or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Retina iPad mini forecast to outsell thinner 'iPad 5' nearly 2:1, if Apple meets demand
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Retina iPad mini forecast to outsell thinner 'iPad 5' nearly 2:1, if Apple meets demand - Page 3

post #81 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post
 

I'm looking at the iPad and the rumoured retina mini and can afford either one. I'm getting the mini because of it's form factor. To say "the factor is Price, and nothing more" makes you sound a little full of yourself.

This is the type of decision I would expect from someone, in this market segment, that finds their way to and posts on a website like AI. Put simply, you're the (rare) type that is in the position to make that decision based on anything but price.

 

It is not at all the decision I would expect from 90% of the iPad mini market, who do not fit your qualification.

 

So while you're technically correct about price being "a" factor and not 'the only' factor...it is statistically significant enough to say, 'the only factor that matters', hence my decisiveness. 

post #82 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

This is the type of decision I would expect from someone, in this market segment, that finds their way to and posts on a website like AI. Put simply, you're the (rare) type that is in the position to make that decision based on anything but price.

 

It is not at all the decision I would expect from 90% of the iPad mini market, who do not fit your qualification.

 

So while you're technically correct about price being "a" factor and not 'the only' factor...it is statistically significant enough to say, 'the only factor that matters', hence my decisiveness. 

Except you're wrong and putting way too much emphasis on price. If that were the case, the iPhone 5c sales would be blowing the iPhone 5s out of the water.

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #83 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

It is not at all the decision I would expect from 90% of the iPad mini market, who do not fit your qualification.

Where did you get your statistics aside from your ass?

 

Oh ya... you have insider information to Apple's Marketing strategies, margins, and component costs... duh!

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #84 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post
 

I don't think so; there's a good chance that the iPad mini will replace the iPad 2 at the $399 price point and that the iPad 2 may very well be discontinued this year. It's easier to see the iPad 2 being retired rather than bumping its processor specs-too much fragmentation at this point.

 

This is something that I had not considered...that an iPad mini w/ Retina Display could "replace" the iPad 2 at the price point.

So let's consider it. No way the iPad 2 gets a spec bump at this stage. Like you said, too much fragmentation. But they kept it last year for a reason. With the iPad 4 being a very small update over the iPad 3, they couldn't keep the iPad 3 around at $399....they'd lose money. There would have been nil margin on iPad 3 at $399, and people wouldn't see a dramatic difference between 3 & 4 and just opt for the cheaper 3. iPad 4 sales would have suffered more than they did with iPad 2 as the $399 option. Moral: More than enough performance differentiation for the $100 gap.

 

Meanwhile, the iPad mini came in at $329. 'Performance' wise, the only distinction between the mini & the 2 was screen size, and the newer cellular radios. Arguably, not quite $100 worth of difference. Therefore, not. Obviously there are other factors as to why the mini is $329 and not $299...but this is one Apple wouldn't overlook when deciding to keep the iPad 2 or not. The mini is good, and not quite "$100 worse than iPad 2", if that makes any sense.

 

So, Fast forward to this year where we have a major new iPad 5 to launch. Redesign, A7 64-bit, Touch ID. Same allure as iPhone 5S, and probably same insane crazy demand. This product is $499 and up. They now have to properly address their established $399 price point and ensure that it is appropriately "$100 worse" in perceived value. If they were to keep the iPad 2 at this point, I think they'd be too far behind, as iPad 2 would be perceived as at least "$150 worse" or more, and see as a bad purchase. So, does it stand then that maybe they could keep the iPad 4 at $399? Would there be the appropriate price distinction, and does it make sense for manufacturing & cost? Well, the iPad 4 has an A6X chip & Retina Display vs. iPad 5 with an A7 64-bit chip & Retina Display. iPad 4 is older/clunkier/heavier, iPad 5 is newer/sleeker/lighter. iPad 5 also has Touch ID, and the new colors, and minimal improvements to camera & wireless. Seems doable to me, but let's look at your idea...

 

Compare that to an iPad mini route. iPad 2 and 4 get discontinued on the same day and are no longer options. Apple introduces a new iPad mini 2 w/ A6X chip & Retina Display. Other minimal improvements to camera & wireless, probably along the same vein as iPad 5. But that's it. And then, without justifying it at all, RAISE the price of the mini by $70 (deal breaker for most) from $329 to $399.

