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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cmf2
Apple would have made tons of cash selling netbooks instead of macbooks. You're completely right, as usual.
I implore you, don?t feed his trollish behaviour. Having him on ignore is pointless if people reply. He?s not going to understand that Apple?s goals of making a profit are not congruent with his own goals of saving a dime. He won?t understand that even if gross profit percentages are the same, that lowering a price means that your gross profit per unit is lower.
Yes if they had Apple Taxed them and charged $700, still lower than anything else they offer.
So how have they painted themselves into a corner? Why couldn't they do that now, if they could before? The school of teckstudian logic never ceases to amaze me.
I implore you, don?t feed his trollish behaviour. Having him on ignore is pointless if people reply. He?s not going to understand that Apple?s goals of making a profit are not congruent with his own goals of saving a dime. He won?t understand that even if gross profit percentages are the same, that lowering a price means that your gross profit per unit is lower.
600 for a tablet is too much in my mind. Others will find that a value to them. Then again, I really don't like the "pure touch screen" idea for something that will be bigger than the iPhone. And definitely not worth 600 if it doesn't come with full OS X.
My guess is that this device is over hyped by everyone, and will end up in the undeveloped bin like the AppleTV. Its a niche device that probably won't see to much action. Of course, I can be wrong.
600 for a tablet is too much in my mind. Others will find that a value to them. Then again, I really don't like the "pure touch screen" idea for something that will be bigger than the iPhone. And definitely not worth 600 if it doesn't come with full OS X.
My guess is that this device is over hyped by everyone, and will end up in the undeveloped bin like the AppleTV. Its a niche device that probably won't see to much action. Of course, I can be wrong.
A tablet won't be for everyone, but as always, I am interested in why you require "full" OSX on a $600 device. I feel that most people who want full OSX severely underestimate the potential of iPhone OS and ignore the downsides of using OSX on a full touch device, with relatively underpowered hardware.
PS. With a couple changes, AppleTV could jump out of that undeveloped bin.
So how have they painted themselves into a corner? Why couldn't they do that now, if they could before? The school of teckstudian logic never ceases to amaze me.
Simple 2 years too late- innovators late at the table not cool. Ok? Now back to your barn.
I implore you, don’t feed his trollish behaviour. Having him on ignore is pointless if people reply. He’s not going to understand that Apple’s goals of making a profit are not congruent with his own goals of saving a dime. He won’t understand that even if gross profit percentages are the same, that lowering a price means that your gross profit per unit is lower.
Man you're so pathetic. Let people think for themselve rather than spew your old stockholder mantra of "Apple is a company that needs to make a profit, bla, bla, bla". Seriously anyone who wants to discuss anything don't listen to sloppism and his FUD. I can handle any debate and slopsism ( who keeps peering out of his ignore list ) doesn't need to read it. Remember he was the one that said - no video camera for iPhone because "Applenia a company that.......... Same thing with matte on the 15" MBP- I could go on and on with his ridiculous prediclons- all proven false.
Yes if they had Apple Taxed them and charged $700, still lower than anything else they offer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
Simple 2 years too late- innovators late at the table not cool. Ok? Now back to your barn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud
The SONY VAIO VPCCW13FX 14" is a netbook? $799.99 with Windows 7 in todays J&R ad.
So in the same thread you've argued both that Apple can sell a $700+ netbook today (because Sony is) and that Apple can't sell a $700+ netbook today because they are two years too late. I'm done quoting you in this thread, or else I'll end up on ignore lists too.
Next time you rush to criticize someone, maybe you could also have something relevant to say?
We all know they are coming out with a bigger iphone type device. This guy said it out loud to his employees so they won't be caught behind the wave next time. Really a big deal? I don't think so.
techstud on my ignore too. wow suddenly the forums have lost that foul smel.
It's probably the single biggest event since the iPhone launch. To me this is more important, on par with the first mac dare I say. I don't doubt this will be a huge success and a fantastic computer, what I am interested to see is the tec it comes with. I can see why the project was rebooted so many times: the battery, CPU, storage and dsplay tec simply was not there for such a device. It's interesting in that it still isn't, only marginally, only just. But apple more than anyone now has the clout to get the latest and greatest in tec in decent prices so they can drive costs down. Let's face, all previous tablets were a joke. Now is the tablet reivented.
But still, the cost? I mean shouldn't it have two cortex arm CPUs? Or a non underclocked one like the iPhone? And such displays to make them easy for reading and durable, that comes at a cost. Plus where is that battery tec going to come from? iPhone battery times will not be acceptable for the tablet yet scale tells us that is almost the best we can hope for.
