Apple's smaller iPad forecast to become 'competition's worst nightmare' - Page 2

 

Any sized company can be in violation of anti-trust laws, but it's usually the bigger companies that can throw their weight around more often and force 3rd parties into exclusivity or anti-competitive contracts. Microsoft did this in the 90's to both corporations and OEMs. Apple has long been in a position to do this, but they haven't, because they're not that type of company. They don't go after market share, they're more interested in actually selling products to people and keeping the channel inventory at manageable levels.

Yes, this is why I think 8GB at $250-$299 is a mistake. 8GB is not a lot of space. Especially with apps getting larger and magazines that have quite large file sizes.

Since when has the consumer been confused by shrinking CE and it becoming more expensive. That's how it's always been and yet when it comes to Apple somehow that is no longer suppose to exist? WTF?!

So an 8GB model at $250 would be pricing close to cost?

This is what I'm expecting.

 

The MacBook Air was called such because it's main differentiating factor over a regular MacBook was that it was incredibly lighter and thinner.  While the iPad mini will probably be lighter than a regular iPad (it kind of has to be given it's size), it's not *that* much lighter, and possibly no thinner at all once the iPad 3 has been re-worked.  Also, iPads in general are going to get lighter and thinner over time.  

 

It just doesn't work.  The main qualities of the purported "iPad mini" over and above the regular iPad are smallness, and cheapness.  They could call it "iPad cheapo" but somehow I don't think so.  

** deleted **

I can't see Apple being interested in "going for the kill". They want to control the market but unless there is a sense that the Nexus or the Fire is threatening Apple's dominance their energy is better spent just being awesome in their own way. It is hard to argue that anybody is threatening Apple's market segment where Apple doesn't even have a product yet. I think Apple will want to be competitive but will have no interest in losing margin at this point. 

 

My guess would be that.  I have no idea of course. 

 

They do this thing all the time where they still get their margin by spreading it out over a whole little posse of price points.  That was my main point. 

 

I mean $250 is the best price point, but 8GB is kind of a ridiculous spec, right?  They can more or less say they hit the price point that everyone is lusting after, but at the same time, most consumers will buy the $350 model anyway because 8GB sucks.  Schools and institutions can buy the $250 8GB by the truckload and everyone is happy.  

I don't think they'll abandon up-charging $100 to double storage and only charge an additional $50. It also wouldn't make sense to consumers to charge $50 to double storage for the 7.85" model, but $100 for the 9.7" model. I like the (Product)RED idea, tho.

November 2nd is the drop dead date with pre-orders next week. I think I am going to pick one up and then send one to my sis, nephew and lil bro... Get the whole family using good products and acclimated to the Apple ecosystem.

I'm in the 'Mini' camp. Even if it is technically an enlarged iPod it is viewed as a smaller version of an iPad. Calling it an 'Air' will dilute, or confuse the Macbook Air brand imo. When the iPod Mini came out it was called that because it was a smaller version of the iPod. Same thing applies here. The iPod is a pocket device and so distinctly different. The Air is also distinctly different from the MBP line thought that difference is narrowing. 

 

It is possible it will just be called iPad, but it will always be referred to as the iPad mini. It is a name which perfectly describes it in my opinion so why mess with it. 

I think for an iPad cellular is important. I'd give people the option. You'll be surprised how many go for the cellular option.  They should just call it the iPad and everyone will refer to it as the 7" iPad. 

Edited by AdonisSMU - 10/19/12 at 8:50am

Who knows what the pricing will be, but its a given this will be a serious blow to the competition.

Apple can easily get a $50-100 premium over others based on the quality of their product and the tight integration into their ecosystem. At the $200-300 price point that's a huge advantage. Plus nobody can compete with Apple when it comes to economies of scale.

you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

 

Microsoft is a very poor example.  Samsung is the primary competitor of Apple.  It sells more phones than apple, so why is Apple too big? 

 

the smallest company in the world can be subject to anti-trust.

 

If you're free market capitalism, 'sucking profits from the competition' is called 'rules of the game' 

causing a competitor to leave a market due to their inability to attract a profitable customer base is not 'too big' it's 'better product and production'

 

Apple is not forming an anti-competitive Trust because

- it doesn't force anyone to 'join apple' to get into the markets that apple and it's partners control.

- it doesn't force customers to use Apple (free market), and it doesn't require anyone to sell Apple 

- it doesn't use it's iOS monopoly to force any partner to favor the apple relationship.

- it hasn't entered into any agreements with anyone to make Apple product's exclusive.

- it hasn't used control in one arena to drive out competition in another, but leveraging partners in an anti-competitive nature

 

In short, there is no barrier to admission into the mobile market.   Build a better OS, a better device, and a better supply chain, a better set of apps, and the world will beat a path to your door.   Apple is making 20-30% on each device... surely you can come in under that.  If not, well then, you're not built to compete, and therefore should be crushed like the ill-fitted beaked finch in Darwin's ecosystem.

Apple's own history has shown that in fact they don't.

Agreed. I just suspect Apple will stay slightly higher than many of us hope.

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. 

The $300 touch is 32 gb.  Apple could offer the 8gb mini for the same price.  Since most buyers would want more memory the base mini wouldn't erode touch sales.

That said I still think offering an 8 gb model is a bad move.  Buyers of the lowest cost model would likely be new to Apple and would quickly become disillusioned when they can't even fit their song collection on it let alone any apps. 

Someone else mentioned a microSD.  That would change things entirely but Apple doesn't seem to want to go in that direction.

Or it won't be. Folks will say it is priced too high, it's too small etc and just buy the full sized one or another brand ll together.

Price is not always the deciding factor, especially with what is perceived as a 'high end' brand

 

No, they won't - not at first anyway.

 

The iPad mini will basically have the same specs as the new iPod touch, except of course for a larger display (almost same pixel count though), battery and faster CPU. The material costs won't be much higher so pricing will be...

 

16GB @ $299

32GB @ $349

64GB @ $449

 

As a long shot, they may drop the price of the current iPad (3rd Gen) by $50. (At the very least they will drop the 2nd Gen and update the current to the new Lightning connector.)

Edited by mjtomlin - 10/19/12 at 8:48am

 

And since the iPod touch is widely used for that (to great success), I don't see how a larger, unpocketable device would be better.

I would be very surprised if there is no cellular option. Doesn't make sense to omit.

 

Do you really think people will ever refer to it as the 7" iPad if it is called 'iPad'? Rather than iPad Mini, I mean? Which rolls off the tounge easiest?

As a POS unit I'd agree, but there are many other situations. In situations where you don't need to stick the think in you back pocket larger is generally better. I think it will replace clip-boards better than iPods and ditto iPads. 

 

All I know is that if anyone ever calls it the "iMini", I will find them and they will pay.

It's easy to see a usage case for cellular on a small tablet but then there is the cost. Right now Apple charges $130 for cellular. Even Amazon charges $130 for their cellular on the upcoming Kindle Fire HD. Now Amazon does include 3GB of data spread over 1 year but how much does that deal really cost Amazon with the carriers? 3GB upfront per device with a 250MB limit per month with the customer potentially buying more if needed? Maybe $20 per device? Even if we say $30 we're still looking at a $100 premium for cellular. Will that fl with a device many think will start at $249?

Already exists....

 

*phew!* 

I'll join you! :-)

Yes I think 8G is a ridiculous spec. But consumers might also think $350 for 16GB is ridiculous too.

2 words x 2 drivers

"Pricing Umbrella"

"Market Desires"

 

Apple has to be perceived that the price to buy an Apple device is not a premium for the functions you want.  If you want to read books, Apple has to drive the value of the iPad to a point where you can compete with a Kindle.  and if that value equation is 'bigger isn't important' but price and portability and 'one handedness' is, then Apple needs to have a price point there.

 

Apple builds what the markets want.... sometimes the market doesn't know what they want (original iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBookProRD), sometimes they do: (iPhone 5, MacBook Air).  This is the latter.   With all the 4.5", 5", 5.5" 'phones' out there, and then the Kindles, Nexus 7s, etc.  The market has been defined into 'pocket mobile'   'medium reader', and 'laptop alternative'   Apple has no product in the middle of it's ecosystem.  At first it was likely due to the pricing (couldn't build it to the price perception to the quality it thought needed to be there [battery size vs performance])....  2 years later, Moore Law has solved that problem.

 

Apple plays the long game... it's not going for the kill so much as 'death by 1000 cuts.'   You make a 250 entry point at say,  $100 profit for  you, and exceeds the 'value' prop of your competitors,  all those who are building $199 devices or lower and are breaking even, will feel the pain.  Drive them to a lower price point (often by driving quality down) to maintain the 'revenue stream' (ads, amazon sales), further weakening their long term competitiveness.

 

This is siege mentality.   set it up so no one can suck your profits long term, and make it your value proposition gets the customer, if not this purchase cycle, the next or the one after that. 

They may delay the introduction of cellular but I suspect it will be like the iPad. I think a smaller iPad will have broader adoption than just kids playing games. I think it will be a genuinely useful size where the regular iPad is on the large side. How much do you think it adds to production cost? Don't you think that in terms of assembly it will be minimal and that non-cellular devices will have the empty space for the cellular chips? In which case it would make sense to make a smaller run to test the market. 

No, if Apple wants to crush the competition, low balling the price to give a perception the product is cheap is not the way to go. Creating a product so awesome that folks want it even though its priced higher than everyone else, that is Apple's game. And they tend to play it rather well

I'm skeptical that they'd release any new products with a capacity as low as 8GB at this point. There are no existing 8GB iPads. There are no iPod Touch models available with 8GB anymore, and the only iPhone with a capacity that low is the iPhone 4, which is likely on its last legs. Even the iPod Nano is now available with 16GB as its only capacity. That considered, 16GB seems the minimum bar to entry for this new smaller iPad.

 

As far as pricing goes, I'd expect they'd be no less than a comparable iPod Touch since it's likely to share most of its specs with that device. I think we'll see pricing at least $50 more than a new iPod Touch with similar capacity (and likely more).

Personally, since I got my ipad I have found I use my macbook less and less. When printing was added to ios, my notebook was basically mothballed. I want some decent specs for the mini, A6 with 1GB, 64gb storage and LTE. After that, the screen isn't such a big deal. And cost? Pfft. As long as it's slightly cheaper than the iPad, I'm in.

Mini iPad honestly rolls off the tongue for me but given Apple's history iPad Mini seems likely. 

This thread is most entertaining. Pricing is a science. And yeah, maybe something of an art too. Just what Apple is famous for. The enigma here is that one presumes Apple knows their product pipeline times intimately. Just a few weeks ago they rolled out the new iPod touch at $299. Steve very famously pointed out that Apple has become a mobile devices company, and all their actions in the last...maybe 10?...years indicates this is a truism. Perusal of their complete lineup of devices is realy astounding - no other company I know of has such a spectrum. All integrated, all "just work." But I'm thinking the iPad mini has at least all of the functions of the iPod touch ($299) with a larger screen. Fairly, iPod has the retina screen, and maybe the iPad mini will not. But will this be the first time we see a device (the iPod touch) that we pay a higher price...for smaller? Air v MBP is interesting, but there was not a huge disparity in size. iPod touch looks to be 1/2 the size of the iPad mini. And of course, it is OK to actually own both. Or all. I find uses for each. I bought a iPad on launch day; likely I'll get a iPad mini on launch day too.

I agree.  especially for the schools looking at iPads at the 1-5th grades.   The lack of a camera/vid and siri is no loss, and memory isn't an issue.  WiFi only (load them up with assignments at school.

 

The Mini to me is targeted to

- Kindle readers who want a 'bit more'

- Children hogging 'Mom's iPad 3

- pre-Teens

 

 

The Touch is the 'on the go' teen or young adult who can have 'feature phone' (phone plus text, maybe facebook), and a laptop back in the dorm/home.

 

As an Older adult, the touch hasn't been my or most of my observable peers' sweet spot.  an iPod Shuffle/Nano at the gym, iPhone for 90% of my moble, an iPad for around the house consumption, and a Mac Mini/iMac for the desk.

Apple's aim would be to dominate and control more than to kill all competition. But do you really think Apple, or anyone, would define a smaller iPad as a 'medium reader'? If that is the accepted category Apple will certainly do well. 

Out of interest - are there any viable iPod alternatives out there? Meaning music devices? At some point there were but I really don't see anything now. 

 

put an Apple on it, the fan boys will come a runnin...