iPad 2 remains Apple's most popular tablet, iPhone 5c demand growing

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 78
    I have a bunch of tablets because I'm a developer. The iPad 2 remains my personal machine, I found that while the retina display on the 3 was beautiful I didn't want the additional thickness or poorer battery life, the iPad 2 hit a sweet spot for me.

    I lusted after the iPad mini so bought one for my partner and I've spent a bit of time evaluating it. For me the mini is cute but just a bit too fiddly for a lot of uses, but its just right for her.

    I still prefer the iPad 2, but in truth its this next iPad that I've been waiting for. If the new design is a little lighter and smaller and with equivalent battery life, I'll jump at it. The camera is weak on the iPad 2 so I'm hoping that will be a lot better too.
  • Reply 22 of 78
    jd_in_sbjd_in_sb Posts: 1,483member
    I have the iPad 2. All full-sized tablets released after the iPad 2 are noticeably heavier so I haven't bothered to upgrade. It looks like the next full-sized iPad will finally go lighter instead of heavier than the iPad 2. I have been buying refurbished iPad 2's for family members. It's the best deal.
  • Reply 23 of 78
    pdq2pdq2 Posts: 270member
    I'm also an iPad2 owner, and was/am happy with it, not seeing the need to upgrade.

    However, if the update includes a 64-bit A7X, I might be mightily tempted...
  • Reply 24 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daphreev View Post



    I have an iPad 2, and I am waiting for a Retina iPad Mini. I think most people waited for the 2nd gen iPad. The first iPad was thick and had no front camera, and I just waited for the 2nd gen.



    Also, tablets arent like your phone, there is no contract, and you don't necessarily have to upgrade as often as you would your phone. My iPad 2 works great, and I don't think I would ever update to another iPad unless something happened to it.

    Ditto (thanks for saving me some typing!)

  • Reply 25 of 78

    Tablets differ from the smartphone market in that they are a) less likely to be subsidized and b) are bought in large volumes by education/enterprise/government for mass deployment. 

     

    Those factors explain why Android, particularly Samsung, has such a poor showing in tablets, and why tablet pricing has a lower concentration. Fleet buyers are less likely to go with a fancier, higher end tablet unless it offers some unique functionality. 

     

    Retina Display is great for medical applications, flight bags and other uses where detail is important. But for many institutional buyers, the basic 2 makes more sense, because they can afford to buy more. 

     

    That explains why Apple is developing technologies like Touch ID and the 64-bit A7, because the things that have sold iPhones (nice camera, nice display) aren’t necessarily going to push higher end iPad sales. Convenient security and the ability to run a new class of apps is more likely to upgrade large buyers.  

  • Reply 26 of 78
    The numbers are probably showing the supply chain issues Apple is having with the 5S rather than some sudden magical desire people have for the hated 5C.
  • Reply 27 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by akqies View Post





    How would the pricey stepping occur? The iPad 2 is currently at $399. If they lower it by $100 it's then $299, or $30 less than the iPad mini. That might work if the iPad Mini can go Retina this year at the same price, but if not then I'd think it would make more sense to drop the iPad 2 altogether and make the slightly heavier and thicker iPad 4 the $399 model over the thinner, lighter and faster iPad 5.

     

    iPad 2 does not have retina, so why would it be reduce from what it is now? 

  • Reply 28 of 78
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,889member

    This is consistent with my long-standing hypothesis that super high resolution (retina) displays are not highly valued by most consumers. I think it's similar to how most consumers (as in 95%) are perfectly happy with 256 kbps AAC files and would never, ever pay extra for lossless. 

     

    Also consistent with that hypothesis is the lackluster sales performance of the retina MBP. 

     

    I think Apple would be smart to offer retina and non-retina versions of all products, using the "retina" as a way to gouge people who think they need it while making the non-retina versions totally equivalent in all other ways, but at a much more reasonable price. 

  • Reply 29 of 78
    akqiesakqies Posts: 768member
    iPad 2 does not have retina, so why would it be reduce from what it is now? 

    I'm not sure what a price reduction has to do with it being Retina or non-Retina. It's a year older now. Why should the iPad 2 stay at $399 indefinitely when Apple's modus operandi for iOS-based devices is to drop it by $100 YoY?
  • Reply 30 of 78
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by akqies View Post



    Interesting. It was the iPad 3 being Retina that I thought really made it an easy upgrade from the iPad 2. It's getting the iPad 4 after having the iPad 3 that was no interest to me.

    That's how I judged it as well.

     

    The retina mini, portability with a bit nicer screen and perhaps a speedier cpu will be of interest. Keeping the 3 for inhome use unless they REALLY blow the doors off with the iPad 5.

  • Reply 31 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by daphreev View Post



    I have an iPad 2, and I am waiting for a Retina iPad Mini. I think most people waited for the 2nd gen iPad. The first iPad was thick and had no front camera, and I just waited for the 2nd gen.

    ...

    My iPad 2 works great, and I don't think I would ever update to another iPad unless something happened to it.

     

     

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post



    Wow! I think of the iPad 2 as being so old and slow that it surprises me that anyone would choose it. I do know that it is the iPad of choice by companies that are giving away a tablet for promotional reasons. Still...

     

     

    I still have my iPad2 and iPad3. My iPad2 is not noticeably slow running iOS6. But my iPad3 looks visibly better with RD. 

  • Reply 32 of 78
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

     

    This is consistent with my long-standing hypothesis that super high resolution (retina) displays are not highly valued by most consumers. I think it's similar to how most consumers (as in 95%) are perfectly happy with 256 kbps AAC files and would never, ever pay extra for lossless. 

     


     

    I agree somewhat with the first point, but ... the difference between non-RD and RD is much more significant than your audio analogy.

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

     

    Also consistent with that hypothesis is the lackluster sales performance of the retina MBP. 

     


    Is that a proven fact?

     

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Blastdoor View Post

     

    I think Apple would be smart to offer retina and non-retina versions of all products, using the "retina" as a way to gouge people who think they need it while making the non-retina versions totally equivalent in all other ways, but at a much more reasonable price. 


    I think they have been doing that all along?

  • Reply 33 of 78
    bigpicsbigpics Posts: 1,355member

    Quote:


    From the article:



    Continually constrained iPhone 5s supplies may be contributing --?Apple retail associates said in September that "the 5C is quite good and a lot of customers who can't get the 5s haven't minded upgrading to a 5c."

     



    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

     

     

    I think the bigger issue is Apple's inability to ship the 5s. I have one ordered from AT&T but it won't show as *sold* until it ships as AT&T won't bill me until such time. 

     

    I wonder how many outstanding orders are out there for the 5s? 




    This was my take from the first report of "overproduction" of the 5c:  Apple knew it was "supply constrained" on the 5s and wanted to be sure it had enough units of "new iPhones" to be able to meet any reasonable demand, knowing that any degree of early overrun had at least a year to be long-ago absorbed by next October...

  • Reply 34 of 78
    anomeanome Posts: 1,239member
    I think a few people here have nailed it. The iPad 2 is dominant because it's been on the market longer.

    Add to that most people wouldn't have looked to upgrade their iPad 2 to the iPad 3, since we're used to a 2 year cycle on phones. (I was tempted for the LTE, but then it turned out the LTE didn't work outside the US - another possible reason for lower uptake.) Then, the iPad 4 wrong footed everyone. Many people probably still saw themselves keeping their iPad 2 for the full 2 years, and it wasn't clear if the 4 would make it a full 12 months.

    Plus, another big feature is that Apple still support the iPad 2. It works with iOS 7 (I think rather well, despite a few issues). This is probably because they still sell it, and I don't think Apple would want to ship an OS that didn't run on their entire line of products.

    So I fully expect the iPad 2 will be dropped after tomorrow, and will not be supported for iOS 8 when that becomes available. Instead, they will move the iPad 4 and iPad mini (possibly including the original mini, which is an iPad 2 really) into the low end.
  • Reply 35 of 78
    blastdoorblastdoor Posts: 1,889member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by StruckPaper View Post

     

     

    I think they have been doing that all along?


     

    Not really -- in fact, not at all. There is no non-reitna version of the iPhone 5s, in fact there is no non-retina iPhone on sale now at all. 

     

    Regarding iPads, there is no non-retina equivalent of the iPad 4. The iPad 2 is inferior to the iPad 4 along several dimensions. 

     

    Regarding MBPs, the retina MBP has a better form factor and weight than the legacy MBP. 

     

    To do what I suggest, Apple would offer a non-retina version of current iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks that are equivalent in all other ways (though they could have a less beefy GPU, given the smaller number of pixels). For example, there would be a new full-sized retina iPad with an A7X and a new full-sized non-retina iPad with an A7 (but otherwise equivalent to the retina iPad). And the retina feature would cost an extra, say, $100. 

  • Reply 36 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Corrections View Post

     

    Tablets differ from the smartphone market in that they are a) less likely to be subsidized and b) are bought in large volumes by education/enterprise/government for mass deployment. 

     

    Those factors explain why Android, particularly Samsung, has such a poor showing in tablets, and why tablet pricing has a lower concentration. Fleet buyers are less likely to go with a fancier, higher end tablet unless it offers some unique functionality. 

     

    Retina Display is great for medical applications, flight bags and other uses where detail is important. But for many institutional buyers, the basic 2 makes more sense, because they can afford to buy more. 

     

    That explains why Apple is developing technologies like Touch ID and the 64-bit A7, because the things that have sold iPhones (nice camera, nice display) aren’t necessarily going to push higher end iPad sales. Convenient security and the ability to run a new class of apps is more likely to upgrade large buyers.  


    On that basis, what feature(s) would attract a company to purchase a new iPad 5 versus a Bay Trail device with Windows 8.1?



    Examples

     

    Sharp Mebius Pad:  10.1 inch 2560x1600 IGZO display, Z3770 Bay Trail, Windows 8.1 + free MS Office 2013, IP5X/IPX5/IPX7 certified (dust/water proof), active digitizer, optional LTE via Intel's new chipset, etc.  The tablet will apparently sell start between $500 and $600.

     

    -or the more basic (and less expensive)-



    ASUS T100: 10.1 inch 1366x768 IPS display, Z3740 Bay Trail, Windows 8.1 + free MS Office 2013, included keyboard dock with USB 3.0, microSD, etc. The device costs $349 for the 32GB and $399 for the 64GB.

  • Reply 37 of 78

    Apple stopped selling iPad3 after launching iPad4, but kept selling iPad2. Effectively, it took iPad(3+4) ~ 18 months to equal 30 months of iPad2 sales. During 12 of those 18 months, consumers also had the additional choice of iPad Mini. So, all in all, iPad(3+4) sales has been pretty good.

  • Reply 38 of 78
    jlanddjlandd Posts: 873member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Richard Getz View Post

     

     

    I think the bigger issue is Apple's inability to ship the 5s. I have one ordered from AT&T but it won't show as *sold* until it ships as AT&T won't bill me until such time. 

     

    I wonder how many outstanding orders are out there for the 5s? 


     

     

    I know several people who were interested in the 5s but went with the 5c due to their inability to walk out of their network's store with one when they needed a phone.

     

    I also am amused by all this bad stuff written about the 5c sales.  Here in NYC and Brooklyn I see a lot of them in the wild.  

  • Reply 39 of 78
    Just last week the iP5C was a flop. What changed?!? Oh yeah, most analyst love to dis Apple by always releasing doom and gloom reports even though there is little to substantiate their claims...lol.
  • Reply 40 of 78
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by akqies View Post





    I'm not sure what a price reduction has to do with it being Retina or non-Retina. It's a year older now. Why should the iPad 2 stay at $399 indefinitely when Apple's modus operandi for iOS-based devices is to drop it by $100 YoY?

     

     

    Ok, let me start from the top. I think Apple should keep a non-retina iPad for both models. I don't care if it is last years, this years, or next years. They have done this with the MBP and rMBP, and I think the same should be for the iPad. Sorry for any confusion made on my part. 

Sign In or Register to comment.