No. At least not at Verizon.

Tom Krazit, paidContent:

In the first quarter that Verizon Wireless was on board with Apple for an iPhone launch event, the company sold 4.2 million iPhones, accounting for more than half of the 7.7 million smartphones that its customers purchased in the fourth quarter.

The combined sales of the numerous Android devices offered by Verizon did not outsell the iPhone. I’ve always hated the iPhone versus Android tagline. The iPhone represents a device while Android is an operating system on dozens and dozens of devices. A fairer comparison would be iOS versus Android. Even using that metric, Matt Richman provides evidence that Apple outsold all Android vendors combined last quarter. Interesting results if you remember that iOS exists across only three product lines.

Today, Apple released financial results for the first quarter of fiscal year 2012. The quarter was simply astounding.

The Numbers

• Revenue was a record $46.33 billion, an increase of 73% year-over-year
• Profit was a record $13.06 billion, an increase of 118% year-over-year
• Earnings per share were $13.87, an increase of 116% year-over-year
• Cash flow was increased by $17.5 billion
• Gross margin was 44.7%

iPhone

Apple sold a record 37.04 million iPhones, representing an increase of 128% year-over-year. The iPhone accounted for $24.4 billion in revenue, increased a whopping 130% year-over-year, and comprised 53.3% of the total quarterly revenue. Not bad for a product line that includes the “disappointing” iPhone 4S.

iPad

Apple sold a record 15.4 million iPads in the quarter, an increase of 111% year-over-year. The iPad accounted for $9.1 billion in revenue, increased 99% year-over-year, and comprised nearly 20% of the quarterly revenue. That sure sounds like a lot of iPads, especially considering that people who think the iPad is a game-changer are tools.

iPod

The one slumping product line was iPod. Year-over-year sales dropped 21% to 15.4 million units, with iPod touch comprising around 9.5 million.¹ This likely represents a shift to iPhone instead of a larger problem. NPD data still claims that iPod maintains a 70% market share.

Mac

The quintessential Apple product line, the Mac, also had a record quarter. Apple sold 5.2 millions Macs - 1.48 million desktops and 3.72 million laptops - representing a 26% year-over-year increase. Constrast that growth with a stagnant PC market. In fact, this is the 23rd consecutive quarter that Apple has outpaced the PC market.

Apple TV

The Apple TV set a quarterly record with 1.4 million units. That represents half of the entire amount sold during the previous year. Not bad for a hobby.

Perspective

Just how big are these results? Let’s put them in perspective.

The iPhone growth is astounding. As Matt Richman points out, the iPhone in 2009 outsold the combined total from 2007 and 2008. In 2010, Apple sold more iPhones than in 2007, 2008, and 2009 combined. Today’s results show that the trend continued for 2011.

The iPad’s success has directly led to tablets outselling desktop PCs in the US for the first time ever last quarter. That’s pretty amazing considering the iPad was deemed a consumption-only, large iPod.

If you also take into account Apple’s assertion that 62 million iOS devices were sold over the quarter, Matt Richman estimates that iOS outsold Android.

Apple’s previous record for quarterly revenue was $28.27 billion. They shattered that by 64%.

Apple’s reported profit of $13.06 billion is greater than Google’s $10.58 billion in total revenue during the same quarter. In fact, it represented the second-best U.S., and fourth-best worldwide, quarterly earnings ever reported. Of the top 19 historical earnings reports worldwide, Apple is the only company not affiliated with oil and gas.

The $17.5 billion in cash added during the quarter gave Apple over $97 billion in on-hand cash/cash equivalents. In fact, their cash alone is worth more than all but 52 companies on Earth.

David Barnard, App Cubby:

Eventually, paying for apps may be more the exception than the rule, much like the web, but the business models that are evolving to make that work are often user hostile. On the web we see Facebook’s incessant push to dissolve privacy as they work on monetization. On the iPhone we’ve seen the rise of free-to-play, and other frequently abused attempts at monetization.

Ultimately, the users become the product, not the app. Selling users to advertisers and pushing in-app upgrades/consumables is a completely different game than carefully crafting apps to maximize user value/entertainment. It’d be a shame if the mobile software industry devolved into some horrific hybrid of Zynga and Facebook.

I don’t think it’s surprising that app prices are falling, especially when viewed in the broad context of our society’s expectations for digital entertainment. The same people who think that a $2.99 app is too expensive are the same people who have been raised to expect more for less (or free). When print media organizations joined the web, they (stupidly) gave their content away for free. People were conditioned to expect free news on the internet. On the other hand, I don’t know many people that expect physical newspapers or magazines to be free. Historically, it seems that people simply don’t place as much value on things that aren’t tangible. That is simply the world in which we live.

The larger point made is the fear that companies like Google and Facebook will harm revenue streams from traditional app sales. These companies give users a service for free in exchange for those users’ information. In essence, users are the product and the app is the tool to deliver them to customers (advertisers). However, recent reports on Apple app sales should help alleviate some of David’s concerns. Apple is proving that there will always be people willing to pay a price for a quality product. Count me in that group. I recently deleted my Google account because I would rather pay for similar services than settling for sub-par user-experience design and having my information sold. I do understand the appeal of the ad-supported model. If you are happy with that arrangement, great. Just never forget where you fall in the order of importance.

Blue Arkansas Blog¹:

Last night, I got the most chilling phone call I have ever received.  It was Jake Burris, Ken Aden’s campaign manager. Last night, Jake and his four kids had come back to their Russellville home.  As they were getting out of the car, one of his children discovered their family cat dead on the front porch. 

[…]

Written across the animal’s fur in black marker was the word “LIBERAL“.

Ken Aden is running for the 3rd Congressional District in Arkansas against incumbent Republican, Steve Womack. That “liberal” was written on the cat’s body points to a political motive. I am not painting with a broad brush, but this is a disgusting story that illustrates how some feed on the venom of rhetoric. It is sad that such behavior still exists in 2012. Please keep things in perspective as elections draw near.

(via: Matt Gemmell)

Research in Motion announced today that Co-CEOs, Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis, are stepping down. Allow me to decode the press release.

The Board of Directors of BlackBerry^® maker Research In Motion (RIM) (NASDAQ: RIMM; TSX: RIM) today announced that, acting on the recommendation of its Co-Chief Executive Officers to implement the succession plan they previously submitted to the Board, it has unanimously named Thorsten Heins as President and Chief Executive Officer. Mr. Heins was also appointed to RIM’s Board. The Board acted after conducting its own due diligence. Both appointments are effective immediately.

“The clueless leaders of Blackberry^® maker Research In Motion (RIM) today announced that shareholders finally forced us to remove Jim Balsillie and Mike Lazaridis as Co-CEOs. Despite how badly things have gone, we think it is smart to promote from within by naming Thorsten Heins as CEO.”

Mike Lazaridis, former Co-Chair and Co-CEO, has become Vice Chair of RIM’s Board and Chair of the Board’s new Innovation Committee. As Vice Chair, he will work closely with Mr. Heins to offer strategic counsel, provide a smooth transition and continue to promote the BlackBerry brand worldwide.

“We don’t have the balls to completely remove Mike Lazaridis. We - a company long mired in stagnation - do have the balls to tell you he will lead an Innovation Committee. We will stroke his ego by allowing him to annoy the new CEO.”

Mr. Heins said he looks forward to continuing to work with Mr. Lazaridis, globally recognized as a technology pioneer. He said, “Mike created a whole new way of communicating and I look forward to continuing our close collaboration.”

“Mr. Heins noted that all of Mike Lazaridis’s accomplishments, much like RIM, live in the past. He said ‘I look forward to baby sitting Mike.’”

On the transition to CEO by Mr. Heins, Mr. Lazaridis said, “There comes a time in the growth of every successful company when the founders recognize the need to pass the baton to new leadership. Jim and I went to the Board and told them that we thought that time was now. With BlackBerry 7 now out, PlayBook 2.0 shipping in February and BlackBerry 10 expected to ship later this year, the company is entering a new phase, and we felt it was time for a new leader to take it through that phase and beyond. Jim, the Board and I all agreed that leader should be Thorsten Heins.”

“On being shit-canned, Mr Lazaridis said, ‘There comes a time when delusional founders still think they are leading a successful company. Shareholder fury forces them to acknowledge reality. Jim and I argued with the Board, but they still fired our asses.’”

Jim Balsillie remains a member of the Board. “I agree this is the right time to pass the baton to new leadership, and I have complete confidence in Thorsten, the management team and the company,” he said. “I remain a significant shareholder and a Director and, of course, they will have my full support.”

“Jim Balsillie, somehow still on the Board: ‘I disagree with this decision and I think Thorsten is an idiot. I am rich so I don’t care what happens from here forward.’”

Mr. Lazaridis added, “Thorsten has demonstrated throughout his tenure at RIM that he has the right mix of leadership, relevant industry experience and skills to take the company forward. We have been impressed with his operational skills at both RIM and Siemens. I am so confident in RIM’s future that I intend to purchase an additional $50 million of the company’s shares, as permitted, in the open market.”

“Mr. Lazaridis, still talking, ‘I guess it is time to start kissing Thorsten’s ass. I am purchasing $50 million in additional stock because it can’t get much worse.’”

{Insert 7 paragraphs of deluded talking points from Mr. Heins.}

“Mr. Heins asked, ‘What have I agreed to?’”

Barbara Stymiest, who formerly served as a member of Royal Bank of Canada’s Group Executive and has been a member of RIM’s Board since 2007, has been named the independent Board Chair. John Richardson, formerly Lead Director, will remain on the Board. Prem Watsa, Chief Executive Officer of Fairfax Financial Holdings, also was named to the Board, expanding it to 11 members.

Speaking on behalf of the Board, Ms. Stymiest said: “We believe that Thorsten is the right executive to succeed Mike and Jim. He has 27 years of telecommunications experience, including four years at RIM in senior management positions. As a Board, we have been impressed with his outstanding management skills, his leadership and his accomplishments within the company.”

“Barbs was named Board Chair. We added Prem because we believe the more the merrier. Speaking in a desperate tone, Barbs said: ‘We hope Thorsten will save our jobs. We are impressed with his yes-man-ship.’”

Ms. Stymiest also expressed the Board’s respect and admiration for Messrs. Lazaridis and Balsillie, the company they built, and the steps they have taken to position RIM for the future.

“They created RIM, nurtured it, and in the process not only built an iconic brand, but literally pioneered the smartphone industry,” she said. “It is Canada’s largest tech company and one of the largest in the world.”

“Barbs: ‘Mike and Jim created RIM, gained brand recognition, lead the smartphone industry, and then did nothing as Apple and Google destroyed our brand.’”

The OpenStreetMap Foundation on January 16, 2012:

Last week Mocality, a Kenyan business data startup, caught Google scraping their data and the post made it to boing boing. Mocality tracked this down with some analysis of their logs and a sting operation, even recording phone calls that Google staff made which contained false information. Google have apologized and the incident looked closed, at least from the outside.

Unfortunately we have to report something similar is still happening to us from the same source.

On the heels of the Mocality scandal, Google India IPs were discovered vandalizing OpenStreetMap data. The damage included moving information, deleting data, and reversing directions of one-way streets. How pervasive was the behavior?

In fact over the last year we have had over 102 thousand hits on OSM using at least 17 accounts from this Google IP.

It is getting harder to believe that at least certain segments of Google aren’t encouraging such behavior. It is even harder to believe Google’s ignorance. On the plus side, they were open about distancing themselves.

Stefan Magdalinski, CEO of Mocality:

Since October, Google’s GKBO appears to have been systematically accessing Mocality’s database and attempting to sell their competing product to our business owners. They have been telling untruths about their relationship with us, and about our business practices, in order to do so. As of January 11th, nearly 30% of our database has apparently been contacted. Furthermore, they now seem to have outsourced this operation from Kenya to India.

When we started this investigation, I thought that we’d catch a rogue call-centre employee, point out to Google that they were violating our Terms and conditions (sections 9.12 and 9.17, amongst others), someone would get a slap on the wrist, and life would continue.

I did not expect to find a human-powered, systematic, months-long, fraudulent (falsely claiming to be collaborating with us, and worse) attempt to undermine our business, being perpetrated from call centres on 2 continents.

In short, Google employees working on the Getting Kenyan Business Online program stole customers by scraping Mocality’s data. Shameful from a company with a “Don’t Be Evil” motto. The outcry has been too timid. Imagine if this had been perpetrated by Apple or Microsoft. Hey, at least they were open with their apology.

Interesting story from a former Google employee detailing how the company used their vast free food program to drive down salaries during contract negotiations. The only problem is that program doesn’t exist in its original form anymore. Hey, at least they’re open.

I learned a powerful lesson here. If you allow them to placate you with some kind of luxury, don’t be too surprised when they take it away. They will conveniently forget that it was used as a bargaining tactic.

Or, worse, they’ll assign blame to “rogue contractors” and say it was never their policy to do that. Right.

Horace Dediu:

But the more interesting story is that the decline in Windows seems to be coincident with the growth in the iPad.

[…]

One wonders if these “media tablets” are not PCs and yet they negatively affect the purchase of PCs whether they are indeed competing with PCs.

The question posed by Dediu isn’t framed in the context of what people define as a PC. Rather, the problem is focused around the iPad’s relation with, and impact on, the incumbent PC market that existed upon its creation. While correlation does not prove causation, all evidence points to a decline in the Windows PC market that started at iPad’s inception. If the iPad did indeed harm the PC market, is it a PC itself or merely a new class of product?

In the end, it seems that definitions are dependent on those who craft them. Companies like HP and Microsoft don’t think they should be counted with “traditional” PCs. Perhaps that isn’t surprising considering that the iPad comes from Apple. The incumbents have long relied on a large market share over the Mac platform to control the perceptions of consumers. If the iPad is counted, then Apple would surpass HP as the world’s largest PC manufacturer. With a large reduction in market share, consumers might not view a Windows PC as the defacto choice. The stance shared by these companies, while understandable, are disingenuous. Especially when one considers that the first tablet prototype was unveiled by Bill Gates in 2000 and marketed as a PC. One is left to wonder why tablets were considered PCs in 2000, yet the iPad is not in 2012.

The answer is illustrated by Dediu with a quote from research firm Gartner in which they classify the iPad as a “media tablet”. This directly falls in line with the fallacy that the iPad is a consumption device.¹ Hell, opponents even resorted to arguing that lack of Flash meant the iPad wasn’t a PC. How is that argument working now? As is the case when any disruptive product is introduced, the goalposts were shifted and definitions repurposed. Instead of competing, others attempted to discredit the iPad as falling extremely short of a traditional PC experience. The death grip on “traditional” is very telling.

As to the original question, I say no - at least in the context of traditional. I think that times have evolved, computing needs have transformed, and the vision of Steve Jobs’s “post-PC” world is in play. In that world, Jobs said that the PC was being demoted to just another device - a tool to do certain tasks that are relevant to a user at that time. We are in that world. I think the iPad is simply another computing device - the same as a desktop computer or phone. I believe these computing devices should inhabit a single category. That is to say, I think it would prove useful to monitor how many computing devices relevant to consumers are sold by each respective company. Their use to consumers are integrated. Why not their market impact?

Roberto Baldwin, Gizmodo:

The horrible porn software he created was actually just a piece of photo uploading software that a porn site used without his knowledge. In June 2011, Malekpour’s sentence was suspended. But, under review by the Iranian Supreme Court, his death sentence was upheld on Monday.

And you thought SOPA was bad.