Go become the CEO and execute your vision then, instead of lecturing them on how they should spend their money.
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 7 Component Costs Estimated to Start at $220
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Go become the CEO and execute your vision then, instead of lecturing them on how they should spend their money.
No, Apple spends more R&D per product than any other company. And you're crazy if you think a table maker makes as much as a software or hardware engineer in Cuptertino, CA.
Yes, that sounds absurd, you shouldn't listen to them if they say these things.
[doublepost=1474410662][/doublepost]
That is a huge task you have taken upon yourself. Sisyphus would be proud of you!
Actually, I would vote to increase minimum wage to $15 an hour considering the purchasing power of minimum wage in the 1960's was equal to about $21 an hour today. $15 is more in line with late 90's minimum wage. Yet, I also understand that the cost of the iPhone is closer to $450 due to the overhead of the business and the R&D on the phone, etc.
As for employers' costs, you could buy 3 big macs at McDonald's in 1960 after working 1 hour minimum wage at the same place. Now, you can't buy 2. But at the same time, the cost of the meat is incredibly less, probably a fraction of what it was at that time - and is of lower quality. The same circumstances seem to apply to just about any other minimum wage paying business out there. A department store clerk in the 80's could make 3x minimum wage, now they'd be at Walmart and on food stamps.
We, as a country, raced to the bottom and look where that got us - the bottom.
That example could seem to make sense, except that Louis Vuitton bags are seen as an investment by many buyers.
Not many people buy iphones in order to sell them at profit in a few years time.
Check google for info on handbags as investment.
In place of the obsolete analog headphone jack, Apple ADDED a Taptic Engine, a larger more expensive battery, a larger more expensive 2nd speaker (more powerful than the older ear speaker), a new Proximity sensor, and a dual-lens camera on the Plus.
All of this is A LOT MORE expensive than the small amount of money they saved by leaving off the ancient analog headphone jack!
Also, remember that the costs shown are ESTIMATED! For example, they added ONLY $5 in "basic manufacturing costs" related to assembly, insertion, and testing. That DOES NOT seem to be very realistic.
We do know from Apple's quarterly reports that the markup on iPhones is somewhere between 30%-40%. This would make the estimated cost of $224.80 on a $649 retail iPhone, totally ludicrous!
Explain how much more r & d is involved in the 128gb vs 64gb iPhones. Or you can admit Apple is greedy.
And how do you think all that research and stuff is paid for? Please don't tell me you're going to school for business.
Where are you getting this info? I know they don't spend the most on R&D, or are you hanging your hat on the little caveat of "per product". Afaik, Apple's R&D spend is pretty average in the industry. Their return on the R&D investment... now that's a different story. It's probably the best in the biz.
They used the money to provide a lot of free salt for people, at least.
[doublepost=1474414117][/doublepost]
Google is your friend. They're in the very top tier of research spending.
Your parents must have saved a lot on your education.
It's must have, not must "of".
Microsoft Office Business costs you $220, yet it only costs Microsoft about 1 cent for you to download it.
Obviously materials aren't what you're paying for...
That number is what you pay for a bag full with parts in a factory in China.
[doublepost=1474416676][/doublepost]
They are making fun of you.
Either buyer's remorse (you don't want to mentally accept that Apple is ripping you off), or you drunk the fanboy kool-aid. Removing the headphone jack didn't lower the margins it saved them money.
But objectively it does. Research is only a frontloaded one time cost and they didn't even innovate this year so research spending couldn't have been that high, and regardless it doesn't excuse hurting consumers this way with obsessed profit margins.
You just feel silly for spending 1000 dollars on one, so you get defensive when it's brought up that it's actually a 200 dollar device assembled in China.
They aren't a charity.
[doublepost=1474417769][/doublepost]
Labor costs? Logistics? Testing? It costs a lot more than $200.
The money they "saved" by not ordering 50 million headphone jacks was put into ordering 50 million of the new larger stronger Taptic Engine assemblies. Or whatever.
Ugh... I hate articles like this. Every armchair supply expert goes crazy