or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rumor: Apple to release sub-$250 7-inch 8GB iPad in October
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple to release sub-$250 7-inch 8GB iPad in October - Page 3

post #81 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So what's the point?

 

But over 70% of everyone already is fine with paying $500. Apple caters to the middle ground, not fringe cases.

You miss the entire point of the post. It's not about price points. It's about size form and varied uses.  Just like some people need a 17" Macbook and others need a 13", iOS users do not all need the same size device. There are many people for whom carrying around the full size iPad is not practical. It may be too big, too heavy, take up too much space, require additional cases/bags to carry etc.  Those people would benefit from a smaller form factor.

 

Once has only to travel mass transit to see the far superior numbers of smaller e-devices that people can put in a jacket or coat pocket or slip into the side pocket of their case etc.

post #82 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J View Post

You miss the entire point of the post. It's not about price points. It's about size form and varied uses.  Just like some people need a 17" Macbook and others need a 13", iOS users do not all need the same size device. There are many people for whom carrying around the full size iPad is not practical. It may be too big, too heavy, take up too much space, require additional cases/bags to carry etc.  Those people would benefit from a smaller form factor.

 

Once has only to travel mass transit to see the far superior numbers of smaller e-devices that people can put in a jacket or coat pocket or slip into the side pocket of their case etc.

 



So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price?  If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.

 

Unfortunately, it's not.  You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points.  A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books.  It's at an "impulse buy" price point.  People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299.  So it really is about price.

post #83 of 121
The world is not America-centric. Apple's international revenues are already approaching 70%. Most people in this world don't commute in their own cars. They use public transport. I was just in Seoul for 10 days and saw a ton of 7~8" tablets and 5" Galaxy Notes in subway trains and buses. I'm in China now and see tons of phones that are 4" and up. To a lot of people here, the 3.5" iPhone is too small and the 10" iPad is too big.
 
I live in LA but travel all over Asia and Europe on business nearly half the time. Where I live, the iPhone and the iPad are perfect and I don't see the need for a "tweener" at all at home, but getting around in cities like Seoul, London, Tokyo, Shanghai, Paris. Beijing, Rome, and Jakarta, I think I'd prefer some tweener type of device for the daily commutes in crowded subway trains and buses.
 
Eventually, Apple will care a lot more about the international markets than the US and I think that's happening already. The US is Apple's home base and still the most important market in terms of mindshare, but that's changing fast. It won't be long before 80% or more of Apple's revenues and profits are generated from outside of the US. Apple is thinking about consumers in cities like Beijing, Shanghai, Mumbai, New Delhi, Rio de Janeiro, Moscow, etc.
post #84 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J View Post
You miss the entire point of the post. It's not about price points. It's about size form and varied uses.  Just like some people need a 17" Macbook and others need a 13", iOS users do not all need the same size device. There are many people for whom carrying around the full size iPad is not practical. It may be too big, too heavy, take up too much space, require additional cases/bags to carry etc.  Those people would benefit from a smaller form factor.

 

So the answer to the question "What could a smaller iPad do that the real iPad cannot?" is "be small". That's not nearly enough justification for its existence, particularly with all the tradeoffs.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #85 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

 



So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price?  If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.

 

Unfortunately, it's not.  You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points.  A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books.  It's at an "impulse buy" price point.  People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299.  So it really is about price.

 

Hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad... but you're right, price should be a factor- just as a 36" TV should cost more than a 50"- because of the price of hardware to build it.  I know the argument is- If I have an iPad- I won't buy a 7".  Or- some people might pick a 7" instead of a 10" which- even if the % of margins are the same, 50% of $500 is more than 50% of $300 (or whatever number).  But I don't see a 7" as being competition to the 10" iPad- I look at it as a Touch replacement.  Time will tell....

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

So the answer to the question "What could a smaller iPad do that the real iPad cannot?" is "be small". That's not nearly enough justification for its existence, particularly with all the tradeoffs.

Seriously?

 

What can the iPod Touch do that the iPhone can't?

What can the iPod Nano do that the iPod classic can't?

What can the 13" Macbook Pro do that the 17" Macbook Pro can't?

What can the 21.5" iMac do that the 27" iMac can't?

What can the 11" MacBook Air do that the 13" Macbook Air can't?

 

Get the point?

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #86 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
Seriously?

 

What can the iPod Touch do that the iPhone can't?

What can the iPod Nano do that the iPod classic can't?

What can the 13" Macbook Pro do that the 17" Macbook Pro can't?

What can the 21.5" iMac do that the 27" iMac can't?

What can the 11" MacBook Air do that the 13" Macbook Air can't?

 

Get the point?

 

Yeah, a bunch of arguments that are either completely wrong or prove my point.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #87 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by GQB View Post

Interesting fact about that is that GM came very close to dropping the Corvette in the 50's because of low sales (and the fact that the originals really were crap... although nice looking crap.)

One engineer apparently was able to make the case that having the Corvette in the line-up added panache to the whole line and would (and did) drive downmarket sales.

So Apple may very well introduce a 'beginners' tablet, but not for the same reason that GM kept the Vette.

This is why it would be abysmally stupid to EOL the Mac Pro and 17" MacBook.  

 

Such a move would turn Apple into a gadget company that sells stylish computers but has no presence in serious computing environments.  That is a sure way to kill sales on "consumer" model computers.

post #88 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Yeah, a bunch of arguments that are either completely wrong or prove my point.

Your point?  Your point was that just being smaller isn't enough justification to create a product.  Everything I mentioned shows Apple disagrees with you.

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2012 27" iMac i7, 2010 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air, iPad Mini Retina, (2) iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #89 of 121

A 7" iPad would rock.  Portable, light, and great for lighter tasks.  I've got a nookColor that I use primarily for reading, for which a current iPad is heavy overkill.  For reading, bigger and heavier is often a disadvantage.  Also, when I bought the nookColor it had a higher pixel density than the iPad.  The Retina displays really shine for reading text, so a 7" iPad makes perfect sense.  I'd buy one the second it came out.  The ability to wirelessly sync my library would be worth the price alone.  The nookColor SHOULD be able to do this, but inexplicably I must plug it into my computer and navigate deep into the file hierarchy to load books onto it.  And yes it's a rooted nookColor, there's still no way to wirelessly move files onto it, at least not with Mac OS X.  

post #90 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Yeah, a bunch of arguments that are either completely wrong or prove my point.


Snark much?

 

I agree that the Touch/iphone doesn't really work since they are hired to be fundamentally different devices (even though there is massive functionality overlap). Nano and classic isn't perfect either but for most users, form factor is a deciding point since many people can fit their entire library on either device now (@16GB for the Nano).

 

However, why are the MacBook, iMac and MBA options invalid? They are all examples of smaller and cheaper devices hired to do the same jobs as the larger more expensive ones with clear tradeoffs in usability (pro and con). Is that not what the claim for the iPad mini is? There is plenty of good documentary evidence on this thread of valid mainstream use cases for which the smaller/cheaper device works and a basic understanding of customer segmentation tells us that you will sell more if you create different value propositions at different price points. Apple are good at creating trade-offs between models... excluding and including features so that buying the smaller/cheaper one has some clear disadvantages. I see no reason why Apple wouldn't do the same thing for the iPad and net higher sales and revenue at high margins. I think this is classic opportunity for Apple to flex its supply chain and brand to dominate the market for tablets in a way that the telcos would never let them do in phones (even if they wanted to).

 

Maybe I lost what your point was?

post #91 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capnbob View Post
They are all examples of smaller and cheaper devices hired to do the same jobs as the larger more expensive ones with clear tradeoffs in usability (pro and con).

 

Ah, but with this I disagree. There's no usability tradeoff in smaller sizes of Mac. The UI and means of interaction don't change.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #92 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Ah, but with this I disagree. There's no usability tradeoff in smaller sizes of Mac. The UI and means of interaction don't change.


Just ask a graphic designer if there is no usability or functional difference between a 17" Macbook Pro and a 13" one.

post #93 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

 



So if it's not about price then you'd be happy with Toshiba's strategy of releasing a 7" and 10" at roughly the same price?  If it's simply about having the choice of a smaller form factor then price should be irrelevant.

 

Unfortunately, it's not.  You see so many Kindles and such on mass transit because they're at fairly low price points.  A $79 Kindle is the price of 4 hardcover books.  It's at an "impulse buy" price point.  People on these boards who say "hell yeah I'd buy a 7" iPad" really mean they'd buy it at a price between $200 and $299.  So it really is about price.


Too simplistic. Obviously the price of an 8" is going to be lower than the 10". However, it does not have to be a huge difference.  Yes, low price point of the Kindle is a factor, but many people I know that use them on public transit also have an iPad. They just don't bring it along because of size and weight. They've already spent the money for the iPad.

post #94 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain J View Post


Just ask a graphic designer if there is no usability or functional difference between a 17" Macbook Pro and a 13" one.

 

What exactly does this have to do with a 7" iPad?  

 

Some of the tasks done with an iPad don't require a larger size, or actually require a smaller size, like reading.  Trying reading in bed while holding up a 1 1/2 pound iPad.  I know most Americans either can't read or choose not to read, but those who do tend to be more educated and wealthier, and once they get hooked on a 7" iPad many of them will decide to buy a Mac and maybe an iPhone.  These are best kind of Mac users from Apple's perspective, since using an iPad to read means using it every day, so they're grow attached to Apple products and become loyal customers.

post #95 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

Trying reading in bed while holding up a 1 1/2 pound iPad.

 

I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #96 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.

 

 

Now there's a winning marketing campaign strategy:

 

 

Quote:
"The new Apple iPad.  1.5 pounds light!  It's not too heavy, you're just a wussy!"

 

That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter.  In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader.  I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.

post #97 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

 

That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter.  In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader.  I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.

 

The "I know what you need better than you do" arguments work both ways.  I have a 2nd-gen Kindle on my nightstand that has served me very well as a coaster since I purchased my iPad.  My choice to read on the iPad has more to do with usability than weight alone.  For example, I enjoy the ability to research facts and events in non-fiction books on the web, something I can't do on the Kindle.  I will take the Kindle with me on vacations, along with the iPad, for beach or pool-side reading.  But you aren't going to sell me on how I "need" a lighter/smaller device.

post #98 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post
That's great that it's not too heavy for you, but I still suspect you would be happier with something even lighter.  In any event, for those who aren't Apple fan boys, given the choice between reading on a 1.5 pound eReader and a sub 1 pound eReader, they will choose the lighter eReader.  I you can't understand this, nothing I can say will help you.


Because if there's one thing we know, it's that people certainly love single function devices.

 

Explains why the iPad has over 70% marketshare, I guess. Because people sure do love those e-readers that are only e-readers.

 

But then again, if you can't understand this, well… 

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #99 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


Because if there's one thing we know, it's that people certainly love single function devices.

 

Explains why the iPad has over 70% marketshare, I guess. Because people sure do love those e-readers that are only e-readers.

 

But then again, if you can't understand this, well… 

 

My point is simply that there would be a market for 7" iPad, and many buyers would like a smaller, lighter iPad for reading.  Where do you get this nonsense about a single function device?

 

 

 

Quote:
The "I know what you need better than you do" arguments work both ways.  I have a 2nd-gen Kindle on my nightstand that has served me very well as a coaster since I purchased my iPad.  My choice to read on the iPad has more to do with usability than weight alone.  For example, I enjoy the ability to research facts and events in non-fiction books on the web, something I can't do on the Kindle.  I will take the Kindle with me on vacations, along with the iPad, for beach or pool-side reading.  But you aren't going to sell me on how I "need" a lighter/smaller device.

 

That's great that you use your iPad, I'm happy for you.  I wasn't arguing that people would prefer a lighter Kindle to an iPad (although many would), I was saying that some people (not all) would prefer a lighter 7" iPad for reading.  And Apple doesn't need to sell YOU on a 7" iPad, they only need to sell a few hundred thousand other people on it to make it worth their while to produce.

 

I'd go so far as to argue for two more iPad sizes for a total of three models:

 

7" iPad Go

9.7" iPad

~14" iPad Pro

 

The 7" iPad would be great for those who want ultimate portability, and the 15" for fat-arsed couch potatoes who use it for surfing and pr0n.  Maybe even slap an Ivy Bridge CPU (or comparably powerful) in the Pro and offer it with  a wireless sketch tablet and it may become a Photoshop/Illustrator monster.  Market the 10" iPad to average consumers and gimp the 7" enough so it doesn't eat into the 10" version's sales.  For many people, an iPad is enough to fulfill all their computing needs.

post #100 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.


I realize that is probably meant slightly tongue in cheek but it is a prima face case of your personal opinion being worth basically nothing in terms of predicting market needs, desires, price points or elasticity.

 

I too manage to hold my iPad for hours (usually employing some kind of fingers stuffed into the rolled up smartcover) but doesn't mean millions wouldn't appreciate something lighter. My mum can read her iPhone and would have no problem reading a 7.85" iPad at either XGA or 2xXGA. What she doesn't like is holding her iPad for long periods. It quickly gets propped up on the coffee table.

post #101 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Ah, but with this I disagree. There's no usability tradeoff in smaller sizes of Mac. The UI and means of interaction don't change.


Of course there is - usability is not down to UI alone - weight, portability, screen real-estate, built in features ALL impact usability. Your narrow definition around UI does your argument a disservice.

post #102 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by supremedesigner View Post

My theory is ... Apple is doing their best to find the mole/leak coming from their high profile meetings. 




For example ... Tim Cook privately setup `Meeting One` for 20 people. Cook mentioned "iPad Mini" to 'em. Tim Cook also setup `Meeting Two` for 20 more different people. He mentioned "iPad Midget" to 'em.




So whoever leaked "iPad Midget" coming from his profile meeting then he knows that Meeting Two is responsible, not the other. He will hammer 'em down till the last one who was the responsible for it.




Hope this make sense.

He might have to hammer himself since all these sound like planned leaks. Nice black on white btw.
post #103 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Junkyard Dawg View Post

 

And Apple doesn't need to sell YOU on a 7" iPad, they only need to sell a few hundred thousand other people on it to make it worth their while to produce.

 

I'd go so far as to argue for two more iPad sizes for a total of three models:

 

7" iPad Go

9.7" iPad

~14" iPad Pro

 

The 7" iPad would be great for those who want ultimate portability, and the 15" for fat-arsed couch potatoes who use it for surfing and pr0n.  Maybe even slap an Ivy Bridge CPU (or comparably powerful) in the Pro and offer it with  a wireless sketch tablet and it may become a Photoshop/Illustrator monster.  Market the 10" iPad to average consumers and gimp the 7" enough so it doesn't eat into the 10" version's sales.  For many people, an iPad is enough to fulfill all their computing needs.

 

Here's the problem with oversimplification, Apple runs a business that needs to be taken seriously in the financial community and they have to consistently perform at or above market expectations.  With the iPad they currently have an opportunity that is contributing significantly to revenues and will do so for the foreseeable future.

 

Apple, at its current scale, can't afford to create product lines that sell in the "few hundred thousand" units.  Apple TV, which they have always called a "hobby" has sold some where in the neighborhood of 4 million units since its introduction, or barely a blip on Apple's financial radar.

 

The Kindle Fire is a feature-crippled device that is effectively sold at cost.  Apple is not about to market a similarly crippled device so they can sell it a minimal profit.  It's not a good business decision.  That's not to say they won't be in a position to do so at some point in the future, it's just not viable now.  You won't be seeing a $299 or under Apple tablet anytime soon.  If they did introduce one it could possibly be in the $399 to $449 range.  That would certainly test whether the smaller format has a market.

post #104 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Entropys View Post

At those price points I suspect it isn't an iPad at all, but a high end ebook reader

Why is that? The current iPad 2 only costs that much to make. So Apple doesn't make more then 40 percent margin on a device, is that so bad. Apple could take off 20 percent off across their product board and they would still make more money then every computer company out there.
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
When I looked up "Ninjas" in Thesaurus.com, it said "Ninja's can't be found" Well played Ninjas, well played.
Reply
post #105 of 121

If Apple reduced its profits by 50% the stock price would collapse.  Whether you agree with it or not, Apple is a business that is accountable to the shareholders.  Apple can't just decide to be charitable.
 

post #106 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

 

Here's the problem with oversimplification, Apple runs a business that needs to be taken seriously in the financial community and they have to consistently perform at or above market expectations.  With the iPad they currently have an opportunity that is contributing significantly to revenues and will do so for the foreseeable future.

 

Apple, at its current scale, can't afford to create product lines that sell in the "few hundred thousand" units.  Apple TV, which they have always called a "hobby" has sold some where in the neighborhood of 4 million units since its introduction, or barely a blip on Apple's financial radar.

 

The Kindle Fire is a feature-crippled device that is effectively sold at cost.  Apple is not about to market a similarly crippled device so they can sell it a minimal profit.  It's not a good business decision.  That's not to say they won't be in a position to do so at some point in the future, it's just not viable now.  You won't be seeing a $299 or under Apple tablet anytime soon.  If they did introduce one it could possibly be in the $399 to $449 range.  That would certainly test whether the smaller format has a market.

 

Apple has the ability to build a proper Apple 7.85" tablet for $200 cost, sell it for $279 (~25-30% margins). Not only that but they would sell 16GB at $329 and 32GB at $399 or $429 (super margins)  and across that range would sell millions. Average margin would be set by the mid-range model since that seems to be the best seller for most Apple lines. Note that although Apple's average OM is 41% that is massively because the iPhone is insanely profitable. iPads are everaging in the 30-40% range, Macs in the 20-30% range overall. You don't need to be iPhone profitable to succeed in Apple.

People would buy them like the Fire at Christmas but love them, keep them and tell everyone they know. The larger, more resource intensive iPad 2 BOM is estimated at $237. It would not be crippled, it would be a trade-off situation - using the 28nm A5, offer 2/3 the screen area with similar but probably lower battery life. The smaller form factor has an obvious market that may be the same or larger than the 10" market and Apple would be nuts to miss out on it. Apple knows far better than you how to set product specs at overlapping price points that sell to the appropriate customers and mitigate excess cannibalization. Why on earth (if Apple can build it) should they not take an entire major market segment away from the competitors. iPad is like iPods - Apple can and should control the entire market. There is no impediment like the carriers to stop them. There are Apple margins to be made at every major price point. My full argument is laid out at entry #74.

 

Don't be paralyzed by the Macs example. It is the anomaly, where cherry picking the high-end of a mature commoditized business is the right move. This is neither mature nor commoditized. Hell, it is not even well defined. 70% of the current market is irrelevant if the current market is only 20% of the available market. iPhone has shown that if you leave key market segments alone, others will take them and you may never get access to them again. Samsung is proving that it can be highly (if not Apple=like) profitable in mid/lower end smartphones and that base will provide them a very strong platform to take on Apple at the high-end once smartphone market saturation occurs. It is always easier to upgrade your own customers that steal someone else's, something they have proven and Nokia has singularly failed to grasp.

 

This is like iPods in 2004. Apple saw the light in releasing the mini and never looked back. This is that moment for tablets. Before others can really respond.

post #107 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jeffreytgilbert View Post

I already bought a sub 250$ 7" iPad in the Galaxy Tab 2 7" and it came with a universal remote app that also works with IR devices natively. It's all I've ever wanted out of the iPad, and it's something the iPad will never have. Apple can kiss it. 

Too bad you've overpaid for an oversized remote, as that's about all the device is useful for.
post #108 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post
Too bad you've overpaid for an oversized remote, as that's about all the device is useful for.

 

Know what? Not only is that perfectly right, you've given me the answer that will solve everyone's problems.

 

No one needs to be using two remotes when they have an Apple TV (the box). Have all TV manufacturers build Bluetooth 4.0 into TVs. Then let anything with Bluetooth act as a remote for any TV.

 

Then you can just use your iDevice as the remote for the Apple TV and simultaneously control the menus and whatever on your television.

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply

Originally posted by Relic

...those little naked weirdos are going to get me investigated.
Reply
post #109 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by daving313 View Post

I really hope they get more storage at a reasonable price.  You can get a 32GB thumb-drive for $20 these days.  Why is it an additional $200 to go from 16GB to 64GB?  And I get it (engineering, cost of materials, different flash used than thumbdrive, etc.).  The 64GB iPod touch should be at $199 by now.

Ah, the old question of flash storage.

There's a lot of misunderstanding about flash pricing out there. There are several types of flash memory. Without getting technical I'd like to give a short reason why Apple can't use flash made for a USB stick.

Reliability is the biggest issue with flash. We go from very reliable memory used for expensive enterprise drives at about 50,000 to 100,000 writes lifetime per cell, all the way down to 250 to 500 writes per cell for the typical flash USB stick.

In between is the 3,000 to10,000 write per cell SSD drives sold for consumer use, and for the better phones and for tablet use.

That memory costs a lot more than the cheap, but short lifetime memory used in a USB stick. USb sticks aren't expected to be used a lot. They are for taking files off, and transporting them somewhere else. If they're used a few hundred times, then thrown away, nobody thinks much of it.

But for a smartphone or tablet, that won't do. They need to have the memory usable for years, at constant use levels. With what's called "leveling" that can be done with the mid level flash these manufacturers use. But it can't be done with the cheap flash used in cheap USB sticks.

This is why it's not recommended to use a large USB stick as a startup drive in regular use. It will degrade too quickly.

It's possible that some secondary tablet manufacturers are using this cheaper memory. I can't say. But it's a very bad idea.
post #110 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post

I'd be very nervous if I were you. Steve Jobs may just rise up out of his grave and git you for even using the word stylus and iPad in the same sentence. 

This really a terrible misconception! It simply isn't true about SJ's feelings about a stylus. He didn't hate the idea of a stylus being used with an iPhone or an iPad. What he was against was the requirement that a stylus be needed.

I don't remember now, but I think it was when I bought my first iPad, the iPad1 with 3G, in May of 2010, that I was asked by the Apple sales person if I wanted a stylus with my new iPad. I said yes, as I was planning to get one anyway. If SJ was so against stylus's, he would never have allowed them to be on sale in Apple's stores, or on their web site.

Apple is smart enough to know that there will be some people for whom a stylus is a very important addition. They haven't discouraged the purchase or use of them at all. And this was when SJ was still in charge.

If Apple ever figures out a way to have multiple pressure levels on a capacitive screen without having to add an additional resistive layer, as a couple of manufacturers have done, then we will see that. There was a proposal by one stylus company, but it's a workaround at best.

If we did get pressure levels, then Wacom would be in trouble.
post #111 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I do it every night. I know most Americans need to toughen up.

I do too. But I admit that at times, the weight can be annoying. I've made up some mock-ups in my shop, at the size and thickness of the current iPad, but with varying weights.

What I found is that at about one pound, the weight problem pretty much disappears. Of course, for bigger or smaller people, that weight will be different. But I asked several people to try the different weight mock-ups, and they pretty much all agreed on the one pound model.

I would bet that within the next two years, Apple would find it impossible to get the 10" model to one pound. I would be very surprised if they didn't do exactly what I did, but with an actual iPad case, padded with weight inside. This is a very common way of trying out differing sizes and weights.

There are times, such as when I'm riding the subway, standing in a crowded car, that I would like a smaller, and lighter model for reading. I really don't want to get a Kindle, because it's way too limited, and I buy books from Apple, Barnes & Noble as well as Amazon on a regular basis, as well as read from the British Library (a great app), as well as others. In addition, many of my books use color, photo's and graphics, none of which look at all pleasant on a Kindle. Only the iPad has this kind of reading usefulness.

So a 7.85" iPad that weighed no more than a pound would be really great. If it cost $299, I would run out to get it.
post #112 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Know what? Not only is that perfectly right, you've given me the answer that will solve everyone's problems.

No one needs to be using two remotes when they have an Apple TV (the box). Have all TV manufacturers build Bluetooth 4.0 into TVs. Then let anything with Bluetooth act as a remote for any TV.

Then you can just use your iDevice as the remote for the Apple TV and simultaneously control the menus and whatever on your television.

It's likely that this day will come. Since BT4 uses almost no power, it doesn't tax the device's battery as older versions do. This would also give them the excuse to not supply their own remote, and save them some money.

As it is, we're seeing more and more companies make their receivers compatable with Apple's AirPlay. The home network standards never did take off in usage, even though so many components have come with it over the past several years. AirPlay is so much more of interest to people.

OS course, any device with built-in WiFi can already use an iOS device as a remote. There must be 100 apps out there, from simple free ones to those that cost $99.
post #113 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

 

Here's the problem with oversimplification, Apple runs a business that needs to be taken seriously in the financial community and they have to consistently perform at or above market expectations.  With the iPad they currently have an opportunity that is contributing significantly to revenues and will do so for the foreseeable future.

 

Apple, at its current scale, can't afford to create product lines that sell in the "few hundred thousand" units.  Apple TV, which they have always called a "hobby" has sold some where in the neighborhood of 4 million units since its introduction, or barely a blip on Apple's financial radar.

 

The Kindle Fire is a feature-crippled device that is effectively sold at cost.  Apple is not about to market a similarly crippled device so they can sell it a minimal profit.  It's not a good business decision.  That's not to say they won't be in a position to do so at some point in the future, it's just not viable now.  You won't be seeing a $299 or under Apple tablet anytime soon.  If they did introduce one it could possibly be in the $399 to $449 range.  That would certainly test whether the smaller format has a market.

 

Ok then, a few million units.  I got the number of sales wrong, you don't need to be pedantic.  

 

My point is that Apple could offer two or maybe three iPad models and completely crush the competitors who are selling smaller (or bigger) tablets/readers.  The larger tablet is unlikely, but a nano iPad would expand the iPad's market, regardless of what the financial analysts believe.  

post #114 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me View Post

Um-m-m-m, no. Production costs for iPads are not determined by the gram. Yes, the aluminum and glass in an iPad cost by the gram, but these costs are minor compared to everything else associated with the device. A different size iPad requires new production tools, new packaging, new transportation strategies. Most of the software can be used as is, but there are still costs associated with the different size. The production costs of a new smaller iPad are possibly greater than for the larger model, but Apple sells it for less? This does not sound like a smooth move to me. 

There's absolutely no way that the production cost of the smaller model would be greater than the current model. You're dreaming.

The way it plays out is this:

Case - somewhat less (less material and less machining time).
CPU - possibly the same or maybe slightly less if they go with 2 GPU cores rather than 4
Battery - somewhat less
Screen - considerably less than the 10" - both for size and technology reasons. I would assume that the resolution would be the same as the original iPad or iPhone 4S rather than the retina display
Screen lighting - considerably less, particularly if they go with the older resolution
Circuit board - about the same
Assembly cost - about the same
Tooling - about the same (they would need new tooling, but it would be amortized over millions of units)
Plant overhead - very slightly less (would actually depend on how they allocate overhead)
Flash storage - considerably less. If they go with 8 GB, the cost would be half of the base model new iPad

Add it all up and I think $299 is probably doable. $249 would involve a significant reduction in margins. Apple may be willing to do that, but I doubt it. It would also be the end of the iPad Touch.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #115 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

There's absolutely no way that the production cost of the smaller model would be greater than the current model. You're dreaming.
The way it plays out is this:
Case - somewhat less (less material and less machining time).
CPU - possibly the same or maybe slightly less if they go with 2 GPU cores rather than 4
Battery - somewhat less
Screen - considerably less than the 10" - both for size and technology reasons. I would assume that the resolution would be the same as the original iPad or iPhone 4S rather than the retina display
Screen lighting - considerably less, particularly if they go with the older resolution
Circuit board - about the same
Assembly cost - about the same
Tooling - about the same (they would need new tooling, but it would be amortized over millions of units)
Plant overhead - very slightly less (would actually depend on how they allocate overhead)
Flash storage - considerably less. If they go with 8 GB, the cost would be half of the base model new iPad
Add it all up and I think $299 is probably doable. $249 would involve a significant reduction in margins. Apple may be willing to do that, but I doubt it. It would also be the end of the iPad Touch.

Hmmm. I agree with you on this.
post #116 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Ah, the old question of flash storage.
There's a lot of misunderstanding about flash pricing out there. There are several types of flash memory. Without getting technical I'd like to give a short reason why Apple can't use flash made for a USB stick.
 

 

 

Not this again.  There are two general types of Flash: SLC and MLC...with SLC being more reliable and MLC less (ignoring NOR and NAND for the moment).  The difference between the two is far less today than before...or perhaps more accurately MLC has become good enough using a host of fancy tricks.

 

Apple uses MLC flash in the iOS devices.  For example the iPhone 4S and the new iPad are sporting 24nm Toshiba THGVX1G7D2GLA08 16 GB MLC NAND Flash.  iSuppli thinks it costs $19.20 while the 32GB around $38.40 and the 64GB $76.80.

 

Some USB sticks actually used SLC flash for performance.  The older Corsair GTs had SLC but MLC is fast enough and reliable enough for new GTs to have MLC NAND flash to some grousing among those that still expect the more expensive SLC NAND in the GTs.

 

So the Flash type doesn't tell you that much about the grade of the flash these days...its pretty much all MLC except for a few enterprise drives.  High end MLC flash is pretty good.  Or more accurately the high end MLC flash controllers are very good, increasing the raw 3-5K P/E (write) cycles to an effective 30-50K P/E cycle.  One reason that Apple bought Anobit was to keep this bit of technology to itself.  There's probably some Anobit magic on the A5 SOC.  Apple can afford to use "value" flash (24nm high density, high speed, low reliability flash) and end up with moderately high reliability as well.

 

SO the most important difference between "high end" flash seen in the iPhone and "low end" flash seen in low grade USB sticks is the iPhone has a high end controller and the USB stick has some craptastic eMMC controller.  High end USB sticks are often pretty good.  Certainly high end SDHC cards are just as good or better.  For example the Transcend 32GB Class 10 SDHC is using SLC Flash and costs all of $32 retail on Newegg.

 

So there's no misunderstanding. Apple CAN afford to offer more flash storage but that's probably a good chunk of the margin right there.  That's not likely to change but has little to do with what flash is costing Apple.  That's also why we're very unlikely to ever see a SD card slot on the iPad.

post #117 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

 

Here's the problem with oversimplification, Apple runs a business that needs to be taken seriously in the financial community and they have to consistently perform at or above market expectations.  With the iPad they currently have an opportunity that is contributing significantly to revenues and will do so for the foreseeable future.

 

Apple, at its current scale, can't afford to create product lines that sell in the "few hundred thousand" units.  Apple TV, which they have always called a "hobby" has sold some where in the neighborhood of 4 million units since its introduction, or barely a blip on Apple's financial radar.

 

The Kindle Fire is a feature-crippled device that is effectively sold at cost.  Apple is not about to market a similarly crippled device so they can sell it a minimal profit.  It's not a good business decision.  That's not to say they won't be in a position to do so at some point in the future, it's just not viable now.  You won't be seeing a $299 or under Apple tablet anytime soon.  If they did introduce one it could possibly be in the $399 to $449 range.  That would certainly test whether the smaller format has a market.

 

The iPod Touch is a product that needs a serious refresh and would sell millions.  A 7" iPod touch using the iPhone UI vs the iPad UI is viable if IMHO a little big.

 

Apple's biggest problem right now in the iOS lineup is their $199 product isn't very competitive vs the Kindle Fire given that Amazon is very aggressive in their app strategy and Fire pricing.  

 

A 5-7" iPod touch in the $199 price lineup would go along way in addressing that without much if any impact on normal iPad sales while revitalizing the iPod Touch line.  640x960 on a 7" is a bit meh so I'm thinking 5" might be better and more pocketable.

post #118 of 121

A 7" device would be maybe $65-$75 less to manufacture.  Other costs, shipping, marketing, warranty support stay more or less the same.  If Amazon is spending $180-$200 for their device, there's no way a smaller-format iPad could be manufactured at that price.  $250-$275 is more likely, which ends up at a retail price of $399 (maybe $379).  Under $349 is fantasy pricing.
 

post #119 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable View Post

A 7" device would be maybe $65-$75 less to manufacture.  Other costs, shipping, marketing, warranty support stay more or less the same.  If Amazon is spending $180-$200 for their device, there's no way a smaller-format iPad could be manufactured at that price.  $250-$275 is more likely, which ends up at a retail price of $399 (maybe $379).  Under $349 is fantasy pricing.
 

 

An A4 based 7" iPad would cost little more than the iPod Touch (the difference between the 3.5" and 7" IPS panels) costs to make and it sells for $199.  The A4 is more than capable of driving a 1024x768 screen since that's the same chip as in the original iPad.

 

A single Core A5 based touch seems like a logical upgrade and can still meet the existing price point.  Especially given that that the aTV is only $99. My suspicion is that when the iPod touch gets its update that's what the CPU will be to differentiate between the touch and the iphone.

post #120 of 121
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post


Not this again.  There are two general types of Flash: SLC and MLC...with SLC being more reliable and MLC less (ignoring NOR and NAND for the moment).  The difference between the two is far less today than before...or perhaps more accurately MLC has become good enough using a host of fancy tricks.

Apple uses MLC flash in the iOS devices.  For example the iPhone 4S and the new iPad are sporting 24nm Toshiba THGVX1G7D2GLA08 16 GB MLC NAND Flash.  iSuppli thinks it costs $19.20 while the 32GB around $38.40 and the 64GB $76.80.

Some USB sticks actually used SLC flash for performance.  The older Corsair GTs had SLC but MLC is fast enough and reliable enough for new GTs to have MLC NAND flash to some grousing among those that still expect the more expensive SLC NAND in the GTs.

So the Flash type doesn't tell you that much about the grade of the flash these days...its pretty much all MLC except for a few enterprise drives.  High end MLC flash is pretty good.  Or more accurately the high end MLC flash controllers are very good, increasing the raw 3-5K P/E (write) cycles to an effective 30-50K P/E cycle.  One reason that Apple bought Anobit was to keep this bit of technology to itself.  There's probably some Anobit magic on the A5 SOC.  Apple can afford to use "value" flash (24nm high density, high speed, low reliability flash) and end up with moderately high reliability as well.

SO the most important difference between "high end" flash seen in the iPhone and "low end" flash seen in low grade USB sticks is the iPhone has a high end controller and the USB stick has some craptastic eMMC controller.  High end USB sticks are often pretty good.  Certainly high end SDHC cards are just as good or better.  For example the Transcend 32GB Class 10 SDHC is using SLC Flash and costs all of $32 retail on Newegg.

So there's no misunderstanding. Apple CAN afford to offer more flash storage but that's probably a good chunk of the margin right there.  That's not likely to change but has little to do with what flash is costing Apple.  That's also why we're very unlikely to ever see a SD card slot on the iPad.

Nope! There are three basic types of flash NAND. SLC, MLC and TLC. SLC is the most reliable. MLC is next. TLC is the least reliable. TLC is also the cheapest, and is often used in the cheapest sticks, and sometimes in the cheapest SD and Compact Flash cards.

It's true that TLC is a relation to MLC, which is just two bits, whereas TLC is three, but is also moving to four at some point. But they have to be made differently enough that they can be considered a different type, as SLC and MLC are. It's the newest type as well.

If what you said about the difference between SLC and MLC drives being different mainly because of the controllers were true (it isn't) then I wouldn't have posted what I did. But enterprise quality drives use SLc almost exclusively, which is why they cost so darned much. Even then, they have a greater percentage of overage in the amount of flash they use for greater reliability over time as the flash begins to fail. There are also semi-enterprise level drives that cost more than consumer models, but less than the real enterprise models that do use a higher rated MLC. But they can have as much as 28% overage in flash to make up for the lower reliability, despite the sophisticated controllers used today.

None of this is relevant to Apple's iOS devices, as they all use MLC. But a normal markup on part prices for manufacturers is between 100 and 300%. Apple isn't asking too much for it.

You should go to Newegg and look at prices for HDD's. You'll find that those branded with HP, IBM, Lenovo, etc, cost several times as much as those from Seagate, WB, etc. this is normal.

If Apple pays $50 for flash, I would expect them to charge between $100-150 for it in the device pricing. The Motorola tablet cost $200 more for an extra 32 GB when it first came out, as did the 3G/GPS add-on. And the basic tablet itself cost $599.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Rumor: Apple to release sub-$250 7-inch 8GB iPad in October