backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 60 comment(s) - last by chiadog.. on Jun 20 at 10:15 AM
Apple profits for hardware will drop but software sales and market share will climb

Last year when the first generation iPhone was announced by Apple, the bill of materials for the device was estimated to be in the area of $170. According to recent analysis the new iPhone 3G could be costing Apple significantly less to make than the original iPhone.

According to teardown analysis from Portelligent Inc., the new iPhone 3G could have a bill of materials as low as $100. This reduction in the cost to build the device takes into account the increased prices for the addition of a 3G chipset and a GPS chip.

“Gen2 iPhone pricing is aggressive enough that it made me think Apple's really taking the gloves off on this one," noted Portelligent president David Carey. "They are probably not as worried about iPhone hardware profits as they are about getting a piece of the action on service revenues and getting more Macs in homes and offices all around the globe.”

This aggressive pricing is taking some money out of Apple’s coffers on hardware sales. However, Apple will likely make up the losses on hardware sales in revenues for software sold via the App Store. DailyTech reported that the App Store could be a billion dollar business for Apple by 2009.

Will Strauss from Forward Concepts told EETimes that he believes the iPhone 3G is using an Infineon baseband and RF transceiver along with a Samsung applications processor. Samsung launched a handset with these same parts recently and pointed out that the cost of the Infineon chips were about 20% less than similar chips from Qualcomm.

According to Carey, the addition of the HSPDA chipset adds $15 and the addition of the GPS chip adds another $5. Those additional costs are offset in part by the reduced memory pricing compared to last year. These cost figures, of course, don't take into account development, marketing, and software costs.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Pfft!
By amanojaku on 6/18/2008 12:34:08 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
They are probably not as worried about iPhone hardware profits as they are about getting a piece of the action on service revenues and getting more Macs in homes and offices all around the globe.”


If Apple is so worried about service revenues and selling more Macs based on iPhone sales it needs to make the iPhone available to more than one carrier!




RE: Pfft!
By michael2k on 6/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pfft!
By Ryanman on 6/18/2008 3:00:27 PM , Rating: 5
That's complete BS and you know it. The Iphone doesn't have some super-crazy networking technology. In fact, OTHER carriers were better suited for it at launch, because they had 3g Networks. Jobs can spew out more lies about power consumption all he wants, but the fact of the matter is that AT&T was chosen because it's the nations largest wireless carrier and has more capital to sink into kicking back royalties for Apple.


RE: Pfft!
By phatboye on 6/18/2008 3:17:45 PM , Rating: 3
Sure is BS. If the IPhone is so incompatible with other carrier's network then why did Apple approach Verizon first before going over to Cingular/AT&T?

The only reason why IPhones are on AT&T now is because Verizon refused to agree to the ridiculous terms that Apple demanded in order to have use of that phone on their network. Had Verizon agreed the Iphone would be on Verizon and Jobs would be spewing nonsense that the IPhone is incompatible with AT&T.


RE: Pfft!
By michael2k on 6/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pfft!
By SiliconAddict on 6/19/2008 12:50:23 AM , Rating: 5
Horseshit. Then tell me why people are hacking iPhones to be used on other networks. The ONLY thing that can be used on ATT is visual voicemail and that isn't some special Apple magic.
Go bury your head back in Jobs ass...brown nosing fool.


RE: Pfft!
By michael2k on 6/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Pfft!
By paydirt on 6/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pfft!
By michael2k on 6/18/2008 5:36:16 PM , Rating: 1
The iPhone uses EDGE and the only "big" US carriers are AT&T or T-Mobile.

They COULD have used EVDO and had the pick of Verizon and Sprint, but since neither Verizon nor Sprint wanted to play ball, they went with EDGE and then later HSPA.

Likewise with the power consumption: Why is it a lie? There are documented power consumption differences between 3G and non 3G operation of common phones. I mean, take a 3G phone with EDGE support, benchmark the battery, turn of 3G and benchmark again. It's not hard.


RE: Pfft!
By Ryanman on 6/18/2008 9:20:32 PM , Rating: 3
I'm not debating that there's not less power consumption, but it could have been made to work. The fact is that the primary consumer of apple products: Teenager/early 20's yuppies, don't CARE if it's on 3g or edge. I'm not debating Apple's going the right way to make money, I'm just saying I'd rather cut off my own sack than buying a brushed aluminum and glass piece of apple hardware.


