noname2200 said:
Is there some other set of data he could have been using instead? This site, perhaps? Serious question, I'm curious. @ethomaz: Again, he's claiming to cite actual data when he states that number. Maybe he's lying, I don't know. But you asked a question, so I thought I'd give you the answer. Disbelieve Pachter if you want.*
*That's generally a good policy. |
I'm sure he has access to some preliminary data, whether from NPD or other sources. I seriously doubt he would use this site. I'm not sure what to believe, so I'll just leave it open until it is further clarified, though I do hope the >200K is right. It just seems funny that Pacther woud be spot on in his prediction, and I mean dead on, as I don't think that has happened before.
