Apple telling suppliers to prep for mass production of smaller iPad - WSJ

123468

Comments

  • Reply 101 of 160
    rtm135rtm135 Posts: 310member


    Understandably, Apple is concerned about the $200 Nexus Tablet and the upcoming Surface tablet.  It took awhile, but there's finally competition in the tablet space.


     


    Since they're making additional tablet models, I hope they do the samw with the iPhone.  One model with different storage sizes doesn't cut it anymore. 

  • Reply 102 of 160
    stniukstniuk Posts: 90member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by KPOM View Post


     


    I'm guessing that women will like the smaller iPad. One of my colleagues has the original, and she likes it, but says that she'd prefer a smaller, lighter design. A 7.85" design would have more room than the Kindle Fire or Nexus 7, but still be more portable.


     



    The PursePad? nah.

  • Reply 103 of 160
    radster360radster360 Posts: 545member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by guidely View Post


    Tim Cook you fail !! as apple CEO



    I wouldn't go that far! But, if this is true - I feel Tim is starting to cave in. Tim, you don't need to do this. You might be cannibalizing iPad itself!

  • Reply 104 of 160
    kung fu guykung fu guy Posts: 158member


    Can apple just get rid of the 1 inch bezel.  Voila!  New ipad.  Even lighter

  • Reply 105 of 160
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dm3 View Post


    I still don't see it.


     


    Apple never competes on price. Look at Netbooks. Macbook Air is hardly a cheap netbook, yet between the Air and iPad, Apple has killed the netbook market.


     


    Many "analysts" had all sorts of rumors than an iPhone mini was coming out. All sorts of talk that they needed to have a lower price model to compete. Instead Apple has kept selling older models and dropped the price.


     


    The iPad2 currently sells for $399. Its miles better than the Fire or Nexus. Why would Apple bother with a smaller device?


     


    Apple hates having lots of different products. Even worse is having lots of different development platforms. Today there are only two iOS display resolutions, the iPad & iPhone/iPod-touch and their pixel doubled counterparts which can be automatically pixel doubled by iOS w no change to the app. Adding a 7" model who's sole purpose is to be cheap, while adding another product to the lineup and another screen resolution to worry about is not a good move for Apple.


     


    What apple tends to do is take an existing older product and lower its price. 



    The Federal Government has a contract out for READERS. and they gave a big contract out not too long ago.  If they see a big enough market for a smaller tablet to be considered a READER (that still does the same functionality) and they feel it is a big enough market, then it makes sense to do both size categories.  What would you do if you have Government accounts and Educational Institutions and some other Business accounts screaming for a tablet that is a little smaller to gain more market share?  Come out with a product to address a sub category of the tablet market or ignore it?  If they can come out with one and sell it for the same general $ amount and make a decent profit. Remember, they make a profit by selling software and content for these things, so it isn't that big of a deal.

  • Reply 106 of 160
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    And it's only $100 more than the 3.5" iPod Touch which has a lot more compromises in terms of HW.
    Also note the $399 iPad 2 comes with 16GB whereas the Kindle Fire and Nexus 7 are only 8GB. For the an extra $50 you do get 16GB.
    Now consider the current 7" tablets mentioned aren't profitable. Google has even stated that the Nexus 7 has no profit margin and yet it's only $50 less than the lowest reasonably priced 16GB 8" iPad. Apple is very efficient but there are limits to what they can do and I don't see an 8GB or 16GB 8" iPad at $199 and $249, respectively, as being feasible without a strong interest in reducing their profit margin significantly which I don't think will happen.
    Now consider how a 8" tablet would affect Apple's tablet profits. Even if the margins are identical one for less money means less profit per unit. Since it's not likely people would buy an 8" and 10" tablet from Apple that means they need to have a good reason to make both. A couple reasons that come to mind are: they think they will sell so many that it will counteract any 10" iPad sales or they are afraid of the 7" tablet margin undermining their 10" iPad sales.

    Apple is still making money on the iPad 2 at $399. I don't see any difficulty making money on an iPad Mini at $299. Look at the reductions in cost in going from the 10" to a 7" and it just doesn't seem out of line.

    As for Apple's profits, it would likely be positive. It would only be negative if people would buy an 8" INSTEAD of the 10". That just doesn't seem likely - and is completely unjustified. The way it is shaping up, the small and large tablet markets appear to be pretty distinct. i am confident that a smaller iPad would lead to incremental sales rather than cannibalizing sales. If the current iPad buyers were interested in a smaller model, Apple would be losing more to the Fire and other small tablets than they are.
    gazoobee wrote: »
    Disagree.  Whether this device exists at all, and whether or not there actually is a market, it can't be $299.  

