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...
I?m making fun of you for coming to a site you hate that talks about products you hate from a company you hate. You trolls need to learn what emotions are. You think mockery is anger, d objectiveness is libertarianism and logic is the the work of the devil.
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.
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.
Not sure if the story was updated or you quoted just the part of the text to make a point but here is the opening paragraph as it stands @ 12:26pm ET
Quote:
Selling an estimated 5 million units in its first year as a "base case" scenario, Apple's tablet would earn the company $2.8 billion in additional revenue and solidify it as more than a niche product, a prominent investment baking firm said Friday.
So the passage you should have quoted was this "would earn the company $2.8 billion in additional revenue" which is quite clear and to the point.. Now if someone doesn't know the difference between 2.8b in revenue vs. 2.8b in profits then thats not really a problem with the story as much as it is with the reader. The opening paragraph quite clearly indicates revenue.
Would it have been made crystal clear had they used the term GENERATE or BRING IN or ADDS in place of 'EARN' sure but "would earn the company 2.8 billion in additional revenue" is still self explanatory since revenue is unambiguous.
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.
I thought that what I wrote was pretty clear.
The USA is Apple's home market. We aren't talking about other companies, so comments about them isn't relevant.
What I said does make sense, unless you're living in a vacuum, where you have no knowledge about how long it took Apple to negotiate around the world for rights. There's no reason to believe, and reason to believe the opposite, that Apple would have it easier this time.
You may remember that Apple easily convinced the music companies here to do a deal, but getting Tv rights was difficult, as they looked at what happened to the music industry there, and getting movie rights was even more difficult. And that was just in the USA!
Outside, Apple still hasn't managed to get all the rights they have here. That's the way it is. We haven't heard even one word about Apple's negotiations with foreign media companies over the tablet. They will have to be convinced this will be a hit first, just as like the Touch and iPhone.
No matter how you look at it, the USA is still about 50% of Apple's business. That is changing, but slowly.
Therefor, it's vastly easier, and cheaper for Apple to secure its home market, which is, unlike most large foreign markets, a uniform one.
There's no doubt that Apple will move out of its home market. I'm sure they want to. But statements that they should do so all at once isn't realistic. Apple doesn't think like their fans want them to. They understand manufacturing, marketing, and the difficulty in moving into foreign markets. If this were a product that didn't need independent industry support, it could be done easier, but it does. Without some major deals in place, there is no point in delivering the device.
$3 billion on a product no analyst has yet seen. Captain obvious says maybe they should make a few models given differing estimates. Or, just wait until they have real data. I guess they need to eat too though.
I need to eat as well. I say $300 billion in the first year.
Jesus - it's not even out yet, IF it's even going to come out, and they are guessing on how much it's going to add to Apple's bottom line?
But if it sells for more, it will put even more into Apple's pocket, unless of course fewer folks purchase it, because it is more expensive then they thought it was going be. BUT if it sells for less, it could simply send boat loads of money Apples way. Even if the margins aren't there, it will still mean boat loads of money for Apple, because they sell a greater number of units ? and greater number of units x smaller profit = higher dividends. Besides which, at this price level, they will sell like crazy, and the worst case scenario, they'll make it up in volume.
Now of course, this is all hinging on what the compensation package is going to look like from AT&T and or Verizon, and or Sprint, and or Radio Shack, and how much Apple can get from the Government stimulus package.
Now if it has to come with a contract that will have a huge effect on the number sold, because it will dip into iPhone and iPod sales, which will mean, even though they are making more on this unit, it won't offset what they'll lose on the iPhone / iPod.
Hey, this analist / guessing game thing is fun. Who do I submit my paperwork to, too collect my pay?
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.
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"! \
Thanks for that very eloquent post. But sometimes I just sigh and move along.... because I've complained about the general sloppiness in financial writing on AI (since I happen to know a little bit about the stuff), but it does not seem to have resonated much in over three years.
As you say, if one of us non-techies used, say 'bit' for 'byte', many here would snicker, chuckle, wag their fingers and bit/byte/bite our heads off.
$3 billion on a product no analyst has yet seen. Captain obvious says maybe they should make a few models given differing estimates. Or, just wait until they have real data. I guess they need to eat too though.
true but this fellow at least has given his data and while probably a tad low (on the price and effect on other lines), it's not unreasonable.
unlike some folks that seem to be pulling things from their 'hats'
another issue that is likely to be examined after the details are known is the gateway effect. this tablet is said to lack the power to replace a mac. but what about to encourage one. how many switchers might have come over from the iphone, how many might come over cause of the tablet
I?m making fun of you for coming to a site you hate that talks about products you hate from a company you hate. You trolls need to learn what emotions are. You think mockery is anger, d objectiveness is libertarianism and logic is the the work of the devil.
I dont hate Apple, cause if i did then i wouldnt own 2 1/2 Apple Computers (hackintosh i guess is half since its running OS X). What i dont like is the iPhone and this Tablet garbage.
I really disagree with this, but I find it hard to figure out exactly what you are
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.
I think you are wrong to interpret Apple's conservatism in launching new products as a personal affront. If any new product is truly revolutionary, Apple has no guarantee that it will be successful. They might be trying to minimize the risk of a global flop, rather than making an obscene gesture at anybody.
In addition, we all know how conservative Apple is with early production. There is no way they will be able to meet strong demand worldwide right from the beginning, should it happen.
i wouldn't be so sure about that. There are rumors that production has started. but supposedly we won't see this device for at least another month, perhaps 4. so that would be time to build up a stockpile of devices. As well as work out the final points of deals that are just now getting hinted about (cause they would also reveal details about said device). Deals that might include book publishers, magazines.
Plus with the carriers the answer might be no deal. Apple might simply say "Okay so this device has both CDMA and GSM and it's unlocked. It's also optional. Folks can use it or not as they wish. If you carriers wanna buy some units so you can sell them with a subsidy to get folks to sign up with you. Fine. This is the price. No negotiations. Take it or leave it."
Quote:
Originally Posted by al_bundy
have you missed all the controlled "leaks" in the last 3 months? it's all apple marketing
i can't agree with the ALL. cause some of the rumors are too crazy.
but do I believe that some of the rumors, particularly the more frequent and the ones that logically fit with Apple's history and apparent philosophies, could be Apple, or Apple partner, based. Heck yeah, it is possible
what are some of the ones I believe are possible leaks
the itunes streaming idea -- fits with the web based previews and the buy on lala.com
pretty much anything video related -- fits with all the itunes add ons and the lack of blu-ray as a built in
that this mystery device will fit in between the phone/touch and the macbook. fills a gap and Jobs did basically say that a netbook was a possibly, if they could make one that fits Apple's style. and this device as most frequently described, would do so
and so on.
the only real thing I am not buying as a leak is this talk of a facial recognition based log in system for the tablet as a shared device. maybe because there's been no rumors or leaks that Apple has been working on this tech and what they have shown isn't perfected enough to work. in photos with my hair natural, iphoto thinks my brother and I are the same person. when I dye my hair darker as I often do, it thinks Angelina Jolie and I are the same person. and this is after 'teaching' it over the course of about 200 photos
Quote:
Originally Posted by wigby
any analyst willing to put his/her name on a report like this should be fired or at least shunned by their peers.
and yet Shaun Wu etc are still out there. Wu is so out there and off the mark so much that on some blogs, he's been verbed. It's considered a 'honor' to be Wu'd. Shows you are playing with the big boys. Sort of like how in genre tv you haven't made it until the Parents TV Council tries to get you banned.
Or, it might not sell at all. I have no interest in such a device.
other than a few managers who just sit in meetings anyway i know of no one who cares about a tablet. and no one wants to pay 500-800 dollars for a ebook reader.
maybe this device will be something that no one suspects and much more than just a fancy tablet! otherwise this couild be a real dud.
i would be much more excited about a low cost macbook air ($500)
The USA is Apple's home market. We aren't talking about other companies, so comments about them isn't relevant.
What I said does make sense, unless you're living in a vacuum, where you have no knowledge about how long it took Apple to negotiate around the world for rights. There's no reason to believe, and reason to believe the opposite, that Apple would have it easier this time.
You may remember that Apple easily convinced the music companies here to do a deal, but getting Tv rights was difficult, as they looked at what happened to the music industry there, and getting movie rights was even more difficult. And that was just in the USA!
Outside, Apple still hasn't managed to get all the rights they have here. That's the way it is. We haven't heard even one word about Apple's negotiations with foreign media companies over the tablet. They will have to be convinced this will be a hit first, just as like the Touch and iPhone.
