He mentioned three years; I used an 'about'. I had to throw just the 4 in there because Apple didn't hit that profit mark until its release, at least.
So where'd those ~1.7 million tablets go?
Isn't that the definition? They don't get to count it as a sale until it's sold; you're absolutely right. So how'd they sell 1.7 million tablets to the rest of the world in that quarter?
I'm sorry, I didn't see anything indicating that Samsung said they sold 1.7 million tables in any quarter. I saw IDC's crazy SWAG number but I didn't realize that anyone actually thought those numbers meant anything.
IIRC, Samsung has made statements in the past about how many units they've shipped but I'm pretty sure they never revealed the actual units sold (which is what makes these data so interesting).
Companies can also play with the numbers when they indulge in channel stuffing.
This is a much better article than two of the previous ones dealing with the same general subject. At least it's not blatantly misleading and certainly livable enough for an Apple-enthusiast website.
This is what some of us were focusing on in the previous thread, when you were going on about smartphones. Incidentally, I am inclined to believe that, while their numbers for smartphones are not as dire, it is nowhere near what they (and their apologists) claim.
Samsung (and its acolytes) should simply put up the numbers or shut up.
I'm not sure what you mean about "going on about smartphones" nor what specific thread you're referring to. Are you still having an issue with the clarifications I added to the "21 million sold' thread, clearing up some member's confusion on just what was being shown and claimed? Believe it or not, some members misunderstood the article. Who'da thunk?
I can't imagine you'd have a problem with anyone clearing up misunderstandings so I'm guessing it might be something else? Or perhaps nothing?
That's interesting. I'm fifty so I'm either as old as your parents or older probably and I wouldn't consider myself a Luddite by any means. I mean I held of until I could get an i7 iMac since it encodes a lot of video most days but right now I couldn't even tell you what the processor is in my iPad or my iPhone for that matter. They both do what I want them to do. In fact I've never heard any of my friends (in their 30's, 40's and 50's) say they're waiting for a specific processor to buy a device. They may wait or want a specific device but they have never said I wanting a Snapdragon or what have you.
My mom is 51 and my dad is 53, actually. They were interested in the HD displays (1920x1200) more so than the processor. My dad is tech savvy so he is familiar with the processors, actually.
And it took just about the same amount of time for Apple to get 75% of all cell phone profits worldwide, having never made a phone before in the history of the company, and only making four models of phone ever.
If Samsung shipped 1 million tablets to Best Buy, Radio Shack, Wal-Mart, etc., that means that those tablets are sitting on the sales floor at those retailers. However, Samsung doesn't get to count any of those tablets as a sale until an actual end customer walks in the door, buys one, and takes it home.
If Samsung only sells 10,000 of that million, the rest will eventually get shipped back to Samsung and Samsung would take (very simplified explanation:) some sort of write-down on inventory as an expense. Take a look at press coverage of RIM's tablet debacle.
Typically a manufacturer without any retailing operations (e.g., Samsung vs. Apple, which does have retail as well), would include units shipped in their financial reporting, disclosures, etc. but may not ever disclose the actual number of units that are sold -- in no small part, becuse they don't want a competitor to be able to back into the numbers to figure out their cost of goods sold, net profit per unit, etc. given that the company would probably consider that to be a proprietary trade secret.
There is also a financial reporting distinction that you expect between units sold and units shipped simply because of quarterly financial reporting. If a company records a unit as sold in Q2, it may have actually been shipped in Q1 or before. Similarly, units shipped in Q2, may not sell until a subsequent quarter (or never).
Samsung may have lied about the number of units sold. They may have lied about the number of units shipped. I have no clue. But just because those numbers don't match up in a specific quarter, it's not any proof that they did lie about anything.
(Well, I guess they may have lied when they said they made great tablets that consumers would eagerly purchase...)
Somehow Wall Street are projecting them to be sold as they don't expect any manufacturer to shelve millions of units without making money off of them. That stunt won't hunt anymore.
And again, I am talking about a period of time in the past from one date to another date, not to the present. Apple hadn't made phones prior to the iPhone, and only four models had existed at that time.
I expect articles on a pro-Apple site to put them in the best light and have a pro-Apple slant. Outright misstatements to achieve that aren't acceptable IMO, while some others here might think that's fine and overlook it. This article didn't make any obvious misstatements.
I'm not sure what you mean about "going on about smartphones" nor what specific thread you're referring to. Are you still having an issue with the clarifications I added to the "21 million sold' thread, clearing up some member's confusion on just what was being shown and claimed? Believe it or not, some members misunderstood the article. Who'da thunk?
I can't imagine you'd have a problem with anyone clearing up misunderstandings so I'm guessing it might be something else? Or perhaps nothing?
See my response to you in #97 of that thread -- where you kept going on about smartphones.
"Clarifications"? It was more like hitting people over the head multiple times.... who'd thunk?
They were interested in the HD displays (1920x1200) more so than the processor.
Wait... They wanted an HD display on their tablet so they waited for a 1920x1080 Android one instead of getting a 3rd gen iPad already available at 2048x1536... Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me unless they're (or you or your tech savvy Dad) are Android fanboys.
Yawn, this tired old counterproductive attack on the iPad.
Fundamentally a drinking glass, a bucket and a swimming pool are the same - containers of fluid. By your logic a swimming pool is just a jumbo bucket and a bucket is just a jumbo drinking glass.
I'm glad you responded to this... I was going to but your analogy beats what I was going to say. I'm sick of people saying its just a bigger iPhone... Technically, maybe, but operationally just not true.
LOL he lives on this site, to smother everyone with his passive aggressive charm.
Perhaps in your view I'd fit in better by relying more on juvenile taunting mixed with a bit of pompous snarkiness? Nah, there's members here that already have parts of that covered. Courteous responses are still pretty rare so I try to stick to those for the most part. Maybe it will catch on.
Perhaps in your view I'd fit in better by relying more on juvenile taunting mixed with a bit of pompous snarkiness? Nah, there's members here that already have parts of that covered. Courteous responses are still pretty rare so I try to stick to those for the most part. Maybe it will catch on.
Excellent example of your passive aggressive charm, thanks. ????
Comments
I'm sorry, I didn't see anything indicating that Samsung said they sold 1.7 million tables in any quarter. I saw IDC's crazy SWAG number but I didn't realize that anyone actually thought those numbers meant anything.
IIRC, Samsung has made statements in the past about how many units they've shipped but I'm pretty sure they never revealed the actual units sold (which is what makes these data so interesting).
Companies can also play with the numbers when they indulge in channel stuffing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy
Tab sales are surprisingly low. Isn't this the tablet was was supposed to unseat the iPad from supremacy? Thats what the blogosphere had me believe.
No, no, no. It's the Google Nexus 7. Once that starts shipping in quantity, Apple will be in real trouble... (grin)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
You need to proofread too.
You probably missed the sarcasm in the post.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
This is a much better article than two of the previous ones dealing with the same general subject. At least it's not blatantly misleading and certainly livable enough for an Apple-enthusiast website.
livable?
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
This is what some of us were focusing on in the previous thread, when you were going on about smartphones. Incidentally, I am inclined to believe that, while their numbers for smartphones are not as dire, it is nowhere near what they (and their apologists) claim.
Samsung (and its acolytes) should simply put up the numbers or shut up.
I'm not sure what you mean about "going on about smartphones" nor what specific thread you're referring to. Are you still having an issue with the clarifications I added to the "21 million sold' thread, clearing up some member's confusion on just what was being shown and claimed? Believe it or not, some members misunderstood the article. Who'da thunk?
I can't imagine you'd have a problem with anyone clearing up misunderstandings so I'm guessing it might be something else? Or perhaps nothing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by crawdad62
That's interesting. I'm fifty so I'm either as old as your parents or older probably and I wouldn't consider myself a Luddite by any means. I mean I held of until I could get an i7 iMac since it encodes a lot of video most days but right now I couldn't even tell you what the processor is in my iPad or my iPhone for that matter. They both do what I want them to do. In fact I've never heard any of my friends (in their 30's, 40's and 50's) say they're waiting for a specific processor to buy a device. They may wait or want a specific device but they have never said I wanting a Snapdragon or what have you.
My mom is 51 and my dad is 53, actually. They were interested in the HD displays (1920x1200) more so than the processor. My dad is tech savvy so he is familiar with the processors, actually.
Sorry, but I can't let you off that easily... ;-)
Quote:
Originally Posted by tmhisey
Or, option number four = reality.
Shipped and sold are NOT the same thing.
If Samsung shipped 1 million tablets to Best Buy, Radio Shack, Wal-Mart, etc., that means that those tablets are sitting on the sales floor at those retailers. However, Samsung doesn't get to count any of those tablets as a sale until an actual end customer walks in the door, buys one, and takes it home.
If Samsung only sells 10,000 of that million, the rest will eventually get shipped back to Samsung and Samsung would take (very simplified explanation:) some sort of write-down on inventory as an expense. Take a look at press coverage of RIM's tablet debacle.
Typically a manufacturer without any retailing operations (e.g., Samsung vs. Apple, which does have retail as well), would include units shipped in their financial reporting, disclosures, etc. but may not ever disclose the actual number of units that are sold -- in no small part, becuse they don't want a competitor to be able to back into the numbers to figure out their cost of goods sold, net profit per unit, etc. given that the company would probably consider that to be a proprietary trade secret.
There is also a financial reporting distinction that you expect between units sold and units shipped simply because of quarterly financial reporting. If a company records a unit as sold in Q2, it may have actually been shipped in Q1 or before. Similarly, units shipped in Q2, may not sell until a subsequent quarter (or never).
Samsung may have lied about the number of units sold. They may have lied about the number of units shipped. I have no clue. But just because those numbers don't match up in a specific quarter, it's not any proof that they did lie about anything.
(Well, I guess they may have lied when they said they made great tablets that consumers would eagerly purchase...)
Somehow Wall Street are projecting them to be sold as they don't expect any manufacturer to shelve millions of units without making money off of them. That stunt won't hunt anymore.
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
livable?
"Less pro-Apple", he means.
Originally Posted by tmhisey
Sorry, but I can't let you off that easily... ;-)
And again, I am talking about a period of time in the past from one date to another date, not to the present. Apple hadn't made phones prior to the iPhone, and only four models had existed at that time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
livable?
LOL he lives on this site, to smother everyone with his passive aggressive charm.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer
livable?
I expect articles on a pro-Apple site to put them in the best light and have a pro-Apple slant. Outright misstatements to achieve that aren't acceptable IMO, while some others here might think that's fine and overlook it. This article didn't make any obvious misstatements.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
I'm not sure what you mean about "going on about smartphones" nor what specific thread you're referring to. Are you still having an issue with the clarifications I added to the "21 million sold' thread, clearing up some member's confusion on just what was being shown and claimed? Believe it or not, some members misunderstood the article. Who'da thunk?
I can't imagine you'd have a problem with anyone clearing up misunderstandings so I'm guessing it might be something else? Or perhaps nothing?
See my response to you in #97 of that thread -- where you kept going on about smartphones.
"Clarifications"? It was more like hitting people over the head multiple times.... who'd thunk?
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
.... his passive aggressive charm.
Perfectly put!
But it won't be too long before that charm turns to grating all of one's senses.... you'll see what I mean.
Wait... They wanted an HD display on their tablet so they waited for a 1920x1080 Android one instead of getting a 3rd gen iPad already available at 2048x1536... Sorry, that doesn't make any sense to me unless they're (or you or your tech savvy Dad) are Android fanboys.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
See my response to you in #97 of that thread -- where you kept going on about smartphones.
"Clarifications"? It was more like hitting people over the head multiple times.... who'd thunk?
Gotcha. So you agreed with what I had to say, just not how often I felt I had to say it before I felt forum members understood.
I'm glad you responded to this... I was going to but your analogy beats what I was going to say. I'm sick of people saying its just a bigger iPhone... Technically, maybe, but operationally just not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger
You need to proofread too.
He/she was being sarcastic and intentionally wrong in their spelling.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gprovida
Too early to make these claims. It took 3 years for Samsung to really compete with Apple iPhone.
Meanwhile, Monkey Boy's taken 5 years, and counting....
Quote:
Originally Posted by punkndrublic
LOL he lives on this site, to smother everyone with his passive aggressive charm.
Perhaps in your view I'd fit in better by relying more on juvenile taunting mixed with a bit of pompous snarkiness? Nah, there's members here that already have parts of that covered. Courteous responses are still pretty rare so I try to stick to those for the most part. Maybe it will catch on.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Perhaps in your view I'd fit in better by relying more on juvenile taunting mixed with a bit of pompous snarkiness? Nah, there's members here that already have parts of that covered. Courteous responses are still pretty rare so I try to stick to those for the most part. Maybe it will catch on.
Excellent example of your passive aggressive charm, thanks. ????