Comment by polshaw | Hacker News Reader

Comment by polshaw | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I hope you are aware that apple does this too (and far better). I say this because I wouldn't see this type of post after an apple keynote. They are MASTERS of setting the conversation points.

Take the iPhone4 launch. A new phone with a slightly higher resolution screen, but significantly smaller than the existing competition. Their framing, with retina branding, switched the existing conversation from screen size, not to resolution even (where apple had a minor lead, that would be soon overtaken) to PPI! There was almost no discussion of PPI before this. Apple competitors were now framed as 'worse' if they included a screen with the same resolution but bigger! Insane!

Now fast-forward to 2012, and we have a new iPad marketed as 35% bigger screen (again they have found a metric that maximises the difference, which would normally be framed as the 7" vs 7.9"), no mention of resolution.

Apple would never even show a competitor on their site, because they are the market leader.. but see Mac vs PC for what happens when they are not.

"Apple would never even show a competitor on their site, because they are the market leader.." - One thing that struck me from the iPad Mini announcement was just how much time they spent comparing it to the competition - a sure sign that they really do think there is competition now. Then they disappoint on the iPad numbers in their latest earnings - chalk that up to people waiting for iPad Mini's but that seems like only half the story - and I think we've got a real interesting battle on our hands.

I wonder if Google was brilliant or lucky pricing the Nexus 7 at $199. They created this dilemma for Apple. They can't have the Mini cannabalize the more profitable iPad (the % of which must increase measurably by every $20 price differential) so they can't get close to $199. Amazon and Google smell blood in the water. iOS and the ecosystem is clearly superior to its Android brethren right now. However, a 65% premium for a device many acknowledge is a web surfer/facebook/email checker feels too rich. These guys will get a solid toehold in the market and in 2 - 3 years from now there will be an S III equivalent to the larger iPad's.

"Amazon and Google smell blood in the water."

Apple made itself vulnerable to this sort of attack by basing building so much of their recent advertising campaigns upon display specifications - i.e. retina.

By focusing on something which is easily (and perhaps misleadinly) reduced to numbers, pixels, they have opened the way to the sort of simple value proposition Amazon's page suggests.

The "brilliant" part was convincing people it was $199, whereas in fact it's pretty close to $250 after shipping. I ended up buying a 16GB model ($275 including shipping) because the price difference was so small.

Though now with the 32GB at the old 16GB price it's an even better deal, advertised at $249 or $275 in the end, either way it's a great price.

Edit: Wait, you say the 8GB $199 is close to $250 after shipping, but the 16GB is $275 including shipping? Which is it? Either shipping is close to $50 or $25 exactly. Seems like you are trying to stretch the facts to justify your purchase.

I hope he explains, I am having a hard time just now trying to find how someone would be able to spend $50 on shipping unless they were wanting to overnight it.

I did notice that as of today 10/29 Nexus 7 prices/configurations have been updated, so it is now 16GB for $199 or the new 32GB for $249. The 8GB model is discontinued.

When I bought it (at launch) the 8GB model was just under $250 including shipping, and the 16GB model was $275. (I checked my receipt.) The prices have changed somewhat since then.

In any event, the $199 price struck me as highly misleading at the time.

I have the 8 GB Nexus 7 and I bought it at launch. I just checked and the total price I paid (device + shipping + tax) came to $230.03. I don't remember which delivery method I chose, perhaps you chose an expedited shipping option?

$230 is closer to $250 than $200. Memory plays tricks so probably that was the figure I baulked at.

And note that I paid $26.44 shipping + tax on a $249 base price, so somehow my shipping was significantly cheaper than yours.

You can visit a local retail store to buy it for $199 with no shipping costs.

Where does the extra $50 go for shipping?

I don't recall the details. It's not just shipping -- unlike Amazon, Google actually charges sales tax (not a criticism of Google btw -- I think Amazon's sales tax advantage is horribly unfair to other retailers). For the model I eventually did buy (16GB, which was at that time the top-of-the-line) I paid about $25 in shipping and tax.

What I can verify is that I paid $275.44 for a "$249" 16GB Nexus 7 whereas a Kindle Fire HD would actually be $199.

Google (nor does Amazon) "charge" sales tax. They collect sales tax on behalf of the state.

Like other businesses, Amazon collects sales tax in states where it has a physical presence (which is a probably a different list of states than for Google). For example, New York State residents pay sales tax on Amazon.

Thanks for clarifying that.

It's amazing that a complete computer with screen and a multitouch interface sells for $275 or $199. $200 is how much a couple people can easily spend in one day at Disneyworld, or the price of a night at a decent hotel and a couple restaurant meals.

I've been a Mac user going back to a Lombard Macbook and I remember when Apple used to really go on the attack against PC's before they switched to Intel. Examples are: Toasting the Pentium II: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zE6aKeK61A4 and Pentium II Snail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ExNQ3iFhXc

During the Keynotes when Steve Jobs would show off the computers they'd run their Photoshop or really large Excel file tests to show just powerful their chips were. If I remember right, all of those tests were highly selective. For most regular computing tasks, I felt like PC's were faster.

In marketing, if you're in second place it doesn't hurt many times to attack first place. In the consumers minds, you're putting yourself on similar footing to the first place contender and then getting to highlight specific differences that make whatever case you want.

It many not be elegant but Amazon's promotions and Samsung's recent phone ads do illustrate differences between the products. They may not be the most important differences to a lot of people but the burden is on Apple to show that, not on competitors to follow a vague sense of fairness.

You are absolutely correct. Apple has time and time again poked fun at, snubbed nose at, or just plain put down competitors devices that they considered "sucky". When it comes to advertising, there is no notion of fair. I say this as someone who only has Apple electronics in the house. And frankly, who didn't think the Mac & PC commercials weren't a little funny?

I don't particularly take offense at the Amazon ad. When it comes down to it, people will only care about the Kindle for the price. It's already shown to be slow and Amazon has some weird data collection/spying things that have popped up with Silk (although most people will not care about this). Apple will never beat anyone on price and they don't care about this.

If you care about how things are made, the quality of the OS, etc (the usual thing's Apple sells products on), then the extra $100+ for the market leader won't be an issue. Again, Apple knows this and they consistently state that they're not interested in the bottom of the barrel. And anyways, Apple can't win in the low price points, Android has that market wrapped up.

So, I think it's good that Amazon has this. They've taken a page outta Apple's play book. And if anything, all this pressure might force Apple to drop to $299. They've reduced prices before, but somehow, at this point in time with their dominance, I doubt they will. They have enough cash in the bank to allow the Mini to flop if it has to...

There has always been selective fudging and use of benchmarks but these days Apple is not afraid to lie openly.

For example, the iPhone 5 was launched as the world's thinnest smartphone, but it wasn't true. Ask any owner or reviewer of the Fujitsu Arrow.

I agree that Apple is great at marketing, but I also don't think that there is any lack of criticism/analysis online. I actually felt that they even failed to set the conversation point with the iPad mini - I have not seen one excited person on the internet, yet many comments complaining about the lack of a Retina screen.

Speaking of aggressive runner-ups, it will be interesting to see how Samsung behaves in the future. Right now, they are still at the "Mac vs PC" stage.[1][2] And they're highly effective too - they've pushed the Note form factor from ridicule into the mainstream. Are they too big already to launch another comparative ad campaign?

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nf5-Prx19ZM, [2] http://www.droid-life.com/2012/09/17/this-full-page-galaxy-s...

Good point on the Mac vs PC part.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com