This is an Apple product; you grossly overpay for it and don't think twice about if the price is actually justified.
no way the iPad 2 falls all the way to $299. It's still a 10" tablet. $399 or bust. Maybe $349.$299 - iPad 2 WiFi - 16GB
$499 - iPad 2S WiFi - 16GB (new specs, no retina display)
$579 - iPad 3 WiFi - 32GB
$679 - iPad 3 WiFi - 64GB
$699 - iPad 3 WiFi+LTE - 32GB
$799 - iPad 3 WiFi+LTE - 64GB
Boom.
$299 - iPad 2 WiFi - 16GB
$499 - iPad 2S WiFi - 16GB (new specs, no retina display)
$579 - iPad 3 WiFi - 32GB
$679 - iPad 3 WiFi - 64GB
$699 - iPad 3 WiFi+LTE - 32GB
$799 - iPad 3 WiFi+LTE - 64GB
Boom.
Uh, why do people think they will raise the price? That's silly.
I am real, and while I do care, many of you seem to mistake the careful articulation of my position as either trolling or crazy. I never stated that everyone should be outraged that the iPad 3 won't have a Retina Display. I only expressed my own frustration and disappointment over it. There's no need for hyperbole or hysterics when it comes to electronics or the companies making them.
It is sad, though, that this is what Apple has come to. It's like they are slowly slipping back to the Gil Amelio days. Multiple iPad SKUs with different chips? Adding complexity to the product line?
I'm glad I sold my stock when I did.
All high-end smartphones are grossly overpriced, Apple just happens to sell the most of them.border said:They all seem priced pretty similar to competing tablets, media players, and smartphones.
This is an Apple product; you grossly overpay for it and don't think twice about if the price is actually justified.
have you wondered why this might be consistent across multiple companies?All high-end smartphones are grossly overpriced, Apple just happens to sell the most of them.
Ludicrous.
I'm watching people talk about the price having to increase because the specs of an updated product are better than the old product from over a year ago.
The pricing trend for high-end phone was created by Microsoft and co. about 5(?) years before iPhone when they figured out pocket-PC was a deadend as a standalone product and stuck a modem inside one.macuser1of5 said:have you wondered why this might be consistent across multiple companies?
that is a very... interesting outlook to say the least.The rest is just a process of dumbing-down and removing functionality - ie. turning it from a function oriented device into a fashion accessory, which is where we are today.
The pricing trend for high-end phone was created by Microsoft and co. about 5(?) years before iPhone when they figured out pocket-PC was a deadend as a standalone product and stuck a modem inside one.
The rest is just a process of dumbing-down and removing functionality - ie. turning it from a function oriented device into a fashion accessory, which is where we are today.
I remember when they put a retina display and a good camera in the iPhone and the price skyrocketed.
The pricing trend for high-end phone was created by Microsoft and co. about 5(?) years before iPhone when they figured out pocket-PC was a deadend as a standalone product and stuck a modem inside one.
The rest is just a process of dumbing-down and removing functionality - ie. turning it from a function oriented device into a fashion accessory, which is where we are today.
The pricing trend for high-end phone was created by Microsoft and co. about 5(?) years before iPhone when they figured out pocket-PC was a deadend as a standalone product and stuck a modem inside one.
The rest is just a process of dumbing-down and removing functionality - ie. turning it from a function oriented device into a fashion accessory, which is where we are today.
obscure technical function or specific usage which requires inflexible input design and will turn off a majority of the populace.What functions from that are no longer available in a smartphone?
The pricing trend for high-end phone was created by Microsoft and co. about 5(?) years before iPhone when they figured out pocket-PC was a deadend as a standalone product and stuck a modem inside one.
The rest is just a process of dumbing-down and removing functionality - ie. turning it from a function oriented device into a fashion accessory, which is where we are today.
This is an Apple product; you grossly overpay for it and don't think twice about if the price is actually justified.
Still though, the expectation that Apple and only Apple will grossly overprice their products is incorrect.
Free market economics would suggest that if there's an entire industry with a huge, gross profit margin then a competitor will eventually step in and offer a much lower priced, similarly spec'ed alternative. They won't have the same huge profit margin, but they will make up for it in volume.
Why hasn't this happened, then? Collusion? Or is it just that the non-Apple market is so fragmented that it would be impossible to sell in the kind of volume necessary to make up for lost profit margin? Has-beens like Microsoft and Nokia have a huge incentive to offer very competitively priced products just so they can increase their marketshare, but so far they aren't really differentiating themselves on price.
Apple's supply chain efficiency is something that, while rarely reported on, is one of their greatest strengths. They are able to sell things at the same price while making substantially larger margins. This leads alot of other companies to either increase price, decrease quality, or focus on other niches of the market.
The pricing trend for high-end phone was created by Microsoft and co. about 5(?) years before iPhone when they figured out pocket-PC was a deadend as a standalone product and stuck a modem inside one.
The rest is just a process of dumbing-down and removing functionality - ie. turning it from a function oriented device into a fashion accessory, which is where we are today.
The pricing trend for high-end phone was created by Microsoft and co. about 5(?) years before iPhone when they figured out pocket-PC was a deadend as a standalone product and stuck a modem inside one.
The rest is just a process of dumbing-down and removing functionality - ie. turning it from a function oriented device into a fashion accessory, which is where we are today.
Apple can't fool me this time. People told me that a 9.7" display with a resolution of 2048 by 1536 isn't possible.
This is oddly arousing.Aww yeah, that's the spot.
Keep fucking that 'fridge.
It's because they already have apple.com and would rather not waste money.
Yes, I'm aware they have apple.com. Thanks for that. I don't see how it's a waste of money to own ipad.com though. When you're the richest entity on planet earth I think you can buy a domain which is the name of your flagship product. They do own iphone.com.
Yes, I'm aware they have apple.com. Thanks for that. I don't see how it's a waste of money to own ipad.com though. When you're the richest entity on planet earth I think you can buy a domain which is the name of your flagship product. They do own iphone.com.
I'll accept the iPad 2 and 2S are, but why the iPad 3 at $579?
Who knows? They have specific sites for most of their individual products, but they all redirect to apple.com anyway. Maybe the current domain owner asks for a ridiculous price and are still mid-deal, or they have found that most consumers attach the iPad to apple.com?
I don't think it's so mindblowing. It's a hugely irrelevant issue considering their main site is easy to use, well known, and well designed.
It's not about that. It's about people who don't know better and typing iPad.com into their browser. Apple should own it and redirect it.
Nobody types urls anymore.
Yeah but all those books that'll be nice to read will be infinitely more engaging than infinity blade.
The wait for retina support for each app will be unbearable just like with the iPhone.
The wait for retina support for each app will be unbearable just like with the iPhone.
Alot of apps will be broke day 1 as well like with all iOS device launches.