I think that both this article and the analysts missed some important points:
This article states that the X is not the first or only $1,000 phone. That's true -- I paid close to that (with Apple Care and tax) for my 6+. But, it is the first iPhone where $1,000 was the STARTING point, the low end price.
Conversely the analysts focus on the X as being "THE" new iPhone. They missed the point that Apple greatly expanded the newer marketing strategy they've been dabbling their toes in: Market a high end device at a premium price while offering lower end and/or older technology at "consumer" prices.
So yes, the X is a premium device at a premium price and, as such, it WILL have a more limited market share. But, Apple has covered that in every increment all the way down to the SE. Specifically, Apple's base prices for its phones are:
X $999
8 $699
7 $549
6S $449
SE $349
That's a 300% spread in the price range. The X costs (nearly) 3 times that of the SE.
It seems (to me) that, IF there was any hesitancy to go for the X it was less due to its actual price than the $300/43% leap from the 8 because, while the 8 lacks some of the bells and whistles it sports the same power train and, for many, makes for a better buy. So any lack of sales of the X were made up for by the 8 (or lower).
So, all in all, any analyst who focuses on a single iPhone model is presenting a flawed analysis because Apple has left that single iPhone marketing strategy in the dust. You now have to look at the entire line-up. Looking at iPhone X sales is no more accurate than looking at SE sales.
I wish Apple et al would actually call these guys out to explain themselves. Maybe after 5 or 6 public humiliations they'd start trying a little harder before publishing absolute sh*te.
I wish Apple et al would actually call these guys out to explain themselves. Maybe after 5 or 6 public humiliations they'd start trying a little harder before publishing absolute sh*te.
I thought Cook said something yesterday about the false reporting of the iPhone X.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
They will need to do something as iPhoneX success seems to be a function of China sales.
I think analysts misjudged iPhone's demand in a sea of fake sales numbers and fake users' opinions. I see plenty of new iPhone X, even iPhone 8 sold at local Apple Store and many friends and colleagues around me also bought the latest iPhones.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Getting tired of the "Ok, but..." drivel. The pundits were wrong. The analysts were wrong. The haters were wrong (well, they're always wrong). I'm having a fun timer this morning watching CNBC. Pundits and analysts backpedaling, crawfishing. Hosts are pounding them hard demanding explanations as to why they were so dead wrong. One analyst insisting he actually was right by cherry picking the few negatives available. It's hilarious to watch. This should be a Netflix Original movie.
Fck all the anal ists. I swear that I would’ve bought more AAPL last week if I got more cash. I got 300 shars at $164. Cook is a master of supply chains. WS can kiss his ass. If it’s so easy for WS to figure out iPhone sales from a few supply chains, Tim Cook shouldn’t be the CEO!
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
I know, but in this case I am advocating for a more reasonable price, once the new technologies went mainstream. This might be a little bit selfish, but I am ok with that ;0)
But seriously 1600,- euro for the 256 GB X plus AppleCare is rediculous! I have always bought the top of the line model with the maximum amount of memory plus AppleCare and that price is by fare the highest!!!
Fatman has nailed it. It is nothing about the facts. It is simply people abusing their privileged media position to manipulate stock prices. Their scaremongering influences ignorant fund managers and individuals to sell Apple stock in anxiety that product sales are poor, resulting in lower stock prices which others - perhaps backers of the lying media analyst - buy. Then, when the facts are revealed, record sales, healthy growth, good profits, Bingo! They sell the stock in a rising market and make a big persoonal gain. The only way to punish them is to stop reading their garbage and cancel subscriptions to their media. And fill their social media with deserved criticism. If you lost money on stock - sue them for deceit. If you want to know the health of Apple checkout the activity in stores, see the phones your friends and family are buying.
Another excellent and objective analysis by Daniel. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this because I'm sick of the pundits trying to shove their opinions and biases down our throats and trying to tell us what we should think and feel to match the narratives that they've created around their personal and/or political platform. As a product consumer I try to purchase products that appeal to my own sensibilities and things that I value and at a price I'm willing to pay. Nothing is ever perfect, but I still feel fully capable of deciding things for myself. If I'm wrong I'll learn from it and adjust my decision making processes going forward. I do appreciate things like product reviews when they provide objective data points and use cases, but when they start getting into highly subjective areas like "value" and "affordability" I tune out those things as noise. Unfortunately, we're currently living in a very noisy environment on many fronts. Thanks DED for filtering out some of the noise.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
BS. If nobody is buying your product it doesn’t matter how much profit it would make. It’s a balance of maximizing both. Also considering how important services and recurring subscription revenue is I think Apple very much cares about sales and growing the install base.
Your posts are always so..indecipherable, and you never fail in trying to twist positives into negatives. The iPhone X was the BEST SELLING iPhone. So, obviously the price wasn't a deterrent for most people that wanted it. Could it have sold MORE with a lower price? Sure. It could also have sold more for $1. That doesn't mean the right thing to do was to price it lower. There a shit load at play here, including supply constraints, SKU dynamics, psychology, ASP, etc. You don't have a shred of evidence that the X wasn't priced ideally all things considered- but you pretend that you do.
I didn’t say anything about the X. My point was about only profits mattering. I don’t believe that’s true. What matters is getting the right balance.
I know it not news to report on what others are saying about news, however, can you please just call these people up who are making these stories up and asked them why they got it so wrong. Lets get them on the record for why anyone should listen to them in the future. We all get why the analysis make stuff up, it all about making money for their investors. News is supposed to be about facts, and these organization when Trump calls them fake news but they do nothing to change reality.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
BS. If nobody is buying your product it doesn’t matter how much profit it would make. It’s a balance of maximizing both. Also considering how important services and recurring subscription revenue is I think Apple very much cares about sales and growing the install base.
Actually, it is about profits, not about volume. They make more money (profit) selling less units (volume) because the value of the iPhone is high enough (demand) to do so. Maximizing both is really about maximizing profit, since to do otherwise would mean not maximizing profit. Thus, the Apple high margin model, which others attempt and fail to emulate.
Your argument fails because you frame the issue as insufficient sales (nobody is buying your product). Obviously, if there are insufficient sales, revenues will be weak. However, maximizing profit as a function of maximizing volume leads to the low-margin model, and the race to the bottom strategy that, barring an outside third party subsidy (such as Googles ad business subsidizing their speaker and phone business), is eventually unsustainable.
Of course, Apple cares about growing the install base. But that doesn’t mean that it’s current strategy isn’t working.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
BS. If nobody is buying your product it doesn’t matter how much profit it would make. It’s a balance of maximizing both. Also considering how important services and recurring subscription revenue is I think Apple very much cares about sales and growing the install base.
If we’ve learned anything during the last day or so, it’s that you do not have a clue what makes Apple tick and less of a clue as to what Apple customers want.
I know it not news to report on what others are saying about news, however, can you please just call these people up who are making these stories up and asked them why they got it so wrong. Lets get them on the record for why anyone should listen to them in the future. We all get why the analysis make stuff up, it all about making money for their investors. News is supposed to be about facts, and these organization when Trump calls them fake news but they do nothing to change reality.
Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Ok, but if the price would have been comparable to the previous generations, they would have sold more. The configuration I usually purchase would have cost me 1500 or so. I hope they will bring down the price to where it used to be over the next generations, but I doubt they will do so...
Sold more maybe but at less profit. It's about profits not volume.
BS. If nobody is buying your product it doesn’t matter how much profit it would make. It’s a balance of maximizing both. Also considering how important services and recurring subscription revenue is I think Apple very much cares about sales and growing the install base.
Actually, it is about profits, not about volume. They make more money (profit) selling less units (volume) because the value of the iPhone is high enough (demand) to do so. Maximizing both is really about maximizing profit, since to do otherwise would mean not maximizing profit. Thus, the Apple high margin model, which others attempt and fail to emulate.
Your argument fails because you frame the issue as insufficient sales (nobody is buying your product). Obviously, if there are insufficient sales, revenues will be weak. However, maximizing profit as a function of maximizing volume leads to the low-margin model, and the race to the bottom strategy that, barring an outside third party subsidy (such as Googles ad business subsidizing their speaker and phone business), is eventually unsustainable.
Of course, Apple cares about growing the install base. But that doesn’t mean that it’s current strategy isn’t working.
The install base seems to be growing fast anyway. I notice that none of the analysts care to ask the why of that although it is an important figure, since the install base is growing faster than the sales ( on the Mac as well). This indicates to me at least that these phones are not being thrown away but either passed between friends or family, or sold on as useful devices. And that all potentially feeds into service revenue.
Eventually that install base increase will stall. Will Apple go downmarket then? They might ( while keeping the X high priced) but only if they can satisfy themselves that the lower end devices generate revenue in services. It might be that owners of cheap devices are less likely to pay for subscriptions. Empirical evidence is needed.
Does anybody know if refurbished phones sold by Apple are counted as iPhone sales, I assume they are counted as revenue.
I know it not news to report on what others are saying about news, however, can you please just call these people up who are making these stories up and asked them why they got it so wrong. Lets get them on the record for why anyone should listen to them in the future. We all get why the analysis make stuff up, it all about making money for their investors. News is supposed to be about facts, and these organization when Trump calls them fake news but they do nothing to change reality.
Idea: AI should run a scorecard of analysts and investment firms. Simply post it here, hold them accountable(!).
Comments
Then, when the facts are revealed, record sales, healthy growth, good profits, Bingo! They sell the stock in a rising market and make a big persoonal gain.
The only way to punish them is to stop reading their garbage and cancel subscriptions to their media. And fill their social media with deserved criticism. If you lost money on stock - sue them for deceit.
If you want to know the health of Apple checkout the activity in stores, see the phones your friends and family are buying.
I know it not news to report on what others are saying about news, however, can you please just call these people up who are making these stories up and asked them why they got it so wrong. Lets get them on the record for why anyone should listen to them in the future. We all get why the analysis make stuff up, it all about making money for their investors. News is supposed to be about facts, and these organization when Trump calls them fake news but they do nothing to change reality.
Your argument fails because you frame the issue as insufficient sales (nobody is buying your product). Obviously, if there are insufficient sales, revenues will be weak. However, maximizing profit as a function of maximizing volume leads to the low-margin model, and the race to the bottom strategy that, barring an outside third party subsidy (such as Googles ad business subsidizing their speaker and phone business), is eventually unsustainable.
Of course, Apple cares about growing the install base. But that doesn’t mean that it’s current strategy isn’t working.
The install base seems to be growing fast anyway. I notice that none of the analysts care to ask the why of that although it is an important figure, since the install base is growing faster than the sales ( on the Mac as well). This indicates to me at least that these phones are not being thrown away but either passed between friends or family, or sold on as useful devices. And that all potentially feeds into service revenue.
Eventually that install base increase will stall. Will Apple go downmarket then? They might ( while keeping the X high priced) but only if they can satisfy themselves that the lower end devices generate revenue in services. It might be that owners of cheap devices are less likely to pay for subscriptions. Empirical evidence is needed.
Does anybody know if refurbished phones sold by Apple are counted as iPhone sales, I assume they are counted as revenue.