"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?
Thanks for posting that - it seems pretty clear what SJ meant "1% of a 1B Unit market = 10M Units/year", and Apple's goal is to achieve that in 2008.
- I was beginning to get annoyed with all the speculation about what Apple's goal actually was!
And, just to add my penny's worth, I'd say that it seems a pretty realistic target
- since by then, they'll have Europe & Asia covered, and, who knows, perhaps a new model (or perhaps that was the $399 iPhone)
3G and 16gig soon, that's all I want on the iPhone. Sure 32gig would be nice too , but that will take longer.
I hope before the end of the year to see such iPhone.
32 Gig depends on Samsung. They had a 40nm flash a while back but currently their at 50nm for production. Since the big players are moving to 300-mm wafers that's good for a couple jumps.
Maybe this time next year we'll have yet another generation of flash. Toshiba and SanDisk had to take a step back to 56nm vs 52nm. It ain't likely they're going to leap to 45nm or 40nm to give us 32 G-bit NAND. Intel might but I don't really see them using their 45nm fabs for NAND.
Or Apple could make the iPhone a little bit larger.
Well, at the rate they're going right now (1 million iPhones in ~74 days), that equals about 4.9 million iPhones in 2008. They better step it up a lil bit, dropping the price was a good start, but what's next?
Yah, but what's the slope? The price drop should help. The next step is both the 8GB and 16GB iPhones on the new flash from Samsung probably at the same time they do 3G.
Heh...want to hear the screaming if they drop the 8GB EDGE model in favor of 8GB/16GB 3G only? Apple better have a trade up for half price policy.
And, I should have added in responser to TenoBell's post: Can you imagine the possibilities if Apple teams up with Google to bid!!
I'm not certain how Google is going to monitize that investment...I think that Google will bid but it got what it wanted with the device neutrality thing. So my inclination is that Google will do a mid level bid and if it gets spectrum great but otherwise not bid to win.
It has sold well. No other phone in the US with an average price of $500 has gone from 0 to 1 million in sales in 74 days.
iSupply attempting sensational headlines does not undermine iPhones real sales numbers.
I'm not saying it hasn't sold well... just that it isn't selling as well as iSuppli tried to make it seem like.
Their flub was pretty silly, actually. Even selling half as much as the entire Blackberry line (as was really the case) is quite good for a newcomer, as Apple is to this market. No need to embellish, really.
Quote:
edit: The Razr sold a million units in its first 6 months.
The RAZR was like a snowball - it sold well at the beginning (750,000 in the first 3 months) - but FANTASTIC after awhile.
After just two years, the RAZR had sold 50 MILLION UNITS.
I'm not saying it hasn't sold well... just that it isn't selling as well as iSuppli tried to make it seem like.
Their flub was pretty silly, actually. Even selling half as much as the entire Blackberry line (as was really the case) is quite good for a newcomer, as Apple is to this market. No need to embellish, really.
The RAZR was like a snowball - it sold well at the beginning (750,000 in the first 3 months) - but FANTASTIC after awhile.
After just two years, the RAZR had sold 50 MILLION UNITS.
If Apple keeps dropping the price the way Moto did. From $500 to 200 to 50 to 29 to?free!.
Then they came out with new, not as interesting models, and they're in trouble.
The 'slim' form factor got commoditized, and there really wasn't much else differentiating the RAZR. It was destined to become 'just another phone' more or less.
The real problem was that Moto depended on it too heavily, even knowing it couldn't carry the company forever, and they could never seem to come up with something new and good to replace it. \
The 'slim' form factor got commoditized, and there really wasn't much else differentiating the RAZR. It was destined to become 'just another phone' more or less.
The real problem was that Moto depended on it too heavily, even knowing it couldn't carry the company forever, and they could never seem to come up with something new and good to replace it. \
.
That's why the "50 Million Sold" monicker doesn't faze me. The two phones, and companies making them, couldn't be more different.
That's why the "50 Million Sold" monicker doesn't faze me. The two phones, and companies making them, couldn't be more different.
I kind of doubt Apple will be able to sell 50 million iPhones in its first two years. The ATT exclusive in the US works against that, the staggered worldwide launch does as well.
But I have no doubt that Apple will avoid running the iPhone into the ground the way that Motorola did the RAZR. Apple is very good about protecting its brand and its products, and is much better at software than Moto.
The iPhone is going to be much longer-lived as a strong brand/product than the RAZR.
I kind of doubt Apple will be able to sell 50 million iPhones in its first two years. The ATT exclusive in the US works against that, the staggered worldwide launch does as well.
But I have no doubt that Apple will avoid running the iPhone into the ground the way that Motorola did the RAZR. Apple is very good about protecting its brand and its products, and is much better at software than Moto.
The iPhone is going to be much longer-lived as a strong brand/product than the RAZR.
.
Where did you get that from me? I'm not saying that at all.
That number was in response to the 50 million number brought up about RAZR sales. I merely stated why Moto was able to get to those numbers in the earlier post.
My reply to you was in response to your reason for what happened to the RAZR, and it's lack of profitability. I was pointing out that Apple wouldn't respond the way Moto did, by lowering prices to commodity levels.
I in no way hinted that Apple would sell that many in two years.
If Apple plays its cards right, with features, new models, and proper pricing, they COULD reach that number in four years, as some of those sales will definitely come from iPod buyers.
Sry Mel, I'm just used to the 'irrational exuberance' mentality that's usually in evidence around here.
I bet I could start a thread saying Apple WILL sell 50 million iPhones in two years, and a lot of ppl would agree with me, even though I don't believe they will at all.
Sry Mel, I'm just used to the 'irrational exuberance' mentality that's usually in evidence around here.
I bet I could start a thread saying Apple WILL sell 50 million iPhones in two years, and a lot of ppl would agree with me, even though I don't believe they will at all.
.
Sure. We're either all the way to one side of an issue, or the other.
I really try hard to see both sides, and try to worm out the truth from both. sometimes, it works, and sometimes not.
That's why I get pummeled from both sides, as you might notice.
I bet I could start a thread saying Apple WILL sell 50 million iPhones in two years, and a lot of ppl would agree with me, even though I don't believe they will at all.
I wouldn't agree with that. There was also a great deal of exubernace in those arguing that the iPhone would not do well without 3G. Yet it has. I agree they need to get 3G as soon as they can. But its not like the pro 3G side was inherently more rational.
I wouldn't agree with that. There was also a great deal of exubernace in those arguing that the iPhone would not do well without 3G. Yet it has. I agree they need to get 3G as soon as they can. But its not like the pro 3G side was inherently more rational.
The 3G side was more rational, frankly. There was no hardware in the iPhone for 3G, yet some ppl kept on insisting, "Apple can just wake up the functionality with a software update!" Uhh... no, you can't. You need the 3G radio chip. Software won't make one automagically appear. \
The FCC approval was for an EDGE device, not a 3G one, and ppl were STILL saying "It could be 3G, it could be 3G!". Again, uh, no. No FCC approval for it means, no, you can't sell it.
Far as how well the iPhone is really doing, it's hard to say. We have analysts like iSuppli predicting pie in the sky things for iPhone sales. On the other side of the coin, the stock got hammered by investors after the price cut, who feared that the price cut was a signal that iPhone sales really 'weren't all that' at the $600 price point. Some analysts agreed that it was indeed a bad sign.
Overall, the truth likely lies in the middle. Putting the launch aside (which was phenomenal, Apple built up the hype perfectly), day-to-day iPhone sales are good, but prolly not quite as high as what Apple really wants. Otherwise, why such a huge, early price cut?
Sure, some of it has to do with avoiding having the iPod Touch cannibalize sales, but let's get real... Apple is not exactly known for this kind of behavior. Its usally been about MAINTAINING prices with them no matter what, not being on the bleeding edge of the price war.
In other words, the iPhone is doing pretty well, but with 3G it could be doing even better. Apple knows this, which is why we're going to be seeing a US 3G model sooner rather than later... certainly no later than one year after the iPhone's launch, worst-case.
In Europe of course, the '3G-less' window for the iPhone will be even shorter, perhaps there'll be none at all. And in Asia, Apple will have to have 3G right from launch... because the alternative will look something like the Hindenburg.
It's not about rationality, it's about recognizing what the market will bear. The US market will bear 2.5G tech in a high-end, massively web-centric phone, but only for a short time. Europe? Shorter still. Asia? Not at all.
Comments
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?
Thanks for posting that - it seems pretty clear what SJ meant "1% of a 1B Unit market = 10M Units/year", and Apple's goal is to achieve that in 2008.
- I was beginning to get annoyed with all the speculation about what Apple's goal actually was!
And, just to add my penny's worth, I'd say that it seems a pretty realistic target
- since by then, they'll have Europe & Asia covered, and, who knows, perhaps a new model (or perhaps that was the $399 iPhone)
3G and 16gig soon, that's all I want on the iPhone. Sure 32gig would be nice too
I hope before the end of the year to see such iPhone.
32 Gig depends on Samsung. They had a 40nm flash a while back but currently their at 50nm for production. Since the big players are moving to 300-mm wafers that's good for a couple jumps.
Maybe this time next year we'll have yet another generation of flash. Toshiba and SanDisk had to take a step back to 56nm vs 52nm. It ain't likely they're going to leap to 45nm or 40nm to give us 32 G-bit NAND. Intel might but I don't really see them using their 45nm fabs for NAND.
Or Apple could make the iPhone a little bit larger.
Well, at the rate they're going right now (1 million iPhones in ~74 days), that equals about 4.9 million iPhones in 2008. They better step it up a lil bit, dropping the price was a good start, but what's next?
Yah, but what's the slope? The price drop should help. The next step is both the 8GB and 16GB iPhones on the new flash from Samsung probably at the same time they do 3G.
Heh...want to hear the screaming if they drop the 8GB EDGE model in favor of 8GB/16GB 3G only? Apple better have a trade up for half price policy.
And, I should have added in responser to TenoBell's post: Can you imagine the possibilities if Apple teams up with Google to bid!!
I'm not certain how Google is going to monitize that investment...I think that Google will bid but it got what it wanted with the device neutrality thing. So my inclination is that Google will do a mid level bid and if it gets spectrum great but otherwise not bid to win.
Heh...want to hear the screaming if they drop the 8GB EVDO model in favor of 8GB/16GB 3G only? Apple better have a trade up for half price policy.
You mean EDGE, not EVDO.
If it had EVDO, it'd be 3G already, and not an ATT exclusive anymore.
.
You mean EDGE, not EVDO.
If it had EVDO, it'd be 3G already, and not an ATT exclusive anymore.
.
Yes. Brain fart. Corrected.
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...e_in_sept.html
Still, the price cut should put an afterburner on sales going forward.
Now all we need is 3G, maybe a 16GB model.
.
Hmm... looks like the iPhone is not selling quite as well as we thought, judging by iSuppli's sudden backpedaling:
It has sold well. No other phone in the US with an average price of $500 has gone from 0 to 1 million in sales in 74 days.
iSupply attempting sensational headlines does not undermine iPhones real sales numbers.
edit: The Razr sold a million units in its first 6 months.
It has sold well. No other phone in the US with an average price of $500 has gone from 0 to 1 million in sales in 74 days.
iSupply attempting sensational headlines does not undermine iPhones real sales numbers.
I'm not saying it hasn't sold well... just that it isn't selling as well as iSuppli tried to make it seem like.
Their flub was pretty silly, actually. Even selling half as much as the entire Blackberry line (as was really the case) is quite good for a newcomer, as Apple is to this market. No need to embellish, really.
edit: The Razr sold a million units in its first 6 months.
The RAZR was like a snowball - it sold well at the beginning (750,000 in the first 3 months) - but FANTASTIC after awhile.
After just two years, the RAZR had sold 50 MILLION UNITS.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/history-l...ast-274545.php
It will be difficult for Apple to match that. But if they can even come close, wow.
...
I'm not saying it hasn't sold well... just that it isn't selling as well as iSuppli tried to make it seem like.
Their flub was pretty silly, actually. Even selling half as much as the entire Blackberry line (as was really the case) is quite good for a newcomer, as Apple is to this market. No need to embellish, really.
The RAZR was like a snowball - it sold well at the beginning (750,000 in the first 3 months) - but FANTASTIC after awhile.
After just two years, the RAZR had sold 50 MILLION UNITS.
http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/history-l...ast-274545.php
It will be difficult for Apple to match that. But if they can even come close, wow.
...
If Apple keeps dropping the price the way Moto did. From $500 to 200 to 50 to 29 to?free!.
Then they came out with new, not as interesting models, and they're in trouble.
If Apple keeps dropping the price the way Moto did. From $500 to 200 to 50 to 29 to?free!.
Then they came out with new, not as interesting models, and they're in trouble.
The 'slim' form factor got commoditized, and there really wasn't much else differentiating the RAZR. It was destined to become 'just another phone' more or less.
The real problem was that Moto depended on it too heavily, even knowing it couldn't carry the company forever, and they could never seem to come up with something new and good to replace it.
.
The 'slim' form factor got commoditized, and there really wasn't much else differentiating the RAZR. It was destined to become 'just another phone' more or less.
The real problem was that Moto depended on it too heavily, even knowing it couldn't carry the company forever, and they could never seem to come up with something new and good to replace it.
.
That's why the "50 Million Sold" monicker doesn't faze me. The two phones, and companies making them, couldn't be more different.
That's why the "50 Million Sold" monicker doesn't faze me. The two phones, and companies making them, couldn't be more different.
I kind of doubt Apple will be able to sell 50 million iPhones in its first two years. The ATT exclusive in the US works against that, the staggered worldwide launch does as well.
But I have no doubt that Apple will avoid running the iPhone into the ground the way that Motorola did the RAZR. Apple is very good about protecting its brand and its products, and is much better at software than Moto.
The iPhone is going to be much longer-lived as a strong brand/product than the RAZR.
.
I kind of doubt Apple will be able to sell 50 million iPhones in its first two years. The ATT exclusive in the US works against that, the staggered worldwide launch does as well.
But I have no doubt that Apple will avoid running the iPhone into the ground the way that Motorola did the RAZR. Apple is very good about protecting its brand and its products, and is much better at software than Moto.
The iPhone is going to be much longer-lived as a strong brand/product than the RAZR.
.
Where did you get that from me? I'm not saying that at all.
That number was in response to the 50 million number brought up about RAZR sales. I merely stated why Moto was able to get to those numbers in the earlier post.
My reply to you was in response to your reason for what happened to the RAZR, and it's lack of profitability. I was pointing out that Apple wouldn't respond the way Moto did, by lowering prices to commodity levels.
I in no way hinted that Apple would sell that many in two years.
If Apple plays its cards right, with features, new models, and proper pricing, they COULD reach that number in four years, as some of those sales will definitely come from iPod buyers.
I bet I could start a thread saying Apple WILL sell 50 million iPhones in two years, and a lot of ppl would agree with me, even though I don't believe they will at all.
.
Sry Mel, I'm just used to the 'irrational exuberance' mentality that's usually in evidence around here.
I bet I could start a thread saying Apple WILL sell 50 million iPhones in two years, and a lot of ppl would agree with me, even though I don't believe they will at all.
.
Sure. We're either all the way to one side of an issue, or the other.
I really try hard to see both sides, and try to worm out the truth from both. sometimes, it works, and sometimes not.
That's why I get pummeled from both sides, as you might notice.
*pummel pummel pummel*
.
*Pummels Mel mercilessly.*
*pummel pummel pummel*
.
Thanks, I feel better now.
I bet I could start a thread saying Apple WILL sell 50 million iPhones in two years, and a lot of ppl would agree with me, even though I don't believe they will at all.
I wouldn't agree with that. There was also a great deal of exubernace in those arguing that the iPhone would not do well without 3G. Yet it has. I agree they need to get 3G as soon as they can. But its not like the pro 3G side was inherently more rational.
I wouldn't agree with that. There was also a great deal of exubernace in those arguing that the iPhone would not do well without 3G. Yet it has. I agree they need to get 3G as soon as they can. But its not like the pro 3G side was inherently more rational.
The 3G side was more rational, frankly. There was no hardware in the iPhone for 3G, yet some ppl kept on insisting, "Apple can just wake up the functionality with a software update!" Uhh... no, you can't. You need the 3G radio chip. Software won't make one automagically appear.
The FCC approval was for an EDGE device, not a 3G one, and ppl were STILL saying "It could be 3G, it could be 3G!". Again, uh, no. No FCC approval for it means, no, you can't sell it.
Far as how well the iPhone is really doing, it's hard to say. We have analysts like iSuppli predicting pie in the sky things for iPhone sales. On the other side of the coin, the stock got hammered by investors after the price cut, who feared that the price cut was a signal that iPhone sales really 'weren't all that' at the $600 price point. Some analysts agreed that it was indeed a bad sign.
Overall, the truth likely lies in the middle. Putting the launch aside (which was phenomenal, Apple built up the hype perfectly), day-to-day iPhone sales are good, but prolly not quite as high as what Apple really wants. Otherwise, why such a huge, early price cut?
Sure, some of it has to do with avoiding having the iPod Touch cannibalize sales, but let's get real... Apple is not exactly known for this kind of behavior. Its usally been about MAINTAINING prices with them no matter what, not being on the bleeding edge of the price war.
In other words, the iPhone is doing pretty well, but with 3G it could be doing even better. Apple knows this, which is why we're going to be seeing a US 3G model sooner rather than later... certainly no later than one year after the iPhone's launch, worst-case.
In Europe of course, the '3G-less' window for the iPhone will be even shorter, perhaps there'll be none at all. And in Asia, Apple will have to have 3G right from launch... because the alternative will look something like the Hindenburg.
It's not about rationality, it's about recognizing what the market will bear. The US market will bear 2.5G tech in a high-end, massively web-centric phone, but only for a short time. Europe? Shorter still. Asia? Not at all.
.