I don't think the PowerMac G4 Cube poor sales can be attribute to the Dotcom bubble burst. It was a strange product with fashion over functionality with a very bad price spot. The unexpendable G4 cube without the screen was about 200$ more expensive than a iMac, and 150 less than a full PowerMac G4.
I disagree that the Cube put fashion over functionality. It was a beautiful product, that was designed well. Like the Mac Mini, it had a very small footprint. Unlike other towers, it used convection cooling. It also came with very nice Harmon Karmon speakers. So, if you wanted a small quiet Mac, the Cube might have been a good choice. The lack of upgradability in comparison to the tower, and no audio input might have played into some people's decision making.
I would guess a combination of things went to it not selling well, part of which you point out. It cost a little more than an iMac, but less than the entry level Tower. There was also some people complaining, which the media jumped all over, that the clear acrylic casing developed hairline cracks. If I recall, the economy that year effected a lot of companies. Apple took a huge write down. At my University's computer store I purchased the $1799 mid level Power Mac for $1599. Apple threw in a free $799 see through acrylic external monitor.
I am not sure why anyone is surprised with what WSJ puts out.
You have to remember that most journalist fail to understand math and science thus the reason they went into the liberal arts. They can not do, so they write. They lack the ability to critical think, analyze and problem solve and therefore you get a story made around fantasies and made up information. They are story tellers not a conveyor of facts, and are the same people who thinks the world if coming to an end because someone misspelled a work or did not conjugate a verb correctly.
I am not sure why people put some much credibility on someone who happens to get a job writing for a paper. Back in time the most educated people were those who could read and write so they were given a higher status in society and lots of credibility. However, today these who wrote for papers are not the most well educated.
Face it they just rewrote the story of chicken little.
The revised story cited an executive from Orange as saying that the new iPhone 5c "isn't selling as well as expected because it is too expensive, and the older iPhone 4S remains an attractive, cheaper option,"
This is an odd statement, considering that the iPhone 4s is free with a contract. There will always be a market segment that will choose the no-cost option, and I wonder how Apple will address this in the long-term.
AI recently ran an article about the adoption of the iPhone 5+ preventing fragmentation. With this in mind, I'd imagine that we'll eventually see one color (white?) of the current 16GB 5c available as the free model and the full spectrum of the next-gen 5c models available at the current price. And when this happens, part of the market will still select the free option.
What I would like to know is why investors can't sue the pants off the WSJ and other prognosticators when their erroneous reports affect the stock price in a negative way. Any lawyers or paralegals around here? It's almost tantamount to libel or slander.
Retailers have been overstocked with the device since launch which means Apple probably anticipated higher demand for the 5C.
This more than anything is telling to me.
Apple runs the tightest supply chain on the planet. They wrote the book on keeping warehouse shelves bare. This seems like a first to me with respect to Apple having inventory sitting around.
This reads precisely like any one of the "analysts" assessments that have been repeatedly proven incorrect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.
Whose expectations? Based on what hard facts? What are your numbers and your sources? Show your work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
Retailers have been overstocked with the device since launch which means Apple probably anticipated higher demand for the 5C.
Having significant inventory is not the same as being "overstocked". What criteria are you basing this statement on? "Overstocked" implies more production than sales potential. Since there's no actual data to go on other than the 5c had a stellar opening weekend (even if dwarfed by 5s sales), and carriers report 5c selling better than most other manufacturers models, there's nothing to base this on. The so-called supply-chain and channel checks are, as has been shown repeatedly, inaccurate at best as they are not comprehensive. It's right up there with asserting the Sun goes 'round the Earth, because looking at the one data point (the apparent motion of the Sun from the vantage point of the spinning Earth) must mean it's fact, right? So you use a flawed methodology to make your initial assertion, which is then used to try to validate the conclusion which you've leapt to; that "Apple probably anticipated higher demand..." - a fact which you cannot possibly know (without insider information).
Quote:
Originally Posted by blackbook
Add in the fact that Apple has launched a massive global advertising campaign for the 5C and it can barely muster a 27% share of sales is also very telling.
That's the worst kind of spin. That tells nothing factual whatsoever. That 27% is of the three models of phone Apple sells. That 27% of Apples' sales is a larger number of phones than most other manufacturers models. How about the fact that Samsung, for example, is reported to have spent even more on their global marketing for the Galaxy line, and their flagship can't even manage the same level of sales as the 5c?
Because the data is incomplete, at best, I can take all that same information and come to a completely opposite conclusion, ready for it?
Apple's command of the supply chain has allowed them to keep retailers flush with inventory despite selling through millions of units in the blowout first weekend of sales. Additionally, the sales of the 5s were even higher than expected, topping 5c sales by ~2:1. However, despite the unprecedented consumer demand for the 5s which has constrained initial supply, Apple is only estimating a short 2-3 week delay to backfill that ongoing massive demand and while still maintaing adequate production levels for the 5c, further emphasizing their ability to continually manage a highly complex supply chain.
I am not sure why anyone is surprised with what WSJ puts out.
You have to remember that most journalist fail to understand math and science thus the reason they went into the liberal arts. They can not do, so they write. They lack the ability to critical think, analyze and problem solve and therefore you get a story made around fantasies and made up information. They are story tellers not a conveyor of facts, and are the same people who thinks the world if coming to an end because someone misspelled a work or did not conjugate a verb correctly.
I am not sure why people put some much credibility on someone who happens to get a job writing for a paper. Back in time the most educated people were those who could read and write so they were given a higher status in society and lots of credibility. However, today these who wrote for papers are not the most well educated.
Face it they just rewrote the story of chicken little.
I wouldn't write home about your ability to write either..... I am sure they'd consider it even.
(And, in case you're wondering, I did not go into liberal arts.)
What was the sales ratio of iPhone 5 and 4S during the last year? Was it also near 64% and 27% , like the iPhone 5S&C ? If so this is all smoke and no fire.
That is a short sighted analysis.
This isn't the 4S compare to the 5.
The 5c is a brand new model, completely redesigned and engineered, with a brand new massive marketing campaign that 4s never had, nor the 4 before it, et al. The 5c is being sold on its own merits that the 4s wasn't -- the 4s was merely last years discounted model ... The 5c is a multi-colored party in your pants!
So this is the real story -- the 4s sold something like 24% of total iPhone sales during launch. But the 5c was a major investment on Apple's part and yielded only a 3% gain in sales? Arguably that's the average amount Apple could expect sales to increase from year to year, as I believe Apple has continually grown market share each year since the iPhone's introduction.
Now, if Apple could gain 3% from typical annual brand growth without doing anything, what exactly did they gain from the massive expenditure in the 5c by completely redesigning the 5, upgrading the internals and launching a massive international marketing campaign? Even if the 5c can be proven to account for the entire 3% growth in launch sales over the 4s last year, did that really justify or even recoup Apple's massive investment?
That's the real story. And it looks like Apple's investment squarely did not pay off.
The 5c is a brand new model, completely redesigned and engineered, with a brand new massive marketing campaign that 4s never had, nor the 4 before it, et al. The 5c is being sold on its own merits that the 4s wasn't -- the 4s was merely last years discounted model ... The 5c is a multi-colored party in your pants!
So this is the real story -- the 4s sold something like 24% of total iPhone sales during launch. But the 5c was a major investment on Apple's part and yielded only a 3% gain in sales? Arguably that's the average amount Apple could expect sales to increase from year to year, as I believe Apple has continually grown market share each year since the iPhone's introduction.
Now, if Apple could gain 3% from typical annual brand growth without doing anything, what exactly did they gain from the massive expenditure in the 5c by completely redesigning the 5, upgrading the internals and launching a massive international marketing campaign? Even if the 5c can be proven to account for the entire 3% growth in launch sales over the 4s last year, did that really justify or even recoup Apple's massive investment?
That's the real story. And it looks like Apple's investment squarely did not pay off.
I've said this before in the other thread- people can't wrap their head around it for some reason.
There were 9 million sold opening weekend this year, and 6 million opening weekend last year. So even if the percentage was the exact same (which it likely is more for the 5c for the data we have)- it's still a 50% increase in units sold. That's remarkable. Both the 5s and 5c are huge successes over their predecessors.
The 5c is a brand new model, completely redesigned and engineered, with a brand new massive marketing campaign that 4s never had, nor the 4 before it, et al. The 5c is being sold on its own merits that the 4s wasn't -- the 4s was merely last years discounted model ... The 5c is a multi-colored party in your pants!
So this is the real story -- the 4s sold something like 24% of total iPhone sales during launch. But the 5c was a major investment on Apple's part and yielded only a 3% gain in sales? Arguably that's the average amount Apple could expect sales to increase from year to year, as I believe Apple has continually grown market share each year since the iPhone's introduction.
Now, if Apple could gain 3% from typical annual brand growth without doing anything, what exactly did they gain from the massive expenditure in the 5c by completely redesigning the 5, upgrading the internals and launching a massive international marketing campaign? Even if the 5c can be proven to account for the entire 3% growth in launch sales over the 4s last year, did that really justify or even recoup Apple's massive investment?
That's the real story. And it looks like Apple's investment squarely did not pay off.
The 5C isn't the flagship and you can't compare percentages that way with any real meaning with out the total number.
I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.
How the @#$% do you have any business making this statement whatsoever?
What magical @#$%ing insight do you have that gives you the clout to say such a stupid thing?
I've seen reports showing me that the iPhone 5C is presumed to be selling 4% better than the 4S in YOY timeframe. That is all they could have hoped for.
The other possibility was that the 5C outsold the more expensive 5S, which Apple would have seen as a disaster.
Yes. The 27% of Apple's sales of iPhone is huge considering it's essentially an iPhone 5. With the price difference, I didn't expect the 5c to be the highest demand model. And it's possible that the profit margin on the 5c is higher (in percent of unit price) if indeed it uses mostly iPhone 5 parts (which at this point in time are cheaper than the 5s parts). Seems like the 5c is highly successful. I don't know what Apple's expectations were, but I don't see where they would be disappointed at all.
I'd say this was more telling of the real situation:
You might want to wait until November to see the October numbers on that chart. 3 days worth of data, intro data at that, doesn't tell us much about the ongoing success of a product. Especially when 2 of the carriers were selling more of the S4.
If the 5c is still in the #2 spot in 2 of the carriers for October then I'd say it is selling well in the US.
Hell, 41 days of data doesn't even tell us that much.
There were 9 million sold opening weekend this year, and 6 million opening weekend last year.
But how do you equate this with the success of the 5c. If they had simply followed historical patterns and offered the last years 5, might it have done just as well? I think it would have based on how well the 4 did to the 4S. I believe the iPhone overall has consistently done better than the previous year, as I said above. So I still don't see the 5c being justified.
Comments
I don't think the PowerMac G4 Cube poor sales can be attribute to the Dotcom bubble burst. It was a strange product with fashion over functionality with a very bad price spot. The unexpendable G4 cube without the screen was about 200$ more expensive than a iMac, and 150 less than a full PowerMac G4.
I disagree that the Cube put fashion over functionality. It was a beautiful product, that was designed well. Like the Mac Mini, it had a very small footprint. Unlike other towers, it used convection cooling. It also came with very nice Harmon Karmon speakers. So, if you wanted a small quiet Mac, the Cube might have been a good choice. The lack of upgradability in comparison to the tower, and no audio input might have played into some people's decision making.
I would guess a combination of things went to it not selling well, part of which you point out. It cost a little more than an iMac, but less than the entry level Tower. There was also some people complaining, which the media jumped all over, that the clear acrylic casing developed hairline cracks. If I recall, the economy that year effected a lot of companies. Apple took a huge write down. At my University's computer store I purchased the $1799 mid level Power Mac for $1599. Apple threw in a free $799 see through acrylic external monitor.
I am not sure why anyone is surprised with what WSJ puts out.
You have to remember that most journalist fail to understand math and science thus the reason they went into the liberal arts. They can not do, so they write. They lack the ability to critical think, analyze and problem solve and therefore you get a story made around fantasies and made up information. They are story tellers not a conveyor of facts, and are the same people who thinks the world if coming to an end because someone misspelled a work or did not conjugate a verb correctly.
I am not sure why people put some much credibility on someone who happens to get a job writing for a paper. Back in time the most educated people were those who could read and write so they were given a higher status in society and lots of credibility. However, today these who wrote for papers are not the most well educated.
Face it they just rewrote the story of chicken little.
For them, facts are for the birds.
It was too expensive, though. Almost the same price as the standup G4.
This is an odd statement, considering that the iPhone 4s is free with a contract. There will always be a market segment that will choose the no-cost option, and I wonder how Apple will address this in the long-term.
AI recently ran an article about the adoption of the iPhone 5+ preventing fragmentation. With this in mind, I'd imagine that we'll eventually see one color (white?) of the current 16GB 5c available as the free model and the full spectrum of the next-gen 5c models available at the current price. And when this happens, part of the market will still select the free option.
What I would like to know is why investors can't sue the pants off the WSJ and other prognosticators when their erroneous reports affect the stock price in a negative way. Any lawyers or paralegals around here? It's almost tantamount to libel or slander.
Apple runs the tightest supply chain on the planet. They wrote the book on keeping warehouse shelves bare. This seems like a first to me with respect to Apple having inventory sitting around.
Wall Street Journal > Rupert Murdoch > Fox.
What would Rupert Murdoch gain by denigrating Apple?
Are iTunes and Apple TV a threat to Fox and Murdoch's International cable and satellite TV networks?
After all Rupert uses his media power to support politicians who offer the best deals so he can maintain or increase his media empire
This reads precisely like any one of the "analysts" assessments that have been repeatedly proven incorrect.
Quote:
I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.
Whose expectations? Based on what hard facts? What are your numbers and your sources? Show your work.
Quote:
Retailers have been overstocked with the device since launch which means Apple probably anticipated higher demand for the 5C.
Having significant inventory is not the same as being "overstocked". What criteria are you basing this statement on? "Overstocked" implies more production than sales potential. Since there's no actual data to go on other than the 5c had a stellar opening weekend (even if dwarfed by 5s sales), and carriers report 5c selling better than most other manufacturers models, there's nothing to base this on. The so-called supply-chain and channel checks are, as has been shown repeatedly, inaccurate at best as they are not comprehensive. It's right up there with asserting the Sun goes 'round the Earth, because looking at the one data point (the apparent motion of the Sun from the vantage point of the spinning Earth) must mean it's fact, right? So you use a flawed methodology to make your initial assertion, which is then used to try to validate the conclusion which you've leapt to; that "Apple probably anticipated higher demand..." - a fact which you cannot possibly know (without insider information).
Quote:
Add in the fact that Apple has launched a massive global advertising campaign for the 5C and it can barely muster a 27% share of sales is also very telling.
I wouldn't write home about your ability to write either..... I am sure they'd consider it even.
(And, in case you're wondering, I did not go into liberal arts.)
This isn't the 4S compare to the 5.
The 5c is a brand new model, completely redesigned and engineered, with a brand new massive marketing campaign that 4s never had, nor the 4 before it, et al. The 5c is being sold on its own merits that the 4s wasn't -- the 4s was merely last years discounted model ... The 5c is a multi-colored party in your pants!
So this is the real story -- the 4s sold something like 24% of total iPhone sales during launch. But the 5c was a major investment on Apple's part and yielded only a 3% gain in sales? Arguably that's the average amount Apple could expect sales to increase from year to year, as I believe Apple has continually grown market share each year since the iPhone's introduction.
Now, if Apple could gain 3% from typical annual brand growth without doing anything, what exactly did they gain from the massive expenditure in the 5c by completely redesigning the 5, upgrading the internals and launching a massive international marketing campaign? Even if the 5c can be proven to account for the entire 3% growth in launch sales over the 4s last year, did that really justify or even recoup Apple's massive investment?
That's the real story. And it looks like Apple's investment squarely did not pay off.
I've said this before in the other thread- people can't wrap their head around it for some reason.
There were 9 million sold opening weekend this year, and 6 million opening weekend last year. So even if the percentage was the exact same (which it likely is more for the 5c for the data we have)- it's still a 50% increase in units sold. That's remarkable. Both the 5s and 5c are huge successes over their predecessors.
The 5C isn't the flagship and you can't compare percentages that way with any real meaning with out the total number.
Breaking News- Apple Times reports " WSJ Journalists are caught sleeping with Goldman Sachs Board and Few Big Market Makers"
I said this in the other thread but it's rather apparent to me that the 5C is selling below expectations.
How the @#$% do you have any business making this statement whatsoever?
What magical @#$%ing insight do you have that gives you the clout to say such a stupid thing?
I've seen reports showing me that the iPhone 5C is presumed to be selling 4% better than the 4S in YOY timeframe. That is all they could have hoped for.
The other possibility was that the 5C outsold the more expensive 5S, which Apple would have seen as a disaster.
I'd say this was more telling of the real situation:
You might want to wait until November to see the October numbers on that chart. 3 days worth of data, intro data at that, doesn't tell us much about the ongoing success of a product. Especially when 2 of the carriers were selling more of the S4.
If the 5c is still in the #2 spot in 2 of the carriers for October then I'd say it is selling well in the US.
Hell, 41 days of data doesn't even tell us that much.