steve jobs is smart enough to know almost all, if not all tablet users own a smartphone.
a 7" tablet wouldn't differentiate much from a 4" smartphone.
who would want to carry around a 7" device making calls and sending text anyway?
seems to me Balsillie and other 7" tablet manufacturer missed this.
have you held your phone and a 7" tablet before?
I have (the tab), and I'd say there is quite a difference. If they don't sell, it will have absolutely nothing to do with their size. But Steve Jobs is trying to make it an issue.
that's nonsense. Without marketshare, there aren't any profits.
Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Yet Apple makes the most the profit in the PC and handset markets worldwide while having such low marketshare. You really think they?d trade that to be in Dell or Nokia?s position? Dumest thing I?ve ever heard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Groovetube
is this smartphones, or "mobile handsets"
Seriously?! It states very clearly what the marketshare is referring to.
You posted a brainless chart which includes all manner of mobile phones. Apple does not make cheap no profit throw away phones. Why don't you include home phone in that too?
Apple is approaching 20% of the smartphone marketshare, is really significant.
Yet Apple makes the most the profit in the PC and handset markets worldwide while having such low marketshare. You really think they’d trade that to be in Dell or Nokia’s position? Dumest thing I’ve ever heard.
Seriously?! It states very clearly what the marketshare is referring to.
you're right. It says... "mobile handsets".
no, I don't think for a second they would trade with Dell, nor am I unaware that Apple is getting the highest profits.
Regardless, the notion that apple doesn't care about marketshare, is absolutely stupendously brainless. Of course they do.
Why you pair are arguing that apple can make more money with less marketshare is anyone's guess. A toothless ten year old can surmise that.
Why you pair are arguing that apple can make more money with less marketshare is anyone's guess. A toothless ten year old can surmise that.
Apple care?s about profit, just as any good company does. Marketshare is only a factor if you can grow your profits at the same time. By your reasoning Apple should never have made an iPhone because they could have had more marketshare by selling hundreds of millions of cheap phones. Your argument also suggests that Nokia should be making more profit because they have the highest marketshare. So again, if Apple?s concern was marketshare over profits then why didn?t they go that route. Hint: They care about profit.
Apple care’s about profit, just as any good company does. Marketshare is only a factor if you can grow your profits at the same time. By your reasoning Apple should never have made an iPhone because they could have had more marketshare by selling hundreds of millions of cheap phones. Your argument also suggests that Nokia should be making more profit because they have the highest marketshare. So again, if Apple’s concern was marketshare over profits then why didn’t they go that route. Hint: They care about profit.
no, I never said this whatsoever. You have a propensity to make things up about what someone said, I have seen this multiple times.
I said, it's brainless to believe apple does not care, about marketshare. Period. 50% of 0, is still zero. It makes absolutely no sense not to care about it. And quite clearly Apple is successful in this regard. So obviously, they DO care.
Clearly, as I have ALREADY said, Apple is enjoying higher profits than anyone, which allows them to make bold moves with less marketshare. But 20% in the smartphone arena is REALLY significant, and only an idiot would believe Apple wouldn't like to see that rise.
that's nonsense. Without marketshare, there aren't any profits.
Which has clearly been refuted.
Quote:
I said, it's brainless to believe apple does not care, about marketshare.
No-one has said they don't care at all about market share. Obviously they would like to increase it, to strengthen their position, entrench themselves in the mobile market more permanently. However they don't necessarily want to sell the kind of product that is going to have the dominant share of the mobile phone market - just that which makes the most profits, which is only a small segment of the overall market.
No-one has said they don't care at all about market share. Obviously they would like to increase it, to strengthen their position, entrench themselves in the mobile market more permanently. However they don't necessarily want to sell the kind of product that is going to have the dominant share of the mobile phone market - just that which makes the most profits, which is only a small segment of the overall market.
What exactly, are you arguing about?
Any half wit can understand this concept.
I said "without marketshare", meaning practically NOTHING, is this clear now?
Man people are dumb.
Apple cares, about marketshare. end of story. More marketshare = more profits.
Man this is the stuff of 5 year olds.
No stop posting idiotic irrelevant charts and going around in circles!
When one chooses a new phone, one compares phones. And following such comparison, the vast majority of people reject the iPhone and buy something else.
Facts is facts.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
If you want to play in those terms, people reject the iPhone less frequently than any other single phone on the planet.
