'iPad mini' to give Apple tech advantage, protect mobile device marketshare - Page 2

Maybe it was an desperate attempt to make a point when there was no substance to his point?

If the MS hardware coming shortly also fails to compete in the market place with IPad, yet is priced competitively with iPad (at least from the start), I wonder what his explanation will be for the units that do sell.   There are many reasons for people to go out and buy alternative hardware.    From what I've seen of poor people price doesn't really matter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


I don't understand your hatred for people who are less affluent than you or who don't see the direct value with more expensive CE.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

9to5Mac is reporting rumors that the starting price will be $329. They don't say for what model, but I would assume its 16GB wi-fi only. I think this might be a tough sell for Apple. Unfortunately Amazon and Google with their race to the bottom have put it in people's minds that smaller tablets should be $199-$250.

I really don't get this line of thinking.

Do you mean like since all Apples notebook competitors have models starting at below $400, so Apple has to match them.

Oh Wait... Apple notebooks start at more than double that $999 and they have just become #1 in US Notebooks sales this year.

Sell a high quality product, with high quality service/ecosystem and you can charge a reasonable price and ignore the bottoms feeders.   That is the Apple way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


That's why I'm hoping this device has closer to iPad 3 specs than iPad 2. I'm not suggesting Apple get involved in the race to the bottom. Charge more but for a better product. Not a shrunken iPad 2 with 8G of storage.

What is iPad 3 specs? Anyone expecting a 2048x1536 display is going to be sorely disappointed.

But a shrunken iPad 2 resolution will bump dpi from 132 to 163 which is a significant improvement and likely good enough for most people (people were still buying millions of iPad 2).

I also expect an A6 which would actually make the most powerful tablet for a while, throw in Apples tighter OS and nothing will be as smooth as this for some time to come.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Apple ][ 

 

Not at all.

 

When Steve Jobs stood there on stage, presenting the iPhone to the world for the first time ever, and claimed that it was years ahead of the competition, it turned out to be true. 

The iPhone is not years ahead of the competition technologically. What puts Apple ahead of the competition (in profits) is everything Apple does, and it is still not 3-5 years ahead of the competition. The analyst claimed that the iPad Mini will contain technology that puts that far ahead. Name one technology you expect the iPad Mini to possess which is 3-5 years ahead of the rest of the world. A6? Nope. DIsplay? Nope. Camera? Nope. iOS? Nope (and it's the same iOS that's in everything else, so there's no point in offering it as a distinction). The analyst was simply repeating Jobs' claim about the iPhone. You could excuse (and expect, and enjoy) such hyperbole from Steve, but you can't excuse it from a stock analyst. Had he said that Apple's dominant position in the tablet space will give the iPad Mini a leg up on the competition, I'd have agreed.

Apple need not be 3-5 years ahead of anyone, they simply need to offer a value proposition that keeps them growing, and they do. I'm hard pressed to think of any tech company that's 3-5 years ahead of the competition technologically. It took less than five years for Android to outpace iOS by units, but because the ecosystem and accompanying margins (both for Apple and for 3rd party hardware/software developers) are superior for Apple, the majority of profits flow to Apple. This is not a technological advantage in any iOS device, it's the same Apple "magic" that's been at work since 1984, but finally in an environment where that magic really goes to work.

Originally Posted by bsimpsen 
The iPhone is not years ahead of the competition technologically.

Why did the first iPhone have things that aren't yet on other phones?

lolololololimsoedgy

Meaning what?

So in five years, why can't I get an ecosystem from someone else that works (at all) better than Apple's?

Boom goes the argument. At least partially.

True! It helps, though, that they are several years ahead of most.

Apple.

… Wrong.

Elaborate?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


OK probably won't have iPad 3 resolution but should have something that comes close along with A6, front and rear cameras, Siri, etc, blow the competition out of the water.

Some kind of intermediate resolution would lead to messy non integral scaling. Extremely unlikely Apple will do this.

This is all about getting entry product out there. Eventually 2nd or 3rd generation will get the full 2048x1536 resolution when the price is a little less extreme for entry level and it will give people a reason to upgrade to the 2nd or 3rd generation.

Looks like it will still be awhile until I buy an iPad. They've either been too heavy (original iPad and iPad 3) or lacked a retina display--not to mention other drawbacks to the iPad3, such as its honking battery. With the mini, it's apparently going to be too small for the functionality/price tradeoff*. Until then, my money goes toward iPhones, which are more practical--always with me; and desktops, which are far more productive.

*Technical documents are significantly more difficult to read on smaller displays

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fredtowers 

To really be competitive with the Kindle Paperwhite, what the iPad Air needs is a "trans-reflective" color screen that works in sunshine.

For competitiveness, I believe price is far more important than readability in direct sunshine. A lower price alone would suck away the vast majority of Amazon's Kindle business.

Some of Apple's magic is very old stuff, particularly the reasonably seamless integration of hardware and software and the drive for simplicity. They've had that since 1984 but it's only in the last decade that it's been seen as something worth copying, perhaps because Apple moved out of the computing world into the appliance world. Because they moved their magic to a realm where it's better appreciated, and kept integration with the computers, they were able to grow their manufacturing volumes to the point they wield purchasing power magic second to none. They've also worked quite a bit of magic in their retail operations, making it easier to experience the rest of Apple's magic. No other competitor comes close.

The analyst said that the iPad mini will contain technology that will put it 3-5 years ahead of the competition. If you wanted to argue that all iOS products are 3-5 years ahead of the competition, you'd not single out the iPad Mini. You say "like all other iOS devices, the iPad Mini will be 3-5 years ahead of the competition. I'd still say that's wrong, but less wrong.

Do you really think that Apple could stop dead in its tracks for 3-5 years and stay in business? That kind of hubris (I doubt Jobs believed Apple was 3-5 years ahead) is self destructive. Jobs, like Andy Groves, had a healthy paranoia. He simply didn't trot that out during keynotes.

Originally Posted by bsimpsen 

Do you really think that Apple could stop dead in its tracks for 3-5 years and stay in business?

Apple could stop selling everything they sell and operate for a decade on their cash alone.

So, yes.

Take products into account and they'd operate even longer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

 I'm not so sure in this market.

You mean this same market, where Apple has been selling many tens of millions of much higher priced iPad 3's? 

People who walk around with obamaphones might think that the iPad Mini is high priced, but millions of other people will be snapping them up like crazy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 


Getting an entry product out there at a high price so they can lower the price next year when sales aren't what they expected? I know many here think Apple can throw anything out there, slap on a $50-$100 premium and it will sell like hotcakes. I'm not so sure in this market.

Again faulty thinking.
 

$329 is inexpensive and fairly priced for the cost involved in building this. This is likely one of Apples lower margin products.

Whining about $200 zero profit tablets isn't going to change Apples business model to a non-profit one. Anymore than whining about $400 Windows laptops convinced them to build non-profit $500 macbooks.

I didn't say lower price next year. I said they won't include a retina display until it is affordable/profitable to build.

By the Second/Third generation they will be able to build a Retina Mini for $329 and actually make a profit. Not only that, but it gives them a nice upgrade path.

it will be really interesting to see exactly what the Mini is, and how much.

right now the tablets Apple sells:

3:2 iPod touch running older retina iPhone apps @ $199 with 16G

16:9 iPod touch also running new retina iPhone apps @ $299 with 32G

4:3 iPad2 running older iPad apps @ $399 with 16G + $130 for 3G data

4:3 iPad also running newer retina iPad apps @ $499 with 16G + $130 for 4G data

so how does the Mini fit in?

?:? iPad Mini running ? i? apps @ $? with ?G + maybe $130 for ? data

the most common guesses seem to be:

4:3 iPad Mini running older iPad apps @ $299 with 8G

but we might very well be surprised ...

PS: after thinking, i expect this "basic" iPad Mini will start at $249 w 8G, and $299 for 16G. so a 32G version matching the iPod touch minimum storage would be $$399, maintaining the overall price stepping set-up.

btw, Apple makes a ton of profit by marking up the storage price. how long they can get away with this in the face of stiff competition ...

and we can be sure that Apple's own apps will be re-formatted for an optimal UI on the smaller Mini screen, even tho regular iPad2 apps will just be shrunk down.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tallest Skil 

 

Apple could stop selling everything they sell and operate for a decade on their cash alone.

 

So, yes.

 

Take products into account and they'd operate even longer.

Thanks for explaining why this line of reasoning doesn't work for you.

Originally Posted by bsimpsen 
Thanks for explaining why this line of reasoning doesn't work for you.

You're trying to pretend it's a different argument than it is. I'm simply highlighting how the argument is pointless. You want to know if Apple can sell the same stuff for an extended period successfully?

iMac. Mac Mini. Mac Pro. iPod classic. All still selling.

"Yeah, but no one really buys those."

They could easily do the same with their laptop family, because computers are far more powerful than 90% of the people who use them need. But let's move to where the money is. 

iPhone 3GS. Three years old. STILL sold better than ANY other non-iPhone on the market. Apple can absolutely not change things for three years and still sell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogifan 

9to5Mac is reporting rumors that the starting price will be $329. They don't say for what model, but I would assume its 16GB wi-fi only. I think this might be a tough sell for Apple.

If they priced it under the new iPod Touch ($299), then would it make that product a tough sell wouldn't it? Something north of the iPod Touch price and south of the entry model iPad makes sense in the Apple scheme. Under-cut the Touch and it makes the product line price points awkward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?

Smartphones are unique. They have extremely high margins propped up by hiding the cost in cell phone plans.

Other than that, it doesn't make sense for iPad Mini to cost less than a Touch, because the much bigger screen, case, battery, makes the iPad mini more expensive to build.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gatorguy 

If they priced it under the new iPod Touch ($299), then would it make that product a tough sell wouldn't it? Something north of the iPod Touch price and south of the entry model iPad makes sense in the Apple scheme. Under-cut the Touch and it makes the product line price points awkward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?

see my chart above. Apple uses the increased storage mark-ups to segment its pricing, so a cheaper 8G Mini is not "awkward." i was surprised when the new touch "entry model" price was increased this year to $299 for 32G from $229 for 16G. i assume that means Apple already knew most touch buyers got the higher-priced models with 32G anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?

I don't necessarily think the mini market is so different from those that up till now thought the Touch appropriate for them. I suspect you really feel the same deep down. Weren't you arguing for months that any smaller tablet device belonged in the iPod category rather than the iPad, and should be marketed as such? A bigger iPod Touch rather than a smaller iPad, and going after those Touch users?

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


BUT THEY AREN'T THE SAME DISPLAYS WITH THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THE SIZE. You have one with a 326 PPI and the other using the PPI that first arrived in 2007. They are nearly the same total resolution. On top of that you have less shrunken components to deal with so you don't have to invest in expensive ways to reduce the size or battery usage of a components when you have a lot more room to play with.
As for your comment about smartphones being unique because their costs are hidden that completely goes against your claim that miniature parts are less expensive than less miniaturized parts. THIS IS NOT SOME UNIQUE CONCEPT IN COMPUTING YET WHEN APPLE IS INVOLVED ALL OF A SUDDEN SHRUNKEN COMPONENTS ARE ALWAYS CHEAPER THAN LARGER ONES? W T F?!?!?! Some things will be more costly like the backlight, battery, casing, but there are plenty of others that could very well be considerably cheaper if Apple choses to go that route. Even their logic board could be cheaper because they can use a less sophisticate process if they don't need the space savings.

Wow, that is so out of touch, and yelling so much over it.

The battery isn't some kind of expensive miniaturized battery in the iPod. It is simply a battery of the same construction 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost.

A modern touchscreen LCD is about 10 different layers. Only 1 of the 10 cost more because of increased density. The other 9 are priced directly related to size, and 4 times larger = 4 times more cost.

The same goes for the case. 4 times the size, 4 times the cost.

The rest of the components are the same in either case.

Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.

Originally Posted by Snowdog65 

Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.

That sounds backward.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Snowdog65 

 

Wow, that is so out of touch, and yelling so much over it.

 

The battery isn't some kind of expensive miniaturized battery in the iPod. It is simply a battery of the same construction 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost.

 

A modern touchscreen LCD is about 10 different layers. Only 1 of the 10 cost more because of increased density. The other 9 are priced directly related to size, and 4 times larger = 4 times more cost.

 

The same goes for the case. 4 times the size, 4 times the cost.

 

The rest of the components are the same in either case.

 

Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.

I'm not sure about all the "layers" of the display, but I can tell you categorically that the cost of neither the battery nor the case scales up linearly with size as you described. That might seem to be the intuitive relationship if you consider only raw components. But there is a process cost as well. For example, 4 iPhone back plates will cost more than an iPad back plate, assuming the latter is indeed 4 times the size of the former (which it isn't).

More generally, the cost of manufacturing (components plus process) does go down with size to an extent. But the decrease is not linear. Furthermore, it hits a certain threshold and starts to go up again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


So you think miniaturized components cost less than larger components because they are in a smaller package? Got it! Unfortunately your Fun-Sized Snicker scenario has never been the case with CE and computers. You've never wondered why a Notebook of a certain performance costs more than a Desktop of a certain performance? When you do you'll need to rethink your hypothesis that being smaller means everything is cheaper. As previously noted the iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity, something people outside the US who have to pay full price for their products are intimately aware, yet by your thinking the iPad should cost 8x as much.

Margins start at 23% on iPads, they start around 50% on iPhones. iPhones have full cell technologies, which are patent encumbered. So this is a BAD (Orange-vs-Bananas) comparison.

Compare current Wifi iPods and Wifi iPads. Those are Orange-vs-Orange comparisons.

This also isn't a PC vs Notebook comparison where you are using overpriced notebook processors ( a largely artifical distinction that pads Intels pockets), or Physical HDs where the bigger size of 3 1/2" drives allow lower density tech.

Those are some very specific cases where component costs are higer building smaller devices, but they are not universal, and don't apply here because those components aren't used. You can't just take some specific cases and apply it generally everywhere. That doesn't make sense. You need to actually look at the specifics in each case, if you want a reasonable assessment.

In this case we have the exact same RAM/SoCs/Storage technology, so no difference, same cost.

The only items that change:

Battery: Same technology, you just need 4 times as much battery, so nearly 4 times the cost.

Case: Same technoloyg, you just need >4 times the material, so nearly 4 times the cost.

Display:  4 times the size of all the layers involved. These will cost close 4 times as much. The actual increase in density will cause a premium but that is more like 10%-20% vs 400% increase for size. So closer to 4x/1.2x = 3.3 times the cost.

Once you actually look at the specific components involved, instead of blindly shouting "miniaturization cost more", it should be obvious that a bigger iPad is going to cost more to produce than a smaller Touch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


1) You've made several comments that back up my statements that ministration costs money.
2) Based on your comments you'd think the G4 iPod Touch with 1/8th the display real estate of the iPad should be 1/8th it's price. Guess what? Not even close!
3) As previously noted, there is no 1:1 ratio with battery costs. Also, as previously noted, I clearly stated that the battery would cost more in an iPad "mini" over an iPod Touch because it's a rumoured 4.39x the capacity. It would not, however, be 4.39x the cost simply because it's 4.39 the capacity.
4) Miniaturization in tech costs more than to produce the same produce on an older process. So please describe to me how the 22nm Intel chips are about half the price to produce over the 45nm chips. MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY! THIS IS A FACT! What you've ignored are my comments where I said Apple will cut costs by not miniaturizing most components but simply going smaller. This is why I don't think we'll see a 2038x1536 326 PPI display in a 7.85" tablet. That would cost considerably MORE money than the 9.7" display despite your insistence that smaller is always cheaper.

1) Only in specific cases with rational reasons. You need that rational reason, for each specific component it, why it costs more. You haven't made that case here. You just keep shouting "MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY! THIS IS A FACT!" Try reason instead of shouting nonsense slogans.

2) You seem to have reading comprehension problem. I didn't say the iPad Mini would cost 4x as much, so I certainly didn't imply 1/8th versus the full iPad. What I did say was a bunch of components have the "same cost", it was in bold, did you miss it? And a few components will cost up to 4x as much. The net effect is that it will cost more to build an iPad (obvious for reasoning creatures).

3) The cost to actually build a simple pouch battery 4 times the size will cost nearly 4 times as much. But you do get a bit of volume discount as it were and you only need 1 connector instead of 4. But it will still easily be 3 times the cost to Apple for a battery 4 times the size.

4) You keep listing components not in use here. Name the specific components that will cost more in a Touch than in an iPad.  Most of the components are the same, on same process level.  I listed the components that will increase cost with size, your turn to list the components that in an iPad that will get cheaper with size. I am shocked that you think that, but please enlighten me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


$70 less than the iPad 2 with the same basic performance seems about right for the shrunken product. The display on the 7.85" model will likely cost a little more than the 9.7" but there are other savings to be had over the iPad 2.

$329 for a 16G iPad Mini = $279 for an 8G iPad Mini. well, maybe ...

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolipsismX 


1) I've given you all reasoning and examples you would need and you've ignored them.
2) I also stated that several components would be more expensive in a larger device. You choose to ignore that just as you've chosen to ignore that there are costs associated with state of the art miniaturization and that notebooks somehow don't count as an example with their slower and more expensive processors because it's all marketing.
3) Where did you get this 4x value? Why not 3x? Why not 3.5x? Cost of raw materials might be be near linear but we're talking about a single casing over 4x the battery size, testing, licensing, environmental costs for a new design, etc. How did you get "nearly 4x"? BTW, again, I clearly sated the battery is one of those components that would be most costly per unit than in the Touch which makes your insistence on harping this one component look even more foolish every time you mention it.
4) 326 PPI display over 163 PPI display for the same resolution. Smaller, thinner camera and sensors over larger, thicker camera and sensors for the same quality photos. Smaller, denser logic boards with smaller, new components over less complex, larger logic boards larger, old components.
 

1&2. Your examples are laptops vs desktop PCs. There are rational reasons for cost differences there.

In case you haven't noticed, nether iPod nor iPad uses big spinning HD's, Intel CPUs with big fans. 

Here you are using the same CPUs and storage. So there is no extra miniaturization here, there is no rational reason for costs here to increase.

3) Nearly 4 times, because there will be 4 times the material, 4 times the time to construct as it involves folding layers and packaging them in a poly bag.  How much do think you save on a battery 4 times larger?

iPhone 5 BOM:

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152596/16gb-iphone-5-bill-of-materials-estimated-at-168

Screen + Touch: $26

Battery: $3

iPad 2 BOM:

http://www.isuppli.com/PublishingImages/Press%20Releases/2011-03-12_iPad2_BOM.png

Screen + touch: $127  (5 times higher very low DPI 132 screen)

Battery: $25   (8 Times higher).

Bigger costs more. Most of the rest of the components are the same.

The Android sells more so it must be better argument is not without distorted misconceptions. For example many people ride public transportation, probably more than those who drive their own cars to work, however most of the people on the bus wish they could afford a car of their own. Remarkably the people riding the bus almost all have Android or feature phones and those driving their cars have the largest percentage of iPhones. When you consider the developing world in addition to the US, Android is the most popular, but not because the users prefer it over an iPhone if they could afford it.