or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Yield issues to keep Apple from building Retina iPad mini until October - report
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Yield issues to keep Apple from building Retina iPad mini until October - report - Page 2

post #41 of 81

Now that will be a worthy purchase when they do come out.  I held off on buying one because of the lack of a Retina display. 

 

Besides the Retina display what else will drive future iPad or iPad Mini sales?  Faster processors are boring.  We want more gadgetry in these devices.  One with a hand scanner and reader that can uniquely identify a person by their hand print would be neat as a replacement for the password unlock.  Being able to read a person's heart rate and body temperature from the palm wouldn't be all that useful but neat anyway.

post #42 of 81

No sure way to know about "Yield Issues" Apple has many sources and will work it out. Bigger question is when Apple wants to release it.

post #43 of 81
Duplicate.
post #44 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

Apparent screen yield issues will prevent Apple from producing a second-generation iPad mini ....

Apple knows Samsung can supply Apple with high quality retina screens in quantity to fix this problem but, Apple chosen to suffer the pain instead of asking Samsung for help.
post #45 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardkim View Post

Apple knows Samsung can supply Apple with high quality retina screens in quantity to fix this problem but, Apple chosen to suffer the pain instead of asking Samsung for help.

You're making an awful lot of assumptions that you're stating as fact.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #46 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardkim View Post


Apple knows Samsung can supply Apple with high quality retina screens in quantity to fix this problem but, Apple chosen to suffer the pain instead of asking Samsung for help.

 

Yeah that must be why Samsung put a 1280x800 screen in the Galaxy Note 8 (their $399 iPad mini killer)! 1oyvey.gif

 

Edit: And in case you haven't followed the conversation, we're talking about putting a 2048x1536 7.9" screen in the iPad mini which is much more dense than 1280x800, and even the all mighty Samsung screen gods can't seem to be able to mass produce those yet.


Edited by VL-Tone - 4/28/13 at 8:34pm
post #47 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by VL-Tone View Post

Yeah that must be why Samsung put a 1280x800 screen in the Galaxy Note 8 (their $399 iPad mini killer)! 1oyvey.gif

It's amazing that so many complained about the iPad mini's price 6 months ago but the Galaxy Note 8.0 released this month is thicker, larger, heavier, and cost $70 more despite the display resolution and PPI being only slightly higher yet having significantly worse battery life.

From AnandTech:
Quote:
Where the Note 8.0 falls short is primarily in its battery life. In general you’re looking at anywhere from 10 - 40% less time on a single charge compared to the iPad mini, despite having a slightly larger battery. Power efficiency is just as important as outright performance, and this is something the folks at Samsung’s SoC division have yet to master. It’s not immediately obvious how much of a role the panel plays in all of this, but looking at our GLBenchmark battery life results it’s clear that the SoC has a significant impact.

In its defense, it does have a Wacom digitizer (which i hope Apple eventually adds) which adds cost, thickness, and weight, but I don't think that is worth all the downsides.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #48 of 81

"well-connected" analyst? iPad mini @ $199? No camera? How "well-connected" can this analyst possibly be that he would make such fucking moronic predictions? Why would Apple slice off such a massive chunk off the mini's price when it's already possibly their lowest margin product? To "compete" with pieces of shit tablet that have negligible marketshare numbers, and are not being embraced in the least by consumers? Yet Apple needs to "compete" with these tablets simply because... they exist? Also, removing the rear camera? Not going to fucking happen. It's one of those standard features Apple wants on ALL it's connected devices, why the hell would they want to save a few pennies, and fragment the abilities of the iPad in such a massive way? Unreal how these analysts get paid by pulling this garbage out of their asses. What;s worse is that websites such as this promote, and propagate their drivel thereby hoisting them on a pedestal and giving them credibility. Well done, AI. 

post #49 of 81
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post
How "well-connected" can this analyst possibly be that he would make such fucking moronic predictions?

 

We need this sentence on speed dial for whenever an analyst article drops in. lol.gif

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #50 of 81

This kind of guessing is meaningless.

 

Instead , I want to know WHO knows what that thing is Apple is gonna release this fall.

 

Any anal yists know?

post #51 of 81
"His proposed options include removing the rear camera, reducing internal storage to 8 gigabytes, simplifying production of the metal casing, or using a more advanced process to build the A5 processor." The Mini already uses near enough the lowest resolution screen available and the old, even cheaper chipset. Just making the price competitive is what will be needed. As to short supply, well you have short supply to both create hype and cover over supply risk.
post #52 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steven N. View Post

HTC One. Super LCD 3 that is a very capable and high quality display. But I agree with OLED/PenTile. Simply horrid and not to mention the hideous colors. 


