Yesterday (well, CET in any case), Apple posted its financial results for the second quarter of the 2008 fiscal year (which ended 29 March). While sales of Macintosh laptops and desktops soared to ever greater heights, and while sales of the iPod consolidated itself, the news is not so good for the iPhone. And the dodo will have an Apple TV to play with, soon.Within two years, the company has doubled the amount of Macs it has sold. During the second quarter of 2006, they sold 1.1 million Macs, and now, only two years later, they sold 2.3 million Macs in the second quarter. According to Ars, laptop sales saw unit and revenue growth of 61 and 58 percent over Q2 2007, and “more telling, unit and revenue were actually up, 7 and 5 percent respectively, over the last quarter, the holiday quarter.” It makes sense to assume a lot of these are MacBook Airs, confirming my predictions that the MacBook air would sell quite well.
iPod-wise, sales remained flat on the 10 million mark, but revenue was still up in this department. The iPhone, however, is not doing so well. Apple said it would sell 10 million of them in 2008, but during the second quarter of 2008 (the period ending 29 March, so it’s actually the first quarter of the calendar year 2008), Apple sold only 1.7 million iPhones, which is far shorter than the average 2.5 million needed to hit the 10 million mark (and a much sharper drop from the previous quarter’s 2.3 million than expected). According to Ars, the imminence of the 3G iPhone somewhere this summer will only make iPhone sales drop further.
Personally, I believe the iPhone is simply not selling as well in Europe as Apple had in mind. The price cuts all over Europe seem indications that ‘us Europeans’ find the device too expensive, do not like carrier lock-in, or find the monthly plan too expensive – or a combination of any of those factors. However, there are still three quarters left in this calendar year for Apple to hit the 10 million mark, so it’s all to play for.
The Apple TV was not mentioned at all, so it’s getting safer and safer to say it will join the dodo in the land of failed products, despite the recent software upgrade.
Here in the UK, the cost of the iPhone has not long been slashed by £100, if purchased before 01 June. Makes sense, if these figures are anything to go by. Why doesn’t O2 offer a corporate account for the iPhone? It seems to be a consumer-only device, which in these cash-strapped times is not a wise strategy.
From the Reg:
” Apple confirmed the obvious by saying a “significant” number of iPhones are being purchased from its outlets with the express intention of unlocking them. That trend, coupled with higher-than-expected demand, has resulted in inventory shortages, the company claimed.”
Slightly different interpretation there!!
Don’t know about Europe, but in the middle east these things are selling like hot cakes. Even though every last one of them is an unlocked hack-job. Local operators have asked Apple to ship them iPhones in line with this huge trend but it doesn’t appear to be happening. My iPhone arrived from ebay today !
On a different note, for me the real indicator is Mac sales.
iPhone sales dropped sharply? They may have dropped from the 07 holiday season, but that is to be expected.
From CNET of all places…
“iPhone demand continues to spread around the world, as Apple ran into supply constraints toward the end of the quarter as after it misjudged the pace of demand going into the quarter.”
or
From iLounge…
“In total, we sold more than we expected. We expected a sharper seasonal decline than what we experienced.”
Edited 2008-04-24 09:43 UTC
Why is that expected? I think you’ve embraced a bit too much of Apple’s spin. Apple is trying to explain the drop in iPhone sales as some kind of seasonal phenomenon, but that simply doesn’t ring true (pun intended). iPhone is a glorified mobile phone. It isn’t an electric rotating tie rack. Or a box of holiday fruitcake. People buy mobile phones constantly. Perhaps the most obvious explanation is that they’re still too expensive (urban hipsters can certainly spare some of their spare latte coin but, sorry, not Peoria), and the hype doesn’t jibe with reality.
Are you serious, or are you being intentionally obtuse? I think you are embracing a crack pipe. People buy iPods, computers, and televisions all year long, but mysteriously sales increase around Christmas. Maybe because people give gifts for Christmas. Christmas tree sales plummeted last quarter too. I guess they are going the way of the Dodo.
A more significant financial indicator would be a comparison against same quarter sales last year, but the iPhone was not on sale in Q1 2007.
Here’s another theory for you. AT&T pre-announced the release of the 3G iPhone quite some time ago, and the buzz has increased over the last few months. People are waiting for the 3G model, especially in Europe. It is actually impressive how many they sold last quarter considering this.
Cell phones, unlike iPods, aren’t purely discretionary purchases. Everybody needs one. Contracts are expiring and starting constantly. So, really, the idea that people are going to wait until Christmas to buy a cell phone is (laughably) ridiculous.
With the announcement of a possible 3g version in june, this just makes sense. Money is tight, so people are just playing it safe.. why buy a phone that already outdated..
Apple said nothing, did not mention or give figures for sales of the AppleTV. So instead of just reporting that fact, you stepped across the line from reporting to commentary to infer that this means the AppleTV is doomed, not selling well, and will “soon join the dodo bird”. Quite a stretch and completely contrary to Journalism 101. Unfortunately, commentary is about all you get these days in the guise of “news”. “OS news” would imply that I would read this site regularly to find out what’s going on in the world of OS’s. There might be some commentary once in a while, and that’s fine, just as long as there is a clear label that those articles are an OPINION, not news.
Ah, but entertainment and opinion is what passes for journalism these days, at least here in the USA.
thats not the only place opinion slips in…
“It makes sense to assume a lot of these are MacBook Airs, confirming my predictions that the MacBook air would sell quite well.”
i would be wary of assuming anything at all…
Quoi?
Editorial opinion / commentary is a tradition as old as journalism itself – if not older.
The distinction is that editorial/op-ed usually has it’s own clearly defined place, and the editorial/op-ed staff is separate and apart from the news reporting staff. That distinction is becoming more and more blurred these days, and it affects the integrity of the news reporting process.
But none of that really applies. There are fundamental differences between OSNews and the sort of news organization you’re describing – namely:
One, the writing “staff” of OSNews is effectively one person these days – how would it even be possible for their reporting & editorial staff to be separate in that context (unless Thom were to develop some sort of odd bicameral disorder)?
Two, OSNews has never focused on original reporting – the main focus has always been news aggregation-with-commentary. How can editorial writing be distinct from reporting when there is next-to-no reporting to speak of?
I agree in principle, but again – I don’t see how that point applies to Thom’s article/editorial/commentary/whatever. The real problem is when news organizations/reporter try to present editorial opinion as factual information – but I don’t see any indication that Thom was attempting to do so. Looking at the quote itself:
That’s pretty clearly a statement of opinion – it’s not prefaced with “some people say,” or attributed to un-named sources, etc (the typical signs of “subtle” editorializing). And he’s stating a thoroughly-equivocated opinion one to boot. He’s talking about a potential indication of a possible eventuality – you can’t get much more equivocal than that.
Company 101: if a product is meeting demands, or exceeding demands, we’ll know.
It is no mystery the Apple TV has been fledgling and not doing as well as Apple had hoped. They revamped the device majorly not too long ago, and if that had been doing well, they would have let us know during these sales figures. Seeing they don’t means the revamp was not (yet) successful at turning the tide.
That’s just following logic.
Amen, brother. It’s difficult to say whether he just used an outrageous title to draw hits or really believes such nonsense. It is a little suspect Apple said so little, but the product update (arguably the first real release of the product) has been out less than one full quarter. Two months of sales and a slow delivery of movie titles from the studios will not give a very realistic long-term view. After developing all of these deals and infrastructure, does he think they should pull the plug after two months?
By the way, I love my Apple TV. I had three friends over, and they were all impressed. Two said they would like to get one. The other guy is kind of “thrifty”.
The iphone is not on par in features with similar products from the concurrents, and yet it is as expensive or more. Why would anyone buy it, is a mistery to me. Maybe it’s because of the adverts and the brand name it is selling that well for a product that poor?
Edited 2008-04-24 10:42 UTC
I have used the iPhone and several of the competitors and I must say that no one comes near the elegance and flexibility the iPhone has, with its touch screen, interface, web browser etc.
I would guess that those who complain about the iPhone probably haven’t used one themselves and are simply comparing features to features.
Granted, it’s elegant. I suppose some people could buy it because of that, like the people who buy Gucci clothes and lamborghini cars. It’s nice looking that is true, but flexible? You’re kidding me! It’s the least flexible phone out there. What is flexible about this phone?
Surfing the web on hand held devices is always more or less difficult but the iPhone does it very well. The multi-touch touch screen in combination with safari allows you to easily zoom in and out, move around the page etc.
The fact that its OS is based on OSX is also a plus of course, even if Apple’s licensing terms for the SDK are retarded.
Edited 2008-04-24 11:53 UTC
Surfing the web is not a problem once you install OperaMini on any phone that supports J2ME (that is to say almost any phone except the iPhone). Try OperaMini, it’s a far better than safari on the iphone, seriously.
When you think that for about the same price you can have a N95, anybody would gladly take the time to install OperaMini and have all the features that comes with the phone instead of the iPhone that look nice but that is terrible outdated.
Edited 2008-04-24 12:19 UTC
Elegance? Yes. Flexibility? Absolutely not. The Palm Treo, even the models runn klunky ‘ol PalmOS Garnet, still run circles around the iPhone in that regard.
Umm, because the things it does do it does very well. In some cases it even surpasses the competition. The iPhone is not for everyone but I love the one I got. It don’t have some of the features I had in my previous cell, like voice dialing, video recording, it even had a flash when I took pictures, but these are things I never used on that phone anyway. The features that I was most frustrated with on my cell, now are the things I love about the iPhone, which were texting and internet browsing.
Have you tryed OperaMini?
Edited 2008-04-24 13:28 UTC
I don’t get things like this. I used Opera Mini for over a year. Then I got the iPhone. Two totally different experiences.
Opera makes web browsing passable on a cell phone. The iPhone make web browsing pleasant, and a step below using a regular screen computer. I get tired of seeing all these “Well you need to try Opera Mini!” posts because there’s just no comparison. The iPhone is a universe above anything else out there for browsing the web.
I use Opera Mini on my phone with 3G data access and a 320×240 display. Version 4 is worse than version 3. It automatically wants to reduce everything to dots and makes me guess where some content might be that I want to read.
Safari on the iPhone is better but the speed of getting information is pathetic, unless you’re on WiFi.
For all those claiming that the work-alikes are useful, they’re no better than what I have. They just have touch screen displays and they’re pathetically restricted.
Apple needs better hardware and it’s apparently coming. If it’s like the iPod, it will continue to improve and become cheaper. Right now, it seems that extra stock is being bought and sent to Asia to be unlocked and sold. China and Singapore seem to have plenty now.
“The iphone is not on par in features with similar products from the concurrents, and yet it is as expensive or more. Why would anyone buy it, is a mystery to me.”
Haven’t we heard this assessment before? Can you say iPod?
Now I am not saying the iPhone is going to repeat, but most of the pundits said the same thing about the iPod. What is so difficult to understand about the concept of making a product so easy to use that you don’t have to carry around a 10 pound manual just to figure out how to use it?
Maybe because it works as advertised? Interesting that for a phone that is so featureless, it generates 50 times more search requests than any other mobile phone… And that for a phone that is so featureless, it generates 30 times more wireless data usage than any other mobile phone.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=1316
Features, features, features… If its unusable nobody is going to use those features… With the release of the iPhone SDK, you’re suddenly going to find a phone with many more features and they’ll probably be usable too…
I know I’ve hated every single hand held device I’ve ever owned, but I may just get me an iPhone once the next gen comes out.
I hate the iPhone, and I’d never buy it, and I’m also glad that it’s not running as good as Apple thought.
But… I also think it’s good that it exists, because all the other mobile phone manufacturers seem to produce iPhone-alikes
and that might be good, since they probably add better features and don’t make it as restricted as Apple (here in Germany, you can only use it with one single phone company, for example). So it’s actually a good thing and everyone might profit from it indirectly.
I hope that the Android devices will rock!
Horray for rabid fanboyism. As best as I can extrapolate, you don’t like it because you have an unexplained grudge against Apple. That sounds like an well-balanced opinion.
You might be correct, actually. I hate Apple
but I’d even hate the iPhone if it was manufactured by another company. It’s too expensive, too glossy/shiny/etc, too restrictive, it’s simply too “look what I’ve got” for me 
and I’m simply not that kind of person.
But as I also said, I’m glad that Apple released this, because other manufacturers will soon catch up and release something less expensive, but more functional. There are already some clones available, and I’d bet that some of them actually provide better functionality for less money.
I love my iPhone, and it has nothing to do with the fact that it’s made by Apple. Here’s why:
1. It integrates perfectly with my main computer. If you IM me, your “buddy icon” gets linked to your account in my Address Book which hands it off to the iPhone, all in one fluid shot.
2. It’s a joy to use, both as a phone and as a internet browsing device. It’s easy to read, easy to type on, and easy to manipulate. No other mobile browser has even come close.
3. Even ugly standards, like text messaging, are beautiful on the iPhone.
4. Google Maps is killer, and as you type in an address, you can easily insert the entry into a new or existing contact. Type “Outback Steakhouse Orlando, FL” and it will bring up all the information on the map and all the info – website, phone, address, etc – is available. Killer feature just killed 411.
5. iPod and coverflow. No other phone comes even close.
6. At work Outlook syncs to Google calendar, iCal is subscribed to my google calendar, which goes onto my iPhone. Beautiful integration of multiple services.
7. iPhone optimized websites. Yummy.
The fact is, people who complain about the iPhone usually are complaining about nonessentials like the phone being locked down. Every handset ever realized on Verizon (up until VERY recently) is more locked down than the iPhone. The iPhone started a phone revolution, and the only reason to dislike it is a person’s own unreasonable dislike of the company behind it.
Yes – they started a revolution, and as I said, I think this is very good. I just don’t like this specific Apple revolution model
but if you like it, that’s no problem for me, I even do believe that there are some people out there who actually love it for what it is. But you can’t deny that there are also lots of people who just have it so they can SAY they have it, and there are also lots of people who like everything that Apple produces 
“and the only reason to dislike it is a person’s own unreasonable dislike of the company behind it.”
BTW, who says that it always has to be unreasonable? I have my reasons, actually. Maybe not everyone might agree with them, but that shouldn’t matter, should it?
Edited 2008-04-24 14:12 UTC
I’m sure that’s true. But you can’t assume that everyone who owns an iPhone is doing it for vanity.
No, of course I’m not doing that. Sorry if my posting sounded like this
and I also didn’t intend to bring up a big discussion about the iPhone itself, I just said that I at least respect it in that way that other companies now have a new “reference” which they can try to compete with. This can result in better products for everybody (as long as there aren’t too much patents involved).
humm… I like Apple actually. They’re inovative. Look at MacOSX! It’s beautiful, everyone copies it.
But let’s be serious here. Look at the N95 man!
It has GPS, 5mg pixels, videos, 3G, everything.
And you can install on it! I seriously believe OperaMini is better than Safari.
I don’t dispute the fact that the iPhone is pretty, it sure looks better than the N95. But do you seriously believe people put down the iPhone because of unrational hate for Apple? Compare it with phones in the same price range. I don’t care if it looks shiny when the pictures I take look like crap. I don’t have a phone just to look at it!
Seriously, it is you who is unrational here. You fell in love with a cute box that have nothing inside!
Edited 2008-04-24 14:34 UTC
Not quite, but nice assumptions.
Do you think the average consumers gives a shit about installing programs, using SSH, etc? No! They like the gorgeous iPhone with its incredible interface.
You’re a fool if you think otherwise. BTW, I paid $299 for my phone, and the N95 costs about $700, so we’re not really in the same league.
Where do you live?
I paid €289 for my N95 here in France, which is way cheaper than the iPhone here (€399 last I checked).
I’m not talking about ssh and stuff. I’m talking about taking pictures, taking videos, using the GPS, sending MMS. Seriously, do you think only geeks take pictures and videos?
Man, if it’s twice the price where you live, I understand, but here, come on! For €100 less, you have something way better, no need to be a geek to see that.
The N95 is a nice phone, I have used it. But its user interface is annoying. OperaMini is a barely adequate replacement for Safari on the iPhone. You could make do with it but I wouldn’t call the user experience even close to equivalent.
I have used Nokia’s browser on the N810 and its good but I don’t like the UI again. Using a stylus is just awkward.
In Europe at the cost difference between an N95 and the iPhone I guess one would pick a n95. In the US the N95 is $750 unlocked. Its tough to justify a $350 difference for a 5 MP camera and GPS. I can get a nice canon point and shoot that will take vastly superior pictures than the N95 for $150. I can get a much better GPS unit for $150.
How would you mount a N95 in a car? How can you possibly look at that tiny screen while driving without putting yourself and others at risk?
The GPS and Camera are just useless gimmicks on a cellphone. A 2-3mp camera is adequate for the purposes most people use cellphones.
Yes indeed. In Europe why would you buy it? Still a lot of people do buy it. This is beyond me. I don’t buy into this easy to use argument. I believe it’s aggressive advertising and the brand name.
If you want something easy to use, here you can buy a simple phone for €9 that makes calls and have an address book. Sometimes you can have it for free with a phone contract. For €199, you have an eeePC with a 3G usb key included. For €9, you have a 2mg camera.
For €399, you have an iPhone…
Simplicity to use? I don’t buy it. a €9 phone is way easier to use. It’s the look, and because way too much people like to impress with shiny cars and gucci clothes, especially the young people.
Edited 2008-04-25 05:42 UTC
Of course, it’s easier to use the €9 phone because it has very limited capabilities. It’s even easier to use a home phone from 20 years ago. Try another phone near the price of an iPhone and that is where the complexity and difficulty intrudes into an otherwise calm life.
Phones with similar functionality are not easy, regardless of how well they’re marketed or how nice they look. My Samsung phone is very capable and it’s a pain to use. I also have a Nokia which is also a pain and makes me wonder how they can be the number one mobile phone manufacturer.
There are plenty of stylish phones available. Apple just happens to make one that’s easily used.
yep, apple have always been good at integration, as long as you by their products…
can someone spell lock-in? imo (very much so) its not worth it…
oh, and google has this nice j2me app that does a similar lookup or just about any device. only diff is that it does not integrate with the phones address list (but then i rarely have to look up where most of the people on my phones list lives).
also, i would rather see pages that would adapt to any device that browse it rather then pages specifically made of a single device. i thought that IE only pages was bad, but iphone only pages are good?
Edited 2008-04-24 15:24 UTC
but price is a major deterrent right now.
Thanking the strong Euro. I have friends who regularly travel to the US and bring back unlocked 16GB iPhones for a ridiculous 300€ whereas in Europe the lowest price for that is round 500€… What justifies the 200€ premium?
I have been saving money for a while to get acquainted with the “Apple experience” and purchase the cheapest Mac that I can find and I want an iPhone (or an iPod Touch, either one will make me smile) myself because I liked a lot of what I saw when my friend brought his to show off a little but the Macophiles on this website scare the crap outta me!
If you actually read what some of you say sometimes (“You don’t like it because you have a grudge against Apple!”, “How can anyone not fall for the coolest thing on the planet?”, “Apple this!”, “Apple that!”) you would realize how stupid it sounds to most reasonable people. Some even went a step further and commended people for doing iPhone-only websites (on the other hand, IE-only websites are definitely a huge NO-NO, right?) for Christ’s sake!
And what’s really sad is that these same posters can be reasonable and cool headed on almost everything else (check out their posts on *nix or Windows topics). The blind fanboyism only comes up when Apple is involved.
But I know that this will likely fall on deaf ears and I’ll be modded down to hell but I can’t help it, I need to take it off my chest: GO GET A LIFE, LOOSERS!
Apple didn’t sign an exclusive deal with the worst mobile carrier in the country. Seriously, AT&T/Cingular is the worst network I’ve ever used. At my previous employer I used their “service” from downtown Chicago to Seattle to LA to Orlando to NY.
In all states I had to use my personal T-Mobile phone, because the service was so horrendous on AT&T/Cingular that it was pretty much unusable. This was with 3 different phones, 2 different manufacturers, so that’s not a factor.
If the iPhone was available with Verizon or T-Mobile, I would definitely get one, as it’d be nice to consolidate my phone with my iPod all into one unit to carry. The upcoming Exchange support especially makes it attractive.
This is a joke right? I have used my AT&T service in most of the places you mentioned and it worked fine. In the SF bay area T-Mobile is horrible. Most people I know have switched to AT&T or Verizon.
Did I say I was joking? No, the service is horrible in all those places. I can name specific towns/cities if you’d like. In Chicago, it’s useless.
Then don’t extrapolate Chicago to the rest of the country. Your generalized statement is pretty dubious.
I said:
“At my previous employer I used their “service” from downtown Chicago to Seattle to LA to Orlando to NY.
In all states I had to use my personal T-Mobile phone, because the service was so horrendous on AT&T/Cingular that it was pretty much unusable. This was with 3 different phones, 2 different manufacturers, so that’s not a factor.”
How am I narrowing down to just Chicago, when I said Chicago, Seattle, LA, Orlando, and NY? I also said “would you like specific towns”?
Try some reading comprehension next time.
Having used 3 different phones with 2 different manufacturers in those areas I mentioned in my first post with AT&T/Cingular, I find my opinion to be neither “dubious” or uninformed.
Edited 2008-04-24 18:53 UTC
Those are cities not states. You can’t take 5 cities in the US and claim that represents the entire country.
You should heed your own advice. Your claim that AT&T is the worst cellphone service in the “entire country” is dubious and grossly uninformed if you are basing your statement on 5 cities in the US.
What phones and from which manufacturers?
Look, if ATT/Cingular can’t get the service running adequately in Chicago, Seattle, LA, Orlando, and NY — some of their biggest markets — it doesn’t matter whether they work in Bumtoad, ND. It’s no sale.
Sure, let me go through my records to see what every city I attempted to use AT&T service in, and I will list them to qualify my opinion to you.
Meanwhile, if you’re going to continue to be insulting to me, how about qualifying yours?
IL
Chicago
Schaumburg
Dekalb
Warrenville
Joliet
Elgin
Dundee
Batavia
Geneva
Springfield
NY
Yonkers
NYC
NJ
Trenton
Union
CA
Los Angeles
San Jose
WA
Seattle, and a couple ‘burbs of
NC
Ashville
Charlotte
FL
Orlando
Tallahassee
Jacksonville
ME
Portland
All of these towns/cities were bad with reception, some, such as Chicago, were completely useless. 8 States, and about 25 cities. Is that enough for you?
This was with a Treo 650, a Cingular Blackjack, and a Audiovox which I do not recall the model of.
What else would you like to know? Is this enough to qualify my opinion of their service, or is there more you’d like to know? The weather that day, perhaps?
With that many cities, how many more do I need to be no longer “dubious” and “uniformed”? Just let me know when I’m allowed to give my opinion on service, so I know for future reference. =)
Edited 2008-04-24 20:49 UTC
I have used my Sony Ericssion W810i, a razr and an iPhone in NY and NJ and never had an issue.
Same with San Jose. No issues with AT&T. Your San Jose claim is interesting because T-Mobile uses Cingular’s towers in San Jose that too not all of them. So any AT&T phone should get the same or better reception than a T-Mobile phone in the SF Bay Area. Unless the phone has reception issues.
Nope. Still not the entire country that you claimed in your original post.
You said 3 phones from 2 different manufacturers. Treo is made by palm, BlackJack samsung and Audiovox is a company. That 3 phones from 3 different manufacturers.
Search for Treo 650 reception on Google and the links are all about how bad the reception is. Same thing with the blackjack. There are two versions one which had excellent reception and the newer one which was just ok.
So you take 1 phone notorious for weak reception and blame the carrier for the “worst network in the entire country” that too after you have only used thaR phone in what 25 cities.
What make is your T-Mobile phone?
Its obvious that your claim is misinformed. Had you done a little bit of research you would have figured out you had phones known for poor reception. The Treo 650 is notoriously bad for having horrible reception even on Verizon’s network . Would you crassly claim Verizon has the worst network because the treo is junk???
Edited 2008-04-24 21:27 UTC
In my experience, the T-Mobile Razr worked better. Sorry, that’s in my experience.
Fine, I didn’t visit every 50 state. I have been to all 4 corners and many states in between, and if it sucks in all those areas, my overall opinion is that the service sucks. Many would agree, such as the poster above. If they can’t get it working right in the areas I posted, they’ve got a problem.
I stand corrected.
I never had issues with the 650 on Sprint, but okay. Googling it finds statements swinging both ways.
As for the Blackjack, I had the original.
This paragraph makes no sense to me. What’s a thaR?
And I used 3 different phones, as I previously mentioned. Stay with me here!
Motorola Razr
It’s obvious yours is even more misinformed. You said the 650 has bad reception. Okay, fine. Then you say one Blackjack had excellent reception, then another okay reception. The Audiovox is an unknown. Now your saying all 3 phones are notoriously bad? Which is it?
And no, Verizon has great service, which is what I am on now for work. So far I’ve been on the Q9m and before that the 6700.
I’m sorry you don’t agree with my opinion based upon the experiences I’ve had with that carrier. But I truly am telling you what I experienced. I’d love to love AT&T, because I’d love an iPhone. But having gone through all that, there’s nothing that could prompt me to switch to them.
So, you can call me misinformed all you want, but with all those dropped calls that did indeed happen, all that bad reception I did experience, I will continue to say AT&T is not a good carrier.
The funny thing is that I’ve used it in more places you have, yet you still call me dubious and misinformed. Also, with the possible exception of CA you’ve done little to back up your claims, other than “yeah I used it there too and it was fine”. Uh, okay. That’s totally convincing. :\
Furthermore, given your arrogant demeanor from the very first response you gave, I could really care less what you think of my opinion. I’ve got other things to worry about. =)
Edited 2008-04-24 21:51 UTC
In my experience the razr on AT&Ts network works fine in San Jose.
Did you use all three phones in all cities you listed? I am guessing not. So your data is subjective at best.
How many cities did you use the blackjack in?
A typo. Notice the R and T keys on a QWERTY keyboard are close to each other.
In all the 25 cities at the same time. I find that very hard to believe.
I claimed the treo was bad. I don’t know about Audiovox.
That’s an ok statement. But “worst carrier in the entire country” is dubious with the data you have provided.
I didn’t list every place on the map I have used my phone. I just picked the common places we have used them. There you go again extrapolating from a small set of data and making wild general assumptions. There is not enough data in this thread to come to the conclusion that you have used AT&T in more places than me.
I have not problem with your opinion. I just don’t like generalized statements. If you had said “Given my experience with AT&T in the past I would not switch to them” I would have been perfectly ok with it.
Your first comment was pure hyperbole.
Good deal! I’m glad you’re happy with your service.
There you go extrapolating! Yes I have used all 3 phones in the areas listed, except NC. I was a consultant for a company with offices in those areas, and visited multiple times over the timespan I was with the consulting company.
See above.
You can find it hard to believe all you want, but it’s the truth. You do know people travel for their jobs, right? It sucked being away from family, so I found a new gig.
A normal human being would nod and understand what I am getting at, and realize I am drawing from my experiences, but apparently you’re too uptight to gather that.
If another person said to me the same thing given the data I provided, I wouldn’t be running out to sign up for service just because they hadn’t tried it in North Dakota.
Perhaps the internet can’t handle something that would generally be said in conversation. I apologize. =)
No there isn’t, even though I asked you to provide such data. As such, your opinion and your basis for opinion mean very little to me at this point, because you’ve given me nothing to convince me otherwise.
Had I known the anal nature of you to begin with, I would have been far more careful.
Hopefully you’re not too offended, and can make it through the rest of the week without another generalized opinion.
It’s all in good fun.
Dude, you’re arguing with a fanboy. They really don’t like it when people question The Steve.
I live in Seattle, I have an iPhone with AT&T, and the reception is flawless. I haven’t traveled much yet since I got it, but it also worked flawlessly in Portland (OR), Montréal (Ok, that’s Canada, but still), and Pittsburgh.
In the past I was always with Verizon, and I can’t see the difference in reception quality between the two. Except that now I pay about 40$ less per month for sensibly the same service (technically a slower internet, but I can’t tell much difference).
I’m not a fan of Apple. Every one of their products feeds into their closed ecosystem (iTunes, Mac, and AT&T). I think it would be a disaster if Apple dominated cellphones like they dominate portable music players. Yet…
I love the iPhone. Apple nailed the interface. I’ve seen other competing platforms (Windows Mobile, Nokia n800, Sony, LG, PALM, Blackberry, etc.), but they all seem clunky by comparison.
That said, I’m wondering if Apple may have shot themselves in the foot with the AT&T exclusivity deal (in the US). Sure, some people will switch services for the iPhone, but most won’t. They’ve given Google Android and MS Windows Mobile a 5 year window to catch up (from when the iPhone was released). I doubt Android or Windows Mobile will be quite as slick as the iPhone, but they may reach the “good enough” level before the exclusivity deal ends. Without the exclusivity deal, I think they could have “owned” the mid-high range cellphone market in a couple years.
I could be wrong, but I think Apple went with the exclusivity deal because they had an incredibly hard time convincing the carriers to modify their backends to work with the iPhone.
I certainly wish the iPhone worked with more carriers because it would be more convenient to buy one
Got turned down for a job interview?