 

Then after the boos die down, Apple says we're also keep the first generation iPad mini in our lineup, (and I'll give you this one), lowering price point to $299. Same mini as yesterday, lower price by $30.....All the while, the only significant differences between mini 1 & mini 2 are a chip and Retina Display. Compare this hypothetical event to the launch of iPad 3....and tell me how well that would have gone if Apple came out and said Yes iPad 3 has a Retina Display, and is now $100 more than iPad 2.

 

Understand there is big difference between lowering the price of an old model and keeping it around, and raising the price of the new model and keeping the old around at the same, or even lowering it. This is crazy erratic behavior.

 

The only time in recent memory that Apple has something like is with the release of the Retina MacBookPro's, but there are different factors at play there, and it hasn't turned out to have the impact Apple was hoping for (they sold less than they thought they would, because the prices increases over non-rMBP were seen as premiums & unrealistic).


Edited by pmz - 10/16/13 at 12:42pm
post #85 of 106
Most of this makes no sense at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Nope. Can't happen. People with no concept of component cost, Apple's margin, or market strategies can make up any combination they want...it doesn't make them options.
When Apple released the Mini do you not think that the pricing was forward looking due to knowing what was in development? The Mini was as much a proof of concept machine as the original iPad was. The follow on to the iPad was vastly improved over iPad one so to will be the new Mini.
Quote:
Here are some cold hard facts to keep in mind when speculating wildly.

1) The iPad mini doesn't need a Retina display at all in order to sell to its target market.
Maybe maybe not. Here is a cold hard fact, people can see the difference! It might not be the big deal some imagine but it does impact the experience.
Quote:
2) The iPad mini cannot could not would not will not receive an A7 processor at the same time as the more expensive iPad. It's just not possible. Everyone should fully expect the second generation iPad mini to sport an A6. 
Why isn't it possible. The higher Apples A7 volumes the cheaper the processor becomes. Beyond that Apple has a lot of incentive to mover everything to 64 bit as soon as possible. By the way from the technical standpoint if the A7 can power an iPhone without killing the battery it will be fine in a tablet.
Quote:
3) The worst thing that could happen to the iPad mini is for its price to change in any direction.
I tend to agree to an extent here, but you seem to believe that Apple can't plan a year ahead. I very much suspect that the Minis high price was set to cover the incorporation of a retina screen, a 64 bit processor and hopefully more RAM this year. The current Mini could hang around another year at a much lower price.
Quote:
More expensive for second generation would doom it. Less expensive for first generation if they kept it in the lineup would doom Apple, as there is no wiggle room for acceptable margin.
Baloney, there is always ways to optimize a products production costs. I'm not saying Apple will change the price just that your statement above is irrational.
Quote:
Think about it: $50 reduction would be negligible to the consumer, $100 would be far far far too extreme for Apple's considerations.

That leaves you with only a few possibilities to reasonably speculate on. The most logical of which turn out to be

iPads for 2013/2014

iPad - $499 - A7-64bit, Touch ID, improved other specs.

iPad mini - $329 - A6X, Retina Display, improved other specs.
There is to much incentive for Apple to go 64 bit in the Mini. In fact I suspect this is a high priority for Apple to the extent that they would go 64 bit before going retina. They likely can do both with a wash when it comes to margins! Why? Because the rapidly dropping costs for other parts. The slide in flash prices would more than make up for the expense of the A7 and more RAM for example. The big question mark is the cost of a retina screen which isn't even predictable because we don't know what Apples arrangements with Sharp are or indeed if they went IGZO.
Quote:
And even so, I still have doubts about whether or not the A6X will just be an A6 without the quad core graphics, because there is no Retina display.
The two aren't related, Apple would go with an X variant for better graphics performance retina or not. Remember gaming is a significant portion of the iPad app business.
post #86 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post
 

Except you're wrong and putting way too much emphasis on price. If that were the case, the iPhone 5c sales would be blowing the iPhone 5s out of the water.

Those devices have the same size screen, so no it is not a comparison. We're talking about decision based on price vs. decision based on size.

 

A proper comparison would be to ask how well iPad mini would sell vs. iPad 4 over the last 12 months if they were both $499. Which would have sold better?

post #87 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Tell that to the iPad 2 and iPod Touch.  1wink.gif  

That is more of an issue of Apple ignoring legacy hardware. Touch has become the Mac Pro of the iOS world.
post #88 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post

Most of this makes no sense at all.
When Apple released the Mini do you not think that the pricing was forward looking due to knowing what was in development? The Mini was as much a proof of concept machine as the original iPad was. The follow on to the iPad was vastly improved over iPad one so to will be the new Mini.
Maybe maybe not. Here is a cold hard fact, people can see the difference! It might not be the big deal some imagine but it does impact the experience.
Why isn't it possible. The higher Apples A7 volumes the cheaper the processor becomes. Beyond that Apple has a lot of incentive to mover everything to 64 bit as soon as possible. By the way from the technical standpoint if the A7 can power an iPhone without killing the battery it will be fine in a tablet.
I tend to agree to an extent here, but you seem to believe that Apple can't plan a year ahead. I very much suspect that the Minis high price was set to cover the incorporation of a retina screen, a 64 bit processor and hopefully more RAM this year. The current Mini could hang around another year at a much lower price.
Baloney, there is always ways to optimize a products production costs. I'm not saying Apple will change the price just that your statement above is irrational.
There is to much incentive for Apple to go 64 bit in the Mini. In fact I suspect this is a high priority for Apple to the extent that they would go 64 bit before going retina. They likely can do both with a wash when it comes to margins! Why? Because the rapidly dropping costs for other parts. The slide in flash prices would more than make up for the expense of the A7 and more RAM for example. The big question mark is the cost of a retina screen which isn't even predictable because we don't know what Apples arrangements with Sharp are or indeed if they went IGZO.
The two aren't related, Apple would go with an X variant for better graphics performance retina or not. Remember gaming is a significant portion of the iPad app business.

 

No, you're completely off. You're not considering the importance of product differentiation at all, and are all about adding the latest and greatest as fast as they can. It doesn't work that way. That's extremely bad business, and not what Apple does at all.

post #89 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanadaV2 View Post
 

Except you're wrong and putting way too much emphasis on price. If that were the case, the iPhone 5c sales would be blowing the iPhone 5s out of the water.

Hence all the analysts angst when reality bit. (so far).

post #90 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

You shouldn't have to listen to me....you should be able to come to the same conclusion if you include A) Fact and B) Logic into your own reasoning.
I suspect that is why people are objecting to your posts! 😜😜😜
Quote:
When you don't do that, you come up with impossible scenarios. Like the iPad mini going up in price no matter what Apple were to add to it. Or the iPad mini getting the same processor and tent pole features of the much more expensive flagship iPad.
The Mini doesn't have to go up in price to get some of the flagship iPad features. For example any extra cost with respect to the 64 bit processor would likely be covered by lower prices on flash that would even include doubling RAM.

There is little doubt that A7 costs more to produce, after all the dies size is larger than the old chips. But that doesn't imply an explosion in costs for the chip, a few dollars more can easily be covered by the cost savings seen in the slide of flash prices.

In a nut shell it is a balancing act. Apple needs to configure a machine that they can market at someplace around the $329 point. However I see 64 bit as being huge for Apple and the iPad lineup, they likely want that capability this year as a very high priority.
Quote:
Those are impossible scenarios, and any speculation that includes them is not well thought out at all, and not worth acknowledging in the same light as scenarios that are.

The phrase "anything can happen" really does not apply to Apple product launches. There is only one scenario that will happen, and there are slight variances on that scenario that are possible. Slight.
That is baloney given what we know of Apples development processes. They likely have ten or more prototypes in house representing vastly different configurations. In the end what they go with depends upon many factors including the simple issue of getting the parts.
Quote:
Although, some might not consider the distinction between the mini getting vs. not getting a Retina Display "slight"...but I would. It would not affect the overall outcome at all, therefor it is slight.

I'm not convinced the word slight applies here. I don't think Retina is the number one priority at Apple for the Mini. It is likely a close second to 64 bit hardware. Frankly I think they would accept slightly thinner margins this year to have the dual upgrade of retina and 64 bit. It becomes a product the competition can't compete with for months if not a year. As production ramp stabilizes and prices come down they would likely regain their margins before the product cycle is over.

