Apple's Q2 iPhone sales boom, carry declining iPad performance

13

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 64
    crowleycrowley Posts: 10,453member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

     

    Bring Touch ID to the iPads integrated with user profiles and people will literally line up around the block to buy them.

     

    You listening, Tim?


    How many people?

     

    TouchID would be nice, but I don't care that much.  Lining up for an Apple product launch is a mug's game.

  • Reply 42 of 64
    plovell wrote: »
    Obviously not ALL PCs. I think what he meant here is that a lot of PCs due for replacement are being replaced with iPads, and some with new PCs.

    The decline in the PC market bears this out.

    It's going to be an interesting couple of years. Moving the iOS platform to 64-bits and increasing its processing power does tell me that iOS will inevitably be moving into desktop and laptop range. Availability of useful software will drive the market. Dependency on software, written for iOS and not available on laptops, will obsolete the PC.

    But that also depends on how well PC makers execute their all-in-one strategy. Will devices like the Surface succeed? In what category will the Surface be placed? Apple has to see that as a challenge.
  • Reply 43 of 64
    rogifan wrote: »
    iPad sales are pretty much flat to down. A lot of speculation out there thinks one reason is iPad is being shared, that it's not just a single person device. Leaving out user accounts/profiles to force people to buy multiple devices doesn't seem like it follows Apple's mantra of making the best products. I'm sure parents would love to have a way for their kids to use their iPad and be able to restrict what they have access too. The idea that young kids should have their very own iPad is ridiculous, IMO. I'm hoping when Apple brings Touch ID to the iPad they incorporate user profiles. Other tablets do this already so I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same.
    Why is this ridiculous? I can't count the number of coworkers that have told me that all their kids have their own iPad. A number of them have said their kids having the iPad mini actually works better for them as well. It is a mobile/personal device.

    I don't see the need for user profiles. These things are made for a single iTunes account to make iTunes/App Store purchases/downloads. So if you have different user profiles do they share the same iTunes account? That goes against Apple's revenue stream. Do the individual profiles have their separate iTunes accounts? If so, how do you handle space limitations when one user downloads a movie that the other doesn't have access to? Now Billy can't download Angry Birds Star Trek because Johnny downloaded Brave in HD and it's taken up all the memory. Or, do you silo memory for each account (which isn't done with PCs out of the box)? My guess is the challenges to user accounts on these devices outweigh the want in the consumer sector for individual profiles.

    Hell, do you and your spouse share a laptop? Or do you each have your own? I know me and my g/f have had our own laptops since we've been together. In most cases with most couples/families I'm guessing it is the latter. Why should the iPad be different. Sure you have the ability to create profiles on PCs but that is becoming less mainstream.

    To me there are three use cases for profiles:

    1. iPad shared with parents and child
    - parents want to download their own stuff and silo what their kids can use (edge case)

    2. iPad shared between adults/teens
    - laptops and PCs are less and less shared between two adults and definitely not shared between teens

    3. iPad shared between kids
    - they don't need to download individually and can share what's on one iPad without the need for different profiles

    Other edge cases are work iPads (no one at work shares a PC with profiles and really never has) or creating "guest" accounts. None of these needs are paramount enough for Apple to introduce this functionality.
  • Reply 44 of 64
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 10,557member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by RegurgitatedCoprolite View Post



    iPads are going to be just fine.

     

    Yes, but we just HAVE to find something negative amidst all this positive news. Great sales, great profits, great investor return, but let’s focus on what didn’t meet or exceed expectations. And I can guarantee you that’s what we’ll see over the next few days from tech pundits and financial talking heads on CNBC. There will be a laser focus on those iPad numbers and endless analysis as to why this is troubling and a sign that Apple continues to be doomed. The stock spike will wither away as the wags talk up the negativity of the iPad numbers. The hand wringing and sweaty palms will prevail in this. After all, it’s Apple we’re talking about.

     

    And for the proof just take a gander at this thread itself. All the usual suspects coming out of the woodwork to declare this a problem. Of course they have the solution which is to make the iPad just like Android tablets with multiple user accounts, file systems, keyboards, etc. And we all know how well Android tablets have done and how they are killing Apple’s iPad.

  • Reply 45 of 64
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    tzeshan wrote: »
    I will give a C for Apple iPad marketing team. I have said here many months ago that Apple needs to make the base model 32 GB for $499. Apple marketing team is still trapped in the same target as in 2010. That is the person uses iPad to view email, surf internet, watch video, store photos, etc. Apple marketing team seem stupid not knowing that with more memory then users can store all their music library, photos on an iPad. Further, with more memory iPad can be more useful as a productive device. So there are three groups of people that can use an iPad. Apple only captured one group of users since 2010.

    Not sure how it's marketing fault. They don't design the hardware. A buyer can always get the 32GB version.

    More memory has nothing to do with productivity. As I said, users are free to get the 32/64 GB iPads.

    What it is is that you don't want to spend the extra $$$. You feel entitled to a larger capacity iPad. If storage is important to you, spend the $$$.
  • Reply 46 of 64
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Not sure how it's marketing fault. They don't design the hardware. A buyer can always get the 32GB version.



    More memory has nothing to do with productivity. As I said, users are free to get the 32/64 GB iPads.



    What it is is that you don't want to spend the extra $$$. You feel entitled to a larger capacity iPad. If storage is important to you, spend the $$$.

    Of course I am talking about $$$.  The $499 price for iPad Air and $399 for rIpad mini is already hampering many potential buyers.  Your think iPhone 5S can grow 17% is purely because of it's quality?  I think its because of it is highly subsidized by the carriers.  You think iPhone 5S buyers have $$$?  Don't forget 5S can be had for $199 and sometimes is much beclow $199.  Compare this price with a $599 32 GB iPad Air.  

     

    We have to thank the carriers that Jobs convinced AT&T to subsidize iPhone in 2007 so every one can happily buy one.  The iPhone sales benefited tremendously from this subsidy. 

     

    Another important thing about the incompetency of Apple marketing team.  They did not exploit the advantages of Apple hardware.  In my opinion, Apple hw uses less power and memory than the competition.  Samsung Galaxy S5 may have longer battery life than iPhone 5S.  But this is due to it has 2600 mAH battery which much larger than 5S.  Similarly both Android and Windows OSs use much more memory for the OS.  

  • Reply 47 of 64
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    tzeshan wrote: »
    Of course I am talking about $$$.  The $499 price for iPad Air and $399 for rIpad mini is already hampering many potential buyers.  Your think iPhone 5S can grow 17% is purely because of it's quality?  I think its because of it is highly subsidized by the carriers.  You think iPhone 5S buyers have $$$?  Don't forget 5S can be had for $199 and sometimes is much beclow $199.  Compare this price with a $599 32 GB iPad Air.  

    We have to thank the carriers that Jobs convinced AT&T to subsidize iPhone in 2007 so every one can happily buy one.  The iPhone sales benefited tremendously from this subsidy. 

    Another important thing about the incompetency of Apple marketing team.  They did not exploit the advantages of Apple hardware.  In my opinion, Apple hw uses less power and memory than the competition.  Samsung Galaxy S5 may have longer battery life than iPhone 5S.  But this is due to it has 2600 mAH battery which much larger than 5S.  Similarly both Android and Windows OSs use much more memory for the OS.  

    Revisionist history? Jobs didn't convince ATT to subsidize the iPhone. The cell phone market was always subsidized. Aid you remember, the iPhone was full price because Apple took a percentage if the subscription rate.

    Apple isn't a charity. I can't afford a BMW, so it's Bmw's fault it doesn't offer a real BMW at $20,000.

    Apple has never exploited specs because the general pop doesn't care. Apple's marketing team should and have focused on how a user would use the device. The only incompetency I see is from clueless people.
  • Reply 48 of 64
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Revisionist history? Jobs didn't convince ATT to subsidize the iPhone. The cell phone market was always subsidized. Aid you remember, the iPhone was full price because Apple took a percentage if the subscription rate.

