Even if it's built for $600 Apple, the profit whore, will charge you $1100.
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.
In other Apple tablet news, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, referenced Apple's forthcoming touchscreen device in a presentation to the newspaper's digital staff. Keller said that print publications would need to embrace new hardware, like the "impending Apple slate*," if they want to succeed. His comment, in full, was as follows:
"We need to figure out the right journalistic product to deliver to mobile platforms and devices. I'm hoping we can get the newsroom more actively involved in the challenge of delivering our best journalism in the form of Times Reader, iPhone apps, WAP, or the impending Apple slate, or whatever comes after that."
Slate will always have more features and be more expensive that a plain tablet. So it should be.
I'd love to carry around a bluetooth keyboard in my pocket to make using my iPhone easier and more convenient. I'll call Jobs immediately and have him hire you to join the apple think tank. But don't stop with the keyboard. How about a single button bluetooth mouse for your iPod?? And a bluetooth external screen??? And a bluetooth Bluray Drive????
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
But who will ignore you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
History suggest studies are way off when it comes to Apple. The tablet will be around $1,000 I'd say. If it's the type of tablet I want that is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
Are you talking about a Tablet with a self-lubricating hole in the middle?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ireland
No, I'm talking about Mac touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
Hot. What kind of bezel are you hoping for?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Superbass
He doesn't dislike Apple, he just dislikes paying less than $600 for giant iPhones. Or, he loves Apple so much that he wants to pay extra.
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 wouldn?t 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.
Apple?s initial target group wasn?t 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 can?t 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 people?s buying decisions have little to do with brand-loyalty, no matter what the marketing departments tell you. It?s mostly about lust.
You can fantasise about Angelina Jolie as much as you want, doesn?t mean you?re going to get to share her bed!
The idea of polling people about how much they'd pay for a device of completely unknown capabilities and uncertain existence is simply ridiculous. Attempting to analyze the results of such a poll is doubly ridiculous.
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.
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.
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?
I can?t help but wonder if a 16:9 tablet would be easier to hold and jive with Apple?s and other vendor?s move to this new common ratio in computing. Seems like it would fit better with print items, too, after you remove the margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hillstones
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.
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.
While most Mac users would have no problem paying more than $600 for Apple's long-rumored tablet, most PC users would not consider hardware above that price, a new study suggests ...
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.
- 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'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.
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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Sadly, it's like that everywhere in the US.
They apparently don't realise the irony. The only other country ever to worship their flag so much was Nazi Germany.
Comments
- 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.
PC users have always been known to crave cheap devices. You don't need a survey to figure that one out.
To be a real best-seller, the Apple iTablet must:
- Be small. As small as possible. Ideally, pocketable.
Apple already has that. It is called the iPhone.
Even if it's built for $600 Apple, the profit whore, will charge you $1100.
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.
In other Apple tablet news, Bill Keller, executive editor of The New York Times, referenced Apple's forthcoming touchscreen device in a presentation to the newspaper's digital staff. Keller said that print publications would need to embrace new hardware, like the "impending Apple slate*," if they want to succeed. His comment, in full, was as follows:
"We need to figure out the right journalistic product to deliver to mobile platforms and devices. I'm hoping we can get the newsroom more actively involved in the challenge of delivering our best journalism in the form of Times Reader, iPhone apps, WAP, or the impending Apple slate, or whatever comes after that."
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
$600 for the new 17" iPhone? Count me in!
How about analyzing the analysis of such a ridiculous poll. Does that make you triply ridiculous?
Our doubly doubly ridiculous (quadruply ridiculous)?
I'd love to carry around a bluetooth keyboard in my pocket to make using my iPhone easier and more convenient. I'll call Jobs immediately and have him hire you to join the apple think tank. But don't stop with the keyboard. How about a single button bluetooth mouse for your iPod?? And a bluetooth external screen??? And a bluetooth Bluray Drive????
But who will ignore you?
History suggest studies are way off when it comes to Apple. The tablet will be around $1,000 I'd say. If it's the type of tablet I want that is.
Are you talking about a Tablet with a self-lubricating hole in the middle?
No, I'm talking about Mac touch.
Hot. What kind of bezel are you hoping for?
He doesn't dislike Apple, he just dislikes paying less than $600 for giant iPhones. Or, he loves Apple so much that he wants to pay extra.
Strage question. If you must know, here:
Ireland, Dude, don't feed the Troll...!
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 wouldn?t 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.
Apple?s initial target group wasn?t 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 can?t 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 people?s buying decisions have little to do with brand-loyalty, no matter what the marketing departments tell you. It?s mostly about lust.
You can fantasise about Angelina Jolie as much as you want, doesn?t mean you?re going to get to share her bed!
The idea of polling people about how much they'd pay for a device of completely unknown capabilities and uncertain existence is simply ridiculous. Attempting to analyze the results of such a poll is doubly ridiculous.
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.
This is all so ridiculous. Stop with these ridiculous rumours-pleeze.
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.
Or perhaps your assumptions are largely incorrect.
Can Apple recoup years of research and development by selling a tablet for the same money as the original iPhone?
Can Apple recoup years of research and development by selling a tablet for the same money as the original iPhone?
Yes they can.
Strage question. If you must know, here:
image: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3238/...6a30db0a_o.png
I can?t help but wonder if a 16:9 tablet would be easier to hold and jive with Apple?s and other vendor?s move to this new common ratio in computing. Seems like it would fit better with print items, too, after you remove the margins.
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.
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.
While most Mac users would have no problem paying more than $600 for Apple's long-rumored tablet, most PC users would not consider hardware above that price, a new study suggests ...
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.
Yes they can.
If so, then why did Apple price the first MacBook Air so high? They could have owned the netbook space IMHO.
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'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.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Sadly, it's like that everywhere in the US.
They apparently don't realise the irony. The only other country ever to worship their flag so much was Nazi Germany.