Analyst: Apple Selling So Many iPods Stores Are Running Out (AAPL)
Wu says the iPod is doing so well that retail outlets like Amazon (AMZN), Best Buy (BBY), Target (TGT) and Wal-Mart (WMT) are running out of current models. Unfortunately, he offers no details on how he arrives at this conclusion -- or at least Reuters doesn't.
(Only two of Amazon's top 20 iPods aren't in stock: The 8 GB and 16 GB iPod touch. Both of those models ship within 24 hours from Apple.com. Thanks to reader JB for pointing out that Amazon's iPod listings page includes third-party sources for its "in stock" indication.)
Reuters: Wu said stocks of certain iPod models have been harder to come by at Amazon.com, Best Buy, Target and Wal-Mart.
Wu says: “Frankly, we find these sell-outs on iPods surprising given how difficult the macroeconomic environment is, putting a crimp on consumer spending. From our assessment, we believe iPod is holding up better than most, due to its relatively low ASP (average selling price) and strong consumer understanding of the value it provides.”
Wu is predicting iPod sales to reach 21 million this quarter. That's below last year's sales of 22.1 million iPods sold (and Wu's own September prediction of 24 million) but above the Street's prediction of 18.6 million.
In other words: Q4 iPod sales are going to be horrible relative to Wu's expectations only three months ago. But maybe not disastrous.
See Also:
Have Apple's iPod Sales Peaked?
Apple Mac Sales On Track, iPod Looking Better Than Expected
New Apple iPods Nice, But Wall Street In No Hurry To Jack Sales Forecasts
8 gb black nano - in stock
8 gb touch g2 - 3-5 weeks
120 gb black classic - in stock
8 gb blue nano - in stock
32 gb touch g2 - in stock
8 gb purple nano - in stock
8 gb silver nano - in stock
8 gb green nano - in stock
8 gb pink nano - in stock
16 gb touch g1 - in stock
120 gb silver classic - in stock
8 gb silver nano - in stock
16 gb touch g2 - 3-5 weeks
old nano n/a
16 gb black nano - in stock
1 gb silver shuffle - in stock
8 gb orange nano - in stock
16 gb silver nano - in stock
1 gb blue shuffle - in stock
1 gb pink shuffle - in stock
My reporting was factually correct (as confirmed by your later comment at 6:09 pm)
Therefore, Eric's reporting was not factually correct.
But I do see that Eric's reporting has now been altered as a result of my smugness.
(BTW -- Most blogs don't alter their reporting, they post updates below the report. That makes for better, more credible journalism.)
Amazon's iPod listing page (at the time) said each of its iPods were in stock. (Now it says the 8 GB touch will be in stock on Dec. 10.) Thank you for pointing out what Amazon's iPod listing page doesn't -- that "in stock" also includes some of its partners. We appreciate it, and have added more detail to the post.
But please re-read your original comment. I don't expect that's how you'd address us in person. (We sure wouldn't address you in person like that.) Thanks for paying such close attention, but we're on the same side here.
Thanks, JB, for correction.
-
I agree with JB's assertion.
Discovering that an article has been changed (for whatever reason) by reading the comments is annoying, as a percentage of the earlier comments make no sense at all, fortunately some readers often offer a supplementary insight and information on an article.
No one anyone is asking AI for nonpartisan articles ... Ha, well I am not, just a genuine chronicle of an article's history.
Changes to a report, need an update immediately below the report, this procedure allows readers to identify and discern the accuracy, objectivity and candor of the writer, editor and publisher, and this overt accountability points towards not only credible journalism; but reliable and trustworthy journalism.
It does seem as though the standard practice in the industry these days (including NYT, WSJ, etc) is to just change the text with no mark whatsoever. I don't like this because it forces me to reread the whole article to see if anything new has been added. But that's a different issue than errors.
Again, though...please blame me for all of above.
Do you mean that something new has been added to the article, by your "coterie" or to the comments page?
If something new has been added to the article, by your team, then surely the correct place to put it would be at the end as an update, as this keeps everything in order and historically correct.
Standard practice ie. NYT, WSJ, etc in this case, just perpetuates an incorrect practice. Lead from the front.
The only time I ignore this rule is for non-factual statements in an otherwise factual post (for instance, I won't alert everyone that there's been an update just because I reworded something non-material to the story - as long as the facts haven't changed along with those words, who cares). The other exception I make is for personal writing. I'll re-write any post from top to bottom and never formally indicate that I "updated" the piece unless the facts changed with my rewrite.
Everyone agrees that Apple succeeds on design, and then seems to forget about that when it comes to analysis. Some designs are better than others. I'm one of the people that replaced the battery on my old nano rather than buy a fatty, even at $70 vs. $150. The fatty wasn't an upgrade in my mind, because Steve Jobs was right: I don't want video on a 2-inch screen. And smaller is usually better for portable products.
Or is this just another sign that people will still spend on their children in a recession? Ipods, videogames and animated movies.
(Not to detract from the above sentiment, but I can't help but add that... Spitzer is NOT and never was a class act.)