"BS," now let me see. Does that mean "Bettering Society," "Beautiful & Sweet" or perhaps something less thoughtful about all those drudging away in those huge factories in China.
I can remember, just barely, the dull old days of Eisenhower and the Fifties. The era had its problems, but there was far more civility and far less obsession with bodily secretions back then. Some people, it appears, never get over the trauma of potty training. To their dying day, they're troubled with a potty mouth. Everything is BS this and S___t that.
I guess it beats thinking and learning to express yourself well.
Odd that you should mention Eisenhower. Apparently, to the best of my knowledge, he swore with the best of them, but in the presence of a woman he would only swear occasionally but it was never erased from his vocabulary completely.
I ordered my iMac in November and had to wait until January to receive it but I wouldn't call that a fiasco in and of itself. Did they make promises in ship times that weren't met? I seem to recall that my order was delivered within the promised time frame but I honestly can't recall.
I also don't recall any evidence that clearly showed this was a display lamination issue. Why couldn't it be a friction weld issue or even an issue with getting the appropriate components, like Apple having to reject a huge batch of discreet GPUs or display panels from a supplier? If they shipped hundreds of thousands of faulty product that broke down or were sub-quality within weeks or months of being used then I'd call that a fiasco, but not simply because of a delay over what we are used to with Apple products being available almost immediately upon announcement.
No, I don't recall any hard evidence, just some discussion or speculation, maybe from an analyst, that it was the difficult new lamination process. I also thought it might be the friction stir welding. In the list above, I was fitting in with a rhetorical device, so no nuance.
What was objectionable at the time was the glib, easy blaming of Tim Cook's management without knowing the slightest thing about the reasons for the delay, which were bound to be very interesting from the point of view of a gamble on production technique.
Later, TC said he regretted the gap in iMac sales, not because they gambled on an iffy technology, but because they cut off sales of the previous while announcing the new models too early. Calling it a fiasco is way too emotional and moralistic, in my opinion. They'll never trust us with any inside information if we habitually overreact like that. Of course, they may never anyway, but they are planning to be in business "for decades to come."
I knew just from the headline that this would be from Gene Munster. He's about as accurate as DigiTimes. Don't forget he's the one who claimed 3.5-4 million of the 9M iPhone opening weekend sales were 5C "channel fill". And then sites like Business Insider ran with it claiming Apple's "real" sales figures were only 5-6M. Munster is not worthy of space on any Apple news site. :no:
Did anyone ever disprove his numbers concerning channel fill?
No one knows the true breakdown of 5S and 5C. Only Apple knows that... and they don't share that info.
The thing about Apple is... their products don't sit on the shelf for very long.
Let's say Apple stuffed the channel with 9 million iPhones that opening weekend... but only sold 6 million.
I guarantee that the original launch iPhone stock was depleted by the following Tuesday... with new stock replacing it. And they've been selling ever since.
Sure... maybe they didn't sell 9 million iPhones in exactly 3 days... but they sold a helluva lot. Hell... 9 million in the first week would still be an impressive amount of phones.
Apple sold 47 million iPhones during last year's Holiday quarter. I think they will surpass that this year.
No one knows the true breakdown of 5S and 5C. Only Apple knows that... and they don't share that info.
The thing about Apple is... their products don't sit on the shelf for very long.
Let's say Apple stuffed the channel with 9 million iPhones that opening weekend... but only sold 6 million.
I guarantee that the original launch iPhone stock was depleted by the following Tuesday... with new stock replacing it. And they've been selling ever since.
Sure... maybe they didn't sell 9 million iPhones in exactly 3 days... but they sold a helluva lot. Hell... 9 million in the first week would still be an impressive amount of phones.
Apple sold 47 million iPhones during last year's Holiday quarter. I think they will surpass that this year.
Nobody is disputing that Apple sold a helluva lot of phones in those three days, but, even though I don't care for Gene Munster's analysis all the time, I also don't think that disparaging his character over something that hasn't been proved or disproved is really all that correct.
Nobody is disputing that Apple sold a helluva lot of phones in those three days, but, even though I don't care for Gene Munster's analysis all the time, I also don't think that disparaging his character over something that hasn't been proved or disproved is really all that correct.
Fact is Munster's opening weekend estimate was 6M. When Apple reported 9M he went on TV to say that 9M included "channel fill" and if you strip that out you get closer to his 6M figure. Why should Apple or anyone else have to disprove his number? His "channel fill" figure wasn't some scientific calculation, it was just taking the difference between his estimate and what Apple announced. Funny though, I don't remember him stripping out any "channel fill" from Apple's 5M figure in 2012.
No, I don't recall any hard evidence, just some discussion or speculation, maybe from an analyst, that it was the difficult new lamination process. I also thought it might be the friction stir welding. In the list above, I was fitting in with a rhetorical device, so no nuance.
What was objectionable at the time was the glib, easy blaming of Tim Cook's management without knowing the slightest thing about the reasons for the delay, which were bound to be very interesting from the point of view of a gamble on production technique.
Later, TC said he regretted the gap in iMac sales, not because they gambled on an iffy technology, but because they cut off sales of the previous while announcing the new models too early. Calling it a fiasco is way too emotional and moralistic, in my opinion. They'll never trust us with any inside information if we habitually overreact like that. Of course, they may never anyway, but they are planning to be in business "for decades to come."
I think it was some analyst in Bloomberg or Forbes that blamed it on Jony Ive, saying he was getting too ambitious when it comes to manufacturing and Tim Cook needed to reign him in.
Fact is Munster's opening weekend estimate was 6M. When Apple reported 9M he went on TV to say that 9M included "channel fill" and if you strip that out you get closer to his 6M figure. Why should Apple or anyone else have to disprove his number? His "channel fill" figure wasn't some scientific calculation, it was just taking the difference between his estimate and what Apple announced. Funny though, I don't remember him stripping out any "channel fill" from Apple's 5M figure in 2012.
I don't ever recall Apple saying that Munster was wrong. Therefore there is no need for Apple to prove its numbers or disprove Munster's numbers. If Apple came out and said Munster is flat out wrong then, yes, I'd expect Tim Cook to back up that statement.
There wasn't any need to strip out channel fill. The figures were lower than what he predicted.
I think it was some analyst in Bloomberg or Forbes that blamed it on Jony Ive, saying he was getting too ambitious when it comes to manufacturing and Tim Cook needed to reign him in.
Yeah, that was a high water mark for the Axis of Evil Financial Reporting that was at flood stage around that time. They didn't know anything either, as I recall. Correct me if I misremember.
Yes, I bet numbers will be great this quarter. What are people betting? 55 to 60 million? I bet above 60 million, 6 million Macs, 25 million iPads.
But those iPhone numbers could be so much better. Samsung just announced 10 million note 3 sold in 2 months. If you put the s4 together and all other 4.7"+ flagships, how many costumers is Apple not targeting because they do not offer another iPhone line with a bigger screen?
What about those that have an iPhone but would prefer a bigger one if they had choice?
Comments
"BS," now let me see. Does that mean "Bettering Society," "Beautiful & Sweet" or perhaps something less thoughtful about all those drudging away in those huge factories in China.
I can remember, just barely, the dull old days of Eisenhower and the Fifties. The era had its problems, but there was far more civility and far less obsession with bodily secretions back then. Some people, it appears, never get over the trauma of potty training. To their dying day, they're troubled with a potty mouth. Everything is BS this and S___t that.
I guess it beats thinking and learning to express yourself well.
Odd that you should mention Eisenhower. Apparently, to the best of my knowledge, he swore with the best of them, but in the presence of a woman he would only swear occasionally but it was never erased from his vocabulary completely.
No, I don't recall any hard evidence, just some discussion or speculation, maybe from an analyst, that it was the difficult new lamination process. I also thought it might be the friction stir welding. In the list above, I was fitting in with a rhetorical device, so no nuance.
What was objectionable at the time was the glib, easy blaming of Tim Cook's management without knowing the slightest thing about the reasons for the delay, which were bound to be very interesting from the point of view of a gamble on production technique.
Later, TC said he regretted the gap in iMac sales, not because they gambled on an iffy technology, but because they cut off sales of the previous while announcing the new models too early. Calling it a fiasco is way too emotional and moralistic, in my opinion. They'll never trust us with any inside information if we habitually overreact like that. Of course, they may never anyway, but they are planning to be in business "for decades to come."
No one knows the true breakdown of 5S and 5C. Only Apple knows that... and they don't share that info.
The thing about Apple is... their products don't sit on the shelf for very long.
Let's say Apple stuffed the channel with 9 million iPhones that opening weekend... but only sold 6 million.
I guarantee that the original launch iPhone stock was depleted by the following Tuesday... with new stock replacing it. And they've been selling ever since.
Sure... maybe they didn't sell 9 million iPhones in exactly 3 days... but they sold a helluva lot. Hell... 9 million in the first week would still be an impressive amount of phones.
Apple sold 47 million iPhones during last year's Holiday quarter. I think they will surpass that this year.
No one knows the true breakdown of 5S and 5C. Only Apple knows that... and they don't share that info.
The thing about Apple is... their products don't sit on the shelf for very long.
Let's say Apple stuffed the channel with 9 million iPhones that opening weekend... but only sold 6 million.
I guarantee that the original launch iPhone stock was depleted by the following Tuesday... with new stock replacing it. And they've been selling ever since.
Sure... maybe they didn't sell 9 million iPhones in exactly 3 days... but they sold a helluva lot. Hell... 9 million in the first week would still be an impressive amount of phones.
Apple sold 47 million iPhones during last year's Holiday quarter. I think they will surpass that this year.
Nobody is disputing that Apple sold a helluva lot of phones in those three days, but, even though I don't care for Gene Munster's analysis all the time, I also don't think that disparaging his character over something that hasn't been proved or disproved is really all that correct.
Did he ever prove them? Why should anyone have to disprove a number an analyst pulls out of thin air?
If you are going to say he is wrong then I think you would have to prove that he is wrong.
Fact is Munster's opening weekend estimate was 6M. When Apple reported 9M he went on TV to say that 9M included "channel fill" and if you strip that out you get closer to his 6M figure. Why should Apple or anyone else have to disprove his number? His "channel fill" figure wasn't some scientific calculation, it was just taking the difference between his estimate and what Apple announced. Funny though, I don't remember him stripping out any "channel fill" from Apple's 5M figure in 2012.
I don't ever recall Apple saying that Munster was wrong. Therefore there is no need for Apple to prove its numbers or disprove Munster's numbers. If Apple came out and said Munster is flat out wrong then, yes, I'd expect Tim Cook to back up that statement.
There wasn't any need to strip out channel fill. The figures were lower than what he predicted.
Yeah, that was a high water mark for the Axis of Evil Financial Reporting that was at flood stage around that time. They didn't know anything either, as I recall. Correct me if I misremember.
Yes, I bet numbers will be great this quarter. What are people betting? 55 to 60 million? I bet above 60 million, 6 million Macs, 25 million iPads.
But those iPhone numbers could be so much better. Samsung just announced 10 million note 3 sold in 2 months. If you put the s4 together and all other 4.7"+ flagships, how many costumers is Apple not targeting because they do not offer another iPhone line with a bigger screen?
What about those that have an iPhone but would prefer a bigger one if they had choice?
Let's not be blind, here.