On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:10:00 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A43AEA119FDBbob@216.196.97.136>:
>http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...as-many-as-15-
>million-iphones-were-hacked/
>
>Apple closes down 36% in a little over a month. This news certainly won't
>help the stock price.
>
>Another botched Apple business plan.
That's patently silly. Apple has been doing very well, as demonstrated
by reported results.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:qt17r3lffo3novhloscfbkkg6e5ff3nagt@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:10:00 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A43AEA119FDBbob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...as-many-as-15-
>>million-iphones-were-hacked/
>>
>>Apple closes down 36% in a little over a month. This news certainly
>>won't help the stock price.
>>
>>Another botched Apple business plan.
>
> That's patently silly. Apple has been doing very well, as
> demonstrated by reported results.
>
Obviously not well enough, as judged by the investment community. Every
new announcement by the company since the rollout of the iPhone has
resulted in a steep decline in the stock price. They are unable to
negotiate with many carriers worldwide due to this large number of
unlocked phones floating around the world:
"In fact, there were only five countries in the survey where the iPhone
did not show up — South Korea, Lithuania, Taiwan, Malta and Iran —
perhaps in some cases because GSM and EDGE aren’t supported there."
Their insistance on exclusivity in a market will be there downfall. If
the report is accurate (and unless you can cite independent information
refuting the number we have no reason to assume that it's not), almost
40% of all iPhones "sold" are running around unlocked. This means that
Apple is only realizing a fraction of the deferred income they wowed
Wall St. with during the rollout with AT&T.
The business plan is failing.
From the article I cited in my first post:
"MacBook Air sales look “somewhat underwhelming,” although the new
machine is helping drive traffic to the Apple Stores, where other Macs
are showing “continued momentum.”
iPods appear to be tracking 9.5 to 10 million units for the quarter,
below the most bullish estimates of 11-12 million units. “We do not
think the overly optimistic have factored enough of a seasonal decline
and overestimated low-end shuffle demand,” he writes.
iPhone shipments “appear weak” and AT&T subscriptions are “looking
light,” with the above caveat about how many iPhones are being hacked."
They have absolutely nothing new in the pipeline. I predict a return to
sub-$100 stock prices in the next two months.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news:47b3e51f$0$36395$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
> The Bob wrote:
>> http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...as-many-as-15-
>> million-iphones-were-hacked/
>>
>> Apple closes down 36% in a little over a month. This news certainly
>> won't help the stock price.
>>
>> Another botched Apple business plan.
>
> Interesting story, but I question the contention that "the number of
> unlocked iPhones won’t matter as much to Apple as it might to AT&T."
> If most of the hacked iPhones are leaving the U.S., then AT&T doesn't
> care about them, as they're not losing any revenue. It's not like the
> ones leaving the U.S. are causing any reduction in sales for iPhones
> on AT&T.
They both have reasons to care. Apple loses a ton of revenue on each
unlocked phone, and AT&T loses that aura of exclusivity that they are
paying dearly for.
>
> Even the iPhones that are being used on T-Mobile USA would, in most
> cases, not have been purchased at all unless they could have been
> unlocked because those users had no intention of ever paying the
> monthly fees AT&T gets for the iPhone. So Apple is getting revenue
> that they would otherwise not have received as well.
But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the investors,
due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked phone.
>
> As to why Apple stock is down so much, it's more a matter of reality
> catching up with unrealistic expectations, market saturation for
> iPods, the failure of AppleTV to take off, the lack of any
> revolutionary new products since the iPhone, the stock market in
> general, the Republicans, and the recession. Those unactivated iPhone
> sales are _helping_ not _hurting_ the bottom line, plus they are
> making it into a cult product around the world.
>
> [alt.cellular.cingular removed. Cingular no longer exists. The proper
> venue for posts regarding AT&T's wireless service is
> alt.cellular.attws]
>
alt.cellular.cingular restored. Don't tell me the "proper venue" for
discussions, Steve. I've been doing this for quite a while and posted the
article exactly where I wanted to. I have no intentions of participating
in your little third-grade pissing match with John Navas. Please don't
hijack a discussion because you don't like the group it is posted to. I
fragments the discussion and makes it very unreadable.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:54:54 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4450846F8C7bob@216.196.97.136>:
>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
>news:47b3e51f$0$36395$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>> Even the iPhones that are being used on T-Mobile USA would, in most
>> cases, not have been purchased at all unless they could have been
>> unlocked because those users had no intention of ever paying the
>> monthly fees AT&T gets for the iPhone. So Apple is getting revenue
>> that they would otherwise not have received as well.
>
>But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the investors,
>due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked phone.
What revenue per unit promise? Can you point to any such communication?
Or are you really just talking about overall financial results? I doubt
the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line, less than 1%.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:9jm8r3lajp9if96cj897db518aundf2q9h@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:54:54 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4450846F8C7bob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
>>news:47b3e51f$0$36395$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
>>> Even the iPhones that are being used on T-Mobile USA would, in most
>>> cases, not have been purchased at all unless they could have been
>>> unlocked because those users had no intention of ever paying the
>>> monthly fees AT&T gets for the iPhone. So Apple is getting revenue
>>> that they would otherwise not have received as well.
>>
>>But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the
>>investors, due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked
>>phone.
>
> What revenue per unit promise?
$18/month for every activated unit from AT&T for the life of the contract.
> Can you point to any such
> communication?
Yes- the joint annoucement from both companies on the rollout of the phone.
> Or are you really just talking about overall financial
> results?
Nobody would read that into what I wrote.
I doubt the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line,
> less than 1%.
>
I don't expect you to get it, John. We're dealing with a market sector
that you don't have any experience in, and factors of corporate economics
that you've never had to consider before. A revenue leak of this size,
while seemingly small in the big picture, can have devastating effects on
the overall performance of a company the size of Apple, not to mention the
negative light it casts them in with investors.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:04:53 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A445C618B47Fbob@216.196.97.136>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news:9jm8r3lajp9if96cj897db518aundf2q9h@4ax.com:
>I doubt the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line,
>> less than 1%.
>
>I don't expect you to get it, John. We're dealing with a market sector
>that you don't have any experience in, and factors of corporate economics
>that you've never had to consider before. A revenue leak of this size,
>while seemingly small in the big picture, can have devastating effects on
>the overall performance of a company the size of Apple, not to mention the
>negative light it casts them in with investors.
Nonsense.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
The Bob wrote:
>> John Navas wrote:
>>> The Bob wrote:
>>>
>>> But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the
>>> investors, due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked
>>> phone.
>>
>> What revenue per unit promise?
>
> $18/month for every activated unit from AT&T for the life of the
> contract.
What does that have to do with iPhones sold that would never have been on
AT&T anyway? Your logic assumes every iPhone sold was to someone who would
have otherwise went with AT&T. That is of course incorrect. It's like a
music label claiming every download was a lost sale. It just ain't true.
And what, pray tell, is the alternative? Had the iPhone not been unlocked
there would be 25%-33% less iPhones sold. How exactly would that be better
for Apple? Now you might claim the iPhone is being sold at a loss, or close
to cost, so without the extra revenue it becomes a financial drag. But I
have seen nothing to suggest Apple is losing money on each iPhone sold.
In article <9jm8r3lajp9if96cj897db518aundf2q9h@4ax.com>,
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 08:54:54 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4450846F8C7bob@216.196.97.136>:
>
> >SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
> >news:47b3e51f$0$36395$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:
>
> >> Even the iPhones that are being used on T-Mobile USA would, in most
> >> cases, not have been purchased at all unless they could have been
> >> unlocked because those users had no intention of ever paying the
> >> monthly fees AT&T gets for the iPhone. So Apple is getting revenue
> >> that they would otherwise not have received as well.
> >
> >But Apple is not getting ther revenue per unit they promised the investors,
> >due to the loss of the deferred revenue on an uinlocked phone.
>
> What revenue per unit promise? Can you point to any such communication?
It's at the same site that has references to extended GSM. You should
be able to find that, John.
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
> I don't expect you to get it, John. We're dealing with a market sector
> that you don't have any experience in, and factors of corporate economics
> that you've never had to consider before. A revenue leak of this size,
> while seemingly small in the big picture, can have devastating effects on
> the overall performance of a company the size of Apple, not to mention the
> negative light it casts them in with investors.
If Apple expected that revenue on every iPhone they manufactured, then
indeed the investors would be upset. But they knew in advance that not
every iPhone sold would be activated on a network from which they would
get additional revenue.
