Does anyone here have an iPad? Are you satisfied with it? What is it used for?

An iPad is useful for being seen using an iPad. I think tablets are kinda hard to justify right now. The touch screen functionality really is awesome. It's an intuitive way to use a computer. They're more portable than a laptop as well. On the downside, they're a lot less powerful than a laptop while costing quite a bit more.

I'll probably buy a tablet to replace my current smartphone next year, and use bluetooth to make calls. Not an iPad though.

It is useful for Apple to make money out of foolish people.

I have a tablet - but it also makes phone calls, so it usually gets referred to as a smartphone. I also have a portable computer - just one that comes with a physical keyboard, and gets called a netbook.

I think it's very contrived the way that "tablets" are categorised differently to smartphones and netbooks, when these are all variations on the same thing. The fact that you can get netbooks with touchscreens, and tablets with physical keyboards, blurs the distinction even more.

The effect is to make Apple look number one in a market (although even there, they're losing market share I believe, and going downhill). Might as well say that Apple have a 100% share of Ipads... I don't understand why the media give so much hype to tablets, when smartphones have provided us with handheld touchscreen Internet/app devices for about a decade, and we've also have portable computers (not just glorified phones - the Ipad isn't really a computer, unless you count phones, consoles, set-top boxes as computers too) since 2007. Even non-phone tablets were around before (Nokia, Archos - not to mention Apple themselves, with the Ipod Touch).

Of course I know the answer - the media give hype, because it's Apple. It's noteworthy that the immense hype over Apple's tablet/Islate/whatever started before it was even officially announced, let alone released...

ETA: I think it depends on what you want. For me, I'm always going to need a phone, and my Nokia smartphone serves well as a handheld Internet/app device - i.e., a tablet. I see a larger tablet as a disadvantage most of the time, as it just makes it less portable. The only advantage is the larger screen. If I do want to carry something bigger, my Samsung netbook gives me a larger screen, together with physical keyboard, and is an actual computer, whilst still being portable. If I was going to get a tablet as well, it would have to be somewhat smaller than an Ipad (e.g., the various smaller Android ones out there), otherwise I might as well just carry my netbook.

The advantage of a larger tablet is if you don't just want something portable, but you're in a job/situation where you need to use a large handheld device while you're walking around a lot. Note that there are some netbooks/laptops I believe that can convert to "tablet" form factor, with a touchscreen.

To me it's just filling a gap that some people might want filled. Like mdwh said, it's not really revolutionary - it's just a big iPhone. But that's ok, because some people want a big iPhone. They want to have more screen-space and faster response times. If I had an iPad, I would certainly find uses for it, but it's not something I would seek out. I found uses for my smartphone that I never anticipated (it's become my life now), and I'm sure the same would be true if I bought an iPad or other tablet (Samsung Galaxy perhaps?).

For me, I'd just like my smartphone to be less slow, small and crash-prone. It's gotten old now, and like all old technology has become sluggish. Reformatting and starting again didn't help - I need a new, and bigger, phone. But I don't think I'd replace it with a tablet just yet.


P.S. I don't like netbooks - they are too cumbersome. I like that I can hold a tablet or smartphone in my hand, rather than on my lap, and it's still fully functional.

Useful for keeping my wife off my computer!

I'm sure the same would be true if I bought an iPad or other tablet (Samsung Galaxy perhaps?).

I'm doubtful.

I've played around with the Galaxy Tab, and figure I'd have the same response to the ipad as the general sentiment expressed by this review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4225/the-ipad-2-review

I have an iPod (mostly for listening to music/audiobooks in the car) and a powerful laptop. An iPad seems pretty silly, TBH. In a few years you'll probably be able to get a new one for a couple hundred bucks or less.

I wonder how long the touch-screen functionality will last. People still have Apple IIe's from the 80's that work (granted they probably don't use 'em much), I wonder if any touch-screens technology stuff will last as long.

I would have never thought to buy one of these devices, but I won a Kindle in a contest and have been using it ever since. I've moved my magazine subscriptions to it and for $5 I purchased a set of 25 novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs. I had forgotten how much I loved those old Tarzan books and his Pellucidar series. I now have all kinds of reading material to keep me occupied during those awful meetings at work. :lol:

I'm doubtful.

I've played around with the Galaxy Tab, and figure I'd have the same response to the ipad as the general sentiment expressed by this review: http://www.anandtech.com/show/4225/the-ipad-2-review

I don't understand why, with 3g connectivity, the iPad can't be used as a phone via bluetooth. It's stupid things like this that make me boggle with apple products -- we don't want iPads competing with the iPhone, so we'll just remove a capability.

Yes, you can make calls over it, but that's VoIP, no?

Is there a Skype app for the iPad?

Until the iPad can do what my pocket phone does - better - there's no way I'll even consider it.

Here's a link to a review by a guy whose stuff I read (I'm trying to avoid a word that starts with b and ends with g because I hate it):

http://blog.case.edu/singham/2011/03/21/the_ipad_and_me#comments

It seems clear that these tablet devices are going to become as ubiquitous as laptops. The touchscreen will endure, I think, but more importantly I think thimbles* or band-aids* will come to replace keyboards and mouses as the primary interface.

*I just invented those terms, so don't believe a word I said...

In a few years you'll probably be able to get a new one for a couple hundred bucks or less.

I doubt it, they'll only be manufacturing new model ipads at that time.

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/09/ipodtimeline_4.jpg

Ipods dropped in price by nearly half in the first couple years of release, but basically haven't budged in the last eight years.

I don't understand why, with 3g connectivity, the iPad can't be used as a phone via bluetooth. It's stupid things like this that make me boggle with apple products -- we don't want iPads competing with the iPhone, so we'll just remove a capability.

Yes, you can make calls over it, but that's VoIP, no?

Well, that's not as bad as Apple including hardware support for features and forcing users to pay for software updates to enable those features.

For half the price of an ipad, you could buy one of those netbooks with a rotatable screen that functions as a touch-tablet just as well, plus it actually does big-boy computer stuff, and has a keyboard when you want it, but can still be held in hand functioning just as well as an ipad.

Its useful for identifying people I wish to avoid.

I doubt it, they'll only be manufacturing new model ipads at that time.

http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/images/gizmodo/2008/09/ipodtimeline_4.jpg

Ipods dropped in price by nearly half in the first couple years of release, but basically haven't budged in the last eight years.
I meant to say a used one.

I would have never thought to buy one of these devices, but I won a Kindle in a contest and have been using it ever since. I've moved my magazine subscriptions to it and for $5 I purchased a set of 25 novels of Edgar Rice Burroughs. I had forgotten how much I loved those old Tarzan books and his Pellucidar series. I now have all kinds of reading material to keep me occupied during those awful meetings at work. :lol:Well e-readers are a different kettle of fish. They've got paper-like displays, and a battery life of 10s of hours. These do indeed seem cool. The Ipad isn't one of those though, as much as some fans try to spin it as an e-reader. (Of course, you can read books on an LCD display, but that's true of any phone/netbook/tablet/laptop/etc).

If you have an I-Pod touch/I-Phone or a laptop, an I-pad is a complete waste of money..

For half the price of an ipad, you could buy one of those netbooks with a rotatable screen that functions as a touch-tablet just as well, plus it actually does big-boy computer stuff, and has a keyboard when you want it, but can still be held in hand functioning just as well as an ipad.

My brother just bought a netbook and he wish he had bought it before he bought a laptop, since it basically does all that he needs and in a smaller package.

Does anyone see a problem with a lack of physical keyboard? I can't imagine composing a serious paper or document on a screenpad.

It's easier then say an iPhone or iPod-Touch's virtual keyboard as the iPad's is much larger, but it is still a pain to do.

I've had them used in one on one presentations in front of me instead of the presenter carrying and handing me lots of paper. I've also seen it used as a wine menu recently and was very effective in ordering this way.

Sloshing in money it seems Whomp! :P

I got one for my Mom and she uses it as an e-reader, checking emails and surfing the web

I got one for my Mom and she uses it as an e-reader, checking emails and surfing the web

They make for awful ereaders unless you never go outside.

I'd imagine that Ipads would be good for reading newspapers, magazines, web browsing...

But TBH, for the ammount of money it costs, I'd probably just get a notebook instead--same price, nearly the same portability, and much more power as well.

I think a lot of people bought it, and are trying to find uses for it.. often where a better alternative exists.

They make for awful ereaders unless you never go outside.

She only uses it inside and mostly at night

Still waiting for the iMat.

Do they make little tablets/iPods/whatever that connect to the Internet on your wireless modem, and have a keypad instead of a touchscreen? I wouldn't mind having a device like that...I don't want a smartphone and expensive data plan and I hate touchscreens, but it would be cool to look at sites like this with a handheld device.

Do they make little tablets/iPods/whatever that connect to the Internet on your wireless modem, and have a keypad instead of a touchscreen? I wouldn't mind having a device like that...I don't want a smartphone and expensive data plan and I hate touchscreens, but it would be cool to look at sites like this with a handheld device.You could always get a phone with keyboard and wireless on PAYG, and then simply never use it over the phone network.

There are also various small netbooks/tablets than run things like Linux, Android.

iPads are a toy and not a tool. I bought one for the wife a yearish ago and she pretty much just uses it to read the news and show her friends pictures she has. She mostly just surfs the web so she doesn't need to do a lot of typing on it, but I can imagine that it would be mildly annoying.

If you have a chunk of spare change to blow and want a nifty new toy to play around with go for it, but it's very rarely pratical even for entertainment purposes and you can get something equivalent in a netbook for half the price. I'd suggest buying a kindle rather than an iPad. It's a much better use for the technology.

I remember on a SNL Weekend Update that said something along the lines of "Last week Apple released a new product that does stuff their other things already do."

Sky News are currently running a big advertising campaign of how I can apparently watch it on an Ipad - with amazing innovations such as being able to read the items that you choose.

Wow. Just like we were doing 10 years ago or more.

The "On Your Ipad" is like "Best viewed on Internet Explorer" all over again - except at least IE was the mainstream browser (the Ipad is a minority compared with other Internet platforms); and at least the recommendation for IE usually wasn't compulsory - the web was still an open platform, unlike a custom Ipad application.

Its a platform for your favorite apps.

I seen someone carrying an iPad round in one of those big carrying cases... Not only does this make you a prime target of theft, it also makes you look like a knob.

Personally, I think the iPad is intended for those who think a Smartphone lacks functionality, but also believe laptops are too bulky.

Rupert Murdoch spent alot of time promoting the iPad, and you what, I think it is actually a very smart move. After all, the screen's dimensions are just perfect for an electronic newspaper, and it doesn't feature things you won't use anyway when viewing the latest updates. I think the future of tablet computing is to replace magazines and newspaperse.

Note that netbooks and e-readers do this too - it's a shame they don't seem to get anywhere near as much media coverage (netbooks are easier to read on your lap; e-readers have realistic paper-like displays, can be read in sunlight, and have long battery life). What extra functionality does the IPad have over smartphones? (It's bigger - but in practice, it seems like we're getting a whole range of tablet/phone type devices, from tiny slim fit-in-pocket, to large tablet, with everything in between.)

What Murdoch sees is a walled garden, to get people to pay money for things that currently on real computers, people are used to getting for free (i.e., on news websites).

I think using the "tablet" form factor as just something to read off of will be more common when the price is much less (certainly less than netbooks; and cheap enough that buying one as just an extra device isn't a problem for most people). And Apple won't be the ones leading the way on cost. (And if we ever manage to make colour e-ink, I think that will be the real thing that will take off. Nevermind a bulky expensive Ipad, how about something that looks and behaves just like paper, even to the extent of rolling up if desired?)

(I saw someone today reading off a tablet. Whilst walking. If you think people walking whilst watching their phone, paying no attention to their surroundings, is amusing, it was nothing compared to this - he was just walking oblivious to the crowds. Had to hold it with both hands too, so it doesn't seem to work as something easy to use whilst standing, either.)

Honestly I like reading things on my phone. If you look at the width of a column in a newspaper, it's actually exactly the same size as the width of my phone. You don't lose anything by having a portrait-mode, 320x480 screen. Having a larger screen area is good for pictures -- i.e. ad space -- but nobody buys the FT for the pictures.

Much iPad dislike on this thread... Well, I got one recently, when I found that my extremely long commute to work is going to remain a fixture in my life for the foreseeable future. My trusty iPod touch (first generation!) has been a life-saver while commuting, but I wanted something heftier.

The iPad has been fantastic for this. I absolutely hate using a laptop on a train. The iPad is much pleasanter to hold and far more convenient. Yes, it is just a giant iPod touch, but that's precisely what I want on such an occasion, because I'm tired of squinting at that little screen. It's great for reading books on and excellent for watching video. If I want to do some work on it I can just whip out a bluetooth keyboard. But the point is that when I don't want to do that kind of thing - which is most of the time - I don't have a keyboard getting in the way.

Plus it's extremely nice to use at home for casual things such as checking things on the Internet, checking email, looking at news, fly-by moderation on CFC, etc. Also streaming programmes on iPlayer, MSN Video, and similar services. (I hate watching TV on the laptop.) Yes, of course you can do all these things on a netbook. But that's not the point. It's pleasanter and quicker this way. If the "But you can do that on existing technology X" were the be-all and end-all, then we wouldn't have laptops, because you can do all that on a desktop. Laptops found a place because although they couldn't do anything new, they had a more convenient form factor. So does the iPad, though in a less dramatic way. So I'm very happy with it.

(Also, putting it on the piano music stand and playing YouTube boogie tutorials whilst following along on the piano is far, far superior to putting a laptop on a table next to the piano and constantly twisting around. There is no comparison.)

I don't think anyone is saying the Ipad is awful in an absolute sense, just that it's nothing special - there are plenty of other mobile devices around (include devices without keyboards), and which some people here think are better.

(I don't find the keyboard on my netbook gets in the way - plus I don't have to hold my netbook at all, it just sits lightly on my lap.)

If the "But you can do that on existing technology X" were the be-all and end-all, then we wouldn't have laptops, because you can do all that on a desktop. Laptops found a place because although they couldn't do anything new, they had a more convenient form factor. So does the iPad, though in a less dramatic way. So I'm very happy with it.You're counting the Ipad as a unique device in its own category, compared to other categories like netbooks and laptops. It would be like me saying the Samsung N220 Plus is great, then only comparing it to say, phones and desktop computers.

Evidently a lot of people commenting here don't like any kind of tablet, though even if one wanted a tablet, there are other around, from small phones to large sized devices, with everything in between.

Fine, but most of the criticisms seemed to be about the iPad qua tablet rather than as opposed to other tablets, so I responded in kind.

I think a lot of those criticisms would disappear if they weren't priced at $600. If they were priced at $300, then those criticisms wouldn't stick; for $600, you expect a hell of a lot more from a tablet than for $300. There are competitors that sell for $300 that do what the iPad does. I'm happy to agree that there are uses for tablet PCs that sell for $300, but not for a tablet PC that sells for $600.

Indeed. And on the topic of price there is an issue re portable use. One reason for the utility of the netbook is not simply that it is affordable but that it is cheap enough to use in public without looking over your shoulder. £450-£650 for an iPad vis £200-£350 for a netbook puts them in psychologically different leagues in terms of worrying they'll get nicked.

Much iPad dislike on this thread... Well, I got one recently, when I found that my extremely long commute to work is going to remain a fixture in my life for the foreseeable future. My trusty iPod touch (first generation!) has been a life-saver while commuting, but I wanted something heftier.

The iPad has been fantastic for this. I absolutely hate using a laptop on a train. The iPad is much pleasanter to hold and far more convenient. Yes, it is just a giant iPod touch, but that's precisely what I want on such an occasion, because I'm tired of squinting at that little screen. It's great for reading books on and excellent for watching video. If I want to do some work on it I can just whip out a bluetooth keyboard. But the point is that when I don't want to do that kind of thing - which is most of the time - I don't have a keyboard getting in the way.

Plus it's extremely nice to use at home for casual things such as checking things on the Internet, checking email, looking at news, fly-by moderation on CFC, etc. Also streaming programmes on iPlayer, MSN Video, and similar services. (I hate watching TV on the laptop.) Yes, of course you can do all these things on a netbook. But that's not the point. It's pleasanter and quicker this way. If the "But you can do that on existing technology X" were the be-all and end-all, then we wouldn't have laptops, because you can do all that on a desktop. Laptops found a place because although they couldn't do anything new, they had a more convenient form factor. So does the iPad, though in a less dramatic way. So I'm very happy with it.

(Also, putting it on the piano music stand and playing YouTube boogie tutorials whilst following along on the piano is far, far superior to putting a laptop on a table next to the piano and constantly twisting around. There is no comparison.)


I'm slightly confused, why do you hate using a laptop on the train but not the iPad? I find the iPad far too heavy to hold for large amounts of time and needs to be placed on a table just like a laptop. Also, why do you like watching tv on your iPad but not on your laptop?

I think a lot of those criticisms would disappear if they weren't priced at $600. If they were priced at $300, then those criticisms wouldn't stick; for $600, you expect a hell of a lot more from a tablet than for $300. There are competitors that sell for $300 that do what the iPad does. I'm happy to agree that there are uses for tablet PCs that sell for $300, but not for a tablet PC that sells for $600.

I don't believe there's any tablet that cheap that is equal to the iPad. I want something powerful enough to be able to play decent games on it. But also, I'm pleased enough with my iPod touch, which has been extremely reliable and versatile, to want something similar but heftier. It seems to me that in this sort of area it's worth getting the best version one can afford, because whenever I've not done that in the past I've generally come to regret it.

Indeed. And on the topic of price there is an issue re portable use. One reason for the utility of the netbook is not simply that it is affordable but that it is cheap enough to use in public without looking over your shoulder. £450-£650 for an iPad vis £200-£350 for a netbook puts them in psychologically different leagues in terms of worrying they'll get nicked.

This is my instinctive reaction too. When I first got my iPod touch I was reluctant to take it out on the bus. Now, of course, everyone on the bus has something probably more powerful than it. Right now I wouldn't pull out an iPad on the bus, at least not around where I live, but they are so common on the Tube and the train that I'm not bothered.

I'm slightly confused, why do you hate using a laptop on the train but not the iPad? I find the iPad far too heavy to hold for large amounts of time and needs to be placed on a table just like a laptop. Also, why do you like watching tv on your iPad but not on your laptop?

My laptop is not the largest or heaviest kind, but it's still appreciably bulky. And it is hot and whirs loudly and constantly. I just don't like watching things on it. It won't fit on the little tray you get on the train. I have used it on the train before when really forced to and it is not pleasant. The iPad feels fundamentally different (this is an iPad 2 so perhaps it's a bit lighter than the original). I wouldn't hold the iPad up in the air to watch things on it - that would be a bit heavy - but it's easy to rest it on my lap or on the tray while holding it, and it's just pleasant to look at it - and without the heat, bulk, and whirring. Of course some of these issues wouldn't apply to a netbook, but I would rather have the immediacy of a touch screen device and the form of something that I can hold in the same way as a hardback book (plus being able to turn it on and off instantly is a huge bonus in these conditions, even compared to a speedy laptop). I really wouldn't want to read a book on a netbook and one certainly couldn't do so while standing on the Tube.

I don't believe there's any tablet that cheap that is equal to the iPad. I want something powerful enough to be able to play decent games on it. But also, I'm pleased enough with my iPod touch, which has been extremely reliable and versatile, to want something similar but heftier. It seems to me that in this sort of area it's worth getting the best version one can afford, because whenever I've not done that in the past I've generally come to regret it.
You won't get something equivalent to an iPad 2 for $300, but you will easily get something like the first iPad for that price. For $300 you can get something that will do all the things you said in your first post, in addition to playing games.

In any case, even if you couldn't get a device for $300 that did all of those things, my point still stands. I can't see a reason to spend $600 for those features, but I can see a reason to spend $300 for those features. For $600, I expect a lot more than those features. This is entirely independent of whether there are, in fact, devices that do those things at those prices. It was true in 1980, when there were no such devices; it's true now. This is why people are so critical of the iPad, because they simply can't justify spending $600 for doing those things. If it was priced at $300, then those criticisms would disappear.



Here's why there will always be products that are cheaper than Apple's:
With an iPad, as with all Apple products, you are paying a premium for (a) the brand and (b) to get it first. If you break down the price of Apple products into its component costs, the manufacturing cost is absolutely tiny compared to the cost of market research, design, marketing, patents, etc. Competitors who follow Apple's lead don't have to spend anywhere near as much on design and marketing as Apple do, because Apple have already figured out the right form factor most people want, what features most people want, what speed and responsivity most people want, what battery life most people want, what applications most people want, etc etc. Apple have already created a market for tablets, touch-screen phones, etc too (and spent a lot of money in doing so). And they've already sourced and ordered the components, so there are already manufacturers, distributors, etc in place when the next guy comes along (i.e. the manufacturing know-how and technology, and supply chain to support it, is already in place). So Apple's competitors can afford to undercut Apple on price, because they don't have to spend money on any of that stuff -- Apple have already done most of the hard work for them. It's only because of Apple's brand, and its first mover advantage, that it can afford to sell at such inflated prices. The market price of a tablet with the iPad's specifications is always going to be lower than the price that Apple sells at -- that's how Apple makes any money at all.

You won't get something equivalent to an iPad 2 for $300, but you will easily get something like the first iPad for that price. For $300 you can get something that will do all the things you said in your first post, in addition to playing games.

In any case, even if you couldn't get a device for $300 that did all of those things, my point still stands. I can't see a reason to spend $600 for those features, but I can see a reason to spend $300 for those features. For $600, I expect a lot more than those features. This is entirely independent of whether there are, in fact, devices that do those things at those prices. It was true in 1980, when there were no such devices; it's true now. This is why people are so critical of the iPad, because they simply can't justify spending $600 for doing those things. If it was priced at $300, then those criticisms would disappear.

Fair enough, but then you're just talking about perceived value, which isn't really quantifiable. Were the first home computers worth the enormous sums of money they cost, for the feeble computing power they offered (compared to what we have now)? There's no answer to that other than whether people thought they were, which evidently they did, or at least some people did. The same goes for any device. The question What does it do? is answerable, but the question Is it worth the price? is not.

Here's why there will always be products that are cheaper than Apple's:
With an iPad, as with all Apple products, you are paying a premium for (a) the brand and (b) to get it first. If you break down the price of Apple products into its component costs, the manufacturing cost is absolutely tiny compared to the cost of market research, design, marketing, patents, etc. Competitors who follow Apple's lead don't have to spend anywhere near as much on design and marketing as Apple do, because Apple have already figured out the right form factor most people want, what features most people want, what speed and responsivity most people want, what battery life most people want, what applications most people want, etc etc. Apple have already created a market for tablets, touch-screen phones, etc too (and spent a lot of money in doing so). And they've already sourced and ordered the components, so there are already manufacturers, distributors, etc in place when the next guy comes along (i.e. the manufacturing know-how and technology, and supply chain to support it, is already in place). So Apple's competitors can afford to undercut Apple on price, because they don't have to spend money on any of that stuff -- Apple have already done most of the hard work for them. It's only because of Apple's brand, and its first mover advantage, that it can afford to sell at such inflated prices. The market price of a tablet with the iPad's specifications is always going to be lower than the price that Apple sells at -- that's how Apple makes any money at all.

But if that is so, then why do other products which are comparable to the iPad 2 in terms of power and so on - such as the Motorola Xoom - cost more, or at least no less? Those that are cheaper, such as the Advent Vega, are not as powerful. When it comes to tablets, Apple have not done their usual thing of making products that are significantly more expensive than those of their rivals, which is one of the reasons the iPad remains so dominant in the field. The only one I can see that is comparable to the iPad in terms of both power and price is the new Asus Transformer (which I think looks really impressive).

Because most of the things I said in the spoiler about competitors now apply to Apple. Apple doesn't have to create demand for a new class of devices - they've already done that. Apple doesn't have to create a whole new supply chain - they've already done that. The designs for a dual-core device aren't massively different from the design of a single-core device - and they've already done that. The OS? Already done that. Apps? Games? iStore? Already done that. They can afford to price the iPad 2 more competitively now, which is what they're doing. All they've done differently here is added a few tweaks and stuck a dual-core processor instead of a single-core one. Other competitors are basically doing exactly what Apple is doing, so there's no reason why the iPad 2 should cost more than its peers.

Now I'll admit, the price of an iPad 2 is much more competitive than is usual for Apple. I think the main reason is this: Apple always release the 2nd gen of their product lines at the same price points as the 1st gen. By the end of the product's lifecycle, the margin becomes enormous as the device becomes entrenched. They rarely reduce the price over time - instead they just release a slightly better version at the same price. The timing of the release usually still makes the next gen product look overpriced -- however, I suspect they were forced to release the iPad 2 soon enough after the iPad 1 because they didn't want to lose market share to their competitors, who have been eating away at Apple's share of new smartphone sales and Apple doesn't want that happening in the tablet market.

Yes, I agree. But then you can't lay it down as an immutable law that "there will always be products that are cheaper than Apple's", because in cases such as this they are choosing to take advantage of the infrastructure that they've already invested in, as you say.

Well, fair enough, but in all their other products they've priced the next generation higher than their competitors. iPhone, iPod, iMac...

Thankfully my parents who were planning to get one realised that one of the most important websites for my dad (a share price checking site) used flash.. so that was it for the ipad!