Slashdot Mirror
Apple Sells Nine Million iPhones Over Weekend
Nerval's Lobster writes "Apple managed to sell nine million iPhones over the weekend, with the company claiming its initial supply of high-end iPhone 5S units completely sold out. Apple didn't sell out of the new iPhone 5C, its plastic-cased (and cheaper) alternative to the iPhone 5S; models are still available for shipment within 24 hours from Apple's online store. And the iPhone 5S selling out is no surprise: in the weeks ahead of the new iPhones' launch, rumors persisted that the initial production run of the device was relatively small in scope, which would make it far easier for Apple to sell out of its first batch. But how many iPhone 5C units did Apple actually manage to sell? In August, KGI Securities analyst Ming-Chi Kuo suggested that Apple would produce just over 5 million iPhone 5S units ahead of the device's launch weekend; if that number's accurate, and Apple sold every single one, it would mean Apple sold roughly 4 million iPhone 5C units in order to reach that 9-million-sold figure for both models. That's an impressive figure for any smartphone, of course, and it could quiet some of the naysayers who have spent the past several months suggesting that Apple's best years are behind it."
C has already been for cookie.
So if selling 9 million high-end smartphones, according to the pundits, is "jumping the shark", I wonder what success looks like?
Apple's been dying for over 30 years.
iPhone 5s "T-Moble Contract Free" prices, are $649, $749, and $849, depending on the amount of storage. See iPhone 5s. The iPhone 5C prices are $549, $649. See iPhone 5c.
Using an average price of $649, and 9 million units sold, that's $5.84 billion in revenue. That doesn't could any accessories (cases, car chargers, etc) or Apple Care sales.
GTA V made a relatively puny $1 billion. You know, chump change.
it could quiet some of the naysayers who have spent the past several months suggesting that Apple's best years are behind it.
If you know anything about Apple, it should be that nothing will really stop the fans and nothing will quiet the naysayers.
...rumors persisted that the initial production run of the device was relatively small in scope, which would make it far easier for Apple to sell out of its first batch.
I love the implication that Apple artificially limited supply in order to get the sold out headline when they sold 9 MILLION phones, almost double the record number of iPhone 5 units that were sold last year, well in excess of any other mobile sales figures. The initial production run was "relatively small" only in so much as it couldn't live up to demand - they sold 9 MILLION units in THREE DAYS. That isn't "relatively small" by any logical measure.
Blows my mind how crushing sales like that can still be spun into somehow Apple failing.
I'll let you laugh at mine! Fuck all you haters. My glorious gold iphone is the shit :)
Actually, it's pretty hard to tell it's the gold one because it spends its time in this sweet leather wallet case that looks like a pocket reference. http://twelvesouth.com/products/bookbook_iphone5/
>> Besides the 9M people mentioned above?
That's the weird thing to me. Within my social circle of a couple of hundred folks, no one is tweeting, facebooking, or otherwise announcing that they've run out and bought the new phone. In fact, I've seen a few folks writing about this being the first upgrade cycle they might sit out, e.g., "hoping the '6' gives us something to look forward to"
I have to wonder if Apple is "channel stuffing" a bit here. For example:
http://gigaom.com/2013/05/09/what-apple-really-means-when-it-says-it-has-sold-a-product/
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-verizon-iphone-2013-7
9999/10000 is a fraction.
Actually there isn't that much difference between the two. It comes down to if you have Android Apps, then you stay on Android, or if you have iOS apps then you stay on iOS.
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
To be fair, their record is pretty good on that issue. The iphone 4's were updated, & so were the 4S to ios7. That's more than 2 models back, or more than 3 years back.
Not me. I'd love to know who is still buying Apple devices when Android gizmos do pretty much the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
What you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance. The idea that other people could prefer something that you yourself do not approve of can be difficult for those who cling to their beliefs as if they were some kind of religion. But companies aren't gods, and the choice of smart phone isn't a faith. They are products, and different people will make different choices based on what they value. Some will choose simply for the size or apparent superiority of the feature list, and others will choose based on finesse or ease any of a number of other factors. Those are their choices, and the fact that you made a different choice does not in any way mean that your choice should apply to everyone else.
Perhaps a bit of introspection on your part as to why you hold your beliefs so dear would be helpful.
People who say "sheeple" have about as much sophistication as an AOL user, and in fact are probably actually AOL users.
Samsung claimed 20MM Galaxy 4's shipped in the first two months. Sales estimates for the time period were much lower though.
I know plenty of people that upgraded, just none of them bragged about in Facebook or Twitter, because they know no one really gives a shit what phone they are carrying.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
When Steve Jobs got up there and announced the first iPhone, he stated that Apple had relatively modest goals. Of the 1 billion cellphones in the world, Apple hoped to get the iPhone to represent just 1% - or ten million units. They completely blew that goal out of the water. Now they can hit that mark in a single product launch weekend.
Microsoft is neck-and-neck with Apple, selling nine Windows phones on the same weekend.
Android gizmos have average build quality, good specs, lower quality software and poor long term support. Apple iPhones have better build quality, good specs, higher quality software and excellent long term support. Apple takes usually years to 'orphan' an older device. IOS 7 runs on iPhone 4, while that device is only three years old, in the Android world getting a 3 year old device to run the latest version of Android usually does not happen.
If you're the proud owner of a new iPhone 5S or iPhone 5C -- or if you're thinking about buying one -- be sure to handle it with care. Durability tests suggests the new models are more likely to break if you drop them, compared to previous iPhone models.
The new phones were tested by SquareTrade, a provider of protection plans for gadgets. They also tested several other competing smartphones to see which ones best withstand drops, dunks under water, and other common hazards. Its finding: The latest iPhones aren't as durable as last year's iPhone 5.
The biggest loser, however, was Samsung's Galaxy S4, which failed to work after being submerged in water and being dropped 5 feet off the ground, according to San Francisco-based SquareTrade.
The phone that withstood SquareTrade's torture test best was Google Inc.'s Moto X. The Moto X is the first phone designed with the Internet company as Motorola's new owner. Released in August, the Moto X is also the first smartphone assembled in the U.S.
"We were expecting that at least one of the new iPhone models would up its game, but surprisingly, it was the Moto X that proved most forgiving of accidents," said Ty Shay, chief marketing officer at SquareTrade.
Officials from Apple Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. and Google Inc. didn't immediately return email messages for comment.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-205_162-57604082/new-iphone-5s-iphone-5c-may-be-more-likely-to-break/
People forget when Microsoft injected cash in Apple when it was going nowhere.
Mightier companies than Apple have fallen, and unfortunately for them it begins to look like they are living from a "perception marketing bubble".
Remember Nokia? It was washing the floor with the competition. Apple did very well to change some of the paradigms of the mobile phone platform, but they have contributed very little and the release of "cheaper" iPhones recognizes that the only differentiator now is in price not in features.
And that is the problem for Apple: to keep charging for a phone that does pretty much the same as any other you have to resort to gimmicks: selling golden phones for example, in technology that can take you only so far.
Proof: people wanted a phone just because it was golden. That is not innovation, is hype, sooner or later the bubble will burst and all the chickens will come home to roost.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Apple will have most of the iPhones in the first world on IOS 7 within a month. Something like that just does not happen EVER with Android. There may be older devices out there but they are no longer with primary users and driving the IOS market and apps. Apple devs will just keep moving forward to the latest version as most customers do leaving no effective fragmentation in the market.
The adoption rate of IOS 7 is already past 35% in ONE WEEK. Android will be lucky to have over 35% on the latest version ever.
I have to post anon because I work for AT&T. As normal this time of year all employees are on red alert, no new vacations can be scheduled because of the iphone release, and many of use have to go on mandatory overtime. Apple, realizing it was an incremental update, laid down some new rules for us. Many of our call centers could not sell it, and we had to force the majority of users that normally called into to order it, to use our website. Oddly enough our response to the new Iphone was less than stellar as it had been in previous years, and we saw very few customers seeing it as a must have device. And we were shipped absurdly small amounts of units so we could sell out quickly. You can still get them in places like Best Buy, Radio Shack and Walmart. Plus 99.9 percent bought the phone at a subsidized price.
Not me. I'd love to know who is still buying Apple devices when Android gizmos do pretty much the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
I'd love to know who is still buying steaks when burgers do pretty much the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
Probably the same kind of people who buy Macs, even though Dell computers do the same thing for a fraction of the cost
Or the people who buy a Mercedes Benz, even though a Hyundai does the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
Of course, while all of these products do generally the same thing, the user experience can be quite different for people who notice this sort of thing.
For example, Apple is very concerned about conveying a touch experience that creates the illusion that the user is interacting directly with elements of the display, so Apple puts a lot of effort into minimizing the lag between touch input and response. For example, the previous generation, the iPhone 5, has half the latency of the fastest Android device. And the iPhone 5s is benchmarking twice as fast as the iPhone 5 for some functions.
For some people, this sort of thing makes a big difference. They may not be able to put their finger on it, but they know that Apple's devices are more enjoyable to use than other devices that do the "same thing," just as a Mercedes is more enjoyable to drive than a Hyundai.
But while you'll spend a great deal more for a Mercedes, you can buy the iPhone 5s at nearly the same price as top-of-the-line competitors. This Apple's big achievement with the iPhone, and Apple continues to reap these huge sales numbers year after year--the ability to deliver a premium quality product at a price that is competitive with the knock-offs.
>Actually there isn't that much difference between the two. It comes down to if you have Android Apps,
>then you stay on Android, or if you have iOS apps then you stay on iOS.
I think you make an interesting point, but I'm not sure how many people it's true for. Phone apps are so inexpensive that I could buy IOS equivalents of all my Android apps for well under $100 if Apple offered a better product for my use case than the large-screen Samsung Note-series phones I use. I'm not entrenched like I am with Windows on the PC.
That's good enough for me
>>>> who is still buying Apple
>> you're experiencing...cognitive dissonance
Nah - I know individuals are buying, but I really I want to know which demographics are buying: existing Apple customers, new customers, age groups (seems like Harleys and iPhones are becoming Baby Boomer staples), income levels, etc.
Well the Japanese, rich Chinese, the people on expensive plans in Europe and something like 80% of American postpay customers. People for whom "pretty much the same thing" isn't good enough and had no intention of buying the Androids that were only "a fraction of the cost".
Declared dead 63 times since April 1995
It's funny because the early quotes don't sound that much different than the recent ones:
1995
Unless somebody pulls a rabbit out of a hat, companies tend to have long glide slopes because of the installed bases. But Apple is just gliding down this slope and they're loosing market share every year. Things start to spiral down once you get under a certain threshold. And when developers no longer write applications for your computer, that's when it really starts to fall apart.
1996
These facts were summed up by Stan Dolberg of Forrester Research who said, "whether they stand alone or are acquired, Apple as we know it, is cooked." [Article found through David Pogue's column "The Desktop Critic: Reality Check 2000" in Macworld Magazine, where the quote still resides.]
One day Apple was a major technology company with assets to make any self-respecting techno-conglomerate salivate. The next day Apple was a chaotic mess without a strategic vision and certainly no future.
1997
I'm a Mac lover, but last year I switched over completely to Windoze because Apple couldn't build a reasonable laptop. I really want it to succeed, but I think the company's finished. Software vendors aren't turning out enough code to keep the Mac as a really good platform, even for family and school stuff. This whole NeXT decision seems to be a waste of time. It should have been sold to HP for $35 per share a year and a half ago.
2000
Steve Jobs can't run companies, but he has proven that he is a genius at motivating teams of people to produce extraordinary products. In fact, he may be the greatest project team leader in the history of high tech. That is no small achievement. But it does not translate to being the CEO of a giant corporation. Jobs failed the first time running Apple, failed at Next and only succeeded at Pixar because the company worked around him. He succeeded in the short term during this, his second, Apple tenure because he ran the whole company as a product team. That only works so long. Why is he a poor CEO? Because he's mercurial, insufficiently engaged by the more boring (but crucial) operations like distribution and, ultimately, because he's a pretty nasty piece of work. In the best of all scenarios, Jobs would hire a competent CEO and focus on product development, but his ego would soon lead him to undermine his replacement. Steve Jobs is Apple's Alcibiades: the company can't live without him, or with him.
Investors may be asking themselves what Apple can do to revive its fortunes. The likely answer, unfortunately, is that Steve Jobs has no white rabbits left in his hat. Apple appears to be facing a dead end in its business growth, the victim of mismanagement and unmitigated hubris. Apple lovers are a loyal bunch, and they'll probably stick with the company. But Jobs's dream of becoming the world's biggest computer-maker will likely remain just that -- a dream.
9 Million x 100 = 900 million not 9 billion
math fail!
if it was $20 profit per phone that would be $180 million profit
What you're experiencing is called cognitive dissonance. The idea that other people could prefer something that you yourself do not approve of can be difficult for those who cling to their beliefs as if they were some kind of religion. But companies aren't gods, and the choice of smart phone isn't a faith. They are products, and different people will make different choices based on what they value. Some will choose simply for the size or apparent superiority of the feature list, and others will choose based on finesse or ease any of a number of other factors. Those are their choices, and the fact that you made a different choice does not in any way mean that your choice should apply to everyone else.
Perhaps a bit of introspection on your part as to why you hold your beliefs so dear would be helpful.
The same can be applied to Apple zealots like yourself. When there are superior products available for less money, why buy Apple/
Because it's not a superior product.
Woosh.... and, woosh.... I didn't see him make any statement that would peg him as an Apple fanboy to somebody who is not an Android fundamentalist, nor did he explicitly say that Apple is better than Android. All he did was make a (apparently correct) diagnosis of cognitive dissonance. His only major point is that different people define superior product in different ways and that you two should get over it. Everything you two have said in those posts, and most of what you are likely to say in any future posts on this subject, just confirms his diagnosis of cognitive dissonance.
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Considering Apple's profit margins are in the 20-25% range that's not likely. 20% of $5.84 billion is $1.168 billion - that's already more than the 1$ billion revenue for GTA V.
video game sales are like movie tickets. people will buy it the first month its out and then forget about it
the iphone will be printing money for apple for the next 12 months. not like everyone is eligible for an upgrade now
Apple is now around or over 3/4s of the USA postpay market. Are you really going to argue that those people are being driven by fashion or are particularly fashion conscious?
I'd love to know who is still buying Apple devices when Android gizmos do pretty much the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
I'm no Apple Fanboy (home PCs run Windows & phone is a 4s) but I can see why people stick with what they have. At our house we have 2 iPods, an iPad, and my (company-issued) iPhone. They all seamlessly integrate with our MP3 and MP4 libraries in iTunes, and my under-sixes know how to work them all. Changing ecosystems is a PITA.
I'd love to know who is still buying Apple devices when Android gizmos do pretty much the same thing for a fraction of the cost.
Because the "fraction of the cost" argument doesn't apply to most people in the U.S. Its not the cost of the unsubsidized no-contract phone that most people see, its the cost of the subsidized phone with a contract. To most people an iPhone 5S is $200, a 5C is $100 and a 4S is free. Much like they see a Samsung Galaxy S4 for $200 rather than $600, and a Galaxy S III for free rather than $400.
...
Given the subsidy iOS and Android are basically equivalent in cost. What helps Apple is the app ecosystem. Apple gets more attention from developers, 4x the revenue per app download (over $0.08 on average vs under $0.02), less fragmentation to deal with (dev time and test time),
The 5S/5C was released in eleven worldwide markets simultaneously this year vs nine markets for last year's iPhone 5 release, including China. Me thinks the one-weekend sales figures aren't comparable.
i carry a GS3 and an iphone 5 daily
my Galaxy does a few things that I care about like upload stuff to evernote from an app that the iphone doesn't, but the iphone is a much better product overall
better quality apps overall
better games with xbox quality graphics on some
galaxy s3 is laggy
iphone touch screen is better
I wouldn't underestimate the huge inertia of sheepish customers who were actually "trained" to run out and buy the next phone iteration even if they don't need it.
This has nothing to do with intelligence, by the way. It's impulse-shopping, or, rather, compulsive shopping. The driving forces are varied:
- social status competition: Jack has bought the new thing, Jill must too.
- planned obsolescence perception: "the new phone appeared, therefore my current phone is OLD".
- bragging rights: "I bought this FIRST in my 'hood!"
- endorphin-inducing activities: "you DESERVE this phone, you will be HAPPY with this phone".
- hype (pretty much an ingredient for of all the above)
This is generally valid; it's not only for Apple products. However, Apple managed to perfect this method and instruct their customer base better than many others did. Besides, they were first to mass produce touchscreen phones and market them successfully.
Statistics *might* show (I am too lazy to research) that Android-based customers don't exhibit this behavior just as much, but there are reasons for it:
1. Some successfully resisted the iPhone fever when the first iPhone was released;
2. Some managed to uproot themselves from the Apple veggie garden and switch to another device (which is another form of resistance);
3. Some got pissed by some Apple decisions post-sell or simply didn't like some of the limitations (castrated BT stack, non-removable battery, lack of SD Card, etc) so moved to the next thing.
Therefore, the Android crowd is less "sheepish", so-to-speak. Again, this has little-to-nothing to do with intelligence, but mostly emotion and zeal.
To me, it's amazing that Apple's iPhone failed to establish a near-monopoly in the long term; they had all the prerequisites met, the touchscreen market was practically virgin at the time, all the world was theirs to invade and keep. My personal, maybe subjective opinion is that they failed in locking in the near-monopoly because:
- they kept the prices absurdly high;
- they inflexibly kept their walled garden shut;
- they ignored independent crowds which hate (by principle) to be locked in (aka "You HAVE to use iTunes" or "you HAVE to have a jailed phone");
- furthermore, they endlessly fought crowds' attempts to liberate the iPhone, alienating people more and more until many of them just said "fuck this, i'll switch".
Their very recent attempts to enter the cheaper market will probably be mildly successful, but I think it's a "too little, too late" attempt. They will likely grab a few % off the top (aka people who nearly could afford an iPhone 5S but were not quite there yet, financially), but the much larger "cheap smartphone" market will not care.
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
I think the whole point of the 5C was to remove manufacturing constraints of the case. Really the 5C is the 5 in a plastic shell. In years past, Apple would sell the previous model at a discount while ramping down production of the older line. The problem I think with doing it this time is the aluminum case of the 5 was more difficult to manufacturer than previous models. My understanding that they mill the cases which takes a great deal more time and expensive CNC machines. While Apple could devote more resources to assembling the 5S, they were going to be limited by the cases. The 5C using plastic bypasses the bottleneck.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Would the iPhone 5C exist if Android wasn't around? What would the prices and features be like? Same on Android. Fact is, consumers benefit from healthy competition in the smartphone market. It drives innovation and keeps prices in check. Why people want on side to fail is beyond me. I have an Android phone and am ecstatic to hear about the new iPhone success!
Only if Apple's profit margin is less than 20%. Typically it is more, so Apple made more profit than Riot made revenue.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
There's nothing interesting or revolutionary about the iPhone 5.
The 5 is discontinued, its the 5S that is of interest now. Personally I find the mobility coprocessor interesting. Instead of frequently getting a GPS fix the 5S can get a fix less frequently and determine intermediary positions by the motion it senses via the motion processor while the CPU and GPS circuits are powered down. It could greatly reduce battery usage during some activities.
Also as a developer I think the A7 CPU is interesting, opening up some new possibilities for apps. I used to do some work in computer vision, it may be more practical to do such stuff on the A7.
I think it's the perception of it, rather than the actual mathematical cost. Also it's a comfort zone thing, e.g. the time spent finding similar apps (some have the same name but are different in functionality, etc.)
...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
Since there's more Android phones sold, I'm sure you'll go troll the Android forums too, right?
To me, it's amazing that Apple's iPhone failed to establish a near-monopoly in the long term;
That is based on the assumption that monopoly was their goal; Apple isn't Microsoft. I think Apple's long term goals are more about making money than getting market domination. Would they like to sell more products? Yes, but they are not willing to sell things at a loss just for market share.
- they ignored independent crowds which hate (by principle) to be locked in (aka "You HAVE to use iTunes" or "you HAVE to have a jailed phone");
This the probably the same amount of people who want their phones to play Ogg. Also the walled garden was a selling point to many consumers who were tired of the Trojans and malware they got on other platforms. Yes you have to trust Apple, but the alternative isn't great.
Their very recent attempts to enter the cheaper market will probably be mildly successful, but I think it's a "too little, too late" attempt.
The 5C isn't an attempt to enter the cheap market. Pundits and analysts were all predicting it would; it's not. It's the same price as Apple prices on the older generation of phones.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Yup. No one wants is 4" phone. No one.....except 9 million people.....but other than that no one.
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
In the 1970s and early 1980s, Opel and Volkswagen were not known for the generous amount of equipment included as standard on their cars. Things like the passenger side wing mirror and IIRC even rear-window heating were optional extras on the base models.
Both companies sold models with the trim level indicated as 'C' (Golf C, Kadett C). Now, officially this was an abbreviation for 'Comfort', but as this was one of the lower-spec models, we always called them 'Crisis' instead.
and mcdonalds sold 100 million hamburgers over the same weekend. if you're trying to impress me, apple, you've failed.
I am sure Tim Cook is walking back to his office now, hands in pockets, head held low, shoulders slumped, and wondering what he can do to impress the "Hamburger Lady" if 9 million iPhones won't do it.
Gates has a charity that's halfway to curing malaria. Jobs parked in the handicap spot at work before he had cancer.
The comment below yours says *shipped". Sold != shipped.
We don't care how many are in stores, we care how many were actually bought by end customers.
I see. My mistake. So OP will go troll new Android sales news here on slashdot too then?
You don't think that anyone will get GTA5 for Christmas?
So Apple bought 9 million of their own phones. That would explain everything!
Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
I have to post anon because I work for AT&T. As normal this time of year all employees are on red alert, no new vacations can be scheduled because of the iphone release, and many of use have to go on mandatory overtime.
And yet you are here posting on Slashdot in the middle of the Monday morning after the launch. Go to work, hippie! ;-)
Apple, realizing it was an incremental update, laid down some new rules for us. Many of our call centers could not sell it, and we had to force the majority of users that normally called into to order it, to use our website.
Or Apple, realizing they wouldn't be able to have enough phones ready, tried to funnel people towards the websites so that they wouldn't be so frustrated by having to wait until October for their new phones.
Oddly enough our response to the new Iphone was less than stellar as it had been in previous years, and we saw very few customers seeing it as a must have device. And we were shipped absurdly small amounts of units so we could sell out quickly.
And yet Apple in total sold several million more units in the first weekend than in any other weekend after an iPhone introduction.
You can still get them in places like Best Buy, Radio Shack and Walmart.
Not in the ones I checked, but I guess the situation may be different where you live, so I'll take your word for it. (Oh, wait, you're an AC, so your word is worth even less than mine. Never mind.)
Plus 99.9 percent bought the phone at a subsidized price.
And as an AT&T employee you know that "subsidized" just means "We get the same money from you (actually more) by overcharging you for 2+ years. We still have to pay Apple close to full price."
Detractors tend to attribute Apples success to "hype," yet there are numerous products that have been heavily promoted and yet failed to sell. Consider Microsoft's "Surface" tablet/netbooks. Remember the ads with music and the acrobatic demonstrations of its clever (and brightly colored) keyboard covers. Brilliant ad, on a par with Apple's best. Yet the Surface tanked (Round two now coming up).
So what is it about Apple? At this point, it's not so much about the hype as about the brand. Most people who use Apple's products appreciate the attention that Apple gives to designing the user experience. It's subtle things like how fast Apple's phones and tablets respond to touch. Apple has built a reputation of only making premium products--no cheap, shoddily built stuff just to build market share. Other companies tend to have some good models and some not-so-good models. You buy Apple, and you know that you are getting a quality product that has been carefully tuned to optimize the user experience. You can trust Apple not to push specs at the expense of battery life, for example. So a lot of people probably ordered a new iPhone just because their old phone was two years old and out of contract, and based upon their previous experience with the company, and they trusted Apple to have something good. And judging from the early reviews, it appears that Apple has delivered once again.
Funny that no other technology company has been able to make their products fashionable or hire marketing firms.
You mean they made it better. First company to use 5 GB micro hard drives, when everyone else was using tiny flash storage or bulky notebook or even desktop hard drives. And used a 400 Mpbs interface when everyone else was using 11 Mpbs USB or even parallel. And a software interface that didn't suck hairy goat balls.
And yet Apple has either remained dominant or competitive in the markets it has chosen to pursue, long after bell bottoms have fallen in and out of fashion and back again. Almost as if they make decent products after all, and you're just casually playing the 'fashion' card to deny them any legitimacy.
Huh, interesting.