However, consider that the iPad is the launch of the post-PC era. Apple offers 2 sizes of MacBook Airs and 3 sizes of MacBook Pros. They realize that one size does not fit all. Considering that they sell a lot more iPads than laptops, creating additional sizes would not be a problem.
They would not want them to be very different, but there's no reason why a 7" iPad couldn't comfortably co-exist with a 10" one.
It can't "co-exist" the way various display sizes "co-exist" with a windowed OS. A different UI has to be designed around the display for iOS. Now they can choose a display size, aspect ratio and PPI that make their effort and 3rd-party dev efforts easier ? like they have done with Retina Displays, which is only a change in the PPI ? but it's still an untaking and should not be compared to Macs or iPod which were dependent upon the display size, aspect ratio or PPI with each new revision.
In fact, you can use the iPhone 3GS being woefully behind te PPI curve and the iPad (3) being far ahead to the point of requiring a 70% larger battery just to get within range of the previous iPad's longevity as proof that Apple doesn't take this decisions lightly.
The iPad "3" is just too awkward for my likes. No good way to hold it. If I use a stand I might as well use a laptop. I had one for a week and sold it, broke even. However I do really-really miss the beautiful screen resolution and quality.
I would GLADLY buy a "mini" under certain conditions:
Must have 2024 X 1536 "retina" type display.
Must be able to hold the entire width between thumb and fingers in one hand and be able to type with other while standing up with no support.
I would gladly pay $400.00 for a mini wi-fi with those specs. If not, as it stands now I will probably buy a mini Android when one comes out with a retina type display, get a retina MacBook Pro when they come out, or another full size iPad 3.
At one point he was so off the mark that to make a totally outlandish and guaranteed to be completely off the mark claim was referred to as 'pulling a Shaw Wu'
And I say he's done it again.
Apple has the tablet market. So much so that some legal 'experts' are worried that 'iPad' will go the way of aspirin etc and become a generic term if Apple isn't proactive about dealing with that concern. The new iPad sold as many units in the opening weekend as the total announced Kindle models for the holiday season (most of which were probably not the Fire). So why would Apple feel the need to release a model designed to compete with something they are already kicking to the curb. They wouldn't. But that's the reason Wu and friends are giving for why Apple must do this.
I think that yes Apple looked at the question of a 5-8" iPad model and rejected it. But yes it is possible that they also looked at the 5-6" issue as a solution of what to do with the iPod touch, which is a dying item now that there are so many iPhone choices out there. Parents that want to get their kids an iPod touch are just handing them Daddy's old iPhone when he gets his shiny new 4s etc. A revamp as a 5-6" model that still works for the kiddies, could be used as a remote with a revamped app for your Apple TV STB (or as a game controller for those airplay enhanced games) etc could breath new life into the Touch.
A 5-6" iPod Touch makes a lot of sense-more so than a 7-8" iPad "mini".
A couple things...first, how portable will it be? The consumers to whom that device appears to appeal most, teens, want something that will fit in a front pants pocket. Second, what resolution will that 5-6" screen size require for developers to avoid UI fragmentation?
I have yet to see any realistic discussions about apps on an iPad mini.
It's hard enough to get developers to make two app sizes: iPhone and iPad.
An iPad mini would have a screen too small for most iPad apps to run on since many already have very small UI elements as they try to cram as much as possible onto a 10 inch screen. Scaling down to 7 inches would create a poor user experience.
iPhone apps, on the other hand, would work quite well as they'd be very large on an iPad mini, though obviously less large than they are on an iPad.
Would people buy an iPad mini that could only run iPhone apps? Perhaps, though I doubt it.
Unless Apple markets it as an eReader (iReader?) that can also run iPhone apps, I don't see this one happening. I definitely don't see Apple calling it an iPad - not even an iPad mini - if it can't run iPad apps... and scaling iPad apps down to 7 inches will create a pretty bad user experience.
The iPad "3" is just too awkward for my likes. No good way to hold it. If I use a stand I might as well use a laptop. I had one for a week and sold it, broke even. However I do really-really miss the beautiful screen resolution and quality.
I would GLADLY buy a "mini" under certain conditions:
Must have 2024 X 1536 "retina" type display.
Must be able to hold the entire width between thumb and fingers in one hand and be able to type with other while standing up with no support.
I would gladly pay $400.00 for a mini wi-fi with those specs. If not, as it stands now I will probably buy a mini Android when one comes out with a retina type display, get a retina MacBook Pro when they come out, or another full size iPad 3.
If I may, I would suggest that you didn't give it a chance to get used to it. Either that or you are perhaps a person of delicate build. Why did you not support it from underneath with your palm? Or prop it up on a cushion when you are sitting down?
I'm taking this up because I've found the iPad so incredibly liberating and useful since I got the much heavier original version that I can't believe someone didn't "get" the experience for what seems minor physical reasons. But then, we all have different tolerances. I agree that a smaller iPad will be great for smaller people, and I hope they make it.
They might test the form with a 163 ppI display, and go to a retina later if it seems there is a market. It would be a fantastic size for traveling and all kinds of photography, including side-by-side 3D.
A 5-6" iPod Touch makes a lot of sense-more so than a 7-8" iPad "mini".
A couple things...first, how portable will it be? The consumers to whom that device appears to appeal most, teens, want something that will fit in a front pants pocket. Second, what resolution will that 5-6" screen size require for developers to avoid UI fragmentation?
Agree. I would want a big iPod ahead of smaller iPad. I would go for a 5" device ahead of a 7" device any day for the improved portability, and real pocketability.
Also, there really is no need to change the resolution. A 5" Touch at the current resolution is still 230 dpi. Sure that that isn't retina, but it is really still quite decent and there would be no no fragmentation, and no need to code new apps as there is no real problem with larger targets aimed at those who don't want to use reading glasses to use an iPod.
To help differentiate it from the iPad, simply grow the iPod into a Maxi. It's a subtle but very effective way to segment the market and have your cake too. Actually, surprised Apple hasn't already done it.
The problem is that iOS is not flexible enough for various screen sizes/screen ratios.
We've got iPod, iPhone, AppleTV and iPad - 4 iOS versions plus in addition there are Retina subversions. This is real fragmentation. Android has 2 current versions: 3.0 Honeycomb for tablets and 4.0 ICS for phones.
At some point iOS would need radical redesign going aways from so called "pixel perfect" approach to a resolution independent approach taking advantage of vector UI components and fluid layouts. Then Apple and app developers would have more flexibility developing new products.
I'm taking this up because I've found the iPad so incredibly liberating ...
I'm glad you found it liberating, I didn't. I need to use it while standing. My eyes are excellent and I don't need the large display. My iPhone is just too small for the way I want to use it. It's like Goldielocks and the 3 Bears, The mini iPad would be the perfect size for me.
And in that case they'd better have the music application to go with it rather than the lame version my iPad sports making music and podcasts far more manageable and updatable on my phone or touch.
I have yet to see any realistic discussions about apps on an iPad mini.
It's hard enough to get developers to make two app sizes: iPhone and iPad.
An iPad mini would have a screen too small for most iPad apps to run on since many already have very small UI elements as they try to cram as much as possible onto a 10 inch screen. Scaling down to 7 inches would create a poor user experience.
iPhone apps, on the other hand, would work quite well as they'd be very large on an iPad mini, though obviously less large than they are on an iPad.
Would people buy an iPad mini that could only run iPhone apps? Perhaps, though I doubt it.
Unless Apple markets it as an eReader (iReader?) that can also run iPhone apps, I don't see this one happening. I definitely don't see Apple calling it an iPad - not even an iPad mini - if it can't run iPad apps... and scaling iPad apps down to 7 inches will create a pretty bad user experience.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
It can't "co-exist" the way various display sizes "co-exist" with a windowed OS. A different UI has to be designed around the display for iOS. Now they can choose a display size, aspect ratio and PPI that make their effort and 3rd-party dev efforts easier ? like they have done with Retina Displays, which is only a change in the PPI ? but it's still an untaking and should not be compared to Macs or iPod which were dependent upon the display size, aspect ratio or PPI with each new revision.
You're both missing the point. A 7" iPad would be targeted at the budget buyer (mostly). As such, it wouldn't need the retina display of the iPad 3. I could picture a 7" iPad mini with the same screen resolution as the retina iPhone. Even if you were holding it as close to your face as the iPhone, the resolution would be comparable to the original iPhone - which wasn't bad. And since you'd be holding it further away than a 3.5" phone, it would look better than the original iPhone.
So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.
You're both missing the point. A 7" iPad would be targeted at the budget buyer (mostly). As such, it wouldn't need the retina display of the iPad 3. I could picture a 7" iPad mini with the same screen resolution as the retina iPhone. Even if you were holding it as close to your face as the iPhone, the resolution would be comparable to the original iPhone - which wasn't bad. And since you'd be holding it further away than a 3.5" phone, it would look better than the original iPhone.
So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.
Problem solved.
I get your point from one perspective. On the other hand, I don't think this is the most important perspective that Apple is considering. They are more likely thinking ... what apps are those that make sense on a 7" or (6.8334343") iPad? Are these iPad-centric apps? Or are these iPhone-centric apps? Or will this primarily be an e-reader and browser? IMHO, apps will drive Apple's decision on this (not just the decision on resolution but also the decision on whether to release it at all).
You're both missing the point. A 7" iPad would be targeted at the budget buyer (mostly). As such, it wouldn't need the retina display of the iPad 3. I could picture a 7" iPad mini with the same screen resolution as the retina iPhone. Even if you were holding it as close to your face as the iPhone, the resolution would be comparable to the original iPhone - which wasn't bad. And since you'd be holding it further away than a 3.5" phone, it would look better than the original iPhone.
So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.
Problem solved.
Where did I say anything about needing a retina display? I said iPad apps would have too many UI elements that would be too small to use on a smaller screen. And I'm saying that developers aren't likely to adopt a third version of their apps. So many don't even make a second version for the iPad let alone a 3rd version for an iPad mini.
Would an iPad mini really just be a 7 inch iPod Touch with a different name?
So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.
Problem solved.
A 3:2 resolution on a 7" screen, requiring every application to be redesigned and making the device too much taller than it is wide to be easily handled.
Whether this particular rumour is true or false, it would make sense for Apple to release such a device. As well as a 7.85" screen I'd love to see an iPad with a 5.5" screen.
Why not? Sure, it would be a defensive move that would protect market share, but since iPod touch has all but replaced the Classic IPod, adding iPad screen sizes would give Apple extra SKUs across different price points.
Perhaps the best reason for this is that gives customers greater choice. A larger iPod touch or smaller iPad that could fit into a jacket pocket would be great.
For a 7.85" device, the major applications would be email, reading books, music, and movies on the move.
Retina screen resolutions are essential for success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I'm also becoming more comfortable with the idea. Apple doesn't have any real competition at the 10" size, but lots of people are using 7" tablets to enter the market - and they will eventually create some competition for Apple. By releasing a 7" iPad, Apple has a low end product to offer and has a better chance of retaining its dominant market share.
However, I don't think it's going to be as cheap as people are assuming. I just don't see a $249 iPad-mini. Apple's costs don't go down by anywhere near the 50% reduction in area.
I, too, think that a mini iPad is beginning to make sense.
Ideally, it would be retail priced at $249 -- but $299 seems more likely.
Apple doesn't need to match the KFC or B&N -- they just need to offer a quality product and ecosystem that will impel the customer to opt for Apple at a little higher price.
I did some searching and as of 3/22/12, parts costs for the 16 GB WiFi iPad are:
So, it looks like it will be difficult to get the parts costs down without leaving out some hardware -- cameras, etc.
However, another way may be possible, as demonstrated by the new ATV...
Apple could use POP/SOC parts built for more powerful devices (iPad 2, New iPad, iPhone) that do not meet QA tests for the target device -- but can be under-clocked, have a CPU or GPU disabled...
This doesn't improve the yield of the "powerful chips", but it makes the iPad Mini and ATV chips almost free (and improves the overall yield of the POP/SOC manufacturing process).
Ideally, Apple could manufacture a single, top-end, POP/SOC and satisfy the needs of all its current ARM devices (plus a couple of new ones) by factoring yield rates into the manufacturing process.
12 A5X (ATV) rejects could be used in Airport Extremes, or other products
Now, if you apportion the manufacturing and QA testing costs across the entire family of ARM devices, you are increasing the yield and reducing the costs of the parts for all ARM devices.
This is especially effective when going to a smaller process -- say 45nm to 32nm or 22nm -- which is happening now (and will continue as technology evolves).
Comments
That's true.
However, consider that the iPad is the launch of the post-PC era. Apple offers 2 sizes of MacBook Airs and 3 sizes of MacBook Pros. They realize that one size does not fit all. Considering that they sell a lot more iPads than laptops, creating additional sizes would not be a problem.
They would not want them to be very different, but there's no reason why a 7" iPad couldn't comfortably co-exist with a 10" one.
It can't "co-exist" the way various display sizes "co-exist" with a windowed OS. A different UI has to be designed around the display for iOS. Now they can choose a display size, aspect ratio and PPI that make their effort and 3rd-party dev efforts easier ? like they have done with Retina Displays, which is only a change in the PPI ? but it's still an untaking and should not be compared to Macs or iPod which were dependent upon the display size, aspect ratio or PPI with each new revision.
In fact, you can use the iPhone 3GS being woefully behind te PPI curve and the iPad (3) being far ahead to the point of requiring a 70% larger battery just to get within range of the previous iPad's longevity as proof that Apple doesn't take this decisions lightly.
I would GLADLY buy a "mini" under certain conditions:
Must have 2024 X 1536 "retina" type display.
Must be able to hold the entire width between thumb and fingers in one hand and be able to type with other while standing up with no support.
I would gladly pay $400.00 for a mini wi-fi with those specs. If not, as it stands now I will probably buy a mini Android when one comes out with a retina type display, get a retina MacBook Pro when they come out, or another full size iPad 3.
And I say he's done it again.
Apple has the tablet market. So much so that some legal 'experts' are worried that 'iPad' will go the way of aspirin etc and become a generic term if Apple isn't proactive about dealing with that concern. The new iPad sold as many units in the opening weekend as the total announced Kindle models for the holiday season (most of which were probably not the Fire). So why would Apple feel the need to release a model designed to compete with something they are already kicking to the curb. They wouldn't. But that's the reason Wu and friends are giving for why Apple must do this.
I think that yes Apple looked at the question of a 5-8" iPad model and rejected it. But yes it is possible that they also looked at the 5-6" issue as a solution of what to do with the iPod touch, which is a dying item now that there are so many iPhone choices out there. Parents that want to get their kids an iPod touch are just handing them Daddy's old iPhone when he gets his shiny new 4s etc. A revamp as a 5-6" model that still works for the kiddies, could be used as a remote with a revamped app for your Apple TV STB (or as a game controller for those airplay enhanced games) etc could breath new life into the Touch.
A 5-6" iPod Touch makes a lot of sense-more so than a 7-8" iPad "mini".
A couple things...first, how portable will it be? The consumers to whom that device appears to appeal most, teens, want something that will fit in a front pants pocket. Second, what resolution will that 5-6" screen size require for developers to avoid UI fragmentation?
It's hard enough to get developers to make two app sizes: iPhone and iPad.
An iPad mini would have a screen too small for most iPad apps to run on since many already have very small UI elements as they try to cram as much as possible onto a 10 inch screen. Scaling down to 7 inches would create a poor user experience.
iPhone apps, on the other hand, would work quite well as they'd be very large on an iPad mini, though obviously less large than they are on an iPad.
Would people buy an iPad mini that could only run iPhone apps? Perhaps, though I doubt it.
Unless Apple markets it as an eReader (iReader?) that can also run iPhone apps, I don't see this one happening. I definitely don't see Apple calling it an iPad - not even an iPad mini - if it can't run iPad apps... and scaling iPad apps down to 7 inches will create a pretty bad user experience.
The iPad "3" is just too awkward for my likes. No good way to hold it. If I use a stand I might as well use a laptop. I had one for a week and sold it, broke even. However I do really-really miss the beautiful screen resolution and quality.
I would GLADLY buy a "mini" under certain conditions:
Must have 2024 X 1536 "retina" type display.
Must be able to hold the entire width between thumb and fingers in one hand and be able to type with other while standing up with no support.
I would gladly pay $400.00 for a mini wi-fi with those specs. If not, as it stands now I will probably buy a mini Android when one comes out with a retina type display, get a retina MacBook Pro when they come out, or another full size iPad 3.
If I may, I would suggest that you didn't give it a chance to get used to it. Either that or you are perhaps a person of delicate build. Why did you not support it from underneath with your palm? Or prop it up on a cushion when you are sitting down?
I'm taking this up because I've found the iPad so incredibly liberating and useful since I got the much heavier original version that I can't believe someone didn't "get" the experience for what seems minor physical reasons. But then, we all have different tolerances. I agree that a smaller iPad will be great for smaller people, and I hope they make it.
They might test the form with a 163 ppI display, and go to a retina later if it seems there is a market. It would be a fantastic size for traveling and all kinds of photography, including side-by-side 3D.
A 5-6" iPod Touch makes a lot of sense-more so than a 7-8" iPad "mini".
A couple things...first, how portable will it be? The consumers to whom that device appears to appeal most, teens, want something that will fit in a front pants pocket. Second, what resolution will that 5-6" screen size require for developers to avoid UI fragmentation?
