... the story reported that the study was within the country, not worldwide.
You missed my point.
The story *mentions* (when quoting the source) that the study was for the USA, but even then only does so in a backhanded way by using the phrase "around the country" in the third paragraph. The report is about market saturation in the USA, but nothing in AppleInsider's presentation mentions or references that directly. It should be in the title that this is for the USA only and not "the market."
It's presented as an article about "how the market for iPods is saturated" when in fact it's clearly not saturated. The USA market might be nearing a saturation point but the world market simply can't be given Apple's penetration so far. In this case, the misrepresentation is going to stir up a lot of anger and frustration in the comments that have no basis in fact.
The confusion being created here is based on the substitution of "market" for "American market" and the mixing up of those two ideas/terms. That's just a plain old bias no matter how you slice it. It's totally valid for me to point out, (being one of the many non-americans on the internet), that if the authors were a bit more aware of their biases they wouldn't print junk like this.
I assume throughout of course, that this is just a simple mistake on AppleInsider's part and not a deliberate strategy to drive hits (a la Dvorak), by printing inflammatory articles designed to get people riled up by misrepresenting the facts.
I'm just trying to gently nudge the AppleInsider staff to think about the fact that they have an audience outside of the USA when writing on the Internet and that a large part of the people reading this site are actually not in the USA. It seems to me that this is just a simple mistake brought about by not really considering the audience for the article.
Apple has a huge untapped market both in iPod Touch and iPhone:
1. iPod Touch has huge potential both here in the US and in foreign markets. However, Apple need to add some features like hi end camera with mini zoom auto focus lens of good quality and CCD instead of the CMOS... and may be LED flash. The casual camera and video recording market is huge.
Another important feature would be a built-in mic. Free WiFi networks are very common here in the US in stores, universities, plus at home. Plus the same trend has started in Europe with free WiFi in parks, schools, universities, etc... they are even faster than here. With a VoIP plans it is a huge market. Apple could even tie in with Skype.
iPhone - It is quite onerous to have to sign up with ATT for the voice and data plan at such hi rates. Then have to pay extra for SMS even though it is just broad band app... so I would be paying twice.
QCOM and others make chip sets that allow multi band use over GSM, EDGE, CDMA, EVDO, WCDMA, etc and the variants. The BOM would not increase much. I know that Apple chained itself into a corner with ATT in the US... but there is a big wide world.
The main limitations with both product lines are those that Apple placed due to marketing constraints and limiting features. Not the first time they have done that.
Tell me ow you're going to defy physics sticking that camera into an iPod Touch with that kind of thinness? Something has to give buddy, and any attempt to cut corners will result in a crappy camera that NO ONE will use.
Plus, why on earth would Apple stick in a built-in mic? It wants to sell people iPhones! Stop thinking that Apple purely caters to the customer or shareholders are going to replace management.
Apple has a huge untapped market both in iPod Touch and iPhone:
1. iPod Touch has huge potential both here in the US and in foreign markets. However, Apple need to add some features like hi end camera with mini zoom auto focus lens of good quality and CCD instead of the CMOS... and may be LED flash. The casual camera and video recording market is huge.
Another important feature would be a built-in mic. Free WiFi networks are very common here in the US in stores, universities, plus at home. Plus the same trend has started in Europe with free WiFi in parks, schools, universities, etc... they are even faster than here. With a VoIP plans it is a huge market. Apple could even tie in with Skype.
iPhone - It is quite onerous to have to sign up with ATT for the voice and data plan at such hi rates. Then have to pay extra for SMS even though it is just broad band app... so I would be paying twice.
QCOM and others make chip sets that allow multi band use over GSM, EDGE, CDMA, EVDO, WCDMA, etc and the variants. The BOM would not increase much. I know that Apple chained itself into a corner with ATT in the US... but there is a big wide world.
The main limitations with both product lines are those that Apple placed due to marketing constraints and limiting features. Not the first time they have done that.
1. It appears that the next iteration will have a better camera and video. Teens aren't going to unilaterally upgrade their cell phones because of this feature. However, a new iPod touch by adding a built-in camera to its current Wi-Fi capabilities would encourage many. LED flash would not be practical because of battery concerns and just how much can one expect such a feature to add to enhance its photographic capabilities.
2. Most places I have been in, i.e., universities, parks, etc., do not provide universal free-access to Wi-Fi. Here, Europe or Asia. Certainly, more and more are opening up, but not really free, unless you are a student or staff University Staff member, for example. And Wi-Fi is faster in Europe than here? Where did you come to that conclusion? As for VoIP plans being a huge market?absolutely, however, they won't be free either. By the way, Skype is not free, either. You still have to have access to the net and I have yet to find totally universally free access either at home or away. Somebody has to pay somewhere, sometime.
3. SMS is not just a broad band app?at over a 100 billion and counting a day, there is a lot of space being chewed up and somebody has to pay for storage and building the network infrastructure to instantly manage, coordinate and transfer such. The idea that building an interstate highway to handle a hundred cars going 50 miles an hour can simply be able to handle a million trucks going 70 miles an hour by simply taking down the toll booths is wishful thinking.
4. So Apple gets in bed with the only major service provider that would invest in enlarging and improving its network and drop their data plan charges so that we could have a cell phone that actually worked and have actual access to the internet at a significantly less price than ever before is 'chaining itself'?
5. So, could you tell me what other companies' products that have not been limited by marketing constraints and features? Are you saying the Nokia, RIM, MicroSoft, etc., introduced products that had every feature one could imagine from day one. Or are you saying by your comment, "Not the first time they have done that," that Apple maliciously held back?
What is the real meaning of "saturation point"? Does everyone who owns a telephone stop buying telephones just because they already have a phone? Substitute virtually any upgradable product in this sentence and it still applies. It is idiotic to suggest that teens won't continue to buy iPods because every teen who wants an iPod already has one. Completely idiotic.
1. It appears that the next iteration will have a better camera and video. Teens aren't going to unilaterally upgrade their cell phones because of this feature. However, a new iPod touch by adding a built-in camera to its current Wi-Fi capabilities would encourage many. LED flash would not be practical because of battery concerns and just how much can one expect such a feature to add to enhance its photographic capabilities.
2. Most places I have been in, i.e., universities, parks, etc., do not provide universal free-access to Wi-Fi. Here, Europe or Asia. Certainly, more and more are opening up, but not really free, unless you are a student or staff University Staff member, for example. And Wi-Fi is faster in Europe than here? Where did you come to that conclusion? As for VoIP plans being a huge market?absolutely, however, they won't be free either. By the way, Skype is not free, either. You still have to have access to the net and I have yet to find totally universally free access either at home or away. Somebody has to pay somewhere, sometime.
3. SMS is not just a broad band app?at over a 100 billion and counting a day, there is a lot of space being chewed up and somebody has to pay for storage and building the network infrastructure to instantly manage, coordinate and transfer such. The idea that building an interstate highway to handle a hundred cars going 50 miles an hour can simply be able to handle a million trucks going 70 miles an hour by simply taking down the toll booths is wishful thinking.
4. So Apple gets in bed with the only major service provider that would invest in enlarging and improving its network and drop their data plan charges so that we could have a cell phone that actually worked and have actual access to the internet at a significantly less price than ever before is 'chaining itself'?
5. So, could you tell me what other companies' products that have not been limited by marketing constraints and features? Are you saying the Nokia, RIM, MicroSoft, etc., introduced products that had every feature one could imagine from day one. Or are you saying by your comment, "Not the first time they have done that," that Apple maliciously held back?
1. LED fill in flash does not consume too much power as it is lit for only a fraction of a second, but my experience has been that at close range it does improve the quality of picture. Not essential. Better quality lenses, especially coated glass lens with CCD would make a difference. All this adds to cost but the cost of other components have come down while the end user cost has remained the same - so far.
2, In my town USA, there are several coffee shops and other public places that have free WiFi access. Yes, some universities do grant free WiFi access to the students. That is a huge market. Europe has been improving their internet back bone in places like Scandinavia, Portugal, Spain. Standard bandwidth is now 24 MB/s via telco lines. and there are indications that will increase. Makes WiFi faster.
3. Anybody familiar with the principle of the Gorilla Game would not that by limiting itself to ATT, Apple has constrained its value chain. They could have sold the phone to multiple carriers with multiple radios. The competition would have kept prices of service like data low. That is what RIMM did or even Nokia. I suspect that the main reason Apple went with ATT was because the telco was willing to share monthly revenues,
4. VoIP is much cheaper than the ATT plans. VoIP to VoIP is free as in Skype to Skype or using other open protocols like in the Cisco/Sipura devices.
Apple has a history of putting roadblocks into its tech development. Starting with the original Mac. It was a nice computer but it has a closed architecture. One could not add a hard disk, video card and color monitor. By 1984 IBM PC was offering all of the above. No wonder that MSFT was able to dominate the market.
What is the real meaning of "saturation point"? Does everyone who owns a telephone stop buying telephones just because they already have a phone? Substitute virtually any upgradable product in this sentence and it still applies. It is idiotic to suggest that teens won't continue to buy iPods because every teen who wants an iPod already has one. Completely idiotic.
That's what I was thinking actually. Is there any point or validity to making a statement about 'saturation'? I mean, next year there'll be more teenagers, and the year after, so there's no shortage of new buyers ... it's not like everyone already has one and will never buy another. There are still people growing up who have yet to experience the magic that is consumerism. \
What is the real meaning of "saturation point"? Does everyone who owns a telephone stop buying telephones just because they already have a phone? Substitute virtually any upgradable product in this sentence and it still applies. It is idiotic to suggest that teens won't continue to buy iPods because every teen who wants an iPod already has one. Completely idiotic.
I think in this case "saturation point" refers to the point in which your current rate of growth can not be maintained since the mix of new users to upgrading users will shift to being primarily upgraders. In theory, this will represent a much slower rate of growth. Not only that, but the growth in your product mix might also shift. If iPod has 100% market penetration, let's look at the shuffle market. How many people who have existing shuffles are likely to "upgrade" to a new shuffle? How many people would downgrade to a new shuffle? Apple might have to shift their targeting to address these issues (i.e. the shuffle stops being an _entry_ level device and becomes more of a _secondary_ device, i.e. you start promoting it as an adjunct to your current higher end iPod and therefore put in more features to facilitate this and advertise it as such.)
Pipper-jaffray has a $120 target on AAPL? I thought they were WAY above that.
That's what got me too! I remember Gene Munster reducing his price target from $250 to $235 in Dec 2008 and then from $235 to $180 on Jan 22, 2009. But when did the drop to $120 happen?
If that's a typo, it should be corrected immediately.
I think in this case "saturation point" refers to the point in which your current rate of growth can not be maintained since the mix of new users to upgrading users will shift to being primarily upgraders. In theory, this will represent a much slower rate of growth. Not only that, but the growth in your product mix might also shift. If iPod has 100% market penetration, let's look at the shuffle market. How many people who have existing shuffles are likely to "upgrade" to a new shuffle? How many people would downgrade to a new shuffle? Apple might have to shift their targeting to address these issues (i.e. the shuffle stops being an _entry_ level device and becomes more of a _secondary_ device, i.e. you start promoting it as an adjunct to your current higher end iPod and therefore put in more features to facilitate this and advertise it as such.)
That doesn't make any sense...
An 'upgrader' is still purchasing the new piece of hardware, and thus is a buyer. No?
If there was an option of upgrading the storage in the players, then they could be called 'upgraders' ... but everyone that wants the 'new thing' will buy a new unit ... please correct me if I'm wrong here.
That's what got me too! I remember Gene Munster reducing his price target from $250 to $235 in Dec 2008 and then from $235 to $180 on Jan 22, 2009. But when did the drop to $120 happen?
If that's a typo, it should be corrected immediately.
... Apple has a history of putting roadblocks into its tech development. Starting with the original Mac. It was a nice computer but it has a closed architecture. One could not add a hard disk, video card and color monitor. ...
You seem like an older guy based on that remark about the coated lenses, but you need to come up with more than a single 30 year old example if you are going to be making drastic, blanket statements about Apple having a history of "blocking (tech) development."
Apple actually doesn't have "a history of putting roadblocks into it's tech development, it merely produces integrated systems and uses vertical product development. You may not like that approach, but it's perfectly valid, and to present this as Apple intentionally putting up "roadblocks" is a bit beyond the pale IMO.
Apple actually goes out of it's way to allow other vendors to make add-ons, accessories, and parts for it's products.
The saturation point in the USA has definitely been coming. To be clear, this is the point at which growth will slow because Apple is only selling as kids get older, or they're selling upgraded models, or replacements.
What I've witnessed is that kids with iPods are getting much younger. The Nano with video is a perfect gadget-sitter for young kids, and the iPod Touch is good for pre-teens and younger teens who aren't ready for an iPhone.
The results of Piper Jaffray's 17th bi-annual teen survey are in, showing Apple to have broadened its lead in the areas of iPod consumption and iTunes usage -- both of which are nearing their saturation point -- as the company moves to translate these successes to its iPhone business.
"We believe that the teen demographic is a critical component of long-term growth in the digital music and mobile markets, .....
Sorry but score another dropped ball by anal---yst. Yes many people have iPods and I am sure that the number of them sold will start to level off. Its only natural since they last so long.
But the "anal---yst" misses the point. Apple is ready to sell you an iPod touch that is a game machine, internet connection, iPod, etc, etc for only 200$ which is a sweet spot given their numbers data. THEN, you sell them songs, games, apps, apps, apps....
Apple always skating to where the puck will be..... not looking in the rear view mirror like many anal--ysts.
1. LED fill in flash does not consume too much power as it is lit for only a fraction of a second, but my experience has been that at close range it does improve the quality of picture. Not essential. Better quality lenses, especially coated glass lens with CCD would make a difference. All this adds to cost but the cost of other components have come down while the end user cost has remained the same - so far.
2, In my town USA, there are several coffee shops and other public places that have free WiFi access. Yes, some universities do grant free WiFi access to the students. That is a huge market. Europe has been improving their internet back bone in places like Scandinavia, Portugal, Spain. Standard bandwidth is now 24 MB/s via telco lines. and there are indications that will increase. Makes WiFi faster.
3. Anybody familiar with the principle of the Gorilla Game would not that by limiting itself to ATT, Apple has constrained its value chain. They could have sold the phone to multiple carriers with multiple radios. The competition would have kept prices of service like data low. That is what RIMM did or even Nokia. I suspect that the main reason Apple went with ATT was because the telco was willing to share monthly revenues,
4. VoIP is much cheaper than the ATT plans. VoIP to VoIP is free as in Skype to Skype or using other open protocols like in the Cisco/Sipura devices.
Apple has a history of putting roadblocks into its tech development. Starting with the original Mac. It was a nice computer but it has a closed architecture. One could not add a hard disk, video card and color monitor. By 1984 IBM PC was offering all of the above. No wonder that MSFT was able to dominate the market.
So much so wrong. In particular, the bit about MSFT.
If I was asked wether I'm planning to buy an iPod in the next 12 months I'd probably say no too, however as soon as Apple comes out with a new snarky iPod I would most definitely change my mind. When it comes to devices like the iPod people's plan-to-purchase is usually a week to a month not 12!! 12 months is more for real estate.
Question:
How many of "These" people are there in the world? Seems like more then what ever number they have come up with! If 92% of the folks in this category owned iPods, wouldn't the number of iPods sold, be MUCH greater?
For me it's all in who they spoke with.
Students at local colleges? How about students at local high schools, middle school, elementary schools, hell day cares at this point in time.
Now let's ask them in each of the 50 states ? I'm sure the numbers will vary greatly.
state with high unemployment will look much worst then states were unemployment isn't as bad at this time. And I agree with the other person ? ask this question and tell me the numbers:
"If (WHEN) Apple comes out with the next killer iPod, will you likely be buying one, two or more"? I think we all know what the answer would be.
Comments
... the story reported that the study was within the country, not worldwide.
You missed my point.
The story *mentions* (when quoting the source) that the study was for the USA, but even then only does so in a backhanded way by using the phrase "around the country" in the third paragraph. The report is about market saturation in the USA, but nothing in AppleInsider's presentation mentions or references that directly. It should be in the title that this is for the USA only and not "the market."
It's presented as an article about "how the market for iPods is saturated" when in fact it's clearly not saturated. The USA market might be nearing a saturation point but the world market simply can't be given Apple's penetration so far. In this case, the misrepresentation is going to stir up a lot of anger and frustration in the comments that have no basis in fact.
The confusion being created here is based on the substitution of "market" for "American market" and the mixing up of those two ideas/terms. That's just a plain old bias no matter how you slice it. It's totally valid for me to point out, (being one of the many non-americans on the internet), that if the authors were a bit more aware of their biases they wouldn't print junk like this.
I assume throughout of course, that this is just a simple mistake on AppleInsider's part and not a deliberate strategy to drive hits (a la Dvorak), by printing inflammatory articles designed to get people riled up by misrepresenting the facts.
I'm just trying to gently nudge the AppleInsider staff to think about the fact that they have an audience outside of the USA when writing on the Internet and that a large part of the people reading this site are actually not in the USA. It seems to me that this is just a simple mistake brought about by not really considering the audience for the article.
Apple has a huge untapped market both in iPod Touch and iPhone:
1. iPod Touch has huge potential both here in the US and in foreign markets. However, Apple need to add some features like hi end camera with mini zoom auto focus lens of good quality and CCD instead of the CMOS... and may be LED flash. The casual camera and video recording market is huge.
Another important feature would be a built-in mic. Free WiFi networks are very common here in the US in stores, universities, plus at home. Plus the same trend has started in Europe with free WiFi in parks, schools, universities, etc... they are even faster than here. With a VoIP plans it is a huge market. Apple could even tie in with Skype.
iPhone - It is quite onerous to have to sign up with ATT for the voice and data plan at such hi rates. Then have to pay extra for SMS even though it is just broad band app... so I would be paying twice.
QCOM and others make chip sets that allow multi band use over GSM, EDGE, CDMA, EVDO, WCDMA, etc and the variants. The BOM would not increase much. I know that Apple chained itself into a corner with ATT in the US... but there is a big wide world.
The main limitations with both product lines are those that Apple placed due to marketing constraints and limiting features. Not the first time they have done that.
Tell me ow you're going to defy physics sticking that camera into an iPod Touch with that kind of thinness? Something has to give buddy, and any attempt to cut corners will result in a crappy camera that NO ONE will use.
Plus, why on earth would Apple stick in a built-in mic? It wants to sell people iPhones! Stop thinking that Apple purely caters to the customer or shareholders are going to replace management.
Apple has a huge untapped market both in iPod Touch and iPhone:
1. iPod Touch has huge potential both here in the US and in foreign markets. However, Apple need to add some features like hi end camera with mini zoom auto focus lens of good quality and CCD instead of the CMOS... and may be LED flash. The casual camera and video recording market is huge.
Another important feature would be a built-in mic. Free WiFi networks are very common here in the US in stores, universities, plus at home. Plus the same trend has started in Europe with free WiFi in parks, schools, universities, etc... they are even faster than here. With a VoIP plans it is a huge market. Apple could even tie in with Skype.
iPhone - It is quite onerous to have to sign up with ATT for the voice and data plan at such hi rates. Then have to pay extra for SMS even though it is just broad band app... so I would be paying twice.
QCOM and others make chip sets that allow multi band use over GSM, EDGE, CDMA, EVDO, WCDMA, etc and the variants. The BOM would not increase much. I know that Apple chained itself into a corner with ATT in the US... but there is a big wide world.
The main limitations with both product lines are those that Apple placed due to marketing constraints and limiting features. Not the first time they have done that.
1. It appears that the next iteration will have a better camera and video. Teens aren't going to unilaterally upgrade their cell phones because of this feature. However, a new iPod touch by adding a built-in camera to its current Wi-Fi capabilities would encourage many. LED flash would not be practical because of battery concerns and just how much can one expect such a feature to add to enhance its photographic capabilities.
2. Most places I have been in, i.e., universities, parks, etc., do not provide universal free-access to Wi-Fi. Here, Europe or Asia. Certainly, more and more are opening up, but not really free, unless you are a student or staff University Staff member, for example. And Wi-Fi is faster in Europe than here? Where did you come to that conclusion? As for VoIP plans being a huge market?absolutely, however, they won't be free either. By the way, Skype is not free, either. You still have to have access to the net and I have yet to find totally universally free access either at home or away. Somebody has to pay somewhere, sometime.
3. SMS is not just a broad band app?at over a 100 billion and counting a day, there is a lot of space being chewed up and somebody has to pay for storage and building the network infrastructure to instantly manage, coordinate and transfer such. The idea that building an interstate highway to handle a hundred cars going 50 miles an hour can simply be able to handle a million trucks going 70 miles an hour by simply taking down the toll booths is wishful thinking.
4. So Apple gets in bed with the only major service provider that would invest in enlarging and improving its network and drop their data plan charges so that we could have a cell phone that actually worked and have actual access to the internet at a significantly less price than ever before is 'chaining itself'?
5. So, could you tell me what other companies' products that have not been limited by marketing constraints and features? Are you saying the Nokia, RIM, MicroSoft, etc., introduced products that had every feature one could imagine from day one. Or are you saying by your comment, "Not the first time they have done that," that Apple maliciously held back?
1. It appears that the next iteration will have a better camera and video. Teens aren't going to unilaterally upgrade their cell phones because of this feature. However, a new iPod touch by adding a built-in camera to its current Wi-Fi capabilities would encourage many. LED flash would not be practical because of battery concerns and just how much can one expect such a feature to add to enhance its photographic capabilities.
2. Most places I have been in, i.e., universities, parks, etc., do not provide universal free-access to Wi-Fi. Here, Europe or Asia. Certainly, more and more are opening up, but not really free, unless you are a student or staff University Staff member, for example. And Wi-Fi is faster in Europe than here? Where did you come to that conclusion? As for VoIP plans being a huge market?absolutely, however, they won't be free either. By the way, Skype is not free, either. You still have to have access to the net and I have yet to find totally universally free access either at home or away. Somebody has to pay somewhere, sometime.
3. SMS is not just a broad band app?at over a 100 billion and counting a day, there is a lot of space being chewed up and somebody has to pay for storage and building the network infrastructure to instantly manage, coordinate and transfer such. The idea that building an interstate highway to handle a hundred cars going 50 miles an hour can simply be able to handle a million trucks going 70 miles an hour by simply taking down the toll booths is wishful thinking.
4. So Apple gets in bed with the only major service provider that would invest in enlarging and improving its network and drop their data plan charges so that we could have a cell phone that actually worked and have actual access to the internet at a significantly less price than ever before is 'chaining itself'?
5. So, could you tell me what other companies' products that have not been limited by marketing constraints and features? Are you saying the Nokia, RIM, MicroSoft, etc., introduced products that had every feature one could imagine from day one. Or are you saying by your comment, "Not the first time they have done that," that Apple maliciously held back?
1. LED fill in flash does not consume too much power as it is lit for only a fraction of a second, but my experience has been that at close range it does improve the quality of picture. Not essential. Better quality lenses, especially coated glass lens with CCD would make a difference. All this adds to cost but the cost of other components have come down while the end user cost has remained the same - so far.
2, In my town USA, there are several coffee shops and other public places that have free WiFi access. Yes, some universities do grant free WiFi access to the students. That is a huge market. Europe has been improving their internet back bone in places like Scandinavia, Portugal, Spain. Standard bandwidth is now 24 MB/s via telco lines. and there are indications that will increase. Makes WiFi faster.
3. Anybody familiar with the principle of the Gorilla Game would not that by limiting itself to ATT, Apple has constrained its value chain. They could have sold the phone to multiple carriers with multiple radios. The competition would have kept prices of service like data low. That is what RIMM did or even Nokia. I suspect that the main reason Apple went with ATT was because the telco was willing to share monthly revenues,
4. VoIP is much cheaper than the ATT plans. VoIP to VoIP is free as in Skype to Skype or using other open protocols like in the Cisco/Sipura devices.
