May I refer you to my LOL comment a page or so above.
We don't tell the government that "If you can't keep the streets free from crime, then maybe you shouldn't be in the street business." Or that they should just keep hiring enough police until they are able to eliminate crime. Why should Google be held to a higher standard.
And to those who accuse Masnick of fighting Google's battles for them, get a clue. It's not for love of Google. Techdirt has very frequently and consistently fought for immunity for platforms. Section 230 is frequently supported here, and the same debate was made for Craigslist when Attorneys General tried to grandstand about removing crime (hookers) from CL.
We don't hold gun makers responsible for crimes done with guns, we don't hold car makers responsible for car accidents or deliberate collisions, we don't hold gov't responsible for crimes committed on public property, we don't hold banks responsible for robberies committed on their premises. A little consistency (and common sense) suggests that we should not hold web hosts responsible for content posted by others on their platforms.
What's funny is that we, in the US, make fun of France ad nauseum for being "surrender monkeys". And I have to admit, it can be occasionally funny if the joke is well constructed. And, sure, the accusation is based on some historical fact. But Gaulish history goes back before WWI, and plenty of wars were fought, not surrendered.
However, self-entitled Americans should not call the kettle black. We roll over, not for foreign aggressors, but for domestic abrogation of our rights. Patriot Act, Protect IP, warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity, etc, etc. Hardly a peep from us patriots. We'd much rather watch reality TV and get lathered up about abortion or gay marriage.
The French could teach us something about standing up for our rights. If the gov't there pushes too far, there will be a protest in the Champs Elysees faster than you can say "Jean Valjean". Striking and demonstration has reached the level of national pastime! And that's a good thing.
You can disagree all you want with the things they protest, but you shouldn't argue with their zeal to get involved with their governance. Around here, the only group I see that is as politically engaged is a wacky splinter group that believes Paul Revere rode around to warn the British that "were a comin".
There are crimes committed, like illegal drug sales on street corners in many towns. We should hold the government accountable for those crimes. They should fine themselves $500M because other people are doing "no-nos" on their infrastructure, and they should be forced to stop it from happening.
When they succeed at stopping all crimes on all streets, that will prove to Google that it is possible to do such a thing, and Google can follow the shining example.
I suggest the gov't call it "THE WAR ON DRUGS", and that we always write it in all-caps to illustrate the magnanimity of it. It should be over in a few weeks, and then won't Google look so silly!!
You cite MY accusation of YOU mistakenly conflating two things as evidence that I clumsily conflated two things?
Big Fail.
I probably humored this debate too long. I really just stuck around for the fun of winning a public debate. I won't carry on until you to admit you're wrong. I only need for the written record to show that you are wrong to the average passer by. Mission accomplished. Out.
No, that wasn't your primary point all along. It was one point you made, and which I already acknowledged and said was unknown and trivial as it related to HP:
Derek: "If you want to haggle back and forth whether the HP cost/unit is $318 or 328 or 338, frankly I don't much care. You're worrying about detail, while misunderstanding the discussion. You are confusing the market exit of HP with the market entry strategy of other tablet makers."
Yes, there is more to total cost than BoM. Of course. Duh, even. There are some SG&A (selling, general, and administrative) costs involved in getting a product to market...which I admittedly may have failed to calculate. You got me. Busted!! I admit it. Of course, I also wrote this on Sept. 2:
Derek: "You make valid points about the SG&A costs, which I don't discuss because of brevity. BoM is considered the hard costs paid to suppliers, and does not include internal SG&A..."
If that was your primary point - trying to prove an argument that I have conceded all along - then I'm not sure why we're still here.
Now, are you abandoning your other primary argument? You know, the one that shows you didn't really understand the article, where you wrote:
Michael: "You seemed to argue, however, that the fact that people were willing to spend $250 for a $328/$500 device as proof that they should have tried losing $100/unit to build market share."
Did you manage to find anything I wrote that claims that?
So, at the end of a debate that you lost, you return to a small point that I conceded early on, say it's your primary argument, and declare victory. Good for you.
"Why does everyone here think Apple is charging a premium for the ipad?"
Because they do. But actually, most of what I said was not "Apple charges a premium" but that iPad "is a premium product", and customers are willing to pay a premium because of the better app ecosystem, design, and brand.
Premium is also defined as a price above the normal price. The normal price, per my article, is what users actually want to pay for the other tablets, which is proven to be less than $500 by their lackluster sales at $500. iPad sells successfully at $500, other tablets don't - thus, iPad is a premium product.
You wrote that Apple needs to price iPad at $500 "for there to be ANY profitability". You're wrong. They make bundles of profit per unit.
When last reported, Apple made between $208 and $499 PROFIT each, depending on the unit. Need a citation? Here ya go:
"You seemed to argue, however, that the fact that people were willing to spend $250 for a $328/$500 device as proof that they should have tried losing $100/unit to build market share."
Show me where I did that.
"Or that someone else should do so as an "entry" strategy."
Show me where I did that (other than for Kindle or Nook, noting that they could offer a device at cost and profit on media - a concept that, despite my mention of it, you seem intent on educating me about twice.)
You can't make things up, attribute them to me, and then refute them for a win. Work with the words I actually wrote.
Here's a useful summary:
- Apple easily sells their iPad for $500, others have lackluster sales at the same price
- At $100, HP's TouchPads fly off the shelf
- TouchPad costs about $318
- The market currently values them at around $250 (note that I never even suggest that this means a successful business strategy for any device maker is to sell tablets for $250. Please read better. Just that this is the market-clearing price for TouchPad. It's what the consumers want to pay, NOT what the sellers want to charge.)
- Apple's developer ecosystem offers their tablet a $200-$250 value premium in the customers' eyes, AND there is some value premium attributable to brand and design.
- Thus, for now, "Tablets are Apple's private playground."
- The Nook or Kindle, if done as full Android tablets and priced low enough, stand a chance against iPad.
- It'll take a few years of Moore's law and Android progress to reduce the advantage iPad now enjoys.
You would have to be stoned to interpret that as a green light for any OEM to price their tablet at a loss, and make up the difference in volume.
What's funny is I typed the bullet list before I searched for that site, and then basically saw my bullet list.
Most OEMs just read a spec sheet into their ad copy. Apple's first year of apps focused on the features of the phone (not just specs), but after a year, shifted to apps and that's all.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: uh, no... HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price
Nice try. Pulling out a subsidized price. Subsidies, obviously, mask the true price of the phone. The price Apple requires for the device is not the $99 you cite, as you know.
Why would you cite that price, when you are trying to argue the price that Apple sells for?
Apple iPhone 3GS unlocked is unavailable. iPhone 4 16GB unlocked is $649. iPhone 3 is totally gone, as is 2G version.
So far, Apple does not appear to be motivated to offer a cut-rate iPhone. The unsubsidized market price is $650. Anybody honest would admit that is the high end of the market.
Umm... It doesn't look like you and I are debating the same topic...or at least I think you are blurring the lines.
The situation with HP is unique. They have announced they are done with WebOS. There will be no more production once commitments are through. They have no further R&D to do. They are not doing the fire sale through retailers, but mostly direct through twitter and HP website. They have no intention to build market share. The don't intend to make money from the next version, because there won't be one.
Now, I did talk about Amazon in the original article, and in their very different case, they could sell a tablet at cost, and hope to make money on media and app sales. I thank you for pointing out in your prior comment what was already in the original article. However, the current device remains a Kindle, without access to the Android Marketplace, and is not sanctioned as an Android tablet by Google. A tablet that IS would be a different product, and a potential winner.
If you want to haggle back and forth whether the HP cost/unit is $318 or 328 or 338, frankly I don't much care. You're worrying about detail, while misunderstanding the discussion. You are confusing the market exit of HP with the market entry strategy of other tablet makers. You can't act like anyone ever wrote that this is a great long-term tablet roadmap for HP, to which you could reply:
"HP has none [roadmap]. Lose millions. Make it up in volume. Gotta laugh..."
No, I gotta laugh. Read the first damned sentence of the article, way up top. There is no roadmap, there is no road. It's a shutdown.
Re: Re: Re: uh, no... HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price
You make valid points about the SG&A costs, which I don't discuss because of brevity. BoM is considered the hard costs paid to suppliers, and does not include internal SG&A attributed to this single product, which would be impossible for anyone outside HP Corp Finance to determine. For now, $318+ is what we have to work with in terms of marginal cost per unit.
You make invalid points on:
retailer markup - HP can sell direct, as it is with the fire sale, or as Amazon does with Kindle. But it's true that to reach a massive market, retail is important. Direct works for fire sales, but not always.
R&D, $1.2B investment - Sunk cost. Irrelevant. they also recuperate none of this with the fire sale or shuttering the product line.
Next, I suggest that Moore's law will help non iPads. You say it will make them lacking because iPad will have moved on to quad core or the future best-of-breed. However, note that almost nobody pays $1.5k+ for a PC laptop anymore - although $1.5k+ laptops are still available. Turns out that, at a certain point, a quad core i7 laptop is not distinguishably different to the user over than an i3. Intel knows this, which is why they are now focused on changing the features of each generation as well as the clock speed. Are you the kind of guy who will rush out to get a 20MP camera, because you just aren't satisfied with the 3' X 5' poster prints your 10MP is giving you? My point is that, in two years or so, a cheap Android tablet ($200 retail) will give very satisfactory performance to the mass market. Like netbooks ate into laptop sales, these low-end tablets will eat into high-end sales. Will Apple lower their price to match? Perhaps, but their past strategy on the laptop PC side (and smartphone side...so far) does not suggest so. They will protect their margins and own the high end and let the others compete for the commodity market on the low-margin end.
My analysis left gaps because it was brief. But you haven't pointed out anything incorrect in it. Yours, also brief, made errors like not ignoring sunk cost.
"critics shouldn't compare them to iPads which are much more expensive. That's like comparing economy cars to luxury cars, don't make sense"
Disagree. There are few comparisons that are more apples to apples than the TouchPad (or Samsung Tab 10.1, or RIM PlayBook, or Motorola Xoom) vs. the iPad.
Similar form factors, similar hardware, same target market, similar functions. The other OEMs are all basically chasing (and copying) Apple's success. How are these things not suitable for comparison?
"If they're doing another production run on a product they were going to ditch, wouldn't that tell you..."
No. That tells me they had components in the supply chain, manufacturing contracts, and minimum commitments. They will empty the supply chain, and be done.
Sidenote on what I just wrote about their TV ads focusing on the Apps.
Isn't it evident that Apple realizes why they can charge such a $200-250 premium for their products, based on what aspect they choose to promote on the telly?
"Apple hated 3rd party developers for soooo many years"
Yeah. And Apple was AGAINST the idea of an App Store and downloadable apps for the first year of the iPhone. But they learned their lesson, and were able to turn on a dime. That's clever enough. And then their ads immediately began to focus on the apps, not on the phone. Take a look, it's pretty interesting to realize that the phone is not the star of the TV ads, but the app functionality IS.
Yeah. You gotta wonder why they didn't just decide to price the units at cost, $318, and see if they couldn't seed the market that way. Maybe it works, maybe not. But at least you get a shot vs. just killing it.
But WebOS is dead now. HP euthanized it. They can't undo that. It's like Ben Bernanke saying the economy is @#$@. He can't come back the next day and say something to restore confidence.
For once, I'll say that this isn't a topic where economics offers the answer. It's more marketing.
But I stand by the fact that the "fanboi" effect on pricing is not a factor anymore. How many fanboys are there? They are the people in line the first day the iProduct is available. But they are not the ones buying it 3 months later. The Apple products (and I'm not talking about desktops) are being sold to people with NO religion, no loyalty, and no horse in the race. They just like the product.
Fanboys account for the first few days of sales, and they would probably pay much more for "FIRST" bragging rights. In fact, iOS products on eBay always sell at a big premium in the first days.
The Android vs. iOS web comment battles are the exclusive domain of us geeks. The mass market doesn't care, and probably isn't even aware of the epic battle of who-gives-a-shit proportions that takes place online every day.
On the post: The Impossibility Of Google Blocking All Pill Factories From Advertising
Re: Re: Re:
We don't tell the government that "If you can't keep the streets free from crime, then maybe you shouldn't be in the street business." Or that they should just keep hiring enough police until they are able to eliminate crime. Why should Google be held to a higher standard.
And to those who accuse Masnick of fighting Google's battles for them, get a clue. It's not for love of Google. Techdirt has very frequently and consistently fought for immunity for platforms. Section 230 is frequently supported here, and the same debate was made for Craigslist when Attorneys General tried to grandstand about removing crime (hookers) from CL.
We don't hold gun makers responsible for crimes done with guns, we don't hold car makers responsible for car accidents or deliberate collisions, we don't hold gov't responsible for crimes committed on public property, we don't hold banks responsible for robberies committed on their premises. A little consistency (and common sense) suggests that we should not hold web hosts responsible for content posted by others on their platforms.
On the post: France: Copyright Is More Important Than Human Rights
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, self-entitled Americans should not call the kettle black. We roll over, not for foreign aggressors, but for domestic abrogation of our rights. Patriot Act, Protect IP, warrantless wiretaps, retroactive immunity, etc, etc. Hardly a peep from us patriots. We'd much rather watch reality TV and get lathered up about abortion or gay marriage.
The French could teach us something about standing up for our rights. If the gov't there pushes too far, there will be a protest in the Champs Elysees faster than you can say "Jean Valjean". Striking and demonstration has reached the level of national pastime! And that's a good thing.
You can disagree all you want with the things they protest, but you shouldn't argue with their zeal to get involved with their governance. Around here, the only group I see that is as politically engaged is a wacky splinter group that believes Paul Revere rode around to warn the British that "were a comin".
On the post: The Impossibility Of Google Blocking All Pill Factories From Advertising
The Streets Aren't Safe Anymore
When they succeed at stopping all crimes on all streets, that will prove to Google that it is possible to do such a thing, and Google can follow the shining example.
I suggest the gov't call it "THE WAR ON DRUGS", and that we always write it in all-caps to illustrate the magnanimity of it. It should be over in a few weeks, and then won't Google look so silly!!
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
You cite MY accusation of YOU mistakenly conflating two things as evidence that I clumsily conflated two things?
Big Fail.
I probably humored this debate too long. I really just stuck around for the fun of winning a public debate. I won't carry on until you to admit you're wrong. I only need for the written record to show that you are wrong to the average passer by. Mission accomplished. Out.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re:
Derek: "If you want to haggle back and forth whether the HP cost/unit is $318 or 328 or 338, frankly I don't much care. You're worrying about detail, while misunderstanding the discussion. You are confusing the market exit of HP with the market entry strategy of other tablet makers."
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110831/15471715757/hp-tablet-fire-sale- lets-us-put-price-value-strong-development-community.shtml#c667
Yes, there is more to total cost than BoM. Of course. Duh, even. There are some SG&A (selling, general, and administrative) costs involved in getting a product to market...which I admittedly may have failed to calculate. You got me. Busted!! I admit it. Of course, I also wrote this on Sept. 2:
Derek: "You make valid points about the SG&A costs, which I don't discuss because of brevity. BoM is considered the hard costs paid to suppliers, and does not include internal SG&A..."
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20110831/15471715757/hp-tablet-fire-s ale-lets-us-put-price-value-strong-development-community.shtml#c479
If that was your primary point - trying to prove an argument that I have conceded all along - then I'm not sure why we're still here.
Now, are you abandoning your other primary argument? You know, the one that shows you didn't really understand the article, where you wrote:
Michael: "You seemed to argue, however, that the fact that people were willing to spend $250 for a $328/$500 device as proof that they should have tried losing $100/unit to build market share."
Did you manage to find anything I wrote that claims that?
So, at the end of a debate that you lost, you return to a small point that I conceded early on, say it's your primary argument, and declare victory. Good for you.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: Price premium?
Because they do. But actually, most of what I said was not "Apple charges a premium" but that iPad "is a premium product", and customers are willing to pay a premium because of the better app ecosystem, design, and brand.
Premium is also defined as a price above the normal price. The normal price, per my article, is what users actually want to pay for the other tablets, which is proven to be less than $500 by their lackluster sales at $500. iPad sells successfully at $500, other tablets don't - thus, iPad is a premium product.
