or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Special Report: The end of Apple's iPod era
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Special Report: The end of Apple's iPod era

post #1 of 116
Thread Starter 
After years of serving as Apple's main source of revenue, the iPod's influence on the company's financial health has diminished to the point of being effectively irrelevant as a revenue driver, marking an end to the 'iPod era.'

As the halo effect of the iPod reached its maximum potential, reinvigorated Macintosh sales and deep market penetration by the iPhone have completely taken over as the main source of Apple's revenue and earnings. Â*Even the iPad in its inaugural quarter will post more revenue and earnings than the iPod, pushing the device to Apple's 4th largest source of income. Â*What's more, the iPod as a percentage of Apple's total revenue will drop below 10% in 2011.

A few years ago, I wrote an article detailing the iPodÂs diminishing importance to AppleÂs revenue growth. As Macintosh sales starting picking up steam, and as the advent of the iPhone assumed the helm of AppleÂs future growth prospects, the iPod started a slow descent down from its throne as AppleÂs key revenue driver.

In January 2006, when Apple hit all time highs of $86.40, I remember how investors and financial analysts feared AppleÂs best years were behind it. This fear, while apparently unfounded in retrospect, stemmed from the perception that the iPod was near market saturation, and that Apple wouldnÂt be able to innovate further. And though the market was in the midst of a raging bull market, investors saw AppleÂs share price drop from $86.40 to $50.00 by that July.

Turn the page to 2010, the iPod is a mere afterthought and Apple has since seen its share price grow almost 6 fold. And while the iPod demonstrated a lot more resilience than anticipated by the financial world, posting record quarter after record quarter through 2008, its significance as a revenue driver has now diminished to the point of being almost irrelevant to AppleÂs overall growth. In Q1 2006, the iPod accounted for an astonishing 55.55% -- or more than half -- of AppleÂs total revenue.

For the 2010 holiday shopping season, though the iPod posted 250% more revenue than it did in 2006, it only accounted for 21.62% or just a fifth of AppleÂs total revenue. That right there is a very tangible example of AppleÂs ability to innovate in the face of an inevitable and impending slowdown of its main revenue driver, the iPod. The chart below details iPod revenue as a percentage of AppleÂs total revenue from 2006 through 2010. Please note that Q3 and Q4 of 2010 are merely estimates based on a detail analysis IÂve published, and that actual results may vary.



Notice how the iPodÂs impact to AppleÂs total revenue has been on a consistent and continual downtrend since 2006. It is as if the importance of the iPod wanes by the day. In fact, IÂm projecting that the iPod as a percentage of AppleÂs overall revenue will fall under 10% for the first time in Q4 of this year. And to get an idea of just how significant that really is, IÂm expecting iTunes to account for 6.9% of total revenue in the same quarter. ThatÂs an indication that the iPod is becoming just as insignificant of a revenue driver as is iTunes.

Yet, the chart above is even more impressive when one makes a side by side comparison to AppleÂs total revenue in the same period. Even though the iPod has a diminishing impact on AppleÂs total sales from 2006 to present, AppleÂs revenue has outright exploded.

In Q1 2006, Apple reported $5.75 billion in revenue of which 55% were iPod sales. In 2010, Apple reported $15.7 billion or almost triple what it reported in 2006. Yet iPod sales only accounted for a meager 21.6% of that revenue. Any way you look at it, Apple is no longer dependent on the iPod, and any future signs of weakness should produce nothing more than a yawn. The chart below is a quarterly overview of AppleÂs revenue from 2006 to 2010. Please be advised that Q3 and Q4 are merely projections, and that actual results may vary. A detailed look at how I arrived at those estimates can be found here.



Though the iPod is contributing less in terms of percentages, it still makes very hefty contributions in terms of revenue. In fact, while iPod revenue as a percentage of AppleÂs overall revenue has been on a constant decline since 2006, the iPod has posted very consistent revenue throughout that period of time. The only thing that has changed is AppleÂs product lineup, and an untouchable capacity to innovate. Hopefully this article puts the old adage, ÂAs goes the iPod, so goes the Apple, definitively the rest. Apple isnÂt just the iPod maker or the iPhone maker, itÂs a money maker. 2010 marks the end of the iPod era.



Andy Zaky is a graduate from the UCLA School of Law, an AppleInsider contributor and the founder and author of Bullish Cross -- an online publication that provides in-depth analysis of Apple's financial health.
post #2 of 116
I generally agree with your point, but I have to ask: Do your figures and charts above include the iPod TOUCH as well as the iPod Classic, Nano and Shuffle?

I ask because I'm pretty sure that the iPod Touch makes up a huge portion of the iOS-based device revenue, and that Touch sales are through the roof.

Now, if you're talking about the NON-iOS based iPods, I agree 100%, but I'd be very surprised if iPod Touch sales/revenue are becoming "irrelevant", as this article would seem to imply. Just wondering...
post #3 of 116
This is how accountants defraud people. They show charts and graphs based on arbitrary definitions and half-truths to lie without actually lying.

iPhones ARE iPods. iPads are less so, although they do have iPods built in to them.

Considering iPod hardware as a standalone entity is also kind of crazy. The real success was the iPod/iTunes Store ecosystem that really made Apple's solution much more compelling than any of the myriad combinations of me-too hardware and clunky online distribution networks. The iTunes Store is doing brilliantly.

The fact that products that are only iPods are fading is in no way, shape or form that it is dying. It is merely testament that Apple has pushed iPod-related technologies so far that the extended functionality of making phone calls or of being put into a tablet with no moving parts have become the successful children of the venerable device.
post #4 of 116
I love reading AppleInsider because it feels more like informed journalism and less like off-the-cuff blogging. I also read the too infrequent postings Bullish Cross. It is great to see Andy Zaky writing Apple financial analysis for AppleInsider now. A great match! Looking forward to more.
post #5 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

This is how accountants defraud people. They show charts and graphs based on arbitrary definitions and half-truths to lie without actually lying.

iPhones ARE iPods. iPads are less so, although they do have iPods built in to them.

Considering iPod hardware as a standalone entity is also kind of crazy. The real success was the iPod/iTunes Store ecosystem that really made Apple's solution much more compelling than any of the myriad combinations of me-too hardware and clunky online distribution networks. The iTunes Store is doing brilliantly.

The fact that products that are only iPods are fading is in no way, shape or form that it is dying. It is merely testament that Apple has pushed iPod-related technologies so far that the extended functionality of making phone calls or of being put into a tablet with no moving parts have become the successful children of the venerable device.

Well said, although I think it's a bit harsh to accuse him of being dishonest here; I'm just trying to clarify what his point was.

You said it better than I did, however; yes, of course the iPhone is *also* an iPod, as is the iPod Touch. I *assume* that what he's referring to is the "iPod-only" lines, which include the Classic, Nano and Shuffle.
post #6 of 116
I think the reality is that Apple got too good at shilling its own products. Innovating at the pace they did - nearly redesigning the unit every year - meant that most people (in the demographic) now own 1 or 2 iPods, some even more. (I've owned 4 myself, because I needed to replace broken models, and I given a few others as gifts.) At this point, there just isn't really an impetus for most users to plunk down $200 for a new iPod... particularly when they already have one that does nearly the same thing. I mean, there's only so many ways to play and store music and, therefore, only so many ways that the company can innovate.

In that light, I'm really curious to see how they treat the Nano this year. It can't get a much bigger screen or smaller form factor without removing the clickwheel altogether. With the addition of FM radio and a camera in the last rev, it addresses nearly every feasible customer request for a unit of that size. A larger capacity would be helpful, but that's tied more to memory prices than anything that Apple's able to control.

If you take a look at the iPhone, it suggests a bit where their brain is at and what we might see from future handhelds, the iPod included. They've managed to innovate that at a staggering pace, because an iPhone is really more like a small computer and thus has room for more bells and whistles. At the very least, they'll probably always be able to give it moderate speed increases, which is enough to get some consumers coming back indefinitely. With an iPod, no such road exists (I really don't want to hear my music played back any faster, thanks.) What we'll probably see, then, is more attention devoted to the iPod touch, which addresses a market directly between casual iPod users and hardcore iPhone users. (Think: Your 12 year old kid.) Apple will be able to innovate there on a pace comparative with the iPhone, and so shouldn't encounter the same the one-trick pony
problem it has with it's dedicated music/video players.

Whatever happens, they've sold a lot of iPods, so even if this is the end it's been a good ride.
post #7 of 116
A friend asked me if he should get a iPod nano. I told him spend a tiny bit more and get an iPhone 4.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #8 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

For the 2010 holiday shopping season, though the iPod posted 250% more revenue than it did in 2006, it only accounted for 21.62% or just a fifth of Apple’s total revenue. That right there is a very tangible example of Apple’s ability to innovate in the face of an inevitable and impending slowdown of its main revenue driver, the iPod.

I thought that paragraph was the most interesting... If Apple is selling two and half times as many iPods now as they did in 2006, I don't think you can call that a slow down at all. In the last few years Apple has seen explosive growth...Clearly products like the iPhone, iPad and Mac lines are leading that growth and represent the vast majority of Apple's total revenue. As these new products emerge, the percentage of sales generated by the iPod shrinks.

I'm an iPhone devotee, but many of my friends have an iPod touch just because of phone company contracts...The Touch was a brilliant product because it opened up the App Store to so many more costumers and helped spread iOS. I'd also love to see Apple continue to explore low-cost, shuffle-type devices.... I think there will continue to be a market for low cost music players for a long time to come.
post #9 of 116
I don't believe the iPod died at all, or is even waning. The iPhone is the iPod, evolved. Apple realized that people had two devices and one resource they all wanted: a phone, an iPod, and the Internet. iPod itself evolved. It went from a 5GB brick to a slimline movie player. But instead of striving for smallness, Apple needed to focus on balancing their new movies with their size, and adding in that functionality of phone and Internet. Internet required a touchscreen for efficiency and the phone was formed around both of these. It's a natural design progression.

What will be interesting is how Apple position iPods now considering their lack of importance in the scheme of things.

I personally hope the iPod classic and iPod Nano are merged into iPod. iPod and iPod Touch. Simple. (let's just ignore the candy stick iPod shuffle...) Apple may want to now refocus their lines because there would be too much R&D, and tbh it's now a confusing mess of products and features.
post #10 of 116
I am on my third Ipod I have only upgraded each time due to a requiremnt for extra storage as I am at about 100gb of music my hope is that they keep updating the classic with more storage as I use it as my main music player at home and have not bought a CD for at least 3 years.

Lee
macbook pro 2.9ghz 750gd hd, 8gb ram, 160gb Ipod Classic, iphone 5 32gb, ipad mini 32gb

Reply

Lee
macbook pro 2.9ghz 750gd hd, 8gb ram, 160gb Ipod Classic, iphone 5 32gb, ipad mini 32gb

Reply
post #11 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

A friend asked me if he should get a iPod nano. I told him spend a tiny bit more and get an iPhone 4.

Steve made it clear that the iPhone is there to merge two devices (cell phone and iPod). It is foolish to assume that iPod sales won't go down as a result. However, Apple still win since those who don't buy an iPhone are more likely to buy an iPod than use their phone built in music player. I personally recommend the iPhone and iPod touch when someone ask me what iPod to get.
post #12 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

A friend asked me if he should get a iPod nano. I told him spend a tiny bit more and get an iPhone 4.

Not great advice unless he was also in the market for a new phone.
post #13 of 116
as this study shows, there are a lot of factors that weigh into the success or decline of the iPod. I think part of it is the fact the iPod had changed very little since 2006. My personal history of iPod purchases has been:

2005 - Ipod shuffle (getting my feet wet into the Apple way of life)
2006 - iPod Mini 16gig(purchased on ebay for $200)
2008 - iPod Classic 80gig (wanted my entire music library at a blink of an eye)
2008 - iPhone 3g 16gig (still have my iPod Classic, don't need the phone to do everything)

I see no date in mind to replace my Classic iPod. It's my music server for home, office, car, and travel. And i think that's all it needs to be. the iPod Touch doesn't work at a device for the car, and most car stereos suck at reproducing the UI of the iPod classic, so how can you make that any better? Personally, I don't need an All-in-One deive taht does everything i need. This formula works for me, and probably a lot of other people as well. My hope is that they increase the storage of the Nano to 64gig or better. I love my iPod Classic, but would love a smaller form factor...throw in the iTunes store, wifi for updates to podcasts, keep the wheel and you'd have probably the final iteration and all I'd ever need.
post #14 of 116
Off topic: I bought my mom an iPod last Christmas and she lost it. I'm ticked.

My little brother likes the ipod touch I bought him though.
post #15 of 116
I haven't bought a new iPod in several years. If one dies, i get on ebay and get on old one a few generations back. Works fine for me.
post #16 of 116
The advent of the iPhone changes the equation entirely: my SO switched from Palm on Verizon to iPhone in Feb when her iPod got wonky. She realized that she could replace her iPod w/ an new one - w/ 2x storage - and get the phone part for free....

I don't predict the end of the non-touch/non-phone iPod quite yet, though: shuffles and nanos and classics are still more compelling for some than the "new iPod + free fone", and this will remain so (though tailing off) for the next 3-5 years.

Like plenty of folx I'm a bit disappointed that iP4 didn't jump to 64/128, but that turns out to be a limitation of the current A4. It will no doubt change soon enough. iP4 will be my first iPhone (and my 3rd & most capacious iPod), and I'll be very surprised if my next has less than 128.
If yer gonna bother with thinking different, swing for the fences.
Reply
If yer gonna bother with thinking different, swing for the fences.
Reply
post #17 of 116
Just got myself the 160gb classic. I figured I'd better get it before it's discontinued, since I need it as the music source for my car. Will probably stand me in good stead for a few more years. The Touch and the iPhone are way too dainty for that use.
post #18 of 116
Hope they keep the classic. Love the storage capacity.
post #19 of 116
heck, do any of you remember how long you had your walkman, your portable CD player?
my first Walkman that lasted me about 9 years (which it did overlapp my purchasing a CD player). I purchased my first CD player (Sony D-9) in 1989 and had to replace it in 1998. Then my second in 1998 that lasted me until i purchased my first iPod Shuffle in 2005, and it still works today, if i needed it in a pinch.

I think the portable device market has been too focused no getting something new out every year, then telling companies (and consumers) they have FAILED if they haven't sold as many (or replaced your device) every YEAR. That's just insane!
post #20 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

A friend asked me if he should get a iPod nano. I told him spend a tiny bit more and get an iPhone 4.

yeah, and he'd have to charge the thing every 4 hours if she used it heavily. I honestly tried to use my iPHone as the All-in-One device it's supposed to be. But the user-interface in the car sucks a big one. The battery life is abysmal at best (especially if you're traveling by plane or someplace you can't charge it easily). Just not a practical music device. Heck, i even download TV shows and transfer movies to my ipod classic if i'm on a plane just because the battery on that is so much better. There is an occasion i'll listen to NPR on their App or download a podcast when i've left my ipod in the car, but the iPhone/Touch just doesn't work for music.
post #21 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

A friend asked me if he should get a iPod nano. I told him spend a tiny bit more and get an iPhone 4.

An iPhone won't be a tiny bit more -- especially not after AT&T is through with him. The appropriate recommendation is an iPod Touch: most of the iPhone's goodies without the monthly bill.
post #22 of 116
I liked the article despite the typos. I would have preferred it if the author would have delineated the percentages of revenue coming from all of the Apple products.

The iPod can't and won't die. Such things break and get lost. The technological innovation will continue and more iPods will be sold as long as people listen to music and watch videos on portable devices.

I'm hoping for a smaller iPad or a bigger iPod Touch to come out. I really want such a device with a six or seven inch screen.

As far as TV devices go, the internet is where I watch video shows. Maybe there is a market for TV devices. Right now my computer does everything I need it to do for video content. I don't feel the need for a specialized video device.
post #23 of 116
Yeah, I think a definition of 'iPod' would have been helpful for an otherwise good article.

Always define your terms.
post #24 of 116
Apple: the new phone company. (let's forget for a second about the iP4 issues...)
sent from my... internet browser of choice.
Reply
sent from my... internet browser of choice.
Reply
post #25 of 116
If by "iPod era" one means Apple's unhealthy reliance on a single device for its well-being, then, yes, the iPod era is over. Citing a chart of declining iPod revenue *percentage* as a symptom of decline is entirely misleading, though. IPod sales remain quite strong even as Apple's product line has expanded into other mobile devices; indeed, earnings from iPods are increasing as the product mix skews more to the high-end iPod Touch. Given the iPod-like capabilities of other iOS devices, which are sufficient for the music needs of some users, the influence of the iPod ecosystem has actually increased. The author paints Apple's product diversification as a negative, but the evidence is quite the opposite, even within the bounds of the iPod world.
post #26 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by cincytee View Post

An iPhone won't be a tiny bit more -- especially not after AT&T is through with him. The appropriate recommendation is an iPod Touch: most of the iPhone's goodies without the monthly bill.

I like, "not after AT&T is through with him."

Agreed, owning an iPhone is expensive. But I do like only having one item to carry around. And now the iPhone 4 has a better camera with flash. With the iPhone I don't have to carry a phone, iPod, camera, GPS, Guitar tuner, calculater, video camera, voice recorder, maps, phone book around anymore.

I take your point though, when business is good I don't mind ATT as much, but when it is slow that $120 bill sure comes around quick every month.

Best
post #27 of 116
The ipod era didn't end, it just evolved. The iPod with the internal phone is now the main revenue driver.
post #28 of 116
I just got an iPhone 4, but it's still more convenient for me to keep an iPod Nano permanently plugged into the car's USB port than to try and listen to music from the phone over Bluetooth.
post #29 of 116
I have to admit, I just skimmed the article, but it seemed to say at one point the ipod now accounts for around 1 fifth of Apple's revenue, or at least as of holiday sales.

This is rather simplistic thinking, but looking at Apple's product offering category wise, they have:

Laptops
Consumer Desktop
Pro Desktop
iPad
iPhone
iPod
iTV
Software

That is 8 device/product categories, not counting accessories and 3rd party sales.

Of those 8 categories, 1 category represents 1 fifth of revenue. Some how that doesn't seem irrelevant to me.
post #30 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by duaneu2 View Post

I just got an iPhone 4, but it's still more convenient for me to keep an iPod Nano permanently plugged into the car's USB port than to try and listen to music from the phone over Bluetooth.

This might be a little off topic but interesting for people discussing the iPod UI in the car. I've been test driving new cars recently, and all have some way to port the iPod to the car's internal stereo with some kind of USB/Aux Jack then the Car's stereo UI takes over.

Honda's USB link
Mini's Proprietary USB link and alternate Aux jack
VW's Aux Jack
Toyota has some kind of Aux jack as well.

Out of all these cars, the VW got it right. The Aux Jack is the best way to control your ipod in the car. By using the ipod itself. None of these other cars got it right. The proprietary UI in most cars is so abysmal that it's just better to control from the ipod. At least Mini offers both the USB option (for $250 more, for a freekin cord) or just the Aux jack.
post #31 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by macFanDave View Post

This is how accountants defraud people. They show charts and graphs based on arbitrary definitions and half-truths to lie without actually lying.

iPhones ARE iPods. iPads are less so, although they do have iPods built in to them.

Considering iPod hardware as a standalone entity is also kind of crazy. The real success was the iPod/iTunes Store ecosystem that really made Apple's solution much more compelling than any of the myriad combinations of me-too hardware and clunky online distribution networks. The iTunes Store is doing brilliantly.

The fact that products that are only iPods are fading is in no way, shape or form that it is dying. It is merely testament that Apple has pushed iPod-related technologies so far that the extended functionality of making phone calls or of being put into a tablet with no moving parts have become the successful children of the venerable device.

Yea. I'm talking about how Apple defines what an iPod is on their income statement. This isn't a bad thing. The iPod's revenue is still very strong, it just doesn't make up quite that big of a portion anymore.
Andy M. Zaky
Bullish Cross
www.bullcross.com
Reply
Andy M. Zaky
Bullish Cross
www.bullcross.com
Reply
post #32 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

A friend asked me if he should get a iPod nano. I told him spend a tiny bit more and get an iPhone 4.

What!! With all the problems they have? Some friend you are.

Sorry i couldn't resist
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #33 of 116
other replies said the same thing.
post #34 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Capt. Obvious View Post

The advent of the iPhone changes the equation entirely: my SO switched from Palm on Verizon to iPhone in Feb when her iPod got wonky. She realized that she could replace her iPod w/ an new one - w/ 2x storage - and get the phone part for free....

I don't predict the end of the non-touch/non-phone iPod quite yet, though: shuffles and nanos and classics are still more compelling for some than the "new iPod + free fone", and this will remain so (though tailing off) for the next 3-5 years.

Like plenty of folx I'm a bit disappointed that iP4 didn't jump to 64/128, but that turns out to be a limitation of the current A4. It will no doubt change soon enough. iP4 will be my first iPhone (and my 3rd & most capacious iPod), and I'll be very surprised if my next has less than 128.

Sir, I must point out the flaw in your argument that the 64/128 is a limitation of the A4 chip. Actually, that is a completely baseless statement.

The truth is, most people would never pay for a 64GB iPhone, let alone a 128GB one. According to http://dramexchange.com/, the flash contract price for 8GB is ~16.20. For 64GB that would be $130 or thereabouts. That's about $65 more than the 32GB just in pure cost. Granted, these quoted prices may be higher but that is just cost to Apple. They cannot sell you that at cost. With margins, that additional 32GB pricing puts things beyond the iPhone's reasonable price range.
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
Number of people in ignore list : 1
Reply
post #35 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

This might be a little off topic but interesting for people discussing the iPod UI in the car. I've been test driving new cars recently, and all have some way to port the iPod to the car's internal stereo with some kind of USB/Aux Jack then the Car's stereo UI takes over.

Honda's USB link
Mini's Proprietary USB link and alternate Aux jack
VW's Aux Jack
Toyota has some kind of Aux jack as well.

Out of all these cars, the VW got it right. The Aux Jack is the best way to control your ipod in the car. By using the ipod itself. None of these other cars got it right. The proprietary UI in most cars is so abysmal that it's just better to control from the ipod. At least Mini offers both the USB option (for $250 more, for a freekin cord) or just the Aux jack.

Yeah i agree. My Mazda UI just views all the tracks in Alphabetical order. I can view by artist as well. Sometimes i'm halfway to work by the time i find my mood track. Meanwhile i've mowed down thirteen pedestrians, twenty cats and set off three speeding cameras.
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
A reputation is not built upon the restful domain of one's comfort zone; it is made out of stalwart exposition of your core beliefs, for all challenges to disprove them as irrelevant hubris.- Berp...
Reply
post #36 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

This might be a little off topic but interesting for people discussing the iPod UI in the car. I've been test driving new cars recently, and all have some way to port the iPod to the car's internal stereo with some kind of USB/Aux Jack then the Car's stereo UI takes over.

Honda's USB link
Mini's Proprietary USB link and alternate Aux jack
VW's Aux Jack
Toyota has some kind of Aux jack as well.

Out of all these cars, the VW got it right. The Aux Jack is the best way to control your ipod in the car. By using the ipod itself. None of these other cars got it right. The proprietary UI in most cars is so abysmal that it's just better to control from the ipod. At least Mini offers both the USB option (for $250 more, for a freekin cord) or just the Aux jack.


Continuing to derail the thread a bit. I've developed an almost unhealthy tendency to accumulate music. I have music I don't listen to on a regular basis but love the variety of keeping an ipod full with the entire collection (over 4000) songs and just letting it go on shuffle. It's great to hear the occasional odd tune for the sake of variety. I have an after market JVC car stereo+ ipod controller that works well for playing on shuffle or getting to a particular playlist, genre etc (although drilling down to a particular song takes a lot of effort). It keeps the iPod charged. Getting to the point, if the 64 bit iTouch is attractive enough to me to spring for it, it would be very convenient to leave my iPod classic dedicated to my car. Until now, I always disconnect my iPod, except for spring and fall (mild temperatures). Does anyone have any thoughts about just leaving an iPod in the glove compartment always connected re: hot summer and cold winter temperature extremes?


.
post #37 of 116
I would like to point out that I haven't said anything about iPod sales going down. in fact, I make it clear that iPod sales have remained flat to slightly up. The only thing this article is intended to point out, but I guess I didn't do a clear enough job, is that Apple is no longer relying on iPod sales for a main source of revenue. iPod is plainly defined by Apple to include the iPod Classic, iPod Touch, iPod Nano and iPod Shuffle. Everything that has the word iPod in it. I thought this much was obvious.

Again, this article relates an idea that isn't a bad thing for investors. Its a very good thing. So to take this article as being negative would definitely miss the point entirely. The point, once again, is that Apple no longer really relies on the iPod, and its importance as a revenue driver has completely diminish. Again, I'm not saying REVENUE has diminished. This is a positive because it shows Apple's ability to innovate and find other sources of revenue in the face of slower growth. And the iPod has been showing very slow growth between 2006 and 2010.

Remember, that some people will sit here and say that the iPhone is an iPod and that the iPod has done well all along. This argument is in fact, VERY counter productive to investors. You want to see companies come out and innovate and find new sources of revenue. If the iPhone is just another iPod, then guess what, Apple hasn't found a new source of revenue. All they've done is expanded their product line. That isn't nearly as impressive as creating a whole category of revenue by a new and different product. Shit if one considers an iPhone an iPod, then why would one consider an iPad any different? So iPhones, iPads and iPods are all iPods now and Apple has only two sources of revenue? That's not a very good way to look at the company.

The End of the iPod Era is supposed to signify that its reign at the throne of Apple's main source of revenue has ended. Its Era as reigning champion has ended. Who can argue with that when on Apple's income statement its reports $13.5 billion and only $1.5 of that is iPod sales?
Andy M. Zaky
Bullish Cross
www.bullcross.com
Reply
Andy M. Zaky
Bullish Cross
www.bullcross.com
Reply
post #38 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr Underhill View Post

Yeah i agree. My Mazda UI just views all the tracks in Alphabetical order. I can view by artist as well. Sometimes i'm halfway to work by the time i find my mood track. Meanwhile i've mowed down thirteen pedestrians, twenty cats and set off three speeding cameras.

I think that's the funniest post i've seen on AI since i joined! Thanks!
post #39 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by GMHut View Post

Continuing to derail the thread a bit. I've developed an almost unhealthy tendency to accumulate music. I have music I don't listen to on a regular basis but love the variety of keeping an ipod full with the entire collection (over 4000) songs and just letting it go on shuffle. It's great to hear the occasional odd tune for the sake of variety. I have an after market JVC car stereo+ ipod controller that works well for playing on shuffle or getting to a particular playlist, genre etc (although drilling down to a particular song takes a lot of effort). It keeps the iPod charged. Getting to the point, if the 64 bit iTouch is attractive enough to me to spring for it, it would be very convenient to leave my iPod classic dedicated to my car. Until now, I always disconnect my iPod, except for spring and fall (mild temperatures). Does anyone have any thoughts about just leaving an iPod in the glove compartment always connected re: hot summer and cold winter temperature extremes?


.

I can't say i have a solution for you. I use my iPod Classic at work. I listen to a lot of podcasts and, for reason's i've stated above in this post, i take it out all the time. I'm pretty addicted to my Classic. I even have an iHome Shower player that i keep next to the shower on the window sill so i can listen to my classic for the 15 mintues of prepwork in the day. It replaced a radio i kept in there, but that's probably TMI for most.
post #40 of 116
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDjinn View Post

I generally agree with your point, but I have to ask: Do your figures and charts above include the iPod TOUCH as well as the iPod Classic, Nano and Shuffle?

I ask because I'm pretty sure that the iPod Touch makes up a huge portion of the iOS-based device revenue, and that Touch sales are through the roof.

The article's definition of "iPod" is the same one Apple uses in its quarterly financial reports. That includes the iPod Shuffle, Nano, Classic and Touch. It does not include the iPhone or iPad, which Apple reports as separate items.

Overall iPod unit sales are declining, but the average price per iPod is increasing: people are buying fewer cheap iPods, but in money terms, the increased sales of iPod Touch is mostly making up for it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueDjinn View Post

Now, if you're talking about the NON-iOS based iPods, I agree 100%, but I'd be very surprised if iPod Touch sales/revenue are becoming "irrelevant", as this article would seem to imply. Just wondering..

As a proportion of Apple's total revenue, iPod sales (including Touch) are becoming less significant, mainly because the iPhone is going through the roof, with the iPad hot on its heels.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: AAPL Investors
AppleInsider › Forums › Investors › AAPL Investors › Special Report: The end of Apple's iPod era