Retina MacBook Pros are actually cheaper to manufacture

[Puevlo]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

There is also no expensive optical drive that needs to be included.

There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook Pro.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

 

[AlvinNguyen]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

There is also no expensive optical drive that needs to be included.

There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook Pro.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

You totally disregarded the insane about of R&D that went into making the machine a reality.

 

[terraphantm]

The screen absolutely is more expensive to manufacture. It is true that smaller pixels are cheaper than larger pixels, but it still costs a good bit of money to use 4 times as many pixels. Not to mention potential yield issues with a 5MP display (dead pixels and whatnot). If high resolution screens were cheaper to manufacture... then every screen would be a "retina" display, and there would have been no need to create a high-res option for the cMBPs.

Optical drives aren't expensive, at all. Even retail they're like $30 these days. Apple as an OEM probably can get them for pennies.

The batteries are larger, and therefore cost more money to produce.

 

[korbearus10]

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.
...
I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

Not sure if serious. Anyway, I can refute one of you points already. I ask you to check the weights of cMBP vs rMBP and also the box dimensions. I think you'll find your answer there. Also, higher density screens are cheaper to produce? Really? REALLY??

I hope and assume this is a joke.

 

[mohsy90]

You totally disregarded the insane about of R&D that went into making the machine a reality.

+1

Exactly, and don't tell me the retina display cost cheaper than the standard LCD panels currently being used. I'm sure the battery cost more and the logic board costs more considering that the ram now has to be soldered. Also, they are using flash SSD, instead of a 2.5" SSD drive. Smaller and more expensive. Optical drive is cheap and barely contributes to the MBP costs.

Just about everything you stated is wrong aside from the "less raw materials." Using less materials doesn't equal less cost, but they are using less raw materials....ill give you that.

 

[pgiguere1]

I clicked the thread really surprised hoping to see some iSuppli teardown.

Turns out that OP has no idea what he's talking about.

Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

That part was cute.

Seriously though, I'm 100% sure the margin is currently lower on the rMBP than on either the 13" or 15" cMBP. That's not even considering the R&D that went into making the product. There's no way to really prove OP wrong since Apple never publishes their production cost, but anyone with knowledge of the hardware in both computers can make a guess pretty easily by looking at selling price and included hardware.

By the way, the money they saved by using slightly less aluminium and slightly smaller packaging is insignificant compared to the price of an IPS panel of that resolution and flash storage, along with twice the DD3L RAM and 1GB GPU.

 

[gentlefury]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

There is also no expensive optical drive that needs to be included.

There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook Pro.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

Ummm, the rMBP IS cheaper....what's your point?

 

[gokart mozart]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

There is also no expensive optical drive that needs to be included.

There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook Pro.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

R&D, SSD vs HDD, and marketing

And the IPS retina display can't be cheaper than the original LCD one. At least not yet. They had to modify facilities in order for the new manufacturing process. It'll take a while for them to recoup what they spent on converting the assembly line and training employees who work on said line. Not to mention, Apple actually has to buy them off the actual manufacturer. The fact that there are 4 times as many pixels (even if they're smaller, cheaper pixels) would drive up the cost. The new cooling system and speakers probably had a higher price tag than the older versions too.

The rMBP is also a bit of a fashion item right now. Though it sucks that is going to drive the cost up. I guess that marketing campaign had to turn a profit somehow.

Just like with the Air, the price will go down over time. Especially as they eventually phase out the classic models.

 

[zerotiu]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

There is also no expensive optical drive that needs to be included.

There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook Pro.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

Please look at the research and development cost

(http://finance.yahoo.com/q/is?s=AAPL)

Previously, a company can survive with a same product for 5 years. In today context, a company must be creative and put a lot of money and effort in R&D development. Easy example is Nokia, motorola, even kodak. Their products are being declined because they don't have any new unique product.

To price the product, they will calculate based on cost production (including R&D development).

 

[Trey M]

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

Lol. You would think if you made a statement like that you'd know what you're talking about...

Comparing the base Retina model to the higher end cMBP (both go for $2199), they both come with the same amount of RAM so that's even.

Regardless of your argument on "more pixels = less", Apple is not manufacturing the screens themselves. I believe they were made by either sharp or LG, I can't remember. Either way, a higher quality display will not be sold for less than a cheaper one that's produced in mass quantity vs. the Retina Display which is probably the first display of its kind to be manufactured.

