Motorola's Android 3.0 Honeycomb Xoom sales forecast slashed to 100,000 units - Page 4

14,362.00 ??? wtf?

nobody who is paying outright for their iphone are paying vodafone nz's retarded fees for anything.

You are only showing 600txts, but 3gb of data. The official quantites of gb and txts are 0.25 adn 600 respectively. The current is 3gb and 1000txts 'until further notice" - which basiclaly means 'until we hook enough people onto the 24month plan'

You do realize that Motorola Mobility is in it's first year of being it's own company right? It just spun off. This means it's revenues will be a lot lower, and it's struggling to find it's center again. Spin offs like this are always shaky, even in the best of times.

As for Xoom and Atrix sales numbers. We have no idea what they are because Verizon, Motorola, and ATT are not releasing numbers. Also Motorola still makes a ton of cheap handsets, and the Droidx/Droid2 are still two very well selling devices.


Zach uses an ATT iPhone as his primary device as does EVERY single member of BGR. In fact, outside of the "news" site AI, they're one of the biggest Apple-leaning blogs out there.


Tablet PC's and tablets like the ipad are two totally different styles of devices. That's like saying a iphone is basically the same thing as a Palm Pilot.

Secondly, Please provide me ANY link where ANYONE on BGR predicted that the Xoom would be a hit.


First, some basic math. 41 days (amount of time the Xoom was out) is 1 month and 11 days (assuming a 30 day month) NOT two months. Which is why he said month and a half. while realistically it's more like 1 and 1/3 months. 30/41 is Approximately 73,000. Now, sales of devices of this nature are typically higher at launch, which is why he most likely used the 75,000 number.

Next, for all but FIVE DAYS of these estimated numbers, the ONLY option available for purchase was the VERIZON 3g version. This means NO international sales, no wifi only sales, nothing. THe only people who thought this would be a blowout success were people who don't understand the industry (analysts and rabid fans) ANYONE who understands American consumers, especially Verizon customers, knows that an $800 device will not have run away sales, and I'm positive Motorola planned accordingly.

And no, this isn't "Bad enough to kill Honeycomb dead." Not even close. If you think that you don't understand Android adoption, at all.


1. Please link to a VERIFIED report that Motorola is cancelling production orders. Not a rumor, not some trash from an analyst but a press release or an authenticated leak. There are none. If you got your android news from a site other than AI you might know this.

2. This is a Dev device. Remember the G1? Or the Nexus One? Neither device was a "runaway" success, but both devices made their company money and more importantly, both devices helped guide future development. I don't know how long the Xoom will be around. But you can't call something a failure 5 days after the actual Entry level model enters the market.

3. The article is Better because it wasn't written by someone who cannot say a SINGLE positive thing about the device he is writing about. DED is an Apple Fanboy who couldn't admit a non iDevice is superior even if it gave him a gold brick an hour and all his iDevice did was spit out straw. Zach (and BGR) are STILL Apple Fans who STILL consider it by far the best system out there, but they don't feel the need to justify their choice by attacking the competition like DED does. But they understand one big concept: What's considered a positive sale is different for different companies. You (and most people on this site) don't get that. Believe it or not, Apple's one of the only companies in the world that is able to pull off the insane margins they do while still having high volume. A company does NOT have to meet that level in order not to be called a failure.

So it could actually be LESS than 100,000, right? Yeah, thought so. It's true, we haven't taken into account international sales, which will happen when exactly? Perhaps when they actually finish making the Xoom?

Damn, Archos, you hit a nerve!

Low revenues + low expectations + low sales + a dash of "but wait, it's a dev device!" = ???

Yep, that would still be a flop.

I didn't say it was a success, I just said it wasn't a failure. As we don't know the margins, initial costs, or ANYTHING, you can't call something a failure based on volume alone. Which you would agree with if you weren't so helbent on defending Apple like it was some abused puppy.

Again, no other product will EVER have the Initial sales rush that Apple does for their devices (with the possible exception of Game consoles). This is (in part) because of the user experience, but also because they're some of the most heavily advertised products in history. Not only do you have the thousands of commercials, but you have Apple spending a ton of money to get their devices placed in EVERY primetime show.