RE: Pfft!
By robinthakur on 6/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: Pfft!
By rdeegvainl on 6/19/2008 7:08:12 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Ironically my main worry with the 3G one is that its so cheap and good that everyone is going to have one soon


The whole mac mentality right there in a nut shell. Now that they are affordable and everyone can have one, they won't be a status symbol anymore. People aren't going to clamor to see the expensive technology. They won't pine for the common, and the glowing attention won't be lavished on the owners. People just feel smug about it, in turn giving high satisfaction ratings.


RE: Pfft!
By michael2k on 6/19/2008 12:23:34 PM , Rating: 1
Man, that's human nature. Apple has just figured out how to profit from it.

Do you ever buy collector's editions? Premium products? Specialty goods? That's Apple's target market right there.


RE: Pfft!
By mondo1234 on 6/19/2008 8:53:34 PM , Rating: 2
So other phones like the LG 8350 can probably be made for $20?? Thats amazing when the "Retail Price" is $250. The cell business is such a ripoff.


RE: Pfft!
By chiadog on 6/20/2008 10:15:22 AM , Rating: 2
There are other costs associated with making of a phone. R&D, marketing, etc all cost money. Other company overhead needs to be factored in as well. So it isn't as big of a ripoff as you think.


RE: Pfft!
By michael2k on 6/19/2008 10:19:03 AM , Rating: 1
Considering that the iPhone enjoys data usage disproportionate to it's marketshare, I contest your assertion that the network doesn't matter:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/technology/14app...
http://gigaom.com/2007/09/17/iphone-drives-google-...
http://www.mobilephoneblog.org/2008/01/iphone-data...

You just sound like a hater.


RE: Pfft!
By wolrah on 6/20/2008 9:57:55 AM , Rating: 2
The other carriers were actually a terrible choice.

Verizon and Sprint are CDMA carriers. CDMA is only really used in the US.

AT&T on the other hand uses GSM, which is used in practically the entire world.

Build a CDMA phone, it'll be limited to US/Canada carriers only. Build a quad-band GSM phone and it'll work almost wherever there is cell service.

T-Mobile is the only other nationwide GSM carrier in the US and their coverage is inadequate at best in rural areas, where AT&T is pretty decent. VZ and Sprint had an advantage out in the sticks until recently thanks to their analog networks, but with those now off there's only the slight range advantage of CDMA.

Even that is going away, as UMTS/HS*PA 3G GSM services are actually built on a CDMA radio technology, just using the GSM protocols instead of Qualcomm's CDMA2000.

So long story short, yes Verizon had a larger 3G network at day one for the US, but AT&T is expanding quick, the newest HSUPA variants that are popping up absolutely smoke EvDO (which just recently got voice+data capability, something 3G GSM phones have had since day one), and global compatibility is automatic with no extra effort. The last one is the biggest part. Had Apple launched the iPhone with Verizon, that "Small World" bit in the keynote would have had about 5 countries and they'd be maxed out.


RE: Pfft!
By wolrah on 6/20/2008 10:01:15 AM , Rating: 1
I should say I would have preferred the iPhone be sold like normal phones, available unlocked through Apple stores or locked with carrier subsidies. Even so, for the 3G model AT&T is the only choice in the US. T-Mobile, if they even have a 3G network at the moment, doesn't have much of one.

Blame our shitty carriers here who love the lock-in they get from CDMA. AT&T can't really block someone from using the phone of their choice like VZ and Sprint can, so they have to compete on actual merit rather than just force-disabling things like bluetooth file transfer and J2ME applications.


RE: Pfft!
By amanojaku on 6/18/2008 3:03:08 PM , Rating: 2
Untrue. Even if it were true, the RAZR is an example of a phone that has diverse support.

quote:
The first generation phone hardware was quad-band GSM with EDGE; the second generation uses UMTS and HSDPA.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deployed_UMTS...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Deployed_HSDP...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enhanced_Data_Rates_f...


RE: Pfft!
By Segerstein on 6/18/2008 3:21:50 PM , Rating: 3
Have you ever heard of Europe? HSPA is in Europe much more developed than is the US.


RE: Pfft!
By michael2k on 6/18/2008 5:42:19 PM , Rating: 3
It's probably why the iPhone is HSPA and not EVDO


David Carey blunter
By Pirks on 6/18/2008 1:55:37 PM , Rating: 1
Carey knows drap about what he's talking about.

He says:

"They are probably not as worried about iPhone hardware profits as they are about getting a piece of the action on service revenues and getting more Macs in homes and offices all around the globe.”

