I suppose many of the posters here haven't read the discussion on the 5.5G BOMs. Keep in mind that this is just the price of the parts. We get too many "armchair businessmen" that see this and somehow assume that Apple's profit is 50%. It is not. Parts are the biggest portion of the costs, but there are numerous other expenses. To illustrate the point, Apple's typical net profit is about 10%, not 50%.
I wasn't bitching at people. I was merely wondering why corporations have to retain such vast sums of money.
I don't give all, but I give 40%.
That's where my nick "kresh" comes from. I'm part of a Christian group that supports the Kresh people of Sudan (in the starving part of Africa). The money we give does not go to a government body, but is delivered to the Kresh people in the form of food stuff and goods. The vast majority are Sunni Islamics, 14% of the population is Christian. Through our help and others, it's starting to show that people of differing religions can live together, although there have been too many outbreaks of violence.
I didn't advocate that Apple sell everything and give it away. If they gave 40%, that would be nice.
1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
Matthew 6:1-3 (New International Version)
Sounds to me like your just looking for an excuse to toot you own horn.
I can't know for certain what your motives are but you-know-who can.
Not everyone cares about starving children. Besides, have you every heard the "teach a man to fish" proverb? Donating money to the 3rd world is shortsighted. The US and the EU governments make the third world hungry not because of a failure to throw money at the problem, but because of domestic protectionism and pork-barrelling towards the farming industries. Instead, they force the 3rd world to grow non-sustainable crops (like sugar).
As for the iPod, $74 is about what I expected. You have to factor in R&D and marketing into the accounting cost, of course, as well as supply line costs and many other things. But the bottom line is that there's a glut in the NAND market right now. I'm surprised Apple didn't make a 16GB Nano, although that's probably because they couldn't fit the chip package into the enclosure, and not because they didn't think it would fit into the marketing model.
Hmm... what about the battery though? Apple claimed iPod with video now would play longer. iSuppli says everything is the same except the screen. Question is, how can you only install a brighter screen and increase the battery life dramatically?
Hmm... what about the battery though? Apple claimed iPod with video now would play longer. iSuppli says everything is the same except the screen. Question is, how can you only install a brighter screen and increase the battery life dramatically?
Perhaps the screen's power draw with active backlight is less, which also explains why it won't affect audio playback.
Hmm... what about the battery though? Apple claimed iPod with video now would play longer. iSuppli says everything is the same except the screen. Question is, how can you only install a brighter screen and increase the battery life dramatically?
If you read the article carefully, you have seen that a big deal was made of the fact that the most power consumptive chips are now in more efficient designs, and in one case, two combined into one.
A brighter screen doesn't always mean one that consumes more power. The screen can simply be better, and more advanced. Newer LCD monitors are much brighter than older ones, but use the same, or less power.
Why would anyone want to watch videos on a nano? Watching anything is already too hard on the full-size iPods with their 2.5" screens. I can't imagine trying to watch videos on the 1.5" screen of the nano. I've seen bigger postage stamps.
similar arguments have been made forever and every about new features on ipods. if it wasn't like this we'd still be using 1stGen ipods. "who wants a color screen? why would you want that?" that was the reason i sold my mini and bought a nano.
out there, somewhere there is someone wanting to watch video on a tiny 1.5 inch screen.
This is why the Zune will be a good thing. Also keep in mind that the iPod is run in its own division at Apple. I doubt Apple as a whole will be "complacent" about the iPod.
Does anyone know if the "iTV" is being developed in the iPod division or the Mac division? If it's in the iPod division, it could detract from the iPod.
Personally, I don't think Apple will be complacent because the slew of patent submissions shows that they are busy thinking ahead of the technology. I'd just like them to work a little faster getting new products out the door.
i agree that this isn't the forum for a talk about that but what you said is some of the stupidest, most ignorant shit I've ever heard.
How do you know he doesn't anything for charity?
And to be charitable someone has to sell everything they have?
WTF are you smoking?
If you're serious about something, go through with everything you have, not with home idiotic, liberal idea of appeasing your conscience by throwing quarters at bums.
If you're serious about something, go through with everything you have, not with home idiotic, liberal idea of appeasing your conscience by throwing quarters at bums.
Who said anything about "throwing quarters at bums"? Or is that supposed to be a metaphor?
You really are being an idiot here. Do you really not think that some people can do a lot more net good by not "selling everything they have and working for charity"? To take an extreme example: Which achieves the overall most net good: Bill Gates giving up everything he had 30 years ago and working for charity, or Bill Gates doing what he actually did and now having billions and billions of dollars to give to charity, and decent contacts to help raise awareness in the wider public about various issues?
I wasn't bitching at people. I was merely wondering why corporations have to retain such vast sums of money.
I don't give all, but I give 40%.
That's where my nick "kresh" comes from. I'm part of a Christian group that supports the Kresh people of Sudan (in the starving part of Africa). The money we give does not go to a government body, but is delivered to the Kresh people in the form of food stuff and goods. The vast majority are Sunni Islamics, 14% of the population is Christian. Through our help and others, it's starting to show that people of differing religions can live together, although there have been too many outbreaks of violence.
I didn't advocate that Apple sell everything and give it away. If they gave 40%, that would be nice.
not being rude. do you supply skills and employment to the people you are helping?
i do a ethics and sustainability course at UNI, the thing that pisses me off the most is that charities are fine at what they do best( feed clothe the population ), they neglect the after care. supplying skills and employment to the people. by all means i am not say all that needs to be done is so simple, i am saying your doing a great job. instead of bashing these big organisation with their vast sums of money. ask them to help out. they could provide training, employment and thus one more piece to ending the poverty puzzle.
NAND is extremely battery friendly, especially when it's not being used (i.e. in sleep mode). Battery life would decrease negligibly. When a 65nm NAND chip is inactive, the power can be measured in nanowatts. Running the display backlight for a second will drain more power than the extra NAND will drain during a full charge cycle.
The other thing that caught me by surprise is the 32MB SDRAM. Caching would seem less important when using solid state non-volatile memory (NAND) rather than a hard disk, but I can't imagine that Apple hasn't already evaluated the prospect of reducing the amount of SDRAM.
NAND is extremely battery friendly, especially when it's not being used (i.e. in sleep mode). Battery life would decrease negligibly. When a 65nm NAND chip is inactive, the power can be measured in nanowatts.
Does a difference in capacity make any difference in operation? Would 16GB of flash consume noticably more power than 8GB of flash?
Quote:
The other thing that caught me by surprise is the 32MB SDRAM. Caching would seem less important when using solid state non-volatile memory (NAND) rather than a hard disk, but I can't imagine that Apple hasn't already evaluated the prospect of reducing the amount of SDRAM.
What size is most commonly used in electronics? What is the approximate price difference? I wonder if it might be because there wasn't enough cost and battery savings by going with the smaller memory. Maybe chip makers are phasing out the 16MB chips because 128MB DIMMs aren't so popular anymore.
They were talking about Nano. iPod seems to use the same chips, it only got a brighter screen.
Quote:
That lack of video support also may partly explain why the new hard-disk-drive based iPod continues to utilize the same combination of PortalPlayer and Broadcom Corp. chips
NAND is extremely battery friendly, especially when it's not being used (i.e. in sleep mode). Battery life would decrease negligibly. When a 65nm NAND chip is inactive, the power can be measured in nanowatts. Running the display backlight for a second will drain more power than the extra NAND will drain during a full charge cycle.
The other thing that caught me by surprise is the 32MB SDRAM. Caching would seem less important when using solid state non-volatile memory (NAND) rather than a hard disk, but I can't imagine that Apple hasn't already evaluated the prospect of reducing the amount of SDRAM.
While what you say is true, these chips are active during the entire time the player is being utilized. That's is one of the reasons why Apple went to more efficient chips.