Agree. I would want a big iPod ahead of smaller iPad. I would go for a 5" device ahead of a 7" device any day for the improved portability, and real pocketability.
Also, there really is no need to change the resolution. A 5" Touch at the current resolution is still 230 dpi. Sure that that isn't retina, but it is really still quite decent and there would be no no fragmentation, and no need to code new apps as there is no real problem with larger targets aimed at those who don't want to use reading glasses to use an iPod.
To help differentiate it from the iPad, simply grow the iPod into a Maxi. It's a subtle but very effective way to segment the market and have your cake too. Actually, surprised Apple hasn't already done it.
The problem is that iOS is not flexible enough for various screen sizes/screen ratios.
We've got iPod, iPhone, AppleTV and iPad - 4 iOS versions plus in addition there are Retina subversions. This is real fragmentation. Android has 2 current versions: 3.0 Honeycomb for tablets and 4.0 ICS for phones.
At some point iOS would need radical redesign going aways from so called "pixel perfect" approach to a resolution independent approach taking advantage of vector UI components and fluid layouts. Then Apple and app developers would have more flexibility developing new products.
https://twitter.com/#!/ankleskater/s...11109263433730
I'm taking this up because I've found the iPad so incredibly liberating ...
I'm glad you found it liberating, I didn't. I need to use it while standing. My eyes are excellent and I don't need the large display. My iPhone is just too small for the way I want to use it. It's like Goldielocks and the 3 Bears, The mini iPad would be the perfect size for me.
iPad mini? Seriously?
https://twitter.com/#!/ankleskater/s...11109263433730
You linked to one sentence rather than typing it? Seriously?
wouldn't this just be an.............ipod?
And in that case they'd better have the music application to go with it rather than the lame version my iPad sports making music and podcasts far more manageable and updatable on my phone or touch.
Release of 'iPhone nano' from Apple viewed as 'question of when, not if'
Blah de fricking blah. Heard it before.
Exactly! Apple already has a lower cost iPad. It's the iPad 2, and it's selling quite well.
I have yet to see any realistic discussions about apps on an iPad mini.
It's hard enough to get developers to make two app sizes: iPhone and iPad.
An iPad mini would have a screen too small for most iPad apps to run on since many already have very small UI elements as they try to cram as much as possible onto a 10 inch screen. Scaling down to 7 inches would create a poor user experience.
iPhone apps, on the other hand, would work quite well as they'd be very large on an iPad mini, though obviously less large than they are on an iPad.
Would people buy an iPad mini that could only run iPhone apps? Perhaps, though I doubt it.
Unless Apple markets it as an eReader (iReader?) that can also run iPhone apps, I don't see this one happening. I definitely don't see Apple calling it an iPad - not even an iPad mini - if it can't run iPad apps... and scaling iPad apps down to 7 inches will create a pretty bad user experience.
It can't "co-exist" the way various display sizes "co-exist" with a windowed OS. A different UI has to be designed around the display for iOS. Now they can choose a display size, aspect ratio and PPI that make their effort and 3rd-party dev efforts easier ? like they have done with Retina Displays, which is only a change in the PPI ? but it's still an untaking and should not be compared to Macs or iPod which were dependent upon the display size, aspect ratio or PPI with each new revision.
You're both missing the point. A 7" iPad would be targeted at the budget buyer (mostly). As such, it wouldn't need the retina display of the iPad 3. I could picture a 7" iPad mini with the same screen resolution as the retina iPhone. Even if you were holding it as close to your face as the iPhone, the resolution would be comparable to the original iPhone - which wasn't bad. And since you'd be holding it further away than a 3.5" phone, it would look better than the original iPhone.
So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.
Problem solved.
As they're already having a difficult time maintaining production standards for the 2048x1536 resolution on a 9.7in screen.
What's the source of this nugget of info?
You're both missing the point. A 7" iPad would be targeted at the budget buyer (mostly). As such, it wouldn't need the retina display of the iPad 3. I could picture a 7" iPad mini with the same screen resolution as the retina iPhone. Even if you were holding it as close to your face as the iPhone, the resolution would be comparable to the original iPhone - which wasn't bad. And since you'd be holding it further away than a 3.5" phone, it would look better than the original iPhone.
So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.
Problem solved.
I get your point from one perspective. On the other hand, I don't think this is the most important perspective that Apple is considering. They are more likely thinking ... what apps are those that make sense on a 7" or (6.8334343") iPad? Are these iPad-centric apps? Or are these iPhone-centric apps? Or will this primarily be an e-reader and browser? IMHO, apps will drive Apple's decision on this (not just the decision on resolution but also the decision on whether to release it at all).
You're both missing the point. A 7" iPad would be targeted at the budget buyer (mostly). As such, it wouldn't need the retina display of the iPad 3. I could picture a 7" iPad mini with the same screen resolution as the retina iPhone. Even if you were holding it as close to your face as the iPhone, the resolution would be comparable to the original iPhone - which wasn't bad. And since you'd be holding it further away than a 3.5" phone, it would look better than the original iPhone.
So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.
Problem solved.
Where did I say anything about needing a retina display? I said iPad apps would have too many UI elements that would be too small to use on a smaller screen. And I'm saying that developers aren't likely to adopt a third version of their apps. So many don't even make a second version for the iPad let alone a 3rd version for an iPad mini.
Would an iPad mini really just be a 7 inch iPod Touch with a different name?
So put the iPhone 4S resolution onto a 7" iPad mini and let iPhone apps work on the device without modification.
Problem solved.
A 3:2 resolution on a 7" screen, requiring every application to be redesigned and making the device too much taller than it is wide to be easily handled.
Problem(s) created.
Exactly! Apple already has a lower cost iPad. It's the iPad 2, and it's selling quite well.
How do you know the iPad 2 is selling well? You don't have any evidences at all. Apple does not even release numbers of how many they sell.
Samsung does not even release numbers of how many they sell.
Fixed.
Whether this particular rumour is true or false, it would make sense for Apple to release such a device. As well as a 7.85" screen I'd love to see an iPad with a 5.5" screen.
Why not? Sure, it would be a defensive move that would protect market share, but since iPod touch has all but replaced the Classic IPod, adding iPad screen sizes would give Apple extra SKUs across different price points.
Perhaps the best reason for this is that gives customers greater choice. A larger iPod touch or smaller iPad that could fit into a jacket pocket would be great.
For a 7.85" device, the major applications would be email, reading books, music, and movies on the move.
Retina screen resolutions are essential for success.
I'm also becoming more comfortable with the idea. Apple doesn't have any real competition at the 10" size, but lots of people are using 7" tablets to enter the market - and they will eventually create some competition for Apple. By releasing a 7" iPad, Apple has a low end product to offer and has a better chance of retaining its dominant market share.
However, I don't think it's going to be as cheap as people are assuming. I just don't see a $249 iPad-mini. Apple's costs don't go down by anywhere near the 50% reduction in area.
I, too, think that a mini iPad is beginning to make sense.
Ideally, it would be retail priced at $249 -- but $299 seems more likely.
Apple doesn't need to match the KFC or B&N -- they just need to offer a quality product and ecosystem that will impel the customer to opt for Apple at a little higher price.
I did some searching and as of 3/22/12, parts costs for the 16 GB WiFi iPad are:
$316 - New iPad
$245 - iPad 2
Will Apple Choke on These Expensive iPad Parts?
So, it looks like it will be difficult to get the parts costs down without leaving out some hardware -- cameras, etc.
However, another way may be possible, as demonstrated by the new ATV...
Apple could use POP/SOC parts built for more powerful devices (iPad 2, New iPad, iPhone) that do not meet QA tests for the target device -- but can be under-clocked, have a CPU or GPU disabled...
This doesn't improve the yield of the "powerful chips", but it makes the iPad Mini and ATV chips almost free (and improves the overall yield of the POP/SOC manufacturing process).
Ideally, Apple could manufacture a single, top-end, POP/SOC and satisfy the needs of all its current ARM devices (plus a couple of new ones) by factoring yield rates into the manufacturing process.
For example
100 A5X starts @ 50% yield == 50 new iPads & 50 A5X rejects
50 A5X rejects tested for iPad Mini specs @ 50% yield == 25 iPad Minis & 25 A5X (mini) rejects
25 A5X (mini) rejects tested for ATV specs @ 50% yield == 13 ATVs & 12 A5X (ATV) rejects
12 A5X (ATV) rejects could be used in Airport Extremes, or other products
Now, if you apportion the manufacturing and QA testing costs across the entire family of ARM devices, you are increasing the yield and reducing the costs of the parts for all ARM devices.
This is especially effective when going to a smaller process -- say 45nm to 32nm or 22nm -- which is happening now (and will continue as technology evolves).