The only way Android can compete with the iPad is by deep, deep discounts which squeezes out all their OEM's profits.
Google is being squashed like a toad on the road between the iPad Juggernaut and the orphan Android Kindle Fire which cuts out Google advertising.
Even the Kindle Fires can only be shifted by selling at a loss.
iPad's domination is so complete that they are making 100% of all the profits made by the entire tablet market. Probably even more than a 100% (if that was mathematically possible) if you take into account that most competition tablets are sold at a loss
That makes the iPad even more dominant than the iPod, which has 70% share of the entire MP3 market, and the iPhone which earns 75% of the profits of the entire mobile phone market.
And yet we get many posters saying that Apple needs a device that is clearly priced well below it would take to turn a profit.
I suspect that Apple could make 40% + GP on a low-end iPad 2 a MSRP @ $299.
That sounds like a pretty steep price drop, particularly when Apple only had a $100 price difference between their iPhone 3Gs and iPhone 4, which looks to be roughly the difference in technology that we'll see with iPads 2 and 3. Even if they can do what you suggest, I don't think they need to do it, not yet. I wouldn't complain if they do, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
The differences between the $399 iPad and the $599 version would not stop at the display. I would also expect that the $399 version would come with a slight modification in the processor as in a so-called A5X whereas the $599 version would come in with an A6 quad-core processor and a higher quality camera.
If Apple didn't offer a $399 entry point, then there would be a lot of balking at the notion of the price going from $499 to $599 but by offering two distinct models, Apple would be covering its bases. I think that while some customers would find a much higher resolution and faster processing compelling, others would be perfectly happy with a device that as we speak is happily being used by millions of customers around the world.
I don't think that more resolution, a faster processor and a much better camera can be delivered at much less than $200 just as no one finds it outrageous that the base model of the Macbook Air checks in at $999 yet the next step up is an additional $200 basically for more memory.
We're not talking about a $200 jump in price from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3. A high-resolution display is not something that Apple can or should be expected to serve up free of charge. By offering the old resolution even at a reduced price, Apple would be giving consumers a choice. Apple would be saying, the old technology is an option at $100 less than before or if you want the latest and greatest, there's a price for that. Millions would pay that price, I suspect, and the rest happily settle for a $399 iPad. Win/win all around.
Is this about Apple giving technology away because if it is, I think it bears reminding that Apple is a publicly traded entity that does consider making money an important part of the business plan. If there are enough people willing to pay $599 for a higher grade of iPad, why would Apple choose to not offer such a product. If at the same time, people looking for bang for the buck were well served, what's the downside?
A- Apple will not make a special A5 just for a lower model iPad 2.
B- The $200 more expensive 11" air is not just going from 2gb ram to 4gb- it doubles the storage from 64gb to 128gb- and it has a faster processor.
C- the iPad price won't raise. That isn't what apple does. So the models would be 599, 699, 799 and 3G (4G?) Would be $729, $829, $929. Sorry- I don't see a $1000+ iPad after tax.
That sounds like a pretty steep price drop, particularly when Apple only had a $100 price difference between their iPhone 3Gs and iPhone 4, which looks to be roughly the difference in technology that we'll see with iPads 2 and 3. Even if they can do what you suggest, I don't think they need to do it, not yet. I wouldn't complain if they do, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
If Apple gets mfg. costs for a low-end iPad 2 to $200, then GP thru Apple stores and Apple online store for a $299 iPad 2 is 50'%.
I suspect Apple could sell to resellers for $230-$250 -- yielding a good markup for retail -- better than the KFC.
If Apple gets mfg. costs for a low-end iPad 2 to $200, then GP thru Apple stores and Apple online store for a $299 iPad 2 is 50'%.
I suspect Apple could sell to resellers for $230-$250 -- yielding a good markup for retail -- better than the KFC.
That is a big if. Apple already shook up the tablet market by coming in at half the believed price point. They also sell it with 16GB storage for less money than a 16GB iPhone retails for even when you don't consider the cost of the larger display and do consider the cellular HW.
Kindle Fire is selling in enoug quantity that economies of scale are in effect and ir's still losing money on each one at $199 with less than half the display area and missing a lot of HW an build quality the iPad has. Granted, Apple's economies of scale are surely greater than Amazon but their is a limit to volume cost savings.
Also, if it's $199 to manufacture the it's not $100 profit if sold at $299. Plenty of other associated costs. I assume the manufacture costs are not much past $199 for the current iPad.
Finally, I see no reason for Apple to get razor thin margins on a device it can barely keep in stock even at the end of its life. Even in the smartphone market where the iPhone is outsold by other headset vendors Apple is still commanding a lead in profits and even increasing its margins as of last quarter. I'll need a business reason to begin to see your point here.
That is a big if. Apple already shook up the tablet market by coming in at half the believed price point. They also sell it with 16GB storage for less money than a 16GB iPhone retails for even when you don't consider the cost of the larger display and do consider the cellular HW.
Kindle Fire is selling in enoug quantity that economies of scale are in effect and ir's still losing money on each one at $199 with less than half the display area and missing a lot of HW an build quality the iPad has. Granted, Apple's economies of scale are surely greater than Amazon but their is a limit to volume cost savings.
Also, if it's $199 to manufacture the it's not $100 profit if sold at $299. Plenty of other associated costs. I assume the manufacture costs are not much past $199 for the current iPad.
Finally, I see no reason for Apple to get razor thin margins on a device it can barely keep in stock even at the end of its life. Even in the smartphone market where the iPhone is outsold by other headset vendors Apple is still commanding a lead in profits and even increasing its margins as of last quarter. I'll need a business reason to begin to see your point here.
I agree with most of what you say...
Except I would point you to 2010 and the $499 price...
This was for a new category, with no track record, no economies of scale, no guarantee of success -- nay ridicule and failure were predicted.
Today, everything is different -- time to finesse their gamble into success,.. That's the game!
Except I would point you to 2010 and the $499 price...
This was for a new category, with no track record, no economies of scale, no guarantee of success -- nay ridicule and failure were predicted.
Today, everything is different -- time to finesse their gamble into success,.. That's the game!
There was no track record except for decades of failed tablets and definitely no guarantee of success but economies of scale was working for Apple on day one. Besides most of the internal parts being used in the iPhone and Touch already they would have sourced enough of the unique to iPad components to reduce cost over what other vendors could do.
That said, I'm sure since its debut they have reduced costs even more, but there is a plateau and there is a rhyme and reason for a retail price which is why I think that $399 is what you should expect for the year old 16GB WiFi iPad 2.
Also consider that in 2011 if the goal was to get to $299 that they could have dropped to $399 then and then if what you say about their profit margin is correct. They didn't so why now in 2012 would they drop it by 40% one day to the next? It just doesn't make any sense. Where is the business reason to lose that much in profit when you don't have to and when dropping it by $100 right now would surely sell out the lot.
PS: Why have you been putting the mark up for bold text at the end of your comments?
There was no track record except for decades of failed tablets and definitely no guarantee of success but economies of scale was working for Apple on day one. Besides most of the internal parts being used in the iPhone and Touch already they would have sourced enough of the unique to iPad components to reduce cost over what other vendors could do.
That said, I'm sure since its debut they have reduced costs even more, but there is a plateau and there is a rhyme and reason for a retail price which is why I think that $399 is what you should expect for the year old 16GB WiFi iPad 2.
Also consider that in 2011 if the goal was to get to $299 that they could have dropped to $399 then and then if what you say about their profit margin is correct. They didn't so why now in 2012 would they drop it by 40% one day to the next? It just doesn't make any sense. Where is the business reason to lose that much in profit when you don't have to and when dropping it by $100 right now would surely sell out the lot.
PS: Why have you been putting the mark up for bold text at the end of your comments?
As to the PS... My eyesight is failing ang I prefer some whitespace above my sig.
Again, I can't argue with what you say..
Except, put aside smartphones for the moment...
The post-pc individual computer era is being born...
The opportunity to define this era is now... Not a year from now!
As to the PS... My eyesight is failing ang I prefer some whitespace above my sig.
Again, I can't argue with what you say..
Except, put aside smartphones for the moment...
The post-pc individual computer era is being born...
The opportunity to define this era is now... Not a year from now!
This is the only opportunity for bold moves...
"There is a tide in the affairs of men..."
PS... No bold after this...
I understand the need for Apple to use 2012 to shatter any chance for the competition to make a dent. The 3rd iteration of the iPad and they will likely have iPod marketshare for the foreseeable future with simply adding a Retina Display at the same price point (assuming battery life is about the same). But can they do that without having to lower margins and go with a 40% reduction in retail pricing? I absolutely think they can... and will. You don't make money by not making a profit.
As for you adding the bold mark up I was simply curious. Add all the whitespace you wish.
I understand the need for Apple to use 2012 to shatter any chance for the competition to make a dent. The 3rd iteration of the iPad and they will likely have iPod marketshare for the foreseeable future with simply adding a Retina Display at the same price point (assuming battery life is about the same). But can they do that without having to lower margins and go with a 40% reduction in retail pricing? I absolutely think they can... and will. You don't make money by not making a profit.
As for you adding the bold mark up I was simply curious. Add all the whitespace you wish.
You may be right... (probably are)...
But, is Apple going to sit by and let the likes of Bezos usurp/chart the future -- as Sculley did with Gates?
But, is Apple going to sit by and let the likes of Bezos chart the future -- as Sculley did with Gates?
Yech!
Bezo isn't doing anything worthwhile in the tablet space. The Kindle Fire is a beefed up eReader. It's to the iPad what netbooks are to notebooks. Ultimately those who buy the Kindle Fire and like the tablet form are more likely to buy a full tablet next and were likely not potential iPad customers beforehand. The Kindle Fire is also branching Android that weakens Google's vision of Android which is also good for Apple.
If Kindle comes out with a 10" Kindle Fire that has an IPS display at about 1280x800 display I can't see it being only $100 more and being able to make a profit. Note that the current Kindle Fire at $199 is pretty half or less than the iPad in every way so will doubling all that to compare to the iPad play out? I think Amazon would just hurt themselves even more they are already.
Note that the netbook market hurt Apple's marketshare when they were popular. They shot up and many thought that these were great and that Apple was stupid for not getting in the netbook game.
PS: There is something about this I like. Not from a consumer standpoint but I can see a certain market for it. I wonder if Apple has something like that in store. Not an iPad, mind you. Not a tablet, but perhaps a new device in the iPod Touch category or a new one called iBook.
I understand the need for Apple to use 2012 to shatter any chance for the competition to make a dent. The 3rd iteration of the iPad and they will likely have iPod marketshare for the foreseeable future with simply adding a Retina Display at the same price point (assuming battery life is about the same). But can they do that without having to lower margins and go with a 40% reduction in retail pricing? I absolutely think they can... and will. You don't make money by not making a profit.
As for you adding the bold mark up I was simply curious. Add all the whitespace you wish.
Second response to this post!
Obviously, you and I, both expect Apple to continue selling iPad 2 models in large quantities -- else our debate would have little meaning in Apple's profits and the greater scheme of things.
Obviously, you and I, both expect Apple to continue selling iPad 2 models in large quantities -- else our debate would have little meaning in Apple's profits and the greater scheme of things.
I see this line up...
$399 — 16GB WiFi iPad 2
$499 — 16GB WiFi iPad 3 (add $129 for cellular)
$599 — 32GB WiFi iPad 3 (add $129 for cellular)
$699 — 64GB WiFi iPad 3 (add $129 for cellular)
I hope that they can double the capacity for the same price points this year but I think that the Retina Display may effect the cost. I'm not even that convinced that the Retina Display will be cheap enough and in high enough yields to be on every iPad 3. I'm assuming 80-100 million iPads over the next year and possibly even making more profit than the iPhone.
For the event I think we'll have an updated iPod Touch, an updated AppleTV with 1080p, 1080p content on iTS, and then the iPad 3.
What I am looking for, in the tablet marketplace -- is for MS to realize that their only opportunity to make money is to release Office on iPad ASAP... No waiting for WOA...not gonna' happen!
What I am looking for, in the tablet marketplace -- is for MS to realize that their only opportunity to make money is to release Office on iPad ASAP... No waiting for WOA...not gonna' happen!
MS needs to make a bold move too...
Is MS the kind of company that would invest in creating MS Office for iPad and then sit on waiting to see if they should ever release it or would their bean counters say they might as well do so?
I hope that they can double the capacity for the same price points this year but I think that the Retina Display may effect the cost. I'm not even that convinced that the Retina Display will be cheap enough and in high enough yields to be on every iPad 3. I'm assuming 80-100 million iPads over the next year and possibly even making more profit than the iPhone.
For the event I think we'll have an updated iPod Touch, an updated AppleTV with 1080p, 1080p content on iTS, and then the iPad 3.
Great lineup... Can't argue... Makes sense...
So it was back in 2010 when everyone thought Apple's tablet would sell for $1100 or maybe even as low as $999...
Is MS the kind of company that would invest in creating MS Office for iPad and then sit on waiting to see if they should ever release it or would their bean counters say they might as well do so?
I suspect that MS already has a version of Office running on the iPad.
Sometime, around June 2012, MS will begin to see their opportunity to participate in the tablet marketplace slip away... Slip away...
By then, iWork 2 integrated with iCloud will be available on the iPad... Time for MS to bet or fold!
I do believe that MS will follow the scent of dollars -- and get in the game with Office -- screw WOA!
Comments
Yes, you're absolutely right.
The only way Android can compete with the iPad is by deep, deep discounts which squeezes out all their OEM's profits.
Google is being squashed like a toad on the road between the iPad Juggernaut and the orphan Android Kindle Fire which cuts out Google advertising.
Even the Kindle Fires can only be shifted by selling at a loss.
iPad's domination is so complete that they are making 100% of all the profits made by the entire tablet market. Probably even more than a 100% (if that was mathematically possible) if you take into account that most competition tablets are sold at a loss
That makes the iPad even more dominant than the iPod, which has 70% share of the entire MP3 market, and the iPhone which earns 75% of the profits of the entire mobile phone market.
And yet we get many posters saying that Apple needs a device that is clearly priced well below it would take to turn a profit.
And yet we get many posters saying that Apple needs a device that is clearly priced well below it would take to turn a profit.
I suspect that Apple could make 40% + GP on a low-end iPad 2 a MSRP @ $299.
I suspect that Apple could make 40% + GP on a low-end iPad 2 a MSRP @ $299.
That sounds like a pretty steep price drop, particularly when Apple only had a $100 price difference between their iPhone 3Gs and iPhone 4, which looks to be roughly the difference in technology that we'll see with iPads 2 and 3. Even if they can do what you suggest, I don't think they need to do it, not yet. I wouldn't complain if they do, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
The differences between the $399 iPad and the $599 version would not stop at the display. I would also expect that the $399 version would come with a slight modification in the processor as in a so-called A5X whereas the $599 version would come in with an A6 quad-core processor and a higher quality camera.
If Apple didn't offer a $399 entry point, then there would be a lot of balking at the notion of the price going from $499 to $599 but by offering two distinct models, Apple would be covering its bases. I think that while some customers would find a much higher resolution and faster processing compelling, others would be perfectly happy with a device that as we speak is happily being used by millions of customers around the world.
I don't think that more resolution, a faster processor and a much better camera can be delivered at much less than $200 just as no one finds it outrageous that the base model of the Macbook Air checks in at $999 yet the next step up is an additional $200 basically for more memory.
We're not talking about a $200 jump in price from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3. A high-resolution display is not something that Apple can or should be expected to serve up free of charge. By offering the old resolution even at a reduced price, Apple would be giving consumers a choice. Apple would be saying, the old technology is an option at $100 less than before or if you want the latest and greatest, there's a price for that. Millions would pay that price, I suspect, and the rest happily settle for a $399 iPad. Win/win all around.
Is this about Apple giving technology away because if it is, I think it bears reminding that Apple is a publicly traded entity that does consider making money an important part of the business plan. If there are enough people willing to pay $599 for a higher grade of iPad, why would Apple choose to not offer such a product. If at the same time, people looking for bang for the buck were well served, what's the downside?
A- Apple will not make a special A5 just for a lower model iPad 2.
B- The $200 more expensive 11" air is not just going from 2gb ram to 4gb- it doubles the storage from 64gb to 128gb- and it has a faster processor.
C- the iPad price won't raise. That isn't what apple does. So the models would be 599, 699, 799 and 3G (4G?) Would be $729, $829, $929. Sorry- I don't see a $1000+ iPad after tax.
That sounds like a pretty steep price drop, particularly when Apple only had a $100 price difference between their iPhone 3Gs and iPhone 4, which looks to be roughly the difference in technology that we'll see with iPads 2 and 3. Even if they can do what you suggest, I don't think they need to do it, not yet. I wouldn't complain if they do, but I wouldn't get my hopes up.
If Apple gets mfg. costs for a low-end iPad 2 to $200, then GP thru Apple stores and Apple online store for a $299 iPad 2 is 50'%.
I suspect Apple could sell to resellers for $230-$250 -- yielding a good markup for retail -- better than the KFC.
If Apple gets mfg. costs for a low-end iPad 2 to $200, then GP thru Apple stores and Apple online store for a $299 iPad 2 is 50'%.
I suspect Apple could sell to resellers for $230-$250 -- yielding a good markup for retail -- better than the KFC.
That is a big if. Apple already shook up the tablet market by coming in at half the believed price point. They also sell it with 16GB storage for less money than a 16GB iPhone retails for even when you don't consider the cost of the larger display and do consider the cellular HW.
Kindle Fire is selling in enoug quantity that economies of scale are in effect and ir's still losing money on each one at $199 with less than half the display area and missing a lot of HW an build quality the iPad has. Granted, Apple's economies of scale are surely greater than Amazon but their is a limit to volume cost savings.
Also, if it's $199 to manufacture the it's not $100 profit if sold at $299. Plenty of other associated costs. I assume the manufacture costs are not much past $199 for the current iPad.
Finally, I see no reason for Apple to get razor thin margins on a device it can barely keep in stock even at the end of its life. Even in the smartphone market where the iPhone is outsold by other headset vendors Apple is still commanding a lead in profits and even increasing its margins as of last quarter. I'll need a business reason to begin to see your point here.
That is a big if. Apple already shook up the tablet market by coming in at half the believed price point. They also sell it with 16GB storage for less money than a 16GB iPhone retails for even when you don't consider the cost of the larger display and do consider the cellular HW.
Kindle Fire is selling in enoug quantity that economies of scale are in effect and ir's still losing money on each one at $199 with less than half the display area and missing a lot of HW an build quality the iPad has. Granted, Apple's economies of scale are surely greater than Amazon but their is a limit to volume cost savings.
Also, if it's $199 to manufacture the it's not $100 profit if sold at $299. Plenty of other associated costs. I assume the manufacture costs are not much past $199 for the current iPad.
Finally, I see no reason for Apple to get razor thin margins on a device it can barely keep in stock even at the end of its life. Even in the smartphone market where the iPhone is outsold by other headset vendors Apple is still commanding a lead in profits and even increasing its margins as of last quarter. I'll need a business reason to begin to see your point here.
I agree with most of what you say...
Except I would point you to 2010 and the $499 price...
