You mean this same market, where Apple has been selling many tens of millions of much higher priced iPad 3's?
People who walk around with obamaphones might think that the iPad Mini is high priced, but millions of other people will be snapping them up like crazy.
Getting an entry product out there at a high price so they can lower the price next year when sales aren't what they expected? I know many here think Apple can throw anything out there, slap on a $50-$100 premium and it will sell like hotcakes. I'm not so sure in this market.
Again faulty thinking.
$329 is inexpensive and fairly priced for the cost involved in building this. This is likely one of Apples lower margin products.
Whining about $200 zero profit tablets isn't going to change Apples business model to a non-profit one. Anymore than whining about $400 Windows laptops convinced them to build non-profit $500 macbooks.
I didn't say lower price next year. I said they won't include a retina display until it is affordable/profitable to build.
By the Second/Third generation they will be able to build a Retina Mini for $329 and actually make a profit. Not only that, but it gives them a nice upgrade path.
16:9 iPod touch also running new retina iPhone apps @ $299 with 32G
4:3 iPad2 running older iPad apps @ $399 with 16G + $130 for 3G data
4:3 iPad also running newer retina iPad apps @ $499 with 16G + $130 for 4G data
so how does the Mini fit in?
?:? iPad Mini running ? i? apps @ $? with ?G + maybe $130 for ? data
the most common guesses seem to be:
4:3 iPad Mini running older iPad apps @ $299 with 8G
but we might very well be surprised ...
PS: after thinking, i expect this "basic" iPad Mini will start at $249 w 8G, and $299 for 16G. so a 32G version matching the iPod touch minimum storage would be $$399, maintaining the overall price stepping set-up.
btw, Apple makes a ton of profit by marking up the storage price. how long they can get away with this in the face of stiff competition ...
and we can be sure that Apple's own apps will be re-formatted for an optimal UI on the smaller Mini screen, even tho regular iPad2 apps will just be shrunk down.
Thanks for explaining why this line of reasoning doesn't work for you.
You're trying to pretend it's a different argument than it is. I'm simply highlighting how the argument is pointless. You want to know if Apple can sell the same stuff for an extended period successfully?
iMac. Mac Mini. Mac Pro. iPod classic. All still selling.
"Yeah, but no one really buys those."
They could easily do the same with their laptop family, because computers are far more powerful than 90% of the people who use them need. But let's move to where the money is.
iPhone 3GS. Three years old. STILL sold better than ANY other non-iPhone on the market. Apple can absolutely not change things for three years and still sell.
9to5Mac is reporting rumors that the starting price will be $329. They don't say for what model, but I would assume its 16GB wi-fi only. I think this might be a tough sell for Apple.
If they priced it under the new iPod Touch ($299), then would it make that product a tough sell wouldn't it? Something north of the iPod Touch price and south of the entry model iPad makes sense in the Apple scheme. Under-cut the Touch and it makes the product line price points awkward.
If they priced it under the new iPod Touch ($299), then would it make that product a tough sell wouldn't it? Something north of the iPod Touch price and south of the entry model iPad makes sense in the Apple scheme. Under-cut the Touch and it makes the product line price points awkward.
They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?
They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?
Smartphones are unique. They have extremely high margins propped up by hiding the cost in cell phone plans.
Other than that, it doesn't make sense for iPad Mini to cost less than a Touch, because the much bigger screen, case, battery, makes the iPad mini more expensive to build.
If they priced it under the new iPod Touch ($299), then would it make that product a tough sell wouldn't it? Something north of the iPod Touch price and south of the entry model iPad makes sense in the Apple scheme. Under-cut the Touch and it makes the product line price points awkward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?
see my chart above. Apple uses the increased storage mark-ups to segment its pricing, so a cheaper 8G Mini is not "awkward." i was surprised when the new touch "entry model" price was increased this year to $299 for 32G from $229 for 16G. i assume that means Apple already knew most touch buyers got the higher-priced models with 32G anyway.
They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?
I don't necessarily think the mini market is so different from those that up till now thought the Touch appropriate for them. I suspect you really feel the same deep down. Weren't you arguing for months that any smaller tablet device belonged in the iPod category rather than the iPad, and should be marketed as such? A bigger iPod Touch rather than a smaller iPad, and going after those Touch users?
Smartphones are unique. They have extremely high margins propped up by hiding the cost in cell phone plans.
Other than that, it doesn't make sense for iPad Mini to cost less than a Touch, because the much bigger screen, case, battery, makes the iPad mini more expensive to build.
BUT THEY AREN'T THE SAME DISPLAYS WITH THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THE SIZE. You have one with a 326 PPI and the other using the PPI that first arrived in 2007. They are nearly the same total resolution. On top of that you have less shrunken components to deal with so you don't have to invest in expensive ways to reduce the size or battery usage of a components when you have a lot more room to play with.
As for your comment about smartphones being unique because their costs are hidden that completely goes against your claim that miniature parts are less expensive than less miniaturized parts. THIS IS NOT SOME UNIQUE CONCEPT IN COMPUTING YET WHEN APPLE IS INVOLVED ALL OF A SUDDEN SHRUNKEN COMPONENTS ARE ALWAYS CHEAPER THAN LARGER ONES? W T F?!?!?! Some things will be more costly like the backlight, battery, casing, but there are plenty of others that could very well be considerably cheaper if Apple choses to go that route. Even their logic board could be cheaper because they can use a less sophisticate process if they don't need the space savings.
I don't necessarily think the mini market is so different from those that up till now thought the Touch appropriate for them. I suspect you really feel the same deep down. Weren't you arguing for months that any smaller tablet device belonged in the iPod category rather than the iPad, and should be marketed as such? A bigger iPod Touch rather than a smaller iPad, and going after those Touch users?
If it came with the iPod Touch resolution, I said it would be marketed as an IPod Touch, not an iPad. I also said that I feel that a budget tablet would help prop up the iPod market segment without soiling the iPad market prematurely. I made no comment about going after Touch users. I would think they're going after other users for a tablet.
see my chart above. Apple uses the increased storage mark-ups to segment its pricing, so a cheaper 8G Mini is not "awkward." i was surprised when the new touch "entry model" price was increased this year to $299 for 32G from $229 for 16G. i assume that means Apple already knew most touch buyers got the higher-priced models with 32G anyway.
$70 less than the iPad 2 with the same basic performance seems about right for the shrunken product. The display on the 7.85" model will likely cost a little more than the 9.7" but there are other savings to be had over the iPad 2.
BUT THEY AREN'T THE SAME DISPLAYS WITH THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THE SIZE. You have one with a 326 PPI and the other using the PPI that first arrived in 2007. They are nearly the same total resolution. On top of that you have less shrunken components to deal with so you don't have to invest in expensive ways to reduce the size or battery usage of a components when you have a lot more room to play with.
As for your comment about smartphones being unique because their costs are hidden that completely goes against your claim that miniature parts are less expensive than less miniaturized parts. THIS IS NOT SOME UNIQUE CONCEPT IN COMPUTING YET WHEN APPLE IS INVOLVED ALL OF A SUDDEN SHRUNKEN COMPONENTS ARE ALWAYS CHEAPER THAN LARGER ONES? W T F?!?!?! Some things will be more costly like the backlight, battery, casing, but there are plenty of others that could very well be considerably cheaper if Apple choses to go that route. Even their logic board could be cheaper because they can use a less sophisticate process if they don't need the space savings.
Wow, that is so out of touch, and yelling so much over it.
The battery isn't some kind of expensive miniaturized battery in the iPod. It is simply a battery of the same construction 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost.
A modern touchscreen LCD is about 10 different layers. Only 1 of the 10 cost more because of increased density. The other 9 are priced directly related to size, and 4 times larger = 4 times more cost.
The same goes for the case. 4 times the size, 4 times the cost.
The rest of the components are the same in either case.
Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.
Wow, that is so out of touch, and yelling so much over it.
The battery isn't some kind of expensive miniaturized battery in the iPod. It is simply a battery of the same construction 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost.
A modern touchscreen LCD is about 10 different layers. Only 1 of the 10 cost more because of increased density. The other 9 are priced directly related to size, and 4 times larger = 4 times more cost.
The same goes for the case. 4 times the size, 4 times the cost.
The rest of the components are the same in either case.
Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.
So you think miniaturized components cost less than larger components because they are in a smaller package? Got it! Unfortunately your Fun-Sized Snicker scenario has never been the case with CE and computers. You've never wondered why a Notebook of a certain performance costs more than a Desktop of a certain performance? When you do you'll need to rethink your hypothesis that being smaller means everything is cheaper. As previously noted the iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity, something people outside the US who have to pay full price for their products are intimately aware, yet by your thinking the iPad should cost 8x as much.
Wow, that is so out of touch, and yelling so much over it.
The battery isn't some kind of expensive miniaturized battery in the iPod. It is simply a battery of the same construction 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost.
A modern touchscreen LCD is about 10 different layers. Only 1 of the 10 cost more because of increased density. The other 9 are priced directly related to size, and 4 times larger = 4 times more cost.
The same goes for the case. 4 times the size, 4 times the cost.
The rest of the components are the same in either case.
Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.
I'm not sure about all the "layers" of the display, but I can tell you categorically that the cost of neither the battery nor the case scales up linearly with size as you described. That might seem to be the intuitive relationship if you consider only raw components. But there is a process cost as well. For example, 4 iPhone back plates will cost more than an iPad back plate, assuming the latter is indeed 4 times the size of the former (which it isn't).
More generally, the cost of manufacturing (components plus process) does go down with size to an extent. But the decrease is not linear. Furthermore, it hits a certain threshold and starts to go up again.
So you think miniaturized components cost less than larger components because they are in a smaller package? Got it! Unfortunately your Fun-Sized Snicker scenario has never been the case with CE and computers. You've never wondered why a Notebook of a certain performance costs more than a Desktop of a certain performance? When you do you'll need to rethink your hypothesis that being smaller means everything is cheaper. As previously noted the iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity, something people outside the US who have to pay full price for their products are intimately aware, yet by your thinking the iPad should cost 8x as much.
Margins start at 23% on iPads, they start around 50% on iPhones. iPhones have full cell technologies, which are patent encumbered. So this is a BAD (Orange-vs-Bananas) comparison.
Compare current Wifi iPods and Wifi iPads. Those are Orange-vs-Orange comparisons.
This also isn't a PC vs Notebook comparison where you are using overpriced notebook processors ( a largely artifical distinction that pads Intels pockets), or Physical HDs where the bigger size of 3 1/2" drives allow lower density tech.
Those are some very specific cases where component costs are higer building smaller devices, but they are not universal, and don't apply here because those components aren't used. You can't just take some specific cases and apply it generally everywhere. That doesn't make sense. You need to actually look at the specifics in each case, if you want a reasonable assessment.
In this case we have the exact same RAM/SoCs/Storage technology, so no difference, same cost.
The only items that change:
Battery: Same technology, you just need 4 times as much battery, so nearly 4 times the cost.
Case: Same technoloyg, you just need >4 times the material, so nearly 4 times the cost.
Display: 4 times the size of all the layers involved. These will cost close 4 times as much. The actual increase in density will cause a premium but that is more like 10%-20% vs 400% increase for size. So closer to 4x/1.2x = 3.3 times the cost.
Once you actually look at the specific components involved, instead of blindly shouting "miniaturization cost more", it should be obvious that a bigger iPad is going to cost more to produce than a smaller Touch.
Margins start at 23% on iPads, they start around 50% on iPhones. iPhones have full cell technologies, which are patent encumbered. So this is a BAD (Orange-vs-Bananas) comparison.
Compare current Wifi iPods and Wifi iPads. Those are Orange-vs-Orange comparisons.
This also isn't a PC vs Notebook comparison where you are using overpriced notebook processors ( a largely artifical distinction that pads Intels pockets), or Physical HDs where the bigger size of 3 1/2" drives allow lower density tech.
Those are some very specific cases where component costs are higer building smaller devices, but they are not universal, and don't apply here because those components aren't used. You can't just take some specific cases and apply it generally everywhere. That doesn't make sense. You need to actually look at the specifics in each case, if you want a reasonable assessment.
In this case we have the exact same RAM/SoCs/Storage technology, so no difference, same cost.
The only items that change:
Battery: Same technology, you just need 4 times as much battery, so nearly 4 times the cost.
Case: Same technoloyg, you just need >4 times the material, so nearly 4 times the cost.
Display: 4 times the size of all the layers involved. These will cost close 4 times as much. The actual increase in density will cause a premium but that is more like 10%-20% vs 400% increase for size. So closer to 4x/1.2x = 3.3 times the cost.
Once you actually look at the specific components involved, instead of blindly shouting "miniaturization cost more", it should be obvious that a bigger iPad is going to cost more to produce than a smaller Touch.
