The Apple iPad is no longer dominating the tablet market
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 36
- Views 4K
-
WELCOME TO THE NEW SERVER!
If you are seeing this you are on our new server WELCOME HOME!
While the new server is online Scott is still working on the backend including the cachine. But the site is usable while the work is being completes!
Thank you for your patience and again WELCOME HOME!
CLICK THE X IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER OF THE BOX TO DISMISS THIS MESSAGE
Your chart shows exactly what I'm saying. Apple's sales numbers continue to grow, however, there are now other phones competing with them so they don't have the same percentage of the market. It's exactly what one would expect as more companies enter the marketplace.
BTW, your chart is for phones while this topic is about tablets. The same principles would apply though.
BTW, your chart is for phones while this topic is about tablets. The same principles would apply though.
It is amazing to me how many people are looking past the reality of the landscape.
Apple is employing the same strategy that gave them a roughly 10% market share in the PC market.Android is employing the strategy that Microsoft employed.
Apple will continue to lose market share while sales numbers will increase only marginally.
They are in luck that steady sales in a declining market means more market share in the PC industry.
The problem is in thinking of one Android device and the reality is the legion of choices across a wide spectrum of options.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
Apple is employing the same strategy that gave them a roughly 10% market share in the PC market.Android is employing the strategy that Microsoft employed.
Apple will continue to lose market share while sales numbers will increase only marginally.
They are in luck that steady sales in a declining market means more market share in the PC industry.
The problem is in thinking of one Android device and the reality is the legion of choices across a wide spectrum of options.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
I invest in both Apple, 20% of my total net worth. And I invest in Google. 0.8% ( at this time). I trade around a core position in Apple and in and out of Google. For you non-investors, that means I keep a base position that add to in Apple, and buy and sell a few shares when the market is right. Half my position in Apple has been with me for over 2 years. For Google, I simply buy on dips and when it goes up to make me some acceptable profit, I sell it all and pay my taxes. I do the same with Microsoft, Sprint, AMD, Facebook, Qualcomm and about a dozen others.
First rule is I don't give a rats butt what the % market share is. I care about money, not %. It's all about profits per unit times the number of units. Apple gets all the profits of iphone and ipad. How much does Google get from Android OS on phones and tablets made by other companies? I don't know how many of you fanboys have skin in the game but I can assure you why I have 20% in one and only .8% in the other (at this time). It is because Apple is the best technology play and Google is mostly an advertising play. The way I see it they don't even compete with each other in the same sector.
I'm not saying an investor makes more money on Apple than Google. Last year my profits were about equal. This year My Google trades are higher than Apple since Apple is in a "buy more" mode for future sales and Google is on a tare for traders with many short term buy and sell periods. So, my realized profits this year on Apple are small. But, Apple has more upside potential than Google for the long term. In fact the upside potential for Apple is about 5 times what it is for Google on the basis of several metrics. This technical analysis is key to long term investment in Apple. On the risk side, the downside potential for loss on both is about 2 to 4 times for Google at today's market prices than for Apple.
First rule is I don't give a rats butt what the % market share is. I care about money, not %. It's all about profits per unit times the number of units. Apple gets all the profits of iphone and ipad. How much does Google get from Android OS on phones and tablets made by other companies? I don't know how many of you fanboys have skin in the game but I can assure you why I have 20% in one and only .8% in the other (at this time). It is because Apple is the best technology play and Google is mostly an advertising play. The way I see it they don't even compete with each other in the same sector.
I'm not saying an investor makes more money on Apple than Google. Last year my profits were about equal. This year My Google trades are higher than Apple since Apple is in a "buy more" mode for future sales and Google is on a tare for traders with many short term buy and sell periods. So, my realized profits this year on Apple are small. But, Apple has more upside potential than Google for the long term. In fact the upside potential for Apple is about 5 times what it is for Google on the basis of several metrics. This technical analysis is key to long term investment in Apple. On the risk side, the downside potential for loss on both is about 2 to 4 times for Google at today's market prices than for Apple.
Pick pretty much any one model of iPad against any one model of Android tablet.
Windows tablets need not apply...
?
The issue isn't Apple versus Google. The revenue issue is Apple versus Samsung, Amazon and others who license technology from Google. Much of the profit in the Google Nexus line goes to Asus, the manufacturer.
Samsung? I can't make money in that. It is not traded on US markets.
From Bezinga July 26 report.
Samsung reported double the phone units as Apple but the profit per unit far exceeds that of Samsung. Samsungs largest growth was 6% in 3D TV's. It also has a division that sells chips used in phones and it's largest customer base is Apple and htc.
From Bezinga July 26 report.
Samsung reported double the phone units as Apple but the profit per unit far exceeds that of Samsung. Samsungs largest growth was 6% in 3D TV's. It also has a division that sells chips used in phones and it's largest customer base is Apple and htc.
But the tablets and the computers are where the big profit comes from. Phones are too competitive and most of them are sold to carriers as opposed to end customers as the other devices are.
Of course the real problem with reasoning about how a company should do is that you can't apply reason. If you did, you might assume that every time Apple announced a new product, the stock price would soar. As it is, the stock price typically takes a dump. I got into Apple investing when the stock took a 16% dump after the announcement of the iPhone 4S.
This mentality has led to:
Outsourcing of the US Manufacturing industry.
Concern about right now rather than long term planning.
Significantly decreased R&D in industry and education.
In sourcing of Tech Industry labor with cheaper (usually less skilled but buy 3 for the price of one).
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
I'm trying to locate the complete report that Samsung put out but IIRC, they stated their computer sales was losing money and to expound on the their comment which supported your statement- they feel that the phone business while robust has minimal profits and is now falling off. The growth they believe for Samsung continues to be in the new technology of TV's both UHD and 3D and will be investing $18B in that segment of the business to grow their UHD and 3D TV's. The real issue here is similar to Sony, the mega company is wide spread and ability continue growth in any one division is becoming more difficult.
I hope you got into Apple "investing" after you saw the 16% loss. I had two 20 share purchases last August ('12) and September that are deep in the red now. But my basis is still below $380 a share. For the first time this year I sold 23 shares I had at $315 when it hit $465 earlier in this week. Now I have to wait for the stock to see $535. When the stock hit $422 a share in mid July, I bought 20 shares for my wife's IRA account, dumping out of a bond fund she had. I don't recommend Apple investing. I find trading around a core position you grow is a better strategy to generate about a 40% ROI. If you like trading 100%, pick another type stock like FaceBook for much higher returns. If you want simple long term investing for small dividends, Johnson and Johnson or the Utilities or Phone companies are better.
As you can imagine, with my % invested in Apple I spend quite a bit of time pouring through the numbers. Typically, stocks today trade mostly on emotion of the news rather than the health of the company. If you want to time your buys, and sells the typical times for this with Apple is to sell just before an announcement when the stock is on the upward movement and buy after it does any 3% dip caused by anything. Never buy at Market, rather use limit orders and wait for the market to meet your price. You can apply reason to how a company is doing but you can't apply that reason to the ups and downs of the stock price. Therefore the health of the company is a good indicator for investing, mood and psychology of how people react is better for traders. When a company is strong and you want rapid growth, use a strategy of trading around a core position.
This mentality has led to:
Outsourcing of the US Manufacturing industry. Profits has not led to outsourcing. It's competitive components of the overhead that led to outsourcing.
Concern about right now rather than long term planning. Profits leads to investment in new technology, acquisitions, and mergers. This is long term planning.
Significantly decreased R&D in industry and education. Profits pays for R&D. Companies with poor profits cut R&D spending.
In sourcing of Tech Industry labor with cheaper (usually less skilled but buy 3 for the price of one). When companies are profitable they pay higher wages, not cheaper.
Profits are the basis for a thriving economy. percent of market share has never been a goal of Apple business. The goal is to sell a product that most people yearn to have because it is high quality and then they can achieve being the best in the industry in market profits. I think they have demonstrated all these even with lower market share.
PS- When Apple ceases to achieve results, I will scale out of it. I don't worship Apple and have never been a simpleton fanboy. Tim Cook has promised us new game changing technologies coming this Fall and throughout 2014. Let's see how that goes. I certainly would not want to be on the sidelines for the next 16 months with Apple.
Outsourcing of the US Manufacturing industry. Profits has not led to outsourcing. It's competitive components of the overhead that led to outsourcing.
Concern about right now rather than long term planning. Profits leads to investment in new technology, acquisitions, and mergers. This is long term planning.
Significantly decreased R&D in industry and education. Profits pays for R&D. Companies with poor profits cut R&D spending.
In sourcing of Tech Industry labor with cheaper (usually less skilled but buy 3 for the price of one). When companies are profitable they pay higher wages, not cheaper.
Profits are the basis for a thriving economy. percent of market share has never been a goal of Apple business. The goal is to sell a product that most people yearn to have because it is high quality and then they can achieve being the best in the industry in market profits. I think they have demonstrated all these even with lower market share.
PS- When Apple ceases to achieve results, I will scale out of it. I don't worship Apple and have never been a simpleton fanboy. Tim Cook has promised us new game changing technologies coming this Fall and throughout 2014. Let's see how that goes. I certainly would not want to be on the sidelines for the next 16 months with Apple.
Too bad my Father-in-Law gave up on Apple back in the late 1990s. He saw a report that said that Apple was going to miss the Back-to-School window with the new Mac line and he decided to sell at under $20/share.
My take on Apple has always been that as long as they can make money selling a premium user experience device, they will let the majority of the market devoir themselves in the downwards pricing pressure of a commodity market. At one time, Macs and PCs cost over $2,000. The PC market was open and allowed new companies to force IBM out of the market they created because IBM didn't know how to adopt to a model that let them continue to make a profit in the PC market. Of course, Apple almost went under before Jobs returned and Apple started turning out compelling alternatives to the cheap x86 PCs.
As long as enough people feel that the extra money they pay for the Apple experience is justified, Apple should be fine. Of course, holding their users' digital purchases in iTunes doesn't hurt, either.
My take on Apple has always been that as long as they can make money selling a premium user experience device, they will let the majority of the market devoir themselves in the downwards pricing pressure of a commodity market. At one time, Macs and PCs cost over $2,000. The PC market was open and allowed new companies to force IBM out of the market they created because IBM didn't know how to adopt to a model that let them continue to make a profit in the PC market. Of course, Apple almost went under before Jobs returned and Apple started turning out compelling alternatives to the cheap x86 PCs.
As long as enough people feel that the extra money they pay for the Apple experience is justified, Apple should be fine. Of course, holding their users' digital purchases in iTunes doesn't hurt, either.
Don sez:
Profits has not led to outsourcing. It's competitive components of the overhead that led to outsourcing.
It was short term profits over long term outlook. So now we manufacture very little in this country. Long term this will be a huge mistake.
Profits leads to investment in new technology, acquisitions, and mergers. This is long term planning.
"Long Term" is next year and used to be 3-5 years because nothing matters but analyst expectations and stock prices.
Profits pays for R&D. Companies with poor profits cut R&D spending.
Decrease of tax credits has lead to less expenditure on basic research with longer timelines to market.
When companies are profitable they pay higher wages, not cheaper.
I trained my 3 offshore replacements because they were cheaper than I was. They didn't do better work, and it took the third to marginally exceed my productivity, but its cheaper to hire bodies in other countries.
Sorry it really isn't working this way.
Based on Tim Cook's track record, Apple is going to continue to follow the leading edge in the mobile space. The time where they were a step ahead has come and gone.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
Profits has not led to outsourcing. It's competitive components of the overhead that led to outsourcing.
It was short term profits over long term outlook. So now we manufacture very little in this country. Long term this will be a huge mistake.
Profits leads to investment in new technology, acquisitions, and mergers. This is long term planning.
"Long Term" is next year and used to be 3-5 years because nothing matters but analyst expectations and stock prices.
Profits pays for R&D. Companies with poor profits cut R&D spending.
Decrease of tax credits has lead to less expenditure on basic research with longer timelines to market.
When companies are profitable they pay higher wages, not cheaper.
I trained my 3 offshore replacements because they were cheaper than I was. They didn't do better work, and it took the third to marginally exceed my productivity, but its cheaper to hire bodies in other countries.
Sorry it really isn't working this way.
Based on Tim Cook's track record, Apple is going to continue to follow the leading edge in the mobile space. The time where they were a step ahead has come and gone.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
John, I'm sorry your job was outsourced. We all went through career change at one time or another. I went through it twice, not by outsourcing but other reasons that were beyond my control. Blaming management and trends in business is not a pathway to self growth. Finding your hidden talents and exploiting them is.
Don,
Thanks for the career advice. My career is fine, I am discussing the overall trend in the industry.
Sent from my SCH-I605 using Tapatalk 4
