My bad, went a little overboard with the hyperbole. A Qualcomm MDM9600 chip costs 40 dollars, including licensing. Generic 3G chips are around 5 dollars.
But then figure in the support chips, including GPS*, and other costs and I think we're looking at about a 50 to 65% profit margin. That sounds about right for a higher-end option.
All those pixels must require a lot of extra power. The battery in the iPad3 has almost 70% more capacity but the device keeps the same batter life as before.
Gross Margin = (Revenue-COGS)/Revenue. That COGS are direct costs only.
But nonetheless, I agree that the layperson reads 50%+ and thinks Apple is ripping everyone off.
That 51% is what's left to pay off everything else and hopefully eke out a profit.
Well, Apple is doing slightly better than 'eke'ing out a profit. Apple's net (after taxes, after R&D, after EVERYTHING) profit margins are more than double those of any other smartphone manufacturer.
Well, Apple is doing slightly better than 'eke'ing out a profit. Apple's net (after taxes, after R&D, after EVERYTHING) profit margins are more than double those of any other smartphone manufacturer.
Multiples over most. Several aren't even turning a profit. I suppose we can say Apple is greedy but I think the more correct answer is to say the others are incompetent. If you can sell a device like the iPad at less money than your competitors and still generate a healthier profit than they can muster while getting customers to see your product as being better you are doing something very right in business.
Multiples over most. Several aren't even turning a profit. I suppose we can say Apple is greedy but I think the more correct answer is to say the others are incompetent. If you can sell a device like the iPad at less money than your competitors and still generate a healthier profit than they can muster while getting customers to see your product as being better you are doing something very right in business.
Let's take, HTC, a very profitable, healthy company who makes only smartphones (and a few tablets). Their gross profit is only 27 percent, and net profit a mere 12 percent (compared to around 50 percent and 25 percent for Apple).
We're ignoring total revenue, and just focusing on the financial numbers that illustrate what each company sells devices for. Fact is, for hardware, Apple charges significantly more than equivalent hardware from competitors. What it comes down to is, how much is the 'Apple experience' derived from it's software worth from a financial standpoint?
There's nothing to prove. Look at the hardware Apple offers, then HTC or Samsung, then look at their quarterly results to see how much each makes from the hardware. It's all easily search-able, public information.
Also keep in mind Apple uses hardware produced by Samsung, LG, Sharp, Toshiba, PowerVR, etc... Not their own.
Like I said, the differentiating factor is the software. Which boils down to personal taste.
There's nothing to prove. Look at the hardware Apple offers, then HTC or Samsung, then look at their quarterly results to see how much each makes from the hardware. It's all easily search-able, public information.
Again, you'll have to prove that. What you think is evidence is no evidence at all as stated. You're trying to paint a picture that Apple's revenue and profits are from price gouging without considering the market segments they deal with, their economics of scale, and their efficiency as a company.
You stated that "Apple charges significantly more than equivalent hardware from competitors" so you'l have to make a case by defining what is equivalent HW and then proving that Apple's product cost the customer more money.
Note that saying RAM is equivalent if it's the same amount or that CPUs are equivalent if they are they same cycles per second are singular and narrow views of what can actually make a component equivalent, much less what makes a product equivalent.
Quote:
Also keep in mind Apple uses hardware produced by Samsung, LG, Sharp, Toshiba, PowerVR, etc... Not their own.
By that logic we should start calling all Apple product Foxconn products because they are hired by Apple to produce their HW. Now it's certainly true that individual components are either designed and/or assembled by other companies and then put in Apple's products but to imply this takes away from Apple's products or makes them worse because they let ARM make the reference design for the ARM chips that they then design to their needs and then have Samsung or TSM manufacturer is disingenuous at best.
By your reckoning Apple has never made a smartphone or changed the smartphone market because it licenses cellular tech from other companies, including Nokia and Qualcomm. Once people find Apple has never really made a smartphone there stock is gonna drop¡
Quote:
Like I said, the differentiating factor is the software. Which boils down to personal taste.
It's 'a' differentiating factor. If you were being honest with your "analyse" you'd be asking yourself if there HW is superior and/or at lower prices with the differentiator being SW then why aren't they making better SW since Apple has the lion's share of the profits in every arm of their business: PMP, PC, tablet, and handset.
