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.
Your smarmy attitude doesn't help your argument. This is the first time you have posted an actual working link to my response. Your previous post was still just quotations without validation and a fake link. I'm unwilling to hunt through a 200-reply thread to locate a couple links to external sites when you should be supplying them if you have any desire to win your argument. You obviously know the sites, while I don't, so it should be a very simple Google search for you to add them. Thank you for finally supplying me links.
Gene: "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: "Gene, calendar year '08 is what Steve referenced in his keynote"
The confusion there was the the year ending December 31st, 2008 (calendar) or the year ending Spetembet 31st, 2007 (fiscal). This has nothing to do with Apple selling x-many units only within calendar year 2008.
The next part, which I don't recall you using in your argument, is the only part that could be construed to validate your point.
"Tim: 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."
Across means "from one side to the other of something" so this implies, along with the earlier calcification of the calender year over the fiscal year, that they Tim Cook is referring to calendar year 2008. I don't recall you using this preposition as proof, but if you did then your argument has validity.
I'm unwilling to hunt through a 200-reply thread to locate a couple links to external sites when you should be supplying them if you have any desire to win your argument.
This is what we call "willful blindness", n'est-ce pas?
This is what we call "willful blindness", n'est-ce pas?
That would be if I ignored replies that had sufficient info to make an informed decision. Defending your argument with hearsay in lieu of citations is not a smart move.
I had to ask several times before it was finally given. Even then the highlighted data did not support the argument, it was only when I read further that I found data that did support it.
Though I take full responsibility for the ineffectual dissension as it's easy to forget that the forum posters on are often young, inexperienced and uneducated. I should have been more clear as to why your argument was incorrect as stated and how supplying proof and sources is important. Too often I am reading these forums while at work and switching between conversing with professionals and laymen isn't always achievable.
I agree with much of your other premise but totally disagree with this annotated statement above. which technical advantage are we talking about? Touch screens? Nokia, and SE have been there years before. EDGE? Been there done, that about 3 years ago. 2 Megapixel cameras? The list continues. What Apple did was to innovate and implement on and older technology, i.e the touch screen and they did this quite well. The iPhone is far from ground breaking but the implementation is quite evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.
I think the advantage is Apple's control over both the operating system and hardware. Most companies will have a hard time matching that.
From the start, I've interpreted Job's remarks as: a total of 10 million will have been sold by the end of 2008, that the 10 million sales mark will be reached "in" 2008.
But apparently, there are multiple ways to interpret those remarks. Even apple employees aren't all on the same page it seems.
Communication isn't an exact science, so ambiguity can occur even if the speaker is trying to be precise. Speakers don't get to entirely define the meaning of their own statements either. The interpretation of the listeners equally valid. While it isn't pleasing to the technically minded, communication is a collaborative effort in which no one person gets to define the true meaning of someone's writings or remarks.
Say what you want about the iPhone, it may not be the most feature rich phone and have all the features that people hardly use on their phone but it will be a sucess. Right now it's probably the most talked about phone in the world and it will only get more popular. I expect it to be as big as the ipod for Apple if not bigger. We are seeing the phone everywhere from the oscars to Jay Leno to David Letterman.
Apple is "really confident" it will sell 10m iPhones by the handset's first birthday, the company's COO, Tim Cook, said yesterday.
That's actually pretty fucking impressive, if they can sell 10 million in the first year, they will should completely smash 10 million for calendar 2008.
all this discussion is petty and irrelevant, SJ this year last year, calendar year, who cares, people want to see 10million, whatever year. so do people wait till 10 million or looking for a path to 12-14 million it will succeed this(10 mil) by 12/31 and the analysts and stock buyers want GROWTH, BIG GROWTH. that's what will push up the stock price. but why all the strain on a product line that is 3% of their total sales/revenue. i'd rather see big growth in something that is a large part of revenue. stock price analysts i thought looked at revenue and profit growth. i guess stock buyers want what....? i see growth with a 3g and widen the product line, that's growth in all smart phone segments, rim has how many products and product focused markets. the big thing will be apple's effort in the enterprise....i guess we need to see growth in markets all smartphone markets. imo at least that's what will make me buy more stock AND an iphone.
This is the first time you have posted an actual working link to my response.
The "fake" quote didn't work because I copied the text and not the link itself. If it didn't work for you, you can just point that out so the link can be corrected, instead of making accusations.
There was an event yesterday in which Tim Cook reiterated yet again the "in 2008" statement.
The general question about excess iPhone inventory begins around 23:10.
His quote (25:25):
We are right on track to where we want to be. We are...the...the 4 million units that we've sold over the first 200 days gives us confidence that we can achieve 10 million units in 2008. I know we've said that before; you've heard us say that before, but I want to make that perfectly clear--that we're--we believe that we are right on track for that.
From the start, I've interpreted Job's remarks as: a total of 10 million will have been sold by the end of 2008, that the 10 million sales mark will be reached "in" 2008.
But apparently, there are multiple ways to interpret those remarks. Even apple employees aren't all on the same page it seems.
Why would you say that? When has an apple employee ever made a statement contradicting "sell 10 million in 2008"? Has someone actually said "10M by the end of 2008" or "sell the 10Mth in 2008"?
Maybe if you just look at one of those remarks, there's some room for misinterpretation. But I don't think that there's any ambiguity when you look at all of them, with the clarifications I don't see any reason for misinterpretation beyond reading the wrong info somewhere and refusing to accept that it is wrong regardless of evidence.
"Apple is "really confident" it will sell 10m iPhones by the handset's first birthday, the company's COO, Tim Cook, said yesterday."
That's actually pretty fucking impressive, if they can sell 10 million in the first year, they will should completely smash 10 million for calendar 2008.
Actually, that was a mistake on their part, they've changed it. But unfortunately when they changed it, they didn't correct it, they just changed it to DIFFERENT wrong info...
Comments
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.
Your smarmy attitude doesn't help your argument. This is the first time you have posted an actual working link to my response. Your previous post was still just quotations without validation and a fake link. I'm unwilling to hunt through a 200-reply thread to locate a couple links to external sites when you should be supplying them if you have any desire to win your argument. You obviously know the sites, while I don't, so it should be a very simple Google search for you to add them. Thank you for finally supplying me links.The confusion there was the the year ending December 31st, 2008 (calendar) or the year ending Spetembet 31st, 2007 (fiscal). This has nothing to do with Apple selling x-many units only within calendar year 2008.
The next part, which I don't recall you using in your argument, is the only part that could be construed to validate your point.Across means "from one side to the other of something" so this implies, along with the earlier calcification of the calender year over the fiscal year, that they Tim Cook is referring to calendar year 2008. I don't recall you using this preposition as proof, but if you did then your argument has validity.
I'm unwilling to hunt through a 200-reply thread to locate a couple links to external sites when you should be supplying them if you have any desire to win your argument.
This is what we call "willful blindness", n'est-ce pas?
This is what we call "willful blindness", n'est-ce pas?
YEAH - at first I thought he mis-undertood. It's pretty clear now he's just an idiot.
This is what we call "willful blindness", n'est-ce pas?
That would be if I ignored replies that had sufficient info to make an informed decision. Defending your argument with hearsay in lieu of citations is not a smart move.
I had to ask several times before it was finally given. Even then the highlighted data did not support the argument, it was only when I read further that I found data that did support it.
Though I take full responsibility for the ineffectual dissension as it's easy to forget that the forum posters on are often young, inexperienced and uneducated. I should have been more clear as to why your argument was incorrect as stated and how supplying proof and sources is important. Too often I am reading these forums while at work and switching between conversing with professionals and laymen isn't always achievable.
Though I take full responsibility for the ineffectual dissension ...
Speaking of Laymen - it's effectual dissension. I know the dashboard thesaurus is fun to play with, but still, it's not going to help you look smart.
I agree with much of your other premise but totally disagree with this annotated statement above. which technical advantage are we talking about? Touch screens? Nokia, and SE have been there years before. EDGE? Been there done, that about 3 years ago. 2 Megapixel cameras? The list continues. What Apple did was to innovate and implement on and older technology, i.e the touch screen and they did this quite well. The iPhone is far from ground breaking but the implementation is quite evolutionary as opposed to revolutionary.
I think the advantage is Apple's control over both the operating system and hardware. Most companies will have a hard time matching that.
But apparently, there are multiple ways to interpret those remarks. Even apple employees aren't all on the same page it seems.
Communication isn't an exact science, so ambiguity can occur even if the speaker is trying to be precise. Speakers don't get to entirely define the meaning of their own statements either. The interpretation of the listeners equally valid. While it isn't pleasing to the technically minded, communication is a collaborative effort in which no one person gets to define the true meaning of someone's writings or remarks.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/02..._sdk_ireleand/
Apple is "really confident" it will sell 10m iPhones by the handset's first birthday, the company's COO, Tim Cook, said yesterday.
That's actually pretty fucking impressive, if they can sell 10 million in the first year, they will should completely smash 10 million for calendar 2008.
This is the first time you have posted an actual working link to my response.
The "fake" quote didn't work because I copied the text and not the link itself. If it didn't work for you, you can just point that out so the link can be corrected, instead of making accusations.
There was an event yesterday in which Tim Cook reiterated yet again the "in 2008" statement.
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/goldmansachs08/
The general question about excess iPhone inventory begins around 23:10.
His quote (25:25):
We are right on track to where we want to be. We are...the...the 4 million units that we've sold over the first 200 days gives us confidence that we can achieve 10 million units in 2008. I know we've said that before; you've heard us say that before, but I want to make that perfectly clear--that we're--we believe that we are right on track for that.
From the start, I've interpreted Job's remarks as: a total of 10 million will have been sold by the end of 2008, that the 10 million sales mark will be reached "in" 2008.
But apparently, there are multiple ways to interpret those remarks. Even apple employees aren't all on the same page it seems.
Why would you say that? When has an apple employee ever made a statement contradicting "sell 10 million in 2008"? Has someone actually said "10M by the end of 2008" or "sell the 10Mth in 2008"?
Maybe if you just look at one of those remarks, there's some room for misinterpretation. But I don't think that there's any ambiguity when you look at all of them, with the clarifications I don't see any reason for misinterpretation beyond reading the wrong info somewhere and refusing to accept that it is wrong regardless of evidence.
The latest:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2008/02..._sdk_ireleand/
"Apple is "really confident" it will sell 10m iPhones by the handset's first birthday, the company's COO, Tim Cook, said yesterday."
That's actually pretty fucking impressive, if they can sell 10 million in the first year, they will should completely smash 10 million for calendar 2008.
Actually, that was a mistake on their part, they've changed it. But unfortunately when they changed it, they didn't correct it, they just changed it to DIFFERENT wrong info...
Harping on the word "in" does nothing to prove either interpretation.
I interpret that quote, as well, to mean that Apple will sell their 10 millionth iPhone sometime "in" 2008.
Harping on the word "in" does nothing to prove either interpretation.
Don't bother, he only reads it as "within" and does see the ambiguity of the word "in".