The sales of iPhones that were unlocked is all upside revenue, it didn't
mean any less iPhones were activated on AT&T as a result.
iPhone sales and activations are in a slump, but it's not the unlocking
that's the cause.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:k7q8r3hnulpvq65su7u9n90s066kvq5tuj@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:04:53 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A445C618B47Fbob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:9jm8r3lajp9if96cj897db518aundf2q9h@4ax.com:
>
>>I doubt the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line,
>>> less than 1%.
>>
>>I don't expect you to get it, John. We're dealing with a market
>>sector that you don't have any experience in, and factors of corporate
>>economics that you've never had to consider before. A revenue leak of
>>this size, while seemingly small in the big picture, can have
>>devastating effects on the overall performance of a company the size
>>of Apple, not to mention the negative light it casts them in with
>>investors.
>
> Nonsense.
>
Then prove it, John. That's all you have to do. If what I said was
nonsense, it should be very ewasy to prove me wrong.
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> amazed us all with the following in
news: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. The business plan of the iPhone calculated
an expected revenue of $432 per activated unit, with the expectation that
roughly 50,000 (or less) phones per million would not generate that
revenue. The number of defects in the process is now approaching 400,000
per million.
And you and John can continue to obsess about whether this is truly lost
revenue, but you both seem to have missed the true weakness in the business
plan. The iPhone has been on the market for almost eight months now and is
only available for retail sale in four countries around the world, with
sales in those countries falling below all estimates. Care to guess why
more agreements haven't been made?
>
> The sales of iPhones that were unlocked is all upside revenue, it
> didn't mean any less iPhones were activated on AT&T as a result.
>
> iPhone sales and activations are in a slump, but it's not the
> unlocking that's the cause.
>
True- it's because the iPhone isn't the showstopper that Apple touted it to
be. The lack of common functionality has outweighted the glitzy UI.
The Bob wrote:
>
> True- it's because the iPhone isn't the showstopper that Apple touted
> it to be. The lack of common functionality has outweighted the
> glitzy UI.
The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in news:Xns9A43B1E128E23bob@216.196.97.136:
> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream of
taking the software away from the customers and renting it to them isn't
going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.
We were all supposed to be server-based WebTV users, by now, with dumb
computers calling up what we wanted from THEIR servers THEY were supposed
to rent us...taking the freeware, shareware, open source community out of
the loop for the big corporations. It didn't wash then....it won't wash
NOW, as Apple is finding out with jailbroken iPhone WebTVs.
http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl
Apple is down another percent at noone to 128.48/share on volume of
18,390,000 shares this morning. How long can a company keep losing 2%/day
before the shareholders catch wise??
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:05:59 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4466BDC90D6bob@216.196.97.136>:
>And you and John can continue to obsess about whether this is truly lost
>revenue, but you both seem to have missed the true weakness in the business
>plan. The iPhone has been on the market for almost eight months now and is
>only available for retail sale in four countries around the world, with
>sales in those countries falling below all estimates. ...
The consensus estimate is 1.85 million iPhone sales for the quarter, a
very good performance by any reasonable standard, and some analysts
(e.g., Shaw Wu, American Technology Research) are forecasting over 2
million. Whether this is below or above analyst expectations is largely
meaningless unless you're a short term market speculator.
--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive,
difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind
boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:52:36 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A446478E157bob@216.196.97.136>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news:k7q8r3hnulpvq65su7u9n90s066kvq5tuj@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:04:53 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
>> <Xns9A445C618B47Fbob@216.196.97.136>:
>>
>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>>following in news:9jm8r3lajp9if96cj897db518aundf2q9h@4ax.com:
>>
>>>I doubt the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line,
>>>> less than 1%.
>>>
>>>I don't expect you to get it, John. We're dealing with a market
>>>sector that you don't have any experience in, and factors of corporate
>>>economics that you've never had to consider before. A revenue leak of
>>>this size, while seemingly small in the big picture, can have
>>>devastating effects on the overall performance of a company the size
>>>of Apple, not to mention the negative light it casts them in with
>>>investors.
>>
>> Nonsense.
>
>Then prove it, John. That's all you have to do. If what I said was
>nonsense, it should be very ewasy to prove me wrong.
