I doubt we will see any retina imac anytime soon. I would be happy however to see any sort of new imac at this point even with the exact same screen it has now.
Right? Just put last year's processor in it and push it out the door already!
Apple used to be famous for producing high quality products. It is then quite a black eye that they are designing and attempting to manufacture components that have high poor quality yields.
So, we have the poor yields of the iPhone 5, iPad mini and 13" MacBook Pro. This is serious failure on the part of Apple and their partners. Demand for Apple products will simply fall off the cliff if they can't deliver the goods. If Apple doesn't clean up their supply chain, then Apple will never again have a problem with demand exceeding supply -- there won't be any demand.
This is a good question and is reason enough to question this report. The 13" screen should be easier to produce than the 15" screen. The only possibility here is that the are moving to the Sharp screen and Sharp is having issues with the production of that technology.
As for the other devices there might be some truth in the reports. A retina iMac screen would be harder to do.
In the end though I have to call BS on the report. Something just doesn't sound right. If Apple can do a 15" retina a 13" shouldn't be a problem. More importantly it would be a sign of extremely poor management to have screwed up the delivery of three completely different products in the same year. Epic really for Apple.
I'm a manufacturing engineer. While some aspects of production may be easier when producing a smaller version of the same thing, there are still countless other aspects of production that can drastically affect yield rates.
Furthermore, we do not know that the two screens will have the same exact pixel density, which seems to be an assumption here, as if they're just taking scissors to cut a smaller piece of pie from the same dish. While it may be true that they have the same exact pixel density (I doubt it), this still has very little to do with final production yield rates.
So, for the record, this is not a good question, nor is it reason enough to question the validity of this report.
You would actually have to read the publication to understand that. Again the problem is on our end with websites quoting things in a way they shouldn't. Take today's issue, they report Foxconn revenue is up some odd 8% this year. Now you can dismiss that if you want but the article was rather concise.
The fact that some readers, especially those that reference DigiTimes, can't filter out obvious rumor from other reporting isn't really DigiTimes fault.
Ah, so you're saying it's less a problem with the filter on their end… as it is ours?
No I'm saying web sites exploit what they take from DigiTimes for their own needs and do so in a way that probably isn't intended by the editors at DigiTimes. That is these quotes often are published on the web by complete imbeciles as fact when they might not be offered up that way at DigiTimes. Take a look at www.digitimes.com for a couple of weeks, I mean actually read the material, and come back and post. I'd love to see if your opinion changes any. I think you will come back with a changed opinion.
DigiTimes isn't perfect, I'm not saying that but frankly they have less of a problem with accuracy than the very liberal media in this country. As for filtering the news reported, any responsible person would do that with any source no matter the reputation. Would you make an investment decision based solely on an article posted in the Wall Street Journal? I'd hope not, no matter the reputation smart decisions require an investment in research and verification.
I'm a manufacturing engineer. While some aspects of production may be easier when producing a smaller version of the same thing, there are still countless other aspects of production that can drastically affect yield rates.
That would be true, but in the case of LCD screens making smaller ones is dramatically easier.
Furthermore, we do not know that the two screens will have the same exact pixel density, which seems to be an assumption here, as if they're just taking scissors to cut a smaller piece of pie from the same dish. While it may be true that they have the same exact pixel density (I doubt it), this still has very little to do with final production yield rates.
Well we could hope for new technology though I see little reason to hold up a laptop for that. The fact remains if the screen is the same technology as used in the 15" machine it shouldn't be a problem yield wise.
So, for the record, this is not a good question, nor is it reason enough to question the validity of this report.
I disagree! For the screens to be an issue there would have to be something dramatically different about them considering the success Apple has had with iPad and the retina MBP. The article says nothing about the screens being so different.
If on the other hand the article is accurate and all three of these products are delayed due to manufacturing issues then Apple has screwed up significantly. Especially if all three of the devices are delayed due to screen issues.
Apple used to be famous for producing high quality products. It is then quite a black eye that they are designing and attempting to manufacture components that have high poor quality yields.
So, we have the poor yields of the iPhone 5, iPad mini and 13" MacBook Pro. This is serious failure on the part of Apple and their partners. Demand for Apple products will simply fall off the cliff if they can't deliver the goods. If Apple doesn't clean up their supply chain, then Apple will never again have a problem with demand exceeding supply -- there won't be any demand.
High quality products demand really high standards for Quality Control.
If your standards for acceptance are very high, you are likely to have very high fallout until the manufacturer can repeatedly and reliably produce what you ask of them.
The fact that Apple consistently has "low yield rates" prior to product launches (these reports have existed long before the iPhone 5) proves that they hold their contracted manufacturers to a very high level of performance.
This is good news.
In fact, the very opposite of your statement is true:
This is a serious success on the part of Apple. Demand for Apple products will simply sky rocket as they deliver premium goods. Apple's active supply chain quality controls have ensured demand that consistently outstrips supply.
The other thing here is that you can have a process running along producing very good yields and then all of a sudden go to hell. Tracking dozen the root cause can be a struggle.
High quality products demand really high standards for Quality Control.
If your standards for acceptance are very high, you are likely to have very high fallout until the manufacturer can repeatedly and reliably produce what you ask of them.
The fact that Apple consistently has "low yield rates" prior to product launches (these reports have existed long before the iPhone 5) proves that they hold their contracted manufacturers to a very high level of performance.
This is good news.
Sometimes I don't think people understand what is written. If good yields are the result of poor quality control then you have questionable product reaching the consumer.
In fact, the very opposite of your statement is true: This is a serious success on the part of Apple. Demand for Apple products will simply sky rocket as they deliver premium goods. Apple's active supply chain quality controls have ensured demand that consistently outstrips supply.
Demand outstripping supply is never a good thing.
In the case of this article though I'm not too sure I would give much credit to its accuracy. It just seems fishy to me that Apple would not have a contingency plan for an issue that has been suggested here.
That would be true, but in the case of LCD screens making smaller ones is dramatically easier.
Well we could hope for new technology though I see little reason to hold up a laptop for that. The fact remains if the screen is the same technology as used in the 15" machine it shouldn't be a problem yield wise.
I disagree! For the screens to be an issue there would have to be something dramatically different about them considering the success Apple has had with iPad and the retina MBP. The article says nothing about the screens being so different.
If on the other hand the article is accurate and all three of these products are delayed due to manufacturing issues then Apple has screwed up significantly. Especially if all three of the devices are delayed due to screen issues.
While it may be theoretically easier to produce a smaller screen of the same pixel density, the actual, physical manufacturing of the item includes numerous other aspects that may adversely affect production. This is especially true with such huge volumes.
For example:
1. Operators/Assemblers have to learn something new.
2. New hires will be learning for the first time.
3. A new size means new tools.
4. New fixtures.
5. New manufacturing areas where either old or new equipment has just been installed.
6. New procedures might have typos or ambiguities.
7. Material transportation might have flaws.
Seriously, this list is endless. A lesser company would have higher yield rates because they wouldn't care as much, and they might let some of the crap slip through. Besides, I can guarantee you that Apple plans for fallout.
I'll clarify: he believes these rumors, and he is building his view of the company on them.
That make more sense now? I mean, not to DO, but in context.
He acts as if Apple has promised the world an unlimited supply of Retina screened devices, and can't deliver out of incompetence.
Instead of congratulating them for attempting a really difficult push on the envelope, which is what a reasonable person would do without having to say so. Such fake negativity!
The other thing here is that you can have a process running along producing very good yields and then all of a sudden go to hell. Tracking dozen the root cause can be a struggle.
I agree.
Quote:
Sometimes I don't think people understand what is written.
Just because AI regurgitates and extrapolates on DigiTimes's Apple fodder doesn't mean it's the whole story. Let's quote the portion of the DigiTimes article that this is all based on:
Quote:
DigiTimes:
The shipment delay is said to have been caused by weak yields of the Retina Display, the sources noted.
Ok, so the supplier is supposedly having weak yields of the Retina Display. Big deal. Apple sets tough standards. Have we seen any of these claims cause serious problems for Apple's bottom line?
Quote:
If good yields are the result of poor quality control then you have questionable product reaching the consumer.
While great QC will often result in lower yields, good yields do not require poor QC. This, the converse of my statement, is absurd. I neither stated this nor implied it.
Quote:
Demand outstripping supply is never a good thing.
Are you serious?
Quote:
In the case of this article though I'm not too sure I would give much credit to its accuracy. It just seems fishy to me that Apple would not have a contingency plan for an issue that has been suggested here.
I agree. Of course Apple has a contingency plan. Sometimes that just means waiting it out, but there's no way they don't have a plan.
There's no real evidence that Apple plans to make a 13" rMBA…
… Gotta call you on that one. I agree with everything else, but really, you can't say they don't intend to make every display they create retina, much less not just one of their laptops.
The publication claimed that Apple's smaller iPad is "suffering low yields for components such as the display and chassis." Unlike the third-generation iPad, the iPad mini is not expected to have a high-resolution Retina display.
Low yields for the chassis? Low yields for a not retina display?
… Gotta call you on that one. I agree with everything else, but really, you can't say they don't intend to make every display they create retina, much less not just one of their laptops.
Agree - it is hard to imagine that Apple is not planning on going all retina. It is not as if display technology will cease development. The bar has been set and eventually every Apple display will be retina.
Apple used to be famous for producing high quality products. It is then quite a black eye that they are designing and attempting to manufacture components that have high poor quality yields.
So, we have the poor yields of the iPhone 5, iPad mini and 13" MacBook Pro. This is serious failure on the part of Apple and their partners. Demand for Apple products will simply fall off the cliff if they can't deliver the goods. If Apple doesn't clean up their supply chain, then Apple will never again have a problem with demand exceeding supply -- there won't be any demand.
Agree - it is hard to imagine that Apple is not planning on going all retina. It is not as if display technology will cease development. The bar has been set and eventually every Apple display will be retina.
Eventually every display will be retina!
They'll kick. They'll scream. They'll whine. But they already know that they've lost. They already know that not only has Apple beaten them to the punch AGAIN, they have no hope of competing for the next five years, because Apple will be monopolizing so much of the manufactured product that there won't be room for them.
And in these five years, Apple will have problems like the ones in this thread. And Apple will, again, be the one to not only teach the industry what is best and what the real future will be like, they will have once again done all the R&D for the rest of the industry, so that when retina display yields are large enough that Dell and HP and Acer—provided any of them are even still around in five years—will be able to punch out their crap retina displays without having to worry about any of the manufacturing problems that Apple already solved.
And not once will Apple be thanked.
"The new Dell UltraVision Display. Inspired by LG."
They'll kick. They'll scream. They'll whine. But they already know that they've lost. They already know that not only has Apple beaten them to the punch AGAIN, they have no hope of competing for the next five years, because Apple will be monopolizing so much of the manufactured product that there won't be room for them.
And in these five years, Apple will have problems like the ones in this thread. And Apple will, again, be the one to not only teach the industry what is best and what the real future will be like, they will have once again done all the R&D for the rest of the industry, so that when retina display yields are large enough that Dell and HP and Acer—provided any of them are even still around in five years—will be able to punch out their crap retina displays without having to worry about any of the manufacturing problems that Apple already solved.
And not once will Apple be thanked.
"The new Dell UltraVision Display. Inspired by LG."
Comments
Right? Just put last year's processor in it and push it out the door already!
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Apple used to be famous for producing high quality products. It is then quite a black eye that they are designing and attempting to manufacture components that have high poor quality yields.
So, we have the poor yields of the iPhone 5, iPad mini and 13" MacBook Pro. This is serious failure on the part of Apple and their partners. Demand for Apple products will simply fall off the cliff if they can't deliver the goods. If Apple doesn't clean up their supply chain, then Apple will never again have a problem with demand exceeding supply -- there won't be any demand.
Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Your post makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
I'll clarify: he believes these rumors, and he is building his view of the company on them.
That make more sense now? I mean, not to DO, but in context.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
This is a good question and is reason enough to question this report. The 13" screen should be easier to produce than the 15" screen. The only possibility here is that the are moving to the Sharp screen and Sharp is having issues with the production of that technology.
As for the other devices there might be some truth in the reports. A retina iMac screen would be harder to do.
In the end though I have to call BS on the report. Something just doesn't sound right. If Apple can do a 15" retina a 13" shouldn't be a problem. More importantly it would be a sign of extremely poor management to have screwed up the delivery of three completely different products in the same year. Epic really for Apple.
I'm a manufacturing engineer. While some aspects of production may be easier when producing a smaller version of the same thing, there are still countless other aspects of production that can drastically affect yield rates.
Furthermore, we do not know that the two screens will have the same exact pixel density, which seems to be an assumption here, as if they're just taking scissors to cut a smaller piece of pie from the same dish. While it may be true that they have the same exact pixel density (I doubt it), this still has very little to do with final production yield rates.
So, for the record, this is not a good question, nor is it reason enough to question the validity of this report.
The fact that some readers, especially those that reference DigiTimes, can't filter out obvious rumor from other reporting isn't really DigiTimes fault.
No I'm saying web sites exploit what they take from DigiTimes for their own needs and do so in a way that probably isn't intended by the editors at DigiTimes. That is these quotes often are published on the web by complete imbeciles as fact when they might not be offered up that way at DigiTimes. Take a look at www.digitimes.com for a couple of weeks, I mean actually read the material, and come back and post. I'd love to see if your opinion changes any. I think you will come back with a changed opinion.
DigiTimes isn't perfect, I'm not saying that but frankly they have less of a problem with accuracy than the very liberal media in this country. As for filtering the news reported, any responsible person would do that with any source no matter the reputation. Would you make an investment decision based solely on an article posted in the Wall Street Journal? I'd hope not, no matter the reputation smart decisions require an investment in research and verification.
If on the other hand the article is accurate and all three of these products are delayed due to manufacturing issues then Apple has screwed up significantly. Especially if all three of the devices are delayed due to screen issues.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Apple used to be famous for producing high quality products. It is then quite a black eye that they are designing and attempting to manufacture components that have high poor quality yields.
So, we have the poor yields of the iPhone 5, iPad mini and 13" MacBook Pro. This is serious failure on the part of Apple and their partners. Demand for Apple products will simply fall off the cliff if they can't deliver the goods. If Apple doesn't clean up their supply chain, then Apple will never again have a problem with demand exceeding supply -- there won't be any demand.
High quality products demand really high standards for Quality Control.
If your standards for acceptance are very high, you are likely to have very high fallout until the manufacturer can repeatedly and reliably produce what you ask of them.
The fact that Apple consistently has "low yield rates" prior to product launches (these reports have existed long before the iPhone 5) proves that they hold their contracted manufacturers to a very high level of performance.
This is good news.
In fact, the very opposite of your statement is true:
This is a serious success on the part of Apple. Demand for Apple products will simply sky rocket as they deliver premium goods. Apple's active supply chain quality controls have ensured demand that consistently outstrips supply.
Sometimes I don't think people understand what is written. If good yields are the result of poor quality control then you have questionable product reaching the consumer.
Demand outstripping supply is never a good thing.
In the case of this article though I'm not too sure I would give much credit to its accuracy. It just seems fishy to me that Apple would not have a contingency plan for an issue that has been suggested here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
That would be true, but in the case of LCD screens making smaller ones is dramatically easier.
Well we could hope for new technology though I see little reason to hold up a laptop for that. The fact remains if the screen is the same technology as used in the 15" machine it shouldn't be a problem yield wise.
I disagree! For the screens to be an issue there would have to be something dramatically different about them considering the success Apple has had with iPad and the retina MBP. The article says nothing about the screens being so different.
If on the other hand the article is accurate and all three of these products are delayed due to manufacturing issues then Apple has screwed up significantly. Especially if all three of the devices are delayed due to screen issues.
While it may be theoretically easier to produce a smaller screen of the same pixel density, the actual, physical manufacturing of the item includes numerous other aspects that may adversely affect production. This is especially true with such huge volumes.
For example:
1. Operators/Assemblers have to learn something new.
2. New hires will be learning for the first time.
3. A new size means new tools.
4. New fixtures.
5. New manufacturing areas where either old or new equipment has just been installed.
6. New procedures might have typos or ambiguities.
7. Material transportation might have flaws.
Seriously, this list is endless. A lesser company would have higher yield rates because they wouldn't care as much, and they might let some of the crap slip through. Besides, I can guarantee you that Apple plans for fallout.
He acts as if Apple has promised the world an unlimited supply of Retina screened devices, and can't deliver out of incompetence.
Instead of congratulating them for attempting a really difficult push on the envelope, which is what a reasonable person would do without having to say so. Such fake negativity!
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Such fake negativity!
Oh, it's real negativity, it's just put on with a fake support air.
Or maybe it's a strike at the assembly plant.
Or maybe they're having trouble getting everything working with an ARM CPU in a computer that size.
Or maybe there are quality problems.
Or maybe Tim Cook decided to make last minute changes.
Or maybe they're fixing Maps before they ship.
