To be honest I don't really understand why every iPhone launch, every single one, starts out with "constrained supply" unless that's the way Apple prefers it.
You two?
Describe to me the timeframe it would take and the ramp up procedure for making 60 million devices manufactured, boxed, and shipped to every country before launch just so the launch day customers can hopefully have the exact one they want.
Do you really not see the silliness of how demand affects supply and how companies that make HW aren't building them in a vacuum? Did you consider that if your product is in that high of demand and if have the ability to serve 20% on launch that it would then drive even more to want it on launch which you'd have also had to consider otherwise you'd have a "constrained supply." Tell me, as the CEO of this fictional company, what is your reasoning for "preferring" that the customer can't buy your device when logic says that you only make money when you can sell your product. If anything, it means your product is priced too low if your demand far exceeds your supply, especially when you see scalpers easily selling them to customers at 2x their retail price.
As for your question about not having product for a customer to buy Apple fans will not go buy some other brand of phone simply because they have to wait an extra week or two. Ain't happenin' with iPhones. Maybe if you were selling tomatoes. You know as well as I do if you're even remotely familiar with marketing that scarcity can lead to demand. It creates excitement and anticipation, and tends to make things seem more valuable when that thing is scarce and in high demand. There's a sense of urgency in acquiring it. It's not a bad thing for some of Apple's new products to be in short supply when they first hit the market. Buyers won't bolt to another product instead.
omg. again, to suggest that Cook prefers not to sell actual devices for actual profit because "excitement" is insanity. nobody who actual does business thinks that way, only kids on rumors sites who don't really understand what it means to run a successful business take up fanciful delusions like that. Cook would absolutely prefer to sell actual products for actual profit. but there's only so much capacity resulting in launch day supply constraints, as usual. scaling up physical assembly lines and staff for launch day isn't like scaling up a website on dynamic hosting. you can just wind it down two weeks later. that's equipment and components and people that cost you money to scale up, now they're unneeded. that would be stupid. instead you make what you can and expect to produce steadily, and let the whiners whine a little.
so amazed this conversation has to happen every year. wtf.
It seriously amazes me that Apple always seems to be supply constrained these days considering a supply chain guru is CEO and his right hand operations man is COO.
1) These days? WTF are you smoking?
2) Every fucking year you act surprised by normal supply and demand issues with a new product. Every fucking year the basics of given to you, and every fucking year you choose not to understand that Apple's supply is affect by both customer demand and that demand pressure is affected by the number of items it can build. Every fucking year.
Sorry but throwing the f-bomb every other word doesn't make your point more valid. New iPhones on sale September 16*
*except most black models which won't be available; oh and we recommend against walk-ins as most stores won't have an stock.
The jet black phone was essentially sold out before anyone could even order it which means next to no supply. Last year Apple announced the phone on 9/9 but they didn't go on sale until 9/25. Perhaps they should have done that this year to give them an extra week to ramp up supply.
Did you or did you not want the iPhone Upgrade Program members to get choices before people that walk in off the street.
2) Again, what part of supply v demand do you not fucking understand?
This isn't a demand issue it's a supply issue.
:face-fucking-palm:
When a phone is sold out the minute it goes on sale there clearly weren't many for sale to begin with. Keep cursing all you want doesn't make your argument superior.
i signed on at 2:11a, checked out by 2:22 due to IUP enrollment. jet black, 9/16.
Explain what iPhone sale Apple loses if you have to wait an extra week.
As for the scarcity principle itself and why in can be advantageous for a company when used as a part of marketing simply search it up. Articles about it are hardly scarce (pun intended), and they explain much better than I can why your company might make MORE profits by not meeting initial demands. At the end of the day profits are the highest priority. Whatever gets them there. . .
Exactly what benefit is there to delay the launch a week? If they have build capacity of 1,000 phones per day (for simplicity) and have worked up to a stock of 50,000 from 50 days of production, which will be sold in say 2 weeks, why wait until you have 7,000 more only to have those sold in that 2nd week? It is scarce either way, as is obvious by the expected November delivery for some of the phones already.
Is it impressive or a marketing stunt. They sell out year after year. Why don't they just make millions more before launch - what doesn't sell will sell pre-christmas.
jesus not this nonsense again. look -- corporations breathe profit. they get it by selling things. they don't get it by intentionally not selling things for "sold out!" headlines. that's insanity. real profit comes from selling real products. not selling something now so they can sell it later doesn't make any sense.
also, these things don't grow on trees, you can only build so many in advance.
Of course you can make more money using scarcity principles than meeting everyone's immediate demand if you play your cards right. It's done every day in business. I've not any idea why anyone would be up in arms if Apple would happen to be using all the marketing advantages they have at hand. Intentional or not, "not enough to meet demand" happens every year, even back when they weren't selling 10M+ at launch which wasn't all that many years ago. From all outward appearances scarcity plays to Apple's benefit, just as it does with other in-demand products. Some here act like it's cheating or something.
no, we just think what you're saying is stupid. very, very, very stupid. why? because apple is already the top seller of the most successful CE good in history. they don't need scarcity headlines -- they *already* can't make them fast enough. that means lost sales. that means lost profits. profits are what corporations breathe. it is their air.
again, what you're suggesting (artificial scarcity) is very, very, very stupid.
To be honest I don't really understand why every iPhone launch, every single one, starts out with "constrained supply" unless that's the way Apple prefers it.
You two?
Describe to me the timeframe it would take and the ramp up procedure for making 60 million devices manufactured, boxed, and shipped to every country before launch just so the launch day customers can hopefully have the exact one they want.
Do you really not see the silliness of how demand affects supply and how companies that make HW aren't building them in a vacuum? Did you consider that if your product is in that high of demand and if have the ability to serve 20% on launch that it would then drive even more to want it on launch which you'd have also had to consider otherwise you'd have a "constrained supply." Tell me, as the CEO of this fictional company, what is your reasoning for "preferring" that the customer can't buy your device when logic says that you only make money when you can sell your product. If anything, it means your product is priced too low if your demand far exceeds your supply, especially when you see scalpers easily selling them to customers at 2x their retail price.
As for your question about not having product for a customer to buy Apple fans will not go buy some other brand of phone simply because they have to wait an extra week or two. Ain't happenin' with iPhones. Maybe if you were selling tomatoes. You know as well as I do if you're even remotely familiar with marketing that scarcity can lead to demand. It creates excitement and anticipation, and tends to make things seem more valuable when that thing is scarce and in high demand. There's a sense of urgency in acquiring it. It's not a bad thing for some of Apple's new products to be in short supply when they first hit the market. Buyers won't bolt to another product instead.
omg. again, to suggest that Cook prefers not to sell actual devices for actual profit because "excitement" is insanity. nobody who actual does business thinks that way...
They lose a week of sales that could be sold the next week. In most quarters, they lose sales for that quarter. They potentially lose sales to other vendors for customers with the conspiracy theory mindset, like you and Rogifan, that believe the company is withholding for unethical and nefarious reasons, and feel like it's a personal slap in your face. They lose sales from the "new hotness" factor that causes the constraint in the first place. They lose sales from the domino effect when customers are selling the devices to others around them simply by owning it.
Oh, so you think I was intimating Apple had some evil reason for not having enough iPhones on hand? Well there's where your problem lies then. That's not at all what I said or even hinted at. No wonder you disagreed with me, you didn't understand or incorrectly read what I posted.
If you believe they are artificially creating demand when they could be selling units to customers, then yes. What amazes me is that you and Rogifan think the demand has to be invented.
I've zero idea whether they're artificially restricting supply or whether it's by pure happenstance that something seems to happen every year to restrict supplies, nor do you.
I happen to know, and you should as well. As stated excessively in thread already, 1) it makes no sense for Apple to artificially limit sales when there are customers willing to buy, and 2) you damn well know this happens every year because of demand.
Again on #1, artificially limiting supply would only be beneficial to their bottom line if they increased their retail price as a result of this increased demand so that demand and supply are equal. Since the only ones that benefit from the demand overwhelming the initial supply are scalpers, how can claim this is Apple's doing and their benefit? It makes zero sense.
Is it impressive or a marketing stunt. They sell out year after year. Why don't they just make millions more before launch - what doesn't sell will sell pre-christmas.
jesus not this nonsense again. look -- corporations breathe profit. they get it by selling things. they don't get it by intentionally not selling things for "sold out!" headlines. that's insanity. real profit comes from selling real products. not selling something now so they can sell it later doesn't make any sense.
also, these things don't grow on trees, you can only build so many in advance.
Of course you can make more money using scarcity principles than meeting everyone's immediate demand if you play your cards right. It's done every day in business. I've not any idea why anyone would be up in arms if Apple would happen to be using all the marketing advantages they have at hand. Intentional or not, "not enough to meet demand" happens every year, even back when they weren't selling 10M+ at launch which wasn't all that many years ago. From all outward appearances scarcity plays to Apple's benefit, just as it does with other in-demand products. Some here act like it's cheating or something.
no, we just think what you're say is stupid. very, very, very stupid. why? because apple is already the top seller of the most successful CE good in history. they don't need scarcity headlines -- they *already* can't make them fast enough. that means lost sales. that means lost profits. profits are what corporations breathe. it is their air.
again, what you're suggesting (artificial scarcity) is very, very, very stupid.
No you're adding the word "artificial". Neither one of us knows why, we only see the results, and they cause Apple zero harm but might in fact help hold the line on pricing and margin. Whether you personally think it's stupid matters for naught, anymore than my opinion does.
Is it impressive or a marketing stunt. They sell out year after year. Why don't they just make millions more before launch - what doesn't sell will sell pre-christmas.
jesus not this nonsense again. look -- corporations breathe profit. they get it by selling things. they don't get it by intentionally not selling things for "sold out!" headlines. that's insanity. real profit comes from selling real products. not selling something now so they can sell it later doesn't make any sense.
also, these things don't grow on trees, you can only build so many in advance.
From all outward appearances scarcity plays to Apple's benefit
If you think that scarcity is better than meeting demand, explain to me how not selling an iPhone benefit Apple more than selling an iPhone?
Explain what iPhone sale Apple loses if you have to wait an extra week.
As for the scarcity principle itself and why in can be advantageous for a company when used as a part of marketing simply search it up. Articles about it are hardly scarce (pun intended), and they explain much better than I can why your company might make MORE profits by not meeting initial demands. At the end of the day profits are the highest priority. Whatever gets them there. . .
UNLESS YOURE ALREADY SO POPULAR THAT YOU CANT MEET YOUR DEMAND! thats where your trite little story breaks down. if you're some obscure boutique cupcake company, sure maybe that could work for you. but not when you're already on the very top.
If you think that scarcity is better than meeting demand, explain to me how not selling an iPhone benefit Apple more than selling an iPhone?
Well in his world there's no angry customer. Everyone rejected will just be rejoice to come back for more. Isn't it fabulous?
You should do more reading about marketing. By the way does the "troll meme" ever get old? I'm way past getting my feelings hurt by name-calling. I know why folks resort to it. Don't get so emotional. Apple isn't under attack and there's no danger of them going broke. It's all good.
trolls exist on every forum and it has nothing to do with apple or going broke. it has to do to with annoying dipshits who dilute the signal to noise ratio of a community with intentionally FUD nonsense. like yours.
If you think that scarcity is better than meeting demand, explain to me how not selling an iPhone benefit Apple more than selling an iPhone?
Well in his world there's no angry customer. Everyone rejected will just be rejoice to come back for more. Isn't it fabulous?
You should do more reading about marketing. By the way does the "troll meme" ever get old? I'm way past getting my feelings hurt by name-calling. I know why folks resort to it. Don't get so emotional. Apple isn't under attack and there's no danger of them going broke. It's all good.
trolls exist on every forum and it has nothing to do with apple or going broke. it has to do to with annoying dipshits who dilute the signal to noise ratio of a community with intentionally FUD nonsense. like yours.
Gosh I always thought name-calling and personal insults was trolling too.
Is it impressive or a marketing stunt. They sell out year after year. Why don't they just make millions more before launch - what doesn't sell will sell pre-christmas.
jesus not this nonsense again. look -- corporations breathe profit. they get it by selling things. they don't get it by intentionally not selling things for "sold out!" headlines. that's insanity. real profit comes from selling real products. not selling something now so they can sell it later doesn't make any sense.
also, these things don't grow on trees, you can only build so many in advance.
From all outward appearances scarcity plays to Apple's benefit
If you think that scarcity is better than meeting demand, explain to me how not selling an iPhone benefit Apple more than selling an iPhone?
Explain what iPhone sale Apple loses if you have to wait an extra week.
As for the scarcity principle itself and why in can be advantageous for a company when used as a part of marketing simply search it up. Articles about it are hardly scarce (pun intended), and they explain much better than I can why your company might make MORE profits by not meeting initial demands. At the end of the day profits are the highest priority. Whatever gets them there. . .
UNLESS YOURE ALREADY SO POPULAR THAT YOU CANT MEET YOUR DEMAND! thats where your trite little story breaks down. if you're some obscure boutique cupcake company, sure maybe that could work for you...
DeBeers. . .
And no, to cut you off before you start Apple is no DeBeers.
To be honest I don't really understand why every iPhone launch, every single one, starts out with "constrained supply" unless that's the way Apple prefers it.
You two?
Describe to me the timeframe it would take and the ramp up procedure for making 60 million devices manufactured, boxed, and shipped to every country before launch just so the launch day customers can hopefully have the exact one they want.
Do you really not see the silliness of how demand affects supply and how companies that make HW aren't building them in a vacuum? Did you consider that if your product is in that high of demand and if have the ability to serve 20% on launch that it would then drive even more to want it on launch which you'd have also had to consider otherwise you'd have a "constrained supply." Tell me, as the CEO of this fictional company, what is your reasoning for "preferring" that the customer can't buy your device when logic says that you only make money when you can sell your product. If anything, it means your product is priced too low if your demand far exceeds your supply, especially when you see scalpers easily selling them to customers at 2x their retail price.
As for your question about not having product for a customer to buy Apple fans will not go buy some other brand of phone simply because they have to wait an extra week or two. Ain't happenin' with iPhones. Maybe if you were selling tomatoes. You know as well as I do if you're even remotely familiar with marketing that scarcity can lead to demand. It creates excitement and anticipation, and tends to make things seem more valuable when that thing is scarce and in high demand. There's a sense of urgency in acquiring it. It's not a bad thing for some of Apple's new products to be in short supply when they first hit the market. Buyers won't bolt to another product instead.
omg. again, to suggest that Cook prefers not to sell actual devices for actual profit because "excitement" is insanity. nobody who actual does business thinks that way...
nope. when you're already the most desired product in your category and already literally can't make them fast enough, scarcity doesn't help you. your suggestion of apple creating artificial scarcity doesn't hold a drop of water. it's the same bullshit troll nonsense we see every year from those ignorant of reality or pushing an agenda.
Is it impressive or a marketing stunt. They sell out year after year. Why don't they just make millions more before launch - what doesn't sell will sell pre-christmas.
jesus not this nonsense again. look -- corporations breathe profit. they get it by selling things. they don't get it by intentionally not selling things for "sold out!" headlines. that's insanity. real profit comes from selling real products. not selling something now so they can sell it later doesn't make any sense.
also, these things don't grow on trees, you can only build so many in advance.
From all outward appearances scarcity plays to Apple's benefit
If you think that scarcity is better than meeting demand, explain to me how not selling an iPhone benefit Apple more than selling an iPhone?
Explain what iPhone sale Apple loses if you have to wait an extra week.
As for the scarcity principle itself and why in can be advantageous for a company when used as a part of marketing simply search it up. Articles about it are hardly scarce (pun intended), and they explain much better than I can why your company might make MORE profits by not meeting initial demands. At the end of the day profits are the highest priority. Whatever gets them there. . .
UNLESS YOURE ALREADY SO POPULAR THAT YOU CANT MEET YOUR DEMAND! thats where your trite little story breaks down. if you're some obscure boutique cupcake company, sure maybe that could work for you...
DeBeers. . .
And no, to cut you off before you start Apple is no DeBeers.
Then why mention a company that has a monopoly on a gemstone so they keep the prices high when you're trying to argue that Apple artificially prevents sales of their devices despite their prices not being subject to market interest, except by scampers?
Is it impressive or a marketing stunt. They sell out year after year. Why don't they just make millions more before launch - what doesn't sell will sell pre-christmas.
jesus not this nonsense again. look -- corporations breathe profit. they get it by selling things. they don't get it by intentionally not selling things for "sold out!" headlines. that's insanity. real profit comes from selling real products. not selling something now so they can sell it later doesn't make any sense.
also, these things don't grow on trees, you can only build so many in advance.
Of course you can make more money using scarcity principles than meeting everyone's immediate demand if you play your cards right. It's done every day in business. I've not any idea why anyone would be up in arms if Apple would happen to be using all the marketing advantages they have at hand. Intentional or not, "not enough to meet demand" happens every year, even back when they weren't selling 10M+ at launch which wasn't all that many years ago. From all outward appearances scarcity plays to Apple's benefit, just as it does with other in-demand products. Some here act like it's cheating or something.
no, we just think what you're say is stupid. very, very, very stupid. why? because apple is already the top seller of the most successful CE good in history. they don't need scarcity headlines -- they *already* can't make them fast enough. that means lost sales. that means lost profits. profits are what corporations breathe. it is their air.
again, what you're suggesting (artificial scarcity) is very, very, very stupid.
No you're adding the word "artificial". Neither one of us knows why, we only see the results, and they cause Apple zero harm but might in fact help hold the line on pricing and margin. Whether you personally think it's stupid matters for naught, anymore than my opinion does.
i am not adding the word artificial -- that's the entire point of what we're talking about. you're just trying to shift your position so you can back out gracefully and pretend you were just talking about scarcity in general. we weren't, you weren't.
Intentional scarcity is a perfectly fine and valid marketing and sales strategy. It just has nothing to do with Apple. The principle itself is about building up demand to achieve a peak sales cycle, and hopefully that sales cycle feeds further sales cycles.
That doesn't apply to the iPhone at all (and probably not to any Apple product). There are two aspects of this. First, demand is already pent up at the launch and possibly even close to the optimum level. The months leading up to the launch is the actual period where Apple is benefiting from scarcity. That demand already exists before the product is available. Second, the peak sales cycle for the iPhone is the holiday season. As others have already explained, it would make absolutely terrible financial business sense to ramp up production for launch only to have to scale it back. We don't know the most efficient way to produce the iPhone, but it almost certainly is tied to the annual demand pattern. High in the beginning, peak about 2-3 ,months in, and then trailing off. There's a reason Apple moved the iPhone releases to September.
Finally, as others have also pointed out it's a lot more complex than deciding to make more for launch. Locking design, parts specifications, working with parts vendors, waiting for parts inventory to build up, etc, etc etc mean Apple most likely doesn't have every piece in place until sometime in the (northern hemisphere) summer. Then incorporate Apple's desire to minimize supply chain leaks means they have a very tight timeline going from design to production.
If you think that scarcity is better than meeting demand, explain to me how not selling an iPhone benefit Apple more than selling an iPhone?
Well in his world there's no angry customer. Everyone rejected will just be rejoice to come back for more. Isn't it fabulous?
You should do more reading about marketing. By the way does the "troll meme" ever get old? I'm way past getting my feelings hurt by name-calling. I know why folks resort to it. Don't get so emotional. Apple isn't under attack and there's no danger of them going broke. It's all good.
trolls exist on every forum and it has nothing to do with apple or going broke. it has to do to with annoying dipshits who dilute the signal to noise ratio of a community with intentionally FUD nonsense. like yours.
Gosh I always thought name-calling and personal insults was trolling too.
to borrow a phrase, you misunderstood or misread. i said trolls are on every forum and are annoying dipsits and it has nothing to do with apple as you suggested. i also said they dilute useful content with noise and FUD nonsense posts. then i said your posts are FUD nonsense.
Is it impressive or a marketing stunt. They sell out year after year. Why don't they just make millions more before launch - what doesn't sell will sell pre-christmas.
It's quite simple, if you just think about it.
1. Starting production earlier means that you must complete all manufacturing testing and optimization earlier, you must install any specialized equipment earlier, you must bring on additional required staff earlier. Everything prior to production ramping is also moved to earlier dates. It's not like Apple has everything ready and is sitting with huge bins of parts and idle factories, purposefully delaying the start of production. The whole supply chain needs time to ramp prior to ramping production; if even one component isn't ready, then not one phone can be assembled. So it's a huge coordination task, and volume production begins when it begins. Nobody is purposefully holding back supply.
2. Scaling production, once begun, could alleviate much of the initial supply constrants.Apple, along with its production partners, could build twice the number of assembly lines, order from suppliers twice the component flow, requiring partners to scale up their own production capabilities. But you don't scale production to meet an initial surge in demand. That would be a foolish waste of energy and resources. You scale production closer to what you think steady state demand will be, so that you and your many suppliers aren't scrambling for workers, training them, building out more production lines, which require more floor space, only to soon after idle those production lines, layoff those extra workers you just took pains to find, hire, and train, and shut the lights in now empty facilities. That would be insane. When you have a popular product like the iPhone, you suffer some initial supply constraint in order to optimize these other things.
Don't worry, I'm copying my comment so I'll be able to paste it here again next year.
Ah see? You and I are on nearly the same page, or at least arriving at much the same conclusion. Like you I don't think it's an Apple priority to have enough supply to meet demand for a new release. In addition to the points your raised as to why they might choose to limit supplies (if that's what they're doing) I added the mention that it works to Apple's advantage in ways other than the ones you brought up. We are both saying Apple's "constrained supply" could be corrected in many cases if were to their advantage to do so. It's not and for reasons beyond just a steady manufacturing pace. When you can't immediately get what you think you want it makes that thing more desirable. I guarantee there's folks making themselves crazy trying to find a black iPhone 7 Plus, right now. They'd drive 250 miles if they thought they could get it, or pay a premium if someone would let them have theirs.
Finally, as others have also pointed out it's a lot more complex than deciding to make more for launch. Locking design, parts specifications, working with parts vendors, waiting for parts inventory to build up, etc, etc etc mean Apple most likely doesn't have every piece in place until sometime in the (northern hemisphere) summer. Then incorporate Apple's desire to minimize supply chain leaks means they have a very tight timeline going from design to production.
If anyone is creating scarcity it's a component vendor, or even a materials vendor for a component that they know will be in high demand because Apple is the client. I'm sure this has happened innumerable times in their past, which is one reason Apple tries to maintain multiple vendors for components; but that may not always be possible. Personally, I doubt this works out well in the long-term for anyone that tries this against Apple or one of their component vendors.
Apple did not make so many because they were thinking that the 7 wouldn't sell so well. Then they moved up the launch by a week (usually there is more time between the announcement and the launch, so there was less stock, then they had to something for the IPhone Upgrade program people, so there went the store stock.
Until we we see real numbers, I'm not going to assume that 7 is a big winner yet. All those people buying Apple stock on margin might be sorry.
All I hear is blah blah blah, like every year basically.
Until we we see real numbers, I'm not going to assume that 7 is a big winner yet. All those people buying Apple stock on margin might be sorry.
When we see the iPhone 7 series come out at the highest selling iPhone for a year ending quarter, are you going to say, "well, that's only because Samsung gave it to them because of battery issues that really only affected a couple of people"?
Comments
omg. again, to suggest that Cook prefers not to sell actual devices for actual profit because "excitement" is insanity. nobody who actual does business thinks that way, only kids on rumors sites who don't really understand what it means to run a successful business take up fanciful delusions like that. Cook would absolutely prefer to sell actual products for actual profit. but there's only so much capacity resulting in launch day supply constraints, as usual. scaling up physical assembly lines and staff for launch day isn't like scaling up a website on dynamic hosting. you can just wind it down two weeks later. that's equipment and components and people that cost you money to scale up, now they're unneeded. that would be stupid. instead you make what you can and expect to produce steadily, and let the whiners whine a little.
so amazed this conversation has to happen every year. wtf.
i signed on at 2:11a, checked out by 2:22 due to IUP enrollment. jet black, 9/16.
millions were served.
Exactly what benefit is there to delay the launch a week? If they have build capacity of 1,000 phones per day (for simplicity) and have worked up to a stock of 50,000 from 50 days of production, which will be sold in say 2 weeks, why wait until you have 7,000 more only to have those sold in that 2nd week? It is scarce either way, as is obvious by the expected November delivery for some of the phones already.
again, what you're suggesting (artificial scarcity) is very, very, very stupid.
And yeah, Mr. Cook and Apple will sell a "sh*%tload" of iPhones at a substantial profit.
Again on #1, artificially limiting supply would only be beneficial to their bottom line if they increased their retail price as a result of this increased demand so that demand and supply are equal. Since the only ones that benefit from the demand overwhelming the initial supply are scalpers, how can claim this is Apple's doing and their benefit? It makes zero sense.
troll harder, dude.
trolls exist on every forum and it has nothing to do with apple or going broke. it has to do to with annoying dipshits who dilute the signal to noise ratio of a community with intentionally FUD nonsense. like yours.
And no, to cut you off before you start Apple is no DeBeers.
i am not adding the word artificial -- that's the entire point of what we're talking about. you're just trying to shift your position so you can back out gracefully and pretend you were just talking about scarcity in general. we weren't, you weren't.
That doesn't apply to the iPhone at all (and probably not to any Apple product). There are two aspects of this. First, demand is already pent up at the launch and possibly even close to the optimum level. The months leading up to the launch is the actual period where Apple is benefiting from scarcity. That demand already exists before the product is available. Second, the peak sales cycle for the iPhone is the holiday season. As others have already explained, it would make absolutely terrible financial business sense to ramp up production for launch only to have to scale it back. We don't know the most efficient way to produce the iPhone, but it almost certainly is tied to the annual demand pattern. High in the beginning, peak about 2-3 ,months in, and then trailing off. There's a reason Apple moved the iPhone releases to September.
Finally, as others have also pointed out it's a lot more complex than deciding to make more for launch. Locking design, parts specifications, working with parts vendors, waiting for parts inventory to build up, etc, etc etc mean Apple most likely doesn't have every piece in place until sometime in the (northern hemisphere) summer. Then incorporate Apple's desire to minimize supply chain leaks means they have a very tight timeline going from design to production.
...Yet in a few weeks they'll be plentiful.