Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
I also don't think it'll be a game changer. I have a Blackberry Playbook 7" tablet and with that tiny screen it's painful to use. I always seek refuge back to the 10" iPad.

Maybe the .85 will make a difference. Thats almost an extra inch, border lining 8 inches. Maybe apple figured out thats the sweet spot, big enough for viewing and yet small enough for portability.
 
It would sell like crazy. Anyone that ever wanted an iPad and couldn't afford it now can. Anyone that was going to buy a Kindle/Nexus 7/Galaxy 2 7" or other Android tablet simply because it was cheap can now get an iPad. Schools will be able to buy several units for what the cost of a single 10" iPad would cost. If it's real this is going to explode Apple's share of the tablet market to astronomical proportions.
 
The iPad is the perfect size now. The nexus 7 is just hype right now Because it coming from google nothing more.
 
The iPad is the perfect size now. The nexus 7 is just hype right now Because it coming from google nothing more.

If future iPads have screens a little smaller or a little larger than the current size, will they be the perfect size also then?
 
From a business standpoint Apple would have to price it higher than $250 to take in the same profit as a 9.7 inch model. Apple is already making $200 plus in profit on each iPad 3 sold. You gain market share but you lose profits. Is Apple willing to take in less profit and damage the need for a 9.7 inch model? And to a small degree it might hurt iPhone sales because now a 7 incher is more portable to carry.
Anyway you look at it a cheaper 7 inch model will hurt Apple. They need to keep making the 9.7 inch model better to justify the $500 starting point.
 
From a business standpoint Apple would have to price it higher than $250 to take in the same profit as a 9.7 inch model. Apple is already making $200 plus in profit on each iPad 3 sold. You gain market share but you lose profits. Is Apple willing to take in less profit and damage the need for a 9.7 inch model? And to a small degree it might hurt iPhone sales because now a 7 incher is more portable to carry.
Anyway you look at it a cheaper 7 inch model will hurt Apple. They need to keep making the 9.7 inch model better to justify the $500 starting point.

Unless they are stupid then YES, they need to take less profit now for the longer term.

Do they really want a repeat of the Apple/IBM PC computer wars?

The most important thing above all else is your customer base, if that means less profits to get that customer base then do it.

Ok, you may lose $100 profit on every unit now, but those are then Apple customers, many of which will start to buy apps, investing time in the Apple ecosystem and perhaps go on to buy more Apple products in the future.

Ignore them, and let the masses buy something else, invest in something else, then you will have a dam harder job keeping them on your side for decades to come.
 
From a business standpoint Apple would have to price it higher than $250 to take in the same profit as a 9.7 inch model. Apple is already making $200 plus in profit on each iPad 3 sold. You gain market share but you lose profits. Is Apple willing to take in less profit and damage the need for a 9.7 inch model? And to a small degree it might hurt iPhone sales because now a 7 incher is more portable to carry.
Anyway you look at it a cheaper 7 inch model will hurt Apple. They need to keep making the 9.7 inch model better to justify the $500 starting point.

I don't think it's as simple as this.

Smaller Screens equals

Less power usage which equals less battery needed. In addition to being cheaper to manufacture.

Smaller and more inexpensive iPads mean more impact in emerging markets where $400 bar of entry to iPads isn't going to fly.

Apple doesn't really have to worry about cannibalizing their iPads. The iOS ecosystem nets them 30% revenue so there's a financial incentive to keep people buying apps and making the overall market larger.
 
I don't think it's as simple as this.

Smaller Screens equals

Less power usage which equals less battery needed. In addition to being cheaper to manufacture.

Smaller and more inexpensive iPads mean more impact in emerging markets where $400 bar of entry to iPads isn't going to fly.

Apple doesn't really have to worry about cannibalizing their iPads. The iOS ecosystem nets them 30% revenue so there's a financial incentive to keep people buying apps and making the overall market larger.

Look at it from the mathematical perspective: volume is a cubic function, so dropping the size of the device in all 3 dimensions results in a significantly smaller internal volume. You still need to engineer the device to squeeze everything into an appreciably smaller volume. The screen is smaller and needs less battery, but the volume is reduced so you can only squeeze so much battery inside. The task is to fit everything that's in the normal iPad into a smaller cube and still maintain the desired level of user experience. This is not a "well just do it the same, but smaller" exercise. All that re-engineering is very costly because you're starting from scratch. And bear in mind, getting everything to fit inside the current iPad was no cakewalk either.

As I, and smarter minds elsewhere, have noted your best hope for a cost savings is about $60-$65 in BOM/manufacturing costs.

The "getting people to buy more from the iTunes/App store" is a non-starter. Apple doesn't net 30%; that's a gross figure. They don't keep it. It costs money to serve, vet, organize and present that data. They don't post profits from their content sales but it's likely under 10%. And they sold less music/video/books/apps from their online stores in all of 2011 then they sold in iPads alone just last quarter ($6bn plus in iPad sales vs. about $6bn in combined sales of content all year). 30% of the iPad sales (nearly $2bn) is profit. So before Apple decides to offer a lower-priced, lower-profit smaller iPad it needs to clearly evaluate how it will eat into their existing iPad sales structure.

Bit getting people to buy more content is not a great business plan - perhaps it works for Amazon (where every new penny earned is a new penny to the company), but not Apple.
 
As I, and smarter minds elsewhere, have noted your best hope for a cost savings is about $60-$65 in BOM/manufacturing costs.


Bit getting people to buy more content is not a great business plan - perhaps it works for Amazon (where every new penny earned is a new penny to the company), but not Apple.

If a consumer goes Android then it's simply logic 10% of nothing = $0

Tim Cook said:
I think that iPad has cannibalized some Mac sales. And the way that we always view cannibalization is, we prefer we do it than have somebody else do it. And so we never want to hold back one of our teams from building the absolute greatest thing, even if it takes some sales from another product area. Our high-order bit is, we want to please customers, we'd like them buying Apple stuff.

Tim Cook interview Goldman Sachs
 
There's no way this thing will be $250 while the 10" iPad is $500. It's not half the product of a 10".

Apple is a genius at putting us in a pricing/feature dilemma over which model to get for the past decade. There's always a significant trade off for a cheaper model. I'm pretty sure the iPad Mini will do the same.

The 10" iPad is $400 not $500. $250 may be a little low but $300 should work.
 
It would sell like crazy. Anyone that ever wanted an iPad and couldn't afford it now can. Anyone that was going to buy a Kindle/Nexus 7/Galaxy 2 7" or other Android tablet simply because it was cheap can now get an iPad. Schools will be able to buy several units for what the cost of a single 10" iPad would cost. If it's real this is going to explode Apple's share of the tablet market to astronomical proportions.

Well I seriously doubt it. It will not be in the same league as the current retina iPad. It can't. Otherwise the price point would be closer to the iPad now. It won't have retina display and it won't have the "beefiness" of the current version. Sure, it will appeal to a lot of people - no doubt. But it will not be a replacement for the iPad 3. Not even close, my friend.
 
Well I seriously doubt it. It will not be in the same league as the current retina iPad. It can't. Otherwise the price point would be closer to the iPad now. It won't have retina display and it won't have the "beefiness" of the current version. Sure, it will appeal to a lot of people - no doubt. But it will not be a replacement for the iPad 3. Not even close, my friend.

I don't see it being a replacement for the 10" iPad. Rather it will capture many sales that would normally go to the multitude of 7" Android tablets that are on the market.

Think about it. An average consumer walks into a store and has an Android tablet (mostly 7") or an iPad (potentially 8") to choose from at the same price point. I'm confident the iPad gets chosen 9 out of 10 times.
 
You guys know nothing about market segmentation. Yes, it will steal some 9.7 sales but overall they will sell more units with two options vs. one.

That's my guess. The overall market will increase. Moreover, all of these people will be using iOS and the app store.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.