|
Cellular forums Home > Archive > Verizon wireless > July 2007 > Piper Jaffray: 500,000 iPhones sold over the weekend
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Piper Jaffray: 500,000 iPhones sold over the weekend
|
|
|
| I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL!
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9738446-7.html
July 1, 2007 9:26 PM PDT
Piper Jaffray: 500,000 iPhones sold over the weekend
Posted by Tom Krazit
Apple sold around half a million iPhones the first weekend the device went
on sale, one analyst firm has estimated.
Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster released a report Sunday night estimating that
Apple sold about 500,000 units from 6 p.m. Friday through the close of
business Sunday. Going into the weekend Munster thought Apple would sell
200,000 on Friday and Saturday.
Despite low supply at AT&T stores and activation issues, it appears that
the iPhone era at Apple got off to a good start. Piper Jaffray said Apple
had iPhones available in each one of its stores on Saturday, and in 84
percent of its stores Sunday.
Ninety-five percent of iPhone buyers in San Francisco, New York and
Minneapolis (home to Piper Jaffray's offices) purchased the 8GB model,
according to a survey conducted by the firm. About half were new customers
for AT&T, at least among the 253 people surveyed for the report.
| |
| Mitch 2007-07-05, 10:33 pm |
| In article <PDB4ITFL39267. 2979166667@anonymous
.poster>, Doug
<doug78@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL!
I don't understand; why would that be funny?
| |
| Liberals HATE America! 2007-07-06, 3:33 pm |
|
"Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
news:050720071502432
638%mitch@hawaii.rr...
> In article <PDB4ITFL39267. 2979166667@anonymous
.poster>, Doug
> <doug78@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> I don't understand; why would that be funny?
It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair.
| |
| Mitch 2007-07-08, 10:33 am |
| In article <4nvji.3661$bz7.2564@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net>, Liberals
HATE America! <nobody@nobody1.com1> wrote:
> It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair.
>
Well, sure!
A box of hair is FUNNY!
I just don't know why it always laughs back.
| |
| John Mayson 2007-07-08, 10:33 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On Fri, 6 Jul 2007, Liberals HATE America! wrote:
>
> "Mitch" <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote in message
>
> It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair.
Boxes of hair aren't funny?
- --
John Mayson <john@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
iD8DBQFGkWwo2kz4fWh3
iuERAuwxAKCBe1tWohtp
RCkMEmakI/QC9OPTngCgtu4S
ODcDZynfkUNcxlqOgKWD
CFI=
=6Dg0
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Edwin 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| On Jul 4, 8:09 am, dou...@hotmail.com (Doug) wrote:
> I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL!
>
> http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9738446-7.html
>
> July 1, 2007 9:26 PM PDT
> Piper Jaffray:500,000iPhon
essoldover the weekend
> Posted by Tom Krazit
> Applesoldaround half a millioniPhonesthe first weekend the device went
> on sale, one analyst firm has estimated.
>
> Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster released a report Sunday night estimating that
> Applesoldabout500,00
0units from 6 p.m. Friday through the close of
> business Sunday. Going into the weekend Munster thought Apple would sell
> 200,000 on Friday and Saturday.
>
> Despite low supply at AT&T stores and activation issues, it appears that
> the iPhone era at Apple got off to a good start. Piper Jaffray said Apple
> hadiPhonesavailable in each one of its stores on Saturday, and in 84
> percent of its stores Sunday.
>
> Ninety-five percent of iPhone buyers in San Francisco, New York and
> Minneapolis (home to Piper Jaffray's offices) purchased the 8GB model,
> according to a survey conducted by the firm. About half were new customers
> for AT&T, at least among the 253 people surveyed for the report.
Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations
East Bay Business Times - 1:55 PM PDT Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Shares of Apple Inc. dropped more than 6 percent Tuesday after fewer
iPhones than expected were activated during the first few days after
the gadget's launch.
Cupertino-based Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock fell $8.81 to close the day
at $134.89.
AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
the first weekend.
Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
(NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/east...23/daily23.html
It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
are going to be returning iPhones...
| |
| C J Campbell 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| On 2007-07-24 15:44:17 -0700, Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> said:
>
> AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
> 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
> the first weekend.
> <snip>
> Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
> (NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
>
> Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
>
> http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/east...23/daily23.html
>
> It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
> are going to be returning iPhones...
Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone,
since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.
Look. I like the iPhone. It is a nice unit and it deserves to succeed.
But it is not a Mac. Perhaps we need an iPhone group.
That said, I think the iPhone needs a few things in order to really take off:
1) Apple needs to stress that the EDGE network is a backup system. The
iPhone is meant to be used wirelessly.
2) Allowing 3rd party aps as web applications does not cut it,
especially in much of the west where you are lucky to get cellular
coverage at all, let alone EDGE or wireless. Even a couple games would
be nice.
3) I can live with the battery thing, but Apple has got to figure out
how to replace that battery without leaving me with no phone for a
couple weeks.
4) Most of the people I saw buying iPhones were gangsta wannabees and
the hip-hop crowd. Fine, but it tells me that Apple is not marketing
the phones to people who might actually use all their features. If you
are a businessman looking for a phone, you don't want to get a phone
that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy
is a bad thing.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
| |
|
| On Jul 24, 6:44 pm, Edwin <thorn...@juno.com> wrote:
> On Jul 4, 8:09 am, dou...@hotmail.com (Doug) wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations
> East Bay Business Times - 1:55 PM PDT Tuesday, July 24, 2007
>
> Shares of Apple Inc. dropped more than 6 percent Tuesday after fewer
> iPhones than expected were activated during the first few days after
> the gadget's launch.
>
> Cupertino-based Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock fell $8.81 to close the day
> at $134.89.
>
> AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
> 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
> the first weekend.
>
> Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
> (NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
>
> Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
>
> http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/east...23/daily23.html
>
> It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
> are going to be returning iPhones...- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Edwin, the weekend consists of three days...AT&T only reported two
and.....
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724...
usBkM3wV
Analysts cautioned against reading too much into AT&T's activation
numbers, saying the actual number of iPhones sold may be much higher
but was not reflected in the figure because many users had activation
problems and couldn't sign up for a few days.
"It's just had such a run on overexpectations, I don't see this as any
sort of disappointing metric in terms of the iPhone overall," said
Ingrid Ebeling, an analyst with JMP Securities. "I think it's just
gotten a little overhyped over the past month."
| |
| Scott 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| C J Campbell < christophercampbell@
hotmail.com> wrote in
news:200707241651445
0073- christophercampbell@
hotmailcom:
>
> Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single
> iPhone, since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.
>
Uh- wrong. iPhones started being sold to consumers at the end of June,
which was the end of the second quarter. Stores needed iPhones to sell
them- they will most certainly be reported when quarterly results are
announced later this week.
| |
| George Kerby 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
|
On 7/24/07 6:51 PM, in article
2007072416514450073- christophercampbell@
hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
< christophercampbell@
hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-07-24 15:44:17 -0700, Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> said:
>
>
> Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone,
> since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.
>
> Look. I like the iPhone. It is a nice unit and it deserves to succeed.
> But it is not a Mac. Perhaps we need an iPhone group.
>
> That said, I think the iPhone needs a few things in order to really take off:
>
> 1) Apple needs to stress that the EDGE network is a backup system. The
> iPhone is meant to be used wirelessly.
>
> 2) Allowing 3rd party aps as web applications does not cut it,
> especially in much of the west where you are lucky to get cellular
> coverage at all, let alone EDGE or wireless. Even a couple games would
> be nice.
>
> 3) I can live with the battery thing, but Apple has got to figure out
> how to replace that battery without leaving me with no phone for a
> couple weeks.
>
> 4) Most of the people I saw buying iPhones were gangsta wannabees and
> the hip-hop crowd. Fine, but it tells me that Apple is not marketing
> the phones to people who might actually use all their features. If you
> are a businessman looking for a phone, you don't want to get a phone
> that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy
> is a bad thing.
I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot
grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the
fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email
sends.
Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the XXX absent.
| |
| Bill Gates 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Analysts cautioned against reading too much into AT&T's activation
> numbers, saying the actual number of iPhones sold may be much higher
> but was not reflected in the figure because many users had activation
> problems and couldn't sign up for a few days.
>
> "It's just had such a run on overexpectations, I don't see this as any
> sort of disappointing metric in terms of the iPhone overall," said
> Ingrid Ebeling, an analyst with JMP Securities. "I think it's just
> gotten a little overhyped over the past month."
and A LOT of people bought them as gifts, sold them on ebay or bought 2
at once so the activation number is probably around 1/3 the number of
iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess
is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days.
| |
|
| In article <C2CC00D7. 31FEE%ghost_topper@h
otmail.com>, George Kerby
< ghost_topper@hotmail
.com> wrote:
> I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot
> grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the
> fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email
> sends.
>
Better BlueTooth support would, indeed be great. That said, when I plug
mine into one of my Macs (and have "fresh" photos on it), it goes
straight to iPhoto instead of iTunes, so the photos get sucked up
pretty easily.
> Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the XXX absent.
>
Yes, Flash/Shockwave support would be really nice. Since it has YouTube
support (and that is Flash-based), this would give the appearance of
being fairly straightforward, but maybe I'm missing something.
The feature I miss the most, though, is an "iPod" feature -- being able
to manually manage content/use as a flash storage device for moving
files around.
Regardless of the above "wish list" features, it is still the first
cellphone I've found that I'm willing to carry around with me without
grumbling about it being a pain-in-the-a** piece of sh*t annoyance.
--
Spenser
| |
|
| sbt < dogbreath@chaseabone
.com.invalid> wrote:
> Yes, Flash/Shockwave support would be really nice. Since it has YouTube
> support (and that is Flash-based),
the days of flash are coming to a end. youtube is converting everything
to pure H.264. flash just can't cut it for the future. the iphone only
plays H.264, quicktime, jpg, tif, gif, etc.
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| In article <1185317057.384603.181360@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>,
Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> wrote:
>
> AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
> 146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
> the first weekend.
>
> Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
> (NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
>
> Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
>
> http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/east...23/daily23.html
>
> It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
> are going to be returning iPhones...
It does seem like a little too much to assume that 346,000 iPhones are
going to appear on eBay.
| |
| Tim Adams 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| In article <2007072416514450073- christophercampbell@
hotmailcom>,
C J Campbell < christophercampbell@
hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 2007-07-24 15:44:17 -0700, Edwin <thorne25@juno.com> said:
>
>
> Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone,
> since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.
WRONG. Apple's quarter ended on June 30th, 30 hours AFTER the iPhone went on
sale.
>
> Look. I like the iPhone. It is a nice unit and it deserves to succeed.
> But it is not a Mac. Perhaps we need an iPhone group.
>
> That said, I think the iPhone needs a few things in order to really take off:
>
> 1) Apple needs to stress that the EDGE network is a backup system. The
> iPhone is meant to be used wirelessly.
>
> 2) Allowing 3rd party aps as web applications does not cut it,
> especially in much of the west where you are lucky to get cellular
> coverage at all, let alone EDGE or wireless. Even a couple games would
> be nice.
>
> 3) I can live with the battery thing, but Apple has got to figure out
> how to replace that battery without leaving me with no phone for a
> couple weeks.
>
> 4) Most of the people I saw buying iPhones were gangsta wannabees and
> the hip-hop crowd. Fine, but it tells me that Apple is not marketing
> the phones to people who might actually use all their features. If you
> are a businessman looking for a phone, you don't want to get a phone
> that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy
> is a bad thing.
--
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 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| Bill Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote in news:im-D7158A.18305524072007
@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net:
> KDT <scarface_74@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> and A LOT of people bought them as gifts, sold them on ebay or bought 2
> at once so the activation number is probably around 1/3 the number of
> iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess
> is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days.
We won't know the real number tomorrow- every phone they sold to AT&T for
stock will be reported tomorrow, whether activated or not.
| |
| Mitch 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| In article <im-D7158A.18305524072007@mpls-nnrp-06.inet.qwest.net>, Bill
Gates <im@IEdiedtoday.com> wrote:
> and A LOT of people bought them as gifts, sold them on ebay or bought 2
> at once so the activation number is probably around 1/3 the number of
> iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess
> is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days.
I'll second that. It seems a large number of people buying them were
buying 2, 3, 4 or more devices at once.
I'm guessing most activated only one when they got home, even if they
were not planning to sell them.
I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but
this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all.
If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it.
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| In article
<teadams$2$0$0$3-A6D7FC.21471324072007@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Tim Adams < teadams$2$0$0$3@eart
hlink.net> wrote:
>
> WRONG. Apple's quarter ended on June 30th, 30 hours AFTER the iPhone went on
> sale.
>
Kinda sorta. Read today that Apple is going to book the income from
the iPhones over the course of the contracts for some reason known only
the accountants (unless of course the AP reporter got that mixed up with
the per phone fees Apple is getting from ATT- a possibility I suppose).
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| In article < 240720071641220165%m
itch@hawaii.rr>,
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
> I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but
> this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all.
> If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it.
I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I
don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong.
| |
| Scott 2007-07-24, 10:33 pm |
| Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:kurtullman-3579DF. 22530624072007@custo
mer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net
..mx:
> In article
> <teadams$2$0$0$3-A6D7FC.21471324072007@news.west.earthlink.net>,
> Tim Adams < teadams$2$0$0$3@eart
hlink.net> wrote:
>
> Kinda sorta. Read today that Apple is going to book the income from
> the iPhones over the course of the contracts for some reason known
> only the accountants (unless of course the AP reporter got that mixed
> up with the per phone fees Apple is getting from ATT- a possibility I
> suppose).
>
The reason is simple- a way to hide the sales figures. I'd be interested
in knowing how AT&T is paying for the phones they sell- when shipped or
when activated? Or over the life of the contract?
| |
| John C. Randolph 2007-07-25, 4:33 am |
| On 2007-07-24 17:41:06 -0700, sbt < dogbreath@chaseabone
.com.invalid> said:
> Since it has YouTube
> support (and that is Flash-based), this would give the appearance of
> being fairly straightforward, but maybe I'm missing something.
YouTube is re-encoding video with the H.264 codec for TV and iPhone.
That's why the less-popular videos from YouTube aren't on the iPhone
yet. They've got a lot of material to convert.
-jcr
| |
| Tinman 2007-07-25, 4:33 am |
| "George Kerby" wrote:
>
> I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot
> grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get
> the
> fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email
> sends.
I assume you mean in the absence of a USB connection.
>
> Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the XXX absent.
>
I could live without Java but the lack of Flash is a biggie.
--
Mike
| |
|
| In article
<kurtullman-D93A4B. 22542424072007@custo
mer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>
, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I
> don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong.
Not sure why I am surprised? Because of the very big difference, the
specific attention it was given, and the facts that there are a lot of
people hoping to pee on the parade, if only to make themselve visible
in the melee.
Not sure why I think the SEC needs to look into it? Because releasing
numbers that are not valid, especially when they affect a company's
sales and stock prices, is illegal and a very bad practice to allow at
any time.
| |
| George Kerby 2007-07-25, 7:33 am |
|
On 7/25/07 1:44 AM, in article 5go9o6F3h1gelU1@mid.individual.net, "Tinman"
<ask@for.it> wrote:
> "George Kerby" wrote:
>
> I assume you mean in the absence of a USB connection.
>
No, a Bluetooth file transfer system. My old Motorola 500 could communicate
with all my Macs and exchange info. I am assuming that the iTunes route of
transfer is much like the iPod: sync with only one computer. No Usb is
involved.
>
> I could live without Java but the lack of Flash is a biggie.
>
Agreed.
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2007-07-25, 7:33 am |
| In article < 250720070044060158%m
itch@hawaii.rr>,
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
>
> Not sure why I think the SEC needs to look into it? Because releasing
> numbers that are not valid, especially when they affect a company's
> sales and stock prices, is illegal and a very bad practice to allow at
> any time.
*IF* those numbers came from Apple (or ATT), then I would agree.
However if the irrational exuberance (to coin a phrase) came from Piper
Jaffray or others, I don't think the SEC has a dog in that hunt. Thus,
the question about who came up with the numbers(g).
| |
| Bob \Buy From Me\ Blakeley 2007-07-25, 10:35 am |
| On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 19:14:40 -0600, none wrote:
> sbt < dogbreath@chaseabone
.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>
> the days of flash are coming to a end. youtube is converting everything
> to pure H.264. flash just can't cut it for the future. the iphone only
> plays H.264, quicktime, jpg, tif, gif, etc.
Bullshit, just b/c your life revolves around watching video mini screens
of prancing naked children on your iphone doesn't mean a Goddamned thing
regarding Flash.
--
Hi! I don't care two shits about you or your needs. I want the
*goddamned* commission from your house sale !!
| |
| Tinman 2007-07-25, 12:33 pm |
| "George Kerby" wrote:
> On 7/25/07 1:44 AM, in article 5go9o6F3h1gelU1@mid.individual.net,
> "Tinman"
> <ask@for.it> wrote:
>
> No, a Bluetooth file transfer system. My old Motorola 500 could
> communicate
> with all my Macs and exchange info. I am assuming that the iTunes route of
> transfer is much like the iPod: sync with only one computer.
Not when it comes to photos. At least with PCs I can use any modern PC and
my iPhone is recognized as a digital camera and the files can be
offloaded--no iTunes required. I would think a Mac would work similarly
(think it uses iPhoto though). But again, this is via USB.
I'm not saying I like it being limited to USB (well, I have emailed photos
too), nor would I likely have a cable handy when carrying around my iPhone.
BT would be nice, but I'd like WiFi too. I suspect this will come in due
time. Heck, I've just about got WiFi tethering working as outlined here:
"http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/25/iphone-hacked-for-untethered-edge-data-on-laptop/"
"http://www.everythingiphone.com/forum/iphone-software/tethering-now-possible-6905.html"
I didn't expect this so soon. The technique essentially bridges EDGE to WiFi
so that the iPhone becomes a mini WiFi hotspot (ad hoc). I certainly won't
use it much, but for those times when traveling when I really need to do
something from my laptop, and no free WiFi is available (seems to be getting
common at airports--subscription only, or pay for a day). With my Treo I
used this maybe 4 times a year. But it was still nice to have. Looks like I
will have that soon for my iPhone too.
--
Mike
| |
| Matthew T. Russotto 2007-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| In article < 250720070044060158%m
itch@hawaii.rr>,
Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>In article
><kurtullman-D93A4B. 22542424072007@custo
mer-201-125-217-207.uninet.net.mx>
>, Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Not sure why I am surprised? Because of the very big difference, the
>specific attention it was given, and the facts that there are a lot of
>people hoping to pee on the parade, if only to make themselve visible
>in the melee.
AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with
activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says
that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were
at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up
number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000.
--
There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can
result in a fully-depreciated one.
| |
| Thomas R. Kettler 2007-07-25, 3:33 pm |
| In article < 1eOdnU5UVfw5BTrbnZ2d
nUVZ_quhnZ2d@speakea
sy.net>,
russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
> In article < 250720070044060158%m
itch@hawaii.rr>,
> Mitch <mitch@hawaii.rr> wrote:
>
> AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with
> activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says
> that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were
> at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up
> number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000.
It goes farther than that. We don't know how many people bought iPhones
but wanted to transfer their number to the iPhone. Did Verizon, Sprint,
etc. have people over the weekend to accommodate those people? To
activate the iPhone with the number requires the previous phone to be
deactivated.
Michelle Steiner previously discussed the problems she had and
eventually said she just got a new number for her iPhone. If others did
not want to go to that hassle but just waited until the following week
to get the previous phone deactivated to keep their phone number, it
would not show in the numbers.
Having your phone number switched is not a trivial matter. I recall
having to stay at a Radio Shack for nearly two hours when I got my
Sprint LG phone two years ago and that was just switching the number
from a Sprint Samsung phone.
I have not seen any numbers on switches of numbers for people who bought
iPhones. Has anyone else?
Remove blown from email address to reply.
| |
|
| In article < 1eOdnU5UVfw5BTrbnZ2d
nUVZ_quhnZ2d@speakea
sy.net>, Matthew T.
Russotto <russotto@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
> AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with
> activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says
> that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were
> at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up
> number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000.
Another good point: the number may not reflect all activations
attempted or begun during that time. They may be applying some lkind of
additional consideration (like the billing was sent out).
Some of these people are ignoring that we're talking about the business
practices, not some absolute value of actually moved items. The
business practices may not even count anything where that wasn't a
physical transation of money yet (which means all credit card payments
wouldn't have been counted until Monday, for instance.)
It's also important for them to remember that the threshold is over a
matter of a few hours -- even partially begun activations may be a
significant quantity to consider.
Again, I just hope someone can explain the difference in values.
| |
| Tim Adams 2007-07-25, 10:33 pm |
| In article <tkettler-667113.14512925072007@news.fuse.net>,
"Thomas R. Kettler" <tkettler@blownfuse.net> wrote:
> In article < 1eOdnU5UVfw5BTrbnZ2d
nUVZ_quhnZ2d@speakea
sy.net>,
> russotto@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote:
>
>
> It goes farther than that. We don't know how many people bought iPhones
> but wanted to transfer their number to the iPhone. Did Verizon, Sprint,
> etc. have people over the weekend to accommodate those people? To
> activate the iPhone with the number requires the previous phone to be
> deactivated.
And the phone companies have at least 10* days in which to release it.
>
> Michelle Steiner previously discussed the problems she had and
> eventually said she just got a new number for her iPhone. If others did
> not want to go to that hassle but just waited until the following week
> to get the previous phone deactivated to keep their phone number, it
> would not show in the numbers.
>
> Having your phone number switched is not a trivial matter. I recall
> having to stay at a Radio Shack for nearly two hours when I got my
> Sprint LG phone two years ago and that was just switching the number
> from a Sprint Samsung phone.
>
> I have not seen any numbers on switches of numbers for people who bought
> iPhones. Has anyone else?
>
> Remove blown from email address to reply.
* this number was given me by an AT&T wireless company employee.
--
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
|
|
|
|
|