>phone costs 11 times the amount it took to manufacture it
Well played Apple.
>(not true, by the way)
>>53797175
yeah, it has to be more like 8 times to be realistic
>>53797061
Why are samsung devices so costly then?
>>53797061
>Indeed, despite Moore's law, tech costs don't necessarily fall with each new version, since manufacturers add better-quality parts or new features. The iPhone's BoM has been steadily increasing: the iPhone 3GS was $179, the iPhone 4S $188, and the iPhone 5s is $199, according to IHS iSuppli data.
Next time put in some effort to actually look up the numbers you retarded shitposter. Perhaps you could review some basic concepts in economics. Apple is a business after all...
>>53797061
>(enter object) cost (enter value) times more than it took to manufacture.
Wow, did you just step out into the real world?
>>53797282
the prices go up because they are adding more sensors and radios and shit as the processer can start handling more and more data
whoever wrote that comparing it to moors law on transistors and shit is a retard shitposter
>>53797315
I didn't read the reasoning I just saw that they had the cost of production; it's more or less the same on other sites too that was just the first one that popped up on google. It still proves your first claim was wrong though so that's why I cited it.
Compare to the galaxy s5 (my current phone) costs ~$250 to manufacture, $50 more than the iPhone.
Oh my fucking god, I'm no supporter of Apple at all, but that's fucking dumb. Manufacturing isn't the big cost, marketing is. This is true for all the massive brands like Apple, Coca Cola and so on. That's primarily what you're paying for, the fucking brand.
>>53797373
I got a galaxy s5 here too. I love it. Got a new ROM on it and it works
>>53797282
Does iSuppli take into account discounted price for buying parts in bulk?
>>53797436
>That's primarily what you're paying for, the fucking brand.
...and that's what OP is rebuking. nobody is claiming they just pocket all the extra money, the criticism is just that it's stupid to throw away so much on trivialities and focus on style over substanc
>>53797216
you get a lot more from a samsung phone and even then, samsung is overpriced as fuck
>>53797564
>>53797061
WHAT IS SUPPLY AND DEMAND YOU NUMBSKULL?
The free market decided that Apple products have that much value.
>>53797564
Without the money for marketing they wouldn't be able to put as high of a price on their product and increase their margins. The branding and "style over substance" goes hand in hand with increased products, and that's the only thing that matters in business.
>>53797754
>with increased products
Should be "with increased profits"
>>53797706
>>53797754
The value people arbitrarily place in something doesn't determine its actual quality. Yeah, it's clearly good business, but that's not the argument. Nobody contested that. There are better phones for less money, and that's what matters.
>>53797812
Depends on what you mean by "quality". Of course, you can talk about processing power and build quality and memory and stuff like that, but that's not really the kind of quality that Apple focuses on. Branding is also a type of quality that many consumers crave,often more so than the aforementioned properties. "Will this look good in my hand with by new clothes", or "Will this product synchronize well with the products that my friends have" are real qualities that make a difference in the eyes of the mass market. If you take those kind of aspects into consideration an iPhone might very well give you a lot of bang for your buck compared to a cheap chinese Android phone with superior GHz, Memory and Megapixels.
>>53797923
So what you're saying is that you love normies.
>>53797989
No, I hate apple, all I'm saying is that their pricing is legit and that they offer something beyond just the hardware contents of their products. It doesn't appeal to me but that doesn't mean it shouldn't appeal to others.
>>53797812
AND?
Better marketing = better sales.
Welcome to the REAL world, friendo. 95% of top sold products are not much better than their competition.
People are emotional creatures, people (generally, not autists) buy ON EMOTION.
Planet Fitness type gyms and mentally retarded "workout programs" sell a fuck ton more than the FREE starting strength and /for/ sticky. Why? THEYRE SELLING EMOTION.
Numerous examples of this in everything. Apple and their competitors is a big one you've already identified.
>>53798111
nobody is saying they're bad at business lol, just that their products are inferior and overpriced.
>>53798249
Absolutely.
But so is 90% of shit, as I said.
>>53797436
>Manufacturing isn't the big cost, marketing is.
For technology, R&D is a pretty big factor.
Keep in mind Apple also develops software for the device.
>>53797706
I didn't know there was a shortage of iphones??
>>53797662
>you get a lot more from a samsung phone
?
>>53798659
Do you know how supply and demand works?
There is a “shortage” of virtually everything. An example of something of which there is *not* a shortage of would be air.
You don't see companies going around selling air, right? Of course not, because supply and demand makes it impossible. There's an overabundance of air, so nobody would pay for it.
But iPhones don't exactly grow on trees. Somebody has to manufacture them. That manufacturing plant has limited time, limited energy, and limited materials. Ergo, consumers compete for it.
This is why phones are so expensive. If they just grew on trees you'd have to spend a few cents on them for shipping at best.
>>53798714
>Implying big pharma wouldn't sell air if they could
>>53798659
>>>53797706 (You)
>I didn't know there was a shortage of iphones??
People demand iphones. Therefore the price is what it is.
If not enough people wished to buy iphones at the price they are sold at then Apple™ would be forced to lower the price to meet the new equilibrium.
>>53798798
>implying you know anything about how businesses work
>>53798714
>You don't see companies going around selling air, right?
yes in cities with high pollution (Mexico City, Beijing) they do in fact sell clean air.
>>53798853
You really think if companies could round up all the air and sell it they wouldn't? Crawl out of that bubble kid.
>>53798876
So?
That speaks more about human nature than anything, not really a big revelation.
Yes people do things for money because money = nicer things and higher quality of life.
>>53798926
Yes, so this
>You don't see companies going around selling air, right? Of course not, because supply and demand makes it impossible. There's an overabundance of air, so nobody would pay for it.
Is just nonsense. It has nothing to do with the abundance of air.
>>53798940
It was an hyperbolic example, plus that wasn't even my post.
The poster's point was that only air is abundant, everything else has supply and demand.
It was in response to the idiot's post of "I didn't know iphones were in shortage".
>>53798876
>could
That's my point. They can't. It's too abundant.
>>53798976
That's not at all even remotely what the post was saying. Maybe you should re-read it?
>>53798979
Nothing to do with abundance and everything to do with the lack of technology.
>>53798995
But that's just a different way of saying the same thing.
If we had the technology to mass-produce gold in every civilian home, then gold would no longer be expensive.
Obviously supply has as much to do with natural occurrence as it has to do with the availability of technology to process it.
>>53798987
Maybe you should because it clearly is.
It's literally right there.
Things are sold for the price two parties agree on.
IPhones aren't "worth" $600, or $50. They cost how much people are willing to buy them for.
If I said "Hey wanna buy my Honda civic for $500,000? That's the price". No one would buy it, therefore I would have to lower my price to meet the demand.
Same with iphones, people have decided that they would rather have an iPhone than whatever $800 it costs.
>>53799037
I'm talking about this bit.
>The poster's point was that only air is abundant, everything else has supply and demand.
There are multiple things wrong with this claim:
1. The post never claimed air was the ONLY thing that's abundant. It was using air as an example of something that's abundant.
2. The post never claimed that this means air somehow doesn't follow supply and demand. It just used it as an example of something that has significantly more supply than demand, ergo being unprofitable.
>>53799066
And 3. The post never even claimed that everything else follows supply and demand.
tl;dr your reading comprehension is fucking shit
How overpriced is my $250 oneplus x?
>>53799089
>How overpriced is my $250 oneplus x?
If you bought it for $250, it's not overpriced at all.
Something is overpriced when people stop buying it.
>>53799021
>If we had the technology to mass-produce gold in every civilian home, then gold would no longer be expensive.
Gold is expensive because there isn't much of it.
Air isn't cheap because there's an overabundance, it's free because we no one knows how to take it all and store it (which has nothing to do with the quantity of air)
>>53799066
Correct, but you understood his point.
You're just being purposely argumentive.
Seriously we're arguing semantics here.
>>53799089
>How overpriced is my $250 oneplus x?
Nothing is overpriced if you paid the market rate for it.
Whether it is an efficient use of money is another question. You would need to compare the features you are looking for(I am guessing specs and screen size) relative to the alternatives and how much they cost.
>>53799141
So in other words if you somehow limited supply of air and kept demand the same, the price would increase(from zero)??? GENIUS.
You just described supply and demand.
>>53799141
Well, now you're talking about artificial scarcity, which is not sustainable in the long term.
It only works when you have the short-term legal and societal means of driving out competition, but if you make something scarce enough you will inevitably begin to see competition and/or legal reforms to take it back.
$650 price point comes after adding everything up and then deciding what people would pay for it at the highest point.
If we just talk about the parts and materials, yeah the phone only costs them $200 to make (no source, but a guess based off past iphones). But if they sold it for $200, then they would be at a loss because they are only getting enough money to cover the cost of the phone and that's it. Money has to be put into something in order to make it. Millions of dollars is poured into the R&D team to manufacturer the next best iPhone. On top of iOS development and marketing, Apple's team of economic advisers then come up with that will pay off each and every department for what they had to spend to make the phone happen by "guessing" how many they will sell. Although, this last part is skewed, because without a doubt in anyone's mind, they're definitely adding in a niche chunk of profit. But that's not a horrendous practice. The whole point of a business is to reach profitability. Not to stay at a constant.
Most people don't even spend the actual $650+ for the phone. They get it on a 2 year contract for $200 or w/e. Apple gets their money from the carriers that buy the iPhones to resell to their customers.
The biggest scam comes from financing the device. All that is is just taking the full cost of the phone and dividing it into payments across X months. Keep in mind, carriers don't have to pay the same amount that we pay for the iPhone. And most carriers don't even offer a plan reduction for financing the device, which means you're still paying the 2yr contract price plan (which includes an extra bit of profit to cover the cost of the phone on a 2yr contract. How else are they going to get that money from you?) but now they're getting an extra profit off the phone itself.
It's all bullshit but so long as the monkeys running around eat this shit up it will never end.
>>53799141
Pic related, DUMBASS.
>>53799165
>Correct, but you understood his point.
No, I did not. In fact, I authored >>53798714, and I'm saying that >>53798976 is literally claiming the opposite of what I was trying to convey and ergo seems to have completely failed what I was trying to say.
Then I pointed out in which ways >>53799021's assessment of >>53798714 was fundamentally flawed by pointing out specific claims that don't line up with reality.
>>53799214
>Then I pointed out in which ways >>53799021 (You)'s assessment of >>53798714 (You) was fundamentally flawed by pointing out specific claims that don't line up with reality.
That first post was meant to link to >>53798976 (perhaps obviously)
>Business costs
>Profit margins
>Supply/Demand adjustment
What's happened to this board, this is a tech board still, right?
>>53799637
Nah r9k and pol neets infected every board
It's time to leave 4chan.
>>53798673
Higher resolution displays (1440p vs some shitty weird ~720p resolution), super AMOLED display, more RAM, usually larger screen and bigger battery. The only thing iPhone has that probably costs more is the CPU.
>>53797061
>what is Red Bull
>what is Nike Shoes
>what is Starbucks
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CwK2IMvT2w&t=3m51s
>>53799637
>Business costs
Apple's profits are obscenely high last time I checked, more than enough to cover those costs.
>Profit margins
Again, retarded high % of profit compared to revenue due to
>Supply/Demand
Because people still buy their shit, basically
>>53800240
Sounds like the free market decided that they are worth it.
