Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Bloomberg: iPad Mini Coming in October [Updated]

Kevin777 said:
You presume that 7" iPad Mini sales would come at the expense of 10" iPad sales. It's doubtful that will be the case. Most people who have parted with $500+ for an iPad have already done so. The "New" iPad (i.e. iPad 3) wasn't a big enough shaker to everyone dump their iPad 2's, but even still, people that want a 10" iPad will continue to buy the latest 10" version as it gets even better.

Try this with your numbers: Apple makes $10M still selling 20M 10" iPad's AND it makes another $3M selling 60M 7" iPads, AND Apple now has 60M additional people (well, probably some already had a 10" iPad) in the Apple ecosystem that it didn't have before, spending cash like there's no tomorrow.

Can't race at Indy if you don't have an Indy race car; Can't compete for the 7" tablet market if you don't make a 7" tablet device...

Apple has to choose: either it wants to capture the 7" market, or it wants Google & Amazon to enjoy every dollar of 7" tablet profit to be made.

I'm betting that Apple wants to be in that race, because ultimately, it means more money in the coffers, and not less...And in this race, any money NOT going into your coffers is going to your business enemies, and funding their overall efforts against you. Fight or die.

Can't believe Apple wants to die....too many funerals coming up in the near future (Blackberry, M$ Surface, etc.)...
Click to expand...

Apple wants to maximize profit. If selling both an iPad mini and full size iPad results in maximum profit then they'll do it. Competition will play no part in such a decision because it makes sense all by itself.

Currently there is no profit in making 7" tablets so that suggests Apple would be foolish to enter the ring.

But there's a different kind of elephant in the room now. Today selling mobile devices is all about getting customers into your ecosystem and keeping them there for as long as possible. Amazon and Google have both shown they're willing to lose money on hardware to tie customers to their gardens and keep them out of Apple's.

If Apple believes they may lose a significant number of potential customers for life, they may be willing to act in a way not typical for Apple. They might be willing to accept total profits for iPad + iPad mini that are no higher than just selling the iPad.

I think there is a good reason to believe that Apple will not do that: there's no upgrade pricing for apps. It's incredibly important.

On the desktop you buy applications and learn to use them and when it's time for the next generation you get a big discount to stay on the platform.

In mobile there's a minimal learning curve for most apps and there's no upgrade pricing. When the next generation of app comes out everyone pays full price so there's no incentive to stick with your current platform. Re-buy the apps you actually use, copy over your DRM-free music and move on.

The only thing tying customers to a platform is media that still has copy protection like movies and TV shows and I don't think that's enough to keep people from switching to what they perceive to be a superior mobile platform.

Apple believes they only get and retain customers by continuing to produce the best possible products in each market segment they choose to compete in. If there's an iPad mini coming out it's because the leadership at Apple thinks it's the right thing to do.
 
Kevin777 said:
Most people who have parted with $500+ for an iPad have already done so.

AND Apple now has 60M additional people (well, probably some already had a 10" iPad) in the Apple ecosystem that it didn't have before, spending cash like there's no tomorrow.
Click to expand...

Because people who aren't willing to spend $500 on an iPad are going to suddenly start "spending cash like there's no tomorrow."
 
cdmoore74 said:
This is the scenario Apple wants to avoid. They would get in a price war with their own products. If a $250 mini comes out can you see Apple still selling iPod touches at $200? Or can you see a $500 iPad outselling a cheaper smaller models? Ever wonder why Apple never released a 3G iPod touch but they sell a iPad with 3G/LTE? The answer is that no one is going to buy a $650 dollar phone when they can get a model that's half the cost without the phone. Making calls on smartphones is no longer the primary function.
If a 7 inch model can do exactly the same as a 9.7 inch model at half the cost I'm betting that the 7 inch model will be the top seller. Apple would have to cripple the 7 inch model some way to make people look at the larger model and to recover from lost profits.
Click to expand...

You are missing the point though, Apple will be gaining market share among a group of people who aren't interested in buying an itouch, who wouldn't buy a regular iPad due to it's cost. People who would turn to the Kindle Fire or Nexus 7
as an affordable alternative. Apple would be gaining market share they wouldn't normally get.

There are a lot of families out there with kids who crave tablets, if you have more than one kid even buying refurb iPad 2 gets prohibitively expensive once you factor in tax & some sort of cover / protection for the device. A 7 inch iPad, priced at $250 is something that is much more doable, easier to swallow as a birthday or holiday gift. Apple would be helping parents to be able to yes to iPad, bringing in yet another generation of consumers to their Eco-system.

The market still remains for the 9.7 inch iPad.. Except now we'd see situations where mom & dad have them & the kids carry the mini.. Whereas before Mom & dad had iPads & the kids just borrowed theirs.
 
crs.one said:
Just because companies make 7" tablets doesn't mean there is a market for 7" tablets. The Fire has been the best one and its performance has been underwhelming. While its very dramatic, apple is far from dying, and not having a 7" tablet won't be the nail in the coffin
Click to expand...

