 |
 | 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 2007Apple hits record success once again!
The great news continues to roll in... Apple is now more valuable than Hewlett Packard! The iPhones did way better than expected, a bit over 1,500 sold every minute in the 3rd Quarter. 270,000 sold in just 30 hours! That's 14 times faster than ATT has ever sold any cell phone. iPhones go in to Europe (England, Germany, France) next quarter... Asia in 08... Apple Stock is up 11.50 points as of this post! http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL All the facts are here: Apple Reports Third Quarter Results Record June Quarter Revenue and Profit Mac Sales Set New Record CUPERTINO, California‹July 25, 2007‹Apple today announced financial results for its fiscal 2007 third quarter ended June 30, 2007. The Company posted revenue of $5.41 billion and net quarterly profit of $818 million, or $.92 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $4.37 billion and net quarterly profit of $472 million, or $.54 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 36.9 percent, up from 30.3 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 40 percent of the quarter¹s revenue. Apple shipped 1,764,000 Macintosh® computers, representing 33 percent growth over the year-ago quarter and exceeding the previous company record for quarterly Mac® shipments by over 150,000. The Company also sold 9,815,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 21 percent growth over the year-ago quarter. ³We¹re thrilled to report the highest June quarter revenue and profit in Apple¹s history, along with the highest quarterly Mac sales ever,² said Steve Jobs, Apple¹s CEO. ³iPhone is off to a great start‹we hope to sell our one-millionth iPhone by the end of its first full quarter of sales‹and our new product pipeline is very strong.² ³We are very pleased to report strong financial results including cash flow from operations exceeding $1.2 billion for the quarter,² said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple¹s CFO. ³Looking ahead to the fourth fiscal quarter of 2007, we expect revenue of about $5.7 billion and earnings per diluted share of about $.65.² Apple will provide live streaming of its Q3 2007 financial results conference call utilizing QuickTime®, Apple¹s standards-based technology for live and on-demand audio and video streaming. The live webcast will begin at 2:00 p.m. PDT on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq307/ and will also be available for replay. (it's now up and running) http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/07/25results.html - Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs- 958EC3.18130025072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net: > The great news continues to roll in... > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Mac Sales Set New Record <snip> So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly speakes to its contribution to the quarter. > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly > speakes to its contribution to the quarter. 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. The big gains with the Mac was the biggest news, then continued strong iPod sales (even though they haven't been updated in about a year :) Apple will hit 180 easy by christmas. Save your pennies Scott! >> So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That >> certainly speakes to its contribution to the quarter. > > 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/companies/apple_earnings.reut/index.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. > The big gains with the Mac was the biggest news, then continued strong > iPod sales (even though they haven't been updated in about a year :) > > Apple will hit 180 easy by christmas. Save your pennies Scott! Won't have to save many. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > 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) the $200 is the PROFIT of each iphone, which certainly does appear on the 3rd quarter numbers. you were trying to talk about something else, cnn didn't word it correctly so that's why you got confused. > > The big gains with the Mac was the biggest news, then continued strong > > iPod sales (even though they haven't been updated in about a year :) > > > > Apple will hit 180 easy by christmas. Save your pennies Scott! > > Won't have to save many. great, then you are ready to invest in aapl. >> > 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 [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > great, then you are ready to invest in aapl. This has nothing to do with Linux.  SignatureRick >> > 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 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > 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? > <snip> > > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly > speakes to its contribution to the quarter. "CUPERTINO, California..." That's Paragaph 1 "Apple shipped 1,764,000 Macintosh® computers, representing..." That's Paragraph 2 "We¹re thrilled to report the highest June quarter revenue and profit in Apple¹s history, along with the highest quarterly Mac sales ever,² said Steve Jobs, Apple¹s CEO. ³iPhone is off to a great start..." Paragaph 3, third line: "iPhone is off to a great start..." An honest mistake, right? FYI, Paragraph 4 says that they expect to increase their gross revenue by $300M for next quarter. YMMV to what degree that speakes to contributions of what. -hh > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly > speakes to its contribution to the quarter. To be fair, the iPhone was available for only two out of the quarter's 91 days. If it had been the quarter's biggest news they'd have had a crappy quarter! -- 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 > > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That > certainly [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > days. If it had been the quarter's biggest news they'd have had a crappy > quarter! and to be perfectly clear. it was really only 1.5 days. they didn't start selling them until 6pm on Friday June 29th. then all day saturday. - then a new quarter began. (so technically... 6pm-12am the first night and 9 to 9 (roughly) on saturday. so 18 hours of sales. (except the 1 nyc 24hr store) (not sure about ATT hours) but no Apple Online iphone orders were activated during that time since they didn't start arriving until later that first week. 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. ---- but to be fair, apple did screw up by releasing it 2 days before a full quarter ended. if they would have waited just one week, they would have hit the 3-4 million number for the 4th quarter and we wouldn't have seen the 8 point drop from the erroneous ATT info, then a 12 point jump after afters today. >> > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That >> certainly [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > wouldn't have seen the 8 point drop from the erroneous ATT info, then > a 12 point jump after afters today. The ATT info was accurate. > > but to be fair, apple did screw up by releasing it 2 days before a > > full quarter ended. if they would have waited just one week, they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > The ATT info was accurate. but not for sales. and many of the news outlets picked it up as "slow sales". when it was really "slow activation" because ATT couldn't handle that much demand. the funny news item from this morning, was a channel i was watching said: microsoft iphone off to a slow start ///// then some commercials, then they went back and said apple's iphone may not be as popular as first thought, then they quoted the erroneous ATT "activation" numbers, but implied they were "sales" numbers, so i had a laugh over that one! that's why i always use facts, it's easier that way. >>> but to be fair, apple did screw up by releasing it 2 days before a >>> full quarter ended. if they would have waited just one week, they [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > sales". when it was really "slow activation" because ATT couldn't handle > that much demand. Both ATT and Apple said that only a small percentage of people were affected by activation issues. Steve > > > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That > > certainly [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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. > but to be fair, apple did screw up by releasing it 2 days before a full > quarter ended. if they would have waited just one week, they would have > hit the 3-4 million number for the 4th quarter and we wouldn't have seen > the 8 point drop from the erroneous ATT info, then a 12 point jump after > afters today. But no headlines that the gullable can spin... SignatureImmunity is better than innoculation. Peter > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > 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". outside of ATT, "apple" was the only other "dealer" of the iphone. > > but to be fair, apple did screw up by releasing it 2 days before a full > > quarter ended. if they would have waited just one week, they would have [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > But no headlines that the gullable can spin... yeah, people in the know surely laughed at the news orgs for messing that up, and you can be sure heads rolled at ATT because that number should not have been allowed to be issued. > > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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." SignatureImmunity is better than innoculation. Peter > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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". > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > 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. SignatureImmunity is better than innoculation. Peter > > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > 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. > > > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 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." <colalovesmacs-B7055E.19494725072007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net> 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. SignatureImmunity is better than innoculation. Peter > 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. I don't remember that being reported as fact, that all AT&T stores had no inventory. There are 1800 stores. Steve > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > all AT&T stores had no inventory. There are 1800 > stores. There¹s an article in http://macdailynews.com to the effect that many of the salespeople in AT&T stores are refusing to show the iPhone because they get no commission (according to the article) for selling them. SignatureLarry Weil Lake Wobegone, NH > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the salespeople in AT&T stores are refusing to show the iPhone because > they get no commission (according to the article) for selling them. I walked into an AT&T store the first week that they were released and asked if they had any. When I was told 'yes' I asked if they had one I could look at and was told they did have one I could look at BUT I would have to buy it first. I didn't look back as I walked out of the store. 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 > <kc1ih-FAACD5.14162028072007@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > would have to buy it first. I didn't look back as I walked out of the > store. Hmm- so they are simply using the iPhone to get people in the store. How interesting. > > In article > > <kc1ih-FAACD5.14162028072007@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>, [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Hmm- so they are simply using the iPhone to get people in the store. How > interesting. I've heard via a friend that this 'practice' has changed but was due to the low number of iPhones the AT&T stores had during the first couple of weeks. In fact, somebody told me that the store I visited was sold out the first day and didn't get any back for 3-4 days, which would have covered the time when I visited. Looks like I will need to make a return visit to see if they have nay out on display now. 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 > I walked into an AT&T store the first week that they were released and asked if > they had any. When I was told 'yes' I asked if they had one I could look at and > was told they did have one I could look at BUT I would have to buy it first. > I didn't look back as I walked out of the store. Ditto...but I was laughing went as I left the store mumbling how dysfunction they were. But ya know...they don't care, there are plenty of other suckers . I finally had the chance to activate one for a client of mine. Nice phone, as long as the screen doesn't get broken. Web browsing was pretty worthless as it wasn't 3G, but for the easily impressed..it would wow them. > > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > 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. SignatureTo reply by email, remove the word "space" > 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. The first paragraph is for the meat of the release, anyway -- can't put it there. The second gives changes in the major lines, and yes, Macs and iPods are most important. 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's only the part many people were interested to read; it's not the most important data they had to share. > > 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. 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. If that's the case, it would only the 14th time that such a thing has ever happened on USENET -hh >> > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That >> > certainly speakes to its contribution to the quarter. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > 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 [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 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 > >> > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That > >> > certainly speakes to its contribution to the quarter. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. Your acknowledgement is appreciated, although it would have carried more credibility if you didn't then try to make a bogus excuse for why you screwed up. The myopia that you continue to have here is in your insistance on attributing *everyone's* hyping as being the responsibility of just Apple. > > 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... First, the supposed shortcomings of the OP are utterly irrelevant to *YOU* f.cking up. This is a Red Herring distraction by which you're trying to avoid taking responsibility. In my decades of Project Management experience, I've seen this gambit used many times. > > 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. Scott's reading comprehension shortcomings apparently include satire, too. -hh >> >> > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That >> >> > certainly speakes to its contribution to the quarter. [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > > -hh Thanks for the feedback. It would have carried much more weight if it had not come with the third grade mentality. > >> [Scott wrote]: > >> I don't avoid admitting mistakes- the OP of this thread, however [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Thanks for the feedback. It would have carried much more weight if it > had not come with the third grade mentality. Again, Scott is trying to blame others for his own shortcomings. -hh > Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs- > 958EC3.18130025072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly > speakes to its contribution to the quarter. Yep. All of 30 hours contribution for the entire quarter... > Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs- > 958EC3.18130025072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net: [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly > speakes to its contribution to the quarter. Yeah... Because it was expected to do so much for a quarter where it had been on sale for a grand total of 1.25 days out of 91.25... SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > The great news continues to roll in... > > Apple is now more valuable than Hewlett Packard! (snip) None of this drivel has anything to do with Linux. Please post your cheerleading in Mac related groups. SignatureRick > The great news continues to roll in... Translation: 1) The iPhone bombed 2) They continue to milk the iPod, but it's dwindling. 3) In the absense of being able to report any good consumer electonics news, they come up with a lame story about selling more Macs (oh, yeah, that's in America only -- Macs don't sell worldwide). Speaking of Road Hogs that should get out da' way (for Linux/OSS to move on) on the Road Ahead, Microsoft is a now a sidelined 1959 streamliner RV that finally came to rest in a ditch. Apple is a big chugging 18-wheeler that has yet to give way and admit total defeat -- even though it's driver is old and deluded. >> The great news continues to roll in... > > Translation: > > 1) The iPhone bombed ,---- | http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6916672.stm | [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] | Net income was $818m between April and June, up 73% from | the same period of 2006. `---- > 2) They continue to milk the iPod, but it's dwindling. > 3) In the absense of being able to report any good consumer electonics [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > chugging 18-wheeler that has yet to give way and admit total defeat -- > even though it's driver is old and deluded. >> The great news continues to roll in... > > Translation: > > 1) The iPhone bombed The iPhone has not bombed by anyone's measure, but you. > 2) They continue to milk the iPod, but it's dwindling. They are not milking the iPhone. > 3) In the absense > of being able to report any good consumer electonics news, they come up Just what do you consider good consumer electronics news? > with a lame story about selling more Macs (oh, yeah, that's in America > only -- Macs don't sell worldwide). It doesn't matter where Macs do and don't sell, as long as they sell. And apparently,Apple's selling more now then ever before. > Speaking of Road Hogs that should get out da' way (for Linux/OSS to move > on) on the Road Ahead, OSS... you mean all those OSS projects Apple has either started, or regularly contributes to? <http://www.apple.com/opensource/> And that includes Webkit. > Microsoft is a now a sidelined 1959 streamliner > RV that finally came to rest in a ditch. Really? Then explain why the desktop market is still a Microsoft market. > Apple is a big chugging > 18-wheeler that has yet to give way and admit total defeat -- even > though it's driver is old and deluded. ... except that they continue to produce products that win new users and win creative design awards. Really, Bailo, you can find a lot of stuff to criticize Apple for without having to create BS. SignatureRick On Jul 26, 3:59 am, "John Bailo, Texeme.Construct" <jaba...@texeme.com> wrote: > > The great news continues to roll in... > > Translation: > > 1) The iPhone bombed 270,000 units sold in 30 hours is considered bombing? > 2) They continue to milk the iPod, but it's dwindling. iPod sales increased compared to the same quarter a year ago. > 3) In the absense of being able to report any good consumer electonics > news, they come up with a lame story about selling more Macs (oh, > yeah, that's in America only -- Macs don't sell worldwide). So Apple sold more iPods, Macs, and iPhones (obviously) than the same quarter a year ago, is more profitable than any other electronics/ computer reseller in the world besides HP.and has a higher market cap than any other electronics company in the world, except for HP. I've corrected the subject line for you. > The great news continues to roll in... http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/chi-wed_brief2_0725jul25,0,2183429.story Shares fall on soft demand for iPhone Bloomberg News July 25, 2007 NEW YORK - Apple Inc. stock fell 6 percent Tuesday on signs that demand for the new iPhone could fail to meet investors' expectations. Activations from AT&T Inc., the exclusive carrier for the iPhone, are a "disappointment," Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst Gene Munster said. AT&T said Tuesday that it activated 146,000 of the phones in the first two days of the sales agreement. CIBC World Markets said that demand for the iPhone has had a "significant decline" in the past 10 days and that Apple and AT&T might try to boost demand by increasing their marketing efforts. Apple introduced the iPhone in the U.S. on June 29. "We have noticed decent inventories at stores and thin demand at best," CIBC analyst Ittai Kidron wrote in a note. "Among the stores we visited, most visitors were not looking at the device, and only a very small subset bought it." Shares of Apple fell $8.81, or 6.1 percent, to $134.89, on the Nasdaq stock market. 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." > > The great news continues to roll in... > [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > 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? 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. > > > The great news continues to roll in... > [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Why are you posting old news, Edwin? I'm not. > 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. > > >http://www.silvermac.com/2007/iphone-disappointment/ > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I'm not. Yeah, you are. > > 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? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > In article <1185475761.173468.100...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Yeah, you are. You're lying again. > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Why? You need to be told why? Really? > > In article <1185475761.173468.100...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > You're lying again. Nope. Tuesday's news is old news in the stock market. > > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > 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. If Apple were to sell 10 million iPhones and none ever got activated, why would that matter? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > In article <1185476330.611978.21...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > 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. News of Apple's iPhone failure has not become too old to mention, no matter how fast you spin. > > > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 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. 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. > 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? You're really stupid enough to need to be told why activation matters? > > In article <1185476330.611978.21...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Yet you Maccies present five and ten year old TCO studies as if > they're relevant today. I do? Show a quote... Hint, Edwin: there is no "you Maccies" for whose opinions and statements I am responsible. But even you should be able to figure out that different kinds of information have different useful lives. > 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. Apple's stock price falling briefly is not such news. > > > > > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > years and you still haven't fulfilled the "netiquette" of supporting > your claim. I at least admitted it when I couldn't. > 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? > > 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. 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're really stupid enough to need to be told why activation matters? SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > In article <1185480707.007542.108...