Of course it's true. It's such an old and rehashed discussion it's not even worthy of disagreement anymore. Apple's reported sales each quarter include "channel sales", shipments made to retailers and other resellers but not yet sold to an end-user. That Apple will also estimate the existing channel inventory each quarter doesn't change a thing about how Apple officially counts sales, which include channel shipments. That you would say it's not true speaks directly to my comment about some people erroneously believing Apple's reported sales numbers are only to end-users.
Yes it would be interesting to some of us to get channel inventory numbers from other vendors too, as well as returns/refurbs if they really want to be transparent. Apple gets props for reporting estimated channel numbers where others do not.
I don't know that anyone reports the number of devices returned do they, nor break out the revenue/numbers from refurbished sales? I think that would give a hint to the return and failure rates, an area where I suspect Apple also shines compared to others but lacking proof to claim it as a fact.
I spent 7 years developing software for the enterprise retail market and I have to say I was shocked at how retailers have absolutely no accurate inventory at any given . All the systems are antiquated and in silos and reports have to be collected across various channels, stores, systems and collated to give a *somewhat* accurate picture of their stock from weeks ago. And this is a worldwide failing. I'm not surprised that vendors can't accurately figure out how many units were actually sold. All they have to go on is how many they shipped and how many were returned to them. And it's on a sliding scale of time.
This is getting old. It was okay (and perfectly valid) to question shipping numbers vs sold numbers when they first started. But the products are not exactly going into a bit bucket. Resellers are not going to keep ordering new stock if they haven't finished moving earlier stock. Also, it is quite impressive that the quarter before a major release, in which iPhones do poorly due to anticipation of the new model, Samsung has record profits. I expect this speaks to both the possible presence of ill-informed customers and to the advantage of having a breadth of products that appeal to a wide ranging people.
I assume that the fact that people being ill-informed has relatively little to do with it -- not so many people buy top of the line phone from any maker, and for the majority who are buying mid- to low-end phones, the fact that a Galaxy S4 is coming out is not so relevant.
Is your disbelief in AP being paid off or the concept of being paid off?
It is the disbelief that anyone sane could believe that a company reporting its quarterly results constitutes a smear campaign against another company.
This is getting old. It was okay (and perfectly valid) to question shipping numbers vs sold numbers when they first started. But the products are not exactly going into a bit bucket. Resellers are not going to keep ordering new stock if they haven't finished moving earlier stock. Also, it is quite impressive that the quarter before a major release, in which iPhones do poorly due to anticipation of the new model, Samsung has record profits. I expect this speaks to both the possible presence of ill-informed customers and to the advantage of having a breadth of products that appeal to a wide ranging people.
Also, re record PROFITS: presumably the Galaxy S3 production line has mostly amortised its costs, so margins have improved considerably.
I assume that the fact that people being ill-informed has relatively little to do with it -- not so many people buy top of the line phone from any maker, and for the majority who are buying mid- to low-end phones, the fact that a Galaxy S4 is coming out is not so relevant.
I don't think that would be the case in the US though. Apart for folks, for whom $200 is too much, I can't see why anyone would buy a mid to low tier phone with a purchase price difference of at most $200, when you end up spending $2000-$3000 over the life of the contract. If subsidies end and the phone pricing gets more transparent, I think you'll begin to see more low to mid tier smart-phones coming to the US. That will really be a challenge for Apple then. But they have plenty of time to come up with a strategy. T-Mobile has started down the path, but the service price is still too high (unless you have multiple lines). They need to drop the service price (substantially) for folks who buy the phone out right (as opposed to $99 down and $20/month supposedly 0% interest for 24 months). It's still a better option than the $200 with contract price.
I don't think that would be the case in the US though. Apart for folks, for whom $200 is too much, I can't see why anyone would buy a mid to low tier phone with a purchase price difference of at most $200, when you end up spending $2000-$3000 over the life of the contract. If subsidies end and the phone pricing gets more transparent, I think you'll begin to see more low to mid tier smart-phones coming to the US. That will really be a challenge for Apple then. But they have plenty of time to come up with a strategy. T-Mobile has started down the path, but the service price is still too high (unless you have multiple lines). They need to drop the service price (substantially) for folks who buy the phone out right (as opposed to $99 down and $20/month supposedly 0% interest for 24 months). It's still a better option than the $200 with contract price.
I did not read the breakout of the results (the totals reported were world-wide), but were the specific US results particularly good? As for the price of the phone vs the price of the contract. I agree with you 100%, but unfortunately, many people are dumb enough to only think about the down payment part. Presumably, people who are not dumb but are just too poor to afford the $200 upfront go with pay-as-you-go phones...
Not true. Apple acknowleges how many phones are in the channel because inventory factors into their costs and shows availability of supply. On more than one occasion both Cook and Jobs before him explained the difference.
Of course it's true. It's such an old and rehashed discussion it's not even worthy of disagreement anymore. Apple's reported sales each quarter include "channel sales", shipments made to retailers and other resellers but not yet sold to an end-user. That Apple will also estimate the existing channel inventory each quarter doesn't change a thing about how Apple officially counts sales, which include channel shipments. That you would say it's not true speaks directly to my comment about some people erroneously believing Apple's reported sales numbers are only to end-users.
Yes it would be interesting to some of us to get channel inventory numbers from other vendors too, as well as returns/refurbs if they really want to be transparent. Apple gets props for reporting estimated channel numbers where others do not.
I don't know that anyone reports the number of devices returned do they, nor break out the revenue/numbers from refurbished sales? I think that would give a hint to the return and failure rates, an area where I suspect Apple also shines compared to others but lacking proof to claim it as a fact.
Of course it's rehashed. But it's still an important point.
It's not even the channel inventory that's the main problem: it's the lack of volumes data. This is perhaps because they're trying to hide the average selling price (they worsen this problem by clubbing handset sales with telecom equipment sales).
the top selling smartphones have screens the same size as the iPhone 4, 4S and 5, because they ARE the top selling smartphones.
Let's talk about this again after Apple releases a larger phone so that we can factor iOS out of the equation. Right now there is no way to make a claim about small screens being more popular if your support for that claim is only iPhones.
Let's talk about this again after Apple releases a larger phone so that we can factor iOS out of the equation. Right now there is no way to make a claim about small screens being more popular if your support for that claim is only iPhones.
Because screen size isn't much a factor if at all when someone chooses a iPhone, but is very likely when choosing a Samsung phone.
1) According to this PPT presentation, sales of the "mobile" division (which is 87% of revenues of the "IM" division) is only up 4% Q-to-Q. (p. 2).
2) Profits are down 3%. (p. 2)
3) If we believe IDC's numbers of 71M handsets, and attribute all of the sales in the "mobile" division to handsets (which it's surely not), their approximately 27T won revenue (~$24B USD) suggests they're selling a heck of a lot of the cheap cr4p.
Assuming that my arithmetic is right, the numbers actually don't look that great, despite press reports to the contrary.
Also, re record PROFITS: presumably the Galaxy S3 production line has mostly amortised its costs, so margins have improved considerably.
According to the link you provided, their "record" profits certainly did not come from the division selling handsets. If anything, that division's profits are down 3% Q-to-Q.
That PPT was for Q4 2012, not Q1 2013. (I haven't looked at the latter, so have no idea if it was better or worse... just wanted to point you at the right one.)
That PPT was for Q4 2012, not Q1 2013. (I haven't looked at the latter, so have no idea if it was better or worse... just wanted to point you at the right one.)
Comments
Originally Posted by cnocbui
Paranoia - it looks like this.
Is your disbelief in AP being paid off or the concept of being paid off?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Of course it's true. It's such an old and rehashed discussion it's not even worthy of disagreement anymore. Apple's reported sales each quarter include "channel sales", shipments made to retailers and other resellers but not yet sold to an end-user. That Apple will also estimate the existing channel inventory each quarter doesn't change a thing about how Apple officially counts sales, which include channel shipments. That you would say it's not true speaks directly to my comment about some people erroneously believing Apple's reported sales numbers are only to end-users.
Yes it would be interesting to some of us to get channel inventory numbers from other vendors too, as well as returns/refurbs if they really want to be transparent. Apple gets props for reporting estimated channel numbers where others do not.
I don't know that anyone reports the number of devices returned do they, nor break out the revenue/numbers from refurbished sales? I think that would give a hint to the return and failure rates, an area where I suspect Apple also shines compared to others but lacking proof to claim it as a fact.
I spent 7 years developing software for the enterprise retail market and I have to say I was shocked at how retailers have absolutely no accurate inventory at any given . All the systems are antiquated and in silos and reports have to be collected across various channels, stores, systems and collated to give a *somewhat* accurate picture of their stock from weeks ago. And this is a worldwide failing. I'm not surprised that vendors can't accurately figure out how many units were actually sold. All they have to go on is how many they shipped and how many were returned to them. And it's on a sliding scale of time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by os2baba
This is getting old. It was okay (and perfectly valid) to question shipping numbers vs sold numbers when they first started. But the products are not exactly going into a bit bucket. Resellers are not going to keep ordering new stock if they haven't finished moving earlier stock. Also, it is quite impressive that the quarter before a major release, in which iPhones do poorly due to anticipation of the new model, Samsung has record profits. I expect this speaks to both the possible presence of ill-informed customers and to the advantage of having a breadth of products that appeal to a wide ranging people.
I assume that the fact that people being ill-informed has relatively little to do with it -- not so many people buy top of the line phone from any maker, and for the majority who are buying mid- to low-end phones, the fact that a Galaxy S4 is coming out is not so relevant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Is your disbelief in AP being paid off or the concept of being paid off?
It is the disbelief that anyone sane could believe that a company reporting its quarterly results constitutes a smear campaign against another company.
Quote:
Originally Posted by os2baba
This is getting old. It was okay (and perfectly valid) to question shipping numbers vs sold numbers when they first started. But the products are not exactly going into a bit bucket. Resellers are not going to keep ordering new stock if they haven't finished moving earlier stock. Also, it is quite impressive that the quarter before a major release, in which iPhones do poorly due to anticipation of the new model, Samsung has record profits. I expect this speaks to both the possible presence of ill-informed customers and to the advantage of having a breadth of products that appeal to a wide ranging people.
Also, re record PROFITS: presumably the Galaxy S3 production line has mostly amortised its costs, so margins have improved considerably.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
I assume that the fact that people being ill-informed has relatively little to do with it -- not so many people buy top of the line phone from any maker, and for the majority who are buying mid- to low-end phones, the fact that a Galaxy S4 is coming out is not so relevant.
I don't think that would be the case in the US though. Apart for folks, for whom $200 is too much, I can't see why anyone would buy a mid to low tier phone with a purchase price difference of at most $200, when you end up spending $2000-$3000 over the life of the contract. If subsidies end and the phone pricing gets more transparent, I think you'll begin to see more low to mid tier smart-phones coming to the US. That will really be a challenge for Apple then. But they have plenty of time to come up with a strategy. T-Mobile has started down the path, but the service price is still too high (unless you have multiple lines). They need to drop the service price (substantially) for folks who buy the phone out right (as opposed to $99 down and $20/month supposedly 0% interest for 24 months). It's still a better option than the $200 with contract price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by os2baba
I don't think that would be the case in the US though. Apart for folks, for whom $200 is too much, I can't see why anyone would buy a mid to low tier phone with a purchase price difference of at most $200, when you end up spending $2000-$3000 over the life of the contract. If subsidies end and the phone pricing gets more transparent, I think you'll begin to see more low to mid tier smart-phones coming to the US. That will really be a challenge for Apple then. But they have plenty of time to come up with a strategy. T-Mobile has started down the path, but the service price is still too high (unless you have multiple lines). They need to drop the service price (substantially) for folks who buy the phone out right (as opposed to $99 down and $20/month supposedly 0% interest for 24 months). It's still a better option than the $200 with contract price.
I did not read the breakout of the results (the totals reported were world-wide), but were the specific US results particularly good? As for the price of the phone vs the price of the contract. I agree with you 100%, but unfortunately, many people are dumb enough to only think about the down payment part. Presumably, people who are not dumb but are just too poor to afford the $200 upfront go with pay-as-you-go phones...
We all started with Duplo but eventually we all upgrade to real Lego.
Many people buy cheap phones, they realise they are rubbish.
You can't truly appreciate the quality of the iPhone unless you use a lesser phone.
All these people buying Samsungs are just future iPhone owners when they finally see the light (or have their lobotomy reversed).
Credit where it's due.
Can't quarrel with the financial results here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatorguy
Quote:
Originally Posted by genovelle
a
Not true. Apple acknowleges how many phones are in the channel because inventory factors into their costs and shows availability of supply. On more than one occasion both Cook and Jobs before him explained the difference.
Of course it's true. It's such an old and rehashed discussion it's not even worthy of disagreement anymore. Apple's reported sales each quarter include "channel sales", shipments made to retailers and other resellers but not yet sold to an end-user. That Apple will also estimate the existing channel inventory each quarter doesn't change a thing about how Apple officially counts sales, which include channel shipments. That you would say it's not true speaks directly to my comment about some people erroneously believing Apple's reported sales numbers are only to end-users.
Yes it would be interesting to some of us to get channel inventory numbers from other vendors too, as well as returns/refurbs if they really want to be transparent. Apple gets props for reporting estimated channel numbers where others do not.
I don't know that anyone reports the number of devices returned do they, nor break out the revenue/numbers from refurbished sales? I think that would give a hint to the return and failure rates, an area where I suspect Apple also shines compared to others but lacking proof to claim it as a fact.
Of course it's rehashed. But it's still an important point.
It's not even the channel inventory that's the main problem: it's the lack of volumes data. This is perhaps because they're trying to hide the average selling price (they worsen this problem by clubbing handset sales with telecom equipment sales).
I knew AI was in trouble when Apple refreshed their entire product line in one day.
I'd say the AP being paid off, or did they join the NYT and WSJ with a ax to grind toward Apple?
Quote:
Originally Posted by hill60
Dear dig48109,
the top selling smartphones have screens the same size as the iPhone 4, 4S and 5, because they ARE the top selling smartphones.
Let's talk about this again after Apple releases a larger phone so that we can factor iOS out of the equation. Right now there is no way to make a claim about small screens being more popular if your support for that claim is only iPhones.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/ireventpresentations/earningsrelease/downloads/2012/20130125_conference_eng.pdf
Wow, PowerPoint slides of unique design! That's truly innovative - how didn't I come to think of using PP.
Because screen size isn't much a factor if at all when someone chooses a iPhone, but is very likely when choosing a Samsung phone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
http://www.samsung.com/us/aboutsamsung/ir/ireventpresentations/earningsrelease/downloads/2012/20130125_conference_eng.pdf
Hmmm..... that's weird.....
1) According to this PPT presentation, sales of the "mobile" division (which is 87% of revenues of the "IM" division) is only up 4% Q-to-Q. (p. 2).
2) Profits are down 3%. (p. 2)
3) If we believe IDC's numbers of 71M handsets, and attribute all of the sales in the "mobile" division to handsets (which it's surely not), their approximately 27T won revenue (~$24B USD) suggests they're selling a heck of a lot of the cheap cr4p.
Assuming that my arithmetic is right, the numbers actually don't look that great, despite press reports to the contrary.
Add: See correction below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by igriv
Also, re record PROFITS: presumably the Galaxy S3 production line has mostly amortised its costs, so margins have improved considerably.
According to the link you provided, their "record" profits certainly did not come from the division selling handsets. If anything, that division's profits are down 3% Q-to-Q.
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Hmmm..... that's weird.....
1) According to this PPT presentation,
... snip
That PPT was for Q4 2012, not Q1 2013. (I haven't looked at the latter, so have no idea if it was better or worse... just wanted to point you at the right one.)
(Here's the Q1 report.)
You might want to go back and edit/delete your previous posts so they won't confuse anyone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram
Hmmm..... that's weird.....
1) According to this PPT presentation,
... snip
That PPT was for Q4 2012, not Q1 2013. (I haven't looked at the latter, so have no idea if it was better or worse... just wanted to point you at the right one.)
(Here's the Q1 report.)
You might want to go back and edit/delete your previous posts so they won't confuse anyone.
Done. Thanks for pointing out that the link from igriv was wrong.