Apple has a history of putting roadblocks into its tech development. Starting with the original Mac. It was a nice computer but it has a closed architecture. One could not add a hard disk, video card and color monitor. By 1984 IBM PC was offering all of the above. No wonder that MSFT was able to dominate the market.
What is the real meaning of "saturation point"? Does everyone who owns a telephone stop buying telephones just because they already have a phone? Substitute virtually any upgradable product in this sentence and it still applies. It is idiotic to suggest that teens won't continue to buy iPods because every teen who wants an iPod already has one. Completely idiotic.
That's what I was thinking actually. Is there any point or validity to making a statement about 'saturation'? I mean, next year there'll be more teenagers, and the year after, so there's no shortage of new buyers ... it's not like everyone already has one and will never buy another. There are still people growing up who have yet to experience the magic that is consumerism.
Jimzip
What is the real meaning of "saturation point"? Does everyone who owns a telephone stop buying telephones just because they already have a phone? Substitute virtually any upgradable product in this sentence and it still applies. It is idiotic to suggest that teens won't continue to buy iPods because every teen who wants an iPod already has one. Completely idiotic.
I think in this case "saturation point" refers to the point in which your current rate of growth can not be maintained since the mix of new users to upgrading users will shift to being primarily upgraders. In theory, this will represent a much slower rate of growth. Not only that, but the growth in your product mix might also shift. If iPod has 100% market penetration, let's look at the shuffle market. How many people who have existing shuffles are likely to "upgrade" to a new shuffle? How many people would downgrade to a new shuffle? Apple might have to shift their targeting to address these issues (i.e. the shuffle stops being an _entry_ level device and becomes more of a _secondary_ device, i.e. you start promoting it as an adjunct to your current higher end iPod and therefore put in more features to facilitate this and advertise it as such.)
Pipper-jaffray has a $120 target on AAPL? I thought they were WAY above that.
That's what got me too! I remember Gene Munster reducing his price target from $250 to $235 in Dec 2008 and then from $235 to $180 on Jan 22, 2009. But when did the drop to $120 happen?
If that's a typo, it should be corrected immediately.
I think in this case "saturation point" refers to the point in which your current rate of growth can not be maintained since the mix of new users to upgrading users will shift to being primarily upgraders. In theory, this will represent a much slower rate of growth. Not only that, but the growth in your product mix might also shift. If iPod has 100% market penetration, let's look at the shuffle market. How many people who have existing shuffles are likely to "upgrade" to a new shuffle? How many people would downgrade to a new shuffle? Apple might have to shift their targeting to address these issues (i.e. the shuffle stops being an _entry_ level device and becomes more of a _secondary_ device, i.e. you start promoting it as an adjunct to your current higher end iPod and therefore put in more features to facilitate this and advertise it as such.)
That doesn't make any sense...
An 'upgrader' is still purchasing the new piece of hardware, and thus is a buyer. No?
If there was an option of upgrading the storage in the players, then they could be called 'upgraders' ... but everyone that wants the 'new thing' will buy a new unit ... please correct me if I'm wrong here.
Jimzip
That's what got me too! I remember Gene Munster reducing his price target from $250 to $235 in Dec 2008 and then from $235 to $180 on Jan 22, 2009. But when did the drop to $120 happen?
If that's a typo, it should be corrected immediately.
its still 180.
When was this survey taken? Sounds like teens have no use for the new shuffle if it was recent.
Your obsession with hating the new shuffle is tiresome.
... Apple has a history of putting roadblocks into its tech development. Starting with the original Mac. It was a nice computer but it has a closed architecture. One could not add a hard disk, video card and color monitor. ...
You seem like an older guy based on that remark about the coated lenses, but you need to come up with more than a single 30 year old example if you are going to be making drastic, blanket statements about Apple having a history of "blocking (tech) development."
Apple actually doesn't have "a history of putting roadblocks into it's tech development, it merely produces integrated systems and uses vertical product development. You may not like that approach, but it's perfectly valid, and to present this as Apple intentionally putting up "roadblocks" is a bit beyond the pale IMO.
Apple actually goes out of it's way to allow other vendors to make add-ons, accessories, and parts for it's products.
What I've witnessed is that kids with iPods are getting much younger. The Nano with video is a perfect gadget-sitter for young kids, and the iPod Touch is good for pre-teens and younger teens who aren't ready for an iPhone.
The results of Piper Jaffray's 17th bi-annual teen survey are in, showing Apple to have broadened its lead in the areas of iPod consumption and iTunes usage -- both of which are nearing their saturation point -- as the company moves to translate these successes to its iPhone business.
"We believe that the teen demographic is a critical component of long-term growth in the digital music and mobile markets, .....
[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]
Sorry but score another dropped ball by anal---yst. Yes many people have iPods and I am sure that the number of them sold will start to level off. Its only natural since they last so long.
But the "anal---yst" misses the point. Apple is ready to sell you an iPod touch that is a game machine, internet connection, iPod, etc, etc for only 200$ which is a sweet spot given their numbers data. THEN, you sell them songs, games, apps, apps, apps....
Apple always skating to where the puck will be..... not looking in the rear view mirror like many anal--ysts.
Just a thought.
en
Your obsession with hating the new shuffle is tiresome.
No obsession and not tiresome. Your lack of an answer however is pathetic.
1. LED fill in flash does not consume too much power as it is lit for only a fraction of a second, but my experience has been that at close range it does improve the quality of picture. Not essential. Better quality lenses, especially coated glass lens with CCD would make a difference. All this adds to cost but the cost of other components have come down while the end user cost has remained the same - so far.
2, In my town USA, there are several coffee shops and other public places that have free WiFi access. Yes, some universities do grant free WiFi access to the students. That is a huge market. Europe has been improving their internet back bone in places like Scandinavia, Portugal, Spain. Standard bandwidth is now 24 MB/s via telco lines. and there are indications that will increase. Makes WiFi faster.
3. Anybody familiar with the principle of the Gorilla Game would not that by limiting itself to ATT, Apple has constrained its value chain. They could have sold the phone to multiple carriers with multiple radios. The competition would have kept prices of service like data low. That is what RIMM did or even Nokia. I suspect that the main reason Apple went with ATT was because the telco was willing to share monthly revenues,
4. VoIP is much cheaper than the ATT plans. VoIP to VoIP is free as in Skype to Skype or using other open protocols like in the Cisco/Sipura devices.
Apple has a history of putting roadblocks into its tech development. Starting with the original Mac. It was a nice computer but it has a closed architecture. One could not add a hard disk, video card and color monitor. By 1984 IBM PC was offering all of the above. No wonder that MSFT was able to dominate the market.
So much so wrong. In particular, the bit about MSFT.
In any case, here is some enlightening reading: The Untold Story: How the iPhone Blew Up the Wireless Industry http://www.wired.com/gadgets/wireles...6-02/ff_iphone
Of particular note to me:
1. The declining market share of every device except the iPod (and Zune from 2% to 4%).
2. The fact that 13-15% of the market was "planning" to purchase Zunes, but only 2-4% actually did.
3. 100% of people planning to purchase an iPod! Wow!
4. Rapidly declining market shares of all music stores except iTunes, which is growing.
--mAc
Pipper-jaffray has a $120 target on AAPL? I thought they were WAY above that.
They have a moving target.
If I was asked wether I'm planning to buy an iPod in the next 12 months I'd probably say no too, however as soon as Apple comes out with a new snarky iPod I would most definitely change my mind. When it comes to devices like the iPod people's plan-to-purchase is usually a week to a month not 12!! 12 months is more for real estate.
Question:
How many of "These" people are there in the world? Seems like more then what ever number they have come up with! If 92% of the folks in this category owned iPods, wouldn't the number of iPods sold, be MUCH greater?
For me it's all in who they spoke with.
Students at local colleges? How about students at local high schools, middle school, elementary schools, hell day cares at this point in time.
Now let's ask them in each of the 50 states ? I'm sure the numbers will vary greatly.
state with high unemployment will look much worst then states were unemployment isn't as bad at this time. And I agree with the other person ? ask this question and tell me the numbers:
"If (WHEN) Apple comes out with the next killer iPod, will you likely be buying one, two or more"? I think we all know what the answer would be.
Skip