No matter how you look at it, the USA is still about 50% of Apple's business. That is changing, but slowly.
Therefor, it's vastly easier, and cheaper for Apple to secure its home market, which is, unlike most large foreign markets, a uniform one.
There's no doubt that Apple will move out of its home market. I'm sure they want to. But statements that they should do so all at once isn't realistic. Apple doesn't think like their fans want them to. They understand manufacturing, marketing, and the difficulty in moving into foreign markets. If this were a product that didn't need independent industry support, it could be done easier, but it does. Without some major deals in place, there is no point in delivering the device.
Wow. I guess you took what I wrote in a very aggressive way. All I meant was that your sentence structure made it a bit unclear (to me), what you were arguing for. I don't want to get in a fight about it actually.
I would argue that you are mistaken if you believe that Apple isn't *already* "out of it's home market" as you put it, and also that the whole concept of "home market" is a bit passe in general. You seem to ascribe to a very old-school, almost xenophobic idea of "home" vs. "foreign" markets that hasn't really existed for years.
As to the substance of the actual debate (whether the tablet will be launched globally or be a USA exclusive product), I would say that, as before, it depends on whether the device *requires* a cell contract (I argue it should not), and whether you view the device primarily as an active content creation device, or a passive media consumption device. I would argue that all recent rumours and most rumours in general point to the device as being multi-purpose and focussed on content creation. sure you will be able to consume media on it, but that's not it's entire purpose nor, I would argue, it's main one.
Additionally, even if it was just a book reader and just did iTunes, the iTunes agreements are already in place and "book reader" covers PDF's and formats that already exist. If the iPod touch is useful in Europe at all, it's just plain logic that a tablet with the same functionality would be equally useful even if agreements with European publishers are not yet in place.
A great deal of what you say about the difficulty of negotiating media agreements is certainly true (although a little US centric in thinking), but that only matters if this is the entire purpose of the device. I don't see how you can argue this is the case at all. While it's true that you might have trouble watching episodes of the Office or US Basketball games on the thing if it's sold in Sweden, it would still be a lust-worthy content creation device even there.
Apple would be absolutely insane to tie this device tied to a cell contract and launch it only in the USA. There is literally no upside to that and yet a terrific downside IMO.
I think you are wrong to interpret Apple's conservatism in launching new products as a personal affront. If any new product is truly revolutionary, Apple has no guarantee that it will be successful. They might be trying to minimize the risk of a global flop, rather than making an obscene gesture at anybody.
I didn't realise it came across as "personal." I try my best not to anthropomorphise corporate entities.
I do think I have a right to be a bit ticked off however, when a device is launched in my country, but in reality all supplies are diverted elsewhere. I waited for six months for the privilege of buying a 3Gs even though Apple said it was available from day one.
I had to call my cell phone provider every day at first and then eventually weekly. It made me a bit angry at first and I think it's worth talking about, but it didn't' stop me buying one eventually anyway.
It's all too easy to say that they should do this now, without understanding the difficulty.
I do fully appreciate the difficulties in making deals with telecoms and content providers used to work nation based. But that's also where there's room for a revolution. And Apple have the tools to do that combined with a track record in the digital reality to push this thru.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichL
Apple's job is going to be easier this time around. They've already got carrier and content partners in a plethora of countries.
*IF* this is a connected device, I'd expect it to launch in at least 12 markets initially.
I indeed hope that's a reality. For many reasons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Yes, there is some virtue in it. But there are also downsides, when it comes to a completely new category of product (as this one is speculated to be). Pricing, distribution, exchange rates, carrier deals, content provider deals (with their attendant cross-border licensing and IP issues - remember how long it took to get just the iTMS across borders?), assessing consumer tastes, predicting demand, etc can be a huge challenge.
It is probably far better, on balance, to introduce in one country (esp. one that is large like the US and one that Apple understands well), learn form it, get down on the cost curve, and then do a global roll-out.
Well, there are truth in it. But I really think they have their training in all these aspects with their iPhone, App Store and iTunes. The content they will add to the mix is written/printed media content.
Those who noted that McGraw-Hill is one of the publisher courted by Apple, that would probably be one of the easier to go global with. Simply because in higher education english often is used even in Sweden, France, Germany and many other countries. With news, novels and other printed media language in itself is a barrier. Besides grown in business models often country based.
And - finally - just because it's hard it's the thing. And if anyone has the momentum to push all of these things global (or more global than anyone else) Apple is one of them. And that would be a very cool revolution. In my mind at least as cool as the device itself.
It doesn't matter. Those "partners" are going to want to cut a new deal. Without some evidence that the tablet is going to be a strong seller, they will be difficult to convince. That' why Apple went with just AT&T at first. They got what they needed, and could show others that they wanted the phone. The tablet is no different.
In addition, we all know how conservative Apple is with early production. There is no way they will be able to meet strong demand worldwide right from the beginning, should it happen.
Indeed many of their partners are big headed and may look for new deals to get a better cut. But as with the iPhone they may in the end rather wanna be on the inside than on the outside.
And if Apple want to be in the loop for conten - similar to the App Store - they will have to move faster than with the App Store. When they lauched App Store that was a totally new deal and it even surprised Apple. But now others have seen it and can copy faster. Apple has to move faster to gain the same advantage this time around.
And about production, as a share holder, this would at one point be a challenge they have to deal with. They are growing! Sooner or later Infinite Loop has to aim for the globe. Question for me is if this is the time when it happens.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss
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.
If the two of you don't believe that Apple marketing is occurring then Microsoft has a slate to sell you...
The whole control freak secrecy is a key part of Apple marketing. That allows Apple to build up huge interest and frenzy that a clear road maps never could. They spend an excessive amount of time and money on that secrecy and it's certainly not justifiable on the basis of protecting corporate secrets alone. It contributes to the cult of Apple/Jobs which Apple also spends an assload of traditional marketing on.
It wouldn't work if they didn't actually build "insanely great" products but given they do it works a hell of a lot better than traditional pre-launch marketing because any vaguely credible product rumor gets incredible mindshare and there's nothing for anyone to trash. Not even a cryptic video with robots intended to go "viral".
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.
First, this is not a business rag of any sort. Second, the use of the word earnings is rational in this context. It is no worst than somebody saying they are earning a paycheck.
Quote:
that would have been an unfortunate way to express the information, too.
That may be so, but again this is not a business journal by any means.
Quote:
Look, I'm an AI fan. That's WHY I care enough to try to coach the writers.
Oh that is so nice of you! You do realize nobody asked for your help, right?
Quote:
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.
The first thing you need to realize is that if the articles presented here became fianacial journal like, Appleinsider would loose a huge portion of its readership. We aren't interested in carefully crafted and often mis leading business news. We are happily focused on being rumor mongers here.
As a side note, based on recent history, the imagined clarity of business communications is questionable at best. Often the goal of the reports are to make stock holders happy. I'm not saying this is wide spread but a clear report means nothing if built upon wishful thinking or deception.
Quote:
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.
Taken from the standpoint of the layman the secondary meaning is probably what is expected in this forum. Really what do you expect, that everyone here take a accounting cOurse or business 101 before reading the articles? As to clarity I would like to know how a well writen business article would be actually easier for the average reader to digest here.
Quote:
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.
That would be all well and good if this was a business trade. It isn't and that is the whole point. What we have is a rumors site posting parts of an article that is written by an analyst based on rumors and guess work. That is not something that you even want to remotely confuse with good business reporting.
Quote:
all the writer would have had to say was, "would bring..." or "would garner..." and there'd be no confusion.
The writer could say lots of things that is agreed however he needs to be aware of the audience and the context. There is nothing to be gained by making the reporting more business like. In fact there is a lot to loose if people take it seriously. It is far better for Appleinsider to not sound like a journal one would make business decisions from.
Quote:
I haven't even mentioned that for his sources the writer turned to "a prominent investment baking firm"! \
In any event I understand your point but believe it is misplaced with respect to Appleinsider. The last thing Appleinsider needs is Wall Street taking its articles seriously. Appleinsider is more about rumors, wishful thinking, forums and some reportage of press releases. It is not the place to go for an indepth researched business report.
I also understand some of the suckage in the reporting here. Some of the writers are obviously new to the craft. On the otherhand I've seen some improve significantly over the years. So your trying to be helpful might be worthwhile, but one shouldn't dwell on the details in a forum thread that is focused on the material being discussed. Suggestions are fine but promotion becomes an issue for the rest of us.
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.
isn't that about or slightly above what the percentage break-down is for mac/pc users? Seems like Apple hit the nail on the gullible target.
