I think the bulk of those who "love android" got there by hating apple. They just finally have a viable antithesis to latch onto
That's true for a large number of them, but there are also other factors.
Some of them are beguiled by the "open" label and don't expend any thought on whether Android really is open or not (Hint, it isn't.) but for them, anything labeled "open" is good, everything else is bad, regardless of how much sense the label actually makes.
Then there are the people for whom whatever Google does is good. These are the people who, had they been born 10 or more years earlier would have been stalwart Microsoft fans. It's pretty much the same mentality.
And of course, the Apple haters, who hate for various reasons: Apple's success, contrariness, because they have to hate something, ...
No DaHarder is a recluse and has no need for friends, I know because I begged him to be mine.
By the way can you find the definitive description of trolling ? Not your warped opinionated version.
He does post to annoy people, are you insane ?
Well, Firefly is here with a bit of an agenda himself. Anytime anyone posts, "a troll is not someone who disagrees with you," you can pretty much be assured that they are here to disagree with you.
... I don't often agree with him, but it's interesting to read reasonable opinions from a die hard Android fanboy that has actually used a lot of Apple products as well. ...
That might be interesting, but we've never experienced any, "reasonable opinions from a die hard Android fanboy that has actually used a lot of Apple products as well," in these forums.
...This is the first time to my recollection an AI article has received an update. Not that I think updates are bad, I love to see articles updated when new information comes to light... however it's notable that after the correction has come through that the Samsung exec didn't even say sales were "quite small" but actually said"quite smooth" that Dilger's article remains unedited!
What do you expect, Dilger isn't any better than the rest of the writing nitwits who steal from each other and repeat each other's nonsense. Do you expect him to say how wrong he was for writing a bunch of articles on the iPad2 "Retina display" after the real iPad2 is announced? No, no matter how misguided he is, he'll continue giving predictions and opinions... and people here will continue to blissfully take his BS as if it's manna.
What do you expect, Dilger isn't any better than the rest of the writing nitwits who steal from each other and repeat each other's nonsense. Do you expect him to say how wrong he was for writing a bunch of articles on the iPad2 "Retina display" after the real iPad2 is announced? No, no matter how misguided he is, he'll continue giving predictions and opinions... and people here will continue to blissfully take his BS as if it's manna.
Is reporting on a rumour the same as backing said rumour?
If they forced partners (ie, carriers/retailers) to buy inventory, then there may be some legal improprieties there. But otherwise, a sale is a sale. MS and Samsung don't sell direct to consumers (for the most part). Their customers are their retailers, so yes, a sale is a sale when the inventory is transferred to the carrier or retail partner.
You don't know how this is booked. You don't know when it is paid for, etc. It's illegal to report sales when they are not sales. That means that unless all of those tablets were paid for in full, then they can't book the income. They then can't report them as sales. They can say that it's inventory in the channel. but not all of that is paid for right away. Much of it is paid on 30 to 90 day intervals.
Then there is sell-through, as Apple calls it, or sell-out, as the reporter called it. So there is inventory, or sales in the channel, and there is sales to end users.
It's like book sales. The store receives a number of books, they pay for part. They sell some, then return the rest, for which they are credited. How are sales represented? Sales to the end user. The rest is inventory in the channel.
Quote:
Now, is it misleading? Yes. Of course people want to know the actual units sold to customers, not those sold to retailers. But the retailers aren't required to divulge that info. Notice, when pressed by the analyst Samsung never actually said exactly how many units were "sell-outs" since they don't have to. They know the number, but are under no obligation to share it.
Misleading the press? That may not be illegal though. Nuance is allowed if they aren't actually lying.
By the way, they've stated today that there was an error in understanding the reply. They now say the word was "smooth" rather than "tiny".
I commented on an older Dilger article where I pointed out he basically made up information to fit the article.
You told me that AI writers don't make anything up, and that it is simply the writers opinion coming through in the article.
I responded that it is confusing for readers as it is essentially impossible to tell what is factual news and what is opinion when it's all presented in the same feed.
Do you see how it can be confusing now?
One question. Was it Dilger that updated the article by Josh Ong with:
Update: Samsung has admitted that its "sales" figures for Galaxy Tab are actually inventory channel stuffing and do not represent real sales to consumers.?
If so, are the other writers OK with this?
I can't answer that question, as I don't know. But Dilger likely doesn't understand the concept of channel stuffing any more than do most people here. He's a bit too eager to use words that are over telling the story. He doesn't make things up from what I can see, but he definitely puts a fanboy twist on it if he can.
A market research firm, Strategy Analytics, came out with a report (I'm not sure when, 2011-01-31 I think) that Android had taken 22% of the Q4 tablet market share.
Bloomberg then picked up on the story on 2011-01-31. The story was reposted on AI on the same day.
Other sites like Business Insider and The Wall Street Journal picked up the story from a different angle using data from Samsung's earnings call where they confirmed the "2 million" was shipped to stores (sell-in), not to customers (sell-through) and that the Galaxy Tab sales were actually "quite small".
Now it gets funky. Neither Strategy Analytics nor Bloomberg are affiliated with Samsung and the Samsung earning call where they stated the 2 million "sell in" number was three days before the Bloomberg story.
Thanks for the detailed and supported reply, but there's a problem with your take on things. The problem is that this 2 million figure wasn't around since yesterday, I've seen it in Engadget quite a few weeks ago, and the jest of it was "it's selling very well, look 2 million devices shipped!"
Quote:
It's obviously impossible for Samsung to retract spin on a story they weren't involved in three days before the story was written.
It's obviously not when they were the first ones to "leak" the fact that they "shipped" 2 million devices, a common strategy when you want to bump your numbers up and you just can't use your "sold" devices figure, because it would look... small. It was their marketing strategy, not DED's. And all the media ate it.
Quote:
Here is the funniest part. The original AI article received the update "Update: Samsung has admitted that its "sales" figures for Galaxy Tab are actually inventory channel stuffing and do not represent real sales to consumers" when Dilger posted his own follow up article.
This is the first time to my recollection an AI article has received an update. Not that I think updates are bad, I love to see articles updated when new information comes to light... however it's notable that after the correction has come through that the Samsung exec didn't even say sales were "quite small" but actually said"quite smooth" that Dilger's article remains unedited!
I fail to see the "funny part" except perhaps your nitpicking Daniel for every single atomic error or incoherence on his part. I use to call that kind of "fun" petty. You seem to have a ball with it, so please be my guest and have fun. Last thing I want is to prevent others from having joy in this valley of tears anyway...
LOL I have never noticed this Mike the Cat guy. Funny how different posters grade us differently. DaHarder I consider a troll. Not because I disagree with him (I've disagreed with every poster on this forum whose opinion I respect, including yours on this matter) or that he doesn't even try to be objective (we all suffer from subjectivity, but the more rational posters at least attempt to see the bigger picture), but because, IMO, he antagonizing people and then when they push back he cries foul. I'm not a fan of passive-aggressiveness or double-standards.
Yeah, that's it. And there's a mild irony to noting this in a discussion prompted by the remark that trolling isn't just something you disagree with, because at Engadget DaHarder declares anyone that doesn't share his enthusiasm for Android to be a troll, often preemptively.
And then, as you say, getting all prickly and formal if anyone calls him out, and implying that the mods have been notified, etc. Tiresome.
Although I'll agree that, like almost every other tech site, the comments as Engadget are almost unreadable in general because of the number of absolute stone crazy Apple haters who manage to flood pretty much every thread while maintaining the fiction that "fanboys" are out of control and must be crushed.
It's why I'm a bit thin-skinned about the number of purely negative posters here-- it doesn't seem like too much to ask that there might be a place on the web where Apple's customers can discuss what Apple's up to without being constantly belittled as sheep or having some twit hold their PC/Android/Xbox/Whatever Isn't Apple aloft and shriek with triumphant laughter. God knows there's a place and time for that, and it's called "the internet."
I'm sure there won't be any kind of update or retraction to the fact that nobody said the words "quite small" AT ALL in the reported story, will there?
I can't answer that question, as I don't know. But Dilger likely doesn't understand the concept of channel stuffing any more than do most people here. He's a bit too eager to use words that are over telling the story. He doesn't make things up from what I can see, but he definitely puts a fanboy twist on it if he can.
Awesome response. Thank you.
It looks like Dilger updated the article which is a credit to him personally as well as the entire site.
It would be nice if he could continue to be positive about Apple without being so "anti" everything else, but I suppose we can't win 'em all!
In any case the story updates are great to see. It certainly gives me a lot more trust in the site content.
I fail to see the "funny part" except perhaps your nitpicking Daniel for every single atomic error or incoherence on his part. I use to call that kind of "fun" petty. You seem to have a ball with it, so please be my guest and have fun. Last thing I want is to prevent others from having joy in this valley of tears anyway...
The incorrect title wasn't nitpicking nor was it petty. Dilger updated the article, so apparently he agrees with me.
I'm not sure where that leaves you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonymouse
Well, Firefly is here with a bit of an agenda himself. Anytime anyone posts, "a troll is not someone who disagrees with you," you can pretty much be assured that they are here to disagree with you.
Can you point out where I wrote that? That's very misleading and has a totally different meaning to the point I was trying to make. If you can find where you quoted me from I think an update is in order
I'm not arguing semantics, the distinction between what I wrote (or at least what I tried to write!) and what you wrote is very much real and important.
They actually said the sales were "quite smooth", not "quite small"; it was misreported.
Furthermore, Samsung managed to sell a tablet that costs little more than $200 to make at $700, quite a feat, in particular given that the tablet is running a pure phone OS. They only sold 2 million units because that's all they wanted to commit to in a first run, not knowing what the market would take. That's just their toe in the water.
And you know what? The Galaxy Tab is spectacularly good: the right size, the right functionality, and it just works. I'm usually leaving my iPad at home now.
They actually said the sales were "quite smooth", not "quite small"; it was misreported.
Furthermore, Samsung managed to sell a tablet that costs little more than $200 to make at $700, quite a feat, in particular given that the tablet is running a pure phone OS. They only sold 2 million units because that's all they wanted to commit to in a first run, not knowing what the market would take. That's just their toe in the water.
And you know what? The Galaxy Tab is spectacularly good: the right size, the right functionality, and it just works. I'm usually leaving my iPad at home now.
You post exactly as I would expect a paid shill to post. Every post you've made.
They actually said the sales were "quite smooth", not "quite small"; it was misreported.
Furthermore, Samsung managed to sell a tablet that costs little more than $200 to make at $700, quite a feat, in particular given that the tablet is running a pure phone OS. They only sold 2 million units because that's all they wanted to commit to in a first run, not knowing what the market would take. That's just their toe in the water.
And you know what? The Galaxy Tab is spectacularly good: the right size, the right functionality, and it just works. I'm usually leaving my iPad at home now.
Samsung has still not informed us of how many of those two million "sales" have made it into retail buyers' hands.
You post exactly as I would expect a paid shill to post. Every post you've made.
Or he really could just think the Galaxy Tab is better than the iPad. And where's the harm in that? He doesn't post as a paid shill would, he posts as someone who has an opinion that is different to your own. If you want people to respect that you think Apple's products are better than the competition, you're going to have to respect that some people will think the opposite.
Samsung has still not informed us of how many of those two million "sales" have made it into retail buyers' hands.
Here is the number of consumer activation of the Galaxy Tab on Dec 2010 ( one month after the debut of the device) taken from an independent market research firm.
Thats close to 1 million in one month. Therefore, that 2 million sounds about right.
Comments
I think the bulk of those who "love android" got there by hating apple. They just finally have a viable antithesis to latch onto
That's true for a large number of them, but there are also other factors.
Some of them are beguiled by the "open" label and don't expend any thought on whether Android really is open or not (Hint, it isn't.) but for them, anything labeled "open" is good, everything else is bad, regardless of how much sense the label actually makes.
Then there are the people for whom whatever Google does is good. These are the people who, had they been born 10 or more years earlier would have been stalwart Microsoft fans. It's pretty much the same mentality.
And of course, the Apple haters, who hate for various reasons: Apple's success, contrariness, because they have to hate something, ...
No DaHarder is a recluse and has no need for friends, I know because I begged him to be mine.
By the way can you find the definitive description of trolling ? Not your warped opinionated version.
He does post to annoy people, are you insane ?
Well, Firefly is here with a bit of an agenda himself. Anytime anyone posts, "a troll is not someone who disagrees with you," you can pretty much be assured that they are here to disagree with you.
... I don't often agree with him, but it's interesting to read reasonable opinions from a die hard Android fanboy that has actually used a lot of Apple products as well. ...
That might be interesting, but we've never experienced any, "reasonable opinions from a die hard Android fanboy that has actually used a lot of Apple products as well," in these forums.
...This is the first time to my recollection an AI article has received an update. Not that I think updates are bad, I love to see articles updated when new information comes to light... however it's notable that after the correction has come through that the Samsung exec didn't even say sales were "quite small" but actually said "quite smooth" that Dilger's article remains unedited!
What do you expect, Dilger isn't any better than the rest of the writing nitwits who steal from each other and repeat each other's nonsense. Do you expect him to say how wrong he was for writing a bunch of articles on the iPad2 "Retina display" after the real iPad2 is announced? No, no matter how misguided he is, he'll continue giving predictions and opinions... and people here will continue to blissfully take his BS as if it's manna.
What do you expect, Dilger isn't any better than the rest of the writing nitwits who steal from each other and repeat each other's nonsense. Do you expect him to say how wrong he was for writing a bunch of articles on the iPad2 "Retina display" after the real iPad2 is announced? No, no matter how misguided he is, he'll continue giving predictions and opinions... and people here will continue to blissfully take his BS as if it's manna.
Is reporting on a rumour the same as backing said rumour?
If they forced partners (ie, carriers/retailers) to buy inventory, then there may be some legal improprieties there. But otherwise, a sale is a sale. MS and Samsung don't sell direct to consumers (for the most part). Their customers are their retailers, so yes, a sale is a sale when the inventory is transferred to the carrier or retail partner.
You don't know how this is booked. You don't know when it is paid for, etc. It's illegal to report sales when they are not sales. That means that unless all of those tablets were paid for in full, then they can't book the income. They then can't report them as sales. They can say that it's inventory in the channel. but not all of that is paid for right away. Much of it is paid on 30 to 90 day intervals.
Then there is sell-through, as Apple calls it, or sell-out, as the reporter called it. So there is inventory, or sales in the channel, and there is sales to end users.
It's like book sales. The store receives a number of books, they pay for part. They sell some, then return the rest, for which they are credited. How are sales represented? Sales to the end user. The rest is inventory in the channel.
Now, is it misleading? Yes. Of course people want to know the actual units sold to customers, not those sold to retailers. But the retailers aren't required to divulge that info. Notice, when pressed by the analyst Samsung never actually said exactly how many units were "sell-outs" since they don't have to. They know the number, but are under no obligation to share it.
Misleading the press? That may not be illegal though. Nuance is allowed if they aren't actually lying.
By the way, they've stated today that there was an error in understanding the reply. They now say the word was "smooth" rather than "tiny".
I commented on an older Dilger article where I pointed out he basically made up information to fit the article.
You told me that AI writers don't make anything up, and that it is simply the writers opinion coming through in the article.
I responded that it is confusing for readers as it is essentially impossible to tell what is factual news and what is opinion when it's all presented in the same feed.
