Yield issues - give me a break, if this was the case delivery of the current iPad would be a huge problem. Not to mention iPhone and hundreds of other products running high resolution displays. The only possibility here is that they intend pond to adopt a completely new technology which is possible. But let's think about this what is traditional around that time of year. That's right it is the time of year new iPods are released since tablets are effective replacing iPods for many consumers it would not be a surprise at all to see them adopting the iPods release schedule.
I suspect the article is totally bogus in this respect.
As to a lower cost iPad Mini, it should be pretty obvious that this is a goal at Apple. The mini effectively guards the low end of the tablet line up. However people are foolish to think that this means lower quality. Here is the stark reality, very high volumes like is seen with the iPad Mini implies serious opportunity for automation. Even in China automation is an important element in high volume production. So I can see a Mini that has been designed optimized for automation coming soon. Such a Mini cold end up being much cheaper to produce at very high volumes while retaining or even bettering today's quality. Of course I don't see this analyst expounding upon the type of insight just offered but I can see a Mini coming in at a lower cost in the future.
Yield issues - give me a break, if this was the case delivery of the current iPad would be a huge problem.
Why would you compare the iPad and iPad mini display? Why does the 9.7" 264 PPI display yield rates mean that 7.85" 326 PPI display yield rates aren't any more difficult? How many iPads are they selling compared to iPad minis? More importantly, how many iPad minis do they expect to be selling once it goes Retina? Did you consider that the iPhone and iPod Touch use those same panels, with at least the iPhone being the clear winner in terms of profit for Apple? IOW, can Apple produce enough yield to meet the presumed Retina iPad mini demands while still being able to meet the iPod Touch and iPhone yields thereby not causing a subsequent decrease in revenue, profits and profit margins by marginalizing the iPhone's sales by putting 4.3x the panel size in the low-cost iPad mini?
In some situations saturation is not that useful But in the moving phone environment its more often than not the best option.
Can you please explain? Please note that no one is complaining about proper saturation, but exaggerated saturation. Outside if direct sunlight, I really don't see it being helpful, and I don't think it's worth making a fixed setting for direct sunlight at the expense of color quality in every other use.
Obviously the A5X has sufficient horsepower to drive a retina screen because it does so in the iPad 3.
It is probable that the A6 has enough GPU horsepower if you increase the memory bandwidth leading to a cheaper and lower power chip than the A6X.
It is even more probable that a A6X with 2 cores rather than 4 (i.e. the SGX 554MP2) has sufficient horsepower since this is more or less equivalent to the older A5X 543MP4 leading to a cheaper and lower power chip than the A6X in the iPad 4.
Finally the current iPad mini has headroom lasting 13 hours in some tests. That means dropping down to 9.8 hours like on the iPad 2 requires adding less battery weight all else being equal vs the iPad 2 to iPad 3 jump even if they go with just the A5X with a die shrink. http://www.tuaw.com/2012/12/05/ipad-ipad-mini-win-battery-life-shootout-among-tablets/ It's a smaller panel with a die shrink on the A5X.
The problem with the above non sense is that we are at a stage right now where each new rev to an iPad needs to be a significant performance bump over the previous generation. We really don't need an iPad Mini that performs like last years iPad. Or worst the year before.
So my prediction, same as before, is that there will be a retina iPad Mini in 2013. Given the 28nm A5 from TSMC in the aTV I'm going to bet it will be a 28nm A5X from TSMC and a iPhone 4/4S grade 326 ppi panel to maintain the current price point (unless the iPhone 5 panel pricing has dropped more than I think). The current mini will drop to a new lower price point.
Except for the fact that the general consensus is that the aTV processor is a 32 nm Samsung device.
ASPs and margin on the full sized iPad is much better so the iPad mini will likely remain one step behind the iPad to help upsell. They wont want to drop the ASPs very much either to compete on volume so I expect the current 16GB WiFi mini to drop to $299 to hit that mental breakpoint and live where the iPad 2 does in relation to the iPad 4.
I don't buy the one step behind mentality. IPad Minis size implies it is the best platform to introduce process shrinks on. Further on the full size iPad it is the power for the display that cause the most significant power drain. Going to retina on the Mini would have a similar impact unless new technology is used.
As to pricing I would agree Apple will try to lower pricing and likely is to do so through automation. It won't be a huge drop in price because the Mini is still fairly bleeding edge. Apple though knows that they have to be aggressive in this market and has already said they don't intend to make the mistakes they made in the past. So I can see them trying to hit the $299 intro point too.
