Okay, again, enjoy your delusions. Sales are down? So what? You’re inventing that the price is the problem. Marketshare remains the same. Look at the tablets actually in use. Call us back when the iPad isn’t 90% of that number.
iPad sales have been down for 3 straight quarters when compared with their respective YoY quarters. That is fact. iPad market share is also declining. Whether that's anything to due to price (or not) or anything to get worked up about (or not) is definitely debatable. But you're right that iPad usage share is very high. I don't know if it's 90% but the last time numbers were available it was hovering around 80%.
I give up. If people want to think these idiotic names are real, or if Apple wants to use idiotic names as real names, so be it. It’s only a very important aspect of the product’s marketing, but whatever.
I give you the Mac Pro, the Apple TV and the Apple Watch. All niche devices.
Actually Apple TV moved beyond niche markets sometime ago, it really isn't a hobby anymore. Apple watch is no more a niche product than anyother expensive watch.
You may have a point with the Mac Pro, but I look at it this way it brings credibility to the Mac lineup.
As to the 17" MacBook Pro, I bet it would get a very healthy marketshare nowadays, as Apple would be able to make it much smaller, thinner and lighter than their last one.
Not so much. I've seen the same thing happen in the Windows world at work, people just don't like lugging around massive laptops. In one case I asked why somebody gave up a laptop with a 17" screen and he said it was just too big. Even a 15" machine can be cramped if you are spending a lot of time on planes. Making the laptop thiner doesn't solve the issue of the other dimensions, this is what has driven down demand world wide for 17" machines.
This is one of the reasons why I would like to see a 12, 14 & 16" line up from Apple. With a little bit of work I can see them putting a 16" screen into a machine not much bigger than today's 15" machine. It would require shrinking the bezel to almost zero and a slight increase in overall dimensions but it might be the best compromise for those that need large screens.
You're essentially saying the same thing as me with regard to a larger laptop.
16", 17", whatever. The point is, Apple could make a larger size screen in a relatively small form factor compared to ten years ago.
It's the 11" MacBook Air that seems a prime candidate for redundancy, particularly if a large iPad comes out.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. But some here seem to think iPad mini needs to be a generation behind iPad air in order to keep margins high. But even if that is true, what good are high margins if no one is buying the device?
IMO in 2015 Apple needs to:
Eliminate all A5 devices from their iOS lineups
Make all iOS devices retina with laminated displays
Make all iOS devices 64-bit with Touch ID
Make 32GB the base storage for all iOS devices
Fix bugs and improve UX in iOS before adding new features.
And for anyone complaining about margins and profits, I say, Apple has the cash to do it and increased sales would offset any hit they would take from $199/$499 taking a larger share of the iPhone/iPad mix.
Right... Sales replacing lost margins... That ALWAYS works well... in Fantasy land.... You should always fight for the margins and never let them go for increased sales unless the gain in sales is very high. Since the tablet market is soft, letting go of your margins for increased sales is a losing proposition. There is such a huge chasm between the sub $200 tablets and the Ipads that these people will not buy an Apple tablet even at $100 less, you'll have a slight gain in sales and a huge decline in profitability. The tablets are already the least profitable thing they make, so I don't think it would be a good idea at all to do that.
The Watch will probably have much better margins than the tablets, once they hit the market. You could bundle the watches at a slightly lower cost with tablets or phones, but alone reducing the price of tablets to much is a very bad idea.
Cash is such a precious commodity, you should never use it the way you talk about unless you are in a massively entrenched position, say like Walmart, Google or the Telecoms. Apple cannot be cavalier with its cash; that's why it is hording it.
No not yet because it's not available, it's still in crowdfunding. I did give 2000 CHF towards the project though, they sent me a really nice email afterwards. I've been a big Jolla supporter from the beginning. I don't know if you've ever used a Nokia N9 but it was an absolute pleasure to use, still my favorite phone of all time, well the development version the N950 was. When Nokia announced that they were canceling the project I was devastated, especially when it was an extremely popular phone here in Europe. All wasn't lost though, the Nokia development team behind the project left to make Jolla. Sailfish is right up my ally, a fast OS, full multitasking and very attractive. There first phone, though not as attractive as the original Nokia N9, is still very nice and build to last. I can't wait for their tablet.
Right... Sales replacing lost margins... That ALWAYS works well... in Fantasy land.... You should always fight for the margins and never let them go for increased sales unless the gain in sales is very high. Since the tablet market is soft, letting go of your margins for increased sales is a losing proposition. There is such a huge chasm between the sub $200 tablets and the Ipads that these people will not buy an Apple tablet even at $100 less, you'll have a slight gain in sales and a huge decline in profitability. The tablets are already the least profitable thing they make, so I don't think it would be a good idea at all to do that.
The Watch will probably have much better margins than the tablets, once they hit the market. You could bundle the watches at a slightly lower cost with tablets or phones, but alone reducing. the price of tablets to much is a very bad idea.
Cash is such a precious commodity, you should never use it the way you talk about unless you are in a massively entrenched position, say like Walmart, Google or the Telecoms. Apple cannot be cavalier with its cash; that's why it is hording it.
I was with you till the last sentence. The term should be something like "strategically amassing"—instead of "hoarding"—their cash. I'm sure you would agree that they have mapped out some massive strategies for using that cash. They may be real plans or contingency scenarios, but they are plans to spend, not cravenly sequester, i.e., hoard.
Anyway, your point is valid. Don't mess with your margins. We can assume they've set the Mini price where it is for a good reason. It may not be clear now, but it may be visible even in the peanut gallery later.
Makes sense to me. I'm just shocked that it will have an A9 chip so early on. I was expecting it to have an A8X chip and 2GB RAM like the iPad Air 2.
The detail about the iPad Mini 4 also makes a lot of sense, since the iPad Mini 3 is actually just an iPad Mini 2 with Touch ID. I guess the iPad Mini 4 was supposed to be the real iPad Mini 3 but wasn't ready on time since its development required a new form factor. The smaller form factor needs to address cooling issues, requiring further research. The larger iPad Air 2, I guess, was more easily engineered to address cooling.
One thing not in the article that I would bet on is the display of the new larger iPad. Such a larger display will require a resolution bump in order for it to qualify as "Retina". It may even have a DPI like the iPhone 6 Plus, qualifying it to be branded as "Retina HD".
I was with you till the last sentence. The term should be something like "strategically amassing"—instead of "hoarding"—their cash. I'm sure you would agree that they have mapped out some massive strategies for using that cash. They may be real plans or contingency scenarios, but they are plans to spend, not cravenly sequester, i.e., hoard.
Anyway, your point is valid. Don't mess with your margins. We can assume they've set the Mini price where it is for a good reason. It may not be clear now, but it may be visible even in the peanut gallery later.
Well it is possible that they can make mistakes from time to time. Look at the price reduction on the original iPhone, on the ?TV which started out at $299 and is now $99. Look at how the price has come down on the MBA which was $1799 when first announced.
The facts are iPad sales are declining. I happen to think one of the reasons is people are finding cheaper tablets that are "good enough". I thought when the original mini came out Apple priced it at $329 so when it went retina a year later they wouldn't have to increase the price. Yet they did, to $399. That new Nokia N1 tablet is an all aluminum case with 64-bit, 2GB RAM, laminated retina display and slightly thinner and lighter than the mini. And it's $150 cheaper. Of course it's not running iOS but does the average consumer think iOS is worth a $150 premium?
Right... Sales replacing lost margins... That ALWAYS works well... in Fantasy land.... You should always fight for the margins and never let them go for increased sales unless the gain in sales is very high. Since the tablet market is soft, letting go of your margins for increased sales is a losing proposition. There is such a huge chasm between the sub $200 tablets and the Ipads that these people will not buy an Apple tablet even at $100 less, you'll have a slight gain in sales and a huge decline in profitability. The tablets are already the least profitable thing they make, so I don't think it would be a good idea at all to do that.
The Watch will probably have much better margins than the tablets, once they hit the market. You could bundle the watches at a slightly lower cost with tablets or phones, but alone reducing the price of tablets to much is a very bad idea.
Cash is such a precious commodity, you should never use it the way you talk about unless you are in a massively entrenched position, say like Walmart, Google or the Telecoms. Apple cannot be cavalier with its cash; that's why it is hording it.
I know this is just anecdotal, but my parents are still rocking a 1st gen iPad mini. I'd love to get them a new one for Christmas and If the mini 3 had the same specs as the Air 2 Apple would have had a sale from me. Right now they're not getting one. If Apple releases a new mini next spring that does have Air like specs then clearly margins weren't the issue. Either Apple was hedging it's bets because of the 6 Plus or they were supply constrained. I still think they should have either just updated the retina mini with Touch ID (and not called it the mini 2) and not released a mini 3 or dropped the price on the mini 2 and wait to release a mini 3 until next spring with the same specs as the Air has. As it is right now the mini 3 is not a good value for the money. Touch ID alone is not worth $100 IMO, and reducing the price on upper tiers of storage is just getting you to spend more money than you otherwise would.
EDIT: and based on iFixit's mini 3 review it appears that adding Touch ID may have been a last minute desicion...
Makes sense to me. I'm just shocked that it will have an A9 chip so early on. I was expecting it to have an A8X chip and 2GB RAM like the iPad Air 2.
The detail about the iPad Mini 4 also makes a lot of sense, since the iPad Mini 3 is actually just an iPad Mini 2 with Touch ID. I guess the iPad Mini 4 was supposed to be the real iPad Mini 3 but wasn't ready on time since its development required a new form factor. The smaller form factor needs to address cooling issues, requiring further research. The larger iPad Air 2, I guess, was more easily engineered to address cooling.
One thing not in the article that I would bet on is the display of the new larger iPad. Such a larger display will require a resolution bump in order for it to qualify as "Retina". It may even have a DPI like the iPhone 6 Plus, qualifying it to be branded as "Retina HD".
The Mini still awaits an oxide-backed screen, i..e., IGZO, which will go far to address cooling issues. I think the lack of this one critical display element is the reason the Mini Retina has seemed so half-baked from the beginning. We shall see when the new one comes out.
As to your point about the resolution on the big iPad, the only authority (!) i've seen weigh in is Tallest Skil, who hopes it will be 4K. Me too. That would be one nice piece of glass to hold in your lap, and it will instantly make sense why a bigger iPad has to be. Love at first sight, and all that. But there again, it will depend on IGZO supply. I wish I could find some tech writer with the curiosity to look into this story. It's behind the absence of a 4K monitor from Apple, behind the gimped Mini, and maybe behind the absence of an Apple or Foxconn TV. Some here think it's just a buzzword. It's actually the core technology that justifies the continued development of LCD large displays.
Well it is possible that they can make mistakes from time to time. Look at the price reduction on the original iPhone, on the ?TV which started out at $299 and is now $99. Look at how the price has come down on the MBA which was $1799 when first announced.
The facts are iPad sales are declining. I happen to think one of the reasons is people are finding cheaper tablets that are "good enough". I thought when the original mini came out Apple priced it at $329 so when it went retina a year later they wouldn't have to increase the price. Yet they did, to $399. That new Nokia N1 tablet is an all aluminum case with 64-bit, 2GB RAM, laminated retina display and slightly thinner and lighter than the mini. And it's $150 cheaper. Of course it's not running iOS but does the average consumer think iOS is worth a $150 premium?
Mistakes? I just think that's much less likely in the era of Tim Cook, Jeff Williams, and the crew they must have around them that can handle the kind of mental machinery they bring to bear on cost analysis. My default position is that they know what they're doing when it comes to technology and the business, until i'm shown otherwise.
If sales slip in favor of cheaper options, so be it. Apple's response is to raise the level of desirability and usability, not lower prices. The "average consumer," or even the European who goes for the Nokia N1, are not to be pandered to by selling at lesser margins.
Not really; it’s a different model. What’s the point of adding ‘Air’ if you’re not going to call the larger, better one ‘Pro’ when you’ve already established that convention?
May as well claim the MacBook Pro is going to be renamed MacBook Air Plus.
Well now hold on a second. Rumors are going around about Macbook One (tee hee), the fanless 12" Macbook with the switchless touchpad, etc. that might as well be a big iPad running OS X. Okay, MB Air and MB Pro continually get lighter and lighter. They're both effectively Macbook Airs these days. So why not change the naming convention? What they call Macbook Air now would be renamed Macbook (i.e., the rumored fanless 12" MB). What they call Macbook Pro now would be called Macbook +. (Yes, this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek...)
As to your point about the resolution on the big iPad, the only authority (!) i've seen weigh in is Tallest Skil, who hopes it will be 4K. Me too. That would be one nice piece of glass to hold in your lap, and it will instantly make sense why a bigger iPad has to be. Love at first sight, and all that. But there again, it will depend on IGZO supply. I wish I could find some tech writer with the curiosity to look into this story. It's behind the absence of a 4K monitor from Apple, behind the gimped Mini, and maybe behind the absence of an Apple or Foxconn TV. Some here think it's just a buzzword. It's actually the core technology that justifies the continued development of LCD large displays.
4K in what regard? Do you think they'll go full UHD/QFHD or are we talking something that approaches the number of pixels in a 4K UHD display but still built on a 4:3 aspect ration.
If they keep 4:3, like they have done with all iPads thus far, and we assume the 9.7" model with a PPI of 263.92 will be used for the larger model then we get 2574 x 1935 for a PPI of 263.95. However, I would bet that they can make the icons and basic elements larger because of the larger display, just like with the iPhone 6 Plus.
Note that sticking with 4:3 would mean a lot more surface area and therefore pixels than with a 16:9 display if they are trying to achieve the same PPI as some QFHD display for that size.
Mistakes? I just think that's much less likely in the era of Tim Cook, Jeff Williams, and the crew they must have around them that can handle the kind of mental machinery they bring to bear on cost analysis. My default position is that they know what they're doing when it comes to technology and the business, until i'm shown otherwise.
If sales slip in favor of cheaper options, so be it. Apple's response is to raise the level of desirability and usability, not lower prices. The "average consumer," or even the European who goes for the Nokia N1, are not to be pandered to by selling at lesser margins.
Well then how do you explain the mini essentially being the same as the Air last year but this year being a generation behind? If it's all about margins, as some here claim, then clearly last years mini was a mistake, no? If not then why would Apple have gone away from the hardware parity they introduced last year?
I still think anyone buying a mini 3 right now is a sucker as I do think the real mini 3 will be announced next spring but called the mini 4.
Comments
I guess truth is denial now, huh.
I said no such thing.
And you just keep doing it...
Okay, again, enjoy your delusions. Sales are down? So what? You’re inventing that the price is the problem. Marketshare remains the same. Look at the tablets actually in use. Call us back when the iPad isn’t 90% of that number.
iPad sales have been down for 3 straight quarters when compared with their respective YoY quarters. That is fact. iPad market share is also declining. Whether that's anything to due to price (or not) or anything to get worked up about (or not) is definitely debatable. But you're right that iPad usage share is very high. I don't know if it's 90% but the last time numbers were available it was hovering around 80%.
I give up. If people want to think these idiotic names are real, or if Apple wants to use idiotic names as real names, so be it. It’s only a very important aspect of the product’s marketing, but whatever.
Agree.
You're essentially saying the same thing as me with regard to a larger laptop.
16", 17", whatever. The point is, Apple could make a larger size screen in a relatively small form factor compared to ten years ago.
It's the 11" MacBook Air that seems a prime candidate for redundancy, particularly if a large iPad comes out.
I'm not disagreeing with you at all. But some here seem to think iPad mini needs to be a generation behind iPad air in order to keep margins high. But even if that is true, what good are high margins if no one is buying the device?
