I don't think so. Not for people using the iPad as a laptop alternative/replacement. And let's be honest, that's what a LOT of people are using this thing as.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Kindle Fire at 55% of android market. The time is ripe for the 7.85" iPad!
- Thread starter Mad Mac Maniac
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I don't think so. Not for people using the iPad as a laptop alternative/replacement. And let's be honest, that's what a LOT of people are using this thing as.
$250 Price Point.
How about this to cut costs on a smaller iPad:
1 ) No internal storage, just cloud based storage... Offer buyers 10GB of storage for free, and 25GB of storage for $25 a year.
2 ) Instead of a front and back camera, offer one good camera that manually flips/rotates 180 degrees to the front and back of the device. Maybe a 5 MP camera with 720p.
3 ) No retinal display. Give the screen the option to be in color, or black and white ( to save battery power while in e-reader mode ).
4 ) No touch screen.... Just kidding!!
How about this to cut costs on a smaller iPad:
1 ) No internal storage, just cloud based storage... Offer buyers 10GB of storage for free, and 25GB of storage for $25 a year.
2 ) Instead of a front and back camera, offer one good camera that manually flips/rotates 180 degrees to the front and back of the device. Maybe a 5 MP camera with 720p.
3 ) No retinal display. Give the screen the option to be in color, or black and white ( to save battery power while in e-reader mode ).
4 ) No touch screen.... Just kidding!!
If this happens, my three kids will be first in line with their saved-up $300! I refuse to buy them personal iPads at $400-500 a pop and they can't save that much themselves. My son has my iPad 1 but he really puts it through its paces and the processor is starting to show its age.
I hate to disappoint you but Apple does not compromise in order to sell cheap products. They only offer premium level products.
I do think it matters how basic any proposed 7"+ iPad could be to make it profitable - no retina - no 4g or LTE - iPad 2 chip (maybe not though), but with iOS - the huge amount of apps - it makes a very attractive proposition against the Kindle. It will encourage new people into the Apple ecosystem - the form factor and price would be very attractive to educational institutions. It is a great entry level for younger children where the new iPad is simply too much to spend for parents and schools.
I do not think it implausible for Apple to make their 30% on this product if set at $299, but not the $249 mentioned by Gruber.
But, whether Apple will put a junior, downgraded version in the market is another matter - it is not really the way they have worked in the past.
Carefreecork (Apple SimCEO -
)Edit: I have rather answered my own postulation!
Last edited:
How about this to cut costs on a smaller iPad:
1 ) No internal storage, just cloud based storage... Offer buyers 10GB of storage for free, and 25GB of storage for $25 a year.
2 ) Instead of a front and back camera, offer one good camera that manually flips/rotates 180 degrees to the front and back of the device. Maybe a 5 MP camera with 720p.
3 ) No retinal display. Give the screen the option to be in color, or black and white ( to save battery power while in e-reader mode ).
4 ) No touch screen.... Just kidding!!
Ok I guess I'll need to explain it out.
No internal Storage. So you're saying that if you aren't connected to wifi/3g/4g you won't be able to use your iPad? What is this Chrome OS?? Plus Apple would have the change the entire way iCloud works to be able to run apps, store photos, etc completely from the cloud. I just don't see the benefit in that at all. At most I could see 8GB storage with a cloud heavy emphasis. Plus why would an iPad mini owner get an extra 10GB of storage, but if I own an iPhone, iPad, and 2 Mac's I only get 5GB total....
A rotating camera... How is this a good idea? First of all that's actually extra cost, design, and space to be able to create it. It's a very crude solution, been done a long time ago. Why would you get a 5mp camera for the front of such a budget iPad when the iPad 3, iPhone 4S, and all Mac's have significantly worse cameras...?
no "retinal" display. I do agree that there wouldn't be a retina display (it would be the iPad 2 resolution shrunk down), but what's with the changing screen technology? How is that supposed to make it cheaper? Or if you literally just mean turn the screen from color to black/white, that actually wouldn't make the battery life any longer... colors don't affect this, brightness does.
and your 4th joke.
Jeepers!!
Wow. You "really" put a lot of thought into my joke, didn't you?
Maybe the next stage would be to come out with the build it out of the box iPad, where it comes all in parts, and you yourself will have to solder, snap together and assemble the entire contraption by hand, just like they do in Foxconn. Or maybe yet, all the parts could look like little Lego's, and it all snaps together.
Wow. You "really" put a lot of thought into my joke, didn't you?
Maybe the next stage would be to come out with the build it out of the box iPad, where it comes all in parts, and you yourself will have to solder, snap together and assemble the entire contraption by hand, just like they do in Foxconn. Or maybe yet, all the parts could look like little Lego's, and it all snaps together.
It's funny to think that before the ipad came out, all the analysts were saying how it would cost ~$1000 and it would be the least cost-effective purchase ever. And then apple shocked every by coming out with the device for $500 and now people are talking about all the cheaper alternatives. I'm not saying that $500 is pocket change in any respect but it does put things into perspective - I guess we can thank apple's innovation for setting the standard that makes this a question of $200-$500 and not $700-$1000.
Although apple's 2 set device screen sizes (iphone + ipad) is a big bonus for developers to work on, I think they'll eventually need to expand their size options. I don't see them gaining complete market penetration with 1 size for the phone and tablet categories. ESPECIALLY because they're touting the ipad as the computer as the future. They've acknowledged the need for a certain level of customization with their macbook offerings - you can get one at 11, 13, 15 and 17 inches. If apple's eventually going to allow for more options, they're going to want to do it sooner rather than later - while the market is still young and they can prevent people from locking into the amazon ecosystem.
tl;dr: even though it's gonna suck for developers, apple's going to need to add some tablet screen size options eventually, and doing it now will be a lot more effective than later
Although apple's 2 set device screen sizes (iphone + ipad) is a big bonus for developers to work on, I think they'll eventually need to expand their size options. I don't see them gaining complete market penetration with 1 size for the phone and tablet categories. ESPECIALLY because they're touting the ipad as the computer as the future. They've acknowledged the need for a certain level of customization with their macbook offerings - you can get one at 11, 13, 15 and 17 inches. If apple's eventually going to allow for more options, they're going to want to do it sooner rather than later - while the market is still young and they can prevent people from locking into the amazon ecosystem.
tl;dr: even though it's gonna suck for developers, apple's going to need to add some tablet screen size options eventually, and doing it now will be a lot more effective than later
Do we know that people buying a Kindle Fire would have bought an iPad if Apple sold one in a similar size and at a similar price point? As someone else said upthread Amazon has a very loyal customer base. And Kindle is a very popular brand tied into the Amazon ecosystem. I'd'be curious to know how many Fire sales were lost iPad sales because the iPad is too big and/or too expensive.
I think the one who need to be worried about Amazon are all the other Android device makers. Unless they switch to Windows 8, which then Google's the one that needs to be worried.
I think the one who need to be worried about Amazon are all the other Android device makers. Unless they switch to Windows 8, which then Google's the one that needs to be worried.
The Fire satisfies my kids primary needs: Internet access, e-mail, book reading, movie streaming, and lite gaming. The screen is excellent; very close to the iPad retina quality (somewhere between the iPad 2 and the new iPad). Perfect whites, even back lighting, and no dead pixels.
My son has Amazon Prime and that gives him access to Amazon's large movie/TV library, he can borrow NY Times Bestseller books, and gets free two day shipping. He reads a lot and has purchased a number of books. He uses the free two day shipping often for games (PC, PS3, and Xbox360) and school supplies.
I was with him one evening when there was a commercial for a new PS3 game. He made a comment that he didn't realize the game had been released. In seconds he was reading a review on the Fire and less than a minute later he had ordered it on Amazon. He could easily do the same thing while at a Best Buy; find something he likes, read a couple reviews, order it on Amazon, walk out of the store, and get it in two days. Amazing and scary (hope he doesn't get too much in debt).
What a great business model for Amazon; and the enabler is the convenient size of the Fire that encourages my son to carry it around with him nearly all the time.
The $199 price is perfect for the majority of people on tight budgets. I have three nieces and nephews that fall in the tight budget category, but just recently, they received Fires for gifts.
Last edited:
"Apple needs to make a netbook. Smaller and low cost is the direction the PC industry is going and the public has spoken with their wallets. If they don't, they're toast".
Let's be realistic, Apple has always been about making good products more than making affordable products. I don't think they're going to make a $200 tablet, or a $300 netbook type laptop, because it would cheapen the brand and take away from the allure Apple has.
The Fire is fine for what it is, which is an e reader with internet access. I have one that I got for Christmas and its handy size and Amazon Eco system makes it useful for e reading. It isn't anything like an IPad though. Can't see Apple entering the cheap tablet market. But who knows in the post Jobs world.
My Dad would have, no question. He likes his Touch but wanted something bigger to read his newspaper app on the commuter train - just not over $300. Prior to the Galaxy Tab 2 release, the Fire was the best choice. And he's had no complaints so far.
I don't think including a dual core cortex A9 in the A5X was a premium move. Several Android tablets coming out have either a quad core A9 or dual A15. That is a clear example of a cut corner if you will.
Oh I'm sure there is anecdotal evidence. But I'm not convinced every/most Kindle Fire purchase(s) is/are a lost sale for Apple. Kindle is a very popular brand and Amazon a very respected company. I would imagine a lot of Fire purchasers are already invested in the Amazon ecosystem. So it's a natural fit for them.
Perhaps the 7.85" iPad would appeal more to the educational market which would earn Apple a lot of income from text book sales.