Look for the iPad 2 to hang around and drop to $199 for 16gb in an answer to the "low end" android junk. This aggression will not stand, man.
It wouldn't surprise me to see some price jockying at Apple in this area as Apple has no price gap to sell refirbed New iPads at present.
Now:
$499 new New iPads
$399 new iPad 2 and possibly refirbed New iPads
$299 refirbed iPad 2
Possible Near Future:
$499 new New iPads
$399 refirbed New iPads
$350 new iPad 2
$250 refirbed iPad 2
Not the $199 you were thinking about, but closer than at present. This would leave no breathing room for Samsung with a smaller screen in a plastic case, and no decent choice of apps.
Using it after using iOS is like playing in mud after have a shower.
People who don't know any better will buy it.
but for those who know there is a more excellent way will not.
Interesting how google has had to essentially concede the profit margin sweet spot to Apple.
Now, they are competing in the bargain bin with a product that truly belongs there. Only they will have mud on their faces after previously competing against the iPad. Now, the excellent Kindle Fire will beat them with a refined setup.
I guess it's only right. Rip off Steve Job's brainchild straight from a board meeting, build it with tech stolen from sun Microsystems, then refuse to pay licensing even after the theft is proven... then offer it for free and make money on advertising... google is a mess.
Not only is their business model for android a shaky proposal (unless you are an OEM - hey, free OS!), but now its halo effect over their company is tainted. The halo has turned into a crown of thorns.
What ever happened to "don't be evil?"
google is a great ad revenue company. But many other things they reach are subpar.
Sure, people like google Docs, because it's FREE! Not because it's great.
People like many things Google makes that are free. but Google won't make money off of it. Instead they make money around the fact that you use a "free" product of theirs. Kind of creepy when you think about it.
That's why GMail is a privacy nightmare. They want to recoup the investment they made in giving you something free - then they turn around your info and send you ads for you to click (and hopefully put money in their partners' pockets) and them to make money on.
ChromeOS? what a joke! "Hey everyone! You know how the Personal Computer revolutionized computing by giving users their own OS and local storage? Yeah... well, let's go back to the days where you needed to connect to a mainframe (only now "internet" sounds cooler) to access your data and apps!" talk about a backwards step.
This is what happens when a company ONLY cares about its own agenda, regardless of its effect on an industry or the people it serves.
In short, Google is a great search company that runs a great ad revenue business.
Everything else is a business mess. They have not only survived, but prospered due to ADVERTISING and investors. People "like" Google. but their business model is rough.
Now, we are seeing the truth of what happens when they have reached beyond their scope.
Android exists simply to make iOS better. so for that, thank you google. but once it has served its purpose, to the bargain bin it goes.
As it should be.
Google tried to be Apple. But that's not Google.
Apple could take on Google.
Or they could just buy them and rename their search engine "Watson"...
Not sure what your point is. Apple's success is based on marketing, whereas BMW's on their engineering, product performance, etc. It's not just aesthetics that attracts BMW buyers.
So where's your evidence that people purchasing Apple products are only interested in aesthetics? Oh, there isn't any? You just made it up? Figures.
People buy Apple products for all sorts of reasons and I can claim with 100% certainty that it's not just aesthetics (since I don't even consider the aesthetics before buying Apple products). More importantly, I don't think it's even mostly aesthetics.
Most of the people I know who buy apple products do so because of:
- Ease of use. Nothing else comes close.
- Reliability
- Ecosystem. Again, nothing else comes close.
- Recommendations from friends.
- Value (10 years ago, no one would have believed this, but many Apple products are now priced very competitively).
- Support
Quote:
Originally Posted by tooltalk
That perhaps explains why Jobs's NeXT failed to gain any significant market share in the Unix market back in the 90's, and why Apple, to this date, is conspicuously absent in lucrative high end server market, now dominated by HP.
Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).
Just as an observation. Using the long held Apple comparison of BMW is pretty funny.
Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.
BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.
Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
The consumer who adopts the iPad typically invests in App Store, iBooks content. Most of this content can be downloaded to the iPhone without additional charges. So, an iPad owner should typically stick to iPhone.
I would expect that the addition of Siri to the iPad, plus integration with apps like Yelp, Netflix, etc will encourage iPad owners to stick with the iPad. Even vice versa.
However, I expect Android to be there for folks who can afford the bare minimum only... like a 7 in model with a cheap screen/camera, short life battery, WiFi only, used mostly for surfing the web, email, free apps, Skype. There are hundreds of millions in the poverty level.
The Nook is really a nice little tablet, get rid of the pre-installed OS and install Android and it becomes a really nice tablet. The battery is over 8 hours, IPS screen, 1GB Ram, 16GB Rom, 1 GHZ dual core cpu all in a cute light weight package.
Samsungs 8.9" is now only 300 dollars and that's a really nice inexpensive tablet.
I'm sure Google's little guy will be much more powerful then the Nook, which will make for a fantastic little tablet for those who can't afford a iPad. I don't know which apps you guys are using but most are now available on the Android platform. I have exactly the same apps on my iPad that are on my Android tablets except the music creation apps and a few games.
There is still a whole lot of people who don't own a tablet or even a smartphone yet. So Google has a big market to play with.
BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.
Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
So where's your evidence that people purchasing Apple products are only interested in aesthetics? Oh, there isn't any? You just made it up? Figures.
People buy Apple products for all sorts of reasons and I can claim with 100% certainty that it's not just aesthetics (since I don't even consider the aesthetics before buying Apple products). More importantly, I don't think it's even mostly aesthetics.
Most of the people I know who buy apple products do so because of:
- Ease of use. Nothing else comes close.
- Reliability
- Ecosystem. Again, nothing else comes close.
- Recommendations from friends.
- Value (10 years ago, no one would have believed this, but many Apple products are now priced very competitively).
- Support
Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).
I really liked the Xservers but they were defiantly way to expensive. The server marker is so saturated now, I don't think Apple could make money their as IT people don't care that their is an Apple symbol in the front so Apple couldn't get away with their normal huge margins like they can with normal consumers buying a iPad.
Their are a lot of people who buy Apples because of popularity in the media and aesthetics. Name recognition goes a long way. Oh and the ecosystem only matters to Apple fanatics, most of your normal users only use the iPad for surfing and email. I know so many mothers in my daughters school that have never even looked at the iTunes app store, I don't think they even know how. I am the IT mommy now, I literary provide tech support for over 20 moms and most of their questions are how do I watch TV shows. Thank goodness for Zattoo.
Want to reconsider the term 'taking over' in that context? Try looking at profit margins along with volume. Ask HTC about how well volume worked out for them.
Well Apples tactics work well for Sammy. Literarly Sammy has nobody but Apple to thanks for its success. And this is not only because of the copying. Hell I bought androids for the kids because i couldnt buy the iphone 3GS:s which would have been about the same kind of hardware and price that they got but isnt sold in Europe. Well close enough anyway... just without any connection to apples application and music stores...
Thanks Apple for making my choice so easy. Samsung or Samsung? Ehm well lets see.... Somebody should be fired!
They both emphasize simplicity and reliability. They are both bought by the masses. Neither of them have "ultra-high performance" models as their bread and butter, but instead mostly sell upper-mainstream stuff.
Both brands attract many of the same buyers looking for the same things.
BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.
Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
lol what are you on about?? Apple is rare and exclusive?
I can only assume that your post was either sarcasm or a troll.
Google may be targeting $299 as the only gap in this line up:
$499 iPad 3
$399 iPad 2
$299 ?
$199 iPod touch
So should Apple fill the gap? One option would be an 8gb 7" iPad, but I think iPhone 5 will sport a 4" screen - and so will a new high end iPod touch, which will fill the gap.
BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.
Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
That's absolutely absurd - at many levels. But, then, we've come to expect that from you.
For starters:
- Price. Ferraris are well outside the budget of most people. Most Apple products (iPhone, iPad, Mini, MBA, etc) are priced very competitively.
- Market share. The iPhone has something like 30% of the market. The iPad is around 60% (and that's even assuming you count the Kindle as being in the same market). Even Macs are around 10% US and 5% globally. Apple products are not tiny niches.
