 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General General TopicsGSMBluetoothProviders AlltelATT WirelessCingularFidoNextelSprint PCST-MobileVerizonManufacturers EricssonNokiaMotorolaCountry Specific Australian GroupUK GroupRelated Topics PocketPCPalmMore Topics ... |
Cellular Phone Forum / Providers / Cingular / July 2007Piper Jaffray: 500,000 iPhones sold over the weekend
I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL! http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9738446-7.html July 1, 2007 9:26 PM PDT Piper Jaffray: 500,000 iPhones sold over the weekend Posted by Tom Krazit Apple sold around half a million iPhones the first weekend the device went on sale, one analyst firm has estimated. Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster released a report Sunday night estimating that Apple sold about 500,000 units from 6 p.m. Friday through the close of business Sunday. Going into the weekend Munster thought Apple would sell 200,000 on Friday and Saturday. Despite low supply at AT&T stores and activation issues, it appears that the iPhone era at Apple got off to a good start. Piper Jaffray said Apple had iPhones available in each one of its stores on Saturday, and in 84 percent of its stores Sunday. Ninety-five percent of iPhone buyers in San Francisco, New York and Minneapolis (home to Piper Jaffray's offices) purchased the 8GB model, according to a survey conducted by the firm. About half were new customers for AT&T, at least among the 253 people surveyed for the report. > I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL! I don't understand; why would that be funny? >> I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL! > > I don't understand; why would that be funny? It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair. > It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair. Well, sure! A box of hair is FUNNY! I just don't know why it always laughs back. > "Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in message >> >> I don't understand; why would that be funny? > > It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair. Boxes of hair aren't funny? - -- John Mayson <john@mayson.us> Austin, Texas, USA > I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL! > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > according to a survey conducted by the firm. About half were new customers > for AT&T, at least among the 253 people surveyed for the report. Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations East Bay Business Times - 1:55 PM PDT Tuesday, July 24, 2007 Shares of Apple Inc. dropped more than 6 percent Tuesday after fewer iPhones than expected were activated during the first few days after the gadget's launch. Cupertino-based Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock fell $8.81 to close the day at $134.89. AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during the first weekend. Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T (NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36. Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday. http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/07/23/daily23.html It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people are going to be returning iPhones... > AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated > 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people > are going to be returning iPhones... Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone, since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter. Look. I like the iPhone. It is a nice unit and it deserves to succeed. But it is not a Mac. Perhaps we need an iPhone group. That said, I think the iPhone needs a few things in order to really take off: 1) Apple needs to stress that the EDGE network is a backup system. The iPhone is meant to be used wirelessly. 2) Allowing 3rd party aps as web applications does not cut it, especially in much of the west where you are lucky to get cellular coverage at all, let alone EDGE or wireless. Even a couple games would be nice. 3) I can live with the battery thing, but Apple has got to figure out how to replace that battery without leaving me with no phone for a couple weeks. 4) Most of the people I saw buying iPhones were gangsta wannabees and the hip-hop crowd. Fine, but it tells me that Apple is not marketing the phones to people who might actually use all their features. If you are a businessman looking for a phone, you don't want to get a phone that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy is a bad thing.  SignatureWaddling Eagle World Famous Flight Instructor > Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single > iPhone, since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter. Uh- wrong. iPhones started being sold to consumers at the end of June, which was the end of the second quarter. Stores needed iPhones to sell them- they will most certainly be reported when quarterly results are announced later this week. On 7/24/07 6:51 PM, in article 2007072416514450073-christophercampbell@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell" <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote: >> AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated >> 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy > is a bad thing. I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email sends. Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the a.s absent. > I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot > grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the > fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email > sends. Better BlueTooth support would, indeed be great. That said, when I plug mine into one of my Macs (and have "fresh" photos on it), it goes straight to iPhoto instead of iTunes, so the photos get sucked up pretty easily. > Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the a.s absent. Yes, Flash/Shockwave support would be really nice. Since it has YouTube support (and that is Flash-based), this would give the appearance of being fairly straightforward, but maybe I'm missing something. The feature I miss the most, though, is an "iPod" feature -- being able to manually manage content/use as a flash storage device for moving files around. Regardless of the above "wish list" features, it is still the first cellphone I've found that I'm willing to carry around with me without grumbling about it being a pain-in-the-a** piece of sh*t annoyance. SignatureSpenser > Yes, Flash/Shockwave support would be really nice. Since it has YouTube > support (and that is Flash-based), the days of flash are coming to a end. youtube is converting everything to pure H.264. flash just can't cut it for the future. the iphone only plays H.264, quicktime, jpg, tif, gif, etc. >> Yes, Flash/Shockwave support would be really nice. Since it has YouTube >> support (and that is Flash-based), > > the days of flash are coming to a end. youtube is converting everything > to pure H.264. flash just can't cut it for the future. the iphone only > plays H.264, quicktime, jpg, tif, gif, etc. Bullshit, just b/c your life revolves around watching video mini screens of prancing naked children on your iphone doesn't mean a Goddamned thing regarding Flash. SignatureHi! I don't care two sh.ts about you or your needs. I want the *goddamned* commission from your house sale !! > Since it has YouTube > support (and that is Flash-based), this would give the appearance of > being fairly straightforward, but maybe I'm missing something. YouTube is re-encoding video with the H.264 codec for TV and iPhone. That's why the less-popular videos from YouTube aren't on the iPhone yet. They've got a lot of material to convert. -jcr > I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot > grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get > the > fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email > sends. I assume you mean in the absence of a USB connection. > Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the a.s absent. I could live without Java but the lack of Flash is a biggie. SignatureMike On 7/25/07 1:44 AM, in article 5go9o6F3h1gelU1@mid.individual.net, "Tinman" <ask@for.it> wrote: >> I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot >> grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I assume you mean in the absence of a USB connection. No, a Bluetooth file transfer system. My old Motorola 500 could communicate with all my Macs and exchange info. I am assuming that the iTunes route of transfer is much like the iPod: sync with only one computer. No Usb is involved. >> Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the a.s absent. > > I could live without Java but the lack of Flash is a biggie. Agreed. > On 7/25/07 1:44 AM, in article 5go9o6F3h1gelU1@mid.individual.net, > "Tinman" [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > with all my Macs and exchange info. I am assuming that the iTunes route of > transfer is much like the iPod: sync with only one computer. Not when it comes to photos. At least with PCs I can use any modern PC and my iPhone is recognized as a digital camera and the files can be offloaded--no iTunes required. I would think a Mac would work similarly (think it uses iPhoto though). But again, this is via USB. I'm not saying I like it being limited to USB (well, I have emailed photos too), nor would I likely have a cable handy when carrying around my iPhone. BT would be nice, but I'd like WiFi too. I suspect this will come in due time. Heck, I've just about got WiFi tethering working as outlined here: "http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/25/iphone-hacked-for-untethered-edge-data-on-laptop/" "http://www.everythingiphone.com/forum/iphone-software/tethering-now-possible-690 5.html" I didn't expect this so soon. The technique essentially bridges EDGE to WiFi so that the iPhone becomes a mini WiFi hotspot (ad hoc). I certainly won't use it much, but for those times when traveling when I really need to do something from my laptop, and no free WiFi is available (seems to be getting common at airports--subscription only, or pay for a day). With my Treo I used this maybe 4 times a year. But it was still nice to have. Looks like I will have that soon for my iPhone too. SignatureMike > > AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated > > 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone, > since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter. WRONG. Apple's quarter ended on June 30th, 30 hours AFTER the iPhone went on sale. > Look. I like the iPhone. It is a nice unit and it deserves to succeed. > But it is not a Mac. Perhaps we need an iPhone group. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy > is a bad thing. Signatureregarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm In article <teadams$2$0$0$3-A6D7FC.21471324072007@news.west.earthlink.net>, > > Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone, > > since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter. > > WRONG. Apple's quarter ended on June 30th, 30 hours AFTER the iPhone went on > sale. Kinda sorta. Read today that Apple is going to book the income from the iPhones over the course of the contracts for some reason known only the accountants (unless of course the AP reporter got that mixed up with the per phone fees Apple is getting from ATT- a possibility I suppose). Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in news:kurtullman-3579DF.22530624072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net .mx: > In article > <teadams$2$0$0$3-A6D7FC.21471324072007@news.west.earthlink.net>, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > up with the per phone fees Apple is getting from ATT- a possibility I > suppose). The reason is simple- a way to hide the sales figures. I'd be interested in knowing how AT&T is paying for the phones they sell- when shipped or when activated? Or over the life of the contract? > Kurt Ullman <kurtull...