We can laugh all we want, but Android already owns the market. He wants to own the tablet market and will eventually get there next year. It's gotten to the point where the differences between Android and iOS is nearly gone. Google did a great job flanking Apple and Jobs with Android...they won before the end of 2011. Its just up and away in 2012.
It seems inevitable that Android makers will be able to make tablets that are as good at being tablets as their phones are as phones - and that a library of apps will grow - maybe not as fast as Android phone apps, but the same level of experience and functionality will be available. But there's no way I expect the market share wars to go the same way at all. Most tablets are primarily Wi-Fi connecting devices, and of the 3G models, a small minority are sold with a subsidized phone contract from a carrier. They're much more like notebook computers in that regard. And with their network of Apple Stores and other retail contracts they actually have shelf-space advantage - as well as ubiquitous web outlets and their own website.
With phones, Android was on all four big US carriers (and small ones) while Apple was stuck on one for four years (the price of their first mover advantage), and all the devices (virtually) are subsidized. People aren't going to give up their smart phones for tablets, and either won't spring for or can't afford another $30-60/month plan even if they save $200 or even $300 on the device upfront. Because it's the ones who go for the cheap phones who have more limited monthly budgets in the first place. So being tethered to a cellco will be a disadvantage for many potential buyers, rather than an inducement, especially in an underemployed economy.
And, Wi-Fi tabs are cheaper than 3G in the first place, cancelling out much of the subsidy effect. Further, that adequate Android tab is going to have MS's Win 8 Metro as a competitor by year's end (and MS is heavily seeding the development of a stable of apps), which Android phones didn't face on their own flank. And finally, and importantly, the G-plex is staring into the teeth of a market Apple already owns - which was NOT the case with phones - and continues to have good development (and developer) momentum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by maccherry
It makes no damn since for Google to do this because they will be
competing with other OEMS using the same OS. They will get thier a$$ handed to them by those cheap brand like coby.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Agreed. With Google's purchase of Motorola and now their announcement of the Nexus tablet (assuming that it ever sees the light of day, of course), Google has made it clear that they are competing with their licensees. You can bet that there are a lot of people looking at WebOS and Windows Mobile right now.
They're the new Microsoft in some ways, but not even close in other ways. For example, notice that Microsoft never released their own brand of PC. They realized that their success depended on NOT competing with their customers. Google never understood this.
The first thing Jobs did when he returned was kill the clone program. Google looks to be trying to do the reverse - start an in-house brand when their whole model's been OEM licensees (and on which Google makes zero up-front $$). Seems like a slog at best.
Then there's the $5 MS tax on each Android, which is funny - because many of we Apple fans secretly cheer this. MS has become a sick frenemy we kind of sympathize for if you notice the overall tone here. And all the other lawsuits threatening to hobble Android.
And the Amazon forking allowed by Google's license. And....
Quote:
Originally Posted by aknabi
Eric, great hardware isn't your problem (though it is an issue)...
It's your total cluelessness on user experience and the continued botching of it regardless of the great talent in UX you probably have.
Problem is when it come to user experience Google is one of those companies that just doesn't get it as an organization... and even with some talented folks they just can get it done.
I call partial BS - gMail is my preferred e-mail interface after 5 years - and keeps gaining functionality. Google Voice has the best interface of all. None. My Google phone number simply rings anywhere and does hilarious transciptions of my voice messages. gDocs is no big deal, but does keep improving regularly - whereas in Office Live you still have to save a document with a name BEFORE you can start creating it (though MS's suite - and connection between mail, SkyDrive, Office Live etc. is also improving a lot). YouTube's interface (which Google inherited) has been improving by leaps and bounds. I can actually manage my Channel now. My luddite friends getting their free Android phones can use them out of the gate and are fairly happy. And Google+'s interface has had good reviews. They just don't have a rationale for people to come where their fb friends aren't.
Apple's had some interface quirks themselves. Look how long that controless shuffle lasted with its 16 intuitive cord click combos (or however many there were and how done). iTunes is a bloated beast - the slowest loading program on my computers. Safari is not my browser of choice. That would be Google Chrome, with Firefox second (for the add-in ecosystem).
Google Maps interface was good enough to make everyone else's an also-ran. They bought Google Earth but it's fluid and interesting.
So, come on, they're not interface Gods, but they've accomplished a lot actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
What does Google know about quality? Many of their products stay in beta for years. And other companies do the hardware... you can not make promises about that over which you have no control.