- Usability. Ferraris are enormously limited in their capability. While they have incredible acceleration and handling compared to mass market cars, you can never carry more than one passenger, tow a trailer, or carry enough luggage for more than a couple of days travel. Apple products face no such limitations.
There really isn't an equivalent in the car arena, but Lexus is the closest. The cars are generally perceived of as having the highest quality with no limits and pricing is competitive at the low end (where else can you get a 40 mpg SUV for under $30 K?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Relic
I really liked the Xservers but they were defiantly way to expensive.
That's a common complaint, but only applies if you're using a free OS and/or have extra Windows licenses lying around. When we bought ours, the Windows client licenses alone would have been higher than the cost of an xServe with unlimited client licenses, so we essentially got the hardware for free. Look at Windows license costs and compare it to the unlimited client OS X Server.
And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.
*google licker*
ROLF!! Jesus, what are you? still in 3rd grade?
I have no axe to grind - I'm a Apple shareholder (though only 100 shares at the moment) and have owned 3 iPhones (3G, 3GS & 4G) and 3 iBooks in the past - though happily switched to Samsung Galaxy S2 recently. I use Google on daily basis, especially since both my school and work migrated to Google Apps last year, but I don't own any Google share; nor have I ever directly purchased anything produced by Google.
Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).
That's soooo typical Apple.. Yes, Apple can't compete with the big boys on performance or engineering. Apple excels in *marketing* consumer friendly goods to techno-phobes and grandma's. (duck)
Comments
Look for the iPad 2 to hang around and drop to $199 for 16gb in an answer to the "low end" android junk. This aggression will not stand, man.
It wouldn't surprise me to see some price jockying at Apple in this area as Apple has no price gap to sell refirbed New iPads at present.
Now:
$499 new New iPads
$399 new iPad 2 and possibly refirbed New iPads
$299 refirbed iPad 2
Possible Near Future:
$499 new New iPads
$399 refirbed New iPads
$350 new iPad 2
$250 refirbed iPad 2
Not the $199 you were thinking about, but closer than at present. This would leave no breathing room for Samsung with a smaller screen in a plastic case, and no decent choice of apps.
Using it after using iOS is like playing in mud after have a shower.
People who don't know any better will buy it.
but for those who know there is a more excellent way will not.
Interesting how google has had to essentially concede the profit margin sweet spot to Apple.
Now, they are competing in the bargain bin with a product that truly belongs there. Only they will have mud on their faces after previously competing against the iPad. Now, the excellent Kindle Fire will beat them with a refined setup.
I guess it's only right. Rip off Steve Job's brainchild straight from a board meeting, build it with tech stolen from sun Microsystems, then refuse to pay licensing even after the theft is proven... then offer it for free and make money on advertising... google is a mess.
Not only is their business model for android a shaky proposal (unless you are an OEM - hey, free OS!), but now its halo effect over their company is tainted. The halo has turned into a crown of thorns.
What ever happened to "don't be evil?"
google is a great ad revenue company. But many other things they reach are subpar.
Sure, people like google Docs, because it's FREE! Not because it's great.
People like many things Google makes that are free. but Google won't make money off of it. Instead they make money around the fact that you use a "free" product of theirs. Kind of creepy when you think about it.
That's why GMail is a privacy nightmare. They want to recoup the investment they made in giving you something free - then they turn around your info and send you ads for you to click (and hopefully put money in their partners' pockets) and them to make money on.
ChromeOS? what a joke! "Hey everyone! You know how the Personal Computer revolutionized computing by giving users their own OS and local storage? Yeah... well, let's go back to the days where you needed to connect to a mainframe (only now "internet" sounds cooler) to access your data and apps!" talk about a backwards step.
This is what happens when a company ONLY cares about its own agenda, regardless of its effect on an industry or the people it serves.
In short, Google is a great search company that runs a great ad revenue business.
Everything else is a business mess. They have not only survived, but prospered due to ADVERTISING and investors. People "like" Google. but their business model is rough.
Now, we are seeing the truth of what happens when they have reached beyond their scope.
Android exists simply to make iOS better. so for that, thank you google. but once it has served its purpose, to the bargain bin it goes.
As it should be.
Google tried to be Apple. But that's not Google.
