or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › WSJ backpedals on iPhone 5c supply chain cuts story
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

WSJ backpedals on iPhone 5c supply chain cuts story - Page 2

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

There were 9 million sold opening weekend this year, and 6 million opening weekend last year.
But how do you equate this with the success of the 5c. If they had simply followed historical patterns and offered the last years 5, might it have done just as well? I think it would have based on how well the 4 did to the 4S. I believe the iPhone overall has consistently done better than the previous year, as I said above. So I still don't see the 5c being justified.
post #42 of 85
Nice piece on how reading the supply chain can be misleading and how some analysts still do it despite the misleading conclusions.

For his next exposé, DED will scrutinize rumor web sites that slavishly publicize these analyst reports and how some of them even vouch for the accuracy of their favorite analyst, Ming-Chi Kuo.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #43 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post

The 5C isn't the flagship and you can't compare percentages that way with any real meaning with out the total number.
How do you figure?

The 4s wasn't the flagship model compared to last years 5. Yet I can compare last years percentages to this years. We have total numbers:

4s - 24% of 6 million
5c - 27% of 9 million

Apple still made a sizable investment in the 5c, that likely did not yield them any more income than they would have received had they simply discounted last years 5 as they had done in previous years.

Does the 5c cost less to make? Perhaps. But does that recoup the massive expenditure to redesign, engineer, test and market it? As I look at it, it appears as though they are losing money over having done nothing.

Now could you argue the 5c promotion drew people into the stores who ended up buying more 5s models than they otherwise would have sold? Perhaps. But I'm not yet convinced the 5c wasn't a mistake no matter how well the brand is selling overall. The will tell.
post #44 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgoodwin1 View Post

Yes. The 27% of Apple's sales of iPhone is huge considering it's essentially an iPhone 5. With the price difference, I didn't expect the 5c to be the highest demand model. And it's possible that the profit margin on the 5c is higher (in percent of unit price) if indeed it uses mostly iPhone 5 parts (which at this point in time are cheaper than the 5s parts). Seems like the 5c is highly successful. I don't know what Apple's expectations were, but I don't see where they would be disappointed at all.

 

When you redesign an old model to make it new, then advertise the crap out of it while basically ignoring the flagship model... well, you can bet that Apple is banking on the 5c to perform really really well. Disappointed? I doubt it. It is selling in the millions. Wanting it to do better? I'd say yes, a lot better.

 

Oh, by the way, that 27% figure that you use... that's US only and with a high margin of error rate. We still haven't seen any figures from anywhere else. It could be as low as 15% or as high as 40%... we just don't know.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #45 of 85
Quote: Apple's plan to "broaden its appeal with a cheaper version of the iPhone [...] appears to be faltering after a few weeks."

I wasn't aware that was Apple's plan. It was the plan that media pundits were suggesting that Apple adopt, but that's not the same thing. And given how overpriced the iPhone 5c is for what customers get, that's clearly not what Apple's executives intended with the model.

Rather than the 'c' standing for 'cheap,' it stands for 'color.' And they clearly hoped the Apple magic would persuade millions of people that last year's hardware in a ho-hum color case that looks like dozens of other phones was brilliant and innovative. We're now waiting to seem if that's true.

Keep in mind that the iPhone 5s is about twice as powerful and comes in a much more attractive case. If you compute out the cost over the term of the contract, the difference between the two is only about a dime to a quarter a day. Those who get the 5s will get that added cost back when they sell. Those who get the 5c will be lucky if they can sell theirs at anything other that fire sale prices.

Apple could have done something bold with the 5c, creating a smartphone for the many people who don't have an excess of disposable income. But it didn't and apparently never even tried.
post #46 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


How do you figure?

The 4s wasn't the flagship model compared to last years 5. Yet I can compare last years percentages to this years. We have total numbers:

4s - 24% of 6 million
5c - 27% of 9 million

Apple still made a sizable investment in the 5c, that likely did not yield them any more income than they would have received had they simply discounted last years 5 as they had done in previous years.

Does the 5c cost less to make? Perhaps. But does that recoup the massive expenditure to redesign, engineer, test and market it? As I look at it, it appears as though they are losing money over having done nothing.

