No, the point was that EVEN IF for some strange reason, Apple didn't tell them a thing, they would still be idiots for thinking it was coming in June/July.
Why? It would be a reasonable time frame, and Apple has been on an annual update pattern for most iDevices for at least 6 years now, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the pattern is most likely to repeat again. It's not like they bet the farm on it, that would be stupid, but by all probabilities, it's normally a safe prediction to make.
Why? It would be a reasonable time frame, and Apple has been on an annual update pattern for most iDevices for at least 6 years now, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the pattern is most likely to repeat again. It's not like they bet the farm on it, that would be stupid, but by all probabilities, it's normally a safe prediction to make.
Sorry, but intelligent CEOs don't make such important decisions on the basis of wild-a$$ed assumptions.
If Apple didn't tell them anything (which seems extremely unlikely), the could still have done some basic research and found:
- Almost all major news sites were saying that there'd be no iPhone 5 in June/July
- Apple never gave them an EOL signal for the old ones
And, again, it's just not plausible that Apple gave them all the technical details of the next generation phone - but led them to believe that the iPhone 5 was coming out in June/July.
Sorry, but intelligent CEOs don't make such important decisions on the basis of wild-a$$ed assumptions.
What important decisions were made on this basis?
Also, why would it be smart to base decisions on random rumors as you seem to suggest? A lot of rumors that agree on some points still amounts to a rumor.
I can't find a lot of information on exactly what VZW supposedly knows about the next gen model, this and other AI articles mix a lot of information from a lot of different sources.
Also, why would it be smart to base decisions on random rumors as you seem to suggest? A lot of rumors that agree on some points still amounts to a rumor.
That's only partially true. It's best to base your decisions on verifiable facts. So they should have relied on what Apple told them.
If for some reason that is not possible (such as if Apple refused to tell them anything), then they should make decisions based on best available information - which means looking at as many sources as possible. Since nearly everyone was saying that there would be no new iPhone in June/July, they apparently didn't do this.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I can't find a lot of information on exactly what VZW supposedly knows about the next gen model, this and other AI articles mix a lot of information from a lot of different sources.
"Shammo also suggested in April that Apple's fifth-generation iPhone could be a GSM-CDMA world phone, compatible with both the Verizon and AT&T networks in the U.S. That would allow Apple to manufacture one device, rather than two separate hardware versions for the two competing carriers."
They are claiming knowledge of the phone's features.
What does that mean, exactly? A projection isn't a decision in my opinion, but one can make decisions from projections. What decisions did they make from the projection?
Quote:
If for some reason that is not possible (such as if Apple refused to tell them anything), then they should make decisions based on best available information - which means looking at as many sources as possible. Since nearly everyone was saying that there would be no new iPhone in June/July, they apparently didn't do this.
Still, a consensus of information with no provenance is shaky ground at best. They got it right, but it's hard to tell beforehand if it's just an echo chamber or not.
Quote:
"Shammo also suggested in April that Apple's fifth-generation iPhone could be a GSM-CDMA world phone, compatible with both the Verizon and AT&T networks in the U.S. That would allow Apple to manufacture one device, rather than two separate hardware versions for the two competing carriers."
They are claiming knowledge of the phone's features.
OK, I missed the explanation of who Shammo was, my mistake.
The fact (or assumption on their part) that it's a dual system device doesn't seem to be a very in-depth technical detail to me, though it's arguably a lot more information than Apple gives out otherwise.
What does that mean, exactly? A projection isn't a decision in my opinion, but one can make decisions from projections. What decisions did they make from the projections
I think you may be splitting hairs here. Yes, a projection is not a 'decision,' but you do have to agree that it is the starting point and hence, the sine qua non, of any resource allocation decision that must be made today with the expectation of what's to come in the future.
I suppose they could be be pleased even if sales haven't been what they expected. \
FWIW, the original mention of disappointment, and apparently what I'm recalling, came in a tweet from Peter Svensson (petersvensson), technology writer for the Associated Press:
"Verizon's McAdam said iPhone sales were somewhat disappointing, partly b/c he thought there'd be a new iPhone this summer."
21 hours ago
No link to the original tweet? Isn't that convenient? Googled it and found no McAdam said anything about "disappointed of iPhone sale" anywhere but here.
Sound like someone just want eyeballs on his tweets as usual. If McAdam, or anyone from Verizon, actually said they're disappointed it would be news all over internet.
So 2.3 million iPhones, plus 1.2 million 4G devices, nearly all Android, as reported by Verizon leaves another 2.8 million smartphones sold, some mixture of Blackberry, WM7 and Android models. Safe to assume the majority of those 2.8 million were Android based. Android smartphone sales at Verizon were probably 3 million+.
Possibly cheap Android like we all know where the market share number came from.
What does that mean, exactly? A projection isn't a decision in my opinion, but one can make decisions from projections. What decisions did they make from the projection?
I can tell you've never had any significant management responsibilities.
You base ALL of your decisions on projections - staffing, advertising, merchandising, inventory, financial. If they were using bad information for their projections, it changes everything. And that's bad management.
And, btw, it could also be criminal. Executives of a public company are required to provide factual information to investors. If they were knowingly using bad information for their projections and disclosing those projections to investors in any way, it could be criminal. Not that it would ever be prosecuted, but SOME corporate officers take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously. It's sad that Verizon officers apparently do not.
I can tell you've never had any significant management responsibilities.
You base ALL of your decisions on projections - staffing, advertising, merchandising, inventory, financial. If they were using bad information for their projections, it changes everything. And that's bad management.
OK then, with what inventory? You can't buy phones that don't exist.
Staffing is flexible. And you can't train them with information you're not allowed to give them, which means waiting on that.
How can they make an ad without having a product?
Quote:
And, btw, it could also be criminal. Executives of a public company are required to provide factual information to investors. If they were knowingly using bad information for their projections and disclosing those projections to investors in any way, it could be criminal. Not that it would ever be prosecuted, but SOME corporate officers take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously. It's sad that Verizon officers apparently do not.
It seems like this sub-thread and even thread is about a lot of possibilities or assumptions raised from a single line in a TV interview. It could be a real problem, and it could just be reading far too much into a single line.
An interesting point in all this is that of course McAdam runs Verizon, but Verizon Wireless is run by Dan Mead - and Verizon Wireless is a joint venture between Verizon and Vodafone - it's only 55% owned by Verizon.
Apple might not have a contractual relationship with Verizon itself, and the terms of the NDAs might not allow Mead to tell McAdam anything non-public.
You really ARE clueless about business, aren't you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
OK then, with what inventory? You can't buy phones that don't exist.
Exactly. And the fact that Apple didn't offer to sell them iPhone 5 should have told them something.
But if they thought iPhone 5 was coming out, they may have under-ordered iPhone 4. Or they may not have ordered enough Android phones. They based their inventory decision on false assumptions - and may have reduced their sales because of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
Staffing is flexible. And you can't train them with information you're not allowed to give them, which means waiting on that.
Yes, staffing is flexible, but it takes time to hire and train. If he hired and trained staff on the basis of his assumption that the iPhone 5 would be out in June, then he messed up.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
How can they make an ad without having a product?
They could be advertising iPhone in general - with a big push in June. Or they could buy ad space and tell the magazine/TV/newspaper that they'd provide the copy later.
Bottom line is that your sales volume by product is probably the most critical data you must have and everything else relies on it. If you mess up your volume estimates because you are making stupid assumptions, everything else is different than it would have been with the correct assumptions. That leads to sub-optimal results.
You really ARE clueless about business, aren't you?
Really? And you don't think you're extrapolating way too much from a single sentence on a TV interview? Especially the suggestion that it means he might have committed a crime? I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is that tea leaf reading is a valid business technique.
Really? And you don't think you're extrapolating way too much from a single sentence on a TV interview? Especially the suggestion that it means he might have committed a crime? I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is that tea leaf reading is a valid business technique.
What I'm saying is that based on what he said, he's an idiot. If what he said is not correct, he should have corrected it.
You, OTOH, seem to think that there's nothing wrong, even if it was reported accurately. That is wrong.
You, OTOH, seem to think that there's nothing wrong, even if it was reported accurately. That is wrong.
My position has changed slightly here. I'm now saying that one sentence in a relatively fast-paced five minute interview is woefully insufficient information, it isn't enough to know when they assumed and when they knew otherwise and other details to make a valid judgement. I just don't see where it's enough information. Sure, the line's an exact quote, but they didn't dwell on that particular topic at all to elaborate anything about that one item.
Comments
No, the point was that EVEN IF for some strange reason, Apple didn't tell them a thing, they would still be idiots for thinking it was coming in June/July.
Why? It would be a reasonable time frame, and Apple has been on an annual update pattern for most iDevices for at least 6 years now, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the pattern is most likely to repeat again. It's not like they bet the farm on it, that would be stupid, but by all probabilities, it's normally a safe prediction to make.
The troll forgot to mention ...
I had no plans to mention ...
You know, he didn't even mention your name.
You know, he didn't even mention your name.
Hello again Anonymouse. Only two posts from you all day and they're both for me.
You never did say where you hail from.
Why? It would be a reasonable time frame, and Apple has been on an annual update pattern for most iDevices for at least 6 years now, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume the pattern is most likely to repeat again. It's not like they bet the farm on it, that would be stupid, but by all probabilities, it's normally a safe prediction to make.
Sorry, but intelligent CEOs don't make such important decisions on the basis of wild-a$$ed assumptions.
If Apple didn't tell them anything (which seems extremely unlikely), the could still have done some basic research and found:
- Almost all major news sites were saying that there'd be no iPhone 5 in June/July
- Apple never gave them an EOL signal for the old ones
And, again, it's just not plausible that Apple gave them all the technical details of the next generation phone - but led them to believe that the iPhone 5 was coming out in June/July.
Sorry, but intelligent CEOs don't make such important decisions on the basis of wild-a$$ed assumptions.
What important decisions were made on this basis?
Also, why would it be smart to base decisions on random rumors as you seem to suggest? A lot of rumors that agree on some points still amounts to a rumor.
I can't find a lot of information on exactly what VZW supposedly knows about the next gen model, this and other AI articles mix a lot of information from a lot of different sources.
What important decisions were made on this basis?
Their projections of phone sales.
Also, why would it be smart to base decisions on random rumors as you seem to suggest? A lot of rumors that agree on some points still amounts to a rumor.
That's only partially true. It's best to base your decisions on verifiable facts. So they should have relied on what Apple told them.
If for some reason that is not possible (such as if Apple refused to tell them anything), then they should make decisions based on best available information - which means looking at as many sources as possible. Since nearly everyone was saying that there would be no new iPhone in June/July, they apparently didn't do this.
I can't find a lot of information on exactly what VZW supposedly knows about the next gen model, this and other AI articles mix a lot of information from a lot of different sources.
"Shammo also suggested in April that Apple's fifth-generation iPhone could be a GSM-CDMA world phone, compatible with both the Verizon and AT&T networks in the U.S. That would allow Apple to manufacture one device, rather than two separate hardware versions for the two competing carriers."
They are claiming knowledge of the phone's features.
Their projections of phone sales.
What does that mean, exactly? A projection isn't a decision in my opinion, but one can make decisions from projections. What decisions did they make from the projection?
If for some reason that is not possible (such as if Apple refused to tell them anything), then they should make decisions based on best available information - which means looking at as many sources as possible. Since nearly everyone was saying that there would be no new iPhone in June/July, they apparently didn't do this.
Still, a consensus of information with no provenance is shaky ground at best. They got it right, but it's hard to tell beforehand if it's just an echo chamber or not.
"Shammo also suggested in April that Apple's fifth-generation iPhone could be a GSM-CDMA world phone, compatible with both the Verizon and AT&T networks in the U.S. That would allow Apple to manufacture one device, rather than two separate hardware versions for the two competing carriers."
They are claiming knowledge of the phone's features.
OK, I missed the explanation of who Shammo was, my mistake.
The fact (or assumption on their part) that it's a dual system device doesn't seem to be a very in-depth technical detail to me, though it's arguably a lot more information than Apple gives out otherwise.
What does that mean, exactly? A projection isn't a decision in my opinion, but one can make decisions from projections. What decisions did they make from the projections
I think you may be splitting hairs here. Yes, a projection is not a 'decision,' but you do have to agree that it is the starting point and hence, the sine qua non, of any resource allocation decision that must be made today with the expectation of what's to come in the future.
I suppose they could be be pleased even if sales haven't been what they expected.
FWIW, the original mention of disappointment, and apparently what I'm recalling, came in a tweet from Peter Svensson (petersvensson), technology writer for the Associated Press:
"Verizon's McAdam said iPhone sales were somewhat disappointing, partly b/c he thought there'd be a new iPhone this summer."
21 hours ago
No link to the original tweet? Isn't that convenient? Googled it and found no McAdam said anything about "disappointed of iPhone sale" anywhere but here.
Sound like someone just want eyeballs on his tweets as usual. If McAdam, or anyone from Verizon, actually said they're disappointed it would be news all over internet.
So 2.3 million iPhones, plus 1.2 million 4G devices, nearly all Android, as reported by Verizon leaves another 2.8 million smartphones sold, some mixture of Blackberry, WM7 and Android models. Safe to assume the majority of those 2.8 million were Android based. Android smartphone sales at Verizon were probably 3 million+.
Possibly cheap Android like we all know where the market share number came from.
What does that mean, exactly? A projection isn't a decision in my opinion, but one can make decisions from projections. What decisions did they make from the projection?
I can tell you've never had any significant management responsibilities.
You base ALL of your decisions on projections - staffing, advertising, merchandising, inventory, financial. If they were using bad information for their projections, it changes everything. And that's bad management.
And, btw, it could also be criminal. Executives of a public company are required to provide factual information to investors. If they were knowingly using bad information for their projections and disclosing those projections to investors in any way, it could be criminal. Not that it would ever be prosecuted, but SOME corporate officers take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously. It's sad that Verizon officers apparently do not.
I can tell you've never had any significant management responsibilities.
You base ALL of your decisions on projections - staffing, advertising, merchandising, inventory, financial. If they were using bad information for their projections, it changes everything. And that's bad management.
OK then, with what inventory? You can't buy phones that don't exist.
Staffing is flexible. And you can't train them with information you're not allowed to give them, which means waiting on that.
How can they make an ad without having a product?
And, btw, it could also be criminal. Executives of a public company are required to provide factual information to investors. If they were knowingly using bad information for their projections and disclosing those projections to investors in any way, it could be criminal. Not that it would ever be prosecuted, but SOME corporate officers take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously. It's sad that Verizon officers apparently do not.
It seems like this sub-thread and even thread is about a lot of possibilities or assumptions raised from a single line in a TV interview. It could be a real problem, and it could just be reading far too much into a single line.
Apple might not have a contractual relationship with Verizon itself, and the terms of the NDAs might not allow Mead to tell McAdam anything non-public.
OK then, with what inventory? You can't buy phones that don't exist.
Exactly. And the fact that Apple didn't offer to sell them iPhone 5 should have told them something.
But if they thought iPhone 5 was coming out, they may have under-ordered iPhone 4. Or they may not have ordered enough Android phones. They based their inventory decision on false assumptions - and may have reduced their sales because of it.
Staffing is flexible. And you can't train them with information you're not allowed to give them, which means waiting on that.
Yes, staffing is flexible, but it takes time to hire and train. If he hired and trained staff on the basis of his assumption that the iPhone 5 would be out in June, then he messed up.
How can they make an ad without having a product?
They could be advertising iPhone in general - with a big push in June. Or they could buy ad space and tell the magazine/TV/newspaper that they'd provide the copy later.
Bottom line is that your sales volume by product is probably the most critical data you must have and everything else relies on it. If you mess up your volume estimates because you are making stupid assumptions, everything else is different than it would have been with the correct assumptions. That leads to sub-optimal results.
You really ARE clueless about business, aren't you?
Really? And you don't think you're extrapolating way too much from a single sentence on a TV interview? Especially the suggestion that it means he might have committed a crime? I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is that tea leaf reading is a valid business technique.
Really? And you don't think you're extrapolating way too much from a single sentence on a TV interview? Especially the suggestion that it means he might have committed a crime? I guess the next thing you're going to tell me is that tea leaf reading is a valid business technique.
What I'm saying is that based on what he said, he's an idiot. If what he said is not correct, he should have corrected it.
You, OTOH, seem to think that there's nothing wrong, even if it was reported accurately. That is wrong.
You, OTOH, seem to think that there's nothing wrong, even if it was reported accurately. That is wrong.
My position has changed slightly here. I'm now saying that one sentence in a relatively fast-paced five minute interview is woefully insufficient information, it isn't enough to know when they assumed and when they knew otherwise and other details to make a valid judgement. I just don't see where it's enough information. Sure, the line's an exact quote, but they didn't dwell on that particular topic at all to elaborate anything about that one item.