You don't understand the difference between a feel-good PR story and the reality of a huge international megacorporation owned primarily by institutional investors on Wall Street.
Apple's management has one goal: Make money for Wall Street. If they did anything else, management would be fired by the BOD, and if not, the BOD would be replaced by the owners of the company.
No this is just bullish*t Capitalist ideology that they cram down your throat in business school and has no bearing on how Apple is run.
It's just something people say (money being the "bottom line" etc.), to make them feel better about doing immoral sh*t in business. At the very least, if all businesses actually followed that philosophy and had profit maximisation as their only goal, we would be in a completely free-market capitalist situation which has never existed and has never been proven to be a functional model for growth or stability.
Real world predictions for those who understand apple.
1. Apple will not steel the thunder of the iPhone launch by announcing both products this fall. So chances of 7" iPad this year is very remote. Next Spring odds go up. Please note that apple has never launched iPad and iPhone products at same event. Traditionally iPhone is summer/fall announcement. iPad is spring. Because of 4Q Christmas season, I believe the iPhone/iPod touch will be predominately a very late summer or early fall every year. iPad will remain early spring.
2. Apple already had the AppleTV announcement at developer conference. There will be no further announcements regarding Apple TV this year.
Really? We're now debating how many imaginary devices will be sold? You have no idea if it exists at all and if it does you have no idea what the feature set or pricing level is but you're willing to speculate that 6 million units is "extremely low"?
In his defense, he is making assumptions, clearly, and basing his projections upon those assumptions.
He stated his assumed price, and identified the product as a Apple tablet. Thus, he is assuming an average "Appley" level of features and specs.
To me, that means that it will have all the ecosystem stuff that that the sweet spot of the market will want/need, and will be missing stuff that sophisticated purchasers would demand, but which would lower the margins or the aftermarket sales, most notably, and SD card slot.
That's the position you want to take? That's it's impossible to have an opinion about a product based on price point despite overwhelming evidence regarding lower price points and comparative product lines? You're so sure that one can't make any educated guess about potential sales based on current and historical data that you'd never say that "it's impossible for Apple to sell 1 trillion in one day" or that "Apple would surely sell at least one unit"?
There's no "overwhelming evidence" of anything, it's just slow news days. Evidence requires facts that you can point to, not just "I heard from some anonymous person." The facts here point away from a smaller iPad in the $200-$299 range. The reason it's easy to speculate on how many imaginary devices can be sold below cost is that it's a no-brainer. It's like asking if the US Treasury was selling dollar bills for 90 cents tomorrow how many would they sell? That's just not a possible scenario here; it's wishful thinking. Looking at "facts" Apple couldn't hope to build a smaller version of the iPad and sell it for less than $349-$399.
At the very least, if all businesses actually followed that philosophy and had profit maximisation as their only goal, we would be in a completely free-market capitalist situation which has never existed and has never been proven to be a functional model for growth or stability.
It is precisely because most (all?) megacorporations embrace this goal that we have laws to prevent them from doing many bad things. In the bad old days, they hired thugs to kill union organizers. They dumped toxic waste in the river. They formed trusts and cartels to prevent competition.
Free-market capitalism is a system where profits are privatized and externalities are made public. Megaccorporations exist to enrich their owners. Apple is not a public charity. Their one and only goal is to maximize total profits for the benefit of Wall Street, who own them.
If you think that this is a bad thing, then buy locally from small companies, and stay away from Apple, Monsanto, Dow and Wall Mart. Because all of them have the same goal. And thankfully, all of them have strict government regulation to prevent the most egregious abuses.
There's no "overwhelming evidence" of anything, it's just slow news days. Evidence requires facts that you can point to, not just "I heard from some anonymous person." The facts here point away from a smaller iPad in the $200-$299 range. The reason it's easy to speculate on how many imaginary devices can be sold below cost is that it's a no-brainer. It's like asking if the US Treasury was selling dollar bills for 90 cents tomorrow how many would they sell? That's just not a possible scenario here; it's wishful thinking. Looking at "facts" Apple couldn't hope to build a smaller version of the iPad and sell it for less than $349-$399.
So to be clear, you are claiming that there is no overwhelming evidence in the history of world economics that lower prices mean that more people can potentially afford an item that would otherwise be out of their reach at a higher price point. That'll be your little secret.
It is precisely because most (all?) megacorporations embrace this goal that we have laws to prevent them from doing many bad things. In the bad old days, they hired thugs to kill union organizers. They dumped toxic waste in the river. They formed trusts and cartels to prevent competition.
Free-market capitalism is a system where profits are privatized and externalities are made public. Megaccorporations exist to enrich their owners. Apple is not a public charity. Their one and only goal is to maximize total profits for the benefit of Wall Street, who own them.
If you think that this is a bad thing, then buy locally from small companies, and stay away from Apple, Monsanto, Dow and Wall Mart. Because all of them have the same goal. And thankfully, all of them have strict government regulation to prevent the most egregious abuses.
yeah, yeah, blah blah blah, capitalist rhetoric etc. etc.
This is all meaningless tripe.
There are the realities of business, and there is capitalist ideology. They aren't the same thing.
You seem to be either a recent business school graduate or seriously mis-informed as to how things actually work (or both).
Corporations fail if they don't turn a profit. Corporations fail for other reasons as well though. To turn the world on it's head by saying that because corporations fail if they don't make a profit, then making a profit is their sole or primary function, is just nonsense. It's at that exact point that you have crossed over from reality to ideology.
So-called "free market" (no holds barred, or no rules) capitalism has never actually existed and wouldn't work if it did. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Galbraith knows this. You don't have to be left-wing or even anti-business to see that "free market capitalism," at least in the sense that the term is wielded by the faithful, is an ideology, not a methodology.
It doesn't actually work, never has worked, and there are oceans of factual evidence to prove it.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
There was a story on thestreet.com about them conducting a survey to see who would purchase a mini-iPad and the % who would was quite small. I know Apple says they don't use focus groups but I have to believe they've done customer research on this and they'll only produce something if they think it will sell at a price point with decent margins. I still think instead of an iPad Mini we'll get a larger iPod Touch.
Tell me why that is a silly comment, and why all other things are not just a means to that end.
I'll tell you why. Because if Apple was run by Wall Street types the company would turn into HP. Wall Street analysts wanted to spin off OS/X and have Apple run Windows on Macs. Or they thought the iPhone would fail against experienced companies like RIM. If they knew how to run companies like Apple, there would be more of them. They don't. They just know how to squeeze the numbers for the next quarter. They are totally unqualified to run, or dictate who should run, tech companies of any size.
Tell me why that is a silly comment, and why all other things are not just a means to that end.
Think about what you wrote. You Apple's goal is to make money for Wall Street, id est the financial distrcit of NYC or the financial sector of the US, not to make money for themselves.
So to be clear, you are claiming that there is no overwhelming evidence in the history of world economics that lower prices mean that more people can potentially afford an item that would otherwise be out of their reach at a higher price point. That'll be your little secret.
There's no overwhelming evidence that a smaller iPad will be released at a competitive price point. There's lots of rank speculation, but teh "evidence" points to the contrary, that any smaller iPad that may be released would be priced well above the 7" models that are out there.
yeah, yeah, blah blah blah, capitalist rhetoric etc. etc.
This is all meaningless tripe.
There are the realities of business, and there is capitalist ideology. They aren't the same thing.
You seem to be either a recent business school graduate or seriously mis-informed as to how things actually work (or both).
Corporations fail if they don't turn a profit. Corporations fail for other reasons as well though. To turn the world on it's head by saying that because corporations fail if they don't make a profit, then making a profit is their sole or primary function, is just nonsense. It's at that exact point that you have crossed over from reality to ideology.
So-called "free market" (no holds barred, or no rules) capitalism has never actually existed and wouldn't work if it did. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Galbraith knows this. You don't have to be left-wing or even anti-business to see that "free market capitalism," at least in the sense that the term is wielded by the faithful, is an ideology, not a methodology.
It doesn't actually work, never has worked, and there are oceans of factual evidence to prove it.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
You have4 cited no facts. as to why the single goal of an international megocorporation, owned primarily by Wall Street interests, is not to maximize total profits.
I'll say it again: Everything else is a tactic designed to accomplish this strategic goal. Everything else is a means to an end.
Think about what you wrote. You Apple's goal is to make money for Wall Street, id est the financial distrcit of NYC or the financial sector of the US, not to make money for themselves.
"Wall Street" is shorthand for institutional investors, wherever located physically.
Apple is owned by those folks primarily. They ARE "making money for themselves".
I'll tell you why. Because if Apple was run by Wall Street types the company would turn into HP. Wall Street analysts wanted to spin off OS/X and have Apple run Windows on Macs. Or they thought the iPhone would fail against experienced companies like RIM. If they knew how to run companies like Apple, there would be more of them. They don't. They just know how to squeeze the numbers for the next quarter. They are totally unqualified to run, or dictate who should run, tech companies of any size.
Apple is "run by" its management. Apple is owned by, mostly, institutional investors. Those owners know who to hire to mange and increae the value of their invested capital.
If current management were to fail in this endeavor, say by adopting some strange strategy, they would be replaced. The current strategy of making great products in the sweet spots of the gadget market works extremely well for these guys.
IF, a mini iPad or larger iPod Touch is released, the schools will be a key market. Budgets are tight to put devices like iPads in the hands of every student. This rumored device will help.
A smaller and cheaper device can further expand Apple's dominance in the education market.
just as Joshua said I'm stunned that a student able to make $7772 in a few weeks on the internet. did you look at this web page N U T T Y R I C H . C O M
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
You don't understand the difference between a feel-good PR story and the reality of a huge international megacorporation owned primarily by institutional investors on Wall Street.
Apple's management has one goal: Make money for Wall Street. If they did anything else, management would be fired by the BOD, and if not, the BOD would be replaced by the owners of the company.
No this is just bullish*t Capitalist ideology that they cram down your throat in business school and has no bearing on how Apple is run.
It's just something people say (money being the "bottom line" etc.), to make them feel better about doing immoral sh*t in business. At the very least, if all businesses actually followed that philosophy and had profit maximisation as their only goal, we would be in a completely free-market capitalist situation which has never existed and has never been proven to be a functional model for growth or stability.
Real world predictions for those who understand apple.
1. Apple will not steel the thunder of the iPhone launch by announcing both products this fall. So chances of 7" iPad this year is very remote. Next Spring odds go up. Please note that apple has never launched iPad and iPhone products at same event. Traditionally iPhone is summer/fall announcement. iPad is spring. Because of 4Q Christmas season, I believe the iPhone/iPod touch will be predominately a very late summer or early fall every year. iPad will remain early spring.
2. Apple already had the AppleTV announcement at developer conference. There will be no further announcements regarding Apple TV this year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Venerable
Really? We're now debating how many imaginary devices will be sold? You have no idea if it exists at all and if it does you have no idea what the feature set or pricing level is but you're willing to speculate that 6 million units is "extremely low"?
In his defense, he is making assumptions, clearly, and basing his projections upon those assumptions.
He stated his assumed price, and identified the product as a Apple tablet. Thus, he is assuming an average "Appley" level of features and specs.
To me, that means that it will have all the ecosystem stuff that that the sweet spot of the market will want/need, and will be missing stuff that sophisticated purchasers would demand, but which would lower the margins or the aftermarket sales, most notably, and SD card slot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That's the position you want to take? That's it's impossible to have an opinion about a product based on price point despite overwhelming evidence regarding lower price points and comparative product lines? You're so sure that one can't make any educated guess about potential sales based on current and historical data that you'd never say that "it's impossible for Apple to sell 1 trillion in one day" or that "Apple would surely sell at least one unit"?
There's no "overwhelming evidence" of anything, it's just slow news days. Evidence requires facts that you can point to, not just "I heard from some anonymous person." The facts here point away from a smaller iPad in the $200-$299 range. The reason it's easy to speculate on how many imaginary devices can be sold below cost is that it's a no-brainer. It's like asking if the US Treasury was selling dollar bills for 90 cents tomorrow how many would they sell? That's just not a possible scenario here; it's wishful thinking. Looking at "facts" Apple couldn't hope to build a smaller version of the iPad and sell it for less than $349-$399.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
At the very least, if all businesses actually followed that philosophy and had profit maximisation as their only goal, we would be in a completely free-market capitalist situation which has never existed and has never been proven to be a functional model for growth or stability.
It is precisely because most (all?) megacorporations embrace this goal that we have laws to prevent them from doing many bad things. In the bad old days, they hired thugs to kill union organizers. They dumped toxic waste in the river. They formed trusts and cartels to prevent competition.
Free-market capitalism is a system where profits are privatized and externalities are made public. Megaccorporations exist to enrich their owners. Apple is not a public charity. Their one and only goal is to maximize total profits for the benefit of Wall Street, who own them.
If you think that this is a bad thing, then buy locally from small companies, and stay away from Apple, Monsanto, Dow and Wall Mart. Because all of them have the same goal. And thankfully, all of them have strict government regulation to prevent the most egregious abuses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Apple's management has one goal: Make money for Wall Street.
That is a patently silly comment.
So to be clear, you are claiming that there is no overwhelming evidence in the history of world economics that lower prices mean that more people can potentially afford an item that would otherwise be out of their reach at a higher price point. That'll be your little secret.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That is a patently silly comment.
Tell me why that is a silly comment, and why all other things are not just a means to that end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
It is precisely because most (all?) megacorporations embrace this goal that we have laws to prevent them from doing many bad things. In the bad old days, they hired thugs to kill union organizers. They dumped toxic waste in the river. They formed trusts and cartels to prevent competition.
Free-market capitalism is a system where profits are privatized and externalities are made public. Megaccorporations exist to enrich their owners. Apple is not a public charity. Their one and only goal is to maximize total profits for the benefit of Wall Street, who own them.
If you think that this is a bad thing, then buy locally from small companies, and stay away from Apple, Monsanto, Dow and Wall Mart. Because all of them have the same goal. And thankfully, all of them have strict government regulation to prevent the most egregious abuses.
yeah, yeah, blah blah blah, capitalist rhetoric etc. etc.
This is all meaningless tripe.
There are the realities of business, and there is capitalist ideology. They aren't the same thing.
You seem to be either a recent business school graduate or seriously mis-informed as to how things actually work (or both).
Corporations fail if they don't turn a profit. Corporations fail for other reasons as well though. To turn the world on it's head by saying that because corporations fail if they don't make a profit, then making a profit is their sole or primary function, is just nonsense. It's at that exact point that you have crossed over from reality to ideology.
So-called "free market" (no holds barred, or no rules) capitalism has never actually existed and wouldn't work if it did. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Galbraith knows this. You don't have to be left-wing or even anti-business to see that "free market capitalism," at least in the sense that the term is wielded by the faithful, is an ideology, not a methodology.
It doesn't actually work, never has worked, and there are oceans of factual evidence to prove it.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
There was a story on thestreet.com about them conducting a survey to see who would purchase a mini-iPad and the % who would was quite small. I know Apple says they don't use focus groups but I have to believe they've done customer research on this and they'll only produce something if they think it will sell at a price point with decent margins. I still think instead of an iPad Mini we'll get a larger iPod Touch.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JerrySwitched26
Tell me why that is a silly comment, and why all other things are not just a means to that end.
I'll tell you why. Because if Apple was run by Wall Street types the company would turn into HP. Wall Street analysts wanted to spin off OS/X and have Apple run Windows on Macs. Or they thought the iPhone would fail against experienced companies like RIM. If they knew how to run companies like Apple, there would be more of them. They don't. They just know how to squeeze the numbers for the next quarter. They are totally unqualified to run, or dictate who should run, tech companies of any size.
Think about what you wrote. You Apple's goal is to make money for Wall Street, id est the financial distrcit of NYC or the financial sector of the US, not to make money for themselves.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So to be clear, you are claiming that there is no overwhelming evidence in the history of world economics that lower prices mean that more people can potentially afford an item that would otherwise be out of their reach at a higher price point. That'll be your little secret.
There's no overwhelming evidence that a smaller iPad will be released at a competitive price point. There's lots of rank speculation, but teh "evidence" points to the contrary, that any smaller iPad that may be released would be priced well above the 7" models that are out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
That is a patently silly comment.
... and I'm taking him to court. I hold the patent on silly comments!!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gazoobee
yeah, yeah, blah blah blah, capitalist rhetoric etc. etc.
This is all meaningless tripe.
There are the realities of business, and there is capitalist ideology. They aren't the same thing.
You seem to be either a recent business school graduate or seriously mis-informed as to how things actually work (or both).
Corporations fail if they don't turn a profit. Corporations fail for other reasons as well though. To turn the world on it's head by saying that because corporations fail if they don't make a profit, then making a profit is their sole or primary function, is just nonsense. It's at that exact point that you have crossed over from reality to ideology.
So-called "free market" (no holds barred, or no rules) capitalism has never actually existed and wouldn't work if it did. Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Galbraith knows this. You don't have to be left-wing or even anti-business to see that "free market capitalism," at least in the sense that the term is wielded by the faithful, is an ideology, not a methodology.
It doesn't actually work, never has worked, and there are oceans of factual evidence to prove it.
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
You have4 cited no facts. as to why the single goal of an international megocorporation, owned primarily by Wall Street interests, is not to maximize total profits.
I'll say it again: Everything else is a tactic designed to accomplish this strategic goal. Everything else is a means to an end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Think about what you wrote. You Apple's goal is to make money for Wall Street, id est the financial distrcit of NYC or the financial sector of the US, not to make money for themselves.
"Wall Street" is shorthand for institutional investors, wherever located physically.
Apple is owned by those folks primarily. They ARE "making money for themselves".
I'm just glad that Munster didn't define his numbers even closer by making such statements as:
"I expect Apple to sell at least 5 million smaller iPads to the "American" market."
This thread would be in deep shit if that was the case...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alonso Perez
I'll tell you why. Because if Apple was run by Wall Street types the company would turn into HP. Wall Street analysts wanted to spin off OS/X and have Apple run Windows on Macs. Or they thought the iPhone would fail against experienced companies like RIM. If they knew how to run companies like Apple, there would be more of them. They don't. They just know how to squeeze the numbers for the next quarter. They are totally unqualified to run, or dictate who should run, tech companies of any size.
Apple is "run by" its management. Apple is owned by, mostly, institutional investors. Those owners know who to hire to mange and increae the value of their invested capital.
If current management were to fail in this endeavor, say by adopting some strange strategy, they would be replaced. The current strategy of making great products in the sweet spots of the gadget market works extremely well for these guys.
IF, a mini iPad or larger iPod Touch is released, the schools will be a key market. Budgets are tight to put devices like iPads in the hands of every student. This rumored device will help.
A smaller and cheaper device can further expand Apple's dominance in the education market.
just as Joshua said I'm stunned that a student able to make $7772 in a few weeks on the internet. did you look at this web page N U T T Y R I C H . C O M