More Apple pwnage

[Nikolai]

You know Asher, I do agree with you on this, but you have to point to sources when you come with claims like this.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Wiglaf


I remember when the N-Gage came out, nokia insisted it had sold millions in the first week. The actual number was like 50,000.

It's quite common to count sold to retail as sold, if completely misleading.

Something has got to be published regarding the distributors rights to return or if the distributor does not have the right though. Otherwise this is a violation of accounting principles and very bad for investor confidence.

[Wiglaf]

your sig is obnoxious and misleading

In recent years the company has become the center of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million.[16] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[17] Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes[17] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (in Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.[17]

[Asher]

Originally posted by Nikolai
You know Asher, I do agree with you on this, but you have to point to sources when you come with claims like this.

No, I most certainly do not. It's been done like this for every consumer electronics company for many years. Finding a specific link to say as such would be nearly impossible, especially for Apple. Their legal agreements will not be public, so there's no source to link to.

It is the status quo. If somebody wants to make the absurd claim that Apple is any different, they will have to back it up -- and explain why Apple's sales figures do not jive with analyst market research and AT&T activation numbers. It doesn't compute, and it's nonsense.

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
your sig is obnoxious and misleading

In recent years the company has become the center of several controversies involving the 2003 Iraq War and the company's ties to U.S. Vice President Dick Cheney. Cheney retired from the company during the 2000 U.S. presidential election campaign with a severance package worth $34 million.[16] As of 2004, he had received $398,548 in deferred compensation from Halliburton while Vice President.[17] Concerns have been raised regarding the possible conflict of interest resulting from Cheney's deferred compensation and stock options from Halliburton. However, before entering office in 2001, Cheney bought an insurance policy that guaranteed a fixed amount of deferred payments from Halliburton each year for five years so that the payments would not depend on the company's fortunes[17] He is legally bound by an agreement he signed which turns over power of attorney to a trust administrator to sell the options at some future time and to give the after-tax profits to three charities. The agreement specifies that 40% will go to the University of Wyoming (in Cheney's home state), 40% will go to George Washington University's medical faculty to be used for tax-exempt charitable purposes, and 20% will go to Capital Partners for Education. The agreement states that it is "irrevocable and may not be terminated, waived or amended," preventing Cheney from taking back the options at a later date.[17]

Maybe, but obviously Cheney will like to do his fellow capitalists a favour or two along the way don't you think? The indirect advantages he gains from doing that might just outweigh everything else!

[Wiglaf]

Nikolai - Apple/AT&T "sold" 500,000 phones in its first weekend but AT&T only reported 146,000 activations.

That is all the proof you need that a "sold" iPhone means one sold to retailers. Unless you think 75% of new iPhone owners decided to buy a phone in the first weekend but not actually use it.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Traianvs


Maybe, but obviously Cheney will like to do his fellow capitalists a favour or two along the way don't you think? The indirect advantages he gains from doing that might just outweigh everything else!

Whatever. Find something specific and get back to me.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Do YOUR research. Let's see it. You haven't done anything but made bald assertions. How many product is in store inventory? All you are saying is MOST of the sales is inventory. That means nothing. Give us the numbers and the source.

No, you are making bald assertions. Not me.

It is the status quo in the industry for consumer electronics companies to report "sold to retail" as SOLD. In fact, to these companies, they DID sell. Retailers then sell these to the consumers.

The problem here is Apple's "sold" numbers include enormous numbers sold to AT&T stores. AT&T stores are NOT selling iPhones in any high volumes, as my link has demonstrated. Further, my link also has numbers as to the actual sell-through expected through the end of the month -- which also do not jive with Apple's numbers.

Not to mention a massive pricecut, which tells you right away that Apple had more than enough stock to meet their current demand...and think about what that means.

What you are doing is completely ignoring common sense and solid reasoning and industry status quo, baldly stating weird things like Apple has a unique legal agreement that prevents them from counting "sold to retails" as sold, and generally spouting nonsense. You're going to have to back up your claims, because 100% of all indicators are pointing to an oversupply of iPhones -- which does mean excessive stocks. Why massively cut the price of the iPhone if you had equal demand and supply? Simple question.

[Asher]

I demand this thread be re-named "More Asher pwnage".

