View Single Post
Old 01-16-2013, 07:31 AM   #40
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: 1,022
Karma: 47809468
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
They aren't hard numbers.
They are guesses based on speaking to 'sources in the supply chain'.
They could be right. They could be completely wrong.
They could be from all three suppliers, they could be from only one.
No. The underlying data is not a guess or an estimate (though it could be misinformation). The range reported in the NYTs is an estimate based on incomplete data, some of it hard numbers. I know this is being picky with semantics, but it's an important distinction. It's not just some analyst sitting in his office doing "projections" or "estimates" based on non-specific information, trends, and old sales data.

But here's the telling fact. Apple has been silent on this. Don't you think they owe it to their stockholders and customers to dispel any misinformation? Do they really want to see their stock prices taken for a wild ride, with many of their stockholders potentially losing a lot of money? In this sense, it's a matter or corporate responsibility.

--Pat
PatNY is offline