Actually it is the stores not Samsung who know how many phones have sold to the public.
Samsung definitely knows. If they didn't, they wouldn't be in business.
Once Samsung or any other manufacturer sells these phones they have lost control of the physical device.
Physical device, yes. But they certainly would have the ability to track inventory carefully. You'd be surprised at the amount of information shared between retailers and vendors.
Did you miss this part of the article: "Our broad-based channel checks at U.S. stores.." They actually canvassed stores. They didn't rely on forum posters or rumors.
Channel checks aren't a valid way of measuring sales, or stock, at least in the way these analysts do it. They would have to check a wide swath of stores across the US (we're talking hundreds, if not thousands of them) for the results to be statistically relevant.
Why on earth would the analysts not like the answer?
Because there's definitely a large number of devices in warehouses right now, or sitting in stores. Only, the only people that know how many exactly, are Samsung and the retailers. Too many devices sitting in those places are not a good thing, which is why samsung will never say how many there are. (Just like apple or HTC won't either)
They were posting their analysis and research findings. Do you think if they found S4s in not selling they wouldn't have reported it and made their projections based on that? Do you think there is some conspiracy by the firm involved to collude with Samsung to mislead the public?
No, not at all. Nowhere did I say that, but nice try attempting to stir stuff up.
Look, the S4 is selling. We know its selling. A lot. But analysts rarely, if ever, peg sales correctly. All this 'analysis' was meant to do was drive the stock price up. Like everything of this sort, its a guess of what the S4 may sell. It ignores the effect of competitors like the iPhone in the fall, and unknowns like the next iOS. I would expect these projections to be altered down after WWDC and the new iOS is unveiled. It's what always happens when analysts guess using things not based in fact.
This information is the most factual we have.
Factual needs to be in quotes, because even this is not factual. It's a guess.
Notice that it did not came from an unnamed source.
Ah yes, there's the inevitable dig. At least this time you're not pretending like you're interested in an impartial conversation.