I can see samab's point though. Accepting a prediction that favors "your side" is something that people tend to do. Generally only scrutinize if it's not in favor of their position. Questioning a prediction only after it's turned out to be false doesn't take any foresight.
I'm not so much defending Apple as explaining the descepency in reports. Someone asked why is their one report that states Japan sales are poor and another that says sales are fine. I was clarifying the flaws in the logic that sales are poor.
Has the conclusion really been proven false? As far as I've seen Apple nor Softbank have released official numbers. Sales may really have declined in Japan. Whether good or not cannot be determined by the WSJ articles unrealisric expectation.
I'm not so much defending Apple as explaining the descepency in reports. Someone asked why is their one report that states Japan sales are poor and another that says sales are fine. I was clarifying the flaws in the logic that sales are poor.
Has the conclusion really been proven false? As far as I've seen Apple nor Softbank have released official numbers. Sales may really have declined in Japan. Whether good or not cannot be determined by the WSJ articles unrealisric expectation.
The problem is that all the "good" reports came early --- they were all released around August 10-15 (and Prince used one of these early reports). They were all based on a mere 3 weeks of iphone sales --- July 11 - July 31. And they were all based on Softbank Mobile's net adds in July (which does not use the same accounting standard on counting "subscribers" as the other 2 Japanese carriers).
Logic says that analysis with more data points and more information will give more accurate estimates.
There are no current reports that state that Japanese iphones sales are healthy, on target...
The problem is that all the "good" reports came early --- they were all released around August 10-15 (and Prince used one of these early reports). They were all based on a mere 3 weeks of iphone sales --- July 11 - July 31. And they were all based on Softbank Mobile's net adds in July (which does not use the same accounting standard on counting "subscribers" as the other 2 Japanese carriers).
Logic says that analysis with more data points and more information will give more accurate estimates.
There are no current reports that state that Japanese iphones sales are healthy, on target...
I'm not completely sure of your point.
I'm essentially saying the iPhome was never going to sell 1 million units, that was a ridiculous forecast. Looking at Nokia if the iPhone sold 200,000 that's pretty good for the Japanese. Until we get some real numbers we really don't know yet.
I'm essentially saying the iPhome was never going to sell 1 million units, that was a ridiculous forecast. Looking at Nokia if the iPhone sold 200,000 that's pretty good for the Japanese. Until we get some real numbers we really don't know yet.
Then it becomes the "timeline" issue that we discussed.
When this was first reported here, I put a big question mark on it.
It is something like, either you have to say --- RIGHT NOW --- that Munster's estimate of 45 million iphones sales is ridiculous OR you lose the right to complain about said forecast when it becomes obvious 12 months from now that Apple might not make that number.
It is something like, either you have to say --- RIGHT NOW --- that Munster's estimate of 45 million iphones sales is ridiculous OR you lose the right to complain about said forecast when it becomes obvious 12 months from now that Apple might not make that number.
I've never been one to jump all over analyst estimates one way or the other. I agree 45 million in a year sounds unlikely.
It is something like, either you have to say --- RIGHT NOW --- that Munster's estimate of 45 million iphones sales is ridiculous OR you lose the right to complain about said forecast when it becomes obvious 12 months from now that Apple might not make that number.
Don't forget that the 45 million number was well before there was any inkling about the economic problems we now see looming before us.
Munster's estimates have a lot of fine print attached and he always changed them later on --- which always make him somewhat "correct" at the end --- very clintonesque.
Some of the fine print for the 45 million iphones:
1) it has to be available in Russia (announced) and China (not yet)
2) price reduction
3) more new models (and cheaper new models)
Then closer to the end date (45 million iphones would be the end of calender year 2009), he will give out refinements based on previous quarters, channel "checks"... and then he give a RANGE (which could be very wide) of units.
Munster's estimates have a lot of fine print attached and he always changed them later on --- which always make him somewhat "correct" at the end --- very clintonesque.
Some of the fine print for the 45 million iphones:
1) it has to be available in Russia (announced) and China (not yet)
2) price reduction
3) more new models (and cheaper new models)
Then closer to the end date (45 million iphones would be the end of calender year 2009), he will give out refinements based on previous quarters, channel "checks"... and then he give a RANGE (which could be very wide) of units.
So, what's wrong with that?
Di you think these guys just sit around all day doing nothing?
Obviously, their estimates are based on certain factors. They look at what Apple is saying about distribution, and try to find out when it will occur. Thay talk to suppliers to find out which, and how many parts are being shipped. They even speak to the shipping companies to find out how much product is moving. There's guesswork involved obviously, because they cant get information on everything, and some things they see may be misleading, but overall they do alright.
I don't see what problem you have with that.
Now, perverse economic factors will affect these numbers. They will have to be modified. That shouldn't surprise anyone either.
If it does, it's because that person isn't thinking it through.
Di you think these guys just sit around all day doing nothing?
Obviously, their estimates are based on certain factors. They look at what Apple is saying about distribution, and try to find out when it will occur. Thay talk to suppliers to find out which, and how many parts are being shipped. They even speak to the shipping companies to find out how much product is moving. There's guesswork involved obviously, because they cant get information on everything, and some things they see may be misleading, but overall they do alright.
I don't see what problem you have with that.
Now, perverse economic factors will affect these numbers. They will have to be modified. That shouldn't surprise anyone either.
If it does, it's because that person isn't thinking it through.
There is nothing wrong with that --- except people think that other analysts are "anti-apple" for giving estimates based on the current price, current hardware model line-up...
Analyst #1 said that Apple is going to sell 25 million iphones upto the end of 2009 (with no fine print of basing his estimate on Apple lowering prices and start selling zero dollar iphones) ---- is going to be the SAME as Munster estimating 45 million iphones (with a fine print of basing his estimate on Apple making a zero dollar "ipod nano" type iphone).
Munster had not changed his price target of $250 a share. He could have meant (1) 12-13 million iphones till the end of this year at $600 each i.e. original iphone price with revenue sharing; (2) 15-18 million iphones at $200 each i.e. reduced 3G price or (3) 45 million iphones at $0-$50 for a cheaper iphone model.
As I said it --- nothing wrong with that --- except you have to be mindful of Munster's fine print (and other analysts without the fine print). The other wall street analysts don't speculate on these stuff --- if Steve Jobs announces a new iphone model or a new cheaper price point, then they would revise their estimates. Munster likes the spotlight --- so he does things totally backward.
There's already some app that can read japan's QR code. The problems lies with the camera, which cannot auto-focus or switch to macro mode manually, adjust exposure to read the barcode properly. Also the app's inability to decode Japanese text embedded in the barcode is another problem.
By the way any self-respecting phones in Japan must have infra-red everyone I met one up to 40 years old exchange contact via vCard or some other file format through infra-red. A significant number of student, or I should say young people, resist on getting iphone because of this. Think about it when you can't get the chick's contact in club or something.
By the way any self-respecting phones in Japan must have infra-red everyone I met one up to 40 years old exchange contact via vCard or some other file format through infra-red. A significant number of student, or I should say young people, resist on getting iphone because of this. Think about it when you can't get the chick's contact in club or something.
This is the first I've heard of this, despite several regulars here living in Japan talking about what the Japanese iPhone should have. Are you making this up?
By the way any self-respecting phones in Japan must have infra-red everyone I met one up to 40 years old exchange contact via vCard or some other file format through infra-red. A significant number of student, or I should say young people, resist on getting iphone because of this.
Seriously? That is seems so archaically backwards for a country whose phones are supposed to be so advanced. Why not use the much faster BT that doesn't require a direct line-of-sight of IR ports in some kinky cellphone mating ritual? Or how about sending your vCard from your contact list via an email or SMS on the cellular network?
Granted, the iPhone does not support sendign vCards, despite its long use of vCards on the Mac, but we're talking about the transfer method used to send the data, not the lack of the iPhone's many SW shortcomings.
Quote:
Think about it when you can't get the chick's contact in club or something.
In the US, asking a girl for her number by requesting a file transfer between phones wouldn't work... at least not the clubs I go to. Usually you just ask for it and they tell you. Are Japanese phone numbers unusually long or contain more then Roman numerals?
There is nothing wrong with that --- except people think that other analysts are "anti-apple" for giving estimates based on the current price, current hardware model line-up...
