How can they be proven fraudulent? These are projections and in no way are considered to be actual numbers. They can easily say compiled this data based on what they observed and stats coming through channels that they put into their algorithms. Who was that analyst that used to write in-depth reports for AI? He was very close many times and then he was very wrong. Do you think his goal was to bring up the stock so he could short it or do you think he made an honest mistake?
I predict Apple will release an entirely new product category later this year but does that mean you can sue me if I'm wrong? Of course not.
There was a guy on one of the Usenet groups who was an avid Apple hater. He compiled his ‘data’ that Apple was doomed by going to his local CompUSA store and counting the number of boxes containing Macs on the shelves. The next day he would return and count again. Then he would issue his ‘report’ of zero sales for Apple. This ‘data’ was then extrapolated into utter doom for the company. By the way, he was a big Dell supporter and we all know what happened to Dell.
Just outside of Wilmington, Delaware, is the Christiana Mall. There is an Apple Store there. I buy my Macs there, the most recent a MacPro. There is also a Microsoft Store a few stores away in the same part of the mall. Every time I visit, there are 3 or 4 customers in the Microsoft Store and 300 or 400 in the Apple Store. The Apple Store there sells more iPhones than any other Apple Store in the country. There are some reasons for this. Delaware has no sales tax. They have just about everything in stock. The staff are all well trained. On a regular basis, buses are run from New York City to this store so that travelers can purchase Apple products in bulk. My investment decisions depend upon situations like this, rather than the prognostications of ill-informed, paid consultants to selected firms.
Finally, someone actually looking at what's important--RELIABLE indicators! But that's admittedly hard if one's head is up one's ass like most commenters here,
There was a guy on one of the Usenet groups who was an avid Apple hater. He compiled his ‘data’ that Apple was doomed by going to his local CompUSA store and counting the number of boxes containing Macs on the shelves. The next day he would return and count again. Then he would issue his ‘report’ of zero sales for Apple. This ‘data’ was then extrapolated into utter doom for the company. By the way, he was a big Dell supporter and we all know what happened to Dell.
That's too funny. I guess it never occurred to that guy that the store might restock the merch on the shelves after a sale?
Without Apple breaking out regional sales, there really is nothing to support the authors wish that their data was wrong. If you read Tim's statement he never says the achieved double digit growth in the US. He says they achieved double digit growth across many countries, the subset of which includes the US. So basically China and India could have made up for the shrinkage in the US and his statement would be validly true even though it has a little DED like misdirection. He was also very explicit in stating 32 of 33 quarters of growth in *global* market share.
If their numbers are pure fiction DED should get on the hotline with Tim and tell him to stop referencing IDC data in his calls.
Spot on. I knock sites referencing these companies data because it's not actual sales data provided by Apple, HP, Dell, etc. it's just guessing. I wish Cook would stop referencing them in earnings calls because by doing so he's giving them legitimacy that I don't think they deserve.
There's a reason Apple lowered the price of MacBook Airs this spring. It was to create a space between the Air and the Pro. This fall, that space will be filled. With a re-introduction of the MacBook (neither Air nor Pro). This is the device that will carry that rumored 12" retina display, and, if my guess is correct, super thin, efficient, and silent piezoelectric cooling fans to allow the chassis to be thinner than the MacBook Pro's while still sporting a more powerful CPU/GPU than the Air.
Patently Apple says Intel is launching a new CPU this fall that will allow for fanless designs but the CPUs will only be for Windows 2-in-1's (presumably so they can go fanless before Apple does). Has Intel done this before and does it signal that Apple needs to think about breaking away from Intel?
This confirms what I've long suspected, that the analysts and experts at IDC and Gartner don't know what they're talking about.
Apple is probably being wise to let IDC and Gartner blunder this way. They're following an adage that's often attributed to Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."
Apple reported "strong double digit growth" in its Mac sales in the U.S., directly contradicting the earlier estimates published by IDC and Gartner that stated Apple's U.S. Mac sales fell year-over-year in the June quarter and calling into question the legitimacy of market estimates that the tech media uncritically presents as factual.
