Apple (AAPL) : Tim Cook announces iForum. Dodds and Bryant prepare shut down operations (1 Viewer)

[Buddy Ball 2K3]

iPad still top tablet but keeps shedding market share

But for the second consecutive quarter, Apple's share of the global tablet market fell. In the fourth quarter of 2012, it recorded a share of 43.6 percent, down from 46.4 percent in the preceding quarter and 51.7 percent a year ago.

Despite introducing the 4 and the mini, they are still losing market share. I wouldn't say they are the clear leaders in the tablet sector. They used to have 100% as they basically created it, but their insistence on maintaining high margins is killing the stranglehold they had with the iPad innovation.

Apple shipped a total of 22.9 million iPads last quarter. In second place, Samsung shipped 8 million tablets (Android + Win8 combined). By any sane definition, that's a "clear leader".This idea of market share "falling" as a sign of trouble for Apple is silly. The thing is, the markets for smart phones and tablets are still expanding. This isn't a zero sum game. Apple's iPad sales grew almost 50% y-o-y, even though their "market share" fell. There is still plenty of room to grow.

Does that growth reflect the combined Ipad and Mini numbers? IIRC, last quarter, the bulk of tablet sales came from their Mini. There is no way to know what those sales would have been like without the Mini. The Mini could be seen as a value/budget/less-premium item in the Apple product line and - surprise! - consumers flocked to it. What is the takeaway from that for investors and Tim Cook alike?

Yes, those numbers are combined. Apple doesn't break down sales numbers by model so we have no way of know what percentage of iPads were the Mini. We do know that Cook said they "couldn't make the Mini fast enough", so they obviously sold very well. Margins were down across the board, so the lower cost Mini obviously had some effect but I don't think you can safely say that the bulk of iPad sales were the Mini. It launched a month into the quarter and manufacturing ramp up usually takes time. I do expect the Mini to outsell the full-size iPad moving forward.One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.

We don't "obviously" know anything. We just know what the CEO of a company said about his company. From an investing perspective, you take that with a grain of salt at best. The only thing we actually know is reported in the financials like the fact margins were down across the board. In a confidence market, people don't really look at the "why" part. Itchy trigger fingers make people pull out too quick and jump in too quick. You have a stake in the company and it's really clouded your perception imo.

NEWS FLASH!

 

[The Commish]

iPad still top tablet but keeps shedding market share

But for the second consecutive quarter, Apple's share of the global tablet market fell. In the fourth quarter of 2012, it recorded a share of 43.6 percent, down from 46.4 percent in the preceding quarter and 51.7 percent a year ago.

Despite introducing the 4 and the mini, they are still losing market share. I wouldn't say they are the clear leaders in the tablet sector. They used to have 100% as they basically created it, but their insistence on maintaining high margins is killing the stranglehold they had with the iPad innovation.

Apple shipped a total of 22.9 million iPads last quarter. In second place, Samsung shipped 8 million tablets (Android + Win8 combined). By any sane definition, that's a "clear leader".This idea of market share "falling" as a sign of trouble for Apple is silly. The thing is, the markets for smart phones and tablets are still expanding. This isn't a zero sum game. Apple's iPad sales grew almost 50% y-o-y, even though their "market share" fell. There is still plenty of room to grow.

Does that growth reflect the combined Ipad and Mini numbers? IIRC, last quarter, the bulk of tablet sales came from their Mini. There is no way to know what those sales would have been like without the Mini. The Mini could be seen as a value/budget/less-premium item in the Apple product line and - surprise! - consumers flocked to it. What is the takeaway from that for investors and Tim Cook alike?

Yes, those numbers are combined. Apple doesn't break down sales numbers by model so we have no way of know what percentage of iPads were the Mini. We do know that Cook said they "couldn't make the Mini fast enough", so they obviously sold very well. Margins were down across the board, so the lower cost Mini obviously had some effect but I don't think you can safely say that the bulk of iPad sales were the Mini. It launched a month into the quarter and manufacturing ramp up usually takes time. I do expect the Mini to outsell the full-size iPad moving forward.One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.

We don't "obviously" know anything. We just know what the CEO of a company said about his company. From an investing perspective, you take that with a grain of salt at best. The only thing we actually know is reported in the financials like the fact margins were down across the board. In a confidence market, people don't really look at the "why" part. Itchy trigger fingers make people pull out too quick and jump in too quick. You have a stake in the company and it's really clouded your perception imo.

NEWS FLASH!

To be fair, there was a point where I thought the insight he provided was useful. That's gone and it's been replaced with what feels like "Talking Points Memo of the Day" stuff....defend at all cost. Unfortunate.

 

[stbugs]

One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Thats an interesting perspective - I wonder how Jobs would have attacked the same problem. I've never known Apple to focus on consumer demand as much as they are now. It seems that Apple would always put out a product and tell/market their story that this is the only way this product should be - anyone else is telling you differently does not know what they are talking about. I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.I mean, they exploited an entire segment (tablets) when nobody was demanding such a product, nobody thought they needed/wanted such a product. The essentially proactively told the market what the market needed - instead of reacting to the market and competitors.Iphone was another example where someone at Apple had an idea and built it before there was really any consumer demand.If I was still a shareholder, I would be worried that they are becoming more like their competitors - and playing catch-up to consumer demand, rather than creating consumer demand. The value is in creating demand, not chasing demand - at that point almost all competitors are on equal footing, and then its just a race to the lowest price point (lowest margins) - and that hurts profits.

I agree on all points. I think we are starting to see some evolution of these devices (phones/tablets) sort of like the PC where all of them will be able to do everything and the content will be the most important thing and the devices will be commodities. Once web sites became applications, people realized that your connection to the Internet was just as important as the guts of the PC. Do you ever hear anyone talking about what CPU/RAM they have anymore? Years ago when Dell stock was rocketing, the latest CPU/sizes were always discussed. Now, any new PC basically has the specs to do what 90% of people need fast enough.What is amazing is to think of how fast the phone/tablet market is evolving, probably because the PCs they emulate are mature now, and at some point a 10MP camera recording 1080P is enough and the 4GLTE is fast enough and the CPUs/RAM are big enough that a phone/tablet is a commodity. Things will continue to improve, but the Apple story isn't the same when other competing companies can offer the same functionality. It wasn't that long ago that they couldn't.I think Apple products are great, we have iPhones, iPads and iPods in my family, but I am not sure that I would be a huge buyer of their stock now. If you missed the runup, you have some potential growth, but as mentioned above, margins are going to come down and Apple's amazing stock run was because they could price the iPhone/iPad way above their costs and roll in the profits.

 

[Bob Sacamano]

One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Thats an interesting perspective - I wonder how Jobs would have attacked the same problem. I've never known Apple to focus on consumer demand as much as they are now. It seems that Apple would always put out a product and tell/market their story that this is the only way this product should be - anyone else is telling you differently does not know what they are talking about. I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.I mean, they exploited an entire segment (tablets) when nobody was demanding such a product, nobody thought they needed/wanted such a product. The essentially proactively told the market what the market needed - instead of reacting to the market and competitors.Iphone was another example where someone at Apple had an idea and built it before there was really any consumer demand.If I was still a shareholder, I would be worried that they are becoming more like their competitors - and playing catch-up to consumer demand, rather than creating consumer demand. The value is in creating demand, not chasing demand - at that point almost all competitors are on equal footing, and then its just a race to the lowest price point (lowest margins) - and that hurts profits.

So does Apple have anything else in the hopper?

Nothing. Jobs took the last seed from the last Truffula tree with him to his grave. RIP thneeds. Or something like that.

 

[culdeus]

One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Thats an interesting perspective - I wonder how Jobs would have attacked the same problem. I've never known Apple to focus on consumer demand as much as they are now. It seems that Apple would always put out a product and tell/market their story that this is the only way this product should be - anyone else is telling you differently does not know what they are talking about. I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.I mean, they exploited an entire segment (tablets) when nobody was demanding such a product, nobody thought they needed/wanted such a product. The essentially proactively told the market what the market needed - instead of reacting to the market and competitors.Iphone was another example where someone at Apple had an idea and built it before there was really any consumer demand.If I was still a shareholder, I would be worried that they are becoming more like their competitors - and playing catch-up to consumer demand, rather than creating consumer demand. The value is in creating demand, not chasing demand - at that point almost all competitors are on equal footing, and then its just a race to the lowest price point (lowest margins) - and that hurts profits.

I agree on all points. I think we are starting to see some evolution of these devices (phones/tablets) sort of like the PC where all of them will be able to do everything and the content will be the most important thing and the devices will be commodities. Once web sites became applications, people realized that your connection to the Internet was just as important as the guts of the PC. Do you ever hear anyone talking about what CPU/RAM they have anymore? Years ago when Dell stock was rocketing, the latest CPU/sizes were always discussed. Now, any new PC basically has the specs to do what 90% of people need fast enough.What is amazing is to think of how fast the phone/tablet market is evolving, probably because the PCs they emulate are mature now, and at some point a 10MP camera recording 1080P is enough and the 4GLTE is fast enough and the CPUs/RAM are big enough that a phone/tablet is a commodity. Things will continue to improve, but the Apple story isn't the same when other competing companies can offer the same functionality. It wasn't that long ago that they couldn't.I think Apple products are great, we have iPhones, iPads and iPods in my family, but I am not sure that I would be a huge buyer of their stock now. If you missed the runup, you have some potential growth, but as mentioned above, margins are going to come down and Apple's amazing stock run was because they could price the iPhone/iPad way above their costs and roll in the profits.

solid posting this The only thing that seems to not be happening as fast as I thought is that websites are not becoming applications in the pure sense of the word. There are enough people out there still doing dev work on sideloads that are adding some value. Not alot of value, but some.

 

[cstu]

I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.

