Teardown Finds iPhone 5 Costs Apple About the Same As Did 4S 143
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."
Well, (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Well, (Score:1)
You'd have to actually change something to increase cost.
They could just change the markup :)
Why not charge $1000 per phone now?
Yeah like, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yeah like, (Score:3)
Bigger screen, faster CPU&GPU, more ram, new camera? Oh wait.. they did that.
As well as a complete redesign of the interior. iFixit report here on /. mentions how it's much more repairable than the 4/4s.
Re:Yeah like, (Score:1)
Bigger screen? I'd lay them out side by side and eyeball it.
Faster chips? I'd run the same apps side by side and wall time them, or I would use a benchmark tool (subject to gaming by companies though).
New camera? I'd take the a number of pictures with both and compare them,
Nothing too hard... how would you fail to tell?
Re:Well, (Score:5, Funny)
Well this should, at least, show all the fandroids out there just how advanced the iPhone 4S was!
It was practically from the future!
Re:Well, (Score:5, Informative)
You'd have to actually change something to increase cost.
http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/09/iphone-5-deconstructed-packed-with-power-efficient-parts/ [arstechnica.com]
iFixit's usual thorough analysis reveals that nearly every hardware component has been upgraded or improved, yet is so power efficient that the battery capacity largely remains the same.
Re:Well, (Score:4, Insightful)
iFixit's usual thorough analysis reveals that nearly every hardware component has been upgraded or improved, yet is so power efficient that the battery capacity largely remains the same.
And they couldn't even make it the same thickness as the old iPhone so it would last one day on one charge?
I'm sick of "new features". How about releasing last year's phone with 4x the battery life since that's what technology can do?
It lasts more than a day on a charge (Score:1)
And they couldn't even make it the same thickness as the old iPhone so it would last one day on one charge?
If it didn't last a day I would agree. That's kind of the minimum for me for going without a charge,
But the iPhone 5 still lasts more than a day on a charge. I'm not sure exactly how much more on average having only had it for a few days, but I've not charged it during the day generally while i've had it, and it still has quite a lot of power at night. I think in the end I'd probably end up charging it every other day.
Given that, I'd rather have it be thinner. Though much thinner than this, I don't think they need...
Re:It lasts more than a day on a charge (Score:2)
With decent usage from this morning at 7, (5 now), it's still at 75% here.
Re:Well, (Score:2)
And they couldn't even make it the same thickness as the old iPhone so it would last one day on one charge?
If you want to buy a new phone that is thicker than the previous one just to keep battery time equal, I guess you are stuck with Android. Or maybe a Windows pone.
Yeah? Which phone would that be?
Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:3)
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.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:3)
... Assuming software costs are included in the BoM, of course...
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:1, Insightful)
What other costs are there for Apple? 300% markup on list price seems a bit drastic.
Not if people are dumb enough to pay it. They need their SHINY after all.
Nice gig for Apple though. There's not a company on this planet that wouldn't love a 300% markup for its flagship products.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:4, Insightful)
"Not if people are dumb enough to pay it. They need their SHINY after all. "
I keep seeing that, but the people don't pay more. The carriers pay more to Apple and subsidize more heavily, Tell me why should I care as long as I pay the same for the iPhone as any other comparable smart phone?
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:1)
yes maybe, but users still end up paying more. If you live in the city getting an Android phone will cost you at least $10 less a month on your bill.
As for the google charge for the maps, I assume that was on their plan revenu, not hardware sales.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
iPhone 4 at Verizon store: $200.
iPhone 4s at Verizon store: $250, forget which
Galaxy S3 at Verizon store: $200
Who pays the same as any other comparable smartphone? Unless, of course, "comparable" means "same priced, regardless of technical differences"
Currently...
iPhone 5 16gb at verizonwireless.com: $200, $300 for 32gb
Galaxy S3 16gb at verizonwireless.com: $200, $250 for 32gb
So, Apple charges $100 for an additional 16gb. Samsung charges $50. $50 is pretty expensive even, IMO.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
"Recently... :) :
iPhone 4 at Verizon store: $200.
iPhone 4s at Verizon store: $250, forget which
Galaxy S3 at Verizon store: $200
Who pays the same as any other comparable smartphone? Unless, of course, "comparable" means "same priced, regardless of technical differences"
The iPhone 4 hasn't been on sale at Verizon for $200 since October of last year.
No iPhone 4S has never sold at regular price for $250. It was introduced at $199, $299, and $399.
" $50 is pretty expensive even"
You're going to pay $2220 at minimum over 2 years and $50 is "expensive"?
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
I keep seeing that, but the people don't pay more. The carriers pay more to Apple and subsidize more heavily
You're still paying it. That >$100 phone bill every damned month is where the "subsidy" comes from. You've been had (but so have most of those with Androids). I paid cash for my phone, have unlimited everything for $45 per month. You're paying more for that iDroid than you thought you were.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
At $45 / mo you are on Virgin. You are a wholesale customer so you are getting less than Sprint's retail service. And Sprints retail service is nowhere near $100 / mo. The prepay plans are cheaper by about $10 or so once you fully wrap the cost of the postplay plans.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
Close, I'm on Boost, also owned by Sprint. I can't see how I'm getting less than Sprint's retail service, since I'm getting unlimited everything.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
Boost isn't owned by Sprint, they buy bulk service from Sprint's wholesale division and resell it. You aren't getting unlimited data btw you are getting 2.5g. Mainly the difference between yourself and a retail customer you would feel is when towers are overextended. You are far more likely to get dropped. But given that Sprint's wholesale division is a big money maker and their retail division a money loser it wouldn't shock me to see Sprint even further in the direction of just supporting wholesale clients and making the total experience identical.
The sliding scale thing is an interesting step towards building customer loyalty for Boost. If Boost can start to build long term customers they might even be able to move towards a postpay model and....
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
I keep seeing that, but the people don't pay more. The carriers pay more to Apple and subsidize more heavily
Math wasn't your strong point hmmm?
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
Yes, if I pay the same $200 for a $699 iPhone that an Android user pays for $450 device, why should I care what the carrier pays to the manufacture?
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
this is like saying Windows costs Microsoft a nickel to make because they just had to stamp a DVD.
Precisely!
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
this is like saying Windows costs Microsoft a nickel to make because they just had to stamp a DVD.
In this case it is worse because software is just a set of easily copyable bits, which is the reason for all the anti-piracy protections.
Flash costs? (Score:2)
So why, in an unlocked european iPhone, going with flash size from 16 to 32 GB and from 32 to 64 GB costs 110 euro and to Apple this costs, respectively, 19$ and 39$? Not much development involved, and manufacturing is already factored in.
This is simply the maximum price the market will bear, and the product is developed up until the cost leaves enough profit (for an arbitrary definition of "enough").
Apple does development ... (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2, Funny)
What other costs are there for Apple?
Patent lawyers
Hardware cost only. (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Hardware cost only. (Score:2)
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.
I'd put that figure at closer to 10-25% "flop rate" these days; but otherwise, I agree completely with your comments.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:5, Insightful)
What other costs are there for Apple? 300% markup on list price seems a bit drastic.
No. A 3X markup from raw material and assembly costs to MSRP, up through distribution channels, is actually about right.
Too bad Slashdot doesn't have any readers who have experience in the real world; or they'd realize that those "markups" are very realistic, when all you are considering is the BOM costs.
Are people really so stupid that they don't realize that there are a LOT of other costs other than just the raw materials and CM (Contract Manufacturing) fees?
Go do a BOM cost on your average $700 TV, or $400 A/V Receiver, or perhaps another Smartphone. You'll soon see what I mean. And CARS.... Talk about Mark-up... OMG!
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:5, Insightful)
No, 300% markup on a BOM is pretty bog standard on an electronics device.
Get over it guys, the world isn't designed to give you your toys as cheaply as possible. That's what your parents were for.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:2)
Boxing, shipping, advertising, other cost of sales.
Warranty, extended warranty (that is sold at a loss) and phone technical support.
R&D for an operating system, applications, the hardware and some of the components.
But yeah even still. High margins.
Seems to cost more to roll your own... (Score:1)
Depending how you wan to amortize the R&D, that was a unit BoM savings if Google has been getting a per unit fee.
Possibly, but overall Apple is paying a lot more to built out a mapping solution of their own compared to just using Google's. The cost of that would not be figured into the raw hardware calculations iSupply is doing...
I don't think in the end it is a savings.
Re:Seems to cost more to roll your own... (Score:2)
Depending how you wan to amortize the R&D, that was a unit BoM savings if Google has been getting a per unit fee.
