All iPads: Apple's expensive iPad Mini mistake

[theautopilot]

Originally Posted by blergh!

...because up until now they have shown innovation, cutting-edge performance and specs.

This time it's a fail though.

Could I borrow your crystal ball please? Need to choose my lottery numbers.

That is assuming it works. I'm doubtful it does, because you can't even analyse the recent past history correctly, let alone the future. Right now what is truely 'fail' is your understanding of why people buy Apple products in the first place.

[Gala]

First generations are always higher priced than they could be. It's just more apparent now because there is competition out there now. iPod, iPad, iPhone were the first of its kind but they were all priced high for 1st gen internals.

No one seems to be understanding that over the years these devices have been staying the same price BUT they are upgrading internals and screens. How does that work? It's simple business.

Every 1st gen needs to create a supply chain rather than use the one thats already designed, they need to creativly design the product, etc. All these thing cost a ton of money leading to a higher price. Once the 1st gen paves the way for the future they can start giving us more for the same price.

This price point for the Mini is where they need to be to fit in with the rest of their products and the next gens will be crazy bargains at this price.

[gorkt]

We are in a strange place with tablets in the sense that what you are buying isn't just the device, but a particular ecosystem. Amazon and Google are not in the electronics business to make money off the devices, but off the content. Apple still makes most of it's money from the electronics with iTunes revenue being a minor part of their business. Apple was stuck between a rock and a hard place; making a tablet that fits into their pricing structure and not cheapen the brand, but still be competitive.

This tablet isn't a mistake necessarily, but it is a sign that the competing business model may have some advantages, if it is truly sustainable. I think it remains to be seen whether Amazon and Google can still make money by practically giving away devices.

[Zetaprime]

Originally Posted by Night Spring

Actually, it's easier to make smaller screens. It's not like the iPhone needs to have the same number of dots as the mini squeezed into a 4" space -- that would be insane.

For instance, the iPhone 5 is 1136x640, and iPad 3/4 is 2048x1536. See how the retina iPad has a much larger number of dots than the iPhone? But when we look at dpi, the iPhone is 326 dpi, while the iPad has 264 dpi. That is, the total number of dots isn't directly related to pixel density.

Anyway, what you'd need to do to make a "retina" iPad mini would be, for instance, to make a screen double the dimensions of the iPhone, so, 2272x1280. And this is the same dpi as the iPhone 5, so you could make this screen with the same process as doing it for the iPhone. However, you'd need to make sheets with a surface area 4 times that of the iPhone, and with every additional square inch, the chances of getting a defect increases. So trying to make larger screens is harder.

Again, you aren't trying to squeeze 2048x1536 dots into 4 inches, you are trying to take a 4 inch screen with 1136x640 dots (326 ppi), and make a 8 inch screen (well, it won't be 8, it'd be 7.xx, but I don't feel like doing trigonometry to calculate the exact length) with the same 326 dpi.

I still don't see why you can't make a screen with dots that are intermediate in size between those of the iphone and those of the iPad 3. Each screen is held correspondingly closer to your face as the size of the device gets smaller.

[DVK916]

By the very same logic people are using in this thread I can say the IPad 4 is another costly mistake.

The Nexsus 10 will high more PPI and will only be 399 compared to 499 for the IPad.


I hope the people complaining about the A5 know the Tegra 3 in the Nexsus 7 is also old chip from last year. Infact the A5 outperforms the Tegra 3 in the N7 by a long shot.

http://www.anandtech.com/show/6073/t...xus-7-review/5

[FrozenDarkness]

i agree, huge mistake. I wonder if Tim Cook wondered about just how many knowitall fanboys he angered when he releases a hugely profitable product. god i hope he realizes his mistake before apple goes bankrupt.

[Night Spring]

Originally Posted by Zetaprime

I still don't see why you can't make a screen with dots that are intermediate in size between those of the iphone and those of the iPad 3. Each screen is held correspondingly closer to your face as the size of the device gets smaller.

