Todd Allcock

At 21 Oct 2007 14:12:43 -0700 Mark Crispin wrote:

> Anybody can see the pile of unsold iPhone in boxes, not to mention
> how the sales droids are trying to tackle passers-by to come in
> and buy one. They're getting desparate.


Considering the recent report from Strategic Analytics that claims it's
AT&T's best selling phone, what do think they should have "a pile of?"
The lowest selling model? When I managed and owned retail stores, I
tended to spend my inventory dollars on products people actually wanted
to buy, as crazy as that might sound!

> An iPod is a toy for teenagers and college kids. It is not a
> business tool.

And neither is the iPhone. Nor has Apple claimed it is, unless they've
elevated Oxford from store clerk to spokesman.

(Am I the only one who pictures Oxford looking like Dwight Schrute from
"The Office?")

zara

"Mark Crispin" <MRC@Panda.COM> wrote in message
news:alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710211354440.5152@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM...
> On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, ZnU wrote:
>> Of course, you don't actually have any information about iPhone
>> inventories or sales.
>
> Anybody can see the pile of unsold iPhone in boxes, not to mention how the
> sales droids are trying to tackle passers-by to come in and buy one.
> They're getting desparate.
>
>>> The vast majority of mobile phone users issued a collective yawn over an
>>> overpriced, locked, GSM-only phone which lacks the basic capabilities of
>>> a
>>> smartphone (necessary for business use).
>> Another person who misunderstands the iPhone's target market, I see.
>
> No, we understand quite well that the iPhone is aimed at fanboys. It is
> you fanboys (most notably, a cretin called "Oxford") that are busy
> polluting mobile phone newsgroups with nonsense about how iPhones will
> replace smartphones and drive smartphone manufacturers out of business.
>
> Since fanboys want to compare iPhone with smartphones, we'll do so and
> show that the iPhone is a piece of crap.
>
>> Does it double as an iPod? (Not as a generic music player. As an iPod.
>> The market has shown it does not consider these things to be
>> interchangeable.)
>
> An iPod is a toy for teenagers and college kids. It is not a business
> tool.

I have friends in the apple store at the Palm Beach Gardens Mall. They tell
me that iPhone sales are "dog slow".

zara

"Todd Allcock" <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote in message
news:mYRSi.1618$Rg.88@fe103.usenetserver.com...
> At 21 Oct 2007 14:12:43 -0700 Mark Crispin wrote:
>
>> Anybody can see the pile of unsold iPhone in boxes, not to mention
>> how the sales droids are trying to tackle passers-by to come in
>> and buy one. They're getting desparate.
>
>
> Considering the recent report from Strategic Analytics that claims it's
> AT&T's best selling phone, what do think they should have "a pile of?"
> The lowest selling model? When I managed and owned retail stores, I
> tended to spend my inventory dollars on products people actually wanted
> to buy, as crazy as that might sound!

That applies to the "average" business. AT&T gets those phones on a
"consignment" basis. They don't lay out Dime One.

> snip

ZnU

In article <3OmdnfTh94DzSIbanZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@giganews.com>,
"Ness_net" <richard@nomore.damn.spam.nessnet.com> wrote:

> Now... repeat the below to Oxford, etc... whatever name de jour...

Mind you, just because the iPhone isn't targeted primarily at the
business market doesn't necessarily mean it won't eventually take a
decent chunk of the business market.

True, you're almost certainly not going to see large companies with
Exchange installations dealing out iPhones in place of BlackBerries. But
remember that the business market is more than just the Fortune 500. The
iPhone will probably be quite popular among professionals and small
business folks.

> "ZnU" <znu@fake.invalid> wrote in message
> news:znu-B88F85.18161521102007@news.individual.net...
> >
> >> It is not a business tool.
> >
> > Exactly. The iPhone isn't primarily targeted at the business smartphone
> > market. It's targeted primarily at the much larger consumer market.
> >
> > Which is why RIM probably shouldn't worry *too* much even though the
> > iPhone does already appear to be the best selling smartphone in the US.
> > Most of that is probably coming from growing the smartphone market, not
> > from the existing players.

--
"More than two decades later, it is hard to imagine the Revolutionary War coming
out any other way."
--George W. Bush in Martinsburg, W. Va., July 4, 2007

Mitch

In article <alpine.OSX.0.9999.0710211017570.2841@pangtzu.pand a.com>,
Mark Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM> wrote:

> The reason why you are doing this is because reality has started to set
> in. iPhone sales are dropping.
Of course. Initial sales for an in-demand device with be highest. Sales
are lower than at first, but still higher than almost any comparable
device.

> All the fanboys who wanted one now have
> one, and all the local AT&T stores have a huge inventory of unsold
> iPhones.
Not true; they are moving fine.

> The vast majority of mobile phone users issued a collective yawn over an
> overpriced, locked, GSM-only phone which lacks the basic capabilities of a
> smartphone (necessary for business use).
It only lacks those capabilities if a very very narrow mind restricts
the term 'smart phone' in unnecessary ways. At no time has this been
marketed as a business-class mobile data device. It's been marketed as
an entertainment phone, which you should think of as a different
animal.

For example, few phones of any stripe have such a high-res screen. That
is a big deal, and it applies itself very well to what the iPhone is
made for. Few would want any of the other offerings for viewing movies
or images or even Web pages, but you are arguing that iPhone is the
wrong set of features?

> Even a few more intelligent fanboys have figured out that for the price of
> an iPhone, they can get an unlocked phone (that performs better as a
> phone)
Significantly better? Or hardly better at all?

> PLUS a Nokia N800 (that performs better as an Internet access
> device AND allows you to load your own software since it's Linux based).
But which is huge and heavy and expensive.

> Then there are the fanboys who took their iPhone to a foreign country,
> then came home to find an AT&T bill for THOUSANDS of dollars even though
> they never placed any calls. Their iPhone ran that up in packet charges
> while checking for mail! [Hey Apple, there's a reason why mobile phones
> use Push. If you're gonna use Pull protocols, you have to use it the way
> that Pull was intended.]


If you had never used the word 'fanboys,' (which shows that you don't
have any idea who is buying the iPhone in the first place!), your
message might have been taken as intelligent. As it is, it's just
another junk complaint noting that people can get different features
from different devices. (Everyone knows that; few people get upset
about it and post complaints about the devices they do not want to
buy!)

Oxford

Todd Allcock <elecconnec@AmericaOnLine.com> wrote:

> And neither is the iPhone. Nor has Apple claimed it is, unless they've
> elevated Oxford from store clerk to spokesman.
>
> (Am I the only one who pictures Oxford looking like Dwight Schrute from
> "The Office?")

actually, i'm a look alike of mark harmon, or as i've been told about
500 times

http://snipurl.com/1sgw8

Mitch

In article
<alpine.WNT.0.9999.0710211354440.5152@Shimo-Tomobiki.Panda.COM>, Mark
Crispin <MRC@Panda.COM> wrote:

> Anybody can see the pile of unsold iPhone in boxes, not to mention how the
> sales droids are trying to tackle passers-by to come in and buy one.
> They're getting desparate.
That's just silly. Has anyone here seen any of this?

Consider: a stack of iPhone boxes in a store does not mean none are
being sold. It means they are in stock. In stock is good -- it means
production didn't fall too short.

> >> The vast majority of mobile phone users issued a collective yawn over an
> >> overpriced, locked, GSM-only phone which lacks the basic capabilities of a
> >> smartphone (necessary for business use).
> > Another person who misunderstands the iPhone's target market, I see.
>
> No, we understand quite well that the iPhone is aimed at fanboys. It is
> you fanboys (most notably, a cretin called "Oxford") that are busy
> polluting mobile phone newsgroups with nonsense about how iPhones will
> replace smartphones and drive smartphone manufacturers out of business.
Oxford represents NO segment of population. There are definitely people
who are fans of Apple products, but 'fanboys' is unnecessarily mean and
hurtful. Let it alone, get over yourself, and stop it.

> Since fanboys want to compare iPhone with smartphones, we'll do so and
> show that the iPhone is a piece of crap.
You already have; you simply decided to apply only to select features,
to artificially find it a bad fit.
It is not; it's a good device, and most say great. If you applied your
criticisms to what those people said, you might be taken as making
intelligent comments.
I doubt you'll do it.

> > Does it double as an iPod? (Not as a generic music player. As an iPod.
> > The market has shown it does not consider these things to be
> > interchangeable.)
>
> An iPod is a toy for teenagers and college kids.
Most commonly, yes. Is that a problem? That's the biggest audience for
music, you know.

> It is not a business tool.
EXACTLY RIGHT! And yet, whoever told you that entertainment devices
didn't also count, and weren't to be considered?
Yes, neither iPod nor iPhone is that kind of business tool. iPhone is
still good for it, it's still excellent at what it does, but it is not
a business tool of the kind you mean.

Incidentally, most things are not business tools. It's not a ueful
observation, especially when the device in question is excellent as
another kind of device.

Mitch

In article <znu-B88F85.18161521102007@news.individual.net>, ZnU
<znu@fake.invalid> wrote:

> > An iPod is a toy for teenagers and college kids.
>
> The iPod demographic is considerably broader than that.
Well, sure, it isn't _only_ for teens and collegians. But what hge said
is right -- he's just wrongly trying to couch that as a bad thing.

Mark, it's a very good thing that it is applied so well to that market,
since it's an important market for music players. See?

> > It is not a business tool.
>
> Exactly. The iPhone isn't primarily targeted at the business smartphone
> market. It's targeted primarily at the much larger consumer market.

And I think most of us are scratching our heads wondering why Mark is
decrying it as a poor business tool. It's like running into a theater
and yelling that it's a bad restaurant.

Mark Crispin

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mitch wrote:
>> Exactly. The iPhone isn't primarily targeted at the business smartphone
>> market. It's targeted primarily at the much larger consumer market.
> And I think most of us are scratching our heads wondering why Mark is
> decrying it as a poor business tool. It's like running into a theater
> and yelling that it's a bad restaurant.

Apple fanboys (such as Oxford) pollute our newsgroups saying otherwise.
We are responding by posting the truth in the Apple fanboy newsgroup.

Or, to use your metaphor, the fanboys are running into our restaurant and
saying that it's a bad theater.

We in the Verizon newsgroup DO NOT CARE about your overpriced locked
GSM-only (no 3G) phone. Either knock it off, or get more iPhone trashing
in your newsgroup.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

Mark Crispin

On Sun, 21 Oct 2007, Mitch wrote:
> Oxford represents NO segment of population. There are definitely people
> who are fans of Apple products, but 'fanboys' is unnecessarily mean and
> hurtful.

I'm sorry that the truth hurts.

Apple might do better in the market without the wide-eyed fanatics
screaming that all Apple products are perfect in all ways and refusing to
comprehend that competing products have features too.

-- Mark --

http://panda.com/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.