josu

ireland said:

I think Apple need to go bigger picture and sell iPad Air 2 at 32 GB for $399, iPad Pro (this one) at 64 GB for $499, 128 GB for $629, 256 GB for $749. iPad mini 4 at minus-$100 for same store sizes.

If they simply must have a budget iPad make it iPad mini 4 16 GB at $299.

And kill every other iPad.

Yes it brings down profit per unit but it makes the product lineup so much better. So much more future-proofed and shows their customers some respect. If Apple are about making the best products in the world and not simply a greedy money making machine as so many companies are then they are going to have to prove it. Their arrogant hunger for profit to the detriment of everything else is why iPhone and iPad sales are slowing. 16 GB flagship iPhones should have been EOL 3 years ago. iPhone should start at 64 GB (complaints I here the whole time from people I know are battery life and storage max) with a $129 premium for the 128 GB model. And perhaps a 256 GB model also.

Why? because you want it that way, sorry but any CEO that can sell its product for say $599, and still sell all the scheduled production, but choose to sell it for $200 less must be fired immediately, because he's unqualified to run a company. All companies must maximize its profits, thats their primary target. The companies that sell for less is simply because they can't do it for more. We can argue if Apple could not be capable of selling more iPads if they lowered the price, but if the profit margin is lower than the added sales figures, they are losing money, the same way if they rise the price and the sales figures resent less than the resulting added price per unit adds to the bottom line. They are optimizing their resources and their product line. Even if we felt screwed in the process. 

What I think is that as what we expect is a 9,7" iPad we assume it is an iPad Air 2 replacement, when what they are making is a smaller screen iPad Pro. We naturally accept that a 13" screen MacBook Air is not a 13" MacBook Pro, they weren't the same thing even when they both got no-retina displays. So its the same this time. Sad, because I wanted to upgrade, but on the other hand I bet that this 9,7" iPad Pro will be heavier than the Air. And what I want is the lightest 9,7" I can buy. I would have to wait a year to the A9x migrate to the Air, so is well tome, even if it means that I would have to be a whole year without an iPad.

mike1 said:

josu said:

Are you sure, the tooling is paid off, and the components must be dirt cheap by now.

Anyway this is the second time analysts say this. Ming-Chi-Kuo said that a couple of weeks back, and he give even a lower price, $225. I am with you on this to a certain point. I don't think Apple will keep the 5s in developed markets, but they will keep it in emerging markets where they can price it as a more affordable for the general income level of those countries, but still be a cut above from the general smartphone market in those places. And India has been the market in which they have tested these tactic in late 2015. There it will not be $225 or $350 for that matter, in those countries prices are much higher than in developed markets, not to say relative to the income of the middle clases there, so still expensive enough to justified its premium status there.

What makes you think the components are dirt cheap? Just because it's older doesn't mean the processor is any cheaper to fabricate, especially in lower quantities. Labor certainly isn't cheaper.  Aluminum is still aluminum, glass is still glass, the camera will not get cheaper because Apple is really the only customer for that specific footprint. Again, it may even get more expensive as quantities go down. It is highly unlikely that they could pull enough cost out to profitably sell for $350. Tooling was paid for 5 minutes after launch. Either way, having no tooling amortization may help the company's bottom line, but has no impact on the bill of materials and therefore no impact on the profit margin of that model.

Yes, because its older the processor is cheaper to built, the tooling in Samsung is amortized so the cost of tooling don't have to be included, so cheaper. If it wasn't why not put an A8 inside as in the iPod Touch, it fits in both. Aluminium is aluminium, right, but the tooling to made the chassis is the same, and the learning curve to manufacture that component is long ago mastered so the scrapped material is lowered to a minimum helping reduce the aluminium quantity required for each device, and the tooling amortized too, cheaper, again. Glass is glass, yes, but again, the tooling written off the R & D for the specific design too, cheaper again, and the learning curve to master the manufacturing process also at its best, less scrapped material for every device produced too. And in this case, the basic design is shared with the iPod Touch and the new SE, so the volume is there too. In the camera front, Any insider source that gives you the information about the camera module in Sony? Because what you said that Apple is the only customer is a guess at best. Anyway, the tooling to make it and the R & D of the module also written off by Sony, and given that Apple is a very good customer I seriously doubt Sony charges more than originally for a module that maybe is simply in stock and is not produced anymore or only from time to time to keep inventory levels, and even if its still in production also learning curve of the manufacturing process at its best, so less material scrapped for every module made, so yes, again cheaper. Yes they can get a good margin at $350 because right now they are selling them to their reseller at that price, if not for less. Here the price of the 5s is €409 including reseller margin and the 21% tax, made your math and you will see how close is to that magical $350 is. Even more, the iPod Touch and the 5s use very similar components, only the Touch ID module, shared with the 6, the iPad Air 2 and the iPad Mini 4, so is volume there too. And the cellular module must be added, so the bill of materials must be a little bit more. Apple can sell an iPod Touch for $199 with a profit, do you really think that the cellular module and the touch ID one add more than $100 to the bill?

And seriously you are telling me that a product that its only costs is components and labor is not cheaper to made that one that must include R & D and tooling costs, not to say lower yields on the more modern components, and a manufacturing learning curve still in process of getting at its best. Seriously? 

sog35 said:

blastdoor said:

You think the 5s is crap?

No it isn't. I still own a 5s with my 6+

But Apple can't sell 5s for $350 and make any decent profit. That's what Android does.  Sell alot of cheap product with no profit.

Are you sure, the tooling is paid off, and the components must be dirt cheap by now.

Anyway this is the second time analysts say this. Ming-Chi-Kuo said that a couple of weeks back, and he give even a lower price, $225. I am with you on this to a certain point. I don't think Apple will keep the 5s in developed markets, but they will keep it in emerging markets where they can price it as a more affordable for the general income level of those countries, but still be a cut above from the general smartphone market in those places. And India has been the market in which they have tested these tactic in late 2015. There it will not be $225 or $350 for that matter, in those countries prices are much higher than in developed markets, not to say relative to the income of the middle clases there, so still expensive enough to justified its premium status there.

apple ][ said:

I'll be happy as long as I don't hear any Chinese voiceovers while watching it. Hopefully Apple is on top of things.

It happened in 2014, and it was the big iPhone launch event, never happened since, at least in the streaming I have seen. So give them a little credit there.

To me the design and phrase are more centered in Apple Watch than in other things, Yes the colors can be of the phone, but also of the watch and there are other color that perfectly can be new band color.