View Single Post
Old 01-16-2013, 03:15 PM   #106
PatNY
Zennist
PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.PatNY ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
PatNY's Avatar
 
Posts: 913
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
They all say the same thing because they are all just repeating the same story.
There is one story here, from the Japanese newspaper.
There is possibly separate information from the WSJ, or possibly they are just repeating the same info.
Everything else is just following on from that.
There appears to actually be two stories with key information: Early on, the WSJ using primarily the Nikkei source ... and later, the NYT's which picked up on the WSJ, citing it as a source, but then adding additional independent information as follows:

Quote:
Paul Semenza, an analyst at NPD DisplaySearch, a research firm that follows the display market, said that for January, Apple had expected to order 19 million displays for the iPhone 5 but cut the order to 11 million to 14 million. Mr. Semenza said these numbers came from sources in the supply chain, the companies that make components for Apple products.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/15/te...nes.html?_r=1&

Quote:
So we don't even know what the number (that we don't know is correct) applies to?
But these are hard numbers
I was referring to the NYT's article at the time when I said "hard" numbers. It does have hard numbers. (Not that they are necessarily correct, but it has them.)


Quote:
Again, I couldn't care less how many units Apple have or haven't ordered, I just dislike the sloppy reporting that is then treated as gospel.
That's the internet and twitter age for you. The "sloppy reporting" extends to all areas of modern reporting, be it technology, sports, or entertainment.

Quote:
Oddly, if you take the first dubious number (65 million orders), then apply the second dubious number (orders reduced by 50%), you end up with around 30-35 million units, which sound like a very believable number, perhaps even on the high side for a non-release, non-holiday quarter. That is why I find the 65 million number so unbelievable.
If you go back and look at the 65 million reference, it's unclear what exactly they are referring to there. It could be, as I suggested, they are referring to screen orders for ALL Apple products (including the nano) in one quarter. But I can see how one might read that article and think they mean just the iP5. At any rate, I believe that is the only article that refers to "65 million."

--Pat
PatNY is offline   Reply With Quote