Google is about to start a war of ecosystems with the tablet priced at $99.
There is a huge untapped market of those who do not belong to any of the camp yet (teens, college students, older folks, etc)
Do you realize that once someone joins whatever ecosystem most likely will get locked and stay for very long time?
IMO apple must provide a very low priced entry (perhaps with nearly zero margin) for these people, so once they are locked they will be willing to upgrade to more premium products.
To stay relevant in this war Apple should not repeat mistakes of the pc vs Mac era.
So, following your logic, Google has already lost the war of ecosystems before they even start it.
I'm not sure what you mean at all. Incremental to a per-GB charge so that, for instance, 16GB more to 32GB would be $50 more and 32GB more to 64GB would be $100 more? At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy.
Personally I'm expecting multiple NAND chips at a smaller lithography with an SSD controller so they can offer more capacity without a huge per chip cost (3x32GB NAND chips = 96GB) which will also allow much faster read/write times that could make a Lightening-to-Thunderbolt connector an accessory worth buying.
I'd like to see some real information on pricing for memory-doubling increments. There is a lot of complaining about the $100-per-increment price, because the cost of the chips are one-fifth that much or whatever.
I'm thinking that Apple's pricing at that figure is based on the extra production and inventory costs associated with carrying an extra model. Each memory increase must mean there is a separate production line, or several lines, devoted to that model alone. Maybe it has to be duplicated for each color, and of course for each connectivity option. There are also separate lines for the main board before final assembly happens, as well as separate inventory paths for each model, including colors, after assembly.
So it's a bit more than just the cost of the chips that have to be factored in when computing a price. I'm not saying that they're not making something over their extra costs on each model, however.
So, following your logic, Google has already lost the war of ecosystems before they even start it.
That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...
Let's face it - If Apple can come in with its higher priced (likely) "small" tablet and sell many more times that Samsung or Google has done, they have this war won, whether you want to call it a war of tablets, ecosystems or post-PC computing.
I'd like to see some real information on pricing for memory-doubling increments. There is a lot of complaining about the $100-per-increment price, because the cost of the chips are one-fifth that much or whatever.
I'm thinking that Apple's pricing at that figure is based on the extra production and inventory costs associated with carrying an extra model. Each memory increase must mean there is a separate production line, or several lines, devoted to that model alone. Maybe it has to be duplicated for each color, and of course for each connectivity option. There are also separate lines for the main board before final assembly happens, as well as separate inventory paths for each model, including colors, after assembly.
So it's a bit more than just the cost of the chips that have to be factored in when computing a price. I'm not saying that they're not making something over their extra costs on each model, however.
There is also potential cost for getting a doubling of NAND that still has the same power, performance, and reasonable longevity envelope of less dense NAND. This is one the major reasons NAND has been at such a standstill despite all these "advances' in the tech.
On top of that, Apple needs to consider the entire product line when setting price points. It's common to have the the cheapest model not get as much profit per device or even percentage-wise in order to get a lower starting price-point and to make up the difference on the high end. We've certainly seen this with PC makers except consumers stopped buying any of their profitable PCs in favour of their razor thin profit PCs stacked with crapware.
And no, neither smartphones nor cars are in the state of the price war. The tablets are about to be.
Android tablets can enjoy pricing themselves into oblivion. Apple will enjoy giving the customers walking out of the maelstrom the glass of ice water that is their products.
$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.
It would be great if Apple moved to a $50 for NAND doubling model but we yet to see that and I don't think they'd start that now. I also doubt we'll see the iPad (3) price drop by $100 mid-cycle, especially when they own that market. I'm also weary of 64GB coming. That said, I hope all these things do happen.
I think there is a case to be made for no cameras if these are geared for the Enterprise and Education but I think there is a strong case to be made for their inclusion. It's not difficult to disable them and inexpensive to add them so I'm going to say they will be included.
PS: This might be the first iPad where MicroSD could make sense.
Mid cycle price drop not likely. Hmm, you make a good point; on second thought, maybe they won't do that. Especially after the iPhone is getting more expensive (Italy? € 949 for the 64GB)
The camera: I think if Apple creaties something ready unique it might be the thinnest tablet ever; hence my note on the absence of a camera. Yes, it might be cheap to add. Heck, the iPhone has a FM tuner build right in, yet the software that enables it in the latest iPods is disabled in iPhones. There is a reason for that. Differentiation from other products.
Do you think Apple will enable the FM radio in the next iPhone/iOS release? I don't, because of the differentiation. And a SD slot will confuse people, in my opinion. Apple is all for simplicity, and having data or apps available only when the specific SD Card is inserted makes matters 'Windowized'. Or 'Microsotafized'.
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.
No, 8GB is actually quite a lot of space as long as you are using the device for work/class related activities that would otherwise be done on a laptop or a desktop computer.
Documents (PDF's, Pages, Word Files, Excel, Numbers etc.) don't take up much space at all, nor does a properly formatted book. What takes up space is torrented movies, music, pictures and games. All of that is stuff you aren't really supposed to be worrying about in school or at work. Even if the class project is to do an iMovie, 8GB is fine when you consider that at the end of each class, the device is wiped and returned to a pristine state for the next class. There are lots of classes that use the iPad already and they go for the low-end 16GB one. The (presumed) $250 iPad mini would reduce the cost from roughly $400 a seat to roughly $200 a seat (there are discounts involved), and that will probably count for more than the slightly lower storage.
I am not so sure about the viability of 8 GB!
The only 8 GB device I have is an iPhone 1. The Settings--->General--->About--->Capacity shows 7.1 GB... or .9 GB for iOS 3.1.3.
For 64 GB iPads I show:
58.1 GB Capacity... or 5.9 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 1
58.1 GB Capacity... or 5.9 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 2
57.2 GB Capacity... or 6.8 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 3
I suspect that iOS 6 takes more flash storage than iOS 3 -- because of the additional capabilities added in 3 iOS upgrades.
I do not know if iOS 6 has different [lesser] flash storage requirements for 16 GB or 32 GB models -- others will need to check that.
Anyway, if iOS on an iPad mini is the same as on an iPad 2 (5.9 GB) -- that would only leave 2.1 GB available for the user.
There is another avenue that could help, though... As I understand it, the latest XCode is able to modularize an HD app (written to support all different iDevices), This would mean that the HD app content (icons, images, retina constructs, buffers, etc.) would contain a copy of each of these modules -- one specific to: non-retina iPhone; another to a retina iPhone... When deployed on a specific device, the app would configure itself, as part of the installation process, to install only those modules required for that specific device type.
IOW, a 785 MB HD app would take up, say, 300 MB on a non-retina iPhone -- and, say, 450 MB on a retina iPad.
Magazine apps would/should be reimplemented to eliminate redundant (one for portrait, another for landscape) content -- and make the content dynamic (vector based, instead of bit-mapped pictures of a magazine pages). Thank Adobe for that implementation.
Okay, I misspoke… I was trying to differentiate between RAM and flash storage.
But, you knew what I meant!
What about the concept of adjusting the price of incremental flash storage to the size of that storage.
I'm not sure what you mean at all. Incremental to a per-GB charge so that, for instance, 16GB more to 32GB would be $50 more and 32GB more to 64GB would be $100 more? At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy.
Personally I'm expecting multiple NAND chips at a smaller lithography with an SSD controller so they can offer more capacity without a huge per chip cost (3x32GB NAND chips = 96GB) which will also allow much faster read/write times that could make a Lightening-to-Thunderbolt connector an accessory worth buying.
"At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy."
That was the precise point I was trying to make and illustrate... before getting sidetracked on the difference between SSD and flash storage... WTF?
That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...
Yes, but following your logic, Google's not going to be able to get people to switch ecosystems because they are already invested in another. So, it doesn't matter if they are just about to enter the war (assuming your statements as correct), they've already lost according to your arguments.
<em style="color:rgb(0,0,255);background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">"</em>
<em style="color:rgb(0,0,255);background-color:rgb(241,241,241);">At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy."</em>
That was the precise point I was trying to make and illustrate... before getting sidetracked on the difference between SSD and flash storage... WTF?
I thought your point was that added SSDs instead of straight-up NAND would in itself reduce the cost. In my defense I did say I wasn't sure I understood your point.
Unlike most. I don't think the rumored iPad mini has anything at all to do with competition.
It is pretty much impossible to goad Apple into a price war. Apple just doesn't play that stupid game of mutually assured destruction.
Look at laptops as an example. Apple is now the number one HW vendor in the USA for laptops. This is with no model less than $999. If you think Apple must respond to low priced competitors, how can they win the notebook market when they start at $1000 and the competition at $300?
IMO the Mini is a reasonable expansion of the line-up after the volumes showed this is a sustainable trend, also it is a replacement for the temporary carryover of the iPad 2.
So Apple doesn't need to meet anyones price point, but their own internal targets.
I seriously doubt those targets include a near profitless $250 starting point.
If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs. 8GB is laughably useless amount of storage (free?) for a multipurpose device like this.
My expectation is that Apple will instead deliver a solid, usable device at a higher price, more likely closer to $350.
If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs.
So, following your logic, Google has already lost the war of ecosystems before they even start it.
That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...
You keep going on and on and on... about this sub $100 Google tablet...
Do you have any realistic citations to support thIs... anyone can say (announce) anything for the future... it's the "doing it" and the "when" that're tough.
For the last several years there has been speculation of a sub $100 tablet... from a $75 state-sponsered tablet in India, from pixel QI, from Marvell...
These ephemeral tablets get announced with great fanfare -- then quickly fade from view.
If anyone could make a sub $100 tablet, they would get massive support from the UN and OTPC (formerly OLTPC)... but it just doesn't happen!
I suspect that, at some point, the technology will support a sub $100 tablet... But the technology will need to be manufactured in quantity and sold as [part of] a solution for a profit.
When? How? Who?
Like you, I don't know the answers... But, Apple is better positioned than anyone to offer a sustainable sub $100 tablet solution at a profit.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
Your sarcasm is stupid.
Google is about to start a war of ecosystems with the tablet priced at $99.
There is a huge untapped market of those who do not belong to any of the camp yet (teens, college students, older folks, etc)
Do you realize that once someone joins whatever ecosystem most likely will get locked and stay for very long time?
IMO apple must provide a very low priced entry (perhaps with nearly zero margin) for these people, so once they are locked they will be willing to upgrade to more premium products.
To stay relevant in this war Apple should not repeat mistakes of the pc vs Mac era.
So, following your logic, Google has already lost the war of ecosystems before they even start it.
I'd like to see some real information on pricing for memory-doubling increments. There is a lot of complaining about the $100-per-increment price, because the cost of the chips are one-fifth that much or whatever.
I'm thinking that Apple's pricing at that figure is based on the extra production and inventory costs associated with carrying an extra model. Each memory increase must mean there is a separate production line, or several lines, devoted to that model alone. Maybe it has to be duplicated for each color, and of course for each connectivity option. There are also separate lines for the main board before final assembly happens, as well as separate inventory paths for each model, including colors, after assembly.
So it's a bit more than just the cost of the chips that have to be factored in when computing a price. I'm not saying that they're not making something over their extra costs on each model, however.
That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
The rendering looks weird. From what POV would the unit with its back facing the camera be noticeably shorter than the front-facing unit?
From right inside of Ames' room!
Let's face it - If Apple can come in with its higher priced (likely) "small" tablet and sell many more times that Samsung or Google has done, they have this war won, whether you want to call it a war of tablets, ecosystems or post-PC computing.
There is also potential cost for getting a doubling of NAND that still has the same power, performance, and reasonable longevity envelope of less dense NAND. This is one the major reasons NAND has been at such a standstill despite all these "advances' in the tech.
On top of that, Apple needs to consider the entire product line when setting price points. It's common to have the the cheapest model not get as much profit per device or even percentage-wise in order to get a lower starting price-point and to make up the difference on the high end. We've certainly seen this with PC makers except consumers stopped buying any of their profitable PCs in favour of their razor thin profit PCs stacked with crapware.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
So the PC war has not started yet.
The smartphone war has not quite started yet.
The auto industry war has not started yet.
Should I go on?
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ....
Have you heard a term "Price war", smart?
And no, neither smartphones nor cars are in the state of the price war.
The tablets are about to be.
Originally Posted by jason98
And no, neither smartphones nor cars are in the state of the price war. The tablets are about to be.
Android tablets can enjoy pricing themselves into oblivion. Apple will enjoy giving the customers walking out of the maelstrom the glass of ice water that is their products.
Mid cycle price drop not likely. Hmm, you make a good point; on second thought, maybe they won't do that. Especially after the iPhone is getting more expensive (Italy? € 949 for the 64GB)
The camera: I think if Apple creaties something ready unique it might be the thinnest tablet ever; hence my note on the absence of a camera. Yes, it might be cheap to add. Heck, the iPhone has a FM tuner build right in, yet the software that enables it in the latest iPods is disabled in iPhones. There is a reason for that. Differentiation from other products.
Do you think Apple will enable the FM radio in the next iPhone/iOS release? I don't, because of the differentiation. And a SD slot will confuse people, in my opinion. Apple is all for simplicity, and having data or apps available only when the specific SD Card is inserted makes matters 'Windowized'. Or 'Microsotafized'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
Have you heard a term "Price war", smart?
By your logic the iMac should be around $600 or it would have disappeared long ago.
Yup... sure... what ever you say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Quote:
Originally Posted by paxman
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.
No, 8GB is actually quite a lot of space as long as you are using the device for work/class related activities that would otherwise be done on a laptop or a desktop computer.
Documents (PDF's, Pages, Word Files, Excel, Numbers etc.) don't take up much space at all, nor does a properly formatted book. What takes up space is torrented movies, music, pictures and games. All of that is stuff you aren't really supposed to be worrying about in school or at work. Even if the class project is to do an iMovie, 8GB is fine when you consider that at the end of each class, the device is wiped and returned to a pristine state for the next class. There are lots of classes that use the iPad already and they go for the low-end 16GB one. The (presumed) $250 iPad mini would reduce the cost from roughly $400 a seat to roughly $200 a seat (there are discounts involved), and that will probably count for more than the slightly lower storage.
I am not so sure about the viability of 8 GB!
The only 8 GB device I have is an iPhone 1. The Settings--->General--->About--->Capacity shows 7.1 GB... or .9 GB for iOS 3.1.3.
For 64 GB iPads I show:
58.1 GB Capacity... or 5.9 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 1
58.1 GB Capacity... or 5.9 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 2
57.2 GB Capacity... or 6.8 GB for iOS 5.1.1... iPad 3
I suspect that iOS 6 takes more flash storage than iOS 3 -- because of the additional capabilities added in 3 iOS upgrades.
I do not know if iOS 6 has different [lesser] flash storage requirements for 16 GB or 32 GB models -- others will need to check that.
Anyway, if iOS on an iPad mini is the same as on an iPad 2 (5.9 GB) -- that would only leave 2.1 GB available for the user.
There is another avenue that could help, though... As I understand it, the latest XCode is able to modularize an HD app (written to support all different iDevices), This would mean that the HD app content (icons, images, retina constructs, buffers, etc.) would contain a copy of each of these modules -- one specific to: non-retina iPhone; another to a retina iPhone... When deployed on a specific device, the app would configure itself, as part of the installation process, to install only those modules required for that specific device type.
IOW, a 785 MB HD app would take up, say, 300 MB on a non-retina iPhone -- and, say, 450 MB on a retina iPad.
Magazine apps would/should be reimplemented to eliminate redundant (one for portrait, another for landscape) content -- and make the content dynamic (vector based, instead of bit-mapped pictures of a magazine pages). Thank Adobe for that implementation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
Okay, I misspoke… I was trying to differentiate between RAM and flash storage.
But, you knew what I meant!
What about the concept of adjusting the price of incremental flash storage to the size of that storage.
I'm not sure what you mean at all. Incremental to a per-GB charge so that, for instance, 16GB more to 32GB would be $50 more and 32GB more to 64GB would be $100 more? At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy.
Personally I'm expecting multiple NAND chips at a smaller lithography with an SSD controller so they can offer more capacity without a huge per chip cost (3x32GB NAND chips = 96GB) which will also allow much faster read/write times that could make a Lightening-to-Thunderbolt connector an accessory worth buying.
"At some point they can't use the same price stepping because NAND will fall in price and the doubling increase will eventually become unwieldy."
That was the precise point I was trying to make and illustrate... before getting sidetracked on the difference between SSD and flash storage... WTF?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...
Yes, but following your logic, Google's not going to be able to get people to switch ecosystems because they are already invested in another. So, it doesn't matter if they are just about to enter the war (assuming your statements as correct), they've already lost according to your arguments.
I thought your point was that added SSDs instead of straight-up NAND would in itself reduce the cost. In my defense I did say I wasn't sure I understood your point.
Unlike most. I don't think the rumored iPad mini has anything at all to do with competition.
It is pretty much impossible to goad Apple into a price war. Apple just doesn't play that stupid game of mutually assured destruction.
Look at laptops as an example. Apple is now the number one HW vendor in the USA for laptops. This is with no model less than $999. If you think Apple must respond to low priced competitors, how can they win the notebook market when they start at $1000 and the competition at $300?
IMO the Mini is a reasonable expansion of the line-up after the volumes showed this is a sustainable trend, also it is a replacement for the temporary carryover of the iPad 2.
So Apple doesn't need to meet anyones price point, but their own internal targets.
I seriously doubt those targets include a near profitless $250 starting point.
If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs. 8GB is laughably useless amount of storage (free?) for a multipurpose device like this.
My expectation is that Apple will instead deliver a solid, usable device at a higher price, more likely closer to $350.
Originally Posted by Snowdog65
If Apple does as some rumors suggest and cut starting flash storage to just 8GB to meet a low price point, then IMO Apple has indeed lost it's way without Jobs.
That's where you draw the line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jason98
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
So, following your logic, Google has already lost the war of ecosystems before they even start it.
That was not a war yet. A war is when you see sub $100 tablets in stores.
At this price it is comparable to a single visit to a grocery store and within a gifting budget.
I believe $199 (100% premium over google) is achievable for the entry point model. 8gb with emphasis on iCloud storage, no back camera, low resolution FaceTime camera, A5...
You keep going on and on and on... about this sub $100 Google tablet...
Do you have any realistic citations to support thIs... anyone can say (announce) anything for the future... it's the "doing it" and the "when" that're tough.
For the last several years there has been speculation of a sub $100 tablet... from a $75 state-sponsered tablet in India, from pixel QI, from Marvell...
These ephemeral tablets get announced with great fanfare -- then quickly fade from view.
If anyone could make a sub $100 tablet, they would get massive support from the UN and OTPC (formerly OLTPC)... but it just doesn't happen!
I suspect that, at some point, the technology will support a sub $100 tablet... But the technology will need to be manufactured in quantity and sold as [part of] a solution for a profit.
When? How? Who?
Like you, I don't know the answers... But, Apple is better positioned than anyone to offer a sustainable sub $100 tablet solution at a profit.
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
You keep going on and on and on... about this sub $100 Google tablet...
Do you have any realistic citations to support thIs...
There was an article here about it. So no, nothing realistic, I guess. ????
If anyone could make a sub $100 tablet, they would get massive support from the UN and OTPC (formerly OLTPC)... but it just doesn't happen!
Maybe the UN needs to go to Big Lots more often. Big Lots has a ton of $79 Android tablets already.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
That's where you draw the line?
Releasing bad product, just to meet a lower price point is one place I would draw that line. Definitely.