You wrote that Apple needs to price iPad at $500 "for there to be ANY profitability". You're wrong. They make bundles of profit per unit.
When last reported, Apple made between $208 and $499 PROFIT each, depending on the unit. Need a citation? Here ya go:
http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9150045/Apple_makes_208_on_each_499_iPad
Apparently , since then, they've driven component costs down. Want more recent data, here it is:
http://www.macnn.com/articles/11/07/13/nokia.settlement.may.factor.in.on.july.19.results/
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: Re: Re:
Show me where I did that.
"Or that someone else should do so as an "entry" strategy."
Show me where I did that (other than for Kindle or Nook, noting that they could offer a device at cost and profit on media - a concept that, despite my mention of it, you seem intent on educating me about twice.)
You can't make things up, attribute them to me, and then refute them for a win. Work with the words I actually wrote.
Here's a useful summary:
- Apple easily sells their iPad for $500, others have lackluster sales at the same price
- At $100, HP's TouchPads fly off the shelf
- TouchPad costs about $318
- The market currently values them at around $250 (note that I never even suggest that this means a successful business strategy for any device maker is to sell tablets for $250. Please read better. Just that this is the market-clearing price for TouchPad. It's what the consumers want to pay, NOT what the sellers want to charge.)
- Apple's developer ecosystem offers their tablet a $200-$250 value premium in the customers' eyes, AND there is some value premium attributable to brand and design.
- Thus, for now, "Tablets are Apple's private playground."
- The Nook or Kindle, if done as full Android tablets and priced low enough, stand a chance against iPad.
- It'll take a few years of Moore's law and Android progress to reduce the advantage iPad now enjoys.
You would have to be stoned to interpret that as a green light for any OEM to price their tablet at a loss, and make up the difference in volume.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: Re: Re: I'm not sure you understand...
Oh, man, that's easy. Just look at any ad from any non-Apple CE OEM.I'm not saying these ads are successful, but Apple COULD focus on things like:
- 5 Megapixel Camera
- Photo enhancement software
- 4" AMOLED screen with Gorilla glass
- dual core, 1.9999 GHz!!!
- just pencil thin
- FACEBOOK!!
- 3G, 4G, WiMAX
Here' just have a look:
http://www.samsung.com/global/microsite/galaxys2/html/
What's funny is I typed the bullet list before I searched for that site, and then basically saw my bullet list.
Most OEMs just read a spec sheet into their ad copy. Apple's first year of apps focused on the features of the phone (not just specs), but after a year, shifted to apps and that's all.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: uh, no... HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price
Why would you cite that price, when you are trying to argue the price that Apple sells for?
http://store.apple.com/us/browse/home/shop_iphone/family/iphone?mco=MjEyNTI5NjY
Apple iPhone 3GS unlocked is unavailable. iPhone 4 16GB unlocked is $649. iPhone 3 is totally gone, as is 2G version.
So far, Apple does not appear to be motivated to offer a cut-rate iPhone. The unsubsidized market price is $650. Anybody honest would admit that is the high end of the market.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re:
The situation with HP is unique. They have announced they are done with WebOS. There will be no more production once commitments are through. They have no further R&D to do. They are not doing the fire sale through retailers, but mostly direct through twitter and HP website. They have no intention to build market share. The don't intend to make money from the next version, because there won't be one.
Now, I did talk about Amazon in the original article, and in their very different case, they could sell a tablet at cost, and hope to make money on media and app sales. I thank you for pointing out in your prior comment what was already in the original article. However, the current device remains a Kindle, without access to the Android Marketplace, and is not sanctioned as an Android tablet by Google. A tablet that IS would be a different product, and a potential winner.
If you want to haggle back and forth whether the HP cost/unit is $318 or 328 or 338, frankly I don't much care. You're worrying about detail, while misunderstanding the discussion. You are confusing the market exit of HP with the market entry strategy of other tablet makers. You can't act like anyone ever wrote that this is a great long-term tablet roadmap for HP, to which you could reply:
"HP has none [roadmap]. Lose millions. Make it up in volume. Gotta laugh..."
No, I gotta laugh. Read the first damned sentence of the article, way up top. There is no roadmap, there is no road. It's a shutdown.
On the post: Man Claims Apple Investigators Pretended To Be SF Police In Searching For Lost iPhone Prototype [Updated: Or Not]
Re: LOL
District of Colon
Colonialism, Colony
Space Shuttle Colon
Ivy League College, Colon
Colon River
Colon sportswear.
All in all, highly respected.
...not that it would help as a kid on the playground.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: Re: Re: uh, no... HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price
You make invalid points on:
retailer markup - HP can sell direct, as it is with the fire sale, or as Amazon does with Kindle. But it's true that to reach a massive market, retail is important. Direct works for fire sales, but not always.
R&D, $1.2B investment - Sunk cost. Irrelevant. they also recuperate none of this with the fire sale or shuttering the product line.
Next, I suggest that Moore's law will help non iPads. You say it will make them lacking because iPad will have moved on to quad core or the future best-of-breed. However, note that almost nobody pays $1.5k+ for a PC laptop anymore - although $1.5k+ laptops are still available. Turns out that, at a certain point, a quad core i7 laptop is not distinguishably different to the user over than an i3. Intel knows this, which is why they are now focused on changing the features of each generation as well as the clock speed. Are you the kind of guy who will rush out to get a 20MP camera, because you just aren't satisfied with the 3' X 5' poster prints your 10MP is giving you? My point is that, in two years or so, a cheap Android tablet ($200 retail) will give very satisfactory performance to the mass market. Like netbooks ate into laptop sales, these low-end tablets will eat into high-end sales. Will Apple lower their price to match? Perhaps, but their past strategy on the laptop PC side (and smartphone side...so far) does not suggest so. They will protect their margins and own the high end and let the others compete for the commodity market on the low-margin end.
My analysis left gaps because it was brief. But you haven't pointed out anything incorrect in it. Yours, also brief, made errors like not ignoring sunk cost.
On the post: Are Any Of The Patents Google Got With Motorola Mobility Any Good?
Re: Re: it's a smokescreen
You're right. All in all, the parts of the deal add up to more than $12.5B. It was a good deal.
But, the STRATEGIC value is the patents. That's the motivator.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: uh, no... HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price
However, the high volume of units being sold on eBay creates a liquid market, which tells us that the true market price (on eBay) is around $250.
So let's be sure to read into this at least as much as it deserves.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: Touchpads
Disagree. There are few comparisons that are more apples to apples than the TouchPad (or Samsung Tab 10.1, or RIM PlayBook, or Motorola Xoom) vs. the iPad.
Similar form factors, similar hardware, same target market, similar functions. The other OEMs are all basically chasing (and copying) Apple's success. How are these things not suitable for comparison?
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re:
No. That tells me they had components in the supply chain, manufacturing contracts, and minimum commitments. They will empty the supply chain, and be done.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: Re:
Isn't it evident that Apple realizes why they can charge such a $200-250 premium for their products, based on what aspect they choose to promote on the telly?
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re:
Yeah. And Apple was AGAINST the idea of an App Store and downloadable apps for the first year of the iPhone. But they learned their lesson, and were able to turn on a dime. That's clever enough. And then their ads immediately began to focus on the apps, not on the phone. Take a look, it's pretty interesting to realize that the phone is not the star of the TV ads, but the app functionality IS.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: $250-300
But WebOS is dead now. HP euthanized it. They can't undo that. It's like Ben Bernanke saying the economy is @#$@. He can't come back the next day and say something to restore confidence.
On the post: HP Tablet Fire Sale Lets Us Put A Price On The Value Of A Strong Development Community
Re: I'm not sure you understand...
But I stand by the fact that the "fanboi" effect on pricing is not a factor anymore. How many fanboys are there? They are the people in line the first day the iProduct is available. But they are not the ones buying it 3 months later. The Apple products (and I'm not talking about desktops) are being sold to people with NO religion, no loyalty, and no horse in the race. They just like the product.
Fanboys account for the first few days of sales, and they would probably pay much more for "FIRST" bragging rights. In fact, iOS products on eBay always sell at a big premium in the first days.
The Android vs. iOS web comment battles are the exclusive domain of us geeks. The mass market doesn't care, and probably isn't even aware of the epic battle of who-gives-a-shit proportions that takes place online every day.
Next >>