iPhone X Component Costs Estimated at $357.50

Discussion in 'MacRumors.com News Discussion' started by MacRumors, Nov 6, 2017.

  1. MacsRuleOthersDrool macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    #251
    It's a LOT more complicated, considering the iPhone's BOM contains probably about 90-95% CUSTOM parts, the costs of which simply CANNOT BE KNOWN.

    How much does Apple pay for an Apple APL1W72 A11 Bionic SoC?

    How much for the Apple 338S00341-B1 power management IC?

    How much for the Apple 338S00248 audio codec?

    How much for the Apple 338S00306 power management IC?

    How much for the Apple/Murata USI 170821 339S00397 WiFi / Bluetooth module?

    How much for the Apple/Cirrus Logic 338S00296 audio amplifier?

    How much for the mystery STMicro IC on the OLED Display, 10 THADT733 X-139U?

    How much for a zillion CUSTOM flex-strips, ribbon cables, and flexPCBs?

    How much for the hideously high-density main logic PCB itself?

    How much for the custom-formed-and-punched Stainless Steel case?

    How much for the custom Li-On cells?


    Lots of questions, very few hard answers.

    Look at that picture of the iPhone X layed-out. How many of those components you see are off-the-shelf?

    Answer: Practically NONE. Well, that's EXACTLY how much knowledge ANYONE outside of Apple has as to the Costs of those items!

    https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPhone+X+Teardown/98975
     
  2. twintin macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Aug 10, 2012
    Location:
    Sweden
    #252
    Greed in this context I interpret as being the same as maximising the profit.

    Yes I do and my company is maximising its profit as well so I (and others in the company) can increase our salaries even more (I'm sure you would not mind your company, if you are working, doing the same). :)
     
  3. MacsRuleOthersDrool macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    #253
    Wrong!

    You haven't factored in YIELD, which can be strikingly low on early-runs and new technology.

    And the A11 and TSMC has a combination of BOTH of those factors.

    Without knowing the Yield on a large-die, custom IC, any "calculation" is simply a SWAG.

    And anyone calling it a SILICONE wafer is unlikely to know, anyway...
     
  4. Rum_Becker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Location:
    Canada
    #254

    Custom chips are harder to estimate, but doable. If TMSC sell wafers for X dollars and we can roughly find out how much each chip costs because we know the size of the chips. These companies estimate how much of a volume discount a customer Apple gets per wafer and with the chips size and estimate the rough cost of a chip.


    http://appleinsider.com/articles/16...ts-record-earnings-casts-doubt-on-peak-iphone
    So if TMSC made 3.7 billion from Apple, and they made X amount of chips for Apple, they can get a rough cost. It's not rocket science.


    Do you have another gotcha?
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---

    Nope you are wrong
     
  5. MacsRuleOthersDrool macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    #255
    Like Apple is their ONLY customer???

    Gimme a break!

    It may not be "rocket science"; but it IS a LOT more complicated than your methodology suggests!
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    Citation, please!
     
  6. KingslayerG5 Suspended

    KingslayerG5

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2017
    #256
    And when Sony was charging $600 for a PS3 when it cost $800 to manufacture, they got crucified for it. When LG coated the G5, reviewers said it felt cheap. When LG does it for Pixel 2 XL, they say it feels premium.

    I thought the display cost more? So Apple really is Thurston and Lovey Howell. Greedy and lazy. Maintain those profits. X could have easily been priced at $800.

    Keep justifying the X price. Another one will look like it next year and will be better, faster, and cheaper once the manufacturing costs go down.
     
  7. MacsRuleOthersDrool macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    #257
    Because it was PERCEIVED that the CUSTOMER wanted WIRELESS CHARGING.

    So, Apple had only a few options for the "class" of backside material:

    1. Glass

    2. Plastic

    3. Wood

    #1 is the most scratch-resistant, but the most brittle.

    #2 Durable to breaking; but scratches WAY too easily. Period. They would have been made a laughingstock. "Scratchgate", I can hear it now...

    #3 isn't a seriously-viable choice, anymore than marble

    ANYTHING else that wasn't completely exotic (and thus completely too expensive) would not have allowed Qi Charging to work.

    So, in the end, it WAS the CUSTOMERS (or the perception of their wants) that caused Apple to make the new iPhones with a Glass back.

    So, it isn't "punishment"; but rather an engineering/marketing trade-off.

    By the way, what is the back of a Galaxy Note 8? Oh, wait...

    https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/201...down-finds-lots-of-glue-removable-components/

    ...and what are the Repair Costs? Hmmm, these look MIGHTY FAMILIAR...

    http://www.deteched.com/2017/09/02/...-consider-samsung-premium-care-insurance/amp/
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    Statistically speaking, if the RAM (or any other silicon-based non-mechanical component) is going to "go bad", it will do so WELL within the 1 year warranty period (3 years with AppleCare, IIRC). So, it would be HIGHLY unlikely that a Mac mini owner would have to suffer a logic-board replacement.
     
