in 2012 they were having alot of problems with manufactering the 5. Now they pretty much mastered it. Several components have also gone down in price. Plus the ratio of 5S to total iPhones sold should be higher than the ration of 5 vs total iPhones sold in FY2013.
That doesn't sound quite right if what you say about the 5c selling more units is correct. I know that you said the margins are most likely higher on the 5c than the 4s... but I really doubt that just because of the extra cost in development and retooling cost for the 5c.
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">This is how your post looks to a visitor who is not logged in to AI</span>
That’s just depressing. Ad links on random words in the post like the cut-rate blog sites? Boy oh boy.
Yeah...
Repurposing a user's context...
I noticed that something was going on several weeks ago. I guess AI had some bugs in its content massaging algorithm -- Sometimes, when quoting another post, arbitrary content would be dropped or reformatted...
What can we do, except stop using AI...
As I said in a post referencing Google:
"Trust is like virginity -- once broken, never mended!"
"Apple may have sold upwards of 60 million iPhones over holiday quarter"
Nothing in the headline is stated wrongly; unless the 'Administrator' was of the understanding that "upwards of" literally meant "up to but not exceeding." And if he had, we will probably never know.
Obviously, the author quoted Fortune's table to show what most analysts have forecasted for the last quarter. However, nowhere is there any direct reference towards the editor's headline.
It may be that the editor simply concluded that based on these analysists' current projections and their, historically, poor track record of doing so, that, "Apple [just] may have sold upwards or 60 million iPhones over [the] holiday quarter." Thus, his opinion only.
Of course, this may be just another example of, Yellow Journalism,which is not beyond the scope of what we read on-line every day.
I don't have the exact numbers but I remember reading that they estimated that 48% iPhones sold in Q1'2013 was 5 model. They estimate the 5S sold about 55%. I don't remember the exact % but it was significant. And I can attest to this since I've hardly ever seen the 5C in public but I see a ton of 5S.
"Apple may have sold upwards of 60 million iPhones over holiday quarter"
Nothing in the headline is stated wrongly; u<span style="line-height:1.4em;">nless the 'Administrator' was of the understanding that "upwards of" literally meant "up to</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;"> but not exceeding.</span>
<span style="line-height:1.4em;">" And if he had, we will probably never know.</span>
Obviously, the author quoted Fortune's table to show what most analysts have forecasted for the last quarter. However, nowhere is there any direct reference towards the editor's headline.
It may be that the editor simply concluded that based on these analysists' current projections and their, historically, poor track record of doing so, that, "Apple [just] may have sold upwards or 60 million iPhones over [the] holiday quarter." Thus, his opinion only.
Of course, this may be just another example of, Yellow Journalism,which is not beyond the scope of what we read on-line every day.
I see your point but we tend to like the statements in the body to match the headline so even a statement that the author thinks all the estimates are leaning to the conservative side would have sufficed, but as it stands it seemed to be only referring to the analyst numbers which I think should have resulted in "Apple may have sold upwards of 59 million iPhones over holiday quarter" as the most appropriate title.
A comment you post to an AI forum, such as this, is parsed for "adwords" and links to advertisers are added to words such as 'iPhones' in the first quoted post (on page 1 of this forum).
The interesting part is that the user who is making the post does not see these links.
However, if you log out and read the forum posts as a visitor, you will see these adlinks.
What's going on???
If you sign out from AI and link to the post you should be able see the add links added to my content, by AI -- without my knowledge or approval...
What if I had posted a bit about one of my grand kids -- and AI, had added a link to a site that is offensive: adds, porn, religion, politics...
Wow, that's an interesting and slightly disturbing discovery. It appears they've signed up to this:
They are monetizing the text of forum members by converting phrases at random into paid referral links and these links are showing up for guests. I can understand the need to make money from the forum but it makes it look as though we've inserted the links.
I'm glad it only shows up for guests and it does label them as having been inserted by Viglink but still, I don't particularly like that.
best thing is to take ADVANTAGE of the manipulation.
If you bought 6 months ago at $420 you would have cleared 30%
Right, if you cleared 30% every 6 months and start out with say $5k, that would come close to $1m in 10 years (not quite with taxes but around that).
I don't think that's what is meant though. It's more a criticism that these opinions are not news about Apple, they are fabrications; be they guesses or manipulation, they are falsehoods. The media tries to give these people credibility by suggesting the estimates are well-informed but when they are way out, there's no consequences. It's all very well seeing the silver lining in a profit motive but that's exactly what the problem is with the stock market. Analysts sell their lies to the highest bidder and don't care about the consequences because there aren't any. Along the way, they damage genuine investors, businesses and the people who work there. If staff work hard and meet customer expectations but fall short on some arbitrary metric that is more important for profiteers then they put out as much negative press as they can about it and it erodes whatever value traders put on the company. People who genuinely care about the health of the company get tired of hearing profiteers tell everyone how valuable their input is. It's worthless because it didn't get the company to where it is now and it's not keeping it where it is.
I see your point but we tend to like the statements in the body to match the headline so even a statement that the author thinks all the estimates are leaning to the conservative side would have sufficed, but as it stands it seemed to be only referring to the analyst numbers which I think should have resulted in "Apple may have sold upwards of 59 million iPhones over holiday quarter" as the most appropriate title.
I too like that headlines reflect the body of the article. However, based on past writings here and every other blogging site, they most often do not. And that goes to the commentaries that accompany them.
I personally would have liked the headline to have read, "Analysists forecast 50 to 60 million iPhones sold over holiday quarter! And you…?" Then we wouldn't have wasted our time reading the 'trashing' that followed.
P.S. I forecast 60.8 million. But then, I didn't mind the original headline. And if it is anything less, well, there is a droid in every cloud.
A comment you post to an AI forum, such as this, is parsed for "adwords" and links to advertisers are added to words such as 'iPhones' in the first quoted post (on page 1 of this forum).
The interesting part is that the user who is making the post does not see these links.
However, if you log out and read the forum posts as a visitor, you will see these adlinks.
What's going on???
If you sign out from AI and link to the post you should be able see the add links added to my content, by AI -- without my knowledge or approval...
What if I had posted a bit about one of my grand kids -- and AI, had added a link to a site that is offensive: adds, porn, religion, politics...
Wow, that's an interesting and slightly disturbing discovery. It appears they've signed up to this:
They are monetizing the text of forum members by converting phrases at random into paid referral links and these links are showing up for guests. I can understand the need to make money from the forum but it makes it look as though we've inserted the links.
I'm glad it only shows up for guests and it does label them as having been inserted by Viglink but still, I don't particularly like that.
Thanks for the link!
I'm unsure what I am going to do about this. I am especially upset that I, as a poster, was not aware or informed about this -- or have the opportunity to opt-in/out.
I enjoy the forums at AI more than any other site I have found. There are many interesting topics and a slew of intelligent, knowledgeable and reasoned posters. AI provides pretty good moderation of trolls and occasional rules violations. And, the humor -- life needs humor!
Where does this end? If I or you mention marijuana or birth control -- could they link to a blog or article that espouses a position that you disagree with?
I [mostly] select my wording very carefully -- yet someone/thing else can elide, amend or negate my words... without so much as a verbatim quote or citation...
I'm unsure what I am going to do about this. I am especially upset that I, as a poster, was not aware or informed about this -- or have the opportunity to opt-in/out.
I enjoy the forums at AI more than any other site I have found. There are many interesting topics and a slew of intelligent, knowledgeable and reasoned posters. AI provides pretty good moderation of trolls and occasional rules violations. And, the humor -- life needs humor!
Where does this end? If I or you mention marijuana or birth control -- could they link to a blog or article that espouses a position that you disagree with?
I [mostly] select my wording very carefully -- yet someone/thing else can elide, amend or negate my words... without so much as a verbatim quote or citation...
First off this place needs revenue to keep going. Secondly nearly all forums I visit do this for non logged in users, it's been common on the web for years. You don't own your posts on this forum either, you are publishing on someone else's site. You can't force them to remove "your post" and they can use their, not your, content as they please. And lighten up, nobody thinks you are endorsing anything.
I noticed that something was going on several weeks ago. I guess AI had some bugs in its content massaging algorithm -- Sometimes, when quoting another post, arbitrary content would be dropped or reformatted...
What can we do, except stop using AI...
As I said in a post referencing Google:
"Trust is like virginity -- once broken, never mended!"
So AI has joined the sleaze ranks of Google!
I noticed the same thing and wondered why members would link to a random Ebay page displaying iPads when the word iPad is referenced in a comment. Now it completely makes sense. Pretty sneaky. Good catch!
What I don't get is they say they have concerns about 5C sales (claiming their research shows 5S outselling the 5C 4-1), yet they also say they expect iPhone ASP to be 4% lowest than prior year, because of 5C. So they're worried that the 5C isn't selling well, but then also worried that iPhone ASP will come in lower than last year because of 5C? That makes no sense to me. If the 5C isn't selling well wouldn't that mean a higher mix of 5S and thus higher ASP?
What I don't get is they say they have concerns about 5C sales (claiming their research shows 5S outselling the 5C 4-1), yet they also say they expect iPhone ASP to be 4% lowest than prior year, because of 5C. So they're worried that the 5C isn't selling well, but then also worried that iPhone ASP will come in lower than last year because of 5C? That makes no sense to me. If the 5C isn't selling well wouldn't that mean a higher mix of 5S and thus higher ASP?
Shhhh...they're analysts. They really have no clue.
Hmm...q4 2012 was 6.2 million so that would be a YOY decline. But Apple stock is up over 1% this morning. Verizon started up pre-market is now down this morning.
You are right, it might be more than 5 mio, since the new models were just out; but it's hard to imagine a number bigger than 7 (from 8.8 activations). I assume AT&T will still have the biggest number of activations.
You are right, it might be more than 5 mio, since the new models were just out; but it's hard to imagine a number bigger than 7 (from 8.8 activations). I assume AT&T will still have the biggest number of activations.
I'm not questioning your guess...Verizon's total numbers were closer to 10 million Q4 last year. I can't imagine Apple's share is that might higher this year than last (if at all).
dont forget there was no T-mobile sales last year.
This is one reason I don't think Verizon can be used as a barometer. Plus the fact they don't provide iPhone sales figures anymore. AT&T doesn't either. So all we can do is take their total figure and apply a historical percentage to it. Not sure how accurate that is. I guess the Verizon number couldn't be that bad as Apple stock is up today.
No, it is not sensible, not if the headline uses the phrase "upwards of." Upwards of means more than. If they had said "almost" then the number would have been sensible. But for an article that states that analysts' predictions range from 50-58 million, the headline "upwards of 60 million" is not reasonable.
Touché. You are correct. As the Macalope is always writing, "words have meanings". I was vague on the precise denotation of this one. Nevertheless, it is important to note the headline also said "may have sold". I think that qualifier is adequate for the subsequent "upwards of" statement.
Comments
That’s just depressing. Ad links on random words in the post like the cut-rate blog sites? Boy oh boy.
in 2012 they were having alot of problems with manufactering the 5. Now they pretty much mastered it. Several components have also gone down in price. Plus the ratio of 5S to total iPhones sold should be higher than the ration of 5 vs total iPhones sold in FY2013.
That doesn't sound quite right if what you say about the 5c selling more units is correct. I know that you said the margins are most likely higher on the 5c than the 4s... but I really doubt that just because of the extra cost in development and retooling cost for the 5c.
Yeah...
Repurposing a user's context...
I noticed that something was going on several weeks ago. I guess AI had some bugs in its content massaging algorithm -- Sometimes, when quoting another post, arbitrary content would be dropped or reformatted...
What can we do, except stop using AI...
As I said in a post referencing Google:
"Trust is like virginity -- once broken, never mended!"
So AI has joined the sleaze ranks of Google!
"Apple may have sold upwards of 60 million iPhones over holiday quarter"
Nothing in the headline is stated wrongly; unless the 'Administrator' was of the understanding that "upwards of" literally meant "up to but not exceeding." And if he had, we will probably never know.
Obviously, the author quoted Fortune's table to show what most analysts have forecasted for the last quarter. However, nowhere is there any direct reference towards the editor's headline.
It may be that the editor simply concluded that based on these analysists' current projections and their, historically, poor track record of doing so, that, "Apple [just] may have sold upwards or 60 million iPhones over [the] holiday quarter." Thus, his opinion only.
Of course, this may be just another example of, Yellow Journalism, which is not beyond the scope of what we read on-line every day.
I don't have the exact numbers but I remember reading that they estimated that 48% iPhones sold in Q1'2013 was 5 model. They estimate the 5S sold about 55%. I don't remember the exact % but it was significant. And I can attest to this since I've hardly ever seen the 5C in public but I see a ton of 5S.
I see your point but we tend to like the statements in the body to match the headline so even a statement that the author thinks all the estimates are leaning to the conservative side would have sufficed, but as it stands it seemed to be only referring to the analyst numbers which I think should have resulted in "Apple may have sold upwards of 59 million iPhones over holiday quarter" as the most appropriate title.
Wow, that's an interesting and slightly disturbing discovery. It appears they've signed up to this:
http://www.viglink.com/how-it-works
They are monetizing the text of forum members by converting phrases at random into paid referral links and these links are showing up for guests. I can understand the need to make money from the forum but it makes it look as though we've inserted the links.
I'm glad it only shows up for guests and it does label them as having been inserted by Viglink but still, I don't particularly like that.
Right, if you cleared 30% every 6 months and start out with say $5k, that would come close to $1m in 10 years (not quite with taxes but around that).
