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

145679

Comments

  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


    Yes, but that doesn't seem to really be the case with the iPad/iPhone pricing. They use the same processor. I don't see huge differences in their motherboards. The case and screen would be more expensive for the iPad.



    Sure, the SoC/PoP is the same but the logic board in the iPad is spread out compared to the iPhone. Apple really stepped up their game with the iPhone 4 design.



    Quote:

    The technology has improved, but I don't think it's a technology issue. At current prices (which are NOT controlled by Moore's Law), it just costs to much to double capacity.



    Moore's original statement included "complexity for minimum component costs" which does imply that the cost per year (as originally stated, then later stated to be 2 years, but never 18 months) would be the same with the doubling.



    Moore was not talking about NAND flash, he never even dreamed of nanometer sizes we use today, and even he stated it as a measure of just the next ten years or so not a progression that would last forever.



    As we've seen with NAND flash there is are reliably and performance hits with going to denser NAND that make it less than ideal for many needs. As I've asked before: should Apple use chips that won't last as long and be slower or use double the number of chips?
  • multimediamultimedia Posts: 853member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by nagromme View Post


    Just give me a 128GB model at the top end, please!



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by PowerMach View Post


    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/



    I want that too. But with only 15% buying 64GB iPads, it's unlikely.



    Hope I'm wrong. I would gladly pay whatever Apple deems fair for a top of the line 128GB model.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post


    I want that too. But with only 15% buying 64GB iPads, it's unlikely.



    I think it's unlikely for technical reasons (note that the links supplied to upcoming NAND don't list anything in-depth that would lead us to believe this would be right for Apple) but I do think that the people that are buying the best iPads are likely to buy the best iPad even if it was more expensive.
  • majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    That makes no sense on so many levels.



    What about it makes no sense to you?



    Quote:

    The technology has improved, but I don't think it's a technology issue. At current prices (which are NOT controlled by Moore's Law), it just costs to much to double capacity.



    True, there are other effects on pricing, but they've been steadily falling as well--

    Take a look at SSDs, which, from a high level, is just a bunch of NAND with a controller:



    back in 2008, an 80GB SSD would run you $400 to 600

    in 2009/2010, you could get an 80GB SSD for $200 to 300

    today, you can get 80GBs for about $150



    Based on that, I think it's completely possible for Apple to double memory every 2 years without raising the price.
  • frankiefrankie Posts: 309member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post


    wow. SO many apple apologists...



    Apple already makes a hefty margin on these. Considering the Android onslaught, they should accept a reduced profit in exchange for getting more of their product out there.



    I completely agree.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    What about it makes no sense to you?



    True, there are other effects on pricing, but they've been steadily falling as well--

    Take a look at SSDs, which, from a high level, is just a bunch of NAND with a controller:



    back in 2008, an 80GB SSD would run you $400 to 600

    in 2009/2010, you could get an 80GB SSD for $200 to 300

    today, you can get 80GBs for about $150



    Based on that, I think it's completely possible for Apple to double memory every 2 years without raising the price.



    You're saying Apple can double the NAND flash in the same space according to Moore's Law which means without incurring any loss to the user for this advancement. That simply isn't true with NAND and you didn't even specify what kind of technological advance you are talking about.



    If you mean moving from MLC to TLC there are issues with that, not to mention it's only a 50% increase in storage not a double. If you mean by reducing the lithography there are issues with that well.



    This isn't CPU transistors and this the 1960s. This recent AnandTech article touches on the issues : http://www.anandtech.com/show/5067/u...ing-tlc-nand/2
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    What about it makes no sense to you?






    Start with the fact that Moore was discussing transistor density, and NAND contains no transistors.
  • majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    You're saying Apple can double the NAND flash in the same space according to Moore's Law which means without incurring any loss to the user for this advancement. That simply isn't true with NAND and you didn't even specify what kind of technological advance you are talking about.



    If you mean moving from MLC to TLC there are issues with that, not to mention it's only a 50% increase in storage not a double. If you mean by reducing the lithography there are issues with that well.



    This isn't CPU transistors and this the 1960s. This recent AnandTech article touches on the issues : http://www.anandtech.com/show/5067/u...ing-tlc-nand/2



    I was speaking primarily of lithography. You mentioned there are issues with that, what are they? I was not aware of any major issues beyond the standard low early yields.



    As for the cost portion, if you look at the $/GB for SSDs over the past few years, they have fallen pretty much in line with what moore's law predicts (double the capacity for the same $, or half the $ for the same capacity every 18 months), so I'm not understanding why you don't believe it holds true for NAND.



    EDIT: Ok, from reading the article on going from MLC->TLC, I think you're referencing the reduction in write cycles from a die shrink. I agree that this is an issue, but from what I've read, even at the 25nm level, the endurance should outlast the life of the drive. Is this a limiting issue for the iphone / ipad? I honestly don't know as I don't know the specifics on how Apple implements its flash memory (spare area, controller logic, amount of OS writes, etc)
  • majjomajjo Posts: 574member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Start with the fact that Moore was discussing transistor density, and NAND contains no transistors.



    ... I'm not even sure if you're being sarcastic or not
  • wizard69wizard69 Posts: 11,722member
    I was under the impression that the unit in the middle has poor sales and that sales where strong at either end. Obviously the baseline IPad sells the strongest.

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Multimedia View Post


    I want that too. But with only 15% buying 64GB iPads, it's unlikely.



    Hope I'm wrong. I would gladly pay whatever Apple deems fair for a top of the line 128GB model.



  • jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by majjo View Post


    I was speaking primarily of lithography. You mentioned there are issues with that, what are they? I was not aware of any major issues beyond the standard low early yields.



    As for the cost portion, if you look at the $/GB for SSDs over the past few years, they have fallen pretty much in line with what moore's law predicts (double the capacity for the same $, or half the $ for the same capacity every 18 months), so I'm not understanding why you don't believe it holds true for NAND.



    You keep making that claim, but it's not true:



    http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/storage..._Analysts.html

    http://www.xbitlabs.com/images/news/...08-19_NAND.jpg
  • alpha10711alpha10711 Posts: 27member
    The commenters who are saying Apple can raise the price and people will just pay it need to live in the real world. Apple fell victim to this kind of thinking with the first Mac Book Air, and it was relegated to a niche toy, until Apple essentially reintroduced it at a lower price point. $579 is not an attractive price (especially when that is the lowest priced model), and if Apple makes that mistake, they will find themselves undercut just when competition is beginning to heat up.
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alpha10711 View Post


    The commenters who are saying Apple can raise the price and people will just pay it need to live in the real world. Apple fell victim to this kind of thinking with the first Mac Book Air, and it was relegated to a niche toy, until Apple essentially reintroduced it at a lower price point. $579 is not an attractive price (especially when that is the lowest priced model), and if Apple makes that mistake, they will find themselves undercut just when competition is beginning to heat up.



    The MBA is not comparable here. The first MBA (starting at $1,799) was niche compared to the current MBA because the tech back then was considerably more expensive without offering any performance gain over cheaper products. It's only advantage were thinness and weight but that can only take CE so far before a price jump because too excessive for most people.



    Is today's 13" MBA still less of a performer than the original 13" MBA? Yes, but now it's only $100 more than the 13' MBP and the performance difference is greatly reduced because of the SSD card is actually better than the 5400RPM HDD in the 13" MBP.



    What I don't understand is why people think Apple would take a hit a huge hit on the profit ? yes, $80 from net profit is excessive ? when there is no evidence that Apple can't sell all the units they have? And why is no considering that this $80 is a compromise in order to corner the tablet market like they did with the PMP market? What if it's really onver $100 more to produce due to increased Foxconn wages, this lawsuit with ProView, the display resolution, the display panel tech, the backlight tech, the GPU, the amount of RAM, and other considerations? IOW, why is assumed that every increase would come with everything being better -and- cheaper than it was the year prior? Tech doesn't work that way and surely has had no problem raising prices when they felt it was needed. Do you really think they won't sell all their iPads if they make them a lot better and have to charge for it?
  • apple ][apple ][ Posts: 8,148member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alpha10711 View Post


    The commenters who are saying Apple can raise the price and people will just pay it need to live in the real world.



    The real world is not a bunch of people claiming stuff and showing their biases on an internet forum of course.



    In a few weeks, out there in the real world when the iPad 3 goes on sale, if it indeed has a price that's higher than the previous model, then mark my words, it will be a record selling product regardless. I will have been proven right and all of the people who are claiming that it's too highly priced will have been proven wrong. That's the real world.
  • carmissimocarmissimo Posts: 837member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post


    wow. SO many apple apologists...



    Apple already makes a hefty margin on these. Considering the Android onslaught, they should accept a reduced profit in exchange for getting more of their product out there.



    Why? I mean, doesn't the market dictate price and if the market will be OK with a modest price increase Apple is obligated to go there. They have shareholders to make happy and of course lots of people working for the company who are supposed to make as much money as possible.



    By the way, there is no Android onslaught. I think that's really the point.
  • hmmhmm Posts: 3,364member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by rtm135 View Post


    wow. SO many apple apologists...



    Apple already makes a hefty margin on these. Considering the Android onslaught, they should accept a reduced profit in exchange for getting more of their product out there.



