iPad2 technology purposely held back?

[Jackintosh]

Wondering what you guys think. Could Apple have released the technology planned for iPad2 in the original iPad1, but didn't do so to get us to shell out $500-$800 again a year later?

I know technology is constantly evolving, but I wonder if controlled technology release is part of Apple's grand plan for maximizing profit.

 

[Intell]

Apple is a company that is out for profits. They do indeed do this. Just look back at past iOS devices.

 

[shen]

Better question, if the gen 1 pad had 2 cameras, a gig of ram, 128 gigs of storage, etc etc, could they have sold it? Sure, it could have been built, and who would have bought one of these $4000 monsters? It would have been a flop!

They sell what they think will sell, with the tech they think will make people buy it. Sometimes that means using mature tech, sometimes that means pushing the bleeding edge to get it adopted.

Do you really think that everyone will buy a new iPad just because it is there? I still have an original iPhone, because it does what I need it to do. They maybe could have made the original a 3G and added a list of bells and whistles. But I likely would not have bought it then. Would have been too much for what it did. Now they sell an upgrade because they can. Does that mean they are evil for selling people a product they want?

If the market wants all this purposefully held back tech, then why hasn't samsung or rim or Sony given it to them? Because they can't.

Sometimes the tinfoil hat brigade is just paranoid.

 

[Carouser]

Wondering what you guys think. Could Apple have released the technology planned for iPad2 in the original iPad1, but didn't do so to get us to shell out $500-$800 again a year later?

I know technology is constantly evolving, but I wonder if controlled technology release is part of Apple's grand plan for maximizing profit.

Let me address a few misconceptions people often have:

(1) Apple doesn't arbitrarily decide on their profit margins. They price their products in a way to ensure their competitive status in the market over the short- and long-terms. If adding something to the iPad changes these margins (or changes the price of the iPad) in a way that is detrimental to the company's long-term success, then they won't do it. Why? Because they aren't colossal idiots who want to wreck a company.
(2) Apple doesn't just build the 'super-duper iPad' and then remove items from it right before they ship it to consumers. Tooling costs, sourcing components, and so forth can't be changed on a whim.
(3) Apple doesn't make you buy anything. All technology improves. If you bought the iPad when it came out and also buy the next iteration, that's your business.
(4) If Apple 'put all the technology they could' into the current iPad then the next iteration wouldn't be around for another several years. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, points 1-4 are total nonsense. The iPod touch could have been released in 2002 but Apple just held things back to gouge people out of their money.

 

[Jackintosh]

Let me address a few misconceptions people often have:

(1) Apple doesn't arbitrarily decide on their profit margins. They price their products in a way to ensure their competitive status in the market over the short- and long-terms. If adding something to the iPad changes these margins (or changes the price of the iPad) in a way that is detrimental to the company's long-term success, then they won't do it. Why? Because they aren't colossal idiots who want to wreck a company.
(2) Apple doesn't just build the 'super-duper iPad' and then remove items from it right before they ship it to consumers. Tooling costs, sourcing components, and so forth can't be changed on a whim.
(3) Apple doesn't make you buy anything. All technology improves. If you bought the iPad when it came out and also buy the next iteration, that's your business.
(4) If Apple 'put all the technology they could' into the current iPad then the next iteration wouldn't be around for another several years. You can't have it both ways.

Actually, points 1-4 are total nonsense. The iPod touch could have been released in 2002 but Apple just held things back to gouge people out of their money.

Hmmm... sounds like an Apple defender here. Stock is doing well but could do even better

 

[Kauai]

Sorry, this is frankly impossible in a Capitalist economy. Like Shen briefly touched on if one company purposefully holds back technology to a great extent that could have been delivered for the same price then others will deliver it and that will result in no profit by holding back the available technology.

Next conspiracy theory, please.

 

[SteveKnobs]

Apple for sure "held back" the technology for the first gen iPad. Their R & D and marketing departments may be the best in the world- they know exactly what they're doing, and this is why Apple is one of the most profitable companies today. They know what they can get away with, and they know what you and I are willing to pay for. If there's only room for 10% improvement between generations, then a majority of early adopters won't upgrade. But make it a 20-25%....that's a different story.

 

[Jackintosh]

Apple for sure "held back" the technology for the first gen iPad. Their R & D and marketing departments may be the best in the world- they know exactly what they're doing, and this is why Apple is one of the most profitable companies today. They know what they can get away with, and they know what you and I are willing to pay for. If there's only room for 10% improvement between generations, then a majority of early adopters won't upgrade. But make it a 20-25%....that's a different story.

Agree 100% with this likely scenario.

 

[Carouser]

oh sorry I didn't realize the only answer we could post was 'yes Apple didn't give you what you wanted'

 

[Jackintosh]

oh sorry I didn't realize the only answer we could post was 'yes Apple didn't give you what you wanted'

No, your view is perfectly legit and may be correct. Just was giving my take while trying to avoid sarcasm as I see in some responses. No judgementalism intended.

 

[Sedulous]

I think they have always intended to drop a front camera in the iPad. Doesn't the frame have a slot for it? For some reason Apple pulled the camera for the iPad1. Does it make business sense ? Sure. Not much else to add in the upgrade path except perhaps more RAM, storage, and maybe a SD slot (no "retina display" is in the immediate future for the iPad).

 

[Stetrain]

You build products to meet a certain price point at a certain margin. Sure they could have put in a camera and more RAM, but if they'd have had to bump all of the prices up by $100 to still be able to pay back R&D, tooling, and make a profit then it probably wouldn't have done so well in the market.

I'm sure that hitting the $499 price point while still making a healthy profit was the #1 priority for the first iPad.

 

[Tom G.]

The Conspiracy Theory Tin Foil Hat Brigade marches bravely forward into territory that no sane thinking adult would go ignoring all intelligent statements or posts.

 

[thelead]

Held back JUST for profits doubt it, but anyone that thinks they didn't think about adding it (lets just say the camera) for the iPad1 and decided against it because "it didn't make sense on the iPad1" is delusional.

Two things came into play in holding back the camera:
1) Money (extra profits from selling the iPad2 when it comes out to upgraders)
2) Time, and thus money (it may have delayed the initial launch, allowing competitors to jump the market. iOS 4 wasn't even ready and you know they probably wanted that ready for the launch when they were initially planning the iPad)

PERIOD

 

[burningbright]

Yes, they could have quite easily, I think. Compared to the profit margins on an iPad, the cost of a camera or another 256MB RAM are not great. Apple products typically have something frustrating about its first iteration- no 3G on the iPhone, no volume rocker on the iPod Touch etc. Whatever the intention, when apparently easy omissions are added it generates more buzz for the product. Many people emitted whoops of joy about the addition of something as banal as copy & paste for example.

It would make strategic sense to deliberately restrict some functions for first versions of products -- early adopters are much more likely to upgrade fairly rapidly in order to stay near the cutting edge, so they won't be frustrated for that long; somewhat later adopters get a more functional product they're probably going to be pretty satisfied with.

I know as little as anyone else here about what goes through Jobs' mind, but the above would be as sound a business strategy as planned obsolescence.

 

[BobHail]

iPad2 technology purposely held back?

Come on! Of course. Does the sun come up in the morning?

Next question!

(4) If Apple 'put all the technology they could' into the current iPad then the next iteration wouldn't be around for another several years.

And this would be a great thing for the customers and for the whole human race. Watch the documentary film Zeitgeist Addendum.

Who wants to buy a "new" product every freaking year with only couple of features added? It´s insane. But of course this strategy is good for big corporations like Apple, more dollars in their pocket, but the damages to the progress of our species are huge!

You wouldn´t believe what kind of technologies are held back from us. Free energy for us all is already possible for example, but of course they don´t want to release those technologies, because that would mean for them losing power over us and freeing mankind from this pyramid slave system we all live in.

It´s wrong and greedy, but what can we do. I guess the only thing is to vote with our wallets and spread the word about corruption and the injustices in the world. There´s million other things wrong in this world too than holding back technologies from us.

 

[spinedoc77]

Of course some stuff was left off intentionally. Apple is a smart company, and contrary to belief is not there to altruistically make the world a better place, they are there to make money. I'm sure they have a long term roadmap for the ipad and know to a certain extent what is going to be in the ipad 3, 4, etc, and certainly knew 99% of what is going to be in the ipad 2 when they released the ipad 1.

It's not like it's the first time features have been held back, we have a long history of this in the iphone. But Apple's genius is that they understand us poor slobs who are more than willing to repay every year after year for "incremental" upgrades to the hardware.

 

[mikelegacy]

I don't know about you all, but I look forward to Apple's reiterations every year. I look forward to MacWorld and WWDC every year to watch the new keynotes. Call me a fanboy, but the truth is that Apple knows how to make products that are both appealing to the eye, and are technically sound, so as long as they keep those two numbers, I'll be around for a while.

If you like Apple, you can't be cheap, and if you are cheap, then you shouldn't like Apple.

 

[emoore]

This is starting to get amusing. Most tech companies are "holding back". And free energy for all, too funny.

 

[srexy]

There may be an element of the above but my personal opinion is that Apple wanted to get a jump on the rest of the market and had enough of what they considered "mature" tech to go on with the iPad 1. Take a look at the iPhone 1 and you will see there was an absolute boatload of features missing (particularlty from the OS) that only came to market later in its life-cycle. However they got a HUGE jump on the rest of the smart phone manufacturers.

As has been borne out by their current tablet market share - this particular jump has served them very well!

 

[poloponies]

If your premise is holding off features to hit a price point then you're absolutely right. Toyota clearly has turbocharger technology but they held it back from my Prius. And Toshiba could have added a DVD player and surround sound processor, speakers and a subwoofer to my TV but they, too, held back. They're all just a big bunch of *******s.

 

[ReallyBigFeet]

Hasn't anyone ever heard of a "Product Roadmap" before? You guys make it sound like Apple just plans one release at a time. This is not at all how a company manages a product lifecycle. Apple is many things but the first and foremost of their competencies is that they are a product company that knows how to grow and leverage product features introduced over an extended period of time. This ensures a sustained profit model for the product where customer invest and re-invest year after year. Its not that dissimilar to versioning of software products, although you don't (or at least seldom) see any "free upgrades" with hardware.

 

[poloponies]

I think they have always intended to drop a front camera in the iPad. Doesn't the frame have a slot for it? For some reason Apple pulled the camera for the iPad1. Does it make business sense ? Sure. Not much else to add in the upgrade path except perhaps more RAM, storage, and maybe a SD slot (no "retina display" is in the immediate future for the iPad).

Try searching before you spout. The "slot" is where the ambient light sensor resides. Some know-it-all saw a frame and jumped to an erroneous conclusion. Your repeating bad information does not render it true.

 

[JulianL]

Two things came into play in holding back the camera:
1) Money (extra profits from selling the iPad2 when it comes out to upgraders)
2) Time, and thus money (it may have delayed the initial launch, allowing competitors to jump the market. iOS 4 wasn't even ready and you know they probably wanted that ready for the launch when they were initially planning the iPad)

PERIOD

3) They wanted to launch FaceTime with the iPhone 4 (for whatever reasons Apple might have had for wanting that) so having a front camera in the iPad announced in January without any initial software support for it, even when it started shipping in April, would have looked really odd.

I suppose your point 2 does technically cover that but, to not preempt the iPhone 4 launch, would have created a huge delay in shipping it.

- Julian

 

[gloss]

I believe Apple still considered the iPad a bit of a gambit. As such, why not minimize costs and risk as much as possible? I'm sure now that they've carved out a niche for themselves they can afford to be a little more daring.