That would make it a 20% gross margin product at $300. Apple has 45% GM now. Investors are not going to like a 20% GM product cannibalizing higher margin sales.
Isn't the teardown cost of an 16GB iPad 2 like < $250?
That would make it a 20% gross margin product at $300. Apple has 45% GM now. Investors are not going to like a 20% GM product cannibalizing higher margin sales.
Isn't the teardown cost of an 16GB iPad 2 like < $250?
That would make it a 20% gross margin product at $300. Apple has 45% GM now. Investors are not going to like a 20% GM product cannibalizing higher margin sales.
before ipad 1 there were rumors that it was going to cost $1000 for the entry level model. apple puts these out on purpose to come out looking cool
and an iPhone releasing at like $599
It won't cannibalize high model sales as much as it will steal some away from lower priced Android tabs.
This is true, but people thought it would run a full OSX, Intel processor, etc. The Macbook Air is pretty close to that vision.
The App store and iTunes aren't a huge money generator, but they keep users in the ecosystem, the cheaper Apple devices are freaking gateway devices to the ecosystem, once you have one, it's very easy to justify purchasing more iDevices.
Don't they take 30% of all app purchases? I know Apple only takes home a few cents per MP3 sold, gotta pay the labels. But they're likely making a killing on app sales without any additional cost to them.
Don't they take 30% of all app purchases? I know Apple only takes home a few cents per MP3 sold, gotta pay the labels. But they're likely making a killing on app sales without any additional cost to them.
That would make it a 20% gross margin product at $300. Apple has 45% GM now. Investors are not going to like a 20% GM product cannibalizing higher margin sales.
Kind of curious how upset people will be if Apple releases the iPad3 at 2048x1536- way below the absurdly loudly proclaimed 300ppi that is required to be a retina display?
Will be interesting to see if Apple can produce what they defined as a retina display in a 10" tablet, 2400x1800 or bust, and release it in a mass market package or if they are going to reprogram people to a rolling whatever they decide standard for "retina" classification. Was Steve Jobs a liar, and whatever new marketing angle is decided upon is the new classification for retina display? Asking these questions as 2048x1536 is well below the explicitly stated standard of 300 ppi for "retina" display classification.
Kind of curious how upset people will be if Apple releases the iPad3 at 2048x1536- way below the absurdly loudly proclaimed 300ppi that is required to be a retina display?
Will be interesting to see if Apple can produce what they defined as a retina display in a 10" tablet, 2400x1800 or bust, and release it in a mass market package or if they are going to reprogram people to a rolling whatever they decide standard for "retina" classification. Was Steve Jobs a liar, and whatever new marketing angle is decided upon is the new classification for retina display? Asking these questions as 2048x1536 is well below the explicitly stated standard of 300 ppi for "retina" display classification.
Who knows? What I do know is that there will be rabid apple haters out with the pitchforks no matter what they releases next Wednesday. Now there is something you can bank on.
Who knows?
Apple made up this term and never said that 300 ppi minimum is what classifies a device as "retina".
if the iPad 3 has a 2048x1536 resolution, its going to be a stunning display.
Android tablets aren't expected to match that kind of resolution until 2H or 3Q of 2012.
If the people waiting for the launch can't say how they will feel, they shouldn't ever glance at this forum- there is an Apple specific forum for love ins. If someone can't make up their own mind about what they want to see in a device, then they should stick to fan specific areas.
I'm asking a simple question. People keep talking about an iPad3 with a retina display, that was explicitly defined as over 300ppi. The rumors about the iPad3 have it falling well short of that mark. What is important to people? An increased resolution for the lowest PPI mass market tablet produced- or hitting the Apple claimed "retina" level of pixel density?
Anyone who is waiting for the tablet on *this* forum should be able to answer that question. Neither choice is write or wrong, not being able to pick what matters simply demonstrates what people are(speaking for myself, my great grandparents were fond of the 4:3 form factor back in the 1930s, an era where I personally think it should have stayed ).
Steve Jobs was actually quite clear on that.
There were very many utterly terrible displays made at that resolution. The resolution that it is has nothing to do with the overall quality of the display. It just indicates pixel density. That is an important metric for most people, but the tens of millions of people who bought the absurdly low ppi iPhones prior to the 4 didn't seem to think it was that big of a deal.
Kind of curious how upset people will be if Apple releases the iPad3 at 2048x1536- way below the absurdly loudly proclaimed 300ppi that is required to be a retina display?
Will be interesting to see if Apple can produce what they defined as a retina display in a 10" tablet, 2400x1800 or bust,
I think 4:3 is a good aspect ratio for tablets. It works better for portrait mode than 16:10 IMO.