Comments on: The worst analysis ever http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/ TheAppleBlog, published by and for the day-to-day Apple user, is a prominent source for news, reviews, walkthroughs, and real life application of all Apple products. Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:16:22 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3 By: albrecht schmitz http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-110485 albrecht schmitz Thu, 04 Oct 2007 10:33:14 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-110485 One point to take into consideration concerning the "special treatment" of Apple by Intel is not only the 5 percent marketshare. In the high end chips suh as dual core Apple is by far the biggest customer since it lowest model is already equipped with it. Furthermore, when Intel launched it first for Apple and the only for the pc-market, that was an intelligent sales decision. Which other manufacturer would have decided to change it's entire product line to the new chips. Only Apple. Probably Intel would not have had enough production capacity in the beginning for Apple as well as for the others. Conclusion : Apple has reasonably good prices for a high end product which leaves Intel a good profit together with an immediate mass production to start cutting production costs. In a traditional launch these chips would have been marketed in the pc-market in small quantities until a certain volume was achieved. Conclusion : plain busines sense for both parties. One point to take into consideration concerning the “special treatment” of Apple by Intel is not only the 5 percent marketshare.
In the high end chips suh as dual core Apple is by far the biggest customer since it lowest model is already equipped with it.
Furthermore, when Intel launched it first for Apple and the only for the pc-market, that was an intelligent sales decision. Which other manufacturer would have decided to change it’s entire product line to the new chips. Only Apple. Probably Intel would not have had enough production capacity in the beginning for Apple as well as for the others.
Conclusion : Apple has reasonably good prices for a high end product which leaves Intel a good profit together with an immediate mass production to start cutting production costs. In a traditional launch these chips would have been marketed in the pc-market in small quantities until a certain volume was achieved.
Conclusion : plain busines sense for both parties.

]]> By: Ian Devin http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-70050 Ian Devin Sun, 22 Oct 2006 02:28:52 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-70050 talk about good analysis ... the site switch to a mac predicted almost head on that apple would ship 1.6 million computers in the fourth quarter. the predition was as follows: notebooks = 1 million desktops = 640,000 the actual numbers were: notebooks: 984,000 desktops: 624,000 i was surprised becuase most everyone else was expecting lower numbers. http://switchtoamac.com/site/prediction-of-164-million-macs-for-q4-2006-misses-by-only-30000.html talk about good analysis … the site switch to a mac predicted almost head on that apple would ship 1.6 million computers in the fourth quarter. the predition was as follows:

notebooks = 1 million
desktops = 640,000

the actual numbers were:

notebooks: 984,000
desktops: 624,000

i was surprised becuase most everyone else was expecting lower numbers.

http://switchtoamac.com/site/prediction-of-164-million-macs-for-q4-2006-misses-by-only-30000.html

]]> By: Randy Sailer http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69735 Randy Sailer Fri, 20 Oct 2006 17:16:38 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69735 Apparently, the folks at Business Week agree with you!! http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2006/10/what_would_we_d.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_byteoftheapple Randy Apparently, the folks at Business Week agree with you!!

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2006/10/what_would_we_d.html?campaign_id=rss_blog_byteoftheapple

Randy

]]> By: Brandon Eley http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69671 Brandon Eley Fri, 20 Oct 2006 09:10:56 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69671 Of course Apple gets special treatment. Apple may not be big in market share for operating systems, but as a PC manufacturer they have a huge market share and are right up there with the big guys. HP, Dell, they all get price cuts and special treatment to some extent. Intel saw an opportunity to tap into 5 % of the hardware market it wasn't currently getting a piece of. As Apple's PC market share grows (and it's growing) so does Intel's. I haven't read this "analysis" but I don't think Intel or Apple are going anywhere anytime soon. These kinds of analyses have been around since the '90s. I can't count the number of articles I've read that spelled doom for Apple. Apple's still here, and sometimes I wonder what's happened to those writers with such skill at fortunetelling. Of course Apple gets special treatment. Apple may not be big in market share for operating systems, but as a PC manufacturer they have a huge market share and are right up there with the big guys. HP, Dell, they all get price cuts and special treatment to some extent. Intel saw an opportunity to tap into 5 % of the hardware market it wasn’t currently getting a piece of. As Apple’s PC market share grows (and it’s growing) so does Intel’s.

