Print 54 comment(s) - last by SandmanWN.. on Jul 11 at 10:27 AM

Shares of Apple rise in reports of 55 percent profit margin on iPhone

Following various dissections of the red-hot iPhone, analysts are estimating that each unit is selling for more than double manufacturing costs.

Austin-based firm Portelligent estimates that it costs $200 in materials to manufacture the 4GB version, and $220 for the 8GB, reported BusinessWeek.

Earlier this year, analyst firm iSuppli (no relation to the iPhone) estimated that iPhone gross margins will be around 50 percent, according to its early bill of materials figures. Following the launch of the iPhone, iSuppli has updated its cost estimates, putting the cost of the 8GB version at $265.83, up just over a dollar from its $264.85 figure from January.

In its January cost estimates, iSuppli added non-hardware costs of almost $16 to include EDGE royalties, operating system costs and other software for a grand cost total of $280.83.

With the 8GB iPhone selling for $599, Apple is generating a margin of more than 55 percent for each device sold. Eric Pratt, iSuppli's senior director of tear-down, said in an AP report that iSuppli is still fine-tuning its report, but believes that the product's margin is more than 50 percent even when accounting for factors like royalties and software costs.

News of iSuppli’s cost estimates proved to help Apple’s stock, with it up nearly 5 percent, or $5.91 following the release of the report. With the iPhone selling 525,000 phones in its first three days of availability, the device could have already generated around $150 million – certainly good news for investors and a reason for the stock to jump.

The healthy margin for the iPhone isn’t only good news for Apple and friends, however, as consumers who cannot presently afford the shiny toy have a reason to be pleased. The margin space will give Apple greater freedom to drop prices sooner than if every iPhone were sold closer to cost.

“With a 50 percent gross margin, Apple is setting itself up for aggressive price declines going forward,” said Jagdish Rebello, PhD, director and principal analyst with iSuppli.

Despite tear-down analysts’ best efforts, nailing down the bill of materials for the iPhone isn’t an easy task, as not all of the components that make up the device are of clear known origin. For example, the iPhone’s touchscreen – one of the components estimated to be the costliest – bears no markings to give clue as to which manufacturer it came from. The best guess that analysts can put together is that the screen is made by German company Balda.

It is also not known exactly which company is building the iPhone for Apple. Although Chinese company Foxconn makes iPods, which put its company fingerprints all over the music player, there isn’t a signature from the maker of the iPhone. Foxconn has declared that it is not manufacturing the iPhone.

“A great deal went into the internal mechanics and how it all came together,” said David Carey, Portelligent's CEO. “There are lots of tiny nooks and crannies where things have to be very precisely tucked in to make it all fit together.”

“You have to build something like this in a place where labor is inexpensive,” says Carey, which BusinessWeek believes means China. But Carey says it's unclear who manufactured the iPhone: “There are no markings indicating exactly who built it.”

In terms of money generation, Apple won’t just be profiting from the iPhone alone. The company is also offering a full line of appropriately themed accessories from Bluetooth headsets to charging cradles. For iPhone owners with battery woes, Apple will charge $85.95 as part of its replacement program.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

more than the sum of its parts?
By Spoelie on 7/5/2007 8:14:21 AM , Rating: 5
How about shipping cost, license cost (edge etc technology doesn't come for free i suspect), margins of the dealers, packaging cost, assembly cost, r&d cost and support cost?

I'm just saying, a product is more than the BOM.

RE: more than the sum of its parts?
By Acid Rain on 7/5/2007 8:28:01 AM , Rating: 2
There are also more profits that are not accounted for - Apple deal with Cingular and AT&T surly has some commission based structure. I suspect it surmounts all aspects you mentioned.

The BOM is both easily measurable and gives you at least an Idea of profit margins.

RE: more than the sum of its parts?
By omnicronx on 7/5/2007 9:01:39 AM , Rating: 1
Am i the only one that is disgusted by this report? if its so cheap to make then why the hell are you charging so much. atleast sony has a reason for overcharging on the ps3, this makes me want to buy an iphone even less, especially with the carrier fees you have to pay on top of the phone.
If apple really wanted a good market share they would lower the price of their phone.

but then again, why the heck do i care about other hippie apple lovers paying too much for theres phones. I for one will not fall victim to this B.S!

RE: more than the sum of its parts?
By mdogs444 on 7/5/2007 9:05:40 AM , Rating: 5
They charge that much.....well, because they can. Sony overprices everything - you are paying for the name. Apple does the same - the iPod, the iPhone, all of their computers. Their PC's have the same guts as dells, and yet always cost so much more - is it that black shiny plastic that accounts for a 30% increase in price?

Its all based on supply & demand. Their marketing department did a fabulous job getting the word out about their product, and many people were waiting to buy it. When you build up the demand, without having any supply yet, you can charge whatever you want.

I dont like apple products (or company), or sony either, but i am applauding apples marketing schemes with it comes to attracting buyers.

RE: more than the sum of its parts?
By omnicronx on 7/5/2007 9:23:45 AM , Rating: 2
all of that is nice.. and i do under stand supply and demand, but in this case it would seem like apple would benefit more from selling more iphones:
more sold phones = higher market share
more people with phones = more at&t expensive ass contracts which im sure apple gets more money for more plans sold.
more plans for at&t = more money.. they are partners so i dont see how lowering the price would not help them both out.

Am i just imagining things are does this not add up.

By Tamale on 7/5/2007 11:12:26 AM , Rating: 4
i agree with you, but i think apple is still gonna sell pretty much all they have at this price, so they really don't need to lower it..

plus keeping the price high actually tends to convince people that it's better i think.. it's a strange dynamic but simply because the ipod was more money a lot of people assumed it was the best regardless of what anyone would say to discredit it.

By masher2 on 7/5/2007 12:34:59 PM , Rating: 4
> " it would seem like apple would benefit more from selling more iphones:"

I don't think the demand curve is that steep. If we assume Apples net profit is around $150 per phone, then dropping the price $100 would cut their profits by 2/3. Would that small price cause sales to triple? I don't think so.

By spluurfg on 7/5/2007 12:37:25 PM , Rating: 2
They've already sold nearly a million in a few days. How many more phones should they be selling? If I were an investor in Apple, I wouldn't ask them to change a thing.

Believe it or not it isn't always advantageous to have the most market share. Look at the other players in the market:

Nokia has 34% market share and 15.3% margins
Motorola has 21% market share and 9.5% margins
Samsung has 11% market share and 6% margins
Sony Ericsson has only 7% market share but 11.5% margins

Not bad considering the joint venture between Sony and Ericsson started in 2001. Obviously Nokia's doing something right, but it's not always about market share... it's about profits. A basic microeconomic principle is that there is a point of maximum efficiency for price and production -- you can't indefinitely increase production and expect more overall profits.

By kelmon on 7/5/2007 10:08:34 AM , Rating: 1
No, I'm not disgusted. No one is putting a gun to people's heads and forcing them to buy the phone. People perceive a value from a product, be that from an increase in productivity, decrease in hassle or just value in having the hottest phone going. The PlayStation 3 is a great example of how a high price can put off consumers but this is evidentially not happening with the iPhone. Apple has long had a history of selling their products at a price that people will pay - a shareholder would undoubtedly sell their shares in a company that is selling their products for less than they can get for them as that's business idiocy.

Personally, I'd be quite happy to pay for the iPhone when it becomes available if it can delivery to the phone the same experience as a Mac does to computing, i.e. less hassle. While my MacBook Pro is undoubtedly more expensive than a Windows or Linux laptop I derive value from it by not having an urge to throw it through a window. I'd happily pay for a similar experience with a mobile phone as well. Unfortunately, based on the Engadget review that I read it seems clear that the email and web browsing aspects of the phone need some work before it can be considered for purchase.

RE: more than the sum of its parts?
By michael2k on 7/5/2007 2:02:40 PM , Rating: 2
1) They are already starting to sell out. Sell them for cheaper... and they sell out still. Economically, then, it makes no sense to sell them for less.

Wait 6 months and they will lower the price to attract more users.

Besides which, Apple is 1/10th the size of Microsoft and 1/5th the size of Dell. Apple can't afford to lose money, they can't take the risks of selling the iPhone for $400; what if they don't sell out, at $400? Then they will lose money.

So now they sell out at $600; that means they accurately priced the iPhone.

In a few months they will also probably announce an iPhone nano for $400.

RE: more than the sum of its parts?
By MADAOO7 on 7/5/2007 5:19:39 PM , Rating: 2
Besides which, Apple is 1/10th the size of Microsoft and 1/5th the size of Dell. Apple can't afford to lose money, they can't take the risks of selling the iPhone for $400; what if they don't sell out, at $400? Then they will lose money.

Please don't state something as fact when you haven't checked.

Microsoft Corp Value: 286.91B
Apple, Inc: 114.82B
Dell: 65.85B

Dell is roughly half the size of Apple, and Microsoft is slightly more than half the size of Apple.

Apple can easily sell the iPhone for $400, even considering the costs of doing so. Apple with assets of over $100B could also absorb a complete failure of the iPod. Obviously, it would greatly devalue their company, but it could theoretically absorb a failure. Also, you have no idea where their breakeven point is - it's most likely way less than the 10M projected sales. You don't need to sell something out for it to be a success.

By MADAOO7 on 7/5/2007 5:20:45 PM , Rating: 2
I apologize, I meant iPhone not iPod.

By rbuszka on 7/5/2007 4:19:02 PM , Rating: 1
I'm just saying, a product is more than the BOM.

Am i the only one that is disgusted by this report? if its so cheap to make then why the hell are you charging so much.

I sincerely hope you're the only one who looks at a product as nothing more than the sum of its components, but the average American consumer doesn't place any value on the human element of a product. I'm talking about the design, engineering, or styling work that's involved in producing a world-class product like the iPhone. You've got to pay to play; if you can't afford an iPhone, buy something cheaper and quit complaining. Some high-end products have high prices simply to make them exclusive, but that's life.

By Future145 on 7/5/2007 4:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
spny isnt overcharging on the PS3. Sony is losing money for every PS3 they make so they are technically undercharging =P

By colonelclaw on 7/6/2007 8:16:48 AM , Rating: 2
Am i the only one that is disgusted by this report? if its so cheap to make then why the hell are you charging so much. atleast sony has a reason for overcharging on the ps3, this makes me want to buy an iphone even less, especially with the carrier fees you have to pay on top of the phone.

well, i'm certainly not disgusted. knowing apple's history about how long and hard they work on product development they deserve to make a decent profit on the phone. in fact they had to pull programming resources away from the OSX team to work on the iphone, which in turn has lead to 10.5 being delivered late
i don't know the figures, but its not unreasonable to expect that the total cost of developing the iphone ran into many millions, so why not be able to make this money back?

RE: more than the sum of its parts?
By SandmanWN on 7/5/2007 3:12:11 PM , Rating: 1
There are also more profits that are not accounted for - Apple deal with Cingular and AT&T surly has some commission based structure. I suspect it surmounts all aspects you mentioned.

Absolutely ridiculous... Did you miss the part where AT&T became the sole carrier? That means AT&T paid Apple a pretty penny to have that honor. There is no need for commission based sales when you are the sole provider. Your analysis just doesn't make any sense.

The only thing left out of this analysis is packaging and shipping and I doubt that its even a drop in the bucket to the 50+% profit margin.

RE: more than the sum of its parts?
By animedude on 7/6/2007 1:21:28 AM , Rating: 2
The money Apple gets from AT&T is more than enough to pay for packaging, shipping, and all other expenses.

By SandmanWN on 7/11/2007 10:27:30 AM , Rating: 2
Uh??? Thats what I said.

By mdogs444 on 7/5/2007 9:01:25 AM , Rating: 2
How about shipping cost, license cost (edge etc technology doesn't come for free i suspect), margins of the dealers, packaging cost, assembly cost, r&d cost and support cost?

I dont know much about the shipping cost or edge technology, but...

I do not believe there are any margins for dealers. Apple is the only company profiting off of the actual phone sale. The wireless company put in a bid to be able to sell the iphone (in which THEY paid Apple), and are only making money on the wireless service contract (so many new subscribers). The packaging & assembly costs are typically counted as raw materials ("cost to manufacturer"). R&D costs are prior to actual manufacturing, and actally come out of what is called "capital", basically an expense account for Apple to use in house - since its essentially using a similar ipod frame (with touchscreen), OSX, and a palm combined, I doubt the R&D costs are as high as you think, because there really isnt any new technology being developed, rather just a conglomerate of apple software/hardware.

Support costs are taking out of the profit & recurring revenue, as well as the extended service contracts that are only available through Apple. However, I'm willing to bet the same people who support the iPhone, also support the iPod - its always cheaper to cross train.

News DT dosn't report on
By krichmond on 7/5/2007 8:21:54 AM , Rating: 6
Apple Computer announced today that it has developed a computer chip that can store and play music in women's breast implants. The iTit will cost $499 or $599 depending on size. This is considered to be a major breakthrough because women are always complaining about men staring
at their breasts and not listening to them.

By Master Kenobi on 7/5/2007 9:55:42 AM , Rating: 3
I'd give you a 6 if I could. Best post I've seen all morning.. hah!

RE: News DT dosn't report on
By nayy on 7/5/2007 10:42:09 AM , Rating: 2

RE: News DT dosn't report on
By akugami on 7/5/2007 11:25:26 AM , Rating: 3
That has to be one of the funniest things I've read in a long while.

RE: News DT dosn't report on
By tremiles on 7/5/2007 4:54:51 PM , Rating: 3
I think Apple's scroll wheel would be even more useful on the ITit.

RE: News DT dosn't report on
By dnd728 on 7/5/2007 6:16:28 PM , Rating: 3
I dunno... it may already be patented

Wrong way to value a product...
By 2ManyOptions on 7/5/2007 10:06:23 AM , Rating: 2
There are obvious costs included not just its parts!! It wasn't made in 4 days right? There ll be thousands of man hours, licensing n other things which obviously needs time and money.
So ppl saying that it is just an assembly of metal n glass costing 265$ can THEY do it and sell it for 270$???

No point in complaining, i won't go for it until its below 250$ but am not complaining or hating it either.I dont understand why there is such a negative feeling. I wonder who won't sell any item for 2X or 3X the cost of their product IF they are allowed to and if he feels someones going to buy it!!!

Does this also mean you break down a Ferrari and say - "Hey whats this?? This is only worth X $ and you charging 10X???" ...Grow up..

RE: Wrong way to value a product...
By Ryanman on 7/5/07, Rating: 0
RE: Wrong way to value a product...
By rbuszka on 7/5/2007 4:27:20 PM , Rating: 2
When it comes to the Apple iPhone, to some extent "the price is the product". The high price of the iPhone makes it exclusive. If you can't live with that, get a better-paying job, or else get over it, but please don't whine about 'fairness'. That doesn't exist in today's objectivist world.

RE: Wrong way to value a product...
By Ryanman on 7/5/2007 5:39:00 PM , Rating: 2
I'm not saying it's not fair. I don't care either way, I'm not going to buy an Iphone.
If they overprice, it's not an issue. If people are willing to pay for it they will.
I was responding to the comment that suggested that apple DOESN'T make a gross profit off these. They do, they do it based off the stupidity of others and frankly I could care less.

By 2ManyOptions on 7/5/2007 11:10:00 PM , Rating: 2
Oh yes,i agree that they do make a lot of profit as i ve read in these articles.
They make these profits based on the stupidity of others or with a good product or whatever is not my concern. I guess its the basic aim of a company to get the max for it's product.

By 2ManyOptions on 7/5/2007 11:05:33 PM , Rating: 3
"Are you serious? you actually believe each Iphone takes thousands of man-hours to make?"

I didn't say EACH.I said, THE iPhone, it does involve design, R&D and stuff right? You certainly can't say - "Hey lets do an assembly of iPod and a cell phone and put a touch screen and call it iPhone and sell it for 700 $, start manufacturing it and i want it out in 2 weeks !! "

Exactly, the workers don't get paid 7$/hour and Mr.Steve Jobs has to pay them and i really don't know/don't mind however much they are paid. He has to manage a company and he is smart at it. Thats all i am saying.

Finally, it comes to an individual right, if he feels it's worth 700$ he ll buy it, we could care less.
Appreciate your comment pal :)

Any resemblence to the ...
By SunAngel on 7/5/2007 1:32:17 PM , Rating: 2
When I first say this joint, I thought to myself "That looks just like the Sony Clie' TG-50 with the aluminum lid and QWERT touchpad remove." I do remember how pee'd off Sony was that PocketPC clobbered Palm, thus forcing them to discontinue their PDA devices. Yet, I knew Sony would do a "bastard tactic", play dead, and bring something killer to the market.

If you really get into the interface, it operates exactly as you'd expect Sony to create an interface. My guess is that this is a private venture between Apple and Sony. One obvious sigh to me was the user non-replaceable battery. To me, that kind of technology has Sony's name written all over it. The second sign that will let me know this has Sony's blessing is, before the end of the year, Apple will do two things - 1) a free wifi trial to push video on-demand and 2) SPE and Sony/BMG will have an exclusive agreement with Apple/iTunes (only for iPhone owners) to have unlimited access to their catelog of movies and music.

When this comes true, there will be without a doubt that because the intercourse of PPC into the market and the "pushing out of Palm" this is Sony's alternative marketing strategy for reintering the handheld platform.

RE: Any resemblence to the ...
By masher2 on 7/5/2007 1:43:52 PM , Rating: 3
> "One obvious sigh to me was the user non-replaceable battery. To me, that kind of technology has Sony's name written all over it..."

My Sony MP3 player has a user-replaceable battery. My Sony camera has a user-replaceable battery. My Sony GPS has a user-replaceable battery.

An Apple MP3 player (made by Foxconn, among others) does not have one, however.

By DotComEddie on 7/5/2007 8:49:26 PM , Rating: 2
by masher2 on July 5, 2007 at 1:43 PM

My Sony MP3 player has a user-replaceable battery. My Sony camera has a user-replaceable battery. My Sony GPS has a user-replaceable battery.

An Apple MP3 player (made by Foxconn, among others) does not have one, however.

Well my Sony PS3 wireless bluetooth controller does not!


RE: Any resemblence to the ...
By SirLucius on 7/5/2007 2:34:30 PM , Rating: 2
I agree with Masher. Every battery powered Sony product my family and I have every owned had a user-replaceable battery, and that includes cameras, camcorders, and cell phones. Hell, even my old Sony MiniDisk player had a user replaceable battery (yes, I had a MD player.) The only product I own that doesn't have a user replaceable battery is my iPod.

Having a non-replaceable battery has Apple's name written all over it.

Who & whats inside it
By crystal clear on 7/5/2007 8:53:43 AM , Rating: 3
Suppliers that got their products in the most highly anticipated consumer electronics device of the year include Infineon, which provided the core cellular communications through its transceiver and baseband processor.

Skyworks supplied the power amplifier module to help the iPhone operate on AT&T's GSM/EDGE cellular network. The storage component came from Intel and Samsung, and the contributors to the technology behind the iPhone's innovative touch-screen included Broadcom, NXP, and National Semiconductor.

Micron Technology provided the camera module, and Wolfson Microelectronics supplied the key chip, called an audio CODEC, for the rendition of high-quality music.

Other suppliers who contributed less central, and thereby less profitable, components include Linear Technology, Texas Instruments, STMicro, SST and RFMD.

Under the Hood: Inside The Apple iPhone
Semiconductor Insights kept the video cameras rolling as they dove inside the iPhone to find out just what makes it tick.

SI's technical marketing manager, Greg Quirk, equates the iPhone in some ways to the Nintendo Wii () in that the technology inside the system is not altogether remarkable, but Nintendo's revolutionary user interface is what set it apart from the Sony's Playstation and Microsoft's Xbox line.

Going inside, "The first thing that strikes us as SI looked at the insides of the iPhone, are the number of Apple branded components," said Quirk. That makes it difficult to discern what parts make up the iPhone. To get inside the chips, SI resorted to decapping, a process that involves immersing the chips in acid to dissolve the outer packaging and then manually scraping away any residual packaging material.

