Apple sells 3 million new iPads in 3 days

Absolute bullshit.

Seriously. Sony is loosing money on every Vita sold, Nintendo is loosing money on every 3DS sold. The reason why Apple is making such a profit IS because they DO overprice their product.

Nintendo was making, what, 20$ per Wii sold?
 
Seriously. Sony is loosing money on every Vita sold, Nintendo is loosing money on every 3DS sold. The reason why Apple is making such a profit IS because they DO overprice their product.

Nintendo was making, what, 20$ per Wii sold?

Again, a product is only overpriced if people aren't buying it.
 
HP Mini 110. Essentially a small laptop designed for lightweight mobility yet retains productivity. Specs (Note: This was bought in 2009 so obviously new ones are much more powerful). The iPad 2 weighed 1.33 pounds while the Mini 110 weighs 2.89 pounds. While the netbook weights ~2x as much it also is running a Windows 7 32-bit (a full OS) and has a full keyboard which makes it ideal for me to place in my backpack and take notes on in class. Also, I paid only $200 for it so if something terrible happened to it I wouldn't worry nearly as much as if I had a lost/broke/stolen iPad.

i bought a HP DM1Z a year or so ago for Ipad price and i love it. Battery is about 6 hours though but for its size it has plenty of umph !

http://www.shopping.hp.com/webapp/series/category/notebooks/dm1z_series/3/computer_store

doesn't make me not want an ipad mind, but it's my take anywhere XNA/Reason/emu box of delights.
 
Its true, my gaming PC is used to its full extent when I play games (use it as a toy). However, it is also a very effective productivity device. I can obviously run the complete Microsoft Office suit, run any Windows program which is required for a classes, and increased productivity to do homework with the ability to have a large screen to allow for multiple windows open at once. While my PC can be used as a toy, it also has the capability to be used a productive device. Just like any laptop. However, a tablet (especially one such as iOS and Android) is greatly limited in functionality. My $200 netbook can do more then any $500+ tablet except when it comes to gaming, thus me calling them a toy. However, I did not say there is anything wrong with owning a toy (hell, I love tech toys), it is just that I don't see how any of those 3 million iPads sold could be used effectively as anything but a toy.

Why do people get so adamant about these worthless labels like "toy" and "gaming device" that are completely arbitrary and can mean different things to different people? Who cares if you consider it a toy?
 
Why do people get so adamant about these worthless labels like "toy" and "gaming device" that are completely arbitrary and can mean different things to different people? Who cares if you consider it a toy?
Calling the iPad or any tablet a "toy" isn't meant to be a derogatory term. I use it exclusively as a another term to "recreation device". The Kindle is in the same category, as is any gaming console (handheld or stationary). I just find it rather shocking that 3 million of these $500+ "recreational devices" were sold in a 3 day period.
 
According to articles I've seen in the past, it's not bullshit (unless they've been proven false):

Have you ever worked as a retail manager? That's not how it works.

When you buy, say, a phone to sell, you buy it from the manufacturer at full retail price and sell it as you wish. Cell phones come with service. That means that you do not have to sell the phones for profit, as your main revenue comes with the cell service that you sell. Other forms of technology do not have an additional cost that you can fall back on.

Video game consoles do not work that way. When a store sells games or consoles, they split the money with the manufacturer from the start.

For example: Wal-Mart buys PSVitas for probably around half their price, or ~$125. If it costs $150 for Sony to make them, they are losing money on that transaction.

WalMart does not buy Vitas for $250 and sell them for $250. That does not make business sense.

That is why the 3DS only cost $100 to make, yet Nintendo is still losing money on them - they are selling them to retailers for $85.
 
Have you ever worked as a retail manager? That's not how it works.

When you buy, say, a phone to sell, you buy it from the manufacturer at full retail price and sell it as you wish. Cell phones come with service. That means that you do not have to sell the phones for profit, as your main revenue comes with the cell service that you sell. Other forms of technology do not have an additional cost that you can fall back on.

Video game consoles do not work that way. When a store sells games or consoles, they split the money with the manufacturer from the start.

For example: Wal-Mart buys PSVitas for probably around half their price, or ~$125. If it costs $150 for Sony to make them, they are losing money on that transaction.

WalMart does not buy Vitas for $250 and sell them for $250. That does not make business sense.

That is why the 3DS only cost $100 to make, yet Nintendo is still losing money on them - they are selling them to retailers for $85.

BoM don't properly show how much the systems cost to make. Also systems are generally sold to retailers at about the same price as it costs Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft to make them. Retailers make profit off of the software.
 
thanks guys for legitimizating ipad as a gaming platform you have no else to blame than yourselves. your younger self would be disappointed in you.
 
Have you ever worked as a retail manager? That's not how it works.

When you buy, say, a phone to sell, you buy it from the manufacturer at full retail price and sell it as you wish. Cell phones come with service. That means that you do not have to sell the phones for profit, as your main revenue comes with the cell service that you sell. Other forms of technology do not have an additional cost that you can fall back on.

Video game consoles do not work that way. When a store sells games or consoles, they split the money with the manufacturer from the start.

For example: Wal-Mart buys PSVitas for probably around half their price, or ~$125. If it costs $150 for Sony to make them, they are losing money on that transaction.

WalMart does not buy Vitas for $250 and sell them for $250. That does not make business sense.

That is why the 3DS only cost $100 to make, yet Nintendo is still losing money on them - they are selling them to retailers for $85.

Wow someone here doesn't know how the video game industry works. Hardware does not have a significant profit margin for the retailers. It's never worked that way. A console would have a $5 to $10 margin because the retailers make their money on the software not the hardware.
 
BoM don't properly show how much the systems cost to make. Also systems are generally sold to retailers at about the same price as it costs Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft to make them. Retailers make profit off of the software.

I've placed orders for hardware before through a retailer. Not much is bought at full price from a manufacturer.

Wow someone here doesn't know how the video game industry works. Hardware does not have a significant profit margin for the retailers. It's never worked that way. A console would have a $5 to $10 margin because the retailers make their money on the software not the hardware.

This someone was a retail manager at Best Buy who ordered the hardware from the manufacturers.

Don't assume you know things just because you are part of a video game forum.
 
newipadbom.png


http://www.maximumpc.com/article/news/apple_continues_make_huge_margin_new_ipad

Jesus Christ, dat profit. I dare anyone to say they aren't overpricing this goddamn thing.

iSuppli is never a good indicator of overall average cost of a product, since there's other associated costs that need to be taken into consideration, like marketing and whatnot. GAF has gone over this with the cost of the 3DS, and the iPad is no different.
 
iPad does have mass effect for it.

And it plays like crap compared to the console versions.

There is an Uncharted type game Shadow Guardian that plays good for an iOS game and was well reviewed, but it too is dog poo compared to the console Uncharted games. But when you are dealing with iOS games standards are lowered cheap games with cheap thrills that last about a week- the future of gaming has arrived!
 
This someone was a retail manager at Best Buy who ordered the hardware from the manufacturers.

Don't assume you know things just because you are part of a video game forum.

I assume I know things because I've worked in the game industry for 19 years now and worked video game retail before that and was in charge of ordering. Hardware had very little to no profit. Profit was always in software and accessories.
 
I bought an iPad for my wife, a 3DS for my son and a Vita for myself. It works both ways.
Yep.
Friend of mine bought a 3DS on January, Vita on February and an iPad (2) last week.
Loves them all, can't believe that his favorite game this year so far is...Resident Evil: Revelations.

Even Wario, who posted this thread; got a Vita last month. :p
 
um, retailers hardly make any profit whatsoever on consoles OR new games. They only turn a substantial profit from accessories and used games.
 
Yep.
Friend of mine bought a 3DS on January, Vita on February and an iPad (2) last week.
Loves them all, can't believe that his favorite game this year so far is...Resident Evil: Revelations.

Even Wario, who posted this thread; got a Vita last month. :p
Yep, I have no problems with a tablet as a gaming platform.

My family enjoys gaming on the iPad/PlayBook/WP7 just as we love playing games on the 360/PS3/Wii/DS/Vita/etc. There is enough room for both.
 
don't see the problem with that...

you dont see the problem with a highly irrelevant statistic?

the only relevant statistic in regards to gaming and ipads is overall income for games specifically. just like it is on pc. pc has 80 billion computers out there but they make way less than any console overall.
 
um, retailers hardly make any profit whatsoever on consoles OR new games. They only turn a substantial profit from accessories and used games.

Retailers make huge profits off games relative to what they make off the console hardware. Granted there is substantial more profit in used games, but I wouldn't say it's hardly any. A $60 game has roughly a 50% profit margin.
 
you dont see the problem with a highly irrelevant statistic?

the only relevant statistic in regards to gaming and ipads is overall income for games specifically. just like it is on pc. pc has 80 billion computers out there but they make way less than any console overall.

You don't see the problem with highly irrelevant titles?
 
I personally don't consider an iPad a proper gaming system. Yes, it does play games but it's main selling point are not the games. I don't think there are many people who will spend $500+ just to play mini games and games you play in bursts. Of course there is always the exception, like always. I have an iPad and an android, and when I decide to play the games it mainly last 10 minutes and then I get tired of playing it. It's great for wasting small amount of time but I wouldn't be playing 2 hours+ on an iPad or android.

On the other hand I can play Vita/3DS for hours*. Once the iPad gets more serious games (not saying there isn't but that's like what? 2% of the overall games?) and have physical buttons (which I guess defeats the purpose) then I would consider it a proper gaming machine. Of course that's my opinion, there will be others who think differently.

*inbeforevita/3dsbatteryjoke
 
I personally don't consider an iPad a proper gaming system. Yes, it does play games but it's main selling point are not the games. I don't think there are many people who will spend $500+ just to play mini games and games you play in bursts. Of course there is always the exception, like always. I have an iPad and an android, and when I decide to play the games it mainly last 10 minutes and then I get tired of playing it. It's great for wasting small amount of time but I wouldn't be playing 2 hours+ on an iPad or android.

On the other hand I can play Vita/3DS for hours*. Once the iPad gets more serious games (not saying there isn't but that's like what? 2% of the overall games?) and have physical buttons (which I guess defeats the purpose) then I would consider it a proper gaming machine. Of course that's my opinion, there will be others who think differently.

*inbeforevita/3dsbatteryjoke
I was playing the awesome Super Stardust Delta last night - was trophy whoring so was playing some of the mini games. Was thinking the 'rock'n'roll' and 'disc slide' modes would work well on an iphone/ipad as a really cool score attack game - are there any games like that out for iOS? (That are actually good?)
 
It's pretty funny seeing nimrods trying to argue that a device that has perfect ports of DoDonPachi games and Espgaluda II isn't a real gaming device.
 
It's pretty funny seeing nimrods trying to argue that a device that has perfect ports of DoDonPachi games and Espgaluda II isn't a real gaming device.

They play like shit though due to the lack of controller. That alone makes them inferior regardless of the perfect porting. Argue all you want, I am right.
 
I was playing the awesome Super Stardust Delta last night - was trophy whoring so was playing some of the mini games. Was thinking the 'rock'n'roll' and 'disc slide' modes would work well on an iphone/ipad as a really cool score attack game - are there any games like that out for iOS? (That are actually good?)

Meteor Blitz on iOS plays similar to Super Stardust HD, it is not bad by iOS standards.
 
The entire thread is about the iPad.

And yet, there are numerous references to other products.

Your comment to which I responded, as far as I'm aware, was about products in general being considered overpriced when they're not selling in quantity. Except a premium price strategy does not make a product overpriced, since such model isn't intended to move product in large quantity.
 
I still see tablets, especially iPads, as nothing more than expensive toys. I don't see how they can increase productivity in any way a laptop couldn't. And don't think that I am a person who hates technology. I own a custom built gaming PC, a laptop, a netbook, and smart phone. I see tablets as nothing more than just the experience of a smart phone on a large touchscreen but without the productivity offered by a laptop. Windows 8 with the Metro UI helps alleviate this issue some but still think a laptop would be cheaper and more useful in nearly every scenario. The only exception is if you just love playing Angry Birds, using Facebook/Twitter, and reading (non-Flash) webpages. In other words, a toy.

I wonder why they are giving these toys to hospitals

OH NO. NOT THE AIR FORCE TOO!!

Fucking Gorillaz playing angry birds instead of making music for us.

It's a toy only if you want it to be. If you want to be productive with it, it surely beats a netbook by a mile.
 
Ninja Scooter said:
Why do people get so adamant about these worthless labels like "toy" and "gaming device" that are completely arbitrary and can mean different things to different people?
But population at large has a pretty uniform view of toys - they are looked down upon compared to "useful" devices(they are toys, after all), which why Tablets are considered worth their inflated price tags(be it marketing or cognitive dissonance, people have convinced themselves they aren't toys).
 
I'm really confused over how Apple is simply giving gamers more choice is a bad thing.

People think the idea that the Apple will replace Nintendo/Sony in the handheld market is both ludicrous and scary, and would result in less "choice." Whether or not the idea is reasonable or not...
 
Top Bottom