  8. Rum_Becker macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2017
    Location:
    Canada
    #258
    I agree it's much more complicated than my methodology, that is why I give these numbers from professionals credibility. Not saying they are bang on, but close.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    Citation, Please.
     
  9. ProphetX macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
  10. MH01 Suspended

    MH01

    Joined:
    Feb 11, 2008
    #260
    Missed my sarcasm eh..... oww well.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    Was it the consumer or playing catch up with the S8. I say this cause "wireless" charging is not wireless. Why not do it right? The Apple way? I still think they are just playing catch up now and following the markert instead of leading .
     
  11. Michael Goff macrumors G5

    Michael Goff

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2012
    #261
    That’s not stupidity. That’s them valuing Apple products higher than you. And I don’t think I’ve read anyone saying they would pay whatever Apple charged. I imagine you’re building a straw man to make yourself feel superior.

    Also, the other companies running on lower margins is irrelevant. What matters is that the people who buy iPhones or Notes or S#or HTC U or Motorola Z all get a product that they think is worth what they paid. Anything else is just pointless team-play.
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    True wireless charging isn’t working right now in a way that the consumer actually wants.
     
  12. MacsRuleOthersDrool, Nov 7, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 7, 2017

    MacsRuleOthersDrool macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2016
    #262
    Close, as in 25 - 50% "off", sure.

    Reliability? TONS of citations. Where do you want to start?

    How about these "layman" articles:

    http://www.weibull.com/hotwire/issue21/hottopics21.htm

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bathtub_curve


    Here's a more "scholarly" paper:

    http://woodm.myweb.port.ac.uk/q/reliability.pdf


    That enough Citations for ya? I could go on and on. I've got 613,000 citations in my Google Search for:

    "infant mortality in electronics follows which kind of distribution"


    Ok, so what about the OTHER end of the Bathtub, the end-of-life part of the Reliability Curve, the End-of-Life part, for silicon electronics is quite a ways "out there". Decades, at least. It is HIGHLY unlikely that your Mac mini's RAM will "Wear-Out" before the computer has fallen so far behind the state-of-the-art as to be practically useless in almost all applications.

    So, as far as "Replacing burned-out RAM" (or a logic board) at your cost: It is REALLY unlikely.

    Now, eventually replacing a "worn-out" SSD is another story. The jury's still out on the REAL-WORLD long-term lifespans of those soldered-in devices. But you said "RAM".

    However, in doing a little looking around, I feel MUCH better about even that; to the point where I can see the logic (no pun) in Apple soldering-in SSDs:

    https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7734134?start=0&tstart=0

    https://www.cnet.com/how-to/find-how-how-much-longer-your-ssd-will-last/


    So, it looks like an SSD is likely to be MUCH longer-lived than a "spinning rust" HDD, and long-enough that it can essentially be considered "just another component".
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    They were starting to have "pushback" about "Why doesn't Apple support Wireless Charging?" Has nothing to do directly with "competition". Plus, Apple had already stuck their toe in the Wireless Charging "water" with the Apple Watch, and felt that they had learned enough from that experiment to take it to the next level.

    Ok, we'll call it what NOBODY does: "Contactless Charging". Meaning that there are no "electrical contacts" involved.

    And believe me, you wouldn't WANT truly Wireless Charging, ala Nikola Tesla!!!
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    Proof Positive!


    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    Boy, I'm glad I don't live in YOUR world...
    --- Post Merged, Nov 7, 2017 ---
    I guess then neither is Samsung:

    http://www.deteched.com/2017/09/02/...-consider-samsung-premium-care-insurance/amp/
     
  13. prowlmedia Suspended

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2010
    Location:
    London
    #263
    I think it’s fair to say the iPhone X cost some amount of money to make and it sells for another higher amount and lots of people still want to buy it.

    Case solved. Thread end reached. Well done everyone. Give yourself a pat on the back and move on.
     
  14. Bacillus macrumors 68020

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #264
    There is a myriad materials that allow inductive charging and would make for a better, more durable backside. And I have a fairly good overview of materials that Apple holds patents for (self-repairing metals, liquid metals, nanomaterials, synthered materials, earths...) that have thing in common: they never make it to the production phase.
    If you don't have anything more to bring to the table than echoing Apple's arguments for the herds, happy hiking.
     
  15. dilbert99 macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    #265
    That page doesn't list the replacement cost of screens for Samsung Note 8, just an estimate and doesn't even state the source of the costs.

    If I look at the Australian site which Samsung takes me to I see http://www.samsung.com/au/support/screen-replacements/
    which lists the screen replacement RRP as $260 but you usually never pay RRP.
    If I look at the Australian site for Apple the replacement cost is screen: $418.95 back/other: $818.95
    https://support.apple.com/en-au/iphone/repair/screen-damage

    So while Samsung are too costly too, they are not as much as Apple

    I think its quite pathetic charging these amounts - probably trying to sell more warranties to boost the average selling price for shareholders.
     
  16. Baymowe335 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    #266
    220M phones/yr bro. It takes a long time to bring some of the more exotic materials into production and glass today doesn't mean they never will. Gotta be realistic. My point was, all high end smartphones today use a lot of glass. Drop a Note, it's going to break too.
     
