6 ms·
There is no obvious reason this product isn't going to sell in huge quantities. Less conceptually fragile, less expensive, more portable, same software stack,
by jpxxx 14y ago
There is no obvious reason this product isn't going to sell in huge quantities.
Less conceptually fragile, less expensive, more portable, same software stack, same media stack, same OS, same UX, same premium experience, same monstrous manufacturing and distribution reach, same monstrous advertising and product awareness engine.
Every single one of the children you see in restaurants working an iPad so mommy and daddy can eat in peace will have one of these by January.
Schools will buy in by the hundreds of thousands, regardless of actual utility or how successful digital textbooks eventually become.
This is the new travel iPad. This is the status gift for the developing world. This is the throwaway iPad if you're rich or the first one you look at if you're less so.
It's priced to make Apple the margins they want while still inviting comparisons with less expensive and similarly sized tablets. It's going to suck the oxygen out of the $300-$500 price range for anything with a screen.
And it's cheap enough to substantially distinguish itself from the main iPad line, which is selling millions a week. That's all it had to do, pricing-wise.
I don't want or need this, and I don't think it was particularly necessary for the health of the iPad line, but they dotted all the Is and crossed all the Ts when designing this product.
- tharris0101 14y agoI couldn't have said it better myself. I'd never use this product but I'm sure it will do great. I've been really critical of Apple lately, but I can't find any reason to get upset over this announcement. I find it funny how people are railing against this announcement just because its not useful to them. There are a million different needs and uses out there for different people.
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoA. A person thinks a product is underwhelming. B. That same product sells very well. A and B do not contradict. B does not invalidate A.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mikeash 14y agoThat depends on context. A often comes with an implied, "underwhelming for everybody and thus it won't sell well."
- MatthewPhillips 14y agoNo, it doesn't. You are inserting that implication so that you can poison-the-well on like-opinions later.
- mikeash 14y agoPlease. While I'm sure people just talk about their own opinions in many cases, it also happens all the time that people criticize the specs or other attributes of a new product precisely because they think it won't appeal to the masses.
- mark_l_watson 14y agoYou triggered something: I have been wondering why Apple does not have iPads support multiple user accounts that are easy to switch between? With iCloud, it would seem reasonable for a family to have a min, a standard iPad, and perhaps a future "iPad whopper" (with perhaps a 14 inch screen). They could be left laying around the house and anyone could just pick up the appropriate device as-needed. I can answer my own question: Apple doesn't want people to share these devices: fewer sales.
- sixothree 14y agoI find not having user accounts drastically reduces how much the iPad gets used in my house. In my case, I'm sure this affects sales in the app store.
- wlesieutre 14y agoMaybe this is cynical of me, but I think the preferred solution (from Apple's perspective) is to buy more iPads.
- GoyGenius 14y agoIt isn't cynical in the slightest. That is simply the game.
- mark-r 14y agoThe sale of one iPad makes up for a LOT of lost sales in the app store. I'm sure it doesn't bother them yet.
- Tyrannosaurs 14y agoAnother option: it's a niche issue. Not saying they won't look at it in the future but We have a family iPad and its no problem. My wife can see my email but she's my wife so I honestly don't care. Our neighbours have two between six of them and similarly have no issues. People with a tech background worry about this more than most people but they also tend to be the sort of people who have their own devices. For normal families the current situation is a relatively minor problem - considerably less of an issue than both kids wanting it at once I suggest.
- nicholassmith 14y ago"It's going to suck the oxygen out of the $300-$500 price range for anything with a screen." Which is very clever, they know their competitors are going for price, but now they've forced them to commit to seriously low margins. Always helpful to keep your competition struggling to make meaningful profit.
- warfangle 14y agoAnd the best alternative to the iPad mini is well below the $300-$500 range: the N7 is in the $200-$250 range.
- DigitalJack 14y agoYeah, I think they made a mistake here. Of course I have no idea what their margins are, but $299 looks a whole lot better than $329. Would $30 really make or break them? [edit: math (doh!)]
- to3m 14y ago$329 might not be a disadvantage. It might send a slight signal that they aren't competing on price.
- jeroen 14y agoThe difference between $329 and $299 is $30, not $20.
- anewton 14y agoHave to also keep in mind the price of the mini vs full sized ipad... it's not just dropping $20 (well, $30) per mini sold... there's a lot of nuance in the pricing and consumer perception of the cost vs value of mini vs other products (including full sized iPad...)
- jusben1369 14y agoMy sense is, and it's just my sense, is that they priced it more with cannabalization or the larger iPad's in mind and less with the competition in mind. If they had come in around $249 to $279 they could have still sent all the right signals about this being superior to the competition. However, at that price point they would have really impacted their $499 iPad. I believe Apple left a big hole for competition to thrive in because of the fear of impacting the larger iPad. Two reasons: Apple admits that the main usage for a tablet is surfing the web and checking email. A Nexus 7 does that just fine. Secondly, Nexus 7 will improve significantly from the 1st gen it is - Apple's given them plenty of breathing room to bump the specs and sell a higher end device at $299 and even $329 price. Apple had a difficult job but I sense they acted like the large incumbent they are and worried about their own shorter term margins and less on snuffing out the competition.
- diminish 14y agoI disagree mostly with the parent and see in iPad mini few minuses for Apple; (1) 7.9" is slightly big to fit in pockets, (2) the non-retina display, and low resolution is a step backwards, (3) The lower net profit per person, will drag down Apple margins.(Now having the Apple logo seeable in a cafe will cost you lower) (4) The loss of credibility in previous marketing claims of perfect size for fingers similar to the move from 3.5" to 4.0" (5) will canibalize the bigger iPad.
- alexhawdon 14y agoA tablet that fits in your pocket... is a phone. I honestly can't tell whether it's the 'new Apple product' shine, but I like the idea of a 7.9inch screen better than a 7inch.
- mark_l_watson 14y agoI think the 1024x768 screen resolution is probably a smart move: same as my old iPad 2, but smaller. Not retina display quality, but not adding a retina display allowed the iPad mini to be less than half the weight. That said, my Samsung Galaxy S III has 1280x720 resolution which makes it really nice for watching Netflix, TED videos, etc. And the Galaxy phone is very light weight. I have decided to not buy anymore Apple gear, but if not for that, if I was in the market for an iPad, I would rather have this smaller one that is less than half the weight. I see the mini competing more with 'super phones' like the Samsung Galaxy S III.
- niels_olson 14y ago> not adding a retina display allowed the iPad mini to be less than half the weight do the pixels weigh more? Seriously, would faster graphics weigh more? Or are you saying juicing the graphics would eat more battery, and therefore, it would weight more?
- krrrh 14y agoYes. The iPad 3 was significantly thicker and heavier than the iPad 2. It takes a larger battery to drive 4 times the pixels and maintain a 10 hour battery life.
- hkmurakami 14y agoWith respect to digital textbooks, as someone who had to haul many American sized (read: Oversized) textbooks from class to class, from school to home, every day for 6 years during Junior High and High School, carrying around 1 iPad would have relieved my spine of great gravitational burden. For this reason alone, I truly hope that digital textbooks become viable.
- munchor 14y agoBut do you think school should be relying on iOS/Android/Kindle? Should they use something new? I don't want governments to pay (even more?) bazillions to Apple or Samsung, but making their own will also come expensive. Ideas?
- enjo 14y agoFork Android?
- brian_cloutier 14y agoWhat for? At this point, forking android would create something more proprietary than android itself.
- zevyoura 14y agoApple hypes their platform specific tools, but there's no reason that at least traditional textbook content can't be provided in an easily cross platform way. Even the more complex content will likely become standardized to some extent in the near future (presenting it in web views is probably viable for a lot of it, especially once there's better support for <audio> tags).
- gpurkins 14y agoUse an open format and learn to love the bomb? Districts probably aren't going to care, as they are looking for a cheaper way to stay current. I recognize the prices are not as good as they should be, but realize the logistics are removed from the situation. The monster of having to manage all those books goes away with a keypress, but lands them squarely on a treadmill with the publishers controlling the dial. Open school books? Maybe teachers will collaborate and make their own material? There's a lot of room in there...
- jsz0 14y agoI think it will be a huge success for Apple. I know a lot of folks want to believe Apple's success has just been some amazing fluke thus must end soon but there's really no indication out there the market has changed much since the original iPod. Apple keeps running the same play over and over again because it works. It's very clever. Apple positions their products to be affordable luxuries. This is mostly expressed through the device's design but also because Apple protects their brands very carefully. There is no cheap iPad -- there's a thinner and lighter iPad that happens to cost less. Psychologically this is interesting because Apple is pulling at a lot of strings here. They want consumers to feel good about buying the product. Not resentful it's not the thing they really wanted but couldn't afford. Part of it is almost Pavlovian. The customer pays more but in the process is rewarded in different ways. For having the taste to pick the perceived superior brand for example. It's an item coveted by others, again if only because it's perceived to be superior, and it's an item that broadcasts it's premium price tag like a badge of honor with a striking design. The customer enjoys the experience of everyone swooning over their new purchase. They like the idea thousands of people are waiting in line to get this thing they are holding in their hands right now. This is even more important in the context of giving Apple products as gifts. Buying someone the cheap but acceptable option sends one message. Buying someone the expensive and also acceptable option sends a different message. Basically Apple cracked the code of getting people to pay more and be pretty happy about it.
- mhartl 14y agoThis is just a quick meta-comment, because I feel a simple upvote isn't enough: insightful comments like yours and its parent are the lifeblood of Hacker News. Please keep them coming.