I am a title in my own right - but there are people out there who are out to get me
"Still amazed the prices are so high considering what you get in them. Smacks of money grabbing to me."
I think you will find that is the benefit the open PC architecture brought to the table. The modular design has lead to massive competition in component supply with economies of scale helped by standardisation. But the days are numbered for devices where the components rattle around inside a cavernous shell.
Tablets have to be bespoke build, with the main board and shell and many of the components being bespoke build. To get the iPad so thin whilst retaining strength Apple have done lots of design and engineering work. Their competitors also thought the iPad was expensive when it was brought out and on being told the pricing scoffed at Jobs's claim it was competitive. Whether you like or loath Jobs, Apple had been analysing the problem for some time and, so perhaps unsurprisingly, Jobs was proved right. Their competitors were judging the price they could achieve based on their experience in the commoditised, wholesale PC/Laptop Market. The fact Apple's competitors have not been able to better Apple's price, despite in some cases, reportedly running at a loss just to get into the Market, speaks volumes. So no my friend, they aren't money grabbing (Apple, unlike their competitors, are undoubtedly making a healthy margin - though apparently, for strategic reasons - e.g. To build up a leading market share - a fair bit less than their usual mark-up. Their strategy being that through being first and, for now, best, they will reap greater benefit later when, with the extra volume they will achieve, their bespoke component part costs will come down faster than the competitions). The, truth is we, the consumer, are paying the price of the fetish we have for shiny and slim. The moral: if you value cheap, stick with fat and cavernous.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