There were three parts with the Apple logo, and another four that seemed to have a numbering scheme similar to Apple's without any discernable manufacturer markings. "The first Apple branded component is the Samsung processor, which is a three stacked die package containing an S5L8900 and two 512 Mbit SRAM dice," said Quirk. While SI has not seen the S5L8900 marking before, it said the numbering conforms to other Samsung processors found in smart phones and PDAs.
What is also interesting are the components that are similar between the iPhone and some of the latest iPod models," added Quirk. "Apple is taking what they learned, and redesigning it into their phone. This surely made the design process easier for them, as they are familiar with the components and how to implement them." For example, Samsung's 65-nm 8-Gbyte MLC NAND flash (K9MCG08U5M) was used in the iPhone. "This is the exact same component that was used in the 8-Gbyte iPod nano," said Quirk. "This memory is used to store things like songs, pictures, and videos. Samsung provides the K9HBG08U1M in the 4-Gbyte version of the iPhone."

The audio codec is the Wolfson WM8758. "This is the same codec that was used in the iPod video, making the sound quality similar to what you experience from your iPod," said Quirk. Other similar components to the iPod, are parts from Linear Technology and Silicon Storage Technologies.

The new components include wireless connectivity and touch screen. The Marvell 88W8686 is a 90-nm WLAN device, the same die can also be found in the Wi2Wi 802.11 + Bluetooth System in Package Solution. The CSR BlueCore 4 ROM is a Bluetooth device that was also used in the BlackBerry Pearl 8100.

Balda, a German company, scored the design win with the touch screen. "Balda is known for making touch screen that are durable and scratch resistant, a common complaint of the screen in iPods," said Quirk. According to Quirk, Balda has worked with Nokia, Motorola and Sony-Ericsson, but this is their most visible design, which should enhance their visibility.

The iPhone also implements Intel wireless flash with 32 Mbytes of NOR coupled with 16 Mbytes of SRAM for code execution. "Interestingly, many in the industry predicted a design win for Intel, but thought it would be for an Intel (now Marvell) applications processor instead of flash memory," said Quirk.

RE: Who & whats inside it
By mdogs444 on 7/5/2007 9:11:26 AM , Rating: 2
Although interesting to see whats inside the iPhone, I'm not sure how this post relates to the article at hand - discussing the cost of manufacturing, markup, profit, and stock increase.

RE: Who & whats inside it
By crystal clear on 7/5/2007 9:19:39 AM , Rating: 3
Since we cannot read & analyse the detailed report of the both the firms,namely iSuppli & Portelligent -its worth knowing whats inside that phone, to give you an idea what/which the components are & who are the manufacturers .

By stinkyj on 7/5/2007 3:09:03 PM , Rating: 2
nobody is mentioning advertising and marketing costs. I've seen tons of ads on tv and print.

RE: Whoa
By SandmanWN on 7/5/2007 3:19:26 PM , Rating: 2
Apple advertises constantly. Its part of the overall corporate budget and pulls its financial resources from the sales of all products so it isn't necessarily an additional cost to the iPhone.

RE: Whoa
By Ryanman on 7/5/2007 4:01:46 PM , Rating: 3
I'd think R&D would be a more substantial cost. either way, a 55% profit margin only makes me laugh at mac fanboyz.

haha @ image
By Zensen on 7/5/2007 8:31:04 AM , Rating: 5
that guy certainly looks proud of his achievements.

*burns his money* woohoo!!.. i mean.. ahh sh...

By mellondust on 7/5/2007 1:10:22 PM , Rating: 1
How can they not find out where it the iphone is made? Is apple being extra secretive or is this common practice for companies?

By Aprime on 7/5/2007 1:32:22 PM , Rating: 2
How much do you bet that Foxconn is making them?

By xsilver on 7/5/2007 1:39:08 PM , Rating: 2
the real issue is, who really cares who is making them?
its not like foxconn is pocketing all the profits

i'll bet that apple IS paying foxconn $275 and calling it a day.

I think the cellphone market is about to heat up and its going to be interesting to see the other manufacturers response to the iphone and how much they can steal (ideas wise) from the iphone and see if the iphone can still hold its own. (it probably will - but if you like the features, could could get it on another maker for $$$ less)

Such a big to do
By Domicinator on 7/6/2007 1:27:30 AM , Rating: 3
There wouldn't even be all this hubbub about the iPhone if it was actually an effective gadget. I will remind everyone again that when you peel away all the hype, the pretty touch screen, the Apple logo from the back, and the cartoony icons on the home page, the iPhone is actually not that great of a phone. If you buy the cheaper iPhone, the middle of the road 2 year service contract, and end up replacing a battery, you're going to be paying over $2500 over the course of 2 years for this piece of garbage. I am utterly shocked at the stupid crap people will fall for. It blows my freakin' mind. People spent days waiting for this thing when they could've gone and bought a RAZR or something like that for a fraction of the cost and they would have gotten about 15 more features than what the iPhone has.

RE: Such a big to do
By DLeRium on 7/6/2007 10:48:49 AM , Rating: 2
Once again this is someone who doesn't give a damn about phones. A RAZR is the biggest piece of crap that ever existed. It was nice when it came out in 2004, but it's 2007. The technology in that phone is 3 years old. Sure they finally upgraded cameras, but I recall 2 MP camera phones hitting the market in early 2005. Moto makes crap phones too. It's obvious by their dominant presence in the American market while sales are pathetic overseas.

$2500 in the course of 2 years? You can't ever count the data plan. If you buy the phone alone, you can just pop in your sim and go. You're not forced to use Cingular EDGE or anything like that. Plus, if you had any phone with data like a K790a, you would be using the data plans too and it would cost you just as much.

I find it interesting...
By Amiga500 on 7/6/2007 4:35:51 AM , Rating: 2
That people are (obviously) willing to pay so much for a phone, whereas they baulk at the price of the PS3, which is supposed to be a hub of the next-gen home entertainment system.

I wonder what the execs at sony are thinking...

RE: I find it interesting...
By DLeRium on 7/6/2007 10:45:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's because kids go for PS3s while adults go for iPhones. Isn't it obvious parents aren't too happy they have to buy a PS3 for their kids whereas the people who actually want an iPhone usually have the cash? I mean granted it is expensive, but when you think about it, it's not TOO bad when you compare against a handful of other high end phones.

Turning on the heat !
By crystal clear on 7/5/2007 8:31:53 AM , Rating: 3
For iPhone owners with battery woes, Apple will charge $85.95 as part of its replacement program.

Read this its interesting-(pdf)

Another hype
By scrapsma54 on 7/5/2007 8:18:47 AM , Rating: 2
This is just like dailytech and ps3 making it look like it was amazing. Sure, iPhone seems much more fun, But I seriously doubt when you look at the installed base of motorolla razr's, you'll be like, Aw whatever these numbers are bogus.

I'll just wait
By InternetGeek on 7/5/2007 8:29:01 AM , Rating: 2
Until revision 7 or a better version comes with broader technology support, more features and better price. If not I'll just go with Nokia or any other who offers a really good deal.

Put things in perspective...
By kudd on 7/6/2007 6:24:30 PM , Rating: 2
The iPhone is maybe ridiculously overpriced but everything is these days, look at the profit margins on a can of coke! Granted other mobile units are fraction of the cost, and at times companies lose money on the sale, they make it up in the monthly service. I'm not too sure on Apple's deal with cingular but I'm betting they're not making too much off the monthly plans, the only profit they are making is from the phone.

By CoreGamer on 7/7/2007 11:23:01 AM , Rating: 2
I went to buy a new phone because mine had some faulty part. Guess what? I needed an email phone... There was the blackberry pearl -450$, Or the iPhone-500$. Take into consideration the pearl can't do a lot of the entertainment-based things the iPhone can. So Is the iPhone really overpriced? No, its directly inline with most of the other phones out there. And btw, only an idiot bashes a product he has never used. And im pretty sure some of you guys haven't even seen one up close. This is the FIRST apple product I have ever bought (never fell into the ipod hype). And I personally think it works just as advertised and I really can't comprehend why any of you would ever compare this with a RAZR.

"Vista runs on Atom ... It's just no one uses it". -- Intel CEO Paul Otellini
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki