Of course, the thing to keep in mind about the Galaxy Tab, in addition to its "quite small" sales, is that there will never be any significant number of apps written for it since even Android developers aren't gong to waste time writing for it as a platform, and chances are the current model will never get updated to honeycomb. I'd be surprised if even many hardcore Android fans would want one, unless they have money to throw away.
Actually Microsoft's numbers are even more off base than these. At least Samsung has actually shipped a product, Microsoft counts licenses sold. And that's all that really matters to Microsoft anyway.
It had better matter to MS. If phone sales are too poor, then those manufacturers will be making fewer models, and that will lead to questions about viability. That will lead to uncertainty amongst the public, which will lead to fewer sales, and the circle will be complete.
I've already got questions about the phone models. Originally, MS said there would be 11. Now, when they announced that 2 million number, they said there were 9.
It had better matter to MS. If phone sales are too poor, then those manufacturers will be making fewer models, and that will lead to questions about viability. That will lead to uncertainty amongst the public, which will lead to fewer sales, and the circle will be complete.
I've already got questions about the phone models. Originally, MS said there would be 11. Now, when they announced that 2 million number, they said there were 9.
Well, those companies don't have a lot of options...WP7 or Android. Pick your option. Oddly, I trust MS more than Google.
Apparently (I say that because the article doesn't link to the original report) even those "small" numbers of Tabs sold are being returned at a prodigious rate....
Quote:
The Galaxy Tab, Samsung's answer to the iPad, might better be called the boomerang as one Wall Street firm has found that an eye-popping 15 percent of those sold are being returned. The Galaxy Tab is a slow-seller, as well, according to analysts.
The 15 percent return rate, which covers sales from its November debut through Jan. 16, compares to a 2 percent return rate for Apple's iPad. "Consumers aren't in love with the device," said Tony Berkman, a consumer tech analyst with ITG.
I'm sure subsequent Android tablets will do better, but I wonder how much damage Samsung has done to the Android tablet brand by rushing the Tab to market. Certainly I would expect consumers to be wary of the Tab 2, despite it no doubt running Honeycomb and being an all around better experience. But that wariness might taint other tablets as well.
It's kind of bizarre how Samsung handled this-- they trumpeted the million and two million "sales" records to drive the idea that the Tab was a huge hit, but now confess they were being (at least) deliberately misleading. Did they think they could slip the new info out there without anyone noticing? That if they got the "they're selling link gangbusters" story out first that it would become the default narrative, and the follow on caveat wouldn't stick? The story seems to be getting broad play, so the fiction that the Tab is a big hit is going to go away and might leave a bad taste in its place.
Probably true, since Samsung doesn't sell tablets to end-users.
But if you feel their sales to resellers is somehow fraudulent, launch a class action suit and let us know how that works out for you.
Total straw man. If Samsung doesn't sell to end users, why didn't they make that clear when they were trumpeting strong sales? They didn't say "sales into the channel" (or I guess, in Samsung speak, "sell-in", they said "sales."
At any rate, it has nothing to do with fraud or litigation, it has to do with an abrupt 180º turn in the public perception of the Tab-- from (surprisingly) legit iPad competitor to laughing stock in about 30 seconds. As I say, I have no idea what Samsung thought they were doing in the way this story was handled-- it suggests the insanity of their recent CES dog an pony isn't limited to the art directors.
It's kind of bizarre how Samsung handled this-- they trumpeted the million and two million "sales" records to drive the idea that the Tab was a huge hit, but now confess they were being (at least) deliberately misleading. Did they think they could slip the new info out there without anyone noticing? That if they got the "they're selling link gangbusters" story out first that it would become the default narrative, and the follow on caveat wouldn't stick? The story seems to be getting broad play, so the fiction that the Tab is a big hit is going to go away and might leave a bad taste in its place.
They are legally obligated to give factual numbers to investors. If the channel is full and the product isn't selling to customers, Samsung has to warn investors that next quarter's "sales" may not be so great.
Apparently (I say that because the article doesn't link to the original report) even those "small" numbers of Tabs sold are being returned at a prodigious rate....
I'm sure subsequent Android tablets will do better, but I wonder how much damage Samsung has done to the Android tablet brand by rushing the Tab to market. Certainly I would expect consumers to be wary of the Tab 2, despite it no doubt running Honeycomb and being an all around better experience. But that wariness might taint other tablets as well.
