Slashdot Mirror
Apple Releases Basic iPod Touch, Possibly Foreshadowing iPhone Strategy
redletterdave writes "While the new 16 GB iPod Touch released Thursday features the same 4-inch Retina display and dual-core A5 processor as its other variants, the newest, cheapest iPod Touch lacks a rear camera and comes in just two colors black and silver. Apple is reportedly pursuing a similar strategy with the iPhone, as reports from the past several months have pointed to development of a 'low-cost iPhone' with basic features to be sold at a lower price point."
The 4th generation 8 GB iPod Touch was also $229, but did have both cameras. They weren't as high-quality as their iPhone counterparts, but still.
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Apple's iPod lineup keeps getting stranger year after year.
First the strange design changes for the nano (went from being basically a better mini to a tiny squashed one, back to being tall, then adding a camera, then taking away the camera, and video playback adding a touchscreen and making it squashed, now making it look like a smaller iPod touch) and now the removal of one of the cameras on the touch for the same price-point as one -with- the cameras (smaller storage on the previous generation, but with flash becoming cheaper and cheaper every year that should be expected)
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Except that Apple has historically never been one to sacrifice profit/(perceptions of) quality for marketshare.
Aside from the iPod and the iPhone, Apple has never really been the most used. Certainly they have historically been in some niche applications (graphic design and publishing come to mind) but they've never been the "mainstream" computer brand. They've managed to always keep a solid enough marketshare to make sure that they get supported, but aside from the iPhone and iPod, they've historically never been number one, nor seemed to have any interest in total marketshare domination.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Another way to look at this is that Apple has always historically pursued maximum profits and market share but adopted different strategies in light of the practicalities of specific markets. As an underdog in the PC market, quality was a differentiator to attract whatever market share was possible, realizing that being a dominant volume seller was not possible. As the dominant vendor in the smartphone space but with eroding market share, Apple is decreasing quality and cost to maintain market share and profit (although not margins). I think this is the more accurate portrayal of Apple, since I doubt they would be willing to blindly sacrifice profit in the name of quality or aesthetics.
Start giving back some of that money, Apple.
I know it didn't get reported on Slashdot, but still, you're kidding, right? I mean, it was big news and only happened a few weeks ago.
Apple is currently engaging in the largest single share repurchase program in history , which will put $60B USD into their investors' pockets by the end of 2015. And that's on top of the $11B/year they're paying out in dividends already.
All told, they're giving back $100B by the end of 2015, which is over 2/3 of what they have in the bank right now. So, either you were unaware of that, or you think that their doing so is not a big enough step, in which case I have to ask: what would be sufficient?
As for the gravy train being over, by what metric? Their sales certainly aren't growing at the rate that Android's are, but by any measure, they are still massively successful. Their rate of sale has continued to grow incredibly fast, and their profits in PCs and mobile devices represent either a plurality or majority in each of those markets.
The IRC actually allows you to deduct foreign taxes from the taxes you owe. The thing is, corporate taxes are much lower in other parts of the world, so what you said is practically true even though it's not actually true at all.
no matter what they do with their money they will keep losing market share if they keep making stupid decisions.
Even if they make good decisions, they'll still lose market share. Their problem isn't that they're getting stupid, it's that everyone else is getting smart.
Phones like the HTC One are beautifully made and elegantly designed. Jelly Bean is slick, comfortable and easy to use. Other manufacturers are leapfrogging a long way past Apple's current standards, and doing it at a lower cost. Look at Lenovo's latest:
The [Lenovo K900] sports a 5.5-inch display with a 1080 x 1920p resolution with a pixel density of 400ppi. Lenovo K900 is powered by the latest Intel Atom Clover Trail+ processor clocked at 2 GHz, alongside 2 GB of RAM. Furthermore, the device comes with a 13 megapixel Sony Exmor BSI rear camera and a 2 megapixel front-facing shooter.
http://www.gsmarena.com/lenovo_k900_now_available_in_china_priced_at_536-news-6062.php
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
Can we please stop pretending that "market share" means "winning?" http://techpinions.com/androids-market-share-is-literally-a-joke/16709
"They paid taxes in the nations they made the money in. "
No.
Apple may have "deliberately or accidentally" misled Australians about how it sets prices here and should "correct the record or provide further detail", a Labor backbencher has demanded.
Backbencher Ed Husic, who has taken a leading role in an Australian parliamentary committee into IT pricing, said shock revelations from a US Senate committee raised concerns "the Australian inquiry has been misled, either deliberately or accidentally".
"I'd call on Apple Australia to either correct the record or provide further detail as to the way it actually prices its products for Australian consumers," Husic told the House of Representatives.
Husic said people may have "raised an eyebrow" at reports that Apple generated $6bn in revenue in Australia but "paid only $40m in tax – apparently because it racked up $5.5bn in costs", but "their eyes would've popped out" at the US revelations Apple had set up an offshore subsidiary that earned $30bn income but had apparently paid no tax to any government for five years.
And the two committee investigations were related, because Apple's complicated international structure has an impact on the prices paid for Apple products for Australians.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/may/28/australian-companies-forced-disclose-tax
Note that the "$5.5bn in costs" was mostly fees paid by the Australian branch to the offshore subsidiary. Basically a way to inflate prices and pump money out of the region.
Apple is currently engaging in the largest single share repurchase program in history [macrumors.com], which will put $60B USD into their investors' pockets by the end of 2015.
Apple financed the repurchase program by selling 17 billion dollars worth of short, medium and long term bonds. It was widely thought that this method was chosen, rather than repatriating cash held overseas, to avoid depletion of onshore cash reserves while at the same time further delaying the payment of income taxes on profits held overseas. It's interesting question whether or not Apple would be able to pay the bond coupons using that cash held overseas without incurring a tax liability. I presume that they wouldn't be able to, but even if they had to pay the coupons out of current after tax income the fact that a huge amount of cash remains on the balance sheet, albeit overseas and subject to tax if ever repatriated, strengthens Apple's financial situation vis-a-vis financing the share repurchase program entirely with cash.