Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Sold 270,000 iPhones in First 30 Hours
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's hard to say for sure, but it seemed that the majority of people purchasing iPhones on the opening day were actually buying two phones apiece. The woman in front of me on line asked me to buy her one as well since I was only purchasing one for myself so she walked away with three.
I don't know the degree to which this was a contributing factor in the discrepancy between AT&T's activation numbers and Apple's figures, but I do think it is likely that many of the purchasers who got two iPhones simply activated one at first to see how it worked out before going ahead to activate the second unit. Of course, how much does this type of behavior, and other behaviors like it, contribute to the 100k + differential?
What is clear is that Apple sold a lot of iPhones the first two days. As AT&T stated more iPhones were sold on the first two days than any other phone has sold in the first month (arguably, there are a lot of reasons for this other than consumer demand). Apple can be very pleased with itself, especially since the device has lived up to and even exceeded the hype that preceded it.
I don't know the degree to which this was a contributing factor in the discrepancy between AT&T's activation numbers and Apple's figures, but I do think it is likely that many of the purchasers who got two iPhones simply activated one at first to see how it worked out before going ahead to activate the second unit. Of course, how much does this type of behavior, and other behaviors like it, contribute to the 100k + differential?
What is clear is that Apple sold a lot of iPhones the first two days. As AT&T stated more iPhones were sold on the first two days than any other phone has sold in the first month (arguably, there are a lot of reasons for this other than consumer demand). Apple can be very pleased with itself, especially since the device has lived up to and even exceeded the hype that preceded it.
ROFLMAO!!!
270,000 hours = 11,250 days.
iPhone has been out for 27 days.
Time flies when you're TOTALLY mistaken (or fail to express sarcastic humor properly, if that is indeed the case here).
30 iPhones were sold just at the at&t store I was at within the first 1/2 hour.
at&t reported only 146,000 activations, NOT 176,000.
Regardless, 38% activation issues is WAY off, but 1-2% may be shy as well.
Also, people need to remember that lots of iPhones were sold to people who bought them as gifts as well as to people who despite rushing out to get one, may not have been in a rush to activate it for any number of reasons.
man, u may be right about some of your comments, but overall u are completely ridiculous.
try to read the news before posting, he made a mistake, and u reply by making 4 more.
Apparently directed at growing Mac sales ... at a rate greater then the market is growing. ...and growing iPod unit volume ...and launching a new product that is so far well received and selling well.Where is your bearing?
Curious on why folks think that the Mac Book Pro needs a redesign? It is well designed kit using the latest technology available.
I'm going to have to interject in this exchange to ask exactly what you would expect Apple to do aside from keeping the cash they've earned? Obviously they could invest the cash to diversify their operations into other market segments, which is really the only other thing a company generally does with their cash, aside from R&D, advertising, etc.
So since you are stating that Apple is holding 11 billion in cash due to concerns about market saturation (this is what you are implying, and you did just paint yourself into this corner), let's see if we can come up with some more logical reasons why a company would keep money on hand, shall we?
1) Apple expects an upside in iPhone sales, and needs extensive cash on hand to buy bulk (and therefore more affordable) purchases of flash memory. While that wouldn't account for 11 billion obviously, that would be a *reason* for having cash on hand--for future purchases.
2) Apple doesn't *need* to spend 11 billion to diversify their market because they have enough in-house R&D, creativity, and marketing talent to go into new segments as they are identified, without the need to purchase companies and add the talent to the company. What you are really stating is that any company that has no fear of market saturation spends all of their money to build a bigger company, make purchases to diversify their company and the markets it is involved in.
What's a company that spent tons of money to buy into new market segments by buying other companies? Ford Motor Company, that's who. Now here's the thing about buying companies to get into new market segments. That's expensive, and the company you purchase had better be successful in their market segment, and it had better mesh well with your own market. It had also better be a *neccessary* purchase, which I'll go back to in a bit.
The point is, a lot of those covering Ford state Ford put all of it's eggs into the SUV market, and gas prices, and blah blah blah. There's partial truth. Fact:
Ford spent way too much money on the companies they purchased, and they built a mamoth company with so many markets in the car industry, they could not build a successful central management team that could run all of this. And those companies that were run by *individual* management teams could not success on their own. So Ford could not be run as one cohesive company, nor as seperate companies run unilaterally, where the parts make up the sum.
3) It is *very* possible, and in fact my dream, that Apple will become successful enough to use their stockpile of money to directly challenge Microsoft in the corporate segment, which competing business software, a better OS, better hardware, better or non-existant licensing agreements (where Microsoft is really vulnerable, and will be their downfall), but it is important to not *why* that should not be the path they should take now, and may *never* be the path they should take, and merely a dream on my part.
You see, Apple is really pretty self-sufficient. They have the talent, and the ability to build new market segments within the consumer and corporate technology market. If there is a need for an iPod that also plays movies, they can make it. If they need a phone that also works as an iPod and has a bigger screen for movies, they can make it (and do much more, clearly). If there is a need for easier, more simplified business software, they can make it. If there is a need for a laptop that is thin, and has a great battery life, just watch, they will be able to make it.
Apple has the ability to steer their own ship, and this is proving to be a *very* dangerous competitor. They don't need to spend 11 billion. That doesn't mean they are *afraid* to spend it. Life is like a game of chess, you only make neccessary moves, and you only make moves that have a *point* and a *plan*. Any decisions you make need to be forward-thinking and long-term. Why spend money when you don't need to?
By the way, for the individual who stated Microsoft makes 50 billion per year in profits, it's very fascinating when people overstate how many this company makes. They made an amazing $14 billion last year, and that's just incredible. With that said, one of the big reasons people do this is because they percieve Microsoft to be invincible, and really the ultimate in profitability.
There is no doubt Microsoft is a behemoth, but they have potential to be one of the great lessons of business. Their business model has been to build kind of a large platform with suppliers cooperating to make a whole product. As with any business model, it has its advantages and its *disadvantages*.
I think it needs to be understood that while this platform business model was a success, that doesn't make it the *best* business model, and ultimately, it could only be the *best* business model for the time it was implemented, during the rise of PCs. As computers become a commodity, the consumer's viewpoint of computers is going to change. They will be willing to spend less, and there will be a need to bring down costs. The advantage Apple has is that while the *general* public may view things that way, there will always be a demand for better quality, and there is a willingness to pay for that. Believe it or not, Apple can also cut the cost of its product to compete, by the way. The problem is, Microsoft depends on their licenses. They need that money to have revenue. They don't make money off their consumer electronics, they LOSE money. No licensing, no Microsoft.
As computers become a commodity, what is going to happen to the general consumer's willingness to have tied-in costs to an operating system such as Microsoft's. Couple that with Microsoft's inability to innovate, and the fact that the supply method they use to ship their software will be challenged, and Microsoft is extremely vulnerable, and the end of $14 billion/year profits could be in the forseeable future. Sure it can take awhile for an elephant to fall, but fall it may.
When it happens, it's going to be because Microsoft is their own worst enemy, and the business model of dependance on licensing fees is no longer tolerated. Businesses are already challenging this arrangement, and so will others. Companies like Apple will be able to leverage this vulnerability and offer an alternative to those who will listen.
I've said this 4 years ago, and I'll say this again, there are forces that will challenge Microsoft, and it is possible in the end that Steve Jobs has the best business model, and not Bill Gates. It is quite possible that Microsoft's biggest assest was that they were in the right place at the right time, and that asset will only get you so far in the end. It's time for us to "Think Different", and throw old assumptions we were taught during the times of a bubble out the door.
iPhone - 1 million sold in 1 quarter
Zune - 1 million sold in 1 year
Why not compare Apples to Apples. Zune, 1 Million in 1 Year. iPod, 9.8 million in one quarter!
In spite of these numbers, I think Apple was expecting more. I think they were trying to sell out the first day, which didn't come close to happening.
I won't put numbers to it, except to say these numbers are high, but I don't think they surprised anybody by how high they were.
Obviously, the street expected around a half million (see appleinsider), which Apple may not have been able to deliver.
Personally, I didn't know what to expect. 270k in 30 hours is not that high if you put it in the perspective of iPods which sold 9.8 million units in Q307. If you do the math, that's roughly 174k every 30 hours . Naturally, people were waiting and saving to buy the iphone, so it's safe to say sales declined exponentially as the first days went by.
I think 10 million units by december 2008 is not as lofty as it seems. They're naturally tapping into their ipod customer base, who will probably buy an iphone in lieu of an ipod.
So, in short, Apple's a $100 billion company that sold a bunch of crap, is anyone surprised?
I won't put numbers to it, except to say these numbers are high, but I don't think they surprised anybody by how high they were.
Obviously, the street expected around a half million (see appleinsider), which Apple may not have been able to deliver.
Personally, I didn't know what to expect. 270k in 30 hours is not that high if you put it in the perspective of iPods which sold 9.8 million units in Q307. If you do the math, that's roughly 174k every 30 hours . Naturally, people were waiting and saving to buy the iphone, so it's safe to say sales declined exponentially as the first days went by.
I think 10 million units by december 2008 is not as lofty as it seems. They're naturally tapping into their ipod customer base, who will probably buy an iphone in lieu of an ipod.
So, in short, Apple's a $100 billion company that sold a bunch of crap, is anyone surprised?
The damn phone feature consumes about 5%-10% of my overall usage. What does that make the rest of it, then? A damn video player? A damn camera? A damn iPod? A damn computer of the damn future, even? Damn.
I'd guess that the rest of it is what made the iPhone sell more units it's opening weekend than the next best selling wireless device in AT&T's history sold in over a month.
bla bla bla iPhone bla bla bla macbook pro has not seen redesign in ages, bla bla bla iToaster bla bla Mac pro is nearly 1 year old with fake 8 core bla bla bla iMicrowave bla bla No Leopard bla bla iCanoe bla bla bla No iLife bla bla iToilet bla bla
Where is your bearing
They just had their record quarter in Mac sales. Best quarter EVER. So what's your sage advice for them? C'mon Apple, like, hey, the MacBook isn't cool enough... blah blah blah complain complain blah blah no update yet blah blah can't ever do anything right blah blah going to go under blah blah. Sheesh.
They were expected to sell 500k over the weekend. Seems nobody has added up Sunday yet. And Apple could have sold more if they didn't sell out at some stores by Sunday. Apple did not want to sell out on Friday. What good does that do? Hey people want to buy my stuff. It looks cool that I sol d out, but we're not making any money off those that couldn't buy one that wanted one. Apple purposely had it's supply chain stacked up so that they didn't sell out. Most likely for the sake of the eBay world. Since phones are readily available, they can't be sold for ridiculous prices on eBay. Apple doesn't get any cut of the extra sale price on eBay!
Like the Wii. All impressive that they are always out of stock. But that's horrible for Nintendo. That's lost revenue in a big way. Many of those will buy something else, or pay huge dollars on eBay.
All the profits from iPhone and iPhone related stuff is now being reported as a subscription type service, including the price of the phone. So basically the profits are being depreciated over a 24 month period since that's the minimum commitment. Most likely works out better for Apple for tax purposes, and smooths out quarterly earnings and such for the stock market. As more and more phones are out there, the profits will show a steady climb as more and more phones are sold and are EACH being reported as profit every month. Otherwise they'd have huge profits this quarter, and next year, very low profits unless it happens to coincide with another new product release. Make sense?
profit
Get your numbers right; $12m profit/ $44m Revs for their last FY. In this fiscal year MSFT's profit will be 3x Apples and the REVs will be 2x. Come back in 5 years and compare them then. It might be very interesting to compare.
Yah for a company who's yearly profits topped 50 BILLION. Yah. Nowhere fast.
Get your numbers right; $12m profit/ $44m Revs for their last FY. In this fiscal year MSFT's profit will be 3x Apples and the REVs will be 2x. Come back in 5 years and compare them then. It might be very interesting to compare.
Well, iPod is sold worldwide. Besides, $79 iPod having a higher volume than $600 gadget is not exactly a revelation.
I don't understand why so many people are trying so hard to put a negative spin on this. I don't know if Apple can sustain iPhone sales, but considering the price Apple probably had the best single country opening weekend sale of any electronic product in history.
don't count your chickens before they hatch....nuff said. Well maybe not enough said. Especially when the rules for counting change just before the hatching.
I'm no expert in the translation of ambiguously vague statements but could they now be counting sales to Apple stores at the time that the product is shipped to Apple retail stores also? Not trying to seem skeptical towards Apple's accounting practices, I tend to be skeptical towards everyones accounting practices.
It just seems very convenient to fix your counting methods to satisfy the large amount of investors dumb enough and rich enough to sink the company stock on the news of a low number sold.
So 270k iPhones includes #of units shipped to AT&T stores and shipped to Apple stores by end of quarter? I'm not stating that as fact but it would justify the gap between 146k activations and 270k Apple says it sold....that's all. It would also include units in transit (not delivered) and of course not include online sales.
Also
Apple verbally stating 270k actual iPhone units sold when asked about this ambiguity strikes me as odd. A 6th grader could read that statement and infer that it means iPhones sold + other stuff sold = 270k.
I'm no expert in the translation of ambiguously vague statements but could they now be counting sales to Apple stores at the time that the product is shipped to Apple retail stores also? Not trying to seem skeptical towards Apple's accounting practices, I tend to be skeptical towards everyones accounting practices
. It just seems very convenient to fix your counting methods to satisfy the large amount of investors dumb enough and rich enough to sink the company stock on the news of a low number sold.
So 270k iPhones includes #of units shipped to AT&T stores and shipped to Apple stores by end of quarter? I'm not stating that as fact but it would justify the gap between 146k activations and 270k Apple says it sold....that's all. It would also include units in transit (not delivered) and of course not include online sales.
Also
Apple verbally stating 270k actual iPhone units sold when asked about this ambiguity strikes me as odd. A 6th grader could read that statement and infer that it means iPhones sold + other stuff sold = 270k.
I don't think people are trying to spin it in a bad way. The reality is that the expectations were that Apple had sold in the range of 200-700K phones in the "launch" (however you define that in terms of hours). And it now seems they landed at the lower end of that range.
Which makes sense. Apple stores handily caught up with the lines on the Friday launch, and had plenty of phones in stock the next day.
Demand simply wasn't as high as they had hoped. Which doesn't make it any less of a great device. It just means it will take them longer to develop a serious market than they thought.
And how you know this?
The fact that most of the stores were sold out within a few days until new supplies came in suggests to me that they called it just about right in terms of initial demand on that weekend.
Software updates planned!
So they said they plan on adding features and updates by software. Well here is your sneak peak, my friend works for Apple and sent this my way. Finder, MMS, and other things that are not apparent from the main menu pic will be added he claims Finally I can buy mine now
So they said they plan on adding features and updates by software. Well here is your sneak peak, my friend works for Apple and sent this my way. Finder, MMS, and other things that are not apparent from the main menu pic will be added he claims
Finally I can buy mine now Attachments
So they said they plan on adding features and updates by software. Well here is your sneak peak, my friend works for Apple and sent this my way. Finder, MMS, and other things that are not apparent from the main menu pic will be added he claims
If I give you two very good reasons why that image is obviously fake, will you do me the favor of no longer posting it to every thread you can justify? I've seen you post it to more than one thread, and each time it strikes me as a fake. Either you're trying to dupe us here on this site or someone is duping you. The latter is only marginally more justifiable than the former, btw.
I've done professional graphic design work and there's this concept in design concerning padding of an image. It's not really something I've seen taught, but rather something you get a good sense of the more you do design work. For example, if you have a logo or image in a box, an experienced graphic designer knows how to float the logo in the box so there's just the right amount of padding around the logo, between it and the box. Not too much, not too little. A designer with a good eye can get it so it floats there, just right, looks right and feels right. It's hard to explain, but it's one of those esoteric design things that separates the amateurs from the pros. You know it when you see it.
Look at the buttons (except the Finder button) on the iPhone. Those images float just right in their button frames. A skilled and experienced pro did those. Now look at the Finder button. That's clunky. It's just... not right. The top lines bump the edges and the sides don't. The eyes are too close to the edges. It's just off. Someone else with considerably less design skills did that button.
The other reason I'm sure this is fake is that companies are extraordinarily protective of their branding and logos. Bigger companies frequently produce and distribute design bibles to their marketing people. This bible defines right down to the very last pixel, how any logo or branding element is allowed to be used in any medium, the colors, the background, the surrounding elements, etc. This is done to present and maintain a consistent look and it's a very good idea.
There is no way in hell Apple is going to present one of their most famous branding elements (the Mac Finder face) cropped and anamorphically squeezed like that. It's awful. It's laughable. That's not a button designed by Apple.
Now, before you counter with the possibility that this button design is a prototype, please consider that the rest of the image looks like a polished marketing image--clean and clear and good color and very attractive. If it were real, it would stand to reason that it would be a final marketing image which would mean that no traces of early work or prototype button designs would be a part of it.
So, it's fake. Sorry. Whoever this friend is who claims to work for Apple and has passed this along to you is pulling a fast one on you.
Actually it's much higher than that, because the stores stayed open till midnight (with the exception of the 24 hour stores) and then re-opened at 9am. Since the numbers do NOT include online sales that had not shipped, that means the number is purely from retail stores (from both firms.)
So if you take 9 hours out of the equation, then instead of 270,000/(30*60*60) it's 270,000/(23*60*60) which is 3.25 phones a second!
Numbers like that not only suggest product marketing success, but logistical success. If they had sold the iPhone like any other phone, it would have taken 30 minutes a person to buy one! They really did come up with a lot of innovation outside the phone itself on this. Forget the technology and how cool it looks. Assuming it is a success, the iPhone will end up as an MBA case study in product launch strategy. All credit to Apple. Free media galore and aside from some AT&T activation issues, incredibly smooth launch.
be well
t
you're mistaking revenue with profit.
2006 revenue...
MSFT: $44.6 B
AAPL: $19.32 B
2006 Net Income...
MSFT: $12.6 B
AAPL: $1.73 B
Apple have a while to go yet it seems to match MSFT's profits or revenues.
I'll give it a good 3-5 years.
Since 2006, Apple had one christmas season quarter with $1.00B, and the last quarter was over $800 million. These two quarters alone are more than 2006.
Listen carefully to the conference call, where it is all explained.
By the way, your very first line "Apple is claiming $5mil profits" is already wrong. So go to the webpage, listen to the call, and listen very carefully.
Just to be clear, I HATE the Zune. It's tacky and it comes in brown!!
Also, I love Apple. I think I own one of most things they currently sell!
BUT, if you really want to compare apples for apples (very punny)...
On the call, they stated "It took us two years to sell a million iPods, we're hoping to sell a million iPhones in one quarter."
So, TWO years to sell a million iPods versus 1 year to sell a million Zunes. Fear not for I am not about to tell you how much better the Zune is. Read on...
I love Apple, but lets not crow over statistics that are clearly not comparable. iPod is an established product with an entire built ecosystem around it. Zune is nowhere near that point (and with luck never will be!) One thing I firmly believe is that if Zune had been launched in 2001 like the iPod was it would have taken WAY longer than a year, or even two years, to sell a million of them. They sold a million in a year because they are playing in a market that Apple built. OK, there were others before Apple, but Apple made it "cool" and usable for the average person and made the masses aware of it. Microsoft is living in Apples halo to some extent. But with the upcoming (surely!) iPod updates they will once again be pushed aside. Why? Because they don't move fast enough. The next iPod revision will be the longest gap ever between revisions since it went mainstream, and even then it's way quicker than Microsoft can get a new revision of anything to the market. Microsoft is new at hardware on this scale (meaning size of device and size of market) and they simply can't innovate quickly enough OR productize quickly enough. I would be surprised if Apple doesn't ALREADY have people working on the 7G iPod and 8G iPod. They have the train moving nicely down the track. Microsoft are still fiddling with the controls in the engine room!
Look at the product releases from Apple over the last 18 months...
...TV shows.
...Movies.
...Coverflow.
All seemingly announcements in their own right, but they ALL come together when the iPhone was launched...
..Widescreen video iPod (oh, and we happen to have tv shows and movies to watch on it.)
..Coverflow in landscape on the iPod. Established feature, looks familiar.
It's wonderfully orchestrated. Microsoft just don't demonstrate an ability to do things like that.
And that's why, in the retail electronics space, Apple is years and years ahead of them, and will stay that way as long as they don't make too many huge mistakes!
Just my 2c.
be well
t
I replaced my MacBook (first revision) with the SR based MacBook pro, and I can see peoples point...
1) The keyboard is nicer on the MacBook.
2) The lack of a clasp to hold the screen shut is nice. It's a fiddle for me to press the very thin button in to press it.
I'd like to see (not too soon please or I'll be forced to buy one!) a MacBook Pro with a MacBook style approach. But having said that, neither of those things bug me particularly. I love my MacBook Pro. The LED screen is amazing and the speed is unbelievable! These things matter more to me than the case. Although I admit the case is one of the reasons I prefer Apples to boring PC laptops, it's more than a LOT better than the competition already, so I can live without a new look MacBook Pro for a good while (like till my bank account is refilled from buying this one!)
be well
t
(emphasis in quote added by me)
Your math is wrong; it's 134,250 iPods every 30 hours, half what the iPhone sold in the first 30 hours. The math:
365 days year ÷ 4 quarters = 91.25 days/quarter
9,800,000 iPods ÷ 91.25 days = 107,397 iPods/day
107,397 iPods/day ÷ 24 hours/day = 4,475 iPods/hour
4,475 iPods/hour x 30 hours = 134,250 iPods in 30 hours
9,800,000 iPods ÷ 91.25 days = 107,397 iPods/day
107,397 iPods/day ÷ 24 hours/day = 4,475 iPods/hour
4,475 iPods/hour x 30 hours = 134,250 iPods in 30 hours
Huh? What did you mean by this comment?
So they said they plan on adding features and updates by software. Well here is your sneak peak, my friend works for Apple and sent this my way. Finder, MMS, and other things that are not apparent from the main menu pic will be added he claims
Aside from the reasons given re the graphics work, I think there's another way to tell that this is fake: Apple understands that a handheld device needs to interact with the user in a specific, well-designed way. What it should *not* be is an attempt to recreate the full desktop experience. That's what my Windows Pocket Edition, or whatever it's called, does and does badly. That's why 100 million people bought iPods and could care less about having a tree structure so they can drag their ogg vorbis files like the fan boys on dapreview. Apple made a terrific phone OS which is going to influence that space for a long time to come. They are not going to import full OS X features willy-nilly unless there's good reason to.