Study suggests $600 mass-market sweet spot for Apple tablet - Page 2

so an oversized iPhone that's too big to put anywhere except for in a bag like a laptop, can't be typed in with thumbs because it's too big and so the only way to type on it would be laying flat on a table. Just about the most uncomfortable way to type. Must have some kind of stand if you want the screen standing, so another piece to haul around.

This sounds like overhyped crap. There is no market for this except for fanboys and people who think its so awesome to finger-paint on a screen.

To be a real best-seller, the Apple iTablet must:

- Be light. 400 to 600 at most.
- Be small. As small as possible. Ideally, pocketable.
- Run Mac OS X (not the iPhone OS). To run Keynote and PowerPoint NATIVE files for presentations.
- Video-out port.
- USB 2 ports.

Because even the MacBook Air is too heavy and too large! Check out the Sony Vaio P and the OQO.

I wouldn't waste my money on it. Have no use for a tablet device.

PC users have always been known to crave cheap devices. You don't need a survey to figure that one out.

Apple already has that. It is called the iPhone.

And why not? As this article mentions, there are millions of people (ie. "Mac users") who would be willing to buy the device at that price. Bring down the price once volume is reached in a year.

699 & 899. Unless they only put out a single model, in which case: 799.

Slate will always have more features and be more expensive that a plain tablet. So it should be.

* Starting at the 8:20 mark http://www.tuaw.com/2009/10/26/did-a...lip/#continued

Ireland, Dude, don't feed the Troll...!

Maybe this thing will look like a miniature iMac?

IF Apple does intro a Slate or Pad or Tablet, if it is a quality product that meets a need, then it will sell. Pricing will take a back seat here.

The marketing world classifies the population by income and spending potential. Products and their pricing are targeted at these different groups.

A long time ago, I bought what was a high-end quality Sony Trinitron TV (terrestrial analogue days), which had to be fine-tuned every time I changed channels. I returned it and bought a higher-spec Grundig TV, not only because it outperformed the Sony but was also a very high-quality German-made product.

I wouldnt even think of buying a Grundig-badged product today because the original company went belly-up (see history at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grundig). In my view, current Grundig products lack the quality of the original.

Apples initial target group wasnt even the individual, even as it claimed to bring computing to the masses. At some point, the price-entry-point for Apple products became affordable but nowhere near mass-affordability. When I bought my first Apple product, a mid-range Mac IIsi, it cost an absolute bomb and I had to borrow money from my bank to buy it. My current machine, a Mac Pro (2008) cost me half the price of the IIsi!

Different Apple products are targeted at different income groups, but very few, if any, target the sort of people who would buy Alba, Amstrad or even Grundig products -- the low-end electronic goods sold by the likes of the DSG group (PC World, Currys, Dixons).

The other thing is that I know a number of high earners who are also very intelligent people, but they prefer to buy cheap and replace in six months than buy a costly item that will probably last 5+ years? You just cant fathom how some people operate. May be that they're just tight-fisted.

Point of all this? There will always be people who will pay premium prices for quality products, whether they can afford them or not, and there are those who would rather lose money buying cheap0 crap. Many peoples buying decisions have little to do with brand-loyalty, no matter what the marketing departments tell you. Its mostly about lust.

You can fantasise about Angelina Jolie as much as you want, doesnt mean youre going to get to share her bed!

Exactly. Poll me on how much I'd pay for an Aston Martin and I might say 150 grand. Do I have 150 grand? Different story. Or the opposite. No way will I pay more than 30 grand for a car! Until I test drive the new Audi Quatro, that is.

My iPhone 3Gs 32GB alone costs $700 and the tablet better do a hell of a lot more that it can- especially run multi apps (excluding iPod music).
This is all so ridiculous. Stop with these ridiculous rumours-pleeze.

Let's see it first.

Or perhaps your assumptions are largely incorrect.

The iTablet will cost $1700 dollars. It will be a hit amongst the Apple faithful while the rest of the world will bemoan that the Apple Tax is too high.

Can Apple recoup years of research and development by selling a tablet for the same money as the original iPhone?

Yes they can.

I cant help but wonder if a 16:9 tablet would be easier to hold and jive with Apples and other vendors move to this new common ratio in computing. Seems like it would fit better with print items, too, after you remove the margins.



If they can get print subscriptions in the mix, so I can have these podcast/RSS like subscriptions waiting for me each day/week/month I think I might be interested. Just keep it in the living room or dining room to read each day.

It's already been pointed out on innumerable sites carrying this "news" but this is an absolute rubbish meaningless study for several different reasons.

It's not a scientific study, it's a small sample by a poor researcher (that has been wrong many times before). Additionally, asking people how much they would pay for a product that doesn't even exist and that no one has any clue what it's like is just plain ridiculous. This study not only doesn't prove anything, it's not even useful as a general indicator beyond the one fact that PC users generally prefer to pay "less."

You people should be ashamed to even run the story.

It makes sense that existing apple users would spend more, we tend to recognize the value the hardware brings to the table and are willing to spend more.

If so, then why did Apple price the first MacBook Air so high? They could have owned the netbook space IMHO.

I've said it before, I'll say it again... if this thing exists, it needs to be 5.5"x8.5" or slightly smaller. You cannot ignore traditional, acceptable sizes for handheld devices and planners and expect mass adoption.

Looks who's telling who to be ashamed - the Canadian who compared US flag waving to the Nazis. Where's our apology- we are waiting for it.

Funny, Apples profits went up after they lowered the price of the iPhone...

[Total profit] = [profit per unit] x [# of units sold]

Too low a profit per unit and you become Acer. Too high a profit per unit and you don't sell any, even if it has an Apple logo on it. $1700 for a tablet of the rumored capabilities would fall into the latter category. Reality check indeed.