Again, you'll have to prove that. What you think is evidence is no evidence at all as stated. You're trying to paint a picture that Apple's revenue and profits are from price gouging without considering the market segments they deal with, their economics of scale, and their efficiency as a company.
You stated that "Apple charges significantly more than equivalent hardware from competitors" so you'l have to make a case by defining what is equivalent HW and then proving that Apple's product cost the customer more money.
Note that saying RAM is equivalent if it's the same amount or that CPUs are equivalent if they are they same cycles per second are singular and narrow views of what can actually make a component equivalent, much less what makes a product equivalent.
If that's the view you take, then no proof could be proof of anything.
But maybe start by looking at Samsung's margins, since their Exynos chipset with Mali GPU would be considered the 'closest' to Apple's chipset (especially since Samsung makes both). And then maybe look at how much LG charges for a phone with a 4.5 inch 720p IPS LCD screen (330dpi resolution), since they make the iPhone's screen as well.
But from your past posts, it seems as though you think the Apple logo makes something 'better' the same way a Catholic priest's blessing makes water 'holy'.
If that's the view you take, then no proof could be proof of anything.
Don't puss out. If you actually believe your position and aren't just trolling, put up or shut up.
Quote:
But maybe start by looking at Samsung's margins, since their Exynos chipset with Mali GPU would be considered the 'closest' to Apple's chipset (especially since Samsung makes both). And then maybe look at how much LG charges for a phone with a 4.5 inch 720p IPS LCD screen (330dpi resolution), since they make the iPhone's screen as well.
Margins are revenue minus costs. Again, you need to consider how a company can lower their costs of a product thereby increasing their profit. It's a pussy position to think that other companies aren't trying to make more of a profit.
It's interesting you bring up the LG Spectrum. It just came out in 2012. That's 1.5 years AFTER the iPhone 4 introduced to the world the 326 PPI IPS display. This is LG's tech but backed by Apple. Can you guess where that tech would be today without Apple's perseverance in getting it developed and mass produced? Most likely quite a ways off. How about Corning's Gorilla Glass? That might also be a shelved 50yo tech they had no application for. What about the CULV processors from Intel or the milled aluminum chassis for a notebook that everyone is following? Probably not even on the map. And on and on and on...
Quote:
But from your past posts, it seems as though you think the Apple logo makes something 'better' the same way a Catholic priest's blessing makes water 'holy'.
Good one. Those debating skills will server you well¡
Margins are revenue minus costs. Again, you need to consider how a company can lower their costs of a product thereby increasing their profit. It's a pussy position to think that other companies aren't trying to make more of a profit.
In 2011 HP did more revenue than Apple, yet Apple's market cap is 10X HP's. Why? Margins.
You do understand that Apple makes things other than iPads, don't you? You also understand that HP is not a significant actor in the mobile tablet industry, don't you? Apple's market capitalization relative to HP has virtually nothing to do with its margins on iPads.
Quote:
Originally Posted by msantti
Where did I say that it maters most to the customer?????
You stated that margins are all that matters. To the English-speaking among us, this means that customer preference matters not at all. If you would like to amend your post to comport with reality, then feel free to do so.
He certainly does. NIce thorough analysis of a company operates.
Quote:
Manufacturing and price
It's not enough to toss a few components together to create a tablet wannabe in hope customers will flock to purchase the new toy. Component prices are steep and these devices are at the leading edge of miniaturization and new technology.
Manufacturers must make hard decisions, not just in terms of processor speed and graphics power, but for everything else: you need the best interconnects, excellent battery life, even the interconnects between components must be fully examined and thought through.
Each detail of product design must be informed by the end user experience. There's no point using a second-class component at any stage of the assembly; there's also no point including features customers won't use: not only do these impact on manufacturing costs and battery life, but the inclusion of stuff people don't want serves to reduce the user experience.
Trolls yelping about Apple's margins should consider this. If Apple were to lower its margins and thereby the price of iOS devices then Apple would completely own both the smartphone and tablet markets. Android tablets in particular would be flushed down the toilet in a heartbeat. The fact that Apple can build such high quality products and maintain high margins reveals just how powerful their economy of scale is and how efficiently they run the business. So the trolls should watch what they complain about because it might come back and bite them in the arse. It also speaks volumes as to what Apple thinks of the market share metric. Market share is not more important to them than profit.
So true. If Apple sold everything they made for one year at the margins their competitors do (i imagine Apple could afford it too) there would be no competitors left. Then what would the tech landscape look like?
You do understand that Apple makes things other than iPads, don't you? You also understand that HP is not a significant actor in the mobile tablet industry, don't you? Apple's market capitalization relative to HP has virtually nothing to do with its margins on iPads.
No, it has to do with its margins on everything they sell, which are very high. It has to do with its net profits, which are way ahead of the industry. If Apple was just making small, industry average profits on their products like some people seem to think, their market cap would be probably around 150-200B, not 500+B.
He certainly does. NIce thorough analysis of a company operates.
What I find fascinating is the continual reference in the quote you posted from that article, to the fact there is 'no point in doing anything other than the best' to paraphrase. Why I find this fascinating is that before Apple in the Jobs / Ives era, most products were manufactured with built in obsolescence and shoddy parts were considered par for the course. We shopped for the least shoddy ... Check out your washing machine, fridge, stove ... I have rust coming throu on a two year old stove and an ice maker crapping out on a one year old fridge ... It's all basically junk these days.
We have to thank Apple for not only re inventing so many industries but for actually making excellence in manufacturing to be considered a virtue again and proving it is actually profitable. I know it's often said as a joke, but boy I wish Apple made other stuff too some times.
As an aside it also shows stuff made in China can be of excellent quality. The issue of quality is obviously controlled by more than where it is made. Don't blame being made in China next time you find a shoddy product, look at the label.
Why I find this fascinating is that before Apple in the Jobs / Ives era, most products were manufactured with built in obsolescence and shoddy parts were considered par for the course.
What I hate is the vendors on worrying about components they can advertise on a spec sheet and begrudgingly worrying about the rest even if can positively affect the user experience. Apple is certainly in a position will every little thing will be measured and counted but they earned that position from repeated excellent and focus. So far we've seen a lot of companies try to copy Apple... but it's always in the last important way.
If that's the view you take, then no proof could be proof of anything.
But maybe start by looking at Samsung's margins, since their Exynos chipset with Mali GPU would be considered the 'closest' to Apple's chipset (especially since Samsung makes both). And then maybe look at how much LG charges for a phone with a 4.5 inch 720p IPS LCD screen (330dpi resolution), since they make the iPhone's screen as well.
But from your past posts, it seems as though you think the Apple logo makes something 'better' the same way a Catholic priest's blessing makes water 'holy'.
The reason why Apple has higher margins has a lot to do with efficiency. They have large volumes that they can leverage to lower costs of their components. Almost 10-15% of the price of the competition products is lost to Retail - whereas most of it is retained by Apple as they sell at their own stores - brick and online. Apple sells pretty much all it can make - so they don't have blocked inventory and fire sales adding to costs. Apple's upfront focus on quality and customer satisfaction ensures that their support and warranty costs are lot lower. Apple has a tight product portfolio and a very relaxed product launch cycle - so they don't face enhanced costs associated with launching dozens of products every year. Apple gets tons of free publicity because of which their marketing costs as a percentage of their revenues would be the lowest in the industry.
But you have a valid point - the Apple logo DOES make products better - because of the extremely high standards that Apple holds itself to - they will not slap on their logo on anything and everything. As a customer, that gives me the confidence to buy Apple products - even if I have a to pay a slightly higher price!
No, it has to do with its margins on everything they sell, which are very high. It has to do with its net profits, which are way ahead of the industry. If Apple was just making small, industry average profits on their products like some people seem to think, their market cap would be probably around 150-200B, not 500+B.
Economics disagrees with you to some extent. If they sell 50M tablets at an average of about $600 each, then they have $30B in tablet revenue. If we assume that the average tablet with ALL costs included come out to $400, then we're talking $10B in profit.
If they lowered the price to $550, they would sell some amount of extra tablets; lets say 52M tablets. Economies of scale might mean that that extra 4% in tablets sold knocks of a percent from their costs, $8B in total profit.
Lets chop off another $50, now maybe 54M tablets sold = ~$5.8B in profit.
I don't think $4.2B in lost profit is what turns them from a $500B company into a $200B company.
In any case, I assume that they've set prices based on supply and demand curves, just like nearly every other major company on Earth
Comments
My bad, went a little overboard with the hyperbole. A Qualcomm MDM9600 chip costs 40 dollars, including licensing. Generic 3G chips are around 5 dollars.
But then figure in the support chips, including GPS*, and other costs and I think we're looking at about a 50 to 65% profit margin. That sounds about right for a higher-end option.
All those pixels must require a lot of extra power. The battery in the iPad3 has almost 70% more capacity but the device keeps the same batter life as before.
WOW!!! Right on topic!
Gross Margin = (Revenue-COGS)/Revenue. That COGS are direct costs only.
But nonetheless, I agree that the layperson reads 50%+ and thinks Apple is ripping everyone off.
That 51% is what's left to pay off everything else and hopefully eke out a profit.
Unless things have changed since my college days,
Gross Margin = (Revenue-COGS)/Revenue. That COGS are direct costs only.
But nonetheless, I agree that the layperson reads 50%+ and thinks Apple is ripping everyone off.
That 51% is what's left to pay off everything else and hopefully eke out a profit.
Well, Apple is doing slightly better than 'eke'ing out a profit. Apple's net (after taxes, after R&D, after EVERYTHING) profit margins are more than double those of any other smartphone manufacturer.
Well, Apple is doing slightly better than 'eke'ing out a profit. Apple's net (after taxes, after R&D, after EVERYTHING) profit margins are more than double those of any other smartphone manufacturer.
Multiples over most. Several aren't even turning a profit. I suppose we can say Apple is greedy but I think the more correct answer is to say the others are incompetent. If you can sell a device like the iPad at less money than your competitors and still generate a healthier profit than they can muster while getting customers to see your product as being better you are doing something very right in business.
Multiples over most. Several aren't even turning a profit. I suppose we can say Apple is greedy but I think the more correct answer is to say the others are incompetent. If you can sell a device like the iPad at less money than your competitors and still generate a healthier profit than they can muster while getting customers to see your product as being better you are doing something very right in business.
Let's take, HTC, a very profitable, healthy company who makes only smartphones (and a few tablets). Their gross profit is only 27 percent, and net profit a mere 12 percent (compared to around 50 percent and 25 percent for Apple).
We're ignoring total revenue, and just focusing on the financial numbers that illustrate what each company sells devices for. Fact is, for hardware, Apple charges significantly more than equivalent hardware from competitors. What it comes down to is, how much is the 'Apple experience' derived from it's software worth from a financial standpoint?
Fact is, for hardware, Apple charges significantly more than equivalent hardware from competitors.
You'll have to prove that.
You'll have to prove that.
There's nothing to prove. Look at the hardware Apple offers, then HTC or Samsung, then look at their quarterly results to see how much each makes from the hardware. It's all easily search-able, public information.
Also keep in mind Apple uses hardware produced by Samsung, LG, Sharp, Toshiba, PowerVR, etc... Not their own.
Like I said, the differentiating factor is the software. Which boils down to personal taste.
There's nothing to prove. Look at the hardware Apple offers, then HTC or Samsung, then look at their quarterly results to see how much each makes from the hardware. It's all easily search-able, public information.
Again, you'll have to prove that. What you think is evidence is no evidence at all as stated. You're trying to paint a picture that Apple's revenue and profits are from price gouging without considering the market segments they deal with, their economics of scale, and their efficiency as a company.
You stated that "Apple charges significantly more than equivalent hardware from competitors" so you'l have to make a case by defining what is equivalent HW and then proving that Apple's product cost the customer more money.
Note that saying RAM is equivalent if it's the same amount or that CPUs are equivalent if they are they same cycles per second are singular and narrow views of what can actually make a component equivalent, much less what makes a product equivalent.
Also keep in mind Apple uses hardware produced by Samsung, LG, Sharp, Toshiba, PowerVR, etc... Not their own.
By that logic we should start calling all Apple product Foxconn products because they are hired by Apple to produce their HW. Now it's certainly true that individual components are either designed and/or assembled by other companies and then put in Apple's products but to imply this takes away from Apple's products or makes them worse because they let ARM make the reference design for the ARM chips that they then design to their needs and then have Samsung or TSM manufacturer is disingenuous at best.
By your reckoning Apple has never made a smartphone or changed the smartphone market because it licenses cellular tech from other companies, including Nokia and Qualcomm. Once people find Apple has never really made a smartphone there stock is gonna drop¡
Like I said, the differentiating factor is the software. Which boils down to personal taste.
It's 'a' differentiating factor. If you were being honest with your "analyse" you'd be asking yourself if there HW is superior and/or at lower prices with the differentiator being SW then why aren't they making better SW since Apple has the lion's share of the profits in every arm of their business: PMP, PC, tablet, and handset.
Again, you'll have to prove that. What you think is evidence is no evidence at all as stated. You're trying to paint a picture that Apple's revenue and profits are from price gouging without considering the market segments they deal with, their economics of scale, and their efficiency as a company.
You stated that "Apple charges significantly more than equivalent hardware from competitors" so you'l have to make a case by defining what is equivalent HW and then proving that Apple's product cost the customer more money.
Note that saying RAM is equivalent if it's the same amount or that CPUs are equivalent if they are they same cycles per second are singular and narrow views of what can actually make a component equivalent, much less what makes a product equivalent.
If that's the view you take, then no proof could be proof of anything.
But maybe start by looking at Samsung's margins, since their Exynos chipset with Mali GPU would be considered the 'closest' to Apple's chipset (especially since Samsung makes both). And then maybe look at how much LG charges for a phone with a 4.5 inch 720p IPS LCD screen (330dpi resolution), since they make the iPhone's screen as well.
But from your past posts, it seems as though you think the Apple logo makes something 'better' the same way a Catholic priest's blessing makes water 'holy'.
If that's the view you take, then no proof could be proof of anything.
Don't puss out. If you actually believe your position and aren't just trolling, put up or shut up.
But maybe start by looking at Samsung's margins, since their Exynos chipset with Mali GPU would be considered the 'closest' to Apple's chipset (especially since Samsung makes both). And then maybe look at how much LG charges for a phone with a 4.5 inch 720p IPS LCD screen (330dpi resolution), since they make the iPhone's screen as well.
Margins are revenue minus costs. Again, you need to consider how a company can lower their costs of a product thereby increasing their profit. It's a pussy position to think that other companies aren't trying to make more of a profit.
It's interesting you bring up the LG Spectrum. It just came out in 2012. That's 1.5 years AFTER the iPhone 4 introduced to the world the 326 PPI IPS display. This is LG's tech but backed by Apple. Can you guess where that tech would be today without Apple's perseverance in getting it developed and mass produced? Most likely quite a ways off. How about Corning's Gorilla Glass? That might also be a shelved 50yo tech they had no application for. What about the CULV processors from Intel or the milled aluminum chassis for a notebook that everyone is following? Probably not even on the map. And on and on and on...
But from your past posts, it seems as though you think the Apple logo makes something 'better' the same way a Catholic priest's blessing makes water 'holy'.
Good one. Those debating skills will server you well¡
Margins are revenue minus costs. Again, you need to consider how a company can lower their costs of a product thereby increasing their profit. It's a pussy position to think that other companies aren't trying to make more of a profit.
There is, finally, a journalist who gets it:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19855...015_and_beyond
Margins matter.
In 2011 HP did more revenue than Apple, yet Apple's market cap is 10X HP's. Why? Margins.
You do understand that Apple makes things other than iPads, don't you? You also understand that HP is not a significant actor in the mobile tablet industry, don't you? Apple's market capitalization relative to HP has virtually nothing to do with its margins on iPads.
Where did I say that it maters most to the customer?????
You stated that margins are all that matters. To the English-speaking among us, this means that customer preference matters not at all. If you would like to amend your post to comport with reality, then feel free to do so.
There is, finally, a journalist who gets it:
http://blogs.computerworld.com/19855...015_and_beyond
He certainly does. NIce thorough analysis of a company operates.
Manufacturing and price
It's not enough to toss a few components together to create a tablet wannabe in hope customers will flock to purchase the new toy. Component prices are steep and these devices are at the leading edge of miniaturization and new technology.
Manufacturers must make hard decisions, not just in terms of processor speed and graphics power, but for everything else: you need the best interconnects, excellent battery life, even the interconnects between components must be fully examined and thought through.
Each detail of product design must be informed by the end user experience. There's no point using a second-class component at any stage of the assembly; there's also no point including features customers won't use: not only do these impact on manufacturing costs and battery life, but the inclusion of stuff people don't want serves to reduce the user experience.
Trolls yelping about Apple's margins should consider this. If Apple were to lower its margins and thereby the price of iOS devices then Apple would completely own both the smartphone and tablet markets. Android tablets in particular would be flushed down the toilet in a heartbeat. The fact that Apple can build such high quality products and maintain high margins reveals just how powerful their economy of scale is and how efficiently they run the business. So the trolls should watch what they complain about because it might come back and bite them in the arse. It also speaks volumes as to what Apple thinks of the market share metric. Market share is not more important to them than profit.
