And it's going to stay that way until we vote out the liberal socialist sub-prime causing mess members of Congress who forced Freddie and Fannie in 2005 to get into the sub-prime market.
I hate to tell you this, because you seem so happy in your delusions, but George Bush was President beginning in January 2001 (until 2009), and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1994 through 2006.
Clinton economic officials certainly played their part in the late 90s, especially be going along with (Republican) Senator Phil Gramm's de-regulation bill, but the "sub-prime causing mess members of Congress who forced Freddie and Fannie in 2005 to get into the sub-prime market" were Republicans.
You know them - they're the ones fighting against a government option in health care for the rest of us, while they happily accept the best health insurance program in the country, which is government-run. I don't see any of them refusing to take their government-run health insurance. They want the best program for themselves, while giving the rest of us squat.
What are you talking about? Microsoft is a software company. Why would he be even concerned with such a niche product? Apple doesn't compete with Microsoft and vice versa no matter what Justin Long and the unholy three on AI tell you- the are two totally different markets.
Right... Apple doesn't make ANY software... certainly not an OS, that might compete with Microsoft's Windows. Or any sort of suite of productivity apps, that might compete with Microsoft's Office. Apple doesn't make a browser, that would compete with Microsoft's Explorer... shall we go on?
No, they are not identical companies... and there are areas where they don't compete... but there are many where they DO compete. And they are certainly competing for the same customers.
So $179 is to $700 as $480 is to $1,876. Less subsidy - it should cost you $1,500 to $1,600 with a 2 year contract.
6000 pointless posts. Not sure how you've managed to do it. Not sure where they suggested that Apple would be keeping the same margins.
Archos suggests that $700 for an Apple tablet is possible (although I'm expecting something in the $800 - $900 range). Analysts also said that premium PC's wouldn't sell in a recession, so I question the validity of their it wont sell if it costs more than $700 suggestion.
The tablet can stand on its own. In business and the public sector (hospitals, postal services), data gathering, education, art etc .... there will be significant interest. If a small new US company ( http://litl.com/ ) has the guts and ingenuity to introduce a laptop/easel mode computer, with a brand new OS, just for family use, and they believe they have a strong market; you can be sure that an iTablet will create a strong following since it will run a vast range of low-cost apps without screen size limitations. If there are 5 inch screens sporting 1024 x 768 resolution, imagine what Apple might achieve on a 9-10 inch display.
While I don't think Balmer is pulling out any non existent hairs on his head. It was clearly in reference to the Courier concept, so the comment was quite relevant. The Xbox, Zune and others also put Microsoft in the CE devices market, and if they don't care about niche markets, why does the ZuneHD exist? It is essentially a dedicated PMP with some additional features tacked on at a time when the dedicated PMP is being relegated to niche status.
The ZUne HD exists as a responce obviously to iPods because APple was infiltrating the Windows world by creating iTunes for PC and then locking those Windows users into Apple's ecosystem. Many Windows iPod users I've know have hated iTunes and the whole Apple ecosystem concept of controlling their device and music. Remember only recently has Apple removed DRM and I think the Zune may have been a response to that and other reasons.
6000 pointless posts. Not sure how you've managed to do it. Not sure where they suggested that Apple would be keeping the same margins.
Archos suggests that $700 for an Apple tablet is possible (although I'm expecting something in the $800 - $900 range). Analysts also said that premium PC's wouldn't sell in a recession, so I question the validity of their it wont sell if it costs more than $700 suggestion.
Well then do they deny they wouldn't keep the same margins- NO.
And why do you respond to pointless posts then.
Again you fail to understand that my iPhone 32 GB cost $700. Why can't you understand that? No way is this device going to sell for that unless its subsidized.
So if it sold for $700 or less, that would significanly reduce its potential sales?
How about, "a sale price of less than $700 would significanty increase its potential sales"?
I was just pointing out that without the "no," the first paragraph reads with the exact opposite meaning to the headline. If the headline is correct, the paragraph is wrong, and vice versa.
It's a slight grammatical mistake dammit! And I'm going to fill pages and pages with my rage over it until it's corrected!
Edit: it's already changed and my comments make no sense now.
"Assuming the tablet is 3x the size of the iPod touch implies a bill of materials for the tablet of around $480."
An odd assumption to make.
I scratched my head on that one, too. Who couldn?t be an analyst if that is the level of thought that goes into pricing products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB
Having an iPhone, there is no way in god's green earth that I would pop for another 3G contract with any carrier. In addition, I don't see this as a device that I use for my 24/7 connetivity. That's what my iPhone is for. Wifi on the device will be just fine, and I'll pocket the extra $1K in carrier profit, thank you. More than makes up for a few hundred dollars of unsubsidized price.
Hopefully you can tether it to your phone via USB or BT. If they do get with publishers Apple may be able to go the Amazon route and make basic carrier connectivity part of the sale of the device at no additional charge to the customer.This is a very convenient service on the KIndle. If you wanted full internet access you could pay separately for it or use WiFI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
there are already tablets out there based on MS Windows
MS will be watching. Windows for tablets is just that, a desktop OS installed on a tablet. Just as they are redesigned WinCE after the iPhone hit to work better on a small device with fingers as the primary input instead of a stylus, they will surely redesign Win7 to be more effective in a tablet environment. If a moribund Apple can grab that much of the PMP market which seemed successful at the time, and then grab the lion?s share of sales while having the flagship device while redefining a well entrenched smartphone market, both times pushing out MS, then MS will very much not want the failed tablet market to be lost when they know that an integrated HW and SW package with services are Apple?s game.
Well then do they deny they wouldn't keep the same margins- NO.
And why do you respond to pointless posts then.
Again you fail to understand that my iPhone 32 GB cost $700. Why can't you understand that? No way is this device going to sell for that unless its subsidized.
I provided additional insight after responding to your pointless post. I linked you a 9" tablet pc running Windows 7 that cost $549. It is probably as close to what an Apple tablet would be specs wise as you can find on the market today. The cost to purchase your iPhone is largely irrelevant if the markup is anything like iFixit suggests. It simply becomes a question of what the market will bear. That question will have to be answered again for a tablet device. If it did cost $700, no one would suggest that the iPhone cost the same or more than the tablet because the generally recognized price of the iPhone is the subsidized one.
It is possible that the tablet could be $700 only when subsidized, I suggested in my last post that I thought the unsubsidized price would be higher, but $700 unsubsidized is also within the realm of possibility as I have already shown.
Just like there are phones out there based on Windows Mobile.
Whatever Apple releases, will wipe the floor with what exists currently in that segment.
That does seem likely. Apple has conquered in areas that seemed established with good fusing of HW and SW. The tablet market has had none of that. Apple could easily take this market without even trying by getting a few services working from the start. The OS is the easy part as they have already done a much more difficult job of making a desktop OS fit into a PMP.
I provided additional insight after responding to your pointless post. I linked you a 9" tablet pc running Windows 7 that cost $549. It is probably as close to what an Apple tablet would be specs wise as you can find on the market today. The cost to purchase your iPhone is largely irrelevant if the markup is anything like iFixit suggests. It simply becomes a question of what the market will bear. That question will have to be answered again for a tablet device. If it did cost $700, no one would suggest that the iPhone cost the same or more than the tablet because the generally recognized price of the iPhone is the subsidized one.
It is possible that the tablet could be $700 only when subsidized, I suggested in my last post that I thought the unsubsidized price would be higher, but $700 unsubsidized is also within the realm of possibility as I have already shown.
Sounds then like your saying the iPhone is overpriced.
"Assuming the tablet is 3x the size of the iPod touch implies a bill of materials for the tablet of around $480."
An odd assumption to make.
Miniaturisation adds cost. A tablet is "de-miniaturising" the iPod Touch.
According to who? So a Mac Pro should be even cheaper then? It's all relative. I do agree it is an odd assumption to make however. The tablet could included a hefty processor for its size, and a 128GB SSD. If it does then these things effect cost, and so does an OLED display for that matter. I'm not buying into the $500 cost for each display though, if you order a few million of these and give a company $500M, that $500 becomes $300 very quickly.
Read some websites, and then make stupid, baseless predictions about technology.
Heck, I think I *am* an analyst!
C.
There's a difference between an analyst and a good analysts. It's like how does one become a golfer, you just pick up a club, but how does one become a good golfer? That's more to do with hard work, training + natural talent. I'm inclined to think being a good analyst is something that either comes naturally to you, or you'll always suck like most of them.
According to who? So a Mac Pro should be even cheaper then? It's all relative.
Psyhics. Any way you slice it the iPhone is more expensive than the Mac Pro in terms of quantifiable things like power or weight to cost. Look at the small form factor low voltage C2Ds that Intel sells. They are slower than than the normal chips but cost more. A part of that is economy of scale since these niche chips don't get made in the same bulk as the other chips but most or it is the cost of miniaturization.
Comments
And it's going to stay that way until we vote out the liberal socialist sub-prime causing mess members of Congress who forced Freddie and Fannie in 2005 to get into the sub-prime market.
I hate to tell you this, because you seem so happy in your delusions, but George Bush was President beginning in January 2001 (until 2009), and the Republicans controlled both houses of Congress from 1994 through 2006.
Clinton economic officials certainly played their part in the late 90s, especially be going along with (Republican) Senator Phil Gramm's de-regulation bill, but the "sub-prime causing mess members of Congress who forced Freddie and Fannie in 2005 to get into the sub-prime market" were Republicans.
You know them - they're the ones fighting against a government option in health care for the rest of us, while they happily accept the best health insurance program in the country, which is government-run. I don't see any of them refusing to take their government-run health insurance. They want the best program for themselves, while giving the rest of us squat.
What are you talking about? Microsoft is a software company. Why would he be even concerned with such a niche product? Apple doesn't compete with Microsoft and vice versa no matter what Justin Long and the unholy three on AI tell you- the are two totally different markets.
Right... Apple doesn't make ANY software... certainly not an OS, that might compete with Microsoft's Windows. Or any sort of suite of productivity apps, that might compete with Microsoft's Office. Apple doesn't make a browser, that would compete with Microsoft's Explorer... shall we go on?
No, they are not identical companies... and there are areas where they don't compete... but there are many where they DO compete. And they are certainly competing for the same customers.
So $179 is to $700 as $480 is to $1,876. Less subsidy - it should cost you $1,500 to $1,600 with a 2 year contract.
6000 pointless posts. Not sure how you've managed to do it. Not sure where they suggested that Apple would be keeping the same margins.
Archos suggests that $700 for an Apple tablet is possible (although I'm expecting something in the $800 - $900 range). Analysts also said that premium PC's wouldn't sell in a recession, so I question the validity of their it wont sell if it costs more than $700 suggestion.
While I don't think Balmer is pulling out any non existent hairs on his head. It was clearly in reference to the Courier concept, so the comment was quite relevant. The Xbox, Zune and others also put Microsoft in the CE devices market, and if they don't care about niche markets, why does the ZuneHD exist? It is essentially a dedicated PMP with some additional features tacked on at a time when the dedicated PMP is being relegated to niche status.
The ZUne HD exists as a responce obviously to iPods because APple was infiltrating the Windows world by creating iTunes for PC and then locking those Windows users into Apple's ecosystem. Many Windows iPod users I've know have hated iTunes and the whole Apple ecosystem concept of controlling their device and music. Remember only recently has Apple removed DRM and I think the Zune may have been a response to that and other reasons.
6000 pointless posts. Not sure how you've managed to do it. Not sure where they suggested that Apple would be keeping the same margins.
Archos suggests that $700 for an Apple tablet is possible (although I'm expecting something in the $800 - $900 range). Analysts also said that premium PC's wouldn't sell in a recession, so I question the validity of their it wont sell if it costs more than $700 suggestion.
Well then do they deny they wouldn't keep the same margins- NO.
And why do you respond to pointless posts then.
Again you fail to understand that my iPhone 32 GB cost $700. Why can't you understand that? No way is this device going to sell for that unless its subsidized.
You think these rumors are getting you crazy...
Just think of what is going on over at Microsoft...
I bet Steve Ballmer would be pulling the hair out of his head! If he had any...
there are already tablets out there based on MS Windows
How about, "a sale price of less than $700 would significanty increase its potential sales"?
I was just pointing out that without the "no," the first paragraph reads with the exact opposite meaning to the headline. If the headline is correct, the paragraph is wrong, and vice versa.
It's a slight grammatical mistake dammit! And I'm going to fill pages and pages with my rage over it until it's corrected!
Edit: it's already changed and my comments make no sense now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MacTripper View Post
Blah, blah, blah
You seriously need your medications adjusted.
"Assuming the tablet is 3x the size of the iPod touch implies a bill of materials for the tablet of around $480."
An odd assumption to make.
I scratched my head on that one, too. Who couldn?t be an analyst if that is the level of thought that goes into pricing products.
Having an iPhone, there is no way in god's green earth that I would pop for another 3G contract with any carrier. In addition, I don't see this as a device that I use for my 24/7 connetivity. That's what my iPhone is for. Wifi on the device will be just fine, and I'll pocket the extra $1K in carrier profit, thank you. More than makes up for a few hundred dollars of unsubsidized price.
Hopefully you can tether it to your phone via USB or BT. If they do get with publishers Apple may be able to go the Amazon route and make basic carrier connectivity part of the sale of the device at no additional charge to the customer.This is a very convenient service on the KIndle. If you wanted full internet access you could pay separately for it or use WiFI.
there are already tablets out there based on MS Windows
MS will be watching. Windows for tablets is just that, a desktop OS installed on a tablet. Just as they are redesigned WinCE after the iPhone hit to work better on a small device with fingers as the primary input instead of a stylus, they will surely redesign Win7 to be more effective in a tablet environment. If a moribund Apple can grab that much of the PMP market which seemed successful at the time, and then grab the lion?s share of sales while having the flagship device while redefining a well entrenched smartphone market, both times pushing out MS, then MS will very much not want the failed tablet market to be lost when they know that an integrated HW and SW package with services are Apple?s game.
Well then do they deny they wouldn't keep the same margins- NO.
And why do you respond to pointless posts then.
Again you fail to understand that my iPhone 32 GB cost $700. Why can't you understand that? No way is this device going to sell for that unless its subsidized.
I provided additional insight after responding to your pointless post. I linked you a 9" tablet pc running Windows 7 that cost $549. It is probably as close to what an Apple tablet would be specs wise as you can find on the market today. The cost to purchase your iPhone is largely irrelevant if the markup is anything like iFixit suggests. It simply becomes a question of what the market will bear. That question will have to be answered again for a tablet device. If it did cost $700, no one would suggest that the iPhone cost the same or more than the tablet because the generally recognized price of the iPhone is the subsidized one.
It is possible that the tablet could be $700 only when subsidized, I suggested in my last post that I thought the unsubsidized price would be higher, but $700 unsubsidized is also within the realm of possibility as I have already shown.
there are already tablets out there based on MS Windows
Just like there are phones out there based on Windows Mobile.
Whatever Apple releases, will wipe the floor with what exists currently in that segment.
Just like there are phones out there based on Windows Mobile.
Whatever Apple releases, will wipe the floor with what exists currently in that segment.
That does seem likely. Apple has conquered in areas that seemed established with good fusing of HW and SW. The tablet market has had none of that. Apple could easily take this market without even trying by getting a few services working from the start. The OS is the easy part as they have already done a much more difficult job of making a desktop OS fit into a PMP.
I provided additional insight after responding to your pointless post. I linked you a 9" tablet pc running Windows 7 that cost $549. It is probably as close to what an Apple tablet would be specs wise as you can find on the market today. The cost to purchase your iPhone is largely irrelevant if the markup is anything like iFixit suggests. It simply becomes a question of what the market will bear. That question will have to be answered again for a tablet device. If it did cost $700, no one would suggest that the iPhone cost the same or more than the tablet because the generally recognized price of the iPhone is the subsidized one.
It is possible that the tablet could be $700 only when subsidized, I suggested in my last post that I thought the unsubsidized price would be higher, but $700 unsubsidized is also within the realm of possibility as I have already shown.
Sounds then like your saying the iPhone is overpriced.
"Assuming the tablet is 3x the size of the iPod touch implies a bill of materials for the tablet of around $480."
An odd assumption to make.
Miniaturisation adds cost. A tablet is "de-miniaturising" the iPod Touch.
According to who? So a Mac Pro should be even cheaper then? It's all relative. I do agree it is an odd assumption to make however. The tablet could included a hefty processor for its size, and a 128GB SSD. If it does then these things effect cost, and so does an OLED display for that matter. I'm not buying into the $500 cost for each display though, if you order a few million of these and give a company $500M, that $500 becomes $300 very quickly.
Nice to see that Gene Munster is now a psychic.
He has always been, he only found out now though
Read some websites, and then make stupid, baseless predictions about technology.
Heck, I think I *am* an analyst!
C.
Because it seems a job any idiot can do.
Read some websites, and then make stupid, baseless predictions about technology.
Heck, I think I *am* an analyst!
C.
There's a difference between an analyst and a good analysts. It's like how does one become a golfer, you just pick up a club, but how does one become a good golfer? That's more to do with hard work, training + natural talent. I'm inclined to think being a good analyst is something that either comes naturally to you, or you'll always suck like most of them.
According to who? So a Mac Pro should be even cheaper then? It's all relative.
Psyhics. Any way you slice it the iPhone is more expensive than the Mac Pro in terms of quantifiable things like power or weight to cost. Look at the small form factor low voltage C2Ds that Intel sells. They are slower than than the normal chips but cost more. A part of that is economy of scale since these niche chips don't get made in the same bulk as the other chips but most or it is the cost of miniaturization.