Rumor: Apple may charge $80 more for 'iPad 3' with Retina Display - Page 4

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Oxymoron if ever I read one.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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.

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


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.


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).

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The 499 and the 199 items are not comparable products to start with, so you POV is invalid from the start as well.

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


Apple have a platform to protect.




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


The fire is gaining however.


I doubt that APple will discontinue the iPad 2.


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.

Who's got 2Q 2013 in the office pool as the date by which the IOS version which is required for all Apple services no longer supports the 2?

The stock holders aint seeing a dividend. And in fact this does not describe every company, some companies sell products as loss leaders to take a land grab of a platform, or to make money from software and services. Google sell their OS for $0, Amazon sell the Kindle for less than cost, the xBox and other games machines are sold below cost, or at low margins.

...assuming it's 2048 by 1536, that would be four times the resolution of 1024 by 768. But, whatever, I know.

What does that have to do with your claim? You claimed that Apple shouldn't increase the price because a few people would choose something else. I pointed out that if the number was small enough, Apple would come out ahead with a price increase. You responded with the above - which doesn't address the issue at all.

Apple will set a price. While I'm not convinced that there will be an increase, if they do, you can be sure that Apple will consider the loss of volume from the price increase. If they choose to increase the price, they will obviously have decided that the extra revenue would more than make up for the decrease in volume - something that you're apparently unwilling to do.



Great point. While the price difference isn't all that large in the U.S., the 3G iPad is $629 while the iPhone 4S selling price is estimated around $660 (using the data above). That just doesn't make any sense. While the phone has a better camera and a microphone, that would be more than made up for by the larger size of the iPad.

Of course, it really comes down to "what the market will bear".


That's a good point, as well. I think we'll continue to see a scenario like what Apple is doing with the iPhone (3GS, 4, and 4S on the market at the same time) for other products like the iPad. That way, they can sell the premium product to customers willing to pay for it and still capture some of the low-end customers.

As you know there are costs associated with making things smaller and more refined for the iPhone over the iPad but that would only explain a percentage of the difference.

As you state it's what the market will bear and with a subsidy common among many carriers the market can bear a lot for phones because the cost is hidden and/or absorbed by the carriers. I say absorbed because we know the iPhone APR tends to be higher than other phones yet the subsidized prices are in other other phones with the same capacity which leads to a high potential that carriers are paying Apple a lot more for the chance to get an iPhone related subscriber. Of course, the carrier can also make it up by having that older iPhone still get on their network years later without a subsidy payout, something which doesn't seem common with other carriers.

I just have a hard time swallowing this rumor. This document looks anything but certifiably legit. Could it be? Sure. Is it? Probably not. I don't think Apple will move away from the current pricing structure. Leading edge tech or not, I just don't see Apple moving away from that $499 sweet spot that looks so great up on a screen at the introduction event. On top of that, with Apple making a huge push into education, I just don't see them making this thing more expensive now.

I will buy the middle-tier 3G/LTE version either way without breaking a sweat, but I do believe that I will be paying $729 + tax.

Remember when the iPad was definately going to be $1000? Lets hope its one of those cases. Apple likes to keep prices constant while improving features, I'm sure I don't need to provide proof of that. They managed to put SSDs in the Macbook Air as a stock feature while not being more expensive for instance, even though SSDs are an expensive part.

They started with 64GB SSDs and put them on a card to reduce cost and size. It was a smart move that I expect to move toward the MBP line but they did add a much lower capacity than could be had with an HDD for the same price.

I know, right? They should be making the same low margins as everyone else, right? Stupid free market economy letting Apple get away with greediness.

</s>

Still probably more expensive considering when they first launched. Either way the point still stands, however they've made up for the cost in the past they tend to keep prices firm, with their size they can make agreements on parts that few others can. If they are also going retina on the Macbook Airs and Pros, they have an insane amount of orders from whoever will provide them, so they can get them at a lower per-unit price. We'll see I guess, but it strikes me as very un-Apple like to raise the price.

Are you sure? The 13" MBP starts at $100 more than the 13" MBA. The 13" MBP comes with a 500GB 5400RPM HDD for that price while the 13' MBA comes with a 128GB SSD card.

On top of that the only difference I can see between the two listed 13" MBAs is the SSD capacity and that's an additional $300 for an additional 128GB. The cost of those drives are expensive.

Sure, NAND flash has gone down but that doesn't mean it's cheaper than HDD. It's not even close.

As for Apple trying to keep the price points the same they usually do, but that doesn't mean they have always done so or can do it with every technological leap. As explained many times already it's just about doubling the resolution it's about a lot of technologies needing to be advanced for this HiDPI display to work.

I've been speculating for two years that if Apple wants to beat the competition to market with this tech — as opposed to someone coming out with some low yield device to say me first even though it doesn't work well —*they may have to raise the price to get the supply. I am not even convinced its ready now for 20 million(?) units the first quarter which is why I also speculated on Apple doing a high-end version that offered this display. The one thing I didn't speculate is that Apple would wait a year to get prices lower and/or ship on al devices at once instead of shipping now. Even at 8 to 16% increase in price I don't foresee their sales being any different (i.e., selling every iPad they can produce).

I'm too lazy to look it up but the prices of ULV Intel processors is also higher than the regular wattage ones in the Pros, plus the rest of the miniaturization that has to go into the Air, plus the higher res display than the 13" pro, etc.

The people who have most to worry about from the Kindle Fire is other Android tablet makers who also sell low priced tablets. If somebody can't afford $580, then $500 is too expensive for them too, and an iPad is not an option for those sorts of people.

Apple has nothing at all to fear from the Kindle, and Tim Cook has pretty much said that too. And I agree.

Exactly. And since I have recently converted and become a humanitarian/ activist, I think that Apple should make the iPad3 $100 more expensive. That's only fair.

That’s a common misconception about what the word resolution means because the words “along each axis” are implied but frequently omitted.

“Resolution” is not synonymous with “pixel count”. The pixels are resolved to each axis (vertical and horizontal) which is why resolutions are reported as “640x480” rather than 307,200 pixels.

Resolutions are used because they are more meaningful that a raw pixel count–which doesn’t contain any information about the ratio of the number of pixels along each axis.

Doubling the resolution along each axis will result in 4x the pixels for a 2D display. For a 3D (holographic) display the same process would result in 8x the voxels. But in each case it is still correct to say you are doubling the resolution.

That makes no sense on so many levels.

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.


As I explained earlier, resolution is reported in pixels per inch. That makes it a linear, one dimensional measurement reported as pixels per inch. Pixel count (or, as I referred to it, pixel density) is in pixels per square inch.

It's not that difficult.


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.

I just don't see it happening. I expect apple to go lower price by keeping the iPad 2 cheaper not highr on iPad 3. LTE chip costs the same as a 3G and the CPU looks like the same A5 clock faster with a new GPU. Again the same cost only retina will add cost and IMHO not enough to merit the price hike...

Too many models. More likely to be:

iPad 2 16GB Wi-Fi - US$499 (as is)

iPad 3 16GB Wi-Fi - US$579 (A5X chip, retina display) + 3G option
iPad 3 32GB Wi-Fi - US$649 (A5X chip, retina display) + 3G option
iPad 3 64GB Wi-Fi - US$729 (A5X chip, retina display) + 3G option

I think LTE will debut in the next iPhone.