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.
1) Only in specific cases with rational reasons. You need that rational reason, for each specific component it, why it costs more. You haven't made that case here. You just keep shouting "MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY! THIS IS A FACT!" Try reason instead of shouting nonsense slogans.
2) You seem to have reading comprehension problem. I didn't say the iPad Mini would cost 4x as much, so I certainly didn't imply 1/8th versus the full iPad. What I did say was a bunch of components have the "same cost", it was in bold, did you miss it? And a few components will cost up to 4x as much. The net effect is that it will cost more to build an iPad (obvious for reasoning creatures).
3) The cost to actually build a simple pouch battery 4 times the size will cost nearly 4 times as much. But you do get a bit of volume discount as it were and you only need 1 connector instead of 4. But it will still easily be 3 times the cost to Apple for a battery 4 times the size.
4) You keep listing components not in use here. Name the specific components that will cost more in a Touch than in an iPad. Most of the components are the same, on same process level. I listed the components that will increase cost with size, your turn to list the components that in an iPad that will get cheaper with size. I am shocked that you think that, but please enlighten me.
1) Only in specific cases with rational reasons. You need that rational reason, for each specific component it, why it costs more. You haven't made that case here. You just keep shouting "MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY! THIS IS A FACT!" Try reason instead of shouting nonsense slogans.
2) You seem to have reading comprehension problem. I didn't say the iPad Mini would cost 4x as much, so I certainly didn't imply 1/8th versus the full iPad. What I did say was a bunch of components have the "same cost", it was in bold, did you miss it? And a few components will cost up to 4x as much. The net effect is that it will cost more to build an iPad (obvious for reasoning creatures).
3) The cost to actually build a simple pouch battery 4 times the size will cost nearly 4 times as much. But you do get a bit of volume discount as it were and you only need 1 connector instead of 4. But it will still easily be 3 times the cost to Apple for a battery 4 times the size.
4) You keep listing components not in use here. Name the specific components that will cost more in a Touch than in an iPad. Most of the components are the same, on same process level. I listed the components that will increase cost with size, your turn to list the components that in an iPad that will get cheaper with size. I am shocked that you think that, but please enlighten me.
1) I've given you all reasoning and examples you would need and you've ignored them.
2) I also stated that several components would be more expensive in a larger device. You choose to ignore that just as you've chosen to ignore that there are costs associated with state of the art miniaturization and that notebooks somehow don't count as an example with their slower and more expensive processors because it's all marketing. :rolleyes:
3) Where did you get this 4x value? Why not 3x? Why not 3.5x? Cost of raw materials might be be near linear but we're talking about a single casing over 4x the battery size, testing, licensing, environmental costs for a new design, etc. How did you get "nearly 4x"? BTW, again, I clearly sated the battery is one of those components that would be most costly per unit than in the Touch which makes your insistence on harping this one component look even more foolish every time you mention it.
4) 326 PPI display over 163 PPI display for the same resolution. Smaller, thinner camera and sensors over larger, thicker camera and sensors for the same quality photos. Smaller, denser logic boards with smaller, new components over less complex, larger logic boards larger, old components.
But, I would say that Google/Android do have the edge when it comes to MORE malware, and being a COMPLETELY dysfunctional OS since most Android users are STILL using Android 2.X.
It is hard to agree that it is a COMPLETELY dysfunctional Os when Android phones outsell the various iOS iPhones by such a large margin. Seemingly, people much perefer Android for phones compared to iOS.
With tablets, however, iOS seems to be preferred to Android.
$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.
$329 for a 16G iPad Mini = $279 for an 8G iPad Mini. well, maybe ...
1) I've given you all reasoning and examples you would need and you've ignored them.
2) I also stated that several components would be more expensive in a larger device. You choose to ignore that just as you've chosen to ignore that there are costs associated with state of the art miniaturization and that notebooks somehow don't count as an example with their slower and more expensive processors because it's all marketing.
3) Where did you get this 4x value? Why not 3x? Why not 3.5x? Cost of raw materials might be be near linear but we're talking about a single casing over 4x the battery size, testing, licensing, environmental costs for a new design, etc. How did you get "nearly 4x"? BTW, again, I clearly sated the battery is one of those components that would be most costly per unit than in the Touch which makes your insistence on harping this one component look even more foolish every time you mention it.