They are factual estimates. (However, they could be intentionally or mistakenly skewed).
These statements are issued prior to any/all data being released by Apple so they can only be an estimate based on any number of things.
It addresses with depth and clarity an issue that I've been raising repeatedly here, every time that I've seen the likes of IDC et al trot out their nonsense. Theirs are numbers put out by fools, for fools.
Microsoft has been badly served by its legion of sycophantic researchers and reporters, telling it what it wanted to hear. Recently Sinofsky mentioned that Paul Thurrott was his favorite blogger. Cripes. That explains a lot.
There's a reason Apple lowered the price of MacBook Airs this spring. It was to create a space between the Air and the Pro. This fall, that space will be filled. With a re-introduction of the MacBook (neither Air nor Pro). This is the device that will carry that rumored 12" retina display, and, if my guess is correct, super thin, efficient, and silent piezoelectric cooling fans to allow the chassis to be thinner than the MacBook Pro's while still sporting a more powerful CPU/GPU than the Air.
And maybe it is because people are just not buying computers as much. In our house of four iPhones, we hardly use our computers. Once a month to update music on phones, and that is about it. Daughter has a MacBook Pro, but will go weeks without using it. I use a Chromebook and borrow her computer one a month for music synching. Wife and stepdaughter only use iPhones and no computers.
People are just not using computers very much anymore.
It is surprising that companies sell the computers they sell now.
Although I have used Macs forever, since the MacSE, I'd be perfectly fine with a cheap PC box for only iTunes synching. Come to think of it, once the music is uploaded into the cloud, no need for computer there.
$120 refurbished Chromebook and iPhone serve 99% of my needs and would be fine for a lot of people.
The histrionic efforts by these market research firms to minimize Apple's success may be fooling the audiences of people subjected to relentless headlines that regurgitate the idea that Apple is perpetually spiraling downward in "market share" at the hands of both big PC makers and dozens of tiny tablet vendors--even as Apple reports quarter after quarter of industry leading sales and profits.
However, apart from the truth, the primary victims of this sort of sycophant market data appears to be Microsoft, Google and their Windows and Android licensees, who have been lulled into passive slumber by soothing praise that tells them they are winning when they actually are not.
This is the wrong conclusion.
Apple's competitors have their own books, they know exactly what their numbers stack up against Apple's official numbers -- at least on a global level. Plus, each company knows how their products sell on a regional level. We just saw Lenovo yank their smaller 8" Windows-based tablet from the U.S. market.
These companies don't need market research companies unless they want to spin incorrect conclusions into some sort of short-term marketing message. It's not a sustainable practice because dollars in your cash register is what really matters.
Also, major institutional investors don't need market research firms either. They all have their own in-house research teams whom they think are way smarter than anyone else's. Moreover, quarter after quarter, these research firms clearly show that they do not have a pulse on the marketplace.
The primary audience of market research companies is the tech media who will shamelessly publish nonsensical blabber to garner page views. If these market research firms were to wait for actual financial results from the various companies, their reports would be much more accurate but essentially worthless because of the timing. Tech rumor sites would rather rack up page views by posting ludicrous "estimates" for weeks before actual results emerge.
Just looking at the appalling methodology used by market research companies, my guess is that all these slobs failed statistics and couldn't get a job at one of the investment firms' in-house research groups.
Without Apple breaking out regional sales, there really is nothing to support the authors wish that their data was wrong. If you read Tim's statement he never says the achieved double digit growth in the US. He says they achieved double digit growth across many countries, the subset of which includes the US. So basically China and India could have made up for the shrinkage in the US and his statement would be validly true even though it has a little DED like misdirection. He was also very explicit in stating 32 of 33 quarters of growth in *global* market share.
If their numbers are pure fiction DED should get on the hotline with Tim and tell him to stop referencing IDC data in his calls.
Nice attempt at spinning what Cook said. He didn't combine those regions to make up double digit growth.
