The analysts didn't exactly get it wrong. The iPhone X was the best selling iphone THIS YEAR. However in past years Apple sold more phones. Also, while profit was greater than last year it didn't meet expectations Apple made a lot more profit this year on software and subscriptions which factored into Apple's higher profit this year. Without the software increase, Apple's profit would have been lower than last year. Thus, the iPhone X didn't sell as well as hoped.
When did Apple sell more in Q2?
How do they tell if they are Switchers from android?
If those "expert" pundits (calling them journalists is laughable) knew anything, anything at all, they wouldn't be analysts, they would be CEO's. But there they are, attempting to make a buck by trying to profess to understand things they clearly lack the ability to understand. Too bad the general public never holds their feet to the fire. We should see their track record with every article. There should be a competency index applied to their name. Joe Knowitall (12% accurate) preceding their title. Funny that they get things so wrong so often. You'd almost think they were trying to manage the stock market.
How do they tell if they are Switchers from android?
Do you mean switchers in general, or specifically from Android.
Wouldn’t android represent 98% of switchers. Maybe 1% windows phone, < 1% switchers from POTS.
1) I'd think so, but you included that specific detail so I wasn't sure.
2) It's an interesting question. They could have employees keep track (which sounds like a bad idea, and would also need to get carriers to keep track), so I'd doubt that's it. They could use Apple ID creation, but that also seems very incomplete. Maybe they don't actually count "switchers" at all, but instead eliminate the number of buyers that have previous had an Apple ID assigned to an iPhone.
3) Personally, I wouldn't count POTS as "switchers" but if they do measure by looking at how many Apple IDs haven't ever had an iPhone before then it very well could be included. That would also mean that young people getting their first cellphone would be included as "switchers," which is likely much higher each quarter, and I certainly wouldn't call them "switchers."
The analysts didn't exactly get it wrong. The iPhone X was the best selling iphone THIS YEAR. However in past years Apple sold more phones. Also, while profit was greater than last year it didn't meet expectations Apple made a lot more profit this year on software and subscriptions which factored into Apple's higher profit this year. Without the software increase, Apple's profit would have been lower than last year. Thus, the iPhone X didn't sell as well as hoped.
Apple’s iPhone sales were up 3% YOY. I don’t know where you’re getting the rest of your information. Apple doesn’t disclose profit by product/category.
The analysts didn't exactly get it wrong. The iPhone X was the best selling iphone THIS YEAR. However in past years Apple sold more phones. Also, while profit was greater than last year it didn't meet expectations Apple made a lot more profit this year on software and subscriptions which factored into Apple's higher profit this year. Without the software increase, Apple's profit would have been lower than last year. Thus, the iPhone X didn't sell as well as hoped.
Apple’s iPhone sales were up 3% YOY. I don’t know where you’re getting the rest of your information. Apple doesn’t disclose profit by product/category.
It appears that forum commenters have no accountability either. Anyone can spout a any drivel they want and if challenged they can claim harassment or ad hominem attack.
Financial analysts are like political journalists, they don't ever leave their 2 block radius and only surround themselves within the bubble and have no idea what is going on in the real world. "Hillary has a 98% chance of winning!" "Nobody is buying the iPhone!" Those of us that live in and observe the real world know what really goes on and just nod our heads and smile when these self professed "elites" tell us what we should be thinking and what the facts are.
RE: "Mark Gurman was so confident about "lackluster" iPhone sales that he actually stated, "Apple Inc. earnings this week will confirm what most investors have finally accepted: The iPhone X didn't live up to the hype."
Gurman is angry with Apple because they've been ferreting out all his inside sources and firing them all.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
BS. If nobody is buying your product it doesn’t matter how much profit it would make. It’s a balance of maximizing both. Also considering how important services and recurring subscription revenue is I think Apple very much cares about sales and growing the install base.
Your posts are always so..indecipherable, and you never fail in trying to twist positives into negatives. The iPhone X was the BEST SELLING iPhone. So, obviously the price wasn't a deterrent for most people that wanted it. Could it have sold MORE with a lower price? Sure. It could also have sold more for $1. That doesn't mean the right thing to do was to price it lower. There a shit load at play here, including supply constraints, SKU dynamics, psychology, ASP, etc. You don't have a shred of evidence that the X wasn't priced ideally all things considered- but you pretend that you do.
I didn’t say anything about the X. My point was about only profits mattering. I don’t believe that’s true. What matters is getting the right balance.
