View Single Post
Old 01-18-2013, 06:40 AM   #116
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 Sil_liS View Post
The fact that a story has been repeated doesn't mean anything other than: it is good gossip.
I can't disagree more. It all depends on who repeats it. If it's repeated solely by blogs, and commentators such as you and me on forums like this, sure, I'd say it's just gossip. But if it's picked up by virtually every mainstream reputable media outlet that exists -- all while the story goes unchallenged -- and gets independently "confirmed," then it has a great deal of credibility.

Quote:
And the story hasn't been verified. You have anonymous sources telling Nikkei that Apple places orders for the whole quarter, and you have anonymous sources telling the analyst that Apple places orders for each month. The stories contradict each other.
As I said in my reply to murray a few posts earlier, perhaps "confirmed" is a better word. So, yes, this story has been independently confirmed by two major media outlets. The stories do not contradict each other -- or at least they are close enough in substance that they are consistent with each other, IMO. When the first story says "half" it is saying roughly 50%. Meanwhile the range for the cuts in the second story is up to 43%. Close enough, I think.

If you are referring to the 65 million number mentioned by Nikkei in one of the original reports, well that could be a result of sloppy reporting or simply an error. It doesn't mean that the meat of the story -- the cuts of roughly 50% -- is incorrect.

BTW, analysts have been reporting since December of component cuts by Apple. So this story isn't as new as the recent news would suggest. Maybe it was simply not picked up by major media outlets in the past OR the analysts' reports lacked the specificity that the recent news stories have.

Quote:
Then there would have been a range instead of the 19 million number as well.
Not necessarily. One of the sources for one of the 3 LCD suppliers could have been definite on the "original" order but less definite or specific as to the cuts. Hence the range just on the cuts.

--Pat
PatNY is offline