Why would you compare the iPad and iPad mini display? Why does the 9.7" 264 PPI display yield rates mean that 7.85" 326 PPI display yield rates aren't any more difficult? How many iPads are they selling compared to iPad minis? More importantly, how many iPad minis do they expect to be selling once it goes Retina? Did you consider that the iPhone and iPod Touch use those same panels, with at least the iPhone being the clear winner in terms of profit for Apple? IOW, can Apple produce enough yield to meet the presumed Retina iPad mini demands while still being able to meet the iPod Touch and iPhone yields thereby not causing a subsequent decrease in revenue, profits and profit margins by marginalizing the iPhone's sales by putting 4.3x the panel size in the low-cost iPad mini?
Never mind that the bigger iPad also costs $170 more. The same PPI of a Retina iPhone with what, 4x the screen area?
Volumes of Google's Nexus 10 device doesn't compare to iPad's volumes.
Why would you compare the iPad and iPad mini display? Why does the 9.7" 264 PPI display yield rates mean that 7.85" 326 PPI display yield rates aren't any more difficult?
First off we don't know what the actual density would be on an iPad Mini. Second the various devices on the market, from the iPhone on up to a retina MBP demonstrate that high resolution screens aren't an issue anymore. Mainstream no but producible at high volumes yes. The only way that I could see yields being a problem is if they where about to enlist new technology that isn't currently in mass production.
How many iPads are they selling compared to iPad minis? More importantly, how many iPad minis do they expect to be selling once it goes Retina?
That is actually a good question, I'm not sure if that information is publicly available however I wouldn't use current numbers to forecast future demands. The Mini is simply too new new have stable sales figures.
Did you consider that the iPhone and iPod Touch use those same panels, with at least the iPhone being the clear winner in terms of profit for Apple? IOW, can Apple produce enough yield to meet the presumed Retina iPad mini demands while still being able to meet the iPod Touch and iPhone yields thereby not causing a subsequent decrease in revenue, profits and profit margins by marginalizing the iPhone's sales by putting 4.3x the panel size in the low-cost iPad mini?
In the industry I'm in when demand goes up you build another production line. Yields can of course impact that need for more manufacturing capacity but sometimes the demand has to be satisfied no matter what if you want to maintain market share. Since demand for all products are increasing there is a need for Apple and its contractors to rise to the challenge. In simple terms yields are not an excuse in this industry, you either stay ahead if the ball game of fall rapidly behind.
Never mind that the bigger iPad also costs $170 more. The same PPI of a Retina iPhone with what, 4x the screen area?
That extra $170 isn't simply due to the screen on the large iPad. Even if the LCD is the single most expensive element in either device, it is still a small portion of the overall devices price foot print.
Volumes of Google's Nexus 10 device doesn't compare to iPad's volumes.
Maybe, maybe not but it is a high volume device.
Yields obviously impact the cost of a device significantly. All I'm saying is that there are plenty of high resolution screens shipping today, in low cost devices, that one can make a rational deduction that yields aren't a problem today.
Now if one was to discuss the possibility that Apple is going beyond the state of the art today that would be another thing altogether.
In any event I look at it this way we ave a rumor that supposedly suggests that screen yields are the reason for a delta until October. I'm suggesting that it is a bit of pulling at straws as Apple could simply be aligning new iPad debuts with the timeframe normally associated with iPod releases. It is more rational than jumping to conclusions about screen yields.
[quote name="wizard69" url="/t/157247/yield-issues-to-keep-apple-from-building-retina-ipad-mini-until-october-report/40#post_2318698"] First off we don't know what the actual density would be on an iPad Mini.[/QUOTE]
You think they'd double the density on everything else, including going to the trouble of using the same resolution as the iPad 2 and PPI of the iPhone 3GS just to muck it all up for the Retina iPad mini by not doubling to 326?
[QUOTE]Second the various devices on the market, from the iPhone on up to a retina MBP demonstrate that high resolution screens aren't an issue anymore.[/QUOTE]
The yields of the MBP are much, much lower than iDevices. They also command a much higher price tag and not budget devices.
