The iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro's USB-C port and accompanying charging
cables will feature a Lightning-like authenticator chip, potentially
limiting their functionality with Apple-unapproved accessories, a rumor shared on Weibo suggests.
It is worth noting that the USB-C interface currently used by Apple in
the 10th-generation iPad, iPad mini, iPad Air, and iPad Pro, do not
contain an IC chip for authentication, meaning that this would be a
first for ports of this kind offered by the company.
It is worth noting that the USB-C interface currently used by
Apple in the 10th-generation iPad, iPad mini, iPad Air, and iPad
Pro, do not contain an IC chip for authentication, meaning that
this would be a first for ports of this kind offered by the
company.
^^this^^
why would apple use an authenticator chip only on the iphone but not
on everything else?
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
In article <xn0nxz6udex6aeb002@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
The iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro's USB-C port and accompanying
charging cables will feature a Lightning-like authenticator chip, >>potentially limiting their functionality with Apple-unapproved >>accessories, a rumor shared on Weibo suggests.
'a rumor...suggests'.
that's not particularly credible, especially given what apple has
already done:
It is worth noting that the USB-C interface currently used by
Apple in the 10th-generation iPad, iPad mini, iPad Air, and iPad
Pro, do not contain an IC chip for authentication, meaning that
this would be a first for ports of this kind offered by the
company.
^^this^^
why would apple use an authenticator chip only on the iphone but not
on everything else?
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
On Feb 11, 2023, nospam wrote
(in article<news:110220231736550138%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mifi revenue Apple reaps from lightning accessories.
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
Take that EU !!!
-----------
The iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro's USB-C port and accompanying charging
cables will feature a Lightning-like authenticator chip, potentially
limiting their functionality with Apple-unapproved accessories, a rumor shared on Weibo suggests.
In article <xn0nxz72nexia7g003@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
It is worth noting that the USB-C interface currently used by
Apple in the 10th-generation iPad, iPad mini, iPad Air, and iPad
Pro, do not contain an IC chip for authentication, meaning that
this would be a first for ports of this kind offered by the
company.
^^this^^
why would apple use an authenticator chip only on the iphone but not
on everything else?
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
Yes. Everyone knows Apple is just a poor ole country telephone maker.
They are almost destitute.
They tried to sell computers, and still try to offer a few, but it
didn't do that well. They were too damn expensive, and not compatible
with anything else.
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
Plus, the margins on accessories is ginormous.
On 2/11/2023 2:28 PM, badgolferman wrote:
<snip>
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
Plus, the margins on accessories is ginormous.
On Feb 11, 2023, nospam wrote
(in article<news:110220231736550138%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mifi revenue Apple reaps from lightning accessories.
Ron, the humblest guy in town.
On Feb 11, 2023, nospam wrote
(in article<news:110220231736550138%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mifi revenue Apple reaps from lightning accessories.
nospam wrote:
In article <xn0nxz6udex6aeb002@reader443.eternal-september.org>,
badgolferman <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> wrote:
The iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro's USB-C port and accompanying
charging cables will feature a Lightning-like authenticator chip,
potentially limiting their functionality with Apple-unapproved
accessories, a rumor shared on Weibo suggests.
'a rumor...suggests'.
that's not particularly credible, especially given what apple has
already done:
It is worth noting that the USB-C interface currently used by
Apple in the 10th-generation iPad, iPad mini, iPad Air, and iPad
Pro, do not contain an IC chip for authentication, meaning that
this would be a first for ports of this kind offered by the
company.
^^this^^
why would apple use an authenticator chip only on the iphone but not
on everything else?
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
It's not the MFi revenue that's the issue. It's that MFi discourages companies from manufacturing and marketing low-cost accessories that
compete with genuine Apple accessories.
You're unlikely to see a USB to
Lighting cable at a dollar store. A USB-A to USB-C cable is easy to find
at a dollar store,
Not sure what the MFi fee is now, but in 2014 Apple changed it to $4 per connector.
On 2/11/2023 2:48 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
On Feb 11, 2023, nospam wrote (in
article<news:110220231736550138%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The
iPhone accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other
devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mifi
revenue Apple reaps from lightning accessories.
Correct.
It's not the MFi revenue that's the issue. It's that MFi discourages
companies from manufacturing and marketing low-cost accessories that
compete with genuine Apple accessories. You're unlikely to see a USB
to Lighting cable at a dollar store. A USB-A to USB-C cable is easy
to find at a dollar store, i.e.
<https://daisous.com/products/4549131856125> with the total cost
being less than just the MFi fee that is charged for a cable with a
Lightning connector.
Not sure what the MFi fee is now, but in 2014 Apple changed it to $4
per connector. That raises the cost of after-market cables. For
example, Anker charges $17.99 for its basic 6' USB-C to Lightning
cable <https://www.anker.com/products/a8831?variant=40667501789334>
while their basic 6' USB-C to USB-C cable is $14.99 <https://www.anker.com/products/a8856?ref=search_anker%20543&variant=39709197762710>.
