Not unusual at all for a manufacturer that sells content. Video game companies have done this for many years. the money was made on selling content, not the console.
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
Would it not make sense to sell the iPod Touch and the iPhone XR at cost or at a loss if you are implying Apple would recoup the cost by services. One has Siri on these devices and there is a multitude of excellent AirPlay, BT, etc speaker systems on the market. Am I to believe that Apple invested years on R&D to make the HomePod, only to sell it at cost or a loss to sell content. Was I born yesterday
AppleTV has been produced for much longer and was referred to as a “hobby”. Chances are Apple can and has permitted 3rd party TV manufacturers to allow AirPlay 2 support. At this point this hobby is only good for those who want iOS and their TV does not support its. We don’t need another OS variant on TV, AirPlay 2 may signal the phasing out of AppleTV. Good riddance, there are other better solutions on the market. Put those TVOS people on other fruitful projects. The profit is in content and it’s delivery, make an AppleTV app available on GooglePlay to deliver the content and game play, no need for a separate box when we have iPod Touch and iPhones in our pockets.
This can't be true. Best Buy is currently selling the home pod for $279. That's a $70 discount over MSRP. If Best Buy is making a profit, then they probably buy them at around $250. I wouldn't doubt that Apple may take a loss to 3rd party sellers like this, but definitely not when selling from its own store. I'm guessing $250 is around the break even point. So, $100 profit on each one Apple sells from its own stores is more likely the truth.
Would it not make sense to sell the iPod Touch and the iPhone XR at cost or at a loss if you are implying Apple would recoup the cost by services. One has Siri on these devices and there is a multitude of excellent AirPlay, BT, etc speaker systems on the market. Am I to believe that Apple invested years on R&D to make the HomePod, only to sell it at cost or a loss to sell content. Was I born yesterday
AppleTV has been produced for much longer and was referred to as a “hobby”. Chances are Apple can and has permitted 3rd party TV manufacturers to allow AirPlay 2 support. At this point this hobby is only good for those who want iOS and their TV does not support its. We don’t need another OS variant on TV, AirPlay 2 may signal the phasing out of AppleTV. Good riddance, there are other better solutions on the market. Put those TVOS people on other fruitful projects. The profit is in content and it’s delivery, make an AppleTV app available on GooglePlay to deliver the content and game play, no need for a separate box when we have iPod Touch and iPhones in our pockets.
Would it make sense to sell iPhone at a loss? No. It is a mature product and the value of Services for Apple is good, but it doesn't generate the kind of margins to make such a strategy viable. Check asymco for a detailed analysis of revenue.
In the case of HomePod, it is possible. Apple is trying to create a new product category and they don't want HomePod to be anything less than a success. With sufficient volume they can apply pressure to the supply chain. Same goes for Apple TV, the goal is to 'find' the product that will be the next big thing. They've tried several different form factors, currently an iPhone without a screen, and have tried making the content deal that will finally make Apple TV a hit.
You are funny, thinking Apple will pass on saving to the consumer if it receives a discount along the supply chain
Let’s look at history, overpriced HDD storage options, SSD, RAM, GPU, etc. The list is endless. Overtime some of these have reduced profit margins only because people have complained and pointed out the disparity between cost, third party options and what Apple charges.
Please pass me what you are smoking and drinking, I want to accept your reality as fact
The MBP before the introduce the Touchbar, which was the last usable MBP.
All the one 2016+ were just a massive failure in design and price. So bad that you cannot even connect the best selling product from the same company (iPhone). Worst keyboard ever, less connectivity and remove the best feature ever the Mag-Safe.
It is very simple. The Mac mini purpose was to have an entry level-affordable computer to increase market share and convert more users. Now, the entry level has increased 60%.
Everybody understands that it is not the same machine. Though the internal components upgrade does not justify a 60% increase. Especially considering that after 4 years they kept the same old case design and in addition, they soldered the SSD, forcing all users to purchase ridiculously obscene expensive SSD Apple prices and it does NOT include a keyboard and mouse. Once you start upgrading it will be cheaper to just get an iMac.
Apple prices in the entire computer line up have been increasing without any innovation whatsoever, while the quality was decreasing. The upgrade of internal components should not increase the price by 20-40%. So I disagree, that Apple price increases have brought any value whatsoever. Especially considering all the problems with design and quality all the latest computer products are having. (Macbook Pro/Air Keyboards classs action lawsuit, speaker noise, lack of connectivity, remove of Mag-Safe, etc just to name a few of the issues).
All in all, Apple computer prices are way overpriced and underpec for what they offer.
That is why many users including myself that wanted to upgrade for several years are not doing it due to the poor design and quality of the latest products.
In 2015 the cheapest 13” MBP was $1,299, 2016-2018 it is 1,399. A $100 increase is not 30%.
In 2015 the cheapest MBP with discrete graphics was $2,499. For 2016-2018, that increased to $2,599 ($2,399 base + $200 for the 256—>512GB SSD upgrade). A $100 increase is not 30%.
Apple did discontinue the 15” MBP with 256GB SSD and integrated GPU, which sold for $1,999, or $2,299 with the 512GB SSD.
(No idea why you say you can’t connect iPhone, I assume you’re mis-informed.)
Yes, the original purpose of the Mac mini was switchers. But things change, and that market was insufficient to support the product line.
The 2018 mini is not targeted at switchers—that’s obvious by Apple putting four Thunderbolt 3 ports and a $100 10Gb Ethernet option on it. The $799 2018 base mini is a great upgrade from the $749 price of the previous 128GB model. The $50 increase is less than 7%, and that $50 buys a lot, doesn’t it?
As I mentioned in my prior post, Apple did discontinue the low-performance 4GB and HDD/Fusion models. The target market is not interested in those configs.
The price increase for the 13” MBP was about 8%, for the 15” about 4% and about 7% for the mini.
Despite your dislike for them, Apple has been increasing Mac market share vs. PCs, despite a notebook/desktop market that has seen sales erode from 350 million units in 2010-2012 to around 250 million today.
Sure, but that wasn’t the question. Why compare apples to oranges?
The 2018 15” MacBook Pro can now be configured north of $7,000. In 2017, it was $4,299. Does that mean Apple raised prices? Or does it mean you can now configure the top tier model with a Vega 20 GPU, 32GB RAM and 4TB SSD config, instead of a Radeon 560, 16GB and 2TB?
2014 iPhone 6+ $749 - $949
2018 iPhone XR $749 - $899
Why can’t people be happy that Apple reduced prices?
Last edited:
Gruber: ...."a little birdie told me".
So basically this is a rumour about a rumour. You know you're desperate for articles when...
So basically this is a rumour about a rumour. You know you're desperate for articles when...
The MacBook 2016+ has usb c.
You need a dongle to physically connect the iPhone because Apple did not include the usb a to c adapter
Prior to 2016, this was not an issue
So it’s not true that MBP can’t connect to iPhone.
But no adapter is needed, just a simple cable:
Last edited:
Previous than 2015 entry MBP were selling for $1,799.
2015 MBP cost $1,999. So now, the basic MBP is $2,399.
So comparing from 2015 is a 20% and pre 2015 a 30%+
Not to mention that in addition to raising the price you are getting a pretty badly design computer, and bad quality as well. As I mentioned before, the keyboard is crappy, problems with speakers, less connectivity, no mag safe among the very basic inconsistencies (see below). It was so bad and got so badly reception that in 2016 the very first week they dropped the prices in all adaptors "to make a transition easier".
Regarding the iPhone, you are misinformed. Try connecting an iPhone 7 to an MBP 2016+. You cannot, unless you buy a cable or an adaptor since MBP does only have USB-C. It is quite pathetic that you cannot connect Apple best selling product to your own computer. The minimum thing Apple could have done, especially considering how much they are overcharging for their products, (or they make you think you are buying a "premium product") to give you a free cable or adaptor.
Sorry, but you are not comparing equally. You need to compare the entry level to an entry level. SO the price actually raise 65%. Your comparison is also pointless since $50 does not buy a lot since SSD prices, RAM and internal components actually drop with time. Furthermore, after waiting 4 years for an upgrade they kept the same old design (that had overheat problems) and soldered the SSD making the computer un-upgradable and forcing consumers to pay obscene premium prices for Apple SSD. So much for Apple green recycling...
[doublepost=1549350748][/doublepost]
So you agree with me. You cannot connect the iPhone unless you buy a Cable....
Pathetic when you are paying premium prices for both the phone and the Macbook!
Guess what is the Apple product category that had grow the most? Adaptors.
That should tell you had badly designed their products have become.
The 2015 13” MBP increased from $1,299 to 1,399 in 2016. The 2015 15” entry level MBP with discrete graphics was $2,499, it increased to $2,599 in 2016. The 2018 Mac mini 128 SSD is $799, the previous model was $749.
There were actually very small price increases of $50-100 when you compare equal configurations. This is a fact and not subject to debate. Opinions are debatable, facts are not. Apple discontinuing lower performing models is not the same as a price increase. Models that were not discontinued had very small price increases, that is a fact and is not debatable.
Also, there’s no need to post/repeat wrong information like “you cannot even connect the best selling product from the same company (iPhone)” and “It is quite pathetic that you cannot connect Apple best selling product to your own computer.” As I corrected you, it certainly is possible—with just a simple cable. No adapters are necessary.
Customers of the Mac value them highly, and are willing to pay for them—just like iPhone. If you don’t want/like/value Macs, that’s fine, of course you should buy something else. If you don’t want an iPhone, buy an Android! Everybody can be happy.
But no matter how much you complain and hate on Macs, Apple just posted all-time record revenue for the Macintosh segment; customers love the Mac. All-time record revenue—again, a fact that is not debatable.
