You wonder how this kind of garbage is allow to exist and why so many people especially with the internet where we all know not to believe anything we read anymore and only a faction of what you see. When this kind of garbage is found we need to begin call out the people who product this stuff and make sure the world knows these people have no clue what they do and they should be fired or humiliated to the best of the internet's ability.
Most time I do not both even looking but in this cast I was curious what kind of person could screw up simple comparison as this. Well I found the guy and once you read his bio you will see why. You would think someone with an EE degree know something about basic math. You may understand how someone from Big Business School would mess with the number to tell a story they wanted (it somehow makes them moeny. Well this guy never worked in the wireless industry and we lack any business background and they call him a Senior Analysis. Yeah he has and EE degree and its is obvious he never did no real engineering work leading to his in abilities to pay attention to the details that most all engineers exercise.
Here you go
Quote:
Senior Analyst | Neil Shah
Wireless Device Strategies
Neil Shah, Senior Analyst for the Strategy Analytics Wireless Device Strategies (WDS) service addresses the health of the global handset market, including key performance indicators of the top handset OEMs and a holistic view of the handset ecosystem. His interest and work ranges from informed qualitative and quantitative analysis on industry dynamics, company strategies, enabling technologies, wireless network standards, and market forecasts.
Mr. Shah brings nearly seven years of multifunctional experience covering a wide spectrum of technical and management functions. Starting at Philips Electronics India Ltd, Neil Shah was responsible for developing and executing service operations and channel marketing support strategies, with a short stint in a planning and procurement role for the Consumer Lifestyle products division. In the US, he has worked as a consultant for different industry verticals in devising and executing successful product management and marketing strategies, and completed a marketing research project for the Harvard Business School.
Mr. Shah is an IEEE Certified Wireless Professional. He holds a Masters in Telecommunications & Business from University of Maryland, College Park and a Bachelors in Electronics Engineering from University of Mumbai.
Given the mystery around some of Apple and Samsung's reporting, shipping and sales figures, Strategic Analytics used the available information that was out there. In essence, it was a best attempt at understanding the two companies with regard to the cell phone market. Daniel Dilger has presented all the information in a clear and careful rebuke of the original articles that have gone out, but he is a bit of a hypocrite because on many occasions he and people at AI have reported using information with shaky methodology. The difference here is, APPLE INSIDER writes glowing reports on everything APPLE.
Analysts make guesses all the time based on incomplete information with regard to the stock market and almost all political types of reporting. The Apple insider reporter, Daniel Eran Dilger reported that it was not true, when what he should have reported is, it was not proven otherwise, because as he stated, we just don't have all the facts available. I don't see what i wrong with trying to make educated guesses using experts in the field.
And lets be honest, i wonder that his agenda is working at APPLEINSIDER. If anyone can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, i'd be interested in hearing it.
As a journalist it normally an unwritten rule that you don't attack other journalists because of misguided reporting. Anyone with any decency would have contacted them individually out of courtesy to explain the mistake, if there even was one. Total bitter move by Daniel Dilger who is not the greatest reporter by any stretch of the imagination.
I think Daniel is absolutely right in talking about the article in business insider. Apple does mention their total revenue and number of iPhones sold. We can exactly get the average price of the iPhone Sold and we know by research the exact cost of making an iPhone. It is very easy to calculate the net profit of iPhone to be close to 30%.
In case of samsung which includes Smartphones, featured Phones, Tablet, PC, Laptops and other items. Samsung does not mention the no of smartphones sold or the revenue from different Price segments at all.
Apple Competes with Samsung with a small percentage of consumers which is the high end. Apple has not competed in the mid range and low range smartphones. So it would be stupid to even include all mobile phones, Tablets, PC & Laptops as only smartphones revenue.
It would be nice if Busines Insider can specifically find the sales & profit of samsung in the same high end segment were Apple Competes. You just cannot compare Apple & Oranges. If a BMW manufacturer cannot compete in the numbers of cars sold with low end cars comparatively to Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic and others.
I would suggest if Mr. Kovach from Business Insider can be truthful by comparing only in the specific Price Range Apple Competes.
Apple has a brand advantage over all competitors. Google as a brand has almost no hardware footprint and the Samsung brand still lags behind Japanese brands like Sony. People will pay more for products because of the brand recognition, implied quality and physical appeal. Apple also has the highest brand loyalty and largest direct customer base. No company can compete with the iPad in education and business, because the availability of applications and early market lead. Apple has not soiled itself with the commodity smartphone market, but has chosen to own the high end of the market and let Android vendors fight for the commodity business. Apple owns the high value customers, which is obvious if you look at spending after purchase of apps and services. Apple's strategy of growing their base of loyal high value customers is working.
, we have recently learned that Samsung’s sales figures for the S4 are much lower than they have reported. This is not the first time that Samsung has over-reported sales for their products.
From a Reuters article titled “Samsung analysts ask hard questions as S4 marketing charm wears off”:
“Woori Investment & Securities, one of South Korea’s largest securities firms, cut its outlook for Samsung’s earnings and target share price on June 5. It was the first to adjust its view.
A massive wave of downgrades has since followed, with forecasters including JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs taking a harder look at their assumptions of how well the S4, Samsung’s latest Galaxy smartphone, would actually do.
Sales estimates for the S4 were slashed by as much as 30 percent, stirring investor concerns over Samsung’s mobile devices division – the company’s biggest profit generator.”
Previously, Samsung reported that 10 million S4?s “shipped” in the first month. This is the amount of S4?s that Samsung claims to have received orders for from resellers…. It is NOT the number of S4?s that were actually sold to end users, which as we’ve seen from the past, has been substantially lower than the number “shipped”.
In contrast, Apple gives actual sales figures for the iPhone, not units “shipped”. The iPhone 5 sold 5 Million to end users in the first 3 days, and that was in a limited number of countries before Apple expanded the distribution.
If, on the other hand, you were referring to “margins” as in “profit margins”, although Samsung has a lucrative business selling smartphones and tablets its profit margins are much lower than Apple’s on the iPhone and iPad. The majority of the profits from all smartphones sold worldwide are going to Apple.
There is a huge difference between “market share” and “profit share”. Anyone in business would be a lot less concerned about market share, and much more concerned about profit share.
The primary problem with using market share as a measure of business health is it provides no insight into the profitability of the product being sold.
John Kirk recently ran an article in which he asked and answered this simple question:
“Question: Company A has 25% market share and 75% profit share. Company Z has 75% market share and 25% profit share. Which company is doing better?
Answer: If you said anything other than company A, then you are dumber than a doorknob. Any intelligent person would take company A’s profit share over that of company Z’s market share.”
As a journalist it normally an unwritten rule that you don't attack other journalists because of misguided reporting. Anyone with any decency would have contacted them individually out of courtesy to explain the mistake, if there even was one. Total bitter move by Daniel Dilger who is not the greatest reporter by any stretch of the imagination.
He didn't attack the journalist, he just argued against the information presented, which was wrong and had been very widely disseminated!
[SIZE=15px]The primary problem with using market share as a measure of business health is it provides no insight into the profitability of the product being sold.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=15px]John Kirk recently ran an article in which he asked and answered this simple question:[/SIZE]
[SIZE=15px]“Question: Company A has 25% market share and 75% profit share. Company Z has 75% market share and 25% profit share. Which company is doing better?[/SIZE]
[SIZE=15px]Answer: If you said anything other than company A, then you are dumber than a doorknob. Any intelligent person would take company A’s profit share over that of company Z’s market share.”[/SIZE]
In theory Company A is the obvious choice but in real life Company Z is the best choice. People don't want to know how profitable a product is they want to know if that product will sell well for the next 25, 50, 100 years. So while I'll be a dumb doorknob with a nice retirement fund you'll be a super genius homeless man.
In theory Company A is the obvious choice but in real life Company Z is the best choice. People don't want to know how profitable a product is they want to know if that product will sell well for the next 25, 50, 100 years. So while I'll be a dumb doorknob with a nice retirement fund you'll be a super genius homeless man.
People dont care about either. They only care what works for them. BB had dominant market share prior to the iPhone.
Samsung and Google don't give a rat's ass about Apple's stock price; however Wall Street speculators do, who make money on any big move with the proper option strategy.
So these are the guys who have an interest in chasing Apple up and down, putting margin squeezes on weaker investors, etc.
That's where you have to look for pay offs, not at Google or Samsung.
Yes, last year Motorola "only" lost $100 million in the quarter.
Recently <span style="line-height:1.231;">Motorola has been investing heavily into their Fort Worth factory, where they plan to build the first US assembled smartphone, the Moto X. </span>
<span style="line-height:1.231;">It's reportedly creating 2,000 new jobs.</span>
Even so, they still have $3.2 billion in cash reserves, so if they had to, they could continue for up to several years burning through that. Hopefully they won't have to.
2,000 new jobs sounds great, but Google cut 5,383 jobs at Motorola in the June quarter, after 1,200 jobs were lost in the March quarter. So after 6,583 were lost, reportedly planning to add 2,000 is sort of less than impressive.
I did read the article but I don't think you grasped my comment.
If Samsung's numbers are just guesswork then it's impossible to say who makes the larger profit. Therefore, it's just as idiotic of DED to say that Apple makes the most profits as it is for these analysts to say that Samsung makes the most profits.
No it is not. Because Samsung does report total profits.
If you'd given the article even a cursory glance, even at a third grade reading level you'd be able to participate in the conversation about it without looking like a fool.
Let's not go overboard. Obviously the numbers are not "pure guesswork" out of nowhere. They all involve at least some analysis derived from known factors.
<span style="line-height:1.231;">Some researchers have established numbers checks at import offices and warehouses, which can give very accurate shipment numbers where that's being done. Some poll store managers. Some use exit surveys at stores to determine end user sales. Some have the equivalent of "Nielson families" to draw upon. Some use phone surveys.</span>
In other words, their numbers can't just be summarily dismissed. They're least good enough for rough comparisons. Plus, i<span style="line-height:1.231;">f we ignored all analysis numbers, we'd have nothing to talk about </span>
--
Yes, Apple tells a little more than most. At the same time, Apple holds back the really important info that would aid competitors. For example, what are the sales for each individual model type? What are the sales to carriers vs. sales to other retailers vs. direct store sales? We only "know" these from analyses.
Apple holds back such info for the same reason that their competitors do. To keep from giving info that others might take advantage of.
So perhaps the big question should not be why does everyone else keep sales close to their vest, but rather why does Apple give out sales/shipment totals? Pride? Sales often drop after a debut and that's not happy info to give out. Is it because their entire business is based on comparatively few products, and thus easier to figure out anyway? Is it because they feel like sales <span style="line-height:1.231;">guesses would hurt them more than other companies? Any ideas?</span>
Everything you said makes zero sense. SA's analysis doesn't come from auditing factory shipments. It simply compares most of Samsung's revenue against half of Apple's, the entire point of which was to create a catchy headline designed to get free publicity for the company's larger report, which says very close to nothing.
2,000 new jobs sounds great, but Google cut 5,383 jobs at Motorola in the June quarter, after 1,200 jobs were lost in the March quarter. So after 6,583 were lost, reportedly planning to add 2,000 is sort of less than impressive.
Most of those jobs were not lost in the US. They were transfers of foreign factory workers to a new factory owner.
According to Motorola, the bulk of those job reductions last quarter were because of the sale of manufacturing facilities in Taiwan and Brazil to Flextronics.
In other words, most of them were foreign employees who were switched from working for Motorola, to working for Flextronics... still in their own country, at the same factories.
It's not much different than when Apple moves manufacturing back to the US. American workers will replace overseas workers, but the foreign workers will likely still be used for other manufacturing. The only difference here is that Motorola had owned the foreign factories that made their products, whereas Apple did not.
Thank you Dan. It's great to have you back on the beat in good health and good order. There aren't many people in tech journalism who could have written this article. Bravo.
2,000 new jobs sounds great, but Google cut 5,383 jobs at Motorola in the June quarter, after 1,200 jobs were lost in the March quarter. So after 6,583 were lost, reportedly planning to add 2,000 is sort of less than impressive.
I wanted to say: "oh my, that's a big layoff!" but KD responded already with where these people went. So I guess my point is moot.
Given the mystery around some of Apple and Samsung's reporting, shipping and sales figures, Strategic Analytics used the available information that was out there.
Based on the available information, apparently not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
In essence, it was a best attempt at understanding the two companies with regard to the cell phone market.
No, it was an sensationalist attempt to generate enough interest to entice people to pay for the full report from SA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
Daniel Dilger has presented all the information in a clear and careful rebuke of the original articles that have gone out, but he is a bit of a hypocrite because on many occasions he and people at AI have reported using information with shaky methodology. The difference here is, APPLE INSIDER writes glowing reports on everything APPLE.
Even if DED is a paid Apple shill, it doesn't change the fact that he showed his work and supported his analysis. If you disagree with a point or see an error, then show your supporting evidence - like DED did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
Analysts make guesses all the time based on incomplete information with regard to the stock market and almost all political types of reporting.
And they're doing a bang-up job with all that guessing, aren't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
The Apple insider reporter, Daniel Eran Dilger reported that it was not true, when what he should have reported is, it was not proven otherwise, because as he stated, we just don't have all the facts available. I don't see what i wrong with trying to make educated guesses using experts in the field.
If you want truth, enroll in a philosophy class. Educated guessing (or better yet, qualified estimating) is one thing, but basing a supposed analysis on factually incorrect data and unsupportable assertions is a whole separate entity.
Quote:
And lets be honest, i wonder that his agenda is working at APPLEINSIDER. If anyone can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, i'd be interested in hearing it.
The motivation is irrelevant if the data is accurate and the analysis is supportable. Be careful you don't trip on that straw man on your way out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
As a journalist it normally an unwritten rule that you don't attack other journalists because of misguided reporting.
Too bad the analyst didn't engage in journalism (unless you include yellow journalism).
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
Anyone with any decency would have contacted them individually out of courtesy to explain the mistake, if there even was one. Total bitter move by Daniel Dilger who is not the greatest reporter by any stretch of the imagination.
Did you contact DED privately and confirm whether he'd contacted the analyst 'individually' first? After all that'd be what "anyone with decency" would do before posting a public attack on a person's character and professional merit, right?
Apple and Samsung make pretty much all the profits in mobile devices right now. It's a duopoly. It might actually be a big deal when and if Samsung surpasses Apple since the latter has taken a high-end only strategy while the former sells all things to all people. Apple's historical strategy has been to eschew market share for profits. But if it is possible to have both then Apple might rethink its strategy.
what happens to overall profits if you have a product with low margins that flops and you end up with inventory you can't move? compare this same thing situation with a product with high margin that flops. Give it some thought please.
Given the mystery around some of Apple and Samsung's reporting, shipping and sales figures, Strategic Analytics used the available information that was out there. In essence, it was a best attempt at understanding the two companies with regard to the cell phone market.
[snip]
As a journalist it normally an unwritten rule that you don't attack other journalists because of misguided reporting. Anyone with any decency would have contacted them individually out of courtesy to explain the mistake, if there even was one. Total bitter move by Daniel Dilger who is not the greatest reporter by any stretch of the imagination.
first, that's baloney. there was no "best attempt." there was much better info available that SA simply did not dig up or just ignored - for example check the well-known Asymco's work:
SA was simply incompetent (or intentionally generating propaganda?), and your remarks are simply a flimsy apologia for that.
second, what you are saying is that there is a "gentlemen's agreement" among journalists to "look the other way" about each other's mistakes. well if so that in itself is an ethical failure. but regurgitating unverified third party "reports" with no effort to fact check them first (and evaluate the possibility of bias on the part of the source) is itself sloppy work. what DED did is simply call them out for being lazy journalists. the web is chock full of lazy "journalism" these days, and they had it coming.
i guess you're just one of the club whose nose is bent out of shape by that.
here is an even better - fascinating - Asymco chart, updated yesterday to include the 2nd quarter and presenting results for Google, MS, and even Amazon too all at the same visual scale:
from the chart it is obvious that the combined Apple product lines totals (iPhone, iPad, iPod, Mac) that are the equivalent of the Samsung IM product lines group generated substantially more 2Q operating income (pre tax apparently) than Samsung's group did.
and then look at Google and Amazon and - OMG - MS!
oh yeah, Apple is so Doomed! the competition is ... well, it just ... is, you know? all the pundits/analysts say so!
boy, can i get doomed like this too? where do i have to go?
Comments
You wonder how this kind of garbage is allow to exist and why so many people especially with the internet where we all know not to believe anything we read anymore and only a faction of what you see. When this kind of garbage is found we need to begin call out the people who product this stuff and make sure the world knows these people have no clue what they do and they should be fired or humiliated to the best of the internet's ability.
Most time I do not both even looking but in this cast I was curious what kind of person could screw up simple comparison as this. Well I found the guy and once you read his bio you will see why. You would think someone with an EE degree know something about basic math. You may understand how someone from Big Business School would mess with the number to tell a story they wanted (it somehow makes them moeny. Well this guy never worked in the wireless industry and we lack any business background and they call him a Senior Analysis. Yeah he has and EE degree and its is obvious he never did no real engineering work leading to his in abilities to pay attention to the details that most all engineers exercise.
Here you go
Quote:
Senior Analyst | Neil Shah
Wireless Device Strategies
Neil Shah, Senior Analyst for the Strategy Analytics Wireless Device Strategies (WDS) service addresses the health of the global handset market, including key performance indicators of the top handset OEMs and a holistic view of the handset ecosystem. His interest and work ranges from informed qualitative and quantitative analysis on industry dynamics, company strategies, enabling technologies, wireless network standards, and market forecasts.
Mr. Shah brings nearly seven years of multifunctional experience covering a wide spectrum of technical and management functions. Starting at Philips Electronics India Ltd, Neil Shah was responsible for developing and executing service operations and channel marketing support strategies, with a short stint in a planning and procurement role for the Consumer Lifestyle products division. In the US, he has worked as a consultant for different industry verticals in devising and executing successful product management and marketing strategies, and completed a marketing research project for the Harvard Business School.
Mr. Shah is an IEEE Certified Wireless Professional. He holds a Masters in Telecommunications & Business from University of Maryland, College Park and a Bachelors in Electronics Engineering from University of Mumbai.
Analysts make guesses all the time based on incomplete information with regard to the stock market and almost all political types of reporting. The Apple insider reporter, Daniel Eran Dilger reported that it was not true, when what he should have reported is, it was not proven otherwise, because as he stated, we just don't have all the facts available. I don't see what i wrong with trying to make educated guesses using experts in the field.
And lets be honest, i wonder that his agenda is working at APPLEINSIDER. If anyone can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, i'd be interested in hearing it.
As a journalist it normally an unwritten rule that you don't attack other journalists because of misguided reporting. Anyone with any decency would have contacted them individually out of courtesy to explain the mistake, if there even was one. Total bitter move by Daniel Dilger who is not the greatest reporter by any stretch of the imagination.
I think Daniel is absolutely right in talking about the article in business insider. Apple does mention their total revenue and number of iPhones sold. We can exactly get the average price of the iPhone Sold and we know by research the exact cost of making an iPhone. It is very easy to calculate the net profit of iPhone to be close to 30%.
In case of samsung which includes Smartphones, featured Phones, Tablet, PC, Laptops and other items. Samsung does not mention the no of smartphones sold or the revenue from different Price segments at all.
Apple Competes with Samsung with a small percentage of consumers which is the high end. Apple has not competed in the mid range and low range smartphones. So it would be stupid to even include all mobile phones, Tablets, PC & Laptops as only smartphones revenue.
It would be nice if Busines Insider can specifically find the sales & profit of samsung in the same high end segment were Apple Competes. You just cannot compare Apple & Oranges. If a BMW manufacturer cannot compete in the numbers of cars sold with low end cars comparatively to Toyota Corolla, Honda Civic and others.
I would suggest if Mr. Kovach from Business Insider can be truthful by comparing only in the specific Price Range Apple Competes.
Apple has a brand advantage over all competitors. Google as a brand has almost no hardware footprint and the Samsung brand still lags behind Japanese brands like Sony. People will pay more for products because of the brand recognition, implied quality and physical appeal. Apple also has the highest brand loyalty and largest direct customer base. No company can compete with the iPad in education and business, because the availability of applications and early market lead. Apple has not soiled itself with the commodity smartphone market, but has chosen to own the high end of the market and let Android vendors fight for the commodity business. Apple owns the high value customers, which is obvious if you look at spending after purchase of apps and services. Apple's strategy of growing their base of loyal high value customers is working.
, we have recently learned that Samsung’s sales figures for the S4 are much lower than they have reported. This is not the first time that Samsung has over-reported sales for their products.
From a Reuters article titled “Samsung analysts ask hard questions as S4 marketing charm wears off”:
“Woori Investment & Securities, one of South Korea’s largest securities firms, cut its outlook for Samsung’s earnings and target share price on June 5. It was the first to adjust its view.
A massive wave of downgrades has since followed, with forecasters including JPMorgan, Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sachs taking a harder look at their assumptions of how well the S4, Samsung’s latest Galaxy smartphone, would actually do.
Sales estimates for the S4 were slashed by as much as 30 percent, stirring investor concerns over Samsung’s mobile devices division – the company’s biggest profit generator.”
Previously, Samsung reported that 10 million S4?s “shipped” in the first month. This is the amount of S4?s that Samsung claims to have received orders for from resellers…. It is NOT the number of S4?s that were actually sold to end users, which as we’ve seen from the past, has been substantially lower than the number “shipped”.
In contrast, Apple gives actual sales figures for the iPhone, not units “shipped”. The iPhone 5 sold 5 Million to end users in the first 3 days, and that was in a limited number of countries before Apple expanded the distribution.
If, on the other hand, you were referring to “margins” as in “profit margins”, although Samsung has a lucrative business selling smartphones and tablets its profit margins are much lower than Apple’s on the iPhone and iPad. The majority of the profits from all smartphones sold worldwide are going to Apple.
There is a huge difference between “market share” and “profit share”. Anyone in business would be a lot less concerned about market share, and much more concerned about profit share.
The primary problem with using market share as a measure of business health is it provides no insight into the profitability of the product being sold.
John Kirk recently ran an article in which he asked and answered this simple question:
“Question: Company A has 25% market share and 75% profit share. Company Z has 75% market share and 25% profit share. Which company is doing better?
Answer: If you said anything other than company A, then you are dumber than a doorknob. Any intelligent person would take company A’s profit share over that of company Z’s market share.”
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
As a journalist it normally an unwritten rule that you don't attack other journalists because of misguided reporting. Anyone with any decency would have contacted them individually out of courtesy to explain the mistake, if there even was one. Total bitter move by Daniel Dilger who is not the greatest reporter by any stretch of the imagination.
He didn't attack the journalist, he just argued against the information presented, which was wrong and had been very widely disseminated!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Which Apple numbers are audited?
All of them.
In theory Company A is the obvious choice but in real life Company Z is the best choice. People don't want to know how profitable a product is they want to know if that product will sell well for the next 25, 50, 100 years. So while I'll be a dumb doorknob with a nice retirement fund you'll be a super genius homeless man.
People dont care about either. They only care what works for them. BB had dominant market share prior to the iPhone.
WTF?!!! More press release:
http://www.strategyanalytics.com/default.aspx?mod=pressreleaseviewer&a0=5403
Do these guys get paid by Samsung / Google?!!
So these are the guys who have an interest in chasing Apple up and down, putting margin squeezes on weaker investors, etc.
That's where you have to look for pay offs, not at Google or Samsung.
2,000 new jobs sounds great, but Google cut 5,383 jobs at Motorola in the June quarter, after 1,200 jobs were lost in the March quarter. So after 6,583 were lost, reportedly planning to add 2,000 is sort of less than impressive.
No it is not. Because Samsung does report total profits.
If you'd given the article even a cursory glance, even at a third grade reading level you'd be able to participate in the conversation about it without looking like a fool.
Everything you said makes zero sense. SA's analysis doesn't come from auditing factory shipments. It simply compares most of Samsung's revenue against half of Apple's, the entire point of which was to create a catchy headline designed to get free publicity for the company's larger report, which says very close to nothing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corrections
2,000 new jobs sounds great, but Google cut 5,383 jobs at Motorola in the June quarter, after 1,200 jobs were lost in the March quarter. So after 6,583 were lost, reportedly planning to add 2,000 is sort of less than impressive.
Most of those jobs were not lost in the US. They were transfers of foreign factory workers to a new factory owner.
According to Motorola, the bulk of those job reductions last quarter were because of the sale of manufacturing facilities in Taiwan and Brazil to Flextronics.
In other words, most of them were foreign employees who were switched from working for Motorola, to working for Flextronics... still in their own country, at the same factories.
It's not much different than when Apple moves manufacturing back to the US. American workers will replace overseas workers, but the foreign workers will likely still be used for other manufacturing. The only difference here is that Motorola had owned the foreign factories that made their products, whereas Apple did not.
I wanted to say: "oh my, that's a big layoff!" but KD responded already with where these people went. So I guess my point is moot.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
Given the mystery around some of Apple and Samsung's reporting, shipping and sales figures, Strategic Analytics used the available information that was out there.
Based on the available information, apparently not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
In essence, it was a best attempt at understanding the two companies with regard to the cell phone market.
No, it was an sensationalist attempt to generate enough interest to entice people to pay for the full report from SA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
Daniel Dilger has presented all the information in a clear and careful rebuke of the original articles that have gone out, but he is a bit of a hypocrite because on many occasions he and people at AI have reported using information with shaky methodology. The difference here is, APPLE INSIDER writes glowing reports on everything APPLE.
Even if DED is a paid Apple shill, it doesn't change the fact that he showed his work and supported his analysis. If you disagree with a point or see an error, then show your supporting evidence - like DED did.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
Analysts make guesses all the time based on incomplete information with regard to the stock market and almost all political types of reporting.
And they're doing a bang-up job with all that guessing, aren't they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
The Apple insider reporter, Daniel Eran Dilger reported that it was not true, when what he should have reported is, it was not proven otherwise, because as he stated, we just don't have all the facts available. I don't see what i wrong with trying to make educated guesses using experts in the field.
If you want truth, enroll in a philosophy class. Educated guessing (or better yet, qualified estimating) is one thing, but basing a supposed analysis on factually incorrect data and unsupportable assertions is a whole separate entity.
Quote:
And lets be honest, i wonder that his agenda is working at APPLEINSIDER. If anyone can prove beyond all reasonable doubt, i'd be interested in hearing it.
The motivation is irrelevant if the data is accurate and the analysis is supportable. Be careful you don't trip on that straw man on your way out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
As a journalist it normally an unwritten rule that you don't attack other journalists because of misguided reporting.
Too bad the analyst didn't engage in journalism (unless you include yellow journalism).
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
Anyone with any decency would have contacted them individually out of courtesy to explain the mistake, if there even was one. Total bitter move by Daniel Dilger who is not the greatest reporter by any stretch of the imagination.
Did you contact DED privately and confirm whether he'd contacted the analyst 'individually' first? After all that'd be what "anyone with decency" would do before posting a public attack on a person's character and professional merit, right?
EDIT: Trimmed excess whitespace.
Quote:
Originally Posted by KPOM
Apple and Samsung make pretty much all the profits in mobile devices right now. It's a duopoly. It might actually be a big deal when and if Samsung surpasses Apple since the latter has taken a high-end only strategy while the former sells all things to all people. Apple's historical strategy has been to eschew market share for profits. But if it is possible to have both then Apple might rethink its strategy.
what happens to overall profits if you have a product with low margins that flops and you end up with inventory you can't move? compare this same thing situation with a product with high margin that flops. Give it some thought please.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delaneyp
Given the mystery around some of Apple and Samsung's reporting, shipping and sales figures, Strategic Analytics used the available information that was out there. In essence, it was a best attempt at understanding the two companies with regard to the cell phone market.
[snip]
As a journalist it normally an unwritten rule that you don't attack other journalists because of misguided reporting. Anyone with any decency would have contacted them individually out of courtesy to explain the mistake, if there even was one. Total bitter move by Daniel Dilger who is not the greatest reporter by any stretch of the imagination.
first, that's baloney. there was no "best attempt." there was much better info available that SA simply did not dig up or just ignored - for example check the well-known Asymco's work:
second, what you are saying is that there is a "gentlemen's agreement" among journalists to "look the other way" about each other's mistakes. well if so that in itself is an ethical failure. but regurgitating unverified third party "reports" with no effort to fact check them first (and evaluate the possibility of bias on the part of the source) is itself sloppy work. what DED did is simply call them out for being lazy journalists. the web is chock full of lazy "journalism" these days, and they had it coming.
i guess you're just one of the club whose nose is bent out of shape by that.
here is an even better - fascinating - Asymco chart, updated yesterday to include the 2nd quarter and presenting results for Google, MS, and even Amazon too all at the same visual scale:
http://www.asymco.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Screen-Shot-2013-07-30-at-7-30-10.47.14-PM.png
from the chart it is obvious that the combined Apple product lines totals (iPhone, iPad, iPod, Mac) that are the equivalent of the Samsung IM product lines group generated substantially more 2Q operating income (pre tax apparently) than Samsung's group did.
and then look at Google and Amazon and - OMG - MS!
oh yeah, Apple is so Doomed! the competition is ... well, it just ... is, you know? all the pundits/analysts say so!
boy, can i get doomed like this too? where do i have to go?