Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:16 AM   #26
Surely
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
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.
Surely is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:17 AM   #27
sofila
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
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 )
sofila is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:17 AM   #28
Dorje Sylas
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jun 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surely View Post
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.
Dorje Sylas is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:18 AM   #29
Dionte
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Detroit
Send a message via ICQ to Dionte
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.
__________________
Dionte is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:20 AM   #30
east85
macrumors 6502a
 
east85's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Send a message via AIM to east85
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.
__________________
13.3" MacBook Aluminum | 2.4GHz | 8GB RAM | 128GB SSD | OS X 10.9
iPad Mini | 16GB | Slate | iOS 8
east85 is offline   3 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:24 AM   #31
stewartlittle
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Quote:
Originally Posted by crankmotion View Post
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
stewartlittle is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:28 AM   #32
dagamer34
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Quote:
Originally Posted by crankmotion View Post
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.
__________________
iMac with Retina 5K Display | 15" MacBook Pro with Retina Display | Mac mini | iPad Air 2 | iPhone 6 Plus
dagamer34 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:32 AM   #33
topgunn
macrumors 65816
 
topgunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
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.
topgunn is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:33 AM   #34
notjustjay
macrumors 603
 
notjustjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winni View Post
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.
__________________
.
notjustjay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:34 AM   #35
Macdick
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
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.
Macdick is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:34 AM   #36
Tigger11
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Rocket City, USA
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wokis View Post
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.
Tigger11 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:41 AM   #37
erratikmind
macrumors 6502a
 
erratikmind's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: S.F./Las Vegas
I say good for Apple and for any other entity or person, whom can increase its revenue streams and profits.
erratikmind is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:43 AM   #38
topgunn
macrumors 65816
 
topgunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Texas
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macdick View Post
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.
topgunn is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:43 AM   #39
soundbwoy
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surely View Post
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!
soundbwoy is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:44 AM   #40
zukernik
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: 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.
zukernik is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:44 AM   #41
nexusrule
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winni View Post
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.
nexusrule is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:45 AM   #42
notjustjay
macrumors 603
 
notjustjay's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Canada, eh?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tigger11 View Post
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.
__________________
.
notjustjay is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:45 AM   #43
Westside guy
macrumors 601
 
Westside guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The soggy part of the Pacific NW
Quote:
Originally Posted by Surely View Post
That being said, I wonder what the component cost would be with a retina display and an A6X.
Given that would require a significantly more robust battery, I'd wonder more about what the increased weight and thickness would've been. I suspect those were at least as big a concern for Apple as the component costs.
__________________
Your post count is insufficient to view signature
Westside guy is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:46 AM   #44
Belly-laughs
macrumors 6502a
 
Belly-laughs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: location location
Send a message via AIM to Belly-laughs
Quote:
Originally Posted by Winni View Post
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.
Belly-laughs is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:48 AM   #45
HatterZero
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: U.S.A.
Quote:
Originally Posted by notjustjay View Post
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!
__________________
15.4" Macbook Pro, i7 2.3GHz, 8GB RAM, 120GB SSD, 1TB HDD; 27" iMac, i5 2.7 GHZ, 16GB RAM, 1TB HDD; iPhone 5 16GB
Currently playing GW2
HatterZero is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:50 AM   #46
Dorfdad
macrumors 6502
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by RawBert View Post
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.
__________________
“Happiness cannot be traveled to, owned, earned, worn or consumed. Happiness is the spiritual experience of living every minute with love, grace, and gratitude.” -Denis Waitley
Dorfdad is offline   4 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:55 AM   #47
HatterZero
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: 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.
__________________
15.4" Macbook Pro, i7 2.3GHz, 8GB RAM, 120GB SSD, 1TB HDD; 27" iMac, i5 2.7 GHZ, 16GB RAM, 1TB HDD; iPhone 5 16GB
Currently playing GW2

Last edited by dejo; Nov 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM. Reason: Quoted post deleted / response to it removed.
HatterZero is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:55 AM   #48
gatearray
macrumors 65816
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by dagamer34 View Post
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.
gatearray is offline   2 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:55 AM   #49
everything-i
macrumors 6502a
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: 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.
everything-i is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 5, 2012, 10:58 AM   #50
extricated
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by notjustjay View Post
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.
extricated is offline   2 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > MacRumors.com News Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad Air Component Costs Estimated to Begin at $274, Roughly 13% Cheaper Than iPad 3 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 197 Nov 14, 2013 01:47 AM
iPhone 5s Component Costs Estimated to Begin at $199 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 238 Sep 26, 2013 03:03 PM
iPad Mini: iPad Mini cost $188 to make! nfl46 iPad 115 Nov 9, 2012 12:39 AM
iPhone 5 Component Costs Estimated to Begin at $199 MacRumors MacRumors.com News Discussion 154 Sep 27, 2012 07:37 PM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:58 PM.

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

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