Pixel 9 Pro BOM Lower Than iPhone 16 Pro: Is Google Better at Cost Control?

Pixel 9 Pro BOM Lower Than iPhone 16 Pro: Is Google Better at Cost Control?A new teardown report from Japan today claims to reveal the Bills of Materials (BOM) for both Google's Pixel 9 Pro and Apple's iPhone 16 Pro. A BOM is essentially an estimation of the cost of components in a smartphone, and it's important to note that this does not include costs like research and development and marketing

Pixel 9 Pro BOM Lower Than iPhone 16 Pro: Is Google Better at Cost Control?

A new teardown report from Japan today claims to reveal the Bills of Materials (BOM) for both Google's Pixel 9 Pro and Apple's iPhone 16 Pro. A BOM is essentially an estimation of the cost of components in a smartphone, and it's important to note that this does not include costs like research and development and marketing. If the report is accurate (which remains to be determined as the information has not been officially released), the Google Pixel 9 Pro seems to have a significantly lower manufacturing cost (from a component cost perspective alone) compared to the iPhone 16 Pro.

According to the report, the Pixel 9 Pro's BOM totals $406, while the iPhone 16 Pro's BOM comes in at $568. This means the Pixel 9 Pro's BOM is 11% lower than the previous Pixel 8 Pro, but that comparison is not entirely fair as the Pixel 8 Pro's successor is the Pixel 9 Pro XL. The Pixel 9 Pro is smaller in size, implying a smaller screen and smaller battery, which both could cost less than their larger counterparts, potentially contributing to the BOM cost reduction. On the other hand, the iPhone 16 Pro's BOM is 6% higher than its predecessor from last year.

The report also breaks down the cost of major components for both phones: The iPhone's chipset is estimated to cost $135, the display $110, and the camera components total $91. For the Pixel, the SoC is $80, the display $75, and the camera components total $61.

It is worth noting that both the Pixel 9 Pro and iPhone 16 Pro have a starting price of $999. This price difference implies that, if the report is accurate, Google might be better at controlling hardware costs for the Pixel 9 Pro than Apple for the iPhone 16 Pro.

However, it is crucial to emphasize that the report comes from Japan and is not official, so its accuracy needs further validation. Additionally, factors beyond the bill of materials, such as research and development, marketing costs, software development, and more, will likely influence the final price of the phones. Therefore, solely relying on BOM to judge the cost control or profitability of both phones may be limited.

Despite this, the report still provides an interesting insight into the potential differences in hardware cost control strategies between Google and Apple. As more information becomes available, we can explore and analyze this further.