Hard News: iPad Impressions
360 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 … 6 7 8 9 10 … 15 Newer→ Last
-
Awesomeness.
Using an iPad to replace the tape cassette drive for an Apple iie.
Now they just need to do the same for a C64.
-
new US laws target gadget manufacturers'
source of minerals used -
Don't take the Brown acid...
Using an iPad to replace the tape cassette drive for an Apple iie.
Damn your eyes! Now I want an old Apple IIe
and an iPad.Russell, that was just, ...mean...
It’s an obvious solution in retrospect, but there is something very unreal and amazing about tapping a button on a multi-touch screen and watching an Apple IIe fill up with data — to quote Andy Baio, “that’s like WALL-E connecting to EVE.”
though I'm guessing it wouldn't take long to fill up an IIe with data
- Memory
* 64 KB RAM built-in
* 16 KB ROM built-in
* Expandable from 64 KB up to 1 MB RAM or more!!those were the days!!
-
Expandable from 64 KB up to 1 MB RAM or more!!
And people think Apple products are expensive now. I hate to think how many top-line Mac Pro's one could buy for the inflation-adjusted cost of that memory upgrade.
-
It was caught using the same slave labour as everybody else whilst making much more money per unit sold than anybody else.
Giovanni, I don't think you ever backed up your claim that Apple made more per device than others in the same markets. I tried to come up with some:
HTC Magic: cost $158.69, price AU$900 (Vodafone AU)
iPhone 3GS 16GB: cost $172.46, price AU$880 (Vodaphone AU), US$599
Motorola Droid: cost $187.75, price US$599
Nexus One: cost $174.15, price US$529It doesn't look to me like Apple are making significantly more on the iPhone than others are making on similar phones.
-
It was iSuppli's claim, not mine. And they're the go-to people for this sort of thing.
-
On iSuppli's iPhone 4 estimate:
Actually this may be more than just Apple trying to disguise its profit margins -- there may be a legitimate question of the iSuppli estimates' validity. According to Techcrunch, "iSuppli is well-known for low-balling these numbers in an effort to convince manufacturers to contact them in order to connect with their preferred suppliers, so grains of salt must be taken."
But even if they're bang-on, it's very much in the same range as other smartphones, and doesn't include all the other costs apart from the parts and assembly.
-
forced to limit the margins on its products
What would be so bad about that?
</dirty pinko commie>
-
I was hoping somebody would say that. Somebody that wasn't me, preferably.
Actually this may be more than just Apple trying to disguise its profit margins -- there may be a legitimate question of the iSuppli estimates' validity.
They were bang on on the extent that Apple could bring the prices of the first iPhone down, however.
-
we're having an either / or chasm...
What would be so bad about that?
</dirty pinko commie>the rift between greed and green
widens with no respite
fissure, fissure -
What would be so bad about that?
Apple shareholders wouldn't be impressed. Steve won't even pay them a dividend (he just hoards cash) and there's all this hippy green stuff happening. The guy's a goddamn vegan with his own organic garden!
It's worth noting that in 2005, Apple's gross margin on the iPod (before distribution and fixed costs like marketing and development, and retail margins) was 50%. It's now more like 20%, because the iPod is a high-volume, low-margin product.
The iPad is around 50% now, and is tipped to fall to 40% in a few quarters' time.
The Kindle's gross margin was 40% last year and under 30% this year. It's just how it goes.
-
What would be so bad about that?
</dirty pinko commie>
It would make being innovative less attractive.
I also don't think margins are so easily calculated as people think. When you invest enormous amounts of capital and time into designing a new device, it's pretty hard to work out the true opportunity cost that they might have suffered by not just going for low margin mediocrity. I'm happy Apple have big margins because otherwise the things they make would probably never have been made at all, and we'd all be the poorer for it.
I also don't buy Apple products, probably partially because of those margins. But I still think the world would be a poorer place if they weren't around because of ideological bitterness about their very successful business model.
-
It also seems germane to point out that Microsoft's margin on the sale of a copy of Windows is somewhere north of 95%.
Each extra copy, even packaged, costs virtually nothing. But Windows cost a lot to make. So, what Ben said.
-
It also seems germane to point out that Microsoft's margin on the sale of a copy of Windows is somewhere north of 95%.
Oh, I have no horse in this race, Russell. I think they're *all* greedy, exploitative assholes. :)
-
Oh, I have no horse in this race, Russell. I think they're *all* greedy, exploitative assholes. :)
But ... but ... it's the same reason we wouldn't expect authors to sell their books for the cost of printing (or digital delivery). A lot of work went into that book.
-
I didn't say there should be *no* margins. I just said 'why would it be so terrible to have margins limited?'
-
Apple invented it's own plastic
That's nothing. I've heard that Cupertino boffins are working on a new element, Jobsium, that will be exclusively used in new Apple product. A half-life in the nanoseconds is causing some issues, but the legal team is confident they can sort it with a warranty clause.
-
But ... but ... it's the same reason we wouldn't expect authors to sell their books for the cost of printing (or digital delivery). A lot of work went into that book.
Whoah nelly. No. Seriously. Just no. It ought to be possible to manufacture things without brutally exploiting the population and poisoning the environment of poorer countries. There's no natural, objective, necessary reason why an iPad (or anything else, just using the example at hand) should cost 350 dollars in materials, and 10 dollars in labour. It's just the way we do business. We do it because we are the Empire. Let's not wallow in it. And yes, I'm sure research costs a lot of money, and those researchers are good people who deserve their pay. But those factory workers are good people too. We have made political decisions that allow us to exploit the latter but not the former. We could have legislated otherwise. This is what keeps our toys cheap.
-
I didn't say there should be *no* margins. I just said 'why would it be so terrible to have margins limited?'
By the Ministry for Setting Everyone's Margins?
-
By the Ministry for Setting Everyone's Margins?
Why not? Why is that such a weird thing to ponder? (I mean, I think it's kind of a weird prospect, too, but I don't know *why* I think it's weird. So I've probably been brainwashed by our evil capitalist overlords into thinking that it's weird.)
ETA: I now place a moratorium on me using the word 'weird' in my next 100 PAS posts.
-
By the Ministry for Setting Everyone's Margins?
More or less. There are laws that say we can't treat the workers of our countries the way we treat workers in the developing world. It would take a series of very simple acts of Parliament, Congress etc. to extend those protections across the board. It's the right thing to do, and furthermore we all know it's the right thing to do. It would also be very easy to do. We just choose not to do it.
-
There's no natural, objective, necessary reason why an iPad (or anything else, just using the example at hand) should cost 350 dollars in materials, and 10 dollars in labour.
That's a stronger point, but be wary of generalisations -- I should've pulled you up on the use of the word "slavery" before.
Example: the RAM in your computer is probably made in Taiwan -- where the minimum wage is quite close to ours.
It would be crazy to demand that manufacturing workers in places with much lower costs of living be paid the wages that pertain in countries where it costs a lot more to live. And it would prevent countries like Vietnam from ever joining the wealthy world. South Korea made the transition from poor to wealthy country through manufacturing.
Simon Grigg, who lives in Asia, is better value on this than me, but not allowing developing countries to use their low costs of living as a competitive advantage doesn't actually help those countries.
I would like to see labour and environmental stands built into trade agreements. But not letting developing countries compete with wealthy ones won't help.
-
Why not? Why is that such a weird thing to ponder?
Yes. I think it would be a utter disaster. But, then, I did live through Muldoon's wage and price freezes and Labour's Maximum Retail Price scheme.
-
Simon Grigg, who lives in Asia, is better value on this than me, but not allowing developing countries to use their low costs of living as a competitive advantage doesn't actually help those countries.
My country went through it in my lifetime - by which I mean a competitive advantage in terms of lower wages, but also sweatshops.
One thing is saying that the minimum wage in China should be the minimum wage in the US, in absolute terms. Another to exploit the lack of protections and welfare provisions for workers. We should demand that the latter be instituted - we really have no excuses not to. (I mean we are pretty stringent on the environmental standards of our devices, right? Why not also human labour standards?)
-
Muldoon's wage and price freezes
Heh. My mum, FWIW, loved the price freezes. 'When you went to the supermarket you knew exactly how much everything was going to cost!'
Post your response…
This topic is closed.