The Apple iPad will cost no more than $ 229.35

[joblack]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

My Sony PRS-300 cost me $180. All it does is display text for me to read. I got Kindle for iPhone and PC for free. So why did I pay for what I can easily get for free? Because as a consumer in a free market economy I can buy what I can afford to, and not have to justify it to anyone. If I choose to buy 20 iPads and use them as paper weights, no one is ripping me off. Again, I am buying, and getting, what I want...

At first we are not living in a free market society. One hint is the huge bank bailouts. in a free market society you wouldn't have that. Secondly the monetary system isn't supporting a free market (as another hint - I won't go deeper in that - just read 'Web of Debt' and you know more).

It's not legally a ripoff but morally. It's the same with beauty products which costs hundreds of dollars and give you no advantage.

And the last point, we are not living in a free market society because a free market would need informed objective customers (which you only have in parts). With the same argumentation you could say the credit companies aren't ripping people off but my point is that they aren't educated in that area and it's not all their fault.

Get away from the thought of 'free markets' - they only exist in economy theories ...

[dmaul1114]

Originally Posted by Bremen Cole

Are they really that much more expensive? A 32 gig Zune http://www.tigerdirect.com/applicati...38972&CatId=15

A 32 gig iPod touch http://www.macmall.com/s?rch&q=ipod%...ludeImage=true

Sure, the iPod is $20 more, but I would not consider that totally outrageous pricing....

It's gotten better I'll admit. 3-4 years back when I bought my Creative Vision M for $150, the comparable iPod was $300. And it had a lower quality screen (lower resolution, less colors) and didn't have FM tuner (which I use a lot).

But where you see more difference is with the Nanos. There are plenty of flash players with similar memory capacities that cost less than they do. Yeah, they won't have the fancy screens, camera's etc.--but again I don't need that stuff. Especially on a small capacity flash player that I only use in the gym.

I'm no Apple hater, I've just never found a reason to buy their products as I've always found they cost more and do less--like the iPods that long lacked FM tuning which is something I use a ton on my mp3 players.

Though again, they're getting better. The iPhone is reasonably priced compared to other similar smartphones, the iPod Touches aren't much more than the Zune--both are just over priced for me as I don't need touch screens and all that jazz on my MP3 players which just get used for music and radio.

Desktop/Laptop wise they're prices are pretty fair if you compare to similarly powered PCs. My problem is they just don't have any midrange models. I tend to not pay more than $500-700 for a pc or laptop as I don't need a lot of power for what I do.

[mores]

Originally Posted by FireRunner

There has been numerous articles on the profit margin of the iPad - it's 42.7% (or 42.9%, forgot which one it is). Reports have already stated Apple will drop the price drastically after a few months to start a buying frenzy. They want to sell to everyone who will buy at the high price, then lower it to grab more people who didn't purchase at the high price.

That would be a first ... Apple is known for sticking to prices.

[Yoshi 1080]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

There are plenty of flash players with similar memory capacities that cost less than they do. Yeah, they won't have the fancy screens, camera's etc.--but again I don't need that stuff. Especially on a small capacity flash player that I only use in the gym.

You not needing this stuff doesn't mean it's overpriced. The Nano is more expensive because it has certain features. For me, the build quality, design and use of materials are reason enough to pay (almost) whatever Apple asks for it (ok, I don't have a Nano, but an iPhone 2G and a Shuffle 3rd Gen).

A Smart is better suited to my need than a tank because I don't need fancy features like off-road driving and huge guns (although they would be pretty cool), yet I wouldn't call the latter overpriced. The same goes for sports cars and basically everything else. If you are not the target audience, the product doesn't necessarily mean to be overpriced.

[dmaul1114]

True, and fair point. I should have just said the Nano is too much for what I need.

But it holds for other devices, like the iPod video a few years ago that was $300 and did less than my Creative Vision M which was $150. That's over priced as it was twice the price for the same memory, a lower quality screen, no FM tuner (and of course no FM recording ability etc.).

Speaking of SMARTs, those I do find overpriced. I'd be interested in one if they were like $5,000. But here in the US, looking at the website, they range from $11,000 to just under $21,000. Which is absurd IMO for a tiny car that can't be very safe and is only meant to be driven up to 40MPH or so when I can buy a real car with those price ranges--I paid $17,000 for my 2008 Mazda 3 new, companies like Kia have new cars close to the $11,00 for the cheapest smart.

I live in a city and drive 4 miles each way to work with speed limits ranging 25-40MPH on local roads. So I could use a smart, but it would have to be very cheap and be my second car as I also drive on the interstate where traffic is flowing 75-85 MPH so I need a full sized/powered car as well.

Anyway, that's off topic, but had to comment as I think the smart is a great idea, but terrible overpriced to be practical for most people, even city dwellers like myself.

[Yoshi 1080]

The iPod with video was way smaller than the Creative M (several mm in thickness) so I'd consider this acceptable as well. The Creative's screen was considered to be a bit better (haven't seen it in person), though not by much. The iPod had better controls, though.
And if I recall correctly, the Creative was Windows only (MTP).

Regarding the Smart: Meh, I don't care, that was just an analogy. It's still cheaper than a tank I bet.

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, that's it I guess. I consider it an "Apple Tax" as it does less and costs more, but others are willing to pay it because they care more about form factor and having something that looks nice, is thinner etc. I'm not very focused on how nice a device looks. I love my Kindle 1, and it's certainly not a sexy device.

I just want things that work and do what I need, I don't care so much about being a quarter inch thinner etc. Especially to pay twice as much for the thinness and sexiness and miss out on features I use a ton like the FM tuner (which I use as much or more than I listen to mp3s on it).

As for controls, I prefer the touch strip to the wheel on iPods personally. More intuitive to slide up and down to scroll through vertical lists than to touch around a wheel. But to each their own on that of course.

[Yoshi 1080]

That's the point: design, build quality, usability and size (especially for mobile devices) are features as well, which is often ignored in discussions. If you only care for performance and price, Apple may not be right for you.

[dmaul1114]

Agreed. And they never have been for me for just that reason. The price on the iPad is fine though, I expected a lot more than $500 for the low end model. If it had a slightly bigger screen and I knew it could handle my stylus mark up needs for sure (vs. having to wait and see what apps come out etc) I'd have pre-ordered one.

But yeah, generally price and performance are my main concerns. Form factor, build quality etc. matter to some extent. But I won't pay extra just to get something slimmer and sexier etc. The vision M was fine on those fronts for me. It's small enough for me ( I don't carry it in my pocket etc.) and quite well built and a pretty nice looking device. The iPod was a bit thinner and sexier, but it lacked features I needed and I wouldn't pay twice as much just to get a thinner and better looking device personally.

But again, to each their own. I'm no Apple hater. They just haven't been for me in the mp3 player front, and the desktopss/laptops were never much of an options since it's too much of a hassle with all my colleagues using windows, having to get mac versions of statistical analysis programs--some of which aren't available on MAC, and/or hassle with boot camp etc.

But they make nice products, and I don't slam them or people that buy them. I may well end up with a future generation iPad if they get in all the features I need.

[Bremen Cole]

@dmaul1114 - Your point about Apple having no mid-tier computers is right on. I don't like Mac's personally, and that is one of the turn offs. For a desktop the leap from the Mac Mini (cute, but weak little bugger) to the Mac Pro is huge. I know the iMac is in there, but an all in one (and using laptop parts) is not a true desktop to me.... I have never understood why they could not make a simple mid-range tower in the $1k range....... Even if they did I still wouldn't buy one though.....

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, if they had a laptop for around $500 I might would pick one up just to have a personal computer, web browsing machine that I could surf the net and worry less about virus's and malware etc.

Though all the talk of Macs having issues with Flash would worry me a bit since I'd want to do a lot of streaming video watching that I do on my work laptop on any personal laptop I bought for that purpose.

[Sonist]

Originally Posted by dmaul1114

Yeah, if they had a laptop for around $500 I might would pick one up just to have a personal computer, web browsing machine that I could surf the net and worry less about virus's and malware etc.

Though all the talk of Macs having issues with Flash would worry me a bit since I'd want to do a lot of streaming video watching that I do on my work laptop on any personal laptop I bought for that purpose.

I use mostly Macs and frankly, have not had Flash issues at all. I don't even notice or worry if something has Flash or not. At one point I had some problems (but actually mostly with Java), which were caused by a previous version of Safari, but since I've switched to Firefox, I haven't had any issues.

If you look at CPU/memory numbers, then yes, Flash is resource hungry, particularly in Safari. But on any modern Mac, you'd never know it in regular use.

The Mac Book Pros (new ones coming out shortly) and the desktops are really well-built and great machines. And if you have to, you can run all the other major OSs natively on them as well

[dmaul1114]

Yeah, they're definitely great machines. Just too costly for me, especially since I have a nice Lenovo Thinkpad provided by work that's only 6 months old.

And yep, I'd have to run Windows on it often, as some programs I use don't have Mac versions.

So if I get one it would probably be in the future when I could get my employer to buy it, or I could budget it into a research grant etc. as they're too pricey for a simple goof online, watch video etc. computer to supplement my work laptop.

On that note, that's why I'm interested in the iPad still, and hope it adds features I need with apps etc, as then I'd have my Apple web surfing machine.

[SCION]

Originally Posted by Sonist

I use mostly Macs and frankly, have not had Flash issues at all. I don't even notice or worry if something has Flash or not. At one point I had some problems (but actually mostly with Java), which were caused by a previous version of Safari, but since I've switched to Firefox, I haven't had any issues.

Windows XP is more stable on my Mac than on a Windows machine. I've never had programs freeze, or had the blue screen of death, or had to reboot.

[nonanon]

@Mores: Are you being facetious? You have an iPhone so you should know how quickly Apple dropped the price on that device, much to the irritation of early adopters. From $599 for an 8gig model at the end of June 2007 to 1/3 less at the start of September to $99 for a 3g model in June 2009. There were many news stories about how early buyers reacted to that price drop. That may impact whether Apple does the same thing with the iPad but I hope they repeat since I plan to hold off at least until late summer.

@Scion: Apple has a huge advantage in having nearly all hardware locked-down so they know exactly how a unit will act under any given circumstance. PCs are a hodge-podge based on looser standards and the BSOD just reflects how even a slight change in hardware can cause unpredictable problems. Despite that I stick with PCs because that occasional problem is better than paying a lot more for a mac.

As kjk noted, production costs don't reflect development costs so it's not likely we'll see iPads in the sub-$250 range for a year or two. Once they've recovered the R&D costs they may drop prices long enough to finish off any remaining competitors.