this is what i hate (among other things) about analyst. one month, they can claim apple ordered 65MM parts. The next, they say they actually cut the order to 40-45 MM parts. When in actuality the order was 45MM to begin with. and yet nothing happens to them.
this is what i hate (among other things) about analyst. one month, they can claim apple ordered 65MM parts. The next, they say they actually cut the order to 40-45 MM parts. When in actuality the order was 45MM to begin with. and yet nothing happens to them.
And you know the most outrageous thing? Apple stock doesn't move up when news like this is release. But it will go down when the "correction" comes and they claim "lower than expected demand". The demand was never there. Nobody knows how much Apple is planning to sell. They may purposely inflate their order numbers to confuse the supply chain leaks.
This is not good for apple. With a much lower average selling price (ASP) they have to sell twice as many just to do the same revenue and profit on these. Can Tim Cook make this many? Once retina display comes they won't be able to make enough, margins will shrink from the more expensive screen and yields down again. They had no choice to do this as if they did not it would be done to them by someone else.
This is what happens when competition enters. They have to create a whole new category as big as iphone or ipad to keep the stock where it is today. Otherwise we'll just keep seeing flat to negative growth as the competitive advantage continues to decline
People keep saying that Apple makes less margin on the iPad mini. I know if sells for less, but I suspect that it also cost significantly less to produce...
Does any one have any real proof that the iPad Mini creates significantly less profit for Apple than the iPad?
I honest do not know if it does or does not, but people keep stating it as a fact and I have seen no real proof one way or the other....
I don't know why every Apple's product is faced with display constraints. MBP Retina: retina panels not good enough. iMac: screen lamination process. iPad 3: retina screen shortage again. iPad Mini: display shortage (on non-retina model???).
Why can't Apple just buy Sharp and use their technology to make all the screens they want?
Unfortunately, Samsung was the only one that could produce enough displays to keep up with Apple's demand. I can understand why Apple dumped them, but it has been an issue ever since....
I built industrial touch screen computers during the 90's. I always had more trouble/failures with Sharp displays that any other manufacture at the time....
I don't know why every Apple's product is faced with display constraints. MBP Retina: retina panels not good enough. iMac: screen lamination process. iPad 3: retina screen shortage again. iPad Mini: display shortage (on non-retina model???).
Why can't Apple just buy Sharp and use their technology to make all the screens they want?
Well, they have a bad habit of pushing the envelope on these screens. The mini was also kind of a lamination issue, maybe, with the G/F2 move.
I really wish we had some good background reporting on their display technology that is designed for a general audience. It seems they and Foxconn are buying pieces of Sharp to get IGZO underway. It's a big story, but where can you read about it? Besides DigiTimes, that is.
This is not good for apple. With a much lower average selling price (ASP) they have to sell twice as many just to do the same revenue and profit on these.
Well... people buy what they want. The bigger iPad with the higher ASP is still available... if they choose.
Look at it this way: a person buying an iPad Mini at $330 is better than a person NOT buying a regular iPad at $500.
At least both iPads are profitable... they're not selling the iPad Mini at cost just to make their numbers go up.
Ford would love you to buy a Mustang for $27,000.... but they're fine if you only buy a Fiesta for $17,000
<h1 class="forum-h1" id="user_yui_3_7_3_1_1362098845348_768" style="margin-top:0px;margin-bottom:15px;padding-bottom:4px;font-size:26px;line-height:1em;color:rgb(58,66,73);font-family:FranklinGothicFSCdRegular;">Apple expected to go bankrupt, kill babies in 2013</h1>
Who knows, this might actually raise the stock instead of good news.
Comments
I don't know why every Apple's product is faced with display constraints. MBP Retina: retina panels not good enough. iMac: screen lamination process. iPad 3: retina screen shortage again. iPad Mini: display shortage (on non-retina model???).
Why can't Apple just buy Sharp and use their technology to make all the screens they want?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark
this is what i hate (among other things) about analyst. one month, they can claim apple ordered 65MM parts. The next, they say they actually cut the order to 40-45 MM parts. When in actuality the order was 45MM to begin with. and yet nothing happens to them.
And you know the most outrageous thing? Apple stock doesn't move up when news like this is release. But it will go down when the "correction" comes and they claim "lower than expected demand". The demand was never there. Nobody knows how much Apple is planning to sell. They may purposely inflate their order numbers to confuse the supply chain leaks.
Apple expected to go bankrupt, kill babies in 2013
Who knows, this might actually raise the stock instead of good news.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mvigod
This is not good for apple. With a much lower average selling price (ASP) they have to sell twice as many just to do the same revenue and profit on these. Can Tim Cook make this many? Once retina display comes they won't be able to make enough, margins will shrink from the more expensive screen and yields down again. They had no choice to do this as if they did not it would be done to them by someone else.
This is what happens when competition enters. They have to create a whole new category as big as iphone or ipad to keep the stock where it is today. Otherwise we'll just keep seeing flat to negative growth as the competitive advantage continues to decline
People keep saying that Apple makes less margin on the iPad mini. I know if sells for less, but I suspect that it also cost significantly less to produce...
Does any one have any real proof that the iPad Mini creates significantly less profit for Apple than the iPad?
I honest do not know if it does or does not, but people keep stating it as a fact and I have seen no real proof one way or the other....
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoffdino
I don't know why every Apple's product is faced with display constraints. MBP Retina: retina panels not good enough. iMac: screen lamination process. iPad 3: retina screen shortage again. iPad Mini: display shortage (on non-retina model???).
Why can't Apple just buy Sharp and use their technology to make all the screens they want?
Unfortunately, Samsung was the only one that could produce enough displays to keep up with Apple's demand. I can understand why Apple dumped them, but it has been an issue ever since....
I built industrial touch screen computers during the 90's. I always had more trouble/failures with Sharp displays that any other manufacture at the time....
Link? WSJ, probably.
Seriously, that was good for a laugh, much needed.
Well, they have a bad habit of pushing the envelope on these screens. The mini was also kind of a lamination issue, maybe, with the G/F2 move.
I really wish we had some good background reporting on their display technology that is designed for a general audience. It seems they and Foxconn are buying pieces of Sharp to get IGZO underway. It's a big story, but where can you read about it? Besides DigiTimes, that is.
Will interest in the full-size iPad rebound when/if it too is much lighter? I think mine will... but I'll just have to hold both!
Right now, it seems like the Mini is the better product and the best size for most people.
Well... people buy what they want. The bigger iPad with the higher ASP is still available... if they choose.
Look at it this way: a person buying an iPad Mini at $330 is better than a person NOT buying a regular iPad at $500.
At least both iPads are profitable... they're not selling the iPad Mini at cost just to make their numbers go up.
Ford would love you to buy a Mustang for $27,000.... but they're fine if you only buy a Fiesta for $17,000
Again... both models make money.
That might work! Or perhaps a:
"Apple grinds to a halt"
If the mini had a retina display I'd be interested.
In the meantime I'm waiting for the iPad 5 whether it's a step forward big enough to replace my iPad 3. The iPad 4 wasn't.
Originally Posted by smalM
...a step forward big enough to replace my iPad 3. The iPad 4 wasn't.
There are a dozen arguments that prove this wrong.