But Apple is changing. There are lots of comments that the $500 iPad price is very attractive, and there are many predictions that other companies will be unable to compete on price with a 9 inch tablet.
ISTM that Apple ain't a company that is relying on huge margins and top-tier hardware. Not anymore. Steve himself said that they had left the camera off an iPod in order to hit a price point, just a year or so ago.
So back in the good old days, Apple didn't compete based on price. But now, they are no longer a high-end computer company, but instead, are a popular-priced CE company.
And competing on price is something they are doing, and IMO, will pursue to generate greater profits.
You misunderstand hitting a price point with competing on price.
I said "without marketshare", meaning practically NOTHING, is this clear now?
Man people are dumb.
Apple cares, about marketshare. end of story. More marketshare = more profits.
Man this is the stuff of 5 year olds.
No stop posting idiotic irrelevant charts and going around in circles!
Chill.
The argument isn't "does Apple care about market share, in any way shape or form?" The argument is "Does Apple care so much about market share that they would take certain actions, like build much cheaper, low margin machines, or license their software to third parties, or allow BOGO sales from the carriers, or slash prices on existing models, etc.?"
The answer to that, clearly, is "no." Jobs has said as much, on multiple occasions. Without bothering to look an example up, the general gist is "We want to make the best machines we know how to make, and we care about that more than being market share kings." You can dismiss that as market speak if you wish, but I think Apple's actual products and strategies make it clear that he really means it.
And for what it's worth, "more marketshare=more profits" as a general statement of fact is undeniably false. You can grow market share by shaving margins until you have 100% of a completely profitless business-- a phenomena that has really hurt all the cut rate PC vendors.
The argument isn't "does Apple care about market share, in any way shape or form?" The argument is "Does Apple care so much about market share that they would take certain actions, like build much cheaper, low margin machines, or license their software to third parties, or allow BOGO sales from the carriers, or slash prices on existing models, etc.?"
The answer to that, clearly, is "no." Jobs has said as much, on multiple occasions. Without bothering to look an example up, the general gist is "We want to make the best machines we know how to make, and we care about that more than being market share kings." You can dismiss that as market speak if you wish, but I think Apple's actual products and strategies make it clear that he really means it.
And for what it's worth, "more marketshare=more profits" as a general statement of fact is undeniably false. You can grow market share by shaving margins until you have 100% of a completely profitless business-- a phenomena that has really hurt all the cut rate PC vendors.
I think a few need to chill. There's a constant need to -defend apple-.
I get it. I think you are stating the obvious, that we already know about apple. Or at least anyone, who has been using apple stuff like I have for many years.
I never suggested apple cares so much as to start competing on a level the PC industry has to little to no profit to achieve 100%. Why must we talk extremes?
Apple has clearly cared enough about marketshare to make significant changes. I recall buying my G4 for over 5 grand at one time. I also remember what I paid for several powerbooks, almost 4k. Remember what the iBook G3800 was? I bought my wife one for nearly 3 grand. a year later, the iBook G4 was 1800. How about the 17" iMac G5 I paid 2600 for. Man, things have changed, bigtime!
Apple has made very significant changes since my start on macs in the 9500 days. As Steve Jobs says, they're in it to win. And by winning, that -includes- marketshare. Not necessarily 100% either...
I think a few need to chill. There's a constant need to -defend apple-.
I get it. I think you are stating the obvious, that we already know about apple. Or at least anyone, who has been using apple stuff like I have for many years.
I never suggested apple cares so much as to start competing on a level the PC industry has to little to no profit to achieve 100%. Why must we talk extremes?
Apple has clearly cared enough about marketshare to make significant changes. I recall buying my G4 for over 5 grand at one time. I also remember what I paid for several powerbooks, almost 4k. Remember what the iBook G3800 was? I bought my wife one for nearly 3 grand. a year later, the iBook G4 was 1800. How about the 17" iMac G5 I paid 2600 for. Man, things have changed, bigtime!
Apple has made very significant changes since my start on macs in the 9500 days. As Steve Jobs says, they're in it to win. And by winning, that -includes- marketshare. Not necessarily 100% either...
Well, I'll grant you Apple cares enough about market share to not grimly hang onto 1990s pricing. Since they would sell basically 0 machines for that kind of money.
But that example is a bit of an extreme as well; the price of performance of course goes down over time. I believe in the late 90s it was something like $30,000/GFLOP and is currently somewhere south of 20¢.
