View Single Post
Old 01-18-2013, 07:39 AM   #121
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
So the numbers are meaningless?
Either the numbers say that Apple originally ordered twice what seems to me to be a plausible sales estimate, in which case I don't believe them, or they say nothing at all, in which case what is the point of discussing them?
No, they are not meaningless. The numbers say that Apple initially ordered 19 million and then cut that by 5-8 million. You don't know if that is within normal quarterly sales figures because the NYTs report doesn't say what Apple's ordering pattern is. But -- and here's where the real story is -- some are interpreting that as an indication of lower demand for the iP5 than originally anticipated by Apple.

Quote:
If it were presented as 'evidence' that Apple's sales for the quarter were doing to be double expectations, yes. I think there is zero chance that Apple's sales will be double their previous years quarter.

Again, as I have said all along, my issues with the story is not that Apple will only be selling ~30 million iPhones, it is that they would ever have expected to sell double that.
What if it were presented as "possibly" meaning double the expectations. Remember, these current stories of cuts are not saying this is definitive evidence of softening demand, they are saying that lower demand is likely a main cause. I said the hypothetical should be similar to these current stories.

As for the 65 million, you seem to be obsessing about it when it is not the center of the stories here. It may be an error but that doesn't mean other aspects of the story are incorrect. Just disregard the Nikkei-sourced story if you want and concentrate on the one that the NYTs put out. That is the more reliable story, IMO.

--Pat
PatNY is offline