iPhone Storage is 'Absolutely the Most Profitable iPhone Feature' says Analyst

[FFR]

I wa

I was commenting on your poor arithmetic.
Additional cost to go from 256GB to 512GB is $66.28 which results in $200 charge to customer. A mark up approx twice what you quoted. You got that wrong. Why are you waffling to me about a Samsung external SSD? Their cost for this includes case, PCB, PSU, assembly, test etc etc as well as the memory itself, in any case.

Edit: Typos

512gb memory cost 132.48. Apple charges 200 dollars vs Samsung’s 300 dollars to go up one tier.
200-132.48= 67.52 which is the markup on the 512gb assuming component cost is accurate.

Waffling to you?
Samdung NVMe SSD drive is used as a refrence point. All of those components remain static between storage tiers only nand increases. Samdung NVMe SSD drives increase by $300 as you go up in storage tier vs apples $200.

It’s not that difficult to follow.









Edit: ok your using the delta between component cost to calculate markup. It doesn’t work that way.

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

View attachment 792577

200-132.48= 67.52 which is the markup on the 512gb assuming component cost is accurate.

Waffling to you?

It’s not that difficult to follow.

The additional cost to customer from 256 to 512 is an extra 200.
The additional cost to Apple from 256 to 512 is 66.24 NOT 132.48. As you posted, the 132.48 is the total cost of 512 of memory.
So the mark up is 200-66.24 NOT 200-132.48.

Why are you being do obtuse?

 

[I7guy]

Your points are irrelevant strawmans, you were responding to me about an article but wa Ted to talk about something unrelated. The exact definition of strawman.

It’s pointless talking to you so I’m out this time.

The reason you're out is that you're running around your own self-made circle. You have not made a point other than apple makes money on the phones it sells. Whether you take to heart analysts estimates of cost and revenue as presented in the article is on you. This is similar to some of the other apple "criticism" as seen in other threads.

My stance is anything but a "strawman", in case you need clarification. I don't care what apple makes, I don't make purchase decisions on per unit profit.

 

[FFR]

The additional cost to customer from 256 to 512 is an extra 200.
The additional cost to Apple from 256 to 512 is 66.24 NOT 132.48. As you posted, the 132.48 is the total cost of 512 of memory.
So the mark up is 200-66.24 NOT 200-132.48.

Why are you being do obtuse?

Obtuse, is that what your calling an education in finance and economics.

Your calculations don’t make much sense.

If you start out with 64gb going to 512gb will give you a delta of 8x if you apply that to prices 23.68 x 8 gives you 189.44. So calculating the change from the 256 gb to 512 the way you are doesn’t make any sense.

Nand prices and manufacturing between capacities are not the same, which negates your formula for “additional cost to customer”.

What apple does is sell the three capacities each at different profit margins. Making up the lions share of their profit from the lower capacity and offering the best value in the highest capacity. Having the the least amount of profit margin the higher you go and making it up with the lower capacity that holds a higher profit to price ratio.


Mark up is calculated 200-132.48.

Again your not making financial sense with your gibberish.

 

[FFR]

The reason you're out is that you're running around your own self-made circle. You have not made a point other than apple makes money on the phones it sells. Whether you take to heart analysts estimates of cost and revenue as presented in the article is on you. This is similar to some of the other apple "criticism" as seen in other threads.

My stance is anything but a "strawman", in case you need clarification. I don't care what apple makes, I don't make purchase decisions on per unit profit.

So you see his circular argument as well.
It’s quite sad. He can’t admit when he is wrong.

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

View attachment 792577

512gb memory cost 132.48. Apple charges 200 dollars vs Samsung’s 300 dollars to go up one tier.
200-132.48= 67.52 which is the markup on the 512gb assuming component cost is accurate.

Waffling to you?
Samdung NVMe SSD drive is used as a refrence point. All of those components remain static between storage tiers only nand increases. Samdung NVMe SSD drives increase by $300 as you go up in storage tier vs apples $200.

It’s not that difficult to follow.









Edit: ok your using the delta between component cost to calculate markup. It doesn’t work that way.

You provided the component costs, not me.
Apple charges 150 extra for first tier and another 200 extra for second tier.
The top tier of memory is 350 above base, not 200

Samsung tiers are much larger than Apples.
Apples tiers are 64, 256 and 512.
Samsungs are 500, 1000 and 2000. So obviously they will cost more than Apple's.
Samsung charges extra 300 for first tier and extra 700 for second tier.
Purchaser gets better deal from Samsung using your quote of $200 for Apple and $300 for Samsung per tier, which is incorrect in any case because Apples tiers are extra 150/200 and Samsungs are extra 300/700. Tier sizes for each company are not linearly scaled.

Purchaser sees that an extra 256GB of iPhone memory costs $200.
Purchaser sees that an extra 1000GB of SSD memory costs $700

 

[FFR]

You provided the component costs, not me.
Apple charges 150 extra for first tier and another 200 extra for second tier.
The top tier of memory is 350 above base, not 200

Samsung tiers are much larger than Apples.
Apples tiers are 64, 256 and 512.
Samsungs are 500, 1000 and 2000. So obviously they will cost more than Apple's.
Samsung charges extra 300 for first tier and extra 700 for second tier.
Purchaser gets better deal from Samsung using your quote of $200 for Apple and $300 for Samsung per tier, which is incorrect in any case because Apples tiers are extra 150/200 and Samsungs are extra 300/700. Tier sizes for each company are not linearly scaled.

Purchaser sees that an extra 256GB of iPhone memory costs $200.
Purchaser sees that an extra 1000GB of SSD memory costs $700

No the article provided the component cost.
You do realize that’s what this thread is about.

Component cost mark up is clear.

Again no idea what kind of logic your trying to employ, your making absolutely zero sense trying to explain your point.


When I remarked your last attempt at an explanation was gibberish, I was being kind.

Samsung’s pricing tier increases by 300$ where as apples increases by 200$. Apples nand is faster and comes with an iPhone, Samsung doesn’t. Value is dependent on the consumer not your opinion on thier purchasing habits or pricing sensitivity. Now you may be extremely price sensitive and you may represent a segment of the market. However apple users represent another market that doesn’t intersect with your habits or perception.

The Samsung example was meant as a reference point to show market prices for NVME SSD, which is more expensive than ufs, that is found in android phones.

Are iPhones expensive? pretty much.
Do you understand why? Not really.

 

[Gilligan's last elephant]

Samsung’s pricing tier increases by 300$ where as apples increases by 200$.


.

Can you explain exactly what you are referring to with this statement? Your posts are rather unclear.

Edit: To make sense, the tier memory sizes have to be the same.

 

[StyxMaker]

Your arguments are strawmen.
What is wrong with chioce.

SSD is great for fast internal storage.
SD is plenty fast enough - hundreds of meg per second

Both are used for different things.
SD expands the storage you have for recording video when you don't have access to free wifi for the uploads to cloud.
Also means you can take the SD card out and put it in your computer for quick upload and editing.
Why would you want to transfer half gig of video to the cloud just to download it again to edit it.
[doublepost=1538604002][/doublepost]
Its plain to see that you only care about yourself an not about others around you.
Choice is a powerful thing.
Would you be happy for iPhones to not have a front facing camera or only 8GB storage?
How about it only being a 2.5" screen like on the iPod?
[doublepost=1538604057][/doublepost]
Again a strawman argument.
You don't need the same performance for different use cases.

Apple is not stopping you from choosing. You want a smart phone that will allow you to use SD cards then buy one.

 

[MRrainer]

Well this means we can give up on ever getting an SD slot.

It truly amazes me there are so many people here who will brag about how great Apple is *because of* their high profits, when the reality is other companies simply aren't as eager to gimp their products in pursuit of the short term bottom line.

Timmy's Apple simply can't comprehend what came so naturally to Jobs, that long term customer loyalty trumps short term price gouging. Apple truly is the new Microsoft and it's only a matter of time before someone comes along and disrupts them.

The truth is that usually, other manufacturers' products are "gimped". Apple's storage is the fastest, both in the notebooks and the phones.
It's also the most durable.
You rarely hear of iPhones getting "unstable" after a while. In Android-land, that's often because the manufacturer has opted for cheaper flash, with less wear-leveling reserves etc.pp.

If iPhones had an SD-card slot, people would buy the cheapest cards available and then freak-out because their stuff would load so slow, or it would break the connector etc.pp.

Lastly, my employer, too, makes a very healthy profit on what we sell our customers. It allows him to pay my salary.
Who are you to judge who is allowed to make a profit? And how large that profit is?

Do you think Apple is the only company having a gigantic markup? Have you seen the markup on cosmetics? Non-alcoholic drinks like RedBull?

People buy that ... stuff because it provides a value to them.

 

[StyxMaker]

You are over thinking things, this is simply an article stating that Apple is making lots of profit off their memory which is something you as an apple fan will defend regardless of whether something is true or not. You seem to not like anyone criticising Apple.

Basic retail the more expensive models have the highest margins. No matter how you feel about it, every retailer does it that way.

 

[OneMike]

Apple is the only company using nvme based storage on a mobile phone.

It is going to be more expensive then everyone else using ufs.

Not really surprising news.

If apple could somehow put a floppy disk in the iPhone they’d still charge more than the competition

 

[I7guy]

The truth is that usually, other manufacturers' products are "gimped". Apple's storage is the fastest, both in the notebooks and the phones.
It's also the most durable.
You rarely hear of iPhones getting "unstable" after a while. In Android-land, that's often because the manufacturer has opted for cheaper flash, with less wear-leveling reserves etc.pp.

If iPhones had an SD-card slot, people would buy the cheapest cards available and then freak-out because their stuff would load so slow, or it would break the connector etc.pp.

Lastly, my employer, too, makes a very healthy profit on what we sell our customers. It allows him to pay my salary.
Who are you to judge who is allowed to make a profit? And how large that profit is?

Do you think Apple is the only company having a gigantic markup? Have you seen the markup on cosmetics? Non-alcoholic drinks like RedBull?

People buy that ... stuff because it provides a value to them.

You can't explain this to people who don't want to see it. To them it makes no sense of where Apple is today and they can't see it's not profits first and the counter to the value of apple, is "what goes up, must come down".

 

[Abazigal]

You can't explain this to people who don't want to see it. To them it makes no sense of where Apple is today and they can't see it's not profits first and the counter to the value of apple, is "what goes up, must come down".

Of course nothing lasts forever. But even Rome lasted 500 years before its downfall began. Apple is only just getting started and I believe it will be a long time before Apple starts showing signs of decline.