Christmas Day activation numbers suggest iOS topped Android by 1.6M - Page 2

Originally Posted by Vendrazi

Actually, in the comments to the article, he says he has an email from Flurry saying that the Android numbers Flurry is reporting include the Amazon Fire.

Originally Posted by melgross

It might be, and it might not be. If the bump is about 50% for several years running, then it means a lot. If its just one year before they're basing it on, then it may mean little, if previous years were much different. You can't assume the numbers mean little without knowing more about them.

Originally Posted by melgross

Flurry and other companies that do this work charge a pretty penny for their reports, which contain far more detail and info than they release to the public. As companies do buy them, or they would be out of business, they must be useful, and accurate enough for subscribers to use to base their own businesses upon.

Originally Posted by melgross

So, that sounds interesting. Your description is vague though. Can you spell out more definitely what you expect this to be?

Originally Posted by cameronj

No, it doesn't. Even if it's 50% on the dot for 5 straight years, we're talking about complicated market behavior here, and past growth on one specific weekend does not predict future growth. Every 6 months all these companies come out with 10 new products. The growth of the popularity of the Samsung Galaxy 1 over whatever the hell is replaced has no impact on the popularity of the Moto Razr vs the SGX2. What if Android's competitive position was stronger this year because the iPhone was released, oh 4 months later that in the past? What if it was weaker because of the same reason? What if the Razr drove people to buy Android? What if the iPhone launch in Hong Kong drove a spike this year that wasn't there last year? It's crap. TOTAL crap.

And yeah, the fact that you know nothing about them is EXACTLY why the numbers mean little. Dumb.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

While Apple is reported to be interested in a Siri-enabled iPod-nano type device, Google has been working on their own wearable Heads-up Display (HUD) according to rumors from last year and a couple of very recent reports. Rather than relying on a connection to another device, all components including cloud capabilities are fully contained in a pair of eyeglasses.

Earlier this year Google added a little more expertise to the program with one of Apple's Senior Prototype Engineers and founder of AWare Technologies, Richard DeVaul, jumping ship for a Google position.

A clue that that they may soon have a demonstrable product is in the latest Google Goggles update. It adds the ability for users to get constant visual monitoring of their surroundings, offering clues and links based on what it "sees" considering your location. The most recent claims are that they're already in final prototyping stages.

Imagine walking directions to a restaurant, plus menu specials or customer feedback, displayed on a self-contained and connected HUD. How many sci-fi movies does that remind you of, and what potential market for such a device?

That might have been more than you were curious about, and hope it didn't derail the thread. I know it's totally unrelated.

Originally Posted by slapppy

I will withhold my full comment until further more definitive information is available. These reports are nothing more than speculations and optimistic wishful thinking. The real numbers have yet to come to light.

Originally Posted by melgross

If you mean the faucial numbers, only Apple's will come to light. The others are just twaddle, as shipped doesn't equal sold.

Originally Posted by slapppy

I will withhold my full comment until further more definitive information is available.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

We don't want that conversation again. Shipped usually means someone paid for the product, it was sold, whether it was Sprint or Target or your best friend's sister. . .
That's how Apple and most everyone else counts a sale.

It's pretty obvious that at least some Apple products remain around past their shelf life just as some competitors products do. Thus Best Buy's sale last weekend on a iPhone model still in their warehouses tho discontinued by Apple some time ago.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

We don't want that conversation again. Shipped usually means someone paid for the product, it was sold, whether it was Sprint or Target or your best friend's sister. . .
That's how Apple and most everyone else counts a sale.

It's pretty obvious that at least some Apple products remain around past their shelf life just as some competitors products do. Thus Best Buy's sale last weekend on a iPhone model still in their warehouses tho discontinued by Apple some time ago.

Originally Posted by melgross

No one in the industry doubts that when Apple says "sold", it means sold. In fact, there are articles in the financial press that come out time to time that press the very point that no one other than Apple is talking about sold. The numbers can't be compared. Even if we would want to use your metric, it doesn't matter, Apple's numbers still stand for sold, while everyone else's still stands for shipped, and we can see with a number of manufacturers, that in those cases, shipped is much higher than sold.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

You can bet that Apple got full price for those iPhone 4 32GBs. . .

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Samsung (as well as others) report channel sales. It's not channel shipped.

"SEOUL, Korea – September 25th, 2011 – Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, a global leader in digital media and digital convergence technologies, today announced that the Samsung GALAXY S II (Model: GT-I9100) has achieved 10 million global channel sales, doubling from five million in just eight weeks."

That you or others might want to call this only shipped and believe that Apple sales revenue reported in quarterly results is only using sales to the end-user/consumer doesn't make it a fact.

Apple reports sales if they get paid. Samsung reports sales if they get paid. It doesn't matter who bought and paid for the product. Generally the conditions for a sale to have occurred and revenue recognized for either one happens when the product is shipped, in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Best Buy's purchase of Apple devices is counted just as surely as the one picked up at full retail in an Apple Store.

That makes shipped usually equal to sold. Before it left Apple or Samsung, someone took responsibility for paying the bill. It was a sale.

With that said, Apple may additionally choose to report estimated channel inventory on certain specific products during quarterly calls, thus allowing an educated guess as to the units that made their way to end-users. But their official sales numbers don't discriminate on where the product sale came from. Wal-mart's money is just as good as yours.

Originally Posted by melgross

It's shipped. They say shipped, and are quoted as saying shipped.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

SEOUL, Korea September 25th, 2011 Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, a global leader in digital media and digital convergence technologies, today announced that the Samsung GALAXY S II (Model: GT-I9100) has achieved 10 million global channel sales. . .

Where do you get shipped from that?

Now whether retailers can return the purchased products for full credit if they don't sell, I have no doubt that some manufacturers might allow it. Is it the general rule, and specifically included in Samsung's reseller agreements? Just as you replied to the poster who questioned whether tech patents were too broad, unless you've seen most of these agreements you're simply guessing as to what they contain. An agreement or two that someone saw once upon a time isn't proof of any industry standard.

Even then, Samsung could be selling every Galaxy S2 they produce, and thus any return clause isn't any more meaningful than a similar Apple contract clause if it exists. There's no evidence to the contrary that I've seen. Instead the Galaxy S2 is consistently mentioned as one the the top-selling smartphones in the world.

Suggesting that someone-once-said there might be high return rates approaching 20% is more FUD than truth IMHO. I've never seen any reliable source that made that claim. I've only seen an unreliable, anonymous mention repeated for "eyes-on" value a few months back. But perhaps you have a current, reliable & named one showing these high returns? I'd love to see it.

Originally Posted by melgross

If they are now stating sales to the channel, that's almost the same as stating shipped, which is what almost all other manufacturers are still stating.

Shipped means products that have left the manufacturers facilities, and are going anywhere else. It doesn't mean that they are paid for. Many products go out on consignment. They aren't paid for until they sell. The rest are returned.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

It's a channel SALE, Mel.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

We've been through this before. There is a reason sale is qualified by the word channel. You can pretend you don't remember that conversation or claim that shipped = channel sale = sale but you are wrong.

Here is Samsung's earning for Q3-2011.

• http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsu...erence_eng.pdf (PDF, 800KB)

Note they use sales 35 times but channel only once, and only in reference to channel supply. Again, you don't qualify sales with channel unless you are trying to imply something that will fool only the ignorant. They don't pull this kind of crap with SEC filings.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

The SEC is very clear on what constitutes a sale. It Samsung uses the term "sale" in an official SEC filing or quarterly report to investors you can be assured a sale as defined by the SEC actually took place, just as you can with Apple.

Originally Posted by SolipsismX

Which is what everyone but you have been saying. If a company refers to a "sale" in their earnings were can assume it's a "sale". but you're trying to say otherwise.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

It's a channel SALE, Mel. You have no background reference for saying that payment arrangements weren't made before product left Samsung's custody, thus it was simply a shipment with no expectations for payment. You're simply throwing a bunch of maybe's around with no factual sources for your suppositions. Since when do accounting principles allow consignments to be counted as recognized revenue, a.k.a. a sale?

Apple also reports channel sales. Are you claiming Apple's numbers are simply shipped too, perhaps some only consignment agreements?? You apparently want the definition of a sale to mean shipped if it's anyone but Apple, and a retail end-user purchase if it's Apple products.

Rather than your mights and maybe's, why not use a standard industry explanation of a channel sale:

An aggregate of all sales generated in a particular period by all the means of distribution (own sales force, dealers, retailers, direct marketing, etc.) employed by a company to move its products to the market.

And just what constitutes a sale?
Let's go directly to the SEC for that.

". . .revenue should not be recognized until it is realized or realizable and earned.2 SFAC No. 5, paragraph 83(b) states that "an entity's revenue-earning activities involve delivering or producing goods, rendering services, or other activities that constitute its ongoing major or central operations, and revenues are considered to have been earned when the entity has substantially accomplished what it must do to be entitled to the benefits represented by the revenues" [footnote reference omitted]. Paragraph 84(a) continues "the two conditions (being realized or realizable and being earned) are usually met by the time product or merchandise is delivered or services are rendered to customers, and revenues from manufacturing and selling activities and gains and losses from sales of other assets are commonly recognized at time of sale (usually meaning delivery)."

The staff believes that revenue generally is realized or realizable and earned when all of the following criteria are met:

Persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists
Delivery has occurred or services have been rendered
The seller's price to the buyer is fixed or determinable
and
Collectibility is reasonably assured"


This last bold quote is the same found in nearly every manufacturer's 10-K or 10-Q SEC filing, some like Apple going on to state that those conditions are generally met when a product is shipped.

But what about a consignment. You apparently think that could be claimed as a sale?
Nope!

From an SEC Q&A:
Facts: Company Z enters into an arrangement with Customer A to deliver Company Z's products to Customer A on a consignment basis. Pursuant to the terms of the arrangement, Customer A is a consignee, and title to the products does not pass from Company Z to Customer A until Customer A consumes the products in its operations. Company Z delivers product to Customer A under the terms of their arrangement.

Question: May Company Z recognize revenue upon delivery of its product to Customer A?

Interpretive Response: No. Products delivered to a consignee pursuant to a consignment arrangement are not sales and do not qualify for revenue recognition until a sale occurs.

Your guesses about how things work don't jive with the SEC's regulations. I think the SEC might be a bit more reliable source Mel.

If you take the time to read this SEC document it might clear up a few of your misunderstandings on reporting requirements and standards, what constitutes a sale and how shipping and delivery plays into that. It's not that long an article and worth the read.
http://www.sec.gov/interps/account/sab101.htm

You're obviously a really smart guy Mel, but you're occasionally prone to posting things that some research might reveal as inaccurate or even completely untrue. That's really the only time we have these disagreements, when you expect whatever you write be accepted an an unquestioned "everyone knows" fact, no citations needed.

You may not like Google as a company, but "Googling" can still be your friend.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

No, Solipsism, you can pretend a channel sale isn't a real sale. Unless of course you have some official SEC or even GAAP claim that it isn't. I think you're only trying to confuse the issue and hope some think there's not clarity when there is.

The SEC is very clear on what constitutes a sale. It Samsung uses the term "sale" to reflect product movement in an official SEC filing or quarterly report to investors you can be assured a sale as defined by the SEC actually took place, just as you can with Apple.

I don't know that unofficial or investor convenience statements are held to the same standards or not, but I suspect they are. I'm not above actually researching to find that out.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

No sir I'm not. Even you attempt to make an imaginary distinction between channel sales and a real sale. I suppose qualifying estimated inventory with the word "channel" as Apple does is also "trying to imply something that will fool only the ignorant."

Mel claims "channel sales" means nothing, and "that's almost the same as stating shipped".
Is that your view too?

hardly a week goes by without someone saying "Apple reports sales, everyone else is just reporting shipped". It's obviously untrue for anyone filing SEC reports, which means most all Apple's competitors. Just like Apple they report sales in the same way the SEC requires.

Originally Posted by melgross

In addition, companies from overseas don't always need to play by the same rules. Look them up on a US stock exchange.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

So if someone were to proclaim that "it doesn't matter, Apple's numbers still stand for sold, while everyone else's still stands for shipped" then it might be inaccurate?

Apple, Samsung, even Motorola subscribe to IFRS guidelines in accordance with GAAP, and thus sold for Apple means the same as sold for Samsung or sold for Motorola.

There's some bloggers and posters putting efforts into making everyone's numbers but Apple's sound unreliable, and implying a channel sale not being what it says it is. Not necessarily throwing you into that group Mel, but it's disingenuous to some to claim "Apple reports sales and everyone else reports shipped". They're all reporting to their investors using the same SEC and IFRA methods and precedures as Apple. If the goal is to report sales revenue, I don't see how reporting channel sales would be deceptive. If instead you're trying to pander to a web blog or forum member who wants to count end-users then I agree channel sales may not be a reliable measure. But how do you reliably count end-users? Who even knows the approximate number of iOS or Android-capable, Google sanctioned devices actually still in use?

I don't know how to count them, and personally I don't even find it an important thing for me to know.

EDIT:



Actually most if not all the big multinationals like Samsung, Sony, Apple and such follow the same International Financial Reporting Standards (IFRS), which are largely based on Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP). There's very minor differences, for example the A-IFRS standards followed in Australia, but nothing that would affect the comparative reports of competing companies to any degree. They're all on the same page for the most part.

Originally Posted by melgross

Actually, not all companies follow the same accounting standards. If they're not listed on a Us exchange they don't have to, and some big companies have left the Us stock exchanges because they didn't want to follow US accounting laws which are stricter. This includes EU companies as well as Asian companies.

And yes, other numbers ARE unreliable.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Which of the other big mobile players aren't following the same accounting rules as Apple? I suggest they all are. Do you have an example of one that isn't?

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Smooth Sammy, for one!

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Your short answer prompted me to dig a bit deeper. You're correct! .

Samsung used GAAP accounting just as Apple currently does up until 2009. Since then they've joined most of the other big multinationals in using international standards, commonly referred to as IFRS, to report results to investors.

But it's not just Samsung. It's nearly every big tech company in the world that uses what has been called by some the "new GAAP". In general IFRS is the recognized worldwide standard for listed company's financial reporting. In the US, the SEC is not yet requiring large companies to report results in accordance with IFRS, meaning Apple may not need to be in compliance with those International standards until perhaps 2015 at the earliest. SEC transition plans for listed US companies to move to IFRS are still not finalized.
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/issues/ifrs...s-status.jhtml

So while listed companies in most of the world (Europe, Asia, South America, Africa) have adopted IFRS, many large US companies have chosen to report financial results only under "old" GAAP requirements and SEC guidelines, tho IFRS is permitted under SEC rules.

For a list and map of what countries use IFRS accounting rules:
http://www.iasplus.com/country/useias.htm
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/issues/ifrs...untry-adoption


Thank you for the correction. Mel was right on the basic claim that foreign companies might not report results the same way as Apple. (It is OK to admit when you're wrong here isn't it?)

Had you not brought it to my attention I would never have expected Apple (nor Google for that matter) had still not chosen to move to IFRS when reporting results from worldwide operations. We may have to wait a few more years before Apple reports results in the same form as Motorola, Samsung, Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo, ASUSTEK, or most any other mobile competitor, who all report under the same basic IFRS requirements. Until then it's going to be difficult for most investors to make a clear and direct comparison in financial results between Apple and much of it's competition.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

First, after quite a few years on this forum, I have learned that @melgross is correct more often than not and makes well-reasoned posts. We don't aways agree, but I respect his opinions.

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Which of the other big mobile players aren't following the same accounting rules as Apple? I suggest they all are. Do you have an example of one that isn't?

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Your short answer prompted me to dig a bit deeper. You're correct! .

Samsung used GAAP accounting just as Apple currently does up until 2009. Since then they've joined most of the other big multinationals in using international standards, commonly referred to as IFRS, to report results to investors.

But it's not just Samsung. It's nearly every big tech company in the world that uses what has been called by some the "new GAAP". In general IFRS is the recognized worldwide standard for listed company's financial reporting. In the US, the SEC is not yet requiring large companies to report results in accordance with IFRS, meaning Apple may not need to be in compliance with those International standards until perhaps 2015 at the earliest. SEC transition plans for listed US companies to move to IFRS are still not finalized.
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/issues/ifrs...s-status.jhtml

So while listed companies in most of the world (Europe, Asia, South America, Africa) have adopted IFRS, many large US companies have chosen to report financial results only under "old" GAAP requirements and SEC guidelines, tho IFRS is permitted under SEC rules.

For a list and map of what countries use IFRS accounting rules:
http://www.iasplus.com/country/useias.htm
http://www.pwc.com/us/en/issues/ifrs...untry-adoption


Thank you for the correction. Mel was right on the basic claim that foreign companies might not report results the same way as Apple. (It is OK to admit when you're wrong here isn't it?)

Had you not brought it to my attention I would never have expected Apple (nor Google for that matter) had still not chosen to move to IFRS when reporting results from worldwide operations. We may have to wait a few more years before Apple reports results in the same form as Motorola, Samsung, Toshiba, Sony, Lenovo, ASUSTEK, or most any other mobile competitor, who all report under the same basic IFRS requirements. Until then it's going to be difficult for most investors to make a clear and direct comparison in financial results between Apple and much of it's competition.

Originally Posted by Dick Applebaum

Couple of things...

First, after quite a few years on this forum, I have learned that @melgross is correct more often than not and makes well-reasoned posts. We don't aways agree, but I respect his opinions.

Second, As I understand it, Apple (or anyone) need not provide detailed figures, such as number of iPads sold, if it would provide an advantage to competitors. But, if they do, as part of an earnings call/financial reporting -- they must be prepared to defend the numbers if called upon to do so.

I believe that Apple, Google (or anyone) announces additional detail when it suits their purposes, say, to indicate a product has wide acceptance.

With Apple and iOS, since only one company is involved, it is relatively easy to take the numbers provided and reverse engineer or tease other numbers of interest. Apple is aware of this and provides hints and breadcrumbs to those in the know.

With Google and Android, there are so many players involved (official and unofficial forks) it is difficult to even determine if the "activations" are reasonable -- or how much inventory of devices is in the channels. I don't listen to Google's earnings calls so I don't know if they release formal Android numbers... I would guess not. Then, I am not sure if blog posts or tweets by Senior Vice President Andy Rubin are governed by the same guidelines under which Apple presents its numbers.

My take is that Google activations have little meaning because:

1) There is no way to validate them

2) They are not presented in a formal way that requires validation (Rubin cannot be required to back them up)


Then, there is Amazon who gives totally useless numbers.

And, somehow, some analysts can report that the meaningless Android "activations" include (or don't) activations for some nebulous number of Forked Android devices.

Where do they get their numbers? Why should we believe them?

Originally Posted by melgross

All of the ones not listed on US exchanges.

Originally Posted by melgross

One problem with the idea of activations is how the number is derived in the sense of when the snapshot is taken. Is it a single day they are measuring? If so, which day? Is the day when some major model comes out so that activations are higher, and then fall afterwards?

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

You are aware there's Apple competing companies listed on the NYSE that also use IFRS, right? Example Nokia.

Weren't activations claimed as 700K per day? Logically that wouldn't infer one particular single day. If you tell a new full-time hire he'll be paid $200 per day it wouldn't apply to just Wednesday with all the other workdays being less than that.

It's very obviously an average. Over what time period? Why would that matter in light of the steadily increasing numbers reported over the past year or so. It's currently averaging 700K per day according to Andy Rubin.

Originally Posted by melgross

That means nothing. Per day. What does that mean? You can ASSUME it means for some time, but you don't know that. . .

It's not obvious. And even it it were, we don't know for how long, or when they began counting, or when they ended. . . .

Originally Posted by Gatorguy

Geez Mel. . .
Since you're never wrong, post FUD or create strawmen, there's nothing to gain by pointing out with another example just how silly you now sound. There would still be nothing questionable in any of your statements.

I'm rendered speechless since confronted by your well-reasoned and logical post.