I have T-Mobile's Jump On Demand program and went to check on upgrading for my birthday. Even though it was a $300 price jump, since I had been a customer for 3 years, I had to pay no money down to upgrade when turning in my 7. So did my monthly payment go up because of that? Nope. If I end up keeping this one, my cost for it was $720 + tax.
"Analysts". One week they are all bullish on AAPL. Next week they are all apocalyptic. AAPL then blows out another quarter. Repeat. I have made a living in retirement buying against analysts' dire predictions for AAPL. Thank you, guys.
Great reprt Daniel. Its about time to call out these pundits, who really have no idea what they are doing. And Mark Gurman should know better. , amd Nikee never gets it right. So many of these reports manipulate the market price of the stock and produce unwarranted anxiety. Cook has always been clear: dont look at one or two reprts and draw major conclusions. And the investment community itself, particularly Kate Huberty, really blew it. Well, thats the proce we pay for listening to them, and helping them earn selling commissions.
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!!!
Who says you're entitled to always get the top of the line model...of anything? TV, washing machine, fridge, dishwasher (have you looked at these lately!?), cars, etc..
As for your previous post, of course the technology and features will trickle down the line. They always have. That's how tech works.
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.
Such a silly thing to say. A scenario where "nobody" is buying the product is not in this universe. The topic being discussed is the claimed notion that Apple should undercut its profits and go for volume/marketshare -- the same, exact, stupid argument made by newbs about Apple every single year and launch. Amazed you're still clinging to it. Apple doesn't has never worshipped at the Church of Market Share. it goes for solid profit first, volume later. Obviously, they're right and this strategy has worked for them. Anyone claiming they should do otherwise is foolish.
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.
Considering that they aren't charging ONE MILLION DOLLARS (dr evil style), Apple obviously agrees with you. And they've struck that balance.
And by the way, does anyone who owns an iphoneX or Airpods, truly think that such marvelous, innovative tools are not going to sell well? Lets face it, people love their gadgets, and these are two the best ever. Like every Apple gadget, they are more expensive but they work really well, and the customer service, particularly by phone is superb. In the end, quality wins out and by next fall the floodgates will open.
I also have the HomePod and love it despite some Siri flaws. And no one is selling me products i dont want.
These pundits and brokerage-related predictions are a poor reflection of just how bad some of the “media” have been about Apple. To me, just follow Buffet and Vanguard: buy the stock because you believe in the company. If you want gamble, go to a casino or buy Amazon. All i know is that next month i will get my quarterly dividend check while i enjoy my Apple products. Where’s the dividend from Amazon, Google or Facebook?
2- On Mark Gurman: He was the Golden Kid of leakages. Then he joined Bloomberg… then he began to ‘create’ histories and tried to build moods. My conclusion: Bloomberg expected a lot more for what it pays him. Maybe, Mark is victim of his own ‘overexpectations.’
If he wasn't such a hater I'd almost feel sorry for him. Poor troll.
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...
Oh look...an armchair Marketing Executive who knows how to market Apple products better than Apple! Love these people! /s
No, just another guy (like me) who’d love one but can’t justify spending 1600€ (including AppleCare and VAT) on one.
There’s nothing wrong with hoping that they bring down the price.
They'll bring it down, it trickles down in next tier models. Apple has a wide range of pricing these days.
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.
Such a silly thing to say. A scenario where "nobody" is buying the product is not in this universe. The topic being discussed is the claimed notion that Apple should undercut its profits and go for volume/marketshare -- the same, exact, stupid argument made by newbs about Apple every single year and launch. Amazed you're still clinging to it. Apple doesn't has never worshipped at the Church of Market Share. it goes for solid profit first, volume later. Obviously, they're right and this strategy has worked for them. Anyone claiming they should do otherwise is foolish.
The deal in pricing is that you should price the highest you can, but no more (so no gouging).
Rarely ever worth it to leave money on the table to build market share, who knows what happens next year and once you let go that margin, it's impossible to get it back with the same product. You have to introduce a brand new category, a very different product to price higher (like they did with the Iphone X). When something becomes near commodity like the PC market, introducing a variant that boosts margin becomes impossible and you are stuck if you go down.
The "no more" part is related to the perception of value of your product in the marketplace, which gives you that elusive "pricing power".
It's very hard to keep this pricing power going for a very long time, there are expectations from the public that comes with it.
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.
Q2 was the Chinese / Asian new Year . their Christmas sales time. That’s why Q3 will be lower but still up YOY
2- On Mark Gurman: He was the Golden Kid of leakages. Then he joined Bloomberg… then he began to ‘create’ histories and tried to build moods. My conclusion: Bloomberg expected a lot more for what it pays him. Maybe, Mark is victim of his own ‘overexpectations.’
If he wasn't such a hater I'd almost feel sorry for him. Poor troll.
Is he still pissed off at Apple because he leaked something and thinks Apple purposely changed it to make him wrong? Honestly, I think its getting a little too big for this britches and just comes across as a douchebag. I bet his sources are drying up around the world. He's only as good as his sources.
