Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Anandtech: Apple's Cyclone Microarchitecture Detailed (A7)
- Thread starter chrmjenkins
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Anandtech: Apple's Cyclone Microarchitecture Detailed (A7)
It costs them $9.40 for 16 GB, $18.80 for 32 GB, and $29.00 for 64 GB. They make about $450, $550, and $650 off each phone model when it only costs them an extra $10 to manufacture between each phone model. There is nothing different between them but storage capacity. They charge the consumer an extra $200 for storage that costs them an additional $20 (or an extra $650 that costs them $200 depending on how you want to look at it). The markup is ridiculous and is unjustifiable. There's no reason the high end model can't have at least 128 GB. And they wouldn't be "losing" as much as you think since that model doesn't sell anywhere near what the baseline does. In fact, it sells so little some places don't even carry it. For the minority that needs that much storage, there's no reason not to give us more... especially since the iPod Classic has had 160 GB for years now. They have a 425 percent profit margin on the high end model. They can give us a little bit more storage. It's not like they're hurting for cash or won't make money from a product with such a high profit margin that will sell like crack like it does every single year.
It costs them $9.40 for 16 GB, $18.80 for 32 GB, and $29.00 for 64 GB. They make about $450, $550, and $650 off each phone model when it only costs them an extra $10 to manufacture between each phone model. There is nothing different between them but storage capacity. They charge the consumer an extra $200 for storage that costs them an additional $20 (or an extra $650 that costs them $200 depending on how you want to look at it). The markup is ridiculous and is unjustifiable. There's no reason the high end model can't have at least 128 GB. And they wouldn't be "losing" as much as you think since that model doesn't sell anywhere near what the baseline does. In fact, it sells so little some places don't even carry it. For the minority that needs that much storage, there's no reason not to give us more... especially since the iPod Classic has had 160 GB for years now. They have a 425 percent profit margin on the high end model. They can give us a little bit more storage. It's not like they're hurting for cash or won't make money from a product with such a high profit margin that will sell like crack like it does every single year.
Last edited:
Granted, Apple is absolutely making a profit, because that's what they're in business to do. But, I wouldn't go THAT far. 1TB flash exists, but it's rather chunky, and more expensive than an out-of-contract iPhone. Your phone would be a lot thicker than it is now, and the storage would by far be the most expensive component, taking up more than 75% of the phone's cost.
Then there's the issue of yield. Apple alone already buys up anywhere from 23% to 30% of available NAND flash yields every year, depending on who you ask. Forcing higher densities will increase the costs substantially, not just for iPhones, but other smartphones as well, as the yields get gobbled up.
While there are certainly profit motives, there is also absolutely a cost-prohibition here, and it's silly to assume that NAND flash is cheap and plentiful. If that were the case, no one would ever buy spinning-disc storage anymore.
Last edited:
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
You are speaking about percentage , profits, margins like you know that for sure, and since I don't think you are working for Apple, or Samsung, I just believe that this kind of "web forum economical analysis" are totally BS.
I don't think it's too tough to speculate that Apple is making quite a bit of money on storage upgrades.
16 to 32 is a 16gb difference for 100 dollars. 32 to 64 is a 32 gb difference for once again 100 dollars. Looking at the iPad, 64 to 128 is 64 gb difference for yet again 100 more dollars. The increases in storage are exponential with generic pricing.
Then you have other manufactures that have phones that start out with 32 gb. I believe HTC has started doing this.
Then you find other manufactures like Samsung and on Nexus devices a storage increase is 50 dollars not 100.
Don't need to work for Apple or be an analysts of some sort to see they cashing in on storage.
My opinion on it however it is what it is. It sucks but I'll just suck it up and pay for it.
You seem hellbent on some... purpose... a purpose which I'm not sure of... but you sure are hellbent on it!
They are surely making money on that, but don't speak about 9-10$ because it's just speculating ....
I didn't say anything about 9-10$ or any price for that matter. Another poster maybe?
However generally speaking the prices from those analyst are high, and in Apples bulk purchases significantly higher then stated.
YOU can purchase 64 gb of memory thats in a housing for 25 -35 dollars and with that the person selling it too you is making money. What do you think your price would be to buy from the source, no housing, MILLIONS at a time? 10 dollars is probably on the high end. Thats just my speculation which has no meaning.
All that matters is Apple charges a lot for storage vs the competition now. All that matters from there is whether you are willing to spend that money. I consider 100 dollars a lot I guess but if I'm going to live with the device for a couple years AND that translates into higher resale (although I donate my old iPhones) then I feel its worth it. They have something I need so I pay what they charge, no way around it unfortunately.
First commenter probably feels a little silly now for getting excited about this thread being topical and not devoted to petty squabbles.
What impressed me in the AnandTech analysis is how much of a reach this new processor is. It's not just an incremental evolution but a genuine stretch to maximize not only the present power, but the future power of the architecture.
They've given themselves a lot of room to grow with it, and I am curious to see what will become possible when a less conservative iteration comes out in the next generation.
It will also be interesting to see what happens to iOS 2-3 years from now when all the phones supported have this wide pathway. Right now, I am sure iOS 7 is far from fully exploiting the available potential.
What impressed me in the AnandTech analysis is how much of a reach this new processor is. It's not just an incremental evolution but a genuine stretch to maximize not only the present power, but the future power of the architecture.
They've given themselves a lot of room to grow with it, and I am curious to see what will become possible when a less conservative iteration comes out in the next generation.
It will also be interesting to see what happens to iOS 2-3 years from now when all the phones supported have this wide pathway. Right now, I am sure iOS 7 is far from fully exploiting the available potential.
Mate, don't get me wrong: I agree with you.
I'm just saying that large scale economy is not the same as family economy, so this kind of analysis on a forum are far from being accurate.
Apple is not alone in this behavior , as you can see: Samsung is going to have 16/32 Gb version of S5 with a price difference around 60-80$ According with the last rumors. At the same time the wonderful HTC One M8 was launched in the same two 16/32 Gb variants with similar prices.
You could say that both have support for sd cards, but you know that is not so good as it used to be, with KitKat.