As for your first two points, you know who offers 128gb internal storage these days? Apple do so. They do so on the iPod touch, and they do so in the MacBook air?
Can you link to the 128GB iPod Touch? How much does a 128GB MBA cost? Versus the cost of an iPad.
Quote:
Of course they have a plan to force people to upgrade more often, why wouldn't they? Most companies in the tech world know what to provide and what to withhold to ensure consumers upgrade and spend more.
The problem with your rationality here is that you rule out the fact that technology and component costs change year over year. Its not simply about forcing customer to upgrade. Technology improves prices change. That is the way its always been.
Are you really even looking at what you are saying?
Apple's competitors are selling below cost and they are generally selling devices with 8GB or 16GB internal storage. You think Apple should be able to easily ship 128GB internal storage?
You don't see the flaw in your logic?
Take amazon in particular, and amazon has nowhere near the clout in flash purchasing power and bulk deals, as apple must be buying, what about x100 more flash for their products than amazon. So yes I expect apple to start at 32gb, and not stick to 16gb because simply others cannot much them in the price they get their flash, so apple say, why raise capacity if others can't much us anyway, let's keep it the same for 3 years in a row, an just raise the margins. And yes I do also expect 128gbs for the top spec model, I don't expect it to have half the storage of the air, I don't expect it to not much the iPod touch, and I am fully aware that the iPads size is not the iPhones so they can stick two 64gb sticks instead of having to wait and lay up for the recent 128gb single chips debuted by toshi 3 months ago.
But you also missed my point with amazon and selling bellow cost. I am conveinced apple are selling the iPad at a rather good margin of profit. Maybe not as high as say MacBooks, but a very apple like margin. But apple are also a very big content provider, very comparable to what amazon has to offer by their services via their devices. Yet apple dont't seem to be so willing to cut their margins on the iPad a bit, let alone sell at cost which of course I don't expect them to. But it seems they want to have both great profit margins by selling iPads, as well as great profit margins by selling the content via the iPads. Which is all good and well to maximise profit they are corporation, but let's not pretend that of they opted to raise after three years the entry model to 32gb they would take any serious hit in their margins...
...but let's not pretend that of they opted to raise after three years the entry model to 32gb they would take any serious hit in their margins...
Let's not pretend that you're only suggesting they raise the 16GB model to 32GB. You demand all three models to get double the capacity for the same price points. You mention the Kindle Fire but have you tested the NAND? Is it the same quality NAND? Capacity isn't the only measure.
Basic syncing functionality be it via mm or iCloud, esp to former subscribers of a sub par service (by apple's own admission) such as mm, should have been extended to the previous .1 version of os x, unless an important technical reason demanded otherwise. There was no apparent technical difficulty in supporting iCloud on snow leopard, other than that they wanted to push lion aggressively. It's not a matter of Mac elite (what on earth are you on about btw...) to demand from apple to support their previous.1 increment of os x with a modicum of respect to users, that is without forcing them to upgrade in order to have pretty much the same functionality in syncing they used to have before. It's very apparent they pimped lion via iCloud which is an indispensable product, as the cloud is across platforms nowadays. I didn't want to have to upgrade to lion just cause mm will soon end, I wanted to be allowed to have a choice when I would upgrade to it. But by withdrawing such an important service as syncing cross device from snow leopard they made lion a nessecity. It's a testament to how shit lion is that users are willing to sacrifice syncing their contacts, mail, calendars, etc. across their ecosystem of devices and are downgrading to sl.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell
Can you link to the 128GB iPod Touch? How much does a 128GB MBA cost? Versus the cost of an iPad.
The problem with your rationality here is that you rule out the fact that technology and component costs change year over year. Its not simply about forcing customer to upgrade. Technology improves prices change. That is the way its always been.
I wonder why you conveniently ommited my my points on sl, lion, and iCloud...
In terms of costs for each of these devices, I will have to wait for a tear down of iPad 2 and cost analysis, and of course I am not naive to not factor in the r&d that goes I all these products. Like I said the top spec iPad should equal the low end MBA in terms of storage.
Point taken, the last one, although it doesn't nessecarily go against what I am saying, because flash prices have dropped in the last three years, despite some spikes, and maybe not enough of e drop they expected, that's why it's inexplicable to me how the no 1 player in flah purchases has to keep the same storage for three generations of their product...
