ie8 fix
madison

Hardware 2.0

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

iPad 3 for $299 ... no, and here's why

By | January 3, 2012, 6:27am PST

Summary: Cheap iPads for all? Don’t hold your breath!

Over on ZDNet’s Laptops & Desktops blog, Sean Portnoy speculates about possible aggressive price drop for the iPad 3 once it’s released. Could Apple really sell the entry-level iPad 3 for $299?

Here’s Portnoy’s theory:

But would Apple get even more aggressive? After all, the iPad 2 supply could be limited, and once they’re gone, then its cheapest slate would only be $399, which more Android tablet makers can match (like the Sony Tablet S). Could the company drop the iPad 2 price all the way to $199 to match the Kindle Fire and then charge $299 for the new entry-level iPad 3?

Currently, the entry-level iPad 2 sells for $499 (16GB, WiFi), but the rumor mill is in full swing and is speculating about a $100 price drop for the entry-level units, with a higher-priced ‘retina display’ model with a 2048×1536 being available for $499.

I have several problems with this.

  • I’m not convinced that Apple will release a ‘retina display’ iPad 3. While it’s a sexy idea, a 2048×1536 screen is really dense and would play HD 1080 videos windowed which would mean the density would work against the device for media playback. It also takes a lot of horsepower to push that many pixels to the screen, and more power means more battery consumption. So the case for ‘retina display’ still needs to be made.
  • The BOM (Bill of materials) doesn’t make sense. It’s estimated that the BOM for the iPhone 4S is nearly $200, but an unlocked, unsubsidized handset will set you back a whopping $649. Apple is not in the razor-thin margins business. Apple might be able to strongarm carriers into carrying the iPad as a contract line item and be able to sell them cheaper, but the iPad sells well as it is without contracts and such.
  • Why does Apple need to engage in such aggressive price cuts? It’s already selling iPads as fast as it can make them and there’s no serious competitor in sight. A price cut would only put more (unnecessary) demands on the supply chain. So again, where’s the incentive.
  • Apple is not known for such aggressive price cuts. The company knows that once a price drops, there’s no way to push them back up.
  • Kindle Fire isn’t that much of a threat to the iPad. The Kindle Fire sure is a threat, but it’s a threat to other Android tablets and not the iPad. Unless we see a dramatic showdown in iPad sales over the coming quarter there’s no need for Apple to do anything drastic.

So, am I expecting a $299 iPad 3. No, I’m not, and neither should you.

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

Topics

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology.

Disclosure

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

All opinions expressed on Hardware 2.0 are those of Adrian Kingsley-Hughes. Every effort is made to ensure that the information posted is accurate. If you have any comments, queries or corrections, please contact Adrian via the email link here. Any possible conflicts of interest will be posted below. [Updated: February 23, 2010] - Adrian Kingsley-Hughes has no business relationships, affiliations, investments, or other actual/potential conflicts of interest relating to the content posted so far on this blog.

Biography

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes

Adrian Kingsley-Hughes is an internationally published technology author who has devoted over a decade to helping users get the most from technology -- whether that be by learning to program, building a PC from a pile of parts, or helping them get the most from their new MP3 player or digital camera.

Adrian has authored/co-authored technical books on a variety of topics, ranging from programming to building and maintaining PCs. His most recent books include "Build the Ultimate Custom PC", "Beginning Programming" and "The PC Doctor's Fix It Yourself Guide". He has also written training manuals that have been used by a number of Fortune 500 companies.

Adrian also runs a popular blog under the name The PC Doctor, where he covers a range of computer-related topics -- from security to repairing and upgrading.

44
Comments

Join the conversation!

Just In

RE: iPad 3 for $299 ... no, and here's why
HypnoToad72 4th Jan
@Cylon Centurion

Mine first!

Kidding.

Without workers to earn the money to spend, these companies using our talent would go under too
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with you on that one
toddybottom 3rd Jan
iPad has a monopoly and prices do not fall when there is a monopoly. Monopolies are not there for the benefit of the consumer, they are there for the benefit of the monopolist which is Apple in this case.
0 Votes
+ -
@toddybottom
Having a killer product that none of your competitors can match doesn't make you a monopolist.
It's not up to Apple to slow down, it's down to the competition to catch up.
0 Votes
+ -
Actually, yes it does
toddybottom Updated - 3rd Jan
@Englishmole
"Having a killer product that none of your competitors can match doesn't make you a monopolist."

Actually, yes it does.

"It's not up to Apple to slow down, it's down to the competition to catch up."

I agree and have never suggested otherwise. Unfortunately, we have government agencies here in the US and over in Europe that don't agree with you. They believe that the leading company must slow down so that competitors don't have to innovate. We are left with Windows without a mail client, without a media player, and a browser ballot box. The competitors (like OS X) are not required to cripple their OSs.
0 Votes
+ -
@Englishmole
So IE and Windows XP in 2000s' were not monopoly by your definition?
0 Votes
+ -
@toddybottom: It is not illegal to have a monopoly but it is illegal to ABUSE a monopoly.

Apple hasn't (yet) overtly abused their monopoly position in tablets. Whether they'll tread too close to the line as competition heats up we'll have to wait and see.
0 Votes
+ -
actually yes it does
oneleft 3rd Jan
@toddybottom
because... you say so?
0 Votes
+ -
@oneleft
The definition of what makes one a monopolist does not depend on how one got their monopoly. A monopoly is a state of being and is not descriptive of how that state was achieved. Apple is a monopolist because they have a few monopolies.
0 Votes
+ -
wow
oneleft 3rd Jan
@oneleft
that's a whole lot of saying nothing. you want to try that again?
saying, ad nauseum, that apple is/has monopolies does not make it true.
0 Votes
+ -
@oneleft
because saying it doesn't make it true.

What is the definition of a "monoploy"?

Are you saying that Apple doesn't have a monopoly on MP3 players, even considering that 78% of all MP3 players sold are iPods?
0 Votes
+ -
RE: iPad 3 for $299 ... no, and here's why
use_what_works_4_U 3rd Jan
@William Farrel
No, Microsoft Windows has had monopoly status, in the legal sense, because the U.S. Federal Court System declared it to be so under the Sherman AntiTrust Act as a 'finding of fact'.

Also, I would point to the numerous times that various Microsoft proponents point out that "everyone uses it" as an argument for Windows' alleged superiority. These aren't people arguing the monopolistic nature of the beast, but their specious arguments for Windows superiority do support (to an extent) the market domination required for monopoly status.

FWIW, at this time I believe that Apple has a monopoly (virtual or actual could be argued) in the tablet computing space and a near monopoly in MP3 players. In and of itself, that status is not legally wrong.

If it were demonstrated that Apple has leveraged that monopoly to discourage partners from supporting other platforms, then they would be guilty of illegally abusing that monopoly position under various laws (Sherman Act included). That leverage has yet to be brought to court, let alone proven so the situation is not exactly comparable.
0 Votes
+ -
@oneleft @macadam A monopoly is the exclusivity / control of a market. In tablets and MP3 players, Apple has a "near monopoly", just as Microsoft had / has in the desktop operating system market.

That is a fact. Being a monopoly isn't bad and sometimes can't be helped - when you invent something new, which is a new market segment, you are automatically a monopoloy in that segment, until others come along and make similar goods.

Abuse of that position to force others out of that market (Microsoft with IE vs. Netscape, for example or MS-DOS vs. CP/M 86 and DR-DOS) is another matter.

Apple have a monopoly position in the tablet market at the moment, because they redefined the market and made a great product, the competition is trying to play catch-up, but they are facing Apple's monopolisation of that market.

As long as Apple don't abuse their position (like trying to bad mouth other products, force suppliers to take their products in preference to others, sell at a loss to drive competition out of the market or, oh, I don't know, try and ban competitive products because they are a black rectangle), there is nothing technically wrong with having a monopoly in a given market. If there was something wrong, we would never see new market segments spring up.

Just imaging if somebody had told Gottlieb Daimer, that he couldn't market vehicles with an internal combustion engine, because he would have a monopoly on that market!
0 Votes
+ -
@William Farrel
If you define a market narrowly enough Every single product made has a monopoly in its own market. Today, almost every smartphone sold is also an MP3 player. And Android is leading the sales in those.. Monopoly status in itself is a common and transient one in every industry and there is nothing wrong with it in itself. It is up to the courts to decide whether any company abuses it's position as market leader to prevent competition.

Keep in mind, this time 2 years ago the same people here were claiming that Apple held an unbreakable monopoly in smartphones, just before the Android platform surpassed Apple in smartphone sales. So it could be that message-board claims of predatory monopoly status might not mean that much in the real world.
0 Votes
+ -
Apple rumors are getting kinda annoying. They're almost never right, but people continue to spread them. Case in point: "Apple to release two iPads in 2012?". Who cares. If you have that much burning your pocket, donations to my student loans are always welcome!
0 Votes
+ -
@Cylon Centurion with the exception of the last iPhone the rumors have had a lot of accuracy to them on reputable sites.
0 Votes
+ -
@Peter Perry
After just about every "reputable" site published stories about the iphone 5 as a fact and not a rumour... I'll hold off believing anything until it is announced by Apple.
@Cylon Centurion

Now what would any of us get out of paying your bills?
0 Votes
+ -
@Cylon Centurion

Mine first!

Kidding.

Without workers to earn the money to spend, these companies using our talent would go under too
0 Votes
+ -
RE: iPad 3 for $299 ... no, and here's why
Peter Perry Updated - 3rd Jan
Apple created a 3 tiered structure with the iPhone 3Gs, 4 and 4s... if they don't do the same with the iPad then the one two punch of the Kindle Fire and Kindle Tablet will bury them in a hurry. Crud, the fire challenged the iPad all through the holidays in limited markets!
0 Votes
+ -
RE: iPad 3 for $299 ... no, and here's why
dave95. Updated - 3rd Jan
@Peter Perry

if they don't do the same with the iPad then the one two punch of the Kindle Fire and Kindle Tablet will bury them in a hurry. Crud, the fire challenged the iPad all through the holidays in limited markets!

I am willing to bet that the majority who bought Kindle Fires were NOT in the market for an iPad anyway. A $300 price difference and screen size difference.

Apple sold a record 11.2 million iPads last quarter. Some are estimating the iPad will sell 15-16 million during this past holiday quarter (growth). Amazon Fire likely sold 4-5 million units this holiday season.

As I've been saying, there's room for both devices to continue to grow without necessarily affecting the other. The Fire mainly took sales from the other competitors, not necessarily the iPad.
0 Votes
+ -
I agree with you totally
toddybottom 3rd Jan
@dave95.
Those saying that iPad doesn't have a monopoly because the Kindle Fire is selling a few million units are totally wrong for all the reasons you wrote. Nice post.
@NZ

And remember kids, there's nothing's wrong with having a monopoly in a market. That word only becomes dirty when companies use their monopoly to unfairly stiffle competition as you already know (Microsoft).
@dave95.
The customer always loses. Real customer choice is always a good thing and when customers have no real choice, as is the case in the iPad and smartphone markets, it is not a good thing. But you already know this (Apple).

Slight edit: always something wrong with having an unregulated monopoly. Some markets are best served by a monopoly that can utilize economies of scale to provide services at a rate lower than multiple companies competing in the market could. However, these markets must nearly always be regulated. It is unlikely that the tablet market would best be served by only having Apple supply tablets unless the government were to step in and force Apple to sell iPads at a regulated rate. I would not be a fan of such a move.
@dave95.
Bing: apple antitrust ebook

And in other great news, the DoJ has joined in the fun. Excellent news for consumers that favor competition. Not so good news for those of you who are against consumers having real choice (Apple).
@toddybottom ... Once a monopoly it is how one uses the "unique" abilities that come from being said that determine if anything illegal is happening. To which I say that it is good that the DOJ is looking into Apple cause well once a company is thought to be a monopoly then the DOJ should establish if it is indeed a monopoly and "IF" anything it is doing is illegal. Imagine if you will if the DOJ had looked into MS and found they had done nothing wrong? Something that is likely to happen in the Apple case:)

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
RE: iPad 3 for $299 ... no, and here's why
dave95. Updated - 3rd Jan
@NZ

The customer always loses. Real customer choice is always a good thing and when customers have no real choice, as is the case in the iPad and smartphone markets, it is not a good thing. But you already know this (Apple).

I don't recall ever seeing this much "choices" at my local CE stores, in both smart phones and tablets. Especially compared to years ago when there wasn't any iPhone and iPads. There's even now a special section for tablets at Best Buy thanks to the iPad and modern tablets overall growth. Even with Apple commanding with a 80-90% iPad share, competition is still healthy. With regards to whether these tablets are good or not, that's not Apple's fault. But we've been through this before. The only one's losing are those still bitter from that 90's case against Microsoft.

A company the size of Apple will be looked over closely, that's expected (see Microsoft). Google is no exception, they've also been investigated by the EU and DOJ (eBook, pharma ads).
0 Votes
+ -
There is no real choice in these markets
toddybottom Updated - 3rd Jan
@dave95.
You would have to be extremely stupid to buy any of the "competitors". Look up the difference between "choice" and "real choice". If you can't recommend that anyone buy any of the "choice" you are bragging about in your local CE store then the "choice" doesn't count.

It is a sick market. We all lose.
@Peter Perry

Apple was able to implement a tiered strategy for the phones because it still receives payment from the carriers for each activated phone. That still means hundreds of $$ for Apple on a zero cost 3gs phone. That will not work for the iPad which is not carrier subsidized. Any price reduction for the iPad will be a profit margin cut unless manufacturing cost is similarly reduced.
0 Votes
+ -
iPad 2 maybe...but not 3.
A Grain of Salt 3rd Jan
The scuttlebutt seems to be talking of the possibility of $299 iPad 2. Seems mildly feasible when you consider that Apple sells it previous model iPhones for $99.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/12/01/03/299_ipad_2_seen_shaking_up_tablet_market_amazons_kindle_fire.html

Still, the iPad 3 would have to be streets ahead of iPad2 or Apple may find people buying the 2 to the detriment of the 3. Of course, at $299 it would probably only be 8 gig anyway.
0 Votes
+ -
@A Grain of Salt
Consumers may put $99 down for an iPhone but that isn't what they are paying long term for the phone and that isn't what Apple is getting for the phone.

Discounted 3G iPads with multi-year contracts are a possibility but I do not see WiFi iPads being discounted nor do I see Apple discounting 3G iPads if they aren't going to discount WiFi iPads. Therefore I believe there will be no iPad discounts. Have there been any significant and permanent iPod Touch discounts? Maybe I missed it but I don't believe there have been. That is the better comparison to the WiFi iPad.
0 Votes
+ -
AKH, you are being stubborn about that "retina" point. A quad core A6 ARM processor with some "magic" GPU subsystem could handle the task. And, about that point with video playback, what's to prevent the software from "downsizing" the display resolution? I would love a retina display for e-book reading.
"I would love a retina display for e-book reading."

No. The horrific glare, the finger prints, the size, and the weight of the iPad are what make it a horrible eReader. In fact, the resolution is the only thing the iPad currently has going for it since diagrams look much better on my iPad ebooks than they do on my Kindle ebooks. And BTW, I feel the same way about the Kindle Fire. I would never recommend the Kindle Fire to anyone as an eReader.

I used to think that the iPad's resolution was a major issue but after owning one for a while now, I can say that I wouldn't use or notice a higher resolution. As it is today I never transfer movies in their full resolution onto the iPad because the files are simply too big.
@toddybottom

I don't believe the iPad is a horrible eReader, Todd. Other persons have voiced opinions similar to the ones that you just stated but I tend to disagree with most of them.

From my experience with both the iPad 1 and the iPad 2, the issue of "excessive" weight was addressed in the second generation model. (Your argument had merit pertaining to the first generation iPad 1. However, that issue was mitigated, to an extent, by the elimination of it's protective sleeve when using the iPad 1 as an eReader. I tend to recall humans got by for a long time with reading material on hard bound paper books weighing just as much, if not more, than the iPad 1. Similarly, I got by reading text on that iPad during the length of time that any "ebook reading activity" required. (Although I admit that the time spent using the iPad in that activity rarely exceeded 30 minutes at a stretch.)

The issue of fingerprints and smudges on the iPad screen were always quite evident when the iPad was powered down. However, while in use, my brain tended to ignore the smudges in much the same way that humans adapted to viewing traditional non-HDTV images. By that I mean, those old transmitted television image "scan lines" were ignored by the brain unless one really looked closely at television from a radically reduced distance. In practice, the brain tends to ignore fingerprints and light smudge marks while engaged with any iPad reading activity. (Periodic cleaning of the screen helps greatly, however. Grin.)

Again, screen glare is something that can be reduced to an acceptable level while indoors and by attention to indoor lighting locations. Glare is a big time problem outdoors. Indeed, the iPad is almost unusable outdoors under bright sunlight. However, personally and speaking only for myself, I don't read much on my iPad outdoors for extended periods of time unlike that beautiful pool side, bikini clad woman catching some rays and reading from her Kindle in that Amazon video ad. (I can tell you what color her bikini was but, alas, my memory fails me when I try to recall what she was reading. Another Big Grin.)

Finally, Todd, I have to say that because of a Christmas gift to myself, I now own my first Apple product having a retina display. (A basic iPod Touch model.) From experience, using a device having a retina class display resolution is a joy to use. Reading text on the iPod Touch is WAY BETTER than on the iPad 2.

BTW, from experience, if you wish additional storage space for your video files, purchase a device like a Seagate 500 GB HD with built-in WiFi. Or just use iCloud (or similar "Cloud storage option" to stream video content to your iPad. The Seagate GoFlex has worked great for me so far and the built-in WiFi also works with my Apple TV to facilitate any iPad screen mirroring or video streaming. (My home WiFi network does those things quite well but I was curious to see if the Seagate WiFi could handle those tasks alone. It does.)
0 Votes
+ -
RE: iPad 3 for $299 ... no, and here's why
palavering Updated - 3rd Jan
Where's the question mark at the end of the next to last sentence? Otherwise, great story and right on target!
0 Votes
+ -
Apple has always played in the premium market (NeXT did too)
Rabid Howler Monkey Updated - 3rd Jan
1. I would not be surprised to see Apple produce a premium tablet as described

2. I am not holding my breath for an iPad3 (or iPad2) priced at $299 anywhere except, perhaps, on eBay

If you want a 'cheap' iOS-based tablet, get an iPod Touch (check for availability of refurbished units first).
0 Votes
+ -
Cook Jobs are Hard to Find
Robert Hahn 3rd Jan
"Apple" is not a sentient being who makes decisions. It is a company runs by humans. The human who made the decisions you refer to when you say, "Apple has always..." died last year. None of us -- including you -- know what sort of decisions will be made in the absence of Steve Jobs.

Tim Cook appears to be more of an ops guy than a salesman, and one who understands well the old Boston Consulting Group recipe for using market share and razor-sharp operations management to clobber the competition. Lower prices are part of that strategy. Don't be surprised if Cook does a few things that Jobs wouldn't have.
0 Votes
+ -
RE: iPad 3 for $299 ... no, and here's why
Loverock Davidson- 3rd Jan
Since Apple charges $699 for an iPad 2 there is no way they would ever charge $299 for an iPad 3. There is just too much of a price gap between them. $299 is probably the same price point for the iPod but that is much smaller.
@Loverock Davidson-

It's 2012, least you could do is buy a clue. Or use a lifeline. The iPad 2 starts at $499 not $699.
0 Votes
+ -
@Loverock Davidson-
I know it's surprising how Apple is able to maintain an anti-consumer monopoly in tablets when their products seemingly price themselves out of the market...
They're an enigma.
0 Votes
+ -
That would be highly irresponsible of Apple to drop the margins of the product. Has very rarely if ever worked to compete on the low end. The iPad is the first sub $500 market that appears to have try and and compete at a reasonable cost. The only reason for this was because there really was no market for the product to begin with. Apple pretty much created it. Apple's only other ventures to date that I can recall where they tried to enter into a low end market was the Mac Mini. And even that was questionable.
"I???m not convinced that Apple will release a ???retina display??? iPad 3. While it???s a sexy idea, a 2048??1536 screen is really dense and would play HD 1080 videos windowed which would mean the density would work against the device for media playback."


Wait.. what? This makes no sense at all. Pixel doubling/interpolation techniques would ensure that media that is meant to play full-screen will.

There is no such thing as "too high a resolution" except insofar as memory and processing requirements needed to adequately service it.
0 Votes
+ -
There's no competitor in site? Come on, you just can't say that. Maybe no single competitor, but you really can't even say that anymore. The kindle fire, the eagerly anticipated transformer prime, the samsung galaxy + the combined sum of all others + more cutting edge tegra 3 competition being introduced soon, including the expected 1920x1200 A700 at CES. This year is guaranteed to see "other" tabs and ipad at 50/50 anyway. Also, the kindle fire can be seen as a "gateway drug" to tablets in general, not just ipad.
@willyampz ...success and so far well not so much. Every tablet that has come since the iPad proved a success for Apple has been compared to the iPad and said to be better. eh.

Pagan jim
0 Votes
+ -
Adrian, seriously, Shift+F7 before you post! Notice anything wrong with my sentence here. Yes, a missing question mark. Here are a couple instances that threw me off the reading...

"So, am I expecting a $299 iPad 3? No, I???m not, and neither should you."
"iPad 3 for $299? ... no, and here's why"
0 Votes
+ -
Never.....
Gisabun 3rd Jan
Apple will never release a cheap version of the iPad as they control the market. If the fanbois, fangurls and those who want to be on that bandwaggon want to do so, Apple knows they will eventually buy. Apple doesn't want to have a reduced priced version as it will take away from the more profitable expensive current versions.
When the iPad 3 comes out, Apple will start to reduce the price of the iPad 2 to clear the inventory. The iPhone 4 has dropped in price as the 4S is out there.
And why am I not surprised that Adrian Kingsley-Hughes would continue to have these useless blogs stating the obvious.

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