Apple Open to iPad Price Cuts if Demand Lags?

[Gradivus]

Apple doesn't design and build devices to YOUR specification

Well, thanks folks, I've had a lot of entertainment reading these posts. It's incredible how a simple interview that reveals the blindingly obvious (we might change the price of this product at some point in the future) can lead to so much bile about a device that isn't even on sale yet!

Can I suggest that you go to this link http://www.apple.com/ipad/features/. Read the page carefully.

If you like what you see, go out and try/buy an iPad when it goes on sale.

If you don't, try these links http://www.apple.com/macbookair/
http://www.apple.com/macpro/
http://store.shopfujitsu.com/fpc/Ecommerce/productoverview.do?type=TB&pgid=Tablets
http://www.johnlewis.com/230718618/Product.aspx.

You seem to forget; Apple isn't offering a service to design and build a device to YOUR specification.


And finally. If you feel the price is too high you can save a whole TEN DOLLARS by buying a Kindle DX. You can use that to read books, and... Well, no camera, no Flash, no 3G, no colour, no browser, no email, no YouTube, no music, no apps, no calendar, no contact book. But you can read books (I suppose it's a bit pointless to ask if can do multitasking?)

 

[spydr]

This is going to be such a fun device and there isn't *a thing* Apple could have done to shut all these blithering mouths.

Apple could have put everything and then some and cut the price by $200, whiners will still whine that aluminum is too cold and slippery and glass is a fingerprint magnet.

I am not lending you my iPad for sure

 

[spydr]

And finally. If you feel the price is too high you can save a whole TEN DOLLARS by buying a Kindle DX. You can use that to read books, and... Well, no camera, no Flash, no 3G, no colour, no browser, no email, no YouTube, no music, no apps, no calendar, no contact book. But you can read books (I suppose it's a bit pointless to ask if can do multitasking?)

...BTW it does have global 3G. But that's about it

 

[AP_piano295]

Desktop processors and desktop software do not translate that well to small touchscreens and form factors. The user experience would be poor and confusing, that's why a touch-oriented OS is worth it.

you can try it today: load Adobe CS4 on a Windows 10" netbook and have some fun trying to make some sense of all these interface elements squashed together.

I'm not sure that this is necessarily true. Sure using windows touch screen notebooks is a pain but microsoft sucks at implementing new tech. I never enjoyed using any touch screen devices untill I got my hands on a touch.

I think if apple were to put its mind to developing a smooth and effective control system for a touch screen (within an existing OS) then it would be a joy to use.

 

[73CortinaV8]

It's not the price that is the problem with this device.

It's the feature set, or lack of...

I got my hands on a Nexus One for a few minutes - the screen is absolutely gorgeous and completely spanks the iphone screen. I don't know about the rest of the phone, but OLED is the future and LCD is dead dead dead.

If the ipad had an OLED screen I would overlook all the other nits and probably even pay $100 extra. The technology is that good.

 

[Tulse]

I would prefer it if the "iPad" were simply a laptop (as in a true portable computer w. all the capabilities of a true computer) except instead of a portable computer in the shape of a notebook.

http://www.axiotron.com/index.php?id=modbook

 

[WLS]

Best Post EVER! so true

but seriously, i'm hoping everyone just holds off on buying these puppies so the price will drop to something more reasonable for what we're getting (Giant iPod touch with no camera, no flashplayer, and no multitasking)

If for no other reason it should be clear that everyone should hold off buying this until it comes with OS4.0 as a minimum- that may fix the no multitasking complaint and avoid a charge for the update.
I would like to see more ram but I may just buy the 16gb model, as paying an extra $100 for a 16gb increase irks me. At least then I would have it for a year or more to use until the version 2 comes out and just upgrade then and ebay the original. That's my plan.

 

[snugharbor]

on second thought, they're probably going to need to hike the price to pay for all these copyright lawsuits.

Personally I hope once the iPad flops, Amazon sticks it to the publishers, dropping ebook pricing to $6.99, and sells them at a gain at the publishers expense. Authors getting screwed by your publishing company? Come join Amazon Publishing co!

Yes, I think the iPad announcement had a ripple effect when MacMillian emboldened by Apple played hardball (and won) and forced Amazon to back down on its $9.99 ebook pricing thus enraging the Kindle community. We can talk about pricing and the features of iPad all day long folks but it misses the point. Sucess will be based on how well it will earn content revenue for Apple and is it a Kindle killer. Much of the discussion here is about the "razor" when the battle is about the "razor blades." That's the strategic plan of Apple...iPad is the razor, the delivery system but it is the blades (content) that we should be discussing that. That will deterimine success or failure of iPad not if it is a good netbook, not enought memory, USB, blah blah blah or what not. Is it a good delivery system of content is paramount, however besides if it a good razor is not as important as the content that will be brought to it. Shoot, Betamax was better than VHS and maybe even DVD-HD but it can compete against the Kindle and get market share on content then no SD or or what not will matter. Think the blades not the razor. You are thinking like a consumer but Apple is thinking big picture besides the consumer.

 

[fifthworld]

Shope also noted that Apple seems relatively unconcerned about the iPad's possible cannibalization of other Apple product sales, following on the theme presented by Apple CEO Steve Jobs during the iPad's introduction that offered a clear segmentation among the iPhone/iPod, iPad, and notebook lines.

Article Link: Apple Open to iPad Price Cuts if Demand Lags?

On the contrary, iPad is a victim of Apple concern about possible cannibalization of other Apple product sales. While iPad could never had been in competition with iPhone/iPodTouch's portability, iPad could had been a new, truly revolutionary, concept of notebook. The clear segmentation among the iPhone/iPod and notebook lines offered by SJ reveals exactly Apple's concern about jeopardizing the most profitable line of notebook on the planet. Why killing the goose that lays the golden eggs? iPad: the revolution that didn't happen.

 

[Tulse]

iPad could had been a new, truly revolutionary, concept of notebook.

In other words, it could have been a mere refinement of what we already have, rather than creating a new category -- a true information appliance.

There are plenty of netbooks around, and you can load many of them with OS X. There are plenty of tablet computers around, and you can even get a Mac-based tablet from Axiotron, as I linked to earlier. None of that is revolutionary. What the iPad does is present a computer as an appliance -- its revolution is to get rid of the hassle of window management and file management and process management and OS management, and let the individual interact directly with their applications. That to me is a far bolder vision than making a touch-screen MacBook.

 

[Eric S.]

In other words, it could have been a mere refinement of what we already have, rather than creating a new category -- a true information appliance.

There are plenty of netbooks around, and you can load many of them with OS X. There are plenty of tablet computers around, and you can even get a Mac-based tablet from Axiotron, as I linked to earlier. None of that is revolutionary. What the iPad does is present a computer as an appliance -- its revolution is to get rid of the hassle of window management and file management and process management and OS management, and let the individual interact directly with their applications. That to me is a far bolder vision than making a touch-screen MacBook.

What it could have been is an Apple version of this.

With Apple quality and design, this could be really revolutionary. If you just want the pad, buy it separately. If you want the higher power of a laptop you can carry both devices integrated into one, and use each as you need it.

 

[Tulse]

What it could have been is an Apple version of this.

You want a laptop that comes apart? You want a machine that runs two separate OSes with two different sets of applications? And you want to pay $1000 for it? If you thought Apple was going to deliver something like that, you haven't been paying attention to Apple's push for simplicity.

If you want a notebook, buy a notebook. If you want a netbook, buy a netbook. If you want a tablet, buy a tablet. There are OS X options for all those categories. But if you want a device that is optimized for a touch interface, it is not going to run the Mac version of OS X, since that interface would be a nightmare for a touch device.

 

[fifthworld]

There are plenty of netbooks around, and you can load many of them with OS X. There are plenty of tablet computers around, and you can even get a Mac-based tablet from Axiotron, as I linked to earlier. None of that is revolutionary. What the iPad does is present a computer as an appliance -- its revolution is to get rid of the hassle of window management and file management and process management and OS management, and let the individual interact directly with their applications. That to me is a far bolder vision than making a touch-screen MacBook.

I do agree: iPad is the beginning of the end of any OS based on the "desktop" metaphor. And I welcome the end of window, file and process management, etc. etc. etc. However, you missed the key point of my post: iPad fall short in replacing the need for another computer device. And this is due to Apple attention not to cannibalize other Apple product sales.

 

[Tulse]

you missed the key point of my post: iPad fall short in replacing the need for another computer device.

I think that many many people have no need for a "computer". What they need is to receive and send email, surf the web, perhaps read e-books, maybe play some cool games, and perhaps create some short documents. For those people, the iPad is well-equipped.

The iPad is not a device for geeks -- it is far more a "computer for the rest of us". It is very close to the vision of the original Macintosh.

 

[Eric S.]

You want a laptop that comes apart? You want a machine that runs two separate OSes with two different sets of applications? And you want to pay $1000 for it?

$1000? Are you kidding? At Apple's pricing it would be $2000, and I'd pay that in an instant. That's not much more than what my MB + iPod touch cost. And two separate OSes and application sets is exactly what I've got now (and what I'd still have even if I bought an iPad because an iPad is not powerful enough to replace my laptop).

If you thought Apple was going to deliver something like that, you haven't been paying attention to Apple's push for simplicity.

I didn't say I thought Apple would make that, I just said that they could. And if they did it would be revolutionary. Instead they gave us an iPod touch on steroids, which has no forward thinking at all.

 

[Tulse]

$1000? Are you kidding? At Apple's pricing it would be $2000, and I'd pay that in an instant.

I honestly don't see a $2000 dual-OS laptop as being revolutionary, and really don't see it selling. Honestly, if Apple had announced any device at $2000, they would have been pilloried.

I didn't say I thought Apple would make that, I just said that they could. And if they did it would be revolutionary. Instead they gave us an iPod touch on steroids, which has no forward thinking at all.

A $2000 lightweight laptop that runs OS X is not revolutionary -- it is a MacBook Air. And "an iPod touch on steroids" is forward thinking -- it is a new paradigm for computing appliances.

Put it this way: would you have been more impressed with the iPad if it had come out before the iPhone/iPod touch?

 

[Eric S.]

I honestly don't see a $2000 dual-OS laptop as being revolutionary, and really don't see it selling. Honestly, if Apple had announced any device at $2000, they would have been pilloried.

I'd say they've been fairly pilloried as it is. But what I was suggesting was the same iPad, at the same price, with a dockable laptop option - a lot more expensive for those who want the extra power.

And "an iPod touch on steroids" is forward thinking -- it is a new paradigm for computing appliances.

The paradigm was introduced with the iPhone two and a half years ago. There's really nothing new here that I can see.

Put it this way: would you have been more impressed with the iPad if it had come out before the iPhone/iPod touch?

Yes, I would have been more impressed, but less impressed than I was with the iPhone. Because for me a device you can put in your pocket is a lot more useful than something with a 9.7" screen. Since I'm already carrying a laptop, and this can't take the place of that, I wouldn't have bought an iPad then and I won't be buying one now.

 

[Tulse]

what I was suggesting was the same iPad, at the same price, with a dockable laptop option - a lot more expensive for those who want the extra power.

I don't see why having the iPad screen dockable to an OS X keyboard is all that special. I suppose it saves you a screen, but for $2000 you can get a MacBook Air and an iPad, and the Air can be used even when the iPad screen isn't there. Why is dockability so important? What problem would "iPad + dockable option" solve?

 

[Eric S.]

I don't see why having the iPad screen dockable to an OS X keyboard is all that special. I suppose it saves you a screen, but for $2000 you can get a MacBook Air and an iPad, and the Air can be used even when the iPad screen isn't there. Why is dockability so important? What problem would "iPad + dockable option" solve?

Carrying one bulky device instead of two, plus (presumably) making the sync operation less of a hassle.

The iPad does have a powerful and simple interface, really suited to some tasks. But for what I do with a laptop I need OS X, and I need the connectivity of a laptop, and real keyboard input. Since I'm not going to get rid of my laptop, I'm not going to carry another big screen (i.e., one that won't fit in a pocket) device too. But if I had both in one it would solve that.

I wouldn't buy a MBA anyway, too underpowered. To make this go, the laptop would have to be MBP-class with its connectivity options.

 

[deconstruct60]

I don't see why having the iPad screen dockable to an OS X keyboard is all that special.

Docked to just a keyboard has no utility over the keyboard/docking port already scheduled to be supplied. I'm sure some 3rd party will create some clamshell like docking station that can "fold up" so that the screen is protected during travel also.

The lenovo device has a laptop in the "keyboard" part. Just like the bottom "shell" of an Air/MBPro. If the idea is to mimic that, what really talking about is making the top shell that holds the LCD thicker . That most likely going to doom the concept from a Apple design perspective since thin is "better". However, you have collapsed several devices into one.

Laptop / keyboard dock / iPad

May be able to make the combo weigh less than those three. Not so likely can make it weight less than just Laptop/iPad if "snaps" into the lid where the lid has any notion of structural integrity.

A laptop as a dongle collection + keyboard dock is rather an expensive way to solve that problem.

Why is dockability so important? What problem would "iPad + dockable option" solve?

I would expect any use case stated to have built in an assumption along the lines of " I need my laptop with me at least part of the time so .... "
This just loops back to the who the iPad is primarily targeted to. "everybody else" (i.e., who don't normally carry a laptop, but do travel with something as heavy as a book/newpaper/magazine ) versus gaget guru techie folks .

There are no mini-tower macs. ( although there are more folks could use them)
There likely will be on combo laptop/pad ( although there are a small set of folks who find uses for them. )

 

[Eric S.]

I would expect any use case stated to have built in an assumption along the lines of " I need my laptop with me at least part of the time so .... "
This just loops back to the who the iPad is primarily targeted to. "everybody else" (i.e., who don't normally carry a laptop, but do travel with something as heavy as a book/newpaper/magazine ) versus gaget guru techie folks.

But in the Lenovo-type solution, the iPad could be sold separately as a standalone device for "everybody else."

There are no mini-tower macs. ( although there are more folks could use them)

Right, I got tired of waiting for that (see sig)

There likely will be on combo laptop/pad ( although there are a small set of folks who find uses for them. )

I didn't expect there would be, I'm just saying it could be envisioned that way.

 

[Tulse]

The iPad does have a powerful and simple interface, really suited to some tasks. But for what I do with a laptop I need OS X, and I need the connectivity of a laptop, and real keyboard input. Since I'm not going to get rid of my laptop, I'm not going to carry another big screen (i.e., one that won't fit in a pocket) device too. But if I had both in one it would solve that.

So you would always carry around the hybrid, and sometimes you would undock the iPad portion (although still have the bottom keyboard/CPU with you) so that you could use the iPad interface for...what? What is there that would be worth disassembling your laptop that you couldn't do with the full thing actually there? I just don't understand your use-case for such a device -- it seems to add awkwardness and weight without any benefits of functionality or convenience.

I think, in the end, you're simply not the target market for such a device. The ideal user for the iPad is not someone who always needs to have the power of a laptop with them.

 

[yocko]

I'll be there for the 16G wifi on day one.
My biggest content is my music collection, which I will NOT be loading in bulk to the iPad. If I'm using it at home, I have my home system (AppleTV, thank you) to listen to my music. If I'm mobile, I'll have my 32G iPhone, which is much more suitable for listening to music. I rarely listen to music and do the kinds of things I expect to do with the iPad simultaneously.

Movies? At most I'll have 2 or 3 loaded, maybe for a plane trip. Again, home theater is where I watch movies, not hunched over any small device.

That leaves apps, pictures and documents. I have LOT of apps on my iPhone and they take up a couple of gigs. Documents and pictures don't take up much room.

Bottom line is that 16G will let me play with it for a year or 2 before v2 or 3 comes out, and I won't feel stupid for going 'early adoptor' when I undoubtedly get one of those.

And anyone who buys one out of the gate and bitches when the prices drop should be taken out and beaten.

spot on. i am doing exactly the same, and tether my iphone if i need sudden data besides wifi.

 

[Eric S.]

I just don't understand your use-case for such a device

Sorry, don't take it personally, but I'm really tired of explaining it.

I think, in the end, you're simply not the target market for such a device.

And I think that if you're someone who doesn't find a use for the device I would like to see, I won't be able to explain its use.

 

[mikes70mustang]

If it's profitable to sell (it is) Apple will keep the price constant. Demand should be pretty solid for people looking to buy a netbook-type device.

Its not a netbook type device, its a huge ipod.