Apple Buys Up Touch Panels Delaying RIM's Tablet Release

[Juan007]

But if Apple becomes the dominant player because, heck, they're so big that they can simply BUY THEIR WAY to the top, then that's not really fair for anybody, is it?

Nice straw man. Apple didn't buy their way to the top. Years ago when the whole world was busy designing netbooks, Apple was polishing the iPad. They knew the product would be a hit and that component supply was a potential problem, so they secured their supply for the long-term. It's called planning and foresight. Their strategy was not without risk - if the iPad didn't catch on then Apple would be sitting on millions of displays and unable to move them.

If RIM wanted easy access to components then they should have ordered them years ago like Apple did. Oh I forgot, the Playbook was conceived the day after Apple launched iPod 1. I guess it sucks to be a follower.

 

[toddybody]

Copycat tactics or not, it's still competition which is good for us consumers. That includes the not-too-bright Apple fanboys who may think otherwise.

*Huge Audible Sigh of relief

Thank you for saying that😀

 

[Popeye206]

Too funny. 🙄

I love all the posts that say, "competition is good, keep Apple on its toes." Problem is, the competition is just copying what Apple has done. Who else is really innovating anything new? Who else has any sort of long term vision of where technology can take us? RIM, MS, HP? Doubtful. Google? All they want is to know everything about you to improve their ability to sell marketing information.

Apple making smart business decisions will only force others to rethink, innovate and create their own demand. Or die. Sorry if you don't like how the free market works.

Apple does learn from the competition... no doubt. And competition is always good. But, at the same time, Apple does seem to be the one that does something different and changes the game way more than the others.

 

[BC2009]

Basic Supply and Demand

If the demand for touch panels increases then the manufacturers of touch panels will rejoice and expand their business thus increasing the supply. The real problem here is that RIM probably wants terms on touch panel production that are not all-too-inspiring to the manufacturers to warrant expansion. For example, Apple is confident that they will sell X units of iPads in 2011, Y units in 2012, and so on. So Apple prepays for what they need.

RIM is not as confident with their Playbook. They probably need contingencies in any long-term orders they place to ensure they can get out of buying touch panels they won't need. If these were 9.7-inch panels then the manufacturer could care less. Anything RIM walks away from, they can turn around and sell to Apple (very smart of HP). However, who is going to buy all those 7-inch panels if RIM's Playbook gets off to a false start? Samsung? Nope -- they make their own panels from what I have heard.

Supply and Demand.... When there is real demand for more touch panels from consumers than those being supplied to Apple for iPad then the manufacturers will expand their production and take advantage of the opportunity to increase profits. The real problem here is that RIM's attempt at media hype is not equivalent to real customer demand. The only tablet with a large amount of customer demand right now is the iPad. That is part of why I tend to believe that the "media tablet" category is a figment of the imagination for market analysts. Market analysts assign a level of demand to the "media tablet" category and make projections, but the difference between the "iPad" category and the rest of the "non-iPad media tablets" is staggering. The iPad category is flourishing, the "non-iPad media tablet" category is a fledgling state at best (if not failing).

If not for Apple's success with the iPad how many manufacturers would have already thrown in the towel with "media tablets" and once again written it off as "the technology for tablets is just not there yet for mass consumption". Tablets failed in various forms for over a decade. iPad is the first and only mass market success in this area. If not for Apple, there would be no such thing as "Honeycomb" or HP Touch Pad or Playbook -- these guys are hoping they can figure out what Apple did right and find some way to ride the same wave the iPad is on -- while technical specifications are there, they have not yet figured out the "magic" of iPad -- ease of use, awesome software market, and the emotional response Apple manages to evoke with their user experience. Just a few examples of emotional response.... There is something delightful about pinching a stack of photos to spread them out across the screen or the way Apple's tiled app icons and folders gets adults to collect apps the same way their kids collect trading cards -- these are very emotional things that Apple seems to understand.

EDIT: I failed to make it clear, but I do hope that touch panel production expands for RIM and others to get the supply they need. I like Apple having competitors because Apple tends to take the good things competition comes up with and add them as line items to their proactive project plans. I don't believe that competition drives Apple (certainly not in the way that Apple's actions or Apple's critics are basically driving the competitions plans). Apple is a bit more proactive, but when they have a worthy competitor, Apple certainly picks up on any "good" ideas the competition has had that happen to fit with their long-term plans. I also applaud RIM and HP for not going the "me-too" Android/Honeycomb route. There is something to be said for not selling out to a third-party on software.

 

[LanPhantom]

Demand Drives Market

I would imagine we aren't getting the full story here. Companies would jump at the opportunity to produce more products. I don't care how it's done, 24hr operations, add capacity to their facilities, etc.

I think RIM's offer to the companies wasn't as good as Apples and the companies said "Well, thanks for the offer, but we just don't have the room" Considering the longevity of the RIM Playbook is still questionable, why would a company commit to supplying a short term product. At least with Apple, they feel comfortable looking long term and committing to building a TON of them. Knowing they won't be left with a supply line dead in the water.

Again, if the TRUE demand exists, producers will produce. It's all about Money.

-LanPhantom


WOW - BC2009, you hit my nail on the head right before I did!!! Nice job!

 

[Amnak]

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)

I'd like to know when apples ever had real pressure to do anything, they do what they want when they want and they DGF

 

[toddybody]

If the demand for touch panels increases then the manufacturers of touch panels will rejoice and expand their business thus increasing the supply. The real problem here is that RIM probably wants terms on touch panel production that are not all-too-inspiring to the manufacturers to warrant expansion. For example, Apple is confident that they will sell X units of iPads in 2011, Y units in 2012, and so on. So Apple prepays for what they need.

RIM is not as confident with their Playbook. They probably need contingencies in any long-term orders they place to ensure they can get out of buying touch panels they won't need. If these were 9.7-inch panels then the manufacturer could care less. Anything RIM walks away from, they can turn around and sell to Apple (very smart of HP). However, who is going to buy all those 7-inch panels if RIM's Playbook gets off to a false start? Samsung? Nope -- they make their own panels from what I have heard.

Supply and Demand.... When there is real demand for more touch panels from consumers than those being supplied to Apple for iPad then the manufacturers will expand their production and take advantage of the opportunity to increase profits. The real problem here is that RIM's attempt at media hype is not equivalent to real customer demand. The only tablet with a large amount of customer demand right now is the iPad. That is part of why I tend to believe that the "media tablet" category is a figment of the imagination for market analysts. Market analysts assign a level of demand to the "media tablet" category and make projections, but the difference between the "iPad" category and the rest of the "non-iPad media tablets" is staggering. The iPad category is flourishing, the "non-iPad media tablet" category is a fledgling state at best (if not failing).

If not for Apple's success with the iPad how many manufacturers would have already thrown in the towel with "media tablets" and once again written it off as "the technology for tablets is just not there yet for mass consumption". Tablets failed in various forms for over a decade. iPad is the first and only mass market success in this area. If not for Apple, there would be no such thing as "Honeycomb" or HP Touch Pad or Playbook -- these guys are hoping they can figure out what Apple did right and find some way to ride the same wave the iPad is on -- while technical specifications are there, they have not yet figured out the "magic" of iPad -- ease of use, awesome software market, and the emotional response Apple manages to evoke with their user experience. Just a few examples of emotional response.... There is something delightful about pinching a stack of photos to spread them out across the screen or the way Apple's tiled app icons and folders gets adults to collect apps the same way their kids collect trading cards -- these are very emotional things that Apple seems to understand.

Next time you should try formulating a more organized post😛

Well said sir, well said🙂 Stay well!

 

[bpaluzzi]

By now you should know that Apple is a greedy company, just wanting to hurt others and bankrupt several in the process.. its corporate america at its best.. hopefully NOT FOR TOO LONG.

Apple is one greedy corporation that just loves to attack.. typical of the coming corporate takeover of humanity.

Yup, and the moon landing was faked, and 9/11 was an inside job. 🙄

 

[Thunderhawks]

Ha ha! Im not sure the relevancy of the last part...but I have to disagree (respectfully) with the notion that Apple doesnt require constant pressure or that any good company only listens to internal voices (users included). First of all, without competition Apple could very well become stagnant in it's HW development; a sad example of this is with the legacy use of C2D (and no folks, they could have gone to discrete options and circumvented the nVidia v Intel alley fight). Apple's also behind the curve on the GPU market, and with their aged MBP display res. Now, havent we all complained about these issues to some degree?
What any good company needs is both sensitivity to user demands, and strategic competition with other platforms. I think its silly that we still have POS acer notebooks with much more capable internal components (though nobody would argue that Apple's case design is 2nd best) at half the cost of a comparable Apple product. So for me, I really hope both Android/HTC/Moto/RIM bring great products to the table...and Apple responds with a total game changer. Stay well friend!

