Different people have different needs. For some, the 16GB and cheaper price suits them just fine. I'm sure it wasn't Apple's intent to insult anybody... 
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.
All iPads The great memory rip-off
- Thread starter superduperdom
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Different people have different needs. For some, the 16GB and cheaper price suits them just fine. I'm sure it wasn't Apple's intent to insult anybody...
Right,
I assume those people would also have absolutely no objections to receiving an additional 16GB at no additional cost.
Or would that be insulting?
Right,
I assume those people would also have absolutely no objections to receiving an additional 16GB at no additional cost.
Or would that be insulting?
Ummmm, what?
Of course they'd have no objections? And what is Apple? A charity?
I don't get the comment about Apple insulting its customers. It's a silly comment.
Ummmm, what?
Of course they'd have no objections? And what is Apple? A charity?
I don't get the comment about Apple insulting its customers. It's a silly comment.
Then why not 8Gigs? What is the threshold? Why are you hostile towards redefining the threshold?
I'm not hostile towards redefining the threshold. I'd never buy a 16GB anything. It's too small.
I just don't mouth off saying Apple is insulting me. That's silly. That's what I am "hostile" towards.
If people can make do with 16GB, and Apple wants to offer a cheaper model with that configuration, I call that "choice", not "insult". No one is being forced to buy this thing. We each choose to buy the model we want and can afford.
iPad prices don't seem so egregious until you've seen what Apple's done with Macbook prices.
Apple has been pricing their Macbooks much less aggressively than in the past. Right now:
$999 - 11" Macbook Air - 128 GB
$1199 - 11" Macbook Air - 256 GB
So by that logic - 128 GB/$200 = less than $2 per GB
BUT you get a fully functional OS that can run a variety of programs, there's USB expansion ports, etc etc.
This goes to show that when there's REAL competition, Apple can and will reduce its precious "margins" to be competitive. Apple tax is something that Apple drops when it's losing market share.
Apple right now feels as if they own the tablet market. Whether they do is another matter, but for whatever reason they feel as if they do, and so their prices remain very aggressive.
So ... I guess this goes to show that there's no such thing as Apple feeling as if they are too "premium" to drop prices. They can, and they will, when their market share is stagnating or they feel as if it's in their best interests to do so.
In a few cycles if Apple decides to drop prices on the ipad, all the people in this thread insisting Apple would NEVER sacrifice their margins and so we should just pay $500 for 16 GB because it's the "Apple luxury tax" are going to feel foolish.
Apple has been pricing their Macbooks much less aggressively than in the past. Right now:
$999 - 11" Macbook Air - 128 GB
$1199 - 11" Macbook Air - 256 GB
So by that logic - 128 GB/$200 = less than $2 per GB
BUT you get a fully functional OS that can run a variety of programs, there's USB expansion ports, etc etc.
This goes to show that when there's REAL competition, Apple can and will reduce its precious "margins" to be competitive. Apple tax is something that Apple drops when it's losing market share.
Apple right now feels as if they own the tablet market. Whether they do is another matter, but for whatever reason they feel as if they do, and so their prices remain very aggressive.
So ... I guess this goes to show that there's no such thing as Apple feeling as if they are too "premium" to drop prices. They can, and they will, when their market share is stagnating or they feel as if it's in their best interests to do so.
In a few cycles if Apple decides to drop prices on the ipad, all the people in this thread insisting Apple would NEVER sacrifice their margins and so we should just pay $500 for 16 GB because it's the "Apple luxury tax" are going to feel foolish.
Fixed an item.
If apple changes their prices in a FEW cycles, it will just mean apple is late in addressing the market share leak. No one should feel silly. In fact, the ones who you claim will feel foolish will be the ones crowing about how Apple can adapt to changing market pressure, even though it will be akin to sticking a finger in a dyke that is leaking water like a sieve at that point. But they will attempt to claim "victory" somehow - trust me.
Just curious who "all these people" are that are saying NEVER?
Maybe it's contextual assumptions, but I'm just seeing people claiming it's won't change until there's a sufficient change in market demand conditions to justify the change from Apples POV.
Given that the 16 GB ipad is already being discounted by Walmart and Best Buy, I have a feeling there might be a price drop by the next cycle or a memory upgrade. There should be, if they're smart.
It's just a little surprising that with such a strong marketing team Apple didn't learn its lesson from their Macs. The macbook airs and macbook pros were routinely reviewed as the best computers on the market, but it was about margins, margins, margins until OSX market share stagnated at what it is now (around 10-13%). They've dropped prices, but meanwhile a bunch of people bought crappy Windows netbooks and are lazy to change. I feel like Apple missed the boat on OSX -- when the iphone and ipad were all the craze (2007-2011) they could have grabbed the brass ring and made OSX the dominant OS in the computing world too.
Bleeding market share = NEGATIVE margins. Apple's real margins come from the iOS ecosystem. itunes media purchases. icloud storage. iAds. App purchases. ibooks purchases. Every person that walks into Best Buy and says, "hmm, Nexus 7 doesn't look so bad" and walks out with one means less $$$ Apple can make from locking people into iOS.
Starting an ipad air at 32 GB or a $100 price drop -- that money can EASILY be made up for all the $$$ people will spend in iOS.
One point: market share isn't the same as profit share. I don't think Apple cares as much about the former as the latter.
There's lots of people upthread saying that 16 GB is very popular, it's not a ripoff, it's worth it because of icloud, etc. etc. and that Apple would have no reason to change the pricing scheme.
also, market share vs. profit share: with the way iOS and OSX work together with all iDevices and Macs, they are IMO actually the same thing and should be looked at by the company as the same. An activated iDevice means lots of $$$ spent on music, media, icloud storage, iAds, apps, and whatnot. Apple should really think of their iDevices as tools to push iOS.
Last edited:
I agree. It's just that reacting too late to counteract the tipping point is what is going to cause a problem for Apple. At some point, making 40% margin on a product is not going to mean squat when you are selling a lot of less of them, as the market share has driven away developers and support. Wasn't long ago when Belkin was about the only supplier to cater to Apple. Don't think it can't happen again. Plus we all saw what happened with the great software migration to Windows, and away from Apple.
It's popular because it's the cheapest. Finding a way to make 16Gigs work for you(no music, no videos, shuffling apps, etc...) are compromises people make to fit within the 16Gigs. With iWork apps, the space is shrinking all the time, Apps are getting larger over time, etc...
Last edited:
so? this is always true and not at all unique to apple. and nobody is saying Apple would NEVER sacrifice their margins and so we should just pay $500 for 16 GB because it's the "Apple luxury tax"
----------
consumer hostile? that's nonsense
----------
do you people really believe this?
no the iPad doesn't "really cost $600"
you just want a 32gig model so for YOU that costs $600.
They're not ripping anybody off, that is absurd.
Don't want it, don't buy it.
There's a group of people here and elsewhere (ever look at Appleinsider?) who insist that Apple is immune to market pressures because their products are so "premium" that it's akin to comparing a Rolls Royce to a Honda Civic. My point is that they're NOT, Apple makes mass-produced electronic devices for the general population and "Apple tax" can conveniently disappear when things simply aren't selling anymore.
I really think this is the generation to skip for the iPads. Feel like bleeding market share is going to catch up to Apple and we'll see some "amazing!" price drops in a cycle or two.
Right, but where is the "NEVER" part that you referred to? As I read those statements they all seem to be predicated on current and near-term market conditions.
Respectfully, market share and profit share are fairly different things, but I agree they are connected. A company with a focus on profit share may not feel the need to compete at the bottom segment just to get more of the lowest-spend consumers; for example you don't see Apple trying to compete in the $450 laptop market. Of course that has to be peppered with prediction/analysis of the lifetime spend of those consumers to validate if they're worth chasing or not.
My expectation is that Apple will shift their price/capacity matrix the moment their market analysis/pricing people think they'd maximize profits by doing so. Remember that not every customer is worth chasing, especially if capturing that one customer increases your costs above the return you get from that individual.
The $450 laptop/chromebook market share I agree is not something worth chasing.
BUT look at how aggressively Apple is chasing the ENTIRE mobile phone market. This means selling the flagship iphone at a contract price (generally $200) that is on par with the premium smart-phone market. An activated iphone = purchases as I said on itunes, App store, etc. etc. Why are they doing this? Because they have steep competition. The days when an iphone was only available via AT&T and you had to wait in line for days to get one are over.
My point is Apple IMO should view the ipad the same way they view the iphone: get them into the consumers' hands, acclimate them to iOS, and the money will start pouring in. $100 off an ipad is IMO nothing compared to $20/year for icloud storage + >$100/year (easily) in media itunes purchases + extra money for maybe buying a nice macbook air to go along with iDevices + $30 for buying an extra lightning connector. And so it goes
Different people have different needs. For some, the 16GB and cheaper price suits them just fine. I'm sure it wasn't Apple's intent to insult anybody...
Agreed. People vote with their wallet, and in this case it seems that many don't have a problem with 16GB.
The balancing act is that if you lower the pricing matrix overall, will you gain enough additional sales to people not already in the iOS/OSX ecosystem to offset the lost profits from everyone already willing to pay the current prices?
I think we just have a different perception regarding the potential of the untapped market.
Personally, and this is just unscientific observation, it seems to me that phones are the typical entree to the iOS ecosystem. Virtually everyone I see with an iPad already owns an iPhone or a Mac (or had the ipad bought for them by an OSX/iOS user). Accordingly I don't know that the increased revenue from a shifted ipad price matrix would offset things the way you think.
Another thought - the lower price entree to iPads exists already in the form of the $250 ipad mini refurbs at store.apple.com (which sell out quick when they appeat) as well as the active market for used ipads.
All very fascinating for discussion nonetheless.
clearly those people are wrong. if for no other reason than the fact that the rolls is at least 10 times the price of a civic... either way the ipad is still a consumer item making that comparison absurd.
No reasonable person has ever claimed that Apple is "immune from market pressure"
additionally, you referred to the ipad as a "ripoff" and claimed that the prices are egregious. i think both claims are a bit silly.
Actually think Apple (and other companies too) are UNDERESTIMATING the untapped market in terms of tablets. There's plenty of parents who want to give their kids ipads and might do so if it wasn't a $500 starting device. Ipads are probably the best casual gaming device there is -- the screen for iphones remains too small, but ipads are about perfect if you want to play Angry Birds or Tiny Wings.
I see people with those awful Amazon paperwhites -- again, untapped ipad market there, ipads probably the best e-reader there is in terms of shape, screen brightness, resolution of text, etc.
Most of all, the people still struggling with the old, heavy ipad 1's and 2's (ipad 2 STILL on the market!). By not adjusting the price matrix, Apple's giving people less incentive to upgrade. It's sad that TARGET came up with an ipad trade-in program. APPLE stores should have been on the ball with that, instead of still keeping the ipad 2 on the market.
As an example of how pro-active Apple is in chasing the global mobile phone market, look at what it's done in China. It's taken advantage of Google services not working in China, and worked closely with the Chinese authorities to develop an App store for the iphone that adheres with the Chinese government's restrictions. It's banned apps that the Chinese government finds offensive, and bundled the software to cater to the Chinese population. It's actually taken some heat for doing this, and it's certainly kind of Machiavellian in a way, but it goes to show that for Apple, no mobile phone consumer is "not worth chasing."
Apple needs to be that way with the tablet market, or it's going to slip away. JMO.
Except those who don't think paying $549+ for a phone is a prudent thing to do.
FWIW, remember that base price from Apple is $299 today for a new mini1, $250 if buying a refurb. Plenty for basic games like Tiny Birds or Angry Wings.
The ipad2 is IMHO a special case; it's not so much for end users as it is still available to satisfy the institutional/education/industrial market. It's a fine kiosk or point-of-sales device and there's a solid ecosystem of mounts and stuff built around the ipad2. I don't believe it's really aimed at the consumer market. See http://daringfireball.net/2013/10/this_weeks_ipad_event and http://allthingsd.com/20131024/why-is-apple-still-selling-the-ipad-2-because-it-can/
Try out an ipad sitting on the beach, at the pool, etc. eInk does trounce LCD in direct sunlit situations.
I keep my old Kindle2 for just those situations. I think the basic difference in our opinions is whether Apple needs to take any action at this time. It will be interesting to see the 3Q13 and 1Q14 sales figures.
You do realize that iPhones generate most of Apple's profit margins, right? While consumers only see a $200 initial price tag, the carrier subsidizes the rest of the phone's cost and recovers it through an expensive 2-year contract. Not to mention for every iPhone bought at the Apple store, I believe Apple gets an additional customer sign-up fee aside from the subsidy it already receives.
If Apple were to view the iPad in the same vein as the iPhone, that would mean carrier locked iPads which would cost you around $200 upfront (16GB LTE) but comes with a 2-year contract that will end up costing you around $1,500 minimum. Thanks, but no thanks.