This is obvious BS for two reaons.

1) iPhone price for Apple is THE SAME as before, it's just that Apple decided to allow carriers to sponsor the price with a contract. Hence the contract monthly payment went up $10 and the price of the phone dropped another $200

2) If Apple were REALLY interested in putting Mac in as many homes as possible - they would develop budget oriented microATX form factor desktop Mac model AEONS AGO. But they didn't and they won't, because Apple in fact doesn't give a damn about Mac market share.




RE: David Carey blunter
By krwhite on 6/18/2008 5:31:46 PM , Rating: 2
I think apple cares about both quality & market share. To say they could care less about market share is saying they could care less about their stock price. Why exactly would they have the switcher ads if this wasn't the case? Companies want to expand; it's the entire idea behind capitalism. Not all expand with the cheapest possible product though, they sure wouldn't be around very long if that were the case.


RE: David Carey blunter
By xsilver on 6/18/2008 9:41:33 PM , Rating: 2
Actually apple doesnt care about market share, the care about profits.

Usually the way to make more profits is increase market share but not always and apple has shown this. It would be like asking rolex why they dont make a $99 watch or allowed them to be sold at walmart.
Plus the money isnt made through selling the phones, its the kickbacks from at&t.


RE: David Carey blunter
By Pirks on 6/18/2008 10:08:09 PM , Rating: 1
I still don't get it why Apple cares about iPod market share and iPhone market share, and constantly lowers prices (iPhone) or makes sure they are very low for entry-level version (iPod), and at the same time it doesn't care about Mac market share, because it never lowers Mac prices.

I mean, it looks like they care about iPod and iPhone market share, hence they lower prices to grab market.

With Macs they never lower prices, hence the only logical conclusion must be they don't care about grabbing personal computing market.

If they WERE caring for market share they'd introduce budget Macs a long time ago.

It's an interesting situation, looks like for some markets Apple prefers low market share and high profits, while doing the exact opposite for other markets. Mac is all about high margins, and iPhone/iPod is low-margin high-market-share product.

Does anyone have sound explanation why this division occurred? What's so special and so different between Mac and iPhone/iPod?


RE: David Carey blunter
By xsilver on 6/19/2008 12:24:35 AM , Rating: 2
I think one key component is "quality of customers" If you have a low market share, then you goal is to attain the best customers, eg. ones that are willing to pay for anything you have to offer. This process can work in the computer sector as there are still people willing to pay $$ for computers and $$$$ for software.

The phone and mp3 market however although newer in conception have kind of moved at hyperspeed in terms of maturity. Think about this. If apple made a "super luxury" ipod that cost 2x the competition what could they put in it that could justify the cost? -- answer: nothing! Thats why they have to compete on the market share/price front in these markets. It also doesnt hurt that there isnt already an established market leader ala microsoft/intel etc.

The phone market is slightly different as there is an established operator (nokia) so I think the iPhone isnt actually a high market share product. Its back to the mac like low market share, high margin product.
I think ultimately tough apple would like the iphone to be a high volume product as another difference is that you keep your mac for 3+ years whereas I dont know anybody that has a phone longer than 2 and everybody that has an ipod is always looking to upgrade after about 2 years also (sometimes due to battery dying and generally ipod just falling apart after 2 years)


RE: David Carey blunter
By michael2k on 6/19/2008 10:29:26 AM , Rating: 2
Macs have dropped in price. Haven't you noticed that the cheapest Mac is now $599?

What happens is that Apple continuously raises the low-end, so that they never fall below a certain threshold.

You are asking, again, why doesn't Apple make cheap Macs, because what you don't seem to realize is that Apple is gaining marketshare despite their premium prices.

Mac OS: competing against a single monopolistic entity
iPod/iPhone: competing against several phone/MP3 manufacturers

There is real competition in mp3 players and phones, but PCs? They are all essentially the same, driven by Microsoft Windows.


RE: David Carey blunter
By eion on 6/18/2008 10:08:29 PM , Rating: 3
"Market share" depends, of course, on how broadly you define the market. I would argue that the luxury watch market is quite a different thing from the watch market as a whole.


RE: David Carey blunter
By xsilver on 6/19/2008 12:28:44 AM , Rating: 2
I was just trying to make an exaggerated example to get across my point. It would be the same complaint as casio not making $4.99 watches and selling them at the end of supermarket checkouts.

