🚀 go-pugleaf

On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 11:49:06 -0700, in
<j79146hj6d7rn586gis8ant7n0ucku9p04@4ax.com>, Jeff Liebermann
<jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 16 Jul 2010 10:48:14 -0700, John Navas
><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>>The GUM (great unwashed masses) don't seem to care.  A friend just
>>>ordered an iPhone online and found that Apple has a 3-4 week backlog.
>>>I don't know who's really doing the complaining and litigation, but
>>>it's probably not owners of the iPhone 4.  Besides, with a 30 day
>>>return policy, what's there to complain about?
>>
>>What does backlog have to do with sales?
>
>It's a tolerable indication of continued demand or selling more units
>than was originally predicted.  If the ABC (Apple Buying Consumers)
>considered the antenna problems to be significant, then sales and the
>attendant backlog, would not exist.  Apparently, the ABC's do not
>consider the antenna problems to be sufficient reason to either wait.
>
>>In other words, how do you
>>know Apple hasn't throttled sales while it investigates the problem?
>
>Like most big manufacturers, Apple orders parts and finished units
>well in advance of any anticipated demand, along with a well
>controlled delivery rate.  I'm not sure they could throttle sales as
>delivery rates are probably contractually negotiated well in advance,
>with penalties attached.

My experience is quite different.  It's not uncommon to restrict
deliveries when a problem is found that might require an engineering
change, and standard sales contracts generally don't have any sort of
delivery penalties -- the risk is losing sales against the risk of
delivering products with defects.

>If Apple was restricting deliveries, it would be much like admitting
>that there is a real problem.

It's pretty much already done that, and restricting deliveries isn't
something likely to get out.

-- 
John

"Assumption is the mother of all screw ups."
[Wethern�s Law of Suspended Judgement]