backtop


Print 43 comment(s) - last by DanD85.. on Sep 30 at 6:30 AM

Despite losses, strategy could pay off for the enterprising Android tablet maker

Yesterday, following Amazon.com, Inc.'s (AMZN) big tablet reveal, Gene Munster, a Piper-Jaffray analyst known for his estimates of Apple, Inc.'s (AAPL) sales, sent out a research note comparing the profitability of Apple's $500 iPad 2 with Amazon's $200 Kindle.

Mr. Munster estimated that the iPad 2 was turning a profit of 30 percent of its MSRP, while Amazon would lose $50 per Kindle Fire sold.  However, he didn't provide a specific source of his figures or much of an explanation.

We dug into this a bit more.  It turns out that iSuppli did teardowns [1][2] of this year's iPad 2 and last year's Galaxy Tab from Samsung Electronics Comp., Ltd. (SEO 005930).  

Now iSuppli's numbers are hardly infallible, but given that the LCD market hasn't move much price-wise in the last year, for tablet screens, it can be assumed that the Galaxy Tab's 7-inch display cost in the bill-of-materials gives a good estimate of what the LCD touch-screen unit on the Kindle Fire costs.  Combining this with the extra cost of the iPad 2's largest amount of onboard NAND memory, we estimate that the difference is indeed in the neighborhood of $100.

The Kindle Fire Fire-Sale

So what does this mean for Amazon.com -- and for Apple?  Well, for Apple it's a testament of how valuable the company's brand is.  Apple can have its cake and eat it too.  It can sell a grossly marked up device, and at the same time post the kind of huge sales that brings in strong auxiliary revenue streams such as app sales and advertising revenue.

Fig.: Apple doesn't have to offer big price cuts to get customers to bite.
[source: Entercom Digital Dev Blog]

Amazon.com isn't that fortunate.  Despite arguably launching the consumer tablet with its Kindle e-Reader, Amazon.com has yet to establish itself as a major competitor in the new tablet market, which has been dominated by Apple and Samsung.

In order to gain ground Amazon.com appears to be adopting an approach similar to console makers in that it's pocketing a loss up front, in order to persuade early adopters to jump on board, leading to overall positive revenue via the auxiliary revenue streams.

Overall this approach could pay off for Amazon.com.  The Kindle Fire is currently the cheapest fully functional Android tablet device on the market and its software offers nice differentiation over competive offerings.

Amazon pockets 30 percent of app sales revenue.  And it gets $79 for its Amazon Prime membership, which it's promo-ing on the tablet (which provides users with streaming movies and TV episodes).  If it can get one in every two customers to bite on the Amazon Prime membership, and get the average customer to spend $33 on apps over the device lifetime, it's broken even.  If it can do data mining on the users' web-browsing, or sell users some of its massive ebook collecton, it will likely turn a profit (under the above scenario).

In short, the "fire-sale" price of Amazon.com might not be such a crazy idea after all.  Maybe Hewlett-Packard Company (HPQ) unwittingly stumbled onto the secret to tablet success after all, during its TouchPad fire-sale.


Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: iSuppli
By Smilin on 9/29/2011 12:53:33 PM , Rating: 0
quote:
And Amazon designed the OS themselves for one main reason: to avoid the patent trolls from Apple and Microsoft.


Calling them a troll your feeble way of dismissing all arguments against your point of view.

Apple and Microsoft do not purchase patents with the intent of suing. They designed those patents themselves and deserve to be rewarded for their costs and effort.

Here's a tip: If a company sinks $9 BILLION into R&D each year every year they just might not be a patent troll.

Fact: Amazon already pays Microsoft for Linux patent violations in the Kindle.


RE: iSuppli
By mcnabney on 9/29/2011 5:56:41 PM , Rating: 3
They didn't design squat.

A good friend of mine spent several years writing patents for Embarq Telecom. It had nothing to do with research or even products. They were just trying to throw ideas onto paper and hope the application will get accepted. That's all these damn patents are anyway, some stupid idea or a combination of current products behaviors and potential future products. Just read the patents Apple has on the iPad. It is complete rubbish. Minimalist design, whatever. Does someone hold a patent for a round container to hold liquid? There is little difference. Multitouch might actually be worthy of a patent, except it had already been done by someone else and NOT patented BACK IN THE 80s!


"If you look at the last five years, if you look at what major innovations have occurred in computing technology, every single one of them came from AMD. Not a single innovation came from Intel." -- AMD CEO Hector Ruiz in 2007














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki