What iPhones cost to make

[heySkippy]

People are harping on Apple for their large margins but not a peep about Microsoft whose margins are about twice Apple's.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

People are harping on Apple for their large margins but not a peep about Microsoft whose margins are about twice Apple's.

That would be off topic for this thread.

[Apache]

Originally Posted by heySkippy

People are harping on Apple for their large margins but not a peep about Microsoft whose margins are about twice Apple's.

Originally Posted by Dave_S

That would be off topic for this thread.

And we never go off topic here.
Apache

[teh603]

Originally Posted by afv011

Couldn't agree more. The prove is in the CPUs (we have quad-core ARM A9s and dual core ARM A15s) and apple is still using dual-core ARM A9s. Then the radios, we've had LTE for 2 years, and yet it's still missing on the iphone. Apple are usually very conservative and don't put new tech on their phones until it is 1 or 2 generations old.

Course at one time, Macs were running as fast or faster than a comparable Windows PC, at a fraction of the clock speed. The only reason we got speeds in the gigahertz was because the two weren't directly comparable and Apple was drawing a lot of criticism for making "slower" computers. And then there's GEOS, which was a full GUI that ran in a Commodore 64's memory space with room for you to actually have a document open.

It isn't all about your memory or clock speed, but how well you use it.

[Dave_S]

Originally Posted by teh603

It isn't all about your memory or clock speed, but how well you use it.

Very very true, Grasshopper!!

The best at that in the mobile space, at the moment, is the QCOM S4 SOC chips which Samsung, HTC, and others use for Android and WIN8. Although Apple uses QCOM technology for their baseband processors, they painted themselves into a corner with their own proprietary (slower and more power hungry) A5 SOC.

[joblack]

Originally Posted by HarryT

The "profit" has to pay for the development costs; these devices don't materialise out of thin air.

Always the same myth. If they sell millions of devices the development costs are insignificant calculated by the number of iPhones.

Apple fanboys ...

[afv011]

Originally Posted by joblack

Always the same myth. If they sell millions of devices the development costs are insignificant calculated by the number of iPhones.

Apple fanboys ...

And there isn't much development costs in what's been added to the iphone5, there's nothing ground breaking. They've taken what was already in the market and packaged it up.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by joblack

Always the same myth. If they sell millions of devices the development costs are insignificant calculated by the number of iPhones.

Apple fanboys ...

Always the same insults, Apple haters...

How about an original insult... or better yet, no insults at all but I guess that's too much to ask for from the various company and product haters... real shame that the net facilitates gratuitous and pointless hate comments that would probably not be uttered in a face-to-face discussion...

[Andrew H.]

Originally Posted by afv011

And there isn't much development costs in what's been added to the iphone5, there's nothing ground breaking. They've taken what was already in the market and packaged it up.

They designed the CPU and the SOC; those aren't off the rack parts.

Seriously, why is Apple so important to you?

[ScotiaBurrell]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Always the same insults, Apple haters...

How about an original insult... or better yet, no insults at all but I guess that's too much to ask for from the various company and product haters... real shame that the net facilitates gratuitous and pointless hate comments that would probably not be uttered in a face-to-face discussion...

i suspect the aim to force the mods to close all the apple focused thread.

[afv011]

According to this source the cheapest iphone 5 costs $168.

Cheapest iPhone 5 costs an estimated $168 to make but sells for $649

The cost difference between the $167.50 materials bill and the $649 sales price is $481.50. While some of that money goes into paying for Apple’s operations and marketing, it still makes a hefty profit.

[TheOmegaZoid]

Originally Posted by elcreative

Always the same insults, Apple haters...

How about an original insult... or better yet, no insults at all but I guess that's too much to ask for from the various company and product haters... real shame that the net facilitates gratuitous and pointless hate comments that would probably not be uttered in a face-to-face discussion...

Its not a question of hate or insults. Its merely a comment trying to point out the cult like devotion to one company that these products inspire.

This thread is about the costs of creating the iPhone. Why not just step back a minute to examine the human costs and let that sink into our collective idol worship mentality.

I think people who criticize 'fanboys' instinctively find idol worshiping abhorrent in some way because of its obvious effects upon society.

[Kumabjorn]

Well, I prefer them idolizing a piece of metal and glass instead of some extremist cult leader.

[TheOmegaZoid]

Originally Posted by Kumabjorn

Well, I prefer them idolizing a piece of metal and glass instead of some extremist cult leader.

What about the creator of that piece of glass? By extension you must. Just as a religious person venerates rocks and trees and so venerates their creator, you must also venerate the creator of your piece of glass.

Gosh I loved reading about how Jobs bragged as a young man that you could buy components for nothing and sell them back to people for a profit. Oh yeah didn't he even rip off his best friend as well? Sounds like the prime philosophy of Apple started early on...

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by Dave_S

After having worked as an electronic engineer in the cell phone industry since 1996, my evidence is my own knowledge and experience and discussions with colleagues working for some of the other manufacturers involved. I don't expect any Apple zealot to believe anything other than their own opinion, so I think it best to just state my piece and move on. FWIW, I base quality an performance more upon what is actually inside the phone case than on how pretty the phone case is.

About the usual "zealot"/"hater" schism: Part of that could be dismissed if we compared the manufacturing costs and pricing of all major international smartphone companies -- Samsung, HTC, Nokia and Motorola come to mind. There has to be a comparison sheet somewhere.

Another thing to look at might be the rate of discount for phones. iPhones tend to sell at the same price for two years straight, whereas Samsung phones are discounted rapidly after as little as six months. I realize that people are dismissing carrier costs as part of the price. But under contract in the States, a 16GB Galaxy S3 with SD slot costs $119 (three days ago, $99) and a non-upgradable 16GB iPhone 5 costs $199. If the past is any indication, the iPhone is going to stay at its current price for at least the next two years.

Danny S:

Your empirical assessments of Apple and Samsung are to be acknowledged and technical experience respected. I and many others came to this site for technical information originally, but without an interest in the empirical, sites like this probably wouldn't exist.

However, your assessment doesn't invalidate those of the people you're calling zealots, and the danger of relying on credentials to validate a broad statement is the fallacy of argument by authority.

It's telling that I've owned three iPods in the past but never an iPhone; I've only ever owned phones by Samsung, HTC and Palm. I agree with you about Samsung subjectively but not objectively.*

You've said that Apple only strives for superior or cutting-edge tech when it comes to screens, but on a site devoted to reading -- one on which legions of us obsesses about screens every day -- that seems a relevant point of interest. It is also true that -- by default -- Apple is more concerned about sound quality than other companies have been. Far from true in the case of pure media players, but true in the case of smartphones so far.

It seems odd that a company which doesn't manufacture its screens should produce devices with screens that have consistently bested the quality of the company that does, but until everyone catches up (possibly in 2013), that advantage remains as important to many as the processor does to you.

=============================

* I'm a rather annoyed that LTE necessitated Samsung's replacing the Tegra 3 in the Galaxy S3 with the Snapdragon S4. Sound is important to me and the Wolfson DAC in the S3 was one of the main reasons I intended to buy it. Unfortunately, the S4 is now ubiquitous in the States and might become so internationally given the rollout of LTE networks. There's a reason I'm still using a three-year-old Galaxy S; the iPhone 4's DAC sounds far better than that of the Galaxy S2 and Stateside S3. We'll see about the iPhone 5.