Apple's iTV delay doesn't help "dull holiday season" - report

135

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    All major analyst reports have a slant - they have an interpretation of what the market is like, has been like, and is going to be. What the agenda is ... is anyone's guess, from just plain "say something plausible about this topic" to as many conspiracy theories as you can shake a stick at.



    This report is total garbage, it bears repeating. TOTAL GARBAGE. Apple has a stellar portfolio of products going into this Oct-Dec 2006 quarter. It will blow all previous records of Macs sold, iPods sold, and total revenues and profits, and revenue and profit per physical US Apple-Store.



    Painting the iTV as "the one thing that would have really mattered" is total bullshit. It's a fancy accessory at worse, a start to 2007's strategy of Mac-iPod-iTMS-ecosystem-enlarging at best.



    The report is looking too heavily at consumer electronics while profits from Mac sales, ie. the non-consumer-electronic side of things makes up a decent (around half at a very rough estimate) of Apple's [net profit after tax at the end of the day], etc.



    Fracking iTV is not even due out this year, as so many have pointed out. What the frack.



    That's not a slant. Slant in the meaning being used is meant that they have an outcome they want to express, and are "slanting" the facts to fit.



    Apple is mostly consumer electronics. Besides the iPod, the computers they sell are consumer electronics. Since when are home computers not consumer electronics?



    That's not true at all.



    The report is not BS.



    These companies would not remain in business for long if their reports were slanted.



    The lack of business sense here on these boards can sometimes be amazing.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 42 of 98
    Quote:

    "Apple Computer Inc.'s Internet Television (iTV), which will enable consumers to view iTunes and other content on their televisions via a Wi-Fi link to their personal computers, was one of the heavy favorites to tackle the market with both arms," El Segundo, Calif.-based iSuppli said in a research report released this week. "However, now its launch date has been pushed back to January."



    Whether it is a "slant" of facts or not, what's your interpretation of that statement. What are they trying to accomplish by saying something that is blatently false? Or do you think they are not aware of the fact that their statement is false?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 43 of 98
    mark2005mark2005 Posts: 1,158member
    First, if you go to other sites reporting this story, you can get additional quotes from the iSuppli report. So don't give me the garbage about my "making an error".



    The iTV is "pushed back" is shown with quotes so that's iSuppli's wording. (Or do we think AI is just making it up?) iSuppli has put it in there to support the iSuppli storyline of "delays, competing standards, and inventory shortages" which though is not shown as a quote here, is shown as the iSuppli quoted summary line in other reports. Yes, it could've been a simple mistake that led to that summary conclusion, but since it could've so easily been checked and refuted, I'm more likely to believe it was put in to support the overall storyline that iSuppli was aiming for. If it was the former, then I'd say iSuppli is incompetent at checking the facts. Today, we have Google and we have the actual Apple video, so it's not that hard to check the facts.



    The new iPods are not delayed, are not really having a competing standards problem that anyone cares about, and are not having inventory shortages. Ergo, it does not fit iSuppli's storyline. So to make it fit their storyline, they raise the idea that somehow Apple doesn't have any "significant new iPods" (which is also a quote in the story here and elsewhere), and have to bring up a video iPod (again a quote) to make the case that the new iPods are not significant, and insinuate that there was a delay without giving any evidence of such. Compared to previous iPod releases, the new iPods are in the middle. Not as significant as the iPod photo or iPod video, but more significant than the touch wheel.



    Is there a reason to mention iPods even if it didn't fit the storyline? Yes, because it is in the context of Zune. The Zune seems to be mentioned because it is either significant (against the storyline) but it has the a competing standard problem with PlaysforSure. But they didn't have to bring up the so-far-only-rumored widescreen iPod which was not promised and delayed.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 44 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by JupiterOne


    Whether it is a "slant" of facts or not, what's your interpretation of that statement. What are they trying to accomplish by saying something that is blatently false? Or do you think they are not aware of the fact that their statement is false?



    It would be interesting to know where the "quote" was from in the first place. Was it from them, or from the Forbe's news report, which itself might not have been directly from them either.



    But either way, they just might have info that WE don't have.



    The talk in the industry, which has been reported right HERE, and we have discussed right HERE, is that it was scheduled to be released for Christmas, but the delay in the 801.n standard has held that introduction up.



    We even discussed why that would be a good idea for Apple.



    So, you don't know that it is blatently false, do you?



    How quickly we forget!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 45 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by mark2005


    First, if you go to other sites reporting this story, you can get additional quotes from the iSuppli report. So don't give me the garbage about my "making an error".



