or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon numbers hint Apple may have shipped more than 50M iPhones last quarter
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Verizon numbers hint Apple may have shipped more than 50M iPhones last quarter - Page 2

post #41 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRtexasranger View Post

@jragosta "I doubt it. It undoubtedly costs a lot less to make a 4 or 4S than a 5. And the selling price difference is not that great (say, $649 vs $749). It may even be that the margins are greater on the older models (but revenue is lower, of course)."

Economies of Scale. If the iPhonne 4/4s was being produced at the same levels as the iPhone 5, then it would be plenty cheaper to manufacture, but the sheer fixed cost of running a production line for a smartphone is so high, the manufacturing cost is higher than you think, even if on paper, the price of the components isn't all that much.

I suspect that I know quite a bit more about manufacturing than you do - considering the variety of multimillion dollar manufacturing companies I've run.

First, the cost of components is about 1/3 to 1/2 of the selling price, so it's not insignificant-especially given the rate of decline of prices for electronic components. It's not hard to believe that the costs have dropped by enough to make the margins acceptable. Heck, the CPU alone is probably less than half the cost of the iPhone 5's CPU.

Second, there's also production experience that you're neglecting. As you make a product, you get better at it, improving productivity and yields. Apple has been making the 4 and 4S a lot longer than the 5 and the assembly cost is therefore probably also lower.

The $100 difference in selling price between the 4S and 5 is only about 12%-20% of the selling price. It is not at all hard to believe that they're at least that much less expensive to produce.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #42 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by RRtexasranger View Post

And its doubling in stock price in like 4 months last year was all technical as well. It's called a bubble, and it looks like there's only about $70-$90 to go before the bubble is fully deflated and it will resume to trade like a normal, high quality stock.

 

If you are going to toss around the term "bubble" then you should at least know what it means. It refers to an artificial inflation that isn't warranted. If you look at Apple's revenue growth, profit growth, and operating cash flow then there's essentially no rational argument to be made for Apple to be only at $500/share ... especially in the context of it's price history. It's P/E is unusually small compared to the market. That said, even at $500/share it has significantly outpaced the S&P's growth rate.

 

Now, one could argue that future market conditions are being factored into the price. Things like increased competition, a reliance on a revenue stream that will shrink, or just having permanently shrinking margins. However, even those things don't make sense in relation to Apple's current stock price. While smartphones and tablets are increasingly competitive, the overall market for them is growing so fast that a lot of players are benefiting - and Apple is one of the primary beneficiaries despite that its market share is decreasing. Each iPhone so far (and we'll see tomorrow that the iPhone 5 is likely continuing this trend) has outsold all previous iPhone models combined. That's called growth. High growth. The iPad's sales history has shown itself on a faster upward trajectory of adoption as the iPhone.

 

Apple's share price is currently the victim of nothing less than significant shorting at the same time that institutional investors were taking out their profits on the stock. That drives down the share price, which will recover soon after tomorrow when it's seen that Apple's fundamentals remain real and the tax equation has stabilized for the year.

post #43 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post

50 million? That's it?

Android had 50 million activations every minute.

Apple can't compete without a 6", 4K phablet...and a stylus...

 

Trouble is the iHaters are already saying that right here in this thread. And they actually believe it.

post #44 of 85
But, but, but Fortune says Apple needs to license iOS and build a bunch of iPhones at different price points to survive, lol.gif

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/17/apple-risks-repeating-the-1980s/
There are a number of things Apple could do today to ensure it doesn't relive its 1980s meltdown. It could for one open up its iOS so that other manufacturers could integrate it with their phone. This will bring a new line of customers into the iTunes orbit. It could also create a larger line of phones to fit a multitude of price points. After all, the iPhone is simply a delivery device for content—the more people you have on your network, the larger your revenue. If Apple continues on its current path, it could lose—a lot.
post #45 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Slurpy View Post

Watch Apple's stock tank if they announce 49.9 million phones sold- from a company that wasn't in the phone business a few yrs ago.

Who am I kidding, it will probably tank or barely move regardless of what they announce.

100% this. Apple could announce they sold 500 million phones, and that these phones single-handedly were able to cure all forms of cancer in the world, and people would still complain that there weren't a billion of them and they didn't cure AIDS too.

post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


As someone else noted... the 4 and 4S numbers will be seen as affecting margins ...

 

 

Older units = lower cost to consumer so lower gross revenues per unit, but higher margins on the unit.

post #47 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post

 

 

Older units = lower cost to consumer so lower gross revenues per unit, but higher margins on the unit.


Well, I for one don't believe that for a minute. I can see where the cost to produce would be lower but it would be directly proportional to the consumer price at the very most and, in my experience, would take a bit of a hit in pricing just because it is an older unit, and therefore margins would be slightly lower.

 

... and, yes, you can rave and rant all day that I'm wrong but so far I haven't seen any definitive evidence to prove otherwise.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #48 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

But, but, but Fortune says Apple needs to license iOS and build a bunch of iPhones at different price points to survive, lol.gif

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/17/apple-risks-repeating-the-1980s/
There are a number of things Apple could do today to ensure it doesn't relive its 1980s meltdown. It could for one open up its iOS so that other manufacturers could integrate it with their phone. This will bring a new line of customers into the iTunes orbit. It could also create a larger line of phones to fit a multitude of price points. After all, the iPhone is simply a delivery device for content—the more people you have on your network, the larger your revenue. If Apple continues on its current path, it could lose—a lot.

The dimwits at fortune forget that Apple is a hardware company.
post #49 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by hittrj01 View Post

100% this. Apple could announce they sold 500 million phones, and that these phones single-handedly were able to cure all forms of cancer in the world, and people would still complain that there weren't a billion of them and they didn't cure AIDS too.


That's not true at all.

 

If Apple announced the sale of 500 million phones, best margins ever, then the price of the stock would definitely go up.... $10.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #50 of 85


Quote:

Originally Posted by thompr View Post

At every Apple quarterly earnings call, soon after the number of iPhones shipped is made public, Apple executives tell how many weeks of inventory are "in the channel", and it always looks good and reasonable.  

 

Note that when Apple reports weeks of inventory, they mean how much they have ready to sell, not what's in retailer warehouses (the world's retailers don't do keep six weeks of inventory... that's Apple's job).  

 

This is critical information for analysts, because it shows (as you said) that Apple's production is going well, and is prepared for new markets and sales, and possible production disruptions. 

 

It is generally considered good practice for an electronics manufacturer to have 4-6 weeks' worth of inventory ready to sell.

 

Lowering inventory also tells us when/if Apple is preparing a new model.   Or rather, used to.  Now Apple lumps all their iPhone models together.   (When people talk about other companies not giving info, well, Apple holds back critical info as well, by not breaking out the sales or inventory numbers for each model.)

 

Had they been lying, it ultimately would show up as a write off or diminishing future sales as inventory is worked off.  This has not happened yet for Apple, and according to all available hard numbers so far, it isn't going to happen this quarter either.

 

Actually, it happened twice last year, once for iPhones and once for iPads.

 

Both times, Cook had to explain unusually low sales as being due to stores having millions of units of extra inventory left over from the previous quarter.   The devices were eventually all sold, but the previous quarters' end user sales had not come close to Apple's announced "sales" for that quarter.   That's not considered "lying", btw.

 

Apple does have a few tricks they use.  One is to shift shipments of limited inventory of an older device to retailers instead of their own stores.  This is because shipments to retailers count as sales, whereas shipments to their own stores do not.   If you see limited availability in Apple stores but not in other retail stores, this is a sign of Apple wanting bigger numbers.

post #51 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by landbend View Post

50M is a big number. I am surprised to know that Verizon has sold so many iPhones. Apple needs to be aware that Microsoft wants to make a dent in the sales of Apple%u2019s products. Microsoft in talks to invest up to $3 billion to help Dell go private. http://x.co/rmnP

 

I doubt there is much, if any, overlap of potential customers for those two companies.

 

I also don't think Microsoft wants to make a dent in the sales of Apple products. At this point, they just want to become relevant in the smartphone/tablet space.

post #52 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


I'm always surprised at how many more people cry manipulation when the stock is headed down as to when AAPL is headed up.

 

Well, okay, I'm not surprised...

Finally someone with some sense.

 

Let the dummies bitch and moan, those of us who don't have on rose colored glasses will profit from the echo chamber that is this board.

post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by KDarling View Post

(When people talk about other companies not giving info, well, Apple holds back critical info as well, by not breaking out the sales or inventory numbers for each model.)

Why should they break it down by each model. They give you a total sold/shipped and the ASP. Unlike other electronic companies, they give actual numbers and not percentages or estimates or qualifiers.
post #54 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


Well, I for one don't believe that for a minute. I can see where the cost to produce would be lower but it would be directly proportional to the consumer price at the very most and, in my experience, would take a bit of a hit in pricing just because it is an older unit, and therefore margins would be slightly lower.

... and, yes, you can rave and rant all day that I'm wrong but so far I haven't seen any definitive evidence to prove otherwise.

We know the difference in price. There's a $100 difference in price, so $650 instead of $750. Even if you subtract a bit from both numbers to get a wholesale price, Apple is getting only about 12-15% less for the 4S than for the 5.

Based on 2 decades of running manufacturing companies and published numbers for electronics components, arguing that it costs them 12-15% less to make the 4S compared to the 5 is a no-brainer.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #55 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


We know the difference in price. There's a $100 difference in price, so $650 instead of $750. Even if you subtract a bit from both numbers to get a wholesale price, Apple is getting only about 12-15% less for the 4S than for the 5.

Based on 2 decades of running manufacturing companies and published numbers for electronics components, arguing that it costs them 12-15% less to make the 4S compared to the 5 is a no-brainer.


No offence... but anecdotal evidence (ie. 2 decades of running manufacturing companies) from somebody on the internet just doesn't cut it.


Edited by island hermit - 1/22/13 at 1:32pm
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Based on 2 decades of running manufacturing companies and published numbers for electronics components, arguing that it costs them 12-15% less to make the 4S compared to the 5 is a no-brainer.

 

I think you're wasting your time trying to explain to Tex how fixed costs for product manufacturing get amortized over the entire manufacturing lifespan.

 

The principle is simple. The longer you manufacture the same thing with the same investment, the lower the "per unit" portion of the investment because the capital investment (just like R&D) is amortized across all of the produced items. Even if all else remains equal - which it doesn't, because component costs and production efficiencies also factor into the cost structure - the per unit margin increases.


Edited by focher - 1/22/13 at 2:39pm
post #57 of 85

Or they just sold old stock that was sitting around on hand. Sales were non-existent before the launch of the 5, as everyone was waiting for the reveal to see if it was worth it, or the price drops on current models if it wasn't. Because of this, there was a lot of surplus 4 and 4S's sitting around in back rooms going into September. While they may count as sales for the carriers, phones shipped out in Q3 won't do much for Apple's Q4.

post #58 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


No offence... but anecdotal evidence (ie. 2 decades of running manufacturing companies) from somebody on the internet just doesn't cut it.

Right. So 20 years of earning millions of dollars for my employer is worthless, but we're supposed to listen to your uninformed, unsubstantiated nonsense instead.

Go figure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


I'm always surprised at how many more people cry manipulation when the stock is headed down as to when AAPL is headed up.

Well, okay, I'm not surprised...

The difference is that when it was rising, it was approaching a P/E comparable to the rest of the market so the rise was simply approaching a fair market value. The drop has been insane - with forward cash adjusted P/E around 7 - which is in the range you'd expect for a company that has no future at all.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #59 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

I think you're wasting your time trying to explain to Tex how fixed costs for product manufacturing get amortized over the entire manufacturing lifespan.

The principle is simple. The longer you manufacture the same thing with the same investment, the lower the "per unit" portion of the investment because the capital investment (just like R&D) is amortized across all of the produced items. Even if all else remains equal - which it doesn't, because component costs and production efficiencies also factor into the cost structure - the per unit margin increases.

Shhhh...... Island apparently prefers to be uneducated. Don't confuse him with simple Business 101.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogifan View Post

But, but, but Fortune says Apple needs to license iOS and build a bunch of iPhones at different price points to survive, lol.gif

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2013/01/17/apple-risks-repeating-the-1980s/
There are a number of things Apple could do today to ensure it doesn't relive its 1980s meltdown. It could for one open up its iOS so that other manufacturers could integrate it with their phone. This will bring a new line of customers into the iTunes orbit. It could also create a larger line of phones to fit a multitude of price points. After all, the iPhone is simply a delivery device for content—the more people you have on your network, the larger your revenue. If Apple continues on its current path, it could lose—a lot.

 

There is so much wrong with all of that. Bizarro world.

"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
"We're Apple. We don't wear suits. We don't even own suits."
Reply
post #61 of 85

Strange ... post has tendency to disappear when it burns other posters

post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Right. So 20 years of earning millions of dollars for my employer is worthless, but we're supposed to listen to your uninformed, unsubstantiated nonsense instead.

 

Right pal.

 

... and what unsubstantiated nonsense are you talking about?

 

1. That I said I don't take your word for it.  For all I know you're some teenage little boy playing on his Mom's computer... and for all you know I run a fortune 500 company. So, no offence, but I'm not about to believe some guy writing uninformed, unsubstantiated nonsense on a forum.

 

2. That I don't believe that margins would be greater. I believe equal or less only. I can't prove it in Apple's case but you can't prove that margins are greater either.

 

3. That analysts might read the greater 4 and 4S numbers as lower margin items (notice I didn't say they were, I said that analysts might read it that way). You yourself have intimated as much.

 

Those are the only 3 things I said. So which one were you talking about?

 

[So I guess you've got nothing... which is what I thought]


Edited by island hermit - 1/22/13 at 5:50pm
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

Strange ... post has tendency to disappear when it burns other posters

I guess that means don't make personal attacks or deal with the consequences.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


I guess that means don't make personal attacks or deal with the consequences.


Just for the record. It wasn't a personal attack in the technical sense.

 

... but saying someone is uneducated is actually a personal attack. Just for the record.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #65 of 85

Burned

post #66 of 85

well, I guess everyone needs to shut up about cheap phones - half the people buying iphones at verizon are buying the cheaper 99 or free version. 

post #67 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bleh1234 View Post

Burned


Naw. Burned is when you can no longer post.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

well, I guess everyone needs to shut up about cheap phones - half the people buying iphones at verizon are buying the cheaper 99 or free version. 


??

 

Are you saying that it is now obvious that a lot of people want a cheaper phone?

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #69 of 85
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
Are you saying that it is now obvious that a lot of people want a cheaper phone?

 

Rather that it seems obvious people are quite all right paying for the iPhone as-is.

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply

Originally posted by Marvin

Even if [the 5.5” iPhone exists], it doesn’t deserve to.
Reply
post #70 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Rather that it seems obvious people are quite all right paying for the iPhone as-is.


I don't think that was ever in question in the U.S.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by battiato1981 View Post

Older units = lower cost to consumer so lower gross revenues per unit, but higher margins on the unit.

 

Slightly true.  Most calculations I've seen come up with just one or two percent higher margin on the older iPhones.  This is because, while some parts do cost less, the assembly and royalties and Apple administrative costs pretty much stay the same.

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by focher View Post

I think you're wasting your time trying to explain to Tex how fixed costs for product manufacturing get amortized over the entire manufacturing lifespan.

 

The principle is simple. The longer you manufacture the same thing with the same investment, the lower the "per unit" portion of the investment because the capital investment (just like R&D) is amortized across all of the produced items. Even if all else remains equal - which it doesn't, because component costs and production efficiencies also factor into the cost structure - the per unit margin increases.

 

The capital manufacturing investment part doesn't apply in this case, at least not to Apple.  It would, of course, apply to the actual manufacturer... Foxconn.  

 

Foxconn might pass on any savings over time, or they might've built that into the price per unit they charge Apple.  (Most analyses I've read assume the BOM drops, but the assembly charge stays the same.)

 

Speaking of which, Bloomberg did a chart on how Apple's profit margins have risen over the years of the iPhone existence from 15% at the start to over 30% now, whereas Foxconn's have dropped from 2.7% down to a "mere 1.5%" today.


Edited by KDarling - 1/23/13 at 4:27am
post #72 of 85

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578257393880660184.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

 

They sold more IP4s than 5's... Apple's tapped out the premium buyers already which means their margins will get killed.  Great, so they probably announce mid 50's in IP sales, but margins are 35%... EPS will barely get above 12. 

 

That's what their "innovation" results in... selling recycled garbage even Apple fanatics are sick of and can't afford to buy anymore.

post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by agramonte View Post

well, I guess everyone needs to shut up about cheap phones - half the people buying iphones at verizon are buying the cheaper 99 or free version. 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


??

 

Are you saying that it is now obvious that a lot of people want a cheaper phone?

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

 

Rather that it seems obvious people are quite all right paying for the iPhone as-is.

 

Probably the fact that the iPhone has a unified look and experience no matter which model you get.

 

Average consumers have a hard time telling a 4 apart from a 5 (sad I know) much less a 4 from 4S. Now people of al budgets can get the "iPhone" they always wanted and dreamed of having for any price. And I'm sure 90% of people that bought 4/4Ss were first timers or Android/RIM switchers so it's all good.

 

As was explained earlier this probably isn't hurting their profits, but I do wonder if the production cuts for iPhone 5 were because the 4/4S are still selling so robustly killing some of the demand they expected for the 5?

post #74 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

As was explained earlier this probably isn't hurting their profits, but I do wonder if the production cuts for iPhone 5 were because the 4/4S are still selling so robustly killing some of the demand they expected for the 5?

 

Maybe it doesn't hurt their profits but if it's true what you are saying, that the older phones are killing the demand for the newest one, then it could become a problem in the long run. Probably not yet, because they still sell a whole lot of new phones. But as soon as the demand for new phones starts declining and you sell more old ones then you'd have a problem. In my opinion the newest phone should always be the best selling one.

post #75 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by changeover View Post

But as soon as the demand for new phones starts declining and you sell more old ones then you'd have a problem. In my opinion the newest phone should always be the best selling one.

 

And at "around 50%" the iPhone 5 is "the best selling one".

post #76 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by piot View Post

And at "around 50%" the iPhone 5 is "the best selling one".


As I said, it's no problem yet.

post #77 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by changeover View Post

Maybe it doesn't hurt their profits but if it's true what you are saying, that the older phones are killing the demand for the newest one, then it could become a problem in the long run. Probably not yet, because they still sell a whole lot of new phones. But as soon as the demand for new phones starts declining and you sell more old ones then you'd have a problem. In my opinion the newest phone should always be the best selling one.

Technically all of the cost or R&D and production have already been absorbed by the older models so that could be more profitable to them.
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post
Technically all of the cost or R&D and production have already been absorbed by the older models so that could be more profitable to them.

 

It's not the profit I'm worried about. Apple wouldn't sell these phones if they lowered their profit, i guess.

 

It's the message this would send out. New iPhones are not affordable for 'normal' people.

Or maybe this is exactly what Apple wants.

post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by KingChael View Post

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887323485704578257393880660184.html?mod=wsj_share_tweet

They sold more IP4s than 5's... Apple's tapped out the premium buyers already which means their margins will get killed.  Great, so they probably announce mid 50's in IP sales, but margins are 35%... EPS will barely get above 12. 

That's what their "innovation" results in... selling recycled garbage even Apple fanatics are sick of and can't afford to buy anymore.

Actually it's the 4 and 4S combined outselling all Android devices too. The 5 outsold every other single model on VZN.
post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Technarchy View Post

50 million? That's it?

Android had 50 million activations every minute.

Apple can't compete without a 6", 4K phablet...and a stylus...

It's easy for Android to have so many activations when Google lets any unknown company use Android on any piece of garbage they can produce. An activation is an activation, right? I'd like to know how many of the really cheap Android tablets were sold from places like Big Lots ($69 specials) that make up that total. Oh, and we're talking about iPhone sales, not ALL iOS devices. That Android activation number is a grand total for any device running Android, not just phones. I'm sure we'll get to hear how many iPads, iPad minis and iPod Touches will ADD to that total number. If not for this call, definitely when iOS 7 is announced. 

 

Meanwhile, Apple is ONE company making and selling iPhones, a total of 3 models to be exact. Considering the cheapest one is $449, they don't have the bottom-of-the-barrel crap adding up their numbers like, say Samesung. Samesung is trying to be Apple, but Apple isn't trying to be Samesung, remember? 

 

If Apple does come out with a new entry-level iPhone priced around $349 for developing and prepaid markets, it still won't be nearly as crappy as what Samesung is offering at the bottom. I've read of many of the quality problem from devices like the Galaxy Proclaim... not pretty. 

 

But, then again, Samesung is having some problems of their own with the beloved Galaxy SIII. Where are all the Apple bashers to come out stomping their feet and pouting that the GSIII has potentially SEVERE problems? Oh, that's right... it's Samesung and they can do no wrong. It's not newsworthy.  

 

http://www.androidauthority.com/galaxy-s3-sudden-death-mainboard-issue-141783/

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
  • Verizon numbers hint Apple may have shipped more than 50M iPhones last quarter
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › Verizon numbers hint Apple may have shipped more than 50M iPhones last quarter