How often do people compare Apple products and competitors side by side before choosing?
This doesn't happen at the Apple Store. You go in and choose from iPad, iPad2 and iPad Mini.
It doesn't happen much at carriers because we have heard often that staff there undersell the iPhone. Yet it represents 70% of AT&T sales.
Does it happen often at Best Buy, etc.? To a degree but I imagine Apple winning most of the time because Apple products just feel better.
What about on line? This is where it gets interesting because you can't feel the superior quality of iDevices. You cannot discover the quicker response of iOS (perhaps not as obvious as it once was). So price matters more.
On Apple's investor call this afternoon Peter Oppenheimer said the mini has significantly reduced margins compared to their other products. If that's the case, you throw retina on this product and it would be way more than $329. I don't think anyone can fairly judge the screen until they use it and then compare it to a Fire, Nook or Nexus. I would have preferred the $299 price point but if they're already taking a hit on margins at $329, $299 is surely out of the question,
That's interesting. Those reduced margins must be due to the new tech involved in it's construction, since it's internals are all essentially a pared down version of the iPad 2's guts. If this is the case, those margins should increase to Apple's normal levels with the next iteration, assuming they keep this price structure.
They're NOT inferior screens, you dunce! We don't need another screen size to fragment the platform. As it is all existing apps will run on the Mini without modification. It has the same pixel count as the iPad, which makes it a higher resolution--in the direction of retina, which is a good thing. A retina display would have given you something else to complain about--an even higher price.
Dunce? What are you, five? If you had a point, I don't care to read it, as I have no interest talking to the intellectual equivalent of a small, ill mannered child.
A good historical lesson. IBM did not get into the PC market for fear of canibalizing mainframe sales of 360 and 34/36/38s. Worrying about current products against the relentless march of technology and believing your company is so powerful is a foolish thing to do.
Is Cook trying to emulate Ballmer? Obviously Cook is not stupid, but this was a truly stupid statement that I would not have expected from him. Statements like this about a competitor from top management wont sell a single Apple unit, and can only hurt Apple. And he even does it admitting that he doesn't know the product he is taking about!
Cook is right saying this. But, for exactly the same reason, they should release a Mac Mini with a good dedicated GPU even if it could hurt new iMac sales. Apple, please, apply the same "not to worry about canibalization of our own product" approach to your Mac line as well, not just the iOS line.
good point, I ordered my 5 online after going to an Apple store to see it, If there was a line I probably would have just ordered it because I have the 3G. The mini is a different story, I would think people would want to check that out first unless they own a Pad
Great article. I think, however, that a concern might be if people buy a lower margin product in preference to a higher margin product, because that would lower overall profits.
Go ask teenagers whether they want a Kindle or a Nexus or an iPad mini. There will be a lot of iPad mini's under the Christmas tree this year, and Mom & Dad will be happy because now they get their own iPad back. There may be some kids who are disappointed because they get a gift card that says "your iPad mini will be coming soon" because Apple won't be able to ship enough units by Christmas to meet demand, but those kids will have a lot happier look on their face than the kids who open their gift to find a Kindle. The kids with a iPad mini will be showing them off at school the first day back to classes, the kids with a Kindle will leave them at home.
@ireland, it's 329 because it's worth it due to the better quality of manufacture and design, not only that but Apple is not interested in the bottom feeders, never has been and never will, it's not their model.
Better to drag the riff raff up to a more enjoyable level of life. Aesthetics is not a small matter, whether one realises it or not.
You're taking about why it's not cheaply priced, I'm talking about why it's specifically priced at $329.
How often do people compare Apple products and competitors side by side before choosing?
This doesn't happen at the Apple Store. You go in and choose from iPad, iPad2 and iPad Mini.
It doesn't happen much at carriers because we have heard often that staff there undersell the iPhone. Yet it represents 70% of AT&T sales.
Does it happen often at Best Buy, etc.? To a degree but I imagine Apple winning most of the time because Apple products just feel better.
I do wonder how many ill-informed buyers are opting for Apple's iPad2 over the iPad (Retina) simply because Apple's strange naming convention leads them to think the 2 is a newer version.
Especially this chart, I suspect who ever did this did it well before they intro the product. Unless people who were predicting a $229 ipad mini they failed to factor in the itouch in their analysis
OK I need someone to explain something to me. Amazon had a bad quarter, they're ripping it on CNBC this morning because on the investor call every question got a non-answer. Yet the stock is up like 4% this morning. How many companies post a loss and ther stock goes up $10. The way Wall Street treats amazon makes zero sense to me.
Cook is right saying this. But, for exactly the same reason, they should release a Mac Mini with a good dedicated GPU even if it could hurt new iMac sales. Apple, please, apply the same "not to worry about canibalization of our own product" approach to your Mac line as well, not just the iOS line.
In my opinion, Apple does not want to go cheap for its target demography. Cheap is relative term. You can call $30K BMW 128 cheap but expensive if it is Honda Civic even the target market is for young adult.
Apple want to target the market that would like to have Apple quality iDevice and apps but more portal than iPad4. It is new demography for Apple, before iPad mini, there is no offering from Apple for 7 inch size tablet.
Apple goes this for its Mac lines as well. I distinguishes its MacBook Air and MacBook Pro further by its screen quality and offering size. Same goes for iPad mini, iPad 2 and iPad 4. It cover three demography: Most portable, larger but non premium tablet, and premium table offering iPad 4 with superior screen.
In short, Apple does not compete in low end market of its intended demography. The journalists and wall street seem does not notice this. It owns high end and more stable and profitable groups of its intended target demography.
Cook is right saying this. But, for exactly the same reason, they should release a Mac Mini with a good dedicated GPU even if it could hurt new iMac sales. Apple, please, apply the same "not to worry about canibalization of our own product" approach to your Mac line as well, not just the iOS line.
I agree since I wanted a mini with a GPU but the new mini is great for home media and SOHO servers. For gaming, I guess Apple prefers that you get an iPad which is really what I wanted the GPU in the mini for. I think the mini will be fast enough for transcoding video.
For graphics pros and prosumers the new iMac 27" is pretty much what you want on your desk anyway. Not a Mini with a 512MB GT 640M which is all we would have gotten anyway. Time is money and the time spent watching a beachball will flush the cost differential away.
It sucks but the change makes a certain amount of sense. The new mini serves the HTPC folks as well as the SOHO folks very well and even better fills the missing xserve niche.
So I'll pick up an iMac. My next mini will be a Haswell one since the IB HD4000 is almost good enough for what I want and the Haswell will be twice as fast and was running COD:MW3 pretty well at IDF. The estimate is that the top end GT3 model with 40 shaders is in the GT 640 range.
The mini and graphics performance have a checkered past. This is just one of those disappointing models but I bet the next one will be fine.
His point is that they rather go after those 300 M yearly PC buyers than cannibalize Apple's own sales. 300 M units is the target audience. According to the earlier AI post, Apples current sales are:
26.9 M phones, 14 M iPads and 4.9 M Macs. Of which desktop sales are 20%, which means just under a million desktop Macs. Split between the Mac mini, the Pro and the iMac.
Sales of portables in the PC market account for roughly 60%.- 180 M portables, 120 M desktop units, most of which are in the sub-1000 price bracket. A price bracket of high volumes and low profit margins Apple wisely does not want to compete in. There is no Windoze tablet market. Yet.
Apple has the iPhone, the iTouch, the iPad and the Mac mini to put up against that. Now how are you going to convince Mr or Ms sub-1000 PC buyer who is already indoctrinated in, invested in and accustomed to using Windoze and thinks in terms of sub-1000 prices for a computer to switch and buy an Apple?
Comments
How often do people compare Apple products and competitors side by side before choosing?
This doesn't happen at the Apple Store. You go in and choose from iPad, iPad2 and iPad Mini.
It doesn't happen much at carriers because we have heard often that staff there undersell the iPhone. Yet it represents 70% of AT&T sales.
Does it happen often at Best Buy, etc.? To a degree but I imagine Apple winning most of the time because Apple products just feel better.
What about on line? This is where it gets interesting because you can't feel the superior quality of iDevices. You cannot discover the quicker response of iOS (perhaps not as obvious as it once was). So price matters more.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan
On Apple's investor call this afternoon Peter Oppenheimer said the mini has significantly reduced margins compared to their other products. If that's the case, you throw retina on this product and it would be way more than $329. I don't think anyone can fairly judge the screen until they use it and then compare it to a Fire, Nook or Nexus. I would have preferred the $299 price point but if they're already taking a hit on margins at $329, $299 is surely out of the question,
That's interesting. Those reduced margins must be due to the new tech involved in it's construction, since it's internals are all essentially a pared down version of the iPad 2's guts. If this is the case, those margins should increase to Apple's normal levels with the next iteration, assuming they keep this price structure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DanielSW
They're NOT inferior screens, you dunce! We don't need another screen size to fragment the platform. As it is all existing apps will run on the Mini without modification. It has the same pixel count as the iPad, which makes it a higher resolution--in the direction of retina, which is a good thing. A retina display would have given you something else to complain about--an even higher price.
Dunce? What are you, five? If you had a point, I don't care to read it, as I have no interest talking to the intellectual equivalent of a small, ill mannered child.
The imac is the no1 selling desktop computer..
A good historical lesson. IBM did not get into the PC market for fear of canibalizing mainframe sales of 360 and 34/36/38s. Worrying about current products against the relentless march of technology and believing your company is so powerful is a foolish thing to do.
Is Cook trying to emulate Ballmer? Obviously Cook is not stupid, but this was a truly stupid statement that I would not have expected from him. Statements like this about a competitor from top management wont sell a single Apple unit, and can only hurt Apple. And he even does it admitting that he doesn't know the product he is taking about!