The Kindle Fire is underwhelming (no camera, etc.) because it was designed to keep the production cost down, not because it is a 7" tablet. Having a 7" form factor is not the problem with the Kindle Fire. It's OS was undercooked in the rush to production, and it's hardware specs had to sacrifice somewhere. But for $199? Depending on what you want to do with it?...it's not bad...

And I'm sure that about three years or so ago, some pundit was quipping "Just because Apple makes a 10" tablet, doesn't mean that there is a market for a 10" tablet. Look how tablets have done to date. Oh, no, my friend, these iPad-things will be gone in a year's time, maybe less..A passing fancy at best."

There is a market for the 7" tablet. It's just a question of what will dominate it: Apple or Google...
 
I hope this is true that way I can purchase two of them for my children so they can stop using mine and I think it would be great for their small hands bigger than the iPod so they can see better but not too large for easier handling.
 
AbyssImpact said:
No, because the current iPad is a tablet at 10 inches.

A 7 inch one would basically be a big iPod Touch. Since an iPod Touch is like 3 inches, that is closer to 7 than 10. If you do not agree, please consult to your local calculator.

10-3=7
7-3=4

There you go. I hope you learned something today. I hope you now know subtraction and do not have to use a calculator anymore for this process.

Your welcome. :cool:
Click to expand...

Wow, innumerate as well as illiterate. That's quite an accomplishment.

A 7" iPad is 3" smaller than a 10" iPad, and 4" larger than a 3" iPod. It is clearly closer to the iPad in size, quite apart from the fact that it is 70% of the size of a 10" iPad, while an iPod is only 43% of the size of a 7" iPad.

And it's 'You're welcome' not 'Your welcome'.

----------
AustinIllini said:
You're measuring by length. You should be measuring by area. Maintaining a relatively constant aspect ratio.

iPad 10 in x 7 in = 70 sq in
Mini iPad 7 in x 5 in = 35 sq in
4" i phone 4 in x 3 in = 12 sq in

Areas get larger by a larger ratio as they grow. The iPad mini would be closer to a larger iPod Touch.
Click to expand...

Ok, and if you want to be pedantic and compare areas, you should still consider the fact that a 7" iPad is 50% of the area of a 10" iPad, while an iPod is only 34% of the area of a 7" iPad, so it's still closer to an iPad than an iPod :p
 
nannyg said:
Given the techno-savvy of many people who post here, the inaccuracies and mis-perception never cease to amaze me.
Click to expand...

I think the main "mis-perception" here is your belief that many of the people posting here are tech savvy. :D

It's pretty obvious most don't understand the underpinnings of tech at all. And there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, unless they are pretending they're something they're not - but in any case it's usually pretty obvious when a fanboy (or anti-fanboy) tries to pretend.
 
After all the numerical pedantry, I personally don't even see the iPod touch as an iPod... just because it plays music, it's no more an iPod than a MacBook is because it plays music too. It's quite simply a tiny iPad, same form factor and functionality, and the suggestion I saw earlier in the thread to rebrand it as an iPad Nano makes perfect sense to me.
 
Kevin777 said:
The Kindle Fire is underwhelming (no camera, etc.) because it was designed to keep the production cost down, not because it is a 7" tablet. Having a 7" form factor is not the problem with the Kindle Fire. It's OS was undercooked in the rush to production, and it's hardware specs had to sacrifice somewhere. But for $199? Depending on what you want to do with it?...it's not bad...

And I'm sure that about three years or so ago, some pundit was quipping "Just because Apple makes a 10" tablet, doesn't mean that there is a market for a 10" tablet. Look how tablets have done to date. Oh, no, my friend, these iPad-things will be gone in a year's time, maybe less..A passing fancy at best."

There is a market for the 7" tablet. It's just a question of what will dominate it: Apple or Google...
Click to expand...

When I say underwhelming, I mean sales. I think the fire is a good product.

When the best product in a segment has underwhelming sales, it's not exactly a segment that companies need to join in order to compete.

The 7" tablet "market" was created by companies playing catch up; to compete on cost, screen size was one of the corners they cut. This is the foundation of the "market" you seem to think apple "needs" to join
 
It's Going to Be An iPod Touch XL, w/ 7.85" Screen

Here is a link that does the best & soundest explanation of why it will be an iPod Touch, scaled up to run iPod Touch and iPhone apps, rather than an iPad "Mini", scaled down to run iPad apps....

Either way, it sounds like it will do what I want it to do, on the 7" screen size that I like best. Time for a new addition to the iPod Touch line anyways. One that can compete in the e-Reader market....:)

http://temes.wordpress.com/2012/04/04/the-difference-between-7-and-7-85-is-everything/
 
I thought Steve Jobs said nobody wants a tablet smaller than 10"....

I actually agree with him, the iPad should go larger, not smaller.

Leave the 7" to the cheap Android tablets and move up to 13" or so, so that a full-size PDF, Zinio magazine, or a business document can be viewed on the screen without zooming and pan-and-scan.
 
mnemonix said:
After all the numerical pedantry, I personally don't even see the iPod touch as an iPod... just because it plays music, it's no more an iPod than a MacBook is because it plays music too. It's quite simply a tiny iPad, same form factor and functionality, and the suggestion I saw earlier in the thread to rebrand it as an iPad Nano makes perfect sense to me.
Click to expand...

Hmm. I agree as well. Shallow and pedantic.

And since you asked, I find this meatloaf rather shallow and pedantic
 
crs.one said:
When I say underwhelming, I mean sales. I think the fire is a good product.

When the best product in a segment has underwhelming sales, it's not exactly a segment that companies need to join in order to compete.

The 7" tablet "market" was created by companies playing catch up; to compete on cost, screen size was one of the corners they cut. This is the foundation of the "market" you seem to think apple "needs" to join
Click to expand...

It's true the 7" market was created by companies trying to offer lower cost alternatives to the highly expensive iPad, but the demand for 7" tablets is fueled by people who have any number of reasons for wanting something lighter and easier to carry than an iPad, but bigger and better to look at than an iPhone (or iPod touch, or any 3+" screen).

The problem has been a lack of a truly outstanding 7" tablet that doesn't push past an acceptable price point...

The market & the demand are there, just a question of what there is to buy, and an affordable price level....

----------
macUser2007 said:
I thought Steve Jobs said nobody wants a tablet smaller than 10"....

I actually agree with him, the iPad should go larger, not smaller.

Leave the 7" to the cheap Android tablets and move up to 13" or so, so that a full-size PDF, Zinio magazine, or a business document can be viewed on the screen without zooming and pan-and-scan.
Click to expand...

That's what people think until they have the reality in their hands. A few of my clients insisted on having big, powerful 21+" screen laptops. Big screen! Super powerful! A true desktop replacement so they wouldn't have to have both a desktop and a laptop (don't bug me about docking stations. They didn't want those either).

They thought they were super fine until they started lugging them home each night and calling them "boat anchors"....now they've gone back to 15" screen laptop-land, where a laptop is free to be just a laptop....

Bigger is not always better....
 
According to Steve Jobs, anything less than 9.5" is unusable! Now that he's gone, I see Apple is "innovating" again (ok this is a rather small innovation but better than none).

Good job! :D

I was given a Playbook a while back, I actually enjoy the 7" form factor quite a bit. It's a good compromise in size and portability.

The iPad is already too heavy, going 13"+ would put too much strain on the wrists - it won't be very usable.
 
crs.one said:
Who on earth doesn't already know that? ... and what does that show other than iPad apps are better than iPhone apps? ... and how does that contribute anything to your previous statement making any sort of sense? ... which was about scaling the touch interface on iPad apps.
Click to expand...
 
TC03 said:
Still, that's different. Jobs explicitely stated that they have done 'extensive testing', that's a different kind of argument than 'I don't 3rd party apps ruining my iPhone'. The things Jobs said no to, were things he just didn't like, not things they've extensively tested.

Second, iPads are still selling extremely well. I think a new smaller iPad would cannibalize both sales and profit.
Click to expand...

The things that Steve Jobs said "no" to were things where Steve Jobs, after considerable thought, with the input of all the relevant people at Apple, came to the conclusion that trying to build and sell these things was not, at that point in time, in Apple's best interest.

Now how he sold that "no" to the public is an entirely different matter.
 
gnasher729 said:
The things that Steve Jobs said "no" to were things where Steve Jobs, after considerable thought, with the input of all the relevant people at Apple, came to the conclusion that trying to build and sell these things was not, at that point in time, in Apple's best interest.

Now how he sold that "no" to the public is an entirely different matter.
Click to expand...

And keep on mind that Coke did "extensive testing" on New Coke, GM on the Edsel, 17+ publishers shot down J.K. Rowling's Harry Potter until one of them finally gave it a chance..

Heck, "extensive testing" show that people would never give up their physical CD's, and settle for the "poor quality sound" of downloaded music, and look how that turned out...

"Extensive testing" assured Steve Ballmer that no one would want a phone without a physical keyboard that wasn't focused on just e-mail. He guffawed at the very thought..

"Extensive testing" assured Bill Gates that that whole internet-thing was way overblown...

"Extensive testing" told the bosses at RIM that they could skate by for years without innovating, because crackberry users were hooked for life...(I think those bosses have since been replaced)...

"Extensive testing", in the end, means very little, and actual success means everything...
 
knucklehead said:
Who on earth doesn't already know that? ... and what does that show other than iPad apps are better than iPhone apps? ... and how does that contribute anything to your previous statement making any sort of sense? ... which was about scaling the touch interface on iPad apps.
Click to expand...

I don't know how to make it any simpler. The reason the iPhone target objects are not too small is because it is scaled for the iPhone. Therefore the iPhone is not an example of how the iPad can get smaller easily
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back