Why would you not believe that? Cook would know how many were sold in Apple Retail as well as through Apple Online (at full retail price). And many carriers around the world DON'T subsidize phones on plans (which is very common in the US).
So 75% of the phones sold directly by Apple? And again it's never been a subsidy, the price of the phone was always included in the monthly service fee. Now they've separated the price for the service, and the phone payment but it still adds up to more or less the same amount. One might not be on contract for the service but they're on contract for the phone.
It's never been a subsidy. The subscriber always paid for the phone one way or another. The carriers have made that more transparent, and are no longer gouging the people that bought a cheaper phone but were paying the same as those with expensive phones.
It's a subsidy to the carrier. Most people know full well that they are overpaying for their phones when buying a subsidized phone on a plan. But they don't care. It's that their upfront costs are so much lower. That's what they care about.
Look, it's like credit card bills. Most people have a balance at the end of the month that they're paying anywhere from 18-24% interest on. Do they care? Not one whit! All they care about is that they can buy that product that otherwise they really couldn't afford directly. Many people carry thousands on their credit cards every month, paying hundreds in interest costs. Why? Because it's easy, and it hides the true costs.
So 75% of the phones sold directly by Apple? And again it's never been a subsidy, the price of the phone was always included in the monthly service fee. Now they've separated the price for the service, and the phone payment but it still adds up to more or less the same amount. One might not be on contract for the service but they're on contract for the phone.
No. It's just that they're sold at full price wherever they're sold. Many carriers charge less if you come with your own phone . AT&T has a plan for that, as an example.
Disastrous? Like having to fulfill 50% more order than the year before for two straight quarters and selling 130M phones in Q1 & Q2 ?
More Iphones that got sold than in all the time Jobs was alive in two quarters.
More phones in one quarter, than all the phones sold when Jobs was CEO (prior to january 2011)
Hey, how does your little BS narrative work... Not so well does it?
That was despite not being to stockpile them more than a month in advance because they needed IOS 8.0 to be put on it.
You know, IOS 8, the same Operating system people said was released too early... Is he a software expert too?
Should he waited two months more for the software to be completely stable to release the phone, despite that removing 30B in profits and leaving Apple open to the competition.
Please argument your point so it can be upgraded from BS, to merely lame.
And if during Steve Jobs tenure they were actually in China and another 80 markets your point would be?
No. It's just that they're sold at full price wherever they're sold. Many carriers charge less if you come with your own phone . AT&T has a plan for that, as an example.
Unless they're all using credit cards like you said in the previous post which means that they actually end paying way more than had they been on contract.
Ok, so let's look at reality here. Cook has said that 75% of iPhone sales around the world, which includes the USA, are off contract, at full price.
Mel, I usually do pretty well finding stuff on the web but for the life of me I can't find where Cook stated that. Do you have a link to share?
EDIT: You could well be correct. While I still can't find the quote from Cook himself I do see where The Fool mentioned it in August last year and attributed it to him, saying 75% of the iPhones sold that particular quarter were not subsidized.
Er, no. You are mistaking a supply issue with a manufacturing issue. When a new product line first comes out, and, as is typical with Apple, new technologies and manufacturing methods are being used, there are unanticipated problems in production. That has nothing to do with supply lines.
Then there are other issues that have nothing to do with supply lines. One is the anticipated sales numbers. The company thinks that a certain number will be sold, so they intend to produce that number, if all goes well, and no production problems are encountered, and their estimates are correct, there will be no wait. But if they are conservative, as Apple usually is, then enough won't be produced, and delays will result. That's even with Apple anticipating large numbers of sales.
The second is that Apple has ALWAYS has supply issues. This goes back to the early 1990's. When I ordered my Quadra 950, back in late 1991, or early 1992, I don't remember exactly right now, I had to wait 6 weeks for it to arrive. This is nothing new. Except for a time in the time 1990's, when Apple was seeing declining sales, they have always miscued demand, which resulted in delays. And, by the by, Cook is not responsible for this part of the company anymore, Williams has taken over that job.
Thanks for reminding me of the obvious, melgross - I was already a Mac user back then, when Apple got SERIOUSLY burned with PowerBook supply issues (having seriously underestimated demand for them in the 90s) - my point is exactly the same; Mr Cook is way above his head in the CEO role; he should stick to COO and nothing else, particularly in view of the most recent product availability debacles (and I am not even talking about the AWatch, of course).
But industry talk is based upon calender quarters, not those of an individual company's financial year. So he could simply be stating that this quarter, the first of the calender year, a quarter that is traditionally slow for the industry is being predicted to be...
He uses 1Q15 to mean the first calendar quarter of 2015. Which makes sense. He's reporting to a world that may not know Apples peculiarities.
The article says "fiscal quarter" right in the first sentence, and that can mean only one thing, so this reporting is messed up for sure. And what does the "revised" column mean?
1Q 2015. Revised is, I'd guess, since the last estimate by him. This is a report he sends to subscribers.
As for the shipments in 1Q of the watch, they are probably his estimates of shipments to channel. It won't be broken down in the conference call however.
What will be interesting is projected revenue for calendar Q2 and margins. That will tell us something about the watch.
Thanks for reminding me of the obvious, melgross - I was already a Mac user back then, when Apple got SERIOUSLY burned with PowerBook supply issues (having seriously underestimated demand for them in the 90s) - my point is exactly the same; Mr Cook is way above his head in the CEO role; he should stick to COO and nothing else, particularly in view of the most recent product availability debacles (and I am not even talking about the AWatch, of course).
What debacles are you talking about, the 6 and 6+ was near flawless.
So 75% of the phones sold directly by Apple? And again it's never been a subsidy, the price of the phone was always included in the monthly service fee. Now they've separated the price for the service, and the phone payment but it still adds up to more or less the same amount. One might not be on contract for the service but they're on contract for the phone.
Uh, where did I say 75% were sold directly by Apple? 75% would be those sold by Apple PLUS sales by carriers without subsidies PLUS those sold by carriers who offer a subsidy, but the customer bought outright anyway PLUS those sold by stores that don't deal with carriers (like buying online from Amazon without a plan).
I'm sure Apple knows EXACTLY how many iPhones were sold by a carrier with a subsidy and at retail. I'd bet $$$ that those numbers are required reporting from carriers to Apple so Apple can judge sales.
As for the Apple Watch being a solution in search of a problem, I think the reason people are confused about what it's for is that it doesn't run a web browser and the web browser is the killer app of today.
If Apple waited until the "killer use case" was obvious, the rest of the industry would have beaten Apple to it, and everyone would be asking, "why isn't Apple making a watch?" By then, someone else, maybe Google, maybe Pebble, would have gotten there first, created the market, and Apple would be trying to break in.
I'm convinced Apple sees a technology convergence ahead and is skating to where the puck is going to be. Wearable computing will be a thing, and Apple believes it's going to be the wrist, not cyborg glasses. The process of convergence requires participation and iteration. Just as the very first iPhone didn't have an App Store, Cloud, Music & Movie Store, 3G, or even a SDK (it was sync'd like an iPod), the very first Apple Watch will start as one thing and evolve rapidly over time. The time and fitness functions, together with notifications are the existing use cases, but interacting with the world (Apple Pay, Internet of Things, unlocking your doors, etc.) will become the drivers for smartwatch use in the next 5 years.
I'm perfectly fine with people who don't get it. Lots of people don't get it. They're not going to be early adopters. They don't see the world as it's going to be; they see the world as it was. But if you want to be an innovator and a platform builder, if you want to be a company that is going to shape or disrupt the future, then you can't afford to see the world in hindsight. You have to get people interested in wearing smartwatches now to get to where this is going to be. (When will that be? When the naysayers finally get it.)
No, I never said that. It's a comparable phone in list price, which is the only way we can compare phones. It's Samsung's top of the line phone, except for the Edge, which is $100 more, and priced about where the 6+ is. It compares directly against Apple's 6 series. It even comes back to looking more like Apple's phones, which is what Samsung has been slowly moving away from over the last three years.
But don't mistake "comparable" for desirable.
I can't follow your logic. First you said iPhone subsidy was the same as comparable phones. I offered an example where it was not. You said that no one wants S6 anyway because it is inferior which is why they are giving them away. I observed that first you said comparable phones but then you say S6 is not comparable, hence, no phone is comparable with iPhone, which I agree with, but you can't have it both ways. Either the subsidy is the same for comparable phones or there are no comparable phones. Which is it? The total cost of ownership is obviously much less if the phone is free.
I'm sure Apple knows EXACTLY how many iPhones were sold by a carrier with a subsidy and at retail. I'd bet $$$ that those numbers are required reporting from carriers to Apple so Apple can judge sales.
What difference does it make whether a customer pays the carrier the full price of the phone upfront or spreads out the payments over two years? The choice of financing plan should make no difference in terms of Apple's revenue or the number of units that ultimately end up in the hands of customers. As far as Apple is concerned, they're already made their money on the device when the carrier buys up stock (unless carriers have arrangements to get refunded for unsold units?).
What difference does it make whether a customer pays the carrier the full price of the phone upfront or spreads out the payments over two years? The choice of financing plan should make no difference in terms of Apple's revenue or the number of units that ultimately end up in the hands of customers. As far as Apple is concerned, they're already made their money on the device when the carrier buys up stock (unless carriers have arrangements to get refunded for unsold units?).
Not to Apple. But to naysayers who imply that without carrier subsidies Apple sales wouldn't be anywhere near the levels they are.
That could be true, hard to say. In any event, channel filling is difficult to estimate, and Apple realizes no revenue from shipped but unsold products, so even if that is the correct interpretation, it is a rather meaningless number.
They're hardly "meaningless" numbers. It depends on what you're looking for? Looking at what leaves the assembly lines is an indication of a company's sales expectations. Apple is good at selling just about everything that's shipped and keeping enough in the channel to satisfy further demand. So if Apple ships 10 million iPads versus 16 million in the year ago quarter, it could mean one of two things: 1. They have enough left in the channel from the previous quarter or, 2. They don't expect to sell as many as the previous year.
I'm sure Apple knows EXACTLY how many iPhones were sold by a carrier with a subsidy and at retail. I'd bet $$$ that those numbers are required reporting from carriers to Apple so Apple can judge sales.
Why would it matter? I doubt Apple knows exactly how a carrier sold a phone. Apple gets paid regardless.
Why would it matter? I doubt Apple knows exactly how a carrier sold a phone. Apple gets paid regardless.
They know. Apple has to unlock the phone through Tunes unless it was sent from the factory already unlocked. Also there are contracts that the reseller has to abide by such as not discounting the price below a certain point and especially not giving them away. Even the way they are advertised is strictly controlled.
You know what they say... garbage in garbage out. The watch was released on Apr 10th. Not sure why it would be the focus for this quarterly report that ended in march.
They know. Apple has to unlock the phone through Tunes unless it was sent from the factory already unlocked. Also there are contracts that the reseller has to abide by such as not discounting the price below a certain point and especially not giving them away. Even the way they are advertised is strictly controlled.
Exactly. Apple agreements with carriers have come under fire before for their strict rules. Even to the point of raising antitrust suspicions (ridiculous IMO).
They know. Apple has to unlock the phone through Tunes unless it was sent from the factory already unlocked. Also there are contracts that the reseller has to abide by such as not discounting the price below a certain point and especially not giving them away. Even the way they are advertised is strictly controlled.
I just can't see that 3 out of 4 people plunked down $650-$950 in cash.
Comments
So 75% of the phones sold directly by Apple? And again it's never been a subsidy, the price of the phone was always included in the monthly service fee. Now they've separated the price for the service, and the phone payment but it still adds up to more or less the same amount. One might not be on contract for the service but they're on contract for the phone.
It's a subsidy to the carrier. Most people know full well that they are overpaying for their phones when buying a subsidized phone on a plan. But they don't care. It's that their upfront costs are so much lower. That's what they care about.
Look, it's like credit card bills. Most people have a balance at the end of the month that they're paying anywhere from 18-24% interest on. Do they care? Not one whit! All they care about is that they can buy that product that otherwise they really couldn't afford directly. Many people carry thousands on their credit cards every month, paying hundreds in interest costs. Why? Because it's easy, and it hides the true costs.
No. It's just that they're sold at full price wherever they're sold. Many carriers charge less if you come with your own phone . AT&T has a plan for that, as an example.
And if during Steve Jobs tenure they were actually in China and another 80 markets your point would be?
Unless they're all using credit cards like you said in the previous post which means that they actually end paying way more than had they been on contract.
EDIT: You could well be correct. While I still can't find the quote from Cook himself I do see where The Fool mentioned it in August last year and attributed it to him, saying 75% of the iPhones sold that particular quarter were not subsidized.
Er, no. You are mistaking a supply issue with a manufacturing issue. When a new product line first comes out, and, as is typical with Apple, new technologies and manufacturing methods are being used, there are unanticipated problems in production. That has nothing to do with supply lines.
Then there are other issues that have nothing to do with supply lines. One is the anticipated sales numbers. The company thinks that a certain number will be sold, so they intend to produce that number, if all goes well, and no production problems are encountered, and their estimates are correct, there will be no wait. But if they are conservative, as Apple usually is, then enough won't be produced, and delays will result. That's even with Apple anticipating large numbers of sales.
The second is that Apple has ALWAYS has supply issues. This goes back to the early 1990's. When I ordered my Quadra 950, back in late 1991, or early 1992, I don't remember exactly right now, I had to wait 6 weeks for it to arrive. This is nothing new. Except for a time in the time 1990's, when Apple was seeing declining sales, they have always miscued demand, which resulted in delays. And, by the by, Cook is not responsible for this part of the company anymore, Williams has taken over that job.
Thanks for reminding me of the obvious, melgross - I was already a Mac user back then, when Apple got SERIOUSLY burned with PowerBook supply issues (having seriously underestimated demand for them in the 90s) - my point is exactly the same; Mr Cook is way above his head in the CEO role; he should stick to COO and nothing else, particularly in view of the most recent product availability debacles (and I am not even talking about the AWatch, of course).
He uses 1Q15 to mean the first calendar quarter of 2015. Which makes sense. He's reporting to a world that may not know Apples peculiarities.
1Q 2015. Revised is, I'd guess, since the last estimate by him. This is a report he sends to subscribers.
As for the shipments in 1Q of the watch, they are probably his estimates of shipments to channel. It won't be broken down in the conference call however.
What will be interesting is projected revenue for calendar Q2 and margins. That will tell us something about the watch.
What debacles are you talking about, the 6 and 6+ was near flawless.
Uh, where did I say 75% were sold directly by Apple? 75% would be those sold by Apple PLUS sales by carriers without subsidies PLUS those sold by carriers who offer a subsidy, but the customer bought outright anyway PLUS those sold by stores that don't deal with carriers (like buying online from Amazon without a plan).
I'm sure Apple knows EXACTLY how many iPhones were sold by a carrier with a subsidy and at retail. I'd bet $$$ that those numbers are required reporting from carriers to Apple so Apple can judge sales.
As for the Apple Watch being a solution in search of a problem, I think the reason people are confused about what it's for is that it doesn't run a web browser and the web browser is the killer app of today.
If Apple waited until the "killer use case" was obvious, the rest of the industry would have beaten Apple to it, and everyone would be asking, "why isn't Apple making a watch?" By then, someone else, maybe Google, maybe Pebble, would have gotten there first, created the market, and Apple would be trying to break in.
I'm convinced Apple sees a technology convergence ahead and is skating to where the puck is going to be. Wearable computing will be a thing, and Apple believes it's going to be the wrist, not cyborg glasses. The process of convergence requires participation and iteration. Just as the very first iPhone didn't have an App Store, Cloud, Music & Movie Store, 3G, or even a SDK (it was sync'd like an iPod), the very first Apple Watch will start as one thing and evolve rapidly over time. The time and fitness functions, together with notifications are the existing use cases, but interacting with the world (Apple Pay, Internet of Things, unlocking your doors, etc.) will become the drivers for smartwatch use in the next 5 years.
I'm perfectly fine with people who don't get it. Lots of people don't get it. They're not going to be early adopters. They don't see the world as it's going to be; they see the world as it was. But if you want to be an innovator and a platform builder, if you want to be a company that is going to shape or disrupt the future, then you can't afford to see the world in hindsight. You have to get people interested in wearing smartwatches now to get to where this is going to be. (When will that be? When the naysayers finally get it.)
No, I never said that. It's a comparable phone in list price, which is the only way we can compare phones. It's Samsung's top of the line phone, except for the Edge, which is $100 more, and priced about where the 6+ is. It compares directly against Apple's 6 series. It even comes back to looking more like Apple's phones, which is what Samsung has been slowly moving away from over the last three years.
But don't mistake "comparable" for desirable.
I can't follow your logic. First you said iPhone subsidy was the same as comparable phones. I offered an example where it was not. You said that no one wants S6 anyway because it is inferior which is why they are giving them away. I observed that first you said comparable phones but then you say S6 is not comparable, hence, no phone is comparable with iPhone, which I agree with, but you can't have it both ways. Either the subsidy is the same for comparable phones or there are no comparable phones. Which is it? The total cost of ownership is obviously much less if the phone is free.
I'm sure Apple knows EXACTLY how many iPhones were sold by a carrier with a subsidy and at retail. I'd bet $$$ that those numbers are required reporting from carriers to Apple so Apple can judge sales.
What difference does it make whether a customer pays the carrier the full price of the phone upfront or spreads out the payments over two years? The choice of financing plan should make no difference in terms of Apple's revenue or the number of units that ultimately end up in the hands of customers. As far as Apple is concerned, they're already made their money on the device when the carrier buys up stock (unless carriers have arrangements to get refunded for unsold units?).
Not to Apple. But to naysayers who imply that without carrier subsidies Apple sales wouldn't be anywhere near the levels they are.
That could be true, hard to say. In any event, channel filling is difficult to estimate, and Apple realizes no revenue from shipped but unsold products, so even if that is the correct interpretation, it is a rather meaningless number.
They're hardly "meaningless" numbers. It depends on what you're looking for? Looking at what leaves the assembly lines is an indication of a company's sales expectations. Apple is good at selling just about everything that's shipped and keeping enough in the channel to satisfy further demand. So if Apple ships 10 million iPads versus 16 million in the year ago quarter, it could mean one of two things: 1. They have enough left in the channel from the previous quarter or, 2. They don't expect to sell as many as the previous year.
Why would it matter? I doubt Apple knows exactly how a carrier sold a phone. Apple gets paid regardless.
Why would it matter? I doubt Apple knows exactly how a carrier sold a phone. Apple gets paid regardless.
They know. Apple has to unlock the phone through Tunes unless it was sent from the factory already unlocked. Also there are contracts that the reseller has to abide by such as not discounting the price below a certain point and especially not giving them away. Even the way they are advertised is strictly controlled.
You know what they say... garbage in garbage out. The watch was released on Apr 10th. Not sure why it would be the focus for this quarterly report that ended in march.
Exactly. Apple agreements with carriers have come under fire before for their strict rules. Even to the point of raising antitrust suspicions (ridiculous IMO).
I just can't see that 3 out of 4 people plunked down $650-$950 in cash.