The last part was about the next revolutionary product.

Don't think they will be complacent, but most likely without Steve Jobs they'll have a harder time.

As far as complaining about C2D, MBP res, etc. , add Blue Ray that's never an issue for me.
I don't buy any Apple product until I check out it's what I want or it's close enough to jump.

I was on the sidelines until 3rd gen ipod, on the sidelines until MBP's fell into my price range ( I like to buy one generation back), and currently on the sidelines until ipad 3 or 4 as well as iphone 5 or 6.

Good things come to those who wait. (I am from a generation that can wait without withdrawal symptoms)

 

[dashiel]

I see people still don’t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple’s orders ahead of RIM’s or any other.

Personally I bet RIM is breathing a huge sigh of relief, by all accounts the PlayBook is as unfinished and rough around the edges as Honeycomb on the Xoom.

 

[gnasher729]

And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.

The critical question would be: In the contract between Apple and the manufacturer, is there any clause that stops the manufacturer from selling to other companies? That would be anti-competitive. If a manufacturer says "RIM offered us $100 a piece for one million screens", and Apple says "We'll give you $110 for each" and RIM can't get the screens, that would be fine. If the manufacturer says "we can make 2 million screens a month" and Apple says "Ok, we'll buy 2 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "Ok, we'll buy all you can build up to 3 million screens a month", that is fine. If Apple says "We'll buy 2 million screens a month, and you must not sell any screens to anyone else", that is anti-competitive.

I see people still don’t understand what a monopoly is. Apple would only be considered a monopoly if they used their power & influence to force the component supplier to cancel or move Apple’s orders ahead of RIM’s or any other.

You confuse "monopoly" and "anti-competitive". Being a monopoly is in itself just fine. It just means that you have to be more careful what you do than other companies, because what you do could be anti-competitive. For example, Microsoft has a monopoly in the operating system market. They can't refuse to sell Windows to Dell without getting into lots of trouble. Apple can refuse to sell MacOS X to Dell without getting any trouble. And people often confuse "competitive" and "anti-competitive". Being better than the competition is competitive. If company X makes a product that is a lot better than Y's product, and Y doesn't sell anything, that is competitive. "Anti-competitive" is when X does things so that Y couldn't sell their product even if it was better. For example, if the Windows license said that you are not allowed to use any word processor other than Microsoft Word, that would be anti-competitive, because even if I had a word processor that was better and cheaper than Microsoft Word, nobody would buy it.

 

[toddybody]

The last part was about the next revolutionary product.

Don't think they will be complacent, but most likely without Steve Jobs they'll have a harder time.

As far as complaining about C2D, MBP res, etc. , add Blue Ray that's never an issue for me.
I don't buy any Apple product until I check out it's what I want or it's close enough to jump.

I was on the sidelines until 3rd gen ipod, on the sidelines until MBP's fell into my price range ( I like to buy one generation back), and currently on the sidelines until ipad 3 or 4 as well as iphone 5 or 6.

Good things come to those who wait. (I am from a generation that can wait without withdrawal symptoms)

I never would suggest that Apple is going to tank/go back to HP manufactured iPod Mini...lol

I just want other companies to succeed, if only to make my Apple products that much better. For instance, Id love to see the iP5 have a 4inch screen (im sure many disagree)...that could be a possibility because of some HTC success (Evo, Inspire...etc). BTW: Glad to hear youre a very contemplative buyer, it always pays off. Stay well friend, have a wonderful day.

 

[iSee]

...Besides ongoing software testing, RIM was also unable to procure enough touch panels since "Apple already booked up most of the available capacity".
...

This is a nice narrative but very unlikely.
1. RIM is a very experienced hardware developer that knows perfectly well how to procure the components it needs well ahead of time.

2. Realistically, they need only a relatively tiny number of screen to launch. What Apple is doing isn't on an entirely different level and isn't really going to distrupt the tiny production runs that RIM is going to start with. They won't start competing with Apple for production capacity until they have a hit on their hands. Obviously that may never happen.

Much more likely they have some serious bugs to fix before they can release. They basically admit as much with the euphamism "ongoing software testsing."

 

[wovel]

They can have my screen. It only bleeds on the edges. Still enough real estate for a seven inch model.

Let's see a picture of you holding your iPad 2 demonstrating this 🙂

I don't understand, Apple can't let RIM have 12 panels? When they sell off those 12 units, Apple can let them have 12 more.

They need to make display models as well. They need 1012 to cover the display models and the 12 that will sell.

I see the short sighted Apple pom-pom shakers are once again giddy with excitement. The juvenile remarks are embarrassing.

For some strange reason you think monopolies are good for consumers.

Strategic planning does not make a monopoly, you appear to have no concept of what a monopoly actually is.

So you want Apple to be forced by the government to reduce its manufacturing, tell its customers "sorry, no iPad for you" because the competition needs to catch up? How stupid is that?🙄

They want Apple to fall, since no one can do it in the free market, they want government intervention. They might have a point if they were engaged in anti-competitive behaviors like Microsoft did. Like telling PC manufacturers all of theirs products had to come with only Windows pre-installed. Buying capacity that is not even sufficient to meet demand is in no way anti-competitive.

I suspect THIS is why HP chose to use a 9.7" 4:3 display on their TouchPad tablet. When all of Asia is stamping out iPad screens it would be a lot easier for HP to acquire iPad panels, using the manufacturer's economies of scale, than to have them manufacture different panels alongside iPad panels.

HP and Amazon are the only ones that have any hope of competing anyway. Everyone else would just be wasting Apple's panels.

^This.

Unfortunately, most posters here think Apple always acts in the best interests of its customers. Kind of cute, actually.

Corporations tend to act in the best interest of theirs owners. It is actually a requirement for corporate officers in public companies. Having said that, Apple is the most customer focused company in the mobile device market. Sales show this and so does every independent customer satisfaction survey performed in the past few years.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)

iPad 3 to be a small update like iPad 2? I wouldn't doubt it with the lack of competition.

This is just silly. They mad a 9x leap in graphics performance in less then 12 months without a single credible competitor.

 

[RHatton]

I never would suggest that Apple is going to tank/go back to HP manufactured iPod Mini...lol

I just want other companies to succeed, if only to make my Apple products that much better. For instance, Id love to see the iP5 have a 4inch screen (im sure many disagree)...that could be a possibility because of some HTC success (Evo, Inspire...etc). BTW: Glad to hear youre a very contemplative buyer, it always pays off. Stay well friend, have a wonderful day.

With how much time Apple spent on the retina display, seeking an extremely high resolution it would almost seem counter intuitive to make the screen any bigger. I don't foresee that ever happening but hey you never know.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Apple is anticompetitive and should be shut down. By producing products customers want when others in the industry can't, they are forcing the competition out of business.

If Apple is not shut down, they should be forced to only sell the products designed by RIM and Google, while Google and Rim can build any Apple product they want. Apple also needs to be forced to fire their QC department. While they are at it, they might want to replace their marketing department with a bunch of rabid chimps. They might also be forced to purchase advertising for RIM.

Apples cash reserves also give them an unfair advantage. Perhaps they should give half their money to RIM. Perhaps Apple should design and build the products and sell them, however, RIM and Google would get the money.

 

[BC2009]

Apple does learn from the competition... no doubt. And competition is always good. But, at the same time, Apple does seem to be the one that does something different and changes the game way more than the others.

Apple is extremely proactive. Which means they have a plan in place. When competition does something good that fits with their plans, then Apple can add it as a line item to their existing plans and assign it to a specific iOS release.

The competition on the other hand is defining their plans and goals completely based on what Apple does or what Apple's critics are saying. They do not have a very long-term vision of where they want to be and are by-and-large reactionary to what Apple is doing.

I will say that Google does indeed have a long-term vision, but not for Android's features. Google's long-term vision is to do anything they can to ensure they sit in between the user and the information on the Internet so they can advertise to them. They see Facebook as a major threat in this regard as well as Apple. Google's long-term plans are being disrupted by these other major players. Android/Honeycomb is a reactionary attempt to correct for some of that.