Jobs’ address at Apple’s Q4 Earning’s Call in 2010.

iPad mini

Jobs was extremely outspoken and dismissive in his opinions of the seven-inch models when he spoke of the tablet market and any competition that may exist there at the 2010 event. So dismissive, in fact, that had he not sadly passed away last year I fully expect I’d be writing this article about some outlandish concept for a new Apple product we didn’t even know we needed until we were told it existed (iCar anyone?). Transcript provided by Seeking Alpha:

“...I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use seven-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen. Let's start there. One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad's 10-inch screen. You heard me right; just 45% as large.”

“If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on the seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad display. This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps in our opinion.”

“... every tablet user is also a smartphone user. No tablet can compete with the mobility of a smartphone, its ease of fitting into your pocket or purse, its unobtrusiveness when used in a crowd. Given that all tablet users will already have a smartphone in their pockets, giving up precious display area to fit a tablet in our pockets is clearly the wrong trade-off. The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Read more: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3407562/would-steve-jobs-have-allowed-apple-launch-ipad-mini/#ixzz2JfXZRKNk

 

[stbugs]

One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Thats an interesting perspective - I wonder how Jobs would have attacked the same problem. I've never known Apple to focus on consumer demand as much as they are now. It seems that Apple would always put out a product and tell/market their story that this is the only way this product should be - anyone else is telling you differently does not know what they are talking about. I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.I mean, they exploited an entire segment (tablets) when nobody was demanding such a product, nobody thought they needed/wanted such a product. The essentially proactively told the market what the market needed - instead of reacting to the market and competitors.Iphone was another example where someone at Apple had an idea and built it before there was really any consumer demand.If I was still a shareholder, I would be worried that they are becoming more like their competitors - and playing catch-up to consumer demand, rather than creating consumer demand. The value is in creating demand, not chasing demand - at that point almost all competitors are on equal footing, and then its just a race to the lowest price point (lowest margins) - and that hurts profits.

I agree on all points. I think we are starting to see some evolution of these devices (phones/tablets) sort of like the PC where all of them will be able to do everything and the content will be the most important thing and the devices will be commodities. Once web sites became applications, people realized that your connection to the Internet was just as important as the guts of the PC. Do you ever hear anyone talking about what CPU/RAM they have anymore? Years ago when Dell stock was rocketing, the latest CPU/sizes were always discussed. Now, any new PC basically has the specs to do what 90% of people need fast enough.What is amazing is to think of how fast the phone/tablet market is evolving, probably because the PCs they emulate are mature now, and at some point a 10MP camera recording 1080P is enough and the 4GLTE is fast enough and the CPUs/RAM are big enough that a phone/tablet is a commodity. Things will continue to improve, but the Apple story isn't the same when other competing companies can offer the same functionality. It wasn't that long ago that they couldn't.I think Apple products are great, we have iPhones, iPads and iPods in my family, but I am not sure that I would be a huge buyer of their stock now. If you missed the runup, you have some potential growth, but as mentioned above, margins are going to come down and Apple's amazing stock run was because they could price the iPhone/iPad way above their costs and roll in the profits.

solid posting this The only thing that seems to not be happening as fast as I thought is that websites are not becoming applications in the pure sense of the word. There are enough people out there still doing dev work on sideloads that are adding some value. Not alot of value, but some.

True and "application" is kind of a catch all word in my book. That could mean things like salesforce.com (or my company who develops ebiz type software, which is all web based) to Amazon and eBay. Just trying to point out that there is not a ton for the masses (I still need a Windows laptop for a lot of development apps I use) that can't be web based. While Apple has been wildly successful, I think what is amazing is how quick their window may be versus the old guard of Dell/Microsoft/Intel was. Those guys ran hot for 20 years and are still making a good chunk of change now. The iPhone was released in 2007 or almost 6 years ago and already has significant competition. I think Apple will be fine and still rake the cash in, but it is amazing to think that in such a short time we have gone from brand new product/market to pretty mature in 1/3 of the time the PC market had before it really started to "mature" and by mature I mean get to a point where the specs almost didn't matter and you didn't really have to upgrade anymore.

 

[saintfool]

Yes, those numbers are combined. Apple doesn't break down sales numbers by model so we have no way of know what percentage of iPads were the Mini. We do know that Cook said they "couldn't make the Mini fast enough", so they obviously sold very well. Margins were down across the board, so the lower cost Mini obviously had some effect but I don't think you can safely say that the bulk of iPad sales were the Mini. It launched a month into the quarter and manufacturing ramp up usually takes time. I do expect the Mini to outsell the full-size iPad moving forward.

One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Yes and no. From Business Insider

Citi's trio of analysts report Apple has increased its manufacturing order of iPad Minis while decreasing its order of big iPads.

According to Citi's analysts, Apple ordered 10 million iPad Minis and 10 million big iPads for the holiday quarter. They believe Apple will have left over big iPads, but not many left over iPad Minis.

Their supply chain sources tell them Apple ordered 12-14 million iPad Minis for the first quarter of 2013, and just 5-7 million big iPads for the same quarter.

Tablet sales not only spiked more than 75% from a year ago, to 52.5 million units, they grew 74.3% from the third quarter of 2012 - implying that some catalyst drove fourth-quarter sales in particular. IDC concluded that that spark was the Apple iPad mini, whose sales of 22.9 million units caused Apple tablet shipments to spike by 48.1%. However, the rising tide of Android tablets rose slightly higher over Apple's head, as Cupertino's market share dropped from 46.4% in the third quarter to 43.6%.

linkSo not only did the Mini cripple the iPad, it ceded marketshare for AAPL in the process? Ouch.

 

[Major]

I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.

Jobs’ address at Apple’s Q4 Earning’s Call in 2010.

iPad mini

Jobs was extremely outspoken and dismissive in his opinions of the seven-inch models when he spoke of the tablet market and any competition that may exist there at the 2010 event. So dismissive, in fact, that had he not sadly passed away last year I fully expect I’d be writing this article about some outlandish concept for a new Apple product we didn’t even know we needed until we were told it existed (iCar anyone?). Transcript provided by Seeking Alpha:

“...I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use seven-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen. Let's start there. One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad's 10-inch screen. You heard me right; just 45% as large.”

“If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on the seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad display. This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps in our opinion.”

“... every tablet user is also a smartphone user. No tablet can compete with the mobility of a smartphone, its ease of fitting into your pocket or purse, its unobtrusiveness when used in a crowd. Given that all tablet users will already have a smartphone in their pockets, giving up precious display area to fit a tablet in our pockets is clearly the wrong trade-off. The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Read more: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3407562/would-steve-jobs-have-allowed-apple-launch-ipad-mini/#ixzz2JfXZRKNk

I never understood the mini iPad...isn't that pretty much just an iTouch?

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.

Jobs’ address at Apple’s Q4 Earning’s Call in 2010.

iPad mini

Jobs was extremely outspoken and dismissive in his opinions of the seven-inch models when he spoke of the tablet market and any competition that may exist there at the 2010 event. So dismissive, in fact, that had he not sadly passed away last year I fully expect I’d be writing this article about some outlandish concept for a new Apple product we didn’t even know we needed until we were told it existed (iCar anyone?). Transcript provided by Seeking Alpha:

“...I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use seven-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen. Let's start there. One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad's 10-inch screen. You heard me right; just 45% as large.”

“If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on the seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad display. This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps in our opinion.”

“... every tablet user is also a smartphone user. No tablet can compete with the mobility of a smartphone, its ease of fitting into your pocket or purse, its unobtrusiveness when used in a crowd. Given that all tablet users will already have a smartphone in their pockets, giving up precious display area to fit a tablet in our pockets is clearly the wrong trade-off. The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Read more: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3407562/would-steve-jobs-have-allowed-apple-launch-ipad-mini/#ixzz2JfXZRKNk

I never understood the mini iPad...isn't that pretty much just an iTouch?

Yup. Which is the same as the iPhone which is essentially just a smaller iPad. They're all the same.

 

[The Commish]

I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.

Jobs’ address at Apple’s Q4 Earning’s Call in 2010.

iPad mini

Jobs was extremely outspoken and dismissive in his opinions of the seven-inch models when he spoke of the tablet market and any competition that may exist there at the 2010 event. So dismissive, in fact, that had he not sadly passed away last year I fully expect I’d be writing this article about some outlandish concept for a new Apple product we didn’t even know we needed until we were told it existed (iCar anyone?). Transcript provided by Seeking Alpha:

“...I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use seven-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen. Let's start there. One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad's 10-inch screen. You heard me right; just 45% as large.”

“If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on the seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad display. This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps in our opinion.”

“... every tablet user is also a smartphone user. No tablet can compete with the mobility of a smartphone, its ease of fitting into your pocket or purse, its unobtrusiveness when used in a crowd. Given that all tablet users will already have a smartphone in their pockets, giving up precious display area to fit a tablet in our pockets is clearly the wrong trade-off. The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Read more: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3407562/would-steve-jobs-have-allowed-apple-launch-ipad-mini/#ixzz2JfXZRKNk

I never understood the mini iPad...isn't that pretty much just an iTouch?

Yup. Which is the same as the iPhone which is essentially just a smaller iPad. They're all the same.

And this is where it comes full circle for me. They are all the same devices essentially, but Jobs was able to convince his following that they weren't. I don't believe the new boss is going to be able to do that.

 

[cstu]

I never understood the mini iPad...isn't that pretty much just an iTouch?

It's way bigger. The confusing part about the iPad mini is that it's almost as big as the regular iPad (2/3 the screen size). It's just an odd product I didn't think they needed to make.

 

[Politician Spock]

I'm pretty sure the fact that pizza is round has some applicability to this discussion.

 

[Sand]

One way to look at the Mini is that it is a threat to cannibalize full-size iPad sales. The other way to see it is that the Mini opens Apple up to a larger potential market. I think the truth is in the middle. At the end of the day, as Tim Cook said: Apple can't fear cannibalizing their own products because if they don't do it someone else will. It's a balancing act to be sure.

Thats an interesting perspective - I wonder how Jobs would have attacked the same problem. I've never known Apple to focus on consumer demand as much as they are now. It seems that Apple would always put out a product and tell/market their story that this is the only way this product should be - anyone else is telling you differently does not know what they are talking about. I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.I mean, they exploited an entire segment (tablets) when nobody was demanding such a product, nobody thought they needed/wanted such a product. The essentially proactively told the market what the market needed - instead of reacting to the market and competitors.Iphone was another example where someone at Apple had an idea and built it before there was really any consumer demand.If I was still a shareholder, I would be worried that they are becoming more like their competitors - and playing catch-up to consumer demand, rather than creating consumer demand. The value is in creating demand, not chasing demand - at that point almost all competitors are on equal footing, and then its just a race to the lowest price point (lowest margins) - and that hurts profits.

So does Apple have anything else in the hopper?

Before Jobs checked out he put together a long term plan (5-10 years) for what's next. I'd say they know exactly where they are going for now and I'm sure there are things in the hopper.

 

[Slapdash]

I'm pretty sure the fact that pizza is round has some applicability to this discussion.

 

[Sinn Fein]

And this is where it comes full circle for me. They are all the same devices essentially, but Jobs was able to convince his following that they weren't. I don't believe the new boss is going to be able to do that.

Not exactly - that may be what Tim Cook is trying to say now, but I think Jobs looked at like this:iPod - cool device to hold music, replaces cd player - it evolves to be able to hold more than musiciPhone - as iPods got bigger they approached the shape/form of a mobile phone - Iphone was essentially iPod with new functionality, and removing the "wheel" with more touch screenAs App store grew, people's use of iPhone changed - from mostly phone, to mostly other stuff. People surfed the internet, downloaded stuff, watched videos, all on a 3.5 inch screen.I think, at that point, someone at Apple said, we should have a better platform for these mobile games, videos, internet surfing, etc -essentially replace the iphone as the hardware of choice for these functions when you are not truly mobile.IPad was developed as a larger iPod Touch (which was really a iPhone without the phone) - to replace recreational computer use. A size and shape were considered, and ultimately you got the iPad.AT that point, you had iPods for specific purposes, iPhone for other purposes, and iPad for still different purposes - some overlap certainly, but each had a primary function.I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

 

[saintfool]

I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

to compete against Google and Amazon? fulfill the law of unintended consequences?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

And this is where it comes full circle for me. They are all the same devices essentially, but Jobs was able to convince his following that they weren't. I don't believe the new boss is going to be able to do that.

Not exactly - that may be what Tim Cook is trying to say now, but I think Jobs looked at like this:iPod - cool device to hold music, replaces cd player - it evolves to be able to hold more than musiciPhone - as iPods got bigger they approached the shape/form of a mobile phone - Iphone was essentially iPod with new functionality, and removing the "wheel" with more touch screenAs App store grew, people's use of iPhone changed - from mostly phone, to mostly other stuff. People surfed the internet, downloaded stuff, watched videos, all on a 3.5 inch screen.I think, at that point, someone at Apple said, we should have a better platform for these mobile games, videos, internet surfing, etc -essentially replace the iphone as the hardware of choice for these functions when you are not truly mobile.IPad was developed as a larger iPod Touch (which was really a iPhone without the phone) - to replace recreational computer use. A size and shape were considered, and ultimately you got the iPad.AT that point, you had iPods for specific purposes, iPhone for other purposes, and iPad for still different purposes - some overlap certainly, but each had a primary function.I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

When you lay it out like that, the next obvious steps seem like:1. TV2. Gaming3. (When the service providers stop subsidizing) Apple Wireless Service4. iCable

 

[goonsquad]

And this is where it comes full circle for me. They are all the same devices essentially, but Jobs was able to convince his following that they weren't. I don't believe the new boss is going to be able to do that.

Not exactly - that may be what Tim Cook is trying to say now, but I think Jobs looked at like this:iPod - cool device to hold music, replaces cd player - it evolves to be able to hold more than music

iPhone - as iPods got bigger they approached the shape/form of a mobile phone - Iphone was essentially iPod with new functionality, and removing the "wheel" with more touch screen

As App store grew, people's use of iPhone changed - from mostly phone, to mostly other stuff. People surfed the internet, downloaded stuff, watched videos, all on a 3.5 inch screen.

I think, at that point, someone at Apple said, we should have a better platform for these mobile games, videos, internet surfing, etc -essentially replace the iphone as the hardware of choice for these functions when you are not truly mobile.

IPad was developed as a larger iPod Touch (which was really a iPhone without the phone) - to replace recreational computer use. A size and shape were considered, and ultimately you got the iPad.

AT that point, you had iPods for specific purposes, iPhone for other purposes, and iPad for still different purposes - some overlap certainly, but each had a primary function.

I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

Technically, Steve Jobs stated that the iPad was developed before the iPhone. They decided that the technology would lend itself to the phone and launched iPhone first.

 

[The Commish]

And this is where it comes full circle for me. They are all the same devices essentially, but Jobs was able to convince his following that they weren't. I don't believe the new boss is going to be able to do that.

Not exactly - that may be what Tim Cook is trying to say now, but I think Jobs looked at like this:iPod - cool device to hold music, replaces cd player - it evolves to be able to hold more than musiciPhone - as iPods got bigger they approached the shape/form of a mobile phone - Iphone was essentially iPod with new functionality, and removing the "wheel" with more touch screenAs App store grew, people's use of iPhone changed - from mostly phone, to mostly other stuff. People surfed the internet, downloaded stuff, watched videos, all on a 3.5 inch screen.I think, at that point, someone at Apple said, we should have a better platform for these mobile games, videos, internet surfing, etc -essentially replace the iphone as the hardware of choice for these functions when you are not truly mobile.IPad was developed as a larger iPod Touch (which was really a iPhone without the phone) - to replace recreational computer use. A size and shape were considered, and ultimately you got the iPad.AT that point, you had iPods for specific purposes, iPhone for other purposes, and iPad for still different purposes - some overlap certainly, but each had a primary function.I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

I can see this...the puzzling thing now is the inefficiency of continuing to carry all these offerings. It becomes quit expensive to fill all the niches with an "upscale" product. Something's going to have to give at some point. I'm just not confident the new bosses can figure that out.

 

[The Commish]

When you lay it out like that, the next obvious steps seem like:1. TV2. Gaming3. (When the service providers stop subsidizing) Apple Wireless Service4. iCable

This has come up several times in the past and their own network will be crucial if they continue to go down this path. I've tried to follow that angle as closely as I can for this reason. As far as I can tell, they have two options. They can either buy an existing service provider or they can build their network from scratch. If Jobs were still at the helm, I'd bet my retirement on him building his own. That's just the way he was. I have no idea what these guys would do.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.

Jobs’ address at Apple’s Q4 Earning’s Call in 2010.

iPad mini

Jobs was extremely outspoken and dismissive in his opinions of the seven-inch models when he spoke of the tablet market and any competition that may exist there at the 2010 event. So dismissive, in fact, that had he not sadly passed away last year I fully expect I’d be writing this article about some outlandish concept for a new Apple product we didn’t even know we needed until we were told it existed (iCar anyone?). Transcript provided by Seeking Alpha:

“...I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use seven-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen. Let's start there. One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad's 10-inch screen. You heard me right; just 45% as large.”

“If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on the seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad display. This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps in our opinion.”

“... every tablet user is also a smartphone user. No tablet can compete with the mobility of a smartphone, its ease of fitting into your pocket or purse, its unobtrusiveness when used in a crowd. Given that all tablet users will already have a smartphone in their pockets, giving up precious display area to fit a tablet in our pockets is clearly the wrong trade-off. The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Read more: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3407562/would-steve-jobs-have-allowed-apple-launch-ipad-mini/#ixzz2JfXZRKNk

Funny that Jobs is almost more infallible amongst the anti-Apple crowd than the fanboys.Jobs was wrong about the mini, that much is plainly obvious at this point.

 

[tommyGunZ]

I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

to compete against Google and Amazon? fulfill the law of unintended consequences?

This has a lot to do with it (consumer demand) but part of it is just the fact that the 7" tablet is the sweet spot.

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

to compete against Google and Amazon? fulfill the law of unintended consequences?

This has a lot to do with it (consumer demand) but part of it is just the fact that the 7" tablet is the sweet spot.

Why do you say that?

 

[No. 16]

I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

to compete against Google and Amazon? fulfill the law of unintended consequences?

This has a lot to do with it (consumer demand) but part of it is just the fact that the 7" tablet is the sweet spot.

Why do you say that?

Easier to carry around especially after people became used to lugging around Kindles and Nooks.

 

[Sinn Fein]

I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.

Jobs’ address at Apple’s Q4 Earning’s Call in 2010.

iPad mini

Jobs was extremely outspoken and dismissive in his opinions of the seven-inch models when he spoke of the tablet market and any competition that may exist there at the 2010 event. So dismissive, in fact, that had he not sadly passed away last year I fully expect I’d be writing this article about some outlandish concept for a new Apple product we didn’t even know we needed until we were told it existed (iCar anyone?). Transcript provided by Seeking Alpha:

“...I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use seven-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen. Let's start there. One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad's 10-inch screen. You heard me right; just 45% as large.”

“If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on the seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad display. This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps in our opinion.”

“... every tablet user is also a smartphone user. No tablet can compete with the mobility of a smartphone, its ease of fitting into your pocket or purse, its unobtrusiveness when used in a crowd. Given that all tablet users will already have a smartphone in their pockets, giving up precious display area to fit a tablet in our pockets is clearly the wrong trade-off. The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Read more: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3407562/would-steve-jobs-have-allowed-apple-launch-ipad-mini/#ixzz2JfXZRKNk

Funny that Jobs is almost more infallible amongst the anti-Apple crowd than the fanboys.Jobs was wrong about the mini, that much is plainly obvious at this point.

