Very Well said. I am so sick to death and tired of each and every one of these self-entitled losers whining about how this isnt FAIR and that isnt FAIR in a free market society. Dont buy the g--damm phone then. You have a choice. Dont like the deal? Dont buy the phone.
"But its not FAIIIIIRRRRR!"
The phone is indeed so cool that they can not stand the fact that they (who are probably used to being able to get cheap goods and discounts on most everything) can not do the same with iPhone, because Apple knows how good their product is and they hold the freaking line.
I personally laughed myself silly when I read the 999 price. Ha. Ha. Ha.
You, sir, have the perception of a squid. Clearly I was referring to the the attempt to dodge the court order as being unjust. I agree with you entirely that the phone itself can be priced however Apple and the carrier want to price it, as the market will decide what the right price is.
Try to focus on the real content of the discussion rather than flaming people you don't know.
Pricing is something that is up to the company. What I object to is the apparent attempt to bypass a court order. I agree that they are free to price as they see fit. The problem is that this isn't a simple issue of pricing. This is a matter of a company (apparently) attempting to evade the effects and intend of a court ruling. THAT is dishonest.
You are contradicting yourself. The court ordered them to offer the phone unlocked, they did not order any particular price for the unlocking.
The price is not only about Germany. The price is about companies buying up iPhone's and selling them on the grey market around the world.
I'm with you, C-Man. Germans are reticent enough to spend $399 on a phone, no one's going to part with a thousand euros. This is corporate dirty tricks -- we'll see what happens if German courts settle this in Vodafone's favor. Could only be good for consumers -- let the sharks fight it out, pick up the scraps.
Get ready for all the pro-corporate suckers to post.
I actually feel that Vodafone's suit is silly and probably baseless. It's the attempt to dodge the court order that gets under my skin. And yes, I think this will likely end up being good for consumers, one way or another.
Then I guess Apple won't sell any iPhones in Germany, since no sane person would spend money on an item so obviously under-specced and overpriced.
At which point Apple either abandons the market or adjusts their prices accordingly.
Of course, if they do sell some significant number of iPhones, I guess we can chalk that up to mindless fashion droids who buy stupid things because of a character defect.
Although, based on many recent posts, Europeans are less prone to this predominately American failing, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
999? is not a legitimate price, as far as I can tell. I really doubt they expect to sell any iPhones for that much. At least not many. If their goal is to not sell any phones without contracts, but they are required to offer them anyway, then setting the price so absurdly high is nothing more than a dodge. They are effectively spitting on the courts ruling. I don't agree with the ruling, but I do feel that it should be complied with, and in good faith. Until it gets overturned, anyway. The 999? is not a legitimate price for a product legitimately offered for sale.
It's like the woman who is forced to sell her ferrari and give the proceeds to her ex-husband as part of a divorce settlement. She doesn't want him to get shit, so she sells it for $50. Bad faith compliance. (swap the roles of the man and woman, if you like. Same thing either way.)
I actually feel that Vodafone's suit is silly and probably baseless. It's the attempt to dodge the court order that gets under my skin. And yes, I think this will likely end up being good for consumers, one way or another.
C
Yes. I´m with you. I think it will be good for the consumers and for the market. Indeed it will help to get it to the masses. Vodafone wants the phone before christmas to simply get it in the shops to make more money.... T-Mobile tried to release a phone last year to get the "real internet" on the mobile via a t-mobile hotspot. They definitly failed with that phone, which came from Samsung. Now they got the right phone for it but barely hotspots... But even more then Vodafone ;-)
Although Apple may contract the distribution of the iPhone and receive a portion of the revenues generated by the usage of its device (and even under secrecy), it are perfectly in its right to do so.
As a publicly traded company, Apples actions are open to audit and its principals have a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Using the term 'kickback' to a shareholder would never be construed as being legal.
Yeah, I kinda had a feeling I was going to end up doing that somehow.
Quote:
The court ordered them to offer the phone unlocked, they did not order any particular price for the unlocking.
Why was such an order given? I expect it was to allow consumers to purchase iPhones without having to have a contract and the expenses involved in one. Cranking up the price defeats that intent.
Quote:
The price is not only about Germany. The price is about companies buying up iPhone's and selling them on the grey market around the world.
Excellent point actually. That one deserves some thought.
999? is not a legitimate price, as far as I can tell. I really doubt they expect to sell any iPhones for that much. At least not many. If their goal is to not sell any phones without contracts, but they are required to offer them anyway, then setting the price so absurdly high is nothing more than a dodge. They are effectively spitting on the courts ruling. I don't agree with the ruling, but I do feel that it should be complied with, and in good faith. Until it gets overturned, anyway. The 999? is not a legitimate price for a product legitimately offered for sale.
It's like the woman who is forced to sell her ferrari and give the proceeds to her ex-husband as part of a divorce settlement. She doesn't want him to get shit, so she sells it for $50. Bad faith compliance. (swap the roles of the man and woman, if you like. Same thing either way.)
C
The point being that if two things are true-- that Germans don't want a phone tied to one vendor only offered with a multi-year contract, and that the unlocked price is far too high-- then Apple won't sell any phones and T-Mobile won't get any new customers.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is not Apple's or T-Mobile's plan, so they must think at least one of those things is not true.
If they're wrong (and let's just assume that they figure they can sell enough phones locked to one vendor, since that was the original plan), then they will have to do something about it, if they want to sell phones in Germany. They'll have to lower the price of the phone, rejigger the contract terms, or open up to additional vendors.
The argument that the court order is intended to make the iPhone available to one and all at the lowest possible price seems pretty labored, to me. The German courts appear to have specific ideas about phone locking, not pricing.
VAT I'd guess. Massive tax chunk added to their goods. Even eBay is having to get into this massive bloated tax structure of theirs.
Funny you mention that with a negative undertone. I mean the sales tax in the US is something similar right ? An indirect tax levied on goods and services when purchased ? Which in the US can vary widely as it is the states who dictate the amount.
So if 50 different sales taxes are perceived as unbloated - how come 27 European sales/VA taxes are ?
I personally can only agree with the fact that VAT has to be applied for foreign sellers as well. I as a local internet retailer have to charge VAT by law. So if someone else sells into "my" territory he should be on equal foot with me.
Funny you mention that with a negative undertone. I mean the sales tax in the US is something similar right ? An indirect tax levied on goods and services when purchased ? Which in the US can vary widely as it is the states who dictate the amount.
So if 50 different sales taxes are perceived as unbloated - how come 27 European sales/VA taxes are ?
It is an odd statement, but they aren't exactly the same thing. Sales tax is only applied at sale by the retailer, whereas I understand it, VAT can be applied at several stages of production based on the value added at the given stage, so the tax is taken at every stage. That's quite a bit more administration for everyone.
Quote:
I personally can only agree with the fact that VAT has to be applied for foreign sellers as well. I as a local internet retailer have to charge VAT by law. So if someone else sells into "my" territory he should be on equal foot with me.
How is it usually collected? I'd hate to have to write checks out to 27 different countries every quarter. Doesn't it cost more for international shipping anyway?
It is an odd statement, but they aren't exactly the same thing. Sales tax is only applied at sale by the retailer, whereas I understand it, VAT can be applied at several stages of production based on the value added at the given stage, so the tax is taken at every stage. That's quite a bit more administration for everyone.
How is it usually collected? I'd hate to have to write checks out to 27 different countries every quarter. Doesn't it cost more for international shipping anyway?
You are right VAT is collected/payed at very level nationally. On an international level it is only collected at the final point i.e. the consumer. Intra-community trade between VAT subjects (read companies) is free of VAT. So it's not that complicated after all.
Administratively the monthly/quarterly declaration is not complicated either. On one hand you have to declare all the goods and service purchased with VAT, which as a VAT subject you are entitled to get back from the VAT man. On the other hand you have to declare all the goods and services sold with VAT, where you have to pay the monies to the VAT man. In real life you obviously only pay the difference between A and B (or receive it...). So with sales and purchase ledgers and/or an invoice book you are already there. Takes a skilled accountant about 2-3 hours to compile such a document -for a quarter.
If I as a company would sell to someone in Germany I would have to charge the german customer german VAT and my belgian customer belgian VAT (19% for a/ and 21% for b/). This is a regulatory pre-requisite. Only very small businesses can escape this regulation.
Here each EU country has set its own threshold value for distance selling (usually 35K Euro, GER, Lux and UK being exceptions at approx 100K Euro). If you are above this threshold you have to appoint someone in that particular country to "do the VAT" for you. This sounds more cumbersome then it actually is - as you dont have to pay your local accountant to do the job for you. It does -however- put people throughout the union on an equal footing, as it inhibits tax dumping. Imagine selling from Luxemburg (15% VAT) to Denmark (25% VAT). Without the regulation you could put entire businesses our of business for high-value goods (there is a difference if you Plasma costs 1150 or 1250 Euro or your MBP 2300 instead of 2500).
999? is not a legitimate price, as far as I can tell. ... The 999? is not a legitimate price for a product legitimately offered for sale.
It's like the woman who is forced to sell her ferrari and give the proceeds to her ex-husband as part of a divorce settlement. She doesn't want him to get shit, so she sells it for $50. Bad faith compliance. (swap the roles of the man and woman, if you like. Same thing either way.)
C
No, its bad faith compliance if it doesn't represent fair market value. if the price is on par with any of the upper end Nokias in Germany there's no way to claim that its not a fair price. Someone mentioned the Nokia 8800 which a quick google shows 829 Euros MSRP in germany when first released and 1000 EUR in other markets.
I am basing my conclusions on the price of the iPod touch which is, GSM/EDGE hardware excluded, a similar device. After all the iPhone was the best iPod they ever made...
The missing features aren't free. And they cost more than just the raw chips. There are patent royalties and engineering work to fit them onto what is almost definitely a non-standard system board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelander51
By taking the price of a 8GB touch and then adding some bits and bobs for the GSM and EDGE stack (fair to assume that this costs < 100$ else Nokia could not manufactor GSM/EDGE phone for that price....), I would say that 399 Euro is indeed a reasonable price where no subsidies are paid.
Nokia and others aren't designing new products. They have well-established boards, where all of the R&D was paid for a long time ago. And they have greater economies of scale - they produce millions of phones every month, compared to Apple's goal of one million iPhones in an entire year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freelander51
But 399 when scaled seems about right. Look as well at the bill of goods that a teardown shows. isuppli guestimates 265$ to make the thing and that is 178 Euro...
iSuppli ignores the cost of software, they ignore the cost of R&D, they ignore the cost of customizing parts, and they use unreasonably low prices for their components.
If you believe them, Apple has never sold a product with less than a 60% profit margin, despite the fact that their SEC reports show profits of less than half that. (Or do you also believe that Apple is deliberately understating their profits to government regulators, and has been doing so for the past 15 years without anyone even investigating?)
I'm not saying ?1000 is a fair price - please don't think I'm saying it is. I am saying that you don't have anything close to the amount of information to know what Apple's costs actually are.
Personally, I don't think "fair" and "price" even belong in the same sentence. We speak of a fair price as if pricing were a gentlemen's agreement, or a matter honor.
In fact, the only time "fair" enters into it is when there is a genuine monopoly on an essential good or service, such as heating oil. If there is collusion among providers or the state is setting pricing, in such a manner that many people can't afford to heat their homes and suffering is engendered, then we can talk about "fair".
The only thing to say about the price of a deeply inessential item like the iPhone, in a market where many, many alternatives exist, is whether or not such a price is tenable. Apple either will or will not sell as many iPhones as they intend to, given the the price and service plan being offered If they don't, they either give up or change tactics.
Really, it's that simple, I can't see why anyone would think fair enters into it, unless they imagine that the iPhone is a great boon to mankind and Apple has an obligation to see to it that as many people as possible can own one.
iSuppli ignores the cost of software, they ignore the cost of R&D, they ignore the cost of customizing parts, and they use unreasonably low prices for their components.
If you believe them, Apple has never sold a product with less than a 60% profit margin, despite the fact that their SEC reports show profits of less than half that. (Or do you also believe that Apple is deliberately understating their profits to government regulators, and has been doing so for the past 15 years without anyone even investigating?)
iSuppli isn't pretending it's the profit margin. It's the too many people that see those numbers misinterpret the information and assume it's profit margin when it's not the case.
I'm not sure why you think the component pricing they estimate is unreasonably low.
Comments
Very Well said. I am so sick to death and tired of each and every one of these self-entitled losers whining about how this isnt FAIR and that isnt FAIR in a free market society. Dont buy the g--damm phone then. You have a choice. Dont like the deal? Dont buy the phone.
"But its not FAIIIIIRRRRR!"
The phone is indeed so cool that they can not stand the fact that they (who are probably used to being able to get cheap goods and discounts on most everything) can not do the same with iPhone, because Apple knows how good their product is and they hold the freaking line.
I personally laughed myself silly when I read the 999 price. Ha. Ha. Ha.
You, sir, have the perception of a squid. Clearly I was referring to the the attempt to dodge the court order as being unjust. I agree with you entirely that the phone itself can be priced however Apple and the carrier want to price it, as the market will decide what the right price is.
Try to focus on the real content of the discussion rather than flaming people you don't know.
C
Pricing is something that is up to the company. What I object to is the apparent attempt to bypass a court order. I agree that they are free to price as they see fit. The problem is that this isn't a simple issue of pricing. This is a matter of a company (apparently) attempting to evade the effects and intend of a court ruling. THAT is dishonest.
You are contradicting yourself. The court ordered them to offer the phone unlocked, they did not order any particular price for the unlocking.
The price is not only about Germany. The price is about companies buying up iPhone's and selling them on the grey market around the world.
I'm with you, C-Man. Germans are reticent enough to spend $399 on a phone, no one's going to part with a thousand euros. This is corporate dirty tricks -- we'll see what happens if German courts settle this in Vodafone's favor. Could only be good for consumers -- let the sharks fight it out, pick up the scraps.
Get ready for all the pro-corporate suckers to post.
I actually feel that Vodafone's suit is silly and probably baseless. It's the attempt to dodge the court order that gets under my skin. And yes, I think this will likely end up being good for consumers, one way or another.
C
Then I guess Apple won't sell any iPhones in Germany, since no sane person would spend money on an item so obviously under-specced and overpriced.
At which point Apple either abandons the market or adjusts their prices accordingly.
Of course, if they do sell some significant number of iPhones, I guess we can chalk that up to mindless fashion droids who buy stupid things because of a character defect.
Although, based on many recent posts, Europeans are less prone to this predominately American failing, so I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
999? is not a legitimate price, as far as I can tell. I really doubt they expect to sell any iPhones for that much. At least not many. If their goal is to not sell any phones without contracts, but they are required to offer them anyway, then setting the price so absurdly high is nothing more than a dodge. They are effectively spitting on the courts ruling. I don't agree with the ruling, but I do feel that it should be complied with, and in good faith. Until it gets overturned, anyway. The 999? is not a legitimate price for a product legitimately offered for sale.
It's like the woman who is forced to sell her ferrari and give the proceeds to her ex-husband as part of a divorce settlement. She doesn't want him to get shit, so she sells it for $50. Bad faith compliance. (swap the roles of the man and woman, if you like. Same thing either way.)
C
I actually feel that Vodafone's suit is silly and probably baseless. It's the attempt to dodge the court order that gets under my skin. And yes, I think this will likely end up being good for consumers, one way or another.
C
I really don't see the problem here. Do you have a suggestion for a better word to use?
Commission on Usage would be a better word.
Unfortunately, 'kickback' more often than not implies nefarious actions (http://www.usingenglish.com/referenc...kick+back.html).
Although Apple may contract the distribution of the iPhone and receive a portion of the revenues generated by the usage of its device (and even under secrecy), it are perfectly in its right to do so.
As a publicly traded company, Apples actions are open to audit and its principals have a fiduciary responsibility to its shareholders. Using the term 'kickback' to a shareholder would never be construed as being legal.
You are contradicting yourself.
Yeah, I kinda had a feeling I was going to end up doing that somehow.
The court ordered them to offer the phone unlocked, they did not order any particular price for the unlocking.
Why was such an order given? I expect it was to allow consumers to purchase iPhones without having to have a contract and the expenses involved in one. Cranking up the price defeats that intent.
The price is not only about Germany. The price is about companies buying up iPhone's and selling them on the grey market around the world.
Excellent point actually. That one deserves some thought.
C
999? is not a legitimate price, as far as I can tell. I really doubt they expect to sell any iPhones for that much. At least not many. If their goal is to not sell any phones without contracts, but they are required to offer them anyway, then setting the price so absurdly high is nothing more than a dodge. They are effectively spitting on the courts ruling. I don't agree with the ruling, but I do feel that it should be complied with, and in good faith. Until it gets overturned, anyway. The 999? is not a legitimate price for a product legitimately offered for sale.
It's like the woman who is forced to sell her ferrari and give the proceeds to her ex-husband as part of a divorce settlement. She doesn't want him to get shit, so she sells it for $50. Bad faith compliance. (swap the roles of the man and woman, if you like. Same thing either way.)
C
The point being that if two things are true-- that Germans don't want a phone tied to one vendor only offered with a multi-year contract, and that the unlocked price is far too high-- then Apple won't sell any phones and T-Mobile won't get any new customers.