@yahoo.com> wrote innews:kurtullman-3579DF.22530624072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net > .mx: [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > - Show quoted text - It's no secret why Apple is going to book revenue over two years....They've stated the reason a million times.... http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/33648 "Rather than recognize the revenue up front, based on the total price, it'll be accounted for as a subscription, which means while the money will be in the bank, there'll be no change in cash flow -- revenue and earnings will be deferred and amortized over two years rather than recognized immediately. The change is required by accounting rules because Apple now says it will add new features to these products for free over time" > > I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL! > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during > the first weekend. > Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T > (NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Edwin, the weekend consists of three days...AT&T only reported two and..... http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_hi_te/apple_iphone_2;_ylt=Ag3Ph6tb163y rV4HogjmusBkM3wV Analysts cautioned against reading too much into AT&T's activation numbers, saying the actual number of iPhones sold may be much higher but was not reflected in the figure because many users had activation problems and couldn't sign up for a few days. "It's just had such a run on overexpectations, I don't see this as any sort of disappointing metric in terms of the iPhone overall," said Ingrid Ebeling, an analyst with JMP Securities. "I think it's just gotten a little overhyped over the past month." > Analysts cautioned against reading too much into AT&T's activation > numbers, saying the actual number of iPhones sold may be much higher [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Ingrid Ebeling, an analyst with JMP Securities. "I think it's just > gotten a little overhyped over the past month." and A LOT of people bought them as gifts, sold them on ebay or bought 2 at once so the activation number is probably around 1/3 the number of iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days. Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in news:im-D7158A.18305524072007 @mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net: >> Analysts cautioned against reading too much into AT&T's activation >> numbers, saying the actual number of iPhones sold may be much higher [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess > is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days. We won't know the real number tomorrow- every phone they sold to AT&T for stock will be reported tomorrow, whether activated or not. > and A LOT of people bought them as gifts, sold them on ebay or bought 2 > at once so the activation number is probably around 1/3 the number of > iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess > is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days. I'll second that. It seems a large number of people buying them were buying 2, 3, 4 or more devices at once. I'm guessing most activated only one when they got home, even if they were not planning to sell them. I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all. If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it. > I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but > this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all. > If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it. I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong. In article <kurtullman-D93A4B.22542424072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx> > > I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but > > this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all. > > If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it. > > I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I > don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong. Not sure why I am surprised? Because of the very big difference, the specific attention it was given, and the facts that there are a lot of people hoping to pee on the parade, if only to make themselve visible in the melee. Not sure why I think the SEC needs to look into it? Because releasing numbers that are not valid, especially when they affect a company's sales and stock prices, is illegal and a very bad practice to allow at any time. > > I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I > > don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong. > Not sure why I think the SEC needs to look into it? Because releasing > numbers that are not valid, especially when they affect a company's > sales and stock prices, is illegal and a very bad practice to allow at > any time. *IF* those numbers came from Apple (or ATT), then I would agree. However if the irrational exuberance (to coin a phrase) came from Piper Jaffray or others, I don't think the SEC has a dog in that hunt. Thus, the question about who came up with the numbers(g). >In article ><kurtullman-D93A4B.22542424072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >people hoping to pee on the parade, if only to make themselve visible >in the melee. AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > >In article > ><kurtullman-D93A4B.22542424072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up > number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000. It goes farther than that. We don't know how many people bought iPhones but wanted to transfer their number to the iPhone. Did Verizon, Sprint, etc. have people over the weekend to accommodate those people? To activate the iPhone with the number requires the previous phone to be deactivated. Michelle Steiner previously discussed the problems she had and eventually said she just got a new number for her iPhone. If others did not want to go to that hassle but just waited until the following week to get the previous phone deactivated to keep their phone number, it would not show in the numbers. Having your phone number switched is not a trivial matter. I recall having to stay at a Radio Shack for nearly two hours when I got my Sprint LG phone two years ago and that was just switching the number from a Sprint Samsung phone. I have not seen any numbers on switches of numbers for people who bought iPhones. Has anyone else? Remove blown from email address to reply. > It goes farther than that. We don't know how many people bought iPhones > but wanted to transfer their number to the iPhone. AT&T claims 40% of the acivations were from other carriers. I suspect a good number of them ported their old number. > Did Verizon, Sprint, > etc. have people over the weekend to accommodate those people? They don't have to. The porting process is computerized and automatic. Only "rejected" ports, where the account information doesn't match between the two providers, (i.e. "Tom Kettler" opens account at AT&T and asks to port "Thomas R. Kettler"'s Verizon number, etc.) have to be reviewed manually. > To > activate the iPhone with the number requires the previous phone to be > deactivated. No, not really. The porting process goes something like this: you have, say, a Verizon phone with number 111-1111. AT&T activates your new phone with temorary number 222-2222, and begins the port. Verizon is notified electronically to cancel your account and release 111-1111 to AT&T, then AT&T is notified 111-1111 is now available and changes your activated account from 222-2222 to 111-1111. If all goes well, this is done fairly quickly, if not, up to a couple of days. Either way, your AT&T phone is active immediately with SOME number, and in the case of the subject at hand, is counted as an activation. > Michelle Steiner previously discussed the problems she had and > eventually said she just got a new number for her iPhone. IIRC, her problem wasn't totally port related, but had to do with an incomplete account creation "stuck" in the system blocking her attempts to setup an account (because the system saw it as a duplicate account for the same phone.) > If others did > not want to go to that hassle but just waited until the following week > to get the previous phone deactivated to keep their phone number, it > would not show in the numbers. AT&T claims systemic problems delayed 8,000-10,000 activations the first weekend. > Having your phone number switched is not a trivial matter. I recall > having to stay at a Radio Shack for nearly two hours when I got my > Sprint LG phone two years ago and that was just switching the number > from a Sprint Samsung phone. It's become smoother, but I had a nightmarish double port just last year that took three days. I simultaneously ported my old contract cellphone number into a prepaid phone while porting a business land line into my contract phone. (I wanted to keep my old number alive to setup a voicemail directing people to the new number, hence the port to the prepaid.) Not once in the three-day process did either phone stop working, but different numbers rang different phones throughout the process! Through the magic of call forwarding and the hassle of lugging two phones around, I don't think I missed any calls in those three days. > I have not seen any numbers on switches of numbers for people who > bought iPhones. Has anyone else? I haven't, but I assume the majority of the 40% changing providers to AT&T ported their number. -- 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 > > >In article > > ><kurtullman-D93A4B.22542424072007@customer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > activate the iPhone with the number requires the previous phone to be > deactivated. And the phone companies have at least 10* days in which to release it. > Michelle Steiner previously discussed the problems she had and > eventually said she just got a new number for her iPhone. If others did [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Remove blown from email address to reply. * this number was given me by an AT&T wireless company employee. Signatureregarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth, you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm > AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with > activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says > that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were > at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up > number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000. Another good point: the number may not reflect all activations attempted or begun during that time. They may be applying some lkind of additional consideration (like the billing was sent out). Some of these people are ignoring that we're talking about the business practices, not some absolute value of actually moved items. The business practices may not even count anything where that wasn't a physical transation of money yet (which means all credit card payments wouldn't have been counted until Monday, for instance.) It's also important for them to remember that the threshold is over a matter of a few hours -- even partially begun activations may be a significant quantity to consider. Again, I just hope someone can explain the difference in values. > AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated > 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people > are going to be returning iPhones... It does seem like a little too much to assume that 346,000 iPhones are going to appear on eBay. >Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!! > >Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations > > Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!! no it didn't, that number was only for the first 30 hours, not the 1.65 million sold during the first "week" so you screwed up! >> >Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >so you screwed up! Are you talking to someone? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.