Was he? Stock market does not seem to be a big fan of the mini...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When you lay it out like that, the next obvious steps seem like:1. TV:

Thought for about 30 seconds that was happening with the announcement that HBOGO was coming to AppleTV. But ultimately Apple is just catching up with the rest of the streaming world as it still requires a subscription to a participating satellite or cable provider. So assuming Apple doesn't convince more players to allow it for their subscribers, this ultimately wasn't much of anything.

 

[NutterButter]

When you lay it out like that, the next obvious steps seem like:

1. TV

:

Thought for about 30 seconds that was happening with the announcement that HBOGO was coming to AppleTV. But ultimately Apple is just catching up with the rest of the streaming world as it still requires a subscription to a participating satellite or cable provider. So assuming Apple doesn't convince more players to allow it for their subscribers, this ultimately wasn't much of anything.

Isn't this what apple did with music? I thought they were the first to get all the record labels on board with the new pricing model.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

When you lay it out like that, the next obvious steps seem like:

1. TV

:

Thought for about 30 seconds that was happening with the announcement that HBOGO was coming to AppleTV. But ultimately Apple is just catching up with the rest of the streaming world as it still requires a subscription to a participating satellite or cable provider. So assuming Apple doesn't convince more players to allow it for their subscribers, this ultimately wasn't much of anything.

Isn't this what apple did with music? I thought they were the first to get all the record labels on board with the new pricing model.

Not really. The "players" here are still the cable and satellite providers, not the channels.

 

[Sarnoff]

When you lay it out like that, the next obvious steps seem like:

1. TV

:

Thought for about 30 seconds that was happening with the announcement that HBOGO was coming to AppleTV. But ultimately Apple is just catching up with the rest of the streaming world as it still requires a subscription to a participating satellite or cable provider. So assuming Apple doesn't convince more players to allow it for their subscribers, this ultimately wasn't much of anything.

Isn't this what apple did with music? I thought they were the first to get all the record labels on board with the new pricing model.

I think Netflix is farther ahead in being "the iTunes of video"

 

[The Commish]

I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.

Jobs’ address at Apple’s Q4 Earning’s Call in 2010.

iPad mini

Jobs was extremely outspoken and dismissive in his opinions of the seven-inch models when he spoke of the tablet market and any competition that may exist there at the 2010 event. So dismissive, in fact, that had he not sadly passed away last year I fully expect I’d be writing this article about some outlandish concept for a new Apple product we didn’t even know we needed until we were told it existed (iCar anyone?). Transcript provided by Seeking Alpha:

“...I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use seven-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen. Let's start there. One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad's 10-inch screen. You heard me right; just 45% as large.”

“If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on the seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad display. This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps in our opinion.”

“... every tablet user is also a smartphone user. No tablet can compete with the mobility of a smartphone, its ease of fitting into your pocket or purse, its unobtrusiveness when used in a crowd. Given that all tablet users will already have a smartphone in their pockets, giving up precious display area to fit a tablet in our pockets is clearly the wrong trade-off. The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Read more: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3407562/would-steve-jobs-have-allowed-apple-launch-ipad-mini/#ixzz2JfXZRKNk

Funny that Jobs is almost more infallible amongst the anti-Apple crowd than the fanboys.Jobs was wrong about the mini, that much is plainly obvious at this point.

[goon]He wasn't wrong. This is just an example of doing a complete 180 to throw off the competition

[/goon]

 

[Cliff Clavin]

I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

to compete against Google and Amazon? fulfill the law of unintended consequences?

This has a lot to do with it (consumer demand) but part of it is just the fact that the 7" tablet is the sweet spot.

Why do you say that?

Easier to carry around especially after people became used to lugging around Kindles and Nooks.

How do you figure? I could see it being easier women to stick in their purse but for a guy, you're still going to need a bag. So if you have to lug it around in a bag, why not the full size one? The weight difference is insignificant.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

to compete against Google and Amazon? fulfill the law of unintended consequences?

This has a lot to do with it (consumer demand) but part of it is just the fact that the 7" tablet is the sweet spot.

Why do you say that?

Easier to carry around especially after people became used to lugging around Kindles and Nooks.

How do you figure? I could see it being easier women to stick in their purse but for a guy, you're still going to need a bag. So if you have to lug it around in a bag, why not the full size one? The weight difference is insignificant.

Nexus 7 fits fine in my sweatshirt pocket.

 

[culdeus]

looking at a sub 450 close. maybe closer to a 440 close. Dividends coming up in a couple days right?

 

[Politician Spock]

looking at a sub 450 close. maybe closer to a 440 close. Dividends coming up in a couple days right?

It's forming a dead cat bounce curve.

 

[Mario Kart]

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-said-leaving-money-table-doesn-t-release-203651391.htmlMy contract is up. My iPhone will be unlocked soon. The above needs to happen.

 

[Judge Smails]

Really love that my iPhone 5 can't hold a fully charged battery for half a day following an "upgrade" to the latest OS

 

[DrJ]

I have not heard anything to describe what function the iPad mini is supposed to fulfill - other than a cheaper product - which is a very different reason than noted above. Even when you consider the different size ipods, each seemed to fulfill a particular niche. I am sure it has been said, but I don't know what niche the mini is supposed to fill.

to compete against Google and Amazon? fulfill the law of unintended consequences?

This has a lot to do with it (consumer demand) but part of it is just the fact that the 7" tablet is the sweet spot.

My problem with the 7"ers is that they're not good with video. That's probably over 50% of what I use my tablet for.

 

[DrJ]

I'd love to know how Jobs felt about a smaller iPad.

Jobs’ address at Apple’s Q4 Earning’s Call in 2010.

iPad mini

Jobs was extremely outspoken and dismissive in his opinions of the seven-inch models when he spoke of the tablet market and any competition that may exist there at the 2010 event. So dismissive, in fact, that had he not sadly passed away last year I fully expect I’d be writing this article about some outlandish concept for a new Apple product we didn’t even know we needed until we were told it existed (iCar anyone?). Transcript provided by Seeking Alpha:

“...I'd like to comment on the avalanche of tablets poised to enter the market in the coming months. First, it appears to be just a handful of credible entrants, not exactly an avalanche. Second, almost all of them use seven-inch screens as compared to iPad's near 10-inch screen. Let's start there. One naturally thinks that a seven-inch screen would offer 70% of the benefits of a 10-inch screen. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. The screen measurements are diagonal, so that a seven-inch screen is only 45% as large as iPad's 10-inch screen. You heard me right; just 45% as large.”

“If you take an iPad and hold it upright in portrait view and draw an imaginary horizontal line halfway down the screen, the screens on the seven-inch tablets are a bit smaller than the bottom half of the iPad display. This size isn't sufficient to create great tablet apps in our opinion.”

“... every tablet user is also a smartphone user. No tablet can compete with the mobility of a smartphone, its ease of fitting into your pocket or purse, its unobtrusiveness when used in a crowd. Given that all tablet users will already have a smartphone in their pockets, giving up precious display area to fit a tablet in our pockets is clearly the wrong trade-off. The seven-inch tablets are tweeners, too big to compete with a smartphone and too small to compete with an iPad.”

Read more: http://www.pcadvisor.co.uk/opinion/apple/3407562/would-steve-jobs-have-allowed-apple-launch-ipad-mini/#ixzz2JfXZRKNk

Funny that Jobs is almost more infallible amongst the anti-Apple crowd than the fanboys.Jobs was wrong about the mini, that much is plainly obvious at this point.

Was he? Stock market does not seem to be a big fan of the mini...

We'll see what happens long term, but in December the minis were outselling the regular sized ones at a clip of 2 to 1. One of the big reasons the stock seems to not like this is because the margin is much smaller on the minis.http://www.businessinsider.com/ipad-mini-sales-2012-12

The surface seems to be a big dud. It does look like people prefer the 7" tablets. Myself, not so much.

 

[Sarnoff]

Barely moved all day then a big spike in the last half-hour or so... something up?

 

[Statcruncher]

They're getting sued by Einhorn

 

[culdeus]

Barely moved all day then a big spike in the last half-hour or so... something up?

Apple made some comments about disbursing more cash to investors.

 

[Novice2]

http://news.yahoo.com/apple-said-leaving-money-table-doesn-t-release-203651391.htmlMy contract is up. My iPhone will be unlocked soon. The above needs to happen.

Just get you a ipad mini with a $40 data plan and use google voice/talkatone

 

[BeTheMatch]

Barely moved all day then a big spike in the last half-hour or so... something up?

Apple made some comments about disbursing more cash to investors.

Well, didn't they simply say they'd "review Einhorn's proposals"? I think people are just looking for anything in terms of it racing back up. I thought the spike had more to do with Goldman's rating?

 

[Bob Sacamano]

Barely moved all day then a big spike in the last half-hour or so... something up?

Apple made some comments about disbursing more cash to investors.

Well, didn't they simply say they'd "review Einhorn's proposals"? I think people are just looking for anything in terms of it racing back up. I thought the spike had more to do with Goldman's rating?

They said they were in the midst of active discussions RE: the best way to return cash to shareholders. Reviewing Einhorn's proposal is simply one of those discussion points. And, basically, the only one you could nearly guarantee they won't implement now.

 

[Mario Kart]

Are people really looking to buy watches? Clocks are every where especially on cell phones yet there appears to be a market for watches that say nice things.

 

[Slapdash]

iWatch?

 

[Politician Spock]

iWatch?

Remember all the Swatch accessories?This could be HUGE!

 

[tommyGunZ]

Nice little 9% rally the past 5 days.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Are people really looking to buy watches? Clocks are every where especially on cell phones yet there appears to be a market for watches that say nice things.

Maybe a Flava Flav sized one.