Hacker News Reader

Comment by pretoriusB | Hacker News Reader

>At most of their keynotes when they release a new product, they often anchor the minds of the press and buyers. Apple do this by showing a price of £X00 and then saying it's actually much less than that. Look at the transcript of the iPad release: "If you listen to the pundits, we’re going to price it at under $1000, which is code for $999. Up on the screen comes a huge $999 price. Then: "I am thrilled to announce to you that the iPad pricing starts not at $999....but at just $499." The much cheaper price now feels like a bargain. It's an excellent sales technique in action.

Indeed, with 2 caveat:

1) Pundits DID predict a $999 price for the iPad.

2) At $499 not only it REALLY was a bargain, but competitors had a hard time for 2-3 years to offer anything as powerful for the same money. Competiting tablets were in the $699 - $899 range.

View on HN

>1) Pundits DID predict a $999 price for the iPad.

OTOH, other analysts predicted an average selling price of $600. Which is pretty on target.

http://appleinsider.com/articles/09/12/28/apple_seen_selling...

Pundits and analysts on the internet predicting pricing is sort of like monkeys on typewriters producing Shakespeare. I'll maybe concede that the monkey to useful output ratio is a bit different between the two cases.

Agreed, their supply chain management and component agreements were disruptive to the industry. However, that didn't stop them using behavioral nudges to make buyers also think the price was cheap.

The use of the price anchor was great because a) it was regularly published in the press so it couldn't be seen as being too 'salesy' and b) it was significantly higher than the actual price thus the manufacturing price was disruptive and the perceived value (via the price) was disruptive.

Further Reading: Dan Ariely: http://danariely.com/the-books/excerpted-from-chapter-1-%E2%...

>Agreed, their supply chain management and component agreements were disruptive to the industry. However, that didn't stop them using behavioral nudges to make buyers also think the price was cheap.

Apple's competitors also played completely into their hands. Apple's perception in general was that they made relatively expensive hardware that was of good quality and excellent design. They had a reputation of producing premium products at a premium price.

The pricing of the competing tablets played exactly into that perception, and I think that's part of what made the iPad so desirable compared to the more powerful hardware of the Motorola Xoom and others.

1) I'm sure pundits predicted a lot of things. 2) That's nonsense. The only thing the iPad had was its screen, otherwise it was already inferior when it launched. Didn't stop people lapping it up.

The iPad didn't just have a screen, it brought a whole new experience to interacting with a large screen. This was also due to the software behind the screen. Ever try to use a touch screen the size of an iPad before the iPad? It was terrible.

It was more than just an object, it was an experience. It's an experience that other tablet manufacturers and software developers are still trying to get right.

The iPad was inferior for many computing tasks. It made interacting with the internet and a computer feel totally different. It's hard to quantify that in terms of megahertz and ram.

>1) I'm sure pundits predicted a lot of things.

Cheap cop-out. The most widespread prediction was that the iPad would be expensive in the "around $999" region.

2) That's nonsense. The only thing the iPad had was its screen, otherwise it was already inferior when it launched.

Now, that's nonsense, if I ever read one.

For over a year there was no competition to the iPad worth mentioning. Point to anything if you have. Prepare to be ridiculed. Android wasn't even ready for tablets back then.

As others pointed out, you are plain wrong. The can be made (maybe) that new Android tablets are overtaking the iPad in performance. The fact is, Android tablets didn't really exist when the iPad was released, and the few that were on the market were laughably awful (like the original G1 compared to the iPhone).

I recall many were predicting Apple would have a tablet computer, running a touch-enabled version of their desktop OS, not the iPad.

What you call a tablet these days is not what we were looking for as a 'tablet' in 2010. At least, the pricing guesses at the time were based on the idea of a touchscreen netbook of some shape or form.

> 2) At $499 not only it REALLY was a bargain, but competitors had a hard time for 2-3 years to offer anything as powerful for the same money. Competiting tablets were in the $699 - $899 range.

Things that are 'really a bargain' are hard to quantify as such. What do you mean by this?

I believe the poster means:

competitors had a hard time for 2-3 years to offer anything as powerful for the same money. Competiting[sic] tablets were in the $699 - $899 range.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com