1.5 million unlocked iPhones?

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:52:36 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:04:53 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>>following in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>>I doubt the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line,
>>>> less than 1%.
>>>
>>>I don't expect you to get it, John. We're dealing with a market
>>>sector that you don't have any experience in, and factors of corporate
>>>economics that you've never had to consider before. A revenue leak of
>>>this size, while seemingly small in the big picture, can have
>>>devastating effects on the overall performance of a company the size
>>>of Apple, not to mention the negative light it casts them in with
>>>investors.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>Then prove it, John. That's all you have to do. If what I said was
>nonsense, it should be very ewasy to prove me wrong.

Prove what? Your posts are entirely insults and speculation, with zero
to back them up. The entire contribution of the iPhone to Apple is only
3% of revenue (much less on profit), so even if sales were zero the
impact would be negligible.

"Apple on track to exceed revenue targets"
<http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=20445>

Apple should match or exceed its revenue targets during the current
quarter, with the Mac sales boom compensating for slower growth in
iPod sales, an analyst claims.

Shaw Wu from American Technology Research told clients: "While
near-term trends look difficult with a looming recession and a
slow-down in consumer spending, we continue to believe Apple is
well-positioned to weather the storm better than most with its strong
fundamentals."

The analyst rates Apple as a stock to buy with a 6-12 month price
target of $175.

"Our sense is that Apple is tracking modestly above its guidance of
$6.8 billion," the analyst explains. "Macs appear to be the most
promising with continued momentum carried over from previous
quarters. While MacBook Air sales look somewhat underwhelming, it is
helping drive more traffic. We remain comfortable with our forecast
of 2.1 million Macs against consensus of 2 million," Wu warned.

iPods appear to be tracking to 9.5-10 million units led by fairly
robust demand for higher models, the analyst explained, pointing to
seasonal decline in iPod sales and lower than anticipated demand for
the low-end iPod shuffle.

On the iPhone, the analyst warned of weaker than anticipated demand,
and confirmed the extensive nature of the market for unlocked
iPhones.

"Our sources indicate that iPhone is being used in 35-40 countries
against the four authorized countries," he said. "Out of the four
million iPhones shipped, we estimate at least one million, and
perhaps as high as 1.5 million may be hacked."

"While hacked iPhones have some impact to deferred revenue, we are
not overly concerned as iPhone is only a 3 per cent contributor to
reported revenue."

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

---

› See More: 1.5 million unlocked iPhones?

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:23:51 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
>
>Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
>
>Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream of
>taking the software away from the customers and renting it to them isn't
>going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.

It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to pass
judgement.

>http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl
>Apple is down another percent at noone to 128.48/share on volume of
>18,390,000 shares this morning. How long can a company keep losing 2%/day
>before the shareholders catch wise??

<http://blogs.barrons.com/techtraderdaily/2008/02/13/apple-fy-q2-should-get-boost-from-component-price-cuts-weak-iphones-strong-macs-air-worries/?mod=googlenews_barrons>

* Gene Munster, Piper Jaffray: I suspect yesterday’s drop in the stock
- AAPL fell $4.59, or 3.5% - may have been the result of a bearish
interpretation of a new note from Munster on the MacBook Air. He
wrote that while interest in the new thin laptop is high, "demand is
less than the MacBook launch in May of 2006." He expects the Air to
account for 16% of Macs by the end of calendar 2008. Munster wrote
that he talked to 20 Apple resellers and found that "customers are
more curious, but less willing to buy the MacBook Air than they were
the original MacBook." He also wrote that the Air seems to have a
"smaller but separate target market" than the MacBook, without
cannibalizing the original MacBook. (Munster remains among the most
aggressive bulls on the stock, with a Buy rating and a $250 price
target.)

* Pacific Crest’s Andy Hargreaves: This morning, Hargreaves noted
that falling LCD panel prices could add over $10 in gross profit per
Mac in Q2, providing a potential 80 basis points in Mac gross margin
and 2 cents a share in EPS. He also noted that flash memory prices
are down 40% since the previous quarter. Hargreaves maintains his
Outperform rating on the stock.

* Shaw Wu, American Technology Research: Wu provided a number of data
points on the current issues buffeting Apple shares. He says the
March quarter is tracking "modestly above" the company guidance of
$6.8 billion in revenue and EPS of 94 cents. He says Macs are strong,
though sales of the Air "look somewhat underwhelming." He sees 2.1
million Macs sold in the quarter, slightly above the consensus of
about 2 million. He says iPods are tracking to 9.5 million to 10
million, below the more bullish forecasts of 11-12 million units. Wu
contends some analysts have not factored in enough of a seasonal
decline, and have over-estimated demand for the low end iPod Shuffle.
Wu says iPhone shipments "appear weak, with AT&T subscriber additions
looking light." He thinks at least 1 million - and perhaps as many as
1.5 million - of the 4 million iPhones shipped have been unlocked and
are being used on non-authorized carriers. That said, he does not see
a significant impact to reported revenue in the quarter. He projects
2.1 million iPhones sold in the quarter, but says that "could prove a
tad high."

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:05:59 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>And you and John can continue to obsess about whether this is truly
>>lost revenue, but you both seem to have missed the true weakness in
>>the business plan. The iPhone has been on the market for almost eight
>>months now and is only available for retail sale in four countries
>>around the world, with sales in those countries falling below all
>>estimates. ...
>
> The consensus estimate is 1.85 million iPhone sales for the quarter, a
> very good performance by any reasonable standard, and some analysts
> (e.g., Shaw Wu, American Technology Research) are forecasting over 2
> million. Whether this is below or above analyst expectations is
> largely meaningless unless you're a short term market speculator.
>

What we are witnessing is simply the Sony of the early 21st century- a big
player that will soon be relegated to middle-of-the-road status due to
their pomposity and poor execution. The writing is already on the wall.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:54:30 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>in news:[email protected]:

>> The consensus estimate is 1.85 million iPhone sales for the quarter, a
>> very good performance by any reasonable standard, and some analysts
>> (e.g., Shaw Wu, American Technology Research) are forecasting over 2
>> million. Whether this is below or above analyst expectations is
>> largely meaningless unless you're a short term market speculator.
>
>What we are witnessing is simply the Sony of the early 21st century- a big
>player that will soon be relegated to middle-of-the-road status due to
>their pomposity and poor execution. The writing is already on the wall.

Yet another unsubstantiated personal speculation. Got anything more
substantial, or are we expected to just take your word for it?

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:52:36 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
following
>>in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:04:53 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote
in
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>>>following in news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>>I doubt the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line,
>>>>> less than 1%.
>>>>
>>>>I don't expect you to get it, John. We're dealing with a market
>>>>sector that you don't have any experience in, and factors of
corporate
>>>>economics that you've never had to consider before. A revenue leak
of
>>>>this size, while seemingly small in the big picture, can have
>>>>devastating effects on the overall performance of a company the size
>>>>of Apple, not to mention the negative light it casts them in with
>>>>investors.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>Then prove it, John. That's all you have to do. If what I said was
>>nonsense, it should be very ewasy to prove me wrong.
>
> Prove what? Your posts are entirely insults


Insults? Where?

> and speculation, with zero
> to back them up.

You mean other than the two links I provided at the beginning of this
thread? That would appear to be two more than you have provided. ANd
the fact that I continue to reference back to those two links by pulling
the DATA from them seems to have escaped you.

> The entire contribution of the iPhone to Apple is only
> 3% of revenue (much less on profit), so even if sales were zero the
> impact would be negligible.

3% of revenue and what percentage of advertising dollars? Where are the
new agreements with other carriers?

>
> "Apple on track to exceed revenue targets"
> <http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=20445>
>

Got something a little more independent?

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:59:44 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following

>> "Apple on track to exceed revenue targets"
>> <http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=20445>
>
>Got something a little more independent?

American Technology Research is independent.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:23:51 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
>>
>>Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
>>
>>Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream of
>>taking the software away from the customers and renting it to them
>>isn't going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.
>
> It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to pass
> judgement.

You've got a point- it seems to be taking decades for the concept of Apple
TV to take hold. A juggernaut just waiting to happen.

By the time it's no longer "too early" to pass judgement, it will be old
technology.

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:54:30 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:[email protected]:
>
>>> The consensus estimate is 1.85 million iPhone sales for the quarter,
>>> a very good performance by any reasonable standard, and some
>>> analysts (e.g., Shaw Wu, American Technology Research) are
>>> forecasting over 2 million. Whether this is below or above analyst
>>> expectations is largely meaningless unless you're a short term
>>> market speculator.
>>
>>What we are witnessing is simply the Sony of the early 21st century- a
>>big player that will soon be relegated to middle-of-the-road status
>>due to their pomposity and poor execution. The writing is already on
>>the wall.
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated personal speculation.

Or an observation based on my experience and substantial knowledge of the
sector.


> Got anything more
> substantial, or are we expected to just take your word for it?
>

Isn't that what you expect from us? To simply take you at your word?

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:02:41 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>in news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:23:51 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
>>>
>>>Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
>>>
>>>Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream of
>>>taking the software away from the customers and renting it to them
>>>isn't going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.
>>
>> It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to pass
>> judgement.
>
>You've got a point- it seems to be taking decades for the concept of Apple
>TV to take hold. A juggernaut just waiting to happen.
>
>By the time it's no longer "too early" to pass judgement, it will be old
>technology.

[shrug] It seems you're just looking for things to bash. Whether Apple
TV, one particular product, takes off or not in its current incantation
is not terribly meaningful. All companies have hits and misses, Apple
included. What matters are the hits, not the misses.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:59:44 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>
>>> "Apple on track to exceed revenue targets"
>>> <http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=20445>
>>
>>Got something a little more independent?
>
> American Technology Research is independent.
>

And I would expect Macworld to latch on to that single opinion- it moves
their own agenda forward. Others are not so rosy about the outlook.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=7670

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:04:43 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>in news[email protected]:

>> Yet another unsubstantiated personal speculation.
>
>Or an observation based on my experience and substantial knowledge of the
>sector.

In other words, just what I wrote.

>> Got anything more
>> substantial, or are we expected to just take your word for it?
>
>Isn't that what you expect from us? To simply take you at your word?

In other words you don't, as that lame defense makes clear.

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:08:35 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:59:44 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
>> <[email protected]>:
>>
>>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
>>
>>>> "Apple on track to exceed revenue targets"
>>>> <http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=20445>
>>>
>>>Got something a little more independent?
>>
>> American Technology Research is independent.
>
>And I would expect Macworld to latch on to that single opinion- it moves
>their own agenda forward. Others are not so rosy about the outlook.
>
>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=7670

A single blog is the best you can do? LOL!

--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:02:41 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:23:51 +0000, Larry <[email protected]> wrote in
>>> <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
>>>>
>>>>Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
>>>>
>>>>Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream
>>>>of taking the software away from the customers and renting it to
>>>>them isn't going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.
>>>
>>> It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to
>>> pass judgement.
>>
>>You've got a point- it seems to be taking decades for the concept of
>>Apple TV to take hold. A juggernaut just waiting to happen.
>>
>>By the time it's no longer "too early" to pass judgement, it will be
>>old technology.
>
> [shrug] It seems you're just looking for things to bash. Whether
> Apple TV, one particular product, takes off or not in its current
> incantation is not terribly meaningful. All companies have hits and
> misses, Apple included. What matters are the hits, not the misses.
>

And a good company recognizes those failures and abandons them. A good
company does not repackage the same failure fifteen different ways in an
attempt to say, "I told you so." Apple is incapable of doing this in its
current mindset.

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:04:43 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>following in news[email protected]:
>
>>> Yet another unsubstantiated personal speculation.
>>
>>Or an observation based on my experience and substantial knowledge of
>>the sector.
>
> In other words, just what I wrote.

Where did I present it as anything but that? Are you saying that you are
the only one here allowed to present opinion?

>
>>> Got anything more
>>> substantial, or are we expected to just take your word for it?
>>
>>Isn't that what you expect from us? To simply take you at your word?
>
> In other words you don't, as that lame defense makes clear.
>

In other words, don't bash that which you are so famous for.

John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following
in news:[email protected]:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:08:35 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:59:44 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote
>>> in <[email protected]>:
>>>
>>>>John Navas <[email protected]> amazed us all with the
>>>>following
>>>
>>>>> "Apple on track to exceed revenue targets"
>>>>> <http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=20445>
>>>>
>>>>Got something a little more independent?
>>>
>>> American Technology Research is independent.
>>
>>And I would expect Macworld to latch on to that single opinion- it
>>moves their own agenda forward. Others are not so rosy about the
>>outlook.
>>
>>http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=7670
>
> A single blog is the best you can do? LOL!
>

I pulled the first of over 1000 such links. Name a source you would be
more comfrotable with- I can provide the very same information from them.