Motorola Xoom Tablet Sales: Approximately 100,000 Units So Far?

[urbanlung]

iOS was not designed for phones

I purchased a Xoom over the weekend it's a great device, a little heavy, but very awesome for its first pass. I used to own an iPad 1, gave it away, didn't want an iPad 2. Why do I need two devices of the same OS where the UI was designed for the iPhone (smaller device) to begin with? I love the versatility of honeycomb, widgets are phenomenal on a large tablet screen. Everything is great about the interface so far, although there are a few things here and there which make no sense, but I'm sure they'll fix that. I ran into some bugs, called Moto support, they troubleshooted with me, fixed it and were really cool about it. As far as hardware, the materials are great, but definitely Motorola needs to learn a thing or two about button placement. They put the sleep/wakeup button on the back of the device. I used to like to hit the home button on the iPad to wake it up and do stuff (while I was having a bowl of cereal for example), with the Xoom I can't do that, I HAVE to pick up the device. Another interface/hardware awkwardness are the volume buttons and I cannot find a way to change volume within the device itself, unless I press the volume hardware buttons a window will popup.

Other than that, I can live with all this, and the device is extremely awesome and a fresh feeling of a new UI the way it should be done for a tablet.

iOS was developed for tablets. When Apple looked for the operating paradigm for their phone what is now called iOS was seen as an ideal match for the phone they were trying to develop. The fact that the iPhone came out first is irrelevant.



Moisten the catapults!

 

[KnightWRX]

I repeat. If Apple is making 51% of worldwide smartphone profits with only 4% market share who is "winning" or "rising over"?

Certainly not the consumer getting his cheeks spread. If Apple makes that much more profit per unit, that only means Apple over-charges and pads margins more than the competition, which means they could afford to sell for less, make less profit and make the consumer pay less for the tech.

Of course, if you are a share holder, that's not what you want. I'm not.

 

[Thex1138]

With...

Jawa's redesigning androids devices and selling them with no margin they are simply selling them for the cheap crap they are worth... Superseding each previous model within 6 months with a new os version it's pretty patent that the splintering and fragmented android market will eventually burn out... Ask any Jawa.

 

[balamw]

Why the defensive posts?

It's not defensive. I'm just trying to be clear on the same points you raise.

This is not Apple being asleep at the wheel while Microsoft steals their lunch.

I have no doubt that Android will be a player in a variety of devices and I already own one (original Nook). I just wonder if that will really be long-lasting or not.

I've been a Linux user since ~1992 and have enjoyed seeing Linux embedded in many devices, the TiVo being my favorite. Another example of a fairly successful device that achieved wide penetration is the Linksys WRT54G which up until V4 was Linux based and easy to root and modify. With V5 they switched to VxWorks and it stopped being as easy to modify.

Something similar may happen with Android, and you can see hints of it already beginning. Phone vendors are beginning to lock down their firmware, apps are being pulled for a variety of reasons, sideloading is being made harder, ...

So your happy that a product you pay good money for is racking in ridiculous profits vs. the competition? Unless you own apple stock... this should open your eyes.

Certainly not the consumer getting his cheeks spread. If Apple makes that much more profit per unit, that only means Apple over-charges and pads margins more than the competition, which means they could afford to sell for less, make less profit and make the consumer pay less for the tech.

Of course, if you are a share holder, that's not what you want. I'm not.

Those profits go to Apple's war chest that allows them to make volume buys for displays, memory, develop new SoCs like the A4 and A5, come up with concepts like ThunderBolt (developed with Intel) developed the Blade X-gale SSD form factor for the 2010 MBA, etc...

I don't feel reamed.

I do feel reamed with a "race to the bottom" when all I can get is crap, but it's cheap.

B

 

[ten-oak-druid]

Don't forget the xoom. Someday you'll be playing trivial pursuit on the ipad 10 and there will be a question about the supposed ipad killer from motorola that was sold from 2011 to 2013.

 

[mdlooker]

Market Dominance becomes Household name

There are 2 things of Apple I own: iPhone 4 and iPad 2.

Within this time, I've come to see that Apple isn't the "say all" company but they honestly have good products; innovative products which give unique experiences.

Apple was selling Mac's the same time PC's were in the 90's yet, PC's ruled the market. They became the household name. When it came to Internet browsing, Internet explorer became the synonymous term. I remember, I believe, they were called Netscape that was a very close competitor with web browsing to Internet explorer. But the IE was just too powerful; almost to the point on being in every PC sold on the market. Soon after, the monopoly case toward Microsoft came to be. By that time, it was too late for any type of reversal. In that era anyway. Apple makes very good PC's (Macs) and from what I can see, a more intuitive experience within a Mac. But the PC is the overall household name and is the dominant machine at this time. Mac is doing very well but it isn't there just yet in terms of market dominance.

