The iPhone packaging up until now has been a plain card oars box, but here they are switching to an all plastic, all curved design which seems on the face of it to be less environmental, more expensive, harder to make, and perhaps shows off the product less.
Actually the card stock version is more expensive. With that version they have a four step process. Die cut, glue, print the 4-color, then laminate it to the box. Very labor intensive and quite slow with high defect rate. Injection moulding is much faster and only has two steps. Mold and screen print and it runs entirely automated.
Quote:
Agree. I'd think that Apple would use bio-degradable paper and cardboard for the larger iDevices.
But yes, some of the iPods and earbuds come in plastic packaging.
Bio-degradable does not represent some major success for recyclable materials. It represents fail as paper should not end up in the land fill to start with. The injection molded packaging may already be made with some recycled plastic and should be recycled again if disposed of properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Langanki
How much money will Apple save by switching from metal to plastic? I can't see that knocking more than $10 off the price.
Material costs are only one aspect of the price, labor is another and the molded case will save substantially in that respect. When producing the beveled anodized aluminum cases the labor and defect rate are extremely high. Molded plastic is really easy to achieve near zero defects. When manufacturing in such huge volume you need to calculate all the costs. They are likely saving pennies on every step.
It's a wild guess but maybe it's iPhone 5S built for Russian market? Letter S is written as C in russian http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/С , but like I said it's a wild guess and I may be completely off...
Maybe. I would also buy that "C" will be seen in China as significant.
How much money will Apple save by switching from metal to plastic? I can't see that knocking more than $10 off the price.
My information, based on remote viewing of Tim Cook's spreadsheets, is that all that metal handling costs twice as much as the screen, or $70, plus you have to throw in another $30 on amortizing the machinery, and then add the markup, so you're at near $200 retail. Take with a dumptruck of road salt, as in the image TS supplied the other day.
When producing the beveled anodized aluminum cases the labor and defect rate are extremely high. Molded plastic is really easy to achieve near zero defects.
Kindly cite defect rates in actual numbers, not hand-waving hyperbole.
When producing the beveled anodized aluminum cases the labor and defect rate are extremely high. Molded plastic is really easy to achieve near zero defects.
Kindly cite defect rates in actual numbers, not hand-waving hyperbole.
Did you miss the article where Apple sent hundreds of thousands of iPhones back to Foxcon due to defects in manufacturing?
Or the one that stated Foxcon said the iPhone 5 was the most difficult device to manufacture or the article that stated that they had to manufacture dozens of different size glass inserts to accommodate the slight irregularities in the case machining?
I
I have to agree. The iPhone 5 design is svelte but not practical in many ways. It requires quite a bit of precision to build correctly and defect free, but doesn't use an especially high grade aluminum or anodizing process.
The iPhone 5C should be far easier to build right out the box, and wear better.
And you know this how? Do you work at Apple?
Btw, the black HTC One scuffs too, so I suppose they don't use high grade materials either?
Did you miss the article where Apple sent hundreds of thousands of iPhones back to Foxcon due to defects in manufacturing?
Or the one that stated Foxcon said the iPhone 5 was the most difficult device to manufacture or the article that stated that they had to manufacture dozens of different size glass inserts to accommodate the slight irregularities in the case machining?
When did Apple ever confirm that story? We have no idea if it was true or not. I don't argue that iPhone 5 is difficult to manufacture but I also don't believe every story I read either as when it comes to Apple, lots of stuff gets written that can never be proven.
Kindly cite defect rates in actual numbers, not hand-waving hyperbole.
If Apple had a huge defect rate wouldn't that ultimately show up in their financials? Wouldn't they have to expense all these defective iPhones?
This reminds me of all these shipped doesn't equal sold arguments but no one is ever able to show financial data on all these write offs of unsold phones.
iPhone 5C stands for Color. It is a big deal to have colored iPhones like this for the first time.
It also subtly stands for Cheap, which relatively speaking (relative to 5S) it will be.
It is positively brilliant, and there really is no other take on that.
I agree that this is brilliant, with the explicit focus being "color," and the tacit implication being "cheap(er)." I think this will be especially significant as the main iPhone loses color. I think the ultimate design direction is going to be similar to the current iPod touch, hopefully using liquid metal. (*) An all metal back, combined with a shrinking bezel, leaves little room for color; just sleek metal and glass. This also leaves open the use of a pro moniker, while maintaining the number scheme helps people feel comfortable they have the newer version, as the phone design is going to start looking more homogenous as time goes on.
Here's how I see it playing out:
2013: iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s
2014: iPhone 6c, iPhone 6
2015: iPhone 6c, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6 Pro
2016: iPhone c, iPhone, iPhone Pro
*Before someone mentions radio opacity, just remember Apple's patent about embedding radio antennas into very thin openings in a metal enclosure.
Kindly cite defect rates in actual numbers, not hand-waving hyperbole.
If Apple had a huge defect rate wouldn't that ultimately show up in their financials? Wouldn't they have to expense all these defective iPhones?
This reminds me of all these shipped doesn't equal sold arguments but no one is ever able to show financial data on all these write offs of unsold phones.
Not really. Foxcon is selling the iPhones to Apple. Defects are built into their contract. If a worker screws up a part, that adds to Foxcon's expenses.
Perhaps I could have included the word probably. But for some reason SN needs to single me out asking for exact numbers to argue against my perfectly reasonable assumption that there are a lot of things that could go wrong with making such a complex case. It should be perfectly obvious to anyone who has even the slightest experience in these manufacturing processes. For one thing in comparing injection molding to the machined case the molded case has one step. If that step fails you have only lost a second or two of machine time and 2 cents worth of plastic. In the case of the machined part each step, of many, is building upon the previous step. If in the final beveling you get a knick as was reported by some users, you have thrown out all of the previous steps and the associated labor cost.
It is so damn obvious it seem ludicrous to debate. Anyone who asks for exact figures for something that is clearly unknowable is just being a smart ass, especially if the premise is totally logical.
Just had a thought that if Apple came out with an iPhone that has a larger screen, that it would want to continue making phones with smaller screens. The smaller one would of course cost less.
Therefore, to differentiate between the 2, the smaller one would have the "c" for "compact" and the larger one would just be the iPhone.
The goal would be to get the smaller one as small as possible and not worry so much about always have the latest hardware and the larger one would always have the latest hardware.
Oh! Remember the fake packaging for the iPhone 5 two years ago? The Chinese printing press that was creating the 5 at the time the 4S came out?
There you go, more dissent.
True, however in that previous instance there were several things wrong with that photo. Producing that single fake press sheet could have been done for less than $100 where as these molded cases would require somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 for making the die, Of course they could have been printed on a 3D printer for considerably less so yeah they could be fake, sure. They also could be a mold for some completely unrelated product that someone just screen printed with iPhone 5C for a joke.
This is totally tasteless, so … I think you might be right.
The "New" Apple has a hard-on for California ("it's the place you oughta be"), and the bad taste to shove it in everyones face, so it kind of fits.
They may brand it as a California style phone that is waterproof and durable for all those people who are surfing and playing sports like in the commercials.
You can call it crap all you want, but I'll bet the farm these will sell very well, especially to the younger people.
Assuming it has better specs than whatever your current phone is, I think it will sell well to a lot of people. Especially if they do as expected and sell it in the Apple Store for $350 or so.
For instance I now have the iPhone 5. If I want to upgrade it this year, it's $200 at the (horrible, rapacious, underhanded, asshole) carrier store, and I have to sign in blood for another 2 years. If there was a phone of similar specification that I could walk into an (pleasant, helpful, cheery) Apple store and buy off the shelf for $350 to replace it with, I probably would. Swap the sim and away you go. I could also sell or pass-on my old phone to someone so there is an extra value there too.
If you change the equation so that instead of me and my iPhone 5, it's someone else with an iPhone 4 or 4s, the case is even easier to make. Even at $400 they would be shovelling these things out the door.
If Apple had a huge defect rate wouldn't that ultimately show up in their financials? Wouldn't they have to expense all these defective iPhones?
This reminds me of all these shipped doesn't equal sold arguments but no one is ever able to show financial data on all these write offs of unsold phones.
Presumably:
1) They are not resold. They are taken apart by FoxConn.
2) Apple defers the cost to FoxConn. Or rather they don't pay FoxConn for defective phones, so the investigation should be in FoxConns financials, if any.
Of course there is a cost to Apple as these defects tend to happen in the first quarters of production, which Apple in their wisdom have decided to be in the busier part of the year, and so demand doesn't meet supply and customers are lost. Thats hard to estimate, because its a counter factual
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The iPhone packaging up until now has been a plain card oars box, but here they are switching to an all plastic, all curved design which seems on the face of it to be less environmental, more expensive, harder to make, and perhaps shows off the product less.
Actually the card stock version is more expensive. With that version they have a four step process. Die cut, glue, print the 4-color, then laminate it to the box. Very labor intensive and quite slow with high defect rate. Injection moulding is much faster and only has two steps. Mold and screen print and it runs entirely automated.
Quote:
Agree. I'd think that Apple would use bio-degradable paper and cardboard for the larger iDevices.
But yes, some of the iPods and earbuds come in plastic packaging.
Bio-degradable does not represent some major success for recyclable materials. It represents fail as paper should not end up in the land fill to start with. The injection molded packaging may already be made with some recycled plastic and should be recycled again if disposed of properly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jesse Langanki
How much money will Apple save by switching from metal to plastic? I can't see that knocking more than $10 off the price.
Material costs are only one aspect of the price, labor is another and the molded case will save substantially in that respect. When producing the beveled anodized aluminum cases the labor and defect rate are extremely high. Molded plastic is really easy to achieve near zero defects. When manufacturing in such huge volume you need to calculate all the costs. They are likely saving pennies on every step.
Maybe. I would also buy that "C" will be seen in China as significant.
My information, based on remote viewing of Tim Cook's spreadsheets, is that all that metal handling costs twice as much as the screen, or $70, plus you have to throw in another $30 on amortizing the machinery, and then add the markup, so you're at near $200 retail. Take with a dumptruck of road salt, as in the image TS supplied the other day.
Kindly cite defect rates in actual numbers, not hand-waving hyperbole.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone
When producing the beveled anodized aluminum cases the labor and defect rate are extremely high. Molded plastic is really easy to achieve near zero defects.
Kindly cite defect rates in actual numbers, not hand-waving hyperbole.
Did you miss the article where Apple sent hundreds of thousands of iPhones back to Foxcon due to defects in manufacturing?
Or the one that stated Foxcon said the iPhone 5 was the most difficult device to manufacture or the article that stated that they had to manufacture dozens of different size glass inserts to accommodate the slight irregularities in the case machining?
And you know this how? Do you work at Apple?
Btw, the black HTC One scuffs too, so I suppose they don't use high grade materials either?
This reminds me of all these shipped doesn't equal sold arguments but no one is ever able to show financial data on all these write offs of unsold phones.
It could just be the iPhone 5 but in a much much smaller casing similar to the iPod Touch.
Just an idea.
I agree that this is brilliant, with the explicit focus being "color," and the tacit implication being "cheap(er)." I think this will be especially significant as the main iPhone loses color. I think the ultimate design direction is going to be similar to the current iPod touch, hopefully using liquid metal. (*) An all metal back, combined with a shrinking bezel, leaves little room for color; just sleek metal and glass. This also leaves open the use of a pro moniker, while maintaining the number scheme helps people feel comfortable they have the newer version, as the phone design is going to start looking more homogenous as time goes on.
Here's how I see it playing out:
2013: iPhone 5c, iPhone 5s
2014: iPhone 6c, iPhone 6
2015: iPhone 6c, iPhone 6s, iPhone 6 Pro
2016: iPhone c, iPhone, iPhone Pro
*Before someone mentions radio opacity, just remember Apple's patent about embedding radio antennas into very thin openings in a metal enclosure.
There you go, more dissent.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton
Kindly cite defect rates in actual numbers, not hand-waving hyperbole.
If Apple had a huge defect rate wouldn't that ultimately show up in their financials? Wouldn't they have to expense all these defective iPhones?
This reminds me of all these shipped doesn't equal sold arguments but no one is ever able to show financial data on all these write offs of unsold phones.
Not really. Foxcon is selling the iPhones to Apple. Defects are built into their contract. If a worker screws up a part, that adds to Foxcon's expenses.
Perhaps I could have included the word probably. But for some reason SN needs to single me out asking for exact numbers to argue against my perfectly reasonable assumption that there are a lot of things that could go wrong with making such a complex case. It should be perfectly obvious to anyone who has even the slightest experience in these manufacturing processes. For one thing in comparing injection molding to the machined case the molded case has one step. If that step fails you have only lost a second or two of machine time and 2 cents worth of plastic. In the case of the machined part each step, of many, is building upon the previous step. If in the final beveling you get a knick as was reported by some users, you have thrown out all of the previous steps and the associated labor cost.
It is so damn obvious it seem ludicrous to debate. Anyone who asks for exact figures for something that is clearly unknowable is just being a smart ass, especially if the premise is totally logical.
Just had a thought that if Apple came out with an iPhone that has a larger screen, that it would want to continue making phones with smaller screens. The smaller one would of course cost less.
Therefore, to differentiate between the 2, the smaller one would have the "c" for "compact" and the larger one would just be the iPhone.
The goal would be to get the smaller one as small as possible and not worry so much about always have the latest hardware and the larger one would always have the latest hardware.
Thoughts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Oh! Remember the fake packaging for the iPhone 5 two years ago? The Chinese printing press that was creating the 5 at the time the 4S came out?
There you go, more dissent.
True, however in that previous instance there were several things wrong with that photo. Producing that single fake press sheet could have been done for less than $100 where as these molded cases would require somewhere in the neighborhood of $100,000 for making the die, Of course they could have been printed on a 3D printer for considerably less so yeah they could be fake, sure. They also could be a mold for some completely unrelated product that someone just screen printed with iPhone 5C for a joke.
They look pretty real to me.
They may brand it as a California style phone that is waterproof and durable for all those people who are surfing and playing sports like in the commercials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdamC
C for childish as in making cheap crap comment.
Says Adam "C" as in … :P
Quote:
Originally Posted by macxpress
You can call it crap all you want, but I'll bet the farm these will sell very well, especially to the younger people.
Assuming it has better specs than whatever your current phone is, I think it will sell well to a lot of people. Especially if they do as expected and sell it in the Apple Store for $350 or so.
For instance I now have the iPhone 5. If I want to upgrade it this year, it's $200 at the (horrible, rapacious, underhanded, asshole) carrier store, and I have to sign in blood for another 2 years. If there was a phone of similar specification that I could walk into an (pleasant, helpful, cheery) Apple store and buy off the shelf for $350 to replace it with, I probably would. Swap the sim and away you go. I could also sell or pass-on my old phone to someone so there is an extra value there too.
If you change the equation so that instead of me and my iPhone 5, it's someone else with an iPhone 4 or 4s, the case is even easier to make. Even at $400 they would be shovelling these things out the door.
Presumably:
1) They are not resold. They are taken apart by FoxConn.
2) Apple defers the cost to FoxConn. Or rather they don't pay FoxConn for defective phones, so the investigation should be in FoxConns financials, if any.
Of course there is a cost to Apple as these defects tend to happen in the first quarters of production, which Apple in their wisdom have decided to be in the busier part of the year, and so demand doesn't meet supply and customers are lost. Thats hard to estimate, because its a counter factual
Quote:
Originally Posted by nickimsonik
The name is really awful. Also it seems that Tim Cook doubled down on secrecy on products once again
Isn't it obvious that "C" stands for "Cook" ?
A cheaper iPhone would be the equivalent of the iPod Nano.
Makes sense.