I have shown you proof in several posts, where sell-thrus can equal or exceed shipments -- you just refuse to acknowledge the probability -- rather you seem to be hung up on the pedantic meaning of the word "shipments" as reported by Apple at a certain moment in history.
There are large companies that specialize in distribution, inventory management, etc.
While, not an expert by any means, I worked for IBM in Distribution [software] Development for 3 years.
Trust me it's a different world -- inventory service levels, warehouse inventory balancing, end caps, product placement, social aspects of selling/buying...
You could learn something if you would open your mind.
I completely agreed that you had valid points, and your scenarios were certainly possible. Odd that you'd claim I didn't, so I must assume it's another attempt at distraction
I've asked you several times for a simple yes or no: Does Apple say that shipped units, including those to a reseller, are the general basis for a determination that a sale occurred, rather than limited to sell-thru. I completely understand that a yes diminishes a favored talking point for some, but isn't honesty more important?
It's a yes/no question, simple and straightforward.
You're dancing again. Everything you describe can absolutely happen. What you've stated I can absolutely agree with as a possibility.
For some reason you're trying your best to avoid a simple yes/no answer by attempting to change the terms of the discussion. I know it's not what you and others may have understood to be the case, but unless you have some proof otherwise, I've shown you how Apple identifies a sale.
Apple's K-10, a legally required document that's unlikely to be "fudged" claims they consider product sold once it's been shipped and payment made by the re-seller, and that is the basis for their statement of sales, not whether it's in the hands of an end-user.
True or false, simple answer.
If Apple reports shipments (or any other number) then they must conform to the definition in that filing!
Apple does not have to report shipments by product category!
They often do with high-demand, supply-constrained products because it is to Apple's advantage to to so.
Any reasonable observer will realize that, in these instances, shipments can be exceeded by or equaled by sell-thrus.
And the converse can be true -- when supply catches up with demand and the channel is being re-primed/balanced.
Simple example of sell-thrus exceeding shipments:
1) TouchPad channel was primed but no products were selling.
2) HP drastically cuts the price
3) Sell-thru to end-users exceeds channel inventory and HP's shipments of additional product.
Another:
1) After an initial demand the original iPhone channel is primed and sales are down
2) Apple reduces the prices
3) sell-thrus, likely, exceed new shipments as the channel inventory is drawn down to desired levels *
This is classic channel management.
* Numbers aren't available to support this theory because Apple did not report them, AFAICT.
The sales channel is a living, breathing thing and agile managers are tweaking it all the time from both sides.
So while it may be true that in any given financial filing, Apple chose to report iPad shipments (as you cite that they defined them) -- you cannot determine by that figure/definition, alone, that product sell-thrus are less or more than shipments.
It is faulty logic.
Here is an example of faulty logic:
1) Apple shipped me (a reseller) 1,000 iPads on Saturday.
2) We are closed on Saturdays.
ergo there were 1,000 iPads shipped and no sell-thrus -- sell-thrus were 0% of shipments!
3) On Monday we sold the 1,000 iPads we received plus 300 we had in inventory,
ergo sell-thrus were 130% of shipments.
There are too few data points to justify either conclusion!
As to the dancing -- It takes two to tango, and I am leaving the dance floor...
So while it may be true that in any given financial filing, Apple chose to report iPad shipments (as you cite that they defined them) -- you cannot determine by that figure/definition, alone, that product sell-thrus are less or more than shipments.
It is faulty logic. . .
You're right, it would be faulty logic if anyone claimed that. I made no claim as to how sell-thru is determined. I believe that may have been Mel in a much earlier post. Dunno.
Since you can't bring yourself to answer simply I suppose you had nothing more to add. Good enough that you acknowledged my statement was correct. Apple's determinatiuon that a sale is made is determined primarily by the product shipping, whether to a re-seller warehouse or to an end-user.
With that put to bed, we can get back to regularly scheduled programming.
Comments
Nor are sell-thrus limited by shipments!
Your last sentence is a straw man.
I have shown you proof in several posts, where sell-thrus can equal or exceed shipments -- you just refuse to acknowledge the probability -- rather you seem to be hung up on the pedantic meaning of the word "shipments" as reported by Apple at a certain moment in history.
There are large companies that specialize in distribution, inventory management, etc.
While, not an expert by any means, I worked for IBM in Distribution [software] Development for 3 years.
Trust me it's a different world -- inventory service levels, warehouse inventory balancing, end caps, product placement, social aspects of selling/buying...
You could learn something if you would open your mind.
I completely agreed that you had valid points, and your scenarios were certainly possible. Odd that you'd claim I didn't, so I must assume it's another attempt at distraction
I've asked you several times for a simple yes or no: Does Apple say that shipped units, including those to a reseller, are the general basis for a determination that a sale occurred, rather than limited to sell-thru. I completely understand that a yes diminishes a favored talking point for some, but isn't honesty more important?
It's a yes/no question, simple and straightforward.
You're dancing again. Everything you describe can absolutely happen. What you've stated I can absolutely agree with as a possibility.
For some reason you're trying your best to avoid a simple yes/no answer by attempting to change the terms of the discussion. I know it's not what you and others may have understood to be the case, but unless you have some proof otherwise, I've shown you how Apple identifies a sale.
Apple's K-10, a legally required document that's unlikely to be "fudged" claims they consider product sold once it's been shipped and payment made by the re-seller, and that is the basis for their statement of sales, not whether it's in the hands of an end-user.
True or false, simple answer.
If Apple reports shipments (or any other number) then they must conform to the definition in that filing!
Apple does not have to report shipments by product category!
They often do with high-demand, supply-constrained products because it is to Apple's advantage to to so.
Any reasonable observer will realize that, in these instances, shipments can be exceeded by or equaled by sell-thrus.
And the converse can be true -- when supply catches up with demand and the channel is being re-primed/balanced.
Simple example of sell-thrus exceeding shipments:
1) TouchPad channel was primed but no products were selling.
2) HP drastically cuts the price
3) Sell-thru to end-users exceeds channel inventory and HP's shipments of additional product.
Another:
1) After an initial demand the original iPhone channel is primed and sales are down
2) Apple reduces the prices
3) sell-thrus, likely, exceed new shipments as the channel inventory is drawn down to desired levels *
This is classic channel management.
* Numbers aren't available to support this theory because Apple did not report them, AFAICT.
The sales channel is a living, breathing thing and agile managers are tweaking it all the time from both sides.
So while it may be true that in any given financial filing, Apple chose to report iPad shipments (as you cite that they defined them) -- you cannot determine by that figure/definition, alone, that product sell-thrus are less or more than shipments.
It is faulty logic.
Here is an example of faulty logic:
1) Apple shipped me (a reseller) 1,000 iPads on Saturday.
2) We are closed on Saturdays.
ergo there were 1,000 iPads shipped and no sell-thrus -- sell-thrus were 0% of shipments!
3) On Monday we sold the 1,000 iPads we received plus 300 we had in inventory,
ergo sell-thrus were 130% of shipments.
There are too few data points to justify either conclusion!
As to the dancing -- It takes two to tango, and I am leaving the dance floor...
Enjoy yourself!
So while it may be true that in any given financial filing, Apple chose to report iPad shipments (as you cite that they defined them) -- you cannot determine by that figure/definition, alone, that product sell-thrus are less or more than shipments.
It is faulty logic. . .
You're right, it would be faulty logic if anyone claimed that. I made no claim as to how sell-thru is determined. I believe that may have been Mel in a much earlier post. Dunno.
Since you can't bring yourself to answer simply I suppose you had nothing more to add. Good enough that you acknowledged my statement was correct. Apple's determinatiuon that a sale is made is determined primarily by the product shipping, whether to a re-seller warehouse or to an end-user.
With that put to bed, we can get back to regularly scheduled programming.