Apple is doing exactly what works for them to maximize their profits. They could care less about people wanting prices lowered or more carriers offered because all it means for them is more work and not necessarily more profit. (of course if enough people felt this way, that would change but at the moment I dont think its even close)


... and what happened to ATT subsidizing?
By vapore0n on 6/18/2008 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 5
If its true, $100 cost, $200 retail, that would mean ATT is not really subsidizing the phone but is charging extra for the data plans?

<its a trap!>




By Segerstein on 6/18/2008 1:29:52 PM , Rating: 5
$100 are supposed to be Apple's variable costs per unit .

Then you have Apple's fixed costs which have to be distributed on the number of sold devices - to get average fixed costs.

Then you must include certain percentage of defective devices / covered by warranty

+ Profit margin

+ Taxes

---> AT&T


By jjunos on 6/19/2008 3:59:50 AM , Rating: 3
*ding!*

the 200 bucks you save on the iphone from the previous version....you lose when you sign up to the mandatory 2 year plan! They increased the cost of everything. Basically Job's screwing you over again.

http://consumerist.com/tag/iphone/?i=5014850&t=the...


By Emryse on 6/18/2008 4:45:05 PM , Rating: 3
I just want whoever from these companies that actually read this forum to hear from a US consumer (or potential consumer) directly on this whole issue:

1. DROP THE EXCLUSIVE AT&T BIT!!! You are only hurting yourselves. If you want more units sold, let Verizon in on the action, and I guarantee you I along with a lot of other folks will be buying the 3G version of this phone!!!

2. Make your product more open - again, you'll be selling more units, which is what you want, right?

For Verizon Wireless:

1. Stop you stupid I-clone initiatives unless you're going to offer a better product - which you haven't managed to do yet. (And yes, I do mean that latest rendition from Samsung too...)

2. Keep up the great plans, flexibility, openness, and price points, and keep improving them!!!

For AT&T:

1. You suck, which is why I won't be your customer.

2. Try offering customers better quality service plans, flexible options, pricing that makes sense, and stop making stupid restrictions on every little thing, and maybe more people will want your service.

3. I won't join your program, no matter how great the phone, until you fix the above two problems.




By michael2k on 6/18/2008 5:40:16 PM , Rating: 1
1) Verizon doesn't have a HSPA network; Apple would have to develop another iPhone to support Verizon. Maybe next year.
2) How does an open unit sell more phones? Cheaper prices, more features, more colors, that sells more phones. Open units only mean it is easier to develop on.


By kenferg1 on 6/18/2008 7:21:38 PM , Rating: 2
Because they are Apple and it doesn't matter what the customer wants. It what Jobs says you want. Why do you think they have less than 10% PC market share? The iPhone is no different. If the iPod didn't do MP3 it would not be a popular as it is.


By michael2k on 6/19/2008 12:16:11 PM , Rating: 2
What a sign of the times. A year ago you would have been talking about their less than 5% market share and next year it will probably be about their less than 15% market share.

Apple is growing despite the naysayers. They hit 8.1% this February, and will probably hit 10% this year, and 12% next year.

So yes, the iPhone is no different than the Mac: Popular, growing, and profitable. Oh, and exactly what the customer wants, otherwise it wouldn't be selling.


iPhone
By gramboh on 6/18/2008 2:26:27 PM , Rating: 2
I'm 99% sold on buying an iPhone in July as my first ever Apple product (when it is released on Rogers here in Canada). The price is right and my current contract with awful CDMA only Telus is up. The CDMA PDA type phones all seem to have awful interfaces/browsers so I am going to give the iPhone a go. I was considering the CDMA version of the Touch but it lacks GPS (for no reason) and I don't like the WM interface or browsers compared to the mobile Safari. I'll still be an Apple cult hater though :)




RE: iPhone
By Pirks on 6/18/2008 3:30:34 PM , Rating: 1
Do you think it's Apple that's responsible for gradual dismantling of the ridiculously exorbitant Canadian wireless data plans?

Canadian wireless data plans are FORTY TIMES AS MUCH AS THE SAME DATA RATES IN _UKRAINE_, believe me, I'm from there.

I'm not kidding, I could not believe this myself, but Ukraine just pisses and rubs it in poor Canada when talking about wireless data, who'd imagine that??


Good price point
By rdeegvainl on 6/18/2008 12:35:47 PM , Rating: 2
At that price, I am kind of tempted, but it will be another year and a half (contract) before I really consider any new phone.




