Indeed. Some people simply are not capable of safely handling or owning a firearm. Those people should not have one. Everyone else should have unrestricted access to whatever arms they can afford to buy.
More to the point, if a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, they can always electrocute themselves, drown themselves, poison themselves, drive their car off an overpass (and into freeway traffic, killing innocent people in the process), blow themselves up (likely killing innocent people in the process), rob a bank and taunt police into shooting them, jump off a bridge or building, slit their wrists (down, not across, so the damage can't be repaired), or come up with much more creative ways of killing themselves. Guns aren't even the most popular method, and for good reason; you stand a better chance of becoming brain damaged than dying from a self inflicted shot to the head.
Its simply not a big enough shift to be worth talking about.
I actually addressed that in a reply to someone else in this thread. You're right, but it's still entertaining to discuss. If you did not agree, I assume you would not have bothered carrying on the discussion for as long as you have.
"Suddenly" is your word. Worldwide smartphone affordability has been an ongoing trend for quite some time now.
Let me clarify, then, the entirety of untapped emerging mobile markets represents 2.5 billion people.
Apple didn't drop the headphone jack with the 6S, and their share dropped 1%.
Historically, "s" models have always lost share over their "non-s" predecessors. The 4s is an outlier, having maintained the highest share of any iPhone model for 2 consecutive quarters. Likewise, the "non-s" models have always gained over their "s" predecessors, the 5 being an outlier having to follow the 4s.
The 7 isn't following a statistical anomaly like the 4s, it is not an outlier, but it is bucking the trend of "non-s" models gaining share over their "s" predecessors. Why?
Where is he evidence that dropping the headphone jack has had a negative impact?
I never wholly attributed it to the headphone jack, you read me wrong. However, your only counter-explanation is growth in the low end; with 2.5 billion untapped potential sales in emerging markets, if the low-end had a sudden boom we would see much more growth in the market than the sub-par 19 million units we saw that quarter. That kind of destroys that theory.
Look at the data. Historically, the "s" series iPhones lose market share their predecessors and the following "non-s" model represents a gain in market share; the 4s is an outlier. The iPhone 7 is the first "non-s" iPhone to not gain market share over an "s" model.
I'm not saying it's because of the headphone jack, but I don't see anything else it could be, either. The market didn't suddenly explode, 19 million is sub-par growth and the iPhone failed to outpace it.
Funny, nobody who keeps telling me that can provide a source, or even the actual numbers. It's fine, I found them myself and was actually surprised to see 3.5 million more phones sold on the quarter in which the iPhone7 came out, compared to the quarter in which the iPhone6s came out; I didn't realize the market had grown by 19,000,000 devices in that quarter, enough that 3.5 million additional sales still represents a loss in market share.
However, if you're trying to read the market, market share means everything; when your sales are growing at a slower pace (or shrinking at a faster pace) than the market, the market is telling you they are less interested in your product than they once were.
When you consider that emerging mobile markets represent 2.5 billion people, a market increase of 19 million isn't really explained by that population buying suddenly affordable Android phones. No, the mobile networks in those countries are still being developed and cost of access is still the limiting factor; the availability of a $50 phone isn't going to give someone who can't afford an iPhone the ability to pay a $100/mo (or higher) phone bill. If you're referring to emerging populations within developed nations, the ability to finance whatever phone you want through pretty much any carrier means the iPhone is on the table for all of those users, as well.
If smartphones, and the associated service fees, suddenly became affordable to 2.5 billion people, we'd see more market growth than a paltry 19 million additional units sold; that only represents 0.76% of the so-called emerging markets to which you wish to attribute the iPhone's loss in market share. Wait, no, 3.5 million of that 19 million were iPhones, so we're really talking about 15.5 million units, or 0.62% of the population of emerging markets.
And this is ignoring the fact that the iPhone is sold worldwide, a fact which makes worldwide market share as relevant as can be.
According to the actual market share numbers, everything you quoted me saying is true. Have you looked at those numbers? I provided a link. Oh, that's right, you don't fact check before you lambaste.
The market grew faster than Apple's sales; that's why their share of the market (that's what market share is, since you clearly don't understand the concept) went down by nearly half a percent despite physically selling millions more units.
There is only one way that can happen: more people buy something else. There are three groups of consumer to consider: those who already own an iPhone (e.g. current iPhone users), those who own something else (not mentioned above; I'll explain why later since you clearly can't figure it out), and those who don't own a phone at all (e.g. new market entrants). When one or more of these groups decides to buy something that is not an iPhone at a higher rate than the remaining groups decide to buy iPhones, the iPhone loses market share. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but that was done for your sake; I'm not here to teach you, I'm just making sure others don't learn the same poor thinking habits you exhibit.
Why do iPhone owners and people who don't own any phone matter in this scenario, while people who own phones that aren't the iPhone don't? It's really simple, when you think about it, but that would be too much to ask of you, Plumpy, wouldn't it? I'll break it down, don't worry.
iPhone owners matter because we're looking at sales numbers, rather than total devices in use. If they don't buy another iPhone, they represent a decrease in market share; if they buy something else, they also represent an increase in someone else's market share, and an increased loss to iPhone's market share. New market entrants who don't buy an iPhone represent both a loss to iPhone's market share and an increase to someone else's.
People who already own something that is not an iPhone already represent a loss of market share for the iPhone and an increase in market share for someone else, in previous quarters. If they buy another non-iPhone device during the quarter we're looking at, they're neutral and we can ignore them. If they don't buy at all, decrease the market share of whatever device they own (remember, we're looking at a specific quarter, not total devices in use, so it doesn't matter if they're still using the device) and increase the iPhone's market share, relative to the quarter in which they made their last purchase. If one of these users were to, instead, buy an iPhone, the amount by which they increase the iPhone's market share, and by which they decrease the market share of their old device, is double. However, since we're studying a decrease in the iPhone's market share, people who either increased it or had no effect are not relevant. These people literally do not matter to us.
you couldn't make a point what that had to do with the headphone jack
And you can't form a grammatically correct sentence. It's ok, I deal with people like you all the time, I still understand what you're trying to say. Unfortunately, you also can't point out what any of this has to do with "cheap Android phones", either; that is to say, in terms you will understand, you couldn't make a point what that didn't have to do with the headphone jack.
As I said in my reply in the other thread where you sought me out to start an argument*, all the launch quarter numbers really tell us is how effective the marketing was. The real interesting numbers can't be discerned until after the new model comes out.
In reality, though, we're talking about less than half a percent; well within the margin of error for any study. That's what makes these discussions fun, the evidence really supports both sides of the argument equally, because, in reality, the evidence supports neither side. That is to s
Did I word my response poorly? Yes, I'll own that. However, my point still stands once you extract your cranium from your rectum and consider how the market voice actually works. Rather than waste my time explaining it all again here, I'll just link to my response to your other comment.
Got a link to something that shows that? I'm sure you don't, or you'd have provided it.
Now, I'll save you the trouble and tell you that yes, they did actually sell 3.5 million more iPhones this in the quarter in which the iPhone 7 launched than they did in the quarter in which the iPhone 6s launched. What the numbers available to us don't tell us is how many of each individual model were sold, we can only assume they were mostly iPhone 7 sales.
What's funny is you're the 3rd person who has made that claim without backing it up; I went out and found my own source after the 2nd of the lot of you failed to be able to support your own argument in even the most basic way: linking to someone else's research.
However, the fact still remains that the market grew faster than Apple's sales. I had not accounted for the market itself having grown by enough that 3.5 million additional sales would represent a loss in market share, because I did not consider it, because it is not relevant. The market, as a whole, has spoken, and the market has said they want fewer iPhones.
I don't know if you've ever worked with statistics or not, but it's really easy to lie with statistics and not even know you're doing it; typically, the first person you lie to with statistics is yourself. It's a trap you really need to be careful with, because it makes you really look like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Before you turn that on me and make yourself look like an even bigger ass, please read on.
Yes, they did sell more phones in the quarter after the iPhone 7 came out than they did in the quarter after the iPhone 6s came out; however, the raw sales numbers do not represent the will of the market (e.g. whether the market, as a whole, thinks a design decision was a good one or a bad one), so those are the wrong numbers to look at in the context of the discussion you butted into while attempting to respond to every one of my posts on this page. I was not aware of those numbers when I spoke, but that does not matter as those numbers are not relevant. I was also not aware of the growth of the market when I spoke, but that does not matter as those numbers are also irrelevant. What I was aware of when I spoke, as were you by way of a direct link to the data, is market share. Though, again, it seems you may not have been aware of the context in which that data was referenced.
Let me break it down a little better, not for your sake because I know you won't use the knowledge anyway, but for those who might be reading along.
If you have a population of 1000 people and 187 of them prefer the iPhone, that's 18.7% of the population, your market share is 18.7%. If your population then grows to 2000 people and 366 of them prefer the iPhone, sure, Apple physically sold more phones, but would they have with a population of 1000? Let's look: that's a 18.3% market share, 18.3% of the population bought iPhones. Put another way, in a population of 1000, Apple would only have sold 183 phones in that scenario. Last time I checked, 183 is less than 187.
This is called per-capita sales. It's the number that matters when you're trying to listen to what the market is telling you. In this instance, the market is telling Apple that it is less satisfied with the presentation of the iPhone 7 than it was with the presentation of the iPhone6s, which is what was actually being argued. Whether Apple physically sold more or fewer units is irrelevant, which is why I didn't initially dig for the data required to get that detail right; go ahead and blast me for it, though, if it makes you feel better about your own miserable life.
All launch-quarter comparisons really tell us is how effective the marketing of the product was (and, even at that, the market wasn't impressed with the iPhone 7). If people who bought during the initial wave of sales generally like the device, word of that will spre
A dock that I specifically mention in my post; as a matter of fact, I even linked to it!
The post I was replying to specifically mentioned the included adapter, and was in response to another post specifically mentioning charging while listening to music. Maybe read and understand the thread before replying? Hell, just reading the entire post you are replying to would be a start.
It really sucks because I was on the verge of getting an iPhone 7, my first iPhone since the 3Gs, until I learned it for sure was not coming with a headphone jack. I've been sticking with Android because iOS has, historically, not really been all that compatible with how I prefer to use my phone (though I love my iPad Pro, and the Air and Air2 that came before it); recent versions of iOS have remedied that. While I do use the headphone jack on occasion (enough that I would feel the pain of not having it), I don't use it often enough to warrant carrying a dongle at all times, or to remember where I last put the damn thing, so the iPhone 7 was right off the list, and the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus are inferior to the phone I already have.
We'll see what happens with the 7s and 8. I'm already invested in both ecosystems, so switching is easy if Apple makes something that fits the bill.
Or, you know, the real world, where the iPhone lost market share when the iPhone 7 was released. One of my best friends is an Apple fanboy just like you, I have lots of practice and nearly unlimited stamina when it comes to these idiotic arguments where the numbers very clearly support my side but my opponent's fanboyism blinds them to reality. That same fanboy friend of mine waited for the iPhone 7 to come out, then bought the 6s.
I don't know who is buying all of these iPhone 7s, I think I may have seen one in the wild but I'm not positive.
It's really kind of sad; I was considering getting an iPhone 7 myself until it was confirmed that they were reducing its functionality and flexibility. It would have gone nice with my iPad Pro 9.7", my MBPr, and the slew of other Apple gear around my apartment. Go ahead and think I'm just a hater; I'll just look around my apartment and know that you're wrong.
$50 emerging market Androids don't compete with the iPhone.
Which emerging markets are we talking about? The fact is that the market grew faster than Apple's sales. A proportionally larger portion of the market decided the iPhone 7 was not what they wanted, both by way of current iPhone users deciding not to upgrade and new market entrants deciding to buy something else. The market has spoken and the iPhone 7 is not what the market wants.
The sad part is, in all honesty, I found the sales numbers shortly after posting that and the iPhone 7 did actually sell 3.5 million more units than the iPhone 6s in its launch quarter. He'd actually have won the argument had he provided a source.
As they often do, Apple made a design decision here. Last quarter's sales suggest it was a good one.
If, indeed, Apple's last quarter sales numbers indicate that they made a good design decision, those numbers would represent an increase in units sold over previous iPhone launch quarters. They do not. Therefore, last quarter's sales do not, in fact, suggest that Apple made a good design decision.
But, then, you're not someone who rarely uses the jack. My response was to someone who rarely uses the jack and, thus, wouldn't carry the adapter with them like you or I would. Carrying it with you because you know you'll use it is, as you say, not that big of a deal; not having it when you need it, because you don't need it often and, thus, don't carry it... that is sort of a big deal. At least, as big of a deal as not having headphones or an AUX cable when needed; just how big of a deal that is will vary by user and circumstance, but it's bound the be a dealbreaker for a nontrivial number of users.
These quarterly results? The ones that show fewer launch-quarter sales than the every model since the 4s, with the exception of the 5s? Are those the quarterly results you're talking about? Or do you mean the ones that show increased revenue attributed to the considerable increase in the price of the device?
Revenue does not equal sales. Device sales are the number you want if you're trying to gauge market acceptance; and that number, for the iPhone 7, is down.
And I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at, but the iPhone has lost market share since the iPhone 7 came out. Sure, if you only look at the 2 previous quarters, their sales numbers are up from 11.8% of new phone sales, to 12.5% of new phone sales, to 18.3% of new phone sales when the iPhone 7 came out. But, if you compare the iPhone 7's launch quarter, to that of the iPhone 4s, 5, 5s, 6, and 6s, you'll see that Apple maintained 23% of new phone sales for two quarters with the 4s, then dropped to 20.9% with the 5, 17.4% with the 5s, rose back to 19.7% with the 6, dropped again to 18.7% with the 6s, and fell to 18.3% with the 7.
They peaked at the iPhone 4s and have been trending downward ever since. The only reason gross revenue for the iPhone 7 launch beat that of the iPhone 6s is that Apple decided to raise the price considerably; actual sales numbers do not lie, they are selling fewer of them than they would be if the masses wanted what they were selling. Perhaps they should look at what made people want the 4s and do more of that?
Most customers don't care about the headphone jack in the moment, while they're buying the new shiny.
What you're failing to notice is that most of them come to regret that missing port the first time they're in a car with an AUX port and no adapter (perhaps because they use Lightning or Bluetooth headphones and never took the adapter out of the box), oh when they realize that the $30 Lightning headphones they can get are about on par with $5 3.5mm earbuds, while $30 3.5mm headphones are about on par with $150 lightning headphones.
The one person I know who upgraded from a 6s to a 7 ended up trading it on Craigslist... for another 6s. Yes, that's a sample size of 1. Sure, you're going to say it's irrelevant. Whatever. It's proof that a nonzero number of iPhone users don't care about the headphone jack (as you said), until they do (as I said).
Add to that the sheer number of people who stuck with their older iPhones because the iPhone 7 didn't include the jack. I can count 5 without even thinking about it, and that's just from the pool of iPhone users I talk to regularly. All 5 of them (I don't talk the the other guy regularly, I only know of his situation because he messaged me specifically to let me know). Mind you, those aren't the only iPhone users I know; just the ones I talk to regularly enough to know what phone they use and why. None of them upgraded because they all use that port and none of them want to carry a fucking dongle.
None of them are on Slashdot. So, what was that about an echo chamber?
It depends. Does the directly-injected audio sound better or worse than what I can get from the jack depending on which dongle I use? Hell, does it even need a dongle? If not, does it sound better or worse than what I can get from the jack? If it's not an improvement over the status-quo, it's bone-headed to remove it. If, however, it's an improvement without requiring another piece of external hardware, I highly doubt you'll hear anyone bitching. After all, you'll have directly-injected audio to drown them out if they do.
Most Android phones come with a pair of headphones and can charge while using them, with nothing more than what's in the box. Can the free adapter you get with an iPhone do that? No? Then the default is reduced functionality, one more thing remember to carry with you, one more thing taking up space, one more thing to lose and have to replace, and one more thing to buy in order to restore the functionality the last model had.
Slashdot Mirror
Indeed. Some people simply are not capable of safely handling or owning a firearm. Those people should not have one. Everyone else should have unrestricted access to whatever arms they can afford to buy.
More to the point, if a suicidal person doesn't have a gun, they can always electrocute themselves, drown themselves, poison themselves, drive their car off an overpass (and into freeway traffic, killing innocent people in the process), blow themselves up (likely killing innocent people in the process), rob a bank and taunt police into shooting them, jump off a bridge or building, slit their wrists (down, not across, so the damage can't be repaired), or come up with much more creative ways of killing themselves. Guns aren't even the most popular method, and for good reason; you stand a better chance of becoming brain damaged than dying from a self inflicted shot to the head.
Its simply not a big enough shift to be worth talking about.
I actually addressed that in a reply to someone else in this thread. You're right, but it's still entertaining to discuss. If you did not agree, I assume you would not have bothered carrying on the discussion for as long as you have.
"Suddenly" is your word. Worldwide smartphone affordability has been an ongoing trend for quite some time now.
Let me clarify, then, the entirety of untapped emerging mobile markets represents 2.5 billion people.
Apple didn't drop the headphone jack with the 6S, and their share dropped 1%.
Historically, "s" models have always lost share over their "non-s" predecessors. The 4s is an outlier, having maintained the highest share of any iPhone model for 2 consecutive quarters. Likewise, the "non-s" models have always gained over their "s" predecessors, the 5 being an outlier having to follow the 4s.
The 7 isn't following a statistical anomaly like the 4s, it is not an outlier, but it is bucking the trend of "non-s" models gaining share over their "s" predecessors. Why?
Where is he evidence that dropping the headphone jack has had a negative impact?
I never wholly attributed it to the headphone jack, you read me wrong. However, your only counter-explanation is growth in the low end; with 2.5 billion untapped potential sales in emerging markets, if the low-end had a sudden boom we would see much more growth in the market than the sub-par 19 million units we saw that quarter. That kind of destroys that theory.
Look at the data. Historically, the "s" series iPhones lose market share their predecessors and the following "non-s" model represents a gain in market share; the 4s is an outlier. The iPhone 7 is the first "non-s" iPhone to not gain market share over an "s" model.
I'm not saying it's because of the headphone jack, but I don't see anything else it could be, either. The market didn't suddenly explode, 19 million is sub-par growth and the iPhone failed to outpace it.
Funny, nobody who keeps telling me that can provide a source, or even the actual numbers. It's fine, I found them myself and was actually surprised to see 3.5 million more phones sold on the quarter in which the iPhone7 came out, compared to the quarter in which the iPhone6s came out; I didn't realize the market had grown by 19,000,000 devices in that quarter, enough that 3.5 million additional sales still represents a loss in market share.
However, if you're trying to read the market, market share means everything; when your sales are growing at a slower pace (or shrinking at a faster pace) than the market, the market is telling you they are less interested in your product than they once were.
When you consider that emerging mobile markets represent 2.5 billion people, a market increase of 19 million isn't really explained by that population buying suddenly affordable Android phones. No, the mobile networks in those countries are still being developed and cost of access is still the limiting factor; the availability of a $50 phone isn't going to give someone who can't afford an iPhone the ability to pay a $100/mo (or higher) phone bill. If you're referring to emerging populations within developed nations, the ability to finance whatever phone you want through pretty much any carrier means the iPhone is on the table for all of those users, as well.
If smartphones, and the associated service fees, suddenly became affordable to 2.5 billion people, we'd see more market growth than a paltry 19 million additional units sold; that only represents 0.76% of the so-called emerging markets to which you wish to attribute the iPhone's loss in market share. Wait, no, 3.5 million of that 19 million were iPhones, so we're really talking about 15.5 million units, or 0.62% of the population of emerging markets.
And this is ignoring the fact that the iPhone is sold worldwide, a fact which makes worldwide market share as relevant as can be.
Even if anything you said were true
According to the actual market share numbers, everything you quoted me saying is true. Have you looked at those numbers? I provided a link. Oh, that's right, you don't fact check before you lambaste.
The market grew faster than Apple's sales; that's why their share of the market (that's what market share is, since you clearly don't understand the concept) went down by nearly half a percent despite physically selling millions more units.
There is only one way that can happen: more people buy something else. There are three groups of consumer to consider: those who already own an iPhone (e.g. current iPhone users), those who own something else (not mentioned above; I'll explain why later since you clearly can't figure it out), and those who don't own a phone at all (e.g. new market entrants). When one or more of these groups decides to buy something that is not an iPhone at a higher rate than the remaining groups decide to buy iPhones, the iPhone loses market share. That's a bit of an oversimplification, but that was done for your sake; I'm not here to teach you, I'm just making sure others don't learn the same poor thinking habits you exhibit.
Why do iPhone owners and people who don't own any phone matter in this scenario, while people who own phones that aren't the iPhone don't? It's really simple, when you think about it, but that would be too much to ask of you, Plumpy, wouldn't it? I'll break it down, don't worry.
iPhone owners matter because we're looking at sales numbers, rather than total devices in use. If they don't buy another iPhone, they represent a decrease in market share; if they buy something else, they also represent an increase in someone else's market share, and an increased loss to iPhone's market share. New market entrants who don't buy an iPhone represent both a loss to iPhone's market share and an increase to someone else's.
People who already own something that is not an iPhone already represent a loss of market share for the iPhone and an increase in market share for someone else, in previous quarters. If they buy another non-iPhone device during the quarter we're looking at, they're neutral and we can ignore them. If they don't buy at all, decrease the market share of whatever device they own (remember, we're looking at a specific quarter, not total devices in use, so it doesn't matter if they're still using the device) and increase the iPhone's market share, relative to the quarter in which they made their last purchase. If one of these users were to, instead, buy an iPhone, the amount by which they increase the iPhone's market share, and by which they decrease the market share of their old device, is double. However, since we're studying a decrease in the iPhone's market share, people who either increased it or had no effect are not relevant. These people literally do not matter to us.
you couldn't make a point what that had to do with the headphone jack
And you can't form a grammatically correct sentence. It's ok, I deal with people like you all the time, I still understand what you're trying to say. Unfortunately, you also can't point out what any of this has to do with "cheap Android phones", either; that is to say, in terms you will understand, you couldn't make a point what that didn't have to do with the headphone jack.
As I said in my reply in the other thread where you sought me out to start an argument*, all the launch quarter numbers really tell us is how effective the marketing was. The real interesting numbers can't be discerned until after the new model comes out.
In reality, though, we're talking about less than half a percent; well within the margin of error for any study. That's what makes these discussions fun, the evidence really supports both sides of the argument equally, because, in reality, the evidence supports neither side. That is to s
Did I word my response poorly? Yes, I'll own that. However, my point still stands once you extract your cranium from your rectum and consider how the market voice actually works. Rather than waste my time explaining it all again here, I'll just link to my response to your other comment.
But they sold more of them.
Got a link to something that shows that? I'm sure you don't, or you'd have provided it.
Now, I'll save you the trouble and tell you that yes, they did actually sell 3.5 million more iPhones this in the quarter in which the iPhone 7 launched than they did in the quarter in which the iPhone 6s launched. What the numbers available to us don't tell us is how many of each individual model were sold, we can only assume they were mostly iPhone 7 sales.
What's funny is you're the 3rd person who has made that claim without backing it up; I went out and found my own source after the 2nd of the lot of you failed to be able to support your own argument in even the most basic way: linking to someone else's research.
However, the fact still remains that the market grew faster than Apple's sales. I had not accounted for the market itself having grown by enough that 3.5 million additional sales would represent a loss in market share, because I did not consider it, because it is not relevant. The market, as a whole, has spoken, and the market has said they want fewer iPhones.
I don't know if you've ever worked with statistics or not, but it's really easy to lie with statistics and not even know you're doing it; typically, the first person you lie to with statistics is yourself. It's a trap you really need to be careful with, because it makes you really look like you don't have a clue what you're talking about. Before you turn that on me and make yourself look like an even bigger ass, please read on.
Yes, they did sell more phones in the quarter after the iPhone 7 came out than they did in the quarter after the iPhone 6s came out; however, the raw sales numbers do not represent the will of the market (e.g. whether the market, as a whole, thinks a design decision was a good one or a bad one), so those are the wrong numbers to look at in the context of the discussion you butted into while attempting to respond to every one of my posts on this page. I was not aware of those numbers when I spoke, but that does not matter as those numbers are not relevant. I was also not aware of the growth of the market when I spoke, but that does not matter as those numbers are also irrelevant. What I was aware of when I spoke, as were you by way of a direct link to the data, is market share. Though, again, it seems you may not have been aware of the context in which that data was referenced.
Let me break it down a little better, not for your sake because I know you won't use the knowledge anyway, but for those who might be reading along.
If you have a population of 1000 people and 187 of them prefer the iPhone, that's 18.7% of the population, your market share is 18.7%. If your population then grows to 2000 people and 366 of them prefer the iPhone, sure, Apple physically sold more phones, but would they have with a population of 1000? Let's look: that's a 18.3% market share, 18.3% of the population bought iPhones. Put another way, in a population of 1000, Apple would only have sold 183 phones in that scenario. Last time I checked, 183 is less than 187.
This is called per-capita sales. It's the number that matters when you're trying to listen to what the market is telling you. In this instance, the market is telling Apple that it is less satisfied with the presentation of the iPhone 7 than it was with the presentation of the iPhone6s, which is what was actually being argued. Whether Apple physically sold more or fewer units is irrelevant, which is why I didn't initially dig for the data required to get that detail right; go ahead and blast me for it, though, if it makes you feel better about your own miserable life.
All launch-quarter comparisons really tell us is how effective the marketing of the product was (and, even at that, the market wasn't impressed with the iPhone 7). If people who bought during the initial wave of sales generally like the device, word of that will spre
A dock that I specifically mention in my post; as a matter of fact, I even linked to it!
The post I was replying to specifically mentioned the included adapter, and was in response to another post specifically mentioning charging while listening to music. Maybe read and understand the thread before replying? Hell, just reading the entire post you are replying to would be a start.
It really sucks because I was on the verge of getting an iPhone 7, my first iPhone since the 3Gs, until I learned it for sure was not coming with a headphone jack. I've been sticking with Android because iOS has, historically, not really been all that compatible with how I prefer to use my phone (though I love my iPad Pro, and the Air and Air2 that came before it); recent versions of iOS have remedied that. While I do use the headphone jack on occasion (enough that I would feel the pain of not having it), I don't use it often enough to warrant carrying a dongle at all times, or to remember where I last put the damn thing, so the iPhone 7 was right off the list, and the iPhone 6s and 6s Plus are inferior to the phone I already have.
We'll see what happens with the 7s and 8. I'm already invested in both ecosystems, so switching is easy if Apple makes something that fits the bill.
Xen on Zen. 'nuf sed.
Or, you know, the real world, where the iPhone lost market share when the iPhone 7 was released. One of my best friends is an Apple fanboy just like you, I have lots of practice and nearly unlimited stamina when it comes to these idiotic arguments where the numbers very clearly support my side but my opponent's fanboyism blinds them to reality. That same fanboy friend of mine waited for the iPhone 7 to come out, then bought the 6s.
I don't know who is buying all of these iPhone 7s, I think I may have seen one in the wild but I'm not positive.
It's really kind of sad; I was considering getting an iPhone 7 myself until it was confirmed that they were reducing its functionality and flexibility. It would have gone nice with my iPad Pro 9.7", my MBPr, and the slew of other Apple gear around my apartment. Go ahead and think I'm just a hater; I'll just look around my apartment and know that you're wrong.
When nobody else will accept an attachment over 10MB, how useful is the ability to send them? There's a reason Google directs people to Google Drive.
$50 emerging market Androids don't compete with the iPhone.
Which emerging markets are we talking about? The fact is that the market grew faster than Apple's sales. A proportionally larger portion of the market decided the iPhone 7 was not what they wanted, both by way of current iPhone users deciding not to upgrade and new market entrants deciding to buy something else. The market has spoken and the iPhone 7 is not what the market wants.
The sad part is, in all honesty, I found the sales numbers shortly after posting that and the iPhone 7 did actually sell 3.5 million more units than the iPhone 6s in its launch quarter. He'd actually have won the argument had he provided a source.
They sold more iPhones than ever before.
Now I see why you don't get my point. You think they sold more phones than ever before. They did not. Did you even look at the numbers?
Do you have a different set of numbers? If so, maybe link your source so you don't look like a complete fucking dumbass?
As they often do, Apple made a design decision here. Last quarter's sales suggest it was a good one.
If, indeed, Apple's last quarter sales numbers indicate that they made a good design decision, those numbers would represent an increase in units sold over previous iPhone launch quarters. They do not. Therefore, last quarter's sales do not, in fact, suggest that Apple made a good design decision.
But, then, you're not someone who rarely uses the jack. My response was to someone who rarely uses the jack and, thus, wouldn't carry the adapter with them like you or I would. Carrying it with you because you know you'll use it is, as you say, not that big of a deal; not having it when you need it, because you don't need it often and, thus, don't carry it... that is sort of a big deal. At least, as big of a deal as not having headphones or an AUX cable when needed; just how big of a deal that is will vary by user and circumstance, but it's bound the be a dealbreaker for a nontrivial number of users.
These quarterly results? The ones that show fewer launch-quarter sales than the every model since the 4s, with the exception of the 5s? Are those the quarterly results you're talking about? Or do you mean the ones that show increased revenue attributed to the considerable increase in the price of the device?
Revenue does not equal sales. Device sales are the number you want if you're trying to gauge market acceptance; and that number, for the iPhone 7, is down.
As i said, it's not just my wife...
And I'm not sure what numbers you're looking at, but the iPhone has lost market share since the iPhone 7 came out. Sure, if you only look at the 2 previous quarters, their sales numbers are up from 11.8% of new phone sales, to 12.5% of new phone sales, to 18.3% of new phone sales when the iPhone 7 came out. But, if you compare the iPhone 7's launch quarter, to that of the iPhone 4s, 5, 5s, 6, and 6s, you'll see that Apple maintained 23% of new phone sales for two quarters with the 4s, then dropped to 20.9% with the 5, 17.4% with the 5s, rose back to 19.7% with the 6, dropped again to 18.7% with the 6s, and fell to 18.3% with the 7.
They peaked at the iPhone 4s and have been trending downward ever since. The only reason gross revenue for the iPhone 7 launch beat that of the iPhone 6s is that Apple decided to raise the price considerably; actual sales numbers do not lie, they are selling fewer of them than they would be if the masses wanted what they were selling. Perhaps they should look at what made people want the 4s and do more of that?
For the rare occasion when I might need one I'm screwed because I don't carry the adapter with me, because I rarely use the jack in the first place.
Fixed that for you. And this is why it's great to have the jack built into the phone.
Most customers don't care about the headphone jack in the moment, while they're buying the new shiny.
What you're failing to notice is that most of them come to regret that missing port the first time they're in a car with an AUX port and no adapter (perhaps because they use Lightning or Bluetooth headphones and never took the adapter out of the box), oh when they realize that the $30 Lightning headphones they can get are about on par with $5 3.5mm earbuds, while $30 3.5mm headphones are about on par with $150 lightning headphones.
The one person I know who upgraded from a 6s to a 7 ended up trading it on Craigslist... for another 6s. Yes, that's a sample size of 1. Sure, you're going to say it's irrelevant. Whatever. It's proof that a nonzero number of iPhone users don't care about the headphone jack (as you said), until they do (as I said).
Add to that the sheer number of people who stuck with their older iPhones because the iPhone 7 didn't include the jack. I can count 5 without even thinking about it, and that's just from the pool of iPhone users I talk to regularly. All 5 of them (I don't talk the the other guy regularly, I only know of his situation because he messaged me specifically to let me know). Mind you, those aren't the only iPhone users I know; just the ones I talk to regularly enough to know what phone they use and why. None of them upgraded because they all use that port and none of them want to carry a fucking dongle.
None of them are on Slashdot. So, what was that about an echo chamber?
It depends. Does the directly-injected audio sound better or worse than what I can get from the jack depending on which dongle I use? Hell, does it even need a dongle? If not, does it sound better or worse than what I can get from the jack? If it's not an improvement over the status-quo, it's bone-headed to remove it. If, however, it's an improvement without requiring another piece of external hardware, I highly doubt you'll hear anyone bitching. After all, you'll have directly-injected audio to drown them out if they do.
Most Android phones come with a pair of headphones and can charge while using them, with nothing more than what's in the box. Can the free adapter you get with an iPhone do that? No? Then the default is reduced functionality, one more thing remember to carry with you, one more thing taking up space, one more thing to lose and have to replace, and one more thing to buy in order to restore the functionality the last model had.