Apple is "run by" its management. Apple is owned by, mostly, institutional investors. Those owners know who to hire to mange and increae the value of their invested capital.
If current management were to fail in this endeavor, say by adopting some strange strategy, they would be replaced. The current strategy of making great products in the sweet spots of the gadget market works extremely well for these guys.
No, actually these owners don't know how to do that at all. They were there when Steve Jobs got fired, same institutional geniuses. They just got lucky Jobs managed to get himself back in the company by having made the needed OS at NeXT.
If you truly believe institutional investors know how to run innovative companies, you need to read a lot more, or just live a few more years, because it's the most fact-free statement you could make. Yes, the goal of Apple management is to make money, but it is also to keep short-term Wall Street thinking away from them as far as possible, because it would ruin the company, and already nearly did.
No, actually these owners don't know how to do that at all. They were there when Steve Jobs got fired, same institutional geniuses. They just got lucky Jobs managed to get himself back in the company by having made the needed OS at NeXT.
If you truly believe institutional investors know how to run innovative companies, you need to read a lot more, or just live a few more years, because it's the most fact-free statement you could make. Yes, the goal of Apple management is to make money, but it is also to keep short-term Wall Street thinking away from them as far as possible, because it would ruin the company, and already nearly did.
I don't think that institutional investors know haw to run innovative companies. That is why they are in the investment business - because they know haw to do that better.
And in the investment biz, you make money by investing in companies like Apple, appointing a wise BOD, who do things like, among other things, hiring management who know how to run a company in a manner which is likely to produce the maximum total profits.
I'm concerned about this commentary about the display on this thing...that it'll be the same as the 'Phone 3GS.' That sure isn't an appealing way to pitch this, is it? I mean, the eye does have a native threshold beyond what it can 'see,' and maybe this iPad Mini display will indeed be glorious. But people will be scratching their heads over the just-released Retina display on the new iPad, versus this '3GS' screen technology on the iPad Mini. Those comparisons--fair or unfair--will be made. Heck, I'm even inclined to wonder just how 'mediocre' the iPad Mini display will be simply because people are linking it to the 3GS display from several years ago.
There's no overwhelming evidence that a smaller iPad will be released at a competitive price point. There's lots of rank speculation, but teh "evidence" points to the contrary, that any smaller iPad that may be released would be priced well above the 7" models that are out there.
Reading comprehension would have assisted you before you made such a foolish comment that you're now backpedaling on.
If a Retina Display... I can see $299. if a iPhone 3GS display, I can't see the market buying it for more than $199 (and the iPod Touch moves to $149).
But it is an 8" device, so maybe people will go with 'bigger must be better')
Assuming 30% margin after all expenses... that's 0.5Billion in a quarter at $299 - at 1% earnings, that means Gene is expecting $50billion in Earnings the December quarter. That's 300% growth over last Dec 31st quarter. That seems high ( I would guess 100% growth would be 'in line'). Maybe he's putting CapEx in that quarter as well (cost of the assembly line), and that will pull down the quarter (I would think that would have come in the prior quarter).
But, not bad for an entry quarter.
You bring up an interesting point. The iPod Touch is a 3.5" display so this Mini iPad is pushing into its territory. Will Apple leave the iPod Touch alone as a separate category or will they merge the two products together?
The iPod Touch then becomes the small end of the iPad line, then they fill-in a 7"ish model in the mid-range, and lastly the existing iPad at the high end.
Why, exactly, would Apple want to ship a smaller iPad? Here's the answer in three words: no price umbrella.
"One thing we'll make sure is that we don't leave a price umbrella for people."
- Tim Cook, 2009 (on the iPhone)
Tim said that about iPhone, and sure enough, the various iPhone models are now available starting at $0 on contract.
Apple could easily make a 7" - 8" iPad with their customary large profit margin (especially if they price it at $299.)
They could use the same screen technology that they're currently using in the iPhone 3GS. Same pixel density,
larger panels, resulting in a 7.85" panel at 1024 x 768 pixels.
This would allow Apple's touch screen supplier to amortize their production line over several more years, further reducing
the cost of those panels. Add that economy of scale to the others, like those for low-end ARM chip production, battery
production, NAND memory purchase, and aluminum enclosure machining, and Apple could easily maintain a high
margin at $299.
And, inevitably, trailing-edge components become even cheaper over time. It's possible that a 7.85" iPad could be
introduced at $299, then be reduced in price a year or so later. In late 2013, in time for next year's holiday season,
Apple could conceivably drop the "iPad mini" price to $199. There's no reason to go lower than that, because Apple's
competitors can't make a profit selling 7" pads at $199. (Unless they really cut corners and use plastic etc.)
So, in less than 2 years, we could see this lineup:
iPad mini
$199
iPad 2
$299
iPad (3rd gen)
$399
2013 iPad
$499
No price umbrella.
Key difference between iPad and iPhone is carrier subsidies. By all accounts, Apple is still charging high prices, higher than competitors, for iPhones sold with carrier contracts.
The iPad has no such extra revenue. If it's $199, that's all the money Apple ever gets (and they don't even get that since retail isn't free, even on the Apple store).
I think by price umbrella Cook does not mean price matching. I think he means not leaving a large enough gap for competitors to get in under, but that's not the same as no gap at all. We'll see.
I don't think that institutional investors know haw to run innovative companies. That is why they are in the investment business - because they know haw to do that better.
And in the investment biz, you make money by investing in companies like Apple, appointing a wise BOD, who do things like, among other things, hiring management who know how to run a company in a manner which is likely to produce the maximum total profits.
Apple's current BOD was handpicked by Jobs. They don't know how to pick "wise" boards either. They usually stuff them with investor types. Look at HP's board and see where it has gotten them. Wise boards are even rarer than good CEO's.
Agreed and as I have said many times I still suspect an even larger iPad, the ... iPad Pro will make an appearance in a year or two. A larger version designed to be used at a desk but still portable if required. I would expect an Apple stylus too designed for the likes of CAD/CAM applications and Photoshop etc.. Perhaps two versions, 17" and 23".
Well, eventually, not soon but eventually, there will be a convergence of OS X and iOS. Then and only then will we have larger iPads, and most likely by another name. They won't run both OS X and iOS, the way Microsoft is trying to do. It will be a more singular combined iOSxi, or maybe just OSXi and then you'll see 13" and 15" tablets. We have to wait for Microsoft to fc@k it up first, which they will certainly do. And we need still lighter components.
Wow, lots of comments about Apple making a profit. How or why isn't as important as actually making a profit as otherwise you end up in chapter 13.
Discussions about profit though pull the thread off course. One though that I see not being possible is iPad Mini replacing a Touch. The reasons is simple Touch fits in ones pocket, there are other considerations but that single thought means that if this guy is marketed as an iPod it will be an addition to the Touch or whatever replaces the Touch.
As to the usefullness of something iPad Mini sized I see great sales myself. Interestingly I see such a unit being a big hit in business. Given a year or too for adoption to wind up I could easily see 12-18 million in sales a quarter though I see 6 million the first quarter as a bit stiff.
Well since everybody else is farting their predictions into the wind, I'll add mine to the din ...
2012 iPad RD (unchanged) IPad mini SD (16:9) iPhone 5 (16:9 -- large form factor) IPod Touch (16:9 or unchanged) iPhone 4S (small form factor)
2013 New iPad RD (large ff -- MacBooks still serve larger screen needs) iPad Mini RD (16:9) (small ff) iPhone 6 (16:9) (large ff) iPod touch discontinued or upgraded to RD depending on how it sells after iPad mini IPhone 4S 2.0 SD (small ff upgraded to iPhone 5 specs) iPod moniker relegated to shuffle and nano sized devices only
Well, eventually, not soon but eventually, there will be a convergence of OS X and iOS. Then and only then will we have larger iPads, and most likely by another name. They won't run both OS X and iOS, the way Microsoft is trying to do. It will be a more singular combined iOSxi, or maybe just OSXi and then you'll see 13" and 15" tablets. We have to wait for Microsoft to fc@k it up first, which they will certainly do. And we need still lighter components.
IOS already is Mac OS, it just has a different user interface. The kernel and core features are very much the same. It is only in how applications are handled that things differ, with iOS being focused on user interaction with a single app. The fundamental problem is the differing user interaction which effectively means that full convergence will never happen. At least not if Apple wants to keep Mac OS/X users around.
You seem like a died-in-the-wool conservative so there probably isn't much point in arguing with you, but the flaw in your reasoning is that you are arguing results as if they were causes without any proof that this is in fact the case.
Why does his opinion, in this case, seem to indicate a political slant in your mind? If someone has a feeling that they are forced to upgrade faster than they want I really don't see how you can rationally tie that to a political belief system.
I would argue that there are product-related reasons that lead them to make decisions that may have the effect of making people feel as if they were "forced" to upgrade and buy new products. Your characterisation of this situation as being Apple forcing you to upgrade as a profit maximising strategy is an unproven assumption on your part. There is no evidence at all that Apple engages in this kind of planned obsolescence even though it's fairly standard practice in the electronics industry. In fact, Apple products tend to last much longer than the average counterpart from another manufacturer and often last far beyond their expected or designed lifetime.
This may all be true but that really has nothing to do with how people feel. No matter what Apples strategy is, the abandonment of relatively new hardware can leave people with a bitter taste in their mouths. In the end it is about being put in a position where you feel as if you are forced to upgrade simply to keep up with Apples changes that leave relatively new hardware behind.
It seems to me that you just personally don't like change, are pissed at being "forced" (as you see it) to upgrade all the time, and are assuming (based on no evidence) that the reason behind this is Apple's mad drive for profit.
His reasoning may not be perfect but that doesn't discount the point that many people don't like the idea of being put into a position where they have too update just to keep software current. Frankly I really don't know what Apples motivation is here. If I want to pull possibilities out of my behind I would have to say this issue is a result of a lack of attention to the Mac line while going after mobile devices. That is a drive for profit but not in the sense explored here
The trouble is that merely saying it doesn't make it so.
The trouble here, which has the potential to cast much negative light on Apple, is that their behavior generates much speculation about why hardware is becoming obsolete so fast. Trying to say it hasn't, isn't helping any because different people have different expectations here. The simple fact is that people expect three year old hardware to be able to run today's operating systems. It is not an unreasonable expectation, thus the speculation about what is wrong with Apple.
Well since everybody else is farting their predictions into the wind, I'll add mine to the din ...
2012
iPad RD (unchanged)
IPad mini SD (16:9)
iPhone 5 (16:9 -- large form factor)
IPod Touch (16:9 or unchanged)
iPhone 4S (small form factor)
2013
New iPad RD (large ff -- MacBooks still serve larger screen needs)
iPad Mini RD (16:9) (small ff)
iPhone 6 (16:9) (large ff)
iPod touch discontinued or upgraded to RD depending on how it sells after iPad mini
IPhone 4S 2.0 SD (small ff upgraded to iPhone 5 specs)
iPod moniker relegated to shuffle and nano sized devices only
At least you used the right verb to describe this list.
Release it for $199 and call it The New iPod Touch. This breathes new life into the iPod line and diminishes the perceived role of the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire to being iPod Touch competitors. Then Apple can just fight it out with the Microsoft Surface, since they'll be the only "real" iPad competitor at the 10" size. Kids (the biggest market for the current iPod Touch) will be delighted to have a larger form factor and more capability.
No, I think it will be an iPad mini and run apps in the iPad style. This means it would have the extended features that the iPad apps do, such as mail, Music, Facebook, etc. Plus, the iPod touch would still be a great gym type device, since a 7"+ iPod Touch would be impractical for sports use.
... and I'm taking him to court. I hold the patent on silly comments!!
Wait a second. MacBook Pro International Holdings sold you exclusive intellectual property rights to silly comments for the world excluding the United States. The intellectual property rights to silly comments for the United States are held by another company, MacBook Pro Technology, which is a subsidiary of MacBook Pro International Holdings.
As President and CEO of MacBook Pro International Holdings, I was not aware of the negotiations with MacBook Pro International Holdings of which I am also President and CEO as the negotiations concern two independent regions.
You can settle the dispute and avoid a costly legal battle by paying a mere USD $1.6 billion.
There is NO WAY the iPad mini will sell for less than 299. Even though apple could easily best the nexus for a lower production cost, they won't be able to make a quality mini iPad with the margins they like to have, particularly as it's going to be cannibalizing iPad 3rd gen sales. The question to me is if they're going to keep the iPad 2 at a 399 price point with a 299 iPad mini, or stop selling the iPad 2, and start the mini at 399. It's still going to sell like crazy. The new iPad makes me think that the iPad 2 was mostly a placeholder to maintain developer support for the original iPad resolution.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Apple is "run by" its management. Apple is owned by, mostly, institutional investors. Those owners know who to hire to mange and increae the value of their invested capital.
If current management were to fail in this endeavor, say by adopting some strange strategy, they would be replaced. The current strategy of making great products in the sweet spots of the gadget market works extremely well for these guys.
No, actually these owners don't know how to do that at all. They were there when Steve Jobs got fired, same institutional geniuses. They just got lucky Jobs managed to get himself back in the company by having made the needed OS at NeXT.
If you truly believe institutional investors know how to run innovative companies, you need to read a lot more, or just live a few more years, because it's the most fact-free statement you could make. Yes, the goal of Apple management is to make money, but it is also to keep short-term Wall Street thinking away from them as far as possible, because it would ruin the company, and already nearly did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
No, actually these owners don't know how to do that at all. They were there when Steve Jobs got fired, same institutional geniuses. They just got lucky Jobs managed to get himself back in the company by having made the needed OS at NeXT.
If you truly believe institutional investors know how to run innovative companies, you need to read a lot more, or just live a few more years, because it's the most fact-free statement you could make. Yes, the goal of Apple management is to make money, but it is also to keep short-term Wall Street thinking away from them as far as possible, because it would ruin the company, and already nearly did.
I don't think that institutional investors know haw to run innovative companies. That is why they are in the investment business - because they know haw to do that better.
And in the investment biz, you make money by investing in companies like Apple, appointing a wise BOD, who do things like, among other things, hiring management who know how to run a company in a manner which is likely to produce the maximum total profits.
I'm concerned about this commentary about the display on this thing...that it'll be the same as the 'Phone 3GS.' That sure isn't an appealing way to pitch this, is it? I mean, the eye does have a native threshold beyond what it can 'see,' and maybe this iPad Mini display will indeed be glorious. But people will be scratching their heads over the just-released Retina display on the new iPad, versus this '3GS' screen technology on the iPad Mini. Those comparisons--fair or unfair--will be made. Heck, I'm even inclined to wonder just how 'mediocre' the iPad Mini display will be simply because people are linking it to the 3GS display from several years ago.
Why, exactly, would Apple want to ship a smaller iPad? Here's the answer in three words: no price umbrella.
"One thing we'll make sure is that we don't leave a price umbrella for people."
- Tim Cook, 2009 (on the iPhone)
Tim said that about iPhone, and sure enough, the various iPhone models are now available starting at $0 on contract.
Apple could easily make a 7" - 8" iPad with their customary large profit margin (especially if they price it at $299.)
They could use the same screen technology that they're currently using in the iPhone 3GS. Same pixel density,
larger panels, resulting in a 7.85" panel at 1024 x 768 pixels.
This would allow Apple's touch screen supplier to amortize their production line over several more years, further reducing
the cost of those panels. Add that economy of scale to the others, like those for low-end ARM chip production, battery
production, NAND memory purchase, and aluminum enclosure machining, and Apple could easily maintain a high
margin at $299.
And, inevitably, trailing-edge components become even cheaper over time. It's possible that a 7.85" iPad could be
introduced at $299, then be reduced in price a year or so later. In late 2013, in time for next year's holiday season,
Apple could conceivably drop the "iPad mini" price to $199. There's no reason to go lower than that, because Apple's
competitors can't make a profit selling 7" pads at $199. (Unless they really cut corners and use plastic etc.)
So, in less than 2 years, we could see this lineup:
iPad mini
$199
iPad 2
$299
iPad (3rd gen)
$399
2013 iPad
$499
No price umbrella.
Reading comprehension would have assisted you before you made such a foolish comment that you're now backpedaling on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOtherGeoff
$299? or $199?
If a Retina Display... I can see $299. if a iPhone 3GS display, I can't see the market buying it for more than $199 (and the iPod Touch moves to $149).
But it is an 8" device, so maybe people will go with 'bigger must be better')
Assuming 30% margin after all expenses... that's 0.5Billion in a quarter at $299 - at 1% earnings, that means Gene is expecting $50billion in Earnings the December quarter. That's 300% growth over last Dec 31st quarter. That seems high ( I would guess 100% growth would be 'in line'). Maybe he's putting CapEx in that quarter as well (cost of the assembly line), and that will pull down the quarter (I would think that would have come in the prior quarter).
But, not bad for an entry quarter.
You bring up an interesting point. The iPod Touch is a 3.5" display so this Mini iPad is pushing into its territory. Will Apple leave the iPod Touch alone as a separate category or will they merge the two products together?
The iPod Touch then becomes the small end of the iPad line, then they fill-in a 7"ish model in the mid-range, and lastly the existing iPad at the high end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SockRolid
Why, exactly, would Apple want to ship a smaller iPad? Here's the answer in three words: no price umbrella.
"One thing we'll make sure is that we don't leave a price umbrella for people."
- Tim Cook, 2009 (on the iPhone)
Tim said that about iPhone, and sure enough, the various iPhone models are now available starting at $0 on contract.
Apple could easily make a 7" - 8" iPad with their customary large profit margin (especially if they price it at $299.)
They could use the same screen technology that they're currently using in the iPhone 3GS. Same pixel density,
larger panels, resulting in a 7.85" panel at 1024 x 768 pixels.
This would allow Apple's touch screen supplier to amortize their production line over several more years, further reducing
the cost of those panels. Add that economy of scale to the others, like those for low-end ARM chip production, battery
production, NAND memory purchase, and aluminum enclosure machining, and Apple could easily maintain a high
margin at $299.
And, inevitably, trailing-edge components become even cheaper over time. It's possible that a 7.85" iPad could be
introduced at $299, then be reduced in price a year or so later. In late 2013, in time for next year's holiday season,
Apple could conceivably drop the "iPad mini" price to $199. There's no reason to go lower than that, because Apple's
competitors can't make a profit selling 7" pads at $199. (Unless they really cut corners and use plastic etc.)
So, in less than 2 years, we could see this lineup:
iPad mini
$199
iPad 2
$299
iPad (3rd gen)
$399
2013 iPad
$499
No price umbrella.
Key difference between iPad and iPhone is carrier subsidies. By all accounts, Apple is still charging high prices, higher than competitors, for iPhones sold with carrier contracts.
The iPad has no such extra revenue. If it's $199, that's all the money Apple ever gets (and they don't even get that since retail isn't free, even on the Apple store).
I think by price umbrella Cook does not mean price matching. I think he means not leaving a large enough gap for competitors to get in under, but that's not the same as no gap at all. We'll see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
I don't think that institutional investors know haw to run innovative companies. That is why they are in the investment business - because they know haw to do that better.
And in the investment biz, you make money by investing in companies like Apple, appointing a wise BOD, who do things like, among other things, hiring management who know how to run a company in a manner which is likely to produce the maximum total profits.
Apple's current BOD was handpicked by Jobs. They don't know how to pick "wise" boards either. They usually stuff them with investor types. Look at HP's board and see where it has gotten them. Wise boards are even rarer than good CEO's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna
Then you must be thrilled about how you have been able to use a stylus since the first iPhone came out
That was my reaction: while I don't, I have a colleague who's used one since she bought her first iPhone.
Well, eventually, not soon but eventually, there will be a convergence of OS X and iOS. Then and only then will we have larger iPads, and most likely by another name. They won't run both OS X and iOS, the way Microsoft is trying to do. It will be a more singular combined iOSxi, or maybe just OSXi and then you'll see 13" and 15" tablets. We have to wait for Microsoft to fc@k it up first, which they will certainly do. And we need still lighter components.
Discussions about profit though pull the thread off course. One though that I see not being possible is iPad Mini replacing a Touch. The reasons is simple Touch fits in ones pocket, there are other considerations but that single thought means that if this guy is marketed as an iPod it will be an addition to the Touch or whatever replaces the Touch.
As to the usefullness of something iPad Mini sized I see great sales myself. Interestingly I see such a unit being a big hit in business. Given a year or too for adoption to wind up I could easily see 12-18 million in sales a quarter though I see 6 million the first quarter as a bit stiff.
2012
iPad RD (unchanged)
IPad mini SD (16:9)
iPhone 5 (16:9 -- large form factor)
IPod Touch (16:9 or unchanged)
iPhone 4S (small form factor)
2013
New iPad RD (large ff -- MacBooks still serve larger screen needs)
iPad Mini RD (16:9) (small ff)
iPhone 6 (16:9) (large ff)
iPod touch discontinued or upgraded to RD depending on how it sells after iPad mini
IPhone 4S 2.0 SD (small ff upgraded to iPhone 5 specs)
iPod moniker relegated to shuffle and nano sized devices only
IOS already is Mac OS, it just has a different user interface. The kernel and core features are very much the same. It is only in how applications are handled that things differ, with iOS being focused on user interaction with a single app. The fundamental problem is the differing user interaction which effectively means that full convergence will never happen. At least not if Apple wants to keep Mac OS/X users around.
Why does his opinion, in this case, seem to indicate a political slant in your mind? If someone has a feeling that they are forced to upgrade faster than they want I really don't see how you can rationally tie that to a political belief system. This may all be true but that really has nothing to do with how people feel. No matter what Apples strategy is, the abandonment of relatively new hardware can leave people with a bitter taste in their mouths. In the end it is about being put in a position where you feel as if you are forced to upgrade simply to keep up with Apples changes that leave relatively new hardware behind. His reasoning may not be perfect but that doesn't discount the point that many people don't like the idea of being put into a position where they have too update just to keep software current. Frankly I really don't know what Apples motivation is here. If I want to pull possibilities out of my behind I would have to say this issue is a result of a lack of attention to the Mac line while going after mobile devices. That is a drive for profit but not in the sense explored here The trouble here, which has the potential to cast much negative light on Apple, is that their behavior generates much speculation about why hardware is becoming obsolete so fast. Trying to say it hasn't, isn't helping any because different people have different expectations here. The simple fact is that people expect three year old hardware to be able to run today's operating systems. It is not an unreasonable expectation, thus the speculation about what is wrong with Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
... I'll say it again: Everything else is a tactic designed to accomplish this strategic goal. Everything else is a means to an end.
"Saying it again" doesn't make it anything other than rhetoric. In fact, it exposes it as precisely that.
At least you used the right verb to describe this list.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterK
Release it for $199 and call it The New iPod Touch. This breathes new life into the iPod line and diminishes the perceived role of the Nexus 7 and Kindle Fire to being iPod Touch competitors. Then Apple can just fight it out with the Microsoft Surface, since they'll be the only "real" iPad competitor at the 10" size. Kids (the biggest market for the current iPod Touch) will be delighted to have a larger form factor and more capability.
No, I think it will be an iPad mini and run apps in the iPad style. This means it would have the extended features that the iPad apps do, such as mail, Music, Facebook, etc. Plus, the iPod touch would still be a great gym type device, since a 7"+ iPod Touch would be impractical for sports use.
Wait a second. MacBook Pro International Holdings sold you exclusive intellectual property rights to silly comments for the world excluding the United States. The intellectual property rights to silly comments for the United States are held by another company, MacBook Pro Technology, which is a subsidiary of MacBook Pro International Holdings.
As President and CEO of MacBook Pro International Holdings, I was not aware of the negotiations with MacBook Pro International Holdings of which I am also President and CEO as the negotiations concern two independent regions.
You can settle the dispute and avoid a costly legal battle by paying a mere USD $1.6 billion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
"Saying it again" doesn't make it anything other than rhetoric. In fact, it exposes it as precisely that.
Look at the substance and not the form.