Apple 'likely' to unveil 'iPad mini' at event on Oct. 23 - report - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 

...

I really don't understand this logic regarding the iPad 3.  How is it half assed?  They had to ever so slightly thicken it to put enough battery in to kep the hour count the same for the Retina display.  And?  I prefer the thickness of the iPad 3 to the iPad 2.  It always felt too thin compared to my wife's original iPad in Apple case.  The iPad is smaller than a legal pa and is still less heavy than most hardback novels.  I really don't see the issue.

My understanding is that they couldn't get the thinner screen they wanted with the lower power requirements and so at the last minute needed to increase the size of the battery as a result.  It's significantly heavier than the iPad 2.  It's so heavy that it's weight is it's defining factor and more or less the first thing you notice.  

The "proof" of it's placeholder status, is the widely expected, mid-year release (possibly at the same event as the mini), of a "corrected" version of the iPad 3, with a better screen, a smaller battery and a thinner profile.  

I'm thinking you just don't use your iPad that much if you don't notice the weight or perhaps you only use it when it's lying on a table or something?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

The "iPhone nano" doesn't exist for many reasons, one of which being the regular iPhone can fill its market by sticking around at a lower price. 

Why couldn't the same be true of the iPad?

They could of course, but it's a choice of one or the other strategy isn't it?  

Flip the argument around ("Why couldn't there be a cheap off-contract iPhone nano instead of re-selling last year's iPhone models?"), and it works against you.  

The only thing that would make no sense is doing both strategies at once. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Why? Can't put it in a pocket, so it's only teasingly more portable than the real iPad. They're still carrying something in their hand as they walk around; they may as well carry an iPad.

...

- you put it in the pocket of your hoodie

- if it's raining, you put it under your hoodie and hold it in your hands while they are in the pockets

- you chuck it in your hockey bag

- you put it in your purse

- you put it in the pocket of your skater pants

- you carry it in your hand

- you put it in the inside pocket of your jacket

In any case my argument was only that the kids that I know don't actually carry backpacks everywhere with them everywhere.  Also, the plain fact is that a mini iPad would be more portable than the original, so I'm not sure what your point is.  You say "teasingly more portable," but it's still more portable.  The "teasingly" is just in your head.  It may not be in everyone's head. 

It's also worth noting that the same argument came up for pretty much every portable device and every smaller iteration of same from the laptop to the iPod touch.  Is the Macbook Air useless simply because it's only slightly more portable than a regular laptop?  Is the iPod nano a waste of time because the iPod is already pretty small in and of itself?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 

 

Are you suggesting the iPad Mini would be $399? 

That makes sense to me. If the build and materials were equal to the current iPad, with retina, that would be the right price. $100 less than iPad because it is smaller. Of course you have to completely ignore any competitive price model and just sell on quality alone. So Amazon and Google want to give away their devices, so what?

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 

 

Also, I don't see them holding over more than 1 extra generation of the iPad.  Move to iPad 4, keep teh 3 at $100 less.  $100 or $150 below that is the Mini.

I think there should always be at least one full size iPad at $299 for education.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 
They could of course, but it's a choice of one or the other strategy isn't it?

It's not that simple. One involves millions in R&D and new manufacturing lines, plus testing, boxing, marketing, etc.

The other involves a new price tag. 

No, it just brings into play the other reasons for not doing a smaller iPhone, such as UX, UI, and hardware power, in addition to the ones I brought up earlier. All these were outweighed for the iPhone; I don't see why they wouldn't be for the iPad.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

It's not that simple. One involves millions in R&D and new manufacturing lines, plus testing, boxing, marketing, etc.

 

The other involves a new price tag. 

 

No, it just brings into play the other reasons for not doing a smaller iPhone, such as UX, UI, and hardware power, in addition to the ones I brought up earlier. All these were outweighed for the iPhone; I don't see why they wouldn't be for the iPad.

Your just mixing stuff up here and changing the ground of the argument as usual.  The decision to make a new product does indeed involve some of the things you've mentioned.  The decision to re-sell the old product involves different factors unique to that choice (more than just a new price tag).  It's still a choice of one strategy or the other.  

You are arguing that one strategy (the one you prefer) is simpler and a better choice than the other.  You may be right, you may be wrong.  It's still a choice of one strategy or the other.  In fact, you know no more and no less than anyone else on the forum about which strategy would be best or which they would choose, but you still spend all your time brow-beating anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your assessment and making snarky comments to that effect.  You were acting and speaking as if the one choice was simply ridiculous or that it wasn't valid in some way when in fact each is a valid option.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

 

My understanding is that they couldn't get the thinner screen they wanted with the lower power requirements and so at the last minute needed to increase the size of the battery as a result.  It's significantly heavier than the iPad 2.  It's so heavy that it's weight is it's defining factor and more or less the first thing you notice.  

 

The "proof" of it's placeholder status, is the widely expected, mid-year release (possibly at the same event as the mini), of a "corrected" version of the iPad 3, with a better screen, a smaller battery and a thinner profile.  

 

I'm thinking you just don't use your iPad that much if you don't notice the weight or perhaps you only use it when it's lying on a table or something?  

1) The iPad 3 vs iPad 2 weight: 8.68% or 0.115 lbs or 1.84oz heavier.  Since when is that "significantly" for something the size of a hardback book? 

2) Who was widely expecting that?  I don't recall any serious talk of that from anyone reliable.  Was this some Digitimes claim?  There was never ANY chance of Apple completely revamping the iPad 3 months after its launch and anyone who said that has a bridge to sell you

3)Actually I use my iPad around the house in many different rooms and I don't have a case or cover for it yet, so I'm not just leaning it up places.  The weight is a non-issue for me and always has been. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

 

That makes sense to me. If the build and materials were equal to the current iPad, with retina, that would be the right price. $100 less than iPad because it is smaller. Of course you have to completely ignore any competitive price model and just sell on quality alone. So Amazon and Google want to give away their devices, so what?

 

Alright, now what if the new iPad Mini is NOT Retina.  I would expect a higher cost for Retina at the smaller size.  I would expect the $249 or $299 for the 1024x768 that has been pretty much the only talked about resolution all this time.

Originally Posted by Gazoobee 

…but you still spend all your time brow-beating anyone who has the temerity to disagree with your assessment and making snarky comments to that effect.  You were acting and speaking as if the one choice was simply ridiculous or that it wasn't valid in some way when in fact each is a valid option.  

Right, that's obviously the case. 

How, again, is millions in R&D, manufacturing, testing, boxing, marketing, and software a better solution that just changing the price and dialing back yield? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 

Alright, now what if the new iPad Mini is NOT Retina.  I would expect a higher cost for Retina at the smaller size.  I would expect the $249 or $299 for the 1024x768 that has been pretty much the only talked about resolution all this time.

I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.

Originally Posted by 1983 
I really-really hope they're also going to use this event to introduce an upgraded iPad 3 with A6, HD Facetime camera, upgraded 4G cellular chip for international markets and of course the new Lightning connector. I've been holding out on purchasing an iPad 3 for those reasons. But disappointment is also a real possibility, we'll see...

Why would they do that? That's an iPad 4, not an iPad 3. It's only six months old.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mac-user 

$349

but if it were at $299, at the price of the iPod Touch, doesn't mean both couldn't be successful. The two can serve different purposes.

They maybe can serve two different purposes, but it still makes for a crowded niche of the price point/two similar widgets.  With the iPod at $299 I've given up hope that it'll come in that low.   Maybe they can cripple it enough to still be worthwhile and allow the iPod to retain a modicum of purpose and desirability, but I would have preferred Apple ceded the $299 market to the Mini and not bothered to put out the new iPod.

Who who has an iPhone is going to consider getting the iPod?   The MIni, on the other hand...(spoken by someone who loves his previous gen wifi only, no phone iPod and figures this is the end of the line after owning several generations.)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.

I think a high quality non-retina display on the Mini would make perfect sense.  I wouldn't use it for media watching.  There's nothing visually about my current older iPod Touch that gets in the way of its use, except for the size.  Not the screen.  Why would it be stooping or not high quality?

Originally Posted by jlandd 

Who who has an iPhone is going to consider getting the iPod?

They're not supposed to be for the same people. That's not a question to be asked.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mstone 

I know but I can't see how that fits into the Apple philosophy. I think from this point on any new portable device they release will be retina. I just can't see them going backwards. Desktop perhaps not yet as they are too large. If they do release 1024x768 iPad mini it would represent a fundamental change of course to a price driven model instead of a quality driven model. I really don't want Apple to stoop to the level of Amazon or Google.

The iPad 2 is the younger brother to the New iPad.  The iPad Mini will be taking what everyone loved about the iPad 2, shrinking it down more, making it even lighter and thinner and selling it for even cheaper.  It isn't supposed to be the top of the line product again.  Look at the iPhone vs iPod Touch.  The Touch has an older processor, the Mini will have an older resolution.  I see many similarities and it won't be backsliding, it will be making a product to suit a market.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Why would they do that? That's an iPad 4, not an iPad 3. It's only six months old.

Precisely!  If they change the iPad 3 at all, they will change the connector.  Have there been any process shrinks available for the processor they are using?  I haven't heard of any.  According to the wikipedia entry for the A5, samsung won't have their 28nm factory up and running till the latter half of 2013.  So no process shrink has occurred and we still have a 45nm processor in the A5X.  If we had 28nm available, I could see them swapping the new proc scale in and touting new power savings. 

From all the rumors I've read on the matter, Apple wants to quickly move all its iOS devices to the Lightning connector including iPad 3 so if they're investing in that, why not incorporate those other upgrades to give it parity with the iPhone 5 and the iPad Mini? Of course they're all just that - rumors so it might not happen afterall. 

I've always thought the A5x in the iPad 3 was a stop-gap solution because at the time they couldn't ramp up production up of the A6 for technical reasons, so they didn't incorporate it in the iPad 3. Remember the reviews at the time reporting that the new iPad got a lot hotter in use than previous generations? The A6 would solve that.

Originally Posted by 1983 
From all the rumors I've read on the matter, Apple wants to quickly move all its iOS devices to the Lightning connector…

And all those rumors were pretty much proven false when the iPod classic didn't get Lightning.

It wasn't.

It also got faster in terms of CPU and GPU and became the fastest tablet on the market again. The iPad 3 was as much a "stop gap" as the iPhone 4S was a "stop gap" for the "real" "iPhone "5"".

And yes, all those quotes are necessary. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 

  I see many similarities and it won't be backsliding, it will be making a product to suit a market.

Google and Amazon already have the cheap customers. They can give away their devices because they plan to recover the actual profit by selling you content or advertising.

Apple customers have never been the type to find a bargain. Apple should make the best quality at a fair price like they have always done. The market they should focus on is the discerning sophisticated customer who appreciates high quality and is willing to pay extra to get it. For students they can have the hand me down iPad 2 at a very inexpensive price. The only reason to continue to manufacture old technology is because the facilities are already tooled for the assembly line. If you are setting up a brand new manufacturing process and designing an all new device, why build it with old technology?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SSquirrel 

 

The iPad 2 is the younger brother to the New iPad.  The iPad Mini will be taking what everyone loved about the iPad 2, shrinking it down more, making it even lighter and thinner and selling it for even cheaper.  It isn't supposed to be the top of the line product again.  Look at the iPhone vs iPod Touch.  The Touch has an older processor, the Mini will have an older resolution.  I see many similarities and it won't be backsliding, it will be making a product to suit a market.

+1...and it's been what I've been emphasizing all along as the most probable strategy.  Some will be dissatisfied with the "quality" (it's crap!) and some will be dissatisfied with the price (too expensive!), but by and large, there is a market desiring what you've inferred above!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


Ok but you didn't explain why Apple can't release a smaller iPad with retina now. What are the technical reasons it won't work? Or is it not technical but price?

If you want retina so bad why dont you buy the ipad3 now, because ... , its available right now and its not vaporware....

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


That's the only reason I would maybe support non-retina. But after having a retina display its hard to go back to something that doesn't have it.

Well an ipad mini at 1024x768 would have better DPI than the ipad 2 because of the smaller screen size, so it will look better even if its not retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by herbapou 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


Ok but you didn't explain why Apple can't release a smaller iPad with retina now. What are the technical reasons it won't work? Or is it not technical but price?

 

If you want retina so bad why dont you buy the ipad3 now, because ... , its available right now and its not vaporware....

I already have a retina iPhone, a retina iPad, a retina MBP and I hope to have a retina iPad mini as well.

Quote:

Originally Posted by eightzero 

Lots of interesting possibilities. If AAPL wants to Kill It, they could price an iPad mini at $199 and destroy any competitors. Might not be a pleasing thing for shareholders to hear, as I can see AAPL losing money on each. (Yeah, I know...make it up in the volume.) But at that price could they make enough? They might be looking at higher prices simply to keep the deliveries doable.
The new iPoad nano is clearly a nod to abandon the smart watch, at least for now. But the new nano form does sort of lend itself to being a new consumer device as well. If it ran full up iOS, would people carry them...like a phone without voice capability? Ask the kids these days...who talks on a phone anymore?

I guess it's a possibility...but $199?...when the cow jumps over the moon.  No how, no way, will Apple sell hardware at a loss (or breakeven for that matter).

I agree that the new nano iPod form factor is lending credit to the ultra portable market...mark my words, an iPhone nano iza'coming, maybe in the form of a flip phone, crippled iOS, but enough to text, email and call.  And it'll fit into all these new fangled shared data plans whilst lightening the data/$ usage of the common family (or organization).

If there's a viable market, Apple will consider it VERY seriously...as long it makes money and is a gateway into the Apple ecosystem.

We'll see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


For me there's only two semi-feasible reasons the device wouldn't be retina. Either it would be too expensive or it would prevent the device from being super thin and light. But if Apple cripples the device just to compete with Amazon and Google on price that's a big mistake IMO. Make a superior device (and no I don't think iOS alone makes something superior) an people will pay more for it.

I think you underestimate the importance of 2 things: 1) there is a large market for an iPad Mini-sized device in the $300-$350 price range. 2) Apple is not so easily going to give up on this market just because of a philosophy that its devices have to be superior.

Look at the iPhone 5.  It's not superior to the SIII.  It's may be a bit better, but not superior (and in fact some Droid folks would argue that the SIIII is better).  If what you're saying is true, then Apple should have released an iPhone 5 with superior specs/performance at a higher cost, but they didn't.

I see your point and I don't 100% disagree, in fact, you may end up to be correct...but I fear for Apple's success if they stubbornly stick to that "superior device" manifesto.

Originally Posted by Rogifan 
But if Apple cripples the device just to compete with Amazon and Google on price that's a big mistake IMO. Make a superior device (and no I don't think iOS alone makes something superior) an people will pay more for it.

They won't cripple it, but it likely won't be retina, and it'll be $399.

Originally Posted by Rogifan 
And what besides iOS will make it better than a $199 nexus?

The rest of the hardware. And way the hardware and software work together. 

The UX is just as important as either of them separately, and it's greater than the sum of the parts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by herbapou 

 

1024x768 like the ipad 1 and 2....  so 4:3

 

Anyone is going to start the price debate again? Like that ultra fanboi bozo who was interview on CNBC who wants a high end ipad mini at 349$? 

They could surprise with 2048x1536 like the new iPad. That would give a pixel density like the iPhone 4/5. In any case, yes, the ratio will be 4:3 and it will run all iPad apps unchanged.

Something tells me that Apple won't want to make new products that don't have retina displays. However, in this case they need to keep the price point low so they should probably stick with the lower resolution and make the jump maybe next year.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

The "iPhone nano" doesn't exist for many reasons, one of which being the regular iPhone can fill its market by sticking around at a lower price. 

Why couldn't the same be true of the iPad?

The iPad doesn't fit into a coat pocket. That's what the iPad mini is all about.

Originally Posted by jonshf 
The iPad doesn't fit into a coat pocket. That's what the iPad mini is all about.

So the iPad mini is meant to be used four months out of the year, or year-round, but only if you live on the high ends of 42° north or south? Doesn't sound like a good deal.

An iPad mini, and any other 7-8" tablet, is what I've taken to calling "deceptively portable". In that people keep claiming it's pocketable, but when they have to specify which kind of pockets, the air goes out of the balloon. In a majority of cases, the iPad mini is going to be held in your hand at your side, just like the regular iPad. Unless you expect everyone to start wearing jackets when it's 90℉ or carrying purses regardless of gender. But then you're still carrying something.

I read somewhere it will have 3GS specs internally (i.e. cpu, etc.).  Look, rumors are rumors, and no one really knows except Apple.  I'm long apple stock but if this thing is released with specs like that it's gonna nose dive even more than the past couple weeks.  I'm waiting for iPhone 5 sales numbers anyways after Christmas and Q4 results and then I'm out most likely.  I like Apple and own a lot of Apple products, but the growth curve is starting to flatten.  And I never fall in love with a stock.  The problem is, finding another growth story like this one over the past 7 years will be difficult at best.  Hopefully the iPad mini will have decent specs.  Later.

Originally Posted by jcdinkins 
I read somewhere it will have 3GS specs internally (i.e. cpu, etc.).

Nonsense! It would have at least an A5, if not an A6. 3GS is basically dead as a hardware platform.

Oh boy, here we go… Not really.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


How in the world can Apple expect to sell a device for $300-$350 with specs that are inferior to a $199 device? Now I have no idea what the specs will be for a smaller iPad, just going off others speculations that they will be iPad 2-like. I'm not suggesting Apple give up on the market or price it at $199. What I am suggesting is releasing a device that has superior specs to kindle and nexus 7. And display is a big part of that since a lot of people use their iPads for reading and watching video. I think Apple can easily create a superior device that justifies the higher price tag.

It won't be inferior to a $199 device.  I apologize if I wasn't clear.  I'm saying that it won't be superior to a Galaxy Tab & at the high offering of $400+.

You used the word superior, but now that I read your: "...speculations that they will be iPad 2-like." I realize that you and I basically agree on the level of quality/features.

So, yes, it should be superior to Nexus 7 (and definitely superior to Kindle)...but not by a whole lot...in order to keep price low enough to sway consumers who were originally interested in the Nexus/Kindle, to spend a little more & "upgrade" their buying decision to an iPad Mini.  And the wonderful integration of hardware/software (& UX) will influence even more iPad Mini purchases.

Are we there yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by nht 

 

Are you kidding?  Show me a US school aged child that does not carry around a backback 5 days a week.

 

THEY don't shun cell contracts.  PARENTS shun cell contracts because of cost.  My kid wants netflix in the car.  That means either me hotspotting my phone or him using his own via a family plan.

 

The family data plans kinda sorta suck but kinda sorta don't.  A little cheaper and they would have been a boon.

Ok, yes, children going to school will have them, but more likely parents aren't sending kids to school with $300 devices in most cases. I guess, yes, in affluent areas. But it's just hard for me to see young children and most teens walking around with tablets-at school yes; in the car, yes.

I live in New York and took my 14-year-old-nephew to a concert where the line literally ran around the entire block. Every kid had an iPhone or Android smartphone texting in line and on FB and Instagram. There was a sea of phones taking video inside the venue. I couldn't imagine any of them wanting to lug around a 7" tablet and paying for LTE data. Kids riding around on skateboards or the subway-I can't see that either. What I'm saying is that I really can't see most kids having their own for use outside of school that much, but maybe more than teens. Most teens would prefer a pocketable device that does not need a cell contract. If they want/can afford a cell contract, my sense is that they'd sooner get an actual iPhone rather than two distinct devices.

But you have experience as a parent of school age kids, so what you're saying makes sense, too.