5 million units in the first year doesn't seem to be a very conservative estimate for an unreleased, close to $1000 device. I expect it to sell well, but I don't expect it to almost match the iPhone in number of units sold in the first year, and I certainly wouldn't make that prediction without knowing the features of this device.
It's an estimate for a $500-600 device, which isn't close to $1,000. The estimate for a $1,000 device is much less. In a recent survey, which was widely published, only about 37% of people who said they would buy the tablet said they would do so if it was priced above $700.
That knocks the numbers down considerably. I agree with those numbers.
Hard to do when nearly EVERY F*CKING SITE has rampant rumors posted everywhere. I hope this thing cures cancer/aids/world poverty/global warming for as much as i keep seeing it. I am at the point where i want to take my iMac and throw it out the damn window.
(1) Apple hasn't even acknowledged that this product even exists, let alone, promoted it, so no Apple PR is at work.
(2) The price is unknown.
(3) What it will do is unknown.
have you missed all the controlled "leaks" in the last 3 months? it's all apple marketing
except for the WSJ no newspaper of magazine ever made money from subscriptions. it was always advertising. the idiots that run these companies gave up that market to Google, Craigslist, AdMob and other companies. 10 years ago if you wanted to buy RE in NYC you looked in the NY Times. Today you visit craigslist.
now they think people will pay money to read what is essentially drivel and was only interesting because you had nothing else to do on the subway ride to work
Apple PR hard at work. it's going to sell 10 million units since everyone can't wait to get their hands on it.
seriously, how many people are going to buy a $1000 device that seems to do nothing more than make you spend more money just to use it? no matter how cool and sexy it looks.
only reason people buy netbooks is that they are cheap and disposable for what they do. $1000 or $800 and a $60 a month extra payment for 3G service is a full featured laptop
I suppose the real success will be how much of a paradigm shift Apple enables with devices when it comes to content delivery from print to electronic distribution. If then can achieve with publishers what they did with the music industry, that can be huge. (I receive 10 or 15 magazines/newspapers in my mailbox or on my driveway every month. If they can deliver that electronically with the same or better user interface experience in a rugged device that's easy to carry around, that would be incredible).
The bigger challenge is the traditional video media outlets. It would be great if I could build my own set of "channels" of shows I like to watch and deliver it in HD to my computer, ATV, iphone, ir this new portable tablet. But that's seemingly impossible right now, as I would imagine the rights to so many shows/channels are so diverse that a comprehensive approach is monumental. As it is, why would I subscribe to a season of "House" for $50 or $60? I still have to keep my cable service, for news, sports, channel surfing... But if Apple is making some in-roads in this area, that will be hug-er (as Paris Hilton might say) still.
have you missed all the controlled "leaks" in the last 3 months? it's all apple marketing
except for the WSJ no newspaper of magazine ever made money from subscriptions. it was always advertising. the idiots that run these companies gave up that market to Google, Craigslist, AdMob and other companies. 10 years ago if you wanted to buy RE in NYC you looked in the NY Times. Today you visit craigslist.
now they think people will pay money to read what is essentially drivel and was only interesting because you had nothing else to do on the subway ride to work
You don't know what "leaks" have been coming from Apple. It's a popular thought with a couple of writers that Apple has controlled leaks, and perhaps they have a few. But without knowing anything about how many, and what they are, and which ones are misdirection, it's pointless to assume anything about them.
Still trying to find out what the pre-Apple PC Tablet market looks like and this is one snippet that seemed interesting:
Quote:
July 26, 2005
InStat released today their updated analysis of the Tablet PC market. A couple quotes from the press release:
The worldwide market is expected to increase "from $1.2 billion in 2004 to $5.4 billion in 2009."
So at least once source has put a dollar value to the year 2004:
2004: -- 1.2b
2005: -- ??
2006: -- ??
2007: -- ??
2008: -- ??
2009: -- 5.4b (projected)
Now today we have an analyst saying an Apple born tablet could bring in 2.8b in revenue in the first year.
