Seeking Alpha

More on Apple: 1) KGI Securities' Ming-Chi Kuo, an accurate source of iPhone 5 and iPad Mini...

More on Apple: 1) KGI Securities' Ming-Chi Kuo, an accurate source of iPhone 5 and iPad Mini scoops last year, claims the 5th-gen regular iPad will be "significantly lighter and slimmer" than the 4th-gen model. But he doesn't see it arriving until Q3, around the same time as a new iPad Mini and an iPhone 5S. An Apple TV refresh is forecast for Q1, and a MacBook Air refresh for Q2. 2) Apple has begun offering 2-year installment plans to Chinese iPhone/MacBook buyers. The 16GB iPhone 5 currently goes for $840 unsubsidized in China.
Comments (30)
  • Julius Ferraro
    , contributor
    Comments (495) | Send Message
     
    WOW SIGNIFICANTLY lighter and thinner!!! Wasn't expecting that this year. Thanks Ming Chi Kuo for your amazing claims. Was expecting heavier and bigger honestly...
    16 Jan 2013, 06:26 PM Reply Like
  • SA Editor Eric Jhonsa
    , contributor
    Comments (738) | Send Message
     
    Hate to get in the way of your sarcasm, but the third and fourth-gen iPads are actually thicker and heavier than the iPad 2. Apple could just as easily leave the form factor the same if they wanted to increase the battery size or add some other functionality.
    16 Jan 2013, 06:31 PM Reply Like
  • Julius Ferraro
    , contributor
    Comments (495) | Send Message
     
    Yep i know the fourth gen ipads were heavier however after releasing new form factors for both the iphone and imac one is to expect the ipad is next.

     

    This analysts claim is almost as insightful as me claiming there will be a new iphone this year based on my connections to the supply chains as well as my crystal ball
    16 Jan 2013, 06:58 PM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (963) | Send Message
     
    Good point. Also again, an Apple bear is the first to post a response as usual. It's like they wait around to punce as soon as an article is posted.
    17 Jan 2013, 09:53 AM Reply Like
  • losmarinos
    , contributor
    Comments (24) | Send Message
     
    Apple should also make the iPad Mini into a phone
    16 Jan 2013, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (2994) | Send Message
     
    yeah, so they can continue to react to the market rather than create it like they used to
    16 Jan 2013, 06:44 PM Reply Like
  • Mohamed Abdirahman
    , contributor
    Comments (106) | Send Message
     
    How would people talk on that ;) The mini is quite wide so not quite easy to hold in one hand. Besides being huge to cover the whole face ;)
    16 Jan 2013, 06:46 PM Reply Like
  • JohnBinTN
    , contributor
    Comments (3414) | Send Message
     
    Make it so you wear it like headphones, and the display hangs in front of your face like a dangler fish thingamabob.
    16 Jan 2013, 07:03 PM Reply Like
  • ManoLive
    , contributor
    Comments (437) | Send Message
     
    Reacting to the market is better than not reacting to it at all. Can't wait for bigger screen. And how about a phablet? They can react, and do it better. Samsung is stealing market share, and apple better d'amn well react.
    16 Jan 2013, 07:51 PM Reply Like
  • ManoLive
    , contributor
    Comments (437) | Send Message
     
    Why not just put it in your shoe, like Maxwell Smart? That way, it's out of sight when you're not using it, and your foot can get some fresh air every once in awhile.
    16 Jan 2013, 07:53 PM Reply Like
  • berylrb
    , contributor
    Comments (2178) | Send Message
     
    how would that fit in my $200 jeans?
    16 Jan 2013, 08:05 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (2994) | Send Message
     
    "Reacting to the market is better than not reacting to it at all. Can't wait for bigger screen. And how about a phablet? They can react, and do it better. Samsung is stealing market share, and apple better d'amn well react."

     

    It's funny how people are calling on AAPL to copy trends like the "Phablet" and the "mini tablet" when Steve Jobs said it was pointless to make a tablet smaller than 10" and everyone laughed at Samsung when they released the Galaxy Note (and then went on to even bigger successes with the GN2)
    16 Jan 2013, 08:36 PM Reply Like
  • JG2000
    , contributor
    Comments (371) | Send Message
     
    This is a worthy idea for Apple to consider. For those people who are a little slow...you would use a bluetooth headset primarily unless as a speakerphone (i.e. no, you probably don't want to hold a giant ham sandwich up to your head although Samsung seems to be heading there).

     

    Most of the hardware is already there in the 4G versions -- mainly add a voice codec and a little sim/phone logic. This would allow Apple to attack the larger phone trend from the "large" side. Bonus points if you could move your phone activation between your iphone & iPad in a mutually exclusive way in order to have one phone number and get billed for just one phone number (if I was a carrier I'd like to support such a feature since I would likely get even more data use and $$$). There are some technical hurdles to do the multiple-device support without tethering but it could be worth a look.
    16 Jan 2013, 08:57 PM Reply Like
  • rperson
    , contributor
    Comments (367) | Send Message
     
    Trolling again Chopster?
    16 Jan 2013, 09:20 PM Reply Like
  • chopchop0
    , contributor
    Comments (2994) | Send Message
     
    It's not trolling when it's true
    16 Jan 2013, 09:36 PM Reply Like
  • XRTrader
    , contributor
    Comments (609) | Send Message
     
    It's also funny how people predicted the iPad would be a total failure. It's funny how the day after AAPL announced the iPhone I read an article titled : "What Does AAPL know about Making Phones?"

     

    What's the point of your comment? Yes, everyone copied AAPL's tablet trend. Yes, everyone copied the RIMM-inspired smartphone trend. It's ok for AAPL to copy the Phablet. Not every Apple idea has to be groundbreaking. They can do into a pre-existing space and do it better.

     

    That's what companies do. They expand.
    16 Jan 2013, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • redponydoc
    , contributor
    Comments (363) | Send Message
     
    And you could easily re-boot it.
    16 Jan 2013, 11:14 PM Reply Like
  • redponydoc
    , contributor
    Comments (363) | Send Message
     
    One leg at a time.
    16 Jan 2013, 11:15 PM Reply Like
  • Jack Baker
    , contributor
    Comments (871) | Send Message
     
    I see, so does that mean that Samsung stops at 5" on their phones, or pizza boxes as some call them? Or, do they go with the Gillette model and keep added another "blade" until it just seems preposterous?
    17 Jan 2013, 12:45 AM Reply Like
  • rocback
    , contributor
    Comments (963) | Send Message
     
    Chopchop sure does post a lot on Apple sites for someone who doesn't own any stock. Agenda? Hmmmmm....
    19 Jan 2013, 01:30 PM Reply Like
  • WhitneyB
    , contributor
    Comments (181) | Send Message
     
    The idea of selling the unsubsidized phone on installments is brilliant; really bridges the gap between quality and affordability that has drawn such angst and criticism.
    16 Jan 2013, 09:01 PM Reply Like
  • Michael O'Neill
    , contributor
    Comments (145) | Send Message
     
    Apple always dominate the premium market first. Whether it be iPad, iPhone, iPod, or MacBooks.

     

    These people are the business leaders and decision makers - the influencers. The compition then copy Apple and can only sell on price (i.e Samsung in Smartphones). Apple then release lower priced versions allowing all those (the majority of people) who want an Apple product affordable and crush the market who then have no where else to go. Apple did this with the iPod (music player market), are doing it now with the iPad (tablet market) and will soon do it with the iPhone (smartphone market).

     

    The strategy works extremely well, and clearly needs to be rolled out at different times across the world. It is clear though they are doing a masterful job.

     

    It should be exciting to see the new range of iPhones (different screens sizes and colours). I vote for a $2,000 titanium model too as many millions of Apples premium customs would buy it.

     

    It will also be very interesting to see how Apples must talked about iTV will shake up the TV market. They do not have to be market leaders, but for sure they will start out with a $2,000 - $3,000 product with huge margins and capture the premium end of the market. Then after $50bn (according to IDC) annual sales and worldwide rollout - via it's own super efficient distribution channels in in stores and web, they will bring out lower cost options as well.

     

    Ask yourself the question. Would you buy a kindle?, a google, Samsung or even a Facebook phone? How about a Microsoft TV. Clearly the answer is no. Survey after survey confirms the world wants Apple products, with the only barrier to entry being price.

     

    Looking at ALL THE FACTS is it possible to be anything other than LONG APPLE.
    16 Jan 2013, 11:07 PM Reply Like
  • Mohamed Abdirahman
    , contributor
    Comments (106) | Send Message
     
    Who would buy a $2000 iPhone just because it is made of titanium? Certainly not millions ;)

     

    The competition (Samsung) does not only compete in price. Yes, Samsung has loads of different models which they sell at lower prices (mainly in emerging markets). But the models that compete with the iPhone is not about price. The Galaxy S3 is close in price to the iPhone and the Note is actually more expensive than Apple's iPhones.

     

    As for TV, I doubt that Apple will enter the TV market with an actual TV panel anytime soon. More likely scenario is improved Apple TVs (the little box). There is hardly any meaningful thing that Apple could bring to the table in TV that hasn't been done yet. Check out the latest TVs from the CES. Smart TVs already have voice and motion control, apps, etc etc. If the only improvement they can make is in UI, there is really no need to sell a TV panel. Apple TV would be affordable (probably carry a healthy margin) and perhaps move great volumes if it is marketed nicely.

     

    Also "retina" like capabilities for TVs already exist (if that would be a differentiator for iTVs) they are called UHTVs and most of the big TV manufacturers introduced them this year. Problem is, they are extremely expensive, around $25,000 per unit. If Apple wanted to go that line you would need to add another 20% for the brand and that would set you back $30,000. Surely not a pricetag to move million units. Surely prices of UHTV panels will come down, but I think that it won't be another 5 years till they start becoming mainstream.
    17 Jan 2013, 07:00 AM Reply Like
  • chongkim74
    , contributor
    Comments (588) | Send Message
     
    Thank for the info...
    Next iPad has to be better than just lighter and faster...
    Im banking on the emerging markets and Apple TV for people who are not tech tech savvy.
    Liquidmetal debut perhaps with the iphone 5s..crossing my fingers.
    16 Jan 2013, 11:13 PM Reply Like
  • pedramphp
    , contributor
    Comment (1) | Send Message
     
    IS really apple coming with a TV in the first quarter ?!
    17 Jan 2013, 04:42 AM Reply Like
  • Michael O'Neill
    , contributor
    Comments (145) | Send Message
     
    Mohamed,

     

    When Apple first announced the price of the iPhone it was 200%-300% more expensive than any other phones out there. It proved to be an immediate hit.

     

    At Vodafone everyone used to get a free phone on a 1 year £9.95 or £19.95 a month contract. Apple changed that to 24 months contracts at £39.95, plus £195 on the table too. That is some 600% to 1000% higher then level of price than before.

     

    The thing is the analysts said no one would spend that much.

     

    If Apple brought out a premium iPhone at $2,000, with sapphire crystal glass, titanium case, perhaps special speakers it would sell in droves. It would become a must have and exclusive item.

     

    Gucci have been selling $400 belts for years, even when you can buy one for $20.

     

    The phone has clearly become a status system. An Apple is the top of the tree.

     

    Samsung do sell on price, the have very little brand value, and are chosen by those who find the iPhone too expensive. There top of the line Galaxy S III is $400 - $600 (no contract) cheaper than the iPhone depending upon the market you are in. The Galaxy S II without contract is $299 - some $600 - $800 cheaper than an iPhone 5. If that is NOT SELLING ONLY ON PRICE I do not know what is.

     

    It is abundantly clear when Apple bring out a lower cost model iPhone then Samsung will be in quite a fix. Without any brand cache they have nowhere to go other that to lower prices further, and reduce their margins (already only 30% of Apples) to silly levels.

     

    Regarding Apples launch into TV. I am sure they have a pretty good plan.
    17 Jan 2013, 08:27 AM Reply Like
  • Mohamed Abdirahman
    , contributor
    Comments (106) | Send Message
     
    mjoneilluk: Granted that there is a market for luxury goods, but those do not move volumes. How many million units of $400 Gucci belts are sold? There is actually a mobile phone vendor which specialises in the luxury segment of the market. It is called Vertu and offers Titanium handsets with all sorts of additions (diamonds, rubies, sapphire lens, etc) and they are very profitable in their niche. But they only sell to very few people (their prices start from around $5000). Likewise, a $2000 iPhone will not be able to generate the volumes that you are proposing (status symbol or not) and hence would not affect Apple's bottom line much.

     

    As for the pricing of competitors, the S3 is selling for $580 (considering that it is almost 7 month old 3G international verion), and $699 to $749 for the unlocked 4G models at Best Buy. An unlocked iPhone 5 at the Apple Online Store retails for $649 for the 16GB unlocked version. And thus it is only around 10% more expensive than the 7 month old S3 and cheaper than the newer S3 models. Now if the brand cache for Apple is as considerable as you state, the Galaxy series would not be the success that it is. Why should anyone pay more for a Galaxy device than the latest iPhone if Samsung apparently competes on price alone?

     

    As for the S2 Best Buy currently has a sale on the model and sells for $472 (not sure were you found $299 for new and unlocked phone), before the sale the phone was going for $549 unlocked. In any case though, I am not sure why you want to compare the 2 year old S2 to the latest iPhone? These two are not in direct competition.

     

    "It is abundantly clear when Apple bring out a lower cost model iPhone then Samsung will be in quite a fix" - I wouldn't be too sure about that. Whatever price point Apple chooses for a cheaper iPhone their first priority will be their margins. If they released a $200 iPhone and kept the margins, the internals (and probably even externals) will be barely comparable to the competition at that point, and the brand could be hurt. More importantly however, this would not be a threat to Samsung as the bulk of their profits come form high end devices such as Galaxy S3 and Note 2. Cheaper phones just add to their volume.
    17 Jan 2013, 10:30 AM Reply Like
  • Dean Scarpinato
    , contributor
    Comments (372) | Send Message
     
    Good article regarding WSJ hit piece.

     

    http://bit.ly/107xxdo
    17 Jan 2013, 09:33 AM Reply Like
  • Michael O'Neill
    , contributor
    Comments (145) | Send Message
     
    Dear Mohamed, it is clear you are a fan of the Samsung Galaxy. I merely state the facts. The iPhone 5 around the world is $400 to $500 more than the S3, and $600-700 more than the S2.

     

    Just search in Google under
    'price galaxy s III no contract' - the price widely available is $499
    'price galaxy s II no contract' - the price widely available is $299

     

    It is very is plain to see.
    18 Jan 2013, 11:05 PM Reply Like
  • Mohamed Abdirahman
    , contributor
    Comments (106) | Send Message
     
    mjoneilluk, if you are merely stating facts, could you provide links that the iphone 5 costs $400-$500 (for the same capacity model that is comparing the 16gb iPhone to 16gb S3)? That would put the iPhone at a price tag of almost $1000 (assuming the average price for the S3 is $499).

     

    For my part here are the links were you can see the prices for the S3 and iPhone.

     

    S3 (unlocked) Prices:

     

    - Best Buy: http://bit.ly/UXKoIJ
    - Amazon: http://amzn.to/VdotT8

     

    The only place were I have seen S3 for $499 is on MetroPcs where you need to get their prepaid plans: http://bit.ly/UXKmjV

     

    But then again this is a prepaid phone. You can get a prepaid iPhone 5 on Cricket Wireless for $499:

     

    -http://engt.co/VdotTa
    - http://bit.ly/UXKmk5

     

    The unlocked iPhone 5 16GB costs $649: http://bit.ly/VdotTc

     

    Again, it does not make sense to compare iPhone 5 with S2 (a two year old model) as they do not compete with each other. But your price point seems off.

     

    The above are of course prices without contract. In reality most people buy with contract, and again the prices for iPhone 5 vs S3 on a 2 year contract are similar. Hence it is not factual that Samsung (or the other large Handset vendors) compete ONLY on price.

     

    If you have factual evidence that this is not the case, please provide references to support your claims.
    19 Jan 2013, 01:16 PM Reply Like
DJIA (DIA) S&P 500 (SPY)