iPad mini iPad Mini at $399? Really??

[sonicrobby]

Oh really? Is that why the 3rd Gen iPad was the EXACT same price as the non-retina iPad 2? Check your facts friend. Apple is just artificially amping price the same as keeping a 3 year old iPad 2 at 399.

This is the first time Apple HAS EVER RAISED the price of a new iPad.

Oh god, you people quoting the first post. This is also the first time the iPad mini had the same internals as the current iPhone.

Better internals & screen = higher price. the mini jumped form an A5 processor to an A7, a rise in price is expected. Now stop whining.

Edit: Here are some posts you may have missed:

_____________________________

Over time components lower in price as they become outdated, the innovation of technology is increasing exponentially. Screens fall into this category and lower in price with time. Eventually they got down to where they can make a switch at no change in retail cost. Rumors are they rushed the retina mini because of the increased competition with the nexus release (hence why they aren't available until "later this month") . Trying to fit the same resolution of the full size iPad into a smaller screen will be expensive if done at the wrong time. If the mini with retina were released next year as originally planned, I would bet heavily that the price would be little to no different than the original ($329).

In general they are able to keep the same price tag because new components now cost the same as the old ones did a year ago. Why did the new retina MacBooks suddenly drop in price by $200? They have significant improvements, the only thing not changing is the screen, signifying it is probable that they are now cheaper to make than a year ago. And the retina screens were the primary reason for the major price jump from the cMBP.

____________________

What makes you think all the new gen products have to cost the same as the old one did? Components don't depreciate at the same rate over the same time. Read the report that the new retina minis will be scarce until 2014? Do you know why? they weren't ready to release the retina mini this year, it was a rushed addition because of market competition, and the extra cost apple is paying they will pass along to you. Also for the first time the iPad mini has the same internals as the current gen iPhone.

Apple is in the business to make money, do you think they are selling the first gen iPad mini's at $300 and taking a loss? As components become cheaper to produce, they can reduce the price and still make the same profits. will they? not always, but because the screens and components of the first gen iPad mini are cheaper to produce, they can reduce the retail price without affecting their profit margins.

The price of the new retina MacBooks went down, so does that mean they put in worse components than before? Did the price of the same retina screen go change after a year of production?

Learn how business work and the price hike would make sense to you. They can't keep prices the same "just because," whether you think the components and additions are "worth" it or not doesn't affect the actual cost to make them, nor apple's margins...

________________________

if raw material and components increases what happens? Apple's profit margins are set at a certain percentage. If any costs increase and profit margins remain constant, what must happen?

 

[RAPTORSKI]

You wanted a retina diaplay, you got it. $399 for retina, aluminium, 8 inch tablet is an okay price.

 

[scupking]

Oh no...... the iPad mini went up by $70. Big deal. If you can buy a $330 mini you can afford the mini R without an issue. Its not like it went up by $500. Go buy the old mini if you don't want to spend the extra $70 to get the same function as the big iPad.

 

[NT1440]

LOL. That's not how Henry Ford made his millions. Again, I am not complaining. The iPad Mini will only attract a small share of the market, which is why Apple is still offering the $299 Mini. Only time will tell.

Small share of the market? iPad IS the tablet market.

 

[Bilalo]

With Americans still recovering from the economic recession, and many still unemployed, one might expect Apple to keep the price point of iPad Minis at $329 or lower. But profits and greed still dictate over innovation. Very few will buy an Apple Mini for $399. Eventually, Apple will be forced to lower the price of the Mini, especially in this market with so many alternatives to the iPad. And, yes, this is from someone who owns an phone, ipad, imac, and macbook air.

there are enough people in america and the world who can afford that, and apple doesnt go after recessions nor does any technological business in regards to prices, and if prices are too low then profit margins will be low which already is low due to the ipad mini's high costs in comparison to other devices causing their share price to drop which makes them lose millions a day so

 

[jonnyb098]

Oh god, you people quoting the first post. This is also the first time the iPad mini had the same internals as the current iPhone.

Better internals & screen = higher price. the mini jumped form an A5 processor to an A7, a rise in price is expected. Now stop whining.

Edit: Here are some posts you may have missed:

_____________________________

Over time components lower in price as they become outdated, the innovation of technology is increasing exponentially. Screens fall into this category and lower in price with time. Eventually they got down to where they can make a switch at no change in retail cost. Rumors are they rushed the retina mini because of the increased competition with the nexus release (hence why they aren't available until "later this month") . Trying to fit the same resolution of the full size iPad into a smaller screen will be expensive if done at the wrong time. If the mini with retina were released next year as originally planned, I would bet heavily that the price would be little to no different than the original ($329).

In general they are able to keep the same price tag because new components now cost the same as the old ones did a year ago. Why did the new retina MacBooks suddenly drop in price by $200? They have significant improvements, the only thing not changing is the screen, signifying it is probable that they are now cheaper to make than a year ago. And the retina screens were the primary reason for the major price jump from the cMBP.

____________________

What makes you think all the new gen products have to cost the same as the old one did? Components don't depreciate at the same rate over the same time. Read the report that the new retina minis will be scarce until 2014? Do you know why? they weren't ready to release the retina mini this year, it was a rushed addition because of market competition, and the extra cost apple is paying they will pass along to you. Also for the first time the iPad mini has the same internals as the current gen iPhone.

Apple is in the business to make money, do you think they are selling the first gen iPad mini's at $300 and taking a loss? As components become cheaper to produce, they can reduce the price and still make the same profits. will they? not always, but because the screens and components of the first gen iPad mini are cheaper to produce, they can reduce the retail price without affecting their profit margins.

The price of the new retina MacBooks went down, so does that mean they put in worse components than before? Did the price of the same retina screen go change after a year of production?

Learn how business work and the price hike would make sense to you. They can't keep prices the same "just because," whether you think the components and additions are "worth" it or not doesn't affect the actual cost to make them, nor apple's margins...

________________________

if raw material and components increases what happens? Apple's profit margins are set at a certain percentage. If any costs increase and profit margins remain constant, what must happen?

Ok, but you forgot to address the giant "?" regarding the iPad 2. I get that its still a hot seller still in some markets. But a 3 year old device for $399 is a giant middle finger to the general consumer. If they want to keep it as a "hidden" education option fine. But marketing that to the general population is a joke. That product probably costs no more than $150 to produce.

 

[gentleman00]

Small share of the market? iPad IS the tablet market.

Dude, I own plenty of Apple products, but when geeks and Apple fundamentalists make statements like this it worries me and makes me think some of you are delusional living in la-la land.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/22/take-two-tablets-cure-apples-market-share-slide/

 

[Radiating]

Everyone complained about no retina display. They get a retina display and complain about the price. You can't get the retina display for the same price as a regular display. If you want improved components, it going to cost more… Plus its now as powerful as a full sized iPad, so you're getting a good deal at 399

The iPad mini is still going to be sold at $299 anyway, why complain about it?

Agree 100%, more expensive screen + top of the line internals are a better deal at $399

 

[Ohrstrom]

Small share of the market? iPad IS the tablet market.

He said iPad mini though, not all iPads.

 

[gentleman00]

there are enough people in america and the world who can afford that, and apple doesnt go after recessions nor does any technological business in regards to prices, and if prices are too low then profit margins will be low which already is low due to the ipad mini's high costs in comparison to other devices causing their share price to drop which makes them lose millions a day so

You would not know that unless you work for Apple. Pure speculations on your part.

 

[Cool Pup]

I think 400 dollars is a fair price considering the specs, resolution, and "Apple Tax". It's a remarkable device, considering they put all of that in there without really compromising too much from the original Mini's namesakes: the weight and width.

Retina Mini is not a budget device. It's a premium tablet experience on a more portable screen size. You could say the iPad Mini gen 1 is the budget device, and at 300 dollars is a pretty good deal for people who want an iOS experience at a lower cost.

Yes, this is way more than a Nexus 7, but this is not priced competitively because Apple owns so much of the market as it is.

 

[klover]

Reality check is that $399 is barely one weeks pay. The average wage in the USA is about $40k range, which is $760 per week before uncle SAMs 3/4 cut.

We're all just in debt too much with too many extra bills our parents didn't have... Cable, Internet, cell phones, etc.... All chipping away every month.

Everything you described applies to a working (perhaps underpaid) individual, not an unemployed person who arguably has many important living expenses which don't include expensive, rectangular Facebook machines.

----------

Who are you to tell people what they can and cannot buy based upon their employment status? You sound like a tea party scumhole right now.

If you're unemployed without the prospect of work (and presumably running on limited savings - otherwise it wouldn't be an issue), you don't need an Angry Birds tablet that costs $400+.

This isn't a matter of politics of dictatorial instruction - Apple devices exist at the highest end of the disposable consumer income spectrum, they are not suitable expenses for those at the brink.

 

[ElectronGuru]

Are you comparing todays spec of the iPad mini retina with iPad 2's spec when it came and saying "it must be good because its cheaper than what the iPad 2 was when it came" That feels like comparing apples and oranges to me.

I made that comparison but not for that reason/conclusion. I would be keeping my mini 1 had it more ram. Apple should not have (nor be continuing to) sell pads with 512mb.

Danny W was trying understand a different relationship and asking why they weren't the same. In both cases (his question and yours), the problem is time. Had apple released the mini 1 the same month as the iPad 2, it would have been more than 329, would have been even more successful, and would have provided the opportunity to release a retina mini at the same price point. It's the later (time shifted) mini 1 release that's created so much confusion/consternation.

Btw, the key technical challenge to the retina mini is the screen. Cramming that many pixels into such a small package adds costs, causes delays (which we are already feeling) and doesn't offer that much experience / performance advantage over larger screens with the same pixel count nor same size pads with less counts (say 250-280 ppi). All that extra trouble is to save developers from writing for a new resolution. If that does not benefit us, than 399 is to high a price. But if it does - if not waiting and hoping that devs make rMini versions (because of its custom res needed for a lower price) of every app out there is of benefit to us, then it is worth it.

 

[Kendo]

Dude, I own plenty of Apple products, but when geeks and Apple fundamentalists make statements like this it worries me and makes me think some of you are delusional living in la-la land.

http://www.engadget.com/2013/10/22/take-two-tablets-cure-apples-market-share-slide/

That market share slide is due to the low-end consumers, something Apple doesn't care about.

So even though the market has grown, Apple still sells the same number of tablets as usual. That new market is from $199 Kindles, people who never would have bought an iPad in the first place. So it only looks bad percentage wise, but Apple still sells the millions they are looking for.

Example - BMW sells 100 cars and they are the only one to make cars so they have 100% of the market. The next year they sell 120 cars which is a 20% increase, but Kia sells 80 cars. Suddenly their market share slides from 100% to 60% even though they sold more cars than last year.

 

[gentleman00]

That market share slide is due to the low-end consumers, something Apple doesn't care about.

And, you know that for a fact because you spoke to Tim Cook? Right!

Corporations are in the business of making profits, and they would invest their money in any market they can have access to. One of the dilemmas Apple is facing now is what to do do with its $137 billion cash reserves. Normally, companies don't leave money in the bank. They prefer to invest it to make more money. So it's not because apple does not care about low end markets, it's because they have not found a way to enter that segment of the market because of fierce competition from tech companies like samsung, Nokia, Sony etc.

 

[mytakeontech]

With Americans still recovering from the economic recession, and many still unemployed, one might expect Apple to keep the price point of iPad Minis at $329 or lower. But profits and greed still dictate over innovation. Very few will buy an Apple Mini for $399. Eventually, Apple will be forced to lower the price of the Mini, especially in this market with so many alternatives to the iPad. And, yes, this is from someone who owns an phone, ipad, imac, and macbook air.

Really? So you mean Americans who are recovering from economic recession must have iPads and as a non-profit organization Apple should give it for free or cheap as Americans who are recovering from economic recession cannot live without iPads.

 

[gentleman00]

Really? So you mean Americans who are recovering from economic recession must have iPads and as a non-profit organization Apple should give it for free or cheap as Americans who are recovering from economic recession cannot live without iPads.

Who said anything about giving free iPads to unemployed or underemployed Americans?

 

[dtlee1974]

And, you know that for a fact because you spoke to Tim Cook? Right!