Come on, can we please stop with the stupid crap? There's no real evidence that Apple plans to make a 13" rMBA - much less that it's delayed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The other thing here is that you can have a process running along producing very good yields and then all of a sudden go to hell. Tracking dozen the root cause can be a struggle.
I agree.
Quote:
Sometimes I don't think people understand what is written.
Just because AI regurgitates and extrapolates on DigiTimes's Apple fodder doesn't mean it's the whole story. Let's quote the portion of the DigiTimes article that this is all based on:
Quote:
DigiTimes:
The shipment delay is said to have been caused by weak yields of the Retina Display, the sources noted.
Ok, so the supplier is supposedly having weak yields of the Retina Display. Big deal. Apple sets tough standards. Have we seen any of these claims cause serious problems for Apple's bottom line?
Quote:
If good yields are the result of poor quality control then you have questionable product reaching the consumer.
While great QC will often result in lower yields, good yields do not require poor QC. This, the converse of my statement, is absurd. I neither stated this nor implied it.
Quote:
Demand outstripping supply is never a good thing.
Are you serious?
Quote:
In the case of this article though I'm not too sure I would give much credit to its accuracy. It just seems fishy to me that Apple would not have a contingency plan for an issue that has been suggested here.
I agree. Of course Apple has a contingency plan. Sometimes that just means waiting it out, but there's no way they don't have a plan.
Originally Posted by jragosta
There's no real evidence that Apple plans to make a 13" rMBA…
… Gotta call you on that one. I agree with everything else, but really, you can't say they don't intend to make every display they create retina, much less not just one of their laptops.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
The publication claimed that Apple's smaller iPad is "suffering low yields for components such as the display and chassis." Unlike the third-generation iPad, the iPad mini is not expected to have a high-resolution Retina display.
Low yields for the chassis? Low yields for a not retina display?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
… Gotta call you on that one. I agree with everything else, but really, you can't say they don't intend to make every display they create retina, much less not just one of their laptops.
Agree - it is hard to imagine that Apple is not planning on going all retina. It is not as if display technology will cease development. The bar has been set and eventually every Apple display will be retina.
Quote:
Originally Posted by waldobushman
Apple used to be famous for producing high quality products. It is then quite a black eye that they are designing and attempting to manufacture components that have high poor quality yields.
So, we have the poor yields of the iPhone 5, iPad mini and 13" MacBook Pro. This is serious failure on the part of Apple and their partners. Demand for Apple products will simply fall off the cliff if they can't deliver the goods. If Apple doesn't clean up their supply chain, then Apple will never again have a problem with demand exceeding supply -- there won't be any demand.
My oh my, that was desperate ...
Originally Posted by paxman
Agree - it is hard to imagine that Apple is not planning on going all retina. It is not as if display technology will cease development. The bar has been set and eventually every Apple display will be retina.
Eventually every display will be retina!
They'll kick. They'll scream. They'll whine. But they already know that they've lost. They already know that not only has Apple beaten them to the punch AGAIN, they have no hope of competing for the next five years, because Apple will be monopolizing so much of the manufactured product that there won't be room for them.
And in these five years, Apple will have problems like the ones in this thread. And Apple will, again, be the one to not only teach the industry what is best and what the real future will be like, they will have once again done all the R&D for the rest of the industry, so that when retina display yields are large enough that Dell and HP and Acer—provided any of them are even still around in five years—will be able to punch out their crap retina displays without having to worry about any of the manufacturing problems that Apple already solved.
And not once will Apple be thanked.
"The new Dell UltraVision Display. Inspired by LG."
Rumored crisis about a rumored product! Pretty soon, we'll have rumors about rumors about rumors. Christopher Nolan should make a movie about it!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Eventually every display will be retina!
They'll kick. They'll scream. They'll whine. But they already know that they've lost. They already know that not only has Apple beaten them to the punch AGAIN, they have no hope of competing for the next five years, because Apple will be monopolizing so much of the manufactured product that there won't be room for them.
And in these five years, Apple will have problems like the ones in this thread. And Apple will, again, be the one to not only teach the industry what is best and what the real future will be like, they will have once again done all the R&D for the rest of the industry, so that when retina display yields are large enough that Dell and HP and Acer—provided any of them are even still around in five years—will be able to punch out their crap retina displays without having to worry about any of the manufacturing problems that Apple already solved.
And not once will Apple be thanked.
"The new Dell UltraVision Display. Inspired by LG."
ROFL. Chumming for trolls?