iPhone and Mac to shine in Apple's Q2 2015 earnings, analyst says

24567

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 128
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

     



    Considering Cook's dismal performance in terms of controlling Apple's supply chain (something he used to excel at when working as COO), given the disastrous recent launches where nothing is in plentiful stock for months (MB particularly), one should actually be surprised if results are in positive territory. 

     

    As for the AWatch, can we talk LESS about it? No matter how much propaganda we receive (or 18 articles out of 20 published on AI), this won't make it any better for such a solution in search of a problem.


     

    I don't think he's somehow lost his logistics/organisational abilities. I think maybe he's pushing the boundaries of technology more than has been done in the past, and that is giving the manufacturing partners difficulties.

     

    As for the Apple Watch being a solution in search of a problem, I think the reason people are confused about what it's for is that it doesn't run a web browser and the web browser is the killer app of today.

  • Reply 22 of 128
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by brlawyer View Post

     

    As for the AWatch, can we talk LESS about it?


     

    If that's what you truly want, perhaps staying out of conversations where it's being discussed would satisfy your desire not to talk about it? You don't have to join *we* as we discuss something we find interesting and exciting, and we'd certainly be more than happy not to have to deal with the hordes of trolls repeating their tired old lines over and over and over, while at the same time demanding, "fewer stories about this new product, fewer discussions about this new product," over and over and over again. Jumping into these conversations you decry and deplore is a bit antithetical and hypocritical, don't ya think? 

  • Reply 23 of 128
    The numbers described in the article as what the analyst expects in the second quarter are under the heading "1Q15" in the single screenshot from the report. That suggests to me first quarter, not second. Not to mention that, as a previous commenter noted, there's no way Apple shipped watches last quarter.

    Part of this confusion is ALWAYS that normal people call Jan-Mar "Q1". Apple calls "Oct-Dec" it's Q1. Leading to many analysts making errors. Ok fine. But this isn't even that. These numbers simply make no sense even if we assume the analyst meant Q2 where he said Q1.

    So could someone at AI who has access to the report at least TRY to make some sense of it rather than spending 30 seconds writing a description that makes no sense at all?
  • Reply 24 of 128

    More than a few iPhone customers pay for their phone upfront. IMHO Contracts are generally an expensive way to acquire a device.

     

    Not every country is addicted to phone contracts.

  • Reply 25 of 128
    asciiascii Posts: 5,936member

    Shipped doesn't mean sold or even preordered, right? I think he is just saying that by the end of March Apple had manufactured 631k Watches. And shipped them off to a warehouse somewhere to wait for release day.

  • Reply 26 of 128
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by williamlondon View Post

     

     

    If that's what you truly want, perhaps staying out of conversations where it's being discussed would satisfy your desire not to talk about it? You don't have to join *we* as we discuss something we find interesting and exciting, and we'd certainly be more than happy not to have to deal with the hordes of trolls repeating their tired old lines over and over and over, while at the same time demanding, "fewer stories about this new product, fewer discussions about this new product," over and over and over again. Jumping into these conversations you decry and deplore is a bit antithetical and hypocritical, don't ya think? 




    The headline of the article is about iPhone and Mac - and this is why I am participating in this discussion; the boredom feeling of yet again writing about the AWatch blocks me from engaging in further exchanges in other threads.

  • Reply 27 of 128
    brlawyerbrlawyer Posts: 828member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ascii View Post

     

    Shipped doesn't mean sold or even preordered, right? I think he is just saying that by the end of March Apple had manufactured 631k Watches. And shipped them off to a warehouse somewhere to wait for release day.




    Exactly. Just like the same criticism we used to apply whenever Samsung and MS talked about "record shipped units".

  • Reply 28 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    None of these numbers make any sense. Apple's fiscal Q1 2015 results were reported in January. The results to be reported this month are for Q2.

    But industry talk is based upon calender quarters, not those of an individual company's financial year. So he could simply be stating that this quarter, the first of the calender year, a quarter that is traditionally slow for the industry is being predicted to be...
  • Reply 29 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    brlawyer wrote: »

    Considering Cook's dismal performance in terms of controlling Apple's supply chain (something he used to excel at when working as COO), given the disastrous recent launches where nothing is in plentiful stock for months (MB particularly), one should actually be surprised if results are in positive territory. 

    As for the AWatch, can we talk LESS about it? No matter how much propaganda we receive (or 18 articles out of 20 published on AI), this won't make it any better for such a solution in search of a problem.

    Er, no. You are mistaking a supply issue with a manufacturing issue. When a new product line first comes out, and, as is typical with Apple, new technologies and manufacturing methods are being used, there are unanticipated problems in production. That has nothing to do with supply lines.

    Then there are other issues that have nothing to do with supply lines. One is the anticipated sales numbers. The company thinks that a certain number will be sold, so they intend to produce that number, if all goes well, and no production problems are encountered, and their estimates are correct, there will be no wait. But if they are conservative, as Apple usually is, then enough won't be produced, and delays will result. That's even with Apple anticipating large numbers of sales.

    The second is that Apple has ALWAYS has supply issues. This goes back to the early 1990's. When I ordered my Quadra 950, back in late 1991, or early 1992, I don't remember exactly right now, I had to wait 6 weeks for it to arrive. This is nothing new. Except for a time in the time 1990's, when Apple was seeing declining sales, they have always miscued demand, which resulted in delays. And, by the by, Cook is not responsible for this part of the company anymore, Williams has taken over that job.
  • Reply 30 of 128
    brlawyer wrote: »
    As for the AWatch, can we talk LESS about it? No matter how much propaganda we receive (or 18 articles out of 20 published on AI), this won't make it any better for such a solution in search of a problem.

    Then find a website that isn't talking about the things you don't like. Don't tell the rest of us what we can and cannot talk about.
  • Reply 31 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    d4njvrzf wrote: »
    Keep in mind that unlike with the iPhone, customers pay the full price of the watch up front. Most people in the US finance their iPhones through two-year carrier contracts, which typically require just a nominal downpayment for the device. Many of them probably don't realize at purchase time just how much they will end up paying for the device since wireless carriers deliberately advertise only the up-front cost and until recently did not offer any discounts for bringing your own devices. People would likely think twice about upgrading if they had to drop $600+ outright every two years.

    Ok, so let's look at reality here. Cook has said that 75% of iPhone sales around the world, which includes the USA, are off contract, at full price. That really does take away the premise that Apple needs subsidies to sell phones. And when you look at the reality that Apple's phones are not subsidized at higher rates than comparable phones in the same markets, that takes away the rest of the argument.

    So the watch is paid for in full up front. So what? Apple phones start at $399 here, but that $399 phone here can cost the equivalent of $599 in some other countries. The average msrp last quarter for the iPhone was higher than the year before, at $689. That's a lot. People can get the watch at a starting price of $349 here, and higher in some other places. Removing the Edition from the equation, the highest priced watch is $1,100, I believe. But you can start out much lower, and buy more expensive bands later. You can't uograde anything on the phone.

    Last year, 1.2 billion smartphones were sold worldwide, and 1.2 billion watches. The average price for a watch was much lower than for smartphones, but fully half of the dollars spent on watches were for just under 30 million watches. That average price for "Swiss " watches was $732.

    Apple does have a very good shot at this. If they just sell 10 million watches a year, at an average price of $500, that's $5 billion a year. Not a huge number for Apple, but a huge number for the watch industry.
  • Reply 32 of 128
    brlawyer wrote: »

    The headline of the article is about iPhone and Mac - and this is why I am participating in this discussion; the boredom feeling of yet again writing about the AWatch blocks me from engaging in further exchanges in other threads.

    YES.

    Do us all a favor and don't bother engaging in any threads.
  • Reply 33 of 128
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post



     And when you look at the reality that Apple's phones are not subsidized at higher rates than comparable phones in the same markets, that takes away the rest of the argument.

     

    Mel: I saw a TV commercial yesterday for Sprint giving away Galaxy S6 free and another one free every year thereafter. They've been doing BOGOs for years. A free phone dramatically reduces the the overall cost of ownership to the consumer.

  • Reply 34 of 128
    brlawyer wrote: »

    Exactly. Just like the same criticism we used to apply whenever Samsung and MS talked about "record shipped units".
    The difference is, Apple won't be quoting these numbers.
  • Reply 35 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    mstone wrote: »
    Mel: I saw a TV commercial yesterday for Sprint giving away Galaxy S6 free and another one free every year thereafter. They've been doing BOGOs for years. A free phone dramatically reduces the the overall cost of ownership to the consumer.

    They do that when phones aren't selling. That's a much higher subsidy than Apple gets for its current 6/6+ lineup. And considering how Apple is hammering Samsung's sales, that does say that people would rather pay more for Apple's product, which strengthens my argument even further.
  • Reply 36 of 128
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    melgross wrote: »
    Ok, so let's look at reality here. Cook has said that 75% of iPhone sales around the world, which includes the USA, are off contract, at full price.

    I don't believe that for a second. That would have to include everyone that's on a payment plan for the phone, which puts them under a different plan, but a plan nonetheless.
  • Reply 37 of 128
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    melgross wrote: »
    They do that when phones aren't selling. That's a much higher subsidy than Apple gets for its current 6/6+ lineup. And considering how Apple is hammering Samsung's sales, that does say that people would rather pay more for Apple's product, which strengthens my argument even further.

    Who's 'they'? Sprint or Samsung? Is it Sprint desperate for subscribers, or are Samsung phones unpopular on Sprint?
  • Reply 38 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    I don't believe that for a second. That would have to include everyone that's on a payment plan for the phone, which puts them under a different plan, but a plan nonetheless.

    I don't care what you believe. That's what he said, and he wouldn't say that during a financial call if it weren't true, because any statement made during a financial call is considered to be part of the financial statement, and subject to financial rules regarding truth in reporting. And unlike many other companies, Apple is conservative in their financial reporting.

    It's also something that's very easily checked.
  • Reply 39 of 128
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by melgross View Post

     

    1.  

    2.  

    3.  

    But industry talk is based upon calender quarters, not those of an individual company's financial year. So he could simply be stating that this quarter, the first of the calender year, a quarter that is traditionally slow for the industry is being predicted to be...



    The article says "fiscal quarter" right in the first sentence, and that can mean only one thing, so this reporting is messed up for sure. And what does the "revised" column mean?

  • Reply 40 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Who's 'they'? Sprint or Samsung? Is it Sprint desperate for subscribers, or are Samsung phones unpopular on Sprint?

    Both, apparently. The latest reports out of Samsung GPS home market in S Korea, where they have dominated phone sales foe a long time, has their S6 sales at very low levels, and iPhone sales beating them, a surprising development. Remember that the S5 sold 40% less than Samsung anticipated (Samsung's own statement), and 20% less than S4 sales, which themselves were just 10% higher than S3 sales.

    And Apple's phone sales last quarter ware higher than all of Samsung's smartphone sales, even though Apple's cheapest phone, off contract, they way most people buy phones around the world, is $399, whereas, the average price of Samsung's smartphones is about $250, and as I stated earlier, Apple average phone goes for $689. That really does say something.

    I expect that the S6 may sell better than the S5, as it had better, but how much better, since the S5 did so poorly?
Sign In or Register to comment.