Apple could take on Google.
Or they could just buy them and rename their search engine "Watson"...
Look for the iPad 2 to hang around and drop to $199 for 16gb in an answer to the "low end" android junk. This aggression will not stand, man.
Dream On! The BOM is more than $199.
Not sure what your point is. Apple's success is based on marketing, whereas BMW's on their engineering, product performance, etc. It's not just aesthetics that attracts BMW buyers.
So where's your evidence that people purchasing Apple products are only interested in aesthetics? Oh, there isn't any? You just made it up? Figures.
People buy Apple products for all sorts of reasons and I can claim with 100% certainty that it's not just aesthetics (since I don't even consider the aesthetics before buying Apple products). More importantly, I don't think it's even mostly aesthetics.
Most of the people I know who buy apple products do so because of:
- Ease of use. Nothing else comes close.
- Reliability
- Ecosystem. Again, nothing else comes close.
- Recommendations from friends.
- Value (10 years ago, no one would have believed this, but many Apple products are now priced very competitively).
- Support
That perhaps explains why Jobs's NeXT failed to gain any significant market share in the Unix market back in the 90's, and why Apple, to this date, is conspicuously absent in lucrative high end server market, now dominated by HP.
Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).
Just as an observation. Using the long held Apple comparison of BMW is pretty funny.
Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.
BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.
Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
Not sure what your point is. Apple's success is based on marketing.....
And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.
And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.
"sweaty little Google licker"...
I think I just found my next signature.
Is that a transcription error or is Larry Page living under a rock?
How can he not know that there are a number of Android tablets?
The consumer who adopts the iPad typically invests in App Store, iBooks content. Most of this content can be downloaded to the iPhone without additional charges. So, an iPad owner should typically stick to iPhone.
I would expect that the addition of Siri to the iPad, plus integration with apps like Yelp, Netflix, etc will encourage iPad owners to stick with the iPad. Even vice versa.
However, I expect Android to be there for folks who can afford the bare minimum only... like a 7 in model with a cheap screen/camera, short life battery, WiFi only, used mostly for surfing the web, email, free apps, Skype. There are hundreds of millions in the poverty level.
The Nook is really a nice little tablet, get rid of the pre-installed OS and install Android and it becomes a really nice tablet. The battery is over 8 hours, IPS screen, 1GB Ram, 16GB Rom, 1 GHZ dual core cpu all in a cute light weight package.
Samsungs 8.9" is now only 300 dollars and that's a really nice inexpensive tablet.
I'm sure Google's little guy will be much more powerful then the Nook, which will make for a fantastic little tablet for those who can't afford a iPad. I don't know which apps you guys are using but most are now available on the Android platform. I have exactly the same apps on my iPad that are on my Android tablets except the music creation apps and a few games.
There is still a whole lot of people who don't own a tablet or even a smartphone yet. So Google has a big market to play with.
Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.
BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.
Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
So Apple is defiantly like BMW then.
So where's your evidence that people purchasing Apple products are only interested in aesthetics? Oh, there isn't any? You just made it up? Figures.
People buy Apple products for all sorts of reasons and I can claim with 100% certainty that it's not just aesthetics (since I don't even consider the aesthetics before buying Apple products). More importantly, I don't think it's even mostly aesthetics.
Most of the people I know who buy apple products do so because of:
- Ease of use. Nothing else comes close.
- Reliability
- Ecosystem. Again, nothing else comes close.
- Recommendations from friends.
- Value (10 years ago, no one would have believed this, but many Apple products are now priced very competitively).
- Support
Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).
I really liked the Xservers but they were defiantly way to expensive. The server marker is so saturated now, I don't think Apple could make money their as IT people don't care that their is an Apple symbol in the front so Apple couldn't get away with their normal huge margins like they can with normal consumers buying a iPad.
Their are a lot of people who buy Apples because of popularity in the media and aesthetics. Name recognition goes a long way. Oh and the ecosystem only matters to Apple fanatics, most of your normal users only use the iPad for surfing and email. I know so many mothers in my daughters school that have never even looked at the iTunes app store, I don't think they even know how. I am the IT mommy now, I literary provide tech support for over 20 moms and most of their questions are how do I watch TV shows. Thank goodness for Zattoo.
