I would be seriously surprised if they didn't make a price increase. The iPad is currently a lot cheaper than an iPhone, and you really have to wonder why? The iPhone has also increased in price by around £200 since the iPhone 3G.
Its not going to loose them any sales as people will just get the iPad 2 instead. Then when an IOS update renders it either slow or unable to run the latest apps, people will gave to upgrade.
Who's got 2Q 2013 in the office pool as the date by which the IOS version which is required for all Apple services no longer supports the 2?
They are a company in business to make money for their owners (stock holders) by selling products at a the highest price the market will bear. This describes every company.
The stock holders aint seeing a dividend. And in fact this does not describe every company, some companies sell products as loss leaders to take a land grab of a platform, or to make money from software and services. Google sell their OS for $0, Amazon sell the Kindle for less than cost, the xBox and other games machines are sold below cost, or at low margins.
Reports have pointed toward the new iPad screen having a resolution of 2,047 by 1,536 pixels, which would be twice that of the current 1,024-by-768-pixel screen on the iPad 2.
...assuming it's 2048 by 1536, that would be four times the resolution of 1024 by 768. But, whatever, I know.
That's nonsense. The very apt analogy would be Mac compared to Windows. Those who went to the trouble of using both probably, generally liked Macs more and were willing to pay a premium. However the average consumer--by far--was exposed to Windows and found it good enough.
If Joe Consumer's reason for buying a tablet is "because I think they're cool and I want to be able to use mail and apps and stuff" then why isn't a Kindle Fire good enough for him? And is that not doubly the case if the reason is "because I want something for my kids?" Price matters, and Amazon is a substantial competitor. And "good enough" can take a big chunk of one's business.
What does that have to do with your claim? You claimed that Apple shouldn't increase the price because a few people would choose something else. I pointed out that if the number was small enough, Apple would come out ahead with a price increase. You responded with the above - which doesn't address the issue at all.
Apple will set a price. While I'm not convinced that there will be an increase, if they do, you can be sure that Apple will consider the loss of volume from the price increase. If they choose to increase the price, they will obviously have decided that the extra revenue would more than make up for the decrease in volume - something that you're apparently unwilling to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
I would be seriously surprised if they didn't make a price increase. The iPad is currently a lot cheaper than an iPhone, and you really have to wonder why? The iPhone has also increased in price by around £200 since the iPhone 3G.
Great point. While the price difference isn't all that large in the U.S., the 3G iPad is $629 while the iPhone 4S selling price is estimated around $660 (using the data above). That just doesn't make any sense. While the phone has a better camera and a microphone, that would be more than made up for by the larger size of the iPad.
Of course, it really comes down to "what the market will bear".
Quote:
Originally Posted by timgriff84
Its not going to loose them any sales as people will just get the iPad 2 instead. Then when an IOS update renders it either slow or unable to run the latest apps, people will gave to upgrade.
That's a good point, as well. I think we'll continue to see a scenario like what Apple is doing with the iPhone (3GS, 4, and 4S on the market at the same time) for other products like the iPad. That way, they can sell the premium product to customers willing to pay for it and still capture some of the low-end customers.
Great point. While the price difference isn't all that large in the U.S., the 3G iPad is $629 while the iPhone 4S selling price is estimated around $660 (using the data above). That just doesn't make any sense. While the phone has a better camera and a microphone, that would be more than made up for by the larger size of the iPad.
Of course, it really comes down to "what the market will bear".
As you know there are costs associated with making things smaller and more refined for the iPhone over the iPad but that would only explain a percentage of the difference.
As you state it's what the market will bear and with a subsidy common among many carriers the market can bear a lot for phones because the cost is hidden and/or absorbed by the carriers. I say absorbed because we know the iPhone APR tends to be higher than other phones yet the subsidized prices are in other other phones with the same capacity which leads to a high potential that carriers are paying Apple a lot more for the chance to get an iPhone related subscriber. Of course, the carrier can also make it up by having that older iPhone still get on their network years later without a subsidy payout, something which doesn't seem common with other carriers.
I just have a hard time swallowing this rumor. This document looks anything but certifiably legit. Could it be? Sure. Is it? Probably not. I don't think Apple will move away from the current pricing structure. Leading edge tech or not, I just don't see Apple moving away from that $499 sweet spot that looks so great up on a screen at the introduction event. On top of that, with Apple making a huge push into education, I just don't see them making this thing more expensive now.
I will buy the middle-tier 3G/LTE version either way without breaking a sweat, but I do believe that I will be paying $729 + tax.
Remember when the iPad was definately going to be $1000? Lets hope its one of those cases. Apple likes to keep prices constant while improving features, I'm sure I don't need to provide proof of that. They managed to put SSDs in the Macbook Air as a stock feature while not being more expensive for instance, even though SSDs are an expensive part.
Remember when the iPad was definately going to be $1000? Lets hope its one of those cases. Apple likes to keep prices constant while improving features, I'm sure I don't need to provide proof of that. They managed to put SSDs in the Macbook Air as a stock feature while not being more expensive for instance, even though SSDs are an expensive part.
They started with 64GB SSDs and put them on a card to reduce cost and size. It was a smart move that I expect to move toward the MBP line but they did add a much lower capacity than could be had with an HDD for the same price.
They started with 64GB SSDs and put them on a card to reduce cost and size. It was a smart move that I expect to move toward the MBP line but they did add a much lower capacity than could be had with an HDD for the same price.
Still probably more expensive considering when they first launched. Either way the point still stands, however they've made up for the cost in the past they tend to keep prices firm, with their size they can make agreements on parts that few others can. If they are also going retina on the Macbook Airs and Pros, they have an insane amount of orders from whoever will provide them, so they can get them at a lower per-unit price. We'll see I guess, but it strikes me as very un-Apple like to raise the price.
Still probably more expensive considering when they first launched. Either way the point still stands, however they've made up for the cost in the past they tend to keep prices firm, with their size they can make agreements on parts that few others can. If they are also going retina on the Macbook Airs and Pros, they have an insane amount of orders from whoever will provide them, so they can get them at a lower per-unit price. We'll see I guess, but it strikes me as very un-Apple like to raise the price.
Are you sure? The 13" MBP starts at $100 more than the 13" MBA. The 13" MBP comes with a 500GB 5400RPM HDD for that price while the 13' MBA comes with a 128GB SSD card.
On top of that the only difference I can see between the two listed 13" MBAs is the SSD capacity and that's an additional $300 for an additional 128GB. The cost of those drives are expensive.
Sure, NAND flash has gone down but that doesn't mean it's cheaper than HDD. It's not even close.
As for Apple trying to keep the price points the same they usually do, but that doesn't mean they have always done so or can do it with every technological leap. As explained many times already it's just about doubling the resolution it's about a lot of technologies needing to be advanced for this HiDPI display to work.
I've been speculating for two years that if Apple wants to beat the competition to market with this tech — as opposed to someone coming out with some low yield device to say me first even though it doesn't work well —*they may have to raise the price to get the supply. I am not even convinced its ready now for 20 million(?) units the first quarter which is why I also speculated on Apple doing a high-end version that offered this display. The one thing I didn't speculate is that Apple would wait a year to get prices lower and/or ship on al devices at once instead of shipping now. Even at 8 to 16% increase in price I don't foresee their sales being any different (i.e., selling every iPad they can produce).
I'm too lazy to look it up but the prices of ULV Intel processors is also higher than the regular wattage ones in the Pros, plus the rest of the miniaturization that has to go into the Air, plus the higher res display than the 13" pro, etc.
Kindle Fire is relevant. Those ads that say "I can buy two of these and a regular Kindle for the price of your iPad" are wince-inducing. Having the iPad price go up substantially in the face of that will be alarming.
The people who have most to worry about from the Kindle Fire is other Android tablet makers who also sell low priced tablets. If somebody can't afford $580, then $500 is too expensive for them too, and an iPad is not an option for those sorts of people.
Apple has nothing at all to fear from the Kindle, and Tim Cook has pretty much said that too. And I agree.
No one should complain, especially after the huge petition to give Foxconn workers a 25% raise. Someone has to pay for it, and it's always the customer.
Exactly. And since I have recently converted and become a humanitarian/ activist, I think that Apple should make the iPad3 $100 more expensive. That's only fair.
A retina display that has double the dpi has FOUR TIMES THE RESOLUTION, not double the resolution, because resolution goes by the square. e.g. You have a 1 by 1 square pixel and now that will become a 2 by 2 square if you double the dpi; but a 2 by 2 contains 4 pixels while a 1 by 1 contains 1 pixel; as you see the resolution, i.e. pixel count is quadrupled not doubled.
As you can see, this can be solved without the use of advanced math; yet AI gets this CONSISTENTLY WRONG. Would the editors please take note?
That’s a common misconception about what the word resolution means because the words “along each axis” are implied but frequently omitted.
“Resolution” is not synonymous with “pixel count”. The pixels are resolved to each axis (vertical and horizontal) which is why resolutions are reported as “640x480” rather than 307,200 pixels.
Resolutions are used because they are more meaningful that a raw pixel count–which doesn’t contain any information about the ratio of the number of pixels along each axis.
Doubling the resolution along each axis will result in 4x the pixels for a 2D display. For a 3D (holographic) display the same process would result in 8x the voxels. But in each case it is still correct to say you are doubling the resolution.
As you know there are costs associated with making things smaller and more refined for the iPhone over the iPad but that would only explain a percentage of the difference.
Yes, but that doesn't seem to really be the case with the iPad/iPhone pricing. They use the same processor. I don't see huge differences in their motherboards. The case and screen would be more expensive for the iPad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dunks
That?s a common misconception about what the word resolution means because the words ?along each axis? are implied but frequently omitted.
?Resolution? is not synonymous with ?pixel count?. The pixels are resolved to each axis (vertical and horizontal) which is why resolutions are reported as ?640x480? rather than 307,200 pixels.
Resolutions are used because they are more meaningful that a raw pixel count?which doesn?t contain any information about the ratio of the number of pixels along each axis.
Doubling the resolution along each axis will result in 4x the pixels for a 2D display. For a 3D (holographic) display the same process would result in 8x the voxels. But in each case it is still correct to say you are doubling the resolution.
As I explained earlier, resolution is reported in pixels per inch. That makes it a linear, one dimensional measurement reported as pixels per inch. Pixel count (or, as I referred to it, pixel density) is in pixels per square inch.
It's not that difficult.
Quote:
Originally Posted by majjo
That's pretty much in line with moore's law; and if anything, NAND should be the component that deviates the least from moore's law.
The technology has improved, but I don't think it's a technology issue. At current prices (which are NOT controlled by Moore's Law), it just costs to much to double capacity.
I just don't see it happening. I expect apple to go lower price by keeping the iPad 2 cheaper not highr on iPad 3. LTE chip costs the same as a 3G and the CPU looks like the same A5 clock faster with a new GPU. Again the same cost only retina will add cost and IMHO not enough to merit the price hike...
Comments
I would be seriously surprised if they didn't make a price increase. The iPad is currently a lot cheaper than an iPhone, and you really have to wonder why? The iPhone has also increased in price by around £200 since the iPhone 3G.
Its not going to loose them any sales as people will just get the iPad 2 instead. Then when an IOS update renders it either slow or unable to run the latest apps, people will gave to upgrade.
Who's got 2Q 2013 in the office pool as the date by which the IOS version which is required for all Apple services no longer supports the 2?
They are a company in business to make money for their owners (stock holders) by selling products at a the highest price the market will bear. This describes every company.
The stock holders aint seeing a dividend. And in fact this does not describe every company, some companies sell products as loss leaders to take a land grab of a platform, or to make money from software and services. Google sell their OS for $0, Amazon sell the Kindle for less than cost, the xBox and other games machines are sold below cost, or at low margins.
Reports have pointed toward the new iPad screen having a resolution of 2,047 by 1,536 pixels, which would be twice that of the current 1,024-by-768-pixel screen on the iPad 2.
...assuming it's 2048 by 1536, that would be four times the resolution of 1024 by 768. But, whatever, I know.
That's nonsense. The very apt analogy would be Mac compared to Windows. Those who went to the trouble of using both probably, generally liked Macs more and were willing to pay a premium. However the average consumer--by far--was exposed to Windows and found it good enough.
If Joe Consumer's reason for buying a tablet is "because I think they're cool and I want to be able to use mail and apps and stuff" then why isn't a Kindle Fire good enough for him? And is that not doubly the case if the reason is "because I want something for my kids?" Price matters, and Amazon is a substantial competitor. And "good enough" can take a big chunk of one's business.
What does that have to do with your claim? You claimed that Apple shouldn't increase the price because a few people would choose something else. I pointed out that if the number was small enough, Apple would come out ahead with a price increase. You responded with the above - which doesn't address the issue at all.
Apple will set a price. While I'm not convinced that there will be an increase, if they do, you can be sure that Apple will consider the loss of volume from the price increase. If they choose to increase the price, they will obviously have decided that the extra revenue would more than make up for the decrease in volume - something that you're apparently unwilling to do.
I would be seriously surprised if they didn't make a price increase. The iPad is currently a lot cheaper than an iPhone, and you really have to wonder why? The iPhone has also increased in price by around £200 since the iPhone 3G.
Great point. While the price difference isn't all that large in the U.S., the 3G iPad is $629 while the iPhone 4S selling price is estimated around $660 (using the data above). That just doesn't make any sense. While the phone has a better camera and a microphone, that would be more than made up for by the larger size of the iPad.
Of course, it really comes down to "what the market will bear".
Its not going to loose them any sales as people will just get the iPad 2 instead. Then when an IOS update renders it either slow or unable to run the latest apps, people will gave to upgrade.
That's a good point, as well. I think we'll continue to see a scenario like what Apple is doing with the iPhone (3GS, 4, and 4S on the market at the same time) for other products like the iPad. That way, they can sell the premium product to customers willing to pay for it and still capture some of the low-end customers.
Great point. While the price difference isn't all that large in the U.S., the 3G iPad is $629 while the iPhone 4S selling price is estimated around $660 (using the data above). That just doesn't make any sense. While the phone has a better camera and a microphone, that would be more than made up for by the larger size of the iPad.
Of course, it really comes down to "what the market will bear".
As you know there are costs associated with making things smaller and more refined for the iPhone over the iPad but that would only explain a percentage of the difference.
As you state it's what the market will bear and with a subsidy common among many carriers the market can bear a lot for phones because the cost is hidden and/or absorbed by the carriers. I say absorbed because we know the iPhone APR tends to be higher than other phones yet the subsidized prices are in other other phones with the same capacity which leads to a high potential that carriers are paying Apple a lot more for the chance to get an iPhone related subscriber. Of course, the carrier can also make it up by having that older iPhone still get on their network years later without a subsidy payout, something which doesn't seem common with other carriers.
I will buy the middle-tier 3G/LTE version either way without breaking a sweat, but I do believe that I will be paying $729 + tax.
Remember when the iPad was definately going to be $1000? Lets hope its one of those cases. Apple likes to keep prices constant while improving features, I'm sure I don't need to provide proof of that. They managed to put SSDs in the Macbook Air as a stock feature while not being more expensive for instance, even though SSDs are an expensive part.
They started with 64GB SSDs and put them on a card to reduce cost and size. It was a smart move that I expect to move toward the MBP line but they did add a much lower capacity than could be had with an HDD for the same price.
Apple's getting greedy. They already have 40% margins. We will just have to see what the market will bear.
I know, right? They should be making the same low margins as everyone else, right? Stupid free market economy letting Apple get away with greediness.
</s>
They started with 64GB SSDs and put them on a card to reduce cost and size. It was a smart move that I expect to move toward the MBP line but they did add a much lower capacity than could be had with an HDD for the same price.
Still probably more expensive considering when they first launched. Either way the point still stands, however they've made up for the cost in the past they tend to keep prices firm, with their size they can make agreements on parts that few others can. If they are also going retina on the Macbook Airs and Pros, they have an insane amount of orders from whoever will provide them, so they can get them at a lower per-unit price. We'll see I guess, but it strikes me as very un-Apple like to raise the price.
Still probably more expensive considering when they first launched. Either way the point still stands, however they've made up for the cost in the past they tend to keep prices firm, with their size they can make agreements on parts that few others can. If they are also going retina on the Macbook Airs and Pros, they have an insane amount of orders from whoever will provide them, so they can get them at a lower per-unit price. We'll see I guess, but it strikes me as very un-Apple like to raise the price.
Are you sure? The 13" MBP starts at $100 more than the 13" MBA. The 13" MBP comes with a 500GB 5400RPM HDD for that price while the 13' MBA comes with a 128GB SSD card.
On top of that the only difference I can see between the two listed 13" MBAs is the SSD capacity and that's an additional $300 for an additional 128GB. The cost of those drives are expensive.
Sure, NAND flash has gone down but that doesn't mean it's cheaper than HDD. It's not even close.
As for Apple trying to keep the price points the same they usually do, but that doesn't mean they have always done so or can do it with every technological leap. As explained many times already it's just about doubling the resolution it's about a lot of technologies needing to be advanced for this HiDPI display to work.
I've been speculating for two years that if Apple wants to beat the competition to market with this tech — as opposed to someone coming out with some low yield device to say me first even though it doesn't work well —*they may have to raise the price to get the supply. I am not even convinced its ready now for 20 million(?) units the first quarter which is why I also speculated on Apple doing a high-end version that offered this display. The one thing I didn't speculate is that Apple would wait a year to get prices lower and/or ship on al devices at once instead of shipping now. Even at 8 to 16% increase in price I don't foresee their sales being any different (i.e., selling every iPad they can produce).
Kindle Fire is relevant. Those ads that say "I can buy two of these and a regular Kindle for the price of your iPad" are wince-inducing. Having the iPad price go up substantially in the face of that will be alarming.
The people who have most to worry about from the Kindle Fire is other Android tablet makers who also sell low priced tablets. If somebody can't afford $580, then $500 is too expensive for them too, and an iPad is not an option for those sorts of people.
Apple has nothing at all to fear from the Kindle, and Tim Cook has pretty much said that too. And I agree.
No one should complain, especially after the huge petition to give Foxconn workers a 25% raise. Someone has to pay for it, and it's always the customer.
Exactly. And since I have recently converted and become a humanitarian/ activist, I think that Apple should make the iPad3 $100 more expensive. That's only fair.
Will you guys EVER learn math?
A retina display that has double the dpi has FOUR TIMES THE RESOLUTION, not double the resolution, because resolution goes by the square. e.g. You have a 1 by 1 square pixel and now that will become a 2 by 2 square if you double the dpi; but a 2 by 2 contains 4 pixels while a 1 by 1 contains 1 pixel; as you see the resolution, i.e. pixel count is quadrupled not doubled.
As you can see, this can be solved without the use of advanced math; yet AI gets this CONSISTENTLY WRONG. Would the editors please take note?
That’s a common misconception about what the word resolution means because the words “along each axis” are implied but frequently omitted.
“Resolution” is not synonymous with “pixel count”. The pixels are resolved to each axis (vertical and horizontal) which is why resolutions are reported as “640x480” rather than 307,200 pixels.
Resolutions are used because they are more meaningful that a raw pixel count–which doesn’t contain any information about the ratio of the number of pixels along each axis.
Doubling the resolution along each axis will result in 4x the pixels for a 2D display. For a 3D (holographic) display the same process would result in 8x the voxels. But in each case it is still correct to say you are doubling the resolution.
Note the rate of increase if you expect a doubling of storage every two years? Do you see how that just isn't feasible?
That's pretty much in line with moore's law; and if anything, NAND should be the component that deviates the least from moore's law.
That's pretty much in line with moore's law; and if anything, NAND should be the component that deviates the least from moore's law.
That makes no sense on so many levels.
As you know there are costs associated with making things smaller and more refined for the iPhone over the iPad but that would only explain a percentage of the difference.
Yes, but that doesn't seem to really be the case with the iPad/iPhone pricing. They use the same processor. I don't see huge differences in their motherboards. The case and screen would be more expensive for the iPad.
That?s a common misconception about what the word resolution means because the words ?along each axis? are implied but frequently omitted.
?Resolution? is not synonymous with ?pixel count?. The pixels are resolved to each axis (vertical and horizontal) which is why resolutions are reported as ?640x480? rather than 307,200 pixels.
Resolutions are used because they are more meaningful that a raw pixel count?which doesn?t contain any information about the ratio of the number of pixels along each axis.
Doubling the resolution along each axis will result in 4x the pixels for a 2D display. For a 3D (holographic) display the same process would result in 8x the voxels. But in each case it is still correct to say you are doubling the resolution.
As I explained earlier, resolution is reported in pixels per inch. That makes it a linear, one dimensional measurement reported as pixels per inch. Pixel count (or, as I referred to it, pixel density) is in pixels per square inch.
It's not that difficult.
That's pretty much in line with moore's law; and if anything, NAND should be the component that deviates the least from moore's law.
The technology has improved, but I don't think it's a technology issue. At current prices (which are NOT controlled by Moore's Law), it just costs to much to double capacity.
If you look at the chart it specifies wi-fi and 3G. I have to believe that the IPad 3 will have 4G support. So I dont believe this at all.
Again I believe Apple will have the following IPads
IPad 2.5 16GB Wi-Fi - $349 (new cpu (A5X), same screen)
IPad 2.5 32GB Wi-Fi / 3G - $399 (new cpu (A5X), same screen)
IPad 3 32GB Wi-Fi - $549 (new cpu (A6), new screen)
IPad 3 32GB Wi-Fi / 4G - $599 (new cpu (A6), new screen)
IPad 3 64GB Wi-Fi / 4G - $649 (new cpu (A6), new screen)
IPad 3 128GB Wi-Fi /4G - $749 (new cpu (A6), new screen)
That's what I think.....
Too many models. More likely to be:
iPad 2 16GB Wi-Fi - US$499 (as is)
iPad 3 16GB Wi-Fi - US$579 (A5X chip, retina display) + 3G option
iPad 3 32GB Wi-Fi - US$649 (A5X chip, retina display) + 3G option
iPad 3 64GB Wi-Fi - US$729 (A5X chip, retina display) + 3G option
I think LTE will debut in the next iPhone.