FROM NY TIMES: Mr. Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, the marketing vice president, had said earlier in the onstage presentation: that Apple is really pitching the iPod Touch as a game machine these days. And to do that, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible.
"Originally, we weren?t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine,? he said. ?We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it?s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that?s the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don?t need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it."
I also asked him why the Nano can record video, but can't snap still photos. That reason, he said, is technical: the sensors you need to record video are extremely thin these days?thin enough to fit into the wafer-thin Nano. But the ones with enough resolution for stills, especially with autofocus (like the sensor in the iPhone), are much too thick to cram into a player that?s only 0.2 inches thick.
A couple of years ago, pre-Kindle, Mr. Jobs expressed his doubts that e-readers were ready for prime time. So today, I asked if his opinions have changed.
"I?m sure there will always be dedicated devices, and they may have a few advantages in doing just one thing," he said. "But I think the general-purpose devices will win the day. Because I think people just probably aren?t willing to pay for a dedicated device."
I read David Pogue's article on his Steve Jobs interview (quoted in part above). I don?t understand any of it except the Kindle answer. As for the Touch, okay they wanted a $199 iPod touch - I understand that, but why not have a $199 Touch without a cam and a $399 or even $450 version with a cam for photos & video? His answer makes no sense to me. They have a $99 iPhone 3G and a more expensive 3GS with more options, do the same for the dang Touch. Give buyers an option. This is a huge fail to me, because I think a lot of current Touch owners would?ve upgraded for the cam, but now they?ll all just keep their current Touch in hopes of a cam being added next year. They will get new buyers, but not many if any current upgrades. To me, someone at APPL screwed up big time, and they are trying to save face.
As for the Nano, I understand the fascination with 'thin' but wouldn?t it make more sense to make it 0.5 inches thick or something and add a real cam and sell a lot more, than only sell what they will now? I think whatever sales they get, could be at least 10-15% more with a real cam. Now, if adding a cam would make it 1" or something than I cancel everything I just typed 'cuz 1" would be too thick.
I look forward to seeing the "tablet" next February. Stay healthy Steve!!!!
Well, I doubt I'm the only person who's seriously considering not buying the new iPod Touch. I was so ready to buy it this week because of the 64 gig capacity and as soon as I realized it had no camera, I was gutted and now having had time to consider purchasing it, I've decided Apple is getting no money from me this year, screw it. I'll keep removing songs off my nearly full 32 gig because of this. Honestly, a nano that can video record plus have FM reception yet none of these features for the Touch? That to me makes no sense whatsoever. I do of course understand that technical issues may have prevented this upgrade to the touch. However, I don't need Apple to tell me the iPod Touch is more of a games device, I will decide what I want it to be to me and the more features it has, then the more it can be to more people. They better upgrade the touch to camera functionality very soon, otherwise they've lost my purchase, so disappointed.
As I noted in my analysis of the event, I saw the expected camera add to the iPod Touch as part of a logical, continued move towards platform symmetry between iPhone and iPod Touch.
The more Apple can get developers to focus on building apps to the combined 50M unit installed base (versus fragmenting it), the stronger it's ecosystem is. Having camera/video cam synchronicity between the devices means developers building more apps that showcase those capabilities.
In this regard, and a couple of others, the event felt like it was a bit askew with the kind of arm waving filler (by Schiller) that one sees when part of the expected presentation had to be torn out due to last minute changes.
Here's the analysis if interested:
Analysis of Apple's "It's Only Rock and Roll" iPod event
Apple will not release an updated iPod Touch before the Holidays. Otherwise, you are going to have a whole bunch of whining people complaining that Apple updated it too soon making their iPod Touch obsolete. They'll want a credit or something from Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider
This update could arrive unexpectedly at existing price points on the 32GB and 64GB models, according to a third person claiming to have been briefed on the matter.
isupply estimated that the cost of manufacture of an 8gb Touch in 2007 was $155.04
Memory prices have fallen since. The cost of the camera module in the iPhone is about $9.50
You and Apple are the ones in La-La land.
It is obvious that you do not know the basics of costing and pricing, since you seem to be unable to tell the difference between gross margins, operating margins, and net margins. If you've been paying any attention at all, these have been discussed ad nauseum every time that a statement like "iSupply estimated..." have been brought up.
It is obvious that you do not know the basics of costing and pricing, since you seem to be unable to tell the difference between gross margins, operating margins, and net margins. If you've been paying any attention at all, these have been discussed ad nauseum every time that a statement like "iSupply estimated..." have been brought up.
Please take the trouble to inform yourself.
Apple have amongst the highest profit margins in the consumer tech sector. They could more than easily afford to pop a $10 camera module into the Touch and charge an extra $20 for the privilege. They could even do it for cost - shock gasp!
I am not interested in your economic jargon terms, they have no bearing on whether or not it is reasonable or not for people to want a camera in the Touch. Need I remind you they are selling the Apple TV, at or below cost, so their profit margins are not always sacrosanct and immutable. And as for my informing myself - what did you think was the retail price of the iPhone again?
