Apple may potentially ship a record-breaking 250 million iPhones in 2021

AppleInsider

Supply chain checks conducted by investment bank Wedbush suggest that the current iPhone 12 family demand trajectory exceeds even its previous, bullish forecast.

Credit: Andrew O'Hara, AppleInsider

In a note to investors seen by AppleInsider, lead analyst Daniel Ives says that Apple has not had a "launch uptrend such as this in a number of years." Ives notes that that the only similar iPhone trajectory would be the iPhone 6 in 2014.

"The last few days our TMT team conducted our Asia supply chain checks for iPhones which were incrementally bullish around iPhone 12 5G demand and have now exceeded even our 'bull case scenario' for units in FY21 given the current trajectory," Ives writes.

Based on the most recent checks, Ives says the supply chain is now expecting December quarter iPhone unit assemblies of up to 95 million. That's roughly a 35% increase from the initial Wedbush and Wall Street forecasts.

If that trajectory holds out in a bull case through the holiday quarter, Ives predicts that Apple could ship "north of 240 million" units in 2021. The analyst adds that Apple could ship a peak of about 250 million units in total. According to Ives, this is a "jaw-dropping figure" that would easily eclipse the previous record of 231 million units sold in 2015.

The analyst says that the iPhone 12 super cycle will continue to be a major positive for AAPL shares in the coming months.

Additionally, Ives says that the bank has learned that 2021 iPhone models could have double the storage capacity. He also believes that there's a "high likelihood" that all models released in 2021 could have LiDAR.

Wedbush and Ives are also reiterating their iPhone "super cycle" thesis, since about 350 million out of 950 million iPhone units worldwide are in the upgrade window. With robust demand and considerable strength in China, Ives believes the current trajectory points toward an "unprecedented upgrade cycle" for the Cupertino tech giant.

The analyst is maintaining his $160 AAPL price target, based on a sum-of-the-part valuation on its 2022 estimates. That further breaks down to a 15x multiple on Services at $1.1 trillion and a 6.5x multiple on Apple's hardware business at about $1.7 trillion.

A bull case, which Ives says is looking increasing likely, would bump that price target to $200, based on the same multiples applied to services at $1.3 trillion and hardware at $2.2 trillion.

AAPL is currently selling at $128.69 per share, up 0.65% in intra-day trading on Thursday morning.

tmay

Uhm, your lede is incorrect.

250 M would be the analyst's projection for the Fiscal Year, not for the quarter.

From your article;

"Based on the most recent checks, Ives says the supply chain is now expecting December quarter iPhone unit assemblies of up to 95 million. That's roughly a 35% increase from the initial Wedbush and Wall Street forecasts.

If that trajectory holds out in a bull case, Ives predicts that Apple could ship "north of 240 million" units in the holiday quarter.

The above is demonstrably incorrect.

The analyst adds that Apple could ship a peak of about 250 million units in total. According to Ives, this is a "jaw-dropping figure" that would easily eclipse the previous record of 231 million units sold in 2015.

FFS, you are journalists, or pretending to be, so please proofread your work.

melgross

tmay said:

Uhm, your lede is incorrect.

250 M would be the analyst's projection for the Fiscal Year, not for the quarter.

From your article;

"Based on the most recent checks, Ives says the supply chain is now expecting December quarter iPhone unit assemblies of up to 95 million. That's roughly a 35% increase from the initial Wedbush and Wall Street forecasts.

If that trajectory holds out in a bull case, Ives predicts that Apple could ship "north of 240 million" units in the holiday quarter.

The above is demonstrably incorrect.

The analyst adds that Apple could ship a peak of about 250 million units in total. According to Ives, this is a "jaw-dropping figure" that would easily eclipse the previous record of 231 million units sold in 2015.

FFS, you are journalists, or pretending to be, so please proofread your work.

Exactly! When I saw the headline a few moments ago, I was wondering which drug he was on. The other number of 231 M phones for the previous high was obviously also a yearly number. Doesn’t anyone here edit these articles before they get published? And why don’t they fix them properly, by making a note that there was an error in the original article and they’ve corrected it? That’s proper publishing. Whoever heads that portion of the site doesn’t do their work properly.

edited December 2020

melgross

Well, now they corrected the headline. But they’re supposed to note that the original article contained an error on the number of phones sold in a quarter, and they fixed that error with the correct statement. It’s as though they want to hide their mistakes. That’s not proper journalism.

randominternetperson

Amazing.  A quarter billion sold in a year.  What was the figure Steve Jobs mentioned when it was rolled out?  Something like "2% of the mobile phone market."  Talk about under promising and over delivering.

lkrupp

melgross said:

Well, now they corrected the headline. But they’re supposed to note that the original article contained an error on the number of phones sold in a quarter, and they fixed that error with the correct statement. It’s as though they want to hide their mistakes. That’s not proper journalism.

Whoever said AI contributors were journalists?

tmay

At an ASP of $750, that's $187B in revenue.

At 37% margins, that's about $70B in profit.

Nice...

ro_ro_ur_boat

tmay said:

At an ASP of $750, that's $187B in revenue.

At 37% margins, that's about $70B in profit.

Nice...

Nice indeed. Short sellers are going to have their pockets full of $$$

spamsandwich

melgross said:

Well, now they corrected the headline. But they’re supposed to note that the original article contained an error on the number of phones sold in a quarter, and they fixed that error with the correct statement. It’s as though they want to hide their mistakes. That’s not proper journalism.

That’s not uncommon here. The argument used to be they were “only a blog”, therefore they weren’t responsible for inaccuracies, spelling errors or posting the kind of trash that Dan Dilger slings. Then they wanted to be taken seriously as a source of news to grow the audience, but failed to engage in standard reporting practices. I think they need to choose whether they want to be taken seriously or not at some point.

melgross

randominternetperson said:

Amazing.  A quarter billion sold in a year.  What was the figure Steve Jobs mentioned when it was rolled out?  Something like "2% of the mobile phone market."  Talk about under promising and over delivering.

1% of the cellphone market, and 10% of the smartphone market, which, at the time was 10% of the cellphone market.

melgross

lkrupp said:

melgross said:

Well, now they corrected the headline. But they’re supposed to note that the original article contained an error on the number of phones sold in a quarter, and they fixed that error with the correct statement. It’s as though they want to hide their mistakes. That’s not proper journalism.

Whoever said AI contributors were journalists?

Point taken. But, to me, a journalist can make a mistake here and there. But “real” publications have editors and someone who checks facts. Then, they publish corrections of the errors they acknowledge making. The publication always take responsibility for those errors, and names them. That’s how respect for reportage grows.

melgross

SpamSandwich said:

melgross said:

Well, now they corrected the headline. But they’re supposed to note that the original article contained an error on the number of phones sold in a quarter, and they fixed that error with the correct statement. It’s as though they want to hide their mistakes. That’s not proper journalism.

That’s not uncommon here. The argument used to be they were “only a blog”, therefore they weren’t responsible for inaccuracies, spelling errors or posting the kind of trash that Dan Dilger slings. Then they wanted to be taken seriously as a source of news to grow the audience, but failed to engage in standard reporting practices. I think they need to choose whether they want to be taken seriously or not at some point.

Yeah. Well, we’ve both been here for a long time. I’ve been here longer than the date given because way back, something happened, and most of us had to reregister. Mostly, I’ve had no real issues. But sometimes, it’s a problem. This one was because Andrew just wasn’t thinking about how off that number was. But he should have read it carefully before posting the article. If he did, and it wasn’t a case of why people should never proof their own writing, then Mike, or someone else from the editorial staff, if there are any, should have received the article and noticed the error, sent it back for Andrew to fix, checked it again, and if ok, posted it.

DED is altogether a different issue. He’s a major fanboy. But I suppose they use him because of the other fanboys here who love reading the stuff he writes. They’re not critical readers, and really go for his unprofessional put-downs of competitors. That makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. As long as he produces clicks, and possibly more new members than he costs the site, they’ll keep him, even giving him a title.

mobird

My favorite -

Discussion Not Found

I think we are at about 50% (WAG) of all articles 

are now tagged with this classic phrase...

crowley

randominternetperson said:

Amazing.  A quarter billion sold in a year.  What was the figure Steve Jobs mentioned when it was rolled out?  Something like "2% of the mobile phone market."  Talk about under promising and over delivering.

If I remember correctly, that's what they were hoping to achieve in the first full year.  I'm sure they were hoping to grow sales in year 2 and beyond.

beats

randominternetperson said:

Amazing.  A quarter billion sold in a year.  What was the figure Steve Jobs mentioned when it was rolled out?  Something like "2% of the mobile phone market."  Talk about under promising and over delivering.

Thought it was 1% but remember this is before Google made the knockoffs. Had iKnockoffs not existed Apple would most likely have 70%+.

melgross said:

SpamSandwich said:

melgross said:

Well, now they corrected the headline. But they’re supposed to note that the original article contained an error on the number of phones sold in a quarter, and they fixed that error with the correct statement. It’s as though they want to hide their mistakes. That’s not proper journalism.

That’s not uncommon here. The argument used to be they were “only a blog”, therefore they weren’t responsible for inaccuracies, spelling errors or posting the kind of trash that Dan Dilger slings. Then they wanted to be taken seriously as a source of news to grow the audience, but failed to engage in standard reporting practices. I think they need to choose whether they want to be taken seriously or not at some point.

Yeah. Well, we’ve both been here for a long time. I’ve been here longer than the date given because way back, something happened, and most of us had to reregister. Mostly, I’ve had no real issues. But sometimes, it’s a problem. This one was because Andrew just wasn’t thinking about how off that number was. But he should have read it carefully before posting the article. If he did, and it wasn’t a case of why people should never proof their own writing, then Mike, or someone else from the editorial staff, if there are any, should have received the article and noticed the error, sent it back for Andrew to fix, checked it again, and if ok, posted it.

DED is altogether a different issue. He’s a major fanboy. But I suppose they use him because of the other fanboys here who love reading the stuff he writes. They’re not critical readers, and really go for his unprofessional put-downs of competitors. That makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. As long as he produces clicks, and possibly more new members than he costs the site, they’ll keep him, even giving him a title.

When 90%+ of Apple articles are propaganda and anti-Apple some, with flat out LIES, It's nice to see ONE journalist on the opposite side of the fence.

venomxxr

If Apple actually moves 95 million iPhones in Q1, we could be looking at revenue north of $120 billion! That would be a roughly 30% increase YoY. 

melgross

Beats said:

randominternetperson said:

Amazing.  A quarter billion sold in a year.  What was the figure Steve Jobs mentioned when it was rolled out?  Something like "2% of the mobile phone market."  Talk about under promising and over delivering.

Thought it was 1% but remember this is before Google made the knockoffs. Had iKnockoffs not existed Apple would most likely have 70%+.

melgross said:

SpamSandwich said:

melgross said:

Well, now they corrected the headline. But they’re supposed to note that the original article contained an error on the number of phones sold in a quarter, and they fixed that error with the correct statement. It’s as though they want to hide their mistakes. That’s not proper journalism.

That’s not uncommon here. The argument used to be they were “only a blog”, therefore they weren’t responsible for inaccuracies, spelling errors or posting the kind of trash that Dan Dilger slings. Then they wanted to be taken seriously as a source of news to grow the audience, but failed to engage in standard reporting practices. I think they need to choose whether they want to be taken seriously or not at some point.

Yeah. Well, we’ve both been here for a long time. I’ve been here longer than the date given because way back, something happened, and most of us had to reregister. Mostly, I’ve had no real issues. But sometimes, it’s a problem. This one was because Andrew just wasn’t thinking about how off that number was. But he should have read it carefully before posting the article. If he did, and it wasn’t a case of why people should never proof their own writing, then Mike, or someone else from the editorial staff, if there are any, should have received the article and noticed the error, sent it back for Andrew to fix, checked it again, and if ok, posted it.

DED is altogether a different issue. He’s a major fanboy. But I suppose they use him because of the other fanboys here who love reading the stuff he writes. They’re not critical readers, and really go for his unprofessional put-downs of competitors. That makes them feel all warm and fuzzy inside. As long as he produces clicks, and possibly more new members than he costs the site, they’ll keep him, even giving him a title.

When 90%+ of Apple articles are propaganda and anti-Apple some, with flat out LIES, It's nice to see ONE journalist on the opposite side of the fence.

Well, I’ve been familiar with DED for long time. He exaggerates, minimizes, insults, and twists things around. He’s not the one to turn to. We had a disagreement some while ago here, some may remember it, where he claimed that Apple’s SoC had 100% performance increases every year. I pointed out that that was only true in the beginning. He said I was wrong, he provided a, I think it was, 4 year chart showing 100%, 100%, 50%, 50%. Apparently he didn’t realize it. But those numbers dropped over the years to around 20% now. But that doesn’t bother him. Just don’t say it because it ruins his narrative.

edited December 2020