jonesy

Verizon's Anti-iPhone PR Campaign

Verizon's campaign seems to indicate that they are feeling the impact of iPhone and AT&T. While the iPhone/AT&T combo is not flawless (3G drops, 3G/fetch battery life, app instability bug), Verizon still has no handset that competes.

Apple Ups The Ante With 3G iPhone - But RIM's Almost Ready to Counter

RIM's counterattack appears to be delayed while iPhone 3G sells like crazy around the world, overwhelming computer systems.

RIM down about 4.5% while market (and Apple) down about 1.5%.

Apple's Leap from Mediocre to Marvelous

Clearly, marketing and a sales force does matter, as it is obvious the Apple Stores (and not just commercials) that have helped turn Apple around. But having the best product at price-points that customers will consider matters even more.

Apple products in the mid-90s left lots to be desired (though argubly they were still better than the competition). But since Jobs return to Apple, the products have been much better thought out, the design began to be pleasing, the user experience even more so. The overall value of Apple products has grown tremendously.

Apple has great strategy, great products, great stores, and great marketing.

Apple: My Q3 Earnings Estimates

Thanks for your thorough explanations. I'm projecting 7.925M in revenue and 1.217 EPS. I'm a touch lower on Macs (2560M) since the channel checks are heavily US-oriented. I think your ASPs are a bit high - I have 1520 for Mac, 164 for iPod (4% decline). Minor differences on the other items.

Apple's Balancing Act: 3G iPhone vs. Jobs' Health - Barron's

Agree with superfamilyhappy. No reporters asked about Jobs health the last time, and when the time came for Jobs to make a public appearance (MacWorld Paris), Apple made a direct and truthful announcement.

The implication of Barrons (and your article in repeating it without questioning it) is that Apple is lying in its response. Reporter asked specifically about cancer, Apple answered that it's a bug. Continuing to question the answer shows that Barrons doesn't believe it.

More Good News About the 3G iPhone

JPU: iPhone is "not selling great in Asia" because it's not even for sale (officially) in Asia. That's like saying the OLPC isn't selling well in corporations.

And you don't think Apple has become a "name brand", even in Asia?

If you'd read the comments, you'd see lots of reasons why Apple will continue to do well, and likely be unbeatable in the market segments and geographies in which they are competing.

Can Apple's Resistance to Flash Content Last?

In your quoting of Chris Ziegler, you show he didn't actually "quote part of Steve Jobs' remarks." He paraphrased it and added his own interpretation. Either replace the word "quote", or go out and get the real quotes Steve made about Flash and Flash Lite, including the part about "a product in the middle" (which can be found on the web).

Apple: On an Innovation Treadmill

iTunes is not part of Apple's revenue "foundation". It is glue that holds the many parts together but it's a negligible revenue source. So the supposed cracks in iTunes are not devastating, especially since they've accomplished rentals at a price no worse than anyone else.

Apple is entering two markets that are huge and still largely untapped: handheld mobile personal devices, and home digital entertainment devices. If done right, these two markets will grow in the same way that the PC market grew over the last 2 decades. Again if done right, there's no doubt that they can grow 20% a year for the next decade. And that's not even including the fact that they have just a small part of the PC market and there's lots of room to grow there.

Apple's Extraordinary Edge

@My take: Independent thinker and Windows XP? How do those two go together?

@Marcel: Back in late 2004, many said iPod would be a commodity; not a defensible business. Over 3 years and 100 million iPods later, maybe it's commoditization is beginning. But Apple's already moving away from the classic iPod; we see it in iPod touch, and actually, we've seen it from the beginning - it was always called an iPod, not an iMusic. So back to PCs: Windows PCs are definitely a commodity, but as Callahan says, Apple's advantage is OS X, objects of desire, Apple Stores with Genius Bars working on OS X mostly for "free", and its brand. By the way, OS X is on all its future-looking products - iPod touch, iPhone, AppleTV, and Mac. This synergy will lead to agility and speed in getting its software innovations out to its whole family of products; something no other company has this, not Microsoft, Nokia, Sandisk.

Apple Needs to Execute, No Longer Innovate

Agree that Apple hasn't chosen to "enter" a completely new market this year, but that doesn't mean they've stopped innovating. Instead, Apple is very much innovating within the six markets (personal computers, cell phones, portable personal devices, home entertainment devices, music distribution, and video/movie distribution) that they've already entered. Plus, new software will make it possible for many of their devices to quietly enter new "markets".

And I would hope that they never stop.

Blinded by Flash: RIM's Excellent Results, All Eyes on Apple

The big question regarding RIMM is how will they continue to innovate and differentiate as many vendors are coming into this space (not just Apple). As the smart handset market grows, will RIMM be the Apple in the early 90s in the computer market? Or will RIMM be the Apple in the early 00s in the MP3 market?

Can they defend and grow their position? Do they hold "push email" patents such that the end result is that others cannot provide a comparable quality service to handset owners? Do they have scale so they can have reasonable prices AND good margins/profits, and get better deals on product components compared to competitors? Do they have brand stickiness so that even if others come, consumers will still choose them for their next handset? I haven't done as much research as others (I don't own RIMM), but I see them more like the Apple of the 90s.

Is AT&T An iPhone Sales Anchor?

As for Facebook for Blackberry, great first step, yay!.

But deep down, you and everyone know it's a reaction to the iPhone. No iPhone and we wouldn't have seen this for a longer while.

Is AT&T An iPhone Sales Anchor?

I understood your point and thought I already addressed it by explaining why Apple couldn't go to T, and sprint and VZ. First, Apple has to force certain changes in the industry.

In the long run, Mossberg is right. But getting that privilege without other fundamental changes is a hollow victory.

This is analogous to DRM and the music industry. Even though Jobs criticized DRM before iTunes ever existed, Apple went along with DRM (buying Fairplay pretty much at the last minute) just to get a foot in the door. Once industry and customer culture changes began to occur, Apple started to push for no DRM, even offering the industry a plum in a higher 1.29 price. Which the labels, other than EMI, has continue to reject. So be it.

Anyway, same steps for cellular and walled gardens and carrier reqts for handsets. Jobs has criticized the labels as orifices, but has now locked-in to one such company to effect the changes Apple thinks are needed.

Is AT&T An iPhone Sales Anchor?

It's un-jobsian only because you think Apple doesn't drop prices, but that's a lie. Macs ($999 iMacs went down to 799; others as well) and iPods (5GB iPod: $399 to $299; 10GB iPod: $499 to 399; photo: $599 to $449; mini: $299 to $249; shuffle: $149 to $129, $129 to $99, $99 to $69) have decreased in price without getting smaller. Though not always, Apple price reductions on current models are accompanied by the introduction a new lower or higher-capacity model; one can argue that the iPod touch is that new model.

Next, my point, which you missed completely, on the touch pricing was that all Sep 5 iPod pricing on was linked to the 4GB iPod nano going to 149, which caused the 8GB iPod nano to be 199, which caused the 8GB iPod touch to be 299, which caused the 8GB iPhone to be 399. Had the 4GB iPod nano been priced at 199 and the 8GB 249, then the touch could've been 349 or maybe even 399, and the iPhone 449 or 499. Don't you realize that all the variants are priced for upsell? So each model needs to have a solid value proposition for the price differential. But why 149 for the nano - because Apple wants a boatload of handheld video players in the market.

Since Apple was so focused on increasing the market presence of video players and iPhones, and the positive vibe of lower prices, they were surprised by the reaction of the mainstream iPhone buyers to the price cut.

Finally, were iPhone sales really "sluggish"? Would making its publicized goal (projected on Jul 25) of 1M total sold by Sep 29 (4Q end date) been considered "sluggish"? I'll spell this out: price cut on Sep 5 midday; 1M sometime on Sep 9; press release next morning. Assume supercharged run rate of about 25K for those 4.5 days. Which means 887K sold by Sep 4. At even a truly "sluggish" 5.5K a day run rate from Sep 5 to 29 (24 days), Apple would've reached 1M by Sep 29.

In any case, my calculations yield about 610K iPhones sold from Jul 1 to the day of the price cut, or approximately 10K a day; or about 200K more than yours; 89K of which you cut out by saying Apple sold just 1.3M instead of 1.389M.

Regardless, one survey says iPhone is in top 4 models, #1 for AT&T, and trending to #1 across all carriers in the US. I'm sure, even without the price cut, iPhone would still be in the top 10 models. I wouldn't consider that not a "hit".

Is AT&T An iPhone Sales Anchor?

I wasn't actually putting down Blackberries in my comment; I was simply trying to say that the Internet is way more than email. But since you bring it up, I think RIMM is fairly priced compared to other handset makers, but overpriced when I look at the bigger picture. RIMM hasn't done much (anything?) to make the rest of the mobile Web/Internet accessible, have they?