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

Special Report: The end of Apple's iPod era part II - Page 2

post #41 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

... [The iMac] enabled a clean break from Apple's previous operating system. ...

The original iMac did not ship with Mac OS X.
post #42 of 58
I think ultimately it doesn't matter whether the iPhone or iPad can also be called iPods, what's impressive is that Apple knew there would come a point when iPods would saturate and sales would start to slow and they did something about it. They saw the iceberg and shifted course to deal with it.

The most amazing thing here is their continually staggering growth in revenue, not how they lump each product line together.
post #43 of 58
OK, I'm not going to argue about what an iPod is or isn't. Just looking at the iPod line (shuffle, nano, touch, classic), it's clear to me that Apple's "iPod Era" isn't ending.

Revenue is still increasing, though that rate of increase is slowing. This is because the portable music/video player market (for devices that aren't also phones) is becoming mature and Apple has saturated it. No big surprise. But iPod's contribution to Apple's revenue is still strong.

Percentage of revenue coming from iPod is dropping because of two reasons. 1) Apple has created three entirely new product lines (iPhone, iPad, Apple TV), all of which contribute to Apple's revenue. 2) Apple's revenue has vastly increased due to revenue from two (iPhone, iPad) of those new product lines. So yes, iPod revenue is less of a factor than it was in 2006, but only because of Apple's success with iPhone and iPad.

If and when Apple TV becomes more profitable, iPod's contribution to Apple's overall revenue will be reduced even further. And, of course, Apple will continue to refresh the iPod line with ever-smaller shuffles, FaceTime in the touch, and who knows what in the nano. So gross revenue from iPod could still increase as users replace older models with new.

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply

Sent from my iPhone Simulator

Reply
post #44 of 58
I think it would be more valuable to break out the iPod touch from the iPod category and have "Traditional iPod" as one product category, for shuffle, nano and classic iPods, and "iOS devices" as another, which could then be broken out by iPod touch, iPhone and iPad, the way Mac sales are broken out by Desktop and Portable.

Then, we're really getting feedback on how much impact each of the iOS devices are having, both aggregate and on their own, and the traditional iPod category can be seen for the real diminishing impact it currently has on revenue.

The iPod touch really isn't a traditional iPod any more than the iPhone or iPad is an iPod. I would wager that few people own an iPod touch for the sole purpose (or even the majority purpose) of listening to music. They buy it for the usefulness of the iOS and App Store, or they would have bought a shuffle or nano.

I would even say that most iPod touch buyers would have bought an iPhone if it made sense for them to do so, and didn't because of AT&T, their current phone, their current family plan carrier, the additional monthly cost of the iPhone, or any variety of other reasons.

The traditional iPod is still of value for people who just need a dedicated music player, but the real value of the iPod touch is as an iOS device.
post #45 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This hasn't come up in awhile, but will it ever be a good time or Apple to expand the iPhone the way it has with the iPod, going with smaller and less sophisticated designs once a market segment becomes saturated? In other words, despite the success of the iPhone is there an untapped market for people that don't want apps, don't want dataplans and so forth on their iPhone, but instead want their simple cellphone to combine with their iPod, nothing else?

They have 'iPod touch' and 'iPad' as expansions to the line. Apple could rename these devices to iPad phone and iPad mini. Of course an answer to your original question... there is no more future for 'just a cell phone'.
post #46 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottNY View Post

I think it would be more valuable to break out the iPod touch from the iPod category and have "Traditional iPod" as one product category, for shuffle, nano and classic iPods, and "iOS devices" as another, which could then be broken out by iPod touch, iPhone and iPad, the way Mac sales are broken out by Desktop and Portable.

Then, we're really getting feedback on how much impact each of the iOS devices are having, both aggregate and on their own, and the traditional iPod category can be seen for the real diminishing impact it currently has on revenue.

The iPod touch really isn't a traditional iPod any more than the iPhone or iPad is an iPod. I would wager that few people own an iPod touch for the sole purpose (or even the majority purpose) of listening to music. They buy it for the usefulness of the iOS and App Store, or they would have bought a shuffle or nano.

I would even say that most iPod touch buyers would have bought an iPhone if it made sense for them to do so, and didn't because of AT&T, their current phone, their current family plan carrier, the additional monthly cost of the iPhone, or any variety of other reasons.

The traditional iPod is still of value for people who just need a dedicated music player, but the real value of the iPod touch is as an iOS device.

No need to Alienate people with this 'traditional' talk.
post #47 of 58
Andy, I appreciate the analysis that you initially did and your response to critics...It was spot on! One of the realities of consumer technology is that a broader market segment becomes intimately involved in every announcement/issue, especially Apple related. If the Apple Annual Report breaks out the iPod from their other great products/categories, then it is what it is!! Add to this everyone's opinion of how products should or should not be categorized is yet another dead horse to beat. I prefer riding a live one as Apple definitely is and has been for the past 10 years. In the modified words of the song Mustang Sally..."Ride Apple Ride"!!
post #48 of 58
What an ignorant series of articles this is. It's titled "The end of Apple's iPod era" and yet, in the articles, the author refers to the continued importance of the iPod's halo effect.

This isn't the end of Apple's iPod era by any stretch of the imagination. Misleading title. Flawed premise. Mangled facts. Is AI the tech equivalent of Fox News? Sheesh. I expect better.
post #49 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by 2oh1 View Post

What an ignorant series of articles this is. It's titled "The end of Apple's iPod era" and yet, in the articles, the author refers to the continued importance of the iPod's halo effect.

This isn't the end of Apple's iPod era by any stretch of the imagination. Misleading title. Flawed premise. Mangled facts. Is AI the tech equivalent of Fox News? Sheesh. I expect better.

I was actually beginning to nod my head in agreement until you took a shot at Fox News. You are an obvious Kool Aid drinker and your argument lost all relevance.
post #50 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kibitzer View Post

Warren Buffett would only shake his head at the rank emotionalism coming out of some of these posts. His advice to those who make them would be to stay far away from the market, because they'd be making the wrong investment decisions at the wrong times for all the wrong reasons.

Which would make sense if the pros in the market acted rationally. But they don't. They have a herd mentality and the tremendous changes in the market from day to day (or even from hour to hour) make no sense, except when you perceive the stock as its own currency independent of the actual performance of the company.

Aside from the days when companies issue financial reports, do you really think the true value of a company changes 3-10% from day to day? I don't think so. Yet the market has been so volatile, that's what has been happening.

Besides, if one acted totally rationally in terms of investment buy/sell decisions, you didn't necessarily do any better than someone who acted emotionally or even someone who acted randomly.

Virtually all of the so-called experts completely missed the biggest market crash since 1929. Were they rational?
post #51 of 58
If, as suggested by some, an iPhone is an iPod, and an iPad is an iPod, then maybe there's a case for MacBook being an iPod, MacBook Pro being an iPod and MacBook Air being an iPod as well. After all, they're also portable and capable of playing music.

Hmmm...
post #52 of 58
Maybe I missed something, I didn't read each of those articles letter for letter, but got the gist.

It seems to me, both in the articles and in the comments, that when evaluating the decline of the iPod product in sales, saturation of iPod product is brought as a main point for decline...

I think the main reason for a decline in iPod sales *is* the popularity of iPhone. There is much talk of the iPhone being an iPod, only evolved, which I don't think is exactly right, as chronologically it seems it went like this: iPad > Apple turned it into iPhone instead, released in January > iPod Touch is released as an iPhone... without the Phone part, in September. So the iPod is one thing, the iPod Touch is a gimped iPhone with the IPod name to categorize it. Really, for the need of analogy, if there was one company who made both Ovens and Microwaves, and their new ovens included Microwaves, they wouldn't sell as many Microwaves...

The iPhone and iPad are eating the iPod... especially the iPod Touch. As iPhone sales increase, iPod sales must decrease, because for most people, there is no reason to have a dedicated product to do something your phone already does... This goes double for the iPod Touch, as it is essentially an iPhone w/o the Phone, so there is no reason to have both... if you buy an iPod Touch, it's because there is some reason you didn't buy an iPhone. Mutual exclusivity.

This offers nothing to a financial analysis, as mentioned in the articles, because there is no monetary value that can be placed on the iPod apps value... They have to categorize this stuff though, I just think that the analysis of it financially based on these categories shows nothing of value...

I see that the iPod isn't dead, it's being eaten, but it will live on in the products that have eaten it {cue "circle of life" music from Lion King}. But, even though the iPhone and iPad make the iPod sales diminish, there will always be a need for the specific products, as the iPhone comes with too many caveats, not everyone will buy one, and people will still want the stand alone product. If everyone had an iPhone, they could stop selling iPods.
post #53 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezduzit View Post

what an inane jerk who is a ucla product. calif is full of half wits.

<Apples most important products as that device is a gateway drug to Apples other products,>

to mix the word 'drug' into your treatise negates everything else you have to state. apple may have questions, but pushing drugs in any conversation, no matter how obtuse the comment, shows where your intelligence level is.

Say what you may about me good sir, but leave UCLA out of it.
Andy M. Zaky
Bullish Cross
www.bullcross.com
Reply
Andy M. Zaky
Bullish Cross
www.bullcross.com
Reply
post #54 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by ezduzit View Post

what an inane jerk who is a ucla product. calif is full of half wits.

<Apples most important products as that device is a gateway drug to Apples other products,>

to mix the word 'drug' into your treatise negates everything else you have to state. apple may have questions, but pushing drugs in any conversation, no matter how obtuse the comment, shows where your intelligence level is.

Hey, ezduzit, it's called a METAPHOR! Or do trolls prefer similies.
post #55 of 58
The only thing that could kill the iPod:

Apple themselves.
post #56 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse View Post

The original iMac did not ship with Mac OS X.

Good point - I did not intend to imply that it did.

The iMac was a phenomenally successful product, arguably Apple's first in over a decade. It enabled the company to be profitable for the first time in years. The iMac and its successors enabled OS X's growth and refinement, while its cash flow funded R&D that produced the wildly successful iPod and their other wildly successful products.

Without the iMac's revenue, it's doubtful Apple would have had the opportunity to complete development for the iPod and the mobile devices that followed - a market Apple is now well positioned to dominate.

The iPod and related iOS products all stand on the iMac's bondi blue shoulders.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #57 of 58
Again, you prove that the REVENUE stream coming in from the iPod (without the iPhone) is still stable and relatively consistent.

That percentage of revenue against Apple's total revenue will continue to shrink, but that doesn't mean the end of a product line that give consistent revenue results.

I don't understand your point other than to ruffle feathers and try to make a case where there is none. Uhm... Don't investors look for consistent performance and reliability? Is not the iPod revenue stream a textbook case of this?

You've lost me. No, this isn't some stock you can make a quick buck on (anymore), but wasn't that the point when Apple decided not to split the stock? Consistency and stability of stock price?
post #58 of 58
Quote:
Originally Posted by dshj View Post

Again, you prove that the REVENUE stream coming in from the iPod (without the iPhone) is still stable and relatively consistent.

That percentage of revenue against Apple's total revenue will continue to shrink, but that doesn't mean the end of a product line that give consistent revenue results.

I don't understand your point other than to ruffle feathers and try to make a case where there is none. Uhm... Don't investors look for consistent performance and reliability? Is not the iPod revenue stream a textbook case of this?

You've lost me. No, this isn't some stock you can make a quick buck on (anymore), but wasn't that the point when Apple decided not to split the stock? Consistency and stability of stock price?

Again, for those who missed it -- I think the problem is that the article makes a fairly obvious point in a lengthy and somewhat convoluted fashion, which makes it subject to misinterpretation. Simply put, the iPod no longer drives Apple's earnings growth, which is fine since the iPhone does that now, with the iPad coming on line.

Stock splitting is totally irrelevant to this issue. In fact, it's totally irrelevant to any issue.
Please don't be insane.
Reply
Please don't be insane.
Reply
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 part II