The iPhone will never be sold at iPod touch-prices off contract. It's impossible with all of the
extra R&D, components, testing and licensing that goes into the iPhone. It's only carrier subsidies that keeps it at a price that's palatable to so many people.
The R&D is about the same. That would be iOS. The testing and licensing? About the same, although maybe there is a higher licence for some radio chip and any testing of signal strength the can be done in existing labs.
The difference is one component - the radio chip. iSuppli reckons the cost there is about $11, they also think the CDMA phone is $8 cheaper than the GSM phone because Apple got cheaper supplies and better deals. RAM is the most expensive thing, which is why Apple marks up on RAM. So if they can sell an iPod touch for £200 they can sell an iPhone for £20 more, or so. The cost of supplies iPhone 4 was $188 for the GSM model, and about $180 for the CDMA model.
(And remember the iPod touch has a better screen than the iPhone 3GS )
I cant get the iSuppli estimates for the cost of the modern iPod touch, it was $155 in 2007. I bet thats higher now.
The iPhone will never be sold at iPod touch-prices off contract. It's impossible with all of the
extra R&D, components, testing and licensing that goes into the iPhone. It's only carrier subsidies that keeps it at a price that's palatable to so many people.
The iPhone is sold in many markets at full retail price, totally unsubsidized. You do realize that there are markets other than the United States of America and that not all of them use carrier subsidies?
About 60% of Apple's revenue is from international markets, so you should consider adopting a more global worldview in your analysis of Apple's business practices if you want to better comment on their actions.
The R&D would be the same. As a matter of fact, R&D is declared as a line item in their income and cash flow statements. R&D is not broken down by product family.
Contrary to what asdasd posted, RAM is not the most expensive component of the iPhone/iPod touch. It's the touchscreen display. Go ahead and search for "iPhone BOM iSuppli" or "iPod touch BOM iSuppli." The iPod touch display is not quite to the level of the iPhone 4 display, Apple has cut some features to reduce costs.
The R&D is about the same. That would be iOS. The testing and licensing? About the same, although maybe there is a higher licence for some radio chip and any testing of signal strength the can be done in existing labs.
R&D is nowhere near the same. The software might be standard but the hardware isn't. The constant revisions of the antenna shows just how complex making a cell phone is compared to a portable media player.
Testing is far higher too. Take a look at the 3GPP specs some time. We're talking 10,000 pages of technical specifications at a bare minimum. Now imagine each country's wireless regular doing its own testing plus every major carrier. Apple has to conform to these specs. It's a nightmare, especially when countries and carriers don't always agree on the interpretation of these specifications.
And you just have to look at Apple's current spat with Nokia to tell you all you need to know about the cost of licensing.
Quote:
The difference is one component - the radio chip.
Radio chip, antenna, larger battery, better camera optics...
If the iPhone could be sold at iPod touch + $40 prices, it already would be. The iPhone is already sold off contract direct from Apple in the UK. The iPhone 4 sells for £612. That's £358 more than the equivalent iPod touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cvaldes1831
The iPhone is sold in many markets at full retail price, totally unsubsidized. You do realize that there are markets other than the United States of America and that not all of them use carrier subsidies?
You might want to check my location, buddy. The iPhone's penetration is far higher in countries where carriers are allowed to subsidize phones.
If there's room to remove material, it can be done by making the case smaller AND the screen larger at the same time.
We're not talking about the glass here. We're talking about the lit-up part -- the screen. There was a (supposed) spy pic posted in one of these Appleinsider reports of a new edge-to-edge screen for the next iPhone.
The only way I see the screen getting longer but not wider thus changing the aspect ratio which I doubt they'll do. There's very little real estate on the sides.
R&D is nowhere near the same. The software might be standard but the hardware isn't. The constant revisions of the antenna shows just how complex making a cell phone is compared to a portable media player.
