Cingular cell phone service - Apple hits record success once again!

Author

Apple hits record success once again!

Oxford

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

The great news continues to roll in...

Apple is now more valuable than Hewlett Packard!

The iPhones did way better than expected, a bit over 1,500 sold every
minute in the 3rd Quarter. 270,000 sold in just 30 hours! That's 14
times faster than ATT has ever sold any cell phone.

iPhones go in to Europe (England, Germany, France) next quarter... Asia
in 08...

Apple Stock is up 11.50 points as of this post!

http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL

All the facts are here:

Apple Reports Third Quarter Results

Record June Quarter Revenue and Profit

Mac Sales Set New Record

CUPERTINO, California‹July 25, 2007‹Apple today announced financial
results for its fiscal 2007 third quarter ended June 30, 2007. The
Company posted revenue of $5.41 billion and net quarterly profit of $818
million, or $.92 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of
$4.37 billion and net quarterly profit of $472 million, or $.54 per
diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 36.9 percent,
up from 30.3 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales
accounted for 40 percent of the quarter¹s revenue.

Apple shipped 1,764,000 Macintosh® computers, representing 33 percent
growth over the year-ago quarter and exceeding the previous company
record for quarterly Mac® shipments by over 150,000. The Company also
sold 9,815,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 21 percent growth
over the year-ago quarter.

³We¹re thrilled to report the highest June quarter revenue and profit in
Apple¹s history, along with the highest quarterly Mac sales ever,² said
Steve Jobs, Apple¹s CEO. ³iPhone is off to a great start‹we hope to sell
our one-millionth iPhone by the end of its first full quarter of
sales‹and our new product pipeline is very strong.²

³We are very pleased to report strong financial results including cash
flow from operations exceeding $1.2 billion for the quarter,² said Peter
Oppenheimer, Apple¹s CFO. ³Looking ahead to the fourth fiscal quarter of
2007, we expect revenue of about $5.7 billion and earnings per diluted
share of about $.65.²

Apple will provide live streaming of its Q3 2007 financial results
conference call utilizing QuickTime®, Apple¹s standards-based technology
for live and on-demand audio and video streaming. The live webcast will
begin at 2:00 p.m. PDT on Wednesday, July 25, 2007 at
www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq307/ and will also be available for
replay. (it's now up and running)

http://www.apple.com/pr/library/2007/07/25results.html

-

Scott

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
958EC3.18130025072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:

> The great news continues to roll in...
>
> Apple is now more valuable than Hewlett Packard!
>
> The iPhones did way better than expected, a bit over 1,500 sold every
> minute in the 3rd Quarter. 270,000 sold in just 30 hours! That's 14
> times faster than ATT has ever sold any cell phone.
>
> iPhones go in to Europe (England, Germany, France) next quarter... Asia
> in 08...
>
> Apple Stock is up 11.50 points as of this post!
>
> http://finance.yahoo.com/q?s=AAPL
>
> All the facts are here:
>
> Apple Reports Third Quarter Results
>
> Record June Quarter Revenue and Profit
>
> Mac Sales Set New Record
>
<snip>

So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly
speakes to its contribution to the quarter.

Oxford

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly
> speakes to its contribution to the quarter.

do the math scott. 270,000 times $200 profit per unit, $54,000,000 out
of $818,000,000 and so while not "tiny", it's only 15% of Apple's Q3
profits.

The big gains with the Mac was the biggest news, then continued strong
iPod sales (even though they haven't been updated in about a year :)

Apple will hit 180 easy by christmas. Save your pennies Scott!

-hh

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

Scott <how...@you.do> wrote:
> Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly
> speakes to its contribution to the quarter.

"CUPERTINO, California..."

That's Paragaph 1

"Apple shipped 1,764,000 Macintosh=AE computers, representing..."

That's Paragraph 2

"We=B9re thrilled to report the highest June quarter revenue and profit
in
Apple=B9s history, along with the highest quarterly Mac sales ever,=B2
said
Steve Jobs, Apple=B9s CEO. =B3iPhone is off to a great start..."

Paragaph 3, third line: "iPhone is off to a great start..."

An honest mistake, right?

FYI, Paragraph 4 says that they expect to increase their gross revenue
by $300M for next quarter. YMMV to what degree that speakes to
contributions of what.

-hh

Todd Allcock

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

At 25 Jul 2007 19:37:51 -0500 Scott wrote:

> So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That
certainly
> speakes to its contribution to the quarter.

To be fair, the iPhone was available for only two out of the quarter's 91
days. If it had been the quarter's biggest news they'd have had a crappy
quarter!

--
Todd Allcock

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Oxford

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:

> certainly
>
> To be fair, the iPhone was available for only two out of the quarter's 91
> days. If it had been the quarter's biggest news they'd have had a crappy
> quarter!

and to be perfectly clear. it was really only 1.5 days.

they didn't start selling them until 6pm on Friday June 29th.

then all day saturday.

-

then a new quarter began.

(so technically... 6pm-12am the first night and 9 to 9 (roughly) on
saturday. so 18 hours of sales. (except the 1 nyc 24hr store) (not sure
about ATT hours) but no Apple Online iphone orders were activated during
that time since they didn't start arriving until later that first week.

so 18 hours to sell 270,000 units is way off the charts for any
electronic device. ranks up there even with iPods during christmas.

----

but to be fair, apple did screw up by releasing it 2 days before a full
quarter ended. if they would have waited just one week, they would have
hit the 3-4 million number for the 4th quarter and we wouldn't have seen
the 8 point drop from the erroneous ATT info, then a 12 point jump after
afters today.

Scott

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-FD265E.19045125072007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> do the math scott. 270,000 times $200 profit per unit, $54,000,000 out
> of $818,000,000 and so while not "tiny", it's only 15% of Apple's Q3
> profits.

You aren't real smart, are you? And you obviously didn't read the
financial report, either. If you're trying to look stupid, success has
been acheived.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/25/new...s.reut/index.ht
m

"The iPhone went on sale in the United States on June 29, but its impact on
Apple's results was limited because it was available only in the last two
days of the quarter and sales will be booked as subscription revenue over
two years."

The figures that I saw were in the order of $14 per phone booked for the
second quarter, not $200.

>
> The big gains with the Mac was the biggest news, then continued strong
> iPod sales (even though they haven't been updated in about a year :)
>
> Apple will hit 180 easy by christmas. Save your pennies Scott!
>

Won't have to save many.

Scott

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-B7055E.19494725072007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net:

> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> and to be perfectly clear. it was really only 1.5 days.
>
> they didn't start selling them until 6pm on Friday June 29th.
>
> then all day saturday.
>
> -
>
> then a new quarter began.
>
> (so technically... 6pm-12am the first night and 9 to 9 (roughly) on
> saturday. so 18 hours of sales. (except the 1 nyc 24hr store) (not
> sure about ATT hours) but no Apple Online iphone orders were activated
> during that time since they didn't start arriving until later that
> first week.
>
> so 18 hours to sell 270,000 units is way off the charts for any
> electronic device. ranks up there even with iPods during christmas.
>
> ----
>
> but to be fair, apple did screw up by releasing it 2 days before a
> full quarter ended. if they would have waited just one week, they
> would have hit the 3-4 million number for the 4th quarter and we
> wouldn't have seen the 8 point drop from the erroneous ATT info, then
> a 12 point jump after afters today.
>

The ATT info was accurate.

Mitch

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

In article < _72dneSlq49CcTrbnZ2d
nUVZ_jednZ2d@adelphi
a.com>, Scott
<how.do@you.do> wrote:

> So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly
> speakes to its contribution to the quarter.

Huh?
It's in the third paragraph, the very first place the CEO is quoted.

The first paragraph is for the meat of the release, anyway -- can't put
it there.
The second gives changes in the major lines, and yes, Macs and iPods
are most important.
How could anyone expect iPhone to be mentioned above the two most
critical lines of the company? Especially when it was sold for such a
short time! It's only the part many people were interested to read;
it's not the most important data they had to share.

Rick

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 18:13:00 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> The great news continues to roll in...
>
> Apple is now more valuable than Hewlett Packard!
>
(snip)
None of this drivel has anything to do with Linux. Please post your
cheerleading in Mac related groups.

--
Rick

Steve Hix

2007-07-25, 10:33 pm

Oxford

2007-07-26, 4:33 am

Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>
> The ATT info was accurate.

but not for sales. and many of the news outlets picked it up as "slow
sales". when it was really "slow activation" because ATT couldn't handle
that much demand.

the funny news item from this morning, was a channel i was watching said:

microsoft iphone off to a slow start ///// then some commercials, then
they went back and said apple's iphone may not be as popular as first
thought, then they quoted the erroneous ATT "activation" numbers, but
implied they were "sales" numbers, so i had a laugh over that one!

that's why i always use facts, it's easier that way.

Oxford

2007-07-26, 4:33 am

Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:

>
> You aren't real smart, are you? And you obviously didn't read the
> financial report, either. If you're trying to look stupid, success has
> been acheived.
>
> http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/25/new...s.reut/index.ht
> m
>
> "The iPhone went on sale in the United States on June 29, but its impact on
> Apple's results was limited because it was available only in the last two
> days of the quarter and sales will be booked as subscription revenue over
> two years."
>
> The figures that I saw were in the order of $14 per phone booked for the
> second quarter, not $200.

but you are confused. you are talking about the "subscription" kickback
to apple from ATT for each iphone contract. ZERO of those funds were in
the 3rd quarter numbers. (listen to the conference call)

the $200 is the PROFIT of each iphone, which certainly does appear on
the 3rd quarter numbers.

you were trying to talk about something else, cnn didn't word it
correctly so that's why you got confused.

>
> Won't have to save many.

great, then you are ready to invest in aapl.

Alan Baker

2007-07-26, 4:33 am

In article < _72dneSlq49CcTrbnZ2d
nUVZ_jednZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in news:colalovesmacs-
> 958EC3.18130025072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:
>
> <snip>
>
> So, no mention of the iPhone in the first five paragraphs. That certainly
> speakes to its contribution to the quarter.

Yeah...

Because it was expected to do so much for a quarter where it had been on
sale for a grand total of 1.25 days out of 91.25...

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Steve de Mena

2007-07-26, 4:33 am

Oxford wrote:
> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> but not for sales. and many of the news outlets picked it up as "slow
> sales". when it was really "slow activation" because ATT couldn't handle
> that much demand.

Both ATT and Apple said that only a small
percentage of people were affected by activation
issues.

Steve

John Bailo, Texeme.Construct

2007-07-26, 4:33 am

On Jul 25, 5:13 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
> The great news continues to roll in...

Translation:

1) The iPhone bombed
2) They continue to milk the iPod, but it's dwindling.
3) In the absense of being able to report any good consumer electonics
news, they come up with a lame story about selling more Macs (oh,
yeah, that's in America only -- Macs don't sell worldwide).

Speaking of Road Hogs that should get out da' way (for Linux/OSS to
move on) on the Road Ahead, Microsoft is a now a sidelined 1959
streamliner RV that finally came to rest in a ditch. Apple is a big
chugging 18-wheeler that has yet to give way and admit total defeat --
even though it's driver is old and deluded.

Hadron

2007-07-26, 4:33 am

"John Bailo, Texeme.Construct" <jabailo@texeme.com> writes:

> On Jul 25, 5:13 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Translation:
>
> 1) The iPhone bombed

,----
| http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/6916672.stm
|
| Apple has made strong three-month profits, helped by Mac and iPhone
| sales, even though the phones were only available for two days of the
| quarter.
|
| Apple sold 270,000 iPhones on the first two days of their US launch.
|
| Net income was $818m between April and June, up 73% from
| the same period of 2006.
`----

> 2) They continue to milk the iPod, but it's dwindling.
> 3) In the absense of being able to report any good consumer electonics
> news, they come up with a lame story about selling more Macs (oh,
> yeah, that's in America only -- Macs don't sell worldwide).
>
> Speaking of Road Hogs that should get out da' way (for Linux/OSS to
> move on) on the Road Ahead, Microsoft is a now a sidelined 1959
> streamliner RV that finally came to rest in a ditch. Apple is a big
> chugging 18-wheeler that has yet to give way and admit total defeat --
> even though it's driver is old and deluded.

Rick

2007-07-26, 7:33 am

On Wed, 25 Jul 2007 23:55:41 -0600, Oxford wrote:

> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
index.ht[color=darkred]
>
> but you are confused. you are talking about the "subscription" kickback
> to apple from ATT for each iphone contract. ZERO of those funds were in
> the 3rd quarter numbers. (listen to the conference call)
>
> the $200 is the PROFIT of each iphone, which certainly does appear on
> the 3rd quarter numbers.
>
> you were trying to talk about something else, cnn didn't word it
> correctly so that's why you got confused.
>
>
>
> great, then you are ready to invest in aapl.

This has nothing to do with Linux.

--
Rick

Rick

2007-07-26, 7:33 am

On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 00:59:09 -0700, John Bailo, Texeme.Construct wrote:

> On Jul 25, 5:13 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> Translation:
>
> 1) The iPhone bombed

The iPhone has not bombed by anyone's measure, but you.

> 2) They continue to milk the iPod, but it's dwindling.

They are not milking the iPhone.

> 3) In the absense
> of being able to report any good consumer electonics news, they come up

Just what do you consider good consumer electronics news?

> with a lame story about selling more Macs (oh, yeah, that's in America
> only -- Macs don't sell worldwide).

It doesn't matter where Macs do and don't sell, as long as they sell. And
apparently,Apple's selling more now then ever before.

>
> Speaking of Road Hogs that should get out da' way (for Linux/OSS to move
> on) on the Road Ahead,

OSS... you mean all those OSS projects Apple has either started, or
regularly contributes to?
<http://www.apple.com/opensource/>
And that includes Webkit.

> Microsoft is a now a sidelined 1959 streamliner
> RV that finally came to rest in a ditch.

Really? Then explain why the desktop market is still a Microsoft market.

> Apple is a big chugging
> 18-wheeler that has yet to give way and admit total defeat -- even
> though it's driver is old and deluded.

.... except that they continue to produce products that win new users and
win creative design awards.

Really, Bailo, you can find a lot of stuff to criticize Apple for without
having to create BS.

--
Rick

KDT

2007-07-26, 7:33 am

On Jul 26, 3:59 am, "John Bailo, Texeme.Construct"
<jaba...@texeme.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 5:13 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> Translation:
>
> 1) The iPhone bombed

270,000 units sold in 30 hours is considered bombing?

> 2) They continue to milk the iPod, but it's dwindling.

iPod sales increased compared to the same quarter a year ago.

> 3) In the absense of being able to report any good consumer electonics
> news, they come up with a lame story about selling more Macs (oh,
> yeah, that's in America only -- Macs don't sell worldwide).

So Apple sold more iPods, Macs, and iPhones (obviously) than the same
quarter a year ago, is more profitable than any other electronics/
computer reseller in the world besides HP.and has a higher market cap
than any other electronics company in the world, except for HP.

Peter Hayes

2007-07-26, 12:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> Todd Allcock < elecconnec@AmericaOn
Line.com> wrote:
>
>
> and to be perfectly clear. it was really only 1.5 days.
>
> they didn't start selling them until 6pm on Friday June 29th.
>
> then all day saturday.
>
> -
>
> then a new quarter began.
>
> (so technically... 6pm-12am the first night and 9 to 9 (roughly) on
> saturday. so 18 hours of sales. (except the 1 nyc 24hr store) (not sure
> about ATT hours) but no Apple Online iphone orders were activated during
> that time since they didn't start arriving until later that first week.
>
> so 18 hours to sell 270,000 units is way off the charts for any
> electronic device. ranks up there even with iPods during christmas.

"18 hours to sell 270,000 units" is a completely bogus statement and
bears no relationship to reality.

The 270,000 will be the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's
warehouse and therefore logged as "sales" by Apple. These phones will
obviously have been sent out prior to the 29th embargo so we don't know
over what time period Apple sold them. All we know is that they shipped
270,000 devices to dealers in Q3.

> but to be fair, apple did screw up by releasing it 2 days before a full
> quarter ended. if they would have waited just one week, they would have
> hit the 3-4 million number for the 4th quarter and we wouldn't have seen
> the 8 point drop from the erroneous ATT info, then a 12 point jump after
> afters today.

But no headlines that the gullable can spin...

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Edwin

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

On Jul 25, 7:13 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:

> The great news continues to roll in...

http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...0,2183429.story

Shares fall on soft demand for iPhone

Bloomberg News
July 25, 2007

NEW YORK - Apple Inc. stock fell 6 percent Tuesday on signs that
demand for the new iPhone could fail to meet investors' expectations.

Activations from AT&T Inc., the exclusive carrier for the iPhone, are
a "disappointment," Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst Gene Munster said.

AT&T said Tuesday that it activated 146,000 of the phones in the first
two days of the sales agreement.

CIBC World Markets said that demand for the iPhone has had a
"significant decline" in the past 10 days and that Apple and AT&T
might try to boost demand by increasing their marketing efforts. Apple
introduced the iPhone in the U.S. on June 29.

"We have noticed decent inventories at stores and thin demand at
best," CIBC analyst Ittai Kidron wrote in a note. "Among the stores we
visited, most visitors were not looking at the device, and only a very
small subset bought it."

Shares of Apple fell $8.81, or 6.1 percent, to $134.89, on the Nasdaq
stock market.

http://www.silvermac.com/2007/iphone-disappointment/

"While I find iPhone, the Apple's one, to be a very fine product, I
think it will be out of reach of many due to its high price and the
compulsory two years contract with the mobile carrier company. In the
US this is Cingular, in Australia very likely to be Telstra. Data
transfer via GSM network is very expensive in Australia and I think
owning an iPhone down here will be a very costly luxury."

Oxford

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

>
> "18 hours to sell 270,000 units" is a completely bogus statement and
> bears no relationship to reality.
>
> The 270,000 will be the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's
> warehouse and therefore logged as "sales" by Apple. These phones will
> obviously have been sent out prior to the 29th embargo so we don't know
> over what time period Apple sold them. All we know is that they shipped
> 270,000 devices to dealers in Q3.

incorrect peter, apple does not "account" for a sale until it has been
sold and has left apple's property. so while the ATT iphones were likely
counted as "sold" since they left apple's inventory/property. an iphone
cannot be part of the 270K number unless it is "sold" and "shipped".

outside of ATT, "apple" was the only other "dealer" of the iphone.

>
> But no headlines that the gullable can spin...

yeah, people in the know surely laughed at the news orgs for messing
that up, and you can be sure heads rolled at ATT because that number
should not have been allowed to be issued.

KDT

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

On Jul 26, 1:53 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Jul 25, 7:13 pm, Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> http://www.chicagotribune.com/busin...br /> ,0,218...
>
> Shares fall on soft demand for iPhone
>
> Bloomberg News
> July 25, 2007
>
> NEW YORK - Apple Inc. stock fell 6 percent Tuesday on signs that
> demand for the new iPhone could fail to meet investors' expectations.
>
> Activations from AT&T Inc., the exclusive carrier for the iPhone, are
> a "disappointment," Piper Jaffray & Co. analyst Gene Munster said.
>
> AT&T said Tuesday that it activated 146,000 of the phones in the first
> two days of the sales agreement.
>
> CIBC World Markets said that demand for the iPhone has had a
> "significant decline" in the past 10 days and that Apple and AT&T
> might try to boost demand by increasing their marketing efforts. Apple
> introduced the iPhone in the U.S. on June 29.
>
> "We have noticed decent inventories at stores and thin demand at
> best," CIBC analyst Ittai Kidron wrote in a note. "Among the stores we
> visited, most visitors were not looking at the device, and only a very
> small subset bought it."
>
> Shares of Apple fell $8.81, or 6.1 percent, to $134.89, on the Nasdaq
> stock market.
>
> http://www.silvermac.com/2007/iphone-disappointment/
>
> "While I find iPhone, the Apple's one, to be a very fine product, I
> think it will be out of reach of many due to its high price and the
> compulsory two years contract with the mobile carrier company. In the
> US this is Cingular, in Australia very likely to be Telstra. Data
> transfer via GSM network is very expensive in Australia and I think
> owning an iPhone down here will be a very costly luxury."

Why are you posting old news, Edwin?

Apple's stock price is now at $143.71 -- right back to where it was
before the AT&T announcement. Apple also announced that they sold
270,000 as opposed to the 143,000 that AT&T said were activated.

Edwin

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

On Jul 26, 1:23 pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:53 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Why are you posting old news, Edwin?

I'm not.

> Apple's stock price is now at $143.71 -- right back to where it was
> before the AT&T announcement. Apple also announced that they sold
> 270,000 as opposed to the 143,000 that AT&T said were activated.

It's the activation figure that counts.

Alan Baker

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

In article <1185475761.173468.100980@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

>
> I'm not.

Yeah, you are.

>
>
> It's the activation figure that counts.

Why?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Edwin

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

On Jul 26, 1:55 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <1185475761.173468.100...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Yeah, you are.

You're lying again.

>
>
>
> Why?

You need to be told why? Really?

Alan Baker

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

In article <1185476330.611978.21860@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> On Jul 26, 1:55 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> You're lying again.

Nope. Tuesday's news is old news in the stock market.

>
>
> You need to be told why? Really?

Because you're making a claim. According to "netiquette" (in which you
put so much trust... ...until you want to abuse it), you should support
your claim.

If Apple were to sell 10 million iPhones and none ever got activated,
why would that matter?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

KDT

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

On Jul 26, 2:49 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 1:23 pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I'm not.
>
>
> It's the activation figure that counts.

By who's metric? Apple makes money when the unit is sold, whether or
not its activated. Apple cares about sells, AT&T cares about
activations.

Edwin

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

On Jul 26, 2:24 pm, KDT <scarface...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2:49 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> By who's metric? Apple makes money when the unit is sold, whether or
> not its activated. Apple cares about sells, AT&T cares about
> activations.

You think people are going to keep unactivated iPhones? Really?

Edwin

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

On Jul 26, 2:13 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <1185476330.611978.21...@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Nope. Tuesday's news is old news in the stock market.

Yet you Maccies present five and ten year old TCO studies as if
they're relevant today.

News of Apple's iPhone failure has not become too old to mention, no
matter how fast you spin.

>
>
>
>
>
> Because you're making a claim. According to "netiquette" (in which you
> put so much trust... ...until you want to abuse it), you should support
> your claim.

IOW, you're about to support your claim that the Mayor said Apple is
going out of business, more times than anybody can count? It's been
years and you still haven't fulfilled the "netiquette" of supporting
your claim.

Now you have some extra claims to support:

Your claim I "put so much trust" in netiquette... and...

.... that I've done something to "abuse it" that isn't regularly done
by you and your fellow Maccies.

> If Apple were to sell 10 million iPhones and none ever got activated,
> why would that matter?

You're really stupid enough to think 10 million people are going to
buy iPhones without using them as phones?

You're really stupid enough to need to be told why activation matters?

Alan Baker

2007-07-26, 3:33 pm

In article <1185480707.007542.108940@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> On Jul 26, 2:13 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Yet you Maccies present five and ten year old TCO studies as if
> they're relevant today.

I do? Show a quote...

Hint, Edwin: there is no "you Maccies" for whose opinions and statements
I am responsible.

But even you should be able to figure out that different kinds of
information have different useful lives.

>
> News of Apple's iPhone failure has not become too old to mention, no
> matter how fast you spin.

If there were really such news, you'd have a point.

Apple's stock price falling briefly is not such news.

>
>
> IOW, you're about to support your claim that the Mayor said Apple is
> going out of business, more times than anybody can count? It's been
> years and you still haven't fulfilled the "netiquette" of supporting
> your claim.

I at least admitted it when I couldn't.

>
> Now you have some extra claims to support:
>
> Your claim I "put so much trust" in netiquette... and...
>
> ... that I've done something to "abuse it" that isn't regularly done
> by you and your fellow Maccies.

Now you have something more to claim, don't you?

>
>
>
> You're really stupid enough to think 10 million people are going to
> buy iPhones without using them as phones?

No. You apparently are, however.

Hint: just because AT&T's activation data doesn't match Apple's in the
extremely short term, doesn't mean that the iPhones that apparently
hadn't been activated at that time aren't activated *now*.

>
> You're really stupid enough to need to be told why activation matters?

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Sandman

2007-07-26, 10:33 pm

In article <1185480707.007542.108940@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

>
> IOW, you're about to support your claim that the Mayor said Apple is
> going out of business, more times than anybody can count? It's been
> years and you still haven't fulfilled the "netiquette" of supporting
> your claim.

Been there, done that.

--
Sandman[.net]

Tim Smith

2007-07-26, 10:33 pm

On 2007-07-26, Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> You think people are going to keep unactivated iPhones? Really?

What makes you think those people won't be activating their phones?
I'm not aware of there being any kind of limit on activation that
requires you to activate within 48 hours of purchasing the phone.

Todd Allcock

2007-07-26, 10:33 pm

At 26 Jul 2007 19:13:25 +0000 Alan Baker wrote:

> If Apple were to sell 10 million iPhones and none ever got activated,
> why would that matter?

Because, while successful as a retail product, it would show Apple
completely missed it's mark.

Apple claims that the iPhone was needed because current phones are too
complicated to use, etc. and that the iPhone would revolutionize the
wireless phone industry.

10 million unactivated phones would simply mean that Apple got it all
wrong, and the public didn't want a revolutionary phone, they simply
wanted a touchscreen iPod Video with wi-fi.

This of courxe, would damage Apple's negotiations with wireless carriers
worldwide, since the iPhone would come up short in the all-important
WIIFM feature in the potential carrier's eyes. (What's In It For Me.)

Not that there's anything wrong with that if they still were able to
shovel millions of unacivated phones into customer's hands, but it would
be an "accidental success" like the "New Coke" debacle that bolstered
Coke's share of the soft drink market.

--
Todd Allcock

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or
double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and
whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

Peter Hayes

2007-07-26, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> incorrect peter, apple does not "account" for a sale until it has been
> sold and has left apple's property. so while the ATT iphones were likely
> counted as "sold" since they left apple's inventory/property. an iphone
> cannot be part of the 270K number unless it is "sold" and "shipped".

Well, blow me, "apple does not account for a sale until it has been sold
and has left apple's property" sounds an awful like "the 270,000 will be
the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's warehouse and therefore
logged as "sales" by Apple."

Spot the difference, because I can't. They've still been sold and
shipped long before the embargo expired. Therefore "'18 hours to sell
270,000 units' is [still] a completely bogus statement and bears no
relationship to reality."

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Edwin

2007-07-26, 10:33 pm

On Jul 26, 3:24 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <1185480707.007542.108...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I do? Show a quote...

Right after you show a quote of me saying I never used a nick in a
thread title.

> Hint, Edwin: there is no "you Maccies" for whose opinions and statements
> I am responsible.

You're lying again.

> But even you should be able to figure out that different kinds of
> information have different useful lives.

Even you should be able to figure out its futile to attempt to dismiss
recent news of an Apple failure by mislabeling it as "old news."

>
>
> If there were really such news, you'd have a point.

Thanks for admitting I have a point.

> Apple's stock price falling briefly is not such news.

Sure it is. Euphoria has over-inflated Apple's stock prices.
Anything that cuts through that fog for even a short time has to be
really bad.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I at least admitted it when I couldn't.

After you were pressed for years. You're relentless in your demands
for quotes from others, and you hold them discredited if they won't
comply, yet somehow you think you're let off the hook by simply saying
you can't find the quotes to back your claims.

>
>
>
> Now you have something more to claim, don't you?

Where's your support for your claims above?

>
>
>
> No. You apparently are, however.

You have that backwards, as usual. You're the one who supposed 10
million iPhones would be sold without activation, not I.

> Hint: just because AT&T's activation data doesn't match Apple's in the
> extremely short term, doesn't mean that the iPhones that apparently
> hadn't been activated at that time aren't activated *now*.

You may now post figures to show the shortfall in activations has been
remedied.

AT&T will be very relived, to say the least. Please contact them as
soon as possible.

Do you have any reason why your arguments didn't occur to the
"disappointed" AT&T or to those analysts that dropped Apple's stock
price? I ask for information only.
[color=darkred]

I take your answer to be "yes."

Oxford

2007-07-26, 10:33 pm

notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

>
> Well, blow me, "apple does not account for a sale until it has been sold
> and has left apple's property" sounds an awful like "the 270,000 will be
> the number of mobiles despatched from Apple's warehouse and therefore
> logged as "sales" by Apple."

you'd be correct if some of these phones went to CompUSA, MacMall,
BestBuy, etc... but an iPhone that travels from China to an Apple Store
is still in "inventory", so is not "considered" sold until the customer
pays and leaves through the glass doors. It's a legal accounting thing.

So the 270,000 number are all 100% SOLD iphones, they do not include any
in Apple's 2, 3 day supply of inventory.

> Spot the difference, because I can't. They've still been sold and
> shipped long before the embargo expired. Therefore "'18 hours to sell
> 270,000 units' is [still] a completely bogus statement and bears no
> relationship to reality."

Except that the 270,000 number are all legally "sold" units, if Apple
has 20,000 sitting inside the Apple Stores, or in Elk Grove / Webstore,
they were not part of that 270,000 number. That would be illegal to
count them as "sales".

Scott

2007-07-26, 10:33 pm

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote in
news:colalovesmacs-1EBA3D.23554125072007@mpls-nnrp-02.inet.qwest.net:

> Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:
>
>
> but you are confused. you are talking about the "subscription"
> kickback to apple from ATT for each iphone contract. ZERO of those
> funds were in the 3rd quarter numbers. (listen to the conference call)

I did- that's where my number came from. Next?

>

Peter Hayes

2007-07-27, 4:33 am

Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:

> notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
>
> you'd be correct if some of these phones went to CompUSA, MacMall,
> BestBuy, etc... but an iPhone that travels from China to an Apple Store
> is still in "inventory", so is not "considered" sold until the customer
> pays and leaves through the glass doors. It's a legal accounting thing.
>
> So the 270,000 number are all 100% SOLD iphones, they do not include any
> in Apple's 2, 3 day supply of inventory.
>
>
> Except that the 270,000 number are all legally "sold" units, if Apple
> has 20,000 sitting inside the Apple Stores, or in Elk Grove / Webstore,
> they were not part of that 270,000 number. That would be illegal to
> count them as "sales".

Sure, and they are still counted as sales even though they were unsold
by AT&T. At the end of Q3 there were 270,000 mobiles sold by Apple,
precisely how many were actually in the hands of users is unknown.
Furthermore, these Apple sales were over a period of days, if not weeks,
therefore "18 hours to sell 270,000 units' is still a completely bogus
statement and bears no relationship to reality.

270,000 is an excellent figure, even though the product was hyped beyond
belief, but the hyperbole over sales performance can't go unchallenged.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Tim Murray

2007-07-27, 7:33 am

On Jul 26, 2007, Edwin wrote:
>
> I'm not.

This is the internet, Edwin. Those were old news items.

Tim Murray

2007-07-27, 7:33 am

On Jul 26, 2007, Todd Allcock wrote:
>
> Because, while successful as a retail product, it would show Apple
> completely missed it's mark.

Thank you for doing what Edwin cannot: Support a position.

chrisv

2007-07-27, 10:33 am

Todd Allcock wrote:

>Apple claims that the iPhone was needed because current phones are too
>complicated to use, etc. and that the iPhone would revolutionize the
>wireless phone industry.

If current phones are too complicated to use, it's because some seem
to be designed to primarily be a vehicle to sell you ring-tones and
such, instead of just being a God-damned phone.

KDT

2007-07-27, 10:33 am

On Jul 27, 4:41 am, notinu...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
> Oxford <colalovesm...@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Sure, and they are still counted as sales even though they were unsold
> by AT&T. At the end of Q3 there were 270,000 mobiles sold by Apple,
> precisely how many were actually in the hands of users is unknown.
> Furthermore, these Apple sales were over a period of days, if not weeks,
> therefore "18 hours to sell 270,000 units' is still a completely bogus
> statement and bears no relationship to reality.

How is it bogus? The iPhone went on sale at 6:00 pm Friday the 29th,
Apple's quarter ended Saturday. All of the reports said that AT&T
stores had no inventory left but the Apple stores did.

Kurt

2007-07-27, 12:33 pm

In article <1i1wk7w. xawuu61te5wt2N%notin
use2@btinternet.com>,
notinuse2@btinternet
.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:

> Oxford <colalovesmacs@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sure, and they are still counted as sales even though they were unsold
> by AT&T. At the end of Q3 there were 270,000 mobiles sold by Apple,
> precisely how many were actually in the hands of users is unknown.
> Furthermore, these Apple sales were over a period of days, if not weeks,
> therefore "18 hours to sell 270,000 units' is still a completely bogus
> statement and bears no relationship to reality.
>
> 270,000 is an excellent figure, even though the product was hyped beyond
> belief, but the hyperbole over sales performance can't go unchallenged.

I own one. It lives up to the hype - something I've never seen happen
with too many other products that I can remember.

--
To reply by email, remove the word "space"

Edwin

2007-07-27, 12:33 pm

On Jul 26, 4:02 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> On 2007-07-26, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> What makes you think those people won't be activating their phones?

I don't think the sales estimates were realistic.

> I'm not aware of there being any kind of limit on activation that
> requires you to activate within 48 hours of purchasing the phone.

What will you say after the days mount higher?

waterskidoo

2007-07-27, 12:33 pm

On 2007-07-27, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Todd Allcock wrote:
>
>
> If current phones are too complicated to use, it's because some seem
> to be designed to primarily be a vehicle to sell you ring-tones and
> such, instead of just being a God-damned phone.

That's true, and Verizon is famous for crippling phones features in
order to force you into downloading and paying for ring tones and
other features. Fortunately the geeks that dissect these things
quickly come up with other methods to work around these
limitations. The bad part is most people don't know about
them.

Peter Hayes

2007-07-27, 12:33 pm

KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Jul 27, 4:41 am, notinu...@btinternet.com (Peter Hayes) wrote:
>
> How is it bogus? The iPhone went on sale at 6:00 pm Friday the 29th,
> Apple's quarter ended Saturday. All of the reports said that AT&T
> stores had no inventory left but the Apple stores did.

The bogus part is Oxford's claim that "18 hours to sell 270,000 units is
way off the charts for any electronic device."

<colalovesmacs-B7055E.19494725072007@mpls-nnrp-05.inet.qwest.net>

Apple shipped phones to dealers over a period prior to the 29th. These
are included in the 270,000 allegedly sold by Apple in Q3 but they
certainly weren't "sold in 18 hours". They were sold over many days as
they left Apple's warehouses for AT&T.

--

Immunity is better than innoculation.

Peter

Sandman

2007-07-27, 3:33 pm

In article <1185551403.754703.54330@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> On Jul 26, 4:02 pm, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
>
> I don't think the sales estimates were realistic.
>
>
> What will you say after the days mount higher?

How many days have it been now, generally speaking? You seem to sit on
the facts on this one. :)

--
Sandman[.net]

Kier

2007-07-27, 3:33 pm

On Fri, 27 Jul 2007 15:55:46 +0000, waterskidoo wrote:

> On 2007-07-27, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> That's true, and Verizon is famous for crippling phones features in
> order to force you into downloading and paying for ring tones and
> other features. Fortunately the geeks that dissect these things
> quickly come up with other methods to work around these
> limitations. The bad part is most people don't know about
> them.

One old phone I had, you could make up your own. They weren't very complex
tunes you could create, but it was fun to be able to put together your own
unique ringtone.

I don't buy many, as I'm on pay-as-you-go, but I don't object to paying a
reasonable price (no more than a couple of quid counts as reasonable to me).

--
Kier

Edwin

2007-07-27, 3:33 pm

On Jul 27, 1:59 pm, Sandman <m...@sandman.net> wrote:
> In article <1185551403.754703.54...@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How many days have it been now, generally speaking? You seem to sit on
> the facts on this one. :)

The iPhone was launched on June 29th. How many days has that been?

Does it take longer than a month to activate an iPhone? If so, it
must really be a POS...

Edwin

2007-07-27, 3:33 pm

On Jul 27, 5:31 am, Tim Murray <no-s...@thankyou.com> wrote:
> On Jul 26, 2007, Edwin wrote:
>
>
>
> This is the internet, Edwin.

This is Usenet, Tim.

>Those were old news items.

That won't become true no matter how loudly you yell it, nor how often
you repeat it, nor how hard you stomp your feet.

Sandman

2007-07-27, 3:33 pm

In article <1185565394.190276.193570@w3g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

>
> The iPhone was launched on June 29th. How many days has that been?

Ah, so no one has activated an iPhone since the first 146 000? What is
your claim?

> Does it take longer than a month to activate an iPhone? If so, it
> must really be a POS...

Activation isn't a function of the phone, Edwin. It's something AT&T
does.

--
Sandman[.net]

Tim Smith

2007-07-27, 10:33 pm

On 2007-07-27, Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> The iPhone was launched on June 29th. How many days has that been?
>
> Does it take longer than a month to activate an iPhone? If so, it
> must really be a POS...

Do you have numbers for how many have been activated *after* the two-day
period for which numbers were reported?

Alan Baker

2007-07-27, 10:33 pm

In article <1185489488.902317.170780@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:

> On Jul 26, 3:24 pm, Alan Baker <alangba...@telus.net> wrote:
>
> Right after you show a quote of me saying I never used a nick in a
> thread title.
>
>
> You're lying again.
>
>
> Even you should be able to figure out its futile to attempt to dismiss
> recent news of an Apple failure by mislabeling it as "old news."

So every downtick in Apple's stock indicates an Apple failure...

>
>
> Thanks for admitting I have a point.

Sorry, but that's incorrect.

>
>
> Sure it is. Euphoria has over-inflated Apple's stock prices.
> Anything that cuts through that fog for even a short time has to be
> really bad.

....but any uptick is just "euphoria", is that right?

>
>
> After you were pressed for years. You're relentless in your demands
> for quotes from others, and you hold them discredited if they won't
> comply, yet somehow you think you're let off the hook by simply saying
> you can't find the quotes to back your claims.

"Pressed for years"? Please, I'd like to see the quotes.

>
>
> Where's your support for your claims above?

You started the game, Edwin. I'm just continuing it.

>
>
> You have that backwards, as usual. You're the one who supposed 10
> million iPhones would be sold without activation, not I.

No. I didn't. I posed a hypothetical case and asked you for an
explanation.

>
>
> You may now post figures to show the shortfall in activations has been
> remedied.

Nope. Why are you under this strange delusion that there are going to be
daily updates about a simple business transaction?

>
> AT&T will be very relived, to say the least. Please contact them as
> soon as possible.
>
> Do you have any reason why your arguments didn't occur to the
> "disappointed" AT&T or to those analysts that dropped Apple's stock
> price? I ask for information only.

Yes. We don't know precisely why AT&T was disappointed and analysts
didn't drop Apple's stock price. Some people got scared for a few hours
and then rationality was restored.

>
>
> I take your answer to be "yes."

--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
"If you raise the ceiling four feet, move the fireplace from that wall
to that wall, you'll still only get the full stereophonic effect if you
sit in the bottom of that cupboard."

Steve de Mena

2007-07-27, 10:33 pm

KDT wrote:

> How is it bogus? The iPhone went on sale at 6:00 pm Friday the 29th,
> Apple's quarter ended Saturday. All of the reports said that AT&T
> stores had no inventory left but the Apple stores did.
>

I don't remember that being reported as fact, that
all AT&T stores had no inventory. There are 1800
stores.

Steve

Larry Weil

2007-07-28, 3:33 pm

In article < 46aa8c0c$0$31217$4c3
68faf@roadrunner.com>,
Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:

> KDT wrote:
>
>
> I don't remember that being reported as fact, that
> all AT&T stores had no inventory. There are 1800
> stores.

There¹s an article in http://macdailynews.com to the effect that many of
the salespeople in AT&T stores are refusing to show the iPhone because
they get no commission (according to the article) for selling them.

--
Larry Weil
Lake Wobegone, NH

Tim Adams

2007-07-28, 3:33 pm

In article <kc1ih-FAACD5.14162028072007@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
Larry Weil <kc1ih@mac.com> wrote:

> In article < 46aa8c0c$0$31217$4c3
68faf@roadrunner.com>,
> Steve de Mena <steven@stevedemena.com> wrote:
>
>
> There¹s an article in http://macdailynews.com to the effect that many of
> the salespeople in AT&T stores are refusing to show the iPhone because
> they get no commission (according to the article) for selling them.

I walked into an AT&T store the first week that they were released and asked if
they had any. When I was told 'yes' I asked if they had one I could look at and
was told they did have one I could look at BUT I would have to buy it first.
I didn't look back as I walked out of the store.

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

Scott

2007-07-28, 10:33 pm

Tim Adams < teadams$2$0$0$3@eart
hlink.net> wrote in
news:teadams$2$0$0$3
-C15B44.15455128072007@news.east.earthlink.net:

> In article
> <kc1ih-FAACD5.14162028072007@sn-indi.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
> Larry Weil <kc1ih@mac.com> wrote:
>
>
> I walked into an AT&T store the first week that they were released and
> asked if they had any. When I was told 'yes' I asked if they had one I
> could look at and was told they did have one I could look at BUT I
> would have to buy it first. I didn't look back as I walked out of the
> store.
>

Hmm- so they are simply using the iPhone to get people in the store. How
interesting.

Tim Adams

2007-07-28, 10:33 pm

In article < 9Jmdnd6XD8GfVDbbnZ2d
nUVZ_r_inZ2d@adelphi
a.com>,
Scott <how.do@you.do> wrote:

> Tim Adams < teadams$2$0$0$3@eart
hlink.net> wrote in
> news:teadams$2$0$0$3
-C15B44.15455128072007@news.east.earthlink.net:
>
>
> Hmm- so they are simply using the iPhone to get people in the store. How
> interesting.

I've heard via a friend that this 'practice' has changed but was due to the low
number of iPhones the AT&T stores had during the first couple of weeks. In fact,
somebody told me that the store I visited was sold out the first day and didn't
get any back for 3-4 days, which would have covered the time when I visited.

Looks like I will need to make a return visit to see if they have nay out on
display now.

--
regarding Snit "You are not flamed because you speak the truth,
you are flamed because you are a hideous troll and keep disrupting
the newsgroup." Andrew J. Brehm

DTC

2007-07-28, 10:33 pm

Tim Adams wrote:
> I walked into an AT&T store the first week that they were released and asked if
> they had any. When I was told 'yes' I asked if they had one I could look at and
> was told they did have one I could look at BUT I would have to buy it first.
> I didn't look back as I walked out of the store.

Ditto...but I was laughing went as I left the store mumbling how
dysfunction they were. But ya know...they don't care, there are plenty of
other suckers .

I finally had the chance to activate one for a client of mine. Nice phone,
as long as the screen doesn't get broken. Web browsing was pretty worthless
as it wasn't 3G, but for the easily impressed..it would wow them.

LinkBot