Apple hits record success once again!

At 26 Jul 2007 19:13:25 +0000 Alan Baker wrote:

> If Apple were to sell 10 million iPhones and none ever got activated,
> why would that matter?

Because, while successful as a retail product, it would show Apple
completely missed it's mark.

Apple claims that the iPhone was needed because current phones are too
complicated to use, etc. and that the iPhone would revolutionize the
wireless phone industry.

10 million unactivated phones would simply mean that Apple got it all
wrong, and the public didn't want a revolutionary phone, they simply
wanted a touchscreen iPod Video with wi-fi.

This of courxe, would damage Apple's negotiations with wireless carriers
worldwide, since the iPhone would come up short in the all-important
WIIFM feature in the potential carrier's eyes. (What's In It For Me.)

Not that there's anything wrong with that if they still were able to
shovel millions of unacivated phones into customer's hands, but it would
be an "accidental success" like the "New Coke" debacle that bolstered
Coke's share of the soft drink market.

--
Todd Allcock

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or
double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and
whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

---

› See More: Apple hits record success once again!

In article <[email protected]>,
Edwin <[email protected]> wrote:

> > Because you're making a claim. According to "netiquette" (in which you
> > put so much trust... ...until you want to abuse it), you should support
> > your claim.
>
> IOW, you're about to support your claim that the Mayor said Apple is
> going out of business, more times than anybody can count? It's been
> years and you still haven't fulfilled the "netiquette" of supporting
> your claim.

Been there, done that.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 2007-07-26, Edwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>> By who's metric? Apple makes money when the unit is sold, whether or
>> not its activated. Apple cares about sells, AT&T cares about
>> activations.
>
> You think people are going to keep unactivated iPhones? Really?

What makes you think those people won't be activating their phones?
I'm not aware of there being any kind of limit on activation that
requires you to activate within 48 hours of purchasing the phone.

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > so 18 hours to sell 270,000 units is way off the charts for any
> > > electronic device. ranks up there even with iPods during christmas.
> >
> > "18 hours to sell 270,000 units" is a completely bogus statement and
> > bears no relationship to reality.
> >
> > The 270,000 will be the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's
> > warehouse and therefore logged as "sales" by Apple. These phones will
> > obviously have been sent out prior to the 29th embargo so we don't know
> > over what time period Apple sold them. All we know is that they shipped
> > 270,000 devices to dealers in Q3.
>
> incorrect peter, apple does not "account" for a sale until it has been
> sold and has left apple's property. so while the ATT iphones were likely
> counted as "sold" since they left apple's inventory/property. an iphone
> cannot be part of the 270K number unless it is "sold" and "shipped".

Well, blow me, "apple does not account for a sale until it has been sold
and has left apple's property" sounds an awful like "the 270,000 will be
the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's warehouse and therefore
logged as "sales" by Apple."

Spot the difference, because I can't. They've still been sold and
shipped long before the embargo expired. Therefore "'18 hours to sell
270,000 units' is [still] a completely bogus statement and bears no
relationship to reality."

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

On Jul 26, 3:24 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
>
>
>
> Edwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jul 26, 2:13 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > > Edwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 26, 1:55 pm, Alan Baker <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > In article <[email protected]>,
>
> > > > > Edwin <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > > > >http://www.silvermac.com/2007/iphone-disappointment/
>
> > > > > > > > "While I find iPhone, the Apple's one, to be a very fine product,
> > > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > > think it will be out of reach of many due to its high price and
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > compulsory two years contract with the mobile carrier company. In
> > > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > > US this is Cingular, in Australia very likely to be Telstra. Data
> > > > > > > > transfer via GSM network is very expensive in Australia and I
> > > > > > > > think
> > > > > > > > owning an iPhone down here will be a very costly luxury."
>
> > > > > > > Why are you posting old news, Edwin?
>
> > > > > > I'm not.
>
> > > > > Yeah, you are.
>
> > > > You're lying again.
>
> > > Nope. Tuesday's news is old news in the stock market.
>
> > Yet you Maccies present five and ten year old TCO studies as if
> > they're relevant today.
>
> I do? Show a quote...

Right after you show a quote of me saying I never used a nick in a
thread title.

> Hint, Edwin: there is no "you Maccies" for whose opinions and statements
> I am responsible.

You're lying again.

> But even you should be able to figure out that different kinds of
> information have different useful lives.

Even you should be able to figure out its futile to attempt to dismiss
recent news of an Apple failure by mislabeling it as "old news."

>
> > News of Apple's iPhone failure has not become too old to mention, no
> > matter how fast you spin.
>
> If there were really such news, you'd have a point.

Thanks for admitting I have a point.

> Apple's stock price falling briefly is not such news.

Sure it is. Euphoria has over-inflated Apple's stock prices.
Anything that cuts through that fog for even a short time has to be
really bad.

>
>
>
>
> > > > > > > Apple's stock price is now at $143.71 -- right back to where it was
> > > > > > > before the AT&T announcement. Apple also announced that they sold
> > > > > > > 270,000 as opposed to the 143,000 that AT&T said were activated.
>
> > > > > > It's the activation figure that counts.
>
> > > > > Why?
>
> > > > You need to be told why? Really?
>
> > > Because you're making a claim. According to "netiquette" (in which you
> > > put so much trust... ...until you want to abuse it), you should support
> > > your claim.
>
> > IOW, you're about to support your claim that the Mayor said Apple is
> > going out of business, more times than anybody can count? It's been
> > years and you still haven't fulfilled the "netiquette" of supporting
> > your claim.
>
> I at least admitted it when I couldn't.

After you were pressed for years. You're relentless in your demands
for quotes from others, and you hold them discredited if they won't
comply, yet somehow you think you're let off the hook by simply saying
you can't find the quotes to back your claims.

> > Now you have some extra claims to support:
>
> > Your claim I "put so much trust" in netiquette... and...
>
> > ... that I've done something to "abuse it" that isn't regularly done
> > by you and your fellow Maccies.
>
> Now you have something more to claim, don't you?

Where's your support for your claims above?

>
> > > If Apple were to sell 10 million iPhones and none ever got activated,
> > > why would that matter?
>
> > You're really stupid enough to think 10 million people are going to
> > buy iPhones without using them as phones?
>
> No. You apparently are, however.

You have that backwards, as usual. You're the one who supposed 10
million iPhones would be sold without activation, not I.

> Hint: just because AT&T's activation data doesn't match Apple's in the
> extremely short term, doesn't mean that the iPhones that apparently
> hadn't been activated at that time aren't activated *now*.

You may now post figures to show the shortfall in activations has been
remedied.

AT&T will be very relived, to say the least. Please contact them as
soon as possible.

Do you have any reason why your arguments didn't occur to the
"disappointed" AT&T or to those analysts that dropped Apple's stock
price? I ask for information only.

> > You're really stupid enough to need to be told why activation matters?

I take your answer to be "yes."

[email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> > incorrect peter, apple does not "account" for a sale until it has been
> > sold and has left apple's property. so while the ATT iphones were likely
> > counted as "sold" since they left apple's inventory/property. an iphone
> > cannot be part of the 270K number unless it is "sold" and "shipped".
>
> Well, blow me, "apple does not account for a sale until it has been sold
> and has left apple's property" sounds an awful like "the 270,000 will be
> the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's warehouse and therefore
> logged as "sales" by Apple."

you'd be correct if some of these phones went to CompUSA, MacMall,
BestBuy, etc... but an iPhone that travels from China to an Apple Store
is still in "inventory", so is not "considered" sold until the customer
pays and leaves through the glass doors. It's a legal accounting thing.

So the 270,000 number are all 100% SOLD iphones, they do not include any
in Apple's 2, 3 day supply of inventory.

> Spot the difference, because I can't. They've still been sold and
> shipped long before the embargo expired. Therefore "'18 hours to sell
> 270,000 units' is [still] a completely bogus statement and bears no
> relationship to reality."

Except that the 270,000 number are all legally "sold" units, if Apple
has 20,000 sitting inside the Apple Stores, or in Elk Grove / Webstore,
they were not part of that 270,000 number. That would be illegal to
count them as "sales".

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> > do the math scott. 270,000 times $200 profit per unit, $54,000,000
>> > out of $818,000,000 and so while not "tiny", it's only 15% of
>> > Apple's Q3 profits.
>>
>> You aren't real smart, are you? And you obviously didn't read the
>> financial report, either. If you're trying to look stupid, success
>> has been acheived.
>>
>> http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/25/news...nings.reut/ind
>> ex.ht m
>>
>> "The iPhone went on sale in the United States on June 29, but its
>> impact on Apple's results was limited because it was available only
>> in the last two days of the quarter and sales will be booked as
>> subscription revenue over two years."
>>
>> The figures that I saw were in the order of $14 per phone booked for
>> the second quarter, not $200.
>
> but you are confused. you are talking about the "subscription"
> kickback to apple from ATT for each iphone contract. ZERO of those
> funds were in the 3rd quarter numbers. (listen to the conference call)


I did- that's where my number came from. Next?


>

-hh <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Mitch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Scott <[email protected]> wrote:
>> > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That
>> > certainly speakes to its contribution to the quarter.
>>
>> Huh?
>> It's in the third paragraph, the very first place the CEO is quoted.
>
>
> Mitch,
>
> I caught that too, and posted it yesterday with an opportunity for
> Scott to admit that he made an honest mistake.

And I do admit an honest mistake- I missed the one-liner. Based on the
hype, both by Apple and it's zombies, I would have expected more.

>
> Perhaps Scott has "missed it" again, but since my post was only an
> hour before he returned to the thread, its possible that it somehow
> didn't get disseminated across USENET.
>
> You know - - its how all of those "technology things" sometimes get
> hung up in the ether. The same utterly simple stuff that people are
> getting hung up over in regards to Apple sales vs. AT&T Activations.
>
>
>
>> How could anyone expect iPhone to be mentioned above the two most
>> critical lines of the company? Especially when it was sold for such a
>> short time!
>
> It doesn't matter. Scott has now his own subject line to test how bad
> his reading comprehension is. If he misses it again, it would no
> longer be a credible "accident", but is more likely that he's trying
> to avoid that he was wrong by trying to ignore it.

I don't avoid admitting mistakes- the OP of this thread, however,
continues to live in fantasy land about his great knowledge base.

> If that's the
> case, it would only the 14th time that such a thing has ever happened
> on USENET
>
>

You obviously never read any of John Navas' stuff- he hits 14 times a
day by noon.

>
> -hh
>
>

Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:

> [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > incorrect peter, apple does not "account" for a sale until it has been
> > > sold and has left apple's property. so while the ATT iphones were likely
> > > counted as "sold" since they left apple's inventory/property. an iphone
> > > cannot be part of the 270K number unless it is "sold" and "shipped".
> >
> > Well, blow me, "apple does not account for a sale until it has been sold
> > and has left apple's property" sounds an awful like "the 270,000 will be
> > the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's warehouse and therefore
> > logged as "sales" by Apple."
>
> you'd be correct if some of these phones went to CompUSA, MacMall,
> BestBuy, etc... but an iPhone that travels from China to an Apple Store
> is still in "inventory", so is not "considered" sold until the customer
> pays and leaves through the glass doors. It's a legal accounting thing.
>
> So the 270,000 number are all 100% SOLD iphones, they do not include any
> in Apple's 2, 3 day supply of inventory.
>
> > Spot the difference, because I can't. They've still been sold and
> > shipped long before the embargo expired. Therefore "'18 hours to sell
> > 270,000 units' is [still] a completely bogus statement and bears no
> > relationship to reality."
>
> Except that the 270,000 number are all legally "sold" units, if Apple
> has 20,000 sitting inside the Apple Stores, or in Elk Grove / Webstore,
> they were not part of that 270,000 number. That would be illegal to
> count them as "sales".

Sure, and they are still counted as sales even though they were unsold
by AT&T. At the end of Q3 there were 270,000 mobiles sold by Apple,
precisely how many were actually in the hands of users is unknown.
Furthermore, these Apple sales were over a period of days, if not weeks,
therefore "18 hours to sell 270,000 units' is still a completely bogus
statement and bears no relationship to reality.

270,000 is an excellent figure, even though the product was hyped beyond
belief, but the hyperbole over sales performance can't go unchallenged.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Todd Allcock wrote:

>Apple claims that the iPhone was needed because current phones are too
>complicated to use, etc. and that the iPhone would revolutionize the
>wireless phone industry.

If current phones are too complicated to use, it's because some seem
to be designed to primarily be a vehicle to sell you ring-tones and
such, instead of just being a God-damned phone.

On Jul 27, 4:41 am, [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> > [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> > > > incorrect peter, apple does not "account" for a sale until it has been
> > > > sold and has left apple's property. so while the ATT iphones were likely
> > > > counted as "sold" since they left apple's inventory/property. an iphone
> > > > cannot be part of the 270K number unless it is "sold" and "shipped".
>
> > > Well, blow me, "apple does not account for a sale until it has been sold
> > > and has left apple's property" sounds an awful like "the 270,000 will be
> > > the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's warehouse and therefore
> > > logged as "sales" by Apple."
>
> > you'd be correct if some of these phones went to CompUSA, MacMall,
> > BestBuy, etc... but an iPhone that travels from China to an Apple Store
> > is still in "inventory", so is not "considered" sold until the customer
> > pays and leaves through the glass doors. It's a legal accounting thing.
>
> > So the 270,000 number are all 100% SOLD iphones, they do not include any
> > in Apple's 2, 3 day supply of inventory.
>
> > > Spot the difference, because I can't. They've still been sold and
> > > shipped long before the embargo expired. Therefore "'18 hours to sell
> > > 270,000 units' is [still] a completely bogus statement and bears no
> > > relationship to reality."
>
> > Except that the 270,000 number are all legally "sold" units, if Apple
> > has 20,000 sitting inside the Apple Stores, or in Elk Grove / Webstore,
> > they were not part of that 270,000 number. That would be illegal to
> > count them as "sales".
>
> Sure, and they are still counted as sales even though they were unsold
> by AT&T. At the end of Q3 there were 270,000 mobiles sold by Apple,
> precisely how many were actually in the hands of users is unknown.
> Furthermore, these Apple sales were over a period of days, if not weeks,
> therefore "18 hours to sell 270,000 units' is still a completely bogus
> statement and bears no relationship to reality.

How is it bogus? The iPhone went on sale at 6:00 pm Friday the 29th,
Apple's quarter ended Saturday. All of the reports said that AT&T
stores had no inventory left but the Apple stores did.

In article <1i1wk7w.xawuu61te5wt2N%[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > > incorrect peter, apple does not "account" for a sale until it has been
> > > > sold and has left apple's property. so while the ATT iphones were likely
> > > > counted as "sold" since they left apple's inventory/property. an iphone
> > > > cannot be part of the 270K number unless it is "sold" and "shipped".
> > >
> > > Well, blow me, "apple does not account for a sale until it has been sold
> > > and has left apple's property" sounds an awful like "the 270,000 will be
> > > the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's warehouse and therefore
> > > logged as "sales" by Apple."
> >
> > you'd be correct if some of these phones went to CompUSA, MacMall,
> > BestBuy, etc... but an iPhone that travels from China to an Apple Store
> > is still in "inventory", so is not "considered" sold until the customer
> > pays and leaves through the glass doors. It's a legal accounting thing.
> >
> > So the 270,000 number are all 100% SOLD iphones, they do not include any
> > in Apple's 2, 3 day supply of inventory.
> >
> > > Spot the difference, because I can't. They've still been sold and
> > > shipped long before the embargo expired. Therefore "'18 hours to sell
> > > 270,000 units' is [still] a completely bogus statement and bears no
> > > relationship to reality."
> >
> > Except that the 270,000 number are all legally "sold" units, if Apple
> > has 20,000 sitting inside the Apple Stores, or in Elk Grove / Webstore,
> > they were not part of that 270,000 number. That would be illegal to
> > count them as "sales".
>
> Sure, and they are still counted as sales even though they were unsold
> by AT&T. At the end of Q3 there were 270,000 mobiles sold by Apple,
> precisely how many were actually in the hands of users is unknown.
> Furthermore, these Apple sales were over a period of days, if not weeks,
> therefore "18 hours to sell 270,000 units' is still a completely bogus
> statement and bears no relationship to reality.
>
> 270,000 is an excellent figure, even though the product was hyped beyond
> belief, but the hyperbole over sales performance can't go unchallenged.

