If you click on the link at the bottom of the forum story, you'll find the original article says this:
The Cupertino-based company is now producing 1.2 million iPads each month, up from 800,000-900,000 units in May, 700,000 units in April, 470,000 units in March, and 300,000 in February.
Somehow the word "shipping" got transposed for "producing." Maybe Kasper's Automated Slave has a mind of it's own?
Which was the only thing I was intending to criticise, the sloppy formulation in the article (which was so obviously incorrect that it was almost comical). But those responding did find this little goof amusing but assumed I must have critical of the numbers themselves.
The report listed shipping numbers for February and March, no iPads were shipped to customers in February and March since it went on sale 1 April.
Uhhh, they have to start somewhere. If they didn't have any in the pipeline, they wouldn't have been able to sell the half-mill they did sell on the opening weekend. One million in a week.
Apple has been criticized for not having ENOUGH on hand when they launch a product -- the latest discussion is about the iPhone 4, for which they have had to STOP taking pre-orders. They have just taken 600,000 pre-orders in ONE day.
Apple DOES sell it's products very quickly. They have about the best inventory control and channels in the entire tech industry.
This happens to be about production, yes, but the source is more on the supplier side. When Apple announces numbers, they are indeed SOLD items, and not "stuffed" in a channel somewhere. Where is the stuffing that Apple would do? -- they supply maybe 25 items at a time to each store, it seems. These are quickly sold out, and it looks like most stores get a delivery a couple times a week.
There are no warehouses stacked with items. And there are no significant stocks of items in ANY store that stocks Apple products. Contrast this with MS and its Zunes or XBoxes for example. There were stories this year about them lowering production, because they had significant stocks of unsold products sitting *somewhere*. MS typically counts its products sold before they are sold -- I suppose it takes an annual order from Walmart and Amazon for so many thousands of XBoxes and it counts those as sold, regardless if Walmart and Amazon sell them or not. Then when the product proves less popular or develops issues, they have to be dumped or returned somehow, causing even more of a loss.
Apple never counts distribution through its channels as products sold -- when it says a million iPads sold the first week, then a million iPads were bought by individual consumers. They have now "sold" a million iPhone 4's and the product isn't out yet! So, I suppose they built 400,000 last month and 500,000 this month as they ramp up (just as with the iPad). Don't worry, you might as well call those already produced sold already -- they are already accounted for with pre-orders and reservations and the rest will be snapped up before they hit the shelves.
Apple can't make things fast enough, so please don't nit-pick about "these are production numbers and not actual sales numbers". When it comes to Apple, unlike any other company, production numbers pretty much equate to sales numbers.
Channel stuffing to impress financial analysts on Wall Street.
I don't think this applies to the iPad. If they were channel stuffing, I wouldn't have had to wait 3 weeks for mine.
I've seen people say that, though. And it's hilarious, because when it came out, people were accusing Apple of limiting the supply in order to inflate the demand on this "big iPod Touch."
They'll eventually have 512 MB of RAM - and probably go to multiple cores at the same time. The only question is whether they'll do it before the Holidays or wait until the 1 year anniversary.
I'd guess the latter given how well it is selling and the iPhone 'once a year, like clockwork' release schedule.
I was really hoping for an iPad refresh to go with the usual September iPod/iTunes announcement, but I agree with you that we won't likely see it until spring 2011.
Apple can barely keep up with production demand on the iPad, and they've settled into a one-year refresh cycle that has worked very well for the iPhone and iPod lines.
I actually think she's right on the money with that report!
Oh wait - I'm sorry - I didn't see that you are trolling - never mind.
Anyway, yeah projections using previous PC-based tablets are going to be problematic when used to try and track performance of the iPad in the same category, given the relative lack of success previously experienced in that segment. I expect they are either not do a critical analysis, or they are simply looking for page hits.
I am ambivalent about the analysts' ability to correctly predict sales when they can't even differentiate devices correctly.
Why are there no American companies able to male these displays at a comparable price? Looks like an awful lot of business coming their way...can't believe we can't be competitive. Is it solely the low wage/hour in these other countries? That is going to end in 20 years or so when their living standards begin to approach more Western levels. Who will build electronics THEN? Monkeys? Dogs? Mr. Asimov's robots?
You do realize that "American-Made" cars are not even made in America, don't you? They are made in Canada and Mexico. Apple isn't the only company that outsources assembly. However, my Honda was built right here in America, Ohio to be exact.
Wow, they anticipate more sales during the holiday season. Did they use a slide-rule to figure that one out? Given Apple's track record, they will also slash prices on the iPad for the holiday season too. Duh, that might increase sales too. I know plenty of people that have no interest in the iPad at its current $500+ price tag. I used one over the weekend. It is still an iPod Touch with a larger screen. Playing Angry Birds for iPad was fun.
People actually pay these clowns for such "research"?
Apparently Apple won't sell as many iPads this year as they already have.
Somebody has a spreadsheet fixation. Spreadsheet analysis alone will never tell you about changing trends. She also has a fixation on arbitrary terms. Who cares if the iPad is a "PC?"
I thought my prediction of 10 million sold in calendar year 2010 was aggressive (and all my friends laughed at me for it), but I never thought that they may hit it before the holiday buying season even begins!
Back in February I predicted 6 million iPads in 2010 and someone here said:
Quote:
Wow. Do you really believe the stuff you write??? The iPad could very well be the next G4 Cube. An overpriced dud in which other Apple products do so much more. 6 million in a year? You live in a dreamworld.
I now believe that my 6M iPads in 2010 is conservative as well.
Why are there no American companies able to male these displays at a comparable price? Looks like an awful lot of business coming their way...can't believe we can't be competitive. Is it solely the low wage/hour in these other countries? That is going to end in 20 years or so when their living standards begin to approach more Western levels. Who will build electronics THEN? Monkeys? Dogs? Mr. Asimov's robots?
Robots? Maybe a more automated process that would require less human involvement.
The problem with doubling sales is twofold... Striking while the iron is hot is very much apropos here. If there was any longer of a delay in shipping to customers, some may get frustrated and turn away.
My experience is that with Apple products; once a person has decided they want "one" -- they go through with it... especially when there is no obvious competition. Not a hard and fast rule, but I believe it applies to the iPad.
My experience is that with Apple products; once a person has decided they want "one" -- they go through with it... especially when there is no obvious competition. Not a hard and fast rule, but I believe it applies to the iPad.
Uhhh, they have to start somewhere. If they didn't have any in the pipeline, they wouldn't have been able to sell the half-mill they did sell on the opening weekend. One million in a week.
The point is not how many iPads Apple produced when. I never referred to that in any way. The point is that the author of article incorrectly said Apple had shipped when it instead it should have read produced.
I found this error so gross as to be comical and wanted to make fun of the author, nothing more. I did not make any comment about the iPad, its sales or its production, I made a comment about a goof by the author.
The point is not how many iPads Apple produced when. I never referred to that in any way. The point is that the author of article incorrectly said Apple had shipped when it instead it should have read produced.
I found this error so gross as to be comical and wanted to make fun of the author, nothing more. I did not make any comment about the iPad, its sales or its production, I made a comment about a goof by the author.
Hey genius, ever cared to notice another big difference between "shipped" and "SOLD"?
WTF do you know about Apple's shipping strategy back in februrary, march? How can you be so sure they didn't "ship it", and stock them up in the stores back then?
Oh and lastly, wtf are you ranting about anyway? Who fucking cares about that detail?
Hey genius, ever cared to notice another big difference between "shipped" and "SOLD"?
Except that there is usually none in this context. It is general custom to use the word shipped as a synonym for sold, hey, I am sure even Steve Jobs used it like this in his keynotes.
The author of the article made a mistake, I tried to make fun of it. People perceived it as criticism of Apple because such subtleties as proper usage of words are apparently beyond the comprehension of the average forum poster. Only after I explained my point multiple times in detail, did they get my argument.
Comments
If you click on the link at the bottom of the forum story, you'll find the original article says this:
The Cupertino-based company is now producing 1.2 million iPads each month, up from 800,000-900,000 units in May, 700,000 units in April, 470,000 units in March, and 300,000 in February.
Somehow the word "shipping" got transposed for "producing." Maybe Kasper's Automated Slave has a mind of it's own?
Which was the only thing I was intending to criticise, the sloppy formulation in the article (which was so obviously incorrect that it was almost comical). But those responding did find this little goof amusing but assumed I must have critical of the numbers themselves.
The report listed shipping numbers for February and March, no iPads were shipped to customers in February and March since it went on sale 1 April.
Uhhh, they have to start somewhere. If they didn't have any in the pipeline, they wouldn't have been able to sell the half-mill they did sell on the opening weekend. One million in a week.
Apple has been criticized for not having ENOUGH on hand when they launch a product -- the latest discussion is about the iPhone 4, for which they have had to STOP taking pre-orders. They have just taken 600,000 pre-orders in ONE day.
Apple DOES sell it's products very quickly. They have about the best inventory control and channels in the entire tech industry.
This happens to be about production, yes, but the source is more on the supplier side. When Apple announces numbers, they are indeed SOLD items, and not "stuffed" in a channel somewhere. Where is the stuffing that Apple would do? -- they supply maybe 25 items at a time to each store, it seems. These are quickly sold out, and it looks like most stores get a delivery a couple times a week.
There are no warehouses stacked with items. And there are no significant stocks of items in ANY store that stocks Apple products. Contrast this with MS and its Zunes or XBoxes for example. There were stories this year about them lowering production, because they had significant stocks of unsold products sitting *somewhere*. MS typically counts its products sold before they are sold -- I suppose it takes an annual order from Walmart and Amazon for so many thousands of XBoxes and it counts those as sold, regardless if Walmart and Amazon sell them or not. Then when the product proves less popular or develops issues, they have to be dumped or returned somehow, causing even more of a loss.
Apple never counts distribution through its channels as products sold -- when it says a million iPads sold the first week, then a million iPads were bought by individual consumers. They have now "sold" a million iPhone 4's and the product isn't out yet! So, I suppose they built 400,000 last month and 500,000 this month as they ramp up (just as with the iPad). Don't worry, you might as well call those already produced sold already -- they are already accounted for with pre-orders and reservations and the rest will be snapped up before they hit the shelves.
Apple can't make things fast enough, so please don't nit-pick about "these are production numbers and not actual sales numbers". When it comes to Apple, unlike any other company, production numbers pretty much equate to sales numbers.
Channel stuffing to impress financial analysts on Wall Street.
I don't think this applies to the iPad. If they were channel stuffing, I wouldn't have had to wait 3 weeks for mine.
I've seen people say that, though. And it's hilarious, because when it came out, people were accusing Apple of limiting the supply in order to inflate the demand on this "big iPod Touch."
They'll eventually have 512 MB of RAM - and probably go to multiple cores at the same time. The only question is whether they'll do it before the Holidays or wait until the 1 year anniversary.
I'd guess the latter given how well it is selling and the iPhone 'once a year, like clockwork' release schedule.
I was really hoping for an iPad refresh to go with the usual September iPod/iTunes announcement, but I agree with you that we won't likely see it until spring 2011.
Apple can barely keep up with production demand on the iPad, and they've settled into a one-year refresh cycle that has worked very well for the iPhone and iPod lines.
I actually think she's right on the money with that report!
Oh wait - I'm sorry - I didn't see that you are trolling - never mind.
Anyway, yeah projections using previous PC-based tablets are going to be problematic when used to try and track performance of the iPad in the same category, given the relative lack of success previously experienced in that segment. I expect they are either not do a critical analysis, or they are simply looking for page hits.
I am ambivalent about the analysts' ability to correctly predict sales when they can't even differentiate devices correctly.
Why are there no American companies able to male these displays at a comparable price? Looks like an awful lot of business coming their way...can't believe we can't be competitive. Is it solely the low wage/hour in these other countries? That is going to end in 20 years or so when their living standards begin to approach more Western levels. Who will build electronics THEN? Monkeys? Dogs? Mr. Asimov's robots?
You do realize that "American-Made" cars are not even made in America, don't you? They are made in Canada and Mexico. Apple isn't the only company that outsources assembly. However, my Honda was built right here in America, Ohio to be exact.
Forrester: iPad Sales Will Plummet
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/06/...A+Apple+2.0%29
People actually pay these clowns for such "research"?
Apparently Apple won't sell as many iPads this year as they already have.
Somebody has a spreadsheet fixation. Spreadsheet analysis alone will never tell you about changing trends. She also has a fixation on arbitrary terms. Who cares if the iPad is a "PC?"
I thought my prediction of 10 million sold in calendar year 2010 was aggressive (and all my friends laughed at me for it), but I never thought that they may hit it before the holiday buying season even begins!
Back in February I predicted 6 million iPads in 2010 and someone here said:
Wow. Do you really believe the stuff you write??? The iPad could very well be the next G4 Cube. An overpriced dud in which other Apple products do so much more. 6 million in a year? You live in a dreamworld.
I now believe that my 6M iPads in 2010 is conservative as well.
Why are there no American companies able to male these displays at a comparable price? Looks like an awful lot of business coming their way...can't believe we can't be competitive. Is it solely the low wage/hour in these other countries? That is going to end in 20 years or so when their living standards begin to approach more Western levels. Who will build electronics THEN? Monkeys? Dogs? Mr. Asimov's robots?
Robots? Maybe a more automated process that would require less human involvement.
I don't see how a crappy over sized iPod can sell that well
No, I'm sure you don't. Congratulations.
What makes you think they'd be producing more than they sell?
Because in Feb they produced 300k units and in March they produced 470k units and with total sales of 0 units.
Really looking forward to the second generation iPad. Like with the 2nd gen iPhone Touch, I"m expecting substantive improvements.
I'm hoping for network printing capability. That's been my holdout so far. Otherwise, a great product.
The problem with doubling sales is twofold... Striking while the iron is hot is very much apropos here. If there was any longer of a delay in shipping to customers, some may get frustrated and turn away.
My experience is that with Apple products; once a person has decided they want "one" -- they go through with it... especially when there is no obvious competition. Not a hard and fast rule, but I believe it applies to the iPad.
My experience is that with Apple products; once a person has decided they want "one" -- they go through with it... especially when there is no obvious competition. Not a hard and fast rule, but I believe it applies to the iPad.
Yeah, it's not like they're selling snow cones.
Uhhh, they have to start somewhere. If they didn't have any in the pipeline, they wouldn't have been able to sell the half-mill they did sell on the opening weekend. One million in a week.
The point is not how many iPads Apple produced when. I never referred to that in any way. The point is that the author of article incorrectly said Apple had shipped when it instead it should have read produced.
I found this error so gross as to be comical and wanted to make fun of the author, nothing more. I did not make any comment about the iPad, its sales or its production, I made a comment about a goof by the author.
The point is not how many iPads Apple produced when. I never referred to that in any way. The point is that the author of article incorrectly said Apple had shipped when it instead it should have read produced.
I found this error so gross as to be comical and wanted to make fun of the author, nothing more. I did not make any comment about the iPad, its sales or its production, I made a comment about a goof by the author.
Hey genius, ever cared to notice another big difference between "shipped" and "SOLD"?
WTF do you know about Apple's shipping strategy back in februrary, march? How can you be so sure they didn't "ship it", and stock them up in the stores back then?
Oh and lastly, wtf are you ranting about anyway? Who fucking cares about that detail?
Hey genius, ever cared to notice another big difference between "shipped" and "SOLD"?
Except that there is usually none in this context. It is general custom to use the word shipped as a synonym for sold, hey, I am sure even Steve Jobs used it like this in his keynotes.
The author of the article made a mistake, I tried to make fun of it. People perceived it as criticism of Apple because such subtleties as proper usage of words are apparently beyond the comprehension of the average forum poster. Only after I explained my point multiple times in detail, did they get my argument.
http://goo.gl/CF4S4
Books in PDF format