by 
Several news outlets are reporting today that {complink 379|Apple Inc.} is experimenting with smaller displays for an upcoming version of the iPad.
The general consensus is that Apple, in an effort to compete with chief rival {complink 4751|Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.}, is broadening its tablet portfolio. Samsung offers its Galaxy Tab in 3 sizes: 7-inch, 8.9-inch, and 10.1-inch, at three different price points. Apple's iPad and iPad 2 have a 9.7-inch screen. Analysts also point out that Amazon's well-selling Kindle Fire, with a screen of 7 inches, is eating away at Apple's tablet market share.
In addition to offering consumers more choice in tablet sizes, analysts believe that by moving to an 8-inch screen, Apple is seeking to lower the price range of the iPad. The iPad 2 sells for $499. A Galaxy Tab with a 7-inch screen sells for as low as $281; a 10.1-inch Tab is around $379.
I'm not so sure that Apple is chasing Samsung. I think there's more going on behind the screen (pun intended).
Almost a year ago to the day, IHS iSuppli reported that Apple had invested more than $3 billion in LCD technology. (See: Apple Defies Risk-Management Convention.) The recipients of this investment were thought to be {complink 3074|LG Electronics Inc.}, {complink 4907|Sharp Electronics Corp.}, and {complink 5648|Toshiba Corp.}, and the investments would be used over a two-year period. Today's news reports say that the companies experimenting with Apple's new screen include Korea's LG and AU Optronics in China.
Last year, IHS iSuppli reported:
- The agreements would involve the supply of Apple's retina display, used in the iPhone and iPad. The retina display employs the use of advanced in-plane switching (IPS) and low-temperature polysilicon (LTPS) technology that provides extremely high resolutions in small displays by using pixels that are smaller than the human eye can perceive. Since IPS LCD production is limited to suppliers that own or have access to the IPS license, it is a challenge to match demand to suppliers that own production capacity and IPS licenses.
Better resolution is another advantage analysts cite in Apple's move from 9-inch to 8-inch screens. Smaller displays are denser — there are more pixels packed in to a smaller space — so they do provide a crisp view. Smaller screens also produce higher yields in display manufacturing. If Apple were to produce the 8-inch screens using the same technology as it is now, it could achieve both better resolution and cost savings on the smaller screens.
But Apple is known for leapfrogging its competition by offering significant technology advancements on its product versions rather than incremental improvements. So I think if Apple is committing to a smaller display, it will be more than just a smaller display. It will have technological advantages over the screens the iPad is using today.
The added advantage to Apple, if it is using newer technology, is that the iPad can still command premium pricing. If Apple is going to maintain its share price of $500, preserving a premium price makes sense. Then again, volume sales of a lower-priced iPad could boost Apple's already-hefty share of the tablet market.
What do you think Apple is trying to do?
It may be that Apple will offer iPhone + iPad in 7inch format. As per Apple this may be unique market yet to be explore.
Analysts must be having a tough time to beat the heat in tablet segment, I think reducing the size is definitely a good move especially with their proven and exclusive display technology. The display does magic on our eyes really awesome.
Barbara, you are right. The I Pad's tablet market share is now sparing with competitors like Samsung and Amazon because of size concern. Apple had only 9.7″' screen size and I feels that it's a drawback in size. They have to offer it in different size like 7/9'' at different price point. But performance and power wise Apple is much superior to its competitors.
New size ipad will definitely increase the apple market share, and if apple could find a cheaper option with AUO it will be more beneficial to customors. Why I care if it is 7″ when I can use the Apple device.
If that ie going to be the combination . It may not be a bad idea at all.
But what would happen to those that bought their Ipad and smartphone separately
I think that is a good a good idea, if Apple makes different screen sizes for their Ipads. This would allow users to make choice. well based on their pockets and nature of use.
Apple's strategy has always been to enter the market with a high-end product and squeeze as much profit from that as possible. Then, later, it introduces the slightly cheaper version to gain access to a wider customer base. That's what the company has to do with its tablet PCs.
The more I think about it, the more I agree that providing consumers with a choice is the right move. I may spend money on scaled down iPad if the price is right. I did hear something that threw me, though: the iPad 3, whether it is 7 inches or 10 inches, will run on 4G. Doesn't that ratchet the price back up?
Another great topic and post, Barb. Just an opinion of course, but I'm going to venture the same guess I did the first time Apple leaked plans for a smaller-screened device. I think they are wanting to capture more female marketshare. The beauty of a Kindle Fire and some other Android devices is simple from this respect…they fit in a purse. I have literally been party to several conversations where this was a major factor in the buying decision. I also think that, outside a certain tech-skilled set of women, this is an area Apple has failed to dominate.
Bolaji, Apple recently lost its patent war with a Chinese company. This mad shed almost all Apple Ipads from their shelf and there is no business for IPad in China. In that scenario, would you mean that Apple comes up with something new for Ipad or they will continue with their effort for low cost versions?
Well Barbara, in effect, report from IHS about reported incidents, has shown a ramp, but if we consider actions in place thanks to ACTA agreement, possible mistakes could come from number of signatories countries which is increasing a lot. Right now it involves about 31 countries and maybe it is not so easy to adopt processes for resolving issues matching rules and producers requirements, all over. Of course, it is only my opinion.
I agree completely. Until just recently Apple has had no need to offer a smaller version of the Ipad. When consumers are buying up the Ipad and Ipad 2 at hefty price points, they had no need to go after the cheaper market. This does seem like the optimal time for Apple to introduce a smaller version and try to gain some market share.
Barb, I agree with you that care on the part of manufacturers by monitoring disposal process is an easy way out and something which would be sigh of relief for contractors. Introduction of stricter regulations on manufacturers for disposing of waste/scrap or rather ensuring the actual implementation of the laws levied on disposing off scrap process is a measure that can wipe out counterfeiting from its origin. Also its in the benefit of the manufacturer to introduce tighter supervision for tackling this problem as the person/distributor taking advantage of this lapse is causing copyright violations hence adversely affecting the revenue generation of the manufacturer. Moreover the user of the electronics who is not aware of the counterfeiting going on and uses that product, is likely to blame the manufacturer when low performance issue arises.
@mfb: Yours is an informed opinion, and I agree. Getting numerous countries aligned with the same processes–whether they are environmental or anti-counterfeiting–is unbelievably complex. Globalization in the electronics industry continues to be a double-edged sword, with benefits and challenges every step of the way.
@Waqas: I definitely think it is in the supplier's best interest to protect its brand, and most suppliers do so. When products are purchased through authorized channels, suppliers will warranty their products. That assumes the supplier's factory manufactured the chips, and those chips were sent directly to the distributor (or to the end-customer).
The problems arise when a supplier outsources its manufacturing to a fab–it is up to the fab to dispose of scrap and that may or may not be in the brand owner's control. I'm not sure whether there is any data to suggest the problem is any worse when fabrication is outsourced–it is just one more step in a process that removes the brand owner from the actual product.
As we see more and more companies are actually provided with defense equipment development contract there would be more chances of counterfeit components. I think the military should stick to a list of OEM's and make sure they are consistently able to develop products without any conunterfeit components.
I read today the FED ruling on sentencing for the owner of MVP Micro; a convicted chip counterfeiter. He was sentenced to ONLY 30 months. If his partner (who committed suicide as a result of being arrested for the same offense) had only known that he would get such a slap on the wrist, he would probably still be alive today. No doubt the MVP owner stashed a good portion of his $$$ away before getting caught and will come out 'all set' when he gets outta da big house……30 months incarceration is a joke for such an offense………what if it was traced back that 'mil spec' components he sold ended up in a system that malfunctioned and killed our brave soliders???? The man (using the term 'man' loosely) should go away for a lot longer………..the penalties for being caught should be much greater……..it may not stem the tide of counterfeiting but it may keep some from entering into the 'dark side'!
RoHS–that was a big case, and yet you are correct–the penalty was absurd. Once again, by the time it gets to the point of prosecuting people who traffic in the goods it is too late. I believe those components were discovered at the contractor level. That contractor no doubt had to find alternative parts and start from scratch.
I strongly believe limiting access to discarded components will help cut down this problem. The reason most bogus parts go undetected for so long is they probably perform 99 percent of the time. If a counterfeiter makes a chip rom scratch, there is usually a problem that can be caught earlier in the supply chain. My favorite story is about a counterfeiter that misspelled Malaysia on the surface of the device.
Barbara,
Is it possible that the incident rate increase of reported conterfeiting is due to the fact that more people/company's are more aware of the problem and are on the lookout for it?…….and are reporting it? I know that in the independent supplier market place, we are more alert, and on the lookout for suspesct suppliers and suspect parts upon incoming inspection. Also services we pay for eg; ERAI etc are reporting fradulent parts on an almost daily basis……..so maybe the increase in the reported rate may be due to some of these steps taken to prevent?????
Maybe iPadAir, a smaller, slimmer, and lightweight version.
@rohs–that could be a contributor, although I would look farther back than 2009 to see if there is a trend. The IDEA site has been available for at least a decade, although it has changed venues, I think. Your point about incoming inspection, though, is right on the money. Independents became really aggressive, and public, about incoming inspection within the last 2-3 years. (I know this becuase I received the press releases.) If those distributors reported counterfeiting incidents, that could certainly account for the spike between 2009 and 2011.
Given the seriousness of the problem, one would think that the manufacturers would be motivated to destroy the defective product on-site, then let their subcontractors dispose of the waste, and not allow this product to compete in their own market.
In the military sector, the amount of time required to qualify hardware, and hence the components that go into that hardware, combined with the life of the program for bbioding the hardware, almost inevitably create an obsolescence issue with some components. This tends to cause supply issues that conterfeiters have taken advantage of in the past.
30 months might not seem like a lot but being in a prison for any time is a deterrent. I think the bigger issue is that the counterfeiting process is largely done offshore – away from the reach of US law. We need better IP protection and enforcement in the countries where it occurs. That is up to the state department and our administration. Is it any coincidence that counterfeits come from current or former communist countries where the people who knew how to make money were also the ones who knew how to “get around the system”.
Eldredge, are you meaning manufacturers using components that turn out to be counterfeit? The issue is, who covers the cost of replacing the counterfeit component? The manufacturer will have to do deal with the cost in the end, even though they rightly shouldn't need to.
Mostly I was trying to emphasize the obsolescense issue that often occurs in the defense industry due to the long design and produciton cycles, and how counterfeit components just adds to the headaches. Defense contractors are very serious about detecting and avoiding counterfeit parts. And you are correct – no one wants to deal with the cost repercussions from having used them.
As the contractor, if you are 'lucky' (or more accurately, diligent), you or your supplier detect and eliminate counterfeits from teh supply chain befre they are used. But the result is that the contratcor may be scambling to find a source of legitimate parts, or, is forced to design in another component, redesign a board to match the footprint, or whatever else is involved with the remaining options.
Exactly, Eldredge. There are indeed many (too many) headaches caused by counterfeit components.