After 'astonishingly' poor quarter, Mac sales predicted to rebound

2456

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 119
    slurpyslurpy Posts: 5,154member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post



    Well, production issue is also a reflection of managament's aptitude on supply chain. Nobody was expecting a thinner iMac. What was sorely needed, however, was an updated iMac with Ivy Bridge and USB3. Apple could have easily jammed those into the existing package, take the time to iron out the production issues on the new chasis and have it ready for Haswell. They chose the hard route and was punished as a reseult. Tim Cook mentioned a backlog of 700,000 iMacs on the quarterly call. I suspect this quarter won't fill all of them.


     


    Oh, give me a break. People on this forum have been bitching for a damn long time about wanting a redesigned iMac. Stop pretending noone wanted or was expecting it, and don't pretend that the people on this forum would have been satisfied with a spec bump. 

  • Reply 22 of 119
    afbiafbi Posts: 7member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post


     


    Have you stopped crying wolf for a moment and think why it’s been going down so spectacularly in the past 5 months...



     


    Mwah, hahah. Typical response of the Sheeple. The bullies usually say "ohhh just stop whining and take it like a man"... or "Oh, no, here comes another conspiracy theory." Another one of the words they like to slap on things to try and fool people into believing such things are not possible.


     


    They count on the fact that people will NOT do or say anything, or are too ill informed about what is possible to believe that such things can happen. They prefer it that way so that no one wises up and starts sniffing around as to what they are up to. When in fact the correct response is to investigate, complain to the appropriate parties, wake the general sleeping public up and basically do your job as a tax paying and voting citizen. Who... if you just sit there sleeping will be robbed blind, as you just were.


     


    Another tactic of the bullies and criminals is to use the fact that their sheeple dupes who are too stupid to believe such things are possible will actually unwittingly work for them and help them cover it up and spread the lies and misconceptions that such things are not possible.


     


    Now the thing that really cracks me up is that one of the biggest Hedge Fund traders (in the past) on the street, Jim Cramer, TOLD ALL OF US IT WAS POSSIBLE and that it is a regular business tactic. He probably knows better than you because he literally made hundreds of millions of dollars doing it. Also, in my 30 years of working on the street I have heard many traders laughing and talking about how this is done all the time. Getting easier every day with computer trading programs ... and Twitter.


     


    But don't worry about it, you just go back to sleep and keep trying to convince yourself that one of the most efficient and profitable companies on the street, really had anything other than a speed bump. 

  • Reply 23 of 119
    piotpiot Posts: 1,346member



     


    Since when has the Mac unit share been HIGHER than it's revenue share?


     


    Who writes this stuff? Who checks it?

  • Reply 24 of 119
    zoffdinozoffdino Posts: 192member

    Quote:



    If you are a long term investor and you believe in the longer term strategy of Apple, then the price drop of Apple stock is not going to be a pain for you.  In fact, you will rejoice at the fact that it's now much cheaper, and you can get nearly twice as much stocks for the same amount of money.


     


    Whenever a company start doing things like you proposed for no other reason than to prop up the stock price, the company inevitably start on a slippery slop to long term decline.  Stock price should be a reflection of a company's future earnings.  PR announcements, dividend hikes, stock buybacks does absolutely NOTHING for future earnings.  





     


    Do you even own Apple shares? I do, my average purchase price is slightly above $360, starting with the first 50 @ $90 bought in November 2008 (read: at the depth of the recession). Back then there was so much uncertainty and fear that even Apple may go bankrupt (nobody would buy their iPhones, iPods were fading, etc). Watching the stock go to $700 then $430 while nothing has changed is super frustrating. Am I not long term enough? I haven’t sold a single share in 5 years, through a recession, antennagate, or Jobs’ passing. My company (remember that I’m shareholder hence I’m entitled to part of the company) is doing spectacularly well, with truck load of cash and I can’t get access to any of those--it’s my cash.


    The agents I put in place to run the company (management and the board) are ignoring my concerns and let the market runs its course on my company. Shareprice is partially based on perception of the market. The market sees that my agents are not doing anything to help so they continue to drive the share down. If they show care, the market will listen and put a proper value back to my shares.

  • Reply 25 of 119
    jim wjim w Posts: 75member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by wizard69 View Post


    You make assumptions here about what will be in the new Mac Pro.   Haswell might not even be in the picture.   


     


    As for Apple letting Pros know what is up, they already did that some time ago.   Maybe you where asleep at the wheel but they told everybody that a new Mac Pro was coming in 2013 what in the hell do you want besides that.   Do you really think Apple owes you a personally addressed letter, detailing to the minute when the machine will come out?     



    I have been following this closely for quite some time, actually. My former business was six years as the exclusive Avid dealer for Hawaii with dozens of pro level clients. Now devoted to doing video and photo production. Cook only said that "something really great was coming" and suggested late 2013. Didn't even specify if it would be a similar form factor.  Apple doesn't owe ME anything personally. It owes ALL of the people whose businesses depend on Mac Pro level machines some predictability. The tech in the current Mac Pro is pushing 4 years old. GPU choice is even more pathetic. No Thunderbolt, I could go on. Make the next one a real update. Should be Haswell or Haswell as soon as it comes out. They used to be the first with new Intel CPUs. Now they are beyond last in workstations. Surely they could provide a bit more information than they have. Once again, the Mac Pro is not an iPhone. Only one supplier. A bit more info would at least slow the bleeding to Windows and cost nothing in sales.

  • Reply 26 of 119
    thepixeldocthepixeldoc Posts: 2,257member
    xzu wrote: »
    Supply constraint was predicted by Apple and no one listened.

    On the other hand, after 25 years of Mac only use, I am buying a couple desktop PC's running Win7. No Mac Pro makes me sad, and an iMac is just a vertical laptop.

    Yeah right! If you've been on a Mac for 25 years, you won't have the slightest idea how to set up those new Win7 boxes to get the same performance as those "vertical laptops". Hint: such as turning off unused services and visual fluff AND install a low footprint anti-virus/malware package.

    But by all means: go for it! :rolleyes:
  • Reply 27 of 119
    emoelleremoeller Posts: 446member
    I don't believe that Apple has ironed out its issues. The iPad (especially iPad mini) is cannibalizing the laptop market (which is really the only driver on the Mac side of the business). The recent discounts on Mac's as highlighted here on AppleInsider is very disturbing and portends a continued drop in the entire Mac line.

    The iPad is getting tantalizingly close to having the capabilities of a high end laptop and the market for desktops is actually shrinking worldwide.

    I expect Apple to still gain in the overall personal computer sector, but that sector will continue to shrink.

    The future is in mobile devices - and it is here that Apple's lead was paramount, until last year. It is their's to lose if they don't continue to innovate. Devices will get smaller, but just as capable as larger devices by leveraging the Cloud.

    The key for both Apple and Google (and others) is an ever more efficient and high speed internet, as this will drive ever more efficient portable devices. Apple would do well to use its cash hoard to partner and eventually control the distribution (pipelines) of data to compliment its hardware and software.
  • Reply 28 of 119
    xzuxzu Posts: 139member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ElectroTech View Post



    "after 25 years of Mac only use, I am buying a couple desktop PC's running Win7. No Mac Pro makes me sad, and an iMac is just a vertical laptop."



    @xzu With the statements you made, there is no way that you were a Mac user for any time. You sound like a hard core Windows box user and may have used a Mac for half an hour. You just don't 'get' Macs if you put down the iMac as a vertical laptop. Powerful computers are made with powerful processors and graphics chips regardless of the shape of the box.


    It may appear that way, but my first Mac was a Mac Plus in 1988 (used), still my favorite was my IIci...yes i am old.  I have owned 52 macs since for my business, personal use and family (5 newtons, in fact). Your point about powerful graphics chips... a 680m is still a mobile chip, some people need more... I am looking to replace 7 iMacs that had their hard drives fail from heat every 18 months, repeatedly, for my business (I have a stack of hard drives to prove it). I am tired of running smc fan control at maximum just to use them.  I have two xserves.. I have to consider what to replace them with. All I am saying is that there is a portion of Mac users that do require a MacPro, maybe its only 5%, but it would be great if we could get updates, or better yet something that isnt a vertical laptop. They are beautiful machines, I will probably buy a new 27" for home, I have the last generation 27"... I want to replace my early 2009 Mac Pro I use with a 30" apple display and I don't want an iMac. As Steve Jobs said, some people are still going to need trucks... 

  • Reply 29 of 119
    sddavesddave Posts: 24member
    @rsdofny:
    "That says a lot about Tim Cook who is supposed to be the supply chain genius. He updated the entire product line and none of them are working as well as he expected. The only bright spot was the iPad mini which due to supply constraint could not be manufactured faster enough to meet demand. Low cost or larger size iPhone should be on the design shelf ready to go with a moment's notice. Now, we hear all these rumors about late 2013 or 2014 introduction. The market is not going to sit still, and Apple should get its a$$ moving. Premium products need innovation, and I hope that they have a lot around."

