'Amazing' demand for iPad 2 seen as 'insurmountable lead' for Apple - Page 5

Originally Posted by A_K

By end of 2012 (if the world hasn't collapsed), they'll have sold more than 100 million iPads and counting...

I just see no competition. The iPhone was tied to a carrier at launch so the competitors were given the chance to catch up.

The iPod was mainly about music and videos. Apple's advance was not enough especially now that smartphones play music too.

The Mac was revolutionary but Windows knew more how to take advantage of it than Apple, relegating the Mac to a niche product.

With the iPad, none of the above applies. It has enough apps to lead as a closed platform. It's not carrier dependent. It's a better product.

And even more important. Apple has its own distribution network. Plus, the iPad is more affordable than other tablets... Again no competition.

Originally Posted by bigpics

Steering people away from inappropriate financial advice is a personal mission - so many wolves looking for sheep to fleece - so I do go on.

However, I agree with you about financial advisors - even the best and most principled often have the bias you mentioned. Still, set and forget types who want to try to beat plain vanilla index funds can get fairly decent management - not from top tier people, but well-trained ones - at Schwab, Fidelity and Vanguard to name three discounters - who will hew to any risk curve you specify for about 1%/year. (As you note, though, they might often - or most often - not beat the indexes in the long run!)

And once you have a sizable portfolio, you can also get one time "portfolio reviews" for a reasonable fee. I got a free one once my account went over a certain threshold at one of the above, and it was highly detailed (about 50 pages!) and kind of useful.

I'm also very leery of "retail brokers" in general - and avoiding both those and put-up-a-shingle "planners and advisors" is why I always push newbies to Vanguard - not necessarily the best for an educated investor in every case or every investment, but because of its ethical practices, lowest-in-the-industry fees and where the people who buy Vanguard products are also buying Vanguard itself - since it's only big player where the funds own the fund company instead of the other way round, so the profits are passed back to the funds, and therefore to the shareholders.

Among the real scum out there, many unregulated "financial advisors" heavily push variable annuities (often on their friends and neighbors) with some single selling point like "guaranteed principal" (the same way Wintel (and now Google and friends) have long sold a headline spec or two!) while hiding high commissions, high fees, insurance components and 10 year lock-ins (kind of like a two year cell contract on a mediocre Android). And push them generally to people who don't even have IRA's or 401K's when V.A.'s are really only suitable for those who've maxxed out other "tax-advantaged" investments in the first place. Because a single no-transaction-fee Target Date fund will be just as safe and much less expensive for the truly unsophisticated over the long haul.

People who want to deal with a personal stock broker on the other hand should look up "burn and churn" before they let "their guy" decide when to buy and sell at any institution where the broker gets a commission for each trade. The worst of these guys will buy and sell you into oblivion with continuous frequent trading.

And even at some of the big houses, the "advice" can be atrocious (or nearly criminal). A friend of mine was widowed and was left with a large IRA account full of individual stocks she didn't understand at all. UBS sold her a variable annuity to "simplify" her life - with all the above defects - PLUS the fact it was a "tax-advantaged vehicle" INSIDE of an IRA - which is already tax-deferred!! And most of it, believe it or not - since she went in to go conservative and was near 60 - was in an aggressive growth fund!

That's a triple bogey...

And so with that, Mr. Mod, I allow the thread to get back on topic. Please 'scuse the soapboxy diversion.

Originally Posted by poke

The companies that have had success with Android are long-term incumbents. Samsung and HTC both have established relationships with carriers in every territory and have had them since long before Apple entered the market. It would have been very easy for them to ship Android phones everywhere, very quickly. That's why we saw such a dramatic spike in Android sales. There are also markets where prepaid phones are more popular than contracts where Apple has had difficulty competing on cost (an issue they're expected to address this year). So there's a lot of friction involved in rolling a product out in the phone space.

they'll need to do much more to compete. Android 3.0 doesn't appear to be up to the challenge.

Personally I think this will play out just like the iPod. It's possible Apple will retain an even higher percentage of the tablet market because tablets are more difficult to build and there's stronger lock-in (if you switch to a different manufacturers tablet you lose your investment in apps and books and potentially music and movies).

Originally Posted by tjw

I think people are forgetting here that the average consumer, especially in Europe, I can't speak for the US, does not know anything about the huge advantages that an iPad has over the competition at the moment. [..] For a lot of people a touch screen tablet is going to be a touch screen tablet whether it is an iPad, Android tablet or TouchPad.

Originally Posted by Booga

The cheap tablets are going to come from supply and demand. A lot of folks will try coming out with products, find they don't sell, and sell out their inventory at a loss and get written off. Sucks for the manufacturer.

Originally Posted by jbinkc

So I did - with 4 week delivery! [...] I love my Apple products, but I think they've blown this one.

Originally Posted by herbapou

Not if you count all the sub 200$ cheap android 2.2 tablets out there. They are selling a good numbers of those. High-end tablets are going to have a rough time, but the cheap stuff is always selling well.

Originally Posted by melgross

The only problem with being declared a monopoly, is that it narrows what you can do. It can't be seen as anti-competitive. Otherwise, no big deal.

Originally Posted by ltcompuser

There are plenty of parents who get iPods for the their children instead of an iPhone. And, many adults may be perfectly fine with an Ipod Touch and not an iPhone.

As for IOS whithering away, I'm sure there will always be enough people willing to go for quality. Even if an Android phone was the same price I'd stick with Apple - all my devices are very nicely integrated. I also have the various apps that I've purchased, that wouldn't work on Android.

Originally Posted by melgross

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.

Originally Posted by Olternaut

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?

Originally Posted by captbilly

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.

Originally Posted by Qualia

Like the iPod, it's not a necessity whereas phones are, ...

Originally Posted by KiltedGreen

Err, no they're not. I don't have and have never had a mobile phone, though I do have an iPad.

You are being blinded by fashion and contemporary culture.

Originally Posted by KiltedGreen

Err, no they're not. I don't have and have never had a mobile phone, though I do have an iPad.

You are being blinded by fashion and contemporary culture.

Originally Posted by melgross

.... 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.

Originally Posted by newbee

It's understandable that a lot of people are feeling the same way you are, but let me ask you this .... can you name a company or two that had so much cash in reserve that it actually created a "real" problem, other than in the shareholders eyes that thought that they were missing out on a dividend?

It's been said here before but I think it bears repeating. Apple is a GROWTH company, one of the better ones, in fact. That is the way that Apple investors reap a reward. One can very seldom "have it both ways".

You mentioned three choices for Apple .... I think there is a fourth one, and perhaps the most important one ..... save it for a "rainy day".

I know, I know .... it will be said ...."how much is necessary for a rainy day"? Who knows? Is there anyone out there who actually believes that the bad times are behind us? Let's face it .... we are in uncharted waters here. Governments all over the world are staring financial catastrophes in the face. The only time in recent years that the economy "performed well" was when everyone and their dog was borrowing on their credit so they could live "beyond their means". We could realistically be looking at a scenario that is worse than 2008 coming very soon. It might happen .... and if it did I would sure like to be a company that could ride out the storm, no matter how severe it got.

The part that a lot of people are not considering is that the tougher it gets .... the weaker that some of Apple's suppliers and or competition might get. There may be a lot of "opportunities" out there in the next few years and with 100 billion or so "in the bank" Apple will be able to dictate the terms of most M&As.

They say patience is a virtue. I think, in these times, it's a necessity. As a shareholder, I don't think we should let the stockpile of Apple $$$$ "burn a hole in our pocket".

Originally Posted by captbilly

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.