AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Live coverage from Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Live coverage from Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference - Page 4

post #121 of 167
6/8/09 at 12:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Yep, from Engadget's coverage:

"Here's a chart of OS X users over 10 years." It goes from 5m to 25m. "But something has happening..." he changes the chart to move up to 75m. "We've tripled the amount of users since iPhone."

As I said. I didn't read it. I was reading Engadget as well.

You didn't read it either.

That doesn't say anything about the iPhone being INCLUDED in the numbers, just that sales have gone up since the iPhones introduction.

This is something they've said several times before.
Reply
Reply
post #122 of 167
6/8/09 at 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox View Post

I know! There should have been more explosions!

Hopefully not in anybody's sealed battery. ( I couldn't resist)
Reply
Reply
post #123 of 167
6/8/09 at 12:41pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

As I said. I didn't read it. I was reading Engadget as well.

You didn't read it either.

That doesn't say anything about the iPhone being INCLUDED in the numbers, just that sales have gone up since the iPhones introduction.

This is something they've said several times before.

So you're saying that they have sold 50 million macs in the two years since iPhone shipped? Do Apple's sales numbers back that up?
Reply
Reply
post #124 of 167
6/8/09 at 12:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

It is odd. You would think they'd be the first out of the gate, considering their relationship.

Yeah. I agree. It's embarrassing: an Indian company (Bharti Airtel) is on the list!
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 167
6/8/09 at 12:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

So you're saying that they have sold 50 million macs in the two years since iPhone shipped? Do Apple's sales numbers back that up?

He said that OS X use has gone from 25 million three years ago to 75 million. Not that they sold 50 million machines during that time.

As I said, 3 years ago it was estimated that there were about 40 million Macs out there, many of them not yet on OS X.

Even with a fair number of those people buying new machines and getting rid of the old, with many upgrading to OS X over that time, along with new sales of over 30 million, I can see the number of 75 million OS X users.

Besides, the numbers with the iPhone AND the iPod Touch, which runs the same OS as the iPhone added into the mix, that would give us a lot more than 75 million OS X users.

A good number of the 40 million, plus the over 30 million in new sales, plus the over 40 million in iPhone and iPod Touch sales.

How would you reconcile those numbers?
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 167
6/8/09 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

So you're saying that they have sold 50 million macs in the two years since iPhone shipped? Do Apple's sales numbers back that up?

Can't be.

In the six months ending March 2009, Apple had sold 4.7M Mac units. So, let's simplify and say they've sold about 8M per year on average.

The iPhone and its features have been known since Jan 2007, so that's 2.5 years that someone contemplating a Mac in the post-iPhone era. So it would be in the ballpark of 8*2.5 = 20M.

PS: Let me see if I can get more precise numbers.
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 167
6/8/09 at 12:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by city View Post

Will address book photo contacts be in "Cover Flow" format?

Oh do shut up about this thing.

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply

DaHarder just got banned. Let's crack open the champagne.

Reply
post #128 of 167
6/8/09 at 1:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

He said that OS X use has gone from 25 million three years ago to 75 million. Not that they sold 50 million machines during that time.

As I said, 3 years ago it was estimated that there were about 40 million Macs out there, many of them not yet on OS X.

Even with a fair number of those people buying new machines and getting rid of the old, with many upgrading to OS X over that time, along with new sales of over 30 million, I can see the number of 75 million OS X users.

Besides, the numbers with the iPhone AND the iPod Touch, which runs the same OS as the iPhone added into the mix, that would give us a lot more than 75 million OS X users.

A good number of the 40 million, plus the over 30 million in new sales, plus the over 40 million in iPhone and iPod Touch sales.

How would you reconcile those numbers?

My (optimistic) guess is 25M Mac units sold since Jan 2007. So, going from 25M to 75M would have to imply that an additional 25M switched to OSX from OS9, and in their pre-2007 Macs.

Seems a bit too high.

(I can't easily find more precise figures, so this is a bit speculative.....)
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 167
6/8/09 at 1:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Most of Palms apps are crap too.

I've been using Palmphones since the Samsung i300. My last was the Treo 700p.

So, I'm pretty familiar with Palms apps.

And unless they drop the prices on most of them by a lot, they will fade away even more quickly than otherwise. Most are no longer worth what is being charged for them.

And I said "about".

I'm not disagreeing. I think that the whole app thing is really somewhat of a Joke until *real* apps come along. Games are actually looking somewhat decent. It's just a pain that the input system sucks for generally anything fast-paced.
Reply
Reply
post #130 of 167
6/8/09 at 1:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

My (optimistic) guess is 25M Mac units sold since Jan 2007. So, going from 25M to 75M would have to imply that an additional 25M switched to OSX from OS9, and in their pre-2007 Macs.

