>they really should be saying "hey Apple, you pay so much less now, where the fucks our discount"...
In terms of economics, what it costs Apple to actually make the iPhone 6 is irrelevant, except with relation to how much it costs Apple's rivals to make competing products. The manufacturer will sell their products at a price that suits them (usually to improve margins, but one might discount products to gain market share. Apple have done their sums and determined that enough people will pay the asking price - and APPL's bottom line suggests that they have pitched it well.
Of course, it suits Apple to try and make sure there are no competing products; someone might instead buy a Samsung and it will still make phone calls and play YouTube videos, but it won't be a FaceTime terminal or iWatch companion. The user might have already invested (money and learning) in propriety iDevice-compatible kit, so a HTC handset won't be a swap-out alternative (, i.e level competition) for an iPhone.
This isn't the area of economics that is being discussed in the article. The argument being made is that a computer sold in the eighties for £1000 was a word processor and spreadsheet. It then, slowly, acquired the ability to be a photograph archive, drafting board and music player. Today, it is also a video editor, physical model simulator, and video-phone. (And my ageing Core2 Duo laptop also functions as a fan-heater)