What I would like to know is why investors can't sue the pants off the WSJ and other prognosticators when their erroneous reports affect the stock price in a negative way. Any lawyers or paralegals around here? It's almost tantamount to libel or slander.
I agree. Are we not getting to a point where irresponsibility by so called journalists can start to damage others financially? Yes there's freedom of the press but there has to be accountability too. These people are literally making stuff up and deriving incorrect assumptions from their false info.
Yet another great article by DED. Please keep them coming.
Boy, you find it hard to admit that you don't really know.
You give me absolutely no figures to support your assumptions. No yoy in Europe, no yoy in China, no yoy anywhere except the States... and then you say that I am spinning the story.
I tell you what I know. A questionable study came out that showed yoy growth in the US in the mid tier Apple phones was 23% vs. 27%, 4s / 5c... a statistical dead heat. I also know that it might not even be a valid barometer of anything.
See if you can say otherwise.
[... and I'm sure if I was too far off the mark there would be a number of qualified posters ripping me to shreds]
Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.
Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.
That's what he does. He completely ignores the concrete- Apple reported- numbers that shoot holes in his theory. He won't mention percentages and the 6 million vs 9 million in the same sentence. Anyone with an inkling of math knowledge knows he's wrong.
Not that I need validation to know if I'm correct or not- he apparently does. He also fails to see you, me, lee, Constable, ikrupp, etc. telling him he's wrong- or "ripping him to shreds" in his words. In the meantime, he can see no one has disputed what I said. But it's such a small sample size, so with margin of error and adding and subtracting where needed, we really have 3 people telling me I'm wrong and only 2 telling him. /s
Edit: of course, that could also be because no one wants to argue with either of us. " src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.
So you are saying that yoy growth is not a significant factor?
(btw - thank you for the 'raw data' comment. I agree completely. Raw data is not something that we have or will ever have... if I understand you correctly)
That's what he does. He completely ignores the concrete- Apple reported- numbers that shoot holes in his theory. He won't mention percentages and the 6 million vs 9 million in the same sentence. Anyone with an inkling of math knowledge knows he's wrong.
Not that I need validation to know if I'm correct or not- he apparently does. He also fails to see you, me, lee, Constable, ikrupp, etc. telling him he's wrong- or "ripping him to shreds" in his words. In the meantime, he can see no one has disputed what I said. But it's such a small sample size, so with margin of error and adding and subtracting where needed, we really have 3 people telling me I'm wrong and only 2 telling him. /s
You and jungmark are the only ones who have said anything about by comments.
When Anan, jragosta, TS and a few others say something, then I'll listen, but not to a couple of amateur no nothings that have no more clue than I do.
Anyone who can afford a $70 /mo contract can afford an extra 14 cents/day to move up from last year's phone to a 5S.
But there are a lot of people out there who can't do math so I'm sure the 5C will do just fine in the long run, especially for Apple who make huge margins on them.
Apple still made a sizable investment in the 5c, that likely did not yield them any more income than they would have received had they simply discounted last years 5 as they had done in previous years.
Does the 5c cost less to make? Perhaps. But does that recoup the massive expenditure to redesign, engineer, test and market it? As I look at it, it appears as though they are losing money over having done nothing.
What massive expenditure? Let's suppose Apple had 100 people working for a year specifically on the 5c. That's being very generous as I very much doubt repackaging the 5 cost 100 man-years of effort. At a generous $200k per person, that's $20m. Add another $20m for retooling costs gives us $40m. Suppose the new 5c saves $10 per unit to manufacture. It's more than that but let's be stingy.
If Apple sells 4m 5Cs over it's lifetime, it will have increased its revenue over "doing nothing". Since they will sell far more than that, it's clearly a win and a big one.
More importantly, the 5C gives them a clear differentiation between the high end phone and the mid range phone. It potentially appeals to a different set of customers. And the redesign with better frequency support let's them sell in more markets.
Even if the 5C sold at the same level as the 4s, it would still be a clear win for Apple.
Just wait until the 5s parents start their holiday purchasing of kids 5c's. I am. As for this WSJ article, people need to understand it's basically an editorial. Lorraine Luk, Eva Dou and Ian Sherr are fiction writers and their stuff is always worth a good laugh.
So-called reporting as has been seen from analysts and bloggers making claims on Apple product viabilities emphasizes the value of true journalists in information conveyance. Amateurs have a loose grasp - if any - on true facts, don't know how to compile and correlate facts, and don't know how to form valid conclusions. They also disregard the advice of those in possession of facts. Fools rush in...
So you are saying that yoy growth is not a significant factor?
(btw - thank you for the 'raw data' comment. I agree completely. Raw data is not something that we have or will ever have... if I understand you correctly)
Read it again. Isn't statistically insignificant = is statistically significant.
So, 23% compared to 27%, yoy in the US, with a margin of error that makes it a dead heat.
I agree.
I give up. Selling 23/100 is not comparable to selling 54/200. While percentage is 4% difference, the growth is >100%. Note these are exaggerated fake numbers but proves the sample size is relavent to the percentage.
I should not surprise anybody that a paper who consistently uses phrases such as "people close to the matter said", "sources familiar with the product said" and other vague attributions that have no confirmation to any solid or credible source, is backpedalling on their story? The Wall Street Journal has turned in to a publication that reminds me of the National Inquirer. I'm astounded at how a publication that is supposed to have such high standards does so many stories where they quote sources of information but put no names to the source. Every time I read one of their articles, such as the one this morning about the iPhone 5c, that has no credible sources quoted, I feel like I'm reading a general, daily tabloid rag. Should we expect anything different from a news organization, owned by the same person, Ruper Murdoch, who also owns News of the World, that was responsible for hacking the phones of celebrities and other people. What a shame for the world of ethics that Murdock has gained so much media power. I long for the days of news organizations and news leaders such as Ted Turner who have a conscience. If anyone is interested in reading more about the conscience and ethics of a great news leader pick up the recently released Last Stand, by Todd Wilkinson. I couldn't put it down.
I give up. Selling 23/100 is not comparable to selling 54/200. While percentage is 4% difference, the growth is >100%. Note these are exaggerated fake numbers but proves the sample size is relavent to the percentage.
You're saying that the US population increased that much yoy to make that much of a difference.
It is entirely possible that 5C sales have exceeded Apple projections.
Has it occurred to any of these people that Apple would have ordered an excess over its actual projections for 5Cs if it had the lead time, knowing that it would prevent shortages and it could sell through them easily and could carry them at near-zero interest rates for a few months? If it is only cutting ballpark 30% to arrive at its longer term run rate (which would include the calculation for selling thru any surplus on hand already) then this might imply extremely high sales compared to the company's own expectations.
It should also be very good news if one were to apply the interpretation that the 5S enjoys a higher rate of preference among customers than anticipated, price be damned.
Finally, let me observe the obvious business basic that you set your MSRP at the most anybody would want to charge, and leave your customers room to offer sales and specials and bundles and trades and combo deals to their customers.
Sheez, did ANY of these guys ever run any sort of business, or did they just go to B-school.
The thing is, as Mr. Cook cautioned, you don't know. I don't quite get the confirmation bias, but there it is. Trade it.
I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.
Are you absolutely sure what Apple's expectations are?
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.
Add in the fact that Apple has launched a massive global advertising campaign for the 5C and it can barely muster a 27% share of sales is also very telling.
What exactly is "telling?"
What if Apple only expected the 5C to make up only 15% of new phone sales?
Whether the 5C's expected share of new sales was 15% or 27% or 50% doesn't matter -- you have no idea what Apple was expecting, so sorry, your statements aren't very "telling" at all.
Unless you (blackbook) happen to be Tim Cook or someone else on Apple's executive team you have no facts to support any opinion...
I should not surprise anybody that a paper who consistently uses phrases such as "people close to the matter said", "sources familiar with the product said" and other vague attributions that have no confirmation to any solid or credible source, is backpedalling on their story? The Wall Street Journal has turned in to a publication that reminds me of the National Inquirer
I long for the days of news organizations and news leaders such as Ted Turner who have a conscience.
National Inquirer (Enquirer)??? You're being too gracious! WSJ should be called "The Dumb & Dumber Handbook!" Have you watched anything on WSJ Live lately? I have no idea how WSJ can produce such rubbish.
Forget about a conscience -- I long for the days when some "news organizations" had half a brain!
There is no justice on AAPL. Any bullshit that sounds logically correct can apply on Apple .
Headlines like this may make AAPL drop :
Check on Foxconn food supplier on food orders cut implies Apple doesn't need so many people to make iPhones so there is no need to order some much rice.
Yes headlines like this do drop Apple's stock price.
IMO WSJ is simply trying to get attention to their out of date dying publication.
As for me any publication creating trash news stories will not get my read.
What was the sales ratio of iPhone 5 and 4S during the last year? Was it also near 64% and 27% , like the iPhone 5S&C ? If so this is all smoke and no fire.
I believe that the 5c is actually selling better than the 4s did last year when the 5 was the top end if you believe multiple reports.
Comments
Yet another great article by DED. Please keep them coming.
Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.
Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.
That's what he does. He completely ignores the concrete- Apple reported- numbers that shoot holes in his theory. He won't mention percentages and the 6 million vs 9 million in the same sentence. Anyone with an inkling of math knowledge knows he's wrong.
Not that I need validation to know if I'm correct or not- he apparently does. He also fails to see you, me, lee, Constable, ikrupp, etc. telling him he's wrong- or "ripping him to shreds" in his words. In the meantime, he can see no one has disputed what I said. But it's such a small sample size, so with margin of error and adding and subtracting where needed, we really have 3 people telling me I'm wrong and only 2 telling him. /s
Edit: of course, that could also be because no one wants to argue with either of us.
" src="http://forums-files.appleinsider.com/images/smilies//lol.gif" />
Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.
So you are saying that yoy growth is not a significant factor?
(btw - thank you for the 'raw data' comment. I agree completely. Raw data is not something that we have or will ever have... if I understand you correctly)
That's what he does. He completely ignores the concrete- Apple reported- numbers that shoot holes in his theory. He won't mention percentages and the 6 million vs 9 million in the same sentence. Anyone with an inkling of math knowledge knows he's wrong.
Not that I need validation to know if I'm correct or not- he apparently does. He also fails to see you, me, lee, Constable, ikrupp, etc. telling him he's wrong- or "ripping him to shreds" in his words. In the meantime, he can see no one has disputed what I said. But it's such a small sample size, so with margin of error and adding and subtracting where needed, we really have 3 people telling me I'm wrong and only 2 telling him. /s
You and jungmark are the only ones who have said anything about by comments.
When Anan, jragosta, TS and a few others say something, then I'll listen, but not to a couple of amateur no nothings that have no more clue than I do.
But there are a lot of people out there who can't do math so I'm sure the 5C will do just fine in the long run, especially for Apple who make huge margins on them.
What massive expenditure? Let's suppose Apple had 100 people working for a year specifically on the 5c. That's being very generous as I very much doubt repackaging the 5 cost 100 man-years of effort. At a generous $200k per person, that's $20m. Add another $20m for retooling costs gives us $40m. Suppose the new 5c saves $10 per unit to manufacture. It's more than that but let's be stingy.
If Apple sells 4m 5Cs over it's lifetime, it will have increased its revenue over "doing nothing". Since they will sell far more than that, it's clearly a win and a big one.
More importantly, the 5C gives them a clear differentiation between the high end phone and the mid range phone. It potentially appeals to a different set of customers. And the redesign with better frequency support let's them sell in more markets.
Even if the 5C sold at the same level as the 4s, it would still be a clear win for Apple.
Read it again. Isn't statistically insignificant = is statistically significant.
Read it again. Isn't statistically insignificant = is statistically significant.
So, 23% compared to 27%, yoy in the US, with a margin of error that makes it a dead heat.
I agree.
I give up. Selling 23/100 is not comparable to selling 54/200. While percentage is 4% difference, the growth is >100%. Note these are exaggerated fake numbers but proves the sample size is relavent to the percentage.
Daniel J. Cox
The photo of the three executives reveals an issue which the WSJ should really be asking about: What the heck is wrong with Jony Ive's right foot?
I give up. Selling 23/100 is not comparable to selling 54/200. While percentage is 4% difference, the growth is >100%. Note these are exaggerated fake numbers but proves the sample size is relavent to the percentage.
You're saying that the US population increased that much yoy to make that much of a difference.
Wow! Sorry, I didn't know that.
Has it occurred to any of these people that Apple would have ordered an excess over its actual projections for 5Cs if it had the lead time, knowing that it would prevent shortages and it could sell through them easily and could carry them at near-zero interest rates for a few months? If it is only cutting ballpark 30% to arrive at its longer term run rate (which would include the calculation for selling thru any surplus on hand already) then this might imply extremely high sales compared to the company's own expectations.
It should also be very good news if one were to apply the interpretation that the 5S enjoys a higher rate of preference among customers than anticipated, price be damned.
Finally, let me observe the obvious business basic that you set your MSRP at the most anybody would want to charge, and leave your customers room to offer sales and specials and bundles and trades and combo deals to their customers.
Sheez, did ANY of these guys ever run any sort of business, or did they just go to B-school.
The thing is, as Mr. Cook cautioned, you don't know. I don't quite get the confirmation bias, but there it is. Trade it.
I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.
Are you absolutely sure what Apple's expectations are?
Quote:
I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.
Add in the fact that Apple has launched a massive global advertising campaign for the 5C and it can barely muster a 27% share of sales is also very telling.
What exactly is "telling?"
What if Apple only expected the 5C to make up only 15% of new phone sales?
Whether the 5C's expected share of new sales was 15% or 27% or 50% doesn't matter -- you have no idea what Apple was expecting, so sorry, your statements aren't very "telling" at all.
Unless you (blackbook) happen to be Tim Cook or someone else on Apple's executive team you have no facts to support any opinion...
I should not surprise anybody that a paper who consistently uses phrases such as "people close to the matter said", "sources familiar with the product said" and other vague attributions that have no confirmation to any solid or credible source, is backpedalling on their story? The Wall Street Journal has turned in to a publication that reminds me of the National Inquirer
National Inquirer (Enquirer)??? You're being too gracious! WSJ should be called "The Dumb & Dumber Handbook!" Have you watched anything on WSJ Live lately? I have no idea how WSJ can produce such rubbish.
Forget about a conscience -- I long for the days when some "news organizations" had half a brain!
There is no justice on AAPL. Any bullshit that sounds logically correct can apply on Apple .
Headlines like this may make AAPL drop :
Check on Foxconn food supplier on food orders cut implies Apple doesn't need so many people to make iPhones so there is no need to order some much rice.
Yes headlines like this do drop Apple's stock price.
IMO WSJ is simply trying to get attention to their out of date dying publication.
As for me any publication creating trash news stories will not get my read.
Be gone to the archives, WSJ !!!
What was the sales ratio of iPhone 5 and 4S during the last year? Was it also near 64% and 27% , like the iPhone 5S&C ? If so this is all smoke and no fire.
I believe that the 5c is actually selling better than the 4s did last year when the 5 was the top end if you believe multiple reports.