Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Surely

Guest
Oct 27, 2007
15,042
11
Los Angeles, CA
A6X, not A6. The A6 isn't meant to push a 2048x1536 display. Just remember that the iPad Mini is a smaller iPad 2 and the iPad Mini 2 will almost certainly be a smaller iPad 4. Any variation from that will be a real headache for developers because they'll have to do iPad 3-like adjustments where the GPU wasn't really enough to power the display at full resolution in games.

Yes, I know. I thought I typed an X.

My point still stands.
 

sofila

macrumors 65816
Jan 19, 2006
1,144
1,325
Ramtop Mountains
According to other bills of materials (iPhone, iPad) it seems to me that cost increase for storage capacity is not correct, too high (even for Apple :D)
 

Dorje Sylas

macrumors 6502a
Jun 8, 2011
524
370
You realize that this is just the cost of the COMPONENTS. It doesn't include R&D or any of their facility, salary, or assembly costs.


That being said, I wonder what the component cost would be with a retina display and an A6.

That also being said, I love my mini, and think that $329 is a fair price.

Closer to the iPad 4 then not. Read a good point a while ago that an a iPad Mini with Retina would require an A5X or A6X for the graphics power to push the resolution. Also that there currently isn't a display in production that has that pixel density at that size, and that it would likely be quite costly. After all it'd have a higher density then the full sized iPad (276.87 PPI vs 263.92 PPI), doesn't seem like enough but would be an issue. Plus the battery life need to run the display and processor. At the end of all that you'd end up with a fatter heavier iPad-Mini that costs more to produce.

Personally for 329 it should have had an A6 chip not A5. It still doesn't feel like a good buy.
 

Dionte

macrumors 6502a
Aug 29, 2011
787
615
Detroit
So to go from 16 to 64 gigs cost them $38 and they add on an extra $162, wow.

I see why we'll never get a micro sd card slot.
 

east85

macrumors 65816
Jun 24, 2010
1,343
495
How are so many people upset over Apple pulling a profit? This is exactly what corporations are designed to do.

Those who are complaining need to remember two basic things.

1. You are 100% free to spend your money elsewhere. This is capitalism and you have choices.
2. Apple, like all companies, needs to compete and grow in order to survive. They have both customers to reach and share holders to keep happy.
 

stewartlittle

macrumors regular
Jul 2, 2008
138
0
I'm sure Steve would have priced it 299,-. Just for the shock-and-awe feeling and a more attractive communication.

You may be sure, but since I am not a medium, I am not. Well if we want to check, it is simple, Long Island Medium. We will get her to chat with Steve's spirit and double check that he is upset that Apple is selling it for 30 bones more. Haha
 

dagamer34

macrumors 65816
May 1, 2007
1,359
101
Houston, TX
I'm sure Steve would have priced it 299,-. Just for the shock-and-awe feeling and a more attractive communication.

Because pricing on Apple products almost never changes, picking the initial price of the mini is less about how much the 1st gen product costs, but having a good cost budget for future iterations. The extra $29 is far more about the costs of sticking in a Retina display and A6X next year than it is the cost of the first iteration this year.
 

topgunn

macrumors 68000
Nov 5, 2004
1,555
2,059
Houston
Apple couldn't sell it for less than $329 as they already sell a 4" tablet for $299 and no one complains about that price.
 

notjustjay

macrumors 603
Sep 19, 2003
6,056
167
Canada, eh?
And your point is?

Google and Amazon sell their tablets at these prices and probably with a loss because they expect to generate revenue through their content supply chain. That's a business model that is not alien to Apple; after all, they've also sold subsidized products in the past (like the original iPhone) and many of those billions that they have in the bank were made through the iTunes store and Apple's 30% tax on everything that's being sold in it.

My point is not that they couldn't go to such a subsidized business model. My point is simply that every time these iSupply threads show up, there are always people who complain that "here we go, this right here is PROOF that Apple is ripping us off!" without taking into consideration all of the other costs involved but not listed.

On the whole though I think you are right, and I think we're starting to hit the point where either the Apple Tax is simply too high now. I don't know if it's because perceived "greed" from Apple is higher than ever (especially in light of all these patent lawsuits, highest share prices and profit reports ever, obvious marketing decisions like not letting iPhone 4 users get Siri, the Google Maps fiasco, etc.) or simply because, hey, the competition ain't so bad now and it sure looks like other companies have figured out how to produce very capable products at lower prices.

Personally, I'm starting to wonder if my next phone won't be an Android. From what I can tell, it will play nice with my iTunes library, even Airplay to my Apple TV, let me have the best of all the apps I'll need, ... and it'll be much cheaper.
 

Macdick

macrumors member
Feb 27, 2008
84
0
Apple

I dont buy no more Apple product they have huge margin profit and pay 2% Tax Overseas, I pay min 20% here in US
So I have my point.
 

Tigger11

macrumors 6502a
Jul 2, 2009
536
394
Rocket City, USA
So production cost is 90 dollars for an extra 16GB flash memory? I paid the eq of 50 dollars for a class 10 (though 30MB/s read) microsd card capable of 64GB.. What's the deal with apple's flash memory for it to cost so much for them?

Actually that is not what its saying, its saying its $90 more profit for 32 GB, (or a cost of $10), and an extra $162 more profit for a 64 GB unit (or a cost of $38 for 64 GB). In actuality, I dont believe he's calculated the memory prices correctly. The iPad (unless they changed it for the mini), uses two memory chips for its flash instead of one like in the iPhone, yet we have them costing the memory as more expensive for the iPad Mini then the iPad 3 or the iPhone.
 

topgunn

macrumors 68000
Nov 5, 2004
1,555
2,059
Houston
I dont buy no more Apple product they have huge margin profit and pay 2% Tax Overseas, I pay min 20% here in US
So I have my point.
Apple WANTS to bring their overseas earnings back to the US. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you rather pay 2% to the US and 15% to the foreign entity but have to keep your money overseas and invest it there or would you rather pay 35% to bring it back home to invest in your local economy? You know how Romney got blasted when he said he could lower tax rates and increase tax revenue? Does his statement start to make sense now? American companies with huge global sales such as Apple and Big Oil WANT to bring their earnings back to the US and invest locally but the restrictively high tax rates prevent that from being justifiable to their stock holders. So we are stuck with these companies throwing their hands up and investing overseas instead.
 

soundbwoy

macrumors newbie
Jun 28, 2007
19
0
You realize that this is just the cost of the COMPONENTS. It doesn't include R&D or any of their facility, salary, or assembly costs.


That being said, I wonder what the component cost would be with a retina display and an A6X.

That also being said, I love my mini, and think that $329 is a fair price.

It also does not include shipping or packaging cost which would more likely bring the cost somewhere around $280 per unit!
 

zukernik

macrumors regular
Apr 14, 2010
152
0
Hong Kong
Why do people care how much it costs Apple to build? If you think you get more benefit from it than from $329 then buy it. If you think the $329 is more valuable to you then don't buy it. Rational people should only look at the benefit they get from something.
 

nexusrule

macrumors 6502a
Aug 11, 2012
623
758
And your point is?

Google and Amazon sell their tablets at these prices and probably with a loss because they expect to generate revenue through their content supply chain. That's a business model that is not alien to Apple; after all, they've also sold subsidized products in the past (like the original iPhone) and many of those billions that they have in the bank were made through the iTunes store and Apple's 30% tax on everything that's being sold in it.

What are you talking about? iTunes store and App Store don't give billions to Apple, iTunes break even and probably App Store has little profit. You can check this for youself (maybe next time before posting?). It's hardware that makes the billions. Amazon sell at loss hoping to generate revenue from selling books etc. and in fact their profit are ludicrous.
 

notjustjay

macrumors 603
Sep 19, 2003
6,056
167
Canada, eh?
Actually that is not what its saying, its saying its $90 more profit for 32 GB, (or a cost of $10), and an extra $162 more profit for a 64 GB unit (or a cost of $38 for 64 GB). In actuality, I dont believe he's calculated the memory prices correctly. The iPad (unless they changed it for the mini), uses two memory chips for its flash instead of one like in the iPhone, yet we have them costing the memory as more expensive for the iPad Mini then the iPad 3 or the iPhone.

I also wonder what the true cost implications are when they introduce models with more memory. Maybe that's why the costs are higher. Obviously there's some profit taking, but there might also be legitimate expenses baked into those higher prices. Introducing models with higher memory means tracking that many more product UPCs, and that means overhead in ordering, shipping, inventory, packaging, merchandising, etc. And assuming that the 16 gig units will vastly oversell the 64 gb units, there's also less opportunity for volume discounts to apply to the higher capacity units.
 

Belly-laughs

macrumors 6502a
Jun 8, 2003
871
42
you wish
And your point is?

Google and Amazon sell their tablets at these prices and probably with a loss because they expect to generate revenue through their content supply chain. That's a business model that is not alien to Apple; after all, they've also sold subsidized products in the past (like the original iPhone) and many of those billions that they have in the bank were made through the iTunes store and Apple's 30% tax on everything that's being sold in it.

true, you clearly missed his point. and just because they deliver a package that creates a profit with all parties involved doesn't mean they need nor should give you anything for free. i'd be more pissed with amazon trying to lure you into a subsidized model, knowing that the content you end up buying should have been cheaper. also; apple's initial business model for the iphone was not through subsidy.
 

HatterZero

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2012
48
0
U.S.A.
I also wonder what the true cost implications are when they introduce models with more memory. Maybe that's why the costs are higher. Obviously there's some profit taking, but there might also be legitimate expenses baked into those higher prices. Introducing models with higher memory means tracking that many more product UPCs, and that means overhead in ordering, shipping, inventory, packaging, merchandising, etc. And assuming that the 16 gig units will vastly oversell the 64 gb units, there's also less opportunity for volume discounts to apply to the higher capacity units.

Stop making sense, this forum is for people who complain not those who use logic!
 

Dorfdad

macrumors 6502
Oct 26, 2007
451
43
It's a bargain at $329.


Unless you want to like actually see what your reading.. Saw the Non-Retina Mini at my brother in laws he bought one and immediately was turned off. Apple should be ashamed at this launch.

Really an A5 with non retina screen?? Apple is ensuring this thing isnt an iPad killer they will constantly keep it behind the newest ipad by a generation. When instead they should offer it as an equal but they wont.

Next version ipad 3 chip with retina at same cost. Next ipad 5 a7 with higher retina. cycle continues.
 

HatterZero

macrumors member
Jun 5, 2012
48
0
U.S.A.
The only thing I don't like is the lack of retina display, BUT thats not enough for me to return it at this time, since I been using it to reading The Walking Dead and books while skyping with my friend from new york, but with a 60 day return policy from where I bought it I could return it for a full refund.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

gatearray

macrumors 65816
Apr 24, 2010
1,130
232
Because pricing on Apple products almost never changes, picking the initial price of the mini is less about how much the 1st gen product costs, but having a good cost budget for future iterations. The extra $29 is far more about the costs of sticking in a Retina display and A6X next year than it is the cost of the first iteration this year.

You sir, are correct.

Apple has priced the first gen Mini with an eye towards the future, particularly next year's upgraded model. The last thing they want to do is increase the price in 2013 when the tech is ready for the retina display and battery requirements etc. it's just an OK price today, but will be an incredible value next year.

It's amazing to me that few if any pundits like Gruber have figured this out yet.
 

everything-i

macrumors 6502a
Jun 20, 2012
827
2
London, UK
Queue all the that a ripoff comments from people not realising that $188 is only covers cost of the bits used to build it. All the other costs such as assembly, services, buildings, salaries, patent licensing, R&D etc. just get paid by magic in these peoples worlds.
 

extricated

macrumors 6502
Jul 14, 2011
448
65
Arkansas
Before everyone starts crying "So why isn't Apple selling it for $199?" remember that these are prices for the components only and do not cover costs such as research, engineering, testing, labour, warehousing, etc, etc, etc.

Thank you for pointing this out quickly.
It always blows my mind that people don't seem to comprehend everything that goes into production.

I'll relate it in terms of a premium tequila. "Agave is just a plant that doesn't cost anything and the bottle only cost pennies! How dare they sell this for for $70? They're ripping off the consumer!"

Maybe a bad analogy, but far more goes into the price of tequila than the cost of components.
Advertising, shipping, labor, insurance, licensing ... in addition to a host of other things mentioned by @notjustjay and others.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.