Comments
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...
I?m making fun of you for coming to a site you hate that talks about products you hate from a company you hate. You trolls need to learn what emotions are. You think mockery is anger, d objectiveness is libertarianism and logic is the the work of the devil.
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.
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.
Not sure if the story was updated or you quoted just the part of the text to make a point but here is the opening paragraph as it stands @ 12:26pm ET
Selling an estimated 5 million units in its first year as a "base case" scenario, Apple's tablet would earn the company $2.8 billion in additional revenue and solidify it as more than a niche product, a prominent investment baking firm said Friday.
So the passage you should have quoted was this "would earn the company $2.8 billion in additional revenue" which is quite clear and to the point.. Now if someone doesn't know the difference between 2.8b in revenue vs. 2.8b in profits then thats not really a problem with the story as much as it is with the reader. The opening paragraph quite clearly indicates revenue.
Would it have been made crystal clear had they used the term GENERATE or BRING IN or ADDS in place of 'EARN' sure but "would earn the company 2.8 billion in additional revenue" is still self explanatory since revenue is unambiguous.
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.
I thought that what I wrote was pretty clear.
The USA is Apple's home market. We aren't talking about other companies, so comments about them isn't relevant.
What I said does make sense, unless you're living in a vacuum, where you have no knowledge about how long it took Apple to negotiate around the world for rights. There's no reason to believe, and reason to believe the opposite, that Apple would have it easier this time.
You may remember that Apple easily convinced the music companies here to do a deal, but getting Tv rights was difficult, as they looked at what happened to the music industry there, and getting movie rights was even more difficult. And that was just in the USA!
Outside, Apple still hasn't managed to get all the rights they have here. That's the way it is. We haven't heard even one word about Apple's negotiations with foreign media companies over the tablet. They will have to be convinced this will be a hit first, just as like the Touch and iPhone.
No matter how you look at it, the USA is still about 50% of Apple's business. That is changing, but slowly.
Therefor, it's vastly easier, and cheaper for Apple to secure its home market, which is, unlike most large foreign markets, a uniform one.
There's no doubt that Apple will move out of its home market. I'm sure they want to. But statements that they should do so all at once isn't realistic. Apple doesn't think like their fans want them to. They understand manufacturing, marketing, and the difficulty in moving into foreign markets. If this were a product that didn't need independent industry support, it could be done easier, but it does. Without some major deals in place, there is no point in delivering the device.
$3 billion on a product no analyst has yet seen. Captain obvious says maybe they should make a few models given differing estimates. Or, just wait until they have real data. I guess they need to eat too though.
I need to eat as well. I say $300 billion in the first year.
But if it sells for more, it will put even more into Apple's pocket, unless of course fewer folks purchase it, because it is more expensive then they thought it was going be. BUT if it sells for less, it could simply send boat loads of money Apples way. Even if the margins aren't there, it will still mean boat loads of money for Apple, because they sell a greater number of units ? and greater number of units x smaller profit = higher dividends. Besides which, at this price level, they will sell like crazy, and the worst case scenario, they'll make it up in volume.
Now of course, this is all hinging on what the compensation package is going to look like from AT&T and or Verizon, and or Sprint, and or Radio Shack, and how much Apple can get from the Government stimulus package.
Now if it has to come with a contract that will have a huge effect on the number sold, because it will dip into iPhone and iPod sales, which will mean, even though they are making more on this unit, it won't offset what they'll lose on the iPhone / iPod.
Hey, this analist / guessing game thing is fun. Who do I submit my paperwork to, too collect my pay?
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.
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"!
Thanks for that very eloquent post. But sometimes I just sigh and move along.... because I've complained about the general sloppiness in financial writing on AI (since I happen to know a little bit about the stuff), but it does not seem to have resonated much in over three years.
As you say, if one of us non-techies used, say 'bit' for 'byte', many here would snicker, chuckle, wag their fingers and bit/byte/bite our heads off.
$3 billion on a product no analyst has yet seen. Captain obvious says maybe they should make a few models given differing estimates. Or, just wait until they have real data. I guess they need to eat too though.
true but this fellow at least has given his data and while probably a tad low (on the price and effect on other lines), it's not unreasonable.
unlike some folks that seem to be pulling things from their 'hats'
another issue that is likely to be examined after the details are known is the gateway effect. this tablet is said to lack the power to replace a mac. but what about to encourage one. how many switchers might have come over from the iphone, how many might come over cause of the tablet
I?m making fun of you for coming to a site you hate that talks about products you hate from a company you hate. You trolls need to learn what emotions are. You think mockery is anger, d objectiveness is libertarianism and logic is the the work of the devil.
