Apple rumored to begin production of 7.85" iPad in third quarter of 2012 - Page 3

That is an interesting question - how to market such a device.

As a smaller iPad it would have advantages such as portability, and weight for reading, but the overall usability would be reduced for one obvious reason - screen size. As an iPod it would loose out on portability but definitely gain in all other aspects. As a gaming platform it would be better than either imo., and as the iPod is the premier gaming platform between the two....

Keeping the price low would be important but Apple wouldn't cut too manny corners in this respect. In the end such a device would offer an alternative to buyers at both ends of the scale, but I suspect it would cannibalize iPod sales more than iPad sales. But whether to call it an iPod or iPad... that's a tough call.

But...but.. Steve said 7" tablets are going to fail.

lol, you funny.

Hello to all...

Id like to remind people that even if this rumor is true, you will have to think about one of Apple's most prized possessions... THEIR PROFIT!!!!

When the iPad came out, if I remember right, even their stock took a hit in relation to the lower margins Apple would incur because of this.

Now look at the fire.... Amazon is LITERALLY either LOSING money or barely breaking even with that thing and even then it is a severely limited device!
This is something Apple would never do so you have to wonder which features will be omitted... The screen, for sure, it wont be IPS, the cameras, def!-you MIGHT get a front camera for face time, memory-8GB or less plus cloud storage, processor-gotta be at least A5, network, WiFi only, but it would otherwise be a fully functional tablet!

Apple would have to figure out how to keep at least a 30% margin while delivering a device worthy of the Apple brand.

Fragmentation, consumer confusion, 10" is a better size for a tablet (the number one reason), 3.5" is pocket size and better for your mobile phone, a more focused set up products for developers etc. There are too many reasons why an 7.85" iPad makes no sense, especially when you consider the way Apple operates. Restraint is one of Apple's quality that no other company seems to be able to recognize and copy, and it's probably the reason above all else as to their success. A 7.85" iPad or iPod is not happening.

Really? Do you have a quote from Steve where he stated that all such devices with a 7" display will fail?

edit:
If that quote is accurate Steve clearly referred to the current 7" tablets (and he was right). Do you have any evidence that no 7" touchscreen device can be viable?

You could easily make the opposite argument and say that loads of people will switch down when they realise all they want to do is have a decent e-reader, something to surf the web/movies and answer their mail. The Kindle does all of that. If they can get a device that does it 90% as well for 50% less then I would imagine most will take it.

I know you are not really being serious here, but nonetheless, I think any reference to what Steve said regarding this or any other product plans needs to be prefaced with: "At the time...". And then answered with: "Yeah, well, Steve said lots of things".

Oh, and what Solip said.

i don't think anyone expects an iPad 7" at $200 but $300 spec'd well enough would work. It's not really about what other tablets have failed. They failed not because of their size but because Android OS and Blackberry OS were inferior to iOS. People don't want tablets they want iPads.



consumer confusion is a strawman Ireland. Apple's advertising clearly shows how iCloud tethers and iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad to a Mac. There is no confusion there is only ecosystem.

If consumers purchased 3.5 inch iPhones and iPod Touch by the millions then it's stretches credulity to believe that suddenly they become lost on a screen that is twice as large as when they have in their pocket.

At this time all bets are off on how Apple operates as witnessed by how they granted early access to Mountain Lion to popular journalist and bloggers.

I understand your point of view here but I just don't think it's persuasive in light of millions of sales of Kindle Fire which shows that

A. Small tablets are acceptable within a given price range
B. Price is an issue with consumers.

It would take a fool to think Apple is not "EXPLORING" the idea of taking on the smaller tablet market.... But Im sure even some of these protoypes which have made their way into the hands of loose-lipped bozos are from before the real iPad era... Apple made it clear they toyed with dozens of form factors and screen sizes before settling on the ideal size, iPad....

You have to remember that most tech journalists are full blown hardware and software geeks who fantasize about specs and features that the mainstream couldnt care less about such as SD card slots and 28 USB ports around the rim or HDMI...

So the fantasy of the 7" tablet is a tech geek's wet dream!
What else do these geeks LUST after that Apple only cares to accessorize?
Lets see shall we....

These geeks have the mentality that if it can be done, if it can fit, and if it can be used by even one person then it should be included.... That is bologna!!!!!

Id bet that between 80-90% of users will never use an SD card slot-Im one of them

Id bet that the same 80-90% would never spend their time bragging to their friend about how much RAM is in the device or how fast the processor is and how it translates to cycles per second measured in the billions.... (GHz),

Id bet again, 80-90% of folks wont ever hook up their iPad to their TV with HDMI... Dont beleive me? How many people do you know that owns a computer or laptop? How many of those people insist on or make habits of plunging their computer into their TV?

What about USB ports???
Well, what do you use USB ports for?
A mouse?-CHECK, Apple iDevices use touchscreens (shut up, u know i dont mean iMacs)
A keyboard?-Check! software keyboards work GREAT!!!
Specialty devices? YEAH! MAYBE 5-20% of users need specialty devices.... So buy the USB adatper...

you get my drift?

Edited

Steve ALSO said he would never lets MS Windows users get their hands on the iPod or iTunes!

Steve Jobs might be super human, immortal, and probably the smartest greatest genius to ever live... But he was still human. Given his unmatched success (money does not equal success), id say give him a break... for every mistake he made, he was right twice, he changed the world ten times over!!!

Please google anything regarding satisfaction ratings with the Kindle Fire, then you can come back here to edit your comment.

True Carlos. I guess the easiest way to really just break down the Pros and Cons of a smaller iPad.


Pro

Price- The ability to hit sub $300 price points with a smaller screen
Resolution - Developers do not have to redo artwork
Size -pocketable. Great if you want to use iPads for checkins, Point of Sale and other biz uses
Market impact - brings a large amount of consumer and business opportunities into the fold. Keeps developers happy with a platform that is growing.


Con

Price- Reduction of iPad cachet? Squeezes iPod Touch higher end models in price.
Resolution - smaller text, smaller icons, potentially smaller touch zones.
Size - Could affect overall battery life,
Market Impact - Cannibalization of larger iPad. Adds another device to source and support

Can I add that Amazon has not revealed their profit/operating margin on the Kindle Fire?

Despite selling MILLIONS of Fires how much net profit did they walk away with?

How long can they continue to do this?

Now that video chatting is really taking off, will they LOWER their possibly non-existant margin of today to add a camera? If they dont will people switch to video-chat enabled tablets?

I used a Fire for a few days and quickly realized why it was selling, and why it wont succeed much more as evidenced by amazons reported scale-back of production.

Tell your doctor friend that the iPad dimensions are published. He could've simply measured his pocket rather than looking stupid in an Apple Store with a lab coat on. I really hope he is not your doctor, for he sounds rather dim.


A look at the prices of iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad will tell you that there is no proportional drop in COGS (and hence prices) just because a computer (and that's what an iDevice is) is smaller. So don't expect a 7" iPad, if it materializes, to start at $299.



The reason why this rumor, or any rumor, keeps cropping up is because rumor mongering is an industry. Some do it as a hobby. Some profit from it.


They sell 10s of millions of units and you want to tell Apple they *need* to go down market? Who the F*** are you to say what they need or don't need?


Actually, they DON'T take 30% cut on all paid iTunes products.
And Apple has always found streamlining of product lines to be more desirous than expanding them. Something tells me you feel qualified to school them.

If and when Apple releases a 7" iPad (or 7.18952"), it will be because they have found a reason to make such an offering. My bet is that the reason will NOT be to increase sales volume just for the sake of it.

You're right - it wasn't that funny. I simply don't get the need to post gargantuan photos and use gargantuan fonts. But it's a free world. My apologies for the weak sarcasm.

1A look at the prices of iPod Touch, iPhone and iPad will tell you that there is no proportional drop in COGS (and hence prices) just because a computer (and that's what an iDevice is) is smaller. So don't expect a 7" iPad, if it materializes, to start at $299.

The missing X-factor here is the margin. The iPod Touch is probably operating at a higher margin than the iPad. COGS are influenced by purchasing. If Apple goes large on volume purchases the differences between the two products can be ameliorated at some level.

The BoM would be decidedly different as well as there has been significant movement in the ancillary chips necessary to deliver the same functionality as a cheaper cost or improved functionality at the same cost.


The reason why this rumor, or any rumor, keeps cropping up is because rumor mongering is an industry. Some do it as a hobby. Some profit from it.


Where there's smoke..there is often fire.

They sell 10s of millions of units and you want to tell Apple they *need* to go down market? Who the F*** are you to say what they need or don't need?


And? I was around selling Macs when Apple almost went bankrupt. No company is infallible and today's sales are no guarantee of tomorrow's. Android on tablets isn't going to be deficient forever and one size size does not fit all in the desktop/notebook space nor does it fit all in the tablet space. Sometimes I look at my iPad and think "It'd be great if it was bigger right now and sometimes I think it'd be great if it was smaller"


And Apple has always found streamlining of product lines to be more desirous than expanding them. Something tells me you feel qualified to school them.


Correction. After the return of Steve, Apple found product simplification to be essential. However we still see the same strategy here. There's the Macbook Air for more basic users and the Pro and they all come in multiple sizes. An admission that preferences in dimensions will vary amongst customers. Yet now people are attempting to tell me that the iPad is only good in one size? Nay.


I don't think anyone is trying school Apple. They know what they want and if Apple doesn't deliver then they don't get the sale and the overall numbers tell the tale.

Without a more affordable iPad the competition will gain ground. This is a numbers game here for mobile devices. Negotiating power is based on these numbers for media deals.

Margin is often higher on cheaper devices. I would expect a 7"-ish iOS-based device to still be profitable from Apple. I don't see any benefit to a loss-leader simply to react to some multimedia eReaders with LCDs. This would have to be priced between the Touch and the iPad and would have to be something that wouldn't still business from the iPad if the profit per unit was lower unless the overall net gain was higher.

I can see a case for constricted display components that would actually make this an ideal way to equalize pressure on their tablet market by offering a new size. I don't think that it would be an iPad in name. I think the iPod brand needs propping up and by offering it as an iPod Touch HD (or whatever) you can use cheaper and less components without users expecting it to be exactly the same as an iPad but smaller.


I don't think that is necessarily true, especially in regard to the tablet market.

I see Android OS'es ability to gain a lot of ground to be the same reason the iPhone was able to gain so much ground. To be clear, I don't mean in terms of anything other than market traction.

The reason i see is due to the subsidization model. If the iPhone was $650 for all users up front the uptake wouldn't be so high. Same goes for vendors using Android. It's the $199 price that seems to be make this a non-issue for adoption that has pushed Apple out in front in terms in of revenue and profit and Android in terms of "activations."

This hasn't worked for any other market. There is no Android-based PMPs that are gaining ground. There is no Android-based tablets that are gaining ground. It's the iPod and iPad, respectively. Even the Kindle Fire and Nook Color which run forked versions of Android, are well loved companies, and come in at 40 to 50% the price of the cheapest iPad still couldn't sell half of what the iPad sold last quarter when it was near a year old.

The iPod shuffle wasn't necessarily targeted to the low-end market. It was an entirely different product than the original iPod. It's purpose was to be more portable, like wearing during exercising or walking around. The iPod classic was geared toward storing entire music libraries, while the shuffle was for playlists. Many people that had a big iPod also bought a iPod shuffle. It was a strategy to sell more iPods to current iPod owners. It did however, also attract new iPod users who weren't willing to spend as much for the big iPod. However, there are other MP3 players competing with the iPod shuffle (similar form & features), some priced half as much. It's totally two different products- dramatically different form factors, features, and use cases.

I definitely think Apple will keep the iPad 2 16GB and knock off a $100 bucks.

But I don't think Apple will offer a 7" iPad that tripped down version of the current iPad having cheaper components and less features. If Apple does make a 7" device it would be directed toward different use cases having entirely different features (not absence of) than iPad. Something that people that own iPads might also consider buying.

People are making fallacious connections in order to prove a point but I will say this.


An iPad with 3G and 16GB of NAND storage is $629
a comparably spec'd iPhone unlocked would be $649

To the layman they'd see the 9.7" screen of the iPad and assume the cost is higher but
in reality there's additional design expense to find parts that can be expertly put into a
small device like iPhone or iPod Touch.

So we cannot extrapolate the data and assume that the same design consideration would affect a significantly larger iPad 7.85.

Plus even today's iPod Touch is based on a 45nm A4 processor and NAND storage based on larger geometry. If the rumors were indeed correct that a Q3 launch is the timeframe for a smaller iPad that could mean that the deals for parts was done late last year and into the new year and designers would have the ability to use smaller geometry parts (28/32nm) to aid not only in reducing power consumption but also cost.

Do I think that a 7.85 iPad mini is coming this year? I'm 50/50. But I certainly see the reasons why from a strategic and component level. It can be done. The only question is "will it be done?"

It's hard to use the iPad and iPhone for comparison. As previously mentioned the subsidy model hides the carrier's cost of the iPhone and makes it more appealing to customers. That's clear from the profit Apple gets from their handset arm. I think the iPad could beat out the iPhone in revenue and profit in a couple years as it steals from the PC business but I don't see the profit margins for the iPad to be as high without the subsidy model.


What about a larger iPod instead of a smaller iPad. To me this makes a lot more sense.


edit:

• http://www.thetechblock.com/articles...s-and-pricing/

The difference here is that these are "real' tablets and not tablet-like devices. I think the Kindle Fire has given people a false idea of what a fair and reasonable price is. Being a loss-leader and having a display isn't enough to make it a competitor. Even the 3.5" iPod Touch with an inferior display starts at $199 for the 8GB model.

Surely Apple wouldn't make a screen that size when it knows its competitors failed doing the same thing as consumers wanted bigger?

Competitors have failed at making tablets for 3 decades.

Exactly. That's like Audi or Mercedes making a compact car to compete with the cheapest Kia or Saturn. For some firms that do want to play in the low end market do so through different subsidiary companies with distinct brands. For example, Toyota & Lexus, Honda & Acura, Audi & Volkswagen, etc. Entirely different entities owned by a parent company.

Consumer's perceive Apple products of having the highest of quality. That's why Apple can command such premium prices. User satisfaction is pretty low for cheap notebooks. But hey, they put up with it because they only paid $400. They understand the tradeoff. A $1000 machine has to provide a user experience that is superior in order to for consumers to purchase it. Apple is unmatched there. A cheap product would dent Apple's brand equity and damage sales on the high end.

Just one example. Years ago, I went to Apple store to buy more RAM for Mac Pro and they didn't have in stock nor could they order any because my machine was a almost a couple years old. So they recommended I go to Crucial. Their prices were about half Apple's. However, I had problems with RAM boards cutting off due to overheating. I found out that Apples RAM is highly customized and uses heat sinks made of brass allowing it to emit much less heat compared to the cheaper generic RAM found in all other computers. This allows Apple to use smaller fans and more appealing casings. Fans in other desktops sound like there is Cessna trapped inside compared to barely audible fans in Macs.

Can someone please explain to me how Jobs could say with a straight face that to type on a 7" screen you'd need to sand your fingers, when Apple has people typing on the same style virtual keyboard on a 3.5" screen

I think this would be a good move for Apple if done well. They don't compete with the bottom feeders, but they don't only aim for the very top. That's why they had a $999 Macbook in white for years after they went to the aluminum models. That's why they make the iPod shuffle. That's why they kept the 3GS around as a free phone.

A smaller iPad with a price point above the Kindle type junk, but below the full size iPad would be in the same category as the above.

I agree, it could be a larger iPod Touch. But a new name is needed, such as iTouch.
Comparing to the 7" BB Playbook, I feel the 7" size is very handy for book reading, very light web browsing and Email.

The 10" iPad is the sweet spot for Web browsing and other things the Netbooks and MacBook Air do well at.

Jobs never said that a touchscreen that is under 9.7" inches can'e be useful. Obviously they are with the iPhone and iPod Touch predating the iPad by almost 3 years. His point was regarding a tablet that is small, not a phone or a PMP.

What is the difference between a large iPod and a small iPad?

Since you think an iPad is just a large iPod Touch I guess there wouldn't be any difference from your perspective.

That is why I asked. I like to learn.

So what is the difference between a large iPod and a small iPad?

Why the hell is everyone saying how a smaller iPad would create fragmentation? Do the Macbooks and Pros not have different screen sizes? Why doesn't that create fragmentation? Or does that only count with the iPad and iPhone? Why didn't Apple have problems with the iPod line? There were like 5 or 6 different iPod models at one point.

I personally wouldn't get the 7.85 inch model if it came out because either one I get I won't be able to fit it into my pocket; so I rather just get the bigger screen.

The only problem I can think of right now is that if they made this smaller size iPad, maybe they would lose a lot of would-be normal iPad buyers to the smaller one just because of the lower price. At the same time though, they could quite possibly make way more profit either way if the decrease in regular sales is offset by the amount of smaller ones selling great. Apple has a lot of great accountants who had to have looked into this a LONG time ago and figured this all out.

You're joking, right?


So developers developed software for those iPods? And they were guaranteed resolutions and screen sizes on which their stuff would be used and viewed?

"Nintendo now projects an annual loss of 20 billion yen and a full-year profit from operations of 1 billion yen, down 99.4 percent from the year-ago period. The company also sees full fiscal year revenue of 790 billion yen, down 22 percent. For the six months ended Sept. 30, Nintendo reported a 41 percent decline in revenue to 215.7 billion yen and a loss of 70.3 billion yen, a multiple of the year-ago loss of 2.0 billion".

They sure are making a killing those DS guys.

What's your point? The 3DS is selling like hotcakes. the PSVita, with a screen larger than the 3DS' (and enough to suit your tastes, I'd imagine) is floundering.

Maybe content is more important than size. That, at least, would explain why the 3.5" iPhone from two and a half years ago is outselling every single Android phone on the market, despite them having 5" or larger screens.

My point is that the times they are a changing my friend. The 3.5" PSP was a flop but the 5" PS Vita is getting very good reviews. Not sure you can call something that only launched last week everywhere outside Japan a flop. Yes I do like the Vita, it sits very nicely in the hand and the screen is amazing. The games are way too expensive but I think they will realise that and drop the prices in time. I'm planning to get one in the next few weeks.

Even Nintendo admit that things are changing and are planning to launch a 6” tablet like games console sometime this year as sales of the DS continue to implode.

I find the iPod Touch too small for game play. It's not just the screen it's the fact that you can't hold it very well. Finger and thumb and that's it. I accept that maybe I'm not the demographic Apple is aiming at given that I'm not a child. But you only have to look at the iPad to see how people love to play games on a bigger screen.

I still believe Apple will release a tweener device around 6 or 7 inches to target the portable gaming and eBook market both of which have exploded in the past year. However I think they will go as follows:

4" screen = iPod & iPhone (no more iPod Touch just iPod now as the iPod Classic is deleted)

7" screen = new device with new name - maybe the iPlay

10" screen = iPad.

Edit: Oh yeah forgot about the Kindle Fire. How many millions did they sell? Not bad given that it's only available in the US. Why are people buying them - my guess is to play games on. Most of my friends have the basic Kindle and they all love it for reading eBooks. Clearly there is a demand for a 6 or 7" device.

That's not a handheld in any way, shape, or form. DS sales are imploding because the 3DS exists. Its sales are rising.