MacBook at #2 this Christmas, iPhone at #1

[Zirel]

According to Pipper Jaffray looks like the MBP are not so bad at all, and people actually prefer the thinness over Ethernet ports, 16GB ought to be enough, and USB-C the way to go, and the iPhone's hissgate, headphonejackgate, etc. and the Google Pixel not enough to steer costumers away from Apple stores.

https://9to5mac.com/2016/11/29/appl...stmas-holiday-wish-lists-according-to-survey/

Now let's see if Apple gets a bigger share of the "smartwatch" market, which still is about 3x bigger than the Fitbit thing.

One thing's for sure. Android is not there. PC neither (unless you count the Xbox as a PC).

Quite contrasting to what has been said in these forums...

 

[theluggage]

Quite contrasting to what has been said in these forums...

The concern on these forums has been from "creative professionals", "power users" and enthusiasts who want power, flexibility and upgradeability. I doubt that those users source their IT equipment via Xmas wish-list. Apple seems to think that they can make their money without catering for that section of the market - which I'm sure will be true this quarter, but we'll see in a year or two whether MacOS can survive as the ultimate Snapchat platform. Who knows? Brands make money by selling really uncomfortable shoes for $1000 and people do their shopping in expensive SUV-style cars that would sink without a trace if they ever really went off-road.

As for that survey:

(1) Nowhere does it mention the MacBook <b>Pro</b> - just "MacBook" which could refer to the 12" MacBook, the MacBook Air, last year's MacBook Pro etc. The first two sound more plausible as potential Xmas presents.

(2) Its a survey - ergo its been tweaked to convey whatever message the survey-maker wanted to send. Look at the list of "products" - its a hodge-podge of specific branded product ranges (iPhone, XBox, GoPro), brands covering a range of product types (Michael Kors - I had to google that) and generic products (Smartwatch, Hoverboard). I.e. somebody has made arbitrary choices on how to classify aggregate the figures, leaving the whole thing ripe for confirmation bias.

Also, no smartphones other than Apple? (Ok, plausible if you count every Android vendor as a different category... but then why lump Smartwatches and drones together? Plus Samsung's latest model crashed and burned while Google are trying to sell Fords at Ferrari prices). What about perfume, chocolate, toys (other than XBox), gift vouchers? I drilled 3 links down without finding details of how the survey was conducted or what the criteria for inclusion was.

Heck, if somebody wants to buy me a top-of-the-range 2016 MacBook Pro for Xmas, I'm not going to say no - and I'd certainly welcome a 12" Macbook or MacBook Air for use on the road after I've replaced my 2011 "desktop replacement" MBP with a mini-tower PC or Hackintosh.

 

[I7guy]

And not everybody has the same level of "concern" as others....although it seems a plan b might be needed for some.

And the comments about surveys are true; they are all tweaked. That's why I have a healthy dose of skepticism while reading most of them.

 

[Zirel]

The concern on these forums has been from "creative professionals", "power users" and enthusiasts who want power, flexibility and upgradeability. I doubt that those users source their IT equipment via Xmas wish-list. Apple seems to think that they can make their money without catering for that section of the market - which I'm sure will be true this quarter, but we'll see in a year or two whether MacOS can survive as the ultimate Snapchat platform. Who knows? Brands make money by selling really uncomfortable shoes for $1000 and people do their shopping in expensive SUV-style cars that would sink without a trace if they ever really went off-road.

I assume the fact that Apple is saying that the MBPtb is the best selling MBP yet by preorders flew over your head too?

MBPtb is an excellent product that really fills the stop of mobile workstations. People commenting don't have an idea of what professionals need, and that's very apparent.

(1) Nowhere does it mention the MacBook <b>Pro</b> - just "MacBook" which could refer to the 12" MacBook, the MacBook Air, last year's MacBook Pro etc. The first two sound more plausible as potential Xmas presents.

Doesn't matter. All Apple. Nothing HP, Dell, Asus, etc..

(2) Its a survey - ergo its been tweaked to convey whatever message the survey-maker wanted to send. Look at the list of "products" - its a hodge-podge of specific branded product ranges (iPhone, XBox, GoPro), brands covering a range of product types (Michael Kors - I had to google that) and generic products (Smartwatch, Hoverboard). I.e. somebody has made arbitrary choices on how to classify aggregate the figures, leaving the whole thing ripe for confirmation bias.

It's what people replied.

And the comments about surveys are true; they are all tweaked. That's why I have a healthy dose of skepticism while reading most of them.

