I hope this is not true. $329 would not cut it, I think $249 would be more like it - definitely not $329.
back
1 comments
Yeah, anything above $279 would be a huge disappointment.
For a very long time, I was convinced that Apple would never do a smaller iPad. What's in it for them? The profit margins will certainly be smaller. Then I realized: if they wanted to completely own the tablet market, they need a cheap option that's competitive with the Kindle Fire and co.
$249 gives Apple almost complete dominance in the tablet market. $329 does not.
Apple does not want dominance. Apple wants to make money.
They are not Google making money on ads sold. They make money on hardware sold.
But if that's the case, why make the 7" iPad at all? Like I said, the profit margins will inevitably be lower than on the 10" iPad.
Unless it's about dominance, this is a pointless niche product and a waste of time.
Look at what Apple's been doing with iPhone pricing for the past few years. If you're in the US, you can now get a "free" iPhone 4. That's absolutely a move to seize the low end of the market, even if they're not making as much per device.
A few months ago Tim Cook went on record saying he "wasn't going to leave any price umbrellas". As Ryan Jones (via Forbes) observes, "a price umbrella is the cover that a market leader provides other companies by establishing a premium price for their products. Competitors can enter the market at lower price points and disrupt the leader’s dominance, in Jones words, 'from the bottom up.'"
http://www.forbes.com/sites/anthonykosner/2012/07/22/apple-w...
Per this logic, $299 seems like the best bet. This is $100 lower than the point where iPad and iPod prices presently converge ($399 for either a 64GB Touch or a 16GB iPad 2). This move would also mean dropping the price of the 64GB Touch to $299 (where the 32GB model currently sits) and dropping the 32 GB to $249, which is where you find the 160 GB iPod classic ($100 above the new nano).
> Yeah, anything above $279 would be a huge disappointment.
how so?