iPad Mini Costs $24 More To Make Than Kindle Fire HD 260
sweetpea86 writes "... but retails for $130 more. Teardowns of the Apple iPad Mini and the Amazon Kindle Fire HD have revealed that the two devices cost almost the same amount to manufacture, despite the retail prices being significantly different. Andrew Rassweiler, senior principal analyst of teardown services for IHS iSuppli, explains that Apple is sticking to the premium brand strategy it has always used for its media tablet and smartphone products, whereas Amazon is banking on content."
Few things (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, Apple makes its own OS and applications while Amazon just uses Android. On top of that Amazon has always tried to keep their price down so they can sell more ebooks. Apple tries to make profit by selling their devices. These two things combined, I don't think the $100 price difference is that much. It's almost surprisingly low.
Re: (Score:3)
Why is this currently ranked -1? The poster is absolutely right. It costs big bucks to develop and maintain your own OS, so of course Android-based tablets are cheaper (yes, I know Kindle is not pure Android, but it's built on top of it). And Amazon is selling these things as loss leaders.
Re:Few things (Score:5, Informative)
It was ranked at -1 because, most people don't understand how businesses run.
Do you sell the razors or give away the razors and sell the blades.
Do you sell a $500.00 Ink jet Printer with $10.00 cartridges. Or do you sell a $99.00 Ink Jet Printer and sell $30.00 cartridges.
Why is it you get a $10.00 meal at KFC but for the same meal you need to pay $25.00 at say Applebees?
There is more to the price then the cost of parts.
Re: (Score:2)
There is more to the price then the cost of parts.
For electronics, it should be pretty much the cost of the parts. Look at the PC market.
Re:Few things (Score:4, Funny)
Look at all the businesses fleeing the PC market.
Re: (Score:2)
The PC market is doing fine. And it's been absolutely great for customers. The PC has democratized computing and the world is a better place because of it.
Re: (Score:2)
You seriously aren't paying attention.
Cheap computing may be good for customers, but it sure as hell isn't for the manufacturers.
Re: (Score:3)
The PC market (excepting Apple) has been shrinking by mid single- to low double-digit percentages for most of the last seven years. That doesn't seem like something you'd see from an industry that's "doing fine".
You are presumably talking about desktop PCs only. Amazingly, computer manufacturers are not prohibited by law froom producing laptops, netbooks, tablets or whatever if they want to.
Re: (Score:2)
Look at all the companies that went out of business that were white box makers.
Because companies like Dell and HP were able to get their parts at bulk, they were able to make a profit selling PC's at the same Cost that it would take the smaller companies to sell at cost.
Apple can sell the products for Less. But right now they don't have too, so they won't. The money they make with the new release will make up for all the replacements, and the price drops in a couple of years when the iWhatever Version x+1
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Because KFC is nasty and not fit for human consumption? ;-)
The last two times I had KFC, after each I remember thinking "man, this stuff is gross, why do I eat it?".
But, to quote So I Married an Axe Murdered [imdb.com] ... "he puts an addictive chemical in his chicken that makes ya crave it fortnightly, smartass! "
Re: (Score:2)
The last two times I had KFC, after each I remember thinking "man, this stuff is gross, why do I eat it?"
I take it you've never seen "food" (I use that term loosely) being prepared in the back of an Applebees, Chilis or Olive Garden... :p
Two Barbers (Score:2)
Do you go to the $5 barber or the $25 barber? After all the cost for the barber's equipment is rougtly the same. Is the $25 barber overcharging you or delivering you something the $5 barber could not deliver? The cost of parts doesn't determine the skill of the design.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They didn't develop their OS or the ideas
Bet you can't build something like the iPhone off of the pieces they took.
Bet ANY OTHER COMPANY can't build something like the iPhone off the pieces they took. Because even Android needed help getting to where they were by looking to Apple's OS.
But rant on, dude.
Re:Few things (Score:5, Interesting)
The point is, apple's profit isn't actual quality - it's just a surcharge for people dumb enough to buy
At this point there are quite a few counterexamples out there - Apple users who are clearly not dumb, nor suckers, nor computer-illiterate.
Seriously dude, it's time to let it go.
Re: (Score:2)
Economics 101.
Supply and Demand.
The people want it so they will pay more for it.
The Kindle wasn't really what people wanted, it is good enough but Amazon needed to charge less to allow people to justify getting it.
Is the iPad higher or Lower Quality than the Kindle is subjective. There is a fare amount of unique development on both parts.
Right now Apple had earned it quality reputation, compared to the others. People who buy the product for the most part like it the product and are happy with it. So there
Re: (Score:3)
It's incredibly easy on both, actually. In fact, it's even something I do almost daily. So no, you should come back after you fail your troll a little further.
But yes, let's make a strawman argument because that apple products are not "higher quality".
Laziest troll ever.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: We made some decisions that cost more, but allow us to deliver a superior experience. If that's not your cup of tea, feel free to buy an Amazon tablet where all the design trade-offs were made to allow it to be produced cheaply, and is being sold at cost because they can lock you into buying content from them in order to make their money on the back end.
Re: (Score:3)
> First Apple is a hardware + software + user experience company.
FTFY. You don't buy an iPhone, iPad, iPod without an OS. You get a beautifully designed holistic package (albeit with the tradeoff of some vendor lock-in) that is easy for the average user to use.
Microsoft is a software company with shitty user experience. They don't understand _consistency_ nor polish in an UI.
Re: (Score:2)
Wouldn't be a problem if they'd chosen a licence that didn't explicitly permit Apple to do what it did.
Re: (Score:2)
No one said it was a problem.
The BSD based code is available on Apple's site (Score:2)
Wouldn't be a problem if they'd chosen a licence that didn't explicitly permit Apple to do what it did.
What problem? The BSD based code that Apple uses is available on Apple's website. Its called the Darwin kernel.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, bull. It's not a problem NOW. Apple has contributed exactly zero hurt to BSD and BSD is just as free as it always was. It's not a zero sum game. Look, I hate Apple as a corporation, though they have made very significant advances. But more power to them for leveraging open software. So it gives them a cost advantage, so what. That's why everybody should leverage open source. I like the BSD license and
Re:Few things (Score:4, Insightful)
You're right –Mac OS X clearly has 0 lines of code that are not from BSD.
Aside – this is the fallacy I hate that leads people to use the GPL rather than the BSD license. They somehow make an assumption that anything build on top of system A must be exactly the same as system A (or entirely stolen from system A), and no more, no matter how much more it does. This fallacy leads to the reasoning "if the sum of their work and my work is exactly the same as my work, then clearly I should get to decide how their work is licensed.
Re: (Score:2)
gee, if that's a problem for them, i guess they should have used the gpl.
Re:Few things (Score:5, Insightful)
uh, what's the difference between then and now, exactly? i've been using os x for a unix environment since 2005, and the biggest change i've noticed on the unix side is that they ditched powerpc for intel (thank christ).
Re: (Score:2)
uh, what's the difference between then and now, exactly?
Surely things have only improved since the early days when OS X consisted of kludged-together BSD and Mach kernels. I imagine its inner-workings are quite a bit more streamlined and efficient these days; one can only hope, anyhow...
Re: (Score:2)
You are way out there. Missing a sarcasm tag perhaps? OS X has the same meld of Mach and BSD it always did. Obviously there have been tweakings, but there was nothing wrong with the kernel in the beginning and the behavior and performance are essentially the same now.
Re: (Score:2)
...behavior and performance are essentially the same now
Apple hasn't improved the efficiency of OS X's kernel over the past decade? I find that hard to believe.
Re: (Score:2)
yeah, they have, but (just like with almost any os) the front-end gets more feature-rich (or bloated if you want) at the same time, so the practical speed stays roughly the same.
anyway, why are we even having this discussion? the original point was whether os x was "greatly modified," and whether it "blows," compared to older version. neither is true. meanwhile, you're vaguely speculating about the fine details of a platform you don't even use. stop it.
Re: (Score:2)
why are we even having this discussion?
You tell me, genius.
you're vaguely speculating about the fine details of a platform you don't even use. stop it.
I use OS X to run apps that won't run natively on Linux. I don't use Windows.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Macs were a great unix desktop ten years ago, now they just kind of blow.
I'm curious ... what's changed? I get a lot of mileage out of OS X as a developer workstation and am honestly wondering what I'd gain by switching back to Linux.
I know there's a lot of talk about cost but that's irrelevant to me, $1k this way or that over the life of a computer just doesn't matter much. There seems to be discussion about the "walled garden" but at least for what I'm doing (Erlang, Scala, Ruby, Lisp, Postgres, MySQL, Emacs, &c.) I've never run into an issue. Nor has there ever been mu
Re:Few things (Score:5, Insightful)
Commercial programs without using WINE, rock-solid features—sleep/wake rarely-bordering-on-never breaks, hardware all works well, GUI never shits itself and shuts down, updates don't break your wireless, etc.—some gaming available without tons of dicking around to make it work (or you can boot to Windows in either case, obviously), *nix shell, high-quality displays, great power management, and so on.
Linux is for tinkerers, VM jails, and servers.
I ran Linux on the desktop/laptop for years, including Gentoo for a long stretch. It's a fucking pain in the ass, and if you aren't having problems it's because you've been damn lucky. You don't want to be the guy who can't get shit done because X decided you can go fuck yourself, or an upgrade broke wireless, or you need to give a presentation and your HDMI out is doing weird things or simply not working, even though it works on your monitor at home, and so on.
It's kind of like the whole "no one got fired for buying IBM". OSX works more often and more smoothly, and if it doesn't no-one blames you. Anyone who doesn't get a bit nervous when they need to use their Linux box in unfamiliar/untested settings or circumstances probably hasn't had to do it very often and therefore doesn't realize that they have very good reason to be nervous about it.
Re: (Score:2)
You don't want to be the guy who can't get shit done because X decided you can go fuck yourself, or an upgrade broke wireless, or you need to give a presentation and your HDMI out is doing weird things or simply not working, even though it works on your monitor at home, and so on.
Got to be careful about testing those updates on any presentation or production machine - whether its Linux, OSX, Windows, BSD - whatever. One valuable characteristic of established Linux distros such as SUSE and Red Hat is that you can do incremental updates and roll them back if you have a problem. I can see where you would have run into more of a hassle with Gentoo.
Re:Few things (Score:4, Insightful)
Unfortunatly, IOS && OSX of today are greatly modified versions of BSD, with a different kernel and apis. Macs were a great unix desktop ten years ago, now they just kind of blow. Linux is the only way to go these days for Unix && desktop.
Strange what you say there, considering that MacOS X is actually POSIX certified, and Linux for obvious reasons isn't. If you want Linux, use Linux. If you want Unix, Linux isn't Unix. Never was. Never will be.
Re: (Score:3)
> If you want Unix, Linux isn't Unix. Never was. Never will be.
Actually Unix vendors seem to disagree with you there.
Certifications that don't really fully describe the product aren't terribly relevant here. They're good for advertising propaganda but not much else. How stuff works in production is what really matters.
MacOS is only Unix when Apple wants to sell you something.
Re:Few things (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunatly, IOS && OSX of today are greatly modified versions of BSD, with a different kernel and apis. Macs were a great unix desktop ten years ago, now they just kind of blow. Linux is the only way to go these days for Unix && desktop.
Strange what you say there, considering that MacOS X is actually POSIX certified, and Linux for obvious reasons isn't. If you want Linux, use Linux. If you want Unix, Linux isn't Unix. Never was. Never will be.
A grain of truth always makes for better fud and rubbish, hmm? Vendors of Unix-like systems such as Linux and FreeBSD do not typically certify their distributions, as the cost of certification and the rapidly changing nature of such distributions make the process too expensive to sustain.[18] [wikipedia.org] So... FreeBSD, commonly considered "real Unix" (directly descends from the Bell Labs code base) is not Posix-certified? What does that tell you about Open Groups pricey rubber stamp? Here is the truth: FreeBSD and Linux conform well to Posix, both take binary compatibility and source compatibility very seriously, and together lead the way in evolution of Unix. While not carrying the rubber stamp. That is life in the real world.
Re: (Score:2)
Shooter may be confused. OS X is essentially the same now as it was 10 years ago. A POSIX (Mach + BSD) kernel with POSIX (BSD) command line stuff and a proprietary windowing system in place of a perfectly good X Windows.
iOS is of course a completely different thing altogether, but that has no bearing whatsoever on Macs or Macbooks.
Possibly shooter was thinking of NeXTSTEP OS of 20 years ago, from NeXT Computer with Jobs at the helm. No
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
No, it's most certainly not surprisingly low.
Apple has piles of money; they're not recouping losses from development with the price, just wanting more profit.
Amazon also has an app store of their own.
It's not surprisingly low, it's surprising how high it is and how someone could possibly be open to the idea of higher profit margins on their devices.
Re:Few things (Score:5, Interesting)
I was in the market for a 7"-ish tablet. It was down to the FireHD, Nexus 7, or iPad Mini. While I was extremely disappointed in the price announced for the Mini, I ended up getting one anyway for a few reasons:
1. We have iPhones and my kid (who will be the primary user of the device) is already accustomed to the interface
2. The educational games/books we've downloaded for it are already there and ready to be synced.
3. I liked the educational software available in the Apple app store over what I saw available for both the Kindle and the Nexus 7. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough--I don't know but it seemed much better from the Apple side.
4. Everything the FireHD can do, the iPad can do possibly better depending on what review you read (the external speakers being one downside but I don't believe he'll be needing stereo speakers).
5. I like the look, size, and weight of the device with the larger screen.
6. As an Apple (iPhones, Mini, and MBP) and Amazon customer (I'm a Prime member and use them for video rentals, most online purchases, etc), I simply preferred the Apple device even though it was considerably more money.
YMMV.
iPad mini has stereo, and you can use Prime vid (Score:2)
the external speakers being one downside but I don't believe he'll be needing stereo speakers
Not quite sure if this is what you are referring to, but the iPad mini has stereo speakers (older iPads do not). Amazon had that wrong in an ad they have since pulled.
6. As an Apple (iPhones, Mini, and MBP) and Amazon customer (I'm a Prime member and use them for video rentals, most online purchases, etc)
I am also a Prime member - happily just as there is a Kindle app for the iPad, there's also an Amazon Prime Vide
Re:Few things (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's locked you into their ecosystem and you're paying double for the convenience. That was their plan.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple's locked you into their ecosystem and you're paying double for the convenience. That was their plan.
One minor nitpick: You're not paying for convenience, you're paying to not be inconvenienced.
"So, you don't want to be inconvenienced, eh? Well, then you buy our stuff, and you pay more... Or Else. That's a nice head of hair you have there, be terrible if we made you pull it all out..."
Re:Few things (Score:5, Insightful)
Google's locked you into their services, your data is being mined and your eyes are being sold to advertisers. That was their plan.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
As has been pointed out, the iPad mini has stereo speakers. A comparison checklist between the Kindle Fire and the iPad mini was briefly posted by Amazon, and it incorrectly listed the iPad mini as not having stereo speakers, which is where most people seem to have gotten that idea (the list was later pulled offline after numerous other complaints regarding misleading statements and other inaccuracies in it).
Apple hasn't exactly made a point of mentioning the fact that it has stereo, but teardowns of the de
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Few things (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple has piles of money; they're not recouping losses from development with the price, just wanting more profit.
No shit... They're a company, that's what companies do.
Amazon also has an app store of their own.
Yes, the point being that Amazon, being a company, also want to make substantial profit. They just have a different model for how they do it.
In Apple's case the model is "Provide lots of content for cheap, then people will want to buy that hardware that can use that content at a premium".
In Amazon's case the model is "Provide a piece of hardware for cheap, then people will use that hardware to buy content for it from us at a premium".
This difference leads to the Apple hardware being significantly more expensive. Big surprise.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, for some reason, AMZN's model seems to be better valued on Wall Street, with a PE of >3100, in spite of the fact that they basically have no profits for like a decade. But AAPL, with huge growth of profits only has a PE of 13.
Re: (Score:2)
Also, for some reason, AMZN's model seems to be better valued on Wall Street, with a PE of >3100, in spite of the fact that they basically have no profits for like a decade. But AAPL, with huge growth of profits only has a PE of 13.
No doubt Apple executives everywhere (especially the millionaire ones) are so upset about that.
Re: (Score:2)
They should be.
If AAPL was priced like a typical tech stock, with typical growth, they would have a PE of about 50. A stock price of about $2200. And a market cap of $3 trillion dollars.
Yet, they're an above average tech growth company. >40% earnings growth for the last 5 years.
Re: (Score:2)
In which case, the Apple model is "Make a lot of profit from hardware AND content, because people will buy our stuff anyway."
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
What cheap content on Apple? I'ts the same and often cheaper on Amazonb.
Apples case is: People want to be hip, cool and cutting edge while not actually having to learn anything. We market that and charge.
To quote Smithers: "Well, it's a policy that ensures a healthy mix of the rich and the ignorant, sir. "
Amazons case is: "Get everyone Apple doesn't get."
One main difference: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Did you say "surprising low"? What kind of markup (in percentage) do you think is "reasonable" and not "surprisingly low"? And perhaps you can also tell us what is "surprisingly high" just for comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. In which case a better comparison of pricing policies is perhaps with Microsoft. At the end of the article is this...
IHS iSuppli has also done a teardown of Microsoft's £399 Surface tablet, revealing that the device costs just $271 (£170) to build....
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, Apple makes its own OS and applications while Amazon just uses Android.
The origin of the goods are not of interest here. Just the price versus the quality.
If Apple is more expensive by making more expensive decisions, that's their choice. It doesn't help the consumer.
iPad mini will have lower lifetime revenue? (Score:2)
I wonder if Apple figured that the Mini would be going predominantly to people who:
1) Own an iPhone but not an iPad
2) Previous version iPad owners looking for a smaller device upgrade
3) iDevice completists who want to own one or more of each
Each of these groups will buy less content over time because they already have a lot of apps and other content on their other devices; the Mini simply becomes yet another consumption device and they will not be buying more content specifically for the mini, hence the mar
Re: (Score:2)
Apple makes money selling the device, and from each App, and from the OS, and from any content you download ....
Amazon makes money only from the content ...and they can still sell it for less ...
Re:Few things (Score:4, Insightful)
And the obvious point: Apple is selling all they can make right now. Supply and demand would dictate Apple should be charging even MORE, but price is artificially low so people don't start associating the product with an even higher price later on.
Why is this said with any implication of surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
The $35 in extra cost turns into $130 at the consumer level. That's actually pretty much right for a manufactured good. You see, when someone makes a product they typically want to charge MORE for it than it costs to produce. This difference is called Profit. The more it costs, the more you must charge. Plus, it's apple. Even if it cost less, they are selling you the device plus the brand. Or did you think Phil Shiller worked for free?
Re:Why is this said with any implication of surpri (Score:5, Informative)
The $35 in extra cost turns into $130 at the consumer level. That's actually pretty much right for a manufactured good
Oh, you were so close to being correct, and then missed.
The reason its so close is middlemen. If it costs a farmer 10 cents more to grow an apple, that doesn't mean YOU pay the food store 10 cents more, it means the wholesaler gets 2*10 cents = 20 cents more, the distributor/franchise operator gets 2*20 cents = 40 cents more, the store needs to charge twice invoice on average to keep the lights on, etc, so you pay 2*40 cents = 80 cents more at the store.
Its not quite so bad with market leading electronics, but its bad. I can totally see if a battery costs $4 more, the retail price after layers and layers of middlemen could very well increase $13.
The price at a direct mfgr store goes up because the resellers demand it contractually in order to stock it, Walmart would never carry the kindle if amazon could undercut it every time, so the price, even online, reflects the maximum amount of middleman profiteering via any channel. Mandatory minimum pricing and all that. Yes apple.com probably COULD sell it for only $35 more, but walmart etc would freak out and sue them, so they have to sell it for $130 more.
Re: (Score:2)
If MMP were somehow not part of the equation, the MSRP would just be something ridiculous like $599 and then each outlet would offer a "great deal" to their own liking (this is what happens with goods that aren't as easy to MMP like an iPad) and the consumer would end up shelling out $329 or something close, depending on how discriminating (in the economic sense) they were. The profit WILL be had.
It's not only middle man (Score:2)
The investiment in stocks (of finished goods, parts, everything, at the manufaturer, distributor, retailer), the risk that some products won't sell, the loses on transportation, and event he amount of money the governent gets to keep; all increase when the price of the product increases.
Re: (Score:2)
The point is that Amazon doesn't need to make a huge profit on the Kindle Fire because they can then sell you content too.
Apple wants to do both, the greedy, greedy bastards.
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon doesn't make any profits. At all. That's not really a good business model, unless you're a non-profit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not only that, but $24 in parts cost plus additional labor cost (the iPad mini looks significantly trickier to assemble than the Fire does), and it certainly doesn't appear out of line.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It might help you realize how silly it would be to expect (for example) that a vehicle should should have the same markup as a toaster. That's dumb.
It might help you to realize that we're not comparing a vehicle to a toaster, but different models of vehicles from different manufacturers. I'd expect a Chrysler, GM and Ford vehicles to all have similar markups.
I wouldn't expect vehicles to have similar markups. I would expect a Chevy and a Dodge sedan to be quite similar, but if you look at all sedans (Toyota, Mazda, Chevy, Dodge, Lexus, Mercedes-Benz, BMW, Audi, Volkswagen, Kia, Hyundai, Fiat and who knows how many more) you'd find several ranges of prices and margins. Some focus on low end, high volume, low margin (let's say.... Kia). Others focus on low volume, high end, high margin (let's say..... Mercedes). Some even hit multiple targets. A Camry isn't the c
Re: (Score:2)
Who's buying? (Score:2)
I own an iPad, an iPod, two Android devices and a Nexus 7 is on its way in the mail. I still haven't purchased anything from any app store.
Furthermore I'm not sure what would compel me to do so: free games are good enough, productivity apps are free, and music, movies and books are still basically free as long as you have a desktop, laptop, or friends.
Re: (Score:2)
I own an iPad, an iPod, two Android devices and a Nexus 7 is on its way in the mail. I still haven't purchased anything from any app store.
On the Android devices, do you use Google search? Google maps? Google Mail? Google Drive/Docs? Google+? If so, you're supporting Google's main business - advertising and consumer data-mining. I'm sure Google would be more than happy for you to buy an iPad provided you still used Google services - the whole Android/Chrome thing is their hedge against Microsoft or Apple trying to lock them out of their OSs.
Apple clearly has aspirations in the ad-funded-service business but they are still mainly a hardware
Design Costs (Score:3)
Interesting, but until you compare the design costs of each device, you can't make a statement about whether or not the price is a fair one. These things don't just spontaneously arise.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, I was wondering how they accounted for design costs and QA/QC in their teardown.
Only if software costs nothing... (Score:2)
...Amazon has a very low cost of ownership for Android, after all. Apple wrote the vast majority of iOS.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple wrote the vast majority of iOS.
Wrote, past tense. It's not like it costs them any more for each tablet sold.
Re: (Score:2)
If long term maintenance of existing products were free, I would be a pauper.
Re: (Score:2)
And that point is easily offset by the very large cost for development. It may have cost Apple half a million (or more) to write all the software on that device. So it's not reasonable to charge on either end of the cost spectrum, from free to very expensive. So they assign a cost to it (and use that figure to mark up the hardware) by guessing how many copies/licenses they can sell at $x. Just because software is cheap to copy
Re: (Score:3)
Apple wrote the vast majority of iOS.
Wrote, past tense. It's not like it costs them any more for each tablet sold.
iOS 2? 3? 4? 5? 6? The one you know they are working on now? I remember an iPhone running an OS that couldn't handle Retina graphics, tablet sized displays, Bluetooth stereo, cut and paste, Exchange support, voice control, AirPlay, third-party apps, wireless sync, background operations, persistent notifications, didn't have driving directions or their own map content, folders, Game Center, MMS, high definition video, HDR, panorama photo shooting, video calling, 4G/LTE, and a few other things.
Each genera
Dumb (Score:2)
1. The OS and online infrastructure costs $0?
2. Selling a product at a profit equates to "premium" now?
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on how much profit the sell it for.
Re: (Score:2)
How much donated to FreeBSD for each sale? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hint they don't do it for the money.
Neither does Apple.
...Wait - what???...
iPad. Now brought to you by Coca-Cola(TM) (Score:2)
The truth of the matter is that Amazon is just repeating the commodity PC bundleware strategy. I'd rather pay a little bit more to support a company that doesn't
And the point is? (Score:3)
More is Less (Score:2)
*No HD movies, less PPI, mono sound. Not to mention the handcuffs. No thanks.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-57541838-93/amazon-pits-kindle-fire-hd-vs-ipad-mini/ [cnet.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? Ipad has been mono until now?! What a piece of garbage. Hmm, stereo sound has been out how many decades, and they have saved what with keeping it mono? Frieking unbelievable!
Yup! Sure has been mono until now. Even the iPod Touch is mono. The Nano DOESN'T EVEN HAVE SPEAKERS TO PLAY MUSIC! It's almost like nobody gives a crap and everyone who listens to TV, Movies or Music on their portable devices uses speakers or headphones.
It matters not. (Score:2, Insightful)
I can give $20 worth of ingredients to my neighbor (he's a chef) and the same to my kid, but you'd be a fool to think that you'll get two meals of comparable value from them.
Luxury Devices (Score:3, Interesting)
Check the definition of Premium! (Score:2)
Profit Margin Comparison (Score:2)
Cost.......174.00...198.00.....284.00
Price......199.00...329.00.....599.00
Profit.....14.37%...66.16%.....110.9%
So Microsoft is hoping that by embracing Apple's strategy (huge profit margins on hardware) and extending it (almost double Apple's margin, which is already four times Amazon's), it can extinguish the Kindle Fire? I know MS doesn't do business the way it used to [wikipedia.org], but leopards don't change their spots.
Re: (Score:3)
The Anti-Apple routine here at Slashdot is getting very, very old. Well of course Apple charges more. They make the majority of their cash on hardware (although the App and iTunes stores are pretty lucrative too). Amazon is *all* about the content. So their goal is to get you to buy a Kindle by any means possible so they can make money on content sales. Apple's goal is to entice you to buy their hardware - if you don't buy anything in the store, no big deal they've made their money. Anything extra is gravy. The Kindle and iPad have different use cases & marketing models and are priced accordingly.
Now you wanna complain? Why does Microsoft make more than $250 on every Surface Tablet ? (Guess: because they actually don't expect to sell many)
Apple is more of a media company than Amazon is. By a long shot. And "anything else" is not gravy for Apple. Its the sole reason for the devices existing, and the sole reason they have to justify their stock price to investors.
If people wouldn't pay $500 for an iPad, Apple would be selling them at cost, just like Amazon. Amazon doesn't have the brand clout Apple does. The Amazon name doesn't automatically add $200 in value to the product. You better believe, if Amazon could get away with $500, they would. A
Re: (Score:2)
Yep, when the ipod first came out it retailed for less than the 1.8" drive that was embedded in it, Apple was definitely in it to grow marketshare and build up the itunes ecosystem. It wasn't until much later that the brand had enough power to push up hardware margins.