Apple didn't claim 1% of installed base, their stated goal was 1% of the 1 billion phones they estimated to be sold in 2008, or selling 10 million in 2008.
Quite correct. For the record, I have never stated differently. In fact, I consider myself to have gone to some pains in my two previous posts on this subject to denote the difference between installed base and market share, and I noted that one of the two conflicting views in this thread is claiming a goal of 1% market share - or approximately 12.5 million phones between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008.
Using Munster to back you up is not doing your argument any good. we can speculate what Jobs "really" meant all we want, but when it comes down to it we only have the actual meanings of the words to go by. Refer to my previous example.
Using Munster to back you up is not doing your argument any good. we can speculate what Jobs "really" meant all we want, but when it comes down to it we only have the actual meanings of the words to go by. Refer to my previous example.
I'm not using munster, I'm using a quote from Tim Cook, chief operating officer of apple. You don't think a clarification from him has any value?
And I agree that we have the meanings of words to go by. And it amazes me that people can look at selling 10M in a the calendar year of 2008 and interpret it as selling 10M in the 18 months from mid 2007 to the end of 2008.
I'm not using munster, I'm using a quote from Tim Cook, chief operating officer of apple. You don't think a clarification from him has any value?
I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.
Quote:
And I agree that we have the meanings of words to go by. And it amazes me that people can look at selling 10M in a the calendar year of 2008 and interpret it as selling 10M in the 18 months from mid 2007 to the end of 2008.
Another example: "Your nephew will be 18 months old in 2008." Does that imply that that he will somehow age 50% more than than is physically possible? Of course not.
PS: I don't think selling 10M units within 2008 is unachievable if a 3G model arrives by July.
I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.
While anyone can misspeak at any time, it's hard to imagine a COO going into a quarterly conference call without calculated preparation.
And it's a moot point anyway since the conference call agrees with both of the keynotes. As did the USA today interview. In fact, every direct quote anyone has produced from an apple representative has agreed, the only sources that have claimed "by the end of 2008" were ones that had no quote from apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Another example: "Your nephew will be 18 months old in 2008." Does that imply that that he will somehow age 50% more than than is physically possible? Of course not.
I don't see the validity of that comparison - the birthday thing would be like apple saying "we'll sell our 10 millionth iphone in 2008". But they didn't say that. Companies talk about selling X products in a quarter or a year, why is it so unfathomable that a statement about sales in a year actually means sales in a year?
While anyone can misspeak at any time, it's hard to imagine a COO going into a quarterly conference call without calculated preparation.
And it's a moot point anyway since the conference call agrees with both of the keynotes. As did the USA today interview. In fact, every direct quote anyone has produced from an apple representative has agreed, the only sources that have claimed "by the end of 2008" were ones that had no quote from apple.
I don't see the validity of that comparison - the birthday thing would be like apple saying "we'll sell our 10 millionth iphone in 2008". But they didn't say that. Companies talk about selling X products in a quarter or a year, why is it so unfathomable that a statement about sales in a year actually means sales in a year?
I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!
The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must must look at it objectively!
While I agree that he could have worded it better, I don't consider it ambiguous. Honestly, I think people just made up their mind what he said based on third party misinformation, without actually listening to what he said, and now they're in denial.
You are insisting on an interpretation that makes less logical sense based on what was said at both keynotes, and if he meant what you are stretching his words to mean, he could have simply phrased it that way. But he didn't (no "10 millionth in 2008", "hit the 10M mark in 2008", nor "10M by the end of 2008"). And you're insisting that Jobs made a mistake when he was asked to clarify for USA today. AND you're insisting that the COO also made a mistake when asked to clarify.
With all due respect, that's completely preposterous.
I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!
It is factual. An analyst asked Tim Cook to further explain what Steve Jobs said. Tim Cook said 10 million for calendar year 2008 - that is what the market was told - which is all that matters.
While I agree that he could have worded it better, I don't consider it ambiguous. Honestly, I think people just made up their mind what he said based on third party misinformation, without actually listening to what he said, and now they're in denial.
