I think the problem is that it's not compliant with the definition of a recession until two negative quarters have passed. But aren't those two negative quarters part of the recession, or is that completely ignored? Or is it an after-the-fact determination applied to those two quarters? So "now" might be part of a recession, we won't know absolutely sure until October. All this is sounding like Schrödinger's cat.
All this is a bit of an aside discussion. Even with a weak quarter, Apple's remained pretty strong.
BTW, this is not the thread for it, but I was right about Blu Ray not growing quickly, despite HD-DVD's demise.
Not really. While it's true that the sales of standalone players isn't doing too well right now, the sales of the PS3 are. It's thought to be 85% of the BD players in use AS BD players.
And the sales of BD movies, so far this year, is more than twice that of all last year.
I really didn't consider the stock as part of it. Apple did sold a lot of stuff last quarter and make pretty good money in it, despite stock holder pessimism. Most of the discussion was about whether or not Apple would sell a lot of iPhones, not how well the stock does.
Not really. While it's true that the sales of standalone players isn't doing too well right now, the sales of the PS3 are. It's thought to be 85% of the BD players in use AS BD players.
And the sales of BD movies, so far this year, is more than twice that of all last year.
And 50 is twice as much as 25. Mel, them right there are what we call 'weasel' words.
Yes, slowly backwards at 0.6% positive growth... uh huh....
So before, it was .8%, now it's .6%? Good going.
Quote:
Ya think? I definitely do not "agree" that we may be in a recession now. There is zero chance that we're in a recession now, since growth last quarter was positive. After two quarters of negative growth we will be (if that happens) but "now" will never be part of a recession.
Is that how you classify a recession? No wonder you're talking past me. Every day's market change indicates recession or growth in the economy, I had no idea. Is that what they teach you in the WSJ? I think you're reading the wrong sections!
Anyway you're a bitter guy, I'm done arguing these semantics. The official growth numbers show that you're wrong, but you've convinced yourself of what you believe, and no external information will change that, so why waste everyone's time? This isn't an economics forum anyway, we were talking about Apple's prospects for the iPhone, and your opinions on that are equally fixed (and equally contrary to reality, by the way).
Screw the official numbers. They aren't thought to be right. They rarely are.
I'm not the bitter one here. I'm just being honest.
It took ten years for DVD to surpass sales of VHS.
What do you expect?
If a format has more than twice the sales in three months than it had in the twelve months before that, you don't think it's beginning to catch on?
I suppose that Apple's 30% and now possibly 50% increase in sales from a very small base means nothing either?
We may see 200%, or greater, sales gains in BD movies this year. That means nothing?
How about hard figures comparing the "installed user base" of DVD players vs. Blu-Ray? I'm completely unconvinced that consumers will trot out in significant numbers to buy an incrementally improved product until (A) Blue-Ray discs are priced competitively versus DVD discs and (B) the Blu-Ray players drop to the $200 range.
Not really. While it's true that the sales of standalone players isn't doing too well right now, the sales of the PS3 are. It's thought to be 85% of the BD players in use AS BD players.
You mean PS3s used as BD players? I've not seen anything that said it exceeded 25%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
It took ten years for DVD to surpass sales of VHS.
If you mean movie sales, I think it was about 5-6 years, I'm pretty sure it was around 2002 when that happened. If you mean player installed base, that didn't happen until 2006.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
How about hard figures comparing the "installed user base" of DVD players vs. Blu-Ray? I'm completely unconvinced that consumers will trot out in significant numbers to buy an incrementally improved product until (A) Blue-Ray discs are priced competitively versus DVD discs and (B) the Blu-Ray players drop to the $200 range.
I fully agree with you there. Keep in mind that it took a few years for there to be a $200 DVD player. Before then, it was just an enthusiast format, after that, more people took notice. A $200 Blu-Ray player might happen this Christmas, but I think maybe 2009.
How about hard figures comparing the "installed user base" of DVD players vs. Blu-Ray? I'm completely unconvinced that consumers will trot out in significant numbers to buy an incrementally improved product until (A) Blue-Ray discs are priced competitively versus DVD discs and (B) the Blu-Ray players drop to the $200 range.
The ARs Technica gave the 85% number for the PS3. We've seen numbers showing the large increase in sales for them.
Installed numbers for DVd players are irrelevant. they've been around for quite some time. But don't forget that sales are dropping. both for players, and for movies.
I'm not arguing that the $200 price level will make a big difference. It will, for sure. I'm simply saying, that despite the sales of standalone players, the format is growing at a good rate as far as movie sales go, and PS3 sales.
The market will leap once cheaper players come out.
I can't find the actual article I'm looking for, but this gives some idea of current sales, though it doesn't have the actual BD totals from either year. for 2007, HD-DVD sales are mixed in.
You mean PS3s used as BD players? I've not seen anything that said it exceeded 25%.
The Ars article says that. They got it from somewhere else.
Everyone I know who has a PS3 uses it for movies. they all have an HD Tv.
If you mean movie sales, I think it was about 5-6 years, I'm pretty sure it was around 2002 when that happened. If you mean player installed base, that didn't happen until 2006.
I fully agree with you there. Keep in mind that it took a few years for there to be a $200 DVD player. Before then, it was just an enthusiast format, after that, more people took notice. A $200 Blu-Ray player might happen this Christmas, but I think maybe 2009.[/QUOTE]
The ARs Technica gave the 85% number for the PS3. We've seen numbers showing the large increase in sales for them.
Installed numbers for DVd players are irrelevant. they've been around for quite some time. But don't forget that sales are dropping. both for players, and for movies.
I'm not arguing that the $200 price level will make a big difference. It will, for sure. I'm simply saying, that despite the sales of standalone players, the format is growing at a good rate as far as movie sales go, and PS3 sales.
The market will leap once cheaper players come out.
I can't find the actual article I'm looking for, but this gives some idea of current sales, though it doesn't have the actual BD totals from either year. for 2007, HD-DVD sales are mixed in.
The company says it's expects a surge over the next five years.
By Swanni
Washington, D.C. (April 28, 2008) -- Samsung says that worldwide annual sales of Blu-ray players will hit 51 million by the year 2012.
That's according to an article by the Associated Press.
Samsung, which produced both Blu-ray and HD DVD/Blu-ray combo players, says that Blu-ray sales will now soar following Toshiba's decision to exit the HD DVD business.
Jun Dong-soo, chief of Samsung's digital audio-video business, said in a press release that he believes the worldwide market will grow at least 80 percent over the next five years, according to the AP.
The executive forecast that five million Blu-ray standalone players would be sold this year -- three times the amount sold last year.
"Our own Blu-ray product sales should increase to ($402 million) this year and surpass ($1 billion) by 2010," he stated.
Samsung last week unveiled its fourth-generation Blu-ray player, which is expected to be available for sale this summer.
I meant that by the definition of recession, the current economic slowdown cannot be called a recession. Also by the current numbers the economy has not experienced any negative growth. Although melgross has said that the numbers usually change, we currently do not know if the numbers will change for the better or for the worse. Until negative numbers are actually reported and not just predicted, and for two straight quarters, WE ARE NOT IN A RECESSION.
I never comment on people's typos. We all make them.
On reflection, and since you're being so snarky and defensive about this, I feel it is my grave responsibility to point out that it wasn't a typo, but a goof.
A typo is a finger-slip, typing 'teh' rather than 'the'. Inserting an apostrophe in 'memos' is an error. You obviously meant 'memos', but spaced it and typed 'memo's'.
On reflection, and since you're being so snarky and defensive about this, I feel it is my grave responsibility to point out that it wasn't a typo, but a goof.
A typo is a finger-slip, typing 'teh' rather than 'the'. Inserting an apostrophe in 'memos' is an error. You obviously meant 'memos', but spaced it and typed 'memos'.
And yeah, we all make those mistakes as well...
So it's not possible to type an extra character by mistake without it being an error, it's only possible to type a character ahead of another when typing quickly? How about omitting punctuation?
Humorously—and I'm sure you thought no one noticed—your first attempt at the quoted text below had a typo. Or is that an error because it's not inverted?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ArthurAscii
Plurals never take apostrophes (it's memos, not memos).
Sorry, force of habit. I've just graded fifty papers and circled the same error four or five times. You'd think English majors would know by now...
So it's not possible to type an extra character by mistake without it being an error, it's only possible to type a character ahead of another when typing quickly? How about omitting punctuation.
Doubtful, since apostrophe errors are common, whereas almost all typos are transposition or substitution errors, not insertion of extra characters. The fact that this particular character happened to be one that is very commonly inserted in error is pretty decisive.
Humorously?and I'm sure you thought no one noticed?your first attempt at the quoted text below had a typo. Or is that an error because it's not inverted?
That was an error, and I just did it again. I guess my 'wiseass', so graciously described by Mel, is congenitally incapable of even transcribing such a gross solecism
I meant that by the definition of recession, the current economic slowdown cannot be called a recession. Also by the current numbers the economy has not experienced any negative growth. Although melgross has said that the numbers usually change, we currently do not know if the numbers will change for the better or for the worse. Until negative numbers are actually reported and not just predicted, and for two straight quarters, WE ARE NOT IN A RECESSION.
Yes I know this is off topic
Did you read my points on this? I (more or less) suggested that it's actually now a state of quantum superposition.
Did you read my points on this? I (more or less) suggested that it's actually now a state of quantum superposition.
Must have missed it. But you are right, technically a recession can not be called a recession until after it has happen. The term recession can only properly be used in hindsight.
My other point though is that no negative growth has actually been reported yet. So we can't even say that this is the beginning of a recession
Comments
I think the problem is that it's not compliant with the definition of a recession until two negative quarters have passed. But aren't those two negative quarters part of the recession, or is that completely ignored? Or is it an after-the-fact determination applied to those two quarters? So "now" might be part of a recession, we won't know absolutely sure until October. All this is sounding like Schrödinger's cat.
All this is a bit of an aside discussion. Even with a weak quarter, Apple's remained pretty strong.
Today notwithstanding...
... Schrödinger's cat.
Whew, thats gettin' pretty friggin deep!!!
Even for a patient saint like yourself! Amazing!
I never comment on people's typos. We all make them.
BTW, this is not the thread for it, but I was right about Blu Ray not growing quickly, despite HD-DVD's demise.
Not really. While it's true that the sales of standalone players isn't doing too well right now, the sales of the PS3 are. It's thought to be 85% of the BD players in use AS BD players.
And the sales of BD movies, so far this year, is more than twice that of all last year.
Today notwithstanding...
I really didn't consider the stock as part of it. Apple did sold a lot of stuff last quarter and make pretty good money in it, despite stock holder pessimism. Most of the discussion was about whether or not Apple would sell a lot of iPhones, not how well the stock does.
Not really. While it's true that the sales of standalone players isn't doing too well right now, the sales of the PS3 are. It's thought to be 85% of the BD players in use AS BD players.
And the sales of BD movies, so far this year, is more than twice that of all last year.
And 50 is twice as much as 25.
Yes, slowly backwards at 0.6% positive growth... uh huh....
So before, it was .8%, now it's .6%? Good going.
Ya think? I definitely do not "agree" that we may be in a recession now. There is zero chance that we're in a recession now, since growth last quarter was positive. After two quarters of negative growth we will be (if that happens) but "now" will never be part of a recession.
Is that how you classify a recession? No wonder you're talking past me. Every day's market change indicates recession or growth in the economy, I had no idea. Is that what they teach you in the WSJ? I think you're reading the wrong sections!
Anyway you're a bitter guy, I'm done arguing these semantics. The official growth numbers show that you're wrong, but you've convinced yourself of what you believe, and no external information will change that, so why waste everyone's time? This isn't an economics forum anyway, we were talking about Apple's prospects for the iPhone, and your opinions on that are equally fixed (and equally contrary to reality, by the way).
Screw the official numbers. They aren't thought to be right. They rarely are.
I'm not the bitter one here. I'm just being honest.
And 50 is twice as much as 25.
It took ten years for DVD to surpass sales of VHS.
What do you expect?
If a format has more than twice the sales in three months than it had in the twelve months before that, you don't think it's beginning to catch on?
I suppose that Apple's 30% and now possibly 50% increase in sales from a very small base means nothing either?
We may see 200%, or greater, sales gains in BD movies this year. That means nothing?
It took ten years for DVD to surpass sales of VHS.
What do you expect?
If a format has more than twice the sales in three months than it had in the twelve months before that, you don't think it's beginning to catch on?
I suppose that Apple's 30% and now possibly 50% increase in sales from a very small base means nothing either?
We may see 200%, or greater, sales gains in BD movies this year. That means nothing?
How about hard figures comparing the "installed user base" of DVD players vs. Blu-Ray? I'm completely unconvinced that consumers will trot out in significant numbers to buy an incrementally improved product until (A) Blue-Ray discs are priced competitively versus DVD discs and (B) the Blu-Ray players drop to the $200 range.
Not really. While it's true that the sales of standalone players isn't doing too well right now, the sales of the PS3 are. It's thought to be 85% of the BD players in use AS BD players.
You mean PS3s used as BD players? I've not seen anything that said it exceeded 25%.
It took ten years for DVD to surpass sales of VHS.
If you mean movie sales, I think it was about 5-6 years, I'm pretty sure it was around 2002 when that happened. If you mean player installed base, that didn't happen until 2006.
How about hard figures comparing the "installed user base" of DVD players vs. Blu-Ray? I'm completely unconvinced that consumers will trot out in significant numbers to buy an incrementally improved product until (A) Blue-Ray discs are priced competitively versus DVD discs and (B) the Blu-Ray players drop to the $200 range.
I fully agree with you there. Keep in mind that it took a few years for there to be a $200 DVD player. Before then, it was just an enthusiast format, after that, more people took notice. A $200 Blu-Ray player might happen this Christmas, but I think maybe 2009.
How about hard figures comparing the "installed user base" of DVD players vs. Blu-Ray? I'm completely unconvinced that consumers will trot out in significant numbers to buy an incrementally improved product until (A) Blue-Ray discs are priced competitively versus DVD discs and (B) the Blu-Ray players drop to the $200 range.
The ARs Technica gave the 85% number for the PS3. We've seen numbers showing the large increase in sales for them.
Installed numbers for DVd players are irrelevant. they've been around for quite some time. But don't forget that sales are dropping. both for players, and for movies.
I'm not arguing that the $200 price level will make a big difference. It will, for sure. I'm simply saying, that despite the sales of standalone players, the format is growing at a good rate as far as movie sales go, and PS3 sales.
The market will leap once cheaper players come out.
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/16068/...Top-9-Million/
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13771.cfm
I can't find the actual article I'm looking for, but this gives some idea of current sales, though it doesn't have the actual BD totals from either year. for 2007, HD-DVD sales are mixed in.
You mean PS3s used as BD players? I've not seen anything that said it exceeded 25%.
The Ars article says that. They got it from somewhere else.
Everyone I know who has a PS3 uses it for movies. they all have an HD Tv.
If you mean movie sales, I think it was about 5-6 years, I'm pretty sure it was around 2002 when that happened. If you mean player installed base, that didn't happen until 2006.
I fully agree with you there. Keep in mind that it took a few years for there to be a $200 DVD player. Before then, it was just an enthusiast format, after that, more people took notice. A $200 Blu-Ray player might happen this Christmas, but I think maybe 2009.[/QUOTE]
The ARs Technica gave the 85% number for the PS3. We've seen numbers showing the large increase in sales for them.
Installed numbers for DVd players are irrelevant. they've been around for quite some time. But don't forget that sales are dropping. both for players, and for movies.
I'm not arguing that the $200 price level will make a big difference. It will, for sure. I'm simply saying, that despite the sales of standalone players, the format is growing at a good rate as far as movie sales go, and PS3 sales.
The market will leap once cheaper players come out.
http://news.teamxbox.com/xbox/16068/...Top-9-Million/
http://www.afterdawn.com/news/archive/13771.cfm
I can't find the actual article I'm looking for, but this gives some idea of current sales, though it doesn't have the actual BD totals from either year. for 2007, HD-DVD sales are mixed in.
Here's another interesting quote:
Samsung: Blu-ray Sales Will Explode
Monday, April 28, 2008, 04:21 AM
Samsung: Blu-ray Sales Will Explode
The company says it's expects a surge over the next five years.
By Swanni
Washington, D.C. (April 28, 2008) -- Samsung says that worldwide annual sales of Blu-ray players will hit 51 million by the year 2012.
That's according to an article by the Associated Press.
Samsung, which produced both Blu-ray and HD DVD/Blu-ray combo players, says that Blu-ray sales will now soar following Toshiba's decision to exit the HD DVD business.
Jun Dong-soo, chief of Samsung's digital audio-video business, said in a press release that he believes the worldwide market will grow at least 80 percent over the next five years, according to the AP.
The executive forecast that five million Blu-ray standalone players would be sold this year -- three times the amount sold last year.
"Our own Blu-ray product sales should increase to ($402 million) this year and surpass ($1 billion) by 2010," he stated.
Samsung last week unveiled its fourth-generation Blu-ray player, which is expected to be available for sale this summer.
The Ars article says that. They got it from somewhere else.
The Ars article is my new and powerful god, simply because of one line within it:
...and enthusiasm for the hi-def format appears as lukewarm as the applause at an REO Speedwagon concert.
Now that's good writing!
.
Yes I know this is off topic
I never comment on people's typos. We all make them.
On reflection, and since you're being so snarky and defensive about this, I feel it is my grave responsibility to point out that it wasn't a typo, but a goof.
A typo is a finger-slip, typing 'teh' rather than 'the'. Inserting an apostrophe in 'memos' is an error. You obviously meant 'memos', but spaced it and typed 'memo's'.
And yeah, we all make those mistakes as well...
On reflection, and since you're being so snarky and defensive about this, I feel it is my grave responsibility to point out that it wasn't a typo, but a goof.
A typo is a finger-slip, typing 'teh' rather than 'the'. Inserting an apostrophe in 'memos' is an error. You obviously meant 'memos', but spaced it and typed 'memos'.
And yeah, we all make those mistakes as well...
So it's not possible to type an extra character by mistake without it being an error, it's only possible to type a character ahead of another when typing quickly? How about omitting punctuation?
Humorously—and I'm sure you thought no one noticed—your first attempt at the quoted text below had a typo. Or is that an error because it's not inverted?
Plurals never take apostrophes (it's memos, not memos).
Sorry, force of habit. I've just graded fifty papers and circled the same error four or five times. You'd think English majors would know by now...
So it's not possible to type an extra character by mistake without it being an error, it's only possible to type a character ahead of another when typing quickly? How about omitting punctuation.
Doubtful, since apostrophe errors are common, whereas almost all typos are transposition or substitution errors, not insertion of extra characters. The fact that this particular character happened to be one that is very commonly inserted in error is pretty decisive.
Humorously?and I'm sure you thought no one noticed?your first attempt at the quoted text below had a typo. Or is that an error because it's not inverted?
That was an error, and I just did it again. I guess my 'wiseass', so graciously described by Mel, is congenitally incapable of even transcribing such a gross solecism
I meant that by the definition of recession, the current economic slowdown cannot be called a recession. Also by the current numbers the economy has not experienced any negative growth. Although melgross has said that the numbers usually change, we currently do not know if the numbers will change for the better or for the worse. Until negative numbers are actually reported and not just predicted, and for two straight quarters, WE ARE NOT IN A RECESSION.
Yes I know this is off topic
Did you read my points on this? I (more or less) suggested that it's actually now a state of quantum superposition.
Did you read my points on this? I (more or less) suggested that it's actually now a state of quantum superposition.
Must have missed it. But you are right, technically a recession can not be called a recession until after it has happen. The term recession can only properly be used in hindsight.
My other point though is that no negative growth has actually been reported yet. So we can't even say that this is the beginning of a recession