...should have been extended [...] Like I said the top spec iPad should equal the low end MBA in terms of storage.
All these should's. If you really feel that way they go ahead and start a class action lawsuit. I don't agree with your self-serving demands but I support your decision to feel strongly about them.
BTW, you got your wish already because the high-end iPad is already the same capacity as the low-end MBA... as if there is some cosmic law that would dictates such things.
Quote:
that's why it's inexplicable to me how the no 1 player in flah purchases has to keep the same storage for three generations of their product...
"no 1 player" means they should give away flash? It means they are getting it at half the price they were a year ago to meet your demands? You are drawing some crazy conclusions. You seriously need to look at more than your myopic desires before posting.
Let's not pretend that you're only suggesting they raise the 16GB model to 32GB. You demand all three models to get double the capacity for the same price points. You mention the Kindle Fire but have you tested the NAND? Is it the same quality NAND? Capacity isn't the only measure.
I never talked about the same price points, don't put words in my mouth, I would be happy with 32/64/128 with the first two models retaining the price and the 128 one taking say a $50 spike over last year. I don't think what with retina display people would have minded a small increase in the top model, ESP. Since the competition doesn't even have something comparable and I am sure people such as myself have been waiting for a long time for the iPad to get decent storage capacities when the touches and the airs have had this for year. In my view 128gb, and at last I think we ll agree here, is the capacity that, regardless of price, will bring the iPad tot the level it aims for as a post pc device. Avout 20-30 gbs for music/podcasts/vidcasts/itunesu, about 10gb for local synced server file storage(Dropbox, own server) for work documents, PDFs, excels, reference material, etc, about 10-20 gbs for apps, 10gbs for mag, books, newspaper subscriptions, rich media books, about 10gbs for video and photo content, about 10 gbs for offline movie content, about 10gbs for games (5-6 of them, and by games I mean very broadly cause I am not a gamer, a few board games and quizzes, one or two retina goodies for fun) and some change for work specific apps and their content.
Would you all relax? It's coming tomorrow! I'm excited. I'm not disappointed, because I'm after a better iPad. I don't need it to meet some hardware junkie's wet dream manufactured by the rumor mill.
Comments
As for your first two points, you know who offers 128gb internal storage these days? Apple do so. They do so on the iPod touch, and they do so in the MacBook air?
Can you link to the 128GB iPod Touch? How much does a 128GB MBA cost? Versus the cost of an iPad.
Of course they have a plan to force people to upgrade more often, why wouldn't they? Most companies in the tech world know what to provide and what to withhold to ensure consumers upgrade and spend more.
The problem with your rationality here is that you rule out the fact that technology and component costs change year over year. Its not simply about forcing customer to upgrade. Technology improves prices change. That is the way its always been.
Are you really even looking at what you are saying?
Apple's competitors are selling below cost and they are generally selling devices with 8GB or 16GB internal storage. You think Apple should be able to easily ship 128GB internal storage?
You don't see the flaw in your logic?
Take amazon in particular, and amazon has nowhere near the clout in flash purchasing power and bulk deals, as apple must be buying, what about x100 more flash for their products than amazon. So yes I expect apple to start at 32gb, and not stick to 16gb because simply others cannot much them in the price they get their flash, so apple say, why raise capacity if others can't much us anyway, let's keep it the same for 3 years in a row, an just raise the margins. And yes I do also expect 128gbs for the top spec model, I don't expect it to have half the storage of the air, I don't expect it to not much the iPod touch, and I am fully aware that the iPads size is not the iPhones so they can stick two 64gb sticks instead of having to wait and lay up for the recent 128gb single chips debuted by toshi 3 months ago.
But you also missed my point with amazon and selling bellow cost. I am conveinced apple are selling the iPad at a rather good margin of profit. Maybe not as high as say MacBooks, but a very apple like margin. But apple are also a very big content provider, very comparable to what amazon has to offer by their services via their devices. Yet apple dont't seem to be so willing to cut their margins on the iPad a bit, let alone sell at cost which of course I don't expect them to. But it seems they want to have both great profit margins by selling iPads, as well as great profit margins by selling the content via the iPads. Which is all good and well to maximise profit they are corporation, but let's not pretend that of they opted to raise after three years the entry model to 32gb they would take any serious hit in their margins...
...but let's not pretend that of they opted to raise after three years the entry model to 32gb they would take any serious hit in their margins...
Let's not pretend that you're only suggesting they raise the 16GB model to 32GB. You demand all three models to get double the capacity for the same price points. You mention the Kindle Fire but have you tested the NAND? Is it the same quality NAND? Capacity isn't the only measure.
Basic syncing functionality be it via mm or iCloud, esp to former subscribers of a sub par service (by apple's own admission) such as mm, should have been extended to the previous .1 version of os x, unless an important technical reason demanded otherwise. There was no apparent technical difficulty in supporting iCloud on snow leopard, other than that they wanted to push lion aggressively. It's not a matter of Mac elite (what on earth are you on about btw...) to demand from apple to support their previous.1 increment of os x with a modicum of respect to users, that is without forcing them to upgrade in order to have pretty much the same functionality in syncing they used to have before. It's very apparent they pimped lion via iCloud which is an indispensable product, as the cloud is across platforms nowadays. I didn't want to have to upgrade to lion just cause mm will soon end, I wanted to be allowed to have a choice when I would upgrade to it. But by withdrawing such an important service as syncing cross device from snow leopard they made lion a nessecity. It's a testament to how shit lion is that users are willing to sacrifice syncing their contacts, mail, calendars, etc. across their ecosystem of devices and are downgrading to sl.
Can you link to the 128GB iPod Touch? How much does a 128GB MBA cost? Versus the cost of an iPad.
The problem with your rationality here is that you rule out the fact that technology and component costs change year over year. Its not simply about forcing customer to upgrade. Technology improves prices change. That is the way its always been.
I wonder why you conveniently ommited my my points on sl, lion, and iCloud...
In terms of costs for each of these devices, I will have to wait for a tear down of iPad 2 and cost analysis, and of course I am not naive to not factor in the r&d that goes I all these products. Like I said the top spec iPad should equal the low end MBA in terms of storage.
Point taken, the last one, although it doesn't nessecarily go against what I am saying, because flash prices have dropped in the last three years, despite some spikes, and maybe not enough of e drop they expected, that's why it's inexplicable to me how the no 1 player in flah purchases has to keep the same storage for three generations of their product...
...should have been extended [...] Like I said the top spec iPad should equal the low end MBA in terms of storage.
All these should's. If you really feel that way they go ahead and start a class action lawsuit. I don't agree with your self-serving demands but I support your decision to feel strongly about them.
BTW, you got your wish already because the high-end iPad is already the same capacity as the low-end MBA... as if there is some cosmic law that would dictates such things.
that's why it's inexplicable to me how the no 1 player in flah purchases has to keep the same storage for three generations of their product...
"no 1 player" means they should give away flash? It means they are getting it at half the price they were a year ago to meet your demands? You are drawing some crazy conclusions. You seriously need to look at more than your myopic desires before posting.
Let's not pretend that you're only suggesting they raise the 16GB model to 32GB. You demand all three models to get double the capacity for the same price points. You mention the Kindle Fire but have you tested the NAND? Is it the same quality NAND? Capacity isn't the only measure.
I never talked about the same price points, don't put words in my mouth, I would be happy with 32/64/128 with the first two models retaining the price and the 128 one taking say a $50 spike over last year. I don't think what with retina display people would have minded a small increase in the top model, ESP. Since the competition doesn't even have something comparable and I am sure people such as myself have been waiting for a long time for the iPad to get decent storage capacities when the touches and the airs have had this for year. In my view 128gb, and at last I think we ll agree here, is the capacity that, regardless of price, will bring the iPad tot the level it aims for as a post pc device. Avout 20-30 gbs for music/podcasts/vidcasts/itunesu, about 10gb for local synced server file storage(Dropbox, own server) for work documents, PDFs, excels, reference material, etc, about 10-20 gbs for apps, 10gbs for mag, books, newspaper subscriptions, rich media books, about 10gbs for video and photo content, about 10 gbs for offline movie content, about 10gbs for games (5-6 of them, and by games I mean very broadly cause I am not a gamer, a few board games and quizzes, one or two retina goodies for fun) and some change for work specific apps and their content.
but let's not pretend that of they opted to raise after three years the entry model to 32gb they would take any serious hit in their margins...
Actually, they would take a $100 US hit per. Because instead of paying for the more expensive model, people would buy 1 tier lower.