Possibly, but overall Apple is paying a lot more to built out a mapping solution of their own compared to just using Google's. The cost of that would not be figured into the raw hardware calculations iSupply is doing...
I don't think in the end it is a savings.
Not only build-out; but maintain in perpetuity. iSupply is (as usual) just talking out their ass. Not to mention that they have absolutely zero way to establish a "landed cost" for the custom silicon, or for the custom display/touch interface. It's nothing more than click-bait, as per usual.
Re:Spent less on mapping license didn't they? (Score:1)
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.
Yeah, because Apple's solution, the rights to the map data, etc. just appeared out of nowhere without cost. And that's ignoring that it's part of iOS 6, not of the iPhone 5.
Here's a tip: if you think you have a great post to make - think again before writing it. If you want to go for first post, don't try to make a clever post - you'll fail at both.
Camera (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Camera (Score:3, Insightful)
Phone cameras are not high quality. Resolution doesn't matter much if your lens system is shit.
Re:Camera (Score:3)
Re:Camera (Score:2)
The best camera is the one you have with you. And to be fair, iphone 4S produces images that would make my Sony Floppy-based digicam weep.
You still have a Floppy-based Sony? Do you work for a museum? IIRC those things were 640 x 480 x 256 colors. You can get those kind of cameras in cereal boxes.
Re:Camera (Score:1)
You can get those kind of cameras in cereal boxes.
No you can't - there wouldn't be any room left for cereal!
Re:Camera (Score:5, Insightful)
The best camera is the one you have with you. And to be fair, iphone 4S produces images that would make my Sony Floppy-based digicam weep.
Nice Ansel Adams quote (IIRC); and you are precisely correct. Anyone who thinks that any lens system than can fit into a phone will be the equal of any lens on a DSLR simply doesn't understand how physics works.
But ya know, it's all about "capturing the moment". And these smartphone cameras are all about that. Which would you rather have: That priceless photo of a loved one that is now gone, but with a little spherical aberration near the edge; or nothing but a fading memory in your brain?
Re:Camera (Score:2)
Not that having high quality matters for great photography, other than to fools who believe that lots of dollars are a substitute to basic skills and an experienced eye. No amount of megapixels will substitute for the lack of those.
Re:Camera (Score:2)
iOS6 has an *amazing* panoramic mode. I haven't seen anything anywhere that resembles it in terms of ease of use and quality of the shots produced.
It even works on my iPhone 4S.
You can see a sample I made in 7 seconds while bored. My first shot at the functionnality: http://france.palmdrive.net/pb/2012/09/23/1348404600000.html [palmdrive.net] (Just click on the image)
Re:Camera (Score:2)
While I use an iPhone as it works well for me, I'd like to point out that the panorama mode isn't exactly new. There were panorama apps that did the same thing, and if we count "bulit into the OS", Android 4.0 ICS has it built in which works the same way as well (at least on the Galaxy Nexus I also have).
It's neat, but I've not taken more than a few for novelty purposes, though I do see it being potentially useful.
Re:Camera (Score:2)
I have EVERY ONE of the apps that do panorama on the iPhone. Trust me, they are nothing like the Panoramic feature that is built in.
A panorama with iOS6 takes 3-4 seconds, is smooth, the result is 30 Megapixels with ABSOLUTELY no trace of "stiching" even when there are shitloads of people walking around you. And an exposure change along the panorama is virtually seamless. I don't know of an app with ONE of these qualities. The key - I think - is that it's not based on several shots, but one big continuous shot.
I didn't think it was possible actually given the crappy apps the App Store is loaded with.
That said, I agree, it's not a key feature of the phone, but man, now I can take panoramas.
Re:Camera (Score:2)
Re:Camera (Score:2)
Do you mean the app that produced this: http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/360-panorama-iphone-app-review-17293/images/360_panorama_1.JPG [ephotozine.com] ? You can see defects and blurred areas pretty much everywhere ! This is just not in the same league for me.
The article ( http://www.ephotozine.com/article/360-panorama-iphone-app-review-17293 [ephotozine.com] ) sums it up pretty nicely: "Overall, for £0.69, you can't really complain, but there are more impressive apps on the market"
Re:Camera (Score:2)
I found one much better: http://www.ephotozine.com/articles/360-panorama-iphone-app-review-17293/images/360_panorama_3.JPG [ephotozine.com]
This is just a bad toy, not a panorama app.
Re:Camera (Score:2)
Hmmm... [youtube.com] (it was funnier before the iPhone 5's debut).
Re:Camera (Score:3, Informative)
Yawn. First of all, lets link to the original article [imore.com] instead of the BGR rumination.
"However, if you want a thinner phone that still takes great photos, if you want a better screen that gives a more accurate representation of your photos, if you want the ability to take photos while shooting video, then taken together, the answer could very well change to yes. In fact, if taking and enjoying photos with your iPhone is one of your primary passions -- if you consider yourself an "iPhoneographer" -- the display alone is worth the upgrade to the iPhone 5."
Oh, and how about the motto of the photo blog http://www.imore.com/photography [imore.com]: "Everything you need to know to take the best pictures imaginable with the iPhone, the best camera you have with you".
Re:Camera (Score:2)
"Everything you need to know to take the best pictures imaginable with the iPhone, the best camera you have with you".
It's easy for it to be the "best camera you have with you" when it's the only camera you have with you...
Re:Camera (Score:2)
"Everything you need to know to take the best pictures imaginable with the iPhone, the best camera you have with you".
It's easy for it to be the "best camera you have with you" when it's the only camera you have with you...
You got the point. Congratulations. Your reward is in the mail.
all flagship phones cost about this much (Score:3)
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
Re:all flagship phones cost about this much (Score:2, Offtopic)
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
And what all these children don't seem to realise is that the $180 to $200 Bill of Materials gives you a bag full of parts somewhere in a container near a manufacturing plant in China. If they saw the Bill of Materials for a pair of shoes, or some jeans, or a hamburger at McDonald's, they would faint.
Re:all flagship phones cost about this much (Score:1)
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
And what all these children don't seem to realise is that the $180 to $200 Bill of Materials gives you a bag full of parts somewhere in a container near a manufacturing plant in China. If they saw the Bill of Materials for a pair of shoes, or some jeans, or a hamburger at McDonald's, they would faint.
...or any other smartphone, or their new $700 TV, or $400 stereo receiver, or just about anything.
Re:all flagship phones cost about this much (Score:1)
"Bill of materials" does not mean what the article seems to think. "Bill of materials" is a list of the stuff needed to make something, not the cost of the stuff on the list. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_of_materials [wikipedia.org]
OMG The product cost more than the Sum of Parts (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:OMG The product cost more than the Sum of Parts (Score:2)
If that's what you got from an article investigating a change in manufacturing costs then you really are jumping at everything.
Re:OMG The product cost more than the Sum of Parts (Score:2)
How horrible that someone sells a product that cost more than the sum of their part!
It's not that someone is making a profit. It's that all of the major phone companies are working together to make phone prices ridiculous. Without contract, you're looking at: $649/16gb, $749/32gb, $849/64gb.
That is one hell of a mark up.
I guarantee that people would be rushing to stores a little slower if it weren't for the 2 year contract "discount". It seems a little fishy that all of the major phone releases have similar pricing and, generally speaking, the phones are locked to one provider. It reeks of collusion.
Re:OMG The product cost more than the Sum of Parts (Score:3)
Dead? It never really existed. Cost+ is your limit. If the market rate is below your Cost+ then you are going to need to change your business.
If they sold under the well below market price, there will be a run to buy them. Then once there is a shortage people will then sell them at the market rate.
If they sold them well above market price, less people will buy them, and the stores will be overstocked. Causing them to sell at a discount (close to the market rate) to get them off their shelves. So they can put items that move faster there.
Why do Gold and Gems have been historically so valuable. If they were cost+ they would be fairly cheap to buy, but because there is smaller supply of them they are more valuable.
Re:OMG The product cost more than the Sum of Parts (Score:2)
With raw materials the price does tend towards a cost but the cost it tends towards is the cost of the marginal supply, not the cost of the average supply (and yes this does mean that those who control supplies that are much cheaper to deal with than the marginal supply can get very rich).
iMore comparison (Score:5, Informative)
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 [imore.com]
Re:iMore comparison (Score:1)
Is it just me or does the chick have bigger boobs in the iPhone 5 pic?
Re:iMore comparison (Score:1)
It's Apple magic at work. Or breast pads.
Re:iMore comparison (Score:2)
That is hardly a comparison, btw. None of the image are in full resolution and there are no sample at 1:1 to compare. I know that phones are not supposed to be used for "real photography", but damn, I expect a minimum more than a thumbnail comparison from a so called "App and Photography Editor at iMore".
Otherwise here is my review. I also don't think the camera is worth replacing your 1 year old phone. I have read the spec and seen a few picture on the net, trust me.
Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2, Interesting)
I read that when Jobs was testing the first iphone prototype, the screen was plastic because it was thought to resist fracturing when dropped. After a few times in his pocket getting scuffed up by his keys, he told the team to replace the plastic with glass which eventually led to Apple using Gorilla Glass. He didn't give a damn how expensive or inconvenient the transition was going to be, an easily scratched face wasn't going on the iphone. Though the backing was scratchable, it was made of stainless steel which meant minor scratches could be buffed out if the owner cared to.
Given Ifixit's 30 second test [youtube.com] showing how scuff-prone the new aluminum backing is, it's hard to imagine Jobs having greenlit this particular design choice.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
As a long time, as many here would say, iSheep, yes. Steve Jobs green lit a lot of really bad design choices.
Por ejemplo. [slashdot.org]
The iPhone 4 was shatter prone too.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:3)
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 [fastcodesign.com], 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 [wired.com] yesterday, and it's worth a read if you find that stuff fascinating at all.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
How was this a bad idea? The problem with the Cube wasn't that the vents were on top, it was that Apple was trying to passively cool a fairly hot PowerPC processor. A small fan in the design might have saved it, except that Apple priced it way too high for the market segment that might have been interested in it and saw only tepid sales as a result.
In fact this could even be a prime example of why sticking the vents on the top is a good idea. It was nearly enough to cool a power hogging G4 processor with no fan and smallish heat sink. Conventional cases with front-to-back cooling are wasting energy doing work that convection would do for them if they had a bottom-to-top airflow.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:3)
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.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
Maybe they should have just gone the Nintendo route and made the top non-square (like the SNES) to avoid having people set stuff on it? The G4 Pyramid would have been pretty cool actually.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
That would've been a great idea, I think. Even a slight slant to it would have been sufficient to discourage the placement of items on it.
And yeah, they didn't consider the target demographic well enough, as you said. It really was a pro-level device, meaning it was too expensive for typical consumers, but it lacked the ROI, as I mentioned, meaning that the pros didn't want it either. It was a great feat of engineering, but not as well thought out as it could have been.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
Conventional cases with front-to-back cooling are wasting energy doing work that convection would do for them if they had a bottom-to-top airflow.
I beg to differ. Last summer I burned out TWO stereo receivers just by sitting on the porch and listening to rock and roll. When teh music stopped they were too hot to touch. Putting a fan on the next one!
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
Anodized aluminium - "aluma" - is actually a quite hard material. It is harder than aluminium itself.
The issue here, is that the outer layer of aluma just appears to be quite thin on the iPhone 5. If the parameters of the anodizing process had been just a little bit different, they could have made the layer thicker, and therefore more scuff-resistant.
Another thing they could have done would have been to round off the sharp beveled edges. That appears to be the part that is most easily scuffed.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
For those who don't know, and may not care, it was "manufacturing engineers not daring to tell the designers" that did for the British motorcycle and car industries.
Re:Moving to aluminum may have been a bad idea (Score:2)
The only piece of stainless steel the iPhone ever had was the antenna of the iPhone 4/4S and I think the screen border of iPhone 3G/3GS. For the 3 first years the back of the iPhone was in plastic. The aluminium back is only easy to scratch compared to the glass back of version 4 and 4G. You could scratch the back of all 3 iPhones generation before with little effort.
Man, how rubbish was that video was by the way. If those 30 seconds are supposed to simulate "2 weeks of solid use", you need a ruggedized cheap phone and not a $600 phone. And it is not a question of brand there, it just happen that the iPhone 4 was special with regards to scratches compared to basically everything else. Its design was very critized for being too fragile though, compared to basically everything else - at least for the same people that would consider the video a fair representation of a few weeks of use.
People remember fondly but really the first generation of iPhone was a pain to keep scratch free. It was also one the first phone that OCD afflicted people took an interest in. Before 2007, nobody seemed to care about scratches - at worst you would buy those polishing compound when the screen was unreadable.
iPhone 5 notably better in low light (Score:4, Informative)
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 [austinmann.com].
From other tests I seen, it seems to be about two stops better at high ISO shooting. Lower noise and clearer images.
That article is weird. (Score:2)
article fails to answer one key question (Score:2, Funny)
Will it blend?
Re:article fails to answer one key question (Score:2)
How about a shooting it?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LG6Qx127xgs [youtube.com] from http://www.hardocp.com/news/2012/09/25/iphone_5_vs_50_cal/ [hardocp.com]
news flash: iSuppli's BOMs are deliberately low (Score:2)
iSuppli's business model revolves around finding you low prices for components (for a nice, hefty fee, of course) for your next big consumer electronics product; these teardowns are just advertising for that service. In order to pull customers in, they mark down the lowest plausible price for each component; it's unlikely that even Apple can get these low prices for each component.
Practially every teardown they show is low-balled, because there's no way to verify any of these numbers, and lower numbers gets them more contracting business.
Re:news flash: iSuppli's BOMs are deliberately low (Score:2)
I doubt it, when your apple and your buying the entire supply of something you get quite a nice price break.
Anyway, I would be curious to see them do some price comparisons with those $20 DVD players at walmart, or the $99 kids tablet/netbooks at toys R US, or the $200 netbooks at frys. Or for that matter the $50 capacitive screen tablets that are everywhere. Basically devices that don't have some big company subsidizing them to gain further sales.
Of course it does (Score:1)
Its obvious Apple cut corners on the quality of materials used to make the iPhone 5 (scuff marks), the quality of construction of the iPhone 5 (light leaks and damage on arrival), and the quality of the software that is included in iPhone 5.
Also there are already component supply shortages because Apple moved away from using Samsung and instead finding cheaper competitors. And obviously nothing has improved over in China given the riots which suggests Apple hasn't improved the pay or quality of work conditions over there..
Apple is their own worse enemy. It won't be any one competitor that takes down Apple, it will be Apple rolling out a fiasco that will take them down. Something like what the iPhone 5 is amounting too.
What is hilarious is the excuses both Apple and its fan boys are using to defend what is amounting to one of the worst product roll outs Apple has offered in recent history.
The truth is that had Steve Job's been alive he would have been fuming of this disaster. Heads would be rolling at Apple today. He would never have allowed release of a new Map product that did not surpass the quality of the product it replaced, he would never have allowed the leaks of all the information about the iPhone including photos of the actual case months in advance, and he never would have allowed a product to be released that scratched if you blew too hard on it, not after the first few generations of iPods with flawed easily scratched materials.
It is very obvious that Apple peaked the moment Jobs died. To claim the iPhone 5 is the last of his legacy, the last product he was intimately involved in suggests that today's Apple has no respect for the man that made that company.
Tim Cook and Jonathan Ives should be both be fired. There are way too many people wanting iPhone 5 to be more then it is, but it really is just a disaster that few want to admit is possible.
Re:Of course it does (Score:1)
Ignores design cost (Score:2)
This ignores the expense of laying out a new processor design BY HAND rather than algorithm [arstechnica.com].
Re:Ignores design cost (Score:2)
TFA is about manufacturing cost. No outsider can really compare the design costs of iPhone 5 and iPhone 4S.
Re:8$ (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:8$ (Score:3)
Re:8$ (Score:2)
Population density in Guangdong province is 1,390 /sq mi . Let's compare to some other US cities:
Anaheim, CA - 6,600/sq mi (Guangdong is not Anaheim, CA)
San Jose, CA - 5,400/sq mi
So Guangdong is 3 times less densely populated than Anaheim California. You could compare the province to Santa Clara County (1,400/sq m), which has the San Jose metro area within it. However there are places like Gilroy, Morgan Hill, Henry Coe State Park, and other largely uninhabited areas of the county. Just look at a map, or be someone who grew up in the San Jose area (me)
Re:8$ (Score:2)
Re:8$ (Score:2)
Guess you have never been to Southern Jersey, which is where the "Garden State" name comes from. It's a bunch of open land with cows and farms.
Re:Breaking News... (Score:1)
The people who hate Apple are posting a bunch, too. Slashdot, being an ad-supported site, wins either way.
Re:Breaking News... (Score:1)
First off, yes you would have. It's been a complaint around here since well before the iPad came out. Even sites like Gizmodo and Engadget have features to turn off stories in the weeks approaching Apple releases.
Second, the comments breed the stories. Lots of people comment (love or hate) when Apple stories come up, Slashdot serves ads, we get more stories.
Re:So, is Apple evil now? (Score:3)
Apple: Someone set us up the BOM !!