IMO in 2015 Apple needs to:
And for anyone complaining about margins and profits, I say, Apple has the cash to do it and increased sales would offset any hit they would take from $199/$499 taking a larger share of the iPhone/iPad mix.
Right... Sales replacing lost margins... That ALWAYS works well... in Fantasy land.... You should always fight for the margins and never let them go for increased sales unless the gain in sales is very high. Since the tablet market is soft, letting go of your margins for increased sales is a losing proposition. There is such a huge chasm between the sub $200 tablets and the Ipads that these people will not buy an Apple tablet even at $100 less, you'll have a slight gain in sales and a huge decline in profitability. The tablets are already the least profitable thing they make, so I don't think it would be a good idea at all to do that.
The Watch will probably have much better margins than the tablets, once they hit the market. You could bundle the watches at a slightly lower cost with tablets or phones, but alone reducing the price of tablets to much is a very bad idea.
Cash is such a precious commodity, you should never use it the way you talk about unless you are in a massively entrenched position, say like Walmart, Google or the Telecoms. Apple cannot be cavalier with its cash; that's why it is hording it.
No not yet because it's not available, it's still in crowdfunding. I did give 2000 CHF towards the project though, they sent me a really nice email afterwards. I've been a big Jolla supporter from the beginning. I don't know if you've ever used a Nokia N9 but it was an absolute pleasure to use, still my favorite phone of all time, well the development version the N950 was. When Nokia announced that they were canceling the project I was devastated, especially when it was an extremely popular phone here in Europe. All wasn't lost though, the Nokia development team behind the project left to make Jolla. Sailfish is right up my ally, a fast OS, full multitasking and very attractive. There first phone, though not as attractive as the original Nokia N9, is still very nice and build to last. I can't wait for their tablet.
It's a sensible name. Seems more likely than iPad Pro.
However I will defer to the Apple fan who knows everything, who slams everyone he/she thinks is beneath him/her: tallest skil.
I was with you till the last sentence. The term should be something like "strategically amassing"—instead of "hoarding"—their cash. I'm sure you would agree that they have mapped out some massive strategies for using that cash. They may be real plans or contingency scenarios, but they are plans to spend, not cravenly sequester, i.e., hoard.
Anyway, your point is valid. Don't mess with your margins. We can assume they've set the Mini price where it is for a good reason. It may not be clear now, but it may be visible even in the peanut gallery later.
The detail about the iPad Mini 4 also makes a lot of sense, since the iPad Mini 3 is actually just an iPad Mini 2 with Touch ID. I guess the iPad Mini 4 was supposed to be the real iPad Mini 3 but wasn't ready on time since its development required a new form factor. The smaller form factor needs to address cooling issues, requiring further research. The larger iPad Air 2, I guess, was more easily engineered to address cooling.
One thing not in the article that I would bet on is the display of the new larger iPad. Such a larger display will require a resolution bump in order for it to qualify as "Retina". It may even have a DPI like the iPhone 6 Plus, qualifying it to be branded as "Retina HD".
Well it is possible that they can make mistakes from time to time. Look at the price reduction on the original iPhone, on the ?TV which started out at $299 and is now $99. Look at how the price has come down on the MBA which was $1799 when first announced.
The facts are iPad sales are declining. I happen to think one of the reasons is people are finding cheaper tablets that are "good enough". I thought when the original mini came out Apple priced it at $329 so when it went retina a year later they wouldn't have to increase the price. Yet they did, to $399. That new Nokia N1 tablet is an all aluminum case with 64-bit, 2GB RAM, laminated retina display and slightly thinner and lighter than the mini. And it's $150 cheaper. Of course it's not running iOS but does the average consumer think iOS is worth a $150 premium?
I know this is just anecdotal, but my parents are still rocking a 1st gen iPad mini. I'd love to get them a new one for Christmas and If the mini 3 had the same specs as the Air 2 Apple would have had a sale from me. Right now they're not getting one. If Apple releases a new mini next spring that does have Air like specs then clearly margins weren't the issue. Either Apple was hedging it's bets because of the 6 Plus or they were supply constrained. I still think they should have either just updated the retina mini with Touch ID (and not called it the mini 2) and not released a mini 3 or dropped the price on the mini 2 and wait to release a mini 3 until next spring with the same specs as the Air has. As it is right now the mini 3 is not a good value for the money. Touch ID alone is not worth $100 IMO, and reducing the price on upper tiers of storage is just getting you to spend more money than you otherwise would.
EDIT: and based on iFixit's mini 3 review it appears that adding Touch ID may have been a last minute desicion...
https://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iPad+Mini+3+Teardown/30628
The Mini still awaits an oxide-backed screen, i..e., IGZO, which will go far to address cooling issues. I think the lack of this one critical display element is the reason the Mini Retina has seemed so half-baked from the beginning. We shall see when the new one comes out.
As to your point about the resolution on the big iPad, the only authority (!) i've seen weigh in is Tallest Skil, who hopes it will be 4K. Me too. That would be one nice piece of glass to hold in your lap, and it will instantly make sense why a bigger iPad has to be. Love at first sight, and all that. But there again, it will depend on IGZO supply. I wish I could find some tech writer with the curiosity to look into this story. It's behind the absence of a 4K monitor from Apple, behind the gimped Mini, and maybe behind the absence of an Apple or Foxconn TV. Some here think it's just a buzzword. It's actually the core technology that justifies the continued development of LCD large displays.
Mistakes? I just think that's much less likely in the era of Tim Cook, Jeff Williams, and the crew they must have around them that can handle the kind of mental machinery they bring to bear on cost analysis. My default position is that they know what they're doing when it comes to technology and the business, until i'm shown otherwise.
If sales slip in favor of cheaper options, so be it. Apple's response is to raise the level of desirability and usability, not lower prices. The "average consumer," or even the European who goes for the Nokia N1, are not to be pandered to by selling at lesser margins.
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Not really; it’s a different model. What’s the point of adding ‘Air’ if you’re not going to call the larger, better one ‘Pro’ when you’ve already established that convention?
May as well claim the MacBook Pro is going to be renamed MacBook Air Plus.
Well now hold on a second. Rumors are going around about Macbook One (tee hee), the fanless 12" Macbook with the switchless touchpad, etc. that might as well be a big iPad running OS X. Okay, MB Air and MB Pro continually get lighter and lighter. They're both effectively Macbook Airs these days. So why not change the naming convention? What they call Macbook Air now would be renamed Macbook (i.e., the rumored fanless 12" MB). What they call Macbook Pro now would be called Macbook +. (Yes, this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek...)
So why not change the naming convention?
I was for renaming the entire line to “MacBook” when they dropped the actual MacBook. There’s no iMac Pro, after all.
At this point, I figure the laptops have ~six years left, so they could still do that, but in the end it doesn’t really matter.
4K in what regard? Do you think they'll go full UHD/QFHD or are we talking something that approaches the number of pixels in a 4K UHD display but still built on a 4:3 aspect ration.
If they keep 4:3, like they have done with all iPads thus far, and we assume the 9.7" model with a PPI of 263.92 will be used for the larger model then we get 2574 x 1935 for a PPI of 263.95. However, I would bet that they can make the icons and basic elements larger because of the larger display, just like with the iPhone 6 Plus.
Note that sticking with 4:3 would mean a lot more surface area and therefore pixels than with a 16:9 display if they are trying to achieve the same PPI as some QFHD display for that size.
Well then how do you explain the mini essentially being the same as the Air last year but this year being a generation behind? If it's all about margins, as some here claim, then clearly last years mini was a mistake, no? If not then why would Apple have gone away from the hardware parity they introduced last year?
I still think anyone buying a mini 3 right now is a sucker as I do think the real mini 3 will be announced next spring but called the mini 4.
... One has to wonder what the Pilgrims did on Black Friday
They were.
'To be a Pilgrim'.