There’s no need to make yourself crazy hating a computer you don’t like or want! Buy what makes you happy
Last edited:
Their margin on Hardware was 34 % overall last quarter. Certainly some products are way above that (higher storage iPhones) and consequently some have to be below that (lower storage iPhones, most Macs), while some might have little margin or none at all (AirPods, Series 3 Watch, tv, HomePod).
Your original statement was that one would be unable to "connect an iPhone to a MacBook Pro. Period." I.e., not being able to connect at all. Not "unless you buy a cable" or something. Which was, obviously, hyperbole.
No while I do agree it would be fair and nice for Apple to include a USB-C to Lightning cable with the iPhone, the even bigger issue for many people is probably not being able to connect standard projectors, mice, USB flash drives without purchasing adapters sold separately - which people will be getting anyway.
If Apple were to include the USB-C to Lightning cable, from my experience it would remain unused for the vast majority customers. Thus including it doesn't make much, neither from a business nor ecological perspective.
That is not the point though.
If you are trying to encourage synergy in your ecosystem, wouldn’t you want to make the barrier non existent?
The mere fact that you can’t connect an iPhone to a usb c MacBook out of the box is contradictory to this synergy. Sure, people will buy dongles and adapters, but it surely will upset many.
From a business standpoint, you are only looking at cost and only one side of the fence. Let’s look at it from the other side and observe why there are so many flourishing 3rd party accessory manufacturers.
The whole purpose of having a Macbook is of being portable. Apple destroyed that buy no having to carry with you several adaptors to connect several different devices.
Apple could have find many different solutions. For example, if you purchase a Macbook, bring your ipHone and you get a free cable. But they did not care.
From a business perspective there are many things that do not make sense at Apple. The entire 2016 Macbook did not make sense. How they released a Macbook with a keyboard full of problems and so badly designed that they ended up discounted the entire line up of adaptors. Please enlight me how that is a better business decision.
And regarding making ecological sense, the entire line up of computer is an environmental disaster.
Apple claims to do recycling but in the other hand do the entire opposite. In all the latest computers, all the SSD (and RAM in most of them) are soldered into the logic board. This makes a computer non upgradable, more difficult to repair, more prone to failure and if your SSD dies, you have no more computer, your only option would be to take it for an expensive Apple repair.
Apple's only interest is to overcharge customers for obscene SSD prices and that computers brake more often so they buy new computers.
Furthermore, Apple has been opposing the bill of Right to Repair. How is that ecological friendly is beyond anybody's common sense. We understand that people repairing/upgrading their own computers and holding computers longer goes against Apple interests. But before all computers were easy to upgrade both the RAM and internal drives. Not even to mention that the way they are designing the computers are that are almost impossible to repair.
So before saying that it does not make ecological sense, do your research.
I find it absolutely nonsensical that the regular Apple TV (1080p) should only be $30 cheaper than the 4k one. If they seriously still want to sell those, discount them further!
Let me introduce you to Hollywood accounting, where the more money a film makes the more it loses so it never makes a profit.
Apple does not use that style of accounting, but the broader point is you can do a lot of things to move costs and expenses in the COGS so as to change the profit and margins on a product. Not making a profit and not making money are two separate things. It all depends on what story you want to tell about which products drive profits.
[doublepost=1549463846][/doublepost]
Yes. I got 2 ATV's that way over 6 months.
[doublepost=1549464500][/doublepost]
I use an Apple TV for streaming and I like its interface, especially compared to the Roku or Firestick I also have. It works great with my NAS to stream content, has a broad collection of Apps and works well with iTunes content. Airplay is nice but that means I have to stream to a device and then to the TV, as well as find a plug and cable so as to ensure the device doesn't die during a show. In addition, I can't use the device for other things while I am streaming. It is useful to project things like presentations, however. ATV and Airplay can coexist quite nicely.
[doublepost=1549465105][/doublepost]
Building a device that is easy to repair is different then building it to make it more easily recyclable. The later entails selecting recyclable components, making it easier to separate materials and limiting the number of different materials that need to be separated. None of that has anything to do with repairability or upgradeability.
Right to repair also does not mean easy to repair. They could still provide schematics and diagnostic software (no doubt at a steep price) but still build machines so that you need to replace an entire motherboard if any component fails, even if it one that could be made replaceable like a battery. If they are required to sell repair parts to 3rd parties that doesn't mean they are cheap, nor would they need to warranty a 3rd party non-authorized repair person's work.
Last edited:
Building a device that is easy to repair, it actually makes products last longer, hence, less trash is created.
I do not understand how soldering RAM, SSD and other components to the motherboard, makes a computer more recyclable.
Which is what Apple is doing now. They are soldering every component to the motherboard, so if something fails you are screwed. But in addition to that, they are making more difficult to repair computers which truly shows how evil Apple has become under Tim Crook.
"Evil"? Oh well.
It's us customers who want their devices as sleek, thin, light, sturdy and capable as possible all at the same time. You can't have that AND have your device most modular.
But of course it's all Tim Cook's fault...