I dont hate Apple, cause if i did then i wouldnt own 2 1/2 Apple Computers (hackintosh i guess is half since its running OS X). What i dont like is the iPhone and this Tablet garbage.
I also dont like disillusioned fanboys either.
I really disagree with this, but I find it hard to figure out exactly what you are
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.
I think you are wrong to interpret Apple's conservatism in launching new products as a personal affront. If any new product is truly revolutionary, Apple has no guarantee that it will be successful. They might be trying to minimize the risk of a global flop, rather than making an obscene gesture at anybody.
In addition, we all know how conservative Apple is with early production. There is no way they will be able to meet strong demand worldwide right from the beginning, should it happen.
i wouldn't be so sure about that. There are rumors that production has started. but supposedly we won't see this device for at least another month, perhaps 4. so that would be time to build up a stockpile of devices. As well as work out the final points of deals that are just now getting hinted about (cause they would also reveal details about said device). Deals that might include book publishers, magazines.
Plus with the carriers the answer might be no deal. Apple might simply say "Okay so this device has both CDMA and GSM and it's unlocked. It's also optional. Folks can use it or not as they wish. If you carriers wanna buy some units so you can sell them with a subsidy to get folks to sign up with you. Fine. This is the price. No negotiations. Take it or leave it."
have you missed all the controlled "leaks" in the last 3 months? it's all apple marketing
i can't agree with the ALL. cause some of the rumors are too crazy.
but do I believe that some of the rumors, particularly the more frequent and the ones that logically fit with Apple's history and apparent philosophies, could be Apple, or Apple partner, based. Heck yeah, it is possible
what are some of the ones I believe are possible leaks
the itunes streaming idea -- fits with the web based previews and the buy on lala.com
pretty much anything video related -- fits with all the itunes add ons and the lack of blu-ray as a built in
that this mystery device will fit in between the phone/touch and the macbook. fills a gap and Jobs did basically say that a netbook was a possibly, if they could make one that fits Apple's style. and this device as most frequently described, would do so
and so on.
the only real thing I am not buying as a leak is this talk of a facial recognition based log in system for the tablet as a shared device. maybe because there's been no rumors or leaks that Apple has been working on this tech and what they have shown isn't perfected enough to work. in photos with my hair natural, iphoto thinks my brother and I are the same person. when I dye my hair darker as I often do, it thinks Angelina Jolie and I are the same person. and this is after 'teaching' it over the course of about 200 photos
any analyst willing to put his/her name on a report like this should be fired or at least shunned by their peers.
and yet Shaun Wu etc are still out there. Wu is so out there and off the mark so much that on some blogs, he's been verbed. It's considered a 'honor' to be Wu'd. Shows you are playing with the big boys. Sort of like how in genre tv you haven't made it until the Parents TV Council tries to get you banned.
Or, it might not sell at all. I have no interest in such a device.
other than a few managers who just sit in meetings anyway i know of no one who cares about a tablet. and no one wants to pay 500-800 dollars for a ebook reader.
maybe this device will be something that no one suspects and much more than just a fancy tablet! otherwise this couild be a real dud.
i would be much more excited about a low cost macbook air ($500)
[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?
Agreed.
I thought that what I wrote was pretty clear.
The USA is Apple's home market. We aren't talking about other companies, so comments about them isn't relevant.
What I said does make sense, unless you're living in a vacuum, where you have no knowledge about how long it took Apple to negotiate around the world for rights. There's no reason to believe, and reason to believe the opposite, that Apple would have it easier this time.
You may remember that Apple easily convinced the music companies here to do a deal, but getting Tv rights was difficult, as they looked at what happened to the music industry there, and getting movie rights was even more difficult. And that was just in the USA!
Outside, Apple still hasn't managed to get all the rights they have here. That's the way it is. We haven't heard even one word about Apple's negotiations with foreign media companies over the tablet. They will have to be convinced this will be a hit first, just as like the Touch and iPhone.
No matter how you look at it, the USA is still about 50% of Apple's business. That is changing, but slowly.
Therefor, it's vastly easier, and cheaper for Apple to secure its home market, which is, unlike most large foreign markets, a uniform one.
There's no doubt that Apple will move out of its home market. I'm sure they want to. But statements that they should do so all at once isn't realistic. Apple doesn't think like their fans want them to. They understand manufacturing, marketing, and the difficulty in moving into foreign markets. If this were a product that didn't need independent industry support, it could be done easier, but it does. Without some major deals in place, there is no point in delivering the device.
Wow. I guess you took what I wrote in a very aggressive way. All I meant was that your sentence structure made it a bit unclear (to me), what you were arguing for. I don't want to get in a fight about it actually.
I would argue that you are mistaken if you believe that Apple isn't *already* "out of it's home market" as you put it, and also that the whole concept of "home market" is a bit passe in general. You seem to ascribe to a very old-school, almost xenophobic idea of "home" vs. "foreign" markets that hasn't really existed for years.
As to the substance of the actual debate (whether the tablet will be launched globally or be a USA exclusive product), I would say that, as before, it depends on whether the device *requires* a cell contract (I argue it should not), and whether you view the device primarily as an active content creation device, or a passive media consumption device. I would argue that all recent rumours and most rumours in general point to the device as being multi-purpose and focussed on content creation. sure you will be able to consume media on it, but that's not it's entire purpose nor, I would argue, it's main one.
Additionally, even if it was just a book reader and just did iTunes, the iTunes agreements are already in place and "book reader" covers PDF's and formats that already exist. If the iPod touch is useful in Europe at all, it's just plain logic that a tablet with the same functionality would be equally useful even if agreements with European publishers are not yet in place.
A great deal of what you say about the difficulty of negotiating media agreements is certainly true (although a little US centric in thinking), but that only matters if this is the entire purpose of the device. I don't see how you can argue this is the case at all. While it's true that you might have trouble watching episodes of the Office or US Basketball games on the thing if it's sold in Sweden, it would still be a lust-worthy content creation device even there.
Apple would be absolutely insane to tie this device tied to a cell contract and launch it only in the USA. There is literally no upside to that and yet a terrific downside IMO.
I think you are wrong to interpret Apple's conservatism in launching new products as a personal affront. If any new product is truly revolutionary, Apple has no guarantee that it will be successful. They might be trying to minimize the risk of a global flop, rather than making an obscene gesture at anybody.
I didn't realise it came across as "personal." I try my best not to anthropomorphise corporate entities.
I do think I have a right to be a bit ticked off however, when a device is launched in my country, but in reality all supplies are diverted elsewhere. I waited for six months for the privilege of buying a 3Gs even though Apple said it was available from day one.
I had to call my cell phone provider every day at first and then eventually weekly. It made me a bit angry at first and I think it's worth talking about, but it didn't' stop me buying one eventually anyway.
It's all too easy to say that they should do this now, without understanding the difficulty.
I do fully appreciate the difficulties in making deals with telecoms and content providers used to work nation based. But that's also where there's room for a revolution. And Apple have the tools to do that combined with a track record in the digital reality to push this thru.
Apple's job is going to be easier this time around. They've already got carrier and content partners in a plethora of countries.
*IF* this is a connected device, I'd expect it to launch in at least 12 markets initially.
I indeed hope that's a reality. For many reasons.
Yes, there is some virtue in it. But there are also downsides, when it comes to a completely new category of product (as this one is speculated to be). Pricing, distribution, exchange rates, carrier deals, content provider deals (with their attendant cross-border licensing and IP issues - remember how long it took to get just the iTMS across borders?), assessing consumer tastes, predicting demand, etc can be a huge challenge.
It is probably far better, on balance, to introduce in one country (esp. one that is large like the US and one that Apple understands well), learn form it, get down on the cost curve, and then do a global roll-out.
Well, there are truth in it. But I really think they have their training in all these aspects with their iPhone, App Store and iTunes. The content they will add to the mix is written/printed media content.
Those who noted that McGraw-Hill is one of the publisher courted by Apple, that would probably be one of the easier to go global with. Simply because in higher education english often is used even in Sweden, France, Germany and many other countries. With news, novels and other printed media language in itself is a barrier. Besides grown in business models often country based.
And - finally - just because it's hard it's the thing. And if anyone has the momentum to push all of these things global (or more global than anyone else) Apple is one of them. And that would be a very cool revolution. In my mind at least as cool as the device itself.