Apple has the best marketing department in the world, and they've been developing the brand aggressively for 20+ years. (and developing it for even longer).

Again, just because a device doesn't live up to Apple's sales numbers doesn't mean it's a failure.

Before you respond please remember: You know NOTHING of Motorola's internal numbers, profitability, or expectations. I am NOT saying the Xoom was a success, I am just saying it wasn't a failure.

*awaits you to miss the point, again*

At least it will roll smoothly. (Yup, this joke is never going to get old)

-We don't know revenues. Even IF the 100k number is accurate we don't know Revenue OR Profit Margin. In fact we don't know anything about the numbers, just the word of an analyst who thought Motorola would sell a couple MILLION of a $800 Verizon Locked device. Again, If a moron makes a prediction, even if they're a well-dressed moron, you still don't take that prediction (or subsequent adjustments) seriously.
-Realistic expectations =! Low expectations. NO ONE thought this would have anywhere near the sale volume of an iPad. This doesn't make them low expectations, this is them understanding the market.
-We don't know sales numbers.
-People said it was a dev device since CES. This is nothing new.

And he didn't hit a nerve. Just typical American Economic Ignorance.

It could be 0 it would be 1 million. The point is we don't know.

Fun Fact: If you want to try and have witty replies, it actually requires you understand the product.

Actually I thought he accounted for 50,000 units of those 100,000.





"Apple fans" WANT competition for the most part because that pushes everything forward. What's happening now from the "competition" is just so pathetic is nothing to be happy about even if you are a "chest puffing Apple fan". Android gave the iPhone some fire under its butt. But in tablet-land, no such thing seems to be happening even after a year.


Which IIRC during my time in Australia was just another excuse not to go to work and get blind drunk instead. Except for those annoying monarchists, they're still taking this "royalty" stuff seriously.

Fun Fact: I doubt it would be 1 million...

When Apple decided to get into the mobile phone business, many said Apple would fail because it doesn't know the telcom business. I find it interesting that no one is saying the same thing about the telcom business getting into the PC market. Apple is going to crush the telcom business in the tablet market if the telcom business operates like a telcom rather than a PC vender.

The tablet market is very different from the phone market. Phones are used primarily for making calls and the features of the OS are primarily seen as a bonus (i.e., a way to attract customers). However, the decision to buy is mostly based on the need for phone service. The selection of a particular phone is based on cost and features.
The tablet market is completely different. Customers only buy if they want the particular device. Using a cell phone provider as a marketer is actually a hindrance because 2/3 of the market doesn't want a contract. The people that traffic the cell phone store are usually looking for phone service, not a tablet. Cell phone providers have completely different marketing and sales tactics and completely different contractual arrangements between themselves and their customers (as compared to retailers like Walmart, Best Buy, or an outlet like the Apple Store). In addition, handset makers like Motorola are used to selling through cell phone providers and for the most part don't have their own distribution channels.

Obviously Motorola is trying. They are selling the wifi version through Best Buy. However, they did it backwards. They advertised and released the 3g version on Verizon before going to Best Buy. What they should have done was established in the minds of their customers that Motorola is sold at Best Buy and other retail outlets. Then and only then should they release the 3G version at Verizon for those that want data.
I don't think it was a coincidence that Apple sold the 3G version a month late. Apple didn't want consumers associating the iPad with ATT. Apple wanted the lines at its own stores, not ATT.

Everyone likes to say that Apple is successful because of hype. I call bullshit. Motorola was the one paying for Superbowl ads making fun of Apple. Who's the one hyping their products??? Apple doesn't even anounce their products until they are ready to ship. There's no hype in that. The Xoom was hyped for months and wasn't ready to ship even when it shipped. That's what I call hype. We shouldn't confuse consumer demand with hype. Consumer demand is the antithesis of hype.

I think it boils down to the fact that cell phone carriers make bad PC vendors. The marketing of the Xoom is proof of that. Apple schooled these handset makers back in 2007 when it played ball on their court by selling a successful handset. Based on the attempts of Samsung and Motorola, it doesn't appear that handset makers can hang with Apple in its backyard (the PC market). The handset makers are now 0 for 2. We'll have to see how the rest do. Personally I think HP is the bigger threat. HP has sold a lot of PCs. You won't see them paying for Super Bowl ads announcing the sale of their devices at Verizon. (how stupid can you be).

I doubt it as well. The point of the post you quoted was the point out that this ENTIRE article is based off of the estimation of someone trying to put numbers to a graph.

Not Sales Figures, not even Estimations from sale numbers at a sampling of locations.

Again, these are Verizon customers we're talking about. They're not going to jump at the chance of dropping 800 on a device, or 600 and still having to sign a 2 year contract. Heck, the number of Verizon ipad sales was pathetic when it launched as well. (and most consumers had no clue about release cycles, so I doubt ipad2 rumors hindered those sales at all)

This is a consumer that expects phones to be free and netbooks to be $25 (or free if you get a smartphone too).

You're still spreading this ridiculous bullshit? Apple doesn't pay for product placement. Prop guys use Apple equipment because it looks better than other brands. In primetime shows the last three years or so, every Apple computer has a sticker over the Apple logo to reduce right-wing hate mail, and if they turn them around so you can see the screen only, you'll notice it's Windows. I guarantee you Apple is not paying to have their computers shown with the logo hidden and running windows.

Now we know we have at least 100,000 die hard Android fans in the world. How about the return rate btw?

I disagree. The mobile PC isn't all that new. There is a certain volume of units where companies start to make money. A company amortizes costs of designing, manufacturing, and marketing across a certain number of units. They have to predict that number and if they are wrong, they will lose money (and yield a flop). Motorola was touting this at CES and paying for Super Bowl ads. Those are not the kinds of things you do for products that you expect to sell 100,000 units for. No we don't have the numbers, but the circumstantial evidence suggests a flop.

You seriously think that Motorola didn't succeed because they didn't pay enough movie makers to put their products in their movies? Get real. The device hadn't been in a single movie when millions of units were sold. If anything, Motorola is the one that blew the budget on advertising and hype. Last time I checked Super Bowl ads aren't cheap.

Apple hasn't built their brand by advertising. They built their brand by making products that people want, which is something Motorola needs to spend more time doing. If you ask Motorola, they can testify to you that advertising alone doesn't sell millions of units.

With regard to your reminder that we know "nothing about Motorola's internal number," I'll just point out that neither do you and therefore you have no basis to say that it wasn't a failure. The circumstantial evidence provides a lot more support for "failure" than it does for not being a failure.

RE: Super Bowl ads, CES touting: Please look at Nexus One. By Google and HTC's accounts, the NExus one was a success even though analysts called it a failure because of sales. There are more reasons than volume to market a product.

Re: Paid TV spots: That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm talking about Mindshare. Apple has it, no other company in tech currently does.

And if you think that Apple's marketing department didn't have a SIGNIFICANT role in their current position you're fooling yourself. Look at Apple in the early 90's compared to today.

You're right, I don't have the internal numbers. But I'm also not the idiot that went and made a press release touting Motorola's sale numbers and if I thought they were good or not.

-we don't know sale number
-we don't know revenue numbers
-we don't know what Motorola's expectations were
-we don't know profit margins

As we don't know any of those things, it is IMPOSSIBLE for us to call it a failure. We also cannot call it a success. That is what I'm saying.

If they sold 100 units, would you still say it is IMPOSSILBE for us to call it a failure? What about 5 units? or 1 unit? You are fundamentally wrong to say that units sold cannot serve as an indicator of success or failure. There are many that work in this industry that have a very good feel for what Motorola would have hoped/expected/and planned for in this product launch. I'm no expert, but I can still narrow it down to something. I would bet you any amount of money that Motorola planned for something between 10 thousand units and 10 billion units. An expert could obvious narrow it down a lot closer. I don't think experts in this field need to audit the books to know whether 100,000 units is a failure. Samsung shipped 2M units of the Tab before it even knew what demand would be like. It seems reasonable to me that a 100K launch is a disaster. I suppose if Motorola gave us the actual numbers you would argue "wait a minute, we don't know if it was a failure because what if Motorola added the numbers wrong."

I'll help you out there... it's a failure.

I know it for a fact and you'll know how right I am very soon.

There... now you can go back to your dream world.

I watched the video, I guess you missed the part where he said flash won't play 720p video because it doesn't support hardware decoding? It only has to run on 1 device right now, and they can't even figure out how to decode 720p encoded H.264 video on there? Is there any wonder Apple won't use it?

Did you watch the video you posted on a Xoom? If so, you probably couldn't see the big Apple logo reflecting off the screen as he filmed it in 720p on his iPhone. I saw it, because i watched in in 720p in my iPad. I didn't need flash to watch that video or the video the videos he showed.

Somehow there's an odd perception that you somehow need Flash to watch H.264 video.

Yes let's look at the difference between Apple in the early 90's compared to today. Apple was advertising back then and they are advertising now. The difference I see is that now they sell the iPod, the iPhone, and the iPad, and lots of people want those products because they like using them. Apple's marketing and the mindset that goes with it is circular. Apple builds a product that people wants and then tells everyone that people want it. Motorola builds a product and tells people they will want it, but no one buys it because no one wants it.

Contrast that with the iPad 1. The media told all of us that the iPad was a big dissapointment and that only the Apple fans would buy it. Turns out that the media was wrong and most people want an iPad. I would argue Apple's success is 90% product development and 10% marketing. (I know you like numbers). In other words, had they not marketed the iPad, they may have only sold 12.6M iPads instead of 14M last year.

you perhaps need to get out more

http://gs.statcounter.com/#mobile_br...-201101-201103

Motorola didn't give us numbers. No one did. What we have is an estimation based off of a graph. If you can't see the difference between that and someone (anyone) actually publishing numbers, it's not worth responding to you.

And this analyst isn't an expert. See their initial predictions. Actually, see any tech analyst predictions for the past 5 years. They've either been way too conservative, or so optimistic as to be laughable.

The Samsung Tab was also available on EVERY major US carrier, on SEVERAL international carriers, and available internationally unlocked. It also supported voice. IT's a completely different type of launch.

You seem to be missing the point where I am saying since we don't know the numbers, it's impossible to call it a failure. Continue making up numbers if you wish. The point I'm making is we don't know them, and by making them up, you're agreeing with me.

when they were building 400k of them a month, it's certainly a flop.

You missed the point entirely. There is a HUGE difference between "Advertising" and Advertising well.

And all sales are, AT MINIMUM 60% Marketing/Branding, and with tech that number is most likely a lot higher.. A good example of this is WebOS. Most tech journalists, reviewers, and even Apple fanboys would argue that WebOS is Superior (by a wide margin) to Android when it comes to intuitiveness, and overall customer usability. Yet it failed to gain any signifigant marketshare, even being on three of the major 4 US carriers and with dozens of positive reviews to back it. The devices were also some of the cheapest you could get (on or off contract). So why such poor marketshare? The marketing was poor. Customers don't buy a "quality product" unless they know about it.

How do you think they find out about a product? Oh yeah, marketing.



You're also confusing Tech Media with Mainstream media. I'll give you a hint. Only one of them has significant impact with real world sales. Mainstream media talked the Heck out of the ipad.

1. Post a link showing that Motorola is making 400k a month. Acceptable links: Anything that is Verified. This means actual press releases or confirmed reports. Not rumors, not "sources in the know" No bullshit like you're most likely quoting.

(note this is different than having 400k ready to ship for launch, or making an initial run of 400k)

Again, you're basing your position on rumors and speculation, most of it un-sourced.

AKA. You're trying to make a claim about a product you have NO HARD EVIDENCE ON.

just read the article and found this in the conclusion.

No shit. I NEVER SAID THE XOOM WAS A SUCCESS. I just said it was impossible to call it a failure.

BGR is a very Pro Apple Blog. ALL their writers swear by their iphones. It's one of the main reasons I linked that article instead of one from an Android blog. That way you couldn't accuse the writer of being a Fandroid (though some people here still tried)

find a source that contradicts this


http://www.digitimes.com/NewsShow/Ne...117&query=XOOM

Xoom is a failure.

See? Not so impossible.

Believe me, I'm hanging out to get one, but I don't see the fuss about demand overwhelming supply. Just order online and wait.

The iPhone is available from just any provider in my country. I know 10 out of hundreds that use an android. The iPhone is ubiquous here. And those 10 are all geeks.

I'm basing everything on the Smart3 plan as this is the plan I am on and taking into account how much you would actually pay for the equivalent without a subsidised contract that's what you'd pay. So I'm 400 texts out which would actually make my comparison even more expensive off contract.

The point of my post was to show that being on a contract more often than not is far more advantageous and is more than just saving a few dollars on a phone.

But then you'd have realised that if you had not removed the context of my post.

Just bugger off with your emo-caricatures about 1984, nobody around here cares about your Xoom.

Next time you try to astroturf something you may or may not have bought, at least try to be orginal. I've been hearing this 1984/ walled-garden/ Steve Jobs is a fascist control freak BS a million times already. No need to post any of that another time, it's just a waste of bandwidth.

This whole android cult is largely based on hate for Apple because Apple represents (in the droid mindset) all the things these guys despise.

For one droids want everything free, but most importantly talk is cheap! It's one thing to go to forums and proclaim your loyalty to andoid or endure beta quality on a free product, but when you have to peel out benjamins, things begin to change.

I guarantee you that many fandroids sat this Xoom thing out waiting to see if it will catch on, then maybe buy it. Despite the big talk, deep down they knew this thing is a turkey.

There is a Universal difference between advertising, advertising well and actually having costumers dry run your product before actual purchase. You see, advertising well only works when your product performs as advertised and people who are using it noticed it. If I want to buy a Xoom, do you really think I would be happy to hear that Flash for Xoom is still a work on progress, that it's micro SD interface is disabled until the software upgrade is available someday?

Apple advertising is simple, here's my ad, go to the Apple store and check the iPad out and play with it. In fact, you can spend some time at the Apple store, play with the iPad models there and have actual people answer your questions. You want to see how the garage band app do work with the iPad 2, go ahead. How about Infinity Blade on the iPad 2 , hey knock yourself out. Watch a movie using the iPad 2? It's fine. That is Advertising WELL. In contrast , Motorola bought air time during the last Super Bowl for the Xoom , during the commercial, it showed what the Xoom can do if things go as planned. Real life happened. Flash is not ready , software hardware interface needs some more work and where are the apps? That is the reason why Apple is selling iPads by the thousands each day worldwide while Motorola is planning to axe Xoom after June.

Look at Xoom hardware compared to iPad hardware side by side.

Look at Xoom software compared to iPad software side by side.

But importantly, when you watch a Xoom commercial and compare it to iPad commercials, who would ever buy a Xoom?

Apple is all about the user.

Xoom is all about ... well, hard to say really ... Motorola ... are you listening?

Who would buy a Xoom?
Well I don't have a clue, but Wal-mart is sold out and only 3 Best Buy stores in the state of WI still have any WiFi Xooms left in stock, so apparently people are buying them.

The user who may be a programmer or a 2 year child or a grandfather or a doctor or a scientist or a Deejay or a florist or a cook or a CEO or a salesman or an engineer or a student or a teacher or a stay at home parent or a politician and everyone else. The secret of Apple is this, Technology is for all users not for Tech geeks only.

It's behind a paywall. Can't contradict Sources I can't verify.

Wording in the quote you gave is vague. Do we actually know Motorola placed those orders or are they going off of "Sources"

No, it's not just that. Mainstream media hyped the ipad (and ipad2 release) You barely heard a peep about the xoom, or any other tablet for that matter.

I'm not arguing that the ipad is an effective device, or that it does what the commercials say it does. I'm arguing that Apple is where it is today in large part for having one of the best marketing and branding teams in the world. A great product gets you NOWHERE unless you can market it.