'iPad mini' build cost estimated to start at $200, may retail for $299

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 103


    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

    If the main interest was educational then I think a somewhat smaller but significantly cheaper iPad could easily shift that balance.


     


    Barring no new models of whatever, iPad 2 would have been $299 come next April.

  • Reply 22 of 103
    eightzeroeightzero Posts: 3,056member


    I recently bought a B&N nook simple reader. There was a sale, I got it new for like $79. It has an interesting form factor, and for reading text only and books, it is pretty spiffy. Books is all it does, but so what? The interface is a tad clumsy (certainly not Apple-esque) but the size is just about right. (My personal opinion is that we will soon see devices like this being given away free; buy x number of books, get the reader gratis. Soon.)


     


    I can see AAPL get serious about their new iPad mini being an eBook centric device, particularly targeting a long term strategy involving the eBook authoring tool they put out last year. While it is true that iDevices like this can make learning come alive, as compared to a printed book, it is also true that this sort of publishing model makes it all too easy to bring shove ware to the textbook business. It will be quite interesting to see how the model changes the classroom learning model.


     


    And of course, in the classroom, the instructors will need control over the student's options to use the device. All a matter of software, of course. But the size of the iPad mini sure makes looks of sense as a eBook thingy. The iPad is good; the iPod touch too small. The iPad mini = goldilocks.

  • Reply 23 of 103

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by currentinterest View Post



    Others are reporting an entry price of $329. I think that is about right with the iPd 2 discontinued.




    I don't expect to see the iPad 2 being discontinued because of a smaller tablet that is much cheaper. I would only expect the iPad 2 to be discontinued because it's not selling well to maintain it's production.


     


    I agree!  The iPad 2 is good for schools and speciality uses such as Pilot flight bags.   Also the iPad 2 significantly outperforms the iPad 3 in some things -- Apple Maps 3D Flyover, for example.  


     


    I hope any iPad 3 tweak includes an A6 bump.

  • Reply 24 of 103
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post




     


    The iPad 2 could slide over into the "Educational Only" category. I seem to remember that Apple management was very impressed with the continual interest in the iPad 2 at the lower price. We have no idea how strong the sales of the iPad 2 remains.



    I realize I'm becoming a bit of a broken record on this subject but yes, the 10 inch is much better for text books and school districts are not made of money so we need the low cost full size iPad to continue to be an option so long as it can run the new version of iBooks. If not, then we need a new iPad 4 ASAP so the current version can become the low price edu model.

  • Reply 25 of 103
    red oakred oak Posts: 1,087member
    Gross margin is calculated off the sale price. So, if Apple was to make $100 in profit off $299 sale price, it is a 33% Gross Margin

    Get your Math right

    Apple's Gross Margin is generally ~ 42%. So this is definitely lower. Though I expect it rises substantially in other configurations. And, important, costs will be substantially lower in 6 months on such a new product line






  • Reply 26 of 103

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post




    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post




     


    The iPad 2 could slide over into the "Educational Only" category. I seem to remember that Apple management was very impressed with the continual interest in the iPad 2 at the lower price. We have no idea how strong the sales of the iPad 2 remains.



    I realize I'm becoming a bit of a broken record on this subject but yes, the 10 inch is much better for text books and school districts are not made of money so we need the low cost full size iPad to continue to be an option so long as it can run the new version of iBooks. If not, then we need a new iPad 4 ASAP so the current version can become the low price edu model.



     


    +++  I agree with this...  especially if the new iTunes and new iBooks support seamless (scheduled or ad hoc) cross-loading of iBook chapters.  That way the students could have text books of only those chapters needed for a semester or quarter, on their 16 GB iPad 2s.


     


    I also think the iPad 2 is a superior device for many uses and in emerging countries.

  • Reply 27 of 103
    archarch Posts: 66member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post



    Apple will be seeing gross profit margins of 53 percent to 135 percent, much lower than its other iDevice offerings.


     


    Margin over 100%!!! - margin is calculated on sale price and not on cost price/bom. This would be 35% - 57%. Apple reports gross margin in range of 38-45%. These figures for the 7.85" iPad seem very much in line with the average.

  • Reply 28 of 103
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I agree!  The iPad 2 is good for schools and speciality uses such as Pilot flight bags.   Also the iPad 2 significantly outperforms the iPad 3 in some things -- Apple Maps 3D Flyover, for example.  

    I hope any iPad 3 tweak includes an A6 bump.

    If they go with A6 (actually A6X for 4x the GPU over the iPhone's A6) I'd think we'd just see 4th gen iPad but I think that is just too much for right now. Still, it would be nice to see.
  • Reply 29 of 103
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    Barring no new models of whatever, iPad 2 would have been $299 come next April.

    I think you're right. That would put it in an odd place next year if they had a slightly smaller one at that price or even a little more.

    +++  I agree with this...  especially if the new iTunes and new iBooks support seamless (scheduled or ad hoc) cross-loading of iBook chapters.  That way the students could have text books of only those chapters needed for a semester or quarter, on their 16 GB iPad 2s.

    I also think the iPad 2 is a superior device for many uses and in emerging countries.

    When digital books take off we might even see a new paradigm take over. For instance, you could offer a college biology book that is sold as 2 separate units. One to study up to the mid-term and the other to study for the midterm to the final. You make the first half more expensive than the 2nd (because of standard dropout rate) and you make the full semester a little cheaper than buying each half separately.
  • Reply 30 of 103


    Apples profits are higher then this article states.  The camera is $10 not $16 and I think some of the other costs seem to be a little inflated as well.  The case does not cost $33 to make in china. 

  • Reply 31 of 103
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    What difference does it make? You are talking about two entirely different devices. It is like driving down to the Chevy dealer and becoming confused because you can buy a sedan for the same price as a pickup.

    Really there is no overlap here at all. Nobody looking at the Touch will even be thinking about the Mini.

    That being said I suspect that the Mini will be priced a bit higher. Why because I don't think Apple is going to bottom feed to the extent that some do. In stead the Mini will use compelling technology to justify its price.
    joeypk07 wrote: »
    So here's what confuses me about the talk of a $299 iPad mini -- Apple just released the new iPod touch, and the starting price -- $299. I can't see Apple pricing the iPad mini at the same starting point as the iPod touch. Consumers would be left with the choice between a $299 iPod or a $299 iPad? Hmmmmm... I'm guessing $349 for the start point, even at 16GB.
  • Reply 32 of 103


    Originally Posted by BeltsBear View Post

    Apples profits are higher then this article states.  The camera is $10 not $16 and I think some of the other costs seem to be a little inflated as well.  The case does not cost $33 to make in china. 


     


    Everything in the post is conjecture based on made up crap and you want to question their numbers? image

  • Reply 33 of 103
    wizard69wizard69 Posts: 13,377member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I don't see why people would expect the 4 core GPU of the iPad (3) unless they also expect a 326 PPI 2048x1536 display, which is also unlikely. This was also common with the the 6th gen iPhone rumours. "The iPad (3) has an A5X so the next iPhone should too."

    I can see Apple going that route simply to stream line production and minimize stocking units. I don't expect Apple to keep " old " processors in stock for long, so while being selective they will tend to move forward on processors for the tablets and wind down production of SoC around Touch and AppleTV. I actually could see them going the A6 route, the really smart thing to do would be to use the same motherboard as is in the iPhone or one closely derived from it. In other words drive volume!

    As to the iPhone, it got a more powerful SoC than A5X. Apple could still pull a bunny out of the hat here and go retina. Or they could be using Sharps new zinc based technology at an odd resolution. Apple has for years been telling developers not to assume a specific pixel count or resolution so it could easily happen.

    In the end I suspect it will come down to the coolest running processor.
  • Reply 34 of 103
    solipsismx wrote: »
    I agree!  The iPad 2 is good for schools and speciality uses such as Pilot flight bags.   Also the iPad 2 significantly outperforms the iPad 3 in some things -- Apple Maps 3D Flyover, for example.  

    I hope any iPad 3 tweak includes an A6 bump.

    If they go with A6 (actually A6X for 4x the GPU over the iPhone's A6) I'd think we'd just see 4th gen iPad but I think that is just too much for right now. Still, it would be nice to see.

    I thought I read somewhere the A6 would outperform the A5X for the iPad 3 retina display.

    Perhaps someone like @wizard69 could give more Information on This.
  • Reply 35 of 103

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post





    I can see Apple going that route simply to stream line production and minimize stocking units. I don't expect Apple to keep " old " processors in stock for long, so while being selective they will tend to move forward on processors for the tablets and wind down production of SoC around Touch and AppleTV. I actually could see them going the A6 route, the really smart thing to do would be to use the same motherboard as is in the iPhone or one closely derived from it. In other words drive volume!

    As to the iPhone, it got a more powerful SoC than A5X. Apple could still pull a bunny out of the hat here and go retina. Or they could be using Sharps new zinc based technology at an odd resolution. Apple has for years been telling developers not to assume a specific pixel count or resolution so it could easily happen.

    In the end I suspect it will come down to the coolest running processor.


    Old processor like what? The 32nm A5 was just introduced this year as a limited edition in only the iPad2,4 to supplement the existing 45nm A5. It's now ramping for use in the 5th gen iPod Touch. If you just mean the A5 in general, besides the 5th gen Touch, the iPhone 4S and it's A5 will continue to sell for another 2 years so A5 production and support is hardly old and being obsoleted. I doubt age precludes using a 32nm A5 in the iPad Mini. In terms of volumes, a 32nm A5 for the iPad Mini actually makes sense to increase volume for that part and supplement production for the 5th gen Touch. Otherwise, with the iPad 2 rumoured to be discontinued and the iPhone 4S continuing to use the 45nm A5, it wouldn't be as cost effective to produce a 32nm A5 just for the 5th gen Touch. Given the popularity of the iPhone 5, the volume discount should already be very effective for A6 production.


     


    And the A6 has a more powerful CPU than the A5X, but at best an equivalent GPU to the A5X. The A6 has much less fill rate than the A5X and would be wholly inappropriate to drive a Retina iPad. Maybe Apple already has an A6X in the wings, but introducing another SoC 1 month after the A6 would be pretty unprecedented.

  • Reply 36 of 103
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    I thought I read somewhere the A6 would outperform the A5X on the iPad 3 retina display.
    Perhaps someone like @wizard69 could give more Information on This.

    The A6 ASIC is much more advanced than the A5/A5X but from what I can tell the 3 cores of the Img Tech SGX543 are below the 4 cores of the Img Tech SGX 543 in the iPad (3). I don't recall if the SGX543 is clocked higher in the A6 but even if it is it that extra core is important for the iPad (3) excessive number of pixels over the iPhone. We're talking 3,145,728 pixels v. 727,040. That's why I wouldn't be surprised if we see an A6X with a 6 core SGX543 or a 4 core Img Tech Rogue 6 in the next iPad, depending on the timing.
  • Reply 37 of 103
    eriamjheriamjh Posts: 1,630member
    The iPad mini won't use an A5x processor since it doesn't need quad core graphics. It might run an A5-something (higher speed / over locked) so it may be faster than the ipad2 and the ipad3 UNLESS the ipad3 gets updated to an A6 processor or a speed bump of some kind. Think about the way Apple deliberately scales its products. .
  • Reply 38 of 103


    The current iPad 3 is a power hog and I'd expect Apple to do anything they can to cut back its consumption. If I read things right the A6 is a lower power consumption device with higher performance as a plus. Also the newer integrated displays use less power then the iPad 3 double light-bar design.


     


    Now since Microsoft loves to skate to where the puck had been, now, on the eve of Microsoft's big Surface release, is a great time to move the puck again. The newer iPad 3 with faster graphics, longer battery life and lighter weight would blow three holes in the bow of the S. S. Ballmer before it can even leave port.


     


    ...and this isn't even taking in account what surprises we may see from Lion and Mountain Lion...


     


     


  • Reply 39 of 103

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Macky the Macky View Post


    The current iPad 3 is a power hog and I'd expect Apple to do anything they can to cut back its consumption. If I read things right the A6 is a lower power consumption device with higher performance as a plus. Also the newer integrated displays use less power then the iPad 3 double light-bar design.


     


    Now since Microsoft loves to skate to where the puck had been, now, on the eve of Microsoft's big Surface release, is a great time to move the puck again. The newer iPad 3 with faster graphics, longer battery life and lighter weight would blow three holes in the bow of the S. S. Ballmer before it can even leave port.


     


    ...and this isn't even taking in account what surprises we may see from Lion and Mountain Lion...


     


     




     


    I don't see the revised iPad 3 getting the A6 processor.  Current the iPad 3 uses the A5X processor utilizing 4 GPU cores. The A6 is using only 3 GPU cores of the exact 543SGX GPU architecture.  I don't see how the 3-core GPU in the A6 will drive the Retina display if the 4-core GPU in the A5X barely handles it.  The only thing I see Apple revising in the iPad 3 is the following;


     


    28nm LTE cellular chip


    revised screen that could be thinner and more power efficient


    32nm version of the A5X processor


    Lightning connector.


     


    All these revised changes focus one major thing - improved power efficiency.


     


    Anything beyond that I don't think we'll see until the spring iPad release, assuming there will be one of course.

  • Reply 40 of 103

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by AppleGreen View Post


     


    Definitely will be discontinued.  The iPad 2 is a placeholder for the smaller iPad.  And, as has been conjectured, the smaller iPad will run iPad 2 software unchanged - just on a smaller screen with the same pixel count.



     


    I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the iPad 2.  AAPL previously said it's well loved in the education world and I'd expect a full size "generation behind" tablet at the 2's price to stick around in the line-up for some time.  

Sign In or Register to comment.