[QUOTE]The only way that I could see yields being a problem is if they where about to enlist new technology that isn't currently in mass production. [/QUOTE]
Again, consider what I wrote, especially the last line. If you have an argument that shows how Apple was wrong to introduce the 163 PPI iPad mini when they could have gone with an entirely different panel density so that it wouldn't overlap with the iPhone and iPod Touch when they wanted to go Retina then by all means state it, but so far I see no valid argument as to why Apple wouldn't do a 2x scaling for the iPad mini after the iPod Touch, iPhone, IPad, and MBPs have have all gotten them.
Personally, I think Apple planned for this eventuality and think that many things are lining up properly to give up a Retina iPad mini this year, albeit not with the same SoC stepping they did with the 10" iPad, but that's not assertion of what will happen and isn't in any way ignoring the multiple factors that have already been stated regarding costs and yield variables.
In the industry I'm in when demand goes up you build another production line.
I think Apple does just that. They prepay enough for product so the manufacturer can build more production facilities. They've done such several times for displays and flash chips.
Apple's over all Tablet share is falling despite the increase in sales because of the mini - there is your reason.
If I were modding this site I would ban attacks on analysts. Most of these guys have buys on Apple, none have sells and only one analyst is a hold, as far as I can see. Some of them have guesses on Apple's future lineup, and most are informed guesses.
And this is a rumor site. I really don't get the opposition to either rumors, or the opposition to Apple expanding it's line out. It makes no sense, and Apple would want to expand it's market of course.
Apple share is allegedly falling because the market is allegedly expanding faster than Apple can make iPads. Again only Apple releases numbers. Amazon says millions and WS laps it up.
The problem with the above non sense is that we are at a stage right now where each new rev to an iPad needs to be a significant performance bump over the previous generation. We really don't need an iPad Mini that performs like last years iPad. Or worst the year before.
It'll be retina which is better than the current mini. Just like the 3 was better than the 2.
Quote:
Except for the fact that the general consensus is that the aTV processor is a 32 nm Samsung device.
Yep, my bad.
Quote:
I don't buy the one step behind mentality. IPad Minis size implies it is the best platform to introduce process shrinks on. Further on the full size iPad it is the power for the display that cause the most significant power drain. Going to retina on the Mini would have a similar impact unless new technology is used.
Higher volume, lower ASP, lower margin. If it has a process shrink it'll be a tested design to reduce risks just like in Intel's tick tock strategy.
My point is, if Apple could put a Retina display in the iPod Touch, with its tiny 4" screen, then it should be incredibly easy to put one in the iPad Mini and Macbook Air.
It's kind of odd that the bigger iPad and the tiny iPod Touch have Retina displays, but their medium-size mobile devices still use normal screens.
Can you please explain? Please note that no one is complaining about proper saturation, but exaggerated saturation. Outside if direct sunlight, I really don't see it being helpful, and I don't think it's worth making a fixed setting for direct sunlight at the expense of color quality in every other use.
Who gives a stuff about colour quality when you have to squint to see perfection? And it is quite amazing with TV, how so many prefer a more saturated setting.
My point is, if Apple could put a Retina display in the iPod Touch, with its tiny 4" screen, then it should be incredibly easy to put one in the iPad Mini and Macbook Air.
Why, does the iPad mini have a 4" screen? Does the MacBook Air have a 4" screen?
Who gives a stuff about colour quality when you have to squint to see perfection?
I dunno. Maybe they're doing it wrong? I can see it being beneficial only in sunlight, the only place I see squinting as a necessary option. Why screw up every other setting for just one category of use? If it automatically switched to a sunlight mode, then that would be OK.
And it is quite amazing with TV, how so many prefer a more saturated setting.
Yes, and they also prefer 4:3 video stretched so the moon looks like an egg and everything looks stupid. It's saying something is better because it's more screwed up to customer preferences.
The "Product not coming until date X, because of yield issues", is the standard BS line from analysts who predicted some early date for a product release.
You know like all those who jumped to the silly conclusion that Apple was moving to a 6 month update schedule on iPads after the one time event last fall, needed to sync products.
The new iPads aren't coming till late Summer/Fall because that was the intention all along.
Apple dropping in a a cheapo $200 tablet to hold off competition is from the same crack pipe that brought you 6 month product schedule for iPads. It isn't happening.
Once we get iPad Mini 2's, Mini 1's might continue at some price starting with "2", but I am betting it will still be high, like $279-$299.
The "Product not coming until date X, because of yield issues", is the standard BS line from analysts who predicted some early date for a product release.