    Couldn't agree more. I think just about every Apple product introduction over the past few years has experienced problems with lack of supply. Could have sold more, but didn't have enough product. He's supposed to be a supply chain expert?
  • Reply 30 of 119
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post


     


    Do you even own Apple shares? I do, my average purchase price is slightly above $360, starting with the first 50 @ $90 bought in November 2008 (read: at the depth of the recession). Back then there was so much uncertainty and fear that even Apple may go bankrupt (nobody would buy their iPhones, iPods were fading, etc). Watching the stock go to $700 then $430 while nothing has changed is super frustrating. Am I not long term enough? I haven’t sold a single share in 5 years, through a recession, antennagate, or Jobs’ passing. My company (remember that I’m shareholder hence I’m entitled to part of the company) is doing spectacularly well, with truck load of cash and I can’t get access to any of those--it’s my cash.


    The agents I put in place to run the company (management and the board) are ignoring my concerns and let the market runs its course on my company. Shareprice is partially based on perception of the market. The market sees that my agents are not doing anything to help so they continue to drive the share down. If they show care, the market will listen and put a proper value back to my shares.



     


    so you're upset the price is ONLY $70 above your avg purchase price? it's not YOUR cash. You invested prior to any dividends. So at the time of the investment, you weren't promised any cash.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by rsdofny View Post


    That says a lot about Tim Cook who is supposed to be the supply chain genius.  He updated the entire product line and none of them are working as well as he expected.   The only bright spot was the iPad mini which due to supply constraint could not be manufactured faster enough to meet demand.  Low cost or larger size iPhone should be on the design shelf ready to go with a moment's notice.  Now, we hear all these rumors about late 2013 or 2014 introduction.  The market is not going to sit still, and Apple should get its a$$ moving.  Premium products need innovation, and I hope that they have a lot around.   



     


    Guess what, sh1t happens. You have to shut down the previous like to start the new line if the old line will not be sold anymore.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post


     


    Have you stopped crying wolf for a moment and think why it’s been going down so spectacularly in the past 5 months? I don’t disagree that short sellers and hedgies play a (major?) role in it, but how can they do it so far and for so long? It’s because Tim Cook and the board doesn’t care one bit about shareholders. All he keeps saying is “we take a long view”,  “we care more about innovation”. None of these is wrong, but he isn’t feeling or sharing the pain of the shareholder when the stock keeps dropping and dropping. He has tools to fight against it: a PR to announce X millions iPhones sold, a denial of rumors, dividend hikes, buyback boosts, …. And yet he chose to do nothing.




    Last week there was news of Foxconn hiring freeze that was automatically translated to Apple’s production cut. In fact it was due to better than expected retention rate (note how no one credited Apple with improving the working conditions at Foxconn). Just today, there’s rumor of inventory buildup in Europe because iPhone 5 isn’t selling--it can be due to a myriad of things, including that Apple has solved iPhone 5 production problems and start to build channel inventory toward their 4 - 6 weeks target. Every Apple story has been twisted to shine negative light on the company, and management refused to clarify it. Tim Cook could have simply call his broker and order a $1B share buyback. Announce it at 3pm, and slap the bears in the face. That would convince me that he means serious business.



     


    um. Cook did announce how many iphones they sold during the qtrly calls. Apple shouldn't comment on rumors because if they are true, what are they going to say? nothing = confirmation.


     


    Why should mgmt comment on analysts twisting the facts. The analysts aren't going to care about it. They ignored Cook's warning about mac sales which he alluded to in the sept qtrly call. Cook works for the BoD. The Board decides whether to authorize stock buybacks.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by zoffdino View Post



    Well, production issue is also a reflection of managament's aptitude on supply chain. Nobody was expecting a thinner iMac. What was sorely needed, however, was an updated iMac with Ivy Bridge and USB3. Apple could have easily jammed those into the existing package, take the time to iron out the production issues on the new chasis and have it ready for Haswell. They chose the hard route and was punished as a reseult. Tim Cook mentioned a backlog of 700,000 iMacs on the quarterly call. I suspect this quarter won't fill all of them.


     


    please, then analysts and people like you would claim this isn't innovative, it's the same boring design...blah blah blah.

  • Reply 31 of 119
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,399member


    Originally Posted by SDDave View Post

    Couldn't agree more. I think just about every Apple product introduction over the past few years has experienced problems with lack of supply. Could have sold more, but didn't have enough product. He's supposed to be a supply chain expert?


