Amazon is a house of cards. It has a PE ratio of 140 (vs. 14 for Apple!) and a net profit margin of < 3%. Wal-Mart has a better ROI. I find it ironic that a retailer (albeit, an online one) thinks it can compete at this level
For the record, I am short AMZN... for the long term
Once again we see the wheels coming off the Apple train. It won't be long before it comes crashing down and Amazon and Samsung rise, leaving the iPad but a distant memory in the hearts of?
? wait, he's banned, I don't have to mock his abject nonsense anymore.
Don't think that will happen. If Apple does consider selling a lower price iPad, I think they should make up the margins lost by selling the new iPad 3 as the iPad HD Pro (retina display) at $599. However, Apple doesn't usually raise prices for newer products, so this ain't gonna happen.
Carmissimo didn't really go into his reasoning but I think there is a market for a 16Gb WiFi iPad but I don't see the next one jumping by $200. Even with the capacity jump of the G3 8GB iPod Touch to the G4 32GB iPod Touch the price difference is still $100.
I'm thinking that if Apple can keep the price point for the HD display and its associated components in line with the iPad 2, that the iPad 2 will drop to $399 and be the only model at the price level. If the iPad 3's display and associated components do raise the price I would think they would then have to offset the appearance of more money by doubling the capacity or by putting the HiDPI display only in the higher-tier model(s).
I'm betting on the former scenario happening but I can see a scenario where Apple would do anything it could to get the HiDPI displays out in 2012 instead of 2013 to put a lock on the market, even if the cost and yield is too low to make it blanket addition to the line.
Once again we see the wheels coming off the Apple train. It won't be long before it comes crashing down and Amazon and Samsung rise, leaving the iPad but a distant memory in the hearts of?
? wait, he's banned, I don't have to mock his abject nonsense anymore.
Once again we see the wheels coming off the Apple train. It won't be long before it comes crashing down and Amazon and Samsung rise, leaving the iPad but a distant memory in the hearts of?
? wait, he's banned, I don't have to mock his abject nonsense anymore.
Amazon is a house of cards. It has a PE ratio of 140 (vs. 14 for Apple!) and a net profit margin of < 3%. Wal-Mart has a better ROI. I find it ironic that a retailer (albeit, an online one) thinks it can compete at this level
For the record, I am short AMZN... for the long term
That just about says it.
If they're going to give it away today with the hope of making money tomorrow, I am not so sure there'll be a tomorrow for AMZN. Alternatively, they'll backtrack from this strategy in a hurry.
Carmissimo didn't really go into his reasoning but I think there is a market for a 16Gb WiFi iPad but I don't see the next one jumping by $200. Even with the capacity jump of the G3 8GB iPod Touch to the G4 32GB iPod Touch the price difference is still $100.
I'm thinking that if Apple can keep the price point for the HD display and its associated components in line with the iPad 2, that the iPad 2 will drop to $399 and be the only model at the price level. If the iPad 3's display and associated components do raise the price I would think they would then have to offset the appearance of more money by doubling the capacity or by putting the HiDPI display only in the higher-tier model(s).
I'm betting on the former scenario happening but I can see a scenario where Apple would do anything it could to get the HiDPI displays out in 2012 instead of 2013 to put a lock on the market, even if the cost and yield is too low to make it blanket addition to the line.
The differences between the $399 iPad and the $599 version would not stop at the display. I would also expect that the $399 version would come with a slight modification in the processor as in a so-called A5X whereas the $599 version would come in with an A6 quad-core processor and a higher quality camera.
If Apple didn't offer a $399 entry point, then there would be a lot of balking at the notion of the price going from $499 to $599 but by offering two distinct models, Apple would be covering its bases. I think that while some customers would find a much higher resolution and faster processing compelling, others would be perfectly happy with a device that as we speak is happily being used by millions of customers around the world.
I don't think that more resolution, a faster processor and a much better camera can be delivered at much less than $200 just as no one finds it outrageous that the base model of the Macbook Air checks in at $999 yet the next step up is an additional $200 basically for more memory.
We're not talking about a $200 jump in price from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3. A high-resolution display is not something that Apple can or should be expected to serve up free of charge. By offering the old resolution even at a reduced price, Apple would be giving consumers a choice. Apple would be saying, the old technology is an option at $100 less than before or if you want the latest and greatest, there's a price for that. Millions would pay that price, I suspect, and the rest happily settle for a $399 iPad. Win/win all around.
Is this about Apple giving technology away because if it is, I think it bears reminding that Apple is a publicly traded entity that does consider making money an important part of the business plan. If there are enough people willing to pay $599 for a higher grade of iPad, why would Apple choose to not offer such a product. If at the same time, people looking for bang for the buck were well served, what's the downside?
Carmissimo didn't really go into his reasoning but I think there is a market for a 16Gb WiFi iPad but I don't see the next one jumping by $200. Even with the capacity jump of the G3 8GB iPod Touch to the G4 32GB iPod Touch the price difference is still $100.
I'm thinking that if Apple can keep the price point for the HD display and its associated components in line with the iPad 2, that the iPad 2 will drop to $399 and be the only model at the price level. If the iPad 3's display and associated components do raise the price I would think they would then have to offset the appearance of more money by doubling the capacity or by putting the HiDPI display only in the higher-tier model(s).
I'm betting on the former scenario happening but I can see a scenario where Apple would do anything it could to get the HiDPI displays out in 2012 instead of 2013 to put a lock on the market, even if the cost and yield is too low to make it blanket addition to the line.
Your last sentence is very interesting... and perhaps, prescient:
-- Say the iPad³ is supply constrained...
-- Say the iPad³ retains the price structure we currently have.
-- Say the iPad 2 models prices are lowered to reduce the price umbrella available to the competition
So the customer, essentially, has these choices:
1) delayed gratification -- order, and wait for delivery of the top-end iPad³ model.
2) instant gratification -- buy the desired iPad 2 model at a [more than] competitive price.
3) instant disappointment -- buy a non-competitive TrashTablet™ model at low price.
The differences between the $399 iPad and the $599 version would not stop at the display. I would also expect that the $399 version would come with a slight modification in the processor as in a so-called A5X whereas the $599 version would come in with an A6 quad-core processor and a higher quality camera.
If Apple didn't offer a $399 entry point, then there would be a lot of balking at the notion of the price going from $499 to $599 but by offering two distinct models, Apple would be covering its bases. I think that while some customers would find a much higher resolution and faster processing compelling, others would be perfectly happy with a device that as we speak is happily being used by millions of customers around the world.
I don't think that more resolution, a faster processor and a much better camera can be delivered at much less than $200 just as no one finds it outrageous that the base model of the Macbook Air checks in at $999 yet the next step up is an additional $200 basically for more memory.
We're not talking about a $200 jump in price from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3. A high-resolution display is not something that Apple can or should be expected to serve up free of charge. By offering the old resolution even at a reduced price, Apple would be giving consumers a choice. Apple would be saying, the old technology is an option at $100 less than before or if you want the latest and greatest, there's a price for that. Millions would pay that price, I suspect, and the rest happily settle for a $399 iPad. Win/win all around.
Is this about Apple giving technology away because if it is, I think it bears reminding that Apple is a publicly traded entity that does consider making money an important part of the business plan. If there are enough people willing to pay $599 for a higher grade of iPad, why would Apple choose to not offer such a product. If at the same time, people looking for bang for the buck were well served, what's the downside?
Apple has offered us the iPhone and iPod Touch with 4x the pixels at the same price point. Not that means anything with component costs but I think that means something in terms of marketing.
If I go with your scenario I can't help but expect Apple to A) go with a 16GB iPad 2 at $399 and 32GB iPad 2 at $499, or just go with the 32GB iPad 2 at $499 to make sure there is a nice $100 between each unit.
All Apple has to do is sell a $399 iPad which at this stage would be rather easy to do. Make the current iPad available for that price and just keep on selling it while the iPad 3 takes up the mantle at the current price point.
My money is on Apple introducing the new iPad lineup at the current iPad prices, and then retaining one of the iPad2 models to sell at about $100 less then its equivalent old price and renaming it the iPad2E. This one will be marketed as their "educational" model and will be aimed at schools and parents with K-12 children. This model will likely be the current low end iPad or very similar, however it will come with a suite of software to make it an educational unit right out of the box.
This idea plays to Apple's ecosystem advantage and can position Apple's best-priced tablet as "useful" learning aids and leave the 10" Kindle to be a reader/toy. This also builds on the educational initiative Apple began last year
Amazon is a house of cards. It has a PE ratio of 140 (vs. 14 for Apple!) and a net profit margin of < 3%. Wal-Mart has a better ROI. I find it ironic that a retailer (albeit, an online one) thinks it can compete at this level
For the record, I am short AMZN... for the long term
Amazon is already forcasting a $200 million loss for Q1, coupled with the dive the stock took since October. Now Amazon wants to build a 10" loss leading product and extend itself further into the red? I don't see how the stock holders or Amazon's board of directors will keep putting up with a company bleeding money?
And of course, there was that nice survey a few weeks back showing how Fire buyers are neither buying Prime membership, nor purchasing very many apps. The smart ones already rooted the thing and are getting all the free apps they want from the Android marketplace.
Amazon is a house of cards. It has a PE ratio of 140 (vs. 14 for Apple!) and a net profit margin of < 3%. Wal-Mart has a better ROI. I find it ironic that a retailer (albeit, an online one) thinks it can compete at this level
For the record, I am short AMZN... for the long term
Truth you speak. It's amazing how long a company can remain either undervalued (Apple) or overvalued (Amazon).
My money is on Apple introducing the new iPad lineup at the current iPad prices, and then retaining one of the iPad2 models to sell at about $100 less then its equivalent old price and renaming it the iPad2E. This one will be marketed as their "educational" model and will be aimed at schools and parents with K-12 children. This model will likely be the current low end iPad or very similar, however it will come with a suite of software to make it an educational unit right out of the box.
This idea plays to Apple's ecosystem advantage and can position Apple's best-priced tablet as "useful" learning aids and leave the 10" Kindle to be a reader/toy. This also builds on the educational initiative Apple began last year
I'm with you except for pre-including educational software and rebranding it iPad2E. I think just keeping it as is will be more than enough. The eMac is long gone and I don't think this lower entry price point would be relegated to the education only market like other Apple products are.
If they [amazon] sell a 10" machine at $250, it more or less forces Apple to drop the cost of entry. That's a good thing for consumers, if not the shareholders.
Meh... could go either way. Netbooks were allegedly going to "force" apple to sell a cheap MacBook, but that never happened, and Apple has seen years and years of steady mac sales growth.
And yet Apple has also shown that if there's a way to profitably sell a less expensive but high quality product, they'll do that (iPhone 3GS for free with contract is the best example).
My guess is that Apple will keep the 16 GB wifi iPad2 around at a discounted price... maybe $399 or $349. I'd be surprised if they sold it for as little as $299.
I bet they could sell quite a few discounted iPad2s into the K-12 market.
Another thought that occurs to me for the K-12 market would be a 16 GB wifi iPad2 with no cameras (it's not hard to see why schools might prefer a model that doesn't have cameras).
Thus far, they are taking a completely different portion of the market that Apple has also thus far ceded.
It could be argued instead that the Kindle helps the iPad, as it has disemboweled the market for Android tablets; consumers either get a Kindle (low end entry) or an iPad (high end).
It's the same reason netbooks didn't hurt Apple; they only hurt the competition.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
The only way Android can compete with the iPad is by deep, deep discounts which squeezes out all their OEM's profits.
Google is being squashed like a toad on the road between the iPad Juggernaut and the orphan Android Kindle Fire which cuts out Google advertising.
Even the Kindle Fires can only be shifted by selling at a loss.
iPad's domination is so complete that they are making 100% of all the profits made by the entire tablet market. Probably even more than a 100% (if that was mathematically possible) if you take into account that most competition tablets are sold at a loss
That makes the iPad even more dominant than the iPod, which has 70% share of the entire MP3 market, and the iPhone which earns 75% of the profits of the entire mobile phone market.
Comments
For the record, I am short AMZN... for the long term
? wait, he's banned, I don't have to mock his abject nonsense anymore.
Don't think that will happen. If Apple does consider selling a lower price iPad, I think they should make up the margins lost by selling the new iPad 3 as the iPad HD Pro (retina display) at $599. However, Apple doesn't usually raise prices for newer products, so this ain't gonna happen.
Carmissimo didn't really go into his reasoning but I think there is a market for a 16Gb WiFi iPad but I don't see the next one jumping by $200. Even with the capacity jump of the G3 8GB iPod Touch to the G4 32GB iPod Touch the price difference is still $100.
I'm thinking that if Apple can keep the price point for the HD display and its associated components in line with the iPad 2, that the iPad 2 will drop to $399 and be the only model at the price level. If the iPad 3's display and associated components do raise the price I would think they would then have to offset the appearance of more money by doubling the capacity or by putting the HiDPI display only in the higher-tier model(s).
I'm betting on the former scenario happening but I can see a scenario where Apple would do anything it could to get the HiDPI displays out in 2012 instead of 2013 to put a lock on the market, even if the cost and yield is too low to make it blanket addition to the line.
Once again we see the wheels coming off the Apple train. It won't be long before it comes crashing down and Amazon and Samsung rise, leaving the iPad but a distant memory in the hearts of?
? wait, he's banned, I don't have to mock his abject nonsense anymore.
Once again we see the wheels coming off the Apple train. It won't be long before it comes crashing down and Amazon and Samsung rise, leaving the iPad but a distant memory in the hearts of?
? wait, he's banned, I don't have to mock his abject nonsense anymore.
Slapppy is banned? Before Galbi?
Amazon is a house of cards. It has a PE ratio of 140 (vs. 14 for Apple!) and a net profit margin of < 3%. Wal-Mart has a better ROI. I find it ironic that a retailer (albeit, an online one) thinks it can compete at this level
For the record, I am short AMZN... for the long term
That just about says it.
If they're going to give it away today with the hope of making money tomorrow, I am not so sure there'll be a tomorrow for AMZN. Alternatively, they'll backtrack from this strategy in a hurry.
Let's see how the 10" Kindle fire does again the iPad when the price gap narrows. It's not such a slam dunk for Amazon.
That's what I was echoing in my earlier comments.
If the 10" Kindle was "better" than the iPad at HALF the price... I'd be all over it.
But it won't be.
You'll have to make the choice between the iPad and all of its benefits.... or the Kindle Fire and its low price.
Carmissimo didn't really go into his reasoning but I think there is a market for a 16Gb WiFi iPad but I don't see the next one jumping by $200. Even with the capacity jump of the G3 8GB iPod Touch to the G4 32GB iPod Touch the price difference is still $100.
I'm thinking that if Apple can keep the price point for the HD display and its associated components in line with the iPad 2, that the iPad 2 will drop to $399 and be the only model at the price level. If the iPad 3's display and associated components do raise the price I would think they would then have to offset the appearance of more money by doubling the capacity or by putting the HiDPI display only in the higher-tier model(s).
I'm betting on the former scenario happening but I can see a scenario where Apple would do anything it could to get the HiDPI displays out in 2012 instead of 2013 to put a lock on the market, even if the cost and yield is too low to make it blanket addition to the line.
The differences between the $399 iPad and the $599 version would not stop at the display. I would also expect that the $399 version would come with a slight modification in the processor as in a so-called A5X whereas the $599 version would come in with an A6 quad-core processor and a higher quality camera.
If Apple didn't offer a $399 entry point, then there would be a lot of balking at the notion of the price going from $499 to $599 but by offering two distinct models, Apple would be covering its bases. I think that while some customers would find a much higher resolution and faster processing compelling, others would be perfectly happy with a device that as we speak is happily being used by millions of customers around the world.
I don't think that more resolution, a faster processor and a much better camera can be delivered at much less than $200 just as no one finds it outrageous that the base model of the Macbook Air checks in at $999 yet the next step up is an additional $200 basically for more memory.
We're not talking about a $200 jump in price from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3. A high-resolution display is not something that Apple can or should be expected to serve up free of charge. By offering the old resolution even at a reduced price, Apple would be giving consumers a choice. Apple would be saying, the old technology is an option at $100 less than before or if you want the latest and greatest, there's a price for that. Millions would pay that price, I suspect, and the rest happily settle for a $399 iPad. Win/win all around.
Is this about Apple giving technology away because if it is, I think it bears reminding that Apple is a publicly traded entity that does consider making money an important part of the business plan. If there are enough people willing to pay $599 for a higher grade of iPad, why would Apple choose to not offer such a product. If at the same time, people looking for bang for the buck were well served, what's the downside?
Carmissimo didn't really go into his reasoning but I think there is a market for a 16Gb WiFi iPad but I don't see the next one jumping by $200. Even with the capacity jump of the G3 8GB iPod Touch to the G4 32GB iPod Touch the price difference is still $100.
I'm thinking that if Apple can keep the price point for the HD display and its associated components in line with the iPad 2, that the iPad 2 will drop to $399 and be the only model at the price level. If the iPad 3's display and associated components do raise the price I would think they would then have to offset the appearance of more money by doubling the capacity or by putting the HiDPI display only in the higher-tier model(s).
I'm betting on the former scenario happening but I can see a scenario where Apple would do anything it could to get the HiDPI displays out in 2012 instead of 2013 to put a lock on the market, even if the cost and yield is too low to make it blanket addition to the line.
Your last sentence is very interesting... and perhaps, prescient:
-- Say the iPad³ is supply constrained...
-- Say the iPad³ retains the price structure we currently have.
-- Say the iPad 2 models prices are lowered to reduce the price umbrella available to the competition
So the customer, essentially, has these choices:
1) delayed gratification -- order, and wait for delivery of the top-end iPad³ model.
2) instant gratification -- buy the desired iPad 2 model at a [more than] competitive price.
3) instant disappointment -- buy a non-competitive TrashTablet™ model at low price.
4) do nothing.
The differences between the $399 iPad and the $599 version would not stop at the display. I would also expect that the $399 version would come with a slight modification in the processor as in a so-called A5X whereas the $599 version would come in with an A6 quad-core processor and a higher quality camera.
If Apple didn't offer a $399 entry point, then there would be a lot of balking at the notion of the price going from $499 to $599 but by offering two distinct models, Apple would be covering its bases. I think that while some customers would find a much higher resolution and faster processing compelling, others would be perfectly happy with a device that as we speak is happily being used by millions of customers around the world.
I don't think that more resolution, a faster processor and a much better camera can be delivered at much less than $200 just as no one finds it outrageous that the base model of the Macbook Air checks in at $999 yet the next step up is an additional $200 basically for more memory.
We're not talking about a $200 jump in price from the iPad 2 to the iPad 3. A high-resolution display is not something that Apple can or should be expected to serve up free of charge. By offering the old resolution even at a reduced price, Apple would be giving consumers a choice. Apple would be saying, the old technology is an option at $100 less than before or if you want the latest and greatest, there's a price for that. Millions would pay that price, I suspect, and the rest happily settle for a $399 iPad. Win/win all around.
Is this about Apple giving technology away because if it is, I think it bears reminding that Apple is a publicly traded entity that does consider making money an important part of the business plan. If there are enough people willing to pay $599 for a higher grade of iPad, why would Apple choose to not offer such a product. If at the same time, people looking for bang for the buck were well served, what's the downside?
Apple has offered us the iPhone and iPod Touch with 4x the pixels at the same price point. Not that means anything with component costs but I think that means something in terms of marketing.
If I go with your scenario I can't help but expect Apple to A) go with a 16GB iPad 2 at $399 and 32GB iPad 2 at $499, or
All Apple has to do is sell a $399 iPad which at this stage would be rather easy to do. Make the current iPad available for that price and just keep on selling it while the iPad 3 takes up the mantle at the current price point.
My money is on Apple introducing the new iPad lineup at the current iPad prices, and then retaining one of the iPad2 models to sell at about $100 less then its equivalent old price and renaming it the iPad2E. This one will be marketed as their "educational" model and will be aimed at schools and parents with K-12 children. This model will likely be the current low end iPad or very similar, however it will come with a suite of software to make it an educational unit right out of the box.
This idea plays to Apple's ecosystem advantage and can position Apple's best-priced tablet as "useful" learning aids and leave the 10" Kindle to be a reader/toy. This also builds on the educational initiative Apple began last year
Amazon is a house of cards. It has a PE ratio of 140 (vs. 14 for Apple!) and a net profit margin of < 3%. Wal-Mart has a better ROI. I find it ironic that a retailer (albeit, an online one) thinks it can compete at this level
For the record, I am short AMZN... for the long term
Amazon is already forcasting a $200 million loss for Q1, coupled with the dive the stock took since October. Now Amazon wants to build a 10" loss leading product and extend itself further into the red? I don't see how the stock holders or Amazon's board of directors will keep putting up with a company bleeding money?
And of course, there was that nice survey a few weeks back showing how Fire buyers are neither buying Prime membership, nor purchasing very many apps. The smart ones already rooted the thing and are getting all the free apps they want from the Android marketplace.
Amazon is a house of cards. It has a PE ratio of 140 (vs. 14 for Apple!) and a net profit margin of < 3%. Wal-Mart has a better ROI. I find it ironic that a retailer (albeit, an online one) thinks it can compete at this level
For the record, I am short AMZN... for the long term
Truth you speak. It's amazing how long a company can remain either undervalued (Apple) or overvalued (Amazon).
My money is on Apple introducing the new iPad lineup at the current iPad prices, and then retaining one of the iPad2 models to sell at about $100 less then its equivalent old price and renaming it the iPad2E. This one will be marketed as their "educational" model and will be aimed at schools and parents with K-12 children. This model will likely be the current low end iPad or very similar, however it will come with a suite of software to make it an educational unit right out of the box.
This idea plays to Apple's ecosystem advantage and can position Apple's best-priced tablet as "useful" learning aids and leave the 10" Kindle to be a reader/toy. This also builds on the educational initiative Apple began last year
I'm with you except for pre-including educational software and rebranding it iPad2E. I think just keeping it as is will be more than enough. The eMac is long gone and I don't think this lower entry price point would be relegated to the education only market like other Apple products are.
If they [amazon] sell a 10" machine at $250, it more or less forces Apple to drop the cost of entry. That's a good thing for consumers, if not the shareholders.
Meh... could go either way. Netbooks were allegedly going to "force" apple to sell a cheap MacBook, but that never happened, and Apple has seen years and years of steady mac sales growth.
And yet Apple has also shown that if there's a way to profitably sell a less expensive but high quality product, they'll do that (iPhone 3GS for free with contract is the best example).
My guess is that Apple will keep the 16 GB wifi iPad2 around at a discounted price... maybe $399 or $349. I'd be surprised if they sold it for as little as $299.
I bet they could sell quite a few discounted iPad2s into the K-12 market.
Another thought that occurs to me for the K-12 market would be a 16 GB wifi iPad2 with no cameras (it's not hard to see why schools might prefer a model that doesn't have cameras).
"They started making tablets. We didn't start making eReaders."
Ah, the Kindle!
The worst thing that ever happened to the Android operating system. And yet it knows it not.
Absolutely stunned by the news of Slapppy's banning.
Thus far, they are taking a completely different portion of the market that Apple has also thus far ceded.
It could be argued instead that the Kindle helps the iPad, as it has disemboweled the market for Android tablets; consumers either get a Kindle (low end entry) or an iPad (high end).
It's the same reason netbooks didn't hurt Apple; they only hurt the competition.
Yes, you're absolutely right.
The only way Android can compete with the iPad is by deep, deep discounts which squeezes out all their OEM's profits.
Google is being squashed like a toad on the road between the iPad Juggernaut and the orphan Android Kindle Fire which cuts out Google advertising.
Even the Kindle Fires can only be shifted by selling at a loss.
iPad's domination is so complete that they are making 100% of all the profits made by the entire tablet market. Probably even more than a 100% (if that was mathematically possible) if you take into account that most competition tablets are sold at a loss
That makes the iPad even more dominant than the iPod, which has 70% share of the entire MP3 market, and the iPhone which earns 75% of the profits of the entire mobile phone market.