We don't know the speed of the NAND circuitry being used. Some of it is quite slow.
Comments
I wasn't bitching at people. I was merely wondering why corporations have to retain such vast sums of money.
I don't give all, but I give 40%.
That's where my nick "kresh" comes from. I'm part of a Christian group that supports the Kresh people of Sudan (in the starving part of Africa). The money we give does not go to a government body, but is delivered to the Kresh people in the form of food stuff and goods. The vast majority are Sunni Islamics, 14% of the population is Christian. Through our help and others, it's starting to show that people of differing religions can live together, although there have been too many outbreaks of violence.
If you would like to read more abouth them: http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctr...SU&rop3=105305
I didn't advocate that Apple sell everything and give it away. If they gave 40%, that would be nice.
1"Be careful not to do your 'acts of righteousness' before men, to be seen by them. If you do, you will have no reward from your Father in heaven.
2"So when you give to the needy, do not announce it with trumpets, as the hypocrites do in the synagogues and on the streets, to be honored by men. I tell you the truth, they have received their reward in full.
3But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing,
Matthew 6:1-3 (New International Version)
Sounds to me like your just looking for an excuse to toot you own horn.
I can't know for certain what your motives are but you-know-who can.
Check yourself.
Not everyone cares about starving children. Besides, have you every heard the "teach a man to fish" proverb? Donating money to the 3rd world is shortsighted. The US and the EU governments make the third world hungry not because of a failure to throw money at the problem, but because of domestic protectionism and pork-barrelling towards the farming industries. Instead, they force the 3rd world to grow non-sustainable crops (like sugar).
As for the iPod, $74 is about what I expected. You have to factor in R&D and marketing into the accounting cost, of course, as well as supply line costs and many other things. But the bottom line is that there's a glut in the NAND market right now. I'm surprised Apple didn't make a 16GB Nano, although that's probably because they couldn't fit the chip package into the enclosure, and not because they didn't think it would fit into the marketing model.
Battery life as well.
Hmm... what about the battery though? Apple claimed iPod with video now would play longer. iSuppli says everything is the same except the screen. Question is, how can you only install a brighter screen and increase the battery life dramatically?
Perhaps the screen's power draw with active backlight is less, which also explains why it won't affect audio playback.
Hmm... what about the battery though? Apple claimed iPod with video now would play longer. iSuppli says everything is the same except the screen. Question is, how can you only install a brighter screen and increase the battery life dramatically?
If you read the article carefully, you have seen that a big deal was made of the fact that the most power consumptive chips are now in more efficient designs, and in one case, two combined into one.
A brighter screen doesn't always mean one that consumes more power. The screen can simply be better, and more advanced. Newer LCD monitors are much brighter than older ones, but use the same, or less power.
Why would anyone want to watch videos on a nano? Watching anything is already too hard on the full-size iPods with their 2.5" screens. I can't imagine trying to watch videos on the 1.5" screen of the nano. I've seen bigger postage stamps.
similar arguments have been made forever and every about new features on ipods. if it wasn't like this we'd still be using 1stGen ipods. "who wants a color screen? why would you want that?" that was the reason i sold my mini and bought a nano.
out there, somewhere there is someone wanting to watch video on a tiny 1.5 inch screen.
This is why the Zune will be a good thing. Also keep in mind that the iPod is run in its own division at Apple. I doubt Apple as a whole will be "complacent" about the iPod.
Does anyone know if the "iTV" is being developed in the iPod division or the Mac division? If it's in the iPod division, it could detract from the iPod.
Personally, I don't think Apple will be complacent because the slew of patent submissions shows that they are busy thinking ahead of the technology. I'd just like them to work a little faster getting new products out the door.
i agree that this isn't the forum for a talk about that but what you said is some of the stupidest, most ignorant shit I've ever heard.
How do you know he doesn't anything for charity?
And to be charitable someone has to sell everything they have?
WTF are you smoking?
If you're serious about something, go through with everything you have, not with home idiotic, liberal idea of appeasing your conscience by throwing quarters at bums.
If you're serious about something, go through with everything you have, not with home idiotic, liberal idea of appeasing your conscience by throwing quarters at bums.
Who said anything about "throwing quarters at bums"? Or is that supposed to be a metaphor?
You really are being an idiot here. Do you really not think that some people can do a lot more net good by not "selling everything they have and working for charity"? To take an extreme example: Which achieves the overall most net good: Bill Gates giving up everything he had 30 years ago and working for charity, or Bill Gates doing what he actually did and now having billions and billions of dollars to give to charity, and decent contacts to help raise awareness in the wider public about various issues?
I wasn't bitching at people. I was merely wondering why corporations have to retain such vast sums of money.
I don't give all, but I give 40%.
That's where my nick "kresh" comes from. I'm part of a Christian group that supports the Kresh people of Sudan (in the starving part of Africa). The money we give does not go to a government body, but is delivered to the Kresh people in the form of food stuff and goods. The vast majority are Sunni Islamics, 14% of the population is Christian. Through our help and others, it's starting to show that people of differing religions can live together, although there have been too many outbreaks of violence.
If you would like to read more abouth them: http://www.joshuaproject.net/peopctr...SU&rop3=105305
I didn't advocate that Apple sell everything and give it away. If they gave 40%, that would be nice.
not being rude. do you supply skills and employment to the people you are helping?
i do a ethics and sustainability course at UNI, the thing that pisses me off the most is that charities are fine at what they do best( feed clothe the population ), they neglect the after care. supplying skills and employment to the people. by all means i am not say all that needs to be done is so simple, i am saying your doing a great job. instead of bashing these big organisation with their vast sums of money. ask them to help out. they could provide training, employment and thus one more piece to ending the poverty puzzle.
Battery life as well.
NAND is extremely battery friendly, especially when it's not being used (i.e. in sleep mode). Battery life would decrease negligibly. When a 65nm NAND chip is inactive, the power can be measured in nanowatts. Running the display backlight for a second will drain more power than the extra NAND will drain during a full charge cycle.
The other thing that caught me by surprise is the 32MB SDRAM. Caching would seem less important when using solid state non-volatile memory (NAND) rather than a hard disk, but I can't imagine that Apple hasn't already evaluated the prospect of reducing the amount of SDRAM.
NAND is extremely battery friendly, especially when it's not being used (i.e. in sleep mode). Battery life would decrease negligibly. When a 65nm NAND chip is inactive, the power can be measured in nanowatts.
Does a difference in capacity make any difference in operation? Would 16GB of flash consume noticably more power than 8GB of flash?
The other thing that caught me by surprise is the 32MB SDRAM. Caching would seem less important when using solid state non-volatile memory (NAND) rather than a hard disk, but I can't imagine that Apple hasn't already evaluated the prospect of reducing the amount of SDRAM.
What size is most commonly used in electronics? What is the approximate price difference? I wonder if it might be because there wasn't enough cost and battery savings by going with the smaller memory. Maybe chip makers are phasing out the 16MB chips because 128MB DIMMs aren't so popular anymore.
That lack of video support also may partly explain why the new hard-disk-drive based iPod continues to utilize the same combination of PortalPlayer and Broadcom Corp. chips
NAND is extremely battery friendly, especially when it's not being used (i.e. in sleep mode). Battery life would decrease negligibly. When a 65nm NAND chip is inactive, the power can be measured in nanowatts. Running the display backlight for a second will drain more power than the extra NAND will drain during a full charge cycle.
The other thing that caught me by surprise is the 32MB SDRAM. Caching would seem less important when using solid state non-volatile memory (NAND) rather than a hard disk, but I can't imagine that Apple hasn't already evaluated the prospect of reducing the amount of SDRAM.
While what you say is true, these chips are active during the entire time the player is being utilized. That's is one of the reasons why Apple went to more efficient chips.
We don't know the speed of the NAND circuitry being used. Some of it is quite slow.