GG is correct. Who in their right mind would ever even think that it's a mac book. First there's no apple on the back of the screen and did you see the size of it? Plus the color is all wrong. So if it was a shot at Apple it was an extremely poorly executed one.
The Cupertino-based company also sold 14.6 million iPads during the quarter, compared to 17 million in the year-ago quarter.
That's 3 million (edit:2.4 million)less iPads than a year ago. I was purposing a reason for the 3 million decrease and a possible solution that I clearly marked as an opinion. I am actually trying to contribute to the conversation, and perhaps I am wrong or you feel differently, but calling me a liar is completely unnecessary.
The 3rd generation iPad came out in March of last year. That is certainly why the sales of iPads were so good. The comparisons made to 2012 and 2013 are unfair as a new iPad hasn't been released since October 2012. It appears that iPad refreshes in March and October of last year resulted in higher iPad sales throughout the year.
My point: why not keep it up?
I would never suggest they do this for the iPhone though because they keep breaking records and there is no reason to mess with what is clearly working. But they do have evidence now that refreshing the iPad biannually seems to result in a more consistent sale of iPads. We will wait to the end of the year. Maybe 2013 iPad sells will ultimately out perform 2012 after the holiday numbers are in, in which case, I will be proven wrong.
A better than expected quarter then, but I was surprised at the drop in iPad sales compared to a year ago - from 17 million to just 14.6 million, that's a 14% decline! AAPL shares are sky-rocketing at the moment though - which is good.
A better than expected quarter then, but I was surprised at the drop in iPad sales compared to a year ago - from 17 million to just 14.6 million, that's a 14% decline! AAPL shares are sky-rocketing at the moment though - which is good.
Investors care more about the iPhone than iPad. The iPhone has higher margins and makes Apple quite a bit more money than the iPad hence why shares are up even with weak iPad numbers.
The only thing Apple must do is lower the price and they would completely own the market place. Apple's iPad mini starts off at $329 for 16GB of storage, but according to figures published by AllThingsD, the device has a bill of materials of only $188. The bill of materials only includes the parts, and not assembly costs, but as a rule assembly costs are usually only a few dollars add shipping and let's call it a even 200, 130 markup is ridiculous, I don't care how magical Apple thinks their devices are. It get's even more crazy when you consider Amazon's Kindle Fire HD tablet, which retails for $199, costs $165 to build.
Apple sells the iPad mini in 16GB, 32GB and 64GB models, and charges $100 per storage bump. However, the additional storage costs Apple very little. In fact, the jump between 16GB and 32GB costs about $15, while the bump between 32GB and 64GB costs about $45. They shouldn't even offer a 16GB model anymore and start off with 32GB, then absorb the cost in their huge margins.
First, I don't think you should compare Amazon's predatory pricing with Apple's.
Second, since you are a numbers person, I think you have a responsibility to look into the true cost of pricing for memory increases, rather than parrot (yes, parrot) the simplistic meme that the chip costs 15 or 45 dollars, yet Apple has the nerve to charge 100 dollars.
Do they have to set up a separate line, with separate inventory, separate quality control, separate packaging, in other words an entirely different product line across all the radio choices, for each memory configuration? If you answer yes, which I think is the correct choice, then you have to add in that cost and add margin for that as well to cover administration of all that new product manufacturing category. And don't compare all this to Samsung, who own their own manufacturing. Apple has to pay Foxconn or Pegatron to set up additional lines and staff them for each memory choice. Or so I see it until it's proven otherwise.
Ultimately it comes down to whether Apple will be giving back to the world enough to justify their margins, which has resulted in their $140 billion head of steam. I think they already are, in terms of pushing technology into a more humane dimension, but we have yet to see what they're really going to do with the capital. My personal favorite idea is that they're working on the antidote to commercial television, i.e., education, with a mass distribution system like the world has never seen.
Anyway, if they lower prices on iPads, it means their costs have gone down, or their expenditures have been amortized, not that they're taking a margin hit.
First, I don't think you should compare Amazon's predatory pricing with Apple's.
I don't agree with what Relic's comparison but I hate the term "predatory pricing". It implies there is something wrong with competing on the basis of price. If Amazon wants to sell their tablet at a loss, fine. It is pretty clear they are not driving Apple out of the market.
The comparison was flawed though. Amazon is targeting a whole different segment.
A better than expected quarter then, but I was surprised at the drop in iPad sales compared to a year ago - from 17 million to just 14.6 million, that's a 14% decline! AAPL shares are sky-rocketing at the moment though - which is good.
They drew down channel inventory, which means "sold" numbers were pretty flat, while "shipped" numbers were lower as you said.
In terms of analyzing demand, it means the iPad was pretty much just as much in demand as it was a year ago, despite not releasing a new product (last year had the iPad 3 in Q3).
It also signifies that Apple is perhaps either a) not going to keep as many iPads in the channel or b) that Apple is prepping to phase out the current lineup due to an imminent (read: end of current quarter) new version.
They drew down channel inventory, which means "sold " numbers were pretty flat, while "shipped" numbers were lower as you said.
In terms of analyzing demand, it means the iPad was pretty much just as much in demand as it was a year ago, despite not releasing a new product (last year had the iPad 3 in Q3).
It also signifies that Apple is perhaps either a) not going to keep as many iPads in the channel or b) that Apple is prepping to phase out the current lineup due to an imminent (read: end of current quarter) new version.
Sales should have been higher. Last year there was only the iPad, this year there was the iPad and the iPad mini, which if I remember correctly was made to cover more points of the price umbrella. I can understand iPad sales being lower but sales of the iPad mini should've bought it back up.
I don't agree with what Relic's comparison but<span style="line-height:1.231;"> I hate the term "predatory pricing". It implies there is something wrong with competing on the basis of price. If Amazon wants to sell their tablet at a loss, fine. It is pretty clear they are not driving Apple out of the market. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">The comparison was flawed though. Amazon is targeting a whole different segment.</span>
Comments
GG is correct. Who in their right mind would ever even think that it's a mac book. First there's no apple on the back of the screen and did you see the size of it? Plus the color is all wrong. So if it was a shot at Apple it was an extremely poorly executed one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Everything about sales says otherwise.
Then I question your reading comprehension.
Quote:
The Cupertino-based company also sold 14.6 million iPads during the quarter, compared to 17 million in the year-ago quarter.
That's 3 million (edit:2.4 million)less iPads than a year ago. I was purposing a reason for the 3 million decrease and a possible solution that I clearly marked as an opinion. I am actually trying to contribute to the conversation, and perhaps I am wrong or you feel differently, but calling me a liar is completely unnecessary.
The 3rd generation iPad came out in March of last year. That is certainly why the sales of iPads were so good. The comparisons made to 2012 and 2013 are unfair as a new iPad hasn't been released since October 2012. It appears that iPad refreshes in March and October of last year resulted in higher iPad sales throughout the year.
My point: why not keep it up?
I would never suggest they do this for the iPhone though because they keep breaking records and there is no reason to mess with what is clearly working. But they do have evidence now that refreshing the iPad biannually seems to result in a more consistent sale of iPads. We will wait to the end of the year. Maybe 2013 iPad sells will ultimately out perform 2012 after the holiday numbers are in, in which case, I will be proven wrong.
We shall see.
Yeah… not the implication.
Investors care more about the iPhone than iPad. The iPhone has higher margins and makes Apple quite a bit more money than the iPad hence why shares are up even with weak iPad numbers.
First, I don't think you should compare Amazon's predatory pricing with Apple's.
Second, since you are a numbers person, I think you have a responsibility to look into the true cost of pricing for memory increases, rather than parrot (yes, parrot) the simplistic meme that the chip costs 15 or 45 dollars, yet Apple has the nerve to charge 100 dollars.
Do they have to set up a separate line, with separate inventory, separate quality control, separate packaging, in other words an entirely different product line across all the radio choices, for each memory configuration? If you answer yes, which I think is the correct choice, then you have to add in that cost and add margin for that as well to cover administration of all that new product manufacturing category. And don't compare all this to Samsung, who own their own manufacturing. Apple has to pay Foxconn or Pegatron to set up additional lines and staff them for each memory choice. Or so I see it until it's proven otherwise.
Ultimately it comes down to whether Apple will be giving back to the world enough to justify their margins, which has resulted in their $140 billion head of steam. I think they already are, in terms of pushing technology into a more humane dimension, but we have yet to see what they're really going to do with the capital. My personal favorite idea is that they're working on the antidote to commercial television, i.e., education, with a mass distribution system like the world has never seen.
Anyway, if they lower prices on iPads, it means their costs have gone down, or their expenditures have been amortized, not that they're taking a margin hit.
Edit: took out some dubious prognostication.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
First, I don't think you should compare Amazon's predatory pricing with Apple's.
I don't agree with what Relic's comparison but I hate the term "predatory pricing". It implies there is something wrong with competing on the basis of price. If Amazon wants to sell their tablet at a loss, fine. It is pretty clear they are not driving Apple out of the market.
The comparison was flawed though. Amazon is targeting a whole different segment.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1983
A better than expected quarter then, but I was surprised at the drop in iPad sales compared to a year ago - from 17 million to just 14.6 million, that's a 14% decline! AAPL shares are sky-rocketing at the moment though - which is good.
They drew down channel inventory, which means "sold" numbers were pretty flat, while "shipped" numbers were lower as you said.
In terms of analyzing demand, it means the iPad was pretty much just as much in demand as it was a year ago, despite not releasing a new product (last year had the iPad 3 in Q3).
It also signifies that Apple is perhaps either a) not going to keep as many iPads in the channel or b) that Apple is prepping to phase out the current lineup due to an imminent (read: end of current quarter) new version.
Sales should have been higher. Last year there was only the iPad, this year there was the iPad and the iPad mini, which if I remember correctly was made to cover more points of the price umbrella. I can understand iPad sales being lower but sales of the iPad mini should've bought it back up.
Ok, how about "vicious and anticompetitive"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur
Ok' how about "vicious and anticompetitive"?
Oh much better.