While many analysts don't seem to know what they are talking about half the time, I have never seen an analyst say anything like this. The ones I've read seem to understand what a seasonal product is like, that's why they don't make a big deal over sequential differences, they read year-over-year. Maybe you'll find a hack publication like The Register (or was it the Inquirer?) say something like that. It was one of those two that took a Forrester Research report way out of context and it made Forrester look bad, but they didn't say what most people assumed they said.
Actually, that's why I put analyst in quotes. The stock market analyst (Forrester, Piper-Jaffry, etc), will get it right. But other analysts, let's call them publication/media analysts, don't do their research. And unfortunately, they get all the press. I don't recall who, but there was some report last Fall about the sharp decline in iTS music sales earlier in the year, and it used that to demonstrate that digital music sales was a failure (maybe that's the same article you alluded to?). I think the same report also pointed out the sharp decline in iPod sales in early 2006. They completely failed to recognize the seasonality of iPod sales or the effect of iTunes gift cards, etc. (I think they used credit card transaction data to measure iTunes sales, so gift card usage in the first part of 2006 didn't show up in their numbers.)
Actually, that's why I put analyst in quotes. The stock market analyst (Forrester, Piper-Jaffry, etc), will get it right. But other analysts, let's call them publication/media analysts, don't do their research. And unfortunately, they get all the press. I don't recall who, but there was some report last Fall about the sharp decline in iTS music sales earlier in the year, and it used that to demonstrate that digital music sales was a failure (maybe that's the same article you alluded to?). I think the same report also pointed out the sharp decline in iPod sales in early 2006. They completely failed to recognize the seasonality of iPod sales or the effect of iTunes gift cards, etc. (I think they used credit card transaction data to measure iTunes sales, so gift card usage in the first part of 2006 didn't show up in their numbers.)
Yes, it was The Register, as I noted, completely fubaring Forrester's report.
Why do people always bring that up. What is the big deal with not meeting that self imposed measurement? I mean the Powermacs weren't the fastest--but they certainly weren't slow.
Because it was a problem for Apple. IBM obviously told him that they would indeed have a 3 GHz chip out within a year. Jobs even said that it might be sooner. We were all waiting for it. This was for bragging rights.
He later got pounded for it, some people even calling him a liar, not understanding the difference between a lie, and a statement made in good faith.
If Apple falls far short of the 10 million through 2008 statement, it will happen again, but possibly worse.
It's one thing to say your computers are going to be faster than they turn out to be, but to err severely on the wrong end of a sales prediction for a major new product catagory, is almost marketing suicide.
You might have noticed that MS didn't predict sales numbers for the Zune until AFTER the first two and a half months. Then they predicted 1 million units would be sold to June. That's a VERY low number for 6 and a half months. Safe. If they sell a bit more, they can claim that they exceeded their estimates, and that the Zune was therefore doing exceptionally well. If they made a prediction before they had a good idea of what the sales actually were, they might have believed their own hype, and predicted much more, and then, if sales were much less, been humiliated.
I don't think Jobs wants that to happen with the iPhone. If people think it's a dud, they won't buy it. It might not be salvagable. So I think that Apple really does believe that they will sell AT LEAST 10 million through 2008.
Comments
While many analysts don't seem to know what they are talking about half the time, I have never seen an analyst say anything like this. The ones I've read seem to understand what a seasonal product is like, that's why they don't make a big deal over sequential differences, they read year-over-year. Maybe you'll find a hack publication like The Register (or was it the Inquirer?) say something like that. It was one of those two that took a Forrester Research report way out of context and it made Forrester look bad, but they didn't say what most people assumed they said.
Actually, that's why I put analyst in quotes. The stock market analyst (Forrester, Piper-Jaffry, etc), will get it right. But other analysts, let's call them publication/media analysts, don't do their research. And unfortunately, they get all the press. I don't recall who, but there was some report last Fall about the sharp decline in iTS music sales earlier in the year, and it used that to demonstrate that digital music sales was a failure (maybe that's the same article you alluded to?). I think the same report also pointed out the sharp decline in iPod sales in early 2006. They completely failed to recognize the seasonality of iPod sales or the effect of iTunes gift cards, etc. (I think they used credit card transaction data to measure iTunes sales, so gift card usage in the first part of 2006 didn't show up in their numbers.)
Actually, that's why I put analyst in quotes. The stock market analyst (Forrester, Piper-Jaffry, etc), will get it right. But other analysts, let's call them publication/media analysts, don't do their research. And unfortunately, they get all the press. I don't recall who, but there was some report last Fall about the sharp decline in iTS music sales earlier in the year, and it used that to demonstrate that digital music sales was a failure (maybe that's the same article you alluded to?). I think the same report also pointed out the sharp decline in iPod sales in early 2006. They completely failed to recognize the seasonality of iPod sales or the effect of iTunes gift cards, etc. (I think they used credit card transaction data to measure iTunes sales, so gift card usage in the first part of 2006 didn't show up in their numbers.)
Yes, it was The Register, as I noted, completely fubaring Forrester's report.
In related news, Microsoft shipped its hundredth Zune.
And 99 of those were bought by Mr. Balmer and Mr. Gates.
Here's a good article, with charts.
http://www.blackfriarsinc.com/blog/2...-its-growth-is
Excellent article... hadn't heard of Blackfriars before, but they mentioned they'll now be making contributions on Yahoo finance and stocks pages...
Why do people always bring that up. What is the big deal with not meeting that self imposed measurement? I mean the Powermacs weren't the fastest--but they certainly weren't slow.
Because it was a problem for Apple. IBM obviously told him that they would indeed have a 3 GHz chip out within a year. Jobs even said that it might be sooner. We were all waiting for it. This was for bragging rights.
He later got pounded for it, some people even calling him a liar, not understanding the difference between a lie, and a statement made in good faith.
If Apple falls far short of the 10 million through 2008 statement, it will happen again, but possibly worse.
It's one thing to say your computers are going to be faster than they turn out to be, but to err severely on the wrong end of a sales prediction for a major new product catagory, is almost marketing suicide.
You might have noticed that MS didn't predict sales numbers for the Zune until AFTER the first two and a half months. Then they predicted 1 million units would be sold to June. That's a VERY low number for 6 and a half months. Safe. If they sell a bit more, they can claim that they exceeded their estimates, and that the Zune was therefore doing exceptionally well. If they made a prediction before they had a good idea of what the sales actually were, they might have believed their own hype, and predicted much more, and then, if sales were much less, been humiliated.
I don't think Jobs wants that to happen with the iPhone. If people think it's a dud, they won't buy it. It might not be salvagable. So I think that Apple really does believe that they will sell AT LEAST 10 million through 2008.
And 99 of those were bought by Mr. Balmer and Mr. Gates.
The one hundredth, being the unwanted Xmas present that the guy wanted to sell on eBay.