ie8 fix
Click Here
madison

The economics of a free iPad...

By | February 16, 2010, 1:03pm PST

Summary: Apple has a lot of headroom on iPad pricing and publishers have incentives to offer bundled deals…

According to iSuppli, Apple can make the low-end $499 iPad for about $229.

Those costs will fall fairly quickly.

Apple gets a 30% cut of any media sold through its online stores. That can be a nice piece of change, especially when you consider the New York Times is considering charging as much as $30 a month for the iPad version of the newspaper.

At that price, the New York Times could offer a bundle deal - a free iPad with an annual subscription. It could also charge advertisers more money for the richer ads.

Other publishers could band together for similar deals, a free iPad with a local newspaper, plus magazine, plus book-of-the-month club subscription.

Apple could offer an iPad to publishers for $100. The publishers would promote their subscription bundles and the iPad. Apple doesn’t have to spend a dime advertising the iPad — another reason it could offer a cut price deal to publishers.

Clearly, there are a lot of ways that the economics of the iPad and the media industry could be sliced and diced, that make sense to offer a ‘free’ iPad. That might not happen straight away, but it is likely to happen because it can.

A risk with bundled deals might be that customers just want to a cheap iPad and they won’t be reading the publications and that means they won’t be viewing ads. Advertisers will be able to tell because there will be tracking technology that measures engagement and interaction.

But Apple will still benefit because with more iPads in people’s hands, there are more opportunities to sell all kinds of other media, and that means more revenues for Apple. And that’s another reason that Apple can offer iPads for lower prices to publishers, for their bundled deals.

I’m looking forward to my ‘free’ iPad.

Please see ZDNet:

iPad iSolationism

Special Report: Apple iPad

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily e-mail newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Topics

Tom Foremski reports on the business and culture of Silicon Valley at the intersection of technology and media.

Disclosure

Tom Foremski

Tom Foremski is the editor and publisher of Silicon Valley Watcher and Silicon Valley Watch. Tibco Software is an advertiser.

Biography

Tom Foremski

In May 2004, Tom Foremski became the first journalist to leave a major newspaper, the Financial Times, to make a living as a full-time journalist blogger. He writes the popular news blog Silicon Valley Watcher--reporting on the business of Silicon Valley.

Tom arrived in San Francisco in 1984, and has covered US technology markets for leading computer journals around the world.

14
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: The economics of a free iPad...
yantangseo 17th Sep
@DonnieBoy
good job, i loving it! replica watches
hardware goes to zero, the model of charging for the
OS does not work anymore. Though, publishers might
like better being able to give away Android devices
and keep the 30% for themselves!!!
0 Votes
+ -
Apple trolling
mstrsfty 16th Feb 2010
Its amazing that Apple trolls are everywhere! Go hang out at appleinsider.com.

Now back to the subject at hand. Apple would never give away their hardware or sell it cheaply. Their whole business model is building inexpensive stuff and selling it for a premium for a nice profit. And people still buy the stuff. I am still amazed that they sell an under $100 iPod Shuffle. Selling anything that cheap is beneath them.
0 Votes
+ -
What has this got to do with Microsoft?
de-void-21165590650301806002836337787023 16th Feb 2010
This is a discussion about iPad.

But since you brought it up ...

Hardware costs will never tend to zero. True, the costs of a particular device today will be lower in the future, but newer devices with faster processors, more storage, faster networking, bigger brighter screens, etc., will all replace today's tech.

Your statements about Microsoft's desktop OS "cost" are not comparable with Apple's OS cost, nor with limited-function device (e.g. phone) software costs. The cost of licensing

Microsoft's Windows Mobile OS' has typically cost around $8-15 per handset - a miniscule fraction of the cost of bringing a smartphone handset to market. But the Microsoft "benefit" was that building a handset to run WinMo *was* a heck of a lot easier than building your own mobile phone OS.

Of course, a lot has changed in the last few years and the capital cost of commodity OS software is tending to zero

However, even though the capital cost per handset of Linux is $0 (zero), the cost of porting Linux to a given handset is far from zero - you still have to hire several tens of people to port and support your distro' on your handset. The cost of hiring these people is VASTLY more costly than licensing WinMo.

So, if Microsoft releases a new WinPhone OS which requires OEM's & carriers to do less work to bring the new WinPhone OS to market by massively reducing the amount of platform code the OEM & carriers have to write, then it'll actually be cheaper for the OEM's and carriers to license WinPhone (plus possibly benefit from an income stream from services sold to handset owners) than saving $10 per handset (a cost which the carriers pass on to customers anyhow).

So, there's a pretty good chance that, before too long, Linux will cost too much for most OEM's and carriers to bother with!
Android, so that handset manufacturers have minimal
work to do. Add to that, WinMo7 will not even be out
for another 8 months, and there will be almost no
applications for it. Oh, and even more, they have to
let MS lead them around by the ding-a-ling and jerk
whenever they want more money.

With Android being open source, that all goes away,
no greasy fingers on your ding-a-ling.
0 Votes
+ -
You are totally wrong
Rama.NET Updated - 16th Feb 2010
Google would give the Android Source and its the OEM's responsibility
to port it. Microsoft gives the platform builder to cook ROM. And it is
easy process and OEM's don't have to spend much money unlike
porting Android on to their platform. If you don't believe checkout at
XDA Developers.

And do you how much Microsoft makes on each device a OEM/Carrier
sells, less than $10. And on Windows Mobile I could install Google, Y!
for my search and maps. I don't have to do Bing. So there is no
predicted chance for Microsoft to make money on selling its users
information. But in the case of Android (even though it sounds free),
Google has 100% chance to sell your dearest information to spammers
and the persons who could screw your identity totally.

you have one misconception, being free means it is not inexpensive. It
is expensive to support and maintain way more than commercial a
majority of times. If something is sold, it is seller's
responsibility to take of cleanup and support. If it is free who would
support, online communities?
--Ram--
0 Votes
+ -
@DonnieBoy
good job, i loving it! replica watches
0 Votes
+ -
I hate the idea
paul2011 16th Feb 2010
Publishers choosing the hardware and software platform is not good.
I want to install my favorite software on the hardware that I like.
0 Votes
+ -
Wait for the avalanche
tonymcs@... 16th Feb 2010
All the requirements of cheap Windows 7 based tablets exist such as multi-touch HD displays with integrated computer, integrated tablet and touch software in the OS and you can also buy the more expensive ones now.

With netbooks becoming even cheaper, most manufacturers are just waiting to see if there is a market for these devices and if Apple manages to convince enough people to use its iPad. If it does then the iPad will be buried under an avalanche of cheap Win 7 multitouch tablets that have a real and open OS rather than a locked down toy one.

Of course this is really just a step along the way. Soon it will be just a pair of glasses and a Project Natal style interface and we'll be laughing at people carrying around slates and doing fingerpainting.
0 Votes
+ -
decades now is it not? The whole cheap computer vs the Macintosh.
Apple has thrived and the Mac is gaining market share. The whole cheap
and more open MP3 player with still MORE features vs the iPod.. Ha!.
And yes the same has been claimed vs the iPhone. I as of yet fail to see
here that argument holds much water as of yet against the iPad. I admit I
could be wrong here but I just don't see it as of yet.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
@tonymc
prof123 Updated - 17th Feb 2010
The operative word is "cheap". There are many people who hate to compromise on quality. Have you ever bought a pair of shoes for $20? After 2 months you need a new pair. My grandfather used to say "We are not rich enough to buy cheap"

Sure, there will be immitators but nobody can match the UI, ease of use, the content and the App Store.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The economics of a free iPad...
josephvba@... 17th Feb 2010
It's not going to happen.
Apple fans will buy the crappy iPad, just because is Apple's new toy.
Why Apple want to give anything for free when fans (I have another word but I don't want to ban) are waitning in line for this thing.
0 Votes
+ -
And yet another failed theory.....
James Quinn 17th Feb 2010
Apple fans or Apple fanatics. You might have has such to explain the
Macintosh but I'm afraid both the success of thee iPod and iPhone prove
this theory incorrect. A great many iPod user and iPhone users are those
coming from the world of MS and or the PC. Heck today alone I was in a
local coffee shop and I saw a guy whip out what was plainly a PC laptop
and an iPhone. Theory shot to blank.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
RE: The economics of a free iPad...
WilliamsiPad Updated - 17th Feb 2010
From what I can understand, one of the reasons
Apple is
not giving away free iPads is, because Apple knows
there
would be people who would buy one -- even for
their
insane prices
Article Bookmarked
0 Votes
+ -
Or perhaps more to the point....
James Quinn 17th Feb 2010
You give something away for free or on the cheap and you degrade it's
true value even "IF" it's an attempt to get money in another manner.
PC's have become for the very most part commodity items. You can
tell by the long the VERY long list of hardware makers who have come
in gone in the time Apple has been around. What killed them? The
race to the bottom is what killed them. What few who remain today
don't have all their eggs in the hardware basket like HP and yes even
Dell has expanded out of the desktop and gone into other areas in a
desperate attempt to find a source of money. Why? Well they still get
the PC business to get them into the arena of business and there they
hope to sell their other more margin and profitable rich products and
services. Apple contends that every thing they do has value and they
should make a profit of said. This includes their devices so they make
a profit off of everything hardware, software and services. I like
Apple's way of thinking better.

Pagan jim

Join the conversation!

Formatting +
BB Codes - Note: HTML is not supported in forums
  • [b] Bold [/b]
  • [i] Italic [/i]
  • [u] Underline [/u]
  • [s] Strikethrough [/s]
  • [q] "Quote" [/q]
  • [ol][*] 1. Ordered List [/ol]
  • [ul][*] · Unordered List [/ul]
  • [pre] Preformat [/pre]
  • [quote] "Blockquote" [/quote]
ie8 fix
Click Here
ie8 fix

The best of ZDNet, delivered

ZDNet Newsletters

Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox

Facebook Activity

White Papers, Webcasts, & Resources
ie8 fix
ie8 fix