RIM sees no slowdown as analyst questions 10M iPhone target - Page 2

The patent is not really relevant - even a minor implementation change would most likely make it not applicable... There are two big issues - as far as I can see: 1) Usability, my technically challenged GF is emailing, surfing, SMSing etc. with her iPhone - she even bought songs using the WiFi store. She could barely do phone calls with her P910i (she was reading phone numbers from her paper phone book and dialled them manually) - a device that did cost more than the iPhone when it was released. 2) The iPod ecosystem - iTunes/iTunes Store/syncing/buy music on the phone, come home and have it on the TV or stereo without any manual transaction in seconds, huge choice of accessories... etc ad lib. Nobody else is offering such a seamless overall experience and ease of use. We had SE, Nokia (8800 and N95) and a few Siemens bricks - they are years behind Apple in interface design and ecosystem and Siemens is dead for good.

I love reading stuff like this, because it really does point out the fundamental difference between Apple and its competitors with regard to business psychology. Most people still don't get the fact that Apple succeeds because their products are usability driven, NOT feature driven something that is still lost on many people, including the above poster.

What good does a product with tons of features do if the user experience is sub par? The iPhone succeeds because it implements the features that it has really, really well. Why else does it have the highest customer satisfaction ratings of any cell phone EVER? Anybody who has honestly compared WM6, Linux and Symbian-based smartphones with the the iPhone knows that the iPhone wins hands down in terms of useability. How the poster above can so easily dismiss that is very short sighted in my opinion. Stuff like 5MP cameras on a phone is more marketing hype than anything else, and 3G is not as widely available in the USA - the iPhone's main market - as it is in Europe and Asia, but a 3G iPhone is coming, so the iPhone's lack of 3G is a moot point.

It's very easy to debunk many more of the points the above post tries to make, so I won't go there. What I will say is: if Nokia and SE's implementation of all these technologies is so superior to the iPhone's, then why are those two companies trying so hard to recreate (read: copy) the iPhone in their forthcoming products?

Multi-Touch is not simply a better implementation of touch screens. It has had an entirely different research and development path dating back to 1982. Apple bought FingerWorks a company that was first to successfully develop and market multi-touch keyboards. Apple owns the Fingerworks intellectual property and the patents.

I'd agree that apple will need to keep updating the iPhone and will need to introduce a new model before long...but I don't see why they needed more than one model at launch? Why?

Demand has been excellent for a product with only one model, it seems like it makes much more sense to roll out new things on an ongoing basis than to try and have more options than necessary at launch.


I don't agree - while the public probably doesn't talk about the OS, there's no question that they talk about ease of use. And that's the OS.


I don't see how that's a problem with my argument. Jobs made that prediction midway through last year, he was going off a projection since obviously nobody knew for sure how many would be sold during the year. What do you disagree with?

Dwindling demand?

Everyone and their grandmother that I know owns an iPhone. Those freakin things are everywhere. What are these analysts talking about?

Well, in this case: pardon. But you said "products" and mentioned Shuffle and movie rentals...

The lead article quotes an analyst - and I think he is, at least partially, wrong. Sure there should be a cheaper, less featured, iPhone to gain more market share and make Apple a bigger player in the cell phone market, just: I do not really consider the iPhone overpriced for now. It sells pretty well for an expensive device and Apple has to do the math - will a cheaper price point generate more income, especially considering an unlocking rate of maybe 30 - 40% by now? Maybe not. They will bring the price down before introducing a new model.

How can you say they are the same?

"We will sell 10 million in 2008". (total 14 million)

"We will sell 10 million by the end of 2008" (total 10 million)

"We will have reached 10 million sold in 2008" (total 10+ million by the end of 2008)

Apple has consistently worded it the first way. And that's the only way that's consistent with calling 10 million 1% of the billion phones expected to be sold in 2008.

Nope. Its 10M by the end of 2008. Review videos and PR releases carefully please.

They are already more than halfway there.

I'm so fed up of analysts failing to see the point.

The point is, Apple will sell 10m iPhones because they will release the 3G one around summertime, which will bump up sales.

It does matter.

If the profit on the iPhone is $100 how can they lower it much? If they lowered it $100 as many suggest then every iPhone sold and unlocked then becomes almost unprofitable.

If 1 million of the 5 million iPhones sold to date are unlocked then that would be 20% of the iPhone sold AT NO PROFIT.

Apple cannot and will not do that. The iPhone may drop another $50 but that's about as low as it can go if the numbers in the article are correct. People hoping Apple will sell the iPhone at cost are kidding themselves. Apple will accept not reaching the '10 million sold goal' before that happens.

Personally I think the 3g version needs to arrive sooner. That'll open up the Asian markets, which may embrace the iPhone, and will probably help European sales which are soft.

No, Jobs made the presentation in January 2007 --- using 2006 world market data.

At the time of the original presentation in January 2007, analysts have already projected the worldwide mobile phone market to grow to 1.1 billion in 2007.

Did you even read the rest of this thread?

There's a screenshot from the keynote, plus links to two videos of the keynote with the times where jobs says "10M in 2008".

Please look at these - are you saying I'm hearing wrong and he says "by the end of"?

So that's three sources direct from Jobs.

Here's another:
"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

Calendar year is Jan 1 to December 31.

If you found a source for Jobs or another apple official saying "by the end of", by all means post it. Until then, you are making claims with zero facts to back them up.

What are you talkin about? they have up to 50% margins, and how are they not making profit on unlocked phones? They make just as much profit whether someone jailbreaks it, uses it in afghanistan, or throws it in the toilet... as long as its legally purchased off the shelves.

I am so fed up of fanbois who don't read the fine print.

Sacconaghi is saying that without a iphone launch in Asia, a 3G iphone launch and a iphone price cut --- the 10 million sales goal would be difficult to reach.

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7010138345

The "general public" doesn't even think about devices having OS's. But they DO think they are paying for all the things an OS platform gives them:

* WHAT they can do (software, not just hardware specs)

* HOW WELL they can do it (how easily, quickly, etc.)

The "general public" also doesn't think about "corporate OS requirements." That's a more specific, Microsoft-tied segment that Apple does not depend on.


But some people see "by the end of 2008" and lump 2007 in there too--which is inaccurate in this case. "In" does NOT mean the same as "by the end of" because "in" excludes 2007, while "by the end of" is vague on that. "In" is what Apple said.


The drop is no mystery:

* Apple stock fluctuates wildly based on the little hard info. Nothing new there. Any time any one of Apple's many ventures performs amazingly--but slightly LESS amazingly than someone expected--some see it as a failure. And analysts DO manipulate tech stocks with false analysis for profit. Illegally yet brazenly.

* The whole economy is down.

* Apple issued conservative guidance for next quarter (but not in any huge way, and they did not back down on iPhone predictions for the year).

The stock drop hardly pinpoints problems with "overpriced" products. Look at:

* The fact that Apple's HIGH-end models are doing great. The CHEAP models have been the ones to see lower sales. Apple has created demand for higher-end devices, which would once have been only a small niche.

* What other companies charge for smart devices with big screens, big storage and WiFi--yet lacking mobile OS X and multitouch. (And if you look at subsidized prices, add up what that costs you monthly.)

As for .99 rentals--that's a one-title weekly promo, nothing more.

Demand is not "dwindling" for the iPhone. For the Shuffle, yes--if "dwindling" means still selling great but not AS great--and so it got a price drop just like every product gets eventually.

I think the real problem is the unlocking. Other companies give away phones because they are subsidized by monthly fees. Apple isn't going to be able to compete with that forever, they're going to have to lower prices and make it up in monthly income from ATT.

I don't see why they just don't require users to sign up for the ATT contract in the store before they let them walk with the phone. I know they take pride in the iTunes unlocking thing, but wouldn't that pretty much eliminate all sales without a contract? That's what they do with all other free and discounted phones, isn't it?


You seem to be the one not reading here...we get those points. We just don't agree that there will be no launch in Asia, no 3G, and no price cut this year. Do you think that none of those will happen?

Did you read the article?

"We believe Apple generates more than $200 in gross profit over the life of the phone, compared with approximately $100 for the actual sale of the phone,"

I don't know if his numbers are acurate but if they are then the make $100 of profit on the sale of the phone. That's a 25% profit margin not 50%. I don't know where you got your numbers, I 'm going by what is in the article.

They do make a profit on unlocked phones now but I contend that the large number of phones sold and unlocked limits Apple's ability to cut the price of the handset.

I agree and that's an excellent point about the in store activation.

I don't think Apple WANTS to eliminate unlocked iPhones. AT&T does for sure, but I suspect Apple is happy to have all that income from the unlocked iPhones, knowing that further efforts to enforce the lock would make SOME additional shared revenue, but not, I am guessing, as much as Apple makes on ALL those unlocked phone purchases.

The amount of unlocking is an interesting side effect of the massive mindshare and demand, and I'm sure Apple is watching it closely--but I bet it's mainly AT&T who cares. (And even they are doing quite well off the iPhone regardless--winning many converts from other carriers.)

Watch this... from about the 3 minute mark http://youtube.com/watch?v=D-X_nLCz6Hc&feature=related

Jobs clearly says Apple will try to grab 1% by 2008 (the 1st full year). 1% market share in that presentation equals 10M iPhones total by the end of 2008. Case Closed.

If you listen too, you will see just how tiny the consoles market is, and how Apple made a smart decision by selling iPhones instead.

I'm sure prices for parts have dropped since its intro, hence the price drop and the introduction of the 16GB model. I bet they are making between 25-50% easily.

btw, where are you getting your numbers from, genius? post the source.

Yes. Jan 1, 2008 to Dec 31, 2008. The first "full year." If only Apple had said these things in a PR instead of in video, people wouldn't get them wrong so much

As for whether Apple targets 1% of the unkown future 2008 market, or simply 10 million, the 10 million is the number they have stood by. Of course that prediction is really a piece of trivia few will care about--and those that do will affect the stock price only temporarily. Apple could sell 9 million or 12 million in 2008 and the iPhone is still a success with no signs of stopping, and a success the competition would kill to have with their first phone!

It's not the fine print they miss, it's the entire article. Headlines only, if an analyst criticizes or downgrades Apple they are attacked for not having a brain in their head. The same analyst can come out 3 months later with positive news on Apple and they all jump on the analysts bandwagon. Pavlovian responses...

No he doesn't. He says "That's what we're going to try and do IN 2008" and then repeats it "1% market share, 10 million units IN 2008".

You really think it sounds like he says "BY"?

Here. 10th paragraph down. Try reading the article. I can't make this any easier. You're going to have to help.

If you rely on that argument --- then I can't argue with you because basically you can argue a zillion different scenario that are not in the current time.

Jobs said 10 million iphones at $600 each. Then price drop to $400, and maintains the 10 million iphone goal. Then price drop to ... Then 3G iphone launch... Then Asia launch....

The goal post is constantly moving to satisfy their press releases.

It's like what Bush is doing with Iraq --- constantly moving the goal post. Before it was making Iraq the democratic model in Middle East. Now the goal post is let's try to get ourselves out of this mess without destabilizing the whole subcontinent.

I'm curious... if those analysts should NOT be criticized for downgrading Apple, then when have they been RIGHT about Apple's stock being in trouble? (Outside of the short-term fluctuations that anyone can see happen year after year.)

If they've never been right, then the criticism against them is not necessarily merely Pavlovian


No, Jobs never said 10 million iPhones would be sold without any changes to prices or models. Such a statement would have been blatantly absurd, since prices and models DO always change. In fact, way back in the initial keynote he said a 3G iPhone and other "interesting" things WERE coming.

What case closed?

There are a zillion different numbers you can come out with that statement.

1% market share from July 2007 to December 2008 is 1.1 billion/2 + 1.25 billion = 1% of 1.8 billion cell phones (which is 18 million iphones).

Yes, prices do change --- but they don't change so fast and so drastic that they had to give out $100 rebate.

Next are you going to give out an estimate of 10 million iphone sales goal based on zero dollar iphones.

This postis not targeted at anyone post in particular, but I think it's important to getthe RIMM people out of the way on the forcasted target by Apple on iPhone sales. It's pretty clear we do not have a lot of people that are familiar with what the goal is and the forcast, and how Apple works.

If you don't understand Apple, you need to do some research, because Apple always does this same thing they did here with ALL their products.

They are talking about when they will hit the 10 million sales mark.
They will do that IN 2008.
They did NOT say they will actually sell 10 million DURING 2008, they said they will reach 10 million IN 2008.

Apple never talks about annual iTune sales. They pump their chest talking about iPod's sold and not ANNUAL sales of iPods. (kind of silly when you consider that most people threw away their early iPods when they replaced with a new model)

Apple forcasts sales for promotional purposes just like McDonalds does it's hamburgers.
Over 50 million sold. (not during the last year)

Look at the slide Steve used, and he's talking about a bar chart that will continue to grow even after 2008.

They will hit 10 million in iPhone sales in 2008.
If they come out with a new iPhone model during 2008, and a bunch of people replace their old phone with the new one, Apple will count that as 2 sales. Because they do it this way, you have to take them at their word that what they say they can do.... they will do.
Because if it looks like they can't, they will make changes to models or pricing that guarantees new demand from the old faithful.

You people that don't understand Apple need to just relax.
You can't say Apple has a huge problem with people wanting the phone so bad they pay extra and hack it to use it, and also say they have no demand.

Let's be real........

They certainly DO change that fast. You're singling out the $100 rebate as key to the 10 mil goal now? That was a mere PR gesture in response to a vocal minority that got surprising press attention--or not surprising, considering that anything Apple is "news." Of course it's upsetting when products drop in price--always has been, always will be.

If you look at the history of mobile phones (take the Razr for instance) you'll see that BIG and RAPID price drops ARE quite commonplace. There was nothing unusual about it for a phone. What was unusual is that Apple was making phones And of course the large quantity of flash storage--nearly unheard of in other brands at the time--has an effect on pricing too.

Anyway, what difference does it make, in your view:

a) Whether Apple sells 10 million or not.

b) How they did it?

The iPhone is a success no matter how you slant those questions, so they're of limited interest. In the case of this article, doubts have been raised about Apple making 10 mil, but many of us don't share that concern and have stated why.

I assume that Apple expected to sell 10 million by using whatever strategies the market and the technology might call for in the 18 months ahead. You seem to assume Apple expected to sell 10 million with certain strategies (like big price reductions for the holidays) being somehow "off limits" or "unfair." Yet Apple has made a ton of money with those strategies, and offered a competitive value both before AND after the price drop, so I'm not sure I understand why it matters.


Well, that WOULD make sense, if Apple sold zero-dollar iPhones. But... they don't. All sales estimates--and sales realities--will occur with phones selling for what iPhones ACTUALLY cost. Which, like the models and specs, will change over time.

You guys overaalyze every single word waaaay too much.

The name of this board should be changed to Apple-Imminent-Failure, judging by the way the majority of people scrutinize every single detail of every product.

1% share in 2008 means they will achieve 1% markeshare in 2008, not sell 1% market share in the given year. Common freakin sense.

Who says "we will sell 3.5% marketshare this year and in 2009"... doesn't make sense, does it?

RIM's days are numbered. I've had the same Blackberry now for 4 years, and the reason I haven't upgraded was that their phones have progressed so little. They added a speaker phone, camera GPS but other than that, it's the same shit software on it. There is only so far they can go.

I think you have it backwards. Jobs never said that they wouldn't drop prices, or that they wouldn't update the product, or that they wouldn't launch in new territories. With the release of ANY tech product, you know it will be updated and the price will drop as time goes on - it's completely unimaginable that a new product like that would stay at the same price with no updates for 18 months.

You obviously somehow consider it "cheating", but if apple promised 10 million in 2008 and they deliver it, who cares?


If they were, why didn't they say just that? But they didn't.


Wrong. While they didn't use "during", they said they'd sell 10 million in 2008, not that they'd reach 10 million in 2008. Again, have they ever used the term "reach"? Feel free to try and find a quote that does.

To put it simply, I'm saying that apple meant what they said.

You're saying that apple said one thing but meant another (despite saying it the same way 4+ times).


Actually, they did say 1% in that given year. And they broke down the numbers further supporting that. Again, have you actually watched the videos linked here? While you may not feel that such a statement is common sense, that doesn't change the fact that it's exactly what Apple said.

In fact, RIM's success is in many ways GOOD for Apple:

* It represents the growth of the high-end phone segment.

* And it's not Microsoft (Windows Mobile).

* And yet it's largely in the corporate market, not the consumer smartphone market that Apple is aiming for (and practically creating, for that matter).

* And it's not driven by things that would actually threaten the iPhone: it's not from RIM actually delivering OS power and usability to rival mobile OS X.

I think the real point here is that RIM didn't experience the same slowdown in sales that apple did. now... i'm no expert, but i believe that holiday sales are probably a big part of that. i can't imagine too many people finding blackberries in their stockings or that businesses are planning their blackberry purchases around the holidays.

i also don't think that apple is in direct competition with RIM. the iphone is marketed as a consumer product, that happens to be able to tie into exchange servers, if you can talk your (usually apple hostile) IT guys into letting you use IMAP to connect to it. businesses that are hooked into the blackberry eco-system aren't going to be switching to apple in a hurry. it works for them and usability is probably not that much of an issue for real crackberry addicts.

if you compare iphone sales to windows mobile sales, i think you will see who apple is really targeting.

Thank you mdotdubz - I had to scroll all this way to finally see someone make sense of that keynote still.

I,m sorry but what video are you watching?

Steve's exact words are "we're gonna see if we could get 1% marketshare, 10M units, in 2008 and go from there"

What is so complicated about comprehending that?

Once again, who says, "we sold 5% market share in 2005". NOBODY. "We got or will get 5% market share in 2015" is the common useage of the term, which is exactly how it is applies by SJ.

Case Closed. Please go back to school and learn basic English, Reading & Comprehension.

(not you minder, no offense, I mean everyone else)


I don't know why its soooo hard to comprehend


Which Apple already beat in their 1st 6 months on the market. Same goes for Palm. RIMM is next, those dinosaurs days are numbered.

I wish you could tell me. 10M in 2008. I don't know how you can interpret 10M in 2008 to be "10M in the second half of 2007 plus all of 2008". Or "we'll hit the 10M mark in 2008". There are three other sources linked here that say the same thing, if you think that statement is open to any ambiguity.

Let me repeat another quote:
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.


Can't be any more clear than that. 10M in the first calendar year, which is 10M between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008.

hmm...maybe Apple has a bunch of "secret" employees, in other countries that don't have the iPhone yet, selling these unlocked phones so they can get them out there right away.

Conspiracy theory. hehe