  17. Bacillus macrumors 68020

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #267
    OMG. Then why would carmakers use it only for screens, not for hoods, doors or bodies (as any 3 year old kid can envision) ?
     
  18. Baymowe335 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2017
    #268
    Different game. Apples and oranges. For one, cars are heavily regulated by multiple agencies, particularly in safety.
     
  19. halluxsinister macrumors member

    halluxsinister

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Location:
    Earth
    #269
    iPhone X costs incorrectly estimated. Hey, guys... did you know that the chemical components in a human being cost an estimated FIVE DOLLARS? Now... how does that MATTER? It doesn't, and neither does the "estimate" of the cost of the parts.

    Put another way, take $360 and try to make your own iPhone with it. Good luck.
     
  20. Bacillus, Nov 8, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2017

    Bacillus macrumors 68020

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #270
    ... ruling it out for obvious reasons.
    And if Apple can't meet 220m/y production numbers (for what it's worth, others can with ceramics, carbons, fibres,...) it should return its patents. By now it has become a patent troll itself.
     
  21. Bacillus, Nov 9, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 9, 2017

    Bacillus macrumors 68020

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #271
    By this reasoning, the X might cost 10 or 100 fold of what it does - and a Ferrari a few millions for that matter.
    Your customer loyalty might prematurely take you out of business
     
  22. halluxsinister macrumors member

    halluxsinister

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Location:
    Earth
    #272
    You're comparing apples and oranges, (no pun intended,) in order for there to be any validity to your point, a Ferrari would have to use fuel provided BY Ferrari, and be included in the price for the life of the car, or at least, for a few good years. An iPhone has almost no moving parts, (not counting electronics, and MAYBE the optical image stabilization system,) and almost all of its functionality, (aside from being a paperweight, or a really ineffective doorstop,) comes from software, which must be maintained, background services that must be provided in order for SOME functions to work, (like iCloud,) storage, etc. Then there's security updates requiring constant vigilance against hacking, looking out for vulnerabilities, etc. etc. etc.

    Customer loyalty is a good thing up to a point, I'll grant you, though I am (it may surprise you to learn,) NO fan of Apple as a company; I like some of their products, and some of their software, while at the same time, I am pretty critical of their antics as a corporation, even while acknowledging that it's not all their fault--some things one simply can't help, they're a byproduct of the nature of the game, and the system(s) in-place. The fake concern about the environment they tout, how they prominently claim their products are designed in California, as if that mattered, (when most people are more worried about where they're made,) soak their customers for all they're worth, then dodge taxes at every conceivable opportunity, steal other people's ideas, often giving no credit or acknowledgement, pretend they're artists... the list does go on and on, this is just of the top of my head.

    That all said, still, the implication that the guesstimate of the cost of the HARDWARE inside an iPhone is that the price-tag of the finished product is exorbitant, which is really pretty unfair, given that more goes into it than the sum of its PHYSICAL parts, the cost of the machines needed to fabricate them and assemble them, etc.

    Just to contrast, while they're running stories touting how little the hardware inside the product costs, let me point out that the hardware cost of a downloaded piece of software is zero. SO, why not run a story about how they tore-down a new copy of Microsoft Windows, and found that the cost of the hardware inside a copy of that is $0.00? Because that would be absurd, much like the original story about how little the hardware allegedly costs Apple to obtain.
     
  23. Bacillus, Nov 11, 2017
    Last edited: Nov 11, 2017

    Bacillus macrumors 68020

    Bacillus

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2009
    #273
    I share your problems with the Apple economy - especially where we pay an inordinate premium for their lifestyle, dictated by their overwealthy mgt. Especially those huge buildings at premium locations, symbols of supremacy, luxury, prominence, fashion, and the like that seem to matter more than functional innovation (for example: why use glass backsides as they have hundreds of patents for more sophisticated/durable materials - as said earlier)
    Why all those design compromises (notch, mediocre battery life etc etc.) while truckloads of money go into Apple Music subsidizing, self (non-)driving cars, headphone companies, radio stations etc... that I never asked for.
    Steve's mantra has been severly betrayed: Stay humble, stay hungry etc.
    I get ferocious by Cook's selective adoration of Steve.
    People get to hate big Silicon Valley Champs for that matter - Apple, FaceBook, Amazon ... allmost all of them (maybe Google as an intellectual exception)
     
  24. halluxsinister macrumors member

    halluxsinister

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2017
    Location:
    Earth
    #274
    Don't even get me started on the "let's put an easily broken glass back on our new super-expensive phone" idea. I'm not sure which is worse, that or the "no headphone jack so they have to buy our easily lost, proprietary, must be charged to use, using something else that must be charged to be used... or our proprietary stupid little dongle" idea...

    This is why I say Apple has strayed far from the path of the Avatar...
     
  25. leon44 macrumors 6502

    leon44

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Location:
    Newcastle upon Tyne, England
    #275
    In the context of this article it came over that you were making a point about the R&D effect on the iPhone's marginal cost and it appears rhetorical because it can't be answered
     

Share This Page