Now fast forward to the iPad. It has become the "Internet Explorer" for the current era. Yes there are other good tablets out there and some may even offer similar experiences as the iPad, but something is missing. Typically customers will go with the flow and the flow is the household name. The Android, to me seems like the "Netscape." It may be very good and it may be even better in some fashions BUT it has to compete with that popularity and household name and that's tuff, very tuff.

Competition is good, but sometimes dominance is the inevitable. We'll see if the current era can be changed anytime soon.

 

[ehoui]

Certainly not the consumer getting his cheeks spread. If Apple makes that much more profit per unit, that only means Apple over-charges and pads margins more than the competition, which means they could afford to sell for less, make less profit and make the consumer pay less for the tech.

Of course, if you are a share holder, that's not what you want. I'm not.

Profit per unit versus share of profits -- two different things. Apple's profit margins are not extreme; they are healthy. Notice how none of the competitors are making this claim -- why? Because if they could extract those margins, they would.

I'm sure there are plenty consumer goods in your household which extract much higher profit margins.

It has become the "Internet Explorer" for the current era.

Wow, what a backhanded complement!

 

[balamw]

Profit per unit versus share of profits -- two different things. Apple's profit margins are not extreme; they are healthy. Notice how none of the competitors are making this claim -- why?

And that is how Apple came to dominate the tablet market in 2010. Selling tons of devices where they make money (a reasonable profit margin) on each sale. In order to do that they need the volume deals I was mentioning above.

They took control of the tablet market by selling a device that was good enough to be sold for $500+ when everyone expected ~$1000 and having production volumes ready to actually be able to sell them en masse before the rest of the industry had a chance to react.

This is Nintendo's model not the model used by Microsoft's Xbox division or the PS3 where initially they have to take a loss per unit to build market share. Build something that is good enough, don't get blinded by features and specs, sell it for a reasonable price and print money.

EDIT: I forgot make it widely available (see the TRU thread).

B

 

[rdowns]

Certainly not the consumer getting his cheeks spread. If Apple makes that much more profit per unit, that only means Apple over-charges and pads margins more than the competition, which means they could afford to sell for less, make less profit and make the consumer pay less for the tech.

Of course, if you are a share holder, that's not what you want. I'm not.

You never miss an opportunity to take your jabs at Apple. The fact is, their pricing is right on as they are selling all they can make. Other phones are priced similarly but they have to discount them to move them. How any Android phones have been sold vs. given away?


Disclosure: AAPL long

 

[gnasher729]

Certainly not the consumer getting his cheeks spread. If Apple makes that much more profit per unit, that only means Apple over-charges and pads margins more than the competition, which means they could afford to sell for less, make less profit and make the consumer pay less for the tech.

Of course, if you are a share holder, that's not what you want. I'm not.

Customers buy a product if the perceived value is the same or higher than the purchase price. Companies invest in design so that the perceived value is higher with equivalent hardware, and they invest in supply chain and manufacturing so that they can build equivalent hardware at the same cost. Apple is just very, very good in both areas, so they can create higher perceived value for lower cost than other companies.

If there are competing products, then customers buy the one where the difference between perceived value and purchase price is highest. Comparing the sales numbers it is quite obvious that the difference between perceived value of an iPad and the purchase price is much, much, much higher than the difference between perceived value of a Xoom and the $800 price. Apple makes that difference large by excellent design. If others can only create a large difference between perceived value and purchase price by dropping the purchase price and reducing their profits down to nothing, that isn't Apple's fault.

Take a crappy hairdresser and a good hairdresser. Both have the same cost to cut your hair, both need the same money to live. But the good hairdresser charges more, so he or she can live in a nicer place, drive a nicer car, wear nicer clothes and eat nicer food than the crappy hairdresser. Would you blame him or her?

Apple doesn't compete where they can't print money. They don't make a $199 netbook, they make a $999 device that is what the netbook should have been with the 2010 MBA. They also don't make a $19 MP3 player http://www.amazon.com/Sylvania-Video-Player-Color-Screen/dp/B004NBY4BS or countless other markets where they choose not to participate.

Reminds me, can anyone find some reliable sales numbers for portable music players? I would really like to know how many of these $19 MP3 players are sold, compared to iPods.

 

[KnightWRX]

Customers buy a product if the perceived value is the same or higher than the purchase price. Companies invest in design so that the perceived value is higher with equivalent hardware, and they invest in supply chain and manufacturing so that they can build equivalent hardware at the same cost. Apple is just very, very good in both areas, so they can create higher perceived value for lower cost than other companies.

If there are competing products, then customers buy the one where the difference between perceived value and purchase price is highest. Comparing the sales numbers it is quite obvious that the difference between perceived value of an iPad and the purchase price is much, much, much higher than the difference between perceived value of a Xoom and the $800 price. Apple makes that difference large by excellent design. If others can only create a large difference between perceived value and purchase price by dropping the purchase price and reducing their profits down to nothing, that isn't Apple's fault.

Take a crappy hairdresser and a good hairdresser. Both have the same cost to cut your hair, both need the same money to live. But the good hairdresser charges more, so he or she can live in a nicer place, drive a nicer car, wear nicer clothes and eat nicer food than the crappy hairdresser. Would you blame him or her?

Again, if you're a shareholder, be happy with that all you want. As a consumer, I always cringe at news of "Apple's market share is 4%, their profit share is 50%!". Especially on things like the iPhone which don't really offer any extra value above and beyond any Android/BB/WP7 devices.

You never miss an opportunity to take your jabs at Apple. The fact is, their pricing is right on as they are selling all they can make. Other phones are priced similarly but they have to discount them to move them. How any Android phones have been sold vs. given away?

Yeah, you should see all the jabs I launched at Apple in the MBA thread... oh wait.

I never miss an opportunity to throw jabs when jabs are deserved, no matter the company involved. I won't pull punches just because we're talking about Apple.

Those profits go to Apple's war chest that allows to horde it like a Dragon atop his treasure

Fixed that there for you. Apple is literally sitting on a pile of cash, something most Apple forum posters will call upon when it's time to "buy out" a competitor. "Apple should buy Adobe/Microsoft/Google/Any other company suing them/Any other company making a competing product" posts abound.

 

[ehoui]

ChromeOS

Just saw this story about a tablet version of ChromeOS in the works.

Details in Google's source code reveal that company programmers have begun building a tablet version of Chrome OS, its browser-based operating system.
The work isn't a surprise, given that Google created mock-ups of a Chrome OS tablet more than a year ago. But it does indicate that a tablet incarnation of Google's Web-app operating system is a near-term priority, not just an idea.
Google acknowledged the tablet version of Chrome OS but wouldn't discuss details such as when the project's first version will be done. "We are engaging in early open-source work for the tablet form factor, but we have nothing new to announce at this time," the company said in a statement.

Yikes. So will Honeycomb be the lesser of the tablet OS's, or only a temporary bridge until ChromeOS is out?

 

[*LTD*]

Speaking of which . . .

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110407/ap_on_hi_te/as_skorea_samsung

Oops.

 

[balamw]

Especially on things like the iPhone which don't really offer any extra value above and beyond any Android/BB/WP7 devices.

As gnasher729 says, it is clear that others don't perceive value the same way as you do.

The fact that companies like Apple and Nintendo are capable of selling product without wrapping dollar bills around them or only making money on the razor blades should be a good thing.

Fixed that there for you. Apple is literally sitting on a pile of cash, something most Apple forum posters will call upon when it's time to "buy out" a competitor. "Apple should buy Adobe/Microsoft/Google/Any other company suing them/Any other company making a competing product" posts abound.

Again, that's your perspective. I see them actively using that money to buy PA Semi. To buy displays from LG, flash and other components from Samsung (in a reported $8B deal), and who knows what else (cameras from Sony?), and I see the results of those volume deals when the devices are available on every street corner at reasonable prices.

B

 

[bcortens]

Not bad for a $800 dollar device, available for one carrier. I wonder what the numbers will look like after the late march wifi-only.

At least 100k people know what its like to have a really FUNCTIONAL Tablet.

I see statements like this often, however, lets consider the iPhone, launched in 2007, it sold ~4 Million units in its first "year", that is from launch to the end of 2007, and that was when no one was yet convinced that multi-touch phones were going to win. Everyone was predicting doom for it.
So unless the Xooms sales explode, which they could, it is a failure compared to the iPhone.

Ars article on 2007 iPhone sales numbers

Yet, all the same arguments to explain its failed launch, and to try and explain it away, are also factors in the original iPhone launch! It was unsubsidized, on a single carrier, and ludicrously expensive up front (though not over the length of its contract compared to similar phones).
So, if the Xoom is so good, why can't it do as the iPhone did, and do well even though it is only on one carrier and is very expensive up front?
Is it hampered in some secret way?
I mean its obviously not the media, it was hyped quite nicely by tech blogs and other sites predicting Apple would have trouble keeping up with Honeycomb.
So how is a tablet that everyone predicted would succeed not outselling the original iPhone that everyone predicted doom and gloom for?

 

[kdarling]

No matter what Apple does lately or how much they sell or how good the forecasts are for sales Apple Stock continues it quick downward slide. What the HELL!! I just do not understand it ... Specially while Google stock continues to climb at an incredible pace week, after week, after week..

It's probably because of the Nasdaq rebalancing.

 

[bcortens]

It's funny because appletards tend to speak about numbers in different ways.

When it's related to Macs, they say they sell less than PCs but they're still much better.
When it's related to tablets, they say the iPad sells more because it's better.

So, I'm under the impression that the iPad is just like a "PC-like" market, which everyone buys because someone told it's cheaper and better.

That's what appletards say about PCs, isn't that? Something like an underground market that avoids people from knowing the "real quality" of Macs.

Ps: lol.

Its more subtle than that, infrastructure matters.
The iPad actually could be getting a boost that is unwarranted by its design.
The app store is that boost, just as Windows apps are that boost for WinPCs.
Macs are also priced well above the average PC price, so if you look at only PCs over $1000 apple does very very well. However this is because apple doesn't think they can build a Mac with acceptable specs and maintain margins at a lower price, unfortunate I know.
However with the iPad apple is taking smaller margins and the competitors aren't taking smaller margins. If the PC were to play out, you would have to be able to get a android tablet with a similarly good (though not as good) user experience for a lot less than an iPad. This, at least so far, isn't the case.
If equivalently priced, apple products tend to win, but apple doesn't compete in market prices outside of the ones it chooses to, because of this if the markets average selling price moves away from where apple is happy they can be outmanoeuvred, as they were in the PC space and again in the smartphone space.

 

[balamw]

However with the iPad apple is taking smaller margins and the competitors aren't taking smaller margins.

I don't see any evidence of that. I think Apple is keeping margins as high as they typically do, but keeping the BOM cost down via two major things: 1) Volume 2) A minimalist feature set.

I also think that it's the competitors that have to sacrifice margin in order to compete.

This is how Apple is raking in the reported 51% of the profits for worldwide smartphone sales while only selling 4% of the phones. I suspect the numbers will be similar for tablets.

B

 

[Xtremehkr]

That's a spectacular fail.

The more surprising observation about the success of the iPod, iPhone, and iPad is that Geeks are no longer deciding which technology products become popular.

Geeks hate all three of those products and they are all incredibly successful.

I think this one of the main reasons why they hate Steve Jobs so much, given that SJ doesn't design Apple products to meet their wants.

 

[bcortens]

I don't see any evidence of that. I think Apple is keeping margins as high as they typically do, but keeping the BOM cost down via two major things: 1) Volume 2) A minimalist feature set.

I also think that it's the competitors that have to sacrifice margin in order to compete.

This is how Apple is raking in the reported 51% of the profits for worldwide smartphone sales while only selling 4% of the phones. I suspect the numbers will be similar for tablets.

B

I may be misremembering, I'll have to re-watch the original iPad introduction but I thought steve said something about taking a margin cut when introducing the $499 price point? If I am misremembering that however then competitors should already be easily out-pricing the iPad though as you said, volume helps keep costs down, and competitors can't match that

 

[georgethomas]

motorola ought to do more marketing cant stand to see them losing out in the competition!

 

[balamw]

volume helps keep costs down, and competitors can't match that

Apparently it also keeps competitors out of the market, at least for a while.

https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12347370#post12347370

EDIT: Now that you mention it I do recall something about adjusting margins from one of the financial conference calls.

B

 

[KnightWRX]

As gnasher729 says, it is clear that others don't perceive value the same way as you do.

Yes, I do realise that I should start caring about marketing hype. You know. "I want an iPad" and not "I want a tablet device" and such stuff. That is about the only added value the iDevices bring.

 

[ehoui]

Yes, I do realise that I should start caring about marketing hype. You know. "I want an iPad" and not "I want a tablet device" and such stuff. That is about the only added value the iDevices bring.

Yes, ignoring

• Applications
• Media Libraries
• Accessories
• Prior experience with said devices
• Word of mouth
• Reviews
• It works

It's completely unreasonable for someone to choose an iPad because it is an iPad.

And ignoring,

• Tepid sales
• Missed but promised features
• Mixed user reviews
• Price
• A rough (but improving) OS
• Recommendations to wait for a more polished honeycomb release

The Xoom is a wonderful device that consumers should buy now.

And ignoring

• Small screen area
• Missed and laggy responses to touches
• Poor application performance
• Quirky rooted OS

The Nook Color is a wonderfully cheap tablet to be had by all.

 

[balamw]

Yes, I do realise that I should start caring about marketing hype. You know. "I want an iPad" and not "I want a tablet device" and such stuff. That is about the only added value the iDevices bring.

As others have already pointed out, a tablet that already runs all the apps you have bought for your iDevices and is compatible with iTunes DRM (if you still have any DRMed audio or video content from iTunes) and that syncs just like your iPod is added value to everyone but you.

They may be handcuffs, but they're quite comfortable for me.

B