On Fri, 14 May 2010 20:47:41 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 14-5-2010 20:30, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 14:23:49 -0400, Warp wrote:
>> 
>>> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 14 May 2010 19:02:57 +0100, Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>>>> Also... Isn't the iPad like ?7,000 or something?
>>>> Um, no?
>>>> Try doing a google search for iPad prices and see what it really
>>>> costs.
>>>   You see, Andrew has this obsession that anything from Apple is super
>>> expensive, and no amount of evidence is going to change his mind. It's
>>> a futile endeavour.
>> 
>> That anything from anyone is super expensive, for that matter, not just
>> Apple.  cf the earlier discussion about the pricing on Adobe CS5.
> 
> I think his formula is something like: the price of a product when he
> first saw it plus inflation, times the increase in functionality. If the
> product is too new, apply the formula to any other unrelated product of
> the same company.

Perhaps, though my pricing check shows that he's about 10x the actual 
price of the most complex model of iPad (ie, most memory, most network 
options).  That strays into the area of hyperbole pretty quickly.

I mean logically, if it actually were 7000 GBP to buy one, why on Earth 
would anyone consider buying one?  A laptop doesn't cost that much and 
offers a lot more flexibility.  Basic economics says that if Apple priced 
the iPad at that price point, they'd sell about 2 of them because 
everyone else would buy laptops or netbooks.  Hell, a Macbook doesn't 
cost that much (but costs more than an iPad).

> One of the reasons I hate the internet is that before I post something I
> have to do at least the basic research to see if what I say makes sense
> (is there a name for that ?... ... No, I am not going to :p ). Some
> other people seem not to suffer from that.

LOL.

There is a name for it, GIYF.  <j/k>

Jim

Post a reply to this message