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
They would rather destroy it like luxury goods Louis Vuiton does with their unsold stock.
If the A10X is so expensive (which it shouldn't be - its an in-house product) then Apple has screwed up by massively overspeccing a tv player. When you can pick up Fire sticks and other android based tv sticks that far surpass Apple TV in terms of functionality and cost a tiny, tiny fraction of the cost it just means one thing - Apple have got it wrong.
Grubers been an embarrassment forever, up there with Rene Ritchie as one of the biggest Apple shills.
If the Apple TV and HomePod at those price points are being sold at cost something is very very off about the way Apple is sourcing components for them. The Apple TV I would be amazed if the margin was less that 30%.
This is just Gruber Fanboysplaning two of Apples most absurdly priced and non competitive products.
If the Apple TV and HomePod at those price points are being sold at cost something is very very off about the way Apple is sourcing components for them. The Apple TV I would be amazed if the margin was less that 30%.
This is just Gruber Fanboysplaning two of Apples most absurdly priced and non competitive products.
Creative accounting rears its ugly head.
Now we are to all go out and buy gobs of these because they will be discontinued. Ha!
Now we are to all go out and buy gobs of these because they will be discontinued. Ha!
So a $179 Apple TV costs $180 to make? Apple sells wholesale at like $110-120 to Best Buy. I doubt they are losing $60-70 per unit.
Best Buy sold homepods for $249. I doubt Best Buy was losing money on this. I’m willing to bet wholesale it was between $200-240. Again, Apple is not taking a loss per unit here.
Best Buy sold homepods for $249. I doubt Best Buy was losing money on this. I’m willing to bet wholesale it was between $200-240. Again, Apple is not taking a loss per unit here.
A $179 piece of plastic "hobby" that competitors are producing the equivalent of for 1/4 the price 
[doublepost=1549118382][/doublepost]A simple google search reveals that this story is inaccurate. Most tear downs I’ve read estimate the Apple TV to come in around $90-$100 in cost to build.
On the latest episode of The Talk Show, Daring Fireball's John Gruber discusses Apple TV and HomePod pricing and whether Apple is charging too much for some of its products.
According to Gruber, Apple is actually selling the 2017 Apple TV 4K at cost, suggesting the device costs Apple $180 to make. As for the HomePod, Gruber said he believes Apple sells it at a loss.
Apple sells the 4K Apple TV for $180, and the HomePod for $349, though the HomePod at least is often available at a discount from third-party retailers. When the HomePod was released, estimates suggested it cost $216 to make in raw components, which does not factor into account other costs like research and development, software creation, and more.
Both the Apple TV 4K and the HomePod are priced higher than competing products from other companies like Amazon and Google, and rumors have suggested that Apple is working on lower-cost versions of both devices. For the Apple TV, Apple is said to be developing a stick-style Apple TV device, and for the HomePod, rumors suggest a smaller, cheaper model is in the works.
Gruber said that he also suspects the AirPods are priced close to cost as well, though he's not sure and can't prove it. And, of course, overtime, things become less expensive to manufacture as component costs come down. Something that cost $180 in 2017 might not cost the same in 2019, as an example.
Overall, Gruber says that Apple isn't pricing its products too high, it's developing products that are too good.
"If you think it's a problem that these products are so expensive compared to their competition, that too few people buy them, it's not because Apple is charging too much, it's because Apple engineered and designed too good of a product," said Gruber.
(Thanks, Ryan Jones!)
Article Link: Gruber: Apple TV is Sold at Cost, HomePod at Slight Loss
It's a video streamer. Neither needs an A10X. Apple stuck that in there with visions of it being a gaming platform that never materialized.
If he was a good journalist he wouldn't be speculating on this, he would just ask them and tell you the answer. I find the cynicism on here at least as interesting. Your contribution, less so.
Be assured that if Apple is selling for lower margins, let alone at or below cost, it is quite intentional and not because they “screwed up”. They knew exactly what it was going to cost well before they decided to go ahead with production, and I suspect they priced it as high as they thought they could get away with.
It’s an excellent sounding speaker imo, and it has the ability to hear commands from quite a distance, even when it’s playing quite loud. I don’t see it competing with the smart microphone products like google home or amazon echo. The Google Home Max is in the same category, but it’s even more expensive than the HomePod.
As if the Apple TV costs $180 to make.
We’re talking an iPhone 6S without the screen, aluminium case, battery, speaker and camera.
That’s:
Flash+DRAM: $20
Processor: $20
Wireless Gubbins: $5
Ports: $5
Labour: $8
Maybe $20 for the Siri Remote
That’s about $80 including packaging.
We’re talking an iPhone 6S without the screen, aluminium case, battery, speaker and camera.
That’s:
Flash+DRAM: $20
Processor: $20
Wireless Gubbins: $5
Ports: $5
Labour: $8
Maybe $20 for the Siri Remote
That’s about $80 including packaging.
iTunes match is evil. Particularly for a personal collection made patiently ripping your own cd's. Anyway, is just a workaround that could be avoided. I was used to Apple and workarounds. But that was 10 years ago.
Is he talking about materials cost only or including R&D, marketing and advertisements?
Of course engaging top agencies, designers, creatives, creating special sets like this
doesn't come cheap. But to say Homepod is making a loss (due to marketing expense)
Of course engaging top agencies, designers, creatives, creating special sets like this
Giggles at the usual spin of Apple trying to play down how much they overprice their hardware, through a puppet no less.
The reality is that Cook, Mr. bean-counter, would prefer to have a massive heart-attack than to sell anything that disrupts his 38% hardware gross profit.
Saying it is not so, can only be from a person in the midst of religious ecstasy, trance, or delirium for all things Apple.
And that defines well Gruber and his acolytes.
Saying it is not so, can only be from a person in the midst of religious ecstasy, trance, or delirium for all things Apple.
And that defines well Gruber and his acolytes.
You understand what Gross Margin means when you see that in Apples financial results right? If not go and have a read up and stop rolling out this same line in every thread where Apples pricing is questioned.
Heres a clue the phones, they are higher than the 38% margin. Considerably higher.
38% was Jobs profit margin also. Cook continued what Jobs started. So this post applies to the Jobs era as well as the Cook era.
[doublepost=1549120312][/doublepost]
Sure 2015 tech produced in 2019. Not 2015 tech manufactured in 2015.
How can anybody supply information that would be a commercial secret between Apple and its suppliers? Are they into industrial espionage? Of course, since the information isn't available, its hard to disprove it.
Besides, if you're a senior manager and pay an information-gathering company for an estimate of your competitors costs, then find out that your own costs are significantly lower, do you tell your superior/shareholders (a) "Those analysts I hired turned out to be useless - what a waste of money" or "Hey, look, I've negotiated far lower materials costs than our competitors, please give me a $1m bonus this year!"?
NB: If you think I'm being cynical then I have some complicated financial products based on securitized debts that you might like to invest in, and a ton of testimonials about how reliable they are.
Anyway, figures that you can use to prove/disprove points and compare with other figures need to come with things like "+/- 15%" after them to indicate the likely range of uncertainty - otherwise there's no basis for assuming that the differences between the products are statistically significant.
I don’t think the most profitable company in the world sells chunks of plastic and metal at cost or below cost.
Sounds reasonable. Ive deciding on a color is probably a $10 million R&D item factured into this.