Considering that they aren't charging ONE MILLION DOLLARS (dr evil style), Apple obviously agrees with you. And they've struck that balance.
How would we know? If the X was $50 cheaper ( or more expensive) what would sales & financials look like? Only Apple knows.
Just stop. The numbers speak for themselves. Your “concern” for Apple is, as usual, nonsense. You’ve backed yourself into a corner and the only way out is to admit you don’t know what you’re talking about and Apple is managing everything just fine, is killing it, and doesn’t need any concern troll nonsense.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
BS. If nobody is buying your product it doesn’t matter how much profit it would make. It’s a balance of maximizing both.
Such a silly thing to say. A scenario where "nobody" is buying the product is not in this universe. The topic being discussed is the claimed notion that Apple should undercut its profits and go for volume/marketshare -- the same, exact, stupid argument made by newbs about Apple every single year and launch. Amazed you're still clinging to it. Apple doesn't has never worshipped at the Church of Market Share. it goes for solid profit first, volume later. Obviously, they're right and this strategy has worked for them. Anyone claiming they should do otherwise is foolish.
I disagree with the notion that someone arguing the X is a bit too expensive means they’re arguing Apple needs to go for market share over profits. Apple’s profit this quarter was $13B. Last quarter $19B. Nobody is posting quarterly profits like that. Before iPhone X was anyone here arguing iPhones weren’t expensive enough and Apple wasn’t making enough profit? I’m not saying the X is overpriced. What I am saying is if someone else thinks it is it doesn’t mean they want Apple in a race to the bottom. Arguing that something cheaper than $1000 is a race to the bottom or just chasing after market share is nonsense.
No, it’s just mindless splitting of hairs. Armchair CEO masturbation and nothing more. Certainly not meaningful discussion. Your moving of the goalposts isn’t worth the time it’s taking to type these replies.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
BS. If nobody is buying your product it doesn’t matter how much profit it would make. It’s a balance of maximizing both.
Such a silly thing to say. A scenario where "nobody" is buying the product is not in this universe. The topic being discussed is the claimed notion that Apple should undercut its profits and go for volume/marketshare -- the same, exact, stupid argument made by newbs about Apple every single year and launch. Amazed you're still clinging to it. Apple doesn't has never worshipped at the Church of Market Share. it goes for solid profit first, volume later. Obviously, they're right and this strategy has worked for them. Anyone claiming they should do otherwise is foolish.
I disagree with the notion that someone arguing the X is a bit too expensive means they’re arguing Apple needs to go for market share over profits. Apple’s profit this quarter was $13B. Last quarter $19B. Nobody is posting quarterly profits like that. Before iPhone X was anyone here arguing iPhones weren’t expensive enough and Apple wasn’t making enough profit? I’m not saying the X is overpriced. What I am saying is if someone else thinks it is it doesn’t mean they want Apple in a race to the bottom. Arguing that something cheaper than $1000 is a race to the bottom or just chasing after market share is nonsense.
No, it’s just mindless splitting of hairs. Armchair CEO masturbation and nothing more. Certainly not meaningful discussion. Your moving of the goalposts isn’t worth the time it’s taking to type these replies.
I didn’t move any goal posts. Someone saying they think the X is too expensive does not mean they think Apple needs to get into a race to the bottom and not care about profits.
I admit it DED was right-on that Gurman was wrong (although I still would like to see his projection of revenue and sales counts ).
Only disappointing thing seems to be HomePod. I thought it would add $2 billion in the quarter. Seems more like one billion.
Adding 3% count per the quarter was impressive. Was this due to geography namely China or Android switchers? at high end or low end?
You expected HomePod to launch as a quarterly business larger than Microsoft Surface and Google Pixel put together, despite the fact that it was only available for sale in English within the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. OK.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
BS. If nobody is buying your product it doesn’t matter how much profit it would make. It’s a balance of maximizing both.
Such a silly thing to say. A scenario where "nobody" is buying the product is not in this universe. The topic being discussed is the claimed notion that Apple should undercut its profits and go for volume/marketshare -- the same, exact, stupid argument made by newbs about Apple every single year and launch. Amazed you're still clinging to it. Apple doesn't has never worshipped at the Church of Market Share. it goes for solid profit first, volume later. Obviously, they're right and this strategy has worked for them. Anyone claiming they should do otherwise is foolish.