What Apple seems to pretty consistently do is figure out the hardware/software combo available that can run the experience they're shooting for acceptably. At times of transition, like the early iterations of OS X, that sometimes gets a little out of sync and Apple's customers have to put up with less than stellar performance for a while. They then price their stuff according to what it costs to make that experience, plus their usual healthy margins.
They do this in complete defiance of the prevailing trends in mass computing, which are generally headed towards the cheapest possible commodity pricing. Clearly, if Apple were unduly concerned by "marketshare", they would have to offer something like a $600 laptop and a $300 desktop to even be in the same ballgame, which they obviously are not.
Which is not to say Apple isn't happy enough to dominate a market they created and which functions by their rules. I think the iPad fits that model: they can charge what they need to get to be profitable, but their economics of scale, vertical integration and shared componentry across multiple high volume devices mean they can make the machine they want and still be cost competitive, if not dominate.
In fact, I think the entire post return of Jobs era at Apple has been about this: maintaining a small marketshare but profitable computer line-up while working on a post-computer lineup that wouldn't be beholden to the WinTel duopoly and the quirks of history that ghettoized the Mac. I don't think they set out to dominate that market, particularly-- they did their usual thing of building the stuff that they wanted to build, peanut gallery notwithstanding-- but now that it's blown up into the better part of their business, there's no reason to go out of their way to hurt sales.
I have (the tab), and I'd say there is quite a difference. If they don't sell, it will have absolutely nothing to do with their size. But Steve Jobs is trying to make it an issue.
I've held both and the 7" certainly differs from my smartphone in terms of hardware size.
what makes the iPad different is what is loaded inside. a 7" device is simply not enough to load in decent software to differentiate it from a smartphone.
Well, I'll grant you Apple cares enough about market share to not grimly hang onto 1990s pricing. Since they would sell basically 0 machines for that kind of money.
But that example is a bit of an extreme as well; the price of performance of course goes down over time. I believe in the late 90s it was something like $30,000/GFLOP and is currently somewhere south of 20¢.
What Apple seems to pretty consistently do is figure out the hardware/software combo available that can run the experience they're shooting for acceptably. At times of transition, like the early iterations of OS X, that sometimes gets a little out of sync and Apple's customers have to put up with less than stellar performance for a while. They then price their stuff according to what it costs to make that experience, plus their usual healthy margins.
They do this in complete defiance of the prevailing trends in mass computing, which are generally headed towards the cheapest possible commodity pricing. Clearly, if Apple were unduly concerned by "marketshare", they would have to offer something like a $600 laptop and a $300 desktop to even be in the same ballgame, which they obviously are not.
Which is not to say Apple isn't happy enough to dominate a market they created and which functions by their rules. I think the iPad fits that model: they can charge what they need to get to be profitable, but their economics of scale, vertical integration and shared componentry across multiple high volume devices mean they can make the machine they want and still be cost competitive, if not dominate.
In fact, I think the entire post return of Jobs era at Apple has been about this: maintaining a small marketshare but profitable computer line-up while working on a post-computer lineup that wouldn't be beholden to the WinTel duopoly and the quirks of history that ghettoized the Mac. I don't think they set out to dominate that market, particularly-- they did their usual thing of building the stuff that they wanted to build, peanut gallery notwithstanding-- but now that it's blown up into the better part of their business, there's no reason to go out of their way to hurt sales.
certainly apple hasn't taken the path of POS machines at negligible profit margins. I think that's obvious for everyone to see. It's sort of preaching to the converted, which seems to happen a lot here.
Quote:
...but their economics of scale, vertical integration and shared componentry across multiple high volume devices mean they can make the machine they want and still be cost competitive, if not dominate.
The only way to have this is marketshare. Steve Jobs wants, and has to a large degree now, real clout in the market. The clout to demand real attention to the os x/iOSS platform, his mission to kill flash, demanding things be natively developed for mac/iOS, etc. It isn't necessary to have 100% domination or sell POS devices with little profit at all as apple has shown, but to suggest repeatedly as many posters has done that apple isn't concerned with marketsshare is simply ludicrous.
...Steve Jobs wants, and has to a large degree now, real clout in the market. The clout to demand real attention to the os x/iOSS platform, his mission to kill flash, demanding things be natively developed for mac/iOS, etc. It isn't necessary to have 100% domination or sell POS devices with little profit at all as apple has shown, but to suggest repeatedly as many posters has done that apple isn't concerned with marketsshare is simply ludicrous.
