Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 24th Jan 2012 22:08 UTC
Apple reported its quarterly results, and thanks to the iPhone 4S and the iPad, Apple is putting out bizarre figures - 37 million iPhones, 15.5 million iPads. "The Company sold 37.04 million iPhones in the quarter, representing 128 percent unit growth over the year-ago quarter. Apple sold 15.43 million iPads during the quarter, a 111 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter. The Company sold 5.2 million Macs during the quarter, a 26 percent unit increase over the year-ago quarter. Apple sold 15.4 million iPods, a 21 percent unit decline from the year-ago quarter." Is this the end of Android's dominance, or just a single uberquarter due to the new iPhone?
Thread beginning with comment 504565
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Color me unimpressed
by rhavyn on Wed 25th Jan 2012 17:43
in reply to "RE[2]: Color me unimpressed"
Member since:2005-07-06
Actually not accurate. This is talking about how many devices were sold by Apple. Sold by Apple != Devices in use. These would be sales to retail outlets, like AT&T, Best Buy, etc. Those organizations buy the units from Apple, and then resell them. Apple gets to report those as sales, even though the devices may be sitting in a warehouse at the customers location. It most certainly does not mean that the devices are activated in any way shape or form.
I would be curious to see the activation numbers for iOS devices, as I am guessing they will be close to Androids numbers.
I would be curious to see the activation numbers for iOS devices, as I am guessing they will be close to Androids numbers.
Actually it is fairly accurate. Your description of what Apple considers a sale is correct, but you need to correlate that with the inventory data Apple publishes in their quarterly results. Apple maintains incredibly low inventories (and it was below even their low standard this past quarter) which allows them to ensure that every device purchased from them by a reseller will actually be sold to a consumer in a short period of time. Apple does not have warehouses of devices sitting around and their inventory management ensures that resellers can't stockpile warehouses of devices.
RE[4]: Color me unimpressed
by OMRebel on Wed 25th Jan 2012 18:31
in reply to "RE[3]: Color me unimpressed"
Member since:2005-11-14
Actually it is fairly accurate. Your description of what Apple considers a sale is correct, but you need to correlate that with the inventory data Apple publishes in their quarterly results. Apple maintains incredibly low inventories (and it was below even their low standard this past quarter) which allows them to ensure that every device purchased from them by a reseller will actually be sold to a consumer in a short period of time. Apple does not have warehouses of devices sitting around and their inventory management ensures that resellers can't stockpile warehouses of devices.
You are saying that Apple does not have centralized storage of their products throughout the US in order to ship out to stores that are ordering them, but rather ship directly from the manufacturers overseas to Joe's Electronic Store in Anywhere, USA? Such a model would be disastrous - as it not only delays the time in which a retailer could actually receive the product (due to shipping time as well as dealing with customs), but added costs in which the manufacturer is now fully in charge of handling shipping and orders (making inventory a huge nightmare) instead of going with a cheaper bulk shipping rate.
You may want to rethink things a bit......
Edited 2012-01-25 18:36 UTC
RE[4]: Color me unimpressed
by DrillSgt on Wed 25th Jan 2012 18:43
in reply to "RE[3]: Color me unimpressed"
Member since:2005-12-02
Actually it is fairly accurate. Your description of what Apple considers a sale is correct, but you need to correlate that with the inventory data Apple publishes in their quarterly results. Apple maintains incredibly low inventories (and it was below even their low standard this past quarter) which allows them to ensure that every device purchased from them by a reseller will actually be sold to a consumer in a short period of time. Apple does not have warehouses of devices sitting around and their inventory management ensures that resellers can't stockpile warehouses of devices.
Good point. I have not looked at the inventory data at all. I'll take a look and see if I agree or not
RE[3]: Color me unimpressed
by steve_s on Wed 25th Jan 2012 19:44
in reply to "RE[2]: Color me unimpressed"
Member since:2006-01-16
Jeez, don't be a jerk man.
Sure, there's going to be some stock in the supply chain, but you don't see resellers cutting prices of Apple devices to move inventory. There are no indications at all that resellers are sitting on Apple devices they can't shift.
There will also have been some stock sitting at resellers and in warehouses at the beginning of the quarter too, which they will have sold during the quarter.
If resellers weren't selling the devices, they wouldn't be buying more of them from Apple to resell. The difference between Apple's figures and sales to end-users is going to be minimal - probably well under 1%.
RE[3]: Color me unimpressed
by mkone on Thu 26th Jan 2012 00:07
in reply to "RE[2]: Color me unimpressed"
Member since:2006-03-14
Actually not accurate. This is talking about how many devices were sold by Apple. Sold by Apple != Devices in use. These would be sales to retail outlets, like AT&T, Best Buy, etc. Those organizations buy the units from Apple, and then resell them. Apple gets to report those as sales, even though the devices may be sitting in a warehouse at the customers location. It most certainly does not mean that the devices are activated in any way shape or form.
I would be curious to see the activation numbers for iOS devices, as I am guessing they will be close to Androids numbers.
How about the inventory from the previous quarter then. It doesn't disappear into a black hole you know. If Apple is counting as sales iPhone that have been sold to resellers, then that is OK as long as it doesn't depress shipments in the next quarter. Companies don't generally buy inventory they can't ship, and Apple doesn't do channel stuffing.
Features
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/13/13 14:35 UTC
The third and final WWDC product I want to talk about is - of course - OS X 10.9 Mavericks. While iOS 7 was clearly the focus of this year's WWDC, its venerable desktop counterpart certainly wasn't left behind. Apple announced OS X 10.9 Mavericks, the first OS X release not to carry the name of a big cat.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/11/13 17:07 UTC
We already talked about iOS 7 yesterday (after a night of sleep, it's only looking worse and worse - look at this, for Fiona's sake!), so now it's time to talk about the downright stunning and belly flutters-inducing new Mac Pro. As former owner and huge, huge, huge fan of the PowerMac G4 Cube - I haven't been this excited about an Apple product since, well, I would say the iMac G4. This is the Apple I used to love.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/10/13 23:13 UTC
Apple held its big keynote event thing at WWDC earlier this evening, but since I was away with friends I've had to read up on it later in the evening. The company announced iOS 7, OS X 10.9 Mavericks, and they gave a preview of the new Mac Pro. Especially the Mac Pro impressed me, and while iOS 7's new Holo/Metro-inspired theme looks messy and garish to me, I do commend Apple for finally breaking the mold. This news item will focus on iOS 7 - I'll dive into the Mac Pro and OS X 10.9 tomorrow (it's late here now).
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/08/13 14:57 UTC
And yes, the PRISM scandal is far, far from over. More and more information keeps leaking out, and the more gets out, the worse it gets. The companies involved have sent out official statements - often by mouth of their CEOs - and what's interesting is that not only are these official statements eerily similar to each other, using the same terms clearly designed by lawyers, they also directly contradict new reports from The New York Times. So, who is lying?
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/07/13 11:40 UTC
This story is getting bigger and bigger. Even though most Americans probably already knew, it is now official: the United States government, through its National Security Agency, is collecting the communications and data of all American citizens, and of non-Americans using American services, through a wide collaboration with the large companies in technology, like Apple, Google, Microsoft, Facebook, and so on. Interestingly enough, the NSA itself, as well as the US government, have repeatedly and firmly denied this massive spying on Americans and non-Americans took place at all.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/04/13 12:45 UTC
Ah, patents - the never-ending scourge of the technology industry. Whether wielded by companies who don't actually make any products, or large corporations who abuse them because they can't compete in the market place or because they're simply jerks, they do the industry a huge disservice and are simply plain dangerous. According to The Wall Street Journal (circumvention link), president Obama is about to take several executive actions to address patent trolls - which may seem like a good idea, but I am very worried that all this will do is strengthen the positions of notorious patent system abusers such as Apple and Microsoft.
Linked by nfeske on 05/31/13 10:12 UTC
With version 13.05, the developers of the Genode OS Framework take measures to ensure that Genode continues to scale well with a growing number of users and the steadily broadening platform coverage. Further highlights are the improved SoC support for Exynos 5, OMAP4, Raspberry Pi, i.MX, and new components for realizing headless systems.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/29/13 16:59 UTC
At the D11 conference, Apple CEO Tim Cook once again took the stage to be interviewed by Walt Mossberg and Kara Swisher. While most of the interview can be replicated by picking and reading 10 random Apple fanblog stories - there were still a number of very interesting things that warrant some closer scrutiny.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/24/13 17:26 UTC
So, the Xbox One disaster continues. Microsoft's policy for dealing with the used games market has reportedly leaked - and it's a clear and direct attack to destroy the used games market. Prices for used games will be set at the retail value of a new game, and retailers have to hook into Microsoft's computer systems and comply with Microsoft's terms and conditions.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/21/13 21:38 UTC
At an event earlier today, Microsoft unveiled the next Xbox - the third model, but confusingly named Xbox One. The big focus was TV, integrated Kinect, and all the other stuff we all expected to be forced down our throats. I think it took them 25 minutes to actually come to what should be the core of the story: gaming. Nothing groundbreaking in the gaming department, except for how Microsoft intends to handle the used games market and borrowing games from friends: pay up, buddy!More Features »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2005-12-02
Yes, please do the math
37.04MM iPhones
15.5MM iPads
7.7MM iPod Touches (half of the 15.4 million iPods)
= 60.24MM devices in a quarter
Which is approximately 670,000 iOS activations per day.
Actually not accurate. This is talking about how many devices were sold by Apple. Sold by Apple != Devices in use. These would be sales to retail outlets, like AT&T, Best Buy, etc. Those organizations buy the units from Apple, and then resell them. Apple gets to report those as sales, even though the devices may be sitting in a warehouse at the customers location. It most certainly does not mean that the devices are activated in any way shape or form.
I would be curious to see the activation numbers for iOS devices, as I am guessing they will be close to Androids numbers.