Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price • Hacker News Board

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#81

Post by gabrielroth » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 1:58 PM UTC

hessenwolf wrote: post #79

wisty wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

iOS development was already paid for by the iPhone and iPod teams, as was chip design. And the App store and iTunes are a benefit, not a cost. However I agree, there are other reasons - their outsourcing of components has a very good reputation.

There is a bit of a contradiction. It cannot be both great that Apple doesn't outsource its retailing and great that Apple outsources its components production. Economically, it should buy from the cheapest and most efficient source all it requires. If best buy are more efficient retailers, then Apple should use them; but I think there are some advertising advantages to their stores.

"It cannot be both great that Apple doesn't outsource its retailing and great that Apple outsources its components production."

Why not? Outsourcing isn't always good or always bad.

Economically, Apple should do the things it can do well (software, design, retail) and outsource the things it can't do any better than anyone else (component production, assembly).

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#82

Post by nochiel » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 2:20 PM UTC

_b8r0 wrote: post #72

nochiel wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I'm extremely uneasy reading things that make any individual such an icon...Please can we let this personality cult dissipate..." Personality cults are much more important than you realise. The post-modernist approach seems to be to downplay the significance of individual visionaries in favour of diffuse accolades attributed to the group or larger corpus. It's nonsense. Shakespeare was an individual (not a nebulous,…

> Jobs is a design and technological wizard You've fallen for it. Ives is the designer, not Jobs. Woz was the technological wizard, not Jobs. Jobs is a leader, a salesman and a marketer. Granted, he's a wizard (in the Oz sense of the word) but pull back the curtain and you'll find other incredibly talented people doing their jobs, if you'll pardon the unintentional pun.

"You've fallen for it. Ives is the designer, not Jobs. Woz was the technological wizard, not Jobs."

I don't think I've fallen for anything (in fact, I made strong mention of Ives with respect to industrial design). Being able to conceive good design and being able to guide good design are both signs of design competence; being able to conceive good technology and being able to guide its development are signs of technical proficiency. Jobs in his role as guide (or leader) is an exemplar.

I never claimed (and I don't think anyone else did) that there are no "other talented people doing their jobs".

Your rejoinder, rather than actually arguing against personality cults, is more a reminder that "a witty remark proves nothing."

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#83

Post by hessenwolf » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 2:26 PM UTC

gabrielroth wrote: post #81

hessenwolf wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a bit of a contradiction. It cannot be both great that Apple doesn't outsource its retailing and great that Apple outsources its components production. Economically, it should buy from the cheapest and most efficient source all it requires. If best buy are more efficient retailers, then Apple should use them; but I think there are some advertising advantages to their stores.

"It cannot be both great that Apple doesn't outsource its retailing and great that Apple outsources its components production." Why not? Outsourcing isn't always good or always bad. Economically, Apple should do the things it can do well (software, design, retail) and outsource the things it can't do any better than anyone else (component production, assembly).

I think we are saying the same thing, and I just did not say it well. My problem with the statement I quoted is that it is unconditioned on efficiency.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#84

Post by cma » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 2:54 PM UTC

gabrielroth wrote: post #7

One factor that the author doesn't mention is Apple's success at lining up deals with component manufacturers. A couple years ago (before anyone had heard of the iPad) they locked in great prices on flash memory and LCD displays. They could do that because they were about to invent a huge market, and they knew it. Anyone trying to get into the tablet business in 2010 had to pay much, much more. Steve Jobs and Johnny…

Isn't 10" the standard netbook display size? Maybe not in the same aspect ratio as the ipad, but no one appears to be trying to stick with the ipad's aspect ratio anyway.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#85

Post by scdc » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 3:08 PM UTC

What if Apple is selling iPads at/below cost in a bid for marketshare? I could see Jobs et al guessing this would be a big market, and choosing to sell (especially the entry model) at/below cost. Reminds me of the Jobs' perspective on why the the Mac stalled in the 1980s, "when they should have gone for market share, they went for profits." (Newsweek" rel="nofollow">http://www.newsweek.com/2004/02/01/ok-mac-make-a-wish.html&#...). This time he's going for market share.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#86

Post by blinkingled » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 3:52 PM UTC

Cadsby wrote: post #34

edtechdev wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For that extra $100 you get 2 cameras, dual core instead of single core processor, 1gb ram instead of 256mb ram, 1080p instead of 720p, 1280 resolution instead of 1024, android 3.0 (built for tablets) instead of ios 4, expandable storage up to 32gb microsd, flash support, hdmi, usb 2.0, gyroscope, 4g (for the more expensive model), and a motherfrackin' barometer :) And by the way there are perfectly good android tabl…

Are you seriously comparing an iPad to a Nook Color?

Why not? Even if you compared it as "half the iPad at half the price" - it still is a touch based tablet computer with similar hardware to the iPad, albeit a smaller screen.

Nook color full specs:

Processor: ARM Cortex A8-based Ti OMAP 3621 @ 800 MHz (same processor as Droid 2 and Droid X) GPU Processor: PowerVR SGX530 Graphics Rendering: Open GLES1.1/2.0 Hardware Scaling: 854x480 scaled to 1024x600 Video Formats: .3GP, .MP4, .3G2 Video Codecs: H.263, H.264, MPEG-4, ON2 VP7 Image Formats: JPEG, GIF, PNG, BMP (same GPU as Droid 2 and Droid X) RAM: 512MB Hynix H8MBX00U0MER-0EM MCM (Stacked Chips 2x256MB each die mDDR) Internal Flash: 8GB Sandisk SDIN4C1-8g Removable Flash: 32GB via microSDHC Connectivity: 802.11b/g/n Security: WEP/WPA/WPA2/802.1x Mode: Infrastructure Display: 7" 1024x600 IPS Display w\VividView Cypress Semiconductor TTSP Gen 3 (TMA340) Touchscreen , kernel driver , reference LG Display LD070WS1 (SL)(02) LED Backlight Pixels per Inch: 169 Aspect Ratio: 16:9 Colors: 16 Million Viewing Angle: 178° (same as HTC 7 Surround and HTC 7 Mozart) battery Battery Life: ~8 hours Micro-B USB 2.0 High-Speed Accelerometer

So B&N is able to deliver a device with matching specs minus smaller display for $250 less than iPad. I am not counting magic or experience anywhere - we are talking about concrete stuff like hardware components here - with Honeycomb we could argue that it is possible to ship a iPad alternative with better hardware and equal or better software for $499.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#87

Post by nhangen » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 3:58 PM UTC

As far as I'm concerned, I'm not sure this is about price. Yes, I have the $499 Wi-Fi iPad, but I bought it over the Kindle, Nook, and Galaxy because it's a perfect blend of technology and efficiency.

The Galaxy feels like a clunker, and the Nook isn't versatile.

I don't believe the iPad can replace a decent netbook or macbook for working on the road, but it works great for doing what it's supposed to do.

The reason the competition can't get it right is because they're trying to compete by adding more junk that we don't need. They do the same with phones too. Loading more memory or faster processors isn't what works for me - what works for me is a lightweight device that works.

I rarely use my iPad, but I wouldn't sell it because it serves a great purpose, which is as a tweener. The competition is trying to turn their tablets into souped up netbooks with touch screens, and that's why they are failing.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#88

Post by mindblink » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 4:34 PM UTC

gabrielroth wrote: post #7

One factor that the author doesn't mention is Apple's success at lining up deals with component manufacturers. A couple years ago (before anyone had heard of the iPad) they locked in great prices on flash memory and LCD displays. They could do that because they were about to invent a huge market, and they knew it. Anyone trying to get into the tablet business in 2010 had to pay much, much more. Steve Jobs and Johnny…

Exactly, it's a combination of betting big on market vision and component supplier management, and not as much about vertical integration. Case in point, "Apple secures 60% of global touch panel capacity, causing tight supply". Tight supply constrains iPad competitors price position with component suppliers.

http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20110216PD219.html

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#89

Post by apl » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 4:42 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #71

apl wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's both, as a matter of fact, and judging from the struggling competition neither is particularly easy. When discussing Cook's qualities and Apple's refined processes, there isn't much fanboy-ism involved. They're simply really, really good at it.

And yet if you ask a hundred Apple fans why their competition is struggling you'll get a hundred different reasons. You seem to be claiming that planning ahead and buying in bulk to produce a cheap, boring looking, plastic tablet with a half-finished, linux-based phone OS and stylus interface would be enough to destroy the competition. Others would disagree. And not only do you credit this one factor with decisive vi…

What?

  > And yet if you ask a hundred Apple fans why their
  > competition is struggling you'll get a hundred different
  > reasons.

I'm not an Apple "fan." Also, given that success is usually a fairly complex phenomenon, varied opinions are hardly surprising. Ask a hundred so-called "Apple haters" why the company "sucks" and you'll get even more incongruent answers.

  > You seem to be claiming that planning ahead and buying
  > in bulk to produce a cheap, boring looking, plastic
  > tablet with a half-finished, linux-based phone OS and
  > stylus interface would be enough to destroy the
  > competition. Others would disagree.

I'm not claiming that, and I strongly doubt that I seem to. In fact, I'm simply defending the proposition that Apple's impeccable management of supply chains and inventory allows them to produce quality products at scale and reasonable price points. Yes, producing quality products (not cheap, boring plastic tablets) for 500$ is something that the competition can't do at this point. The stuff that is on par is more expensive (Xoom, Galaxy Tablet and so on); the stuff that is similarly priced or way cheaper (Notion Ink Adam, Archos) is very flimsy and immature.

The combination might destroy competition, including Apple, yes, but would definitely require sophisticated supply chain management. Right now, all relevant components are limited resources. What's so controversial about that?

  > And not only do you credit this one factor with decisive victory

I don't (cf. difference between necessary and sufficient conditions).

  > you're attributing it not to Apple as a corporation, but to one individual.

I don't. It's a fairly wide-spread habit to identify the work of a full department (operations) with its VP/head (COO Cook). Nothing wrong with that; reading it as "ZOMG TIM COOK IS DOING EVERYTHING WITHOUT HELP!!!!11" is naive at best. Of course, he relies on hundreds of engineers and administrators, but he's been successful in several companies so far and from what I've heard he is indeed a "hands-on" manager and workaholic.

Nothing fanboy-ish about that.

  > Indeed, like the face of Jesus appearing in a grilled
  > cheese sandwich, the only interesting aspect of this
  > story is the way the believers react to it. The 
  > underlying reality is suspect, but no-one seems to care
  > as long as it fits their narrative.

Oh, now you're just venting anger. Fair enough. Continue.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#90

Post by dfox » Sun, Feb 20, 2011, 5:04 PM UTC

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #50

flyt wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yes, and they pay Samsung to make them too

It's not just manufacturing, Samsung co-designed them too (with the company that Apple later bought, which apparently retro-actively made this chip a great example of how Apple does everything "in-house").

When foundry co-designs your ASIC, typical effect on pricing is that IP licensing costs actually go down.