But will Apple be agiling the iPad 5 in March oder Oktober?
I mean this is the THIRD f***ing version of iPad 3 in less than a year!!!!
Can't they be putting all of that energy into a fourth generation iPad, FFS?!?
Jesus ....
I'm sick & f***ing tired of looking at my iPad 2 already ....
LET'S GO, APPLE!!!
1) It's not an iPad (3), it's an iPad (4).
2) If you can't stand your iPad 2 and neither the iPad (3) or (4) appeal to you then why would you expect any future models to be appealing? It seems that many who have newer iPads had older models that they enjoyed using hence their desire to upgrade.
3) Not sure about the rest of your comments but it all sounds a bit crazy.
That is baloney. The only reason to buy anything other than the base product is to get more storage, that is flash. Any other point of view is just pandering to Apples marketing department or trying to rationalize a messed up pricing scheme.
You can try to justify the tiering Apple has in place however you want but the fact remains you pay through the noise for tiny amounts of flash in Apples iOS devices. Unless you get the cell option that is the only thing you are paying for. You get nothing else, no extra RAM, same old processor and the same screen. The only way to look at this is that you are buying flash at highly inflated prices.
Historical note: Gates never said that 640K was all anyone would ever need. What happened was that many years later he was addressing a group of university students, and he was talking about how even the best planning sometimes went wrong.
He told them that back when they were expanding the PC memory access, the planners had thought that increasing from 64K up to 640K would be enough for the next ten years. As it turned out, he said, 640K was only good enough for about five years. The story was meant as an amusing anecdote, but parts were taken out of context. Still, it applies now to the iPad as well. There's never enough memory :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The SD cards are lower quality, slower and likely will wear out sooner. Then there is the whole hassle of:
carrying around those pesky little cards in their little carrying cases
...
As gwmac pointed out, nowadays most people just buy the extra memory to put in once and use it. It's never taken out again, except perhaps to go into a newer device... or sometimes to plug directly into a computer to do a quicker transfer of all the data to a backup disk.
(If Apple tries to sell a far less expensive phone, I think this is the biggest issue they'll have. People in the sub $200 phone market aren't going to pay a couple of hundred MORE dollars to Apple just to get a few tens of dollars' worth of memory.)
As to slower, not necessarily. The internal NAND flash that Apple buys for its devices has transfer speeds from 10 to 50 MBps. (I checked the data sheets.) The Ultra High Speed microSD cards match that.
As for wearing out sooner, the NAND that Apple uses has only a 5,000 to 10,000 write cycle lifetime. MicroSD cards match that, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Realy, if you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND, well, then you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND.
I can help describe some of the benefits of using built-in NAND to him. The multi-million dollar electronic casino gaming system that we built back in the early 1990s used Flash memory chips. I wrote the code to use them, and I've tried to keep up with the latest Flash controller news in case I ever go back into the embedded world.
It was far, far easier for Apple's iOS developers to NOT have to deal with the situation where a card is removed or swapped, and that helps naive users as well.
It was cheaper to build a device that didn't have a memory card socket.
Apple could put boot code in a flash section and protect it, yet still change it later if wished.
Back in 2007, it was probably faster to use onboard Flash.
Apple already bought a ton of Flash for their iPods. This just further leveraged that supply chain.
Let's face it, it forces buyers to pay Apple huge amounts for the upgrade.
OTOH, it's a real pain and slow to make the CPU and OS spend a lot of time directly dealing with the onboard flash. Somewhere along the line, I'm not sure when, Apple added a flash controller to handle those chores. (MicroSD cards already have one.)
Wrong.
It's an iPad 3 [Retina Display+Lightning Port] with extra storage.
Apple themselves say there's nothing else different about it.
If your car had a bigger gastank, would you call it "next gen"?
2) If you can't stand your iPad 2 and neither the iPad (3) or (4) appeal to you then why would you expect any future models to be appealing?
Because I expect iPad 5 [let's just call it that, OK?] to have the capability of iPad 3 plus a little bit more [advanced CPU & GPU]
minus the thickness & weight -- 2 setbacks that'll be cured by IGZO screens.
[quote name="BoxMacCary" url="/t/155697/apple-launches-new-high-capacity-128gb-retina-display-ipad/200#post_2267546"] Wrong. It's an iPad 3 [Retina Display+Lightning Port] with extra storage. Apple themselves say there's nothing else different about it. If your car had a bigger gastank, would you call it "next gen"?[/QUOTE]
If it had a new and improved engine I would… which is why it's an iPad (4) and not an iPad (3) with a new connector.
[QUOTE]Because, I expect iPad 5 [let's just call it that, OK?] to have the capability of iPad 3 plus a little bit more [advanced CPU & GPU] minus the thickness & weight -- 2 setbacks that'll be cured by IGZO screens.[/QUOTE]
2) The iPad (4) has a more advanced ASIC but you've decided that it's not the 4th generation unless it's lighter and thinner. First of all, while those would be nice changes that is not what determines a generational change or you'd have to argue that the iPad (3) and (4) is generation 1.5 since it's weight and thickness is between the original and iPad 2. Secondly, you've contradicted yourself by saying you're waiting for the iPad 5 thus acknowledging it's the 4th gen iPad.
That is baloney. The only reason to buy anything other than the base product is to get more storage, that is flash. Any other point of view is just pandering to Apples marketing department or trying to rationalize a messed up pricing scheme.
You can try to justify the tiering Apple has in place however you want but the fact remains you pay through the noise for tiny amounts of flash in Apples iOS devices. Unless you get the cell option that is the only thing you are paying for. You get nothing else, no extra RAM, same old processor and the same screen. The only way to look at this is that you are buying flash at highly inflated prices.
Or, you're buying the cheaper models at highly reduced prices. Again, you're coming at this with the low-end model being some market ideal and everything else is just raping you. It's very simple. They sell a product called the iPad and they want to sell as many as possible for the higher APR and profit margin as possible. This means they need to stagger the models. It means the low-end makes less profit than the high-end.
If you honestly feel that a $20 (or whatever) cost difference is the only fair value then tell me why they should change the low-end 16GB model to be $749 so that there is a $20 stepping for each doubling of RAM? You can't because you've deemed that $499 is some magical fair price point which is absurd.
PS: If you none of that convinces you note that gwmac gave your last common a thumbs up. If that doesn't make you honk twice about your comment I don't know what will.
Yeah what was wrong with the iDisk concept anyways? iCloud works for some things ok but for the most part it is a big fail. Of course it would help is Apples own iWork programs used the same files.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Better yet, go back to the old iDisk method where I can store ALL my data on iDisk and have it mirrored automatically to my hard disk.
Apple would do well to create a mirrored directory system across all devices. One of the big problems with iOS is every app out there delivers a directory browser in a different way, this goes hand in hand with the mirroring and file handling issue. Frankly the lack of a standard file browser even for app private files is a significant IOS short coming.
Historical note: Gates never said that 640K was all anyone would ever need. What happened was that many years later he was addressing a group of university students, and he was talking about how even the best planning sometimes went wrong.
He told them that back when they were expanding the PC memory access, the planners had thought that increasing from 64K up to 640K would be enough for the next ten years. As it turned out, he said, 640K was only good enough for about five years. The story was meant as an amusing anecdote, but parts were taken out of context. Still, it applies now to the iPad as well. There's never enough memory :-)
Thanks, but I said nothing about Bill Gates. Never even implied it. Nice try jamming that Pro-Anyone-But-Apple bias in there.
We already have GatorGuy. We don't need another one.
You are having a really difficult time grasping this. The base price isn't the issue, it is the excessively high price you pay for extra flash. You keep trying to turn this into a discussion about something it isn't about. Frankly I don't know why, as Apples tiering makes the discussion pretty damn simple. The simple reality is that 128 GB of flash, even in a SSD, isn't that expensive these days.
If you don't believe me go over to newegg.com and price SSDs in the 128Gb range. Many come in around $100. That is for a complete drive at retail prices. Now Apple will be sourcing the parts for far cheaper and more importantly they need fewer of those parts.
Since you seemed tone preoccupied with the base machine price of $499, how much more do you think one should pay for a 128GB machine over that base price. Keep in mind that manufactures are making a profit on the 128GB drives. So what is it $599, $699 or something else.
I'm not being unreasonable here, in fact I'd be the first to acknowledge that Apple is likely using the news technology flash chips to keep power usage in check. This in and of itself would be more expensive so it might be worth $200. So maybe that 128 GB iPad ought to sell in the +$700 range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Or, you're buying the cheaper models at highly reduced prices. Again, you're coming at this with the low-end model being some market ideal and everything else is just raping you. It's very simple. They sell a product called the iPad and they want to sell as many as possible for the higher APR and profit margin as possible. This means they need to stagger the models. It means the low-end makes less profit than the high-end.
If you honestly feel that a $20 (or whatever) cost difference is the only fair value then tell me why they should change the low-end 16GB model to be $749 so that there is a $20 stepping for each doubling of RAM? You can't because you've deemed that $499 is some magical fair price point which is absurd.
PS: If you none of that convinces you note that gwmac gave your last common a thumbs up. If that doesn't make you honk twice about your comment I don't know what will.
It really doesn't matter who agrees with me, the defect is on your end. You really need to reflect on this a bit and ask yourself why you should put up with such a fleecing. The way I see it, this is an example of Apple making the same position mistakes that they made in the past with the Mac. Mistakes that Cook and company have public ally stated that they would not repeat.
This is a huge problem and frankly any investor should be seriously worried that Apple will position themselves in such a way that the competition will have freedom of operation against them. Gouging will quickly lead to customers looking elsewhere even if they have to compromise on functionality. At that point Apple will find themselves repeating history wondering why only a few Apple zealots are buying their hardware.
When the iPad originally came out Apple literally broke the mold and priced the machine aggressively based on the technology of the day. Time has passed now and frankly technology has marched on, the iPads should have been updated flash capacity wise by now to reflect the fact that more capacity is available at a reasonable price. This simply to maintain the market aggressiveness they started out with.
One last time. Why do you think the $499 16GB model is the ideal for their profit margin and APR that anything else is just [I]price gouging[/I]? If you can correctly answer that you may finally understand warped your thinking is on this.
This is basic economics. You have so many items to sell within a range and you divvy up your product to maximize sales. The low-end end brings in less profit than desired but you make it up at the high-end. The end result is the product has an overall desired effect so long as the high-end isn't too far away from or too close to the low end to get too many going to the top tier or too few.
If you can show me one earnings report where Apple has broken the iPad segment by different capacity models I'll lay off you for saying they are ripping you off, price gouging, ass raping or whatever other color terms you want to use to describe the most common thing in business for selling a tiered product.
The iPad (4) has a more advanced ASIC but you've decided that it's not the 4th generation unless it's lighter and thinner.
No.
I didn't consider it nextgen because I was under the -- apparently mistaken -- impression that the CPU/GPU were the same.
But, after some wikiing around, I see that that's not the case at all.
iPad 4's CPU/GPU are significantly improved.
The dimensions are the same -- just the iPad 4’s 2g heavier, that's all.
So, my profoundist of apologies, Good Sir!
I was venting frustration at having to bypass yet another iPad interation without the appeal to upgrade.
Now of course, I'll lay out the $750 for an iPad 4 32GB & the picosecond I do that, Apple will send out the invites for a March event .... Yeeeccchhh ....
It really doesn't matter who agrees with me, the defect is on your end. You really need to reflect on this a bit and ask yourself why you should put up with such a fleecing. The way I see it, this is an example of Apple making the same position mistakes that they made in the past with the Mac. Mistakes that Cook and company have public ally stated that they would not repeat.
This is a huge problem and frankly any investor should be seriously worried that Apple will position themselves in such a way that the competition will have freedom of operation against them. Gouging will quickly lead to customers looking elsewhere even if they have to compromise on functionality. At that point Apple will find themselves repeating history wondering why only a few Apple zealots are buying their hardware.
When the iPad originally came out Apple literally broke the mold and priced the machine aggressively based on the technology of the day. Time has passed now and frankly technology has marched on, the iPads should have been updated flash capacity wise by now to reflect the fact that more capacity is available at a reasonable price. This simply to maintain the market aggressiveness they started out with.
The line up is carefully positioned to provide a low cost option with too little flash memory for the upsell to the mid tier model. Folks that need a lot more than that pay a lot more vs the base model although proportionally less per GB. The lowest cost model pushes the price umbrella down as much as Apple is willing to do. The 128GB model is priced sufficiently well that any MBA cannibalization is not of any concern. It also provides a higher top end model for folks who need the space for work and are less price conscious.
I have no idea why you think this is a huge problem given they are supply constrained. If they weren't supply constrained then you could make the argument that the products are priced too high.
I also have no idea why you think you know product positioning better than Cook. This isn't the 90s, Apple is executing pretty well with the exception of the iMacs.
One last time. Why do you think the $499 16GB model is the ideal for their profit margin and APR that anything else is just price gouging?
If you mean ASP then I agree. $499 probably gets them the margins they want but not the ASPs. Moving the base iPad to 32GB has a negative effect on ASPs because 16GB is simply too small for today where games and textbooks weigh in at 2GB+ a shot. 32GB is reasonable enough that a lot of folks won't spring for a $599 64GB model.
$499 is the best value followed by $699. I bought the $599 one (actually the $729 verizon one).
128 GB is great, but the cost is gonna keep me away. I can afford it don't get me wrong, but why pay for something that in about 6 months it will be obsolete with the new new iPad.
That's a humble brag -- don't worry we won't get you wrong, we all know you're financially set. Guess you never buy a new car or TV or anything, what's the point they'll just have a new model or upgrade out in 6-10 months. And it'll be obsolete - not allowing anyone to use it - it'll just lock and never work again.
Like most people, I don't really care about "the Classic." I see it as the device choice of insufferable snobs for the most part.
I think the last part of your statement about how long it would take for 128GB to move to the iPhone and iPod is likely incorrect however. The fact that they can do this storage upgrade "mid-stream" as it were, without a redesign of the device, indicates to me that its a simple chip swap and that the two parts are of identical size.
If they can simply swap out the chips for a larger capacity chip of the exact same size, then it could literally happen overnight. The fact that this move would do a great deal to improve their gross margins, (exactly the problem in their last financial report), means also that they might be very motivated to do so.
I'm not sure how my wanting to have access to my complete music library whilst travelling in places with little or no Wifi, or without having to pay hefty roaming charges for the privilege, makes me an insufferable snob.
I agree with you that it won't take long before the iPod Touch and the iPhone get the same capacity bump, and I'm guessing the iPad Mini will too. This announcement has delayed my upgrade from iPod Touch to iPad Mini and made the planned replacement of my almost full 120GB Classic to a 160GB model more compelling.
Good to see that Apple has finally seen fit to offer more capacity for those who simply must carry a bunch of HD movies, insane numbers of photos, more apps than they'll likely ever even use, or entire music collections with them almost everywhere.
Crazy that a 128gb Wifi+Cellular version will end up near US 1000.00 after sales tax, making a MacBook Air a seemingly much better/smarter purchase.
Yet... Apple's still chagring an additional US 100.00 for + 16gb, +32gb and + 64gb - What?
Well, yes. Apple is wanting people to make that comparison with Microsoft Surface Pro. Other than screen res, it's mostly a poorer spec than any decent Ultrabook including the MBA. And it has a floppy keyboard, meaning you must deploy a kickstand to use it, so they’ve invented a laptop you can’t use on your lap.
Others are tying this launch with the Surface Pro launch as if they are competing products. I don’t think so. What Apple really ought to do is set up a product compare page that puts the iPad side by side with the MBA. Anyone comparing the Surface with iPad would immediately see that and be directed to the rather obvious question: why am I buying this, not a notebook that’s thinner and lighter, and has a proper keyboard?
This is basic economics. You have so many items to sell within a range and you divvy up your product to maximize sales. The low-end end brings in less profit than desired but you make it up at the high-end. The end result is the product has an overall desired effect so long as the high-end isn't too far away from or too close to the low end to get too many going to the top tier or too few.
No one is disputing any of that. What many of us ARE saying is that the spread is too wide and puts too much of the profit burden on those who want higher capacity.
The bottom line is that a $300 hit for a few GB of flash is not a good value proposition for the consumer. I'm sure Apple is perfectly happy with the arrangement and I'm sure they've carefully calculated the best way to maximize their sales and profits. None of that matters to ME as the buyer though. I'm not purchasing a range of products, I'm buying ONE device, and if I want one with lots of storage from Apple, I have to subsidize everyone who bought a low-capacity version. While that might be fine for Apple, it sucks out loud for anyone buying anything other than the most basic entry-level model.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by icoco3
$799 - $499 = $299 and NOT $399
Actually, it's neither, but never mind.