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Nikolai - Apple/AT&T "sold" 500,000 phones in its first weekend but AT&T only reported 146,000 activations.

That is all the proof you need that a "sold" iPhone means one sold to retailers. Unless you think 75% of new iPhone owners decided to buy a phone in the first weekend but not actually use it.

That was what I thought. And that very much weakens Agathon's claims.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Asher

No, I most certainly do not. It's been done like this for every consumer electronics company for many years. Finding a specific link to say as such would be nearly impossible, especially for Apple. Their legal agreements will not be public, so there's no source to link to.

It is the status quo. If somebody wants to make the absurd claim that Apple is any different, they will have to back it up -- and explain why Apple's sales figures do not jive with analyst market research and AT&T activation numbers. It doesn't compute, and it's nonsense.

You might very well be correct. It certainly sounds likely. But for me that is not into this field, from the outside, the discussion here looks very much like word against word until someone proves their point with something other than authority arguments.

[Wiglaf]

Most iphone users had no problems activating, also:

But a source familiar with the situation said that just less than 2 percent of the buyers had problems activating their service with AT&T Wireless, the unit of AT&T (Charts, Fortune 500) that is the exclusive wireless phone provider that uses the device.

AT&T said only that the overwhelming majority of its customers activated the iPhones without any problems. "We're extraordinary pleased on how things have gone," said Mark Siegel, spokesman for the wireless unit of AT&T.

http://money.cnn.com/2007/07/02/technology/iphone_sales/

So what you have are people saying "Apple sold 500,000-700,000 iphones" in the first weekend but only activated a fraction of that. Since that is silly and makes no sense, the only rational conclusion is that a "sold" iPhone includes sales to retailers, not customers.

It is misleading and bad for confidence, but Nokia did it with their crappy N-Gage and Apple is doing it now..

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Nikolai


You might very well be correct. It certainly sounds likely. But for me that is not into this field, from the outside, the discussion here looks very much like word against word until someone proves their point with something other than authority arguments.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/10/23/nokia_figures_claim_massive_ngage/

Examine what Nokia did (reporting retailer sales as unit sales). It is common.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

No, you are making bald assertions. Not me.

You made the assertion that most of the iphone sales were siting in the AT&T stores. Back that up plz.

It is the status quo in the industry for consumer electronics companies to report "sold to retail" as SOLD. In fact, to these companies, they DID sell. Retailers then sell these to the consumers.

Back up please.

The problem here is Apple's "sold" numbers include enormous numbers sold to AT&T stores. AT&T stores are NOT selling iPhones in any high volumes, as my link has demonstrated.

How do you calculate the actual inventory levels in the AT&T stores? What is that level compared to overall sales?

Not to mention a massive pricecut, which tells you right away that Apple had more than enough stock to meet their current demand...and think about what that means.

But where is that stock? Why do you claim that it's in AT&T stores? Why not Apple wherehouses or Apple stores? The iphones are selling 7 to 1 in the Apple stores compared to the AT&T stores, so why would they have so much stock in the AT&T stores?

What you are doing is completely ignoring common sense and solid reasoning and industry status quo, baldly stating weird things like Apple has a unique legal agreement that prevents them from counting "sold to retails" as sold, and generally spouting nonsense. You're going to have to back up your claims, because 100% of all indicators are pointing to an oversupply of iPhones -- which does mean excessive stocks.

I'm just asking you to show a source. Where did you get the idea? Just heard it somewhere? That's not cutting it.

Why massively cut the price of the iPhone if you had equal demand and supply? Simple question.

Yes, sales dropped or sales is anticipated to drop. I don't argue otherwise. That doesn't mean that there is a huge stock of product in the AT&T stores. All that means is that it's time to drop the price. It also doesn't say anything about how many has been sold already or how many will be sold at the new price.

[Asher]

Those claims have already been backed up. You are being absurd, I am terminating our conversation if you do not understand the concept of selling to retailers, who then sell to consumers. You also do not apparently understand that iPhones need to be activated to be used, and their low activation numbers (cited in this thread) are useful in determining how many are actually sold to consumers.

It is clear that short of me hacking into AT&T databases and displaying a store-by-store breakdown of Apple stock, you will never be convinced. You are free to ignore AT&T activation numbers as well as monitoring by independent firms researching sales figures, but do so knowing you're completely wrong.