« Another book update | Main | Toolsets »

No, they don't "have to" build a 7-inch tablet

This was a reply to Dave hamilton's comment on this story, but TMO's comment system is weird, and wouldn't deal with it.

This is one of those times where I agree with Martellaro’s premise, and frankly I think a lot of the commenters here are being extremely short-sighted and just listening to what another pundit out there claims instead of thinking for themselves.

The premise that Apple could make money off a 7" tablet, or the premise that Apple now has to make a 7" tablet? The former is obvious, the latter is rather ridiculous, and it is the latter that forms the basis for this article. As others have pointed out, people have said the same thing about netbooks, bigger iPhones, a mini tower, a maxi mini, a "netbook" version of the Macbook Air, on and on. These are things apple *has* to make or they risk...what? In the end it comes down to "not making money they could be making".

Even here, John doesn't really have a reason other than that, and he even explains WHY Apple wouldn't based on the fact that they regularly walk away from gobs of cash in another market: low-end computers.

Reading it, there are three reasons John has for this:

Perceived weakness:
When a company comes to dominate a specific market, it’s seen as a failure if another company steps in and finds a weakness. That’s exactly what Amazon has done with the Kindle Fire

Yet at no point does John explain how that's actually a weakness when Apple has stated it has no interest in the low end tablet market. Even if we allow for a 7", there's no guarantee it'll be cheaper than the Fire, or that the people buying the Fire would have instead bought the 7" Unicorn.

Money they "could have made":

What can’t be denied is that Amazon has found a chink in Apple’s armor. Apple execs might be feeling that if only they’d done a better job of understanding their own market, Apple would be earning all these Christmas revenues instead of Amazon. A million Kindles sold per week is evidence of Apple asleep at the wheel. How can Apple prevent this from happening again?

Again, he uses a specious figure, (the million a week is not kindle Fires, which is the "chink" in Apple's market John is talking about, but rather a million units carrying the name "Kindle". The Kindle has always sold well, oddly, so has the iPad. Funny that) to show the money Apple could have made. However, one of the strengths of the Fire is that it is tightly coupled with Amazon's infrastructure, something a lot of people like.

It is rather silly to assume that the kindle Fire would not sell "well", (since we don't actually know how many are selling) if Apple released the 7" unicorn. John's engaging in the kind of zero-sum game that everyone hated in the 90s: For Apple to succeed, all others must fail, and vice-versa. Yet, he has nothing but the opinion that somehow, if Apple released the 7" Unicorn, it would have destroyed the Fire. It is entirely possible for two similar products with different enough target uses and markets to succeed.

The Fire offers features that Apple as a company cannot offer, and it is designed primarily to be a portal into Amazon's infrastructure. It does this very well, and there's no guarantee that a 7" iPad, even at the same price, would somehow kill Fire sales. Yet that's the implication of this point, and there's little support for it.

Ego driven by internet pundits and stock analysts, two sources of stupid that Apple ignores rather well:

My experience is that Apple execs will become a little touchy about the loss of tablet market share and the unflattering conclusions analysts will draw after the holidays. How and why Apple responds will tell us a lot about how the executive team is feeling about how to compete in the tablet market. My money is on a smart, agressive response instead of no response at all. The fire must be put out soon.

Um...really?

I’m also curious how many of the naysayers have actually touched and used a Kindle Fire? I have, and no, it’s not as good as an iPad, and no, it won’t compete with the iPad on many levels. But the concept of having a tablet that one can comfortably hold in one hand is huge, and is something this particular Apple fan would LOVE to see in an iOS device. Once the screen technology is available to support the required resolution at this 7”-ish size, I think Apple will be seriously considering something like this to stay in this market.

I have actually used a Fire, and while it is a really nice device, it's not a competitor for the iPad. It's designed in every way to keep you in Amazon's world, and when you try to venture out, the Fire becomes somewhat less than awesome. The iPad, while firmly rooted in Apple's ecosystem, functions rather well outside of it, i.e. the web browser actually works correctly. That's a critical difference. And again, this all assumes that Apple is particularly interested in a low-margin market, something no one has demonstrated particularly well.

Remember, this ain’t Steve at the helm anymore. Apple’s leaders are people that are working for their money and likely not able to ignore the market as much as Apple used to. In THIS case, I think that’s going to be a good thing.

Were someone to come up with better reasoning for this move other than "money they could be making", "ego", and "Steve Jobs is dead", I'd be happy to take it more seriously.

Might Apple do this? sure, who the hell knows with that company, but I highly doubt it will be because of the Fire, and I further doubt it will somehow kill the Fire even if they do. There's room for multiple products here, stop pushing zero-sum games.

Categories: Mac Matters

Posted by John C. Welch at 12:33 | Permalink

Comments

Warning for Notes users: The commenting system uses HTML.
I know this will be scary for some of you, especially Notes fans. However, open standards, rah-rah.
If you want to use less-than or greater-than signs, or other similar characters that HTML reserves,
you'll simply have to learn to do it the HTML way. Luckily, HTML is kind of popular, no matter what
your re-educators have told you, and you can easily find help on the intertubes.

This was a reply to Dave hamilton's comment on this story, but TMO's comment system is weird, and wouldn't deal with it.\n\n

This is one of those times where I agree with Martellaro’s premise, and frankly I think a lot of the commenters here are being extremely short-sighted and just listening to what another pundit out there claims instead of thinking for themselves.

\n\nThe premise that Apple could make money off a 7\" tablet, or the premise that Apple now has to make a 7\" tablet? The former is obvious, the latter is rather ridiculous, and it is the latter that forms the basis for this article. As others have pointed out, people have said the same thing about netbooks, bigger iPhones, a mini tower, a maxi mini, a \"netbook\" version of the Macbook Air, on and on. These are things apple *has* to make or they risk...what? In the end it comes down to \"not making money they could be making\". \n\nEven here, John doesn't really have a reason other than that, and he even explains WHY Apple wouldn't based on the fact that they regularly walk away from gobs of cash in another market: low-end computers. \n\nReading it, there are three reasons John has for this:\n\n

Perceived weakness: \n\n
When a company comes to dominate a specific market, it’s seen as a failure if another company steps in and finds a weakness. That’s exactly what Amazon has done with the Kindle Fire
\n\nYet at no point does John explain how that's actually a weakness when Apple has stated it has no interest in the low end tablet market. Even if we allow for a 7\", there's no guarantee it'll be cheaper than the Fire, or that the people buying the Fire would have instead bought the 7\" Unicorn.
Money they \"could have made\":\n\n
What can’t be denied is that Amazon has found a chink in Apple’s armor. Apple execs might be feeling that if only they’d done a better job of understanding their own market, Apple would be earning all these Christmas revenues instead of Amazon. A million Kindles sold per week is evidence of Apple asleep at the wheel. How can Apple prevent this from happening again?
\n\nAgain, he uses a specious figure, (the million a week is not kindle Fires, which is the \"chink\" in Apple's market John is talking about, but rather a million units carrying the name \"Kindle\". The Kindle has always sold well, oddly, so has the iPad. Funny that) to show the money Apple could have made. However, one of the strengths of the Fire is that it is tightly coupled with Amazon's infrastructure, something a lot of people like. \n\nIt is rather silly to assume that the kindle Fire would not sell \"well\", (since we don't actually know how many are selling) if Apple released the 7\" unicorn. John's engaging in the kind of zero-sum game that everyone hated in the 90s: For Apple to succeed, all others must fail, and vice-versa. Yet, he has nothing but the opinion that somehow, if Apple released the 7\" Unicorn, it would have destroyed the Fire. It is entirely possible for two similar products with different enough target uses and markets to succeed. \n\nThe Fire offers features that Apple as a company cannot offer, and it is designed primarily to be a portal into Amazon's infrastructure. It does this very well, and there's no guarantee that a 7\" iPad, even at the same price, would somehow kill Fire sales. Yet that's the implication of this point, and there's little support for it.
Ego driven by internet pundits and stock analysts, two sources of stupid that Apple ignores rather well:\n\n
My experience is that Apple execs will become a little touchy about the loss of tablet market share and the unflattering conclusions analysts will draw after the holidays. How and why Apple responds will tell us a lot about how the executive team is feeling about how to compete in the tablet market. My money is on a smart, agressive response instead of no response at all. The fire must be put out soon.
\n\nUm...really?

\n\n

I’m also curious how many of the naysayers have actually touched and used a Kindle Fire? I have, and no, it’s not as good as an iPad, and no, it won’t compete with the iPad on many levels. But the concept of having a tablet that one can comfortably hold in one hand is huge, and is something this particular Apple fan would LOVE to see in an iOS device. Once the screen technology is available to support the required resolution at this 7”-ish size, I think Apple will be seriously considering something like this to stay in this market.

\n\nI have actually used a Fire, and while it is a really nice device, it's not a competitor for the iPad. It's designed in every way to keep you in Amazon's world, and when you try to venture out, the Fire becomes somewhat less than awesome. The iPad, while firmly rooted in Apple's ecosystem, functions rather well outside of it, i.e. the web browser actually works correctly. That's a critical difference. And again, this all assumes that Apple is particularly interested in a low-margin market, something no one has demonstrated particularly well. \n\n

Remember, this ain’t Steve at the helm anymore. Apple’s leaders are people that are working for their money and likely not able to ignore the market as much as Apple used to. In THIS case, I think that’s going to be a good thing.

\n\nWere someone to come up with better reasoning for this move other than \"money they could be making\", \"ego\", and \"Steve Jobs is dead\", I'd be happy to take it more seriously.\n\nMight Apple do this? sure, who the hell knows with that company, but I highly doubt it will be because of the Fire, and I further doubt it will somehow kill the Fire even if they do. There's room for multiple products here, stop pushing zero-sum games.