I really don't even think the concern is relevant. Instead of buying a $250 product, they buy a $500 plus a subscription which there is a monthly kick-back. How is that bad from the business perspective? I find it highly unfortunate that a word with negative connotations would be used to describe a positive event within the frame of reference. It sounds like a freaking upsell to me. With that kind of language, it sounds like the kid that complained that he got a dime instead of a nickel.
I don't see why their research wouldn't try to estimate the upsell potential either, which would have been another question or two on a survey if they bothered to do a decent job of it.
They aren't buying a subscription from Apple. Apple is only billing it that way so they can give the improvements without having to go through that embarrasing situation again.
I certainly don't mind Apple selling a $500 or $600 device rather than a $350 one. No matter how it is billed, there is more cash flow, and more profit.
But the point has simply been that the iPhone's sales won't be entirely additive to the sales of the iPod. $1 billion in iPhone sales will result in how much less in iPod sales? Thar's all the argument is about.
They aren't buying a subscription from Apple. Apple is only billing it that way so they can give the improvements without having to go through that embarrasing situation again.
The rumor was that Apple will get some of that subscription money, much like how part of Blackberry subscriptions go to RIM, a few dollars a month. This rumor came out long before Apple announced the subscription accounting, which does sound like something different.
Quote:
But the point has simply been that the iPhone's sales won't be entirely additive to the sales of the iPod. $1 billion in iPhone sales will result in how much less in iPod sales? Thar's all the argument is about.
That still seems like a pretty important thing that shouldn't have been left out when trying to make these estimates. If they can't estimate that, then I think I can legitimately question the soundness, or at least completeness / thoughroughness of their iPhone estimates because they left a major factor out.
The rumor was that Apple will get some of that subscription money, much like how part of Blackberry subscriptions go to RIM, a few dollars a month. This rumor came out long before Apple announced the subscription accounting, which does sound like something different.
I haven't seen that one. We have heard of the RUMOR that ATT will be kicking back some of the cash from each iPhone sale, but that's just a rumor as well, and I can't imagine why that would happen.
Quote:
That still seems like a pretty important thing that shouldn't have been left out when trying to make these estimates. If they can't estimate that, then I think I can legitimately question the soundness, or at least completeness / thoughroughness of their iPhone estimates because they left a major factor out.
That is one of the problems. I don't know how thay can estimate it.
For myself, I bought a Palm IIIC here at the first NYC Macworld. It was at a good discount at the time.
I didn't want to bother with a cell back then, and I certainly didn't want a cell AND a Palm on my belt. I'm not THAT much of a nerd.
After 9/11, when we decided to get cells, I waited, for myself, until the Samsung i330 color Palm smartphone came out.
The point to all that was to show that people will want to replace their cell and their iPod with one device, IF that device is as good, or better, than the devices they had before.
Most everyone has a cell, but most people don't have an iPod. When they get a new cell, they may not get a new iPod. But, if it's an iPhone, that's good too.
That is one of the problems. I don't know how thay can estimate it.
If they didn't do a properly randomized survey, I don't see how they can come up with iPhone sales predictions are anywhere near credible. If they did do a survey, then they can ask these kinds of questions because they are totally relevant to the research at hand. There is always some margin of error but it's better than saying something to the effect of "we have no idea". I don't see how relevant knowing potential iPhone income will be to investors unless they also had an idea of how much it affects related products by the same company.
If they didn't do a properly randomized survey, I don't see how they can come up with iPhone sales predictions are anywhere near credible. If they did do a survey, then they can ask these kinds of questions because they are totally relevant to the research at hand. There is always some margin of error but it's better than saying something to the effect of "we have no idea". I don't see how relevant knowing potential iPhone income will be to investors unless they also had an idea of how much it affects related products by the same company.
I'm sure they have done at least some of that. But as someone who was involved in writing those surveys when I worked at Mccann Erickson back in the '70s', I can relate my experiences. We were often surprised at just how the public differed from our survey subjects.
It's just like polls at election stations. People say how they voted, but then the results that come in are often different.
People, I have learned, don't always tell the truth in surveys.
It also depends on the wording. I don't want to get political here, but I'm just using this as an example. Please, don't flame me.
Last night on CNN's Lou Dobbs, they were talking, as they often do, about illegal immigration.
Two surveys were mentioned by two different people, both on different sides of the issue.
The first cited a large poll that said that 67% of Americans were in favor of giving "undocumented workers" a chance to get their residency cards, and later, a chance of citizenship.
The other poll said that 75% of Americans were in favor of removing "illegal aliens" from the country, and not giving them any ability to receive residency, or citizenship.
these surveys are not always as useful as you may think.
"Focus groups" aren't any better. My partner somehow got invited to one, to which he went. After that he received two or three a year. Even though the letters always required him to be familiar with the product category, he often wasn't, and would come to me for information. I don't trust those groups either.
I think that Jobs and a very few others at Apple are more responsible for product direction, and sales estimates, than surveys or focus groups.
Comments
I really don't even think the concern is relevant. Instead of buying a $250 product, they buy a $500 plus a subscription which there is a monthly kick-back. How is that bad from the business perspective? I find it highly unfortunate that a word with negative connotations would be used to describe a positive event within the frame of reference. It sounds like a freaking upsell to me. With that kind of language, it sounds like the kid that complained that he got a dime instead of a nickel.
I don't see why their research wouldn't try to estimate the upsell potential either, which would have been another question or two on a survey if they bothered to do a decent job of it.
They aren't buying a subscription from Apple. Apple is only billing it that way so they can give the improvements without having to go through that embarrasing situation again.
I certainly don't mind Apple selling a $500 or $600 device rather than a $350 one. No matter how it is billed, there is more cash flow, and more profit.
But the point has simply been that the iPhone's sales won't be entirely additive to the sales of the iPod. $1 billion in iPhone sales will result in how much less in iPod sales? Thar's all the argument is about.
They aren't buying a subscription from Apple. Apple is only billing it that way so they can give the improvements without having to go through that embarrasing situation again.
The rumor was that Apple will get some of that subscription money, much like how part of Blackberry subscriptions go to RIM, a few dollars a month. This rumor came out long before Apple announced the subscription accounting, which does sound like something different.
But the point has simply been that the iPhone's sales won't be entirely additive to the sales of the iPod. $1 billion in iPhone sales will result in how much less in iPod sales? Thar's all the argument is about.
That still seems like a pretty important thing that shouldn't have been left out when trying to make these estimates. If they can't estimate that, then I think I can legitimately question the soundness, or at least completeness / thoughroughness of their iPhone estimates because they left a major factor out.
Veerry good.
Thanks.
.
The rumor was that Apple will get some of that subscription money, much like how part of Blackberry subscriptions go to RIM, a few dollars a month. This rumor came out long before Apple announced the subscription accounting, which does sound like something different.
I haven't seen that one. We have heard of the RUMOR that ATT will be kicking back some of the cash from each iPhone sale, but that's just a rumor as well, and I can't imagine why that would happen.
That still seems like a pretty important thing that shouldn't have been left out when trying to make these estimates. If they can't estimate that, then I think I can legitimately question the soundness, or at least completeness / thoughroughness of their iPhone estimates because they left a major factor out.
That is one of the problems. I don't know how thay can estimate it.
For myself, I bought a Palm IIIC here at the first NYC Macworld. It was at a good discount at the time.
I didn't want to bother with a cell back then, and I certainly didn't want a cell AND a Palm on my belt. I'm not THAT much of a nerd.
After 9/11, when we decided to get cells, I waited, for myself, until the Samsung i330 color Palm smartphone came out.
The point to all that was to show that people will want to replace their cell and their iPod with one device, IF that device is as good, or better, than the devices they had before.
Most everyone has a cell, but most people don't have an iPod. When they get a new cell, they may not get a new iPod. But, if it's an iPhone, that's good too.
That is one of the problems. I don't know how thay can estimate it.
If they didn't do a properly randomized survey, I don't see how they can come up with iPhone sales predictions are anywhere near credible. If they did do a survey, then they can ask these kinds of questions because they are totally relevant to the research at hand. There is always some margin of error but it's better than saying something to the effect of "we have no idea". I don't see how relevant knowing potential iPhone income will be to investors unless they also had an idea of how much it affects related products by the same company.
If they didn't do a properly randomized survey, I don't see how they can come up with iPhone sales predictions are anywhere near credible. If they did do a survey, then they can ask these kinds of questions because they are totally relevant to the research at hand. There is always some margin of error but it's better than saying something to the effect of "we have no idea". I don't see how relevant knowing potential iPhone income will be to investors unless they also had an idea of how much it affects related products by the same company.
I'm sure they have done at least some of that. But as someone who was involved in writing those surveys when I worked at Mccann Erickson back in the '70s', I can relate my experiences. We were often surprised at just how the public differed from our survey subjects.
It's just like polls at election stations. People say how they voted, but then the results that come in are often different.
People, I have learned, don't always tell the truth in surveys.
It also depends on the wording. I don't want to get political here, but I'm just using this as an example. Please, don't flame me.
Last night on CNN's Lou Dobbs, they were talking, as they often do, about illegal immigration.
Two surveys were mentioned by two different people, both on different sides of the issue.
The first cited a large poll that said that 67% of Americans were in favor of giving "undocumented workers" a chance to get their residency cards, and later, a chance of citizenship.
The other poll said that 75% of Americans were in favor of removing "illegal aliens" from the country, and not giving them any ability to receive residency, or citizenship.
these surveys are not always as useful as you may think.
"Focus groups" aren't any better. My partner somehow got invited to one, to which he went. After that he received two or three a year. Even though the letters always required him to be familiar with the product category, he often wasn't, and would come to me for information. I don't trust those groups either.
I think that Jobs and a very few others at Apple are more responsible for product direction, and sales estimates, than surveys or focus groups.
I think this has been mentioned elsewhere.
First!
Ooohh.. now I get it.