The reason for the link is to look at the source material that you think supports your position. In this case, it was to make sure you meant the switcher campaign.
Which worked by the way. It does NOT mean that Apple wants 95% of the market or to take over from Microsoft. Just that they wanted the cream of windows market...the ones with deeper pockets than the rest.
Yah right, because there weren't people lined up to buy the thing and Apple didn't sell 270,000 in the first 30 hours. Sales must have been "grim" to have caused the iPhone price reduction.
Or maybe, the price drop was to stimulate more X-Mas sales at $399 as stated. The iPhone margins were STILL huge at $399 given that AT&T was revenue sharing.
Grim? What planet do you live on?
June 29 to September 5th. 2 months. They were on track to sell 1M iPhones by end of September according to their press release.
So much a nightmare that they just kicked RIM's ass. Yea and verily the iPhone was a PR nightmare and a dismal failure.
Tell that to the 500-700K customers that purchased the iPhone prior to the price drop.
And no need to damn them with faint praise on the business side. They're only #1 in JD Power's business user satisfaction. Besides, it wasn't 3G but the 2.0 version of the OS.
In "some" ways addressed. Right. They only beat RIM 778 to 703 out of a posible score of 1000.
Since when did I write that? Never. What I said that they had fat margins which they use to fuel cool new products. Not that it was the ONLY way to fund new products.
Yes, it's working great for Dell. And Apple has both fat margins AND industry leading growth.
Gee, that seems even better than even better.
Right, because Jobs and Apple is at some risk of not being taken seriously. AFTER they just kicked Palm, MS and RIM's ass in the already competitive smart phone market to become the #1 phone.
Yes, because the new MB/MBP and 28% YOY sales increase was a yawner.
Students that can pony up $1300 for a laptop. Yep, that's pretty elite given that many laptops run $500 and netbooks cheaper than that.
Right. Because you say so it must be true. Never mind that everyone else considers Apple to be a premium brand with prices to match.
Right. Just like Microsoft/Dell/HP is the great white shark of the PC world.
At $199 the iPhone is already "cheap" for the consumer but AT&T kicks back a nice amount to Apple. It wont ever be a free phone.
I'm not going to take your post apart chunk by chunk as this bit of thread will just veer even more off topic. Let me take a wander through your reply.
First off I wasn't only referring to the 'Switch' campaign. You Know that perfectly well as I said 'over the last eight years' and you simply chose to ignore the fact. When Apple completed the intel switch Jobs spouted off the same argument but this time almost seemed serious about it. The problem was I couldn't find the quote.
When Apple says 'and now for the other ninety per cent' in a $50 million TV and printed press campaign we should all put on our Apple designed RDF glasses and instantly realise that they have no intention of actually putting machines onto the market that are anywhere near suitable enough to achieve the stated goal. That's because the stated goal is poppycock. Yes, we're all aware that just getting out of single digit market share figures would chuff everyone at Cupertino but - and please remove your glasses now - it has nothing to do with the goals they are advertising, so take it for what it is: nonsense.
I made it clear the initial iPhone sales should have ridden on the crest of a wave for around three months and of course there was an explosion the first few weeks. I said it was pent up demand and it was. Knowing that, why did you choose to repeat the same information with figures? Do you really think that if sales had continued that way they would have reduced the price - just 60 days after release? And that's you're only defence? The only way to interpret that situation is how I described it: very grim indeed.
I said the iPhone launch failed to garner the sales projected by Apple and they took action. You counter that saying that Apple just kicked RIMs ass? Why are you mixing iPhone 3G with the iPhone launch. Why jump a year into the future? The point is about the launch, not the re-launch. Your JD reference is also a current reference (Nov 2008). Nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2 are inseparable.
Your RIM 778 reference is also current. Not valid as I'm talking about the iPhone original launch.
I didn't say you had said fat margins were necessary. I made an observation.
Why do you think Apple reducing margins equates to Dell? Apple can reduce margins and still have far better margins than Dell.
I spoke about Apple as a company and their 95% share claims and you counter that they've just wiped the floor with MS, Palm etc but, wait for it, in smartphones. Great, you counter with something that has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's Mac business. So little in fact that Apple's stated goal for the phone market is 1%.
What was 'special' about the special event? New MB and MBPs which everybody was well prepared for because of the leaks. 28% YOY? I need a special event for that?
You don't think that MS/DELL/HP is the Great White of the PC world? Who is then? You say the iPhone is already cheap. Why then did you say:
as i said - they don't have to care... the user can choose what technology they want
HP, Dell etc only have to provide the card slot and belkin or whoever provides the card
Yeah, okay. Whatever you say...the lack of 1394b support from MS in Vista means that FW is doing awesome.
Quote:
this is most persistent low IQ argument that fanboys like yourself keep coming out with
just stop it, take a break, have a look which forum you're on
and start thinking about why it's not as easy as that
if i was on a system that didn't have me locked in (which is apple's game plan)
do you think i'd care about brand loyalty?
So what? Break the cycle just like Windows switchers are doing. Do you not think that MS has lock-in?
If Apple suxxors so much for you and they've been consistently doing so for the last few models (glossy screens, no firewire, no xMac, etc) then geez...what makes you think the NEXT product cycle won't be even MORE of the same?
It's not like Vista is THAT much worse than Leopard.
Quote:
in the short term maybe...
Short term? Since Jobs came back a DECADE ago. Until he keels over it aint changing.
Quote:
if they keep up the path with hardware DRM, increasing prices, gloss only screens
and deleting ports we'll see how fast they grow
Hardware DRM enables more content from content providers. Until HDCP was provided it was a convienent excuse to not release to iTunes vs other channels.
Quote:
again, following your arguments that most of the new market are switchers
and students at that, let's see how happy they are when they discover that
they can't plug in dad's relatively new DV camcorder or use their school's / uni / college brand new high end version for that matter "hey the guy in the apple store told me this was the top of the techno heap???"
Yah, we'll see. Like I said, Xmas and next Back to School is yet to come.
Quote:
notice how wrt the DRM apple didn't warn anyone before a purchase... very good and honest business model right ?
Yes, HDCP should have been listed in the specs. Actually, most companies list that as a desired feature on monitors and computers because it permits more HD content from the ever-paranoid content owners. I wonder if the HDCP code was enabled accidently.
I've been hoping that the ACDs had HDCP for a long long time. The 30" ACD can't work as an effective TV replacement until it happens because...no Blu-Ray.
Quote:
no one said that except you... \
Quote:
is that he's a total live wire - which leads to interesting and sometimes very good results
but he's quick to change his mind, even go back on his "word"
Gee...that contrasts with Jack Welch's (no slacker himself) opinion: "the most successful CEO today."
I'm not going to take your post apart chunk by chunk as this bit of thread will just veer even more off topic. Let me take a wander through your reply.
First off I wasn't only referring to the 'Switch' campaign.
Except that is what you linked to. Which is why I asked for a link.
Quote:
You Know that perfectly well as I said 'over the last eight years' and you simply chose to ignore the fact.
Then provide a link that better illustrates your point.
Quote:
When Apple completed the intel switch Jobs spouted off the same argument but this time almost seemed serious about it. The problem was I couldn't find the quote.
Perhaps you again misinterpreted it beyond the desire to get more folks exposed to OSX and switch vs taking over 95% of the market.
Quote:
When Apple says 'and now for the other ninety per cent' in a $50 million TV and printed press campaign we should all put on our Apple designed RDF glasses and instantly realise that they have no intention of actually putting machines onto the market that are anywhere near suitable enough to achieve the stated goal.
It's RDF if you BELIEVE that they're going to grab 90% of the total market share. Apple can not and intelligently does not want to.
However Apple does have a very healthy market share in the consumer market and wants to grow that.
Quote:
That's because the stated goal is poppycock. Yes, we're all aware that just getting out of single digit market share figures would chuff everyone at Cupertino but - and please remove your glasses now - it has nothing to do with the goals they are advertising, so take it for what it is: nonsense.
Right. Because you misinterpret their goal means that Apple's strategy and advertising is nonsense.
Quote:
I made it clear the initial iPhone sales should have ridden on the crest of a wave for around three months and of course there was an explosion the first few weeks. I said it was pent up demand and it was. Knowing that, why did you choose to repeat the same information with figures? Do you really think that if sales had continued that way they would have reduced the price - just 60 days after release? And that's you're only defence? The only way to interpret that situation is how I described it: very grim indeed.
Or maybe they wanted to do what they said: lower the price for Christmas. You have less than ZERO evidence to back up that sales were "grim".
"The moves by Apple today offer a mixed message on the current and future success of the relationship with AT&T (NYSE: T). From the wireless company's perspective, a lower price for the iPhone will broaden the audience for the device, and was probably necessary in a U.S. market that is conditioned to pay next to nothing for a cell phone, regardless of the features it has. On the other hand, the new iTouch may dampen this upside, as it eliminates that segment of prospective buyers who were always more interested in the iPod and browser features than they were in becoming AT&T subscribers. From Apple's perspective, the iPhone was selling well (a recent report by iSuppli said it was the most popular Smartphone in the U.S. in July), but perhaps not quite well enough to hit Apple's previously stated goal of hitting a million sales by the end of the quarter. The reduced price and the introduction of the iTouch, at an even lower price point, should drive a good amount of volume this holiday season."
"FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Apple Inc's (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) iPhone outsold all smartphones in the United States in July, its first full month on sale, accounting for 1.8 percent of all U.S. mobile handset sales, research group iSuppli said on Tuesday.
ISuppli reiterated its forecast that Apple would sell 4.5 million iPhones this year, rising to more than 30 million in 2011."
Not selling enough to hit 1M sales in a qtr is not grim. On track for 4.5M sales in half a year is not grim. Dropping price a little earlier in the quarter to hit it out of the ballpark is a far more accurate depliction. One that Jobs in fact used.
Quote:
You counter that saying that Apple just kicked RIMs ass? Why are you mixing iPhone 3G with the iPhone launch. Why jump a year into the future? The point is about the launch, not the re-launch.
And it kicked in June of 2007 as well.
"The two models of the iPhone on the market sold more than Research in Motion's (RIM.TO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Blackberry series, the entire Palm (PALM.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) portfolio and any individual smartphone model from Motorola (MOT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Nokia (NOK1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) or Samsung (005930.KS: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
Sales equaled those of LG Electronics' (066570.KS: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Chocolate, the most popular feature phone on the U.S. market, iSuppli said."
Find me anywhere that indicates that Apple iPhone sales were "grim".
Quote:
Your JD reference is also a current reference (Nov 2008). Nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
It counters your assertion that Apple is weak wrt to buisness even with the 3G and 2.0. Which did not occur until July of 2008.
Quote:
iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2 are inseparable.
Except that iPhone OS2 runs on the iPhone 2G doesn't it? That makes it pretty seperable.
Quote:
Your RIM 778 reference is also current. Not valid as I'm talking about the iPhone original launch.
Given that the iPhone outsold the entire Blackberry line I would say that would be false. In any case, if the iPhone 1.0-1.1.5 sucked for a year then it would not have won the JD Powers award in 2008 because the 2.0 software was not released until July 2008.
So your contention is that Apple managed to win over business users enough to be #1 on JD Powers in just 4 months? That JD Powers did not start its survey until the very last moment in late October? That there were not millions of iPhone 2G business users that could have trashed the iPhone in that survey?
Riiight.
Quote:
I didn't say you had said fat margins were necessary. I made an observation.
You stated: "Since when do you need fat margins to fuel new product design?"
Gee, I wonder what that wording implies.
Quote:
Why do you think Apple reducing margins equates to Dell? Apple can reduce margins and still have far better margins than Dell.
Your response is incorrect in addressing what I wrote. The statement was in response to your suggestion that going the low margin and high volumes was an equal or better business model. The difference between Dell and Apple today shows this is not always true and that low volume, high margin can be more successful.
Quote:
I spoke about Apple as a company and their 95% share claims and you counter that they've just wiped the floor with MS, Palm etc but, wait for it, in smartphones.
AGAIN incorrect. You stated that Apple would lose credibility. The fact that they decisively beat the incumbents in a competive market that folks said they could not means they can say any bloody thing they want and be taken seriously.
Jobs could walk out tomorrow and declare he was going to kick Nintendo's butt next Christmas (2009) and there'd be some seriously perturbed folks at Sony, Nintendo and MS. They would have no clue how he was going to do that but they'd all be worried that he could based on the asskicking he gave RIM and Palm.
Hell, Nintendo is probably already mildly worried given Jobs keeps downplaying aTV and the number of game developers that is now familiar with ObjectiveC and Cocoa. Apple would target the same casual market that Nintendo does. The next Mini/aTV could be one hell of a game box.
Apple has ZERO credibility problems as a result of their marketing or what Jobs says. Your assertion that Apple has some potential issue with credibility because of that 95% marketing thing (which I think you misunderstand ANYWAY) has zero basis in reality.
Quote:
Great, you counter with something that has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's Mac business. So little in fact that Apple's stated goal for the phone market is 1%.
You know, if you're actually going to dissect every line it would actually be helpful to do so next to the line in question because I have no idea what this is in reference to.
That 1% is actually like 15-20% of the smartphone market. They want more of that market because that's where the margins are.
Quote:
What was 'special' about the special event? New MB and MBPs which everybody was well prepared for because of the leaks. 28% YOY? I need a special event for that?
So you're saying that the new design isn't worthy of a special event? It should have just been a press release like a speed bump because of the leaks.
Quote:
You don't think that MS/DELL/HP is the Great White of the PC world? Who is then? You say the iPhone is already cheap. Why then did you say:
Cheap is relative. $35,000 is cheap for a BMW. $199 is cheap for an iPhone. You won't be able to buy a BMW for $12,000 nor will you ever get an iPhone as a free phone. Is this concept hard to follow?
As far as Great White analogy goes, yes, MS/Dell/HP are the dominant players for computers but Apple is not their prey. Apple has been more successful at taking share from them than vice versa.
In the smartphone arena, it will not be Apple eaten by Symbian but Symbian eaten by Apple, Android, Linux and Windows. Just like Dell is getting eaten by HP, Apple and others.
Quote:
It seems you are clutching at straws.
Right. I'm not the one proclaiming that iPhone sales were "grim" in summer of 2007 and that Symbian is going to eat the iPhone for lunch in the coming year.
the iphone 1G sales were impressive for a smartphone - no doubt
but not what apple had planned - hence the price drop (everyone knows this)
And you have evidence of this, because I surely don't "know this". Also, why are you calling it 1G? Call it original or 2G.
Quote:
you see, what you're forgetting is that poor sales isn't measured in pure numbers
but what those numbers could have been
and what those numbers needed to be
and what those numbers were expected to be
AT&T said it sold faster than any other phone they had ever sold so are you saying that Apple expected the numbers to be break even more records? How exactly does this mean that the device was failure in your eyes.
Quote:
]1G iphone sold 1.1 million phones in the 3rd quarter of 2007. 3G iphone sold 1 million phones in its first 3 days on sale
And the iPhone was well known after being out for over a year, included 3G, GPS and new software, including the App Store, and was released in 22x the countries.
Quote:
even your mate SJ made the remark about how much better 3G was...
Show me a time when Steve Jobs?or any business man pushing a new product?claimed that the previous model was better than the one they are pushing. Strawman!
Quote:
pretty much everyone agrees that the 1G was not the best launch for a number of reasons
- price
- lack of 3G
- only 1 carrier
- not in every country... simultaneously
Not as good as the 3G iPhone, but to call it a poor launch is absurd.
Quote:
which is why apple reacted quickly by dropping the price (and even backpaying early purchasers!)
The price was dropped a month and half later and the backpaying of $100 credit was because, in typical Apple user fashion, people expected more than they were promised. Even when you account for the new lower price of the 3G iPhone and 24-month accounting the iPhone is bringing in a staggering amount of Apple's revenue. Imagine what the original iPhone at $600+revenue sharing did for Apple. This was a simple shut the fuck up, feel grateful and buy the next model next year maneuver.
Quote:
and got the 3G out ASAP
A little over a year later... right when Jobs said it would be out 6 months before the original iPhone even launched.
Quote:
if you want to maintain that the 1G launch was apple's best moment then you won't find many supporters
Best, no; remarkable launches in Apple's history, definitely.
Haven't had that much amusement since debating Melgross.
There is so much wrong with your last post that I'll leave it for the readers to make up their own minds. I could go into great detail explaining why you fail to miss the point entirely but this part of the thread was already off-topic and dissecting your post would take it even further off.
However, just so others have the opportunity to understand what I mean, let me give just one example of what to look for:
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Apple succeeds by being an elite brand with fat margins to fuel even more excellent products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avon B7
You can fuel the same designs by reducing margins and increasing volume sales.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Yes, it's working great for Dell. And Apple has both fat margins AND industry leading growth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avon B7
Why do you think Apple reducing margins equates to Dell? Apple can reduce margins and still have far better margins than Dell.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
Your response is incorrect in addressing what I wrote. The statement was in response to your suggestion that going the low margin and high volumes was an equal or better business model. The difference between Dell and Apple today shows this is not always true and that low volume, high margin can be more successful.
You have altered my words.
Did I say that Apple needed lowmargins?
NO. I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
You got the wrong end of the stick but sadly, in your opinion, I am still the one who is incorrect in addressing what you wrote. OK, if that's how you see it I can live with that.
I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales.
Of course they could, how could anyone argue against that. They could also increase the margins and reduce unit sales. If you are asserting that by reducing margins will increase unit sales enough to make the company more money while maintaining the premium branding, then I'll need some proof, or even a well thought out hypothesis before I believe that.
So how much was constrained by supply and how much by demand?
In any case:
"The figures mesh with retail sales data already reported by NPD, which similarly described the size of the US market with a 27% chunk bit out by Apple?s iPhone.
Apple?s debut at second place across the entire North American smartphone market region for the third quarter ending in September is particularly noteworthy because the iPhone was only being sold in the US, and is only available through AT&T; all of the other mobile platforms are available to Sprint, Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile as well as AT&T."
even your mate SJ made the remark about how much better 3G was...
pretty much everyone agrees that the 1G was not the best launch for a number of reasons
- price
- lack of 3G
- only 1 carrier
- not in every country... simultaneously
which is why apple reacted quickly by dropping the price (and even backpaying early purchasers!) and got the 3G out ASAP
if you want to maintain that the 1G launch was apple's best moment then you won't find many supporters
"A large part of that second step has involved meticulously planned and perfectly executed events that make people feel like they are experiencing history, not just a product launch. Last year's iPhone launch event was perhaps the pinnacle of that strategy, as several million people came to a virtual standstill on June 29, 2007, to watch a company launch a phone. Unfortunately for Apple, several million people came to a standstill again this year: in line waiting for the iPhone 3G, or at home trying to activate their original iPhone."
"Our sources indicate that iPhone will likely become the fastest selling product in Apple's history and not to mention likely among the fastest (if not the fastest) in consumer electronics," analyst Shaw Wu informed clients in a research report published Monday. "We estimate sales of about 250,000 units in two days (up from our previous view of 50,000). The previous fastest seller was iPod nano, which sold about 1 million units in about 17 days meaning, about 59,000 units per day."
Here's two. Yes, the original iPhone launch was Apple's best moment thus far.
Now find me a few that thought that the original launch sucked. If everyone agrees that "the 1G was not the best launch" this should not be a hard task.
By the way...the 3G was a year later. Hardly a panic move by Apple or "ASAP". Apple was constrained by waiting for AT&T's 3G network to suck less.
Quote:
PS I bought/still have a 1G and quite like it... i'm neither knocking it or the iphone in general
I bought a 3G and trust me, the experience and excitement was no where near the same as the original launch. If Apple blew an iPhone launch it was definately the 3G.
And you have evidence of this, because I surely don't "know this". Also, why are you calling it 1G? Call it original or 2G.
AT&T said it sold faster than any other phone they had ever sold so are you saying that Apple expected the numbers to be break even more records? How exactly does this mean that the device was failure in your eyes.
And the iPhone was well known after being out for over a year, included 3G, GPS and new software, including the App Store, and was released in 22x the countries.
Show me a time when Steve Jobs?or any business man pushing a new product?claimed that the previous model was better than the one they are pushing. Strawman!
Not as good as the 3G iPhone, but to call it a poor launch is absurd.
The price was dropped a month and half later and the backpaying of $100 credit was because, in typical Apple user fashion, people expected more than they were promised. Even when you account for the new lower price of the 3G iPhone and 24-month accounting the iPhone is bringing in a staggering amount of Apple's revenue. Imagine what the original iPhone at $600+revenue sharing did for Apple. This was a simple shut the fuck up, feel grateful and buy the next model next year maneuver.
A little over a year later... right when Jobs said it would be out 6 months before the original iPhone even launched.
Best, no; remarkable launches in Apple's history, definitely.
1g because its 1st generation (yes i should put that as a little g)
if you can't read the between the lines on the SJ quote
and think that the 1g iphone was an impressive launch (relative to the 3G launch
then you obviously aren't very good at picking up innuendo
Quote:
"iPhone 3G had a stunning opening weekend," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO, in a prepared statement. "It took 74 days to sell the first 1 million original iPhones, so the new iPhone 3G is clearly off to a great start around the world."
apple did well - sure - but just look outside the US
people had to wait ages to get it in most EU countries
and a year to get it in some countries with lots of disposable income like Australia, Japan etc
i mean they haven't even released the 3G in china, potentially the world's biggest market !?
they're still doing great, no contest on that one
but could they be doing better - certainly
this is so off topic, but then again it's not
because you think that if apple manages to sell anything they're brilliant
There is so much wrong with your last post that I'll leave it for the readers to make up their own minds. I could go into great detail explaining why you fail to miss the point entirely but this part of the thread was already off-topic and dissecting your post would take it even further off.
However, just so others have the opportunity to understand what I mean, let me give just one example of what to look for:
You have altered my words.
Did I say that Apple needed lowmargins?
Can you point out where I altered your words to say that Apple needed low margins? I said that bring it up you suggested that this was an equivalent strategy to low volume/high margins. The counter example I presented was Dell. For that matter HP works as well.
Quote:
NO. I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
The difference is that the strategy changes requiring a different lineup with different performance than what we have observed with Apple. Even taking HP as the counter example, Apple is very profitable despite having much lower revenues.
HP: $28B revenue, GAAP net income of $2B, $0.80 per share.
Apple: $7.4B revenue, GAAP net income of $1B, $1.19 per share.
Dell: $13B revenye, GAAP net income $606M, $0.25 per share.
Lowering your margins has to be accompanied by much higher volume to make it worth while.
And you keep missing my primary point: Apple has BOTH large margins AND high growth.
Why should Apple lower margins? To pursue growth it may not be able to handle? It already has growing pains.
The fact that it does not lower margins to pursue market share shows that Apple has never strived for pure market dominance. Only in the highly profitable areas.
Quote:
You got the wrong end of the stick but sadly, in your opinion, I am still the one who is incorrect in addressing what you wrote. OK, if that's how you see it I can live with that.
I'm glad you can live with it. I would hope that no one takes internet debates very seriously.
Here's two. Yes, the original iPhone launch was Apple's best moment thus far.
Now find me a few that thought that the original launch sucked. If everyone agrees that "the 1G was not the best launch" this should not be a hard task.
By the way...the 3G was a year later. Hardly a panic move by Apple or "ASAP". Apple was constrained by waiting for AT&T's 3G network to suck less.
I bought a 3G and trust me, the experience and excitement was no where near the same as the original launch. If Apple blew an iPhone launch it was definately the 3G.
you're definitely entering "i'm a clown" territory
74 days vs 3 days to sell 1 million - and that's from SJ
one minute you argue that doing well is about sales numbers
next you argue it's about "experience and excitement"
(and if that's your opinion I'm happy for you - and i can't/won't argue that away from you)
one minute you say SJ is king
next you disagree with him about which is Apple's best launch ??
i'm done on the iphone
if you want to think the 1g was best then go right ahead
for me the relativity of the numbers
and the frustration of all the buyers outside the US (which are represented by the numbers of the 3G launch)
speak for themselves.
but i'll let you have your opinions
now back to firewire if anyone's got anything to add
Not "certainly". The Wii is as good but in a market with fewer players.
Show another company that has executed better. There are damn few product launches as memorable to be able to boldly make the claim it is certain that Apple could have done "better".
Hell, there wasn't this much excitement over the original Mac. I dunno what Apple product launch could be considered better than the original iPhone. The iPod one was not a big splash as a special event and low sales that first year.
the iphone 1G sales were impressive for a smartphone - no doubt
but not what apple had planned - hence the price drop (everyone knows this)
That is an assertion. A currently unsupported one. Show evidence that everyone knows that the sales were not what Apple planned and the price drop was the result.
Dude.
Quote:
one minute you say SJ is king next you disagree with him about which is Apple's best launch ??
For SJ the current lauch is always the best launch.
But given that there are many articles criticizing the 3G launch and few (none?) the 2G launch I guess I'll have to say that my position has far more support than yours.
Yes, numbers matter but it's not the only measure of a successful launch. Making folks wait hours in long lines because you've screwed up the authorization process is not the kind of user experience Apple shoots for.
But hey, call me a clown if you like. It just means you're losing the debate.
NO. I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
I'm only posting to this one item. I don't want to get drawn into anything else.
Apple has gross profit margins in the low 30 percentile, to about 35%. They have a profit of about 12%
A number of other computer companies are doing worse, which doesn't mean that Apple's are excessive. Losing money on a large part of sales is never a good thing, which is what Dell, for example has done in order to keep marketshare.
Company gross profit margins vary considerably, whether they make computers or other technology related products.
Some examples that I fairly quickly looked up. This isn't all up to date, as I was looking for some info quickly, but it doesn't matter because I'm just showing examples, which may have gotten better or worse later on.
Only Net profit margins are actually what we think of as profits, again, in Apple's case, about 12%.
Apple is doing ok here, but not fantastic. What has made Apple desirable as an investment id the growth in sales, with a steady profit and margins that are not too low.
I don't know how much you would cut margins. Even cutting them by 20% would only allow the prices go down by about 5% or so. It would cut profits to about 2%, which would make the stock drop like a stone, even in good times.
I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
It seems that we agree that low margins and lower margins are not the same. On the subject of lower margins we also seem to agree that Apple has margin (no pun intended) to lower margins. It's impossible to know to what level as we do not have access to the necessary data. However, we can assume that Apple, being the company that it is (premium prices etc), can manoeuvre in this area.
Apple is a software, hardware, services and investment company. This complicates things still further but there are valid reasons to support a cut in margins. I would say there are more reasons to support a reduction in margins than to maintain them or increase them.
- They have already reduced margins (and they pre-announced the move).
- They are suposedly seeking to go after the other 95% of the PC market.
- It is reasonable to believe that the move to increase prices on one of its flagship models may backfire (note that I am not saying it will though but yes, that is my opinion in case you were wondering)
- As a services and software company there are reasonable secundary revenue streams to be generated but those streams cannot be realised until the purchaser has a Mac in his/her possession (support services, AppleCare, software).
- Part of Apple's justification of the iPhone price cut was to put the device into as many hands as possible and impact competitors.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it. There's no problem with that but at a corporate level I think it's vital to take moves to at least double the current market share. Anything that could cause users to put the brakes on a possible mac purchase needs to be looked at.
Currently there are areas that are lacking in Apple's product matrix (entry level tower for example) but when combined with Apple's pricing strategy I'm sure many users end up not following through on a purchase.
You are arguing that the launch of the first version of the iPhone was not good because the launch of the second version was better?
You do realize Apple has made around 3 billion in revenue from the first iPhone. When does selling 3 billion worth of anything prove to be mediocre?
I'm also confused by your assertions...
are you claiming that the original iphone launch was better
because it sold phones at 25 times less per day than the 3G ?
or are you basing it on customer satisfaction centering around the geek queues,
a couple of hours of server overload (an indication of the worldwide publicity "success" of a launch)
and some problems with activation on the first day?
again, if you rate a launch on your (and a few other reporters/bloggers) experience on the 1st day
then i can't/won't argue with you (or vinea) - your welcome to your opinion.
My assertion is that the questions to be asked are the following:
a. what does the launch need to be to meet profits/costs/etc (this is the minimum to be economically successful)
b. what is the potential of this launch (it may be above point a) - this is planning for upsides on a. & will include some qualitative stuff like market assessment
c. after calculating b. and planning for it, what can do we expect (this is between a & b)
normally one would base their product production on b.
but a pessimistic manager could base their product production on c
a very pessimisic one on a. - but then they'll completely exclude the possibility of upsides
if b. is less than a. you generally won't get funding to manufacture the product.
here's a link where one guy has estimated costs etc based on the unlocked iphone price
his conclusion is that apple needed to sell 10 million g1 iphones (is g1 clearer for u? it wasn't a 2G but a 2.5G anyway...)
to meet their normal 'expectations' of profit
...who knows if this is correct?
at the initial launch rate of this was going to take them 74 x 10 = 740 days or 2 years to meet...
at the 3G launch rate this would have only taken one month
your call as to which one was best.
apple will think about these sort of things for all product launches
and only they can say what the required sales are (and the increased costs) for the unibody macbooks
unfortunately this info is not released in the 10k - and they don't even publish indv model sales
again launch success is not just based on whether you manage to sell some items (or even many)
but also
- the requirement (to repay costs)
- the potential (which obviously depends on product type/quality & market)
we have little idea on the requirements for the macbook launch (to make it economic)
and my opinion (based on those around me who have avoided this sale)
is that apple has not reached their potential on the MB launch (due to factors discussed previously)
It seems that we agree that low margins and lower margins are not the same. On the subject of lower margins we also seem to agree that Apple has margin (no pun intended) to lower margins. It's impossible to know to what level as we do not have access to the necessary data. However, we can assume that Apple, being the company that it is (premium prices etc), can manoeuvre in this area.
Apple is a software, hardware, services and investment company. This complicates things still further but there are valid reasons to support a cut in margins. I would say there are more reasons to support a reduction in margins than to maintain them or increase them.
- They have already reduced margins (and they pre-announced the move).
- They are suposedly seeking to go after the other 95% of the PC market.
- It is reasonable to believe that the move to increase prices on one of its flagship models may backfire (note that I am not saying it will though but yes, that is my opinion in case you were wondering)
- As a services and software company there are reasonable secundary revenue streams to be generated but those streams cannot be realised until the purchaser has a Mac in his/her possession (support services, AppleCare, software).
- Part of Apple's justification of the iPhone price cut was to put the device into as many hands as possible and impact competitors.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it. There's no problem with that but at a corporate level I think it's vital to take moves to at least double the current market share. Anything that could cause users to put the brakes on a possible mac purchase needs to be looked at.
Currently there are areas that are lacking in Apple's product matrix (entry level tower for example) but when combined with Apple's pricing strategy I'm sure many users end up not following through on a purchase.
Apple's ability to cut margins is poor. As their margins approach 30%, on the way down, investors get nervous, as they should. A healthy margin for Apple is around 33%. Sustained margins below that are cutting it too fine.
Apple didn't lower the price of the iPhone, they just moved the payments into a long term contract, and have the phone companies paying for the rest.
- They have already reduced margins (and they pre-announced the move).
Which was to pay for the increased cost in machining the new design. A design and process they intend to carry them through for the next few years.
Quote:
- They are suposedly seeking to go after the other 95% of the PC market.
Repeated assertion of an incorrect statement never makes it true.
There is no indication that Apple is seeking MS level market share. In fact all of their statements have been negative. In conference call after conference call folks have asked if they will reduce margin to increase share and the answer has ALWAYS been that they are comfortable with their current rate of growth.
Jobs has dismissed to two segments (PCs $500 or less and netbooks) that are either the majority share or has rapid growth as areas that Apple is not interested in.
You continue to misconstrue what Apple says. The message is the same as it was when the first Mac was released. When they say "the machine for the rest of us" (or the other 95%) they mean they build computers that doesn't require being a geek to use.
Not that they intend on building machines cheap enough that everyone can afford to buy one.
In large part Jobs has succeeded in his goal to change computing. Vista is not THAT much harder to use than Leopard...but the Mac really did show the way.
Quote:
- It is reasonable to believe that the move to increase prices on one of its flagship models may backfire (note that I am not saying it will though but yes, that is my opinion in case you were wondering)
Except that the entry level MB is now less expensive ($999) and more powerful than before and the flagship model (MBP) is the same price. When the cost of the new process drops enough, the silver MP will replace the white MB, probably at the old $1099 level. The new MBs at the top end are more expensive but also more capable than the old top end MB. In fact they are effectively MBP level.
Quote:
- As a services and software company there are reasonable secundary revenue streams to be generated but those streams cannot be realised until the purchaser has a Mac in his/her possession (support services, AppleCare, software).
Secondary revenue streams are just that. Secondary. Out of $3.4B in revenues. Software, services and other sales provided $0.5B in revenue and preipherals $0.4B. In contrast, Mac sales contribute 48% of Apple's revenue stream.
Quote:
- Part of Apple's justification of the iPhone price cut was to put the device into as many hands as possible and impact competitors.
Yes, because Apple is trying to dominate the still emerging smartphone market. Which is an area they see an opportunity to replicate their iPod success. The PC market is mature and that war was lost a decade ago.
Quote:
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it. There's no problem with that but at a corporate level I think it's vital to take moves to at least double the current market share. Anything that could cause users to put the brakes on a possible mac purchase needs to be looked at.
Given that they had 3-4 weeks channel inventory they are selling what they make even with high margins. There's no need to do anything to double Mac's market share so long as it continues to grow better than the industry average and Apple doesn't care about doubling total market share but instead growing share in the most profitable segments.
In fact, I'd go as far to say that Apple deliberately limits Mac growth to keep the cache of being different in the computing world.
The place that Apple CAN grow massive share is the smartphone market. That's where they are concentrating and even there they are making money hand over fist while they have the market advantage.
Don't bet on Symbian. Nokia may be a great phone maker but no where close to Apple in terms of software development. Arguably UIQ (Moto/Sony Erricson Symbian) was better than S60 (Nokia Symbian) for smartphones but SE phones were not as good as the Nokia counterpart making it more sluggish.
The Symbian Foundation is too new to see how well it all shakes out. And it lost Motorolla who decided to go Android.
Here's an interesting chart based on non-scientific data of developer interest:
Yes, windows mobile IS easier to develop for than the iPhone. As much as I like XCode, VS is IMHO better and C# easier to code for than ObjC. I've only looked at the S60 stuff an not done any development with that but my own sources indicates this guy isn't far off.
Plus, Symbian code will cost $1500 to be a member. Whereas the iPhone is $99 (free if you just want to try first) or free for either Linux, Java or Windows.
This is a non-issue for companies but for indie developers they'll either go Java, C# or iPhone. And with the AppStore it's no contest. iPhone.
Quote:
Currently there are areas that are lacking in Apple's product matrix (entry level tower for example) but when combined with Apple's pricing strategy I'm sure many users end up not following through on a purchase.
Apple has no need for an entry tower because it does not desire the demographic that buys entry towers. That those folks wont by a Mac is fine by Apple. Just like that fewer folks buy a Porshe is fine with Porsche.
Comments
The reason for the link is to look at the source material that you think supports your position. In this case, it was to make sure you meant the switcher campaign.
Which worked by the way. It does NOT mean that Apple wants 95% of the market or to take over from Microsoft. Just that they wanted the cream of windows market...the ones with deeper pockets than the rest.
Yah right, because there weren't people lined up to buy the thing and Apple didn't sell 270,000 in the first 30 hours. Sales must have been "grim" to have caused the iPhone price reduction.
Or maybe, the price drop was to stimulate more X-Mas sales at $399 as stated. The iPhone margins were STILL huge at $399 given that AT&T was revenue sharing.
Grim? What planet do you live on?
June 29 to September 5th. 2 months. They were on track to sell 1M iPhones by end of September according to their press release.
So much a nightmare that they just kicked RIM's ass. Yea and verily the iPhone was a PR nightmare and a dismal failure.
Tell that to the 500-700K customers that purchased the iPhone prior to the price drop.
And no need to damn them with faint praise on the business side. They're only #1 in JD Power's business user satisfaction. Besides, it wasn't 3G but the 2.0 version of the OS.
http://www.ipodobserver.com/story/37784
In "some" ways addressed. Right. They only beat RIM 778 to 703 out of a posible score of 1000.
Since when did I write that? Never. What I said that they had fat margins which they use to fuel cool new products. Not that it was the ONLY way to fund new products.
Yes, it's working great for Dell. And Apple has both fat margins AND industry leading growth.
Gee, that seems even better than even better.
Right, because Jobs and Apple is at some risk of not being taken seriously. AFTER they just kicked Palm, MS and RIM's ass in the already competitive smart phone market to become the #1 phone.
Yes, because the new MB/MBP and 28% YOY sales increase was a yawner.
Students that can pony up $1300 for a laptop. Yep, that's pretty elite given that many laptops run $500 and netbooks cheaper than that.
Right. Because you say so it must be true. Never mind that everyone else considers Apple to be a premium brand with prices to match.
Right. Just like Microsoft/Dell/HP is the great white shark of the PC world.
At $199 the iPhone is already "cheap" for the consumer but AT&T kicks back a nice amount to Apple. It wont ever be a free phone.
I'm not going to take your post apart chunk by chunk as this bit of thread will just veer even more off topic. Let me take a wander through your reply.
First off I wasn't only referring to the 'Switch' campaign. You Know that perfectly well as I said 'over the last eight years' and you simply chose to ignore the fact. When Apple completed the intel switch Jobs spouted off the same argument but this time almost seemed serious about it. The problem was I couldn't find the quote.
When Apple says 'and now for the other ninety per cent' in a $50 million TV and printed press campaign we should all put on our Apple designed RDF glasses and instantly realise that they have no intention of actually putting machines onto the market that are anywhere near suitable enough to achieve the stated goal. That's because the stated goal is poppycock. Yes, we're all aware that just getting out of single digit market share figures would chuff everyone at Cupertino but - and please remove your glasses now - it has nothing to do with the goals they are advertising, so take it for what it is: nonsense.
I made it clear the initial iPhone sales should have ridden on the crest of a wave for around three months and of course there was an explosion the first few weeks. I said it was pent up demand and it was. Knowing that, why did you choose to repeat the same information with figures? Do you really think that if sales had continued that way they would have reduced the price - just 60 days after release? And that's you're only defence? The only way to interpret that situation is how I described it: very grim indeed.
I said the iPhone launch failed to garner the sales projected by Apple and they took action. You counter that saying that Apple just kicked RIMs ass? Why are you mixing iPhone 3G with the iPhone launch. Why jump a year into the future? The point is about the launch, not the re-launch. Your JD reference is also a current reference (Nov 2008). Nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2 are inseparable.
Your RIM 778 reference is also current. Not valid as I'm talking about the iPhone original launch.
I didn't say you had said fat margins were necessary. I made an observation.
Why do you think Apple reducing margins equates to Dell? Apple can reduce margins and still have far better margins than Dell.
I spoke about Apple as a company and their 95% share claims and you counter that they've just wiped the floor with MS, Palm etc but, wait for it, in smartphones. Great, you counter with something that has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's Mac business. So little in fact that Apple's stated goal for the phone market is 1%.
What was 'special' about the special event? New MB and MBPs which everybody was well prepared for because of the leaks. 28% YOY? I need a special event for that?
You don't think that MS/DELL/HP is the Great White of the PC world? Who is then? You say the iPhone is already cheap. Why then did you say:
The iPhone still isn't cheap and it never will be
It seems you are clutching at straws.
you're arguing the same point sherlock
as i said - they don't have to care... the user can choose what technology they want
HP, Dell etc only have to provide the card slot and belkin or whoever provides the card
Yeah, okay. Whatever you say...the lack of 1394b support from MS in Vista means that FW is doing awesome.
this is most persistent low IQ argument that fanboys like yourself keep coming out with
just stop it, take a break, have a look which forum you're on
and start thinking about why it's not as easy as that
if i was on a system that didn't have me locked in (which is apple's game plan)
do you think i'd care about brand loyalty?
So what? Break the cycle just like Windows switchers are doing. Do you not think that MS has lock-in?
If Apple suxxors so much for you and they've been consistently doing so for the last few models (glossy screens, no firewire, no xMac, etc) then geez...what makes you think the NEXT product cycle won't be even MORE of the same?
It's not like Vista is THAT much worse than Leopard.
in the short term maybe...
Short term? Since Jobs came back a DECADE ago. Until he keels over it aint changing.
if they keep up the path with hardware DRM, increasing prices, gloss only screens
and deleting ports we'll see how fast they grow
Hardware DRM enables more content from content providers. Until HDCP was provided it was a convienent excuse to not release to iTunes vs other channels.
again, following your arguments that most of the new market are switchers
and students at that, let's see how happy they are when they discover that
they can't plug in dad's relatively new DV camcorder or use their school's / uni / college brand new high end version for that matter "hey the guy in the apple store told me this was the top of the techno heap???"
Yah, we'll see. Like I said, Xmas and next Back to School is yet to come.
notice how wrt the DRM apple didn't warn anyone before a purchase... very good and honest business model right ?
Yes, HDCP should have been listed in the specs. Actually, most companies list that as a desired feature on monitors and computers because it permits more HD content from the ever-paranoid content owners. I wonder if the HDCP code was enabled accidently.
I've been hoping that the ACDs had HDCP for a long long time. The 30" ACD can't work as an effective TV replacement until it happens because...no Blu-Ray.
no one said that except you...
is that he's a total live wire - which leads to interesting and sometimes very good results
but he's quick to change his mind, even go back on his "word"
Gee...that contrasts with Jack Welch's (no slacker himself) opinion: "the most successful CEO today."
I'm not going to take your post apart chunk by chunk as this bit of thread will just veer even more off topic. Let me take a wander through your reply.
First off I wasn't only referring to the 'Switch' campaign.
Except that is what you linked to. Which is why I asked for a link.
You Know that perfectly well as I said 'over the last eight years' and you simply chose to ignore the fact.
Then provide a link that better illustrates your point.
When Apple completed the intel switch Jobs spouted off the same argument but this time almost seemed serious about it. The problem was I couldn't find the quote.
Perhaps you again misinterpreted it beyond the desire to get more folks exposed to OSX and switch vs taking over 95% of the market.
When Apple says 'and now for the other ninety per cent' in a $50 million TV and printed press campaign we should all put on our Apple designed RDF glasses and instantly realise that they have no intention of actually putting machines onto the market that are anywhere near suitable enough to achieve the stated goal.
It's RDF if you BELIEVE that they're going to grab 90% of the total market share. Apple can not and intelligently does not want to.
However Apple does have a very healthy market share in the consumer market and wants to grow that.
That's because the stated goal is poppycock. Yes, we're all aware that just getting out of single digit market share figures would chuff everyone at Cupertino but - and please remove your glasses now - it has nothing to do with the goals they are advertising, so take it for what it is: nonsense.
Right. Because you misinterpret their goal means that Apple's strategy and advertising is nonsense.
I made it clear the initial iPhone sales should have ridden on the crest of a wave for around three months and of course there was an explosion the first few weeks. I said it was pent up demand and it was. Knowing that, why did you choose to repeat the same information with figures? Do you really think that if sales had continued that way they would have reduced the price - just 60 days after release? And that's you're only defence? The only way to interpret that situation is how I described it: very grim indeed.
Or maybe they wanted to do what they said: lower the price for Christmas. You have less than ZERO evidence to back up that sales were "grim".
"The moves by Apple today offer a mixed message on the current and future success of the relationship with AT&T (NYSE: T). From the wireless company's perspective, a lower price for the iPhone will broaden the audience for the device, and was probably necessary in a U.S. market that is conditioned to pay next to nothing for a cell phone, regardless of the features it has. On the other hand, the new iTouch may dampen this upside, as it eliminates that segment of prospective buyers who were always more interested in the iPod and browser features than they were in becoming AT&T subscribers. From Apple's perspective, the iPhone was selling well (a recent report by iSuppli said it was the most popular Smartphone in the U.S. in July), but perhaps not quite well enough to hit Apple's previously stated goal of hitting a million sales by the end of the quarter. The reduced price and the introduction of the iTouch, at an even lower price point, should drive a good amount of volume this holiday season."
http://www.bloggingstocks.com/2007/0...ght-on-iphone/
"FRANKFURT (Reuters) - Apple Inc's (AAPL.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) iPhone outsold all smartphones in the United States in July, its first full month on sale, accounting for 1.8 percent of all U.S. mobile handset sales, research group iSuppli said on Tuesday.
ISuppli reiterated its forecast that Apple would sell 4.5 million iPhones this year, rising to more than 30 million in 2011."
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMos...32369320070904
Not selling enough to hit 1M sales in a qtr is not grim. On track for 4.5M sales in half a year is not grim. Dropping price a little earlier in the quarter to hit it out of the ballpark is a far more accurate depliction. One that Jobs in fact used.
You counter that saying that Apple just kicked RIMs ass? Why are you mixing iPhone 3G with the iPhone launch. Why jump a year into the future? The point is about the launch, not the re-launch.
And it kicked in June of 2007 as well.
"The two models of the iPhone on the market sold more than Research in Motion's (RIM.TO: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Blackberry series, the entire Palm (PALM.O: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) portfolio and any individual smartphone model from Motorola (MOT.N: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz), Nokia (NOK1V.HE: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) or Samsung (005930.KS: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz).
Sales equaled those of LG Electronics' (066570.KS: Quote, Profile, Research, Stock Buzz) Chocolate, the most popular feature phone on the U.S. market, iSuppli said."
http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMos...32369320070904
Find me anywhere that indicates that Apple iPhone sales were "grim".
Your JD reference is also a current reference (Nov 2008). Nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
It counters your assertion that Apple is weak wrt to buisness even with the 3G and 2.0. Which did not occur until July of 2008.
iPhone 3G and iPhone OS 2 are inseparable.
Except that iPhone OS2 runs on the iPhone 2G doesn't it? That makes it pretty seperable.
Your RIM 778 reference is also current. Not valid as I'm talking about the iPhone original launch.
Given that the iPhone outsold the entire Blackberry line I would say that would be false. In any case, if the iPhone 1.0-1.1.5 sucked for a year then it would not have won the JD Powers award in 2008 because the 2.0 software was not released until July 2008.
So your contention is that Apple managed to win over business users enough to be #1 on JD Powers in just 4 months? That JD Powers did not start its survey until the very last moment in late October? That there were not millions of iPhone 2G business users that could have trashed the iPhone in that survey?
Riiight.
I didn't say you had said fat margins were necessary. I made an observation.
You stated: "Since when do you need fat margins to fuel new product design?"
Gee, I wonder what that wording implies.
Why do you think Apple reducing margins equates to Dell? Apple can reduce margins and still have far better margins than Dell.
Your response is incorrect in addressing what I wrote. The statement was in response to your suggestion that going the low margin and high volumes was an equal or better business model. The difference between Dell and Apple today shows this is not always true and that low volume, high margin can be more successful.
I spoke about Apple as a company and their 95% share claims and you counter that they've just wiped the floor with MS, Palm etc but, wait for it, in smartphones.
AGAIN incorrect. You stated that Apple would lose credibility. The fact that they decisively beat the incumbents in a competive market that folks said they could not means they can say any bloody thing they want and be taken seriously.
Jobs could walk out tomorrow and declare he was going to kick Nintendo's butt next Christmas (2009) and there'd be some seriously perturbed folks at Sony, Nintendo and MS. They would have no clue how he was going to do that but they'd all be worried that he could based on the asskicking he gave RIM and Palm.
Hell, Nintendo is probably already mildly worried given Jobs keeps downplaying aTV and the number of game developers that is now familiar with ObjectiveC and Cocoa. Apple would target the same casual market that Nintendo does. The next Mini/aTV could be one hell of a game box.
Apple has ZERO credibility problems as a result of their marketing or what Jobs says. Your assertion that Apple has some potential issue with credibility because of that 95% marketing thing (which I think you misunderstand ANYWAY) has zero basis in reality.
Great, you counter with something that has absolutely nothing to do with Apple's Mac business. So little in fact that Apple's stated goal for the phone market is 1%.
You know, if you're actually going to dissect every line it would actually be helpful to do so next to the line in question because I have no idea what this is in reference to.
That 1% is actually like 15-20% of the smartphone market. They want more of that market because that's where the margins are.
What was 'special' about the special event? New MB and MBPs which everybody was well prepared for because of the leaks. 28% YOY? I need a special event for that?
So you're saying that the new design isn't worthy of a special event? It should have just been a press release like a speed bump because of the leaks.
You don't think that MS/DELL/HP is the Great White of the PC world? Who is then? You say the iPhone is already cheap. Why then did you say:
Cheap is relative. $35,000 is cheap for a BMW. $199 is cheap for an iPhone. You won't be able to buy a BMW for $12,000 nor will you ever get an iPhone as a free phone. Is this concept hard to follow?
As far as Great White analogy goes, yes, MS/Dell/HP are the dominant players for computers but Apple is not their prey. Apple has been more successful at taking share from them than vice versa.
In the smartphone arena, it will not be Apple eaten by Symbian but Symbian eaten by Apple, Android, Linux and Windows. Just like Dell is getting eaten by HP, Apple and others.
It seems you are clutching at straws.
Right. I'm not the one proclaiming that iPhone sales were "grim" in summer of 2007 and that Symbian is going to eat the iPhone for lunch in the coming year.
Haven't had that much amusement since debating Melgross.
Well that was fun.
Haven't had that much amusement since debating Melgross.
well you should pick your debates carefully - because you're wrong on both logic and story
totally off the firewire topic, but since we're here...
the iphone 1G sales were impressive for a smartphone - no doubt
but not what apple had planned - hence the price drop (everyone knows this)
you see, what you're forgetting is that poor sales isn't measured in pure numbers
but what those numbers could have been
and what those numbers needed to be
and what those numbers were expected to be
same goes for mac sales (for those saying how well current mac sales are)
are they good? - sure
do they cover/repay r&d investment costs? - good question
could sales & customer satisfaction be better if they did things differently? - even better question
1G iphone sold 1.1 million phones in the 3rd quarter of 2007
3G iphone sold 1 million phones in its first 3 days on sale
even your mate SJ made the remark about how much better 3G was...
pretty much everyone agrees that the 1G was not the best launch for a number of reasons
- price
- lack of 3G
- only 1 carrier
- not in every country... simultaneously
which is why apple reacted quickly by dropping the price (and even backpaying early purchasers!)
and got the 3G out ASAP
if you want to maintain that the 1G launch was apple's best moment then you won't find many supporters
PS I bought/still have a 1G and quite like it... i'm neither knocking it or the iphone in general
the iphone 1G sales were impressive for a smartphone - no doubt
but not what apple had planned - hence the price drop (everyone knows this)
And you have evidence of this, because I surely don't "know this". Also, why are you calling it 1G? Call it original or 2G.
you see, what you're forgetting is that poor sales isn't measured in pure numbers
but what those numbers could have been
and what those numbers needed to be
and what those numbers were expected to be
AT&T said it sold faster than any other phone they had ever sold so are you saying that Apple expected the numbers to be break even more records? How exactly does this mean that the device was failure in your eyes.
]1G iphone sold 1.1 million phones in the 3rd quarter of 2007. 3G iphone sold 1 million phones in its first 3 days on sale
And the iPhone was well known after being out for over a year, included 3G, GPS and new software, including the App Store, and was released in 22x the countries.
even your mate SJ made the remark about how much better 3G was...
Show me a time when Steve Jobs?or any business man pushing a new product?claimed that the previous model was better than the one they are pushing. Strawman!
pretty much everyone agrees that the 1G was not the best launch for a number of reasons
- price
- lack of 3G
- only 1 carrier
- not in every country... simultaneously
Not as good as the 3G iPhone, but to call it a poor launch is absurd.
which is why apple reacted quickly by dropping the price (and even backpaying early purchasers!)
The price was dropped a month and half later and the backpaying of $100 credit was because, in typical Apple user fashion, people expected more than they were promised. Even when you account for the new lower price of the 3G iPhone and 24-month accounting the iPhone is bringing in a staggering amount of Apple's revenue. Imagine what the original iPhone at $600+revenue sharing did for Apple. This was a simple shut the fuck up, feel grateful and buy the next model next year maneuver.
and got the 3G out ASAP
A little over a year later... right when Jobs said it would be out 6 months before the original iPhone even launched.
if you want to maintain that the 1G launch was apple's best moment then you won't find many supporters
Best, no; remarkable launches in Apple's history, definitely.
Well that was fun.
Haven't had that much amusement since debating Melgross.
There is so much wrong with your last post that I'll leave it for the readers to make up their own minds. I could go into great detail explaining why you fail to miss the point entirely but this part of the thread was already off-topic and dissecting your post would take it even further off.
However, just so others have the opportunity to understand what I mean, let me give just one example of what to look for:
Apple succeeds by being an elite brand with fat margins to fuel even more excellent products.
You can fuel the same designs by reducing margins and increasing volume sales.
Yes, it's working great for Dell. And Apple has both fat margins AND industry leading growth.
Why do you think Apple reducing margins equates to Dell? Apple can reduce margins and still have far better margins than Dell.
Your response is incorrect in addressing what I wrote. The statement was in response to your suggestion that going the low margin and high volumes was an equal or better business model. The difference between Dell and Apple today shows this is not always true and that low volume, high margin can be more successful.
You have altered my words.
Did I say that Apple needed low margins?
NO. I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
You got the wrong end of the stick but sadly, in your opinion, I am still the one who is incorrect in addressing what you wrote. OK, if that's how you see it I can live with that.
I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales.
Of course they could, how could anyone argue against that. They could also increase the margins and reduce unit sales. If you are asserting that by reducing margins will increase unit sales enough to make the company more money while maintaining the premium branding, then I'll need some proof, or even a well thought out hypothesis before I believe that.
the iphone 1G sales were impressive for a smartphone - no doubt
but not what apple had planned - hence the price drop (everyone knows this)
you see, what you're forgetting is that poor sales isn't measured in pure numbers
but what those numbers could have been
and what those numbers needed to be
and what those numbers were expected to be
Feel free to provide links that support your assertion.
same goes for mac sales (for those saying how well current mac sales are)
are they good? - sure
do they cover/repay r&d investment costs? - good question
No question. They answer is more than yes or Apple wouldn't be adding to their warchest every quarter.
could sales & customer satisfaction be better if they did things differently? - even better question
One answered by asking who's doing better than Apple at the moment.
1G iphone sold 1.1 million phones in the 3rd quarter of 2007
So how much was constrained by supply and how much by demand?
In any case:
"The figures mesh with retail sales data already reported by NPD, which similarly described the size of the US market with a 27% chunk bit out by Apple?s iPhone.
Apple?s debut at second place across the entire North American smartphone market region for the third quarter ending in September is particularly noteworthy because the iPhone was only being sold in the US, and is only available through AT&T; all of the other mobile platforms are available to Sprint, Verizon Wireless, and T-Mobile as well as AT&T."
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/1...share-q3-2007/
3G iphone sold 1 million phones in its first 3 days on sale
even your mate SJ made the remark about how much better 3G was...
pretty much everyone agrees that the 1G was not the best launch for a number of reasons
- price
- lack of 3G
- only 1 carrier
- not in every country... simultaneously
which is why apple reacted quickly by dropping the price (and even backpaying early purchasers!) and got the 3G out ASAP
if you want to maintain that the 1G launch was apple's best moment then you won't find many supporters
"A large part of that second step has involved meticulously planned and perfectly executed events that make people feel like they are experiencing history, not just a product launch. Last year's iPhone launch event was perhaps the pinnacle of that strategy, as several million people came to a virtual standstill on June 29, 2007, to watch a company launch a phone. Unfortunately for Apple, several million people came to a standstill again this year: in line waiting for the iPhone 3G, or at home trying to activate their original iPhone."
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-9989293-37.html
"Our sources indicate that iPhone will likely become the fastest selling product in Apple's history and not to mention likely among the fastest (if not the fastest) in consumer electronics," analyst Shaw Wu informed clients in a research report published Monday. "We estimate sales of about 250,000 units in two days (up from our previous view of 50,000). The previous fastest seller was iPod nano, which sold about 1 million units in about 17 days meaning, about 59,000 units per day."
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...n_history.html
Here's two. Yes, the original iPhone launch was Apple's best moment thus far.
Now find me a few that thought that the original launch sucked. If everyone agrees that "the 1G was not the best launch" this should not be a hard task.
By the way...the 3G was a year later. Hardly a panic move by Apple or "ASAP". Apple was constrained by waiting for AT&T's 3G network to suck less.
PS I bought/still have a 1G and quite like it... i'm neither knocking it or the iphone in general
I bought a 3G and trust me, the experience and excitement was no where near the same as the original launch. If Apple blew an iPhone launch it was definately the 3G.
And you have evidence of this, because I surely don't "know this". Also, why are you calling it 1G? Call it original or 2G.
AT&T said it sold faster than any other phone they had ever sold so are you saying that Apple expected the numbers to be break even more records? How exactly does this mean that the device was failure in your eyes.
And the iPhone was well known after being out for over a year, included 3G, GPS and new software, including the App Store, and was released in 22x the countries.
Show me a time when Steve Jobs?or any business man pushing a new product?claimed that the previous model was better than the one they are pushing. Strawman!
Not as good as the 3G iPhone, but to call it a poor launch is absurd.
The price was dropped a month and half later and the backpaying of $100 credit was because, in typical Apple user fashion, people expected more than they were promised. Even when you account for the new lower price of the 3G iPhone and 24-month accounting the iPhone is bringing in a staggering amount of Apple's revenue. Imagine what the original iPhone at $600+revenue sharing did for Apple. This was a simple shut the fuck up, feel grateful and buy the next model next year maneuver.
A little over a year later... right when Jobs said it would be out 6 months before the original iPhone even launched.
Best, no; remarkable launches in Apple's history, definitely.
1g because its 1st generation (yes i should put that as a little g)
if you can't read the between the lines on the SJ quote
and think that the 1g iphone was an impressive launch (relative to the 3G launch
then you obviously aren't very good at picking up innuendo
"iPhone 3G had a stunning opening weekend," said Steve Jobs, Apple's CEO, in a prepared statement. "It took 74 days to sell the first 1 million original iPhones, so the new iPhone 3G is clearly off to a great start around the world."
apple did well - sure - but just look outside the US
people had to wait ages to get it in most EU countries
and a year to get it in some countries with lots of disposable income like Australia, Japan etc
i mean they haven't even released the 3G in china, potentially the world's biggest market !?
they're still doing great, no contest on that one
but could they be doing better - certainly
this is so off topic, but then again it's not
because you think that if apple manages to sell anything they're brilliant
There is so much wrong with your last post that I'll leave it for the readers to make up their own minds. I could go into great detail explaining why you fail to miss the point entirely but this part of the thread was already off-topic and dissecting your post would take it even further off.
However, just so others have the opportunity to understand what I mean, let me give just one example of what to look for:
You have altered my words.
Did I say that Apple needed low margins?
Can you point out where I altered your words to say that Apple needed low margins? I said that bring it up you suggested that this was an equivalent strategy to low volume/high margins. The counter example I presented was Dell. For that matter HP works as well.
NO. I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
The difference is that the strategy changes requiring a different lineup with different performance than what we have observed with Apple. Even taking HP as the counter example, Apple is very profitable despite having much lower revenues.
HP: $28B revenue, GAAP net income of $2B, $0.80 per share.
Apple: $7.4B revenue, GAAP net income of $1B, $1.19 per share.
Dell: $13B revenye, GAAP net income $606M, $0.25 per share.
Lowering your margins has to be accompanied by much higher volume to make it worth while.
And you keep missing my primary point: Apple has BOTH large margins AND high growth.
Why should Apple lower margins? To pursue growth it may not be able to handle? It already has growing pains.
The fact that it does not lower margins to pursue market share shows that Apple has never strived for pure market dominance. Only in the highly profitable areas.
You got the wrong end of the stick but sadly, in your opinion, I am still the one who is incorrect in addressing what you wrote. OK, if that's how you see it I can live with that.
I'm glad you can live with it. I would hope that no one takes internet debates very seriously.
Feel free to provide links that support your assertion.
they're not assertions they're questions... dude
i'm asserting that you're not asking the right questions
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...n_history.html
Here's two. Yes, the original iPhone launch was Apple's best moment thus far.
Now find me a few that thought that the original launch sucked. If everyone agrees that "the 1G was not the best launch" this should not be a hard task.
By the way...the 3G was a year later. Hardly a panic move by Apple or "ASAP". Apple was constrained by waiting for AT&T's 3G network to suck less.
I bought a 3G and trust me, the experience and excitement was no where near the same as the original launch. If Apple blew an iPhone launch it was definately the 3G.
you're definitely entering "i'm a clown" territory
74 days vs 3 days to sell 1 million - and that's from SJ
one minute you argue that doing well is about sales numbers
next you argue it's about "experience and excitement"
(and if that's your opinion I'm happy for you - and i can't/won't argue that away from you)
one minute you say SJ is king
next you disagree with him about which is Apple's best launch ??
i'm done on the iphone
if you want to think the 1g was best then go right ahead
for me the relativity of the numbers
and the frustration of all the buyers outside the US (which are represented by the numbers of the 3G launch)
speak for themselves.
but i'll let you have your opinions
now back to firewire if anyone's got anything to add
but could they be doing better - certainly
Not "certainly". The Wii is as good but in a market with fewer players.
Show another company that has executed better. There are damn few product launches as memorable to be able to boldly make the claim it is certain that Apple could have done "better".
Hell, there wasn't this much excitement over the original Mac. I dunno what Apple product launch could be considered better than the original iPhone. The iPod one was not a big splash as a special event and low sales that first year.
they're not assertions they're questions... dude
the iphone 1G sales were impressive for a smartphone - no doubt
but not what apple had planned - hence the price drop (everyone knows this)
That is an assertion. A currently unsupported one. Show evidence that everyone knows that the sales were not what Apple planned and the price drop was the result.
Dude.
one minute you say SJ is king next you disagree with him about which is Apple's best launch ??
For SJ the current lauch is always the best launch.
But given that there are many articles criticizing the 3G launch and few (none?) the 2G launch I guess I'll have to say that my position has far more support than yours.
Yes, numbers matter but it's not the only measure of a successful launch. Making folks wait hours in long lines because you've screwed up the authorization process is not the kind of user experience Apple shoots for.
But hey, call me a clown if you like. It just means you're losing the debate.
..
pretty much everyone agrees that the 1G was not the best launch for a number of reasons
- price
- lack of 3G
- only 1 carrier
- not in every country... simultaneously
You are arguing that the launch of the first version of the iPhone was not good because the launch of the second version was better?
You do realize Apple has made around 3 billion in revenue from the first iPhone. When does selling 3 billion worth of anything prove to be mediocre?
NO. I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
I'm only posting to this one item. I don't want to get drawn into anything else.
Apple has gross profit margins in the low 30 percentile, to about 35%. They have a profit of about 12%
A number of other computer companies are doing worse, which doesn't mean that Apple's are excessive. Losing money on a large part of sales is never a good thing, which is what Dell, for example has done in order to keep marketshare.
Company gross profit margins vary considerably, whether they make computers or other technology related products.
Some examples that I fairly quickly looked up. This isn't all up to date, as I was looking for some info quickly, but it doesn't matter because I'm just showing examples, which may have gotten better or worse later on.
networking
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1016...profit-margins
utilities
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1018...profit-margins
Apple
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=finan...=NASDAQ%3AAAPL
Nortel, notice that while it has high gross profit margins, its EPS is minus $1.97.
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=cafinancials&symbol=
IBM
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=financials&symbol=IBM
HP
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=finan...ol=HP&sf_ok=OK
CISCO
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=finan...=CSCO&sf_ok=OK
Dell, our screwed up friend that sells consumer machines often for less than it costs to make them
http://www.advfn.com/p.php?pid=finan...=DELL&sf_ok=OK
A short article showing why gross profit margins are not actually "profit", but just indicate when the company can actually begin to make a profit
http://www.b2bcfo.com/part-time-cfo/.../gross-profit/
Only Net profit margins are actually what we think of as profits, again, in Apple's case, about 12%.
Apple is doing ok here, but not fantastic. What has made Apple desirable as an investment id the growth in sales, with a steady profit and margins that are not too low.
I don't know how much you would cut margins. Even cutting them by 20% would only allow the prices go down by about 5% or so. It would cut profits to about 2%, which would make the stock drop like a stone, even in good times.
I said Apple could reduce (lower) margins and increase volume sales. There is a world of difference between low margins and lower margins.
It seems that we agree that low margins and lower margins are not the same. On the subject of lower margins we also seem to agree that Apple has margin (no pun intended) to lower margins. It's impossible to know to what level as we do not have access to the necessary data. However, we can assume that Apple, being the company that it is (premium prices etc), can manoeuvre in this area.
Apple is a software, hardware, services and investment company. This complicates things still further but there are valid reasons to support a cut in margins. I would say there are more reasons to support a reduction in margins than to maintain them or increase them.
- They have already reduced margins (and they pre-announced the move).
- They are suposedly seeking to go after the other 95% of the PC market.
- It is reasonable to believe that the move to increase prices on one of its flagship models may backfire (note that I am not saying it will though but yes, that is my opinion in case you were wondering)
- As a services and software company there are reasonable secundary revenue streams to be generated but those streams cannot be realised until the purchaser has a Mac in his/her possession (support services, AppleCare, software).
- Part of Apple's justification of the iPhone price cut was to put the device into as many hands as possible and impact competitors.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it. There's no problem with that but at a corporate level I think it's vital to take moves to at least double the current market share. Anything that could cause users to put the brakes on a possible mac purchase needs to be looked at.
Currently there are areas that are lacking in Apple's product matrix (entry level tower for example) but when combined with Apple's pricing strategy I'm sure many users end up not following through on a purchase.
You are arguing that the launch of the first version of the iPhone was not good because the launch of the second version was better?
You do realize Apple has made around 3 billion in revenue from the first iPhone. When does selling 3 billion worth of anything prove to be mediocre?
I'm also confused by your assertions...
are you claiming that the original iphone launch was better
because it sold phones at 25 times less per day than the 3G ?
or are you basing it on customer satisfaction centering around the geek queues,
a couple of hours of server overload (an indication of the worldwide publicity "success" of a launch)
and some problems with activation on the first day?
again, if you rate a launch on your (and a few other reporters/bloggers) experience on the 1st day
then i can't/won't argue with you (or vinea) - your welcome to your opinion.
My assertion is that the questions to be asked are the following:
a. what does the launch need to be to meet profits/costs/etc (this is the minimum to be economically successful)
b. what is the potential of this launch (it may be above point a) - this is planning for upsides on a. & will include some qualitative stuff like market assessment
c. after calculating b. and planning for it, what can do we expect (this is between a & b)
normally one would base their product production on b.
but a pessimistic manager could base their product production on c
a very pessimisic one on a. - but then they'll completely exclude the possibility of upsides
if b. is less than a. you generally won't get funding to manufacture the product.
here's a link where one guy has estimated costs etc based on the unlocked iphone price
his conclusion is that apple needed to sell 10 million g1 iphones (is g1 clearer for u? it wasn't a 2G but a 2.5G anyway...)
to meet their normal 'expectations' of profit
...who knows if this is correct?
at the initial launch rate of this was going to take them 74 x 10 = 740 days or 2 years to meet...
at the 3G launch rate this would have only taken one month
your call as to which one was best.
apple will think about these sort of things for all product launches
and only they can say what the required sales are (and the increased costs) for the unibody macbooks
unfortunately this info is not released in the 10k - and they don't even publish indv model sales
again launch success is not just based on whether you manage to sell some items (or even many)
but also
- the requirement (to repay costs)
- the potential (which obviously depends on product type/quality & market)
we have little idea on the requirements for the macbook launch (to make it economic)
and my opinion (based on those around me who have avoided this sale)
is that apple has not reached their potential on the MB launch (due to factors discussed previously)
Melgross,
It seems that we agree that low margins and lower margins are not the same. On the subject of lower margins we also seem to agree that Apple has margin (no pun intended) to lower margins. It's impossible to know to what level as we do not have access to the necessary data. However, we can assume that Apple, being the company that it is (premium prices etc), can manoeuvre in this area.
Apple is a software, hardware, services and investment company. This complicates things still further but there are valid reasons to support a cut in margins. I would say there are more reasons to support a reduction in margins than to maintain them or increase them.
- They have already reduced margins (and they pre-announced the move).
- They are suposedly seeking to go after the other 95% of the PC market.
- It is reasonable to believe that the move to increase prices on one of its flagship models may backfire (note that I am not saying it will though but yes, that is my opinion in case you were wondering)
- As a services and software company there are reasonable secundary revenue streams to be generated but those streams cannot be realised until the purchaser has a Mac in his/her possession (support services, AppleCare, software).
- Part of Apple's justification of the iPhone price cut was to put the device into as many hands as possible and impact competitors.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it. There's no problem with that but at a corporate level I think it's vital to take moves to at least double the current market share. Anything that could cause users to put the brakes on a possible mac purchase needs to be looked at.
Currently there are areas that are lacking in Apple's product matrix (entry level tower for example) but when combined with Apple's pricing strategy I'm sure many users end up not following through on a purchase.
Apple's ability to cut margins is poor. As their margins approach 30%, on the way down, investors get nervous, as they should. A healthy margin for Apple is around 33%. Sustained margins below that are cutting it too fine.
Apple didn't lower the price of the iPhone, they just moved the payments into a long term contract, and have the phone companies paying for the rest.
- They have already reduced margins (and they pre-announced the move).
Which was to pay for the increased cost in machining the new design. A design and process they intend to carry them through for the next few years.
- They are suposedly seeking to go after the other 95% of the PC market.
Repeated assertion of an incorrect statement never makes it true.
There is no indication that Apple is seeking MS level market share. In fact all of their statements have been negative. In conference call after conference call folks have asked if they will reduce margin to increase share and the answer has ALWAYS been that they are comfortable with their current rate of growth.
Jobs has dismissed to two segments (PCs $500 or less and netbooks) that are either the majority share or has rapid growth as areas that Apple is not interested in.
You continue to misconstrue what Apple says. The message is the same as it was when the first Mac was released. When they say "the machine for the rest of us" (or the other 95%) they mean they build computers that doesn't require being a geek to use.
Not that they intend on building machines cheap enough that everyone can afford to buy one.
In large part Jobs has succeeded in his goal to change computing. Vista is not THAT much harder to use than Leopard...but the Mac really did show the way.
- It is reasonable to believe that the move to increase prices on one of its flagship models may backfire (note that I am not saying it will though but yes, that is my opinion in case you were wondering)
Except that the entry level MB is now less expensive ($999) and more powerful than before and the flagship model (MBP) is the same price. When the cost of the new process drops enough, the silver MP will replace the white MB, probably at the old $1099 level. The new MBs at the top end are more expensive but also more capable than the old top end MB. In fact they are effectively MBP level.
- As a services and software company there are reasonable secundary revenue streams to be generated but those streams cannot be realised until the purchaser has a Mac in his/her possession (support services, AppleCare, software).
Secondary revenue streams are just that. Secondary. Out of $3.4B in revenues. Software, services and other sales provided $0.5B in revenue and preipherals $0.4B. In contrast, Mac sales contribute 48% of Apple's revenue stream.
- Part of Apple's justification of the iPhone price cut was to put the device into as many hands as possible and impact competitors.
Yes, because Apple is trying to dominate the still emerging smartphone market. Which is an area they see an opportunity to replicate their iPod success. The PC market is mature and that war was lost a decade ago.
Apple is trying to have its cake and eat it. There's no problem with that but at a corporate level I think it's vital to take moves to at least double the current market share. Anything that could cause users to put the brakes on a possible mac purchase needs to be looked at.
Given that they had 3-4 weeks channel inventory they are selling what they make even with high margins. There's no need to do anything to double Mac's market share so long as it continues to grow better than the industry average and Apple doesn't care about doubling total market share but instead growing share in the most profitable segments.
In fact, I'd go as far to say that Apple deliberately limits Mac growth to keep the cache of being different in the computing world.
The place that Apple CAN grow massive share is the smartphone market. That's where they are concentrating and even there they are making money hand over fist while they have the market advantage.
Don't bet on Symbian. Nokia may be a great phone maker but no where close to Apple in terms of software development. Arguably UIQ (Moto/Sony Erricson Symbian) was better than S60 (Nokia Symbian) for smartphones but SE phones were not as good as the Nokia counterpart making it more sluggish.
The Symbian Foundation is too new to see how well it all shakes out. And it lost Motorolla who decided to go Android.
Here's an interesting chart based on non-scientific data of developer interest:
http://mobilephonedevelopment.com/archives/711
There's an iPhone dev shortage and mobile developers are moving where the money is.
Here's a developer's comment on easy of development
http://mobilephonedevelopment.com/archives/710
Yes, windows mobile IS easier to develop for than the iPhone. As much as I like XCode, VS is IMHO better and C# easier to code for than ObjC. I've only looked at the S60 stuff an not done any development with that but my own sources indicates this guy isn't far off.
Plus, Symbian code will cost $1500 to be a member. Whereas the iPhone is $99 (free if you just want to try first) or free for either Linux, Java or Windows.
This is a non-issue for companies but for indie developers they'll either go Java, C# or iPhone. And with the AppStore it's no contest. iPhone.
Currently there are areas that are lacking in Apple's product matrix (entry level tower for example) but when combined with Apple's pricing strategy I'm sure many users end up not following through on a purchase.
Apple has no need for an entry tower because it does not desire the demographic that buys entry towers. That those folks wont by a Mac is fine by Apple. Just like that fewer folks buy a Porshe is fine with Porsche.