I still say AT&T nixed it and that its been manufactured.
Putting a mic in the Touch competes directly with their iPhone profits. A skype iPod Touch that acts as a phone would dent AT&T's sales...
I agree that a skype iPod Touch is compelling but why is it not already a factor? The existing G2 iPod Touch has microphone input with Apple's high end earbuds ($80). I'd be satisfied with telephone access limited by wifi availability but I think that is the big factor that keeps it from competing with the iPhone. Students on campuses with ubiquitous wifi should be able to use skype and the G2 iPod touch to enable telephony already but even then there are some integration issues that make it less appealing.
In other words I would agree but I don't expect many others to follow suit.
ifixit.com confirmed this afternoon in a teardown that there is an empty space in the iPod Touch 3rd generation for a camera the size of the one in the new Nano.
ifixit.com confirmed this afternoon in a teardown that there is an empty space in the iPod Touch 3rd generation for a camera the size of the one in the new Nano.
I saw that too. Makes me wonder if one of two things happened. 1) Apple was planning on using the same camera in the Touch as they did in the Nano. Then when Steve came back he exploded, asking how anyone could be so dumb as to put in a standard def, VGA quality, video only camera in the Touch. So, no camera. Or 2) The Nano camera supplier promised a higher quality camera with the same footprint and failed to deliver. (iFixIt also found that the Touch and the Nano uses the same WiFi chip.)
The article you linked to says nothing at all about their selling "at or below cost?" All it says is that @tv's gross margins are 20%, and that it ".... would be a big change from Apple's penchant for gross margins in excess of 50% outside its computer lineup." In other words, they may still be making a profit on it, albeit a slim one, for all we know.
The article you linked to says nothing at all about their selling "at or below cost?" All it says is that @tv's gross margins are 20%, and that it ".... would be a big change from Apple's penchant for gross margins in excess of 50% outside its computer lineup." In other words, they may still be making a profit on it, albeit a slim one, for all we know.
You are correct, I was wrong. My memory for 2 year old minutia is not what it used to be. You are focusing on the details and missing the broader picture and reasoning that example was a part of. The fact that Apple is willing to accept a lower than normal profit margin still holds and is relevant, even if my recollection of the exact extent of the profit discrepancy was inaccurate.
Comments
FROM NY TIMES: Mr. Jobs reiterated what Phil Schiller, the marketing vice president, had said earlier in the onstage presentation: that Apple is really pitching the iPod Touch as a game machine these days. And to do that, you have to make it as inexpensive as possible.
"Originally, we weren?t exactly sure how to market the Touch. Was it an iPhone without the phone? Was it a pocket computer? What happened was, what customers told us was, they started to see it as a game machine,? he said. ?We started to market it that way, and it just took off. And now what we really see is it?s the lowest-cost way to the App Store, and that?s the big draw. So what we were focused on is just reducing the price to $199. We don?t need to add new stuff. We need to get the price down where everyone can afford it."
I also asked him why the Nano can record video, but can't snap still photos. That reason, he said, is technical: the sensors you need to record video are extremely thin these days?thin enough to fit into the wafer-thin Nano. But the ones with enough resolution for stills, especially with autofocus (like the sensor in the iPhone), are much too thick to cram into a player that?s only 0.2 inches thick.
A couple of years ago, pre-Kindle, Mr. Jobs expressed his doubts that e-readers were ready for prime time. So today, I asked if his opinions have changed.
"I?m sure there will always be dedicated devices, and they may have a few advantages in doing just one thing," he said. "But I think the general-purpose devices will win the day. Because I think people just probably aren?t willing to pay for a dedicated device."
I read David Pogue's article on his Steve Jobs interview (quoted in part above). I don?t understand any of it except the Kindle answer. As for the Touch, okay they wanted a $199 iPod touch - I understand that, but why not have a $199 Touch without a cam and a $399 or even $450 version with a cam for photos & video? His answer makes no sense to me. They have a $99 iPhone 3G and a more expensive 3GS with more options, do the same for the dang Touch. Give buyers an option. This is a huge fail to me, because I think a lot of current Touch owners would?ve upgraded for the cam, but now they?ll all just keep their current Touch in hopes of a cam being added next year. They will get new buyers, but not many if any current upgrades. To me, someone at APPL screwed up big time, and they are trying to save face.
As for the Nano, I understand the fascination with 'thin' but wouldn?t it make more sense to make it 0.5 inches thick or something and add a real cam and sell a lot more, than only sell what they will now? I think whatever sales they get, could be at least 10-15% more with a real cam. Now, if adding a cam would make it 1" or something than I cancel everything I just typed 'cuz 1" would be too thick.
I look forward to seeing the "tablet" next February. Stay healthy Steve!!!!
The more Apple can get developers to focus on building apps to the combined 50M unit installed base (versus fragmenting it), the stronger it's ecosystem is. Having camera/video cam synchronicity between the devices means developers building more apps that showcase those capabilities.