That's because of the way iOS and OS X handles resolution. Anything other than doubling a given resolution ends up with blurry graphics. So all of Apple's retina display products are exactly double the resolution of the corresponding non-retina product.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Night Spring

That's because of the way iOS and OS X handles resolution. Anything other than doubling a given resolution ends up with blurry graphics. So all of Apple's retina display products are exactly double the resolution of the corresponding non-retina product.

That's not true at all for OS X. And it's not really true for iOS.

iOS allows developers to code for specific resolutions/screen size which allows developers to design pixel perfect UIs. Resolution doubling simply makes it easier for them to convert their resources to the new resolution. It also allows Apple to easily display older apps on retina screens by simply displaying four retina pixels for every one non-retina pixel specified in the old UI.

Android apps have to be designed to adapt to multiple screen sizes and resolutions which can lead to the "blurry graphics" that you mentioned as the OS has to interpolate the colors of various pixels.

[Night Spring]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

That's not true at all for OS X. And it's not really true for iOS.

iOS allows developers to code for specific resolutions/screen size which allows developers to design pixel perfect UIs. Resolution doubling simply makes it easier for them to convert their resources to the new resolution. It also allows Apple to easily display older apps on retina screens by simply displaying four retina pixels for every one non-retina pixel specified in the old UI.

Android apps have to be designed to adapt to multiple screen sizes and resolutions which can lead to the "blurry graphics" that you mentioned as the OS has to interpolate the colors of various pixels.

Ok, thanks for the clarification. The fact still remains that all of Apple's retina products so far is double the resolution of their non-retina counterparts, and it's unlikely that they will deviate from this pattern.

[racer1441]

Yeah, they sold 3 million ipads this weekend.

I'm sure they are regretting their decision.


Let's put that in perspective. Assume $329 for the iPad (I know many models are more expensive). They build them for about $190. That's a $139 dollar profit.

So, in one weekend, Apple made $417,000,000 dollars, minimum.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by Night Spring

Ok, thanks for the clarification. The fact still remains that all of Apple's retina products so far is double the resolution of their non-retina counterparts, and it's unlikely that they will deviate from this pattern.

They deviated with the iPhone 5.

[Night Spring]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

They deviated with the iPhone 5.

Well, that is the exception that demonstrates the problem, because now apps have to be updated to support the new iPhone 5 resolution.

[macbook123]

Originally Posted by BaldiMac

They deviated with the iPhone 5.

Yeah, it's stupid that the argument your responded to is still being made.

Optimally they'd have built a Mini with somewhat more pixels in each dimension (say 50%) instead of four times more, to make it more manageable GPU and battery wise.

[BaldiMac]

Originally Posted by macbook123

Yeah, it's stupid that the argument your responded to is still being made.

Optimally they'd have built a Mini with somewhat more pixels in each dimension (say 50%) instead of four times more, to make it more manageable GPU and battery wise.

It's not a stupid argument at all. Obviously, Apple sees significant value in pixel doubling rather than other possible resolutions. The exception with the iPhone 5 was about a change in aspect ratio, not an increase is pixel density.

[theautopilot]

Originally Posted by racer1441

Yeah, they sold 3 million ipads this weekend.

I'm sure they are regretting their decision.


Let's put that in perspective. Assume $329 for the iPad (I know many models are more expensive). They build them for about $190. That's a $139 dollar profit.

So, in one weekend, Apple made $417,000,000 dollars, minimum.

Wow, Apple must be gutted.

OP you were right all along (assuming you are still hanging around )

[poloponies]

Originally Posted by racer1441

Yeah, they sold 3 million ipads this weekend.

I'm sure they are regretting their decision.


Let's put that in perspective. Assume $329 for the iPad (I know many models are more expensive). They build them for about $190. That's a $139 dollar profit.

So, in one weekend, Apple made $417,000,000 dollars, minimum.

That's not how you determine profit.

[ZBoater]

Originally Posted by poloponies

That's not how you determine profit.

Gross profit, maybe, but not net profit or "real" profit. Still, $400 million pays for a lot of R&D and overhead....

[Fry-man22]

Originally Posted by blergh!

What would it have taken to launch a 32gb ipad mini with gps and cellular for under $300??

I'm telling you, the minis might be flying off the shelves right now but watch the long-term effect of their pricing.

If BMW were to price the 3 series with a turbo straight six, color HUD, and all that BMW-ness they put into their cars at $15K; then the Ford Fusion, Nissan Altima, and Toyota Camry would fade into obscurity. The fact that they didn't doesn't seem to hurt them right now, but just you wait, one of these days watch the long term effect of their pricing...

In case you can't read the sarcasm dripping of that let me be clear - the price will become an issue if people don't feel like they're getting the premium product and you still want to charge for it. Until then your post is just like complaining that you can't get a Rolex for the same price as a Seiko. I mean they both just tell the time, why charge so much more for them - it's not like they feel completely different or anything... I could go all day with examples like this.

Another thing, the Nexus is sold at cost and they make their money on content, so basically now we're talking about a car they give away for free as long as you buy the gas. Yet, still you question why Apple doesn't match that? I think the real question is how do you think you have anything intelligent to offer Apple in regards to their strategy. They made 100 billion dollars without our help, I have a feeling they know more than we do about this sort of thing.

One last point - Apple can DROP the price of the Mini if they so choose, but it would be pretty tricky to go back a RAISE the price retroactively to get that $150 per unit they missed on the 3 million they sold last weekend. That's $450 MILLION dollars they got last weekend alone by not following your advice.

[poloponies]

Originally Posted by ZBoater

Gross profit, maybe, but not net profit or "real" profit. Still, $400 million pays for a lot of R&D and overhead....

That's not even gross profit. It's strictly a bill of materials. There are a dozen costs that can be added there and that doesn't even consider Apple's selling price to third-party resellers. It's a quick and pithy oversimplification via an approximation of the things that someone can research and put a price to.

[steve dave]

Engadget is totally right. Filling the low end of the market with a bunch of tablets that are sold with little to no profit with the hopes of making it up with content sales will only end up hurting consumers. Google and Amazon are just running every hardware company out of the game since they can't survive by selling products with no profit. They are creating unrealistic expectations about the real cost of hardware so when someone like Apple sells hardware priced to make some money people get all uppity about the cost compared to the loss leaders. It isn't a business model that can survive.

It will also leave Google with no hardware partners left either since they essentially have to compete with themselves. Take the Nexus 4 for example. It is so heavily subsidized by Google that LG is selling it for twice the price in countries without access to the google play store.

[racer1441]

Originally Posted by poloponies

That's not how you determine profit.

Gross in the broad sense. True many other factors come into play, but the point is that they made more money in 3 days than we'll all ever see.

It's an illustration, not an economics lesson.

[poloponies]

Originally Posted by racer1441

Gross in the broad sense. True many other factors come into play, but the point is that they made more money in 3 days than we'll all ever see.

So does your local grocery - your point makes little sense with either example.

[Zimmy68]

It's brilliant.

Release the mini at a cost that people will expect going forward.

Let the sheep and early adopters buy up all their old hardware parts (ipad 2 screens).

Then they will release a retina mini next year and everyone will buy again.

[FrozenDarkness]

Originally Posted by Zimmy68

It's brilliant.

Release the mini at a cost that people will expect going forward.

Let the sheep and early adopters buy up all their old hardware parts (ipad 2 screens).

Then they will release a retina mini next year and everyone will buy again.

I sincerely hope youre kidding

[Phil A.]

Originally Posted by Zimmy68

It's brilliant.
.

Let the sheep and early adopters buy up all their old hardware parts (ipad 2 screens).

So, how did Apple resize all those 9.7" screens to 7.9"?

I've read some crazy comments about the Mini, but this one might be the craziest yet!