What are you expecting?Make a calendar appointment for one year from now and tell me the R&D spending wasn't worth it.
Is it a new product coming down the pipeline?
Last edited:
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.
Taiwan Component Makers Refuse to Lower Quotes For iPhone 7 Parts
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is it a new product coming down the pipeline?
Understood, on and off contract the prices have remained steady in the US. Can't speak to other countries but I know that Apple will adjust prices based on exchange rates, inflation, etc.
Make a calendar appointment for one year from now and tell me the R&D spending wasn't worth it.
I'm sure Apple are investing heavily in the next generation watch band range. ;-)
Technologies that apple has been working on for years are finally going to come to the forefront.
First off, true wireless charging:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...le-nails-future-wireless-charging-system.html
No mats, none of that nonsense. Just walk into your home and start charging (which will quickly turn into availability at locations like starbucks, mcdonalds, etc). The technology will spread like wifi did and be ubiquitous within 5 years, prompting us to ask why we ever though charging mats were "innovative" in the first place.
Technologies that apple has been working on for years are finally going to come to the forefront.
First off, true wireless charging:
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patent...le-nails-future-wireless-charging-system.html
No mats, none of that nonsense. Just walk into your home and start charging (which will quickly turn into availability at locations like starbucks, mcdonalds, etc). The technology will spread like wifi did and be ubiquitous within 5 years, prompting us to ask why we ever though charging mats were "innovative" in the first place.
It sounds like some really neat stuff. I guess only time will tell if Apple will actually make it.
Such technology is available from other sources like WiTricity.
Apple's patent is not about wide spread charging like that. It's about taking the current ability of sending power a max of about a meter, and relaying part of the power to other devices.
In other words, a wireless charger on a Mac might send power to the keyboard, which then relays part of the power to a mouse or headphones.
Of course, this slows down the charging because of distance and sharing, but it's a clever way to extend the range as long as a device is near another in the chain.
If this is the case what Apple is doing, I highly suspect that the iPhone 7 will be a bit more expensive than last year's models due to this. And if there is a shortage of the new phones related to this situation, then I have good reason to sidegrade to the 6s or SE to save money and get the 64 GB model.
And this is probably why it's all biting Apple in the rear and may signal the end of Cook's tenure as CEO, considering the tone of his recent interview.
So Apple can continue to charge a premium for an otherwise lack luster, stale 2014 design, spec-bumped iPhone 7. All to maintain a consistent profit margin. Well played, Tim.
[doublepost=1471669129][/doublepost]
[doublepost=1471669129][/doublepost]
How crazy is it that I the consumer expect better value from Apple rather than paying a premium price for yet another incremental, spec-bumped iPhone release that pales technologically in comparison to other 2016 competitor flagships at similar price points?
Last edited:
Interesting to see suppliers push back. Business is all about leverage. At this point, some suppliers have it and so there's no reason to budge.
I totally agree, but remember that it's the consumer that buys the "lower quality" product that suffers with exchanges, returns etc.
Apple will never lower the price of their premium products in any given line--especially after rumors surfaced last week of a possible 256 GB iPhone 7. Best bet to save on costs is to purchase a SE, iP6 or iP6S.
Last edited:
That's exactly what I plan to do in the next couple of weeks. I'd rather get one of those and then get the iPhone 8 with brand new form factor than get the 7. I have an iPhone 6 Plus with 16 gb but want to scale back the size a tiny bit but move my music over to the new phone since the iPod touch 1g won't work with iTunes anymore.
20% is huge..... this cannot be done through manufacturing efficiencies. It will have to come either out of the already razor-slim profit margins of the manufacturer, or more likely, out of the wages of the workers, i.e. they have to produce significantly more for basically the same pay.
There's no doubt Tim must realize this, and I'm frankly disappointed after all his talk of the last few years about concern for those same workers. His actions belie those concerns.
There's no doubt Tim must realize this, and I'm frankly disappointed after all his talk of the last few years about concern for those same workers. His actions belie those concerns.
LOL, no, the move to get suppliers to lower their prices, is so Apple can maintain a healthy profit margin. If Apple lowers their price that goes out the window.
This is straight from the Walmart playbook. Squeeze your suppliers until they bleed. Hope the suppliers resist and let Apple know they will not accept this. Apple profit on each device is already hugh and they they are just looking to make more at the expense of their suppliers.
Apple
While the suppliers are (or were) making hand over fist, they're more sensitive to the down ticks of a slowing demand. I read somewhere that Foxconn's profits slid by a huge percentage, because of the slowing iPhone sales, where as Apple is still making money hand over fits. I think this is why those suppliers are very resistant to lowering prices because they're dealing with profit issues as it stands.
Many of the suppliers risk being cut off from their biggest customer at any time. This puts them over a barrel. They also don;t have the HUGHE cash reserves that Apple does. This puts Apple, IMO, squarely in the "more greedy" category.
[doublepost=1471779777][/doublepost]
Unfortunately, I belive this to be true. The suppliers markups can't be nearly as big as Apple's (I may be wrong on this though). even if they are, percentage wise, this doesn't translate into the same amount of $$$. A penny per product for the suppliers is more significant to the suppliers than it is to Apple.
No disagreement, while losing a lot of money over lowered volume, that beats losing ALL of their money if Apple went with another supplier.
No question, Apple is the greedier company, their tactics over the past few years have horrible, Just consider what they did to GT Advanced Technologies with their contracts