Testing is far higher too. Take a look at the 3GPP specs some time. We're talking 10,000 pages of technical specifications at a bare minimum. Now imagine each country's wireless regular doing its own testing plus every major carrier. Apple has to conform to these specs. It's a nightmare, especially when countries and carriers don't always agree on the interpretation of these specifications.
None of this adds to the cost of the particular phone. Its all R&D not broken out per phone, as pointed out already. And since Apple's R&D is 2% of their entire costs, they can take it. Also, other companies can do it, why not APple?
And the Antenna? That was specifically a new design for the iP4. It was a clever design which went a bit wrong, experimentation of that level is not needed for lower end models.
Quote:
And you just have to look at Apple's current spat with Nokia to tell you all you need to know about the cost of licensing.
What do you think the cost of licencing is per phone?
Quote:
Radio chip, antenna, larger battery, better camera optics...
If the iPhone could be sold at iPod touch + $40 prices, it already would be. The iPhone is already sold off contract direct from Apple in the UK. The iPhone 4 sells for £612. That's £358 more than the equivalent iPod touch.
Yes, and as we pointed out the component prices are about the same. The iPhone 4's £358 more is markup, and it is the reason why Android took leadership this year. And it doesnt need the larger battery or the better camera. It doesnt need a camera, in fact. That could be one of the ways to reduce prices on a low end model, and encourage people to get the higher one. The radio chip and antenna costs are < $20.
Quote:
You might want to check my location, buddy. The iPhone's penetration is higher is countries where carriers are allowed to subsidize phones.
And that penetration is lower than it would be with cheaper phones. Obviously the iPhone is expensive, so without carrier subsidise it is not going to sell. The top model will always be expensive, the bottom entry level model doesnt have to be.
That IS a great idea. If it can be made to work from an engineering standpoint, a Thunderbolt-Magsafe connection would also reduce the external footprint along the bottom of the case, making it possible to move the audio connection there as well. That brings me to what cvaldes1831 said about the audio jack taking up so much space. Why not make the audio connector Magsafe as well? That way it wouldn't need to penetrate so far into the device, and would only require a small adaptor (which would be attached to the 3.5mm cable, not the device) for compatibility.
I know that people would initially bitch about a adaptor on the end of the headphones, but it would be so tiny you'd never notice it. It could easily be the same circumference and outer material as the rubber plug end now, slipping over the 3.5mm plug to form a flat end at the end of the cylinder, with concentric rings instead of staggered circles along the plug.
Saves internal space, and prevents me from wrecking another set of ear phones. Anyone want to shoot this down engineering-wise?
By making the iPhone larger, Apple could include a bigger/thicker battery for longer talk/surfing time AND would be making the phone easier to hold -- especially for those of us who don't have tiny child-sized hands. This would also allow for a larger screen size, larger speakers, more ports...the list goes on.
It doesn't exactly take a Nostradamus to venture a guess that the next iPhone will be thinner than the current model, since each year's model has been thinner than the one previous. That's like guessing that the next iPhone model will be available in black...
I believe the 3G iPhone was thicker than the original...
By making the iPhone larger, Apple could include a bigger/thicker battery for longer talk/surfing time AND would be making the phone easier to hold -- especially for those of us who don't have tiny child-sized hands. This would also allow for a larger screen size, larger speakers, more ports...the list goes on.
I agree. I want a larger screen. I think they could make the phone thinner with a larger foot print and it'll give them the space they need for the components
Yes, and as we pointed out the component prices are about the same. The iPhone 4's £358 more is markup, and it is the reason why Android took leadership this year.
It's not mark-up. The Android-powered Samsung Galaxy S II has a suggested retail price of £650. Other flagship Android devices are all £500+. If 55% of the price is mark-up (on top of Apple's usual 40% profit margin) then why doesn't Apple undercut the market and wipe out the competition? Why doesn't Samsung do it?
The thin edge on the Air is there for a reason. It allows for tilting of the keyboard (machine) and the sharp edge that would have been there (like on the PowerBooks) is gone. That sharp edge on the PowerBooks actually is uncomfortable to some people's arms. I traded in my PowerBook for an Air for this one reason.
Comments
The iPhone will never be sold at iPod touch-prices off contract. It's impossible with all of the
extra R&D, components, testing and licensing that goes into the iPhone. It's only carrier subsidies that keeps it at a price that's palatable to so many people.
The R&D is about the same. That would be iOS. The testing and licensing? About the same, although maybe there is a higher licence for some radio chip and any testing of signal strength the can be done in existing labs.
The difference is one component - the radio chip. iSuppli reckons the cost there is about $11, they also think the CDMA phone is $8 cheaper than the GSM phone because Apple got cheaper supplies and better deals. RAM is the most expensive thing, which is why Apple marks up on RAM. So if they can sell an iPod touch for £200 they can sell an iPhone for £20 more, or so. The cost of supplies iPhone 4 was $188 for the GSM model, and about $180 for the CDMA model.
(And remember the iPod touch has a better screen than the iPhone 3GS )
I cant get the iSuppli estimates for the cost of the modern iPod touch, it was $155 in 2007. I bet thats higher now.
The iPhone will never be sold at iPod touch-prices off contract. It's impossible with all of the
extra R&D, components, testing and licensing that goes into the iPhone. It's only carrier subsidies that keeps it at a price that's palatable to so many people.
The iPhone is sold in many markets at full retail price, totally unsubsidized. You do realize that there are markets other than the United States of America and that not all of them use carrier subsidies?
About 60% of Apple's revenue is from international markets, so you should consider adopting a more global worldview in your analysis of Apple's business practices if you want to better comment on their actions.
The R&D would be the same. As a matter of fact, R&D is declared as a line item in their income and cash flow statements. R&D is not broken down by product family.
Contrary to what asdasd posted, RAM is not the most expensive component of the iPhone/iPod touch. It's the touchscreen display. Go ahead and search for "iPhone BOM iSuppli" or "iPod touch BOM iSuppli." The iPod touch display is not quite to the level of the iPhone 4 display, Apple has cut some features to reduce costs.
The R&D is about the same. That would be iOS. The testing and licensing? About the same, although maybe there is a higher licence for some radio chip and any testing of signal strength the can be done in existing labs.
R&D is nowhere near the same. The software might be standard but the hardware isn't. The constant revisions of the antenna shows just how complex making a cell phone is compared to a portable media player.
Testing is far higher too. Take a look at the 3GPP specs some time. We're talking 10,000 pages of technical specifications at a bare minimum. Now imagine each country's wireless regular doing its own testing plus every major carrier. Apple has to conform to these specs. It's a nightmare, especially when countries and carriers don't always agree on the interpretation of these specifications.
And you just have to look at Apple's current spat with Nokia to tell you all you need to know about the cost of licensing.
The difference is one component - the radio chip.
Radio chip, antenna, larger battery, better camera optics...
If the iPhone could be sold at iPod touch + $40 prices, it already would be. The iPhone is already sold off contract direct from Apple in the UK. The iPhone 4 sells for £612. That's £358 more than the equivalent iPod touch.
The iPhone is sold in many markets at full retail price, totally unsubsidized. You do realize that there are markets other than the United States of America and that not all of them use carrier subsidies?
You might want to check my location, buddy. The iPhone's penetration is far higher in countries where carriers are allowed to subsidize phones.
If there's room to remove material, it can be done by making the case smaller AND the screen larger at the same time.
We're not talking about the glass here. We're talking about the lit-up part -- the screen. There was a (supposed) spy pic posted in one of these Appleinsider reports of a new edge-to-edge screen for the next iPhone.
The only way I see the screen getting longer but not wider thus changing the aspect ratio which I doubt they'll do. There's very little real estate on the sides.
R&D is nowhere near the same. The software might be standard but the hardware isn't. The constant revisions of the antenna shows just how complex making a cell phone is compared to a portable media player.
Testing is far higher too. Take a look at the 3GPP specs some time. We're talking 10,000 pages of technical specifications at a bare minimum. Now imagine each country's wireless regular doing its own testing plus every major carrier. Apple has to conform to these specs. It's a nightmare, especially when countries and carriers don't always agree on the interpretation of these specifications.
None of this adds to the cost of the particular phone. Its all R&D not broken out per phone, as pointed out already. And since Apple's R&D is 2% of their entire costs, they can take it. Also, other companies can do it, why not APple?
And the Antenna? That was specifically a new design for the iP4. It was a clever design which went a bit wrong, experimentation of that level is not needed for lower end models.
And you just have to look at Apple's current spat with Nokia to tell you all you need to know about the cost of licensing.
What do you think the cost of licencing is per phone?
Radio chip, antenna, larger battery, better camera optics...
If the iPhone could be sold at iPod touch + $40 prices, it already would be. The iPhone is already sold off contract direct from Apple in the UK. The iPhone 4 sells for £612. That's £358 more than the equivalent iPod touch.
Yes, and as we pointed out the component prices are about the same. The iPhone 4's £358 more is markup, and it is the reason why Android took leadership this year. And it doesnt need the larger battery or the better camera. It doesnt need a camera, in fact. That could be one of the ways to reduce prices on a low end model, and encourage people to get the higher one. The radio chip and antenna costs are < $20.
You might want to check my location, buddy. The iPhone's penetration is higher is countries where carriers are allowed to subsidize phones.
And that penetration is lower than it would be with cheaper phones. Obviously the iPhone is expensive, so without carrier subsidise it is not going to sell. The top model will always be expensive, the bottom entry level model doesnt have to be.
In any case we know Apple are looking into this.
How can the new iPhone be thinner if the display is curved?
I'm not believing the rumor that the screen will be curved on the iPhone.
Thompson
make the dock connector magsafe.
That IS a great idea. If it can be made to work from an engineering standpoint, a Thunderbolt-Magsafe connection would also reduce the external footprint along the bottom of the case, making it possible to move the audio connection there as well. That brings me to what cvaldes1831 said about the audio jack taking up so much space. Why not make the audio connector Magsafe as well? That way it wouldn't need to penetrate so far into the device, and would only require a small adaptor (which would be attached to the 3.5mm cable, not the device) for compatibility.
I know that people would initially bitch about a adaptor on the end of the headphones, but it would be so tiny you'd never notice it. It could easily be the same circumference and outer material as the rubber plug end now, slipping over the 3.5mm plug to form a flat end at the end of the cylinder, with concentric rings instead of staggered circles along the plug.
Saves internal space, and prevents me from wrecking another set of ear phones. Anyone want to shoot this down engineering-wise?
It doesn't exactly take a Nostradamus to venture a guess that the next iPhone will be thinner than the current model, since each year's model has been thinner than the one previous. That's like guessing that the next iPhone model will be available in black...
I believe the 3G iPhone was thicker than the original...
By making the iPhone larger, Apple could include a bigger/thicker battery for longer talk/surfing time AND would be making the phone easier to hold -- especially for those of us who don't have tiny child-sized hands. This would also allow for a larger screen size, larger speakers, more ports...the list goes on.
I agree. I want a larger screen. I think they could make the phone thinner with a larger foot print and it'll give them the space they need for the components
Yes, and as we pointed out the component prices are about the same. The iPhone 4's £358 more is markup, and it is the reason why Android took leadership this year.
It's not mark-up. The Android-powered Samsung Galaxy S II has a suggested retail price of £650. Other flagship Android devices are all £500+. If 55% of the price is mark-up (on top of Apple's usual 40% profit margin) then why doesn't Apple undercut the market and wipe out the competition? Why doesn't Samsung do it?