I really don't understand this at all. According to iSuppli[1], Apple pays $229.35 in parts and labor to make the low-end iPad. They develop their own operating system, buy incredible amounts of ads, and yet they still have massive profit margins selling iPads for $500.<p>Meanwhile, Motorola and Samsung and other manufacturers get a free operating system and get cellphone carriers to give them a bunch of money to sell the device with a data plan. Yet their devices are $600-$1000, they often have smaller screens, and are (probably) loaded up with crapware. I fail to see why anyone would ever buy something like this, and I fail to see why anyone thinks someone will buy one.<p>Even if no company has a supply chain as good as Apple's (which I have trouble believing, considering how many components are manufactured by Toshiba and Samsung, for instance) and they need to pay an additional 20% for parts, they could still make the same device, sell it for slightly less and still make plenty of money.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Mid-RangeiPadtoGenerateMaximumProfitsforApple,iSuppliEstimates.aspx" rel="nofollow">http://www.isuppli.com/Teardowns/News/Pages/Mid-RangeiPadtoG...</a>
I think the products that compete with iphones and ipads point to a fundamental shift in how Apple do things these days: Apple now compete on price.<p>I'm not saying they've given up on their high margins on everything policy. Like other commenters have said, they probably use purchasing power to make up the difference, but they are using price nonetheless.<p>We're so used to Apple being the premium option that we keep on being surprised that they aren't being beaten on price and then assume it's temporary. Well, it's several years into iphone and they aren't the macbooks off mobile phones yet. You actually need to pay for a non Apple alternative.<p>They still feel like the premium option though so it seems just silly to pay a $100 premium for the non-apple alternative, like paying a premium for an ipod knock-off.<p>It's quite a strategy. Build a company around products need to command a premium. Then remove the constraint. It's like having a runner run with stones in his pocket all his life then suddenly remove them.
... and you have to purchase a data plan before you can use WiFi.<p>The iPad is still the only tablet in the history of personal computing that makes any sense.
This is the practical downside of being too cozy with carriers. A cheaper wifi-only model would be great for consumers but cuts the carriers out of the loop entirely. Probably the same reason there's no 'iPod Touch killer' out there yet. All these companies are in the business of selling equipment to carriers. What the consumer wants is a secondary consideration at best.
This seems pretty crazy, as the comparable iPad (16GB WiFi+3G) retails for $630. It will also be difficult to build up a large install base without a cheaper, wifi-only model. And while at the moment the Xoom has some features the iPad does not (cameras, for example) the inevitable release of a new iPad in a couple months will no doubt erase that advantage, at the same (or lower, per GB) price.<p>I can't imagine what Motorola/Verizon were thinking. They're not going to sell more than a few of these without lowering the price drastically.<p>Edit: Oops, I misread the ad as saying it had 16GB storage. The more reasonable price comparison is then the 32GB iPad, which is $730. More reasonable, but still too much (especially given that you must sign up for a very expensive data plan to even use WiFi).
Times have really changed when the knock-offs cost more than the real thing...<p>Someone just needs to figure out how to install Android or Chrome OS on an iPad, and it will be the tablet without any compromises.
I'm a huge Android fan and while I would buy a laptop from Apple I wouldn't touch an iOS device due to disagreement over how the Market is handled.<p>However it doesn't take an Apple fanboi to know this pricing is horrid.<p>This isn't a laptop. People are not going to shop around on specs. $800 vs $500 for similar functionality is fscking retarded, especially when the $500 device is from the BMW of computers.
This will bomb really badly. I am simply in awe at how far ahead of the competition Apple remains after all these years. I would have thought eventually the smartphone and especially the mp3 player market would've normalized by now but Apple is now telescoping their lead. By the time the iPad 2 ships every Android tablet not even on the market yet will be obsolete by an entire generation.
I am especially bothered by the Verizon details here. First off, how can they prohibit WiFi use? Second, it seems like the Xoom is unavailable in Canada, if it really is Verizon-locked. Ouch and ouch.
I suppose now would be a bad time to mention Viewsonic's G-Tablet which has a Tegra 2 chip (just like the XOOM), a 10" display (not quite as nice as the XOOM's), and 16 gigs of RAM for a bit under $400? :-)
i think a big question is how much is B&N losing on each nook color sale? 7 inch IPS panel with a decent processor.<p>10 inch tabets over $300 don't make any sense to me. archos 70 and 101 seem like the only sane products for the casual computing market that doesnt already have an ipad.
I am sorry Moto, this would not fly. Too expensive. I am just pissed to think I have told everyone around to wait for it. The next iPad will have all this features at a far better price.
I have to give it to Steve Jobs. They certainly had a better iPad but decided to release something slightly basic first at an awesome price point, make loads of profit then have the ability to match the specs of the new comers who will think they can better the iPad1 specswise
$800?<p>And if you read the subtext of the picture carefully, it says, "To activate WiFi functionality on this device, a minimum of 1 month data subscription is required."<p>My god, is it rude to just point and laugh?