To be more specific the current iPad is the perfect size for reading magazines. No need to expand the screen to read, one page fits perfectly on the screen. The smaller screen will be a problem. Books, movies should be fine and they may have thought of a solution.
Now the iPhone 5 costs less than the iPad mini? That makes sense¡ These estimates you claim as gospel are crap. They don't take into account licensing, production, assembly, R&D, etc. They are a very generic and very general guess based on absolutely nothing.
Case in point, they are estimating the BOM of the iPad "mini" and you're using it to defend your position that it's impossible for a iPad "mini" to have any components that are more expensive than the 10" iPad and have none that are cheaper than the 4" iPod Touch.
If you can't see how a 7.85" 2048x1536 would cost more than 9.7" version, or how a 7.85" 1024x768 display could cost more than a 9.7" version, or how a 326 PPI 1136x640 in-cell full sRGB display could cost less than a 7.85" 1024x768 IPS display without in-cell or full color gamut display then you are choosing to be ignorant as to how technology scales.
Right. Because you say so. All the analysts doing parts estimates are all wrong. But you, talking out of your ass, are right without even doing any estimates. You just guess the smaller iPod cost more than an Mid size iPad, so it must be so(insert shouts of "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"). Despite estimates/evidence to the contrary. I guess you are the forum blowhard, used to just shouting longest and loudest until other people just give up and walk away from you nonsense. Do your really fool yourself with this behavior?
Quote:
Take the logic board in the new iPod Touch. Now make it less compact, less complex, even use some larger and older components whose only real benefit was space savings and put in a board 2x the size for larger device. According to you that board should be 2x the cost. You seriously don't see fucked up your logic is? Take a look at Intel's SFF chips.
Why would the new iPad use older components than the already released iPod? You are just making silly assumptions to support your house of cards.
I provided three BOM lists, even if you don't agree with the pricing use them as a guide to what is in these products. There are no super miniaturized high price components in an iPod that aren't already in iPads. The whole premise of your incessant miniaturization rant, is inapplicable here, and just a little nutty.
The part I have issue with is the metal cases, metal is sold by weight. As such the larger cases cost significantly more even before machining. Of course we don't know the specifics when it comes to the case, it would not be surprising to see Apple use new materials or processes.
Wow, that is so out of touch, and yelling so much over it.
The battery isn't some kind of expensive miniaturized battery in the iPod. It is simply a battery of the same construction 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost.
A modern touchscreen LCD is about 10 different layers. Only 1 of the 10 cost more because of increased density. The other 9 are priced directly related to size, and 4 times larger = 4 times more cost.
The same goes for the case. 4 times the size, 4 times the cost.
The rest of the components are the same in either case.
Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.
1) You've made several comments that back up my statements that ministration costs money.
Only if you twist things significantly.
2) Based on your comments you'd think the G4 iPod Touch with 1/8th the display real estate of the iPad should be 1/8th it's price. Guess what? Not even close!
One problem with this discussion is that the cost of the device, that is the sum of parts and labor to produce it has little to do with the price at the sales counter. In a way this discussion is senseless as Apple likely doesn't even look at that number more than once trying to come up with the retail price.
3) As previously noted, there is no 1:1 ratio with battery costs.
In the case if polymer batteries it is fairly close. In a nutshell the batteries are rolled up from a long web of material, cut then pressed into shape. Higher capacity batteries just use more material or wider webs.
Also, as previously noted, I clearly stated that the battery would cost more in an iPad "mini" over an iPod Touch because it's a rumoured 4.39x the capacity. It would not, however, be 4.39x the cost simply because it's 4.39 the capacity.
How much more is a very interesting question. Considering Apples volumes the cost will approach the cost increase in materials.
4) Miniaturization in tech costs more than to produce the same produce on an older process. So please describe to me how the 22nm Intel chips are about half the price to produce over the 45nm chips. MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY! THIS IS A FACT!
Bad example. First of old processes are cheaper due to development costs being paid for. However process shrinks often lead to considerable savings if the same generation processor is being produced on the shrunken process. The cost of chips off a line is directly related to size thus a smaller die is cheaper.
What you've ignored are my comments where I said Apple will cut costs by not miniaturizing most components but simply going smaller. This is why I don't think we'll see a 2038x1536 326 PPI display in a 7.85" tablet. That would cost considerably MORE money than the 9.7" display despite your insistence that smaller is always cheaper.
It has always been the case with LCD screens. Big screens cost money due to lower yields and the limited number done per panel.
First of old processes are cheaper due to development costs being paid for. However process shrinks often lead to considerable savings if the same generation processor is being produced on the shrunken process.
And how are these advancements paid for? What part of MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY is so hard to understand. In no way does it state that it will eventually lead to it being less costly as we've seen with CE throughout history, but you can't do R&D for advancing the state of the art without spending money. Why even argue agains that!
So we have Apple using 326 PPI displays in the new iPod Touch and 163 PPI displays in the rumoured iPad "mini" and you are claiming that simply because it's bigger it'll be 4x as much even though they're on par with resolution and have been using that lower density display for a lot longer? I'd say it could be wash or even cheaper if Apple doesn't use in-cell tech for the full colour gamut with this budget device but it certainly won't be 4x as much or considerably more because yields are less.
Take the 22nm lithography Intel is using right now. It's simply not possible with ARM foundries today, at least not in anything other than testing, but they are investing in it. This will cost billions to shrink the die by just a nanometers. Eventually it will be commonplace and eventually it will be worth the expense but today it's simply not possible. So again, how does miniaturization not cost money?
The part I have issue with is the metal cases, metal is sold by weight. As such the larger cases cost significantly more even before machining. Of course we don't know the specifics when it comes to the case, it would not be surprising to see Apple use new materials or processes.
Thanks for the breath of sane air. It is irritating to have someone just mindlessly shout slogans, rather than use reason.
I wouldn't claim to know the exact ratio. I was just pointing out that a Much larger (~4x size) Mini is going to cost more to produce, than the iPod, due to some expensive components, being more expensive approximately proportional to their area increase.
I am shocked that someone intractably clings to the notion that a 4x larger tablet, will cost less to produce than the iPod.
Now that the device is out, we can see construction is still aluminum and of similar design to the iPod. If the backs are just simply stamped designs here, I would think case would cost would be approx ~4x.
As expected the retail price is higher than the iPod as well. 32GB vs 32GB the Mini is $130 more.
Thanks for the breath of sane air. It is irritating to have someone just mindlessly shout slogans, rather than use reason.
I wouldn't claim to know the exact ratio. I was just pointing out that a Much larger (~4x size) Mini is going to cost more to produce, than the iPod, due to some expensive components, being more expensive approximately proportional to their area increase.
I am shocked that someone intractably clings to the notion that a 4x larger tablet, will cost less to produce than the iPod. :rolleyes:
Now that the device is out, we can see construction is still aluminum and of similar design to the iPod. If the backs are just simply stamped designs here, I would think case would cost would be approx ~4x.
As expected the retail price is higher than the iPod as well. 32GB vs 32GB the Mini is $130 more.
So the iPad mini is 4x the footprint of the iPod Touch so you think the casing cost 4x as much REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH METAL IS USED between devices. Got it.
You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger. Got it.
You think the logic board in the iPad mini made to a 2x larger silicon despite being the same A5 performance of the iPod Touch costs 2x as much simply because it's larger. Got it.
You can continue believing that shrinking components means that it'll be cheaper simply because it's smaller but try not voice your ignorance too quickly when speaking with people directly.
PS: If you're going to make statements try not to lie. I never once said that 4x larger devices will cost less, I very clearly (at least to a sound and reasonable person) stated that miniaturizing comments comes at a cost and there are parts in the iPad mini that will be cheaper than the iPod Touch just as there will be parts that will be more expensive than the iPad 2. I even detailed them very clearly, but maybe reading comprehension isn't your thing.
So the iPad mini is 4x the footprint of the iPod Touch so you think the casing cost 4x as much REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH METAL IS USED between devices. Got it.
I guess, just like rust, crazy never sleeps. Here we get more all caps ranting over nothing.
With a similar design, similar thickness, scaled 4 times larger, one could expect to use approximately 4x as much metal, if not more the keep larger flat area from flexing. It is reasonable starting estimate.
Quote:
You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger. Got it.
That is a reasonable starting point, it will need some adjustment for how long the production line has been running, so at this point it might be a little lower than 50%.
Quote:
You think the logic board in the iPad mini made to a 2x larger silicon despite being the same A5 performance of the iPod Touch costs 2x as much simply because it's larger. Got it.
No, this just you making misleading statements, as usual. Other than battery/case/screen, I said the rest of the components would essentially be equal cost. I have said this over and over each time you try to put words in my mouth.
Quote:
PS: If you're going to make statements try not to lie. I never once said that 4x larger devices will cost less, I very clearly (at least to a sound and reasonable person) stated that miniaturizing comments comes at a cost and there are parts in the iPad mini that will be cheaper than the iPod Touch just as there will be parts that will be more expensive than the iPad 2. I even detailed them very clearly, but maybe reading comprehension isn't your thing.
Your insane, ranting, all caps, overreaction to my statement that the iPad would cost more, because it would cost more to build, certainly indicated that you disagreed with me to an extreme degree. If you weren't disagreeing with me, why did you go mental here:
Your insane, ranting, all caps, overreaction to my statement that the iPad would cost more, because it would cost more to build, certainly indicated that you disagreed with me to an extreme degree. If you weren't disagreeing with me, why did you go mental here:
Your point was never the meaningless tautology that it costs more because it costs more it was that because it's bigger it will cost more, negating my very clear comments that making something smaller and making something miniaturized are very different processes. My example for making something smaller was a battery which is not going to compress more mAh into the same space. My example for making something miniaturized was taking the exact same screen resolution and putting it on a smaller display which you have said is 50% less expensive if it's 50% the size, regardless of the PPI. By yout logic, a 1024x768 display into a 4" display being about 6x smaller would be 1/6th the cost is axiomatically wrong. There is absolutely no rational position you can take to defend such nonsense... try as you might. All you're doing now is slinging insults because you've been backed into a corner for failure to read carefully before you posted.
Your point was never the meaningless tautology that it costs more because it costs more it was that because it's bigger it will cost more,negating my very clear comments that making something smaller and making something miniaturized are very different processes.
I was just summarizing. I provided a link to the post where you lost it, to read in it's original context. But here it is again verbatim: "...the much bigger screen, case, battery, makes the iPad mini more expensive to build." A perfectly reasonable statement that I stand by completely.
To which you completely over-reacted with all caps rants, and since then you have just kept mindlessly ranting in all caps: "MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY". Beyond that you keep making misleading, misrepresenting statements about my position. Doing it once could be an accident, but you keep doing it even after it was pointed out. I can only conclude you are not only prone to flying off the handle, but dishonest as well.
Quote:
... you have said is 50% less expensive if it's 50% the size, regardless of the PPI.
I said nothing of the kind. You can't make it through a single post without this kind of dishonest misrepresentation of what I said.
I said nothing of the kind. You can't make it through a single post without this kind of dishonest misrepresentation of what I said.
You clearly said that a 50% larger display would be 50% more expensive regardless of PPI. Case in point:
I wrote: You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger.
You wrote: "That is a reasonable starting point, it will need some adjustment for how long the production line has been running, so at this point it might be a little lower than 50%."
Again, it doesn't work that way. Backlight will cost more because the backlight isn't being miniaturized, but a denser display will cost more than a less dense display for the same area. This is common sense stuff here. If you can sign up to this message board you should be able to understand this.
You clearly said that a 50% larger display would be 50% more expensive regardless of PPI. Case in point:
I wrote: You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger.
You wrote: "That is a reasonable starting point, it will need some adjustment for how long the production line has been running, so at this point it might be a little lower than 50%."
Again, it doesn't work that way. Backlight will cost more because the backlight isn't being miniaturized, but a denser display will cost more than a less dense display for the same area. This is common sense stuff here. If you can sign up to this message board you should be able to understand this.
"That is a reasonable starting point" (what I said) for one particular example(163 vs 132ppi), is a far cry from "50% less expensive if it's 50% the size, regardless of the PPI." (as you misrepresented what I said).
But I guess if you make a continual habit of misrepresenting other peoples position, this would be a minor offense for you.
Comments
To be more specific the current iPad is the perfect size for reading magazines. No need to expand the screen to read, one page fits perfectly on the screen. The smaller screen will be a problem. Books, movies should be fine and they may have thought of a solution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Now the iPhone 5 costs less than the iPad mini? That makes sense¡ These estimates you claim as gospel are crap. They don't take into account licensing, production, assembly, R&D, etc. They are a very generic and very general guess based on absolutely nothing.
Case in point, they are estimating the BOM of the iPad "mini" and you're using it to defend your position that it's impossible for a iPad "mini" to have any components that are more expensive than the 10" iPad and have none that are cheaper than the 4" iPod Touch.
If you can't see how a 7.85" 2048x1536 would cost more than 9.7" version, or how a 7.85" 1024x768 display could cost more than a 9.7" version, or how a 326 PPI 1136x640 in-cell full sRGB display could cost less than a 7.85" 1024x768 IPS display without in-cell or full color gamut display then you are choosing to be ignorant as to how technology scales.
Right. Because you say so. All the analysts doing parts estimates are all wrong. But you, talking out of your ass, are right without even doing any estimates. You just guess the smaller iPod cost more than an Mid size iPad, so it must be so(insert shouts of "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"). Despite estimates/evidence to the contrary. I guess you are the forum blowhard, used to just shouting longest and loudest until other people just give up and walk away from you nonsense. Do your really fool yourself with this behavior?
Quote:
Take the logic board in the new iPod Touch. Now make it less compact, less complex, even use some larger and older components whose only real benefit was space savings and put in a board 2x the size for larger device. According to you that board should be 2x the cost. You seriously don't see fucked up your logic is? Take a look at Intel's SFF chips.
Why would the new iPad use older components than the already released iPod? You are just making silly assumptions to support your house of cards.
I provided three BOM lists, even if you don't agree with the pricing use them as a guide to what is in these products. There are no super miniaturized high price components in an iPod that aren't already in iPads. The whole premise of your incessant miniaturization rant, is inapplicable here, and just a little nutty.
The part I have issue with is the metal cases, metal is sold by weight. As such the larger cases cost significantly more even before machining. Of course we don't know the specifics when it comes to the case, it would not be surprising to see Apple use new materials or processes.
And how are these advancements paid for? What part of MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY is so hard to understand. In no way does it state that it will eventually lead to it being less costly as we've seen with CE throughout history, but you can't do R&D for advancing the state of the art without spending money. Why even argue agains that!
So we have Apple using 326 PPI displays in the new iPod Touch and 163 PPI displays in the rumoured iPad "mini" and you are claiming that simply because it's bigger it'll be 4x as much even though they're on par with resolution and have been using that lower density display for a lot longer? I'd say it could be wash or even cheaper if Apple doesn't use in-cell tech for the full colour gamut with this budget device but it certainly won't be 4x as much or considerably more because yields are less.
Take the 22nm lithography Intel is using right now. It's simply not possible with ARM foundries today, at least not in anything other than testing, but they are investing in it. This will cost billions to shrink the die by just a nanometers. Eventually it will be commonplace and eventually it will be worth the expense but today it's simply not possible. So again, how does miniaturization not cost money?
[SIZE=1]* Not you, w69[/SIZE]
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
You are for the most part right.
The part I have issue with is the metal cases, metal is sold by weight. As such the larger cases cost significantly more even before machining. Of course we don't know the specifics when it comes to the case, it would not be surprising to see Apple use new materials or processes.
Thanks for the breath of sane air. It is irritating to have someone just mindlessly shout slogans, rather than use reason.
I wouldn't claim to know the exact ratio. I was just pointing out that a Much larger (~4x size) Mini is going to cost more to produce, than the iPod, due to some expensive components, being more expensive approximately proportional to their area increase.
I am shocked that someone intractably clings to the notion that a 4x larger tablet, will cost less to produce than the iPod.
Now that the device is out, we can see construction is still aluminum and of similar design to the iPod. If the backs are just simply stamped designs here, I would think case would cost would be approx ~4x.
As expected the retail price is higher than the iPod as well. 32GB vs 32GB the Mini is $130 more.
So the iPad mini is 4x the footprint of the iPod Touch so you think the casing cost 4x as much REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH METAL IS USED between devices. Got it.
You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger. Got it.
You think the logic board in the iPad mini made to a 2x larger silicon despite being the same A5 performance of the iPod Touch costs 2x as much simply because it's larger. Got it.
You can continue believing that shrinking components means that it'll be cheaper simply because it's smaller but try not voice your ignorance too quickly when speaking with people directly.
PS: If you're going to make statements try not to lie. I never once said that 4x larger devices will cost less, I very clearly (at least to a sound and reasonable person) stated that miniaturizing comments comes at a cost and there are parts in the iPad mini that will be cheaper than the iPod Touch just as there will be parts that will be more expensive than the iPad 2. I even detailed them very clearly, but maybe reading comprehension isn't your thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So the iPad mini is 4x the footprint of the iPod Touch so you think the casing cost 4x as much REGARDLESS OF HOW MUCH METAL IS USED between devices. Got it.
I guess, just like rust, crazy never sleeps. Here we get more all caps ranting over nothing.
With a similar design, similar thickness, scaled 4 times larger, one could expect to use approximately 4x as much metal, if not more the keep larger flat area from flexing. It is reasonable starting estimate.
Quote:
You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger. Got it.
That is a reasonable starting point, it will need some adjustment for how long the production line has been running, so at this point it might be a little lower than 50%.
Quote:
You think the logic board in the iPad mini made to a 2x larger silicon despite being the same A5 performance of the iPod Touch costs 2x as much simply because it's larger. Got it.
No, this just you making misleading statements, as usual. Other than battery/case/screen, I said the rest of the components would essentially be equal cost. I have said this over and over each time you try to put words in my mouth.
Quote:
PS: If you're going to make statements try not to lie. I never once said that 4x larger devices will cost less, I very clearly (at least to a sound and reasonable person) stated that miniaturizing comments comes at a cost and there are parts in the iPad mini that will be cheaper than the iPod Touch just as there will be parts that will be more expensive than the iPad 2. I even detailed them very clearly, but maybe reading comprehension isn't your thing.
Your insane, ranting, all caps, overreaction to my statement that the iPad would cost more, because it would cost more to build, certainly indicated that you disagreed with me to an extreme degree. If you weren't disagreeing with me, why did you go mental here:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/153588/ipad-mini-to-give-apple-tech-advantage-protect-mobile-device-marketshare/40#post_2215619
Your point was never the meaningless tautology that it costs more because it costs more it was that because it's bigger it will cost more, negating my very clear comments that making something smaller and making something miniaturized are very different processes. My example for making something smaller was a battery which is not going to compress more mAh into the same space. My example for making something miniaturized was taking the exact same screen resolution and putting it on a smaller display which you have said is 50% less expensive if it's 50% the size, regardless of the PPI. By yout logic, a 1024x768 display into a 4" display being about 6x smaller would be 1/6th the cost is axiomatically wrong. There is absolutely no rational position you can take to defend such nonsense... try as you might. All you're doing now is slinging insults because you've been backed into a corner for failure to read carefully before you posted.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Your point was never the meaningless tautology that it costs more because it costs more it was that because it's bigger it will cost more,negating my very clear comments that making something smaller and making something miniaturized are very different processes.
I was just summarizing. I provided a link to the post where you lost it, to read in it's original context. But here it is again verbatim: "...the much bigger screen, case, battery, makes the iPad mini more expensive to build." A perfectly reasonable statement that I stand by completely.
To which you completely over-reacted with all caps rants, and since then you have just kept mindlessly ranting in all caps: "MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY". Beyond that you keep making misleading, misrepresenting statements about my position. Doing it once could be an accident, but you keep doing it even after it was pointed out. I can only conclude you are not only prone to flying off the handle, but dishonest as well.
Quote:
... you have said is 50% less expensive if it's 50% the size, regardless of the PPI.
I said nothing of the kind. You can't make it through a single post without this kind of dishonest misrepresentation of what I said.
You clearly said that a 50% larger display would be 50% more expensive regardless of PPI. Case in point:
I wrote: You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger.
You wrote: "That is a reasonable starting point, it will need some adjustment for how long the production line has been running, so at this point it might be a little lower than 50%."
Again, it doesn't work that way. Backlight will cost more because the backlight isn't being miniaturized, but a denser display will cost more than a less dense display for the same area. This is common sense stuff here. If you can sign up to this message board you should be able to understand this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You clearly said that a 50% larger display would be 50% more expensive regardless of PPI. Case in point:
I wrote: You think the iPad 2 at 1024x768 cost's about 50% more than the display in the iPad mini at 1024x768 because it's bigger.
You wrote: "That is a reasonable starting point, it will need some adjustment for how long the production line has been running, so at this point it might be a little lower than 50%."
Again, it doesn't work that way. Backlight will cost more because the backlight isn't being miniaturized, but a denser display will cost more than a less dense display for the same area. This is common sense stuff here. If you can sign up to this message board you should be able to understand this.
"That is a reasonable starting point" (what I said) for one particular example(163 vs 132ppi), is a far cry from "50% less expensive if it's 50% the size, regardless of the PPI." (as you misrepresented what I said).
But I guess if you make a continual habit of misrepresenting other peoples position, this would be a minor offense for you.