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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
That's good enough for me
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.
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
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
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!
Gates has a charity that's halfway to curing malaria. Jobs parked in the handicap spot at work before he had cancer.