It doesn't matter. Those "partners" are going to want to cut a new deal. Without some evidence that the tablet is going to be a strong seller, they will be difficult to convince. That' why Apple went with just AT&T at first. They got what they needed, and could show others that they wanted the phone. The tablet is no different.
In addition, we all know how conservative Apple is with early production. There is no way they will be able to meet strong demand worldwide right from the beginning, should it happen.
Indeed many of their partners are big headed and may look for new deals to get a better cut. But as with the iPhone they may in the end rather wanna be on the inside than on the outside.
And if Apple want to be in the loop for conten - similar to the App Store - they will have to move faster than with the App Store. When they lauched App Store that was a totally new deal and it even surprised Apple. But now others have seen it and can copy faster. Apple has to move faster to gain the same advantage this time around.
And about production, as a share holder, this would at one point be a challenge they have to deal with. They are growing! Sooner or later Infinite Loop has to aim for the globe. Question for me is if this is the time when it happens.
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.
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.
If the two of you don't believe that Apple marketing is occurring then Microsoft has a slate to sell you...
The whole control freak secrecy is a key part of Apple marketing. That allows Apple to build up huge interest and frenzy that a clear road maps never could. They spend an excessive amount of time and money on that secrecy and it's certainly not justifiable on the basis of protecting corporate secrets alone. It contributes to the cult of Apple/Jobs which Apple also spends an assload of traditional marketing on.
It wouldn't work if they didn't actually build "insanely great" products but given they do it works a hell of a lot better than traditional pre-launch marketing because any vaguely credible product rumor gets incredible mindshare and there's nothing for anyone to trash. Not even a cryptic video with robots intended to go "viral".
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.
First, this is not a business rag of any sort. Second, the use of the word earnings is rational in this context. It is no worst than somebody saying they are earning a paycheck.
that would have been an unfortunate way to express the information, too.
That may be so, but again this is not a business journal by any means.
Look, I'm an AI fan. That's WHY I care enough to try to coach the writers.
Oh that is so nice of you! You do realize nobody asked for your help, right?
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.
The first thing you need to realize is that if the articles presented here became fianacial journal like, Appleinsider would loose a huge portion of its readership. We aren't interested in carefully crafted and often mis leading business news. We are happily focused on being rumor mongers here.
As a side note, based on recent history, the imagined clarity of business communications is questionable at best. Often the goal of the reports are to make stock holders happy. I'm not saying this is wide spread but a clear report means nothing if built upon wishful thinking or deception.
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.
Taken from the standpoint of the layman the secondary meaning is probably what is expected in this forum. Really what do you expect, that everyone here take a accounting cOurse or business 101 before reading the articles? As to clarity I would like to know how a well writen business article would be actually easier for the average reader to digest here.
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.
That would be all well and good if this was a business trade. It isn't and that is the whole point. What we have is a rumors site posting parts of an article that is written by an analyst based on rumors and guess work. That is not something that you even want to remotely confuse with good business reporting.
all the writer would have had to say was, "would bring..." or "would garner..." and there'd be no confusion.
The writer could say lots of things that is agreed however he needs to be aware of the audience and the context. There is nothing to be gained by making the reporting more business like. In fact there is a lot to loose if people take it seriously. It is far better for Appleinsider to not sound like a journal one would make business decisions from.
I haven't even mentioned that for his sources the writer turned to "a prominent investment baking firm"!
In any event I understand your point but believe it is misplaced with respect to Appleinsider. The last thing Appleinsider needs is Wall Street taking its articles seriously. Appleinsider is more about rumors, wishful thinking, forums and some reportage of press releases. It is not the place to go for an indepth researched business report.
I also understand some of the suckage in the reporting here. Some of the writers are obviously new to the craft. On the otherhand I've seen some improve significantly over the years. So your trying to be helpful might be worthwhile, but one shouldn't dwell on the details in a forum thread that is focused on the material being discussed. Suggestions are fine but promotion becomes an issue for the rest of us.
Dave
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.
isn't that about or slightly above what the percentage break-down is for mac/pc users? Seems like Apple hit the nail on the gullible target.
- We hear Apple is introducing a new product soon.
- What is it? How much will it cost? Who is the target?
- We have not the slightest idea, but they're gonna make $3 billion the first year.