You are insisting on an interpretation that makes less logical sense based on what was said at both keynotes, and if he meant what you are stretching his words to mean, he could have simply phrased it that way. But he didn't (no "10 millionth in 2008", "hit the 10M mark in 2008", nor "10M by the end of 2008"). And you're insisting that Jobs made a mistake when he was asked to clarify for USA today. AND you're insisting that the COO also made a mistake when asked to clarify.
With all due respect, that's completely preposterous.
Quote:
Originally Posted by the cool gut
It is factual. An analyst asked Tim Cook to further explain what Steve Jobs said. Tim Cook said 10 million for calendar year 2008 - that is what the market was told - which is all that matters.
Where in the keynote is this stated? I'm not going to scour the internets looking for blogs about who said what. If you can supply links to these people making statements that adequately clarify the ambiguous keynote, I'd appreciate that. Thus far, the only sources I have are the keynote itself. Everything else has been quoted text from forum posters, not from the the Apple execs themselves.
Where in the keynote is this stated? I'm not going to scour the internets looking for blogs about who said what. If you can supply links to these people making statements that adequately clarify the ambiguous keynote, I'd appreciate that. Thus far, the only sources I have are the keynote itself. Everything else has been quoted text from forum posters, not from the the Apple execs themselves.
Video of the keynote is linked in this thread.
You've seen the Cook quote from the quarterly report.
The Jobs quote from USA today is also linked in this thread.
I'm not sure if there's a working link to the second keynote where Jobs said essentially the same thing.
I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.
I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!
So you are basically saying that a keynote is a hyping PR event that specifically prepared to be a calculating PR hyping exercise to give out ambiguous information.
That's the definition of a CEO keynote speech --- it's supposed to be a PR hyping event using PR hyping language that gives ambiguous information. Jobs gave out 9 million different metrics --- which gave himself some space to backtrack later on.
Next, are we going to dissect the Clinton "I didn't have sex with that woman" speech?
So you are basically saying that a keynote is a hyping PR event that specifically prepared to be a calculating PR hyping exercise to give out ambiguous information.
That's the definition of a CEO keynote speech --- it's supposed to be a PR hyping event using PR hyping language that gives ambiguous information. Jobs gave out 9 million different metrics --- which gave himself some space to backtrack later on.
As I stated, intended or not, it was ambiguous.
I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.
I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.
It doesn't matter anyway.
Wall Street analysts can use any metrics that they want to --- be it cumulative or calender year. There is only a problem if the numbers come below their original methodology. And the methodology can have all the fine prints in front (Sacconaghi) or hidden in the back (Munster).
Maybe the reason why Apple went all to way up to $200 a share is because Wall Street misunderstood Jobs as saying 10 million iphones in calender 2008 year and it really meant that it's 10 million cumulative sales.
Maybe the reason why Apple went all to way up to $200 a share is because Wall Street misunderstood Jobs as saying 10 million iphones in calender 2008 year and it really meant that it's 10 million cumulative sales.
Except that Jobs actually said 10 million iphones in calendar year 2008...
I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.
Did you not read the thread? Or just not remember anything that was posted?
"Q: Do you still think you'll sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year — or will it be more?
"sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year"
Not ambiguous at all.
"Gene Munster - Piper Jaffray
Good afternoon. First in terms of the iPhone, Steve Jobs talked about 10 million units. Is that for fiscal '08 or calendar '08? Where did that number come from? Maybe just a little bit of logic behind that number.
Tim Cook
Gene, calendar year '08 is what Steve referenced in his keynote. The point that he made was that the worldwide market for total cell phones is somewhere around 1 billion and our objective of getting 1% of it would yield 10 million units across the calendar year."
Again, not ambiguous at all.
Can we let this ridiculous charade finally drop? We have three quotes from apple cited here (I haven't found a transcript of the other keynote yet). None say 10 million by the end of 2008. Seriously, continuing to insist that every statement apple has made about this is either ambiguous, or a statement made in error, just comes off as delusional.
If you want to believe that apple meant something other than what they have repeatedly said, you can go ahead and believe that. I guess you think that you are more qualified to turn Steve Jobs' thoughts into words than he is. But making that claim on a message board with zero evidence to support it, and expecting others to believe it, just seems kind of sad at this point.
"sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year"
Not ambiguous at all.
