John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:6v09r3hq9fh33ucg7rmafjo5tan67rfb1j@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:08:35 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A44715A4225Dbob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:lf09r3tk9o5qi0la2ju2a1r305h4lgoj45@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:59:44 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote
>>> in <Xns9A446FDA4234Abob@216.196.97.136>:
>>>
>>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> 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.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:15:47 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A44729301FDFbob@216.196.97.136>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news:io09r3t5ast637t40l86sbj80vegpjaakt@4ax.com:
>> [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.
A good company doesn't just give up -- it learns from the misses, and
keeps trying until it gets it right, Microsoft being a good case in
point, in addition to Apple.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:18:28 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A447307B5DC6bob@216.196.97.136>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news:6v09r3hq9fh33ucg7rmafjo5tan67rfb1j@4ax.com:
>> 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.
I've cited the official positions of three respected analysts, with
stock price forecasts of $175-250. You've cited ... um ... none.
Google searches don't count.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
On Feb 14, 9:05 am, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following innews:47b46fb3$0$36326$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
> > 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.
I think you flunked the course.
They may not have expected the large number of unlocked phones, but
they didn't lose revenue that they otherwise would have had. The
shortfall in sales and revenue is not due to the large number of
unlocked iPhones.
They're essentially selling into two totally different channels. One
is through the carriers with which they have a revenue sharing
agreement, and the other is to the sophisticated users that want to
use the product in a different way than they intended.
Some companies spend a lot of money separating their channels, through
different product names, different types of retailers, and different
pricing schemes (rebates, coupons, subsidies, etc.). Apple had none of
those hassles, and did not have to have confusing pricing schemes to
differentiate the channels. They may have even expected this to have
occurred.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:eov8r3t3sctb1aiqlfn05dso4350nnl3lv@4ax.com:
> It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to pass
> judgement.
>
>
John, this isn't a new concept. JAVA was supposed to steer us away from
having software loaded onto our machines and server basing the software by
using web-browser-based apps....exactly what iPhone is made for, like
WebTV, which didn't fly, either.
It was a total failure. The computing public is too savvy to let them take
away their local-based software from inside the machines and turn it into a
pay-per-view movie box office home appliance. It's not going to work!
Only the most naive users get sucked up into this rental scheme of pay,
pay, PAY. Software resides under user control ON HIS COMPUTER, now and
forever. The WebTV didn't work then...and it's not going to work now, no
matter how much revenue Apple pours into the ad company coffers.
You're old enough to remember the PC dongle fiasco that nearly put them all
out of the software business. Paranoid software companies punished paying
users with this nonsense....and the users sent a message back up the
revenue stream that said a resounding NO! Just as suddenly as they
appeared, the dongles went in the trash.
Apple's dream of user domination is a stupid concept the users, even Mac
users, aren't going to buy. It looks like the investor community isn't
buying into it, either....
From the Nokia N800 Linux tablet running INTERNALLY freeware rdesktop to
the Remote Desktop of my PC at home.....I bid you good luck...
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:vuu8r3l2thnsv0qpc57r908m2b9bra9i1u@4ax.com:
> 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.
>
>
I want to know where they are. Are they sold to dealers and sitting on a
shelf, unsold, or are they online and being used.
I eat out daily and do a lot of mall cruising, shopping, etc. Where are
the iPhones? It's too big to hide. But, here in Charleston, SC, I think
I've stubled across less than a handful, less than a dozen, iPhones
actually being used. According to all these glowing reports, they should
be seen all over the place. They are simply NOT here. Did the Chinese and
Silicon Valley buy them all?
Do your own survey. Watch all the sellphone users in restaurants, malls,
bars, theatres, electronics stores, other hangouts. Spot all the iPhone
users with that thing hanging on them. They are really hard to find in a
GLUT of iPhones.
I just don't see it, compared to other new phones that are in use all over.
I see LOTS less iPhones than I do Moto Q, Blackberrys, Treos, UTCs....
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
news:ko19r39ga2nl524kva23r3kt3onjolud8e@4ax.com:
> I've cited the official positions of three respected analysts, with
> stock price forecasts of $175-250. You've cited ... um ... none.
> Google searches don't count.
>
> --
> Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
> John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
>
>
So, how much AAPL does John Navas own? How much has he purchased at $120,
a really cheap bargain price for such a wonderful corporation.
You should be buying up shares like mad expecting $175-250/share! I would
be if I thought it would be that high in the near term!
Larry wrote:
> John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:vuu8r3l2thnsv0qpc57r908m2b9bra9i1u@4ax.com:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>
> I want to know where they are. Are they sold to dealers and sitting
> on a shelf, unsold, or are they online and being used.
>
> I eat out daily and do a lot of mall cruising, shopping, etc.
Sorry, Larry, you won't see many at the local Waffle House. <g>
SMS <scharf.steven@gmail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:c102810b-7f3b-4907-887b-7155a552081a@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
> On Feb 14, 9:05 am, The Bob <nos...@bob.com> wrote:
>> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following
>> innews:47b46fb3$0$36326$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>>
>> > 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.
>
> I think you flunked the course.
>
> They may not have expected the large number of unlocked phones, but
> they didn't lose revenue that they otherwise would have had. The
> shortfall in sales and revenue is not due to the large number of
> unlocked iPhones.
>
> They're essentially selling into two totally different channels. One
> is through the carriers with which they have a revenue sharing
> agreement, and the other is to the sophisticated users that want to
> use the product in a different way than they intended.
>
> Some companies spend a lot of money separating their channels, through
> different product names, different types of retailers, and different
> pricing schemes (rebates, coupons, subsidies, etc.). Apple had none of
> those hassles, and did not have to have confusing pricing schemes to
> differentiate the channels. They may have even expected this to have
> occurred.
>
And with that, you show that I'm not the one who flunked anything.
Those revenue estimates are used to determine budgets for things like
advertising and R&D, and revenue forecasts are one area where companies
can lose Wall St. confidence with.
Apple's necessity to lock each phone and sign exclusive carrier
agreements in each market makes the large number of unlocked phones
couterproductive to the business model. With retail channels only
available in four countries, their sales potential is severely hampered
and the large number of unlocked phones floating around the world makes
it almost impossible to gain entry into new markets. No other phone in
the world enjoys the same hinderences to sale in all markets where the
texchnology is viable.
And with over four years to go before they can provide unlocked devices
to the mass market, the phone will be obsolete before it is available
worldwide. And with Google platform phones just months away from
hitting the market, Apple is in peril of losing any momentum that they
could have gained with the iPhone.
Apple has released two "new" technology products in the last year- the
new Macbook and the iPhone, and continues to try and market a decade-old
product in AppleTV. None of these products are gaining the foothold in
the market that the Company anticipated. My reference to Sony in an
earlier post come into play here- Sony's inability to successfully
introduce new technologies after the demise of the walkman and cathode-
ray televisions led to the decline of the company as an industry leader.
Apple is doomed to be a third-tier computer manufacturer and mp3 player
company and ride off into irrelevence.
Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article <61jkgsF1v02otU1@mid.individual.net>, "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
> wrote:
>
>>> I want to know where they are. Are they sold to dealers and sitting
>>> on a shelf, unsold, or are they online and being used.
>>>
>>> I eat out daily and do a lot of mall cruising, shopping, etc.
>>
>> Sorry, Larry, you won't see many at the local Waffle House.
>
> Nor will he see the 8 year girls he's ogling carrying them.
I don't even wanna *know* what he meant by "mall cruising." <shudder>
Charles <fort514@mac.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:140220081931408990%fort514@mac.com:
> In article <Xns9A44705A74DCCbob@216.196.97.136>, The Bob
> <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> Apple TV is only a year old.
>
In it's current version, yes. However, on October 18, 1993, Apple
introduced Macintosh TV, their first commercial attempt to integrate
computer and television functionality.
> Those revenue estimates are used to determine budgets for things like
> advertising and R&D, and revenue forecasts are one area where companies
> can lose Wall St. confidence with.
>
> Apple's necessity to lock each phone and sign exclusive carrier
> agreements in each market makes the large number of unlocked phones
What you don't understand is that the supply of iPhones is essentially
unlimited. It's not like a phone that is sold to someone that unlocks it
is in any way reducing the number of phones that are available to be
sold by AT&T and activated.
If there were a supply shortage of the iPhone then Apple and AT&T would
be rightfully concerned. Of course all they had to do was instead of
charging $400 for the iPhone, charge $800 with a $400 rebate for a two
year contract, and an extra charge above the normal ETF as some
retailers like Amazon charge if the account is closed early.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:47b4e8b7$0$36361$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> The Bob wrote:
>
>> Those revenue estimates are used to determine budgets for things like
>> advertising and R&D, and revenue forecasts are one area where
companies
>> can lose Wall St. confidence with.
>>
>> Apple's necessity to lock each phone and sign exclusive carrier
>> agreements in each market makes the large number of unlocked phones
>
> What you don't understand is that the supply of iPhones is essentially
> unlimited. It's not like a phone that is sold to someone that unlocks
it
> is in any way reducing the number of phones that are available to be
> sold by AT&T and activated.
I said nothing of the sort, Steve. You really need to start reading and
understanding the posts you reply to. The fact that you even infer that
this was what was being discussed is rather amusing, but rather alarming
at the same time.
>
> If there were a supply shortage of the iPhone then Apple and AT&T
would
> be rightfully concerned. Of course all they had to do was instead of
> charging $400 for the iPhone, charge $800 with a $400 rebate for a two
> year contract, and an extra charge above the normal ETF as some
> retailers like Amazon charge if the account is closed early.
>
Nobody was talking about a shortage of phones. Why are you?
One more time and I'll go real slow for you this time. Ok?
- Apple is in the business of selling stuff
- One of the things they sell is the iPhone
- They sell the iPhone in four countries around the world
- In those four countries, they have an exclusive agreement with a
specific carrier
- four out of every ten phones being sold is being unlocked
- these unlocked phones are more than likely not being used on the
networks agreed to in those four countries
- these unlocked phones are being used all over the world in countries
other than the original four
- this has precluded Apple from signing new agreements with new carriers
in more than the four countries they currently have agreements for
- not being able to sell phones in more than four countries means that
they don't sell as many phones
- this means that Apple loses the ability to make lots of money, because
In article <Xns9A44B96D3AEDDbob@216.196.97.136>, The Bob
<nospam@bob.com> wrote:
> In it's current version, yes. However, on October 18, 1993, Apple
> introduced Macintosh TV, their first commercial attempt to integrate
> computer and television functionality.
That product had nothing to do with the current Apple TV product.
Charles <fort514@mac.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:140220082041380897%fort514@mac.com:
> In article <Xns9A44B96D3AEDDbob@216.196.97.136>, The Bob
> <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> In it's current version, yes. However, on October 18, 1993, Apple
>> introduced Macintosh TV, their first commercial attempt to integrate
>> computer and television functionality.
>
> That product had nothing to do with the current Apple TV product.
>
It was the first of many iterations and designs that led to the current
product.
In message <61j96pF1vt7vrU1@mid.individual.net> "Tinman" <ask@for.it>
wrote:
>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
Indeed.
One option would be to bump up the price $300, and apply an automatic
$300 bill credit when you sign up. Waive the whole thing if the
customer activates in store.
Charles wrote:
> In article <Xns9A44C46102FE9bob@216.196.97.136>, The Bob
> <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
>
>> It was the first of many iterations and designs that led to the
>> current product.
>
> No it was not. It was a one off in 1993. The current product has
> nothing to do with that one.
Of course not, as anyone with an IQ above room temperature could see. But
you are dealing with someone who has an obvious agenda, so don't expect to
get through.
