Still More Apple Pwnage

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai


Dude, you do realize there is a lot of divergence in that graph, compared to this year (MSFT a flat climb, T more jagged).

Now look at post Aug this year. They're virtually in sync.

Thanks for proving my point.

The sub-prime market's peak influence was in July, not August...

There's not a lot of divergence in that graph -- actually, there's less divergence in my graph than yours...

[Pekka]

I find the notion that the market was wrong kind of weird. It reacted to the news that prices are now cut.

It doesn't matter if Apple was healthy, because their value went down regardless. It doesn't mean the long time projection is weaker, the situation will normalize if Apple is healthy.

But we know the market will react even if some boss man says something in public. You don't want to do that on purpose. So, even if they would be very healthy, the way the price cut was implemented was not succesful. It's a lot about perception anyway, so I don't see how that was a genius move. If they wanted to cut the price right there and then, they should have done it better.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Tingkai
You mean just like his theory about how AT&T stock has been hammered.

It has. The fact that it's not noticably positive since the iPhone launch is VERY telling -- considering that the iPhone is "meeting all projections" in theory, right? This should be very positive for AT&T, but investors are clearly not biting.

Hammering doesn't necessarily mean down overall, it can mean individual gains are wiped out in turn by waryness due to their unwillingness to update subscriber counts.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher
In any case, I took a 100% true statement (activation numbers < apple's sales numbers), and asked for global agreement. You refused to do so, which says all we need to know -- you're not actually debating here, you're being contrary to be contrary.

You haven't shown that ATT doesn't have the right to return. I don't care either way, because I don't believe any investor believes that ATT has so much inventory, but I require you to show some evidence not just make assumptions and not back it up.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You haven't shown that ATT doesn't have the right to return.

You haven't shown that they do. Considering that retail stores generally cannot return any unsold hardware merchandise to the vendors, the onus is on you.

[thesilentone]

AT-T acquired an exclusive contract for the iphone, for such a big product as that it would've cost them a pretty penny(investors only have to look at the ipod and they wet themselves), having a right to return clause in there too would've just cost them even more. Given that they were eager enough to get the exclusive i'd guess it's not that likely they would've stipulated a right to return clause.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

You haven't shown that they do. Considering that retail stores generally cannot return any unsold hardware merchandise to the vendors, the onus is on you.

You're just making assumptions. We can't agree with you for sure that even the activation numbers will be less than sales.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You're just making assumptions.

Look up speculation. Of course assumptions are made. There is not a link for everything in the world. There's more to life than just the internet.

Expand your horizons, grasshoppah.

The key is to make educated assumptions based on reasoning and logic. For instance, it is reasonable to assume AT&T does not have a right to return unsold merchandise.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by thesilentone
AT-T acquired an exclusive contract for the iphone, for such a big product as that it would've cost them a pretty penny(investors only have to look at the ipod and they wet themselves), having a right to return clause in there too would've just cost them even more. Given that they were eager enough to get the exclusive i'd guess it's not that likely they would've stipulated a right to return clause.

Typically new products are sold to retail with a right to return though. That's because it's in the interest of the manufacturer for the store to carry plenty of inventory. There is usually a time period in which the right to return is in effect.

Sure the right to return clause costs them money, but not having one costs too.

Another thing is price guarantees. Those have special accounting too for similar reasons. Price guarantees protect the retailer. There could also be price guarantees.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Typically new products are sold to retail with a right to return though.

Bull**** -- link?

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

Look up speculation. Of course assumptions are made. There is not a link for everything in the world. There's more to life than just the internet.

Expand your horizons, grasshoppah.

The key is to make educated assumptions based on reasoning and logic. For instance, it is reasonable to assume AT&T does not have a right to return unsold merchandise.

Your Apple bashing bias /= logic and reasoning.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Asher

Bull**** -- link?

You think that's cute but I can easily get a link. I've demonstrated that. That's something you can not do.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Your Apple bashing bias /= logic and reasoning.

Is it Apple bashing bias?

As I said, most of these words were typed on a MacBook Pro when at home.

Though recently, I've been using my new T60p ThinkPad at work.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Kidicious


You think that's cute but I can easily get a link. I've demonstrated that. That's something you can not do.

Then do it? Duh?

[thesilentone]

Edit: reply to kid

Not saying you're wrong, but it seems unlikely that you would be able to find anything about the contract between apple and att. An industry wide report would at best say "most" and possibly qualify the statement with things like "unless the product has a proven background/rabid fanbase".