Cult of Mac: Why the iPad is the most hated gadget of all time

[runawayprisoner]

Some did try. There were a ton of Tablet prospects before the iPad, but when the iPad keynote took place, they all vaporized. Remember when MS tried to steal the spotlight with the HP Slate?

Some went back to the drawing board or never released their tablet. Others didn't want to release a tablet until Apple established the market first. Releasing a tablet in a Tablet-less market was risky and could mean bankruptcy for some.

Only Apple had the monetary power to go from concept to production to create a new market. If the iPad failed, Apple could afford it. Thus....now we are where we are today.

Considering Apple didn't get to its position today without the iPad, I don't think this is true at all.

Back when the iPad had not been released, no one even cared a blip about tablets. And sincerely, I believe that many companies were at the same position as Apple in terms of monetary power.

But they stuck with a formula that worked: desktops and laptops, and then netbooks. None of the other companies wanted to create or even R&D a proper tablet because they all thought it was a niche market.

Then boom, Apple came out with a tablet that's suitable for the masses. And it was a surprise move.

Since the iPad was conceived, it has been little less than 2 years. That's simply not enough R&D time for any company to come out with any viable alternative. The only thing they can do is try to slap Android on something that's like an iPad copy and hope the software does its magic. Few more companies go further with customizing the software, but considering the landscape, it's looking like Android vs iOS would be Windows vs Mac OS of the old. And we all know how Windows won.

 

[Bateluer]

That doesn't mean it didn't sell well.

Up until this point, I'm fairly certain that it has sold better than the Nook Color. And considering that the Kindle Fire is out, there is really no reason to get a Nook Color now, is there?

How HP deals with the TouchPad doesn't dispute the fact that it sold like hotcake at that price, and it took the top spot in sales, rightfully.

The TouchPad didn't sell well, thats why they killed the product and firesold it at 99.

Some did try. There were a ton of Tablet prospects before the iPad, but when the iPad keynote took place, they all vaporized. Remember when MS tried to steal the spotlight with the HP Slate?

Some went back to the drawing board or never released their tablet. Others didn't want to release a tablet until Apple established the market first. Releasing a tablet in a Tablet-less market was risky and could mean bankruptcy for some.

Only Apple had the monetary power to go from concept to production to create a new market. If the iPad failed, Apple could afford it. Thus....now we are where we are today.

Oy, Revisionist history! The iPad was not the first tablet nor did it radically change the landscape after it.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The TouchPad didn't sell well, thats why they killed the product and firesold it at 99.

I'm not sure if I'm not being clear enough or you are just purposefully ignoring it.

The TouchPad at $99 sold the most out of all non-Apple tablets on the market.

Is that clearer?

 

[Brian Stirling]

The TouchPad didn't sell well, thats why they killed the product and firesold it at 99.



Oy, Revisionist history! The iPad was not the first tablet nor did it radically change the landscape after it.

It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else points out that Apple was NOT the first to the tablet space he will never accept it and instantly respond with the same nonsense. But if you really want to get him going ask him who invented rounded corners ... that one really gets his panties in a wad...


Brian

 

[Bateluer]

I'm not sure if I'm not being clear enough or you are just purposefully ignoring it.

The TouchPad at $99 sold the most out of all non-Apple tablets on the market.

Is that clearer?

I understood that perfectly. The point I'm trying to make is that 1)HP never intended to sell the TouchPad at 99 dollars, they wanted to sell it at 499. They only slashed the price to 99 dollars to clear inventory and wash their hands of the entire mess. That brought into into impulse spending range for most people, which is why it sold out. But, since its not being restocked or supported by HP, the spike in sales was a brief blip on the radar and HP will drop off the chart entirely.

If someone could make a 99 dollar tablet that wasn't a complete piece of junk, there'd be a market for it. But thus far, the cheapest tablets that aren't complete garbage are the Fire and Nook Tab. They're already sold are barely break even pricing.

 

[Oyeve]

but considering the landscape, it's looking like Android vs iOS would be Windows vs Mac OS of the old. And we all know how Windows won.

No, tell us how windows won.

 

[MrX8503]

Considering Apple didn't get to its position today without the iPad, I don't think this is true at all.

Back when the iPad had not been released, no one even cared a blip about tablets. And sincerely, I believe that many companies were at the same position as Apple in terms of monetary power.

But they stuck with a formula that worked: desktops and laptops, and then netbooks. None of the other companies wanted to create or even R&D a proper tablet because they all thought it was a niche market.

Then boom, Apple came out with a tablet that's suitable for the masses. And it was a surprise move.

Since the iPad was conceived, it has been little less than 2 years. That's simply not enough R&D time for any company to come out with any viable alternative. The only thing they can do is try to slap Android on something that's like an iPad copy and hope the software does its magic. Few more companies go further with customizing the software, but considering the landscape, it's looking like Android vs iOS would be Windows vs Mac OS of the old. And we all know how Windows won.

Are you saying that Apple didn't get to where they're today without the iPad? Uh…what about the iPod touch? Total domination of the MP3 player market for years, or the iPhone? Apple was damn wealthy before the iPad. There were tablets in the works around the time of iPad1, for example MS demoed the HP Slate. Most if not all retracted after the iPad1 released.

Considering Apple has more money than Moto, HTC, LG, combined, its doubtful that anyone else would have taken the risk to create a tablet in a market that died off years ago. I would say Samsung could have taken the chance, but they didn't.

The TouchPad didn't sell well, thats why they killed the product and firesold it at 99.



Oy, Revisionist history! The iPad was not the first tablet nor did it radically change the landscape after it.

I guess I should have been more clear. A lot of manufacturers waited for Apple to "re-establish" the tablet market first. Are you suggesting that the tablet market was live and thriving before the iPad? I thought there was a consensus that the tablet market was on life support before the iPad. Its pretty black & white to me, but believe what you wanna believe.

It doesn't matter how many times you or anyone else points out that Apple was NOT the first to the tablet space he will never accept it and instantly respond with the same nonsense. But if you really want to get him going ask him who invented rounded corners ... that one really gets his panties in a wad...


Brian

It also doesn't matter how many times I keep saying I agree that Apple was not the first, but Android fans will keep barking "Apple was not the first!".

Ok, I agree, but that's not what I'm saying. iPod, iPhone, iPad, not the first and I could repeat that until my teeth falls out, but Android fans will still keep saying "Apple was not the first". Ok, lets move on from that people.

 

[Bateluer]

Are you saying that Apple didn't get to where they're today without the iPad? Uh…what about the iPod touch? Total domination of the MP3 player market for years, or the iPhone? Apple was damn wealthy before the iPad. There were tablets in the works around the time of iPad1, for example MS demoed the HP Slate. Most if not all retracted after the iPad1 released.

iPad 1 was released 6 months before the HP Slate, April 2010 vs October 2010. The iPad 1 was designed a media consumption device with mass market appeal, Apple build and sold millions. The HP Slate, by comparison, was designed as a corporate/business device to actually accomplish work, and HP only built 5000 of them to begin with. They didn't take the product seriously and didn't give it the attention it needed. Seems to be a habit with HP, one they repeated with their entire purchase of Palm and WebOS. There's also the 799 price point the Slate was introduced at. As Moto learned with their tablet line, consumers won't pay 800 dollars for a glorified netbook to watch YouTube on.

I guess I should have been more clear. A lot of manufacturers waited for Apple to "re-establish" the tablet market first. Are you suggesting that the tablet market was live and thriving before the iPad? I thought there was a consensus that the tablet market was on life support before the iPad. Its pretty black & white to me, but believe what you wanna believe.
.

The tablet market was hardly on life support prior to the iPad. You just didn't seem them in the hands of hipsters at Starbucks. You saw them in the hands of engineers working, airplane pilots, etc, and as such, usually behind the scenes. They had a very healthy market and were selling very well with the clientele they were geared for.

 

[runawayprisoner]

No, tell us how windows won.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/105497/retro-how-windows-won-the-pc-wars/3

So what happened to Unix? In theory, Unix should have knocked Windows into a cocked hat, because it ran on everything from PCs to supercomputers and wasn't tied to one proprietary manufacturer. In reality, the dozens of different versions had extensions that made them incompatible - plus, it was expensive, user-hostile and a resource hog.

Sounds familiar?

Not to say history is repeating itself, but there are some signs pointing to that being the case. The last quote doesn't necessarily describe Android in its current stage entirely, but user-hostile and resource hog aren't too far off the mark. Resource hog being particularly so.

I understood that perfectly. The point I'm trying to make is that 1)HP never intended to sell the TouchPad at 99 dollars, they wanted to sell it at 499. They only slashed the price to 99 dollars to clear inventory and wash their hands of the entire mess. That brought into into impulse spending range for most people, which is why it sold out. But, since its not being restocked or supported by HP, the spike in sales was a brief blip on the radar and HP will drop off the chart entirely.

If someone could make a 99 dollar tablet that wasn't a complete piece of junk, there'd be a market for it. But thus far, the cheapest tablets that aren't complete garbage are the Fire and Nook Tab. They're already sold are barely break even pricing.

Well, being the "top selling" tablet doesn't have to be the most profitable tablet as well. That's what I'm trying to say.

Are you saying that Apple didn't get to where they're today without the iPad? Uh…what about the iPod touch? Total domination of the MP3 player market for years, or the iPhone? Apple was damn wealthy before the iPad. There were tablets in the works around the time of iPad1, for example MS demoed the HP Slate. Most if not all retracted after the iPad1 released.

The HP Slate was still released in case you didn't catch wind of it. Production was promptly ceased, though, likely in anticipation for the TouchPad.

As for the iPod Touch and iPhone, both of those devices were to pave way for the R&D of the iPad 1. From a business standpoint, both were successful products, but admittedly, you can't quite possibly say that they rocketed Apple to being the #1 or #2 PC maker in the world. iPhone's growth has quite possibly stopped with stiff competition from Android. iPod sales are good, but sincerely, when it's in a market that it almost monopolizes, you can't quite say they are making a killing (since there's no one to kill).

Also looking from that angle, iPhone likely didn't make Apple much money (since they couldn't push them away to new customers, and iPod likely didn't make Apple much money either (since it's priced so low). But the iPad sure as heck made Apple a lot of money considering that the margins go up to almost 3-4x with the highest-end model.

 

[cheezy321]

iPad 1 was released 6 months before the HP Slate, April 2010 vs October 2010. The iPad 1 was designed a media consumption device with mass market appeal, Apple build and sold millions. The HP Slate, by comparison, was designed as a corporate/business device to actually accomplish work, and HP only built 5000 of them to begin with. They didn't take the product seriously and didn't give it the attention it needed. Seems to be a habit with HP, one they repeated with their entire purchase of Palm and WebOS. There's also the 799 price point the Slate was introduced at. As Moto learned with their tablet line, consumers won't pay 800 dollars for a glorified netbook to watch YouTube on.



The tablet market was hardly on life support prior to the iPad. You just didn't seem them in the hands of hipsters at Starbucks. You saw them in the hands of engineers working, airplane pilots, etc, and as such, usually behind the scenes. They had a very healthy market and were selling very well with the clientele they were geared for.

Lulz. You have any evidence to support this? Please send me one link that referred to the tablet market as 'thriving' and 'very healthy' before the iPad.

 

[shortylickens]

It wasnt. Tablets had died completely a couple years before the ipad came out.

 

[Bateluer]

Lulz. You have any evidence to support this? Please send me one link that referred to the tablet market as 'thriving' and 'very healthy' before the iPad.

Health =/= size.

 

[MrX8503]

iPad 1 was released 6 months before the HP Slate, April 2010 vs October 2010. The iPad 1 was designed a media consumption device with mass market appeal, Apple build and sold millions. The HP Slate, by comparison, was designed as a corporate/business device to actually accomplish work, and HP only built 5000 of them to begin with. They didn't take the product seriously and didn't give it the attention it needed. Seems to be a habit with HP, one they repeated with their entire purchase of Palm and WebOS. There's also the 799 price point the Slate was introduced at. As Moto learned with their tablet line, consumers won't pay 800 dollars for a glorified netbook to watch YouTube on.

Ok....so...I don't get what you're saying applies to what I said.

The tablet market was hardly on life support prior to the iPad. You just didn't seem them in the hands of hipsters at Starbucks. You saw them in the hands of engineers working, airplane pilots, etc, and as such, usually behind the scenes. They had a very healthy market and were selling very well with the clientele they were geared for.

In other words it was on life support. Also the tablet market that you're talking about is a niche market, not the same market that we're talking about. So I don't know how this niche market you speak of applies to the iOS/Android tablets.

Funny how some of those pilots are using iPads now. Hmmm.

The HP Slate was still released in case you didn't catch wind of it. Production was promptly ceased, though, likely in anticipation for the TouchPad.

The HP Slate also failed in case you didn't catch wind of it. The TouchPad was also created as a direct result of the iPad.

As for the iPod Touch and iPhone, both of those devices were to pave way for the R&D of the iPad 1. From a business standpoint, both were successful products, but admittedly, you can't quite possibly say that they rocketed Apple to being the #1 or #2 PC maker in the world.

The iPod and iPhone are not considered "PCs", but the iPad is for some reason. So that metric you're using of "#1 PC Maker in the world" to denote the wealth of Apple is misleading.

iPhone's growth has quite possibly stopped with stiff competition from Android.

iPhone's growth slowed down, it didn't stop. Also, Apple makes more off of every device they sell compared to competitors. Carriers pay Apple more for the iPhone than they do for an Android device.

iPod sales are good, but sincerely, when it's in a market that it almost monopolizes, you can't quite say they are making a killing (since there's no one to kill).

Huh?...no one to kill so that equates to little money? Uh...it equates to even more money.

Also looking from that angle, iPhone likely didn't make Apple much money (since they couldn't push them away to new customers, and iPod likely didn't make Apple much money either (since it's priced so low). But the iPad sure as heck made Apple a lot of money considering that the margins go up to almost 3-4x with the highest-end model.

AT&T paid Apple quite a lot for iPhone rights for almost 5 years. When that contract was axed, Verizon and Sprint paid through the nose. The iPhone/iPod made Apple rich, the iPad just made them richer.

As I was saying in my original post, Apple having the monetary power resulted into them being able to take the risk of reviving a dead market with the iPad.

 

[Bateluer]

Ok....so...I don't get what you're saying applies to what I said.

Posted to show that the HP Slate didn't fail because of the iPad, it failed because of HP's incompetence.

In other words it was on life support. Also the tablet market that you're talking about is a niche market, not the same market that we're talking about. So I don't know how this niche market you speak of applies to the iOS/Android tablets.

Funny how some of those pilots are using iPads now. Hmmm.

Nope, wasn't on life support at all. Pilots are using the iPads now because the software they wanted is available now.

The HP Slate also failed in case you didn't catch wind of it. The TouchPad was also created as a direct result of the iPad.

Yep, again, both due to HP's incompetence. There were a lot HP could have done with WebOS to make it a contender OS, but they did none of it. Its been discussed before, but HP has a major identity crisis. They don't know what they want to be, where they want to go, or how they want to get there.

Lets not forget the iPad 1 was just an oversized iPod Touch, and was initially panned when it was announced. Their hardware development costs were nill, all their costs were in the App Store and developer support. As we've established before, it doesn't matter what Apple brings to market, people will buy it. Doesn't matter what it is, what it does, or what the person plans to do with it . . . if Apple makes it, people will buy it by the millions. Same with the 4S, wasn't what people wanted, panned by critics when announced, caused drop in Apple stock, etc. Broke sales records for Apple and sold millions.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Before we fall back into yet another "Apple Invented the Tablet" (tm) flamewar, back to the original article:

Honestly I like the premise of the article- that the iPad was a disruptive device in more than one industry- but I hate the areas the author highlighted. I mean....Amazon? Amazon doesn't hate the iPad- people buy their books on the iPad and the iPad market is what is allowing the Kindle Fire to be so successful. Some people don't want to spend more than $200 on a tablet, even if it is a pile of crap compared to an iPad. Apple will never go that low, so it gave an opportunity to Amazon. If I was them I would send Apple a thank-you card


The group that REALLY hates the iPad is media companies, in particular video media companies (movies, TV). For years they have walked a fine line with digital distribution- they know it is coming but they don't want to give up the Primetime TV cash cow for a digital market with less earning potential. That is why they forced Hulu early on to keep off anything that might be hooked to a TV. They thought that by keeping such services tied to a computer that they would be so inconvenient for normal consumers that they would still tune in at 8 to watch the show with ads.

Then came along the iPad, which is basically (among other things) a portable TV. Suddenly consumers demanded that this streaming content be allowed on the iPad, and media companies freaked out because they saw the barrier between TVs and the internet falling down (along with their profit margins).

Hence the big fight Time Warner has gone through to get content for their iPad app, or the fact that Hulu purposefully tries not to work on a tablet unless you pay for Hulu Plus.

The iPad is screwing over these media companies because it is teaching consumers to demand more convenient media in on-demand services. The downside is that consumers are used to a ad model for television, so they will balk at the prices if these media companies made the same profits on a subscription model. I don't have the numbers, but I bet if they charged Netflix users what it actually costs to make the shows and what they once got from advertising, each Netflix subscription would be $100+.

Right now a Netflix can exist because the old model subsides the new model. Enough people still watch on TV. But as tablet devices become popular normal consumers will turn more-and-more to these devices to consume the media, which means these media companies will have to learn to live with less.

Since no industry goes down without a fight, especially one with the influence Hollywood has, I expect this to be one of the larger conflicts that will play out this decade. All thanks to the iPad.

 

[runawayprisoner]

The HP Slate also failed in case you didn't catch wind of it. The TouchPad was also created as a direct result of the iPad.

If every discontinued tablet is constituted as "failed", then the iPad 1 also "failed". I don't think HP needed a fire sale to push the HP Slate inventory away like with the TouchPad, so I don't think the same situation applies there.

The iPod and iPhone are not considered "PCs", but the iPad is for some reason. So that metric you're using of "#1 PC Maker in the world" to denote the wealth of Apple is misleading.

Not necessarily misleading if we are talking about "position". Unless you are merely referring to their financial assets.

iPhone's growth slowed down, it didn't stop. Also, Apple makes more off of every device they sell compared to competitors. Carriers pay Apple more for the iPhone than they do for an Android device.

Yes, that is all true, but are you certain Apple makes as much off of an iPhone as they do off of an iPad? Of any generation?

Also, I think it's for another thread, but the latest numbers show iPhone's growth as completely stopping. As in current owners will just upgrade to newer devices and get rid of their current ones while no new users jump into the fray.

Huh?...no one to kill so that equates to little money? Uh...it equates to even more money.

No. What I mean is that it's very hard to judge the market because there is no metric to it anymore. Plus as mentioned, the iPad's margin is wider than the iPod Touch. A lot wider.

AT&T paid Apple quite a lot for iPhone rights for almost 5 years. When that contract was axed, Verizon and Sprint paid through the nose. The iPhone/iPod made Apple rich, the iPad just made them richer.

As I was saying in my original post, Apple having the monetary power resulted into them being able to take the risk of reviving a dead market with the iPad.

And like I mentioned, they weren't the only one with the money to do so. They simply did it before anyone else did, or they did something nobody thought or wanted to do. Apple surely wasn't the richest company prior to 2010, and that's quite a fact.

Also regardless of how much AT&T or Verizon or Sprint paid to Apple, Apple still have to sell iPhones to them at the subsidize pricing. In other words, less than what Apple would charge outright for an iPhone. Considering AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint sell an 16GB current-gen iPhone (4S now) at $650, that means those carriers paid only a portion of that.

So Apple still made less money on the actual hardware (compared to the iPad, that is). How much they made off of the contract is still quite irrelevant because they could make just as much off of the various patent lawsuits and settlements they have "caused" over the years. Also, they may cost a lot now, but when AT&T signed it in 2005 or so, I'm not sure Apple "forced" them to pay that much, considering Apple needed AT&T to leverage the phone after Verizon refused them.

 

[kubani1]

As for the iPod Touch and iPhone, both of those devices were to pave way for the R&D of the iPad 1. From a business standpoint, both were successful products, but admittedly, you can't quite possibly say that they rocketed Apple to being the #1 or #2 PC maker in the world. iPhone's growth has quite possibly stopped with stiff competition from Android. iPod sales are good, but sincerely, when it's in a market that it almost monopolizes, you can't quite say they are making a killing (since there's no one to kill).

Also looking from that angle, iPhone likely didn't make Apple much money (since they couldn't push them away to new customers, and iPod likely didn't make Apple much money either (since it's priced so low). But the iPad sure as heck made Apple a lot of money considering that the margins go up to almost 3-4x with the highest-end model.

2007, ipod's alone made apple roughly $2.3 billion
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26711/Apple-sold-100-million-Ipods-How-much-did-they-make

apple might not make as much money from ipods as from iphones and ipads, but they still make a good chunk of change, and saying that apple doesn't make a killing from its 'mp3 player' because it almost monopolizes the industry is the definition of making a killing. no one else is in that game because the ipod took over.

I will concede that it doesn't matter so much anymore because most people use their phone as a mp3 player now, but don't underestimate how much income the ipod still generates. it is nothing to sneeze at.

also, the iphone makes apple a shit load of money, saying anything else is rather, well, dumb. Apple has sold well more than 100 million iphones, that is serious cash, more cash than the ipad has yet to pull in, it has to be unless apple make 4X less money on each iphone than they do on each ipad, which i believe would be beyond optimistic.

http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/06/...on-ipads-14-billion-apps-downloaded-and-more/


Now I agree that apple didn't invent any of this stuff, but they made these items consumer products for the masses, they repackaged tablets and smartphones in a way that people wanted them. I don't like the iphone, i want a transformer prime instead of an ipad, but I got to give kudos to apple for jump starting this whole crazy personal electronic device avalanche.

I might not like all of there practices, although i do like their computers/laptops, not so much the ipads and such, but they have made certain products that have changed the way the world does computing, the ipad was a huge success, not that many of us thought that it would be, and for that I appreciate what apple has done, it has created a whole new market, one that I enjoy.

so to all of you who hate apple with a passion, keep in mind that apple might not have invented anything, but they did take existing products and made them more appealing, and in many ways, better.

You might not like apple, but to deny how they changed the computing world is just naive.

Credit is due for some of their efforts, now someone get me a galaxy nexus.

 

[goog40]

No. What I mean is that it's very hard to judge the market because there is no metric to it anymore. Plus as mentioned, the iPad's margin is wider than the iPod Touch. A lot wider.



And like I mentioned, they weren't the only one with the money to do so. They simply did it before anyone else did, or they did something nobody thought or wanted to do. Apple surely wasn't the richest company prior to 2010, and that's quite a fact.

Also regardless of how much AT&T or Verizon or Sprint paid to Apple, Apple still have to sell iPhones to them at the subsidize pricing. In other words, less than what Apple would charge outright for an iPhone. Considering AT&T, Verizon, and Sprint sell an 16GB current-gen iPhone (4S now) at $650, that means those carriers paid only a portion of that.

So Apple still made less money on the actual hardware (compared to the iPad, that is). How much they made off of the contract is still quite irrelevant because they could make just as much off of the various patent lawsuits and settlements they have "caused" over the years. Also, they may cost a lot now, but when AT&T signed it in 2005 or so, I'm not sure Apple "forced" them to pay that much, considering Apple needed AT&T to leverage the phone after Verizon refused them.

Apple makes a lot more off the iPhone then the iPad. The averages sales price is about the same, while iPhones are cheaper to manufacture. They will probably sell close to 3x as many iPhones as iPads this quarter. iPads are still a small slice of the pie.

 

[runawayprisoner]

2007, ipod's alone made apple roughly $2.3 billion
http://www.scribd.com/doc/26711/Apple-sold-100-million-Ipods-How-much-did-they-make

apple might not make as much money from ipods as from iphones and ipads, but they still make a good chunk of change, and saying that apple doesn't make a killing from its 'mp3 player' because it almost monopolizes the industry is the definition of making a killing. no one else is in that game because the ipod took over.

I will concede that it doesn't matter so much anymore because most people use their phone as a mp3 player now, but don't underestimate how much income the ipod still generates. it is nothing to sneeze at.

also, the iphone makes apple a shit load of money, saying anything else is rather, well, dumb. Apple has sold well more than 100 million iphones, that is serious cash, more cash than the ipad has yet to pull in, it has to be unless apple make 4X less money on each iphone than they do on each ipad, which i believe would be beyond optimistic.

http://www.unwiredview.com/2011/06/...on-ipads-14-billion-apps-downloaded-and-more/


Now I agree that apple didn't invent any of this stuff, but they made these items consumer products for the masses, they repackaged tablets and smartphones in a way that people wanted them. I don't like the iphone, i want a transformer prime instead of an ipad, but I got to give kudos to apple for jump starting this whole crazy personal electronic device avalanche.

I might not like all of there practices, although i do like their computers/laptops, not so much the ipads and such, but they have made certain products that have changed the way the world does computing, the ipad was a huge success, not that many of us thought that it would be, and for that I appreciate what apple has done, it has created a whole new market, one that I enjoy.

so to all of you who hate apple with a passion, keep in mind that apple might not have invented anything, but they did take existing products and made them more appealing, and in many ways, better.

You might not like apple, but to deny how they changed the computing world is just naive.

Credit is due for some of their efforts, now someone get me a galaxy nexus.

Well, and after all of that, my point was that Apple made more money off of the iPad than the iPhone and iPod... on average. Not that I hate Apple or that they didn't change the world or any of that stuff.

Apple makes a lot more off the iPhone then the iPad. The averages sales price is about the same, while iPhones are cheaper to manufacture. They will probably sell close to 3x as many iPhones as iPads this quarter. iPads are still a small slice of the pie.

Apple doesn't directly sell the iPhone, save for the international unlocked version, but it didn't start selling those in the US until very recently. The bulk of the income from iPhone comes from carriers, who Apple has to sell the iPhone to at a subsidized pricing.

Put another way, take the iPhone 4S 16GB for instance. Apple is selling it for $650 unlocked, and all of the US carriers are selling them for $650. That means Apple has to sell the iPhone 4S to carriers for, say... $400 a unit or so, because the carriers need to be able to generate a profit off of those phones to be able to subsidize them. They won't take the phone for a flat $650 then resell for $650 again.

Per unit, that means the profit margin of a subsidized iPhone is already cut short. Apple indeed does make a lot on factory unlocked iPhones, but I don't suppose the bulk of the iPhones they sold were those. Remember, on contract, the iPhone 4S 16GB costs just $200. So customers who are already on a certain carrier's network might well just fork out $200 if they don't travel overseas in 2 years. It just makes more sense.

Meanwhile, all iPads sold have a profit margin of something like $300 BOM vs $500, minimum. The 64GB 3G iPad 2 is something like $820 vs approx. $350 BOM. That's quite a margin. Perhaps not as much as 3-4 times as I suggested, but they still make more than 100% profit on most iPad 2 models being sold (only the 16GB WIFI doesn't have that wide a margin), but hey...

 

[Oyeve]

Meanwhile, all iPads sold have a profit margin of something like $300 BOM vs $500, minimum. The 64GB 3G iPad 2 is something like $820 vs approx. $350 BOM. That's quite a margin. Perhaps not as much as 3-4 times as I suggested, but they still make more than 100% profit on most iPad 2 models being sold (only the 16GB WIFI doesn't have that wide a margin), but hey...

WTF is a BOM?

Bah, N/M

 

[runawayprisoner]

WTF is a BOM?

Bill of Material.

See more here

So the iPad 2 32GB 3G carries a price tag of $326 on materials. But that's only sans assembly and transportation, which would be just a little bit more to add on top unless they have to purchase magical dusts to put all of those components together. I'd say about $360 bottom line to complete the package assuming it takes a regular person $10 an hour and 2 hours to complete it. $10 for packaging, and another $10 for transportation. So they still make a rough $400 profit on top.

To make things simpler, if Apple makes on average $200 profit on every iPad sold (I'd bet that's too low based on the above estimate), they would be at a pretty hefty $8 bil profits after 40 mil units sold (as of September 2011). But that's profit. The return is actually around $20 bil (assuming they take back a whole $500 for every unit sold on average. But we all know that's too low because they don't just sell every model at $500).

Around July or so, someone guesstimated that Apple had about 76 bil in cash, so... assuming that by September, that number has grown to 80 mil, that means the iPad alone accounts for almost 25% of Apple's value. And it has been on the market for just almost a year and a half by that time.

I think people have mentioned this a few times, but... that's exactly what the "Apple tax" means. They generate a lot of cash on these things. It's actually quite naive to think the iPad didn't bring them that much money. I'm sure the iPod and iPhone helped, but for the past 2 years, the iPad accounts for quite a sizable chunk of the pie, too.

 

[Ns1]

good article/read

 

[Skel]

so a fanboy site writes an article about how much cooler the ipad is over everything else, and I'm suppose to be enlightened? The only way this is a good article is if you're a apple fan, and want reinforcement on what they already tell you..

 

[goog40]

Well, and after all of that, my point was that Apple made more money off of the iPad than the iPhone and iPod... on average. Not that I hate Apple or that they didn't change the world or any of that stuff.



Apple doesn't directly sell the iPhone, save for the international unlocked version, but it didn't start selling those in the US until very recently. The bulk of the income from iPhone comes from carriers, who Apple has to sell the iPhone to at a subsidized pricing.

Put another way, take the iPhone 4S 16GB for instance. Apple is selling it for $650 unlocked, and all of the US carriers are selling them for $650. That means Apple has to sell the iPhone 4S to carriers for, say... $400 a unit or so, because the carriers need to be able to generate a profit off of those phones to be able to subsidize them. They won't take the phone for a flat $650 then resell for $650 again.

Per unit, that means the profit margin of a subsidized iPhone is already cut short. Apple indeed does make a lot on factory unlocked iPhones, but I don't suppose the bulk of the iPhones they sold were those. Remember, on contract, the iPhone 4S 16GB costs just $200. So customers who are already on a certain carrier's network might well just fork out $200 if they don't travel overseas in 2 years. It just makes more sense.

Meanwhile, all iPads sold have a profit margin of something like $300 BOM vs $500, minimum. The 64GB 3G iPad 2 is something like $820 vs approx. $350 BOM. That's quite a margin. Perhaps not as much as 3-4 times as I suggested, but they still make more than 100% profit on most iPad 2 models being sold (only the 16GB WIFI doesn't have that wide a margin), but hey...

Your numbers are way off base. The average sales price of the iPhone as reported by AAPL is over $600 (closer to $650). ASP for iPads are on the low end of the $600 range. Profit from the iPad is sizable, but it pales in comparison to the iPhone.

 

[MrX8503]

Runawayprisoner I'm not gonna address all your points as I can see that you are leading the points astray.

What did you think I meant when I said monetary power? This is about their financials but you go on and on about "position" as a "PC leader". I've stated in my original post that I'm talkin about money and that Apple was the most likely company to revive the tablet market. IMO, this is due to their large amounts of pure on hand cash.

No where do I discount the amount they make on iPads. If Apple did make more on iPads than iPhones, I don't see how that changes the fact that Apple had a stronger financial arm than most. I believe because of Apple's monetary power they were able to take large risks, like the iPad, fortunately for Apple it paid off.

Apple is much wealthier now after the iPad, but they were also a wealthy company even before it. A company like HTC or Moto wouldn't have taken such risks as their nest egg is much smaller.