3 ms·

Ah, and this is where Apple's expertise lies. They want a cut in every transaction that has anything to do with their product. From purchasing, to buying apps

Ah, and this is where Apple's expertise lies. They want a cut in every transaction that has anything to do with their product. From purchasing, to buying apps, to all maintenance. And they give you a feel-good experience from it too. The average customer will be impressed that they got a "new" iPad for only $99. But really, Apple is just changing the battery and housing for you and selling to the next guy for $99. They make a lot more money doing this than by selling user-replaceable batteries.

fnid2 17y ago
Not necessarily. They could just charge $99 for a new battery and sell them in the store like they sell laptop batteries which are around the same price.
tcdent 17y ago
While there may be a bit to be made in that $99, I really don't think it's much. Every replacement battery Apple sells for their current line of portables is $129. The iPad battery most definitely has a lower capacity and thus costs less, but there is labor involved in refurbishing as well.
raganwald 17y ago
This hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Apple charges US$129 for a replacement battery for a Macbook Pro. It is clearly less trouble to them to sell batteries through their distribution channels and have customers do the service than it is to deal with the logistics of fooling around with refurbished units. Amongst other things, when they get a unit in they have to test it thoroughly to make sure they aren't passing a lemon on to the next customer. So if they are able to make a tidy bit of money selling Macbook Pro batteries directly to end users for $129, I infer that if they could, they would sell iPad batteries for $99 or even $129 to end users. It doesn't make any sense to charge $30 less and absorb the logistics headaches in the name of making money from service. Clearly there is some other constraint that makes refurbishing the units the least inefficient choice for Apple.
- Xichekolas 17y ago
  Most likely that constraint is the shape of the battery. They probably did the same thing they do in the unibody mac, which is make the battery fill every possible nook and cranny, with no real compartmentalization to speak of. With that type of design, you can get more capacity and a thinner device, but user service would probably be so difficult that people would be breaking things left and right. And even though users would be breaking their own devices, they would be frustrated and take it out on Apple, tarnishing their feel-good image. A $99 replacement program is much more beneficial PR-wise.

fnid2 17y ago

Not necessarily. They could just charge $99 for a new battery and sell them in the store like they sell laptop batteries which are around the same price.

tcdent 17y ago

While there may be a bit to be made in that $99, I really don't think it's much. Every replacement battery Apple sells for their current line of portables is $129. The iPad battery most definitely has a lower capacity and thus costs less, but there is labor involved in refurbishing as well.

raganwald 17y ago

This hypothesis doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Apple charges US$129 for a replacement battery for a Macbook Pro. It is clearly less trouble to them to sell batteries through their distribution channels and have customers do the service than it is to deal with the logistics of fooling around with refurbished units. Amongst other things, when they get a unit in they have to test it thoroughly to make sure they aren't passing a lemon on to the next customer. So if they are able to make a tidy bit of money selling Macbook Pro batteries directly to end users for $129, I infer that if they could, they would sell iPad batteries for $99 or even $129 to end users. It doesn't make any sense to charge $30 less and absorb the logistics headaches in the name of making money from service. Clearly there is some other constraint that makes refurbishing the units the least inefficient choice for Apple.

Xichekolas 17y ago
Most likely that constraint is the shape of the battery. They probably did the same thing they do in the unibody mac, which is make the battery fill every possible nook and cranny, with no real compartmentalization to speak of. With that type of design, you can get more capacity and a thinner device, but user service would probably be so difficult that people would be breaking things left and right. And even though users would be breaking their own devices, they would be frustrated and take it out on Apple, tarnishing their feel-good image. A $99 replacement program is much more beneficial PR-wise.