I keep seeing references to cannibalization but it's not possible for the Kindle Fire to have cannibalized iPad sales as they are made by different companies. It's just competition.
you stole the words out of my mouth. People recently have been way overusing cannibalize, innovate, and other words popularized by the iPhone's and iPad's groundbreaking debuts.
I keep seeing references to cannibalization but it's not possible for the Kindle Fire to have cannibalized iPad sales as they are made by different companies. It's just competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by iObserver
you stole the words out of my mouth. People recently have been way overusing cannibalize, innovate, and other words popularized by the iPhone's and iPad's groundbreaking debuts.
One definition of cannibalize: to cut into; cause to become reduced; diminish
I keep seeing references to cannibalization but it's not possible for the Kindle Fire to have cannibalized iPad sales as they are made by different companies. It's just competition.
You are correct.
Quote:
Definition of 'Market Cannibalization'
The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its existing related products.
\t
Investopedia explains 'Market Cannibalization'
If a company is practicing market cannibalization, it is eating its own market. For example, say Coca Cola puts out a new product called Coke2, and customers buy Coke2 instead of regular Coke. Although sales may be up for the new product, these sales may be eating into Coke's original market, in which case the overall company sales would not be increasing. Because of the possibility of market cannibalization, investors should always dig deeper, analyzing the source and impact of the success of a company's new but similar product.
The more Fires that got into people's hands, the better for Apple. Fact is, the iPad is simply so much more enjoyable to use, useful, etc. that getting a glimpse at what it would look like if other manufacturers dictated the direction tablets should go in merely makes the iPad seem that much more compelling.
Apple has it right. Deliver a decent tablet with a starting price of around $500. There's a market for such a product and Apple has the sales numbers to prove it.
By the way, one of the reasons the iPad is so successful is that Apple made the right choice in screen size. The iPad is just the right size for a device that is not intended to be pocketable. Smaller and it's less enjoyable to use, larger and it becomes too heavy to be practical as a handheld.
One definition of cannibalize: to cut into; cause to become reduced; diminish
Saying that the Fire is cannibalizing the iPad is crazy because they are after different markets. Do you also consider iPod Touch sales as cannibalizing iPad sales as well? Products have to be after the same market in order for them to considered as cannibals of that market. Fire is closer to the Touch than it is to the iPad.
you stole the words out of my mouth. People recently have been way overusing cannibalize, innovate, and other words popularized by the iPhone's and iPad's groundbreaking debuts.
Of course if people get upset at a smaller iPad Apple could always call it an iPod!😳
Quote:
Originally Posted by addicted44
My mom got a Kindle Fire for Christmas. It goes unused because shed much rather use my iPad.
However, the reason she got the Kindle Fire (over an iPad) still applies, in that it is something she can fit in her purse, which you can't do with the iPad. I would really love to see a 7" iPad Mini, even if it was a limited device, which only served media, kind of like the Fire.
No, it really needs to run apps just like all other iOS devices. I don't see a problem with this, everyone complains that it is more work for developers but frankly developers can go screw themselves. They can either support a sub 7" iPad orgo out of business.
So the guy at the top of the estimates did a ratio from last holiday quarter. The catch is Apple had a bigger tablet market share in 2010, so you need to deduce something from that number. If you take out 2 millions because of the Kindle fire and others you get 17.46. Remember the Kindle Fire is a US only product, the impact is limited to US sales only.
So that my estimate, 17.46
If the real number is anything above 17 millions the stock is going to lift off to the moon. We already know the Mac did great, the iphone did great from leaks of wireless co sales. The last unknown is the ipad.
Trying to think of the most good to come out of these estimates. AppleInsider-please start a board and let us all kick in a dollar, for donation to charity, and whoever has chosen the number closest to the actual $ will get bragging rights and the money sent to their favorite charity (but not yourself.)
Saying that the Fire is cannibalizing the iPad is crazy because they are after different markets. Do you also consider iPod Touch sales as cannibalizing iPad sales as well? Products have to be after the same market in order for them to considered as cannibals of that market. Fire is closer to the Touch than it is to the iPad.
It doesn't have to be the same market (segment). It has to be the same company, i.e., eating its own.
As previously been defined:
Definition of 'Market Cannibalization'
The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its [own} existing related products.
It doesn't have to be the same market (segment). It has to be the same company, i.e., eating its own.
As previously been defined:
Definition of 'Market Cannibalization'
The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its [own} existing related products.
If you want to be spot on, it should be the same company AND the same market (segment) but that is too much to expect from the analysts, AI or most of these comments.
Comments
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/tag/alex-gauna/
I keep seeing references to cannibalization but it's not possible for the Kindle Fire to have cannibalized iPad sales as they are made by different companies. It's just competition.
you stole the words out of my mouth. People recently have been way overusing cannibalize, innovate, and other words popularized by the iPhone's and iPad's groundbreaking debuts.
I keep seeing references to cannibalization but it's not possible for the Kindle Fire to have cannibalized iPad sales as they are made by different companies. It's just competition.
you stole the words out of my mouth. People recently have been way overusing cannibalize, innovate, and other words popularized by the iPhone's and iPad's groundbreaking debuts.
One definition of cannibalize: to cut into; cause to become reduced; diminish
I wonder how many did as my brother's family did. Everyone got fires at Christmas, a week later they had all traded them on for iPads.
I've said the same thing in other posts
Amazon doesn't publish fire sold volume
And certainly WON'T publish return %
I have similar stories
Sales people pass off fire as "just like iPad"
Great sales pitch but it's a pitch to deceive
I don't know anyone that has kept the fire
To save money they buy refurbished ipad2
Or one family got 3 iPad 1 off eBay returning the fire
I keep seeing references to cannibalization but it's not possible for the Kindle Fire to have cannibalized iPad sales as they are made by different companies. It's just competition.
You are correct.
Definition of 'Market Cannibalization'
The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its existing related products.
\t
Investopedia explains 'Market Cannibalization'
If a company is practicing market cannibalization, it is eating its own market. For example, say Coca Cola puts out a new product called Coke2, and customers buy Coke2 instead of regular Coke. Although sales may be up for the new product, these sales may be eating into Coke's original market, in which case the overall company sales would not be increasing. Because of the possibility of market cannibalization, investors should always dig deeper, analyzing the source and impact of the success of a company's new but similar product.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/...#ixzz1jYwsxfPw
Apple has it right. Deliver a decent tablet with a starting price of around $500. There's a market for such a product and Apple has the sales numbers to prove it.
By the way, one of the reasons the iPad is so successful is that Apple made the right choice in screen size. The iPad is just the right size for a device that is not intended to be pocketable. Smaller and it's less enjoyable to use, larger and it becomes too heavy to be practical as a handheld.
Tip: It's whatever Gene Munster and Shaw Wu say, these guys know their shit, no one else really has a clue.
Mostly disagree with that statement. Based on historical accuracies, don't follow what either say IMO.
One definition of cannibalize: to cut into; cause to become reduced; diminish
Saying that the Fire is cannibalizing the iPad is crazy because they are after different markets. Do you also consider iPod Touch sales as cannibalizing iPad sales as well? Products have to be after the same market in order for them to considered as cannibals of that market. Fire is closer to the Touch than it is to the iPad.
I take it these numbers are all just pulled out of thin air?
No... It's a highly technical process called sphincter-synthesis.
you stole the words out of my mouth. People recently have been way overusing cannibalize, innovate, and other words popularized by the iPhone's and iPad's groundbreaking debuts.
Also overused - 'groundbreaking'
Also overused - 'groundbreaking'
Are "cannibalising" and "groundbreaking" overused because you guys don't think they should be used figuratively?
My mom got a Kindle Fire for Christmas. It goes unused because shed much rather use my iPad.
However, the reason she got the Kindle Fire (over an iPad) still applies, in that it is something she can fit in her purse, which you can't do with the iPad. I would really love to see a 7" iPad Mini, even if it was a limited device, which only served media, kind of like the Fire.
No, it really needs to run apps just like all other iOS devices. I don't see a problem with this, everyone complains that it is more work for developers but frankly developers can go screw themselves. They can either support a sub 7" iPad orgo out of business.
Q1 2011 - 7.33 (January 18, 2011)
So (7.33 - 4.19) / 4.19 = 75% growth
Q4 2011 - 11.12 (October 18, 2011)
Q1 2012 - ?
So 11.12 * 0.75 = 8.34 + 11.12 = 19.46
So the guy at the top of the estimates did a ratio from last holiday quarter. The catch is Apple had a bigger tablet market share in 2010, so you need to deduce something from that number. If you take out 2 millions because of the Kindle fire and others you get 17.46. Remember the Kindle Fire is a US only product, the impact is limited to US sales only.
So that my estimate, 17.46
If the real number is anything above 17 millions the stock is going to lift off to the moon. We already know the Mac did great, the iphone did great from leaks of wireless co sales. The last unknown is the ipad.
Saying that the Fire is cannibalizing the iPad is crazy because they are after different markets. Do you also consider iPod Touch sales as cannibalizing iPad sales as well? Products have to be after the same market in order for them to considered as cannibals of that market. Fire is closer to the Touch than it is to the iPad.
It doesn't have to be the same market (segment). It has to be the same company, i.e., eating its own.
As previously been defined:
Definition of 'Market Cannibalization'
The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its [own} existing related products.
?developers can go screw themselves. They can either support a sub 7" iPad orgo out of business.
Funny how that never seems to work in any other situation.
"Movie studios/music producers/workstation users can go screw themselves. They can either work on iMacs and Mac Minis or go out of business."
Are "cannibalising" and "groundbreaking" overused because you guys don't think they should be used figuratively?
They're just crutches for people who want a long and fancy sounding word to describe the actions of or against their favorite company.
It doesn't have to be the same market (segment). It has to be the same company, i.e., eating its own.
As previously been defined:
Definition of 'Market Cannibalization'
The negative impact of a company's new product on the sales performance of its [own} existing related products.
If you want to be spot on, it should be the same company AND the same market (segment) but that is too much to expect from the analysts, AI or most of these comments.
Why dont analysts just admit that they dont really know and are groping in the dark desperately for numbers to show that there relevent.
Beats the heck out of me too. None of them really have a clue, and frankly most seem like overpaid fairground fortune tellers.