Recommended Posts

Nothing like that, it costs more because the sheep will pay the ripoff prices while the rest of us laugh at them

Leave it to you to throw out common sense and reason just to blame it on the sheep. Maybe one day you'll work through whatever insecurity issue that you're having and realize that Apple is a for profit company in it to make money (GO CAPITALISM!), and that a good chunk of people buy their stuff because they personally think it's worth it. That's not up for you to decide, and the only person who you should be laughing at is yourself.

  • Like 2

We'd really need a comparison of the Fire and other tablets to see if it's a fair price or not. My assumption was that Amazon sells those at a loss.

According to iSuppli ...

FireHD $201.70

Nexus 7 $152

Why the iPad mini doesn't sell for $199. Simple, Apple wants > $100 profit per sale.

I saw the iPad Mini at BestBuy. I put it side by side with the Nexus and the Kindle HD and the Mini has more screen real estate than the others. It is way lighter also. It is well built. The screen is absolutely gorgeous, but so is the Kindles. In terms of UI speeds, the others are faster but Apple didn't do a bad job with the Mini.

According to iSuppli ...

FireHD $201.70

Nexus 7 $152

Why the iPad mini doesn't sell for $199. Simple, Apple wants > $100 profit per sale.

Yes. They are greedy so they must make those big bucks to play their executive's big fat checks.

I wonder if there will ever be an Apple discussion thread where people aren't frothing at the mouth to point out how every single Apple customer is a "sheep" and clearly incapable of rationally selecting a tech product based on their needs and requirements.

And I'm also curious to know what makes Apple the bad guy, but other tech companies (such as Microsoft) the poor underdog, who deserve your vociferous support.

Tech fanboyism really is baffling.

  • Like 4

According to iSuppli ...

FireHD $201.70

Nexus 7 $152

Why the iPad mini doesn't sell for $199. Simple, Apple wants > $100 profit per sale.

Apple has physical stores they own and employees they pay working in them, while Google and Amazon don't.

It's also been established that Amazon sells the Fire under the assumption that people will either subscribe to Prime or buy things through their store.

Leave it to you to throw out common sense and reason just to blame it on the sheep. Maybe one day you'll work through whatever insecurity issue that you're having and realize that Apple is a for profit company in it to make money (GO CAPITALISM!), and that a good chunk of people buy their stuff because they personally think it's worth it. That's not up for you to decide, and the only person who you should be laughing at is yourself.

As a SMART capitalist I will buy whatever device gives me the vest all around bang for the buck, so far Apple has always fell short of that, as much as I'd like to own a MacBook or an iMac, it just doesn't make good money sense to pay the Apple tax, but that's me and each person is different when spending their money, Capitalism at it's best

Apple has physical stores they own and employees they pay working in them, while Google and Amazon don't.

It's also been established that Amazon sells the Fire under the assumption that people will either subscribe to Prime or buy things through their store.

While I understand that Apple does have stores and employees to pay, they must also understand that the competition is there and its getting better and better and in order to complete with them, you must either price your product at the same price as the competition or lower, not higher. I rather take a $50.00 and sell 10 million units rather than take a $100.00 and only sell 3 million.

While I understand that Apple does have stores and employees to pay, they must also understand that the competition is there and its getting better and better and in order to complete with them, you must either price your product at the same price as the competition or lower, not higher. I rather take a $50.00 and sell 10 million units rather than take a $100.00 and only sell 3 million.

Apple has never done this, nor will they ever. Also, competing for the bottom dollar is not a sound business practice. Ask Dell or HP or Gateway how they're doing these days.

  • Like 1

Apple has never done this, nor will they ever. Also, competing for the bottom dollar is not a sound business practice. Ask Dell or HP or Gateway how they're doing these days.

$250.00 would have been a much more fair price rather than $329.00, don't you think? In order to compete in this tablet world we have now, you must make sacrifices some times and I am sure that selling that iPad Mini for $250.00 was not going to hurt Apple's Ego.

$250.00 would have been a much more fair price rather than $329.00, don't you think? In order to compete in this tablet world we have now, you must make sacrifices some times and I am sure that selling that iPad Mini for $250.00 was not going to hurt Apple's Ego.

No offense, but I'm pretty sure Apple thought about this longer than you did.

Wondering why Apple latest toy doesn't sell cheap? Here's why:

http://www.cultofmac...t-sell-for-199/

It's really very simple. As long as people still continue to pay the price they set, there is no reason for them to price it any lower.

No offense, but I'm pretty sure Apple thought about this longer than you did.

Imagine if Apple had peopel whose job it was to analyse the market and product supply and demand and create a graph that showed at what price the product would earn them the most money, based on price and number of sales at that price.

;)

Yeah, Apple pretty much got this figured out, they also have no interest in selling the dveice to cheap, even if a lower price would earn them more, they might not want to. it makes the device less desireable.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • I've been on Deezer for over a decade, but glad that Tidal joined them in fighting AI slop. Can't stand such takes as Spotify's: "Spotify's CEO recently pushed back against listeners who call AI music "slop," urging people to stop using the term and instead embrace the creative potential of AI music."
    • “Could” … in the IS the healthcare is run by insurance companies that make indecent profits denying basic treatments to people that are paying money for nothing. Besides, where are all the Trump epigones who were stating that the tariffs were going to paid by foreign companies and not the US citizens? …
    • Microsoft Teams gets smarter at spotting sneaky meeting bots by Usama Jawad Microsoft Teams is set to receive a couple of new features soon, including a dedicated Recap app and a rather controversial location tracking functionality. The Redmond tech giant has also explained how it has made online communication and collaboration a lot more performant this year. Now, the company has detailed more secure bot admission mechanisms, as first reported by us in March 2026, and now available in Teams. As the use of AI has expanded across enterprise environments, Microsoft has begun allowing users to integrate bots into their meetings for various tasks, such as note-taking. While this has a tangible productivity benefit for users, Microsoft has highlighted how misconfiguration has allowed bots to join meetings that they shouldn't. This has created security and privacy risks, which Microsoft is now combating using a new Teams admin policy that allows organizers to control how external bots access meetings. Admins can leverage a policy called Manage external bots and their access to meetings. The default configuration is "When detected, require approval before joining", which places detected bots in a lobby before they are explicitly admitted into the meeting. The other option disables the experience. Microsoft has also requested admins to only allow organizers and co-organizers to manage access to a meeting, so that other people don't randomly allow bots into meetings. Teams will now be able to leverage infrastructure signals to intelligently detect and distinguish between bots and humans. Microsoft will soon also trial a registration experience for independent software vendors (ISVs) to build a system that registers a bot with Microsoft, so it is marked as a "known" bot. Teams will also categorize bots as trusted and suspected threats so that organizers can quickly identify which bots they want to allow into a meeting. Additional safeguards to block accidental admission of a bot into a meeting include: No one-click Admit option for identified bots Confirmation prompts when admitting participants that include bots Warnings when organizers choose Admit all, and bots are included Microsoft has begun rolling out this experience, and it will be retiring the current CAPTCHA verification implementation. In the future, the company plans to roll out new capabilities like allow-lists, organization-wide policies, admin reports, audit logs, and more granular controls.
    • With the current hardware prices Microsoft should lift the restriction. Then if you have the correct TPM then allow you to use X feature, if you don't have the correct TPM then don't but still actually let you run windows. 11. With a disclaimer during install that X features would be unavailable.
    • It's good for recycling of course. But commence inflation of a second hand RAM bubble and price gouging on DDR 4 inventory in 3... 2... 1...
  • Recent Achievements

    • Reacting Well
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • Week One Done
      NovaEdgeX earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • One Year In
      BA the Curmudgeon earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Conversation Starter
      rosiecharles earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • First Post
      KMilenkoski1202 earned a badge
      First Post
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      538
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      266
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      151
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      98
    5. 5
      macoman
      66
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!