Retina MacBook Pros are actually cheaper to manufacture

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by Puevlo, Jul 13, 2012.

  1. Puevlo macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2011
    #1
    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.
     
  2. AlvinNguyen macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    #2
    You totally disregarded the insane about of R&D that went into making the machine a reality.
     
  3. terraphantm macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2009
    Location:
    Pennsylvania
    #3
    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.
     
  4. korbearus10 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2012
    Location:
    California
    #4
    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.
     
  5. mohsy90, Jul 13, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012

    mohsy90 macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #5
    +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.
     
  6. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #6
    I clicked the thread really surprised hoping to see some iSuppli teardown.

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

    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.
     
  7. gentlefury macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2011
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #7
    Ummm, the rMBP IS cheaper....what's your point?
     
  8. gokart mozart, Jul 13, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012

    gokart mozart macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #8
    R&D, SSD vs HDD, and marketing :p

    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.
     
  9. zerotiu macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2012
    #9
    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).
     
  10. Trey M, Jul 13, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 13, 2012

    Trey M macrumors 6502a

    Trey M

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #10
    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.
     
  11. dank414 macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2011
    #11
    Wasn't there a report earlier this year stating that the new 'retina' lcd panels cost $150 more than the regular ones?
     
  12. mohsy90 macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #12
    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.
     
  13. pgiguere1 macrumors 68020

    pgiguere1

    Joined:
    May 28, 2009
    Location:
    Montreal, Canada
    #13
    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.
     
  14. mohsy90 macrumors 65816

    mohsy90

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #14
    I'm curious as to where the down vote button went, wanted to down vote the crap out of the OP.
     
  15. ntrigue macrumors 68040

    ntrigue

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2007
    #15
    I am embarrassed for you.
     
  16. Trey M macrumors 6502a

    Trey M

    Joined:
    Jul 25, 2011
    Location:
    USA
    #16
    Yeah where did that thing go? I thought I got in trouble or something since I can't downvote anyone lol
     
  17. bruzzac macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2012
    #17
    When you upgrade a cMBP to the same specs as a MBPr, the MBPr actually does turn out to be cheaper!
     
  18. Aodhan macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 16, 2012
    #18
    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.
     
  19. lannisters4life macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 14, 2012
    Location:
    Sydney
    #19
    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.
     
  20. gokart mozart macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2011
    #20
    Not to mention the optical drives are super cheap. They're not even Blu-ray drives like many PC counterparts would use.
     
  21. thekev macrumors 604

    thekev

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    #22
    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.
     
  22. Randomoneh macrumors regular

    Randomoneh

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2011
    #23
    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.
     
  23. steve-p macrumors 68000

    steve-p

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2008
    Location:
    Newbury, UK
    #24
    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 :rolleyes: 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.
     
  24. Jonesy135 macrumors member

    Jonesy135

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    Location:
    Bedfordshire, UK
    #25

    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
     

Share This Page