Why in the world do people assume that an 8" iPad would weaken the brand? Does the 11" MBA weaken the brand? Does the 21" iMac weaken the brand? It's entirely possible to offer different sizes without weakening the brand.
Those are smaller machines but they aren't machines that are made to barrel scrapers. The Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 are! Take a look at the Kindle Fire. Where is the speaker? Where is the mic? Where the is the Retina-quality display? Where is the full multitouch display? Where is the 10 hour battery life? The whole thing is just too many comprises without any countering benefits. If you think Apple is going to make a bargin-basement, no frills tablet that has no profit margin and still call it an iPad then you are sorely mistaken.
If nothing else, it gives Apple the chance at an upsell to a proper iPad. However, there clearly is a market for a smaller device. I would prefer a 6" tablet so I could justify buying one. Big enough to have a legible screen and keyboard, small enough to fit in a [man]purse.
Yes, that would make sense. Introduce consumers to the Apple ecosystem at an entry level price. That doesn't mean a price as cheap as the competition just a price lower than the cheapest current iPad - remember iPods took over the personal music player market while being far more expensive than the competition. Once Apple gets their foot in the door, so to speak, they will eventually get that consumer to upgrade to a larger device when they can better afford it. This introduction could also lead to sales of iPhones and Macs later on down the road. Remember, your pulling a consumer into the ecosystem at a new price point and without a monthly service plan, so many more people could now afford that device (or afford to give it as a gift).
Why does it (smaller iPad) have to compete in that price range? Why can't it be more expensive and still sell well?
It doesn't! That's my point! For Apple to move to a smaller iPad it has to be a quality product, not something that weakens the brand which means it's not going to be $199.
Apple never competes on price. Look at Netbooks. Macbook Air is hardly a cheap netbook, yet between the Air and iPad, Apple has killed the netbook market.
Many "analysts" had all sorts of rumors than an iPhone mini was coming out. All sorts of talk that they needed to have a lower price model to compete. Instead Apple has kept selling older models and dropped the price.
The iPad2 currently sells for $399. Its miles better than the Fire or Nexus. Why would Apple bother with a smaller device?
Apple hates having lots of different products. Even worse is having lots of different development platforms. Today there are only two iOS display resolutions, the iPad & iPhone/iPod-touch and their pixel doubled counterparts which can be automatically pixel doubled by iOS w no change to the app. Adding a 7" model who's sole purpose is to be cheap, while adding another product to the lineup and another screen resolution to worry about is not a good move for Apple.
What apple tends to do is take an existing older product and lower its price.
I don't see how an unbiased person could claim the iPad 2 is miles better than the Nexus 7. The Nexus has roughly half the screen real estate for half the price and manages to pack more pixels into that smaller space than the iPad 2 does. Under the hood it's got more horsepower and RAM than the old iPad and Jelly Bean is at least on par with iOS too.
Bringing out an iPad mini with a 1024x768 resolution is NOT adding another screen resolution. It would be the same as the existing iPad 2. That's one reason why people think it's plausible.
Apple will only enter the smaller tablet market if there is a net benefit to Apple. They will want the gain in iPad mini profits to outweigh the loss of full size iPad profits, but it's possible they'll enter the market just to stop the competition. Once a customer buys 100 apps on a platform they're likely to remain on that platform for life. Amazon and Google have already shown they're willing to lose money on hardware to get you locked into their ecosystems. Apple may have no choice but to do the same.
Why does it (smaller iPad) have to compete in that price range? Why can't it be more expensive and still sell well?
I think you're exactly right. Apple has never offered anything that was in anyways shoddy, though they do try to be economical. Nobody has any evidence that Apple will in any way change their business strategy. So if the rumors are true and they offer a smaller iPad, it will be shocking if either the quality or the margins are significantly reduced. We have to get our minds around the notion that Apple can compete with cheap Android tablets without any major compromise of quality or margins. That's the way they've conducted their business for as long as I remember and there's no reason to think they're going to change.
And it makes perfect sense for Apple to fill in the gap between iPad and iPod Touch. A couple years ago, the 9.7" screen probably was the sweet spot for the first product in a brand new market. Today, for the 2nd product in a slightly more mature market, Apple very well may have decided that a slightly smaller form factor is just right. Time will tell, but as an AAPL holder I expect to be pretty happy come xmas season.
If true, it's the Second Coming of the iPod phenomenon. And if Apple can pull it off roughly the same way, it spells the end of tablet market, and the monumental growth of the iPad market.
Steve Jobs *did* say this was a bad idea. However, if we consider the success of the iPod approach, then this is Not good news for the competition. At all.
An entire family of iPads. It just might be what we will lock up the market for Apple.
I'm guessing that women will like the smaller iPad. One of my colleagues has the original, and she likes it, but says that she'd prefer a smaller, lighter design. A 7.85" design would have more room than the Kindle Fire or Nexus 7, but still be more portable.
Steve Jobs said a lot of things were bad ideas, or unnecessary, before jumping right in. Third party application support for the iPhone is the most significant example.
Also great would be a lighter (400 to 600 g) and smaller (7-inch) MacBook Air. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
Mac OS is already pushing the limits of usability at 11" with many app simply not feasible on a device of that size. Halving the display area would make it really horrible user experience.
11.6" 16:9
57.46" sq
5.68" (display height)
7.85" 16:9
26.31" sq
3.84" (display height)
7" 16:9
20.92" sq
3.43" (display height)
So you're only talking a display that is a 1/2 inch taller than the iPhone.
[quote name="Bregalad" url="/t/151086/apple-telling-suppliers-to-prep-for-mass-production-of-smaller-ipad-wsj/80#post_2140227"] I don't see how an unbiased person could claim the iPad 2 is miles better than the Nexus 7. The Nexus has roughly half the screen real estate for half the price and manages to pack more pixels into that smaller space than the iPad 2 does. Under the hood it's got more horsepower and RAM than the old iPad and Jelly Bean is at least on par with iOS too.[/QUOTE] Some basic tech specs are not the only consideration in usability, performance or user experience.
[QUOTE]Bringing out an iPad mini with a 1024x768 resolution is NOT adding another screen resolution. It would be the same as the existing iPad 2. That's one reason why people think it's plausible.[/QUOTE] I don't get why people that just because you create an example with the same resolution that there is no change to the UI that needs to be made for a window-less OS. Here's an exteme example. Take the 1024x768 display and put it on a 2" display. Do you think that the iPad UI would be just as usable? Of course not! Now factor in that this is Apple we're talking about; a company obsessed with every pixels and that the display is the primary I/O. If you shrink the UI by about half then all elements will be about half the size. This will not fly! There will be a new UI to idealize the apps and new SDK to help developers idealize the apps.
Those are smaller machines but they aren't machines that are made to barrel scrapers. The Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 are! Take a look at the Kindle Fire. Where is the speaker? Where is the mic? Where the is the Retina-quality display? Where is the full multitouch display? Where is the 10 hour battery life? The whole thing is just too many comprises without any countering benefits. If you think Apple is going to make a bargin-basement, no frills tablet that has no profit margin and still call it an iPad then you are sorely mistaken.
Again, you're making the assumption that Apple would cut corners to make it as cheap as the Fire or Nexus 7. Why can't you wrap your mind around the idea that Apple could make a good 7" tablet instead of a Fire clone?
Mac OS is already pushing the limits of usability at 11" with many app simply not feasible on a device of that size. Halving the display area would make it really horrible user experience.
So you're only talking a display that is a 1/2 inch taller than the iPhone.
I'm not going through the math, but at equal ratio, doubling the diagonal means 4 times the area. So a 7" diagonal iPad would be four times the area of a 3.5" diagonal iPhone. An 8" iPad would be even greater. Granted, the ratio might change that some, but clearly, a 7-8" iPad would have far, far greater area than an iPhone. And if people are able to use apps on their iPhone, why wouldn't they be able to do so on a device that's 4 times the area?
Again, you're making the assumption that Apple would cut corners to make it as cheap as the Fire or Nexus 7. Why can't you wrap your mind around the idea that Apple could make a good 7" tablet instead of a Fire clone?
I've made no such assumption. I've only countered the comments that have assumed Apple will compete with a $199 tablet. I've clearly stated many, many times that Apple will not cut corners and weaken their iPad brand with a $199 tablet.
I'm not going through the math, but at equal ratio, doubling the diagonal means 4 times the area. So a 7" diagonal iPad would be four times the area of a 3.5" diagonal iPhone. An 8" iPad would be even greater. Granted, the ratio might change that some, but clearly, a 7-8" iPad would have far, far greater area than an iPhone. And if people are able to use apps on their iPhone, why wouldn't they be able to do so on a device that's 4 times the area?
You don't have to do any math to see my post is about the issues of a 7" MBA.
Everyone keeps saying that. It's not true. Or at least not true enough for anyone to post any evidence of it being true.
Netbooks were pumped out by everyone and his brother back in aught seven. You can still see them today. But if you look at the numbers, there is no market for netbooks. You'd have to be an idiot or have more money than sense to make one now.
What are the numbers for tablet sizes? Apple has, what, 60% of the shipped tablet market, right? What of the rest is comparable to a 7-8" screen? Do we even know?
And that's just shipped. Apple also apparently has about 90% of the market that is actually being used. That tells me straight away what size people actually want.
Bumbling morons like the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and DigiTimes can report whatever they think they heard from whomever they think they heard it until the cows come home, but at this stage Apple will release an iPad mini in the quarter after they release an iPhone nano.
You know, the one that everyone and his brother said was assured. Because a 3.5" screen is too big on a phone!
There was no market for tablet computers before the iPad came along. Apple has a habit of successfully inventing or re-inventing markets for products other people have failed to exploit.
Let's be real here for a moment. Who cares what Steve Jobs said about the 7 inchees being DOA. Apple is a public company and is controlled by it's investors. A PUBLICKLY TRADED COMPANY. Apple is in business to make them money and we are only along for the ride. But what a freaking ride it is!!! Analyst expect Apple to make a play for this market and get that money. Period. And a cheaper, smaller iPad would blow sales of the iPad out water.
Disagree. Whether this device exists at all, and whether or not there actually is a market, it can't be $299.
That's only a hundred less than the full-sized iPad of the year previously. For a half-size version with presumably lots of compromises.
The 7" 'market' such as it is has settled around the $200 mark and Apple will offer a better product, but at the same price. $250 at the very most.
And it's only $100 more than the 3.5" iPod Touch which has a lot more compromises in terms of HW.
Also note the $399 iPad 2 comes with 16GB whereas the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 are only 8GB. For the an extra $50 you do get 16GB.
Now consider the current 7" tablets mentioned aren't profitable. Google has even stated that the Nexus 7 has no profit margin and yet it's only $50 less than the lowest reasonably priced 16GB 8" iPad. Apple is very efficient but there are limits to what they can do and I don't see an 8GB or 16GB 8" iPad at $199 and $249, respectively, as being feasible without a strong interest in reducing their profit margin significantly which I don't think will happen.
Now consider how a 8" tablet would affect Apple's tablet profits. Even if the margins are identical one for less money means less profit per unit. Since it's not likely people would buy an 8" and 10" tablet from Apple that means they need to have a good reason to make both. A couple reasons that come to mind are: they think they will sell so many that it will counteract any 10" iPad sales or they are afraid of the 7" tablet margin undermining their 10" iPad sales.
There was no market for tablet computers before the iPad came along. Apple has a habit of successfully inventing or re-inventing markets for products other people have failed to exploit.
Your right. You could hold a 12cm device in your hand and it wouldn't need a bezel because of that.
It wouldn't be an iPad though; I suspect it will be an iPod, but Apple could surprise us all and make it an iPhone.
Comments
Exactly. A $299 iPad Mini would sell like hotcakes.
Those are smaller machines but they aren't machines that are made to barrel scrapers. The Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 are! Take a look at the Kindle Fire. Where is the speaker? Where is the mic? Where the is the Retina-quality display? Where is the full multitouch display? Where is the 10 hour battery life? The whole thing is just too many comprises without any countering benefits. If you think Apple is going to make a bargin-basement, no frills tablet that has no profit margin and still call it an iPad then you are sorely mistaken.
Quote:
Originally Posted by aaarrrgggh
If nothing else, it gives Apple the chance at an upsell to a proper iPad. However, there clearly is a market for a smaller device. I would prefer a 6" tablet so I could justify buying one. Big enough to have a legible screen and keyboard, small enough to fit in a [man]purse.
Yes, that would make sense. Introduce consumers to the Apple ecosystem at an entry level price. That doesn't mean a price as cheap as the competition just a price lower than the cheapest current iPad - remember iPods took over the personal music player market while being far more expensive than the competition. Once Apple gets their foot in the door, so to speak, they will eventually get that consumer to upgrade to a larger device when they can better afford it. This introduction could also lead to sales of iPhones and Macs later on down the road. Remember, your pulling a consumer into the ecosystem at a new price point and without a monthly service plan, so many more people could now afford that device (or afford to give it as a gift).
