Apple may be squeezed by Retina Display shortage at 'iPad 3' launch - Page 2

This is just a scheme by a few Taiwanese people to attempt to manipulate AAPL, so that they can pick up a few stocks for cheap for themselves.

Digitimes track record is complete garbage. They shouldn't even be called journalists, but rather shit slingers.

I hope there isn't a price hike but I don't think it can be ruled out. I'v certainly noted over the pat year that this display would require a lot of bleeding-edge tech that will not be easy or cheap to produce. This is a feat unto itself for something that will need to sell 20 million a month on average to maintain YoY growth.

Even if they can produce what I think is likely LG's AH-IPS tech in quantity by using many vendors that could come with increased costs. Diseconomy of scale. Another option would be to only offer it in the higher-end model(s) to deal with supply and cost issues but that certainly isn't how Apple tends to go about things.

Q: If Apple has this tech ready for 2012 but the cost is high and quantity low for all components involved would it be a better move for Apple for Apple to:

A) Not offer this tech at all this year?
B) Offer it to only the high end model(s)?
C) Offer it to all 3rd gen iPads at the needed increased cost?
D) Offer it to all 3rd gen iPads at the current capacity price points at a significant loss in profit? Note that option C could still be Apple making less profit if the cost of the needed components outweigh the increase.

Possibly. AT&T wasn't an option for me, so I tried to ignore the whole thing. So is that what they did - start with high prices when availability was limited and then drop it later?

There's more than the component prices that might cause Apple to increase the retail price. Such as simply want to make more profit (they are a for-profit corporation, after all). Regardless of the actual cost, if supply is limited, you can demand a higher price and still find enough people willing to pay it and sell every unit you can produce.

This is exactly what I proposed in a comment on the story about the rumored price hike. If Apple is going to keep producing iPad 2's because they can't get enough screens for the iPad 3 to meet demand, then they also need to create a price differential between the 2 and the 3. Even the the screens cost the same (which is going to be untrue), they'd still charge a higher price for the 3, just because they can.

Since they can only lower the price of the iPad 2 so far before eating too much into their desired margins, they have to increase the price of the iPad 3 to create the price differential.

This also, marginally, supports rumors that there might be a smaller iPad coming in the future, too. If yields and availability of a 9.7" retina display are projected to continue to be lower than demand, then a smaller display, which would likely have better yields in addition to being cheaper, might be an option. So perhaps an iPad 3 while continuing to produce iPad 2 to help meet demand, but in the future the iPad 2 gets replaced by a smaller iPad (or larger iPod Touch).

No reason at all - I just haven't seen them adjust prices according to availability. Apparently I may be wrong in thinking that they have not done that in the past though.

I don't think the pricing had to do with lack of availability IIRC. It had more to do with Apple recognizing the price might be a tad too high to move product in the quantities they had projected.

I think your original statement as written was just fine.

That is OT Apple's style. In part because all the early adopters would be livid if they didn't get their money back.

Last year showed that folks will wait, so Apple isn't likely to be worried. The only thing they will fuss over is stopping resellers from grabbing all the stock with their games. Perhaps staring the reservations from day one with no walkins or some such.

I see no evidence that was due to availability. All indications show it was due to a dramatic drop is sales.

Remember the 8GB iPhone was $600. They lowered it to $400 and then had to give to $100 back to all those that bought it at $600 and had been enjoying it for months because enough people complained it wasn't "fair." They also stopped selling the 4GB iPhone at that time.

For the iPhone 3G Apple dropped the profit sharing which kept Apple with higher upfront sale and with less cost to the carrier they could offer $20/month for unlimited data. It was reported that Apple requesting changing their deal with AT&T to the subsidized model which gained AT&T some traction and a rumoured additional year in their contract. I think AT&T also announced a drop in their earning for that quarter of the iPhone 3G which would be a direct result of having to pay Apple their negotiated price for each handset at set intervals.


PS: It's funny, back in 2007 4GB was too small and yet 5 years later 8GB is still quite ideal for a vast many users. A lot of higher-end smartphones still come with 8GB.

I think I could agree with your hypothesis for Apple to offer the iPad³ at a higher price if there were a compelling reason to buy it at the increased price...

To my mind all the things being rumored and discussed are enhanced features -- enhanced specs, if you will.

Surely, over time, the enhanced specs will increase the capabilities of the iPad³ over the iPad 2 -- but what is going to compel 10 million customers per month to pony up an additional $50-$150 just to get enhanced specs?

If they are doing it just to market the res, I agree. But if the display is also brighter (especially outside), more energy efficient etc, then bring it on

If you can only get the Retina Display with the needed increase in GPU, RAM and potentially battry in the 32GB iPad 3 model or better then I wouldn't even consider the 16GB model.

But why do this? Again, supply. If you can only reasonably produce 10 million of these display per month on average for the first year then you simply aren't going to make a goal of 20 million units or more.

Again, I don't think this is the most likely scenario. I think Apple has found a way to make enough displays for all 3rd gen iPads even if means an increased cost per unit. I certainly hope that is the case over having to wait a year for production to be smooth with a typical setup.


Why do people buy things that have enhanced specs as it is?

My contention is that the vast majority of people do not buy on specs -- rather what are the deliverables -- what can it do for me?

Techies on these forums may buy specs but I don't believe the non-techie will pay a premium for specs alone.

Quick everyone, you should start camping out now, to avoid missing out.

So macrumors can go online and purchase a replacement panel with no problem but somehow there is a shortage? You would think replacement panels would be pulled into production if this was the case.

Here's some "what ifs"...

What if :

• Apple has cut deals with the content owners and providers to stream recorded and live video.
  
• Apple has a codec/hardware implementation that allows HD content to be compressed/streamed at less bandwidth than current SD and Cable TV content -- over the air and through the cable/WiFi (over the river and through the woods?).
  
• Apple has a corresponding codec/hardware that allows reconstitution of the compressed HD content on a Cable STB, ATV, or iPad³ over WiFi

Now, that would make the iPad³ a pretty compelling device -- if only as a personal TV.

...think of all the other possibilities of this technology and the ability to send and receive HD content quickly, efficiently -- anywhere!

Apologies in advance for the big picture -- but this is the big picture!


Here's a comparison of display sizes:

That's actually what I'm getting at by enhanced specs. Not spec sheet stuff but the effect for the user and sometimes, unfortunately, because of tech terminology marketing buzzwords.


The Retina Display in the iPad sounds like it's a 'spec' that will attract users. No need for them to know the resolution, the panel type, the contrast, nits, backlight, GPU, RAM, blah blah blah that all make it work.

As you know Apple doesn't advertise raw specs that aren't marketable (e.g.: NAND flash capacity is a spec that is marketable) but they do advertise effects of these specs all the time.

I used to care, but not anymore since I bought an Eye-Fi X2 card and simply WiFi my photos to the iPad. The 2nd SDHC slot in my camera has a UHS card in it for fast transfer into Aperture. Anyway, I didn't mind using the CCK.

I think we're Using different words to describe the same thing.

I will buy it!

But, from the perspective of a shareholder, will retina display (and required supporting hardware) provide enough incentive for 10 million iPad³ sales per month?

I don't believe it will!

In what regard? You mean will enough people want the new iPad over the old iPad because of the display? I think they will. I think the iPhone 4's display was a major selling point. Even the techtarded can see a display and know that it's better or worse than they are used to.


BTW, I wrote "10 million per month" but I meant "per quarter" for my example to show how it would be well below what they are selling now with the current iPad 2.

People need to look past where this rumor comes from, if you do there is a greater likely hood that you will see some truth there. Building the screens for iPad 3 is a learning experience and I have no doubt that the screens will gate production. It is a tough job to put something like these screens into mass production, plus Apple is likely to want zero defects which could be a huge issue if your defect rate is high.

So taking in this reality that production will drive up screen costs for this year, you can see the price of iPad3 going up to cover the technology ramp curve for this year. You can also see Apple playing with machine configurations to cover this cost some.

As to only 16 and 32 GB iPad 3s that would be a terrible failure on Apples part. As an owner of a 32 GB machine with a small compliment of apps I couldn't see going back to 16GB as practicle. After all you will want to load a few things beside apps from time to time. Plus things will take more space simply to cover all of those pixels. So this part I find completely bogus as there is no rational reason for such a regression.