There is more than one chip in the device.How much costs an iPhone chip? 40$?
20% increase is only 8$.
There is more than one chip in the device.How much costs an iPhone chip? 40$?
20% increase is only 8$.
That's not new—it only appears as a segue to the forum if you tap "like" on a comment within the article. It doesn't come up if you're using the forum.I just tapped Like on this comment, and was confronted with something new:
View attachment 1827673
Seriously, MacRumors? We have to confirm a Like now?
Increasing prices to make up for increased costs does not mean higher profits...As if they don't already earn enough profit?
I prefer a porsche. 🤔
Note:If the price is the same
Or a BMW i8
Everyone is ramping up the prices. Every single chip in the iPhone (or indeed thousands of other devices) is getting more expensive.Not from TSMC
Increasing prices to make up for increased costs does not mean higher profits...
China tried to copy what TSMC does. Thinking that if they throw enough money at a problem, the problem would be solved. China even poached hundreds of TSMC RDs and high level directors. However they do it, China just can't replicate TSMC's success. China is beginning to have a foothold on mature processes like 28nm. But advanced processes, not a chance so far.Not my field at all, but is there anything to stop Apple setting up its own chip foundry themselves? Surely money isn't an issue. Would it be skilled labour preventing that idea?
“Now, we don’t know for sure, but your husband may have been impaled between two train cars. I’d like to wait for the blood work before discussing if treatment may be necessary.”"may pass rising costs on to customers", seriously?
Once the price is increased they’ll never go backApple either absorbs the costs this year, or a lot of people will not be buying their kit during this years upgrade cycle
I’d like a new iPhone this year, but could easily wait a year if they jack up the prices
How this makes any sense to you is beyond me? If the chip costs go up and Apple has to pay more for the chips but doesn't pass the price hike onto the customer then that means decreased profits.No but it also doesn't mean decreased profits for Apple either.
Unless this was sarcasm nothing you're saying make any sense. Apple is not using COVID as an excuse to raise prices. Due to the chip shortage the cost of chips are higher, henceforth the price increase. Yes this has to do with COVID but the chip shortage is where it starts. It's not Apple just syphoning extra money out of people for no good reason.Apple would never use the corona-situation as an excuse to increase prices, would they?
Like I get the feeling a lot of other shops have done as well.
Once the price is increased they’ll never go back
How this makes any sense to you is beyond me? If the chip costs go up and Apple has to pay more for the chips but doesn't pass the price hike onto the customer then that means decreased profits.
With Apple adding RISC-V and legally supporting x86_64 for at least 7 more years you might not be surprised eventually that ARM is the Architecture they drop first1. macOS Monterey is multi arch, it will be (much) smaller later on when they drop Intel support.
2. See picture down below, enough said....
View attachment 1827664
3. Awesome windows 11...LOL, it still has the same (crappy) core with all those nuisances and bugs.
4. Intel, that is a dead end road.
As for the article, ha, more increases, there will be a time that (Apple) customers will say...No more...
For Instance, Intel chips have always been expensive, Apple's A (arm arch) chips are far cheaper yet the prices stayed the same or went up, m1 macs aren't any cheaper.
No no no. That's where you're wrong. You're only looking at Apple from a personal standpoint, not business. You're forgetting they are publicly-traded company so they have shareholders to appease to, not just customers. If a company purposely takes a profit loss their stocks will tank from investors dumping shares. It's not as cut n' dry as you're making out to be. Think about yourself being the CEO running a 2 trillion dollar valuation company and see if you would just simply take profit losses to "be nice" to customers. The board would vote you off.That is exactly my point. They can afford to lose some profit and the fact we have people defending multi-billion dollar companies at the cost of consumers boggles my mind. Especially when they are profiting a hefty amount already with nothing being brought to the table for the consumer to benefit from?