Just a suggestion. I mean that is data they would be getting right in their faces.
Sure, that could've happened. I'll further stipulate the server logs are all stored in escrow over at Apple, just waiting for the properly phrased Tweet to be sent to Phil to unlock the PGP keys.
So what? Since that data is 100% solid, maybe we should use it for our extrapolations. So, 1M units every 12 hours
Oh, wait, should be every 11 hours tops, since people need time get it home and unwrapped.
Extrapolation can be useful in small doses. For example, based on the fairly steady 40% drops we observed in XB2 shipments in the two quarters that followed the launch of the XB3, and a third if you include the pre-launch quarter, it seems reasonable to guesstimate a 40% drop in the following three quarters to give us an idea of how much both XBoxen have shipped, more or less. In fact, that produced a number we all seem to agree with. Extrapolating sell through from two months of launch data to determine "known,"
minimum sell through after 14 months strikes me as less reasonable, no matter how accurate the input data. Does that seem like a reasonable stance to take?
There are multiple ways that Microsoft could get these numbers (welfare's post provides one example), notice how they don't claim 1.1m or 1.2m or 1.5m. They just say over 1 million because at 4:30pm on day 1 they were able to see more than 1 million users had bought their system.
Okay, but wasn't your original argument based on the notion that this information came from third parties like NPD, so to question Sony or MS was to question NPD themselves?
Anyway, see above. As I've said from the beginning, the accuracy of the 3M figure was never the issue, but rather, a pointless tangent. Even if the 3M figure is perfectly accurate and not subject to even unintentional error of only a few percent, I don't think you can extrapolate it out over 7x the original sampling period and 3x the number of countries and then say you know without question what the absolute minimum sell through is.
Again, You can't just disregard Microsoft's sell through figures yet champion Sony's or Nintendo's as being correct.
I'm saying that Microsoft's sell-through figures from a year ago may not be particularly relevant today, regardless of their accuracy.
If you're going to say Microsoft are lying or have over inflated figures then.
1. That means you have to say the same as others as they use the same tracking companies.
2. You need to be able to prove it.
(You can't just say "I think" sales in country X will be lower than Microsoft claims.)
Regarding 1, no, because again, this isn't simply a regurgitation of data provided by the tracking companies, as you admit. Both platform holders then apply their own methodologies to arrive at a final, published figure, and I have no reason to think those methodologies are identical. Regarding 2, that's why I tried to say it was pointless to even argue about this, because in the end, yes, I'm required to prove my claims and MS aren't. Have they shown
you the receipts? Yeah, I haven't seen them either. They say, "This is what we've estimated," and that's that. So as I said, no point in arguing about it.
What do you mean here? That MS had 900k unsold as of Q42013? Sony had 300k unsold as of Q42013?
Yes?
We can't say anything concrete about Q42014 for either so not sure where you're getting this info from.
If I'm unable to say anything concrete about 4Q2014 based on Official Data from 4Q2013, how come you are?
I'll say again, they are estimates based on official NPD/GFK numbers. The figure I've worked out is an "absolute minimum" estimate based on hard data as well as estimating against prior year performance as well as factoring in how many units MS shipped.
You have got lost somewhere. 8.7m is the base with all the hard data we have. 8.9m is low balling Germany and UK numbers for December 2014. 9.5m is low balling the rest of tier 1 for CY2014. 10.0m is low balling all countries for CY2013 and 2014.
Okay, then 8.7M would be the absolute minimum sell through. You've
estimated an
additional 1.3M sales from there, based entirely on a small sampling of data from a long time ago, and then declared those sales to be etched in stone. What if your estimate just wasn't very good, and T1.5+ sell through was only 1M? That's entirely impossible? Because you say so?
I'd hardly say that most is an estimate. The fact that we're able to prove 8.7m sold through alone using hard data from GFK and NPD (MS use this data btw, just want to say that again) is again showing you that I'm not estimating any of that. The 8.7m is based on hard data. All I've estimated is the further 1.3m as a minimum based on December sales for UK and Germany, 12 months tracking period for the remaining 9 tier 1 countries and 4 months tracking period for 28 tier 2 countries.
Sorry, I could've been more clear. I didn't mean that most of the 10M came from the 3M figure. I meant that the 1.3M mostly came from manipulations you applied to a number originally derived by subtracting observed sales from claimed sales.
As to the rest of it, yes, that's exactly my point. You've shown the sales floor to be 8.7M, and you estimate 1.3M more. My problem is that you then claim you have proven sell through can be no less than 10M, when you've done nothing of the sort. All you've done is come up with an estimate that produced the 10M figure, and said, "But it could be way more!! It just can't be less!!" Well, by your own admission, it
could be 1.3M less, as unlikely as that would be. Could it be 100k more? Very fucking likely. Could it be 100k
less?
ALSO VERY FUCKING LIKELY. Do you seriously not understand what I'm trying to say here?
What does Sony stock level have to do with Xbox One stock level?
Umm, because the number of unsold units is kinda relevant here? =/
What right do you have to call this a hard to believe number.
/sigh I dunno, man. What gave
you the right to call it hard to believe? Maybe it was that.
Please expand on stock levels, and no, using a german retailer + US retailer as evidence doesn't count. Whilst I agree that stock levels will be high, using two retailers as evidence for a worldwide channel number is a case of "wild extrapolations" where as my calculations are nothing of that sort as
once again
. it's based on official hard data, not anecdotal data.
Sure, that's cool. Stocks are meaningless. No sense even discussing it, since it may lead us astray from the cold, hard truth of extrapolation.
Unless you have hard data from GFK and NPD to prove it (as has been posted previously) then you can't claim anything else as a fact. Only as an idea of what we might see.
Yeah, too bad that rule only seems to apply to me. You provide NPD/GfK data showing 8.7M sales and claim that means we "know" a minimum of 10M have been sold. Where's your GfK data that allows you to make such bold claims? Any number greater than 8.7M is just your best guess, and nothing more.
4 answers.
1. It's official if it's in a press release.
2. Sony do not say they base their figures on NPD or GFK. They only say SCEI internal estimates.
3. Microsoft have access to the same data.
4. Neither Sony nor Microsoft will ever include sell through data in their financials.
I thought 4 was true because 1 actually wasn't. Putting sell through in their financials would make them liable, but are they held to the same standard of accuracy for statements made to the press? Isn't 4 what they're actually on the hook for, and 1 is simply marketing? Do press releases get them in trouble with the SEC like their filings do? Honest question.
Regarding 2, you're right; my bad. I recall them breaking out the dates by region, and thought they mentioned the trackers at the same time.
So as you can see, If you say Microsoft don't quote NPD in their press release, and neither do sony (even though they both use them), then you can't go around saying Microsoft is wrong and Sony is right.
My actual point was that both companies freely admit that to some extent, these numbers are self-generated, and are not actually Gospel directly from the mouth of NPD.
The smartest minds thought the world was flat for years. Don't be one of those people.
They thought that because they had too much confidence in their ability to extrapolate.
I'll accept if you don't want to believe that minimum sell through is at 10m+. What I have issue with is calling out Microsoft as lying and saying that sell through must be lower because you don't trust what Microsoft is telling us. That's just absurd.
It's like me saying Sony are lying to us and sell through must be higher because PS4 is selling like crazy.... or do you think that as well?
What I actually said from the very beginning was that while there was a possibility of small error in Microsoft's number whether through malfeasance or incompetence there wasn't much point in bickering about the possibility. My argument all along has been that you can't make extrapolations like this and then declare them to be the minimum sell through. You can account for 8.7M units.
That's the floor on sell through. You may estimate they sold an additional 1.3M units, but that's only an estimation; it doesn't actually raise the floor.
My other point was that if we have other information which indicates your estimate was a bit high, then it's possible your estimate is a bit high. Your estimate doesn't stand as proof that the other information is misleading.