Corporations are in the business of making profits, and they would invest their money in any market they can have access to. One of the dilemmas Apple is facing now is what to do do with its $137 billion cash reserves. Normally, companies don't leave money in the bank. They prefer to invest it to make more money. So it's not because apple does not care about low end markets, it's because they have not found a way to enter that segment of the market because of fierce competition from tech companies like samsung, Nokia, Sony etc.

Apple, at least since Jobs came back, hasn't focused on the low end market. They're making too much money at the high end and risk losing cachet in that segment if they go too "low" end. Also, the margins at the budget end of the market are too low to invest a lot of money in it. There are other players who are fulfilling that need and if there isn't any money in it, why bother?

That would be like a premium car maker like Jaguar or BMW deciding to compete with KIA on price. Why bother?

Also, I will predict for the record that the $400 mini will be sold out for months and will be a success by any measure you look at. Especially with T-Mo giving them away on zero percent interest financing and 200mb of free data a month for life.

 

[Kendo]

And, you know that for a fact because you spoke to Tim Cook? Right!

Corporations are in the business of making profits, and they would invest their money in any market they can have access to. One of the dilemmas Apple is facing now is what to do do with its $137 billion cash reserves. Normally, companies don't leave money in the bank. They prefer to invest it to make more money. So it's not because apple does not care about low end markets, it's because they have not found a way to enter that segment of the market because of fierce competition from tech companies like samsung, Nokia, Sony etc.

Don't need to speak to Tim Cook to figure Apple doesn't cater to the $199 tablet consumers or the $499 budget laptop consumers. This is about as obvious as BMW caring about budget car buyers or a Michelin star restaurant trying to get traffic from Taco Bell consumers.

The point is that iPad once dominated the tablet market because they invented the market. How can their revenue increase every year when they lose market share? I repeat, they are INCREASING record revenue YEAR AFTER YEAR. They don't care about the low-end. They are still getting their dollars from their core consumers.

Yes corporations are in the business of making money, but not at the expense of cheapening their product. I am not a fashion expert but Gucci and Prada wouldn't price their $2000 clothes at $30 to get Target and Walmart customers. Apple is not gonna price an iPad at the same price as a Kindle because it cheapens their product.

 

[Lukkee24]

The complaint is historically, actually never, has Apple charged "more" money for a Retina display on their iPads. The next generation full sized iPad just got it and pricing stayed the same. This is the first time Apple has increased the price of a new model iPad from where it was before. So yes Apple has done something different here. Heck, even the iPhones have never been more expensive than the past years model, price has always been the same but with better CPU's, Camera's, Screens etc. This is a major move on Apple's part.

Actually, UK prices for the iPhones went up with the 5 and again with the 5s. A 16gb iPhone 4S was £499, whereas it's now £549 for a 16gb iPhone 5s.

----------

Everyone complained about no retina display. They get a retina display and complain about the price. You can't get the retina display for the same price as a regular display. If you want improved components, it going to cost more… Plus its now as powerful as a full sized iPad, so you're getting a good deal at 399

The iPad mini is still going to be sold at $299 anyway, why complain about it?

_____________________________

Over time components lower in price as they become outdated, the innovation of technology is increasing exponentially. Screens fall into this category and lower in price with time. Eventually they got down to where they can make a switch at no change in retail cost. Rumors are they rushed the retina mini because of the increased competition with the nexus release (hence why they aren't available until "later this month") . Trying to fit the same resolution of the full size iPad into a smaller screen will be expensive if done at the wrong time. If the mini with retina were released next year as originally planned, I would bet heavily that the price would be little to no different than the original ($329).

In general they are able to keep the same price tag because new components now cost the same as the old ones did a year ago. Why did the new retina MacBooks suddenly drop in price by $200? They have significant improvements, the only thing not changing is the screen, signifying it is probable that they are now cheaper to make than a year ago. And the retina screens were the primary reason for the major price jump from the cMBP.

____________________

What makes you think all the new gen products have to cost the same as the old one did? Components don't depreciate at the same rate over the same time. Read the report that the new retina minis will be scarce until 2014? Do you know why? they weren't ready to release the retina mini this year, it was a rushed addition because of market competition, and the extra cost apple is paying they will pass along to you. Also for the first time the iPad mini has the same internals as the current gen iPhone.

Apple is in the business to make money, do you think they are selling the first gen iPad mini's at $300 and taking a loss? As components become cheaper to produce, they can reduce the price. will they? not always, but because the screens and components of the first gen iPad mini are cheaper to produce, they can reduce the retail price without affecting their profit margins.

The price of the new retina MacBooks went down, so does that mean they put in worse components than before? Did the price of the same retina screen go change after a year of production?

Learn how business work and the price hike would make sense to you. They can't keep prices the same "just because," whether you think the components and additions are "worth" it or not doesn't affect the actual cost to make them, nor apple's margins...

________________________

if raw material and components increases what happens? Apple's profit margins are set at a certain percentage. If any costs increase and profit margins remain constant, what must happen?

Actually, the retina MBPs went down in price at the same time as Apple removing the discrete graphics.

 

[sonicrobby]

Ok, but you forgot to address the giant "?" regarding the iPad 2. I get that its still a hot seller still in some markets. But a 3 year old device for $399 is a giant middle finger to the general consumer. If they want to keep it as a "hidden" education option fine. But marketing that to the general population is a joke. That product probably costs no more than $150 to produce.

Correct, this is one of the cases where the cost to produce goes down, but they extend the profit margins. Apple has no problem extending their profit margins, but reducing it is essentially out of the question.

Im just explaining that Apple won't allow a loss in profits for the retina mini, it wouldn't make any sense to. Why they don't lower the price of the iPad 2 is beyond me, they might just think its priced "competitively" or whatever justification for a higher profit line.

----------

Actually, UK prices for the iPhones went up with the 5 and again with the 5s. A 16gb iPhone 4S was £499, whereas it's now £549 for a 16gb iPhone 5s.

----------



Actually, the retina MBPs went down in price at the same time as Apple removing the discrete graphics.

the 13" never had discrete graphics

 

[gentleman00]

Don't need to speak to Tim Cook to figure Apple doesn't cater to the $199 tablet consumers or the $499 budget laptop consumers. This is about as obvious as BMW caring about budget car buyers or a Michelin star restaurant trying to get traffic from Taco Bell consumers.

The point is that iPad once dominated the tablet market because they invented the market. How can their revenue increase every year when they lose market share? I repeat, they are INCREASING record revenue YEAR AFTER YEAR. They don't care about the low-end. They are still getting their dollars from their core consumers.

Yes corporations are in the business of making money, but not at the expense of cheapening their product. I am not a fashion expert but Gucci and Prada wouldn't price their $2000 clothes at $30 to get Target and Walmart customers. Apple is not gonna price an iPad at the same price as a Kindle because it cheapens their product.

Apple makes most of its profits via iTunes. That's the brilliance of Apple. They don't make as much profit as they do by selling overpriced ipad minis.

 

[Bilalo]

You would not know that unless you work for Apple. Pure speculations on your part.

You can see the profit margins for each device apple makes, and thyre last profit earning went down since ipad mini profit margin is less than that of the ipad and it took a bite of the ipads so no its not speculation

 

[Kendo]

Apple makes most of its profits via iTunes. That's the brilliance of Apple. They don't make as much profit as they do by selling overpriced ipad minis.

Believe it or not, it is the opposite. Apple makes most of it's revenue by hardware (ie. selling $650 iPhones, not $1.29 songs). The software is the "gateway drug" to their hardware. Meaning they use iTunes as a way for consumers to have to buy their hardware, but they make very little profit from iTunes.

Below is a link from our very own MacRumors. Just 4% revenue from iTunes.

https://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/2...6-billion-profit-on-46-33-billion-in-revenue/

 

[MacManTexas56]

By lowering the iPad mini's current price, Apple can maintain its profit with the sheer number of units it sells.

Also, if Apple's is targeting parents and their children during the holiday season, it would be wise to reduce the price point of the iPad mini. As an example, a parent with two or three children who plans to buy each child a tablet , but on a budget, would probably choose an alternative tablet on the market.

For the individual geek, $399 won't break the bank, but for a parent with two or more kids who is expecting an iPad Mini as a Christmas present, may instead choose a competitively cheaper tablet on the market.

does the 7 year old need a retina display?

a 1st gen refurb for $249 is out of the question huh?