This is why Apple underestimated the battery life and the price of iPad 1.

Discussion in 'iPad' started by iMattcotv, Mar 4, 2011.

  1. iMattcotv macrumors 6502

    iMattcotv

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    #1
    Heres my theory:

    Apple designs both the iPad 1, and 2 but in reverse.. So they design the 2nd generation but closely before the 1st (after getting a general idea of what the iPad will be, of course)

    This would be an advantage to them, because if they can make an iPad that is drastically thin, light, has amazing battery life, and still @ $499, then they will completely shock the audience.

    Heres where it gets clever... Apple, knowing the specs of the 2nd gen iPad.. Its price, its max battery life, its price, and does some thinking..

    The battery life of the iPad 2, im sure, will just push 8-10 hours, greatly depending on what hardware that needs to power the software is being used (ie games, apps, safari)

    So Apple designs the ultimate iPad, the iPad 2, and then gos back to the drawing board, and skims some features of it.

    Now were left with an iPad with more thickness, less hardware, but they will keep the same battery, because the less powerful hardware would mean that the battery will last ultimately longer, but they will still advertise a 10 hour battery life. They also keep the same price, because its still low, and once they release the 2nd gen, the audience, will again, be amazed.


    So lets summerize this theory..

    1. Apple creates a general idea of what the iPad should be..
    2. They design an iPad in which they can fit quite alof of features into it.
    3. The 1st iPad is purposely slimmed of its features, but keeps the same price for profit, and also the battery which would mean it can run longer.
    4. Here comes along the 2nd iPad, higher specs, same battery, same price.. and a dramatically thinner design..

    This of course completely wows the audience!

    And who knows, maybe theres an iPad 3 that they already have ready to ship, but arent because they are using this theory.
     
  2. nexus14 macrumors member

    Joined:
    May 11, 2010
  3. whocaresit macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2010
  4. ClutchThese macrumors 65816

    ClutchThese

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
  5. jmpnop macrumors 6502a

    jmpnop

    Joined:
    Aug 8, 2010
    #5
    And you forgot one point, doing this allows them to maintain the same price. iPad is competitively priced but take MBP for example, I feel the cost of base model 15" should be reduced. But what Apple does in the next gen is, they'll give a faster processor, high-res screen by default, 512MB RAM dedicated graphics memory and a bunch of other features which convinces me and many other people that price change is not really necessary since they're offering so many new features. This theory is not just for iPad, it is applied to almost every product imo.
     
  6. 53x12 macrumors 68000

    53x12

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2009
    #6


    That is why you never buy a first gen Apple product. Wait for the 2nd gen if you can.
     
  7. treyjustice macrumors 65816

    treyjustice

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2009
    Location:
    TX
    #7
    I think you are incorrect mostly. But I am sure apple has many versions of iPads out and the 3rd one and probably 4th already have designs and prototypes.
     
  8. iMattcotv thread starter macrumors 6502

    iMattcotv

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    #8
    Yea I wrote it down terribly, I know lol xD

    The general idea I think is spot on.. The presence of such a theory in my mind, was showing like crazy during the keynote.. I have never seen Steve act that strange before.. It was just a huge giveaway for me..

    And this is coming from someone who originally never thought of this theory, so no, I couldnt have been expecting it.
     
  9. ClutchThese macrumors 65816

    ClutchThese

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2010
    Location:
    Alexandria, VA
  10. GreatDrok macrumors 6502a

    GreatDrok

    Joined:
    May 1, 2006
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #10
    I'm a bit of a collector - first gen iBook G4 933Mhz 14" (still works after over seven years), first gen MacBook Pro core duo (still works after five years), first gen Apple TV 40GB (still works three years on) and first gen iPad 16GB wifi which I intend to keep and use daily for a good long time Wish I had a first gen iPod......

    Oh well, I like to have the first ones and I like to keep them running. I don't agree that the first versions are bad even if later versions do get extra features. They do what they do and they do it well.
     
  11. sinsin07 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    #11
    It's more like a stretch of the imagination.

    No, it never got clever, only in your mind.

    Here's another possibility: A year went by and there were smaller parts available (for the internals), which would trump your "theory".
     
  12. Xeperu macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    May 3, 2010
    #12
    I know enough about product development to know that Apple probably has iPad 3 prototypes in the labs now and iPad4 pre-prototypes (component testing) also in the works. Same with iPhone 5,6,7. These roadmaps are made 3-4 years in advance. Nothing new.

    Also I would hardly consider the iPad2 THE ULTIMATE iPad.
     
  13. JulianL macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2010
    Location:
    London, UK
    #13
    Architecturally I agree with you (I also come from a product development background). There are almost certainly systems in the Apple labs that have the sort of CPU, GPU, memory, mass storage and peripheral characteristics that Apple is aiming for with iPad 3, 4 and beyond and, as you say, the same goes for the iPhone.

    Where I disagree is at the component level. If we're making the assumption(*) that the March annual cycle will stick and so the iPad 3 is a March 2012 device and the iPad 4 is a March 2013 device then I suspect that these "iPads" are unlikely to be at the component level for even the iPad 3 and certainly not for the iPad 4. Fabrication processes are changing (shrinking) too quickly and so I doubt that they'll have silicon for their A6 (or whatever they call it) for the iPad 3 yet and they certainly won't have silicon for the SoC on the iPad 4 yet. I also suspect the same is true for other critical components like the displays.

    Yes, they'll have systems in desktop PC cases that are architecturally accurate, and they'll have physical designs without electronics in them (or possibly old electronics in them to generate heat and get some idea of thermal properties) but I don't think that even for the iPad 3 it will be in an early prototype stage yet with case and components integrated together.