I don't think that's what is meant though. It's more a criticism that these opinions are not news about Apple, they are fabrications; be they guesses or manipulation, they are falsehoods. The media tries to give these people credibility by suggesting the estimates are well-informed but when they are way out, there's no consequences. It's all very well seeing the silver lining in a profit motive but that's exactly what the problem is with the stock market. Analysts sell their lies to the highest bidder and don't care about the consequences because there aren't any. Along the way, they damage genuine investors, businesses and the people who work there. If staff work hard and meet customer expectations but fall short on some arbitrary metric that is more important for profiteers then they put out as much negative press as they can about it and it erodes whatever value traders put on the company. People who genuinely care about the health of the company get tired of hearing profiteers tell everyone how valuable their input is. It's worthless because it didn't get the company to where it is now and it's not keeping it where it is.
I see your point but we tend to like the statements in the body to match the headline so even a statement that the author thinks all the estimates are leaning to the conservative side would have sufficed, but as it stands it seemed to be only referring to the analyst numbers which I think should have resulted in "Apple may have sold upwards of 59 million iPhones over holiday quarter" as the most appropriate title.
I too like that headlines reflect the body of the article. However, based on past writings here and every other blogging site, they most often do not. And that goes to the commentaries that accompany them.
I personally would have liked the headline to have read, "Analysists forecast 50 to 60 million iPhones sold over holiday quarter! And you…?" Then we wouldn't have wasted our time reading the 'trashing' that followed.
P.S. I forecast 60.8 million. But then, I didn't mind the original headline. And if it is anything less, well, there is a droid in every cloud.
Thanks for the link!
I'm unsure what I am going to do about this. I am especially upset that I, as a poster, was not aware or informed about this -- or have the opportunity to opt-in/out.
I enjoy the forums at AI more than any other site I have found. There are many interesting topics and a slew of intelligent, knowledgeable and reasoned posters. AI provides pretty good moderation of trolls and occasional rules violations. And, the humor -- life needs humor!
Where does this end? If I or you mention marijuana or birth control -- could they link to a blog or article that espouses a position that you disagree with?
I [mostly] select my wording very carefully -- yet someone/thing else can elide, amend or negate my words... without so much as a verbatim quote or citation...
How is this different from what Goebbels did?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Goebbels
We've really Godwined this one, huh?
First off this place needs revenue to keep going. Secondly nearly all forums I visit do this for non logged in users, it's been common on the web for years. You don't own your posts on this forum either, you are publishing on someone else's site. You can't force them to remove "your post" and they can use their, not your, content as they please. And lighten up, nobody thinks you are endorsing anything.
Yeah...
Repurposing a user's context...
I noticed that something was going on several weeks ago. I guess AI had some bugs in its content massaging algorithm -- Sometimes, when quoting another post, arbitrary content would be dropped or reformatted...
What can we do, except stop using AI...
As I said in a post referencing Google:
"Trust is like virginity -- once broken, never mended!"
So AI has joined the sleaze ranks of Google!
I noticed the same thing and wondered why members would link to a random Ebay page displaying iPads when the word iPad is referenced in a comment. Now it completely makes sense. Pretty sneaky. Good catch!
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/apple-cut-to-hold-at-socgen-over-phone-sale-fears-2014-01-21?siteid=yhoof2
What I don't get is they say they have concerns about 5C sales (claiming their research shows 5S outselling the 5C 4-1), yet they also say they expect iPhone ASP to be 4% lowest than prior year, because of 5C. So they're worried that the 5C isn't selling well, but then also worried that iPhone ASP will come in lower than last year because of 5C? That makes no sense to me. If the 5C isn't selling well wouldn't that mean a higher mix of 5S and thus higher ASP?
8.8 Mio smartphones => ~4 -5 Mio iphones judging by "market share"
http://newscenter.verizon.com/corporate/news-articles/2014/01-21-verizon-reports-2013-4q-earnings/
You are right, it might be more than 5 mio, since the new models were just out; but it's hard to imagine a number bigger than 7 (from 8.8 activations). I assume AT&T will still have the biggest number of activations.
No, it is not sensible, not if the headline uses the phrase "upwards of." Upwards of means more than. If they had said "almost" then the number would have been sensible. But for an article that states that analysts' predictions range from 50-58 million, the headline "upwards of 60 million" is not reasonable.
Touché. You are correct. As the Macalope is always writing, "words have meanings". I was vague on the precise denotation of this one. Nevertheless, it is important to note the headline also said "may have sold". I think that qualifier is adequate for the subsequent "upwards of" statement.