In this regard, and a couple of others, the event felt like it was a bit askew with the kind of arm waving filler (by Schiller) that one sees when part of the expected presentation had to be torn out due to last minute changes.
Here's the analysis if interested:
Analysis of Apple's "It's Only Rock and Roll" iPod event
http://bit.ly/jkUrb
Here's hoping that camera/video cam comes sooner than later to iPod Touch.
Mark
Except, you must live in la-la land if you think you can get it for $300-$400 less.
Just because you want something at a price you're willing to pay does not mean it will be available. Get used to it.
isupply estimated that the cost of manufacture of an 8gb Touch in 2007 was $155.04
Memory prices have fallen since. The cost of the camera module in the iPhone is about $9.50
You and Apple are the ones in La-La land.
erm, of course it does otherwise your rumours were all LIES !!!!! and you were wrong.
This update could arrive unexpectedly at existing price points on the 32GB and 64GB models, according to a third person claiming to have been briefed on the matter.
isupply estimated that the cost of manufacture of an 8gb Touch in 2007 was $155.04
Memory prices have fallen since. The cost of the camera module in the iPhone is about $9.50
You and Apple are the ones in La-La land.
It is obvious that you do not know the basics of costing and pricing, since you seem to be unable to tell the difference between gross margins, operating margins, and net margins. If you've been paying any attention at all, these have been discussed ad nauseum every time that a statement like "iSupply estimated..." have been brought up.
Please take the trouble to inform yourself.
It is obvious that you do not know the basics of costing and pricing, since you seem to be unable to tell the difference between gross margins, operating margins, and net margins. If you've been paying any attention at all, these have been discussed ad nauseum every time that a statement like "iSupply estimated..." have been brought up.
Please take the trouble to inform yourself.
Apple have amongst the highest profit margins in the consumer tech sector. They could more than easily afford to pop a $10 camera module into the Touch and charge an extra $20 for the privilege. They could even do it for cost - shock gasp!
I am not interested in your economic jargon terms, they have no bearing on whether or not it is reasonable or not for people to want a camera in the Touch. Need I remind you they are selling the Apple TV, at or below cost, so their profit margins are not always sacrosanct and immutable. And as for my informing myself - what did you think was the retail price of the iPhone again?
I still say AT&T nixed it and that its been manufactured.
Putting a mic in the Touch competes directly with their iPhone profits. A skype iPod Touch that acts as a phone would dent AT&T's sales...
I agree that a skype iPod Touch is compelling but why is it not already a factor? The existing G2 iPod Touch has microphone input with Apple's high end earbuds ($80). I'd be satisfied with telephone access limited by wifi availability but I think that is the big factor that keeps it from competing with the iPhone. Students on campuses with ubiquitous wifi should be able to use skype and the G2 iPod touch to enable telephony already but even then there are some integration issues that make it less appealing.
In other words I would agree but I don't expect many others to follow suit.
ifixit.com confirmed this afternoon in a teardown that there is an empty space in the iPod Touch 3rd generation for a camera the size of the one in the new Nano.
I saw that too. Makes me wonder if one of two things happened. 1) Apple was planning on using the same camera in the Touch as they did in the Nano. Then when Steve came back he exploded, asking how anyone could be so dumb as to put in a standard def, VGA quality, video only camera in the Touch. So, no camera. Or 2) The Nano camera supplier promised a higher quality camera with the same footprint and failed to deliver. (iFixIt also found that the Touch and the Nano uses the same WiFi chip.)
(iFixIt also found that the Touch and the Nano uses the same WiFi chip.)
I didn't know the nano had WiFi - cool!
Need I remind you they are selling the Apple TV, at or be......
Can you provide a cite for this claim?
I am not interested in your economic jargon terms.....
Being uninformed should never stand in the way making a vehement argument!
Being uninformed should never stand in the way making a vehement argument!
At least you got something right.
Can you provide a cite for this claim?
http://www.dvhardware.net/article19634.html
http://www.dvhardware.net/article19634.html
The article you linked to says nothing at all about their selling "at or below cost?" All it says is that @tv's gross margins are 20%, and that it ".... would be a big change from Apple's penchant for gross margins in excess of 50% outside its computer lineup." In other words, they may still be making a profit on it, albeit a slim one, for all we know.
The article you linked to says nothing at all about their selling "at or below cost?" All it says is that @tv's gross margins are 20%, and that it ".... would be a big change from Apple's penchant for gross margins in excess of 50% outside its computer lineup." In other words, they may still be making a profit on it, albeit a slim one, for all we know.
You are correct, I was wrong. My memory for 2 year old minutia is not what it used to be. You are focusing on the details and missing the broader picture and reasoning that example was a part of. The fact that Apple is willing to accept a lower than normal profit margin still holds and is relevant, even if my recollection of the exact extent of the profit discrepancy was inaccurate.