But what will the iPad 3 have? The idea of an iPad 3 with a double-resolution screen costing only $499 still strains credulity to me.
Remember that Apple has been making from 15% to 120% profit on all iPad models in the past. They have the ability to trim that profit margin range down with no detriment.
And they certainly have the money to do the research they need to do to fulfill all those requirements.
Remember that Apple has been making from 15% to 120% profit on all iPad models in the past. They have the ability to trim that profit margin range down with no detriment.
And they certainly have the money to do the research they need to do to fulfill all those requirements.
120%? Do you mean 40 or 50%? There are myriad speculations on the gross margins of iPhones and iPads. But Apple has actually pointed out that these devices in fact drag down their overall gross margin. At least, they mentioned this in one 10k filing. So, if they are compelled to go lower, this will show up in the balance sheets somehow and the ANALysts will find excuses to downgrade the company. So, I am not convinced about no detriment. But I agree there's room to go before they have to lose money a la Amazon.
Regardless, to repeat, if they pull it off, it will still be a remarkable engineering feat that few non-engineers can appreciate, because doubling pixel density requires more than designing and manufacturing such a screen (which is already impressive).
I try not to use absolutes unless I'm absolutely sure.
Dick Applebaum made an interesting observation about the price of Apple's iPhone and iPad. The iPad is $500 (with 3G it's $630) and the iPhone is $650, both with 16GB. That's parity of price and even though I think the iPhone is cheaper there is still an intrinsic cost for going smaller in tech and we know that some aspects, like the display, are vastly different because of their specs.
So basically we have 10" (8x the display area of the iPhone) and 3.5" (1/8th the size of the iPad) devices that retailing for approximately the same so how can Apple create a device between those that is still profitable? If it's an iPad you expect iPad-like features with a camera, speaker, mic, touch panel that supports more than 2 inputs, etc. Can that be had for $200? No! Can that be had for $300? Maybe, but certainly not with any decent margin. It looks to me that a 7" iPad priced near a Fire or Nook simply isn't in the cards unless you completely change the iPads' quality and feature set.
But how about a 7" iPod Touch? The 16GB Touch is $199. What is the profit margin? If we're seeing retail pricing parity from the 3.5" iPhone and 9.7" iPad is it possible to see a decent scale for a 5-7" iPod Touch that costs, say, $299 for the 16GB version sporting a 1024x768 (4:3) display? I think that could work.
Comments
But what will the iPad 3 have? The idea of an iPad 3 with a double-resolution screen costing only $499 still strains credulity to me.
Remember that Apple has been making from 15% to 120% profit on all iPad models in the past. They have the ability to trim that profit margin range down with no detriment.
And they certainly have the money to do the research they need to do to fulfill all those requirements.
Remember that Apple has been making from 15% to 120% profit on all iPad models in the past. They have the ability to trim that profit margin range down with no detriment.
And they certainly have the money to do the research they need to do to fulfill all those requirements.
120%? Do you mean 40 or 50%? There are myriad speculations on the gross margins of iPhones and iPads. But Apple has actually pointed out that these devices in fact drag down their overall gross margin. At least, they mentioned this in one 10k filing. So, if they are compelled to go lower, this will show up in the balance sheets somehow and the ANALysts will find excuses to downgrade the company. So, I am not convinced about no detriment. But I agree there's room to go before they have to lose money a la Amazon.
Regardless, to repeat, if they pull it off, it will still be a remarkable engineering feat that few non-engineers can appreciate, because doubling pixel density requires more than designing and manufacturing such a screen (which is already impressive).
7" tablets dont fit in my pockets..., maybe is youre are wearing 40+ pants, but I am wearing 34.
Even if it fits, I find those commercials with people sticking it in their pockets (pants or jackets) just hilarious.
Youre right on saying it could happen Sol.
I try not to use absolutes unless I'm absolutely sure.
Dick Applebaum made an interesting observation about the price of Apple's iPhone and iPad. The iPad is $500 (with 3G it's $630) and the iPhone is $650, both with 16GB. That's parity of price and even though I think the iPhone is cheaper there is still an intrinsic cost for going smaller in tech and we know that some aspects, like the display, are vastly different because of their specs.
So basically we have 10" (8x the display area of the iPhone) and 3.5" (1/8th the size of the iPad) devices that retailing for approximately the same so how can Apple create a device between those that is still profitable? If it's an iPad you expect iPad-like features with a camera, speaker, mic, touch panel that supports more than 2 inputs, etc. Can that be had for $200? No! Can that be had for $300? Maybe, but certainly not with any decent margin. It looks to me that a 7" iPad priced near a Fire or Nook simply isn't in the cards unless you completely change the iPads' quality and feature set.
But how about a 7" iPod Touch? The 16GB Touch is $199. What is the profit margin? If we're seeing retail pricing parity from the 3.5" iPhone and 9.7" iPad is it possible to see a decent scale for a 5-7" iPod Touch that costs, say, $299 for the 16GB version sporting a 1024x768 (4:3) display? I think that could work.
/end argument