It doesn't! That's my point! For Apple to move to a smaller iPad it has to be a quality product, not something that weakens the brand which means it's not going to be $199.
Also great would be a lighter (400 to 600 g) and smaller (7-inch) MacBook Air. The Mac in your pocket. Always.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dm3
I still don't see it.
Apple never competes on price. Look at Netbooks. Macbook Air is hardly a cheap netbook, yet between the Air and iPad, Apple has killed the netbook market.
Many "analysts" had all sorts of rumors than an iPhone mini was coming out. All sorts of talk that they needed to have a lower price model to compete. Instead Apple has kept selling older models and dropped the price.
The iPad2 currently sells for $399. Its miles better than the Fire or Nexus. Why would Apple bother with a smaller device?
Apple hates having lots of different products. Even worse is having lots of different development platforms. Today there are only two iOS display resolutions, the iPad & iPhone/iPod-touch and their pixel doubled counterparts which can be automatically pixel doubled by iOS w no change to the app. Adding a 7" model who's sole purpose is to be cheap, while adding another product to the lineup and another screen resolution to worry about is not a good move for Apple.
What apple tends to do is take an existing older product and lower its price.
I don't see how an unbiased person could claim the iPad 2 is miles better than the Nexus 7. The Nexus has roughly half the screen real estate for half the price and manages to pack more pixels into that smaller space than the iPad 2 does. Under the hood it's got more horsepower and RAM than the old iPad and Jelly Bean is at least on par with iOS too.
Bringing out an iPad mini with a 1024x768 resolution is NOT adding another screen resolution. It would be the same as the existing iPad 2. That's one reason why people think it's plausible.
Apple will only enter the smaller tablet market if there is a net benefit to Apple. They will want the gain in iPad mini profits to outweigh the loss of full size iPad profits, but it's possible they'll enter the market just to stop the competition. Once a customer buys 100 apps on a platform they're likely to remain on that platform for life. Amazon and Google have already shown they're willing to lose money on hardware to get you locked into their ecosystems. Apple may have no choice but to do the same.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
Why does it (smaller iPad) have to compete in that price range? Why can't it be more expensive and still sell well?
I think you're exactly right. Apple has never offered anything that was in anyways shoddy, though they do try to be economical. Nobody has any evidence that Apple will in any way change their business strategy. So if the rumors are true and they offer a smaller iPad, it will be shocking if either the quality or the margins are significantly reduced. We have to get our minds around the notion that Apple can compete with cheap Android tablets without any major compromise of quality or margins. That's the way they've conducted their business for as long as I remember and there's no reason to think they're going to change.
And it makes perfect sense for Apple to fill in the gap between iPad and iPod Touch. A couple years ago, the 9.7" screen probably was the sweet spot for the first product in a brand new market. Today, for the 2nd product in a slightly more mature market, Apple very well may have decided that a slightly smaller form factor is just right. Time will tell, but as an AAPL holder I expect to be pretty happy come xmas season.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610
If true, it's the Second Coming of the iPod phenomenon. And if Apple can pull it off roughly the same way, it spells the end of tablet market, and the monumental growth of the iPad market.
Steve Jobs *did* say this was a bad idea. However, if we consider the success of the iPod approach, then this is Not good news for the competition. At all.
An entire family of iPads. It just might be what we will lock up the market for Apple.
I'm guessing that women will like the smaller iPad. One of my colleagues has the original, and she likes it, but says that she'd prefer a smaller, lighter design. A 7.85" design would have more room than the Kindle Fire or Nexus 7, but still be more portable.
Steve Jobs said a lot of things were bad ideas, or unnecessary, before jumping right in. Third party application support for the iPhone is the most significant example.
Mac OS is already pushing the limits of usability at 11" with many app simply not feasible on a device of that size. Halving the display area would make it really horrible user experience.
57.46" sq
5.68" (display height)
7.85" 16:9
26.31" sq
3.84" (display height)
7" 16:9
20.92" sq
3.43" (display height)
So you're only talking a display that is a 1/2 inch taller than the iPhone.
I don't see how an unbiased person could claim the iPad 2 is miles better than the Nexus 7. The Nexus has roughly half the screen real estate for half the price and manages to pack more pixels into that smaller space than the iPad 2 does. Under the hood it's got more horsepower and RAM than the old iPad and Jelly Bean is at least on par with iOS too.[/QUOTE]
Some basic tech specs are not the only consideration in usability, performance or user experience.
[QUOTE]Bringing out an iPad mini with a 1024x768 resolution is NOT adding another screen resolution. It would be the same as the existing iPad 2. That's one reason why people think it's plausible.[/QUOTE]
I don't get why people that just because you create an example with the same resolution that there is no change to the UI that needs to be made for a window-less OS. Here's an exteme example. Take the 1024x768 display and put it on a 2" display. Do you think that the iPad UI would be just as usable? Of course not! Now factor in that this is Apple we're talking about; a company obsessed with every pixels and that the display is the primary I/O. If you shrink the UI by about half then all elements will be about half the size. This will not fly! There will be a new UI to idealize the apps and new SDK to help developers idealize the apps.
Again, you're making the assumption that Apple would cut corners to make it as cheap as the Fire or Nexus 7. Why can't you wrap your mind around the idea that Apple could make a good 7" tablet instead of a Fire clone?
I'm not going through the math, but at equal ratio, doubling the diagonal means 4 times the area. So a 7" diagonal iPad would be four times the area of a 3.5" diagonal iPhone. An 8" iPad would be even greater. Granted, the ratio might change that some, but clearly, a 7-8" iPad would have far, far greater area than an iPhone. And if people are able to use apps on their iPhone, why wouldn't they be able to do so on a device that's 4 times the area?
You don't have to do any math to see my post is about the issues of a 7" MBA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Exactly. A $299 iPad Mini would sell like hotcakes.
Disagree. Whether this device exists at all, and whether or not there actually is a market, it can't be $299.
That's only a hundred less than the full-sized iPad of the year previously. For a half-size version with presumably lots of compromises.
The 7" 'market' such as it is has settled around the $200 mark and Apple will offer a better product, but at the same price. $250 at the very most.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Everyone keeps saying that. It's not true. Or at least not true enough for anyone to post any evidence of it being true.
Netbooks were pumped out by everyone and his brother back in aught seven. You can still see them today. But if you look at the numbers, there is no market for netbooks. You'd have to be an idiot or have more money than sense to make one now.
What are the numbers for tablet sizes? Apple has, what, 60% of the shipped tablet market, right? What of the rest is comparable to a 7-8" screen? Do we even know?
And that's just shipped. Apple also apparently has about 90% of the market that is actually being used. That tells me straight away what size people actually want.
Bumbling morons like the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and DigiTimes can report whatever they think they heard from whomever they think they heard it until the cows come home, but at this stage Apple will release an iPad mini in the quarter after they release an iPhone nano.
You know, the one that everyone and his brother said was assured. Because a 3.5" screen is too big on a phone!
There was no market for tablet computers before the iPad came along. Apple has a habit of successfully inventing or re-inventing markets for products other people have failed to exploit.
Apple is in business to make them money and we are only along for the ride.
But what a freaking ride it is!!!
Analyst expect Apple to make a play for this market and get that money. Period. And a cheaper, smaller iPad would blow sales of the iPad out water.
And it's only $100 more than the 3.5" iPod Touch which has a lot more compromises in terms of HW.
Also note the $399 iPad 2 comes with 16GB whereas the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 are only 8GB. For the an extra $50 you do get 16GB.
Now consider the current 7" tablets mentioned aren't profitable. Google has even stated that the Nexus 7 has no profit margin and yet it's only $50 less than the lowest reasonably priced 16GB 8" iPad. Apple is very efficient but there are limits to what they can do and I don't see an 8GB or 16GB 8" iPad at $199 and $249, respectively, as being feasible without a strong interest in reducing their profit margin significantly which I don't think will happen.
Now consider how a 8" tablet would affect Apple's tablet profits. Even if the margins are identical one for less money means less profit per unit. Since it's not likely people would buy an 8" and 10" tablet from Apple that means they need to have a good reason to make both. A couple reasons that come to mind are: they think they will sell so many that it will counteract any 10" iPad sales or they are afraid of the 7" tablet margin undermining their 10" iPad sales.
I might have to save this post. ????
Your right. You could hold a 12cm device in your hand and it wouldn't need a bezel because of that.
It wouldn't be an iPad though; I suspect it will be an iPod, but Apple could surprise us all and make it an iPhone.
J.
Wut no keyboard Geez!