The Bob wrote:
> Charles <fort514@mac.com> amazed us all with the following in
> news:140220082041380897%fort514@mac.com:
>
>> In article <Xns9A44B96D3AEDDbob@216.196.97.136>, The Bob
>> <nospam@bob.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In it's current version, yes. However, on October 18, 1993, Apple
>>> introduced Macintosh TV, their first commercial attempt to integrate
>>> computer and television functionality.
>> That product had nothing to do with the current Apple TV product.
>>
>
> It was the first of many iterations and designs that led to the current
> product.
Yeah, and the Newton was one of the iterations and designs that led to
the iPhone and iPod Touch.
> I want to know where they are. Are they sold to dealers and sitting on a
> shelf, unsold, or are they online and being used.
>
> I eat out daily and do a lot of mall cruising, shopping, etc. Where are
> the iPhones? It's too big to hide.
How so? There are nearly 300,000,000 cellphones in use in the US, and
iPhones make up maybe 1% of that. So every 100th phone you see, on
average, should be an iPhone.
> But, here in Charleston, SC, I think
> I've stubled across less than a handful, less than a dozen, iPhones
> actually being used.
Or, about 12xthe number of N800s you've seen! ;-)
> According to all these glowing reports, they should
> be seen all over the place. They are simply NOT here. Did the Chinese
and
> Silicon Valley buy them all?
>
> Do your own survey. Watch all the sellphone users in restaurants, malls,
> bars, theatres, electronics stores, other hangouts. Spot all the iPhone
> users with that thing hanging on them. They are really hard to find in a
> GLUT of iPhones.
As would be expected for even a decent-selling $400 phone in aworld of free
phones. Rolex watches sell pretty well too, but you'll spot a lot of
Timexes in-between your Rolex sightings.
> I just don't see it, compared to other new phones that are in use all over.
Well, to be fair, you might see even less than 1-in-100 if your
unscientific survey is done in Waffle Houses and Ihops! ;-)
> I see LOTS less iPhones than I do Moto Q, Blackberrys, Treos, UTCs....
Again, the iPhone sells fewer than those do _in aggregate._ It's like
saying I see fewer green Subaru Legacys here in Colorado than I do Ford,
Chevy, Toyota and Honda 4-wheel drives.
I've seen less than a dozen iPhones in the wild. (Saw one today in Winter
Park, Colorado- that was probably my seventh or eighth.) That's still more
than I've seen of, say, either the Moto Q or my HTC Wizard(T-Mo MDA/AT&T
8125) in the two years they've been around, but far fewer than Blackberries
(in aggregate) or T-Mo Sidekicks (the pre-iPhone for the under 25-crowd.)
In article <fp5unh$4vo$3@aioe.org>, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:
> I've seen less than a dozen iPhones in the wild. (Saw one today in Winter
> Park, Colorado- that was probably my seventh or eighth.) That's still more
> than I've seen of, say, either the Moto Q or my HTC Wizard(T-Mo MDA/AT&T
> 8125) in the two years they've been around, but far fewer than Blackberries
> (in aggregate) or T-Mo Sidekicks (the pre-iPhone for the under 25-crowd.)
If you take the train where 200 to 300 people are stationary for
several hours and easy to observe you can see a lot of phones.
Yesterday on a round trip between Washington and New York, up and back,
I saw about 25 iPhones. And of course many other phones each way. Of
the other phones there were a lot of Blackberries, for sure more in
aggregate in various versions than iPhones. A pretty good showing for
the iPhone.
Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> amazed us all with the
following in news:fp5unh$4vo$3@aioe.org:
> At 14 Feb 2008 19:17:59 +0000 Larry wrote:
>
>> I want to know where they are. Are they sold to dealers and sitting
>> on a shelf, unsold, or are they online and being used.
>>
>> I eat out daily and do a lot of mall cruising, shopping, etc. Where
>> are the iPhones? It's too big to hide.
>
> How so? There are nearly 300,000,000 cellphones in use in the US,
More like about 225 million.
> and
> iPhones make up maybe 1% of that.
Not if you factor in the unlocked phones that have gone overseas- the
number is probably closer to 0.5%, or 1 in every 200.
Re: 1.5 million unlocked iPhones? 
Linear Mode
