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

13567

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member

    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?

    That's what the article here says, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a misquote. I don't know what the revised column means either. But then, we're not reading his report, we're reading AI's condensation of a very small portion of his report.

    That's why, in school, we were told to never use secondary sources for reports.
  • Reply 42 of 128
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    That's what the article here says, but that doesn't mean that it isn't a misquote. I don't know what the revised column means either. But then, we're not reading his report, we're reading AI's condensation of a very small portion of his report.



    Exactly, and a condensation that appears to be faulty in some fundamental way. It also reports 631,000 Apple Watch sales occurring in a quarter when nobody could buy one, so that has to be wrong no matter how it's read. 

  • Reply 43 of 128
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    melgross wrote: »
    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.

    Why is that even a concern for Apple? Carriers subsidize phones not Apple. Apple gets paid for every iPhone sold, it's the carriers that are on the hook to recover that cost. The subscriber goes from one contract to another one, and because the new one is a payment plan does not mean that the phone was paid upfront by them.
  • Reply 44 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member

    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?

    Exactly, and a condensation that appears to be faulty in some fundamental way. It also reports 631,000 Apple Watch sales occurring in a quarter when nobody could buy one, so that has to be wrong no matter how it's read. 

    That's why I'm pretty sure he's talking about the first calender quarter, and the current quarter, rather than the first fiscal quarter, and the last quarter. Once that's understood, what he's saying makes sense. And since he's said to have better than a 75% accuracy rate in predicting future Apple products, people listen to him.
  • Reply 45 of 128
    mstonemstone Posts: 11,510member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    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.

    You get what you pay for, but I'm just saying that comparable phones cost less to own. Your argument seems to be contradictory as you now appear to be saying that the S6 is not a comparable phone. 

  • Reply 46 of 128
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    melgross wrote: »
    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?

    There are also reports of there being 20 million pre-orders plus the prediction that they'll sell 70 million in the quarter. Were getting conflicting reports.
  • Reply 47 of 128
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post





    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.

     

    Why would you not believe that? Cook would know how many were sold in Apple Retail as well as through Apple Online (at full retail price). And many carriers around the world DON'T subsidize phones on plans (which is very common in the US).

  • Reply 48 of 128
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mstone View Post

     

    You get what you pay for, but I'm just saying that comparable phones cost less to own. Your argument seems to be contradictory as you now appear to be saying that the S6 is not a comparable phone. 


     

    If they aren't selling and need steep discounts (or special offers) to move, then how can you say they are comparable?

     

    S6 is only comparable if you look at the hardware specs. As an overall device, it's not even in the same league as an iPhone.

  • Reply 49 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    Why is that even a concern for Apple? Carriers subsidize phones not Apple. Apple gets paid for every iPhone sold, it's the carriers that are on the hook to recover that cost. The subscriber goes from one contract to another one, and because the new one is a payment plan does not mean that the phone was paid upfront by them.

    It's been a concern for years. For a long time, it was said that Apple couldn't compete in markets where most phones were bought outright (most smartphone sales around the world), rather than giving heavy subsidies, considering the price of the product line compared to Android pricing, Apple would be at a disadvantage if purchasing phones at full price were the norm (which it is in most places out of the USA).

    And indeed, Apple's worldwide marketshare was never higher than 21%, and had been dropping the last three years. But now with the new, larger phones, it's back to about 21%, and apparently rising.

    That is pretty damn good for phones that are much higher in cost. They moved to number one in China, which was surprising, and very good news indeed. Most of the phones there are paid at full cost, though subsidies are also available.
  • Reply 50 of 128
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post







    That's why I'm pretty sure he's talking about the first calender quarter, and the current quarter, rather than the first fiscal quarter, and the last quarter. Once that's understood, what he's saying makes sense. And since he's said to have better than a 75% accuracy rate in predicting future Apple products, people listen to him.



    Even with that assumption, it still doesn't make sense. If the Q1 column refers to calendar, then this was still a quarter when no Apple Watch sales could have taken place, since it ended ten days before preorders even began. The first quarter of Apple Watch sales won't be reported until July, unless Apple decides to preview the results of the first few weeks at the earnings report next week.

     

    The problem isn't with Kuo, it's with the reporting on this research note, which AI says they have. The writer of the article doesn't seem to have understood it, which is why we can't really say we do either.

  • Reply 51 of 128

    Exactly who pays for that 'free' phone then?

    The customer that's who!

     

    Not exactly free is it then?

     

    unless there is some magic fairy dust that buys the device, the customer pays in the long run.

  • Reply 52 of 128
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,362member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by cnocbui View Post

     



    Those would be the ones Ive has been handing out like sweets to all those poor people down on their luck, who couldn't otherwise afford to buy one.  I must say, looks like he's been slightly busier than the reports suggested.


     

    Is there a single post from you that isn't an asinine, vile, mocking jab at Apple, it's employees, or its products?

  • Reply 53 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    mstone wrote: »
    You get what you pay for, but I'm just saying that comparable phones cost less to own. Your argument seems to be contradictory as you now appear to be saying that the S6 is not a comparable phone. 

    No, I never said that. It's a comparable phone in list price, which is the only way we can compare phones. It's Samsung's top of the line phone, except for the Edge, which is $100 more, and priced about where the 6+ is. It compares directly against Apple's 6 series. It even comes back to looking more like Apple's phones, which is what Samsung has been slowly moving away from over the last three years.

    But don't mistake "comparable" for desirable.
  • Reply 54 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    dasanman69 wrote: »
    There are also reports of there being 20 million pre-orders plus the prediction that they'll sell 70 million in the quarter. Were getting conflicting reports.

    Nonsense, if you're talking about the Samsung S6.
  • Reply 55 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member

    Even with that assumption, it still doesn't make sense. If the Q1 column refers to calendar, then this was still a quarter when no Apple Watch sales could have taken place, since it ended ten days before preorders even began. The first quarter of Apple Watch sales won't be reported until July, unless Apple decides to preview the results of the first few weeks at the earnings report next week.

    The problem isn't with Kuo, it's with the reporting on this research note, which AI says they have. The writer of the article doesn't seem to have understood it, which is why we can't really say we do either.

    Yes, I agree. There's something wrong with the reporting one this here. Either there's information missing that would enable us to understand the charts better, or something else is not right. The numbers for the phones look weird. But he could be saying that sales for the phones will drop next quarter, which would be expected, as that's what happens every year.
  • Reply 56 of 128
    melgrossmelgross Posts: 33,334member
    Exactly who pays for that 'free' phone then?
    The customer that's who!

    Not exactly free is it then?

    unless there is some magic fairy dust that buys the device, the customer pays in the long run.

    If the phone price rapidly drops to free, then the manufacturer and the carrier take the hit. We've seen this for Windows phones, where a new top line model drops from $199 to $99 in a month, then to free a month later. It's the manufacturer who takes that drop. The subsidy remains the same, unless sales are so bad that the carrier demands that the subsidy be lowered as well. It's why we haven't seen a new top line Win Phone in some time.
  • Reply 57 of 128
    mjtomlinmjtomlin Posts: 2,586member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Dr Millmoss View Post

     



    It also reports 631,000 Apple Watch sales occurring in a quarter when nobody could buy one, so that has to be wrong no matter how it's read. 


     

    He's not reporting sales, he's reporting shipments. His analysis comes from monitoring what's shipped out of the assembly plants, not what's sold over the counter. So, in fact, Apple may have very well shipped 600k watches before the previous quarter ended on March 26th.

  • Reply 58 of 128
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by melgross View Post





    Yes, I agree. There's something wrong with the reporting one this here. Either there's information missing that would enable us to understand the charts better, or something else is not right. The numbers for the phones look weird. But he could be saying that sales for the phones will drop next quarter, which would be expected, as that's what happens every year.



    We have to expect lower sequential iPhone sales in fiscal Q2. This would likely happen even if it wasn't a result of the huge iPhone 6 upgrade cycle hitting in fiscal Q1, as FQ1 sales for Apple are normally higher than the other quarters across the board.

     

    Not that the muddled information presented here won't be used by everyone to support whatever argument they were going to make anyway. We are, after all, on the net.

  • Reply 59 of 128
    dr millmossdr millmoss Posts: 5,403member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by mjtomlin View Post

     

     

    He's not reporting sales, he's reporting shipments. His analysis comes from monitoring what's shipped out of the assembly plants, not what's sold over the counter. So, in fact, Apple may have very well shipped 600k watches before the previous quarter ended on March 26th.




    That could be true, hard to say. In any event, channel filling is difficult to estimate, and Apple realizes no revenue from shipped but unsold products, so even if that is the correct interpretation, it is a rather meaningless number.

  • Reply 60 of 128
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 13,002member
    melgross wrote: »
    It's been a concern for years. For a long time, it was said that Apple couldn't compete in markets where most phones were bought outright (most smartphone sales around the world), rather than giving heavy subsidies, considering the price of the product line compared to Android pricing, Apple would be at a disadvantage if purchasing phones at full price were the norm (which it is in most places out of the USA).

    And indeed, Apple's worldwide marketshare was never higher than 21%, and had been dropping the last three years. But now with the new, larger phones, it's back to about 21%, and apparently rising.

    That is pretty damn good for phones that are much higher in cost. They moved to number one in China, which was surprising, and very good news indeed. Most of the phones there are paid at full cost, though subsidies are also available.

    It's never been a subsidy. The subscriber always paid for the phone one way or another. The carriers have made that more transparent, and are no longer gouging the people that bought a cheaper phone but were paying the same as those with expensive phones.
Sign In or Register to comment.