right? and a pain in the ass to remove those smudges too. i would rather take the sun reflections for 4 months a year than smudges 24/7. guess i should update, downgrade
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Why doesn't the new iPad 2017 have anti reflective coating?
- Thread starter rufftackle
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
right? and a pain in the ass to remove those smudges too. i would rather take the sun reflections for 4 months a year than smudges 24/7. guess i should update, downgrade
right? and a pain in the ass to remove those smudges too. i would rather take the sun reflections for 4 months a year than smudges 24/7. guess i should update, downgrade
Trouble is easily solved w/either a film or a glass screen protector.
I have the former on my iPad and will do the same with my next device.
I cant even get those on an iPhone without dust ending up under the screen, let alone a big surface like the iPad. Yes, i once paid someone to put it on my Plus and they still messed it up. Also a 700€ device shouldnt require this
Agreed, it's not easy to put them on...but it's a necessity IMO. I hate light reflecting back off the screen into my eyes not to mention the reflections makes it harder to see the screen.
I make sure to buy an extra film (for tablets) or glass protector (for phones) in case the first attempt goes bad.
Took 2 tries with my iPad, on my sister's I was lucky on the first attempt. With my phone, it took 3 tries (w/screen protector). The phone was much harder on account of the smaller tolerances with the screen edges.
I'm dreading the day I buy my iPad Pro 12.9"...it's gonna be a doozy putting a film on that!
Lastly, I've seen plenty of phones with dust underneath the protector...would drive me crazy which is why I put them on myself.
And if I wind up getting the iPhone Special Edition...I'm not sure what I'm going to do about that!
Last edited:
It's not about "throwing in" features that may or may not be cheap to produce, but about differentiating the "Pro" from the consumer line of products. Luxury car manufacturers use the same strategy to lure you in to buy their higher priced products.
It's exactly what I assumed the OP was talking about, matte vs glossy. There's been far too many posts to reply with a "my bad" to though.
God I hope not. I have the Air 1 and it drive me nuts to this day...I was thinking about getting the new one, but maybe I'll try to find an Air 2 instead.
Just got the new one. Yes, it does.
Granted, between 2017 iPad 32GB ($329) versus Air 2 16GB ($319), I'll take the 2017 iPad any time.
I agree! I'm an OD Tech myself.
It wouldn't have hurt them to add it on there. I know they want to maintain a difference but I don't think adding the AR would make much of a difference, if at all.Or the fact that you don't understand manufacturing costs. It has nothing to do with "Tim" being cheap, it has everything to do with attempting to make an affordable product, in order to do so, they had to cut out specific features in order to make the price point desirable for those who want an iPad without the iPad Pro features. Nice attempt though to throw a Snark comment at the CEO.
Oh god, I hate the feel of the air 1 - feels cheap compared to my iPad 2 and the noise and feel of each tap ugh.
[doublepost=1491109122][/doublepost]
Pretty sure Apple could have kept the laminated display and still made a profit, but that wouldn't have been enough.
Just as you noted in your post, You are unsure that retaining the laminated display would have made a profit, because if they had retained it, the price point would likely be somewhat higher. Apple did exactly what they wanted to and they made a sacrifice somewhere, and it was with the laminated display.
Not everybody agrees with the decision made, but I think it's fair to say most agree with the price point of this iPad, which is the end result.
From all I've read, the laminated display would have been a fraction more to put in. They would have definitely made a profit. Apple has large profit margins on their iPads, it is not as though they're in a situation where the smallest price increase would tip it into not making a profit.
Frankly, I think the price point is too high. Had they kept the Air 2 and put an A9X in, then yes, but the compromises they've made on it should mean that it should be cheaper.
Regardless, you don't know that from what you've read. We don't know the cost of the manufacturing and the actual cost of the part implemented into the iPad with the millions of what they're going to produce. One of the other trade-offs is the new iPad 9.7 iPad has a brighter display over the iPad Air 2 and also has a larger battery.
Also, I disagree with you, I think the price point of this new 9.7 iPad is extremely competitive and is a great way to draw in somebody who wants an iPad who could not maybe afford the Pro line or didn't appreciate the Pro features, also introducing somebody to Apple's ecosystem.
Last edited:
If you want it, just pay around more than 80% of the ipad 2017 price for the Pro, it is that simple.
I tend to believe in the parts analysis that I've read. It is common knowledge that Apple has a large profit margin on iPads, so unless you think Apple is only making $5 or so profit per iPad (which is clearly wrong) then they're doing this for the profits.
This iPad in my country is only $60 cheaper than the iPad 4 and Air 1 were back in the day and they were top of the line iPads. It is still over priced for old tech. Apple should standardise performance aspects such as the processor among all iPads - this should have had an A9X or A10 because it is not going to get the support that a 2017 iPad should.
[doublepost=1491127156][/doublepost]
Yeah woo lets buy outdated 2015 tech at an even more expensive price.
You're focusing on the wrong aspects of profit margin's versus what Apple is trying to do. If somebody wants more expensive iPad, they have options, you don't have to purchase a budget 9.7 inch iPad with an A9 processor. If they want an iPad that has more lucrative features, that would be the Pro.
It's not a secret that the iPad is a declining market. Apple made an affordable iPad to reach out for those who wanted an iPad and cannot have one for obvious reasons. It doesn't necessarily have the latest technology and why should I? If it did, then clearly the price point would be will be on $329. I disagree with you if you think $329 is expensive for a base iPad that has adequate functions that will serve most purposes.
And your definition of outdated tech doesn't necessarily equate to everybody else's. It all depends what you're using the hardware for for personal or work use.
It's outdated by the fact that Apple has created newer faster processors in the meantime. Simple as that. The artechture is now a generation old, in 6 or so months it will be two generations old. The A10 (mind you this is a mobile A chip not an iPad X version) is already significantly better than the A9X. So if Apple is asking for premium prices I expect premium performance and good performance from 2015, mixed with ram an amount of ram which was 'good' in 2014 does make the 9.7 inch iPad Pro outdated in early 2017.
This isn't down to the consumer, it is Apple. My argument is that the iPad is either under specced for its price (due to cost cutting by Apple to further their profit margins - Oh poor Apple the margins will be slightly down from the price drop) or it is overpriced for what they've put into it. The flagship iPad features used to come to the standard iPad, you didn't used to have to fork out a lot of money for a pro model. Probably not the same in the US, but in my country, the flagship iPad used to only be $60 more expensive than this new iPad 9.7.
$469 (in my country) is too much for an iPad with outdated specs. Apple discontinued the most affordable iPad (Mini 2) and brought in something $100 more expensive. It should have the latest processor as that combined with the RAM and GPU define how long it will last, I think it is disingenuous putting old tech (which directly influences it's lifespan) into a new product, because this new iPad is already at least year and a half into its lifespan in terms of iOS updates.
....and will bring millions of NEW users to the iPad. They will then become part of the Walled Garden, purchasing upgraded devices over the years as part of the installed base. So, you really can look at it 2 ways. I am by no means a fan of the current Executive Team. However, this was a smart move to revive iPad sales. Given this is plenty of device for average Media Consumption, and viewing simple images. They will sell millions.
....and will bring millions of NEW users to the iPad. They will then become part of the Walled Garden, purchasing upgraded devices over the years as part of the installed base. So, you really can look at it 2 ways. I am by no means a fan of the current Executive Team. However, this was a smart move to revive iPad sales. Given this is plenty of device for average Media Consumption, and viewing simple images. They will sell millions.
That explains the discounts before the thing was even in stores.
This looks like Apple thinks the tablet market is very price sensitive right now, and so they looked to come out with something on the lower end of the pricing. To do that, and differentiate it between the significantly more expensive pro, they needed to have a couple big feature downgrades. The screen, and the processor are the biggies. With the processor, they didn't have tons of choices. They couldn't put the same processor in as the pro models, but if not, the only other choice is the A9. Can't put in the A9X, that's the pro. Can't put in the A10, that's better than the pro. The screen is the other thing that people will notice is different and provide a clear divide between it and the pro model. This is all about situating it underneath the pro, not what they could afford to do or profit margins. It's product line placement. Sort of like how automatic headlights and wipers are very cheap to put on cars now, but you still usually have to buy a high trim line to get them.
Who cares if he threw a "snark comment" at the CEO? He's the CEO! He's not your friend, he doesn't know you, care about you, acknowledge you. You're a customer, a consumer, in other words your nothing but $$$ to him. Like we all are. The sooner people stop personalising and identifying with these tech leaders like they're rock stars, celebrities or even God forbid, one of the guys, the better.
He's a CEO, and one boring individual to boot.