Patently Apple says Intel is launching a new CPU this fall that will allow for fanless designs but the CPUs will only be for Windows 2-in-1's (presumably so they can go fanless before Apple does). Has Intel done this before and does it signal that Apple needs to think about breaking away from Intel?
Hear, hear. At some point Apple's need to be PC compatible ceases to be an issue, those days are rapidly receding behind us. Purely anecdotally I realize, I don't use VMware at all these days, it's been nearly a year since I had any need to use Windows. So if Apple have a chip in the pipeline that can run OS X I'd say that would be exceedingly good news. Apple has always had an edge due to the hardware / software integration, imagine what they could do with CPU under their control too, leaving only the GPU side and that surely could also come in house. A 100% Apple built and engineered Mac would be a wonderful thing IMHO and allow Apple to really leave the rest in the dust.
I'd even go out on a limb and suggest that if Apple were to do this it would be the writing on the wall for Intel. I know Apple is far from their only major client but I'd suspect Apple is their only major client with a future.
Hear, hear. At some point Apple's need to be PC compatible ceases to be an issue, those days are rapidly receding behind us. Purely anecdotally I realize, I don't use VMware at all these days, it's been nearly a year since I had any need to use Windows. So if Apple have a chip in the pipeline that can run OS X I'd say that would be exceedingly good news. Apple has always had an edge due to the hardware / software integration, imagine what they could do with CPU under their control too, leaving only the GPU side and that surely could also come in house. A 100% Apple built and engineered Mac would be a wonderful thing IMHO and allow Apple to really leave the rest in the dust.
I'd even go out on a limb and suggest that if Apple were to do this it would be the writing on the wall for Intel. I know Apple is far from their only client but I'd suspect Apple is their only client with a future.
I don't get why Intel would want to screw over Apple since more Mac sales would be good news for Intel. Plus the MBA basically created the Ultrabook market. Are they pissed because Apple won't put "Intel Inside" stickers on their computers? Or because Apple has refused to jump on this 2-in-1 bandwagon?
They each have Apple's calendar Q2-2013, which is Apple's fiscal Q3-2013, as being 1.7 million Mac units but I thought they had sold 3.8 million that quarter, and 4.4 the same quarter in 2014. What am I not understanding?
They report US-only sales, while the 3.8m and 4.4m figures are world-wide, as far as I understand.
True, but Cook did say that Apple's Mac numbers for the U.S. were increased by "double digit." So, unless the analysts numbers showed a double digit positive change they are horribly wrong. So, while Apple did not disclose the actual number of U.S. Mac sales, the lines on each chart ought to slant the same amount and in the same direction.
I did notice that the first phony list of numbers was marked as "preliminary" which means while the final numbers sold privately to their customers may be much more correct, the public perception is totally skewed against Apple.
Finally IBM, who uses "Big Data" numbers to sift the truth out of noise, has shown to be more correct and see trends happening a lot quicker then other sources. It is no wonder that they have partnered with Apple since they are NOT relying on analysts to blow air up their butts.
The analyst's game is another one of those "house of cards" that will eventually have it's fall. In a sense it may be to Apple's advantage if they are apple to continue their growth in a stealth-like manner and avoid being targeted by everyone as number one. We can sure see what that means by the way Samsung is targeting Apple's product lines. Their research must really show who is the leader and who is not... all the while running ads that say the opposite.
Anyone who understands business and knows how to read SEC filed reports has always known IDC, Gartner and the rest are just paid shills. Apple understands it so they don't waste time, effort or money on countering the lies. The truth is in the financial result and accompanying documents. Apple's profits from mobile devices exceed those of Samsung and the next three biggest competitors combined and have for the last 14 quarters. The stock is kicking the posterior of everyone in the business and the best of the year is several months away. Samsung is so scared, they are making anti Apple ads focusing on an unreleased product they have n specs on. Apple marches ahead while the competition tries to get business by dumping on the best instead of making better products.
Hear, hear. At some point Apple's need to be PC compatible ceases to be an issue, those days are rapidly receding behind us. Purely anecdotally I realize, I don't use VMware at all these days, it's been nearly a year since I had any need to use Windows. So if Apple have a chip in the pipeline that can run OS X I'd say that would be exceedingly good news. Apple has always had an edge due to the hardware / software integration, imagine what they could do with CPU under their control too, leaving only the GPU side and that surely could also come in house. A 100% Apple built and engineered Mac would be a wonderful thing IMHO and allow Apple to really leave the rest in the dust.
I'd even go out on a limb and suggest that if Apple were to do this it would be the writing on the wall for Intel. I know Apple is far from their only client but I'd suspect Apple is their only client with a future.
I don't get why Intel would want to screw over Apple since more Mac sales would be good news for Intel. Plus the MBA basically created the Ultrabook market. Are they pissed because Apple won't put "Intel Inside" stickers on their computers? Or because Apple has refused to jump on this 2-in-1 bandwagon?
Your confusion is understandable. I suspect that Intel is very afraid that one of the heavy hitters in the computer business is selling tens of millions of iPad computers each year, that is also being embraced by enterprise, and doesn't have a single Intel chip inside. Sure, Intel could make those ARM chips for Apple, and Apple did try to get them to do so, but then Intel couldn't charge the same fat margins they get on the x86 chips they put into PCs. Additionally, there is always the change that once iPad sales are as big as PC sales (2018), Apple would have the clout to turn out a MBA packaged iPad and really shut Intel's money machine down. With IBM throwing their weight behind Apple that tipping point could happen even sooner.
Here's a factor that isn't often brought up; the cost of a business to house an employee within their own facility is enormous. Even with the reduced work station footprint of 4 x 5 feet (20 square feet) and then add an additional 20 square feet for hallways and common areas (these are minimal numbers), you have a total of 40 square feet of footprint that needs to be paid for, heated, lighted, air-conditioned, cleaned and maintained. This space continues to exist even if the enterprise owner lays off the employee. Now, assign a number to the space. Let's use $50 per square foot per month, and we got a fixed cost of $2000 per employee (and remember, I'm using minimum numbers here)
Now imagine you have that employee work from home. You save $2000 per month at a minimum of fixed building costs (and it's likely to be several times that amount). You still save additional monthly costs of large lit parking lots and extra expansion space. Now, here's the real nut of it all: what's the cost of an iPad in all this? Even if you have each employee come in one day a week, you've still cut your fixed operating expenses into a fifth of what they otherwise would be.
Apple reported "strong double digit growth" in its Mac sales in the U.S., directly contradicting the earlier estimates published by IDC and Gartner that stated Apple's U.S. Mac sales fell year-over-year in the June quarter and calling into question the legitimacy of market estimates that the tech media uncritically presents as factual.
They are factual estimates. (However, they could be intentionally or mistakenly skewed).
These statements are issued prior to any/all data being released by Apple so they can only be an estimate based on any number of things.
While you are right about the estimates, once Apple publishes actual numbers that shows how wrong the estimates are, the analysts continue to use the wrong estimates in their next set of numbers. There's no reason for that, except to skew the numbers.
Actually, we know that the US specifically achieved double digit growth and there is no support for your interpretation. We don't know if if was 10% or 22% but it was greater than 10% in the US.
Thank you for pointing it out to him. Don't know what the heck he is talking about.
Comments
How can they be proven fraudulent? These are projections and in no way are considered to be actual numbers. They can easily say compiled this data based on what they observed and stats coming through channels that they put into their algorithms. Who was that analyst that used to write in-depth reports for AI? He was very close many times and then he was very wrong. Do you think his goal was to bring up the stock so he could short it or do you think he made an honest mistake?
I predict Apple will release an entirely new product category later this year but does that mean you can sue me if I'm wrong? Of course not.
There was a guy on one of the Usenet groups who was an avid Apple hater. He compiled his ‘data’ that Apple was doomed by going to his local CompUSA store and counting the number of boxes containing Macs on the shelves. The next day he would return and count again. Then he would issue his ‘report’ of zero sales for Apple. This ‘data’ was then extrapolated into utter doom for the company. By the way, he was a big Dell supporter and we all know what happened to Dell.
Finally, someone actually looking at what's important--RELIABLE indicators! But that's admittedly hard if one's head is up one's ass like most commenters here,
That's too funny. I guess it never occurred to that guy that the store might restock the merch on the shelves after a sale?
http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2014/07/intels-14nm-core-m-cpus-launch-this-fall-but-not-for-macs.html
Apple is probably being wise to let IDC and Gartner blunder this way. They're following an adage that's often attributed to Napoleon: "Never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake."
Apple reported "strong double digit growth" in its Mac sales in the U.S., directly contradicting the earlier estimates published by IDC and Gartner that stated Apple's U.S. Mac sales fell year-over-year in the June quarter and calling into question the legitimacy of market estimates that the tech media uncritically presents as factual.
They are factual estimates. (However, they could be intentionally or mistakenly skewed).
These statements are issued prior to any/all data being released by Apple so they can only be an estimate based on any number of things.
dictionary.com
estimate
verb (used with object), estimated, estimating.
verb (used without object), estimated, estimating.
noun
It addresses with depth and clarity an issue that I've been raising repeatedly here, every time that I've seen the likes of IDC et al trot out their nonsense. Theirs are numbers put out by fools, for fools.
There's a reason Apple lowered the price of MacBook Airs this spring. It was to create a space between the Air and the Pro. This fall, that space will be filled. With a re-introduction of the MacBook (neither Air nor Pro). This is the device that will carry that rumored 12" retina display, and, if my guess is correct, super thin, efficient, and silent piezoelectric cooling fans to allow the chassis to be thinner than the MacBook Pro's while still sporting a more powerful CPU/GPU than the Air.
And maybe it is because people are just not buying computers as much. In our house of four iPhones, we hardly use our computers. Once a month to update music on phones, and that is about it. Daughter has a MacBook Pro, but will go weeks without using it. I use a Chromebook and borrow her computer one a month for music synching. Wife and stepdaughter only use iPhones and no computers.
People are just not using computers very much anymore.
It is surprising that companies sell the computers they sell now.
Although I have used Macs forever, since the MacSE, I'd be perfectly fine with a cheap PC box for only iTunes synching. Come to think of it, once the music is uploaded into the cloud, no need for computer there.
$120 refurbished Chromebook and iPhone serve 99% of my needs and would be fine for a lot of people.
The histrionic efforts by these market research firms to minimize Apple's success may be fooling the audiences of people subjected to relentless headlines that regurgitate the idea that Apple is perpetually spiraling downward in "market share" at the hands of both big PC makers and dozens of tiny tablet vendors--even as Apple reports quarter after quarter of industry leading sales and profits.
However, apart from the truth, the primary victims of this sort of sycophant market data appears to be Microsoft, Google and their Windows and Android licensees, who have been lulled into passive slumber by soothing praise that tells them they are winning when they actually are not.
This is the wrong conclusion.
Apple's competitors have their own books, they know exactly what their numbers stack up against Apple's official numbers -- at least on a global level. Plus, each company knows how their products sell on a regional level. We just saw Lenovo yank their smaller 8" Windows-based tablet from the U.S. market.
These companies don't need market research companies unless they want to spin incorrect conclusions into some sort of short-term marketing message. It's not a sustainable practice because dollars in your cash register is what really matters.
Also, major institutional investors don't need market research firms either. They all have their own in-house research teams whom they think are way smarter than anyone else's. Moreover, quarter after quarter, these research firms clearly show that they do not have a pulse on the marketplace.
The primary audience of market research companies is the tech media who will shamelessly publish nonsensical blabber to garner page views. If these market research firms were to wait for actual financial results from the various companies, their reports would be much more accurate but essentially worthless because of the timing. Tech rumor sites would rather rack up page views by posting ludicrous "estimates" for weeks before actual results emerge.
Just looking at the appalling methodology used by market research companies, my guess is that all these slobs failed statistics and couldn't get a job at one of the investment firms' in-house research groups.
Nice attempt at spinning what Cook said. He didn't combine those regions to make up double digit growth.
You would think some sort of class action law suit could be possible if many people lost money believing their skewed data.
Hear, hear. At some point Apple's need to be PC compatible ceases to be an issue, those days are rapidly receding behind us. Purely anecdotally I realize, I don't use VMware at all these days, it's been nearly a year since I had any need to use Windows. So if Apple have a chip in the pipeline that can run OS X I'd say that would be exceedingly good news. Apple has always had an edge due to the hardware / software integration, imagine what they could do with CPU under their control too, leaving only the GPU side and that surely could also come in house. A 100% Apple built and engineered Mac would be a wonderful thing IMHO and allow Apple to really leave the rest in the dust.
I'd even go out on a limb and suggest that if Apple were to do this it would be the writing on the wall for Intel. I know Apple is far from their only major client but I'd suspect Apple is their only major client with a future.
True, but Cook did say that Apple's Mac numbers for the U.S. were increased by "double digit." So, unless the analysts numbers showed a double digit positive change they are horribly wrong. So, while Apple did not disclose the actual number of U.S. Mac sales, the lines on each chart ought to slant the same amount and in the same direction.
I did notice that the first phony list of numbers was marked as "preliminary" which means while the final numbers sold privately to their customers may be much more correct, the public perception is totally skewed against Apple.
Finally IBM, who uses "Big Data" numbers to sift the truth out of noise, has shown to be more correct and see trends happening a lot quicker then other sources. It is no wonder that they have partnered with Apple since they are NOT relying on analysts to blow air up their butts.
The analyst's game is another one of those "house of cards" that will eventually have it's fall. In a sense it may be to Apple's advantage if they are apple to continue their growth in a stealth-like manner and avoid being targeted by everyone as number one. We can sure see what that means by the way Samsung is targeting Apple's product lines. Their research must really show who is the leader and who is not... all the while running ads that say the opposite.
Your confusion is understandable. I suspect that Intel is very afraid that one of the heavy hitters in the computer business is selling tens of millions of iPad computers each year, that is also being embraced by enterprise, and doesn't have a single Intel chip inside. Sure, Intel could make those ARM chips for Apple, and Apple did try to get them to do so, but then Intel couldn't charge the same fat margins they get on the x86 chips they put into PCs. Additionally, there is always the change that once iPad sales are as big as PC sales (2018), Apple would have the clout to turn out a MBA packaged iPad and really shut Intel's money machine down. With IBM throwing their weight behind Apple that tipping point could happen even sooner.
Here's a factor that isn't often brought up; the cost of a business to house an employee within their own facility is enormous. Even with the reduced work station footprint of 4 x 5 feet (20 square feet) and then add an additional 20 square feet for hallways and common areas (these are minimal numbers), you have a total of 40 square feet of footprint that needs to be paid for, heated, lighted, air-conditioned, cleaned and maintained. This space continues to exist even if the enterprise owner lays off the employee. Now, assign a number to the space. Let's use $50 per square foot per month, and we got a fixed cost of $2000 per employee (and remember, I'm using minimum numbers here)
Now imagine you have that employee work from home. You save $2000 per month at a minimum of fixed building costs (and it's likely to be several times that amount). You still save additional monthly costs of large lit parking lots and extra expansion space. Now, here's the real nut of it all: what's the cost of an iPad in all this? Even if you have each employee come in one day a week, you've still cut your fixed operating expenses into a fifth of what they otherwise would be.
While you are right about the estimates, once Apple publishes actual numbers that shows how wrong the estimates are, the analysts continue to use the wrong estimates in their next set of numbers. There's no reason for that, except to skew the numbers.
Thank you for pointing it out to him. Don't know what the heck he is talking about.