|
Post by terps530 on Nov 9, 2012 11:37:54 GMT -8
Yesterday we had 30m volume at 3pm, 36-37m at bell.
~28m volume at 2:30pm currently, with a creep back up. Lotta time left but a continuous climb up with 10m more volume would be a nice treat on the path to rebounding.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Nov 9, 2012 11:37:57 GMT -8
Uh, the iPad mini has the same PPI as the first-gen iPhone. So, an iPad mini with Retina Display would have the same PPI as iPhone 4 and up.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Nov 9, 2012 11:38:40 GMT -8
Big volume and holding 550 into the close = maybe I'll nibble a little bit.
|
|
|
Post by aapl4kiki on Nov 9, 2012 11:40:43 GMT -8
You won't see retina on the iPad mini any time soon. It's not a cost issue; it's a design issue. Exactly right - the iPad Mini has the same screen resolution as an iPad 1 or 2, which enables developers to support it without much if any additional work. Giving it a retina display would require adding a third resolution to the iPad lineup, and that would have a lot of downsides in terms of out of the box software compatibility, developer relations, etc. My money says we won't see retina on the iPad Mini until the tech is good (and affordable from a component perspective) enough to give the Mini a screen that has the same pixel dimensions (but smaller physical dimensions, so a HIGHER pixel density) as the Retina iPads. (Not that you'd be able to tell under normal use, because retina, but because then developers, instead of having to develop for three iPad resolutions, can move towards developing for just one...) don't know much about the tech side of these displays but this make some sense. what would be your guess on when this would be feasible?
|
|
|
Post by wraithyouth on Nov 9, 2012 11:46:19 GMT -8
don't know much about the tech side of these displays but this make some sense. what would be your guess on when this would be feasible? As Mav points out correctly above, you can already make displays with the necessary density, since it would be the same PPI as the iPhone 4. The big barrier is probably cost, especially since the iPad Mini has lower margins anyway. If TC can work some supply chain magic, he might be able to make me eat my words and swing it next year as people are hoping - if not, probably the year after. So, to clarify earlier statements: Giving an iPad Mini an iPad 4-density screen is a design issue. Giving an iPad Mini an iPhone 4-density screen is a cost issue.
|
|
|
Post by aapl4kiki on Nov 9, 2012 11:51:32 GMT -8
don't know much about the tech side of these displays but this make some sense. what would be your guess on when this would be feasible? As Mav points out correctly above, you can already make displays with the necessary density, since it would be the same PPI as the iPhone 4. The big barrier is probably cost, especially since the iPad Mini has lower margins anyway. If TC can work some supply chain magic, he might be able to make me eat my words and swing it next year as people are hoping - if not, probably the year after. So, to clarify earlier statements: Giving an iPad Mini an iPad 4-density screen is a design issue. Giving an iPad Mini an iPhone 4-density screen is a cost issue. Thanks wraith.
|
|
|
Post by applemuncher on Nov 9, 2012 12:02:31 GMT -8
You won't see retina on the iPad mini any time soon. It's not a cost issue; it's a design issue. Exactly right - the iPad Mini has the same screen resolution as an iPad 1 or 2, which enables developers to support it without much if any additional work. Giving it a retina display would require adding a third resolution to the iPad lineup, and that would have a lot of downsides in terms of out of the box software compatibility, developer relations, etc. My money says we won't see retina on the iPad Mini until the tech is good (and affordable from a component perspective) enough to give the Mini a screen that has the same pixel dimensions (but smaller physical dimensions, so a HIGHER pixel density) as the Retina iPads. (Not that you'd be able to tell under normal use, because retina, but because then developers, instead of having to develop for three iPad resolutions, can move towards developing for just one...) Shorter: You won't see a Retina iPad Mini in the near future for the same reason that the Retina iPads have exactly twice the pixel dimensions of their non-retina counterparts. It's all about what's best for the development ecosystem. Hello. Why can't Apple make a mini with the same pixel dimensions as the 4th Gen iPad? Maybe that's why they invested $2B in Sharp? Just guessing.
|
|
|
Post by wraithyouth on Nov 9, 2012 12:05:57 GMT -8
Hello. Why can't Apple make a mini with the same pixel dimensions as the 4th Gen iPad? Maybe that's why they invested $2B in Sharp? Just guessing. Per the posts between the one you quoted and this one, they CAN - the question is whether they can do it at an acceptable cost. To reiterate the clarification: Giving an iPad Mini an iPad 4-density screen is a design issue. Giving an iPad Mini an iPhone 4-density screen (what you're asking about) is a cost issue.
|
|
|
Post by aapl4kiki on Nov 9, 2012 12:06:25 GMT -8
Exactly right - the iPad Mini has the same screen resolution as an iPad 1 or 2, which enables developers to support it without much if any additional work. Giving it a retina display would require adding a third resolution to the iPad lineup, and that would have a lot of downsides in terms of out of the box software compatibility, developer relations, etc. My money says we won't see retina on the iPad Mini until the tech is good (and affordable from a component perspective) enough to give the Mini a screen that has the same pixel dimensions (but smaller physical dimensions, so a HIGHER pixel density) as the Retina iPads. (Not that you'd be able to tell under normal use, because retina, but because then developers, instead of having to develop for three iPad resolutions, can move towards developing for just one...) Shorter: You won't see a Retina iPad Mini in the near future for the same reason that the Retina iPads have exactly twice the pixel dimensions of their non-retina counterparts. It's all about what's best for the development ecosystem. Hello. Why can't Apple make a mini with the same pixel dimensions as the 4th Gen iPad? Maybe that's why they invested $2B in Sharp? Just guessing. I'd like to think the $2B investment is TV/content related. We can dream.
|
|
Mav
Member
[img style="max-width:100%;" alt=" " src="http://www.forumup.it/images/smiles/simo.gif"]
Posts: 10,784
|
Post by Mav on Nov 9, 2012 12:08:15 GMT -8
They sure could. Making an iPad mini screen out of the iPad 3 screen would make for a 1366x1024 screen. It's HD and better than the competition, but not dramatically so, and it's not Apple's style to go crazy with multiple screen resolutions as we've been seeing. It'll probably be Retina or Bust. At which point the big iPad will look at its little brother with some level of concern and envy, even though the big iPad will always sport the latest tech and SoC.
Back to Intraday, AAPL is at war with MOAR GRIDLOCK. Dipped below 545, should be an "interesting" rest of the day.
|
|
|
Post by The Big Toe on Nov 9, 2012 12:13:02 GMT -8
Is there a power/battery difference to go up to a retina display? I just got the iPad 4 and the battery life seems to go quicker than my iPad 1. If there is a battery life difference, then that may also contribute to why Apple did not put the retina display in the mini.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 9, 2012 12:14:49 GMT -8
No retina on next year's iPad Mini will be an epic failure. This year it's disappointing but understandable; next year will be hugely disappointing and unacceptable. 12 months is a long time - costs will be cut on improved yields, and maintaining the same form factor. This should be able to offset the cost of a retina screen, which will also be cheaper 12 months from now than it is today.
I say the above as both an investor and a consumer.
|
|
|
Post by larrydoyle on Nov 9, 2012 12:15:29 GMT -8
An iPad mini with a retina display would require a much larger battery with current tech, making for a much bulkier device. (It's why the iPad 3 is thicker than the iPad 2) It also would have significant heat issues (beyond the iPad's current ones.)
|
|
|
Post by wraithyouth on Nov 9, 2012 12:21:42 GMT -8
No retina on next year's iPad Mini will be an epic failure. This year it's disappointing but understandable; next year will be hugely disappointing and unacceptable. 12 months is a long time - costs will be cut on improved yields, and maintaining the same form factor. This should be able to offset the cost of a retina screen, which will also be cheaper 12 months from now than it is today. I say the above as both an investor and a consumer. Here's hoping you're right. I'd love to eat crow on this. On the other hand, the most compelling explanation I've seen for the continued availability of the iPad 2 is that it is still selling very well despite the lack of a retina display. Consumers may genuinely not care about resolution as much as the tech press and people like us. If that proves to be the case, mightn't Apple might do better to use it's production economies to drop the sticker price to a more palatable $299 or so while maintaining margins?
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,554
|
Post by mark on Nov 9, 2012 12:23:41 GMT -8
Uh, the iPad mini has the same PPI as the first-gen iPhone. So, an iPad mini with Retina Display would have the same PPI as iPhone 4 and up. Uh ... that would add a new resolution to all apps. That's what they want to avoid!!! The iPad mini retina (if it is ever released) will very likely have the same resolution as the iPad retina - 2048x1536. Right now the issue is clearly cost. Apple already suffers substantially lower margins* on iPad mini than on their other iProducts, had they added retina, the price would have had to be higher AND they may have suffered even lower margin. * And I believe that this is one of the main reasons Apple guided lower margins this quarter. They simply don't know which iPad will dominate, and if iPad mini dominates this quarter, the margin mix will cause lower overall margins.
|
|
|
Post by greedynoob on Nov 9, 2012 12:28:28 GMT -8
Uh, the iPad mini has the same PPI as the first-gen iPhone. So, an iPad mini with Retina Display would have the same PPI as iPhone 4 and up. Uh ... that would add a new resolution to all apps. That's what they want to avoid!!! The iPad mini retina (if it is ever released) will very likely have the same resolution as the iPad retina - 2048x1536. 2048x1536 is exactly what he was talking about--in the iPad mini that would be the same PPI as the iPhone 4.
|
|
|
Post by wraithyouth on Nov 9, 2012 12:30:52 GMT -8
Uh, the iPad mini has the same PPI as the first-gen iPhone. So, an iPad mini with Retina Display would have the same PPI as iPhone 4 and up. Uh ... that resolution in 7.9 inch wouldn't be retina!!! Mav was talking about pixels per inch, not about overall resolution. The iPad Mini has a PPI of 163. The iPhone 4 has a PPI of 326, which is exactly double that. What do you need to do to take an iPad Mini (1024x768) display and match the resolution of an iPad 4 display (2048x1536)? Double it. So, an iPad mini with the resolution of a iPad 4 would have the PPI of an iPhone 4 - exactly as Mav said.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 9, 2012 12:40:58 GMT -8
No retina on next year's iPad Mini will be an epic failure. This year it's disappointing but understandable; next year will be hugely disappointing and unacceptable. 12 months is a long time - costs will be cut on improved yields, and maintaining the same form factor. This should be able to offset the cost of a retina screen, which will also be cheaper 12 months from now than it is today. I say the above as both an investor and a consumer. Here's hoping you're right. I'd love to eat crow on this. On the other hand, the most compelling explanation I've seen for the continued availability of the iPad 2 is that it is still selling very well despite the lack of a retina display. Consumers may genuinely not care about resolution as much as the tech press and people like us. If that proves to be the case, mightn't Apple might do better to use it's production economies to drop the sticker price to a more palatable $299 or so while maintaining margins? I think Apple can maintain the same margins with a retina model next year. For those that don't care, the original iPad Mini can be sold for $249 and wipe away the competition at the lower end, similar to what we're seeing with the $0 iPhone 4 / $99 iPhone 4S right now.
|
|
|
Post by The Big Toe on Nov 9, 2012 12:45:10 GMT -8
Here's hoping you're right. I'd love to eat crow on this. On the other hand, the most compelling explanation I've seen for the continued availability of the iPad 2 is that it is still selling very well despite the lack of a retina display. Consumers may genuinely not care about resolution as much as the tech press and people like us. If that proves to be the case, mightn't Apple might do better to use it's production economies to drop the sticker price to a more palatable $299 or so while maintaining margins? I think Apple can maintain the same margins with a retina model next year. For those that don't care, the original iPad Mini can be sold for $249 and wipe away the competition at the lower end, similar to what we're seeing with the $0 iPhone 4 / $99 iPhone 4S right now. That would just about wipe out most of the profit. The 4 and 4s are still sold at higher price than $0 and $99. The carrier subsidy is still being paid to Apple for those phones, so it is not like they are really that price. The mini is not subsidized.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 9, 2012 12:47:57 GMT -8
With all due respect people who want an iPad mini AND consider the retina display as a make or break factor are in the minority. It's the package as a whole including the experience/ecosystem. Reminds me of a AV salesman talking about Total Harmonic Distortion of one amp vs another. I told him that would be relevant if I had the hearing of a Bat.
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Nov 9, 2012 12:50:43 GMT -8
Here's hoping you're right. I'd love to eat crow on this. On the other hand, the most compelling explanation I've seen for the continued availability of the iPad 2 is that it is still selling very well despite the lack of a retina display. Consumers may genuinely not care about resolution as much as the tech press and people like us. If that proves to be the case, mightn't Apple might do better to use it's production economies to drop the sticker price to a more palatable $299 or so while maintaining margins? I think Apple can maintain the same margins with a retina model next year. For those that don't care, the original iPad Mini can be sold for $249 and wipe away the competition at the lower end, similar to what we're seeing with the $0 iPhone 4 / $99 iPhone 4S right now. I'd rather see increased margins than maintained margins.
|
|
|
Post by tuffett on Nov 9, 2012 12:51:01 GMT -8
With all due respect people who want an iPad mini AND consider the retina display as a make or break factor are in the minority. It's the package as a whole including the experience/ecosystem. Reminds me of a AV salesman talking about Total Harmonic Distortion of one amp vs another. I told him that would be relevant if I had the hearing of a Bat. This year, I agree. Next year, it'll be expected. At that point, considering the ecosystem is a given, a retina screen will be far more important than any other improvement they make (thinness, lightness, processing power). I don't think perfect vision is required to appreciate the quality of a retina display. It's on the iPhone, the iPad, and a few Macs now. Leaving it off the 2nd generation Mini will be silly.
|
|
chinacat
Moderator
AAPL Long since 2006
Posts: 4,431
|
Post by chinacat on Nov 9, 2012 12:51:53 GMT -8
Couple of quick things:
I am struck that in the past two days most of the Apple headlines in the various news aggregators I visit have shifted from doom 'n' gloom back to cheerleading for the coming quarter. Coincidence?
I have seen some articles recently bragging about new Android tablets having greater PPI than the retina iPad. I thought the whole "retina" idea was that it reached the limits of perception of the human eye. So what's the point of greater PPI? I must not understand something.
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 9, 2012 12:52:03 GMT -8
Well fellow board members looks like we are going to make it today. High volume and up. I for one am highly chuffed as its an EO day also. Perhaps the bears have lost their appetite Or more likely as some have already said the margin calls have come in and been answered.
|
|
|
Post by Apple II+ on Nov 9, 2012 12:52:16 GMT -8
No retina on next year's iPad Mini will be an epic failure. This year it's disappointing but understandable; next year will be hugely disappointing and unacceptable. 12 months is a long time - costs will be cut on improved yields, and maintaining the same form factor. This should be able to offset the cost of a retina screen, which will also be cheaper 12 months from now than it is today. I say the above as both an investor and a consumer. I see iPad Mini with Retina as more likely two years out, and as an investor I'm happy with that. I'd like to see a similar progression as the iPad 1 to iPad 2, with spec upgrades but no Retina. Retina just came to iPad in 2012, so if Retina comes to the Mini in 2014, that's fine by me. As a consumer, I wanted an iPad Mini from the get go, back in April 2010, because the original iPad and iPad 2 displays were compromised, IMO. The iPhone pixel density was good, however, so it was easy to imagine an iPad Mini at the same pixel density. The iPad needed better pixel density, and the iPad with Retina was one solution. And now we have two solutions to that problem--the iPad with Retina and the Mini. Mini with Retina is going to be nice to have when Apple gets around to it, but not a huge deal, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by applemuncher on Nov 9, 2012 12:53:30 GMT -8
I think Apple can maintain the same margins with a retina model next year. For those that don't care, the original iPad Mini can be sold for $249 and wipe away the competition at the lower end, similar to what we're seeing with the $0 iPhone 4 / $99 iPhone 4S right now. That would just about wipe out most of the profit. The 4 and 4s are still sold at higher price than $0 and $99. The carrier subsidy is still being paid to Apple for those phones, so it is not like they are really that price. The mini is not subsidized. I still think we will see it in June for the K12 buying season. mashable.com/2012/11/07/retina-ipad-mini/
|
|
|
Post by fas550 on Nov 9, 2012 12:53:50 GMT -8
With all due respect people who want an iPad mini AND consider the retina display as a make or break factor are in the minority. It's the package as a whole including the experience/ecosystem. Reminds me of a AV salesman talking about Total Harmonic Distortion of one amp vs another. I told him that would be relevant if I had the hearing of a Bat. This year, I agree. Next year, it'll be expected. At that point, considering the ecosystem is a given, a retina screen will be far more important than any other improvement they make (thinness, lightness, processing power). I don't think perfect vision is required to appreciate the quality of a retina display. It's on the iPhone, the iPad, and a few Macs now. Leaving it off the 2nd generation Mini will be silly. Totally agree. When the numbers add up COGS, margins and retail price point etc I expect they'll do it.
|
|
|
Post by wraithyouth on Nov 9, 2012 12:58:40 GMT -8
Couple of quick things: I have seen some articles recently bragging about new Android tablets having greater PPI than the retina iPad. I thought the whole "retina" idea was that it reached the limits of perception of the human eye. So what's the point of greater PPI? I must not understand something. Retina is dependent on distance (eg. the farther from your face it is, the less density it needs to be retina), which is why the retina iPad and iPhone 5 can have different PPI and still both be retina. So, I guess the practical advantage of having a higher PPI than a retina iPad is that you can get the "retina" effect while holding it closer to your face. But, really, I think it's just another example of "bigger numbers are better" marketing. Remember the MHz wars?
|
|
mark
fire starter
Posts: 1,554
|
Post by mark on Nov 9, 2012 12:59:39 GMT -8
2048x1536 is exactly what he was talking about--in the iPad mini that would be the same PPI as the iPhone 4. Not exactly the same, it would be closer to the PPI of the iPhone 5. 2048x1536 at 7.9" is 324 ppi (future iPad mini ... maybe) 960x640 at 3.5" is 329 ppi (iPhone 4) 1136x640 at 4" is 325 ppi (iPhone 5)
|
|
|
Post by wheeles on Nov 9, 2012 13:01:24 GMT -8
Looks like weekly options saved AAPL a trip back to the depths.
|
|