madan

Soli said:

madan said:

Soli said:

MacPro said:

I think this particular Samsung department will fold.

🤣 Nice!

I'm not a Samsung proponent at all and they can be pretty scummy but it's important to note that the same S-AMOLED screen in the X and XS/Max were touted * in this exact way * by Samsung about 5 years ago.  Most Apple fans poo-pooed it as inferior to IPS...until Samsung made it ready for prime time and Apple decided to jump ship from the IPS LCD in previous iPhones.

95% of phone/tablet screens come from Samsung.  They're very good at that.  Instead of mocking the technology, we should just realize that it needs more "time in the oven", so to speak, before Apple comes up with their own foldable concept.  A lot of bad AMOLEDs shipped for android before Samsung perfected the process and created a great screen.  A great screen...that current iPhones use to best effect.

Apple isn't stupid.  LG still isn't ready to create small AMOLEDs.  Samsung will be a partner for a while and if this technology becomes available for future products...Apple will use it.

1) Apple didn't move to OLED because Samsung phones were popular. They moved to OLED when newer technologies used with OLED made it possible for them to create the iPhone X.

2) As you note, most OLEDs come from Samsung and Samsung used most OLEDs which is why it was never going to be viable "5 years ago' for Apple to use OLEDs along their iPhone line.

3) Note that Apple used OLED displays in their Apple Watch over 3 years ago because it made the most sense for a variety of battery life and aesthetic reasons. Luckily, being such a small display and having a near existent volume compared to the iPhone in 2015 there was more than enough supply for Apple.

4) I also assume Samsung will be a core supplier for a fair while, if not indefinitely as one of several, as they have more experience with the tech and the foundries to make them now, but just like other components that Apple contracted Samsung manufacturer they will surely be marginalized as time goes on (just as new components from Samsung will likely get contracted out).

5) It wouldn't be smart for Apple to get beholden to a single vendor. This isn't an Apple v Samsung issue. It's an Apple as a client losing negotiating control from a contractor. The same applies for all contractors, even though not all are as reputable as others in certain arms of their business practices.

1. Did you even read what I posted?  Apple didn't move to AMOLED because Samsung presented it FIVE years ago.  They moved to it when it was ready and better than IPS LCD.  My point is clear...if this foldable screen does the same, Apple will move to that too.


2. Thanks for repeating my point.  That's exactly what I said.  Twice.


3. OLED made the most sense for the watch due to battery, size and shaping concerns.  I never referred to the watch.  I referred to the iPhone.  The article is about a PHONE/TABLET screen.

4.  Apple will continue to use Samsung as long as they have the best components.  The reason they moved to TSMC is because they had a functional 7 nm process and because they design their own SoC.  CPU & GPU.  They don't design their own screens.  And from the looks of it, since there aren't any rumors abounding about that possibility, they don't look like they will for any time.  Which means that the company capable of producing the best product, will get Apple's business.  And for the foreseeable future...that's Samsung.

5.  No one said they should.

Thanks for the 0 calorie reply.

rogifan_new said:

radarthekat said:

rogifan_new said:

radarthekat said:

rogifan_new said:

Is this report talking about gross margins or profit margins? Do you have a comparison of average selling prices over time?

Meaningless to to this discussion.  When Dodge started selling the 12-cylinder Viper it would have had a positive effect on ASPs.   But it offered a lot more power and sportiness.  Apples latest iPhones offer a lot more performance and capabilities versus previous generations.  You’d expect ASPs to climb.  Gross margins is where the comparison should lay, and this article does a good job pointing out how they have not significantly moved during Cook’s tenure.

The 2010 MBA had more performance and capabilities than the 2008 model but it was cheaper. Same with the $329 iPad compared to the original. Anyone who doesn’t see that Apple is offsetting slower/flat unit sales growth with price increases is blind. New flagship iPhones used to start at $649, now they’re $999. Now you can argue the XS is $350 better than 6 was, that’s obviously subjective but it’s still more expensive. Take the new Mac mini. Starts at $799. The previous entry point was $499. Again, one can argue that the new mini is way better and deserves the $300 price increase but the bottom line is you used to be able to get into the Mac ecosystem for $499 and now the cheapest entry point is $799. The previous entry point to iPhone was the $399 SE. Now the cheapest entry point is the $499 7. And the cheapest iPad used to be $259; now it’s $329. In the past you could get an Apple TV for $99; now it’s $179. It costs more to get into the Apple ecosystem that’s just a fact.

It’s not appropriate to cast the comparison the way you have.  Like saying the entry level cancer cure in 1950 was les expensive than today’s entry level cancer cure.  These are different things you are comparing.  I use an extreme example to illustrate my point.  

As for being blind, I could accuse those who aren’t willing to acknowledge that Apple could certainly juice units sales year after year by simply designing and developing iPhone models spanning lower price tiers, as other vendors have done.  How popular would be a 6” OLED iPhone priced at $400?  Pretty popular, but Apple would make no margins on such a model.  So it’s not that Apple is reacting to slower/flat unit sales.  It’s quite the opposite; Apple has deliberately decided to go farther up market in capabilities, performance, etc, and at significantly higher prices.  Slower/flattening unit sales is a result of that strategy, not the reason for the strategy.  You see, those who aren’t blind can see that it’s acually the opposite of your characterization.  

I don’t agree, or at least don’t agree that it can only be one or the other. I highly doubt that Apple would intentionally try to slow unit growth. Going “up market” allows Apple to still post record financials even when sales have flatlined. But for how long? How long can they keep increasing prices to offset flat to declining sales?

Exactly.  Ironically, the flattening of iPhone sales isn't even their fault.  The market is just saturated.  There's only so many phones people can keep buying.  If Apple wants new growth, they need a new, revolutionary product and they need to be the first/second mover into that market. 

Soli said:

MacPro said:

I think this particular Samsung department will fold.

🤣 Nice!

I'm not a Samsung proponent at all and they can be pretty scummy but it's important to note that the same S-AMOLED screen in the X and XS/Max were touted * in this exact way * by Samsung about 5 years ago.  Most Apple fans poo-pooed it as inferior to IPS...until Samsung made it ready for prime time and Apple decided to jump ship from the IPS LCD in previous iPhones.

95% of phone/tablet screens come from Samsung.  They're very good at that.  Instead of mocking the technology, we should just realize that it needs more "time in the oven", so to speak, before Apple comes up with their own foldable concept.  A lot of bad AMOLEDs shipped for android before Samsung perfected the process and created a great screen.  A great screen...that current iPhones use to best effect.

Apple isn't stupid.  LG still isn't ready to create small AMOLEDs.  Samsung will be a partner for a while and if this technology becomes available for future products...Apple will use it.

Marginal analysis has a lot of flaws that weren't taken into account in this article. For starters, MA assumes that items of comparable cost are taken into account, then the margins should match. Except that the average starting phone price today is higher, vis a vis salary increases, than the original iPhone-iPhone 5. Additionally, the average starting price for an Apple computer is also higher, for some models, vis a vis salary increases, than comparable models of just 3 years past. (ie: Mini, Air...et al.). That is, unless you think pv money conversions should increase by 50% on just a scant 4.5 years? No, of course not. That is going to leave a relative sense of increased cost (and rightly so), when people have to dip into their own pocketbooks more, to reach for the same class products, even if such products were proportionately profitable to Apple. This cognitive dissonance makes sense, because Apple is in fact choosing a higher economic target market (or in the iPhone X-XS case...shifting the market). Moreover, remember that as a whole, percentages represent disparities linearly. A constant percentage on higher sales will produce more money. A constant percentage on higher cost products will produce higher profits. If you price all your products 50% more expensive, even at comparable profit percentages, you'll make more money. IE: 40% profit off a Mac Mini (for example only, since the markup for the Mini is much higher than 40%), that costs 500 dollars, is approximately 200 profit. A 40% profit off a 700 Mac Mini will produce 280 dollars in profit. Shifting the market towards the higher price, forces customers to choose between the Apple product/ecosystem and an increased 80 profit increase (which is a relative 40% increase over the last profit)... or a shift to a competing Windows platform. If Toyota kept their Camries profits at a constant 15% but raised the price from 25550 to 30550, their profits would increase, even as their marginal analysis would remain constant. Remember that iMacs were initially sub-1000 machines. Minis were significantly cheaper just a scant few years ago and apple laptops like the Air cost only 1000, compared to almost a 20% increase today. These are all intentional choices by Apple. Not accidental. Apple isn't a money-grubbing enemy but they're not cherubs. They're more expensive...and they know it. Food for thought.

Mike Wuerthele said:

madan said:

I agree completely with this article except for one point. When the article indicates that eGPUs don't lose a lot and then indicate that eGPU performance is about 80%-85% of the card's natural profile. I can't imagine anyone that wouldn't balk at having 20% less of something they care about. 20% less salary? 20% value on your home? 20% less value on your life savings? 20% less food given at a restaurant? 20% less product for your money? 20% diminishment is *significant*. Basically, that means that to get Vega 64 performance externally is: A. Impossible. B. You're going to get Vega 56 performance using a Vega 64 plus a 500-600 dollar carriage. That's outrageous. And that 20% loss of performance *for twice the price* doesn't even factor the crazy markup Apple has been pushing with their newest systems (Read: Mac Mini -- which is marked up 80% already!) So yeah, I agree that the Mac Pro won't be what we want. I also predict it will be a flop like the *last* Mac Pro. And yes, Apple themselves admitted it was a complete flop in the same interview that they dropped the existence of the 2019 impending Mac Pro. Bad products won't sell well. Mac OS and build quality are worth a lot. Are they worth a 20% overcharge? Maybe. Are they worth a 100% overcharge? Only to four people. If they release a staid eGPU-humping system that can't take advantage of multiple Thunderbolt lanes to get at least 90-95% eGPU performance at a reasonably competitive price...expect *another* failure. Hopefully AI won't blame Apple pros at that point for avoiding this system like the plague when it offers non-pro performance at an exorbitantly broken price.

Well, I understand what you're saying, however for context: my Vega 64 PCI-E card, at 80% of its capacity is faster than the iMac Pro's version of the Vega 64. Also, the enclosure is about $300-$400.

I'd love to see numbers on that supporting that your PCI-E Vega 64 are over 25% faster than the iMac Pro equivalent.

Moreover, since the eGPU tax increases as the card total Tflops rises, that means your card loses efficacy, the faster it gets.  A 580 loses about 20%.  Slower cards can sneak by with only a 15% tax.  But faster cards can lose up to 30% or more.  Even if your Vega 64 is somehow faster than the iMac Pro Vega 64 by over 25%, you're still going to be slower in an eGPU carriage than a PCI-E equivalent.

Finally, since Apple stopped researching the possibility of using multiple thunderbolt 3 ports and having 4+ lanes for eGPU work due to the need for an independent sub controller to handle the data stagger...this eGPU tax will *never* go away.

For a Prosumer machine...getting Vega 56 performance is ok, I guess.  But for a Pro that needs 1070 Ti-class performance for heavy graphics work, vid editing, VR or the like...that's not going to cut it.

Finally, every decent carriage I've seen has been 500-600 dollars.  Especially the quality/reliable ones.  I'm not saying you're a liar.  But what brand do you use and what are the overall reviews for that carriage?  It's possible the costs for a carriage will decline with time.  But I doubt that a Mac will ever cost less than 50% over a similar Wintel system as long as this spiderweb option is pursued.