Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

birchtree.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 385 posts

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#121

Post by dbspin »

samatman wrote: post #68
Zak wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm disappointed Apple hasn't dropped Lightning and just made all their devices use standard USB-C. I could see their motivation for developing their own connector when everyone else was using micro-B, which has a number of disadvantages, but now USB-C is used to power virtually every other phone and tablet, and many laptops including Apple's own.

I'm indifferent. On the one hand, yeah, USB-C works great, and everything else I own takes it. On the other hand, Lightning also works great, USB-C isn't an improvement on the merits, and iPhone users have a bunch of accessories for it. Like in my car, I have a 12v charger with one USB-A port and a built-in Lightning cable, and I'd have to either junk it or just ignore the built in cable if they went USB-C. I'm prett…

USB-C depending on implementation has enormously greater throughput (USB 3.1 gen 2 is 10Gbps) than lightning (480Mbps/60MBps). This might not be relevant for your needs, but increasingly Apple are marketing the iPhone as a 'pro' device, specifically for media creation. And it is finding a home in videography and event photography and streaming for example (I work in this area). Given this, the speed available through wifi and lightning are both enormous constraints on the usefulness of the phone professionally. So this is actually a really big issue for a segment of apples audience - perhaps a small segment, but specifically the segment whose imprimatur continues to lend apple devices their desirability.

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#122

Post by pfarnsworth »

Anyone who thinks this isn't a cost-cutting measure is delusional or utterly naive. This is strictly a bottom-line measure and they are draping it as a phony environmental move. Their profit margins are fat enough to afford a $5 charger, they just want to keep boosting their stock price.

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#123

Post by shuckles »

paledot wrote: post #21
Bud wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For me it's an optimal experience: my device cost went down, I get to choose what I spend that money on (such as superior 3rd-party chargers with multiple ports), and I get the satisfaction of knowing that Apple didn't waste planetary resources making inflexible single-port chargers and $5 wired earbuds that I will never, ever use. I do admit that it's not optimal for every single user, but I do think it's a net impr…

Or Apple's did. Do you really think they're passing the savings on to the customer?

Luca their CFO has consistently said on investor calls that they aim for 35% gross margins, so any excess seems indeed reinvested into other features on the BOM or passed on to the customer.

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#124

Post by saurik »

jbombadil wrote: post #119
samatman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm indifferent. On the one hand, yeah, USB-C works great, and everything else I own takes it. On the other hand, Lightning also works great, USB-C isn't an improvement on the merits, and iPhone users have a bunch of accessories for it. Like in my car, I have a 12v charger with one USB-A port and a built-in Lightning cable, and I'd have to either junk it or just ignore the built in cable if they went USB-C. I'm prett…

My concern with them removing the port is what what would happen to everyone whose car's entertainment unit supports CarPlay but not wireless CarPlay?

I guess they either buy a new car or they buy a dongle they plug into their car as a wireless bridge (same as every change Apple makes ;P).

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#125

Post by robocat »

skohan wrote: post #120
robocat wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Now you are replying with a double-down on your original thesis “but the real reason is the massive savings they will get on logistics”? Sure, add all the logistics costs in your head using some heuristic (security is a big component you are missing). Now compare that number to the profit of selling an extra charger, or the BOM price of a charger. HN is a community of thinkers and you will be judged by your responses…

With all due respect your responses are incredibly condescending. I believe my point stands. If you disagree, I suggest that you propose a concrete model which would refute my thesis. I don’t know who you are to speak for the “HN community”.

Touché. I apologise, you are correct. You are still avoiding answering my criticism of your original thesis.

Edit: I’ll append the approximations at the base of my heuristic:

* I only care about marginal $deltas when comparing

* an extra shipping container costs $10000

* one cubic metre holds 1000 one litre boxes

* a charger costs Apple $5

* total marginal $delta shipping costs are less than 10 times the delta in shipping costs

* Apple use 20 foot containers

Although on second thought, they must use planes otherwise inventory in transit would be astronomical, but I still believe that marginal savings from not producing a charger dominates (by over 10x) the savings from smaller packaging.

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#126

Post by jlengrand »

It's funny, because I bought my first apple watch last month. The website mentioned -> sustainability efforts, no cable. Ok, I bought a cable and a watch.

Sat with my useless cable home for 4 days. Cable delivered after 3 days, watch after 5 weeks.

Watch came with a cable.

No matter how happy I am with my watch, I really feel like they were making fun of me. . .

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#127

Post by ochoseis »

toast0 wrote: post #55
ochoseis wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apple’s move and their explanation honestly feels about as genuine as hotels asking you to be eco friendly by hanging the door-tag to skip room cleaning. The difference is that hotels at least give you the option.

Isn't Apple giving you a new option here? Before, you were forced to buy the bundled wall wart, now you have the option to keep using what you had or buy a charger if you need it? They're still forcing a bundled cable, but it's a different cable you probably don't have many of?

The equivalent option would be to offer the charger by default, and allow eco conscious consumers to opt out. Making it opt-in for folks without a working charger would strike a nice balance, even if it’s not feasible.

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#128

Post by giantrobot »

robocat wrote: post #37
skohan wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have heard a lot of speculation that the move to remove the charger was motivated by Apple's desire to sell more chargers, but I suspect that they could care less about moving chargers. I believe it is profit motivated, but the real reason is the massive savings they will get on logistics by fitting almost 50% more iPhones in a shipping container by removing the charger. If they pass some of that savings onto the c…

> but the real reason is the massive savings they will get on logistics When positing causes, I suggest you learn how to do back-of-the-envelope calculations in your head. A container can hold a lot of iPhones. The cost of transport is trivial in comparison to the value, so the profitability delta is very small. I.e. I think you are making up stuff.

An ISO container can hold a lot of iPhones. You might notice however shipping terminals don't have a lot retail shoppers.

There's in fact a whole chain of facilities that handle supplies to retail outlets. Every gallon of diesel fuel burned to get things from those shipping terminals to a retailer emits about 20 pounds of CO2. Increasing the number of things per vehicle reduces each thing's CO2 contribution. It also decreases the shipping cost of each thing as it goes through that chain of supply.

The shipping for each iPhone might be a small portion of its retail price but it needs to be paid up front and in aggregate. So millions of dollars in shipping costs getting even a 30% savings is still millions of dollars in savings.

Besides the retail cost of goods is unrelated to the BOM and transaction costs. It's what the market will bear. Savings in BOM costs or transport just go into the retailer or manufacturer's pocket as profit.

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#129

Post by lotsofpulp »

jbombadil wrote: post #119
samatman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm indifferent. On the one hand, yeah, USB-C works great, and everything else I own takes it. On the other hand, Lightning also works great, USB-C isn't an improvement on the merits, and iPhone users have a bunch of accessories for it. Like in my car, I have a 12v charger with one USB-A port and a built-in Lightning cable, and I'd have to either junk it or just ignore the built in cable if they went USB-C. I'm prett…

My concern with them removing the port is what what would happen to everyone whose car's entertainment unit supports CarPlay but not wireless CarPlay?

I’ve always seen it as a usb cable that you can swap out with any other usb cable.

Re: A Guy Walks into an Apple Store

#130

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

jbombadil wrote: post #119
samatman wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm indifferent. On the one hand, yeah, USB-C works great, and everything else I own takes it. On the other hand, Lightning also works great, USB-C isn't an improvement on the merits, and iPhone users have a bunch of accessories for it. Like in my car, I have a 12v charger with one USB-A port and a built-in Lightning cable, and I'd have to either junk it or just ignore the built in cable if they went USB-C. I'm prett…

My concern with them removing the port is what what would happen to everyone whose car's entertainment unit supports CarPlay but not wireless CarPlay?

Time to buy a new car ;)
Post reply on HN