     


    Those 'past few years' goes back about five years and includes Steve Jobs' era. Blame Steve Jobs. 


     


    Oh, right, that's not passé. "It's Cook's fault."


     


    I guess it is Tim Cook's fault that there just aren't enough people on the planet able to do the work needed to "make more product", even if it was possible to build the extra factories required for that.


     


    Wait, how is Cook, the "supply chain expert", supposed to be blamed for a problem of manufacturing? They still turn over their entire inventory every week. THAT is the supply chain.

  • Reply 32 of 119
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    sddave wrote: »
    Couldn't agree more. I think just about every Apple product introduction over the past few years has experienced problems with lack of supply. Could have sold more, but didn't have enough product. He's supposed to be a supply chain expert?

    So when demand outstrips supply it's Cook's fault no matter how excessive demand is. You think that's a reasonable conclusion to make? You think that if there are 50 million that want to buy the next iPhone in the first weekend they need to have produced 50 million units before they go on sale even if that means pushing back the launch by several months? You don't see how Apple is constrained by what can be sourced and produced at any one time at a given rate? You don't see anything wrong that logic?
  • Reply 33 of 119
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SDDave View Post



    Couldn't agree more. I think just about every Apple product introduction over the past few years has experienced problems with lack of supply. Could have sold more, but didn't have enough product. He's supposed to be a supply chain expert?


     


    um..there wasn't enough supply to meet the unexpectedly large demand. Please learn Supply and demand. I'll give you $100 if you can predict initial demand on a new product without having too much supply or any shortages. I also want you to ramp up production of the new product while still selling the old product in quantities the old product still demands. I also want you to coordinate the purchasing of new components for the old and new products without having too much or too little of each component but maintain Apple's high level of quality control.


     


    Personally I rather have shortages than too much inventory.


     


    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EMoeller View Post



    The future is in mobile devices - and it is here that Apple's lead was paramount, until last year. It is their's to lose if they don't continue to innovate. Devices will get smaller, but just as capable as larger devices by leveraging the Cloud.

     


     


    yup. without your help, I would imagine Apple employees playing pong all day. Who knew they had to continue improving their products.

  • Reply 34 of 119
    ecsecs Posts: 307member
    I believe the Mac desktops are to blame. It's wrongly designed in this moment. Current Mac desktops assume you either want laptop performance, or you want an "all in one machine", or otherwise you want a Xeon. All these assumptions are plain wrong, because:

    -People looking for a desktop don't want laptop performance. Otherwise they wouldn't buy a desktop, but a MacBook (Pro or Air) and plug it to a big display if needed.

    -Most people don't want an "all in one" in this moment, because most users already have great displays, and they don't see the need in getting yet another display when they can invest the display money in getting a better Mac. Paying for a display you already have looks absurd (note: I've been a friend of the iMac, and have owned a G5 iMac, but I think it no longer fits with the market reality anymore.

    -And it's also plain wrong to assume you want a Xeon if you want more performance than a laptop but don't want an "all in one".

    So, the Mac desktop line is wrong at this moment: it doesn't provide what desktop users expect, but what laptop users expect, or what Xeon users expect. It misses the real desktop market entirely
  • Reply 35 of 119
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,705member
    ecs wrote: »

    -Most people don't want an "all in one" in this moment, because most users already have great displays, and they don't see the need in getting yet another display when they can invest the display money in getting a better Mac. Paying for a display you already have looks absurd (note: I've been a friend of the iMac, and have owned a G5 iMac, but I think it no longer fits with the market reality anymore.

    So, the Mac desktop line is wrong at this moment: it doesn't provide what desktop users expect, but what laptop users expect, or what Xeon users expect. It misses the real desktop market entirely

    Most people have great displays? Even first time computer buyers? Even people who want to switch from crappy Dells? Oh if you have a "great monitor", get a mini.

    My brothers and I will all be buying iMacs this year.
  • Reply 36 of 119
    xzuxzu Posts: 139member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by ecs View Post



    I believe the Mac desktops are to blame. It's wrongly designed in this moment. Current Mac desktops assume you either want laptop performance, or you want an "all in one machine", or otherwise you want a Xeon. All these assumptions are plain wrong, because:



    -People looking for a desktop don't want laptop performance. Otherwise they wouldn't buy a desktop, but a MacBook (Pro or Air) and plug it to a big display if needed.



    -Most people don't want an "all in one" in this moment, because most users already have great displays, and they don't see the need in getting yet another display when they can invest the display money in getting a better Mac. Paying for a display you already have looks absurd (note: I've been a friend of the iMac, and have owned a G5 iMac, but I think it no longer fits with the market reality anymore.



    -And it's also plain wrong to assume you want a Xeon if you want more performance than a laptop but don't want an "all in one".



    So, the Mac desktop line is wrong at this moment: it doesn't provide what desktop users expect, but what laptop users expect, or what Xeon users expect. It misses the real desktop market entirely


    EXACTLY!, thank you, i wish i could have expressed that as elegantly as you did. There is a huge whole in the desktop line, and that is, in part, why desktop sales are down. Apple makes and iMac and a workstation, nothing in between. Some users + small business need what is in between. 

  • Reply 37 of 119
    ecsecs Posts: 307member
    jungmark wrote: »
    Most people have great displays? Even first time computer buyers? Even people who want to switch from crappy Dells? Oh if you have a "great monitor", get a mini.

    My brothers and I will all be buying iMacs this year.
    Obviously, not everybody has a great display, but most current desktop users I know have a very good (and *big*, usually bigger than 21 inch) display. Being forced to buy an "all in one" looks nonsense when you already have the display you need. This wasn't true in the past, because we were in the transition from CRTs or from small LCDs, but that's not the market reality anymore.

    People who don't want an "all in one" don't want a Mini, because the Mini is less powerful in GPU. And don't want a Xeon either.

    If Apple released a powerful i7 with a 2GB GPU, with 512 GB SSD and without display, they could offer it in the $1900 price range. And I'm confident this would sell in larger amounts than the whole desktop line in this moment, because that's exactly the kind of performance most desktop users expect in this moment. And Apple could meet such price within its usual pricing, without any new pricing policy
  • Reply 38 of 119
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    sdo2000 wrote: »
    He isn't really far off though. The imac does not have desktop class graphics. The imac uses laptop grade video cards which aren't as powerful as their desktop counterparts. /shrug

    Other than the 17 people globally who play high performance games on their Mac, who cares? The iMac is an incredibly powerful machine that more than meets the needs of 99% of users. If someone needs the fastest video card, they're probably in the group that will want to upgrade the video card regularly - so they're not looking at the iMac, anyway.

    enjourni wrote: »
    Apple killed the older model iMac before they had sufficient stock of the new one, which was horrendously bad planning. They literally had no iMacs to sell anyone, because they could not time the new release correctly. This is management's fault, plain and simple.

    We don't know that. Perhaps they had solid commitments from reputable suppliers and expected adequate supplies right away.

    Granted, it looks very odd that they dropped the old models before the new ones were available, so there's a good chance that you are right, but we can't be absolutely certain.
    piot wrote: »

    I noticed the same thing.

    I suspect that they got the two labels backwards. Either way, though, who else besides a Wall Street Analysts can look at that chart showing years of steady growth in market share, combined with steady growth of profits - and call it bad news?
    solipsismx wrote: »
    So when demand outstrips supply it's Cook's fault no matter how excessive demand is. You think that's a reasonable conclusion to make? You think that if there are 50 million that want to buy the next iPhone in the first weekend they need to have produced 50 million units before they go on sale even if that means pushing back the launch by several months? You don't see how Apple is constrained by what can be sourced and produced at any one time at a given rate? You don't see anything wrong that logic?

    That misses a key point. It's not a demand issue. If sales had increased and they still couldn't supply, then "demand was too great" would make sense. But when sales plummeted, it's certainly a supply issue.

    Now, the argument makes sense with the iPhone - because they've continued to sell more of each new model. It doesn't make sense wrt the iMac.
  • Reply 39 of 119
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by ecs View Post



    but most current desktop users I know have a very good (and *big*, usually bigger than 21 inch) display.

     

    I appreciate that your acquaintances (however many they number) have very good (whatever that means) stand-alone monitors, but sadly, anecdotal evidence and subjective standards get us nowhere. If the iMac were as insensitive to market requirements as you infer, it wouldn't sell. As nearly as I can tell, that is the opposite of the "problem" addressed in this article.
  • Reply 40 of 119
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,223member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by enjourni View Post



    Apple killed the older model iMac before they had sufficient stock of the new one, which was horrendously bad planning. They literally had no iMacs to sell anyone, because they could not time the new release correctly. This is management's fault, plain and simple.


    Couldn't agree more. It was embarrassing to watch them let the holiday season slide by with no new or pervious gen iMacs.


     


    I hope, if they're genuinely taking the 'long view,' that they wait until they have reasonably sufficient inventory to sell before grandly announcing any more new products. 

Sign In or Register to comment.