Skeeter, don't you understand that what we need is data, not intuition or equations. Your equation isn't at fault, it's the input. You assumed that unit growth was based 12% - 15% on marketing data. You next assumed that ASPs fell significantly. And from those assumptions you calculated what you prefer to believe the revenue growth was because Michael Burke said so. Now let's look at alternate assumptions each consistent with existing reports and data. If unit growth was 15%, and revenues increased by 3% then ASPs declined by 10.5%. What's wrong with that scenario?
What is wrong is that we still need data, not assumptions or calculations based on assumptions. Every marketing statistic has a confidence interval associated with it. What is the standard error of your calculation? Why would you have more faith in it than mine? After all, both are consistent with what we have been told.
The fact is that the only indication I have of computer revenues comes from a report from Merrill Lynch which neither of us have seen. That report shows that revenues either increased 1% (as in the article you cited) or 3%-5% (as in the two articles I saw). But those are at best tertiary accounts. What data did Merrill use, and what was their source, and what was the integrity of the numbers -- those are the real questions, and all of the suppositions in the world will not erase those questions.
Your reliance on Michael Burke leads me to believe that you have confidence in his world view. I think he has a monumental ego that chooses to seize on any bit of information supporting his point of view and ignoring anything that is inconsistent, or, as he clearly did with me, try to twist the data to his own purposes. I suggest you try some independent thinking. He has yet to be right on anything concerning the computer industry where data are available.
TTFN,
CTC |