1) It's not an iPad (3), it's an iPad (4).
2) If you can't stand your iPad 2 and neither the iPad (3) or (4) appeal to you then why would you expect any future models to be appealing? It seems that many who have newer iPads had older models that they enjoyed using hence their desire to upgrade.
3) Not sure about the rest of your comments but it all sounds a bit crazy.
That is baloney. The only reason to buy anything other than the base product is to get more storage, that is flash. Any other point of view is just pandering to Apples marketing department or trying to rationalize a messed up pricing scheme.
You can try to justify the tiering Apple has in place however you want but the fact remains you pay through the noise for tiny amounts of flash in Apples iOS devices. Unless you get the cell option that is the only thing you are paying for. You get nothing else, no extra RAM, same old processor and the same screen. The only way to look at this is that you are buying flash at highly inflated prices.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You're not buying flash, you're buying a product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
640k ought to be enough cliche for anyone.
Historical note: Gates never said that 640K was all anyone would ever need. What happened was that many years later he was addressing a group of university students, and he was talking about how even the best planning sometimes went wrong.
He told them that back when they were expanding the PC memory access, the planners had thought that increasing from 64K up to 640K would be enough for the next ten years. As it turned out, he said, 640K was only good enough for about five years. The story was meant as an amusing anecdote, but parts were taken out of context. Still, it applies now to the iPad as well. There's never enough memory :-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
The SD cards are lower quality, slower and likely will wear out sooner. Then there is the whole hassle of:
carrying around those pesky little cards in their little carrying cases
...
As gwmac pointed out, nowadays most people just buy the extra memory to put in once and use it. It's never taken out again, except perhaps to go into a newer device... or sometimes to plug directly into a computer to do a quicker transfer of all the data to a backup disk.
(If Apple tries to sell a far less expensive phone, I think this is the biggest issue they'll have. People in the sub $200 phone market aren't going to pay a couple of hundred MORE dollars to Apple just to get a few tens of dollars' worth of memory.)
As to slower, not necessarily. The internal NAND flash that Apple buys for its devices has transfer speeds from 10 to 50 MBps. (I checked the data sheets.) The Ultra High Speed microSD cards match that.
As for wearing out sooner, the NAND that Apple uses has only a 5,000 to 10,000 write cycle lifetime. MicroSD cards match that, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Realy, if you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND, well, then you don't understand the benefits of build-in NAND.
I can help describe some of the benefits of using built-in NAND to him. The multi-million dollar electronic casino gaming system that we built back in the early 1990s used Flash memory chips. I wrote the code to use them, and I've tried to keep up with the latest Flash controller news in case I ever go back into the embedded world.
It was far, far easier for Apple's iOS developers to NOT have to deal with the situation where a card is removed or swapped, and that helps naive users as well.
It was cheaper to build a device that didn't have a memory card socket.
Apple could put boot code in a flash section and protect it, yet still change it later if wished.
Back in 2007, it was probably faster to use onboard Flash.
Apple already bought a ton of Flash for their iPods. This just further leveraged that supply chain.
Let's face it, it forces buyers to pay Apple huge amounts for the upgrade.
OTOH, it's a real pain and slow to make the CPU and OS spend a lot of time directly dealing with the onboard flash. Somewhere along the line, I'm not sure when, Apple added a flash controller to handle those chores. (MicroSD cards already have one.)
Anything else?
Cheers!
Wrong.
It's an iPad 3 [Retina Display+Lightning Port] with extra storage.
Apple themselves say there's nothing else different about it.
If your car had a bigger gastank, would you call it "next gen"?
Because I expect iPad 5 [let's just call it that, OK?] to have the capability of iPad 3 plus a little bit more [advanced CPU & GPU]
minus the thickness & weight -- 2 setbacks that'll be cured by IGZO screens.
Wrong.
It's an iPad 3 [Retina Display+Lightning Port] with extra storage.
Apple themselves say there's nothing else different about it.
If your car had a bigger gastank, would you call it "next gen"?[/QUOTE]
If it had a new and improved engine I would… which is why it's an iPad (4) and not an iPad (3) with a new connector.
[QUOTE]Because, I expect iPad 5 [let's just call it that, OK?] to have the capability of iPad 3 plus a little bit more [advanced CPU & GPU]
minus the thickness & weight -- 2 setbacks that'll be cured by IGZO screens.[/QUOTE]
2) The iPad (4) has a more advanced ASIC but you've decided that it's not the 4th generation unless it's lighter and thinner. First of all, while those would be nice changes that is not what determines a generational change or you'd have to argue that the iPad (3) and (4) is generation 1.5 since it's weight and thickness is between the original and iPad 2. Secondly, you've contradicted yourself by saying you're waiting for the iPad 5 thus acknowledging it's the 4th gen iPad.
Or, you're buying the cheaper models at highly reduced prices. Again, you're coming at this with the low-end model being some market ideal and everything else is just raping you. It's very simple. They sell a product called the iPad and they want to sell as many as possible for the higher APR and profit margin as possible. This means they need to stagger the models. It means the low-end makes less profit than the high-end.
If you honestly feel that a $20 (or whatever) cost difference is the only fair value then tell me why they should change the low-end 16GB model to be $749 so that there is a $20 stepping for each doubling of RAM? You can't because you've deemed that $499 is some magical fair price point which is absurd.
PS: If you none of that convinces you note that gwmac gave your last common a thumbs up. If that doesn't make you honk twice about your comment I don't know what will.
Yeah what was wrong with the iDisk concept anyways? iCloud works for some things ok but for the most part it is a big fail. Of course it would help is Apples own iWork programs used the same files.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Better yet, go back to the old iDisk method where I can store ALL my data on iDisk and have it mirrored automatically to my hard disk.
Apple would do well to create a mirrored directory system across all devices. One of the big problems with iOS is every app out there delivers a directory browser in a different way, this goes hand in hand with the mirroring and file handling issue. Frankly the lack of a standard file browser even for app private files is a significant IOS short coming.
Originally Posted by KDarling
Historical note: Gates never said that 640K was all anyone would ever need. What happened was that many years later he was addressing a group of university students, and he was talking about how even the best planning sometimes went wrong.
He told them that back when they were expanding the PC memory access, the planners had thought that increasing from 64K up to 640K would be enough for the next ten years. As it turned out, he said, 640K was only good enough for about five years. The story was meant as an amusing anecdote, but parts were taken out of context. Still, it applies now to the iPad as well. There's never enough memory :-)
Thanks, but I said nothing about Bill Gates. Never even implied it. Nice try jamming that Pro-Anyone-But-Apple bias in there.
We already have GatorGuy. We don't need another one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Thanks, but I said nothing about Bill Gates. Never even implied it. Nice try jamming that Pro-Anyone-But-Apple bias in there.
Sorry if you were offended.
I wasn't trying to imply anything. Just telling a interesting story, using your comment as a jumping off point.
You really need to get away from here more often. People are NOT out to get you.
Well, okay, maybe some are
You are having a really difficult time grasping this. The base price isn't the issue, it is the excessively high price you pay for extra flash. You keep trying to turn this into a discussion about something it isn't about. Frankly I don't know why, as Apples tiering makes the discussion pretty damn simple. The simple reality is that 128 GB of flash, even in a SSD, isn't that expensive these days.
If you don't believe me go over to newegg.com and price SSDs in the 128Gb range. Many come in around $100. That is for a complete drive at retail prices. Now Apple will be sourcing the parts for far cheaper and more importantly they need fewer of those parts.
Since you seemed tone preoccupied with the base machine price of $499, how much more do you think one should pay for a 128GB machine over that base price. Keep in mind that manufactures are making a profit on the 128GB drives. So what is it $599, $699 or something else.
I'm not being unreasonable here, in fact I'd be the first to acknowledge that Apple is likely using the news technology flash chips to keep power usage in check. This in and of itself would be more expensive so it might be worth $200. So maybe that 128 GB iPad ought to sell in the +$700 range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Or, you're buying the cheaper models at highly reduced prices. Again, you're coming at this with the low-end model being some market ideal and everything else is just raping you. It's very simple. They sell a product called the iPad and they want to sell as many as possible for the higher APR and profit margin as possible. This means they need to stagger the models. It means the low-end makes less profit than the high-end.
If you honestly feel that a $20 (or whatever) cost difference is the only fair value then tell me why they should change the low-end 16GB model to be $749 so that there is a $20 stepping for each doubling of RAM? You can't because you've deemed that $499 is some magical fair price point which is absurd.
PS: If you none of that convinces you note that gwmac gave your last common a thumbs up. If that doesn't make you honk twice about your comment I don't know what will.
It really doesn't matter who agrees with me, the defect is on your end. You really need to reflect on this a bit and ask yourself why you should put up with such a fleecing. The way I see it, this is an example of Apple making the same position mistakes that they made in the past with the Mac. Mistakes that Cook and company have public ally stated that they would not repeat.
This is a huge problem and frankly any investor should be seriously worried that Apple will position themselves in such a way that the competition will have freedom of operation against them. Gouging will quickly lead to customers looking elsewhere even if they have to compromise on functionality. At that point Apple will find themselves repeating history wondering why only a few Apple zealots are buying their hardware.
When the iPad originally came out Apple literally broke the mold and priced the machine aggressively based on the technology of the day. Time has passed now and frankly technology has marched on, the iPads should have been updated flash capacity wise by now to reflect the fact that more capacity is available at a reasonable price. This simply to maintain the market aggressiveness they started out with.
One last time. Why do you think the $499 16GB model is the ideal for their profit margin and APR that anything else is just [I]price gouging[/I]? If you can correctly answer that you may finally understand warped your thinking is on this.
This is basic economics. You have so many items to sell within a range and you divvy up your product to maximize sales. The low-end end brings in less profit than desired but you make it up at the high-end. The end result is the product has an overall desired effect so long as the high-end isn't too far away from or too close to the low end to get too many going to the top tier or too few.
If you can show me one earnings report where Apple has broken the iPad segment by different capacity models I'll lay off you for saying they are ripping you off, price gouging, ass raping or whatever other color terms you want to use to describe the most common thing in business for selling a tiered product.
No.
I didn't consider it nextgen because I was under the -- apparently mistaken -- impression that the CPU/GPU were the same.
But, after some wikiing around, I see that that's not the case at all.
iPad 4's CPU/GPU are significantly improved.
The dimensions are the same -- just the iPad 4’s 2g heavier, that's all.
So, my profoundist of apologies, Good Sir!
I was venting frustration at having to bypass yet another iPad interation without the appeal to upgrade.
Now of course, I'll lay out the $750 for an iPad 4 32GB & the picosecond I do that, Apple will send out the invites for a March event ....
Yeeeccchhh ....
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
It really doesn't matter who agrees with me, the defect is on your end. You really need to reflect on this a bit and ask yourself why you should put up with such a fleecing. The way I see it, this is an example of Apple making the same position mistakes that they made in the past with the Mac. Mistakes that Cook and company have public ally stated that they would not repeat.
This is a huge problem and frankly any investor should be seriously worried that Apple will position themselves in such a way that the competition will have freedom of operation against them. Gouging will quickly lead to customers looking elsewhere even if they have to compromise on functionality. At that point Apple will find themselves repeating history wondering why only a few Apple zealots are buying their hardware.
When the iPad originally came out Apple literally broke the mold and priced the machine aggressively based on the technology of the day. Time has passed now and frankly technology has marched on, the iPads should have been updated flash capacity wise by now to reflect the fact that more capacity is available at a reasonable price. This simply to maintain the market aggressiveness they started out with.
The line up is carefully positioned to provide a low cost option with too little flash memory for the upsell to the mid tier model. Folks that need a lot more than that pay a lot more vs the base model although proportionally less per GB. The lowest cost model pushes the price umbrella down as much as Apple is willing to do. The 128GB model is priced sufficiently well that any MBA cannibalization is not of any concern. It also provides a higher top end model for folks who need the space for work and are less price conscious.
I have no idea why you think this is a huge problem given they are supply constrained. If they weren't supply constrained then you could make the argument that the products are priced too high.
I also have no idea why you think you know product positioning better than Cook. This isn't the 90s, Apple is executing pretty well with the exception of the iMacs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
@ wizard69,
One last time. Why do you think the $499 16GB model is the ideal for their profit margin and APR that anything else is just price gouging?
If you mean ASP then I agree. $499 probably gets them the margins they want but not the ASPs. Moving the base iPad to 32GB has a negative effect on ASPs because 16GB is simply too small for today where games and textbooks weigh in at 2GB+ a shot. 32GB is reasonable enough that a lot of folks won't spring for a $599 64GB model.
$499 is the best value followed by $699. I bought the $599 one (actually the $729 verizon one).
That's a humble brag -- don't worry we won't get you wrong, we all know you're financially set. Guess you never buy a new car or TV or anything, what's the point they'll just have a new model or upgrade out in 6-10 months. And it'll be obsolete - not allowing anyone to use it - it'll just lock and never work again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
I guess it was obvious that the very first moment the iPod touches reached the same capacity as the Classic, that some other excuse would pop up.
- the iPod classic will never be updated with SSD
- they will never really make another Volkswagen Beetle
- Vinyl records won't be making a comeback
- Bluejeans have actually been out of style for many years.
In short, nothing is forever.
They are making another Volkswagen Beetle…
http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/beetle-nf/home?ppc=vw+beetle
Vinyl records have made a comeback…
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204573704577184973290800632.html
And denim jeans are a timeless style icon…
http://en.vogue.fr/fashion/fashion-inspiration/diaporama/style-icons-jeans/7804
Apart from that, good points
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
Like most people, I don't really care about "the Classic." I see it as the device choice of insufferable snobs for the most part.
I think the last part of your statement about how long it would take for 128GB to move to the iPhone and iPod is likely incorrect however. The fact that they can do this storage upgrade "mid-stream" as it were, without a redesign of the device, indicates to me that its a simple chip swap and that the two parts are of identical size.
If they can simply swap out the chips for a larger capacity chip of the exact same size, then it could literally happen overnight. The fact that this move would do a great deal to improve their gross margins, (exactly the problem in their last financial report), means also that they might be very motivated to do so.
I'm not sure how my wanting to have access to my complete music library whilst travelling in places with little or no Wifi, or without having to pay hefty roaming charges for the privilege, makes me an insufferable snob.
I agree with you that it won't take long before the iPod Touch and the iPhone get the same capacity bump, and I'm guessing the iPad Mini will too. This announcement has delayed my upgrade from iPod Touch to iPad Mini and made the planned replacement of my almost full 120GB Classic to a 160GB model more compelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder
Good to see that Apple has finally seen fit to offer more capacity for those who simply must carry a bunch of HD movies, insane numbers of photos, more apps than they'll likely ever even use, or entire music collections with them almost everywhere.
Crazy that a 128gb Wifi+Cellular version will end up near US 1000.00 after sales tax, making a MacBook Air a seemingly much better/smarter purchase.
Yet... Apple's still chagring an additional US 100.00 for + 16gb, +32gb and + 64gb - What?
Well, yes. Apple is wanting people to make that comparison with Microsoft Surface Pro. Other than screen res, it's mostly a poorer spec than any decent Ultrabook including the MBA. And it has a floppy keyboard, meaning you must deploy a kickstand to use it, so they’ve invented a laptop you can’t use on your lap.
Others are tying this launch with the Surface Pro launch as if they are competing products. I don’t think so. What Apple really ought to do is set up a product compare page that puts the iPad side by side with the MBA. Anyone comparing the Surface with iPad would immediately see that and be directed to the rather obvious question: why am I buying this, not a notebook that’s thinner and lighter, and has a proper keyboard?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
This is basic economics. You have so many items to sell within a range and you divvy up your product to maximize sales. The low-end end brings in less profit than desired but you make it up at the high-end. The end result is the product has an overall desired effect so long as the high-end isn't too far away from or too close to the low end to get too many going to the top tier or too few.
No one is disputing any of that. What many of us ARE saying is that the spread is too wide and puts too much of the profit burden on those who want higher capacity.
The bottom line is that a $300 hit for a few GB of flash is not a good value proposition for the consumer. I'm sure Apple is perfectly happy with the arrangement and I'm sure they've carefully calculated the best way to maximize their sales and profits. None of that matters to ME as the buyer though. I'm not purchasing a range of products, I'm buying ONE device, and if I want one with lots of storage from Apple, I have to subsidize everyone who bought a low-capacity version. While that might be fine for Apple, it sucks out loud for anyone buying anything other than the most basic entry-level model.