First did the 5.4b dollar value that was predicted in 2005 become a reality? Lets assume yes it did (tho I have my doubts). Moving forward with that assumption...
This analyst is telling us that Apple single handedly bring in almost 3b from table sales.. Something really doesn't jive... Are they really expecting Apple to bring in over 50% of the entire tablet market in a years time?
Hard to do when nearly EVERY F*CKING SITE has rampant rumors posted everywhere.
So out of all of the millions of web sites posting 'crap about the Apple tablet' which seems to be pissing you off to no end, you selected AI to unleash all that pent up hostility.. Wow... so perhaps we should be honored you came here then eh? After all you could have been an annoying poster on any one of a million sites but pick us.
I would think that Apple would have to go here for a while first, especially if it has 3G. Global markets usually need to see high demand in the home market first to get interested. In addition, it's much more difficult to do media deals out of the USa, where much of that is fractionated. We can see how long it took to get iTunes working in Europe. Those companies have to see good sales in the USA first before they will be willing to concede anything. Otherwise, it's too much of an uphill battle for Apple.
It's all too easy to say that they should do this now, without understanding the difficulty.
I really disagree with this, but I find it hard to figure out exactly what you are saying so maybe i'm just misunderstanding. You seem to be saying that for a Global or international company, the "home" market is necessarily the USA? That's just not true at all, even for those global companies that are in fact based in the USA (and not all are by any means).
As to whether Apple will go global right off, I would think the latest 3Gs would be the most likely example which is that it will launch globally, even though actual supply will be limited to the USA in that the USA will be prioritised and supply will be constrained. In places like Canada, Australia, and the UK, the iPhone 3Gs was supposedly available right off, but no more than three or four handsets arrived at any of the stores for at least six months or so while the USA got "first dibs" on the supply.
For a content *creation* device, that does not actually *need* anything more than wireless access, Apple would be foolish to have it only available in the US. I'm not so sure it will even have cell antennas, since tethering with the iPhone in your pocket makes more sense for most folks, who generally already have a data contract that far exceeds what they actually consume. I get 6 Gigs a month for instance but consume about 100 megs of that and most of my friends report similar. I could easily add a tablet into the mix with tethering and suffer no increased fees at all. Why would Apple not let me do that? The cell contract has to be optional if it exists at all.
One of Apple's biggest advantages in the competition amongst smartphones is it's the global nature of their market. It's a huge advantage that they've been pushing hard for some time now. Even though they have been sputtering and failing at distribution a bit, and even though they have been disappointing their global partners with their bias towards the US market, I don't see any reason why they should actively thumb their noses at the rest of the world with a revolutionary new product like the tablet is purported to be.
Still trying to find out what the pre-Apple PC Tablet market looks like and this is one snippet that seemed interesting:
So at least once source has put a dollar value to the year 2004:
2004: -- 1.2b
2005: -- ??
2006: -- ??
2007: -- ??
2008: -- ??
2009: -- 5.4b (projected)
Now today we have an analyst saying an Apple born tablet could bring in 2.8b in revenue in the first year.
First did the 5.4b dollar value that was predicted in 2005 become a reality? Lets assume yes it did (tho I have my doubts). Moving forward with that assumption...
This analyst is telling us that Apple single handedly bring in almost 3b from table sales.. Something really doesn't jive... Are they really expecting Apple to bring in over 50% of the entire tablet market in a years time?
very few people bought the Windows XP Tablet edition laptops. they were $1000 more than a similar laptop and the only different feature was that you could flip the screen and write on it like a book or a piece of paper.
have you missed all the controlled "leaks" in the last 3 months? it's all apple marketing
You are assuming that they are "controlled leaks," because someone said Apple does them, and nothing more. If you believe that all of these wild-ass guesses from rumor-mongers and stock analysts are based on "controlled leaks" then we've got a rubber room reserved just for you.
You don't know what "leaks" have been coming from Apple. It's a popular thought with a couple of writers that Apple has controlled leaks, and perhaps they have a few. But without knowing anything about how many, and what they are, and which ones are misdirection, it's pointless to assume anything about them.
So out of all of the millions of web sites posting 'crap about the Apple tablet' which seems to be pissing you off to no end, you selected AI to unleash all that pent up hostility.. Wow... so perhaps we should be honored you came here then eh? After all you could have been an annoying poster on any one of a million sites but pick us.
i frequent roughly 12 tech sites, only AI and Crackberry are company specific.
Its not even journalism now, just fanaticism and its just "I wanna guess what Apple is gonna do too!" with 100% of every analyst having no idea what the hell they are talking about instead of just stabbing in the dark and hoping that when January 27th they were possibly right about something they wrote.
If i was running one of these investment firms, heads would be rolling for wasting time on this stuff before ANYTHING has been announced
I know the difference between earnings and revenues (in business terms) but 'earning revenues' still clearly refers to revenues.
this is a business article. so the distinction matters. it's not enough to be able to mount a technical defense. the goal of good writing is to be clear, and to avoid confusion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by noirdesir
In the same way you can profit from increased revenues.
that would have been an unfortunate way to express the information, too.
Look, I'm an AI fan. That's WHY I care enough to try to coach the writers. They have technical skills i lack. I have some writing skills they lack. If i can help them become better writers, by better understanding financial terms and by becoming more sensitive to word choices and how they affect clarity, we all win.
So your argument doesn't negate the fact the wording's unfortunate. When, in a financial article, a reader encounters... "would earn the company $2.8 billion," the expectation is that "earn" is used in the financial sense. Only as a means of unraveling the confusing sentence does the secondary meaning of "earn" apply. Any time a reader has to go back and play detective to root out what the writer meant, it's unfortunate. Using "earn" in its non-financial sense, in a financial article, was a poor choice. It'd be better to concede the point, than to defend it. I doubt it was an intentional choice of a confusing word.
all the writer would have had to say was, "would bring..." or "would garner..." and there'd be no confusion.
I haven't even mentioned that for his sources the writer turned to "a prominent investment baking firm"! \
It's an estimate for a $500-600 device, which isn't close to $1,000. The estimate for a $1,000 device is much less. In a recent survey, which was widely published, only about 37% of people who said they would buy the tablet said they would do so if it was priced above $700.
That knocks the numbers down considerably. I agree with those numbers.
Still trying to find out what the pre-Apple PC Tablet market looks like and this is one snippet that seemed interesting:
So at least once source has put a dollar value to the year 2004:
2004: -- 1.2b
2005: -- ??
2006: -- ??
2007: -- ??
2008: -- ??
2009: -- 5.4b (projected)
Now today we have an analyst saying an Apple born tablet could bring in 2.8b in revenue in the first year.
First did the 5.4b dollar value that was predicted in 2005 become a reality? Lets assume yes it did (tho I have my doubts). Moving forward with that assumption...
This analyst is telling us that Apple single handedly bring in almost 3b from table sales.. Something really doesn't jive... Are they really expecting Apple to bring in over 50% of the entire tablet market in a years time?
Unless the average selling price for current tablets is abnormally high, or they're counting devices that wouldn't really fit, I doubt they've made the $5.4 B number. I think that something over 1.5 million were sold last year.
any analyst willing to put his/her name on a report like this should be fired or at least shunned by their peers. not only is it total speculation but it's cookie cutter economics. i wouldn't be surprised if there wasn't an javascript calculator that all of these analysts visit for this...
apple + tablet + $600 price point = $3 billion
microsoft + mp3 player + $200 price point = $250 million
google + google phone + $200 price point = $1 billion
Comments
5 million units in the first year doesn't seem to be a very conservative estimate for an unreleased, close to $1000 device. I expect it to sell well, but I don't expect it to almost match the iPhone in number of units sold in the first year, and I certainly wouldn't make that prediction without knowing the features of this device.
It's an estimate for a $500-600 device, which isn't close to $1,000. The estimate for a $1,000 device is much less. In a recent survey, which was widely published, only about 37% of people who said they would buy the tablet said they would do so if it was priced above $700.
That knocks the numbers down considerably. I agree with those numbers.
Hard to do when nearly EVERY F*CKING SITE has rampant rumors posted everywhere. I hope this thing cures cancer/aids/world poverty/global warming for as much as i keep seeing it. I am at the point where i want to take my iMac and throw it out the damn window.
http://www.techcrunch.com/2010/01/20...ff-for-a-week/
This story pretty much sums up the stupidity thats happening on the internet, RIGHT NOW.
Then it's time for you to stop going on the web, and curl up with a good book. I assume you can read words on paper?
(1) Apple hasn't even acknowledged that this product even exists, let alone, promoted it, so no Apple PR is at work.
(2) The price is unknown.
(3) What it will do is unknown.
have you missed all the controlled "leaks" in the last 3 months? it's all apple marketing
except for the WSJ no newspaper of magazine ever made money from subscriptions. it was always advertising. the idiots that run these companies gave up that market to Google, Craigslist, AdMob and other companies. 10 years ago if you wanted to buy RE in NYC you looked in the NY Times. Today you visit craigslist.
now they think people will pay money to read what is essentially drivel and was only interesting because you had nothing else to do on the subway ride to work
Apple PR hard at work. it's going to sell 10 million units since everyone can't wait to get their hands on it.
seriously, how many people are going to buy a $1000 device that seems to do nothing more than make you spend more money just to use it? no matter how cool and sexy it looks.
only reason people buy netbooks is that they are cheap and disposable for what they do. $1000 or $800 and a $60 a month extra payment for 3G service is a full featured laptop
I suppose the real success will be how much of a paradigm shift Apple enables with devices when it comes to content delivery from print to electronic distribution. If then can achieve with publishers what they did with the music industry, that can be huge. (I receive 10 or 15 magazines/newspapers in my mailbox or on my driveway every month. If they can deliver that electronically with the same or better user interface experience in a rugged device that's easy to carry around, that would be incredible).
The bigger challenge is the traditional video media outlets. It would be great if I could build my own set of "channels" of shows I like to watch and deliver it in HD to my computer, ATV, iphone, ir this new portable tablet. But that's seemingly impossible right now, as I would imagine the rights to so many shows/channels are so diverse that a comprehensive approach is monumental. As it is, why would I subscribe to a season of "House" for $50 or $60? I still have to keep my cable service, for news, sports, channel surfing... But if Apple is making some in-roads in this area, that will be hug-er (as Paris Hilton might say) still.
[CENTER]Desperate for Stories? Need more hits?
Post Analyst reports from people who dont what the hell their talking about! [/CENTER]
Why is AI insistent on torturing us with this stupid garbage?
[CENTER]Desperate for Attention? Even if it?s negative?
Post in an obnoxiously large, bolded and centered font![/CENTER]
Why are you insistent on torturing us with your stupid garbage?
have you missed all the controlled "leaks" in the last 3 months? it's all apple marketing
except for the WSJ no newspaper of magazine ever made money from subscriptions. it was always advertising. the idiots that run these companies gave up that market to Google, Craigslist, AdMob and other companies. 10 years ago if you wanted to buy RE in NYC you looked in the NY Times. Today you visit craigslist.
now they think people will pay money to read what is essentially drivel and was only interesting because you had nothing else to do on the subway ride to work
You don't know what "leaks" have been coming from Apple. It's a popular thought with a couple of writers that Apple has controlled leaks, and perhaps they have a few. But without knowing anything about how many, and what they are, and which ones are misdirection, it's pointless to assume anything about them.
July 26, 2005
InStat released today their updated analysis of the Tablet PC market. A couple quotes from the press release:
The worldwide market is expected to increase "from $1.2 billion in 2004 to $5.4 billion in 2009."
So at least once source has put a dollar value to the year 2004:
2004: -- 1.2b
2005: -- ??
2006: -- ??
2007: -- ??
2008: -- ??
2009: -- 5.4b (projected)
Now today we have an analyst saying an Apple born tablet could bring in 2.8b in revenue in the first year.
First did the 5.4b dollar value that was predicted in 2005 become a reality? Lets assume yes it did (tho I have my doubts). Moving forward with that assumption...
This analyst is telling us that Apple single handedly bring in almost 3b from table sales.. Something really doesn't jive... Are they really expecting Apple to bring in over 50% of the entire tablet market in a years time?
Then it's time for you to stop going on the web, and curl up with a good book. I assume you can read words on paper?
I can no longer read words on paper, since ive been training myself for the new Apple Tablet!
[CENTER]Desperate for Attention? Even if it?s negative?
Post in an obnoxiously large, bolded and centered font![/CENTER]
Why are you insistent on torturing us with your stupid garbage?
U mad that i'm mad at the story-telling fanaticism thats swept nearly every online blog from idiots who dont know what the hell their talking about?
Never thought id see that coming...
Hard to do when nearly EVERY F*CKING SITE has rampant rumors posted everywhere.
So out of all of the millions of web sites posting 'crap about the Apple tablet' which seems to be pissing you off to no end, you selected AI to unleash all that pent up hostility.. Wow... so perhaps we should be honored you came here then eh? After all you could have been an annoying poster on any one of a million sites but pick us.
I would think that Apple would have to go here for a while first, especially if it has 3G. Global markets usually need to see high demand in the home market first to get interested. In addition, it's much more difficult to do media deals out of the USa, where much of that is fractionated. We can see how long it took to get iTunes working in Europe. Those companies have to see good sales in the USA first before they will be willing to concede anything. Otherwise, it's too much of an uphill battle for Apple.
It's all too easy to say that they should do this now, without understanding the difficulty.
I really disagree with this, but I find it hard to figure out exactly what you are saying so maybe i'm just misunderstanding. You seem to be saying that for a Global or international company, the "home" market is necessarily the USA? That's just not true at all, even for those global companies that are in fact based in the USA (and not all are by any means).
As to whether Apple will go global right off, I would think the latest 3Gs would be the most likely example which is that it will launch globally, even though actual supply will be limited to the USA in that the USA will be prioritised and supply will be constrained. In places like Canada, Australia, and the UK, the iPhone 3Gs was supposedly available right off, but no more than three or four handsets arrived at any of the stores for at least six months or so while the USA got "first dibs" on the supply.
For a content *creation* device, that does not actually *need* anything more than wireless access, Apple would be foolish to have it only available in the US. I'm not so sure it will even have cell antennas, since tethering with the iPhone in your pocket makes more sense for most folks, who generally already have a data contract that far exceeds what they actually consume. I get 6 Gigs a month for instance but consume about 100 megs of that and most of my friends report similar. I could easily add a tablet into the mix with tethering and suffer no increased fees at all. Why would Apple not let me do that? The cell contract has to be optional if it exists at all.
One of Apple's biggest advantages in the competition amongst smartphones is it's the global nature of their market. It's a huge advantage that they've been pushing hard for some time now. Even though they have been sputtering and failing at distribution a bit, and even though they have been disappointing their global partners with their bias towards the US market, I don't see any reason why they should actively thumb their noses at the rest of the world with a revolutionary new product like the tablet is purported to be.
Still trying to find out what the pre-Apple PC Tablet market looks like and this is one snippet that seemed interesting:
So at least once source has put a dollar value to the year 2004:
2004: -- 1.2b
2005: -- ??
2006: -- ??
2007: -- ??
2008: -- ??
2009: -- 5.4b (projected)
Now today we have an analyst saying an Apple born tablet could bring in 2.8b in revenue in the first year.
First did the 5.4b dollar value that was predicted in 2005 become a reality? Lets assume yes it did (tho I have my doubts). Moving forward with that assumption...
This analyst is telling us that Apple single handedly bring in almost 3b from table sales.. Something really doesn't jive... Are they really expecting Apple to bring in over 50% of the entire tablet market in a years time?
very few people bought the Windows XP Tablet edition laptops. they were $1000 more than a similar laptop and the only different feature was that you could flip the screen and write on it like a book or a piece of paper.
have you missed all the controlled "leaks" in the last 3 months? it's all apple marketing
You are assuming that they are "controlled leaks," because someone said Apple does them, and nothing more. If you believe that all of these wild-ass guesses from rumor-mongers and stock analysts are based on "controlled leaks" then we've got a rubber room reserved just for you.
