[XMonkey]

ipad 2 SoC. They just did a die shrink which the latest ipad 2s are getting, which brings costs down and increases battery life (needed with a small tablet as space means small battery) ipad 3 SoC is only needed to drive the big screen

Ah yes, forgot about the slight iPad 2 SoC refresh. Makes sense then.

[mescalineeyes]

you should email Apple to let them know this important scientific research. If you don't want one, doesn't mean others don't. Why are there so many 7" android tablets? Surely there must have been some research showing people would want that size as a combination of performance and portability? I wouldn't want one either - I use my ipad mainly at home, and I like the larger size for PDFs etc. But I can see the attraction of a 7" one (and mainly the attraction of price to get you into an ecosystem)

Then why is no one buying those 7" tablets? Save for the Fire they're all duds.

[mrklaw]

info about the ipad 2 die shrink - http://www.anandtech.com/show/5789/t...32nm-a5-tested

The original 45nm A5's die measured approximately 122mm^2. The new 32nm A5 has a surface area of only 69mm^2. That's actually amazingly good scaling at 57% of the old die size, as perfect scaling from 45nm to 32nm would be around 50.5%.

Assuming Apple could make full use of a 300mm wafer (which it can't, wafers are round, chips are rectangular at best so there are some unusable chips), Samsung could deliver 579 45nm A5 die to Apple. The move to 32nm would give Apple 75% more die per wafer at 1015 chips.

These ARM based SoCs are already fairly cheap - all selling well below $30 (many around $15)

We measured a 15% increase in our web browsing battery life, a nearly 30% increase in gaming battery life and an 18% increase in video playback battery life.

[mrklaw]

Then why is no one buying those 7" tablets? Save for the Fire they're all duds.

because android as a tablet platform is even worse than it is on smartphones, with very little app coverage? And most are using outdated software, or are low powered in an attempt to be price competitive?

They're shit, basically.

[tci]

Why do people want small tablets? Give me an 12" please!

Hopefully Windows tablets can give me what I want. Been waiting since the Crunchpad ...

[BuddyJoeHooker]

Why do people want small tablets? Give me an 12" please! Hopefully Windows tablets can give me what I want. Been waiting since the Crunchpad ...

It's about price.

[tci]

It's about price.

7 inches is too small. 12 inches doesn't need to be that much more expensive. The problem now is demand for them. iPad just ruined everything imo. Not that they aren't good devices.

[numble]

info about the ipad 2 die shrink - http://www.anandtech.com/show/5789/t...32nm-a5-tested

The Anandtech article is particularly interesting because they emphasize that it wasn't just a die shrink, it uses a new, more complicated manufacturing design for extra battery efficiency. If it was only to save money, they'd probably just go for a die shrink. They designed the chip for extra battery efficiency.

Anandtech speculates that they did this to experiment with new processes for future processors, but I think it could also be because they could use the new more power-efficient A5 in a device with a smaller battery, while still promising a high battery life.

This isn't however just a normal die shrink, as Apple is using Samsung's 32nm high-k + metal gate LP transistors for this new A5 die. ... One such source is the gate oxide/gate dielectric, a particularly thin part of modern day transistors - on the order of a handful of atoms thick. Thinning the gate dielectric is desirable up to a certain point, after which the dielectric simply leaks too much power. Switching to a different material here, specifically one with a higher dielectric constant (a higher k-value), can significantly reduce leakage current and mitigate this issue. This is exactly what the first part of Samsung's 32nm high-k + metal gate process does. The second half of the new process is the introduction of a metal gate electrode. Switching from a polysilicon to a metal gate electrode results in higher drive current by elimination of a region of depleted conducting carriers between the gate electrode and gate dielectric. ... The combination of these two innovations results in less wasted current and more efficient current delivery, which in turn can give us a more power efficient chip. It's a net win. It makes manufacturing more complex, and there's definitely a learning curve to implementing it, but after you get over that hurdle it becomes just another part of the process. ... Apple decided to try out Samsung's 32nm HK+MG process on the A5 used in the 3rd generation Apple TV and some of the new iPad 2s. The former is a relatively low volume product for Apple, while the latter still moves in significant quantities. To deal with that fact, Apple is continuing to ship the original 45nm iPad 2,1 alongside the new 32nm iPad 2,4. Any hiccups in Samsung's production of the A5 and there are still more than enough iPad 2,1s to go around. The risk of moving to 32nm is effectively mitigated, while the learnings Apple gains from building the 32nm A5 will pay off later this year as Apple ramps up production of a 32nm SoC for use in the next iPhone. It's a very smart strategy, one you would expect from an experienced chip company - not a device vendor. When you consider that Apple employs chip architects who have worked on everything from the Athlon 64 to the Cortex A15, Apple's behavior is no longer that surprising. Apple gets two benefits from the iPad 2,4: lower manufacturing costs, and experience with Samsung's 32nm HK+MG process which it will later use in much greater volumes. What about customers who end up with an iPad 2,4? Better battery life and cooler operation, of course.

[Sentry]

It's about price.

I know Steve Jobs is dead, but I don't he would ever birth an entirely new product for the sole purpose of a cheap entry price. Apple has never done that, and I doubt they're going to start now.

Now if you want to make the argument that there are consumers who want a smaller iPad, that's something else entirely.

[FyreWulff]

I know Steve Jobs is dead, but I don't he would ever birth an entirely new product for the sole purpose of a cheap entry price. Apple has never done that, and I doubt they're going to start now. Now if you want to make the argument that there are consumers who want a smaller iPad, that's something else entirely.

Mac Mini?

[Juice]

Just put the iPad 2 guts in a smaller screen. Screen is a major part of price and that scales more than linearly, so a 7" screen will be cheaper than 7/10 the 10" cost. Plus smaller battery. iPad 2 recently got a die shrink improving battery life and making it cheaper to produce in volume, perfect for a smaller iPad. $200 is probably wishful thinking, maybe they'll start at $250 but they don't need to compete directly on price with the fire. Plus that might be some gimped 8GB (hope not) Not enough space between the 16GB 7" and previous 10" More like $249 - iPad 7" 8GB $299 - iPad 7" 16GB $399 - iPad 2 16GB $499 - new iPad 16GB

I disagree. I think that the 7" is going to be seen as superior by so many people that there doesn't need to be much separation in price between it and the iPad 2

[The Faceless Master]

to people saying it's the same price as an ipod touch... does a 7" ipad fit conveniently in all of your pockets?

[shinobi602]

Will get if price is true.

[AngryMoth]

Rumour is they've had a 7" model in heir labs for ages. Just a gut instinct, but I don't think they'll ever release it.

[The Faceless Master]

7 inches is too small. 12 inches doesn't need to be that much more expensive. The problem now is demand for them. iPad just ruined everything imo. Not that they aren't good devices.

a 12" screen is 50% larger in area than a 10"

[tino]

250 LOL.

More like $349.99

[The Faceless Master]

I don't see why people think a price that's comparable to what everyone else is doing is unreasonable... have you all seen the MSRP on 10" Android tablets compared to the new iPad?

Sure, Apple's PC prices are CRAY, but their iOS devices have been in line with their market competition...

[strata8]

but their iOS devices have been in line with their market competition...

Have they? The iPad might be (I honestly wouldn't know) but the iPhones definitely aren't. For example (prices from one store in my country):

iPhone 4S: 1Ghz dual core, 16GB storage, 960x540 3.5" display, $729
HTC One X: 1.5Ghz quad core, 32GB storage, 1280x720 4.7" (!) display, $649

You could argue that Apple's build quality is better - and it probably is - but when it comes down to it it's pretty evident that Apple still marks up their prices.

[Tobor]

I'm thinking $299. $250 would be a power play, though. Big time.

1024x768 screen. iPad 2 specs.

I have no interest in anything smaller than 10", but more power to the people that do, I guess. It will sell like hotcakes for kids.

[Kung Fu Jedi]

I'm not interested in a 7" iPad (love my iPad 3) but this rumor seems to be getting more and more traction, so I wouldn't be surprised if there was some truth to it. Considering that sales of the Fire have fallen off a cliff since Christmas, and the original Kindles aren't doing great either, this would be an opportunity for Apple to really take command of the tablet market. I mean bigger command, as lets face it, right now it's Apple and then a wide gap back to everyone else.

Also, criticism of their PC prices is really a bit outlandish at this point. Sure, they don't make much in the way of a sub-$1000 machine, but if the Mac's are so over priced, why are the ultrabook manufacturers having such a hard time competing with them in that area?

[rezuth]

A smaller iPad would not be made for consumers even if they could buy it. I would imagine it more being like the eMac, for education.

[Brettison]

I'm thinking $299. $250 would be a power play, though. Big time. 1024x768 screen. iPad 2 specs. I have no interest in anything smaller than 10", but more power to the people that do, I guess. It will sell like hotcakes for kids.

I'm with you on this. I just seem maybe Apple going for the Power Play move. $200 is out of the question though, but $250 is at least possible. $300 seems the most reasonable if we stick with the idea of Apple premiums.

I have a feeling Apple wants to deal the death blow though which is why I was thinking $250.

[coldfoot]

The more I think about it, the more I feel like Apple would never cripple the iPad with only 8GB. They don't make subpar products to just hit a price point. Flash memory is getting cheaper by the day, so my vote is now on $299 for 16GB 7.85" ipad.
Given the willingness of people to pay for Apple products, $299 would still sell like hotcakes and there's no need to reduce the price to $250.

[tino]

Apple has said themselves a few times they want to make a cheaper version of iPhone for the prepaid market, so far they haven't been able to deliver.

They haven't said anything about 7" iPad so we have heard enough rumor that its probably true.

I wonder which one will come out first.

Personally, I have lost interest to the 7" form factor. A lot of this has to do with how big a gadget I can get away with at work. As soon as the TMobile Galaxy Note come out I will get it.

[Brettison]

The more I think about it, the more I feel like Apple would never cripple the iPad with only 8GB. They don't make subpar products to just hit a price point. Flash memory is getting cheaper by the day, so my vote is now on $299 for 16GB 7.85" ipad.

Actually they already DO THIS. Just look at the iPhone 4. Older parts from the older phone at only 8 gigs verses 16 when it launched.

[Vyse The Legend]

A 7 inch one may happen -- eventually. However, there's no chance it will be this cheap.

Apple can charge more, and they will. $300 minimum; $400, more likely.

[LCfiner]

The 7" tablet really is an in between device - definitely moreso than the current ipad. app UI can't be too much more complex than a smartphone, because of the screen size. it's too large to be pocketable. it's in this weird space.

If Apple were to make this, would they position it as even more of a reading/ game machine? since the benefits of the small size are weight and easy one handed use, reading is an obvious selling point over the regular ipad (but if the resolution is only average, then it may just be a wash). what's their marketing pitch for someone to buy this? someone who needs a laptop on the road and still wants an iOS device smaller than the ipad? someone who reads a ton?

On one hand, I understand the logic in thinking Apple will try to cover all price points with iOS devices the way they did with iPods. not allowing competitors any price points or form factors to gain traction in the market. that's really the only argument I can understand for why they would do this now.

But on the other hand, making a 7" device means making some real sacrifices in usability and app complexity. Using it would be more like using a really large smartphone compared to what can be done on the ipad now. The device would be much less versatile than the ipad and would appeal to a smaller subset of people who just want a reading or gaming device and not a potential PC replacement.

Does Apple want to release something like that so early in the iPad's life? Do they see enough benefit with the lighter form factor to create a third class of in-between apps for it? Do they want to dilute what the term "iPad" means and what an "iPad" can do?

[Kung Fu Jedi]

A 7 inch one may happen -- eventually. However, there's no chance it will be this cheap. Apple can charge more, and they will. $300 minimum; $400, more likely.

Considering you can get a new (and improved) iPad 2 for $400, there is no way they would price a 7" model at the same point.

[Greyface]

But on the other hand, making a 7" device means making some real sacrifices in usability and app complexity. Using it would be more like using a really large smartphone compared to what can be done on the ipad now. The device would be much less versatile than the ipad and would appeal to a smaller subset of people who just want a reading or gaming device and not a potential PC replacement.

That completely depends on the software. I've used 7" devices running barebones ereader software. I've owned 7" devices running smartphone software. I now own a 7" device running a full-blown tablet OS with tablet apps. The 7" tablet I own now is no less versatile than the iPad 2. If Apple deciders to treat their 7" tablet as a bigger iPod Touch with the same apps then, yeah, it would be sacrificing app complexity. If Apple instead treats it like a mini iPad, and gives it the tablet apps, then it would be fine.

[Krev]

The 7" tablet really is an in between device - definitely moreso than the current ipad. app UI can't be too much more complex than a smartphone, because of the screen size. it's too large to be pocketable. it's in this weird space. If Apple were to make this, would they position it as even more of a reading/ game machine? since the benefits of the small size are weight and easy one handed use, reading is an obvious selling point over the regular ipad (but if the resolution is only average, then it may just be a wash). what's their marketing pitch for someone to buy this? someone who needs a laptop on the road and still wants an iOS device smaller than the ipad? someone who reads a ton? On one hand, I understand the logic in thinking Apple will try to cover all price points with iOS devices the way they did with iPods. not allowing competitors any price points or form factors to gain traction in the market. that's really the only argument I can understand for why they would do this now. But on the other hand, making a 7" device means making some real sacrifices in usability and app complexity. Using it would be more like using a really large smartphone compared to what can be done on the ipad now. The device would be much less versatile than the ipad and would appeal to a smaller subset of people who just want a reading or gaming device and not a potential PC replacement. Does Apple want to release something like that so early in the iPad's life? Do they see enough benefit with the lighter form factor to create a third class of in-between apps for it? Do they want to dilute what the term "iPad" means and what an "iPad" can do?

Good post.
I could only see them launching this if they really want to kill Kindle. I'm not sure that making an in-between device would be a good thing in the long term. The strength of iOS is its lack of fragmentation when compared to Android.

[coldfoot]

Actually they already DO THIS. Just look at the iPhone 4. Older parts from the older phone at only 8 gigs verses 16 when it launched.

iPhone is a smartphone where as iPad is a computer replacement. Not to mention iPad apps are larger and more comprehensive.

[PaleFolklore]

I've been waiting to buy an iPad and an iPhone for a while now. I'll be buying both as soon as the iPhone 5 is released. I don't think I'll be buying the 7" iPad though. Personally, I'd rather they go bigger rather than smaller. I like the screen size when I use my sisters iPad 3 but I think I would like it even more at 1-2 inches bigger. Hoping the iPhone 5 is at least 4" as well.

[drspeedy]

It'll be about 7 inches but it will have a 1024X768 resolution like the iPad2 and it will cost no less than $300. $200 tablets barely make a profit as is. Do we really expect apple to sell a 7 inch tablet for the same price as an 8GB ipod touch?

Yes. And if they do it right they kill RIM in the process; game, set, match.

I'd buy. I love my 7 inch PlayBook ... It's a better form factor for reading ebooks, it's more portable for carrying around and much easier to use in bed. I still love my huge iPad 1 for couch surfing (i prefer it over my 7 inch PlayBook) but I would seriously consider a 7 inch iPad at a 250 price point.

I would buy a 7" iPad Loved the size of the playbook... And the res of the device would very likely be 1920x1080 (exactly double the iPhone) iPad res is next to impossible right now

I love mine as well, and picked it up for <$200USD. I'd bet the Playbook is definitely more the model for Apple's 7" tablet than the Kindle, which is nothing compared to the iPad. Kindle is poor tablet but a reasonable reader/browser.

Also: retina GTFO. Only if "$499 at an Applestore near you!"

[Goldrusher]

A4 iPad plz.

[Rocket Scientist]

Even I would buy it at $250, so no, it's not going to be $250.

[andycapps]

A 7 inch one may happen -- eventually. However, there's no chance it will be this cheap. Apple can charge more, and they will. $300 minimum; $400, more likely.

Not necessarily, if they're trying to destroy the competition by going after the only semi-viable tablet market for Android then 7" is where to go. They can afford to undercut their normal profits some to take the market over completely. They'd still turn a profit, it just wouldn't be as exorbitant. And there's no way it's the same res on a 7".. It'll still be "retina," but not that resolution with the first iteration.

[captmcblack]

A 7-inch iPad at $200 would be the end of Android tablets almost instantly.

...and I'd contribute to it, because I LOVE the 7-inch form factor. That is exactly as big as I want a tablet. It's perfect for reading comics and ebooks, it's perfect for holding sideways to play games, it's perfect for sitting in your bag. That price would make it a killer.

[Copernicus]

Did you know that Steve Jobs had cancer?

1)It's been like two ipads since Jobs died.

B)I was channeling todd akin and not radiating Job's memory, relax.

iPad usage is way up and is growing faster than the iPhone market. Yet the wi-fi model outsells the LTE model. Which completely goes against the point you are trying to make.

The discussion at hand was about regular sized mobile ipods, not the the extra large ones.

[mrklaw]

7" supported with the launch of an official apple wireless joypad would be very nice. I'd be tempted to pick up a 7" to keep on me at all times (iPad mostly stays at home)

[Raistlin]

I'm thinking $299. $250 would be a power play, though. Big time. 1024x768 screen. iPad 2 specs. I have no interest in anything smaller than 10", but more power to the people that do, I guess. It will sell like hotcakes for kids.

Yeah having thought about it, while I think they could produce it such that $250 or even $200 (eventually) is viable ... I'm not sure what the point would be. They'd be cannibalizing iPad 2 and maybe even iPad 3 to what end? Lower margins as a goal?

Killing off the competition isn't valuable if it means you end up with lower profits. And once you set a pricing structure, it's hard to raise it later just because there's no one competing. That would simply open up the sector to new competition again. Granted it's extremely hard to break into this sector, but the problem is their current competition isn't going anywhere. Android phones aren't going to die any time soon and Windows on ARM will be used in other things beyond tablets. So even if Apple could knock their tablets off by such a move ... they'd be ready to jump back in with relatively mature OS's and ecosystems at any sign of weakness. It's not like they'd need to start from scratch.

I'm expecting a shrunk down iPad 2, smaller battery, and 8GB memory for maybe $299? 16GB at $349? Something like that. That would give Apple a new entry point without cannibalizing their other tiers. While I know people would argue they'd prefer to cannibalize themselves, I think it's obvious they would like to continue with two 10" tiers moving forward due to economy of scale with new new generations of processors and die shrinks.

Similarly, I think such a pricing structure works well versus the current competition. While it's a bit more than the main players (Kindle Fire, Nook Tablet), it's also giving you the full iOS experience and ecosystem on overall better HW. There really isn't much mental gymnastics involved in seeing the value.

[Cheebo]

1)It's been like two ipads since Jobs died. B)I was channeling todd akin and not radiating Job's memory, relax. The discussion at hand was about regular sized mobile ipods, not the the extra large ones.

Extra large iPods? iPads are computers

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Similarly, I think such a pricing structure works well versus the current competition. While it's a bit more than the main players (Kindle Fire, Nook Tablet), it's also giving you the full iOS experience and ecosystem on overall better HW. There really isn't much mental gymnastics involved in seeing the value.

I do think there is a market for a $300 7 inch iPad, but it's price is only reasonable when compared against the iPod touch. This won't absorb any of the current customers for 7 inch tablets.

I mean, the 7 inch Nexus tablet from Asus is coming out soon and will have (according to the rumors) a Tegra 3 chip and probably 16GB of memory, but it's being rumored that it will be in the $150-$200 price range. There is absolutely no way a $300 iPad is going to compete with that.

I think you'd have to already be sold on iOS to consider paying so much more for a 7 inch iPad. Either Apple can go for absolute minimum profit and sell the 7 inch iPad for $200, cutting into the 10 inch iPads sales, or they'll just eventually give up on the small tablet market.

[Greyface]

Extra large iPods? iPads are computers

? An iPod Touch is a computer too

[Copernicus]

Extra large iPods? iPads are computers

So is my microwave technically.

[Tobor]

Not this again.

[Curufinwe]

7" supported with the launch of an official apple wireless joypad would be very nice.

Apple seems to think touch is perfect for every situation, so good luck with that.

[Raistlin]

I do think there is a market for a $300 7 inch iPad, but it's price is only reasonable when compared against the iPod touch. This won't absorb any of the current customers for 7 inch tablets.

Disagree. For people that are just looking at a simple media consumption device like a Kindle Fire, yeah probably not a huge amount of upsale (beyond those that where using it as their first tablet and now want to get a full-scale one). But I think there will be plenty of Android tablet users that want to move from my own personal experience.

I mean, the 7 inch Nexus tablet from Asus is coming out soon and will have (according to the rumors) a Tegra 3 chip and probably 16GB of memory, but it's being rumored that it will be in the $150-$200 price range. There is absolutely no way a $300 iPad is going to compete with that.

1) We really don't know the HW or pricing for either ... so it's kind of moot to speculate with this man if's

2) Assuming the same SoC as iPad 2, it actually outperforms Tegra 3 for graphics which is really the long-pole here. It's not like iPad is particularly CPU bottle-necked.

3) It really comes down to ecosystem. And I'm sorry, but Android's is generally terrible beyond simple media consumption. This coming from someone with 3 Android tablets.

I think you'd have to already be sold on iOS to consider paying so much more for a 7 inch iPad. Either Apple can go for absolute minimum profit and sell the 7 inch iPad for $200, cutting into the 10 inch iPads sales, or they'll just eventually give up on the small tablet market.

Why would you need to be sold on iOS already to want the better tablet? Though that said, I suspect there are plenty of people that use iTunes and/or iOS that don't already have an iPad.

[Al-ibn Kermit]

Disagree. For people that are just looking at a simple media consumption device like a Kindle Fire, yeah probably not a huge amount of upsale (beyond those that where using it as their first tablet and now want to get a full-scale one). But I think there will be plenty of Android tablet users that want to move from my own personal experience.

The 7 inch market is pretty much just the Kindle Fire and the Nook. I doubt those users are too concerned about any advantages iOS might offer in apps over the highly customized version of Android they're using.

1) We really don't know the HW or pricing for either ... so it's kind of moot to speculate with this man if's 2) Assuming the same SoC as iPad 2, it actually outperforms Tegra 3 for graphics which is really the long-pole here. It's not like iPad is particularly CPU bottle-necked. 3) It really comes down to ecosystem. And I'm sorry, but Android's is generally terrible beyond simple media consumption. This coming from someone with 3 Android tablets.

The Nexus tablet is based on the Asus memo370t, which apparently had a Tegra 3. The only reason this is important is that the Tegra 3 can run Android 4.0 very smoothly. If both tablets can run their operating systems at 60 fps, then that makes the comparison mainly come down to price and tablet apps, which they are each very different in.

For new tablet buyers though, availability of apps isn't something you're going to notice by playing with display models. I don't see a 7 inch iPad offering more curb appeal than the 7 inch Androids.

Why would you need to be sold on iOS already to want the better tablet?

Because there's a ~two times difference in price, and the price is usually one of the first things that people try to narrow down when shopping for something.

Unless they already know what software they prefer. That's why I think this will sell to people who have an iPhone or iPad, but want a more goldilocksish screen size also.

[Vyse The Legend]

Not this again.

Seriously.

Anything sub-$300 is a complete dream. A wonderful dream, but a dream none the less.

[Copernicus]

Seriously. Anything sub-$300 is a complete dream. A wonderful dream, but a dream none the less.

I think Tobor was talking about the ipods being mislabeled as computers.

I'll call the ipods computers when they gain meaninful computer functionality like the ability to upload data from the browser without having to dance around the silos.