iSuppli which many may know from their various articles on the PS3, Xbox 360 and Wii showing us how much they REALLY cost to make, has now revealed to the world how much the iPhone actually costs Apple.
The price they have come up with is merely an estimation as they haven’t actually managed to get their hands on one just yet, but based on parts Apple is meant to be using the summed up that the iPhone costs Apple around $230 to create the 4gig model and $265 for the 8gig. The actual retail prices come to nearlly double that of Apples cost at $499 and $599.
The most expensive component in the phone is of course it’s 3.5 inch touch sensitive LCD screen, but already many think that Apple should plan on dropping the price as they have a lot of money to play with.
February 1, 2007 at 11:28 am
Apple have been taking people for a ride for years especially with the useless iPOD’s that are in fact total rubbish MP3 players that break and now overpriced iPhone rubbish adds to their arsenal of garbage.
February 1, 2007 at 1:35 pm
gotta agree… they are really ripping the consumer of…
February 1, 2007 at 11:20 pm
Make it cheaper Apple!
Microsoft is rumored to be working on a similar device – if they charge $200 cheaper they automatically get more sales. Go MS
February 2, 2007 at 1:38 am
Well, only if they make a comprable product. I’d take a crappy phone that can simply make a call and receive one over one of these fancy superomputers anyday. I leave my computer at home, all I need outside is to have a phone.
February 2, 2007 at 3:59 am
I REALLY LOVE THIS PHONE AND I CAN SEE WHY THE PRICE IS HIGH BECAUSE ITS NO OTHER ONE LIKE IT. I THINK A SLIGHT PRICE DROP MIGHT MAKE PEOPLE WANT IT MORE.
February 2, 2007 at 5:25 am
Nothing special, it is just a smart phone or pda phone with large screen…
I can’t see any great thing of it.
DSvT
February 2, 2007 at 8:22 am
Although I have all MS gear, I really appreciate what Apple does. They are at least making products that transform and change culture. You can say that the features of this phone or the iPod for that matter are not momentous, but they have a way of packaging things in clever ways both physically and technically that MS has never been able to do. I can’t say as I’ve ever heard someone say, “gee today I’m going to go buy a mp3 player”, but I’ve heard many times, “I’m going to buy an iPod.” Will MS ever be able to come up with a phone that’ll sell better then then soon to be available iPhone? If the results of the Zune are any sign, then the answer is no. Simply put, Apple makes things that are in a word, cool. MS has always been playing catch-up in this area. Once Apple finally realized they should not fight against MS as a direct MS OS replacement they have become and will remain out in front of MS.
February 2, 2007 at 2:20 pm
T-Rac, what, besides the XBox (if that) has Microsoft done that is really cool. What I mean to ask is, what have they done that’s cool and out in the wild. I’ve seen several things sitting back in R&D, blah, blah… What’s out in the wild that they’ve done that’s remotely close to what Apple does as a routine now?
I’ll also grant you that Apple doesn’t necessariily INVENT this stuff… they just combine things that already exist and plow a space for themselves in grand style… still, What’s Microsoft doing that remotely comes close to that?
Seems to me MS is content with making a business on merely “good enough” and I can’t bring myself to appreciate that approach let alone support it with my $$.
BTW, what’s up with their stock!? Kinda sucking wind yes? If I was an MSFT stock holder I’d be PO’d at Gates, Balmer and Allchin for their miserable 5 yr returns on investment. As opposed to AAPL (better than 7 times return). C’mon!
February 2, 2007 at 2:21 pm
OK, and the HD media center… they’ve got that going too… wiping everyone on the floor right now.
February 2, 2007 at 2:58 pm
Let’s see… Apple basically owns the MP3 player market, they have players at every price point, and seem to have figured out how to sell both the player and the configuration system (iTunes) in a way that anyone can use (regardless of whether or not power users would prefer for it to do more or less). With all that in mind, how does it make business sense at all for them to lower prices? If you absolutely “have to have” the iPod chic thing, you can get into the game for $79 (US). If you want to show how much spare cash you’ve got, they’ll take $300 or so from you.
Get over the iPod hate business. AnythingButiPod.com already exists. – Tim
February 2, 2007 at 3:00 pm
Well I have a Nano, I mean I did look at the Zune and consider it but im not going to download videos and dont need 30GiGs for all my msuic as I take my laptop everywhere and constantly change the playlists and the Nano was the perfect purchase…
and about Microsoft no they havent really created anything cool, look at Vista what a load of tripe…
February 2, 2007 at 6:17 pm
The only way MS and Apple can be compared at the present time is through operating systems, which MS dominate.
In my opinion Apple overcharge for their products, the Macs in particular, I have recently seen the spec of a Mac and I could build that same system with a MS operating system for the fraction of the price.
As for this iPhone, they’re already getting sued for the name. Stupid in my opinion as it’s not hard for anyone to type ‘iPhone’ in to Google to see if another company has trademarked the name. It just goes to show how much money is allocated to research over at the Apple HQ. It is overpriced too, Apple must be making enough money to afford price cuts on their products as they already have so much brand loyalty, not to mention the fact that they’ll sell so many of them, possibly more if they cut prices.
Danni – I,TheWritingWriter
February 2, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Chevy……. or Mercedes…….. both cars, with greatly different price points.
You get what you pay for.
February 2, 2007 at 7:00 pm
forreal thats mad gay!!
February 2, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Its ok if its priced high. And in case you dont realize, the price is high so that they can cut their margins in the future and bring it down. Dont comment like a layman saying they’re ripping people off. You obviously dont know what goes into making such a gadget do you?
http://blogbible-tech.blogspot.com
February 2, 2007 at 8:27 pm
Cherukps, a gadget that costs $230 to make and is priced at $499 on the market is a very large profit margin. Apple, a very large company with a very large turnover can afford to cut the price on this product. Do you need me to hand you my AS Business notes?
February 2, 2007 at 8:57 pm
I like the phone and have service with the carrier. The price is overpriced but when you compare it to a Cingular 8525 which never works it’s fine. But In no way I’m paying $500 for a phone did it once will never do it again.
-v
February 2, 2007 at 9:14 pm
Danni, the point is, if Apple determines that they can sell it for $499, regardless of what it costs, then it makes good business sense to do so. Yes, there are market-share dynamics that they may want to take into consideration, but my previous point was, with a similar business model, they have the majority of the MP3 player market.
Moaning that they should drop the price because of cost is like demanding the McDonald’s or BK drop the price of a large Diet Coke because the materials and labor cost about $.05, and they sell it for $.99. If the consumer will pay the price (again, ignoring some of the variables of market share, perceived value, and so on), then Apple would be stupid to drop the price without market forces pushing them to do so. Since it’s not on sale yet, no such pressures exist. – Tim
February 2, 2007 at 10:57 pm
I think the conceptual ideas of the product are awesome…..we’ve all know it was coming. The cost doesn’t bug me as I’m used to Apple’s price points and I know what I’m getting. I’m pissed about the “Cingular ’til ‘09′ crap but I’ll get over it. Cingular sucks in my area.
#47
February 3, 2007 at 1:17 am
Welcome to the product life cycle. And it’s Apple, they are known for that. New electronics/technology is always expensive, but prices eventually drop. Agreed that the price is a bit high, but it’s new, so they can. They know they can charge that much and people will pay. Then they will drop prices, and more people will buy, and so continues the process… Personally, I think it’s a smart strategic move on their part.
February 15, 2007 at 9:24 pm
Danni,
Actually Apple DID know the iPhone was trademarked, they were actually in talks with CISCO, the company that owns the trademark, but CISCO wanted to control a lot, and wanted a guarantee of exclusive interoperability with their wireless products. This to Apple, as it would have been to any corporation, was basically trying to force them into talks. SO, Apple did do its research, noticed that CISCO only started USING its iPhone trademark when rumors began to gt stronger about the iPhone from Apple. Trying to force Apple’s hand…In trademark law, intent is a VERY big deal. If Apple can prove CISCO had no intent to actually protect their trademark then Apple gets a free ride on the iPhone name. It’s alread been established that MANY companies including those under CISCO’s umbrella and those not under are using the iPhone name. CISCO has taken no action on any of those other companies further implicating their lack of intent to actually use the name. Linksys, under the CISCO umbrella, is one of the companies that actually photoshop’d their products on their website to sport the iPhone name. For example, you could have bought Linksys Model XX (fictitious example model) VoIP phone in November 2006 and in December 2006 bought the same Linksys Model XX VoIP phone and the December one would show iPhone, the November would not.
IN CLOSING, CISCO obviously could’ve cared less about the trademark until they decided they wanted to ride Apple’s iPhone bus when the rumor mill started churning about ITS iPhone.