Google reportedly set to offer a $99 Nexus tablet later this year

[kevinp]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Sure hope so. If they price the 32GB at $249, I'll probably get it.

That means the 16 GB will probably be around the $199 range. That's probably what I'll get.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by kevinp

That means the 16 GB will probably be around the $199 range. That's probably what I'll get.

After Amazon introduced the Fire HD's at $199 (16GB) and $249 (32gb), I've been waiting for Google to match them. Now it looks like they might.

Without a card slot, 16GB is not viable for my needs; 32GB is.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kevinp

That means the 16 GB will probably be around the $199 range. That's probably what I'll get.

The rumour I saw was that they will not sell the 16G at all.

[hrosvit]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

After Amazon introduced the Fire HD's at $199 (16GB) and $249 (32gb), I've been waiting for Google to match them. Now it looks like they might.

Without a card slot, 16GB is not viable for my needs; 32GB is.

Agreed. 32GB would be enough for me to get one for my son.

[Canuck_in_Japan]

At this point in the yearly release cycle I think I'll just wait for the next update.

[kevinp]

Originally Posted by tompe

The rumour I saw was that they will not sell the 16G at all.

And they would continue to sell the 8 GB? Or the 32 GB would be the only model?

[tompe]

Originally Posted by kevinp

And they would continue to sell the 8 GB? Or the 32 GB would be the only model?

Yes, continue with the 8G. See:

http://www.androidauthority.com/32gb...g-16gb-121296/

Now we have a screenshot that flat out suggests that the 32GB model is meant to replace the existing 16GB Nexus 7 version, without any change to the price tag.

As flash memory becomes cheaper by the day, this isn’t that surprising. Thanks to the lack of microSD, Nexus 7 users can easily hit a wall with the 8GB and 16GB offerings if they download a lot of content directly to their devices. Having 32GB is still not nearly as exciting as a Nexus 7 with microSD, but you take what you can get.

You have to wonder though, why isn’t the 8GB model being phased out? You would think that having a 16GB and 32GB model might make more sense. The idea is probably to offer two very different size configurations to appeal to a broader range of consumers. The jump from 8 to 16GB isn’t all that much for the extra cost, but 8 to 32GB certainly makes an upgrade to the larger model more diserable. Those that don’t mind streaming and cloud storage will likely flock to buy a sub-$199 Nexus 7, and the existing price point for the 16GB model is more than fair for a 32GB model.

[HansTWN]

Is flash memory really getting cheaper by the day? That used to be the case as device memory jumped every 6 months from 4 to 8 to 16 and up to 64. But for the last two years we stopped and (in many cases) have even going backward (probably starting with the Kindle Fire). So there is no increased volume for larger sizes, why should flash memory get cheaper?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, continue with the 8G. See:

http://www.androidauthority.com/32gb...g-16gb-121296/

Their logic doesn't make sense. Granted 8 to 16 isn't much of a jump, but 16 to 32 is. If I was the type who was content with cloud storage, I'd rather get a 16GB Fire HD than a 8GB Nexus 7 for the same price.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Their logic doesn't make sense. Granted 8 to 16 isn't much of a jump, but 16 to 32 is. If I was the type who was content with cloud storage, I'd rather get a 16GB Fire HD than a 8GB Nexus 7 for the same price.

To me it seems to be the same jump, a doubling. Which is probably how most people will read it before buying.

How do you measure that a jump is big on your reasoning? Why is absolute value 16 a big jump but not 8? Is a jump from 116G to 132G a big jump? I really do not get your logic here.

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by tompe

How do you measure that a jump is big on your reasoning? Why is absolute value 16 a big jump but not 8? Is a jump from 116G to 132G a big jump? I really do not get your logic here.

I measure by absolute value at the low ends.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

I measure by absolute value at the low ends.

Yes, you can choose to measure in any way you want. But why is your method more logical than the method you criticized for not being logical?

[tubemonkey]

Originally Posted by tompe

Yes, you can choose to measure in any way you want. But why is your method more logical than the method you criticized for not being logical?

Because 16 is bigger than 8.

[tompe]

Originally Posted by tubemonkey

Because 16 is bigger than 8.

But that was not what you claimed. You said 8 was not "much of a jump" but 16 was. If 8-16 is not much of a jump then for me 16-32 is not much of a jump either.

It is hard to evaluate these kind of things but the reasoning in the blog entry is for me much more logical than your reasoning.

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by tompe

But that was not what you claimed. You said 8 was not "much of a jump" but 16 was. If 8-16 is not much of a jump then for me 16-32 is not much of a jump either.

It is hard to evaluate these kind of things but the reasoning in the blog entry is for me much more logical than your reasoning.

Going from 8 to 16 is a jump of 8.
Going from 16 to 32 is a jump of 16.
16 is bigger than 8.
Whether you agree with it or not, his reasoning seems pretty clear.