MacBook Air is not a netbook As I said let's see it and after that we can discuss.

Pricing/Forecasting is an iterative process... as the product goes through the research, development, production and release processes, the Price and Forecast are refined.

It is not uncommon, to set the actual price higher or lower at product announce, based on costs, competition, sales goals, margin targets or even corporate whim.

*

No, the Vaio P is a netbook. It's listed as $800 in various places:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Produc...82E16834117902

It's in around the price that Apple's tablet is rumored at. Typically Apple and Sony have similarly priced products.

I think the problem with this device is it can't be all things to all people and there is a danger that it hits that middle ground that nobody really wants.

Netbooks succeed because they are cheap.
Desktops and laptops succeed because they do everything you need software-wise.
The iphone succeeds because it fits in your pocket and does so many low-end tasks.

If the tablet isn't cheap, it fails the first one.
If it runs iphone OS then it fails the second.
It won't fit in your pocket so it fails the third.

The protoypes were rejected because they needed to do more. It'll never be a pocket device so I hope it will be a 10"-12" touch device running on the Atom 330 with 9400M. This way it will run Snow Leopard. It essentially becomes a Macbook Mini or Macbook Touch.

WiMax or similar would be a nice feature and could subsidize the cost of the device.

Im very interested in the tablet seeing as I don't have an iphone and I recently lost my ipod touch. But I can't help but wonder about the real world uses for it. If it is too big and needs to be carried around in a bag, what advantage would it hold over just lugging your laptop around. My next concern is that a "big iphone" form factor would make using the virtual keyboard very difficult. You would not be able to type with your thumbs when holding it so it would have to be placed flat which would make extended periods of use hard.

Anyway, im really liking this form factor and I hope Apple markets the tablet as a multimedia device rather than a full on tablet PC. And hopefully it does not require a 3G data plan or atleast comes with a wifi only flavor

Wow. People who are looking to buy netbooks want the tablet to cost about as much as a netbook.

Nice work if you can get it.

I think an aspect ratio that is more traditional to print is more ideal, and Mac OS X UI is absolutely horrible for a tablet design. It needs to be something that fits a one or two hand, finger-based multi-touch screen device that is considerably larger than the iPhones UI. Besides that, I like it.

Luckily, netbook makers are moving into much higher priced arenas to actually score a profit. I believe Ive seen an 11 Atom-based netbook for $1300-1500. Since Apple usually dominates the higher end they may not fare so well if Apple becomes a player.

That is until two months after the initial product introduction, where Apple will drop the price a couple of hundred bucks and sell it for$ 399.00, which considering it will probably be a more elaborate "Kindle" and have more "umph" in the typical Apple style and set the industry standards, will therefore be worth every penny!

But no Apple store credit for early adopters! And you know who you are... first gen iPhone buyers!...

The Big iPhone concept is clearly flawed. Its origins of course come from the fact that the tablet rumors suggest that it will run iPhone OS, however running iPhone OS is not the same as a big iPhone. All it means that iPhone OS would form the foundation for this platform to build on. Big iPhone syndrome is common as it seems that most people cannot think outside of the box, and can only visualize what they can already see. iPhone OS will get multitasking, and it will most likely come first to the tablet. iPhone OS on a tablet would support a multi-window environment. Safari might even support third party plugins (flash anyone?), and the onscreen keyboard would obviously be different.

The tablet will bear as much resemblance to a big iPhone as the iPhone does to a phone with an integrated clickwheel (the predictions of the iPhone prior to the iPhones introduction).

I have no idea what I would use a tablet for. I have a very good 17" MacBook Pro and an iPhone. Millions say they would buy a tablet, but talk is cheap. Since Mac has less than 10% market share in the US, I wonder what the percentage of that 10% would actually buy one. It's either 600 bucks or it isn't going to sell in the numbers they want. If they charge more than 800 bucks, they're morons.

How did you come up with that number? The tablet PCs Im seeing for 2009 mostly cost more than that and have some pretty crappy designs and components. The only ones in the $600 range are more like touch PMPs, than proper tablets.

Here is a bad list

http://gadgetophilia.com/top-10-tablet-pcs-of-2009/

You do all realize of course that this could have been a non-issue had Apple released as small light inexpensive netbook over 2 years ago. But greedy Apple said NO- Netbooks weren't profitable and no one will want them once word spreads. Meanwhile they've had the highest growth of anything - more than either iPhones or Wiis.
Apple has now boxed themself into a corner- it has to be better than a netbook, CHEAP yet still profitable. We shall see.

Maybe on a Harvard MBA but not at Apple. Apple decide what the product needs to do and what its form needs to be. Then they build it. If the production costs will simply be too high or if the product is not desirable enough then the project is binned until a) the technology is advanced enough that the product can be made for the right price or b) the design and software are refined enough that it is Steve-worthy.

Leaving all that aside, my comment was directed at the idiocy of some lame marketing company producing a so-called survey that suggested that the sky is blue and night follows day. It was not a survey for a manufacturer to ascertain a pricing strategy - which Apple don't do anyway.

Idk, just guessed really. I just think that possibly charging the same price as a MacBook is insane.

It will be $699.99US... yes, I still remember the Newton

Seriously, I think it will be between $1000-$1200US, no contract (assuming it has HSPDA/UMTS 3G/3.5G data connectivity).

You do understand that Apple is a company that has to make a profit? That Apple is able to do what it does because it maintains the highest margins of any computer manufacturer? That's the whole point of the company. Netbooks are a poor compromise and don't make a profit, ask Michael Dell.

5000 negative posts - you are one sad fuck.

Apple would have made tons of cash selling netbooks instead of macbooks. You're completely right, as usual.

Sorry you're so miserable- most greedy people are.