"Gene Munster - Piper Jaffray
Good afternoon. First in terms of the iPhone, Steve Jobs talked about 10 million units. Is that for fiscal '08 or calendar '08? Where did that number come from? Maybe just a little bit of logic behind that number.
Tim Cook
Gene, calendar year '08 is what Steve referenced in his keynote. The point that he made was that the worldwide market for total cell phones is somewhere around 1 billion and our objective of getting 1% of it would yield 10 million units across the calendar year."
Again, not ambiguous at all.
Can we let this ridiculous charade finally drop? We have three quotes from apple cited here (I haven't found a transcript of the other keynote yet). None say 10 million by the end of 2008. Seriously, continuing to insist that every statement apple has made about this is either ambiguous, or a statement made in error, just comes off as delusional.
If you want to believe that apple meant something other than what they have repeatedly said, you can go ahead and believe that. I guess you think that you are more qualified to turn Steve Jobs' thoughts into words than he is. But making that claim on a message board with zero evidence to support it, and expecting others to believe it, just seems kind of sad at this point.
You may very well be correct, but you need proof to back up your claims. You haven't provided one link that backs up your claims.
First, the apple guys must have screwed up and misspoke, then there was no link so those quotes must have been fabricated...so what's your next excuse to invalidate direct quotes from the apple CEO and COO? Please, I'm dying to hear it.
Comments
Apple didn't claim 1% of installed base, their stated goal was 1% of the 1 billion phones they estimated to be sold in 2008, or selling 10 million in 2008.
Quite correct. For the record, I have never stated differently. In fact, I consider myself to have gone to some pains in my two previous posts on this subject to denote the difference between installed base and market share, and I noted that one of the two conflicting views in this thread is claiming a goal of 1% market share - or approximately 12.5 million phones between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008.
Except that the 1 billion cell phone numbers come from 2006.
Last year, the worldwide market for cell phone grew to 1.1 billion units. And this year, it will be about 1.2 to 1.25 billion units.
Yeah. So Jobs didn't do a good job of predicting 2008 totals at the beginning of 2007. So?
Yeah. So Jobs didn't do a good job of predicting 2008 totals at the beginning of 2007. So?
So?
Every company in the world has been using those "growth" numbers.
Nokia's share price would have tanked if they come out and say that the mobile phone market for the whole world would have ZERO growth for 2 years.
Using Munster to back you up is not doing your argument any good. we can speculate what Jobs "really" meant all we want, but when it comes down to it we only have the actual meanings of the words to go by. Refer to my previous example.
Minderbinder,
Using Munster to back you up is not doing your argument any good. we can speculate what Jobs "really" meant all we want, but when it comes down to it we only have the actual meanings of the words to go by. Refer to my previous example.
I'm not using munster, I'm using a quote from Tim Cook, chief operating officer of apple. You don't think a clarification from him has any value?
And I agree that we have the meanings of words to go by. And it amazes me that people can look at selling 10M in a the calendar year of 2008 and interpret it as selling 10M in the 18 months from mid 2007 to the end of 2008.
I'm not using munster, I'm using a quote from Tim Cook, chief operating officer of apple. You don't think a clarification from him has any value?
I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.
And I agree that we have the meanings of words to go by. And it amazes me that people can look at selling 10M in a the calendar year of 2008 and interpret it as selling 10M in the 18 months from mid 2007 to the end of 2008.
Another example: "Your nephew will be 18 months old in 2008." Does that imply that that he will somehow age 50% more than than is physically possible? Of course not.
PS: I don't think selling 10M units within 2008 is unachievable if a 3G model arrives by July.
I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.
While anyone can misspeak at any time, it's hard to imagine a COO going into a quarterly conference call without calculated preparation.
And it's a moot point anyway since the conference call agrees with both of the keynotes. As did the USA today interview. In fact, every direct quote anyone has produced from an apple representative has agreed, the only sources that have claimed "by the end of 2008" were ones that had no quote from apple.
Another example: "Your nephew will be 18 months old in 2008." Does that imply that that he will somehow age 50% more than than is physically possible? Of course not.
I don't see the validity of that comparison - the birthday thing would be like apple saying "we'll sell our 10 millionth iphone in 2008". But they didn't say that. Companies talk about selling X products in a quarter or a year, why is it so unfathomable that a statement about sales in a year actually means sales in a year?