    That's only a hundred less than the full-sized iPad of the year previously.  For a half-size version with presumably lots of compromises.
    The 7" 'market' such as it is has settled around the $200 mark and Apple will offer a better product, but at the same price. $250 at the very most. 

    Says who?

    Lots of people here have said that they'd buy one at $299 - quite a few have said they'd buy one even at a higher price.

    I wouldn't have expected that the iPad 2 would sell all that well at $399 compared to $499 for a new iPad, but it apparently does. A hundred dollars is quite a bit in this price range. Plus, some people prefer the smaller size for its own sake more than for the money savings.
  • Reply 107 of 160
    delreyjonesdelreyjones Posts: 333member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post





    ... the Nexus 7 has no profit margin and yet it's only $50 less than the lowest reasonably priced 16GB 8" iPad. Apple is very efficient but there are limits to what they can ...


     


    I agree with you that there are limits to Apple's supply chain efficiency.  However, I don't think too many people outside of Apple have an accurate idea of what these limits are.  Think back to when the first iPad was introduced.  I'm pretty sure more than 90% of the observers were astonished by the low price.  Something similar may happen again.  Apple's working from a position of tremendous strength and we shouldn't expect them to show any mercy to Google or Microsoft.

  • Reply 108 of 160
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    As for Apple's profits, it would likely be positive. It would only be negative if people would buy an 8" INSTEAD of the 10". That just doesn't seem likely - and is completely unjustified.

    Then justify people buying both an 8" iPad and 10" iPad. I don't see it. It's one or the other in most cases.

    I agree with you that there are limits to Apple's supply chain efficiency.  However, I don't think too many people outside of Apple have an accurate idea of what these limits are.  Think back to when the first iPad was introduced.  I'm pretty sure more than 90% of the observers were astonished by the low price.  Something similar may happen again.  Apple's working from a position of tremendous strength and we shouldn't expect them to show any mercy to Google or Microsoft.

    1) Most were expecting a Mac OS with an Intel chip that mirrored all the Win tablets before it.

    2) As efficient as they are a $199 8" tablet doesn't seem feasible at all to me.
  • Reply 109 of 160
    apple ][apple ][ Posts: 9,233member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jragosta View Post



    And if people are able to use apps on their iPhone, why wouldn't they be able to do so on a device that's 4 times the area?


    It's going to be a mini-iPad, so people are going to install iPad apps, not iPhone apps.

  • Reply 110 of 160
    drblankdrblank Posts: 3,383member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by radster360 View Post


    I wouldn't go that far! But, if this is true - I feel Tim is starting to cave in. Tim, you don't need to do this. You might be cannibalizing iPad itself!



    It's actually going after the market that the readers go after because it is a big enough category to address. It's either make one to address a sub category or give the business away.  Some people buy desktops and some buy laptops, same type of concept.  Some people just want a 7 inch sized product and some want a 10 inch, they'll just address both markets if both markets are big enough to warrant going after it.  They will probably take business away from Nook and Kindle.

  • Reply 111 of 160
    MarvinMarvin Posts: 14,878moderator
    A 7" 4:3 tablet looks like the following:


    [VIDEO]


    That has aroud half the area of the 9.7" iPad but a 7.85" iPad is only 50% smaller.

    1024 x 768 will look sharper on the 7", despite not being retina quality but 7.85" would give an experience closer to the bigger iPad.

    I think it will be better for kids as it would be lighter and easier to hold:


    [VIDEO]


    I figured it would drive people to the cheaper model but I don't think the iPad 2 is doing this so it might be ok and $299 is the obvious price. The iCou tablet above is selling for $199 wholesale so it will be $299 at the lowest. It will compete with tablets like this in China.
  • Reply 112 of 160
    palegolaspalegolas Posts: 1,354member


    If it has a new breed of e-ink, targeted for a massive ammount of reading, it would make sense, and it would be different.


    Now all I can think of is it'll replace the iPad2 as an entry level iPad with 8-16GB storage, and that they'll make it cheaper. It'll probably be 1024*768.

  • Reply 113 of 160
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by scades View Post



    Thought we had this worked out the last time this rumor surfaced. The iPad Mini will be, among other things a K-12 product. Coupled with Apple's newest e-book format it will be a (paper) textbook-killer. Not bad as a consumer e-book reader or video viewer either.


     


    If that was Apple's end game then why would they go to the fuss of releasing that fancy textbook format that was designed for the 10 inch model. 


     


    and why would they wait until the school year has started rather than the more logical release in March that might actually get things on before school budgets are set for the coming years. 

  • Reply 114 of 160
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Red Oak View Post


    Is there any news on whether it would have a Retina display?



     


    Do the math on what a Retina display means. Because it isn't a set PPI etc. It could turn out that at that size even just the 768 screen could be Retina or close to. And if it was a single digit or very low double digits (say only 11-12%) then yes if this thing was actually happening, which I strongly doubt it is, it could be Retina. 

  • Reply 115 of 160
    johndoe98johndoe98 Posts: 278member


    Why is 7" or 8" the magical portability number? Frankly I'm surprised of the complaints that the iPad isn't portable, whereas a 7" iPad Mini would be. Then you have on the other side people complaining their iPhones are too small at 3.5" and that they should go to 4" or 4.5" to compete with the Samsungs that go up to 4.8". So I suppose if Apple catered to everyone's interests/whines we would have:


     


    iPhone mini: 2.5-3" (for portability)


    iPhone: 3.5-4" (for conservatives)


    iPhone Large: 4.5-5" (to compete with Android)


     


    iPad Mini: 7-8" (for portability and to compete with Android)


    iPad: 9.7" (for conservatives and those who want Retina)


     


    MBA: 11"


    MBA: 13"


     


    MBP: 13"


    MBP (for China! market): 14"


    MBP: 15"


    MBP (for "Professionals"): 17"


     


    To me this all sounds like utter nonsense. So I'll ask again:


     


    How is an iPad not portable? It is under 1.5lbs ffs. It's lighter than many of my paperback books. I guess those aren't really "portable" either according to what everyone here would have you believe.

  • Reply 116 of 160
    johndoe98johndoe98 Posts: 278member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by charlituna View Post


     


    If that was Apple's end game then why would they go to the fuss of releasing that fancy textbook format that was designed for the 10 inch model. 


     


    and why would they wait until the school year has started rather than the more logical release in March that might actually get things on before school budgets are set for the coming years. 



     


    You are in danger of thinking things through. Haven't you been told you "overthink" things too much? Such attitudes are at odds with people's fashion sense and resulting irrational, fluctuating by the moment, demands.

  • Reply 117 of 160
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kevt View Post


     


    When he did so he cited two reasons. 


     


    (1) The old filing fingers down - strange when iOS works fine on an even smaller screen iPhone iPod Touch.


     


     



     


    That is also because the developers design for that smaller screen. 


     


    Jobs was speaking to the iPad going down, not to the iPod coming up in size. Which is why many believe that if Apple makes something in the 5-7 inch scale it will be a revamp of the iPod touch which has floundered somewhat since it is just an iPhone that can't make calls. Moving it to the middle size position would give it a unique selling point that might encourage sales. That Apple didn't bother to do anything with the iPod Touch last year other than to give it a white color option adds to the notion they are working on something new with that item (or that they are just going to kill it and really end these now 3 year old rumors of a mini/max something)

  • Reply 118 of 160
    philipmphilipm Posts: 240member
    First, developers already have to code for screen size if they want to target iPhone and iPad. Second, they now need to allow for retina and not.

    The biggest argument against this possibility is that Apple's Human Interface Guidelines clearly differentiate iPhone and iPad but do not recommend specifically generalising for arbitrary screen size. This is a very different issue than allowing for display variations on a conventional windowing interface because a view has to fit the display.

    Apple is big enough to force a change for this but does anyone have evidence that developers have had a heads up? If not the only available apps at launch will be scaled up from iPhone (will work but sucks, if you remember apps like FaceBook before they were recoded for iPad) and scaled down from full sized iPad (iMagnifying Glass?).

    Another option: a new interface feature where you can slide the view around, with parts off-screen -- but I doubt that will work well in general for apps not designed for it.
  • Reply 119 of 160
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post



    Once again we have another story about Apple making a small iPad because they need to compete in the cheaper market. Yet there is zero evidence to support this claim. Seems these wall street financial analysts keep using this rumor because they're the ones who pushed the nonsense that the Kindle Fire would be an iPad killer. So rather than admit they are wrong the keep pushing rumors of a smaller iPad.


     


    Funny cause I've heard rumor that Amazon is looking to make a 10 inch Fire to compete with the iPad cause the 7 inch has such sucky sales


     


    http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2011/11/amazons-next-kindle-fire-rumored-to-have-89-inch-screen.html


     


    http://www.bgr.com/2012/06/28/kindle-fire-2-specs-details-10-inch-7-inch-amazon/


     


    http://www.freshtechweb.com/amazon-to-launch-10-inch-kindle-fire-in-coming-months.html

  • Reply 120 of 160
    charlitunacharlituna Posts: 7,217member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by kent909 View Post


    In a world where capitalistic consumption is the engine that makes things run one thing is clear. An excessive amount of choice is required to fuel this engine. 



     


    But that choice doesn't have to come from every company making every possible size and configuration. Apple has done rather well so far with making select items according to their feelings about what sizes etc were best and folks have bought into it. That RDF etc stuff Apple haters like to go on about

Sign In or Register to comment.