    An ipad really isn't an essential device. For the most part, people buy one because they want it. Given the infrastructure built up around the Apple ecosystem and the extra cash on hand, it's not feasible to think they will fade back to their prior position when the company was near bankruptcy. Even if this did happen, it would take much longer along with a lot of bad management.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    This is actually a wise move on Apples part as it will allow them to cover the incremental increase in the cost of a few parts but actually sell more features cheaper. People have to remember that if all the rumors prove true (or even part of them) iPad 3 will be skuffed with a number of more expensive parts. Everyone has focused on the screen which is an issue but let's not forget the other rumors like a vastly improved camera, 4G, more RAM and other goodies. Of those offered only RAM would be cheaper today and that only if Apple can use the same number of dies.



    So while we need to wait and see, I'm not convinced that feature parity wise iPad 3 will be more expensive. We might actually be getting more.



    Ram is one thing that would really help the ipad. It doesn't really have the virtual memory paging options of a typical computer, or at least I don't believe it pages to the storage system meaning that everything would need to be handled within ram.



    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. 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.




    While I agree with you that they don't need to reduce the price, your analogy is quite far off. This is a piece of consumer electronics. It is not a luxury item. It does not cost thousands of dollars. They are still mass market items. Apple just doesn't address the low end of the market, not that I blame them. Apple creates a lot of hype, and they've somehow retained a coolness factor in spite of their size, but they do make devices aimed at the masses.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post


    Or a scenario could be that Apple doesn't want to cut the price of the iPad 2 by too much. If the component prices haven't dropped, then they may not have the room to lower the retail price by a lot without sacrificing their near-legendary margins. But they need to keep some sort of price differential between the models. So perhaps they drop the 2 by $20 and increase the 3 by $80 to achieve a $100 differential.



    Given that it's been out for a bit, I would expect to see them drop the price on the older model more than that. I don't care as it'll probably be a couple more generations before I see a point in owning one.
  • sennensennen Posts: 1,415member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post


    A document that has surfaced out of the Far East claims that Apple's third-generation iPad will cost $80 more, starting at $579 instead of $499.



    I'm wondering why this document with US pricing would be coming from the Far East?
  • solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sennen View Post


    I'm wondering why this document with US pricing would be coming from the Far East?



    From CA going to the Far West is much faster.
  • bitzandbitezbitzandbitez Posts: 157member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by KT Walrus View Post


    Seems to me the iPad 3 has to be the same price or lower than the previous model. And, the 1 year old model should be $70 or so cheaper than the new model (and $100 cheaper would really boost sales more than $70 off).



    It would be a mistake to raise prices, in the light of the Samsung competition (which is starting to attract my attention).



    you will be one less person in my line I won't have to wait for when ordering my OUT OF STOCK iPAD3 when they do go on sale.



    Don't let the door hit u on the a$$ when u leave... SAMESUNG will be happy to have your $$$
  • asdasdasdasd Posts: 4,302member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by alpha10711 View Post


    The commenters who are saying Apple can raise the price and people will just pay it need to live in the real world. Apple fell victim to this kind of thinking with the first Mac Book Air, and it was relegated to a niche toy, until Apple essentially reintroduced it at a lower price point. $579 is not an attractive price (especially when that is the lowest priced model), and if Apple makes that mistake, they will find themselves undercut just when competition is beginning to heat up.





    Yes. It will deter new users for sure.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post


    The real world is not a bunch of people claiming stuff and showing their biases on an internet forum of course.



    In a few weeks, out there in the real world when the iPad 3 goes on sale, if it indeed has a price that's higher than the previous model, then mark my words, it will be a record selling product regardless. I will have been proven right and all of the people who are claiming that it's too highly priced will have been proven wrong. That's the real world.





    Upgrading to the iPad is easy - the cost is merely the cost of the depreciation on your old iPad plus this $90 premium. ( Without the premium it would be just the depreciation) So someone with an iPad 2 can move on for about $300 or so. ( Without the premium, $200, or so). this means the existing established base will indeed move on up, and it will sell like hot cakes. The idea that this "proves you right" is nonsense. New customers will be deferred - however they may get old iPads on ebay. The iPad 3 is an inevitable success given the installed base upgrade path, the question is whether it will be as big a success if it were selling at $399. The answer is no, since that is the way economics works.



    Apple may be right to not care at this particular moment, and a cheap iPad 3 which has to handle the upgrades of millions of existing customers, might be supply contained for half the year if they sold it cheap, however they will need to get back to the old pricing sometime. I am sure they will, once the initial supply seems less constrained. That could be the holiday trick - a price drop on all models, including the iPad 2 ( if still selling).
Sign In or Register to comment.