with the phone costing more, I'm glad Apple didn't raise the price(now that would be greedy)
Except Apple did raise the price, at least in Europe.
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.
iPhone 6s Plus Component Costs Estimated to Begin at $236, $16 More Than iPhone 6 Plus
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Except Apple did raise the price, at least in Europe.
Shouldn't "evil" be in quotation marks, instead of "profit"? Anyway, labour, shipping and even R&D account for a very small amount of the cost per iPhone. Apple's net profit margins are over 20%, and that's after everything is taken into account. That's huge, especially for a hardware company.
You're way off on your reply to that other member. He was saying to expect the usual comments here of Apple being greedy.
They're terrible comparisons to make. Those two companies sell software and/or advertising. You may not think it, but they're in completely different sectors of the industry. Compare any other hardware company: sony, samsung, LG etc and you'll realise how unusual Apple's margins are in the industry.
Thanks for helping me out..... Sometimes it is feels very lonely in here and feel no one understands you.....
I'm surprised radio shack had the resources to construct its own aluminum alloy process and resell it to apple.
Apple sells hardware and software both... When you are buying an iPhone, it comes with software which is designed by Apple...
The 16GB over 32GB base is a pure profit (greed?) move. But there is some good logic behind it. I think this analysis is likely right on (it came out with the 6).
http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/20...illion-in-2015-by-selling-16gb-iphone-66-plus
Eventually they need to go to a higher base model. Right now they are reaping the profit keeping it 16GB. With this plan, a good percentage of users step to 64GB (I do believe the 64GB model will be the top seller for the 6S). Then when they introduce 32GB base in the 7, some might step down, but they are banking that likely most will want to keep their space.
Apple can then do two things:
Introduce 32GB and keep the 64 and 128 the same for the same price.
or
they can double all the tiers as they have done in the past (this could be done in two stages with the above happening first, then double the top two).
Do this until 32GB is no longer adequate, rinse, repeat.
http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/20...illion-in-2015-by-selling-16gb-iphone-66-plus
Eventually they need to go to a higher base model. Right now they are reaping the profit keeping it 16GB. With this plan, a good percentage of users step to 64GB (I do believe the 64GB model will be the top seller for the 6S). Then when they introduce 32GB base in the 7, some might step down, but they are banking that likely most will want to keep their space.
Apple can then do two things:
Introduce 32GB and keep the 64 and 128 the same for the same price.
or
they can double all the tiers as they have done in the past (this could be done in two stages with the above happening first, then double the top two).
Do this until 32GB is no longer adequate, rinse, repeat.
And the profit margin of most businesses in the U.S. is closer to 5%.
IF you have an iPhone 6 to trade, you might be able to get a FREE iPhone 6s - but pay for it over the next 24 months ... with crappy service and reception.
Which users?
I read a report recently from a developer that said only 17% of 16Gb users had less than 1Gb free. Or to spin that around 83% have more than 1Gb free. Most users on 16GB are the mom and pop time users, the corporate users, the elderly, the tech phobics. They use their devices in a basic manner, they don't shoot video, they don't download 1GB games. The majority (looking at available data) are just dandy with their 16GB.
Let's face it most people here want 32GB base as it will save them money, not because it's a smart business decision from Apple.
This bit of the article also made me chuckle:
I like the use of "irrelevant". $17 more for 16GB -> 64GB. Apple sells ~200 million devices a year. ~50% of which are the bottom storage tier, that's a $1.7 billion decision. Hardly irrelevant.
Most of these analysts would run a well a well oiled machine like Apple into the ground within a few years, as would the majority of forum members.
Last thing we want is a situation like Android manufacturers for Apple, where they make no money. That's when the users will start getting screwed.
Selfishly I would love a 64GB base model, but I can also see why it exists.
Steve said ''we don't ship junk''. Well, Tim clearly doesn't believe this since he's still selling the 16gb iPhone.
Maybe at that time, 16 was enough. Hell, maybe it was even a lot, like what 64gb is now. But times change, apps' size gets bigger and bigger and so do the photos and not to mention the video size when filming in 4K. Clearly Tim wants to ship junk, because that's what a brand new iPhone with 16GB of storage is.
Maybe at that time, 16 was enough. Hell, maybe it was even a lot, like what 64gb is now. But times change, apps' size gets bigger and bigger and so do the photos and not to mention the video size when filming in 4K. Clearly Tim wants to ship junk, because that's what a brand new iPhone with 16GB of storage is.
Last edited:
Blame that on the Greeks -- Kind of kidding but they probably did that because of currency valuation...
True, although Apple spends very little on R&D compared to other companies.
Heck, the entire original iPhone was done for only about $150 million, and half of that was spent on testing facilities.
Only this past quarter did Apple finally break past spending 4% of revenue on R&D for all their projects. (For comparison, Google spends over 13% of its revenue on R&D.)
Not to mention that the majority of R&D money these days is probably going into the Apple Car.
Shareholders. Profits. Margins. Apple is a public company. There's a reason they've been beating revenue records on every new iPhone release. I believe they might be concerned they won't beat it once they up the base model to 32GB. These memory upgrades must have a high impact on those accounting numbers. It's all about the ASP.
Nevertheless, 16GB remains ridiculous for the customer with today's phone capabilities. Therefore I don't excuse Apple.
Last edited:
You clearly know little about the BMW lineup. The reason that BMW implements dual exhausts on the 335i / 435i and not on the lesser 320i/328i is because of the different exhaust systems needed for the turbo inline 6 used in the -35i models, the turbo inline 4 -28i models, and the less boosted -20i models. Do your research before posting, please.
I don't mind paying high prices for their superior hardware, what really leaves a bad taste in my mouth is the arrogance of $29 3ft. cables etc.....
Seems a lot for an iPhone. iPhone 5/S component cost were about 150$, I doubt it got that high for iPhone 6/S, unless they include the diluted cost of operation and manufacture.
Not an excuse but this is where most electronic retailers make their money - have you check for gold plated HDMI cables on Best buy?
The time for 32B
Thanks very logical article...if someone bought 64 now - Apple is hoping you come close to filling up so when iPhone 7 rolls in - you will feel the need to keep the same storage.