Worse, it quoted facts that I suspect were fabricated since they contained no references and seemed unlikely. I tried to verify them myself, but after reasonable searching for what the author claims is readily available, I cannot find anything to support their comments. I definitely do not want my readers to question the accuracy of information posted on this site.

If the author of that anonymous comment would like to discuss the matter further, they are welcome to contact me by e-mail. See http://leodirac.com/contact for my address.

I don't see any reason why _online_ iPhone buyers would be more likely to unlock the phone and take it to a different carrier than those who walked in the store to strike up the same deal. I'm certainly not suggesting that Apple would offer contract-free phones online, just that they remove the pointless barriers of having to walk in to a store (twice) to buy a phone. The only counter-argument I can imagine is that in person the blue-shirts at the at&t stores could convince people that at&t is worth the extra money over T-Mobile and that they shouldn't switch. I don't believe this at all — it's pretty well accepted that T-Mobile is a cheaper, lower-quality alternative to at&t, meaning it fills a different niche. I haven't found any public data on unlock rates, please share, but I would bet it's well under 1% because of the hassle and risk, which puts it squarely in the noise as far as at&t is concerned. Besides, as you point out, they get their contract cancellation fee, which is comparable to the subsidy anyway. Which again would be the same whether the phone was purchased online or by walking to a store.

I'm sorry that you think "other phones aren't computers that can be completely reprogramed." Actually, all cell phones are computers. See http://www.cell-phone-accessories.com/how-does-cell-phone-work.html . And, with vanishingly few exceptions, they are all reprogrammable. Think about it — if you're building a phone that has enough features that there's even a chance you'll ship it with bugs, then you're going to make it possible to upgrade the software to fix those bugs later. If it's possible for you to replace the phone's software with legitimate upgrades, then it's possible for hackers to put their own software on the device through the same mechanism. Given sufficient motivation, they'll figure out how.

http://xkcd.com/386/

Once again you are failing to look at the evidence. In forming your theory you can't ignore all of the obvious facts and only rely on the ones that are barely logical.

I'm not surprised that questioning the limits of Apple's capabilities acted as a lightning rod for feedback. Regardless of whether you're in the camp that believes all early software is buggy or the camp that believes Apple never adjusts schedules because of competitive pressures, everybody's got an opinion. Personally I think Apple usually releases software at a significantly higher quality level than most of the industry, but in this case it seems they're closer to average, which is why I'm writing about it. Their customers are usually highly dedicated, and wouldn't consider alternatives. This topic deserves its own post, but briefly they're expanding down-market in a new way for them, trying to build a services business with mobile.me and app store, which requires having critical mass to compete with other mobile platforms. So to capture this new, less dedicated market segment, Apple is being forced to react to competitive pressures.

There's no doubt that supply chain management is very difficult. One of the biggest challenges is forecasting demand. If Apple's primary goal was to deliver as many iPhones as possible, they would accept online and/or telephone orders. Making it easier to place orders would give them more orders which represent a very concrete demand forecast, which would help them fill the supply chain. The fact that they're not allowing this clearly demonstrates that they're not trying to sell iPhones as fast as they can. Why? Good question. I've offered one possible explanation of their motive. It happens to be consistent with other unusual facts about the product release. Feel free to draw your own conclusion, even if it's that I'm an idiotic conspiracy theorist.

One last note. The notion that "if you didn't do through the hassle of getting one then you're not allowed to talk about it" really just supports my arguments about escalation of commitment. :)

I don't buy Apple products until they're in their third or fourth iteration, not after seeing all my early adopter friends pitch their Shiny New Toys aside when they break down. It takes Cupertino that long to iron out the bugs and stupid design choices. Apple should just call their early adopters Public Alpha Testers and be done with it.

If yes you are qualified and if the honest answer is no, then buy one and use it and then comment.

You sound as though you're unfamiliar with the history of Apple's behaviors in bringing products to market.

Apple gets much more pre-release press than pretty much any other vendor. Mac users are a loyal bunch, excited to see the next generation. Apple has done a good job of extending that excitement to the iPhone line.

Historically, Apple's day-of-release supplies are not able to meet the pent-up demand. This has been SOP for Apple for over a decade. There may be aspects of artificial scarcity going on, but I suspect more of it is simply not wanting to tie up capital and postpone the releases for as long as it would take to saturate the supply pipeline. The customer base isn't going anywhere in the meantime, release or not, so making them wait post-release carries very little penalty. Getting some of the product moving while ramping up production makes good financial sense.

Also, to be fair to Apple, they're shipping a phenomenal number of devices. I haven't seen the latest numbers, but in Q3 2007, the first full quarter that it was available, the original iPhone sold more units than all windows-based mobile phone models combined, and was second only to RIM in terms of number of units sold.
http://apple20.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2007/12/19/iphones-q3-sales-second-only-to-blackberry/
http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/14/canalys-symbian-apple-iphone-already-leads-windows-mobile-in-us-market-share-q3-2007/

My understanding is that iPhone 2.0 is selling more quickly than the original. To me, it makes sense to ramp up to those volumes, rather than trying to start out at full speed.

So. A software vendor ships something that's not quite ready for prime time. Everyone does it, including Apple. This isn't news.

Best, Noah

Could it be that the iPhone 3G just has a higher global demand? If Apple is trying to artificially restrict iPhone supply; why release it in 25 countries with 50 coming soon? Why are the sales numbers so staggering compared to iPhone Edge which was much easier to purchase? Why modify the Apple Store hours to open an hour earlier for iPhone sales? Why modify line policy to make it easier to buy an iPhone 3G? Apple is not know for altering its release dates because of competitors, so why start now all of the sudden? How do you hush criticism of a devices with such high sales, in so many markets, with so much media coverage? It is not at all difficult to find an iPhone review negative or positive on the net. In fact there are more reviews of the iPhone online than any cell phone ever. Not mention that fact that the US economy is in the toilet, with consumer spending and confidence at the lowest levels in a decade? I'm just saying along the path to any theory logic should get its fair shake too.

Almost nothing about what Apple is doing speaks to them trying to limit sales. Some times a far reaching loosely credible conspiracy theory is just that, a theory.