Originally Posted by melgross
It's well known that both Gartner and IDC strain to make Microsoft look as good as possible. Microsoft is a major client of theirs. If you go to Gartner's site, and I imaging
E the same is for IDC, they say that their goal is to make their clients look as good as possible. Not in those exact words, but you can easily get the point.
It's one reason why both have worked very hard to minimize the drop in Windows sales over the last three years. Both keep overestimating those sales as long as they can. They both underestimate Mac sales, even after Apple releases the numbers.
I don't trust their estimates because we know that Samsung, for example had stopped reporting shipments of their smartphones and tablets after the first quarter of 2011, when Lenovo caught them at giving out tablet shipment numbers that didn't meet reality, when they had claImed to have shipped 1.5 million to N America the last quarter of 2010, but Lenovo accused them of hiding the fact that they only sold 20,000 during that same period. Samsung refused to respond to financial analysts questions about that, and it wasn't the last time.
But nevertheless, Gartner, IDC and others quote these kinds of numbers for Samsung shipments which can't be verified, even though during the trial here in early 2013, Samsung,s shipment numbers as estimated by these companies was again shown to be far off the mark, when both Apple and Samsung had to show actual sales numbers of the products under dispute. Of the estimated 1 million Samsung tablets supposedly shipped here of models under dispute, Samsung had only sold 38,000 one quarter. Of their smartphones, they on,y sold between one third and one half the number.
And yet, none of the companies doing the estimating looked at these numbers and said that they were going to revise Samsung,s sales numbers downward. The same numbers remained on their books, and in the public record. What a load of crap!
Tim Cook has to be politic about this, he can't have public disputes with these companies. If he did, you and others, would call him names about it, even though the complaints would be legitimate.
Oh, and why just use Apple's sold numbers against shipped numbers? We all know how that makes no sense, especially since Apple does, in a roundabout way, give shipped numbers. When Apple talks about days or weeks of supply "in the channel" that's shipped devices. You multiply the average number of devices sold that previous quarter per day by the number of days supply in the channel, and then add that number to the total number sold, and you magically get the number shipped. But no one uses that number. It's very convenient, but I almost never see it done, except occasionally on Seeking Alpha. I've mentioned this to a number of writers on financial sites, and the response is something like; Well, yeah, I guess, that should be done. when I ask why they don't do it, the reply is; Uh, no one else does it.
Brilliant reportage, right?
Yet, whenever we see usage numbers for Samsung, Amazon, and others, they're all well down in the single digits. Doesn't match those inflates ship estimates, which writers then conflate as sales estimates.