Want to reconsider the term 'taking over' in that context? Try looking at profit margins along with volume. Ask HTC about how well volume worked out for them.
Well Apples tactics work well for Sammy. Literarly Sammy has nobody but Apple to thanks for its success. And this is not only because of the copying. Hell I bought androids for the kids because i couldnt buy the iphone 3GS:s which would have been about the same kind of hardware and price that they got but isnt sold in Europe. Well close enough anyway... just without any connection to apples application and music stores...
Thanks Apple for making my choice so easy. Samsung or Samsung? Ehm well lets see.... Somebody should be fired!
So Apple is defiantly like BMW then.
Dont throw fuel in the fire!
"I am a Zither Zather Zuzz" is just trolling..
So Apple is defiantly like BMW then.
I see them more like Toyota, to be honest.
They both emphasize simplicity and reliability. They are both bought by the masses. Neither of them have "ultra-high performance" models as their bread and butter, but instead mostly sell upper-mainstream stuff.
Both brands attract many of the same buyers looking for the same things.
Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.
BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.
Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
lol what are you on about?? Apple is rare and exclusive?
I can only assume that your post was either sarcasm or a troll.
And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.
...that was all kinds of awesome!
$499 iPad 3
$399 iPad 2
$299 ?
$199 iPod touch
So should Apple fill the gap? One option would be an 8gb 7" iPad, but I think iPhone 5 will sport a 4" screen - and so will a new high end iPod touch, which will fill the gap.
Apple is nothig like BMW. Apple is like Ferrari.
BMW makes massed produced goods that any joker could buy if he really wanted one.
Ferrari, on the other hand, makes vehicles which are not mainly for mere transportation. They are rare and exclusive. Only really special people own a Ferrari.
That's absolutely absurd - at many levels. But, then, we've come to expect that from you.
For starters:
- Price. Ferraris are well outside the budget of most people. Most Apple products (iPhone, iPad, Mini, MBA, etc) are priced very competitively.
- Market share. The iPhone has something like 30% of the market. The iPad is around 60% (and that's even assuming you count the Kindle as being in the same market). Even Macs are around 10% US and 5% globally. Apple products are not tiny niches.
- Usability. Ferraris are enormously limited in their capability. While they have incredible acceleration and handling compared to mass market cars, you can never carry more than one passenger, tow a trailer, or carry enough luggage for more than a couple of days travel. Apple products face no such limitations.
There really isn't an equivalent in the car arena, but Lexus is the closest. The cars are generally perceived of as having the highest quality with no limits and pricing is competitive at the low end (where else can you get a 40 mpg SUV for under $30 K?).
I really liked the Xservers but they were defiantly way to expensive.
That's a common complaint, but only applies if you're using a free OS and/or have extra Windows licenses lying around. When we bought ours, the Windows client licenses alone would have been higher than the cost of an xServe with unlimited client licenses, so we essentially got the hardware for free. Look at Windows license costs and compare it to the unlimited client OS X Server.
And just like that, everyone here realizes you're just another sweaty little Google licker with an axe to grind and no idea what he's talking about.
*google licker*
ROLF!! Jesus, what are you? still in 3rd grade?
I have no axe to grind - I'm a Apple shareholder (though only 100 shares at the moment) and have owned 3 iPhones (3G, 3GS & 4G) and 3 iBooks in the past - though happily switched to Samsung Galaxy S2 recently. I use Google on daily basis, especially since both my school and work migrated to Google Apps last year, but I don't own any Google share; nor have I ever directly purchased anything produced by Google.
Or maybe the server market simply doesn't value the things that Apple provides. The typical server farm is run by a super- Unix geek (or Windows-geek) who is intimately familiar with the OS(es) in use there. Apple's skills in ease of use aren't valued very much. In fact, to the extent that they would make the uber-geek's skills less necessary, there's a disadvantage to using Mac OS X Server (at least in the minds of some IT admins).
That's soooo typical Apple.. Yes, Apple can't compete with the big boys on performance or engineering. Apple excels in *marketing* consumer friendly goods to techno-phobes and grandma's. (duck)