Nope, the topic is on how much the components for the iPhone X cost. Did you not read the article, its states that the estimate is for material only, I see now you did not even read the OP and you are wasting my time.
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 X Component Costs Estimated at $357.50
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Nope, the topic is on how much the components for the iPhone X cost. Did you not read the article, its states that the estimate is for material only, I see now you did not even read the OP and you are wasting my time.
You’re hilarious. My point is that numbers like this are both stupid and merely guesses.
I know you’re joking, but for the haters...Well, damn. Gotta pay for the new mothership I guess.
It’s paid for. Already. Twice over. Apple earned $10.7 billion (after taxes) in profit—in just the last quarter.
Apple could have purchased 10 such campuses with the almost $50 billion (after taxes) they made in the last year.
The new campus is an utterly brilliant move, and will serve Apple well for decades to come. But it’s not nearly enough space for them, they’re already developing a huge new complex in North San Jose. 4 million square feet of office space spread over 43 acres during the next 15 years.
Of course they are estimates, it states that in the title of the thread. It's kinda like your estimate that retailers sell products for cost, the government does not tax Apple, and that Apple has 120K employees that work for free.
My estimates all deal with the costs relating to the devices under the iPhone name. That’s all. Why you being up taxes and employees as if they’re a part of the discussion is beyond me.
I would think the people working for the Mac team are paid because Max’s sell, not because iPhones sell.
TOBY: The pills cost 'em four cents a unit to make.
JOSH: You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.
JOSH: You know that's not true. The second pill cost 'em four cents; the first pill cost 'em four hundred million dollars.
Apple's new iPhone X costs $357.50 to make, according to estimates sourced from TechInsights and shared today by Reuters. At an estimated $357.50 to produce with a price tag of $999, the iPhone X has a gross margin of 64 percent, higher than the iPhone 8's gross margin of 59 percent.
Several of the components in the iPhone X are more expensive than their iPhone 8 counterparts, according to TechInsights. The 5.8-inch edge-to-edge display, for example, costs an estimated $65.50, compared to $36 for the 4.7-inch display of the iPhone 8.
The stainless steel chassis of the iPhone X costs an estimated $36, a significant premium over the $21.50 Apple shells out for the iPhone 8.
Following the launch of the iPhone 8, estimates suggested its raw component cost came in at $247.51, with the cost for the iPhone 8 Plus estimated at $288.08. Those estimates were sourced from IHS iMarkit, a research firm, while today's come from TechInsights, a company that does device teardowns and analysis.
Component cost estimates from companies like TechInsights and IHS look only at the price of raw components and do not take into account other iPhone manufacturing expenses like research and development, software creation, advertising, and distribution. While interesting, these estimates are not an accurate measurement of Apple's profit margin for the iPhone X, nor are they an accurate picture of the overall cost of creating the device.
According to Apple CEO Tim Cook, cost breakdowns are generally "much different than the reality." "I've never seen one that is anywhere close to being accurate," he said in 2015.
Article Link: iPhone X Component Costs Estimated at $357.50
This is sarcasm, right?
[doublepost=1510084134][/doublepost]
Why?
Unlike most Extended Warranties, there is a high-probability that EVERYONE that gets AppleCare on an iPhone will eventually end up needing it due to "accidental damage".
[doublepost=1510084224][/doublepost]
Remember, you said "GROSS" margin. That is NOWHERE near the "NET" margin.
[doublepost=1510084457][/doublepost]
But even the cost of the Components is unknown when the majority of them are Custom, as in the iPhone, and you simply aren't privvy to the contracts between the Fab Houses and Apple.
[doublepost=1510084507][/doublepost]
Sez you.
Yes you are right, finding a loophole is a biggest challenge and take advantage while it last, obviously it's up to tax legal system to find all the loophole and patch it up.
If big corporations refuse to give tax, who knows if government decide to increase more tax (%) from the public resource? we can't stop that can we or get away with it.
I never had any issues with the Kinect on my Xbox One. Obviously improvements have been made in the years since it was used on the Kinect but the core technology is the same.
Im pretty sure that Kinect was able to recognise different people i.e. someone other than myself wouldn't be able to walk in front of the Kinect and sign into my account. So it had spoofing protection, maybe not as advanced as it is now in Face ID.
Going back to the original discussion which was about R&D costs, my point was that the bulk of the R&D costs of developing the technology for Face ID wasn't present. The technology already existed and Apple just went about refining it and polishing it for Face ID. So Apples R&D costs would not be as high as it would be if they developed the whole technology from scratch.
And how many of those products and subassemblies had almost EXCLUSIVELY "Custom" parts?
Sorry. The rules are VERY different when there is only ONE Customer for a particular Component; especially when that Component is something like a large-die SoC, employing the latest and greatest fabrication techniques.
[doublepost=1510085864][/doublepost]
And do GROSS margins account for COGS?
If not, you STILL don't have the SLIGHTEST CLUE what the NET margin is!
[doublepost=1510086040][/doublepost]
Yeah, simple "refinements" like:
1. Making it 1,000 smaller
2. Making it work
No. Easy-Peasy, right?
You could have done it in your kitchen in an hour...
Actually 100%. We manufactured advanced composites for medical, military, high performance sports, and mass transit transportation and aerospace. We were single source design and manufacturing, inventory management, JIT delivery. The things you mention add to cost, not to margin.
You decide what's fair play....
supermarket 1: is selling a pear fruit for £3.00 per unit and another supermarket 2: is selling for 0.45 per unit? for your information both pear is 100% same.
which one would you buy and why?
Last edited:
Did I imply they added to margin. If so, I apologize.
And if you were doing things for a military/government/aerospace customer, then ALL the normal "costing" rules go RIGHT OUT THE WINDOW!!!
Gimme a break!
[doublepost=1510086466][/doublepost]
Not even.
i don't deny that it's certainly cheaper than doing it from scratch, but i don't think it was was simple as polishing and refining it. i'm guessing it's still a pretty big investment in making FaceID a reality. anyways, we're both guessing on this without any hard proof of the R&D costs.
And so, you think that that cost wasn't rolled-into the cost of FaceID R&D, which was eventually Rolled-into the cost of the iPhone X's R&D?
And that purchase ALONE was a cool $360 Million. Yeah, that's "real money" to ANYONE. Even Apple.
https://www.gamespot.com/articles/apple-buys-kinect-company-for-a-reported-360-million/1100-6416372/
Money is money. Cost is Cost. And buying the company (and its Patents and Talent) only made it SLIGHTLY more possible to get done in a REASONABLE amount of time. It wasn't like they just put the Kinect-box stuff under a Shrink-Ray and VOILA!
Gimme a break!
[doublepost=1510087342][/doublepost]
There was a possibly apocryphal, but possibly not, story I heard about that when I was growing-up:
The story goes like this: A train carrying many boxcars full of a high-end car (I think in the story it was Cadillacs. This was the 1960s, ok?) derailed, and all the cars were deemed destroyed.
But rather than disclose the TRUE COST of the cars to the Insurance Co. (and potentially, the world), the manufacturer elected to "eat" the entire loss...
[doublepost=1510087928][/doublepost]
Likely, the overall "Floor Plan" for the phone was "frozen" fairly early-on in the process, and besides, putting something as big and inductive and electrically-noisy as the Haptic Engine in the middle of the phone would:
1. End up REDUCING the overall space for batteries.
2. Perhaps mess-with (or BE messed-with) by the ALSO highly-inductive Qi Wireless Charging "secondary winding" that covers a good portion of the back of the phone.
[doublepost=1510087970][/doublepost]
You really need a Sarcasm tag for that...
Sorry if I confused you. The intent of my original post was to say that I wouldn't expect Apple to drastically change their margins from model to model, and because they are an exclusive buyer of components, they would be paying premium costs on their speciality items.
As for my reply to you, yes, I can promise you that not a day in your life goes by without seeing a product I either had a hand in designing or manufactured. Take a transit bus? Many of the products on it were designed by our team. Drive on the freeway? You can't pass a delineator or marker that we didn't design. Deploy in the military? Our company designed and produced products that help keep personnel and civilians safe. Our products are on semi tractors, in airplanes, on jetfighters, snowmobiles, highway coaches, power generating windmills, noninvasive surgical equipment, and boats. All client exclusive and I priced them all.
Yep I'm new to capitalism.
Private ownership of capital enables firms to gain monopoly power in product and labour markets. Firms with monopoly power can exploit their position to charge higher prices.So, using back-of-the-envelope (invert the profit to get costs), we have more like:
$600-700 landed costs for a $1,000 iPhone X.
That's probably a LITTLE high (because Apple probably makes a higher margin on Phones than, e.g., Macs); but I'll bet it isn't more than $100-150 "high". So that would be a MINIMUM of $600 - 150 = $450. MINIMUM.
And it's actually probably more like $600, "all in" for the iPhone X. They do make some bank on the expanded memory versions; but not by leaps and bounds. Cost differential between the 64 GB and 256 GB model is probably around $60-75 for the extra Flash. Those high-density, high-capacity, fast Flash chips aren't exactly cheap, either.
[doublepost=1510088916][/doublepost]
Retail price points.
If Apple only offered a phone starting at $1k, they would be excoriated (and rightly so!). The models of iPhones being offered currently give people that even have as little as $350 to spend to get in on a 64-bit iPhone, and the iOS ecosystem.
THAT's smart marketing.
[doublepost=1510089072][/doublepost]
Well, that makes MUCH more sense, LOL!!!
Interesting career, there!
[doublepost=1510089263][/doublepost]
Someone rents a room from the iPhone?
What always gets me are people arguing that marketing/advertising costs are added to cost of the device. This is ridiculous. These costs add nothing to the device. They allow a company to sell more devices and increase profits. Any marketing should just be seen as a cost offset against increased sales.
[doublepost=1510089611][/doublepost]
Because Apple overcharge and people are stupid enough to pay these excess prices. The accepted industry wide profit margin is much lower.
Last edited:
Accepted profit margin? Apple users are stupid? It turns out you’re speaking bollocks.
Ok, how about THIS for a reason:
A VERY large portion of the components in the iPhone X are CUSTOM. Therefore, there is ABSOLUTELY NO WHERE TO LOOK for a "Cost".
So, if 85% of the chips and other components in the iPhone X are Exclusively Apple's, then you simply have NO IDEA what the COSTS are for 85% of the BOM.
How's THAT for a reason?
Clearly all the other vendors in the smartphone industry work on lower profit margins.
When I see a company clearly milking profit margins I give them a wide berth.
In the 80s/early 90s BMW prices in the UK once all the needed extras were added were excessive. They started including extras etc and lowered prices making them better value and I started buying them. The lower end 5 series were then competitive with the big Fords and they ended up being taken off the market. There are plenty of Apple users who say on this forum that they would pay whatever Apple charged. That is stupidity.
I'm aware that I have been talking about both gross and Net margins. Gross margins can be 50% and net margins being negative at the same time. In Apple's case their gross margins are around 38% (with the iphone rumored to be around 50%-60% ). Either way, I don't think Apple is being unreasonable with it's prices no matter what the BOM is considering that at the end of they day their net margin is 20%, That's about $150 on an iPhone X that wholesales for around $900
One only has to have life experience and common sense to know that you don't design things to be expensive to repair.
Things that are expensive to repair also cost the company more money.