This is why I think Apple will introduce a smaller iPad that costs less. You aren't going to buy a Kindle Fire or whatever Google comes up with if you could spend $50 to $100 more and get an iPad.
But Apple has always been resistant to this kind of change. Otherwise, why haven't they released a bigger screen iPhone? And what about Steve's comments about sandpaper for fingers?
Apple's inflexibility has its ups and downs. I don't think Apple wants to play in the shallow end of they pool. I think it's possible that Apple's response will merely be another $50 off the last generation iPad.
Apple's inflexibility has its ups and downs. I don't think Apple wants to play in the shallow end of they pool. I think it's possible that Apple's response will merely be another $50 off the last generation iPad.
Seems like the logical move, doesn't it? But you have to remember there are users out there who appear to be pathologically afraid of owing anything made by Apple or just weirdly self-conscious of looking like a "joiner." I suppose someone has to cater to those guys.
Or maybe there are users who don't want a 10 inch tablet?
Ever occur to you that some people might just want something smaller and more portable?
2) Would Apple do this when they are already cutting back on support for the iPad 2?
3) Would Apple do this if the margins on the iPad 2 are terrible? And those resources could go towards selling iPad 3s and iPad 4s?
The only way to play in this market is to make a smaller form factor in my opinion. I think that's as important to the customer as the price. If Apple were to do what you propose, I fear it might cannibalize its own sales more than hurting others.
[quote name="Jetz" url="/t/150798/google-to-introduce-low-priced-android-tablet-in-coming-weeks/40#post_2130923"]1) Doesn't address the size issue. [/QUOTE]
You didn't mention one.
[QUOTE]2) Would Apple do this when they are already cutting back on support for the iPad 2?[/QUOTE]
They did it when they're cutting back support on the iPhone 3GS.
[QUOTE]3) Would Apple do this if the margins on the iPad 2 are terrible? And those resources could go towards selling iPad 3s and iPad 4s?[/QUOTE]
Why would the margins be terrible? When it was brand new, iFixit found that the parts inside it cost less total than my hypothesized price for the device two years out. Yes, R&D, assembly line creation, machining software written, advertising, etc. aren't included, but they no longer need to be as the two more recent models will be picking up that slack.
[QUOTE]The only way to play in this market is to make a smaller form factor in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Opinion noted, but it's wrong, as evidenced by how horrendously poorly all other tablets are selling. Including the smaller ones.
This is why I think Apple will introduce a smaller iPad that costs less. You aren't going to buy a Kindle Fire or whatever Google comes up with if you could spend $50 to $100 more and get an iPad.
Folks are buying the current iPad hand over fist. Why make a liar out of a former CEO who said that a smaller unit was a bad move and make it when your current one is selling like mad. So much so that folks like Amazon are rumored to be making a bigger model to compete with yours.
An idiot in a hurry would not make a mistake between an iPad and that unless you put it a very long way away in a very dark room where it would also be hard to tell the difference between that and a block of painted black wood.
Actually I think its the idiot who would say it doesn't resemble the iPad...
No. But the point here is that the OS maker is making the hardware, so the two can be developed together and thus hopefully better.
It all seems to be taking that 1980s approach to computer manufacturing where everything becomes proprietary and locked down, but more finely tuned.
The Commodore AMIGA is probably the best example of this; 4096 colours on screen, 32-bit multitasking operating system, stereo PCM audio and blazing 3D performance all for around £1500 in 1985 - I don't think the clone makers caught up until around 1992 and Apple's closest equivalent at the time was the Mac II in 1987, and that cost double the Original A1000 and Quadrupole the A500.
But the AMIGA is also the best example of what can go terribly wrong if a company slips. The third generation graphics architecture for the AMIGA (AGA) wasn't as powerful as it should have been so the AMIGA lost its footing in the graphics market where it dominated and died very quickly.
Long story short:
OS Maker also doing the hardware is the best thing that can happen as well as the absolute worst.
It all seems to be taking that 1980s approach to computer manufacturing where everything becomes proprietary and locked down, but more finely tuned.
The Commodore AMIGA is probably the best example of this; 4096 colours on screen, 32-bit multitasking operating system, stereo PCM audio and blazing 3D performance all for around £1500 in 1985 - I don't think the clone makers caught up until around 1992 and Apple's closest equivalent at the time was the Mac II in 1987, and that cost double the Original A1000 and Quadrupole the A500.
But the AMIGA is also the best example of what can go terribly wrong if a company slips. The third generation graphics architecture for the AMIGA (AGA) wasn't as powerful as it should have been so the AMIGA lost its footing in the graphics market where it dominated and died very quickly.
Long story short:
OS Maker also doing the hardware is the best thing that can happen as well as the absolute worst.
There was a story going around at the time the Amiga was dying. Supposedly, Steve and a couple of the boys went to look at the technology to see if Apple was interested in buying it. After evaluating the system, Bill Atkinson said "we can do that all with software".
Actually I think its the idiot who would say it doesn't resemble the iPad...
It's flat and black, other than that: the bezel is about a foot wide, it's got that distracting logo at the bottom, and for all we know it's six inches deep.
Actually I think its the idiot who would say it doesn't resemble the iPad...
Then you haven't actually seen that picture frame and the back. Have you (statement not question grammar police.)
If you are anywhere within 6 feet and in even a dimly lit room it is obvious they aren't the same. The machinations that are necessary to try to make your point require Photoshop to remove the stand and the big-ass back sticking out. Or at least a very favorable static photo angle.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
This is why I think Apple will introduce a smaller iPad that costs less. You aren't going to buy a Kindle Fire or whatever Google comes up with if you could spend $50 to $100 more and get an iPad.
But Apple has always been resistant to this kind of change. Otherwise, why haven't they released a bigger screen iPhone? And what about Steve's comments about sandpaper for fingers?
Apple's inflexibility has its ups and downs. I don't think Apple wants to play in the shallow end of they pool. I think it's possible that Apple's response will merely be another $50 off the last generation iPad.
iPad 4: $499
iPad 3: $399
iPad 2: $299
Quote:
Originally Posted by inkswamp
Seems like the logical move, doesn't it? But you have to remember there are users out there who appear to be pathologically afraid of owing anything made by Apple or just weirdly self-conscious of looking like a "joiner." I suppose someone has to cater to those guys.
Or maybe there are users who don't want a 10 inch tablet?
Ever occur to you that some people might just want something smaller and more portable?
It's not always about the price.
The iPad 2, the iPad (3) and the iPad mini.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
iPad 4: $499
iPad 3: $399
iPad 2: $299
1) Doesn't address the size issue.
2) Would Apple do this when they are already cutting back on support for the iPad 2?
3) Would Apple do this if the margins on the iPad 2 are terrible? And those resources could go towards selling iPad 3s and iPad 4s?
The only way to play in this market is to make a smaller form factor in my opinion. I think that's as important to the customer as the price. If Apple were to do what you propose, I fear it might cannibalize its own sales more than hurting others.
You didn't mention one.
[QUOTE]2) Would Apple do this when they are already cutting back on support for the iPad 2?[/QUOTE]
They did it when they're cutting back support on the iPhone 3GS.
[QUOTE]3) Would Apple do this if the margins on the iPad 2 are terrible? And those resources could go towards selling iPad 3s and iPad 4s?[/QUOTE]
Why would the margins be terrible? When it was brand new, iFixit found that the parts inside it cost less total than my hypothesized price for the device two years out. Yes, R&D, assembly line creation, machining software written, advertising, etc. aren't included, but they no longer need to be as the two more recent models will be picking up that slack.
[QUOTE]The only way to play in this market is to make a smaller form factor in my opinion.[/QUOTE]
Opinion noted, but it's wrong, as evidenced by how horrendously poorly all other tablets are selling. Including the smaller ones.
Apart from being rectangles, I don't see any similarity.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
So by Christmas we will have three good regular tablets (the iPad, the Surface, and the new GooglePad) and one "Pro" tablet (the Surface).
This is a gadget-lover's dream!
I think we need to see these other tablets before we label them as "good".
Quote:
Originally Posted by TBell
This is why I think Apple will introduce a smaller iPad that costs less. You aren't going to buy a Kindle Fire or whatever Google comes up with if you could spend $50 to $100 more and get an iPad.
Folks are buying the current iPad hand over fist. Why make a liar out of a former CEO who said that a smaller unit was a bad move and make it when your current one is selling like mad. So much so that folks like Amazon are rumored to be making a bigger model to compete with yours.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Does it make any sense to point out that Google's OS, despite not being "compelling", outsells iOS more than 2:1 in the phone market?
Catch is that that isn't really Google's OS. it's the combined sells of Google's OS which has been modified by every one of those OEM companies.
What are the sales figures for pure Google Android. And the true sales not the units given away for free in BOGO deals etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hiro
No, it does not.
An idiot in a hurry would not make a mistake between an iPad and that unless you put it a very long way away in a very dark room where it would also be hard to tell the difference between that and a block of painted black wood.
Actually I think its the idiot who would say it doesn't resemble the iPad...
Quote:
Originally Posted by markbyrn
Apart from being rectangles, I don't see any similarity.
Just like the Galaxy Tab doesn't look like a iPad then :-) You can't have it both ways.
As an iPad is a three dimensional object, that photograph depicting a two dimensional view, does not resemble an iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
As an iPad is a three dimensional object, that photograph depicting a two dimensional view, does not resemble an iPad.
lol only in your fantasy world but ok. Like I said before, you can't have it both ways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan
Show me a single model of Android phone that sells anywhere close to single model of iPhone
Samsung Galaxy S series.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
No. But the point here is that the OS maker is making the hardware, so the two can be developed together and thus hopefully better.
It all seems to be taking that 1980s approach to computer manufacturing where everything becomes proprietary and locked down, but more finely tuned.
The Commodore AMIGA is probably the best example of this; 4096 colours on screen, 32-bit multitasking operating system, stereo PCM audio and blazing 3D performance all for around £1500 in 1985 - I don't think the clone makers caught up until around 1992 and Apple's closest equivalent at the time was the Mac II in 1987, and that cost double the Original A1000 and Quadrupole the A500.
But the AMIGA is also the best example of what can go terribly wrong if a company slips. The third generation graphics architecture for the AMIGA (AGA) wasn't as powerful as it should have been so the AMIGA lost its footing in the graphics market where it dominated and died very quickly.
Long story short:
OS Maker also doing the hardware is the best thing that can happen as well as the absolute worst.
There was a story going around at the time the Amiga was dying. Supposedly, Steve and a couple of the boys went to look at the technology to see if Apple was interested in buying it. After evaluating the system, Bill Atkinson said "we can do that all with software".
Funny how you didn't address the remaining points in his post. I saw what you did there.
It's flat and black, other than that: the bezel is about a foot wide, it's got that distracting logo at the bottom, and for all we know it's six inches deep.
So no, it doesn't look like an iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by fredaroony
Actually I think its the idiot who would say it doesn't resemble the iPad...
Then you haven't actually seen that picture frame and the back. Have you (statement not question grammar police.)
If you are anywhere within 6 feet and in even a dimly lit room it is obvious they aren't the same. The machinations that are necessary to try to make your point require Photoshop to remove the stand and the big-ass back sticking out. Or at least a very favorable static photo angle.