Who else can sell 9 million phones in 3 days in just a few countries ? That’s worth a quarter of 250+ galaxy models over more than 100 countries. So thank you marketing pundits and other droids, there is more to a phone than hardware speed and megapixels.
The 5C is a secondary usage phone in our hemisphere, for sports and outdoors, while 5S is a flagship model with very innovative features. Not the fingerprint, rather the slow motion iSight camera, lightfield flash technology and M7 integrated sensor chip. Ideally, you’ll own both of them. -Philippe. [Thank You Venture Beat, by Tanner Marsh | 09.23.13] If Apple is doomed, perhaps being doomed isn’t so bad. The company confirmed today that combined sales if its new iPhone 5S and iPhone 5C have topped 9 million in first-weekend sales, breaking the 5 million record set by the iPhone 5 last year. But while the news is indeed big for Apple, it’s fairly unsurprising if you consider two things: One, this is the first time Apple has launched two iPhones at one time, which obviously boosts their combined numbers. (Apple didn’t break out the individual sales of either device, likely because neither by itself broke any records. That makes sense.) Perhaps more significant: This was the first year Apple launched an iPhone in China, which is doubtless full of people waiting to get in on the iPhone action. For Apple, the situation is so good that it’s also telling its investors to expect a good quarter this time around. The company said in a SEC filing that it “expects total company revenue for the fourth fiscal quarter to be near the high end of the previously provided range of $34 billion to $37 billion, and expects gross margin to be near the high end of the previously provided range of 36% to 37%.” It’s an unusual move for Apple, but you’d brag too if you just sold 9 million phones in three days. Sadly, all of this is probably bad news for those of you unwilling to wait in any of the iPhone launch lines: Apple has pushed online shipping dates for both devices into October. But you already knew that would happen. “The demand for the new iPhones has been incredible, and while we’ve sold out of our initial supply of iPhone 5s, stores continue to receive new iPhone shipments regularly,” Apple CEO Tim Cook said in a statement. Read more: http://venturebeat.com/2013/09/23/apple-has-already-sold-9-million-new-iphones-shattering-first-weekend-sales-records/#COU93TacI1Rhm4Gf.99
1 Comment
Curated by my mom @pierrettemora is an #artist in Rennes, Brittany, France. Check her paintings at http://www.pierrettemora.fr Read More on James Appleton:
http://www.thefoxisblack.com/2013/09/13/james-appleton-truly-captures-the-wonder-of-the-outdoors/ My mom's s/art/urday pinterest board: http://www.pinterest.com/philippemora/sarturday-by-pierrette-mora/ Can technology help twitter become profitable ? As Twitter plans to sell shares to the public, its success will depend in part on how much better it can get at deciphering tweets.
Current ad revenue at Twitter is around $260 million, however the correct metric is the cost per user, something that will be disclosed in the SEC S-1 that will have to emerge from secrecy very soon. For instance, out of 240 million users, how many are fake or inactive will be disclosed. It is totally possible that user acquisition costs, as with any other old-school ad-based social media 1.0, are enormous and twitter is effectively not profitable. Going public will require to innovate and make sense of those 50 billion tweets per year. Solving that technological puzzle would help Twitter get better at selling the right promoted messages at the right times, and it could possibly lead to new revenue-producing services. -Philippe. [Thank you MIT Technology Review | David Talbot 09.18.13] Now that Twitter plans to go public, its future could depend on its ability to target advertising more finely. Twitter began selling promoted tweets in 2010, but it has always faced challenges in knowing which of those ads should be delivered to which Twitter accounts. Most Twitter users don’t give up their locations, and many don’t reveal their identities in their profiles. And mining tweets themselves for insights is hard because the language is not only short but filled with slang and abbreviations. Now, as Twitter plans to sell shares to the public, its success will depend in part on how much better it can get at deciphering tweets. Solving that technological puzzle would help Twitter get better at selling the right promoted messages at the right times, and it could possibly lead to new revenue-producing services. Contrary to conventional wisdom, startups with better products seldom succeed unless they are also disruptive. And Entrepreneurs, as well as large companies such as Samsung and your usual talking androids most often mistake better, cheaper, faster for disruptive. Business models, not products, are disruptive. People sometimes say a technology is disruptive. It’s more appropriate to call the business model disruptive.
-Philippe [Thank you techCrunch - By Andy Rachleff 02.16.13] Entrepreneurs in Silicon Valley love to talk about disruption, though few know what it really means. They mistake better products for disruptive ones. Silicon Valley was built on a culture of designing products that are “better, cheaper, faster,” but that does not mean they are disruptive. I mistook better, cheaper, faster for disruptive when I became an entrepreneur. This was after I had spent years thinking about disruption as a venture capitalist, and even structured a Stanford Graduate School of Business class around Clay Christensen’s book, The Innovator’s Dilemma. Christensen, a Harvard Business School professor, defined “disruption” in The Innovator’s Dilemma. In short, a disruptive product addresses a market that previously couldn’t be served — a new-market disruption — or it offers a simpler, cheaper or more convenient alternative to an existing product – a low-end disruption. An incumbent in the market finds it almost impossible to respond to a disruptive product. In a new-market disruption, the unserved customers are unserved precisely because serving them would be unprofitable given the incumbent’s business model. In a low-end disruption, the customers lost typically are unprofitable for the incumbents, so the big companies are happy to lose them. Thus, the innovator’s dilemma. Incumbents appropriately ignore the new product because it is uneconomic to respond, but the incumbents’ quiescence can lead to their later downfall. |
head of product in colorado. travel 🚀 work 🌵 food 🍔 rocky mountains, tech and dogs 🐾Categories
All
|