“With the upcoming iPad 3 to feature a thinner, lighter battery module that is widely believed to be priced 20-30% higher than iPad 2’s, Simplo Technology Co. and Dynapack International Technology Corp., both Apple Inc.’s contract suppliers of iPad and Macbook battery packs, will hence secure a surefire profit drive for the near future,” Steve Chuang reports for CENS.
“Institutional investors pointed out that the battery pack for iPad 3, scheduled to be massively produced in the first quarter of next year, has been redesigned to be thinner and lighter with a longer service life than iPad 2 edition’s,” Chuang reports.
“Riding on increasing sales of iPad 2, institutional investors noted, both Simplo and Dynapack will see their sales revenues for the third quarter of this year surge 10-15% from a quarter earlier,” Chuang reports. “With iPad 3 battery packs said to be delivered starting in the fourth quarter, the two companies are likely to record new highs in revenues for the quarter.”
Read more in the full article here.
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]
Apple is not going to pay 10%-20% more for its battery packs for the iPad 3. That’s what Apple’s massive cash horde lets it do – pay cash up front to reduce prices.
B.S. Detector is going loud on this. Appe is innovating more than most with battery life. However, I have a real hard time seeing a 20% increase in retail price. That kind of increase leaves too much opportunity for Amazon and others to come in with a price advantage.
They’re not talking about the iPad price.. just the cost of the battery.
They’re talking about a potential 20-30% increase **in the cost of the battery itself**. If you believe the estimated price breakdowns for the iPad 2, Apple’s cost on the battery is only around $25, so we’re talking about at most a $7.50 increase in parts costs.
And it is entirely possible that cost reductions in other parts/processes may more than compensate for the alleged increase in the cost of the iPad3 battery. Either that, or Apple could choose to cut into profit margins a bit.
I do not believe that Apple will break out above the established iPad pricing structure unless it is a substantially different device – for example, a larger display.
Nothing – Nothing in this article implies that there will be a 20 percent increase in price. Increase in “sales revenue” means selling 20 percent more bstteries.
Did you miss this sentence: “The… iPad 3 [will] feature a…battery module that [will] be priced 20-30% higher than iPad 2’s…”
However, I side with Scott Gardiner. No big deal.
c S and T are correct.
The point about the battery that jumps out for me is “with a longer service life”.
Once the iPad goes retina display and quad core, what do you think the service life of an iPad should be? It could easily be 7 to 10 years. You’ll just be leaving it in a room for some casual reading, gaming, or controlling the TV. Reading on it will not stress it. Controlling things around your house will not stress it. It contains 98% of the add-ons that can/need to be inside it. iPad 3 might have the Near Field Communication stuff, but why at home? That’s more of a phone/wallet type of idea.
The point is, the iPad 3 is going to have a longer service life, and it needs a battery that will last for those extra years.
I see your point, except you can leave Amazon out of the conversation. That hype machine has stalled out.
If it has more bells and whistles and is permanently etched with Mr. Jobs or Mr. Ives’ John Hancock autograph I’d pay it.
Pretty soon, the battery will be so “thin” that it can be embedded into the back casing.
I waited till iPhone 4 to get my first iPhone, and it seems to be a mature product. I might wait till iPad 4 to get my first iPad.
if you enjoy staggering your life, missing out on 3 years of fun and productivity, then you’re doing the right thing by waiting.
So…. A 10 hour battery life isn’t enough?
They could usethe same pack an be fine, unless the 3 has more of a drain. Which it probably will.
I think the approach is to keep the 10-hour battery life constant (not the battery). Make the battery that can achieve that 10-hour battery life (in the next iPad) thinner and lighter (if possible), while still keeping the component cost reasonable.
If Apple were to be able to get 15 hours out of a battery charge for the iPad, that would be absolutely awesome. I’d be willing to pay a premium for that. I’d personally rather have the extra battery life than having a thinner and lighter iPad or iPhone. If the technology is transferrable to iPhones, MacBook Airs and iPod Touches that would be even more of a plus. Just an increase of an hour’s usage time on an iPhone would have rival smartphone vendors tearing their hair out. Apple really needs to spend money on battery tech in order to bring it up to the level of processor tech. Apple’s economies of scale will really put a hurting on other companies trying to match its cost/performance ratios.
Re: the headline – um, duh. The Onion could have written that.
huh?