iPhone 6’s Amazing 720p @ 240fps videos come from a $16.50 Camera !

[joe1946]

That fancy new iPhone 6 camera is amazing, right?

As it turns out, the parts that make up the camera portion of the iPhone 6 cost about $16.50 when you buy them in bulk – $17.50 if you want to spring for OIS in the iPhone 6 Plus.


Teardown.com published its findings on cost estimations when it took the iPhone 6 and iPhone 6 Plus apart.


Those cameras in the iPhone 6 models are built on Sony Exmor RS CMOS image sensors, which include Sony’s phase detection pixel pairs in the iSight camera and implemented on the green channel of the bayer pattern sensor.

Of course, Apple’s magic makes it all work together nicely for the end user. The backbone of the camera, however, is Sony, which has made some solid compact camera sensors over the years. Since the introduction of its Exmor CMOS sensors, Sony has really been doing well with point and shoot performance, And now, as the P&S market transitions to smartphones, it makes sense to see Sony pumping out sensors for the top smartphone in the world.


All in all, the iPhone 6 parts are estimated to total $227, while the iPhone 6 Plus parts tally up to $242.50. Obviously, Apple is doing well on its margins by starting the phones at retail for $649 and $749, respectively.

http://www.photographybay.com/2014/09/22/iphone-6s-amazing-photos-come-from-a-16-50-camera/

 

[adkimery]

I love it when cost breakdowns completely ignore things like R&D (as if the product magically engineered, designed, tested, marketed and distributed itself).


-Andrew

 

[High1ander]

I love it when cost breakdowns completely ignore things like R&D (as if the product magically engineered, designed, tested, marketed and distributed itself).


-Andrew

Yes, because it is very easy to find how much Apple or another company pays for their R&D department, and for each project/product, and what they dish out for marketing...

Considering Apple has a gross margin around 35-40% (which is crazy good) I don't think their R&D would be taking too much of a cut from the overall price. Let say they would only sell iPhone (no computers, no programs, etc.) then by reaching 35% gross margin, they must at least sell things "overpriced" by about 70%. But I am pretty sure that they sell their phones for at least the double of what they cost to R&D, produce, distribute and market (a markup of 100% and I wouldn't be surprised if it was closer to 300% either...). Great for them, but I would imagine that companies like Sony struggle more and maybe sell for a 10-40% markup.

 

[demoboy]

I'm sure we'll be seeing more 240fps @ 720p or 120fps @ FullHD on most point and shoot cameras by 2015. Meaning just as good as the iPhone 6 quality or better, all for less than $300

 

[firehawk]

I'm sure we'll be seeing more 240fps @ 720p or 120fps @ FullHD on most point and shoot cameras by 2015. Meaning just as good as the iPhone 6 quality or better, all for less than $300

and most of our prosumer cameras can't do either. Hopefully the public won't soon "expect" it from us

 

[demoboy]

and most of our prosumer cameras can't do either. Hopefully the public won't soon "expect" it from us

the Panasonic HC-V750 at $600 looks great at 100fps. Better imo than the iPhone 6, AND you get optical image stabilization plus realtime zooming while recording slow mo. These implementations are not there yet with small format point and shoot. At least not as good as the HC-V750's BSI capture and quality. The HC-V750 is a leap. If Panasonic only had universal protocols like Sony's Multi-Terminal then we could use external rockers. Once Sony adds 100fps FullHD to their cheapest CX line along with the traditional Multi-Terminal it will get a huge praise for wedding and event just watch! The CX240 is only about $200 bucks and the capture quality is great for the buck and has Multi-Terminal. If it had 100fps it'd be even better. Only a matter of time. the iPhone 6 is just a phone....

 

[paulears]

People are obsessed with profit margin. If I could get better on products I sell, I'd be very happy - but you can't compare in this way. All that matters are the consumers. If they are happy with what they pay for what they get, then all is fine. Money is always seen as something bad? One well known car manufacturer here in the UK 'suggests' to their sales staff that it's best NOT to sell their electric vehicle, because they make a loss on each one, but need it in the range. Every time a customer drives away in one, they smile, yet curse under their breath. If they sell a different one, they make a lot of money, because it's cheap to make. This isn't bad, it's business! Good for Apple I say!

 

[Jay Birch]

I ate some chips (french fries) at a football (soccer) game... They were £3 ($5).... The potatoes costs around 10p (15c)

Can't compare apples to potatoes though.

 

[Gillvane]

The video looks really nice. I hope this will encourage other camera manufacturers to include slo mo as a feature when they see it's a feature that the consumers really like.
As far as cost, well,
what does it cost you to shoot a valuable piece of footage? Some wear and tear on your camera? Yet the right piece of news footage could be worth a million bucks if no one else has it. Should they pay you 5 or 10 bucks, the amortized cost on the wear and tear on your camera since that's what it really cost to produce?
The same person that thinks the camera companies are "ripping them off" will want every penny they think they can get for their intellectual property, while valuing the camera companies intellectual property at ZERO.

 

[Gillvane]

and most of our prosumer cameras can't do either. Hopefully the public won't soon "expect" it from us

Seriously? You know the general public will say, well an Iphone can do it and you can't do it with your expensive camera? The won't care about sensor size, codecs, etc.

 

[roxics]

I love it when cost breakdowns completely ignore things like R&D (as if the product magically engineered, designed, tested, marketed and distributed itself).

But it's not, at least not completely. I mean Sony sells those cameras for $16.50 which means they have baked in their R&D costs for developing that camera from stratch, plus a healthy profit I assume. I can't imagine that Apple's R&D costs are more than $16.50 per unit, especially since they aren't actually building the cameras themseves and they already have their color science figured out from previous iphone models. I would be surprised if Apple's R&D it's even half that per unit. Which if it was, is still a remarkably inexpensive camera considering how well it performs.

 

[adkimery]

But it's not, at least not completely. I mean Sony sells those cameras for $16.50 which means they have baked in their R&D costs for developing that camera from stratch, plus a healthy profit I assume. I can't imagine that Apple's R&D costs are more than $16.50 per unit, especially since they aren't actually building the cameras themseves and they already have their color science figured out from previous iphone models. I would be surprised if Apple's R&D it's even half that per unit. Which if it was, is still a remarkably inexpensive camera considering how well it performs.

My comment was in regards to the price break down of the whole phone, not just the camera.