or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › IDC: Apple's iPad 2 took market share from Android tablets in Q2 2011
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

IDC: Apple's iPad 2 took market share from Android tablets in Q2 2011 - Page 3

post #81 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I'm not trying to pick a fight on this, you are. And most of it does repeat what I said. In addition. Both Jobs and Cook, during the financial calls, which are legal documents, in case you don't know, have said that Apple counts sales as sell through to the end buyer of the device. They have never been called out on that, and you can read MANY articles in the financial press stating that Apple is the only company stating actual sales.

If that's not good enough for you, then too bad!

And no, you are completely wrong, it's not 80-90%, it's just as Apple says-100%. Suck on it if you must.


Why the angry act? Your were simply incorrect in how you thought Apple tabulates sales and revenue. This entire exchange happened because you thought you should say I was wrong, wrong on my original 80-90% sell-thru statement.
"No, no! Apple reports sell-through, not shipped."

Rather than accept your admonishment as the final word, I researched it further, even tho you implied there was no proof. There was.

Their 10-K is the legal document filed with the SEC, which includes the explanation how they count revenue, not some undefined statement made on a stage (if it was made at all). You know that Mel.

I'm not stating an opinion on how I think they count sales as you did (and then went on to say definitively "I'm telling you how it's done"). I posted a fact, with Apple's own documents stating shipment to a reseller is generally considered title transfer and counted as a sale for reporting purposes.

"For most of (Apple)’s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped."

Yet for you to be right you'd claim that Apple's disclaimer included in their required SEC filing is wrong, not you. If you have proof of that, post it, just as I posted Apple's proof.

Otherwise, "OK, thanks"

“(Apple) recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred. For most of (Apple)’s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped. For online sales to individuals, for some sales to education customers in the U.S., and for certain other sales, (Apple) defers revenue until the customer receives the product because (Apple) legally retains a portion of the risk of loss on these sales during transit.”

Read more: http://articles.businessinsider.com/...#ixzz1Y6g53gHK
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #82 of 104
All types of technology is shown at trade shows. Doesn't at all mean it is actually ready for production. It could take years (if ever) for these types of things to actually be mass produced.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They've already invented the display, produced it and demo'd it. Quite some months ago as a matter of fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU2nG9qy6vs
post #83 of 104
You are just being obtuse now Gatorguy. Apple does say specifically in their financial calls that their quarterly number are actual sales and not shipped. These reports are legally binding. You are trying use some strange word play to assert that Apple is trying to call shipped product actual sales.

Let it go dude........

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Rather than accept your admonishment as the final word, I researched it further, even tho you implied there was no proof. There was.
post #84 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You are just being obtuse now Gatorguy. Apple does say specifically in their financial calls that their quarterly number are actual sales and not shipped. These reports are legally binding. You are trying use some strange word play to assert that Apple is trying to call shipped product actual sales.

Let it go dude........

What are the exact words they use? So far all I've seen as evidence is what they've put in writing (is that legally binding?) in one of this year's financial reports.

EDIT: FYI, here is the entire Apple statement on how sales are tabulated, from the Jan/2010 financial report filed with the SEC. Note that the wording is the same as the section referenced by Business Insider from Jan/2011 SEC filing, so nothing's changed. Apple counts sales as soon as products are paid for and shipped to resellers. Simple, clear, black and white statement if you read it. I don't see any "strange word-play" from Apple in there.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple...ue_Recognition
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #85 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

All types of technology is shown at trade shows. Doesn't at all mean it is actually ready for production. It could take years (if ever) for these types of things to actually be mass produced.

True, for all we know it's ready now, or it could be months away.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #86 of 104
You can do this when demand for you product out paces supply. When you have a good account and record of your supply chain and retail sell thru. Apple sells every iPad and iPhone that they make.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What are the exact words they use? So far all I've seen as evidence is what they've put in writing (is that legally binding?) in one of this year's financial reports.

EDIT: FYI, here is the entire Apple statement on how sales are tabulated, from the Jan/2010 financial report filed with the SEC. Note that the wording is the same as the section referenced by Business Insider from Jan/2011 SEC filing, so nothing's changed. Apple counts sales as soon as products are paid for and shipped to resellers. Simple, clear, black and white statement if you read it. I don't see any "strange word-play" from Apple in there.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple...ue_Recognition
post #87 of 104
If it was ready now someone would be using it now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

True, for all we know it's ready now, or it could be months away.
post #88 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You can do this when demand for you product out paces supply. When you have a good account and record of your supply chain and retail sell thru. Apple sells every iPad and iPhone that they make.

If by sell, you're using Apple's statement on how they're tabulated, you're probably close. If you're saying instead is that every one they've built is in a consumer's hands, not by a long-shot. Thousands of Verizon, Target, WalMart, and Best Buy stores have them in stock, along with hundreds of smaller resellers. Anything in that stores inventory is counted as a sale by Apple, even tho they're not in consumer hands.

So Tenobell, do you see Apple's statement that generally shipped means sold for the purpose of tabulating unit sales?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #89 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

What are the exact words they use? So far all I've seen as evidence is what they've put in writing (is that legally binding?) in one of this year's financial reports.

EDIT: FYI, here is the entire Apple statement on how sales are tabulated, from the Jan/2010 financial report filed with the SEC. Note that the wording is the same as the section referenced by Business Insider from Jan/2011 SEC filing, so nothing's changed. Apple counts sales as soon as products are paid for and shipped to resellers. Simple, clear, black and white statement if you read it. I don't see any "strange word-play" from Apple in there.

http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Apple...ue_Recognition

I really didn't plan on getting into the middle of this, but you are wrong and Mel is right about what/how Apple reports as sales to the channel, channel inventory and sales to end users..

If Apple has the real numbers (and they do) of "sales to end users" and states a number of "sales to end users" in a financial call or a filing... then it means just that: "sales to end users" -- not on a plane to Wal-Mart, or on the shelf at Best Buy, or in any warehouse somewhere.

If Apple only gives "shipments" they will usually be asked about "channel inventory" for a product of interest like the iPad. With a little effort, and the numbers available, you can extrapolate the "sales to end users" with a few percent margin of error (1%-2%)

As an Apple reseller for over 11 years, I can assure you that Apple knows at any time what each of their resellers has, by SKU of:

-- on forecast for the next n periods
-- on order from Apple
-- in transit from Apple
-- in stock (inventory)
-- trans-shipments between stores (if allowed by Apple)
-- in transit to Apple (returns)
-- on return from the reseller to Apple
-- sales to end users
-- on return from the customer to the reseller.


When we had our stores, in the 1980's (before the WWW) Apple had an online ordering and reporting system. They could get daily numbers when necessary.

The Apple Sales reps are constantly monitoring their resellers to assure that they are neither over or understocked.

As part of the Apple Reseller Agreement the reseller has to agree to certain terms and conditions -- furnishing this data to Apple is part of the T&C.

That was 30 some years ago, and many of the Apple resellers did not have electronic POST devices to monitor sales. Most resellers had manual or semi-automated systems in place to gather the numbers -- you need to know them to stay in business.

Today, I suspect that is all automated, and that each reseller store, say BestBuy #2034, transmits data to the district/division/headquarters on a daily basis -- where the Apple data is extracted and transmitted to Apple on a daily basis. Among, that data is sales and returns to/from end users, by SKU, time-of-day (and any other metadata they can gather).

At the end of the quarter Apple has several weeks to consolidate all the numbers, and are in a position to deliver any accurate figures they choose at the earnings call and in the financials. The numbers they provide are legally binding numbers (they can't be "smoothed").

I don't know about BestBuy, but Wal-Mart has a satellite transmitter/receiver at each store that they use for transmission of massive sales data (among other things). Each Wal-Mart store has a "Rah Rah" meeting each week (usually early Monday) where they adjust their sales strategy based on current numbers, goals and commitments.

We did a similar thing in the computer stores.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #90 of 104
Dick, I'm not disputing that Apple may have pretty good indications of how many units are in consumer hands and how many may be in stockrooms. I can read that in the links I gave you guys. But that's not the discussion nor the issue, and not what Apple is reporting when they state unit sales in their K-10's. According to Apple's SEC filing, they certify that they count sales when title is transferred (ie, your store pays Apple, or a customer purchases direct from Apple on-line or in an Apple store) and shipment is made.

So unit sales reported in their quarterly filings includes units in reseller stockrooms, assuming the reseller has paid for them. Simple. Unless you're saying that the certification they've made to stockholders and the SEC isn't the truth.

