Hmmm… I don’t have a lot of experience with TechCrunch, but they posted an article the other day postulating that they could accurately estimate the number of Google Nexus One phones sold in January from order number sequences on the packing slips for the phones shipped in January.
I commented on their site that it was an interesting theory but made some assumptions that appeared to be false. I went back this morning to see if there were follow up comments and found that they’d deleted my post! Posts insulting the author are still there, but I guess the guys at TC don’t like actual logical fact based criticisms of their ideas?
Here’s pretty much what I posted – I had modified the original post on TC to add as a comment in a forum on another site:
Techcrunch has an interesting theory going there, but there are some assumptions they’re making that might not hold out:
They’re assuming that only Google Nexus products are shipping from this warehouse (has that been confirmed?), and that other companies’ products aren’t in the order number mix. The order number could be more like a fulfillment number for the warehouse since Google’s already got its own purchase order number for Google Checkout tracking purposes.
The other proven flaw with their theory is that only Nexus One phones are falling into their order numbering scheme, which my own orders prove to be inaccurate:
I don’t have access to my Nexus One’s 1/19/2010 packing slip at the moment, but I do have the slip that came with my Nexus One Dock.
Date Ordered: 2010-01-28
Date Shipped: 2010-01-29
Since the order number for the Dock fits into the numbering scheme of the actual phones, that certainly skews any data in the sequence count after the date the Dock became available for shipping (1/26 or 1/27?).
So, anyways, that’s what I think is wrong with their theory, and more importantly to me now is why the heck was it deleted?