I'm late coming back to the thread, and boy... But anyways:
1. "His mission to kill Flash". I don't think it's a vendetta as such. It's just that apps made natively for OS X and iOS work best for the OS X and iOS experience. Virtualisation and Java on the Mac are not as great as nice native Mac apps. Flash on iOS would really be an order of magnitude lower than what is possible with iOS-native apps.
2. I think you do have an inkling that something has CHANGED. Apple is at a kind of tipping point... On one hand, they've been successful with the Mac as it is. But iPhone and iPad is different. iPhone is possibly surpassing Blackberry and iPad is in the lead. I don't think Apple is looking at it from a marketshare or a profit point of view only... That is, it's not one or the other. They look to make a good product, have a good developer ecosystem, and now, with marketshare, Apple is thinking, wow, okay, what do we do with that... It's not clear *how* this will play out...
Some of the Lion features seem a little tenuous in merging iOS into OS X. For one thing, multitouch on a screen works very well because you directly interact finger-to-screen-image. Multitouch on a trackpad is finger-to-trackpad,eye-to-screen... Slightly different. Macs will continue to be significant, and iPhone and iPad, but Apple knows that competitors can flood the market with cheaper, lower-quality products that can overtake Apple. I mean, it's just one company, how can they expect to conquer everything? That they've come this far, is pretty impressive. Apple appreciates marketshare, I think, and they know they can lead and dominate, but there is always that risk of cheaper products from a ton of different manufacturers capturing the market. That said, the Blackpad and Slate may not be these products that capture the market for tablets. Not at this stage, it seems. But also it depends on how "tablets" are going to be categorised - is it a PC, is it not a PC, etc.
Comments
steve jobs is smart enough to know almost all, if not all tablet users own a smartphone.
a 7" tablet wouldn't differentiate much from a 4" smartphone.
who would want to carry around a 7" device making calls and sending text anyway?
seems to me Balsillie and other 7" tablet manufacturer missed this.
have you held your phone and a 7" tablet before?
I have (the tab), and I'd say there is quite a difference. If they don't sell, it will have absolutely nothing to do with their size. But Steve Jobs is trying to make it an issue.
See below:
is this smartphones, or "mobile handsets"
is this smartphones, or "mobile handsets"
have samsung, nokia and LG sold 400million smart phones (in 6months)?
that's nonsense. Without marketshare, there aren't any profits.
Dumbest thing I've ever heard.
Yet Apple makes the most the profit in the PC and handset markets worldwide while having such low marketshare. You really think they?d trade that to be in Dell or Nokia?s position? Dumest thing I?ve ever heard.
is this smartphones, or "mobile handsets"
Seriously?! It states very clearly what the marketshare is referring to.
You posted a brainless chart which includes all manner of mobile phones. Apple does not make cheap no profit throw away phones. Why don't you include home phone in that too?
Apple is approaching 20% of the smartphone marketshare, is really significant.
Those charts are for fools.
Yet Apple makes the most the profit in the PC and handset markets worldwide while having such low marketshare. You really think they’d trade that to be in Dell or Nokia’s position? Dumest thing I’ve ever heard.
Seriously?! It states very clearly what the marketshare is referring to.
you're right. It says... "mobile handsets".
no, I don't think for a second they would trade with Dell, nor am I unaware that Apple is getting the highest profits.
Regardless, the notion that apple doesn't care about marketshare, is absolutely stupendously brainless. Of course they do.
Why you pair are arguing that apple can make more money with less marketshare is anyone's guess. A toothless ten year old can surmise that.
Why you pair are arguing that apple can make more money with less marketshare is anyone's guess. A toothless ten year old can surmise that.
Apple care?s about profit, just as any good company does. Marketshare is only a factor if you can grow your profits at the same time. By your reasoning Apple should never have made an iPhone because they could have had more marketshare by selling hundreds of millions of cheap phones. Your argument also suggests that Nokia should be making more profit because they have the highest marketshare. So again, if Apple?s concern was marketshare over profits then why didn?t they go that route. Hint: They care about profit.
Apple care’s about profit, just as any good company does. Marketshare is only a factor if you can grow your profits at the same time. By your reasoning Apple should never have made an iPhone because they could have had more marketshare by selling hundreds of millions of cheap phones. Your argument also suggests that Nokia should be making more profit because they have the highest marketshare. So again, if Apple’s concern was marketshare over profits then why didn’t they go that route. Hint: They care about profit.
no, I never said this whatsoever. You have a propensity to make things up about what someone said, I have seen this multiple times.
I said, it's brainless to believe apple does not care, about marketshare. Period. 50% of 0, is still zero. It makes absolutely no sense not to care about it. And quite clearly Apple is successful in this regard. So obviously, they DO care.
Clearly, as I have ALREADY said, Apple is enjoying higher profits than anyone, which allows them to make bold moves with less marketshare. But 20% in the smartphone arena is REALLY significant, and only an idiot would believe Apple wouldn't like to see that rise.
no, I never said this whatsoever.
This pretty strongly implies it:
that's nonsense. Without marketshare, there aren't any profits.
Which has clearly been refuted.
I said, it's brainless to believe apple does not care, about marketshare.
No-one has said they don't care at all about market share. Obviously they would like to increase it, to strengthen their position, entrench themselves in the mobile market more permanently. However they don't necessarily want to sell the kind of product that is going to have the dominant share of the mobile phone market - just that which makes the most profits, which is only a small segment of the overall market.
This pretty strongly implies it:
Which has clearly been refuted.
No-one has said they don't care at all about market share. Obviously they would like to increase it, to strengthen their position, entrench themselves in the mobile market more permanently. However they don't necessarily want to sell the kind of product that is going to have the dominant share of the mobile phone market - just that which makes the most profits, which is only a small segment of the overall market.
What exactly, are you arguing about?
Any half wit can understand this concept.
I said "without marketshare", meaning practically NOTHING, is this clear now?
Man people are dumb.
Apple cares, about marketshare. end of story. More marketshare = more profits.
Man this is the stuff of 5 year olds.
No stop posting idiotic irrelevant charts and going around in circles!
I don't know what they "prefer", because that usage of the word is vague, to say the least.
But it seems clear that the average consumer prefers to buy a phone that is NOT an iPhone.
Prefer was pretty clearly defined as wanting an iPhone but settling on another based on carrier or another factor
But the world does not work that way!
When one chooses a new phone, one compares phones. And following such comparison, the vast majority of people reject the iPhone and buy something else.
Facts is facts.
Lies, damned lies and statistics.
If you want to play in those terms, people reject the iPhone less frequently than any other single phone on the planet.
But Apple is changing. There are lots of comments that the $500 iPad price is very attractive, and there are many predictions that other companies will be unable to compete on price with a 9 inch tablet.
ISTM that Apple ain't a company that is relying on huge margins and top-tier hardware. Not anymore. Steve himself said that they had left the camera off an iPod in order to hit a price point, just a year or so ago.
So back in the good old days, Apple didn't compete based on price. But now, they are no longer a high-end computer company, but instead, are a popular-priced CE company.
And competing on price is something they are doing, and IMO, will pursue to generate greater profits.
You misunderstand hitting a price point with competing on price.
What exactly, are you arguing about?
Any half wit can understand this concept.
I said "without marketshare", meaning practically NOTHING, is this clear now?
Man people are dumb.
Apple cares, about marketshare. end of story. More marketshare = more profits.
Man this is the stuff of 5 year olds.
No stop posting idiotic irrelevant charts and going around in circles!
Chill.
The argument isn't "does Apple care about market share, in any way shape or form?" The argument is "Does Apple care so much about market share that they would take certain actions, like build much cheaper, low margin machines, or license their software to third parties, or allow BOGO sales from the carriers, or slash prices on existing models, etc.?"
The answer to that, clearly, is "no." Jobs has said as much, on multiple occasions. Without bothering to look an example up, the general gist is "We want to make the best machines we know how to make, and we care about that more than being market share kings." You can dismiss that as market speak if you wish, but I think Apple's actual products and strategies make it clear that he really means it.
And for what it's worth, "more marketshare=more profits" as a general statement of fact is undeniably false. You can grow market share by shaving margins until you have 100% of a completely profitless business-- a phenomena that has really hurt all the cut rate PC vendors.
Chill.
The argument isn't "does Apple care about market share, in any way shape or form?" The argument is "Does Apple care so much about market share that they would take certain actions, like build much cheaper, low margin machines, or license their software to third parties, or allow BOGO sales from the carriers, or slash prices on existing models, etc.?"
The answer to that, clearly, is "no." Jobs has said as much, on multiple occasions. Without bothering to look an example up, the general gist is "We want to make the best machines we know how to make, and we care about that more than being market share kings." You can dismiss that as market speak if you wish, but I think Apple's actual products and strategies make it clear that he really means it.
And for what it's worth, "more marketshare=more profits" as a general statement of fact is undeniably false. You can grow market share by shaving margins until you have 100% of a completely profitless business-- a phenomena that has really hurt all the cut rate PC vendors.
I think a few need to chill. There's a constant need to -defend apple-.
I get it. I think you are stating the obvious, that we already know about apple. Or at least anyone, who has been using apple stuff like I have for many years.
I never suggested apple cares so much as to start competing on a level the PC industry has to little to no profit to achieve 100%. Why must we talk extremes?
Apple has clearly cared enough about marketshare to make significant changes. I recall buying my G4 for over 5 grand at one time. I also remember what I paid for several powerbooks, almost 4k. Remember what the iBook G3800 was? I bought my wife one for nearly 3 grand. a year later, the iBook G4 was 1800. How about the 17" iMac G5 I paid 2600 for. Man, things have changed, bigtime!
Apple has made very significant changes since my start on macs in the 9500 days. As Steve Jobs says, they're in it to win. And by winning, that -includes- marketshare. Not necessarily 100% either...
I think a few need to chill. There's a constant need to -defend apple-.
I get it. I think you are stating the obvious, that we already know about apple. Or at least anyone, who has been using apple stuff like I have for many years.
I never suggested apple cares so much as to start competing on a level the PC industry has to little to no profit to achieve 100%. Why must we talk extremes?
Apple has clearly cared enough about marketshare to make significant changes. I recall buying my G4 for over 5 grand at one time. I also remember what I paid for several powerbooks, almost 4k. Remember what the iBook G3800 was? I bought my wife one for nearly 3 grand. a year later, the iBook G4 was 1800. How about the 17" iMac G5 I paid 2600 for. Man, things have changed, bigtime!
Apple has made very significant changes since my start on macs in the 9500 days. As Steve Jobs says, they're in it to win. And by winning, that -includes- marketshare. Not necessarily 100% either...
Well, I'll grant you Apple cares enough about market share to not grimly hang onto 1990s pricing. Since they would sell basically 0 machines for that kind of money.
But that example is a bit of an extreme as well; the price of performance of course goes down over time. I believe in the late 90s it was something like $30,000/GFLOP and is currently somewhere south of 20¢.
What Apple seems to pretty consistently do is figure out the hardware/software combo available that can run the experience they're shooting for acceptably. At times of transition, like the early iterations of OS X, that sometimes gets a little out of sync and Apple's customers have to put up with less than stellar performance for a while. They then price their stuff according to what it costs to make that experience, plus their usual healthy margins.
They do this in complete defiance of the prevailing trends in mass computing, which are generally headed towards the cheapest possible commodity pricing. Clearly, if Apple were unduly concerned by "marketshare", they would have to offer something like a $600 laptop and a $300 desktop to even be in the same ballgame, which they obviously are not.
Which is not to say Apple isn't happy enough to dominate a market they created and which functions by their rules. I think the iPad fits that model: they can charge what they need to get to be profitable, but their economics of scale, vertical integration and shared componentry across multiple high volume devices mean they can make the machine they want and still be cost competitive, if not dominate.
In fact, I think the entire post return of Jobs era at Apple has been about this: maintaining a small marketshare but profitable computer line-up while working on a post-computer lineup that wouldn't be beholden to the WinTel duopoly and the quirks of history that ghettoized the Mac. I don't think they set out to dominate that market, particularly-- they did their usual thing of building the stuff that they wanted to build, peanut gallery notwithstanding-- but now that it's blown up into the better part of their business, there's no reason to go out of their way to hurt sales.
have you held your phone and a 7" tablet before?
I have (the tab), and I'd say there is quite a difference. If they don't sell, it will have absolutely nothing to do with their size. But Steve Jobs is trying to make it an issue.
I've held both and the 7" certainly differs from my smartphone in terms of hardware size.
what makes the iPad different is what is loaded inside. a 7" device is simply not enough to load in decent software to differentiate it from a smartphone.