Well, yeah, but gMail was totally stable in beta and still the best. And excuse me, let's be fair, your Siri is showing here....
The latest version of the Android, dubbed "Ice Cream Sandwich," unites Honeycomb, the tablet-specific variant of the mobile operating system, with Gingerbread, which was designed for smartphones. It debuted last month on the Galaxy Nexus smartphone.
]
Ice crean sandwich? Gingerbread? Talk about junk 'food'. So much for 'the highest quality'/
You guys are totally missing the boat on this one. Remember what our teachers used to say to us. Competition is a good thing. What would happen to the price, improvements, quality if Apple did not have any competitors? Take the blinders off and look at the big picture.
And every developer is going to be dying to develop for Android soon.
That's insane. By goodness if I can't cobble together a half-baked iPad app by the end of 2012 I might as well... Jeez*.
*It's not just the App Store, but custom apps, etc. Various ideas and offers are swirling, as well as future employment opportunities. iPad programming, here I come! Give me a year. Assuming the world doesn't end.
Microsoft was a dominating search giant. Until Google came along
Wrong. M$ was not dominant in the search market. They had MSN and Live Search, which became Bing. They never dominated the way Google does now, nor the way Apple does in smartphones and iPads.
Quote:
Google has a tendency to turn status quo upside down.
Google has done a great job in the search industry and with access to information in general. Beyond that, Apple has a much better track record of transformation or "turning the status quo upside down."
Quote:
It's only a matter of time before they start doing the same with tablets.
Apparently you're adept on basing your predictions on your butt, because you have absolutely no support for that statement. As I said, Google has some serious obstacles to overcome in order to take on Apple's iPad.
First, they've got to build a tablet is objectively as good or better than the iPad in terms of overall hardware and user experience. With the Retina display coming and iOS going to version 6 next year, good luck with that.
Secondly, they have the fragmentation problem with Android. Put simply, it's a nightmare. Brand new devices are released with year-old operating systems, while others have the newest "Ice Cream Sandwich" version. Updates aren't provided to existing users in a timely way. There are versions that run on "non-authorized hardware" that have trouble in the app market. Take this article: http://techland.time.com/2011/11/10/...how-to-fix-it/
Quote:
But within hours of being unveiled on October 18th, the RAZR felt like yesterday?s news. That?s because Google and Samsung trumped it by announcing the Galaxy Nexus, a similar phone that?s the first to run Android 4.0, a promising upgrade also known as Ice Cream Sandwich. The RAZR will ship with Android 2.3 Gingerbread, a version that dates from last year.
The RAZR won?t be stuck on Gingerbread forever. Motorola says that it?s committed to providing a software update in the first half of 2012, which sounds like it?s giving itself plenty of padding just in case. Even once it gets the upgrade, though, the RAZR will show telltale signs that it?s a pre-Ice Cream Sandwich device: It sports dedicated buttons for functions such as calling up the home screen, a feature that the new Android replaces with on-screen icons.
Third: Apps, Apps, Apps. The iPad has tens of thousands more apps written for it than does any Android tablet OS. Sure, like the iPad you can run the phone versions, but that's an inferior experience. Why? Because the Android tablet market really doesn't exist yet. By the time this mythical tablet comes out, iTunes/iPad will be even more dominant and Google will have an even bigger mountain to climb.
Sorry, Mr. Google Apologist, but Apple is going to be taking names for a long time.
Why would anyone be excited about this? Google has the same issue as Microsoft ... they don't control hardware as tightly as required to deliver a seamless product.
It's also very easy to say ... just 6 more months and we'll have this or that.
Dear Google ... how about focusing on making your search engine better. Just saying.
Funny that they never release their actual sales (not 'shipped', not 'gross sales', not 'activations' etc etc) numbers.
Not often, but they have as recently as September with the announcement of 10 million Galaxy SII smartphones sold (yes sold).
Before you or others chime in with "Wait, those are only shipped not sold", the press release specifies channel sales. Bought and paid for whether from Verizon, ATT, Vodaphone or an end-user. This is the same method Apple uses to count sales revenue.
From the original press release posted at BGR:
"SEOUL, Korea – September 25th, 2011 – Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, a global leader in digital media and digital convergence technologies, today announced that the Samsung GALAXY S II (Model: GT-I9100) has achieved 10 million global channel sales, doubling from five million in just eight weeks. . . "
You don't ship 30 million of something unless you plan on selling that many. Samsung sells a lot of phones even if they don't brag about it.
But my point was... Samsung is making money... while HTC is slashing their forecast... and LG, Motorola have lost a lot of money.
The reality of what you planned to sell and what you can actually sell aren't always the same. Saying the made as many as they planned to sell means nothing as we've seen with HP and RiM with their TouchPad and PlayBook, respectively. Sure, HP sold all of them but well before cost, much less retail.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Before you or others chime in with "Wait, those are only shipped not sold", the press release specifies channel sales.
Note the word channel before the word sales. That is how you stuff a channel. These distributors usually aren't on the hook for the extra supply if they send it back. Stuffing a channel is usually a pain for distributors so there are incentives for them to hold extra product for a time.
We only know the sell through when a vendor tells us. This is why Apple's quarterly reports are actual sales for the past quarter and an analyst's projection of Apple's sales for a quarter are as factual as data regarding channel stuffing.
Note the word channel before the word sales. That is how you stuff a channel. These distributors usually aren't on the hook for the extra supply if they send it back. Stuffing a channel is usually a pain for distributors so there are incentives for them to hold extra product for a time.
We only know the sell through when a vendor tells us. This is why Apple's quarterly reports are actual sales for the past quarter and an analyst's projection of Apple's sales for a quarter are as factual as data regarding channel stuffing.
To be fair and completely accurate, not all vendors engage in channel stuffing.
We only know the sell through when a vendor tells us. This is why Apple's quarterly reports are actual sales for the past quarter and an analyst's projection of Apple's sales for a quarter are as factual as data regarding channel stuffing.
"Apple's quarterly reports are for actual sales" - is that really true? I have seen this mentioned here and elsewhere so many times that I have assumed it true. But is it? In looking carefully around, I now have my doubts.
I believe the commonly accepted notion that Apple reports end sales is based on various assumptions and facts: 1. Apple is its own primary channel partner. 2. People want to believe Apple is a purist (which it is in many instances). 3. Apple also reports (or used to?) activations and how many devices have been sold. 4. Apple reports channel inventory which allows analysts to calculate/guess-timate consumer sales. 5. Apple is assumed (and often correctly) to sell every device they make.
In looking at Apple's financial reports and earnings calls, they mention sales of iPhones without specifying whether these are channel numbers or end sales (unless I missed it). But they do report channel inventory which includes their own stores. So, I have doubts that Apple only reports *real* sales to customers (but I am not saying they obfuscate anything on purpose). But there is a possibility my doubts are unfounded. If anyone can point me to irrefutable evidence, I'd greatly appreciate it.
In looking at Apple's financial reports and earnings calls, they mention sales of iPhones without specifying whether these are channel numbers or end sales (unless I missed it). But they do report channel inventory which includes their own stores. So, I have doubts that Apple only reports *real* sales to customers (but I am not saying they obfuscate anything on purpose). But there is a possibility my doubts are unfounded. If anyone can point me to irrefutable evidence, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Look at Apple's 10K for their legal explanation on how sales are determined.
"Apple's quarterly reports are for actual sales" - is that really true? I have seen this mentioned here and elsewhere so many times that I have assumed it true. But is it? In looking carefully around, I now have my doubts.
I believe the commonly accepted notion that Apple reports end sales is based on various assumptions and facts: 1. Apple is its own primary channel partner. 2. People want to believe Apple is a purist (which it is in many instances). 3. Apple also reports (or used to?) activations and how many devices have been sold. 4. Apple reports channel inventory which allows analysts to calculate/guess-timate consumer sales. 5. Apple is assumed (and often correctly) to sell every device they make.
In looking at Apple's financial reports and earnings calls, they mention sales of iPhones without specifying whether these are channel numbers or end sales (unless I missed it). But they do report channel inventory which includes their own stores. So, I have doubts that Apple only reports *real* sales to customers (but I am not saying they obfuscate anything on purpose). But there is a possibility my doubts are unfounded. If anyone can point me to irrefutable evidence, I'd greatly appreciate it.
There is some truth to that but we're talking about accepted transactions with payment. A complete purchase. Delving any deeper is like trying to count electrons when weighing an atom. It's more precise, but it barely affects the end result. This is not something isolated with Apple; if Samsung or whomever states in their earning reports that they have x-many sell through then we say they have x-many sell through. We aren't saying Amazon is lying about Kindle Fire sales or that Sony is lying about PSVita sales. We accept their statements of sales at face value, but when we get qualifiers and purposely obfuscating language we should question it. That means that Google's "activation" numbers shouldn't be seen as Android-based device sales.
There is some truth to that but we're talking about accepted transactions with payment. A complete purchase. Delving any deeper is like trying to count electrons when weighing an atom. It's more precise, but it barely affects the end result. This is not something isolated with Apple; if Samsung or whomever states in their earning reports that they have x-many sell through then we say they have x-many sell through. We aren't saying Amazon is lying about Kindle Fire sales or that Sony is lying about PSVita sales. We accept their statements of sales at face value, but when we get qualifiers and purposely obfuscating language we should question it. That means that Google's "activation" numbers shouldn't be seen as Android-based device sales.
FWIW. channel sales are considered an "accepted transaction with payment". If Samsung claims x-number of channel sales, it's just as valid as Apple claims of sales.
FWIW. channel sales are considered an "accepted transaction with payment". If Samsung claims x-number of channel sales, it's just as valid as Apple claims of sales.
Hence my comments about these statement of what is claimed during and what is claimed AFTER the quarter is over. Hence, quarterly earnings are more accurate and honest. This isn't an Apple v. everyone else issue. It's about getting the most factual data. You don't think SEC filings are going to be more accurate than a press release of "millions sold."
“(Apple) recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred. For most of (Apple)’s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped."
?(Apple) recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred. For most of (Apple)?s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped."
"...collection [of payment] is probable [?] and title and risk of loss have been transferred."
"...collection [of payment] is probable […] and title and risk of loss have been transferred."
Which means what? Somehow different than the generally accepted accounting practices that nearly all public companies follow? Apple's statement is based on those principles. Shipped for Apple would generally carry the same meaning as shipped for Samsung, HTC, Hitachi, Sony, etc., and doesn't discriminate on where the transaction was recognized. Delivery to Best Buy's warehouse is a sale for recording purposes just as much as the Apple package that arrives at your front door.
Which means what? Somehow different than the generally accepted accounting practices that nearly all public companies follow? Apple's statement is based on those principles. Shipped for Apple would generally carry the same meaning as shipped for Samsung, HTC, Hitachi, Sony, etc.
Which means exactly what it says. i even added a couple extra words to make it more clear. Depending on the product and the contract there isn't necessarily payment that will take place simply because a product is shipped to a distributor.
This is what channel stuffing can do to fudge the numbers and this is how unproven products can create the artificial bubble of interest you think that Apple has to engage in in order to sell an iPhone.
You failed to note what you bolded that for most of (Apple)?s product sales. They certainly aren't pushing iPhones and iPads to distributors in hopes they can be moved, but they very likely don't have the same contracts for Mac Pros.
Can you not see how a thousands of Mac Pros might be shipped to Best Buys without an upfront or guaranteed payment for product they can't necessarily move and with stipulation to only pay an initial premium and at certain intervals for product moved, but how this would be different for devices that are moved quickly?
Which means exactly what it says. i even added a couple extra words to make it more clear. Depending on the product and the contract there isn't necessarily payment that will take place simply because a product is shipped to a distributor.
This is what channel stuffing can do to fudge the numbers and this is how unproven products can create the artificial bubble of interest you think that Apple has to engage in in order to sell an iPhone.
You failed to note what you bolded that for most of (Apple)’s product sales. They certainly aren't pushing iPhones and iPads to distributors in hopes they can be moved, but they very likely don't have the same contracts for Mac Pros.
Can you not see how a thousands of Mac Pros might be shipped to Best Buys without an upfront or guaranteed payment for product they can't necessarily move and with stipulation to only pay an initial premium and at certain intervals for product moved, but how this would be different for devices that are moved quickly?
You're using your favored tactic of making a claim that I didn't in an attempt to change the argument. I didn't say anything about channel stuffing at all. That comes from you.
Your're correct too that their may be some cases where Apple (or Samsung or anyone else) might ship product to a customer without transferring title or expecting payment. That wouldn't yet be considered a channel sale. Since no sale occurs then no sale would be recognized. Is there something you wanted to add to that?
Comments
We can laugh all we want, but Android already owns the market. He wants to own the tablet market and will eventually get there next year. It's gotten to the point where the differences between Android and iOS is nearly gone. Google did a great job flanking Apple and Jobs with Android...they won before the end of 2011. Its just up and away in 2012.
It seems inevitable that Android makers will be able to make tablets that are as good at being tablets as their phones are as phones - and that a library of apps will grow - maybe not as fast as Android phone apps, but the same level of experience and functionality will be available. But there's no way I expect the market share wars to go the same way at all. Most tablets are primarily Wi-Fi connecting devices, and of the 3G models, a small minority are sold with a subsidized phone contract from a carrier. They're much more like notebook computers in that regard. And with their network of Apple Stores and other retail contracts they actually have shelf-space advantage - as well as ubiquitous web outlets and their own website.
With phones, Android was on all four big US carriers (and small ones) while Apple was stuck on one for four years (the price of their first mover advantage), and all the devices (virtually) are subsidized. People aren't going to give up their smart phones for tablets, and either won't spring for or can't afford another $30-60/month plan even if they save $200 or even $300 on the device upfront. Because it's the ones who go for the cheap phones who have more limited monthly budgets in the first place. So being tethered to a cellco will be a disadvantage for many potential buyers, rather than an inducement, especially in an underemployed economy.
And, Wi-Fi tabs are cheaper than 3G in the first place, cancelling out much of the subsidy effect. Further, that adequate Android tab is going to have MS's Win 8 Metro as a competitor by year's end (and MS is heavily seeding the development of a stable of apps), which Android phones didn't face on their own flank. And finally, and importantly, the G-plex is staring into the teeth of a market Apple already owns - which was NOT the case with phones - and continues to have good development (and developer) momentum.
It makes no damn since for Google to do this because they will be
competing with other OEMS using the same OS. They will get thier a$$ handed to them by those cheap brand like coby.
Agreed. With Google's purchase of Motorola and now their announcement of the Nexus tablet (assuming that it ever sees the light of day, of course), Google has made it clear that they are competing with their licensees. You can bet that there are a lot of people looking at WebOS and Windows Mobile right now.
They're the new Microsoft in some ways, but not even close in other ways. For example, notice that Microsoft never released their own brand of PC. They realized that their success depended on NOT competing with their customers. Google never understood this.
The first thing Jobs did when he returned was kill the clone program. Google looks to be trying to do the reverse - start an in-house brand when their whole model's been OEM licensees (and on which Google makes zero up-front $$). Seems like a slog at best.
Then there's the $5 MS tax on each Android, which is funny - because many of we Apple fans secretly cheer this. MS has become a sick frenemy we kind of sympathize for if you notice the overall tone here. And all the other lawsuits threatening to hobble Android.
And the Amazon forking allowed by Google's license. And....
Eric, great hardware isn't your problem (though it is an issue)...
It's your total cluelessness on user experience and the continued botching of it regardless of the great talent in UX you probably have.
Problem is when it come to user experience Google is one of those companies that just doesn't get it as an organization... and even with some talented folks they just can get it done.
I call partial BS - gMail is my preferred e-mail interface after 5 years - and keeps gaining functionality. Google Voice has the best interface of all. None. My Google phone number simply rings anywhere and does hilarious transciptions of my voice messages. gDocs is no big deal, but does keep improving regularly - whereas in Office Live you still have to save a document with a name BEFORE you can start creating it (though MS's suite - and connection between mail, SkyDrive, Office Live etc. is also improving a lot). YouTube's interface (which Google inherited) has been improving by leaps and bounds. I can actually manage my Channel now. My luddite friends getting their free Android phones can use them out of the gate and are fairly happy. And Google+'s interface has had good reviews. They just don't have a rationale for people to come where their fb friends aren't.
Apple's had some interface quirks themselves. Look how long that controless shuffle lasted with its 16 intuitive cord click combos (or however many there were and how done). iTunes is a bloated beast - the slowest loading program on my computers. Safari is not my browser of choice. That would be Google Chrome, with Firefox second (for the add-in ecosystem).
Google Maps interface was good enough to make everyone else's an also-ran. They bought Google Earth but it's fluid and interesting.
So, come on, they're not interface Gods, but they've accomplished a lot actually.
What does Google know about quality? Many of their products stay in beta for years. And other companies do the hardware... you can not make promises about that over which you have no control.
Well, yeah, but gMail was totally stable in beta and still the best. And excuse me, let's be fair, your Siri is showing here....
The latest version of the Android, dubbed "Ice Cream Sandwich," unites Honeycomb, the tablet-specific variant of the mobile operating system, with Gingerbread, which was designed for smartphones. It debuted last month on the Galaxy Nexus smartphone.
]
Ice crean sandwich? Gingerbread? Talk about junk 'food'. So much for 'the highest quality'/
And every developer is going to be dying to develop for Android soon.
That's insane. By goodness if I can't cobble together a half-baked iPad app by the end of 2012 I might as well... Jeez*.
*It's not just the App Store, but custom apps, etc. Various ideas and offers are swirling, as well as future employment opportunities. iPad programming, here I come! Give me a year. Assuming the world doesn't end.
Microsoft was a dominating search giant. Until Google came along
Wrong. M$ was not dominant in the search market. They had MSN and Live Search, which became Bing. They never dominated the way Google does now, nor the way Apple does in smartphones and iPads.
Google has a tendency to turn status quo upside down.
Google has done a great job in the search industry and with access to information in general. Beyond that, Apple has a much better track record of transformation or "turning the status quo upside down."
It's only a matter of time before they start doing the same with tablets.
Apparently you're adept on basing your predictions on your butt, because you have absolutely no support for that statement. As I said, Google has some serious obstacles to overcome in order to take on Apple's iPad.
First, they've got to build a tablet is objectively as good or better than the iPad in terms of overall hardware and user experience. With the Retina display coming and iOS going to version 6 next year, good luck with that.
Secondly, they have the fragmentation problem with Android. Put simply, it's a nightmare. Brand new devices are released with year-old operating systems, while others have the newest "Ice Cream Sandwich" version. Updates aren't provided to existing users in a timely way. There are versions that run on "non-authorized hardware" that have trouble in the app market. Take this article: http://techland.time.com/2011/11/10/...how-to-fix-it/
But within hours of being unveiled on October 18th, the RAZR felt like yesterday?s news. That?s because Google and Samsung trumped it by announcing the Galaxy Nexus, a similar phone that?s the first to run Android 4.0, a promising upgrade also known as Ice Cream Sandwich. The RAZR will ship with Android 2.3 Gingerbread, a version that dates from last year.
The RAZR won?t be stuck on Gingerbread forever. Motorola says that it?s committed to providing a software update in the first half of 2012, which sounds like it?s giving itself plenty of padding just in case. Even once it gets the upgrade, though, the RAZR will show telltale signs that it?s a pre-Ice Cream Sandwich device: It sports dedicated buttons for functions such as calling up the home screen, a feature that the new Android replaces with on-screen icons.
Third: Apps, Apps, Apps. The iPad has tens of thousands more apps written for it than does any Android tablet OS. Sure, like the iPad you can run the phone versions, but that's an inferior experience. Why? Because the Android tablet market really doesn't exist yet. By the time this mythical tablet comes out, iTunes/iPad will be even more dominant and Google will have an even bigger mountain to climb.
Sorry, Mr. Google Apologist, but Apple is going to be taking names for a long time.
It's also very easy to say ... just 6 more months and we'll have this or that.
Dear Google ... how about focusing on making your search engine better. Just saying.
"Remarkably well"? How so?
Funny that they never release their actual sales (not 'shipped', not 'gross sales', not 'activations' etc etc) numbers.
You don't ship 30 million of something unless you plan on selling that many. Samsung sells a lot of phones even if they don't brag about it.
But my point was... Samsung is making money... while HTC is slashing their forecast... and LG, Motorola have lost a lot of money.
"Remarkably well"? How so?
Funny that they never release their actual sales (not 'shipped', not 'gross sales', not 'activations' etc etc) numbers.
Not often, but they have as recently as September with the announcement of 10 million Galaxy SII smartphones sold (yes sold).
Before you or others chime in with "Wait, those are only shipped not sold", the press release specifies channel sales. Bought and paid for whether from Verizon, ATT, Vodaphone or an end-user. This is the same method Apple uses to count sales revenue.
From the original press release posted at BGR:
"SEOUL, Korea – September 25th, 2011 – Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd, a global leader in digital media and digital convergence technologies, today announced that the Samsung GALAXY S II (Model: GT-I9100) has achieved 10 million global channel sales, doubling from five million in just eight weeks. . . "
You don't ship 30 million of something unless you plan on selling that many. Samsung sells a lot of phones even if they don't brag about it.
But my point was... Samsung is making money... while HTC is slashing their forecast... and LG, Motorola have lost a lot of money.
The reality of what you planned to sell and what you can actually sell aren't always the same. Saying the made as many as they planned to sell means nothing as we've seen with HP and RiM with their TouchPad and PlayBook, respectively. Sure, HP sold all of them but well before cost, much less retail.
Before you or others chime in with "Wait, those are only shipped not sold", the press release specifies channel sales.
Note the word channel before the word sales. That is how you stuff a channel. These distributors usually aren't on the hook for the extra supply if they send it back. Stuffing a channel is usually a pain for distributors so there are incentives for them to hold extra product for a time.
We only know the sell through when a vendor tells us. This is why Apple's quarterly reports are actual sales for the past quarter and an analyst's projection of Apple's sales for a quarter are as factual as data regarding channel stuffing.
Note the word channel before the word sales. That is how you stuff a channel. These distributors usually aren't on the hook for the extra supply if they send it back. Stuffing a channel is usually a pain for distributors so there are incentives for them to hold extra product for a time.
We only know the sell through when a vendor tells us. This is why Apple's quarterly reports are actual sales for the past quarter and an analyst's projection of Apple's sales for a quarter are as factual as data regarding channel stuffing.
To be fair and completely accurate, not all vendors engage in channel stuffing.
We only know the sell through when a vendor tells us. This is why Apple's quarterly reports are actual sales for the past quarter and an analyst's projection of Apple's sales for a quarter are as factual as data regarding channel stuffing.
"Apple's quarterly reports are for actual sales" - is that really true? I have seen this mentioned here and elsewhere so many times that I have assumed it true. But is it? In looking carefully around, I now have my doubts.
I believe the commonly accepted notion that Apple reports end sales is based on various assumptions and facts: 1. Apple is its own primary channel partner. 2. People want to believe Apple is a purist (which it is in many instances). 3. Apple also reports (or used to?) activations and how many devices have been sold. 4. Apple reports channel inventory which allows analysts to calculate/guess-timate consumer sales. 5. Apple is assumed (and often correctly) to sell every device they make.
In looking at Apple's financial reports and earnings calls, they mention sales of iPhones without specifying whether these are channel numbers or end sales (unless I missed it). But they do report channel inventory which includes their own stores. So, I have doubts that Apple only reports *real* sales to customers (but I am not saying they obfuscate anything on purpose). But there is a possibility my doubts are unfounded. If anyone can point me to irrefutable evidence, I'd greatly appreciate it.
In looking at Apple's financial reports and earnings calls, they mention sales of iPhones without specifying whether these are channel numbers or end sales (unless I missed it). But they do report channel inventory which includes their own stores. So, I have doubts that Apple only reports *real* sales to customers (but I am not saying they obfuscate anything on purpose). But there is a possibility my doubts are unfounded. If anyone can point me to irrefutable evidence, I'd greatly appreciate it.
Look at Apple's 10K for their legal explanation on how sales are determined.
"Apple's quarterly reports are for actual sales" - is that really true? I have seen this mentioned here and elsewhere so many times that I have assumed it true. But is it? In looking carefully around, I now have my doubts.
I believe the commonly accepted notion that Apple reports end sales is based on various assumptions and facts: 1. Apple is its own primary channel partner. 2. People want to believe Apple is a purist (which it is in many instances). 3. Apple also reports (or used to?) activations and how many devices have been sold. 4. Apple reports channel inventory which allows analysts to calculate/guess-timate consumer sales. 5. Apple is assumed (and often correctly) to sell every device they make.
In looking at Apple's financial reports and earnings calls, they mention sales of iPhones without specifying whether these are channel numbers or end sales (unless I missed it). But they do report channel inventory which includes their own stores. So, I have doubts that Apple only reports *real* sales to customers (but I am not saying they obfuscate anything on purpose). But there is a possibility my doubts are unfounded. If anyone can point me to irrefutable evidence, I'd greatly appreciate it.
There is some truth to that but we're talking about accepted transactions with payment. A complete purchase. Delving any deeper is like trying to count electrons when weighing an atom. It's more precise, but it barely affects the end result. This is not something isolated with Apple; if Samsung or whomever states in their earning reports that they have x-many sell through then we say they have x-many sell through. We aren't saying Amazon is lying about Kindle Fire sales or that Sony is lying about PSVita sales. We accept their statements of sales at face value, but when we get qualifiers and purposely obfuscating language we should question it. That means that Google's "activation" numbers shouldn't be seen as Android-based device sales.
There is some truth to that but we're talking about accepted transactions with payment. A complete purchase. Delving any deeper is like trying to count electrons when weighing an atom. It's more precise, but it barely affects the end result. This is not something isolated with Apple; if Samsung or whomever states in their earning reports that they have x-many sell through then we say they have x-many sell through. We aren't saying Amazon is lying about Kindle Fire sales or that Sony is lying about PSVita sales. We accept their statements of sales at face value, but when we get qualifiers and purposely obfuscating language we should question it. That means that Google's "activation" numbers shouldn't be seen as Android-based device sales.
FWIW. channel sales are considered an "accepted transaction with payment". If Samsung claims x-number of channel sales, it's just as valid as Apple claims of sales.
Look at Apple's 10K for their legal explanation on how sales are determined.
Here is it. Point out what you find wink-worthy.
FWIW. channel sales are considered an "accepted transaction with payment". If Samsung claims x-number of channel sales, it's just as valid as Apple claims of sales.
Hence my comments about these statement of what is claimed during and what is claimed AFTER the quarter is over. Hence, quarterly earnings are more accurate and honest. This isn't an Apple v. everyone else issue. It's about getting the most factual data. You don't think SEC filings are going to be more accurate than a press release of "millions sold."
Here is it. Point out what you find wink-worthy.
“(Apple) recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred. For most of (Apple)’s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped."
Page 27
?(Apple) recognizes revenue when persuasive evidence of an arrangement exists, delivery has occurred, the sales price is fixed or determinable, and collection is probable. Product is considered delivered to the customer once it has been shipped and title and risk of loss have been transferred. For most of (Apple)?s product sales, these criteria are met at the time the product is shipped."
"...collection [of payment] is probable [?] and title and risk of loss have been transferred."
"...collection [of payment] is probable […] and title and risk of loss have been transferred."
Which means what? Somehow different than the generally accepted accounting practices that nearly all public companies follow? Apple's statement is based on those principles. Shipped for Apple would generally carry the same meaning as shipped for Samsung, HTC, Hitachi, Sony, etc., and doesn't discriminate on where the transaction was recognized. Delivery to Best Buy's warehouse is a sale for recording purposes just as much as the Apple package that arrives at your front door.
Which means what? Somehow different than the generally accepted accounting practices that nearly all public companies follow? Apple's statement is based on those principles. Shipped for Apple would generally carry the same meaning as shipped for Samsung, HTC, Hitachi, Sony, etc.
Which means exactly what it says. i even added a couple extra words to make it more clear. Depending on the product and the contract there isn't necessarily payment that will take place simply because a product is shipped to a distributor.
This is what channel stuffing can do to fudge the numbers and this is how unproven products can create the artificial bubble of interest you think that Apple has to engage in in order to sell an iPhone.
You failed to note what you bolded that for most of (Apple)?s product sales. They certainly aren't pushing iPhones and iPads to distributors in hopes they can be moved, but they very likely don't have the same contracts for Mac Pros.
Can you not see how a thousands of Mac Pros might be shipped to Best Buys without an upfront or guaranteed payment for product they can't necessarily move and with stipulation to only pay an initial premium and at certain intervals for product moved, but how this would be different for devices that are moved quickly?
Which means exactly what it says. i even added a couple extra words to make it more clear. Depending on the product and the contract there isn't necessarily payment that will take place simply because a product is shipped to a distributor.
This is what channel stuffing can do to fudge the numbers and this is how unproven products can create the artificial bubble of interest you think that Apple has to engage in in order to sell an iPhone.
You failed to note what you bolded that for most of (Apple)’s product sales. They certainly aren't pushing iPhones and iPads to distributors in hopes they can be moved, but they very likely don't have the same contracts for Mac Pros.
Can you not see how a thousands of Mac Pros might be shipped to Best Buys without an upfront or guaranteed payment for product they can't necessarily move and with stipulation to only pay an initial premium and at certain intervals for product moved, but how this would be different for devices that are moved quickly?
You're using your favored tactic of making a claim that I didn't in an attempt to change the argument. I didn't say anything about channel stuffing at all. That comes from you.
Your're correct too that their may be some cases where Apple (or Samsung or anyone else) might ship product to a customer without transferring title or expecting payment. That wouldn't yet be considered a channel sale. Since no sale occurs then no sale would be recognized. Is there something you wanted to add to that?