But in the real world using a software, audio, video player 8 GB is not enough.
For some people.
You know, we will only find out if you are right, by the sales numbers. If they suck, it could be one of the reasons. If they sell well, then memory isn't holding people back.
Alright I'll acknowledge Apple maybe using more expensive flash in the iPhone than the nano. But that certainly is not the only choice and I'm not convinced that is the best choice. Apple is choosing to use this expensive type of flash and not include a mini flash slot.
Mini SDHC flash memory has a minimum data rate of 2MBps which is more than enough for iTunes video. SDHC flash prices have recently been cut in half to around $50 for 4GB and $100 for 8GB.
Consumers are free to choose a competing smartphone for $99 with a contract. They have the option of purchasing a 4GB memory card for $50 which will equal the amount of storage in the $500 iPhone. Or purchase an 8GB card for $100 that will equal the storage in the $600 iPhone.
You should be comparing this to equal priced competition, not cheap versions.
See how much memory they come with, and what they cost.
Most phones won't accept more than a 2 GB memory card right now. That's not exactly a great option. I would rather have 8 GB inside all of the time, rather than a Gb, plus another 2 Gb, or even 4 Gb on cards.
Within two or three years, that'll be sharply different. There will be a smaller model ?*an iPhone mini or nano, if you will ?*as well as a current-size model with much more capacity and many more capabilities.
Debating whether 8 GBs is enough or not is really a waste of time, because this won't even be an issue in the long run.
Teno, we've already been through the discussion that this is likely (probably, possibly?) not the same FLASH.
Actually there's no indication that its any different. It holds music and videos...
What I'm finding to be difficult to understand, is why anyone would think that Apple would compromise the sales of these units by artificially raising the prices beyond where they would have to go.
Because pricing denotes quality. Whatever discounts follow later Apple believes that its brand (already a premium one) and product is a $600 product.
In any case, if they can only make so many to begin with they'll sell at $600 as easily as at $400.
Basically, if the cost of this FLASH is the same as the FLASH in the Nano's, then why wouldn't Apple price it so? Why would Apple feel it to be necessary to price the 4 GB model at $500, when it could have been $400, and why raise the price of the 8 GB model by another $200, rather than by $100, or $75?
Regardless, this doesn't mean that the price of the flash is the limiting factor nor does it imply that Apple wont do a bump at release.
Surely, Apple knows very well that those lower prices would result in much greater sales more quickly. That would result in other manufacturers scrambling to lower their prices, resulting in the competition being pressed on profits, as MS was surprised by the pricing of the 5.5 G's, and had to lower its prices.
Given that the product has announced at $600 doesn't mean that Apple can't and won't drop prices. The trial ads show that other price points are being considered.
Otherwise, for all the armchair economists out there, it's just a guessing game. Once we see the actual physical breakdown of the product, we will know exactly which memory chips and controller is involved.
Then, as I said before, we can begin this again. Otherwise, we're just shooting in the dark.
We may not know the specifics but it is fact that Flash pricing collapsed in 2006 and the top two manufacturers are opening up new lines in March adding to the current volume. It doesn't take even an armchair economist to understand that flash demand in 2007 will be far lower than flash supply. Nor does it take even an armchair economist to realize that Apple, being a major flash buyer, is in the dominant negotiating position with regards to pricing.
Vinea