If he honestly believes this then I think he belongs in a padded cell, but to quote John "I'm not sure and can't prove it"
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.
Gruber: Apple TV is Sold at Cost, HomePod at Slight Loss
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Everyone in the thread has their tin foil hat on. If it's not attacking Apple, I guess Gruber is wrong...right?
Factoring the A10X processor (that's also in the iPad Pro 2017 which was $800), the flash, the 3GB ram, the software development, the remote, $$$ for licensing Dolby Vision + Dolby Atmos... $180 does look like it's being sold at cost.
Factoring the A10X processor (that's also in the iPad Pro 2017 which was $800), the flash, the 3GB ram, the software development, the remote, $$$ for licensing Dolby Vision + Dolby Atmos... $180 does look like it's being sold at cost.
Last edited:
Richie does criticize Apple from time to time, but very tepidly. More often, he's become quite the Apple apologist. He always seems has some long-winded reason when there's something not quite right about an Apple product. That they had to make decisions or compromises. No kidding, every manufacturer does.
That might be the stupidest thing I've read all year. Gruber needs to change his knee pads.
C’mon now! It’s February 1st, not April 1st LOL
Rene Ritchie also told me apple isn’t making enough money on iPhones, do I believe him?
Any good drug dealer will gladly give you a free pipe. Apple's giving you the pipe at cost. Not only not shocking, but plenty smart.
That does not seem like a thing Apple would do. Also the AirPods are three batteries, some plastic and two SOCs that do good bluetooth, more than the headphones they already sold for 30. They probably did spend a ton of money and time researching the W1 chip. But I promise you they made that back right away and they've got at least a 30% margin, probably more like 60%.
HomePod I'm less sure of. The speakers in there apparently aren't cheap, plus there's something to do with it's woofer that apparently no other speakers in it's price range do. But I'm still not sure I buy that they'd sell it at a loss.
HomePod I'm less sure of. The speakers in there apparently aren't cheap, plus there's something to do with it's woofer that apparently no other speakers in it's price range do. But I'm still not sure I buy that they'd sell it at a loss.
Apple’s bread and butter are selling people the halo products: iPhone, iPad, Mac and debatebly Watch. Consumers buy one of those only but so often. iPhone and Watch are like a 3+year cycle. Mac and iPad are 5+. When they’re that long, Apple can’t bank on consumers immediately upgrading to Apples offerings when its time to move on. The whole point of products like Apple TV and HomePod are to be sold at a lower margin that make consumer experience enhanced by going all in on the product line and making it that much less enticing to leave the ecosystem. No, I'm not going to use the phrase "locked in" because that's a myth. If people want out of Apple's ecosystem, they'll switch to Android, switch to Windows, sell off their old stuff (eBay & Craigslist say hi) and move on.
I'd like to add that I always believed that AirPods were sold at a lower-than-usual margin that Apple was accustomed to when they were first launched, which is most apparent when you look at their awkward looking price of $159 (they're probably selling them with a comfortable margin now after two years, but I suspect that that hasn't been longstanding and certainly wasn't the case when they first came out). Why not $149? Or hell, bump it up to $199, there's a lot of inferior competitors that are more expensive than AirPods. That disregards the primary purpose for the AirPods the exist. Its not to make Apple boatloads of money off the sale of AirPods, its to make Apple a little bit of cash now, and entice people later down the road to keep buying more of the halo "money making" products.
I'd like to add that I always believed that AirPods were sold at a lower-than-usual margin that Apple was accustomed to when they were first launched, which is most apparent when you look at their awkward looking price of $159 (they're probably selling them with a comfortable margin now after two years, but I suspect that that hasn't been longstanding and certainly wasn't the case when they first came out). Why not $149? Or hell, bump it up to $199, there's a lot of inferior competitors that are more expensive than AirPods. That disregards the primary purpose for the AirPods the exist. Its not to make Apple boatloads of money off the sale of AirPods, its to make Apple a little bit of cash now, and entice people later down the road to keep buying more of the halo "money making" products.
I listened to the show, he was clearly speculating on no evidence. This is supposed to be a joke, why is this news?
That “fixed it for you” thing was funny the first time someone used it, maybe sort of funny the next 100 times, but now after it’s been regurgitated five billion times it’s neither original nor funny.
[doublepost=1549069778][/doublepost]
Thanks. I was hoping some anonymous Internet forum poster could confirm whether a well-known and reputable journalist’s latest work is credible.
crap, where does one go to donate money to apple? we need to show some support!
Yea unless they are counting every single cost like marketing then I can't imagine they sell anything at a loss.
You mean unlike the rampant speculation that is just about every “article” published here and every forum post commenting on those articles?
Unofficial spokesperson who is paid in bit coin, is the only thing that explains these comments.
Why would anyone care if a company sells a product for profit, loss or at cost. Unless you are trying to justify a paid supporter. It’s a free market let the consumer decide.
Gruber, Dalrymple and Ritchie. Three peas in a pod
High quality products cost money. Gruber knows more about this industry than just about anyone. I'm guessing he's pretty close to on the mark. I've never felt anything I purchased from Apple was too expensive for what I get. Even the new IPhone XS Max, while expensive, was worth every penny. I don't buy cheap steaks or cheap computer gear. I get what I pay for.
The Apple TV being sold at loss or at cost makes perfect sense. Actually it's a device to sell more services. It has to be as low as possible.
We can also think HomePods as a vehicle for Apple music. But I think it's possible Apple could release it just to be relevant in the home speaker market. The hardware quality of both these products is miles ahead of competition. So its kind of possible these 2 devices is not making any money for Apple directly.
Same as Google not making any direct money out of Googles Maps. But damn that amazing customer data makes it worth it.
We can also think HomePods as a vehicle for Apple music. But I think it's possible Apple could release it just to be relevant in the home speaker market. The hardware quality of both these products is miles ahead of competition. So its kind of possible these 2 devices is not making any money for Apple directly.
Same as Google not making any direct money out of Googles Maps. But damn that amazing customer data makes it worth it.
gruber is trying a bit too hard to make sure he gets some kind of front row access to WWDC 19.
there is much to dislike in this series of comments from him this time.
its suspect.
he usually is a shill. but this time he has shown his hand.
be careful of what this guy says from now on.
there is much to dislike in this series of comments from him this time.
its suspect.
he usually is a shill. but this time he has shown his hand.
be careful of what this guy says from now on.