[blogforlovxr]

What the hell are you going on about?

It's not channel stuffing, it's not done intentionally to raise the value of stock. I have said this over a dozen times now.

The problem is likely AT&T being overconfident in their ability to sell iPhones through AT&T retail stores. Consumers are not doing that, they are going to Apple stores instead.

AT&T likely bought too much stock of the iPhone that they could not sell through their stores. This is not illegal in any way, it's just typically AT&T stupid.

Why do you want this horribly one-sided flogging to continue?

[FourEsters]

It'll be interesting to see what happens now that free unlocking of the iPhone has come on the market.

[QysnZWB4]

Originally posted by Kidicious
But you're saying that Apple is intentionally not disclosing material information to the public in order to keep their stock price high, right? I am saying Apple does not have the consumer sell-through rate, AT&T does. If Apple does have it, they are under no obligation to disclose that. These companies ALWAYS report "sold to retailers", and NOT "sold to consumers". This is NOT illegal.

[XU8i6ysK]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Asher,

Overstocking ATT stores when the phones aren't selling there, and then reporting that as sales is channel stuffing. These types of things aren't accidents, and the SEC doesn't see them as such. NO.

This is so simple! They ARE sales, to Apple. They SOLD these phones to AT&T. Apple reporting this as a sale is not only legal, it is standard practice.

[urbalatte]

Originally posted by Pekka
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....gi?u=macs_cant

And we know it's true This one is accurate too: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=iphone

[Elelaytet]

At least most manufacturers in mobile industry sell to providers in bulks as the main strategy and that's the sales numbers for the manufacturer. Because they sold it and the retailer paid for it.

Most manufacturers also do not have stockpiles because every unit is sold before they have a chance to dust. It doesn't mean there aren't phones in the shelves of stores.

This is why, for example, my shittiest day in the week working in the industry was Monday, because every Monday we had a meeting about the production figures and I had to explain why we didn't meet the quota that was possible IF everything went perfect at all times, components were perfect, logistic between subcontractors and others worked like heaven and no airplanes and trucks ever missed their deadlines, and everything was 100% good quality and never had to be dumped. It is seen as LOSS.

This is the logic behind it: we can sell every single unit that comes out of the production lines, in fact, they already HAVE BEEN SOLD. De facto sold. The providers and customers have bought so much ****, that production planners are only trying to keep up with the orders. So what you have is constant flow of prioritized orders, meaning if you can't make the deadline, the company has to pay for it. As in they get penalized. So you bet your ass the high priority customers, the biggest customers, you better make that deadline even if you have to get naked to do it and beat someone up.

So, in the top of the industry, all units are sold before they are even made. And they have to open new factories all over the world, just to keep up with the demand. It's not shutting down factories and shifting them to India and China, it's opening extra factories in other marketplaces where huge loads of units are sold because it only makes sense (Be where your customers are, save in logistics, take the competition to all corners of the world and battle local companies to make sure you are have the biggest share in the future as well).

So there's no need for stock for the big boys. None. They're always _behind_, even though they have massive production capabilities.

So... when Apple gets to this point, then we might have a case of an opportunity to pwn. But this point hasn't been yet reached so we just have to wait and see how they can manage.

So this is why for example the environment working in these places is tough. If you happen to make an hour worth of shitty units, maybe a problem with the process, components, human error, what ever it is, say you have for example 1000 units made and you have to trash them because they're failing the testing. It's not that you just had to scrap a whole lot of components, it's also 1000 units NOT sold, it's also 1000 units worth of time NOT sold, it's a double loss. Because now you have to make 2000 to get the 1000, and within that time you could have made that 1000 more, and they are all sold already, so you're just selling less. That can lead to missing the deadline, so you're paying a penalty for it as an extra. So it's not just simply screwing up....

[clomoll]

That's awesome, Zopp!

[DenisMoor]

About keyboards, CHT makes nice ones. I don't know if they are quality keyboards, but the design is nice. People should learn from that.

[purchasviagra]

Originally posted by Kidicious
And Asher is the one who needs to start providing some evidence for his claim that there is a material amt of inventory at ATT stores. As this is clearly not public, that is not possible. What some of us were doing is what is called intellectual discourse. We analyze the situation and the given facts and connect the dots to construct an hypothesis.

You choose to ignore all such analysis and instead demand that there be a public link to AT&T's internal warehouse inventories before you say anything. If you're going to that, you might as well give up.

[streMunford]

Originally posted by Kidicious
2 months has passed though. There isn't enough room in the stores for that much even if someone would ship all of that inventory. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/warehouse

[rorsvierwelia]

Originally posted by Kidicious


Warehouses cost money. Inventory costs money. Why would they warehouse Apple's stuff. There's no reason. In fact that would be incredibly stupid. Given the small size relative to value, id say general inventory holding costs are far higher than the warehouse costs (even though they need high quality warehousing)

Obviously they dont WANT to hold inventory. They WANTED to sell everything they ordered, right away. They would use distribution centers, cause it doesnt make sense to ship a container load of phones to every store - you ship a container or air pallet load, or whatever to the DC, where its broken for the stores, and then probably combined with other phones from LG, Motorola, etc for a full truckload shipment to the store. I guess. Now if all goes well the amount you hold at the DC will be minimal, just to smooth the shipping patterns. In simple inventory models (EOQ? Its been a while) thats basically it. But the simple models always assume you know exactly what your sales will be, which doesnt hold in the real world.

In this case, you order based on likely sales. You may even order somewhat more, since the cost of holding inventory is less than the cost of losing a sale do to being out of stock.

If your sales projection is wrong, you build up inventory, cut your order rate, and then sell from your stock for awhile. Not necessarily a disaster for ATT.

[Pa33anger]

Originally posted by Kidicious
LotM,

Yes, that's exactly what I've been trying to communicate. Any ordering that ATT does is for sale. Without sales they aren't going to be ordering. They aren't going to order phones just to warehouse them, when they can always just order more from Apple, and probably at a lower price.
But Asher isnt claiming ATT ordered phones in order to warehouse them. Hes claiming they ordered them to sell them, and then sales fell short of expectations.

One would expect that theyve cut back orders in response, but the data that is currently available, in terms of either ATT orders or Apple sales data, is insufficient to establish that.


I think the disconnect here is the time dimension in the retail sales - order - wholesale sales process. You seem to assume that if ATT sales of Iphones falls on Tuesday, the cut orders on Wednesday, and Apple sales fall on Wednesday, in which case Apple sales should very closely track retail sales.

But I dont think it works that way. Sales fall on Tuesday, but ATT doesnt know if thats a fluke or not. Since new phones ordered wont arrive at retail for a few days even at premium air express (we can discuss the transportation issue) they need to wait a bit, to make sure the sales dip isnt a fluke, or cutting orders will expose them to the risk of lost sales due to being out of stock.

So they lose sales on Tuesday, but dont cut their orders till, say, Friday AM.

Then at what point does orders become sales? Not instantly, despite the good work of logistics consultants. Apple - China, or whatever, has to book the order (probably almost instant these days, cue to wondrous technology) then they actually have to assemble and package it, inspect for proper order fulfillment, label it, and issue transport orders, etc. Its been awhile since Ive had dealings with outbound logistics processes, and ive never had such dealings in the electronics industry, but lets say it takes 24 hours. (lets assume they ship 7 days a week) The change in Apple sales wont be booked till Saturday AM, four days after the initial sales dip. Depending on how the sales data is released (daily, weekly, etc) wholesale sales may NOT closely track retail sales.

The big question of course, is how fast ATT reacts to what may look like a flukey drop in sales.

[Cibirrigmavog]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Asher want's us to believe that ATT managers are totally incompetent, but because that fits into his fantasy world. We have no reason to believe that. Are you serious?

They sent 200-300 page iPhone bills with no real information. We have no reason to believe AT&T management is incompetent?

Not to mention they have the slowest network and worst call quality...

[lollypop]

Originally posted by Asher


Are you serious?

They sent 200-300 page iPhone bills with no real information. We have no reason to believe AT&T management is incompetent?

Not to mention they have the slowest network and worst call quality... Every business has trouble and makes mistakes, but you are claiming that they made a decision that no one with any training in inventory management would make. That's absurd. It's amazing how you can fit that into your fantasy world.

[CHEAPSOFTOEMONLINE]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
The big question of course, is how fast ATT reacts to what may look like a flukey drop in sales. First, you seem to think that ATT is doing a lot of the distribution work and planning that Apple is probably doing. They aren't ordering from China or anything. I doubt if the iphones are delivered to ATT warehouses. Probably the same delivery trucks that deliver to the Apple stores deliver to the ATT stores. Apple does most of the distribution.

Second, this is a new product. How long would you think that ATT would react, if they were responsible for extensive logistics planning? A month?

[vipluka]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Kidicious


First, you seem to think that ATT is doing a lot of the distribution work and planning that Apple is probably doing. They aren't ordering from China or anything. They might have some small distubution centers but I doubt that. Probably the same delivery trucks that deliver to the Apple stores deliver to the ATT stores. Apple does most of the distribution.


Like I said, I dont know the logistics chains in this industry. I dont know where title passes, or who runs the transport and warehousing. If anyone knows, feel free to post it. I havent yet seen any clear assertion on that from you or from Asher, and Im genuinely curious.


Second, this is a new product. How long would you think that ATT would react, if they were responsible for extensive logistics planning? A month?

I dont know. It would depend on a lot of things Id think.

[amusaasyday]

Originally posted by Kidicious

I think they got what they thought they might sell in a week or probably less. Divide a week into 2 months. What do you get? Do you understand that container ships are used to ship these products from China to USA? Do you know how long that trip takes?

Yes, they got what they thought they might sell. I am saying they very likely sold a lot less than they expected, given the enormous sales marketshare the Apple Stores have.

You seem to think that there aren't "waves" of shipments on container ships bound from China. AT&T probably had to order at least one month in advance the entire first month's shipping schedule. They come on container ships from China.

So even if they judge in the first week sales were below expectations, they continue receiving the shipments. They can't immediately say "Nah, we don't want anymore"...they already bought X many weeks of stock.

[sessoorale]

Originally posted by Asher

Do you understand that container ships are used to ship these products from China to USA? Do you know how long that trip takes?

Yes, they got what they thought they might sell. I am saying they very likely sold a lot less than they expected, given the enormous sales marketshare the Apple Stores have.

You seem to think that there aren't "waves" of shipments on container ships bound from China. AT&T probably had to order at least one month in advance the entire first month's shipping schedule. They come on container ships from China.

So even if they judge in the first week sales were below expectations, they continue receiving the shipments. They can't immediately say "Nah, we don't want anymore"...they already bought X many weeks of stock.

BS. They order from Apple, and Apple delivers the next day probably. Maybe up to a week.

[plalleste]

Originally posted by Asher

It's absurd to give a fixed number. I'm just saying it's very likely that there is a large number of phones that AT&T isn't selling, because people are buying from Apple. You said most before. That's over 500,000. I would like an idea of what you are thinking. Because if it's less than 200,000 that's not really saying much.

And no, it's not "just us" that know. Why, exactly, do you think the price of Apple and AT&T shares declined with news of the pricecut? Smart investors began connecting the dots as well. Yes, the stock prices fell because investors expected the price to stay at the same for longer. However, if investors thought that excessive inventories were backing up at ATT and the sales figures were misleading the stock prices would have fell a whole hell of a lot more than they did. You are talking about actions that warrant SEC investigation.

[seooptiman]

Originally posted by Kidicious
You said most before. That's over 500,000. Quote it if I said it.

Yes, the stock prices fell because investors expected the price to stay at the same for longer. ...because they expected stronger demand resilience.

You are talking about actions that warrant SEC investigation. How many times do we need to explain this to you? There's no collusion or anything illegal going on. It's AT&T likely placing a huge order that they aren't selling through rapidly since people are buying at Apple Stores, not AT&T stores.

I give up. This is futile.