Honestly I see all of this whinning as a sign of emotional instability. This especially after Apple has clearly said that the mistakes of the past wont be repeated. In otherwords if a person is surprised that Apple is being more aggressive they are grossly out of touch.
As for the rumor, who knows if it is true. It doesn't make any difference to me as I will simply buy a new iPad when I feel the time us right. I'm not sure why people feel they need to buy every model that comes out of Apples bowels.
If Apple goes to faster release cycles, they get criticized for "obsoleting" products too quickly. If they only release once a year, they get criticized for going too long between updates. I don't see that they need to be slaves to the calendar. If they can release a new product with significant enhancements, they should do so when they are ready to do it.
But when has Apple done that before with their iOS devices? They didn't raise the price when the 3rd gen came out. The base price was still $499 and they dropped the price of iPad 2 to $399. The 5th gen iPod touch is $299 for 32GB, the 4th gen was $299 for 16GB. The 64GB model is the same price - $399. Raising the price on a retina mini would not be in sync with what Apple has done in the past. My guess is we won't see a retina mini until Apple can make one they can sell at the current price.
The iPod Touch was probably a bad example. I forgot they got rid of the 8GB model this year and that's why the starting price is so much higher.
The only upgrade people really want for the Mini is a better screen. With my experience with it, I actually prefer the iPad 2 screen over the Mini. The iPad 2 has a very bright display which makes up for the low pixel count. The Mini's display is very dim and the colors are off (just like the iPhone 3GS...).
The Mini needs Retina. If Apple can provide the full Retina experience with no compromises at $329 I'll be impressed.
But as has been said margins is a big factor. How is Apple going to sell a device with a Retina screen 2x larger than the iPod Touch for only $30 more? Seems pretty mind boggling.
The large iPad and iPhone upgrades were padded by already high (especially in the iPhone's case) margins. The Mini's margins are already slimmer than any other iOS device out now...
Which is nothing but bull crap. People don't get it, Apple has clearly said that they won't repeat the mistakes they made with the Mac. One of those mistakes was not keeping the product up to date and competitive. IPads future will be bleak if they let the Android market get a toe hold. That means bing aggressive with new models and technology. That action will keep the value in the brand.
I read somewhere that China Mobile was feeling pressure to sign a deal with Apple -- as they are losing 3G subs to the competing carriers within China.
That's possible but China Mobile is so huge they are adding about 4 to 5 million subs a month. I think this might be the one carrier that Apple needs more than the carrier needs the vendor to maintain growth.
What if the current iPad Mini 16 GB WiFi + cellular is offered for $329 (currently $429) and promoted * as a personal appliance (smart phone and tablet computer) for emerging [technology] countries.
* Add internal earphone and BT mic/earphone so it could be used as a phone.
I've read that China Mobile, alone, will have 233 million subscribers available for LTE by the end of 2013.
Dick... do you really think that Apple would drop the Mini $100 so soon after its intro? Sure they did it with the original iPhone but there were consequences.
If they are going to upgrade the Mini so soon (and the iPad) it better be really good... and not cheaper than the intro price.
Dick... do you really think that Apple would drop the Mini $100 so soon after its intro? Sure they did it with the original iPhone but there were consequences.
If they are going to upgrade the Mini so soon (and the iPad) it better be really good... and not cheaper than the intro price.
The consequences was making it $600 to start. They clearly didn't understand their market properly because the interest in a $600 phone was dropping, not growing, after the launch. Even $400 was an issue and the profit sharing, for all its benefits for the consumer, was not something people wanted. They wanted the subsidy. They wanted less out of pocket but a 50% hike in data costs.
If Apple drops the starting price for the current iPad by $100 that would say they didn't gauge it well, but I don't see that happening. At the unusual price of $329 it seems unlikely to me they can do it for $229 and still make a net profit on it. It also seems unlikely they'd have to but we won't know possibly know the unit sales until January 23rd, and even then they might not break them directly* out since they don't with any other product category.
* We have indirectly been able to figure out iPod Touch sales in the past.
The consequences was making it $600 to start*. They clearly didn't understand their market properly because the interest in a $600 phone was dropping, not growing, after the launch. Even $400 was an issue and the profit sharing, for all its benefits for the consumer, was not something people wanted. They wanted the subsidy. They wanted less out of pocket but a 50% hike in data costs.
If Apple drops the starting price for the current iPad by $100 that would say they didn't gauge** it well, but I don't see that happening. At the unusual price of $329 it seems unlikely to me they can do it for $229 and still make a net profit on it. It also seems unlikely they'd have to but we won't know possibly know the unit sales until January 23rd, and even then they might not break them directly* out since they don't with any other product category.
* The other consequence is that they also had to (or chose to but I don't think there was really any choice without really pissing off a lot of people) compensate the early adopters.
** Reading between the lines I'd say that the Mini is selling like hotcakes (or hot cakes). It's the one figure that looking forward to seeing more than any other.
The consequences was making it $600 to start. They clearly didn't understand their market properly because the interest in a $600 phone was dropping, not growing, after the launch. Even $400 was an issue and the profit sharing, for all its benefits for the consumer, was not something people wanted. They wanted the subsidy. They wanted less out of pocket but a 50% hike in data costs.
If Apple drops the starting price for the current iPad by $100 that would say they didn't gauge it well, but I don't see that happening. At the unusual price of $329 it seems unlikely to me they can do it for $229 and still make a net profit on it. It also seems unlikely they'd have to but we won't know possibly know the unit sales until January 23rd, and even then they might not break them directly* out since they don't with any other product category.
* We have indirectly been able to figure out iPod Touch sales in the past.
If Mini sales are off the charts amazing in sure there will be a note about it in the conference call
* The other consequence is that they also had to (or chose to but I don't think there was really any choice without really pissing off a lot of people) compensate the early adopters.
** Reading between the lines I'd say that the Mini is selling like hotcakes (or hot cakes). It's the one figure that looking forward to seeing more than any other.
* That $100 rebate 3-4 months later after the $200 price drop is an undeniable sign that Apple messed up on something. Of all the things people claim are missteps with Apple but aren't I really see this as one of them. That said, better to drop a price later than try to raise it. If they started at $400 but found out they were losing money on each one they surely couldn't have raised the price.
I bought the original iPhone but I didn't get upset or feel cheated that it was $200 less expensive months later and I certainly didn't expect any refund. They offered and I took it but there was no entitlement that I felt.
** When did the iPad mini go on sale? I wouldn't be surprised if it outsold its bigger brother.
The iPod Touch was probably a bad example. I forgot they got rid of the 8GB model this year and that's why the starting price is so much higher.
The only upgrade people really want for the Mini is a better screen. With my experience with it, I actually prefer the iPad 2 screen over the Mini. The iPad 2 has a very bright display which makes up for the low pixel count. The Mini's display is very dim and the colors are off (just like the iPhone 3GS...).
The Mini needs Retina. If Apple can provide the full Retina experience with no compromises at $329 I'll be impressed.
But as has been said margins is a big factor. How is Apple going to sell a device with a Retina screen 2x larger than the iPod Touch for only $30 more? Seems pretty mind boggling.
The large iPad and iPhone upgrades were padded by already high (especially in the iPhone's case) margins. The Mini's margins are already slimmer than any other iOS device out now...
One could argue that the iPod touch is a tad overpriced. I don't think the mini's pricing should be artificially high just because it has to be more expensive than the iPod touch. Maybe they need to drop the price of the touch by $50. I don't think Apple should compete in a race to the bottom, but other companies are willing to forgo profits to gain market share and Apple can't completely ignore that. Especially when they're not the only ones with killer displays anymore. I don't think Apple should release a retina mini until they can do it for the same price as the non-retina version. Outside of say, 4K televisions, is the price of consumer electronics really going up? Seems to me if anything things are getting cheaper not more expensive. Cord Apple buck that trend and still have the mini flying off shelves? I'm not so sure.
One could argue that the iPod touch is a tad overpriced. I don't think the mini's pricing should be artificially high just because it has to be more expensive than the iPod touch. Maybe they need to drop the price of the touch by $50. I don't think Apple should compete in a race to the bottom, but other companies are willing to forgo profits to gain market share and Apple can't completely ignore that.
You're talking about a $50 drop in net profit per device. How much net profit do they get right now? Will they make that up by selling more of these devices? Considering that even their "hobby" sells in the millions and they use so many components across devices I would doubt they would making more by losing a $50 net profit. Besides, which PMP is competing with Apple?
Especially when they're not the only ones with killer displays anymore.
That's not accurate but I think most people would agree with you. Resolution isn't the only consideration yet it's the only one most, even those in tech, seem to consider. They can start beating Apple on the number of pixels but the quality of the display and how well the GPU performs is still all in Apple's camp.
Short anecdote from today. I recently opted out from getting the 2GB GPU in my 27" iMac. I want middle with the 1GB option. I'm not a gamer. My gaming friend couldn't believe I did that. He still doesn't use a Mac because of his Windows gaming. Yet it wasn't two weeks ago he was saying that the Nexus 10 was so much better than the iPad because of the higher resolution with no consideration for the GPU performance, battery life, display quality, or anything else.
Here is AnandTech's benchmarks of the Nexus 10. Note it's comparing it to the iPad (3), not the iPad (4) with the A6X built on the 32nm process.
If I were running Apple I'd be happy to see my competitors try to use an expensive display that makes the device severely underpowered as a marketing tactic.
One could argue that the iPod touch is a tad overpriced. I don't think the mini's pricing should be artificially high just because it has to be more expensive than the iPod touch. Maybe they need to drop the price of the touch by $50. I don't think Apple should compete in a race to the bottom, but other companies are willing to forgo profits to gain market share and Apple can't completely ignore that. Especially when they're not the only ones with killer displays anymore. I don't think Apple should release a retina mini until they can do it for the same price as the non-retina version. Outside of say, 4K televisions, is the price of consumer electronics really going up? Seems to me if anything things are getting cheaper not more expensive. Cord Apple buck that trend and still have the mini flying off shelves? I'm not so sure.
I don't think Apple would have a problem selling Retina iPad Minis for $429.
Plenty of consumers especially Apple's core demographic don't mind spending more for a higher quality experience than the competition.
Will Apple price it that high? Who knows. They may wow us all like they did last year and launch a retina mini in a couple months for $329.
That would be amazing but who would buy an iPod touch or iPad if the Mini has it all plus some for less money?
That's another consideration outside of the margins debate. Cannibalization has been minor so far but that's probably because the iPad is still far better than the Mini and its worth the premium.
But once the mini gets Retina and a new processor the line between the 2 would blur. If the retina Mini is significantly cheaper ($329) than the iPad the majority of people will see no need to spend $170 more when they can get everything for less.
But that train of thought would take us right back to margins. Yes an ever important issue.
I have no idea of the reasoning here. They have chosen the A5 for the iPad mini. They could move to the A6 in March but to what end? What's the reason for such a simple change? The iPad (4) was a move to the smaller lithography and the Lightning connector. That made sense.
The A6 CPU is faster as is the GPU in the A6. With a bump in RAM it will also be more future proof. How is this curious in any way?
Quote:
Looking at the Tegra 4 slides I don't think Apple has anything to fear that would require upgrades every 6 months. Is it possible they could be moving their ASIC designs that quickly? Will Rogue 6 even be available in quantity by in the Spring?
Where do you see Rogue 6 anywhere in the rumor? Updated A6X and a faster chip in the mini.
There is no reason that Apple cannot move to a 6 month cycle where the major update are whenever new chips are ready and the other updates are spec bumps of existing chips with other hardware upgrades.
If a mid year spec bump leads to a faster device with a slightly longer battery life then what is the downside to the consumer?
None of these things lead to cheapening the brand as long as they maintain the quality of the brand. What would cheapen the brand is a "cheap" iPhone to sell in "developing markets".
Apple doesn't do cheap. They can do less expensive. There's room in the line up for a less expensive Apple phone.
The other thing about getting away from fixed release cycles is that eliminating predictability will probably lessen the "waiting for the new model" phenomenon. This might happen even if, on average, they release 1 new model a year. If sometimes the next release comes in 6 months but other times it's 18, the calculation of, "should I wait," becomes much more complicated due to unknown factors, so people would tend to buy more on need, rather than thinking, "I can wait 3 months," because the next release might actually be as far as 9 months away. Can you wait that long? Maybe not. Do you need it? If you do, you buy it.
How is this a good thing for the consumer? Does this improve or degrade the user experience with a device? In my opinion it seriously degrades the user experience if the rather expensive purchase is unexpectedly replaced 2 months later...and no, don't give me the tired old "your device didn't stop working" because this isn't a reality problem but a perception and satisfaction issue.
Secrecy in terms of what's coming next leads to anticipation but unpredictable behavior sucks all around. Once in a while is fine. Shit happens. iPad 3 owners probably aren't all that upset. As a matter of policy it's bad.
Can someone explain how Apple couldn't do a retina mini in October but bam come March they'll have no problem doing it?
Constrained availability of A6 processors needed for the iPhone.
Quote:
And same question with the full size iPad getting the mini's form factor.
Tooling and moving from the 32nm Samsung process to the 28nm TSMC one for the A6X for better power efficiency so you can remove some battery weight and thickness.
I can believe a scenario where the iPad Mini 2 gets a 32nm A6+ with a SGX 554MP2 where the iPad 5 gets a 28nm A6X and a slimmer redesign.
Then the iPad 6 gets the A7X later on just before Christmas.
Does it really make sense to bring out a new version of a product when the previous version still has six months left on the warranty? Customers with a defective product that has to be replaced will end up with the next generation of the product for free.
Seems weird to me.
That won't happen. I have the iPad 2 and got the AppleCare. Best purchase add-on i've made. It had light leak after about 19 months of use and was replaced with he exact same version. The apple stores carry previous versions behind the Genious bar for these instances. They won't upgrade you if it breaks. FYI.
I had an iPod classic go bad (water damage, but i just told the genius gal it stopped working suddenly) and it was years past warranty. They offered me to buy a replacement 2011 version for 50% of retail price. Never hurts to bring it in, even if you're past warranty. They want you to leave their store purchasing something.
The A6 CPU is faster as is the GPU in the A6. With a bump in RAM it will also be more future proof. How is this curious in any way?
Haven't we been over this? The A6 is not suitable for the resolution of the retina iPad. You need the A6X. I had explained this previously in detail and then listed paragraph after paragraph of AnandTech stating the same thing.
Comments
As for the rumor, who knows if it is true. It doesn't make any difference to me as I will simply buy a new iPad when I feel the time us right. I'm not sure why people feel they need to buy every model that comes out of Apples bowels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
But when has Apple done that before with their iOS devices? They didn't raise the price when the 3rd gen came out. The base price was still $499 and they dropped the price of iPad 2 to $399. The 5th gen iPod touch is $299 for 32GB, the 4th gen was $299 for 16GB. The 64GB model is the same price - $399. Raising the price on a retina mini would not be in sync with what Apple has done in the past. My guess is we won't see a retina mini until Apple can make one they can sell at the current price.
The iPod Touch was probably a bad example. I forgot they got rid of the 8GB model this year and that's why the starting price is so much higher.
The only upgrade people really want for the Mini is a better screen. With my experience with it, I actually prefer the iPad 2 screen over the Mini. The iPad 2 has a very bright display which makes up for the low pixel count. The Mini's display is very dim and the colors are off (just like the iPhone 3GS...).
The Mini needs Retina. If Apple can provide the full Retina experience with no compromises at $329 I'll be impressed.
But as has been said margins is a big factor. How is Apple going to sell a device with a Retina screen 2x larger than the iPod Touch for only $30 more? Seems pretty mind boggling.
The large iPad and iPhone upgrades were padded by already high (especially in the iPhone's case) margins. The Mini's margins are already slimmer than any other iOS device out now...
6 month refreshes isn't the answer.
That's possible but China Mobile is so huge they are adding about 4 to 5 million subs a month. I think this might be the one carrier that Apple needs more than the carrier needs the vendor to maintain growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum
"iPad upgrade silliness?
What if the current iPad Mini 16 GB WiFi + cellular is offered for $329 (currently $429) and promoted * as a personal appliance (smart phone and tablet computer) for emerging [technology] countries.
* Add internal earphone and BT mic/earphone so it could be used as a phone.
I've read that China Mobile, alone, will have 233 million subscribers available for LTE by the end of 2013.
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2013/01/china-mobile-admits-to-a-confidentiality-agreement-with-apple.html
Dick... do you really think that Apple would drop the Mini $100 so soon after its intro? Sure they did it with the original iPhone but there were consequences.
If they are going to upgrade the Mini so soon (and the iPad) it better be really good... and not cheaper than the intro price.
The consequences was making it $600 to start. They clearly didn't understand their market properly because the interest in a $600 phone was dropping, not growing, after the launch. Even $400 was an issue and the profit sharing, for all its benefits for the consumer, was not something people wanted. They wanted the subsidy. They wanted less out of pocket but a 50% hike in data costs.
If Apple drops the starting price for the current iPad by $100 that would say they didn't gauge it well, but I don't see that happening. At the unusual price of $329 it seems unlikely to me they can do it for $229 and still make a net profit on it. It also seems unlikely they'd have to but we won't know possibly know the unit sales until January 23rd, and even then they might not break them directly* out since they don't with any other product category.
* We have indirectly been able to figure out iPod Touch sales in the past.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
The consequences was making it $600 to start*. They clearly didn't understand their market properly because the interest in a $600 phone was dropping, not growing, after the launch. Even $400 was an issue and the profit sharing, for all its benefits for the consumer, was not something people wanted. They wanted the subsidy. They wanted less out of pocket but a 50% hike in data costs.
If Apple drops the starting price for the current iPad by $100 that would say they didn't gauge** it well, but I don't see that happening. At the unusual price of $329 it seems unlikely to me they can do it for $229 and still make a net profit on it. It also seems unlikely they'd have to but we won't know possibly know the unit sales until January 23rd, and even then they might not break them directly* out since they don't with any other product category.
* The other consequence is that they also had to (or chose to but I don't think there was really any choice without really pissing off a lot of people) compensate the early adopters.
** Reading between the lines I'd say that the Mini is selling like hotcakes (or hot cakes). It's the one figure that looking forward to seeing more than any other.
If Mini sales are off the charts amazing in sure there will be a note about it in the conference call
* That $100 rebate 3-4 months later after the $200 price drop is an undeniable sign that Apple messed up on something. Of all the things people claim are missteps with Apple but aren't I really see this as one of them. That said, better to drop a price later than try to raise it. If they started at $400 but found out they were losing money on each one they surely couldn't have raised the price.
I bought the original iPhone but I didn't get upset or feel cheated that it was $200 less expensive months later and I certainly didn't expect any refund. They offered and I took it but there was no entitlement that I felt.
** When did the iPad mini go on sale? I wouldn't be surprised if it outsold its bigger brother.
Yeah, I'm expecting some comments about how successful of a launch it is and they can't keep them in stock for long but I mean hard unit numbers.
You're talking about a $50 drop in net profit per device. How much net profit do they get right now? Will they make that up by selling more of these devices? Considering that even their "hobby" sells in the millions and they use so many components across devices I would doubt they would making more by losing a $50 net profit. Besides, which PMP is competing with Apple?
That's not accurate but I think most people would agree with you. Resolution isn't the only consideration yet it's the only one most, even those in tech, seem to consider. They can start beating Apple on the number of pixels but the quality of the display and how well the GPU performs is still all in Apple's camp.
Short anecdote from today. I recently opted out from getting the 2GB GPU in my 27" iMac. I want middle with the 1GB option. I'm not a gamer. My gaming friend couldn't believe I did that. He still doesn't use a Mac because of his Windows gaming. Yet it wasn't two weeks ago he was saying that the Nexus 10 was so much better than the iPad because of the higher resolution with no consideration for the GPU performance, battery life, display quality, or anything else.
Here is AnandTech's benchmarks of the Nexus 10. Note it's comparing it to the iPad (3), not the iPad (4) with the A6X built on the 32nm process.
If I were running Apple I'd be happy to see my competitors try to use an expensive display that makes the device severely underpowered as a marketing tactic.
I don't think Apple would have a problem selling Retina iPad Minis for $429.
Plenty of consumers especially Apple's core demographic don't mind spending more for a higher quality experience than the competition.
Will Apple price it that high? Who knows. They may wow us all like they did last year and launch a retina mini in a couple months for $329.
That would be amazing but who would buy an iPod touch or iPad if the Mini has it all plus some for less money?
That's another consideration outside of the margins debate. Cannibalization has been minor so far but that's probably because the iPad is still far better than the Mini and its worth the premium.
But once the mini gets Retina and a new processor the line between the 2 would blur. If the retina Mini is significantly cheaper ($329) than the iPad the majority of people will see no need to spend $170 more when they can get everything for less.
But that train of thought would take us right back to margins. Yes an ever important issue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I have no idea of the reasoning here. They have chosen the A5 for the iPad mini. They could move to the A6 in March but to what end? What's the reason for such a simple change? The iPad (4) was a move to the smaller lithography and the Lightning connector. That made sense.
The A6 CPU is faster as is the GPU in the A6. With a bump in RAM it will also be more future proof. How is this curious in any way?
Quote:
Looking at the Tegra 4 slides I don't think Apple has anything to fear that would require upgrades every 6 months. Is it possible they could be moving their ASIC designs that quickly? Will Rogue 6 even be available in quantity by in the Spring?
Where do you see Rogue 6 anywhere in the rumor? Updated A6X and a faster chip in the mini.
There is no reason that Apple cannot move to a 6 month cycle where the major update are whenever new chips are ready and the other updates are spec bumps of existing chips with other hardware upgrades.
If a mid year spec bump leads to a faster device with a slightly longer battery life then what is the downside to the consumer?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
None of these things lead to cheapening the brand as long as they maintain the quality of the brand. What would cheapen the brand is a "cheap" iPhone to sell in "developing markets".
Apple doesn't do cheap. They can do less expensive. There's room in the line up for a less expensive Apple phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol
Umm... it weighs 1.44 pounds. So you want a floating iPad? (The mini is .68 for reference)
That was my thought at first yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
The other thing about getting away from fixed release cycles is that eliminating predictability will probably lessen the "waiting for the new model" phenomenon. This might happen even if, on average, they release 1 new model a year. If sometimes the next release comes in 6 months but other times it's 18, the calculation of, "should I wait," becomes much more complicated due to unknown factors, so people would tend to buy more on need, rather than thinking, "I can wait 3 months," because the next release might actually be as far as 9 months away. Can you wait that long? Maybe not. Do you need it? If you do, you buy it.
How is this a good thing for the consumer? Does this improve or degrade the user experience with a device? In my opinion it seriously degrades the user experience if the rather expensive purchase is unexpectedly replaced 2 months later...and no, don't give me the tired old "your device didn't stop working" because this isn't a reality problem but a perception and satisfaction issue.
Secrecy in terms of what's coming next leads to anticipation but unpredictable behavior sucks all around. Once in a while is fine. Shit happens. iPad 3 owners probably aren't all that upset. As a matter of policy it's bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Can someone explain how Apple couldn't do a retina mini in October but bam come March they'll have no problem doing it?
Constrained availability of A6 processors needed for the iPhone.
Quote:
And same question with the full size iPad getting the mini's form factor.
Tooling and moving from the 32nm Samsung process to the 28nm TSMC one for the A6X for better power efficiency so you can remove some battery weight and thickness.
I can believe a scenario where the iPad Mini 2 gets a 32nm A6+ with a SGX 554MP2 where the iPad 5 gets a 28nm A6X and a slimmer redesign.
Then the iPad 6 gets the A7X later on just before Christmas.
I had an iPod classic go bad (water damage, but i just told the genius gal it stopped working suddenly) and it was years past warranty. They offered me to buy a replacement 2011 version for 50% of retail price. Never hurts to bring it in, even if you're past warranty. They want you to leave their store purchasing something.
Haven't we been over this? The A6 is not suitable for the resolution of the retina iPad. You need the A6X. I had explained this previously in detail and then listed paragraph after paragraph of AnandTech stating the same thing.