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.
No, they won't - not at first anyway.
The iPad mini will basically have the same specs as the new iPod touch, except of course for a larger display (almost same pixel count though), battery and faster CPU. The material costs won't be much higher so pricing will be...
16GB @ $299
32GB @ $349
64GB @ $449
As a long shot, they may drop the price of the current iPad (3rd Gen) by $50. (At the very least they will drop the 2nd Gen and update the current to the new Lightning connector.)
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.
And since the iPod touch is widely used for that (to great success), I don't see how a larger, unpocketable device would be better.
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. Or they could just call it the iPad and everyone will refer to it as the 7" iPad.
I would be very surprised if there is no cellular option. Doesn't make sense to omit.
Do you really think people will ever refer to it as the 7" iPad if it is called 'iPad'? Rather than iPad Mini, I mean? Which rolls off the tounge easiest?
And since the iPod touch is widely used for that (to great success), I don't see how a larger, unpocketable device would be better.
As a POS unit I'd agree, but there are many other situations. In situations where you don't need to stick the think in you back pocket larger is generally better. I think it will replace clip-boards better than iPods and ditto iPads.
Do you really think people will ever refer to it as the 7" iPad if it is called 'iPad'? Rather than iPad Mini, I mean? Which rolls off the tounge easiest?
All I know is that if anyone ever calls it the "iMini", I will find them and they will pay.
I would be very surprised if there is no cellular option. Doesn't make sense to omit.
Do you really think people will ever refer to it as the 7" iPad if it is called 'iPad'? Rather than iPad Mini, I mean? Which rolls off the tounge easiest?
It's easy to see a usage case for cellular on a small tablet but then there is the cost. Right now Apple charges $130 for cellular. Even Amazon charges $130 for their cellular on the upcoming Kindle Fire HD. Now Amazon does include 3GB of data spread over 1 year but how much does that deal really cost Amazon with the carriers? 3GB upfront per device with a 250MB limit per month with the customer potentially buying more if needed? Maybe $20 per device? Even if we say $30 we're still looking at a $100 premium for cellular. Will that fl with a device many think will start at $249?
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.
Yes I think 8G is a ridiculous spec. But consumers might also think $350 for 16GB is ridiculous too.
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.
2 words x 2 drivers
"Pricing Umbrella"
"Market Desires"
Apple has to be perceived that the price to buy an Apple device is not a premium for the functions you want. If you want to read books, Apple has to drive the value of the iPad to a point where you can compete with a Kindle. and if that value equation is 'bigger isn't important' but price and portability and 'one handedness' is, then Apple needs to have a price point there.
Apple builds what the markets want.... sometimes the market doesn't know what they want (original iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBookProRD), sometimes they do: (iPhone 5, MacBook Air). This is the latter. With all the 4.5", 5", 5.5" 'phones' out there, and then the Kindles, Nexus 7s, etc. The market has been defined into 'pocket mobile' 'medium reader', and 'laptop alternative' Apple has no product in the middle of it's ecosystem. At first it was likely due to the pricing (couldn't build it to the price perception to the quality it thought needed to be there [battery size vs performance]).... 2 years later, Moore Law has solved that problem.
Apple plays the long game... it's not going for the kill so much as 'death by 1000 cuts.' You make a 250 entry point at say, $100 profit for you, and exceeds the 'value' prop of your competitors, all those who are building $199 devices or lower and are breaking even, will feel the pain. Drive them to a lower price point (often by driving quality down) to maintain the 'revenue stream' (ads, amazon sales), further weakening their long term competitiveness.
This is siege mentality. set it up so no one can suck your profits long term, and make it your value proposition gets the customer, if not this purchase cycle, the next or the one after that.
It's easy to see a usage case for cellular on a small tablet but then there is the cost. Right now Apple charges $130 for cellular. Even Amazon charges $130 for their cellular on the upcoming Kindle Fire HD. Now Amazon does include 3GB of data spread over 1 year but how much does that deal really cost Amazon with the carriers? 3GB upfront per device with a 250MB limit per month with the customer potentially buying more if needed? Maybe $20 per device? Even if we say $30 we're still looking at a $100 premium for cellular. Will that fl with a device many think will start at $249?
They may delay the introduction of cellular but I suspect it will be like the iPad. I think a smaller iPad will have broader adoption than just kids playing games. I think it will be a genuinely useful size where the regular iPad is on the large side. How much do you think it adds to production cost? Don't you think that in terms of assembly it will be minimal and that non-cellular devices will have the empty space for the cellular chips? In which case it would make sense to make a smaller run to test the market.
If Apple wants to crush the competition, then it should be $199.
No, if Apple wants to crush the competition, low balling the price to give a perception the product is cheap is not the way to go. Creating a product so awesome that folks want it even though its priced higher than everyone else, that is Apple's game. And they tend to play it rather well
I'm skeptical that they'd release any new products with a capacity as low as 8GB at this point. There are no existing 8GB iPads. There are no iPod Touch models available with 8GB anymore, and the only iPhone with a capacity that low is the iPhone 4, which is likely on its last legs. Even the iPod Nano is now available with 16GB as its only capacity. That considered, 16GB seems the minimum bar to entry for this new smaller iPad.
As far as pricing goes, I'd expect they'd be no less than a comparable iPod Touch since it's likely to share most of its specs with that device. I think we'll see pricing at least $50 more than a new iPod Touch with similar capacity (and likely more).
Personally, since I got my ipad I have found I use my macbook less and less. When printing was added to ios, my notebook was basically mothballed. I want some decent specs for the mini, A6 with 1GB, 64gb storage and LTE. After that, the screen isn't such a big deal. And cost? Pfft. As long as it's slightly cheaper than the iPad, I'm in.
This thread is most entertaining. Pricing is a science. And yeah, maybe something of an art too. Just what Apple is famous for.
The enigma here is that one presumes Apple knows their product pipeline times intimately. Just a few weeks ago they rolled out the new iPod touch at $299. Steve very famously pointed out that Apple has become a mobile devices company, and all their actions in the last...maybe 10?...years indicates this is a truism. Perusal of their complete lineup of devices is realy astounding - no other company I know of has such a spectrum. All integrated, all "just work." But I'm thinking the iPad mini has at least all of the functions of the iPod touch ($299) with a larger screen. Fairly, iPod has the retina screen, and maybe the iPad mini will not. But will this be the first time we see a device (the iPod touch) that we pay a higher price...for smaller? Air v MBP is interesting, but there was not a huge disparity in size. iPod touch looks to be 1/2 the size of the iPad mini.
And of course, it is OK to actually own both. Or all. I find uses for each. I bought a iPad on launch day; likely I'll get a iPad mini on launch day too.
I think the iPad Mini is for kids and schools. The new Touch spex may point to the Mini spex and features. The Touch is now a lean and mean and sleek machine. So Apple has created space for the Touch when the Mini arrives. Best guess for the Mini: Lower screen resolution than the Touch, front side camera only, less memory, no siri, no passbook. But it will have a bigger screen and all those apps and will sell for $200-250 to schools. So the Mini for school; the Touch for home. Adults at work can afford a full blown iPad, as current sales demonstrate clearly. Also the Mini will be lighter, brighter, thinner, faster and much more useful than the Fire or Nook.
I agree. especially for the schools looking at iPads at the 1-5th grades. The lack of a camera/vid and siri is no loss, and memory isn't an issue. WiFi only (load them up with assignments at school.
The Mini to me is targeted to
- Kindle readers who want a 'bit more'
- Children hogging 'Mom's iPad 3
- pre-Teens
The Touch is the 'on the go' teen or young adult who can have 'feature phone' (phone plus text, maybe facebook), and a laptop back in the dorm/home.
As an Older adult, the touch hasn't been my or most of my observable peers' sweet spot. an iPod Shuffle/Nano at the gym, iPhone for 90% of my moble, an iPad for around the house consumption, and a Mac Mini/iMac for the desk.
Apple has to be perceived that the price to buy an Apple device is not a premium for the functions you want. If you want to read books, Apple has to drive the value of the iPad to a point where you can compete with a Kindle. and if that value equation is 'bigger isn't important' but price and portability and 'one handedness' is, then Apple needs to have a price point there.
Apple builds what the markets want.... sometimes the market doesn't know what they want (original iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBookProRD), sometimes they do: (iPhone 5, MacBook Air). This is the latter. With all the 4.5", 5", 5.5" 'phones' out there, and then the Kindles, Nexus 7s, etc. The market has been defined into 'pocket mobile' 'medium reader', and 'laptop alternative' Apple has no product in the middle of it's ecosystem. At first it was likely due to the pricing (couldn't build it to the price perception to the quality it thought needed to be there [battery size vs performance]).... 2 years later, Moore Law has solved that problem.
Apple plays the long game... it's not going for the kill so much as 'death by 1000 cuts.' You make a 250 entry point at say, $100 profit for you, and exceeds the 'value' prop of your competitors, all those who are building $199 devices or lower and are breaking even, will feel the pain. Drive them to a lower price point (often by driving quality down) to maintain the 'revenue stream' (ads, amazon sales), further weakening their long term competitiveness.
This is siege mentality. set it up so no one can suck your profits long term, and make it your value proposition gets the customer, if not this purchase cycle, the next or the one after that.
Apple's aim would be to dominate and control more than to kill all competition. But do you really think Apple, or anyone, would define a smaller iPad as a 'medium reader'? If that is the accepted category Apple will certainly do well.
Out of interest - are there any viable iPod alternatives out there? Meaning music devices? At some point there were but I really don't see anything now.
Comments
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.
No, they won't - not at first anyway.
The iPad mini will basically have the same specs as the new iPod touch, except of course for a larger display (almost same pixel count though), battery and faster CPU. The material costs won't be much higher so pricing will be...
16GB @ $299
32GB @ $349
64GB @ $449
As a long shot, they may drop the price of the current iPad (3rd Gen) by $50. (At the very least they will drop the 2nd Gen and update the current to the new Lightning connector.)
Originally Posted by paxman
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.
And since the iPod touch is widely used for that (to great success), I don't see how a larger, unpocketable device would be better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AdonisSMU
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. Or they could just call it the iPad and everyone will refer to it as the 7" iPad.
I would be very surprised if there is no cellular option. Doesn't make sense to omit.
Do you really think people will ever refer to it as the 7" iPad if it is called 'iPad'? Rather than iPad Mini, I mean? Which rolls off the tounge easiest?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
And since the iPod touch is widely used for that (to great success), I don't see how a larger, unpocketable device would be better.
As a POS unit I'd agree, but there are many other situations. In situations where you don't need to stick the think in you back pocket larger is generally better. I think it will replace clip-boards better than iPods and ditto iPads.
Originally Posted by paxman
Do you really think people will ever refer to it as the 7" iPad if it is called 'iPad'? Rather than iPad Mini, I mean? Which rolls off the tounge easiest?
All I know is that if anyone ever calls it the "iMini", I will find them and they will pay.
It's easy to see a usage case for cellular on a small tablet but then there is the cost. Right now Apple charges $130 for cellular. Even Amazon charges $130 for their cellular on the upcoming Kindle Fire HD. Now Amazon does include 3GB of data spread over 1 year but how much does that deal really cost Amazon with the carriers? 3GB upfront per device with a 250MB limit per month with the customer potentially buying more if needed? Maybe $20 per device? Even if we say $30 we're still looking at a $100 premium for cellular. Will that fl with a device many think will start at $249?
Already exists....
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Already exists....
*phew!*
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
All I know is that if anyone ever calls it the "iMini", I will find them and they will pay.
I'll join you! :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
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.
2 words x 2 drivers
"Pricing Umbrella"
"Market Desires"
Apple has to be perceived that the price to buy an Apple device is not a premium for the functions you want. If you want to read books, Apple has to drive the value of the iPad to a point where you can compete with a Kindle. and if that value equation is 'bigger isn't important' but price and portability and 'one handedness' is, then Apple needs to have a price point there.
Apple builds what the markets want.... sometimes the market doesn't know what they want (original iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBookProRD), sometimes they do: (iPhone 5, MacBook Air). This is the latter. With all the 4.5", 5", 5.5" 'phones' out there, and then the Kindles, Nexus 7s, etc. The market has been defined into 'pocket mobile' 'medium reader', and 'laptop alternative' Apple has no product in the middle of it's ecosystem. At first it was likely due to the pricing (couldn't build it to the price perception to the quality it thought needed to be there [battery size vs performance]).... 2 years later, Moore Law has solved that problem.
Apple plays the long game... it's not going for the kill so much as 'death by 1000 cuts.' You make a 250 entry point at say, $100 profit for you, and exceeds the 'value' prop of your competitors, all those who are building $199 devices or lower and are breaking even, will feel the pain. Drive them to a lower price point (often by driving quality down) to maintain the 'revenue stream' (ads, amazon sales), further weakening their long term competitiveness.
This is siege mentality. set it up so no one can suck your profits long term, and make it your value proposition gets the customer, if not this purchase cycle, the next or the one after that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It's easy to see a usage case for cellular on a small tablet but then there is the cost. Right now Apple charges $130 for cellular. Even Amazon charges $130 for their cellular on the upcoming Kindle Fire HD. Now Amazon does include 3GB of data spread over 1 year but how much does that deal really cost Amazon with the carriers? 3GB upfront per device with a 250MB limit per month with the customer potentially buying more if needed? Maybe $20 per device? Even if we say $30 we're still looking at a $100 premium for cellular. Will that fl with a device many think will start at $249?
They may delay the introduction of cellular but I suspect it will be like the iPad. I think a smaller iPad will have broader adoption than just kids playing games. I think it will be a genuinely useful size where the regular iPad is on the large side. How much do you think it adds to production cost? Don't you think that in terms of assembly it will be minimal and that non-cellular devices will have the empty space for the cellular chips? In which case it would make sense to make a smaller run to test the market.
No, if Apple wants to crush the competition, low balling the price to give a perception the product is cheap is not the way to go. Creating a product so awesome that folks want it even though its priced higher than everyone else, that is Apple's game. And they tend to play it rather well
I'm skeptical that they'd release any new products with a capacity as low as 8GB at this point. There are no existing 8GB iPads. There are no iPod Touch models available with 8GB anymore, and the only iPhone with a capacity that low is the iPhone 4, which is likely on its last legs. Even the iPod Nano is now available with 16GB as its only capacity. That considered, 16GB seems the minimum bar to entry for this new smaller iPad.
As far as pricing goes, I'd expect they'd be no less than a comparable iPod Touch since it's likely to share most of its specs with that device. I think we'll see pricing at least $50 more than a new iPod Touch with similar capacity (and likely more).
Mini iPad honestly rolls off the tongue for me but given Apple's history iPad Mini seems likely.
The enigma here is that one presumes Apple knows their product pipeline times intimately. Just a few weeks ago they rolled out the new iPod touch at $299. Steve very famously pointed out that Apple has become a mobile devices company, and all their actions in the last...maybe 10?...years indicates this is a truism. Perusal of their complete lineup of devices is realy astounding - no other company I know of has such a spectrum. All integrated, all "just work." But I'm thinking the iPad mini has at least all of the functions of the iPod touch ($299) with a larger screen. Fairly, iPod has the retina screen, and maybe the iPad mini will not. But will this be the first time we see a device (the iPod touch) that we pay a higher price...for smaller? Air v MBP is interesting, but there was not a huge disparity in size. iPod touch looks to be 1/2 the size of the iPad mini.
And of course, it is OK to actually own both. Or all. I find uses for each. I bought a iPad on launch day; likely I'll get a iPad mini on launch day too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stef
I think the iPad Mini is for kids and schools. The new Touch spex may point to the Mini spex and features. The Touch is now a lean and mean and sleek machine. So Apple has created space for the Touch when the Mini arrives. Best guess for the Mini: Lower screen resolution than the Touch, front side camera only, less memory, no siri, no passbook. But it will have a bigger screen and all those apps and will sell for $200-250 to schools. So the Mini for school; the Touch for home. Adults at work can afford a full blown iPad, as current sales demonstrate clearly. Also the Mini will be lighter, brighter, thinner, faster and much more useful than the Fire or Nook.
I agree. especially for the schools looking at iPads at the 1-5th grades. The lack of a camera/vid and siri is no loss, and memory isn't an issue. WiFi only (load them up with assignments at school.
The Mini to me is targeted to
- Kindle readers who want a 'bit more'
- Children hogging 'Mom's iPad 3
- pre-Teens
The Touch is the 'on the go' teen or young adult who can have 'feature phone' (phone plus text, maybe facebook), and a laptop back in the dorm/home.
As an Older adult, the touch hasn't been my or most of my observable peers' sweet spot. an iPod Shuffle/Nano at the gym, iPhone for 90% of my moble, an iPad for around the house consumption, and a Mac Mini/iMac for the desk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
2 words x 2 drivers
"Pricing Umbrella"
"Market Desires"
Apple has to be perceived that the price to buy an Apple device is not a premium for the functions you want. If you want to read books, Apple has to drive the value of the iPad to a point where you can compete with a Kindle. and if that value equation is 'bigger isn't important' but price and portability and 'one handedness' is, then Apple needs to have a price point there.
Apple builds what the markets want.... sometimes the market doesn't know what they want (original iMac, iPod, iPhone, iPad, MacBookProRD), sometimes they do: (iPhone 5, MacBook Air). This is the latter. With all the 4.5", 5", 5.5" 'phones' out there, and then the Kindles, Nexus 7s, etc. The market has been defined into 'pocket mobile' 'medium reader', and 'laptop alternative' Apple has no product in the middle of it's ecosystem. At first it was likely due to the pricing (couldn't build it to the price perception to the quality it thought needed to be there [battery size vs performance]).... 2 years later, Moore Law has solved that problem.
Apple plays the long game... it's not going for the kill so much as 'death by 1000 cuts.' You make a 250 entry point at say, $100 profit for you, and exceeds the 'value' prop of your competitors, all those who are building $199 devices or lower and are breaking even, will feel the pain. Drive them to a lower price point (often by driving quality down) to maintain the 'revenue stream' (ads, amazon sales), further weakening their long term competitiveness.
This is siege mentality. set it up so no one can suck your profits long term, and make it your value proposition gets the customer, if not this purchase cycle, the next or the one after that.
Apple's aim would be to dominate and control more than to kill all competition. But do you really think Apple, or anyone, would define a smaller iPad as a 'medium reader'? If that is the accepted category Apple will certainly do well.
Out of interest - are there any viable iPod alternatives out there? Meaning music devices? At some point there were but I really don't see anything now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigmike
If Apple wants to crush the competition...
put an Apple on it, the fan boys will come a runnin...