Analyst #1 said that Apple is going to sell 25 million iphones upto the end of 2009 (with no fine print of basing his estimate on Apple lowering prices and start selling zero dollar iphones) ---- is going to be the SAME as Munster estimating 45 million iphones (with a fine print of basing his estimate on Apple making a zero dollar "ipod nano" type iphone).
Munster had not changed his price target of $250 a share. He could have meant (1) 12-13 million iphones till the end of this year at $600 each i.e. original iphone price with revenue sharing; (2) 15-18 million iphones at $200 each i.e. reduced 3G price or (3) 45 million iphones at $0-$50 for a cheaper iphone model.
As I said it --- nothing wrong with that --- except you have to be mindful of Munster's fine print (and other analysts without the fine print). The other wall street analysts don't speculate on these stuff --- if Steve Jobs announces a new iphone model or a new cheaper price point, then they would revise their estimates. Munster likes the spotlight --- so he does things totally backward.
Its the fine print that makes corporations buy these reports for the thousands of dollars they cost, or to pay up to a hundred thousand a year for subscriptions.
What too many here don't understand about this process, is that these reports are about far more than just the publicized headlines, which is about all that is released publicly. The rest of the information, which is the meat, is proprietary in nature.
The assumption that some of this is "anti-Apple" because it doesn't always paint a rosy picture of the company is just silly. If reports are continually biased, they they are worthless. Since they are not considered to be worthless by their customers, which is NOT us, then they do what they are supposed to do.
Many companies pay more than one firm for reports, or subscriptions, because they all have their different networks by which they gather information, and they way they analyze the data. That'w why they aren't all saying the same thing.
If one firm thinks certain data more strongly suggests the sitution, they will use that date more heavily. Another firm will do the same with their own data.
It's like polls. The more people you poll, and the better the questions are, the more accurate the poll will be. +- 3% is about as well as can be expected. They don't predict who will win, just about what percentage they will get. Its people's misunderstanding of polls, and these reports, that cause the problems.
If an analyst comes within +-15% of the actual numbers, that's pretty damn good.
If the situation changes in some major ways, the old analysis will be obsolete. People are always jumping on that, but it just shows a lack of understanding.
Well, then you don't understand the process, or anything I said.
I understand the process perfectly.
What I am saying is that Munster works in a small brokerage in which nobody actually listens to them (at least in paying for the actual report) --- except the media (and mac websites).
Analysts from major brokerages don't go and based their estimates on the rumors of flying cars being launch in the near future.
What I am saying is that Munster works in a small brokerage in which nobody actually listens to them (at least in paying for the actual report) --- except the media (and mac websites).
And how do you know this? Just another assumption?
Quote:
Analysts from major brokerages don't go and based their estimates on the rumors of flying cars being launch in the near future.
You look at the pay scale of wall street companies --- Munster works for a small brokerage that got bounced around in terms of ownership. If he is any good, he would have worked for a larger firm.
In Wall Street, if you are good --- you either work for (1) big firms, (2) your own firm or (3) hedge funds and private equities (that only billionaires would know the names of the firms).
You look at the pay scale of wall street companies --- Munster works for a small brokerage that got bounced around in terms of ownership. If he is any good, he would have worked for a larger firm.
In Wall Street, if you are good --- you either work for (1) big firms, (2) your own firm or (3) hedge funds and private equities (that only billionaires would know the names of the firms).
That's absurd.
I've been following his Apple coverage for years. He's the best one out there in that.
In addition, he's got the best track record in regards to picking Apple's stock price. That goes back to early 2004, when I first came across him.
I've been following his Apple coverage for years. He's the best one out there in that.
In addition, he's got the best track record in regards to picking Apple's stock price. That goes back to early 2004, when I first came across him.
As I said it earlier --- he "fine-tunes" his estimates and then gives it a wide-range. Also --- any idiot can be correct during the good years. But you know what --- everybody is looking at Warren Buffett right now during the bad times.
I rather have analysts putting out new estimates when Apple actually decides to announce something --- be it a new product or a new pricing.
Comments
I can see samab's point though. Accepting a prediction that favors "your side" is something that people tend to do. Generally only scrutinize if it's not in favor of their position. Questioning a prediction only after it's turned out to be false doesn't take any foresight.
I'm not so much defending Apple as explaining the descepency in reports. Someone asked why is their one report that states Japan sales are poor and another that says sales are fine. I was clarifying the flaws in the logic that sales are poor.
Has the conclusion really been proven false? As far as I've seen Apple nor Softbank have released official numbers. Sales may really have declined in Japan. Whether good or not cannot be determined by the WSJ articles unrealisric expectation.
I'm not so much defending Apple as explaining the descepency in reports. Someone asked why is their one report that states Japan sales are poor and another that says sales are fine. I was clarifying the flaws in the logic that sales are poor.
Has the conclusion really been proven false? As far as I've seen Apple nor Softbank have released official numbers. Sales may really have declined in Japan. Whether good or not cannot be determined by the WSJ articles unrealisric expectation.
The problem is that all the "good" reports came early --- they were all released around August 10-15 (and Prince used one of these early reports). They were all based on a mere 3 weeks of iphone sales --- July 11 - July 31. And they were all based on Softbank Mobile's net adds in July (which does not use the same accounting standard on counting "subscribers" as the other 2 Japanese carriers).
Logic says that analysis with more data points and more information will give more accurate estimates.
There are no current reports that state that Japanese iphones sales are healthy, on target...
The problem is that all the "good" reports came early --- they were all released around August 10-15 (and Prince used one of these early reports). They were all based on a mere 3 weeks of iphone sales --- July 11 - July 31. And they were all based on Softbank Mobile's net adds in July (which does not use the same accounting standard on counting "subscribers" as the other 2 Japanese carriers).
Logic says that analysis with more data points and more information will give more accurate estimates.
There are no current reports that state that Japanese iphones sales are healthy, on target...
I'm not completely sure of your point.
I'm essentially saying the iPhome was never going to sell 1 million units, that was a ridiculous forecast. Looking at Nokia if the iPhone sold 200,000 that's pretty good for the Japanese. Until we get some real numbers we really don't know yet.
I'm not completely sure of your point.
I'm essentially saying the iPhome was never going to sell 1 million units, that was a ridiculous forecast. Looking at Nokia if the iPhone sold 200,000 that's pretty good for the Japanese. Until we get some real numbers we really don't know yet.
Then it becomes the "timeline" issue that we discussed.
When this was first reported here, I put a big question mark on it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=19
It is something like, either you have to say --- RIGHT NOW --- that Munster's estimate of 45 million iphones sales is ridiculous OR you lose the right to complain about said forecast when it becomes obvious 12 months from now that Apple might not make that number.
Then it becomes the "timeline" issue that we discussed.
When this was first reported here, I put a big question mark on it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=19
It is something like, either you have to say --- RIGHT NOW --- that Munster's estimate of 45 million iphones sales is ridiculous OR you lose the right to complain about said forecast when it becomes obvious 12 months from now that Apple might not make that number.
I've never been one to jump all over analyst estimates one way or the other. I agree 45 million in a year sounds unlikely.
Then it becomes the "timeline" issue that we discussed.
When this was first reported here, I put a big question mark on it.
http://forums.appleinsider.com/showp...5&postcount=19
It is something like, either you have to say --- RIGHT NOW --- that Munster's estimate of 45 million iphones sales is ridiculous OR you lose the right to complain about said forecast when it becomes obvious 12 months from now that Apple might not make that number.
Don't forget that the 45 million number was well before there was any inkling about the economic problems we now see looming before us.
There was no way he could have foreseen that.
Therefor all bets are off.
Some of the fine print for the 45 million iphones:
1) it has to be available in Russia (announced) and China (not yet)
2) price reduction
3) more new models (and cheaper new models)
Then closer to the end date (45 million iphones would be the end of calender year 2009), he will give out refinements based on previous quarters, channel "checks"... and then he give a RANGE (which could be very wide) of units.
Munster's estimates have a lot of fine print attached and he always changed them later on --- which always make him somewhat "correct" at the end --- very clintonesque.
Some of the fine print for the 45 million iphones:
1) it has to be available in Russia (announced) and China (not yet)
2) price reduction
3) more new models (and cheaper new models)
Then closer to the end date (45 million iphones would be the end of calender year 2009), he will give out refinements based on previous quarters, channel "checks"... and then he give a RANGE (which could be very wide) of units.
So, what's wrong with that?
Di you think these guys just sit around all day doing nothing?
Obviously, their estimates are based on certain factors. They look at what Apple is saying about distribution, and try to find out when it will occur. Thay talk to suppliers to find out which, and how many parts are being shipped. They even speak to the shipping companies to find out how much product is moving. There's guesswork involved obviously, because they cant get information on everything, and some things they see may be misleading, but overall they do alright.
I don't see what problem you have with that.
Now, perverse economic factors will affect these numbers. They will have to be modified. That shouldn't surprise anyone either.
If it does, it's because that person isn't thinking it through.
So, what's wrong with that?
Di you think these guys just sit around all day doing nothing?
Obviously, their estimates are based on certain factors. They look at what Apple is saying about distribution, and try to find out when it will occur. Thay talk to suppliers to find out which, and how many parts are being shipped. They even speak to the shipping companies to find out how much product is moving. There's guesswork involved obviously, because they cant get information on everything, and some things they see may be misleading, but overall they do alright.
I don't see what problem you have with that.
Now, perverse economic factors will affect these numbers. They will have to be modified. That shouldn't surprise anyone either.
If it does, it's because that person isn't thinking it through.
There is nothing wrong with that --- except people think that other analysts are "anti-apple" for giving estimates based on the current price, current hardware model line-up...
Analyst #1 said that Apple is going to sell 25 million iphones upto the end of 2009 (with no fine print of basing his estimate on Apple lowering prices and start selling zero dollar iphones) ---- is going to be the SAME as Munster estimating 45 million iphones (with a fine print of basing his estimate on Apple making a zero dollar "ipod nano" type iphone).
Munster had not changed his price target of $250 a share. He could have meant (1) 12-13 million iphones till the end of this year at $600 each i.e. original iphone price with revenue sharing; (2) 15-18 million iphones at $200 each i.e. reduced 3G price or (3) 45 million iphones at $0-$50 for a cheaper iphone model.
As I said it --- nothing wrong with that --- except you have to be mindful of Munster's fine print (and other analysts without the fine print). The other wall street analysts don't speculate on these stuff --- if Steve Jobs announces a new iphone model or a new cheaper price point, then they would revise their estimates. Munster likes the spotlight --- so he does things totally backward.
By the way any self-respecting phones in Japan must have infra-red everyone I met one up to 40 years old exchange contact via vCard or some other file format through infra-red. A significant number of student, or I should say young people, resist on getting iphone because of this. Think about it when you can't get the chick's contact in club or something.
By the way any self-respecting phones in Japan must have infra-red everyone I met one up to 40 years old exchange contact via vCard or some other file format through infra-red. A significant number of student, or I should say young people, resist on getting iphone because of this. Think about it when you can't get the chick's contact in club or something.
This is the first I've heard of this, despite several regulars here living in Japan talking about what the Japanese iPhone should have. Are you making this up?
By the way any self-respecting phones in Japan must have infra-red everyone I met one up to 40 years old exchange contact via vCard or some other file format through infra-red. A significant number of student, or I should say young people, resist on getting iphone because of this.
Seriously? That is seems so archaically backwards for a country whose phones are supposed to be so advanced. Why not use the much faster BT that doesn't require a direct line-of-sight of IR ports in some kinky cellphone mating ritual? Or how about sending your vCard from your contact list via an email or SMS on the cellular network?
Granted, the iPhone does not support sendign vCards, despite its long use of vCards on the Mac, but we're talking about the transfer method used to send the data, not the lack of the iPhone's many SW shortcomings.
Think about it when you can't get the chick's contact in club or something.
In the US, asking a girl for her number by requesting a file transfer between phones wouldn't work... at least not the clubs I go to. Usually you just ask for it and they tell you. Are Japanese phone numbers unusually long or contain more then Roman numerals?
There is nothing wrong with that --- except people think that other analysts are "anti-apple" for giving estimates based on the current price, current hardware model line-up...
Analyst #1 said that Apple is going to sell 25 million iphones upto the end of 2009 (with no fine print of basing his estimate on Apple lowering prices and start selling zero dollar iphones) ---- is going to be the SAME as Munster estimating 45 million iphones (with a fine print of basing his estimate on Apple making a zero dollar "ipod nano" type iphone).
Munster had not changed his price target of $250 a share. He could have meant (1) 12-13 million iphones till the end of this year at $600 each i.e. original iphone price with revenue sharing; (2) 15-18 million iphones at $200 each i.e. reduced 3G price or (3) 45 million iphones at $0-$50 for a cheaper iphone model.
As I said it --- nothing wrong with that --- except you have to be mindful of Munster's fine print (and other analysts without the fine print). The other wall street analysts don't speculate on these stuff --- if Steve Jobs announces a new iphone model or a new cheaper price point, then they would revise their estimates. Munster likes the spotlight --- so he does things totally backward.
Its the fine print that makes corporations buy these reports for the thousands of dollars they cost, or to pay up to a hundred thousand a year for subscriptions.
What too many here don't understand about this process, is that these reports are about far more than just the publicized headlines, which is about all that is released publicly. The rest of the information, which is the meat, is proprietary in nature.
The assumption that some of this is "anti-Apple" because it doesn't always paint a rosy picture of the company is just silly. If reports are continually biased, they they are worthless. Since they are not considered to be worthless by their customers, which is NOT us, then they do what they are supposed to do.
Many companies pay more than one firm for reports, or subscriptions, because they all have their different networks by which they gather information, and they way they analyze the data. That'w why they aren't all saying the same thing.
If one firm thinks certain data more strongly suggests the sitution, they will use that date more heavily. Another firm will do the same with their own data.
It's like polls. The more people you poll, and the better the questions are, the more accurate the poll will be. +- 3% is about as well as can be expected. They don't predict who will win, just about what percentage they will get. Its people's misunderstanding of polls, and these reports, that cause the problems.
If an analyst comes within +-15% of the actual numbers, that's pretty damn good.
If the situation changes in some major ways, the old analysis will be obsolete. People are always jumping on that, but it just shows a lack of understanding.
I might as well say that I am bullish on General Motors because I think they are coming out with flying cars really soon.
What makes Munster different is that quite a few of his assumptions are not based on any solid news or even rumors (i.e. new cheap iphone models).
I might as well say that I am bullish on General Motors because I think they are coming out with flying cars really soon.
Well, then you don't understand the process, or anything I said.
Well, then you don't understand the process, or anything I said.
I understand the process perfectly.
What I am saying is that Munster works in a small brokerage in which nobody actually listens to them (at least in paying for the actual report) --- except the media (and mac websites).
Analysts from major brokerages don't go and based their estimates on the rumors of flying cars being launch in the near future.
I understand the process perfectly.
What I am saying is that Munster works in a small brokerage in which nobody actually listens to them (at least in paying for the actual report) --- except the media (and mac websites).
And how do you know this? Just another assumption?
Analysts from major brokerages don't go and based their estimates on the rumors of flying cars being launch in the near future.
But you do?
In Wall Street, if you are good --- you either work for (1) big firms, (2) your own firm or (3) hedge funds and private equities (that only billionaires would know the names of the firms).
You look at the pay scale of wall street companies --- Munster works for a small brokerage that got bounced around in terms of ownership. If he is any good, he would have worked for a larger firm.
In Wall Street, if you are good --- you either work for (1) big firms, (2) your own firm or (3) hedge funds and private equities (that only billionaires would know the names of the firms).
That's absurd.
I've been following his Apple coverage for years. He's the best one out there in that.
In addition, he's got the best track record in regards to picking Apple's stock price. That goes back to early 2004, when I first came across him.
That's absurd.
I've been following his Apple coverage for years. He's the best one out there in that.
In addition, he's got the best track record in regards to picking Apple's stock price. That goes back to early 2004, when I first came across him.
As I said it earlier --- he "fine-tunes" his estimates and then gives it a wide-range. Also --- any idiot can be correct during the good years. But you know what --- everybody is looking at Warren Buffett right now during the bad times.
I rather have analysts putting out new estimates when Apple actually decides to announce something --- be it a new product or a new pricing.