Why doesn't the new iPad 2017 have anti reflective coating?

[rufftackle]

The new 9.4 inch iPad does not have the anti-reflective coating and fully laminated display (not sure what this is). Are these features that Apple decided to do without in order to drop the price, or are these simply no longer needed due to some type of new technology?

Anyone worried that these new iPads are going to reflect everything?

 

[chrono1081]

There's never been an anti-reflective coating on the iPad, they've all had glossy screens.

 

[NT1440]

There's never been an anti-reflective coating on the iPad, they've all had glossy screens.

....come on man. Just a simple google search would show that to be completely false.

Don't confuse anti-reflective coatings for what I believe you are discussing, a matte display.

 

[LeroyCarter]

I'm guessing it's to keep costs down and/or to entice you to buy the Pro

 

[sracer]

The new 9.4 inch iPad does not have the anti-reflective coating and fully laminated display (not sure what this is). Are these features that Apple decided to do without in order to drop the price, or are these simply no longer needed due to some type of new technology?

Anyone worried that these new iPads are going to reflect everything?

Maybe because these anti-reflective screens are WORSE?

My iPad Air 2 didn't have much glare but MAN did it show fingerprints! It was distracting and I had to often clean the screen. As bad as I thought that was it is even WORSE on my 12.9 iPad Pro.

 

[BritishApple]

There's never been an anti-reflective coating on the iPad, they've all had glossy screens.

Wrong. The iPad Air 2 and above have anti-reflective coatings on their displays.
[doublepost=1490185313][/doublepost]The lack of a laminated display is a shame. I presume this "new" iPad will have the same hollow, plastic feeling screen as the Air 1 (due to the slight air gap between the glass and display)?

 

[TheRealAlex]

The new 9.4 inch iPad does not have the anti-reflective coating and fully laminated display (not sure what this is). Are these features that Apple decided to do without in order to drop the price, or are these simply no longer needed due to some type of new technology?

Anyone worried that these new iPads are going to reflect everything?

Remove features = increase profits. Simple. Apple greed.

 

[blaine07]

Effort to entice people into the more expensive pro line would be my guess.

 

[gobikerider]

Wrong. The iPad Air 2 and above have anti-reflective coatings on their displays.
[doublepost=1490185313][/doublepost]The lack of a laminated display is a shame. I presume this "new" iPad will have the same hollow, plastic feeling screen as the Air 1 (due to the slight air gap between the glass and display)?

thats the one thing I think they could've thrown in I mean really it's such a technical thing it's kinda dumb to use it as a marketing tool for the higher end iPad it'll just confuse customers

 

[NT1440]

This iPad is an amalgam of parts already in Apple's inventory and supply chain. I suspect this model will stick around for a few years as the "base" iPad as a new form factor will come next year.

 

[Mathias Denichi]

AR is really cheap. Source, I'm in the eyeglass industry. Its probably to cut costs where ever possible to make a more affordable iPad.

 

[MacFather]

Deleted.

 

[rufftackle]

There's never been an anti-reflective coating on the iPad, they've all had glossy screens.

Here's the specs from the Apple Store: notice the dash where the others have AR and laminated display http://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

 

[aristobrat]

Remove features = increase profits. Simple. Apple greed.

Remove features = $70 price drop. Weird.
[doublepost=1490187242][/doublepost]

Here's the specs from the Apple Store: notice the dash where the others have AR and laminated display http://www.apple.com/ipad/compare/

My thought is they dropped the features to make a more meaningful difference between the regular iPad and the iPad Pro.

 

[NT1440]

AR is really cheap. Source, I'm in the eyeglass industry. Its probably to cut costs where ever possible to make a more affordable iPad.

Yes it is cheap....but keep in mind that comparing glasses coatings to a coating that has been engineered to be touched constantly with nasty human oils and doesn't impact touchscreen performance is not the same thing.

 

[Mathias Denichi]

Yes it is cheap....but keep in mind that comparing glasses coatings to a coating that has been engineered to be touched constantly with nasty human oils and doesn't impact touchscreen performance is not the same thing.

It's the same AR coating. There are varying degrees such as anti scratch grades, but there is a reason Apple works with Zeiss Optical already.

There isn't defferientianting AR coating from optical to any other glass, or poly carbonate.

 

[aristobrat]

Why? Tim Cook has a fetish for obsolete hardware and high margins.

I'm curious how the price drop for this model iPad affects its margins. They knocked $70 off the top line. I know this model is thicker, and the screen is different, but I really doubt they saved $70 in manufacturing costs on this model, which would seem to imply that they margins dropped on this one, no?

 

[NT1440]

It's the same AR coating. There are varying degrees such as anti scratch grades, but there is a reason Apple works with Zeiss Optical already.

There isn't defferientianting AR coating from optical to any other glass, or poly carbonate.

I thought their work with Zeiss was purely for the camera lenses? I could be mistaken, because I'm fairly confident that the panel glass is technically under the umbrella term "Gorilla Glass" (which is actually a spectrum of products, something lots of people don't know) from Corning.

I just figured the coating on an iPad would be different than on glasses because glasses coatings aren't engineered (as far as I know) to constantly be in contact with skin oils and friction...but if you have more information on it I'd gladly defer to your knowledge.

 

[gobikerider]

Remove features = $70 price drop. Weird.
[doublepost=1490187242][/doublepost]
My thought is they dropped the features to make a more meaningful difference between the regular iPad and the iPad Pro.

This and keep cost down, this is the iPad for education or just more affordable for people. Same reason German auto makers have 30k models now. Notice how the engines are less powerful and the interiors aren't as refined or luxurious as the 50k or 60k models. You want the nicer features pay up

 

[bodonnell202]

I think it was purely a cost decision. The Air 1 was probably cheaper to manufacture than the Air 2 so they based the design off the Air 1 to keep manufacturing costs down.

 

[Mike82]

There are rumors that the new Pro models will be thicker than the current ones as well. And Apple obviously doesn't want the cheapest iPad to be thinner than their flagship. I think that may be an important reason for them to release this upgraded Air 1 model.

 

[joeblow7777]

There are rumors that the new Pro models will be thicker than the current ones as well. And Apple obviously doesn't want the cheapest iPad to be thinner than their flagship. I think that may be an important reason for them to release this upgraded Air 1 model.

I don't really think that's an issue. Wasn't the iPhone 6s (and 7?) thicker than the 6? Apple may be obsessed with thinness, but I don't think that most consumers mind a bit more thickness if there's a reason for it.

 

[rui no onna]

I'm curious how the price drop for this model iPad affects its margins. They knocked $70 off the top line. I know this model is thicker, and the screen is different, but I really doubt they saved $70 in manufacturing costs on this model, which would seem to imply that they margins dropped on this one, no?

Yeah, probably just $20-30 savings on the display. I think increasing orders of the A9 chip (iPhone SE, 6s, 6s Plus) probably saves them some money, too, versus ordering the bigger A8X chip just for the Air 2.

Mind, no idea what the wholesale costs on iPads are. More likely, that $70 off will be divided between retailers and Apple. Got to say, having their own Apple Retail Stores was a brilliant move on Apple's part.

 

[MacDevil7334]

I don't really think that's an issue. Wasn't the iPhone 6s (and 7?) thicker than the 6? Apple may be obsessed with thinness, but I don't think that most consumers mind a bit more thickness if there's a reason for it.

The 6S was 0.2 mm change from the 6. Barely noticeable and you got 3D Touch as a new feature in exchange. The 1.4 mm increase means the "new" iPad is 22% thicker than the Air 2 it replaces. The increase is to make room for an air gap between the display and the glass, meaning the display quality will actually be worse. On the bright side, price did drop $70 so...yay?

As others have pointed out, this is a way for Apple to lower manufacturing costs and increase margins on the entry level iPad while at the same time pushing more people to buy the much more expensive Pro instead.

 

[rui no onna]

As others have pointed out, this is a way for Apple to lower manufacturing costs and increase margins on the entry level iPad while at the same time pushing more people to buy the much more expensive Pro instead.

Probably not increase but more like maintaining their current profit margins.