People are wrong in referring to the iPad Mini as a 7" tablet. If people and media are not going to be accurate and refer to it as a 7.85" inch tablet, then it is more correct to call it an 8" tablet as opposed to a 7" tablet. I've noticed quite a few lazy media speaking of a 7" Apple tablet.
And a 4:3 7.85" tablet will have a far greater display area than those 7" 16:9 Android tablets. The two are not even comparable.
I still think we could see a $299 starting price point. $329 or $350 would be a lot harder sell unless it has the latest processor, front/rear cameras, retina, Siri. And nobody is expecting all that. An 8" iPad 2 staring at over $300, with Google coming out a few days later and announcing a 7" Nexus with twice the storage for $250 would be a tougher sell for Apple. Can they really charge $50-$70 more for the "ecosystem"?
I think so. It is not just the eco system. You are also likely paying slightly more for a better quality product (assuming Apple stays true to form) and to not have your information be sold to advertisers. With Google you are not the customer, but the product.
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.
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.
"Analyst" Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities is not only going out on a limb to speculate on a currently non-existant product, he is also telling us how much it costs to build this unicorn.
Of course, no one will hold his feet to the fire if none of this pans out (other than Philip Elmer DeWitt)...
Isn't it more like 41%? You have mis-compared them. If you can't do basic math yet, you shouldn't toss out mathematical sarcasm. Your mom is calling. Your milk and cookies are ready, junior.
There are too many questions but I have to say one obvious mistake in the parts is the CPU. There is no way they will use an A5X chip on a system with such a low resolution. I can see an A5 but it would make more sense (assuming yields are good) for Apple to simply put the same A6 chip in here that they put into the iPhone. It would put the mini in the uncomfortable position of being a better performer than the iPad 3 but that is better than having no serious performance boost over the competition if you are going to charge a premium.
There are further rumors that the iPad 3 will get a small refresh as well. If this were ether a bounce in storage to 32/64/128 or a switch from A5X to A6X as well as the change over to a lighting connector, it would make a stronger argument going into the christmas buying season.
Regardless, I'm guessing the iPad 2 is history as this model will almost certainly beat it's price point and performance, which would leave it as a product without a distinct price point.
There are too many questions but I have to say one obvious mistake in the parts is the CPU. There is no way they will use an A5X chip on a system with such a low resolution. I can see an A5 but it would make more sense (assuming yields are good) for Apple to simply put the same A6 chip in here that they put into the iPhone. It would put the mini in the uncomfortable position of being a better performer than the iPad 3 but that is better than having no serious performance boost over the competition if you are going to charge a premium.
There are further rumors that the iPad 3 will get a small refresh as well. If this were ether a bounce in storage to 32/64/128 or a switch from A5X to A6X as well as the change over to a lighting connector, it would make a stronger argument going into the christmas buying season.
Regardless, I'm guessing the iPad 2 is history as this model will almost certainly beat it's price point and performance, which would leave it as a product without a distinct price point.
1) WIthout having 4x as many pixels to push the iPad "mini" could outperform the iPad (3)'s graphics with just an A5.
2) An A5X would be pointless and A5 seems more likely to me but I can't eliminate the A6, not for performance, but for power efficiency reasons. They could keep it on-par with the iPad 2 with a lower clock rate to get a 10 hour plus usage time out of a relatively small battery.
3) We've seen a rumoured leak for a battery that is 4.39x the capacity of the new iPod Touch battery. Comparing the rumoured iPad "mini" display to the new iPod Touch we get a display that is 4.27x larger. It's not proof, by any means, but they two things line up very well to make me think we'll see a similar setup, an A5, in the iPad "mini". If the yields weren't good enough for the iPod Touch to get an A6 I have to wonder if an iPod "mini" would be on the table.
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.
go to macrumors, they have the retail list price at $329 and they have actual part numbers, but no descriptions. Are these descriptions and specs real or speculated?
go to macrumors, they have the retail list price at $329 and they have actual part numbers, but no descriptions. Are these descriptions and specs real or speculated?
It seems odd to me that it would be $329 over $299. We already have an iPad 2 at $399. This is basically a reduced iPad 2 which has a lot of cost savings in material. The display is likely around the same cost between the 9.7" and 7.85" sizes of the same resolutions. It's also over a half a year since the iPad 2 was dropped to $399. Looking at only the iPad 2 price it would seem to me that $299 would be the maximum target here.
go to macrumors, they have the retail list price at $329 and they have actual part numbers, but no descriptions. Are these descriptions and specs real or speculated?
They are speculated to be real. But note that there are "descriptions" and no "specs". Any specs are .... speculative.
Isn't it more like 41%? You have mis-compared them. If you can't do basic math yet, you shouldn't toss out mathematical sarcasm. Your mom is calling. Your milk and cookies are ready, junior.
Actually, it's 36%, IF the android tablets are exactly 7" -- apparently you haven't learned to use your calculator. My point is that the numbers can, and will be compared, whether one does a 5 second estimate in one's head (like me), or an incorrect computation with Excel, like you.
Do you mean bet on the two being comparable? I don't really see them as being similar at all, do you?
Yes, that's what I mean. And yes, they are similar. Not only are they genuinely similar, the only things to which a smaller iPad would be compared are smaller tablets from its competitors.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Where are all these people getting BOM on an unreleased product that only Apple knows the true specs on?
Yes. (that's the only valid answer to this question )
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
People are wrong in referring to the iPad Mini as a 7" tablet. If people and media are not going to be accurate and refer to it as a 7.85" inch tablet, then it is more correct to call it an 8" tablet as opposed to a 7" tablet. I've noticed quite a few lazy media speaking of a 7" Apple tablet.
And a 4:3 7.85" tablet will have a far greater display area than those 7" 16:9 Android tablets. The two are not even comparable.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
"Not even comparable"??? The are of one will be about 25% greater than that of the other. There, I have compared them.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by oneaburns
Screw the iPad mini....Lions can spray something 7-10 feet behind them??? This is new information to me.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Why, were you thinking of engaging a lion in a pissing contest? A bad idea, on (apparently) a number of levels.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I still think we could see a $299 starting price point. $329 or $350 would be a lot harder sell unless it has the latest processor, front/rear cameras, retina, Siri. And nobody is expecting all that. An 8" iPad 2 staring at over $300, with Google coming out a few days later and announcing a 7" Nexus with twice the storage for $250 would be a tougher sell for Apple. Can they really charge $50-$70 more for the "ecosystem"?
I think so. It is not just the eco system. You are also likely paying slightly more for a better quality product (assuming Apple stays true to form) and to not have your information be sold to advertisers. With Google you are not the customer, but the product.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BeltsBear
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.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Any source for these numbers?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleGreen
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.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }Tim Cook, is that you?
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
"Analyst" Ming-Chi Kuo of KGI Securities is not only going out on a limb to speculate on a currently non-existant product, he is also telling us how much it costs to build this unicorn.
Of course, no one will hold his feet to the fire if none of this pans out (other than Philip Elmer DeWitt)...
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
"Not even comparable"??? The are of one will be about 25% greater than that of the other. There, I have compared them.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Isn't it more like 41%? You have mis-compared them. If you can't do basic math yet, you shouldn't toss out mathematical sarcasm. Your mom is calling. Your milk and cookies are ready, junior.
There are further rumors that the iPad 3 will get a small refresh as well. If this were ether a bounce in storage to 32/64/128 or a switch from A5X to A6X as well as the change over to a lighting connector, it would make a stronger argument going into the christmas buying season.
Regardless, I'm guessing the iPad 2 is history as this model will almost certainly beat it's price point and performance, which would leave it as a product without a distinct price point.
1) WIthout having 4x as many pixels to push the iPad "mini" could outperform the iPad (3)'s graphics with just an A5.
2) An A5X would be pointless and A5 seems more likely to me but I can't eliminate the A6, not for performance, but for power efficiency reasons. They could keep it on-par with the iPad 2 with a lower clock rate to get a 10 hour plus usage time out of a relatively small battery.
3) We've seen a rumoured leak for a battery that is 4.39x the capacity of the new iPod Touch battery. Comparing the rumoured iPad "mini" display to the new iPod Touch we get a display that is 4.27x larger. It's not proof, by any means, but they two things line up very well to make me think we'll see a similar setup, an A5, in the iPad "mini". If the yields weren't good enough for the iPod Touch to get an A6 I have to wonder if an iPod "mini" would be on the table.
go to macrumors, they have the retail list price at $329 and they have actual part numbers, but no descriptions. Are these descriptions and specs real or speculated?
It seems odd to me that it would be $329 over $299. We already have an iPad 2 at $399. This is basically a reduced iPad 2 which has a lot of cost savings in material. The display is likely around the same cost between the 9.7" and 7.85" sizes of the same resolutions. It's also over a half a year since the iPad 2 was dropped to $399. Looking at only the iPad 2 price it would seem to me that $299 would be the maximum target here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by drblank
go to macrumors, they have the retail list price at $329 and they have actual part numbers, but no descriptions. Are these descriptions and specs real or speculated?
They are speculated to be real. But note that there are "descriptions" and no "specs". Any specs are .... speculative.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
Isn't it more like 41%? You have mis-compared them. If you can't do basic math yet, you shouldn't toss out mathematical sarcasm. Your mom is calling. Your milk and cookies are ready, junior.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Actually, it's 36%, IF the android tablets are exactly 7" -- apparently you haven't learned to use your calculator. My point is that the numbers can, and will be compared, whether one does a 5 second estimate in one's head (like me), or an incorrect computation with Excel, like you.
#next_pages_container { width: 5px; hight: 5px; position: absolute; top: -100px; left: -100px; z-index: 2147483647 !important; }
Here is a question...
Why does Apple charge $130 for LTE, if the chip only cost $24????
And the answer is, because they can....
Still looking forward to whatever they call the smaller iPad..
Where you are getting this "cost" from should clue you in that the "cost" isn't what you think it is.
Near $80 gets you metal clad, fast RK3066 3G capable HD tablets wholesale.
Whilst $50 is possible I safely reckon Apple will pay sub $100 build cost.
It was a slow weekend. . .
Originally Posted by Apple ][
Do you mean bet on the two being comparable? I don't really see them as being similar at all, do you?
Yes, that's what I mean. And yes, they are similar. Not only are they genuinely similar, the only things to which a smaller iPad would be compared are smaller tablets from its competitors.
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Where are all these people getting BOM on an unreleased product that only Apple knows the true specs on?
Yes. (that's the only valid answer to this question
Funny, I've often wished engineers had to take business and marketing courses.