You don't know what "leaks" have been coming from Apple. It's a popular thought with a couple of writers that Apple has controlled leaks, and perhaps they have a few. But without knowing anything about how many, and what they are, and which ones are misdirection, it's pointless to assume anything about them.
Thank you, yes. You said it better than I did.
So out of all of the millions of web sites posting 'crap about the Apple tablet' which seems to be pissing you off to no end, you selected AI to unleash all that pent up hostility.. Wow... so perhaps we should be honored you came here then eh? After all you could have been an annoying poster on any one of a million sites but pick us.
i frequent roughly 12 tech sites, only AI and Crackberry are company specific.
Its not even journalism now, just fanaticism and its just "I wanna guess what Apple is gonna do too!" with 100% of every analyst having no idea what the hell they are talking about instead of just stabbing in the dark and hoping that when January 27th they were possibly right about something they wrote.
If i was running one of these investment firms, heads would be rolling for wasting time on this stuff before ANYTHING has been announced
I know the difference between earnings and revenues (in business terms) but 'earning revenues' still clearly refers to revenues.
this is a business article. so the distinction matters. it's not enough to be able to mount a technical defense. the goal of good writing is to be clear, and to avoid confusion.
In the same way you can profit from increased revenues.
that would have been an unfortunate way to express the information, too.
Look, I'm an AI fan. That's WHY I care enough to try to coach the writers. They have technical skills i lack. I have some writing skills they lack. If i can help them become better writers, by better understanding financial terms and by becoming more sensitive to word choices and how they affect clarity, we all win.
So your argument doesn't negate the fact the wording's unfortunate. When, in a financial article, a reader encounters... "would earn the company $2.8 billion," the expectation is that "earn" is used in the financial sense. Only as a means of unraveling the confusing sentence does the secondary meaning of "earn" apply. Any time a reader has to go back and play detective to root out what the writer meant, it's unfortunate. Using "earn" in its non-financial sense, in a financial article, was a poor choice. It'd be better to concede the point, than to defend it. I doubt it was an intentional choice of a confusing word.
all the writer would have had to say was, "would bring..." or "would garner..." and there'd be no confusion.
I haven't even mentioned that for his sources the writer turned to "a prominent investment baking firm"!
It's an estimate for a $500-600 device, which isn't close to $1,000. The estimate for a $1,000 device is much less. In a recent survey, which was widely published, only about 37% of people who said they would buy the tablet said they would do so if it was priced above $700.
That knocks the numbers down considerably. I agree with those numbers.
Thanks, I missed a lot in a very quick skim.
Still trying to find out what the pre-Apple PC Tablet market looks like and this is one snippet that seemed interesting:
So at least once source has put a dollar value to the year 2004:
2004: -- 1.2b
2005: -- ??
2006: -- ??
2007: -- ??
2008: -- ??
2009: -- 5.4b (projected)
Now today we have an analyst saying an Apple born tablet could bring in 2.8b in revenue in the first year.
First did the 5.4b dollar value that was predicted in 2005 become a reality? Lets assume yes it did (tho I have my doubts). Moving forward with that assumption...
This analyst is telling us that Apple single handedly bring in almost 3b from table sales.. Something really doesn't jive... Are they really expecting Apple to bring in over 50% of the entire tablet market in a years time?
Unless the average selling price for current tablets is abnormally high, or they're counting devices that wouldn't really fit, I doubt they've made the $5.4 B number. I think that something over 1.5 million were sold last year.
I can no longer read words on paper, since ive been training myself for the new Apple Tablet!
That's encouraging. I think...
apple + tablet + $600 price point = $3 billion
microsoft + mp3 player + $200 price point = $250 million
google + google phone + $200 price point = $1 billion
etc.