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 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? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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." > > In article <1185480707.007542.108...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, > > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > 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." So every downtick in Apple's stock indicates an Apple failure... > > > 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. Sorry, but that's incorrect. > > 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. ...but any uptick is just "euphoria", is that right? > > > > > > > > Apple's stock price is now at $143.71 -- right back to where it > > > > > > > > was [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > comply, yet somehow you think you're let off the hook by simply saying > you can't find the quotes to back your claims. "Pressed for years"? Please, I'd like to see the quotes. > > > Now you have some extra claims to support: > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Where's your support for your claims above? You started the game, Edwin. I'm just continuing it. > > > > If Apple were to sell 10 million iPhones and none ever got activated, > > > > why would that matter? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You have that backwards, as usual. You're the one who supposed 10 > million iPhones would be sold without activation, not I. No. I didn't. I posed a hypothetical case and asked you for an explanation. > > 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. Nope. Why are you under this strange delusion that there are going to be daily updates about a simple business transaction? > 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. Yes. We don't know precisely why AT&T was disappointed and analysts didn't drop Apple's stock price. Some people got scared for a few hours and then rationality was restored. > > > You're really stupid enough to need to be told why activation matters? > > I take your answer to be "yes." SignatureAlan Baker Vancouver, British Columbia "If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you sit in the bottom of that cupboard." > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > years and you still haven't fulfilled the "netiquette" of supporting > your claim. Been there, done that. SignatureSandman[.net] > 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 >> 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. Thank you for doing what Edwin cannot: Support a position. >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. >>Apple claims that the iPhone was needed because current phones are too >>complicated to use, etc. and that the iPhone would revolutionize the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 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. >>>Apple claims that the iPhone was needed because current phones are too >>>complicated to use, etc. and that the iPhone would revolutionize the [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > limitations. The bad part is most people don't know about > them. One old phone I had, you could make up your own. They weren't very complex tunes you could create, but it was fun to be able to put together your own unique ringtone. I don't buy many, as I'm on pay-as-you-go, but I don't object to paying a reasonable price (no more than a couple of quid counts as reasonable to me). SignatureKier > > > > The great news continues to roll in... > [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > It's the activation figure that counts. 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. > > > > > The great news continues to roll in... > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > not its activated. Apple cares about sells, AT&T cares about > activations. You think people are going to keep unactivated iPhones? Really? >> 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. > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > 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? > > >> 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 [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > What will you say after the days mount higher? How many days have it been now, generally speaking? You seem to sit on the facts on this one. :) SignatureSandman[.net] > In article <1185551403.754703.54...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > How many days have it been now, generally speaking? You seem to sit on > the facts on this one. :) The iPhone was launched on June 29th. How many days has that been? Does it take longer than a month to activate an iPhone? If so, it must really be a POS... > > > > 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. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > The iPhone was launched on June 29th. How many days has that been? Ah, so no one has activated an iPhone since the first 146 000? What is your claim? > Does it take longer than a month to activate an iPhone? If so, it > must really be a POS... Activation isn't a function of the phone, Edwin. It's something AT&T does. SignatureSandman[.net] >> > What will you say after the days mount higher? >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Does it take longer than a month to activate an iPhone? If so, it > must really be a POS... Do you have numbers for how many have been activated *after* the two-day period for which numbers were reported? >> Why are you posting old news, Edwin? > > I'm not. This is the internet, Edwin. Those were old news items. > >> Why are you posting old news, Edwin? > > > I'm not. > > This is the internet, Edwin. This is Usenet, Tim. >Those were old news items. That won't become true no matter how loudly you yell it, nor how often you repeat it, nor how hard you stomp your feet. |
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
|
©2008 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.