$329 for ipad mini

[Teknikal]

I can't believe they didn't even put a GPS in there on the wifi models pretty disgraceful when even my compact camera has one but then again it also has a better HD lcd screen with a much higher PPI.

[pl001]

Originally Posted by leebase

Frankly, though. I've yet to see ANY announcement by Apple -- EVER -- that folks didn't say "they cost too much".

When the original iPad was introduced, people were shocked at price...as in how low it was.

How quickly we forget.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by obsessed2

Apple had a golden opportunity to reach a whole new segment of consumers who are or potentially are Android buyers if the iPad Mini had been priced at a $250 entry level price.

Apple has become the world's largest and most profitable company by NOT targeting the lowest end, least margin markets. Jeff Bezos said it best "Apple works very hard to get people to pay more money, Amazon works very hard to achieve the lowest prices".

Some might see this as an obvious win for Amazon. But it's the BMW issue again. Not everyone can afford a BMW. They strive to build cars that people are willing to pay so much more for.

Apple is communicating that it's product is a better product and worth more. Millions of folks won't agree, and they'll buy the Kindle or the Nexus. But the most likely scenario is that Apple will be able to sell all the iPad mini's it's able to make.

Don't folks recognize the pattern? "Introducing the iPad..." Who would want that...oh, it's WAY too expensive...there's a tsunami of cheap tablets that are going to swamp the iPad.

Introducing the iPad 2 - faster, lighter, thinner, same battery, front camera same price. "Oh, way too expensive..."

Introducing the iPad 3 - Retina display, 4 times the image data, improved everything inside to provide the same speed and battery life while pumping 4 times the image data. And kept the same price. "Oh, how boring....I'd never want one of those"

Introducing the iPad 4 - in only 6 months we've doubled the speed, improved the wifi, and kept the battery life and price. "Wait, I just bought my New iPad only 6 months ago....now I'm angry".

It never ends. And it never matters one bit. It won't matter this time either. Apple perennially comes in tops for customer satisfaction. Apple not only makes products and markets them superbly -- and does so profitably -- but those who buy their products are the most happy of all customers.

[ApK]

Originally Posted by pl001

When the original iPad was introduced, people were shocked at price...as in how low it was.

How quickly we forget.

I got my wife a 4th Gen iTouch.
I thought it was expensive, but there was nothing else out there that could do what it did as well as it did or as conveniently as it did, without requiring a cell phone contract. It was expensive, but worth it.
But the price difference between the 32 to 64 GB versions wasn't just expensive, I felt it was unconscionable.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by pl001

When the original iPad was introduced, people were shocked at price...as in how low it was.

How quickly we forget.

Someone has a forgetful memory, sure.

Lee

[Graham]

Originally Posted by leebase

Apple perennially comes in tops for customer satisfaction.

Without disagreeing with the rest of your post, it could be observed that it's precisely because it doesn't target the low end with cheaper devices that it tops the satisfaction tables.

Other manufacturers results are spread across a range that extends down to devices that deliver a less satisfying experience. It would be interesting to see the satisfaction results if it was possible to separate them into price bands. I'm not saying that Apple wouldn't still win, but it would be a more balanced survey.

Graham

[Teknikal]

Originally Posted by ApK

I got my wife a 4th Gen iTouch.
I thought it was expensive, but there was nothing else out there that could do what it did as well as it did or as conveniently as it did, without requiring a cell phone contract. It was expensive, but worth it.
But the price difference between the 32 to 64 GB versions wasn't just expensive, I felt it was unconscionable.

What's really sad about that is other companies emulating it, I'll personally always find a device with a Micro SD where possible but it's becoming clear other companies like HTC are trying to do the same thing.

Thankfully they are mostly failing it's sad that the Nexus program went that direction though for me it's enough to keep me away from the phones.

[leebase]

Originally Posted by Graham

Without disagreeing with the rest of your post, it could be observed that it's precisely because it doesn't target the low end with cheaper devices that it tops the satisfaction tables.

It tops when devices like the GSIII are compared as well. But, point taken. Apple doesn't compete in markets it doesn't believe it can produce a quality product. That's why Apple never put out a netbook. To quote Jobs "Netbooks aren't better at anything".

Apple also isn't buying commodity parts, slapping them together and putting their name on it and selling them at the least margin possible.

Originally Posted by Graham

Other manufacturers results are spread across a range that extends down to devices that deliver a less satisfying experience. It would be interesting to see the satisfaction results if it was possible to separate them into price bands. I'm not saying that Apple wouldn't still win, but it would be a more balanced survey.

Such comparisons do exist. However, the fact that other manufacturers are WILLING to put out clunky garbage to meet low price points...kinda makes the point about Apple.

Take the 7" tablets. They are too big for phone apps to look good. They were too small to justify special apps being built ala the iPad. Unfortunately, they didn't sell enough of the 10" Android tablets to make a market big enough to entice all the app developers the way the iPad did.

Apple didn't put out a small tablet right away. When Apple did, they did it in such a way that the iPad apps run just fine on them. It won't be phone apps running on the iPad mini, but iPad apps. They waited until they could make such a device, and sell it at a price between the Touch and the iPad, and do so profitably. That's Apple.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by leebase

Because they SHOULD. It shows that you get far more for your money, that a tablet it not about specs. That's HOW you create Apple customers, you show them the value. The value of quality build, elegant design, and the power of Apple's ecosystem.

People are going to want to know "what makes the $329 iPad mini a better value than a Galaxy Nexus 7". Comparing the apps -- priceless. Showing the difference when browsing the web...a big difference.

But again, that just runs contrary to your statement that their intent is not to destroy the competing 7-8" tablets. Everything they said in that presentation says that is what they wish to do.

Obviously, if they have no fear of the competition, there is no reason to even mention them.

Whether they should have mentioned them or not is besides the point. The fact that they did underscores their intent.

Compare this one moment in a keynote presentation to Samsung's sustained commercial campaign. Why buy Samsung? Because only morons/sheeple and clueless parents buy iPhones. Samsung criticizes the PEOPLE who choose Apple. Brilliant marketing. So unlike Apple's Mac vs. PC.

If that was your only takeaway, then you missed the most important part of the message which I got right away -- that the "sheeple" are waiting on line for things that Samsung has already had for quite some time ... in this case larger screens!

So you paid MORE for your iPod touch than the iPad Mini...well, enjoy your Android, is all I can say. Time will tell if Apple has mispriced this product.

Yup. Paid more for it than what Apple is asking for the Mini now. You know why? Because at that time (2009), it was the ONLY product of it's kind on the market. Couldn't buy a comparable product like it from anyone else. Now compare that to the iPod Mini. At the time it is being introduced, there are way better specced and better priced comparable products on the market. Big difference. Apples and oranges! Truly.

Frankly, though. I've yet to see ANY announcement by Apple -- EVER -- that folks didn't say "they cost too much".

But this appears to be different. I recall after past announcements their products getting mostly praise in the media. For their specs alone. With the iPad Mini, however, you are seeing quite a bit of criticism, and even disdain, for both Apple's specs and their pricing.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by leebase

Don't folks recognize the pattern? "Introducing the iPad..." Who would want that...oh, it's WAY too expensive...there's a tsunami of cheap tablets that are going to swamp the iPad.

Introducing the iPad 2 - faster, lighter, thinner, same battery, front camera same price. "Oh, way too expensive..."

Introducing the iPad 3 - Retina display, 4 times the image data, improved everything inside to provide the same speed and battery life while pumping 4 times the image data. And kept the same price. "Oh, how boring....I'd never want one of those"

Introducing the iPad 4 - in only 6 months we've doubled the speed, improved the wifi, and kept the battery life and price. "Wait, I just bought my New iPad only 6 months ago....now I'm angry".

It never ends. And it never matters one bit. It won't matter this time either. Apple perennially comes in tops for customer satisfaction. Apple not only makes products and markets them superbly -- and does so profitably -- but those who buy their products are the most happy of all customers.

You are severely exaggerating the response to Apple products and making apples to oranges comparisons. Again, as I referenced in my previous reply to you, for the most part with Apple's previous iOS hardware announcements, they were releasing something cutting edge and unique in the marketplace.

This is NOT the case with the iPad Mini. In fact it's behind the times. So while some may have griped about Apple's prices in the past, now they are griping about the specs/technology as well.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by leebase

Apple didn't put out a small tablet right away. When Apple did, they did it in such a way that the iPad apps run just fine on them. It won't be phone apps running on the iPad mini, but iPad apps. They waited until they could make such a device, and sell it at a price between the Touch and the iPad, and do so profitably. That's Apple.

Nice story. But methinks they waited to introduce one until Jobs passed away. Somehow I think if Jobs were still alive, there would still be no Mini today, if for no other reason than him not wanting to appear to be a big hypocrite.

[afv011]

Originally Posted by leebase

Showing the difference when browsing the web...a big difference.

Would you be so kind as to enlighten us how a 1024x768 screen can show more content than a 1280x800 screen and hence be better? It will be bigger, yes, but it will show less stuff, and will be less crisp. The fact that apple said it is better than 7" tablets does not immediately make it so.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by leebase

It won't be phone apps running on the iPad mini, but iPad apps.

I bit my tongue when you alleged this in an earlier post, but let's lay this to rest: there are plenty of tablet-optimised apps for Android. I agree that the iPad ones generally have the edge in elegance but it's ridiculous to suggest that Android tablet owners have to put up almost entirely with phone apps.

Much of the elegance on the iPad comes from having a specific target resolution to aim at. On Android some elegance is lost at the price of flexibility - for example we use tablet apps that adjust perfectly whether run on my wife's 16:10 Galaxy Tab running ICS or my 4:3 Touchpad running CM9.

What's more, when there is no tablet UI built into the app the 'phone' version is usually rendered afresh at the larger resolution - not pixel doubled (there are some exceptions where the app is written poorly using a bitmap for a screen background).

There are even some apps that have excellent full tablet versions on Android where the iOS users are still screaming that they only have a phone version (Rhapsody/Napster).

What's more, I posted elsewhere a good comment from Forbes by one of the Google engineers pointing out that it's precisely because the Android framework can adapt to a broad range of resolutions and pixel densities that the experience can be tailored, and Google and others have done this for the Nexus 7.

On a 7" device, designed to be held in portrait, it's actually more the single panel, 'phone'-style view that is easier to use - switching to a tablet multi-panel view in landscape.

Your tablet iPad apps may well be just as usable on a screen three-quarters of the size to the one they were designed for, but it's not as certainly true as you're making out.

Graham

[leebase]

I haven't gone out of my way to find bad table app experiences on my Galaxy Tab. There is a paucity of "designed for tablet" apps, and that's just true.

3/4 -- you are right. Any app who's "tap target" size was at the limit on a 10" table, well, they will be too small when you reduce the size of the screen.

I don't use Naptster or Rhapsody.

Skype, Facebook, Twitter, Yammer, Zite, MyFitnessPal -- all are phone apps.

Evernote has a nice tablet app. The kindle app is nice (complete with online store not allowed on iOS).

It's not that there is something inherrently wrong with Android to prevent nice apps. They are just not there in abundance designed for the large table screen, or the 7" for that matter. Do deny that would be like me denying that it's not an advantage of Android that you can access the file system (advantage and a security issue nonetheless).

But these are just MY use cases. YMMV. If the apps you use and love are among the few that are great on Android tablets, then Android is great for you.

[Graham]

Originally Posted by leebase

But these are just MY use cases. YMMV. If the apps you use and love are among the few that are great on Android tablets, then Android is great for you.

I must be lucky. Of the thirteen apps on my home screen - the ones I use the most, twelve are optimised for tablets. The only one that isn't is XKCD, and that still looks nice.

These are:

Napster, Dolphin, Google+, Zinio, XKCD, Kindle, ezPDF, Comixology, TuneIn, Amazon MP3, Bubble UPnP, YouTube and Beautiful Widgets.

They're not as elegant as iOS equivalents but they are written for tablets, not just phone apps blown up.

Home screen notifications also lead me into email, calendar and task apps, also tablet optimised.

Graham