'iPad mini' to give Apple tech advantage, protect mobile device marketshare - Page 3

If I preorder a couple for Christmas do you think I need to charge them every once in awhile so the battery doesn't
fully drain?
 

 

Wow. You really take things out of context to the point of twisting it until it means the opposite of what was said. That is quite disingenuous behavior.

 

I said from the beginning that in certain cases going to a smaller size can cost more. Desktop HDs vs Laptop HDs because there is a rational reason, you have more volume for storage in the bigger destkop drives.

 

I was equally clear, that that doesn't apply here, because were are not talking about desktops and all the cost driving parts in this case are either the same price or more expensive in bigger devices.

 

 

 

 

Again totally messed up context misrepresenting what I said.  You were claiming an iPad mini would not cost more build than iPod Touch. Despite several expensive components that will increase in price with size. This was the argument.

 

We don't know the price of the display. But we know the iPhone 5 displays is $25, the iPad 2 display is $126, where is the premiums for high DPI screen there and miniaturization there? The Mini screen will be between these in size/dpi and Cost.  To sugest the Mini screen will cost less than an iPod screen is just silly. Say about $60 for the Mini screen.

 

Battery about $3 in iPod, $25 in the full Ipad, again the price for the mini will be between these. Say about $12 for the iPad Mini battery.

 

You do have one thing right, it isn't rocket science, You just have look at the price of scalable items (battery/screen) that I linked, and you will see the mini values coming in somewhere between them.  Say about $80 more in total to build an iPad than a Touch. Versius your 0 or it actually costing less.

 

no.

 

Leave 'em boxed like new unless you want to add some music and apps to really jazz them up for action right out of the box.

 

Because even Samscum has ethical limits to what they will rip off???

 

Made me laugh for two reasons. Absurdity and absurdity. 

I point out that miniturization costs more. You claim that bigger will always cost more. I point out many examples which you claim don't count. You then point out the battery as an example of an increased cost (which you oddly claim is 4x as much without any basis for that claim) despite me having previously noted that the battery isn't being miniaturized but merely reduced in size many posts prior. This is really simple shit! Reductions are cheaper; miniaturization is expensive. You need to understand this and instead of making lame excuses.

So tell me how this device will be 4.27x the cost because it's 4.27x the display area? If the cost doesn't scale as you claim then you really should admit that being smaller doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper for a comparative weight, volume, display area, or any other overall metric you've tried to conjure. Because miniaturization costs more there will be components that are more expensive for the reasons previously explained above which is why this iPad "mini will not be well over $1000.


PS: Before you post more costs for Apple components why don't you supply some evidence of their source instead of pulling some arbitrary number from thin air.
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/20/12 at 10:28pm

So the 5 should cost more than the 4/4s because it bigger. Got it¡

But its volume is 20% less; so it should be cheaper.
Nano-SIM card; 44% smaller than a micro-SIM, so cheaper.
But he Lightning connector is 80% smaller than the 30-pin connector, so cheaper.

---
Thin air. That's big; so expensive. But how come he sounds so cheap?

Do you really spend your entire time on this board behaving like this? Misleading, lying, and misrepresenting what other people say to "win" arguments.

 

I never claimed bigger will always cost more, I have agreed there are exceptions. But the exceptions are specific and rational. It is not a general rule as you seem to want to apply it.

 

 

 

Your examples are exceptions to the rule that larger generally costs more.  Exceptions aren't the rule. Each exception is unique.  Unless that actual exception is happening here, it doesn't count.

 

Take Desktop HD vs Laptop HD. To have have the same capacity, the laptop drive will need more precise, higher density mechanical systems. This is a rational exception with a rational reason.

 

Are you so incapable of seeing your own mistakes, that you can't see why an exception dealing with mechanical Hard drives, doesn't apply to devices using solid state SSDs?

 

 

I merely listed the battery as one of the three main components that will increase in cost with size, the Trio being Display related, Battery, and Casing. You are the one who keeps harping on the battery specifically. As far as why I said near 4x the cost, because it will have 4 times the material, and 4 times the manufacturing. I ask you again, if my ballpark number is so absurd, what do you think the production cost difference will be for a battery 4x larger?

 

 

 

 

It should be simple, but unfortunately it seems beyond your ability to grasp. You just keep shouting slogans, and keep misleading and lying.

 

 

 

Maybe you can repost that when you are actually awake, because that is largely self contradictory gibberish.  But it does look like you are trying to again misrepresent what I said.

 

To be clear, I made no claim the whole device would cost 4x as much. You are being misleading and trying to construct a straw man.

 

I said 3 components will be more expensive because they are 4 times larger and could cost up to 4 times as much (not the display because it will be a tradeoff between size and higher dpi, size will win, but will make it closer).

 

The rest of the components stay the same price. It should be obvious to most people (probably not you) that if only a few components increase in price, that you don't multiply the whole device by that factor, just those components.

Never once said general rule. I very specifically stated miniaturization which is quite the opposite of a general rule.

After I listed it. Way to go!

It should be simple but you still don't understand that MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY.

And where do you get this linear scaling with the casing? Are you measuring the weigh of the aluminum or the overall volume of the completed product or some other measure? A thinking person would only consider the amount of material as being close to linear and the cost of machinery, complexity/precision in the milling and other aspects of the process when considering where the costs come from.

The 1024x768 is the same price between a 7.85" iPd and 9.7" iPad or a 163 PPI display is the same price in a 7.85 iPad and a 3.5" iPod Touch? You can have it every way. BTW, it's also more than 4x the cost for the same PPI display than it is for one that is smaller do to error in production which make larger displays harder to produce, but all this has been stated before and you still won't accept that there is no linear scaling across all parts.

Bottom line: The iPad "mini" will use reduced parts to to reduce costs, not state of the art miniaturized parts that cost more. You don't have to accept this but you're a fool if you don't.
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/21/12 at 8:56am

 

Are you on crack or just strong meds?

 

You are the one making the absurd claim than an Ipod costs MORE than the Mini ipad to produce.

 

You have no actual evidence. You just keep Shouting "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"

 

Look today we have an estimate of component costs for the Mini, to add to the mix:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/10/20/ipad-mini-build-cost-estimated-to-start-at-200-may-retail-for-299

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

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

 

Now lets see(minus cellular radios to even the playfield):

 

BOM:

Iphone 5: $142

iPad Mini: $199

iPad: $307

 

 

Significantly more to produce an iPad Mini than iPod touch (iP5 minus Cellular). Which was all I said that caused you jump in like a drunken attack dog shouting "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"

 

Look at the battery estimates $3 for the iPhone, $12 for the Ipad Mini. 4x as much.

 

You will no doubt have a problem with these estimates, but they have thought behind them, unlike your rantings.

Now the iPhone 5 costs less than the iPad mini? That makes sense¡ These estimates you claim as gospel are crap. They don't take into account licensing, production, assembly, R&D, etc. They are a very generic and very general guess based on absolutely nothing.

Case in point, they are estimating the BOM of the iPad "mini" and you're using it to defend your position that it's impossible for a iPad "mini" to have any components that are more expensive than the 10" iPad and have none that are cheaper than the 4" iPod Touch.

If you can't see how a 7.85" 2048x1536 would cost more than 9.7" version, or how a 7.85" 1024x768 display could cost more than a 9.7" version, or how a 326 PPI 1136x640 in-cell full sRGB display could cost less than a 7.85" 1024x768 IPS display without in-cell or full color gamut display then you are choosing to be ignorant as to how technology scales.

What is it about Apple's products that makes people lose their minds and think Apple can do anything? They have to deal with physics, production and sourcing limitations just like everybody else.

Let me through an example I've already used back at you but in a different way before I write you off as a lost cause. Take the logic board in the new iPod Touch. Now make it less compact, less complex, even use some larger and older components whose only real benefit was space savings and put in a board 2x the size for larger device. According to you that board should be 2x the cost. You seriously don't see fucked up your logic is? Take a look at Intel's SFF chips.

@boxmaccary:

Why does Apple need to sell for $199? The 'iPad' brand is extremely powerful. I think they could absolutely get away with selling for $249 or $299 just by virtue of the word "iPad on it".

As it is, the iPad is outselling those at its current price point.

To be more specific the current iPad is the perfect size for reading magazines. No need to expand the screen to read, one page fits perfectly on the screen. The smaller screen will be a problem. Books, movies should be fine and they may have thought of a solution.
 

 

Right. Because you say so. All the analysts doing parts estimates are all wrong. But you, talking out of your ass, are right without even doing any estimates. You just guess the smaller iPod cost more than an Mid size iPad, so it must be so(insert shouts of "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"). Despite estimates/evidence to the contrary. I guess you are the forum blowhard, used to just shouting longest and loudest until other people just give up and walk away from you nonsense.  Do your really fool yourself with this behavior? 

 

 

 

Why would the new iPad use older components than the already released iPod? You are just making silly assumptions to support your house of cards.

 

I provided three BOM lists, even if you don't agree with the pricing use them as a guide to what is in these products. There are no super miniaturized high price components in an iPod that aren't already in iPads. The whole premise of your incessant miniaturization rant, is inapplicable here,  and just a little nutty.

You are for the most part right.

The part I have issue with is the metal cases, metal is sold by weight. As such the larger cases cost significantly more even before machining. Of course we don't know the specifics when it comes to the case, it would not be surprising to see Apple use new materials or processes.

Only if you twist things significantly. One problem with this discussion is that the cost of the device, that is the sum of parts and labor to produce it has little to do with the price at the sales counter. In a way this discussion is senseless as Apple likely doesn't even look at that number more than once trying to come up with the retail price. In the case if polymer batteries it is fairly close. In a nutshell the batteries are rolled up from a long web of material, cut then pressed into shape. Higher capacity batteries just use more material or wider webs. How much more is a very interesting question. Considering Apples volumes the cost will approach the cost increase in materials. Bad example. First of old processes are cheaper due to development costs being paid for. However process shrinks often lead to considerable savings if the same generation processor is being produced on the shrunken process. The cost of chips off a line is directly related to size thus a smaller die is cheaper. It has always been the case with LCD screens. Big screens cost money due to lower yields and the limited number done per panel.

Deleted mis post caused by the server going to never never land.

And how are these advancements paid for? What part of MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY is so hard to understand. In no way does it state that it will eventually lead to it being less costly as we've seen with CE throughout history, but you can't do R&D for advancing the state of the art without spending money. Why even argue agains that!

So we have Apple using 326 PPI displays in the new iPod Touch and 163 PPI displays in the rumoured iPad "mini" and you are claiming that simply because it's bigger it'll be 4x as much even though they're on par with resolution and have been using that lower density display for a lot longer? I'd say it could be wash or even cheaper if Apple doesn't use in-cell tech for the full colour gamut with this budget device but it certainly won't be 4x as much or considerably more because yields are less.

Take the 22nm lithography Intel is using right now. It's simply not possible with ARM foundries today, at least not in anything other than testing, but they are investing in it. This will cost billions to shrink the die by just a nanometers. Eventually it will be commonplace and eventually it will be worth the expense but today it's simply not possible. So again, how does miniaturization not cost money?
Edited by SolipsismX - 10/21/12 at 7:12pm

Boy I wish some posters* would go to never never land!

* Not you, w69

Quote:

 

Thanks for the breath of sane air. It is irritating to have someone just mindlessly shout slogans, rather than use reason.

 

I wouldn't claim to know the exact ratio. I was just pointing out that a Much larger (~4x size) Mini is going to cost more to produce, than the iPod, due to some expensive components, being more expensive approximately proportional to their area increase.

 

I am shocked that someone intractably clings to the notion that a 4x larger tablet, will cost less to produce than the iPod.

 

Now that the device is out, we can see construction is still aluminum and of similar design to the iPod. If the backs are just simply stamped designs here, I would think case would cost would be approx ~4x.

 

As expected the retail price is higher than the iPod as well. 32GB vs 32GB the Mini is $130 more.

So the iPad mini is 4x the footprint of the iPod Touch so you think the casing cost 4x as much REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH METAL IS USED between devices. Got it.

You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger. Got it.

You think the logic board in the iPad mini made to a 2x larger silicon despite being the same A5 performance of the iPod Touch costs 2x as much simply because it's larger. Got it.

You can continue believing that shrinking components means that it'll be cheaper simply because it's smaller but try not voice your ignorance too quickly when speaking with people directly.


PS: If you're going to make statements try not to lie. I never once said that 4x larger devices will cost less, I very clearly (at least to a sound and reasonable person) stated that miniaturizing comments comes at a cost and there are parts in the iPad mini that will be cheaper than the iPod Touch just as there will be parts that will be more expensive than the iPad 2. I even detailed them very clearly, but maybe reading comprehension isn't your thing.

Quote:

 

I guess, just like rust, crazy never sleeps. Here we get more all caps ranting over nothing.

 

With a similar design, similar thickness, scaled 4 times larger, one could expect to use approximately 4x as much metal, if not more the keep larger flat area from flexing. It is reasonable starting estimate.

 

 

That is a reasonable starting point, it will need some adjustment for how long the production line has been running, so at this point it might be a little lower than 50%.

 

 

No, this just you making misleading statements, as usual. Other than battery/case/screen, I said the rest of the components would essentially be equal cost. I have said this over and over each time you try to put words in my mouth.

 

 

Your insane, ranting, all caps, overreaction to my statement that the iPad would cost more, because it would cost more to build, certainly indicated that you disagreed with me to an extreme degree. If you weren't disagreeing with me, why did you go mental here:

 

http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153588/ipad-mini-to-give-apple-tech-advantage-protect-mobile-device-marketshare/40#post_2215619

Your point was never the meaningless tautology that it costs more because it costs more it was that because it's bigger it will cost more, negating my very clear comments that making something smaller and making something miniaturized are very different processes. My example for making something smaller was a battery which is not going to compress more mAh into the same space. My example for making something miniaturized was taking the exact same screen resolution and putting it on a smaller display which you have said is 50% less expensive if it's 50% the size, regardless of the PPI. By yout logic, a 1024x768 display into a 4" display being about 6x smaller would be 1/6th the cost is axiomatically wrong. There is absolutely no rational position you can take to defend such nonsense... try as you might. All you're doing now is slinging insults because you've been backed into a corner for failure to read carefully before you posted.

 

I was just summarizing. I provided a link to the post where you lost it, to read in it's original context.  But here it is again verbatim: "...the much bigger screen, case, battery, makes the iPad mini more expensive to build."  A perfectly reasonable statement that I stand by completely.

 

To which you completely over-reacted with all caps rants, and since then you have just kept mindlessly ranting in all caps: "MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY". Beyond that you keep making misleading, misrepresenting statements about my position. Doing it once could be an accident, but you keep doing it even after it was pointed out. I can only conclude you are not only prone to flying off the handle, but dishonest as well.

 

 

I said nothing of the kind. You can't make it through a single post without this kind of dishonest misrepresentation of what I said.

You clearly said that a 50% larger display would be 50% more expensive regardless of PPI. Case in point:

I wrote: You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger.

You wrote: "That is a reasonable starting point, it will need some adjustment for how long the production line has been running, so at this point it might be a little lower than 50%."

Again, it doesn't work that way. Backlight will cost more because the backlight isn't being miniaturized, but a denser display will cost more than a less dense display for the same area. This is common sense stuff here. If you can sign up to this message board you should be able to understand this.

 

"That is a reasonable starting point" (what I said) for one particular example(163 vs 132ppi), is a far cry from "50% less expensive if it's 50% the size, regardless of the PPI." (as you misrepresented what I said).

 

But I guess if you make a continual habit of misrepresenting other peoples position, this would be a minor offense for you.