Now could you argue the 5c promotion drew people into the stores who ended up buying more 5s models than they otherwise would have sold? Perhaps. But I'm not yet convinced the 5c wasn't a mistake no matter how well the brand is selling overall. The will tell.

 

Mac

 

As mentioned above.

 

Bandying about that 27% of 9 million figure might not be a good idea. It's a US figure only. So, unless Apple sold 9 million units in the US then... well, I'm sure you get it.

 

Trouble is... none of us really knows anything and I doubt if Apple will ever let us in on the secret. If we call out the analysts then we have to admit that our guesses aren't any better.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #47 of 85
I've pointed out that Cook warned against making predictions based on limited supply chain rumors, but the analysts continue with spreading their false information.

IMO, these analysts are just like carnival fortune tellers, only they're not as accurate or as entertaining.
post #48 of 85

WSJ, NYT are becoming nothing more than inaccurate rumor sites! Their revision on this issue is too little, too late. My guess is they're trying to manipulate the stock market. Someone should look into this and write an article. It doesn't have to be factual, just negative. 

post #49 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


But how do you equate this with the success of the 5c. If they had simply followed historical patterns and offered the last years 5, might it have done just as well? I think it would have based on how well the 4 did to the 4S. I believe the iPhone overall has consistently done better than the previous year, as I said above. So I still don't see the 5c being justified.

They wouldve sold a ton of the 5- sure- probably even more.  You could easily argue the minor differences (to most people- not us techies) between the 5 and 5s would have had a decent amount of cannabilization of the 5s and hurt their bottom line.  Maybe in looking at their previous sales when the 4S was the flagship, and the 4 was the mid-tier- they saw way too many of the 4 sold vs the 4s because people thought "the only difference is siri".  And they have no corrected the "exact look" problem that they had before.

The truth is- we don't know exactly everything.  But what we do know is that it has sold substantially more than the 4s the previous year- as has the 5s vs the 5.  So while we can argue they could have sold x% more of XYZ iphone- that's an argument that can never be answered because we'll never know.  But when we look at the numbers sold across the board- it's a massive win in both the "mid-tier" and "top-tier" for Apple- and that's a great thing.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #50 of 85
It always seems so odd why people would go out of their way to say that a particular company's product isn't selling well. There must dozens of tech companies who have products that aren't selling all that well. Take H-P or ASUS. Both of those companies have been struggling for a long time with poor product sales but you don't hear daily reports about any of their products not selling well. One just has to think when these reports about Apple having poor sales that it's some agenda-driven reason. Why should it be so important to report on Apple product sales daily? It just doesn't make any practical sense. Isn't anyone concerned with how many Kindle Fire HDXs are being sold? I constantly hear about the HDX as being stiff competition to the iPad Mini, but I never hear any numbers to back that up. I'm only saying that why should the news media always single Apple out of the pack.
post #51 of 85

Sometimes their bs affects a stock price in a positive way.  It's just entertainment, like a supermarket checkout line fan mag.  The press is a business.  It hawks what sells.

 

Of greater significance is how stupid "investors" (including many a highly paid fund manager) really are who don't understand this.  They are the ones "affect[ing] the stock price in a negative way".  

 

The press doesn't buy and sell.  It's audience does.  And that is why the markets are such crap shoots and always will be.

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

It didn't sound like the WSJ was back pedaling to me. It was still a very negative article with an obvious anti Apple slant.

I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.

Retailers have been overstocked with the device since launch which means Apple probably anticipated higher demand for the 5C.

Add in the fact that Apple has launched a massive global advertising campaign for the 5C and it can barely muster a 27% share of sales is also very telling.

...a 27% share of sales is also very telling.

In what way?  The 5c has been on sale in the U.S. for less than a month and other countries for even less time.  How is that enough time to prove a product is a success or failure.  The average consumer doesn't just rush out a buy a product as soon as it's released.  Give it a few months and then you'll have a much better picture.  This reasoning about how a product can be a success or failure based on initial or early sales isn't sound.  You say retailers have been overstocked with 5c units.  What do you consider overstock?  That the product doesn't stay sold out?  You don't have a clue how many 5c units are in any any retail store at any moment.  Only the store would know that information and you can't go by just one or two stores.  You don't know what Apple's sales expectations of the 5c were.  Only Apple could tell you that with any certainty.  If you're talking about analysts' expectations, forget them because they're just a bunch of agenda-driven, hedge fund butt-kissing sock-puppets.

post #53 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post


How do you figure?

The 4s wasn't the flagship model compared to last years 5. Yet I can compare last years percentages to this years. We have total numbers:

4s - 24% of 6 million
5c - 27% of 9 million

Apple still made a sizable investment in the 5c, that likely did not yield them any more income than they would have received had they simply discounted last years 5 as they had done in previous years.

Does the 5c cost less to make? Perhaps. But does that recoup the massive expenditure to redesign, engineer, test and market it? As I look at it, it appears as though they are losing money over having done nothing.

Now could you argue the 5c promotion drew people into the stores who ended up buying more 5s models than they otherwise would have sold? Perhaps. But I'm not yet convinced the 5c wasn't a mistake no matter how well the brand is selling overall. The will tell.

You seem to be claiming that because the percentages remain largely unchanged between the 4s and 5c that Apple failed.

 

But look at the figures;

 

24% of 6m = 1.44m

27% of 9m = 2.43m

 

Therefore its clear that the 5c sold 68% more than the 4s did.

 

your argument that apple would have increased sales by 3% regardless also doesn't stack up, a 3% increase on sales of 1.44m is 1.48m, so taking into account natural market growth, still means that the 5c increase sales by 66%.

post #54 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by bananaman View Post

on the high note apple just reached $500 today again.
YAY.

Half way to my goal. 1wink.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #55 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Constable Odo View Post

It always seems so odd why people would go out of their way to say that a particular company's product isn't selling well. There must dozens of tech companies who have products that aren't selling all that well. Take H-P or ASUS. Both of those companies have been struggling for a long time with poor product sales but you don't hear daily reports about any of their products not selling well. One just has to think when these reports about Apple having poor sales that it's some agenda-driven reason. Why should it be so important to report on Apple product sales daily? It just doesn't make any practical sense. Isn't anyone concerned with how many Kindle Fire HDXs are being sold? I constantly hear about the HDX as being stiff competition to the iPad Mini, but I never hear any numbers to back that up. I'm only saying that why should the news media always single Apple out of the pack.

My theory is either it's deliberate manipulation or they are die hard Microcrap/PC users that hate Apple has shat (UK past tense) all over MS. Sometimes they might be both I guess. 1biggrin.gif
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
From Apple ][ - to new Mac Pro I've used them all.
Long on AAPL so biased
Google Motto "You're not the customer. You're the product."
Reply
post #56 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee6370 View Post
 

You seem to be claiming that because the percentages remain largely unchanged between the 4s and 5c that Apple failed.

 

But look at the figures;

 

24% of 6m = 1.44m

27% of 9m = 2.43m

 

Therefore its clear that the 5c sold 68% more than the 4s did.

 

your argument that apple would have increased sales by 3% regardless also doesn't stack up, a 3% increase on sales of 1.44m is 1.48m, so taking into account natural market growth, still means that the 5c increase sales by 66%.

 

No no no!

 

That 27% figure is for the US only.

 

For all you know they shipped 3 million units to China with only a 15% sell rate.

 

The 23% and 27% figures are not even valid for a real discussion unless you know the numbers available and sold in the US for the 4s last year and the same for the 5c this year.

 

[iow - the yoy growth in the US, according to the figures used form that study, was a statistical dead heat.]


Edited by island hermit - 10/17/13 at 8:26am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #57 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

How do you figure?

The 4s wasn't the flagship model compared to last years 5. Yet I can compare last years percentages to this years. We have total numbers:

4s - 24% of 6 million
5c - 27% of 9 million
Quote:
Originally Posted by lee6370 View Post

You seem to be claiming that because the percentages remain largely unchanged between the 4s and 5c that Apple failed.

But look at the figures;

24% of 6m = 1.44m
27% of 9m = 2.43m

Therefore its clear that the 5c sold 68% more than the 4s did.

your argument that apple would have increased sales by 3% regardless also doesn't stack up, a 3% increase on sales of 1.44m is 1.48m, so taking into account natural market growth, still means that the 5c increase sales by 66%.

Beat me to it.
post #58 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

No no no!

 

That 27% figure is for the US only.

 

For all you know they shipped 3 million units to China with only a 15% sell rate.

 

The 23% and 27% figures are not even valid for a real discussion unless you know the numbers available and sold in the US for the 4s last year and the same for the 5c this year.

 

[iow - the yoy growth in the US, according to the figures used form that study, was a statistical dead heat.]

If China got 3 million units and only a 15% rate (both estimations which are likely skewed to the point you're making)- thats 450,000 more units still.

 

24% of 6m = 1.44m

27% of 6m = 1.62m + .45m = 2.07m or a 44% increase year over year.

 

Even with your skewed numbers its a home run

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #59 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

If China got 3 million units and only a 15% rate (both estimations which are likely skewed to the point you're making)- thats 450,000 more units still.

 

24% of 6m = 1.44m

27% of 6m = 1.62m + .45m = 2.07m or a 44% increase year over year.

 

Even with your skewed numbers its a home run

 

So no 5c units were sold in Europe or the rest of the world?

 

The 4s wasn't sold in China or the rest of the world?

 

The margin of error rate between 23% and 27%

 

You've forgotten a few things.

 

That was a US study. Get over it.

 

We don't know availabilities of either phone in the US.

 

A study of yoy growth in China and Europe might tell us more. Not sure.

 

Is the 23% vs. 27% even a valid barometer (I like that word) for yoy growth?

 

I don't know. You don't know.

 

... but you can keep banging away at it if you wish.


Edited by island hermit - 10/17/13 at 8:56am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #60 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post
 

 

So no 5c units were sold in Europe or the rest of the world?

 

The 4s wasn't sold in China or the rest of the world?

 

The margin of error rate between 23% and 27%

 

You've forgotten a few things.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #61 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

 

Boy, you find it hard to admit that you don't really know.

 

You give me absolutely no figures to support your assumptions. No yoy in Europe, no yoy in China, no yoy anywhere except the States... and then you say that I am spinning the story.

 

I tell you what I know. A questionable study came out that showed yoy growth in the US in the mid tier Apple phones was 23% vs. 27%, 4s / 5c... a statistical dead heat. I also know that it might not even be a valid barometer of anything.

 

See if you can say otherwise.

 

[... and I'm sure if I was too far off the mark there would be a number of qualified posters ripping me to shreds] 


Edited by island hermit - 10/17/13 at 9:11am
na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #62 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by lkrupp View Post

What I would like to know is why investors can't sue the pants off the WSJ and other prognosticators when their erroneous reports affect the stock price in a negative way. Any lawyers or paralegals around here? It's almost tantamount to libel or slander.
I agree. Are we not getting to a point where irresponsibility by so called journalists can start to damage others financially? Yes there's freedom of the press but there has to be accountability too. These people are literally making stuff up and deriving incorrect assumptions from their false info.

Yet another great article by DED. Please keep them coming.
post #63 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

Boy, you find it hard to admit that you don't really know.

You give me absolutely no figures to support your assumptions. No yoy in Europe, no yoy in China, no yoy anywhere except the States... and then you say that I am spinning the story.

I tell you what I know. A questionable study came out that showed yoy growth in the US in the mid tier Apple phones was 23% vs. 27%, 4s / 5c... a statistical dead heat. I also know that it might not even be a valid barometer of anything.

See if you can say otherwise.

[... and I'm sure if I was too far off the mark there would be a number of qualified posters ripping me to shreds] 

Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.
post #64 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.

That's what he does.  He completely ignores the concrete- Apple reported- numbers that shoot holes in his theory.  He won't mention percentages and the 6 million vs 9 million in the same sentence.  Anyone with an inkling of math knowledge knows he's wrong.

 

Not that I need validation to know if I'm correct or not- he apparently does.  He also fails to see you, me, lee, Constable, ikrupp, etc. telling him he's wrong- or "ripping him to shreds" in his words.  In the meantime, he can see no one has disputed what I said.  But it's such a small sample size, so with margin of error and adding and subtracting where needed, we really have 3 people telling me I'm wrong and only 2 telling him. /s

 

Edit: of course, that could also be because no one wants to argue with either of us. :lol:


Edited by Andysol - 10/17/13 at 9:43am

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini Retina, iPhone 6, iPhone 5S, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #65 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Ugh. You can't compare percentages yoy. Different sample sizes. If you want to compare numbers, you compare the raw data and you'll see growth isn't statistically insignificant.

 

 

So you are saying that yoy growth is not a significant factor?

 

(btw - thank you for the 'raw data' comment. I agree completely. Raw data is not something that we have or will ever have... if I understand you correctly)

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #66 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post
 

That's what he does.  He completely ignores the concrete- Apple reported- numbers that shoot holes in his theory.  He won't mention percentages and the 6 million vs 9 million in the same sentence.  Anyone with an inkling of math knowledge knows he's wrong.

 

Not that I need validation to know if I'm correct or not- he apparently does.  He also fails to see you, me, lee, Constable, ikrupp, etc. telling him he's wrong- or "ripping him to shreds" in his words.  In the meantime, he can see no one has disputed what I said.  But it's such a small sample size, so with margin of error and adding and subtracting where needed, we really have 3 people telling me I'm wrong and only 2 telling him. /s

 

You and jungmark are the only ones who have said anything about by comments.

 

When Anan, jragosta, TS and a few others say something, then I'll listen, but not to a couple of amateur no nothings that have no more clue than I do.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #67 of 85
Anyone who can afford a $70 /mo contract can afford an extra 14 cents/day to move up from last year's phone to a 5S.

But there are a lot of people out there who can't do math so I'm sure the 5C will do just fine in the long run, especially for Apple who make huge margins on them.
post #68 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

Apple still made a sizable investment in the 5c, that likely did not yield them any more income than they would have received had they simply discounted last years 5 as they had done in previous years.

Does the 5c cost less to make? Perhaps. But does that recoup the massive expenditure to redesign, engineer, test and market it? As I look at it, it appears as though they are losing money over having done nothing.

What massive expenditure? Let's suppose Apple had 100 people working for a year specifically on the 5c. That's being very generous as I very much doubt repackaging the 5 cost 100 man-years of effort. At a generous $200k per person, that's $20m. Add another $20m for retooling costs gives us $40m. Suppose the new 5c saves $10 per unit to manufacture. It's more than that but let's be stingy.

If Apple sells 4m 5Cs over it's lifetime, it will have increased its revenue over "doing nothing". Since they will sell far more than that, it's clearly a win and a big one.

More importantly, the 5C gives them a clear differentiation between the high end phone and the mid range phone. It potentially appeals to a different set of customers. And the redesign with better frequency support let's them sell in more markets.

Even if the 5C sold at the same level as the 4s, it would still be a clear win for Apple.
post #69 of 85
Just wait until the 5s parents start their holiday purchasing of kids 5c's. I am. As for this WSJ article, people need to understand it's basically an editorial. Lorraine Luk, Eva Dou and Ian Sherr are fiction writers and their stuff is always worth a good laugh.
post #70 of 85
So-called reporting as has been seen from analysts and bloggers making claims on Apple product viabilities emphasizes the value of true journalists in information conveyance. Amateurs have a loose grasp - if any - on true facts, don't know how to compile and correlate facts, and don't know how to form valid conclusions. They also disregard the advice of those in possession of facts. Fools rush in...
post #71 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post


So you are saying that yoy growth is not a significant factor?

(btw - thank you for the 'raw data' comment. I agree completely. Raw data is not something that we have or will ever have... if I understand you correctly)

Read it again. Isn't statistically insignificant = is statistically significant.
post #72 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by jungmark View Post


Read it again. Isn't statistically insignificant = is statistically significant.

 

So, 23% compared to 27%, yoy in the US, with a margin of error that makes it a dead heat.

 

I agree.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #73 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by island hermit View Post

So, 23% compared to 27%, yoy in the US, with a margin of error that makes it a dead heat.

I agree.

I give up. Selling 23/100 is not comparable to selling 54/200. While percentage is 4% difference, the growth is >100%. Note these are exaggerated fake numbers but proves the sample size is relavent to the percentage.
post #74 of 85
I should not surprise anybody that a paper who consistently uses phrases such as "people close to the matter said", "sources familiar with the product said" and other vague attributions that have no confirmation to any solid or credible source, is backpedalling on their story? The Wall Street Journal has turned in to a publication that reminds me of the National Inquirer. I'm astounded at how a publication that is supposed to have such high standards does so many stories where they quote sources of information but put no names to the source. Every time I read one of their articles, such as the one this morning about the iPhone 5c, that has no credible sources quoted, I feel like I'm reading a general, daily tabloid rag. Should we expect anything different from a news organization, owned by the same person, Ruper Murdoch, who also owns News of the World, that was responsible for hacking the phones of celebrities and other people. What a shame for the world of ethics that Murdock has gained so much media power. I long for the days of news organizations and news leaders such as Ted Turner who have a conscience. If anyone is interested in reading more about the conscience and ethics of a great news leader pick up the recently released Last Stand, by Todd Wilkinson. I couldn't put it down.

Daniel J. Cox
post #75 of 85

The photo of the three executives reveals an issue which the WSJ should really be asking about:  What the heck is wrong with Jony Ive's right foot? 

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


I give up. Selling 23/100 is not comparable to selling 54/200. While percentage is 4% difference, the growth is >100%. Note these are exaggerated fake numbers but proves the sample size is relavent to the percentage.

 

You're saying that the US population increased that much yoy to make that much of a difference.

 

Wow! Sorry, I didn't know that.

na na na na na...
Reply
na na na na na...
Reply
post #77 of 85
It is entirely possible that 5C sales have exceeded Apple projections.

Has it occurred to any of these people that Apple would have ordered an excess over its actual projections for 5Cs if it had the lead time, knowing that it would prevent shortages and it could sell through them easily and could carry them at near-zero interest rates for a few months? If it is only cutting ballpark 30% to arrive at its longer term run rate (which would include the calculation for selling thru any surplus on hand already) then this might imply extremely high sales compared to the company's own expectations.

It should also be very good news if one were to apply the interpretation that the 5S enjoys a higher rate of preference among customers than anticipated, price be damned.

Finally, let me observe the obvious business basic that you set your MSRP at the most anybody would want to charge, and leave your customers room to offer sales and specials and bundles and trades and combo deals to their customers.

Sheez, did ANY of these guys ever run any sort of business, or did they just go to B-school.

The thing is, as Mr. Cook cautioned, you don't know. I don't quite get the confirmation bias, but there it is. Trade it.
post #78 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.

 

Are you absolutely sure what Apple's expectations are? 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by blackbook View Post

I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.

Add in the fact that Apple has launched a massive global advertising campaign for the 5C and it can barely muster a 27% share of sales is also very telling.

 

What exactly is "telling?"

 

What if Apple only expected the 5C to make up only 15% of new phone sales?

 

Whether the 5C's expected share of new sales was 15% or 27% or 50% doesn't matter -- you have no idea what Apple was expecting, so sorry, your statements aren't very "telling" at all.

 

Unless you (blackbook) happen to be Tim Cook or someone else on Apple's executive team you have no facts to support any opinion... 


Edited by smackdown - 10/17/13 at 2:58pm
post #79 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by danieljcox View Post

I should not surprise anybody that a paper who consistently uses phrases such as "people close to the matter said", "sources familiar with the product said" and other vague attributions that have no confirmation to any solid or credible source, is backpedalling on their story? The Wall Street Journal has turned in to a publication that reminds me of the National Inquirer
I long for the days of news organizations and news leaders such as Ted Turner who have a conscience.

 

National Inquirer (Enquirer)??? You're being too gracious!  WSJ should be called "The Dumb & Dumber Handbook!" Have you watched anything on WSJ Live lately? I have no idea how WSJ can produce such rubbish. 

 

Forget about a conscience -- I long for the days when some "news organizations" had half a brain!

post #80 of 85
Quote:
Originally Posted by crazy_mac_lover View Post

There is no justice on AAPL. Any bullshit that sounds logically correct can apply on Apple .
Headlines like this may make AAPL drop :
Check on Foxconn food supplier on food orders cut implies Apple doesn't need so many people to make iPhones so there is no need to order some much rice.


Yes  headlines like this do drop Apple's stock price.

IMO WSJ is simply trying to get attention to their out of date dying publication.

 

As for me any publication creating trash news stories will not get my read.

Be gone to the archives, WSJ !!!

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPhone
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPhone › WSJ backpedals on iPhone 5c supply chain cuts story