I haven’t read this “analysis” but I don’t think Intel or Apple are going anywhere anytime soon. These kinds of analyses have been around since the ’90s. I can’t count the number of articles I’ve read that spelled doom for Apple. Apple’s still here, and sometimes I wonder what’s happened to those writers with such skill at fortunetelling.

]]> By: Mantiz http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69665 Mantiz Fri, 20 Oct 2006 08:38:54 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69665 I think what he meant with intel proping up Apple is that they did not just support apple like they would do with any pc manufacturer, they brought the intel core duo for example, first to the mac and a couple of months later to the pc market. And yes, apple is stll able to sell computers not because intel feels like it, but because of intel doing business with apple. If at a point they were not be able to strike a good deal intel could bail, that would mean at the point where they are now, big problems for Apple. I think what he meant with intel proping up Apple is that they did not just support apple like they would do with any pc manufacturer,
they brought the intel core duo for example, first to the mac and a couple of months later to the pc market.
And yes, apple is stll able to sell computers not because intel feels like it, but because of intel doing business with apple.

If at a point they were not be able to strike a good deal intel could bail, that would mean at the point where they are now, big problems for Apple.

]]> By: Anonymous http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69608 Anonymous Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:47:17 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69608 I have had the "pleasure" of presenting to Gartner and many of their ilk while representing a major consumer electronics and software company or two. Whenever I read a report concerning a topic with which I am intimately familiar, I conclude that the writer is an imbecile, or at best, a lazy moron. I try to keep that in mind when reading analyst reports. I have had the “pleasure” of presenting to Gartner and many of their ilk while representing a major consumer electronics and software company or two. Whenever I read a report concerning a topic with which I am intimately familiar, I conclude that the writer is an imbecile, or at best, a lazy moron. I try to keep that in mind when reading analyst reports.

]]> By: Leon http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69601 Leon Fri, 20 Oct 2006 00:24:01 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69601 this is just another example of how erroneous Gartner's research tends to be. I can't believe that people continue to give their "insight" credence. this is just another example of how erroneous Gartner’s research tends to be. I can’t believe that people continue to give their “insight” credence.

]]> By: Robere http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69573 Robere Thu, 19 Oct 2006 22:52:02 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69573 The basis of this analysis left me with whiplash ... what, higher volume 'increases' your component costs?? Since when, per unit costs go way down with bigger orders ... This just seems like a dig. Intel seems geniuinely excited to be working with Apple on new products which offer the promise of new untapped markets for those custom chips. Has it been sugested that Apple gets fovarble pricing for the same chips compared to PC makers other than in this article? The basis of this analysis left me with whiplash … what, higher volume ‘increases’ your component costs?? Since when, per unit costs go way down with bigger orders …

This just seems like a dig.

Intel seems geniuinely excited to be working with Apple on new products which offer the promise of new untapped markets for those custom chips.

Has it been sugested that Apple gets fovarble pricing for the same chips compared to PC makers other than in this article?

]]> By: matthew http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69543 matthew Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:35:27 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69543 Worst Apple analyst, yes, but a great publicist. He's getting this article plastered everywhere today. At any rate, there are a ton of reasons even the vaguely Apple-informed analyst would never propose such a pairing. Not to mention the fact that these companies are reported to be on two ends of the reliability survey scale (Apple, 201; Dell, 4). Nice. Worst Apple analyst, yes, but a great publicist. He’s getting this article plastered everywhere today.

At any rate, there are a ton of reasons even the vaguely Apple-informed analyst would never propose such a pairing.

Not to mention the fact that these companies are reported to be on two ends of the reliability survey scale (Apple, 201; Dell, 4). Nice.

]]> By: Frank http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69538 Frank Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:26:56 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69538 Contra Gartner, The whole point of going to Intel hardware was to neutralize the differential between Apple and Dell and HP. If Intel declares bankruptcy tomorrow, Apple, Dell, HP, and the others would all simply move to AMD, or whatever other chip company sprung up to serve this vast market. I fail to see how Intel's fortunes affect Apple any differently than the rest of the PC makers. Contra Gartner, The whole point of going to Intel hardware was to neutralize the differential between Apple and Dell and HP. If Intel declares bankruptcy tomorrow, Apple, Dell, HP, and the others would all simply move to AMD, or whatever other chip company sprung up to serve this vast market.

I fail to see how Intel’s fortunes affect Apple any differently than the rest of the PC makers.