You are as ill-informed as the rest of the anti-OLED idiots.

 

OLED is capable of superior colour reproduction vs LCD.  It has always been an implementation problem - not  an inherent flaw in the technology.  The new Samsung Galaxy 4 has selectable colour modes, at least one of which gives a colour balance that is the equal of the IP5.

post #53 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

"well-connected" analyst? iPad mini @ $199? No camera? How "well-connected" can this analyst possibly be that he would make such fucking moronic predictions? Why would Apple slice off such a massive chunk off the mini's price when it's already possibly their lowest margin product? To "compete" with pieces of shit tablet that have negligible marketshare numbers, and are not being embraced in the least by consumers? Yet Apple needs to "compete" with these tablets simply because... they exist? Also, removing the rear camera? Not going to fucking happen. It's one of those standard features Apple wants on ALL it's connected devices, why the hell would they want to save a few pennies, and fragment the abilities of the iPad in such a massive way? Unreal how these analysts get paid by pulling this garbage out of their asses. What;s worse is that websites such as this promote, and propagate their drivel thereby hoisting them on a pedestal and giving them credibility. Well done, AI. 

 

Apple's over all Tablet share is falling despite the increase in sales because of the mini - there is your reason. 

 

If I were modding this site I would ban attacks on analysts. Most of these guys have buys on Apple, none have sells and only one analyst is a hold, as far as I can see. Some of them have guesses on Apple's future lineup, and most are informed guesses. 

 

And this is a rumor site. I really don't get the opposition to either rumors, or the opposition to Apple expanding it's line out. It makes no sense, and Apple would want to expand it's market of course.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #54 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post

"His proposed options include removing the rear camera, reducing internal storage to 8 gigabytes, simplifying production of the metal casing, or using a more advanced process to build the A5 processor." The Mini already uses near enough the lowest resolution screen available and the old, even cheaper chipset. Just making the price competitive is what will be needed. As to short supply, well you have short supply to both create hype and cover over supply risk.

I don't think APple said anything about iPad mini delays in the last Quarter ( the previous Quarter, yes).

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #55 of 81
Ming CHi Kuo should not be called an analyst. He's too competent for that name ^^

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply

Social Capitalist, dreamer and wise enough to know I'm never going to grow up anyway... so not trying anymore.

 

http://m.ign.com/articles/2014/07/16/7-high-school-girls-are-kickstarting-their-awa...

Reply
post #56 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Like what? And remember you have to compare displays that are around 320 PPI or above without being PenTile that are using IPS or a comparative high-end panel type with a 178° viewing angle and excellent quality and accuracy that can be produced at iPad mini quantities? I simply don't think anything else falls into that category except for Apple products.

 

Given that the current iPad mini has the same display resolution (163) as the 3GS then a retina one would have the same resolution as the 4, 4S, and 5 (326).  

 

These certainly are produced in iPad mini quantities.

post #57 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by edwardkim View Post

Apple knows Samsung can supply Apple with high quality retina screens in quantity to fix this problem but, Apple chosen to suffer the pain instead of asking Samsung for help.

LG, Sharp, Panasonic, Sony, Hitachi, Toshiba, Chimei, AU Optronics. Names many of the other companies that make LCD panels. Apple isn't beholden to any one company.
Edited by JeffDM - 4/29/13 at 5:55am
post #58 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I did.
No disagreement here. MY statement wasn't to say that the 2nd gen iPad mini couldn't be Retina, but the technology they used for the first one wouldn't make it possible unless they jumped a technological generation so that they could use components that will only be available in 2013, which we're likely to find in the 5th gen iPad. For instance, the current iPad mini is essentially the internals of the iPad 2 with the A4 Rev. 2. That would make the next generation iPad mini — assuming if they followed the stepping to use older HW, like they've done in the iPod Touch to reduce costs — it would have the A5X Rev. 2. I stated that at least that Img Tech GPU is required for pushing the 2048x1536 display but may still be too power hungry for the much smaller battery of the iPad mini, even with the 32nm lithography.

I also stated that I think weight and size are more critical to the iPad mini than to the 9.7" iPad. I then opined that it won't happen until 2014 if they follow the iPod Touch SoC pattern or they'll see the success of the platform as well as a desire to control this market as securely as they did the iPod thereby making a new chip for the iPad mini that likely combines an older CPU with a modern Img Tech GPU, like Rogue, which will increase power efficiency.

Finally, I sated that I wasn't sure a modern GPU may not be enough and suggested that a new backlight and other components might have to be changed in order to maintain a thin and light iPad mini with approx. 10 hours of use on a single charge that Apple is happy with.

I could be wrong on all these counts and they may just stick an A5X in there and make it thicker and heavier, or just let the battery suffer. Personally, I hope they go with Rogue this year and don't make the iPad mini a bastard stepchild to the iPad. I think it's too important a product and product category for that.

 

As we hashed through before:

 

  • Obviously the A5X has sufficient horsepower to drive a retina screen because it does so in the iPad 3.
  • It is probable that the A6 has enough GPU horsepower if you increase the memory bandwidth leading to a cheaper and lower power chip than the A6X.
  • It is even more probable that a A6X with 2 cores rather than 4 (i.e. the SGX 554MP2) has sufficient horsepower since this is more or less equivalent to the older A5X 543MP4 leading to a cheaper and lower power chip than the A6X in the iPad 4.
  • Finally the current iPad mini has headroom lasting 13 hours in some tests.  That means dropping down to 9.8 hours like on the iPad 2 requires adding less battery weight all else being equal vs the iPad 2 to iPad 3 jump even if they go with just the A5X with a die shrink. http://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/05/ipad-ipad-mini-win-battery-life-shootout-among-tablets/  It's a smaller panel with a die shrink on the A5X. 

 

So my prediction, same as before, is that there will be a retina iPad Mini in 2013.  Given the 28nm A5 from TSMC in the aTV I'm going to bet it will be a 28nm A5X from TSMC and a iPhone 4/4S grade 326 ppi panel to maintain the current price point (unless the iPhone 5 panel pricing has dropped more than I think).  The current mini will drop to a new lower price point.

 

ASPs and margin on the full sized iPad is much better so the iPad mini will likely remain one step behind the iPad to help upsell.  They wont want to drop the ASPs very much either to compete on volume so I expect the current 16GB WiFi mini to drop to $299 to hit that mental breakpoint and live where the iPad 2 does in relation to the iPad 4.

post #59 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post


You are as ill-informed as the rest of the anti-OLED idiots.

OLED is capable of superior colour reproduction vs LCD.  It has always been an implementation problem - not  an inherent flaw in the technology.  The new Samsung Galaxy 4 has selectable colour modes, at least one of which gives a colour balance that is the equal of the IP5.

Some of that is a flaw in the marketing. Just because you can have more saturated colors, doesn't mean you should, if you can't fight the temptation to set up exaggerated colors.
post #60 of 81
In some situations saturation is not that useful But in the moving phone environment its more often than not the best option. Anyway, rumours have it that Apple will embrace OLED soon too so sudden elevation of OLED is more than possible.
post #61 of 81
Yield issues - give me a break, if this was the case delivery of the current iPad would be a huge problem. Not to mention iPhone and hundreds of other products running high resolution displays. The only possibility here is that they intend pond to adopt a completely new technology which is possible. But let's think about this what is traditional around that time of year. That's right it is the time of year new iPods are released since tablets are effective replacing iPods for many consumers it would not be a surprise at all to see them adopting the iPods release schedule.

I suspect the article is totally bogus in this respect.

As to a lower cost iPad Mini, it should be pretty obvious that this is a goal at Apple. The mini effectively guards the low end of the tablet line up. However people are foolish to think that this means lower quality. Here is the stark reality, very high volumes like is seen with the iPad Mini implies serious opportunity for automation. Even in China automation is an important element in high volume production. So I can see a Mini that has been designed optimized for automation coming soon. Such a Mini cold end up being much cheaper to produce at very high volumes while retaining or even bettering today's quality. Of course I don't see this analyst expounding upon the type of insight just offered but I can see a Mini coming in at a lower cost in the future.
post #62 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Yield issues - give me a break, if this was the case delivery of the current iPad would be a huge problem.

Why would you compare the iPad and iPad mini display? Why does the 9.7" 264 PPI display yield rates mean that 7.85" 326 PPI display yield rates aren't any more difficult? How many iPads are they selling compared to iPad minis? More importantly, how many iPad minis do they expect to be selling once it goes Retina? Did you consider that the iPhone and iPod Touch use those same panels, with at least the iPhone being the clear winner in terms of profit for Apple? IOW, can Apple produce enough yield to meet the presumed Retina iPad mini demands while still being able to meet the iPod Touch and iPhone yields thereby not causing a subsequent decrease in revenue, profits and profit margins by marginalizing the iPhone's sales by putting 4.3x the panel size in the low-cost iPad mini?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #63 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post

In some situations saturation is not that useful But in the moving phone environment its more often than not the best option.

Can you please explain? Please note that no one is complaining about proper saturation, but exaggerated saturation. Outside if direct sunlight, I really don't see it being helpful, and I don't think it's worth making a fixed setting for direct sunlight at the expense of color quality in every other use.
post #64 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht View Post

As we hashed through before:
As you say, this hasn't been hashed out at all.
Quote:
  • Obviously the A5X has sufficient horsepower to drive a retina screen because it does so in the iPad 3.
  • It is probable that the A6 has enough GPU horsepower if you increase the memory bandwidth leading to a cheaper and lower power chip than the A6X.
  • It is even more probable that a A6X with 2 cores rather than 4 (i.e. the SGX 554MP2) has sufficient horsepower since this is more or less equivalent to the older A5X 543MP4 leading to a cheaper and lower power chip than the A6X in the iPad 4.
  • Finally the current iPad mini has headroom lasting 13 hours in some tests.  That means dropping down to 9.8 hours like on the iPad 2 requires adding less battery weight all else being equal vs the iPad 2 to iPad 3 jump even if they go with just the A5X with a die shrink. http://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/05/ipad-ipad-mini-win-battery-life-shootout-among-tablets/  It's a smaller panel with a die shrink on the A5X. 
The problem with the above non sense is that we are at a stage right now where each new rev to an iPad needs to be a significant performance bump over the previous generation. We really don't need an iPad Mini that performs like last years iPad. Or worst the year before.
Quote:
So my prediction, same as before, is that there will be a retina iPad Mini in 2013.  Given the 28nm A5 from TSMC in the aTV I'm going to bet it will be a 28nm A5X from TSMC and a iPhone 4/4S grade 326 ppi panel to maintain the current price point (unless the iPhone 5 panel pricing has dropped more than I think).  The current mini will drop to a new lower price point.
Except for the fact that the general consensus is that the aTV processor is a 32 nm Samsung device.
Quote:
ASPs and margin on the full sized iPad is much better so the iPad mini will likely remain one step behind the iPad to help upsell.  They wont want to drop the ASPs very much either to compete on volume so I expect the current 16GB WiFi mini to drop to $299 to hit that mental breakpoint and live where the iPad 2 does in relation to the iPad 4.
I don't buy the one step behind mentality. IPad Minis size implies it is the best platform to introduce process shrinks on. Further on the full size iPad it is the power for the display that cause the most significant power drain. Going to retina on the Mini would have a similar impact unless new technology is used.

As to pricing I would agree Apple will try to lower pricing and likely is to do so through automation. It won't be a huge drop in price because the Mini is still fairly bleeding edge. Apple though knows that they have to be aggressive in this market and has already said they don't intend to make the mistakes they made in the past. So I can see them trying to hit the $299 intro point too.
post #65 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Why would you compare the iPad and iPad mini display? Why does the 9.7" 264 PPI display yield rates mean that 7.85" 326 PPI display yield rates aren't any more difficult? How many iPads are they selling compared to iPad minis? More importantly, how many iPad minis do they expect to be selling once it goes Retina? Did you consider that the iPhone and iPod Touch use those same panels, with at least the iPhone being the clear winner in terms of profit for Apple? IOW, can Apple produce enough yield to meet the presumed Retina iPad mini demands while still being able to meet the iPod Touch and iPhone yields thereby not causing a subsequent decrease in revenue, profits and profit margins by marginalizing the iPhone's sales by putting 4.3x the panel size in the low-cost iPad mini?

Never mind that the bigger iPad also costs $170 more. The same PPI of a Retina iPhone with what, 4x the screen area?

Volumes of Google's Nexus 10 device doesn't compare to iPad's volumes.
post #66 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Why would you compare the iPad and iPad mini display? Why does the 9.7" 264 PPI display yield rates mean that 7.85" 326 PPI display yield rates aren't any more difficult?
First off we don't know what the actual density would be on an iPad Mini. Second the various devices on the market, from the iPhone on up to a retina MBP demonstrate that high resolution screens aren't an issue anymore. Mainstream no but producible at high volumes yes. The only way that I could see yields being a problem is if they where about to enlist new technology that isn't currently in mass production.
Quote:
How many iPads are they selling compared to iPad minis? More importantly, how many iPad minis do they expect to be selling once it goes Retina?
That is actually a good question, I'm not sure if that information is publicly available however I wouldn't use current numbers to forecast future demands. The Mini is simply too new new have stable sales figures.
Quote:
Did you consider that the iPhone and iPod Touch use those same panels, with at least the iPhone being the clear winner in terms of profit for Apple? IOW, can Apple produce enough yield to meet the presumed Retina iPad mini demands while still being able to meet the iPod Touch and iPhone yields thereby not causing a subsequent decrease in revenue, profits and profit margins by marginalizing the iPhone's sales by putting 4.3x the panel size in the low-cost iPad mini?

In the industry I'm in when demand goes up you build another production line. Yields can of course impact that need for more manufacturing capacity but sometimes the demand has to be satisfied no matter what if you want to maintain market share. Since demand for all products are increasing there is a need for Apple and its contractors to rise to the challenge. In simple terms yields are not an excuse in this industry, you either stay ahead if the ball game of fall rapidly behind.
post #67 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Never mind that the bigger iPad also costs $170 more. The same PPI of a Retina iPhone with what, 4x the screen area?
That extra $170 isn't simply due to the screen on the large iPad. Even if the LCD is the single most expensive element in either device, it is still a small portion of the overall devices price foot print.
Quote:
Volumes of Google's Nexus 10 device doesn't compare to iPad's volumes.

Maybe, maybe not but it is a high volume device.

Yields obviously impact the cost of a device significantly. All I'm saying is that there are plenty of high resolution screens shipping today, in low cost devices, that one can make a rational deduction that yields aren't a problem today.

Now if one was to discuss the possibility that Apple is going beyond the state of the art today that would be another thing altogether.

In any event I look at it this way we ave a rumor that supposedly suggests that screen yields are the reason for a delta until October. I'm suggesting that it is a bit of pulling at straws as Apple could simply be aligning new iPad debuts with the timeframe normally associated with iPod releases. It is more rational than jumping to conclusions about screen yields.
post #68 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

First off we don't know what the actual density would be on an iPad Mini.

You think they'd double the density on everything else, including going to the trouble of using the same resolution as the iPad 2 and PPI of the iPhone 3GS just to muck it all up for the Retina iPad mini by not doubling to 326?
Quote:
Second the various devices on the market, from the iPhone on up to a retina MBP demonstrate that high resolution screens aren't an issue anymore.

The yields of the MBP are much, much lower than iDevices. They also command a much higher price tag and not budget devices.
Quote:
The only way that I could see yields being a problem is if they where about to enlist new technology that isn't currently in mass production.

Again, consider what I wrote, especially the last line. If you have an argument that shows how Apple was wrong to introduce the 163 PPI iPad mini when they could have gone with an entirely different panel density so that it wouldn't overlap with the iPhone and iPod Touch when they wanted to go Retina then by all means state it, but so far I see no valid argument as to why Apple wouldn't do a 2x scaling for the iPad mini after the iPod Touch, iPhone, IPad, and MBPs have have all gotten them.

Personally, I think Apple planned for this eventuality and think that many things are lining up properly to give up a Retina iPad mini this year, albeit not with the same SoC stepping they did with the 10" iPad, but that's not assertion of what will happen and isn't in any way ignoring the multiple factors that have already been stated regarding costs and yield variables.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #69 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

In the industry I'm in when demand goes up you build another production line.

I think Apple does just that. They prepay enough for product so the manufacturer can build more production facilities. They've done such several times for displays and flash chips.
post #70 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

"We think Apple will stay competitive in the tablet market..." Paging Captain Obvious.
Captain nothing to add is what he is. Or Caltain no opinion.
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #71 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zoolook View Post

This doesn't make sense. There are plenty of high resolution devices either not much bigger or smaller than the mini, that don't have yield issues.
And they are selling 5 to 10 million units a month, right?
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
Citing unnamed sources with limited but direct knowledge of the rumoured device - Comedy Insider (Feb 2014)
Reply
post #72 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post

Apple's over all Tablet share is falling despite the increase in sales because of the mini - there is your reason. 

If I were modding this site I would ban attacks on analysts. Most of these guys have buys on Apple, none have sells and only one analyst is a hold, as far as I can see. Some of them have guesses on Apple's future lineup, and most are informed guesses. 

And this is a rumor site. I really don't get the opposition to either rumors, or the opposition to Apple expanding it's line out. It makes no sense, and Apple would want to expand it's market of course.

Apple share is allegedly falling because the market is allegedly expanding faster than Apple can make iPads. Again only Apple releases numbers. Amazon says millions and WS laps it up.
post #73 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

The problem with the above non sense is that we are at a stage right now where each new rev to an iPad needs to be a significant performance bump over the previous generation. We really don't need an iPad Mini that performs like last years iPad. Or worst the year before.

 

 

It'll be retina which is better than the current mini.  Just like the 3 was better than the 2.

 

Quote:
Except for the fact that the general consensus is that the aTV processor is a 32 nm Samsung device.

 

Yep, my bad. 

 

 

Quote:
I don't buy the one step behind mentality. IPad Minis size implies it is the best platform to introduce process shrinks on. Further on the full size iPad it is the power for the display that cause the most significant power drain. Going to retina on the Mini would have a similar impact unless new technology is used.

 

Higher volume, lower ASP, lower margin. If it has a process shrink it'll be a tested design to reduce risks just like in Intel's tick tock strategy. 

post #74 of 81

My point is, if Apple could put a Retina display in the iPod Touch, with its tiny 4" screen, then it should be incredibly easy to put one in the iPad Mini and Macbook Air.

 

It's kind of odd that the bigger iPad and the tiny iPod Touch have Retina displays, but their medium-size mobile devices still use normal screens.

post #75 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


Can you please explain? Please note that no one is complaining about proper saturation, but exaggerated saturation. Outside if direct sunlight, I really don't see it being helpful, and I don't think it's worth making a fixed setting for direct sunlight at the expense of color quality in every other use.

 

Who gives a stuff about colour quality when you have to squint to see perfection? And it is quite amazing with TV, how so many prefer a more saturated setting.
post #76 of 81
Originally Posted by ndoboy1984 View Post
My point is, if Apple could put a Retina display in the iPod Touch, with its tiny 4" screen, then it should be incredibly easy to put one in the iPad Mini and Macbook Air.

 

Why, does the iPad mini have a 4" screen? Does the MacBook Air have a 4" screen?

Why would you make that assumption?

 

Why did you make another account?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #77 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by aBeliefSystem View Post

Who gives a stuff about colour quality when you have to squint to see perfection?

I dunno. Maybe they're doing it wrong? I can see it being beneficial only in sunlight, the only place I see squinting as a necessary option. Why screw up every other setting for just one category of use? If it automatically switched to a sunlight mode, then that would be OK.

Quote:
And it is quite amazing with TV, how so many prefer a more saturated setting.

Yes, and they also prefer 4:3 video stretched so the moon looks like an egg and everything looks stupid. It's saying something is better because it's more screwed up to customer preferences.
Edited by JeffDM - 4/30/13 at 9:32am
post #78 of 81

The "Product not coming until date X, because of yield issues", is the standard BS line from analysts who predicted some early date for a product release.

 

You know like all those who jumped to the silly conclusion that Apple was moving to a 6 month update schedule on iPads after the one time event last fall, needed to sync products.

 

The new iPads aren't coming till late Summer/Fall because that was the intention all along.

 

Apple dropping in a a cheapo $200 tablet to hold off competition is from the same crack pipe that brought you 6 month product schedule for iPads. It isn't happening.

 

Once we get iPad Mini 2's, Mini 1's might continue at some price starting with "2", but I am betting it will still be high, like $279-$299.

post #79 of 81
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65 View Post

The "Product not coming until date X, because of yield issues", is the standard BS line from analysts who predicted some early date for a product release.

 

You know like all those who jumped to the silly conclusion that Apple was moving to a 6 month update schedule on iPads after the one time event last fall, needed to sync products.

 

The new iPads aren't coming till late Summer/Fall because that was the intention all along.

 

Apple dropping in a a cheapo $200 tablet to hold off competition is from the same crack pipe that brought you 6 month product schedule for iPads. It isn't happening.

 

Once we get iPad Mini 2's, Mini 1's might continue at some price starting with "2", but I am betting it will still be high, like $279-$299.

 

There was a 6 month cycle last year. No reason not to do it this year except shortages.

I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
I wanted dsadsa bit it was taken.
Reply
post #80 of 81
Originally Posted by asdasd View Post
There was a 6 month cycle last year.


Did you miss his bit about silly conclusions?


No reason not to do it this year except shortages.

 

And lack of point?

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Yield issues to keep Apple from building Retina iPad mini until October - report
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Yield issues to keep Apple from building Retina iPad mini until October - report