iPad mini Mini planning if I'm Tim Cook

Discussion in 'iPad' started by jimbo1mcm, Oct 31, 2012.

  1. jimbo1mcm, Oct 31, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012

    jimbo1mcm macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    #1
    "Ok. Let's admit that we were fooled by the Nexus 7. They are selling over a million a month now. Yes we did rush the Mini into production because of the Nexus. We were constrained by existing supplies but we did a very good job of design and manufacturing. All that is over now. I want a Mini in the next product cycle that leap frogs ALL the competition including Nexus, Kindle etc. I want a Retina display and a fast processor with good battery life. Don't tell me why it can't be done or I will get someone else who can do it. We will offer a far superior product and we will get a premium price for it. Now, why are you still sitting in my office?"
     
  2. 53x12 macrumors 68000

    53x12

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #2
    For me:

    - retina display
    - A6/A6X CPU
    - 1GB RAM
    - same 10hr battery life
     
  3. darngooddesign macrumors G3

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2007
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #3
    I don't doubt that they are selling well, but do we know if they are selling to end users, or shipping to suppliers?
     
  4. D.T. macrumors 603

    D.T.

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2011
    Location:
    Vilano Beach, FL
    #4
    October '13
    iPad Mini goes retina

    iPad [standard] get new display tech, hits 8mm thickness, 12 hours battery

    iPad Pro released with A7 quad/quad and 3072x2304 @ 11.6" for 331PPI :D
     
  5. comatose81 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2009
    #5
    It's a good thing - for Apple and its shareholders - that you aren't Tim Cook.
     
  6. jimbo1mcm thread starter macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    #6
    After you play catch up you have to set the bar higher. Apple was caught with their pants down because Steve didn't want a 7 inch. Let's see what the next mini will be like then you can fire me.
     
  7. poloponies macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #7
    Because Apple's current strategy is "just throw something together"? The laws of physics and economics apply to Apple the same as for everyone else.
     
  8. WilliamLondon macrumors 68000

    WilliamLondon

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    #8
    For me:

    - better display with better clarity for viewing PDFs (which is what I will be doing with this device), call the feature whatever you want, I don't care

    - A6/A6X CPU - don't give a crap, shouldn't give a crap, but what I do want is as speedy an experience as possible
    - 1GB RAM - again, don't give a crap, shouldn't give a crap, but what I do want is an experience without lag as much as possible
    (the above two are things they are trying to move away from promoting because ordinary people don't know details of this and shouldn't have to in a non-X86Windows world - think in terms of outcomes and benefits, and let them decide how best to meet those requirements, so the outcome we all want is faster, speedier, smoother experience with no lag, quick load times, etc. - let them figure out how best to achieve that)

    - same excellent battery life, yes!

    - same form factor (the thinness of this device is so very appealing!)

    Other exciting features I can't imagine, yes!
     
  9. DJinTX macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2010
    #9
    I know they can deliver these things...the question is can they do it in a form factor that retains a similar thickness ans weight. I could see these two aspects increasing very slightly, but if they increase significantly then it will be a deal breaker. This will be a huge accomplishment if they can do it at all, especially staying at $329 or below.

    No matter what, I think they need to kill off the iPod touch, so that the $299 price slot is open for the next iPad Mini.
     
  10. HobeSoundDarryl macrumors 603

    HobeSoundDarryl

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2004
    Location:
    Hobe Sound, FL (20 miles north of Palm Beach)
    #10
    While there's some merit to this kind of thinking, there is also a cap to how many can ship before the receiver says "No, we have enough". A million/month would fill up receiver's shelves and back room storage quickly enough. I think we should concede that people have been buying enough of these to warrant Apple deciding to compete in the space. I think Apple moved on the opportunity because they see revenue upside there, not because they want to create a brand new market where there is none.
     
  11. Steveo13 macrumors regular

    Steveo13

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2011
    Location:
    New York
    #11
    Obviously this guy just finished reading the Steve Jobs biography and is trying to copy Steve's leadership in this statement. However you failed. Apple is under new leadership now, this will not work.
     
  12. poloponies macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #12
    Cook is also fairly notorious for being a dick. They profiled him in Fortune when Jobs took his first leave of absence and he can be just as demanding. They had an anecdote about him discussing a supply problem with a Chinese vendor in a meeting and telling a subordinate that it needs to be fixed. Cook continued with the meeting and noticed that the guy was still sitting there. Cook turned to him and wanted to know why he wasn't already on his way to the airport. Cook doesn't yell but he doesn't have to.
     
  13. mantan, Oct 31, 2012
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2012

    mantan macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2009
    Location:
    DFW
    #13
    The disappointing part of this is how Apple has changed their stance toward competition.

    3 years ago when they felt the first legitimate smartphone threat they pulled out all the stops and built the iPhone 4. It was leaps and bounds beyond any other phone. It was the ultimate 'oh yeah, check this out' response.

    The 7 inch market was different. They were actually late to the party, but still had the opportunity to drop a 'oh yeah, check this out' product And they didn't. They gave us a mini iPad 2 for $70 less. A product with a much weaker cheap and graphics display than there other main line products AND the competition.

    I think they lost their competitive fire. And who can blame them. They know they can sell MILLIONS of units with a lot less effort and just accelerate the release cycles and use minor spec bumps to print money. What incentive do they have to reach for greatness...when they can coast and remain insanely profitable.
     
  14. 53x12 macrumors 68000

    53x12

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #14
    If you want a better display for clarity = retina display, you will need an A6/A6X. You will not be able to run a RD on an A5. So you do need to give a crap. A very big one.



    Once again, it will not be able to run a RD on just 512 MB of RAM. So you should give a very big crap as you will need at least 1GB RAM for the new display to run properly.

    ----------

    +1. Well stated and exactly what I believe as well. Just watch out, the Apple fanbois are coming and won't be happy. :D
     
  15. Infinitewisdom macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2012
    #15
    Well, no, not exactly. You tell me how it's possible to cram a retina display in the mini's form factor, maintain 10hr battery life and not overheat like crazy? And, you tell me how to do that while maintaining the same or better margins as the iPad 3. Remember, Apple is betting long term on the success of the iPad. And they're a hardware-driven company, unlike Google and Amazon. Put those two together and it would be suicide for them to prematurely squeeze their own margins right from the get-go, and when there's no reason to do it.
     
  16. ivada macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    #16
    If I were Tim Cook I'd say...

    "Let's price the iPad Mini at $229 and blow Kindle and Nexus out of the water. We have enough money in the bank and tons of margin on iPhone and the regular iPad so we don't need to be greedy with the iPad Mini too. Let's work our asses off the next few months coming up with a "Mini" product that will be head and shoulders above every one else, and then charge a significant premium for that. Once again - we have tons of money and don't need to get too greedy with the iPad Mini. We don't have a product that is significantly better than the competition, and therefore we don't want to price it significantly higher at this time."
     
  17. jclardy macrumors 68040

    jclardy

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    #17
    So you are betting the mini next year will be better than the one this year? What are the odds of that...:rolleyes:

    The mini will always be a year behind the specs of the full size iPad. Simply because if it wasn't, very few would be spending the $170 extra to just get a larger screen. That is why we have an iPad 2 equivilent mini right now...as iPad 2 came out last year. Next year we will get Retina and either A5X or maybe A6X, depending on how well this current one does. Meanwhile the iPad will have A7X.
     
  18. 53x12 macrumors 68000

    53x12

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #18

    I knew you would eventually come around.

    The answer? $100 billion that Apple has in cash reserves. I don't know the specifics of how they can do it, but I am sure Jony Ive, Michael Tchao, Tim Cook and others will make sure that I know next year. ;)

    ----------


    You sure about that? Just like no one bought 15''/17'' MBP and Apple only sold 13''? Or the same with the iMac, people only bought the 21.5'' and not the 27''? And if you are going to tell me it is about portability, then we should all ditch the iPad mini and get an iPod Touch.

    Some want the larger screen for games, for movies, because they find it easier to accomplish tasks. Others want the larger screen to show off pictures or video clips.

    Some want the smaller screen because it is easier to bring to school or work. Easier to hold in one hand. Easier to read a book even for some.
     
  19. poloponies macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #19
    "And let's be the victims of our own success next quarter when even iPad buyers will be drawn away from the "too-good-to-pass-up" pricing and we'll sell tens of millions of no-margin devices that will cause us to miss our projected earnings by a country mile and send our share price back to $200. Our shareholders will love us so much they'll insist that the board of directors split up the cash reserve and pay it to us directly as bonuses."
     
  20. WilliamLondon macrumors 68000

    WilliamLondon

    Joined:
    Dec 8, 2006
    #20
    You completely misunderstood what I was saying. If I want a better display for viewing PDFs, that's my requirement. How they manage that is nothing that I care about nor should I care about. The average consumer should not have to take a class in electrical engineering when looking to make a purchase decision for a device like this. I don't care how Apple manages to give me a device with a better display, I don't care what chips are required to run that display, and I don't care what those chips require in other components, Apple needs to manage that for me. I want a better display next time. That's all I want to worry about.

    Focusing so heavily on which chip and how much RAM is akin to a bunch of grease monkeys deriving their manhood from standing around a car with its hood/bonnet up, all trying to outdo the knowledge of each other while staring at this hunk of metal inside, with all the requisite spitting, farting, burping and beer swilling.

    My mother has no knowledge of the different chips, but she will recognise the benefits associated with a screen that displays small items very clearly. You contend she should then worry about whether it's official retina, which chip is running inside and how much RAM, when all she wants is to view a picture clearly?

    Benefits and outcomes - it's where things are moving, and it's what we as consumers need to focus on, so they deliver based on our usage requirements (and they are left with the method of how best to achieve this), not on some component that is marketed merely to make Intel a household name, and to give hardware manufacturers a reason to come out with a whole new line of machines they can tempt consumers to upgrade to because their current machine doesn't have the latest chip (all the while the consumer still has no idea what a chip is or does). Consumers don't need chips, they need functionality. Yes, chips function, but an average consumer knows nothing about a chip, but everyone understands functionality, and that's what we should be talking about.

    For me if they don't deliver a better screen will I be upset? Yes. If they put in something other than "retina" but deliver a better viewing experience for me will I be upset? No. I don't care about the details, and most of the general public doesn't either (and doesn't even have the knowledge to care about those details).

    If they do everything else on your list without upgrading chip and RAM and still deliver speed and excellent user experience, would you be upset?
     
  21. Liquinn Suspended

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2011
    #21
    The iPad mini is to the iPad to what the iPod touch is to the iPhone... basically.
     
  22. ivada macrumors member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2010
    #22
    I don't believe iPad Mini will cannibalize sales of regular iPad sales irrespective of price. Mostly different audiences for both devices.

    Also, as you probably know profitability = volume x margin. More volume for lesser margins could be equally valuable to Apple as less volume with higher margins. I'm pretty sure Apple has done the math both on profitability as well as research on cannibalizing their iPad sales.
     
  23. smiddlehurst macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2007
    #23
    Surely though the point is you cannot deliver one without the other? In fact I'd go further and say you also need to consider form factor and weight in the equation. Look at the iPad, to deliver Retina they not only had to make the A5X chip (which is an almost ridiculous bit of design) but increase the physical size and weight of the unit to accommodate the battery pack.

    THIS is where I have a slight problem with those who claim the iPad Mini should have been packing a retina screen at launch. It's got nothing to do with outdoing anyone in geek knowledge but an understanding of the entire parts chain required to deliver that screen. Put simply I honestly believe that there was no way to deliver a 2,048 x 1,536 display in a device the size and weight of the iPad mini. Even if Apple compromised on battery life (which I don't think they would) the heat from an A6X would be difficult to dispose of in a device so small.

    Ultimately Apple absolutely understand features not spec sheets, they've been working that way for a long, long time. However in this case they've clearly focused on prioritizing weight, size and battery life over screen resolution and I suspect that's probably the right choice for the majority of customers. Certainly I see no reason to suspect that Apple wouldn't have implemented a retina screen if they could do so at this price point without compromising the rest of the device.
     
  24. poloponies macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #24
    You were proposing a $229 (nearly zero margin) price point which, I don't care how superior the iPad 4 might be, would absolutely draw buyers form the iPad 2 and iPad4. While profit can certainly come from volume, going from a 30% margin to 1-5% margin is never a good business plan.

    Apple has obviously done the math so we're seeing the $329 price for a reason.
     
  25. 53x12 macrumors 68000

    53x12

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #25
    Exactly. Want the better/nicer/crisper screen? Need a better CPU/GPU/RAM.

    As you stated, Apple focused on the weight/thickness/battery life this time. While I understand that, I would have wished for a few other things as well. But I guess you can't get everything you want.
     

Share This Page