Yagottabe Kidding

4 Mobile Predictions for the New Year

W.r.t Palm getting bought (HA HA HA!) just what price are we talking about here?

$5 billion?

[don't forget the REAL share count that includes the Preferred Shares getting converted - we're talking 200+ million shares and the CURRENT stock price is $12 and the current debt that needs to be paid off is $400 million and one should assume there is SOME sort of premium on top of that]

$300 million like the outrageously expensive purchase of PalmSource and PalmOS?

Just what are we talking here?

Wouldn't Android simply be cheaper all around?

The Unlocked Phone Movement Gets a Big Boost

> There is definitely a price war brewing...

Can companies like Palm handle a price war?

I don't think so.

We're going to see some...er..."consolida...

Novatel: Comparing 'Sell Through' vs. 'Sell In' Numbers

Understand that =PALM's= definition of "sell-through" is NOT, repeat NOT, "sales to end customers".

Palm's definition of sell-through is "sales by those to whom we have sold-in" (*).

Why is this of import?

Because, as noted above, Palm had an 85% customer, Sprint, that served as a wholesaler to other venues like BestBuy, Walmart, Radioshack, etc.

That is, when Sprint turned around and sold Pres to, say, BestBuy, those Pres were counted =by Palm= as "sold-through" even though they were in warehouses and on shelves yet to be sold to end customers.

We don't know what wholesale customers Sprint has other than the above; they COULD include even other wholesalers - thus Palm sells to Sprint (that's "sold-in"), Sprint sells to Wholesaler X (Palm counts that as "sold-through"), Wholesaler X sells to Retailer Y, Retailer Y can't sell the device and it sits on a shelf.

Sold-through.

------

(*) There's a very small and insignificant "sell-through" that goes directly to end customers from Palm via Web sales with no "sold-in" in-between.

Weekly Shorts Review: Garmin, TomTom, Nintendo, Palm

Nokia isn't going to pay billions of dollars for Palm.

No one is.

It's WELL past time to put this silliness to rest.

=========

A few years ago when Palm actually had some pretty good-selling devices, like the Centro and Treos (planned or out), Palm's BoD decided the BEST future for Palm was to sell the company.

And they could not even though they had hundreds of millions in cash, no debt, and said devices. [this is all revealed in Palm's SEC documentation about the original Elevation Partners transaction]

NOW Palm is heavily in debt, has massively more shares outstanding, has Preferred Shares that have priority over common, and have a weak product that apparently didn't even live up to expectations.

And the stock price suggests billions upon billions of dollars to buy it out.

Why does ANYONE reasonably think any company would NOW be insane enough to buy Palm anywhere near the current price if they weren't insane enough to buy it really cheaper a couple years ago?

Apple Gaining Ground in Smartphone Race

The survey was NOT of "4255 consumers" but instead "4255 high income high education senior tech-field consumers".

I think that may have import w.r.t. how well this survey is representative of the general phone consumer population.

When Will Nokia Wake Up?

Perhaps Nokia has decided the "smartphone segment" isn't much of a segment relative to their other segments so are participating strictly because they have a need for a presence.

When featurephones have all the capability that smartphones have with, literally, some minor details excluded (in fact, pundits are going through excruciating convolutions to define "featurephone" and "smartphone" now so they don't totally overlap), why produce a smartphone?

How Big Will Android Get?

Good grief - someone actually noticing the ridiculousness of number of significant digits used by some sites!

What!? Did you take a math course or something and actually REMEMBER what it taught?

'Bout time someone did.

Good article.

Android, iPhone Ride Rising Tide

How is "marketshare" computed? Do those who calculate "marketshare" rely on sell-through numbers from the various manufacturers? If not, how else do they get (number of units sold by manyfacturer X)/total units by everyone)?

Now that we know Palm reports "sell-through" numbers that INCLUDE sales by their main (Pre) distributor, Sprint, to retailers (and, quite likely, even sales to distributors - those who sell to retailers )- that is, NOT end-consumers and NOT part of any "marketshare" - how is their marketshare number computed?

Palm Has a PREcarious Channel Issue

I'm not sure what your reply is saying vis-a-vis what we NOW know "sell-through" means when Palm says the word, but at least we NOW know "sell-through" does indeed include devices that are NOT in end-consumer hands - exactly as you guys said (and MUCH to the surprise of Palm-observers far and wide!).

That's really all that matters - that little factoid screws up all SORTS of analysis, even off-the-cuff statements like "The X is being well received by the end consumer" for all 'X'.

And when you're discussing "marketshare" WHAT number is being used to represent Palm;s devices in that market? Could it be...gasp!..."sell-thr... as reported by Palm?

Palm Has a PREcarious Channel Issue

According to AllThingsD Palm has finally admlitted that their use of "sell-through" includes sales by those to whom they have sold to other non-end-consumer venues.

>>> UPDATE: This just in from Palm …
“The sell-through data we post reflects carriers’ sales to their customers. For example, Sprint customers include consumers who buy in a Sprint store, and Sprint retail partners such as Best Buy and RadioShack. We rely on our wireless carriers to provide us with sell-through data, and we note this fact in our 10Q.”
<<<

So forget everything you assumed about "sell-through", including its utility as a measure of a particular device's success.

Palm: Is the End Near?

Though Palm is not a success at selling Palm phones, they are an EXCELLENT success at selling Palm shares. They have a massive cash balance now NOT due to any particular well-selling phone but instead due to mostly ONE deep-pocket investor. As long as that deep-pocketed investor continues to throw money at them, they'll do "fine"!

There may be a =slight= hint that the deep-pocketed investor is pulling back a little, however, since THIS time "only" $35 million was thrown at Palm.

But in any case, Palm has enough cash now to last more than a year with a series of unsuccessful phones!

I wouldn't count them out yet...lol!

Palm Has a PREcarious Channel Issue

If Palm has quietly changed the used-over-and-over-again definition of "sell-through" to simply mean that someone they sold to has in turn sold then they have materially changed a key number that they discuss in their earnings calls.

Since Day One "sell-through" has ALWAYS meant "sales to a consumer" and has NEVER meant "sales to a retail venue". The difference is SO radical (especially the "hidden inventory" angle) that such a change would require overt mention, IMHO.

In their 10Q Palm does not define sell-through, however they say only that they are relying on their customers to accurately report sell-through numbers. That is a rather wide hole in the reporting of a key statistic.

Smartphones: Is Image Really Everything?

Engadget refuses to reveal who paid for that "report".

Palm Raises $313 Million, Bolsters War Chest

Elsewhere a poster commented that Palm should stop trying to sell phones and just sell stock in their company.

Lol!

Reading Palm: Pre Sales and the Secondary Offering

Palm at first said (everything paraphrased) "sell-in and sell-through were majorly Pre". When an analyst threw those words back in Palm's face by saying "You said sell-in was majorly Pre and sell-through was majorly Pre" the CFO came back and said "We didn't say that - we said sell-in plus sell-through was majorly Pre" - that's an apples and oranges combo as other posters have pointed out. We EASILY can (correctly) assume sell-in was almost entirely Pre. If Palm sold-through ONLY, say, 200,000 Pres then sell-in and sell-through could be ambiguously quantified as "majorly Pre" even though sell-through would have been majorly NOT Pre.

Sometimes it's what they do NOT say that's important, huh?