or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM sees no slowdown as analyst questions 10M iPhone target
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

RIM sees no slowdown as analyst questions 10M iPhone target - Page 4

post #121 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Apple didn't claim 1% of installed base, their stated goal was 1% of the 1 billion phones they estimated to be sold in 2008, or selling 10 million in 2008.

Quite correct. For the record, I have never stated differently. In fact, I consider myself to have gone to some pains in my two previous posts on this subject to denote the difference between installed base and market share, and I noted that one of the two conflicting views in this thread is claiming a goal of 1% market share - or approximately 12.5 million phones between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008.
post #122 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Except that the 1 billion cell phone numbers come from 2006.

Last year, the worldwide market for cell phone grew to 1.1 billion units. And this year, it will be about 1.2 to 1.25 billion units.

Yeah. So Jobs didn't do a good job of predicting 2008 totals at the beginning of 2007. So?
post #123 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Yeah. So Jobs didn't do a good job of predicting 2008 totals at the beginning of 2007. So?

So?

Every company in the world has been using those "growth" numbers.

Nokia's share price would have tanked if they come out and say that the mobile phone market for the whole world would have ZERO growth for 2 years.
post #124 of 155
Minderbinder,
Using Munster to back you up is not doing your argument any good. we can speculate what Jobs "really" meant all we want, but when it comes down to it we only have the actual meanings of the words to go by. Refer to my previous example.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #125 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Minderbinder,
Using Munster to back you up is not doing your argument any good. we can speculate what Jobs "really" meant all we want, but when it comes down to it we only have the actual meanings of the words to go by. Refer to my previous example.

I'm not using munster, I'm using a quote from Tim Cook, chief operating officer of apple. You don't think a clarification from him has any value?

And I agree that we have the meanings of words to go by. And it amazes me that people can look at selling 10M in a the calendar year of 2008 and interpret it as selling 10M in the 18 months from mid 2007 to the end of 2008.
post #126 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

I'm not using munster, I'm using a quote from Tim Cook, chief operating officer of apple. You don't think a clarification from him has any value?

I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.

Quote:
And I agree that we have the meanings of words to go by. And it amazes me that people can look at selling 10M in a the calendar year of 2008 and interpret it as selling 10M in the 18 months from mid 2007 to the end of 2008.

Another example: "Your nephew will be 18 months old in 2008." Does that imply that that he will somehow age 50% more than than is physically possible? Of course not.


PS: I don't think selling 10M units within 2008 is unachievable if a 3G model arrives by July.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #127 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.

While anyone can misspeak at any time, it's hard to imagine a COO going into a quarterly conference call without calculated preparation.

And it's a moot point anyway since the conference call agrees with both of the keynotes. As did the USA today interview. In fact, every direct quote anyone has produced from an apple representative has agreed, the only sources that have claimed "by the end of 2008" were ones that had no quote from apple.

Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Another example: "Your nephew will be 18 months old in 2008." Does that imply that that he will somehow age 50% more than than is physically possible? Of course not.

I don't see the validity of that comparison - the birthday thing would be like apple saying "we'll sell our 10 millionth iphone in 2008". But they didn't say that. Companies talk about selling X products in a quarter or a year, why is it so unfathomable that a statement about sales in a year actually means sales in a year?
post #128 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

While anyone can misspeak at any time, it's hard to imagine a COO going into a quarterly conference call without calculated preparation.

And it's a moot point anyway since the conference call agrees with both of the keynotes. As did the USA today interview. In fact, every direct quote anyone has produced from an apple representative has agreed, the only sources that have claimed "by the end of 2008" were ones that had no quote from apple.

I don't see the validity of that comparison - the birthday thing would be like apple saying "we'll sell our 10 millionth iphone in 2008". But they didn't say that. Companies talk about selling X products in a quarter or a year, why is it so unfathomable that a statement about sales in a year actually means sales in a year?

I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #129 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must must look at it objectively!

While I agree that he could have worded it better, I don't consider it ambiguous. Honestly, I think people just made up their mind what he said based on third party misinformation, without actually listening to what he said, and now they're in denial.

You are insisting on an interpretation that makes less logical sense based on what was said at both keynotes, and if he meant what you are stretching his words to mean, he could have simply phrased it that way. But he didn't (no "10 millionth in 2008", "hit the 10M mark in 2008", nor "10M by the end of 2008"). And you're insisting that Jobs made a mistake when he was asked to clarify for USA today. AND you're insisting that the COO also made a mistake when asked to clarify.

With all due respect, that's completely preposterous.
post #130 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Yeah. So Jobs didn't do a good job of predicting 2008 totals at the beginning of 2007. So?

I'm pretty sure he knew the market would be bigger. I think he wanted to keep the numbers as simple as possible.
iMac 20",Core2Duo 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, ATI RADEON 2600Pro
iPod classic 80GB
Reply
iMac 20",Core2Duo 2.4GHz, 4GB RAM, ATI RADEON 2600Pro
iPod classic 80GB
Reply
post #131 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!

It is factual. An analyst asked Tim Cook to further explain what Steve Jobs said. Tim Cook said 10 million for calendar year 2008 - that is what the market was told - which is all that matters.
post #132 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

While I agree that he could have worded it better, I don't consider it ambiguous. Honestly, I think people just made up their mind what he said based on third party misinformation, without actually listening to what he said, and now they're in denial.

You are insisting on an interpretation that makes less logical sense based on what was said at both keynotes, and if he meant what you are stretching his words to mean, he could have simply phrased it that way. But he didn't (no "10 millionth in 2008", "hit the 10M mark in 2008", nor "10M by the end of 2008"). And you're insisting that Jobs made a mistake when he was asked to clarify for USA today. AND you're insisting that the COO also made a mistake when asked to clarify.

With all due respect, that's completely preposterous.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

It is factual. An analyst asked Tim Cook to further explain what Steve Jobs said. Tim Cook said 10 million for calendar year 2008 - that is what the market was told - which is all that matters.

Where in the keynote is this stated? I'm not going to scour the internets looking for blogs about who said what. If you can supply links to these people making statements that adequately clarify the ambiguous keynote, I'd appreciate that. Thus far, the only sources I have are the keynote itself. Everything else has been quoted text from forum posters, not from the the Apple execs themselves.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #133 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Where in the keynote is this stated? I'm not going to scour the internets looking for blogs about who said what. If you can supply links to these people making statements that adequately clarify the ambiguous keynote, I'd appreciate that. Thus far, the only sources I have are the keynote itself. Everything else has been quoted text from forum posters, not from the the Apple execs themselves.

Video of the keynote is linked in this thread.
You've seen the Cook quote from the quarterly report.
The Jobs quote from USA today is also linked in this thread.
I'm not sure if there's a working link to the second keynote where Jobs said essentially the same thing.
post #134 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism

I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.

I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!

So you are basically saying that a keynote is a hyping PR event that specifically prepared to be a calculating PR hyping exercise to give out ambiguous information.

That's the definition of a CEO keynote speech --- it's supposed to be a PR hyping event using PR hyping language that gives ambiguous information. Jobs gave out 9 million different metrics --- which gave himself some space to backtrack later on.

Next, are we going to dissect the Clinton "I didn't have sex with that woman" speech?
post #135 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

So you are basically saying that a keynote is a hyping PR event that specifically prepared to be a calculating PR hyping exercise to give out ambiguous information.

That's the definition of a CEO keynote speech --- it's supposed to be a PR hyping event using PR hyping language that gives ambiguous information. Jobs gave out 9 million different metrics --- which gave himself some space to backtrack later on.

As I stated, intended or not, it was ambiguous.

I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #136 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As I stated, intended or not, it was ambiguous.

I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.

It doesn't matter anyway.

Wall Street analysts can use any metrics that they want to --- be it cumulative or calender year. There is only a problem if the numbers come below their original methodology. And the methodology can have all the fine prints in front (Sacconaghi) or hidden in the back (Munster).

Maybe the reason why Apple went all to way up to $200 a share is because Wall Street misunderstood Jobs as saying 10 million iphones in calender 2008 year and it really meant that it's 10 million cumulative sales.
post #137 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

Maybe the reason why Apple went all to way up to $200 a share is because Wall Street misunderstood Jobs as saying 10 million iphones in calender 2008 year and it really meant that it's 10 million cumulative sales.

Except that Jobs actually said 10 million iphones in calendar year 2008...
post #138 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

As I stated, intended or not, it was ambiguous.

I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.

Did you not read the thread? Or just not remember anything that was posted?

"Q: Do you still think you'll sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year — or will it be more?

Jobs: We think 10 million is a realistic goal."


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm

"sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year"

Not ambiguous at all.


"Gene Munster - Piper Jaffray

Good afternoon. First in terms of the iPhone, Steve Jobs talked about 10 million units. Is that for fiscal '08 or calendar '08? Where did that number come from? Maybe just a little bit of logic behind that number.

Tim Cook

Gene, calendar year '08 is what Steve referenced in his keynote. The point that he made was that the worldwide market for total cell phones is somewhere around 1 billion and our objective of getting 1% of it would yield 10 million units across the calendar year."

Again, not ambiguous at all.

Can we let this ridiculous charade finally drop? We have three quotes from apple cited here (I haven't found a transcript of the other keynote yet). None say 10 million by the end of 2008. Seriously, continuing to insist that every statement apple has made about this is either ambiguous, or a statement made in error, just comes off as delusional.

If you want to believe that apple meant something other than what they have repeatedly said, you can go ahead and believe that. I guess you think that you are more qualified to turn Steve Jobs' thoughts into words than he is. But making that claim on a message board with zero evidence to support it, and expecting others to believe it, just seems kind of sad at this point.
post #139 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Did you not read the thread? Or just not remember anything that was posted?

"Q: Do you still think you'll sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year or will it be more?

Jobs: We think 10 million is a realistic goal."


http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm

"sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year"

Not ambiguous at all.


"Gene Munster - Piper Jaffray

Good afternoon. First in terms of the iPhone, Steve Jobs talked about 10 million units. Is that for fiscal '08 or calendar '08? Where did that number come from? Maybe just a little bit of logic behind that number.

Tim Cook

Gene, calendar year '08 is what Steve referenced in his keynote. The point that he made was that the worldwide market for total cell phones is somewhere around 1 billion and our objective of getting 1% of it would yield 10 million units across the calendar year."

Again, not ambiguous at all.

Can we let this ridiculous charade finally drop? We have three quotes from apple cited here (I haven't found a transcript of the other keynote yet). None say 10 million by the end of 2008. Seriously, continuing to insist that every statement apple has made about this is either ambiguous, or a statement made in error, just comes off as delusional.

If you want to believe that apple meant something other than what they have repeatedly said, you can go ahead and believe that. I guess you think that you are more qualified to turn Steve Jobs' thoughts into words than he is. But making that claim on a message board with zero evidence to support it, and expecting others to believe it, just seems kind of sad at this point.

You may very well be correct, but you need proof to back up your claims. You haven't provided one link that backs up your claims.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #140 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

You may very well be correct, but you need proof to back up your claims. You haven't provided one link that backs up your claims.

Already posted in this thread, but since you are either unwilling or forgetful...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2443...all-transcript

First, the apple guys must have screwed up and misspoke, then there was no link so those quotes must have been fabricated...so what's your next excuse to invalidate direct quotes from the apple CEO and COO? Please, I'm dying to hear it.
post #141 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Already posted in this thread, but since you are either unwilling or forgetful...

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm

http://seekingalpha.com/article/2443...all-transcript

First, the apple guys must have screwed up and misspoke, then there was no link so those quotes must have been fabricated...so what's your next excuse to invalidate direct quotes from the apple CEO and COO? Please, I'm dying to hear it.

Your smarmy attitude doesn't help your argument. This is the first time you have posted an actual working link to my response. Your previous post was still just quotations without validation and a fake link. I'm unwilling to hunt through a 200-reply thread to locate a couple links to external sites when you should be supplying them if you have any desire to win your argument. You obviously know the sites, while I don't, so it should be a very simple Google search for you to add them. Thank you for finally supplying me links.

Gene: "Good afternoon. First in terms of the iPhone,

Steve Jobs talked about 10 million units. Is that for fiscal '08 or calendar '08? Where did that number come from? Maybe just a little bit of logic behind that number.

Tim: "Gene, calendar year '08 is what Steve referenced in his keynote" The confusion there was the the year ending December 31st, 2008 (calendar) or the year ending Spetembet 31st, 2007 (fiscal). This has nothing to do with Apple selling x-many units only within calendar year 2008.

The next part, which I don't recall you using in your argument, is the only part that could be construed to validate your point.

"Tim: The point that he made was that the worldwide market for total cell phones is somewhere around 1 billion and our objective of getting 1% of it would

yield 10 million units across the calendar year." Across means "from one side to the other of something" so this implies, along with the earlier calcification of the calender year over the fiscal year, that they Tim Cook is referring to calendar year 2008. I don't recall you using this preposition as proof, but if you did then your argument has validity.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #142 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

I'm unwilling to hunt through a 200-reply thread to locate a couple links to external sites when you should be supplying them if you have any desire to win your argument.

This is what we call "willful blindness", n'est-ce pas?
post #143 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

This is what we call "willful blindness", n'est-ce pas?

YEAH - at first I thought he mis-undertood. It's pretty clear now he's just an idiot.
post #144 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by samab View Post

This is what we call "willful blindness", n'est-ce pas?

That would be if I ignored replies that had sufficient info to make an informed decision. Defending your argument with hearsay in lieu of citations is not a smart move.

I had to ask several times before it was finally given. Even then the highlighted data did not support the argument, it was only when I read further that I found data that did support it.

Though I take full responsibility for the ineffectual dissension as it's easy to forget that the forum posters on are often young, inexperienced and uneducated. I should have been more clear as to why your argument was incorrect as stated and how supplying proof and sources is important. Too often I am reading these forums while at work and switching between conversing with professionals and laymen isn't always achievable.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #145 of 155
I wish mac would make a hybrid between the macbook air and the iphone. Something half the size of a macbook air that can connect to the net via cell.
post #146 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

Though I take full responsibility for the ineffectual dissension ...

Speaking of Laymen - it's effectual dissension. I know the dashboard thesaurus is fun to play with, but still, it's not going to help you look smart.
post #147 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by sapporobaby View Post

I agree with much of your other premise but totally disagree with this annotated statement above. which technical advantage are we talking about? Touch screens? Nokia, and SE have been there years before. EDGE? Been there done, that about 3 years ago. 2 Megapixel cameras? The list continues. What Apple did was to innovate and implement on and older technology, i.e the touch screen and they did this quite well. The iPhone is far from ground breaking but the implementation is quite evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.

I think the advantage is Apple's control over both the operating system and hardware. Most companies will have a hard time matching that.
post #148 of 155
From the start, I've interpreted Job's remarks as: a total of 10 million will have been sold by the end of 2008, that the 10 million sales mark will be reached "in" 2008.

But apparently, there are multiple ways to interpret those remarks. Even apple employees aren't all on the same page it seems.

Communication isn't an exact science, so ambiguity can occur even if the speaker is trying to be precise. Speakers don't get to entirely define the meaning of their own statements either. The interpretation of the listeners equally valid. While it isn't pleasing to the technically minded, communication is a collaborative effort in which no one person gets to define the true meaning of someone's writings or remarks.
post #149 of 155
Say what you want about the iPhone, it may not be the most feature rich phone and have all the features that people hardly use on their phone but it will be a sucess. Right now it's probably the most talked about phone in the world and it will only get more popular. I expect it to be as big as the ipod for Apple if not bigger. We are seeing the phone everywhere from the oscars to Jay Leno to David Letterman.
post #150 of 155
The latest:

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/02..._sdk_ireleand/

Quote:
Apple is "really confident" it will sell 10m iPhones by the handset's first birthday, the company's COO, Tim Cook, said yesterday.

That's actually pretty fucking impressive, if they can sell 10 million in the first year, they will should completely smash 10 million for calendar 2008.
post #151 of 155
all this discussion is petty and irrelevant, SJ this year last year, calendar year, who cares, people want to see 10million, whatever year. so do people wait till 10 million or looking for a path to 12-14 million it will succeed this(10 mil) by 12/31 and the analysts and stock buyers want GROWTH, BIG GROWTH. that's what will push up the stock price. but why all the strain on a product line that is 3% of their total sales/revenue. i'd rather see big growth in something that is a large part of revenue. stock price analysts i thought looked at revenue and profit growth. i guess stock buyers want what....? i see growth with a 3g and widen the product line, that's growth in all smart phone segments, rim has how many products and product focused markets. the big thing will be apple's effort in the enterprise....i guess we need to see growth in markets all smartphone markets. imo at least that's what will make me buy more stock AND an iphone.
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
I APPLE THEREFORE I AM
Reply
post #152 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

This is the first time you have posted an actual working link to my response.

The "fake" quote didn't work because I copied the text and not the link itself. If it didn't work for you, you can just point that out so the link can be corrected, instead of making accusations.


There was an event yesterday in which Tim Cook reiterated yet again the "in 2008" statement.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/goldmansachs08/

The general question about excess iPhone inventory begins around 23:10.

His quote (25:25):

We are right on track to where we want to be. We are...the...the 4 million units that we've sold over the first 200 days gives us confidence that we can achieve 10 million units in 2008. I know we've said that before; you've heard us say that before, but I want to make that perfectly clear--that we're--we believe that we are right on track for that.
post #153 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

From the start, I've interpreted Job's remarks as: a total of 10 million will have been sold by the end of 2008, that the 10 million sales mark will be reached "in" 2008.

But apparently, there are multiple ways to interpret those remarks. Even apple employees aren't all on the same page it seems.

Why would you say that? When has an apple employee ever made a statement contradicting "sell 10 million in 2008"? Has someone actually said "10M by the end of 2008" or "sell the 10Mth in 2008"?

Maybe if you just look at one of those remarks, there's some room for misinterpretation. But I don't think that there's any ambiguity when you look at all of them, with the clarifications I don't see any reason for misinterpretation beyond reading the wrong info somewhere and refusing to accept that it is wrong regardless of evidence.

Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut View Post

The latest:

http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/02..._sdk_ireleand/

"Apple is "really confident" it will sell 10m iPhones by the handset's first birthday, the company's COO, Tim Cook, said yesterday."

That's actually pretty fucking impressive, if they can sell 10 million in the first year, they will should completely smash 10 million for calendar 2008.

Actually, that was a mistake on their part, they've changed it. But unfortunately when they changed it, they didn't correct it, they just changed it to DIFFERENT wrong info...
post #154 of 155
I interpret that quote, as well, to mean that Apple will sell their 10 millionth iPhone sometime "in" 2008.

Harping on the word "in" does nothing to prove either interpretation.
post #155 of 155
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler View Post

I interpret that quote, as well, to mean that Apple will sell their 10 millionth iPhone sometime "in" 2008.

Harping on the word "in" does nothing to prove either interpretation.

Don't bother, he only reads it as "within" and does see the ambiguity of the word "in".
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › RIM sees no slowdown as analyst questions 10M iPhone target