Originally posted by melgross
No. They did better than some analysts thought. That's not the same thing. Those analysts thought that it would do worse than the original Mini. They didn't say otherwise. Just that it did better than they though it would.
Link to analysts projections please. Otherwise this is just another thing you're pulling out of your ass.
Look, really. Without numbers, numbers that apparently Apple won't give out, no one can do more than guess.
You can guess based on the data available. Or you can guess against the data available.
Where did you see 50k sales expectation numbers for the quarter? Those numbers would have been a disaster! I didn't see those projections anywhere. The numbers I saw were 225 to 300k expectations, and about 225 to 250k reality.
Regarding Apple's recently-released iPod shuffle and Mac mini products, PiperJaffray said it estimates that the number of units sold greatly exceeded early projections. "We estimate total shuffle units for the March quarter were approximately 1.8m, compared to our 1.0m estimate," the firm said. An NPD metric for the month of February estimates the iPod shuffle captured a staggering 43 percent of the market share for flash-based music players, up from 0 percent in December. "We estimate total Mac mini units sold in the March quarter were 138k vs. our estimate of 50k. We believe the Mac mini is benefiting from iPod carry-over."http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1000
For Amazon's market, yes. no doubt. But as we can see that Amazon's sales numbers don't corrispond to market reality, we can't say that the Apple rankings are comparable to their overall sales either. They are suggestive, I will give you that. But just how close do they come? We can't say. If the overall numbers are so far off, those may be as well. What kind of person is buying from Amazon? Does (s)he compare to the person buying from Apple? Or CompUsa? Or elsewhere? We don't know.
That all I'm saying. I love seeing those numbers, but I just don't know they they mean.
So you're going to steadfastly ignore the data that we have to believe in your completely unsupported assertion that the mini sales were lackluster in some way.
No, it may not mean anything.
It means no less (and no more) than that the mini was popular on the one retailer that we have some visibility into. For you to say that mini sales are coming up short in some fashion goes against the data available so the burden of proof is on you to provide some compelling evidence (or any at all).
You do this all the time, and not just with me. You use information that has no meaning for your argument, and then you insult me because I show that it doesn't. Then you get angry when I respond in kind.
The discussion is intel mini sales.
The verifiable information is the following:* Initial mini sales exceeded expectations.
It would be logical to assume that analysts would less inclined to lowball future mini projections when they blew the estimates the first time around.* Intel Mini sales exceeded expectations.
Piper Jaffray said this when the mini launched:
Piper Jaffray analyst Gene Munster said in a research note that Tuesday's releases were likely to be strong products, but were unlikely to materially affect Apple's growth. Future versions of the Mac Mini would likely be more specifically designed as home media hubs, he predicted."http://news.zdnet.co.uk/hardware/0,3...9254951,00.htm
Also while analysts were wary of intel sales the actual predictions are thus for 2Q 2006:
"Wall Street analysts are forecasting sales of roughly 1.2 million Mac units in the quarter, up just slightly from the 1.07 million Macs Apple sold in the same quarter last year."http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/18/tech.../apple_walkup/
Can you produce ANY evidence that initial intel mini sales were expected to be weak?
Especially since this particular analyst expected it as a media center offering.
"UBS analyst Reitzes, who predicts Macworld will be "a circus," agrees that a new Mac Mini could be imminent, "perhaps as a digital media device," he wrote in a recent note."http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/20/technology/mac_preview/
AND he raised his price target and earning estimates and issued a "buy" recommendations.http://www.security-protocols.com/mo...ticle&sid=3064
Yes, the most logical conclusion is that the analyst that raises earning estimates and thinks that the mini will be the first intel mac is also the same analyst that will project weak sales of the mini and gets surprised.* Intel Mini ranked consistently high on Amazon until the introduction of the MacBook.
Which confirms what the analyst is saying, at least on that score.
So this information has no meaning to the dicussion and the refutation of your completely unsupported assertion that mini sales were hurt due to pricing and that they were lackluster in some undefinable fashion?
Angry? No. Frustrated? Slightly. Because calling you a pig-headed moron would be an ad hominem attack and I frown on those. Instead, I'll just provide links to refute your pig headed moronic arguments. I will continue to assume that you are an intelligent individual.
No matter how difficult.