I don't think Apple would have a problem selling Retina iPad Minis for $429.
Plenty of consumers especially Apple's core demographic don't mind spending more for a higher quality experience than the competition.
Will Apple price it that high? Who knows. They may wow us all like they did last year and launch a retina mini in a couple months for $329.
That would be amazing but who would buy an iPod touch or iPad if the Mini has it all plus some for less money?
That's another consideration outside of the margins debate. Cannibalization has been minor so far but that's probably because the iPad is still far better than the Mini and its worth the premium.
But once the mini gets Retina and a new processor the line between the 2 would blur. If the retina Mini is significantly cheaper ($329) than the iPad the majority of people will see no need to spend $170 more when they can get everything for less.
But that train of thought would take us right back to margins. Yes an ever important issue.
I get what you're saying about cannibalization. My guess is like the iPod touch, the mini will never have the exact same internals as the full-size iPad. But Apple can't ignore competitors going cutthroat and selling good tablets cheap. Right now there are tablets cheaper than the mini that have better displays. I've no doubt they'll catch up on weight and battery life. I'm sure Apple would rather have cannibalization than people switching to Google or Amazon. I guess bottom line is I don't buy the argument some are making that because the mini is selling so well at $329 Apple could easily raise the price and continue to sell bucket loads.
That's why I'm 90% sure the Retina Mini is going to cost more than $329. This Spring they'll probably announce the Retina model as a higher end addition to the iPad Mini lineup, meaning the current model that came out a few months ago will continue to sell as is with the Retina being the "flagship" of the iPad Mini lineup.
I'm thinking that they'll make the current mini $299 and the new retina mini $399. Or maybe even $249 and $349 but that seems a lot tighter. You'll get both a price drop on the entry level device and a price increase on the current version.
Apple wants to excel in phones but my feel is that it wants to dominate tablets long term.
If Apple can fend off Android tablets in 2013 it goes a long way in that goal. A $249 iPad Mini and $349 iPad Mini Retina lineup seems very potent to me whether there is one or two updates in 2013.
I'm thinking that they'll make the current mini $299 and the new retina mini $399. Or maybe even $249 and $349 but that seems a lot tighter. You'll get both a price drop on the entry level device and a price increase on the current version.
Apple wants to excel in phones but my feel is that it wants to dominate tablets long term.
If Apple can fend off Android tablets in 2013 it goes a long way in that goal. A $249 iPad Mini and $349 iPad Mini Retina lineup seems very potent to me whether there is one or two updates in 2013.
How does this fend off competitors when you have tablets cheaper than $329 that have a better display than the mini? No doubt Google and Amazon are going to get more aggressive in this space, not less. So I don't know how increasing the price fends anyone off. I know everyone's talking about margins but fact is when the iPad went retina the price did not go up. It stayed the same and the previous gen got cheaper. With the 5th gen iPod touch you get more memory (and the same display as the iPhone) for the same price as the 4th gen. I'd rather have compressed margins than no sale at all. Unless you think Apple can charge whatever they want and people will continue to lap them up.
I'm thinking that they'll make the current mini $299 and the new retina mini $399. Or maybe even $249 and $349 but that seems a lot tighter. You'll get both a price drop on the entry level device and a price increase on the current version.
Apple wants to excel in phones but my feel is that it wants to dominate tablets long term.
If Apple can fend off Android tablets in 2013 it goes a long way in that goal. A $249 iPad Mini and $349 iPad Mini Retina lineup seems very potent to me whether there is one or two updates in 2013.
Why would they do this now and not do it back in October with the holiday season looming and Amazon and Google's budget offerings just arriving? Sure, they want to dominate but they already do so what motivation is there to gain in unit share but lose in profit share? Did Apple make a profitless iPod in order to win the PMP market or did they do it with well made, well marketed, and well organized pricing, features and releases?
I get what you're saying about cannibalization. My guess is like the iPod touch, the mini will never have the exact same internals as the full-size iPad. But Apple can't ignore competitors going cutthroat and selling good tablets cheap. Right now there are tablets cheaper than the mini that have better displays. I've no doubt they'll catch up on weight and battery life. I'm sure Apple would rather have cannibalization than people switching to Google or Amazon. I guess bottom line is I don't buy the argument some are making that because the mini is selling so well at $329 Apple could easily raise the price and continue to sell bucket loads.
That's true. We'll see what Apple does but they're doing pretty well against the competition of better spec'd cheaper 7 inch tablets.
I'm sure whatever they do this spring or next fall is going to take them even further than the competition.
I'm thinking that they'll make the current mini $299 and the new retina mini $399. Or maybe even $249 and $349 but that seems a lot tighter. You'll get both a price drop on the entry level device and a price increase on the current version.
