That's a laughable assertion. Check back with us when the numbers come out in January, will ya?
Really?
A laughable assertion? So you have a crystal ball and know of a parallel universe where they priced the iPad mini at $299? Then you compared how many they sold with their profit margins at $299 vs what they sold in this universe at $329 and did the math to see which one was the better pricing strategy?
You can all argue whether Apple priced this to perfection or not vis-a-vis the competition. But Apple's strategy has always been to look inward. In that respect, the price of the iPad Mini makes perfect sense as it sits between the iPod Touch and iPad. Even though the $299 iPod Touch has 32 GB. I'd think it's natural for Apple to set escalating entry price points for iPod Touch, iPad Mini and iPad.
You can all argue whether Apple priced this to perfection or not vis-a-vis the competition. But Apple's strategy has always been to look inward. In that respect, the price of the iPad Mini makes perfect sense as it sits between the iPod Touch and iPad. Even though the $299 iPod Touch has 32 GB. I'd think it's natural for Apple to set escalating entry price points for iPod Touch, iPad Mini and iPad.
Mmm...looking inward I see that the 13" MBA and 13" MBP are the same. I don't there would have been any confusion or negative effect of making both the iPod touch $299 and the iPad Mini $299. Especially since Apple views the entry price point of the iPod Touch line to be $199.
If the Touch and iPad lines overlapped at the end of one and start of the other that also would make perfect sense.
Funny how they touted resolution over screen area for so long, then turned around just for their Nexus 7 comparison and touted the Minis screen area. They're having it both ways, and most people will take what they said in stride.
Well, let's be honest. Resolution is only a small part of the equation. Usable resolution is really what is important. I think that was what the Microsoft guy was trying to say about the Surface. It doesn't matter how high the resolution if the OS only allows a certain view on the screen. Look at the 1080 resolution screens they are putting out for Android phones. You can still only view so much on a < 5" screen. The Nokia Lumia 820/920. The screens may have different resolutions, but the same info is still shown on it. One may be "sharper" but it's the same screen info. I'm not bothered by the mini not having retina, I'm just happy it's small enough to fit one hand.
I predict this is going to be HUGE! From a first glance, it looks like nothing more than a smaller iPad with no new tecnologies, but the new technologies are contained within the design. From the display to its design to its manufacturing process. It's small size and light weight with the power of the iPad 2 but with updated features and lower price could - over time - make this product more popular than the iPad itself!
Like what was reported here, expect a fifth generation iPad early next year that will borrow iPad Mini's design innovations for a lighter, thinner new model. This, along with the A6X, will certainly help sales of the iPad keep pace, but there is an unforeseen consequence: consumers will demand a new iPad Mini model with an A6. Apple will be forced to meet that demand. Before long, the iPad Mini will outsell the iPad.
I'm also noticing some changes in the way Apple does business:
1. They've scrapped the one-year interval between generation models. This could be because of the up-coming competition expected with Microsoft Surface. This fourth generation iPad basically shows a rush to market by taking the then-current model and swapping out the processor and its FaceTime cameras, as well as adding the Lightning port, and - walla - it's a fourth gen iPad. No major design tweaks necessary.
2. I'm somewhat disturbed that the new iPod Touch does not have an ambient light sensor. We've been told that they had to get rid of it in order to make it as thin as it is. This is a design compromise. Does this mean that if they get a future iPhone (or iPad) to be as thin, they'll skimp the sensor for these as well? I certainly hope not and hope that the skimping of the sensor in the latest generation of the iPod Touch is an exception, not a trend.
3. In the past year, Apple's innovations with the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, and Apple TV have been design and CPU innovations. I have not seen any new "smart" technologies, like the gyroscope, accelerometer, e-compass, ambient light sensor, proximity sensor, noise cancellation microphone, etc. These technologies are what started a revolution. I hope Apple recognizes this and is continuing to investigate new smart technologies for future products!
I don't like the $329 price point. $279 or $249 would have been better. Its the exact same as the iPod Touch for $130 more (for 32gb)- larger, but non-retina screen is the only difference.
Edit: I still think it will sell like freakin' hotcakes.
It doesn't look like the price point hurt too much considering they sold out of launch day units in a matter of hours.
Black sales are slower than the white sales. I have to wonder if this is a realization that the anodized aluminum is very prone to scratching, which could hurt resale value. I assume the ease of scratching the slate is also why the aluminum hinge on the smart cover is now covered in material.
I ordered the 16GB version. I'd rather have more storage but I'm tired of paying $100 for 16GB more storage when you can buy a 16GB flash card for $10 online. 1000% mark up is hard to swallow. Personally, I think the pricing should be as follows: 16GB = $329 32GB = $379 64GB = $479. Of course, the larger margins on the higher capacity models most likely allow for a lower starting price.
Too bad Apple fucked this up, I was going to wait in line to buy one until I learned that it did not have a Retina display.
I would use it primarily for reading, so without a Retina display it's no better than my Nook Color for reading text (actually worse: iPad is 163 ppi, nook color is 169 ppi). Sure, it's better at everything else, but that's why I have a MacBook Pro! Sharp text is what I'm after, and it's plenty easy to load my rooted Nook Color with epub books and pdf files. 95% of the time I'm only using the touch screen to turn pages, so I don't even notice the nasty android OS.
Funny thing, I was ready to pay $400 for a Retina iPad Mini. It's not a matter of price but of package. I simply feel that for my needs, an 8" Retina iPad would be absolute perfection. Without a Retina display, the iPad mini has nothing to differentiate it from other tablets/readers as far as hardware goes, and in fact it's 163 ppi is inferior to many similar tablets.
If Steve Jobs were alive, this would NEVER have happened. He would thrown a 3 hour tantrum upon learning that it had a low-res display. It's a STUPID decision obviously made by some MBA jackass who made the design goal a price point instead of a well-balanced product. If Apple keeps this up, they will slowly decline into a maker of shiny baubles with no redeeming technical features.
Well, let's be honest. Resolution is only a small part of the equation.
Have you ever read text on a Retina display? It's amazing, even an iPhone works quite well as an ebook reader because of the exquisite sharpness of the text. Of course photos also benefit from the Retina display's high resolution.
Make no mistake, the Retina display is a great differentiating feature of the iPad. The iPad mini will sell well, and it's relatively low price will be the reason for many consumers, but without a Retina display it's just not an amazing product next to competing tablets. The mini cashes in on the iPad's reputation without buttressing that reputation. Worst of all, compared to similarly sized tablets costing less money, choosing an iPad mini requires a big sacrifice in display quality for the iOS experience. A Google Nexus features a 216 ppi resolution (closing in on Retina iPad's 264 ppi) for only $250. It's a superior choice for those who actually read books on their tablets.
Hey, if you like to read and want sharp text, why not get a Retina iPad? Good question. I plan to now that I know Apple fucked up the mini, but for many consumers the Retina iPad is just too big to use as a reader. Holding up the large iPad for reading gets tiresome for many people, and the mini was supposed to be for them. Understand Mr. Schiller? Size is the issue, not price! Even so, I suspect that for the same $329, Apple could have put a Retina display in the iPad mini and utterly dominated the small-tablet market, thereby reaping whirlwind profits.
Too bad Apple fucked this up, I was going to wait in line to buy one until I learned that it did not have a Retina display.
I would use it primarily for reading, so without a Retina display it's no better than my Nook Color for reading text (actually worse: iPad is 163 ppi, nook color is 169 ppi). Sure, it's better at everything else, but that's why I have a MacBook Pro! Sharp text is what I'm after, and it's plenty easy to load my rooted Nook Color with epub books and pdf files. 95% of the time I'm only using the touch screen to turn pages, so I don't even notice the nasty android OS.
Funny thing, I was ready to pay $400 for a Retina iPad Mini. It's not a matter of price but of package. I simply feel that for my needs, an 8" Retina iPad would be absolute perfection. Without a Retina display, the iPad mini has nothing to differentiate it from other tablets/readers as far as hardware goes, and in fact it's 163 ppi is inferior to many similar tablets.
If Steve Jobs were alive, this would NEVER have happened. He would thrown a 3 hour tantrum upon learning that it had a low-res display. It's a STUPID decision obviously made by some MBA jackass who made the design goal a price point instead of a well-balanced product. If Apple keeps this up, they will slowly decline into a maker of shiny baubles with no redeeming technical features.
More comments about what Steve would have never done.
Tell us how you can put a 2048x1536 display into that device and make cheaper than the 10" model, as light and as thin?
Even so, I suspect that for the same $329, Apple could have put a Retina display in the iPad mini and utterly dominated the small-tablet market, thereby reaping whirlwind profits.
Which is why they actually design and build great products and you don't. They know understand the issues.
A retinal screen would have increased cost. There is no debate here. As sure as the Retina looks better, it costs more. We can debate the actual premium, but there is no debate it would cost more to build.
Then you would need an A6 processor at minimum to drive it. Again this would cost more.
Then you need a more powerful battery to power the A6. Again this would cost more.
Then because of the bigger battery it would be heavier, and it would run hotter because of the A6.
Thicker, heavier, hotter, more expensive is not a winning formula. You might have been willing to pay $400 for that, but most wouldn't.
Retina is better, but a great number of people don't care. There was a report in the Summer that iPad 2 was 41% of iPad sales. This is with 132dpi screen that needs retina much more than Mini does, this with only 16GB models, this is with practically no advertising.
Thank the lord they put a 5MP camera in there. Pheww.... In 6 months with a refresh they will include a better interior, it just sucks Apple went BACKWARDS rather than forwards and all of you suckers who bought on early obviously have too much disposable income.
Before I receive jabs, I own a Macbook and Iphone 5, I love Apple just hate how they took a step back with this new product.
I love the new iMacs sheik design. Perhaps when my current computer dies I will transition to a new one. No reason to replace something that isn't broken right?
Yes. Your argument should be able to stand on its own without this nonsense. Your ownership (or lack thereof) of Apple products is meaningless. It doesn't protect you from rebuttal, it doesn't validate your position.
This is a tactic that many trolls use, as they believe the opposite of the above. By positioning themselves as owners of the company's products, they think they can whine about them as much as they wish, and they also do it to make third parties reading their posts believe that they're actual Apple users actually disgruntled by whatever.
What makes me nervous about buying the mini is what happened to those people that bought the iPad 3 in March, less than a year later and they've upgraded it. With so many people disappointed in the specs and price of this unit (wishing it had a better processor, retina display, and memory wasn't $100 more for 16gb), there will be a lot of very unhappy people who buy these now, for Christmas, if Apple updates the mini within the year with all or any of the features people wish it had now.
Since Apple already has similar products with these upgraded features it only stands to reason that Apple has plans to release an upgraded version sometime in the future given how much better the product could have been today. You have to ask yourself; "should I buy now or wait a while to get the features I really want?"
I sold my iPad 3 a couple of months ago because it was too big and was looking forward to the mini. I have bad eyes and can notice a huge difference between my iPhone 3g and iPhone 5 display (much less the iPad 3's display) so I understand why people are disappointed in the screen resolution. I've been using my sisters Kindle Fire HD as an e-reader until the mini came out but now I hesitate because of how basic it is. Hell, Apple could have made an iPad mini and an iPad mini HD and captured more market share. But, they'd have to price them accordingly.
My sister wants her Kindle fire back so I'm stuck with a decision to make. Any other time and I'd not hesitate but now that decision isn't as clear. I may just buy a Kindle and wait till Apple updates the mini like you know they will.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Really?
That's a laughable assertion. Check back with us when the numbers come out in January, will ya?
Really?
A laughable assertion? So you have a crystal ball and know of a parallel universe where they priced the iPad mini at $299? Then you compared how many they sold with their profit margins at $299 vs what they sold in this universe at $329 and did the math to see which one was the better pricing strategy?
Ya- you're right- how could anyone not know?
Sorry if I missed it in this (long) thread, but is the iPad Mini camera the exact same resolution as the one in the full size iPad?
Originally Posted by Frank777
Sorry if I missed it in this (long) thread, but is the iPad Mini camera the exact same resolution as the one in the full size iPad?
iPad mini page:
iPad page:
Actually, I'm not sure which image was which.
You can all argue whether Apple priced this to perfection or not vis-a-vis the competition. But Apple's strategy has always been to look inward. In that respect, the price of the iPad Mini makes perfect sense as it sits between the iPod Touch and iPad. Even though the $299 iPod Touch has 32 GB. I'd think it's natural for Apple to set escalating entry price points for iPod Touch, iPad Mini and iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
You can all argue whether Apple priced this to perfection or not vis-a-vis the competition. But Apple's strategy has always been to look inward. In that respect, the price of the iPad Mini makes perfect sense as it sits between the iPod Touch and iPad. Even though the $299 iPod Touch has 32 GB. I'd think it's natural for Apple to set escalating entry price points for iPod Touch, iPad Mini and iPad.
Mmm...looking inward I see that the 13" MBA and 13" MBP are the same. I don't there would have been any confusion or negative effect of making both the iPod touch $299 and the iPad Mini $299. Especially since Apple views the entry price point of the iPod Touch line to be $199.
If the Touch and iPad lines overlapped at the end of one and start of the other that also would make perfect sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bergermeister
And my bank account.
Only if you were silly enough to sell on the dip.
Well, let's be honest. Resolution is only a small part of the equation. Usable resolution is really what is important. I think that was what the Microsoft guy was trying to say about the Surface. It doesn't matter how high the resolution if the OS only allows a certain view on the screen. Look at the 1080 resolution screens they are putting out for Android phones. You can still only view so much on a < 5" screen. The Nokia Lumia 820/920. The screens may have different resolutions, but the same info is still shown on it. One may be "sharper" but it's the same screen info. I'm not bothered by the mini not having retina, I'm just happy it's small enough to fit one hand.
Like what was reported here, expect a fifth generation iPad early next year that will borrow iPad Mini's design innovations for a lighter, thinner new model. This, along with the A6X, will certainly help sales of the iPad keep pace, but there is an unforeseen consequence: consumers will demand a new iPad Mini model with an A6. Apple will be forced to meet that demand. Before long, the iPad Mini will outsell the iPad.
I'm also noticing some changes in the way Apple does business:
1. They've scrapped the one-year interval between generation models. This could be because of the up-coming competition expected with Microsoft Surface. This fourth generation iPad basically shows a rush to market by taking the then-current model and swapping out the processor and its FaceTime cameras, as well as adding the Lightning port, and - walla - it's a fourth gen iPad. No major design tweaks necessary.
2. I'm somewhat disturbed that the new iPod Touch does not have an ambient light sensor. We've been told that they had to get rid of it in order to make it as thin as it is. This is a design compromise. Does this mean that if they get a future iPhone (or iPad) to be as thin, they'll skimp the sensor for these as well? I certainly hope not and hope that the skimping of the sensor in the latest generation of the iPod Touch is an exception, not a trend.
3. In the past year, Apple's innovations with the iPad, iPhone, iPod Touch, iPod Nano, and Apple TV have been design and CPU innovations. I have not seen any new "smart" technologies, like the gyroscope, accelerometer, e-compass, ambient light sensor, proximity sensor, noise cancellation microphone, etc. These technologies are what started a revolution. I hope Apple recognizes this and is continuing to investigate new smart technologies for future products!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
I don't like the $329 price point. $279 or $249 would have been better. Its the exact same as the iPod Touch for $130 more (for 32gb)- larger, but non-retina screen is the only difference.
Edit: I still think it will sell like freakin' hotcakes.
No kidding! I was hoping for $29.95!
A few things:
It doesn't look like the price point hurt too much considering they sold out of launch day units in a matter of hours.
Black sales are slower than the white sales. I have to wonder if this is a realization that the anodized aluminum is very prone to scratching, which could hurt resale value. I assume the ease of scratching the slate is also why the aluminum hinge on the smart cover is now covered in material.
I ordered the 16GB version. I'd rather have more storage but I'm tired of paying $100 for 16GB more storage when you can buy a 16GB flash card for $10 online. 1000% mark up is hard to swallow. Personally, I think the pricing should be as follows: 16GB = $329 32GB = $379 64GB = $479. Of course, the larger margins on the higher capacity models most likely allow for a lower starting price.
Too bad Apple fucked this up, I was going to wait in line to buy one until I learned that it did not have a Retina display.
I would use it primarily for reading, so without a Retina display it's no better than my Nook Color for reading text (actually worse: iPad is 163 ppi, nook color is 169 ppi). Sure, it's better at everything else, but that's why I have a MacBook Pro! Sharp text is what I'm after, and it's plenty easy to load my rooted Nook Color with epub books and pdf files. 95% of the time I'm only using the touch screen to turn pages, so I don't even notice the nasty android OS.
Funny thing, I was ready to pay $400 for a Retina iPad Mini. It's not a matter of price but of package. I simply feel that for my needs, an 8" Retina iPad would be absolute perfection. Without a Retina display, the iPad mini has nothing to differentiate it from other tablets/readers as far as hardware goes, and in fact it's 163 ppi is inferior to many similar tablets.
If Steve Jobs were alive, this would NEVER have happened. He would thrown a 3 hour tantrum upon learning that it had a low-res display. It's a STUPID decision obviously made by some MBA jackass who made the design goal a price point instead of a well-balanced product. If Apple keeps this up, they will slowly decline into a maker of shiny baubles with no redeeming technical features.
Quote:
Originally Posted by protaginets
Well, let's be honest. Resolution is only a small part of the equation.
Have you ever read text on a Retina display? It's amazing, even an iPhone works quite well as an ebook reader because of the exquisite sharpness of the text. Of course photos also benefit from the Retina display's high resolution.
Make no mistake, the Retina display is a great differentiating feature of the iPad. The iPad mini will sell well, and it's relatively low price will be the reason for many consumers, but without a Retina display it's just not an amazing product next to competing tablets. The mini cashes in on the iPad's reputation without buttressing that reputation. Worst of all, compared to similarly sized tablets costing less money, choosing an iPad mini requires a big sacrifice in display quality for the iOS experience. A Google Nexus features a 216 ppi resolution (closing in on Retina iPad's 264 ppi) for only $250. It's a superior choice for those who actually read books on their tablets.
Hey, if you like to read and want sharp text, why not get a Retina iPad? Good question. I plan to now that I know Apple fucked up the mini, but for many consumers the Retina iPad is just too big to use as a reader. Holding up the large iPad for reading gets tiresome for many people, and the mini was supposed to be for them. Understand Mr. Schiller? Size is the issue, not price! Even so, I suspect that for the same $329, Apple could have put a Retina display in the iPad mini and utterly dominated the small-tablet market, thereby reaping whirlwind profits.
More comments about what Steve would have never done.
Tell us how you can put a 2048x1536 display into that device and make cheaper than the 10" model, as light and as thin?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg
Even so, I suspect that for the same $329, Apple could have put a Retina display in the iPad mini and utterly dominated the small-tablet market, thereby reaping whirlwind profits.
Which is why they actually design and build great products and you don't. They know understand the issues.
A retinal screen would have increased cost. There is no debate here. As sure as the Retina looks better, it costs more. We can debate the actual premium, but there is no debate it would cost more to build.
Then you would need an A6 processor at minimum to drive it. Again this would cost more.
Then you need a more powerful battery to power the A6. Again this would cost more.
Then because of the bigger battery it would be heavier, and it would run hotter because of the A6.
Thicker, heavier, hotter, more expensive is not a winning formula. You might have been willing to pay $400 for that, but most wouldn't.
Retina is better, but a great number of people don't care. There was a report in the Summer that iPad 2 was 41% of iPad sales. This is with 132dpi screen that needs retina much more than Mini does, this with only 16GB models, this is with practically no advertising.
Thank the lord they put a 5MP camera in there. Pheww.... In 6 months with a refresh they will include a better interior, it just sucks Apple went BACKWARDS rather than forwards and all of you suckers who bought on early obviously have too much disposable income.
Before I receive jabs, I own a Macbook and Iphone 5, I love Apple just hate how they took a step back with this new product.
I love the new iMacs sheik design. Perhaps when my current computer dies I will transition to a new one. No reason to replace something that isn't broken right?
Originally Posted by Last_Restraint
Before I receive jabs, I own a Macbook and iPhone 5, I love Apple…
NO. ONE. CARES.
Come on, really?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
NO. ONE. CARES.
Come on, really?
That's all you had to offer to my post?
Originally Posted by Last_Restraint
That's all you had to offer to my post?
Yes. Your argument should be able to stand on its own without this nonsense. Your ownership (or lack thereof) of Apple products is meaningless. It doesn't protect you from rebuttal, it doesn't validate your position.
This is a tactic that many trolls use, as they believe the opposite of the above. By positioning themselves as owners of the company's products, they think they can whine about them as much as they wish, and they also do it to make third parties reading their posts believe that they're actual Apple users actually disgruntled by whatever.
They're not.
What makes me nervous about buying the mini is what happened to those people that bought the iPad 3 in March, less than a year later and they've upgraded it. With so many people disappointed in the specs and price of this unit (wishing it had a better processor, retina display, and memory wasn't $100 more for 16gb), there will be a lot of very unhappy people who buy these now, for Christmas, if Apple updates the mini within the year with all or any of the features people wish it had now.
Since Apple already has similar products with these upgraded features it only stands to reason that Apple has plans to release an upgraded version sometime in the future given how much better the product could have been today. You have to ask yourself; "should I buy now or wait a while to get the features I really want?"
I sold my iPad 3 a couple of months ago because it was too big and was looking forward to the mini. I have bad eyes and can notice a huge difference between my iPhone 3g and iPhone 5 display (much less the iPad 3's display) so I understand why people are disappointed in the screen resolution. I've been using my sisters Kindle Fire HD as an e-reader until the mini came out but now I hesitate because of how basic it is. Hell, Apple could have made an iPad mini and an iPad mini HD and captured more market share. But, they'd have to price them accordingly.
My sister wants her Kindle fire back so I'm stuck with a decision to make. Any other time and I'd not hesitate but now that decision isn't as clear. I may just buy a Kindle and wait till Apple updates the mini like you know they will.