Slashdot Mirror
Math on iPhones Just Doesn't Add Up?
Tech Dirt is reporting that recently announced numbers by Apple and AT&T suggest that there is a large gap (1.7 million) between the number of iPhones being sold and those being activated. Taking into account factors like the iPhone launching outside the US and a 20% estimate of people buying the iPhone just for the purposes of unlocking, there are still 700,000 iPhones unaccounted for. "[...] suggesting that they're sitting on store shelves, piling up as unsold inventory. That number suggests at least some gap between perceived demand and actual demand -- while also raising questions about how much effort it will take to eat through that inventory."
The pundits math doesn't line up. What's the reason? They don't know what the fuck they are talking about.
For example: "20% estimate of people buying the iPhone just for the purposes of unlocking, there are still 700,000 iPhones unaccounted for."
OK, so then I guess maybe the 20% estimate is wrong? Horrors.
What I do know for certain is that this discussion won't solve something that only Apple can answer.
Ironically, the word ironically is often used incorrectly.
Not only that, but Apple is in for a swift kick in the ass if they're not careful. Even though a lot of people will still be able to afford an iPhone, the issues surrounding its battery will be a deterrent to purchasing it. Apple will have two choices if it wants to appeal to consumers who are starting to worry about their budgets: make the batter removable like a Razr or any other phone, or lose potential customers.
A removable battery takes away nothing from the aesthetics of the case. The only thing it does is keep it out of Apple's service shop every year, and thus makes it harder to justify buying a new one every year. Apple needs to prepare itself by making this a non-issue for the iPod Touch and iPhone if it doesn't want to face potential disruption.
Apple could take an active part in developing software for both devices, and sell them to offset the losses in their plans from people not spending a lot of money on repairs and new phones.
The only iPhone I've actually held in my hand was not activated. My nephew got it during an internship, when that ended, the AT&T account was terminated and they let him keep it. It's just sleeping, waiting for the day he feels like paying to use it. But it's not in any inventory anywhere.
The most important reason for many people buying - and loving - Macs is Mac OS X, which indeed is the experience. But it doesn't stop there, a great design case helps too. You won't find any ports on the back of any Mac laptop (so annoying on Dells I have worked with) and you'll find USB ports on *both* sides; a feature you wouldn't think of but it does make a difference. The multi-touch trackpads are fantastic. Apple displays have exactly one cable coming out of them - splitting up into DVI, power, USB and Firewire (there are hubs for both on the display) at the computer end; no bundle of cables on your desk. And for the most part, it really "just works(tm)". People are willing to pay a premium for that.
That said, the premium isn't that much and while you can get a dirt-cheap Dell, you get what you pay for. If you compare them like-for-like on specs and build quality - instead of just "what's the cheapest I can get" - Macs actually come out quite favorably and since the Intel switch they consistently get higher marks for performance than their Wintel counterparts. And if you have some serious dough, there is nothing that matches the Mac Pro's power available from anyone off the shelf. So I don't quite agree with you saying they are "not the fastest computers" or that "Macs are expensive"; It'll be hard to find a faster one that is quite as small as the Mac Mini. Or a faster all-in-one or similarly specced mini-tower at the price of an iMac, or a faster laptop than the MBP that is actually mobile (get out of here, Alienware) and doesn't cost a lot more and nobody beats the Mac Pro's performance at any price.
Now if only they would put something with the specs of the iMac into a small tower and sell it for a good price, that would be nice.
While I had troubles initially with Leopard, somehow they never occurred when I didn't have Parallels running Windows. (I am Java dev, but need to test on Windows too for work, as well as use SQL Server, I don't actually use it to run any apps for myself.) A couple of post-Leopard Parallels updates later I have none of the crash/hang issues anymore. Hmm, I wonder if it really was leopard that was being unstable. Granted, the OS should stop Parallels from being nasty, but virtualization will always be terribly invasive and deliberately hacking of the host OS.
I own a MacBook Pro, Mac Pro and my wife uses my old PowerBook G4 and while I will tell people why I like them and why I think they will too - I do not consider myself a fanboy and can certainly see Apple's flaws. The good simply outweighs the bad.