7" panel orders reportedly overtake 9.7" shipments as iPad 2 production draws down - Page 2

I would say it's relevent, but also must be interpreted for intent. Steve also said that nobody reads anymore, and the not too much later was hyping iBooks at a press conference. Steve once dismissed TVs by saying they were only for when you wanted to switch off your brain and a few years later he was hawking the AppleTV set-top box, and now Apple is rumored to be working on a TV of their own. Steve said nobody needed Firewire because all camcorders sold at the time used USB (apparently forgetting about all the ones sold before that), and less than a year later Apple put FW back on the laptops it was removed from. Steve said no buttons on the shuffle was a great thing...

The point being, sometimes Steve's comments are opinions, not to be interpreted as direction for Apple, sometimes they appear to have been to intentionally mislead, and sometimes Steve (and Apple) simply make mistakes. People give FAR too much weight to Steve's comments about 7" tablets. He was simultaneously promoting Apple's choice of size as ideal and at the same time demoting the idea of a smaller tablet in the minds of everyone who thinks Steve/Apple could do no wrong (and that's a lot of people).

And he's not exactly an unbiased observer making those comments. Steve Jobs was as much a marketer as he was a designer (perhaps even moreso). What would you expect him to say? "Well, the size we picked was just one option and other people will come out with other sizes that are just as good as ours because different people have different needs in a tablet." Hell no! It's "Ours is the only viable alternative and all the rest of the options are crap." That is the foundation of almost every marketing presenterion, er keynote address, Steve ever gave. Ever other exec says the same thing about their company's products, they just don't have Steve's style and flair.


Haven't paid much attention to the changes in the iPod and iPhone lineups over the years, have you? Apple doesn't care if Otterbox or other case companies have to change their lineups. In fact, those other companies probably like that Apple changes things with every new release. That way you need to go buy a new case from them, too, when you upgrade!


Um, then don't buy one. (PS: chill)

For web browsing, a 10-inch display is great. You can read a full-sized web page or letter-sized document (e.g., Acrobat) without squinting or scrolling--at least with my eyesight. A 7-inch display doesn't work nearly as well. And it's easier to type on a 10-inch tablet.

So why are people buying 7-inch tablets? For most people, I think it's for some of the following reasons:

1. They buy the 7-inch tablets not because they want a smaller display but because they are cheaper. The cheaper price is important to them and they realize that they are making a compromise.

2. They don't do much web browsing of full-sized web pages or reading of letter-sized documents.

3. They don't do a lot of typing--or prefer typing with their thumbs.

4. They tell themselves that the smaller size is better but subconsciously they buy the 7-inch tablet because it's cheaper.

A very well-grounded post. Thanks for the read!

It's actually much easier to type on an iPhone than an iPad. Also- if you do a lot of typing.... wtf are you buying an iPad for? Unless you want to prop it up with a case and use a bluetooth keyboard- just get a laptop. Aren't those designed for those that "do a lot of typing"?

Typing on the iPad is abysmal compared to a keyboard or small screen that you can reach everything with (like your iPhone). A 7" iPad with the same dimensions as the iPhone and iPad would be ideal for me to type with. Just the opinion of a tall skinny guy with long fingers.


+1

7" tablets dont fit in my pockets..., maybe is youre are wearing 40+ pants, but I am wearing 34.

The fact they are 7" or any other stats on them doesnt have anything to do with it. Price is key here, they are dumping them at cost...

More storage memory! I carry a lot of reference books, photos, etc in mine and would love to have storage space for all. Sorry Apple, I don't want this stuff stored in an iCloud.

Isn't Sharp suppling IGZO panels for the next iPad? I guess these Sharp panel shipment figures were left out becuase they weren't shipped yet.

Love the drivel. Apple iPhone too small. Apple iPad too big. My, how Apple never seems to get it right; while laughing all the way to the bank and the others teetering on bankruptcy.

Nelsons chuckle is softly heard in the background.

Don't speak ill of the dead.


Thank you.

Apple won't make a 7 inch device, simply because it won't fit into their product pricing lineup in a way that guarantees them huge margins.

From Apple's point of view, what matters is not how many people buy the fire initially but rather what the perception is over the long haul. If some buy the Fire because of the price but wind up frustrated and generally disappointed by it, this will only help secure future sales for Apple.

The iPad is a success because people enjoy using them. They just work. They have only a few minor flaws and generally the experience of owning an iPad is a positive one for most customers.

The Fire, at least in its early form, is not nearly as enjoyable to own as the iPad and as such, over the long haul, what you're going to get are consumers who will regret not spending the extra money to get an iPad.

If this is the case, Apple will not be under any pressure to alter their approach.

No, that's not the case. If Amazon loses money on a 7" $199 tablet, Apple could easily make money on a 7" $299 tablet.

They don't make one because they don't need one. The iPad 3 comes out next spring and the iPad 2 will likely remain around as the low-end model, dropping to $399.

That sounds like a logical step for Apple, following their iPhone strategy.

But what will the iPad 3 have? The idea of an iPad 3 with a double-resolution screen costing only $499 still strains credulity to me. The cost of manufacturing, the increase in processing power and memory, the increase in lighting power, the accompanying increase in battery (size or density)... And will/can it stay as thin? It will be a hell of an engineering feat, one that might escape the appreciation of non-engineers.

I am not sure. Apple not only has to make money; the gross margin has to be acceptable. Does a 7" iPad cost that much less to manufacture than a 9.7" version? I have my doubts. Some components stay the same regardless of size. Don't forget - the original 7" Android tablets were sold at $499. Sure, not everyone has the same manufacturing scale as Apple. But Samsung is no slouch.

You lose the advantage of being able to slip them in your pocket but you don't get the advantages of having a large enough screen to allow activities that benefit from a larger screen (just about everything that you would likely do with a tablet) being truly enjoyable to participate in.

What is the point to such a device? Any one who thinks the iPad is too large hasn't checked one out with any seriousness. It's not a large device, not by a long shot. Going smaller once you cross over the pocketable threshold is utterly pointless. I'm sure that with each new version, Apple will shave a little more weight off and that means the one disadvantage to a larger handheld unit would be adequately addressed.

Apple simply can't produce a tablet with a 7-inch screen that is anything but inferior to the current iPad form factor in every respect but price. Apple can barely keep up with the demand for the iPad and even if other companies sell a few 7-inch units here and there, so what. Apple makes its money by securing the loyalty of customers. You only do that with a product that is enjoyable to use. No one cares, once a device is in one's possession, how much one paid. All that matters is, how much does one like, or dislike, the product in question. The greater the customer satisfaction over the long run, the more likely that customer is to purchase another Apple product. If competitors allow disappointing, frustrating products to be sold under their brand, that only serves to help Apple's cause over the long haul.

This is not just about dominating a particular category. It's about showing consumers that tablets are viable, great devices well worth owning. If, instead, a seriously compromised product is placed in the hands of a consumer, that consumer might just conclude that tablets are not what they should own. Apple is trying to establish market dominance, yes, but also the value of the tablet form factor in people's lives. Where the competition comes in is in offering a product that maintains that desirability factor yet does so at a lower price point than Apple's offerings. That doesn't happen with a 7-inch tablet, at least I don't think so. A few months from now the feedback from all those Fire owners will give us an indication of which way this is going.

This, more then any technical issues, supply chain logistics, or UI concerns, is the best argument why Apple wouldn't release a 7" tablet.

I agree. An iPad3 with a retina display would be awesome. Unprecedented. Incredibly wonderful. Insanely great.

I also agree that it ain't gonna happen anytime soon. Ipad 2S next time around, just a speedbump and SIRI.

True but for a different reason. People have to understand the context and Steve's introduction of iPad which is pure marketing. What he said at the time is no indication of long term plans at Apple, rather it is an effort to get the market to embrace the iPad.

IOS is a tremendous success, I see potential for many devices.

I don't think so. There was nothing else that was even close to be a competitor. Even now the closest we have a crippled tablet called the Fire. I think he meant that going with less than display ares of the iPad would hinder the usability enough to not make it a viable longterm usage solution. small tablets are basically large PMPs, You don't see the iPod Touch replacing 'PC's for a reason: size matters! Again, I think a 5-7" iPod Touch could happen, but that wold neither be defined nor marketed as a tablet.

Youre right on saying it could happen Sol. People that are saying "it won't happen" have obviously not followed apple long, or they have chronic memory loss. If apple chose to do it- it would be successful and I would buy one. If they did it, it WOULD have good profit margins. They would alter the features (as they do the iPod touch) to make sure it had good margins. Whether that be through crappy cameras, last year's chip (would an A5 in 2012 really be awful?), or whatever, they would find a way if they truly wanted it to go to market.

It's not a matter of you saying it will or won't happen. If apple sees the benefit, they'll do it. No one knows what they know. They are on "that" side of the fence and we're on ours. . Again- if they made one, I'd get it immediately and I think it would compliment the lineup nicely- and I would use it more than *gasp* my iPad.

Remember that Apple has been making from 15% to 120% profit on all iPad models in the past. They have the ability to trim that profit margin range down with no detriment.

And they certainly have the money to do the research they need to do to fulfill all those requirements.

120%? Do you mean 40 or 50%? There are myriad speculations on the gross margins of iPhones and iPads. But Apple has actually pointed out that these devices in fact drag down their overall gross margin. At least, they mentioned this in one 10k filing. So, if they are compelled to go lower, this will show up in the balance sheets somehow and the ANALysts will find excuses to downgrade the company. So, I am not convinced about no detriment. But I agree there's room to go before they have to lose money a la Amazon.

Regardless, to repeat, if they pull it off, it will still be a remarkable engineering feat that few non-engineers can appreciate, because doubling pixel density requires more than designing and manufacturing such a screen (which is already impressive).

Even if it fits, I find those commercials with people sticking it in their pockets (pants or jackets) just hilarious.

I try not to use absolutes unless I'm absolutely sure.


Dick Applebaum made an interesting observation about the price of Apple's iPhone and iPad. The iPad is $500 (with 3G it's $630) and the iPhone is $650, both with 16GB. That's parity of price and even though I think the iPhone is cheaper there is still an intrinsic cost for going smaller in tech and we know that some aspects, like the display, are vastly different because of their specs.

So basically we have 10" (8x the display area of the iPhone) and 3.5" (1/8th the size of the iPad) devices that retailing for approximately the same so how can Apple create a device between those that is still profitable? If it's an iPad you expect iPad-like features with a camera, speaker, mic, touch panel that supports more than 2 inputs, etc. Can that be had for $200? No! Can that be had for $300? Maybe, but certainly not with any decent margin. It looks to me that a 7" iPad priced near a Fire or Nook simply isn't in the cards unless you completely change the iPads' quality and feature set.

But how about a 7" iPod Touch? The 16GB Touch is $199. What is the profit margin? If we're seeing retail pricing parity from the 3.5" iPhone and 9.7" iPad is it possible to see a decent scale for a 5-7" iPod Touch that costs, say, $299 for the 16GB version sporting a 1024x768 (4:3) display? I think that could work.

/end argument