When does Apple get big enough to be subject to anti-trust? Maybe they will let Microsoft live just so they can dodge that bullet.
Any sized company can be in violation of anti-trust laws, but it's usually the bigger companies that can throw their weight around more often and force 3rd parties into exclusivity or anti-competitive contracts. Microsoft did this in the 90's to both corporations and OEMs. Apple has long been in a position to do this, but they haven't, because they're not that type of company. They don't go after market share, they're more interested in actually selling products to people and keeping the channel inventory at manageable levels.
I hope they don't go back down the original MacBook Air route and try and sell 'less product' for 'more money'.
Remember that debacle? The MBA didn't start to sell in any realistic volume until it was priced correctly.
Yes, this is why I think 8GB at $250-$299 is a mistake. 8GB is not a lot of space. Especially with apps getting larger and magazines that have quite large file sizes.
I hope they don't go back down the original MacBook Air route and try and sell 'less product' for 'more money'.
Remember that debacle? The MBA didn't start to sell in any realistic volume until it was priced correctly.
Since when has the consumer been confused by shrinking CE and it becoming more expensive. That's how it's always been and yet when it comes to Apple somehow that is no longer suppose to exist? WTF?!
If those leaked prices are right, both things would (sort of) be true. The 8GB one is purportedly $250 but the one you'd really want to buy (16GB) will be $350.
So it seems like Apple is doing exactly what Wu says in a way. They are pricing it low enough to almost be dollar for dollar competitive with the rest, but swallowing margin on the base model and pumping it up on all the rest. Apple does this all the time in fact.
There is no way that an extra 8GB of memory actually cost them a hundred dollars, if the pricing scale reflected merely the increased component cost, it would be more like $50 between models. The $250 entry model is likely at least close to "cost" for Apple with the rest having <span style="font-family:Arial;line-height:normal;">exorbitant</span>
margins, so that overall they can have their 30% margin.
So an 8GB model at $250 would be pricing close to cost?
Curious, why do you think it won't be called the iPad Air? Makes much more sense than "iPad Mini", all considered, though I personally think the whole lineup will just have the name "iPad" across the board, in the same way that differently-sized MacBook Pros and Airs don't have different names.
The MacBook Air was called such because it's main differentiating factor over a regular MacBook was that it was incredibly lighter and thinner. While the iPad mini will probably be lighter than a regular iPad (it kind of has to be given it's size), it's not *that* much lighter, and possibly no thinner at all once the iPad 3 has been re-worked. Also, iPads in general are going to get lighter and thinner over time.
It just doesn't work. The main qualities of the purported "iPad mini" over and above the regular iPad are smallness, and cheapness. They could call it "iPad cheapo" but somehow I don't think so.
The main question, Wu said, is whether Apple will "go for the kill" against competitors and accept lower margins to reach the $199 price point of its competitors, such as the Google Nexus 7 and Amazon Kindle Fire HD.
I can't see Apple being interested in "going for the kill". They want to control the market but unless there is a sense that the Nexus or the Fire is threatening Apple's dominance their energy is better spent just being awesome in their own way. It is hard to argue that anybody is threatening Apple's market segment where Apple doesn't even have a product yet. I think Apple will want to be competitive but will have no interest in losing margin at this point.
So an 8GB model at $250 would be pricing close to cost?
My guess would be that. I have no idea of course.
They do this thing all the time where they still get their margin by spreading it out over a whole little posse of price points. That was my main point.
I mean $250 is the best price point, but 8GB is kind of a ridiculous spec, right? They can more or less say they hit the price point that everyone is lusting after, but at the same time, most consumers will buy the $350 model anyway because 8GB sucks. Schools and institutions can buy the $250 8GB by the truckload and everyone is happy.
Smaller iPads come in white, black, Product RED. That's 9 models, possibly more colors. No cellular; HotSpot your iPhone for that. No camera, front or back, You want that, go buy a 9.7". Retina to boot.
Available today. Boom.
I don't think they'll abandon up-charging $100 to double storage and only charge an additional $50. It also wouldn't make sense to consumers to charge $50 to double storage for the 7.85" model, but $100 for the 9.7" model. I like the (Product)RED idea, tho.
November 2nd is the drop dead date with pre-orders next week. I think I am going to pick one up and then send one to my sis, nephew and lil bro... Get the whole family using good products and acclimated to the Apple ecosystem.
The MacBook Air was called such because it's main differentiating factor over a regular MacBook was that it was incredibly lighter and thinner. While the iPad mini will probably be lighter than a regular iPad (it kind of has to be given it's size), it's not *that* much lighter, and possibly no thinner at all once the iPad 3 has been re-worked. Also, iPads in general are going to get lighter and thinner over time.
It just doesn't work. The main qualities of the purported "iPad mini" over and above the regular iPad are smallness, and cheapness. They could call it "iPad cheapo" but somehow I don't think so.
I'm in the 'Mini' camp. Even if it is technically an enlarged iPod it is viewed as a smaller version of an iPad. Calling it an 'Air' will dilute, or confuse the Macbook Air brand imo. When the iPod Mini came out it was called that because it was a smaller version of the iPod. Same thing applies here. The iPod is a pocket device and so distinctly different. The Air is also distinctly different from the MBP line thought that difference is narrowing.
It is possible it will just be called iPad, but it will always be referred to as the iPad mini. It is a name which perfectly describes it in my opinion so why mess with it.
I think for an iPad cellular is important. I'd give people the option. You'll be surprised how many go for the cellular option. They should just call it the iPad and everyone will refer to it as the 7" iPad.
Who knows what the pricing will be, but its a given this will be a serious blow to the competition.
Apple can easily get a $50-100 premium over others based on the quality of their product and the tight integration into their ecosystem. At the $200-300 price point that's a huge advantage. Plus nobody can compete with Apple when it comes to economies of scale.
When does Apple get big enough to be subject to anti-trust? Maybe they will let Microsoft live just so they can dodge that bullet.
you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Microsoft is a very poor example. Samsung is the primary competitor of Apple. It sells more phones than apple, so why is Apple too big?
the smallest company in the world can be subject to anti-trust.
If you're free market capitalism, 'sucking profits from the competition' is called 'rules of the game'
causing a competitor to leave a market due to their inability to attract a profitable customer base is not 'too big' it's 'better product and production'
Apple is not forming an anti-competitive Trust because
- it doesn't force anyone to 'join apple' to get into the markets that apple and it's partners control.
- it doesn't force customers to use Apple (free market), and it doesn't require anyone to sell Apple
- it doesn't use it's iOS monopoly to force any partner to favor the apple relationship.
- it hasn't entered into any agreements with anyone to make Apple product's exclusive.
- it hasn't used control in one arena to drive out competition in another, but leveraging partners in an anti-competitive nature
In short, there is no barrier to admission into the mobile market. Build a better OS, a better device, and a better supply chain, a better set of apps, and the world will beat a path to your door. Apple is making 20-30% on each device... surely you can come in under that. If not, well then, you're not built to compete, and therefore should be crushed like the ill-fitted beaked finch in Darwin's ecosystem.
They do this thing all the time where they still get their margin by spreading it out over a whole little posse of price points. That was my main point.
I mean $250 is the best price point, but 8GB is kind of a ridiculous spec, right? They can more or less say they hit the price point that everyone is lusting after, but at the same time, most consumers will buy the $350 model anyway because 8GB sucks. Schools and institutions can buy the $250 8GB by the truckload and everyone is happy.
But why would schools do that? I think they would think about it for 30 seconds and realize like everybody else that it would be false economy. The only place I can see an 8gb being a sensible choice is in situations where the only use will be to input data, such as in an inventory situation, POS situation, etc. where the device strictly serves a single purpose and is linked with a larger infrastructure.
If the new iPod Touch starts at $300, can Apple really market a tablet for less than that? Seems like iPad 2 will go out and the little one will start at $400. Apple doesn't go to the bottom of the market. They don't have to.
The $300 touch is 32 gb. Apple could offer the 8gb mini for the same price. Since most buyers would want more memory the base mini wouldn't erode touch sales.
That said I still think offering an 8 gb model is a bad move. Buyers of the lowest cost model would likely be new to Apple and would quickly become disillusioned when they can't even fit their song collection on it let alone any apps.
Someone else mentioned a microSD. That would change things entirely but Apple doesn't seem to want to go in that direction.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm
Yes, suck profits from the competition.
When does Apple get big enough to be subject to anti-trust? Maybe they will let Microsoft live just so they can dodge that bullet.
Any sized company can be in violation of anti-trust laws, but it's usually the bigger companies that can throw their weight around more often and force 3rd parties into exclusivity or anti-competitive contracts. Microsoft did this in the 90's to both corporations and OEMs. Apple has long been in a position to do this, but they haven't, because they're not that type of company. They don't go after market share, they're more interested in actually selling products to people and keeping the channel inventory at manageable levels.
Since when has the consumer been confused by shrinking CE and it becoming more expensive. That's how it's always been and yet when it comes to Apple somehow that is no longer suppose to exist? WTF?!
This is what I'm expecting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Barriault
Curious, why do you think it won't be called the iPad Air? Makes much more sense than "iPad Mini", all considered, though I personally think the whole lineup will just have the name "iPad" across the board, in the same way that differently-sized MacBook Pros and Airs don't have different names.
The MacBook Air was called such because it's main differentiating factor over a regular MacBook was that it was incredibly lighter and thinner. While the iPad mini will probably be lighter than a regular iPad (it kind of has to be given it's size), it's not *that* much lighter, and possibly no thinner at all once the iPad 3 has been re-worked. Also, iPads in general are going to get lighter and thinner over time.
It just doesn't work. The main qualities of the purported "iPad mini" over and above the regular iPad are smallness, and cheapness. They could call it "iPad cheapo" but somehow I don't think so.
** deleted **
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The main question, Wu said, is whether Apple will "go for the kill" against competitors and accept lower margins to reach the $199 price point of its competitors, such as the Google Nexus 7 and Amazon Kindle Fire HD.
I can't see Apple being interested in "going for the kill". They want to control the market but unless there is a sense that the Nexus or the Fire is threatening Apple's dominance their energy is better spent just being awesome in their own way. It is hard to argue that anybody is threatening Apple's market segment where Apple doesn't even have a product yet. I think Apple will want to be competitive but will have no interest in losing margin at this point.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
So an 8GB model at $250 would be pricing close to cost?
My guess would be that. I have no idea of course.
They do this thing all the time where they still get their margin by spreading it out over a whole little posse of price points. That was my main point.
I mean $250 is the best price point, but 8GB is kind of a ridiculous spec, right? They can more or less say they hit the price point that everyone is lusting after, but at the same time, most consumers will buy the $350 model anyway because 8GB sucks. Schools and institutions can buy the $250 8GB by the truckload and everyone is happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
$299 16GB 7.85"
$349 32GB 7.85"
$399 64GB 7.85"
$399 16GB 9.7"
$499 32GB 9.7"
$599 64GB 9.7"
All iPads come with 25GB free iCloud storage.
Smaller iPads come in white, black, Product RED. That's 9 models, possibly more colors. No cellular; HotSpot your iPhone for that. No camera, front or back, You want that, go buy a 9.7". Retina to boot.
Available today. Boom.
I don't think they'll abandon up-charging $100 to double storage and only charge an additional $50. It also wouldn't make sense to consumers to charge $50 to double storage for the 7.85" model, but $100 for the 9.7" model. I like the (Product)RED idea, tho.
November 2nd is the drop dead date with pre-orders next week. I think I am going to pick one up and then send one to my sis, nephew and lil bro... Get the whole family using good products and acclimated to the Apple ecosystem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
The MacBook Air was called such because it's main differentiating factor over a regular MacBook was that it was incredibly lighter and thinner. While the iPad mini will probably be lighter than a regular iPad (it kind of has to be given it's size), it's not *that* much lighter, and possibly no thinner at all once the iPad 3 has been re-worked. Also, iPads in general are going to get lighter and thinner over time.
It just doesn't work. The main qualities of the purported "iPad mini" over and above the regular iPad are smallness, and cheapness. They could call it "iPad cheapo" but somehow I don't think so.
I'm in the 'Mini' camp. Even if it is technically an enlarged iPod it is viewed as a smaller version of an iPad. Calling it an 'Air' will dilute, or confuse the Macbook Air brand imo. When the iPod Mini came out it was called that because it was a smaller version of the iPod. Same thing applies here. The iPod is a pocket device and so distinctly different. The Air is also distinctly different from the MBP line thought that difference is narrowing.
It is possible it will just be called iPad, but it will always be referred to as the iPad mini. It is a name which perfectly describes it in my opinion so why mess with it.
I think for an iPad cellular is important. I'd give people the option. You'll be surprised how many go for the cellular option. They should just call it the iPad and everyone will refer to it as the 7" iPad.
Apple can easily get a $50-100 premium over others based on the quality of their product and the tight integration into their ecosystem. At the $200-300 price point that's a huge advantage. Plus nobody can compete with Apple when it comes to economies of scale.
Quote:
Originally Posted by philipm
Yes, suck profits from the competition.
When does Apple get big enough to be subject to anti-trust? Maybe they will let Microsoft live just so they can dodge that bullet.
you keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.
Microsoft is a very poor example. Samsung is the primary competitor of Apple. It sells more phones than apple, so why is Apple too big?
the smallest company in the world can be subject to anti-trust.
If you're free market capitalism, 'sucking profits from the competition' is called 'rules of the game'
causing a competitor to leave a market due to their inability to attract a profitable customer base is not 'too big' it's 'better product and production'
Apple is not forming an anti-competitive Trust because
- it doesn't force anyone to 'join apple' to get into the markets that apple and it's partners control.
- it doesn't force customers to use Apple (free market), and it doesn't require anyone to sell Apple
- it doesn't use it's iOS monopoly to force any partner to favor the apple relationship.
- it hasn't entered into any agreements with anyone to make Apple product's exclusive.
- it hasn't used control in one arena to drive out competition in another, but leveraging partners in an anti-competitive nature
In short, there is no barrier to admission into the mobile market. Build a better OS, a better device, and a better supply chain, a better set of apps, and the world will beat a path to your door. Apple is making 20-30% on each device... surely you can come in under that. If not, well then, you're not built to compete, and therefore should be crushed like the ill-fitted beaked finch in Darwin's ecosystem.
Apple's own history has shown that in fact they don't.
Agreed. I just suspect Apple will stay slightly higher than many of us hope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
My guess would be that. I have no idea of course.
They do this thing all the time where they still get their margin by spreading it out over a whole little posse of price points. That was my main point.
I mean $250 is the best price point, but 8GB is kind of a ridiculous spec, right? They can more or less say they hit the price point that everyone is lusting after, but at the same time, most consumers will buy the $350 model anyway because 8GB sucks. Schools and institutions can buy the $250 8GB by the truckload and everyone is happy.
But why would schools do that? I think they would think about it for 30 seconds and realize like everybody else that it would be false economy. The only place I can see an 8gb being a sensible choice is in situations where the only use will be to input data, such as in an inventory situation, POS situation, etc. where the device strictly serves a single purpose and is linked with a larger infrastructure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tinack
If the new iPod Touch starts at $300, can Apple really market a tablet for less than that? Seems like iPad 2 will go out and the little one will start at $400. Apple doesn't go to the bottom of the market. They don't have to.
The $300 touch is 32 gb. Apple could offer the 8gb mini for the same price. Since most buyers would want more memory the base mini wouldn't erode touch sales.
That said I still think offering an 8 gb model is a bad move. Buyers of the lowest cost model would likely be new to Apple and would quickly become disillusioned when they can't even fit their song collection on it let alone any apps.
Someone else mentioned a microSD. That would change things entirely but Apple doesn't seem to want to go in that direction.
Or it won't be. Folks will say it is priced too high, it's too small etc and just buy the full sized one or another brand ll together.
Price is not always the deciding factor, especially with what is perceived as a 'high end' brand