I get a bit of flack for my complete and utter distrust of the analyst community, because people have some degree of trust for suit-wearing individuals payed ludicrous sums of money to opine about the state of the industry. I, on the other hand, having watched their track record think that they’re a bunch of hoodwinkers and snake-oil salesmen, and here’s a perfect example. Over the course of one weekend, two new analyses have popped up which are in direct contradiction to each other.
- Mobile ad network Mobclix surveyed people waiting in line for the iPad 2, and found out 70% of them already owned the iPad 1.
- Piper Jaffray’s Gene Munster surveyed people waiting in line for the iPad 2 and found that 70% had not owned an iPad before.
You see where my skepticism arises from? Admittedly, they could both be right due to some small sample sizes and limited geographical distributions, but I still think it’s all bunk.
Written By 
And that’s exactly why real studies use large sample sizes. Asking 30-40 people on a line, or however many there may have been, is just ridiculous to try to pull any meaning from. Stupid analysts, studies are for scientists.