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that this is not Apple's or T-Mobile's plan, so they must think at least one of those things is not true.
If they're wrong (and let's just assume that they figure they can sell enough phones locked to one vendor, since that was the original plan), then they will have to do something about it, if they want to sell phones in Germany. They'll have to lower the price of the phone, rejigger the contract terms, or open up to additional vendors.
The argument that the court order is intended to make the iPhone available to one and all at the lowest possible price seems pretty labored, to me. The German courts appear to have specific ideas about phone locking, not pricing.
The price is not only about Germany. The price is about companies buying up iPhone's and selling them on the grey market around the world.
Excellent point actually. That one deserves some thought.
This is already happening. I imagine Apple does not mind to some controlled degree. As it helps build demand for in future iPhone markets.
But I think Apple's priority is in controlling the end user experience.
By the way...... Why is apple that much cheaper in US than in Europe anyway??? I just don´t get it......
VAT I'd guess. Massive tax chunk added to their goods. Even eBay is having to get into this massive bloated tax structure of theirs.
VAT I'd guess. Massive tax chunk added to their goods. Even eBay is having to get into this massive bloated tax structure of theirs.
In most European countries VAT is included on the price tag when selling to consumers. The German VAT rate is 19%
VAT I'd guess. Massive tax chunk added to their goods. Even eBay is having to get into this massive bloated tax structure of theirs.
Funny you mention that with a negative undertone. I mean the sales tax in the US is something similar right ? An indirect tax levied on goods and services when purchased ? Which in the US can vary widely as it is the states who dictate the amount.
So if 50 different sales taxes are perceived as unbloated - how come 27 European sales/VA taxes are ?
I personally can only agree with the fact that VAT has to be applied for foreign sellers as well. I as a local internet retailer have to charge VAT by law. So if someone else sells into "my" territory he should be on equal foot with me.
Funny you mention that with a negative undertone. I mean the sales tax in the US is something similar right ? An indirect tax levied on goods and services when purchased ? Which in the US can vary widely as it is the states who dictate the amount.
So if 50 different sales taxes are perceived as unbloated - how come 27 European sales/VA taxes are ?
It is an odd statement, but they aren't exactly the same thing. Sales tax is only applied at sale by the retailer, whereas I understand it, VAT can be applied at several stages of production based on the value added at the given stage, so the tax is taken at every stage. That's quite a bit more administration for everyone.
I personally can only agree with the fact that VAT has to be applied for foreign sellers as well. I as a local internet retailer have to charge VAT by law. So if someone else sells into "my" territory he should be on equal foot with me.
How is it usually collected? I'd hate to have to write checks out to 27 different countries every quarter. Doesn't it cost more for international shipping anyway?
It is an odd statement, but they aren't exactly the same thing. Sales tax is only applied at sale by the retailer, whereas I understand it, VAT can be applied at several stages of production based on the value added at the given stage, so the tax is taken at every stage. That's quite a bit more administration for everyone.
How is it usually collected? I'd hate to have to write checks out to 27 different countries every quarter. Doesn't it cost more for international shipping anyway?
You are right VAT is collected/payed at very level nationally. On an international level it is only collected at the final point i.e. the consumer. Intra-community trade between VAT subjects (read companies) is free of VAT. So it's not that complicated after all.
Administratively the monthly/quarterly declaration is not complicated either. On one hand you have to declare all the goods and service purchased with VAT, which as a VAT subject you are entitled to get back from the VAT man. On the other hand you have to declare all the goods and services sold with VAT, where you have to pay the monies to the VAT man. In real life you obviously only pay the difference between A and B (or receive it...). So with sales and purchase ledgers and/or an invoice book you are already there. Takes a skilled accountant about 2-3 hours to compile such a document -for a quarter.
If I as a company would sell to someone in Germany I would have to charge the german customer german VAT and my belgian customer belgian VAT (19% for a/ and 21% for b/). This is a regulatory pre-requisite. Only very small businesses can escape this regulation.
Here each EU country has set its own threshold value for distance selling (usually 35K Euro, GER, Lux and UK being exceptions at approx 100K Euro). If you are above this threshold you have to appoint someone in that particular country to "do the VAT" for you. This sounds more cumbersome then it actually is - as you dont have to pay your local accountant to do the job for you. It does -however- put people throughout the union on an equal footing, as it inhibits tax dumping. Imagine selling from Luxemburg (15% VAT) to Denmark (25% VAT). Without the regulation you could put entire businesses our of business for high-value goods (there is a difference if you Plasma costs 1150 or 1250 Euro or your MBP 2300 instead of 2500).