I disagree with the notion that someone arguing the X is a bit too expensive means they’re arguing Apple needs to go for market share over profits. Apple’s profit this quarter was $13B. Last quarter $19B. Nobody is posting quarterly profits like that. Before iPhone X was anyone here arguing iPhones weren’t expensive enough and Apple wasn’t making enough profit? I’m not saying the X is overpriced. What I am saying is if someone else thinks it is it doesn’t mean they want Apple in a race to the bottom. Arguing that something cheaper than $1000 is a race to the bottom or just chasing after market share is nonsense.
No, it’s just mindless splitting of hairs. Armchair CEO masturbation and nothing more. Certainly not meaningful discussion. Your moving of the goalposts isn’t worth the time it’s taking to type these replies.
This thread is fun!
Sorry, but the first time I used a computer was in elementary school in the mid 80s and we used BASIC to program them, rock solid machines. Then there was DOS and something else very terrible ;0). When I switched at university first to SGI and at the same time to Macs in the mid 90s I never looked back. We used to let the whole university network work on our tasks, distributed, multiple machines crunching data, UNIX heaven. The dean probably only wondered why his computer became so slow suddenly ;0)
That is why the day Apple switched to OSX I opened a bottle. Unix and what I would call the solidity of Apple hardware. I require both and I am more than happy to pay for my tools.
In 2016 I bought the MBP, which cost me 4700,- euro. Most expensive laptop I ever bought from Apple by far!
No questions asked just paid cash, no credit card, no financing, just like I do for my cars and everything else.
You know what: there has never been a machine I had more problems with and I treat my computers in a way that after 5 years they look as new! (My iPhones and iPads look as new ... without case!)
The MBP 2016 crashes when I unplug the audio interface. The keyboard broke and Apple had to exchange top case, which would have cost me 700 euro parts alone if I had no Apple Care for a broken piece of hardware worth 1 cent. While exchanging the keyboard Apple broke a connector on the logic board and they had to change it twice, the display started having dark patched on it and got exchanged. After 18 months?
I am aware that I am mixing different topics. iPad and iPhones are sealed, have no moving parts, etc. But when prices go up and reliability goes down hardware and software wise I am not ok. I know reliability of computers and phones are two different shoes, but this is not about the X. I do not care about a single product, I care about Apple and my tools. I am thrilled that so many people buy the X at the price it is sold. Although as I said, I personally would not buy a phone at that price, but everyone else should, maybe buy even several, why not one for each pocket, because that pays for my Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, etc. Great!
I am not bashing Apple, I find Tim and the team does a terrific job. It is probably unreasonable to some, but when I saw the prices go up over the whole line of products (iOS and macOS devices) over the last 5 years, and had certain experiences with their quality, software and hardware wise... Maybe it is just some sort of Pavlov's reflex where I associate one experience with another? Could be I sure hope so!
The day Steve introduced the iPhone I bought shares, but most of all I was happy that finally a phone synced with my Mac. But that is how I see it: My Phone is an extension of my Mac and ultimately of my terminal command line. The day someone takes away my command line, the terminal, etc. something will change for me. I have iOS devices because i use Macs, not the other way round. The X is great and amazing, tried it, great product, but no terminal there ;0)
Reporting by Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal and Japan's Nikkei created and perpetuated an absurd fiction that Apple's iPhone X was a "disappointing," "overpriced" product with "weak" sales, when it reality it remained Apple's most popular iPhone every week this quarter across 14 percent growth in iPhone sales in a business where no other company "mostly" sells their most expensive flagships, and where overall demand for smartphones is actually shrinking globally.
A Series of Sloppy Supply Chain Stories
How did these major financial newspapers fall on their face so sloppily on a story that wasn't really that hard to get right? In part, it was because the various reporters working for them refused to admit they really know very little about Apple's complex global supply chain--which they attempted to decipher with the sophistication of a swinging sledgehammer.
Nikkei claimed to know of "channel check" data revealing "disappointing holiday season sales" for iPhone X back in January, before it was revealed that iPhone X was the most popular smartphone in that quarter as well.
That was followed by a report by Tripp Mickle for the Wall Street Journal who claimed Apple "is slashing planned production" of iPhone X "in a sign of weaker-than-expected demand."Rumors of "order cuts" clearly do not translate into "slow sales" nor can be interpreted as "sluggish demand," or these channel check reports would sometimes be correct rather than being consistently wrong
These two papers have consistently issued incorrect reports of "weak" sales and supposed "order cuts" for a series of Apple's previous iPhones--models that were incredibly successful, not just as standalone products competing against cheaper rivals, but in targeting specific areas of demand.
Last year, iPhone 7 was falsely maligned for supposed "sluggish sales." Nikkei similarly claimed Apple had decimated its orders, but it actually achieved new growth and the highest ever sales for an iPhone.
The same nonsense news cycle occurred for iPhone 6s. And prior to that, iPhone 5c was lambasted as a failure but was actually a top-selling smartphone model beating out other flagships and attracting a higher percentage of Android switchers.
Rumors of "order cuts" clearly do not translate into "slow sales" nor can be interpreted as "sluggish demand," or these channel check reports would sometimes be correct rather than being consistently wrong.
The $999 Hype Fantasy
Writing for Bloomberg, Mark Gurman was so confident about "lackluster" iPhone sales that he actually stated, "Apple Inc. earnings this week will confirm what most investors have finally accepted: The iPhone X didn't live up to the hype."
But the "hype" being shoveled out by Bloomberg and other financial papers -- not just some casual Android bloggers -- was not that iPhone X would take over the entire world as the best selling iPhone, but that its "$999 starting price was too much for some consumers," an idea Gurman repeated ad nauseum since the product went on sale.
Bloomberg's hype didn't live up to the hype
Its premium price was supposedly depressing demand and was declared to be the reason for bad news up the supply chain, including Samsung's OLED business. Gurman specifically crafted a story about slower Display Panel segment growth at Samsung and directly associated the fact that Samsung supplies OLED panels to Apple for use in iPhone X as proof that Apple's expensive new flagship was not selling well.
To arrive at that conclusion, he had to avoid mentioning that Samsung itself stated both its OLED and conventional LED panel businesses had been impacted by slow demand and difficult competition, and that the company also noted that "demand for flexible panels remains strong in the high-end segment" where iPhone X actually sits.
How a $999 phone turned pundits into clowns
Many bloggers and analysts similarly expressed a self-assured confidence that Apple had priced iPhone X too high, despite the fact that Apple has a very strong historical track record of pricing its products incredibly well to maximize volume sales at sustainable margins while delivering extremely high customer satisfaction.
Other companies have reached impressively low price points that could not be sustained (such as Google's cheap tablets), or priced products high without achieving significant sales volumes (Google's Pixel and Microsoft's Surface) or without achieving margins or satisfaction (Andy Rubin's Essential), but Apple has been unique in developing premium priced products that people want to buy, over and over again.
This was the case with years of iPods, and again with the first iPhone -- which was offered at a price that Microsoft's then CEO Steve Ballmer laughed at, before the company later tried to raise the price of Windows Phones to match it, unsuccessfully.
Last year, a pearl-clutching media narrative about the prospect of the next high-end iPhone costing $1000 failed to take into consideration that high-end smartphones have been priced at $1000 since before the original iPhone was released. And Apple's own high capacity iPhone 6/6s/7 Plus models were already in the area of $950, making a $1000 price point hardly even news.
Further, while all of its new 2018 models started at higher price and capacity tiers, Apple wasn't just raising prices of its iPhones. It also expanded its pricing downward to offer the least expensive iPhone ever. So it was willing, tech-hungry customers who pushed Apple's average selling price up, not some sort of dark nefarious plot to raise everyone's prices, like a San Francisco housing supply moratorium.
Why is Apple alone able to sell high-end mass market products?
Nobody has wept for Samsung's $1000 phones. Before Apple introduced its larger format iPhone 6 and 6 Plus, Samsung was offering flagship models with a higher price than an iPhone. Yet the majority of Samsung's sales were very low-end models, so much so that its average selling price was still around $200 despite having $700 and up products for sale.
Unlike Samsung and a variety of Chinese phone makers with similar aspirations to get into the luxury smartphone tier, Apple's ASP across all of its iPhone sales has generally always been above the entry price of its latest new iPhone, not centered around the middle of its most budget offerings.
In part, Apple attracts premium sales because it keeps identifying exciting new technology that it can incorporate into its products. Inventions like the iPhone 4 design, Siri, Touch ID, 3D Touch, Live Photos, Portrait Photos, Face ID and Animoji have all driven sales of new generations of iPhones. Apple's iOS ecosystem of apps and services, and its envelope-pushing work in performance, photography and security also drive premium sales of new iPhones.
Face ID
However, it's not just features and specs that drive premium phone sales or Samsung and Chinese makers would also be experiencing high ASPs rather than barely making money shipping out devices at an average selling price at or below $200.
A big part of Apple's allure in higher-end products is the way they make people feel. Apple is astute at marketing and product development that delivers products that empower people to use them and feel good about their purchase. Apple combines the luxury and fashion allure of its brand with design cues that make its products easy to use and feel safe.
Unlike Android and Windows PCs, most users don't have to feel like they need help to do basic tasks. As anyone who has ever worked in sales knows, it's preferable to upsell buyers because they will be happier getting the better product, and will be more likely to come back for that satisfying experience again.
Apple's Tim Cook revealed that the company seeks (obviously) to reach prices that are affordable. Apple is relentless in negotiating component costs and lowering those expenses to achieve profitability even at low prices. But the company is also willing to incorporate high-end components that deliver a superior experience.
While tech bloggers have long been enamored with cheapness, the experience that comes along with saving money often is a bigger problem for most mainstream users than simply spending more money in the first place. That's why many people willingly pay more money for known brands, higher quality clothes and premium food.
When Apple moved to Touch ID, state of the art fingerprint sensors were too expensive to be considered for inclusion on highly competitive smartphones. The same thing occurred in high-end optics, memory and in high-performance CPU and GPUs. Apple kept adding higher-quality components and passing the cost to customers, who benefited from a better product.
Pundits, analysts and tech bloggers have long complained that Apple's prices were too high to be competitive with $300 Androids, and have lavished praise on cheap Google-branded devices and cheap Chinese imports. But across years of purchases, consumers have willingly voted with their dollars to raise Apple's average selling prices and largely ignore Google's cheap hardware. Even in China, Apple has resisted the onslaught of cheaper competition while making the majority of all profits in the industry.
Clearly, those analysts and other professional talkers were dead wrong in their efforts to explain how Apple's mainstream audience would react to pricing. Rather than smartphones trending toward the middle of $300 devices, the entire industry is experiencing a rise in ASP as even Apple's rivals ignore punditry and seek to deliver more premium offerings, rather than cheaper commodity units.
The $999 X halo
iPhone X was the pinnacle of Apple's efforts to build a high-end, luxury smartphone, with novel features and thoughtful design. The fact that Apple also released an updated pair of iPhone 8 models--which shared many of its advancements, including the same processor and similar camera features--indicates that Apple had no illusion that everyone would rush out to buy its most expensive iPhone X starting at $999.
In fact, Apple knew that one of its biggest repeat customers--government and corporate enterprise--would hesitate to jump on an entirely new, ultra-premium priced phone that required training and adaptation. iPhone 8 wasn't a hedge against the failure of iPhone X but a pragmatic, conservative alternative that Apple needed to offer to be taken seriously in the business world (where Android and Google are not).
However, by releasing new, exclusive features for iPhone X, from its Face ID and Portrait Selfies to its uniquely rounded corners and curved OLED display panel, Apple created an aspirational product that not only sought to justify its own higher price tier but would also cast a halo over Apple's entire brand.
iPhone X also introduced a roadmap of the future for iOS devices that indicated Apple has ambitious plans for its hardware, even if its other, more affordable 2018 iPhones still looked quite conventional--a kick in the face for all the naysayers crowing that Apple suffered from an affliction of innovation-deficit.
Shut up and take my money!
At the same time, the $999 price for iPhone X is not as breathtakingly, unapproachably high as many bloggers, pundits and analysts seem to think. Ever since the first iPhone, the true costs of owning a smartphone with data service has been mostly reflected in data carrier fees. If your phone bill is more than $40, owning an iPhone X for two years is the cheaper part of that experience.
As with car sales, a leasing contract or financing makes a high-ticket item approachable to people who don't have savings allocated for an expensive purchase. A smartphone is one of the things we interact with most every day. Spending an extra few cents per day on the nicer end of that smartphone experience is not a financially insurmountable problem for many people.
Instead, it's an expense willingly incurred to have not just the latest technology, but to be in possession of a valuable device that feels luxurious to use. For Apple to keep that lucrative business going, it needs to maintain a high quality of experience for iOS, iCloud and related services. That's a lot easier than the prospect in front of other phone makers, who are struggling to grab volume sales at the low end where commodity affords little differentiation.
Apple also doesn't have to keep ratcheting up the price of new iPhones to keep its business going. By building a solid base of luxury buyers, Apple only needs to spread its aspirational products across new markets willing to upgrade. Apple has been upgrading PC users into more premium priced Macs, selling MP3 users iPods and selling iPhones to basic phone buyers for years, so this is right in line with what it's been successfully doing.
Apple's competition, the companies that built both Windows PCs and Android phones, have been locked in a commodity battle for low-end market share over those same decades. Wanting to switch to Apple's model is obvious, but not so easy to accomplish, as Google and Microsoft have demonstrated over the past several years of trying.
Huawei, Lenovo, Samsung, LG and Sony would also like Apple's high-end sales, but none have done exceptionally well in achieving this in the PC and mobile device categories. Interestingly, all the blogger and pundit advice and outlook that's currently admonishing Apple that its prices are too high has never turned around and even noticed that other makers are also trying to sell their products at similar prices (and simply failing at it).
This indicates that their "concerns" about the $999 iPhone X was entirely phony. It also makes it clear that Bloomberg, the Wall Street Journal and Nikkei all have incredibly poor insight into what customers actually want, what buyers consider "innovative," what they choose to pay for, and the aspirational value consumers see in Apple that they don't see for its rivals.
That's their job as journalists, and they're failing at it. If they don't know what they're talking about, they shouldn't be confidently publishing their flawed ideas as facts.
It is not false reporting iPhone ASPs were down significantly sequentially. This points to a lower share of iPhone X compared to q1 even though it was available the whole second quarter and only partially in q1. Reports may have exaggerated the weakness for a lack of knowledge, but the reporting was not false. This fake news talk is too easily thrown around these days. Pretty embarassing when a news outlet (blog) does further that narrative by unjustly attacking others and playing loose with the facts itself.
There are no "journalists" anymore. Not in news, not in tech, nowhere. The only thing we get now are stories copied from one another, maybe re-worded slightly to avoid infringement, if that. We also get "stories" that should be labeled opinion pieces. How often do you come across a story without the author's opinion included (sometimes with subtlety, often not).
When I was going to college, a friend told me he was going to journalism school to be a news reporter. When I asked him why he told me "to help make the world a better place". That is not the purpose of reporting. Do the research and give me the facts of the case. Nothing more, nothing less.
How do they tell if they are Switchers from android?
Do you mean switchers in general, or specifically from Android.
Wouldn’t android represent 98% of switchers. Maybe 1% windows phone, < 1% switchers from POTS.
1) I'd think so, but you included that specific detail so I wasn't sure.
2) It's an interesting question. They could have employees keep track (which sounds like a bad idea, and would also need to get carriers to keep track), so I'd doubt that's it. They could use Apple ID creation, but that also seems very incomplete. Maybe they don't actually count "switchers" at all, but instead eliminate the number of buyers that have previous had an Apple ID assigned to an iPhone.
It should be very easy for Apple to estimate the percentage of switchers from the migration tools used. I’d assume that most everybody uses Apple’s supplied tools (iCloud backup for iOS to iOS, „Move to iOS“ for Android to iOS). I’m not sure they could keep track of those who don’t use the app but sync from Google services, but they’re probably accounting for those as well.
How do they tell if they are Switchers from android?
Do you mean switchers in general, or specifically from Android.
Wouldn’t android represent 98% of switchers. Maybe 1% windows phone, < 1% switchers from POTS.
1) I'd think so, but you included that specific detail so I wasn't sure.
2) It's an interesting question. They could have employees keep track (which sounds like a bad idea, and would also need to get carriers to keep track), so I'd doubt that's it. They could use Apple ID creation, but that also seems very incomplete. Maybe they don't actually count "switchers" at all, but instead eliminate the number of buyers that have previous had an Apple ID assigned to an iPhone.
It should be very easy for Apple to estimate the percentage of switchers from the migration tools used. I’d assume that most everybody uses Apple’s supplied tools (iCloud backup for iOS to iOS, „Move to iOS“ for Android to iOS). I’m not sure they could keep track of those who don’t use the app but sync from Google services, but they’re probably accounting for those as well.
Apple know exactly who is buying their phones.
I use local backups for iOS, so when I buy a new iPhone are you saying that I'll be counted as a switcher? I also know a couple people that don't like to use backups at all for settings because they feel it causes their iPhone to start out wonky. That may have been an issue before, but I don't think it's common, but I digress. Do they count as switchers? My guess is that we don't because we use our Apple IDs.
I know switchers that never did that. For example, if they used Windows they could just use iTunes and the iCloud for Windows to sync their new iPhone.
Comments
How do they tell if they are Switchers from android?
2) It's an interesting question. They could have employees keep track (which sounds like a bad idea, and would also need to get carriers to keep track), so I'd doubt that's it. They could use Apple ID creation, but that also seems very incomplete. Maybe they don't actually count "switchers" at all, but instead eliminate the number of buyers that have previous had an Apple ID assigned to an iPhone.
3) Personally, I wouldn't count POTS as "switchers" but if they do measure by looking at how many Apple IDs haven't ever had an iPhone before then it very well could be included. That would also mean that young people getting their first cellphone would be included as "switchers," which is likely much higher each quarter, and I certainly wouldn't call them "switchers."
No, it’s just mindless splitting of hairs. Armchair CEO masturbation and nothing more. Certainly not meaningful discussion. Your moving of the goalposts isn’t worth the time it’s taking to type these replies.
You expected HomePod to launch as a quarterly business larger than Microsoft Surface and Google Pixel put together, despite the fact that it was only available for sale in English within the United States, Australia and the United Kingdom. OK.
Sorry, but the first time I used a computer was in elementary school in the mid 80s and we used BASIC to program them, rock solid machines. Then there was DOS and something else very terrible ;0). When I switched at university first to SGI and at the same time to Macs in the mid 90s I never looked back. We used to let the whole university network work on our tasks, distributed, multiple machines crunching data, UNIX heaven. The dean probably only wondered why his computer became so slow suddenly ;0)
That is why the day Apple switched to OSX I opened a bottle. Unix and what I would call the solidity of Apple hardware. I require both and I am more than happy to pay for my tools.
In 2016 I bought the MBP, which cost me 4700,- euro. Most expensive laptop I ever bought from Apple by far!
No questions asked just paid cash, no credit card, no financing, just like I do for my cars and everything else.
You know what: there has never been a machine I had more problems with and I treat my computers in a way that after 5 years they look as new! (My iPhones and iPads look as new ... without case!)
The MBP 2016 crashes when I unplug the audio interface. The keyboard broke and Apple had to exchange top case, which would have cost me 700 euro parts alone if I had no Apple Care for a broken piece of hardware worth 1 cent. While exchanging the keyboard Apple broke a connector on the logic board and they had to change it twice, the display started having dark patched on it and got exchanged. After 18 months?
I am aware that I am mixing different topics. iPad and iPhones are sealed, have no moving parts, etc. But when prices go up and reliability goes down hardware and software wise I am not ok. I know reliability of computers and phones are two different shoes, but this is not about the X. I do not care about a single product, I care about Apple and my tools. I am thrilled that so many people buy the X at the price it is sold. Although as I said, I personally would not buy a phone at that price, but everyone else should, maybe buy even several, why not one for each pocket, because that pays for my Mac Pro, Macbook Pro, etc. Great!
I am not bashing Apple, I find Tim and the team does a terrific job. It is probably unreasonable to some, but when I saw the prices go up over the whole line of products (iOS and macOS devices) over the last 5 years, and had certain experiences with their quality, software and hardware wise... Maybe it is just some sort of Pavlov's reflex where I associate one experience with another? Could be I sure hope so!
The day Steve introduced the iPhone I bought shares, but most of all I was happy that finally a phone synced with my Mac. But that is how I see it: My Phone is an extension of my Mac and ultimately of my terminal command line. The day someone takes away my command line, the terminal, etc. something will change for me. I have iOS devices because i use Macs, not the other way round. The X is great and amazing, tried it, great product, but no terminal there ;0)
Not in news, not in tech, nowhere.
The only thing we get now are stories copied from one another, maybe re-worded slightly to avoid infringement, if that.
We also get "stories" that should be labeled opinion pieces. How often do you come across a story without the author's opinion included (sometimes with subtlety, often not).
When I was going to college, a friend told me he was going to journalism school to be a news reporter. When I asked him why he told me "to help make the world a better place".
That is not the purpose of reporting.
Do the research and give me the facts of the case. Nothing more, nothing less.
Apple know exactly who is buying their phones.
I know switchers that never did that. For example, if they used Windows they could just use iTunes and the iCloud for Windows to sync their new iPhone.