    The iTV is "pushed back" is shown with quotes so that's iSuppli's wording. (Or do we think AI is just making it up?) iSuppli has put it in there to support the iSuppli storyline of "delays, competing standards, and inventory shortages" which though is not shown as a quote here, is shown as the iSuppli quoted summary line in other reports. Yes, it could've been a simple mistake that led to that summary conclusion, but since it could've so easily been checked and refuted, I'm more likely to believe it was put in to support the overall storyline that iSuppli was aiming for. If it was the former, then I'd say iSuppli is incompetent at checking the facts. Today, we have Google and we have the actual Apple video, so it's not that hard to check the facts.



    As I just said, the quote could have been from a news report that was reporting it. But, even if not, as I also said, and you just confermed yourself, the "delay" could be for the reasons iof unfinalized standards.



    This is a Christmas season product. I hope that isn't really doubted. The fact that Jobs felt compelled to pre-announce it shows that. the fact that it is waiting until some unspecified time after Christmas to be released is a fairly good indication that is is being delayed.



    Quote:

    The new iPods are not delayed, are not really having a competing standards problem that anyone cares about, and are not having inventory shortages. Ergo, it does not fit iSuppli's storyline. So to make it fit their storyline, they raise the idea that somehow Apple doesn't have any "significant new iPods" (which is also a quote in the story here and elsewhere), and have to bring up a video iPod (again a quote) to make the case that the new iPods are not significant, and insinuate that there was a delay without giving any evidence of such. Compared to previous iPod releases, the new iPods are in the middle. Not as significant as the iPod photo or iPod video, but more significant than the touch wheel.



    I suppose then that you can show us where you got yopur information that they are not being delayed? Or is that your slant?



    Why do you feel as though they have to have a slant in the first place? Exactly what good would that do them? It makes no sense.



    Quote:

    Is there a reason to mention iPods even if it didn't fit the storyline? Yes, because it is in the context of Zune. The Zune seems to be mentioned because it is either significant (against the storyline) but it has the a competing standard problem with PlaysforSure. But they didn't have to bring up the so-far-only-rumored widescreen iPod which was not promised and delayed.



    If you read these reports about other companies you will always see mention of products or services that companies are expected to bring to market, but that have not arrived yet.



    There is a reasonable expection from past performance, and publically released information that a new product is in the works.



    Once that speculation is started, reporting companies feel obligated to comment upon it. They likely DO have sources that we know nothing about, and have seen movements in the supply chain that indicate to them that a product is developing.



    Comments from highly placed officials of the target company also give reason to believe that something is in the works. Jobs made a comment, though I don't remember exactly what he said, during the shareholders meeting, that gave some reality to this idea.



    At any rate, this continual bashing of these people accomplishes nothing constructive.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 46 of 98
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    ...These companies would not remain in business for long if their reports were slanted...The lack of business sense here on these boards can sometimes be amazing.



    The companies remain in business for long *because* they have business sense - that is, ethics, common sense and *intelligence* take a back seat. Most of you know what I am talking about. Dilbert does a pretty good job of summing things up.



    Most people on these boards have jobs, and I did work out of college for about 4 years in well-paid positions.



    I understand ya Melgross, but this forum is good for just expressing ourselves and pointing out blatant nonsense out there that keeps these companies "remain[ing] in business for long".



    Most people on these boards know how businesses operate or at least how their job does contribute to the business environment, sometimes in weird ways that defy logic or stuff you learn in college.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 47 of 98
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    ...The talk in the industry, which has been reported right HERE, and we have discussed right HERE, is that it was scheduled to be released for Christmas, but the delay in the 801.n standard has held that introduction up...



    802.11n is a fracking mess. The frequency flooding of 2.4ghz channels obliterates 802.11b and 802.11g networks around it. Signal range dropoff is nasty. WEP and WPA2 are problematic in terms of throughput. There are a lot of problems with 802.11n and most computer magazines and online websites attest to this.



    The consortium is very much behind, we are looking at realistically mid-2007 for final 802.11n ratification and sorting out the challenges of 802.11n.



    I understand the take on 802.11n holding back iTV, but given most of the installed base of Macs are 802.11g, iTV *MUST* operate well within existing 802.11g home environments.



    Reports here or in other places that put the blame on 802.11n are not being smart. 802.11n is at least 6 months out from being finalised, let alone a standard that doesn't face the tons of issues making pre-N crap at this stage....
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 48 of 98
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    ...At any rate, this continual bashing of these people accomplishes nothing constructive...



    Not necessarily, people reading these forums need to see an alternative voice and decide for themselves. "Dull holiday season" - well, we'll see who's vindicated when Apple announces the Oct-Dec 2006 financials which, I predict, will blow everything previous out of the water.



    As sentient beings it is our nature to question things. We've seen time and time again vague, shifting, conflicting reports by analysts. My bashing of them is an emotional response for the most part, but it does have common sense behind it - we know when someone tries to pull the wool over our eyes, for the most part.



    Like I said, either you take it as "they try to make something plausible from their research", to "having a definite objective on influencing share price" to whatever else conspiracy theories or motives on how they operate.



    I do not know the business models of these companies, specifically how these reports contribute to their revenue stream and profits at the end of the day.



    But we call bullshit when we see it. We could be wrong, but given most people's informed nature on these boards, again, an alternative viewpoint is important.



    Let's not be naive.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 49 of 98
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    In graphic design, marketing, advertising and web design, there are a lot of decisions to be made, and some people like the outcome, some people hate those tall-rectangle flash ads on the right. Yet it pays the bills. I know I've said it too many times, but one last time - these companies are making money and are doing alright as far as we know for now (unless anyone would like to trawl through their annual reports?) ... Let's not be -- let us critically evaluate all information sources.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 50 of 98
    sunilramansunilraman Posts: 8,133member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by SpamSandwich


    Yes, Xbox is #2, and they continue to lose billions on it.



    Side note: the XBOX360 is about $600 AUD - for this I can upgrade to 2GB from 1GB RAM, get a very decent 7900GS 256mb nVidia, and maybe a second hard disk for RAID0 goodness. PC Gaming may yet live, for those that see the Wii as too "low res". FUN? C'mon, brainless first-person shooters are fun. Just leave your brain at the door and take in the eye candy and violence. 8)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 51 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    The companies remain in business for long *because* they have business sense - that is, ethics, common sense and *intelligence* take a back seat. Most of you know what I am talking about. Dilbert does a pretty good job of summing things up.



    Most people on these boards have jobs, and I did work out of college for about 4 years in well-paid positions.



    I understand ya Melgross, but this forum is good for just expressing ourselves and pointing out blatant nonsense out there that keeps these companies "remain[ing] in business for long".



    Most people on these boards know how businesses operate or at least how their job does contribute to the business environment, sometimes in weird ways that defy logic or stuff you learn in college.



    Oh, come on Sunil. Don't join the rat pack.



    They stay in business because they can be depended upon to give the best information that's available at the time. Are they ALWAYS right? Of course not. No one is always right. But they write 50 page reports packed with information, and we only see one of the sub heads. From that we have to judge the value of the entire report.



    Companies that give bad advice, or incorrect information don't stay in business. The companies who buy, or subscribe to these reports can always call to get some bit here and there straightened out. They could have had five pages about the iTv, and all we see is a few lines.



    Why is it that people on internet boards seem to think that they are ethical, and everyone they aren't happy with, is not?



    Don't forget that a lot of what is said about these companies here is blatent nonsense as well.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 52 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    802.11n is a fracking mess. The frequency flooding of 2.4ghz channels obliterates 802.11b and 802.11g networks around it. Signal range dropoff is nasty. WEP and WPA2 are problematic in terms of throughput. There are a lot of problems with 802.11n and most computer magazines and online websites attest to this.



    The consortium is very much behind, we are looking at realistically mid-2007 for final 802.11n ratification and sorting out the challenges of 802.11n.



    I understand the take on 802.11n holding back iTV, but given most of the installed base of Macs are 802.11g, iTV *MUST* operate well within existing 802.11g home environments.



    Reports here or in other places that put the blame on 802.11n are not being smart. 802.11n is at least 6 months out from being finalised, let alone a standard that doesn't face the tons of issues making pre-N crap at this stage....



    Well, you've got most of it.



    It's even possible that 801.11n won't be standardized for another year!



    But, they have now agreed upon all of the major protocalls. It's possible that it might only take a couple of months before it is straightned out enough to actually use reliably. That's all that Apple would need. They've moved before wireless standards were finalized previously, as long as they were close enough, which it isn't right now.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 53 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    Not necessarily, people reading these forums need to see an alternative voice and decide for themselves. "Dull holiday season" - well, we'll see who's vindicated when Apple announces the Oct-Dec 2006 financials which, I predict, will blow everything previous out of the water.



    As sentient beings it is our nature to question things. We've seen time and time again vague, shifting, conflicting reports by analysts. My bashing of them is an emotional response for the most part, but it does have common sense behind it - we know when someone tries to pull the wool over our eyes, for the most part.



    Like I said, either you take it as "they try to make something plausible from their research", to "having a definite objective on influencing share price" to whatever else conspiracy theories or motives on how they operate.



    I do not know the business models of these companies, specifically how these reports contribute to their revenue stream and profits at the end of the day.



    But we call bullshit when we see it. We could be wrong, but given most people's informed nature on these boards, again, an alternative viewpoint is important.



    Let's not be naive.



    People who aren't used to reading these forums and read this bashing aren't going to gain anything useful, because of the vitriol. Most people are smart enough to flick past those posts.



    I may be a lot of things. I've certainly been called some of them here when people aren't happy that I'm not agreeing with what they say.



    But, I'm anything BUT naive.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 54 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    In graphic design, marketing, advertising and web design, there are a lot of decisions to be made, and some people like the outcome, some people hate those tall-rectangle flash ads on the right. Yet it pays the bills. I know I've said it too many times, but one last time - these companies are making money and are doing alright as far as we know for now (unless anyone would like to trawl through their annual reports?) ... Let's not be -- let us critically evaluate all information sources.



    Nothing wrong with critically evaluating. And questioning. That's one of the things I had to do every day in running a business.



    But, that's not what is being done.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 55 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    C'mon, brainless first-person shooters are fun. Just leave your brain at the door and take in the eye candy and violence. 8)



    Well, you're good at that!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 56 of 98
    Exploding zombies/ badguys/ etc. with a well timed burst-shotgun shot is extremely cathartic.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 57 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    Oh, come on Sunil. Don't join the rat pack...They stay in business because they can be depended upon to give the best information that's available at the time. Are they ALWAYS right? Of course not. No one is always right. But they write 50 page reports packed with information, and we only see one of the sub heads. From that we have to judge the value of the entire report...Companies that give bad advice, or incorrect information don't stay in business. The companies who buy, or subscribe to these reports can always call to get some bit here and there straightened out. They could have had five pages about the iTv, and all we see is a few lines...



    Well these analysis companies compile a lot of data for a lot of other companies besides Apple... So I do see your point. But it's a pity when it comes to Apple some people on these boards could write a good 50-pager each week on the State of Apple. If they had the resources and support that the analysis companies have. Gene Munster at PiperJaffray(spelling?) stood out for me to be the most sensible.



    The thing as you have mentioned is the analysis companies are in the business of compiling info, making sets of conclusions and then selling them. I still feel if we had the access and resources that iSuppli and This-Wu's-For-Yu have, a 1337 team of 5 AppleInsider members could really do some outstanding, boutique, yet very excellent Apple reports weekly. Then there's the other side of business - marketing our reports to fund managers, etc. We wouldn't have the marketing/ reputation clout that these analysts have.



    "Companies that give bad advice, or incorrect information don't stay in business"



    The analysis companies only need to reach 75% of decent advice and correct information, or some threshold around there. iSuppli component breakdowns have been pretty good, so I rate that at 90% accuracy. This report though, I rate at 30% accuracy. On the whole, for iSuppli's business though, their reports are good enough, assuming it doesn't fold in the next 6 months. And good enough for good business is good enough in the business world. It's not perfect, I understand.



    Remember that this "rat pack" tends to be idealists, I mean we use Macs to start with!!!!
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 58 of 98
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross


    I may be a lot of things. I've certainly been called some of them here when people aren't happy that I'm not agreeing with what they say...



    I say you at least keep the boards alive to some degree even if it's a pain in the a$$ arguing with you sometimes 8)
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 59 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    Well these analysis companies compile a lot of data for a lot of other companies besides Apple... So I do see your point. But it's a pity when it comes to Apple some people on these boards could write a good 50-pager each week on the State of Apple. If they had the resources and support that the analysis companies have. Gene Munster at PiperJaffray(spelling?) stood out for me to be the most sensible.



    The thing as you have mentioned is the analysis companies are in the business of compiling info, making sets of conclusions and then selling them. I still feel if we had the access and resources that iSuppli and This-Wu's-For-Yu have, a 1337 team of 5 AppleInsider members could really do some outstanding, boutique, yet very excellent Apple reports weekly. Then there's the other side of business - marketing our reports to fund managers, etc. We wouldn't have the marketing/ reputation clout that these analysts have.



    "Companies that give bad advice, or incorrect information don't stay in business"



    The analysis companies only need to reach 75% of decent advice and correct information, or some threshold around there. iSuppli component breakdowns have been pretty good, so I rate that at 90% accuracy. This report though, I rate at 30% accuracy. On the whole, for iSuppli's business though, their reports are good enough, assuming it doesn't fold in the next 6 months. And good enough for good business is good enough in the business world. It's not perfect, I understand.



    Remember that this "rat pack" tends to be idealists, I mean we use Macs to start with!!!!



    IF we had the information sources they have, some here could no doubt write an excellent report. I won't deny that. There some very sharp people hers, us exc,uded, of course. \ Someday some people here might be doing just that! I just hope they will remember what they said about their now loathsome selves, before.



    But, the point is that we DON'T have the info sources. They do.



    But, what we generally do here, is to guess, pray, and keep our fingers crossed that what we want will come true. Sometimes it does, and then we feel as though we knew all along, even though we didn't.



    You know that's true too.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 60 of 98
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,662member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by sunilraman


    I say you at least keep the boards alive to some degree even if it's a pain in the a$$ arguing with you sometimes 8)



    Uh, thanks.



    I suppose.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.