Slashdot Mirror
The Profit Margin on the iPod nano
Ant writes "BusinessWeek Online reports that researcher iSuppli took a look inside the iPod Nano to find out how much Apple is making off it, and who supplies its parts. From the article: 'Apple has sold some 16 million iPods in the first nine months of fiscal 2005, and 21 million since its inception. Thus far in fiscal 2005, the iPod has brought in $2.6 billion in revenue, accounting for about 25% of Apple's total.'"
Here's the part of the article that actually pertains to the headline:
Market research firm iSuppli set out to satisfy the curiosity by buying the $199 2-gigabyte version of the Nano and tearing it apart. The verdict? It costs Apple $90.18 in materials to build the unit and $8 to assemble it, leaving a profit margin before marketing and distribution costs of about 50%. That's consistent with the margins on earlier iPod versions and serves as a reminder of what a profit machine the iPod family of products has become for Apple since it was introduced in 2001.
It costs Apple $90.18 in materials to build the unit and $8 to assemble it, leaving a profit margin before marketing and distribution costs of about 50%.
The article is light on details. I hope they took account of amortization of any tooling or plant investment. It's this sort fo thing that stops the small players, hobbyists and enthusiasts producing anything similar for reasonable money.
Ydco co
Is it an "impossibly small" margin?
Of course, R&D costs nothing, fabrication is free, paying employees for design and support is volunteer based, and filing the patents and copyrights by lawyers are all pro bono.
How is this useful? So now we know how much the pure hardware costs for the Nano? Big deal. It's probably on par with pretty much any MP3 player, especially flash based ones. Is this supposed to convince people that "Oh noes, look, Apple really DOES make money on its hardware!"
Duh. We know Apple makes money on its hardware. So does every other company that makes hardware. But this says nothing for the actual cost to Apple of the device, without consideration for, you know, actually designing and creating the thing.
I hope the extreme reception the Nano got (mine is on the way) is a wake up call to Palm et. al they better get back to their roots and make some THIN and LIGHT devices you can actually easily take with you.
No input on the Nano is crummy, but it's form factor makes it much more likely I will take it someplace.
..don't panic
It would be nice if they factored in the cost of design, development, and manufacturing into that cost. I have worked on consumer electronics projects in the past, and the rule of thumb was adding $1 to the Bill-Of-Materials adds $4 to the retail price. Still it doesn't surprise me that the profit margin is high.
What do you know I wrote a novel
Even if Apple didn't turn a profit on the iPod the benefit to the Apple brand from the iPod has been huge. People will be more likely to by other Apple products because Apple is "cool" again.
Bradley Holt
To pay for the R&D, marketing, etc ... I'm surpised that Jobs doesn't demand a higher return.
I'm wondering if Apple will go the way of Sony. Innovating firms have a tendency to be eaten up by firms who copy and then sell for a lower price. The only way to stop copiers is to create a closed format - basically kill competition before it happens - or to keep innovating to stay ahead of the copiers - easier said than done.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
Apple is currently the most innovative computer company around, with an operating system that makes the current market leader look like a dinosaur. The fact that a quarter of their profit comes from a damn mp3 player is just sad.
In a related story, researches have discovered that new home construction costs practically nothing at all, as the wood was taken from trees that were growing there anyway. Wood costs nothing to fabricate, as mother nature provides it for free (given enough time). The foundation is poured from concrete, which is just rocks, sand, and water, all of which are freely available. Thus, new home construction is 100% profit.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
> A class-action suit was filed against Apple over the illegal bundling of iTunes with iPod. This practice is anti-competitive.
ROFL! because bundling a driver with the hardware SHOULD BE BANNED.
retards.
RST
Remember that this is per-unit profit, but doesn't include R&D costs.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
What about the engineering costs? That hardware doesn't design itself. The software updates don't write themselves.
I'm not saying marketing and distribution are legitimate costs, just that they seem to have overlooked a major one.
I could understand (evil as it may be) Apple wanting to control distribution if they were the top dog in the computer business, but as it stands i think Apple would do well to play friendly with everyone who wants to push Apple products to the masses (iPods excluded, they're all over the place).
Will wank off Linus Torvalds for fame.
It doesn't say anything about the profit Apple is making with the iPod nano. It only shows the price of the used components. This could be interesting for any competitors in the MP3-player market. You'd still need developers, marketing and all that other stuff used to get a product to market ...
The point that things like this and this demonstrate, is that Pocket is the New Platform.
..
..]
Apple are pretty savvy to this. iPod nano is a keyboard and mouse interface away from being a Classic.. its not unusual that the same sort of 'monolith screen slab' form factor of the original Mac is still resonant in their current design path.
But now, it fits in your pocket. And it won't be long until the LED projector segment shrinks to the same form-factor, and we'll see, perhaps, even the death of laptops
[.. there's nothing quite so cool as having torrent in your pocket
With that formula Windows' profit margin is about 99.9%, because CD only costs 10c to make.
As a software professional, I've never been able to calculate real profit margin of any product that contains any kind of a software. Especially in a big company, you got different software modules from different products linked together. For example if software module A costs $500,000 to develop and it's sold with $1000 per license. Then you have a software module B that cost $2,000,000 to develop, and sold $100 per license. Both of those modules are sold separately, but then you decide to use both of their technology to develop a product C. It costs additional $100,000. All of those modules continue to sell separately. What is profit margin of product C? Do you count in only the $100,000 or that part of A and B, which haven't been covered by license sales? What about company's administration costs, marketing costs, etc.
And that was an extremely simple example. Old company has thousands of software modules, all linked to each other in some way. You can never really point out the actual cost of a product in software business.
My point is: The only way to know the real margins of a product, is to see how good salaries are in that company (as long as it is profitable)
PS. I bet iPod family's UI design has cost ten times more to develop than any other competitor's product's. There are countless number of factors that you can't even imagine when considering those margins. (But as a software manager, I consider it an advantage. No matter how bad failure a development project is, you can always trick those business directors to believe that it actually was a success. You'll just sweep those man-months under the carpet (of some other project/product) and say you used a software module that was developed by other project.)
Because you're on slashdot. Read through any article about software piracy or "sharing" movies and music. Look for all of the responses that talk about a "dead business model" of paying people thousands or millions of dollars to create software or digital products and, if they're good, expecting to get a profit. Copyrights and patents are evil. Blah, blah, blah. I can agree to a certain degree on some of these matters, much of the Slashdot community's negative feelings about those that actually want to make money from a product is truly amazing.
The iPod Nano was not an open source linux based product with an underground publicity campaign. If it was, everyone would be happy.
Then again, it is an Apple product, which means there will be far less criticism than if, say, it was a Dell product.
For your illustration to work, you have to assume the iPod only works with iTunes. I won't list them here, but there are several other third party apps that people can use to transfer stuff to their iPod with.
So... it is the same as with scanners. Apple bundles their own software that they developed, but you're free to use whatever other program you find that can speak to the iPod.
Duct tape is like the Force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.
We've seen how durable these new nanos are. That's going to help their profits tremendously as now a 5 foot drop means a scratch, not a invisible damaged circuit they have to swap out units for under warrantee. Good for them, good for me. Um, sorta. Dropped my mini and 10 days later, new mini. I think only ACME delivery to Wile E. Coyote is faster. Reducing that overhead potential just helps them more.
Infinity is overrated, Infinity+1, now that's cool!
Here is a primer on business terminology.
Revenue = total amount of money the business brings in through sales.
Cost (of manufacture) = cost to actually manufacture or acquire item. Includes labor, factory and raw materials.
Margin = Revenue - Cost. (for most corps around 40-50% of revenue - less and you go out of business)
M&A = management and sales costs.
R&D = R&D Costs.
Profit = Revenue - Cost - M&A - R&D - Borrowing Costs - Other Transactions.
Profit for most corps runs 5-15% of Revenues. Less and you are in big trouble.
Note Profit does not equal Revenue, Revenue - Cost or Margin. All of these are MUCH greater than Profit. Profit is the revenue the company left after paying off everybody.
but I think I am not, I know of no one who has bought any form of iPod who actually bought an Apple computer. Now I know a few Mac users who have iPods.
What I have seen is that they will most likely buy ANOTHER iPod. The only few who considered buying an Apple computer got immediately turned off by the price.
It is all about price points. The iPods are doing well now because they are at that magical number of being below $299 and most being $199 and under. Look where the largest iPod market is, it is that lower price range.
Meaning, if Apple can come out with other items in that range people might just stop and buy, may I suggest a media center type solution. An Apple PVR with more functionality?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
How about printers? HP makes money off of toner sales, not printer sales.
This same type of logic applies to other sectors. Just look at Gillette. They basically give their razors (Mach 3, etc.) away at cost knowing that you are going by replacement blades at some point.
I'm always amused to see articles like this talking about profit margins and the like, as if the cost of production and marketing was a huge factor in deciding what to charge for a product. It is a factor in deciding whether or not to make a product, and what features are included in a product, but in how much to charge? You charge what people are willing to pay (actually what will make you the most profit when you balance the number of sales you will get at a given price point). I've worked at several start-up companies and seen the same scenario. We're doing OK, and getting by, hire some marketing experts to consult and they say, "well here's your problem, you're not charging enough." We quadruple the price of the product and suddenly get loads more sales. You see many people think price is equal to quality, or you get what you pay for. If you just raise the price drastically, buyers think your product is better. A good strategy seems to be seeing what your competitors are selling for, hyping one or two things you do better than them, hyping generally how much better your product is (using unspecific terms), and setting you price 10-20% higher than theirs. Everyone assumes since your product costs more it is better and 20% isn't huge, especially if they are spending their company's money instead of theirs.
Anyone who thinks the cost of producing a product has a lot to do with what it sells for is likely clueless.
And im not even going to get into the other shit listed since some isnt even proven but just baseless accusation, and nothing says the reason Jobs gave (HIS OWN MONEY) to Kennedy has to be because of buisness (its well know Jobs is a very liberal guy and a huge Democratic Party contributer)
I mean damn if your going to troll, i could as a Apple user come up with a LOT better shit to troll with than you just did. Sure Apple is no saint. But its no Microsoft either.
"Slashdot, where telling the truth is overrated but lying is insightful."
It's not need they sell, it's wanting upgrades.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Someone else might put the parts together, but Apple designed it. The design is what makes it an iPod, not who put it together.
Apple does a whole lot more than distribution and marketing. The iPod is not an OEM device like a thumb drive.
What about Aple's investment in manufacturing facilities? Do they build them themselves or contract out?
Profit, by the way, is good. It means that the market judges something as worth doing. As an Apple shareholder, for me Apple profit is very good indeed.
"The impossible often has a certain integrity that the merely improbable lacks" - Dirk Gently
The article says Apple is getting a gigabyte of flash for $25 (wholesale). The best RAM prices I've seen this year has been $118 (retail). As recently as last year flash was more expensive.
Not this year. You can buy a post-manufacturer 1GB Flash card with MP3 player, FM radio, and voice recorder for under $50 right now if you know where to look.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Apple's PC sales growth is around double that of the rest of the industry. It's at over 40%.
Which really shouldn't be surprising. People can say all the bad they want to about only having 5% of the total market, but what that really means is that Apple has 95% to grow into. Windows at 90+% is the one with very little room to grow. The iPod is doing well in what is the new generation of portable music players, and their favored position will eventually show the same ceiling that Windows has for the OS market. The big advantage is that, by being a small player in an entrenched market at the same time they're the big player in an explosive market, they keep on doing their "beleaguered" business for decades so long as they're always willing to search out the next new market to expand into.
The Nano LCD's glass surface is hidden under a clear plastic cover (in fact it covers the entire top of the Nano), whereas on the Mini the glass screen of the LCD is exposed. Glass is more difficult to scratch than plastic, therefore it is harder to scratch the Mini's screen than the Nano.
If you care about scratches, get a Mini on sale. The glass screen and metal body are very scratch resistant.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.