The funny thing is that if I were a BMW salesmen, and you came in whining about why you should pay $40K for a BMW when you can go down the road and buy a Mustang for $30K, I'd say "Have a nice trip".
If you went into the BMW dealer near me and whined about the price of a BMW, they would try to sell you a Mini (Cooper).
So it really is a lot like Apple.:)
All these years, I've been enjoying a fermented soda called Veuve Clicquot thinking it's good.... I must have no taste I guess, unlike you.
did not know I was posting in a location where within the context used "soda" would not refer to anything but a carbonated soft drink wich "Veuve Clicquot" is not.. I will need to be more precise in the future I suppose.
It's a fair price, but if the purpose was suck all the air out of the room for 7" tablets, they might have dumped them on the market at a break-even price point. Just as Windows did to Mac back in the day. But they may marginalize the others anyway, only time will tell.
Shhhh!!! Don't get the fandroid apologists here all riled-up with sane logic. You mean you actually saved up to afford a product instead of screaming around in a room having a hissy-fit saying the product should be priced lower so the company loses money but you get what you want??? Say it ain't so!!
Let's assume Apple is in the business to MAKE money. Oh wait, but the fandroid freetards here will then say "But Apple is ripping off consumers when I can buy an Android P.O.S. hardware for at-or-below cost!!" - Dang... they got me on that!! *rolls eyes*
It is interesting how people determine what a good price for a product should be. If you want a 7.9 inch tablet that provides access to the Apple ecosystem, then you have to pay $320. If it is not worth it to you, don't buy it. Those that like Apple will be out a little more cash than those who go with certain Android devices. It is all about the end value of the device. If you bought a Nexus 7 device for less, yet do not enjoy using it, did you really get value for your purchase? If you paid the extra cash to get an Apple device, and enjoy your purchase then it was worth the money. I can't really say you get what you pay for in this case, as personal preference comes into play as well, but basing a purchase on price alone is not always a good idea. Of course if you do not have the means, that is different, but if you were already prepared to spend a few hundred bucks in the first place other factors should be taken into account.
I don't know if Tim cook actually says the F word, Steve might, but Tim seems just a little too conservative for swearing in the work place. no offense Steve, I personally aren't offended by swear words as long as know it's in jest or at someone else, or it's actually warranted. Sometimes, ya gotta say "What the F"
it was Phil Schiller in the invented quotation, not Tim Cook.
And whiners can think it's arrogance on Apple's part but I think it's silliness and egoism on whiners': comparing a product that's supposed to sell for tenth of millions of consumers, to products with low demand.
In the long run, Google and Amazon still have a leg up on Apple due to the fact that they can almost give away their tablet and still make some money in the long run.
That will always be the case until Apple does something a little different.
They tried with the iAd thing to somewhat compete with Google with the Ad money. That did not work.
They really have no solution in place yet to compete with Amazon, YET.
With time, that will continue to wash away profits. (Pricewise, all hardware continues to come down). That, or eventually the Tablet products that GooMazon produce will get better and better. If nothing changes, Apple will eventually loose out profitwise. Simple economics.
But there is a solution.
Walmart , and a lot of other retailers know whats gonna happen with Amazon beating them with the online presence they now have, and that will only get stronger.
Google also can continue making money until something different happens.
Apple should talk with the Walmarts with this approach: Subsidize the iPad. Make arrangements with ceratin customers that are willing to come on board with an experimental arrangement. Make arrangements with Apple for a contract that will reduce the price a certain %. Apple will make a small % also. They will both have to work out a 'Special' opportunity for Free two day delivery (ala Amazon Prime).
I am sure they can make arrangements for all the fine details.
Basically it would be Walmart who would come out ahead. But at the same time Apple starts putting in place something that will start to come together (in time) to what those other guys are doing now to undercut the profits that are necesarry now and later.
My 1 cent worth
You assume that Google and Amazon will continue to progress while Apple will sit still and milk their current product until it is dead. Apple is the reason there is a legitimate tablet market to begin with. That in itself is innovation, while the others simply got on the band wagon. Hardware will get faster and cheaper, that is true, but Apple has a knack for being ahead of the game when it enters a market and continues to innovate from there. Google and Amazon are not examples of innovation in the hardware space. Also, Google's advertising is not the unstoppable powerhouse it once was. They are still the largest player in the search market, but competition is catching up. They are the ones that need to find a way to hold on, let alone increase their cash-cow of advertising revenue. Obviously not in the near-near future, but there are signs of concern especially in the mobile ad space. Amazon's innovation remains to be seen, as there are no tangible sales figures on their hardware to determine exactly how many devices they have sold to begin with. Also, as Amazon's devices are sold with little to no margin, how do they determine a success? I don't know if a breakout exists to show the increase in sales of their other products directly attributed to the Kindle Fire, but I think that would be interesting to know. Subsidizing the iPad at Wal-Mart would cheapen the brand and is unnecessary.
It is interesting how people determine what a good price for a product should be. If you want a 7.9 inch tablet that provides access to the Apple ecosystem, then you have to pay $320. If it is not worth it to you, don't buy it. Those that like Apple will be out a little more cash than those who go with certain Android devices. It is all about the end value of the device. If you bought a Nexus 7 device for less, yet do not enjoy using it, did you really get value for your purchase? If you paid the extra cash to get an Apple device, and enjoy your purchase then it was worth the money. I can't really say you get what you pay for in this case, as personal preference comes into play as well, but basing a purchase on price alone is not always a good idea. Of course if you do not have the means, that is different, but if you were already prepared to spend a few hundred bucks in the first place other factors should be taken into account.
Of the people that I know that bought (the few) Android tablets, most failed over time. A few got another one and remain unhappy about it. They sit in desk drawers. Most ended up buying an iPad.
So... that being the case, if they bought an Android tablet for $249.00 because it was "cheaper", it breaks a few months later, then they see the light and bought an iPad (being Android is junk) or even bought a different Android device (and still unhappy), how is that "cheaper"?
This is what the fandroid a$$hats here keeps conveniently avoiding. In the long run, Android costs more. Factoring in headaches, lost time, frustration, etc... and it costs most people a lot more.
Of the people that I know that bought (the few) Android tablets, most failed over time. A few got another one and remain unhappy about it. They sit in desk drawers. Most ended up buying an iPad.
So... that being the case, if they bought an Android tablet for $249.00 because it was "cheaper", it breaks a few months later, then they see the light and bought an iPad (being Android is junk) or even bought a different Android device (and still unhappy), how is that "cheaper"?
This is what the fandroid a$$hats here keeps conveniently avoiding. In the long run, Android costs more. Factoring in headaches, lost time, frustration, etc... and it costs most people a lot more.
For me the big fail of Android tablets isn't necessarily the build quality, the Xoom was very nicely built, but the lack of tablet specific apps and the main reason I'll purchase a iPad instead of a Android tablet.
You are assuming that the user-experience on the mini will be identical to what it is on the iPad...
perhaps very generally it may be,
but the experience on the iPhone and the iPad are markedly different,
so I'm not sure how you can presume to know what it will be on the mini...
did you receive a review mini that you've been using for a while?
Bad analogy. The iPhone and iPad have different UI's, in terms of both controls and principles. One would expect that the iPhone and iPad would have markedly different user experiences, even ignoring the size differences. However, the iPad Mini is designed to run iPad apps natively, so one would expect at the least for the experiences to be similar.
And different sizes, which in theory _could_ alter the experience.
So, to reiterate, we can't know with certainty until we have it in our hands...that's just common sense.
If you don't believe in market economics, That's just fine. More power to you. But the only real absolute determiner of what is fair pricing in a marketplace is exactly what people are willing to pay. The marketplace has built-in safeguards against overpricing -- people won't buy. Do you believe a more fair system would be to enforce your particular pricing preferences? If I had my way, Apple would have one price for me (very low) and another price for everyone else (high, to make up for the loss they took on me so they can stay in business. ;-)
Comments
If you went into the BMW dealer near me and whined about the price of a BMW, they would try to sell you a Mini (Cooper).
So it really is a lot like Apple.:)
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Damn.
All these years, I've been enjoying a fermented soda called Veuve Clicquot thinking it's good.... I must have no taste I guess, unlike you.
did not know I was posting in a location where within the context used "soda" would not refer to anything but a carbonated soft drink wich "Veuve Clicquot" is not.. I will need to be more precise in the future I suppose.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lightknight
Champagne's not Soda, it's double-fermentation wine.
My 2 cents.
thank you
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal
Shhhh!!! Don't get the fandroid apologists here all riled-up with sane logic. You mean you actually saved up to afford a product instead of screaming around in a room having a hissy-fit saying the product should be priced lower so the company loses money but you get what you want??? Say it ain't so!!
Let's assume Apple is in the business to MAKE money. Oh wait, but the fandroid freetards here will then say "But Apple is ripping off consumers when I can buy an Android P.O.S. hardware for at-or-below cost!!" - Dang... they got me on that!! *rolls eyes*
It is interesting how people determine what a good price for a product should be. If you want a 7.9 inch tablet that provides access to the Apple ecosystem, then you have to pay $320. If it is not worth it to you, don't buy it. Those that like Apple will be out a little more cash than those who go with certain Android devices. It is all about the end value of the device. If you bought a Nexus 7 device for less, yet do not enjoy using it, did you really get value for your purchase? If you paid the extra cash to get an Apple device, and enjoy your purchase then it was worth the money. I can't really say you get what you pay for in this case, as personal preference comes into play as well, but basing a purchase on price alone is not always a good idea. Of course if you do not have the means, that is different, but if you were already prepared to spend a few hundred bucks in the first place other factors should be taken into account.
Quote:
Originally Posted by chadmatic
Diagonal length is deceptive???
That's what I tell my wife.
Quote:
Originally Posted by simtub
At $329 I would prefer to go for a 9.7" iPad 4th Gen though at $499 for a lot more tech
That doesn't make Apple a sad panda at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
I don't know if Tim cook actually says the F word, Steve might, but Tim seems just a little too conservative for swearing in the work place. no offense Steve, I personally aren't offended by swear words as long as know it's in jest or at someone else, or it's actually warranted. Sometimes, ya gotta say "What the F"
it was Phil Schiller in the invented quotation, not Tim Cook.
And whiners can think it's arrogance on Apple's part but I think it's silliness and egoism on whiners': comparing a product that's supposed to sell for tenth of millions of consumers, to products with low demand.
Backpackers are gonna love the Mini. Big enough to read maps, small enough to pack easily, not add to load, and resist torque breakage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robin Huber
Backpackers are gonna love the Mini. Big enough to read maps, small enough to pack easily, not add to load, and resist torque breakage.
Just need a decent waterproof case...
Quote:
Originally Posted by juandl
In the long run, Google and Amazon still have a leg up on Apple due to the fact that they can almost give away their tablet and still make some money in the long run.
That will always be the case until Apple does something a little different.
They tried with the iAd thing to somewhat compete with Google with the Ad money. That did not work.
They really have no solution in place yet to compete with Amazon, YET.
With time, that will continue to wash away profits. (Pricewise, all hardware continues to come down). That, or eventually the Tablet products that GooMazon produce will get better and better. If nothing changes, Apple will eventually loose out profitwise. Simple economics.
But there is a solution.
Walmart , and a lot of other retailers know whats gonna happen with Amazon beating them with the online presence they now have, and that will only get stronger.
Google also can continue making money until something different happens.
Apple should talk with the Walmarts with this approach: Subsidize the iPad. Make arrangements with ceratin customers that are willing to come on board with an experimental arrangement. Make arrangements with Apple for a contract that will reduce the price a certain %. Apple will make a small % also. They will both have to work out a 'Special' opportunity for Free two day delivery (ala Amazon Prime).
I am sure they can make arrangements for all the fine details.
Basically it would be Walmart who would come out ahead. But at the same time Apple starts putting in place something that will start to come together (in time) to what those other guys are doing now to undercut the profits that are necesarry now and later.
My 1 cent worth
You assume that Google and Amazon will continue to progress while Apple will sit still and milk their current product until it is dead. Apple is the reason there is a legitimate tablet market to begin with. That in itself is innovation, while the others simply got on the band wagon. Hardware will get faster and cheaper, that is true, but Apple has a knack for being ahead of the game when it enters a market and continues to innovate from there. Google and Amazon are not examples of innovation in the hardware space. Also, Google's advertising is not the unstoppable powerhouse it once was. They are still the largest player in the search market, but competition is catching up. They are the ones that need to find a way to hold on, let alone increase their cash-cow of advertising revenue. Obviously not in the near-near future, but there are signs of concern especially in the mobile ad space. Amazon's innovation remains to be seen, as there are no tangible sales figures on their hardware to determine exactly how many devices they have sold to begin with. Also, as Amazon's devices are sold with little to no margin, how do they determine a success? I don't know if a breakout exists to show the increase in sales of their other products directly attributed to the Kindle Fire, but I think that would be interesting to know. Subsidizing the iPad at Wal-Mart would cheapen the brand and is unnecessary.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iSteelers
It is interesting how people determine what a good price for a product should be. If you want a 7.9 inch tablet that provides access to the Apple ecosystem, then you have to pay $320. If it is not worth it to you, don't buy it. Those that like Apple will be out a little more cash than those who go with certain Android devices. It is all about the end value of the device. If you bought a Nexus 7 device for less, yet do not enjoy using it, did you really get value for your purchase? If you paid the extra cash to get an Apple device, and enjoy your purchase then it was worth the money. I can't really say you get what you pay for in this case, as personal preference comes into play as well, but basing a purchase on price alone is not always a good idea. Of course if you do not have the means, that is different, but if you were already prepared to spend a few hundred bucks in the first place other factors should be taken into account.
Of the people that I know that bought (the few) Android tablets, most failed over time. A few got another one and remain unhappy about it. They sit in desk drawers. Most ended up buying an iPad.
So... that being the case, if they bought an Android tablet for $249.00 because it was "cheaper", it breaks a few months later, then they see the light and bought an iPad (being Android is junk) or even bought a different Android device (and still unhappy), how is that "cheaper"?
This is what the fandroid a$$hats here keeps conveniently avoiding. In the long run, Android costs more. Factoring in headaches, lost time, frustration, etc... and it costs most people a lot more.
For me the big fail of Android tablets isn't necessarily the build quality, the Xoom was very nicely built, but the lack of tablet specific apps and the main reason I'll purchase a iPad instead of a Android tablet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte
[...] On movies - this is not 1979, no reason to watch a movie on a 4:3 screen.
What difference does it make? For a given screen size and resolution the only difference is letterbox bars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
[...] 1024x768 is not optimal, but it somewhat better than 720p, and thus more than adequate, resolution wise
Actually 720p is 1280x720, so 1024x768 is slightly LESS than 720p, not more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
You are assuming that the user-experience on the mini will be identical to what it is on the iPad...
perhaps very generally it may be,
but the experience on the iPhone and the iPad are markedly different,
so I'm not sure how you can presume to know what it will be on the mini...
did you receive a review mini that you've been using for a while?
I know what the experience will be on an iPad Mini, even though I haven't tried one yet.
How do I know? I used to have an iPad 2, that's how.
Be nice if you'd bothered to read the point made in my post...
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
You are assuming that the user-experience on the mini will be identical to what it is on the iPad...
perhaps very generally it may be,
but the experience on the iPhone and the iPad are markedly different,
so I'm not sure how you can presume to know what it will be on the mini...
did you receive a review mini that you've been using for a while?
Bad analogy. The iPhone and iPad have different UI's, in terms of both controls and principles. One would expect that the iPhone and iPad would have markedly different user experiences, even ignoring the size differences. However, the iPad Mini is designed to run iPad apps natively, so one would expect at the least for the experiences to be similar.
And different sizes, which in theory _could_ alter the experience.
So, to reiterate, we can't know with certainty until we have it in our hands...that's just common sense.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
Quote:
Originally Posted by boredumb
You are assuming that the user-experience on the mini will be identical to what it is on the iPad...
perhaps very generally it may be,
but the experience on the iPhone and the iPad are markedly different,
so I'm not sure how you can presume to know what it will be on the mini...
did you receive a review mini that you've been using for a while?
Apple leads in consumer satisfaction in every category, often by a very wide margin.
Why should we assume that will change with the iPad Mini experience?
Apple is doing to the iPad what they did to the iPod: create an entire family of devices around a platform.
Not saying it necessarily will be that different, just saying its silly to say you prefer that experience when you've never even held one...
I've driven a lot of cars, but don't presume to know what a Rolls is like without ever having driven one.
Or what rotelli will seem like because I've eaten ziti...
you can make a guess, even a good guess, not "know".
If you don't believe in market economics, That's just fine. More power to you. But the only real absolute determiner of what is fair pricing in a marketplace is exactly what people are willing to pay. The marketplace has built-in safeguards against overpricing -- people won't buy. Do you believe a more fair system would be to enforce your particular pricing preferences? If I had my way, Apple would have one price for me (very low) and another price for everyone else (high, to make up for the loss they took on me so they can stay in business. ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hellacool
I bet you make your parents proud. /s Or you get beat up allot in school.
Why must you always harass other members?