Prove what? Your posts are entirely insults and speculation, with zero
to back them up. The entire contribution of the iPhone to Apple is only
3% of revenue (much less on profit), so even if sales were zero the
impact would be negligible.
"Apple on track to exceed revenue targets"
<http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=20445>
Apple should match or exceed its revenue targets during the current
quarter, with the Mac sales boom compensating for slower growth in
iPod sales, an analyst claims.
Shaw Wu from American Technology Research told clients: "While
near-term trends look difficult with a looming recession and a
slow-down in consumer spending, we continue to believe Apple is
well-positioned to weather the storm better than most with its strong
fundamentals."
The analyst rates Apple as a stock to buy with a 6-12 month price
target of $175.
"Our sense is that Apple is tracking modestly above its guidance of
$6.8 billion," the analyst explains. "Macs appear to be the most
promising with continued momentum carried over from previous
quarters. While MacBook Air sales look somewhat underwhelming, it is
helping drive more traffic. We remain comfortable with our forecast
of 2.1 million Macs against consensus of 2 million," Wu warned.
iPods appear to be tracking to 9.5-10 million units led by fairly
robust demand for higher models, the analyst explained, pointing to
seasonal decline in iPod sales and lower than anticipated demand for
the low-end iPod shuffle.
On the iPhone, the analyst warned of weaker than anticipated demand,
and confirmed the extensive nature of the market for unlocked
iPhones.
"Our sources indicate that iPhone is being used in 35-40 countries
against the four authorized countries," he said. "Out of the four
million iPhones shipped, we estimate at least one million, and
perhaps as high as 1.5 million may be hacked."
"While hacked iPhones have some impact to deferred revenue, we are
not overly concerned as iPhone is only a 3 per cent contributor to
reported revenue."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:23:51 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
<Xns9A447ECA08E84noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in news:Xns9A43B1E128E23bob@216.196.97.136:
>
>> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
>
>Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
>
>Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream of
>taking the software away from the customers and renting it to them isn't
>going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.
It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to pass
judgement.
>http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=aapl
>Apple is down another percent at noone to 128.48/share on volume of
>18,390,000 shares this morning. How long can a company keep losing 2%/day
>before the shareholders catch wise??
* Gene Munster, Piper Jaffray: I suspect yesterday’s drop in the stock
- AAPL fell $4.59, or 3.5% - may have been the result of a bearish
interpretation of a new note from Munster on the MacBook Air. He
wrote that while interest in the new thin laptop is high, "demand is
less than the MacBook launch in May of 2006." He expects the Air to
account for 16% of Macs by the end of calendar 2008. Munster wrote
that he talked to 20 Apple resellers and found that "customers are
more curious, but less willing to buy the MacBook Air than they were
the original MacBook." He also wrote that the Air seems to have a
"smaller but separate target market" than the MacBook, without
cannibalizing the original MacBook. (Munster remains among the most
aggressive bulls on the stock, with a Buy rating and a $250 price
target.)
* Pacific Crest’s Andy Hargreaves: This morning, Hargreaves noted
that falling LCD panel prices could add over $10 in gross profit per
Mac in Q2, providing a potential 80 basis points in Mac gross margin
and 2 cents a share in EPS. He also noted that flash memory prices
are down 40% since the previous quarter. Hargreaves maintains his
Outperform rating on the stock.
* Shaw Wu, American Technology Research: Wu provided a number of data
points on the current issues buffeting Apple shares. He says the
March quarter is tracking "modestly above" the company guidance of
$6.8 billion in revenue and EPS of 94 cents. He says Macs are strong,
though sales of the Air "look somewhat underwhelming." He sees 2.1
million Macs sold in the quarter, slightly above the consensus of
about 2 million. He says iPods are tracking to 9.5 million to 10
million, below the more bullish forecasts of 11-12 million units. Wu
contends some analysts have not factored in enough of a seasonal
decline, and have over-estimated demand for the low end iPod Shuffle.
Wu says iPhone shipments "appear weak, with AT&T subscriber additions
looking light." He thinks at least 1 million - and perhaps as many as
1.5 million - of the 4 million iPhones shipped have been unlocked and
are being used on non-authorized carriers. That said, he does not see
a significant impact to reported revenue in the quarter. He projects
2.1 million iPhones sold in the quarter, but says that "could prove a
tad high."
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:vuu8r3l2thnsv0qpc57r908m2b9bra9i1u@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:05:59 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4466BDC90D6bob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>And you and John can continue to obsess about whether this is truly
>>lost revenue, but you both seem to have missed the true weakness in
>>the business plan. The iPhone has been on the market for almost eight
>>months now and is only available for retail sale in four countries
>>around the world, with sales in those countries falling below all
>>estimates. ...
>
> The consensus estimate is 1.85 million iPhone sales for the quarter, a
> very good performance by any reasonable standard, and some analysts
> (e.g., Shaw Wu, American Technology Research) are forecasting over 2
> million. Whether this is below or above analyst expectations is
> largely meaningless unless you're a short term market speculator.
>
What we are witnessing is simply the Sony of the early 21st century- a big
player that will soon be relegated to middle-of-the-road status due to
their pomposity and poor execution. The writing is already on the wall.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:54:30 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A446EF711E4Cbob@216.196.97.136>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>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.
>
>What we are witnessing is simply the Sony of the early 21st century- a big
>player that will soon be relegated to middle-of-the-road status due to
>their pomposity and poor execution. The writing is already on the wall.
Yet another unsubstantiated personal speculation. Got anything more
substantial, or are we expected to just take your word for it?
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:qav8r31krurvv82dqkrbqqgrqtl6i2rvtd@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:52:36 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A446478E157bob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
following
>>in news:k7q8r3hnulpvq65su7u9n90s066kvq5tuj@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 10:04:53 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote
in
>>> <Xns9A445C618B47Fbob@216.196.97.136>:
>>>
>>>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>>>following in news:9jm8r3lajp9if96cj897db518aundf2q9h@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>>I doubt the amount is even noticeable at the bottom line,
>>>>> less than 1%.
>>>>
>>>>I don't expect you to get it, John. We're dealing with a market
>>>>sector that you don't have any experience in, and factors of
corporate
>>>>economics that you've never had to consider before. A revenue leak
of
>>>>this size, while seemingly small in the big picture, can have
>>>>devastating effects on the overall performance of a company the size
>>>>of Apple, not to mention the negative light it casts them in with
>>>>investors.
>>>
>>> Nonsense.
>>
>>Then prove it, John. That's all you have to do. If what I said was
>>nonsense, it should be very ewasy to prove me wrong.
>
> Prove what? Your posts are entirely insults
Insults? Where?
> and speculation, with zero
> to back them up.
You mean other than the two links I provided at the beginning of this
thread? That would appear to be two more than you have provided. ANd
the fact that I continue to reference back to those two links by pulling
the DATA from them seems to have escaped you.
> The entire contribution of the iPhone to Apple is only
> 3% of revenue (much less on profit), so even if sales were zero the
> impact would be negligible.
3% of revenue and what percentage of advertising dollars? Where are the
new agreements with other carriers?
>
> "Apple on track to exceed revenue targets"
> <http://www.macworld.co.uk/news/index.cfm?newsid=20445>
>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:eov8r3t3sctb1aiqlfn05dso4350nnl3lv@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:23:51 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A447ECA08E84noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>
>>The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
>>news:Xns9A43B1E128E23bob@216.196.97.136:
>>
>>> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
>>
>>Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
>>
>>Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream of
>>taking the software away from the customers and renting it to them
>>isn't going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.
>
> It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to pass
> judgement.
You've got a point- it seems to be taking decades for the concept of Apple
TV to take hold. A juggernaut just waiting to happen.
By the time it's no longer "too early" to pass judgement, it will be old
technology.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news809r3lo5l72sohu4nlp2e08d8e56isjtc@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 11:54:30 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A446EF711E4Cbob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>following 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.
>>
>>What we are witnessing is simply the Sony of the early 21st century- a
>>big player that will soon be relegated to middle-of-the-road status
>>due to their pomposity and poor execution. The writing is already on
>>the wall.
>
> Yet another unsubstantiated personal speculation.
Or an observation based on my experience and substantial knowledge of the
sector.
> Got anything more
> substantial, or are we expected to just take your word for it?
>
Isn't that what you expect from us? To simply take you at your word?
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:02:41 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A44705A74DCCbob@216.196.97.136>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news:eov8r3t3sctb1aiqlfn05dso4350nnl3lv@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:23:51 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>> <Xns9A447ECA08E84noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>>
>>>The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
>>>news:Xns9A43B1E128E23bob@216.196.97.136:
>>>
>>>> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
>>>
>>>Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
>>>
>>>Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream of
>>>taking the software away from the customers and renting it to them
>>>isn't going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.
>>
>> It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to pass
>> judgement.
>
>You've got a point- it seems to be taking decades for the concept of Apple
>TV to take hold. A juggernaut just waiting to happen.
>
>By the time it's no longer "too early" to pass judgement, it will be old
>technology.
[shrug] It seems you're just looking for things to bash. Whether Apple
TV, one particular product, takes off or not in its current incantation
is not terribly meaningful. All companies have hits and misses, Apple
included. What matters are the hits, not the misses.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <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.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:04:43 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
<Xns9A4470B2FA74Fbob@216.196.97.136>:
>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
>in news809r3lo5l72sohu4nlp2e08d8e56isjtc@4ax.com:
>> Yet another unsubstantiated personal speculation.
>
>Or an observation based on my experience and substantial knowledge of the
>sector.
In other words, just what I wrote.
>> Got anything more
>> substantial, or are we expected to just take your word for it?
>
>Isn't that what you expect from us? To simply take you at your word?
In other words you don't, as that lame defense makes clear.
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:08:35 -0600, The Bob <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!
--
Best regards, FAQ FOR AT&T/CINGULAR WIRELESS:
John Navas <http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/AT&T_Wireless_FAQ>
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:io09r3t5ast637t40l86sbj80vegpjaakt@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:02:41 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A44705A74DCCbob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>following in news:eov8r3t3sctb1aiqlfn05dso4350nnl3lv@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 17:23:51 +0000, Larry <noone@home.com> wrote in
>>> <Xns9A447ECA08E84noonehomecom@208.49.80.253>:
>>>
>>>>The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
>>>>news:Xns9A43B1E128E23bob@216.196.97.136:
>>>>
>>>>> "MacBook Air sales look "somewhat underwhelming,
>>>>
>>>>Best Buy's Apple store sold ONE.
>>>>
>>>>Computers with no disk drives for $1,800 won't sell. Apple's dream
>>>>of taking the software away from the customers and renting it to
>>>>them isn't going to fly. Even Mac owners are too savvy, now.
>>>
>>> It takes time to establish a new concept. It's way too early to
>>> pass judgement.
>>
>>You've got a point- it seems to be taking decades for the concept of
>>Apple TV to take hold. A juggernaut just waiting to happen.
>>
>>By the time it's no longer "too early" to pass judgement, it will be
>>old technology.
>
> [shrug] It seems you're just looking for things to bash. Whether
> Apple TV, one particular product, takes off or not in its current
> incantation is not terribly meaningful. All companies have hits and
> misses, Apple included. What matters are the hits, not the misses.
>
And a good company recognizes those failures and abandons them. A good
company does not repackage the same failure fifteen different ways in an
attempt to say, "I told you so." Apple is incapable of doing this in its
current mindset.
John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the following
in news:es09r3dnll0c74d5e7nvda9nt4qq66iic2@4ax.com:
> On Thu, 14 Feb 2008 12:04:43 -0600, The Bob <nospam@bob.com> wrote in
> <Xns9A4470B2FA74Fbob@216.196.97.136>:
>
>>John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> amazed us all with the
>>following in news809r3lo5l72sohu4nlp2e08d8e56isjtc@4ax.com:
>
>>> Yet another unsubstantiated personal speculation.
>>
>>Or an observation based on my experience and substantial knowledge of
>>the sector.
>
> In other words, just what I wrote.
Where did I present it as anything but that? Are you saying that you are
the only one here allowed to present opinion?
>
>>> Got anything more
>>> substantial, or are we expected to just take your word for it?
>>
>>Isn't that what you expect from us? To simply take you at your word?
>
> In other words you don't, as that lame defense makes clear.
>
In other words, don't bash that which you are so famous for.
1.5 million unlocked iPhones? 
809r3lo5l72sohu4nlp2e08d8e56isjtc@4ax.com:
Linear Mode
