Apple increases iPad orders, decreases CDMA iPhone build plans - report
Apple will build more iPads than expected at the end of 2010, but the company has also slightly reduced its 2011 CDMA Verizon-compatible iPhone build plans, according to one Wall Street analyst.
Mike Abramsky with RBC Capital Markets said in a note to investors Friday that Apple has made slight upward revisions to its iPad build plan for the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010. Apple also reportedly plans to build the same number of iPads in calendar year 2011, at 40 million.
Abramsky noted that both numbers remain above Wall Street expectations. He said that Apple's increase for the end of 2010 suggests that the company expects strong holiday sales, despite concerns over new Android-based tablets and potential cannibalization from the thin-and-light MacBook Air.
Though Abramsky's number is apparently higher than Wall Street expects, some see iPad sales in 2011 reaching even greater heights. Earlier this month, Brian Blair with Wedge Partners said he expects Apple to produce 48 million iPads next year.
The current iPad is expected to cease production in January, Abramsky said, when production of the new hardware will begin. Abramsky expects the second-generation iPad to debut between February and March with FaceTime front- and rear-facing cameras, as well as "beefed up" internal components.
As for the CDMA Verizon-compatible iPhone expected to launch in early 2011, he said the numbers have been "adjusted to a more realistic forecast." With the alleged reduced build plans, he expects 20 million sales, down from 30 million.
Abramsky's comments on a Verizon iPhone are noteworthy because as recently as September he said that a deal with Apple "may not ever get resolved," because the companies have different business interests. He said Apple may not want to be a "second banana" to Android at Verizon, while the arrival of the iPhone could hurt Verizon's investment in Android.
Mike Abramsky with RBC Capital Markets said in a note to investors Friday that Apple has made slight upward revisions to its iPad build plan for the fourth quarter of calendar year 2010. Apple also reportedly plans to build the same number of iPads in calendar year 2011, at 40 million.
Abramsky noted that both numbers remain above Wall Street expectations. He said that Apple's increase for the end of 2010 suggests that the company expects strong holiday sales, despite concerns over new Android-based tablets and potential cannibalization from the thin-and-light MacBook Air.
Though Abramsky's number is apparently higher than Wall Street expects, some see iPad sales in 2011 reaching even greater heights. Earlier this month, Brian Blair with Wedge Partners said he expects Apple to produce 48 million iPads next year.
The current iPad is expected to cease production in January, Abramsky said, when production of the new hardware will begin. Abramsky expects the second-generation iPad to debut between February and March with FaceTime front- and rear-facing cameras, as well as "beefed up" internal components.
As for the CDMA Verizon-compatible iPhone expected to launch in early 2011, he said the numbers have been "adjusted to a more realistic forecast." With the alleged reduced build plans, he expects 20 million sales, down from 30 million.
Abramsky's comments on a Verizon iPhone are noteworthy because as recently as September he said that a deal with Apple "may not ever get resolved," because the companies have different business interests. He said Apple may not want to be a "second banana" to Android at Verizon, while the arrival of the iPhone could hurt Verizon's investment in Android.
Comments
...the iPhone could hurt Verizon's investment in Android.
Huh? Verizon is only interested in one thing... Selling contracts. If the iPhone gets them more of that, then they will carry it. The issue here is all the services that Verizon forces on their customers. Apple doesn't play that game.
Huh? Verizon is only interested in one thing... Selling contracts. If the iPhone gets them more of that, then they will carry it. The issue here is all the services that Verizon forces on their customers. Apple doesn't play that game.
I don't think it is quite that simple. WIth Android, Verizon has a commodity product made by competing manufacturers, where they are the "value add" to the equation. They have invested money in promoting Android and the Droid line of phones. If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones, and just let them focus on the service.
It might take another two or three years, but the wireless providers will eventually become dumb pipes. Hopefully Apple can help speed up that transition. Still voting for an Apple MVNO!
I don't think it is quite that simple. WIth Android, Verizon has a commodity product made by competing manufacturers, where they are the "value add" to the equation. They have invested money in promoting Android and the Droid line of phones. If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones, and just let them focus on the service.
It might take another two or three years, but the wireless providers will eventually become dumb pipes. Hopefully Apple can help speed up that transition. Still voting for an Apple MVNO!
I disagree with you here: Apple didn't require ATT to stop advertising other phones during their contract, no indication and no reason that would be a requirement for Verizon. And when it come to Verizon's "investment" if you compare their approach with Android to that of other phones you will see that as far as Verizon is concerned "Android" is just another "feature" for advertising smartphones. Their advertising hasn't changed because of Android. It was just folded into their strategy as a talking point or focus, that's all - no special investment.
In fact only the handset makers scored by moving to Android, mostly from the Windows Mobile platform which they had to license from Microsoft and cost them money. But with Microsoft leveling the playing field via suit-driven licensing against the Android touch interface elements, Android is no longer "free" for them and they have to re-embrace Microsoft and the new WinPhone7 offering.
And I agree with you completely - the carriers will fight tooth and nail against it, but just like many other utility suppliers, they will become commoditized bandwidth brokers eventually.
The 256MB of RAM really hurts the iPad, I say this as an iPad owner. It makes browsing a chore when it has to reload the page every time.
There were a couple of us who couldn't understand why Apple went with 256 rather than 512, but we were yelled at those who insisted that Apple knew what they were doing, and that 256 was therefor enough. The iPhone 4's 512 busted that argument. I hope Apple leaps over 512 and goes to a full 1GB for the new model. The 256 was given as the reason why the movie editing app for the iPhone 4 wouldn't come to the iPad, which was a pity, because it's a great platform for this purpose. And considering that in one of Apple's patent applications they show a tablet doing movie editing, it seems that they know quite well that that app would be ideal for the iPad.
Possibly, if the rumors are true about a dual core Cortex 9 are true, we may get that app, and will be able to get some REAL photo editing apps. But Apple will also have to allow the OS to share the files in a way they don't allow now. I forget which company it was, but one of the pro photo RAW editing developers said that they investigated this as soon as the iPad came out, but they couldn't get access to the info they needed about the photos to do the job, so they abandoned the effort. Too bad. Adobe has completed a survey to see how many people wanted a photo editing app on the iPad, and the response was overwhelming.
In fact only the handset makers scored by moving to Android, mostly from the Windows Mobile platform which they had to license from Microsoft and cost them money. But with Microsoft leveling the playing field via suit-driven licensing against the Android touch interface elements, Android is no longer "free" for them and they have to re-embrace Microsoft and the new WinPhone7 offering.
The truth is that Android isn't exactly free now. Ballmer was correct about one aspect of that. While Google doesn't charge for the OS itself, they do charge for the apps that come with it. Estimates are that those charges are about equal to What MS charges for their package. It's one reason we see some of the companies eliminating some of Google's apps for their own. It cuts the price.
Adobe has completed a survey to see how many people wanted a photo editing app on the iPad, and the response was overwhelming.
So Adobe, a professional photo editing software supplier, completed a survey of their customers, who are primarily professional photo editors, and those professional photo editors said they wanted a professional photo editing app? Shocking.
Meanwhile, the other 98% of the people owning iPads are perfectly happy with the devices capabilities, as evidenced by the sheer number of sales. I am not saying there shouldn't be progress and upgrades, obviously, but I don't think Apple blew it with a Gen. 1 device.
Either way, I guarantee that 3/4 of Verizon iPhone purchasers would be people who would purchase an iPhone anyways. Overall Apple would not increase their sales substantially. They would essentially be creating a different model with different capabilities in order to cannibalize a hefty portion of their existing iPhone sales.
Even if they did sell that many on Verizon (they won't), it would not be a substantial leap, as most people who wanted an iPhone have already bought one.
How much do these analysts get paid? I would love to pull stuff out of my butt and get paid as much as they do I'm sure.
So Adobe, a professional photo editing software supplier, completed a survey of their customers, who are primarily professional photo editors, and those professional photo editors said they wanted a professional photo editing app? Shocking.