In other words there is long term strategic value in getting 64 bit into the iPad Mini.
post #91 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


That is more of an issue of Apple ignoring legacy hardware. Touch has become the Mac Pro of the iOS world.

They just updated it last fall.  I think you're thinking of the Classic- not the Touch- which is incredible.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #92 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

No, you're completely off. You're not considering the importance of product differentiation at all, and are all about adding the latest and greatest as fast as they can. It doesn't work that way. That's extremely bad business, and not what Apple does at all.

The product differentiation comes from the size of the screen first and foremost. Second don't assume Apple would add Touch ID, a new camera or other new features with the 64 bit chip. The reasons to go 64 bit now are varied but are all of long term value to Apple.
  1. first is that differentiating a product via a 32/64 bit barrier is bad voodoo. For the same reason they moved Mac all to 64 bit as fast as possible they will do the same with the iPads.
  2. the performance per watt is compelling for A7! It is so much better that it may enable the use of lower cost retina screens as opposed to bleeding edge solutions like IGZO.
  3. an all 64 bit iPad lineup is a huge marketing win for Apple, more so than if they went to a retina screen.
  4. there is a huge incentive to transition the app collection over to 64 bit, a 64 bit Mini just gives developers more incentive here. In two years I could see Argos portion of the iPad app collection being 64 bit only, well at least new apps. A7 is a compelling platform for developers to target as it is and the performance in the iPads is likely to be better. Apple has effectively killed the 32 bit iPad app business before even shipping a 64 bit machine, the death though is slow.

In any event differentiation is easy, you need to consider other factors that might entice Apple to go the A7 route. This is much a game of out smarting the competition as it is a game of rigging the hardware lineup. If Apple can create an image of being vastly better than Android hardware then the Mini will easily sell at the $329 price.
post #93 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

Thats an interesting perspective, but it still falls short because it has nothing to do with a 7.9" tablet being more desirable in any way than 9.7" 

The factor is Price, and nothing more.

The factor is screen size for the most part. That is like saying people buy the 13" MBP because it is cheaper and for no other reason. No rational person would expect that to be true in the case of a MBP and like wise in the case of the iPads.
post #94 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

Those devices have the same size screen, so no it is not a comparison. We're talking about decision based on price vs. decision based on size.

 

A proper comparison would be to ask how well iPad mini would sell vs. iPad 4 over the last 12 months if they were both $499. Which would have sold better?

Depends on what people want. If I had to choose between a retina iPad mini and a retina iPad 4 at $329, I would still go for the mini. To say price is 90% the deciding factor vs 10% for form factor is simply a number you made up in your head.

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply

Help! I'm trapped in a white dungeon of amazing precision and impeccable tolerances!

Reply
post #95 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

"A lot to cover" means more pixels on the mini, means Retina.
That might mean there biggest display, the thunderbolt to be retina, I doubt they think the mini as "a lot" it is there 3rd smallest display that has retina(the others don't)

Quote:
Originally Posted by akqies View Post

I think it just means that they need to update iPods, iPads, Macs, Mac OS X, and possibly update the Apple TV and release a new product. Even if you remove those item items at the end there is still a lot to cover to get them ready for the holiday season.
Yep
Quote:
Originally Posted by pazuzu View Post

Will we get a iPod classic with a lightning port and fusion drive?
i think the iPod Classic is done for updates, all there is is lighting, and it's seems to tiny for fusion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

I think the old mini becomes $279-299. But if they do retina and A7 (and possibly a fingerprint)- I'd fully expect a jump in price.

While The iPad 3 didn't go up in price, it also only changed from A5 to A5X. You're talking with the mini to go from A5 to A7/A7X. If that happens- I'm all for $349-399
The mini at max will have A6X unless its $430-50 it's going to be limited.
post #96 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

This is the type of decision I would expect from someone, in this market segment, that finds their way to and posts on a website like AI. Put simply, you're the (rare) type that is in the position to make that decision based on anything but price.

It is not at all the decision I would expect from 90% of the iPad mini market, who do not fit your qualification.

So while you're technically correct about price being "a" factor and not 'the only' factor...it is statistically significant enough to say, 'the only factor that matters', hence my decisiveness. 

If you are going to throw around things like “statistically significant” then I expect you to provide the statistics. Otherwise it’s just your opinion based on your personal observations.

So here’s my personal observations…just as statistically significant as yours… The only people I know of who bought iPad minis based primarily on price are my teenage nieces. And even then, I can’t say that they wouldn’t have still bought a mini if they had more financial resources. One niece who was given a full size iPad by her parents wishes she had a mini. Since it was a gift, I can say with certainty that her desire for the mini was not based on the price difference. I’m sure her parent’s would have loved to have saved the money if they had known her preference.

And before you say this only applies to teenage girls, I know several adults, including myself, who could easily afford a full size iPad but who bought a mini instead. For a lot of people who have the financial means to buy an iPad at any price, size and weight are the primary considerations. Even if the mini and regular size iPad were the same price, I would still buy the mini. Obviously, not everyone would make the same choice, but it wouldn’t take much of a price difference (as Apple has demonstrated) to make the mini an attractive option BECAUSE of the size and weight. Not in spite of the size and weight as you are claiming.
post #97 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

Well... all this talk about whether the iPad Mini will have Retina or not, A7X or not, will cost $329 or not...

Still doesn't address the big question:

Why is it: when Milie Cyrus gets naked and licks a hammer it's called art -- when I do it, I get wasted and asked to leave Home Depot?

Because most hammers enjoy being licked by Millie.
post #98 of 106

Given that Canadians now have a Netflix-like subscription service for magazines, I'm going with the iPad 5.

 

I suspect I won't be alone. At $10/month, magazine addicts can easily offset the price of the tablet within two years.

The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
The evil that we fight is but the shadow of the evil that we do.
Reply
post #99 of 106
Quote:

Originally Posted by pmz View Post

 

The factor is Price, and nothing more.

   Quote:

Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

The overwhelming majority of people would rather pay $329 than $499. This is the deciding factor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post
 

Its CHEAPER.

 

Why is iPhone 5S outselling 5C then?

Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
Shut up and go away, you useless, pathetic FUDmonger - Tallest Skil
Reply
post #100 of 106
Duplicate
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #101 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

The factor is Price, and nothing more.
   Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

 
The overwhelming majority of people would rather pay $329 than $499. This is the deciding factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pmz View Post

 
Its CHEAPER.

Why is iPhone 5S outselling 5C then?

Sadly, you are arguing in vain! @pmz, like OReilly, has decided what. The facts are -- and no amount of logic will change his mind!
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
"Swift generally gets you to the right way much quicker." - auxio -

"The perfect [birth]day -- A little playtime, a good poop, and a long nap." - Tomato Greeting Cards -
Reply
post #102 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carthusia View Post
 

Jobs referred (alluded) to 7" tablets of that time. That is what was o nthe market and clearly the devices her had referred to. The iPad mini has a display that is 40% larger in area than typical 7" diagonal 16:9 aspect ratio tablet displays. LOL

 

People tend to skip over that important detail.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #103 of 106
Possible price reduction for iPad mini non retina $299.00
And $399.00 for mini with A7 retina & fingerprint sensor
post #104 of 106
Quote:
Originally Posted by hentaiboy View Post

   Quote:

Why is iPhone 5S outselling 5C then?


Hard to compare iPhones to iPads

For the 5c experiment to be fully tested 5c would have had to been noticeably less than the 5s
Think about it this way under contract 5c will cost you approx $2150.00 for two years, 5s $2250.00

iPads being unsubsidized are a different beast .
post #105 of 106
My what an opinionated group.

I disagree that price is the only deciding factor between the full sized iPad and the mini. We have both in my household. We had the iPad 2 first but I found it fatiguing to use for reading, browsing, etc. The mini is much better in this respect, at half the weight of the iPad 2.

I would agree that price is likely the predominant factor for consumers choosing between the full size and the mini but I think many consumers are also choosing the mini for its smaller size/weight and also because perhaps they already have a full size tablet and want a second one.
post #106 of 106
Welcome to the group:D
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • Retina iPad mini forecast to outsell thinner 'iPad 5' nearly 2:1, if Apple meets demand
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › Retina iPad mini forecast to outsell thinner 'iPad 5' nearly 2:1, if Apple meets demand