This was for a new category, with no track record, no economies of scale, no guarantee of success -- nay ridicule and failure were predicted.
Today, everything is different -- time to finesse their gamble into success,.. That's the game!
I agree with most of what you say...
Except I would point you to 2010 and the $499 price...
This was for a new category, with no track record, no economies of scale, no guarantee of success -- nay ridicule and failure were predicted.
Today, everything is different -- time to finesse their gamble into success,.. That's the game!
There was no track record except for decades of failed tablets and definitely no guarantee of success but economies of scale was working for Apple on day one. Besides most of the internal parts being used in the iPhone and Touch already they would have sourced enough of the unique to iPad components to reduce cost over what other vendors could do.
That said, I'm sure since its debut they have reduced costs even more, but there is a plateau and there is a rhyme and reason for a retail price which is why I think that $399 is what you should expect for the year old 16GB WiFi iPad 2.
Also consider that in 2011 if the goal was to get to $299 that they could have dropped to $399 then and then if what you say about their profit margin is correct. They didn't so why now in 2012 would they drop it by 40% one day to the next? It just doesn't make any sense. Where is the business reason to lose that much in profit when you don't have to and when dropping it by $100 right now would surely sell out the lot.
PS: Why have you been putting the mark up for bold text at the end of your comments?
There was no track record except for decades of failed tablets and definitely no guarantee of success but economies of scale was working for Apple on day one. Besides most of the internal parts being used in the iPhone and Touch already they would have sourced enough of the unique to iPad components to reduce cost over what other vendors could do.
That said, I'm sure since its debut they have reduced costs even more, but there is a plateau and there is a rhyme and reason for a retail price which is why I think that $399 is what you should expect for the year old 16GB WiFi iPad 2.
Also consider that in 2011 if the goal was to get to $299 that they could have dropped to $399 then and then if what you say about their profit margin is correct. They didn't so why now in 2012 would they drop it by 40% one day to the next? It just doesn't make any sense. Where is the business reason to lose that much in profit when you don't have to and when dropping it by $100 right now would surely sell out the lot.
PS: Why have you been putting the mark up for bold text at the end of your comments?
As to the PS... My eyesight is failing ang I prefer some whitespace above my sig.
Again, I can't argue with what you say..
Except, put aside smartphones for the moment...
The post-pc individual computer era is being born...
The opportunity to define this era is now... Not a year from now!
This is the only opportunity for bold moves...
"There is a tide in the affairs of men..."
PS... No bold after this...
As to the PS... My eyesight is failing ang I prefer some whitespace above my sig.
Again, I can't argue with what you say..
Except, put aside smartphones for the moment...
The post-pc individual computer era is being born...
The opportunity to define this era is now... Not a year from now!
This is the only opportunity for bold moves...
"There is a tide in the affairs of men..."
PS... No bold after this...
I understand the need for Apple to use 2012 to shatter any chance for the competition to make a dent. The 3rd iteration of the iPad and they will likely have iPod marketshare for the foreseeable future with simply adding a Retina Display at the same price point (assuming battery life is about the same). But can they do that without having to lower margins and go with a 40% reduction in retail pricing? I absolutely think they can... and will. You don't make money by not making a profit.
As for you adding the bold mark up I was simply curious. Add all the whitespace you wish.
I understand the need for Apple to use 2012 to shatter any chance for the competition to make a dent. The 3rd iteration of the iPad and they will likely have iPod marketshare for the foreseeable future with simply adding a Retina Display at the same price point (assuming battery life is about the same). But can they do that without having to lower margins and go with a 40% reduction in retail pricing? I absolutely think they can... and will. You don't make money by not making a profit.
As for you adding the bold mark up I was simply curious. Add all the whitespace you wish.
You may be right... (probably are)...
But, is Apple going to sit by and let the likes of Bezos usurp/chart the future -- as Sculley did with Gates?
Yech!
You may be right... (probably are)...
But, is Apple going to sit by and let the likes of Bezos chart the future -- as Sculley did with Gates?
Yech!
Bezo isn't doing anything worthwhile in the tablet space. The Kindle Fire is a beefed up eReader. It's to the iPad what netbooks are to notebooks. Ultimately those who buy the Kindle Fire and like the tablet form are more likely to buy a full tablet next and were likely not potential iPad customers beforehand. The Kindle Fire is also branching Android that weakens Google's vision of Android which is also good for Apple.
If Kindle comes out with a 10" Kindle Fire that has an IPS display at about 1280x800 display I can't see it being only $100 more and being able to make a profit. Note that the current Kindle Fire at $199 is pretty half or less than the iPad in every way so will doubling all that to compare to the iPad play out? I think Amazon would just hurt themselves even more they are already.
Note that the netbook market hurt Apple's marketshare when they were popular. They shot up and many thought that these were great and that Apple was stupid for not getting in the netbook game.
PS: There is something about this I like. Not from a consumer standpoint but I can see a certain market for it. I wonder if Apple has something like that in store. Not an iPad, mind you. Not a tablet, but perhaps a new device in the iPod Touch category or a new one called iBook.
I understand the need for Apple to use 2012 to shatter any chance for the competition to make a dent. The 3rd iteration of the iPad and they will likely have iPod marketshare for the foreseeable future with simply adding a Retina Display at the same price point (assuming battery life is about the same). But can they do that without having to lower margins and go with a 40% reduction in retail pricing? I absolutely think they can... and will. You don't make money by not making a profit.
As for you adding the bold mark up I was simply curious. Add all the whitespace you wish.
Second response to this post!
Obviously, you and I, both expect Apple to continue selling iPad 2 models in large quantities -- else our debate would have little meaning in Apple's profits and the greater scheme of things.
Second response to this post!
Obviously, you and I, both expect Apple to continue selling iPad 2 models in large quantities -- else our debate would have little meaning in Apple's profits and the greater scheme of things.
I see this line up...I hope that they can double the capacity for the same price points this year but I think that the Retina Display may effect the cost. I'm not even that convinced that the Retina Display will be cheap enough and in high enough yields to be on every iPad 3. I'm assuming 80-100 million iPads over the next year and possibly even making more profit than the iPhone.
For the event I think we'll have an updated iPod Touch, an updated AppleTV with 1080p, 1080p content on iTS, and then the iPad 3.
MS needs to make a bold move too...
What I am looking for, in the tablet marketplace -- is for MS to realize that their only opportunity to make money is to release Office on iPad ASAP... No waiting for WOA...not gonna' happen!
MS needs to make a bold move too...
Is MS the kind of company that would invest in creating MS Office for iPad and then sit on waiting to see if they should ever release it or would their bean counters say they might as well do so?
I see this line up...I hope that they can double the capacity for the same price points this year but I think that the Retina Display may effect the cost. I'm not even that convinced that the Retina Display will be cheap enough and in high enough yields to be on every iPad 3. I'm assuming 80-100 million iPads over the next year and possibly even making more profit than the iPhone.
For the event I think we'll have an updated iPod Touch, an updated AppleTV with 1080p, 1080p content on iTS, and then the iPad 3.
Great lineup... Can't argue... Makes sense...
So it was back in 2010 when everyone thought Apple's tablet would sell for $1100 or maybe even as low as $999...
Stupid damn Apple... What were they thinking of?
Is MS the kind of company that would invest in creating MS Office for iPad and then sit on waiting to see if they should ever release it or would their bean counters say they might as well do so?
I suspect that MS already has a version of Office running on the iPad.
Sometime, around June 2012, MS will begin to see their opportunity to participate in the tablet marketplace slip away... Slip away...
By then, iWork 2 integrated with iCloud will be available on the iPad... Time for MS to bet or fold!
I do believe that MS will follow the scent of dollars -- and get in the game with Office -- screw WOA!
Complete differentiator to other manufactures. Was there not a comment in the last earnings call about a product transition?
Who was Slappy?