Pretty impressive results. John Poole, founder of Primate Labs, shared these thoughts:
The iPad Air’s A7 processor is running at 1.4 GHz, 100 MHz faster than the iPhone 5s’ A7 processor. It’s not clear if the iPad Air processor runs at a higher speed thanks to a larger battery (providing more power), a larger chassis (providing better cooling), or some combination of the two. I expect the new iPad mini’s A7 processor will run at 1.4 GHz as well.
The iPad Air is over 80% faster than the iPad (4th Generation), close to the 2x increase promised by Apple.
The iPad Air is over 5x faster than the iPad 2, yet is only $100 more expensive. I do not understand why Apple kept the iPad 2 around, especially at a $399 price point. What market are they targeting?
I’m certain they are targeting customers, such as schools, that have heavily invested into 30-pin accessories (mostly sensors of various sorts). I know a friend with kids in high school. The science department has invested pretty deeply into various sensors that use the 30-pin port to use in the classroom.
Most accountants would be very upset if they had to budget for a complete re-buy of all that tech before they at least get 5 years out of it. The iPad 2 will hang around for those customers for probably about 3-4 more years for that reason.
Schools and fixed-station point-of-sale.
margins on the iPad 2’s are probably quite cozy at this point as well.
This isn’t rocket science – price and screen size are big selling points for some people. The iPad 2 is the least expensive iPad with a “big” screen. Some people don’t care about retina screen and CPU speed. They probably should, but they simply don’t.
especially with 16GB storage as the base model.
I really don’t understand why so many smart people are confused by this move by Apple. it seems quite logical and straight forward.
Two of the three markets they are serving with this product expects bulk/education/government preferred pricing so keeping this high margin product around and not dropping the price ensures some nice profits. Education and Government want to spend money on what is considered a quality product that will be secure and last for years to come, but still needing to go for the cheapest product possible because they need to answer to tax payers.
Also, Apple likes to create obvious product difference in their product families. Keeping the iPad 2 around helps create a specific compromise for the consumer to easily make a choice between. The iPad 2 (non-retina, slower, bulkier) and the iPad Air (retina, fast, more portable). Removing the iPad 2 and replacing it with an iPad 4 creates a hard purchasing decision for the consumer, iPad 4 (retina, fast, bulky) vs iPad Air (retina, faster, slim). It makes it much harder for a consumer to justify the extra $100.
it is like the iPod family.
* shuffle (low cost, low storage, no screen, has a clip)
* nano (mid-level cost, medium storage, has screen)
* classic (mid-level cost, huge storage, has screen)
* Touch ( mid/high level expense, medium/large storage, has screen, camera, games, internet).
The iPad 2 is there to make the new ones look better and get customers to pay $100 more for the new one. It is for comparison purposes; comparison with their own devices and with the competition. The Android tablets go for $300 to $400. Customers say “look it’s $399 and prettier than the Android one… but for only $100 more I’ll get the new one since it’s so much better.” This is a simplistic example, but the point is clear.
And, of course, for enterprises who buy large quantities. The iPad 2 has a large profit margin, so why put better hardware for the same price if that’s not its selling point.
There are a lot of marketing strategies for everything such large companies do — every hardware decision, every placement choice — involving hundreds of statistics.