78Bandit

I think Ives' unit sales are going to be a little optimistic.  With 77.3M actual  in Q1 and 52M - 55M estimated in Q2 Apple would need at least 103M sales in Q3 & Q4 to meet even his bottom end.  Apple has averaged just under 90M for the last two quarters over the past three years.  Highest ever was 95M in the iPhone 6 super year.

Unless Apple releases next year's models early and you have a couple more weeks of new model sales in the last quarter I think unit sales are going to be between 220M and 225M.

randominternetperson said:

Weird how October+November+December 2017 (31+30+31 days) is somehow a week less than those same three months of 2016.

(Presumably it's because they "close the books" on sales at the end of every week rather than daily, but still.)

Strange to me too.  I didn't realize Apple did this until yesterday.  I can see where it would make comparability somewhat more consistent in that every quarter has 91 days except for one quarter every few years.  Done on a three-month basis the quarters would have between 90 and 92 days.

To me, since Apple does have so much seasonal variance in revenue, it would make more sense to do a 3 month quarter so the only variance between same-quarter comparability would be the one day during leap year in the Jan-March quarter every four years.  Having an entire additional week packed into your busiest quarter really distorts things by a much higher percentage.  Same-quarter comparability between fiscal years is more important to me than consecutive quarter comparability when taking into account the timing of Apple's varying revenue stream.

This will also make year-over-year comparability screwed up as last year had 53 weeks where this one will have 52.

Rayz2016 said:

CheeseFreeze said:

metrix said:

I find it disconcerting that people are dying in car accidents from the faulty Japanese air bags that haven’t been replaced because they have a huge backlog and hang ups but yet DOJ is more concerned about this situation. 

I agree. Which (with such good intent on Apple’s side) is why they should have been transparent about the fact they were throttling speed.
The moment someone has to discover a correlation between battery health and phone speed, is the moment you are in legal trouble.

I'm curious.

When Apple said:

iOS 10.2.1 includes bug fixes and improves the security of your iPhone or iPad.

It also improves power management during peak workloads to avoid unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.

What did folk think they meant by 'power management'?

What should they have said?

My assumption would be they would do things similarly to how they implemented low-power mode and cut out background tasks, stop push notifications, dim the display or other things that would prioritize power to the app I was currently working on.  Cutting performance by up to 50% of my active application would have been at the bottom of the list of suspected actions.

What they should have said was "Identified an issue where insufficient battery output causes unexpected shutdowns on iPhone.  Peak performance may be reduced by up to 50% to avoid unexpected shutdowns."

My first iPad was the 3.  The retina display is what sold me, it was absolutely gorgeous.  It served as my and my wife's primary consumption device up until this past year.  I've still got it and use it regularly as an ereader for my reference books, but it is just too slow loading internet sites to the point of being frustrating.

I've got a feeling iPad sales will be up this quarter.  You had the major retailers running Black Friday sales for $249 and I know at least five people who got one including my wife.  It wouldn't surprise me to see unit sales up to the 15 - 16 million range.

airnerd said:

I think the request is silly, but because the lawsuit is silly, but also silly is the idea that something they charged their customers to remove from a phone is too dangerous to not destroy.  If it is THAT dangerous then they should be offering to remove them for free to protect their customers.   

I don't think a single battery is that dangerous, but having a stockpile of a million or more used batteries in a warehouse somewhere would be a ticking time bomb unless Apple stored them individually in fireproof boxes like Samsung used when returning the exploding Note 7.  There is no way to guarantee every battery is OEM or than every one is completely undamaged, and a fire from one would quickly get out of control.

This is a ridiculous request.  Saving the diagnostic data is reasonable, but requiring every individual battery to be retained sounds like just another way for the lawyers to force Apple into a settlement rather than incur the storage expenses.