Uh no! not at all. Europeans are very gadget oriented and when I took my ipad1 there last spring, everyone knew about it even if it wasn't available in any market there, except the gray market! They actually warned me to watch out and some offered to buy it from me as high as 1200 Euros.
A small number of people are VERY gadget orientated.
I bet if you ask a group of random people on the street in london what is better about the iPad 2 than the iPad 1, at least half would say they didn't know there was an iPad 2
Some people will have very limited uses for a tablet and may choose a different brand if they only wanted to serf the web. Of course that would require someone to release a tablet that is significantly cheaper then the iPad. That was widely predicted a year ago, but it seems that isn't going to materialize. Google is still good enough to be an underdog, but they will continue to have trouble competing with too many offerings on the table. Google tablets will also suffer from supply chain issues related to too many different devices out there. As long as they never stagnate, Apple will stay on top.
It might be interesting if they could do the same to the phone market if they release a lower-end iPhone to compete with the Android market. A superior supply chain coupled with a very good product might allow them to overtake the low-end smartphone market where Android is making large share gains.
See, here's the thing though: if you buy a cheap plastic tablet so you can surf the web, why not just get a netbook? That tablet isn't going to be able to take advantage of the touch tech anyways -- you aren't going to be able to run stuff like Garage Band or higher end games.
Why not just get a $150 netbook if all you want to do is watch porn ... erm, read the NYT?
See, here's the thing though: if you buy a cheap plastic tablet so you can surf the web, why not just get a netbook? That tablet isn't going to be able to take advantage of the touch tech anyways -- you aren't going to be able to run stuff like Garage Band or higher end games.
Why not just get a $150 netbook if all you want to do is watch porn ... erm, read the NYT?
Because it's not comfortable to do that with a netbook on your couch/ in bed, and it's not finger-friendly. As successful iPad is, most people I know use it just to fool around when they're on the couch/in bed/when they're eating on the dining table etc.
Nook color is mildly successful especially when they're on sale (slickdeals generated close to 1k replies when they knocked down the price to $200), because it's cheap, has an OK screen, and you can fool around with it once rooted. If all these other manufacturers would create more Nook color like tablets, they'd get probably close to 25% mkt shares together, although they still won't touch iPad because iPad is just a much more superior product in terms of value/$.
It's not about specs, it's not about flash, it's about the iPad.There were no viable tablets then there was iPad. All the other co's developed there's or are trying to, but the sales will be weak. People want iPads not just a jacked up tablet. If all these other manufactures were so smart and cool and clever they would have invented the iPad but they didn't, now they want to tell us how Great their product is but they miss the point. They may have big flashy specs but they have no cool factor, never will. iPad is the new iPod. Live in NYC but visiting family upstate. Went to a Walmart Friday to grab iPad2, really small town, still 40 people in line and only 20 iPads, which seemed like a lot in a tiny town. Got mine thankfully!
Call me an optimist, but I hope that in 5 years (or less) there will be no "clear majority" in the tablet space.
WebOS, iOS, Android, Bberry (if they can get their act together), Windows8, and hopefully a handful we haven't heard of yet.
Steve Jobs said we're living in the post PC era. Something I agree with, but I'm hoping it goes further. I don't want a single OS to dictate the market like it currently does with PC's, no matter who makes that OS or how amazing it might be.
Multiple competitive platforms will mean that developers and content creators will start thinking about how to make their apps work on the web, and it will force current product manufacturers to open up their devices to this new market (for example, allowing an HTML5 based app to have access to the GPU, like some new browsers are offering). It will mean that smaller companies with really unique ideas on hardware/software will be able to create something without worrying it will be DOA because too few devs are willing to devote the time to port their apps over to native code.
I don't think native apps will go away, at least in the short term. But I think "Universal" applications will become more important.
Post PC is all about making the "computer" actually personal. something to fit your lifestyle, your wants and needs. NO single OS, Hardware design, or app platform will be able to satisfy everyone, and it shouldn't try to. If you try mastering EVERYTHING, you won't master anything.
For me? I want a tablet that's a bit more like a computer than most current offerings. For my brother? He would be happy with something like an iPad. My dad needs something that can take some abuse and is really resistant to dust and grime and can (hopefully) fit in his pocket.
Why should any of us feel the need to all compromise on the SAME type of device, simply because it's so big, devs won't look elseware?
Translation based on Menno's posting history:
Quote:
I really hope the premise of this article isn't true, 'cause I'm an Android lovin', Apple hatin' fool.
I love it when you guys try to pretend to be fair and balanced.
I would agree except that Android has more than a foothold in the phone space at this point, largely thanks to the period of AT&T exclusivity. There are a lot of Android phone users out there that will stick with their platform, which may give Android tablets a foothold by extension. My larger point is, if the market for tablets reaches, say 500M, can Apple ever make close to that many? Perhaps, if the growth is incremental enough, but man, that's a lot of iPads.
Good points, but:
1) Android's foothold is carrier driven and largely not based on a free choice by consumers - restricted by price, availability on network, lock-in by family plan etc.
2) There are an awful lot of Android users who wish they could have an iPhone. Here is their opportunity (without having the beat the restrictions in 1). With their largely free apps and non-buying ways, there is a much lower cost to leave Android or add Apple than vice versa.
3) When tablets beat out PC sales (400-500M in about 5-7 years time) Apple will be able to make 80% - capacity to make 40-50 this year, 80-100 next, 120-150 by 2013 etc. You should see the size of Foxconn City then!! That assumes that PC sales don't plummet based on replacement by tablets - if that happens the cross-over point happens way sooner. 3-5 yrs
Apple once had a tremendous lead in personal computers, now they have 3-4% of a market dominated by Microsoft Windows (92+%). Only a couple of years ago Apple seemed to have a totally insurmountable lead in smartphones, today the IPhone is #3 in the US and #4 in the world, and Android, which nobody took seriously only a year ago, is number one in the world (both in sales and total units in use). Apple is the clear leader in a market which had essentially zero competitors until about a week ago (when the Xoom came out) and it is clear that Motorola pushed the release date earlier then they wanted (Flash won't be working until this Friday and the SD card and 4G even later then that) in order to get in before the IPAd 2). But as more and more Android tablets are released with better specs then the IPad 2 (even the Xoom beats the IPad hardware in virtually every category, and better quad core units are on the way) and almost certainly lower prices, the IPad 2 is going to take a big hit. Remember that Android is free and open and works very well, and even one of those criteria would make Android tablets a serious threat to Apple.
Look Jobs wouldn't continue to harp about how fragmented and silly Android was if he wasn't worried about it. He isn't worried about Windows mobile 7 or RIM, because they suck so bad, but if Android phone and tablet sales continue to increase at their present rate (about 900% in just one year) in a few years Apple will be about as relevant in mobile computing as they are in presently in PCs. I would love to see Apple remain a serious force in mobile computing, but IPods are going to disappear soon (it just doesn't make sense to have a separate device that doesn't do anything that any smartphone can do), Macs are a tiny niche market, Iphones are losing market share rapidly to Android, and there are finally going to be competitors to IPad. If Apple doesn't open their OS to other companies then IOS will whither away, that's just a fact.
That's a very good point. Even if someone manages to come up with a tablet that is cheaper than iPad (like has happened with alternatives to iPhones), people are more likely to wait a while longer to save the money they need to buy iPad.
Boy, this is deja vu from what i heard from the microsoft people in the 90's. Boy's be careful what you wish for, you may not like the results!!!!
Because it's not comfortable to do that with a netbook on your couch/ in bed, and it's not finger-friendly. As successful iPad is, most people I know use it just to fool around when they're on the couch/in bed/when they're eating on the dining table etc.
Nook color is mildly successful especially when they're on sale (slickdeals generated close to 1k replies when they knocked down the price to $200), because it's cheap, has an OK screen, and you can fool around with it once rooted. If all these other manufacturers would create more Nook color like tablets, they'd get probably close to 25% mkt shares together, although they still won't touch iPad because iPad is just a much more superior product in terms of value/$.
I think there is another place where the iPad (tablet format) is superior to either a laptop or a netback...
When traveling on an airplane, with the iPad:
-- you go through a lot less check-n hassle - computer, batteries, accessories, etc.
-- the iPad can be used regardless of the position of the seat-back ahead of you
-- you can watch a movie, read books, play games without depleting the battery
Seems to me that Apple have already demonstrated what they are spending their money on ... a huge data center and a policy of buying up massive quantities of parts/components for their devices. The smart thing about that is it benefits Apple in two ways ... adds to their sales/bottom line and freezes out their competition. Give me a company with no debt and a ton of $$$$$ anytime.
This is very true. But, it's just a small fraction of that they're pulling in. Apple is going to generate about $7 to $10 billion a quarter on average this year. Even investing $4 billion in suppliers, and another couple of billion for parts in the year doesn't cover even one quarter's cash.
What are they planning with the increasing cash and investment portfolio? It's up to $61 billion as of the end of last quarter, and will be close to $67 billion even in this slowest of all quarters of the year.
The problem for Apple in maintaining dominance in tablets is that if they can't make enough for everyone who wants one, it will give a major boost the soon-to-be bonanza of Android tablets.
For this to be viable, it assumes that just because they can't get an iPad they will get an Android device - even if there were any available.
I don't think Apple has to worry about that for all but the most techie.
Tablets are different from phones. With no data plans, give aways and supplemental marketing by carriers I just don't see that many people going out of their way to get an Android tablet - and that's if they were the same price or a little cheaper than the iPad. So far all Android tablets have been more than the iPad - much, much more if you factor in the mandatory data plan
The question is how can Motorola/Samsung et al jump two generations of iPad hardware while maintaining price parity? Even if they could match the iPad hardware performance for the same cost right now, Apple's advantage in terms of number of apps would still put the iPad as the sensible choice to buy.
Not just hardware, but software too.
That's the nut they have to crack. Good luck - get innovating!
Macs are a tiny niche market, Iphones are losing market share rapidly to Android, and there are finally going to be competitors to IPad. If Apple doesn't open their OS to other companies then IOS will whither away, that's just a fact.
Enjoy your wait for Apple's "inevitable slide to irrelevancy".
what happened after MSFT paid a dividend to their whining & complaining shareholders? The stock has been stagnant for the better part of the past decade. Despite being 30+ years old, Apple is a GROWTH company and as such does not pay dividends. Doing such would imply they have run out of better uses for their cash. Not a good message to send to the market. Somebody mentioned how could Apple possibly build enough iPads if they were to become the (sustained) global marketshare leader in tablets? Well, they would need to build capacity - and that takes cash.
It's not that simple. I wasn't talking about a regular dividend, though I could.
At what point does Apple's investments become too large? If they don't make some really large purchase this financial year, it will have ballooned to a good $80 billion plus. If we look at the calendar year instead, it will likely be around $85 billion.
Then what? At some point, they're going to have to divest themselves of some of that in one way or another. Most don't think a a large company buy is the way to go. If not, then there's no where for that money to go. What can Apple spend it on? There's just so much they can lend their suppliers for plant and machinery. There's only so much they can spend on locking in parts. And the cash will continue to come in.
If Apple sells $100 billion this financial year as increasingly seems possible, then cash will roll in at ever increasing rates. In 2012, it could be $10 to $13 billion a quarter. This is getting ridiculous. at some time they've got to do something with it. They have three choices.
One is to do a stock buyback, which I hope they won't do. They can give some back to shareholders directly. They can buy one or more very large companies, which I also hope they won't do.
How does the non-business geek invest in tech stocks? Is it simple as going to a website? What should I look out for and how much cash is reasonable to invest in a stock like Apple and still consider it disposable? I mean, for the investment to be worth it how many shares would I have to look at buying?
Without knowing your age, family structure, income, other savings, investments, assets (like a home), debts, investment goals, risk tolerance and more - there's no way anyone can responsibly give you an exact answer to that question.
Your financial life is a 3-legged stool: Fiscal assets (stocks and bonds, either held individually or in mutual funds/ETF's), Real assets (homes, land, gold, collections) and Monetary assets (cash, savings, CD's) and wise investors know they need a balance between the three that works for them.
I've pursued a "get rich slowly" strategy of widely diversified mutual funds since 1985 and have done quite well, thank you. I started with investing $50/month in a single, broad-based fund. I've never owned a single stock as I feel they're too volatile for the average individual who doesn't follow the markets closely, and dig into every document a company issues. And even if you want to go that route, a rule of thumb is to never put more than a few % of your investments into one egg in your basket.
AAPL may be the rare exception to the rule - and with the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight wish I'd followed my impulse when it was at $17/share. The broad-based horizontally AND vertically integrated "ecosystem" we keep talking about here that they've built is unprecedented in the industry. And their buzz and branding is second to none in the world today. But I do own a number of funds who own fair amounts of AAPL, so I'm in.
Still, what goes up, does come down. The digital and internet revolutions are STILL in their infancy, and the next totally unexpected "insanely great" leap forward could come from anywhere.
The current AAPL team will retire someday, and the "law of reversion to the mean" will exact a toll someday, as the past and current owners of MySpace found out when a pimply Harvard student started facebook. There WILL be a next great product that doesn't come from Apple, and eventually, Apple will make a wrong bet. Doesn't mean they'll implode or never get back to leadership, but there WILL be twists and turns over an investor's lifetime.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
The answers to those questions vary from person to person. One way to invest in an industry is to invest in the leading companies, the cream of the crop. Go to CNN Money online, and open a free account. Join The Motley Fool, also free. Make up lists of stocks you're interested in and track them. You will be able to see stock performance over years, look up financial information, etc. Read the free articles and reports to get some idea of what the thinking is out there, but don't take any one of them too seriously. Remember that past performance doesn't guarantee future performance.
There's a lot more detail I could give you here, but it's a start. I'm heavily invested in Apple, and I'm long, meaning that I'm holding it for at least a year, in my case several years. If I have the cash on hand, I buy more during a downturn, and don't sell when things move upwards.
How much cash can you afford to lose? That's a criterion. If it's $5,000, and you pay attention to what you're doing, then you can invest $15,000, because you would be able to abandon your position before losing a third. That's one way of looking at it.
Agree about CNN, but I'm not much of a fan of the Motley Fool - there's some sound info there - but they're out to sell their own offerings, they hype hot ideas (even while preaching that they don't) and much of their advice is way above the level that neophytes can handle out of context.
Vanguard has a number of excellent, free guides for new investors based on time-tested principles. Plus they charge the lowest fees of any mutual fund company and their brokerage fees for stocks are fair as well. Fees are the MOST underrated factor in most people's portfolios - over time 1-2%/year can make a huge difference. Fidelity Investments has a lot of useful educational tools as well. And both offer a broad array of products suited for all kinds of investors.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
'worth it?' You're definitely non-business. Talk to a financial planner. Disposable investments are all about your total portfolio and risk tolerance and not the value of a particular stock.
IMHO, Apple is likely on a 10% per year growth rate over the next 2ish year (400-450 by 2013)... that's the same (and likely less) than the S&P500 and/or Russell 2000. I'm long, and hope I'm conservatively wrong, but that's my analysis;-) My problem is that AAPL is now about 30% of my retirement portfolio. I need to rebalance, but I hate to not dance with the date that brung me.
Notice the technical terms introduced in this reply. Do you really understand all of them? And there's thousands more.
I have nothing against "financial planners" per se - but they're mostly unregulated, and in many states anybody can claim to be one. Further, most work for companies who have particular "financial products" to sell, i.e., their own in-house funds, annuities and more. And nearly every company who uses this model offers a stable of mediocre to poor offerings - but the "planner" makes far more (on commissions) if you buy those, so the planner has a bias to lead you making decisions that are in the planner's interest - not yours! Total conflict of interest.
If you use a financial planner - which is advisable for people who don't want to spend years learning to manage their portfolios - here are two screaming rules: 1. Use a CERTIFIED Financial Planner (CFP), and 2. ONLY use FEE-BASED planners, and never COMMISSION-BASED ones, i.e., what they make is either a straight-up, out-front fee no matter what they advise you to buy - or if they're going to manage your portfolio over time, that what they make is based on how well they do for you
Quote:
Originally Posted by syracuse
Apple is a screaming BUY. Pristine balance sheet + 40% margins + tremendous growth. Call TD Ameritrade or Charles Schwab and they will set you up to buy APPL stock, its as easy as setting up a checking/savings account at a bank
Again, respectfully, this person doesn't know you or your situation - so while he could be right, taking a "tout" like this is a shot in the dark. Even if it's Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
+1
An Apple Investor (me) wants every store to be sold out at closing, and fully stocked by the next day. wash. rinse, repeat.
I think the key post iPad 2 story will be is laptop cannibalization.... I see growth in laptops to drop 50%. Everyone that needs one has one, and all those people who have one don't need another one.
Samsung, Motorola, BB... they aren't fighting for 2nd place, they're fighting for marketplace relevancy.
This will be a world of home based computing (mac mini's and what ever Dell/Acer/HP/sony sell), and portable computing (Hi End = SSD based laptops, Mid= 'personal internet devices', LE = 'personal comm devices' [aka smarter_than_featurephones]), and home infrastructure (TimeCapsule, AppleTV, Airport Express, free Lion Server OS, airplay and airprint)
Apple is the only company that seems to have leadership/growth/dominance/convergance across all those lines.
Not quite on the rest of my topic (except that you own AAPL), but mostly right on the money about the company.
Except I think that Apple's finally aiming for the Enterprise too - people want to use their favorite tools all the time, and not lug a satchel around for job and home - and they're bringing their Pads, Phones and Pods with them to work every day. IT is feeling the pressure to embrace what their users want, and this time Apple's likely to do quite well in the business computing world - by being on the bleeding edge of mobile tech, not trying to catch up in commodity markets like rack servers.
It's going to be interesting to see what that something is. I suspect you're probably right and a dividend of some sort would make sense. Let's face it, even if they blew $20bn on a purchase, that's only really three quarters worth of cash, then they're back with the same question.
Comments
Uh no! not at all. Europeans are very gadget oriented and when I took my ipad1 there last spring, everyone knew about it even if it wasn't available in any market there, except the gray market! They actually warned me to watch out and some offered to buy it from me as high as 1200 Euros.
A small number of people are VERY gadget orientated.
I bet if you ask a group of random people on the street in london what is better about the iPad 2 than the iPad 1, at least half would say they didn't know there was an iPad 2
Some people will have very limited uses for a tablet and may choose a different brand if they only wanted to serf the web. Of course that would require someone to release a tablet that is significantly cheaper then the iPad. That was widely predicted a year ago, but it seems that isn't going to materialize. Google is still good enough to be an underdog, but they will continue to have trouble competing with too many offerings on the table. Google tablets will also suffer from supply chain issues related to too many different devices out there. As long as they never stagnate, Apple will stay on top.
It might be interesting if they could do the same to the phone market if they release a lower-end iPhone to compete with the Android market. A superior supply chain coupled with a very good product might allow them to overtake the low-end smartphone market where Android is making large share gains.
See, here's the thing though: if you buy a cheap plastic tablet so you can surf the web, why not just get a netbook? That tablet isn't going to be able to take advantage of the touch tech anyways -- you aren't going to be able to run stuff like Garage Band or higher end games.
Why not just get a $150 netbook if all you want to do is watch porn ... erm, read the NYT?
See, here's the thing though: if you buy a cheap plastic tablet so you can surf the web, why not just get a netbook? That tablet isn't going to be able to take advantage of the touch tech anyways -- you aren't going to be able to run stuff like Garage Band or higher end games.
Why not just get a $150 netbook if all you want to do is watch porn ... erm, read the NYT?
Because it's not comfortable to do that with a netbook on your couch/ in bed, and it's not finger-friendly. As successful iPad is, most people I know use it just to fool around when they're on the couch/in bed/when they're eating on the dining table etc.
Nook color is mildly successful especially when they're on sale (slickdeals generated close to 1k replies when they knocked down the price to $200), because it's cheap, has an OK screen, and you can fool around with it once rooted. If all these other manufacturers would create more Nook color like tablets, they'd get probably close to 25% mkt shares together, although they still won't touch iPad because iPad is just a much more superior product in terms of value/$.
Originally posted by esummers (emphasis added):
Some people will have very limited uses for a tablet and may choose a different brand if they only wanted to serf the web.
Best spelling mistake of the week! Yep, those who choose Android to surf the web will be... ....the serfs on the web!
Call me an optimist, but I hope that in 5 years (or less) there will be no "clear majority" in the tablet space.
WebOS, iOS, Android, Bberry (if they can get their act together), Windows8, and hopefully a handful we haven't heard of yet.
Steve Jobs said we're living in the post PC era. Something I agree with, but I'm hoping it goes further. I don't want a single OS to dictate the market like it currently does with PC's, no matter who makes that OS or how amazing it might be.
Multiple competitive platforms will mean that developers and content creators will start thinking about how to make their apps work on the web, and it will force current product manufacturers to open up their devices to this new market (for example, allowing an HTML5 based app to have access to the GPU, like some new browsers are offering). It will mean that smaller companies with really unique ideas on hardware/software will be able to create something without worrying it will be DOA because too few devs are willing to devote the time to port their apps over to native code.
I don't think native apps will go away, at least in the short term. But I think "Universal" applications will become more important.
Post PC is all about making the "computer" actually personal. something to fit your lifestyle, your wants and needs. NO single OS, Hardware design, or app platform will be able to satisfy everyone, and it shouldn't try to. If you try mastering EVERYTHING, you won't master anything.
For me? I want a tablet that's a bit more like a computer than most current offerings. For my brother? He would be happy with something like an iPad. My dad needs something that can take some abuse and is really resistant to dust and grime and can (hopefully) fit in his pocket.
Why should any of us feel the need to all compromise on the SAME type of device, simply because it's so big, devs won't look elseware?
Translation based on Menno's posting history:
I really hope the premise of this article isn't true, 'cause I'm an Android lovin', Apple hatin' fool.
I love it when you guys try to pretend to be fair and balanced.
I would agree except that Android has more than a foothold in the phone space at this point, largely thanks to the period of AT&T exclusivity. There are a lot of Android phone users out there that will stick with their platform, which may give Android tablets a foothold by extension. My larger point is, if the market for tablets reaches, say 500M, can Apple ever make close to that many? Perhaps, if the growth is incremental enough, but man, that's a lot of iPads.
Good points, but:
1) Android's foothold is carrier driven and largely not based on a free choice by consumers - restricted by price, availability on network, lock-in by family plan etc.
2) There are an awful lot of Android users who wish they could have an iPhone. Here is their opportunity (without having the beat the restrictions in 1). With their largely free apps and non-buying ways, there is a much lower cost to leave Android or add Apple than vice versa.
