It's a flop when you develop a product chasing the taillights of last year's product, end up blindsided by this year's product, and end up losing money. Look at MMI earnings: already back in the red after a brief year of profitability when it didn't have to compete against Apple, segregated briefly by Verizon's wing.
The Xoom flopped, the Asterix flopped, Motorola is now in big trouble. That's why they're scrambling to come up with their own proprietary blend of Linux. Google's Android was half the reason both products flopped.
You do realize that Motorola Mobility is in it's first year of being it's own company right? It just spun off. This means it's revenues will be a lot lower, and it's struggling to find it's center again. Spin offs like this are always shaky, even in the best of times.
As for Xoom and Atrix sales numbers. We have no idea what they are because Verizon, Motorola, and ATT are not releasing numbers. Also Motorola still makes a ton of cheap handsets, and the Droidx/Droid2 are still two very well selling devices.
Quote:
As for BGR, if you want to cry about DED being an Apple fanboy, well the "better commentary" you point to is simply laughable. Choice lines:
Zach uses an ATT iPhone as his primary device as does EVERY single member of BGR. In fact, outside of the "news" site AI, they're one of the biggest Apple-leaning blogs out there.
Quote:
"The tablet market is barely a year old and it?s dominated by a single device ? Apple?s iPad."
No, the iPad market is a year old. Tablet market has been around since the early 90s, but nobody has figured it out until now. It's people like BGR's Zach who predicted that the Xoom was going to fare better. They were wrong.
Tablet PC's and tablets like the ipad are two totally different styles of devices. That's like saying a iphone is basically the same thing as a Palm Pilot.
Secondly, Please provide me ANY link where ANYONE on BGR predicted that the Xoom would be a hit.
Quote:
"Motorola has sold 100,000 XOOM tablets in less than a month and a half, which is an average of over 75,000 units per month. That?s a flop?"
Yes, 75,000 * 12 = less than a million units a year. That's worse than the Zune. A flop by any measure, especially for the headlined, ultra hyped, Google-touted flagship Honeycomb tablet. It's a massive flop, bad enough to kill Android 3.0 as dead as the Zune OS. Never mind that 100/2=50 and not 75.
First, some basic math. 41 days (amount of time the Xoom was out) is 1 month and 11 days (assuming a 30 day month) NOT two months. Which is why he said month and a half. while realistically it's more like 1 and 1/3 months. 30/41 is Approximately 73,000. Now, sales of devices of this nature are typically higher at launch, which is why he most likely used the 75,000 number.
Next, for all but FIVE DAYS of these estimated numbers, the ONLY option available for purchase was the VERIZON 3g version. This means NO international sales, no wifi only sales, nothing. THe only people who thought this would be a blowout success were people who don't understand the industry (analysts and rabid fans) ANYONE who understands American consumers, especially Verizon customers, knows that an $800 device will not have run away sales, and I'm positive Motorola planned accordingly.
And no, this isn't "Bad enough to kill Honeycomb dead." Not even close. If you think that you don't understand Android adoption, at all.
Quote:
You think that article is "better" because it says what you want to hear. But it is childishly wrong, as are you. Motorola isn't bouncing back or organically growing Xoom sales. It's canceling production orders! It's going to pull the plug 5x faster than Microsoft killed the Zune. It'll be gone before the next wave of Honeycomb tablets begin their drumbeat/dismal/doubt/death cycle.
1. Please link to a VERIFIED report that Motorola is cancelling production orders. Not a rumor, not some trash from an analyst but a press release or an authenticated leak. There are none. If you got your android news from a site other than AI you might know this.
2. This is a Dev device. Remember the G1? Or the Nexus One? Neither device was a "runaway" success, but both devices made their company money and more importantly, both devices helped guide future development. I don't know how long the Xoom will be around. But you can't call something a failure 5 days after the actual Entry level model enters the market.
3. The article is Better because it wasn't written by someone who cannot say a SINGLE positive thing about the device he is writing about. DED is an Apple Fanboy who couldn't admit a non iDevice is superior even if it gave him a gold brick an hour and all his iDevice did was spit out straw. Zach (and BGR) are STILL Apple Fans who STILL consider it by far the best system out there, but they don't feel the need to justify their choice by attacking the competition like DED does. But they understand one big concept: What's considered a positive sale is different for different companies. You (and most people on this site) don't get that. Believe it or not, Apple's one of the only companies in the world that is able to pull off the insane margins they do while still having high volume. A company does NOT have to meet that level in order not to be called a failure.
The 100k number was based off of an ESTIMATION based on a graph posted by Google on Android OS adoption. The only way to have a registered device there is if the device is active and connected with a gmail account at the time the survey was taken.
So it could actually be LESS than 100,000, right? Yeah, thought so. It's true, we haven't taken into account international sales, which will happen when exactly? Perhaps when they actually finish making the Xoom?
Exactly, which makes your defining it as a success already pretty funny.
Oh, I didn't either.
Not so much. Given that it's slower than the iPad2 out of the blocks (uh, hardware, though cetainly sales too...) and running a half-finished OS, expecting higher sales numbers would be crazy - as you yourself are now saying, even as you try to spin that as success. This tablet has run into the wall of the iPad and will get taken down by the upcoming Samsung devices***. If Moto is already cutting off the orders, it's going to end up being an unsupported .9-gen Android tablet that couldn't win on specs, price, or software on day 1. It's not a huge amount if you expect support from developers or the company itself even if the number is higher than you could personally produce in your basement.
Of course, if Xoom hasn't been launched globally yet, then they still have a... no, they really don't have a shot. Sorry.
*** And it's not likely that Samsung is going to be any sort of winner there either, just that people looking for a sleeker tablet running Android won't be lining up to pick up the Xoom so it will undercut Motorola even further.
Given your general lack of insight, I can't say that surprises me.
I didn't say it was a success, I just said it wasn't a failure. As we don't know the margins, initial costs, or ANYTHING, you can't call something a failure based on volume alone. Which you would agree with if you weren't so helbent on defending Apple like it was some abused puppy.
Again, no other product will EVER have the Initial sales rush that Apple does for their devices (with the possible exception of Game consoles). This is (in part) because of the user experience, but also because they're some of the most heavily advertised products in history. Not only do you have the thousands of commercials, but you have Apple spending a ton of money to get their devices placed in EVERY primetime show.
Apple has the best marketing department in the world, and they've been developing the brand aggressively for 20+ years. (and developing it for even longer).
Again, just because a device doesn't live up to Apple's sales numbers doesn't mean it's a failure.
Before you respond please remember: You know NOTHING of Motorola's internal numbers, profitability, or expectations. I am NOT saying the Xoom was a success, I am just saying it wasn't a failure.
...it's nothing like the Samusung 7" Galaxy tablet fiasco. 2.1 million shipped! how many sold - 10%? 20%? what a massive blunder! the losses on that utter total flop will be in the $ hundreds of millions. some head at Samsung is gonna roll ....
At least it will roll smoothly. (Yup, this joke is never going to get old)
Low revenues + low expectations + low sales + a dash of "but wait, it's a dev device!" = ???
Yep, that would still be a flop.
-We don't know revenues. Even IF the 100k number is accurate we don't know Revenue OR Profit Margin. In fact we don't know anything about the numbers, just the word of an analyst who thought Motorola would sell a couple MILLION of a $800 Verizon Locked device. Again, If a moron makes a prediction, even if they're a well-dressed moron, you still don't take that prediction (or subsequent adjustments) seriously.
-Realistic expectations =! Low expectations. NO ONE thought this would have anywhere near the sale volume of an iPad. This doesn't make them low expectations, this is them understanding the market.
-We don't know sales numbers.
-People said it was a dev device since CES. This is nothing new.
And he didn't hit a nerve. Just typical American Economic Ignorance.
So it could actually be LESS than 100,000, right? Yeah, thought so. It's true, we haven't taken into account international sales, which will happen when exactly? Perhaps when they actually finish making the Xoom?
It could be 0 it would be 1 million. The point is we don't know.
Fun Fact: If you want to try and have witty replies, it actually requires you understand the product.
You must mean DaHarder. We're all aware he bought 3 for each family member.
Actually I thought he accounted for 50,000 units of those 100,000.
Quote:
Originally Posted by quinney
Has anyone ever seen DED, Steve Jobs, and quinney in the same room at the same time?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hunabku
Please know that us apple fans, especially the ones who have been around for a while, are wounded from our past of being MS underdogs.
Now we're relishing in our market dominance and feel good when other companies product sales suck compared to apple's. Logically, there is little threat to apples position - at least for a good while. However apple fans are so wounded that some of us want to completely crush anyone who "might" threaten our dominance - even though lots of us say we like competition - and we do.
We just can't stand the thought of being marginalized again. For me i just want apple to keep their dominance long enough to remain the 1st choice platform of developers for years to come. All they have to do NOW is preload the market with enough powerful machines and that will provide years of a solid (non-fragmented) base market for developers to launch first on apple.
If apple also keeps pushing out APIs/development environments and couples innovative hardware with those APIs etc, it will encourage the creation of one-of-kind, first to apple platform apps that will allow us fans to deservedly puff out our chests and continue to smile down upon lesser brands.
"Apple fans" WANT competition for the most part because that pushes everything forward. What's happening now from the "competition" is just so pathetic is nothing to be happy about even if you are a "chest puffing Apple fan". Android gave the iPhone some fire under its butt. But in tablet-land, no such thing seems to be happening even after a year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Someone whose birthday is uncomfortably close to Queen Elizabeth II's birthday, which is why we in Australia, celebrate the Queen's birthday with a holiday in June.
Which IIRC during my time in Australia was just another excuse not to go to work and get blind drunk instead. Except for those annoying monarchists, they're still taking this "royalty" stuff seriously.
When Apple decided to get into the mobile phone business, many said Apple would fail because it doesn't know the telcom business. I find it interesting that no one is saying the same thing about the telcom business getting into the PC market. Apple is going to crush the telcom business in the tablet market if the telcom business operates like a telcom rather than a PC vender.
The tablet market is very different from the phone market. Phones are used primarily for making calls and the features of the OS are primarily seen as a bonus (i.e., a way to attract customers). However, the decision to buy is mostly based on the need for phone service. The selection of a particular phone is based on cost and features.
The tablet market is completely different. Customers only buy if they want the particular device. Using a cell phone provider as a marketer is actually a hindrance because 2/3 of the market doesn't want a contract. The people that traffic the cell phone store are usually looking for phone service, not a tablet. Cell phone providers have completely different marketing and sales tactics and completely different contractual arrangements between themselves and their customers (as compared to retailers like Walmart, Best Buy, or an outlet like the Apple Store). In addition, handset makers like Motorola are used to selling through cell phone providers and for the most part don't have their own distribution channels.
Obviously Motorola is trying. They are selling the wifi version through Best Buy. However, they did it backwards. They advertised and released the 3g version on Verizon before going to Best Buy. What they should have done was established in the minds of their customers that Motorola is sold at Best Buy and other retail outlets. Then and only then should they release the 3G version at Verizon for those that want data.
I don't think it was a coincidence that Apple sold the 3G version a month late. Apple didn't want consumers associating the iPad with ATT. Apple wanted the lines at its own stores, not ATT.
Everyone likes to say that Apple is successful because of hype. I call bullshit. Motorola was the one paying for Superbowl ads making fun of Apple. Who's the one hyping their products??? Apple doesn't even anounce their products until they are ready to ship. There's no hype in that. The Xoom was hyped for months and wasn't ready to ship even when it shipped. That's what I call hype. We shouldn't confuse consumer demand with hype. Consumer demand is the antithesis of hype.
I think it boils down to the fact that cell phone carriers make bad PC vendors. The marketing of the Xoom is proof of that. Apple schooled these handset makers back in 2007 when it played ball on their court by selling a successful handset. Based on the attempts of Samsung and Motorola, it doesn't appear that handset makers can hang with Apple in its backyard (the PC market). The handset makers are now 0 for 2. We'll have to see how the rest do. Personally I think HP is the bigger threat. HP has sold a lot of PCs. You won't see them paying for Super Bowl ads announcing the sale of their devices at Verizon. (how stupid can you be).
I doubt it as well. The point of the post you quoted was the point out that this ENTIRE article is based off of the estimation of someone trying to put numbers to a graph.
Not Sales Figures, not even Estimations from sale numbers at a sampling of locations.
Again, these are Verizon customers we're talking about. They're not going to jump at the chance of dropping 800 on a device, or 600 and still having to sign a 2 year contract. Heck, the number of Verizon ipad sales was pathetic when it launched as well. (and most consumers had no clue about release cycles, so I doubt ipad2 rumors hindered those sales at all)
This is a consumer that expects phones to be free and netbooks to be $25 (or free if you get a smartphone too).
This is (in part) because of the user experience, but also because they're some of the most heavily advertised products in history. Not only do you have the thousands of commercials, but you have Apple spending a ton of money to get their devices placed in EVERY primetime show.
You're still spreading this ridiculous bullshit? Apple doesn't pay for product placement. Prop guys use Apple equipment because it looks better than other brands. In primetime shows the last three years or so, every Apple computer has a sticker over the Apple logo to reduce right-wing hate mail, and if they turn them around so you can see the screen only, you'll notice it's Windows. I guarantee you Apple is not paying to have their computers shown with the logo hidden and running windows.
I didn't say it was a success, I just said it wasn't a failure. As we don't know the margins, initial costs, or ANYTHING, you can't call something a failure based on volume alone. Which you would agree with if you weren't so helbent on defending Apple like it was some abused puppy.
Again, no other product will EVER have the Initial sales rush that Apple does for their devices (with the possible exception of Game consoles). This is (in part) because of the user experience, but also because they're some of the most heavily advertised products in history. Not only do you have the thousands of commercials, but you have Apple spending a ton of money to get their devices placed in EVERY primetime show.
Apple has the best marketing department in the world, and they've been developing the brand aggressively for 20+ years. (and developing it for even longer).
Again, just because a device doesn't live up to Apple's sales numbers doesn't mean it's a failure.
Before you respond please remember: You know NOTHING of Motorola's internal numbers, profitability, or expectations. I am NOT saying the Xoom was a success, I am just saying it wasn't a failure.
*awaits you to miss the point, again*
I disagree. The mobile PC isn't all that new. There is a certain volume of units where companies start to make money. A company amortizes costs of designing, manufacturing, and marketing across a certain number of units. They have to predict that number and if they are wrong, they will lose money (and yield a flop). Motorola was touting this at CES and paying for Super Bowl ads. Those are not the kinds of things you do for products that you expect to sell 100,000 units for. No we don't have the numbers, but the circumstantial evidence suggests a flop.
You seriously think that Motorola didn't succeed because they didn't pay enough movie makers to put their products in their movies? Get real. The device hadn't been in a single movie when millions of units were sold. If anything, Motorola is the one that blew the budget on advertising and hype. Last time I checked Super Bowl ads aren't cheap.
Apple hasn't built their brand by advertising. They built their brand by making products that people want, which is something Motorola needs to spend more time doing. If you ask Motorola, they can testify to you that advertising alone doesn't sell millions of units.
With regard to your reminder that we know "nothing about Motorola's internal number," I'll just point out that neither do you and therefore you have no basis to say that it wasn't a failure. The circumstantial evidence provides a lot more support for "failure" than it does for not being a failure.
I disagree. The mobile PC isn't all that new. There is a certain volume of units where companies start to make money. A company amortizes costs of designing, manufacturing, and marketing across a certain number of units. They have to predict that number and if they are wrong, they will lose money (and yield a flop). Motorola was touting this at CES and paying for Super Bowl ads. Those are not the kinds of things you do for products that you expect to sell 100,000 units for. No we don't have the numbers, but the circumstantial evidence suggests a flop.
You seriously think that Motorola didn't succeed because they didn't pay enough movie makers to put their products in their movies? Get real. The device hadn't been in a single movie when millions of units were sold. If anything, Motorola is the one that blew the budget on advertising and hype. Last time I checked Super Bowl ads aren't cheap.
Apple hasn't built their brand by advertising. They built their brand by making products that people want, which is something Motorola needs to spend more time doing. If you ask Motorola, they can testify to you that advertising alone doesn't sell millions of units.
With regard to your reminder that we know "nothing about Motorola's internal number," I'll just point out that neither do you and therefore you have no basis to say that it wasn't a failure. The circumstantial evidence provides a lot more support for "failure" than it does for not being a failure.
RE: Super Bowl ads, CES touting: Please look at Nexus One. By Google and HTC's accounts, the NExus one was a success even though analysts called it a failure because of sales. There are more reasons than volume to market a product.
Re: Paid TV spots: That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about Mindshare. Apple has it, no other company in tech currently does.
And if you think that Apple's marketing department didn't have a SIGNIFICANT role in their current position you're fooling yourself. Look at Apple in the early 90's compared to today.
You're right, I don't have the internal numbers. But I'm also not the idiot that went and made a press release touting Motorola's sale numbers and if I thought they were good or not.
-we don't know sale number
-we don't know revenue numbers
-we don't know what Motorola's expectations were
-we don't know profit margins
As we don't know any of those things, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to call it a failure. We also cannot call it a success. That is what I'm saying.
As we don't know any of those things, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to call it a failure. We also cannot call it a success. That is what I'm saying.
If they sold 100 units, would you still say it is IMPOSSILBE for us to call it a failure? What about 5 units? or 1 unit? You are fundamentally wrong to say that units sold cannot serve as an indicator of success or failure. There are many that work in this industry that have a very good feel for what Motorola would have hoped/expected/and planned for in this product launch. I'm no expert, but I can still narrow it down to something. I would bet you any amount of money that Motorola planned for something between 10 thousand units and 10 billion units. An expert could obvious narrow it down a lot closer. I don't think experts in this field need to audit the books to know whether 100,000 units is a failure. Samsung shipped 2M units of the Tab before it even knew what demand would be like. It seems reasonable to me that a 100K launch is a disaster. I suppose if Motorola gave us the actual numbers you would argue "wait a minute, we don't know if it was a failure because what if Motorola added the numbers wrong."
I watched the video, I guess you missed the part where he said flash won't play 720p video because it doesn't support hardware decoding? It only has to run on 1 device right now, and they can't even figure out how to decode 720p encoded H.264 video on there? Is there any wonder Apple won't use it?
Did you watch the video you posted on a Xoom? If so, you probably couldn't see the big Apple logo reflecting off the screen as he filmed it in 720p on his iPhone. I saw it, because i watched in in 720p in my iPad. I didn't need flash to watch that video or the video the videos he showed.
Somehow there's an odd perception that you somehow need Flash to watch H.264 video.
And if you think that Apple's marketing department didn't have a SIGNIFICANT role in their current position you're fooling yourself. Look at Apple in the early 90's compared to today.
Yes let's look at the difference between Apple in the early 90's compared to today. Apple was advertising back then and they are advertising now. The difference I see is that now they sell the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, and lots of people want those products because they like using them. Apple's marketing and the mindset that goes with it is circular. Apple builds a product that people wants and then tells everyone that people want it. Motorola builds a product and tells people they will want it, but no one buys it because no one wants it.
Contrast that with the iPad 1. The media told all of us that the iPad was a big dissapointment and that only the Apple fans would buy it. Turns out that the media was wrong and most people want an iPad. I would argue Apple's success is 90% product development and 10% marketing. (I know you like numbers). In other words, had they not marketed the iPad, they may have only sold 12.6M iPads instead of 14M last year.
Comments
It's a flop when you develop a product chasing the taillights of last year's product, end up blindsided by this year's product, and end up losing money. Look at MMI earnings: already back in the red after a brief year of profitability when it didn't have to compete against Apple, segregated briefly by Verizon's wing.
The Xoom flopped, the Asterix flopped, Motorola is now in big trouble. That's why they're scrambling to come up with their own proprietary blend of Linux. Google's Android was half the reason both products flopped.
You do realize that Motorola Mobility is in it's first year of being it's own company right? It just spun off. This means it's revenues will be a lot lower, and it's struggling to find it's center again. Spin offs like this are always shaky, even in the best of times.
As for Xoom and Atrix sales numbers. We have no idea what they are because Verizon, Motorola, and ATT are not releasing numbers. Also Motorola still makes a ton of cheap handsets, and the Droidx/Droid2 are still two very well selling devices.
As for BGR, if you want to cry about DED being an Apple fanboy, well the "better commentary" you point to is simply laughable. Choice lines:
Zach uses an ATT iPhone as his primary device as does EVERY single member of BGR. In fact, outside of the "news" site AI, they're one of the biggest Apple-leaning blogs out there.
"The tablet market is barely a year old and it?s dominated by a single device ? Apple?s iPad."
No, the iPad market is a year old. Tablet market has been around since the early 90s, but nobody has figured it out until now. It's people like BGR's Zach who predicted that the Xoom was going to fare better. They were wrong.
Tablet PC's and tablets like the ipad are two totally different styles of devices. That's like saying a iphone is basically the same thing as a Palm Pilot.
Secondly, Please provide me ANY link where ANYONE on BGR predicted that the Xoom would be a hit.
"Motorola has sold 100,000 XOOM tablets in less than a month and a half, which is an average of over 75,000 units per month. That?s a flop?"
Yes, 75,000 * 12 = less than a million units a year. That's worse than the Zune. A flop by any measure, especially for the headlined, ultra hyped, Google-touted flagship Honeycomb tablet. It's a massive flop, bad enough to kill Android 3.0 as dead as the Zune OS. Never mind that 100/2=50 and not 75.
First, some basic math. 41 days (amount of time the Xoom was out) is 1 month and 11 days (assuming a 30 day month) NOT two months. Which is why he said month and a half. while realistically it's more like 1 and 1/3 months. 30/41 is Approximately 73,000. Now, sales of devices of this nature are typically higher at launch, which is why he most likely used the 75,000 number.
Next, for all but FIVE DAYS of these estimated numbers, the ONLY option available for purchase was the VERIZON 3g version. This means NO international sales, no wifi only sales, nothing. THe only people who thought this would be a blowout success were people who don't understand the industry (analysts and rabid fans) ANYONE who understands American consumers, especially Verizon customers, knows that an $800 device will not have run away sales, and I'm positive Motorola planned accordingly.
And no, this isn't "Bad enough to kill Honeycomb dead." Not even close. If you think that you don't understand Android adoption, at all.
You think that article is "better" because it says what you want to hear. But it is childishly wrong, as are you. Motorola isn't bouncing back or organically growing Xoom sales. It's canceling production orders! It's going to pull the plug 5x faster than Microsoft killed the Zune. It'll be gone before the next wave of Honeycomb tablets begin their drumbeat/dismal/doubt/death cycle.
1. Please link to a VERIFIED report that Motorola is cancelling production orders. Not a rumor, not some trash from an analyst but a press release or an authenticated leak. There are none. If you got your android news from a site other than AI you might know this.
2. This is a Dev device. Remember the G1? Or the Nexus One? Neither device was a "runaway" success, but both devices made their company money and more importantly, both devices helped guide future development. I don't know how long the Xoom will be around. But you can't call something a failure 5 days after the actual Entry level model enters the market.
3. The article is Better because it wasn't written by someone who cannot say a SINGLE positive thing about the device he is writing about. DED is an Apple Fanboy who couldn't admit a non iDevice is superior even if it gave him a gold brick an hour and all his iDevice did was spit out straw. Zach (and BGR) are STILL Apple Fans who STILL consider it by far the best system out there, but they don't feel the need to justify their choice by attacking the competition like DED does. But they understand one big concept: What's considered a positive sale is different for different companies. You (and most people on this site) don't get that. Believe it or not, Apple's one of the only companies in the world that is able to pull off the insane margins they do while still having high volume. A company does NOT have to meet that level in order not to be called a failure.
The 100k number was based off of an ESTIMATION based on a graph posted by Google on Android OS adoption. The only way to have a registered device there is if the device is active and connected with a gmail account at the time the survey was taken.
So it could actually be LESS than 100,000, right? Yeah, thought so. It's true, we haven't taken into account international sales, which will happen when exactly? Perhaps when they actually finish making the Xoom?
You do realize that ...
Damn, Archos, you hit a nerve!
Low revenues + low expectations + low sales + a dash of "but wait, it's a dev device!" = ???
Yep, that would still be a flop.
Exactly, which makes your defining it as a success already pretty funny.
Oh, I didn't either.
Not so much. Given that it's slower than the iPad2 out of the blocks (uh, hardware, though cetainly sales too...) and running a half-finished OS, expecting higher sales numbers would be crazy - as you yourself are now saying, even as you try to spin that as success. This tablet has run into the wall of the iPad and will get taken down by the upcoming Samsung devices***. If Moto is already cutting off the orders, it's going to end up being an unsupported .9-gen Android tablet that couldn't win on specs, price, or software on day 1. It's not a huge amount if you expect support from developers or the company itself even if the number is higher than you could personally produce in your basement.
Of course, if Xoom hasn't been launched globally yet, then they still have a... no, they really don't have a shot. Sorry.
*** And it's not likely that Samsung is going to be any sort of winner there either, just that people looking for a sleeker tablet running Android won't be lining up to pick up the Xoom so it will undercut Motorola even further.
Given your general lack of insight, I can't say that surprises me.
I didn't say it was a success, I just said it wasn't a failure. As we don't know the margins, initial costs, or ANYTHING, you can't call something a failure based on volume alone. Which you would agree with if you weren't so helbent on defending Apple like it was some abused puppy.
Again, no other product will EVER have the Initial sales rush that Apple does for their devices (with the possible exception of Game consoles). This is (in part) because of the user experience, but also because they're some of the most heavily advertised products in history. Not only do you have the thousands of commercials, but you have Apple spending a ton of money to get their devices placed in EVERY primetime show.
Apple has the best marketing department in the world, and they've been developing the brand aggressively for 20+ years. (and developing it for even longer).
Again, just because a device doesn't live up to Apple's sales numbers doesn't mean it's a failure.
Before you respond please remember: You know NOTHING of Motorola's internal numbers, profitability, or expectations. I am NOT saying the Xoom was a success, I am just saying it wasn't a failure.
*awaits you to miss the point, again*
...it's nothing like the Samusung 7" Galaxy tablet fiasco. 2.1 million shipped! how many sold - 10%? 20%? what a massive blunder! the losses on that utter total flop will be in the $ hundreds of millions. some head at Samsung is gonna roll ....
At least it will roll smoothly. (Yup, this joke is never going to get old)
Damn, Archos, you hit a nerve!
Low revenues + low expectations + low sales + a dash of "but wait, it's a dev device!" = ???
Yep, that would still be a flop.
-We don't know revenues. Even IF the 100k number is accurate we don't know Revenue OR Profit Margin. In fact we don't know anything about the numbers, just the word of an analyst who thought Motorola would sell a couple MILLION of a $800 Verizon Locked device. Again, If a moron makes a prediction, even if they're a well-dressed moron, you still don't take that prediction (or subsequent adjustments) seriously.
-Realistic expectations =! Low expectations. NO ONE thought this would have anywhere near the sale volume of an iPad. This doesn't make them low expectations, this is them understanding the market.
-We don't know sales numbers.
-People said it was a dev device since CES. This is nothing new.
And he didn't hit a nerve. Just typical American Economic Ignorance.
So it could actually be LESS than 100,000, right? Yeah, thought so. It's true, we haven't taken into account international sales, which will happen when exactly? Perhaps when they actually finish making the Xoom?
It could be 0 it would be 1 million. The point is we don't know.
Fun Fact: If you want to try and have witty replies, it actually requires you understand the product.
You must mean DaHarder. We're all aware he bought 3 for each family member.
Actually I thought he accounted for 50,000 units of those 100,000.
Please know that us apple fans, especially the ones who have been around for a while, are wounded from our past of being MS underdogs.
Now we're relishing in our market dominance and feel good when other companies product sales suck compared to apple's. Logically, there is little threat to apples position - at least for a good while. However apple fans are so wounded that some of us want to completely crush anyone who "might" threaten our dominance - even though lots of us say we like competition - and we do.
We just can't stand the thought of being marginalized again. For me i just want apple to keep their dominance long enough to remain the 1st choice platform of developers for years to come. All they have to do NOW is preload the market with enough powerful machines and that will provide years of a solid (non-fragmented) base market for developers to launch first on apple.
If apple also keeps pushing out APIs/development environments and couples innovative hardware with those APIs etc, it will encourage the creation of one-of-kind, first to apple platform apps that will allow us fans to deservedly puff out our chests and continue to smile down upon lesser brands.
"Apple fans" WANT competition for the most part because that pushes everything forward. What's happening now from the "competition" is just so pathetic is nothing to be happy about even if you are a "chest puffing Apple fan". Android gave the iPhone some fire under its butt. But in tablet-land, no such thing seems to be happening even after a year.
Someone whose birthday is uncomfortably close to Queen Elizabeth II's birthday, which is why we in Australia, celebrate the Queen's birthday with a holiday in June.
Which IIRC during my time in Australia was just another excuse not to go to work and get blind drunk instead. Except for those annoying monarchists, they're still taking this "royalty" stuff seriously.
It could be 0 it would be 1 million. The point is we don't know.
Fun Fact: If you want to try and have witty replies, it actually requires you understand the product.
Fun Fact: I doubt it would be 1 million...
The tablet market is very different from the phone market. Phones are used primarily for making calls and the features of the OS are primarily seen as a bonus (i.e., a way to attract customers). However, the decision to buy is mostly based on the need for phone service. The selection of a particular phone is based on cost and features.
The tablet market is completely different. Customers only buy if they want the particular device. Using a cell phone provider as a marketer is actually a hindrance because 2/3 of the market doesn't want a contract. The people that traffic the cell phone store are usually looking for phone service, not a tablet. Cell phone providers have completely different marketing and sales tactics and completely different contractual arrangements between themselves and their customers (as compared to retailers like Walmart, Best Buy, or an outlet like the Apple Store). In addition, handset makers like Motorola are used to selling through cell phone providers and for the most part don't have their own distribution channels.
Obviously Motorola is trying. They are selling the wifi version through Best Buy. However, they did it backwards. They advertised and released the 3g version on Verizon before going to Best Buy. What they should have done was established in the minds of their customers that Motorola is sold at Best Buy and other retail outlets. Then and only then should they release the 3G version at Verizon for those that want data.
I don't think it was a coincidence that Apple sold the 3G version a month late. Apple didn't want consumers associating the iPad with ATT. Apple wanted the lines at its own stores, not ATT.
Everyone likes to say that Apple is successful because of hype. I call bullshit. Motorola was the one paying for Superbowl ads making fun of Apple. Who's the one hyping their products??? Apple doesn't even anounce their products until they are ready to ship. There's no hype in that. The Xoom was hyped for months and wasn't ready to ship even when it shipped. That's what I call hype. We shouldn't confuse consumer demand with hype. Consumer demand is the antithesis of hype.
I think it boils down to the fact that cell phone carriers make bad PC vendors. The marketing of the Xoom is proof of that. Apple schooled these handset makers back in 2007 when it played ball on their court by selling a successful handset. Based on the attempts of Samsung and Motorola, it doesn't appear that handset makers can hang with Apple in its backyard (the PC market). The handset makers are now 0 for 2. We'll have to see how the rest do. Personally I think HP is the bigger threat. HP has sold a lot of PCs. You won't see them paying for Super Bowl ads announcing the sale of their devices at Verizon. (how stupid can you be).
Fun Fact: I doubt it would be 1 million...
I doubt it as well. The point of the post you quoted was the point out that this ENTIRE article is based off of the estimation of someone trying to put numbers to a graph.
Not Sales Figures, not even Estimations from sale numbers at a sampling of locations.
Again, these are Verizon customers we're talking about. They're not going to jump at the chance of dropping 800 on a device, or 600 and still having to sign a 2 year contract. Heck, the number of Verizon ipad sales was pathetic when it launched as well. (and most consumers had no clue about release cycles, so I doubt ipad2 rumors hindered those sales at all)
This is a consumer that expects phones to be free and netbooks to be $25 (or free if you get a smartphone too).
This is (in part) because of the user experience, but also because they're some of the most heavily advertised products in history. Not only do you have the thousands of commercials, but you have Apple spending a ton of money to get their devices placed in EVERY primetime show.
You're still spreading this ridiculous bullshit? Apple doesn't pay for product placement. Prop guys use Apple equipment because it looks better than other brands. In primetime shows the last three years or so, every Apple computer has a sticker over the Apple logo to reduce right-wing hate mail, and if they turn them around so you can see the screen only, you'll notice it's Windows. I guarantee you Apple is not paying to have their computers shown with the logo hidden and running windows.
I didn't say it was a success, I just said it wasn't a failure. As we don't know the margins, initial costs, or ANYTHING, you can't call something a failure based on volume alone. Which you would agree with if you weren't so helbent on defending Apple like it was some abused puppy.
Again, no other product will EVER have the Initial sales rush that Apple does for their devices (with the possible exception of Game consoles). This is (in part) because of the user experience, but also because they're some of the most heavily advertised products in history. Not only do you have the thousands of commercials, but you have Apple spending a ton of money to get their devices placed in EVERY primetime show.
Apple has the best marketing department in the world, and they've been developing the brand aggressively for 20+ years. (and developing it for even longer).
Again, just because a device doesn't live up to Apple's sales numbers doesn't mean it's a failure.
Before you respond please remember: You know NOTHING of Motorola's internal numbers, profitability, or expectations. I am NOT saying the Xoom was a success, I am just saying it wasn't a failure.
*awaits you to miss the point, again*
I disagree. The mobile PC isn't all that new. There is a certain volume of units where companies start to make money. A company amortizes costs of designing, manufacturing, and marketing across a certain number of units. They have to predict that number and if they are wrong, they will lose money (and yield a flop). Motorola was touting this at CES and paying for Super Bowl ads. Those are not the kinds of things you do for products that you expect to sell 100,000 units for. No we don't have the numbers, but the circumstantial evidence suggests a flop.
You seriously think that Motorola didn't succeed because they didn't pay enough movie makers to put their products in their movies? Get real. The device hadn't been in a single movie when millions of units were sold. If anything, Motorola is the one that blew the budget on advertising and hype. Last time I checked Super Bowl ads aren't cheap.
Apple hasn't built their brand by advertising. They built their brand by making products that people want, which is something Motorola needs to spend more time doing. If you ask Motorola, they can testify to you that advertising alone doesn't sell millions of units.
With regard to your reminder that we know "nothing about Motorola's internal number," I'll just point out that neither do you and therefore you have no basis to say that it wasn't a failure. The circumstantial evidence provides a lot more support for "failure" than it does for not being a failure.
I disagree. The mobile PC isn't all that new. There is a certain volume of units where companies start to make money. A company amortizes costs of designing, manufacturing, and marketing across a certain number of units. They have to predict that number and if they are wrong, they will lose money (and yield a flop). Motorola was touting this at CES and paying for Super Bowl ads. Those are not the kinds of things you do for products that you expect to sell 100,000 units for. No we don't have the numbers, but the circumstantial evidence suggests a flop.
You seriously think that Motorola didn't succeed because they didn't pay enough movie makers to put their products in their movies? Get real. The device hadn't been in a single movie when millions of units were sold. If anything, Motorola is the one that blew the budget on advertising and hype. Last time I checked Super Bowl ads aren't cheap.
Apple hasn't built their brand by advertising. They built their brand by making products that people want, which is something Motorola needs to spend more time doing. If you ask Motorola, they can testify to you that advertising alone doesn't sell millions of units.
With regard to your reminder that we know "nothing about Motorola's internal number," I'll just point out that neither do you and therefore you have no basis to say that it wasn't a failure. The circumstantial evidence provides a lot more support for "failure" than it does for not being a failure.
RE: Super Bowl ads, CES touting: Please look at Nexus One. By Google and HTC's accounts, the NExus one was a success even though analysts called it a failure because of sales. There are more reasons than volume to market a product.
Re: Paid TV spots: That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about Mindshare. Apple has it, no other company in tech currently does.
And if you think that Apple's marketing department didn't have a SIGNIFICANT role in their current position you're fooling yourself. Look at Apple in the early 90's compared to today.
You're right, I don't have the internal numbers. But I'm also not the idiot that went and made a press release touting Motorola's sale numbers and if I thought they were good or not.
-we don't know sale number
-we don't know revenue numbers
-we don't know what Motorola's expectations were
-we don't know profit margins
As we don't know any of those things, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to call it a failure. We also cannot call it a success. That is what I'm saying.
-we don't know sale number
-we don't know revenue numbers
-we don't know what Motorola's expectations were
-we don't know profit margins
As we don't know any of those things, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to call it a failure. We also cannot call it a success. That is what I'm saying.
If they sold 100 units, would you still say it is IMPOSSILBE for us to call it a failure? What about 5 units? or 1 unit? You are fundamentally wrong to say that units sold cannot serve as an indicator of success or failure. There are many that work in this industry that have a very good feel for what Motorola would have hoped/expected/and planned for in this product launch. I'm no expert, but I can still narrow it down to something. I would bet you any amount of money that Motorola planned for something between 10 thousand units and 10 billion units. An expert could obvious narrow it down a lot closer. I don't think experts in this field need to audit the books to know whether 100,000 units is a failure. Samsung shipped 2M units of the Tab before it even knew what demand would be like. It seems reasonable to me that a 100K launch is a disaster. I suppose if Motorola gave us the actual numbers you would argue "wait a minute, we don't know if it was a failure because what if Motorola added the numbers wrong."
As we don't know any of those things, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to call it a failure. We also cannot call it a success. That is what I'm saying.
I'll help you out there... it's a failure.
I know it for a fact and you'll know how right I am very soon.
There... now you can go back to your dream world.
"experimental support for Flash is still not able to deliver reasonable performance even for web videos"
You mean the final version of Flash, available on Android Market that delivers video perfectly as the below example shows?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq6xzyxVYg0
I watched the video, I guess you missed the part where he said flash won't play 720p video because it doesn't support hardware decoding? It only has to run on 1 device right now, and they can't even figure out how to decode 720p encoded H.264 video on there? Is there any wonder Apple won't use it?
Did you watch the video you posted on a Xoom? If so, you probably couldn't see the big Apple logo reflecting off the screen as he filmed it in 720p on his iPhone. I saw it, because i watched in in 720p in my iPad. I didn't need flash to watch that video or the video the videos he showed.
Somehow there's an odd perception that you somehow need Flash to watch H.264 video.
And if you think that Apple's marketing department didn't have a SIGNIFICANT role in their current position you're fooling yourself. Look at Apple in the early 90's compared to today.
Yes let's look at the difference between Apple in the early 90's compared to today. Apple was advertising back then and they are advertising now. The difference I see is that now they sell the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, and lots of people want those products because they like using them. Apple's marketing and the mindset that goes with it is circular. Apple builds a product that people wants and then tells everyone that people want it. Motorola builds a product and tells people they will want it, but no one buys it because no one wants it.
Contrast that with the iPad 1. The media told all of us that the iPad was a big dissapointment and that only the Apple fans would buy it. Turns out that the media was wrong and most people want an iPad. I would argue Apple's success is 90% product development and 10% marketing. (I know you like numbers). In other words, had they not marketed the iPad, they may have only sold 12.6M iPads instead of 14M last year.
iPhone is available on 5 carriers in my country and for free from many of them:
http://www.vodafone.co.uk/brands/iph...hone/index.htm
http://shop.o2.co.uk/mobile_phone/pa...e_4_16GB_Black
http://shop.orange.co.uk/iphone/choose-your-4g-plan
Yet I know more people with an Android phone than an iPhone. I think your reasons are a bit out, or at least don't consider any markets outside USA.
you perhaps need to get out more
http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_br...-201101-201103