Seems a bit too high.

(I can't easily find more precise figures, so this is a bit speculative.....)

I don't think it's too high.

But assuming the 40+ million "i" units would give a number that's way too high. It they were included, I would think the number they would have announced would have been over 100 million, and if so, they wouldn't have been so conservative so as to say 75 million.
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 167
6/8/09 at 1:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by legend79 View Post

I'm not disagreeing. I think that the whole app thing is really somewhat of a Joke until *real* apps come along. Games are actually looking somewhat decent. It's just a pain that the input system sucks for generally anything fast-paced.

I like the accelerator controls. There are on-screen controls in some games that work pretty well too.

What I think we might see now that we have third party support for devices, is a gaming controller that the iPhone will sit inside of, with controls on either side.

The whole thing would still be smaller than the PSP.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 167
6/8/09 at 1:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

....assuming the 40+ million "i" units would give a number that's way too high. It they were included, I would think the number they would have announced would have been over 100 million, and if so, they wouldn't have been so conservative so as to say 75 million.

I do agree with that.

It is a mystery.

Perhaps it will become the source of debate similar to "10M iPhones in/during/before-the-end-of 2008"!
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 167
6/8/09 at 1:46pm
Macworld thinks the 75M number includes iPhones.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1408...6/keynote.html
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 167
6/8/09 at 1:52pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Macworld thinks the 75M number includes iPhones.

http://www.macworld.com/article/1408...6/keynote.html

No, MACWORLD doesn't think that. The writer at the show interpreted it the way you did, without thinking about the numbers first.

Reflection doesn't seem to make that right.

And again. Apple didn't say that it included the "i" devices, only that the numbers increased since they have been selling the iPhone, which is quite different.
Reply
Reply
post #135 of 167
6/8/09 at 1:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

No, MACWORLD doesn't think that. The writer at the show interpreted it the way you did, without thinking about the numbers first.

Reflection doesn't seem to make that right.

And again. Apple didn't say that it included the "i" devices, only that the numbers increased since they have been selling the iPhone, which is quite different.

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough.

A writer for Macworld thinks the 75M number includes iPhones.
Reply
Reply
post #136 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Sorry, I wasn't specific enough.

A writer for Macworld thinks the 75M number includes iPhones.

I imagine this will be cleared up within the next few days.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:01pm
Will the current 3g have most of the new features with the 3.0 update?
White Nexus 7 8GB
Black & Slate iPhone 5 32GB AT&T
Reply
White Nexus 7 8GB
Black & Slate iPhone 5 32GB AT&T
Reply
post #138 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:03pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I imagine this will be cleared up within the next few days.

Just like the whole "10M in 2008" thing? Oops, sorry to bring that up after you got it wrong for such a long time...
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:12pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Just like the whole "10M in 2008" thing? Oops, sorry to bring that up after you got it wrong for such a long time...

I knew it! (See #132 above).
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flash_beezy View Post

Will the current 3g have most of the new features with the 3.0 update?

Anything that doesn't require a hardware upgraded phone, such as

New camera, video recording, compass, 32 GB memory, voice recording, longer battery life, faster processor.

For the current phones we get turn by turn programs, in program purchasing, much better location using Google maps, cut/paste, remote wipe and hardware encryption, third party hardware and software integration, etc.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:16pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Just like the whole "10M in 2008" thing? Oops, sorry to bring that up after you got it wrong for such a long time...

What are you talking about? Oh. That's was a stupid debate for all of us. and I wasn't wrong about it either.

And your numbers are so far off as to be unreasonable. Yu haven't addressed that, have you? Why?
Reply
Reply
post #142 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What are you talking about? Oh1 That's was a stupid debate for all of us. and I wasn't wrong about it either.

So you weren't one of the ones insisting it was 10M by the end of 2008, despite the fact that Apple said IN on many occasions? Then sorry, I must have been thinking of someone else.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

And your numbers are so far off as to be unreasonable. Yu haven't addressed that, have you? Why?

They're not my numbers, I just passed along what the sources reported.
Reply
Reply
post #143 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

So you weren't one of the ones insisting it was 10M by the end of 2008, despite the fact that Apple said IN on many occasions? Then sorry, I must have been thinking of someone else.

What I said at the time was that "in" and "by the end" of is saying the same thing.

December 30th is "in". So is June 23rd.

I wasn't commenting on "when" the "in" would take place.


Quote:
They're not my numbers, I just passed along what the sources reported.

You didn't actually report "numbers". They gave one number, the same one we all saw. It's the meaning of the rest of the sentence we're disagreeing about.
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

and I wasn't wrong about it either.

Sorry, I just went back and checked, and you were one of those insisting they meant 10M by the end of 2008 when they repeatedly said IN 2008. And apple repeatedly clarified it. And apple ended up selling 10M IN 2008, just as they said they would, meaning they sold the first 10M well before the end of the year and ended the year with well more than 10M.

It was bad enough you dragged out that stupid argument, but at this point it's just sad that you don't have the class to be man enough to admit you were wrong.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:32pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

What I said at the time was that "in" and "by the end" of is saying the same thing.

December 30th is "in". So is June 23rd.

I wasn't commenting on "when" the "in" would take place.

Yep, that's what you said. And it turned out that your interpretation was wrong, they meant 10M during the course of the year, and they exceeded that. Why is it so hard for you to admit you were wrong on that one?
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Sorry, I just went back and checked, and you were one of those insisting they meant 10M by the end of 2008 when they repeatedly said IN 2008. And apple repeatedly clarified it. And apple ended up selling 10M IN 2008, just as they said they would, meaning they sold the first 10M well before the end of the year and ended the year with well more than 10M.

It was bad enough you dragged out that stupid argument, but at this point it's just sad that you don't have the class to be man enough to admit you were wrong.

I didn't drag it out, you did.

But you have problems understanding English, or you would understand what I meant, and why they are the same.
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I didn't drag it out, you did.

But you have problems understanding English, or you would understand what I meant, and why they are the same.

You are saying that selling 10M during calendar year 2008 is the same as selling 10M total including 2007 sales by some point in 2008?
Reply
Reply
post #148 of 167
6/8/09 at 2:56pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

You are saying that selling 10M during calendar year 2008 is the same as selling 10M total including 2007 sales by some point in 2008?

We all got into that confused argument. At times it was thought that Apple was saying fiscal year, then calendar year. That's what caused the argument in the first place.

Those who were thinking (I was one of them for a while) fiscal year, were thinking end of September. The rest were thinking end of December.

Then some were thinking July, as in 12 months after the introduction.

It was all very confusing, and unnecessary. Why bring it up again?

This new argument should be cleared up shortly.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

We all got into that confused argument. At times it was thought that Apple was saying fiscal year, then calendar year. That's what caused the argument in the first place.

Those who were thinking (I was one of them for a while) fiscal year, were thinking end of September. The rest were thinking end of December.

Then some were thinking July, as in 12 months after the introduction.

It was all very confusing, and unnecessary. Why bring it up again?

This new argument should be cleared up shortly.

Apple said "10M in 2008" every time they commented on it. People like you insisted that "10M in 2008" meant something other than "10M in 2008". They never said fiscal year, and when they were asked to clarify, they did say calendar year.

It's not clear from your post, are you finally admitting that you were wrong or not?
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Apple said "10M in 2008" every time they commented on it. People like you insisted that "10M in 2008" meant something other than "10M in 2008". They never said fiscal year, and when they were asked to clarify, they did say calendar year.

It's not clear from your post, are you finally admitting that you were wrong or not?

Man, can't you read something, and understand it, even though you're not happy about it?

Why can't you understand that "in" 2008 MEANS "by the end of 2008", and visa versa?

I didn't say "at the end of 2008". That would indicate that it MUST be at the end.

You're actually trying to not understand this!

When someone says to you that something is "less than 10", do you understand that it means 9.9 as well as 6?
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:17pm
Here's one of the MANY clarifications:

http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com...-by-nearly-30/

But as Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster points out in a report to clients Wednesday, Apple did clear up one nagging ambiguity: does the companys oft-stated goal of selling 10 million iPhones in 2008 mean that it hopes to sell 10 million phones within this calender year, or 10 million phones between June 29, 2007 and Dec. 31, 2008? Its a question often argued in heated words in the comment threads of Apple blogs (including this one). We confirmed with Apple, writes Munster, that the goal is to sell 10m iPhones in CY08′ alone.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Why can't you understand that "in" 2008 MEANS "by the end of 2008", and visa versa?

Because that's not what it means. Why can't you understand that "in 2008" means "in 2008"?

Just listen to what you are saying - that somehow "in 2008" means "in 2008 plus the end of 2007"? Seriously?

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I didn't say "at the end of 2008". That would indicate that it MUST be at the end.

And I didn't say you said that. I understand what you said. And it has been made clear many times that it is wrong. I'm actually pretty dumbfounded that you're still clinging to the hope that you might be right after so much time and so many clarifications.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

You're actually trying to not understand this!

Sorry, but you are in no position to lecture me.
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Because that's not what it means. Why can't you understand that "in 2008" means "in 2008"?

Just listen to what you are saying - that somehow "in 2008" means "in 2008 plus the end of 2007"? Seriously?

I'm not talking about 2007, you are!

I'm talking about in 2008, by the end of 2008. You keep bringing up 2007.

Quote:
And I didn't say you said that. I understand what you said. And it has been made clear many times that it is wrong. I'm actually pretty dumbfounded that you're still clinging to the hope that you might be right after so much time and so many clarifications.

Because you keep confusing what you THINK I said with what I keep saying.

Quote:
Sorry, but you are in no position to lecture me.

You should be sorry, because you keep confusing things.
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm talking about in 2008, by the end of 2008. You keep bringing up 2007.

You're saying that you said they'd sell 10M during the period of time from Jan 1 2008 to December 31 2008?

Or you're saying they'd sell 10M during the period of time from when they started selling mid 2007 and the end of 2008?

(you had been insisting on the latter, have you changed your mind since then?)

Or in other words, do you agree with this statement or not:
“We confirmed with Apple,” writes Munster, “that the goal is to sell 10m iPhones ‘in CY08′ alone.”
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

You're saying that you said they'd sell 10M during the period of time from Jan 1 2008 to December 31 2008?

Or you're saying they'd sell 10M during the period of time from when they started selling mid 2007 and the end of 2008?

(you had been insisting on the latter, have you changed your mind since then?)

The only time I said late 2007 to sometime in 2008 was in the very beginning of the debate when it wasn't clear that Apple wasn't talking about fiscal year as had been written as attributed to them by some financial writers. After that, no.
Reply
Reply
post #155 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Or in other words, do you agree with this statement or not:
We confirmed with Apple, writes Munster, that the goal is to sell 10m iPhones in CY08′ alone.

I see you do the same thing I sometimes do.

Yes, I agree with that.
Reply
Reply
post #156 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:38pm
So to be clear, you're saying that you said they'd sell 10M during the period of time from Jan 1 2008 to December 31 2008?

Then I guess you were wrong (repeatedly, and insistently) at first and changed your tune later. I guess I missed the post where you finally corrected yourself.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:45pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

So to be clear, you're saying that you said they'd sell 10M during the period of time from Jan 1 2008 to December 31 2008?

Then I guess you were wrong (repeatedly, and insistently) at first and changed your tune later. I guess I missed the post where you finally corrected yourself.

I wasn't insistently and repeatedly wrong. You just kept thinking I was saying something I wasn't.
Reply
Reply
post #158 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I wasn't insistently and repeatedly wrong. You just kept thinking I was saying something I wasn't.

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=17

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross, 01-21-2008, 11:09 PM

The original statement wasn't for 10 million in 2008 only, it was total for sometime in 2008, including 2007.

You're telling me that "total for sometime in 2008, including 2007" somehow means "they'd sell 10M during the period of time from Jan 1 2008 to December 31 2008"?

Call me crazy, but when you said "total for sometime in 2008, including 2007", I assumed you meant "total for sometime in 2008, including 2007".

(and yeah, there's that ol' 2007 that you insisted you never brought up)

And if you really said back then "they'd sell 10M during the period of time from Jan 1 2008 to December 31 2008" I'd love to see that post.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 167
6/8/09 at 3:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...8&postcount=17



You're telling me that "total for sometime in 2008, including 2007" somehow means "they'd sell 10M during the period of time from Jan 1 2008 to December 31 2008"?

Call me crazy, but when you said "total for sometime in 2008, including 2007", I assumed you meant "total for sometime in 2008, including 2007".

(and yeah, there's that ol' 2007 that you insisted you never brought up)

And if you really said back then "they'd sell 10M during the period of time from Jan 1 2008 to December 31 2008" I'd love to see that post.

That was earlier on. As I already said, until it was cleared up I did say that. After it was cleared up, I didn't.

Now, that's enough, ok?
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 167
6/8/09 at 4:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

That was earlier on. As I already said, until it was cleared up I did say that. After it was cleared up, I didn't.

Now, that's enough, ok?

Thanks for the clarification.

So we finally agree. At that point (well, for the first few months), you were in fact wrong (the posts bear out repeatedly and I'd argue insistently, but feel free to disagree on that). Then later you realized you were wrong (I guess instead of actually admitting you were wrong, you just stopped posting about the subject? correct me if I'm mistaken on that).

Glad we could finally agree that those posts were wrong and put this to rest.

Cheers.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Live coverage from Apple's Worldwide Developers Conference