Nov 22

Does Apple Inspire Greatness In Other Companies?

Posted in: Today's Chili

I’ve always been fascinated by the way Apple is viewed in the technology industry. The company is equally beloved by a massive fanbase that would defend it to its dying days and hated by those who refuse to believe Steve Jobs was really a visionary and Apple products are worth the price.

Because of those differing opinions, it’s been tough for Apple to get an objective evaluation. Those in the company’s quarters cannot possibly believe that Apple would do wrong or hurt any other firm. Those against the iPhone maker can’t possibly see a world where Apple isn’t hurting others.

But perhaps it’s time to peel back all of that and examine, once and for all, if Apple truly is good for the industry. After all, for every product Apple has killed, there have been several others that have cropped up because of the market the company created through its own devices.

So, I pose this question: does Apple actually inspire greatness in other companies?

Those who think so would say that the company’s track record proves their point. When Apple launched its Macintosh computers with a mouse, it became the standard that we all still use today. And when design became Apple’s core product concept, just about everyone else jumped on the bandwagon.

In the music market, Apple might have killed off other media players, but it propped up new business models across the digital-music arena. And if not for the iPhone, there would not have been a Samsung Galaxy S III. The iPad was an inspiration for just about every other tablet we have today.

“If not for Apple, rivals would never have tried”

Oddly, Apple might have found a way through its dominance to inspire other companies. Those firms might not think of an idea first, but they look at what Apple is doing and try their hardest to match it. Sometimes, they succeed and sometimes, they fail. But if not for Apple, they would have never tried.

Then again, there are those who see it another way. Apple’s products are great and all, they might say, but who’s to believe that another company couldn’t have come up with that concept? After all, touchscreens were on their way to the marketplace before Apple delivered it to the mainstream. And although the iPod was most popular, there were several MP3 players that could have filled that void.

For those folks, Apple isn’t necessarily as visionary as the company would have us believe. Instead, the company has found a way to communicate the right message to the marketplace at the right time. Call it luck or call it fate. Either way, Apple’s greatest strength, some say, is its ability to put what’s already been developed into a pretty package.

I guess it’s hard to say which argument is best. The fact is, Apple’s products are wildly popular and there is no debating that. And trying to make the case that something would have happened anyway isn’t always easy. But both points are valid. And they both shed some light on a company that is at once too beloved and too scrutinized.

So, let’s open the floor up to you: does Apple inspire greatness in other companies?


Does Apple Inspire Greatness In Other Companies? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , ,
Nov 17

Sales Mean Nothing: Call of Duty Has Gone Stale

Posted in: Today's Chili

Another year, another November where Activision gets to tout its success with the Call of Duty franchise. This time around, the game company has announced that Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 has generated $500 million on launch day, becoming the company’s biggest opening yet. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 hit $400 million in sales on launch day last year.

As expected, Activision claims that the game’s success is due to its unique gameplay and new takes on a popular gaming genre. And as expected, the millions around the globe that have flocked to game stores have helped the game publisher celebrate.

But those who have actually played the game, as I have, know that something needs to change. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is more of the same. It’s as if Activision has found a way to repackage the same old game, and make customers think each year that the latest offering is so much greater. In reality, it’s a stale franchise operating in an increasingly stale genre.

After breaking Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 out of the box, you quickly realize just how stale the franchise is. We’re presented with familiar characters and tossed into a major battle to get things going. After playing through that level, you’re then thrown into a jungle. The first setpiece battle looks huge and daunting and includes nonstop firing. The jungle level leaves you breathless as you run through the jungle to get away from an advancing force.

Although the setting is different and the name on the game disc is changed, doesn’t that sound like much of what you’ve already done in a Call of Duty game? It’s as if Activision has a big board at headquarters and on that, says that each title must have a few huge battles, a couple sniper levels, and nonstop action. After all, it’s a model that, judging by sales, continues to work exceedingly well.

“The CoD franchise is essentially a bunch of new maps launched annually”

But I’ve had enough. The Call of Duty franchise has become one big, repurposed offering that gets customers to pay too much for what is essentially a bunch of new maps launched annually in November. Sure, there’s a bit of a storyline and the updates to online gaming are nice enough, but are they enough to justify calling the game an entirely new entry into the franchise? As far as I’m concerned, it’s just more of the same.

Where is the innovation? There was a time when the Call of Duty franchise represented all that was great about first-person shooters. Now, it has become what’s wrong with the genre. Each year, we see barely updated games packaged as new titles. And each year, customers flock to stores thinking the new games will deliver as much fun as those before it. In some cases, they might. In others, they might not. But if anything is certain, it’s that customers hoping to get something new and fresh won’t find it.

So, forget about the sales. Call of Duty: Black Ops 2 is the same old take on the same old formula in a $60 package.

It’s just too bad that we’ll continue to get such games as long as so many people buy each new title. After all, why should Activision try to fix something that, judging by sales, isn’t broken?


Sales Mean Nothing: Call of Duty Has Gone Stale is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Nov 15

Why Does the Music Industry Seem to Hate Fairness?

Posted in: Today's Chili

Is it just me or does the music industry really, really hate fairness? For years now, we’ve been hearing about labels trying to limit what we can access on digital stores and musicians holding out on offering their tracks because of the so-called “unfairness” across the Web.

You remember it, right? Apple for years was trying to bring certain record labels into the iTunes fold, but they continued to fight it. And when The Beatles finally (finally!) came to iTunes, it was as if the prior several years spent waiting for the band’s catalog wasn’t necessary.

[Image credit: Freimut]

Now, we’re dealing with a similar issue. Musicians and record labels are teaming up to battle music-streaming providers, like Pandora and Spotify, that want to see their royalty rates cut to match those offered to radio stations. Sounds fair, right? Both industries are playing the same music, and yet, the companies that are online are paying more for the right to offer the tracks to customers. Pandora, among others, wants to level the playing field.

Of course, musicians and the record labels disagree. Rather than cut Pandora’s pricing, they say, all prices should be brought up to those charged to music-streaming companies. That way, the music industry makes out and those of us who want to consumer content are forced to deal with whining music providers that will in some way try to past that cost on to us.

At what point will the music industry realize that battling the digital world won’t work? For years, we heard that digital downloads through peer-to-peer networks would amount to nothing. Napster proved the labels wrong. And when so-called “legitimate” services like iTunes arose, the labels thought they were getting too little for their product and decided to stick with discs. Do me a favor and try to find a CD worth buying today. Hard, huh?

“Once again the music industry chose the wrong side for the dumb hope it will raise more cash”

Now, we’re dealing with streaming. And once again, the music industry has decided to choose the wrong side of history for the hope – the dumb hope – that it will help it raise more cash.

The fact is, fairness is what makes record labels and musicians more money. The more fair the companies are to streaming providers or digital-services companies, the greater their chances of being successful. That’s why betting on iTunes has turned out to be a good idea. That’s also why betting on Pandora should top their lists.

Consumers respond well to companies that actually want to be nice to those service providers they support. Believe it or not, a relationship between record labels and consumers works both ways. And the sooner the music industry tries to give as much as it wants to take, the sooner it can unleash the real value of the entertainment it provides.

So, can we put aside our differences and be fair? Radio stations shouldn’t be charged less than companies like Pandora, and that streaming provider’s rates should be cut. That will result in more usage, more consumers, and yes, more cash for the music industry.

Simple logic and math goes a long way.


Why Does the Music Industry Seem to Hate Fairness? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Nov 12

Should Carl Icahn Really Scare Netflix? Yep.

Posted in: Today's Chili

The drama surrounding Netflix is at a fever pitch. The company, despite stabilizing a bit and seeing its streaming grow, is trying to fend off Carl Icahn, one of the most tech-hungry activist investors out there.

If you haven’t been following the drama, you should know that Carl Icahn recently invested enough cash to take a nearly 10 percent stake in Netflix. Worried that Icahn might have something up his sleeve – you know, like acquiring enough Netflix shares to take control over the company – the streaming provider initiated a poison pill.

That poison pill forces would-be investors to pay an inordinate amount of cash to acquire any more than 10 percent of the company. That results in less desire to investors to buy up shares and thus safeguard Netflix from the possibility of being taken over by an Icahn-like buyer.

Of course, there are always two sides to the story. On one hand, Icahn looks like a mean investor that wants to take control over Netflix without any concern for its future vision and shareholders. To critics, Icahn looks like he’s ready to score a big profit without thinking seriously about Netflix or the service it provides.

However, those in the Icahn camp don’t agree. Icahn believes that Netflix is suffering through some serious issues and to believe that it can continue on this same path without some help is nonsense. Icahn doesn’t want to hurt Netflix; he wants to find ways to help the company. And by doing so, he might make a few bucks.

So, who is right? On one hand, we have a company that is scared to death of Icahn and the power he wields. On the other, we have a man in Carl Icahn that has made a living out of acquiring companies and trying in some way to fix them. Surely they can’t both be right.

“There’s only one party here that’s right”

And they aren’t. The fact is, there is only one party here that is right. And that party is Netflix.

Looking back at Icahn’s history, it’s hard to see why Netflix would truly trust him. Remember back in 2010 when Icahn decided that Take-Two Interactive, creators of the Grand Theft Auto franchise, needed his help? He caused major issues among investors and the board and saw to it that three directors were unseated. He replaced them with his own cronies, including his son.

Icahn has also been a massive thorn in the side at Yahoo. For years, he called on Jerry Yang to be ousted, and thought that the company was being run ineffectively. Under the guise of trying to do what was right, Icahn made Yahoo look worse. And it’s entirely possible that many shareholders sold off Yahoo stock because of it.

Like it or not, Icahn hasn’t become a billionaire by finding really healthy companies and finding ways help them. Over the last several years, especially, Icahn has preyed on companies that need help. And before long, he’s in some way involved in a spat with management.

Does that mean that Icahn is bad guy? Not a chance. Does it mean that he doesn’t know what he’s doing? No. But it does mean that Icahn might be more trouble for Netflix than he’s worth. And to not acknowledge that would be a mistake.


Should Carl Icahn Really Scare Netflix? Yep. is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Nov 10

Does Halo 4 Make Bungie Irrelevant?

Posted in: Today's Chili

Halo 4 has gotten a lot of people talking.

After Microsoft ousted Bungie to take over the Halo franchise, there was rampant speculation over what the future might look like for the world-renowned games. Would they deliver a new experience? Would they follow in Bungie’s footsteps? Would they try to tread new ground?

With Halo 4, we have an answer. Microsoft’s 343 Industries game studio has decided that it wants to take the Halo franchise to new heights with a trilogy that will follow the first one developed by Bungie. A lot was riding on 343 to deliver a worthwhile Halo experience. And so far, it appears the company delivered.

Don’t believe me? According to Metacritic, a site that compiles all game reviews in one spot, Halo 4 has received a Metascore of 87 from critics. Gamers have nearly universally celebrated the game’s graphics and fun. Sales are believed to be strong and could have won the month if not for Call of Duty: Black Ops II. By all measure, Halo 4 is a success.

That success requires us to give credit where it’s due. Bungie should be credited with creating a franchise that so many people across the world enjoy. Microsoft should be credited with understanding how important it is to deliver a high-quality experience. 343 Industries should be credited with carrying the torch bravely and effectively.

“For a long time, fans believed only Bungie could deliver the Halo experience”

But perhaps this saga goes beyond just one good game. The outpouring of love for Halo 4 can’t help but make me think that Bungie is negatively affected here. For a long time, gaming fans believed only Bungie could deliver a gaming experience that players would want. Now, it’s clear that’s not the case. And since Microsoft owns the Halo franchise, with each new launch, Bungie’s inspiration on the game will only be diminished.

Therefore, I have to pose a question I thought I never would: does Halo 4’s success make Bungie irrelevant?

Bungie fans who are displeased with the way Microsoft has treated the company will of course say I’m losing it. But think about it. Gamers responded extremely favorably to the game, despite protests over Bungie’s treatment. In fact, Halo 4 is one of the most popular games on store shelves right now.

So, maybe gamers really don’t care about Bungie or fairness. Perhaps today’s gamer cares most about entertainment value and they couldn’t care less which company is behind a title.

A similar scenario played out with the Call of Duty franchise. After Infinity Ward was left in shambles with the ouster of Jason West and Vince Zampella, the studio’s leaders, some believed that Call of Duty would die. Gamers, those folks said, would never buy a game from a company that, in their minds, treated the brains behind Call of Duty so poorly.

However, since Zampella and West have been gone, Call of Duty has hit new heights. It turns out that West and Zampella mattered little. And now, gamers who play Call of Duty each day rarely think about them.

For the sake of all gamers, I hope Bungie comes back with bigger and better things in the coming years. But for now, I can’t help but wonder if Bungie has been relegated to an afterthought now that Microsoft has staked claim to Halo.


Does Halo 4 Make Bungie Irrelevant? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Nov 07

Does Apple Actually Help Competitors?

Posted in: Today's Chili

Apple is one of the few companies in the technology industry that isn’t viewed the same by the majority of consumers. There are some that view Apple as the greatest company in the world, delivering products and services that no other company can match. To those folks, Apple, and its late co-founder Steve Jobs, are worthy of the highest praise. To other folks, however, Apple is despised.

Those people view Apple as a monolithic bad guy that looks out only for its own interests and couldn’t care less about the average consumer. What’s worse, they say, Apple does whatever it can to hurt competitors to the detriment not only of those companies and their employees, but also consumers.

That argument has always fascinated me. In fact, I’ve always been shocked by the blanket statement that seems to indicate that as soon as Apple enters a market, it kills off any and all competitors. And on the off chance it leaves some scraps for other companies to pick up, they’re forced to beg Apple for whatever is there.

“The only market Apple ever actually dominated was the music player”

But perhaps those critics give Apple too much credit. Sure, Apple is the world’s largest technology company and generates billions of dollars each quarter, but I’d be interested to see folks pluck out too many markets where it has outright killed competitors. From where I sit, the only market that Apple has ever actually dominated to the degree with which its critics say it has is the music-player space. Apple’s iPod was pretty much the product to own.

But elsewhere, I just don’t see what the critics claim is happening. Apple’s iPhone is wildly popular in the smartphone market, but Samsung is now shipping more smartphones than Apple. And together, the companies combine to score over 100 percent of the mobile market’s profits.

Before Apple joined the smartphone market, Samsung had no such luck in that space. Companies like Nokia and Research In Motion dominated the smartphone market in 2007. Today, while those companies have gone by the wayside, others, like Samsung, have taken their spot.

In the tablet space, Apple’s iPad owns about 50 percent of the market, according to IDC, but its market share is on the decline. Meanwhile, companies like Samsung and Google continue to see their shares rise. If Apple is really a competitor killer, how can that happen?

Even in the computer space where Macs are now among the most popular products customers buy, we see the overall market continue to expand. Apple’s success, in other words, has not necessarily hurt the overall state of the industry.

So, is all of the Apple hatred really overblown? Perhaps Apple isn’t the mean, brooding company that everyone thinks. Perhaps Apple is actually helping competitors. After all, Apple brings more customers into markets and in some way that helps every single company competing in that space.

Say what you will about Apple’s other corporate practices, but to say that it’s actually hurting competitors might be a bit of a longshot. In reality, Apple might just be helping them.


Does Apple Actually Help Competitors? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , ,
Nov 04

Why I’m OK with the Death of Consoles

Posted in: Today's Chili

I’ve been a gaming fan my entire life. From the old days of arcades on through to today’s iPhone gaming, I’ve found a way to incorporate video games into my life. Without them, I don’t think I’d feel as entertained as I am right now.

A key component in my video game love over the years has been consoles. From the Nintendo Entertainment System through the Sega Genesis and countless devices that came after, consoles have been the cornerstone of my gaming experience.

[Image credit: jammagames]

For a long time, I believed that consoles were important, necessary elements in gaming. Without them, I reasoned, the gaming business just wouldn’t be the same.

But now I feel differently. Consoles might still be delivering some of the best gaming experiences out there, but I’m just fine with the prospect of them dying off. It’s a grand new world, and I’m not so sure that consoles are as important to capitalizing on that as they were in the past.

I first came to that realization recently, after a report surfaced claiming cable companies are considering launching a digital-delivery video game distribution model that will allow us to play titles without any additional hardware. The controller would either come from the cable companies.

That story made me realize just how unnecessary consoles have become. Sure, they facilitate gaming, but over time, they’re going to become less and less important. After all, with Web speeds increasing and cloud-based delivery gaining a footing, there appears to be a growing chance of consoles losing their importance in the gaming industry.

Of course, we should couch that by saying that the chances of consoles dying anytime soon are slim. For now, we still need hardware to produce outstanding visuals, and with major companies like Microsoft and Sony dominating that space, it seems difficult to fathom the possibility of either company allowing the console market to slip away.

“The Web is our new platform”

However, I do think it’s time we start accepting the reality that eventually, consoles will die. The technology industry is slowly but surely moving towards a model in which we don’t have unnecessary hardware connected to our televisions. The Web is our new platform, and over time, we’ll expect more streaming and cloud-based delivery than we do right now.

Already we’re seeing consumers opt for services that reduce their reliance upon hardware for movies and music. And if history is to be our guide, the video game industry typically follows close behind.

The big question now, though, is when the gaming industry might finally reach a place where consoles are no longer necessary. Current Web speeds are nowhere near where they must be in order to accommodate a Web-only solution. And there is still the issue of storage and the costs associated with that.

But the time is coming. It must. Consoles are great when they launch, but keep us locked in the past after several years. With consoles pushed out of the way, developers won’t be held back by hardware requirements and could enhance the state of gameplay far more rapidly than they are right now.

It might take a decade or more, but I, for one, can’t wait to see consoles go the way of the Dodo.


Why I’m OK with the Death of Consoles is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Oct 28

Why Does Apple Ignore Gaming?

Posted in: Today's Chili

Apple finds itself in an extremely enviable position. For years now, the company has been the envy of companies that wish they could generate billions of dollars each quarter on products that make customers drool. Apple is a special case. And it seems that every market it enters, it’s successful in.

That’s precisely why I’m confused by Apple’s seeming unwillingness to jump into the gaming space.

Apple’s iOS platform is rather interesting. Although Apple didn’t really plan it this way, its mobile operating system has become one of the most popular gaming platforms in the world. For years, customers have been turning to their iPhones, iPads, and iPods to play titles. And with each new hardware improvement, developers have been jumping at the chance to increase the playability (and beauty) of their games.

And yet, Apple has done little to acknowledge that. Each year at the Worldwide Developers Conference, Apple invites game companies on stage to show off their new creations for the latest version of iOS, but Apple has balked at portraying itself as a gaming leader. Instead, it simply wants to allow game developers to succeed on its products without truly mentioning its important involvement.

I think that’s a mistake. Apple has become a gaming company, whether the firm wants to admit it or not. And Apple’s success in mobile gaming could very easily translate to success in the console market.

Think about it: whenever Apple launches hardware, customers flock to buy it. When the company unveiled a new iPad Mini recently, it took only hours before the white version’s initial supply was sold out. The iPhone 5 is still on backorder for some models.

“Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are coasting”

Right now, the gaming space is ripe for Apple’s involvement. Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo are coasting without focusing too much on dramatic improvement. Instead, the companies are content with iterative updates that might be appealing to customers now, but won’t be able to hold up over the long-term. After all, the Wii U can match the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, but can it really be expected to compete with the Xbox 720 and PlayStation 4?

Apple, meanwhile, has the cash and the know-how to do something special in gaming. The company could deliver a console that bests anything Microsoft and Sony might offer in the coming years. And with the billions in cash it has on hand, it wouldn’t take much for Apple to acquire a developer or two and get quality first-party titles onto store shelves.

And yet, Apple ignores gaming. The company seems content to deliver tablets, computers, smartphones, and music players, and couldn’t care less about consoles.

Hopefully things will change. Apple has all of the ingredients to become a leader in the console market. And its brand recognition is second to none. The company should jump into gaming and start putting pressure on the current competitors. After all, why wouldn’t it want to control another multibillion dollar market?


Why Does Apple Ignore Gaming? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , , , ,
Oct 24

Apple hates the Mac Pro, doesn’t it?

Posted in: Today's Chili

Apple’s event on Tuesday was fun. The company offered up a slew of hardware products for consumers to drool over, and it did a fine job of appealing to everyone from mobile customers to computer purchasers.

The iPad mini will undoubtedly be a fan favorite, as will the fourth-generation iPad. The new iMac is downright beautiful with a thinness that has yet to be matched. Even the 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display, which is admittedly expensive, should attract quite a few customers.

But the only part of the market that Apple didn’t touch at its event was the power segment. Apple had products for mobile customers and casual users. But what about those of us who need power and sophistication?

Apple has once again updated its Mac line without once mentioning the Mac Pro. That computer, which is used heavily in the corporate design world, hasn’t been updated in two years. And so far, it’s as if Apple doesn’t really care. In fact, the company has gone out of its way to ignore the computer while it attempts to wow us with its other products.

I’m starting to wonder if Apple hates the Mac Pro. For months now, we’ve been hearing whispers that a new version of the desktop was in the works, only to be disappointed when it goes missing at Apple’s many press events.

According to some reports earlier this year, Apple executives have promised an update. So far, however, there’s been no public explanation for why the computer has been ignored. I’m not saying that Apple has to update the Mac Pro today (though it would be nice), but I do believe that the company should at least provide an explanation.

“Should Mac Pro users ditch Apple and go buy a high-end PC?”

Right now, there are countless Mac Pro users that are stuck with an obsolete computer, not knowing what they need to do. Should they ditch Apple’s product and go buy a high-end PC? Should they wait Apple out to see if it updates the Mac Pro at some point soon? Apple, for some reason, doesn’t want to provide them with an answer.

Not providing them with an answer is a big mistake. Eventually, designers will need more power, and if Apple doesn’t allay some fears soon, they’ll go elsewhere. And when they go elsewhere, they might never come back.

It’s odd to me that the Mac Mini, a product that was largely ignored by Apple for so long, has received more updates in the past couple of years than the Mac Pro. The Mac Mini is a cheap product that likely has a razor-thin margin. The Mac Pro could be a cash cow for Apple.

And yet, here I sit, writing this on a Mac Pro, wondering why Apple doesn’t see things the way I do. Yes, I know Apple is successful and it has made many smart moves, but this time around, I think it’s making a mistake.

Mac Pro users are arguably Apple’s most loyal and trusted fans. They’re buying the company’s most expensive product, and in the past, acted as evangelists when there weren’t that many products worth drooling over. It’s about time Apple shows those folks some respect and delivers a new Mac Pro.


Apple hates the Mac Pro, doesn’t it? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , , , , ,
Oct 23

At What Price Is the iPad Mini A Must-Have?

Posted in: Today's Chili

Apple’s iPad Mini is right around the corner, and as expected, just about everyone is talking about the tablet. What’s more, the device isn’t even on store shelves, but a host of people are saying that they plan to buy the tablet. It’s a fascinating thing. And it speaks to Apple’s ability to attract customers.

But for all of the other people on the fence about the iPad Mini, trying to decide whether to buy the tablet isn’t so simple. Those folks want to see what kind of features the tablet will come with before they make a decision. And chief among those elements in decision-making is the price.

And price is precisely the feature I want to dig into.

For years now, Apple has been offering products that are substantially more expensive than those that its competitors sell. But the iPad Mini is different. The tablet is cheaper than the high-end iPad and other top-of-the-line products. Price is now more of a consideration for Apple. Before, it knew it could offer its tablet at whatever price it’s wanted and moved on. Now, though, it has to find the proper balance.

So, what might that proper balance be? Furthermore, at what price does the iPad Mini become an absolute must-have?

It’s tough to say. But value comes down to price and features. And if the rumors are true, Apple’s tablet will come with a host of features that customers will like, including a 7.85-inch display and solid design. So, from a features perspective, it’ll be hard for customers to put the device down.

But will $400 strike the right value balance to make customers want to buy the top-of-the-line iPad Mini without thinking twice? Some might say yes, since the device is still notably cheaper than its bigger counterpart. However, it’s worth noting that $400 is far more expensive than the Nexus 7, which starts at $199.

So, perhaps the best iPad Mini version would be better at $350. If Apple delivers on the rumors, the company’s product will be much better than those from other vendors. And at just $100 over the Nexus 7’s best model, it seems like prime real estate for Apple.

“There is no chance that Apple will offer its best iPad mini for less than $350”

Chances are, there is no chance that Apple will offer its best iPad Mini for less than $350. As history has shown, Apple likes to price its products higher and make the point that it believes customers will need to pay a premium for the right to have its products.

The question is, will $350 for the top iPad Mini be the right price point for consumers to want to jump at buying the device?

Remember: the iPad Mini is a complement to what’s out there now. If the rumors are true, the iPad Mini will not be able to compete with the better tablets on store shelves. So, Apple will have to deliver something awfully special to make its iPad Mini a worthwhile choice for everyone – current iPad owners and new entrants to the tablet space.

As for me? I’m not sure at what price the iPad Mini would be a must-buy. But I can say for sure there’s one for everyone. And that’s probably why the iPad Mini will come in so many different configurations.

Once again, Apple might just find a way to make the iPad Mini a must-have for everyone.

SlashGear is liveblogging the whole Apple event today – join us at 10AM PT (1PM ET) at live.slashgear.com for all the news!


At What Price Is the iPad Mini A Must-Have? is written by Don Reisinger & originally posted on SlashGear.
© 2005 – 2012, SlashGear. All right reserved.


No Comments | Tags: , , , , , , , ,