1) You've made several comments that back up my statements that ministration costs money.
2) Based on your comments you'd think the G4 iPod Touch with 1/8th the display real estate of the iPad should be 1/8th it's price. Guess what? Not even close!
3) As previously noted, there is no 1:1 ratio with battery costs. Also, as previously noted, I clearly stated that the battery would cost more in an iPad "mini" over an iPod Touch because it's a rumoured 4.39x the capacity. It would not, however, be 4.39x the cost simply because it's 4.39 the capacity.
4) Miniaturization in tech costs more than to produce the same produce on an older process. So please describe to me how the 22nm Intel chips are about half the price to produce over the 45nm chips. MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY! THIS IS A FACT! What you've ignored are my comments where I said Apple will cut costs by not miniaturizing most components but simply going smaller. This is why I don't think we'll see a 2038x1536 326 PPI display in a 7.85" tablet. That would cost considerably MORE money than the 9.7" display despite your insistence that smaller is always cheaper.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
I'm not so sure in this market.
You mean this same market, where Apple has been selling many tens of millions of much higher priced iPad 3's?
People who walk around with obamaphones might think that the iPad Mini is high priced, but millions of other people will be snapping them up like crazy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
Getting an entry product out there at a high price so they can lower the price next year when sales aren't what they expected? I know many here think Apple can throw anything out there, slap on a $50-$100 premium and it will sell like hotcakes. I'm not so sure in this market.
Again faulty thinking.
$329 is inexpensive and fairly priced for the cost involved in building this. This is likely one of Apples lower margin products.
Whining about $200 zero profit tablets isn't going to change Apples business model to a non-profit one. Anymore than whining about $400 Windows laptops convinced them to build non-profit $500 macbooks.
I didn't say lower price next year. I said they won't include a retina display until it is affordable/profitable to build.
By the Second/Third generation they will be able to build a Retina Mini for $329 and actually make a profit. Not only that, but it gives them a nice upgrade path.
it will be really interesting to see exactly what the Mini is, and how much.
right now the tablets Apple sells:
3:2 iPod touch running older retina iPhone apps @ $199 with 16G
16:9 iPod touch also running new retina iPhone apps @ $299 with 32G
4:3 iPad2 running older iPad apps @ $399 with 16G + $130 for 3G data
4:3 iPad also running newer retina iPad apps @ $499 with 16G + $130 for 4G data
so how does the Mini fit in?
?:? iPad Mini running ? i? apps @ $? with ?G + maybe $130 for ? data
the most common guesses seem to be:
4:3 iPad Mini running older iPad apps @ $299 with 8G
but we might very well be surprised ...
PS: after thinking, i expect this "basic" iPad Mini will start at $249 w 8G, and $299 for 16G. so a 32G version matching the iPod touch minimum storage would be $$399, maintaining the overall price stepping set-up.
btw, Apple makes a ton of profit by marking up the storage price. how long they can get away with this in the face of stiff competition ...
and we can be sure that Apple's own apps will be re-formatted for an optimal UI on the smaller Mini screen, even tho regular iPad2 apps will just be shrunk down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Apple could stop selling everything they sell and operate for a decade on their cash alone.
So, yes.
Take products into account and they'd operate even longer.
Thanks for explaining why this line of reasoning doesn't work for you.
Originally Posted by bsimpsen
Thanks for explaining why this line of reasoning doesn't work for you.
You're trying to pretend it's a different argument than it is. I'm simply highlighting how the argument is pointless. You want to know if Apple can sell the same stuff for an extended period successfully?
iMac. Mac Mini. Mac Pro. iPod classic. All still selling.
"Yeah, but no one really buys those."
They could easily do the same with their laptop family, because computers are far more powerful than 90% of the people who use them need. But let's move to where the money is.
iPhone 3GS. Three years old. STILL sold better than ANY other non-iPhone on the market. Apple can absolutely not change things for three years and still sell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
9to5Mac is reporting rumors that the starting price will be $329. They don't say for what model, but I would assume its 16GB wi-fi only. I think this might be a tough sell for Apple.
If they priced it under the new iPod Touch ($299), then would it make that product a tough sell wouldn't it? Something north of the iPod Touch price and south of the entry model iPad makes sense in the Apple scheme. Under-cut the Touch and it makes the product line price points awkward.
They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?
Smartphones are unique. They have extremely high margins propped up by hiding the cost in cell phone plans.
Other than that, it doesn't make sense for iPad Mini to cost less than a Touch, because the much bigger screen, case, battery, makes the iPad mini more expensive to build.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
If they priced it under the new iPod Touch ($299), then would it make that product a tough sell wouldn't it? Something north of the iPod Touch price and south of the entry model iPad makes sense in the Apple scheme. Under-cut the Touch and it makes the product line price points awkward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?
see my chart above. Apple uses the increased storage mark-ups to segment its pricing, so a cheaper 8G Mini is not "awkward." i was surprised when the new touch "entry model" price was increased this year to $299 for 32G from $229 for 16G. i assume that means Apple already knew most touch buyers got the higher-priced models with 32G anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
They are completely different classes of product. The iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity. is the iPhone hurting?
I don't necessarily think the mini market is so different from those that up till now thought the Touch appropriate for them. I suspect you really feel the same deep down. Weren't you arguing for months that any smaller tablet device belonged in the iPod category rather than the iPad, and should be marketed as such? A bigger iPod Touch rather than a smaller iPad, and going after those Touch users?
BUT THEY AREN'T THE SAME DISPLAYS WITH THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THE SIZE. You have one with a 326 PPI and the other using the PPI that first arrived in 2007. They are nearly the same total resolution. On top of that you have less shrunken components to deal with so you don't have to invest in expensive ways to reduce the size or battery usage of a components when you have a lot more room to play with.
As for your comment about smartphones being unique because their costs are hidden that completely goes against your claim that miniature parts are less expensive than less miniaturized parts. THIS IS NOT SOME UNIQUE CONCEPT IN COMPUTING YET WHEN APPLE IS INVOLVED ALL OF A SUDDEN SHRUNKEN COMPONENTS ARE ALWAYS CHEAPER THAN LARGER ONES? W T F?!?!?! Some things will be more costly like the backlight, battery, casing, but there are plenty of others that could very well be considerably cheaper if Apple choses to go that route. Even their logic board could be cheaper because they can use a less sophisticate process if they don't need the space savings.
If it came with the iPod Touch resolution, I said it would be marketed as an IPod Touch, not an iPad. I also said that I feel that a budget tablet would help prop up the iPod market segment without soiling the iPad market prematurely. I made no comment about going after Touch users. I would think they're going after other users for a tablet.
$70 less than the iPad 2 with the same basic performance seems about right for the shrunken product. The display on the 7.85" model will likely cost a little more than the 9.7" but there are other savings to be had over the iPad 2.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
BUT THEY AREN'T THE SAME DISPLAYS WITH THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BEING THE SIZE. You have one with a 326 PPI and the other using the PPI that first arrived in 2007. They are nearly the same total resolution. On top of that you have less shrunken components to deal with so you don't have to invest in expensive ways to reduce the size or battery usage of a components when you have a lot more room to play with.
As for your comment about smartphones being unique because their costs are hidden that completely goes against your claim that miniature parts are less expensive than less miniaturized parts. THIS IS NOT SOME UNIQUE CONCEPT IN COMPUTING YET WHEN APPLE IS INVOLVED ALL OF A SUDDEN SHRUNKEN COMPONENTS ARE ALWAYS CHEAPER THAN LARGER ONES? W T F?!?!?! Some things will be more costly like the backlight, battery, casing, but there are plenty of others that could very well be considerably cheaper if Apple choses to go that route. Even their logic board could be cheaper because they can use a less sophisticate process if they don't need the space savings.
Wow, that is so out of touch, and yelling so much over it.
The battery isn't some kind of expensive miniaturized battery in the iPod. It is simply a battery of the same construction 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost.
A modern touchscreen LCD is about 10 different layers. Only 1 of the 10 cost more because of increased density. The other 9 are priced directly related to size, and 4 times larger = 4 times more cost.
The same goes for the case. 4 times the size, 4 times the cost.
The rest of the components are the same in either case.
Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.
So you think miniaturized components cost less than larger components because they are in a smaller package? Got it! Unfortunately your Fun-Sized Snicker scenario has never been the case with CE and computers. You've never wondered why a Notebook of a certain performance costs more than a Desktop of a certain performance? When you do you'll need to rethink your hypothesis that being smaller means everything is cheaper. As previously noted the iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity, something people outside the US who have to pay full price for their products are intimately aware, yet by your thinking the iPad should cost 8x as much.
Originally Posted by Snowdog65
Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.
That sounds backward.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65
Wow, that is so out of touch, and yelling so much over it.
The battery isn't some kind of expensive miniaturized battery in the iPod. It is simply a battery of the same construction 1/4 the size and 1/4 the cost.
A modern touchscreen LCD is about 10 different layers. Only 1 of the 10 cost more because of increased density. The other 9 are priced directly related to size, and 4 times larger = 4 times more cost.
The same goes for the case. 4 times the size, 4 times the cost.
The rest of the components are the same in either case.
Everything is either the same, or bigger and significantly more expensive.
I'm not sure about all the "layers" of the display, but I can tell you categorically that the cost of neither the battery nor the case scales up linearly with size as you described. That might seem to be the intuitive relationship if you consider only raw components. But there is a process cost as well. For example, 4 iPhone back plates will cost more than an iPad back plate, assuming the latter is indeed 4 times the size of the former (which it isn't).
More generally, the cost of manufacturing (components plus process) does go down with size to an extent. But the decrease is not linear. Furthermore, it hits a certain threshold and starts to go up again.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So you think miniaturized components cost less than larger components because they are in a smaller package? Got it! Unfortunately your Fun-Sized Snicker scenario has never been the case with CE and computers. You've never wondered why a Notebook of a certain performance costs more than a Desktop of a certain performance? When you do you'll need to rethink your hypothesis that being smaller means everything is cheaper. As previously noted the iPhone is more expensive than the iPad for a given capacity, something people outside the US who have to pay full price for their products are intimately aware, yet by your thinking the iPad should cost 8x as much.
Margins start at 23% on iPads, they start around 50% on iPhones. iPhones have full cell technologies, which are patent encumbered. So this is a BAD (Orange-vs-Bananas) comparison.
Compare current Wifi iPods and Wifi iPads. Those are Orange-vs-Orange comparisons.
This also isn't a PC vs Notebook comparison where you are using overpriced notebook processors ( a largely artifical distinction that pads Intels pockets), or Physical HDs where the bigger size of 3 1/2" drives allow lower density tech.
Those are some very specific cases where component costs are higer building smaller devices, but they are not universal, and don't apply here because those components aren't used. You can't just take some specific cases and apply it generally everywhere. That doesn't make sense. You need to actually look at the specifics in each case, if you want a reasonable assessment.
In this case we have the exact same RAM/SoCs/Storage technology, so no difference, same cost.
The only items that change:
Battery: Same technology, you just need 4 times as much battery, so nearly 4 times the cost.
Case: Same technoloyg, you just need >4 times the material, so nearly 4 times the cost.
Display: 4 times the size of all the layers involved. These will cost close 4 times as much. The actual increase in density will cause a premium but that is more like 10%-20% vs 400% increase for size. So closer to 4x/1.2x = 3.3 times the cost.
Once you actually look at the specific components involved, instead of blindly shouting "miniaturization cost more", it should be obvious that a bigger iPad is going to cost more to produce than a smaller Touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mcrs
7" No Name chinese-made Android Tablets:
USD 80 for 8 GB Wifi Only
USD 125 for 16GB Wifi Only
USD 150 for 16GB plus cellular
Tell me again why these same people who loves buying cheapo tablets would actually buy a Kotex Minipad, I meant.., Ipad mini?
Good luck on Chinese $80 toilet rolls, troll harder.
1) You've made several comments that back up my statements that ministration costs money.
2) Based on your comments you'd think the G4 iPod Touch with 1/8th the display real estate of the iPad should be 1/8th it's price. Guess what? Not even close!
3) As previously noted, there is no 1:1 ratio with battery costs. Also, as previously noted, I clearly stated that the battery would cost more in an iPad "mini" over an iPod Touch because it's a rumoured 4.39x the capacity. It would not, however, be 4.39x the cost simply because it's 4.39 the capacity.
4) Miniaturization in tech costs more than to produce the same produce on an older process. So please describe to me how the 22nm Intel chips are about half the price to produce over the 45nm chips. MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY! THIS IS A FACT! What you've ignored are my comments where I said Apple will cut costs by not miniaturizing most components but simply going smaller. This is why I don't think we'll see a 2038x1536 326 PPI display in a 7.85" tablet. That would cost considerably MORE money than the 9.7" display despite your insistence that smaller is always cheaper.