Apple wants to excel in phones but my feel is that it wants to dominate tablets long term.
If Apple can fend off Android tablets in 2013 it goes a long way in that goal. A $249 iPad Mini and $349 iPad Mini Retina lineup seems very potent to me whether there is one or two updates in 2013.
That's an interesting idea.
It'd be weird for them to move the price like that but I guess the $329 starting price is stranger.
The current Mini would be killer at $229 or $249. I'm not sure if we'll see that price this year but that'd be game changing.
With the 5th gen iPod touch you get more memory (and the same display as the iPhone) for the same price as the 4th gen.
According to MacTracker the 4th and 5th generation iPod Touch both debuted with 32GB and 64GB storage for $299 and $399, respectively. Note that the 5th gen iPod Touch appears to have the same display as the iPhone 5 but the 4th gen Touch clear did not have the same display as the iPhone 4.
There was also a 2.25 year gap between the 4th and 5th gen which makes me wonder why people think Apple will suddenly take a product they carefully selected to use components from 2011 just to jump it twice in year to match the iPhone's components, then continue a 6 month cycle regardless of any evidence to support such a rapid product evolution.
I'd rather have compressed margins than no sale at all. Unless you think Apple can charge whatever they want and people will continue to lap them up.
That's too simple an answer. If you go for a short term sale with a smaller price point you can easily jack up the price later which means you can shoot yourself in the foot trying to make headway into a market. Apple doesn't have this issue in any of it's physical product markets.
Saying "Apple can charge whatever they want and people will continue to lap them up" is a strawman. Apple has never charged whatever. It's well calculated price based on a large number of factors. They've rarely been wrong, unless you want to say that most of their products are priced too low do to the inability to keep up with production demands.
The current Mini would be killer at $229 or $249. I'm not sure if we'll see that price this year but that'd be game changing.
I don't comprehend such comments. It sounds like you're stating "lower prices will sell more," but you've put it into a window of between $229 to $249. Wouldn't you think $199 would sell even better? Or how about $149 or $79? I guess what I do understand is why $228 or less is too little and $230 or more is too much? Is this some psychology I'm not aware of or is this an unspoken statement of what you have assume would be a price Apple could still profit from the device because it's more inline with the considerably smaller display size (up to 40%) of the cheaper competitors? If the former, how so? If the latter, by what criteria have you determined this?
I don't comprehend such comments. It sounds like you're stating "lower prices will sell more," but you've put it into a window of between $229 to $249. Wouldn't you think $199 would sell even better? Or how about $149 or $79? I guess what I do understand is why $228 or less is too little and $230 or more is too much? Is this some psychology I'm not aware of or is this an unspoken statement of what you have assume would be a price Apple could still profit from the device because it's more inline with the considerably smaller display size (up to 40%) of the cheaper competitors? If the former, how so? If the latter, by what criteria have you determined this?
First, I've personally seen cases where we sold more of a product after raising the price. I remember one case where we couldn't sell a product at all for $1.00 but sold out within days after raising the price to $12.95.
That said, price is rarely determined purely on the basis of "how many can we sell at each price?". Rather, you calculate the PROFITS at each price point. Obviously, you could sell a lot more iPads at $99, but Apple would lose money left and right. The general rule is to maximize profits or return on investment rather than maximizing sales volume.
That can sometimes be tempered by marketing purposes. For example, you may sell it at a sub-optimum price to gain market share early on in a market's life cycle with the hope of maximizing future profits. Either way, it would be silly to try to simply maximize sales - if that's all you want to do, just give them away.
The general rule is to maximize profits or return on investment rather than maximizing sales volume.
Sure, and I'm said as many times but specific price points are based on factors we will never be privy too outside of some spill over in a court case. I'd expect any claim to specific prices that would be better for Apple than the prices Apple chose for themselves to be highly detailed to explain the reasoning as to why they think Apple doesn't understand their own market as well as they do, hence my bewilderment.
I don't comprehend such comments. Lower prices will sell more. That is what it sounds like you're saying but you've put it into a window of $229 to $249. Wouldn't you think $199 would sell even better? Or how about $149 or $79? I guess what I do understand is why $228 or less is too little and $230 or more is too much? Is this some psychology I'm not aware of or is this an unspoken assumption of what you assume would be a price Apple could still profit from the device? If the former, how so? If the latter, by what criteria have you determined this?
Exactly. They're selling out at it's current price, what would lowering the price do except lower margins. I was able to find a iPad mini at a Target just before Christmas after multiple attempts and they had about 15 iPads sitting there every time I went. I went to the same Target the day after Christmas and all the iPads were gone.
I don't comprehend such comments. It sounds like you're stating "lower prices will sell more," but you've put it into a window of between $229 to $249. Wouldn't you think $199 would sell even better? Or how about $149 or $79? I guess what I do understand is why $228 or less is too little and $230 or more is too much? Is this some psychology I'm not aware of or is this an unspoken statement of what you have assume would be a price Apple could still profit from the device because it's more inline with the considerably smaller display size (up to 40%) of the cheaper competitors? If the former, how so? If the latter, by what criteria have you determined this?
I mention $229 because that would be the price of the current model if Apple continued selling it for $100 less like they did with the iPad 2 and iPhones. $249 is in reference to nht's post.
Do I think it would sell more at those prices? Not necessarily. iPod Classic sales didn't sky rocket when the price went from $299 to $249. The price drop didn't make much of a difference for people.
I wouldn't consider any product over $200 an impulse buy product. People investing $200 or more in technology are going to buy what best fits them. Price is a consideration but not the biggest consideration.
I mention $229 because that would be the price of the current model if Apple continued selling it for $100 less like they did with the iPad 2 and iPhones. $249 is in reference to nht's post.
Do I think it would sell more at those prices? Not necessarily. iPod Classic sales didn't sky rocket when the price went from $299 to $249. The price drop didn't make much of a difference for people.
I wouldn't consider any product over $200 an impulse buy product. People investing $200 or more in technology are going to buy what best fits them. Price is a consideration but not the biggest consideration.
OK. I understand where you're coming from now. I thought you mean drop the entry level price of the current model, not talking about a generation old model. On that note I wouldn't expect a $100 drop in price for the same storage capacity. If you look at the 4th gen iPod Touch and the 5th gen iPod Touch the price difference is $50. For that reason I wouldn't expect the iPad mini which is in the same price and performance category as the 5th gen Touch to drop by more than $50.
Personally I can't imagine many would choose that 4th gen iPod Touch when the for $50 more you get a ear new ASIC, bigger display, and a much, much better display. Is it a stop gate for holding the $199 price which the 5th gen will serve once the 6th gen is released?
The Retina Mini probably won't replace the current Mini (especially if it's coming out in 3 months as rumored). It will likely be sold in addition to the non-Retina Mini. So no Apple wouldn't be raising the price. They would be adding a more high end option (see: 5G iPod Touch).
Think $329 for the non-Retina and $429 for the Retina, to match the $399 for the non-Retina iPad 2 and $499 for the Retina iPad 4. If Apple has no problem selling Mini's for $329, why lower the price so soon?
Well if, as I've assumed, Apple adds a Retina model this spring for a $100 upcharge I don't see the current model's price dropping.
If Apple were to continue selling non-Retina Minis after this 1st generation then I could see the price dropping to $229. But what I think is more likely, is once technology catches up, we'll see the price of the Retina Mini dropping to $329.
I think I've been misunderstood so I should list my assumptions.
1. The iPad mini will be the mainstream form factor going forward
2. Therefore Apple will offer just one full size iPad model (outside refurbs), a current model iPad mini and a previous model of iPad mini.
3. Release cycles move to 6 months.
4. Normal incremental product improvements after 6 months will arrive at the same price point.
5. Large improvements after just 6 months justify new pricing.
There is no way we're going to see an iPad mini at $229 or even $249 this year if ever. They aren't making their usual margins now at $329 and they're already using old components.
Projected Spring 2013 lineup
$499 iPad 5
$399 iPad mini 2 (retina)
$299 iPad mini 1
Projected Fall 2013 lineup
$499 iPad 6
$399 iPad mini 3
$299 iPad mini 1
Projected Spring 2014 lineup
$499 iPad 7
$399 iPad mini 4
$299 iPad mini 2 (with reduced storage and the chips fabricated on newer technology to cut costs)
I think I've been misunderstood so I should list my assumptions.
1. The iPad mini will be the mainstream form factor going forward
2. Therefore Apple will offer just one full size iPad model (outside refurbs), a current model iPad mini and a previous model of iPad mini.
3. Release cycles move to 6 months.
4. Normal incremental product improvements after 6 months will arrive at the same price point.
5. Large improvements after just 6 months justify new pricing.
There is no way we're going to see an iPad mini at $229 or even $249 this year if ever. They aren't making their usual margins now at $329 and they're already using old components.
Projected Spring 2013 lineup
$499 iPad 5
$399 iPad mini 2 (retina)
$299 iPad mini 1
Projected Fall 2013 lineup
$499 iPad 6
$399 iPad mini 3
$299 iPad mini 1
Projected Spring 2014 lineup
$499 iPad 7
$399 iPad mini 4
$299 iPad mini 2 (with reduced storage and the chips fabricated on newer technology to cut costs)
I agree that's close to my predictions of the iPad lineup's future.
The Mini will take over for the iPad 2 once it gets retina and the low end (last gen models) will compete with cheaper Android tablets.
According to MacTracker the 4th and 5th generation iPod Touch both debuted with 32GB and 64GB storage for $299 and $399, respectively. Note that the 5th gen iPod Touch appears to have the same display as the iPhone 5 but the 4th gen Touch clear did not have the same display as the iPhone 4.
There was also a 2.25 year gap between the 4th and 5th gen which makes me wonder why people think Apple will suddenly take a product they carefully selected to use components from 2011 just to jump it twice in year to match the iPhone's components, then continue a 6 month cycle regardless of any evidence to support such a rapid product evolution.
That's too simple an answer. If you go for a short term sale with a smaller price point you can easily jack up the price later which means you can shoot yourself in the foot trying to make headway into a market. Apple doesn't have this issue in any of it's physical product markets.
Saying "Apple can charge whatever they want and people will continue to lap them up" is a strawman. Apple has never charged whatever. It's well calculated price based on a large number of factors. They've rarely been wrong, unless you want to say that most of their products are priced too low do to the inability to keep up with production demands.
I'm sure $329 was carefully considered. But I still don't buy that adding a retina screen 6 months later has to increase the price $60. Especially when in general tech is coming down in price not getting more expensive,
What if the current iPad Mini 16 GB WiFi + cellular is offered for $329 (currently $429) and promoted * as a personal appliance (smart phone and tablet computer) for emerging [technology] countries.
* Add internal earphone and BT mic/earphone so it could be used as a phone.
I've read that China Mobile, alone, will have 233 million subscribers available for LTE by the end of 2013.
Dick... do you really think that Apple would drop the Mini $100 so soon after its intro? Sure they did it with the original iPhone but there were consequences.
If they are going to upgrade the Mini so soon (and the iPad) it better be really good... and not cheaper than the intro price.
Short answer... Yes!
Somewhat longer answer... Yes, whenever they can! *
* it doesn't have to be "really good" -- it just has to be better enough for most people! Anupgrade to 802.11ac WiFi, alone, would justify the upgrade.
We're talking about leading/dominating a market for the next decade -- and the importance of discrete products will be measured, not individually, but to by how they contribute to that market dominance.
First, I really don't. know -- we are talking about rumors, here... and the possible reasons/logic behind those rumors -- but here's why I think they should be implemented,
Let me try to frame my thoughts with:
Sometime between the years 2007 and 2010 we entered the post pc era -- between the iPhone and the iPad.
Post pc solutions will dominate computer growth for the next 5 years and displace [the bulk of] personal computers as we know them ** -- just as personal computers displaced maimframe and minicomputers -- only this displacement will be much broader and more rapid than the personal computer.
** I do not consider servers and server farms as personal computers.
The killer app for the personal computer was the spreadsheet (first VisiCalc, then...Excel). The killer app provided new capability and accessibility in an inexpensive package (including $2,200 ** computer) -- that could not be matched by maimframes and minicomputers.
*** $10,000 in today's dollars
The personal computer displacement of maimframes and minicomputers brought computing to a new class of users -- less expert than their predecessors -- but in exponentially greater numbers.
For sake of this discussion, let's substitute appliance computers for post pc computers, giving:
appliance computers == post pc computers
and:
appliance computers != laptop computers
appliance computers!= WinTel
The killer app for the appliance computer is... there is no killer app... it is the device itself... or it is the ecosystem and any/all of the hundreds of thousands of apps to suit individual needs. The appliance computer provides new capabilities and accessibility in an inexpensive package -- less than $400 -- that cannot be matched by their predecessors.
The appliance computer displacement of personal computers brings computing to a new class of users -- inexpert users -- and in exponentially greater numbers.
Here's the way I see it:
The appliance computer is accessible and useable by almost anyone... everyone!
Because of its price, people will buy the appliance computer to get the capabilities (apps) they need.
Because of its price, the appliance computer is expendable (disposable) to many people
Whew!
Quote:
Dick... do you really think that Apple would drop the Mini $100 so soon after its intro? Sure they did it with the original iPhone but there were consequences.
If they are going to upgrade the Mini so soon (and the iPad) it better be really good... and not cheaper than the intro price.
Yes... if you look out over the landscape and where the iPad and iPad Mini appliance computers are going in the next 5-10 years!
The rules of the game have changed -- he who anticipates the needs and delivers timelysolutions will win the war.
I think I've been misunderstood so I should list my assumptions.
1. The iPad mini will be the mainstream form factor going forward
2. Therefore Apple will offer just one full size iPad model (outside refurbs), a current model iPad mini and a previous model of iPad mini.
3. Release cycles move to 6 months.
4. Normal incremental product improvements after 6 months will arrive at the same price point.
5. Large improvements after just 6 months justify new pricing.
There is no way we're going to see an iPad mini at $229 or even $249 this year if ever. They aren't making their usual margins now at $329 and they're already using old components.
Projected Spring 2013 lineup
$499 iPad 5
$399 iPad mini 2 (retina)
$299 iPad mini 1
Projected Fall 2013 lineup
$499 iPad 6
$399 iPad mini 3
$299 iPad mini 1
Projected Spring 2014 lineup
$499 iPad 7
$399 iPad mini 4
$299 iPad mini 2 (with reduced storage and the chips fabricated on newer technology to cut costs)
Once a retina mini comes out I'd love to know who would want a non-retina one when you could get a retina iPod touch with more storage for the same price (under your scenario). Seems to me the only reason for increasing the price on a retina mini is knowing it will eat into full size iPad sales. I think a retina mini at $329 would really own the tablet market. At $399 I could see people looking at other options (under the assumption that 7" tablets from Amazon and Google are not going up in price).
I'm sure $329 was carefully considered. But I still don't buy that adding a retina screen 6 months later has to increase the price $60. Especially when in general tech is coming down in price not getting more expensive,
New ASIC with X suffix for the wider memory bandwidth required for the Retina display, with better CPU and Rogue 6 GPU (if not Rogue 6 then some new battery tech to cut down on mass and volume)
A 326 PPI display at 2048x1536 resolution (Imagine the iPhone's 5 display but about 4.5x larger)
IGZO tech (is this even on the market for any vendor?)
That is only the short list. We don't know what potentially other changes there could be to shrink components to fit the smaller size or if they are getting the same gross profit from the smaller iPad. What if it's smaller than its larger brother? How do you account for the costs for what I think are the minimum mandatory changes needed to make this feasible from a technical standpoint? Have you see any info on what IGZO will likely cost Apple per display?
If you are using tried and true business models that Apple loves to work in we would expect to see this tech on the higher-end and then trickle down to the areas that are already less profitable. I am, of course, assuming the iPad mini is less profitable per unit than the iPad. Why do you think the 15" MBP got a Retina display before the 13" MBP? The iGPU that runs that display was available when the 15" RMBP launched and it's clearly easier and cheaper to make a smaller display than a larger one... but is still too much compared to the cost to profit ratio of that device until you can bring down costs from a few million 15" sheets being cut first?
As I've stated before I want what everyone else here wants I just see nothing substantial to make it seem like it's a reasonable expectation. That is not to say it can't happen but that's not planning a trip to Yellow Stone National Park this Summer because I'm afraid the super volcano could blow at any time. Doesn't mean it couldn't but the data all say it's not likely.
I'm sure $329 was carefully considered. But I still don't buy that adding a retina screen 6 months later has to increase the price $60. Especially when in general tech is coming down in price not getting more expensive,
New ASIC with X suffix for the wider memory bandwidth required for the Retina display, with better CPU and Rogue 6 GPU (if not Rogue 6 then some new battery tech to cut down on mass and volume)
A 326 PPI display at 2048x1536 resolution (Imagine the iPhone's 5 display but about 4.5x larger)
IGZO tech (is this even on the market for any vendor?)
That is only the short list. We don't know what potentially other changes there could be to shrink components to fit the smaller size or if they are getting the same gross profit from the smaller iPad. What if it's smaller than its larger brother? How do you account for the costs for what I think are the minimum mandatory changes needed to make this feasible from a technical standpoint? Have you see any info on what IGZO will likely cost Apple per display?
If you are using tried and true business models that Apple loves to work in we would expect to see this tech on the higher-end and then trickle down to the areas that are already less profitable. I am, of course, assuming the iPad mini is less profitable per unit than the iPad. Why do you think the 15" MBP got a Retina display before the 13" MBP? The iGPU that runs that display was available when the 15" RMBP launched and it's clearly easier and cheaper to make a smaller display than a larger one... but is still too much compared to the cost to profit ratio of that device until you can bring down costs from a few million 15" sheets being cut first?
As I've stated before I want what everyone else here wants I just see nothing substantial to make it seem like it's a reasonable expectation. That is not to say it can't happen but that's not planning a trip to Yellow Stone National Park this Summer because I'm afraid the super volcano could blow at any time. Doesn't mean it couldn't but the data all say it's not likely.
I agree… To a degree!
However I think we must concentrate on why they should release upgrades -- rather than features, specs and profit margins...
The future of computing is Apple's for the taking... IMO, they should grab every opportunity -- and never look back!... Timing!
New ASIC with X suffix for the wider memory bandwidth required for the Retina display, with better CPU and Rogue 6 GPU (if not Rogue 6 then some new battery tech to cut down on mass and volume)
A 326 PPI display at 2048x1536 resolution (Imagine the iPhone's 5 display but about 4.5x larger)
IGZO tech (is this even on the market for any vendor?)
That is only the short list. We don't know what potentially other changes there could be to shrink components to fit the smaller size or if they are getting the same gross profit from the smaller iPad. What if it's smaller than its larger brother? How do you account for the costs for what I think are the minimum mandatory changes needed to make this feasible from a technical standpoint? Have you see any info on what IGZO will likely cost Apple per display?
If you are using tried and true business models that Apple loves to work in we would expect to see this tech on the higher-end and then trickle down to the areas that are already less profitable. I am, of course, assuming the iPad mini is less profitable per unit than the iPad. Why do you think the 15" MBP got a Retina display before the 13" MBP? The iGPU that runs that display was available when the 15" RMBP launched and it's clearly easier and cheaper to make a smaller display than a larger one... but is still too much compared to the cost to profit ratio of that device until you can bring down costs from a few million 15" sheets being cut first?
As I've stated before I want what everyone else here wants I just see nothing substantial to make it seem like it's a reasonable expectation. That is not to say it can't happen but that's not planning a trip to Yellow Stone National Park this Summer because I'm afraid the super volcano could blow at any time. Doesn't mean it couldn't but the data all say it's not likely.
Well then since the mini at $329 is selling so well I don't think they should release a retina mini until costs come down to where they can do it for the same price. Everything you just listed makes me skeptical they would be able to pull off a March launch regardless of price anyway. Plus why replace a product that is clearly selling well with a more expensive one so quickly?
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
That's why I'm 90% sure the Retina Mini is going to cost more than $329. This Spring they'll probably announce the Retina model as a higher end addition to the iPad Mini lineup, meaning the current model that came out a few months ago will continue to sell as is with the Retina being the "flagship" of the iPad Mini lineup.
I'm thinking that they'll make the current mini $299 and the new retina mini $399. Or maybe even $249 and $349 but that seems a lot tighter. You'll get both a price drop on the entry level device and a price increase on the current version.
Apple wants to excel in phones but my feel is that it wants to dominate tablets long term.
If Apple can fend off Android tablets in 2013 it goes a long way in that goal. A $249 iPad Mini and $349 iPad Mini Retina lineup seems very potent to me whether there is one or two updates in 2013.
Why would they do this now and not do it back in October with the holiday season looming and Amazon and Google's budget offerings just arriving? Sure, they want to dominate but they already do so what motivation is there to gain in unit share but lose in profit share? Did Apple make a profitless iPod in order to win the PMP market or did they do it with well made, well marketed, and well organized pricing, features and releases?
That's true. We'll see what Apple does but they're doing pretty well against the competition of better spec'd cheaper 7 inch tablets.
I'm sure whatever they do this spring or next fall is going to take them even further than the competition.
That's an interesting idea.
It'd be weird for them to move the price like that but I guess the $329 starting price is stranger.
The current Mini would be killer at $229 or $249. I'm not sure if we'll see that price this year but that'd be game changing.
According to MacTracker the 4th and 5th generation iPod Touch both debuted with 32GB and 64GB storage for $299 and $399, respectively. Note that the 5th gen iPod Touch appears to have the same display as the iPhone 5 but the 4th gen Touch clear did not have the same display as the iPhone 4.
There was also a 2.25 year gap between the 4th and 5th gen which makes me wonder why people think Apple will suddenly take a product they carefully selected to use components from 2011 just to jump it twice in year to match the iPhone's components, then continue a 6 month cycle regardless of any evidence to support such a rapid product evolution.
That's too simple an answer. If you go for a short term sale with a smaller price point you can easily jack up the price later which means you can shoot yourself in the foot trying to make headway into a market. Apple doesn't have this issue in any of it's physical product markets.
Saying "Apple can charge whatever they want and people will continue to lap them up" is a strawman. Apple has never charged whatever. It's well calculated price based on a large number of factors. They've rarely been wrong, unless you want to say that most of their products are priced too low do to the inability to keep up with production demands.
I don't comprehend such comments. It sounds like you're stating "lower prices will sell more," but you've put it into a window of between $229 to $249. Wouldn't you think $199 would sell even better? Or how about $149 or $79? I guess what I do understand is why $228 or less is too little and $230 or more is too much? Is this some psychology I'm not aware of or is this an unspoken statement of what you have assume would be a price Apple could still profit from the device because it's more inline with the considerably smaller display size (up to 40%) of the cheaper competitors? If the former, how so? If the latter, by what criteria have you determined this?
First, I've personally seen cases where we sold more of a product after raising the price. I remember one case where we couldn't sell a product at all for $1.00 but sold out within days after raising the price to $12.95.
That said, price is rarely determined purely on the basis of "how many can we sell at each price?". Rather, you calculate the PROFITS at each price point. Obviously, you could sell a lot more iPads at $99, but Apple would lose money left and right. The general rule is to maximize profits or return on investment rather than maximizing sales volume.
That can sometimes be tempered by marketing purposes. For example, you may sell it at a sub-optimum price to gain market share early on in a market's life cycle with the hope of maximizing future profits. Either way, it would be silly to try to simply maximize sales - if that's all you want to do, just give them away.
Sure, and I'm said as many times but specific price points are based on factors we will never be privy too outside of some spill over in a court case. I'd expect any claim to specific prices that would be better for Apple than the prices Apple chose for themselves to be highly detailed to explain the reasoning as to why they think Apple doesn't understand their own market as well as they do, hence my bewilderment.
Exactly. They're selling out at it's current price, what would lowering the price do except lower margins. I was able to find a iPad mini at a Target just before Christmas after multiple attempts and they had about 15 iPads sitting there every time I went. I went to the same Target the day after Christmas and all the iPads were gone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I don't comprehend such comments. It sounds like you're stating "lower prices will sell more," but you've put it into a window of between $229 to $249. Wouldn't you think $199 would sell even better? Or how about $149 or $79? I guess what I do understand is why $228 or less is too little and $230 or more is too much? Is this some psychology I'm not aware of or is this an unspoken statement of what you have assume would be a price Apple could still profit from the device because it's more inline with the considerably smaller display size (up to 40%) of the cheaper competitors? If the former, how so? If the latter, by what criteria have you determined this?
I mention $229 because that would be the price of the current model if Apple continued selling it for $100 less like they did with the iPad 2 and iPhones. $249 is in reference to nht's post.
Do I think it would sell more at those prices? Not necessarily. iPod Classic sales didn't sky rocket when the price went from $299 to $249. The price drop didn't make much of a difference for people.
I wouldn't consider any product over $200 an impulse buy product. People investing $200 or more in technology are going to buy what best fits them. Price is a consideration but not the biggest consideration.
OK. I understand where you're coming from now. I thought you mean drop the entry level price of the current model, not talking about a generation old model. On that note I wouldn't expect a $100 drop in price for the same storage capacity. If you look at the 4th gen iPod Touch and the 5th gen iPod Touch the price difference is $50. For that reason I wouldn't expect the iPad mini which is in the same price and performance category as the 5th gen Touch to drop by more than $50.
Personally I can't imagine many would choose that 4th gen iPod Touch when the for $50 more you get a ear new ASIC, bigger display, and a much, much better display. Is it a stop gate for holding the $199 price which the 5th gen will serve once the 6th gen is released?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
The Retina Mini probably won't replace the current Mini (especially if it's coming out in 3 months as rumored). It will likely be sold in addition to the non-Retina Mini. So no Apple wouldn't be raising the price. They would be adding a more high end option (see: 5G iPod Touch).
Think $329 for the non-Retina and $429 for the Retina, to match the $399 for the non-Retina iPad 2 and $499 for the Retina iPad 4. If Apple has no problem selling Mini's for $329, why lower the price so soon?
Well if, as I've assumed, Apple adds a Retina model this spring for a $100 upcharge I don't see the current model's price dropping.
If Apple were to continue selling non-Retina Minis after this 1st generation then I could see the price dropping to $229. But what I think is more likely, is once technology catches up, we'll see the price of the Retina Mini dropping to $329.
I think I've been misunderstood so I should list my assumptions.
1. The iPad mini will be the mainstream form factor going forward
2. Therefore Apple will offer just one full size iPad model (outside refurbs), a current model iPad mini and a previous model of iPad mini.
3. Release cycles move to 6 months.
4. Normal incremental product improvements after 6 months will arrive at the same price point.
5. Large improvements after just 6 months justify new pricing.
There is no way we're going to see an iPad mini at $229 or even $249 this year if ever. They aren't making their usual margins now at $329 and they're already using old components.
Projected Spring 2013 lineup
$499 iPad 5
$399 iPad mini 2 (retina)
$299 iPad mini 1
Projected Fall 2013 lineup
$499 iPad 6
$399 iPad mini 3
$299 iPad mini 1
Projected Spring 2014 lineup
$499 iPad 7
$399 iPad mini 4
$299 iPad mini 2 (with reduced storage and the chips fabricated on newer technology to cut costs)
I agree that's close to my predictions of the iPad lineup's future.
The Mini will take over for the iPad 2 once it gets retina and the low end (last gen models) will compete with cheaper Android tablets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
"iPad upgrade silliness?
What if the current iPad Mini 16 GB WiFi + cellular is offered for $329 (currently $429) and promoted * as a personal appliance (smart phone and tablet computer) for emerging [technology] countries.
* Add internal earphone and BT mic/earphone so it could be used as a phone.
I've read that China Mobile, alone, will have 233 million subscribers available for LTE by the end of 2013.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/01/china-mobile-admits-to-a-confidentiality-agreement-with-apple.html
Dick... do you really think that Apple would drop the Mini $100 so soon after its intro? Sure they did it with the original iPhone but there were consequences.
If they are going to upgrade the Mini so soon (and the iPad) it better be really good... and not cheaper than the intro price.
Short answer... Yes!
Somewhat longer answer... Yes, whenever they can! *
* it doesn't have to be "really good" -- it just has to be better enough for most people! An upgrade to 802.11ac WiFi, alone, would justify the upgrade.
We're talking about leading/dominating a market for the next decade -- and the importance of discrete products will be measured, not individually, but to by how they contribute to that market dominance.
First, I really don't. know -- we are talking about rumors, here... and the possible reasons/logic behind those rumors -- but here's why I think they should be implemented,
Let me try to frame my thoughts with:
Sometime between the years 2007 and 2010 we entered the post pc era -- between the iPhone and the iPad.
Post pc solutions will dominate computer growth for the next 5 years and displace [the bulk of] personal computers as we know them ** -- just as personal computers displaced maimframe and minicomputers -- only this displacement will be much broader and more rapid than the personal computer.
** I do not consider servers and server farms as personal computers.
The killer app for the personal computer was the spreadsheet (first VisiCalc, then...Excel). The killer app provided new capability and accessibility in an inexpensive package (including $2,200 ** computer) -- that could not be matched by maimframes and minicomputers.
*** $10,000 in today's dollars
The personal computer displacement of maimframes and minicomputers brought computing to a new class of users -- less expert than their predecessors -- but in exponentially greater numbers.
For sake of this discussion, let's substitute appliance computers for post pc computers, giving:
appliance computers == post pc computers
and:
appliance computers != laptop computers
appliance computers != WinTel
The killer app for the appliance computer is... there is no killer app... it is the device itself... or it is the ecosystem and any/all of the hundreds of thousands of apps to suit individual needs. The appliance computer provides new capabilities and accessibility in an inexpensive package -- less than $400 -- that cannot be matched by their predecessors.
The appliance computer displacement of personal computers brings computing to a new class of users -- inexpert users -- and in exponentially greater numbers.
Here's the way I see it:
The appliance computer is accessible and useable by almost anyone... everyone!
Because of its price, people will buy the appliance computer to get the capabilities (apps) they need.
Because of its price, the appliance computer is expendable (disposable) to many people
Whew!
Quote:
Dick... do you really think that Apple would drop the Mini $100 so soon after its intro? Sure they did it with the original iPhone but there were consequences.
If they are going to upgrade the Mini so soon (and the iPad) it better be really good... and not cheaper than the intro price.
Yes... if you look out over the landscape and where the iPad and iPad Mini appliance computers are going in the next 5-10 years!
The rules of the game have changed -- he who anticipates the needs and delivers timely solutions will win the war.
Current iPad install base > 100,000,000
|
|
V
Current Population Clock
U.S. 315,151,252
World 7,059,225,873
20:50 UTC (EST+5) Jan 12, 2013
http://www.census.gov/main/www/popclock.html
Typed on my iPad and iMac -- I lost my voice and Siri won't work for me
That is only the short list. We don't know what potentially other changes there could be to shrink components to fit the smaller size or if they are getting the same gross profit from the smaller iPad. What if it's smaller than its larger brother? How do you account for the costs for what I think are the minimum mandatory changes needed to make this feasible from a technical standpoint? Have you see any info on what IGZO will likely cost Apple per display?
If you are using tried and true business models that Apple loves to work in we would expect to see this tech on the higher-end and then trickle down to the areas that are already less profitable. I am, of course, assuming the iPad mini is less profitable per unit than the iPad. Why do you think the 15" MBP got a Retina display before the 13" MBP? The iGPU that runs that display was available when the 15" RMBP launched and it's clearly easier and cheaper to make a smaller display than a larger one... but is still too much compared to the cost to profit ratio of that device until you can bring down costs from a few million 15" sheets being cut first?
As I've stated before I want what everyone else here wants I just see nothing substantial to make it seem like it's a reasonable expectation. That is not to say it can't happen but that's not planning a trip to Yellow Stone National Park this Summer because I'm afraid the super volcano could blow at any time. Doesn't mean it couldn't but the data all say it's not likely.
I agree… To a degree!
However I think we must concentrate on why they should release upgrades -- rather than features, specs and profit margins...
The future of computing is Apple's for the taking... IMO, they should grab every opportunity -- and never look back!... Timing!