Rumor: Apple may charge $80 more for 'iPad 3' with Retina Display

1457910

Comments

  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,753member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    I don't think that all models being '3G' makes sense.



    It might make sense to Apple. Remember they have been working on the screen tech for years now, but this is the first high volume effort in this size and technology. As such there may be issues with pricing and availability. Putting the retina machines out as a step up in price over an enhanced iPad2 would give them some buffering if supply becomes an issue.

    Quote:

    For starters, most won't want to pay for HW they will pay the service to use.



    Users are not locked into contracts with the current iPads. Effectively it becomes a feature that only a limited number of owners will use just like the cameras. Honestly I see cellular connectivity being used by far more people that the rear facing camera.

    Quote:

    And it's pricey. It's not "20¢ of silicon" as oft gets touted around here.



    While it is true that many misrepresent the price, I'm not convinced that it is as expensive to implement as you imply. Think about the cost that a camera adds to the iPad and the number of real users of that tech. If you build the cell capability into the main logic board you save yourself some expense in the management of inventory, build and parts. Just by effectively removing three SKUs from the line up Apple might have a cost win.



    None of the above even gets into how you go about marketing something that costs you more to build in its base form. While the 3G/4G hardware isn't cheap, it is no where near $80 bucks a machine. So Apple can pull the tech into the base model, charge more but effectively cut the price. You pay more for the base model, on the surface because it has more features, but what is really happening is that Apple has covered the cost of more expensive components.

    Quote:

    There are licensing costs alone that will be a percentage of every unit that includes the cellualr tech.



    Maybe that is $20 per machine licensing and another $25 for hardware. Those are fat numbers as I believe licensing is a little cheaper. Hardware costs would cover everything associated with the cell feature. So Apple still has $50 or so bucks to cover the screen.



    Then you have the real advantage of being able to say "hey customers, the cost of cellular connectivity has been cut in half.
  • sandyfsandyf Posts: 42member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by bdkennedy1 View Post


    I think the screen on my iPad 2 looks amazing. I'll be skipping the iPad 3.



    Agreed. The iPad2 screen is excellent.

    And while everyone is chasing the shiny new trinket, I'm going for a refurbished iPad 2 and investing the savings into the 64 GB model.
  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,753member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rjbruce View Post


    Just my two cents.
    1. Nominal price increase for base model would not be surprising.

    2. iPad 2 will have to drop in price. They're currently being sold at a reduction at big box retailers so $499 is too high. Also, deeper discounts for education to push iBooks.



    1. That actually means the base model is cheaper.

      Quote:

    2. Memory offerings of 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB based on the screen resolution. Double resolution means double the image size for textures in apps.




    The extra flash would be nice. However double resolution means four times the memory usage. Subtracting of course the impact of compression. I'm most concerned though about RAM which is already an issue on the current iPads.

    Quote:

    I just want to have "multi-user" even if it's limited to two or one and a guest. I'm sure it would be a complete overhaul of iOS though and I have a hard time believing that will happen until they get some real competition.



    Multi user would be a waste of time. Such a move pulls the device out of the personal realm and puts it back into old computer mindset. The whole point of iOS device is that they leave the world of computing behind.
  • malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    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?



    Kindle Fire is relevant. Those ads that say "I can buy two of these and a regular Kindle for the price of your iPad" are wince-inducing. Having the iPad price go up substantially in the face of that will be alarming.
  • evilutionevilution Posts: 1,017member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KT Walrus View Post


    Samsung competition



    Oxymoron if ever I read one.
  • cxc273cxc273 Posts: 46member
    I find it difficult -- but not impossible -- to imagine an $80 price hike on the next generation iPad.



    Based on Apple's recent history with new devices replacing old ones, specifically looking at the iPhone line for guidance, Apple would most likely maintain the $499 price point on a next gen iPad, much like the latest iPhone model enters the market at the $199 price point. The iPad 2 could then be sold at a lower price point, say $399 or $299 to compete with the Kindle Fire, assuming that component and manufacturing costs are lower in year two of manufacturing the device.



    In order to maintain its price points and profit margins, Apple has typically not added the latest and greatest right away, whether it is better cameras, more storage, 3G, etc.



    Another argument against would be that an $80 price hike would push the top-of-the-line iPad with cellular connectivity to within less than $100 striking distance from a Macbook Air ($909 vs. $999).



    Lastly, I don't think Apple would charge a premium merely because they're afraid of supply constraint. Apple has a good idea of what anticipated demand would be and would not put a product into the pipeline, such as a new iPad with a retina display, if it was not assured of a minimal number of units. If there was doubt a planned retina display for iPad would run into supply problems, Apple would not include it and instead wait.



    However, as investors will say, past performance is not necessarily an indicator of future returns. With everything the rumor mill has equipped the next gen iPad with -- retina display, 4G, more powerful cameras, faster processor and more storage -- a premium iPad, perhaps the rumored "pro" version, might be in the offing.



    I think it's certainly realistic to think that the iPad 2 will stick around, albeit only in the 16 GB capacity with wi-fi and 3G models while the next gen iPad could be offered in 32, 64, and 128 GB.



    In the end, I'm still bearish regarding an $80 price hike for a new iPad, though I wouldn't be totally surprised if it did happen.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    It might make sense to Apple. Remember they have been working on the screen tech for years now, but this is the first high volume effort in this size and technology. As such there may be issues with pricing and availability. Putting the retina machines out as a step up in price over an enhanced iPad2 would give them some buffering if supply becomes an issue.



    It's not just the display but the other components that have to push 4x as many pixels without a drop in performance and battery life.That at least means an AH-IPS display over S-IPS which isn't just cramming in more pixels" like some think. It's newer IPS tech along with all the other HW. For all we know may even use a denser battery tech to increase the WHr.



    Quote:

    Users are not locked into contracts with the current iPads. Effectively it becomes a feature that only a limited number of owners will use just like the cameras. Honestly I see cellular connectivity being used by far more people that the rear facing camera.



    While it is true that many misrepresent the price, I'm not convinced that it is as expensive to implement as you imply. Think about the cost that a camera adds to the iPad and the number of real users of that tech. If you build the cell capability into the main logic board you save yourself some expense in the management of inventory, build and parts. Just by effectively removing three SKUs from the line up Apple might have a cost win.



    But it's an expensive feature. I am not one to use my camera but the camera module is small and cheap so I don't worry about it. But if I could only buy an iPad with cellular tech despite for an additional $129 despite not ever planning to use it that would be a problem.



    Quote:

    None of the above even gets into how you go about marketing something that costs you more to build in its base form. While the 3G/4G hardware isn't cheap, it is no where near $80 bucks a machine. So Apple can pull the tech into the base model, charge more but effectively cut the price. You pay more for the base model, on the surface because it has more features, but what is really happening is that Apple has covered the cost of more expensive components.



    Maybe that is $20 per machine licensing and another $25 for hardware. Those are fat numbers as I believe licensing is a little cheaper. Hardware costs would cover everything associated with the cell feature. So Apple still has $50 or so bucks to cover the screen.



    Then you have the real advantage of being able to say "hey customers, the cost of cellular connectivity has been cut in half.



    We're talking about adding an AH-IPS over an IPS display, quadrupling the number of pixels, adding more cores and potentially a better GPU on a smaller nm scale, and doubling the RAM for $80 more and you think that adding the component that already costs more than than that into all that would make it better for Apple? That doesn't make any sense to me.



    If there was anything Apple could role into the price it would be doubling the NAND flash capacity. Making the price jump by $100 but also doubling the storage, to me, seems likely to have been addressed by Apple long ago to deal with the total cost of this display tech. (Of course, we haven't even commented on how the doubling of storage would come to the device: double the number of chips or double density chips)
    iPad 2 16GB — $399

    iPad 2S 16GB — $499 (basically the better internals except for the display)

    iPad 3 32GB — $599*

    iPad 3 64GB — $699*

    iPad 3 128GB — $799*



    * Add $129 for cellular.

