Piper Jaffray: 500,000 iPhones sold over the weekend

[Doug]

I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL!

http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9738446-7.html

July 1, 2007 9:26 PM PDT
Piper Jaffray: 500,000 iPhones sold over the weekend
Posted by Tom Krazit
Apple sold around half a million iPhones the first weekend the device went
on sale, one analyst firm has estimated.

Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster released a report Sunday night estimating that
Apple sold about 500,000 units from 6 p.m. Friday through the close of
business Sunday. Going into the weekend Munster thought Apple would sell
200,000 on Friday and Saturday.

Despite low supply at AT&T stores and activation issues, it appears that
the iPhone era at Apple got off to a good start. Piper Jaffray said Apple
had iPhones available in each one of its stores on Saturday, and in 84
percent of its stores Sunday.

Ninety-five percent of iPhone buyers in San Francisco, New York and
Minneapolis (home to Piper Jaffray's offices) purchased the 8GB model,
according to a survey conducted by the firm. About half were new customers
for AT&T, at least among the 253 people surveyed for the report.

[Mitch]

Post by Doug
I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL!

I don't understand; why would that be funny?

[Liberals HATE America!]

Post by Mitch

Post by Doug
I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL!

I don't understand; why would that be funny?

It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair.

[Mitch]

Post by Liberals HATE America!
It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair.

Well, sure!
A box of hair is FUNNY!
I just don't know why it always laughs back.

[John Mayson]

Post by Liberals HATE America!

Post by Mitch
I don't understand; why would that be funny?

It's not. Doug is just a blithering idiot. He'd laugh at a box of hair.

Boxes of hair aren't funny?

- --
John Mayson <***@mayson.us>
Austin, Texas, USA

[Edwin]

Post by Doug
I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL!
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9738446-7.html
July 1, 2007 9:26 PM PDT
Piper Jaffray:500,000iPhonessoldover the weekend
Posted by Tom Krazit
Applesoldaround half a millioniPhonesthe first weekend the device went
on sale, one analyst firm has estimated.
Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster released a report Sunday night estimating that
Applesoldabout500,000units from 6 p.m. Friday through the close of
business Sunday. Going into the weekend Munster thought Apple would sell
200,000 on Friday and Saturday.
Despite low supply at AT&T stores and activation issues, it appears that
the iPhone era at Apple got off to a good start. Piper Jaffray said Apple
hadiPhonesavailable in each one of its stores on Saturday, and in 84
percent of its stores Sunday.
Ninety-five percent of iPhone buyers in San Francisco, New York and
Minneapolis (home to Piper Jaffray's offices) purchased the 8GB model,
according to a survey conducted by the firm. About half were new customers
for AT&T, at least among the 253 people surveyed for the report.

Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations
East Bay Business Times - 1:55 PM PDT Tuesday, July 24, 2007

Shares of Apple Inc. dropped more than 6 percent Tuesday after fewer
iPhones than expected were activated during the first few days after
the gadget's launch.

Cupertino-based Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock fell $8.81 to close the day
at $134.89.

AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
the first weekend.

Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
(NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.

Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.

http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/07/23/daily23.html

It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
are going to be returning iPhones...

[C J Campbell]

Post by Edwin
AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
the first weekend.
<snip>
Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
(NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/07/23/daily23.html
It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
are going to be returning iPhones...

Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone,
since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.

Look. I like the iPhone. It is a nice unit and it deserves to succeed.
But it is not a Mac. Perhaps we need an iPhone group.

That said, I think the iPhone needs a few things in order to really take off:

1) Apple needs to stress that the EDGE network is a backup system. The
iPhone is meant to be used wirelessly.

2) Allowing 3rd party aps as web applications does not cut it,
especially in much of the west where you are lucky to get cellular
coverage at all, let alone EDGE or wireless. Even a couple games would
be nice.

3) I can live with the battery thing, but Apple has got to figure out
how to replace that battery without leaving me with no phone for a
couple weeks.

4) Most of the people I saw buying iPhones were gangsta wannabees and
the hip-hop crowd. Fine, but it tells me that Apple is not marketing
the phones to people who might actually use all their features. If you
are a businessman looking for a phone, you don't want to get a phone
that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy
is a bad thing.

[Scott]

Post by C J Campbell
Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single
iPhone, since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.

Uh- wrong. iPhones started being sold to consumers at the end of June,
which was the end of the second quarter. Stores needed iPhones to sell
them- they will most certainly be reported when quarterly results are
announced later this week.

[George Kerby]

On 7/24/07 6:51 PM, in article

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Edwin
AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
the first weekend.
<snip>
Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
(NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/07/23/daily23.html
It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
are going to be returning iPhones...

Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone,
since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.
Look. I like the iPhone. It is a nice unit and it deserves to succeed.
But it is not a Mac. Perhaps we need an iPhone group.
1) Apple needs to stress that the EDGE network is a backup system. The
iPhone is meant to be used wirelessly.
2) Allowing 3rd party aps as web applications does not cut it,
especially in much of the west where you are lucky to get cellular
coverage at all, let alone EDGE or wireless. Even a couple games would
be nice.
3) I can live with the battery thing, but Apple has got to figure out
how to replace that battery without leaving me with no phone for a
couple weeks.
4) Most of the people I saw buying iPhones were gangsta wannabees and
the hip-hop crowd. Fine, but it tells me that Apple is not marketing
the phones to people who might actually use all their features. If you
are a businessman looking for a phone, you don't want to get a phone
that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy
is a bad thing.

I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot
grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the
fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email
sends.

Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the ass absent.

[sbt]

Post by George Kerby
I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot
grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the
fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email
sends.

Better BlueTooth support would, indeed be great. That said, when I plug
mine into one of my Macs (and have "fresh" photos on it), it goes
straight to iPhoto instead of iTunes, so the photos get sucked up
pretty easily.

Post by George Kerby
Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the ass absent.

Yes, Flash/Shockwave support would be really nice. Since it has YouTube
support (and that is Flash-based), this would give the appearance of
being fairly straightforward, but maybe I'm missing something.

The feature I miss the most, though, is an "iPod" feature -- being able
to manually manage content/use as a flash storage device for moving
files around.

Regardless of the above "wish list" features, it is still the first
cellphone I've found that I'm willing to carry around with me without
grumbling about it being a pain-in-the-a** piece of sh*t annoyance.

[none]

Post by sbt
Yes, Flash/Shockwave support would be really nice. Since it has YouTube
support (and that is Flash-based),

the days of flash are coming to a end. youtube is converting everything
to pure H.264. flash just can't cut it for the future. the iphone only
plays H.264, quicktime, jpg, tif, gif, etc.

[Bob "Buy From Me" Blakeley]

Post by none

Post by sbt
Yes, Flash/Shockwave support would be really nice. Since it has YouTube
support (and that is Flash-based),

the days of flash are coming to a end. youtube is converting everything
to pure H.264. flash just can't cut it for the future. the iphone only
plays H.264, quicktime, jpg, tif, gif, etc.

Bullshit, just b/c your life revolves around watching video mini screens
of prancing naked children on your iphone doesn't mean a Goddamned thing
regarding Flash.

[John C. Randolph]

Post by sbt
Since it has YouTube
support (and that is Flash-based), this would give the appearance of
being fairly straightforward, but maybe I'm missing something.

YouTube is re-encoding video with the H.264 codec for TV and iPhone.
That's why the less-popular videos from YouTube aren't on the iPhone
yet. They've got a lot of material to convert.

-jcr

[Tinman]

Post by George Kerby
I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot
grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the
fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email
sends.

I assume you mean in the absence of a USB connection.

Post by George Kerby
Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the ass absent.

I could live without Java but the lack of Flash is a biggie.

[George Kerby]

Post by Tinman

Post by George Kerby
I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot
grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the
fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email
sends.

I assume you mean in the absence of a USB connection.

No, a Bluetooth file transfer system. My old Motorola 500 could communicate
with all my Macs and exchange info. I am assuming that the iTunes route of
transfer is much like the iPod: sync with only one computer. No Usb is
involved.

Post by Tinman

Post by George Kerby
Also, java, or something for web animation is a pain in the ass absent.

I could live without Java but the lack of Flash is a biggie.

Agreed.

[Tinman]

Post by George Kerby

Post by Tinman

Post by George Kerby
I would like to add that it needs to be more Bluetooth friendly. I cannot
grab file off of it like I could do with my Moto. It is a hassle to get the
fairly good digital camera captures to my Mac without individual email
sends.

I assume you mean in the absence of a USB connection.

No, a Bluetooth file transfer system. My old Motorola 500 could communicate
with all my Macs and exchange info. I am assuming that the iTunes route of
transfer is much like the iPod: sync with only one computer.

Not when it comes to photos. At least with PCs I can use any modern PC and
my iPhone is recognized as a digital camera and the files can be
offloaded--no iTunes required. I would think a Mac would work similarly
(think it uses iPhoto though). But again, this is via USB.

I'm not saying I like it being limited to USB (well, I have emailed photos
too), nor would I likely have a cable handy when carrying around my iPhone.
BT would be nice, but I'd like WiFi too. I suspect this will come in due
time. Heck, I've just about got WiFi tethering working as outlined here:
"http://www.engadget.com/2007/07/25/iphone-hacked-for-untethered-edge-data-on-laptop/"
"http://www.everythingiphone.com/forum/iphone-software/tethering-now-possible-6905.html"

I didn't expect this so soon. The technique essentially bridges EDGE to WiFi
so that the iPhone becomes a mini WiFi hotspot (ad hoc). I certainly won't
use it much, but for those times when traveling when I really need to do
something from my laptop, and no free WiFi is available (seems to be getting
common at airports--subscription only, or pay for a day). With my Treo I
used this maybe 4 times a year. But it was still nice to have. Looks like I
will have that soon for my iPhone too.

[Tim Adams]

Post by C J Campbell

Post by Edwin
AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
the first weekend.
<snip>
Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
(NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/07/23/daily23.html
It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
are going to be returning iPhones...

Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone,
since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.

WRONG. Apple's quarter ended on June 30th, 30 hours AFTER the iPhone went on
sale.

Post by C J Campbell
Look. I like the iPhone. It is a nice unit and it deserves to succeed.
But it is not a Mac. Perhaps we need an iPhone group.
1) Apple needs to stress that the EDGE network is a backup system. The
iPhone is meant to be used wirelessly.
2) Allowing 3rd party aps as web applications does not cut it,
especially in much of the west where you are lucky to get cellular
coverage at all, let alone EDGE or wireless. Even a couple games would
be nice.
3) I can live with the battery thing, but Apple has got to figure out
how to replace that battery without leaving me with no phone for a
couple weeks.
4) Most of the people I saw buying iPhones were gangsta wannabees and
the hip-hop crowd. Fine, but it tells me that Apple is not marketing
the phones to people who might actually use all their features. If you
are a businessman looking for a phone, you don't want to get a phone
that looks like it is a theft magnet. Sometimes, being cool and trendy
is a bad thing.

[Kurt Ullman]

In article

Post by Tim Adams

Post by C J Campbell
Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single iPhone,
since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.

WRONG. Apple's quarter ended on June 30th, 30 hours AFTER the iPhone went on
sale.

Kinda sorta. Read today that Apple is going to book the income from
the iPhones over the course of the contracts for some reason known only
the accountants (unless of course the AP reporter got that mixed up with
the per phone fees Apple is getting from ATT- a possibility I suppose).

[Scott]

Post by Kurt Ullman
In article

Post by Tim Adams

Post by C J Campbell
Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single
iPhone, since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.

WRONG. Apple's quarter ended on June 30th, 30 hours AFTER the iPhone
went on sale.

Kinda sorta. Read today that Apple is going to book the income from
the iPhones over the course of the contracts for some reason known
only the accountants (unless of course the AP reporter got that mixed
up with the per phone fees Apple is getting from ATT- a possibility I
suppose).

The reason is simple- a way to hide the sales figures. I'd be interested
in knowing how AT&T is paying for the phones they sell- when shipped or
when activated? Or over the life of the contract?

[KDT]

Post by Scott

Post by Kurt Ullman
In article

Post by Tim Adams

Post by C J Campbell
Apple's quarterly results will not contain the sale of a single
iPhone, since all the iPhone sales occurred in the next quarter.

WRONG. Apple's quarter ended on June 30th, 30 hours AFTER the iPhone
went on sale.

Kinda sorta. Read today that Apple is going to book the income from
the iPhones over the course of the contracts for some reason known
only the accountants (unless of course the AP reporter got that mixed
up with the per phone fees Apple is getting from ATT- a possibility I
suppose).

The reason is simple- a way to hide the sales figures. I'd be interested
in knowing how AT&T is paying for the phones they sell- when shipped or
when activated? Or over the life of the contract?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

It's no secret why Apple is going to book revenue over two
years....They've stated the reason a million times....

http://ce.seekingalpha.com/article/33648

"Rather than recognize the revenue up front, based on the total price,
it'll be accounted for as a subscription, which means while the money
will be in the bank, there'll be no change in cash flow -- revenue and
earnings will be deferred and amortized over two years rather than
recognized immediately.

The change is required by accounting rules because Apple now says it
will add new features to these products for free over time"

[KDT]

Post by Edwin

Post by Doug
I wonder how many Verizon customers ported out. LOL!
http://news.com.com/8301-10784_3-9738446-7.html
July 1, 2007 9:26 PM PDT
Piper Jaffray:500,000iPhonessoldover the weekend
Posted by Tom Krazit
Applesoldaround half a millioniPhonesthe first weekend the device went
on sale, one analyst firm has estimated.
Piper Jaffray's Gene Munster released a report Sunday night estimating that
Applesoldabout500,000units from 6 p.m. Friday through the close of
business Sunday. Going into the weekend Munster thought Apple would sell
200,000 on Friday and Saturday.
Despite low supply at AT&T stores and activation issues, it appears that
the iPhone era at Apple got off to a good start. Piper Jaffray said Apple
hadiPhonesavailable in each one of its stores on Saturday, and in 84
percent of its stores Sunday.
Ninety-five percent of iPhone buyers in San Francisco, New York and
Minneapolis (home to Piper Jaffray's offices) purchased the 8GB model,
according to a survey conducted by the firm. About half were new customers
for AT&T, at least among the 253 people surveyed for the report.

Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations
East Bay Business Times - 1:55 PM PDT Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Shares of Apple Inc. dropped more than 6 percent Tuesday after fewer
iPhones than expected were activated during the first few days after
the gadget's launch.
Cupertino-based Apple (NASDAQ:AAPL) stock fell $8.81 to close the day
at $134.89.
AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
the first weekend.
Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
(NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/07/23/daily23.html
It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
are going to be returning iPhones...- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Edwin, the weekend consists of three days...AT&T only reported two
and.....

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070724/ap_on_hi_te/apple_iphone_2;_ylt=Ag3Ph6tb163yrV4HogjmusBkM3wV


Analysts cautioned against reading too much into AT&T's activation
numbers, saying the actual number of iPhones sold may be much higher
but was not reflected in the figure because many users had activation
problems and couldn't sign up for a few days.

"It's just had such a run on overexpectations, I don't see this as any
sort of disappointing metric in terms of the iPhone overall," said
Ingrid Ebeling, an analyst with JMP Securities. "I think it's just
gotten a little overhyped over the past month."

[Bill Gates]

Post by KDT
Analysts cautioned against reading too much into AT&T's activation
numbers, saying the actual number of iPhones sold may be much higher
but was not reflected in the figure because many users had activation
problems and couldn't sign up for a few days.
"It's just had such a run on overexpectations, I don't see this as any
sort of disappointing metric in terms of the iPhone overall," said
Ingrid Ebeling, an analyst with JMP Securities. "I think it's just
gotten a little overhyped over the past month."

and A LOT of people bought them as gifts, sold them on ebay or bought 2
at once so the activation number is probably around 1/3 the number of
iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess
is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days.

[Scott]

Post by Bill Gates

Post by KDT
Analysts cautioned against reading too much into AT&T's activation
numbers, saying the actual number of iPhones sold may be much higher
but was not reflected in the figure because many users had activation
problems and couldn't sign up for a few days.
"It's just had such a run on overexpectations, I don't see this as any
sort of disappointing metric in terms of the iPhone overall," said
Ingrid Ebeling, an analyst with JMP Securities. "I think it's just
gotten a little overhyped over the past month."

and A LOT of people bought them as gifts, sold them on ebay or bought 2
at once so the activation number is probably around 1/3 the number of
iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess
is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days.

We won't know the real number tomorrow- every phone they sold to AT&T for
stock will be reported tomorrow, whether activated or not.

[Mitch]

Post by Bill Gates
and A LOT of people bought them as gifts, sold them on ebay or bought 2
at once so the activation number is probably around 1/3 the number of
iphones actually "sold". we'll know the true number tomorrow, my guess
is around 1.5 million sold in the first 7 days.

I'll second that. It seems a large number of people buying them were
buying 2, 3, 4 or more devices at once.
I'm guessing most activated only one when they got home, even if they
were not planning to sell them.

I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but
this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all.
If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it.

[Kurt Ullman]

Post by Mitch
I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but
this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all.
If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it.

I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I
don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong.

[Mitch]

In article

Post by Kurt Ullman

Post by Mitch
I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but
this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all.
If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it.

I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I
don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong.

Not sure why I am surprised? Because of the very big difference, the
specific attention it was given, and the facts that there are a lot of
people hoping to pee on the parade, if only to make themselve visible
in the melee.

Not sure why I think the SEC needs to look into it? Because releasing
numbers that are not valid, especially when they affect a company's
sales and stock prices, is illegal and a very bad practice to allow at
any time.

[Kurt Ullman]

Post by Mitch

Post by Kurt Ullman
I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I
don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong.

Not sure why I think the SEC needs to look into it? Because releasing
numbers that are not valid, especially when they affect a company's
sales and stock prices, is illegal and a very bad practice to allow at
any time.

*IF* those numbers came from Apple (or ATT), then I would agree.
However if the irrational exuberance (to coin a phrase) came from Piper
Jaffray or others, I don't think the SEC has a dog in that hunt. Thus,
the question about who came up with the numbers(g).

[Matthew T. Russotto]

Post by Kurt Ullman
In article

Post by Kurt Ullman

Post by Mitch
I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but
this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all.
If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it.

I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I
don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong.

Not sure why I am surprised? Because of the very big difference, the
specific attention it was given, and the facts that there are a lot of
people hoping to pee on the parade, if only to make themselve visible
in the melee.

AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with
activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says
that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were
at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up
number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000.

[Thomas R. Kettler]

Post by Matthew T. Russotto

Post by Kurt Ullman
In article

Post by Kurt Ullman

Post by Mitch
I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but
this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all.
If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it.

I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I
don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong.

Not sure why I am surprised? Because of the very big difference, the
specific attention it was given, and the facts that there are a lot of
people hoping to pee on the parade, if only to make themselve visible
in the melee.

AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with
activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says
that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were
at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up
number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000.

It goes farther than that. We don't know how many people bought iPhones
but wanted to transfer their number to the iPhone. Did Verizon, Sprint,
etc. have people over the weekend to accommodate those people? To
activate the iPhone with the number requires the previous phone to be
deactivated.

Michelle Steiner previously discussed the problems she had and
eventually said she just got a new number for her iPhone. If others did
not want to go to that hassle but just waited until the following week
to get the previous phone deactivated to keep their phone number, it
would not show in the numbers.

Having your phone number switched is not a trivial matter. I recall
having to stay at a Radio Shack for nearly two hours when I got my
Sprint LG phone two years ago and that was just switching the number
from a Sprint Samsung phone.

I have not seen any numbers on switches of numbers for people who bought
iPhones. Has anyone else?

Remove blown from email address to reply.

[Todd Allcock]

Post by Thomas R. Kettler
It goes farther than that. We don't know how many people bought iPhones
but wanted to transfer their number to the iPhone.

AT&T claims 40% of the acivations were from other carriers. I suspect a
good number of them ported their old number.

Post by Thomas R. Kettler
Did Verizon, Sprint,
etc. have people over the weekend to accommodate those people?

They don't have to. The porting process is computerized and automatic.
Only "rejected" ports, where the account information doesn't match
between the two providers, (i.e. "Tom Kettler" opens account at AT&T and
asks to port "Thomas R. Kettler"'s Verizon number, etc.) have to be
reviewed manually.

Post by Thomas R. Kettler
To
activate the iPhone with the number requires the previous phone to be
deactivated.

No, not really. The porting process goes something like this: you have,
say, a Verizon phone with number 111-1111. AT&T activates your new phone
with temorary number 222-2222, and begins the port. Verizon is notified
electronically to cancel your account and release 111-1111 to AT&T, then
AT&T is notified 111-1111 is now available and changes your activated
account from 222-2222 to 111-1111. If all goes well, this is done fairly
quickly, if not, up to a couple of days. Either way, your AT&T phone is
active immediately with SOME number, and in the case of the subject at
hand, is counted as an activation.

Post by Thomas R. Kettler
Michelle Steiner previously discussed the problems she had and
eventually said she just got a new number for her iPhone.

IIRC, her problem wasn't totally port related, but had to do with an
incomplete account creation "stuck" in the system blocking her attempts
to setup an account (because the system saw it as a duplicate account for
the same phone.)

Post by Thomas R. Kettler
If others did
not want to go to that hassle but just waited until the following week
to get the previous phone deactivated to keep their phone number, it
would not show in the numbers.

AT&T claims systemic problems delayed 8,000-10,000 activations the first
weekend.

Post by Thomas R. Kettler
Having your phone number switched is not a trivial matter. I recall
having to stay at a Radio Shack for nearly two hours when I got my
Sprint LG phone two years ago and that was just switching the number
from a Sprint Samsung phone.

It's become smoother, but I had a nightmarish double port just last year
that took three days. I simultaneously ported my old contract cellphone
number into a prepaid phone while porting a business land line into my
contract phone. (I wanted to keep my old number alive to setup a
voicemail directing people to the new number, hence the port to the
prepaid.)

Not once in the three-day process did either phone stop working, but
different numbers rang different phones throughout the process! Through
the magic of call forwarding and the hassle of lugging two phones around,
I don't think I missed any calls in those three days.

Post by Thomas R. Kettler
I have not seen any numbers on switches of numbers for people who
bought iPhones. Has anyone else?

I haven't, but I assume the majority of the 40% changing providers to
AT&T ported their number.


--
Todd Allcock

"I don't need my cell phone to play video games or take pictures or
double
as a Walkie-Talkie; I just need it to work. Thanks for all the bells and
whistles,
but I could communicate better with ACTUAL bells and whistles."
-Bill Maher 9/25/2003

[Tim Adams]

Post by Thomas R. Kettler

Post by Matthew T. Russotto

Post by Kurt Ullman
In article

Post by Kurt Ullman

Post by Mitch
I am surprised by the high number estimates, and I don't buy them, but
this 146,000 claimed today doesn't sound right at all.
If it's not accurate in some way, the SEC needs to look into it.

I'm not sure why. Most of the numbers were given out by analysts. I
don't remember any numbers from Apple. But I could be wrong.

Not sure why I am surprised? Because of the very big difference, the
specific attention it was given, and the facts that there are a lot of
people hoping to pee on the parade, if only to make themselve visible
in the melee.

AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with
activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says
that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were
at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up
number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000.

It goes farther than that. We don't know how many people bought iPhones
but wanted to transfer their number to the iPhone. Did Verizon, Sprint,
etc. have people over the weekend to accommodate those people? To
activate the iPhone with the number requires the previous phone to be
deactivated.

And the phone companies have at least 10* days in which to release it.

Post by Thomas R. Kettler
Michelle Steiner previously discussed the problems she had and
eventually said she just got a new number for her iPhone. If others did
not want to go to that hassle but just waited until the following week
to get the previous phone deactivated to keep their phone number, it
would not show in the numbers.
Having your phone number switched is not a trivial matter. I recall
having to stay at a Radio Shack for nearly two hours when I got my
Sprint LG phone two years ago and that was just switching the number
from a Sprint Samsung phone.
I have not seen any numbers on switches of numbers for people who bought
iPhones. Has anyone else?
Remove blown from email address to reply.

* this number was given me by an AT&T wireless company employee.

[Mitch]

Post by Matthew T. Russotto
AT&T had 146,000 activations in 1.5 days. AT&T was swamped with
activations, to the point where many were delayed. To me, that says
that this number says only one thing about iPhone sales: There were
at least 146,000. Apple could have sold 10 million (totally made up
number) and AT&T would still have only activated 146,000.

Another good point: the number may not reflect all activations
attempted or begun during that time. They may be applying some lkind of
additional consideration (like the billing was sent out).
Some of these people are ignoring that we're talking about the business
practices, not some absolute value of actually moved items. The
business practices may not even count anything where that wasn't a
physical transation of money yet (which means all credit card payments
wouldn't have been counted until Monday, for instance.)

It's also important for them to remember that the threshold is over a
matter of a few hours -- even partially begun activations may be a
significant quantity to consider.

Again, I just hope someone can explain the difference in values.

[Kurt Ullman]

Post by Edwin
AT&T Inc. -- the sole provider of the new product -- said it activated
146,000 iPhones, while analysts had expected at least 200,000 during
the first weekend.
Buyers need a two-year contract from San Antonio, Texas-based AT&T
(NYSE:T) and must pay a one-time activation fee of $36.
Apple is scheduled to report its third-quarter results Wednesday.
http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/stories/2007/07/23/daily23.html
It seems that 500,000 estimate was too high... or that a lot of people
are going to be returning iPhones...

It does seem like a little too much to assume that 346,000 iPhones are
going to appear on eBay.

[Screw the i(diot)Phone]

Post by Edwin
Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!

[none]

Post by Screw the i(diot)Phone

Post by Edwin
Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!

no it didn't, that number was only for the first 30 hours, not the 1.65
million sold during the first "week"

so you screwed up!

[Screw the i(diot)Phone]

Post by none

Post by Screw the i(diot)Phone

Post by Edwin
Apple stock drops 6% on disappointing iPhone activations

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!!!!!

no it didn't, that number was only for the first 30 hours, not the 1.65
million sold during the first "week"
so you screwed up!

Are you talking to someone?