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

[Coldsmoke]

I am amazed....the people in these forums will debate anything just for the sake of blathering and anonymously attacking others.

Despite all the pissing and moaning about Android versus IOS, the iPad versus the Xoom, the fact is that people like me (and likely everyone else in this forum) buy the things we want for the reasons that are important to us. Its called choice.
Does anyone want to debate the intrinsic value of a salami sandwich? You'll end up at the same place as this forum on the Xoom versus iPad.... some like salami, some don't. The people who do think those who don't are assheads and visa versa.

So why does everyone have to get so pissy about it. Doing so does nothing more than tank your integrity and credibility. Just because I bought an iPad doesn't inherently mean its better than the Xoom. It means it was a better choice for me. Period. Life will go on.

 

[balamw]

Proves my point, your argument that Apple's better profits enable them to support products longer is moot in the light that they don't support them any longer than the less profitable Android device vendors. So their "profit" share being bigger in this instance doesn't matter to normal consumers.

I can still take my iPhone 3G to an Apple Store and get support. My Apple Care is still in effect. They are still in that business. It runs plenty of newly release apps. That's what I was referring to and is still true.

Wait, OS X is useful and it is Unix... I don't quite get what you're trying to say here.

You are not a typical consumer, and neither am I.

My iMac shipped with OS X 10.4, I've upgraded it to 10.5 and 10.6. It does as much or more as it did the day I bought it without feeling sluggish. It hasn't been "repurposed" in any way. It was bought as the kids' computer, and it remains the kids' computer.

When my Time Capsule power supply failed out of warranty, like so many, I took it to the Apple Store and was offered an in-store, free, swap. Ultimately, they sent me a replacement by mail and told me to keep the old one.

Contrast that with my 2010 HP Mediasmart EX490 server. just over a year later and I'm seriously considering installing and running Unbuntu on the darn thing. Of course I (as a geek) have that option, other less tech savvy users may not. They'd toss it and move to the latest NAS platform. HP's support was already minimal, but now that they exited this market that proved less than ideally profitable to them, it's even worse.

Let's see how Cisco supports Flip customers now that they've exited that business.

B

 

[KnightWRX]

I can still take my iPhone 3G to an Apple Store and get support. My Apple Care is still in effect. They are still in that business. It runs plenty of newly release apps. That's what I was referring to and is still true.

Same goes for any HTC, Motorola and other phones still under warranty or not. Again, not an actual consumer benefit of increased profit share.

My iMac shipped with OS X 10.4, I've upgraded it to 10.5 and 10.6. It does as much or more as it did the day I bought it without feeling sluggish. It hasn't been "repurposed" in any way. It was bought as the kids' computer, and it remains the kids' computer.

Same for my Pentium II. Always ran Linux on it and it hasn't really been repurposed so much as I don't feel inclined to use it as a desktop anymore. It was my only computer until I got a laptop. The portability of the laptop was what made me finally "upgrade" it, not any kind of sluggishness either. It still runs X11 fine and still runs Enlightenment DR16, software that is still being updated to this day if I so wish to, but since I have no need for that anymore, it doesn't.

And while you might not feel you're a consumer, I feel that I am. Not every consumer is equal but we still very much are. If not for us niche buyers, Apple would have died in the 90s. Niche consumers are still consumers.

Let's see how Cisco supports Flip customers now that they've exited that business.

Let's see how well Apple supports Xserve customers... oh wait, they never quite did.

 

[balamw]

Let's see how well Apple supports Xserve customers... oh wait, they never quite did.

Touché. I'll grant you that point, even though Xserves were never consumer products intended for the mass market. (EDIT: Actually, in a way that also goes to my point. Xserve was never a real money maker for Apple, thus it lost their attention and their support.)

My point however is that it's not the profits themselves that are beneficial, but the things they allow Apple to do. Take risks. Having a widespread first-party retail and support presence for example. (The fact that they, independent of the hardware business itself, are consistently among most lucrative in terms of revenue/square foot in retail inspires confidence that they will stay in business.)

Getting support for you HTC or Moto handset will generally either entail shipment to a first-party support location or dealing with a third-party whose attention and loyalties are split. The third-party middleman want to please you, the consumer, but they only have so much latitude in being able to help you and they also generally represent other phone manufacturers as well. If you're lucky you'll get someone who has a clue, but you might Most likely this still ends up being shipment to a first-party support location. The last time I was having trouble with my Nokia dumbphone, the best the provider could do was offer me an early upgrade.

Apple can just pull a fresh device from stock and many times even transfer your data over before they send you on your merry way with the replacement.

How and where can you get that level of on-site service with an HTC, Moto, Samsung, LG, Nokia, etc... phone?

B

 

[Dbrown]

Except that we are talking about the subsidized smartphone market. Apple isn't "gouging" consumers. The iPhone costs most consumers the same as any other high end smartphone. If anything, Apple is "gouging" the carriers.

Of course apple is gouging consumers. It's by apple's design that iphone 4 is still $200. The equivalent smartphone to iphone 4 is a galaxy S phone, which have been given away for free for a while now. Hell even motorola atrix which has better hardware than an iphone 4 can be had for $100, and I've seen it on sale for $50.

This is the real answer to the original question of the day. Profitability does matter to consumers, especially considering the reality of vendor lock in.

Profitability matter to the consumer only in that profitable companies will stick around in the future. Companies that make huge profits are doing so off the backs of consumers who dont realize they're overpaying for product. Obviously apple is a good example. Microsoft and oil companies too.

 

[BaldiMac]

Of course apple is gouging consumers. It's by apple's design that iphone 4 is still $200. The equivalent smartphone to iphone 4 is a galaxy S phone, which have been given away for free for a while now.

There are 5 smartphones on Verizon's site right now for $199 or more. Including the Galaxy S.

And "gouging" is just a silly term for any minor price differences considering the two year contract.

Hell even motorola atrix which has better hardware than an iphone 4 can be had for $100, and I've seen it on sale for $50

Amazingly, the value in a device is not only related to the hardware.

Profitability matter to the consumer only in that profitable companies will stick around in the future.

And in the investment that profitable companies make in the platform.

Companies that make huge profits are doing so off the backs of consumers who dont realize they're overpaying for product.

Overpaying? Obviously, the market has determined the price of the iPhone to be pretty fair.

Obviously apple is a good example. Microsoft and oil companies too.

I guess it's rather telling that your examples would include two companies with monopoly control of their respective markets. Something Apple does not have in the smartphone market.

 

[bpaluzzi]

Of course apple is gouging consumers. It's by apple's design that iphone 4 is still $200. The equivalent smartphone to iphone 4 is a galaxy S phone, which have been given away for free for a while now. Hell even motorola atrix which has better hardware than an iphone 4 can be had for $100, and I've seen it on sale for $50.

Are you naive enough to think Samsung / Motorola are pricing those phones cheaply to benefit the customer? Those price points are because NOBODY WANTS THOSE PHONES. If they could sell them at higher prices, they would.

 

[linux2mac]

Yet another reason to stay away from Android. It's clear that Apple is way ahead of the game and will stay there. All these other garbage copy cat tablets are a joke.

Adobe Warns of Major Flash 10.2 Expolit for Android, Desktops; iOS Users Unaffected
http://macdailynews.com/2011/04/12/...m_campaign=Feed:+wordpress/xhfA+(MacDailyNews)

 

[steadysignal]

This can't be right. MR posters have assured me that the Xoom is better than the iPad. I mean, if you can't trust MR posters, whom can you trust?

you could trust yourself, no?

 

[Dbrown]

t

There are 5 smartphones on Verizon's site right now for $199 or more. Including the Galaxy S.

And those same smartphones can be had for $0 at places like amazon or best buy. Apple doesnt ever allow resellers to sell iphones at a discount.

And "gouging" is just a silly term for any minor price differences considering the two year contract.

Well according to posters here, that "minor price difference" is the reason why android is ahead of iphone in market share in the US.

Amazingly, the value in a device is not only related to the hardware.

I never said it was. But a good portion of it is.

And in the investment that profitable companies make in the platform.

Great I'm all for that. After all the investment of profits, apple still has made obscene profits.

Overpaying? Obviously, the market has determined the price of the iPhone to be pretty fair.

And how do you determine that? Just because people pay it? Does that mean my $65 parking ticket is fair price too just because I paid it? Every cellphone is eventually given away for free or discounted. Iphones never are. So yes people are in fact overpaying.

I guess it's rather telling that your examples would include two companies with monopoly control of their respective markets. Something Apple does not have in the smartphone market.

So what? Apple is a very greedy corporation. Which makes sense since the CEO is a scrooge.

 

[Dbrown]

Are you naive enough to think Samsung / Motorola are pricing those phones cheaply to benefit the customer? Those price points are because NOBODY WANTS THOSE PHONES. If they could sell them at higher prices, they would.

You're missing the point. You never see iphones discounted because Apple won't let resellers sell them at a discount. If iphones were sold like every other single phone then it would be sold at places like amazon for free by now.

 

[BaldiMac]

And those same smartphones can be had for $0 at places like amazon or best buy. Apple doesnt ever allow resellers to sell iphones at a discount.

So? I was just pointing out that competing smartphones sell for a comparable amount.

That "minor price difference" is the reason why android is ahead of iphone in market share in the US.

Which is exactly how it should be in a free market! No "gouging," just different pricing strategies.

I never said it was. But a good portion of it is.

I think you are confused how this whole thing works.

Great I'm all for that. After all the investment of profits, apple still has made obscene profits.

That would be the goal.

And how do you determine that? Just because people pay it? Does that mean my $65 parking ticket is fair too just because I paid it? Every cellphone is eventually given away for free or discounted. Iphones never are. So yes people are in fact overpaying.

It's just silly to compare a parking ticket, a punitive fee, to a mutually agreed to purchase agreement.

But in a free market, the value of a product is actually determined by the amount people are willing to pay for it. Other phones are cheaper because they are not worth as much on the free market. Either because of the quality of the phone or excessive supply.

So what? Apple is a very greedy corporation. Which makes sense since the CEO is a scrooge.

So what? Microsoft and Oil companies don't compete in a free market, because their monopoly power grants them unreasonable control of the market. Unlike Apple.

I've never understood calling a corporation greedy. Kinda like calling a fish wet.

 

[silentnite]

That's a slap in the face because this xoom tablet was suppose to be the ipad killer. The one thing I can say I'm sure of is the price point is killing the sales of the xoom. Who has money to spend $800 on a tablet when you can get something just as nice or better for almost half that price. Unless your rich and don't mind blowing your cash. Time for Motorola to come down off that high horse.

 

[balamw]

You never see iphones discounted because Apple won't let resellers sell them at a discount.

Apple won't let retailers discount iPhones because it devalues the perceived value of the product.

Once you set the expectation that phones should be free or BOGO it has a chilling effect on sales without such promotions and makes the perceived value of the phone $0. This threatens their pricing strategy and ultimately their business model.

Apple tried so hard to resist this, initially not even letting the provider provide their usual hardware subsidy in exchange for a contract. (Though somehow the contract was still required. )

I'm even surprised that they keep the $49 3GS deal with AT&T around.

B

 

[rjohnstone]

That's a slap in the face because this xoom tablet was suppose to be the ipad killer. The one thing I can say I'm sure of is the price point is killing the sales of the xoom. Who has money to spend $800 on a tablet when you can get something just as nice or better for almost half that price. Unless your rich and don't mind blowing your cash. Time for Motorola to come down off that high horse.

Motorola never made that claim.
Analysts love to tack on the "iPad killer" or "iPhone killer" monicker to boost click traffic.

The failure with the Xoom is it's price and the BS steps one has to go through to activate WiFi.

The biggest reason for lack luster sales besides pricing, was making it a Verizon only model. You can't even activate WiFi unless you buy one month of service from Verizon.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Motorola has great ideas, just piss poor foresight and execution.

 

[LagunaSol]

Great I'm all for that. After all the investment of profits, apple still has made obscene profits.

You should see Microsoft's profit margin on Office and Windows.

 

[aristobrat]

Apple doesnt ever allow resellers to sell iphones at a discount.

RadioShack takes $50 off Apple’s iPhone 4 and 3GS

 

[DeathChill]

Motorola never made that claim.
Analysts love to tack on the "iPad killer" or "iPhone killer" monicker to boost click traffic.

The failure with the Xoom is it's price and the BS steps one has to go through to activate WiFi.

The biggest reason for lack luster sales besides pricing, was making it a Verizon only model. You can't even activate WiFi unless you buy one month of service from Verizon.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.

Motorola has great ideas, just piss poor foresight and execution.

What? Motorola took shots at the iPad with it's teasers and Super Bowl commercial. They were clearly aiming to be an iPad killer.

 

[LagunaSol]

What? Motorola took shots at the iPad with it's teasers and Super Bowl commercial. They were clearly aiming to be an iPad killer.

They were just kidding.

 

[rjohnstone]

What? Motorola took shots at the iPad with it's teasers and Super Bowl commercial. They were clearly aiming to be an iPad killer.

Everyone takes pot shots at the market leader's flaws.
But nowhere in their advertising did they even remotely make such a claim as being an "iPad killer".

Even Moto execs new the Xoom couldn't kill the iPad.
Nothing will for a long time. They're just hoping to get a taste of the pie.

If they were serious about going after the iPad, the price would have been cheaper, not more expensive and they would have put out at least two or three versions. (WiFi Only and maybe one or two carrier versions).

Samsung finally got a clue. Let's see if others do too.

 

[KnightWRX]

they would have put out at least two or three versions. (WiFi Only and maybe one or two carrier versions).

They did, the Wi-fi only model started shipping late march for 599$ :

http://www.amazon.com/MOTOROLA-XOOM-Android-Tablet-Wi-Fi/dp/B0045FM6SU

That's with 32 GB of storage, so it's the same price as the iPad 32GB Wi-fi. However, it does allow extra storage expansion, so it makes it quite competitive on that front. However, Motorola needs to climb the hype hill Apple has made with the iPad, where people don't actually want tablets to run tasks, they simply want an iPad.

 

[kdarling]

You're missing the point. You never see iphones discounted because Apple won't let resellers sell them at a discount.

iPhones have been free on contract in Germany, the UK, Spain and other places for years.

That's a lot better deal than a BOGO two-person contract requirement.

Apple won't let retailers discount iPhones because it devalues the perceived value of the product.

But it sure helps the adoption rate. For example, the iPhone didn't do well at all in Japan until it became free on contract. Then the number of users jumped by millions.

I'm even surprised that they keep the $49 3GS deal with AT&T around.

$50 gets people initiated for later. Of course, fanboys claim it's desperation if other companies lower their price like that.

A lot of such arguments are modified by the simple fact that Apple does indeed allow their phone to go for deep discounts or free.

The biggest reason for lack luster (Xoom) sales besides pricing, was making it a Verizon only model. You can't even activate WiFi unless you buy one month of service from Verizon.

Nope. It turned out that was not required after all.

 

[Dbrown]

But in a free market, the value of a product is actually determined by the amount people are willing to pay for it. Other phones are cheaper because they are not worth as much on the free market. Either because of the quality of the phone or excessive supply.

Other phones are cheaper because the manufacturer doesnt place restrictions on how they can be sold. If apple let resellers sell iphones for whatever they wanted to sell them for they would be discounte exactly like every other on the market. So, no its not a free market.

I've never understood calling a corporation greedy. Kinda like calling a fish wet.

Apple doesnt contribute to any charities. Neither does Steve Jobs. That's pretty greedy considering how rich both of them are.

 

[Dbrown]

You should see Microsoft's profit margin on Office and Windows.

Microsoft is ripping people off too.

 

[balamw]

$50 gets people initiated for later. Of course, fanboys claim it's desperation if other companies lower their price like that.

Sure, it's the crack dealer's "first taste is free" business model, and I'm sure a concession to AT&T to differentiate them from VZ. That said, it's day old bread and is different from selling your flagship model as free or BOGO.

Ultimately the goal of any company (especially a publicly held one) is to maximize both revenue and profit for their shareholders. If that means that they have to offer discounts or incentives, they will. If they don't have to, they won't. This will depend on the business practices of the carriers they deal with as well as the competition.

Apple certainly caved quickly enough in the US on allowing for the usual carrier hardware subsidy model. If their sales numbers drop below their targets I fully expect them to find a different way to make that up with BOGO deals, deep discounts, or even package deals. Buy a Mac and get a "free" iPhone 3GS...

B