And I'm certain they could go down if they update the display and related components. But is that a smart business move? Is $499 a high start price when just two years the presume price was $999 and few vendors are matching their $499 price, even with 7" tablets.
Personally, I hope Apple has an iPad 3 at $499 without the HiDPI display or related HW do that two months later they can stop producing them and release a PR statement saying almost everyone wants the HiDPI display version.
Nope. The ones who don't raise their prices will go completely and utterly unnoticed, just like right now.
Apple will be seen as a money-grubbing corporation trying to game every last dollar out of their customers "because they can". We'll see new trolls on here saying that Apple's doing it because "since people bought it at $499, they'll buy it at $599". Et cetera.
Well they have 45%+ margins, imo they can absorbed the cost rise to make sure to keep the tablet market share. Securing market share is more important than making a few coins.
And I am hoping for a very low cost model to be announced to go with there textbook program.
Of course not, it was a joke aimed at the anti-Apple whiners who like to whine about the working conditions. I already pointed out that if there is a price increase, then it's most likely because of added hardware costs due to the new tech.
Doubling the salary of 100k minimum wage workers at Foxconn works out at something like $300m per year. If Apple shipped 60 million iPads, the cost is $5 per iPad or a 1% increase. So yeah, I'd say the added cost is much more likely to come from the display.
This actually happened with the iPhone 4 if I recall correctly. I don't remember the exact prices but the iPhone 4 definitely launched at a higher price while the 3GS stayed largely the same. The 3G/3GS were about £350-399 to buy outright in the UK and the iPhone 4 launched at £499.
So, raising prices isn't quite a rare occurrence. Apple has also raised the minimum prices of the Mini (when they went to $599), iMac (when they dropped the 17" model), Mac Pro ($500 hike) and Macbook (moving to unibody).
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatrickRS
they could just keep the iPad2 going longer
I think that's likely. The iPad 2 will be the equivalent of the 3GS. I don't actually see Apple losing ground due to the higher price as the better quality Android tablets aren't all that much cheaper. You might save $200 in the best case but the compromise is too high.
I guess all the naysayers are worried there won't be lineups at Apple Stores if the price goes up?
Doubtful.
I've always been of the mindset that early adopters should pay more, especially when people wait for hours to buy one the first day. If that is a problem, get out of the line and let things be bought by those who can afford.
What is wrong with a little bit of supply and demand theory for pricing these devices?
Unless you get the whining that occurred when Apple dropped the price of the original iPhone when the eventual price drops on this sort of technology.
I can bet this is controlled leak by Apple itself. Apple needs to misguide competition to wrong distortion fields, so they can relax and think they will have similar hardware with similar to best prices. Apple leaked the initial $1000 as a price for iPad 1 and launched it at half of it, creating a tsunami and competition colliding with each other sinking catastrophically to the bottom of the ocean.
Now it is time again. Creating the same distortion field again, will make competition happy and jumpy. When the distortion field is turned off, competitors will never know what hit them.
Apple is master on controlled leaks and Tim Cook is the wizard of logistics and product placement in the market...
I will buy my giant popcorn bucket and watch the carnage...
The iPad 3 is going to sell like hotcakes, even if it's $580. Do you really think that $80 is going to change anybody's mind, besides a couple of people?
It might sell like hot cakes. It also might dissuade quite a few buyers. BTW, my brother has both a iPad 2 and a Kindle and says the Kindle does quite a lot of what his iPad 2 does.
Well they have 45%+ margins, imo they can absorbed the cost rise to make sure to keep the tablet market share. Securing market share is more important than making a few coins.
And I am hoping for a very low cost model to be announced to go with there textbook program.
'Can' does not equal 'should'. This isn't about what is best for us it's about what is best for Apple. I have to assume that Apple wouldn't raise the price without running the numbers and calculating the possible scenarios.
Why should Apple take a lower margin if they will lose money from the deal? What if they determined that even at a price increase they will still sell all they can produce? What if the cost of the new HW is equal to or more than $80 thus making this a drop in profit margin despite the increased cost?
It might sell like hot cakes. It also might dissuade quite a few buyers. BTW, my brother has both a iPad 2 and a Kindle and says the Kindle does quite a lot of what his iPad 2 does.
In the same way Top Raman does the same as a Ruth Chris's steak.
I thought you probably did. But I think the difference between retina and non-retina is huge, especially for text. The iPad 2 looks positively blurry compared to the IP4.
Either way it should be fairly easy to get 2X performance out of a A5X chip.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't think anything can drawn from Apple using A5X over A6. The A5X could very well be a 2x doubling of most components. Double the A9 cores, double PowerVR GPU cores, and double the RAM.
I think the screen on my iPad 2 looks amazing. I'll be skipping the iPad 3.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The original iPhone screen looked great, too, and it had a substantially higher PPI than the current iPad, but we all saw how much better the display got with the iPhone 4. Of course, part of that was moving to IPS over TN.
I wonder if a Retina Display iPad will have the same impact as the RD iPhone. Yes, it will be beautiful. But part of the appeal for that pixel density on the iPhone is the smaller screen meant smaller UI elements which could be hard to read. The higher resolution added a needed increase in readability of those small screen elements. A similar incease in resolution on the iPad would be cool, but I'm not sure it will have the same impact because you had more space to work with from the start.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd_in_sb
$500 is a psychological barrier for many. I would be surprised if Apple crossed that threshold by adding $80.
I would agree that if the cheapest iPad was over $500 it would be a psychological barrier. Even if many of the sales end up being of the more expensive models, the sub-500 price gets 'em in the door. Otherwise a Kindle Fire might start looking like a better opttion to many. That said, I think the expectation is that Apple would keep a low-end iPad 2 available even after the iPad three is released.
I'm also intested in what they do storage-wise. The $100 increase between models is a bit much, especially the jump from 16 to 32 GB. All the high-resolution graphics for the Retina Display optimzed applications is going to start eating up storage space!
Comments
Me. Bad idea, prices should be going down not up.
And I'm certain they could go down if they update the display and related components. But is that a smart business move? Is $499 a high start price when just two years the presume price was $999 and few vendors are matching their $499 price, even with 7" tablets.
Personally, I hope Apple has an iPad 3 at $499 without the HiDPI display or related HW do that two months later they can stop producing them and release a PR statement saying almost everyone wants the HiDPI display version.
Nope. The ones who don't raise their prices will go completely and utterly unnoticed, just like right now.
Apple will be seen as a money-grubbing corporation trying to game every last dollar out of their customers "because they can". We'll see new trolls on here saying that Apple's doing it because "since people bought it at $499, they'll buy it at $599". Et cetera.
Well they have 45%+ margins, imo they can absorbed the cost rise to make sure to keep the tablet market share. Securing market share is more important than making a few coins.
And I am hoping for a very low cost model to be announced to go with there textbook program.
Securing market share is more important than making a few coins.
At no point in Apple's history has that seemed to be the case, really.
Granted, Tim Cook wants the Mac to grow in marketshare. So do I. We'll have to see what he does with it.
If you look at the chart it specifies wi-fi and 3G. I have to believe that the IPad 3 will have 4G support. So I dont believe this at all.
Again I believe Apple will have the following IPads
IPad 2.5 16GB Wi-Fi - $349 (new cpu (A5X), same screen)
IPad 2.5 32GB Wi-Fi / 3G - $399 (new cpu (A5X), same screen)
IPad 3 32GB Wi-Fi - $549 (new cpu (A6), new screen)
IPad 3 32GB Wi-Fi / 4G - $599 (new cpu (A6), new screen)
IPad 3 64GB Wi-Fi / 4G - $649 (new cpu (A6), new screen)
IPad 3 128GB Wi-Fi /4G - $749 (new cpu (A6), new screen)
That's what I think.....
Not only $50 for the cellular and GPS but also including LTE?
Of course not, it was a joke aimed at the anti-Apple whiners who like to whine about the working conditions. I already pointed out that if there is a price increase, then it's most likely because of added hardware costs due to the new tech.
Doubling the salary of 100k minimum wage workers at Foxconn works out at something like $300m per year. If Apple shipped 60 million iPads, the cost is $5 per iPad or a 1% increase. So yeah, I'd say the added cost is much more likely to come from the display.
This actually happened with the iPhone 4 if I recall correctly. I don't remember the exact prices but the iPhone 4 definitely launched at a higher price while the 3GS stayed largely the same. The 3G/3GS were about £350-399 to buy outright in the UK and the iPhone 4 launched at £499.
So, raising prices isn't quite a rare occurrence. Apple has also raised the minimum prices of the Mini (when they went to $599), iMac (when they dropped the 17" model), Mac Pro ($500 hike) and Macbook (moving to unibody).
they could just keep the iPad2 going longer
I think that's likely. The iPad 2 will be the equivalent of the 3GS. I don't actually see Apple losing ground due to the higher price as the better quality Android tablets aren't all that much cheaper. You might save $200 in the best case but the compromise is too high.
Just give me a 128GB model at the top end, please!
I would expect 128GB to be offered in the high end model based on several manufacturing reprts last year.
http://www.pcworld.com/businesscente...gb_tablet.html
http://betanews.com/2011/05/31/sandi...tablet-module/
Doubtful.
I've always been of the mindset that early adopters should pay more, especially when people wait for hours to buy one the first day. If that is a problem, get out of the line and let things be bought by those who can afford.
What is wrong with a little bit of supply and demand theory for pricing these devices?
Unless you get the whining that occurred when Apple dropped the price of the original iPhone when the eventual price drops on this sort of technology.
Now it is time again. Creating the same distortion field again, will make competition happy and jumpy. When the distortion field is turned off, competitors will never know what hit them.
Apple is master on controlled leaks and Tim Cook is the wizard of logistics and product placement in the market...
I will buy my giant popcorn bucket and watch the carnage...
Are you kidding me?
The iPad 3 is going to sell like hotcakes, even if it's $580. Do you really think that $80 is going to change anybody's mind, besides a couple of people?
It might sell like hot cakes. It also might dissuade quite a few buyers. BTW, my brother has both a iPad 2 and a Kindle and says the Kindle does quite a lot of what his iPad 2 does.
Well they have 45%+ margins, imo they can absorbed the cost rise to make sure to keep the tablet market share. Securing market share is more important than making a few coins.
And I am hoping for a very low cost model to be announced to go with there textbook program.
'Can' does not equal 'should'. This isn't about what is best for us it's about what is best for Apple. I have to assume that Apple wouldn't raise the price without running the numbers and calculating the possible scenarios.
Why should Apple take a lower margin if they will lose money from the deal? What if they determined that even at a price increase they will still sell all they can produce? What if the cost of the new HW is equal to or more than $80 thus making this a drop in profit margin despite the increased cost?
That's not surprising as they have the same screen resolution.
sorry meant 3gs.
It might sell like hot cakes. It also might dissuade quite a few buyers. BTW, my brother has both a iPad 2 and a Kindle and says the Kindle does quite a lot of what his iPad 2 does.
In the same way Top Raman does the same as a Ruth Chris's steak.
I thought this was their best (maybe 2nd best) selling model?
sorry meant 3gs.
I thought you probably did. But I think the difference between retina and non-retina is huge, especially for text. The iPad 2 looks positively blurry compared to the IP4.
I don't think anything can drawn from Apple using A5X over A6. The A5X could very well be a 2x doubling of most components. Double the A9 cores, double PowerVR GPU cores, and double the RAM.
Hope Apple keep with the same price structure.
It would put them further ahead of the game compared to the competition.
Might as well go for the kill.
The kill is already got.
I think the screen on my iPad 2 looks amazing. I'll be skipping the iPad 3.
The original iPhone screen looked great, too, and it had a substantially higher PPI than the current iPad, but we all saw how much better the display got with the iPhone 4. Of course, part of that was moving to IPS over TN.
I wonder if a Retina Display iPad will have the same impact as the RD iPhone. Yes, it will be beautiful. But part of the appeal for that pixel density on the iPhone is the smaller screen meant smaller UI elements which could be hard to read. The higher resolution added a needed increase in readability of those small screen elements. A similar incease in resolution on the iPad would be cool, but I'm not sure it will have the same impact because you had more space to work with from the start.
$500 is a psychological barrier for many. I would be surprised if Apple crossed that threshold by adding $80.
I would agree that if the cheapest iPad was over $500 it would be a psychological barrier. Even if many of the sales end up being of the more expensive models, the sub-500 price gets 'em in the door. Otherwise a Kindle Fire might start looking like a better opttion to many. That said, I think the expectation is that Apple would keep a low-end iPad 2 available even after the iPad three is released.
I'm also intested in what they do storage-wise. The $100 increase between models is a bit much, especially the jump from 16 to 32 GB. All the high-resolution graphics for the Retina Display optimzed applications is going to start eating up storage space!
I've always been of the mindset that early adopters should pay more,
Many of them do. They buy from scalpers.
This forum would be better without the stupid f'in animated smileys.
Seriously.