It is really appalling the endless nonsense produced by the financial press, particularly as regards Apple, and how none of these error filled pundits are rarely, if ever, called to the mat.
The latest, of course, is Munster's assertion that more than a third of Apple's weekend sales were "channel fill," a remarkable contention unsupported by any real evidence at all. In fact, a Goldman Sachs analyst has counted that such "fill" is not likely to be substantial given that Apple reserves the vast bulk of its stock to its own stores, for which sales are only counted when sold to a customer, as well as the fact that the 5s model, which is not subject to the "channel fill" concept as it sold out over the weekend, appears significantly more popular in every market, including the US, Japan and China, with the 5s comprising 80-90% of initial sales in the latter two markets.
Even more outrageous than Munster's fancy footwork is the Forbes' "contributor" who had estimated 3-4 million in sales -- i.e., off by 300% -- who also gratefully latched onto Munster's post-whiff revisionism.
Nor of course is there any explanation as to why this phenomenon was not part of the analysts' initial estimates. And it is, of course, these same brilliant analysts who have all sorts of brilliant ideas about how Apple should be running its business and how shocked they are when Apple does not follow their brilliant plans. "Presumptuous" hardly does such delusion justice.
One can be quite confident that Apple's management is not only smarter and harder working but also possessed of vastly more information than these "analysts" could ever conceive.
I don't know why anyone with an IQ above their shoe size pays attention to what Gene Munster says.
The sales split makes perfect sense in the markets reported. If you plan to keep your phone for 2 years the difference between the 5C and 5S is just 14 cents per day.
In China the iPhone is a status symbol that's priced well above the reach of the average citizen. In past years you could buy last year's model and nobody would be able to tell you paid less than full price. Now buying anything but the top-of-the-line model is obvious.
Gene has done a wonderful job with Apple stock; now, he should move onto covering Google stock, that stock is way too high, i am sure he can bring it down with a couple of analysis.
The point you dimbulbs keep missing is that this is not about anyone's ability to accurately predict future sales. It is about their behavior once the numbers come in and show how wrong they were. The proper response by Munster and others who saw Apple's actual sales blow away expectations is to praise Apple and discuss the factors that contributed to such a huge launch, such as having two "new" models available (the 5C is "newish" with the colored plastic backs and some minor upgrades over the 5) rather than one and the impact of China and Japan's largest carriers coming on board. Instead what these idiots did is try to minimize the huge gains by saying Apple is fudging the numbers and that most of the increase is "channel sell-in" rather than actual sales. They are insinuating that Apple changed the way they measure sales from how they've done in the past. In other words, "I wasn't wrong, Apple just manipulated the numbers."
It's bullshit and they deserve to be called on it. And you need to quit acting like you don't get that.
Dimbulbs like me? Mighty presumptive statement coming from a knee-jerk douche-headed closed-minded ass-hatted dip-shit such as yourself.
How on earth did my comments have ANYTHING to do with yours? As the title of the article states, and as the article lays out in detail, Munster has not been accurate at all with his projections. In my comments, I was (and am still) truly wondering if there was anyone who HAD been accurate. If you don't know the answer to my very simple and logical question, then shut the hell up.
He was only off by 5 million. Twice. Let's cut him some slack. I mean he and his analyst friends did do potential stock buyers a big favor by causing Apple's stock to drop, and quite significantly at that.
/s
In the future all Munster needs to do is present his estimate and add "plus or minus 5 million units."
Dimbulbs like me? Mighty presumptive statement coming from a knee-jerk douche-headed closed-minded ass-hatted dip-shit such as yourself.
How on earth did my comments have ANYTHING to do with yours? As the title of the article states, and as the article lays out in detail, Munster has not been accurate at all with his projections. In my comments, I was (and am still) truly wondering if there was anyone who HAD been accurate. If you don't know the answer to my very simple and logical question, then shut the hell up.
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.
AND... when you factor in the birth/death rate of 9 million people, some of the lines will get longer while waiting to buy their iPhone instead of shorter.
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.
If you call this article "tabloid trash" even when it was labeled as an editorial, then there isn't a word in the English language to describe articles on Engadget, AP, Reuters or any other news outlet that discuss things like labor practices of Apple's suppliers, pieces entirely devoid of balanced journalism and clearly designed to generate page views.
Munster basically said that Apple really only sold 5.5 million because the rest of the iPhones were in partner channel inventory. Which is total bs. None of the partners have the 5s either and there sold out everywhere not just apple. He made up that ridiculous tripe to cover his own incompetent prediction, instead of just coming clean and admitting he made a mistake. He's turning into just another analyst boob like all the rest of the retards that work on wallstreet.
Munster basically said that Apple really only sold 5.5 million because the rest of the iPhones were in partner channel inventory. Which is total bs. None of the partners have the 5s either and there sold out everywhere not just apple. He made up that ridiculous tripe to cover his own incompetent prediction, instead of just coming clean and admitting he made a mistake. He's turning into just another analyst boob like all the rest of the retards that work on wallstreet.
But remember many stores still had iPhones 5, 4/4S in inventory and any of those purchased would be included in iPhone sales but my guess is that they wouldn't be more than a few hundred thousand worth.
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.
Obviously you need to go back and look at the article headline and the part where it says "Editorial".
But I will help you out:
Notice the Clearly market "Editorial" in the upper left part of the headline?
But remember many stores still had iPhones 5, 4/4S in inventory and any of those purchased would be included in iPhone sales but my guess is that they wouldn't be more than a few hundred thousand worth.
I dont know if they would be even that much but yes some of those iPhones would be the old 5 and 4s as the low end. Tim Cook did say though and I cant remember where that the 5's were down to about 2 weeks of inventory just before the 5c and 5s's launch. I know locally the 5's are gone. Most like walmart and best buy sold them for $79.00 just to get rid of them, and Walmart and Target were selling the 5c's for $79.00 as well.
I can't stand Gene Munster, yet I find your article very unconvincing. Far too much hyperbole and very little data to back up your core argument that Apple actually sold 9 million units.
The very last chart showing the Localytics data does seem to point to a significant lack of sales of the 5c model. If this is correct, then it is quite possible that at least in principle, Munster is correct; albeit, we have no idea how he got the 3.5 million number that he claims are sell-in numbers.
Before you attack, irrespective of if you ultimately end up being right or wrong, you should have your facts first, and you clearly don't!
Munster basically said that Apple really only sold 5.5 million because the rest of the iPhones were in partner channel inventory. Which is total bs. None of the partners have the 5s either and there sold out everywhere not just apple. He made up that ridiculous tripe to cover his own incompetent prediction, instead of just coming clean and admitting he made a mistake. He's turning into just another analyst boob like all the rest of the retards that work on wallstreet.
Not sure why you're having difficulty following what Munster said. Frankly, I have no idea if he is wrong or right, but his basic assumptions I thought were fairly easy to figure out:
1. He seems to have assumed that Apple shipped 9 million units out, of which 4.5 million were 5s and 4.5 million were 5c.
2. He's assumed that all the 5s units sold but that only 1 million of the 5c units sold. Where he got that number from is anyone's guess, perhaps the 20% Localytics data quoted in this article.
3. He then assumed that the remaining 3.5 million 5c units are still in the channel.
Voila, he now states that sell-through number is 5.5 million units.
I can't stand Gene Munster, yet I find your article very unconvincing. Far too much hyperbole and very little data to back up your core argument that Apple actually sold 9 million units.
The very last chart showing the Localytics data does seem to point to a significant lack of sales of the 5c model. If this is correct, then it is quite possible that at least in principle, Munster is correct; albeit, we have no idea how he got the 3.5 million number that he claims are sell-in numbers.
Before you attack, irrespective of if you ultimately end up being right or wrong, you should have your facts first, and you clearly don't!
And there's little data saying Apple didn't sell 9 MM. It's also illegalfor a public company to lie. In addition, what's the benefit of lying?
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?
Well, I'm one such person. Ordered a 64gb iPhone 5S on the weekend via Apple online, shipping "October". Apple Store employee confirmed in person that my credit card won't be charged til the phone ships.
Comments
Now that's funny! I like it when u use humor to make ur point(s). Perhaps u should only post between 10am and 2pm?
It is really appalling the endless nonsense produced by the financial press, particularly as regards Apple, and how none of these error filled pundits are rarely, if ever, called to the mat.
The latest, of course, is Munster's assertion that more than a third of Apple's weekend sales were "channel fill," a remarkable contention unsupported by any real evidence at all. In fact, a Goldman Sachs analyst has counted that such "fill" is not likely to be substantial given that Apple reserves the vast bulk of its stock to its own stores, for which sales are only counted when sold to a customer, as well as the fact that the 5s model, which is not subject to the "channel fill" concept as it sold out over the weekend, appears significantly more popular in every market, including the US, Japan and China, with the 5s comprising 80-90% of initial sales in the latter two markets.
Even more outrageous than Munster's fancy footwork is the Forbes' "contributor" who had estimated 3-4 million in sales -- i.e., off by 300% -- who also gratefully latched onto Munster's post-whiff revisionism.
Nor of course is there any explanation as to why this phenomenon was not part of the analysts' initial estimates. And it is, of course, these same brilliant analysts who have all sorts of brilliant ideas about how Apple should be running its business and how shocked they are when Apple does not follow their brilliant plans. "Presumptuous" hardly does such delusion justice.
One can be quite confident that Apple's management is not only smarter and harder working but also possessed of vastly more information than these "analysts" could ever conceive.
I don't know why anyone with an IQ above their shoe size pays attention to what Gene Munster says.
The sales split makes perfect sense in the markets reported. If you plan to keep your phone for 2 years the difference between the 5C and 5S is just 14 cents per day.
In China the iPhone is a status symbol that's priced well above the reach of the average citizen. In past years you could buy last year's model and nobody would be able to tell you paid less than full price. Now buying anything but the top-of-the-line model is obvious.
The point you dimbulbs keep missing is that this is not about anyone's ability to accurately predict future sales. It is about their behavior once the numbers come in and show how wrong they were. The proper response by Munster and others who saw Apple's actual sales blow away expectations is to praise Apple and discuss the factors that contributed to such a huge launch, such as having two "new" models available (the 5C is "newish" with the colored plastic backs and some minor upgrades over the 5) rather than one and the impact of China and Japan's largest carriers coming on board. Instead what these idiots did is try to minimize the huge gains by saying Apple is fudging the numbers and that most of the increase is "channel sell-in" rather than actual sales. They are insinuating that Apple changed the way they measure sales from how they've done in the past. In other words, "I wasn't wrong, Apple just manipulated the numbers."
It's bullshit and they deserve to be called on it. And you need to quit acting like you don't get that.
Dimbulbs like me? Mighty presumptive statement coming from a knee-jerk douche-headed closed-minded ass-hatted dip-shit such as yourself.
How on earth did my comments have ANYTHING to do with yours? As the title of the article states, and as the article lays out in detail, Munster has not been accurate at all with his projections. In my comments, I was (and am still) truly wondering if there was anyone who HAD been accurate. If you don't know the answer to my very simple and logical question, then shut the hell up.
In the future all Munster needs to do is present his estimate and add "plus or minus 5 million units."
I'm sure glad he didn't really piss you off.
AND... when you factor in the birth/death rate of 9 million people, some of the lines will get longer while waiting to buy their iPhone instead of shorter.
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.
If you call this article "tabloid trash" even when it was labeled as an editorial, then there isn't a word in the English language to describe articles on Engadget, AP, Reuters or any other news outlet that discuss things like labor practices of Apple's suppliers, pieces entirely devoid of balanced journalism and clearly designed to generate page views.
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
Munster basically said that Apple really only sold 5.5 million because the rest of the iPhones were in partner channel inventory. Which is total bs. None of the partners have the 5s either and there sold out everywhere not just apple. He made up that ridiculous tripe to cover his own incompetent prediction, instead of just coming clean and admitting he made a mistake. He's turning into just another analyst boob like all the rest of the retards that work on wallstreet.
But remember many stores still had iPhones 5, 4/4S in inventory and any of those purchased would be included in iPhone sales but my guess is that they wouldn't be more than a few hundred thousand worth.
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.
Obviously you need to go back and look at the article headline and the part where it says "Editorial".
But I will help you out:
Notice the Clearly market "Editorial" in the upper left part of the headline?
But remember many stores still had iPhones 5, 4/4S in inventory and any of those purchased would be included in iPhone sales but my guess is that they wouldn't be more than a few hundred thousand worth.
I dont know if they would be even that much but yes some of those iPhones would be the old 5 and 4s as the low end. Tim Cook did say though and I cant remember where that the 5's were down to about 2 weeks of inventory just before the 5c and 5s's launch. I know locally the 5's are gone. Most like walmart and best buy sold them for $79.00 just to get rid of them, and Walmart and Target were selling the 5c's for $79.00 as well.
The very last chart showing the Localytics data does seem to point to a significant lack of sales of the 5c model. If this is correct, then it is quite possible that at least in principle, Munster is correct; albeit, we have no idea how he got the 3.5 million number that he claims are sell-in numbers.
Before you attack, irrespective of if you ultimately end up being right or wrong, you should have your facts first, and you clearly don't!
You sure do sound like you must be missing something: the ability to read, for starters.
WTF? It clearly states "Editorial" on the front page headline. Sheesh, get a friggin' clue.
If you call this article "tabloid trash" even when it was labeled as an editorial...
Obviously you need to go back and look at the article headline and the part where it says "Editorial".
There is no such label in the Ai iOS app (where I read it) or mobile web app (where I commented on it).
Munster basically said that Apple really only sold 5.5 million because the rest of the iPhones were in partner channel inventory. Which is total bs. None of the partners have the 5s either and there sold out everywhere not just apple. He made up that ridiculous tripe to cover his own incompetent prediction, instead of just coming clean and admitting he made a mistake. He's turning into just another analyst boob like all the rest of the retards that work on wallstreet.
Not sure why you're having difficulty following what Munster said. Frankly, I have no idea if he is wrong or right, but his basic assumptions I thought were fairly easy to figure out:
1. He seems to have assumed that Apple shipped 9 million units out, of which 4.5 million were 5s and 4.5 million were 5c.
2. He's assumed that all the 5s units sold but that only 1 million of the 5c units sold. Where he got that number from is anyone's guess, perhaps the 20% Localytics data quoted in this article.
3. He then assumed that the remaining 3.5 million 5c units are still in the channel.
Voila, he now states that sell-through number is 5.5 million units.
And there's little data saying Apple didn't sell 9 MM. It's also illegalfor a public company to lie. In addition, what's the benefit of lying?
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?
Well, I'm one such person. Ordered a 64gb iPhone 5S on the weekend via Apple online, shipping "October". Apple Store employee confirmed in person that my credit card won't be charged til the phone ships.
Those anal ists should be fired if they guess 3 times in a row wrong , if what they guess is wrong is over 10% difference.