Apple Watch supplier misses 2M unit break-even point for Q2, FUD flinging ensues

1356716

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 301
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Not spin. If you were paying attention you would have know Cook said they would'nt break out watch sales from the very beginning. He said this before they launched. You are the one making up made up scenerios, Cook is simply sticking to his original game plan.

    I don't get why this is a surprise to anyone. And to all those suggesting Apple is hiding bad sales then the only conclusion is Apple knew before the product went on sale it would be a dud. That's nonsense. Maybe they're just being cautious but so what? Right now ?Watch is big big enough to be broken out on its own. And what benefit does Apple get from releasing sales figures? For those that want this product to be a failure no sales figure would be good enough. And then Apple has a big target on their back with a number they need to beat every quarter. I hope this starts a trend of Apple not releasing sales figures. Amazon never releases figures and nobody seems to care. Microsoft has yet to release sales numbers for Surface and they rarely do for Xbox either. Samsung only releases figures when they want to. It's ridiculous to think somehow Apple is being shady because they won't tell us how many watches they've sold. And even more ridiculous than a number of Apple centric bloggers give an air of being personally offended because Apple won't provide numbers (yes I'm looking at you Bryan Chaffin).
  • Reply 42 of 301
    baederbaeder Posts: 25member
    robbyx wrote: »

    Give me a break.  What can a competitor possibly learn from announcing sales numbers other than the fact that it's not a market worth pursuing?  Seriously.  That was pure spin.  Apple is under no obligation to announce sales numbers, but let's be real.  If they had blown the doors off and sold 10 million units in the first week, they would have been shouting it with glee from every roof top, competition be damned.

    By burying the Apple Watch performance in other, it allows analysts and competitors to speculate as to the number sold by guessing at how much revenue was brought in. If Apple had given out numbered sold and revenue then analysts could have calculated average selling price. Although number sold is valuable, ASP is something even more valuable that Apple doesn't want competitors to know.
    Why? Because then they can more reliably estimate how many of each version were sold. The uniqueness of the Apple Watch, as others here have said, is that Apple is partially using it to create a luxury brand. That may take time, or not even work out in the end. To see if Apple is on the road to achieving a luxury brand it will matter whether Apple sold 100 Editions or 10,000 Editions in their first quarter. If only 100 then it is probably a failure, if 10,000 then wildly successful.
    It is more likely that Apple has sold on the order of 1,000s (but this is just PURE speculation, as from current info it is impossible to have a reliable estimate, so only Apple knows) which would indicate a healthy, if still small, market for luxury smart watches (after all it costs more than 20x a Sport!), and for which Apple would clearly dominate if not even be creating.
    So, by not breaking out the Apple Watch into it's own category Apple has everyone focus on how many smart watches and not on how many luxury smart watches. And roughly two million Apple watches doesn't sound too shabby anyway.

    Just my 2 cents worth.
  • Reply 43 of 301
    bkkcanuckbkkcanuck Posts: 857member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by sog35 View Post





    Not spin. If you were paying attention you would have know Cook said they would'nt break out watch sales from the very beginning. He said this before they launched. You are the one making up made up scenerios, Cook is simply sticking to his original game plan.

    He has been singing the success of the iWatch with glee without really giving the details.  Sales were greater now than for the iPhone and (i forget the other device) - which narrowed it down to a minimum of I believe I heard 3 million.... and June was the best month....  all said in a meeting which if he lied would have problems with the SEC.  

     

    The watch numbers do not have to be broken out.... the rule is that the group has to have a significant impact to the bottom line as an independent / different product line.  #1 The product is too new to have a significant impact, #2 it is an iPhone accessory - which means it will never have to be broken out.  Apple is actually more transparent than many companies where almost nothing is broken out -- probably to its detriment.  

     

    I am personally not a big iWatch fan (for my use).... but the device already is a huge success - especially for a beta product that has not had time to develop a mature ecosystem.... most people are using just the built in apps.  Because of it being an accessory, and because it is less likely to need replace from damage (less likely to drop it) and the replacement/upgrade cycle will naturally be longer for it (once it has matured) because of more limited feature set (no camera, etc.) and only a portion of the people wearing watches..... it has a significant limit to the sales.  Still amazed that they can sell even 3+ million at launch...

  • Reply 44 of 301
    robbyx wrote: »

    I also don't think the iPod is remotely comparable to the Watch.  Portable music players were already a huge business.  Granted, they were mostly CD and tape-based.

    Huh? Watches are not big business?

    More watch units are sold annually worldwide than pre-iPod, non-MP3 music players were.
  • Reply 45 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    robbyx wrote: »
    I also don't think the iPod is remotely comparable to the Watch.  Portable music players were already a huge business.  Granted, they were mostly CD and tape-based.  A few companies had created hard drive-based players and Apple saw an opportunity and delivered a far better product and experience.  You make it sound like Apple created this whole new market and people eventually warmed to it.  That's not true.  SONY was selling millions upon millions of Walkman players and had been for years.  Apple delivered the right product at the right time as the market transitioned to digital files from physical media.  And it was a HUGE hit.  But the consumer was already well accustomed to carrying his or her music around.  The Watch market is nothing like that.

    my father has never carried a Walkman in his life. he does own an iPod (before his iPhone). Apple made a niche device mainstream and common for a lot of people.
  • Reply 46 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    atlapple wrote: »

    No one can prove they are wrong because Apple didn't release any numbers. Besides doom and gloom is to be expected the way Apple hyped this watch. They had Jony Ive out taking pictures with fashion designers that looked they they died ten years ago. This was the product that was going to change the fashion industry. 

    Also I fully believe that Apple did not release the numbers because right now the doom and gloom predictions are not as bad as the actual numbers. Apple is using terms like 'beat internal expectations/numbers" or sales are healthy. It defies logic if the numbers were great and would stop the bad press Apple would release the numbers. Clearly the numbers aren't good or are at least bad enough Apple believes they would hurt the stock price. 

    The whole we don't want to let the competition know how well it's doing is BS. The iPhone is the most copied product in history and they release numbers days after the iPhone 6 was released. 

    nope. either Tim Cook lied to investors on the quarterly call, or you've got little idea what you're talking about. hmm.
  • Reply 47 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    cash907 wrote: »
    As for Cook, hey Tim, if you're so worried about analysts looking too much into reports like these from your suppliers, maybe your should release actual sales numbers instead of cooking your books by burying those figures under headphones and adapter cables. Fact is the enemy of speculation. That's fine if sales didn't get off to a great start for one reason or another. Sales of the original iPhone sucked until Steve himself admitted the misstep and dropped the price substantially. I think history and AAPL stock numbers clearly illustrate how that worked out, so why the lack of honesty? Come clean, admit what everyone but diehard fanboys already know, and do better. The August Best Buy launch is a great step, keep it up. We don't expect you or Apple to be perfect, we just expect you to try harder than anyone else, and be HONEST about it, not treat us like idiot children.

    treat you like idiot children? what the F are you talking about? nobody is cooking any books. sometimes there are legitimate reasons not to disclose something to your competitors. grow up.
  • Reply 48 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    robbyx wrote: »
    Do you really think anyone seriously considers the Apple Watch to be a piece of "fine" jewelry?  It's a nice watch, but it most definitely does not scream "luxury".  And why on Earth would Apple want to go after the luxury category anyway?  They are a consumer electronics company.  If their primary motivation in creating the Watch was to break into the luxury goods market, they need to reexamine priorities ASAP.  That screams vanity and ego, not smart business.

    I think apple's executive leadership has a pretty good handle on "smart business". you know, since they're the biggest and most successful public company in the history of, like, the planet. yeah.
  • Reply 49 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    robbyx wrote: »
    I don't think anyone considers Apple to be "affordable luxury" as you state.  It's not out of reach.  You can get a free iPhone, maybe not the latest model, but you can get an earlier generation for free.  I see plenty of people who definitely can't afford anything "luxury" talking away on their iPhones.  Neither the perception that it is a luxury good, nor the price, drives Apple's iPhone sales.  A better user experience and mindshare does.  iPhone is to "smart phones" as Kleenex is to tissues.  The average consumer wants an iPhone because the general perception is that it's the best product, not a luxury good.  It has a bit of status, for sure, but it's no Prada bag.  If you are right that fashion and a desire to be a luxury goods brand is driving Apple decision making, I see a very bumpy road ahead.

    you're failing to distinguish between luxury and "affordable luxury". yes, the latter is a real thing. and yes, Apple leads in this category.

    you see a bumpy road ahead for Apple? gosh, have you let Cook know? be sure to tell him you're CONCERNED!
  • Reply 50 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    robbyx wrote: »

    Give me a break.  What can a competitor possibly learn from announcing sales numbers other than the fact that it's not a market worth pursuing?  Seriously.  That was pure spin.  Apple is under no obligation to announce sales numbers, but let's be real.  If they had blown the doors off and sold 10 million units in the first week, they would have been shouting it with glee from every roof top, competition be damned.

    I'm guessing you're not very good at poker.
  • Reply 51 of 301
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    sog35 wrote: »
    Not spin. If you were paying attention you would have know Cook said they would'nt break out watch sales from the very beginning. He said this before they launched. You are the one making up made up scenerios, Cook is simply sticking to his original game plan.

    Right. It's called hedging. If sales are weak you fall back on your "plan" to not announce sales numbers. Pretty obvious what's going on. They would have gleefully announced numbers if the numbers were impressive.
  • Reply 52 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    spheric wrote: »
    They don't care much about Android Wear, except perhaps a bit at the low end. Android Wear is no competition: it doesn't work properly with iOS, and Apple Watch doesn't work with Android. Any numbers Apple could publish are useless to Android Wear.

    Apple is aiming the Watch at the profitable luxury timepiece market, which Samsung et al. have absolutely no hope of ever cracking.

    Not one watch manufacturer in that market has a shipping product at this point, and right now, they have no idea how - or whether at all - to respond to Apple's onslaught. THEY need sales data, especially a breakdown of models, to see where the luxury smartwatch market is headed.

    Apple are the ONLY ONES with any data at all, and they aren't giving it to anyone until they themselves have figured out how the market works.

    exactly. knowledge is power. the data is valuable and only Apple has it.
  • Reply 53 of 301
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    Huh? Watches are not big business?

    More watch units are sold annually worldwide than pre-iPod, non-MP3 music players were.

    Watches are a huge business. Smart watches no. People who spent thousands of dollars in luxury watches buy them for the craftsmanship, collectibility, etc. It's not the same thing. With music players people were already used to carrying around music and Apple delivered a better way to do do. I don't see the Watch as an improvement over traditional watches and I don't think consumers do either. It's a gadget first and foremost, a watch second, and will be treated as such by the market.
  • Reply 54 of 301
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    my father has never carried a Walkman in his life. he does own an iPod (before his iPhone). Apple made a niche device mainstream and common for a lot of people.

    Well thanks for clearing that up! Glad to know that since your dad never owned a Walkman and does own an iPod, that the Walkman wasn't a popular device. I didn't realize your dad's buying habits were the measure of device popularity. Understood.
  • Reply 55 of 301
    nousernouser Posts: 65member

    I don't get the hype over iWatch sales.  It, IMO, will never be a high volume item. For me, a watch is basically jewelry. I haven't worn a watch in years.  I don't need to know the exact time every minute. My iPhone has the time and I'm on that a lot.  I believe the new AppleTV will be a much larger volume product for Apple than the iWatch. 

     

    Apple has some of the brightest people in the world planning their next knockout product.  We may have some hints of what they are thinking about with healthkit, homekit, carplay and the iCar.  One thing is crystal clear. Apple has something really big in the works.  You only need look at their R&D spending history to realize the magnitude of this. The link below makes stories about the iWatch totally insignificant and nothing but a diversion, IMO. 

     

    http://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2015/5/3/significant-rd-increase-suggests-apple-is-working-on-something-big

     

    To steal the lyrics from West Side Story, Something's Coming, this may just be Apple's next marketing theme...

  • Reply 56 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    robbyx wrote: »
    Well thanks for clearing that up! Glad to know that since your dad never owned a Walkman and does own an iPod, that the Walkman wasn't a popular device. I didn't realize your dad's buying habits were the measure of device popularity. Understood.

    you're still not getting it. I'm not talking about Walkmans. I'm talking about digital music players -- they were niche devices. they had crappy software. Apple fixed them and single handedly turned digital music players into a device so common that even non-technical senior citizens carried them around.

    if you still don't get it then you're either blind, or trolling.
  • Reply 57 of 301
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    I think apple's executive leadership has a pretty good handle on "smart business". you know, since they're the biggest and most successful public company in the history of, like, the planet. yeah.

    Yes, on the strength of a single product that pulls in 70%+ of their revenue. The Watch, on the other hand, is obviously not selling well and there's no love for it out in the wild, not like we see with iPhone. No enthusiasm. Like I said, if they are trying to get into the "luxury" market, good luck with that!
  • Reply 58 of 301
    nolamacguynolamacguy Posts: 4,758member
    robbyx wrote: »
    Right. It's called hedging. If sales are weak you fall back on your "plan" to not announce sales numbers. Pretty obvious what's going on. They would have gleefully announced numbers if the numbers were impressive.

    again, you must be a lousy poker player.

    the sales and ASP data is valuable. you don't just give it away, until after you're certain you've put yourself into a position of strategic advantage.
  • Reply 59 of 301
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    you're failing to distinguish between luxury and "affordable luxury". yes, the latter is a real thing. and yes, Apple leads in this category.

    you see a bumpy road ahead for Apple? gosh, have you let Cook know? be sure to tell him you're CONCERNED!

    Maybe because "affordable luxury" is an oxymoron? Give me a break. They are a consumer electronics company. Not a fashion brand. If they think they're become s fashion brand, like I said, bumpy road ahead. You obviously have a very short memory. I've been buying Apple stuff for over 30 years. Their epic rise happened in the last few years. So they are big and successful today. Wildly successful. But they spent decades slugging it out and staying afloat. What goes up can come down fast if you make bad choices.
  • Reply 60 of 301
    robbyxrobbyx Posts: 479member
    nolamacguy wrote: »
    I'm guessing you're not very good at poker.

    Sort of like you and logic.
Sign In or Register to comment.