Meanwhile, the other 98% of the people owning iPads are perfectly happy with the devices capabilities, as evidenced by the sheer number of sales. I am not saying there shouldn't be progress and upgrades, obviously, but I don't think Apple blew it with a Gen. 1 device.
Well, interestingly, the survey wasn't exactly for a pro level editing app, but something a bit less. The response was for a version of Lightroom instead. John Nack, on whose blog this was done, said that Adobe was surprised at the level of interest for such a thing. I got a very strong impression that they were very pleased, even if it can't be done yet. I also got a feeling that they were going to investigate if it could be done. I'll have to write to some of my contacts within Adobe to see what's going on.
I wonder if Apple was mostly trying to keep costs within the levels they offered them at. As it is, margins are lower on the iPad, and we know that Apple won't sell products without making a decent profit, as is correct.
Remember that the cost of flash memory, and RAM, hardly dropped throughout 2010. Price drops are expected in 2011.
20 million Verizon iPhones, ha!
Either way, I guarantee that 3/4 of Verizon iPhone purchasers would be people who would purchase an iPhone anyways. Overall Apple would not increase their sales substantially. They would essentially be creating a different model with different capabilities in order to cannibalize a hefty portion of their existing iPhone sales.
Even if they did sell that many on Verizon (they won't), it would not be a substantial leap, as most people who wanted an iPhone have already bought one.
How much do these analysts get paid? I would love to pull stuff out of my butt and get paid as much as they do I'm sure.
Is this post real? If you look at the surveys done over the past year, you'd see that about 25% of Verizon's customers are interested in the iPhone, and as many as 33% of Verizon Android owners would be interested in switching over to one. I think that 20 million iPhones on Verizon may be too much for the first year, but it certainly could approach that number. I can see Apple moving anywhere from 25 to 50% more iPhones here if Verizon gets them early in the year.
I just read this after I posted:
http://www.macrumors.com/
http://www.electronista.com/articles....tops.android/
I don't think it is quite that simple. WIth Android, Verizon has a commodity product made by competing manufacturers, where they are the "value add" to the equation. They have invested money in promoting Android and the Droid line of phones. If they were to get the iPhone, I imagine Apple would require them to stop promoting any phones, and just let them focus on the service.
It might take another two or three years, but the wireless providers will eventually become dumb pipes. Hopefully Apple can help speed up that transition. Still voting for an Apple MVNO!
Wow, what an old kind of thinking.
Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.
Donkey before the cart?
Wow, what an old kind of thinking.
Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.
Oh no, here we go again. I think it?s time I put you on my ignore list. I?ve never thought of you as a troll, Samab, but your rhetoric isn?t making for a useful or enjoyable forum discussions. Later.
Wow, what an old kind of thinking.
Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.
Now, that's silly. I read that in a couple of columns and blogs. It seems that a few people ascribe too much to Apple. If anyone is dangerous, it's Google. They even have a goal of controlling all the info out there, including everything about us. This is a STATED goal, not some nonsense about Apple.
There were a couple of us who couldn't understand why Apple went with 256 rather than 512, but we were yelled at those who insisted that Apple knew what they were doing, and that 256 was therefor enough. The iPhone 4's 512 busted that argument. I hope Apple leaps over 512 and goes to a full 1GB for the new model...
I'm not sure Apple is prepared to move that quickly when the product is still selling as quickly as they can make them. I expect only modest improvements (512MB, low res cameras) for iPad 2. By the third year more radical changes might be possible.
It took 4 generations for Apple to make a radical change to the iPhone, but I think they'll move faster with the iPad.
Wow, what an old kind of thinking.
Carriers aren't the enemy number one for the web's future --- it is Apple now.
First of all Apple tries to promote the use of open standards on the web, more so than any other large corporation that immediately springs to mind.
Second, I'm not sure "the web" should be the future. The internet is a continuously evolving place and some day the web as we know it might be as obsolete as Gopher or WAIS.
In fact maybe the old approach of using a separate application for each type of internet data request is actually what the majority of people want. Maybe people don't want to use a browser for everything. Maybe they truly want an app-centric world where data comes from apps specifically written for particular content.