Are we talking about the same Wall Street Journal that wrote about Apple cutting orders for parts due to weak demand for the iPhone 5 last year? Last year, it was right before earnings as well. Of course, it turned out to be false. This is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the price of the stock before earnings. Tim Cook then at the earnings call said you can't predict what we are doing based on a few data points from our supply chain. It is funny how lots of people on this board hate analysts in all matters except negative reports concerning the iPhone 5C perhaps because it supports their dislike for the phone.
I do not get all the hate for the iPhone 5C. It is not supposed to be as great as the 5S. It, however, is a good choice for many people. It has a better radio, Facetime camera, and improved radio then last years model at a cheaper price point. The only downside is a plastic case, which just about every other phone on the planet is made from including top phones by Samsung. Apple's top selling iBooks and iMacs used to be made from plastic as well.
Stock is up pre market. Analyst upgrade to buy too. The media is trying hard to paint a D&G picture but Wall Street doesn't seem to care.
Hey, I've got no problems about the 5C selling well. If you believe the reports it's not selling nearly as well as expected. Hence production being cut back.
The only issue I have is with the reasoning you offered. There's zero reason why Apple introduced what is essentially a new product line as a draw to sell the premium model. Clearly Apple thought this model would squeeze gangbusters sales from old hardware. It seems the reality is not the case. Otherwise they would have done the same thing they did last year and repackage last year's model, in the same form factor, with a fixed capacity.
I still submit your reasoning is flawed. Apple doesn't display its feathers as an inducement to buy another of its products instead. It wants you to buy as many of whatever it is offering as possible.
Disappointing is a relative term but from reports it seems pretty clear that sales have not met expectations.
Your only argument appears to be to give links to articles by journalists who have never managed a major brand in their life, let alone the No. 1 premium brand in the world, who claim in their ignorance that the 5C is a "failure".
Some failue, when the 5C is outselling their main competitor's supposedly "best selling" Galaxy S4 ....LOL
If BMW, Mercedes. Audi, Porsche, Ferrari etc. found that their flagship model was oustelling their affordable model, they would be disappointed. Pull the other one....LOL
Remember when Steve Jobs dropped the price of the original iPhone?
Not really. The original iPhone was not subsidized. You paid full price. AT&T and Apple renegotiated their contract. If you recall, the original iPhones could be activated using iTunes. It was really easy to unlock them without signing up with AT&T. The rumor is AT&T agreed to subsidize the phone, and shorten the time of exclusivity in exchange for Apple dropping the iTunes activation process and requiring all iPhones sold in the US to be activated in the store.
I would not at all be surprised if this story is true. It was quite obvious that the relative pricing of the 5C was a mistake from the get-go. Apple had a chance to blow away the competition there, but chose not to do it.
Many of us called it on Day 1, and took grief for it.
I have no doubt that there will be a mea culpa and the pricing will be changed. Not a big deal, Apple has done it before, most famously with the original iPhone.
Btw, give journalists a bit of a break. Some of the conspiratorial comments here about the WSJ -- no, I don't work for them -- border on paranoia. They're just doing their job. Sometimes they may get wrong, but a lot of the times, they are spot on.
Actually, It does have a backbone and is just common sense.
Example : My wife, a nurse, doesn't get the big salary needed to buy a new iPhone every two years. She is, in fact, using my 3GS with a sim only. But the lack of iOS7 support ( and slowness ) is causing the update. She will be getting the 5s as it will probably last her a couple of years longer.
Implying that Apple wants us to buy the 5s because of the higher price is of course correct. However, if you price the two too close together, you'll end up with quite a few unsold 5c's.
And that might to be the case. At least not as many sold as previously projected. If it turns out to be true.
I would not at all be surprised if this story is true. It was quite obvious that the relative pricing of the 5C was a mistake from the get-go. Apple had a chance to blow away the competition there, but chose not to do it.
Many of us called it on Day 1, and took grief for it.
I have no doubt that there will be a mea culpa and the pricing will be changed. Not a big deal, Apple has done it before, most famously with the original iPhone.
Btw, give journalists a bit of a break. Some of the conspiratorial comments here about the WSJ -- no, I don't work for them -- border on paranoia. They're just doing their job. Sometimes they may get wrong, but a lot of the times, they are spot on.
Except Apple did not change the price for the original iPhone. Originally it was not subsidized. AT&T then subsidized it. Apple made the same amount of money.
Having no doubt seems pretty confident concerning a topic I doubt you have access to the appropriate data. Keep in mind, it is the same Wall Street Journal who in January said iPhone 5 sales were weak due to a 50% reduction in part orders. It was way wrong. This is the same pattern. It also is not the job of the WSJ to try and figure out how a company's sales are going by trying to acquire confidential information especially when it often times does a disservice to people who actually might rely on the information.
I would not at all be surprised if this story is true. It was quite obvious that the relative pricing of the 5C was a mistake from the get-go. Apple had a chance to blow away the competition there, but chose not to do it.
Many of us called it on Day 1, and took grief for it.
I have no doubt that there will be a mea culpa and the pricing will be changed. Not a big deal, Apple has done it before, most famously with the original iPhone.
Btw, give journalists a bit of a break. Some of the conspiratorial comments here about the WSJ -- no, I don't work for them -- border on paranoia. They're just doing their job. Sometimes they may get wrong, but a lot of the times, they are spot on.
I was one who questioned the pricing of the 5C, but can we wait for Apple's earnings call before we start calling things a mistake?!? And no I'm not going to give the journalists a break. Why should we? Reporting supply chain rumors and trying to infer something from it isn't doing their job. Even if these rumors are accurate we don't know the reason behind them. Of course that won't stop the WSJ and others from making assumptions.
This is a lot of peoples argument against the 5c, but it has no backbone.
Nobody complained about the 4S when the 5 was around. There was a $100 difference then. If you were buying a new upgrade, it makes sense for $100 to get the latest.
Oh, and it was the same with the previous generation, and generation before that, and generation before that.
Only now people are complaining about price. Why? Because loser analysts started a rumour that it was going to be radically cheaper. They were wrong. Yet people still talk about price. Pretty ridiculous, really.
The only comparisons people should make are what is different. The iPhone 5c takes what would of been the iPhone 5's spot (mid tier). The iPhone 5c comes in 5 coloured plastics, it has a slightly better battery and supports many, many more 4G base bands. So Apple has upgraded the 5, for free, as it is the same price as what the 5 would of been.
/rant
BINGO!
Quote:
Originally Posted by saarek
True but the 4s had the same glass and aluminium construction, the 5c has a cheaper plastic case. It should be cheaper.
It is also easier to manufacture. That is the reason they went there. Think they would have been able to get 9 million in the hands of consumers in one weekend with the anodization? That was slow.
Quote:
Originally Posted by asdasd
The problem with this reasoning is simple - it doesn't explain why Apple didn't continue with the old strategy and created two models. Despite what you say the two models strategy is not the same at all - for instance the iPhone 5C will be updated as long as the 5S is with new OS releases. As the release is the same year.
Clearly apple expected higher sales from this, hence the cut in orders. Would orders have to be cut were the iPhone 5 C $200 cheaper than the 5S. Probably not.
If the high price of the 5C is driving higher than expected 5S sales apple will be happy enough for now, for Christmas and Chinese New Years. They can offer discounts in
Feb.
However unless these reports are wrong Apple miscalculated, and having too much inventory in the Channel is not a good thing.
Why did they miscalculate? That should be the question as it seems critics of the price were correct.
Who says they miscalculated? You? Notice these stories always come a week or so prior to their earnings report? And Tim says "don't take a report of one manufacturer and try and make connections" and Peter O can say "We order an amount up front to get pricing, and cut later"
So, those "stories" will come up next Wednesday night/Thursday
Btw, give journalists a bit of a break. Some of the conspiratorial comments here about the WSJ -- no, I don't work for them -- border on paranoia. They're just doing their job. Sometimes they may get wrong, but a lot of the times, they are spot on.
The point is no, they don't do their job. They may do their job if it is hating on Apple. Seriously, they got called out time and time again for their atrocious reports on Apple. Just because this news fit your agenda doesn't mean it's trustworthy.
Are we talking about the same Wall Street Journal that wrote about Apple cutting orders for parts due to weak demand for the iPhone 5 last year? Last year, it was right before earnings as well. Of course, it turned out to be false. This is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the price of the stock before earnings.
Actually, it was probably true that orders were cut but when that happens in January it's because of weaker demand, not weak demand. That's where WSJ got it wrong.
When it happens now, then that could indicate weak demand.
I was one who questioned the pricing of the 5C, but can we wait for Apple's earnings call before we start calling things a mistake?!? And no I'm not going to give the journalists a break. Why should we? Reporting supply chain rumors and trying to infer something from it isn't doing their job. Even if these rumors are accurate we don't know the reason behind them. Of course that won't stop the WSJ and others from making assumptions.
If Apple stays true to form and doesn't break down the units sold by model number then how does the earnings call help us determine the 5c's popularity?
Except Apple did not change the price for the original iPhone. Originally it was not subsidized. AT&T then subsidized it. Apple made the same amount of money.
Actually, it was probably true that orders were cut but when that happens in January it's because of weaker demand, not weak demand. That's where WSJ got it wrong.
When it happens now, then that could indicate weak demand.
Yes, it could indicate weak demand. It also could indicate efficient estimating or proper planning (yes, I appreciate alliteration), ensuring the channel is well stocked, they have the average on hand. Remember, they can build these 5c phones faster than the 5 or 5s.
If Apple stays true to form and doesn't break down the units sold by model number then how does the earnings call help us determine the 5c's popularity?
Apple discloses ASP's and margins. And even though Apple won't disclose sales figures no doubt Tim and Peter will get a lot of questions on the 5C. I think we'll be able to infer plenty from their comments along with ASP and margin figures.
Apple discloses ASP's and margins. And even though Apple won't disclose sales figures no doubt Tim and Peter will get a lot of questions on the 5C. I think we'll be able to infer plenty from their comments along with ASP and margin figures.
I can almost guarantee you that they will say it is selling well, just as much as I can almost guarantee you that they won't say it isn't selling as well as they had hoped.
Yes, it could indicate weak demand. It also could indicate efficient estimating or proper planning (yes, I appreciate alliteration), ensuring the channel is well stocked, they have the average on hand. Remember, they can build these 5c phones faster than the 5 or 5s.
What happened to that same efficient estimating and proper planning with the 5s.
Comments
Stock is up pre market. Analyst upgrade to buy too. The media is trying hard to paint a D&G picture but Wall Street doesn't seem to care.
Hey, I've got no problems about the 5C selling well. If you believe the reports it's not selling nearly as well as expected. Hence production being cut back.
The only issue I have is with the reasoning you offered. There's zero reason why Apple introduced what is essentially a new product line as a draw to sell the premium model. Clearly Apple thought this model would squeeze gangbusters sales from old hardware. It seems the reality is not the case. Otherwise they would have done the same thing they did last year and repackage last year's model, in the same form factor, with a fixed capacity.
I still submit your reasoning is flawed. Apple doesn't display its feathers as an inducement to buy another of its products instead. It wants you to buy as many of whatever it is offering as possible.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2013/10/16/uk-apple-5c-idUKBRE99F08K20131016
http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/australian-telcos-struggle-to-sell-iphone-5c-20130924-2ubc5.html
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101110056
http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/10/15/apparently-apples-iphone-5c-is-a-failure-already/
Disappointing is a relative term but from reports it seems pretty clear that sales have not met expectations.
Your only argument appears to be to give links to articles by journalists who have never managed a major brand in their life, let alone the No. 1 premium brand in the world, who claim in their ignorance that the 5C is a "failure".
Some failue, when the 5C is outselling their main competitor's supposedly "best selling" Galaxy S4 ....LOL
If BMW, Mercedes. Audi, Porsche, Ferrari etc. found that their flagship model was oustelling their affordable model, they would be disappointed. Pull the other one....LOL
Remember when Steve Jobs dropped the price of the original iPhone?
Not really. The original iPhone was not subsidized. You paid full price. AT&T and Apple renegotiated their contract. If you recall, the original iPhones could be activated using iTunes. It was really easy to unlock them without signing up with AT&T. The rumor is AT&T agreed to subsidize the phone, and shorten the time of exclusivity in exchange for Apple dropping the iTunes activation process and requiring all iPhones sold in the US to be activated in the store.
Many of us called it on Day 1, and took grief for it.
I have no doubt that there will be a mea culpa and the pricing will be changed. Not a big deal, Apple has done it before, most famously with the original iPhone.
Btw, give journalists a bit of a break. Some of the conspiratorial comments here about the WSJ -- no, I don't work for them -- border on paranoia. They're just doing their job. Sometimes they may get wrong, but a lot of the times, they are spot on.
Stock is up pre market. Analyst upgrade to buy too. The media is trying hard to paint a D&G picture but Wall Street doesn't seem to care.
Wall Street doesn't care today.
Actually, It does have a backbone and is just common sense.
Example : My wife, a nurse, doesn't get the big salary needed to buy a new iPhone every two years. She is, in fact, using my 3GS with a sim only. But the lack of iOS7 support ( and slowness ) is causing the update. She will be getting the 5s as it will probably last her a couple of years longer.
Implying that Apple wants us to buy the 5s because of the higher price is of course correct. However, if you price the two too close together, you'll end up with quite a few unsold 5c's.
And that might to be the case. At least not as many sold as previously projected. If it turns out to be true.
I said it before and I still maintain, it's all about the lack of colours that's 'hurting' sales of the 5C.
All Cook needs to do a next week's Apple event is announce that they're adding Space Grey and / or Piano Black colours to the iPhone 5c lineup. Boom.
I would not at all be surprised if this story is true. It was quite obvious that the relative pricing of the 5C was a mistake from the get-go. Apple had a chance to blow away the competition there, but chose not to do it.
Many of us called it on Day 1, and took grief for it.
I have no doubt that there will be a mea culpa and the pricing will be changed. Not a big deal, Apple has done it before, most famously with the original iPhone.
Btw, give journalists a bit of a break. Some of the conspiratorial comments here about the WSJ -- no, I don't work for them -- border on paranoia. They're just doing their job. Sometimes they may get wrong, but a lot of the times, they are spot on.
Except Apple did not change the price for the original iPhone. Originally it was not subsidized. AT&T then subsidized it. Apple made the same amount of money.
Having no doubt seems pretty confident concerning a topic I doubt you have access to the appropriate data. Keep in mind, it is the same Wall Street Journal who in January said iPhone 5 sales were weak due to a 50% reduction in part orders. It was way wrong. This is the same pattern. It also is not the job of the WSJ to try and figure out how a company's sales are going by trying to acquire confidential information especially when it often times does a disservice to people who actually might rely on the information.
I was one who questioned the pricing of the 5C, but can we wait for Apple's earnings call before we start calling things a mistake?!? And no I'm not going to give the journalists a break. Why should we? Reporting supply chain rumors and trying to infer something from it isn't doing their job. Even if these rumors are accurate we don't know the reason behind them. Of course that won't stop the WSJ and others from making assumptions.
This is a lot of peoples argument against the 5c, but it has no backbone.
Nobody complained about the 4S when the 5 was around. There was a $100 difference then. If you were buying a new upgrade, it makes sense for $100 to get the latest.
Oh, and it was the same with the previous generation, and generation before that, and generation before that.
Only now people are complaining about price. Why? Because loser analysts started a rumour that it was going to be radically cheaper. They were wrong. Yet people still talk about price. Pretty ridiculous, really.
The only comparisons people should make are what is different. The iPhone 5c takes what would of been the iPhone 5's spot (mid tier). The iPhone 5c comes in 5 coloured plastics, it has a slightly better battery and supports many, many more 4G base bands. So Apple has upgraded the 5, for free, as it is the same price as what the 5 would of been.
/rant
BINGO!
True but the 4s had the same glass and aluminium construction, the 5c has a cheaper plastic case. It should be cheaper.
It is also easier to manufacture. That is the reason they went there. Think they would have been able to get 9 million in the hands of consumers in one weekend with the anodization? That was slow.
The problem with this reasoning is simple - it doesn't explain why Apple didn't continue with the old strategy and created two models. Despite what you say the two models strategy is not the same at all - for instance the iPhone 5C will be updated as long as the 5S is with new OS releases. As the release is the same year.
Clearly apple expected higher sales from this, hence the cut in orders. Would orders have to be cut were the iPhone 5 C $200 cheaper than the 5S. Probably not.
If the high price of the 5C is driving higher than expected 5S sales apple will be happy enough for now, for Christmas and Chinese New Years. They can offer discounts in
Feb.
However unless these reports are wrong Apple miscalculated, and having too much inventory in the Channel is not a good thing.
Why did they miscalculate? That should be the question as it seems critics of the price were correct.
Who says they miscalculated? You? Notice these stories always come a week or so prior to their earnings report? And Tim says "don't take a report of one manufacturer and try and make connections" and Peter O can say "We order an amount up front to get pricing, and cut later"
So, those "stories" will come up next Wednesday night/Thursday
Matching all your outfit to 1 colour, unless it's a wedding, is a "Fashion Don't".
Is somebody at Vogue smoking crack?
The point is no, they don't do their job. They may do their job if it is hating on Apple. Seriously, they got called out time and time again for their atrocious reports on Apple. Just because this news fit your agenda doesn't mean it's trustworthy.
Are we talking about the same Wall Street Journal that wrote about Apple cutting orders for parts due to weak demand for the iPhone 5 last year? Last year, it was right before earnings as well. Of course, it turned out to be false. This is nothing more than an attempt to manipulate the price of the stock before earnings.
Actually, it was probably true that orders were cut but when that happens in January it's because of weaker demand, not weak demand. That's where WSJ got it wrong.
When it happens now, then that could indicate weak demand.
I was one who questioned the pricing of the 5C, but can we wait for Apple's earnings call before we start calling things a mistake?!? And no I'm not going to give the journalists a break. Why should we? Reporting supply chain rumors and trying to infer something from it isn't doing their job. Even if these rumors are accurate we don't know the reason behind them. Of course that won't stop the WSJ and others from making assumptions.
If Apple stays true to form and doesn't break down the units sold by model number then how does the earnings call help us determine the 5c's popularity?
Except Apple did not change the price for the original iPhone. Originally it was not subsidized. AT&T then subsidized it. Apple made the same amount of money.
Wrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/07/technology/07apple.html?_r=0
According to who? I think I'll trust Vogue over you when it comes to fashion.
Actually, it was probably true that orders were cut but when that happens in January it's because of weaker demand, not weak demand. That's where WSJ got it wrong.
When it happens now, then that could indicate weak demand.
Yes, it could indicate weak demand. It also could indicate efficient estimating or proper planning (yes, I appreciate alliteration), ensuring the channel is well stocked, they have the average on hand. Remember, they can build these 5c phones faster than the 5 or 5s.
Apple discloses ASP's and margins. And even though Apple won't disclose sales figures no doubt Tim and Peter will get a lot of questions on the 5C. I think we'll be able to infer plenty from their comments along with ASP and margin figures.
Apple discloses ASP's and margins. And even though Apple won't disclose sales figures no doubt Tim and Peter will get a lot of questions on the 5C. I think we'll be able to infer plenty from their comments along with ASP and margin figures.
I can almost guarantee you that they will say it is selling well, just as much as I can almost guarantee you that they won't say it isn't selling as well as they had hoped.
Yes, it could indicate weak demand. It also could indicate efficient estimating or proper planning (yes, I appreciate alliteration), ensuring the channel is well stocked, they have the average on hand. Remember, they can build these 5c phones faster than the 5 or 5s.
What happened to that same efficient estimating and proper planning with the 5s.