Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Why is iPad cheaper than iPhone?

Small White Car said:
Yep, this is the reason.

Although I think the word 'greedy' is dumb here.

Should I say that you're greedy for wanting a paycheck at work? I could, I guess, but wouldn't you agree it sounds kind of dumb?
Click to expand...

People use that excuse all the time with millionaire athletes going on strike (NBA lockout) but for the fan behind the game they think "wtf is wrong w/ you guys? You make an average of 5 million dollars per year... what do they have to complain about and try to squeeze every last dime out of the CBA negotiations?!"

Kinda the same thinking w/ Apple. "WTF is wrong w/ you Apple your one of the biggest businesses in the world why are you charging me an extra $100 when you really dont have to?" You could make an excuse for them by saying "well would you call yourself greedy for trying to get your paycheck?" but really Apple isn't at our level so the analogy doesnt fit. They are a multinational billion dollar coporation whos profits rival that of competing nations. IMO Apple is a greedy son of a b**** company (all of them can be in different ways) that makes great products but they could def lighten up on the "Apple tax" that they charge.

Then again though it's not really their fault since we live in a world of "your out for yourself and if your not nickel and diming for every last penny you can you are losing it to someone else"

I don't hate the player (Apple)... I just hate the game (Corporate greed caused by cut-throat capitalism).
 
ap3604 said:
People use that excuse all the time with millionaire athletes going on strike (NBA lockout) but for the fan behind the game they think "wtf is wrong w/ you guys? You make an average of 5 million dollars per year... what do they have to complain about and try to squeeze every last dime out of the CBA negotiations?!"

Kinda the same thinking w/ Apple. "WTF is wrong w/ you Apple your one of the biggest businesses in the world why are you charging me an extra $100 when you really dont have to?" You could make an excuse for them by saying "well would you call yourself greedy for trying to get your paycheck?" but really Apple isn't at our level so the analogy doesnt fit. They are a multinational billion dollar coporation whos profits rival that of competing nations. IMO Apple is a greedy son of a b**** company (all of them can be in different ways) that makes great products but they could def lighten up on the "Apple tax" that they charge.

Then again though it's not really their fault since we live in a world of "your out for yourself and if your not nickel and diming for every last penny you can you are losing it to someone else"

I don't hate the player (Apple)... I just hate the game (Corporate greed caused by cut-throat capitalism).
Click to expand...

You argument only makes sense if you think of Apple as a monolithic entity hoarding cash. But it's not. It's made up of people. Individuals. Investors. Not all of them are rich people piling on profits. A recent investor has just as much a right to expect Apple to push to increase it's value as an investor who has been there for years and made his/her millions.

And all of that cash hoard is invested in people as well.
 
ap3604 said:
You could make an excuse for them by saying "well would you call yourself greedy for trying to get your paycheck?" but really Apple isn't at our level so the analogy doesnt fit.
Click to expand...

Sure it fits. Apple is owned by many, many people. When you split it up millions of ways it's not much different than a paycheck.

Over the last 4 years my Apple stock has made me the same amount of money as 1/2 of my annual salary.

So please don't pretend that you can just say "Apple is greedy" and no one will care because it's not a person. No, you're actually saying that I'M greedy and that I'M wrong for wanting my stock to earn me money. And despite how well it's done recently it's still made less for me than my paycheck does.

So since my paycheck has earned 8x as much as my Apple stock, I'd say that I'm MORE greedy for getting my paycheck than for owning Apple. 8 times more greedy!

So yeah, go ahead. Call me greedy for earning my paycheck. I still think that's the wrong word.
 
BaldiMac said:
You argument only makes sense if you think of Apple as a monolithic entity hoarding cash. But it's not. It's made up of people. Individuals. Investors. Not all of them are rich people piling on profits. A recent investor has just as much a right to expect Apple to push to increase it's value as an investor who has been there for years and made his/her millions.

And all of that cash hoard is invested in people as well.
Click to expand...

Small White Car said:
Sure it fits. Apple is owned by many, many people. When you split it up millions of ways it's not much different than a paycheck.

