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?
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.
It's my understanding that this is exactly how pricing works.
Price is determined first, via market research, polls, etc. From that, cost levels are set. And from those, actual capabilities are established.
Not only would Apple have decided how much the Tablet would cost before they started, they would likely already know where the profit margin would be as production ramps up and after the first spec bump. Maybe two.
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.
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
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
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 iPhone?s UI. Besides that, I like it.
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.
Luckily, netbook makers are moving into much higher priced arenas to actually score a profit. I believe I?ve 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.
While most Mac users would have no problem paying more than $600 for Apple's long-rumored tablet, most PC users would not consider hardware above that price, a new study suggests.
That is until two months after the initial product introduction, where Apple will drop the price a couple of hundred bucks and sell it for$ 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!...
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
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.
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 I?m 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.
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).
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.
It's my understanding that this is exactly how pricing works.
Price is determined first, via market research, polls, etc. From that, cost levels are set. And from those, actual capabilities are established.
Not only would Apple have decided how much the Tablet would cost before they started, they would likely already know where the profit margin would be as production ramps up and after the first spec bump. Maybe two.
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.
How did you come up with that number? The tablet PCs I?m 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.
Idk, just guessed really. I just think that possibly charging the same price as a MacBook is insane.
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 both iPhones and Wiis.
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.
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.
Apple would have made tons of cash selling netbooks instead of macbooks. You're completely right, as usual.
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.
Sorry you're so miserable- most greedy people are.
Comments
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?
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.
If so, then why did Apple price the first MacBook Air so high? They could have owned the netbook space IMHO.
MacBook Air is not a netbook
It's my understanding that this is exactly how pricing works.
Price is determined first, via market research, polls, etc. From that, cost levels are set. And from those, actual capabilities are established.
Not only would Apple have decided how much the Tablet would cost before they started, they would likely already know where the profit margin would be as production ramps up and after the first spec bump. Maybe two.
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.
*
The SONY VAIO VPCCW13FX 14" is a netbook? $799.99 with Windows 7 in todays J&R ad.
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.
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
Nice work if you can get it.
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
image:http://macmap.info/wp-content/upload...book_touch.jpg
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 iPhone?s UI. Besides that, I like it.
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.
Luckily, netbook makers are moving into much higher priced arenas to actually score a profit. I believe I?ve 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.
While most Mac users would have no problem paying more than $600 for Apple's long-rumored tablet, most PC users would not consider hardware above that price, a new study suggests.
That is until two months after the initial product introduction, where Apple will drop the price a couple of hundred bucks and sell it for$ 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!...
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
http://macmap.info/wp-content/upload...book_touch.jpg
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).
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 I?m 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?
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).
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.
It's my understanding that this is exactly how pricing works.
Price is determined first, via market research, polls, etc. From that, cost levels are set. And from those, actual capabilities are established.
Not only would Apple have decided how much the Tablet would cost before they started, they would likely already know where the profit margin would be as production ramps up and after the first spec bump. Maybe two.
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.
How did you come up with that number? The tablet PCs I?m 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.
Idk, just guessed really. I just think that possibly charging the same price as a MacBook is insane.
Seriously, I think it will be between $1000-$1200US, no contract (assuming it has HSPDA/UMTS 3G/3.5G data connectivity).
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 both iPhones and Wiis.
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.
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.
Apple would have made tons of cash selling netbooks instead of macbooks. You're completely right, as usual.
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.
Sorry you're so miserable- most greedy people are.
Apple would have made tons of cash selling netbooks instead of macbooks. You're completely right, as usual.
Yes if they had Apple Taxed them and charged $700, still lower than anything else they offer.