The funny part to me was "less footprint" = cheaper. Lol, these things are filled to the brim with components. You think the aluminum enclosure is what costs them a lot? Think again. Apple uses other company's part just like everyone else. Intel chips, Samsung SSD's...they're not pulling this stuff out of thin air.

Sorry, but it's absolutely incorrect that the base Retina costs less as a finished product vs. the $2199 cMBP.

 

[dank414]

Wasn't there a report earlier this year stating that the new 'retina' lcd panels cost $150 more than the regular ones?

 

[mohsy90]

Wasn't there a report earlier this year stating that the new 'retina' lcd panels cost $150 more than the regular ones?

I think Digitimes reported that the current LCD panels used on the 13" and 15" MBP cost between $40-$50 and the new retina display is expected to cost around $150.

 

[pgiguere1]

Yes, the screen alone is several times more expensive to manufacture than the old one. And manufacturing cost != selling cost. Apple has amongst the highest margins in the industry. A 100-150$ increase in display production cost could be translated to maybe 200$ sale price increase for the end user. And we're not even talking about the SSD (also very expensive), RAM, GPU, double thunderbolt and such.

 

[mohsy90]

I'm curious as to where the down vote button went, wanted to down vote the crap out of the OP.

 

[ntrigue]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

There is also no expensive optical drive that needs to be included.

There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook Pro.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

I am embarrassed for you.

 

[Trey M]

I'm curious as to where the down vote button went, wanted to down vote the crap out of the OP.

Yeah where did that thing go? I thought I got in trouble or something since I can't downvote anyone lol

 

[bruzzac]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

When you upgrade a cMBP to the same specs as a MBPr, the MBPr actually does turn out to be cheaper!

 

[Aodhan]

...There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook...

You seem like a really nice person, but I think you probably don't understand the economies of scale. It is a certainty that the Retina costs more to produce, at least at this point.

 

[lannisters4life]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

There is also no expensive optical drive that needs to be included.

There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook Pro.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

Downvotes would be good right now.

People who use manufacturing costs to make any kind of argument like this... well... are clueless to industry. And even then, you make errors. If smaller pixels were cheaper to produce (?) you forget that there are literally double the number of them. The lack of an optical drive is more than compensated for on a cost level with the SSDs that come standard, against the HDDs in other Macbook Pros.

 

[gokart mozart]

Downvotes would be good right now.

People who use manufacturing costs to make any kind of argument like this... well... are clueless to industry. And even then, you make errors. If smaller pixels were cheaper to produce (?) you forget that there are literally double the number of them. The lack of an optical drive is more than compensated for on a cost level with the SSDs that come standard, against the HDDs in other Macbook Pros.

Not to mention the optical drives are super cheap. They're not even Blu-ray drives like many PC counterparts would use.

 

[Sam2lucky13]

 

[thekev]

If smaller pixels were cheaper to produce (?)

I'm not sure with manufacturing. Fabrication is most likely more expensive. Yields may be lower due to the required levels of tolerance. It's not like Apple can just tell their manufacturing partners to eat any yield issues. Anyway the OP just trolls all the time. I wouldn't take any of his words seriously.

 

[Randomoneh]

Yes, the screen alone is several times more expensive to manufacture than the old one.

As far as I know, estimated price for old display was $68, $160 for new.
And knowing Apple, they have managed to get a pretty good discount on top of that.

And market sets the price, not manufacturing cost.

 

[steve-p]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

Yeah, right. Just think how cheap an iPhone should be by your logic, as it has so much less raw materials, packaging, transport costs, smaller pixels, etc than a MBP I guess you overlooked the part where R&D costs and fabrication costs need to be recovered from sales, and where smaller pixels actually cost more, not less to make.

 

[Jonesy135]

People who think the Retina MacBook Pros are a good deal need to realise they are being taken for a ride. They are actually cheaper to build than a regular MacBook Pro.

It is smaller therefore there is less raw material that needs to be spent on it. This also means more can be transported within the same amount of packaging saving money on transport. Also, just like transistors, smaller pixels are actually cheaper and easier to manufacture.

There is also no expensive optical drive that needs to be included.

There is not one aspect of a Retina MacBook Pro that costs more than the base MacBook Pro.

I challenge anyone to prove me wrong. You cannot.

Trololololo....


Off the top of my head... the cost to engineer the interia layout of the rMBP would be way higher....

smaller pixels may be cheaper, however more of them would negate this entirely (if i bulk buy washing powder, the price works out cheaper per KG but if i got about used 4 times as much per wash then its still more expensive)


i could probably go on, but i get the feeling it would be wasted on you