Over the last 4 years my Apple stock has made me the same amount of money as 1/2 of my annual salary.

So please don't pretend that you can just say "Apple is greedy" and no one will care because it's not a person. No, you're actually saying that I'M greedy and that I'M wrong for wanting my stock to earn me money. And despite how well it's done recently it's still made less for me than my paycheck does.

So since my paycheck has earned 8x as much as my Apple stock, I'd say that I'm MORE greedy for getting my paycheck than for owning Apple. 8 times more greedy!

So yeah, go ahead. Call me greedy for earning my paycheck. I still think that's the wrong word.
Click to expand...

Great points for the other side as well, I can see what you both mean so I appreciate you both taking the time to write them since it will get me thinking more about this.

Thanks again BaldiMac and Small White Car :)
 
Small White Car said:
Yep, this is the reason.

Although I think the word 'greedy' is dumb here.

Should I say that you're greedy for wanting a paycheck at work? I could, I guess, but wouldn't you agree it sounds kind of dumb?
Click to expand...

No, but some might consider you greedy for expecting 2x what your co-worker doing the same job gets?

What it truly boils down to is this....they offer a product at a price...we agree to pay it. If it weren't selling so well, Apple would drop the price. So we truly have ourselves to blame.
 
There are a couple of reasons. The most important reason is demand.

Apple fans keep paying $200+ every year for the latest model. Why drop the price?

The iPhone can do 95% of what the iPad does, so there is less demand for a tablet among customers who already own smart-phones and laptops/computers.
 
Small White Car said:
I'd argue that if that other Android phone was "doing the same job" they'd charge the same that Apple does.
Click to expand...

I'm not comparing a specific product. The "Apple tax" idea exists for a reason. Overall Apple makes a quality product and we expect to pay a bit more for that. But the idea of an "Apple tax" is that you are paying for MORE than just a more reliable product.

So sure, argue that the iPhone works harder than the Android. Let's say 1.25x as hard. But then iPhone demands 2x the paycheck (I'm obviously not using real numbers). This is where the perceived "greed" comes in.

Your example of asking for your paycheck is a bad example as it's not a true comparison of what's being discussed.
 
because their are to many people buying what is basically an overpriced product,same as all apple products,their hardware is no better than anybody elses but because its got a silver apple symbol people fall for the hype,thats the reason i'v left the apple bandwagon after nearly 20 yrs....typing this on my £1200 sony laptop running windows 7 ultimate,and sorry to say its better than my year old macbook pro that i sold,cost me £1900 sold for £1500,got a better spec machine and 3 hundred quid,not being a apple mug anymore...lol;)
 
Geckotek said:
Let's say 1.25x as hard.
Click to expand...

Ok. Let's. So the iPhone works 125% as hard as the other phone.

I just went back and used the numbers for the Nokia phone that someone used as an example on page one. Doing the math on that tells me that the iPhone is 118% the price of that phone.

So 118% the price for 125% the performance.

Sounds fine to me.


(I know these are nonsense numbers that don't mean anything, but if you suddenly care about accuracy, why don't you explain where you got "2x the price" from?)
 
From my head. Made it up. Point is, there is a perception in the world that Apple is charging more than is necessary. More than just the quality difference. The phrase "Apple tax" is proof of this perception. And I think we've proven above based on profit margin that they have room to change this situation.
 
Geckotek said:
I'm not comparing a specific product. The "Apple tax" idea exists for a reason. Overall Apple makes a quality product and we expect to pay a bit more for that. But the idea of an "Apple tax" is that you are paying for MORE than just a more reliable product.
Click to expand...

No, the idea of the "Apple Tax" is to create the perception that there is no value in the extra money that you pay for a Mac. It is a marketing term created by Microsoft.

So sure, argue that the iPhone works harder than the Android. Let's say 1.25x as hard. But then iPhone demands 2x the paycheck (I'm obviously not using real numbers). This is where the perceived "greed" comes in.

Your example of asking for your paycheck is a bad example as it's not a true comparison of what's being discussed.
Click to expand...

