A retina display that has double the dpi has FOUR TIMES THE RESOLUTION, not double the resolution, because resolution goes by the square. e.g. You have a 1 by 1 square pixel and now that will become a 2 by 2 square if you double the dpi; but a 2 by 2 contains 4 pixels while a 1 by 1 contains 1 pixel; as you see the resolution, i.e. pixel count is quadrupled not doubled.
As you can see, this can be solved without the use of advanced math; yet AI gets this CONSISTENTLY WRONG. Would the editors please take note?
I'd be more surprised if they didn't have a price hike.
I wonder if they'll have the HD iPad models with an A6 and the regular model with the A5X, but at this price point it's unlikely. Just wonder which processor they'll use for the basic iPad 3, if they differentiate a basic model or just keep the iPad 2 at a discount.
I'd be socked if they release two models simultaneously. Their model has pretty much always been to keep the last gen model around for a discount and introduce the new model at the last gen model's price.
It might sell like hot cakes. It also might dissuade quite a few buyers. BTW, my brother has both a iPad 2 and a Kindle and says the Kindle does quite a lot of what his iPad 2 does.
That's silly.
Let's say that the sell 60 M next near at $580 and 59,900,000 at $500. Which do you think is a better deal for Apple?
The people who have the data are the ones in Cupertino. Please stop trying to convince everyone that your uneducated, fact-free opinion has any value.
And it's particularly funny coming from someone who thinks that Kindle is competition for the iPad. While they do some similar things, they are no more competitive than a Kia and a Ferrari. The number of people who chose a Fire instead of an iPad is tiny.
I bought the first iPod in November 2001 for $399 which is almost $500 in 2012 dollars. $579 doesn't sound like very much for the capabilities of an iPad.
Either way it should be fairly easy to get 2X performance out of a A5X chip.
That comes with a cost that I don't think Apple is willing to pay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin
I wonder if a Retina Display iPad will have the same impact as the RD iPhone. Yes, it will be beautiful. But part of the appeal for that pixel density on the iPhone is the smaller screen meant smaller UI elements which could be hard to read. The higher resolution added a needed increase in readability of those small screen elements. A similar incease in resolution on the iPad would be cool, but I'm not sure it will have the same impact because you had more space to work with from the start.
Maybe not the same impact but reading on a 265 PPI display over a 132 PPI display should be night and day.
I think it will be stunning and will be heavily marketed on the 7th in order to make sure we, the consumer, know what a technological feat it is to get that resolution and pixel density in a device at that price.
Quote:
I would agree that if the cheapest iPad was over $500 it would be a psychological barrier. Even if many of the sales end up being of the more expensive models, the sub-500 price gets 'em in the door. Otherwise a Kindle Fire might start looking like a better opttion to many. That said, I think the expectation is that Apple would keep a low-end iPad 2 available even after the iPad three is released.
I think the bigger psychology is the rise in price, not the starting point of the price. We've seen Apple raise prices in the past when the change in technology called for it. Of all their past attempts to corner a market by introducing a bleeding-edge tech I think a HiDPI display will be the most obvious and clear to customers. Most realize that if you want something much improved you often have to pay for it.
Quote:
I'm also intested in what they do storage-wise. The $100 increase between models is a bit much, especially the jump from 16 to 32 GB. All the high-resolution graphics for the Retina Display optimzed applications is going to start eating up storage space!
The size difference between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 for the iO 5.1 betas isn't that much.
A document that has surfaced out of the Far East claims that Apple's third-generation iPad will cost $80 more, starting at $579 instead of $499.
To paraphrase Mike Markkula to Steve Jobs "at the beginning": Don't build a company to get rich, do it to make great products. (I'm listening to the audiobook of the Steve Jobs biography.)
Couple that with $100 Billion in the bank says to me that Apple should keep the WiFi versions of iPad3 as they are. Even if they need to take a bit of a hit of the components. If Apple feels it Must - raise the price of the +cell versions... so be it.
A higher price is one of those things that SHOULD NOT be mentioned in the stories when iPad3 comes out. If they raise it $80 this will be mentioned in nearly ALL news stories. Not necessary.
I'm also concerned that this is the first big Non-Steve-Jobs decision that smacks of a "business" decision. Read the part of the SJ bio about pricing the original Mac. The concept behind the original pricing was lost in final pricing because it became a business decision... albeit Apple was Much smaller then and it may have been the appropriate move -- THEN... not now.
Now that I think about it - I have been buying towers since 1998 (SE, LC and Centris before that). Well, when Apple decided to bump tower prices up by (some amount? $400? 500?) my analysis was that I would get the souped-up iMac i7 instead of a tower. So, as of last year, I'm a 27" iMac user. At least for now, I don't need extra slots. So for the sake of a few hundred, they may not get me back as a tower customer (which they may be killing anyway).
ps. It would feed the perception that Apple's are "more expensive"... which, believe it or not, is still out there.
Apple might very well simply not offer a WiFi only model of the iPad 3 leaving that market to an enhanced lower cost iPad2S or whatever they call it. While it might look like a price hike for the base model you would be getting the 4G capability, the retina display and likely more RAM and flash for a cheaper price than you did for iPad 2. The difference is you forfeit the WiFi only version.
This is actually a wise move on Apples part as it will allow them to cover the incremental increase in the cost of a few parts but actually sell more features cheaper. People have to remember that if all the rumors prove true (or even part of them) iPad 3 will be skuffed with a number of more expensive parts. Everyone has focused on the screen which is an issue but let's not forget the other rumors like a vastly improved camera, 4G, more RAM and other goodies. Of those offered only RAM would be cheaper today and that only if Apple can use the same number of dies.
So while we need to wait and see, I'm not convinced that feature parity wise iPad 3 will be more expensive. We might actually be getting more.
Apple leaked the initial $1000 as a price for iPad 1 and launched it at half of it, creating a tsunami and competition colliding with each other sinking catastrophically to the bottom of the ocean... I will buy my giant popcorn bucket and watch the carnage...
Ah, I like the way you're thinking. I rather relish the idea of the competition "sinking catastrophically to the bottom of the ocean." Funny.
Apple might very well simply not offer a WiFi only model of the iPad 3 leaving that market to an enhanced lower cost iPad2S or whatever they call it. While it might look like a price hike for the base model you would be getting the 4G capability, the retina display and likely more RAM and flash for a cheaper price than you did for iPad 2. The difference is you forfeit the WiFi only version.
This is actually a wise move on Apples part as it will allow them to cover the incremental increase in the cost of a few parts but actually sell more features cheaper. People have to remember that if all the rumors prove true (or even part of them) iPad 3 will be skuffed with a number of more expensive parts. Everyone has focused on the screen which is an issue but let's not forget the other rumors like a vastly improved camera, 4G, more RAM and other goodies. Of those offered only RAM would be cheaper today and that only if Apple can use the same number of dies.
So while we need to wait and see, I'm not convinced that feature parity wise iPad 3 will be more expensive. We might actually be getting more.
I don't think that all models being '3G' makes sense. For starters, most won't want to pay for HW they will pay the service to use. And it's pricey. It's not "20¢ of silicon" as oft gets touted around here. There are licensing costs alone that will be a percentage of every unit that includes the cellualr tech.
That comes with a cost that I don't think Apple is willing to pay.
The cores in the current A5 run relatively slow compared to what is possible in sub 32nm processes. Given the right process Apple could easily double the clock rates in the A5 chip while maintaining the power profile and lowering chip costs. Foundries have been reporting 2+ GHZ Cortex A9 cores for over a year now running on the smaller processes. More importantly Intel is now shipping Atoms with very fast Imagination GPU cores. Fast in the sense of a considerable clock rate increase.
So the evidence is there that Apple could get very good results from an A5 respin at a smaller process geometry. If they do little to the chip, it will effectively be much smaller and thus cheaper.
Quote:
Maybe not the same impact but reading on a 265 PPI display over a 132 PPI display should be night and day.
I suspect the publics reaction to the screen will be very positive.
Quote:
I think it will be stunning and will be heavily marketed on the 7th in order to make sure we, the consumer, know what a technological feat it is to get that resolution and pixel density in a device at that price.
I think the bigger psychology is the rise in price, not the starting point of the price. We've seen Apple raise prices in the past when the change in technology called for it. Of all their past attempts to corner a market by introducing a bleeding-edge tech I think a HiDPI display will be the most obvious and clear to customers. Most realize that if you want something much improved you often have to pay for it.
Well we will have to wait and see on pricing. I really think Apple will try to roll in more features at the slightly higher price to absorb a number of price deltas. The new screen isn't the only component to get a price bump.
Quote:
The size difference between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 for the iO 5.1 betas isn't that much.
I have to see the new iPad 3 before I decide. I love my 1st Gen, didnt need the second. If this is anything what is rumored, I will easily make up the $80 when I sell my iPad 1 on Ebay.
Apple already makes a hefty margin on these. Considering the Android onslaught, they should accept a reduced profit in exchange for getting more of their product out there.
Why do I always hear this kind of comment from people who don't like the price. Apple products are a premium luxury product. You don't see Louis Vuitton reducing it's price to compete with other designer brands or chinese mass-produced plastic stuff they sell at Walmart. This is the same with Apple. People want Apple because it's the Apple product, not the cheap knockoff.
You're not entitled to a 200$ iPad. If you want a 200$ piece of trash, buy an Android tablet and then don't whine when all the content you want to consume is only available from Apple.
The only Android device that is an alternative is the Fire, and only because Amazon supplies the content. What do the other Android tablets offer? Android Market has barely anything.
If you want a 200$ iPad wait for all the iPad2's people want to get rid of are put on craigslist and eBay. Apple has not made any mistakes and can continue to do what they are doing until either the market is saturated with iOS devices, or someone invents something better and more popular.
Once you discount the price of something, consumers will not tolerate a price increase, that's why you see shrinking packages, thinner thread counts, cheaper ingredients, and "New bigger larger" marketing with higher prices. So an iPad3 with a higher resolution screen justifies a price increase.
To paraphrase Mike Markkula to Steve Jobs "at the beginning": Don't build a company to get rich, do it to make great products. (I'm listening to the audiobook of the Steve Jobs biography.)
Sometimes great products just cost more.
Quote:
Couple that with $100 Billion in the bank says to me that Apple should keep the WiFi versions of iPad3 as they are. Even if they need to take a bit of a hit of the components. If Apple feels it Must - raise the price of the +cell versions... so be it.
By making all iPad3s cell capable but at a lower effective price they allow for an effective price cut while absorbing the cost of the retina screen. If any of this is true it is probably evidence that the new screen is significantly more expensive. So you cover the cost of the new screen and throw in a few nore features to make it look like the overall deal is better.
Quote:
A higher price is one of those things that SHOULD NOT be mentioned in the stories when iPad3 comes out. If they raise it $80 this will be mentioned in nearly ALL news stories. Not necessary.
That is really the whole point of throughing in the cell capability as it will actually be a price cut for an iPad with that capability. The spin will be that iPad gets a price cut.
Quote:
I'm also concerned that this is the first big Non-Steve-Jobs decision that smacks of a "business" decision. Read the part of the SJ bio about pricing the original Mac. The concept behind the original pricing was lost in final pricing because it became a business decision... albeit Apple was Much smaller then and it may have been the appropriate move -- THEN... not now.
This could be a problem. The mentality of selling grossly over priced Macs nearly destroyed the company. I was actually surprised to find out that Jobs had a massive run in with the rest of Apple management and actually lost out on reasonable pricing for the first Mac. So yeah it is a real concern but frankly I don't think Apple suffers from that sort of management stupidity anymore. After all the justification back then was the need for marketing to grow the company.
However the problem with a retina type screen is the cost and supply issues of a ramp up. If iPad 2 is kept around in any form it is likely evidence that Apple is trying to cover its a$$ here.
Quote:
Now that I think about it - I have been buying towers since 1998 (SE, LC and Centris before that). Well, when Apple decided to bump tower prices up by (some amount? $400? 500?) my analysis was that I would get the souped-up iMac i7 instead of a tower. So, as of last year, I'm a 27" iMac user. At least for now, I don't need extra slots. So for the sake of a few hundred, they may not get me back as a tower customer (which they may be killing anyway).
ps. It would feed the perception that Apple's are "more expensive"... which, believe it or not, is still out there.
Your first mistake is looking at the Pro as a tower computer. It isn't, it is a workstation machine running server grade hardware. Apples big mistake is never filling the need for a properly priced expandable Mac. It is something I will never understand myself.
Nominal price increase for base model would not be surprising.
iPad 2 will have to drop in price. They're currently being sold at a reduction at big box retailers so $499 is too high. Also, deeper discounts for education to push iBooks.
Memory offerings of 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB based on the screen resolution. Double resolution means double the image size for textures in apps.
I just want to have "multi-user" even if it's limited to two or one and a guest. I'm sure it would be a complete overhaul of iOS though and I have a hard time believing that will happen until they get some real competition.
'Can' does not equal 'should'. This isn't about what is best for us it's about what is best for Apple. I have to assume that Apple wouldn't raise the price without running the numbers and calculating the possible scenarios.
Why should Apple take a lower margin if they will lose money from the deal? What if they determined that even at a price increase they will still sell all they can produce? What if the cost of the new HW is equal to or more than $80 thus making this a drop in profit margin despite the increased cost?
Exactly. And even if one of the scenarios is that the new display costs far less than $80, if Apple suspects there is going to be a supply contraint on the new screen then one way to redirect demand to the iPad 2 is to increase the price of the iPad 3. They'll still sell every iPad 3 than can make while at the same time sell more iPad 2's than they might if a lot of people were to decide to wait to get their hands on a "regularly priced" iPad 3. More units sold, some at a higher price. Apple and the iOS ecosystem wins.
Or a scenario could be that Apple doesn't want to cut the price of the iPad 2 by too much. If the component prices haven't dropped, then they may not have the room to lower the retail price by a lot without sacrificing their near-legendary margins. But they need to keep some sort of price differential between the models. So perhaps they drop the 2 by $20 and increase the 3 by $80 to achieve a $100 differential.
Comments
Increased labour costs?
Are you referring to Tim Cook's $378,000,000/year compensation package?
Will you guys EVER learn math?
A retina display that has double the dpi has FOUR TIMES THE RESOLUTION, not double the resolution, because resolution goes by the square. e.g. You have a 1 by 1 square pixel and now that will become a 2 by 2 square if you double the dpi; but a 2 by 2 contains 4 pixels while a 1 by 1 contains 1 pixel; as you see the resolution, i.e. pixel count is quadrupled not doubled.
As you can see, this can be solved without the use of advanced math; yet AI gets this CONSISTENTLY WRONG. Would the editors please take note?
I'd be more surprised if they didn't have a price hike.
I wonder if they'll have the HD iPad models with an A6 and the regular model with the A5X, but at this price point it's unlikely. Just wonder which processor they'll use for the basic iPad 3, if they differentiate a basic model or just keep the iPad 2 at a discount.
I'd be socked if they release two models simultaneously. Their model has pretty much always been to keep the last gen model around for a discount and introduce the new model at the last gen model's price.
It might sell like hot cakes. It also might dissuade quite a few buyers. BTW, my brother has both a iPad 2 and a Kindle and says the Kindle does quite a lot of what his iPad 2 does.
That's silly.
Let's say that the sell 60 M next near at $580 and 59,900,000 at $500. Which do you think is a better deal for Apple?
The people who have the data are the ones in Cupertino. Please stop trying to convince everyone that your uneducated, fact-free opinion has any value.
And it's particularly funny coming from someone who thinks that Kindle is competition for the iPad. While they do some similar things, they are no more competitive than a Kia and a Ferrari. The number of people who chose a Fire instead of an iPad is tiny.
Either way it should be fairly easy to get 2X performance out of a A5X chip.
That comes with a cost that I don't think Apple is willing to pay.
I wonder if a Retina Display iPad will have the same impact as the RD iPhone. Yes, it will be beautiful. But part of the appeal for that pixel density on the iPhone is the smaller screen meant smaller UI elements which could be hard to read. The higher resolution added a needed increase in readability of those small screen elements. A similar incease in resolution on the iPad would be cool, but I'm not sure it will have the same impact because you had more space to work with from the start.
Maybe not the same impact but reading on a 265 PPI display over a 132 PPI display should be night and day.
I think it will be stunning and will be heavily marketed on the 7th in order to make sure we, the consumer, know what a technological feat it is to get that resolution and pixel density in a device at that price.
I would agree that if the cheapest iPad was over $500 it would be a psychological barrier. Even if many of the sales end up being of the more expensive models, the sub-500 price gets 'em in the door. Otherwise a Kindle Fire might start looking like a better opttion to many. That said, I think the expectation is that Apple would keep a low-end iPad 2 available even after the iPad three is released.
I think the bigger psychology is the rise in price, not the starting point of the price. We've seen Apple raise prices in the past when the change in technology called for it. Of all their past attempts to corner a market by introducing a bleeding-edge tech I think a HiDPI display will be the most obvious and clear to customers. Most realize that if you want something much improved you often have to pay for it.
I'm also intested in what they do storage-wise. The $100 increase between models is a bit much, especially the jump from 16 to 32 GB. All the high-resolution graphics for the Retina Display optimzed applications is going to start eating up storage space!
The size difference between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 for the iO 5.1 betas isn't that much.
A document that has surfaced out of the Far East claims that Apple's third-generation iPad will cost $80 more, starting at $579 instead of $499.
To paraphrase Mike Markkula to Steve Jobs "at the beginning": Don't build a company to get rich, do it to make great products. (I'm listening to the audiobook of the Steve Jobs biography.)
Couple that with $100 Billion in the bank says to me that Apple should keep the WiFi versions of iPad3 as they are. Even if they need to take a bit of a hit of the components. If Apple feels it Must - raise the price of the +cell versions... so be it.
A higher price is one of those things that SHOULD NOT be mentioned in the stories when iPad3 comes out. If they raise it $80 this will be mentioned in nearly ALL news stories. Not necessary.
I'm also concerned that this is the first big Non-Steve-Jobs decision that smacks of a "business" decision. Read the part of the SJ bio about pricing the original Mac. The concept behind the original pricing was lost in final pricing because it became a business decision... albeit Apple was Much smaller then and it may have been the appropriate move -- THEN... not now.
Now that I think about it - I have been buying towers since 1998 (SE, LC and Centris before that). Well, when Apple decided to bump tower prices up by (some amount? $400? 500?) my analysis was that I would get the souped-up iMac i7 instead of a tower. So, as of last year, I'm a 27" iMac user. At least for now, I don't need extra slots. So for the sake of a few hundred, they may not get me back as a tower customer (which they may be killing anyway).
ps. It would feed the perception that Apple's are "more expensive"... which, believe it or not, is still out there.
This is actually a wise move on Apples part as it will allow them to cover the incremental increase in the cost of a few parts but actually sell more features cheaper. People have to remember that if all the rumors prove true (or even part of them) iPad 3 will be skuffed with a number of more expensive parts. Everyone has focused on the screen which is an issue but let's not forget the other rumors like a vastly improved camera, 4G, more RAM and other goodies. Of those offered only RAM would be cheaper today and that only if Apple can use the same number of dies.
So while we need to wait and see, I'm not convinced that feature parity wise iPad 3 will be more expensive. We might actually be getting more.
iPad-2S with Siri $499
iPad-3HD $579
Apple leaked the initial $1000 as a price for iPad 1 and launched it at half of it, creating a tsunami and competition colliding with each other sinking catastrophically to the bottom of the ocean... I will buy my giant popcorn bucket and watch the carnage...
Ah, I like the way you're thinking. I rather relish the idea of the competition "sinking catastrophically to the bottom of the ocean." Funny.
Apple might very well simply not offer a WiFi only model of the iPad 3 leaving that market to an enhanced lower cost iPad2S or whatever they call it. While it might look like a price hike for the base model you would be getting the 4G capability, the retina display and likely more RAM and flash for a cheaper price than you did for iPad 2. The difference is you forfeit the WiFi only version.
This is actually a wise move on Apples part as it will allow them to cover the incremental increase in the cost of a few parts but actually sell more features cheaper. People have to remember that if all the rumors prove true (or even part of them) iPad 3 will be skuffed with a number of more expensive parts. Everyone has focused on the screen which is an issue but let's not forget the other rumors like a vastly improved camera, 4G, more RAM and other goodies. Of those offered only RAM would be cheaper today and that only if Apple can use the same number of dies.
So while we need to wait and see, I'm not convinced that feature parity wise iPad 3 will be more expensive. We might actually be getting more.
I don't think that all models being '3G' makes sense. For starters, most won't want to pay for HW they will pay the service to use. And it's pricey. It's not "20¢ of silicon" as oft gets touted around here. There are licensing costs alone that will be a percentage of every unit that includes the cellualr tech.
That comes with a cost that I don't think Apple is willing to pay.
The cores in the current A5 run relatively slow compared to what is possible in sub 32nm processes. Given the right process Apple could easily double the clock rates in the A5 chip while maintaining the power profile and lowering chip costs. Foundries have been reporting 2+ GHZ Cortex A9 cores for over a year now running on the smaller processes. More importantly Intel is now shipping Atoms with very fast Imagination GPU cores. Fast in the sense of a considerable clock rate increase.
So the evidence is there that Apple could get very good results from an A5 respin at a smaller process geometry. If they do little to the chip, it will effectively be much smaller and thus cheaper.
Maybe not the same impact but reading on a 265 PPI display over a 132 PPI display should be night and day.
I suspect the publics reaction to the screen will be very positive.
I think it will be stunning and will be heavily marketed on the 7th in order to make sure we, the consumer, know what a technological feat it is to get that resolution and pixel density in a device at that price.
I think the bigger psychology is the rise in price, not the starting point of the price. We've seen Apple raise prices in the past when the change in technology called for it. Of all their past attempts to corner a market by introducing a bleeding-edge tech I think a HiDPI display will be the most obvious and clear to customers. Most realize that if you want something much improved you often have to pay for it.
Well we will have to wait and see on pricing. I really think Apple will try to roll in more features at the slightly higher price to absorb a number of price deltas. The new screen isn't the only component to get a price bump.
The size difference between the iPhone 3GS and iPhone 4 for the iO 5.1 betas isn't that much.
wow. SO many apple apologists...
Apple already makes a hefty margin on these. Considering the Android onslaught, they should accept a reduced profit in exchange for getting more of their product out there.
Why do I always hear this kind of comment from people who don't like the price. Apple products are a premium luxury product. You don't see Louis Vuitton reducing it's price to compete with other designer brands or chinese mass-produced plastic stuff they sell at Walmart. This is the same with Apple. People want Apple because it's the Apple product, not the cheap knockoff.
You're not entitled to a 200$ iPad. If you want a 200$ piece of trash, buy an Android tablet and then don't whine when all the content you want to consume is only available from Apple.
The only Android device that is an alternative is the Fire, and only because Amazon supplies the content. What do the other Android tablets offer? Android Market has barely anything.
If you want a 200$ iPad wait for all the iPad2's people want to get rid of are put on craigslist and eBay. Apple has not made any mistakes and can continue to do what they are doing until either the market is saturated with iOS devices, or someone invents something better and more popular.
Once you discount the price of something, consumers will not tolerate a price increase, that's why you see shrinking packages, thinner thread counts, cheaper ingredients, and "New bigger larger" marketing with higher prices. So an iPad3 with a higher resolution screen justifies a price increase.
To paraphrase Mike Markkula to Steve Jobs "at the beginning": Don't build a company to get rich, do it to make great products. (I'm listening to the audiobook of the Steve Jobs biography.)
Sometimes great products just cost more.
Couple that with $100 Billion in the bank says to me that Apple should keep the WiFi versions of iPad3 as they are. Even if they need to take a bit of a hit of the components. If Apple feels it Must - raise the price of the +cell versions... so be it.
By making all iPad3s cell capable but at a lower effective price they allow for an effective price cut while absorbing the cost of the retina screen. If any of this is true it is probably evidence that the new screen is significantly more expensive. So you cover the cost of the new screen and throw in a few nore features to make it look like the overall deal is better.
A higher price is one of those things that SHOULD NOT be mentioned in the stories when iPad3 comes out. If they raise it $80 this will be mentioned in nearly ALL news stories. Not necessary.
That is really the whole point of throughing in the cell capability as it will actually be a price cut for an iPad with that capability. The spin will be that iPad gets a price cut.
I'm also concerned that this is the first big Non-Steve-Jobs decision that smacks of a "business" decision. Read the part of the SJ bio about pricing the original Mac. The concept behind the original pricing was lost in final pricing because it became a business decision... albeit Apple was Much smaller then and it may have been the appropriate move -- THEN... not now.
This could be a problem. The mentality of selling grossly over priced Macs nearly destroyed the company. I was actually surprised to find out that Jobs had a massive run in with the rest of Apple management and actually lost out on reasonable pricing for the first Mac. So yeah it is a real concern but frankly I don't think Apple suffers from that sort of management stupidity anymore. After all the justification back then was the need for marketing to grow the company.
However the problem with a retina type screen is the cost and supply issues of a ramp up. If iPad 2 is kept around in any form it is likely evidence that Apple is trying to cover its a$$ here.
Now that I think about it - I have been buying towers since 1998 (SE, LC and Centris before that). Well, when Apple decided to bump tower prices up by (some amount? $400? 500?) my analysis was that I would get the souped-up iMac i7 instead of a tower. So, as of last year, I'm a 27" iMac user. At least for now, I don't need extra slots. So for the sake of a few hundred, they may not get me back as a tower customer (which they may be killing anyway).
ps. It would feed the perception that Apple's are "more expensive"... which, believe it or not, is still out there.
Your first mistake is looking at the Pro as a tower computer. It isn't, it is a workstation machine running server grade hardware. Apples big mistake is never filling the need for a properly priced expandable Mac. It is something I will never understand myself.
- Nominal price increase for base model would not be surprising.
- iPad 2 will have to drop in price. They're currently being sold at a reduction at big box retailers so $499 is too high. Also, deeper discounts for education to push iBooks.
- Memory offerings of 32GB, 64GB, and 128GB based on the screen resolution. Double resolution means double the image size for textures in apps.
I just want to have "multi-user" even if it's limited to two or one and a guest. I'm sure it would be a complete overhaul of iOS though and I have a hard time believing that will happen until they get some real competition.'Can' does not equal 'should'. This isn't about what is best for us it's about what is best for Apple. I have to assume that Apple wouldn't raise the price without running the numbers and calculating the possible scenarios.
Why should Apple take a lower margin if they will lose money from the deal? What if they determined that even at a price increase they will still sell all they can produce? What if the cost of the new HW is equal to or more than $80 thus making this a drop in profit margin despite the increased cost?
Exactly. And even if one of the scenarios is that the new display costs far less than $80, if Apple suspects there is going to be a supply contraint on the new screen then one way to redirect demand to the iPad 2 is to increase the price of the iPad 3. They'll still sell every iPad 3 than can make while at the same time sell more iPad 2's than they might if a lot of people were to decide to wait to get their hands on a "regularly priced" iPad 3. More units sold, some at a higher price. Apple and the iOS ecosystem wins.
Or a scenario could be that Apple doesn't want to cut the price of the iPad 2 by too much. If the component prices haven't dropped, then they may not have the room to lower the retail price by a lot without sacrificing their near-legendary margins. But they need to keep some sort of price differential between the models. So perhaps they drop the 2 by $20 and increase the 3 by $80 to achieve a $100 differential.