So true. If Apple sold everything they made for one year at the margins their competitors do (i imagine Apple could afford it too) there would be no competitors left. Then what would the tech landscape look like?
You do understand that Apple makes things other than iPads, don't you? You also understand that HP is not a significant actor in the mobile tablet industry, don't you? Apple's market capitalization relative to HP has virtually nothing to do with its margins on iPads.
No, it has to do with its margins on everything they sell, which are very high. It has to do with its net profits, which are way ahead of the industry. If Apple was just making small, industry average profits on their products like some people seem to think, their market cap would be probably around 150-200B, not 500+B.
He certainly does. NIce thorough analysis of a company operates.
What I find fascinating is the continual reference in the quote you posted from that article, to the fact there is 'no point in doing anything other than the best' to paraphrase. Why I find this fascinating is that before Apple in the Jobs / Ives era, most products were manufactured with built in obsolescence and shoddy parts were considered par for the course. We shopped for the least shoddy ... Check out your washing machine, fridge, stove ... I have rust coming throu on a two year old stove and an ice maker crapping out on a one year old fridge ... It's all basically junk these days.
We have to thank Apple for not only re inventing so many industries but for actually making excellence in manufacturing to be considered a virtue again and proving it is actually profitable. I know it's often said as a joke, but boy I wish Apple made other stuff too some times.
As an aside it also shows stuff made in China can be of excellent quality. The issue of quality is obviously controlled by more than where it is made. Don't blame being made in China next time you find a shoddy product, look at the label.
Why I find this fascinating is that before Apple in the Jobs / Ives era, most products were manufactured with built in obsolescence and shoddy parts were considered par for the course.
What I hate is the vendors on worrying about components they can advertise on a spec sheet and begrudgingly worrying about the rest even if can positively affect the user experience. Apple is certainly in a position will every little thing will be measured and counted but they earned that position from repeated excellent and focus. So far we've seen a lot of companies try to copy Apple... but it's always in the last important way.
If that's the view you take, then no proof could be proof of anything.
But maybe start by looking at Samsung's margins, since their Exynos chipset with Mali GPU would be considered the 'closest' to Apple's chipset (especially since Samsung makes both). And then maybe look at how much LG charges for a phone with a 4.5 inch 720p IPS LCD screen (330dpi resolution), since they make the iPhone's screen as well.
But from your past posts, it seems as though you think the Apple logo makes something 'better' the same way a Catholic priest's blessing makes water 'holy'.
The reason why Apple has higher margins has a lot to do with efficiency. They have large volumes that they can leverage to lower costs of their components. Almost 10-15% of the price of the competition products is lost to Retail - whereas most of it is retained by Apple as they sell at their own stores - brick and online. Apple sells pretty much all it can make - so they don't have blocked inventory and fire sales adding to costs. Apple's upfront focus on quality and customer satisfaction ensures that their support and warranty costs are lot lower. Apple has a tight product portfolio and a very relaxed product launch cycle - so they don't face enhanced costs associated with launching dozens of products every year. Apple gets tons of free publicity because of which their marketing costs as a percentage of their revenues would be the lowest in the industry.
But you have a valid point - the Apple logo DOES make products better - because of the extremely high standards that Apple holds itself to - they will not slap on their logo on anything and everything. As a customer, that gives me the confidence to buy Apple products - even if I have a to pay a slightly higher price!
No, it has to do with its margins on everything they sell, which are very high. It has to do with its net profits, which are way ahead of the industry. If Apple was just making small, industry average profits on their products like some people seem to think, their market cap would be probably around 150-200B, not 500+B.
Economics disagrees with you to some extent. If they sell 50M tablets at an average of about $600 each, then they have $30B in tablet revenue. If we assume that the average tablet with ALL costs included come out to $400, then we're talking $10B in profit.
If they lowered the price to $550, they would sell some amount of extra tablets; lets say 52M tablets. Economies of scale might mean that that extra 4% in tablets sold knocks of a percent from their costs, $8B in total profit.
Lets chop off another $50, now maybe 54M tablets sold = ~$5.8B in profit.
I don't think $4.2B in lost profit is what turns them from a $500B company into a $200B company.
In any case, I assume that they've set prices based on supply and demand curves, just like nearly every other major company on Earth