Do you see how it can be confusing now?
One question. Was it Dilger that updated the article by Josh Ong with:
Update: Samsung has admitted that its "sales" figures for Galaxy Tab are actually inventory channel stuffing and do not represent real sales to consumers.?
If so, are the other writers OK with this?
I can't answer that question, as I don't know. But Dilger likely doesn't understand the concept of channel stuffing any more than do most people here. He's a bit too eager to use words that are over telling the story. He doesn't make things up from what I can see, but he definitely puts a fanboy twist on it if he can.
Well... no, not exactly.
A market research firm, Strategy Analytics, came out with a report (I'm not sure when, 2011-01-31 I think) that Android had taken 22% of the Q4 tablet market share.
Bloomberg then picked up on the story on 2011-01-31. The story was reposted on AI on the same day.
Other sites like Business Insider and The Wall Street Journal picked up the story from a different angle using data from Samsung's earnings call where they confirmed the "2 million" was shipped to stores (sell-in), not to customers (sell-through) and that the Galaxy Tab sales were actually "quite small".
Now it gets funky. Neither Strategy Analytics nor Bloomberg are affiliated with Samsung and the Samsung earning call where they stated the 2 million "sell in" number was three days before the Bloomberg story.
Thanks for the detailed and supported reply, but there's a problem with your take on things. The problem is that this 2 million figure wasn't around since yesterday, I've seen it in Engadget quite a few weeks ago, and the jest of it was "it's selling very well, look 2 million devices shipped!"
It's obviously impossible for Samsung to retract spin on a story they weren't involved in three days before the story was written.
It's obviously not when they were the first ones to "leak" the fact that they "shipped" 2 million devices, a common strategy when you want to bump your numbers up and you just can't use your "sold" devices figure, because it would look... small. It was their marketing strategy, not DED's. And all the media ate it.
Here is the funniest part. The original AI article received the update "Update: Samsung has admitted that its "sales" figures for Galaxy Tab are actually inventory channel stuffing and do not represent real sales to consumers" when Dilger posted his own follow up article.
This is the first time to my recollection an AI article has received an update. Not that I think updates are bad, I love to see articles updated when new information comes to light... however it's notable that after the correction has come through that the Samsung exec didn't even say sales were "quite small" but actually said "quite smooth" that Dilger's article remains unedited!
I fail to see the "funny part" except perhaps your nitpicking Daniel for every single atomic error or incoherence on his part. I use to call that kind of "fun" petty. You seem to have a ball with it, so please be my guest and have fun. Last thing I want is to prevent others from having joy in this valley of tears anyway...
LOL I have never noticed this Mike the Cat guy. Funny how different posters grade us differently. DaHarder I consider a troll. Not because I disagree with him (I've disagreed with every poster on this forum whose opinion I respect, including yours on this matter) or that he doesn't even try to be objective (we all suffer from subjectivity, but the more rational posters at least attempt to see the bigger picture), but because, IMO, he antagonizing people and then when they push back he cries foul. I'm not a fan of passive-aggressiveness or double-standards.
Yeah, that's it. And there's a mild irony to noting this in a discussion prompted by the remark that trolling isn't just something you disagree with, because at Engadget DaHarder declares anyone that doesn't share his enthusiasm for Android to be a troll, often preemptively.
And then, as you say, getting all prickly and formal if anyone calls him out, and implying that the mods have been notified, etc. Tiresome.
Although I'll agree that, like almost every other tech site, the comments as Engadget are almost unreadable in general because of the number of absolute stone crazy Apple haters who manage to flood pretty much every thread while maintaining the fiction that "fanboys" are out of control and must be crushed.
It's why I'm a bit thin-skinned about the number of purely negative posters here-- it doesn't seem like too much to ask that there might be a place on the web where Apple's customers can discuss what Apple's up to without being constantly belittled as sheep or having some twit hold their PC/Android/Xbox/Whatever Isn't Apple aloft and shriek with triumphant laughter. God knows there's a place and time for that, and it's called "the internet."
Is reporting on a rumour the same as backing said rumour?
Is this what you call reporting:
http://www.appleinsider.com/articles...es_ipad_2.html
It's a three page feature article...
http://www.androidcentral.com/galaxy...ot-quite-small
I can't answer that question, as I don't know. But Dilger likely doesn't understand the concept of channel stuffing any more than do most people here. He's a bit too eager to use words that are over telling the story. He doesn't make things up from what I can see, but he definitely puts a fanboy twist on it if he can.
Awesome response. Thank you.
It looks like Dilger updated the article which is a credit to him personally as well as the entire site.
It would be nice if he could continue to be positive about Apple without being so "anti" everything else, but I suppose we can't win 'em all!
In any case the story updates are great to see. It certainly gives me a lot more trust in the site content.
I fail to see the "funny part" except perhaps your nitpicking Daniel for every single atomic error or incoherence on his part. I use to call that kind of "fun" petty. You seem to have a ball with it, so please be my guest and have fun. Last thing I want is to prevent others from having joy in this valley of tears anyway...
The incorrect title wasn't nitpicking nor was it petty. Dilger updated the article, so apparently he agrees with me.
I'm not sure where that leaves you.
Well, Firefly is here with a bit of an agenda himself. Anytime anyone posts, "a troll is not someone who disagrees with you," you can pretty much be assured that they are here to disagree with you.
Can you point out where I wrote that? That's very misleading and has a totally different meaning to the point I was trying to make. If you can find where you quoted me from I think an update is in order
I'm not arguing semantics, the distinction between what I wrote (or at least what I tried to write!) and what you wrote is very much real and important.
Furthermore, Samsung managed to sell a tablet that costs little more than $200 to make at $700, quite a feat, in particular given that the tablet is running a pure phone OS. They only sold 2 million units because that's all they wanted to commit to in a first run, not knowing what the market would take. That's just their toe in the water.
And you know what? The Galaxy Tab is spectacularly good: the right size, the right functionality, and it just works. I'm usually leaving my iPad at home now.
They actually said the sales were "quite smooth", not "quite small"; it was misreported.
Furthermore, Samsung managed to sell a tablet that costs little more than $200 to make at $700, quite a feat, in particular given that the tablet is running a pure phone OS. They only sold 2 million units because that's all they wanted to commit to in a first run, not knowing what the market would take. That's just their toe in the water.
And you know what? The Galaxy Tab is spectacularly good: the right size, the right functionality, and it just works. I'm usually leaving my iPad at home now.
You post exactly as I would expect a paid shill to post. Every post you've made.
They actually said the sales were "quite smooth", not "quite small"; it was misreported.
Furthermore, Samsung managed to sell a tablet that costs little more than $200 to make at $700, quite a feat, in particular given that the tablet is running a pure phone OS. They only sold 2 million units because that's all they wanted to commit to in a first run, not knowing what the market would take. That's just their toe in the water.
And you know what? The Galaxy Tab is spectacularly good: the right size, the right functionality, and it just works. I'm usually leaving my iPad at home now.
Samsung has still not informed us of how many of those two million "sales" have made it into retail buyers' hands.
You post exactly as I would expect a paid shill to post. Every post you've made.
Or he really could just think the Galaxy Tab is better than the iPad. And where's the harm in that? He doesn't post as a paid shill would, he posts as someone who has an opinion that is different to your own. If you want people to respect that you think Apple's products are better than the competition, you're going to have to respect that some people will think the opposite.
Samsung has still not informed us of how many of those two million "sales" have made it into retail buyers' hands.
Here is the number of consumer activation of the Galaxy Tab on Dec 2010 ( one month after the debut of the device) taken from an independent market research firm.
Thats close to 1 million in one month. Therefore, that 2 million sounds about right.
http://blog.flurry.com/bid/54035/And...the-new-Wintel