While anyone can misspeak at any time, it's hard to imagine a COO going into a quarterly conference call without calculated preparation.
And it's a moot point anyway since the conference call agrees with both of the keynotes. As did the USA today interview. In fact, every direct quote anyone has produced from an apple representative has agreed, the only sources that have claimed "by the end of 2008" were ones that had no quote from apple.
I don't see the validity of that comparison - the birthday thing would be like apple saying "we'll sell our 10 millionth iphone in 2008". But they didn't say that. Companies talk about selling X products in a quarter or a year, why is it so unfathomable that a statement about sales in a year actually means sales in a year?
I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!
The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must must look at it objectively!
While I agree that he could have worded it better, I don't consider it ambiguous. Honestly, I think people just made up their mind what he said based on third party misinformation, without actually listening to what he said, and now they're in denial.
You are insisting on an interpretation that makes less logical sense based on what was said at both keynotes, and if he meant what you are stretching his words to mean, he could have simply phrased it that way. But he didn't (no "10 millionth in 2008", "hit the 10M mark in 2008", nor "10M by the end of 2008"). And you're insisting that Jobs made a mistake when he was asked to clarify for USA today. AND you're insisting that the COO also made a mistake when asked to clarify.
With all due respect, that's completely preposterous.
Yeah. So Jobs didn't do a good job of predicting 2008 totals at the beginning of 2007. So?
I'm pretty sure he knew the market would be bigger. I think he wanted to keep the numbers as simple as possible.
I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!
It is factual. An analyst asked Tim Cook to further explain what Steve Jobs said. Tim Cook said 10 million for calendar year 2008 - that is what the market was told - which is all that matters.
While I agree that he could have worded it better, I don't consider it ambiguous. Honestly, I think people just made up their mind what he said based on third party misinformation, without actually listening to what he said, and now they're in denial.
You are insisting on an interpretation that makes less logical sense based on what was said at both keynotes, and if he meant what you are stretching his words to mean, he could have simply phrased it that way. But he didn't (no "10 millionth in 2008", "hit the 10M mark in 2008", nor "10M by the end of 2008"). And you're insisting that Jobs made a mistake when he was asked to clarify for USA today. AND you're insisting that the COO also made a mistake when asked to clarify.
With all due respect, that's completely preposterous.
It is factual. An analyst asked Tim Cook to further explain what Steve Jobs said. Tim Cook said 10 million for calendar year 2008 - that is what the market was told - which is all that matters.
Where in the keynote is this stated? I'm not going to scour the internets looking for blogs about who said what. If you can supply links to these people making statements that adequately clarify the ambiguous keynote, I'd appreciate that. Thus far, the only sources I have are the keynote itself. Everything else has been quoted text from forum posters, not from the the Apple execs themselves.
Where in the keynote is this stated? I'm not going to scour the internets looking for blogs about who said what. If you can supply links to these people making statements that adequately clarify the ambiguous keynote, I'd appreciate that. Thus far, the only sources I have are the keynote itself. Everything else has been quoted text from forum posters, not from the the Apple execs themselves.
Video of the keynote is linked in this thread.
You've seen the Cook quote from the quarterly report.
The Jobs quote from USA today is also linked in this thread.
I'm not sure if there's a working link to the second keynote where Jobs said essentially the same thing.
I'm going by the keynote, which took calculated preparation, not by an interview where someone could have misspoke, like the Sun CEO.
I'm not saying that your assumption isn't right, but it's also not factual. The wording choosen in the keynote is ambiguous! You can't just choose the definition that satisfies your desires, you must look at it objectively!
So you are basically saying that a keynote is a hyping PR event that specifically prepared to be a calculating PR hyping exercise to give out ambiguous information.
That's the definition of a CEO keynote speech --- it's supposed to be a PR hyping event using PR hyping language that gives ambiguous information. Jobs gave out 9 million different metrics --- which gave himself some space to backtrack later on.
Next, are we going to dissect the Clinton "I didn't have sex with that woman" speech?
So you are basically saying that a keynote is a hyping PR event that specifically prepared to be a calculating PR hyping exercise to give out ambiguous information.
That's the definition of a CEO keynote speech --- it's supposed to be a PR hyping event using PR hyping language that gives ambiguous information. Jobs gave out 9 million different metrics --- which gave himself some space to backtrack later on.
As I stated, intended or not, it was ambiguous.
I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.
As I stated, intended or not, it was ambiguous.
I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.
It doesn't matter anyway.
Wall Street analysts can use any metrics that they want to --- be it cumulative or calender year. There is only a problem if the numbers come below their original methodology. And the methodology can have all the fine prints in front (Sacconaghi) or hidden in the back (Munster).
Maybe the reason why Apple went all to way up to $200 a share is because Wall Street misunderstood Jobs as saying 10 million iphones in calender 2008 year and it really meant that it's 10 million cumulative sales.
Maybe the reason why Apple went all to way up to $200 a share is because Wall Street misunderstood Jobs as saying 10 million iphones in calender 2008 year and it really meant that it's 10 million cumulative sales.
Except that Jobs actually said 10 million iphones in calendar year 2008...
As I stated, intended or not, it was ambiguous.
I am still waiting to be supplied links that are less ambiguous. All I've received in return are clues to a supposed truth via a scavenger hunt. Something I'm not inclined to do.
Did you not read the thread? Or just not remember anything that was posted?
"Q: Do you still think you'll sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year — or will it be more?
Jobs: We think 10 million is a realistic goal."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm
"sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year"
Not ambiguous at all.
"Gene Munster - Piper Jaffray
Good afternoon. First in terms of the iPhone, Steve Jobs talked about 10 million units. Is that for fiscal '08 or calendar '08? Where did that number come from? Maybe just a little bit of logic behind that number.
Tim Cook
Gene, calendar year '08 is what Steve referenced in his keynote. The point that he made was that the worldwide market for total cell phones is somewhere around 1 billion and our objective of getting 1% of it would yield 10 million units across the calendar year."
Again, not ambiguous at all.
Can we let this ridiculous charade finally drop? We have three quotes from apple cited here (I haven't found a transcript of the other keynote yet). None say 10 million by the end of 2008. Seriously, continuing to insist that every statement apple has made about this is either ambiguous, or a statement made in error, just comes off as delusional.
If you want to believe that apple meant something other than what they have repeatedly said, you can go ahead and believe that. I guess you think that you are more qualified to turn Steve Jobs' thoughts into words than he is. But making that claim on a message board with zero evidence to support it, and expecting others to believe it, just seems kind of sad at this point.
Did you not read the thread? Or just not remember anything that was posted?
"Q: Do you still think you'll sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year ? or will it be more?
Jobs: We think 10 million is a realistic goal."
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm
"sell 10 million iPhones in the first calendar year"
Not ambiguous at all.
"Gene Munster - Piper Jaffray
Good afternoon. First in terms of the iPhone, Steve Jobs talked about 10 million units. Is that for fiscal '08 or calendar '08? Where did that number come from? Maybe just a little bit of logic behind that number.
Tim Cook
Gene, calendar year '08 is what Steve referenced in his keynote. The point that he made was that the worldwide market for total cell phones is somewhere around 1 billion and our objective of getting 1% of it would yield 10 million units across the calendar year."
Again, not ambiguous at all.
Can we let this ridiculous charade finally drop? We have three quotes from apple cited here (I haven't found a transcript of the other keynote yet). None say 10 million by the end of 2008. Seriously, continuing to insist that every statement apple has made about this is either ambiguous, or a statement made in error, just comes off as delusional.
If you want to believe that apple meant something other than what they have repeatedly said, you can go ahead and believe that. I guess you think that you are more qualified to turn Steve Jobs' thoughts into words than he is. But making that claim on a message board with zero evidence to support it, and expecting others to believe it, just seems kind of sad at this point.
You may very well be correct, but you need proof to back up your claims. You haven't provided one link that backs up your claims.
You may very well be correct, but you need proof to back up your claims. You haven't provided one link that backs up your claims.
Already posted in this thread, but since you are either unwilling or forgetful...
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/techinv...enson-qa_N.htm
http://seekingalpha.com/article/2443...all-transcript
First, the apple guys must have screwed up and misspoke, then there was no link so those quotes must have been fabricated...so what's your next excuse to invalidate direct quotes from the apple CEO and COO? Please, I'm dying to hear it.