I just recently watched the Macworld keynote again, and it does indeed sound like he meant twelve months, by quoting 1 billion phones sold per year (2006 figures) and saying they were aiming for 1% of that in or by 2008. It doesn't really matter, since 1% market share will mean 10+ million sold in 2008.
First off, Business Week is on some powerful crack that they should share with me if they honestly think Apple can build a national network to rival the likes of Verizon or ATT for just "a few hundred million" dollars. They must be referring to something else (which I'll get to in a moment), 'cuz Verizon and ATT spend in excess of $6 BILLION on their networks each year, and that's just to expand and maintain them, not build them from the ground up, as Apple would have to do. Not to mention that such stuff is far from their core competency.
So I don't think Apple is trying to be an all-singing, all-dancing national carrier.
What I think is really going on is that Apple REALLY wants to sell HD content over iTunes, and is very frustrated by the lack of infrastructure to do that.
DSL and cable broadband is way too slow... even at 6 Mbps it would take you several hours to dload a feature-length HD movie. Fiber to the home is faster, but the deployment is slow, due to the nature of such deployment (dig up everything) and the very high last-mile costs.
So what's the solution? Wireless.
Using 4G technology (WiMax, EVDO RevC/UMB, LTE), you can allegedly get data speeds in the 50-280 Mbps range... FAR faster than what most ppl have currently at home. And of course you side-step those huge, pesky last-mile costs, and the slowness of deployment that comes from having to dig up Mrs. Jones' lawn to lay down fiber.
Sprint and Clearwire are already laying the groundwork for this sort of thing with their WiMax network buildout. Apple could partner with them for content delivery (and maybe still will in some regions where an alleged Apple 'content delivery network' is not built out yet), but I guess Steve is not big on middlemen, as they'd of course take some of the profits and could potentially prevent Apple from doing things Apple's way.
Another advantage of this is, if voice is not the primary service, your network build-out can be much more limited geographically, which helps keep a lid on costs. If you were a voice carrier and your network only worked in, say, 100 or so densely-populated urban metropolitan areas, people would LAUGH at you and rightly say that your coverage sucks ass. But if you're mainly about getting content to the home in urban areas, then you're basically like cable... some guy living out in the boonies can't get service? Oh well, tough luck, guess he'll have to get a satellite dish or something.
It's a bit like what was already done with MediaFLO... build a national network (of limited geograpical coverage) for content delivery.
So, next you might be asking, "Well, what if Apple also wants to offer significant voice services too? Wouldn't their very limited coverage hose that? People would still have to get an ATT contract too AND pay Apple for their service, WTF?"
Not necessarily. Carriers have what are known as 'roaming partners'. If you travel outside your home carrier's coverage area, you can still get service by 'roaming' on a partner carriers' network. Verizon, for example, has Alltel, Sprint, US Cellular, and several other carriers as roaming partners. ATT and T-Mobile help each other out. Sprint has a number of partners. You get the idea.
So, you'd use Apple's network for voice while you were in town... go anywhere else, and for voice you'd roam on ATT. Or T-Mobile. Or whomever. Nice part, Apple's still calling the shots.
I cannot see Apple buying the new wireless spectrum and starting a new network all by itself. Its way out of Apple's business model and would cost too much money to implement.
I could see Apple partnering in the buy with Google and others then allowing someone else to build the network. That would allow an open network free from mobile service providers.
Well it is just a rumor. I just have to figure which way this rumor is going to move Apple's stock price. Going with Google might be a great idea to help spread out the cost. Would the spectrum be for iPhones only?
I'd heard a rumor that the Gphone is really going to be a special iPhone. Add to that was that the Touch would somehow be modified to turn into the GPhone. It's all nonsense at this point in time. But you see how this foolishness gets started and investors get confused.
And, I should have added in responser to TenoBell's post: Can you imagine the possibilities if Apple teams up with Google to bid!!
They'd kick the crap out of traditional carriers. They'd could possibly change the whole handset communications model for those that need lots of data at a reasonable price. Google and Apple see the future in a much different way than a traditional carrier. It's way beyond my understanding, though.
First off, Business Week is on some powerful crack that they should share with me if they honestly think Apple can build a national network to rival the likes of Verizon or ATT for just "a few hundred million" dollars. They must be referring to something else (which I'll get to in a moment), 'cuz Verizon and ATT spend in excess of $6 BILLION on their networks each year, and that's just to expand and maintain them, not build them from the ground up, as Apple would have to do. Not to mention that such stuff is far from their core competency.
So I don't think Apple is trying to be an all-singing, all-dancing national carrier.
What I think is really going on is that Apple REALLY wants to sell HD content over iTunes, and is very frustrated by the lack of infrastructure to do that.
DSL and cable broadband is way too slow... even at 6 Mbps it would take you several hours to dload a feature-length HD movie. Fiber to the home is faster, but the deployment is slow, due to the nature of such deployment (dig up everything) and the very high last-mile costs.
So what's the solution? Wireless.
Using 4G technology (WiMax, EVDO RevC/UMB, LTE), you can allegedly get data speeds in the 50-280 Mbps range... FAR faster than what most ppl have currently at home. And of course you side-step those huge, pesky last-mile costs, and the slowness of deployment that comes from having to dig up Mrs. Jones' lawn to lay down fiber.
Sprint and Clearwire are already laying the groundwork for this sort of thing with their WiMax network buildout. Apple could partner with them for content delivery (and maybe still will in some regions where an alleged Apple 'content delivery network' is not built out yet), but I guess Steve is not big on middlemen, as they'd of course take some of the profits and could potentially prevent Apple from doing things Apple's way.
Another advantage of this is, if voice is not the primary service, your network build-out can be much more limited geographically, which helps keep a lid on costs. If you were a voice carrier and your network only worked in, say, 100 or so densely-populated urban metropolitan areas, people would LAUGH at you and rightly say that your coverage sucks ass. But if you're mainly about getting content to the home in urban areas, then you're basically like cable... some guy living out in the boonies can't get service? Oh well, tough luck, guess he'll have to get a satellite dish or something.
It's a bit like what was already done with MediaFLO... build a national network (of limited geograpical coverage) for content delivery.
So, next you might be asking, "Well, what if Apple also wants to offer significant voice services too? Wouldn't their very limited coverage hose that? People would still have to get an ATT contract too AND pay Apple for their service, WTF?"
Not necessarily. Carriers have what are known as 'roaming partners'. If you travel outside your home carrier's coverage area, you can still get service by 'roaming' on a partner carriers' network. Verizon, for example, has Alltel, Sprint, US Cellular, and several other carriers as roaming partners. ATT and T-Mobile help each other out. Sprint has a number of partners. You get the idea.
So, you'd use Apple's network for voice while you were in town... go anywhere else, and for voice you'd roam on ATT. Or T-Mobile. Or whomever. Nice part, Apple's still calling the shots.
.
Here's to hoping. CLWR could be a part of this equation, but Wi-Max is not very effective unless you have clear line of sight.
t's all nonsense at this point in time. But you see how this foolishness gets started and investors get confused.
I agree. Stock prices are -- generally speaking -- nothing more/nothing less than the "market's" collective assessment the present value of expected future cash flows.
As such, the confusion resulting from speculating about the future is inherent in all valuation (of course, some stocks being more prone to it than others).
I'd be curious, how many were bought by residents outside of the USA and how many are actually activated with AT&T. Wonder how many of those were subsequently unlocked and are being used with other SIM cards ?
PS: As soon as there is a viable software unlock (don't know about this iphonesimfree.com story), I will consider going to the US to buy a $399 phone and use in Canada on Rogers. Tired of waiting for ROgers and Apple to come up with a deal.
Also sales will go up when there is a tested relatively easy to implement unlock procedure. Currently, there is at least one published method that in my view comes close to fitting the bill. However, I am waiting until Apple releases an update to see if it breaks the unlock. If it doesn't, I will buy an iPhone and sign up with a T-Mobile pay as you go plan. Sorry, but AT&T is an all around horrible company. It will never get a penny from me. Visual voice mail isn't that big of a deal for me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
Jake, It's too bad you haven't been around for all of the long discussions on this very matter.
10 million phones isn't far fetched.
Right now, Apple is only selling here, in the US, and for only one carrier. Before the end of the year, phones will be selling in Europe as well, and through several carriers. That will at least double the sales potential.
Next year, the phone will go on sale in Asia as well, again, likely with several carriers, raising the sales potential by at least an additional 33%, possibly more.
Therefore, sometime in early 2008, Apple should have at least double the sales potential, and possibly as much as 4 times the potential as now.
If Apple sells 3 million phones here by the end of the year, possibly a conservative number considering the holiday season, that would just leave another 7 million to sell throughout the entire 2008 year, with that 2 to 4 times sales potential.
That doesn't seem to be difficult to do.
Also, Apple, no doubt, has plans not just for the price cut we've seen, which will help to sell a lot more phones, but for other models as well. There is no way I can see Apple not coming out with new models within an 18 month period, and that will increase sales.
I'd be curious, how many were bought by residents outside of the USA and how many are actually activated with AT&T. Wonder how many of those were subsequently unlocked and are being used with other SIM cards ?
Almost none. Get over it. The unlocked iPhone market exists only in the minds of nerds.
Here's to hoping. CLWR could be a part of this equation, but Wi-Max is not very effective unless you have clear line of sight.
I think it depends a lot on the frequency used. A lot of the current WiMax licenses are in 'near-garbage' spectrum (2.5 GHz), meaning that they don't penetrate walls or buildings very well. Generally speaking, the higher the freq, the worse the penetration. \
But I believe the upcoming spectrum auction is selling off the 700 MHz band, which DOES penetrate walls/buildings quite well indeed.
"He said the company expects to sell about 10 million of them next year, which would account for 1 percent of the 1 billion cell phones sold each year around the world."
You think the slide he put up at the introductory keynote was a slip?
Not 10 million by the end of 2008, "10 million IN 2008".
Why is Apple stock so easily manipulated by blogging rumors. Does it say something about the type of people that invest in Apple? Are Apple investors really just blind sheep that never look further than a day's trade? Apple investors are their own worst enemy.
The next rumor is about the failure of launching a 3G phone that EVERYONE was expecting to happen soon. When the hell did Apple ever say they were going to launch a 3G phone? But some idiot being interviewed was making this statement. Now investors are going to listen to this fool and start pulling out money again.
Maybe the media should take some blame, but the chickensh*t investors aren't of much use either.
Would you have any idea whether it's day traders or large institutions that cause Apple's stock fluctuate so much on idle rumors? Maybe it's getting too easy to trade so people don't take time to think things through. A good broker might tell you it's foolish to keep dumping stock everytime you hear some unfounded rumor. I know you're going to say that they wouldn't care because they get a commission, but I don't believe every broker is like that.
I have to disagree with you on a $200 stock price, however. Not this year. Apple stock can't get any traction since the US economy is not in the best of shape. I think if it gets to around $170 I'd consider myself lucky.
If you look I believe you'll see that any stock that had has the consistent year over year run ups that Apple has had in the last few years will 1) attract attention, 2) attract manipulation. Certainly the short term run-ups that Apple has had are based on future sales predictions on new types of products that are much harder to predict so its subject to 'bad' rumors. Also, a volatile stock will attract day-traders. Roughly Drafted's reports on the bloggers document this quite well.
The $200+ target for 12 months is very realistic, if Apple keeps executing and innovating like that have been. They have such good control of the basics - supply chain, inventory, R&D spending - there is little to no risk there. If the economy really tanks, which is highly unlikely as the Fed has tons of room now to lower interest rates as a stimulus, Apple can't fight that, I agree, but the economy isn't likely to do that.
"He said the company expects to sell about 10 million of them next year, which would account for 1 percent of the 1 billion cell phones sold each year around the world."
You think the slide he put up at the introductory keynote was a slip?
Not 10 million by the end of 2008, "10 million IN 2008".
Believe it yet?
Yes, I do (the slip, that is). I'm not the only one either. The stories on this had also reported "by the end of next year". There must be a good reason for that.
This simple "next year" stuff means nothing specific by itself. It could mean the beginning of the year, the middle, or the end.
We have to look a bit more critically. The beginning of the year is obviously out. The market simply couldn't support that. European distribution will have begun only a month or so before.
The middle of the year looks more interesting, but as before with Europe, the Asian market will only have been penetrated for a short while.
Neither of these seems to be a good candidate for 10 million sales. Only the end of the year makes any sense.
Now, I'm not saying that Apple won't sell more than 10 million by the end of 2008. But, I am saying the the momentum will be building as the new markets open up. There would be a very tight timeline for 10 million sales by end of june 2008.
I don't think that Jobs wants to cut it that close. just a bit, and Apple misses forecasts. That's not the purpose of forecasts like this. Apple has to beat it, and beat it with margin—for sure.
Remember that you can always raise forecasts but once offered, you can never lower them without suffering a black eye.
Comments
That was never said.
I just recently watched the Macworld keynote again, and it does indeed sound like he meant twelve months, by quoting 1 billion phones sold per year (2006 figures) and saying they were aiming for 1% of that in or by 2008. It doesn't really matter, since 1% market share will mean 10+ million sold in 2008.
/Adrian
10 million in a year and a half? that seems like an awful lot...
Well let's see here. 4 More carriers around the globe will soon be carrying the iPhone.
That'll make 5 total. Ten million is most certainly doable.
Jobs first mentioned that goal when he announced the iPod and has reiterated it multiple times since then.
Don't you mean iPhone?
Don't you mean iPhone?
Yes.
(oops)
So I don't think Apple is trying to be an all-singing, all-dancing national carrier.
What I think is really going on is that Apple REALLY wants to sell HD content over iTunes, and is very frustrated by the lack of infrastructure to do that.
DSL and cable broadband is way too slow... even at 6 Mbps it would take you several hours to dload a feature-length HD movie. Fiber to the home is faster, but the deployment is slow, due to the nature of such deployment (dig up everything) and the very high last-mile costs.
So what's the solution? Wireless.
Using 4G technology (WiMax, EVDO RevC/UMB, LTE), you can allegedly get data speeds in the 50-280 Mbps range... FAR faster than what most ppl have currently at home. And of course you side-step those huge, pesky last-mile costs, and the slowness of deployment that comes from having to dig up Mrs. Jones' lawn to lay down fiber.
Sprint and Clearwire are already laying the groundwork for this sort of thing with their WiMax network buildout. Apple could partner with them for content delivery (and maybe still will in some regions where an alleged Apple 'content delivery network' is not built out yet), but I guess Steve is not big on middlemen, as they'd of course take some of the profits and could potentially prevent Apple from doing things Apple's way.
Another advantage of this is, if voice is not the primary service, your network build-out can be much more limited geographically, which helps keep a lid on costs. If you were a voice carrier and your network only worked in, say, 100 or so densely-populated urban metropolitan areas, people would LAUGH at you and rightly say that your coverage sucks ass. But if you're mainly about getting content to the home in urban areas, then you're basically like cable... some guy living out in the boonies can't get service? Oh well, tough luck, guess he'll have to get a satellite dish or something.
It's a bit like what was already done with MediaFLO... build a national network (of limited geograpical coverage) for content delivery.
So, next you might be asking, "Well, what if Apple also wants to offer significant voice services too? Wouldn't their very limited coverage hose that? People would still have to get an ATT contract too AND pay Apple for their service, WTF?"
Not necessarily. Carriers have what are known as 'roaming partners'. If you travel outside your home carrier's coverage area, you can still get service by 'roaming' on a partner carriers' network. Verizon, for example, has Alltel, Sprint, US Cellular, and several other carriers as roaming partners. ATT and T-Mobile help each other out. Sprint has a number of partners. You get the idea.
So, you'd use Apple's network for voice while you were in town... go anywhere else, and for voice you'd roam on ATT. Or T-Mobile. Or whomever. Nice part, Apple's still calling the shots.
.
I cannot see Apple buying the new wireless spectrum and starting a new network all by itself. Its way out of Apple's business model and would cost too much money to implement.
I could see Apple partnering in the buy with Google and others then allowing someone else to build the network. That would allow an open network free from mobile service providers.
Well it is just a rumor. I just have to figure which way this rumor is going to move Apple's stock price. Going with Google might be a great idea to help spread out the cost. Would the spectrum be for iPhones only?
I'd heard a rumor that the Gphone is really going to be a special iPhone. Add to that was that the Touch would somehow be modified to turn into the GPhone. It's all nonsense at this point in time. But you see how this foolishness gets started and investors get confused.
And, I should have added in responser to TenoBell's post: Can you imagine the possibilities if Apple teams up with Google to bid!!
They'd kick the crap out of traditional carriers. They'd could possibly change the whole handset communications model for those that need lots of data at a reasonable price. Google and Apple see the future in a much different way than a traditional carrier. It's way beyond my understanding, though.
First off, Business Week is on some powerful crack that they should share with me if they honestly think Apple can build a national network to rival the likes of Verizon or ATT for just "a few hundred million" dollars. They must be referring to something else (which I'll get to in a moment), 'cuz Verizon and ATT spend in excess of $6 BILLION on their networks each year, and that's just to expand and maintain them, not build them from the ground up, as Apple would have to do. Not to mention that such stuff is far from their core competency.
So I don't think Apple is trying to be an all-singing, all-dancing national carrier.
What I think is really going on is that Apple REALLY wants to sell HD content over iTunes, and is very frustrated by the lack of infrastructure to do that.
DSL and cable broadband is way too slow... even at 6 Mbps it would take you several hours to dload a feature-length HD movie. Fiber to the home is faster, but the deployment is slow, due to the nature of such deployment (dig up everything) and the very high last-mile costs.
So what's the solution? Wireless.
Using 4G technology (WiMax, EVDO RevC/UMB, LTE), you can allegedly get data speeds in the 50-280 Mbps range... FAR faster than what most ppl have currently at home. And of course you side-step those huge, pesky last-mile costs, and the slowness of deployment that comes from having to dig up Mrs. Jones' lawn to lay down fiber.
Sprint and Clearwire are already laying the groundwork for this sort of thing with their WiMax network buildout. Apple could partner with them for content delivery (and maybe still will in some regions where an alleged Apple 'content delivery network' is not built out yet), but I guess Steve is not big on middlemen, as they'd of course take some of the profits and could potentially prevent Apple from doing things Apple's way.
Another advantage of this is, if voice is not the primary service, your network build-out can be much more limited geographically, which helps keep a lid on costs. If you were a voice carrier and your network only worked in, say, 100 or so densely-populated urban metropolitan areas, people would LAUGH at you and rightly say that your coverage sucks ass. But if you're mainly about getting content to the home in urban areas, then you're basically like cable... some guy living out in the boonies can't get service? Oh well, tough luck, guess he'll have to get a satellite dish or something.
It's a bit like what was already done with MediaFLO... build a national network (of limited geograpical coverage) for content delivery.
So, next you might be asking, "Well, what if Apple also wants to offer significant voice services too? Wouldn't their very limited coverage hose that? People would still have to get an ATT contract too AND pay Apple for their service, WTF?"
Not necessarily. Carriers have what are known as 'roaming partners'. If you travel outside your home carrier's coverage area, you can still get service by 'roaming' on a partner carriers' network. Verizon, for example, has Alltel, Sprint, US Cellular, and several other carriers as roaming partners. ATT and T-Mobile help each other out. Sprint has a number of partners. You get the idea.
So, you'd use Apple's network for voice while you were in town... go anywhere else, and for voice you'd roam on ATT. Or T-Mobile. Or whomever. Nice part, Apple's still calling the shots.
.
Here's to hoping. CLWR could be a part of this equation, but Wi-Max is not very effective unless you have clear line of sight.
t's all nonsense at this point in time. But you see how this foolishness gets started and investors get confused.
I agree. Stock prices are -- generally speaking -- nothing more/nothing less than the "market's" collective assessment the present value of expected future cash flows.
As such, the confusion resulting from speculating about the future is inherent in all valuation (of course, some stocks being more prone to it than others).
http://www.iphonestalk.com/iphone-un...bo-sim-method/
I'd be curious, how many were bought by residents outside of the USA and how many are actually activated with AT&T. Wonder how many of those were subsequently unlocked and are being used with other SIM cards ?
PS: As soon as there is a viable software unlock (don't know about this iphonesimfree.com story), I will consider going to the US to buy a $399 phone and use in Canada on Rogers. Tired of waiting for ROgers and Apple to come up with a deal.
Jake, It's too bad you haven't been around for all of the long discussions on this very matter.
10 million phones isn't far fetched.
Right now, Apple is only selling here, in the US, and for only one carrier. Before the end of the year, phones will be selling in Europe as well, and through several carriers. That will at least double the sales potential.
Next year, the phone will go on sale in Asia as well, again, likely with several carriers, raising the sales potential by at least an additional 33%, possibly more.
Therefore, sometime in early 2008, Apple should have at least double the sales potential, and possibly as much as 4 times the potential as now.
If Apple sells 3 million phones here by the end of the year, possibly a conservative number considering the holiday season, that would just leave another 7 million to sell throughout the entire 2008 year, with that 2 to 4 times sales potential.
That doesn't seem to be difficult to do.
Also, Apple, no doubt, has plans not just for the price cut we've seen, which will help to sell a lot more phones, but for other models as well. There is no way I can see Apple not coming out with new models within an 18 month period, and that will increase sales.
There is already pretty easy instructions out there how to unlock the iPhone. The only additional hardware you need is a TurboSIM card.
http://www.iphonestalk.com/iphone-un...bo-sim-method/
But that doesn't mean that many people have actually done it.
"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
Jobs first mentioned that goal when he announced the iPod and has reiterated it multiple times since then.
I just went there and re-read it. I think it's a slip.
I'd be curious, how many were bought by residents outside of the USA and how many are actually activated with AT&T. Wonder how many of those were subsequently unlocked and are being used with other SIM cards ?
Almost none. Get over it. The unlocked iPhone market exists only in the minds of nerds.
Here's to hoping. CLWR could be a part of this equation, but Wi-Max is not very effective unless you have clear line of sight.
I think it depends a lot on the frequency used. A lot of the current WiMax licenses are in 'near-garbage' spectrum (2.5 GHz), meaning that they don't penetrate walls or buildings very well. Generally speaking, the higher the freq, the worse the penetration.
But I believe the upcoming spectrum auction is selling off the 700 MHz band, which DOES penetrate walls/buildings quite well indeed.
.
I just went there and re-read it. I think it's a slip.
You think it's a slip every time he has said it, or every time it has been reported?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...0/MACWORLD.TMP
"He said the company expects to sell about 10 million of them next year, which would account for 1 percent of the 1 billion cell phones sold each year around the world."
You think the slide he put up at the introductory keynote was a slip?
Not 10 million by the end of 2008, "10 million IN 2008".
Believe it yet?
Why is Apple stock so easily manipulated by blogging rumors. Does it say something about the type of people that invest in Apple? Are Apple investors really just blind sheep that never look further than a day's trade? Apple investors are their own worst enemy.
The next rumor is about the failure of launching a 3G phone that EVERYONE was expecting to happen soon. When the hell did Apple ever say they were going to launch a 3G phone? But some idiot being interviewed was making this statement. Now investors are going to listen to this fool and start pulling out money again.
Maybe the media should take some blame, but the chickensh*t investors aren't of much use either.
Would you have any idea whether it's day traders or large institutions that cause Apple's stock fluctuate so much on idle rumors? Maybe it's getting too easy to trade so people don't take time to think things through. A good broker might tell you it's foolish to keep dumping stock everytime you hear some unfounded rumor. I know you're going to say that they wouldn't care because they get a commission, but I don't believe every broker is like that.
I have to disagree with you on a $200 stock price, however. Not this year. Apple stock can't get any traction since the US economy is not in the best of shape. I think if it gets to around $170 I'd consider myself lucky.
If you look I believe you'll see that any stock that had has the consistent year over year run ups that Apple has had in the last few years will 1) attract attention, 2) attract manipulation. Certainly the short term run-ups that Apple has had are based on future sales predictions on new types of products that are much harder to predict so its subject to 'bad' rumors. Also, a volatile stock will attract day-traders. Roughly Drafted's reports on the bloggers document this quite well.
The $200+ target for 12 months is very realistic, if Apple keeps executing and innovating like that have been. They have such good control of the basics - supply chain, inventory, R&D spending - there is little to no risk there. If the economy really tanks, which is highly unlikely as the Fed has tons of room now to lower interest rates as a stimulus, Apple can't fight that, I agree, but the economy isn't likely to do that.
You think it's a slip every time he has said it, or every time it has been reported?
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...0/MACWORLD.TMP
"He said the company expects to sell about 10 million of them next year, which would account for 1 percent of the 1 billion cell phones sold each year around the world."
You think the slide he put up at the introductory keynote was a slip?
Not 10 million by the end of 2008, "10 million IN 2008".
Believe it yet?
Yes, I do (the slip, that is). I'm not the only one either. The stories on this had also reported "by the end of next year". There must be a good reason for that.
This simple "next year" stuff means nothing specific by itself. It could mean the beginning of the year, the middle, or the end.
We have to look a bit more critically. The beginning of the year is obviously out. The market simply couldn't support that. European distribution will have begun only a month or so before.
The middle of the year looks more interesting, but as before with Europe, the Asian market will only have been penetrated for a short while.
Neither of these seems to be a good candidate for 10 million sales. Only the end of the year makes any sense.
Now, I'm not saying that Apple won't sell more than 10 million by the end of 2008. But, I am saying the the momentum will be building as the new markets open up. There would be a very tight timeline for 10 million sales by end of june 2008.
I don't think that Jobs wants to cut it that close. just a bit, and Apple misses forecasts. That's not the purpose of forecasts like this. Apple has to beat it, and beat it with margin—for sure.
Remember that you can always raise forecasts but once offered, you can never lower them without suffering a black eye.