If they are right, iPhone revenues will be down YoY, perhaps more than the lower ASPs indicate due to possibly lower margins on the older phones. The unfavorable mix would explain some of Cirrus's miss, as they were no doubt expecting to benefit more from the additional amp they added in the iPhones 6s. Though Skyworks hasn't warned, this will likely affect them a little, too, as they were said to have added content in the new phones.
I don't think Apple is too worried. Regardless of iPhone sales, Apple is going to have another record quarter; WATCH, iPad Pro, iPod Touch, TV. The first is a brand new product line making its holiday debut. The second is a new iPad model that fills a niche, and the last two haven't seen a major update in years.
Don't forget Apple Music and MacBook, neither of which existed in the December 2014 quarter.
My dream for the earning call: Apple reports iPhone sales above the earlier guiidance, and Tim concludes his remarks this way: "And finally -- on a personal note -- I'd like to say that all you analysts who warned of falling iPhone sales based on supposed 'supply chain checks' are idiots. All you accomplished was losing your clients billions of dollars and completely destroying your professional reputation. Don't do it again."
Unfortunately these results will now mean nothing in terms of AAPL. Analysts are worried about the upcoming next quarter in which they predict doom and gloom for iPhone sales. Supplier checks prove it don’t you know.
Every quarter that Apple beats estimates is a quarter closer to the inevitable quarter where they don't. Analysts are like the guy in the Pink Floyd song, lamenting that every day is "one day closer to death."
This is why Apple needs to refute supply chain bullshit when its first reported. IMO, Apple would be at $110-$115 right now if Cook refuted the supply chain rumors in early December. It would be still down 15% from its highs because of the broad market decline but no way would it be down 30% like it is now.
This is all about controlling the narrative. When the first supply chain rumors began in early December, Cook could have simply tweeted this to kill of these rumors:
"We are on pace for our best holiday quarter EVER!" "Remember supply chain checks are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst." "Remember those supply chain rumors in 2012? 2013? 2014? How did that work out?"
Or simply say nothing, and buyback more of the company at a lower cost? And sell, obviously, when higher, if/when those relying on supply chain checks are proven wrong?
So you're basically saying that lower prices are a good thing since Apple can buy its shares back cheaper. You kind of lost me there: exactly what or whose interests would that serve?
Unfortunately these results will now mean nothing in terms of AAPL. Analysts are worried about the upcoming next quarter in which they predict doom and gloom for iPhone sales. Supplier checks prove it don’t you know.
The same crap. Different quarter.
This is why Apple needs to refute supply chain bullshit when its first reported. IMO, Apple would be at $110-$115 right now if Cook refuted the supply chain rumors in early December. It would be still down 15% from its highs because of the broad market decline but no way would it be down 30% like it is now.
This is all about controlling the narrative. When the first supply chain rumors began in early December, Cook could have simply tweeted this to kill of these rumors:
"We are on pace for our best holiday quarter EVER!" "Remember supply chain checks are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst." "Remember those supply chain rumors in 2012? 2013? 2014? How did that work out?"
It honestly wouldn't matter what Tim said because they are already countless so called insiders that would say the opposite and you can't be responding to every stupid report.
This is why Apple needs to refute supply chain bullshit when its first reported. IMO, Apple would be at $110-$115 right now if Cook refuted the supply chain rumors in early December. It would be still down 15% from its highs because of the broad market decline but no way would it be down 30% like it is now.
This is all about controlling the narrative. When the first supply chain rumors began in early December, Cook could have simply tweeted this to kill of these rumors:
"We are on pace for our best holiday quarter EVER!" "Remember supply chain checks are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst." "Remember those supply chain rumors in 2012? 2013? 2014? How did that work out?"
It honestly wouldn't matter what Tim said because they are already countless so called insiders that would say the opposite and you can't be responding to every stupid report.
OK - got to call an "enough is enough already" flag on these comments that Cook can't respond to "every stupid report". No one has suggested that Cook respond to every or all of the BS floating around. There is a huge middle ground between a single comment made by Cook three years ago (January 2013) and responding to "all" reports.
This is why Apple needs to refute supply chain bullshit when its first reported. IMO, Apple would be at $110-$115 right now if Cook refuted the supply chain rumors in early December. It would be still down 15% from its highs because of the broad market decline but no way would it be down 30% like it is now.
This is all about controlling the narrative. When the first supply chain rumors began in early December, Cook could have simply tweeted this to kill of these rumors:
"We are on pace for our best holiday quarter EVER!" "Remember supply chain checks are inconclusive at best and misleading at worst." "Remember those supply chain rumors in 2012? 2013? 2014? How did that work out?"
It honestly wouldn't matter what Tim said because they are already countless so called insiders that would say the opposite and you can't be responding to every stupid report.
The comment makes no sense. It wasn't just some random 'stupid' report. It led to -- conservatively -- many tens of billions of losses in market cap for the company, and since, has ended up becoming the dominant meme. Most CEOs of major companies would come out and address something of this magnitude, so as to manage perceptions and to put a floor on losses. (Like Cook himself did late August when the stock was last at these levels.)
Unless, of course, the 'stupid report' happens to be true.
The comment makes no sense. It wasn't just some random 'stupid' report. It led to -- conservatively -- many tens of billions of losses in market cap for the company, and since, has ended up becoming the dominant meme. Most CEOs of major companies would come out and address something of this magnitude, so as to manage perceptions and to put a floor on losses. (Like Cook himself did late August when the stock was last at these levels.)
Unless, of course, the 'stupid report' happens to be true.
Going by memory here... Tim did leave himself an out, because he wrapped his August China reassurance with, "I can't predict the future." And around the time of the earnings call in Oct, he told the WSJ that he was "pretty confident they can grow in Q4 despite having the mother of all comps." I don't think he would feel obligated to issue any sort of correction unless the company had some material difference (e.g. 10%) to their guidance to report.
I wonder if sog thinks Tim Cook should have gotten out in front of these supply chain rumors to protect the stock price, and if he thinks Tim Cook is a terrible CEO.
I wonder that too. Sog is so wishy-washy about how he feels...
My dream for the earning call: Apple reports iPhone sales above the earlier guiidance, and Tim concludes his remarks this way: "And finally -- on a personal note -- I'd like to say that all you analysts who warned of falling iPhone sales based on supposed 'supply chain checks' are idiots. All you accomplished was losing your clients billions of dollars and completely destroying your professional reputation. Don't do it again."
What about the institutions and investors that can no longer afford to have hold assets like Apple stock because their own financial situation is so bad? Smartphones might be a necessity. Owning Apple stock isn't a necessity. I'm just saying the issue doesn't have to be Apple like some people are postulating. The issue can be the companies that supply Apple can't afford their own R&D. The market overall can be shrinking and Apple could grab 100% of the profits in that shrinking market overall. Banks and institutions might have to liquidate their Apple holdings due to other underperforming assets forcing them to sell and have liquidity on hand.
Having the best boat in the harbor doesn't matter when a Tsunami is coming.
Apple will simply buyback 50% of the company at depressed prices.
And its not like Wall Street holds a ton of Apple shares anyway. They hold about $320 billion in Apple shares while they hold $400 billion in Google shares.
I'm pretty sure Wall Street will sell off high PE stocks like Netflix, Amazon, Tesla, ect way before they sell Apple which has a sub 10 PE and $200 billion in cash, plus a dividend.
When you sell a stock at a loss, you have to report that loss. It goes from unrealized loss to realized. When you have a winner, aka Apple stock that you bought and watched it go up and sell it, you can report it as a gain.
These groups will have to sell their wins first because they need the cash and not sell their losers because then they would have to report those losses on paper.
Comments
My dream for the earning call:
Apple reports iPhone sales above the earlier guiidance, and Tim concludes his remarks this way: "And finally -- on a personal note -- I'd like to say that all you analysts who warned of falling iPhone sales based on supposed 'supply chain checks' are idiots. All you accomplished was losing your clients billions of dollars and completely destroying your professional reputation. Don't do it again."
Unless, of course, the 'stupid report' happens to be true.
Going by memory here... Tim did leave himself an out, because he wrapped his August China reassurance with, "I can't predict the future." And around the time of the earnings call in Oct, he told the WSJ that he was "pretty confident they can grow in Q4 despite having the mother of all comps." I don't think he would feel obligated to issue any sort of correction unless the company had some material difference (e.g. 10%) to their guidance to report.
When you sell a stock at a loss, you have to report that loss. It goes from unrealized loss to realized. When you have a winner, aka Apple stock that you bought and watched it go up and sell it, you can report it as a gain.
These groups will have to sell their wins first because they need the cash and not sell their losers because then they would have to report those losses on paper.