Great article! These analysts like to embarrass themselves with short lived, unfounded, misleading and manipulative predictions. I'm surprised this guy is still covering Apple. Maybe a change of stock will serve him well.
This sort of article, whose sole purpose seems to be character assassination, reveals gossipy, agenda-driven, pro-company propagandists, and separates the author(s) from blogs of real journalistic integrity.
Can pure editorials please be better labeled and separated from news articles? I quite honestly must be missing something.
WTF? It clearly states "Editorial" on the front page headline. Sheesh, get a friggin' clue.
I don't fault Gene Munster for not being able to come up with the correct numbers. It's a tough business predicting the future. The disturbing thing to me is that, even when given the correct numbers, he still gets it wrong. I don't think the man is incompetent. So it really begs the question: What's going on here? Why would he publicly shout: Hey, everybody, look at me, I'm an idiot? What does he have to gain? Some are suggesting it's ego, or an inability on his part to admit when he's wrong, but I doubt that.
Which brings us back to the big question: Why would he do this? What does he get from this?
Any suggestions?
Perhaps a chance to take part in Mike Daisey's new act How to lie.
he points out shipments to third party retailers like Best Buy are recorded as "sales" by Apple. but if those stores sell out that stock right away - as occurred except for some number of 5c's - that is not "channel stuffing."
he also points out the very important fact the DED omitted that Apple does not include in the 9 million sales total all those iPhones that were ordered on line last weekend but not yet delivered to the buyer - Apple only charges your credit card when the phone is delivered (i just checked my own account and can confirm that is true) and only then records a "sale."
it's anyone's guess how many on line orders were made over the weekend - none could have been delivered that fast. 5 million more?
and even when Apple reports its quarterly sales up to 9/30 next month, that total will leave out the millions of iPhones with delivery dates after 10/1 - which started for orders on Saturday! hopefully at that point Apple will also tell us at least how many additional iPhones were on order as of 9/30 in addition to those "sold," so we can get an accurate idea about what really happened.
I want a appleinsider.com/gene-munster/ page set up that charts Predictions | Actuals | Difference on an ongoing basis with text and links to other AI Munster reports. This way, anyone searching for this hack can easily find the dedicated page and know this guy could not even be a weather man he is so constantly wrong.
I want a appleinsider.com/gene-munster/ page set up that charts Predictions | Actuals | Difference on an ongoing basis with text and links to other AI Munster reports. This way, anyone searching for this hack can easily find the dedicated page and know this guy could not even be a weather man he is so constantly wrong.
I agree, but you don't go far enough. Someone should do that for all the major analysts.
he points out shipments to third party retailers like Best Buy are recorded as "sales" by Apple. but if those stores sell out that stock right away - as occurred except for some number of 5c's - that is not "channel stuffing."
he also points out the very important fact the DED omitted that Apple does not include in the 9 million sales total all those iPhones that were ordered on line last weekend but not yet delivered to the buyer - Apple only charges your credit card when the phone is delivered (i just checked my own account and can confirm that is true) and only then records a "sale."
it's anyone's guess how many on line orders were made over the weekend - none could have been delivered that fast. 5 million more?
and even when Apple reports its quarterly sales up to 9/30 next month, that total will leave out the millions of iPhones with delivery dates after 10/1 - which started for orders on Saturday! hopefully at that point Apple will also tell us at least how many additional iPhones were on order as of 9/30 in addition to those "sold," so we can get an accurate idea about what really happened.
The PED piece is good. But this post herein is really a bit unfair to Munster. If you listen to him (rather than the *transcript*), he was not really trying to defend his predictions. He was answering questions posed to him. Most importantly, he wasn't truly wrong when he said this year's announcement about # of units sold was not the same as last year's. Even PED doesn't deny this.
Gotta be fair, people. After all, Munster is more bullish on Apple than most analysts.
I'm glad to see someone take on Munster, if only for his history of outlandishly high predictions for Apple. You're right -- he (and the toadies who followed his lead, sans real sources) had a huge part in Apple's stock slide. If you're a fan of the company, it's so much fun to see these unrealistic predictions, until you realize that they're a set-up. Earnings day reports are bound to look bad if you only triple your profit when you were predicted to quadruple them. I guess.
Seems to me that Apple shareholders should just be content to realize that their company has more cash than it can invest and products that are groundbreaking, interesting and desired by a huge number of buyers. The analysts can ( and do) blow it out their a$$e$.
The PED piece is good. But this post herein is really a bit unfair to Munster. If you listen to him (rather than the *transcript*), he was not really trying to defend his predictions. He was answering questions posed to him. Most importantly, he wasn't truly wrong when he said this year's announcement about # of units sold was not the same as last year's. Even PED doesn't deny this.
Gotta be fair, people. After all, Munster is more bullish on Apple than most analysts.
I did listen to the piece and he is claiming that Apple is reporting their number differently than in years past. He's trying to make it sound as if Apple's padding the numbers by reporting "channel sales" (shipped to stores but not necessarily sold to consumers) this year, while in the past they only reported sell through to consumers. That's bullshit. There is zero indication Apple is reporting numbers any differently than they have in the past. He's just covering his ass after being badly wrong two years straight.
Munster may very well have estimated the exact number of physical Apple Store retail sales, then figured that Apple could only produce 4 million to 5 million total 5C and 5S units for launch. Of course, if supply isn't constrained, there's no way that he could guess the number of online sales through the combined sales through the Apple.com store and iOS Apple Store app. Evidently supply wasn't as constrained as he (wildly) guessed.
Here's some bizarre math: In a world where 9 million people all lined up at once, evenly distributed among the 413 brick-and-mortar Apple Stores worldwide, there would be an average of about 21,792 people per line. Assuming about 1 foot of linear space per person on average, the lines would be nearly 4.13 miles long at each Apple Store around the world. I'm extremely glad that I don't live in that world. Much more convenient to pre-order through the iOS Apple Store app.
And commenter ActiveTrader99 said it most accurately and succinctly:
" There has been no change in Apple's counting methodology. Apple initial launch sales has always included:
- product sold through Apple retail stores
- product sold into the channel (Best Buy, AT&T, Walmart, etc.)
- product sold AND delivered via the Apple online store.
If Gene Munster did not factor that into his calculation, that is his error (or excuse for his poor estimate). There was a unique situation with 2 new iPhone models being released and of course this would impact channel inventory."
The last sentence is what Munster is particularly harping on. But again, that's his error, not Apple's. Further, he has NO idea how the 2 models affected channel inventory he's just guessing and of course guessing in ways that helps him explain his misjudgement.
and even when Apple reports its quarterly sales up to 9/30 next month, that total will leave out the millions of iPhones with delivery dates after 10/1 - which started for orders on Saturday! hopefully at that point Apple will also tell us at least how many additional iPhones were on order as of 9/30 in addition to those "sold," so we can get an accurate idea about what really happened.
Yes. And many in this forum speculated 2 things:
- that sales of 5c will be subdued for opening weekend (for a couple of reasons, one being that 5c candidates are just not ultra-anxious to buy the 5c on launch weekend).
- that sales of 5c will continue to be strong throughout the Oct-Dec quarter. Stronger than most think.
I do agree with Munster, in that the Sep quarter may be positively impacted due to more than usual channel "stuffing" but only because there are 2 models, one of which has many colors...and that's a natural/reasonable result. But if he thinks this will somehow negatively affect the Dec quarter...he'll be mistaken. Strong demand for 5c will continue (along with 5s). And that's the bottom line for iPhone revenue.
I'm glad to see someone take on Munster, if only for his history of outlandishly high predictions for Apple. You're right -- he (and the toadies who followed his lead, sans real sources) had a huge part in Apple's stock slide. If you're a fan of the company, it's so much fun to see these unrealistic predictions, until you realize that they're a set-up. Earnings day reports are bound to look bad if you only triple your profit when you were predicted to quadruple them. I guess.
Seems to me that Apple shareholders should just be content to realize that their company has more cash than it can invest and products that are groundbreaking, interesting and desired by a huge number of buyers. The analysts can ( and do) blow it out their a$$e$.
The problem is that investors can't simply ignore the idiots. AAPL is down 1.3% today - between yesterday and today, it's lost nearly half of its gains from Monday. Idiots like Munster do affect the market - no matter how idiotic their rants may be.
Then at the very least, having a law on the books stating they must list all compensations they receive directly or indirectly linked to their prognostications would be a good start. That would certainly make for good reading on these articles. I don't ever watch TV these days, only Netflix and Apple TV but on the odd occasion I do those pharm ads have me doubled over. I recall a Monty Python skit based on that idea before anyone actually did it (or had to). I am sure folks become deaf to it but hearing one after a long time not, is like watching John Cleese all over again.
And is always … if they hide pertinent information, that in of itself could be used against them more easily probably than the actual 'crime'. as Nixon and many others have found out.
The possible side reactions are quite funny, but do you know why there are so many and seem so crazy? Because ANYTHING that you experience while taking the drug is supposed to be reported (whether it is caused by the drug, who knows). Once you know that, it makes a little more sense (but doesn't really make the lists any less scary and/or funny).
Comments
This is not journalism; this is tabloid trash.
This sort of article, whose sole purpose seems to be character assassination, reveals gossipy, agenda-driven, pro-company propagandists, and separates the author(s) from blogs of real journalistic integrity.
Can pure editorials please be better labeled and separated from news articles? I quite honestly must be missing something.
WTF? It clearly states "Editorial" on the front page headline. Sheesh, get a friggin' clue.
Perhaps a chance to take part in Mike Daisey's new act How to lie.
When Apple proves him wrong again, look for Gene to file a complaint with the SEC. Reason: Apple is proving me wrong. Make them stop.
Philip Elmer-DeWitt over at CNN Money offers an excellent fact-based analysis of the Munster/Misek BS.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/09/25/apple-analysts-iphone-kerfuffle/
he points out shipments to third party retailers like Best Buy are recorded as "sales" by Apple. but if those stores sell out that stock right away - as occurred except for some number of 5c's - that is not "channel stuffing."
he also points out the very important fact the DED omitted that Apple does not include in the 9 million sales total all those iPhones that were ordered on line last weekend but not yet delivered to the buyer - Apple only charges your credit card when the phone is delivered (i just checked my own account and can confirm that is true) and only then records a "sale."
it's anyone's guess how many on line orders were made over the weekend - none could have been delivered that fast. 5 million more?
and even when Apple reports its quarterly sales up to 9/30 next month, that total will leave out the millions of iPhones with delivery dates after 10/1 - which started for orders on Saturday! hopefully at that point Apple will also tell us at least how many additional iPhones were on order as of 9/30 in addition to those "sold," so we can get an accurate idea about what really happened.
I want a appleinsider.com/gene-munster/ page set up that charts Predictions | Actuals | Difference on an ongoing basis with text and links to other AI Munster reports. This way, anyone searching for this hack can easily find the dedicated page and know this guy could not even be a weather man he is so constantly wrong.
I agree, but you don't go far enough. Someone should do that for all the major analysts.
Philip Elmer-DeWitt over at CNN Money offers an excellent fact-based analysis of the Munster/Misek BS.
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/09/25/apple-analysts-iphone-kerfuffle/
he points out shipments to third party retailers like Best Buy are recorded as "sales" by Apple. but if those stores sell out that stock right away - as occurred except for some number of 5c's - that is not "channel stuffing."
he also points out the very important fact the DED omitted that Apple does not include in the 9 million sales total all those iPhones that were ordered on line last weekend but not yet delivered to the buyer - Apple only charges your credit card when the phone is delivered (i just checked my own account and can confirm that is true) and only then records a "sale."
it's anyone's guess how many on line orders were made over the weekend - none could have been delivered that fast. 5 million more?
and even when Apple reports its quarterly sales up to 9/30 next month, that total will leave out the millions of iPhones with delivery dates after 10/1 - which started for orders on Saturday! hopefully at that point Apple will also tell us at least how many additional iPhones were on order as of 9/30 in addition to those "sold," so we can get an accurate idea about what really happened.
The PED piece is good. But this post herein is really a bit unfair to Munster. If you listen to him (rather than the *transcript*), he was not really trying to defend his predictions. He was answering questions posed to him. Most importantly, he wasn't truly wrong when he said this year's announcement about # of units sold was not the same as last year's. Even PED doesn't deny this.
Gotta be fair, people. After all, Munster is more bullish on Apple than most analysts.
Ah yes. Gene "Apple-Television-Real-Soon-Now-(tm)" Munster.
I hope he kept his day job.
Seems to me that Apple shareholders should just be content to realize that their company has more cash than it can invest and products that are groundbreaking, interesting and desired by a huge number of buyers. The analysts can ( and do) blow it out their a$$e$.
The PED piece is good. But this post herein is really a bit unfair to Munster. If you listen to him (rather than the *transcript*), he was not really trying to defend his predictions. He was answering questions posed to him. Most importantly, he wasn't truly wrong when he said this year's announcement about # of units sold was not the same as last year's. Even PED doesn't deny this.
