4 ms·
"Then where are all the $200-$400 tablets that should be killing Apple like in your reference previously: A brief look back at the history of the PC clearly sho
by dean 15y ago
"Then where are all the $200-$400 tablets that should be killing Apple like in your reference previously: A brief look back at the history of the PC clearly shows this."
My reference to the history of the PC was to point out that even when Apple had only 4% or 5% of the PC market, and was all but irrelevant, they still did not choose to compete on price.
I never said anything about "$200-$400 tablets that should be killing Apple", but since you bring it up, I would be surprised if they don't come eventually. And when they do, you won't see Apple matching those prices, let alone beating them.
"Also yes, AT&T or whoever the carrier is subsidizes the price, I thought this was obvious and didn't need clarifying."
If you know this, then why do you bring it up as an example of how Apple has dropped their prices?
- demallien 15y agoI think you are both talking past each other. If I understand dean correctly, he isn't saying that Apple can't price a device aggressively, but rather that when faced with a choice of cutting corners to make a cheap device, or adding value to the product whilst maintaining price, they opt for the second choice. To make things more concrete, where Dell might look at a Macbook Pro, and then figure that they can compete by using a plastic casing instead of unibody aluminium, thereby making their product $50 cheaper to make, so they can sell it for $50 less, Apple is more likely to try to compete by adding a thunderbolt interface, or introducing better screens that guarantee colour fidelity, or making a better OS, or whatever. That don't lower the price - have a look at the MacBook line, the prices have barely changed over 5 years, but the value of the models offered has increased massively.