Do you have some evidence you can show/point to that Apple doesn't include those stockroom units in their stated sales figures, disputing Apple's policy statement? I'm more than willing to consider other proof if you have it.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #91 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Thanks for the shout-out, but it's safe to assume that 80-90% of the shipped numbers (the numbers Apple reports) are actually sold thru. No need to produce a link. I trust you guys.

Dick, this is the statement in dispute. Where was it wrong?
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #92 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

If it was ready now someone would be using it now.

Probably a valid guess. I dunno how far along they are with it. I was simply posting the news article, no "in" with Samsung for any news that wasn't in the press piece.

Anyway, there's a great mockup of various products that might make market sense at some point in the future. A lot of changes may be in store for our mobile devices:
http://www.phonearena.com/news/Samsu...ed-fun_id20684
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #93 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Dick, this is the statement in dispute. Where was it wrong?

Well, until about a month ago, there was no inventory in the channel, a 1-5 week backlog, no inventory in any stores, deliveries were sold out immediately...

That tells me that sales to channel, shipments, whatever -- were largely sales to end users (often via scalpers).

You compare this to Sammy who shipped 1 million Galaxy Tabs to the channel, or Xoom, or PlayBook... all are no shows in the hands of end users.


The topic of this thread is that iPad took market share from Android. It didn't! Android market share is non existent -- to end users.


All those Androids in the channel will eventually be returned or dumped ala the TouchPad,


My point is Apple doesn't do channel stuffing -- quite the opposite, Apple closely monitors the channel to assure that resellers and the channel as a whole are not overstocked. If they are, Apple fixes it before it becomes a problem (many ways to do this).

Apple does the best job of channel management I have ever seen.


As to the whole shipments vs "sales to end users" thing here's another way to look at it -- for sake of simplicity let's assume a quarterly growth rate of 1,000 units

Beginning Channel Inventory, BCI == 5,000 units

Shipments During Quarter, SDQ == 10 million Units

Ending Channel Inventory, ECI == 5,000 units

In this case, sales to end users, first depleted the Beginning Channel Inventory, then were made from Shipments During Quarter, then refreshed the Ending Channel Inventory or:

5,000 BCI ++ 10 Million SDQ - 5,000 ECI == 10 million sales to end users.

Except, we planned to end the quarter with an ECI of 6,000 units.

That means we sold more to end users than we shipped -- we depleted channel inventory!


Now, production constraints aside, if Apple does a good job of forecasting and channel management (they do) then we can assume that normally, Apple will balance the channel inventory, up or down, from quarter-to-quarter (likely they do it week-to-week).

If true, then Apple would never get the channel out of balance -- neither depleting or stuffing it.

That means, over time, Apple's quarterly shipments would represent sales to end users -- if Apple doesn't have them, and they're not in the channel... where else could they be.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #94 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

Samsung's filed a unique patent for a tablet design, and one that I hope we see. Current 10" tablets aren't the most convenient to tote around. Unfortunate since they're intended as mobile devices. Samsung's designed around that, with a foldable tablet with a flexible full size screen. And yes, Samsung already has a foldable/flexible screen patented and shown too.

http://www.patentlyapple.com/patentl...om-apples.html

If you look closely at the video, you will notice a straight line at the intersection on the two display halves.

I don't mean to detract -- I think a collapsable display is a great idea. I used a Mac II with a Sony 15" Color [CRT] Monitor for years. It had a thin colored line that ran horizontally across the middle of the screen... I kinda' miss it! \
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #95 of 104
So was my initial post that Apple stated sales generally include shipped units, with sell-thru something less than that, correct or incorrect?

All this other stuff is good to know and interesting. I appreciate the time and thought you've put into your replies, but I don't see how it changes my position that Apple includes shipped units stored on display shelves and retailer warehouse/stockrooms in it's stated sales.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #96 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

If you look closely at the video, you will notice a straight line at the intersection on the two display halves.

I don't mean to detract -- I think a collapsable display is a great idea. I used a Mac II with a Sony 15" Color [CRT] Monitor for years. It had a thin colored line that ran horizontally across the middle of the screen... I kinda' miss it! \

As I said, I don't know any more about Samsung's flexible display or product plans beyond the same thing that you guys see. I didn't see two halves in the video so perhaps I'll watch it again when I have moment.

EDIT: Nope, there's not "two halves" in the video I linked AFAIK. Is this the video you saw, or something else?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HU2nG9qy6vs

EDIT2: OK. I think you may have only seen the old 2009 video link at PatentlyO. The original mockup two years ago does appear to have a thin line at the center of the display. The newer one from this year doesn't show that any longer. The link in the sentence above is much more recent, from CES/11.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #97 of 104
Because you seem to not accept the fact that there are no iPads or iPhones that sit on stores shelves or in warehouses. They all get sold.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So was my initial post that Apple stated sales generally include shipped units, with sell-thru something less than that, correct or incorrect?

All this other stuff is good to know and interesting. I appreciate the time and thought you've put into your replies, but I don't see how it changes my position that Apple includes shipped units stored on display shelves and retailer warehouse/stockrooms in it's stated sales.
post #98 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Because you seem to not accept the fact that there are no iPads or iPhones that sit on stores shelves or in warehouses. They all get sold.

They're very obviously on store shelves, and available in stock at a whole lot of retailers/resellers, but how does that matter anyway? I've stated several times that Apple includes shipped devices in their sales, even tho they may be in a storeroom or display and not "sold to a consumer". The unit sales that Apple states in each financial report are not restricted to sell-thru, no matter how much a few of you want to change the discussion terms or dance around the answer.

If you claim that Apple does NOT include shipped devices in their official quarterly sales figures, show me the proof. You've seen mine.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #99 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

So was my initial post that Apple stated sales generally include shipped units, with sell-thru something less than that, correct or incorrect?

All this other stuff is good to know and interesting. I appreciate the time and thought you've put into your replies, but I don't see how it changes my position that Apple includes shipped units stored on display shelves and retailer warehouse/stockrooms in it's stated sales.

No, your assumption is incorrect -- as shown below, sell-thru can exceed shipments. With a popular item, constrained supply, expanding channel or erratic buying spikes -- sell-thru will often exceed shipments.

Let me make at as simple as possible, assume:

1) iPads are fungible

2) all iPads are sold through a single store (the channel)

3) that store had a total of 3 iPads on its shelf at the beginning of a time period (the quarter) -- not in inventory -- they sold all they've ever received except these 3

4) this quarter apple ships them 100 additional iPads

5) at the end of the quarter the store has 2 iPads on its shelf (or they may be in the back room or the district warehouse, it doesn't matter -- there only 2 iPads left unsold (in the channel).

6) Apple's sell through to end users, this quarter, was 101 -- 1 more than they shipped this quarter.

In a balanced channel there will always be stock on the shelves (in the warehouse, etc. -- to satisfy anticipated demand).

So, after initial priming of the channel, as long as that channel balance is maintained -- shipments to the channel equal sales to end users.

That's the way the game should be played -- and that's the way Apple plays it.


A real-life scenario might be, say, Wal-Mart in anticipation of opening a new store has been warehousing iPads and have 10,000 in stock. Apple ships them an an additional 2,000 this period.

The Store-Opening in Hong-Kong is highly-promoted and goes really well, Wal-mart sells-thru 9,000 iPads to end users -- that's 7,000 more than Apple shipped (to that particular channel reseller).

This happens all the time with hot products, especially with consumer goods -- it's called merchandising.


"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #100 of 104
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.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #101 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

They're very obviously on store shelves, and available in stock at a whole lot of retailers/resellers, but how does that matter anyway? I've stated several times that Apple includes shipped devices in their sales, even tho they may be in a storeroom or display and not "sold to a consumer". The unit sales that Apple states in each financial report are not restricted to sell-thru, no matter how much a few of you want to change the discussion terms or dance around the answer.

If you claim that Apple does NOT include shipped devices in their official quarterly sales figures, show me the proof. You've seen mine.

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.
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #102 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #103 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy View Post

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!
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
"...The calm is on the water and part of us would linger by the shore, For ships are safe in harbor, but that's not what ships are for."
- Michael Lille -
Reply
post #104 of 104
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum View Post

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.
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPad
  • IDC: Apple's iPad 2 took market share from Android tablets in Q2 2011
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPad › IDC: Apple's iPad 2 took market share from Android tablets in Q2 2011