S4, 10 million sold, HTC One ???

[JHBThree]

They print information from an unnamed source and they are worried about getting something wrong? HaHaHaHaHaHa...........

They know the source. They don't want to reveal it. When you print anything regarding publicly traded companies, you have to vet what you print. The WSJ would not have printed this if there was even the slightest possibility it wasn't true.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

 

[Frank Estevez]

Not sure of what you are saying there Frank but HTC claimed 5 million sales but nowhere that I've seen did they say sold to consumers, only sold. A lot of people here take at face value that HTC unofficial sales figures refer to in the hands of the consumer phones. Do you know that to be true? Comparing S4 sales to HTC sales while saying HTC is not only talking about shipped phones is not factual.

Edit: What factual information do you base your claim that, "it isn't exaggerated or undermined?"

I meant to say HTC's sales estimates actually. I'd be a hipocrite if I had actually meant their sales figures. And it's only my opinion that the number seems plausible.

 

[tohio]

They know the source. They don't want to reveal it. When you print anything regarding publicly traded companies, you have to vet what you print. The WSJ would not have printed this if there was even the slightest possibility it wasn't true.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

You are confusing official business reports about a company's financial situation with news stories. They is no penalty for a newspaper reporting wrong information (unless of course the paper knew it was wrong and did so for some illegal purpose). Open up the Wall Street Journal or the New York Time and look at the first page. You'll see a list of corrections to wrong information they had printed earlier. Those correction are in there every day. So tell me this: The WSJ prints a story sourced form an unnamed individual about sales figures. It later turns out that the unnamed individual lied to the paper. Who is going to prosecute the WSJ? I'll answer that for you, NO ONE! If newspapers had to be 100% certain about every story they printed there would only be the comics. Watch the movie "All the President's Men" to learn how few sources are needed to print a story. Keep in mind the Washington Post articles about Watergate could be libelous if they were wrong. The WSJ article about HTC sales figures doesn't even come close to that burden.

 

[JHBThree]

You are confusing official business reports about a company's financial situation with news stories. They is no penalty for a newspaper reporting wrong information (unless of course the paper knew it was wrong and did so for some illegal purpose). Open up the Wall Street Journal or the New York Time and look at the first page. You'll see a list of corrections to wrong information they had printed earlier. Those correction are in there every day. So tell me this: The WSJ prints a story sourced form an unnamed individual about sales figures. It later turns out that the unnamed individual lied to the paper. Who is going to prosecute the WSJ? I'll answer that for you, NO ONE! If newspapers had to be 100% certain about every story they printed there would only be the comics. Watch the movie "All the President's Men" to learn how few sources are needed to print a story. Keep in mind the Washington Post articles about Watergate could be libelous if they were wrong. The WSJ article about HTC sales figures doesn't even come close to that burden.

To be blunt: you don't know what you're talking about.

If a paper prints something coming from an executive saying sales figures were at a certain level, they are expected to vet those numbers. Analyst numbers are one thing (which is what you're talking about). Something that comes from an executive, and has the ability to affect share price and investor confidence, is a whole other ball game. The WSJ would not have printed these numbers unless they have verified them to be true.

Also, not really surprised that your true colors have finally shown in this thread.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

 

[tohio]

To be blunt: you don't know what you're talking about.

If a paper prints something coming from an executive saying sales figures were at a certain level, they are expected to vet those numbers. Analyst numbers are one thing (which is what you're talking about). Something that comes from an executive, and has the ability to affect share price and investor confidence, is a whole other ball game. The WSJ would not have printed these numbers unless they have verified them to be true.

Also, not really surprised that your true colors have finally shown in this thread.

Sent from my HTC One using Tapatalk 2

"Also, not really surprised that your true colors have finally shown in this thread."

Really? You need to be nasty in this discussion? Why?

The WSJ didn't say the HTC sold 5 million HTC ONEs. An unnamed individual did and the WSJ didn't say, "and we say he is correct!" They can't be held accountable for being lied to. How do you think they vetted those numbers, counted the phones? Trust me, when it come to the law I know what I'm talking about.

 

[JHBThree]

"Also, not really surprised that your true colors have finally shown in this thread."

Really? You need to be nasty in this discussion? Why?

Trust me, I'm not being the nasty one. You've just confirmed that you had an ulterior motive from the beginning.

The WSJ didn't say the HTC sold 5 million HTC ONEs. An unnamed individual did and the WSJ didn't say, "and we say he is correct!" They can't be held accountable for being lied to. How do you think they vetted those numbers, counted the phones? Trust me, when it come to the law I know what I'm talking about.

You don't, actually. It was an executive. They know the source. Laws concerning leaking information, especially when it concerns a publicly traded company and spreading false information are strict. The wsj would not have printed it without verifying it first.

 

[NotJustAPhone]

Last warning. Keep the discussion civil or the next moderator action may not be one you're looking for.

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus

 

[Paul627g]

This thread is about out of time and I think so is the Mod teams patience...

 

[Aquila]

Can anyone tell me if phones are sold to retailers/carriers outright or if it's on contingency? If it's the former, that means shipped basically equals sold from their perspective, but the latter it's two different numbers. Maybe we should look at activations...

 

[ffejjj]

Just my opinion...

When I read a post that says "the htc one has sold 5 million phones" I think cool. What I don't do is base my decision to purchase on that. That goes for several things too, such as... "Top phone of 2013" again I think cool but I didn't rush out and get it based on that. It's just fun to read.

What I do do is go check out the phones and get the one I like, simple as that. Maybe I'm crazy or something

Sent from my EVO using Android Central Forums

 

[tohio]

Can anyone tell me if phones are sold to retailers/carriers outright or if it's on contingency? If it's the former, that means shipped basically equals sold from their perspective, but the latter it's two different numbers. Maybe we should look at activations...

That is an excellent question. I've been trying to find that out myself. If the carriers pay for the phones then shipped means sold. If they don't then shipped means on consignment, not necessarily sold. Hopefully someone can step in and provide a definitive answer.

Edit: didn't see the point about activations. That would provide a definite answer to how many phones were sold.

 

[Lisa_Pinguo]

I don't care how many Samsung and HTC phones were sold. I am using iPhone 4S.

 

[Paul627g]

I don't care how many Samsung and HTC phones were sold. I am using iPhone 4S.

which you have every right too..

 

[tohio]

Can anyone tell me if phones are sold to retailers/carriers outright or if it's on contingency? If it's the former, that means shipped basically equals sold from their perspective, but the latter it's two different numbers. Maybe we should look at activations...

OK here's a source that explains shipped and sold. Turns out shipped does means sold. Shipped vs Sold | N4G

Edit: sold in the sense that Samsung or HTC have made their money form their shipped products.

 

[Aquila]

OK here's a source that explains shipped and sold. Turns out shipped does means sold. Shipped vs Sold | N4G

Sold to retailers, so from HTC's standpoint it's a done deal... then it's up to the carrier or retailer to get it in someone's pocket. Is that how you understood it too?

 

[tohio]

Sold to retailers, so from HTC's standpoint it's a done deal... then it's up to the carrier or retailer to get it in someone's pocket. Is that how you understood it too?

Exactly. When the phone is sold by the phone company to the consumer the manufactures don't get any of that money.

 

[Aquila]

Exactly. When the phone is sold by the phone company to the consumer the manufactures don't get any of that money.

*A word of warning*

In the wold of PR, companies want everyone to think that their product is the next best thing, and will often use whatever number looks the best (i.e. the largest number).

 

[Kevin OQuinn]

That is an excellent question. I've been trying to find that out myself. If the carriers pay for the phones then shipped means sold. If they don't then shipped means on consignment, not necessarily sold. Hopefully someone can step in and provide a definitive answer.

Edit: didn't see the point about activations. That would provide a definite answer to how many phones were sold.

I worked for an "Authorized Retailer" so I can tell you how it works for them (and maybe draw some conclusions about corporate stores, too). They pay full price for the phone upfront. After six months of the customer paying their bill and keeping service on they get reimbursed for the cost difference by the carrier (or at least in my case, AT&T). Does that mean that AT&T paid full price also? I'm not sure. I just know that AT&T third party retailers (technically, Authorized Retailers are second tier only to Corporate Stores) pay full price up front for the device. I imagine this could have changed in the past few years, though.

If they count shipped as sold (like my experience above) then activations wouldn't tell us much. If HTC gets full price upfront for each device that leaves their assembly line, then they don't care if they ever get activated (we could go into buyback agreements for unsold devices, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion and my knowledge on the matter).

 

[tohio]

Well I'm glad we solved that problem. I'm going to bed. What should we address tomorrow, Global Warming?

 

[tohio]

I worked for an "Authorized Retailer" so I can tell you how it works for them (and maybe draw some conclusions about corporate stores, too). They pay full price for the phone upfront. After six months of the customer paying their bill and keeping service on they get reimbursed for the cost difference by the carrier (or at least in my case, AT&T). Does that mean that AT&T paid full price also? I'm not sure. I just know that AT&T third party retailers (technically, Authorized Retailers are second tier only to Corporate Stores) pay full price up front for the device. I imagine this could have changed in the past few years, though.

If they count shipped as sold (like my experience above) then activations wouldn't tell us much. If HTC gets full price upfront for each device that leaves their assembly line, then they don't care if they ever get activated (we could go into buyback agreements for unsold devices, but that's beyond the scope of this discussion and my knowledge on the matter).

Posted last before I saw your post. It appears that the issue of shipped vs sold is a moot point since, from the manufactures stand point they are the same thing. Agreed?