 

[entatlrg]

RIM was the smartphone market for a brief period of time, they really should be doing better than what they are right now.

RIM didn't have any vision, though, and were eclipsed by Apple and Google.

I owned a BB Storm and it was a piece of junk, the Torch fell flat and now the Playbook has been delayed.

I wonder who is going to buy RIM out, they are in desperate need of a hit product. RIM needs a halo product as badly as Apple did before the iPod came out.

Very well said.

One Rim founder spent too much time trying to buy hockey teams, the other founder too much time building science centers .... meanwhile Steve was dreaming up cool products and turning them into reality. Well done, Steve

 

[pack]

If that were true then why does Apple bless the 15inch with a dedicated solution and not the 13? Battery life? Optimus switching (something they already tout), bigger? the 13" and 15" are the same thickness...the 17" is .02" thicker yet has the SAME spec options as the 15". Footprint is NOT the issue...its a simple price/feature model(want more? pay more). Personally, I think THAT is not what Apple customers want.

Now, I agree with you that they cant go slapping a GTX480m in there for the reasons you cited🙂

PS: How did my earlier post imply that Apple should "give parts to companies"...etc ? Apple can do what they like, I just prefer that competition has a chance to push the envelope.

it's a lower cost model? Customers that want to pay less buy it, it's not that hard to understand and is done in all industries. You have no point.

 

[katebmac]

Wow, really, who comes to an Apple rumor site and complains about people saying pro Apple things.

You should go to Autoblog next and complain about people getting excited over new cars.

Best Post.

 

[wovel]

Apple is extremely proactive. Which means they have a plan in place. When competition does something good that fits with their plans, then Apple can add it as a line item to their existing plans and assign it to a specific iOS release.

The competition on the other hand is defining their plans and goals completely based on what Apple does or what Apple's critics are saying. They do not have a very long-term vision of where they want to be and are by-and-large reactionary to what Apple is doing.

I will say that Google does indeed have a long-term vision, but not for Android's features. Google's long-term vision is to do anything they can to ensure they sit in between the user and the information on the Internet so they can advertise to them. They see Facebook as a major threat in this regard as well as Apple. Google's long-term plans are being disrupted by these other major players. Android/Honeycomb is a reactionary attempt to correct for some of that.

Good to see some people get it. It is weird how so many people here that think things like the Tab,Xoom, and Playbook will inspire Apple to keep improving. I am not sure how companies that are releasing products that will all be ranked by independent reviewers as similar or inferior to the iPad 1 will inspire Apple to do anything. They can't even inspire consumers to buy them.

 

[mdlooker]

Though competition is a desired aspect in any market, from a buyers standpoint, there is still that demand variable.

I believe that even if Apple takes total market consumption, because it seems to be going that way, the price will dictate how sturdy the dominance will be. So long as they keep the prices affordable, they will have no problems.

Same applies with with their Macs. If they were to lower the prices, the profit margin would take a big hit but a slow market saturation would occur.

We need innovation and great experiences, but price moves that demand curve.

 

[RalfTheDog]

Apple is extremely proactive. Which means they have a plan in place. When competition does something good that fits with their plans, then Apple can add it as a line item to their existing plans and assign it to a specific iOS release.

The competition on the other hand is defining their plans and goals completely based on what Apple does or what Apple's critics are saying. They do not have a very long-term vision of where they want to be and are by-and-large reactionary to what Apple is doing.

I will say that Google does indeed have a long-term vision, but not for Android's features. Google's long-term vision is to do anything they can to ensure they sit in between the user and the information on the Internet so they can advertise to them. They see Facebook as a major threat in this regard as well as Apple. Google's long-term plans are being disrupted by these other major players. Android/Honeycomb is a reactionary attempt to correct for some of that.

The day Apple starts competing against other companies is the day Apple products will stagnate. Apple does best when they compete against themselves. You don't win by doing what others do; You win by remaping the industry. (Perhaps Google and RIM need to stop competing against Apple and do something different.)

 

[ProwlingTiger]

+1 for Apple

Anyone saying they are a monopoly or anti-competitive should actually learn what those terms actually mean before throwing them around.


Haters gonna hate.

 

[shartypants]

Who wants a RIM playbook anyway, hehe.