    If they can't do something that then I have to assume they have a pretty damn good reason for since raising the pice is not done lightly.





    PS: I see you double space at the end of a sentence yet vBulletin doesn't register more than 1 space. It also gives me a range of your age that suggests you were using computers and typewriters before kerning was included with system fonts.
  • malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    That's silly.



    Let's say that the sell 60 M next near at $580 and 59,900,000 at $500. Which do you think is a better deal for Apple?



    The people who have the data are the ones in Cupertino. Please stop trying to convince everyone that your uneducated, fact-free opinion has any value.



    And it's particularly funny coming from someone who thinks that Kindle is competition for the iPad. While they do some similar things, they are no more competitive than a Kia and a Ferrari. The number of people who chose a Fire instead of an iPad is tiny.



    That's nonsense. The very apt analogy would be Mac compared to Windows. Those who went to the trouble of using both probably, generally liked Macs more and were willing to pay a premium. However the average consumer--by far--was exposed to Windows and found it good enough.



    If Joe Consumer's reason for buying a tablet is "because I think they're cool and I want to be able to use mail and apps and stuff" then why isn't a Kindle Fire good enough for him? And is that not doubly the case if the reason is "because I want something for my kids?" Price matters, and Amazon is a substantial competitor. And "good enough" can take a big chunk of one's business.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cxc273 View Post


    I find it difficult -- but not impossible -- to imagine an $80 price hike on the next generation iPad.



    Based on Apple's recent history with new devices replacing old ones, specifically looking at the iPhone line for guidance, Apple would most likely maintain the $499 price point on a next gen iPad, much like the latest iPhone model enters the market at the $199 price point. The iPad 2 could then be sold at a lower price point, say $399 or $299 to compete with the Kindle Fire, assuming that component and manufacturing costs are lower in year two of manufacturing the device.



    The iPhone doesn't retail for $199, that is the price the carriers sell it to us on contract. The price for the iPhone appears to have gone up since the introduction of the iPhone 4. At least, their APR has gone up since the introduction of the iPhone 4 which may just be customers buying more of the higher end, but they also started selling older models at much cheaper prices at that time which would act somewhat as a balance. The most likely answer, to me, seems to be that Apple started charging carriers more for the device which could be a result of their market position or directly related to the cost of the display tech. Note the iPhone 4's HiDPI display didn't require any other components that the iPad wasn't already using as the iPad's original pixel count is still quite a bit higher than the iPhone 4/4S.
  • rjbrucerjbruce Posts: 45member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    That actually means the base model is cheaper.



    Base iPad 3 model for nominal increase. Decrease for iPad 2. Yes, I understand where what I stated and what I meant went awry.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    The extra flash would be nice. However double resolution means four times the memory usage. Subtracting of course the impact of compression. I'm most concerned though about RAM which is already an issue on the current iPads.



    I second the RAM, but sort of assumed a tweaked or upgraded chip would also include the RAM upgrade. Of course, it was not done on the last model, so it could be passed over again. Back on the flash, I think doubling this associated with a price increase would be a cheap way to further justify the bump in price.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    Multi user would be a waste of time. Such a move pulls the device out of the personal realm and puts it back into old computer mindset. The whole point of iOS device is that they leave the world of computing behind.



    I disagree on the benefits of multi-user. I understand the device is targeted to be personal, but it would be immensely useful for me to be primary user with everything the same and support a secondary user that has minimal customization such as mail, bookmarks, and a handful of other settings. I don't want to have to see my wife's email consolidated with mine, and I want to use the consolidated view as I have several accounts. I do agree that it is not likely in Apple's "vision" of the device and is a long shot, but I think there are a lot of folks out there that would love to see it as much as I do (and plenty that think it's a terrible idea).
  • realitycheck69realitycheck69 Posts: 83member
    Apple's getting greedy. They already have 40% margins. We will just have to see what the market will bear.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    . . .
  • timgriff84timgriff84 Posts: 909member
    I would be seriously surprised if they didn't make a price increase. The iPad is currently a lot cheaper than an iPhone, and you really have to wonder why? The iPhone has also increased in price by around £200 since the iPhone 3G.



