Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Apr 9, 2012, 01:07 PM   #1
MacAttacka
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
BOM proves Apple spared no costs developing iPad 3

There are some loony threads going around how iPad 3 is such let down.

Here are some cost increases Apple have absorbed over iPad 2 to make iPad 3 a reality:

RAM = 82%
Manufacturing = 28%
Display = 53%
Camera - 300%
Processor = 62%
Power management = 70%
Battery = 40%
Total BOM & manufacturing = 16%
Retail = 0%



Apple could have gone for the easy cheap update with the same BOM ceiling as iPad 2 but they bit the bullet and swallowed the extra costs of the BOM & R&D to deliver the iPad 3. R&D costs are of course exempted from the above. Margins on the iPad were already lower than any other iDevice as it is but this is the most aggressive spec/cost move that Apple have ever made on an iDevice. They have pulled all the stops to make iPad 3 a success.

Last edited by MacAttacka; Apr 9, 2012 at 01:25 PM.
MacAttacka is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 01:16 PM   #2
Batavian
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Thats an interesting chart MacAttacka and helps explained why Apple used the cheaper, more power hungry Amorphous silicon display in the iPad 3 vs the more power efficient IGZO displays on the iPhone. It was a real challenge to keep that $499 benchmark, but credit to Apple for doing it.

Nice find.
Batavian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 01:28 PM   #3
ewo1992
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Southern, CA
I like how the cheapest wifi model to the most expensive 4g model is only a $90 increase in manufacturing cost but they charge $300 + more for it
__________________
“Once you have tasted flight, you will forever walk the earth with your eyes turned skyward, for there you have been, and there you will always long to return.” ~Leonardo da Vinci
ewo1992 is offline   5 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 01:46 PM   #4
WildCowboy
Administrator/Editor
 
WildCowboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
That comparison isn't entirely valid...you're comparing the cost of building an "iPad 3" today to the cost of building an iPad 2 today.

The more valid comparison would be between an "iPad 3" today and an iPad 2 at its launch, as costs generally come down over time. Fortunately, iSuppli has a track record and that information is available.

So in the case of the display package (display plus touchscreen), it costs $127 on the new iPad. It also cost $127 on the iPad 2 when that device launched, but as costs have come down over time and the technology has aged, that same iPad 2 display/touchscreen now costs only $97.

Similar story with power management chips...they cost $10 on the new iPad and cost $10.20 on the iPad 2 when it launched last year. But now those iPad 2 chips can be had of $5.85.

Certainly some components have gone up in price even taking into account launch pricing...baseband, cameras, battery, etc, but the effect is smaller than what you're assuming comparing the new iPad to the current iPad 2.

Bottom line is, however, that there is still an increase in the BOM. For the 32 GB cellular-capable model, the iPad 2 was $323-$326 at launch last year, while the new iPad is $364. And of course these are all just estimates.
WildCowboy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 02:11 PM   #5
MacAttacka
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewo1992 View Post
I like how the cheapest wifi model to the most expensive 4g model is only a $90 increase in manufacturing cost but they charge $300 + more for it
How much do you think it costs Samsung to carve out 16GB or ram on the same piece of silicon it costs them to carve out 64GB? Answer = Nothing.
MacAttacka is offline   -5 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 02:16 PM   #6
poloponies
macrumors 68030
 
Join Date: May 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by ewo1992 View Post
I like how the cheapest wifi model to the most expensive 4g model is only a $90 increase in manufacturing cost but they charge $300 + more for it
They're trying to achieve an average margin so yes, the margin on the high end is greater than that on the low-end. Just like every other situation in life.
poloponies is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 02:22 PM   #7
MacAttacka
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by WildCowboy View Post
That comparison isn't entirely valid...you're comparing the cost of building an "iPad 3" today to the cost of building an iPad 2 today.

So in the case of the display package (display plus touchscreen), it costs $127 on the new iPad. It also cost $127 on the iPad 2 when that device launched, but as costs have come down over time and the technology has aged, that same iPad 2 display/touchscreen now costs only $97.

Similar story with power management chips...they cost $10 on the new iPad and cost $10.20 on the iPad 2 when it launched last year. But now those iPad 2 chips can be had of $5.85.
Do you know why the price of the iPad 3 display is the same as the iPad 2 display? Because Apple alone is the only company on the planet with the buying power to order 60million plus units driving the costs down.

When the next Android and Windows 8 tablets get a come in at a low price remember to thank Apple.
MacAttacka is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 04:27 PM   #8
psonice
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAttacka View Post
How much do you think it costs Samsung to carve out 16GB or ram on the same piece of silicon it costs them to carve out 64GB? Answer = Nothing.
No, answer = 4x more. 64GB is 4x bigger than 16GB - and the parts that make up each bit are the same, so 64GB is 4x bigger physically too. Because the chip is 4x bigger, you get 1/4 of the amount of chips from a slice of silicon, meaning you produce 1/4 (or actually less!) of the chips for the same amount of money. Therefore each chip costs 4x more to produce. Other costs will be no higher though, so the end product price might be less than 4x more.

Or, you could buy 4x 16GB chips and package them together.

Either way, 64GB costs a whole lot more than 16GB.
psonice is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 04:55 PM   #9
MacAttacka
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by psonice View Post
No, answer = 4x more. 64GB is 4x bigger than 16GB - and the parts that make up each bit are the same, so 64GB is 4x bigger physically too. Because the chip is 4x bigger, you get 1/4 of the amount of chips from a slice of silicon, meaning you produce 1/4 (or actually less!) of the chips for the same amount of money. Therefore each chip costs 4x more to produce. Other costs will be no higher though, so the end product price might be less than 4x more.

Or, you could buy 4x 16GB chips and package them together.

Either way, 64GB costs a whole lot more than 16GB.
No Dude. It costs exactly the same. In the same way it costs exactly the same amount to build a 2Tb HDD as it does a 500GB one. Al; process technologies cost the same. Samsung charge more for higher capacities to differentiate the market. The actual cost of production for all ram is exactly the same. Samsung and Apple are in the habit of this thing called "business" where they aim to make a "profit"
MacAttacka is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 05:10 PM   #10
dell who?
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Cali
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAttacka View Post
No Dude. It costs exactly the same. In the same way it costs exactly the same amount to build a 2Tb HDD as it does a 500GB one. Al; process technologies cost the same. Samsung charge more for higher capacities to differentiate the market. The actual cost of production for all ram is exactly the same. Samsung and Apple are in the habit of this thing called "business" where they aim to make a "profit"
I'm sure you don't need me to tell you this, but logic and reason are not acceptable commodities here. I am personally enjoying your take on all this, but leave it to other people to assert themselves unnecessarily.

Wisdom = keeping mouth shut to prevent having room for foot to fit in it.
dell who? is offline   -1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 05:33 PM   #11
Fruit Cake
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
And they made a tidy profit from my 64gig gsm iPad, the could have at least made a 128gig model. Is 200% markup not enough for them when they barely made 50% on he 16gig wifi? It would be nice if us who splashed out in the high end models got something a little extra not just the flash mem which is just pure profit for them.. Say some more warranty, iTunes credit, a free dock, free cover... IDK
Fruit Cake is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 06:00 PM   #12
MacAttacka
Thread Starter
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fruit Cake View Post
And they made a tidy profit from my 64gig gsm iPad, the could have at least made a 128gig model.
Why would they create a 128GB iPad SKU when the macbook air is still stuck as 64GB for the base model and supposedly a superior product?
MacAttacka is offline   -2 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 06:05 PM   #13
urkel
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAttacka View Post
Why would they create a 128GB iPad SKU when the macbook air is still stuck as 64GB for the base model and supposedly a superior product?
Because if we're supposed to be living in a "Post-PC" world then we shouldn't have forced limitations. IF 128GB is possible then why not offer it as a top tier option.
urkel is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 06:17 PM   #14
Fruit Cake
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
I don't regard the iPad as a pc, to me it's a different class device. If they put iPhone on 64gig on a single chip, then like previous models they could put 2x NAND chips in the iPad. Sure less margin, but still a healthy margin, better then the 16gig wifi.
Fruit Cake is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 9, 2012, 07:00 PM   #15
kdarling
macrumors G4
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAttacka View Post
How much do you think it costs Samsung to carve out 16GB of ram on the same piece of silicon it costs them to carve out 64GB? Answer = Nothing.
This is incorrect.

They don't carve out 4 times the amount "on the same piece of silicon".

They STACK multiple die of 2GB or 4GB each on top of each other and connect and test them, which is why the combination costs more.

Btw, it's Flash memory, not RAM.
kdarling is online now   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2012, 12:53 AM   #16
sphinx99
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
I agree with the OP, holding the line on price was impressive for the 16GB model. The higher capacity models always have been and continue to be big profit-makers for Apple.

Note that for Apple this is icing on the cake. For nearly all other tablet manufacturers, any app store revenue is mostly split between Google and the carrier; with iOS devices, Apple sees the majority of whatever does not go to developers. Apple could sell these at cost and still make money from iTunes; making money on the device simply pads the score.
sphinx99 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2012, 08:40 AM   #17
ZipZap
macrumors 68040
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by kdarling View Post
This is incorrect.

They don't carve out 4 times the amount "on the same piece of silicon".

They STACK multiple die of 2GB or 4GB each on top of each other and connect and test them, which is why the combination costs more.

Btw, it's Flash memory, not RAM.
I have to imagine, with no expertise, that at the mass quantity levels that these are produced the cost is effectively the same.

They dont retool to produce 5 chips. 1,000,000 chips then switch then 1,000,000 as an example. I doubt the cost varys.

Layers, dies...its all automated.
ZipZap is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2012, 10:06 AM   #18
psonice
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacAttacka View Post
No Dude. It costs exactly the same. In the same way it costs exactly the same amount to build a 2Tb HDD as it does a 500GB one. Al; process technologies cost the same. Samsung charge more for higher capacities to differentiate the market. The actual cost of production for all ram is exactly the same. Samsung and Apple are in the habit of this thing called "business" where they aim to make a "profit"
No, it doesn't cost exactly the same. You could say 4 cars cost the same as 1 car because it's built by robots and all comes off the same production line, but it's not true is it? You have 4x the material costs, and 4x the production time to build it.

With NAND it's pretty much the same. The chips are made on silicon wafers. Each wafer costs a certain amount. Turning it into working chips costs a certain amount. You might get 100 16GB chips from a wafer, and that wafer might cost $100 to make, so 16GB chips cost $1 each. 64GB chips have 4x the memory, which means 4x the number of parts to build that memory, and 4x the number of parts take 4x more space on the wafer. A 64GB chip is 4x bigger than a 16GB chip, on the same process. Or, it's made up from 4x 16GB chips. 4 chips take 4 times more space than 1 chip.

So you get 100x 16GB chips at a dollar each. The wafer size is fixed, and the 64GB chips are 4x bigger. You therefore get 1/4 of the chips from that $100 wafer. 25 chips. At $4 each. They cost 4x more.

After they make the chip, they have to package it, ship it etc. Those costs are near identical for 16GB and 64GB, so the end result might be less than 4x more, but it still costs more. Know why hard disks don't have such a big price difference for various capacities? They come in a big, expensive to make metal box full of motors and circuit boards and stuff. Only the disk itself and the reading heads change between models, and they're not a big percentage of the costs. So the manufacturing costs aren't much different between 500GB and 2TB.
psonice is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2012, 01:33 PM   #19
kdarling
macrumors G4
 
kdarling's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Device engineer 30+ yrs, touchscreens 23+.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ZipZap View Post
I have to imagine, with no expertise, that at the mass quantity levels that these are produced the cost is effectively the same.
The cost of four of anything, be it cupcakes or houses or memory chips, is always more than the cost of one.

Especially in the case of high capacity Flash modules, where the stacked die must be connected together with gold. Then each chip combination has to be tested and bad blocks marked off.

(Manufacturing integrated circuits is not a perfect business. A percentage of chips will not pass the full final tests. Sometimes that's okay; for example if a Flash chipset doesn't end up with 32GB, it can still sometimes be sold as a 16GB chipset, but the original extra cost for attempting 32GB still exists. Sometimes it just has to be melted down for the gold to be used again. That's not free either.)
kdarling is online now   1 Reply With Quote
Old Apr 10, 2012, 03:19 PM   #20
TB07-NJ
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: US of A
The chart is based on all pure speculation. There is NO WAY NO HOW that that information could be accurate as no one has any idea what Apple paid for any of their parts based on the zillions of pieces and secret contracts they make with suppliers. That pricing is based on "open supply" and in no way represents actual costs to Apple. Getting that information from Apple would be like finding out the release date and specs of the iPhone 7 or iPad 9 today.
TB07-NJ is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > iPhone, iPod and iPad > iPad

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
New Mac Pro BOM Cubemmal Mac Pro 2 Nov 18, 2013 11:35 PM
iPad Air Component Costs Estimated to Begin at $274, Roughly 13% Cheaper Than iPad 3 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 197 Nov 14, 2013 12:47 AM
Apple broiled, barbecued in court: Samsung PROVES pinch to zoom patent invalid tninety Apple, Industry and Internet Discussion 12 Aug 14, 2012 02:37 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:51 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC