4 ms·

No, it's even newer, so we'd expect it to use the same cable if Apple wants a nice transition for their users. But their rent-seeking penny-pinching CEO doesn't

No, it's even newer, so we'd expect it to use the same cable if Apple wants a nice transition for their users. But their rent-seeking penny-pinching CEO doesn't care about producing a good product lineup any more. He just cares about margins, and this saves a few cents per unit.

MBCook 8y ago
No, it’s an existing iPad with a new chip in it. That’s cheap and easy to make. You want USB-C? Ok. That means new case. Might as well make other changes because you have to pay for tooling again. And all the assembly lines have to be updated. And people retrained on the new assembly procedures. All that costs money. And they want to hit a low price point. So they put a new chip in the old thing (and a new screen? But same size) and don’t have to raise the price. The mini is already more expensive than the iPad. You think an extra $50-70 would help it sell better? All for USB-C?
- jsight 8y ago
  $50-70 to switch to USB-C? That seems like a pretty healthy exaggeration.
  - leadingthenet 8y ago
    How the hell are you being downvoted for this?! Have people gone insane?
    - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
      No, people are reading the original comment about how switching to USB-C would require all-new tooling for the production line for the Mini, because it's not as simple as "just swap out the Lightning port for a USB-C port and keep everything else identical so no extra manufacturing cost whatsoever." The assertion being made isn't that the USB-C port costs $50. It's that switching to USB-C would require up-front investment that keeping the Lightning port -- which is also still being used in all of Apple's phones and all of the other "non-Pro" iPads -- doesn't.
      - jsight 8y ago
        Right, the cost is up-front fixed costs. So if they sell 10 million iPad Minis, then the estimated cost was $500-700 million? Doesn't that seem a bit implausible?
xtian 8y ago
Apple puts USB-C ports on their pro-level devices so they can use pro-level peripherals, but that isn’t a significant benefit for their consumer-level devices. In terms of compatibility, continuing to use Lightning is probably better for the target market of the consumer-level devices. More importantly though, using Lightning lets Apple ensure that any accessories will provide a reasonably good experience since they distribute all the connectors to approved third-parties through the MFi program.
- saagarjha 8y ago
  This was exactly my point above, but I seemingly have worded it in a way that was was unpopular. This is iPad Air and iPad Mini, not iPad Pro: Apple didn't see the need to figure out how to jam USB-C onto a "standard" iPad when Lightning does just fine.
  - xtian 8y ago
    But it’s not only that Lightning does just fine technically (even though that’s true), it’s that Lightning gives Apple more control over the whole product ecosystem and therefore the experience of using the product.
derefr 8y ago
They don't want to "transition" anything to USB-C. They use USB-C for consumer electronics that can equally-well be a USB host or USB client (like the iPad, or the Apple TV.) They use Lightning for consumer electronics that will only ever be a USB client (like the iPhone or the other iPads.) They set this policy as soon as USB-C came out, and haven't deviated from it since.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- JeremyBanks 8y ago
  No. !remindme 2 years

MBCook 8y ago

No, it’s an existing iPad with a new chip in it. That’s cheap and easy to make. You want USB-C? Ok. That means new case. Might as well make other changes because you have to pay for tooling again. And all the assembly lines have to be updated. And people retrained on the new assembly procedures. All that costs money. And they want to hit a low price point. So they put a new chip in the old thing (and a new screen? But same size) and don’t have to raise the price. The mini is already more expensive than the iPad. You think an extra $50-70 would help it sell better? All for USB-C?

jsight 8y ago
$50-70 to switch to USB-C? That seems like a pretty healthy exaggeration.
- leadingthenet 8y ago
  How the hell are you being downvoted for this?! Have people gone insane?
  - chipotle_coyote 8y ago
    No, people are reading the original comment about how switching to USB-C would require all-new tooling for the production line for the Mini, because it's not as simple as "just swap out the Lightning port for a USB-C port and keep everything else identical so no extra manufacturing cost whatsoever." The assertion being made isn't that the USB-C port costs $50. It's that switching to USB-C would require up-front investment that keeping the Lightning port -- which is also still being used in all of Apple's phones and all of the other "non-Pro" iPads -- doesn't.
    - jsight 8y ago
      Right, the cost is up-front fixed costs. So if they sell 10 million iPad Minis, then the estimated cost was $500-700 million? Doesn't that seem a bit implausible?

xtian 8y ago

Apple puts USB-C ports on their pro-level devices so they can use pro-level peripherals, but that isn’t a significant benefit for their consumer-level devices. In terms of compatibility, continuing to use Lightning is probably better for the target market of the consumer-level devices. More importantly though, using Lightning lets Apple ensure that any accessories will provide a reasonably good experience since they distribute all the connectors to approved third-parties through the MFi program.

saagarjha 8y ago
This was exactly my point above, but I seemingly have worded it in a way that was was unpopular. This is iPad Air and iPad Mini, not iPad Pro: Apple didn't see the need to figure out how to jam USB-C onto a "standard" iPad when Lightning does just fine.
- xtian 8y ago
  But it’s not only that Lightning does just fine technically (even though that’s true), it’s that Lightning gives Apple more control over the whole product ecosystem and therefore the experience of using the product.

derefr 8y ago

They don't want to "transition" anything to USB-C. They use USB-C for consumer electronics that can equally-well be a USB host or USB client (like the iPad, or the Apple TV.) They use Lightning for consumer electronics that will only ever be a USB client (like the iPhone or the other iPads.) They set this policy as soon as USB-C came out, and haven't deviated from it since.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
JeremyBanks 8y ago
No. !remindme 2 years