Register Guidelines E-Books Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Go Back   MobileRead Forums > E-Book General > News

Notices

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 01-19-2013, 10:10 AM   #136
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: 914
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
Pat, I am not an Apple disciple, I don't own anything made by Apple, and I don't like their business practice.
Well then I apologize for lumping you in that group.


Quote:
Did you notice how the numbers given by NYT are exactly a third of the numbers given by CNET, and they represent 1 month vs. a quarter (3 months)?
Yes, and that might indicate the 65 million quarterly figure used by Nikkei may not be far off the mark, after all.


Quote:
The main difference is that according to CNET these numbers are estimates made by DisplaySearch, both the initial one and the current estimated range.
No, CNET is not saying the numbers in the NYTs article are estimates. And the NYT's clearly says the numbers given by Semenza are from supply chain sources. Not estimates. The NYTs says "these numbers came from sources in the supply chain." The numbers themselves came from the sources. Not from Semenza.

Quote:
It might even be illegal for them to get direct evidence on how many parts are being ordered because it might lead to insider trading acusations.
I highly doubt it. If anything, it may only be illegal for them to trade on that information until it becomes public.

Quote:
As for the 65 million, it is most likely the number of parts ordered for last quarter (since the previous analyst estimate was that Apple sold 61 million iPhone5s in Q4 2012, it seems reasonable).
Still, Semenza cut his own estimate of Q1 2013 sales of iPhones significantly based on Apple's cuts in screen orders.

You didn't answer my question regarding the hypothetical news story. Would you immediately dismiss that as well?

--Pat
PatNY is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 10:42 AM   #137
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: 914
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by murraypaul View Post
Yes, as I had already said earlier in the thread.
A story is either believable or not.
Numbers are either reasonable or not.
My personal bet would be that there is at least a 25% chance that Apple's 2013Q2 figures are below their 2012Q2, which were exceptionally high.
35-45 million sounds like a reasonable range.
60-65 (the scaled up numbers in your hypothetical story) do not, too me, seem reasonable, for a non-release, non-holiday, quarter.
I'd put the chance of their 2013Q2 iPhone sales being over 60 million at less than 5%.
Maybe I'm too bearish on iPhone sales, and next week's figures will show something shocking, but that would be my reaction to that story.
But there are no "scaled up numbers" in the hypothetical story. You can't assume that the January orders mentioned in that story are not for latter months as well. The only thing you can assume is that original expectations upon which original orders were based on were too low.

Also, murray, you don't keep these actual sales figures in your head. You've researched them only now. So you're telling me when you first come across this story, you're going to immediately jump on it, even though at the time you really don't know what the Q2 2012 sales numbers are? Or the previous quarter's either?

--Pat

Last edited by PatNY; 01-19-2013 at 10:45 AM.
PatNY is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 12:09 PM   #138
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,692
Karma: 33379200
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
No, CNET is not saying the numbers in the NYTs article are estimates. And the NYT's clearly says the numbers given by Semenza are from supply chain sources. Not estimates. The NYTs says "these numbers came from sources in the supply chain." The numbers themselves came from the sources. Not from Semenza.
CNET talked to Semenza, they don't need to comment on what NYT said, and they are saying that the numbers that Semenza gave are estimates. And estimates are based on information from sources.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
Still, Semenza cut his own estimate of Q1 2013 sales of iPhones significantly based on Apple's cuts in screen orders.
No, he lowered his estimates based on lowering the estimates for the sales of last quarter. He doesn't have a better estimate of what the sales were other than lower than 61 million, but near that number, so this uncertainty reflects itself in the estimates for this quarter.

On estimates:
Quote:
Brian Blair, an analyst with Wedge Partners, says order cuts are typical after the holidays. He also noted that Apple uses multiple suppliers for individual parts making across the board cuts difficult to assess.

He estimates that Apple sold 50 million iPhones during the quarter, ahead of average analyst estimates around 47 million.
So Semenza gave an estimate that was 14 million higher than the average. I'm not surprised that he had to make some adjustments.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
You didn't answer my question regarding the hypothetical news story. Would you immediately dismiss that as well?
I wouldn't dismiss it. I would, as you put it, nitpick it to death. Starting with the fact that one would expect a shortage of devices if the demand would have been underestimated.
Sil_liS is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 01:36 PM   #139
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: 914
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
CNET talked to Semenza, they don't need to comment on what NYT said, and they are saying that the numbers that Semenza gave are estimates. And estimates are based on information from sources.
No, that is absolutely incorrect. The only thing CNET says is that Semenza is giving revised estimates for the first quarter. But, the NYT's is saying that Semenza has hard numbers for the January orders. The January orders are real, according to the NYT's. And Semenza then took those hard real numbers and used them to revise his estimates for the first quarter.

CNET = estimates (Q1)
NYTs = real numbers (January)

Quote:
No, he lowered his estimates based on lowering the estimates for the sales of last quarter.
Nowhere does it say that in the CNET article. And, in fact, he never said he lowered his estimate for the previous quarter's quantity. He says "It may be dialed back" but he hasn't done it.

Quote:
He doesn't have a better estimate of what the sales were other than lower than 61 million, but near that number, so this uncertainty reflects itself in the estimates for this quarter.
Again, there is no indication whatsoever that he used a possible unknown drop in the previous quarter's quantities to drop the following quarter's estimate by 15-24 million. There's a big hole in your logic. It doesn't even make sense.

Quote:
So Semenza gave an estimate that was 14 million higher than the average. I'm not surprised that he had to make some adjustments.
But he hasn't yet made any adjustments of his Q4 estimate. At least not in any of the links you've provided.


Quote:
I wouldn't dismiss it. I would, as you put it, nitpick it to death. Starting with the fact that one would expect a shortage of devices if the demand would have been underestimated.
How is that nit-picking the hypothetical story? You are essentially agreeing with it, lol.

--Pat

Last edited by PatNY; 01-19-2013 at 01:38 PM.
PatNY is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 02:22 PM   #140
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,692
Karma: 33379200
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
No, that is absolutely incorrect. The only thing CNET says is that Semenza is giving revised estimates for the first quarter. But, the NYT's is saying that Semenza has hard numbers for the January orders. The January orders are real, according to the NYT's. And Semenza then took those hard real numbers and used them to revise his estimates for the first quarter.

CNET = estimates (Q1)
NYTs = real numbers (January)
There are no real numbers. NYT never said that 19 million was the number of displays that had been ordered, that is just something that you are sure that they are implying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
Nowhere does it say that in the CNET article. And, in fact, he never said he lowered his estimate for the previous quarter's quantity. He says "It may be dialed back" but he hasn't done it.
Right, because he is really going to give an estimate now, so close to the day when Apple will show their results, to point out how wrong he can be not just in predicting the market trends, but in figuring out how the market was last quarter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
Again, there is no indication whatsoever that he used a possible unknown drop in the previous quarter's quantities to drop the following quarter's estimate by 15-24 million. There's a big hole in your logic. It doesn't even make sense.
So in your opinion one quarter's sales don't have an impact on next quarter's order?

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
How is that nit-picking the hypothetical story? You are essentially agreeing with it, lol.
You are seriously saying that by pointing out the obviously huge flaw in the argument I'm essentially agreeing with it?
Sil_liS is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 02:39 PM   #141
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: 914
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
There are no real numbers. NYT never said that 19 million was the number of displays that had been ordered, that is just something that you are sure that they are implying.
The NYT's article is saying 19 million were originally ordered. When I name the publication, as opposed to the sources, it also means the people they are using as sources in the article. So it is referring to Semenza and his supply chain sources as well. I thought that was understood.

Semenza in the NYT's article is saying 19 million were originally ordered for January. So the NYT's is essentially saying it too.


Quote:
Right, because he is really going to give an estimate now, so close to the day when Apple will show their results, to point out how wrong he can be not just in predicting the market trends, but in figuring out how the market was last quarter.
Regardless of why he hasn't lowered his Q4 2012 estimate, you are at least admitting it was incorrect when you said in your prior comment that he had lowered it.


Quote:
So in your opinion one quarter's sales don't have an impact on next quarter's order?
I never said that. I said from all the evidence, it appears Semenza revised his estimates for Q1 2013 based on the cuts in orders in January.


Quote:
You are seriously saying that by pointing out the obviously huge flaw in the argument I'm essentially agreeing with it?
You parroted the argument given in the hypothetical!

--Pat
PatNY is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 03:32 PM   #142
murraypaul
Interested Bystander
murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.murraypaul ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 3,224
Karma: 10210627
Join Date: Jun 2008
Device: Sony PRS505, Nook Color(CM7), iPad3
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
Also, murray, you don't keep these actual sales figures in your head. You've researched them only now. So you're telling me when you first come across this story, you're going to immediately jump on it, even though at the time you really don't know what the Q2 2012 sales numbers are? Or the previous quarter's either?
I knew that the previous record was around 35m (actually 37m), from a previous discussion. That is why the 65 million (which was the figure in the original story that started this thread) jumped out so much.
murraypaul is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 05:11 PM   #143
Prestidigitweeze
Fledgling Demagogue
Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Prestidigitweeze ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Prestidigitweeze's Avatar
 
Posts: 2,202
Karma: 24642771
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: White Plains
Device: Aura HD; Nexus 7; PRS-350, 950; Kindle K; OnePlus One; Galaxy S4; MBP.
This might be irrelevant, but I'm offering a comment in case it helps:

These days, I often leave debates wherever they lie when the exchanges become compulsive, and both parties are expected to respond regularly, hour by hour, day by day, or risk being perceived as losing in someone else's eyes.

Whenever the outcome seems to be that my petty point might be vindicated but the fallout could include singed egos and involve lasting resentment (I've had at least two people from message boards stalk me in real life), I tend to let things go. By continuing a strained debate, at the very least, I'm squandering energy best used elsewhere.

(I could insert that famous "Someone on the internet is wrong" cartoon, but the point is so familiar to MR members that mentioning it seems enough.)

Carry on if you like, but feel free to stop if if the going gets tedious or unpleasant.

Last edited by Prestidigitweeze; 01-19-2013 at 08:29 PM.
Prestidigitweeze is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 06:54 PM   #144
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,692
Karma: 33379200
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
The NYT's article is saying 19 million were originally ordered. When I name the publication, as opposed to the sources, it also means the people they are using as sources in the article. So it is referring to Semenza and his supply chain sources as well. I thought that was understood.

Semenza in the NYT's article is saying 19 million were originally ordered for January. So the NYT's is essentially saying it too.
No, the actual words in the article were: "Apple had expected to order 19 million displays". It does not say that 19 million were originally ordered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
Regardless of why he hasn't lowered his Q4 2012 estimate, you are at least admitting it was incorrect when you said in your prior comment that he had lowered it.
He hasn't given a new estimate, but indicated that the value might be lower.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
I never said that. I said from all the evidence, it appears Semenza revised his estimates for Q1 2013 based on the cuts in orders in January.
Ignoring the fact that he said that his theory is that the ramp was too much to sustain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PatNY View Post
You parroted the argument given in the hypothetical!
No, I pointed out the part that was missing.
Sil_liS is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 07:22 PM   #145
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: 914
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sil_liS View Post
No, the actual words in the article were: "Apple had expected to order 19 million displays". It does not say that 19 million were originally ordered.
I already went over this with Murray and gave a comparable hypothetical analogy. It was a manner of speaking by the reporter. Hate to repeat things, but where else would the 19 million have come from?

I'll repeat the analogy too:

I called my local bakery last week Monday to order 20 pies for a party next week.
Two days later I call back and cut that amount to 10.
My baker tells his staff: "Pat had expected to order 20 pies for a party but cut that amount to 10."


Sounds perfectly fine to me.

Quote:
He hasn't given a new estimate, but indicated that the value might be lower.
Exactly! Two things there: the word "might" and the fact he never gave a revised estimate for Q4 2012.


Quote:
Ignoring the fact that he said that his theory is that the ramp was too much to sustain.
Actually, he never said it was "his" theory. He was throwing it out as a possible theory. He never makes a clear statement as to what he himself believes the actual reason or reasons are for the cuts.

Also, how does my statement you are referring to ignore that theory? My statement is consistent with that theory.

Quote:
No, I pointed out the part that was missing.
And what part was that? When you said: "... one would expect a shortage of devices if the demand would have been underestimated?"


--Pat

Last edited by PatNY; 01-19-2013 at 07:41 PM.
PatNY is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 07:43 PM   #146
NightGeometry
Zealot
NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.NightGeometry ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
NightGeometry's Avatar
 
Posts: 138
Karma: 1057240
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Brighton, England
Device: Sony PRS-T1, Kindle 3G, Kindle DX
I have *never* heard 'expected' used in that way before, is it normal in US English to use 'expected' when you mean 'did'?
NightGeometry is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 07:50 PM   #147
Sil_liS
Wizard
Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.Sil_liS ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 4,692
Karma: 33379200
Join Date: Oct 2010
Device: PocketBook 903 & 360+
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGeometry View Post
I have *never* heard 'expected' used in that way before, is it normal in US English to use 'expected' when you mean 'did'?
I'll wait and see what Pat replies to this before replying to his post.
Sil_liS is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 08:14 PM   #148
frahse
occasional author
frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.frahse ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
frahse's Avatar
 
Posts: 1,661
Karma: 2049971684
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Wandering God's glorious hills, valleys and plains.
Device: Kindle3-3G, Archos 43
The "past perfect" "had expected" was an action in the past that was supposed to have been accomplished later in the past before other actions.
In this case the "later" accomplishment was negated (not done.)
frahse is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 08:40 PM   #149
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: 914
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightGeometry View Post
I have *never* heard 'expected' used in that way before, is it normal in US English to use 'expected' when you mean 'did'?
U.S. English is a very fluid language. And colloquialisms have become a part of the written language. I find nothing wrong with using "had expected to order" in this NYT's story. It sounds natural to me, even if technically it may be a little off.

In this case, you have to view "had expected to order" in the context of the rest of the story. There is a stated number of 19 million as the original order. So if Apple hadn't ordered 19 million, then where did the number come from? There is also the fact that there are "cuts." Well "cuts" from what? There has to be a starting point that is higher.

It all just fits. Interpreting it any other way within the story is illogical.

And Semenza in the CNET article makes it clear that there were "cuts."



--Pat
PatNY is offline  
Old 01-19-2013, 08:53 PM   #150
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: 914
Karma: 46025978
Join Date: Jul 2010
Device: iPod Touch, Sony PRS-350, Nook HD+ & HD
Quote:
Originally Posted by frahse View Post
The "past perfect" "had expected" was an action in the past that was supposed to have been accomplished later in the past before other actions.
In this case the "later" accomplishment was negated (not done.)
I'm not sure you're saying what I think you are, but if you are, then I think you've nailed it!

Apple really did order 19 million. But the NYT's reporter is saying that since the original order was amended it essentially was not completed.

--Pat
PatNY is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Google halts new orders for 16GB Nexus 7, surprised by demand petermillard News 148 08-04-2012 07:04 PM
"Amazon: Kindle Demand Weakening? Pac Crest Cuts Views" scrapking Amazon Kindle 17 03-23-2012 10:54 PM
"Due to overwhelming demand, your order may be delayed up to 5 business days..." pokee Kobo Tablets 31 10-28-2011 01:30 PM
iPhone Apple: Statement on iPhone 4 Pre-Orders kjk Apple Devices 25 06-19-2010 12:16 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:41 PM.


MobileRead.com is a privately owned, operated and funded community.