Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Presumably they share it? I don't see why it should be confidential. They don't have to reveal anything about who is activating devices, just how many. In the case of phones, carriers no doubt know what devices are activated on their network as well.
Apple doesn't share device sale numbers anymore
 
Reality eventually kicks in, despite all the best efforts of Wall St. pundits, tech blogs and internet forum pro whiners.

The firm is on a tear, whereas a certain fictional narrative paints it in decline.

Let me first make it clear that I am not an Apple naysayer. They are pulling in money hand over fist. But in the interest of avoiding biases I have to ask, why do you trust the findings of this report over other sources? It's not clear how this data was collected or how accurate it is.
 
That's the thing. Fashion devices are what sells. Apple is king at making fashionable electronic devices and then marketing them expertly.


Well that and pre x-mas I saw a fair amount of sales on them. Not sure how many vendors work it, with the military exchange systems you can see apple's older stuff out for a while next to the new stuff. Saw some nice deals on the older stuff to entice the holiday spirit.

Why I'd like more meat to the numbers. Since a safe bet iOS activation a big part of this...whats the breakdown. IE. latest and greatest IPP's that don't have as much sale price margin versus well, you know, an older ipad series the PX/BX is just happy to see finally not in stock anymore so can sell for borderline loss leader setup.

I know a sale is a sale...but I'd gather apple would like more IPP's running around. Is that the case I wonder?
 
Now we see why they have little interest in Macs and especially desktop Macs these days. The iPhone and iPad is all Apple needs anymore. They have amazing profit margins and they can sell on brand name alone. The Macs can't do that anymore. The expense to try and compete in the PC market isn't worth the effort when you can sell iDevices in huge volumes with little effort.

Apple sold 4.9 million Macs with revenue of $5.7 billion in the 4th quarter on aging models. That's not chump change even it pales in comparison to iOS devices. Apple doesn't compete in the PC market. There are millions of devoted Mac customers who wouldn't consider using a Windows device. You see more and more students with Mac's in coffee shops. I can remember before "I'm a Mac" ads, iPods and iPhone how you rarely saw Mac's in the wild and now they are everywhere.
Frankly, I don't think it's "little interest", it's just that there's not much more to do with the traditional desktop an laptop. Like Jobs said (paraphrased).. desktops (and now laptops) are like trucks and do the heavy lifting. The light stuff can be done on a mobile device. Not many people want to be able to draw on their desktop or laptop screen so whatever Microsoft is doing maybe cute it certainly doesn't have widespread utility yet.
 
That wasn't necessary. What I said was hardly negative. I was saying that, when discussing the industry as a whole, it'd be nice if we had like two to three big players competing head-to-head against each other.


Sorry, then, I misunderstood your intent.
[doublepost=1482886003][/doublepost]
Apple doesn't share device sale numbers anymore


Yes they do. They have to and will release sales in their next quarterly report for iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, etc. They don't release individual device sales for the "minor" items like routers, ATV, AW, etc., because they can report those under "other."
 
  • Like
Reactions: v0lume4
A new device being turned on and activated over the internet, as sales numbers doesn't necessarily reflect the actual consumer behavior.

Worthless in what way?

I think he was asking the methodology of measuring the number of activation, not the definition of activation.

If the method was flawed, then the results would be worthless .
 
And when the new, larger iPhones were just rumors on here lots of people complained about the bigger size and insisted that nobody would buy an iPhone that big. Yet that is the biggest segment now and Apple would be foolish to not have a competing device.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AppleScruff1
Now we see why they have little interest in Macs and especially desktop Macs these days. The iPhone and iPad is all Apple needs anymore. They have amazing profit margins and they can sell on brand name alone. The Macs can't do that anymore. The expense to try and compete in the PC market isn't worth the effort when you can sell iDevices in huge volumes with little effort.

The mac business makes billions of dollars profit annually. It is extremely valuable still.
 
  • Like
Reactions: citysnaps
wow.... look at the size of that bar..!!

You could even point out the number of activations, would also relate to the switchers as well.. a.k.a More activations would also mean more users on iPhone/tablets.

But that doesn't always mean they would stay
 
With stats like these, it’s obvious to see why Apple is focusing on their iOS devices, rather than MacOS devices.
I wonder how many people are like me and wish Apple had not focused at all on the mac line?
What I mean to say I wish Apple had left the 13",15" MacBook Pros alone and just updated
the processors,videocard,SSd, and ram and left the form factor alone.
And do the same thing with the iMac,theMac Pro, and the MINI,
We want powerful machines that do work!
How much would they have saved
by not re-engineering the MacBook pros? Maybe even been able to release a more powerful mac
for the same or less money?
If they want to make something slim and and a fashion statement ,leave that for the
macbook airs, for the hipsters :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: carrrrrlos
Not sure I would describe them as dubious. Perhaps the way they are presented by others are dubious, but anyone with a clue about what Flurry do would know how these numbers are generated. You download an App that uses Flurry for monetisation/analytics, and it isn't previously registered on their systems, they count that as a new activation.

Actually the vibrancy of the App eco system isn't an important factor. Think of picking marbles out of a hat, some are black (flurry), some are white (not flurry). Is there a significant difference in probability that a black marble will be pulled out of one hat against another. All that we're looking at is the likelihood of getting at least one black marble, not how many black marbles are pulled.

It doesn't matter how many marbles are in each hat. What matters is the proportions are similar (apps with flurry/apps without), the likelihood of picking black marbles is similar (popularity of apps) and the number of picks (how many apps people with new devices on each ecosystem are likely to download in the first week).

Flurry are a market leader in Analytics/Monetisation (there are going to be a significant number of black balls in the hats). However, there are going to be differences in market penetration between platforms. Also user base differences may affect the number/type of Apps users download in the first week of owning the device. However, I'd be surprised if you're guess was accurate. I suspect they will be within a few percentage points, as you'll find flurry on some well know brand names Apps.

Sure, I'm not familiar with Flurry's analytical methods. No carrier or smartphone OEM produces their sale stat during the x-mas period that Flurry claims to have data, but some of them do regularly publish their quarterly sales data. So has Flurry ever published their quarterly "new activations" against those published by OEMs or carriers themselves? Are they accurate? If their figures are close to the true sales figures, I would admit that their "app downloads" is a good proxy for the smartphone sales/new device activation. But then again, both Apple and Google do keep track of their activation numbers, so why even bother with Flurry's guesstimates, which can be a useful tool if you are an app developer, but not much else?
 
Last edited:
This reflects new phones in the USA? How about a global perspective? I'm pretty sure Huawei would top the list.

Apple's anti-consumer attitude and terrible maps, integration with my car, missing 3.5 jack, and other little quirks pushed me to get a Huawei Mate 9 last week. I am blown away so far, great spell prediction, 3.5 jack, Apple Music works great with my car over BT, fully charged in 30 min, easier to view screen, finger scanner is laser fast.. 2 SIM cards which is great for travel (everytime I change my SIM on my iPhone my iCloud gets locked and my iMessage goes bonkers) only missing iMessage and Notes.

My opinion, Apple pushes consumers to try Android and they like it.. it's more mature now, has great features, isn't so restrictive, and works better in a lot of the day to day ways.

But Apple will get thinner
 
The iPhone business is great. If post-holiday stock is any indication, the Apple Watch 2 sold out across the US.
 
Now we see why they have little interest in Macs and especially desktop Macs these days. The iPhone and iPad is all Apple needs anymore. They have amazing profit margins and they can sell on brand name alone. The Macs can't do that anymore. The expense to try and compete in the PC market isn't worth the effort when you can sell iDevices in huge volumes with little effort.

The thing that puts the last nail in the coffin: Xcode for Windows. The day Apple releases that product, the mac line is officially abandoned.
Until that happens, Apple will continue to update the mac since with no macs, no Xcode, no developers and no apps to drive the sale of i-devices.
 
Sorry, then, I misunderstood your intent.
[doublepost=1482886003][/doublepost]


Yes they do. They have to and will release sales in their next quarterly report for iPhones, iPads, MacBooks, etc. They don't release individual device sales for the "minor" items like routers, ATV, AW, etc., because they can report those under "other."
I said sale numbers, not sales as in monetary terms.

Apple used to state how many handsets they sold etc but not anymore as far as I am aware.
 
What is an 'activation'? And how do you measure it?
I assume an IMEI number (unique ID for each device) being registered on an LTE network. That would be a good way to count how many people are buying and using each device.
[doublepost=1482916849][/doublepost]
The data does not show that at all. In Q4 2016 Apple made over five billion dollars on Macs (more than they did on iPads).

View attachment 680323

https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/Q4FY16DataSummary.pdf
I don't think anyone cares about iPads anymore.
 
Sure, I'm not familiar with Flurry's analytical methods. No carrier or smartphone OEM produces their sale stat during the x-mas period that Flurry claims to have data, but some of them do regularly publish their quarterly sales data. So has Flurry ever published their quarterly "new activations" against those published by OEMs or carriers themselves? Are they accurate? If their figures are close to the true sales figures, I would admit that their "app downloads" is a good proxy for the smartphone sales/new device activation. But then again, both Apple and Google do keep track of their activation numbers, so why even bother with Flurry's guesstimates, which can be a useful tool if you are an app developer, but not much else?

I don't know if they produce their numbers at other times (not really interested in that aspect of their data). Usually if the manufacturer produces numbers, third parties will only release their inferred numbers in cases where the manufacturers numbers may not be reliable. For example where a manufacturer counts shipments to retailers as sales. Otherwise its largely a pointless exercise when there's a more reliable data set available.

In the absence of manufacturers own data such inferred data, where there is likely to be a strong correlation, is useful for shareholders/investors/market analysts/etc. Say Apple and Samsung were the other way around this year, you may well have seen a dump of Apple stock. It may also have pushed them to release their own numbers.

For Flurry themselves its a marketing exercise of course :). Whilst you may be sceptical, Flurry's core business is collection and dissemination of data. Moreover, they are also heavily involved in ad tracking/monetisation, so advertisers rely on them to track impressions/clicks. Therefore, I doubt they would engage in any nefarious activity for the sake of a bit of publicity. If caught it would call into question their credibility which would impact their core business. If they've released these figures, they must believe they are representative.
[doublepost=1482919209][/doublepost]
I assume an IMEI number (unique ID for each device) being registered on an LTE network. That would be a good way to count how many people are buying and using each device.

They don't have access to the network or their activation data.

They provide analytic tools for App makers and also track/verify ad impressions/clicks and other monetisation.

As part of this when you install an App using Flurry analytics/monetisation tools, it takes a fingerprint of your device to identify it uniquely. Thats what they're using to calculate new activations during the defined period.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudo1996
Do people ask the same questions when IDC shows a decline in Apple product sales or Slice Analytics says Apple Watch sales fell off a cliff? Personally I think they are all meaningless but find it interesting that people here tend not to question these numbers when they show Apple in decline.
Isn't the narrative that Apple is out of touch? If "the numbers" show Apple in decline then that fits the narrative and no reason to question it.
[doublepost=1482929536][/doublepost]
Revenue does not equal profit.
For any other company, sure. But, this is Apple. I mean, comon half or more of the posts to this website lament how much profit apple makes on their products. Oh woe unto Apple, perhaps their Macs only make them 40% profit. Time to axe that division and introduce more watchbands!
 
I wonder how many people are like me and wish Apple had not focused at all on the mac line?
What I mean to say I wish Apple had left the 13",15" MacBook Pros alone and just updated
the processors,videocard,SSd, and ram and left the form factor alone.
And do the same thing with the iMac,theMac Pro, and the MINI,
We want powerful machines that do work!
How much would they have saved
by not re-engineering the MacBook pros? Maybe even been able to release a more powerful mac
for the same or less money?
If they want to make something slim and and a fashion statement ,leave that for the
macbook airs, for the hipsters :)
That's in your opinion but then you would get all the people complaining about Apple only making spec changes and personally I love my new 2016 MacBook Pro
 
  • Like
Reactions: alvesik
Look at that phablet growth ... and we all laughed at it when Samsung first released a bigger device.

As for the 4 inch lovers, looks like its going to be tough luck to you. 1% means Tim is going to quit on you.
 
Look at that phablet growth ... and we all laughed at it when Samsung first released a bigger device.

As for the 4 inch lovers, looks like its going to be tough luck to you. 1% means Tim is going to quit on you.

"Medium phones" are defined as 3.5-4.9 inches, so the SE does not fall outside that threshold, and therefore has nothing to do with the 1%.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sudo1996
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.