Everyone wanting to buy cheap is a myth. Generally people are willing to pay more for a superior product or service. The iPhone X which I’ve now had for about three weeks is a superior product in every way and offers a much improved experience from anything else. It is definitely worth the extra money. Ultimately, you get what you pay for.
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.
Considering that they aren't charging ONE MILLION DOLLARS (dr evil style), Apple obviously agrees with you. And they've struck that balance.
How would we know? If the X was $50 cheaper ( or more expensive) what would sales & financials look like? Only Apple knows.
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.
Considering that they aren't charging ONE MILLION DOLLARS (dr evil style), Apple obviously agrees with you. And they've struck that balance.
How would we know? If the X was $50 cheaper ( or more expensive) what would sales & financials look like? Only Apple knows.
Using simplified values, if Apple can only produce up to 10M iPhone X models in a month, and they can every iPhone X that they make, how much more would Apple make in a month if they dropped the price by $50 per unit?
Despite their insanely great supply chain and production capacity every new flagship iPhone takes an excessively long time for a mass-producible CE to even out the demand it's arguable that every new iPhone is too inexpensive for the market. So why doesn't Apple raise the price if in the short term they can make more revenue and profit per unit? The simple is that Apple isn't looking for the short term and they're OK with their current profit margin range if it keeps drawing in more new customers over long term.
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.
Such a silly thing to say. A scenario where "nobody" is buying the product is not in this universe. The topic being discussed is the claimed notion that Apple should undercut its profits and go for volume/marketshare -- the same, exact, stupid argument made by newbs about Apple every single year and launch. Amazed you're still clinging to it. Apple doesn't has never worshipped at the Church of Market Share. it goes for solid profit first, volume later. Obviously, they're right and this strategy has worked for them. Anyone claiming they should do otherwise is foolish.
I disagree with the notion that someone arguing the X is a bit too expensive means they’re arguing Apple needs to go for market share over profits. Apple’s profit this quarter was $13B. Last quarter $19B. Nobody is posting quarterly profits like that. Before iPhone X was anyone here arguing iPhones weren’t expensive enough and Apple wasn’t making enough profit? I’m not saying the X is overpriced. What I am saying is if someone else thinks it is it doesn’t mean they want Apple in a race to the bottom. Arguing that something cheaper than $1000 is a race to the bottom or just chasing after market share is nonsense.
The analysts didn't exactly get it wrong. The iPhone X was the best selling iphone THIS YEAR. However in past years Apple sold more phones. Also, while profit was greater than last year it didn't meet expectations Apple made a lot more profit this year on software and subscriptions which factored into Apple's higher profit this year. Without the software increase, Apple's profit would have been lower than last year. Thus, the iPhone X didn't sell as well as hoped.
Comments
I have T-Mobile's Jump On Demand program and went to check on upgrading for my birthday. Even though it was a $300 price jump, since I had been a customer for 3 years, I had to pay no money down to upgrade when turning in my 7. So did my monthly payment go up because of that? Nope. If I end up keeping this one, my cost for it was $720 + tax.
, amd Nikee never gets it right. So many of these reports manipulate the market price of the stock and produce unwarranted anxiety. Cook has always been clear: dont look at one or two reprts and draw major conclusions. And the investment community itself, particularly Kate Huberty, really blew it. Well, thats the proce we pay for listening to them, and helping them earn selling commissions.
As for your previous post, of course the technology and features will trickle down the line. They always have. That's how tech works.
Such a silly thing to say. A scenario where "nobody" is buying the product is not in this universe. The topic being discussed is the claimed notion that Apple should undercut its profits and go for volume/marketshare -- the same, exact, stupid argument made by newbs about Apple every single year and launch. Amazed you're still clinging to it. Apple doesn't has never worshipped at the Church of Market Share. it goes for solid profit first, volume later. Obviously, they're right and this strategy has worked for them. Anyone claiming they should do otherwise is foolish.
I also have the HomePod and love it despite some Siri flaws. And no one is selling me products i dont want.
These pundits and brokerage-related predictions are a poor reflection of just how bad some of the “media” have been about Apple. To me, just follow Buffet and Vanguard: buy the stock because you believe in the company. If you want gamble, go to a casino or buy Amazon. All i know is that next month i will get my quarterly dividend check while i enjoy my Apple products. Where’s the dividend from Amazon, Google or Facebook?
Despite their insanely great supply chain and production capacity every new flagship iPhone takes an excessively long time for a mass-producible CE to even out the demand it's arguable that every new iPhone is too inexpensive for the market. So why doesn't Apple raise the price if in the short term they can make more revenue and profit per unit? The simple is that Apple isn't looking for the short term and they're OK with their current profit margin range if it keeps drawing in more new customers over long term.
Only disappointing thing seems to be HomePod. I thought it would add $2 billion in the quarter. Seems more like one billion.
Adding 3% count per the quarter was impressive. Was this due to geography namely China or Android switchers? at high end or low end?