I'd like to see.....
By SpaceRanger on 6/18/2008 1:18:08 PM , Rating: 2
Just how much ALL phones cost to produce... Especially with the wireless carriers all running to the FCC to cry they NEED their ETF's to subsidize the costs of the phone. If a damn phone like THIS only costs roughly $100 to make, then HOW THE HELL do you justify a $175-$200 ETF?!?!?!




Why do WM pda phones cost so much?
By CSMR on 6/18/2008 6:30:16 PM , Rating: 2
The Iphone can easily compete as hardware with the best WM phones. It is small & has a large >QVGA screen. If the Iphone costs $100 to make, why do good WM phones (a competitive market?) cost $600-$900?




And then there are the outcasts
By djc208 on 6/19/2008 7:59:39 AM , Rating: 2
I get more depressed with every new super-phone anouncement, while I probably wouldn't own an iPhone since I don't care for AT&T, it's a moot point anyway for those of us that can't have camera phones at work.

We're either stuck with the crap the company gives away or the one or two Blackberries that don't have them yet, but they are usually as expensive or more in many cases.

Sure I could just not take it to work but that practically defeats the purpose of having a cell phone to begin with.




By SiliconAddict on 6/19/2008 12:39:12 AM , Rating: 1
I don't need a closed system on my phone. Ironically WM is 10x more open, and then there is Android....Fuck you Apple. Sell your soul for a profit you did. The whole "Think Different" shit died years ago, heh if it ever really existed that is.




Cue haters
By michael2k on 6/18/08, Rating: -1
RE: Cue haters
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 6/18/2008 12:33:33 PM , Rating: 4
I find it interesting that you immediately go on the defensive.

In either case I was going to comment on how the phone itself costs less now to the consumer, but AT&T is raising its costs for 3G iPhone users on the service side. Raw deal for 3G buyers on the AT&T network.


RE: Cue haters
By michael2k on 6/18/2008 2:34:14 PM , Rating: 2
Every other article I've read where they talk about how much an iPod costs, you get people complaining about Apple "ripping people off". I just jumped the gun.

In any case, the cost for 3G data seems reasonable when you consider you can pull data over 2x faster. So if it took you 30 seconds to load up DailyTech before, now it would only take 10 to 15 seconds.

Of course since I don't care so much, I'm not sure I'll be upgrading to a 3G iPhone any time soon.


RE: Cue haters
By mooncancook on 6/18/2008 12:48:10 PM , Rating: 2
not to defend hardware markup... but you must not know the running cost of a restaurant


RE: Cue haters
By MozeeToby on 6/18/2008 1:04:14 PM , Rating: 2
And anyone who complains about the price of the iPhone doesn't know the cost of developing a mass market consumer electronic device.


RE: Cue haters
By phatboye on 6/18/2008 1:06:38 PM , Rating: 5
Que the Apple fanboys who get all defensive for no apparent reason at all.


RE: Cue haters
By sxr7171 on 6/18/2008 1:33:25 PM , Rating: 2
Yeah food cost at 30% sounds right. A restaurant is very service heavy. As for the iPhone, listen if you can make something nobody else currently can you'd price it up also. Stop whining.


RE: Cue haters
By othercents on 6/18/2008 1:34:34 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
How much does a steak dinner cost? $25? Yet it's raw materials only cost, what, $8?

Dude I'm not sure where you buy your steaks from or where you go for a steak dinner, but I pay way more for raw materials. I also buy the choicest meat.

Other


RE: Cue haters
By oab on 6/18/2008 2:04:23 PM , Rating: 2
You can buy a steak at a grocery store for $8

You can buy an even better steak at a meat market/butcher shop for $5.

The steak you buy at a butcher, is sold at a substantial markup to the consumer (minimum of 3x higher in a restaurant)

At least, you used to be able to until food prices shot up.


RE: Cue haters
By Ryanman on 6/18/2008 2:57:27 PM , Rating: 2
you can buy a DECENT steak for $8 - probably a 16 ounce Strip.

But the USDA Prime stuff at the ultra-high end steakhouses you're talking about is quite a bit more expensive, even at the lower price that restauraunts purchase their meat for. The cook that takes half an hour to create your meal (for $25 you're getting mashed potatoes and a salad) is probably getting paid 15 bucks an hour.
You could drive the same logic to apple I suppose... with marketing and such. But when the Iphone first came out, they were making a 55% profit margin. With the Nano, they charged $100 extra for the 4gb model when it cost them $5 more to make it over the 2gb.
For you to suggest that Apple's business plan ISN'T based on massive hardware markup and draconian DRM policies is erroneous at best.


RE: Cue haters
By michael2k on 6/18/08, Rating: 0
RE: Cue haters
By Ryanman on 6/18/2008 9:26:31 PM , Rating: 2
DRM enters into it because their primary market is made up of people who simply don't care.
They don't care if they're paying too much, they don't care if they're being limited by ridiculous DRM, they don't care that other companies have done it better and cheaper way before Apple. They don't care to look at other options: they'd rather be bombarded by apple's juggernaut advertisment campaigns.
They care about the aesthetic appeal of a product and how chic it happens to be.

As an example: the MP3 player market. 2 years ago I bought a Creative Vision M. didn't need DRM, played videos, recorded and played radio, had photo capability, and had a 30 Gb Hard drive. It also had, in my opinion, a more useful interface (if being a tad thick and having "average" battery life) I got it for 250 bucks for a 30 Gb model back when the inferior iPod cost 400 for such a system. Absolutely ridiculous.


RE: Cue haters
By michael2k on 6/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: Cue haters
By Myg on 6/19/2008 4:45:31 AM , Rating: 2
I disagree, Apple is all about selling an "image"; nothing else, they are very much akin to the music industry in that respect (probably why the two get on so well).

Its kind of like how mainstream Rap has decended into selling bad-boy gangsters for you to treat like idols and demi-gods.

Its a lifestyle in a box, the advertisments are just morale boosters for the already bought-in.


RE: Cue haters
By robinthakur on 6/19/2008 6:07:21 AM , Rating: 1
Its not just about image, actually I think that's pretty mean spirited and doing Apple a disservice. They have been doing ALOT right recently (unlike the embattled MS) and that is why their market-share is increasing fast. The 3G iPhone will be one of their biggest selling devices ever and not just because its cheaper than dirt. Apple have completely nullified that envious train of thought which seems to motivate alot of iPhone and Apple haters by making it so cheap that effectively anyone can afford it now. Its still an object of desire but now faster and available to a wider market. They can't really go wrong here.

The 'high-concept' simplicity permeates everything which Apple does. It is more human-friendly than a pc plain and simple. This plays well with general consumers because outside of us on here (and the like) who in the hell knows how to work an HTC smartphone to take advantage of all its features, or any highly complex device? I used to own an HTC Tytn and it was a complete beast, looked like a gray brick and it did everything. It was also very fiddly to use, had poor build quality and some features that barely or intermittantly worked.

On the iphone, by comparison, all main applications have been distilled to large icons on one main screen. It does this simply and it makes it look cool with the accelerated graphics, automatic rotation and aesthetically pleasing case. This is why people buy it. It has the wow factor and it feels completely different. Like it or not it works very well and is as good an interface as I've ever used on a phone. The Tytn had 3G but guess which phone I used the internet more on? Clue, its no the tytn and I owned that three-times as long.

Now I wouldn't say that pared down feature sets are a good thing generally, but Apple's interface makes the most of the technology packed into it unlike its competitors where trying to do what you want is often frustrating or plain unintuitive to all but the hardcore.

Having said that, I have noticed that in the transition from the older click wheel ipods to the new touch ones we seem to be losing fucntionality. You now have to have direct access to your pod's screen to carry out any operations, even changing the volume where before you could control it in your pocket. A decently designed remote is needed Apple. Steve jobs, hear my prayer!!! (Joke)


RE: Cue haters
By krwhite on 6/18/2008 5:15:21 PM , Rating: 4
More goes into the total cost of a product other than 'raw materials' .. Ever heard of hiring extra employees, programmers, manufacturing equipment, logistics and marketing? Did they analyze everything? Oh, these materials just somehow came to be, and they will instantly be transported into AT&T stores via the starship enterprise, at no cost to apple. Who are these analysts, and why do they think materials are the only real 'cost' of a product?


RE: Cue haters
By tirminyl on 6/18/2008 11:41:27 PM , Rating: 2
I always found that interesting when analyst perform product break downs and then people complain about paying x amount over for the product. I am glad product development has come to a point where you just purchase materials and the product takes shape on its own without any other interference from you!

Now, I just opened Eclipse, I am hoping it starts to code on its own. Should be any sec...


"The Space Elevator will be built about 50 years after everyone stops laughing" -- Sir Arthur C. Clarke

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki