So that's presently 15% of the actual market. Doesn't sound like something Apple would shoot for.
No one intelligent would have ever said that. A Verizon iPhone was inevitable. People saying there will never be a smaller iPad are like those of us who knew there would never be a smaller iPhone.
And Apple certainly proved us wrong, because as we all know, a 3.5" screen is far too big!
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Exactly, so they are more than covered with their current marketshare, no need to worry about competitors and their pieces of the pie. Precisely what TS suggested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Probably, but they're quite happy with 5-7% of the cell phone market. What makes you so certain that 15% more of the tablet market wouldn't be of interest?
Once again the Apple doesn't care about Market Share meme rears it's ugly head. Apple fans tend to do this because
1) Its been the excuse for the Mac. Profits, not shares!
2) Some like the privileged ghetto. Keep the masses away.
TS is an odd follower of a company like Apple. It's quite innovative, but its clear that TS does not like change. He doesn't get market share either. When I suggested that the 3GS would still sell after the 4S was announced he didn't get that any sales at all of the 3GS would add to market share. You see; in the past they had this years model, and last years model, and thats all they are ever going to do. Ridiculous.
First things first. Apple would not be getting just 15% of the overall tablet market. It's entry into the mini-Tablet market would actually expand that market. Given the price the minis will be most of the market in the future. And yes people will have both in certain circumstances. A tablet, a mini-tablet and a laptop would be cheaper than a laptop a few years ago.
most importantly. Number 2. Apple are interested in market share. We know this because they say it. At the release of the 4S Cook made a point of not showing Apple's percentage of the smartphone market but their percentage of the overall market - then 5%. He said the rest was to aim for. He could not have made it more clear.
Also Apple talk up their market stats all the time, percentage of the music player market, percentage of app revenue, iTunes percentage of downloads, iPad market share. At least they do it when they are in the lead.
So no they are not happy with the iPad starting with 90% of the tablet market and continuing to fall while they keep margins high. They want to maintain dominance.
So no they are not happy with the iPad starting with 90% of the tablet market and continuing to fall while they keep margins high. They want to maintain dominance.
So which is it... do they want to keep margins high or do they want to maintain dominance (ie. market share)? You seem to infer both in these two statements.
So which is it... do they want to keep margins high or do they want to maintain dominance (ie. market share)? You seem to infer both in these two statements.
I would be implying, you would infer. I think they will sacrifice margins.
So no they are not happy with the iPad starting with 90% of the tablet market and continuing to fall while they keep margins high. They want to maintain dominance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
I would be implying, you would infer. I think they will sacrifice margins.
I don't think so. Yes they've been about market share on one side and margins on the other. But I don't think they've ever been about sacrificing margins to gain market share. Price points for older models go down because production costs go down. That increases market share while maintaining margins.
I don't see them introducing an iPad Mini for lower margins to continue dominating the tablet space. They'd only introduce it if the margins were still there. And a $200 iPad Mini would not meet their margins. Maybe at $350. But I don't think that price point would significantly deter Android 7" tablet sales for $200. I just don't think they care about how Android is doing.
I don't think so. Yes they've been about market share on one side and margins on the other. But I don't think they've ever been about sacrificing margins to gain market share. Price points for older models go down because production costs go down. That increases market share while maintaining margins.
I don't see them introducing an iPad Mini for lower margins to continue dominating the tablet space. They'd only introduce it if the margins were still there. And a $200 iPad Mini would not meet their margins. Maybe at $350. But I don't think that price point would significantly deter Android 7" tablet sales for $200. I just don't think they care about how Android is doing.
They can sell the iPad 2 at $399 and make a decent profit, so I don't see why they couldn't make a decent profit on an 8" iPad Mini, particularly if it uses technology similar to the iPad 2 (because it's pushing a lot less pixels than the iPad 3, it wouldn't need as good a GPU, for example).
And a $299 iPad Mini would take quite a bit of business away from a $199 Android device. More people would pay a $100 premium than would pay a $200 premium for the iPad 2. Plus, whether people here are willing to admit it or not, there are some people who actually prefer the smaller size and would buy an iPad even at a significant premium if it were available at 7-8".
[quote name="asdasd" url="/t/151086/apple-telling-suppliers-to-prep-for-mass-production-of-smaller-ipad-wsj/120#post_2140633"]…its clear that TS does not like change.[/QUOTE]
Is it, now.
[QUOTE]When I suggested that the 3GS would still sell after the 4S was announced he didn't get that any sales at all of the 3GS would add to market share.[/QUOTE]
Please refresh me, did you claim they'd drop the 4 and keep the 3GS or just add the 3GS?
So which is it... do they want to keep margins high or do they want to maintain dominance (ie. market share)? You seem to infer both in these two statements.
Why can't they do both?
Look at the iPad 10". Apple's margins are very healthy due to their incredible supply chain. It's nearly impossible to find a decent tablet for significantly less. Yet Apple has an overwhelming market dominance.
Why can't that apply to the 7", as well? Now, I don't really expect that Apple is going to get to $199, but they could make good margins at $249 to $299 and I suspect that their market position would be great, even at that level of price premium.
Look at the iPad 10". Apple's margins are very healthy due to their incredible supply chain. It's nearly impossible to find a decent tablet for significantly less. Yet Apple has an overwhelming market dominance.
Why can't that apply to the 7", as well? Now, I don't really expect that Apple is going to get to $199, but they could make good margins at $249 to $299 and I suspect that their market position would be great, even at that level of price premium.
I agree with you. Asdasd seemed to be saying two things at the same time and I was trying to get a clarification.
I think it will be more likely by called Ipod than Ipad. Maybe even Ipod G(ame) because that's what it essentially is. I perfect gaming console. Podcasting is out, gaming is in. And for those who don't want to game it still can do all other things the Ipad an.
I think it will be more likely by called Ipod than Ipad. Maybe even Ipod G(ame) because that's what it essentially is. I perfect gaming console. Podcasting is out, gaming is in. And for those who don't want to game it still can do all other things the Ipad an.
It would be foolish to call it an iPod.
The iPod is perceived primarily as a music and video playing device. The iPad is perceived as a general purpose device that does all sorts of things - playing games, accessing the web, reading books, doing email, etc.
While the iPod Touch does most of the things the iPad does, it is still perceived (and marketed) as a media consumption device. It's on Apple's iPod page which covers the iPod shuffle and Apple TV (which is also primarily a media consumption device).
A 7-8" tablet is far more like the 10" iPad than it is like a 3.5" iPod Touch. Calling a 7-8" tablet an iPod would blur the lines beyond all recognition.
Furthermore, the iPod name is fading and the iPad name is on a great trajectory. If you're going to release a new product, it makes more sense to release it into a booming market than a dying one.
I think it will be more likely by called Ipod than Ipad. Maybe even Ipod G(ame) because that's what it essentially is. I perfect gaming console. Podcasting is out, gaming is in. And for those who don't want to game it still can do all other things the Ipad an.
I agree with you. Asdasd seemed to be saying two things at the same time and I was trying to get a clarification.
I don't think any reasonable person would not understand the argument.
Apple rarely mentions margins except in conference calls where they have to. Even then they guide lower on margins then they actually achieve sometimes by as much as 10%. They never crow about margins. As a company I don't think they care. Others put up the stats showing Apple at 80% of profits. Not apple. Apple shows the 5% of total market share and say the rest is up for grabs.
2) as I said Apple have have different versions of their lower end devices, from the lowest with no margins to the highest with more memory or GPS chips all gaining margins per device. Overall margins remain healthy.
They do this with the iPod touch, an iPhone with a retina display without the phone radio chip and gps. Sells for buttons at the lower end but the too end earns the margins.
The iPod touch on its own cant compete with mini tablets because it isn't one.
I don't think any reasonable person would not understand the argument.
Apple rarely mentions margins except in conference calls where they have to. Even then they guide lower on margins then they actually achieve sometimes by as much as 10%. They never crow about margins. As a company I don't think they care. Others put up the stats showing Apple at 80% of profits. Not apple. Apple shows the 5% of total market share and say the rest is up for grabs.
2) as I said Apple have have different versions of their lower end devices, from the lowest with no margins to the highest with more memory or GPS chips all gaining margins per device. Overall margins remain healthy.
They do this with the iPod touch, an iPhone with a retina display without the phone radio chip and gps. Sells for buttons at the lower end but the too end earns the margins.
The iPod touch on its own cant compete with mini tablets because it isn't one.
Tim Cook's name is synonymous with fat margins in the computer industry.
They never crow about margins. As a company I don't think they care.
You have no idea how much they care. Quarterly reports are the key indicator of the company's success in the marketplace and the stock price is where it is today because Apple has reported improved earnings with each successive quarter. Earnings as in profits - which are the product of their margins. Apple is not running a charity; it's a company driven by earnings and it doesn't have the luxury of giving away product. No quicker way to a $300 share price than couple of quarters of declining profits.
You have no idea how much they care. Quarterly reports are the key indicator of the company's success in the marketplace and the stock price is where it is today because Apple has reported improved earnings with each successive quarter. Earnings as in profits - which are the product of their margins. Apple is not running a charity; it's a company driven by earnings and it doesn't have the luxury of giving away product. No quicker way to a $300 share price than couple of quarters of declining profits.
Actually, I do know how much they care. Apple's margins are among the best in the industry. That tells me everything i need to know about how much Apples cares about margins.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
So that's presently 15% of the actual market. Doesn't sound like something Apple would shoot for.
No one intelligent would have ever said that. A Verizon iPhone was inevitable. People saying there will never be a smaller iPad are like those of us who knew there would never be a smaller iPhone.
And Apple certainly proved us wrong, because as we all know, a 3.5" screen is far too big!
Quote:
Originally Posted by johndoe98
Exactly, so they are more than covered with their current marketshare, no need to worry about competitors and their pieces of the pie. Precisely what TS suggested.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Probably, but they're quite happy with 5-7% of the cell phone market. What makes you so certain that 15% more of the tablet market wouldn't be of interest?
Once again the Apple doesn't care about Market Share meme rears it's ugly head. Apple fans tend to do this because
1) Its been the excuse for the Mac. Profits, not shares!
2) Some like the privileged ghetto. Keep the masses away.
TS is an odd follower of a company like Apple. It's quite innovative, but its clear that TS does not like change. He doesn't get market share either. When I suggested that the 3GS would still sell after the 4S was announced he didn't get that any sales at all of the 3GS would add to market share. You see; in the past they had this years model, and last years model, and thats all they are ever going to do. Ridiculous.
First things first. Apple would not be getting just 15% of the overall tablet market. It's entry into the mini-Tablet market would actually expand that market. Given the price the minis will be most of the market in the future. And yes people will have both in certain circumstances. A tablet, a mini-tablet and a laptop would be cheaper than a laptop a few years ago.
most importantly. Number 2. Apple are interested in market share. We know this because they say it. At the release of the 4S Cook made a point of not showing Apple's percentage of the smartphone market but their percentage of the overall market - then 5%. He said the rest was to aim for. He could not have made it more clear.
Also Apple talk up their market stats all the time, percentage of the music player market, percentage of app revenue, iTunes percentage of downloads, iPad market share. At least they do it when they are in the lead.
So no they are not happy with the iPad starting with 90% of the tablet market and continuing to fall while they keep margins high. They want to maintain dominance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
So no they are not happy with the iPad starting with 90% of the tablet market and continuing to fall while they keep margins high. They want to maintain dominance.So which is it... do they want to keep margins high or do they want to maintain dominance (ie. market share)? You seem to infer both in these two statements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit
So which is it... do they want to keep margins high or do they want to maintain dominance (ie. market share)? You seem to infer both in these two statements.
I would be implying, you would infer. I think they will sacrifice margins.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
So no they are not happy with the iPad starting with 90% of the tablet market and continuing to fall while they keep margins high. They want to maintain dominance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
I would be implying, you would infer. I think they will sacrifice margins.
I don't think so. Yes they've been about market share on one side and margins on the other. But I don't think they've ever been about sacrificing margins to gain market share. Price points for older models go down because production costs go down. That increases market share while maintaining margins.
I don't see them introducing an iPad Mini for lower margins to continue dominating the tablet space. They'd only introduce it if the margins were still there. And a $200 iPad Mini would not meet their margins. Maybe at $350. But I don't think that price point would significantly deter Android 7" tablet sales for $200. I just don't think they care about how Android is doing.
They can sell the iPad 2 at $399 and make a decent profit, so I don't see why they couldn't make a decent profit on an 8" iPad Mini, particularly if it uses technology similar to the iPad 2 (because it's pushing a lot less pixels than the iPad 3, it wouldn't need as good a GPU, for example).
And a $299 iPad Mini would take quite a bit of business away from a $199 Android device. More people would pay a $100 premium than would pay a $200 premium for the iPad 2. Plus, whether people here are willing to admit it or not, there are some people who actually prefer the smaller size and would buy an iPad even at a significant premium if it were available at 7-8".
Is it, now.
[QUOTE]When I suggested that the 3GS would still sell after the 4S was announced he didn't get that any sales at all of the 3GS would add to market share.[/QUOTE]
Please refresh me, did you claim they'd drop the 4 and keep the 3GS or just add the 3GS?
Why can't they do both?
Look at the iPad 10". Apple's margins are very healthy due to their incredible supply chain. It's nearly impossible to find a decent tablet for significantly less. Yet Apple has an overwhelming market dominance.
Why can't that apply to the 7", as well? Now, I don't really expect that Apple is going to get to $199, but they could make good margins at $249 to $299 and I suspect that their market position would be great, even at that level of price premium.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
I would be implying, you would infer. I think they will sacrifice margins.
Really? They haven't so far... as your statement shows. In almost 30 years of Mac production they never wavered on margins. I don't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Why can't they do both?
Look at the iPad 10". Apple's margins are very healthy due to their incredible supply chain. It's nearly impossible to find a decent tablet for significantly less. Yet Apple has an overwhelming market dominance.
Why can't that apply to the 7", as well? Now, I don't really expect that Apple is going to get to $199, but they could make good margins at $249 to $299 and I suspect that their market position would be great, even at that level of price premium.
I agree with you. Asdasd seemed to be saying two things at the same time and I was trying to get a clarification.
It would be foolish to call it an iPod.
The iPod is perceived primarily as a music and video playing device. The iPad is perceived as a general purpose device that does all sorts of things - playing games, accessing the web, reading books, doing email, etc.
While the iPod Touch does most of the things the iPad does, it is still perceived (and marketed) as a media consumption device. It's on Apple's iPod page which covers the iPod shuffle and Apple TV (which is also primarily a media consumption device).
A 7-8" tablet is far more like the 10" iPad than it is like a 3.5" iPod Touch. Calling a 7-8" tablet an iPod would blur the lines beyond all recognition.
Furthermore, the iPod name is fading and the iPad name is on a great trajectory. If you're going to release a new product, it makes more sense to release it into a booming market than a dying one.
This actually makes sense, it fills the gap in terms of price and screen size...
$199 3.5" iPod touch (iPad nano)
$349 7.85" iPad mini
$499 9.7" iPad
Quote:
Originally Posted by gelp
I think it will be more likely by called Ipod than Ipad. Maybe even Ipod G(ame) because that's what it essentially is. I perfect gaming console. Podcasting is out, gaming is in. And for those who don't want to game it still can do all other things the Ipad an.
iPoad
...iPwnd
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
...iPwnd
I don't think any reasonable person would not understand the argument.
Apple rarely mentions margins except in conference calls where they have to. Even then they guide lower on margins then they actually achieve sometimes by as much as 10%. They never crow about margins. As a company I don't think they care. Others put up the stats showing Apple at 80% of profits. Not apple. Apple shows the 5% of total market share and say the rest is up for grabs.
2) as I said Apple have have different versions of their lower end devices, from the lowest with no margins to the highest with more memory or GPS chips all gaining margins per device. Overall margins remain healthy.
They do this with the iPod touch, an iPhone with a retina display without the phone radio chip and gps. Sells for buttons at the lower end but the too end earns the margins.
The iPod touch on its own cant compete with mini tablets because it isn't one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
I don't think any reasonable person would not understand the argument.
Apple rarely mentions margins except in conference calls where they have to. Even then they guide lower on margins then they actually achieve sometimes by as much as 10%. They never crow about margins. As a company I don't think they care. Others put up the stats showing Apple at 80% of profits. Not apple. Apple shows the 5% of total market share and say the rest is up for grabs.
2) as I said Apple have have different versions of their lower end devices, from the lowest with no margins to the highest with more memory or GPS chips all gaining margins per device. Overall margins remain healthy.
They do this with the iPod touch, an iPhone with a retina display without the phone radio chip and gps. Sells for buttons at the lower end but the too end earns the margins.
The iPod touch on its own cant compete with mini tablets because it isn't one.
Tim Cook's name is synonymous with fat margins in the computer industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
They never crow about margins. As a company I don't think they care.
You have no idea how much they care. Quarterly reports are the key indicator of the company's success in the marketplace and the stock price is where it is today because Apple has reported improved earnings with each successive quarter. Earnings as in profits - which are the product of their margins. Apple is not running a charity; it's a company driven by earnings and it doesn't have the luxury of giving away product. No quicker way to a $300 share price than couple of quarters of declining profits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable
You have no idea how much they care. Quarterly reports are the key indicator of the company's success in the marketplace and the stock price is where it is today because Apple has reported improved earnings with each successive quarter. Earnings as in profits - which are the product of their margins. Apple is not running a charity; it's a company driven by earnings and it doesn't have the luxury of giving away product. No quicker way to a $300 share price than couple of quarters of declining profits.
Actually, I do know how much they care. Apple's margins are among the best in the industry. That tells me everything i need to know about how much Apples cares about margins.
Of course, Apple sees Android about to grab the market share of tablets like they have with smartphones and they decided to copy.....