Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

wired.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 114 posts

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#91

Post by krschultz »

nhangen wrote: post #87

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 Kindle is not a tablet though. That's not dismissing the Kindle (I own one of the big sized Kindle's and I lvoe it), Amazon explicitedly has set out to make an e-book reader, not a tablet.

The Nook is closer, but it still isn't comparable to an iPad.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#93

Post by pohl »

ZeroGravitas wrote: post #60
vaporstun wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But in spite of the fact that they outsource manufacturing, they have their own OS, hardware they've designed for the external (such as the chassis), and components they've designed internally (like the A4) - they're still far more vertically integrated than any competitor. Do you have any more vertically integrated player in the market that has yet to be discussed? The rest of the companies use off-the-shelf parts a…

Samsung designs and builds chips (the A4 with another name basically), AMOLED screens, RAM, flash, chassis and OS (Bada) for some of its smartphones. Probably even more so for its dumbphones. I'm guessing Nokia is also more "vertical" than Apple. And that's just immediate rivals in this industry, I'm sure there's better examples if you only limit it to "in the world".

Is having one's fingers in a lot of pies quite the same thing as vertical integration? If a team making a Samsung phone needs a chip made by another arm of Samsung, do they get special pricing or do they have to bid against other chip customers?

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#94

Post by _b8r0 »

nochiel wrote: post #82
_b8r0 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 techn…

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

From your earlier comment:

> Jobs is a design and technological wizard who single-handedly righted the ship.

Thats you falling for the personality cult right there. That's also you claiming that Jobs somehow managed to fix Apple singlehandedly, which of course is wrong. Your comment about Ives trailblazing for years to come is quite amusing, given that Ive freely admits that he's heavily influenced by Dieter Ram's work (if you look at Ive's designs you'll see that he's following Ram's principles).

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

That sentence appears to be a prime example of your quoted phrase.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#95

Post by lurker19 »

Samuel_Michon wrote: post #13
yock wrote: post #2

Apple can sell the iPad for $500 because they have the iTunes store backing it. They know they don't need to make money on the sale of the device because the entire point of buying the device is to buy apps for it, and Apple as we all know gets a cut from every sale. Other manufacturers don't have this working for them.

"[Apple knows it doesn't] need to make money on the sale of the device because the entire point of buying the device is to buy apps for it," The opposite is true. Apple doesn't need to make money on software, because their hardware products have healthy profit margins. The iTunes Store breaks even, and it has done so for years. The same is true for the other software Apple sells. Compared to competing products, Apple…

Do not ignore the fact that Apple's offerings are far less powerful, useful, and debugged than the competing software you listed.

Aperture requires a Mac Pro to run properly, which undermines the cost argument.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#96

Post by nochiel »

_b8r0 wrote: post #94
nochiel wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 techn…

> I never claimed (and I don't think anyone else did) that there are no "other talented people doing their jobs". From your earlier comment: > Jobs is a design and technological wizard who single-handedly righted the ship. Thats you falling for the personality cult right there. That's also you claiming that Jobs somehow managed to fix Apple singlehandedly, which of course is wrong. Your comment about Ives trailblazin…

Well. I am in favour of personality cults. I'm an ardent believer in personal responsibility. Personality cults encourage us to focus on our own performance and perfecting our own skills.

So If I'm "falling for the personality cult right there", I'm more than happy to and I encourage more people to.

ps. The debate on whether Apple would be what Apple is today without Jobs' Great Return is long and storied. I won't wade any further into those murky waters (As per the personality cult ethos, I'd wager that Jobs saved Apple and that without him it would have sunk).

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#97

Post by lallysingh »

krschultz wrote: post #92

The most ironic part of the iPad (and now Android) tablet explosion is that hard Bill Gates had been pushing tablets for years at Microsoft. And now Microsoft doesn't even have a dog in the fight.

Bill was too early, didn't want to do the necessary UI work, and didn't have the hardware team to push the hardware standards up. I remember people trying to use windows tablets. They were full-on laptops running an extended version of windows, with a few apps and a handwriting recognizer slapped on top. They were heavy, confusing to use, and not terribly finger-friendly.

They've got good reason to stay out of this one. iOS came from Apple's phone OS (esp. in terms of UI). Until Windows Mobile starts getting some traction, MS is better off staying out of the fight. You can always commoditize your opponent later.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#98

Post by Athtar »

eik3_de wrote: post #66

> Designing in-house means Apple doesn’t have to pay licensing fees to third parties to use their intellectual property. For instance, the A4 chip inside the iPad is based on technology developed and owned by Apple (not Intel, AMD or Nvidia). The operating system is Apple’s own, not something licensed from Microsoft or Google. Apple doesn't/didn't pay licensing fees to ARM or PowerVR for the A4 components? What exact…

>What exactly do you have to pay to Google to "license" Android?

For one thing, all of Google's core applications - Gmail, Maps, Search, Google Voice, Googles, etc. Same thing with the Marketplace too. All the handset manufacturers have to pay Google to include those apps on their handsets.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#99

Post by Cadsby »

blinkingled wrote: post #86
Cadsby wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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: .3…

I think your comparison is more than a little narrow. The Nook and the iPad are marginally similar but not really comparable devices. There's a reason why one has been far more successful than the other, and no, I'm not referring to any sort of "magic" or ephemeral voodoo.

But there's a larger point to be made in that I think your comments reflect a common attitude among many nerds - this obsession with specs. Most consumers don't make purchasing decisions based on a giant list of specs. Maybe you feel they should and they're stupid for not doing so, but that just isn't the reality of the market. And many manufactures, as well as Google, are starting to realize they simple can't put a faster processor and more memory in their products and expect to compete with Apple. Google in particular is putting a lot more effort in to the "polish" and overall "experience" of using Android devices. I know these are dirty words for some, but they reflect the market realities of how consumers make purchasing decisions. And I think it's a good move that will help Android increase it's market share even further.

Re: Why Nobody Can Match the iPad’s Price

#100

Post by scdc »

scdc wrote: post #85

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-…

Botched the link, sorry: http://www.newsweek.com/2004/02/01/ok-mac-make-a-wish.html
Post reply on HN