The point where your interpretation of the analogy falls apart is where you stop at demanding twice the paycheck. The other half of the equation is the key to a free market. Someone has to accept your demand! If someone else is selling the same product at 1.25X as you are selling to 2x, obviously the market would choose the cheaper product unless you are offering value in return for the extra money. Whether it's features or service or even just simple trustworthiness.
 
BaldiMac said:
No, the idea of the "Apple Tax" is to create the perception that there is no value in the extra money that you pay for a Mac. It is a marketing term created by Microsoft.
Click to expand...

Reference?

Edit: Found it myself. http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-10064580-75.html?tag=mncol;txt

I'll say this, the phrase obviously stuck with consumers. And in my opinion, it's not that there is no value...it's just there is not as much value in the extra money paid. But heck, I've still paid it on my iPhones and now my iPad (which I swore I wasn't gonna buy.....)

BaldiMac said:
The point where your interpretation of the analogy falls apart is where you stop at demanding twice the paycheck. The other half of the equation is the key to a free market. Someone has to accept your demand! If someone else is selling the same product at 1.25X as you are selling to 2x, obviously the market would choose the cheaper product unless you are offering value in return for the extra money. Whether it's features or service or even just simple trustworthiness.
Click to expand...

Please go back and read my previous posts before arguing a point I've already made myself.
 
Last edited:
Geckotek said:
From my head. Made it up. Point is, there is a perception in the world that Apple is charging more than is necessary.
Click to expand...

And my point is that we're all getting paid more than 'necessary.'

I'm not arguing that Apple couldn't charge less. They certainly could.

I'm just saying that I could certainly offer to give some of my paycheck back and I'd still be able to live. So I'm just as "unnecessary" and "greedy" I guess. I could live on less money. But I'm still not giving it back.
 
Small White Car said:
And my point is that we're all getting paid more than 'necessary.'

I'm not arguing that Apple couldn't charge less. They certainly could.

I'm just saying that I could certainly offer to give some of my paycheck back and I'd still be able to live. So I'm just as "unnecessary" and "greedy" I guess. I could live on less money. But I'm still not giving it back.
Click to expand...

True, I was just arguing against your point of asking "for a paycheck"....not just a "portion of your paycheck".

I'll conceed here as we obviously agree, I was just picking at the semantics of your post. :p
 
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)

At the end of the day, it all boils down to:

Apple offers a product at X price

Customer agrees to pay X price

Customer has therefore agreed that it is a fair price, otherwise they would not have purchased it
 
BaldiMac said:
I read your posts, but you still claim that there is an actual difference between the added value of an Apple product and the amount paid for it.
Click to expand...

Then go back and read your own post then (the part I quoted at the bottom...the part about a free market) and see that I made the same point you were trying to make to me several posts back.

And yes, I still believe, and I feel we've proven earlier in this thread when looking at the cost to manufacture, that there is a difference in the added value of an Apple product vs the amount paid for it.
 
Last edited:
Because it's a smartphone. All smartphones have inflated off-contract pricing to push the customers towards signing a contract.
 
kdarling said:
Teardown Bill of Materials for:

iPad2 = $325
iPhone4 = $190

The profit margin on the iPhone is the highest in the smartphone industry. For example, the Nokia N8 has almost the same BOM cost, but Nokia prices it at $549, a hundred dollars less than the iPhone... and you can find it for much less than that.
Click to expand...

That doesn't consider non-material cost. Such as labor to put it together, testing, R&D, etc. On labor alone the iPhone probably costs more due to needing higher levels of precision and lack of room.
 
Geckotek said:
Then go back and read your own post then (the part I quoted at the bottom...the part about a free market) and see that I made the same point you were trying to make to me several posts back.
Click to expand...

As I already said, I read your post. Your subsequent posts contradicted it if you consider it to be the same point that I was making.

And yes, I still believe, and I feel we've proven earlier in this thread when looking at the cost to manufacture, that there is a difference in the added value of an Apple product vs the amount paid for it.
Click to expand...

And this post contradicts my point as well. The value is determined by the market. Evidently the market disagrees with your claim. The cost to manufacture is irrelevant to the market price.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back