Discussion in 'iPad' started by Jacob, Oct 18, 2010.
I doubt he really believes that himself.
I doubt he doesn't believe it. Did you see the Galaxy Tab pricing? $400 on a 2-year contract. And please note: smartphone contract, not just a data-only contract.
After handling so many touch-screen devices similar to the iPad from all the way back when Windows Vista was still a rumor, I can confidently say that the iPad is about as balanced price-wise and feature-wise that you can get on a touch-screen device in 2010.
From a wider standpoint, even the iPod Touch is hard to find a rival for. You can find a rival for individual features of the iPod Touch... like... a better music player, a better movie player, or a better game device, or a better web-browsing device, or e-reader device, but I doubt you can point out a single device that can even be considered a rival to the iPod Touch.
Back on topic, this should pretty much conclude what I kept on telling people for a long time... No 7-inch iPad. Not this generation nor the next one. You'd probably see one when the iPad 4 has come out, and Apple decides to have an iPad Mini, but... not right now. 10" is where Apple wants to play ball in.
Well, if Steve Jobs says it, then it's clear now. Have nothing but admiration for the guy.
I wouldn't want another iPad to come out, too soon, and people that recently got theres would feel bad. It would probably cost more too...
That's called 'technology.' Something better always comes out later... There's always a bigger fish.
The root why your argument is flawed is that you assume that there is a balance between price and features of a device. Or in other words, that by adding new features the price as a consequence has to increase. This would be true in a case where the price of a device is determined by costs for parts, work, design, transport and maybe advertisement since these are influenced by the features the device has. What you are forgetting that in contrast to this hypothetical case, in reality the largest single chunk which determines the final price of a device for a consumer is the margin the company selling the device makes as a profit.
Since Apple's competitors do not have to pay significantly more for parts, work, design, transport and advertisement than Apple, these competitors could offer a product with similar features for a smaller price simply by being content with a smaller profit margin. And since we all know that Apple tends to have an exceptional high margin compared to its competitors, there is no reason why a device similar to the iPad could not be offered by Apple's competitors for a smaller price.
Apple of course still has an idiot-proof OS, a large AppStore and the illusion of superior quality which sets them apart from their competitors, but Steve explicitly talked about the hardware.
Well, just a friendly reminder: I was talking about Samsung's Galaxy Tab... not lesser "competitors".
It's true they can put out a tablet with 1GHz CPU, 256MB of RAM, 32GB storage, 32GB expandable via microSD, etc... But if those cheaper devices were so popular in the first place, we wouldn't be counting on future devices as of this time.
No... when you get past the paper and look at the device, the truth strikes you: it's the software. And Apple makes its own software, while other companies don't. They'd either put out a stock barebone tablet, or they have to outsource to third-party developers to add more to the software, which bumps up the cost.
And then there's the licensing and patent mess, which gets really annoying beyond individual component and manufacturing costs. Since Apple has all of the licenses and patents sorted out with the iPhone and iPod Touch already, it doesn't have to worry about those things. The competition, on the other hand...
So my point is... it's not the hardware specs. It's not even how big the damn thing is... though size may matter to some people. But no, the main concern right now should be to get the software to work right. If they're playing by specs and features (Samsung) or numbers (Blackberry), they'll find themselves in situations that are really hard to swallow for consumers. Case in point, the Galaxy Tab could have been $399 if it was all stock, but Samsung went out of its way and changed a lot of the OS all by itself, so the cost of all of those modifications then weighed more into the cost of the tablet. In the end, it's competitive with features and specs, but not competitive price-wise.
Edit: and by the way, the Galaxy Tab does intrigue me. I'm only holding back due to the price...
Personally I am glad there is no smaller iPad. I love the form factor of the iPad and think a 7" device is sitting squarely in no man's land - too big to be truly portable and too small to be truly practical. The iPad compared to a laptop etc. is small and portable enough to be genuinely useful but equally as well balanced for the trade offs you may encounter. A device I can spend all day with, without giving any concern to battery life, be able to do pretty much all my real world tasks with and actually enjoy the experience.
Glad we agree that what Steve said about the superior hardware/price of the iPad is just bullsh*t. That is all I wanted to point out.
Separate names with a comma.