There is no possible way the NPD Group could cull accurate data on Mac sales. Absolutely impossible unless they are stealing it from Apple. In other words... BS.
That used to be what I thought too. But the fact is that these groups are rarely way off and are often <20% off, which is remarkable to me. In some ways, I am sort of impressed.
Not true at all. I've frequently questioned things like this. If you go back through the market share threads, you'll find multiple cases where I said that market share figures based on samples were not valid unless they could prove that the samples were representative - and I did so even in threads which showed very positive numbers for Apple.
Man ... you are so defensive when it comes to Apple that you are even defensive about being defensive.
I don't think that there's any way to say that for a number of reasons:
1. Sales in January are always the slowest month of the year. So even without any price changes or new products, one would expect them to increase in February and March.
2. Even in January, supplies of the iMac were constrained with long lead times - especially for custom orders.
3. The price cuts were not universal. AFAIK, the prices on the Apple Store remained unchanged.
There's absolutely no way to say that the price cuts played a huge role as you claim. They probably played some role, but no one outside of Apple knows how much.
1. Which probably played a large role in shipping times beginning to improve, but otherwise this has nothing to do with my point so why mention it?
2. Which you'd only notice if you tried to order from Apple's online store. Best Buy, MacMall, and even Apple's retail stores had plenty in stock, including at least one build of the 27" model. You're correct about custom orders still being an issue, but I'd like to see the ratio between stock and custom orders before I comment on whether or not that matters.
3. You're half right. All discounts aside from those implemented for the rMBP line weren't matched by Apple itself. I know three people personally who jumped on buying an rMBP after the price cuts, though, as the only thing keeping them on the fence was the price delta between MBP and rMBP. I was half tempted myself, but prefer to wait for the Haswell refresh this summer since I'll be buying the 13" model, as every indication is that the integrated graphics of that part are significantly improved over the current Ivy Bridge model.
Since I am assuming these numbers come from ALL Mac sales, not just direct sales via Apple's online or retail stores, to imply that those sizable discounts don't matter because they were only implemented by 3rd party sellers is tenuous as best. As you say, since there is absolutely no way prove one way or another if those discounts did play a role (I said A role, mind you, not a Huge role. That was your word, not mine) there is equally no way to prove they DIDN'T play just as significant if not more so a role as the improved production yields for the iMac line. This point alone negates the credibility of this article, which was the main thrust of my first post. As a shareholder, I'm happy to see sales are up, and never meant to imply otherwise.
Apple has managed to sort out their biggest screw up of 2012 and analysts are now reporting that sales of the iMac line are way up..... No shit genius.
Can you tell us what went wrong with the screen lamination processes? Who was the job contracted to? How many lines did they set up? How much experience was there with the technology? How closely was Apple riding herd on the suppliers for the materials?
You keep saying that it was Apple that screwed up. How, exactly? Let us know whatever it is that you know.
Can you tell us what went wrong with the screen lamination processes? Who was the job contracted to? How many lines did they set up? How much experience was there with the technology? How closely was Apple riding herd on the suppliers for the materials?
You keep saying that it was Apple that screwed up. How, exactly? Let us know whatever it is that you know.
Isn't it obvious? He had no clue what really happened, so he's slinging mud.
No one here knows the answer to the questions you are asking.
Apple has managed to sort out their biggest screw up of 2012 and analysts are now reporting that sales of the iMac line are way up..... No shit genius.
Can you tell us what went wrong with the screen lamination processes? Who was the job contracted to? How many lines did they set up? How much experience was there with the technology? How closely was Apple riding herd on the suppliers for the materials?
You keep saying that it was Apple that screwed up. How, exactly? Let us know whatever it is that you know.
Their part of it was halting sales of the old iMacs before there was adequate supplies of the new ones. That's not a fault necessarily but at least a side-effect of their supply chain design where they don't like to build up too much inventory. On the flip side, there would be a risk if they did build up inventory, of news about a new product leaking before the announcement. That seems to happen anyway though so perhaps they need to have a longer lead time. There's a much lower negative impact from finding out about products early than them not being able to fulfil actual orders.
Can you tell us what went wrong with the screen lamination processes? Who was the job contracted to? How many lines did they set up? How much experience was there with the technology? How closely was Apple riding herd on the suppliers for the materials?
You keep saying that it was Apple that screwed up. How, exactly? Let us know whatever it is that you know.
Isn't it obvious? He had no clue what really happened, so he's slinging mud.
No one here knows the answer to the questions you are asking.
These questions and their answers are interesting but not relevant in assessing Apple's responsibility in delayed shipment of new iMacs. Either they should have postponed announcing the new design or they should have stopped taking orders. Regardless of which contractor didnt come thru, Apple is responsible.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
Any and all statements by analysts should be viewed with a huge amount of skepticism or just plain be ignored.
And yet here you are reading this page.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich
There is no possible way the NPD Group could cull accurate data on Mac sales. Absolutely impossible unless they are stealing it from Apple. In other words... BS.
That used to be what I thought too. But the fact is that these groups are rarely way off and are often <20% off, which is remarkable to me. In some ways, I am sort of impressed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Not true at all. I've frequently questioned things like this. If you go back through the market share threads, you'll find multiple cases where I said that market share figures based on samples were not valid unless they could prove that the samples were representative - and I did so even in threads which showed very positive numbers for Apple.
Man ... you are so defensive when it comes to Apple that you are even defensive about being defensive.
There. Fixed it for you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ankleskater
Man ... you are so defensive when it comes to Apple that you are even defensive about being defensive.
Ok I laughed at that. I've noticed the same thing from a few commenters here, but you're the first to point it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
I don't think that there's any way to say that for a number of reasons:
1. Sales in January are always the slowest month of the year. So even without any price changes or new products, one would expect them to increase in February and March.
2. Even in January, supplies of the iMac were constrained with long lead times - especially for custom orders.
3. The price cuts were not universal. AFAIK, the prices on the Apple Store remained unchanged.
There's absolutely no way to say that the price cuts played a huge role as you claim. They probably played some role, but no one outside of Apple knows how much.
1. Which probably played a large role in shipping times beginning to improve, but otherwise this has nothing to do with my point so why mention it?
2. Which you'd only notice if you tried to order from Apple's online store. Best Buy, MacMall, and even Apple's retail stores had plenty in stock, including at least one build of the 27" model. You're correct about custom orders still being an issue, but I'd like to see the ratio between stock and custom orders before I comment on whether or not that matters.
3. You're half right. All discounts aside from those implemented for the rMBP line weren't matched by Apple itself. I know three people personally who jumped on buying an rMBP after the price cuts, though, as the only thing keeping them on the fence was the price delta between MBP and rMBP. I was half tempted myself, but prefer to wait for the Haswell refresh this summer since I'll be buying the 13" model, as every indication is that the integrated graphics of that part are significantly improved over the current Ivy Bridge model.
Since I am assuming these numbers come from ALL Mac sales, not just direct sales via Apple's online or retail stores, to imply that those sizable discounts don't matter because they were only implemented by 3rd party sellers is tenuous as best. As you say, since there is absolutely no way prove one way or another if those discounts did play a role (I said A role, mind you, not a Huge role. That was your word, not mine) there is equally no way to prove they DIDN'T play just as significant if not more so a role as the improved production yields for the iMac line. This point alone negates the credibility of this article, which was the main thrust of my first post. As a shareholder, I'm happy to see sales are up, and never meant to imply otherwise.
Pretty please?
I'm dyin' here. Bought a new MacbookPro last summer and have been waiting and waiting for a Thunderbolt update.
I expect they will at the event they update the Mac Pro and AirPort products.
Can you tell us what went wrong with the screen lamination processes? Who was the job contracted to? How many lines did they set up? How much experience was there with the technology? How closely was Apple riding herd on the suppliers for the materials?
You keep saying that it was Apple that screwed up. How, exactly? Let us know whatever it is that you know.
Isn't it obvious? He had no clue what really happened, so he's slinging mud.
No one here knows the answer to the questions you are asking.
Their part of it was halting sales of the old iMacs before there was adequate supplies of the new ones. That's not a fault necessarily but at least a side-effect of their supply chain design where they don't like to build up too much inventory. On the flip side, there would be a risk if they did build up inventory, of news about a new product leaking before the announcement. That seems to happen anyway though so perhaps they need to have a longer lead time. There's a much lower negative impact from finding out about products early than them not being able to fulfil actual orders.
These questions and their answers are interesting but not relevant in assessing Apple's responsibility in delayed shipment of new iMacs. Either they should have postponed announcing the new design or they should have stopped taking orders. Regardless of which contractor didnt come thru, Apple is responsible.