I’m just saying that I think the numbers are bunk. I mean, they’re guesses on custom made part costs. Just think about it. Companies are guessing, based on existing parts, what custom parts cost to make.
That’s silly.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
iPhone X Shipping Estimates Improve to 1 to 2 Weeks in United States and Canada
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I’m just saying that I think the numbers are bunk. I mean, they’re guesses on custom made part costs. Just think about it. Companies are guessing, based on existing parts, what custom parts cost to make.
That’s silly.
Ive is back in charge of design and has found flaws with the X. He will most definitely remove the notch, make it thinner and cheaper. Ive is a design purist. While Jobs said the engineering should not be noticed, Ive says technology should be invisible.
I doubt they’re going to remove the notch any more than they’re going to get rid of the camera bump.
Garbage in garbage out.(GIGO) Unless the numbers can be verified, they are still guesses. Doesn't matter who reported it, a guess is still a guess. The only official numbers would come from apple.
For better or worse, that's how the real world works. People are very highly paid to make these "guesses" as you both call them. An educated guess with a reasonable margin of error is not the same as garbage. If it were, you wouldn't have a multi-billion dollar industry built around it.
Are we talking about the same industry that also guessed that Windows Phone was going to overtake the iPhone? Analysts are worthless.
An imperfect track record does not make them worthless. Again, if they were, they wouldn't make so much money.
That these numbers are “highly educated” guesses doesn’t make them anymore than that. you can’t prove they are within or outside any “reasonable” margin of error. But yeah, it’s fun to watch and participate in the banter. The amount of money one is paid stil amount to the same: a guess or a more formal term. Estimate.
It's a more "formal" term as you call it because it implies a more systematic and methodical approach. This is why there are entire textbooks, MBA courses, etc. on how to do it.
I'm really confused about why you guys are so eager to poop on these estimates/guesses/whatever. I have no dog in this fight personally. But why are you so adamant about the numbers being trash?
I think we agree. All of the systematic and methodical approaches doesn't make it any more than a highly educated guess or estimate, unless Apple discloses what these numbers are, we won't know how close (or far) away from the actuals.
Since you mentioned "why you guys are so eager to poop on these estimates/guesses/whatever", I'm confused about why you guys view these numbers are gospel; I mean here you are defending what is no more than a guess without being able to determine the margin of error. As you say, all I'm doing is reminding the audience these numbers are not official apple numbers.
BTW your word is "trash", I never mentioned that word, not once.
Last edited:
The distinction between "garbage" and "trash" is semantic at best.
I don't view them as gospel, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that I do. But I do think that industry approximations tend to be reasonable, on average (i.e., they aren't biased). It depends on the number as to whether "reasonable" means accurate to within a few percent, or 20%, or even just an order of magnitude.
At the end of the day, it's not (for me) about whether estimate X or Y is particularly good. I just believe in the invisible hand of economics which suggests that the industry would have fallen apart long ago if it were systematically biased.
No, it's not semantics. The end result is still a guess/estimate based on the inputs, only who Apple knows if those inputs are accurate, hence the GIGO principal applies. But I never called the estimates anything I merely stated inaccurate inputs produce inaccurate results.The distinction between "garbage" and "trash" is semantic at best.
I don't view them as gospel, and I certainly didn't mean to imply that I do. But I do think that industry approximations tend to be reasonable, on average (i.e., they aren't biased). It depends on the number as to whether "reasonable" means accurate to within a few percent, or 20%, or even just an order of magnitude.
At the end of the day, it's not (for me) about whether estimate X or Y is particularly good. I just believe in the invisible hand of economics which suggests that the industry would have fallen apart long ago if it were systematically biased.
That the numbers make sense to you, great, but those numbers are still estimates/guesses and the industry will not fall apart because there is a captive audience for this information, even if inaccurate. Finally this discussion is not centered around bias, it's centered around accuracy.
You have an axe to grind. Not sure why. Multi-billion dollar industries don't persist for decades while sucking.
Really? The words "trash" and "garbage" aren't semantics?
Why would you talk about GIGO if you don't think they're garbage? Isn't it very possible that they are indeed not garbage?
In statistics, an ideal estimator has three properties: unbiased, consistent, and efficient. What you are calling "accuracy" is what I meant by "unbiased"--i.e., the statistical definition thereof.
All an industry needs is somebody willing to pay them. Why people keeping paying people with no real idea what they’re doing is beyond me.
We are discussing the process. Do you know for a fact the inputs are accurate? Or are they estimates? Inputting inaccurate information into a model is typically called GIGO.
Well that's true, the estimates can't be more than $499 off, if we "assume" each iphone costs between $1 and $998 to build. But then again, I don't know how you know the estimate is unbiased, from a statistical viewpoint of course. Maybe that can be explained?
I'm not talking about this particular estimate. I haven't the foggiest clue on it and its details. I'm talking about the process.
Anyway, I think we have gone far enough down this rabbit hole.
Yep, it's quite the rabbit hole. Ain't it?
The reason it's a rabbit hole is there is no methodology that will prove these "estimates/guesses" are either right or wrong, or close or far from the actual costs. Only what Apple has provided in their quarterly review, merged with data from third party sources.
Last edited: