Ruh-roh. All those Samsung Galaxy Tabs actually sold to distributors, not consumers

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Why would it matter if they sold it to distributors instead of consumers?
A sale is a sale is a sale.

Do distributors have the option of returning it for a full refund if customers are not showing as much interest in the product as they expected after they sat on the unopened boxes?

Of course it would have been helpful if they said "shipped" though.
 

MagickMan

Diamond Member
Aug 11, 2008
7,460
3
76
Well, guess we'll see Galaxies given away with 2 year contracts and happy meals before long, distributors will have to do something with all the stock piled up in their warehouses.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
As much as I dislike Samsung phones, I have to give them credit for owning up to this and publicly correcting the sales figures.
 

Sheep

Golden Member
Jun 13, 2006
1,275
0
71
The stupid F'ing 1.1 OTA blew out my root, so I need to start over. I was using Nooter, since I didn't want all of the battery draining goodness that Auto-Nooter installs by default. Have you installed Clockwork Recovery and used it to actually restore a backup?

Yup. In a moment of pure stupidity, I deleted the /data partition on my install instead of the cache, leading to an expensive paperweight. Fortunately the Nook Color is damn near impossible to brick and I loaded a nandroid backup through CWR which reinstalled with ease. I love XDA.

Like others here, there's no chance in hell I'm paying for any tablet with a data contract attached to it or full unsubsidized retail prices of $500 or more which makes the Nook Color perfect--everything the Tab can do (and growing every day thanks to the XDA community) at a fraction of the price.
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
I think BGR have found the devil in the 'detail':

Acting as armed guards protecting the honor of the Queen, tech blogs and press across the Internet exploded in unison yesterday in an effort to right wrongs committed against the magical, and apparently peerless iPad. A report on Monday suggested that Android tablets — namely the Samsung Galaxy Tab — had finally put a dent in the iPad’s consumer tablet market share, causing it to drop from 96% to 77% last quarter. The firm issuing the report was immediately ambushed by the iPad army… those are shipments, not sales to end users, it cried. Of course Strategy Analytics, the firm behind the report, was indeed comparing apples to apples, of course, using Android tablet shipments as well as iPad shipments in its report.


As it turns out, however, Apple fans may have stumbled upon a more legitimate claim against Strategy Analytics’ report. Another study, this time conducted by ITG Investment Research, claims that the Galaxy Tab has an unusually high return rate. This, coupled with a vague comment from a Samsung executive, could mean that Samsung’s sell-out and retention figures for the Galaxy Tab are less than stellar. ITG Investment Research used data collected from almost 6,000 U.S. retailers from November through mid-January to determine that the Galaxy Tab has a high return rate.
The study found that 15% of Tabs purchased in the U.S. were ultimately returned. The only frame of reference offered by ITG’s study, as reported by the New York Post, is that only 2% of iPads sold through Verizon Wireless stores have been returned. In other words, these findings are based on sales of less than 18% of global Galaxy Tab shipments and iPads sold only by Verizon. Verizon Wireless is hardly thought to have received the bulk of the 7.3 million iPads Apple shipped last quarter, but 2% is of course an impressive return rate nonetheless. ITG also neglects to give any indication of the Galaxy Tab’s performance in markets outside the U.S., where an estimated 1.65 million out of Samsung’s 2 million Galaxy Tabs were shipped.
 

MrX8503

Diamond Member
Oct 23, 2005
4,529
0
0
Why would it matter if they sold it to distributors instead of consumers?
A sale is a sale is a sale.

Do distributors have the option of returning it for a full refund if customers are not showing as much interest in the product as they expected after they sat on the unopened boxes?

Of course it would have been helpful if they said "shipped" though.

If consumers don't buy them then distributors won't buy them from Samsung.
 

gsaldivar

Diamond Member
Apr 30, 2001
8,691
1
81
Why would it matter if they sold it to distributors instead of consumers?
A sale is a sale is a sale.

Nope.

If Samsung decides to fill a warehouse with a bunch of sealed boxes, why should that affect the market share of a company that is putting products in the hands of consumers?

Those sealed boxes sitting in warehouses may or may not be ultimately sold to the public. However, they shouldn't be counted as part of a sales analysis resulting in "market share" until they are sold to a consumer.

Whether or not a distributor can recover its full cost from the manufacturer really has nothing to do with it.
 

DivideBYZero

Lifer
May 18, 2001
24,117
2
0
Nope.

If Samsung decides to fill a warehouse with a bunch of sealed boxes, why should that affect the market share of a company that is putting products in the hands of consumers?

Those sealed boxes sitting in warehouses may or may not be ultimately sold to the public. However, they shouldn't be counted as part of a sales analysis resulting in "market share" until they are sold to a consumer.

Whether or not a distributor can recover its full cost from the manufacturer really has nothing to do with it.

Apple especially do exactly the same practice of reporting shipments over sales.

At the end of the day a distributors rights to return product will entirely depend on the deal cut with the vendor. Most sales however are sell it and forget it, and if the product flops the distributor is SoL.
 

CptObvious

Platinum Member
Mar 5, 2004
2,501
7
81
Well, guess we'll see Galaxies given away with 2 year contracts and happy meals before long, distributors will have to do something with all the stock piled up in their warehouses.
Here's hoping there'll be a blowout of these when the iPad 2 and Android 2.3 tablets come out. I'd pay $300-350 off contract for one
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Nope.

If Samsung decides to fill a warehouse with a bunch of sealed boxes, why should that affect the market share of a company that is putting products in the hands of consumers?

Those sealed boxes sitting in warehouses may or may not be ultimately sold to the public. However, they shouldn't be counted as part of a sales analysis resulting in "market share" until they are sold to a consumer.

Whether or not a distributor can recover its full cost from the manufacturer really has nothing to do with it.
Where did Samsung say anything about market share regarding this 2 million tablets sales figures? I missed the original article so please show it if they did mention so.
If it's from a bunch of stupid analysts trying to "estimate" their market share from their sales statistics then there's your problem.

AFAIK, they mentioned that they sold 2 million tablets to customers. That is still a fact.

A sale is made when the company ships the product to a customer.
When a sale is made, income is generated on the income statement.

The fact that there may be 2 million Galaxy tabs still sitting in BestBuy/Wal-Mart/Newegg warehouses doesn't mean squat.
Once it's left the Samsung loading dock and it's en route to the customer, it's considered a sale. That is a fact.

"The customer" in this case means Bestbuy and other retailers, not John Q. Public, Lothar, gsaldivar or Pliablemoose.

When Pfizer says Lipitor had sales of $10.7 billion in FY 2010, they don't actually mean John Q public, Lothar, gsaldivar, or Pliablemoose bought $10.7 billion worth of Lipitor tablets. :colbert:
It means they sold $10.7 billion worth of Lipitor to Cardinal Health, McKesson Corp, CVS, Walgreens, Rite-Aid, Wal-Mart, and others.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Sales and revenue mean the same thing.
Profit, earnings, and income mean the same thing.
Revenue and income do not mean the same thing.

Costs are different from expenses.
Expenses are different from expenditures.

Sales are different from orders but are the same as shipments.

Profits are different from Cash.
Solvency is different from profitability.
One does not need to become an accountant, but do "speak the language".

In accounting, some important words may have meanings that are different from what one would think.
Recommended book for anyone having problems with these terms.
http://www.amazon.com/Financial-Stat.../dp/1601630239
 

Vdubchaos

Lifer
Nov 11, 2009
10,408
10
0
You guys really think that Company Sales # are true?

Come on now, that goes for ANY company, not just Samsung.

Of course they will make themselves look good, if you are in the monkey business.....you get monkeys, or maybe you don't.

I've seen # of companies I worked for report their numbers, it's bunch of assumptions and in the end bunch of BS.

But people/Wall street SWEARS by it.

RIIIIGHT

http://www.cnbc.com/id/24935112/Monkey_Business_on_Wall_Street