Yes, but a KGI "study" based on sh** reviews online is true, but this doesn't get published on MR and gets downpayed.

 

[Jessica Lares]

1,000 people responded, but then the list only represents 139 of them. They could have shown the other brands, iPad, tablet, etc, but that goes beyond what they're trying to convey in the survey results, "Top 10 on holiday wish lists" and not that the GoPro, iPad, Kindle, etc are dying or that people prefer the Surface over the iPad, and whatever else people would otherwise make of had they been included.

The gaps are big enough that other stuff would have been between them too, but it doesn't go with comparing previous years either.

That's why an analysis of all the "**** reviews" are taken more seriously.

 

[Zirel]

1,000 people responded, but then the list only represents 139 of them. They could have shown the other brands, iPad, tablet, etc, but that goes beyond what they're trying to convey in the survey results, "Top 10 on holiday wish lists" and not that the GoPro, iPad, Kindle, etc are dying or that people prefer the Surface over the iPad, and whatever else people would otherwise make of had they been included.

The gaps are big enough that other stuff would have been between them too, but it doesn't go with comparing previous years either.

Do you understand that these were the top products, as people replied?

That's why an analysis of all the "**** reviews" are taken more seriously.

They aren't. Or else people would stop buying 1366x768 $500 laptops.

 

[Jessica Lares]

Do you understand that these were the top products, as people replied?

Yeah, so 90.7% of people did not choose either the iPhone or MacBook, but they know people will read that chart as if it was based on the 100% of respondents vs the 13.9% it actually is.

People are always going to buy $500 low/weird res machines. There are lots of people who don't ever want to spend more than that on a laptop.

 

[theluggage]

I assume the fact that Apple is saying that the MBPtb is the best selling MBP yet by preorders flew over your head too?

I assume that you mean this announcement from Phil Schiller that the new MBP (all models, including the non-tb) has received more orders via the Apple online store than any other MacBook Pro... in which case you're even applying your own positive spin on top of Apple's PR.

(Hint: online sales are progressively increasing anyway and most previous MBPs were widely available in Apple stores and major suppliers on, or shortly after, launch day - the new MBPs weren't).

Or was it this one, where MacBook Pros out sold "all other competing laptops" where "all other competing laptops" was an arbitrary list of 4 non-really-competing 2-in-ones (excluding, for example, the Dell XPS which, it later turns out, would have been the runner-up to Apple).

If, in 6 months' time, Apple releases clear figures saying that they've actually sold x million MacBook Pros to date, then we'll have something to talk about. Don't hold your breath - no PR person ever earned their bonus by releasing objective data that you could actually draw conclusions from when the press gleefully and uncritically parrots their cherry-picked, ambiguous and obfuscated comparisons.

I'm not saying that there's any clear evidence that the new MBP is a sales flop, by the way (although the abundance of significant Black Friday discounts on a brand new Apple machine seems a bit inconsistent with record demand) - just that the claims of success floating around now are highly unreliable.

It's what people replied.

Which people replied to what question? The article doesn't say. How were they selected? Were they given a list of brands or products to choose from, or did they give unconstrained answers? How was it decided that "Smartwatch" and "Drone" should be aggregated across brands while "Games Console" and "Laptop" should be broken down by brand? Aren't you curious that things like "Perfume" didn't show up? Maybe it was just "what people replied" - in which case the information is useless unless, maybe, you're interested in brand name awareness vs. generic...

No survey that doesn't prominently disclose the methodology is worth the (virtual) paper it is printed on.

 

[Zirel]

I assume that you mean this announcement from Phil Schiller that the new MBP (all models, including the non-tb) has received more orders via the Apple online store than any other MacBook Pro... in which case you're even applying your own positive spin on top of Apple's PR.

(Hint: online sales are progressively increasing anyway and most previous MBPs were widely available in Apple stores and major suppliers on, or shortly after, launch day - the new MBPs weren't).

Or was it this one, where MacBook Pros out sold "all other competing laptops" where "all other competing laptops" was an arbitrary list of 4 non-really-competing 2-in-ones (excluding, for example, the Dell XPS which, it later turns out, would have been the runner-up to Apple).

If, in 6 months' time, Apple releases clear figures saying that they've actually sold x million MacBook Pros to date, then we'll have something to talk about. Don't hold your breath - no PR person ever earned their bonus by releasing objective data that you could actually draw conclusions from when the press gleefully and uncritically parrots their cherry-picked, ambiguous and obfuscated comparisons.

I'm not saying that there's any clear evidence that the new MBP is a sales flop, by the way (although the abundance of significant Black Friday discounts on a brand new Apple machine seems a bit inconsistent with record demand) - just that the claims of success floating around now are highly unreliable.



Which people replied to what question? The article doesn't say. How were they selected? Were they given a list of brands or products to choose from, or did they give unconstrained answers? How was it decided that "Smartwatch" and "Drone" should be aggregated across brands while "Games Console" and "Laptop" should be broken down by brand? Aren't you curious that things like "Perfume" didn't show up? Maybe it was just "what people replied" - in which case the information is useless unless, maybe, you're interested in brand name awareness vs. generic...

No survey that doesn't prominently disclose the methodology is worth the (virtual) paper it is printed on.

When it's positive to Apple, it's fake, when it's negative, it's true.

Are Apple oficial financial results also fake?

 

[theluggage]

When it's positive to Apple, it's fake, when it's negative, it's true.

What, as opposed to the other way round?

I've explained with reasons why I don't think some of these sales figures are significant. You're welcome to dispute those reasons but so far I don't see any reasoned arguments - just bluster.

No, a "fake" story is, say, a blog post headlined "Macbook Pro at #2 this Christmas" based on a survey that - correct or otherwise - makes no mention of "Macbook Pro", just "Macbook". Forget that the survey itself doesn't explain its methodology and is thus not worth the paper it is printed on - you haven't even quoted it accurately. I'm sure what Phil Schiller said was factually correct, but it was very specifically about online store orders: I've already explained why I don't think it proves much.

Are Apple oficial financial results also fake?

Its December 2016. If you have seen any official Apple financial results for the year to December 2017 - which will be the proof of the pudding for the new MacBook Pro - yes, I guarantee that they are fake.

 

[Zirel]

What, as opposed to the other way round?

I've explained with reasons why I don't think some of these sales figures are significant. You're welcome to dispute those reasons but so far I don't see any reasoned arguments - just bluster.

No, a "fake" story is, say, a blog post headlined "Macbook Pro at #2 this Christmas" based on a survey that - correct or otherwise - makes no mention of "Macbook Pro", just "Macbook". Forget that the survey itself doesn't explain its methodology and is thus not worth the paper it is printed on - you haven't even quoted it accurately. I'm sure what Phil Schiller said was factually correct, but it was very specifically about online store orders: I've already explained why I don't think it proves much.



Its December 2016. If you have seen any official Apple financial results for the year to December 2017 - which will be the proof of the pudding for the new MacBook Pro - yes, I guarantee that they are fake.

Yes, but sales forecasts based on trolls comments and paid (by Microsoft like the Verge's) reviews are to go for...

 

[theluggage]

Yes, but sales forecasts based on trolls comments and paid (by Microsoft like the Verge's) reviews are to go for...

Where "troll" = "someone you disagree with"... and neglecting the fact that the first wave of positive reviews were from people that Apple deemed worthy of early access to the new machines.

Feel free to come up with reasons why you disagree... Not that I've cited any 'negative' sales forecasts in my own arguments - its far too soon to call the actual figures either way (even if Apple were in the habit of ever releasing unobfuscated sales figures). I just don't think that the "positive" forecasts based on obviously cherry-picked surveys or Apple execs making "he would say that, wouldn't he" comparisons between <figure you can't verify> and <other figure you can't verify> prove anything.

The chickens are going to come home to roost over the next year when we find out whether people who weren't watching the keynote with a credit card in one hand, already determined to buy, can be persuaded.

Meanwhile, presumably all the 5 years+ MR members giving lucid reasons why they don't like the new machines are Microsoft sleeper agents (if so, its news to me and MS owe me some money).

 

[Zirel]

Where "troll" = "someone you disagree with"... and neglecting the fact that the first wave of positive reviews were from people that Apple deemed worthy of early access to the new machines.

No, it's troll

All I see is people complaining that

1) Don't know the product

2) Are the stupid majority of people, and the typical buyers of $500 bargain bin trash.

I just don't think that the "positive" forecasts based on obviously cherry-picked surveys or Apple execs

All surveys are positive.

Now, those two-bit "analysts" with their "opinions", they are all negative.

Meanwhile, presumably all the 5 years+ MR members giving lucid reasons why they don't like the new machines are Microsoft sleeper agents (if so, its news to me and MS owe me some money).

Did I say anything about MR members?

MR commenters always been a place for conservative users. The kind of people who will always bash new Apple models (just look the the comments for the past rMBP), doesn't matter because this MBP will be the norm in thinness and ports.