Gotta be fair, people. After all, Munster is more bullish on Apple than most analysts.
I did listen to the piece and he is claiming that Apple is reporting their number differently than in years past. He's trying to make it sound as if Apple's padding the numbers by reporting "channel sales" (shipped to stores but not necessarily sold to consumers) this year, while in the past they only reported sell through to consumers. That's bullshit. There is zero indication Apple is reporting numbers any differently than they have in the past. He's just covering his ass after being badly wrong two years straight.
Munster may very well have estimated the exact number of physical Apple Store retail sales, then figured that Apple could only produce 4 million to 5 million total 5C and 5S units for launch. Of course, if supply isn't constrained, there's no way that he could guess the number of online sales through the combined sales through the Apple.com store and iOS Apple Store app. Evidently supply wasn't as constrained as he (wildly) guessed.
Here's some bizarre math: In a world where 9 million people all lined up at once, evenly distributed among the 413 brick-and-mortar Apple Stores worldwide, there would be an average of about 21,792 people per line. Assuming about 1 foot of linear space per person on average, the lines would be nearly 4.13 miles long at each Apple Store around the world. I'm extremely glad that I don't live in that world. Much more convenient to pre-order through the iOS Apple Store app.
Was this article written to counter the piece in Business Insider where Munster said Apple only sold 5.5 million on launch weekend?
http://www.businessinsider.com/apple-actually-only-sold-55-million-iphones-during-opening-weekend-says-gene-munster-2013-9
And commenter ActiveTrader99 said it most accurately and succinctly:
" There has been no change in Apple's counting methodology. Apple initial launch sales has always included:
- product sold through Apple retail stores
- product sold into the channel (Best Buy, AT&T, Walmart, etc.)
- product sold AND delivered via the Apple online store.
If Gene Munster did not factor that into his calculation, that is his error (or excuse for his poor estimate). There was a unique situation with 2 new iPhone models being released and of course this would impact channel inventory."
The last sentence is what Munster is particularly harping on. But again, that's his error, not Apple's. Further, he has NO idea how the 2 models affected channel inventory he's just guessing and of course guessing in ways that helps him explain his misjudgement.
and even when Apple reports its quarterly sales up to 9/30 next month, that total will leave out the millions of iPhones with delivery dates after 10/1 - which started for orders on Saturday! hopefully at that point Apple will also tell us at least how many additional iPhones were on order as of 9/30 in addition to those "sold," so we can get an accurate idea about what really happened.
Yes. And many in this forum speculated 2 things:
- that sales of 5c will be subdued for opening weekend (for a couple of reasons, one being that 5c candidates are just not ultra-anxious to buy the 5c on launch weekend).
- that sales of 5c will continue to be strong throughout the Oct-Dec quarter. Stronger than most think.
I do agree with Munster, in that the Sep quarter may be positively impacted due to more than usual channel "stuffing" but only because there are 2 models, one of which has many colors...and that's a natural/reasonable result. But if he thinks this will somehow negatively affect the Dec quarter...he'll be mistaken. Strong demand for 5c will continue (along with 5s). And that's the bottom line for iPhone revenue.
The problem is that investors can't simply ignore the idiots. AAPL is down 1.3% today - between yesterday and today, it's lost nearly half of its gains from Monday. Idiots like Munster do affect the market - no matter how idiotic their rants may be.
Most importantly, he wasn't truly wrong when he said this year's announcement about # of units sold was not the same as last year's.
In what way was it 'different'? What part of what was 'different' was a surprise for Munster that he failed to factor into his analysis?
Then at the very least, having a law on the books stating they must list all compensations they receive directly or indirectly linked to their prognostications would be a good start. That would certainly make for good reading on these articles. I don't ever watch TV these days, only Netflix and Apple TV but on the odd occasion I do those pharm ads have me doubled over. I recall a Monty Python skit based on that idea before anyone actually did it (or had to). I am sure folks become deaf to it but hearing one after a long time not, is like watching John Cleese all over again.
And is always … if they hide pertinent information, that in of itself could be used against them more easily probably than the actual 'crime'. as Nixon and many others have found out.
The possible side reactions are quite funny, but do you know why there are so many and seem so crazy? Because ANYTHING that you experience while taking the drug is supposed to be reported (whether it is caused by the drug, who knows). Once you know that, it makes a little more sense (but doesn't really make the lists any less scary and/or funny).
DED and PED surely do shred analyst cred on AAPL!
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />