I realize that plastic is cheaper than aluminum but the latter is a very cheap material too (and there's not much of it used in an iPhone shell "as is"). How much of a difference could switching the shell material make in the cost of the "cheap" iPhone? $10? Maybe $20?
It's not just the cost of the material, but the cost of machining the aluminium. Still, I've wondered the same thing—how much more could aluminium really be adding to each iPhone?
I perceive the concept of a need for a cheaper iPhone to be something that competes with the really cheap Android smart phones (which can be had for much less than $300, $500, or $700 off contract) is going to take more than just replacing a little aluminum with a little plastic. That switch helps cut unit cost (a little). I would think much more would have to be cut to have a shot at a truly cheap iPhone that still gives Apple it's target margin.
Question: Should Apple be holding onto that 'target margin'? It's over 70% on the 64 GB iPhone by some estimates! Whatever it is, it's clearly the highest in the industry when you look at Apple's profits. When you buy an iPhone (especially the 64 GB model), mostly you're just contributing to that huge pile of cash Apple sits on. If Apple wants a more competitively priced phone, perhaps the only thing that really needs to 'be cut' is their profit margin.
Perhaps by adding a plastic option and marking it down, while maintaining the high price on the aluminium model, Apple will be trying to reinforce the perception that metal is a high-quality material, while plastic is cheap. Marketing, after all, is about consumer perception and pricing has more to do with what people are prepared to pay, than what an item actually costs to manufacture.