Cook is right saying this. But, for exactly the same reason, they should release a Mac Mini with a good dedicated GPU even if it could hurt new iMac sales. Apple, please, apply the same "not to worry about canibalization of our own product" approach to your Mac line as well, not just the iOS line.
cannibalized by inferior products? they sell top of the line, they don't need to price it at $299
good point, I ordered my 5 online after going to an Apple store to see it, If there was a line I probably would have just ordered it because I have the 3G. The mini is a different story, I would think people would want to check that out first unless they own a Pad
Quote:
Originally Posted by AnalogJack
@ireland, it's 329 because it's worth it due to the better quality of manufacture and design, not only that but Apple is not interested in the bottom feeders, never has been and never will, it's not their model.
Better to drag the riff raff up to a more enjoyable level of life. Aesthetics is not a small matter, whether one realises it or not.
You're taking about why it's not cheaply priced, I'm talking about why it's specifically priced at $329.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
How often do people compare Apple products and competitors side by side before choosing?
This doesn't happen at the Apple Store. You go in and choose from iPad, iPad2 and iPad Mini.
It doesn't happen much at carriers because we have heard often that staff there undersell the iPhone. Yet it represents 70% of AT&T sales.
Does it happen often at Best Buy, etc.? To a degree but I imagine Apple winning most of the time because Apple products just feel better.
I do wonder how many ill-informed buyers are opting for Apple's iPad2 over the iPad (Retina) simply because Apple's strange naming convention leads them to think the 2 is a newer version.
This article explains what apple is doing with their ipad products and pricing
http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/10/apple-inc-aapl-could-face-profit-issues-with-ipad-mini-pricing/
Especially this chart, I suspect who ever did this did it well before they intro the product. Unless people who were predicting a $229 ipad mini they failed to factor in the itouch in their analysis
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
Cook is right saying this. But, for exactly the same reason, they should release a Mac Mini with a good dedicated GPU even if it could hurt new iMac sales. Apple, please, apply the same "not to worry about canibalization of our own product" approach to your Mac line as well, not just the iOS line.
Thank you!
Thank you! My sentiments exactly.
Apple want to target the market that would like to have Apple quality iDevice and apps but more portal than iPad4. It is new demography for Apple, before iPad mini, there is no offering from Apple for 7 inch size tablet.
Apple goes this for its Mac lines as well. I distinguishes its MacBook Air and MacBook Pro further by its screen quality and offering size. Same goes for iPad mini, iPad 2 and iPad 4. It cover three demography: Most portable, larger but non premium tablet, and premium table offering iPad 4 with superior screen.
In short, Apple does not compete in low end market of its intended demography. The journalists and wall street seem does not notice this. It owns high end and more stable and profitable groups of its intended target demography.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ecs
Cook is right saying this. But, for exactly the same reason, they should release a Mac Mini with a good dedicated GPU even if it could hurt new iMac sales. Apple, please, apply the same "not to worry about canibalization of our own product" approach to your Mac line as well, not just the iOS line.
I agree since I wanted a mini with a GPU but the new mini is great for home media and SOHO servers. For gaming, I guess Apple prefers that you get an iPad which is really what I wanted the GPU in the mini for. I think the mini will be fast enough for transcoding video.
For graphics pros and prosumers the new iMac 27" is pretty much what you want on your desk anyway. Not a Mini with a 512MB GT 640M which is all we would have gotten anyway. Time is money and the time spent watching a beachball will flush the cost differential away.
It sucks but the change makes a certain amount of sense. The new mini serves the HTPC folks as well as the SOHO folks very well and even better fills the missing xserve niche.
So I'll pick up an iMac. My next mini will be a Haswell one since the IB HD4000 is almost good enough for what I want and the Haswell will be twice as fast and was running COD:MW3 pretty well at IDF. The estimate is that the top end GT3 model with 40 shaders is in the GT 640 range.
The mini and graphics performance have a checkered past. This is just one of those disappointing models but I bet the next one will be fine.
His point is that they rather go after those 300 M yearly PC buyers than cannibalize Apple's own sales. 300 M units is the target audience. According to the earlier AI post, Apples current sales are:
26.9 M phones, 14 M iPads and 4.9 M Macs. Of which desktop sales are 20%, which means just under a million desktop Macs. Split between the Mac mini, the Pro and the iMac.
Sales of portables in the PC market account for roughly 60%.- 180 M portables, 120 M desktop units, most of which are in the sub-1000 price bracket. A price bracket of high volumes and low profit margins Apple wisely does not want to compete in. There is no Windoze tablet market. Yet.
Apple has the iPhone, the iTouch, the iPad and the Mac mini to put up against that. Now how are you going to convince Mr or Ms sub-1000 PC buyer who is already indoctrinated in, invested in and accustomed to using Windoze and thinks in terms of sub-1000 prices for a computer to switch and buy an Apple?
If Apple is no longer worried about cannibalization then I have just one question.
Where's my XMac?"