Slashdot Mirror
Teardown Finds iPhone 5 Costs Apple About the Same As Did 4S
Nerval's Lobster writes "A physical teardown of the iPhone 5 by IHS iSuppli reveals that Apple has managed to keep its materials and manufacturing costs roughly in line with that of the iPhone 4S. The firm estimated the Bill of Materials for the iPhone 5's low-end variant at $199.00, rising to $207.00 once manufacturing costs are entered into the equation. It tallied the BOM for the 32GB version at $209.00 (or $217 with manufacturing) and the 64GB one at $230.00 (rising slightly to $238 with those manufacturing costs). Compare that to the BOM for the iPhone 4S, which IHS iSuppli estimated at $188 for the 16GB version (rising to $196 with manufacturing costs added in), $207 for the 32GB version ($215 with manufacturing) and $245 for the 64GB version ($254 with manufacturing)."
Reader redkemper writes with another kind of comparison of the newest iPhone to its predecessor: "Apple didn't spend too much time talking about the iSight camera at the iPhone 5s unveil event because it's mostly the same as the one found in the iPhone 4S. Thankfully, iMore grabbed an iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S and did a fantastic shoot-out between the two device's rear cameras. [The new camera] just barely edges out the iPhone 4S's year-old camera."
You'd have to actually change something to increase cost.
I assume Apple had been paying Google something for Google maps which was replaced by Apple maps. Depending how you wan to amortize the R&D, that was a unit BoM savings if Google has been getting a per unit fee.
You don't need a high quality camera if all you do is post crappy instagram pics.
i read these and almost every flagship from from every manufacturer is in the $180 to $200 range. Apple's bill of materials tends to be a little higher most times but their margins are also higher because they make one phone for all around the world. iphone 5 and LTE is an exception with different models supporting different frequencies around the world
How horrible that someone sells a product that cost more than the sum of their part!
We shouldn't have to pay for those millions in R&D and those failed designed they were working on.
We shouldn't have to pay for the salary of the employees at apple.
Heck those guys at Foxconn get next to nothing anyways... Why not go to the next logical step and have them work for free.
Unfortunately running a business you find that things are more expensive than the normal consumer realizes.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
Here's a link to the actual comparison, instead of a blog describing the comparison: http://www.imore.com/iphone-5-vs-iphone-4s-camera
That's why their factories are in the middle-of-nowhere China. The real ironic part is the same people who buy Apple products are the same people who complain about Wal-Mart not offering a "fair wage" to their employees.
sudo make me a sandwich
Bigger screen, faster CPU&GPU, more ram, new camera? Oh wait.. they did that.
Blaming things on "this isn't how Jobs would've done it" is getting a bit old now. He wasn't perfect. He had plenty of bad ideas and even let several of them ship over the years (e.g. putting the vents for the G4 Cube on top of the machine, overdoing it with skeuomorphisms, wanting to name the iMac the MacMan, and I haven't even gotten into things like Antennagate and the like). And especially so in this case, since Apple has had a long history of shipping out aluminum-clad devices with anodized colors. I recall hearing or reading something that I believe Jony Ive said about how as things wear they want for them to wear well, much like good leather will as it takes damage and gets scuffed. That is, things will be scratched up, but the trick they were using was to use materials that would wear that damage well (e.g. the original iPhone that you mentioned). Minor scuffs and dings may detract from how pristine their devices look, but it may still be in keeping with their design philosophies, though I do agree that this device seems a bit more susceptible to injury than I would think they would like.
Side note: Wired had an interested article about Gorilla Glass yesterday, and it's worth a read if you find that stuff fascinating at all.
Obviously, Apple spent a lot of money on their new 3D global mapping system, which isn't included in this cost estimate. They've also spent money developing other aspects of the new version of iOS. And they spent money designing the new version of the phone, and it's updated hardware. Of course, they're going to sell so many of these it'll wipe out those costs pretty soon. Still, any new development is risky. Look at all the bad press they're getting over maps! If they have to pull it, it will be a complete loss. Contrary to popular belief, about half of the new products Apple releases are actually flops. But a flop costs as much to develop as a success. Fortunately, Apple is able to charge enough of a markup on their successful products to make up the difference.
Guangdong province (where the vast majority of Foxconn's factories are located) has about 35 million people, within a 2 hour drive of Hong Kong. If that's middle-of-nowhere China then Anaheim is middle-of-nowhere US.
Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
Development, for starters.
Which part in the iPhone 5 or iPhone 4(S) develop, for starters?
For one, the CPU. From wiki:
"The A6 is said to use a 1.2 GHz[3][4][5] custom Apple-designed ARMv7 based dual core CPU,[1] rather than standard cores like in previous designs, and an integrated triple core SGX 543MP3[6] graphics processing unit (GPU) with the same performance as the previous Apple A5X processor found in the third-generation iPad. The SGX 543MP3 is running at 266MHz."
Software development has costs too. Even FOSS software has paid developers at times, the success of some FOSS projects has been tied to this fact.
Other reviews have noted that while the iPhone 5 camera is just a little better in normal light, it's much better in low light according to this review shooting in Iceland.
From other tests I seen, it seems to be about two stops better at high ISO shooting. Lower noise and clearer images.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Apple: Someone set us up the BOM !!
The reason why the vents on the top were problematic was because the flat surface of the top invited people to place objects on the Cube, resulting in the only means of ventilation becoming obstructed. It became a major issue, with numerous G4 Cubes overheating and suffering various problems. Yes, it's a bit of a stupid user moment, but the fact that the design didn't accommodate such an obvious issue was the result of poor planning on Apple's part. Using convection cooling was a good idea, but the vents could have been placed in a number of alternative ways in order to provide more redundancy against this issue (e.g. slits along the top edge on the sides of the device).
And while it seemed overpriced, for what you got, it really wasn't at the time, though the return on that investment was lower than on other models with similar specs. It's full name was the Power Mac G4 Cube, and it really was a Power Mac crammed into that plastic cube, with all the power that came with it at that time. That said, people who bought Power Macs had little use for a device that couldn't be upgraded easily, so while its price was appropriate for the configuration it came with, its lack of expansion capability made it a poor return on the investment for the pro-level market. In many ways, it would be like them making a pro-level iMac today, which, while possibly being great at the time of release, would not maintain its value sufficiently enough to justify the cost of the more powerful components.