You know like all those who jumped to the silly conclusion that Apple was moving to a 6 month update schedule on iPads after the one time event last fall, needed to sync products.
The new iPads aren't coming till late Summer/Fall because that was the intention all along.
Apple dropping in a a cheapo $200 tablet to hold off competition is from the same crack pipe that brought you 6 month product schedule for iPads. It isn't happening.
Once we get iPad Mini 2's, Mini 1's might continue at some price starting with "2", but I am betting it will still be high, like $279-$299.
There was a 6 month cycle last year. No reason not to do it this year except shortages.
Comments
I suspect the article is totally bogus in this respect.
As to a lower cost iPad Mini, it should be pretty obvious that this is a goal at Apple. The mini effectively guards the low end of the tablet line up. However people are foolish to think that this means lower quality. Here is the stark reality, very high volumes like is seen with the iPad Mini implies serious opportunity for automation. Even in China automation is an important element in high volume production. So I can see a Mini that has been designed optimized for automation coming soon. Such a Mini cold end up being much cheaper to produce at very high volumes while retaining or even bettering today's quality. Of course I don't see this analyst expounding upon the type of insight just offered but I can see a Mini coming in at a lower cost in the future.
Why would you compare the iPad and iPad mini display? Why does the 9.7" 264 PPI display yield rates mean that 7.85" 326 PPI display yield rates aren't any more difficult? How many iPads are they selling compared to iPad minis? More importantly, how many iPad minis do they expect to be selling once it goes Retina? Did you consider that the iPhone and iPod Touch use those same panels, with at least the iPhone being the clear winner in terms of profit for Apple? IOW, can Apple produce enough yield to meet the presumed Retina iPad mini demands while still being able to meet the iPod Touch and iPhone yields thereby not causing a subsequent decrease in revenue, profits and profit margins by marginalizing the iPhone's sales by putting 4.3x the panel size in the low-cost iPad mini?
Can you please explain? Please note that no one is complaining about proper saturation, but exaggerated saturation. Outside if direct sunlight, I really don't see it being helpful, and I don't think it's worth making a fixed setting for direct sunlight at the expense of color quality in every other use.
As to pricing I would agree Apple will try to lower pricing and likely is to do so through automation. It won't be a huge drop in price because the Mini is still fairly bleeding edge. Apple though knows that they have to be aggressive in this market and has already said they don't intend to make the mistakes they made in the past. So I can see them trying to hit the $299 intro point too.
Never mind that the bigger iPad also costs $170 more. The same PPI of a Retina iPhone with what, 4x the screen area?
Volumes of Google's Nexus 10 device doesn't compare to iPad's volumes.
In the industry I'm in when demand goes up you build another production line. Yields can of course impact that need for more manufacturing capacity but sometimes the demand has to be satisfied no matter what if you want to maintain market share. Since demand for all products are increasing there is a need for Apple and its contractors to rise to the challenge. In simple terms yields are not an excuse in this industry, you either stay ahead if the ball game of fall rapidly behind.
Maybe, maybe not but it is a high volume device.
Yields obviously impact the cost of a device significantly. All I'm saying is that there are plenty of high resolution screens shipping today, in low cost devices, that one can make a rational deduction that yields aren't a problem today.
Now if one was to discuss the possibility that Apple is going beyond the state of the art today that would be another thing altogether.
In any event I look at it this way we ave a rumor that supposedly suggests that screen yields are the reason for a delta until October. I'm suggesting that it is a bit of pulling at straws as Apple could simply be aligning new iPad debuts with the timeframe normally associated with iPod releases. It is more rational than jumping to conclusions about screen yields.
First off we don't know what the actual density would be on an iPad Mini.[/QUOTE]
You think they'd double the density on everything else, including going to the trouble of using the same resolution as the iPad 2 and PPI of the iPhone 3GS just to muck it all up for the Retina iPad mini by not doubling to 326?
[QUOTE]Second the various devices on the market, from the iPhone on up to a retina MBP demonstrate that high resolution screens aren't an issue anymore.[/QUOTE]
The yields of the MBP are much, much lower than iDevices. They also command a much higher price tag and not budget devices.
[QUOTE]The only way that I could see yields being a problem is if they where about to enlist new technology that isn't currently in mass production. [/QUOTE]
Again, consider what I wrote, especially the last line. If you have an argument that shows how Apple was wrong to introduce the 163 PPI iPad mini when they could have gone with an entirely different panel density so that it wouldn't overlap with the iPhone and iPod Touch when they wanted to go Retina then by all means state it, but so far I see no valid argument as to why Apple wouldn't do a 2x scaling for the iPad mini after the iPod Touch, iPhone, IPad, and MBPs have have all gotten them.