    Big yes and minor no. Yes, in 2007 the iPhone was introduced with a profit-sharing model, not a subsidy. However, when that model switched to subsidization in 2008 after it wasn't a popular option for expanding the iPhone in new market (unfortunately) there was talk that Apple had to convince AT&T to take this option and that Apple had to give AT&T an extra year of exclusivity in the US. Considering that AT&T didn't have to pay Apple back for iPhone purchases right away and that if a user stopped using it they no longer had to pay Apple it I can why AT&T would like that setup.
  • Reply 49 of 64
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    Revisionist history? Jobs didn't convince ATT to subsidize the iPhone. The cell phone market was always subsidized. Aid you remember, the iPhone was full price because Apple took a percentage if the subscription rate.



    Apple isn't a charity. I can't afford a BMW, so it's Bmw's fault it doesn't offer a real BMW at $20,000.



    Apple has never exploited specs because the general pop doesn't care. Apple's marketing team should and have focused on how a user would use the device. The only incompetency I see is from clueless people.



    Before iPhone the carriers subsidized but the feature phone price was already well below $300. 

     

    You are clueless yourself.  The general public does care everything.  This is why Android market share is approaching 80%.  Who is the general public?  The 80% or the 20%? 

  • Reply 50 of 64
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    tzeshan wrote: »

    Before iPhone the carriers subsidized but the feature phone price was already well below $300. 

    You are clueless yourself.  The general public does care everything.  This is why Android market share is approaching 80%.  Who is the general public?  The 80% or the 20%? 

    You serious, bro? Ask the average Joe, why they picked this phone. Many will say "free with contract." No average joe would say "well this phone has 2Ghz processor" or "has 2 GB of RAM."

    And The majority of Androids sold are not flagship phones nor are they comparable to the iPhone.
  • Reply 51 of 64
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jungmark View Post





    You serious, bro? Ask the average Joe, why they picked this phone. Many will say "free with contract." No average joe would say "well this phone has 2Ghz processor" or "has 2 GB of RAM."



    And The majority of Androids sold are not flagship phones nor are they comparable to the iPhone.



    How ironic you have switched to my original view which is iPads did not grow as the iPhone yoy because of the price.  My proposition is if Apple does not want to lower the price of iPad then it can exploit the advantages of iPad over the competitors. 

  • Reply 52 of 64
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member
    Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

    The general public does care everything.  This is why Android market share is approaching 80%.


     

    The polar opposite is true. “Market share” of “80%”, use share of less than 40.

  • Reply 53 of 64
    asdasdasdasd Posts: 5,686member
    Of course price matters. Asking people to shell out an extra $100 reduces the potential number of buyers. And as the apps get bigger and the email is cached locally and - most importantly - the camera gets higher resolutions and video, music comes at higher bitrates 16G becomes less and less useful.

    I already argued against this stupidity in another post saying that if you think people should pay more for memory then Apple should just sell the entry model at 4G. Or 2G.

    In any case they are going to increase memory sometime.

    As for keyboards etc. To fully replace most of what people do on a PC/Mac some kind of keyboard would be useful. As well as some kind of file system of however limited ability ( maybe an app registers, with the users permission to publish & access all PDFs on a device and they appear in an Open screen)

    Nobody is going to type as fast on a touchscreen as a keyboard so nobody is going to write a thesis, a book, an essay etc. on an iPad. But they could with a keyboard. It has the software. It has pages. It has office. It may get TextEdit.

    So expect both. Always expect the "Apple is perfect as it is" guys to never get it right, since they see any criticism of Apple as trolling and oppose any change. It's a strange company to support for change disliking curmudgeons but there's nowt as strange as folk.
  • Reply 54 of 64
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,926member
    tzeshan wrote: »

    How ironic you have switched to my original view which is iPads did not grow as the iPhone yoy because of the price.  My proposition is if Apple does not want to lower the price of iPad then it can exploit the advantages of iPad over the competitors. 

    You're talking in riddles. Apple is not going to pump up specs. They talk about how people use the iPad.

    There's no irony. You comment wasn't clear. You wanted the base model of 32 GB for $500. $500 is still $500.
  • Reply 55 of 64
    apple ][ wrote: »
    I doubt that Tim Cook lurks on these forums. I would guess that he probably has better and more important things to do, but I do think that there are some people from Apple who probably visit here every once in a while, just for some LOLs.

    Of course Tim Cook doesn't come on here, but Jonny Ive is on here all the time. Where do you think he gets all his best ideas?
  • Reply 56 of 64
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member

    I did not read this CIRP report before.  But it echos exactly the same point I made.

     

    "Apple charges a $100 premium for each step in storage space for both the iPhone and iPad, and most of that is pure profit. An iPad Air with 16GB retails for $499, while the same tablet with 32GB runs $599, but Apple pays only $9 more for the memory in the latter, according to tear-down experts at IHS iSuppli."

     

    "Apple sold relatively cheaper storage configurations for these leading products. After the holiday quarter, buyers seemed to gravitate to the flagship models, while economizing with smaller storage capacity," said Mike Levin, co-founder and analyst at CIRP, in a statement. "We expect to see stable or even slightly lower U.S. ASPs as a result."

     

    My thinking is if Apple set the base iPad at 32 GB for $499, it will greatly enhance the perceived value of iPad.  For iPhone it is a different story because Apple sell the cheapest iPhone with 8GB. 

  • Reply 57 of 64
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

     

    Bring Touch ID to the iPads integrated with user profiles and people will literally line up around the block to buy them.

     

    You listening, Tim?


    No he's not, because your advice is foolish.

  • Reply 58 of 64
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by John.B View Post

     

     

    Bring Touch ID to the iPads integrated with user profiles and people will literally line up around the block to buy them.

     

    You listening, Tim?


    No he's not, because your advice is foolish.

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post





    iPad sales are pretty much flat to down. A lot of speculation out there thinks one reason is iPad is being shared, that it's not just a single person device. Leaving out user accounts/profiles to force people to buy multiple devices doesn't seem like it follows Apple's mantra of making the best products. I'm sure parents would love to have a way for their kids to use their iPad and be able to restrict what they have access too. The idea that young kids should have their very own iPad is ridiculous, IMO. I'm hoping when Apple brings Touch ID to the iPad they incorporate user profiles. Other tablets do this already so I don't see why Apple couldn't do the same.

    Not at all. If you give a child an iPad, you can apply a huge number of restrictions to it, to such an extent that it is much safer than a PC. Much more practical and powerful than multiple IDs on one iPad.

  • Reply 59 of 64
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tzeshan View Post

     

    Of course I am talking about $$$.  The $499 price for iPad Air and $399 for rIpad mini is already hampering many potential buyers.  Your think iPhone 5S can grow 17% is purely because of it's quality?  I think its because of it is highly subsidized by the carriers.  You think iPhone 5S buyers have $$$?  Don't forget 5S can be had for $199 and sometimes is much beclow $199.  Compare this price with a $599 32 GB iPad Air.  

     

    We have to thank the carriers that Jobs convinced AT&T to subsidize iPhone in 2007 so every one can happily buy one.  The iPhone sales benefited tremendously from this subsidy. 

     

    Another important thing about the incompetency of Apple marketing team.  They did not exploit the advantages of Apple hardware.  In my opinion, Apple hw uses less power and memory than the competition.  Samsung Galaxy S5 may have longer battery life than iPhone 5S.  But this is due to it has 2600 mAH battery which much larger than 5S.  Similarly both Android and Windows OSs use much more memory for the OS.  


    Your post is garbage.

  • Reply 60 of 64
    tzeshantzeshan Posts: 2,351member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Benjamin Frost View Post

     

    Your post is garbage.




    The iPad mini is a failure too. In the recent quarter retina iPad mini sales fell more than iPad Air. In retrospect, the iPad mini was introduced because there are a lot of complaints that the iPad is too heavy.  But the mini size is not too different from iPad.  Since the Air is half pound lighter, the mini has lost its purpose.  Another product flop in Apple. 

Sign In or Register to comment.