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.
iPad Mini Component Costs Estimated to Begin at $188
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
According to other bills of materials (iPhone, iPad) it seems to me that cost increase for storage capacity is not correct, too high (even for Apple 
)
)Closer to the iPad 4 then not. Read a good point a while ago that an a iPad Mini with Retina would require an A5X or A6X for the graphics power to push the resolution. Also that there currently isn't a display in production that has that pixel density at that size, and that it would likely be quite costly. After all it'd have a higher density then the full sized iPad (276.87 PPI vs 263.92 PPI), doesn't seem like enough but would be an issue. Plus the battery life need to run the display and processor. At the end of all that you'd end up with a fatter heavier iPad-Mini that costs more to produce.
Personally for 329 it should have had an A6 chip not A5. It still doesn't feel like a good buy.
How are so many people upset over Apple pulling a profit? This is exactly what corporations are designed to do.
Those who are complaining need to remember two basic things.
1. You are 100% free to spend your money elsewhere. This is capitalism and you have choices.
2. Apple, like all companies, needs to compete and grow in order to survive. They have both customers to reach and share holders to keep happy.
Those who are complaining need to remember two basic things.
1. You are 100% free to spend your money elsewhere. This is capitalism and you have choices.
2. Apple, like all companies, needs to compete and grow in order to survive. They have both customers to reach and share holders to keep happy.
You may be sure, but since I am not a medium, I am not. Well if we want to check, it is simple, Long Island Medium. We will get her to chat with Steve's spirit and double check that he is upset that Apple is selling it for 30 bones more. Haha
Because pricing on Apple products almost never changes, picking the initial price of the mini is less about how much the 1st gen product costs, but having a good cost budget for future iterations. The extra $29 is far more about the costs of sticking in a Retina display and A6X next year than it is the cost of the first iteration this year.
My point is not that they couldn't go to such a subsidized business model. My point is simply that every time these iSupply threads show up, there are always people who complain that "here we go, this right here is PROOF that Apple is ripping us off!" without taking into consideration all of the other costs involved but not listed.
On the whole though I think you are right, and I think we're starting to hit the point where either the Apple Tax is simply too high now. I don't know if it's because perceived "greed" from Apple is higher than ever (especially in light of all these patent lawsuits, highest share prices and profit reports ever, obvious marketing decisions like not letting iPhone 4 users get Siri, the Google Maps fiasco, etc.) or simply because, hey, the competition ain't so bad now and it sure looks like other companies have figured out how to produce very capable products at lower prices.
Personally, I'm starting to wonder if my next phone won't be an Android. From what I can tell, it will play nice with my iTunes library, even Airplay to my Apple TV, let me have the best of all the apps I'll need, ... and it'll be much cheaper.
Actually that is not what its saying, its saying its $90 more profit for 32 GB, (or a cost of $10), and an extra $162 more profit for a 64 GB unit (or a cost of $38 for 64 GB). In actuality, I dont believe he's calculated the memory prices correctly. The iPad (unless they changed it for the mini), uses two memory chips for its flash instead of one like in the iPhone, yet we have them costing the memory as more expensive for the iPad Mini then the iPad 3 or the iPhone.
I say good for Apple and for any other entity or person, whom can increase its revenue streams and profits.
Apple WANTS to bring their overseas earnings back to the US. Put yourself in their shoes. Would you rather pay 2% to the US and 15% to the foreign entity but have to keep your money overseas and invest it there or would you rather pay 35% to bring it back home to invest in your local economy? You know how Romney got blasted when he said he could lower tax rates and increase tax revenue? Does his statement start to make sense now? American companies with huge global sales such as Apple and Big Oil WANT to bring their earnings back to the US and invest locally but the restrictively high tax rates prevent that from being justifiable to their stock holders. So we are stuck with these companies throwing their hands up and investing overseas instead.
It also does not include shipping or packaging cost which would more likely bring the cost somewhere around $280 per unit!
Why do people care how much it costs Apple to build? If you think you get more benefit from it than from $329 then buy it. If you think the $329 is more valuable to you then don't buy it. Rational people should only look at the benefit they get from something.
What are you talking about? iTunes store and App Store don't give billions to Apple, iTunes break even and probably App Store has little profit. You can check this for youself (maybe next time before posting?). It's hardware that makes the billions. Amazon sell at loss hoping to generate revenue from selling books etc. and in fact their profit are ludicrous.
I also wonder what the true cost implications are when they introduce models with more memory. Maybe that's why the costs are higher. Obviously there's some profit taking, but there might also be legitimate expenses baked into those higher prices. Introducing models with higher memory means tracking that many more product UPCs, and that means overhead in ordering, shipping, inventory, packaging, merchandising, etc. And assuming that the 16 gig units will vastly oversell the 64 gb units, there's also less opportunity for volume discounts to apply to the higher capacity units.
Given that would require a significantly more robust battery, I'd wonder more about what the increased weight and thickness would've been. I suspect those were at least as big a concern for Apple as the component costs.
true, you clearly missed his point. and just because they deliver a package that creates a profit with all parties involved doesn't mean they need nor should give you anything for free. i'd be more pissed with amazon trying to lure you into a subsidized model, knowing that the content you end up buying should have been cheaper. also; apple's initial business model for the iphone was not through subsidy.
Stop making sense, this forum is for people who complain not those who use logic!
Unless you want to like actually see what your reading.. Saw the Non-Retina Mini at my brother in laws he bought one and immediately was turned off. Apple should be ashamed at this launch.
Really an A5 with non retina screen?? Apple is ensuring this thing isnt an iPad killer they will constantly keep it behind the newest ipad by a generation. When instead they should offer it as an equal but they wont.
Next version ipad 3 chip with retina at same cost. Next ipad 5 a7 with higher retina. cycle continues.
The only thing I don't like is the lack of retina display, BUT thats not enough for me to return it at this time, since I been using it to reading The Walking Dead and books while skyping with my friend from new york, but with a 60 day return policy from where I bought it I could return it for a full refund.
Last edited by a moderator:
You sir, are correct.
Apple has priced the first gen Mini with an eye towards the future, particularly next year's upgraded model. The last thing they want to do is increase the price in 2013 when the tech is ready for the retina display and battery requirements etc. it's just an OK price today, but will be an incredible value next year.
It's amazing to me that few if any pundits like Gruber have figured this out yet.
Queue all the that a ripoff comments from people not realising that $188 is only covers cost of the bits used to build it. All the other costs such as assembly, services, buildings, salaries, patent licensing, R&D etc. just get paid by magic in these peoples worlds.
Thank you for pointing this out quickly.
It always blows my mind that people don't seem to comprehend everything that goes into production.
I'll relate it in terms of a premium tequila. "Agave is just a plant that doesn't cost anything and the bottle only cost pennies! How dare they sell this for for $70? They're ripping off the consumer!"
Maybe a bad analogy, but far more goes into the price of tequila than the cost of components.
Advertising, shipping, labor, insurance, licensing ... in addition to a host of other things mentioned by @notjustjay and others.