Thursday, July 20, 2006

In The History Of All Articles Written On The Internet

THIS IS THE WORST




You've read a lot of articles on the internet, right? You read BLOGs and other news sites like this one on a daily basis. No matter what rant you've read from Dvorak, from Enderle, from Palmer ... nothing tops this absurdly lengthy, incredibly non factual diatribe on Apple's iPod. Not only is the debate contained within this article non sequitur (a favorite word of mine lately) ... but it is so poorly written that it almost seems the writer Tomi T Ahonen is living in another universe. He's certainly not on the same planet I'm on where the iPod has <76% marketshare.

He claims that because iPod sales are down from the Christmas quarter by 1 million units or so that this is a sign of things changing. What he fails to mention is NO SINGLE cell phone model (not even the Motorola RAZR) sells 8 million units in the average quarter worldwide and that Apple's profit on iPods is close to 34% ... whereas Moto's profit on RAZRs is somewhere around 9%.

*** WARNING ***


What you link to below is mind numbingly long. FixYourThinking suggests you bookmark this for the weekend and read later.

Demise of a Darling: iPod market share crashes to 14% amid management denials


There is so much non factual information contained within the article it's hard to even take the author seriously ... yet he is quite serious.

I hate to even give authors like this press ... it's obvious this guy is trying to promote some book and some strange business concept he and a friend came up with ... just warning those that see this book ... no matter how good the jacket makes it sound ... it contains logic and argument from the same loon that wrote this piece about iPods. My favorite part is how he refers to his own blog as "predicting the future" by making several references to previous posts. Something all of us narcissistic bloggers love to do ... this guy just makes all of the rest of us look bad.

The author has an "Available For Consulting" link in the sidebar ... did Dvorak pay?

Oh ... and don't forget to read the comments that follow the article!

[UPDATE] An email indicated I should read this:

http://www.businessweek.com/print/technology/content/jul2006/tc20060720_479530.htm

From which the email commenter wanted me to know:

With a hit like the RAZR, that is a possibility. Motorola has sold more than 50 million of the sleek flip phones, and it's announcing new upgrades by the month. When the company holds its annual analysts' meeting June 24 and 25, it's expected to unveil the RAZR II, an even sleeker, glimmering update of its top seller.


And obviously the point of sending me this email (which wasn't stated) was to debate my comment above:

What he fails to mention is NO SINGLE cell phone model (not even the Motorola RAZR) sells 8 million units in the average quarter worldwide and that Apple's profit on iPods is close to 34% ... whereas Moto's profit on RAZRs is somewhere around 9%

Again I will say to this reader and to all others:

NO SINGLE cellphone has sold as many as the iPod has with CORE functionality remaining the same. Verizon, Alltel, Tmobile, SunCom, and Cingular all have VARIATIONS of this phone and label them as such as well V3i etc etc. They are physically different in both interface, functionality and core functionality ... whereas the iPod has now sold roughly 63 million units (excluding the shuffle) and kept the dock connector and core functionality and interface for over 3 years! Accessory makers are not making nearly the number of accessories for RAZR's as they are iPods <--- this is the true reason the iPod is so successful.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Well, the article was good for a laugh. The comments were funnier. I printed the article and used it to fertilize my lawn.

Islandguy said...

If you don't want to vouch for him, you can always include a "nofollow tag" http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2005/01/preventing-comment-spam.html

I think there was another tag that says you can't vouch for the integrity, but i forgot what it was...

~Islandguy

fixyourthinking said...

Thanks for posting that ... here's the text for other readers:

Preventing comment spam
1/18/2005 04:28:00 PM
If you're a blogger (or a blog reader), you're painfully familiar with people who try to raise their own websites' search engine rankings by submitting linked blog comments like "Visit my discount pharmaceuticals site." This is called comment spam, we don't like it either, and we've been testing a new tag that blocks it. From now on, when Google sees the attribute (rel="nofollow") on hyperlinks, those links won't get any credit when we rank websites in our search results. This isn't a negative vote for the site where the comment was posted; it's just a way to make sure that spammers get no benefit from abusing public areas like blog comments, trackbacks, and referrer lists.

We hope the web software community will quickly adopt this attribute

Anonymous said...

I am here for you to mock in person...

So hello Fix Your Thinking and readers.

I thank you for posting the comment at my blogsite with this link so I could also find your blog. I also thank you for reading my (way too long) blog and then to take the trouble to comment.

I am of course devastated to find you award me the worst article in the history of the internet :-)

You suggest that no phone maker ships any single model more than iPods per quarter. But you clearly allow all iPods to be "one model"? I would argue that most "normal" customers would sense for example the Nano quite different from earlier iPods, to the degree that many have two iPods?

If so, then your premise fails. And I think you can see where I'm going with this. Since you already have the Motorola stats. How about this. So today Apple ships 8 million iPods per quarter. Well, already last year Nokia shipped 40 million musicphones. That was 10 million per month. Before the launch of the N-series - which Nokia just yesterday in its quarterly results said was experiencing problems meeting the enormous demand.

But yes, if you really choose to define all iPods as "one model" and even all Razrs as "different models" - then you win of course. I would argue most customers don't see it that way. But this is your blogsite, you get to make the rules.. I am the bad guy.

Thank you for posting. I'll try to learn to blog better in the future so perhaps I won't repeat this honour, and perhaps some day you will finally award this honour to the next worthy recepient?

Tomi Ahonen :-)

fixyourthinking said...

NO SINGLE cellphone has sold as many as the iPod has with CORE functionality remaining the same.

apparently you forgot to read that part. The Nano has the same core functionality as the iPod from 3 years ago. The iPod Mini and the iPod U2 special Edition were really no different ... only in looks and capacity.

RAZRs have different carriers, different technology ... as far as I know each V3i vs Vgi etc etc have completely different interfaces.

Core functions are different from RAZR to RAZR.

Anonymous said...

Ok, that is clearly why people with older iPods do buy Nanos. They love the iPod so much they want to own two of the same thing. Maybe for one into each ear? Sure. You win :-)

Tomi Ahonen :-)