Well when all you have going for you is market share of course that's your mantra. When you can't compete on quality, ease of use, customer satisfaction, developer interest, profit margins, etc. the number of widgets pumped out the factory door becomes your goal.
Amazon sells the Kindles at a loss supposedly and they reported a loss in their financial results. Google and Amazon's business models are to sell the "printer" at a loss and make money on the "ink." Hey, it worked for HP for awhile didn't it.? Apple's model is the exact opposite.
So yes, as long as Apple is selling product at a pace it can barely keep up with we fans should be pleased and not worry about market share. The tech world, however, lives and dies by market share. Selling more means it's the better product in their eyes, even if you lose money in the process.
Apple is undergoing some very clear shake ups and while they used to blow away their own conservative estimates and even the whisper numbers Wall Street could mutter, now they are barely meeting their own estimates.
Apple is already largely ceding majority marketshare to Android. Then the talk was that while a consortium of Android manufacturers was outselling Apple, Apple was still shipping more than every individual company. Now Samsung is outshipping Apple. Apple still has a strong hold in the countries where purchases are subsidized with expensive post-paid contracts. In areas of the world where this isn't true Apple is losing share.
Android competitors started off behind. Then they reached parity on hardware. Then they started to exceed Apple but we didn't mind waiting a few extra months to see what Apple would come up with next. We are now at a stage where Apple has just released all their pent up products and Google unleashes products that match or best Apple six days later. This isn't Spring as it has been the last couple years and we will wait until September (after first wondering what happened to July releases) to see what Apple will do to match the competition. Apple threw their best out there and it isn't going to be good enough.
Does this mean Apple dies? No. Does it mean Apple will automatically lose? No. Does it mean Apple won't sell anything? No.
A million units at $200-250 a unit is over $2 billion of revenue a month. Since when the hell did we start turning up our noses and ignoring competition only generating $2 billion in sales a month? Also it is only one competitor. Apple has to beat a dozen of them. Are we going to hear the same tired refrains? Yes but none of them ship more than Apple. Apple has majority share. Then Apple has minority majority share. Then finally Apple has a very large share and takes better profits. Then......
We shouldn't want until those final outcomes. Apple needs to step it up.
Google just refreshed this line. A 32 gig model WITH cellular radio is $30 cheaper than the baseline iPad mini. I understand Apple products are premium but the reality is the iPad line is more vunerable because there are no cell providers helping hid the true cost with confusing subsidized contracts. There are no cell companies stealing the price difference as profits. Right now as an example, a Samsung Galaxy S3 basically looks no different in cost to an iPhone 5 to U.S. consumers because the major cell providers charge $199 for each and sign both customers to 2 year contracts. They just pay Samsung less and keep more for themselves in profits or they may even be using those cheaper phones to help subsidize what they have to pay Apple for the iPhone.
The point is the contracts are a form of hidden credit and distort the prices within the market. When those distortions sort out, Apple could be hurting. Likewise since there is no subsidy model for the iPad, Apple could have a much harder time and cede marketshare that much faster.
Apple doesn't care too much about market share. It still has the lion's share on the profit pie. The no subsidy issue really caused problems for the iPad, they only sold 100 MM of them.
I'm a little sick of reading the same circular rationalizations around here about why Apple doesn't have to respond or worry about any other forces or competitors in the market.
Who made that statement?
I've never seen anyone say that Apple doesn't have to worry about or respond to other forces or competitors in the market. Please cite some examples.
What I have seen (numerous times) is a statement that Apple is not PRIMARILY driven by copying every move that the competition makes. If a competitor does something smart, Apple is more than willing to consider it. If the market goes in a certain direction, Apple responds (witness the iPad Mini and larger iPhone, for example). Apple has been primarily leading the market for the past decade rather than following it - but that's not the same as your claim that anyone is suggesting that they can totally ignore the market.
I have several thoughts about this news. First, I am amazed that Apple competing companies are willing to make such low margin products in order to make sales. Because the margin is so low are they paying the workers as much as Apple contractor Foxconn or even lower?
Second, these manufacturers create jobs for doing this.
Lastly, if we keep the history of Apple competition with PC manufacturers in mind. Apple should not be misled by this competition. Apple's failure in PC is not due to competition. It is due to Apple not able to sell Macs to people that are able to afford Macs. iPhones and iPads are better than the Android devices. It has established very good sales channels after Steve Jobs returned. Apple only need to keep its devices better.
I'm a little sick of reading the same circular rationalizations around here about why Apple doesn't have to respond or worry about any other forces or competitors in the market.
Oh, but Apple does respond. Apple's response does not, however, fall into the trap of merely being spec- or low price-oneupmanship. Apple defines itself by delivering a better product, not more megahertzes for less cash. So Apple chases the customer instead of chasing the competition. They balance the need for profits with the need for market share. But don't construe that as "not responding or worrying about other competitors in the market."
A million units at $200-250 a unit is over $2 billion of revenue a month. Since when the hell did we start turning up our noses and ignoring competition only generating $2 billion in sales a month? Also it is only one competitor. Apple has to beat a dozen of them. Are we going to hear the same tired refrains? Yes but none of them ship more than Apple. Apple has majority share. Then Apple has minority majority share. Then finally Apple has a very large share and takes better profits. Then......
How does a million units at $200-250 a unit result in over $2 billion of revenue a month? Sounds like a little over $200 million a month which really is not all that much to Apple. But nice try ...
So wait... As we approach the Holidays, sales of other tablets are increasing!? Well, duh! Did these people forget how well the Kindle Fire sold over the Holidays and then saw a dramatic decrease (fell off a cliff) of sales in the following quarter?
Not for long. I bet the Mini takes a huge bite out of this (and every other tablet sales).
Any guess on Mini first week sales? 5 Million?
I somewhat agree on this. There were reports that sales of the Nexus and Fire jumped immediately after Apple introduced the iPad mini. Of course this spike will level out as I'm sure most of those sales went to cheapskates who were only interested in the mini if it was priced as cheap as the others.
I think people get this wrong. Android tablets are comparing themselves to the ipad, but the real threat is the windows tablets.
Apple fans are going to continu to buy into Apple because Apple has an extremely high retention ratio, but the Android and Windows buyers are all the same. If windows surface takes off, Android is going to be the one suffering from it.
I was thinking the same thing. Plus how many were returned.
Interesting that 2.5-3 million in 3 months is of note for this device when Apple probably did that in ship to home preorders.
I would love to see a device what really competes with the iPads because that has benefits for Apple but yet again this doesn't seem like it did it. Not even close
The comparisons, be it by themselves or the media, are because the iPad is seen as the target.
But I have to agree with you that at least for the month no one item has a snowballs change in hades and they should be trying to be the best 'other' in the market before going after the currently untouchable winner
Well when all you have going for you is market share of course that's your mantra. When you can't compete on quality, ease of use, customer satisfaction, developer interest, profit margins, etc. the number of widgets pumped out the factory door becomes your goal.
Amazon sells the Kindles at a loss supposedly and they reported a loss in their financial results. Google and Amazon's business models are to sell the "printer" at a loss and make money on the "ink." Hey, it worked for HP for awhile didn't it.? Apple's model is the exact opposite.
So yes, as long as Apple is selling product at a pace it can barely keep up with we fans should be pleased and not worry about market share. The tech world, however, lives and dies by market share. Selling more means it's the better product in their eyes, even if you lose money in the process.
Who made that statement?
I've never seen anyone say that Apple doesn't have to worry about or respond to other forces or competitors in the market. Please cite some examples.
What I have seen (numerous times) is a statement that Apple is not PRIMARILY driven by copying every move that the competition makes. If a competitor does something smart, Apple is more than willing to consider it. If the market goes in a certain direction, Apple responds (witness the iPad Mini and larger iPhone, for example). Apple has been primarily leading the market for the past decade rather than following it - but that's not the same as your claim that anyone is suggesting that they can totally ignore the market.
You must not have read this thread...or any other thread that talks about Apple's competitors.
Apple doesn't care too much about market share. It still has the lion's share on the profit pie. The no subsidy issue really caused problems for the iPad, they only sold 100 MM of them.
Thanks for being the example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I'm a little sick of reading the same circular rationalizations around here about why Apple doesn't have to respond or worry about any other forces or competitors in the market.
Who made that statement?
I've never seen anyone say that Apple doesn't have to worry about or respond to other forces or competitors in the market. Please cite some examples.
What I have seen (numerous times) is a statement that Apple is not PRIMARILY driven by copying every move that the competition makes. If a competitor does something smart, Apple is more than willing to consider it. If the market goes in a certain direction, Apple responds (witness the iPad Mini and larger iPhone, for example). Apple has been primarily leading the market for the past decade rather than following it - but that's not the same as your claim that anyone is suggesting that they can totally ignore the market.
See above. No one has said Apple has to copy. Apple DOES have to respond though. No one is above that. I wouldn't say Apple has been leading the last two years. I would say they started at parity at that point and 12 months later had fallen behind but people didn't mind waiting. Now two years later, they are clearly behind. The stock just plunged below $600. They've just tossed out a couple of execs. People cannot cite past success and simply suggest that the future will be the same trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baeder
How does a million units at $200-250 a unit result in over $2 billion of revenue a month? Sounds like a little over $200 million a month which really is not all that much to Apple. But nice try ...
I had a brain fart. I was reading an article where Android had 40% of the tablet market and Apple now has 60%. I was talking aobut the dozen competitors and something got jumped. Sorry and good catch.
Either way complaining about shipped vs sold doesn't get you very far.
It's not about "complaining", it's about significance and relevance...neither of which can be clearly defined unless one knows how many were SOLD. But yes, if assumptions like sell through or % returned can be made, then you at least have a basis.
I wouldn't say Apple has been leading the last two years. I would say they started at parity at that point and 12 months later had fallen behind but people didn't mind waiting. Now two years later, they are clearly behind. The stock just plunged below $600. They've just tossed out a couple of execs. People cannot cite past success and simply suggest that the future will be the same trend.
I call b.s. Though I'm sure it's selling well, anyone can say they're selling a million of this or a million of that if no one's checking and if they don't actually publish numbers. Me, I have over a million friends! I just don't feel like naming them all, however. See how that works?
Pricing the ipad mini lower would not make any difference at this time. When you sell all you can make just as quickly as you make them, why price it cheaper? You aren't going to sell any more because there aren't any more to sell.
Well, yes and no.
If Apple chose different build quality or different materials (i.e. cheaper build at $249 price point), then rate of manufacturing could have definitely increased.
Related to this, I contend that there are current supply chain and QC issues which makes it difficult to increase manufacturing, making it even less possible to reduce price point to the $299 "sweet spot". Many have refuted this sweet spot saying it's against Apple culture to build to a specific price point, but I stand by it (this time)...Apple just couldn't make it happen.
But yah, I totally agree that supply/demand largely dictates and with the current product, the $329 price is justified.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul94544
and you believe anything Google says you are a I%@$#$, Google is the FOX news of the hi tech industry
Google isn't announcing how many they've sold. The quotes are coming from someone at ASUS according to the story.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp
Well when all you have going for you is market share of course that's your mantra. When you can't compete on quality, ease of use, customer satisfaction, developer interest, profit margins, etc. the number of widgets pumped out the factory door becomes your goal.
Amazon sells the Kindles at a loss supposedly and they reported a loss in their financial results. Google and Amazon's business models are to sell the "printer" at a loss and make money on the "ink." Hey, it worked for HP for awhile didn't it.? Apple's model is the exact opposite.
So yes, as long as Apple is selling product at a pace it can barely keep up with we fans should be pleased and not worry about market share. The tech world, however, lives and dies by market share. Selling more means it's the better product in their eyes, even if you lose money in the process.
Well, Amazon did lose money last quarter!
Quote:
Originally Posted by allenbf
World domination is ALWAYS the goal...
I fixed that for ya...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
It is also interesting that Android enjoys a larger sales advantage in Europe, where the vaunted Apple ecosystem is far stronger.
Europe tends to be more price sensitive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
Apple is undergoing some very clear shake ups and while they used to blow away their own conservative estimates and even the whisper numbers Wall Street could mutter, now they are barely meeting their own estimates.
Apple is already largely ceding majority marketshare to Android. Then the talk was that while a consortium of Android manufacturers was outselling Apple, Apple was still shipping more than every individual company. Now Samsung is outshipping Apple. Apple still has a strong hold in the countries where purchases are subsidized with expensive post-paid contracts. In areas of the world where this isn't true Apple is losing share.
Android competitors started off behind. Then they reached parity on hardware. Then they started to exceed Apple but we didn't mind waiting a few extra months to see what Apple would come up with next. We are now at a stage where Apple has just released all their pent up products and Google unleashes products that match or best Apple six days later. This isn't Spring as it has been the last couple years and we will wait until September (after first wondering what happened to July releases) to see what Apple will do to match the competition. Apple threw their best out there and it isn't going to be good enough.
Does this mean Apple dies? No. Does it mean Apple will automatically lose? No. Does it mean Apple won't sell anything? No.
A million units at $200-250 a unit is over $2 billion of revenue a month. Since when the hell did we start turning up our noses and ignoring competition only generating $2 billion in sales a month? Also it is only one competitor. Apple has to beat a dozen of them. Are we going to hear the same tired refrains? Yes but none of them ship more than Apple. Apple has majority share. Then Apple has minority majority share. Then finally Apple has a very large share and takes better profits. Then......
We shouldn't want until those final outcomes. Apple needs to step it up.
Google just refreshed this line. A 32 gig model WITH cellular radio is $30 cheaper than the baseline iPad mini. I understand Apple products are premium but the reality is the iPad line is more vunerable because there are no cell providers helping hid the true cost with confusing subsidized contracts. There are no cell companies stealing the price difference as profits. Right now as an example, a Samsung Galaxy S3 basically looks no different in cost to an iPhone 5 to U.S. consumers because the major cell providers charge $199 for each and sign both customers to 2 year contracts. They just pay Samsung less and keep more for themselves in profits or they may even be using those cheaper phones to help subsidize what they have to pay Apple for the iPhone.
The point is the contracts are a form of hidden credit and distort the prices within the market. When those distortions sort out, Apple could be hurting. Likewise since there is no subsidy model for the iPad, Apple could have a much harder time and cede marketshare that much faster.
Apple doesn't care too much about market share. It still has the lion's share on the profit pie. The no subsidy issue really caused problems for the iPad, they only sold 100 MM of them.
"Massive company sells cheap technological item, people buy it" - Not a story.
"Massive company sells cheap technological item, less than 1 million people buy it" - embarrassing story for whoever that company might be.
Who made that statement?
I've never seen anyone say that Apple doesn't have to worry about or respond to other forces or competitors in the market. Please cite some examples.
What I have seen (numerous times) is a statement that Apple is not PRIMARILY driven by copying every move that the competition makes. If a competitor does something smart, Apple is more than willing to consider it. If the market goes in a certain direction, Apple responds (witness the iPad Mini and larger iPhone, for example). Apple has been primarily leading the market for the past decade rather than following it - but that's not the same as your claim that anyone is suggesting that they can totally ignore the market.
Second, these manufacturers create jobs for doing this.
Lastly, if we keep the history of Apple competition with PC manufacturers in mind. Apple should not be misled by this competition. Apple's failure in PC is not due to competition. It is due to Apple not able to sell Macs to people that are able to afford Macs. iPhones and iPads are better than the Android devices. It has established very good sales channels after Steve Jobs returned. Apple only need to keep its devices better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I'm a little sick of reading the same circular rationalizations around here about why Apple doesn't have to respond or worry about any other forces or competitors in the market.
Oh, but Apple does respond. Apple's response does not, however, fall into the trap of merely being spec- or low price-oneupmanship. Apple defines itself by delivering a better product, not more megahertzes for less cash. So Apple chases the customer instead of chasing the competition. They balance the need for profits with the need for market share. But don't construe that as "not responding or worrying about other competitors in the market."
Quote:
Originally Posted by mac-user
sold products or shipped into the channels?
Agree. Remember all the Samsung numbers that were reported as sold? The number reported during the court trial were much much lower.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
A million units at $200-250 a unit is over $2 billion of revenue a month. Since when the hell did we start turning up our noses and ignoring competition only generating $2 billion in sales a month? Also it is only one competitor. Apple has to beat a dozen of them. Are we going to hear the same tired refrains? Yes but none of them ship more than Apple. Apple has majority share. Then Apple has minority majority share. Then finally Apple has a very large share and takes better profits. Then......
How does a million units at $200-250 a unit result in over $2 billion of revenue a month? Sounds like a little over $200 million a month which really is not all that much to Apple. But nice try ...
So wait... As we approach the Holidays, sales of other tablets are increasing!? Well, duh! Did these people forget how well the Kindle Fire sold over the Holidays and then saw a dramatic decrease (fell off a cliff) of sales in the following quarter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snowdog65
Quote:
Not for long. I bet the Mini takes a huge bite out of this (and every other tablet sales).
Any guess on Mini first week sales? 5 Million?
I somewhat agree on this. There were reports that sales of the Nexus and Fire jumped immediately after Apple introduced the iPad mini. Of course this spike will level out as I'm sure most of those sales went to cheapskates who were only interested in the mini if it was priced as cheap as the others.
You must not have read this thread...or any other thread that talks about Apple's competitors.
Anyone can ship 1 million units...how many were sold..
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
Apple doesn't care too much about market share. It still has the lion's share on the profit pie. The no subsidy issue really caused problems for the iPad, they only sold 100 MM of them.
Thanks for being the example.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I'm a little sick of reading the same circular rationalizations around here about why Apple doesn't have to respond or worry about any other forces or competitors in the market.
Who made that statement?
I've never seen anyone say that Apple doesn't have to worry about or respond to other forces or competitors in the market. Please cite some examples.
What I have seen (numerous times) is a statement that Apple is not PRIMARILY driven by copying every move that the competition makes. If a competitor does something smart, Apple is more than willing to consider it. If the market goes in a certain direction, Apple responds (witness the iPad Mini and larger iPhone, for example). Apple has been primarily leading the market for the past decade rather than following it - but that's not the same as your claim that anyone is suggesting that they can totally ignore the market.
See above. No one has said Apple has to copy. Apple DOES have to respond though. No one is above that. I wouldn't say Apple has been leading the last two years. I would say they started at parity at that point and 12 months later had fallen behind but people didn't mind waiting. Now two years later, they are clearly behind. The stock just plunged below $600. They've just tossed out a couple of execs. People cannot cite past success and simply suggest that the future will be the same trend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by baeder
How does a million units at $200-250 a unit result in over $2 billion of revenue a month? Sounds like a little over $200 million a month which really is not all that much to Apple. But nice try ...
I had a brain fart. I was reading an article where Android had 40% of the tablet market and Apple now has 60%. I was talking aobut the dozen competitors and something got jumped. Sorry and good catch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bryanl
Either way complaining about shipped vs sold doesn't get you very far.
It's not about "complaining", it's about significance and relevance...neither of which can be clearly defined unless one knows how many were SOLD. But yes, if assumptions like sell through or % returned can be made, then you at least have a basis.
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman
I wouldn't say Apple has been leading the last two years. I would say they started at parity at that point and 12 months later had fallen behind but people didn't mind waiting. Now two years later, they are clearly behind. The stock just plunged below $600. They've just tossed out a couple of execs. People cannot cite past success and simply suggest that the future will be the same trend.
Leadership in what sense, exactly?
I call b.s. Though I'm sure it's selling well, anyone can say they're selling a million of this or a million of that if no one's checking and if they don't actually publish numbers. Me, I have over a million friends! I just don't feel like naming them all, however. See how that works?
Quote:
Originally Posted by diplication
Pricing the ipad mini lower would not make any difference at this time. When you sell all you can make just as quickly as you make them, why price it cheaper? You aren't going to sell any more because there aren't any more to sell.
Well, yes and no.
If Apple chose different build quality or different materials (i.e. cheaper build at $249 price point), then rate of manufacturing could have definitely increased.
Related to this, I contend that there are current supply chain and QC issues which makes it difficult to increase manufacturing, making it even less possible to reduce price point to the $299 "sweet spot". Many have refuted this sweet spot saying it's against Apple culture to build to a specific price point, but I stand by it (this time)...Apple just couldn't make it happen.
But yah, I totally agree that supply/demand largely dictates and with the current product, the $329 price is justified.