erdevs

No worries and thanks for the reasonable reply! :-)

Thanks for the reply and I agree with you (and Tim Cook!) on not overextrapolating from such stories. A couple points:

> The WSJ article, though, attributes the cuts in component orders to weaker iPhone demand: 'because of weaker-than-expected demand

In the hypothetical scenario I outlined, the reduction in component orders is literally due to "weaker-than-expected demand". In that scenario, they forecast needing, say, 41M screens but really only ended up selling 35M phones. It's off by less than 20% of forecost demand (and it still represents significant growth!), but it's still weaker than expected and that relatively small miss on expectations could easily result in a component order reduction of 50% or more due to inventory overhang and myriad other potential supply chain factors.

So, it'd be wrong to conclude that Apple's forecast was literally 50% off from this story... But that's not what they said and it is an incorrect assumption to presume a 1:1 relationship between component supply order cuts and subsequent sales actuals.

The parent claim was that there is no relationship, but they haven't backed that claim up. Unless someone does, it's an overstatement, especially in light of evidence that these reports (from well-reputed financial news institutions, not random internet rumors) do regularly turn out to be indicative of future performance (and no presently provided evidence to the contrary).

This new supply chain story also appears to be indicative of a true underlying trend in actuals as well, just as the previously cited one was. From the USA Today article on this same news: "Apple has hinted throughout the year sales of its iPhone would decline. Fiscal year revenue for 2016 dropped for the first time in fifteen years. Meanwhile, fourth quarter iPhone shipments were down 5% from the same time last year."

So, that's likey 2 for 2...

If you have a more rigorous analysis to back up the claim that there is no relationship historically between well-sourced reports by well-reputed and widely read financial news operations about iPhone supply chain dynamics to subsequent sales trends, then please provide it. If instead it was just an assertion from air, then it is an overstatement. One could reasonably say that the relationship is unclear. Or that it's hard to say how these reports relate to subsequent actuals. Or even that there are instances (if you can provide them) where these sorts of reports turn out to belie the trend in actuals. But saying flat out that there is no relationship meets the exact definition of overstatement unless it's backed-up.

"Apple will trim production of its iPhone family around 10% on the year in the first quarter of 2017... This comes after the company slashed output in January-March 2016."

Along with the context that there is absolutely no news here if this is merely a dip in production from Oct-Dec to Jan-March as holiday sales are always high and then dip down significantly after January. The year-over-year trend is what matters.

Further context to back this up, from the USA Today article on this same story: "Apple has hinted throughout the year sales of its iPhone would decline. Fiscal year revenue for 2016 dropped for the first time in fifteen years. Meanwhile, fourth quarter iPhone shipments were down 5% from the same time last year."

It's a year-over-year trend, which is relatively unexpected, not quarter-over-quarter which is absolutely expected in this period.

Thanks!

I'm not sure how much to extract from this article but it seems a leap to state definitively that "the notebooks have been selling extremely well" and that concerns are mostly bullshit. I have no dog in the fight as I am fine with the MBP overall, but this article cites no hard data. And the sole quote from Apple references only initial sales at their online store. That's good news but it doesn't speak definitively to overall initial sales, let alone multi-month/longer-term sales. The only other quote is from an MBP supply component company and is encouraging but ambiguous and isn't about actual sales but its own internal forecasts.

MBP sales may indeed turn out to be great and these are apparently good signals as to potential, but it'd be premature to conclude from these reports that it is selling "great", relative to either historical periods or to particular expectations, let alone that it will continue to do so if it is.

The article isn't talking about quarter over quarter growth, but year over year. Quarterly sales will likely decline, as they do most every year in the period and as is perfectly natural for this market. The story is that year-over-year growth may be lower than expected and that iPhone 7 component orders are being trimmed down.

Effects don't necessarily show up in the following quarter. Moreover, it's an overstatement to say there is no relationship. iPhone sales growth slowed dramatically following previous periods where supply chain order cuts were reported (eg in Jan'13 it was reported that Apple cut orders for iPhone 5 screens and subsequently actual growth did indeed slow dramatically). There seems to be a clear relationship between some such reports and the subsequent sales growth trend.

I hear what you're saying, but I am not sure you're interpreting the supply chain order implications correctly. You are assuming a 1 to 1 ratio of expected vs actual component supply order volumes and subsequent net sales. That is not at all how it typically works, and while I agree the WSJ could have and should have been more clear on this: the point of the article wasn't that the iPhone would sell half as much as Apple had forecast. I can see why you and other reasonable people would draw this conclusion from the article (hence my criticism that they could and should have been more clear), but it isn't implied.

Let's say that for Q4'12 Apple ordered 41M screens (vs say 30M in Q4'11), tracking toward a roughly ~35% YoY growth rate at the time. And, as per usual practice, so as to ensure their component partners in the supply chain are adequately tooled and ramped up for the future, they set expectations for Q1'13 and beyond, but at slightly lower growth levels than Q4'12's order because they are savvy and realize this is a maturing market where growth naturally slows over time. Without obligating themselves to actually order these future quantities in Q1'13 and beyond, they place contingent forecast orders representing say a ~28% YoY growth rate estimate for Q1'13 and beyond. Say that means they communicate a forecast order of 44M screens for Q1'13.

Now, as Q4'12 rolls along and Q1'13 component orders must be finalized and committed, Apple sees actual sales growth might be on pace for ~18% YoY. It looks like they will sell ~35M iPhones in Q1'13 vs the ~41M screens they have on hand from Q4'12's order, so they'll be left with a 6M screen inventory overhang from Q4'12's order. (I'm oversimplifying and assuming single quarter component turnaround time here for sake of illustration). They see that growth is tapering off going forward too (tracking down over time toward the actual ~10% YoY growth you cited by Q1'14). Q4'12's sales landed slightly slower than anticipated when they placed their order for it in Q3'12 as well, in line with this slower growth trend, and so they also have an overhang of, say, 4M screens from Q3'12's order for a total inventory overhang of 8M+4M = 12M screens by the end of Q4'12. They deduct this overhang from their projected Q1'13 screen order, as well as lowering their estimate from needing 44M screens in Q1'13 to needing, say, 36M screens total for Q2'13 As such, for Q1'13 they order 36M needed screens minus 12M screens in overhung inventory, or 24M new screens. So, Q1'13's order goes from a projected 44M screens to 24M.

In this scenario, a screen component supplier might say Apple "cut their Q1'13 order in half". But Apple's expected sales for Q1'13 and beyond wouldn't have been off by 50%, but more like less than 20% (41M vs 35M). Also bear in mind that Apple's internal forecast may not have even been off by this much. Companies sometimes slightly overprovision in periods of uncertainty if they know they can sell through the overhung supply later and simply dial back subsequent supply orders while the overhang is cleared through. This may be exactly what Apple did at this time around the iPhone 5's sales cycle, so there internal forecast may have been off by only 10%... Or not at all. Yet, it would still be true from a component supplier's perspective that their order for Q1'13 was cut roughly in half.

This is all grossly oversimplified and entirely hypothetical (though based very roughly on the volume figured you cited). Yet it illustrates the point that there certainly needn't be a 1:1 correlation between supply order changes and actual sellthrough vs forecast. This is only more true in the real world where myriad complexities and order terms can dramatically affect supply chain orders without implying a horrible misforecast by the buyer or any dramatic or unexpected sales trend.

This would make what Tim Cook told investors absolutely correct-- don't overextrapolate from (potentially faulty) supply chain sources. But it would also make the WSJ article perfectly accurate... And nowhere did the article state that Apple's estimates were 50% off nor that investors did or should expect a decrease in demand or even a drastic decrease in growth. So, they were both (potentially) right. Point being, it is faulty to assume a simple 1:1 correlation between supply chain order changes and resultant actual sales vs forecasts, as your post does.

It's well and good to point out that analysis based on supply chain sources may draw inaccurate conclusions and definitely to demonstrate that such analysis has been wrong in the past (it certainly has, for Apple and others). I do not claim to know whether this analysis will bear out in reality or not.

I'm merely pointing out that it is nonsensical to blithely dismiss it or claim it may simply be "made up" when it is at least based on primary sources and real journalism.

With respect to your specific example, I'd say the WSJ article which the article you linked is referring to appears to have actually borne out with the benefit of hindsight. Q1'13 production supply orders affect supply in subsequent quarters, and a reduction in orders means there is less expected growth. The article you linked expresses skepticism that this is the case, but it appears that it was. iPhone sales growth YoY slowed dramatically subsequent to Q1'13... For example Q1'14 saw ~10% sales growth over Q1'13 versus ~30% YoY growth the year prior and ~100% the year preceding that. To the extent the article indicates that demand and production are falling off from previous growth rates, it appears to have been accurate.

The above doesn't mean that this new report will be proven out. Nor even necessarily that the previous reporting you cited was actually correct. But it doesn't appear to be a clear whiff either.

This is not what the article says. It isn't discussing quarter-over-quarter sales. It references year-over-year sales.

It is also discussing supply chain order volumes, which can indicate future expectations of sales by the company (Apple).

Source on MBP sales? Are these launch sales figures or over a longer-term period?

It isn't unsourced. They tell you the source in the article. This is from The Nikkei newspaper, as in The Nikkei Index. This is Japan's largest financial newspaper. It is original research performed by seasoned financial journalists. The Nikkei is actually the largest financial newspaper in the world, with a subscriber base of over 3M. Nikkei also owns the Financial Times among other assets. You've provided no reasonable basis whatsoever to doubt their journalism.

> I've begun to suspect that analysts literally make these up

In an era where patently false "news" pervades society, it does not help to blithely claim that real, reputable journalism is simply "made up". Also, this wasn't even an analyst firm, it is investigative journalism based on several primary sources with direct knowledge of the matters at hand.

Also, a quick Google search will provide more detail: http://www.usatoday.com/story/96001250/ ... Note how this journalist mentions that Apple has been hinting about this on recent quarterly calls.

Title is completely inaccurate (both here and on the source site).

Crytek isn't mentioned by name in Turkey's PM's speech, his comments are only speculative and the apparent idea is that Crytek will "invest" in Turkey, not the other way around.

You said "Except..." And then made several points which are worthwhile discussions but in now way controvert what I said.

I agree that the questions of voter turnout, third party support, and fatigue of the two major parties, the two party system generally, and the established media are all worth discussing. I disagree that nobody wants to discuss these things as there have been many thoughtful articles on major media outlets on these topics (not that there shouldn't be even more, just that it's in accurate to say this isn't a set of questions anyone is discussing).

I also disagree with the notion, which your post seems to imply, that these discussions are mutually exclusive with the issues summarized in my post. Indeed, quite to the contrary, I would imagine these things are all interrelated and reinforce each other. Fake news, especially with negative or scandalous slants, being spread rampantly on social media contributes to further discord and disillusionment with the establishment and reinforces people's distrust of media, either party, and likelihood to either abstain, protest vote, vote for alternative parties, etc.

This is a misleading title (both on Backchannel and here). I have no idea why the author chose to use it (other than as clickbait) when it misrepresents the content of the actual article. The article points out how much verifiably false information there is on the internet and how quickly it can spread. Clearly this is not good. The article itself and Snopes' editor, the primary source for of quotes in the article, both agree with that. And the actual quote from Snopes' editor is that social media isn't the problem. She does not say that fake news isn't the problem.

What we should say is that all aspects mentioned in the article are problematic: the decline in the media, the rampant levels of fake news on the internet and the way social media can so quickly and pervasively spread patently false information. None of them are necessarily the problem alone, but they are each serious problems and all the moreso when in tandem as they are today.

Why? Facts are facts. The definition of a fact is that is an objective, verifiable statement. Trust does not come into play because you don't need to trust anyone judgment to verify a fact. Judgment is not involved.

Whether Fox fired Megyn Kelly or not is a fact. Facebook's is judgment is not involved in verifying it.

Whether an FBI agent that examined Clinton's emails is now dead or not is a fact. Facebook's judgment is not involved in verifying this fact.

You are conflating fact checking with opinion editing. The suggestion here is not that FB should filter out any kind of objectively verifiable fact, no matter which way the fact is used. It's that perhaps FB should filter out or at least not signal boost objectively verifiably false information.

> "OMG, Trump has won through lies and deception! We failed to stop him. How on Earth did that happen? We must out-manipulate our opponents next time."

This is a ridiculous oversimplification of a complex and important set of issues.

The issue is the spread of facts vs misinformation, not liberalism vs conservativism, nor Democrats vs Republicans, nor Trump vs anti-Trump. Facts can work on both sides, as can misinformation. It's kind of fucked up to assume facts somehow only go one way.

> Social networks fact-checking their content? What's next? Should AT&T stop the spread of misinformation over its phone lines? Should USPS fact-check your mail?

Well, gee... Let's think carefully. Are your private phone calls on AT&T a public discourse? Is your mail? Do either AT&T or USPS signal boost some of your discussions during public transmittal? Is your analogy even logical?

Facebook is a communication medium, as you said. Moreover, it has a set of rules and policies governing what can be shared, which shared content gets shown to a given user, and how the content is further propagated and boosted. The entire discussion, which your post is completely sidestepping, is what content should or shouldn't be propagated and boosted.

One can make arguments for more rules or fewer on this, for different rules or keeping the same rules. But asserting that it is a non-issue or drawing false equivalences are non-arguments irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

Why wouldn't it be on the front-page? Seems there is some newsworthy info here as well as a clear call to action.

They announced the shareholder vote date, had a schedule for upcoming combined product announcements over the next ~3 weeks, and asked their shareholders to vote on the deal. All newsworthy, it seems.

To be fair, often one does that to avoid people wondering if the order means something (ie order of importance). It's sometimes meant to signal that they are in no political order, but simply listed alphabetically.

Gimmicks make for very poor hiring filters, though they make for great article clicks.

This is a shoddy write-up which sensationalizes the more rigorous underlying scientific work.

The actual research here appears to find methodological shortcomings in many papers purporting a broader effect on intelligence or problem-solving ability from some popular brain training games. It does not, however, conclude that there is no effect.

It is unfortunate (though very common) that the article oversimplifies and sensationalizes. The headline "brain training exercises just make you better at brain training exercises" is far too definitive. I'm glad the "might" qualifier at least was added here on HN. Similarly, the article saying "the same is not true", definitively, for the benefits of physical vs mental exercise games. Examples abound throughout the article and it reads as sloppy, biased, and exaggerated. Not uncommon today, but always unfortunate still.

It's a shame many brain-training companies make exaggerated claims themselves. So, in some ways, it's fine to see some counterfire in online press. Unfortunate if that's what it comes down to, though.

Turnarounds are super hard. A year isn't long enough and Dorsey would have been wise to both set expectations clearly that this is a 3+ year trek as well as lock in some protective provisions around that timeline.

Given the actual state of affairs though, the Board has a clear fiduciary duty to consider all options.

Since Dorsey didn't give himself enough time to actually effect a true fundamental product/vision turnaround, he would've been far wiser to simply focus on driving revenue as a first step. Then circle back to product later.

It seems the strategy here was either unclear or unrealistic.

The big difference is the Star Trek computer wasn't using its data about Kirk to provide him "enhanced advertising experiences", there wasn't a big corporation controlling the computer and no government was accessing the computer's information.

A truly user-aligned AI assistant would be great. Ideally in the future these things will not be tied to indirect business models, but rather will be something you buy and all data/services will be under your control.

I've been a long-time Apple and iOS user. However, I can recognize that this is a big move by Google.

> For going on ten years we've seen the "iPhone killers" come and go...

The headlines says Google's first "real threat" to iPhone, not that this is an iPhone "killer". Let's not be hyperbolic.

You don't need a lot of detail other than the fact that Google is designing, building and selling smartphones (and increasingly other devices) to recognize as legitimate the claim that this is merely a threat to iPhone.

> Now, Google is no Samsung, but they're a long way from Apple or even Microsoft on the UX front.

This seems biased. Everyone has their own tastes, but Google's software and UX have become pretty top notch across many of their product lines, imo. It's fine to state your personal preference or dislike of their design ethos but painting with such a broad and unequivocal brush is silly. This is not a universally shared sentiment.

> And yet not a single hard detail in the article as to why the headline might be true.

Again, you seem to be creating a strawman in taking about an "iPhone killer" claim. Certainly this represents some kind of threat. Other threats to Apple's iPhone have sprung up in the past, and some to great success. Google's new foray may or may not be successful in its own right over time and it may or may not impact the iPhone's success, but I bet Apple themselves view it as a competitive threat to monitor.

> Point is, this article does nothing to relieve my ignorance, which is why I clicked on the thing to begin with.

The tl;dr is that Google created a major new hw division that spans multiple devices including new smartphone lines and Google directly will carry the supply chain and inventory risk on their balance sheet. This is a major, major move financially and strategically and it's all that's necessary to back up the actual headline claim. On top of that, they provided some specifics on the phone offerings (eg two sizes, first phone to offer Android N, first phone with built in Google Assistant, the Pixel's design was unveiled (certainly a large part of Apple's phone unveilings, so why not count it for Google's?) including backside glass, lots of camera details (12MP, DXO Mark ratings, auto-stabilization for vid), free unlimited cloud storage, the fingerprint scanner+track pad, Daydream VR support, etc, etc).

Not sure how you came away with such a stark view of the articles headline vs content.

Citations?

You make great points. To be fair, the effects here could still be reconciled with the parent post about likelihood of car ownership increasing with caring for children if it's also true that younger people are having kids later in life than cohorts that are 10+ years older.

I don't claim this is the case per se, nor that it explains the effects entirely. Just that it's a consideration and it might be unfair to say the thinking is necessarily "in much the wrong way".

Total aside and this may be too late into a crowded thread for anyone to notice this. But have physicists ever rigorously examined the idea that quantum "duality" is explained by computational complexity?

I know it's more metaphysics/interpretation, but that's what we're talking about here. I also know that universe-as-simulation is a very popular notion among laypeople (particularly programmers) who look at physics. I'm just wondering if any physicists have rigorously studied the idea, and if there are falsifiable propositions we could make about this.

In game programming, one often cannot compute every detail of every component of a simulation. So, what you often do is focus more precise computation on areas around a player, or what the player is actually observing. The rest are often modeled stochastically or via computationally efficient functions. This has always mapped well in my (very surface-level, entirely layman) understanding of QM and QFT.

Note that there are, in my mind at least, two different notions here. One is actually the concept of a simulation with observer-dependencies directing the fidelity of the simulation. The other doesn't imply a "simulation" nor is it directly dependent on any "observer": perhaps computational complexity is related to the fundamental physics of the universe and nature prefers to use imprecise probability estimates wherever possible and it is only when precise interactions need to be resolved that more precise or definite calculations are performed.

I know these are sloppy notions as presented here and I'm not taking the time to phrase these questions very well, or very precisely. Busy atm, sadly. Just wondering if any well-reputed physicists have studied this possibility rigorously, or if it has been rejected for an obvious reason, etc.

If your direct competitor told the press your company was worth $5... do you think that would mean it's really worth $5? Do you think they'd really believe that it's worth just $5, or do you think they might have an ulterior motive? Do you think a prospective investor or buyer would believe what your competitor said, if that investor/buyer was savvy with respect to competitive dynamics in the slightest?

I'm saying that if Uber was trying to devalue Lyft, it's far too obvious a ploy. It won't work. They may as well have said Lyft is worthless-- it'd still be for obvious reasons, but at least that wouldn't have established such a high floor.

Any buyer reading this will assume that this means Uber thinks Lyft is actually worth upwards of $6-8B. As such, it is silly of Uber to have signaled this, unless they have a third-order effect they are hoping for (eg getting someone to overpay for Lyft). But I agree with you that that is unlikely to work... therefore, Uber is being silly here.

This is such an obvious ploy, it probably has the opposite of the desired effect. Uber would've been better served saying Lyft is worth less than their cash on hand because of burnrate / runway and fierce competition. By establishing a $2B floor in what is clearly a ploy, Uber is actually communicating that they obviously think Lyft is worth far more than $2B. They just helped establish an anchor of more like $6-8B. If you are Lyft or Qatalyst, this is an exceptionally easy case to make.

The only way this is smart is if they're hoping to help pump up Lyft's price as a comp for themselves, or if they hope to drain a buyer of cash/assets by overpaying for Lyft and thereby lessening their competitive resources under that buyer. Both are stretches and silly bets, though.