Dropping it to $399 makes it still quite a bit more expensive then low end Android tablets. It is basically 2 Kindle Fires.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPad 3 to Gain Improved Cameras? iPad 2 to Carry On at Lower Price?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Dropping it to $399 makes it still quite a bit more expensive then low end Android tablets. It is basically 2 Kindle Fires.
$399 is still too high to move me from $199 kindle option.
I have one Ipad2 and a pair of kindle fires.
Although I am actually more than impressed with the Kindle's performance, I would have preferred to keep everything on the apple eco-system - but it's not turned out to be that big of a deal. An extra $2 spent re-purchasing a couple angry birds didn't hurt as much as I thought it would.
Also interestingly, when given the choice my kids (the Kindle users) pick the kindly over the ipad they are familiar with EVERY time.
There only reason - screen size - The iPad's way too big, the ipod touch is t0o small, the Kindle (for them & Goldilocks) is just right.
We know the mighty Stevesaid no to a smaller sized ipad - but I think many, many Kindle buyers are disagreeing with their wallets and are happy with the outcome.
This is why I have a Kindle Fire > iPad 2....the price and size of the iPad 2. I used to have an iPad 2, but it was annoying laying in bed at night watching netflix with a near 10" screen. The 7" screen is not bad at night in bed.
IMO it would make more sense for the cheaper model to have a smaller screen. If the average consumer walks into a store and compares the new model with the cheaper one they will most likely buy the cheaper one especially if it looks like the latest one. By going with a smaller screen in the cheap one they can justify, visually at least, the price of the new one.
- I know Apple will never make a 7" iPad but I can dream can't I? -
- I know Apple will never make a 7" iPad but I can dream can't I? -
Great strategy if it's similar to how Apple works the iPhone & limits to a single 16GB wi-fi only model. But $399 price point is only $100 off. Needs to be $299 to hurt competition.
Improved cameras.
Shouldn't this be filed under 'obvious'?
That was my first thought. and an A6 processor? That's not news, that's just projection.
I think whats more plausible is the iPad 2 will remain at that $499 price point, but the iPad 3 will have a higher price point, this is assuming it has higher spec'd hardware, retina display & higher resolution..
But if the iPad 2 does carry on a lower price it will dominate the market even more so.. Which would be awesome
But if the iPad 2 does carry on a lower price it will dominate the market even more so.. Which would be awesome
IMO it would make more sense for the cheaper model to have a smaller screen. If the average consumer walks into a store and compares the new model with the cheaper one they will most likely buy the cheaper one especially if it looks like the latest one. By going with a smaller screen in the cheap one they can justify, visually at least, the price of the new one.
- I know Apple will never make a 7" iPad but I can dream can't I? -
I agree with your sentiment. I would be concerned that the iPad 2 would cannibalize iPad 3 sales.
----------
This couldn't happen, could it? The price of tech is dropping. What the heck would an iPad have to do for you to pay more? Run full OSX?
I agree. Cameras have been the least used feature of tablets. An HD front facing camera would be useful to more people for sure. Aside from when the iPad is in your hand and some impromptu moment strikes, no one is running around using a slate as a camera. You'd feel as ridiculous as you'd look.
Digitimes (trying not to laugh coffee through my nose) claims a $299 iPad2.
In that article, an analyst (as laughable as digitimes) argued the componet cost of the iPad2 being much higher (as if those tear down sites have any idea what Apple pays for their components... which would be a much better price than the stock prices they often use.)
You figure, the iPad2 has as far as we know, somewhere between a 40-46% gross product margin. If you just shoot for 40%, that would put the cost (including everything except advertising and shipping) at $300 when the device launched. A year later, it is quite likely Apple could do a $100 price drop and still maintain that margin, if not a higher price drop.
I don't buy the $299 rumor though. I wish, but don't buy it. I can see them keeping the iPad2 for $399 though. Yet, I wonder if they would cripple it slightly like they've done with old model iPhones and offer less storage or something as well. That would suck.
I think whats more plausible is the iPad 2 will remain at that $499 price point, but the iPad 3 will have a higher price point, this is assuming it has higher spec'd hardware, retina display & higher resolution..
But if the iPad 2 does carry on a lower price it will dominate the market even more so.. Which would be awesome
Who would buy a $499 iPad2 when $100 more gets them an iPad3 w/ more storage? Apple is not going to raise prices. It would turn off a lot of buyers. it's not like the iPad is a bargain a current prices. It's a realistic price right now. There is no room for a price increase.
$399 is still too high to move me from $199 kindle option.
I have one Ipad2 and a pair of kindle fires.
Although I am actually more than impressed with the Kindle's performance, I would have preferred to keep everything on the apple eco-system - but it's not turned out to be that big of a deal. An extra $2 spent re-purchasing a couple angry birds didn't hurt as much as I thought it would.
Also interestingly, when given the choice my kids (the Kindle users) pick the kindly over the ipad they are familiar with EVERY time.
There only reason - screen size - The iPad's way too big, the ipod touch is t0o small, the Kindle (for them & Goldilocks) is just right.
We know the mighty Steve
I think a 7 or 8 inch iPad would have been the perfect device for kids (especially with their small fingers). I got my kids iPod Touches for Christmas and they love them, but I would like them to have something bigger when reading iBooks. One problem I have with the Kindle Fire is that you cannot turn off one-click purchasing when letting your kids use the device. Other issues I have with the Fire are listed in this fantastic chart by Marco Arment. I found this chart especially amusing since some of Amazon's marketplace sellers actually sell the iPad, and any search for iPad was ranking an "iPad 2 versus Kindle Fire" comparison chart at the top of the search results -- not very cool.
Personally, I use my iPad for much more than Angry Birds and reading books so the Fire would never be the device for me. In fact if I was the content-consumption target customer of the Kindle Fire then I likely would never have purchased an iPad at all since it would not have been worth the cost. Here is my general take on the Fire:
1) Book Reading: eInk on standard Kindle's is easier on the eyes. Amazon's Kindle App for Android and iOS is currently better than the Fire's app. But reading books is likely one of the best uses of the Kindle Fire.
2) Magazine Reading: Kindle Fire is a bit too small (though clearly larger than an iPod Touch and cheaper than an iPad)
3) Movies: At home I use my television for movies. On the go, I need to be able to sync movies to the device. Amazon's 6GB of usable space does not cut it.
4) Music: Tablets are not for music.... iPods (or iPhones) are for music.
5) Web Surfing: Kindle Fire should do well here, but the screen size is a struggle since full-blown websites are cramped and mobile websites look too large. This will only improve when websites start targeting the 7-inch tablet screen size as a supported format. Currently, this is best done on an iPad.
6) Games: The iPhone and iPod Touch are far superior here for mobile gaming.
7) Apps: Not enough available except for the most basic favorites.
All in all, I think Amazon's next entry in the "Kindle Tablet" market will be the one to watch since the Fire was kinda rushed to market for Christmas.
Shouldn't it be obvious by now? A6 obviously. Probably clocked at 1.2Ghz if dual-core, less if quad-core (seems a little crazy for a tablet though).
I think they've already secured the tablet market. The Kindle Fire really is more of an e-reader I think, but surely will start taking a bite out of the tablet market. Even at 399, the kindle fire is half the price. If apple really wants to bite the Kindle Fire, they should sell it near cost at 299. However, even with the recession, Apple almost never sacrifices profit margin to compete. The 399 may even be a bit low for them.
I think this is the last time we'll see an S product. In my opinion, Apple really couldn't afford to do it this year with the 4S. Now that the market has learned it's lesson, they'll adapt and loss confidence in iPhone releases if Apple goes by this S release pattern. The iOS segments are largely a profit source for Apple, so they should realize this and start releasing new devices every year instead of recycling the same chassis.
Don't be surprised at $349.00 16g Wi-Fi iPad 2.
The danger in that is.... there goes Apple's margins.
Everybody and their brother will race to get a $349 iPad. Very few people will be interested in the $499 iPad anymore... regardless of "Retina" displays or improved cameras.
The BOM for the iPad 2 is $326... and I doubt it's gotten any cheaper.
Yup... a WiFi-only iPad 2 at 16GB with a $299 price tag would be perfectly positioned in the market.
Consider the meek amount of storage a Fire has. Apple could easily repurpose the iPad2 as a cloud reliant device like the Fire to take that device on.
"Shouldn't it be obvious by now? A6 obviously."
If by obvious, you're referring to the name of the processor, then yes it's obvious. But I was inquiring about the actual guts / architecture of the processor, not the name. I know it'll be called the A6 but that is meaningless. They could call it A666 for all I care. I want to know what's on the inside.
Agreed. They wouldn't raise the price of the new model... especially when the price of tablets is trending down with a very few exceptions. Aside from Samsung and Moto, everyone else putting out tablets at the same price point is offering more for your money in features or storage space or something.
The biggest difference I see with tablets and PC's... PC's got to a point quite quickly where the demands of software development and innovation required hardware to move along with it. Tablet Apps haven't done the same thing really. There's no dire need for hardware to get faster each year... unless you are on Android, but that's because that OS is a piece of junk under the hood. I liken Android to a Ferrari engine trying to pull a freight train... lighten your load and you'd not need all those specs.
IMO it would make more sense for the cheaper model to have a smaller screen. If the average consumer walks into a store and compares the new model with the cheaper one they will most likely buy the cheaper one especially if it looks like the latest one. By going with a smaller screen in the cheap one they can justify, visually at least, the price of the new one.
- I know Apple will never make a 7" iPad but I can dream can't I? -
Actually, I agree with you here & as far as making a smaller 7" iPad, we should never say never. I would really like to see the follwing line up;
7" iPad (16GB) - $299
9.7" iPad 2 (16GB, 32GB) - $399, $499
9.7" iPad 3 (32GB, 64GB) - $599, $699
Of course I'm referring to the Wi-Fi only models but you get the point.
No, for my needs, I didn't need an iPad 2. I can do everything on my Fire that I can do on an iPad. I have a browser, Android Market, music player, books, Netflix and my sports app...I saved $300 by switching to the Kindle Fire. Plus, I have ICS on it, so its more of an Android tablet now.
This will be the iPad 2 and the "new" iPad 2S. Just a few bumps in the specs and the real 3 looming off in the distance.
$399 is still too high to move me from $199 kindle option.
I have one Ipad2 and a pair of kindle fires.
Although I am actually more than impressed with the Kindle's performance, I would have preferred to keep everything on the apple eco-system - but it's not turned out to be that big of a deal. An extra $2 spent re-purchasing a couple angry birds didn't hurt as much as I thought it would.
Also interestingly, when given the choice my kids (the Kindle users) pick the kindly over the ipad they are familiar with EVERY time.
There only reason - screen size - The iPad's way too big, the ipod touch is t0o small, the Kindle (for them & Goldilocks) is just right.
We know the mighty Steve
Yeah I agree. Can't blame Apple too much on it though because they wanted to differentiate the iPad from iPhone/iPod touch, hence made it much bigger.
I like the increased competition because it means Apple has to bring it's A-game every year...which can only be good for us consumers
iPad Nano?
What would that look like? iPad Shuffle?
One of the strengths of the iPod phenomenon isthat it is available down to $69 all the way to the iPod Classic with xx GB. What would you take off to bring the price down without destroying what an iPad is.
What would that look like? iPad Shuffle?
One of the strengths of the iPod phenomenon isthat it is available down to $69 all the way to the iPod Classic with xx GB. What would you take off to bring the price down without destroying what an iPad is.
They could, but they need to work out iCloud's flaws. I think what Apple needs is an iCloud App on their devices instead of having it's features buried in 20 different places. This is what Amazon essentially has done. One stop to access all your cloud content, settings, etc. Apples implementation has been very un-Apple like, imo. It's amazing how many people don't even understand what iCloud is or how to access it. For those of us that do, it's still annoying to switch between the App store, iTunes Store, iBooks app, etc. One universal interface would make that a joy.
There are other annoyances with iCloud. It doesn't sync with the desktop version of iWork. Talk about a glaring omission. The desktop version still uses the beta version of iwork.com, which is not compatible with the IOS versions. It's lots of little things they need to fix.
I don't know about a starting price of $599 for an iPad 3. That would turn a lot of people off, even if it does have a retina display.