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

Here is a prediction you can take to the bank regarding the iPad mini

S

saintforlife

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Feb 25, 2011
1,046
329
The first gen iPad mini will NOT have a front facing camera. It is a classic Apple move. Give people just enough, but always leaving them wanting more.

Thoughts on what other features will be left out of the mini?
 
Here's prediction #2. It's just a silly rumor or it will be the first Tablet to sport 3 cameras, front/side/rear. :p
 
Mini

Front facing camera yes. Rear facing camera no.

Apple is building too much momentum with FaceTime to leave that huge of a piece out of the equation.

Also if we get the iPad Mini the days of the iPod touch are numbered
 
saintforlife said:
The first gen iPad mini will NOT have a front facing camera. It is a classic Apple move. Give people just enough, but always leaving them wanting more.

Thoughts on what other features will be left out of the mini?
Click to expand...

I agree with you, in fact, it won't have a back facing camera, or a glass front, or any electronics at all. I am not sure if you can take this to the bank yet, but there is not going to be an ipad mini. IMO They can not make them cheap enough to warrant a 249, or 299 mini. This was the real reason why they did not produce them out of the gate. I don't think much has changed since then.
 
bri1212 said:
I agree with you, in fact, it won't have a back facing camera, or a glass front, or any electronics at all. I am not sure if you can take this to the bank yet, but there is not going to be an ipad mini. IMO They can not make them cheap enough to warrant a 249, or 299 mini. This was the real reason why they did not produce them out of the gate. I don't think much has changed since then.
Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more -- the future of personal computing will be limited to a 9.7" screen.
 
bri1212 said:
I agree with you, in fact, it won't have a back facing camera, or a glass front, or any electronics at all. I am not sure if you can take this to the bank yet, but there is not going to be an ipad mini. IMO They can not make them cheap enough to warrant a 249, or 299 mini. This was the real reason why they did not produce them out of the gate. I don't think much has changed since then.
Click to expand...

I disagree. I think they can and will be able to launch an iPad Mini with likely a 16gb version at $299. I agree that there may not be a camera on the back, but there definitely will be a front camera. At 1024x768 res, a 7.85" screen is completely usable, very portable, and will sell like hotcakes.

Keep in mind, even if the margin is not as high for Apple on this mini version, they still will sell and get more and more people to buy plenty of apps, books, and music which is huge income for Apple.
 
dmk1974 said:
I disagree. I think they can and will be able to launch an iPad Mini with likely a 16gb version at $299. I agree that there may not be a camera on the back, but there definitely will be a front camera. At 1024x768 res, a 7.85" screen is completely usable, very portable, and will sell like hotcakes.

Keep in mind, even if the margin is not as high for Apple on this mini version, they still will sell and get more and more people to buy plenty of apps, books, and music which is huge income for Apple.
Click to expand...

I think they can make them cheap enough. If they can do an iPad 2 at $399 then an 8GB iPad mini at $299 should be a problem. It's not the premier tablet so they can reuse essentially the iPad 2 internals with a smaller/cheaper screen. Sell the 8GB for $299 and a 16GB for $399. They are still making money but by not having all the features(retina, rear camera) of it's bigger brother they don't sales.

There is room for sales between the touch and iPad. Both my kids want an iPad but I'm not spending $400 for a tablet for my six year old. $300 I would do. If they came out I'd buy two for Christmas this year. I'm sure I'm not the only one.
 
dmk1974 said:
I disagree. I think they can and will be able to launch an iPad Mini with likely a 16gb version at $299. I agree that there may not be a camera on the back, but there definitely will be a front camera. At 1024x768 res, a 7.85" screen is completely usable, very portable, and will sell like hotcakes.
Click to expand...

That's a lot lower pixel density than the Nexus 7, which is 1280x800 at 7".
 
Isn't it obvious? It would simply have the same specs as the next iPod touch, which I would guess at being similar to the iPad 2 (A5, 512MB RAM). In other words, it would be the result if the iPad 2 and the iPod touch 5 got it on.
 
ixodes said:
You actually believe this?
Click to expand...

Not in the least.
I was hoping it's absurdity would have made that self apparent -- but plenty of people on this site seem to think that way...

ixodes said:
might want to rethink that... Jobs is dead.
Click to expand...

I don't even think for a minute that Jobs thought that -- he wasn't a dope!

----------
saintforlife said:
The first gen iPad mini will NOT have a front facing camera. It is a classic Apple move. Give people just enough, but always leaving them wanting more.

Thoughts on what other features will be left out of the mini?
Click to expand...

I'm afraid you'll be right in some way -- not sure what will be left out tho.

I don't by at all that Apple will get into the low price war that people keep talking about.
 
dmk1974 said:
Keep in mind, even if the margin is not as high for Apple on this mini version, they still will sell and get more and more people to buy plenty of apps, books, and music which is huge income for Apple.
Click to expand...

And it brings new people into the Apple eco-system. I started with an iPod nano and now I'm up to everything in my signature, stuff I no longer have (2 gens of iPad, 2 gens of iPod touch), a MBA on the way, and 66 shares of Apple stock!
 
dmk1974 said:
Keep in mind, even if the margin is not as high for Apple on this mini version, they still will sell and get more and more people to buy plenty of apps, books, and music which is huge income for Apple.
Click to expand...

Apple doesn't get "huge income" from there.
 
I was just thinking about this today--what will they leave out and what will they leave in.

The front camera will stay, the back camera will go. That would cut down on cost for sure but keep the FaceTime functionality in there. I don't know where I stand on the retina--I think they will probably leave it in there if they can, but it depends on the price of the unit.

I'm also kind of wondering if they'll gimp the whole thing in general. Apple will come up with a way to make the bigger iPad still look attractive. And Apple is definitely creative enough to do that.
 
poloponies said:
Apple doesn't get "huge income" from there.
Click to expand...

Yes they do.

It's just their definition of HUGE is different to most people's definition of HUGE.

Some numbers to think about:

Apple also revealed that iTunes itself dragged in some $1.9 billion in revenue in just the second quarter of 2012. The store sells apps for iOS, as well as music, movies, podcasts and e-books, all of which contributed to the giant take. Apple receives a 30 percent cut of revenue generated by content sold through iTunes, which means that app developers and content makers shared some $1.33 billion in revenue from the digital portal. The leftover $570 million, Apple said, went to iTunes operational costs. Apple also said developers have made more than $4 billion from the App Store since it was launched in 2008.
 
Piggie said:
Yes they do.

It's just their definition of HUGE is different to most people's definition of HUGE.

Some numbers to think about:

Apple also revealed that iTunes itself dragged in some $1.9 billion in revenue in just the second quarter of 2012. The store sells apps for iOS, as well as music, movies, podcasts and e-books, all of which contributed to the giant take. Apple receives a 30 percent cut of revenue generated by content sold through iTunes, which means that app developers and content makers shared some $1.33 billion in revenue from the digital portal. The leftover $570 million, Apple said, went to iTunes operational costs. Apple also said developers have made more than $4 billion from the App Store since it was launched in 2008.
Click to expand...

Revenue is not profit. Let's break down the above post. iTunes generated $1.9 billion in income. Of that $1.33 billion went to developers/content makers. The remaining $570 went into Apple's operating costs. That left approximately ZERO dollars in profit to Apple.

In all of 2011, Apple generated $6billion in revenue from iTunes, with next to no profit. In the LAST QUARTER Apple generated over $6billion in revenue from iPad sales alone (so roughly 4X the revenue on an annualized basis). Apple EARNED nearly $2billion from iPad sales in the LAST QUARTER.

So your logic is that Apple should risk lower profits from iPad sales in favor of a business segment that generates no profit???

The golden rule in business is that it's not what you make, it's what you keep. iTunes is there to keep customers happy, not to make Apple rich. It's essentially the opposite of what Amazon does and that's because each business knows what makes it profitable.
 
Last edited:
Amazon and Google are all about selling hardware cheap with next to no profit margin as they make their profit on other things. Most of Apple's profit comes from building premium devices with a healthy margin. Tim Cook already stated that Apple isn't looking to make much from content sales.
 
Piggie said:
Ok so how about $570 Million Profit:

http://www.wired.com/listening_post/2008/03/apple-apparentl/

Is that enough to make it worthwhile bothering?
Click to expand...

You are really reaching. That's not a report of profits, that's conjecture based on Apple's share of revenues. It doesn't even consider Apple's costs. The language you cited took into account the costs and concluded that nothing was left. A 70/30 revenue split doesn't mean that Apple keeps 30 cents any more than it means the developer keeps 70 cents. Everyone has to spend money to make money, successful developers will turn a profit, unsuccessful ones will apply the 70 cents from each dollar to pay their outstanding obligations. Apple takes its 30 cents and pays for its server facilities, employees, employee benefits, marketing, etc. They see valus in this because it provides a firm foundation for their hardware sales, not because it's a profitable segment.

By the way, that's horribly sloppy "reporting" from Wired.
 
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