Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY
Where else could the sources have gotten the 19 million figure but from an actual Apple order?
|
You are assuming that the figure is correct, therefore it must have come from someone who knew about it.
We don't know that it is correct.
It could be just made up.
It could be someone misunderstanding what they have overheard.
It could be that they were originally going to order a large amount in January and less in February and March (as you suggested in your post), and then decided to level it out across all three, but only the January decrease is being reported, not the February and March increases.
It could be that if Apple place concrete orders for X, they have the right to reserve Y more units of production at no up front cost, and what is being reported as 'ordered' is X+Y, not X.
We just don't know. That has been my point the whole time.
There are no facts here, only assertions.
Quote:
|
The statement about cutting the order and the numbers given are factual assertions. You can believe them or not.
|
Which is not the same as a
fact.
That is the point. It is not a fact that they have cut orders, it is an assertion that they have cut orders.
Quote:
|
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?
|
You said: "But the very fact that they cut the number previously ordered"
It isn't a fact. It is an assertion, as you have just said.
Quote:
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.
|
So two.
That isn't quite: "independently verified and repeated by almost all major news outlets. " is it?
And the two stories have different numbers, one of which (65 million), you don't believe either.
This is getting much more nitpicky that it would ever be in real life, and I doubt either of us care about it as much as it must seem to anyone following these posts, we would probably both have gotten bored and gone off to get something to eat by now
I'm fundamentally mistrustful and cynical of anonymous sources and analyst reports, so I prefer to just ignore them until some real news is available.
I suspect neither of us are going to convince the other, and we are just going to go in circles from here on. Over to you for a last word.