View Single Post
Old 01-17-2013, 05:08 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: 928
Karma: 46026034
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
That just isn't what he said.
If he had meant to say that, why didn't he just say it?
You seem happy to place 100% belief in his figures, while disregarding his actual words.
Yes, essentially that is what he is saying.

Where else could the sources have gotten the 19 million figure but from an actual Apple order?

Figures are precise. Words often are not.


Quote:
Bangs head on wall.
It isn't a fact, it is a claim.
The cut their orders because demand is lower.
How do we know demand is lower? Because they cut their orders.
The statement about cutting the order and the numbers given are factual assertions. You can believe them or not.

The reason for doing the cuts is not a factual assertion, and I never presented it as such. I said "seems to indicate" ... what about that phrase is confusing to you?

And, as far as I recall, none of the reports are making factual assertions as to the reasons for the cuts. They are speculating. The factual assertions are in regard to the cuts and, in one report, the specific amounts.


Quote:
The 11-14 million figure is much more consistent with previous quarters.
Uh, no. You would have to know Apples' precise ordering patterns in order to make such a conclusion. Do they tend to order more up front in the quarter? Do they space it out evenly? Do they make 2 or 3 or 4 screen orders per quarter? Maybe every three weeks? Unless you know these things, you cannot say which figure is more consistent with previous quarters.

Quote:
19 million is almost twice the average monthly figure for last year.
Perhaps, but "average" figures in this instance are irrelevant because demand fluctuates throughout the year, month to month So component orders would likely fluctuate as well from order to order. Also, do they really order only enough for one month? Or do they order twice a quarter? Every three weeks? None of us knows this, and unless you know their exact ordering patterns, you really can't say with any certainty whether a 19 million order for January is unusually large for them or not.

Quote:
If anyone at Apple though that they would sell 65 million iPhones in Q2 then either:
a) They were smoking crack, or
b) The numbers they are about to release for Q1 must be off the charts.
I don't think either of those is particularly likely.
My guess is that when the Q2 figures are finally released, they will be less than the 3*14 = 42 million upper end of the 'post-cut' estimate.
C'mon, murray. We already went over the 65 million figure. Do you want me to repeat my answer?


Quote:
No, you did order 20 pies. You phone him, and ordered them.
If you had planned to, but never actually phoned him, then you would have expected to order 20 pies, but have not actually ordered them.
Yes, I did order 20 pies (initially). Yay, we agree on something!

But later I cut that back to 10. Now read what the baker said about my order. It is exactly analogous to this situation and how the NY Times reporter phrased the 19 million Apple screen order in his article. I'm going to assume that because you said nothing specifically about the baker's statement, it didn't jump out at you as sounding wrong or funny. It sounded perfectly fine to you too within that sequence of events. Which was my whole point about the pie analogy,

Quote:
Really? How many of them are you saying have independently verified it?
The Wall St. Journal/Nikkei story broke first. The NY Times independently verified that information through NPD DisplaySearch, a research firm that follows the display market.

Not sure if "verified" is the correct word, though. Maybe "confirmed" is a better one. But the point is, it wasn't just everyone repeating one story. There were two stories using independent sources to report on something.

--Pat

Last edited by PatNY; 01-17-2013 at 05:18 PM.
PatNY is offline