4) 326 PPI display over 163 PPI display for the same resolution. Smaller, thinner camera and sensors over larger, thicker camera and sensors for the same quality photos. Smaller, denser logic boards with smaller, new components over less complex, larger logic boards larger, old components.
1&2. Your examples are laptops vs desktop PCs. There are rational reasons for cost differences there.
In case you haven't noticed, nether iPod nor iPad uses big spinning HD's, Intel CPUs with big fans.
Here you are using the same CPUs and storage. So there is no extra miniaturization here, there is no rational reason for costs here to increase.
3) Nearly 4 times, because there will be 4 times the material, 4 times the time to construct as it involves folding layers and packaging them in a poly bag. How much do think you save on a battery 4 times larger?
Bigger costs more. Most of the rest of the components are the same.
Bigger costs more... which I have stated before you chimed in.
Miniaturization costs more... which you have FINALLY admitted with your "yeah, but there are rational reasons for that" comment.
I also said the iPad "mini" will be smaller, not miniaturized, and therefore cheaper than the larger iPad. You're still arguing against that. You're also still arguing some 1:1 ratio for component costs based on size that doesn't exist across the board. Your entire premise is flawed.
Again and for the last time the display panel in the iPod Touch cost about the same or more than the display panel in the iPad "mini". The iPad "mini''s display will not be 4.27x as much simply because it's 4.27x the size when it's only about 105 more pixels and a pixel density Apple has been using since the original iPhone. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
It is hard to agree that it is a COMPLETELY dysfunctional Os when Android phones outsell the various iOS iPhones by such a large margin. Seemingly, people much perefer Android for phones compared to iOS.
With tablets, however, iOS seems to be preferred to Android.
The Android sells more so it must be better argument is not without distorted misconceptions. For example many people ride public transportation, probably more than those who drive their own cars to work, however most of the people on the bus wish they could afford a car of their own. Remarkably the people riding the bus almost all have Android or feature phones and those driving their cars have the largest percentage of iPhones. When you consider the developing world in addition to the US, Android is the most popular, but not because the users prefer it over an iPhone if they could afford it.
Bigger costs more... which I have stated before you chimed in.
Miniaturization costs more... which you have FINALLY admitted with your "yeah, but there are rational reasons for that" comment.
Wow. You really take things out of context to the point of twisting it until it means the opposite of what was said. That is quite disingenuous behavior.
I said from the beginning that in certain cases going to a smaller size can cost more. Desktop HDs vs Laptop HDs because there is a rational reason, you have more volume for storage in the bigger destkop drives.
I was equally clear, that that doesn't apply here, because were are not talking about desktops and all the cost driving parts in this case are either the same price or more expensive in bigger devices.
Quote:
I also said the iPad "mini" will be smaller, not miniaturized, and therefore cheaper than the larger iPad. You're still arguing against that. You're also still arguing some 1:1 ratio for component costs based on size that doesn't exist across the board. Your entire premise is flawed.
Again and for the last time the display panel in the iPod Touch cost about the same or more than the display panel in the iPad "mini". The iPad "mini''s display will not be 4.27x as much simply because it's 4.27x the size when it's only about 105 more pixels and a pixel density Apple has been using since the original iPhone. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
Again totally messed up context misrepresenting what I said. You were claiming an iPad mini would not cost more build than iPod Touch. Despite several expensive components that will increase in price with size. This was the argument.
We don't know the price of the display. But we know the iPhone 5 displays is $25, the iPad 2 display is $126, where is the premiums for high DPI screen there and miniaturization there? The Mini screen will be between these in size/dpi and Cost. To sugest the Mini screen will cost less than an iPod screen is just silly. Say about $60 for the Mini screen.
Battery about $3 in iPod, $25 in the full Ipad, again the price for the mini will be between these. Say about $12 for the iPad Mini battery.
You do have one thing right, it isn't rocket science, You just have look at the price of scalable items (battery/screen) that I linked, and you will see the mini values coming in somewhere between them. Say about $80 more in total to build an iPad than a Touch. Versius your 0 or it actually costing less.
Wow. You really take things out of context to the point of twisting it until it means the opposite of what was said. That is quite disingenuous behavior.
I said from the beginning that in certain cases going to a smaller size can cost more. Desktop HDs vs Laptop HDs because there is a rational reason, you have more volume for storage in the bigger destkop drives.
I was equally clear, that that doesn't apply here, because were are not talking about desktops and all the cost driving parts in this case are either the same price or more expensive in bigger devices.
Again totally messed up context misrepresenting what I said. You were claiming an iPad mini would not cost more build than iPod Touch. Despite several expensive components that will increase in price with size. This was the argument.
We don't know the price of the display. But we know the iPhone 5 displays is $25, the iPad 2 display is $126, where is the premiums for high DPI screen there and miniaturization there? The Mini screen will be between these in size/dpi and Cost. To sugest the Mini screen will cost less than an iPod screen is just silly. Say about $60 for the Mini screen.
Battery about $3 in iPod, $25 in the full Ipad, again the price for the mini will be between these. Say about $12 for the iPad Mini battery.
You do have one thing right, it isn't rocket science, You just have look at the price of scalable items (battery/screen) that I linked, and you will see the mini values coming in somewhere between them. Say about $80 more in total to build an iPad than a Touch. Versius your 0 or it actually costing less.
I point out that miniturization costs more. You claim that bigger will always cost more. I point out many examples which you claim don't count. You then point out the battery as an example of an increased cost (which you oddly claim is 4x as much without any basis for that claim) despite me having previously noted that the battery isn't being miniaturized but merely reduced in size many posts prior. This is really simple shit! Reductions are cheaper; miniaturization is expensive. You need to understand this and instead of making lame excuses.
So tell me how this device will be 4.27x the cost because it's 4.27x the display area? If the cost doesn't scale as you claim then you really should admit that being smaller doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper for a comparative weight, volume, display area, or any other overall metric you've tried to conjure. Because miniaturization costs more there will be components that are more expensive for the reasons previously explained above which is why this iPad "mini will not be well over $1000.
PS: Before you post more costs for Apple components why don't you supply some evidence of their source instead of pulling some arbitrary number from thin air.
So the 5 should cost more than the 4/4s because it bigger. Got it¡
But its volume is 20% less; so it should be cheaper. Nano-SIM card; 44% smaller than a micro-SIM, so cheaper. But he Lightning connector is 80% smaller than the 30-pin connector, so cheaper.
--- Thin air. That's big; so expensive. But how come he sounds so cheap?
Do you really spend your entire time on this board behaving like this? Misleading, lying, and misrepresenting what other people say to "win" arguments.
I never claimed bigger will always cost more, I have agreed there are exceptions. But the exceptions are specific and rational. It is not a general rule as you seem to want to apply it.
Quote:
I point out many examples which you claim don't count.
Your examples are exceptions to the rule that larger generally costs more. Exceptions aren't the rule. Each exception is unique. Unless that actual exception is happening here, it doesn't count.
Take Desktop HD vs Laptop HD. To have have the same capacity, the laptop drive will need more precise, higher density mechanical systems. This is a rational exception with a rational reason.
Are you so incapable of seeing your own mistakes, that you can't see why an exception dealing with mechanical Hard drives, doesn't apply to devices using solid state SSDs?
Quote:
You then point out the battery as an example of an increased cost (which you oddly claim is 4x as much without any basis for that claim) despite me having previously noted that the battery isn't being miniaturized but merely reduced in size many posts prior.
I merely listed the battery as one of the three main components that will increase in cost with size, the Trio being Display related, Battery, and Casing. You are the one who keeps harping on the battery specifically. As far as why I said near 4x the cost, because it will have 4 times the material, and 4 times the manufacturing. I ask you again, if my ballpark number is so absurd, what do you think the production cost difference will be for a battery 4x larger?
Quote:
This is really simple shit! Reductions are cheaper; miniaturization is expensive. You need to understand this and instead of making lame excuses
It should be simple, but unfortunately it seems beyond your ability to grasp. You just keep shouting slogans, and keep misleading and lying.
Quote:
So tell me how this device will be 4.27x the cost because it's 4.27x the display area? If the cost doesn't scale as you claim then you really should admit that being smaller doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper for a comparative weight, volume, display area, or any other overall metric you've tried to conjure. Because miniaturization costs more there will be components that are more expensive for the reasons previously explained above which is why this iPad "mini will not be well over $1000.
Maybe you can repost that when you are actually awake, because that is largely self contradictory gibberish. But it does look like you are trying to again misrepresent what I said.
To be clear, I made no claim the whole device would cost 4x as much. You are being misleading and trying to construct a straw man.
I said 3 components will be more expensive because they are 4 times larger and could cost up to 4 times as much (not the display because it will be a tradeoff between size and higher dpi, size will win, but will make it closer).
The rest of the components stay the same price. It should be obvious to most people (probably not you) that if only a few components increase in price, that you don't multiply the whole device by that factor, just those components.
[quote name="Snowdog65" url="/t/153588/ipad-mini-to-give-apple-tech-advantage-protect-mobile-device-marketshare/80#post_2215875"]It is not a general rule as you seem to want to apply it.[/QUOTE]
Never once said general rule. I very specifically stated miniaturization which is quite the opposite of a general rule.
[QUOTE]I merely listed the battery as one of the three main components that will increase in cost with size..[/QUOTE]
After I listed it. Way to go!
[QUOTE]It should be simple, but unfortunately it seems beyond your ability to grasp. You just keep shouting slogans, and keep misleading and lying.[/QUOTE]
It should be simple but you still don't understand that MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY.
And where do you get this linear scaling with the casing? Are you measuring the weigh of the aluminum or the overall volume of the completed product or some other measure? A thinking person would only consider the amount of material as being close to linear and the cost of machinery, complexity/precision in the milling and other aspects of the process when considering where the costs come from.
[QUOTE] The rest of the components stay the same price. It should be obvious to most people (probably not you) that if only a few components increase in price, that you don't multiply the whole device by that factor, just those components.[/QUOTE]
The 1024x768 is the same price between a 7.85" iPd and 9.7" iPad or a 163 PPI display is the same price in a 7.85 iPad and a 3.5" iPod Touch? You can have it every way. BTW, it's also more than 4x the cost for the same PPI display than it is for one that is smaller do to error in production which make larger displays harder to produce, but all this has been stated before and you still won't accept that there is no linear scaling across all parts.
Bottom line: The iPad "mini" will use reduced parts to to reduce costs, not state of the art miniaturized parts that cost more. You don't have to accept this but you're a fool if you don't.
Bottom line: The iPad "mini" will use reduced parts to to reduce costs, not state of the art miniaturized parts that cost more. You don't have to accept this but you're a fool if you don't.
Are you on crack or just strong meds?
You are the one making the absurd claim than an Ipod costs MORE than the Mini ipad to produce.
You have no actual evidence. You just keep Shouting "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"
Look today we have an estimate of component costs for the Mini, to add to the mix:
Now lets see(minus cellular radios to even the playfield):
BOM:
Iphone 5: $142
iPad Mini: $199
iPad: $307
Significantly more to produce an iPad Mini than iPod touch (iP5 minus Cellular). Which was all I said that caused you jump in like a drunken attack dog shouting "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"
Look at the battery estimates $3 for the iPhone, $12 for the Ipad Mini. 4x as much.
You will no doubt have a problem with these estimates, but they have thought behind them, unlike your rantings.
Now lets see(minus cellular radios to even the playfield):
BOM:
Iphone 5: $142
iPad Mini: $199
iPad: $307
Significantly more to produce an iPad Mini than iPod touch (iP5 minus Cellular). Which was all I said that caused you jump in like a drunken attack dog shouting "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"
Look at the battery estimates $3 for the iPhone, $12 for the Ipad Mini. 4x as much.
You will no doubt have a problem with these estimates, but they have thought behind them, unlike your rantings.
Now the iPhone 5 costs less than the iPad mini? That makes sense¡ These estimates you claim as gospel are crap. They don't take into account licensing, production, assembly, R&D, etc. They are a very generic and very general guess based on absolutely nothing.
Case in point, they are estimating the BOM of the iPad "mini" and you're using it to defend your position that it's impossible for a iPad "mini" to have any components that are more expensive than the 10" iPad and have none that are cheaper than the 4" iPod Touch.
If you can't see how a 7.85" 2048x1536 would cost more than 9.7" version, or how a 7.85" 1024x768 display could cost more than a 9.7" version, or how a 326 PPI 1136x640 in-cell full sRGB display could cost less than a 7.85" 1024x768 IPS display without in-cell or full color gamut display then you are choosing to be ignorant as to how technology scales.
What is it about Apple's products that makes people lose their minds and think Apple can do anything? They have to deal with physics, production and sourcing limitations just like everybody else.
Let me through an example I've already used back at you but in a different way before I write you off as a lost cause. Take the logic board in the new iPod Touch. Now make it less compact, less complex, even use some larger and older components whose only real benefit was space savings and put in a board 2x the size for larger device. According to you that board should be 2x the cost. You seriously don't see fucked up your logic is? Take a look at Intel's SFF chips.
Why does Apple need to sell for $199? The 'iPad' brand is extremely powerful. I think they could absolutely get away with selling for $249 or $299 just by virtue of the word "iPad on it".
As it is, the iPad is outselling those at its current price point.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
1) Only in specific cases with rational reasons. You need that rational reason, for each specific component it, why it costs more. You haven't made that case here. You just keep shouting "MINIATURIZATION COSTS MONEY! THIS IS A FACT!" Try reason instead of shouting nonsense slogans.
2) You seem to have reading comprehension problem. I didn't say the iPad Mini would cost 4x as much, so I certainly didn't imply 1/8th versus the full iPad. What I did say was a bunch of components have the "same cost", it was in bold, did you miss it? And a few components will cost up to 4x as much. The net effect is that it will cost more to build an iPad (obvious for reasoning creatures).
3) The cost to actually build a simple pouch battery 4 times the size will cost nearly 4 times as much. But you do get a bit of volume discount as it were and you only need 1 connector instead of 4. But it will still easily be 3 times the cost to Apple for a battery 4 times the size.
4) You keep listing components not in use here. Name the specific components that will cost more in a Touch than in an iPad. Most of the components are the same, on same process level. I listed the components that will increase cost with size, your turn to list the components that in an iPad that will get cheaper with size. I am shocked that you think that, but please enlighten me.
1) I've given you all reasoning and examples you would need and you've ignored them.
2) I also stated that several components would be more expensive in a larger device. You choose to ignore that just as you've chosen to ignore that there are costs associated with state of the art miniaturization and that notebooks somehow don't count as an example with their slower and more expensive processors because it's all marketing. :rolleyes:
3) Where did you get this 4x value? Why not 3x? Why not 3.5x? Cost of raw materials might be be near linear but we're talking about a single casing over 4x the battery size, testing, licensing, environmental costs for a new design, etc. How did you get "nearly 4x"? BTW, again, I clearly sated the battery is one of those components that would be most costly per unit than in the Touch which makes your insistence on harping this one component look even more foolish every time you mention it.
4) 326 PPI display over 163 PPI display for the same resolution. Smaller, thinner camera and sensors over larger, thicker camera and sensors for the same quality photos. Smaller, denser logic boards with smaller, new components over less complex, larger logic boards larger, old components.
v.
Quote:
But, I would say that Google/Android do have the edge when it comes to MORE malware, and being a COMPLETELY dysfunctional OS since most Android users are STILL using Android 2.X.
It is hard to agree that it is a COMPLETELY dysfunctional Os when Android phones outsell the various iOS iPhones by such a large margin. Seemingly, people much perefer Android for phones compared to iOS.
With tablets, however, iOS seems to be preferred to Android.
Originally Posted by George Howard
It is hard to agree that it is a COMPLETELY dysfunctional Os when Android phones outsell the various iOS iPhones by such a large margin.
How is that a rebuttal to what he said?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
$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.
$329 for a 16G iPad Mini = $279 for an 8G iPad Mini. well, maybe ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) I've given you all reasoning and examples you would need and you've ignored them.
2) I also stated that several components would be more expensive in a larger device. You choose to ignore that just as you've chosen to ignore that there are costs associated with state of the art miniaturization and that notebooks somehow don't count as an example with their slower and more expensive processors because it's all marketing.
3) Where did you get this 4x value? Why not 3x? Why not 3.5x? Cost of raw materials might be be near linear but we're talking about a single casing over 4x the battery size, testing, licensing, environmental costs for a new design, etc. How did you get "nearly 4x"? BTW, again, I clearly sated the battery is one of those components that would be most costly per unit than in the Touch which makes your insistence on harping this one component look even more foolish every time you mention it.
4) 326 PPI display over 163 PPI display for the same resolution. Smaller, thinner camera and sensors over larger, thicker camera and sensors for the same quality photos. Smaller, denser logic boards with smaller, new components over less complex, larger logic boards larger, old components.
1&2. Your examples are laptops vs desktop PCs. There are rational reasons for cost differences there.
In case you haven't noticed, nether iPod nor iPad uses big spinning HD's, Intel CPUs with big fans.
Here you are using the same CPUs and storage. So there is no extra miniaturization here, there is no rational reason for costs here to increase.
3) Nearly 4 times, because there will be 4 times the material, 4 times the time to construct as it involves folding layers and packaging them in a poly bag. How much do think you save on a battery 4 times larger?
iPhone 5 BOM:
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152596/16gb-iphone-5-bill-of-materials-estimated-at-168
Screen + Touch: $26
Battery: $3
iPad 2 BOM:
http://www.isuppli.com/PublishingImages/Press Releases/2011-03-12_iPad2_BOM.png
Screen + touch: $127 (5 times higher very low DPI 132 screen)
Battery: $25 (8 Times higher).
Bigger costs more. Most of the rest of the components are the same.
Bigger costs more... which I have stated before you chimed in.
Miniaturization costs more... which you have FINALLY admitted with your "yeah, but there are rational reasons for that" comment.
I also said the iPad "mini" will be smaller, not miniaturized, and therefore cheaper than the larger iPad. You're still arguing against that. You're also still arguing some 1:1 ratio for component costs based on size that doesn't exist across the board. Your entire premise is flawed.
Again and for the last time the display panel in the iPod Touch cost about the same or more than the display panel in the iPad "mini". The iPad "mini''s display will not be 4.27x as much simply because it's 4.27x the size when it's only about 105 more pixels and a pixel density Apple has been using since the original iPhone. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
Quote:
Originally Posted by George Howard
It is hard to agree that it is a COMPLETELY dysfunctional Os when Android phones outsell the various iOS iPhones by such a large margin. Seemingly, people much perefer Android for phones compared to iOS.
With tablets, however, iOS seems to be preferred to Android.
The Android sells more so it must be better argument is not without distorted misconceptions. For example many people ride public transportation, probably more than those who drive their own cars to work, however most of the people on the bus wish they could afford a car of their own. Remarkably the people riding the bus almost all have Android or feature phones and those driving their cars have the largest percentage of iPhones. When you consider the developing world in addition to the US, Android is the most popular, but not because the users prefer it over an iPhone if they could afford it.
If I preorder a couple for Christmas do you think I need to charge them every once in awhile so the battery doesn't
fully drain?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Bigger costs more... which I have stated before you chimed in.
Miniaturization costs more... which you have FINALLY admitted with your "yeah, but there are rational reasons for that" comment.
Wow. You really take things out of context to the point of twisting it until it means the opposite of what was said. That is quite disingenuous behavior.
I said from the beginning that in certain cases going to a smaller size can cost more. Desktop HDs vs Laptop HDs because there is a rational reason, you have more volume for storage in the bigger destkop drives.
I was equally clear, that that doesn't apply here, because were are not talking about desktops and all the cost driving parts in this case are either the same price or more expensive in bigger devices.
Quote:
I also said the iPad "mini" will be smaller, not miniaturized, and therefore cheaper than the larger iPad. You're still arguing against that. You're also still arguing some 1:1 ratio for component costs based on size that doesn't exist across the board. Your entire premise is flawed.
Again and for the last time the display panel in the iPod Touch cost about the same or more than the display panel in the iPad "mini". The iPad "mini''s display will not be 4.27x as much simply because it's 4.27x the size when it's only about 105 more pixels and a pixel density Apple has been using since the original iPhone. THIS IS NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!
Again totally messed up context misrepresenting what I said. You were claiming an iPad mini would not cost more build than iPod Touch. Despite several expensive components that will increase in price with size. This was the argument.
We don't know the price of the display. But we know the iPhone 5 displays is $25, the iPad 2 display is $126, where is the premiums for high DPI screen there and miniaturization there? The Mini screen will be between these in size/dpi and Cost. To sugest the Mini screen will cost less than an iPod screen is just silly. Say about $60 for the Mini screen.