This is despite the fact that a USB-C to USB-C cable will cost more
to manufacture since there are 24 conductors inside the cable while a Lighting cable only needs eight conductors (only one side of the
connector is used at a time).
Take that EU !!!
-----------
The iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro's USB-C port and accompanying charging
cables will feature a Lightning-like authenticator chip, potentially
limiting their functionality with Apple-unapproved accessories, a rumor shared on Weibo suggests.
Am 11.02.23 um 23:19 schrieb badgolferman:
Take that EU !!!
-----------
The iPhone 15 and iPhone 15 Pro's USB-C port and accompanying charging
cables will feature a Lightning-like authenticator chip, potentially
limiting their functionality with Apple-unapproved accessories, a rumor
shared on Weibo suggests.
Not a good idea. That will kill Apple in Europe. That will probably interptreted as a clear attempt to circumvent the intent of the *lex-USB-C*.
Ok, I'll bite: What other revenue would apply to USB-C ports, Ron?
On Feb 11, 2023, Jolly Roger wrote
(in article<news:k4qm4tF2o32U1@mid.individual.net>):
Ok, I'll bite: What other revenue would apply to USB-C ports, Ron?
I learned it as the domino effect on sales revenue
Ron, the lamest troll in town.
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mfi revenue Apple >> reaps from lightning accessories.
Yet you don't explain...
On Feb 11, 2023, Alan wrote
(in article<news:ts9j84$1ier3$5@dont-email.me>):
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mfi revenue Apple >>> reaps from lightning accessories.
Yet you don't explain...
What do you understand of the classic domino effect for sales strategies?
On 2023-02-12, RonTheGuy <ron@null.invalid> wrote:
On Feb 11, 2023, Alan wrote
(in article<news:ts9j84$1ier3$5@dont-email.me>):
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mfi revenue Apple >>>> reaps from lightning accessories.
Yet you don't explain...
What do you understand of the classic domino effect for sales strategies?
God you people are weak.
Alan Browne wrote:
Pretty amusing to believe MFI is a significant revenue source to
Apple.
It's much like a vehicle manufacturer. Save a few pennies on the
quality of the interior dash, the layers of paint, the thickness of the steel, the gauge of the piston rings, etc. and pretty soon you've saved $100.00 per vehicle. Raise the price by only $900.00 and you're making $1000.00 profit per vehicle. Sell 200,000 vehicles and you've made an
extra $2,000,000 for that model only.
Every little $0.02 counts to the bottom line.
On Feb 11, 2023, Alan wrote
(in article<news:ts9j84$1ier3$5@dont-email.me>):
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mfi revenue Apple >>> reaps from lightning accessories.
Yet you don't explain...
What do you understand of the classic domino effect for sales strategies?
Pretty amusing to believe MFI is a significant revenue source to
Apple.
On Feb 11, 2023, Alan wrote
(in article<news:ts9j84$1ier3$5@dont-email.me>):
To recover lost revenue from Lightning port devices. The iPhone
accessory market is much bigger than Apple's other devices.
mfi revenue is nowhere near what people think it is.
You don't understand how it works if you think it's only mfi revenue Apple >>> reaps from lightning accessories.
Yet you don't explain...
What do you understand of the classic domino effect for sales strategies?
Alan Browne wrote:
Pretty amusing to believe MFI is a significant revenue source to
Apple.
It's much like a vehicle manufacturer. Save a few pennies on the
quality of the interior dash, the layers of paint, the thickness of the steel, the gauge of the piston rings, etc. and pretty soon you've saved $100.00 per vehicle. Raise the price by only $900.00 and you're making $1000.00 profit per vehicle. Sell 200,000 vehicles and you've made an
extra $2,000,000 for that model only.
Every little $0.02 counts to the bottom line.
Pretty amusing to believe MFI is a significant revenue source to
Apple.
It's much like a vehicle manufacturer. Save a few pennies on the
quality of the interior dash, the layers of paint, the thickness of the steel, the gauge of the piston rings, etc. and pretty soon you've saved $100.00 per vehicle. Raise the price by only $900.00 and you're making $1000.00 profit per vehicle. Sell 200,000 vehicles and you've made an
extra $2,000,000 for that model only.
Every little $0.02 counts to the bottom line.
Here's the business plan for the new company.
We'll come up with a cable interface spec and license it out
for companies to make cheap accessories.
We'll call it "Lightning" and the license will be called "MFi".
Then, when we're the most valuable public company in the world
we'll start making, uhm, I dunno... maybe computers? Cell
phones? Tablets? Just spitballing here, but that could amount
to a nice side hustle.
Making the iPhone required accessories which did not fit anything else is
one of the ways that Apple became the most profitable company in the world.
Every little $0.02 counts to the bottom line.
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote about MFi and the claim that
it is a significant revenue source for Apple compared to their main
activity.
Not sure what the current state is, Apple don't publish the amounts
(subject to vendor NDA) but per the usual sources (!) Apple charge MFi vendors:
$99 per year program fee. If you make 10,000 widgets, that's 1 cent each.
$4 per MFi device on a product.
(In the past it's been as much as $10/ or some percentage of the retail
price up to some cap.
All that said, I just checked for cables on Amazon.ca
Three for $12.00 (CAD). MFi certified per the vendor.
If that's so, I don't see Apple getting much $ out of it.
(Or these are in fact not MFi certified even though they are likely technically compliant)
I remember reading about this as it applies to vehicle manufacturers.
The price they can charge for a vehicle is based on the market, not on
how much it costs to manufacture.
Sometimes a vehicle manufacturer will keep a feature that everyone else
has dropped. One person I knew recently bought a new Subaru and the
deciding factor between the Subaru and a Honda or Toyota was that the
Subaru still had a CD player.
On 13-02-2023 00:29 Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Every little $0.02 counts to the bottom line.
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote about MFi and the claim that
it is a significant revenue source for Apple compared to their main
activity.
You are focused only on the mfi which means you won't be able to see the
subterfuge that Apple uses to make money handoverfist with these ruses.
On 13-02-2023 00:29 Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Every little $0.02 counts to the bottom line.
Which has nothing to do with what I wrote about MFi and the claim that
it is a significant revenue source for Apple compared to their main
activity.
You are focused only on the mfi which means you won't be able to see the subterfuge that Apple uses to make money handoverfist with these ruses.
In article <TbaGL.1157$OTCe.222@fx11.ams1>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Not sure what the current state is, Apple don't publish the amounts
(subject to vendor NDA) but per the usual sources (!) Apple charge MFi
vendors:
'usual sources' doesn't mean much of anything.
$99 per year program fee. If you make 10,000 widgets, that's 1 cent each.
true.
$4 per MFi device on a product.
that is the part that cannot be confirmed.
(In the past it's been as much as $10/ or some percentage of the retail
price up to some cap.
that is a reasonable method, however, also unconfirmed.
All that said, I just checked for cables on Amazon.ca
Three for $12.00 (CAD). MFi certified per the vendor.
If that's so, I don't see Apple getting much $ out of it.
exactly, which is why the claim of $4/per product is nonsensical and
easily shown to be false.
(Or these are in fact not MFi certified even though they are likely
technically compliant)
falsely claiming mfi certification is fraud, which will not end well
for any company that tries it.
What do you understand of the classic domino effect for sales strategies?
Pretty amusing to believe MFI is a significant revenue source to Apple.
fit but if I had wanted to tell you how much Apple makes off mfi certification it seems to be $4 per item according to a recent publication.
On Feb 12, 2023, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<news:TbaGL.1157$OTCe.222@fx11.ams1>):
What do you understand of the classic domino effect for sales strategies? >>Pretty amusing to believe MFI is a significant revenue source to Apple.
Pretty amusing you believe I said that because I didn't say that at all.
On Feb 12, 2023, nospam wrote
(in article<news:120220231723315773%nospam@nospam.invalid>):
fit but if I had wanted to tell you how much Apple makes off mfithe existence of mfi-certified cables for under $5 proves that to be
certification it seems to be $4 per item according to a recent publication. >>
false.
You misunderstood that I didn't way it's $4 now but only that's the only charge I could find in any current or old article when I searched.
the exact amount is under nda so there's no way to confirm any claim of
what the fee is.
I had agreed with you Apple's goal is to make money not so much on the mfi but much more by designing everything to cause increased accessory sales.
fit but if I had wanted to tell you how much Apple makes off mfi
certification it seems to be $4 per item according to a recent publication.
the existence of mfi-certified cables for under $5 proves that to be
false.
the exact amount is under nda so there's no way to confirm any claim of
what the fee is.
How much do you imagine Apple earns from accessory sales?
On Feb 12, 2023, Alan wrote
(in article<news:tschro$1tf94$3@dont-email.me>):
How much do you imagine Apple earns from accessory sales?
You always ask stupid questions which you can look up yourself.
To you it doesn't matter what anyone says as long as you can say it's
wrong. Then you challenge them to a stupidity duel which is your favorite thing to do because you'll find something in the results to keep
challenging them.
You don't care for the answer.
You only care to get a response.
It's your favorite tactic.
A stupidity duel which you try to keep going forever.
If someone falls for it and if they then hand you the answer on a silver platter you always say that's wrong without looking up the answer yourself.
And if someone made the mistake to give you a link you say its wrong
because you find something else to restart your favorite stupidity duel
Everything you do is to keep your favorite stupidity duel moving forward.
But if you must ask, this is the answer in the very first result I found.
From "Apple's Business Model" https://fourweekmba.com/apple-revenue-breakdown/
"Apple generated over $394 billion in revenues in 2022, of which $205.5
came from iPhone sales, $40 billion came from Mac sales, over $41 billion came from accessories and wearables (AirPods, Apple TV, Apple Watch, Beats products, HomePod, iPod touch, and accessories), $29.3 billion came from
iPad sales, and $78.13 billion came from services."
But you really didn't want to know the answer to any of your questions.
I already know you'll deny everything and you won't even look it up.
So that's all you get from me for this stupidity duel you so much love.
"Over $41 billion came from accessories and wearables in 2022"
Which is more than Apple makes from Mac sales.
And twice what Apple makes from iPad sales.
But only half of what Apple makes in services.
In article <1vskdrzzoig9v$.dlg@news.solani.org>, RonTheGuy
<ron@null.invalid> wrote:
fit but if I had wanted to tell you how much Apple makes off mfi
certification it seems to be $4 per item according to a recent publication.
the existence of mfi-certified cables for under $5 proves that to be
false.
On Feb 12, 2023, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<news:TbaGL.1157$OTCe.222@fx11.ams1>):
What do you understand of the classic domino effect for sales strategies? >>Pretty amusing to believe MFI is a significant revenue source to Apple.
Pretty amusing you believe I said that because I didn't say that at all.
I said the mfi isn't how Apple makes money off of making accessories not
fit but if I had wanted to tell you how much Apple makes off mfi certification it seems to be $4 per item according to a recent publication. https://www.igeeksblog.com/apple-mfi-certified/
That data might be old because it points back to this article for that $4. https://appleinsider.com/articles/14/02/07/apple-lowers-mfi-lightening-licensing-fees-paving-way-for-more-affordable-ios-accessories-
But the $4 doesn't matter because mfi isn't how Apple makes money with accessories that are designed to make people buy more Apple accessories.
Apple don't break this down very far, so no telling how much MFi itself brings in, but given the categories it would fall under the accessories sub-category [ it could fall under either iPhone or iPad but I doubt it].
I'd confidently venture that 3rd party accessory makers in the aggregate
make far, far more sales than Apple in that sub-category.
In article <chtGL.794206$iU59.626657@fx14.iad>, Alan Browne <bitbucket@blackhole.com> wrote:
Apple don't break this down very far, so no telling how much MFi itself
brings in, but given the categories it would fall under the accessories
sub-category [ it could fall under either iPhone or iPad but I doubt it].
mfi is pennies in the grand scheme of things.
claims that apple is requiring mfi for the revenue has no basis in
reality.
I'd confidently venture that 3rd party accessory makers in the aggregate
make far, far more sales than Apple in that sub-category.
quite likely.
Fair enough, that said, what Apple make on accessories for the main
product line is still peanuts.
And for that matter, plenty of 3rd party
accessory makers for Apple products have made oodles of cash w/o a penny going to Apple.
Let's see what factual info we can dig up. (I know, I know, takes all
the fun out of it).
So even if accessories amount to 25% of that category (which is pretty generous IMO)
claims that apple is requiring mfi for the revenue has no basis in
reality.
Not clear what you mean by that. Apple do require MFi licensing for lightning.
On Feb 13, 2023, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<news:chtGL.794206$iU59.626657@fx14.iad>):
Fair enough, that said, what Apple make on accessories for the main
product line is still peanuts.
Like you, I'm all for using real numbers for my opinions.
It was a big deal when Anker Amazon sales hit $1 billion dollars https://www.marketplacepulse.com/articles/amazon-native-brand-anker-reaches-1-billion-sales
That article says Anker's /total/ sales revenue was less than $2 billion.
Using your 25%, that means Apple made about $10 billion on accessories.
How can you term Apple's $10 billion "peanuts" in light of Anker figures?
And for that matter, plenty of 3rd party
accessory makers for Apple products have made oodles of cash w/o a penny
going to Apple.
I wasn't the one who said mfi revenue was big business for Apple but if
those "accessory makers" are mfi certified, then they pay Apple the $4.
And to forestall that other guy claiming it's not $4 only because he
doesn't like that it's been reported as $4, then tell him to find the
number and if he can't find the number, not liking it isn't good enough.
It's $4 per device unless he can find something that says otherwise.
That's a large percentage of the cost of the mfi item, you must agree.
Let's see what factual info we can dig up. (I know, I know, takes all
the fun out of it).
See above which says Apple made "Over $41 billion came from accessories and wearables in 2022". That's more than Apple made from Mac sales.
It's twice what Apple makes from iPad sales.
But I don't have the breakdown of just the "and accessories" part alone.
For now, let's use your 25% figure but let's look for a real report on it.
So even if accessories amount to 25% of that category (which is pretty
generous IMO)
If we use your 25% guesstimate, that's about $10 billion in sales.
You can call $10 billion in sales "peanuts" if you want to think that way.
Not clear what you mean by that. Apple do require MFi licensing for
lightning.
it's been claimed, without evidence, that apple wants to continue using lightning as long as possible because of the massive revenue they
receive from it. that has no basis in reality.
mfi was originally created so that customers could be sure that the
accessory they're buying has been tested by apple to not damage the
device,
which at the time were ipods, and since then has evolved to
cover more devices.
apple tests the accessory not only with existing
devices, but also future unreleased devices.
There's no founding that it is that amount. That amount is the most
recent "leaked" amount that one can trivially find on the web (along
with the $99 fee).
The amount is subject to NDA. NDA's are not necessarily boilerplate.
It could be that (eg) Anker (who have a close retail relationship with
Apple) get a more advantageous license structure than some other company.
And of course there are likely hundreds of Chinese co's selling stuff
under the claim of MFi w/o paying a fee to Apple at all.
On Feb 13, 2023, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<news:%JvGL.190791$PXw7.62560@fx45.iad>):
There's no founding that it is that amount. That amount is the most
recent "leaked" amount that one can trivially find on the web (along
with the $99 fee).
You are the one who demanded numbers to back up your disagreement.
And then when you get numbers, you then say that only Apple can give them. And that's admirable, but Apple doesn't give the numbers you're asking for.
And nobody can debate that because you won't believe any number other than from Apple (and you already knew that Apple doesn't give out that number).
The amount is subject to NDA. NDA's are not necessarily boilerplate.
It could be that (eg) Anker (who have a close retail relationship with
Apple) get a more advantageous license structure than some other company.
You can't lose with your approach.
You can claim anything you want.
And of course there are likely hundreds of Chinese co's selling stuff
under the claim of MFi w/o paying a fee to Apple at all.
You insist on revenue estimates knowing Apple doesn't provide them.
Then when you get the estimates, you say you only believe what Apple says.
Which is nothing. And you knew that before you even asked for it.
With your attitude, you can allege anything you want to because you won't believe any estimate that didn't come from Apple (which none of them do).
No sense continuing given your attitude is that you don't believe anything and yet you contradict everything (even Anker's worldwide sales revenue!).
I'm not the one who wants to live or die on this hill.
Where there's data, there's data. Where there isn't there isn't.
So using a given recent data point (such as the $4 number) has to come
with a big qualifying statement that summarizes to "dunno how good this
is." There are other (older) claims that it's a percentage of the
retail price.
Which to choose? How to choose? Choose at all?
nospam is of the opinion that it is far less than $4 because of the
prices of some items on the market are themselves about $4 - never mind
any MFi fee.
OTOH, I doubt those products are actually licensed (though they're
likely compliant to the spec).
I'll believe any factually based, traceable number.
I'm not making specific claims other than the accessories market is not
all that much for Apple, and less so in the context of MFi (since that applies to an even smaller subset of Apple accessories whether made by
Apple or others).
To be clear: Apples 3rd party MFi revenue is a part of the "accessories" sub-category revenue. Apple make money there, but most of that is not
from MFi).
I just said that rather than go to an article for data, go to Apple for
data.
Then I go on to set some WAG threshold (25%) of a category that might be
the accessories part (and the number is likely much smaller).
All that to arrive at the conclusion that accessories for Apple gear is
not as important as some suggest, and less so due to things like MFi.
Why should I believe estimates that are based on data that is at best
leaked in violation of an NDA?
Not that it matters - no matter what the cost of MFi it is still a
fraction of the revenue ascribed to "accessories" and that is
demonstrably a few billion bucks v $117B for the reference quarter.
Peanuts where Apple is concerned.
No sense continuing given your attitude is that you don't believe anything >> and yet you contradict everything (even Anker's worldwide sales revenue!).
Where did I do that? I pointed out that Anker do well (good company, so
no surprise). Indeed whatever somebody posted about them reaching $1B
in sales I took in good faith and didn't backcheck it.
On Feb 14, 2023, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<news:jsyGL.576648$Tcw8.221013@fx10.iad>):
I'm not the one who wants to live or die on this hill.
Me neither. You're the one who came up with the 25% which calculates using your own numbers to something like $12B a year for "accessories" revenue (assuming I think you said around 3$ billion and change per quarter).
My calculation came out to a bit over $10-1/4B a year for "accessories"
using your 25% of the $41B that Apple does report for the larger category.
Our estimates aren't all that far off, and mine were still appreciably
lower than yours were, but you still blindly disputed them anyway.
Where there's data, there's data. Where there isn't there isn't.
You and I took 25% of the numbers that were provided by Apple.
That gives us around $10B per year for Apple "accessories" revenue.
You call ten billion dollars peanuts. But it's five times Anker's revenue.
Neither one of us can hone it any better than that but we are close
so I'm not sure why you're saying you don't agree with your own numbers.
I suspect you don't want to agree with your own figures because it's not
even close to peanuts. It's a lot of money Apple makes off accessories.
So using a given recent data point (such as the $4 number) has to come
with a big qualifying statement that summarizes to "dunno how good this
is." There are other (older) claims that it's a percentage of the
retail price.
It's the only number we have, isn't it?
For nospam to claim he doesn't like that number is all well and good.
But it's meaningless what nospam likes since he has no data at all.
Which to choose? How to choose? Choose at all?
It's a number that isn't disputed by any account so that alone gives it
more credibility than anything nospam says. He just doesn't like it.
nospam is of the opinion that it is far less than $4 because of the
prices of some items on the market are themselves about $4 - never mind
any MFi fee.
That's not why nospam is against $4 (which is almost certainly correct).
The real reason nospam is against it is $4 doesn't fit his fake narrative.
OTOH, I doubt those products are actually licensed (though they're
likely compliant to the spec).
I agree with you that a lot of widgets aren't actually licensed properly.
I'll believe any factually based, traceable number.
The $10 billion you didn't believe and yet it was close to your $12
billion. The $4 you don't believe and yet it's the only number published.
I'll believe you when you come up with factually based traceable numbers.
I'm not making specific claims other than the accessories market is not
all that much for Apple, and less so in the context of MFi (since that
applies to an even smaller subset of Apple accessories whether made by
Apple or others).
Over ten billion dollars in accessories revenue is not peanuts.
Even for Apple.
To be clear: Apples 3rd party MFi revenue is a part of the "accessories"
sub-category revenue. Apple make money there, but most of that is not
from MFi).
The entire iPad revenue for Apple is only twice that ten billion dollars.
You don't like the numbers because they don't fit your fake narrative.
I just said that rather than go to an article for data, go to Apple for
data.
No. You disputed your own numbers when I repeated them (with more clarity). And they came from Apple.
Then I go on to set some WAG threshold (25%) of a category that might be
the accessories part (and the number is likely much smaller).
It seems it doesn't matter WHAT numbers are provided to you. Even Apple's. You will dispute all numbers because they don't fit your fake narrative.
All that to arrive at the conclusion that accessories for Apple gear is
not as important as some suggest, and less so due to things like MFi.
Your fake narrative requires ten billion dollars to be peanuts.
Even though that's ten fold the total Amazon Anker revenue.
Why should I believe estimates that are based on data that is at best
leaked in violation of an NDA?
Your false narrative requires you to believe only what Apple provides, and then when someone concurs with you on those numbers, you don't believe
them.
Your false narrative requires you to not believe your own numbers.
Not that it matters - no matter what the cost of MFi it is still a
fraction of the revenue ascribed to "accessories" and that is
demonstrably a few billion bucks v $117B for the reference quarter.
Peanuts where Apple is concerned.
Ten billion dollars is half of the iPad revenue.
No sense continuing given your attitude is that you don't believe anything >>> and yet you contradict everything (even Anker's worldwide sales revenue!). >>Where did I do that? I pointed out that Anker do well (good company, so
no surprise). Indeed whatever somebody posted about them reaching $1B
in sales I took in good faith and didn't backcheck it.
All the numbers came from Apple but you disputed all of them anyway.
It's clear you have a false narrative that requires you to dispute all numbers, even the numbers you provided yourself from Apple's figures.
It's not possible to have a meaningful discussion with you.
Which is a WAG. And (warning - repeat coming) that 25% is far more favourable to the accessories portion of the category than is likely the case.
That gives us around $10B per year for Apple "accessories" revenue.
You call ten billion dollars peanuts. But it's five times Anker's revenue.
I wasn't referencing Anker. I was referencing Apple. So for Apple, accessory sales remains: peanuts.
Neither one of us can hone it any better than that but we are close
so I'm not sure why you're saying you don't agree with your own numbers.
I suspect you don't want to agree with your own figures because it's not
even close to peanuts. It's a lot of money Apple makes off accessories.
Bwah?
My sole purpose in getting the Apple data was to show that overall, accessories are not a place where Apple focuses for revenue. Yes, there
is money there - but it certainly is not core.
It's the only number we have, isn't it?
Which doesn't lend much credence to the quality of the number.
For nospam to claim he doesn't like that number is all well and good.
But it's meaningless what nospam likes since he has no data at all.
He's going on market prices for things, which isn't a horrible way to
go, but I think he puts too much faith in vendor claims of MFi
compliance (not technical compliance, but commercial).
It's a number that isn't disputed by any account so that alone gives it
more credibility than anything nospam says. He just doesn't like it.
I dispute it. It's old. It's web. It's a violation of the NDA to
publish such. Who knows how usable it is. Low quality data.
That doesn't mean I know what the number is - just that that number is suspect (and stale at that).
The notion that the $4 is correct is rubbish. This doesn't mean it
isn't $4, it just means there is absolutely no proof for the $4.
The $10 billion you didn't believe and yet it was close to your $12
billion. The $4 you don't believe and yet it's the only number published.
I never disputed your number - I just pointed out the source is not the
way I would do it.
I'll believe you when you come up with factually based traceable numbers.
I've made no claim to the MFi charges. And I won't. Because I can't.
Because the data is privileged to those who sign that NDA and who can't reveal it. And further, what one licensee pays is likely different than another.
the SOLE purpose of my comments here is to note, from publicly available data, that I linked to, that the value of Apple accessory revenue is
some small part of the category "Wearables, Home and Accessories." And
even then I was generous with that estimate.
Over ten billion dollars in accessories revenue is not peanuts.
Even for Apple.
a) that number is likely generous, as pointed out many times, and
b) it is peanuts for Apple even w/o discounting it further.
The entire iPad revenue for Apple is only twice that ten billion dollars.
You don't like the numbers because they don't fit your fake narrative.
What fake narrative? I've put out everything based on Apple's own
public declarations and I've clearly pointed out that the 25% factor is
a generous WAG to accessories.
No. You disputed your own numbers when I repeated them (with more clarity). >> And they came from Apple.
No. You based them on the data from an article that used a full FY of information. I used a sole quarter.
So they're close, but not matching.
It seems it doesn't matter WHAT numbers are provided to you. Even Apple's. >> You will dispute all numbers because they don't fit your fake narrative.
What fake narrative? All I've pointed out is that accessories are not
that big of a market for Apple. This is all to shoot down earlier
notions presented by someone that MFi is major key to Apple revenue.
Bear in mind that not all Apple accessories need MFi, so a furher
discount ...
Your fake narrative requires ten billion dollars to be peanuts.
Even though that's ten fold the total Amazon Anker revenue.
Again, you're comparing it to Anker, where I'm comparing accessory
revenue to Apple overall.
Your yardstick isn't the same as mine and I don't give a flying fuck
about that.
No I didn't. I used the Apple numbers from 1 quarter and got the
results I got. Period.
It's not possible to have a meaningful discussion with you.
I've been transparent, put out the numbers, links to the numbers,
qualified what was high quality data and what was low quality (my 25%
WAG being one of them).
In the end, the sole conclusion is accessory revenue is peanuts for
Apple. But I'm not comparing that to Anker.
EOF for me.
Have the last word. Seems important to you.
On Feb 13, 2023, Alan Browne wrote
(in article<news:X0BGL.792143$iS99.731498@fx16.iad>):
Which is a WAG. And (warning - repeat coming) that 25% is far more
favourable to the accessories portion of the category than is likely the
case.
Apple wouldn't have listed it as an item if it wasn't a large component.
It's just as likely to be 50% as it is to be 25% but I accepted your WAG.
That gives us around $10B per year for Apple "accessories" revenue.I wasn't referencing Anker. I was referencing Apple. So for Apple,
You call ten billion dollars peanuts. But it's five times Anker's revenue. >>
accessory sales remains: peanuts.
You don't understand ten billion dollars is /not/ peanuts to any company. It's half Apple's total iPad sale and a quarter of Apple's Mac sales.
My sole purpose in getting the Apple data was to show that overall,
accessories are not a place where Apple focuses for revenue. Yes, there
is money there - but it certainly is not core.
Accessories revenue is about half the revenue Apple gets from iPad sales. That's /not/ peanuts.
You just don't like that it doesn't fit your fake narrative on accessories.
It's the only number we have, isn't it?
Which doesn't lend much credence to the quality of the number.
We know accessories are a large component of Apple's revenue because Apple bothered to list them out as a combined line item of $41 billion dollars.
We know accessories are a large component of Apple's revenue because Apple bothered to list them out as a combined line item of $41 billion dollars.
We know accessories are a large component of Apple's revenue because Apple >> bothered to list them out as a combined line item of $41 billion dollars.
It's not just revenue, it's that the margins on OEM accessories are
enormous.
Retailers complain about the low margins on OEM Apple accessories
(reported to be 8%) since after-market accessories typically have at
least Keystone margins (when sold at MSRP). If you're unfamiliar with
retail terminology and margins see <https://www.liveabout.com/keystone-pricing-in-retail-2890192>. This is
why a carrier's store and web site will feature after-market cables and chargers, even at lower prices the profit is far greater.
Online retailers have disrupted Keystone margin pricing. Ironically,
it's companies that ship direct from China, like AliExpress, that have
really upset some online retailers that sell essentially the same
products, shipped from U.S. warehouses. You have to be willing to wait
for 2-3 weeks for delivery from China, and accept that returns are
unlikely to make sense financially.
It was a brilliant marketing move to include a cable that required a
charger that few buyers owned.
But by the time of the iPhone 13 I
suspect that most people had already purchased a USB=C PD charger,
either from Apple or from someone else.
It's why Apple put the "wrong" cable in the box with no "right" charger.
(You will inherently understand what I mean by that I'm sure, don't you?)
But I didn't know what "keystone" means until I looked it up from above.
Keystone = merchandise is priced at twice wholesale cost
Online retailers have disrupted Keystone margin pricing. Ironically,
it's companies that ship direct from China, like AliExpress, that have
really upset some online retailers that sell essentially the same
products, shipped from U.S. warehouses. You have to be willing to wait
for 2-3 weeks for delivery from China, and accept that returns are
unlikely to make sense financially.
Amazon is pretty good with returns of widgets from China. If the box is damaged, for example, they tell you to keep the product (in my experience).
Your Keystone Pricing explanation said they used to use it for the total markup, which is the markup by the vendor plus the store's markup.
Which Keystone Pricing is used in the Apple stores versus carrier stores?
On 2/16/2023 12:48 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
<snip>
It's why Apple put the "wrong" cable in the box with no "right"
charger.
(You will inherently understand what I mean by that I'm sure,
don't you?)
It was a brilliant marketing move to include a cable that required
a charger that few buyers owned.
On 2/16/2023 12:48 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
<snip>
It's why Apple put the "wrong" cable in the box with no "right" charger.
(You will inherently understand what I mean by that I'm sure, don't you?)
It was a brilliant marketing move to include a cable that required a
charger that few buyers owned.
It's why Apple put the "wrong" cable in the box with no "right" charger.
(You will inherently understand what I mean by that I'm sure, don't you?)
It was a brilliant marketing move to include a cable that required a
charger that few buyers owned. But by the time of the iPhone 13 I
suspect that most people had already purchased a USB=C PD charger,
either from Apple or from someone else.
I suspect that the pricing for Apple accessories in store is far, far
higher than Keystone.
I first encountered the term Keystone pricing in the bicycle accessory market. A bike shops margin on complete bicycles is 30-35% and it
requires an hour or so of labor to properly assemble a bicycle. Bike
shops make their big money on accessories, parts, clothing, and repairs.
I'm sure you bitched just like this when Apple removed the floppy drive
and moved to USB in favor of older interfaces like parallel and serial
ports as well. And while you dip shits bitch and moan, the world has
passed you by. USB-C is the new standard, and you losers are still complaining. The more things change, the more they stay the same. Conservative assholes lose *hate* change. The rest of us adapt and move
on. But by all means, stay stunted and stupid. : )
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
I'm sure you bitched just like this when Apple removed the floppy
drive and moved to USB in favor of older interfaces like parallel and
serial ports as well. And while you dip shits bitch and moan, the
world has passed you by. USB-C is the new standard, and you losers
are still complaining. The more things change, the more they stay the
same. Conservative assholes lose *hate* change. The rest of us adapt
and move on. But by all means, stay stunted and stupid. : )
It seems you scream hatred in all you say because you don't like
Apple.
Apple tricked you with that cable.
You don't understand that a new iPhone is useless without a charger.
And the cable is useless because it doesn't fit any of your USB-A
chargers.
And if you already had a new USB-C PD charger, it was already being
used.
None of this you understand so keep on screaming you hate what Apple
did.
On 2/15/2023 11:31 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
<snip>
We know accessories are a large component of Apple's revenue because
Apple
bothered to list them out as a combined line item of $41 billion dollars.
It's not just revenue, it's that the margins on OEM accessories are
enormous.
On 2/16/2023 12:48 PM, RonTheGuy wrote:
<snip>
It's why Apple put the "wrong" cable in the box with no "right" charger.
(You will inherently understand what I mean by that I'm sure, don't you?)
It was a brilliant marketing move to include a cable that required a
charger that few buyers owned. But by the time of the iPhone 13 I
suspect that most people had already purchased a USB=C PD charger,
either from Apple or from someone else.
The purchaser could buy any-old USB-C charger...
...or just continue using their existing USB-A charger with the USB-A-Lightning cables they almost certainly owned.
On 18.02.23 17:45, Alan wrote:
The purchaser could buy any-old USB-C charger...
...or just continue using their existing USB-A charger with the
USB-A-Lightning cables they almost certainly owned.
Which is why Apple customers are all cheap losers with velvet Elvis iPhone owners paying a thousand bucks for a new suit for their job interview
wearing their old worn out sneakers with that brand new expensive suit.
Apple is saying iPhone customers are low class cheap losers for doing this.
1. Many iPhone users buy a USB-C PD charger to go with the USB-C to
Lightning cable that is included in the box with their phone.
Many may
not initially understand why the included cable doesn't match the
chargers that they already own,
2. Some iPhone owners never understand that a USB-A charger and a USB-A
to Lightning cable does not provide optimal functionality.
3. Corporate iPhone users may never receive a new charger from their
employer when they upgrade their phones, with the employer expecting
them to continue to use their old charger.
4. A lot of people realize that buying a charger from the carrier's
store, or from the phone manufacturer, is not the wisest course of
action, but a lot of people also don't understand this.
On 18.02.23 17:45, Alan wrote:
The purchaser could buy any-old USB-C charger...
...or just continue using their existing USB-A charger with the
USB-A-Lightning cables they almost certainly owned.
Which is why Apple customers are all cheap losers
2. Some iPhone owners never understand that a USB-A charger and a USB-A
to Lightning cable does not provide optimal functionality.
it's more than adequate for the vast majority of use cases.
their existing charger is fine.
On 2023-02-16 12:23, sms wrote:
On 2/15/2023 11:31 AM, RonTheGuy wrote:
<snip>
We know accessories are a large component of Apple's revenue because
Apple
bothered to list them out as a combined line item of $41 billion
dollars.
It's not just revenue, it's that the margins on OEM accessories are
enormous.
But the margins will always be LESS the the revenues, right?
Or had that escaped you?
First off the $41B needs to be divided by about 4 to get to a plausible maximum revenue amount for accessories. Call it $10B. The rest is "Wearables and Home" in the $41B.
And that $10B might be exaggerated by a factor of 2 to 4 itself. We
just don't know.
Given Apple annual revenue of $394B - the revenue (and the margin) on accessories is definitely peanuts for Apple.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 403 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 69:31:35 |
| Calls: | 8,423 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 13,175 |
| Messages: | 5,905,367 |