    - Julian

    (*) You might not have been making this assumption of course. If you were thinking of the September rumours for the iPad 3 then I do agree with you about that being in prototype stage now.
     
  14. sinsin07 macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    #14
    I have only owned 3 Apple products. I would say that was true for the first iPhone. However the iPad was a different, it already had proved environment. Not waiting a year means that on my commute to and from work I was able to Sling, use Netflex, stream media from my house, remote control my home machines, surf the net on a larger screen. I got my 64 3G on launch day, calculate how many hours of use I had since I brought it last April. Now contrast that to how many hours of non fun all the "I'll wait to the second generation when it's perfected".
     
  15. camelsnot macrumors 6502

    camelsnot

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2011
    #15
    this is the Apple way. They always under design their hardware with a floating road map for what the next version will look like. Sure they could've put cameras and a higher display in the first ipad. The ipad 1 was supposed to be the iphone4, just bigger (hence the joke). They knew they could milk the ipad 1 without extra features, and just add those in v2. When designing v2, they left out features because they know they can add them into v3. I'm not knocking Apple for doing it. I'm just pointing out the obvious, or maybe not so obvious, for those too blind or course care less. I care as I find their marketing fascinating. Moreso their their hobbled hardware. They are brilliant. Yes, I'll be getting an ipad 2 on Friday.
     
  16. neko girl macrumors 6502a

    neko girl

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2011
  17. bjet767 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2010
    #17
    You guys seem to forget in all of this, Apple is a business and it is about taking our money to provide a living and status for the Apple people. Pure and simple!

    The good news is their business is designing, making and marketing digital tools to us. The brilliant part of Jobs is, he has taken the normal daily things like reading, music, entertainment, social connection and daily communication and turned them into trendy, working and great devices.

    You can expect the IPad to improve every year just like the original quirky Apple computer has grown into the IMac nearly 30 years later for probably a third of the cost (adjusted for inflation) of the original.

    Personally I love em and expect a better IPad 30 years form now! Is it a conspiracy to take our money? You bet! More power to Apple and their competitors!
     
  18. shyam09 macrumors 68000

    shyam09

    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2010
    #18
    L O L
    me too... nice theory but i prefer you doing research on pie.. i think people care more about pie. :p
     
  19. HelveticaNeue, Mar 5, 2011
    Last edited: Mar 5, 2011

    HelveticaNeue macrumors 6502a

    HelveticaNeue

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2010
    #19
    I think you're being a little paranoid. I'm not going to argue that Apple doesn't possess the evil-foresight to make the original iPad slightly thicker than it needed to be just so the iPad 2 could decrease by a larger percent, I'm disagreeing with your supposed glimpse of Steve Jobs acting funny during the keynote because you thought he was trying to get away with something.

    If you want to believe Apple purposely leaves features off certain generations just so they can force people to upgrade next year, then you have to believe they've been doing it for years and have become exceptionally good at it. There is no chance Steve was sweating or nervously rubbing his hands together or whatever you think you noticed because of some dark secret about the promotion of iPad obsolescence.
     
  20. xraydoc macrumors demi-god

    xraydoc

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2005
    Location:
    192.168.1.1
    #20
    Wow. So I guess Intel has an 800 core, 100GHz processor that uses just 2 watts of power, all built and ready to go, but they're just going to wait another 25 processor generations before they release it?

    Of course all tech companies design several generations ahead, but often the economics of scale manufacturing needs to catch up before said product can be built.

    But to suggest that Apple self-sabotaged the iPad just so the iPad 2 would look better is silly. If Apple really had the iPad 2 ready to go, why didn't they just put it out first and leap years beyond any potential competitor?
     
  21. dadoftwogirls macrumors 6502

    dadoftwogirls

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2011
    Location:
    Florida
    #21
    I'm still trying to figure out why I read this thread. I guess some people have a lot of free thinking time on their hand. Me, I think the idea is silly. And the guy saying Steve's behavior was a give away... Might not have been a little off because he's been sick, right? Nope, he was worried people would see through their conspiracy. What a hoot.
     
  22. namtaB macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    #22
    Interesting theory but completely off base.

    They design a profitable product first. For a first generation product this requires a lot of "maximize profits every way we can" thinking b/c its long term viability has yet to be proven. For instance, they probably could have made a thinner iPad with Gen 1, but the cost of not doing so probably resulted in higher projected profits and that's what they chose to do. The upgrades are never for the end user, but rather to keep the productive competitive. Now tablets are storming into the marketplace, so Apple needs to the iPad fresh and innovative. There's also third parties, vendors, etc. that impact the development of the product and its finished form. Its an oversimplification, but it gives you the gist of how these things work.

    To unenlightened minds this appears like Apple is under designing their products or holding back.
     
  23. Snowy_River macrumors 68030

    Snowy_River

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2002
    Location:
    Corvallis, OR
    #23
    I'm quite puzzled by the preponderance of this attitude that Apple is purposefully crippling, or "under designing" the iPad. I think that the strongest evidence against this is the lack of meaningful competitors to the iPad. Could Apple have included cameras and 1 GB of RAM and a faster dual core processor and a retina display in the iPad 1? Quite possibly. Could they have done that and kept the price point so low? Not a chance. Sure, they could have added more to the iPad 2, as well. Some things that people ask for just aren't in line with Apple's way of doing things, like it or not (i.e. USB and HDMI ports). Other things would have necessarily impacted the price. Now, we can get into arguments about the impact on the price of particular things (i.e. more RAM or increasing the storage), but without someone here who really knows the why's and wherefore's of the internal pricing on such elements, we'd all just be blowing smoke.
     

Share This Page