1.5 million unlocked iPhones?

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...as-many-as-15-
million-iphones-were-hacked/

Apple closes down 36% in a little over a month. This news certainly won't
help the stock price.

Another botched Apple business plan.

---

› See More: 1.5 million unlocked iPhones?

On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:10:00 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

>http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...as-many-as-15-
>million-iphones-were-hacked/
>
>Apple closes down 36% in a little over a month. This news certainly won't
>help the stock price.
>
>Another botched Apple business plan.

That's patently silly. Apple has been doing very well, as demonstrated
by reported results.

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

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

> The Bob wrote:
>> http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...as-many-as-15-
>> million-iphones-were-hacked/
>>
>> Apple closes down 36% in a little over a month. This news certainly
>> won't help the stock price.
>>
>> Another botched Apple business plan.
>
> Interesting story, but I question the contention that "the number of
> unlocked iPhones won’t matter as much to Apple as it might to AT&T."
> If most of the hacked iPhones are leaving the U.S., then AT&T doesn't
> care about them, as they're not losing any revenue. It's not like the
> ones leaving the U.S. are causing any reduction in sales for iPhones
> on AT&T.

They both have reasons to care. Apple loses a ton of revenue on each
unlocked phone, and AT&T loses that aura of exclusivity that they are
paying dearly for.

>
> Even the iPhones that are being used on T-Mobile USA would, in most
> cases, not have been purchased at all unless they could have been
> unlocked because those users had no intention of ever paying the
> monthly fees AT&T gets for the iPhone. So Apple is getting revenue
> that they would otherwise not have received as well.

But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the investors,
due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked phone.

>
> As to why Apple stock is down so much, it's more a matter of reality
> catching up with unrealistic expectations, market saturation for
> iPods, the failure of AppleTV to take off, the lack of any
> revolutionary new products since the iPhone, the stock market in
> general, the Republicans, and the recession. Those unactivated iPhone
> sales are _helping_ not _hurting_ the bottom line, plus they are
> making it into a cult product around the world.
>
> [alt.cellular.cingular removed. Cingular no longer exists. The proper
> venue for posts regarding AT&T's wireless service is
> alt.cellular.attws]
>

alt.cellular.cingular restored. Don't tell me the "proper venue" for
discussions, Steve. I've been doing this for quite a while and posted the
article exactly where I wanted to. I have no intentions of participating
in your little third-grade pissing match with John Navas. Please don't
hijack a discussion because you don't like the group it is posted to. I
fragments the discussion and makes it very unreadable.

On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:54:54 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
<[email protected]>:

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

>> Even the iPhones that are being used on T-Mobile USA would, in most
>> cases, not have been purchased at all unless they could have been
>> unlocked because those users had no intention of ever paying the
>> monthly fees AT&T gets for the iPhone. So Apple is getting revenue
>> that they would otherwise not have received as well.
>
>But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the investors,
>due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked phone.

What revenue per unit promise? Can you point to any such communication?
Or are you really just talking about overall financial results? I doubt
the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line, less than 1%.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

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

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:54:54 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
>>SMS <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
>>news:[email protected]:
>
>>> Even the iPhones that are being used on T-Mobile USA would, in most
>>> cases, not have been purchased at all unless they could have been
>>> unlocked because those users had no intention of ever paying the
>>> monthly fees AT&T gets for the iPhone. So Apple is getting revenue
>>> that they would otherwise not have received as well.
>>
>>But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the
>>investors, due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked
>>phone.
>
> What revenue per unit promise?

$18/month for every activated unit from AT&T for the life of the contract.

> Can you point to any such
> communication?

Yes- the joint annoucement from both companies on the rollout of the phone.

> Or are you really just talking about overall financial
> results?

Nobody would read that into what I wrote.

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.

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.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford

The Bob wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> The Bob wrote:
>>>
>>> But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the
>>> investors, due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked
>>> phone.
>>
>> What revenue per unit promise?
>
> $18/month for every activated unit from AT&T for the life of the
> contract.

What does that have to do with iPhones sold that would never have been on
AT&T anyway? Your logic assumes every iPhone sold was to someone who would
have otherwise went with AT&T. That is of course incorrect. It's like a
music label claiming every download was a lost sale. It just ain't true.

And what, pray tell, is the alternative? Had the iPhone not been unlocked
there would be 25%-33% less iPhones sold. How exactly would that be better
for Apple? Now you might claim the iPhone is being sold at a loss, or close
to cost, so without the extra revenue it becomes a financial drag. But I
have seen nothing to suggest Apple is losing money on each iPhone sold.


--
Mike

In article <[email protected]>,
John Navas <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:54:54 -0600, The Bob <[email protected]> wrote in
> <[email protected]>:
>
> >SMS <[email protected]> amazed us all with the following in
> >news:[email protected]:
>
> >> Even the iPhones that are being used on T-Mobile USA would, in most
> >> cases, not have been purchased at all unless they could have been
> >> unlocked because those users had no intention of ever paying the
> >> monthly fees AT&T gets for the iPhone. So Apple is getting revenue
> >> that they would otherwise not have received as well.
> >
> >But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the investors,
> >due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked phone.
>
> What revenue per unit promise? Can you point to any such communication?

It's at the same site that has references to extended GSM. You should
be able to find that, John.

So tell us again where that is?

The Bob wrote:
>
> 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.

The real revenue leak was leaving money on the table, that they could have
had by selling unlocked iPhones at a premium. That money


--
Mike

The Bob wrote:

> 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.

If Apple expected that revenue on every iPhone they manufactured, then
indeed the investors would be upset. But they knew in advance that not
every iPhone sold would be activated on a network from which they would
get additional revenue.

The sales of iPhones that were unlocked is all upside revenue, it didn't
mean any less iPhones were activated on AT&T as a result.

iPhone sales and activations are in a slump, but it's not the unlocking
that's the cause.

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.

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

> The Bob wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> If Apple expected that revenue on every iPhone they manufactured, then
> indeed the investors would be upset. But they knew in advance that not
> every iPhone sold would be activated on a network from which they
> would get additional revenue.

But they never expected a 40% rate of defection. Their numbers were less
than 5%. It is basic Business 101- you manufacture and sell a product
expecting a certain level of revenue to be generated by each unit, minus an
acceptable level of shrinkage. The business plan of the iPhone calculated
an expected revenue of $432 per activated unit, with the expectation that
roughly 50,000 (or less) phones per million would not generate that
revenue. The number of defects in the process is now approaching 400,000
per million.

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. Care to guess why
more agreements haven't been made?

>
> The sales of iPhones that were unlocked is all upside revenue, it
> didn't mean any less iPhones were activated on AT&T as a result.
>
> iPhone sales and activations are in a slump, but it's not the
> unlocking that's the cause.
>


True- it's because the iPhone isn't the showstopper that Apple touted it to
be. The lack of common functionality has outweighted the glitzy UI.

The Bob wrote:
>
> True- it's because the iPhone isn't the showstopper that Apple touted
> it to be. The lack of common functionality has outweighted the
> glitzy UI.

This explains the convoluted logic...


--
Mike

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.

We were all supposed to be server-based WebTV users, by now, with dumb
computers calling up what we wanted from THEIR servers THEY were supposed
to rent us...taking the freeware, shareware, open source community out of
the loop for the big corporations. It didn't wash then....it won't wash
NOW, as Apple is finding out with jailbroken iPhone WebTVs.

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??

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.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>

"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford