or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's smaller iPad forecast to become 'competition's worst nightmare'
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple's smaller iPad forecast to become 'competition's worst nightmare' - Page 4

post #121 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post


Your sarcasm is stupid.
Google is about to start a war of ecosystems with the tablet priced at $99.
There is a huge untapped market of those who do not belong to any of the camp yet (teens, college students, older folks, etc)
Do you realize that once someone joins whatever ecosystem most likely will get locked and stay for very long time?
IMO apple must provide a very low priced entry (perhaps with nearly zero margin) for these people, so once they are locked they will be willing to upgrade to more premium products.
To stay relevant in this war Apple should not repeat mistakes of the pc vs Mac era.

 

So, following your logic, Google has already lost the war of ecosystems before they even start it.

post #122 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I'm not sure what you mean at all. Incremental to a per-GB charge so that, for instance, 16GB more to 32GB would be $50 more and 32GB more to 64GB would be $100 more? At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy.
Personally I'm expecting multiple NAND chips at a smaller lithography with an SSD controller so they can offer more capacity without a huge per chip cost (3x32GB NAND chips = 96GB) which will also allow much faster read/write times that could make a Lightening-to-Thunderbolt connector an accessory worth buying.

I'd like to see some real information on pricing for memory-doubling increments. There is a lot of complaining about the $100-per-increment price, because the cost of the chips are one-fifth that much or whatever.

I'm thinking that Apple's pricing at that figure is based on the extra production and inventory costs associated with carrying an extra model. Each memory increase must mean there is a separate production line, or several lines, devoted to that model alone. Maybe it has to be duplicated for each color, and of course for each connectivity option. There are also separate lines for the main board before final assembly happens, as well as separate inventory paths for each model, including colors, after assembly.

So it's a bit more than just the cost of the chips that have to be factored in when computing a price. I'm not saying that they're not making something over their extra costs on each model, however.
post #123 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So, following your logic, Google has already lost the war of ecosystems before they even start it.


That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...
post #124 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

The rendering looks weird. From what POV would the unit with its back facing the camera be noticeably shorter than the front-facing unit?

From right inside of Ames' room!

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply

We've always been at war with Eastasia...

Reply
post #125 of 232

Let's face it - If Apple can come in with its higher priced (likely) "small" tablet and sell many more times that Samsung or Google has done, they have this war won, whether you want to call it a war of tablets, ecosystems or post-PC computing.
 

post #126 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

I'd like to see some real information on pricing for memory-doubling increments. There is a lot of complaining about the $100-per-increment price, because the cost of the chips are one-fifth that much or whatever.
I'm thinking that Apple's pricing at that figure is based on the extra production and inventory costs associated with carrying an extra model. Each memory increase must mean there is a separate production line, or several lines, devoted to that model alone. Maybe it has to be duplicated for each color, and of course for each connectivity option. There are also separate lines for the main board before final assembly happens, as well as separate inventory paths for each model, including colors, after assembly.
So it's a bit more than just the cost of the chips that have to be factored in when computing a price. I'm not saying that they're not making something over their extra costs on each model, however.

There is also potential cost for getting a doubling of NAND that still has the same power, performance, and reasonable longevity envelope of less dense NAND. This is one the major reasons NAND has been at such a standstill despite all these "advances' in the tech.

On top of that, Apple needs to consider the entire product line when setting price points. It's common to have the the cheapest model not get as much profit per device or even percentage-wise in order to get a lower starting price-point and to make up the difference on the high end. We've certainly seen this with PC makers except consumers stopped buying any of their profitable PCs in favour of their razor thin profit PCs stacked with crapware.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #127 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post


That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
 

So the PC war has not started yet.

The smartphone war has not quite started yet.

The auto industry war has not started yet.

Should I go on?

 

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ....

post #128 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post

So the PC war has not started yet.
The smartphone war has not quite started yet.
The auto industry war has not started yet.
Should I go on?

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ....


Have you heard a term "Price war", smart?
And no, neither smartphones nor cars are in the state of the price war.
The tablets are about to be.
post #129 of 232
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post
And no, neither smartphones nor cars are in the state of the price war. The tablets are about to be.

 

Android tablets can enjoy pricing themselves into oblivion. Apple will enjoy giving the customers walking out of the maelstrom the glass of ice water that is their products.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #130 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

$299 16GB 7.85"
$349 32GB 7.85"
$399 64GB 7.85"
$399 16GB 9.7"
$499 32GB 9.7"
$599 64GB 9.7"
All iPads come with 25GB free iCloud storage.
Smaller iPads come in white, black, Product RED. That's 9 models, possibly more colors. No cellular; HotSpot your iPhone for that. No camera, front or back, You want that, go buy a 9.7". Retina to boot.
Available today. Boom.

It would be great if Apple moved to a $50 for NAND doubling model but we yet to see that and I don't think they'd start that now. I also doubt we'll see the iPad (3) price drop by $100 mid-cycle, especially when they own that market. I'm also weary of 64GB coming. That said, I hope all these things do happen.

I think there is a case to be made for no cameras if these are geared for the Enterprise and Education but I think there is a strong case to be made for their inclusion. It's not difficult to disable them and inexpensive to add them so I'm going to say they will be included.


PS: This might be the first iPad where MicroSD could make sense.

Mid cycle price drop not likely. Hmm, you make a good point; on second thought, maybe they won't do that. Especially after the iPhone is getting more expensive (Italy? € 949 for the 64GB)

The camera: I think if Apple creaties something ready unique it might be the thinnest tablet ever; hence my note on the absence of a camera. Yes, it might be cheap to add. Heck, the iPhone has a FM tuner build right in, yet the software that enables it in the latest iPods is disabled in iPhones. There is a reason for that. Differentiation from other products.

Do you think Apple will enable the FM radio in the next iPhone/iOS release? I don't, because of the differentiation. And a SD slot will confuse people, in my opinion. Apple is all for simplicity, and having data or apps available only when the specific SD Card is inserted makes matters 'Windowized'. Or 'Microsotafized'.
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
"Fibonacci: As easy as 1, 1, 2, 3..."
Reply
post #131 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post


Have you heard a term "Price war", smart?
 

 

By your logic the iMac should be around $600 or it would have disappeared long ago.

 

Yup... sure... what ever you say.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #132 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman View Post

But why would schools do that? I think they would think about it for 30 seconds and realize like everybody else that it would be false economy. The only place I can see an 8gb being a sensible choice is in situations where the only use will be to input data, such as in an inventory situation, POS situation, etc. where the device strictly serves a single purpose and is linked with a larger infrastructure. 

 

No, 8GB is actually quite a lot of space as long as you are using the device for work/class related activities that would otherwise be done on a laptop or a desktop computer.  

 

Documents (PDF's, Pages, Word Files, Excel, Numbers etc.) don't take up much space at all, nor does a properly formatted book.  What takes up space is torrented movies, music, pictures and games.  All of that is stuff you aren't really supposed to be worrying about in school or at work.  Even if the class project is to do an iMovie, 8GB is fine when you consider that at the end of each class, the device is wiped and returned to a pristine state for the next class. There are lots of classes that use the iPad already and they go for the low-end 16GB one.  The (presumed) $250 iPad mini would reduce the cost from roughly $400 a seat to roughly $200 a seat (there are discounts involved), and that will probably count for more than the slightly lower storage. 

 

I am not so sure about the viability of 8 GB!

 

The only 8 GB device I have is an iPhone 1.  The Settings--->General--->About--->Capacity shows 7.1 GB... or .9 GB for iOS  3.1.3.

 

For 64 GB iPads I show:

  • 58.1 GB Capacity... or 5.9 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 1
  • 58.1 GB Capacity... or 5.9 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 2
  • 57.2 GB Capacity... or 6.8 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 3

 

I suspect that iOS 6 takes more flash storage than iOS 3 -- because of the additional capabilities added in 3 iOS upgrades.

 

I do not know if iOS 6 has different [lesser] flash storage requirements for 16 GB or 32 GB models -- others will need to check that.

 

Anyway, if iOS on an iPad mini is the same as on an iPad 2 (5.9 GB) -- that would only leave 2.1 GB available for the user.

 

 

There is another avenue that could help, though...  As I understand it, the latest XCode is able to modularize an HD app (written to support all different iDevices),  This would mean that the HD app content (icons, images, retina constructs, buffers, etc.) would contain a copy of each of these modules -- one specific to: non-retina iPhone; another to a retina iPhone...  When deployed on a specific device, the app would configure itself, as part of the installation process, to install only those modules required for that specific device type.

 

IOW,  a 785 MB HD app would take up, say,  300 MB on a non-retina iPhone -- and, say, 450 MB on a retina iPad.

 

 

Magazine apps would/should be reimplemented to eliminate redundant (one for portrait, another for landscape) content -- and make the content dynamic (vector based, instead of bit-mapped pictures of a magazine pages).  Thank Adobe for that implementation.

 

 
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #133 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Okay, I misspoke… I was trying to differentiate between RAM and flash storage.
But, you knew what I meant!
What about the concept of adjusting the price of incremental flash storage to the size of that storage.

I'm not sure what you mean at all. Incremental to a per-GB charge so that, for instance, 16GB more to 32GB would be $50 more and 32GB more to 64GB would be $100 more? At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy.

Personally I'm expecting multiple NAND chips at a smaller lithography with an SSD controller so they can offer more capacity without a huge per chip cost (3x32GB NAND chips = 96GB) which will also allow much faster read/write times that could make a Lightening-to-Thunderbolt connector an accessory worth buying.

 

"At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy."

 

That was the precise point I was trying to make and illustrate... before getting sidetracked on the difference between SSD and flash storage... WTF? 

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #134 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post


That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...

 

Yes, but following your logic, Google's not going to be able to get people to switch ecosystems because they are already invested in another. So, it doesn't matter if they are just about to enter the war (assuming your statements as correct), they've already lost according to your arguments.

post #135 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

"
At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy."


That was the precise point I was trying to make and illustrate... before getting sidetracked on the difference between SSD and flash storage... WTF? 

I thought your point was that added SSDs instead of straight-up NAND would in itself reduce the cost. In my defense I did say I wasn't sure I understood your point.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #136 of 232

Unlike most. I don't think the rumored iPad mini has anything at all to do with competition.

 

It is pretty much impossible to goad Apple into a price war. Apple just doesn't play that stupid game of mutually assured destruction.

 

Look at laptops as an example. Apple is now the number one HW vendor in the USA for laptops. This is with no model less than $999. If you think Apple must respond to low priced competitors, how can they win the notebook market when they start at $1000 and the competition at $300?

 

IMO the Mini is a reasonable expansion of the line-up after the volumes showed this is a sustainable trend, also it is a replacement for the temporary carryover of the iPad 2.

 

So Apple doesn't need to meet anyones price point, but their own internal targets.

 

I seriously doubt those targets include a near profitless $250 starting point.

 

If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs. 8GB is laughably useless amount of storage (free?) for a multipurpose device like this.

 

My expectation is that Apple will instead deliver a solid, usable device at a higher price, more likely closer to $350.

post #137 of 232
Originally Posted by Snowdog65 View Post

If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs. 


That's where you draw the line? lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #138 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

So, following your logic, Google has already lost the war of ecosystems before they even start it.


That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...

 

You keep going on and on and on... about this sub $100 Google tablet...

 

Do you have any realistic citations to support thIs... anyone can say (announce) anything for the future... it's the "doing it" and the "when" that're tough.

 

For the last several years there has been speculation of a sub $100 tablet... from a $75 state-sponsered tablet in India, from pixel QI, from Marvell...

 

These ephemeral tablets get announced with great fanfare -- then quickly fade from view.

 

 

If anyone could make a sub $100 tablet, they would get massive support from the UN and OTPC (formerly OLTPC)... but it just doesn't happen!

 

 

I suspect that, at some point, the technology will support a sub $100 tablet... But the technology will need to be manufactured in quantity and sold as [part of] a solution for a profit.

 

When?  How?  Who?

 

Like you, I don't know the answers... But, Apple is better positioned than anyone to offer a sustainable sub $100 tablet solution at a profit.

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #139 of 232
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post
You keep going on and on and on... about this sub $100 Google tablet...

 

Do you have any realistic citations to support thIs... 

 

There was an article here about it. So no, nothing realistic, I guess. 😛

 

If anyone could make a sub $100 tablet, they would get massive support from the UN and OTPC (formerly OLTPC)... but it just doesn't happen!

 

Maybe the UN needs to go to Big Lots more often. Big Lots has a ton of $79 Android tablets already.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #140 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


That's where you draw the line? lol.gif

 

Releasing bad product, just to meet a lower price point is one place I would draw that line. Definitely.

post #141 of 232
Yes, by all means artificially drive down the price of the stock so that big block owners can swallow larger chunks after the latest earnings report.

People continue to be stupid.
post #142 of 232
Originally Posted by Snowdog65 View Post
Releasing bad product, just to meet a lower price point is one place I would draw that line. Definitely.

 

… But you're not drawing it ju~st a little earlier? 

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #143 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

… But you're not drawing it ju~st a little earlier? 

 

I did say, if they do as rumored. 

post #144 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65 View Post

Unlike most. I don't think the rumored iPad mini has anything at all to do with competition.

 

It is pretty much impossible to goad Apple into a price war. Apple just doesn't play that stupid game of mutually assured destruction.

 

Look at laptops as an example. Apple is now the number one HW vendor in the USA for laptops. This is with no model less than $999. If you think Apple must respond to low priced competitors, how can they win the notebook market when they start at $1000 and the competition at $300?

 

IMO the Mini is a reasonable expansion of the line-up after the volumes showed this is a sustainable trend, also it is a replacement for the temporary carryover of the iPad 2.

 

So Apple doesn't need to meet anyones price point, but their own internal targets.

 

I seriously doubt those targets include a near profitless $250 starting point.

 

If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs. 8GB is laughably useless amount of storage (free?) for a multipurpose device like this.

 

My expectation is that Apple will instead deliver a solid, usable device at a higher price, more likely closer to $350.

 

Does anyone have a 16 GB iPad?

 

If so, please go to Settings--->General--->About--->Capacity... and post the number!

 

This way we can get an idea about how much flash storage iOS 6 uses on a 16 GB iPad... and extrapolate that to an 8 GB iPad.

 

My grandsons' 16 GB iP5 and 16 GB iP4 show 13.5 and 13.6 GB -- or iOS 6 takes 2.5 and 2.4 GB out of 16 GB.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 10/19/12 at 12:39pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #145 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

… But you're not drawing it ju~st a little earlier? 

Better to rant now and then say Apple must have listened to you at the last minute. /s

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #146 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If anyone could make a sub $100 tablet, they would get massive support from the UN and OTPC (formerly OLTPC)... but it just doesn't happen!

 

Actually no current tablet design would qualify for OLTPC

 

Needs removable battery and at least two of the three alternate charing methods of pull cord, pedal or crank among other specific and unusual requirements.

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #147 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65 View Post

Releasing bad product, just to meet a lower price point is one place I would draw that line. Definitely.

Just for the record, I don't agree that an 8GB iPad would necessarily be a bad idea, for reason cited earlier by Gazoobee and someone else (sorry) that they can be used in education, data-gathering and point of sale. By the millions I would guess, and Apple will have something like that in mind if they do put out such a basic device, just watch.

In other words, I will assume they know what they're doing. Even if Steve is no longer there to do the strategy. Few in business can do strategy like Tim Cook. I think he's demonstrated that.
Edited by Flaneur - 10/19/12 at 12:46pm
post #148 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by TimUSCA View Post

Well, rumors are that the intro price is $250. If that's true, it'll be a huge success.

 

If it really wants to "knock it out of the park" $250 I think is the right price-point.

 

Apple needs to avoid the Amazon and Google controlling the bottom and then creating a generation of customers. This "low end" price point is also important for budget-minded and also young kids.

 

If it's a toss up between $199 for Kindle or something else, people will jump on a slightly more expensive iPad. Even though I don't think that the iPad is really a great e-reader, it's all about the concept of "value" in a customers mind. An ebook reader with SOME multimedia capabilities versus a super media device with some reader capabilities is going to lose for anyone but a dedicated reader.

 

Seems like a good strategy as long as they don't stay in the race to the bottom market.

post #149 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Does anyone have an 16 GB iPad?

If so, please go to Settings--->General--->About--->Capacity... and post the number!

This way we can get an idea about how much flash storage iOS 6 uses on a 16 GB iPad... and extrapolate that to an 8 GB iPad.

My grandsons' 16 GB iP5 and iP4 show 13.5 and 13.6 GB -- or iOS 6 takes 2.5 and 2.4 GB out of 16 GB.

That's not quite accurate. Apple counts the capacity of NAND like HDD makers capacity, in BASE10, so your iDevice will have just over 16,000,000,000 bytes or just over 14.90 GB using BASE2.

Now, that should definitely be taken into account when you consider how much usable space you have a specific device capacity but it does not translate evenly when going to different capacity sizes. For instance, my 64GB iPad only shows a 57.2GB capacity but at 64 billion bytes I'm only starting with just over 59.60 GB with BASE2, even before formatting the OS install. The OS isn't 5 GB larger than 8GB of NAND which is only 7.45 GB using BASE2.


edit: Xcode is a litte more forthcoming with info. In BASE2 values for physical storage capacity:

64 GB iPad = 61.41 GB (Legal minimum 59.6046447753906 GB for 64 GB)
32 GB iPhone 4 = 30.56 GB (Legal minimum 29.8023223876953 GB for 32GB)
16 GB iPhone 5 = 14.46 GB (Legal minimum 14.9011611938477GB for 16 GB)
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/19/12 at 12:54pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #150 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by mstone View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If anyone could make a sub $100 tablet, they would get massive support from the UN and OTPC (formerly OLTPC)... but it just doesn't happen!

 

Actually no current tablet design would qualify for OLTPC

 

Needs removable battery and at least two of the three alternate charing methods of pull cord, pedal or crank among other specific and unusual requirements.

 

The charging method can be an an external device...  As to the removable battery -- get the price under $100 and their hearts and minds will follow...  funny, how we humans can adapt if it is in our interest to do so.


Edited by Dick Applebaum - 10/19/12 at 1:17pm
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #151 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

"
At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy."


That was the precise point I was trying to make and illustrate... before getting sidetracked on the difference between SSD and flash storage... WTF? 

I thought your point was that added SSDs instead of straight-up NAND would in itself reduce the cost. In my defense I did say I wasn't sure I understood your point.

 

...No, I was just trying to allude to it being an act of terrorism...

"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #152 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Does anyone have a 16 GB iPad?

If so, please go to Settings--->General--->About--->Capacity... and post the number!

This way we can get an idea about how much flash storage iOS 6 uses on a 16 GB iPad... and extrapolate that to an 8 GB iPad.

My grandsons' 16 GB iP5 and 16 GB iP4 show 13.5 and 13.6 GB -- or iOS 6 takes 2.5 and 2.4 GB out of 16 GB.

16 GB iPad I: 13.8 capacity
post #153 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm View Post

 

Yes, suck profits from the competition.

 

When does Apple get big enough to be subject to anti-trust? Maybe they will let Microsoft live just so they can dodge that bullet.

