Wow really?
There are already simple webdesign apps available. Its not Apple's fault that Adobe hasn't released a full-blown Photoshop/Dreamweaver.
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.
Is the iPad really just an unneeded luxury item?
- Thread starter Stirolak26
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Wow really?
There are already simple webdesign apps available. Its not Apple's fault that Adobe hasn't released a full-blown Photoshop/Dreamweaver.
I used the exact same term in a thread someone posted, crying that their iPad 2 was delayed because of the Japan catastrophe. Yes, it is.
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
well yes we do
i worked in intensive care - and there is no way you could get that quality of care without computers and tech
i would not want to hire someone to drive bellows in order to ventilate a patient.. much rather have an adaptive support vent
computers are everywhere n this day and age, and do we really need it - well to maintain todays lifestyle...yes we do
johnnyturbouk
macrumors 68000
back to topic
i actually find my ipad more functional than my iphone
for apps/games/light reading in bed the ipad is awesome
iphone, seems so cramped and unnecessary when im at home
but, when out, i could not really go far without my iphone
i actually find my ipad more functional than my iphone
for apps/games/light reading in bed the ipad is awesome
iphone, seems so cramped and unnecessary when im at home
but, when out, i could not really go far without my iphone
I don't know if I'd go that far. Like I said there are two competing interests at play here. The MacBook Air production and the technical limits a tablet-size screen.
When I consider the iPad (for this thread) I'm keeping in mind the tablet industry as a whole, iPad, Android, WebOS, RIM, etc. Tablets are hot right now but people are also asking themselves just how much long term usage they get out of said devices.
For tasks that do not require heavy keyboard use, the tablet is ideal. Web surfing, after all, is 90% reading.
One thing I'd like to see tablets get better at is what smartphones are excelling at now. Better cameras, better screens and expandable memory. If I see any profiteering in Apple it is this refusal to put a card reader in any iOS device. That's how they lock you into higher prices. You can't just buy a 16GB model and add more storage as your content grows. Instead you have to pay several hundred more for double or quadruple the size. And if your data exceeds the max offering, you'll have to hope and pray for an upgrade as many people were hoping to see 128GB models.
Is that really true now with Apple focusing on AirPlay? That's not to mention all the rumors of cloud iTunes and media management, i can't really see the argument for Apple limiting SD cards for storage.
IMO, they are trying to train users to use streaming media, for better or worst.
My answer would be that it is in fact a luxury item for me that I use a LOT and LOVE but, it would be the first thing for me to sell if I really needed money.
I don't use it as my main computer at home or at work and my unlimited iPhone gives me something if I had to do something.
I don't use it as my main computer at home or at work and my unlimited iPhone gives me something if I had to do something.
Apple's price for upgrading SSD space, on the iPad, is $100 across the board, as well as for the iPhone. Some people are okay with 16GB, but most like 32GB or 64GB. $100 is not unreasonable for double the space. Also, Apple has allowed many apps into their app store that allow for streaming from your home Mac to your mobile. I don't think it's a case of Apple trying to limit, and make money from storage space, but rather the available space to add one to their devices. How could you possibly add a SD or even a mini SD card slot to the iPhone? Sacrifice space with a smaller battery? I think most consumers would prefer better battery life.
Well $100 for 16GB certainly is unreasonable.
I can understand this for the iPhone due to very tight construction, but I think the iPad should and could have been engineered to permit expandable storage.
The trick is, of course, that that would eliminate the need for anything more than the base model. Apple couldn't afford to sell an iPad 32GB at just a $20-30 premium over the base because it would cut into profit margins considerably. At the same time, eliminating higher end models reduces up-selling, which is a very good way to make money.
Personally, however, I prefer not to have expandable memory. It is very nice to have one device that is fully inclusive and that requires no swapping, inserting, manipulating, or tailoring (in hardware terms). That is the iOS user experience (and to a large extent, the Apple user experience) and it does make me happier as a consumer of technology, so it's worth paying for (in my opinion).
What do you sync it with?
How do you back it up? What's your plan if it gets stolen or damaged such that the storage isn't accessible? Every computer user, regardless of the type of computer they are using, should have a backup.
$500 for the 16GB iPad is not unreasonable. The $100 for twice the space goes from there. I don't think anyone can say $700 for a 64GB wifi iPad is unreasonable. Personally, I'd love a 64GB iPhone. When it's released, I'm sure it will be reasonably priced as well.
Well it's not that $500 is unreasonable because the storage is tied to a functioning device. It's that you have to pay $100 for only 16GB if going from the base to 32GB model. Expandable storage can be had for a lot less. Even 48GB for $200 isn't such a great deal (the cost from going to 16GB to 64GB) because you can buy external storage for much cheaper.
The reason Apple has the pricing scheme the way it does is to encourage up-sellling and even profit margins across the line.
Whether or not $700 is reasonable or unreasonable for the iPad is entirely dependent on the cost to build one and the prevailing market competition. Given that the competition is at the same price or higher, and that Apple's profit margins are roughly the same as the other i devices, it's probably reasonable for now. But that doesn't mean it will always be that way if competitors are able to lower prices.
Wrong. Whether (insert $ figure here) is "reasonable" is dependent on if some one is willing to pay it. Period. Apple could price them at $1499. If some one is willing to pay that, it is reasonable.
As for competitors, not a chance. The PlayBook will have a 16GB Wi-Fi only at the same price point ($499) but all the Android tablets are actually more expensive to begin with. Apple was brilliant to hit that $499 price point as it leaves very little margin for their competitors. Chinese wages are going up, remember
It's been well documented that profit margins for the iPad are much less than any other Apple product.
Probably so, as the reason I own one is I don't find it absurdly priced like most of their products (only other one I've owned is a 5th gen iPod Nano).
But still, the memory is overpriced.
How can one say that $100 for 16gb of memory (price difference between 16gb and 32gb model) is a fair price of the cost of memory when it's $100 more to go up 32gb in memory from the 32gb model to the 64gb model?
Much less if you look and see how cheap 16gb of flash memory or sd cards etc are these days.
They over charge for the memory to help improve their profit margins, which is reasonable I suppose. But it's also a reason we probably won't see them adding SD card slots to expand storage etc.
I don't believe the iPad as a needed item yet but it has hit the convenience level with a lot of people now. Sort of the "remote control" of computers now. Instead of getting up to go get the laptop and plugging it in or rationing the power of it or getting the tiny a@$ screen of the smartphone, we'll grab that mid-range iPad that has plenty of battery life and be easy on the eyes. At the same time, handle almost every desire the computer is delivering.
No, that's a subjective question. There are many things people are willing to pay for even if the price is unreasonable. Reasonableness has been, and always will be, an objective measure. It is based on what a rational neutral actor would do in the same circumstances. If the price of an iPad were to triple, a purely rational actor would not be willing to buy it.
What you're describing (with "if someone is willing to pay for it") is salability. That's an entirely different thing than reasonableness. There are plenty of unreasonable products (whether pricey or not) that are sold every day.
As for competitors, not a chance. The PlayBook will have a 16GB Wi-Fi only at the same price point ($499) but all the Android tablets are actually more expensive to begin with. Apple was brilliant to hit that $499 price point as it leaves very little margin for their competitors. Chinese wages are going up, remember
That's for now, but Apple's lead won't last forever. Nor does it have to for Apple to necessarily still have a superior product. None of Apple's products is ever really a good deal from an objective perspective. The "Apple Tax" gives you a smoother experience, more enjoyable experience, but not everyone is willing to pay for it, as the explosion of Android handsets has shown.
IIRC, the latest teardown from iFixit showed that the components for the base iPad cost less than $300. This puts the total parts cost at under 60% of the total retail price. Chinese labor, shipping, insurance, retail inventory costs, and QA will add some expenses, but those would be stable across all product lines as a percentage of price, so the parts ratio is a good indicator of profit margin on the iPad. Apple's gross margins are over 25%, so that means the iPad is at least as profitable as the average Apple product.
I say yes it is an unnecessary luxury item, that said it is my unnecessary luxury item and therefor I love it.
If you don't want one don't buy one, if you think it's crap stop worrying about it, if you want one but can't afford one then save up and get one.
All said and done it's an ITEM like any other ITEM, no one is forcing anyone to have one.
If you don't want one don't buy one, if you think it's crap stop worrying about it, if you want one but can't afford one then save up and get one.
All said and done it's an ITEM like any other ITEM, no one is forcing anyone to have one.
The 25% is true for the iPad, but the profit margin for other products is 35% or higher. That's a difference of at least 10%. Losing $100 in profit for every $1,000 charged, is a lot.
iPad is:
Unnecessary like a television or iPod or XBOX.
Not a luxury item as it is, without a doubt, UNDERpriced.
iPad is revolutionary.
Unnecessary like a television or iPod or XBOX.
Not a luxury item as it is, without a doubt, UNDERpriced.
iPad is revolutionary.
Actually, after doing a tad more digging, as I just found on iSuppli's review of the iPad 2's bill of materials for the 32 GB 3G model, the total cost of materials and labor for an iPad 2 (GSM) is $336.60. That means that after negligible shipping, insurance, and QA costs, the iPad 2 has margins near 40%, or better. Link.
This puts the iPad at the average compared to Apple's products as a whole, in fact it is probably towards the upper end if labor and materials only hit 53%.
Keep digging, I'm sure you'll find whatever you want. BTW, you forgot R&D and marketing.