Well, I'll grant you Apple cares enough about market share to not grimly hang onto 1990s pricing. Since they would sell basically 0 machines for that kind of money.
But that example is a bit of an extreme as well; the price of performance of course goes down over time. I believe in the late 90s it was something like $30,000/GFLOP and is currently somewhere south of 20¢.
What Apple seems to pretty consistently do is figure out the hardware/software combo available that can run the experience they're shooting for acceptably. At times of transition, like the early iterations of OS X, that sometimes gets a little out of sync and Apple's customers have to put up with less than stellar performance for a while. They then price their stuff according to what it costs to make that experience, plus their usual healthy margins.
They do this in complete defiance of the prevailing trends in mass computing, which are generally headed towards the cheapest possible commodity pricing. Clearly, if Apple were unduly concerned by "marketshare", they would have to offer something like a $600 laptop and a $300 desktop to even be in the same ballgame, which they obviously are not.
Which is not to say Apple isn't happy enough to dominate a market they created and which functions by their rules. I think the iPad fits that model: they can charge what they need to get to be profitable, but their economics of scale, vertical integration and shared componentry across multiple high volume devices mean they can make the machine they want and still be cost competitive, if not dominate.
In fact, I think the entire post return of Jobs era at Apple has been about this: maintaining a small marketshare but profitable computer line-up while working on a post-computer lineup that wouldn't be beholden to the WinTel duopoly and the quirks of history that ghettoized the Mac. I don't think they set out to dominate that market, particularly-- they did their usual thing of building the stuff that they wanted to build, peanut gallery notwithstanding-- but now that it's blown up into the better part of their business, there's no reason to go out of their way to hurt sales.
certainly apple hasn't taken the path of POS machines at negligible profit margins. I think that's obvious for everyone to see. It's sort of preaching to the converted, which seems to happen a lot here.
...but their economics of scale, vertical integration and shared componentry across multiple high volume devices mean they can make the machine they want and still be cost competitive, if not dominate.
The only way to have this is marketshare. Steve Jobs wants, and has to a large degree now, real clout in the market. The clout to demand real attention to the os x/iOSS platform, his mission to kill flash, demanding things be natively developed for mac/iOS, etc. It isn't necessary to have 100% domination or sell POS devices with little profit at all as apple has shown, but to suggest repeatedly as many posters has done that apple isn't concerned with marketsshare is simply ludicrous.
...Steve Jobs wants, and has to a large degree now, real clout in the market. The clout to demand real attention to the os x/iOSS platform, his mission to kill flash, demanding things be natively developed for mac/iOS, etc. It isn't necessary to have 100% domination or sell POS devices with little profit at all as apple has shown, but to suggest repeatedly as many posters has done that apple isn't concerned with marketsshare is simply ludicrous.
I'm late coming back to the thread, and boy... But anyways:
1. "His mission to kill Flash". I don't think it's a vendetta as such. It's just that apps made natively for OS X and iOS work best for the OS X and iOS experience. Virtualisation and Java on the Mac are not as great as nice native Mac apps. Flash on iOS would really be an order of magnitude lower than what is possible with iOS-native apps.
2. I think you do have an inkling that something has CHANGED. Apple is at a kind of tipping point... On one hand, they've been successful with the Mac as it is. But iPhone and iPad is different. iPhone is possibly surpassing Blackberry and iPad is in the lead. I don't think Apple is looking at it from a marketshare or a profit point of view only... That is, it's not one or the other. They look to make a good product, have a good developer ecosystem, and now, with marketshare, Apple is thinking, wow, okay, what do we do with that... It's not clear *how* this will play out...
Some of the Lion features seem a little tenuous in merging iOS into OS X. For one thing, multitouch on a screen works very well because you directly interact finger-to-screen-image. Multitouch on a trackpad is finger-to-trackpad,eye-to-screen... Slightly different. Macs will continue to be significant, and iPhone and iPad, but Apple knows that competitors can flood the market with cheaper, lower-quality products that can overtake Apple. I mean, it's just one company, how can they expect to conquer everything? That they've come this far, is pretty impressive. Apple appreciates marketshare, I think, and they know they can lead and dominate, but there is always that risk of cheaper products from a ton of different manufacturers capturing the market. That said, the Blackpad and Slate may not be these products that capture the market for tablets. Not at this stage, it seems. But also it depends on how "tablets" are going to be categorised - is it a PC, is it not a PC, etc.