Elian Gonzalez wrote: »
I was a little put off by the price until I realized that I was succumbing to Techie Boi Syndrome, a condition marked by a stringent belief that all tech products are made for me alone and should conform to that, otherwise be subjected to bib-dribbling and endless clichés such as "EPIC FAIL" and company X being "FTW."
While $330 is nothing to sneeze at, there might just be a large swath of consumers who want an iPad but not the 10-inch version, seeing the mini as the product they want. This is something incomprehensible to techie boyz, who are more concerned with sepcs and a weird compulsion to have *both* products, or at least give the impression that they do (i.e., one for every room in the house because that's how they spend their money. Other people aren't like that and will never be.)
Price, build quality, software etc.
This isn't the first product where Apple brought up the notion of a cheap price coming from a cheap build. Or name dropped even by hint, a competitor. Hell they did it when the iPad first came out to show that apps for it where made for it and not just blown up iphone apps "like this other company and their 7 inch tablet"
Apple is in many eyes a luxury brand and so folks expect to pay a bit more and they do. And Apple plays to this notion, they encourage it. They know that 99.9% of folks will go for the luxury version even if it means a couple more months payment on the credit card or saving up a bit more cash. Hell look at Asia where basically all American brands are seen as the desired item because they are American and more 'luxurious'. Folks will pay resellers as much as 3 times the actual price to get something from a store in another country. Or if they really can't afford it they will pay for a knockoff so folks think they have the real thing.
gazoobee wrote: »
It is in fact, very very close to the exact specs as an iPad 2. It has better wireless and cameras and that's about it.
How are you feeling about that now...
You're presuming consumers see 'cheaper' and always go for that, when if history is any indicator the opposite is true. Apple makes premium products and this fits perfectly in line with that.
Some folks want to spend less money and will go for what does the job at less cost. Even if that item has a tendency to break faster and have to be repurchased, because they are focusing on the 'now'.
Some folks see the 'cheaper' in the quality and want to pay less in the long run. They see things like the time lost when they have to mail it in and wait for a replacement or since it's beyond a year just go buy something else and spend time and gas money etc.
Some folks want to spend less and get a higher quality item and will 'epic fail' when the luxury brand like Apple isn't giving them a cheap price.
This is the world we live and buy in. It's a wacky one.
This is the size I wanted all along years ago when Jobs first showed us the original iPhone, It will easily slip in a jacket pocket and is big enough for the handwriting and photo apps which I use to produce content. I'll keep my iPad2 docked for home use now and get one of these for Christmas! It has Siri too, just great! No more need to ever by a desktop or laptop ever again really.
Just like the iPad dropped in price after… three… years. Wait…
But see that's what's a little concerning for investors, Apple doesn't make as much money on the mini as it does the full size. ...
Really? Exactly how much money does Apple make on the mini? It doesn't exactly lend credibility to you or your posts when you start out by inventing "facts" that you aren't in a position to know. There's really no point in reading anything else you have to say.
Please cite an example of Apple products other than the original iPhone where something like that has happened. Since the release of the iPad Mini is in no way analogous to the release of the original iPhone, there's no basis for your statement. If history tells us anything, it's that you are spouting nonsense. Well, you aren't the only one in this thread.
But see that's what's a little concerning for investors, Apple doesn't make as much money on the mini as it does the full size.
Apple has never shared the full costs of making anything so no one can really say that that they make less money on this or that. Because they don't know the breakdown. Sure they know the assumed part cost but that could be wrong, plus it doesn't include license fees, labor costs etc. It's possible that the gain to Apple in terms of profit margin is the same
And the investors forget about things like loss leader products. Sometimes it's worth making a little less on a product to get it in more hands and get it to promote other things. How might this work with the iPad Mini? Well the Mini is great for younger kids, say K-6. So the schools that would want to move to iPads like their 'older siblings' but didn't want the kids carrying around this big iPad that is a bit too much for the kids hands now have a device that is a better fit. Maybe not perfect for all but better. So they are more likely to buy in. Then that means using iBooks, learning apps etc so Apple gets a bit of cash from those and can show the rising trend in usage which pushes the creators to make more and improve what they have. Which in turn can make the schools want to use the iPads even more. Kids using the iPads at school gets them in front of the kids and in front of their parents who might be more inclined to buy an iPad for themselves. If they think they will be 'just readers' they might go for a Mini or might go full size. This gets them more use which could make them think 'hey this could be useful at work', some Googling confirms and suddenly they're changing all the sales reps or whatever to iPads. Then that gets them into the ecosystem for business sales which will push them to go all Mac by replacing their computers (they even have a training etc program just for businesses). So then they are using those Mac computers at work and when the family computer breaks down what are they more inclined to get? A Mac.
Apple doesn't "react" to competition. Despite what tech blogs like us to think, the 10" iPad is by far the most popular size/tablet out there. What Apple doesn't want is to leave a hole in its product portfolio. If you are thinking of spending $300 on a 7" tablet, for $30 more you can get a 8" tablet and have access to 250,000 iPad specific apps in addition to the "regular" iOS apps.
True. If Apple was reacting to the competition then they would have had a slapped out 7-8 inch tablet ages ago. Apple enters markets to show the other boys how to do it right. That a cheaper price doesn't have to mean a cheaper product. And to fill a need. When they first did this Education thing I would imagine they were thinking college and high school, maybe middle school, would pick it up. The idea that K-6 would jump so hard so fast as they have at some schools was not at the forefront. But they are and those kids carrying around that full size iPad is just a bit much. Tim and friends see this, and they react to it. They dust off those prototypes and ask themselves not 'what would Steve do' but 'how can we serve this new and growing market with something that works better for them', without 'going cheap'.
And as you say, out of all the tablets the full size iPad is top of the charts for sales and use (if the surveys are all to be believed). Fitting this new niche helps to lock in that 'win'.
It is in fact, very very close to the exact specs as an iPad 2. It has better wireless and cameras and that's about it.
Also, those particular items are dropped in mostly because the prices on them have come down in the interim so that they are price identical now with the stuff in the iPad 2 they replace. So yeah, it is kind of like an iPad 2 but with a few easy improvements that don't cost them anything.
If you look at it that way, the only real difference is size, and since everything is roughly half size, it should probably be $150-$200 by that calculation.
So if smaller always means cheaper, how come there are no four inch Android media players at around $75 to $100 mark? I mean now when there are Seven inch tablets at $200. They should make a killing at that price level since the new iPod Touch is THREE times more expensive?
I like how people now completely expects everyone to release hardware at (or below) cost. What do you think this will do to the rest of the Android tablet market? It will completely collapse since none of the other OEM's have a profitable ad-business or content-business to subsidise their hardware with. Now when Google and Amazon has gone down this road and they don't get the traction they expect I'm betting they will actually start giving their hardware away. Now there is a businessmodel you can bank on! I'm sure the shareholder will be extatic...
What's the point of setting a lower price if you can't produce enough widgets to satisfy demand at that price? It's either that or Apple is run by incredible morons who like leaving money on the table.
Who says they can't. And if they can't why can't they. Is it because of quality forcing them to junk half the units. Or is it because Apple doesn't risk thefts etc by stockpiling six months of products before a launch (which could also result in junked units when they are wrong about which models will have what demand) and therefore we are limited by the reasonable output of the assembly factories. I suppose we could chain them to the lines and make them work 24/7 without breaks we can get a few hundred more units a day but that seems a bit much for a non life essential item like a mobile device. Double when it has been proven that folks will wait. They don't see 3-4 weeks for delivery and run off to get an Android phone or a Kindle Fire tablet.
I think they needed to price it at $299. If they were to sell 10 Million of these, they're down $300 Million but they knock the competition out of the water and lock 10 million consumers into the ecosystem. These 10 million are nearly guaranteed to buy the next iteration. Short term loss for a lock of the market. They should have done it.
More like they keep it at $329 and sell not 10 million but 50 million and still have a lock
If this were some plastic framed nonsense sure the price is too high. But this is Apple and Apple's lovely luxury designs and better specs than what was rumored on many fronts (folks were expecting as high as $349 for an 8GB). All Jony has to do is say al-u-min-ee-um and folks will come running.
Agreed this should have been $299 if Apple really wanted to deliver a knockout punch to imitation Android market.
If the only factor were price perhaps. But it's not.
And there could be a reason for that extra $30 that isn't just profit in their pockets. Remember when folks were complaining about how it cost $130 more for the 3g iPads. Someone posted up an article on one of the blogs about how the chipset etc only cost $30. But they forgot license fees that might be in there, which might have taken the whole $100.
Folks assume that this thing is costing Apple pennies to make but it likely isn't. In fact there's been at least one rumor article that the parts alone (no licensing cost, no labor costs) are $200 a unit. So that's $99 left for everything else including profit if you go for the 'cheaper' price. That could end up being not enough to cover everything (if you factor in shipping, labor costs at the stores etc as well). That 'extra' $30 could be all the profit they are making on these, if even that much
It's as if they are arguing that the average consumer will go, "Well, it's really expensive, but it's made out of aluminium and glass and it's won some design award so I will buy it." In fact, the consumer is more likely saying something like, "Well, it's expensive, but it's Apple and my kid wants an Apple, not an Android."
The idea that average consumers put design, (and all the other high ideals of Apple) at the centre of their buying decision is mostly false IMO. People appreciate build quality, but price is central to most people's buying decisions. It's false to assert otherwise, and it's a facile dismissal of a realistic concern on the part of consumers.
The average consumer might be fine with a Kia cause it gets them from point A to point B but there are some consumers that demand a Lexus.
And sorry but you are a bit wrong about the notion that design means nothing to the average consumer. It means as much as price. They might not break it down into parts but the design factors into their notion of value for the cost and if they believe something is high value for what they are paying then a higher price means less.
I was surprised Apple showed the Android tablet. But than I thought about it. The show is for the media, not consumers. The media was already comparing the Mini to the $199 Nexus even before the Mini was released. Apple knew the market would judge it based on how close it came to that price. Apple essentially needed to show what the extra $140 was buying you. In terms of hardware, that amounts to a metal enclosure, an extra 8 GB of RAM, and 2 cameras (one a 5 MB one). Then Apple pointed out the ecosystem differences. The show was meant for journalists who were already going to compare the Nexus to the Mini. Apple pointed out issues to consider for the journalists while writing the reviews.
And Apple would have dropped the price if there were any competition at all. I did on the iPhone and iPods and Air ...