I own one. It lives up to the hype - something I've never seen happen
with too many other products that I can remember.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

On Jul 26, 4:02 pm, Tim Smith <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 2007-07-26, Edwin <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> By who's metric? Apple makes money when the unit is sold, whether or
> >> not its activated. Apple cares about sells, AT&T cares about
> >> activations.
>
> > You think people are going to keep unactivated iPhones? Really?
>
> What makes you think those people won't be activating their phones?

I don't think the sales estimates were realistic.

> I'm not aware of there being any kind of limit on activation that
> requires you to activate within 48 hours of purchasing the phone.

What will you say after the days mount higher?

On 2007-07-27, chrisv <[email protected]> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>>Apple claims that the iPhone was needed because current phones are too
>>complicated to use, etc. and that the iPhone would revolutionize the
>>wireless phone industry.
>
> If current phones are too complicated to use, it's because some seem
> to be designed to primarily be a vehicle to sell you ring-tones and
> such, instead of just being a God-damned phone.

That's true, and Verizon is famous for crippling phones features in
order to force you into downloading and paying for ring tones and
other features. Fortunately the geeks that dissect these things
quickly come up with other methods to work around these
limitations. The bad part is most people don't know about
them.

KDT <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jul 27, 4:41 am, [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> > Oxford <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > [email protected] (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> >
> > > > > incorrect peter, apple does not "account" for a sale until it has
> > > > > been sold and has left apple's property. so while the ATT iphones
> > > > > were likely counted as "sold" since they left apple's
> > > > > inventory/property. an iphone cannot be part of the 270K number
> > > > > unless it is "sold" and "shipped".
> >
> > > > Well, blow me, "apple does not account for a sale until it has been sold
> > > > and has left apple's property" sounds an awful like "the 270,000 will be
> > > > the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's warehouse and therefore
> > > > logged as "sales" by Apple."
> >
> > > you'd be correct if some of these phones went to CompUSA, MacMall,
> > > BestBuy, etc... but an iPhone that travels from China to an Apple Store
> > > is still in "inventory", so is not "considered" sold until the customer
> > > pays and leaves through the glass doors. It's a legal accounting thing.
> >
> > > So the 270,000 number are all 100% SOLD iphones, they do not include any
> > > in Apple's 2, 3 day supply of inventory.
> >
> > > > Spot the difference, because I can't. They've still been sold and
> > > > shipped long before the embargo expired. Therefore "'18 hours to sell
> > > > 270,000 units' is [still] a completely bogus statement and bears no
> > > > relationship to reality."
> >
> > > Except that the 270,000 number are all legally "sold" units, if Apple
> > > has 20,000 sitting inside the Apple Stores, or in Elk Grove / Webstore,
> > > they were not part of that 270,000 number. That would be illegal to
> > > count them as "sales".
> >
> > Sure, and they are still counted as sales even though they were unsold
> > by AT&T. At the end of Q3 there were 270,000 mobiles sold by Apple,
> > precisely how many were actually in the hands of users is unknown.
> > Furthermore, these Apple sales were over a period of days, if not weeks,
> > therefore "18 hours to sell 270,000 units' is still a completely bogus
> > statement and bears no relationship to reality.
>
> How is it bogus? The iPhone went on sale at 6:00 pm Friday the 29th,
> Apple's quarter ended Saturday. All of the reports said that AT&T
> stores had no inventory left but the Apple stores did.

The bogus part is Oxford's claim that "18 hours to sell 270,000 units is
way off the charts for any electronic device."

<[email protected]>

Apple shipped phones to dealers over a period prior to the 29th. These
are included in the 270,000 allegedly sold by Apple in Q3 but they
certainly weren't "sold in 18 hours". They were sold over many days as
they left Apple's warehouses for AT&T.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter