View Single Post
Old 01-19-2013, 06:47 AM   #123
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: 927
Karma: 46026034
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
The mainstream media outlet didn't report on the story, they reported on WSJ's report of what Nikkei reported. Did you see any quotes from the Nikkei article?
I'm not sure what you are saying here and how it tracks with my comment which was in response to one of yours. Since some are slicing and dicing words here, I want to be sure what you are taking issue with in my reply. Are you taking issue with my interpretation of the word "repeating" here?

Because the mainstream media outlets certainly did "repeat" ("picked up") the story.

Again, I don't want semantical nit-picking to be the issue here. So what exactly did you mean when you said "The fact that a story has been repeated doesn't mean anything other than: it is good gossip." (Emphasis mine.) That's what I was replying to.

Quote:
What exactly are you counting? There was the original story by Nikkei, there was the independent report by the analyst that contradicts original story on how the parts are ordered (monthly vs. quarterly). There is no direct quote from either Nikkei (on the 65 million halved) or Paul Semenza (on the 19 million down to 11-14 million).
No, the NYT's report does not contradict the Nikkei report. Neither report specifies exactly how parts are ordered by Apple other than to say some orders were made in January (NYT's) and that on a quarterly basis -- which could have encompassed several different orders throughout the entire quarter -- orders were roughly halved (Nikkei). And, again, dismiss the 65 million number because its use in the original article was unclear. I am "counting" the figures from the NYT's article which are consistent with the Nikkei sourced reports.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no direct from ..." Are you now saying because there was no direct quote from the sources that the information from the sources is not reliable? That's not how journalism works. It's never worked that way.


Quote:
This would mean that Paul Semenza denies the original story that the demand for iPhone 5 was low.
Not really. Semenza himself says it's just a theory. Theory is not fact. Hard numbers are facts. (And, murray, don't go semantical nit-picking over the use of "facts" here.) From the material you quoted, it sounds like Semenza is saying he doesn't know what the reason is, and a correction from an initial high ramp up would be just one "theory."

--Pat
PatNY is offline