 

Hmm...I almost hope Apple is subject to anti-trust, not because it's become so large or dominates its markets, but because the actions that force you into the Apple eco-system are sometimes anti-competitive.    But if they have to make some compromises (like not pulling the CD/DVD drive out of every model) or making their computers with user replaceable parts like batteries, memory and drives, so that you can add a third-party's replacement parts like you used to be able to do, or full sync support for third-party applications, I think that would benefit us all.

post #154 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

The charging method can bean an external device...  As to the removable battery -- get the price under $100 and their hearts and minds will follow...  funny, how we humans can adapt if it is in our interest to do so.

Even if the tablet was $100 it would not be as well designed for the intended purpose as the one they have now for OLTPC

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply

Life is too short to drink bad coffee.

Reply
post #155 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post


Like you, I don't know the answers... But, Apple is better positioned than anyone to offer a sustainable sub $100 tablet solution at a profit.

I tend to agree with you. Apple can spend less money to build an equal product. But what google and co is doing is actually selling at loss in hope to monetize the users later on with ads and apps. I believe yesterday they stated that their mobile revenues grew to 8 billion.
post #156 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Hmm...I almost hope Apple is subject to anti-trust, not because it's become so large or dominates its markets, but because the actions that force you into the Apple eco-system are sometimes anti-competitive.    But if they have to make some compromises (like not pulling the CD/DVD drive out of every model) or making their computers with user replaceable parts like batteries, memory and drives, so that you can add a third-party's replacement parts like you used to be able to do, or full sync support for third-party applications, I think that would benefit us all.

I agree with none of what you stated.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #157 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fake_William_Shatner View Post

If it really wants to "knock it out of the park" $250 I think is the right price-point.

Apple needs to avoid the Amazon and Google controlling the bottom and then creating a generation of customers. This "low end" price point is also important for budget-minded and also young kids.

This is THE main point of doing a small, entry-level iPad, seems to me. Get the kids into the Apple ecosystem early, get their fingers and eyeballs calibrated correctly.
post #158 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Hmm...I almost hope Apple is subject to anti-trust, not because it's become so large or dominates its markets, but because the actions that force you into the Apple eco-system are sometimes anti-competitive.    But if they have to make some compromises (like not pulling the CD/DVD drive out of every model) or making their computers with user replaceable parts like batteries, memory and drives, so that you can add a third-party's replacement parts like you used to be able to do, or full sync support for third-party applications, I think that would benefit us all.
How is anything you said equal to anti-trust? Who is forcing you to purchase an Apple product anyway?
post #159 of 232

Tim has stated they don't want to leave a price umbrella for competitors.  

 

A $250 entry price point avoids the race to the bottom while leaving pretty much no umbrella for anyone not subsidizing their tablets from other sources.  Given the volumes Apple should be able to build a tablet cheaper than anyone else and it strikes me that if Google can break even on the 8GB Nexus 7 at $199 then Apple can make a profit at $250.

 

While that price point cannibalizes the $299 iPod Touch that's okay.  Better Apple do it than Amazon or Google.

 

8GB is viable if they can add streaming from iCloud for purchased content (movies and textbooks).  It's tight for apps.

 

One alternative is that the 4G capable models start at $199 with 2 year contract for AT&T and Verizon $20 shared data plans and the non-4G ones start higher priced around the $299 mark for 16GB.

post #160 of 232
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Hmm...I almost hope Apple is subject to anti-trust, not because it's become so large or dominates its markets, but because the actions that force you into the Apple eco-system are sometimes anti-competitive.    But if they have to make some compromises (like not pulling the CD/DVD drive out of every model) or making their computers with user replaceable parts like batteries, memory and drives, so that you can add a third-party's replacement parts like you used to be able to do, or full sync support for third-party applications, I think that would benefit us all.

I guess you're the kind of guy who likes to take the weekend to put new headers on his Toyota. Good luck adapting to modern life.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Apple's smaller iPad forecast to become 'competition's worst nightmare'
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Apple's smaller iPad forecast to become 'competition's worst nightmare'