I am very excited for the tablet, very, very excited
what's this? i drop into this thread hoping to read some thoughts about the iTab, a favorite guessing game, and find - a flame war?
anyway, my bet is $499 for a 64G iTab and $599 for 96G.
because just to scale up the iPod touch with a 3x bigger screen (9 times as much area) adds only a few costs to its component list:
- bigger LED screen of course (but they are so cheap these days)
- bigger case
- faster processor
- bigger battery (big winner here)
- iPhone quality camera.
that's pretty much it. the rest of the components ought to be virtually the same as the touch. the 64G touch costs $399, and all these items don't add another $100.
the real changes will be the new software enhancements - multitasking (probably multi-app simultaneous viewing, a knock-out feature), special iLife and iWork apps, and so on.
should be a sensation. then Apple will knock the price down $100 more next June like they always do ...
I think Apple would very much capitalize in offering something (other than a mac mini which is useless by itself w/o monitor/keyboard) around $600. There is a huge general population that wants to buy an electronic device that can view books, write documents, surf the internet and maybe even watch movies. These people don't want to pay thousands of dollars to do this. They also want something easy to use and just works. This is one result in the spike of netbook sales. Apple must act now or they may not get in the door on this one. My own personal opinion is that Apple could dominate the market if they just reach this big hole for them. Most people I know settle for PC laptops and portable devices because they are not willing to pay the extra price Apple charges. i.e. A compaq runnin Windows 7 $400 the cheapest Mac with a screen is more than double. It's about time Apple reached these people.
So in the same thread you've argued both that Apple can sell a $700+ netbook today (because Sony is) and that Apple can't sell a $700+ netbook today because they are two years too late. I'm done quoting you in this thread, or else I'll end up on ignore lists too.
I never said Apple can sell a $700 netbook, I said Apple is not going to sell a $600 Tablet - it will be at least $1,100. Where'd I say that about Apple selling a SOny netbook? I never said that.
what's this? i drop into this thread hoping to read some thoughts about the iTab, a favorite guessing game, and find - a flame war?
anyway, my bet is $499 for a 64G iTab and $599 for 96G.
because just to scale up the iPod touch with a 3x bigger screen (9 times as much area) adds only a few costs to its component list:
- bigger LED screen of course (but they are so cheap these days)
- bigger case
- faster processor
- bigger battery (big winner here)
- iPhone quality camera.
that's pretty much it. the rest of the components ought to be virtually the same as the touch. the 64G touch costs $399, and all these items don't add another $100.
the real changes will be the new software enhancements - multitasking (probably multi-app simultaneous viewing, a knock-out feature), special iLife and iWork apps, and so on.
should be a sensation. then Apple will knock the price down $100 more next June like they always do ...
Again, my 32GB iPhone costs $700 in its 3rd generation. How can you be serious?
Again, my 32GB iPhone costs $700 in its 3rd generation. How can you be serious?
what has that iPhone have that the $299 32G touch doesn't? a camera, GPS/compass, SIM chip and phone antennas. do they cost $400 more in parts, or is the iPhone no-contract price jacked way way up? the latter of course.
the touch, without any telco subsidy, is the real price benchmark. you know Apple is not selling them at a loss. and its new iTab has to be priced low enough to really invade the market successfully.
Comments
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.
Apple would have made tons of cash selling netbooks instead of macbooks. You're completely right, as usual.
I implore you, don?t feed his trollish behaviour. Having him on ignore is pointless if people reply. He?s not going to understand that Apple?s goals of making a profit are not congruent with his own goals of saving a dime. He won?t understand that even if gross profit percentages are the same, that lowering a price means that your gross profit per unit is lower.
Yes if they had Apple Taxed them and charged $700, still lower than anything else they offer.
So how have they painted themselves into a corner? Why couldn't they do that now, if they could before? The school of teckstudian logic never ceases to amaze me.
I implore you, don?t feed his trollish behaviour. Having him on ignore is pointless if people reply. He?s not going to understand that Apple?s goals of making a profit are not congruent with his own goals of saving a dime. He won?t understand that even if gross profit percentages are the same, that lowering a price means that your gross profit per unit is lower.
Sorry, I did it again.
My guess is that this device is over hyped by everyone, and will end up in the undeveloped bin like the AppleTV. Its a niche device that probably won't see to much action. Of course, I can be wrong.
Ireland, Dude, don't feed the Troll...!
I would never discriminate against a hungry troll.
600 for a tablet is too much in my mind. Others will find that a value to them. Then again, I really don't like the "pure touch screen" idea for something that will be bigger than the iPhone. And definitely not worth 600 if it doesn't come with full OS X.
My guess is that this device is over hyped by everyone, and will end up in the undeveloped bin like the AppleTV. Its a niche device that probably won't see to much action. Of course, I can be wrong.
A tablet won't be for everyone, but as always, I am interested in why you require "full" OSX on a $600 device. I feel that most people who want full OSX severely underestimate the potential of iPhone OS and ignore the downsides of using OSX on a full touch device, with relatively underpowered hardware.
PS. With a couple changes, AppleTV could jump out of that undeveloped bin.
So how have they painted themselves into a corner? Why couldn't they do that now, if they could before? The school of teckstudian logic never ceases to amaze me.
Simple 2 years too late- innovators late at the table not cool. Ok? Now back to your barn.
I implore you, don’t feed his trollish behaviour. Having him on ignore is pointless if people reply. He’s not going to understand that Apple’s goals of making a profit are not congruent with his own goals of saving a dime. He won’t understand that even if gross profit percentages are the same, that lowering a price means that your gross profit per unit is lower.
Man you're so pathetic. Let people think for themselve rather than spew your old stockholder mantra of "Apple is a company that needs to make a profit, bla, bla, bla". Seriously anyone who wants to discuss anything don't listen to sloppism and his FUD. I can handle any debate and slopsism ( who keeps peering out of his ignore list
I would never discriminate against a hungry troll.
That's the spirit!!
I implore you.............
Is there a doctor in the house?
Yes if they had Apple Taxed them and charged $700, still lower than anything else they offer.
Simple 2 years too late- innovators late at the table not cool. Ok? Now back to your barn.
The SONY VAIO VPCCW13FX 14" is a netbook? $799.99 with Windows 7 in todays J&R ad.
So in the same thread you've argued both that Apple can sell a $700+ netbook today (because Sony is) and that Apple can't sell a $700+ netbook today because they are two years too late. I'm done quoting you in this thread, or else I'll end up on ignore lists too.
Next time you rush to criticize someone, maybe you could also have something relevant to say?
We all know they are coming out with a bigger iphone type device. This guy said it out loud to his employees so they won't be caught behind the wave next time. Really a big deal? I don't think so.
Wow, deep.
It's probably the single biggest event since the iPhone launch. To me this is more important, on par with the first mac dare I say. I don't doubt this will be a huge success and a fantastic computer, what I am interested to see is the tec it comes with. I can see why the project was rebooted so many times: the battery, CPU, storage and dsplay tec simply was not there for such a device. It's interesting in that it still isn't, only marginally, only just. But apple more than anyone now has the clout to get the latest and greatest in tec in decent prices so they can drive costs down. Let's face, all previous tablets were a joke. Now is the tablet reivented.
But still, the cost? I mean shouldn't it have two cortex arm CPUs? Or a non underclocked one like the iPhone? And such displays to make them easy for reading and durable, that comes at a cost. Plus where is that battery tec going to come from? iPhone battery times will not be acceptable for the tablet yet scale tells us that is almost the best we can hope for.
I am very excited for the tablet, very, very excited
anyway, my bet is $499 for a 64G iTab and $599 for 96G.
because just to scale up the iPod touch with a 3x bigger screen (9 times as much area) adds only a few costs to its component list:
- bigger LED screen of course (but they are so cheap these days)
- bigger case
- faster processor
- bigger battery (big winner here)
- iPhone quality camera.
that's pretty much it. the rest of the components ought to be virtually the same as the touch. the 64G touch costs $399, and all these items don't add another $100.
the real changes will be the new software enhancements - multitasking (probably multi-app simultaneous viewing, a knock-out feature), special iLife and iWork apps, and so on.
should be a sensation. then Apple will knock the price down $100 more next June like they always do ...
So in the same thread you've argued both that Apple can sell a $700+ netbook today (because Sony is) and that Apple can't sell a $700+ netbook today because they are two years too late. I'm done quoting you in this thread, or else I'll end up on ignore lists too.
I never said Apple can sell a $700 netbook, I said Apple is not going to sell a $600 Tablet - it will be at least $1,100. Where'd I say that about Apple selling a SOny netbook? I never said that.
what's this? i drop into this thread hoping to read some thoughts about the iTab, a favorite guessing game, and find - a flame war?
anyway, my bet is $499 for a 64G iTab and $599 for 96G.
because just to scale up the iPod touch with a 3x bigger screen (9 times as much area) adds only a few costs to its component list:
- bigger LED screen of course (but they are so cheap these days)
- bigger case
- faster processor
- bigger battery (big winner here)
- iPhone quality camera.
that's pretty much it. the rest of the components ought to be virtually the same as the touch. the 64G touch costs $399, and all these items don't add another $100.
the real changes will be the new software enhancements - multitasking (probably multi-app simultaneous viewing, a knock-out feature), special iLife and iWork apps, and so on.
should be a sensation. then Apple will knock the price down $100 more next June like they always do ...
Again, my 32GB iPhone costs $700 in its 3rd generation. How can you be serious?
Again, my 32GB iPhone costs $700 in its 3rd generation. How can you be serious?
what has that iPhone have that the $299 32G touch doesn't? a camera, GPS/compass, SIM chip and phone antennas. do they cost $400 more in parts, or is the iPhone no-contract price jacked way way up? the latter of course.
the touch, without any telco subsidy, is the real price benchmark. you know Apple is not selling them at a loss. and its new iTab has to be priced low enough to really invade the market successfully.
Sorry, I did it again.
What- is he Dracula to your Renfield?
Seriously you can talk to me anytime.