Battery about $3 in iPod, $25 in the full Ipad, again the price for the mini will be between these. Say about $12 for the iPad Mini battery.
You do have one thing right, it isn't rocket science, You just have look at the price of scalable items (battery/screen) that I linked, and you will see the mini values coming in somewhere between them. Say about $80 more in total to build an iPad than a Touch. Versius your 0 or it actually costing less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dancxg
If I preorder a couple for Christmas do you think I need to charge them every once in awhile so the battery doesn't
fully drain?
no.
Leave 'em boxed like new unless you want to add some music and apps to really jazz them up for action right out of the box.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Why did the first iPhone have things that aren't yet on other phones?
Because even Samscum has ethical limits to what they will rip off???
Originally Posted by Macky the Macky
Because even Samscum has ethical limits to what they will rip off???
Made me laugh for two reasons. Absurdity and absurdity.
I point out that miniturization costs more. You claim that bigger will always cost more. I point out many examples which you claim don't count. You then point out the battery as an example of an increased cost (which you oddly claim is 4x as much without any basis for that claim) despite me having previously noted that the battery isn't being miniaturized but merely reduced in size many posts prior. This is really simple shit! Reductions are cheaper; miniaturization is expensive. You need to understand this and instead of making lame excuses.
So tell me how this device will be 4.27x the cost because it's 4.27x the display area? If the cost doesn't scale as you claim then you really should admit that being smaller doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper for a comparative weight, volume, display area, or any other overall metric you've tried to conjure. Because miniaturization costs more there will be components that are more expensive for the reasons previously explained above which is why this iPad "mini will not be well over $1000.
PS: Before you post more costs for Apple components why don't you supply some evidence of their source instead of pulling some arbitrary number from thin air.
But its volume is 20% less; so it should be cheaper.
Nano-SIM card; 44% smaller than a micro-SIM, so cheaper.
But he Lightning connector is 80% smaller than the 30-pin connector, so cheaper.
---
Thin air. That's big; so expensive. But how come he sounds so cheap?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You claim that bigger will always cost more.
Do you really spend your entire time on this board behaving like this? Misleading, lying, and misrepresenting what other people say to "win" arguments.
I never claimed bigger will always cost more, I have agreed there are exceptions. But the exceptions are specific and rational. It is not a general rule as you seem to want to apply it.
Quote:
I point out many examples which you claim don't count.
Your examples are exceptions to the rule that larger generally costs more. Exceptions aren't the rule. Each exception is unique. Unless that actual exception is happening here, it doesn't count.
Take Desktop HD vs Laptop HD. To have have the same capacity, the laptop drive will need more precise, higher density mechanical systems. This is a rational exception with a rational reason.
Are you so incapable of seeing your own mistakes, that you can't see why an exception dealing with mechanical Hard drives, doesn't apply to devices using solid state SSDs?
Quote:
You then point out the battery as an example of an increased cost (which you oddly claim is 4x as much without any basis for that claim) despite me having previously noted that the battery isn't being miniaturized but merely reduced in size many posts prior.
I merely listed the battery as one of the three main components that will increase in cost with size, the Trio being Display related, Battery, and Casing. You are the one who keeps harping on the battery specifically. As far as why I said near 4x the cost, because it will have 4 times the material, and 4 times the manufacturing. I ask you again, if my ballpark number is so absurd, what do you think the production cost difference will be for a battery 4x larger?
Quote:
This is really simple shit! Reductions are cheaper; miniaturization is expensive. You need to understand this and instead of making lame excuses
It should be simple, but unfortunately it seems beyond your ability to grasp. You just keep shouting slogans, and keep misleading and lying.
Quote:
So tell me how this device will be 4.27x the cost because it's 4.27x the display area? If the cost doesn't scale as you claim then you really should admit that being smaller doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper for a comparative weight, volume, display area, or any other overall metric you've tried to conjure. Because miniaturization costs more there will be components that are more expensive for the reasons previously explained above which is why this iPad "mini will not be well over $1000.
Maybe you can repost that when you are actually awake, because that is largely self contradictory gibberish. But it does look like you are trying to again misrepresent what I said.
To be clear, I made no claim the whole device would cost 4x as much. You are being misleading and trying to construct a straw man.
I said 3 components will be more expensive because they are 4 times larger and could cost up to 4 times as much (not the display because it will be a tradeoff between size and higher dpi, size will win, but will make it closer).
The rest of the components stay the same price. It should be obvious to most people (probably not you) that if only a few components increase in price, that you don't multiply the whole device by that factor, just those components.
Never once said general rule. I very specifically stated miniaturization which is quite the opposite of a general rule.
[QUOTE]I merely listed the battery as one of the three main components that will increase in cost with size..[/QUOTE]
After I listed it. Way to go!
[QUOTE]It should be simple, but unfortunately it seems beyond your ability to grasp. You just keep shouting slogans, and keep misleading and lying.[/QUOTE]
It should be simple but you still don't understand that MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY.
And where do you get this linear scaling with the casing? Are you measuring the weigh of the aluminum or the overall volume of the completed product or some other measure? A thinking person would only consider the amount of material as being close to linear and the cost of machinery, complexity/precision in the milling and other aspects of the process when considering where the costs come from.
[QUOTE] The rest of the components stay the same price. It should be obvious to most people (probably not you) that if only a few components increase in price, that you don't multiply the whole device by that factor, just those components.[/QUOTE]
The 1024x768 is the same price between a 7.85" iPd and 9.7" iPad or a 163 PPI display is the same price in a 7.85 iPad and a 3.5" iPod Touch? You can have it every way. BTW, it's also more than 4x the cost for the same PPI display than it is for one that is smaller do to error in production which make larger displays harder to produce, but all this has been stated before and you still won't accept that there is no linear scaling across all parts.
Bottom line: The iPad "mini" will use reduced parts to to reduce costs, not state of the art miniaturized parts that cost more. You don't have to accept this but you're a fool if you don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Bottom line: The iPad "mini" will use reduced parts to to reduce costs, not state of the art miniaturized parts that cost more. You don't have to accept this but you're a fool if you don't.
Are you on crack or just strong meds?
You are the one making the absurd claim than an Ipod costs MORE than the Mini ipad to produce.
You have no actual evidence. You just keep Shouting "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"
Look today we have an estimate of component costs for the Mini, to add to the mix:
http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/10/20/ipad-mini-build-cost-estimated-to-start-at-200-may-retail-for-299
http://forums.appleinsider.com/t/152596/16gb-iphone-5-bill-of-materials-estimated-at-168
http://www.isuppli.com/PublishingImages/Press Releases/2011-03-12_iPad2_BOM.png
Now lets see(minus cellular radios to even the playfield):
BOM:
Iphone 5: $142
iPad Mini: $199
iPad: $307
Significantly more to produce an iPad Mini than iPod touch (iP5 minus Cellular). Which was all I said that caused you jump in like a drunken attack dog shouting "MINIATURIZATION COST MONEY"
Look at the battery estimates $3 for the iPhone, $12 for the Ipad Mini. 4x as much.
You will no doubt have a problem with these estimates, but they have thought behind them, unlike your rantings.
Case in point, they are estimating the BOM of the iPad "mini" and you're using it to defend your position that it's impossible for a iPad "mini" to have any components that are more expensive than the 10" iPad and have none that are cheaper than the 4" iPod Touch.
If you can't see how a 7.85" 2048x1536 would cost more than 9.7" version, or how a 7.85" 1024x768 display could cost more than a 9.7" version, or how a 326 PPI 1136x640 in-cell full sRGB display could cost less than a 7.85" 1024x768 IPS display without in-cell or full color gamut display then you are choosing to be ignorant as to how technology scales.
What is it about Apple's products that makes people lose their minds and think Apple can do anything? They have to deal with physics, production and sourcing limitations just like everybody else.
Let me through an example I've already used back at you but in a different way before I write you off as a lost cause. Take the logic board in the new iPod Touch. Now make it less compact, less complex, even use some larger and older components whose only real benefit was space savings and put in a board 2x the size for larger device. According to you that board should be 2x the cost. You seriously don't see fucked up your logic is? Take a look at Intel's SFF chips.
Why does Apple need to sell for $199? The 'iPad' brand is extremely powerful. I think they could absolutely get away with selling for $249 or $299 just by virtue of the word "iPad on it".
As it is, the iPad is outselling those at its current price point.