999? is not a legitimate price, as far as I can tell. ... The 999? is not a legitimate price for a product legitimately offered for sale.
It's like the woman who is forced to sell her ferrari and give the proceeds to her ex-husband as part of a divorce settlement. She doesn't want him to get shit, so she sells it for $50. Bad faith compliance. (swap the roles of the man and woman, if you like. Same thing either way.)
C
No, its bad faith compliance if it doesn't represent fair market value. if the price is on par with any of the upper end Nokias in Germany there's no way to claim that its not a fair price. Someone mentioned the Nokia 8800 which a quick google shows 829 Euros MSRP in germany when first released and 1000 EUR in other markets.
http://blog.wired.com/gadgets/2006/0...try_id=1550810
IANAL either in the US or anywhere else.
No wishful thinking at alll
I am basing my conclusions on the price of the iPod touch which is, GSM/EDGE hardware excluded, a similar device. After all the iPhone was the best iPod they ever made...
The missing features aren't free. And they cost more than just the raw chips. There are patent royalties and engineering work to fit them onto what is almost definitely a non-standard system board.
By taking the price of a 8GB touch and then adding some bits and bobs for the GSM and EDGE stack (fair to assume that this costs < 100$ else Nokia could not manufactor GSM/EDGE phone for that price....), I would say that 399 Euro is indeed a reasonable price where no subsidies are paid.
Nokia and others aren't designing new products. They have well-established boards, where all of the R&D was paid for a long time ago. And they have greater economies of scale - they produce millions of phones every month, compared to Apple's goal of one million iPhones in an entire year.
But 399 when scaled seems about right. Look as well at the bill of goods that a teardown shows. isuppli guestimates 265$ to make the thing and that is 178 Euro...
iSuppli ignores the cost of software, they ignore the cost of R&D, they ignore the cost of customizing parts, and they use unreasonably low prices for their components.
If you believe them, Apple has never sold a product with less than a 60% profit margin, despite the fact that their SEC reports show profits of less than half that. (Or do you also believe that Apple is deliberately understating their profits to government regulators, and has been doing so for the past 15 years without anyone even investigating?)
I'm not saying ?1000 is a fair price - please don't think I'm saying it is. I am saying that you don't have anything close to the amount of information to know what Apple's costs actually are.
you still have to go with their contract
C
I still don't get it. Who says you have to do what? Do you guys have a free will over there?
JR[/QUOTE]
I still don't get it either.
The iPhone bound to one carrier is questionable at least. And this is the point.
best
In fact, the only time "fair" enters into it is when there is a genuine monopoly on an essential good or service, such as heating oil. If there is collusion among providers or the state is setting pricing, in such a manner that many people can't afford to heat their homes and suffering is engendered, then we can talk about "fair".
The only thing to say about the price of a deeply inessential item like the iPhone, in a market where many, many alternatives exist, is whether or not such a price is tenable. Apple either will or will not sell as many iPhones as they intend to, given the the price and service plan being offered If they don't, they either give up or change tactics.
Really, it's that simple, I can't see why anyone would think fair enters into it, unless they imagine that the iPhone is a great boon to mankind and Apple has an obligation to see to it that as many people as possible can own one.
iSuppli ignores the cost of software, they ignore the cost of R&D, they ignore the cost of customizing parts, and they use unreasonably low prices for their components.
If you believe them, Apple has never sold a product with less than a 60% profit margin, despite the fact that their SEC reports show profits of less than half that. (Or do you also believe that Apple is deliberately understating their profits to government regulators, and has been doing so for the past 15 years without anyone even investigating?)
iSuppli isn't pretending it's the profit margin. It's the too many people that see those numbers misinterpret the information and assume it's profit margin when it's not the case.
I'm not sure why you think the component pricing they estimate is unreasonably low.
Thats about £718. Hmm
Apple UK store Macbook:
13-Inch : White
2.0GHz
2.0GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
80GB hard drive
Combo drive
Ready to ship: 24hrs
Free Shipping
£699.00
Or even better
Apple UK education store
2.2GHz Intel Core 2 Duo
1GB memory
120GB hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive
Ready to ship: 24hrs
Free Shipping
£779.03
What would you buy??