It's kind of bizarre how Samsung handled this-- they trumpeted the million and two million "sales" records to drive the idea that the Tab was a huge hit, but now confess they were being (at least) deliberately misleading. Did they think they could slip the new info out there without anyone noticing? That if they got the "they're selling link gangbusters" story out first that it would become the default narrative, and the follow on caveat wouldn't stick? The story seems to be getting broad play, so the fiction that the Tab is a big hit is going to go away and might leave a bad taste in its place.
I assume the 15% returns are end user returns to resellers.
If that is true, it is a major failure!
Next, likely, already started, are the returns from resellers to Samsung and/or large clearance price cuts, Overstock.com, etc.
They are legally obligated to give factual numbers to investors. If the channel is full and the product isn't selling to customers, Samsung has to warn investors that next quarter's "sales" may not be so great.
Right, but they knew that they would have to do this back when they were reporting channel sales as "sales."
All I can think is that they figured they could get a lot of buzz and momentum going by acting as if the Tab was a huge hit, and then they just crossed their fingers and hoped that would translate into actual sales before the quarterly.
They are legally obligated to give factual numbers to investors. If the channel is full and the product isn't selling to customers, Samsung has to warn investors that next quarter's "sales" may not be so great.
Quote:
Originally Posted by addabox
Right, but they knew that they would have to do this back when they were reporting channel sales as "sales."
All I can think is that they figured they could get a lot of buzz and momentum going by acting as if the Tab was a huge hit, and then they just crossed their fingers and hoped that would translate into actual sales before the quarterly.
Yes, but they don't need to give numbers down to the SKU (or even category). I don't know how Sammi is organized -- possibly they have a Consumer Electronics Group, Mobile Electronics Division -- consisting of phones, tablets, whatever.
They could show "returns" at the group or division level and essentially bury the hit.
Make that analyst eat the paper he wrote the garbage on. Or better yet, the keyboard he typed it on. Or she as the case may be.
As I said, if you're such a great analyst, why are you sharing your 'analysis' instead of keeping it to yourself and making gazillions off it in the stock market? Eh, eh?
You missed his point. He is raising the issue of shipments versus sales to end-users, or sell-through. Samsung has never giving figures for sell-through, yet Apple gives both. In the case of Samsung, it's a very important point since all Samsung's sales are to resellers opposed to Apple's direct sales.
The Galaxy Tab is available in 100 countries on 200+ carriers. Therefore, most of the 2M units was just channel fill, no real evidence of strong-sell though. The resellers might have to take a bath if they can't sell off their stock. There is already evidence this might be happening due to the recent price cuts for the Samsung Tablet.
In short, Samsung could report 2M unit sales without a single one being purchased by a end consumer.
Just as i has said earlier, shipments don't equal end-demand- Samsung has now verified that very few of the 2M units have actually been sold through.
Yes, but they don't need to give numbers down to the SKU (or even category). I don't know how Sammi is organized -- possibly they have a Consumer Electronics Group, Mobile Electronics Division -- consisting of phones, tablets, whatever.
They could show "returns" at the group or division level and essentially bury the hit.
You're absolutely right, but it is a fairly high profile product that Samsung themselves gloated about. Investor expectations were prematurely set to a level that Samsung is obviously not going to be able to meet. I would say, in this case, they should (and did) readjust expectations accordingly.
Right, but they knew that they would have to do this back when they were reporting channel sales as "sales."
Not necessarily. It was a new product. You have to get it in to the channel in order to get it into customer's hands. They could've only assumed that if it was in the channel, it would sell.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe they were being rather disingenuous with the sales numbers and gloated prematurely, but ALL companies make forecasts based off the of units in the channel and the number that can be manufactured. But you cannot claim that they knew they wouldn't sell, especially when they had no prior history of sales for this product category.
If you feel this is a serious matter, that somehow masses of investors never noticed that Samsung doesn't sell to end-users so that any sales can only be to resellers, you may have an easy win in a class action suit.
Weird. You ignore the part where I say
Quote:
At any rate, it has nothing to do with fraud or litigation, it has to do with an abrupt 180º turn in the public perception of the Tab-- from (surprisingly) legit iPad competitor to laughing stock in about 30 seconds.
and just repeat the straw man. Again, you're pretending as if anything short of litigation makes it a non-issue, while in fact the sudden revelation that that Tab hasn't been selling well has ramifications for the Android Tablet market.
Quote:
We're agreed there. It doesn't really matter after all.
And, again, "doesn't rise to the level of a lawsuit" is not synonymous with "doesn't matter all."
Comments
Actually Microsoft's numbers are even more off base than these. At least Samsung has actually shipped a product, Microsoft counts licenses sold. And that's all that really matters to Microsoft anyway.
It had better matter to MS. If phone sales are too poor, then those manufacturers will be making fewer models, and that will lead to questions about viability. That will lead to uncertainty amongst the public, which will lead to fewer sales, and the circle will be complete.
I've already got questions about the phone models. Originally, MS said there would be 11. Now, when they announced that 2 million number, they said there were 9.
It had better matter to MS. If phone sales are too poor, then those manufacturers will be making fewer models, and that will lead to questions about viability. That will lead to uncertainty amongst the public, which will lead to fewer sales, and the circle will be complete.
I've already got questions about the phone models. Originally, MS said there would be 11. Now, when they announced that 2 million number, they said there were 9.
Well, those companies don't have a lot of options...WP7 or Android. Pick your option. Oddly, I trust MS more than Google.
Well, those companies don't have a lot of options...WP7 or Android. Pick your option. Oddly, I trust MS more than Google.
Trust? In what sense? Companies care about sales and profits.
If you start out with 90 something share of a new market, it is not surprising that this will go down as others enter that market. .
That logic did not work for Windows. They have had over 90% for decades.
Galaxy Tab sales figures are not to end-users.
http://www.electronista.com/articles...r.than.claims/
What took so long for this to come to light? This approach to inflating sales figures is old hat. Shame on the "news" media.
In fairness to Samsung, there is a restocking policy -- and the buyer returned it
The Galaxy Tab, Samsung's answer to the iPad, might better be called the boomerang as one Wall Street firm has found that an eye-popping 15 percent of those sold are being returned. The Galaxy Tab is a slow-seller, as well, according to analysts.
The 15 percent return rate, which covers sales from its November debut through Jan. 16, compares to a 2 percent return rate for Apple's iPad. "Consumers aren't in love with the device," said Tony Berkman, a consumer tech analyst with ITG.
I'm sure subsequent Android tablets will do better, but I wonder how much damage Samsung has done to the Android tablet brand by rushing the Tab to market. Certainly I would expect consumers to be wary of the Tab 2, despite it no doubt running Honeycomb and being an all around better experience. But that wariness might taint other tablets as well.
It's kind of bizarre how Samsung handled this-- they trumpeted the million and two million "sales" records to drive the idea that the Tab was a huge hit, but now confess they were being (at least) deliberately misleading. Did they think they could slip the new info out there without anyone noticing? That if they got the "they're selling link gangbusters" story out first that it would become the default narrative, and the follow on caveat wouldn't stick? The story seems to be getting broad play, so the fiction that the Tab is a big hit is going to go away and might leave a bad taste in its place.
Probably true, since Samsung doesn't sell tablets to end-users.
But if you feel their sales to resellers is somehow fraudulent, launch a class action suit and let us know how that works out for you.
Total straw man. If Samsung doesn't sell to end users, why didn't they make that clear when they were trumpeting strong sales? They didn't say "sales into the channel" (or I guess, in Samsung speak, "sell-in", they said "sales."
At any rate, it has nothing to do with fraud or litigation, it has to do with an abrupt 180º turn in the public perception of the Tab-- from (surprisingly) legit iPad competitor to laughing stock in about 30 seconds. As I say, I have no idea what Samsung thought they were doing in the way this story was handled-- it suggests the insanity of their recent CES dog an pony isn't limited to the art directors.
It's kind of bizarre how Samsung handled this-- they trumpeted the million and two million "sales" records to drive the idea that the Tab was a huge hit, but now confess they were being (at least) deliberately misleading. Did they think they could slip the new info out there without anyone noticing? That if they got the "they're selling link gangbusters" story out first that it would become the default narrative, and the follow on caveat wouldn't stick? The story seems to be getting broad play, so the fiction that the Tab is a big hit is going to go away and might leave a bad taste in its place.
They are legally obligated to give factual numbers to investors. If the channel is full and the product isn't selling to customers, Samsung has to warn investors that next quarter's "sales" may not be so great.
Apparently (I say that because the article doesn't link to the original report) even those "small" numbers of Tabs sold are being returned at a prodigious rate....
I'm sure subsequent Android tablets will do better, but I wonder how much damage Samsung has done to the Android tablet brand by rushing the Tab to market. Certainly I would expect consumers to be wary of the Tab 2, despite it no doubt running Honeycomb and being an all around better experience. But that wariness might taint other tablets as well.
It's kind of bizarre how Samsung handled this-- they trumpeted the million and two million "sales" records to drive the idea that the Tab was a huge hit, but now confess they were being (at least) deliberately misleading. Did they think they could slip the new info out there without anyone noticing? That if they got the "they're selling link gangbusters" story out first that it would become the default narrative, and the follow on caveat wouldn't stick? The story seems to be getting broad play, so the fiction that the Tab is a big hit is going to go away and might leave a bad taste in its place.
I assume the 15% returns are end user returns to resellers.
If that is true, it is a major failure!
Next, likely, already started, are the returns from resellers to Samsung and/or large clearance price cuts, Overstock.com, etc.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....egories&ks=960
http://www.overstock.com/search?keyw...rchType=Header
Any way you look at it -- Samsung has learned how to conjugate the verb to Zune.
They are legally obligated to give factual numbers to investors. If the channel is full and the product isn't selling to customers, Samsung has to warn investors that next quarter's "sales" may not be so great.
Right, but they knew that they would have to do this back when they were reporting channel sales as "sales."
All I can think is that they figured they could get a lot of buzz and momentum going by acting as if the Tab was a huge hit, and then they just crossed their fingers and hoped that would translate into actual sales before the quarterly.
They are legally obligated to give factual numbers to investors. If the channel is full and the product isn't selling to customers, Samsung has to warn investors that next quarter's "sales" may not be so great.
Right, but they knew that they would have to do this back when they were reporting channel sales as "sales."
All I can think is that they figured they could get a lot of buzz and momentum going by acting as if the Tab was a huge hit, and then they just crossed their fingers and hoped that would translate into actual sales before the quarterly.
Yes, but they don't need to give numbers down to the SKU (or even category). I don't know how Sammi is organized -- possibly they have a Consumer Electronics Group, Mobile Electronics Division -- consisting of phones, tablets, whatever.
They could show "returns" at the group or division level and essentially bury the hit.
As I said, if you're such a great analyst, why are you sharing your 'analysis' instead of keeping it to yourself and making gazillions off it in the stock market? Eh, eh?
You missed his point. He is raising the issue of shipments versus sales to end-users, or sell-through. Samsung has never giving figures for sell-through, yet Apple gives both. In the case of Samsung, it's a very important point since all Samsung's sales are to resellers opposed to Apple's direct sales.
The Galaxy Tab is available in 100 countries on 200+ carriers. Therefore, most of the 2M units was just channel fill, no real evidence of strong-sell though. The resellers might have to take a bath if they can't sell off their stock. There is already evidence this might be happening due to the recent price cuts for the Samsung Tablet.
In short, Samsung could report 2M unit sales without a single one being purchased by a end consumer.
Just as i has said earlier, shipments don't equal end-demand- Samsung has now verified that very few of the 2M units have actually been sold through.
Yes, but they don't need to give numbers down to the SKU (or even category). I don't know how Sammi is organized -- possibly they have a Consumer Electronics Group, Mobile Electronics Division -- consisting of phones, tablets, whatever.
They could show "returns" at the group or division level and essentially bury the hit.
You're absolutely right, but it is a fairly high profile product that Samsung themselves gloated about. Investor expectations were prematurely set to a level that Samsung is obviously not going to be able to meet. I would say, in this case, they should (and did) readjust expectations accordingly.
Right, but they knew that they would have to do this back when they were reporting channel sales as "sales."
Not necessarily. It was a new product. You have to get it in to the channel in order to get it into customer's hands. They could've only assumed that if it was in the channel, it would sell.
Don't get me wrong, I do believe they were being rather disingenuous with the sales numbers and gloated prematurely, but ALL companies make forecasts based off the of units in the channel and the number that can be manufactured. But you cannot claim that they knew they wouldn't sell, especially when they had no prior history of sales for this product category.
If you feel this is a serious matter, that somehow masses of investors never noticed that Samsung doesn't sell to end-users so that any sales can only be to resellers, you may have an easy win in a class action suit.
Weird. You ignore the part where I say
At any rate, it has nothing to do with fraud or litigation, it has to do with an abrupt 180º turn in the public perception of the Tab-- from (surprisingly) legit iPad competitor to laughing stock in about 30 seconds.
and just repeat the straw man. Again, you're pretending as if anything short of litigation makes it a non-issue, while in fact the sudden revelation that that Tab hasn't been selling well has ramifications for the Android Tablet market.
We're agreed there. It doesn't really matter after all.
And, again, "doesn't rise to the level of a lawsuit" is not synonymous with "doesn't matter all."