    Its not going to loose them any sales as people will just get the iPad 2 instead. Then when an IOS update renders it either slow or unable to run the latest apps, people will gave to upgrade.
  • jhankwitzjhankwitz Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    Who seriously isn't going to pay 8 to 16% more to get an iPad with an LG AH-IPS panel with 2048x1536 resolution that can hold the same battery life?



    No one should complain, especially after the huge petition to give Foxconn workers a 25% raise. Someone has to pay for it, and it's always the customer.
  • jhankwitzjhankwitz Posts: 10member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by realitycheck69 View Post


    Apple's getting greedy. They already have 40% margins. We will just have to see what the market will bear.



    Apple is not greedy. They are a company in business to make money for their owners (stock holders) by selling products at a the highest price the market will bear. This describes every company.
  • realitycheck69realitycheck69 Posts: 83member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JHankwitz View Post


    Apple is not greedy. They are a company in business to make money for their owners (stock holders) by selling products at a the highest price the market will bear. This describes every company.



    Yes, I'm fully aware that Apple is a company. See, my first statement about the price increase was my view as a lowly consumer. My second dealt with the business view of the marketplace. I though I was being clear enough, but I guess not.



    Please let me know if you have any other comments or questions.
  • realisticrealistic Posts: 1,111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by theoldcoot View Post


    Apple could be pricing themselves out of the market regardless if it has Retina Display.



    Considering Apple owns that market how can they price themselves out of it? An iPad 2 with a lower price and an iPad 3 at a higher price would seem to make their position even more dominant.
  • jlanddjlandd Posts: 839member
    Margin smargin. The iPad3 is the most anticipated piece of hardware in ages. And is absolutely THE most anticipated anything of this season.



    My wish? That Apple uses the blockbuster profits of IOS devices to surprise us by putting the next model desktop and laptop prices a bit lower than usually expected.
  • realisticrealistic Posts: 1,111member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ShAdOwXPR View Post


    $499 is a lot against $199 from the firme, $579 is Way to bit. Apple Willi never do it...



    The 499 and the 199 items are not comparable products to start with, so you POV is invalid from the start as well.
  • asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,363member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Misa View Post


    Why do I always hear this kind of comment from people who don't like the price. Apple products are a premium luxury product.



    No they're mass market items. A yacht is a premium luxury product.



    Quote:

    You don't see Louis Vuitton reducing it's price to compete with other designer brands or chinese mass-produced plastic stuff they sell at Walmart. This is the same with Apple. People want Apple because it's the Apple product, not the cheap knockoff.



    Apple have a platform to protect.







    Quote:

    You're not entitled to a 200$ iPad. If you want a 200$ piece of trash, buy an Android tablet and then don't whine when all the content you want to consume is only available from Apple.



    I don't think anybody is asking for a $200 iPad.



    Quote:

    The only Android device that is an alternative is the Fire, and only because Amazon supplies the content. What do the other Android tablets offer? Android Market has barely anything.



    The fire is gaining however.



    Quote:

    If you want a 200$ iPad wait for all the iPad2's people want to get rid of are put on craigslist and eBay. Apple has not made any mistakes and can continue to do what they are doing until either the market is saturated with iOS devices, or someone invents something better and more popular.



    I doubt that APple will discontinue the iPad 2.



    Quote:

    Once you discount the price of something, consumers will not tolerate a price increase, that's why you see shrinking packages, thinner thread counts, cheaper ingredients, and "New bigger larger" marketing with higher prices. So an iPad3 with a higher resolution screen justifies a price increase.



    What? Is that a contradiction?



    I don't think this price increases is a big deal, as they will probably keep the iPad 2 at a lower price. Not that I am certain it will happen.
Sign In or Register to comment.