What A Teardown Is, And Isn't

'One thing I constantly have to explain when I write these stories is this: A teardown analysis doesn’t give you a full picture on a particular product’s profit margin.'

So why do you write these stories? Is there anything other than BS being conveyed to the reader?
You've been around long enough to know that iSupply's numbers are suspect, and any attempt to extend those numbers to real cost and net profit is impossible from outside APPL. What these stories are is the innuendo that Apple is a greedy corporation, that the customer is being overcharged. That means these stories are produced to reinforce Microsoft advertising which almost always attacks Apple on price.

@Zato: That innuendo is in your mind, not in any implication I make in the story. I happen to think a profitable product is a good thing for a company. It's good news for its investors, and its a good thing for the economy overall. I don't see how you can suggest this the story in any way reinforces Microsoft advertising, and in fact Microsoft's attacks against Apple on price are a relatively new phenomenon, one which I have criticized.

@Arik: "I don't see how you can suggest this the story in any way reinforces Microsoft advertising, and in fact Microsoft's attacks against Apple on price are a relatively new phenomenon, one which I have criticized."

You really don't see how it reinforces the advertising? The attack ads are new, the company line is not. You should probably just include an explanatory paragraph in the first story instead of writing a defensive followup. I'm sure there'll still be lots of comments, but at least your being straight up from the start.

Besides, the general public does not care about profit-to-company, it cares about value and satisfaction for the money.

"A teardown analysis doesn’t give you a full picture on a particular product’s profit margin, and it’s not intended to, nor do I suggest anywhere in the story that it does."

Funny, I seem to recall reading this statement rather early in the article, in the sub-title in fact: "A teardown by researchers shows the device's components cost a mere 28% of its retail price—a fat profit margin." Is it really your contention that this does not "suggest" that a teardown analysis provides a picture of a product's profit margin? Let’s do a teardown analysis of your statement.

It seems to me that this sentence first seeks to establish a direct relationship between component cost and profit margin, then unequivocally states your opinion that this particular number translates to a rather large margin. By prefacing the component cost percentage with the word “mere,” then describing the margin as “fat,” the statement you are making is quite clear. That you subsequently proclaim that you did not suggest this “anywhere in the story” is contradictory, but not particularly far-fetched, because this comes across much more forcefully than a suggestion.

Your response to the previous comments demostrates that you possess a very puzzling lack of knowledge as to the effects of what you write. Do you think there is a reason you keep having to explain yourself? Perhaps you should let someone read this stuff before you publish it, someone who could perhaps point out to you the suggestions and “implications” present in your stories to which you seem to be impervious.

Better yet, why don’t you just admit that placing that statement in the sub-title of your article was a blatant exercise in hit-trolling.

@Steven So from reading the subtitle you know the whole story? By that standard I can stop reading your comment at "12:54 AM" and know everything you have to say.

@Tom Here's my answer to Microsoft's advertising campaign. Let me know if you think it "reinforces" their message.

http://www.businessweek.com/technology/ByteOfTheApple/blog/archives/2009/04/microsofts_laur.html

Arik,

The fact that I personally did not place the date or the time after my name does not detract from the fact that your point is well taken.

However, my question then becomes, why do you place anything in a subtitle that would imply something you subsequently need to refute in the immediately following article, or that creates innuendo which you later must explain away?

Also, if your compensation or prestige is proportional to the number of hits you generate, then whether or not I know the whole story is immaterial - what counts is including in the title that which will incite the most incendiary response. I don't know if this is the case for you personally, but it is for many internet pundits.

abercrombie deutschland abercrombie deutschland
abercrombie abercrombie
abercrombie and fitch abercrombie and fitch