Of those surveyed who don’t already own a smartphone, 32% said they are planning to buy the new iPhone. According to comScore, 234m (million) Americans age 13 and older use mobile devices (cell phones of all kinds), and of those, 114m owned smartphones. This leaves 120m American mobile device users who don’t own a smartphone. If the TechBargains survey is an accurate representation of the American public, 32% of those 114m Americans – a staggering 38m – will be buying the new iPhone when it’s released. To put that into perspective, in Apple’s blowout quarter at the end of 2011, after record sales of the 4S, they sold 15 million iPhones in the U.S., including the discounted iPhone 4 and free-with-contract 3GS. In that same quarter, Apple sold a total of 37m iPhones worldwide, whereas the 38m in sales is an estimate for U.S.-only sales.

While there’s no way to determine how many current iPhone users have any particular model, we do know that 64% of iPhone 4S, 74% of iPhone 4, and 71% of 3GS owners surveyed said they plan to upgrade to the new iPhone. Those aren’t far off from one another, so let’s just take the average: 70%. According to comScore, Apple had 33.4% of the total (114m) smartphone market, or about 38m; so at 70%, that comes to 26.6m current iPhone users who plan to buy the new iPhone.

Of Android users surveyed, 22% said they will buy the new iPhone when it is released. According to comScore, Android commands 52.2% of all (114m) U.S. smartphone users, which comes to 59.5m Android users. If 22% of those buy the new iPhone, that’s 13m new iPhone sales from Android switchers.

And finally, Blackberry: comScore has RIM at 9.5% of all Smartphones, or 10.8m. If 38% of them buy the new iPhone as the survey predicts, that’s an additional 4.1m iPhones.

Totals:
38m Non-smartphone owners
26.6m iPhone users
13m Android users
4.1m Blackberry users

For a total of 81.7 million U.S. consumers who plan to buy the new iPhone when it is released. That’s more than all current Android users combined.

According to the survey, 64% of iPhone 4S users plan to upgrade, with another 19% undecided. Considering the 4S came less than a year ago, and the vast majority of owners are still under a 2-year contract, either they’re not aware that they would need to pay full (unsubsidized) price, they’re planning to pay to break their contract, or they’re ok with just paying full price. Perhaps a number of those 4S owners are planning to sell their old iPhone back to Apple and use the money to partially fund the full-price new iPhone.

Not only did 22% of Android users say they WILL buy the new iPhone, another 27% said they’re undecided. That means a full half of all Android users surveyed are considering the new iPhone.

Taking into consideration those who said they are undecided, there is a large pool of respondents who are considering buying the new iPhone when it’s released. Using the same math as above, those come to 42m non-smartphone owners, 7.1m current iPhone owners, 16.1m Android owners, and 3.5m Blackberry owners, for a total of 68.7m U.S. consumers who are undecided as to whether or not they’ll buy the new iPhone when it is released.

Of course these numbers should be taken with a big grain of salt, and used only as a general guideline as to how many U.S. cell phone users may buy the new iPhone when it’s released.

Disclosure: I am a casual trader, and am long AAPL.

http://www.techbargains.com/infographics/iphone-predictions

http://www.comscore.com/Press_Events/Press_Releases/2012/9/comScore_Reports_July_2012_U.S._Mobile_Subscriber_Market_Share

http://www.theverge.com/2012/8/9/3232018/confidential-apple-samsung-sales-numbers-trial

http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/08/apple-will-buy-back-and-recycle-your-iphone-4s

http://seekingalpha.com/article/855451-take-a-bite-out-of-apple

http://www.statista.com/statistics/12743/worldwide-apple-iphone-sales-since-3rd-quarter-2007/

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2405456,00.asp

StreamJamz is an unlimited streaming music service, similar to offerings from Spotify, Grooveshark and Sony.

StreamGamz is an unlimited video game download and multiplayer gaming platform, similar to offerings from Steam and EA’s Origin.

StreamPeeps is a VoIP 1080p HD video conferencing service, similar to offerings from Skype and Apple.

All 4 services are included with XFINITY HD Triple Play packages for no additional charge. You can add any of the streaming services to other packages for only $4.99 a month per service.

.
**********[ 3 months later ]***********
Comcast has announced the addition of an ‘Internet-Lite’ option for all of their XFINITY High Speed Internet plans. Any current plan can be converted to a ‘Lite’ plan, which will include a $20 discount off regular rates, and lower the monthly data cap to 10GB. This should come as great news for XFINITY Triple Play customers who already have unlimited access to XFINITY’s great SteamPix, StreamJamz, StreamGamz and StreamPeeps services for all of their streaming video, music, gaming and video-conferencing needs. One stop shop entertainment, no need to subscribe to multiple services.

.
***********[ 2 years later ]************
Comcast has announced that it will be raising rates on all of their XFINITY High Speed Internet plans by $25. This includes their 10GB capped ‘Lite’ plans, as well as their regular 250GB plans. At a recent stockholder meeting, a top Comcast executive was heard saying, “We believe the added value of our unlimited SteamPix, StreamJamz, StreamGamz and StreamPeeps services warrant the price increase, as they provide our customers with all of their streaming video, music, gaming and video-conferencing needs, without having to worry about silly data caps.

.
***************************************
And just like that, Comcast has managed to lower the data cap on their broadband plans to a measly 10GB, while actually raising the price, and putting Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Grooveshark, Steam, Origin, Skype, Apple, all in a greatly disadvantaged competitive position. By not blocking any particular competing service, Comcast will have managed to sidestep Net-Neutrality restrictions, while severely limiting how much their customers can use any competing services. Yes, I made all of this up, but there’s nothing stopping Comcast from following this plan to the letter (including the stupid service plan names), if their new StreamPix service is allowed to proceed unchallenged by the FTC.

With nothing stopping them, Time Warner, Verizon, AT&T et al will surely follow suit. How long will Netflix, Hulu, Spotify, Grooveshark, Skype and the rest of the free-market competition last? How many new services, like the one Sony was considering, will never have been started? And most US customers don’t have many, if any options when choosing their ISP, so they can’t just go somewhere else if they don’t like Comcast’s (or whoever)’s offerings. The FTC needs to step in now, to stop ISP’s from dictating what their networks can be used for, and putting countless competitors out of business.

More at
ars technica, Engadget, Gizmodo

More from Techdirt

From 2004-2008 Apple’s stock price followed a similar path as their quarterly earnings. The overall market turmoil is evident in 2008-2009, but by 2010 the stock was coming back in line with earnings; however by the end of 2010 and through 2011, as revenue skyrocketed, the stock made relatively small gains. Had the stock continued to follow earnings, it would be over $800 – almost double its current value.

You could say that Apple’s earnings have just gotten too big, and there’s no way the stock price could possibly keep up with it. You could say that, but it’s not like this is the first time Apple’s had revenue spike so fast. In From 2004-2008 – the height of the iPod’s success – Apple’s revenue chart looked almost identical to the chart from 2008-2012, just with much larger numbers.

More analysis of this trend in my previous post

In 2008, with Apple announcing close to the same kind of year-over-year gaines in revenue, not only was the stock keeping up with the earnings surge, it was beating it. So maybe it’s not so crazy to think the stock could be at $800 or more today. Obviously, it’s not. But hopefully (for shareholders) it’s an error the market will correct in the near future.

Honing in on just the most recent 4 years, the right half of the chart stretches out horizontally to look like this:

And honing in on the first 4 years being analyzed, the left half of the chart stretches vertically to look like this:

See any similarities? Here’s what they look like side-by-side; This is actually a continuous chart, with the exact same data as the first chart. The difference is, the left half is blown up 5x larger to show detail, and to compare *relative* growth from 2004-2008 with the same from 2008-2012

So while the numbers Apple posted are incredible, looking at their history shows us it’s not far from what they were doing exactly 4 years ago on the back of the iPod. But in 2008, revenue was approaching $10 billion a quarter; in 2012, it’s approaching 50! That’s an increase in revenue of 400% in 4 years, which most analyists will tell you is going to be impossible to sustain. But I say, not so fast!

How could Apple possibly sustain these kinds of numbers going forward?

The Proof is in the iPod

After 8 years, the iPod is now seeing decreasing revenue year-over-year, but that can fairly safely be attributed to cannibalization by iPhone sales. If it weren’t for the iPhone replacing iPods, we’d likely still be seeing increased revenue from the iPod as well. Without a similar product to cannibalize the iPhone, it’s not out of the question to think Apple could continue the trend the iPod was on before the iPhone was released, but the iPhone. In addition, iPods didn’t have the same kind of upgrade cycle that iPhones do. With users tied to 2-year contracts, many opt to upgrade to the latest phone every 2 years. The same can’t be said for iPods, where there wasn’t a definite upgrade cycle for most people.

iPhone 5, iPad 3

When the iPhone 4S was released, everyone in the media seemed to think it was a dud. Apparently, consumers weren’t listening. If Apple can post these kinds of record numbers with a moderately-upgraded iPhone, who knows what will happen when they unleash a full-on redesigned iPhone 5, which is almost guaranteed to have 4G, an even better camera than the 4S’s already impressive lens, and.. well, who knows what the next surprise will be. Nobody saw Siri coming until days before the 4S was released. There may be similar updates waiting for us in the 5. Also, iPad 3.

New Markets

Apple has only just begun to penetrate many foreign markets, where 3G coverage lags behind the United States. In China, the iPhone is only available on one carrier: China Unicom, with 192 million subscribers. That leaves China Mobile (638m subscribers) and China Telecom (120m) for Apple to expand to. (Indeed, according to Bloomberg, Apple recently received approval of specifications for a device that would run on China Telecom’s network). Of China’s 950 million subscribers, only 11.5% are on 3G networks. On the only carrier where the iPhone is available, China Unicom, there were only 33 million 3G subscribers; yet Apple sold 5.6 million iPhones during the first 9 months of 2011 – all before the 4S was available. Now consider Apple’s reach in the US, via Verizon, AT&T and Sprint, is to 238m subscribers (pdf), leaving about 60m on carriers that don’t offer the iPhone. Compare that to China, where there are 758 million subscribers on carriers where the iPhone isn’t offered. Even if you consider many of those people can’t afford the high-cost of the iPhone, you have to admit that’s a huge potential market; especially if Apple releases a cheaper iPhone in the future to address that market directly.

One More Thing?

With Steve Jobs gone, we may never hear “Oh, and there’s one more thing…” again, sadly; But that doesn’t mean Apple doesn’t have more tricks up their sleeve. There’s wild speculation the Apple TV box will soon be migrated into a full-featured flat-panel Apple TV set. Steve himself even let the cat out of the bag that they have *something* in the works for changing the way we watch TV. If Apple can shake up the broadcast/TV industry the way they’ve shaken up Music, mp3 players, Cell Phones, and now Tablets (well, to be fair, there wasn’t much to shake before the iPad), they could have an additional revenue stream to add to their quarterly reports to bost profits even more.

I’m not saying I think Apple will continue to post the kind of year-over-year increases in revenue that they posted yesterday every quarter; but I do think all those analysts who have said time & time again that Apple’s time has come and gone, you may be in for a few more surprises over the next few years – at least. While most of this is speculation, one thing is for certain: Apple’s going to be around for a while.

Quite a bit of Hulu’s content is available for free on a traditional computer; however, without a Hulu Plus subscription, none of that content is available on mobile devices such as the iPad. In and of itself, that’s an odd decision, since the free content is supplemented by ads on the PC, similar to broadcast (and most premium) content. But worse than that, even with a paid Hulu Plus subscription, some shows are still unavailable for viewing on mobile devices. And I’m not talking about premium content, at least in the traditional sense of HBO & Showtime. Shows from all major broadcast networks, including 30 Rock (NBC), Fringe (Fox), Happy Endings (ABC), and How I Met Your Mother (CBS) are all marked “Web Only” on the iPad, even with a paid Hulu Plus account. And rather than offer an option for a higher-tier ‘Super Hulu Plus’ subscription, or make those shows available for a small fee, you’re simply directed to watch it on a traditional computer, or not at all.

Sometimes when I run into one of these content-blocks, I just switch to my laptop, in which case the content owner gets their cut all the same. But sometimes I decide the content isn’t all that important, so I just don’t watch it, leaving the content provider out in the cold. Yet other times, when I do want to view the content on my iPad, I’ll connect to my computer, and with a few seconds of work, and after a few minutes of downloading, I’ll get a perfect copy from one of the myriad of unlicensed sources available online, ready to stream to my iPad. In two out of the three scenarios, the content owner doesn’t get my view, or my advertising-revenue-generating attention.

So it would seem the content providers would rather I ‘pirate’ a copy of their content than generate a return by allowing it to be viewed on my iPad or smartphone. Sure, for now they can say most people aren’t like me; Most people will just watch it on their computers. But for how much longer? Tablets and smartphones are already making a huge dent in the PC market; it won’t be long before mobile web browsing overtakes the PC, and eventually, many households will find they don’t even need a traditional PC anymore. At the same time, TVs are getting smarter, and consumers expect to have access to their online content sources there as well.

The reason content owners make (or buy) content is to make money off of it, usually by advertising during or around the content. So to maximize profits, they need as many viewers as possible. This is why they spend money advertising the content itself – they make the money back if there are enough viewers of the content, and likewise the advertising. So why would they in their right minds block access from any device? In the end, it’s their loss, not ours; but it would sure be nice if they could figure it out sooner rather than later.

If this merger had gone through, we would have lost T-Mobile’s option for $5 unilmited texting plans, left with only AT&T, Verizon and Sprint — all at $20/mo. Data plans are similarly much cheaper at T-Mobile. For instance, what I’m paying AT&T $85/mo for right now, T-Mobile is offering for $50! That’s $35/mo less! So if T-Mobile gets the iPhone this time around, even if they were to offer it unsubsidized for $600, over a 2 year contract it’s a savings of $240 over AT&T. If you use the phone for longer than that, you’re gaining $35/mo over what you’d still be paying AT&T, since they don’t offer you a discount even after you paid off all the subsidies on your phone. (and don’t forget the resale value of an iPhone, although that’s no difference which carrier you’re on).

This, folks, is why Capitalism in its truest form – free from regulation – does not work. And if T-Mobile does get the iPhone, they might have a fighting chance to stay in the game with the big boys.

DSLReports.com: AT&T Blows Smoke to Cover Leaked Document Snafu

I currently use around 150 text messages per month. That means I send about 75, and I receive about 75. If you’ve ever had a text conversation, you know those texts can add up pretty quickly, but I’m disciplined about it. I’m still on an outdated plan where I pay $5/mo for up to 200 texts, and then $0.10 each additional. I very rarely go over, and that works for me. But under AT&T’s new rules, my only option will be to pay 4 times that amount – $20 – to send and receive the same number of texts. This is because AT&T is dropping all text packages except for their unlimited plan for $20/mo. They claim it’s because the vast majority of their customers are already on the unlimited plans; but that hardly justifies forcing users like myself to overpay by such a large factor.

It’s clear the reason AT&T is making this move now is the availability of free smartphone messaging services like Facebook Messanger and the soon-to-be-released iMessage for iPhone & iPad users. If the majority of SmartPhone users switched over to 1 or a combination of these free apps, their direct text messaging through the carriers will plummet; however, while there are still non-smartphone users out there sending ‘classic’ texts, even the free-app users will still need at least a few text messages every month to correspond with them. Under AT&T’s new plan, if a user were going to go on their per-text plan, at $0.20/text, if they were to use more than 100 messages in any given month, it would be cheaper to buy the unlimited plan. This is nothing more than AT&T’s way of extorting more cash from each one of their users, while supplying absolutely no additional service.

In my case, my 150 messages will now cost me $30 under the per-text plan, so I’ll be forced to upgrade to the unlimited plan. I’m going to be overpaying $15 every month, just to protect myself in the off-chance one of my friends decides to go text-crazy on me one night. For a lot of other people, it’s going to be $5 or $10 more than they’ve been paying for 1000 or 1500 message plans. That’s anywhere from $60 to $180 more per year, per subscriber, for absolutely no additional service. Multiply that by every American with a cell phone who uses less than 1500 messages a month, and we’re talking millions of dollars straight into AT&T’s money bin.

Now, imagine if we didn’t have to pay this text tax. We would have an extra $100 or even $240 per year that we could all spend on something else. All this talk about government taxes, and how we’re already spread so thin and we can’t afford mortgages and education and healthcare; and now we’re going to be charged $60 to $180 more every year for the exact same service? It’s a tax – by private companies – on Americans, for the right to communicate over the PUBLIC wireless spectrum; but because it’s a ‘free market,’ these companies are free to price their services as they see fit. The argument is, we can always take our business elsewhere — go to Verizon, for instance. The problem is, every time Verizon or AT&T has raised their texting prices in the past several years, the other followed suit within a few months. Now that T-Mobile is being swallowed up by AT&T, and Sprint is flailing, it won’t be long before there is no other choice, other than not texting at all, or paying this exorbitant tax. This will limit our ability to effectively communicate by pricing text messaging plans too high for millions of Americans.

These companies’ vulturous practices are what is bankrupting our country: Working Americans can barely afford gas to fill up their cars or power their stoves, but Oil companies are still handing out record bonuses; Cancer patients who can’t afford their medication because the Insurance company they’ve been paying all their lives denies their claim on a technicality, and the Drug company that supplies the pills sets the per-pill price in the thousands, all so the Insurance and Drug Companies can keep raking in billion dollar profits; Families being evicted from their homes because their Mortgage lender told them they could afford it, knowing they couldn’t, because it meant a hefty bonus for him; and Wireless customers, overpaying just to be able to send text messages with their phones.

So if gas & oil prices were a little lower, and insurance payed on what they promised, on the drug that isn’t overpriced 1000x its value, and bankers only sold loans to people who could afford their mortgage, and wireless providers stopped charging customers for messages that don’t cost them a thing, if we could cut the private-company-taxes we’re all paying every day, every family would have that much more money to start putting back into the economy, to buy new clothes, and new cars, and a better home. It’s not a silver bullet for our battered economy, but it would at least be a start. It’s too bad, under a ‘free market,’ this is the best we get. I don’t know about you, but I would like the government to be a little bit bigger when it comes to regulating what these multi-billion dollar companies are allowed to do, and charge, every American. If not, we will all end up paying more for communicating, and traveling, and trying to get better, just so that extra money can go into the pockets of someone who already doesn’t need it.that

I propose we start a new Tea Party that’s against all this private-industry taxing. That demands the corporations providing us with vital necessities must be kept in check, and not allowed to overcharge American citizens for services we need to live. That puts the wellbeing of the collective American people above that of pure profits. What’s good for 1 company, but bad for millions of people, is not good for the economy. If we were to keep these companies in check, perhaps we’d have a chance to start turning the economy around without cutting even more vital government programs. It’s not even tightening belts for these companies; it’s nothing more than shedding massive amounts of unneeded fat, so that our country can survive and thrive. Is that so much to ask?

My question is, why do we let this go? Yeah, she’s just pandering / campaigning, but does that give her a free pass, allowing her to blatantly lie to advance her political ambitions? Yes, she CAN lie, but the media should be all over this! Sure, if you’re a Fox News viewer, this is probably the only viewpoint you’ll ever hear, and you’ll probably take her at her word. It’s is sad, pathetic, and scary that someone can come out and blatantly blame someone else for something they are fully guilty of. This should be enough to end her bid for President immediately; but somehow, it isn’t even an issue. It’s just shrugged off as politics as usual. If this is politics as usual, our country is in a lot more trouble than anyone realizes. Idiocracy, we’re on our way.

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0711/60172.html#ixzz1V1VI5mrW

So just to put this into perspective, imagine this:
It’s 2005. The iPod is on fire, bringing in more revenue than any of Apple’s other segments (desktops, laptops, music, or ‘other’). Apple stock has been on an absolute rampage, up over 400% over the past 2 years to a whopping $55/share. Someone who looks like an older version of yourself but with shaggier hair, jeans that are too tight, and neon 80s shoes, walks up and tells you to withdraw your life savings and put it all into Apple stock immediately. Of course that’s crazy, and you tell him not even the iPod can keep selling like this forever. But he says no, it’s not because of the iPod, although in 6 years, it will still be bringing in more revenue than it is in 2005; but by 2011 it will only account for 5% of Apple’s total revenue. It doesn’t even even make sense. The iPod is Apple’s saving grace, and everybody knows it. There’s no way they can top that; And it’s not like everybody’s going to go out and switch to Macs just because the iPod was a hit. Then he explains that it’s all because Apple releases a phone; and shortly after that, a giant version of that phone, called an iPad. Do you think you’d follow his advice? If you did, it would be worth a 600% increase over 6 years.

The numbers really are something. But I’m not writing Apple off yet. In another 6 years, maybe I’ll be writing the same thing about how the iPhone was dwarfed by… the iPad? Or even something else. Only time will tell. If only I had a time machine.

Disclosure: I own Apple (AAPL) shares and I do not plan on initiating any new positions within the next 72 hours.