Personally, I think Apple planned for this eventuality and think that many things are lining up properly to give up a Retina iPad mini this year, albeit not with the same SoC stepping they did with the 10" iPad, but that's not assertion of what will happen and isn't in any way ignoring the multiple factors that have already been stated regarding costs and yield variables.
I think Apple does just that. They prepay enough for product so the manufacturer can build more production facilities. They've done such several times for displays and flash chips.
Apple share is allegedly falling because the market is allegedly expanding faster than Apple can make iPads. Again only Apple releases numbers. Amazon says millions and WS laps it up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wizard69
The problem with the above non sense is that we are at a stage right now where each new rev to an iPad needs to be a significant performance bump over the previous generation. We really don't need an iPad Mini that performs like last years iPad. Or worst the year before.
It'll be retina which is better than the current mini. Just like the 3 was better than the 2.
Quote:
Except for the fact that the general consensus is that the aTV processor is a 32 nm Samsung device.
Yep, my bad.
Quote:
I don't buy the one step behind mentality. IPad Minis size implies it is the best platform to introduce process shrinks on. Further on the full size iPad it is the power for the display that cause the most significant power drain. Going to retina on the Mini would have a similar impact unless new technology is used.
Higher volume, lower ASP, lower margin. If it has a process shrink it'll be a tested design to reduce risks just like in Intel's tick tock strategy.
My point is, if Apple could put a Retina display in the iPod Touch, with its tiny 4" screen, then it should be incredibly easy to put one in the iPad Mini and Macbook Air.
It's kind of odd that the bigger iPad and the tiny iPod Touch have Retina displays, but their medium-size mobile devices still use normal screens.
Can you please explain? Please note that no one is complaining about proper saturation, but exaggerated saturation. Outside if direct sunlight, I really don't see it being helpful, and I don't think it's worth making a fixed setting for direct sunlight at the expense of color quality in every other use.
Who gives a stuff about colour quality when you have to squint to see perfection?And it is quite amazing with TV, how so many prefer a more saturated setting.
Originally Posted by ndoboy1984
My point is, if Apple could put a Retina display in the iPod Touch, with its tiny 4" screen, then it should be incredibly easy to put one in the iPad Mini and Macbook Air.
Why, does the iPad mini have a 4" screen? Does the MacBook Air have a 4" screen?
Why would you make that assumption?
Why did you make another account?
I dunno. Maybe they're doing it wrong? I can see it being beneficial only in sunlight, the only place I see squinting as a necessary option. Why screw up every other setting for just one category of use? If it automatically switched to a sunlight mode, then that would be OK.
Yes, and they also prefer 4:3 video stretched so the moon looks like an egg and everything looks stupid. It's saying something is better because it's more screwed up to customer preferences.
The "Product not coming until date X, because of yield issues", is the standard BS line from analysts who predicted some early date for a product release.
You know like all those who jumped to the silly conclusion that Apple was moving to a 6 month update schedule on iPads after the one time event last fall, needed to sync products.
The new iPads aren't coming till late Summer/Fall because that was the intention all along.
Apple dropping in a a cheapo $200 tablet to hold off competition is from the same crack pipe that brought you 6 month product schedule for iPads. It isn't happening.
Once we get iPad Mini 2's, Mini 1's might continue at some price starting with "2", but I am betting it will still be high, like $279-$299.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65
The "Product not coming until date X, because of yield issues", is the standard BS line from analysts who predicted some early date for a product release.
You know like all those who jumped to the silly conclusion that Apple was moving to a 6 month update schedule on iPads after the one time event last fall, needed to sync products.
The new iPads aren't coming till late Summer/Fall because that was the intention all along.
Apple dropping in a a cheapo $200 tablet to hold off competition is from the same crack pipe that brought you 6 month product schedule for iPads. It isn't happening.
Once we get iPad Mini 2's, Mini 1's might continue at some price starting with "2", but I am betting it will still be high, like $279-$299.
There was a 6 month cycle last year. No reason not to do it this year except shortages.
Originally Posted by asdasd
There was a 6 month cycle last year.
Did you miss his bit about silly conclusions?
No reason not to do it this year except shortages.
And lack of point?