3) When tablets beat out PC sales (400-500M in about 5-7 years time) Apple will be able to make 80% - capacity to make 40-50 this year, 80-100 next, 120-150 by 2013 etc. You should see the size of Foxconn City then!! That assumes that PC sales don't plummet based on replacement by tablets - if that happens the cross-over point happens way sooner. 3-5 yrs
Natural monopolies are completely legal. But many people don't know that so yes, people will start crying soon.
Yes! When I worked for IBM (1964-1980) they had a monopoly of the mainframe market -- some years reaching 97%.
They were constantly being examined/reviewed by Justice -- but were never found to be in violation of the law(s).
Long story short -- It isn't illegal to make better products or do a superior job of marketing and supporting them.
are they going to do BOGO for Android tablets?
I think the operative acronym is BNGO (pronounced "Bingo") -- Buy None Get One
Apple once had a tremendous lead in personal computers, now they have 3-4% of a market dominated by Microsoft Windows (92+%). Only a couple of years ago Apple seemed to have a totally insurmountable lead in smartphones, today the IPhone is #3 in the US and #4 in the world, and Android, which nobody took seriously only a year ago, is number one in the world (both in sales and total units in use). Apple is the clear leader in a market which had essentially zero competitors until about a week ago (when the Xoom came out) and it is clear that Motorola pushed the release date earlier then they wanted (Flash won't be working until this Friday and the SD card and 4G even later then that) in order to get in before the IPAd 2). But as more and more Android tablets are released with better specs then the IPad 2 (even the Xoom beats the IPad hardware in virtually every category, and better quad core units are on the way) and almost certainly lower prices, the IPad 2 is going to take a big hit. Remember that Android is free and open and works very well, and even one of those criteria would make Android tablets a serious threat to Apple.
Look Jobs wouldn't continue to harp about how fragmented and silly Android was if he wasn't worried about it. He isn't worried about Windows mobile 7 or RIM, because they suck so bad, but if Android phone and tablet sales continue to increase at their present rate (about 900% in just one year) in a few years Apple will be about as relevant in mobile computing as they are in presently in PCs. I would love to see Apple remain a serious force in mobile computing, but IPods are going to disappear soon (it just doesn't make sense to have a separate device that doesn't do anything that any smartphone can do), Macs are a tiny niche market, Iphones are losing market share rapidly to Android, and there are finally going to be competitors to IPad. If Apple doesn't open their OS to other companies then IOS will whither away, that's just a fact.
What universe are you in?
J.
That's a very good point. Even if someone manages to come up with a tablet that is cheaper than iPad (like has happened with alternatives to iPhones), people are more likely to wait a while longer to save the money they need to buy iPad.
Boy, this is deja vu from what i heard from the microsoft people in the 90's. Boy's be careful what you wish for, you may not like the results!!!!
Because it's not comfortable to do that with a netbook on your couch/ in bed, and it's not finger-friendly. As successful iPad is, most people I know use it just to fool around when they're on the couch/in bed/when they're eating on the dining table etc.
Nook color is mildly successful especially when they're on sale (slickdeals generated close to 1k replies when they knocked down the price to $200), because it's cheap, has an OK screen, and you can fool around with it once rooted. If all these other manufacturers would create more Nook color like tablets, they'd get probably close to 25% mkt shares together, although they still won't touch iPad because iPad is just a much more superior product in terms of value/$.
I think there is another place where the iPad (tablet format) is superior to either a laptop or a netback...
When traveling on an airplane, with the iPad:
-- you go through a lot less check-n hassle - computer, batteries, accessories, etc.
-- the iPad can be used regardless of the position of the seat-back ahead of you
-- you can watch a movie, read books, play games without depleting the battery
Seems to me that Apple have already demonstrated what they are spending their money on ... a huge data center and a policy of buying up massive quantities of parts/components for their devices. The smart thing about that is it benefits Apple in two ways ... adds to their sales/bottom line and freezes out their competition. Give me a company with no debt and a ton of $$$$$ anytime.
This is very true. But, it's just a small fraction of that they're pulling in. Apple is going to generate about $7 to $10 billion a quarter on average this year. Even investing $4 billion in suppliers, and another couple of billion for parts in the year doesn't cover even one quarter's cash.
What are they planning with the increasing cash and investment portfolio? It's up to $61 billion as of the end of last quarter, and will be close to $67 billion even in this slowest of all quarters of the year.
The problem for Apple in maintaining dominance in tablets is that if they can't make enough for everyone who wants one, it will give a major boost the soon-to-be bonanza of Android tablets.
For this to be viable, it assumes that just because they can't get an iPad they will get an Android device - even if there were any available.
I don't think Apple has to worry about that for all but the most techie.
Tablets are different from phones. With no data plans, give aways and supplemental marketing by carriers I just don't see that many people going out of their way to get an Android tablet - and that's if they were the same price or a little cheaper than the iPad. So far all Android tablets have been more than the iPad - much, much more if you factor in the mandatory data plan
Massive lead? Yes. Insurmountable? No.
Theoretically we could get hit by an asteroid tomorrow too.
Does Apple have anything to worry about in the tablet space any time soon? No.
The question is how can Motorola/Samsung et al jump two generations of iPad hardware while maintaining price parity? Even if they could match the iPad hardware performance for the same cost right now, Apple's advantage in terms of number of apps would still put the iPad as the sensible choice to buy.
Not just hardware, but software too.
That's the nut they have to crack. Good luck - get innovating!
Macs are a tiny niche market, Iphones are losing market share rapidly to Android, and there are finally going to be competitors to IPad. If Apple doesn't open their OS to other companies then IOS will whither away, that's just a fact.
Enjoy your wait for Apple's "inevitable slide to irrelevancy".
what happened after MSFT paid a dividend to their whining & complaining shareholders? The stock has been stagnant for the better part of the past decade. Despite being 30+ years old, Apple is a GROWTH company and as such does not pay dividends. Doing such would imply they have run out of better uses for their cash. Not a good message to send to the market. Somebody mentioned how could Apple possibly build enough iPads if they were to become the (sustained) global marketshare leader in tablets? Well, they would need to build capacity - and that takes cash.
It's not that simple. I wasn't talking about a regular dividend, though I could.
At what point does Apple's investments become too large? If they don't make some really large purchase this financial year, it will have ballooned to a good $80 billion plus. If we look at the calendar year instead, it will likely be around $85 billion.
Then what? At some point, they're going to have to divest themselves of some of that in one way or another. Most don't think a a large company buy is the way to go. If not, then there's no where for that money to go. What can Apple spend it on? There's just so much they can lend their suppliers for plant and machinery. There's only so much they can spend on locking in parts. And the cash will continue to come in.
If Apple sells $100 billion this financial year as increasingly seems possible, then cash will roll in at ever increasing rates. In 2012, it could be $10 to $13 billion a quarter. This is getting ridiculous. at some time they've got to do something with it. They have three choices.
One is to do a stock buyback, which I hope they won't do. They can give some back to shareholders directly. They can buy one or more very large companies, which I also hope they won't do.
But they WILL have to do something.
AAPL 400 .... soon!
How does the non-business geek invest in tech stocks? Is it simple as going to a website? What should I look out for and how much cash is reasonable to invest in a stock like Apple and still consider it disposable? I mean, for the investment to be worth it how many shares would I have to look at buying?
Without knowing your age, family structure, income, other savings, investments, assets (like a home), debts, investment goals, risk tolerance and more - there's no way anyone can responsibly give you an exact answer to that question.
Your financial life is a 3-legged stool: Fiscal assets (stocks and bonds, either held individually or in mutual funds/ETF's), Real assets (homes, land, gold, collections) and Monetary assets (cash, savings, CD's) and wise investors know they need a balance between the three that works for them.
I've pursued a "get rich slowly" strategy of widely diversified mutual funds since 1985 and have done quite well, thank you. I started with investing $50/month in a single, broad-based fund. I've never owned a single stock as I feel they're too volatile for the average individual who doesn't follow the markets closely, and dig into every document a company issues. And even if you want to go that route, a rule of thumb is to never put more than a few % of your investments into one egg in your basket.
AAPL may be the rare exception to the rule - and with the perfect 20/20 vision of hindsight wish I'd followed my impulse when it was at $17/share. The broad-based horizontally AND vertically integrated "ecosystem" we keep talking about here that they've built is unprecedented in the industry. And their buzz and branding is second to none in the world today. But I do own a number of funds who own fair amounts of AAPL, so I'm in.
Still, what goes up, does come down. The digital and internet revolutions are STILL in their infancy, and the next totally unexpected "insanely great" leap forward could come from anywhere.
The current AAPL team will retire someday, and the "law of reversion to the mean" will exact a toll someday, as the past and current owners of MySpace found out when a pimply Harvard student started facebook. There WILL be a next great product that doesn't come from Apple, and eventually, Apple will make a wrong bet. Doesn't mean they'll implode or never get back to leadership, but there WILL be twists and turns over an investor's lifetime.
The answers to those questions vary from person to person. One way to invest in an industry is to invest in the leading companies, the cream of the crop. Go to CNN Money online, and open a free account. Join The Motley Fool, also free. Make up lists of stocks you're interested in and track them. You will be able to see stock performance over years, look up financial information, etc. Read the free articles and reports to get some idea of what the thinking is out there, but don't take any one of them too seriously. Remember that past performance doesn't guarantee future performance.
There's a lot more detail I could give you here, but it's a start. I'm heavily invested in Apple, and I'm long, meaning that I'm holding it for at least a year, in my case several years. If I have the cash on hand, I buy more during a downturn, and don't sell when things move upwards.
How much cash can you afford to lose? That's a criterion. If it's $5,000, and you pay attention to what you're doing, then you can invest $15,000, because you would be able to abandon your position before losing a third. That's one way of looking at it.
Agree about CNN, but I'm not much of a fan of the Motley Fool - there's some sound info there - but they're out to sell their own offerings, they hype hot ideas (even while preaching that they don't) and much of their advice is way above the level that neophytes can handle out of context.
Vanguard has a number of excellent, free guides for new investors based on time-tested principles. Plus they charge the lowest fees of any mutual fund company and their brokerage fees for stocks are fair as well. Fees are the MOST underrated factor in most people's portfolios - over time 1-2%/year can make a huge difference. Fidelity Investments has a lot of useful educational tools as well. And both offer a broad array of products suited for all kinds of investors.
'worth it?' You're definitely non-business. Talk to a financial planner. Disposable investments are all about your total portfolio and risk tolerance and not the value of a particular stock.
IMHO, Apple is likely on a 10% per year growth rate over the next 2ish year (400-450 by 2013)... that's the same (and likely less) than the S&P500 and/or Russell 2000. I'm long, and hope I'm conservatively wrong, but that's my analysis;-) My problem is that AAPL is now about 30% of my retirement portfolio. I need to rebalance, but I hate to not dance with the date that brung me.
Notice the technical terms introduced in this reply. Do you really understand all of them? And there's thousands more.
I have nothing against "financial planners" per se - but they're mostly unregulated, and in many states anybody can claim to be one. Further, most work for companies who have particular "financial products" to sell, i.e., their own in-house funds, annuities and more. And nearly every company who uses this model offers a stable of mediocre to poor offerings - but the "planner" makes far more (on commissions) if you buy those, so the planner has a bias to lead you making decisions that are in the planner's interest - not yours! Total conflict of interest.
If you use a financial planner - which is advisable for people who don't want to spend years learning to manage their portfolios - here are two screaming rules: 1. Use a CERTIFIED Financial Planner (CFP), and 2. ONLY use FEE-BASED planners, and never COMMISSION-BASED ones, i.e., what they make is either a straight-up, out-front fee no matter what they advise you to buy - or if they're going to manage your portfolio over time, that what they make is based on how well they do for you
Apple is a screaming BUY. Pristine balance sheet + 40% margins + tremendous growth. Call TD Ameritrade or Charles Schwab and they will set you up to buy APPL stock, its as easy as setting up a checking/savings account at a bank
Again, respectfully, this person doesn't know you or your situation - so while he could be right, taking a "tout" like this is a shot in the dark. Even if it's Apple.
+1
An Apple Investor (me) wants every store to be sold out at closing, and fully stocked by the next day. wash. rinse, repeat.
I think the key post iPad 2 story will be is laptop cannibalization.... I see growth in laptops to drop 50%. Everyone that needs one has one, and all those people who have one don't need another one.
Samsung, Motorola, BB... they aren't fighting for 2nd place, they're fighting for marketplace relevancy.
This will be a world of home based computing (mac mini's and what ever Dell/Acer/HP/sony sell), and portable computing (Hi End = SSD based laptops, Mid= 'personal internet devices', LE = 'personal comm devices' [aka smarter_than_featurephones]), and home infrastructure (TimeCapsule, AppleTV, Airport Express, free Lion Server OS, airplay and airprint)
Apple is the only company that seems to have leadership/growth/dominance/convergance across all those lines.
Not quite on the rest of my topic (except that you own AAPL), but mostly right on the money about the company.
Except I think that Apple's finally aiming for the Enterprise too - people want to use their favorite tools all the time, and not lug a satchel around for job and home - and they're bringing their Pads, Phones and Pods with them to work every day. IT is feeling the pressure to embrace what their users want, and this time Apple's likely to do quite well in the business computing world - by being on the bleeding edge of mobile tech, not trying to catch up in commodity markets like rack servers.
But they WILL have to do something.
Very well put.
It's going to be interesting to see what that something is. I suspect you're probably right and a dividend of some sort would make sense. Let's face it, even if they blew $20bn on a purchase, that's only really three quarters worth of cash, then they're back with the same question.