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

Discussion in 'iPad' started by saintforlife, Jul 5, 2012.

  1. saintforlife macrumors 65816

    Feb 25, 2011
    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?
  2. Rodster macrumors 68040

    May 15, 2007
    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
  3. knucklehead macrumors 6502a

    Oct 22, 2003
  4. flywithsean macrumors newbie

    Jun 21, 2011

    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
  5. bri1212 macrumors 6502

    Feb 1, 2008
    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.
  6. knucklehead macrumors 6502a

    Oct 22, 2003
    I couldn't agree more -- the future of personal computing will be limited to a 9.7" screen.
  7. dmk1974 macrumors 68020


    Sep 16, 2008
    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.
  8. boomhower macrumors 68000


    Oct 21, 2011
    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.
  9. nishishei macrumors regular

    Jun 5, 2005
    That's a lot lower pixel density than the Nexus 7, which is 1280x800 at 7".
  10. MF878 macrumors regular


    Jul 12, 2011
    Auckland, New Zealand
    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.
  11. Redjericho macrumors 6502a

    Sep 16, 2011
    I took this suggestion to my bank and they didn't care.
  12. noteple macrumors 65816


    Aug 30, 2011
  13. ixodes macrumors 601


    Jan 11, 2012
    Pacific Coast, USA
    You actually believe this?

    You might want to rethink that... Jobs is dead.
  14. knucklehead macrumors 6502a

    Oct 22, 2003
    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...

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


    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.
  15. estrides macrumors regular


    Apr 8, 2012
    New York
  16. NewbieCanada macrumors 68030

    Oct 9, 2007
    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!
  17. poloponies Suspended

    May 3, 2010
    Apple doesn't get "huge income" from there.
  18. Vizin, Jul 6, 2012
    Last edited: Feb 28, 2013
  19. spiderman0616 macrumors 68040


    Aug 1, 2010
    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.
  20. Piggie macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
    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.
  21. engelke2010, Jul 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2012

    engelke2010 macrumors 6502a

    Mar 28, 2010
    No...won't have one. Either that, or it will be external. :D
  22. poloponies, Jul 6, 2012
    Last edited: Jul 6, 2012

    poloponies Suspended

    May 3, 2010
    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.
  23. Piggie macrumors G3


    Feb 23, 2010
  24. Rogifan macrumors P6


    Nov 14, 2011
    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.
  25. poloponies Suspended

    May 3, 2010
    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.

Share This Page