As smart as Apple is, I still don't really understand why they don't go back to school for marketing 101. In my opinion they would be better off with this type of stepped pricing.
499 for 16 gig 579 with cell 599 for 32 gig 679 with cell 699 for 64 gig 769 with cell 799 with 128 gig 869 with cell
Or that they're just adding it now and will be dropping it down into the regular lineup come an actual update.
Yes, like they dropped the prices on the 2012 Macs, right? Those include, but are not limited to, the classic MacBook Pros, for which the price increase can not be explained.
Quote:
SSD ? this.
What's the relevant difference?
Quote:
I'd like to ask you that.
Sorry, dude, but you're the one making the claim that there is a difference, so logic follows that explaining the relevance of that difference is your job. Also, if you expected me to answer tht, why did you ban my other account?
I used 79 as it is about half of their current premium and would still give them a profit on the cell chip set and might be an easier sell to the execs and stock holders.
I used 79 as it is about half of their current premium…
Oh, I see. You just changed it to sixty halfway through, so I was confused.
They'll make a profit even if it's $50 above. What was it… the first-gen, 64GB 3G iPad's components cost roughly 80% of the sale price of the first-gen 16GB Wi-Fi model… something like that. Now, that's just components, of course, but they could have smaller steps up and still have a lot of profit overhead. Much of not doing that comes from people paying the current prices and not being able to make enough now, much less then.
Hard to compare though - in a 2.5" SSD enclosure there may be room for more, lower density chips than in an iPad.
I didn't mention SSD in my post but hat doesn't matter. The point is that Apple charges at least 3 times the retail price for flash memory, so anyone stating that other makers won't be able to match are just posting drivel.
Correct. SSD = far more elaborate and expensive than what Apple does in their devices.
USB sticks, SSDs and Apple's iOS device storage all use NAND memory chips.
Judging from teardown chip numbers, Apple uses the least expensive type of NAND. Which makes sense. Smartphone or tablet storage hardly requires enterprise grade robustness, and users do not read/write data that often.
(Which is why the Apple chips' limit of around 5,000 erase-write cycles is plenty... and now you also know why Safari doesn't save its cache to disk (last I looked). It only uses available RAM, which is why the info in a tab often has to be re-downloaded.)
SSDs, on the other hand often have:
better memory that's been tested with faster (and/or more) write cycles.
multiple memory chips for parallel access.
better flash controller chips with delayed writes, fancy wear leveling, etc.
RAM buffers so that slow writes can take place later.
Note that Apple recently started using a custom flash controller related to their acquisition of an Israeli engineering group. This controller can theoretically do 600MB/s reads... if the device had enough parallel memory chips, that is. No such thing in an Apple tablet or phone (yet).
Comments
deleted
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjwal
I don't think other tablet makers are going to have any problem matching this.
Retail costs for flash are now under $1/GB, Apple is charging about $3/Gb to go from their base model to the 128Gb model.
Hard to compare though - in a 2.5" SSD enclosure there may be room for more, lower density chips than in an iPad.
Originally Posted by Vaelian
With this, however, Apple is making a clear statement that the prices won't shift anymore, despite technological advancements.
Or that they're just adding it now and will be dropping it down into the regular lineup come an actual update.
Originally Posted by Vaelian
SSDs are now being RETAILED at roughly $1/GB.
SSD ? this.
Originally Posted by Vaelian
SSDs use NAND flash for storage. What the hell are you talking about? And if you aren't sure, why are you posting nonsense?
I'd like to ask you that.
In my opinion they would be better off with this type of stepped pricing.
499 for 16 gig
579 with cell
599 for 32 gig
679 with cell
699 for 64 gig
769 with cell
799 with 128 gig
869 with cell
Just a thought.
Originally Posted by fh-ace
As smart as Apple is, I still don't really understand why they don't go back to school for marketing 101.
Probably because they've forgotten more in that regard than you'll ever know? Not an insult; being realistic.
499 for 16 gig
579 with cell
599 for 32 gig
679 with cell
699 for 64 gig
769 with cell
799 with 128 gig
869 with cell
Why the random change? Just do this: 499, 549, 599, 649, 699, 749, 799, 849.
They don't do this because people pay existing prices, they get more money this way, and it keeps demand down to a level they can physically manage.
Quote:
Or that they're just adding it now and will be dropping it down into the regular lineup come an actual update.
Yes, like they dropped the prices on the 2012 Macs, right? Those include, but are not limited to, the classic MacBook Pros, for which the price increase can not be explained.
Quote:
SSD ? this.
What's the relevant difference?
Quote:
I'd like to ask you that.
Sorry, dude, but you're the one making the claim that there is a difference, so logic follows that explaining the relevance of that difference is your job. Also, if you expected me to answer tht, why did you ban my other account?
Hi Tallest,
Yeah the 49 dollar bump would be better ;-)
I used 79 as it is about half of their current premium and would still give them a profit on the cell chip set and might be an easier sell to the execs and stock holders.
PS. Really have enjoyed your posts in the past.
Cheers
Originally Posted by fh-ace
I used 79 as it is about half of their current premium…
Oh, I see. You just changed it to sixty halfway through, so I was confused.
They'll make a profit even if it's $50 above. What was it… the first-gen, 64GB 3G iPad's components cost roughly 80% of the sale price of the first-gen 16GB Wi-Fi model… something like that. Now, that's just components, of course, but they could have smaller steps up and still have a lot of profit overhead. Much of not doing that comes from people paying the current prices and not being able to make enough now, much less then.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Hard to compare though - in a 2.5" SSD enclosure there may be room for more, lower density chips than in an iPad.
I didn't mention SSD in my post but hat doesn't matter. The point is that Apple charges at least 3 times the retail price for flash memory, so anyone stating that other makers won't be able to match are just posting drivel.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
SSD ? this.
Correct. SSD = far more elaborate and expensive than what Apple does in their devices.
USB sticks, SSDs and Apple's iOS device storage all use NAND memory chips.
Judging from teardown chip numbers, Apple uses the least expensive type of NAND. Which makes sense. Smartphone or tablet storage hardly requires enterprise grade robustness, and users do not read/write data that often.
(Which is why the Apple chips' limit of around 5,000 erase-write cycles is plenty... and now you also know why Safari doesn't save its cache to disk (last I looked). It only uses available RAM, which is why the info in a tab often has to be re-downloaded.)
SSDs, on the other hand often have:
better memory that's been tested with faster (and/or more) write cycles.
multiple memory chips for parallel access.
better flash controller chips with delayed writes, fancy wear leveling, etc.
RAM buffers so that slow writes can take place later.
Note that Apple recently started using a custom flash controller related to their acquisition of an Israeli engineering group. This controller can theoretically do 600MB/s reads... if the device had enough parallel memory chips, that is. No such thing in an Apple tablet or phone (yet).