]]> By: BK http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69526 BK Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:17:44 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69526 Apple's not Microsoft enough said. Apple’s not Microsoft enough said.

]]> By: Concerned Reader http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69503 Concerned Reader Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:59:08 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69503 This is the worst analysis of an analysis that I've ever read. From that line, how did you come to the conclusion that the analyst was suggesting that Apple is able to sell computers because Intel feels like it? Read what he said again. Gartner said that the 40% margins on the computers are only sustainable because Intel doesn't charge Apple as much as they could, and said absolutely nothing about Apple's ability to actually sell computers without Intel. Anyway, it doesn't make a difference because there isn't an analyst in the industry that actually knows what he or she is talking about. I work in the securities industry and have access to a lot of research on the track records of analysts. Turns out that the vast majority of their track records suck not just in performance but in facts. Analysts have very little (read: almost zero) knowledge of the inter-workings of the companies they're analyzing. As a result, they pull stuff out of the air that seems reasonable and pass it off as an "analysis." Truth is, all they do is make reasonable guesses. Very little analyzing actually goes on. There's only one analyst that I can think of who's track record has been consistently impressive -- and they are that way because they take a quantitative approach to the companies they analyze (they have a formula they follow and the computer decides the stock's rating) rather than what every other analyst does (which, as I mentioned before, is to take a guess). This is the worst analysis of an analysis that I’ve ever read. From that line, how did you come to the conclusion that the analyst was suggesting that Apple is able to sell computers because Intel feels like it? Read what he said again. Gartner said that the 40% margins on the computers are only sustainable because Intel doesn’t charge Apple as much as they could, and said absolutely nothing about Apple’s ability to actually sell computers without Intel.

Anyway, it doesn’t make a difference because there isn’t an analyst in the industry that actually knows what he or she is talking about. I work in the securities industry and have access to a lot of research on the track records of analysts. Turns out that the vast majority of their track records suck not just in performance but in facts. Analysts have very little (read: almost zero) knowledge of the inter-workings of the companies they’re analyzing. As a result, they pull stuff out of the air that seems reasonable and pass it off as an “analysis.” Truth is, all they do is make reasonable guesses. Very little analyzing actually goes on. There’s only one analyst that I can think of who’s track record has been consistently impressive — and they are that way because they take a quantitative approach to the companies they analyze (they have a formula they follow and the computer decides the stock’s rating) rather than what every other analyst does (which, as I mentioned before, is to take a guess).

]]> By: JulesLt http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69502 JulesLt Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:51:12 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69502 On the same day that statistics show that Dell are losing market share to both Apple and HP too. To me that suggests that the growth in the bottom end of the market has flattened out - as with iPod sales it had to sometime. The problem they have is that they have established a brand that is associated with being 'cheap' rather than 'good value'. People often buy a cheap first car, but rarely buy the same model again, whereas they will stick with a better quality manufacturer. Equally, Gartner seem to miss the point that Dell probably could not manufacture the Mac any cheaper than Apple could. There is nothing particularly magical about how Dell do what they do, and they could not do it and deliver something like the iMac. Gartner seem to specialise in either stating the obvious or the ridiculous, rather than anything I'd actually call analysis. On the same day that statistics show that Dell are losing market share to both Apple and HP too. To me that suggests that the growth in the bottom end of the market has flattened out - as with iPod sales it had to sometime.
The problem they have is that they have established a brand that is associated with being ‘cheap’ rather than ‘good value’. People often buy a cheap first car, but rarely buy the same model again, whereas they will stick with a better quality manufacturer.

Equally, Gartner seem to miss the point that Dell probably could not manufacture the Mac any cheaper than Apple could. There is nothing particularly magical about how Dell do what they do, and they could not do it and deliver something like the iMac.

Gartner seem to specialise in either stating the obvious or the ridiculous, rather than anything I’d actually call analysis.

]]> By: brian warren http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69499 brian warren Thu, 19 Oct 2006 19:31:06 +0000 http://theappleblog.com/2006/10/19/the-worse-analysis-ever/#comment-69499 I agree. It's total nonsense. <a href="http://daringfireball.net/2006/10/gartner_jackasses" rel="nofollow">Gruber gave them Jackasses of the Week</a>. What an honor! I agree. It’s total nonsense. Gruber gave them Jackasses of the Week. What an honor!

]]>