[podperson]

Digitimes is completely worthless as a source of info on Apple. (They're right sometimes insofar as a stopped watch is right twice a day.)

That said:

1. Apple is pointedly not afraid of cannibalizing its own markets.

2. Apple is pointedly thinking in terms of "the Mac should respond to the iPad as a competitor" and this basically puts the iPad + keyboard case directly in competition with the Macbook Air (expect the SSD capacity of the Air to be reduced or the iPad to increase -- no way a 64GB Air sells for the same price as a 64GB iPad).

3. Now that the Mac is decidedly not central to Apple's revenues, expect Apple to rethink its Mac pricing in (to competitors) scary ways. Apple can afford to license its OS to third parties, and/or replace the Mac Pro with a dongle-based OS X license (buy whatever beastly workstation you want, and install Mac OS X Workstation Edition on it).

4. Apple really has no-one to compete with but itself at this point. Its competitors are a joke.

[toadkick]

Yeah, Digitimes is notorious for being completely wrong about Apple's plans.

#1 and #2 are fair points, in light of the fact that the iPhone completely cannibalized the iPod market. But, the amazing iPod sales weren't going to continue forever, and I think Apple just took the next logical step when they released the iPhone.

As you mentioned, an $800 MB Air would be in iPad + Keyboard/other accessory price range territory, which could certainly cannibalize iPad sales. But in this case it doesn't make much sense to cannibalize the still young and very profitable iPad market with a product that has been around much longer, has historically had low market share, and doesn't have the same "new and cool" factor.

#3 I don't see happening as long as Apple still intends to sell Macs, because that would dilute one of the things that makes a Mac a Mac (the combination of the hardware + Mac OS X), and they've fought pretty hard to keep Mac OS off of other machines.

[netcan]

I would add another point to that. Until a few years ago Apple built relatively expensive products and tried to make them good enough that buyers would want them enough to pay more. With Macs and to some extent with iPods that let Apple collect a nice big share of the market's profits, but not much of the marketshare.

Now, they've learned to make products price competitive without sacrificing quality or much of their profits. iPhones and iPads are not a more expensive option. They stay well away from the low end, but they are not expensive relative to the competing products especially those with similar specs.

Thats a whole other kind of strategy ('penetration' they called it at Uni) and maybe they're bringing it to the mac.

[jsnell]

iPhones clearly are a more expensive option. It's just that in some markets the cost difference is hidden from the final customers, with the operator eating the difference. An unlocked 3GS (three years old!) costs about as much as an unlocked Galaxy Nexus.

Now, clearly some people place enough value on iOS that they're willing to pay the comparatively expensive prices (or move to another carrier that subsidizes the iPhone sufficiently). Good for them. And good for Apple that they're able to sell phones at absolutely staggering margins without anyone grumbling about the cost. But let's not pretend they're competing on price.