New Ipods Priced for Profit

mzkhadir

Diamond Member
Mar 6, 2003
9,509
1
76
MACWORLD Uk

Apple's new iPods priced for profit
By Dan Nystedt



Apple's recent introduction of several new iPods shows the company is looking for better profit margins, not gaining market share, according to researcher Gartner.


The top sign Apple is going for the green is its lack of aggressive pricing, according to Gartner analysts Joseph Unsworth and Jon Erensen in a Monday report. The second-generation iPod shuffle, for example, could have been priced closer to $49 to stimulate demand from users, since the cost of materials going into it amounts to only $30, the analysts said. Instead, the shuffle is priced at $79.


The company could have also priced the new 8GB nano product lower than $249, since its materials only cost $130, Gartner said, the same with its 4GB, which at $199 is far higher than the $90 worth of materials inside, and the 2GB version, which is $149 and is made from materials costing only $70.


The two Gartner researchers even lamented Apple's decision to discontinue the 1GB nano, which they say could have been a nice mass-market item for around $99.


"Apple is in a secure position atop the portable media player market and has decided to strategically focus on its margin this time," the analysts said.


Indeed, Apple continued to lead the US digital music player market in the second quarter with a 75.6 per cent share, according to the NPD Group, followed at a very distant second by SanDisk at 9.7 per cent and Creative Technology in third with 4.3 per cent of the market.


But a lack of revolutionary new functions in the latest lineup of iPods coupled with just a small price reduction could give rivals, Microsoft and its new Zune in particular, room to gain market share this year, the analysts said.


For one thing, Apple's rivals may not be affected by strained component supplies, since Apple won't be taking as much as it could, according to Gartner. The market researcher had predicted a shortage of flash memory chips in the fourth quarter due to strong sales of portable media players, USB (universal serial bus) flash drives and other products requiring the chips. While it still forecasts a shortage, the situation won't be as severe as previously thought, the analysts said, perhaps a 3 per cent shortfall rather than the 4.6 per cent shortage originally predicted.


Flash, one of the key data storage components for iPod nanos and shuffles, is 60 per cent cheaper than last year on average, and with Apple's huge investment in flash memory manufacturers, it could have priced its iPods more aggressively to keep its market share, the analysts said.


In addition, Apple's rivals won't have to work so hard this year to keep up with the iPod because the new lineup does not redefine the portable media player market like it did last year, Gartner said. And finally, the company only trimmed nano prices by $50, different from the past when the company's aggressive price cuts forced competitors to lower prices and increase storage capacity to compete.


Jill Than, a spokeswoman for Apple in Hong Kong, declined to immediately comment.


 

yllus

Elite Member & Lifer
Aug 20, 2000
20,577
432
126
Pricing based strictly upon cost of materials is plain idiotic. I imagine those subway posters, TV commercials, product placements, celebrity endorsements - you know, all that stuff that gets your otherwise unknown product out there in the public eye - is free?

I have an iPod Nano that I received free from work - it's sort of bad in terms of sound quality, but I can recognize marketing genius when I see it. Genius costs money.
 

BobDaMenkey

Diamond Member
Jan 27, 2005
3,057
2
0
Corperations are out there to make money? NO WAI!

edit: Cost of materials also does not reflect cost of manufacture.
 

acemcmac

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
13,712
1
0
$200 is a magical number for something complicated that I'll break in 12 months. That is, $200 better get me every feature I can possibly dream up or I'm not interested (Like my last PDA). If I'm buying for basic functionality, it had better be well under $100 (like my cell phone).

Right now, my MP3 player of choice is the creative zen vision... I want apple to make a product that competes with that!
 

SampSon

Diamond Member
Jan 3, 2006
7,160
1
0
I'm still waiting for apple to actually move ahead with the ipod devices, not just rehash the same crap.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,284
1,997
126
The person who wrote that article doesn't have the slightest clue about how business works. If the iPods are only marked up double of the pure component costs that's VERY agressive pricing. Given the costs of warranty service, support, development, advertising, shipping, promos, sales and a fair profit for the retailer it's impossible to manufacture a product for $30 and have it on shelves for $49.
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
33
91
You all have completely missed the author's point. He never comes across as one ticked off that Apple is trying to make money. He comes across as one who thinks Apple is making a bad business decision by keeping a high price on players with no big time innovation and because of this their market share will suffer. They could have kept the price low, made less profit, but in the process end kill off their rivals.
 

SophalotJack

Banned
Jan 6, 2006
1,252
0
0
Those are the prices you get when fad-vertising gets more budget than R&D of the products.

mac continues to keep me away from their products.

creative will have me for a while.
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: GagHalfrunt
The person who wrote that article doesn't have the slightest clue about how business works. If the iPods are only marked up double of the pure component costs that's VERY agressive pricing. Given the costs of warranty service, support, development, advertising, shipping, promos, sales and a fair profit for the retailer it's impossible to manufacture a product for $30 and have it on shelves for $49.

QFT. This is nothing but Apple haters at it again.
 

jagec

Lifer
Apr 30, 2004
24,442
6
81
Reasons why I still don't have an MP3 player, any MP3 player:

1)They're overpriced.
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
rent, overhead, R&D, design costs.......writer is obviously not an accountant. maybe he's a communist.
 

Thraxen

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
4,683
1
81
While the writer may not have a clue about the other costs, I doubt anyone here does either.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Thraxen
While the writer may not have a clue about the other costs, I doubt anyone here does either.

No, but I can guarantee that it is more than "the cost of materials going into it."
 

Thraxen

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
4,683
1
81
Originally posted by: b0mbrman
Originally posted by: Thraxen
While the writer may not have a clue about the other costs, I doubt anyone here does either.

No, but I can guarantee that it is more than "the cost of materials going into it."

I agree, but I don't think anyone here is in any better postion than the writer to determine what would be "aggressive".
 

Garet Jax

Diamond Member
Feb 21, 2000
6,369
0
71
Originally posted by: yllus
Pricing based strictly upon cost of materials is plain idiotic. I imagine those subway posters, TV commercials, product placements, celebrity endorsements - you know, all that stuff that gets your otherwise unknown product out there in the public eye - is free?

I have an iPod Nano that I received free from work - it's sort of bad in terms of sound quality, but I can recognize marketing genius when I see it. Genius costs money.

I would be very surpirsed if the costs in the article aren't loaded costs.
 

LegendKiller

Lifer
Mar 5, 2001
18,256
68
86
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
You all have completely missed the author's point. He never comes across as one ticked off that Apple is trying to make money. He comes across as one who thinks Apple is making a bad business decision by keeping a high price on players with no big time innovation and because of this their market share will suffer. They could have kept the price low, made less profit, but in the process end kill off their rivals.

And you have completely missed most of the poster's points.


1. Material cost isn't everything.

2. As others have mentioned, packaging, advertising, shipping, storage, shelf-cost, sale-costs, corporate overhead, business tax...etc. All of that figures into cost.

3. If you take his material cost, tack on another $10-15 for everything else, then that "huge profit" becomes pretty dang small and their pricing becomes a lot less profit-taking and a lot more in-line with everything else.

There are no excess profits at the expense of market-share there. He's forgetting important stuff.
 

Ika

Lifer
Mar 22, 2006
14,264
3
81
Originally posted by: jagec
Reasons why I still don't have an MP3 player, any MP3 player:

1)They're overpriced.

So $100 for a 20GB player is overpriced?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
You all have completely missed the author's point. He never comes across as one ticked off that Apple is trying to make money. He comes across as one who thinks Apple is making a bad business decision by keeping a high price on players with no big time innovation and because of this their market share will suffer. They could have kept the price low, made less profit, but in the process end kill off their rivals.

you're supposed to price goods not based on % of materials, but what the maximum price you can charge to generate highest revenue (i.e. what consumers are willing to pay).

so you must think bottled water companies should charge $0.05?
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: Garet Jax
Originally posted by: yllus
Pricing based strictly upon cost of materials is plain idiotic. I imagine those subway posters, TV commercials, product placements, celebrity endorsements - you know, all that stuff that gets your otherwise unknown product out there in the public eye - is free?

I have an iPod Nano that I received free from work - it's sort of bad in terms of sound quality, but I can recognize marketing genius when I see it. Genius costs money.

I would be very surpirsed if the costs in the article aren't loaded costs.

I doubt that it could contain hard-to-allocate costs such as advertising. Besides, the wording is hardly ambiguous:
the cost of materials going into it
its materials only cost
worth of materials inside
is made from materials costing only
 

Thraxen

Diamond Member
Dec 3, 2001
4,683
1
81
Originally posted by: JS80
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
You all have completely missed the author's point. He never comes across as one ticked off that Apple is trying to make money. He comes across as one who thinks Apple is making a bad business decision by keeping a high price on players with no big time innovation and because of this their market share will suffer. They could have kept the price low, made less profit, but in the process end kill off their rivals.

you're supposed to price goods not based on % of materials, but what the maximum price you can charge to generate highest revenue (i.e. what consumers are willing to pay).

so you must think bottled water companies should charge $0.05?

Ummm... did you even read his post? All he said was that the writer was just saying he thought Apple's pricing was a mistake and would allow the competition to take market share. Your response doesn't even have anything to do with that.
 

b0mbrman

Lifer
Jun 1, 2001
29,470
1
81
Originally posted by: JS80

you're supposed to price goods not based on % of materials, but what the maximum price you can charge to generate highest revenue (i.e. what consumers are willing to pay).

Not true. You want to generate the highest total profit, not total revenue...
 

Fingolfin269

Lifer
Feb 28, 2003
17,948
33
91
Originally posted by: LegendKiller
Originally posted by: Fingolfin269
You all have completely missed the author's point. He never comes across as one ticked off that Apple is trying to make money. He comes across as one who thinks Apple is making a bad business decision by keeping a high price on players with no big time innovation and because of this their market share will suffer. They could have kept the price low, made less profit, but in the process end kill off their rivals.

And you have completely missed most of the poster's points.


1. Material cost isn't everything.

2. As others have mentioned, packaging, advertising, shipping, storage, shelf-cost, sale-costs, corporate overhead, business tax...etc. All of that figures into cost.

3. If you take his material cost, tack on another $10-15 for everything else, then that "huge profit" becomes pretty dang small and their pricing becomes a lot less profit-taking and a lot more in-line with everything else.

There are no excess profits at the expense of market-share there. He's forgetting important stuff.

Of course there are other costs. But since neither you, nor anyone else in this thread, is privy to the actual total cost by unit of the various iPod models, it is simply guess work on your part to debunk the author.

BTW, I find it hard to believe that it would cost $10-$15 more per 2G shuffle.