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

[Ns1]

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..

that's not what the article is about, it's about business & impact.

 

[sygyzy]

This was a really good article and touched on a point I never really thought about. There are some major negative ramifications for the consumer/industry by having such a strong and "untouchable" market leader.

 

[runawayprisoner]

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.

Do you have a source for this?

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.

Like I said, once again, Apple was not the only company in that position at that time. Yes, HTC and Moto weren't able to touch them, but I don't think you can quite say the same about HP, Dell, or Microsoft, or Samsung.

And another point I'm trying to make by pointing out that the iPad accounts for roughly 25% of Apple's current sale is to show that the iPhone and iPod business alone didn't propel Apple to where they are today.

 

[shortylickens]

Health =/= size.

2260 is for the symbol ≠.

 

[goog40]

Do you have a source for this?



Like I said, once again, Apple was not the only company in that position at that time. Yes, HTC and Moto weren't able to touch them, but I don't think you can quite say the same about HP, Dell, or Microsoft, or Samsung.

And another point I'm trying to make by pointing out that the iPad accounts for roughly 25% of Apple's current sale is to show that the iPhone and iPod business alone didn't propel Apple to where they are today.

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011/10/04/without-an-iphone-5-is-apple-still-a-buy.aspx

The iPhone segment has come to be Apple's largest revenue source, with $13.3 billion in net sales out of its $28.6 billion total. Apple moved 20.3 million iPhones in the quarter with an average selling price of $654. Comparing those figures with the same quarter three short years ago is astonishing. In the same quarter of 2008, Apple moved 717,000 iPhones at a lower selling price! Presently, Apple's iPhone segment alone is generating more sales than the entire company was three years ago.

Didn't find a recent ASP for the iPad, but it was $650 when it first came out. I believe the ASP has come down since then, as they are selling more of the lower end models now.

 

[Mopetar]

Do you have a source for this?

It's pretty easy to determine from the numbers that Apple releases since they usually provide unit sales and revenue figures. Here's a chart I found on macrumors.com that calculates that ASP of some of Apple's different products averaged across 2011:

 

[runawayprisoner]

Great, thanks. Good information.

But also note that that didn't happen 3 years ago as per the article. And by that metric, the iPhone didn't really generate that much revenue for Apple back then.

My point still stands that iPhone sales didn't really push Apple into a financial situation where they were more favorable than their competitors.

Edit: and iPod sales were absent, so just like I said, it's really hard to measure.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Great, thanks. Good information.

But also note that that didn't happen 3 years ago as per the article. And by that metric, the iPhone didn't really generate that much revenue for Apple back then.

My point still stands that iPhone sales didn't really push Apple into a financial situation where they were more favorable than their competitors.

Edit: and iPod sales were absent, so just like I said, it's really hard to measure.

You're ignoring when these devices were launched and how they helped Apple's earnings at the time. If you look at the revenue stream today, it's much different than it was when the iPhone and iPod came out.

Apples quarterlies are public and if you dig through them, you'll find the numbers you're looking far, and the claims make much more sense, given the metric of time.

 

[TheStu]

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.

The iPad 1 was panned by nerds, and 'experts'. Since Apple announced the iPhone back in '07, every expert and analyst and pundit has been wanting every product launch to do what the iPhone did. Blow everyone away. And it doesn't work that way.

The oft repeated idea, that if there is an apple on it, it will sell. Tell me, how well is the AppleTV doing? Especially the first gen one. Or the iPod Boombox? The iPhone Bluetooth Headset? The Mac Pro? The xServe? Not everything they touch turns to gold, people don't immediately go gaga for every Apple product.

Here is the issue. Apple makes 4 sizes of laptop in 5 models. They make 4 desktops in 5 models. They make 3 phones (some of them) in 2 colors. They make 1 tablet in 2 colors.

Dell makes.... I don't really want to count how many laptops they make. But off the top of my head they have the Inspiron, Latitude, Vostro, Precision, Studio, XPS and Alienware (is Studio still around?) All of those in various sizes and configurations.

Apple's products sell well because they know their market, and they know what to release and when. They are very selective about what they make and how they release it. And because they aren't rolling out a new iteration every month or two (I'm looking at you HTC and Moto) you definitely know that the latest thing will stay the latest thing for a while. Why there is a rush to get them on day one? I have no idea. They have a brand following, so does Sony, so does Modern Warfare (whoever it is that makes it).

My point is that it is trite to dismiss Apple's sales as blind following. I am sure that it is comforting to some 'Oh, I know better, I am not fooled by the hype, that is why I have my <insert device here>.'

And what about the people that lined up on launch day for the Galaxy Nexus? They weren't brainwashed by Samsung to just buy whatever has their name on it? No of course not, they are discerning consumers.

 

[runawayprisoner]

You're ignoring when these devices were launched and how they helped Apple's earnings at the time. If you look at the revenue stream today, it's much different than it was when the iPhone and iPod came out.

Apples quarterlies are public and if you dig through them, you'll find the numbers you're looking far, and the claims make much more sense, given the metric of time.

It's not that I'm not familiar with Apple's earnings. It's that the importance of these devices are being blown way out of proportion.

For instance, here's when the iPod first came out:
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2002/10/16Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html

iPhone?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/10/22Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html

iPad?
http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2010/10/18Apple-Reports-Fourth-Quarter-Results.html

See the difference? Both the iPhone and iPod needed a whole year to catch up to Mac sales, at which point, they started generating profits but only "equal" to what the Macs were selling. The importance of the Mac is grossly downplayed in that statement, but we must all remember that iPhones and iPods are not all Apple sell, and they definitely didn't survive the down times because of those devices.

Edit: and I have to say, some of us are quite forgetful. The original iPhone 2G had its price reduced, and it was almost on life support at the time. I don't see how reducing the price of the iPhone would have helped Apple's financial from that angle...

 

[MrX8503]

Like I said, once again, Apple was not the only company in that position at that time. Yes, HTC and Moto weren't able to touch them, but I don't think you can quite say the same about HP, Dell, or Microsoft, or Samsung.

And another point I'm trying to make by pointing out that the iPad accounts for roughly 25&#37; of Apple's current sale is to show that the iPhone and iPod business alone didn't propel Apple to where they are today.

Apple was better positioned than anyone and a lot of competing tablets at the time didn't have the resources to carry out their vision. I'm not sure about MS, but Apple has more money than all of the companies you listed. I mentioned Samsung in my previous post, you may have missed it. As for MS, they wrote off the tablet.

I still don't get how your points about Apple making most of their money with the iPad has anything to do with my post. Apple was already rich before the iPad. The argument is having the resources to start a market, obviously Apple didn't need revenue from the iPad to start the iPad. That doesn't even make sense.

 

[MagickMan]

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

That's the most ridiculous comment I've ever read on this forum, even counting Trident's. Congratulations.

/golf clap

 

[Oyeve]

I made chicken cutlets for dinner.

 

[runawayprisoner]

Apple was better positioned than anyone and a lot of competing tablets at the time didn't have the resources to carry out their vision. I'm not sure about MS, but Apple has more money than all of the companies you listed. I mentioned Samsung in my previous post, you may have missed it. As for MS, they wrote off the tablet.

Definitely not more than MS. They had more cash than Apple in 2009 for sure.

And depending on the metric, HP was about equal to Apple since 2008 to early 2009.

Also Google definitely had just as much money as Apple did in 2009.

Samsung doesn't really have any concrete numbers to go with.

But point is, Apple is the richest company now, yes, but not back before the iPad was introduced.

I still don't get how your points about Apple making most of their money with the iPad has anything to do with my post. Apple was already rich before the iPad. The argument is having the resources to start a market, obviously Apple didn't need revenue from the iPad to start the iPad. That doesn't even make sense.

Because it's only after the iPad has come out that people start talking about how much cash Apple has on hand. But they need to realize that about 1/4 of what Apple has now is all thanks to the iPad, and then the added cash from the popularity of the iPhone 4 and iPod Touch 4, which all rode off of the technology of the iPad (the A4 chip).

Prior to the iPad, Apple was rich. Perhaps more so than HP and Dell, but not so significantly more that the other two couldn't afford to risk losing on tablet sales. HP sprung for WebOS after all, so that proved the point. Although they did it a bit too late.

MS definitely had the potential but they slept on it. True. But there was also Google, who was working on Android, more or less.

And my last point is that... it's not because Apple had more cash than the other guy (even though that might be true for a number of them), it's simply because Apple did something unexpected.

 

[MrX8503]

The only companies that were comparable to Apple financially was Google and MS, neither of which had plans to make a tablet or at least concrete plans. All of the other companies you listed have less cash than Apple. Both Google and MS are software companies, they would need assistance to carry out a tablet idea. MS had HP with the Slate, but it was a disaster.

Like I said before, alot of iPad competitors back in the day were mostly vapor ware because they didnt have the resources like Apple did. Those who did,(MS/Google), didn't have any concrete tablet ideas.

In the end, those that wanted to take down the iPad couldn't at the time and those that had the potential didn't see the market for it. I remember very clearly of company xyz releasing tablets only for it to fall off the face of the earth after the iPad release.

 

[Geekbabe]

I'd be bored with a kindle Fire pretty quickly, but Amazon didn't produce the device for people like me & most of the folks reading this forum. Fire is for folks who like Amazon, who like the novelty of tablets but who don't want to risk spending $500 for one because they're afraid it might be too complicated to use.

A $199 device that greets you by name when you turn it on & leads you directly to books, music & movies, that lets you send/receive email while lying in bed? This device is perfect for a ton of perfectly normal nice people who don't want to play root & rom games, they just want to turn on the device & consume content.

IMHO, that's not "junk" that's targeting a niche group & designing a device that will truly meet their needs, just as Apple designed the ipad to meet the needs of targeted niche groups. The beauty of the ipad IMHO lies in the apps, there are apps out there that will appeal to just about every user, targeting a specific group but then encouraging development of apps that will lure other groups into your Eco-system is genius, will Amazon be able to build in the same way?

 

[zinfamous]

It wasn&#8217;t supposed to be like this. The iPad was supposed to usher in a new era of tablet computing, creating a thriving new market that looked a lot like the world of smart phones.
After gaining an early lead, the iPad was supposed to settle in as a big seller, dominating the high end of the market. Android tablets were supposed to grab most of the unit sales, offering a variety of successful sizes, options and price points. And tablets running proprietary platforms like HP&#8217;s WebOS and RIM&#8217;s BlackBerry Tablet OS were supposed to bring healthy new sources of revenue to those companies.
But that&#8217;s not what happened.
What happened is that Apple has asserted an unshakable lead, and no other company other than Amazon has taken significant share.

Funny--is that what Apple wanted to happen? They may say they want to usher in a new world of computing, but it can only ever come under the umbrella of Apple's version of computing. "If it doesn't have our logo, then it isn't allowed to be part of the new world order." That's what they actually mean when they make such hilariously disingenuous proclamations.

Where it not for their tyrannical patent trolling ways, these things could have happened. The sad thing is that the iPad should have done this--and very likely will because Apple will be returning to their early-90s ways of sub-par user experience and forgettable products soon enough--but it is their behavior that has done everything to prevent an "Apple revolution."

the final statement: again, see patent trolling. Easy to maintain a market lead when you aggressively strive to ban all legitimate competitors from the market.

What they don't realize, is that they will be losing favor with consumers once the wool falls from their eyes, and they realize this company is nothing more than a patent troll disguised as an innovator (well, one that borrows all existing tech and repackages it). In their eyes, anyway--that is innovation.

 

[Fingolfin269]

What they don't realize, is that they will be losing favor with consumers once the wool falls from their eyes, and they realize this company is nothing more than a patent troll disguised as an innovator (well, one that borrows all existing tech and repackages it). In their eyes, anyway--that is innovation.

You really think this is going to happen in the mainstream? I seriously doubt most people have any idea these patent wars are going on and if they do I doubt they really care. People on these forums care but people on these forums aren't indicative of the mainstream.

To put it another way, ask some random person on the street 'what is a patent troll?' and you might get punched in the face for insulting them.

 

[alent1234]

Funny--is that what Apple wanted to happen? They may say they want to usher in a new world of computing, but it can only ever come under the umbrella of Apple's version of computing. "If it doesn't have our logo, then it isn't allowed to be part of the new world order." That's what they actually mean when they make such hilariously disingenuous proclamations.

Where it not for their tyrannical patent trolling ways, these things could have happened. The sad thing is that the iPad should have done this--and very likely will because Apple will be returning to their early-90s ways of sub-par user experience and forgettable products soon enough--but it is their behavior that has done everything to prevent an "Apple revolution."

the final statement: again, see patent trolling. Easy to maintain a market lead when you aggressively strive to ban all legitimate competitors from the market.

What they don't realize, is that they will be losing favor with consumers once the wool falls from their eyes, and they realize this company is nothing more than a patent troll disguised as an innovator (well, one that borrows all existing tech and repackages it). In their eyes, anyway--that is innovation.

so far the patents seem legit and they aren't 1 paragraph long like quoted in news articles. the paperwork filed at the patent office for each one is dozens of pages long and includes a lot of evidence

 

[zinfamous]

You really think this is going to happen in the mainstream? I seriously doubt most people have any idea these patent wars are going on and if they do I doubt they really care. People on these forums care but people on these forums aren't indicative of the mainstream.

To put it another way, ask some random person on the street 'what is a patent troll?' and you might get punched in the face for insulting them.

I agree with that, but it remains to be seen how far they take this. Once their appeal falls off the further we progress down the A.J. time era (After Jobs), even the diehard fans will be less-inclined to care about the new mediocre devices, and, perhaps, all you ever hear in the news regarding Apple is their patent wars.

so far the patents seem legit and they aren't 1 paragraph long like quoted in news articles. the paperwork filed at the patent office for each one is dozens of pages long and includes a lot of evidence

The point is that they use the patent system only to game the system (to be fair, it is set up that way) by stifling innovation. The very opposite of what they claim to endorse.

On top of that, their patents are hilariously meaningless--in the sense that tech has always borrowed from one or another when standards are established.

And of course, it's not like they are patenting a telephone or a waffle iron, they are patenting the idea to attach a waffle iron to a phone (to borrow a quote from the Simpsons). It is preposterous.

 

[alent1234]

the german design laws are pretty flaky, but how is apple stifling innovation? there is a lot of work they did along with microsoft back in the 1990's and early part of last decade that is no making it's way into mobile. even the original iphone patents from the middle of last decade are only now being granted

the whole idea behind patents is the inventor gets a monopoly on the idea, he releases his knowledge to the world and someone else is supposed to find a different way to do the same thing better

 

[Munky]

The article is full of sensational BS like "the ipad can replace a computer" or "the only way to sell another tablet is at a loss." I'd say people don't hate the ipad as much as they hate the iSnobs who tout their iGadget like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[Oyeve]

Did you hear? Apple suing cavemen. Apparently Apple invented the wheel. Steve had a dream about it in the 60s.

 

[cheezy321]

The article is full of sensational BS like "the ipad can replace a computer" or "the only way to sell another tablet is at a loss." I'd say people don't hate the ipad as much as they hate the iSnobs who tout their iGadget like it's the best thing since sliced bread.

You forgot to add even cooler sensational terms like 'sheeple', 'iFans', 'iCult', and 'iCrap'. It makes people really take your comments more seriously!

 

[Munky]

You forgot to add even cooler sensational terms like 'sheeple', 'iFans', 'iCult', and 'iCrap'. It makes people really take your comments more seriously!

Don't forget the source of the article - cultofmac - nothing biased or sensational there...