Cooks use of the word sell through indicates that they may well have had a bad quarter last quarter. Sell through is sales from channel
Great comment on the sell through. Watch sales probably were stagnating and picked up due to faster watch os3 and better watch 2. IDC metrics (such as they are) probably lag reality by at least a quarter.
Lets get real though. If the optics of this product were comparable to phones Apple would release numbers. They don't. The real heyday of the watch is yet to come, maybe not starting until 2018.
Why doesn't Apple release sales numbers? Because they've learned from the iPhone and the iPad. Best thing is not to set analysts' expectations which they don't really know what to do with.
Secondly, the reason that many suspect (and I think Cook alluded to at one time), was that they didn't want to give the competition a clue as to whether or not the category is successful. In the last few days, Motorola dropped out of the smartwear race, which means they won't be making a new version for the updated Android Gear. A number of Google's other partners are also wavering as to whether or not to press ahead with the smartwatches. Motorola says it doesn't see enough 'pull' in the market at the moment and that wearables don't have broad enough appeal for them at the moment. They could be right. It could also be that the they're not selling enough of their own devices because of the Apple Watch, and without sales figures from Apple they have no idea if the market will be large enough to support them too. Could be that the companies have seen how much money they've wasted trying to compete with Samsung and Apple and don't want to burn any more… not until they have more data on the size of the potential market. Apple thinks its big, but I don't believe Apple thinks its big enough to support more than a handful of companies.
Cooks use of the word sell through indicates that they may well have had a bad quarter last quarter. Sell through is sales from channel
While this is true, do you see a sudden jump in sell through for a product that has existed for a few years for no reason. Cook wouldn't have commented on this unless he was confident. I know of someone who just bought one. People seem to like them. Especially since OS 3 and the new faster watches.
Bought the Nike+ model a few weeks ago, and it continue to surprise me, though not as much when it let me take a phone call from my iPhone which was… well at the time I wasn't sure where it was, but I know it was in the house somewhere.
I think the problem you have with the Apple Watch is not that people dislike them (I mean, if you don't like it then just don't buy it), it's that people think that if they can somehow get it to fail then Apple will have no choice but to start focussing on Macs again. Yes, it's a long shot, but people aren't always that bright.
I don't see Apple focusing on Macs primarily anymore. That stopped in 10yrs ago 2006 when Apple was really pushing to get the iPhone out the door. Its a new Apple and there's a reason why Apple dropped Computer from its name and simply went to Apple, Inc. They're not just a computer company anymore. Some of these so called experienced Apple users, you know the ones who have to justify their posts by starting out saying they've used Macs for 25yrs just need to accept the fact that the Mac isn't and will never be Apple's primary focus anymore. Thats not to say Apple doesn't care about the Mac as its still a large chunk of revenue for them, but its just not like it used to be where it was their primary source of revenue and their flagship product.
Hopefully 2017 will bring new, updated Macs and people will just stop complaining about the lack of updates from Apple. If Apple really wanted to, they could just release new Macs every 6 months for the hell of it with minimal to no upgrades just so shut people up (like they used to) but that doesn't make any sense what so ever. Once this so called USB-C debacle is over and everything gets switched over from legacy USB-A (YES Legacy!) then maybe people will calm down a little.
I think that's a fair enough assessment. I'm a fan of the Mac too, but I'm not so much of a fan that I'm desperate for the company to go under because they don't update it as often as I'd like. Life's to short. There will be a new range of desktop Macs early in the new year, no one here will like them, they will sell by the bucket load, and everyone here will grumble some nonsense about pent-up demand.
Cooks use of the word sell through indicates that they may well have had a bad quarter last quarter. Sell through is sales from channel
Great comment on the sell through. Watch sales probably were stagnating and picked up due to faster watch os3 and better watch 2. IDC metrics (such as they are) probably lag reality by at least a quarter.
Lets get real though. If the optics of this product were comparable to phones Apple would release numbers. They don't. The real heyday of the watch is yet to come, maybe not starting until 2018.
Why doesn't Apple release sales numbers? Because they've learned from the iPhone and the iPad. Best thing is not to set analysts' expectations which they don't really know what to do with.
Secondly, the reason that many suspect (and I think Cook alluded to at one time), was that they didn't want to give the competition a clue as to whether or not the category is successful. In the last few days, Motorola dropped out of the smartwear race, which means they won't be making a new version for the updated Android Gear.
More accurately they indicated they won't be launching a new smartwatch to coincide with the impending Android Wear 2.x release. While that's obviously not showing much faith in the immediate demand for Android wearables ( for good reason IMO) they also said they may well be releasing another smartwatch at a future date. So they're hedging. Google's supposed release of their own branded smartwatch alongside the new Android Wear version if true will probably play a part in marketing choices from other Android smartwatch manufacturers.
Most of the market is down/flat and Apple is up nicely!
Amazing things happen when the CEO of a company defends the BRAND.
Cook needs to do this more often. There is ZERO reason not to. It literally only takes 5 minutes for him to release a statement to shutdown some bull shit rumor.
If its too much work Cook can hire a team of 50 who's only job is to shutdown these stupid ass reports and rumors. That would only cost a couple million a year, which is drop in the bucket compared to the damage these rumors do when unchecked.
Last I looked Google was up too as is the overall NASDAQ. Not sure that Cook's reply to the IDC report is cause for the relatively small bump in Apple's stock so far today (in fact up less percentage-wise than the NASDAQ when looking just now), tho it certainly doesn't hurt to communicate more often IMO.
I obviously cannot speak for anybody else, but I still like my first gen Apple Watch, and continue to wear/use it everyday.
With 10 likes (so far), it appears that you DO speak for others! ... I'm one of them...
Actually, I just bought my original series in September after the series 1 & 2 were released. After OS3 was installed, the only major functional difference was that I need to carry my phone on a run to get GPS data. But, since I always carry my phone anyway, that was not a trade off for me. So, I got a new original series for half the cost of a new series 2. I'm happy!
Apple is making most of the profits on Smartphones, over 90%, and same goes with Watches. Apple is making most of the profits. Android Wear with all the watches they have on that side are really doing pretty poorly. Look at Pebble, not doing well at all, now getting acquired by fitbit, which says something about their own so called watches. Fitbit is supposedly selling more then Apple Watch, but their profits stink like everyone else. I've own a couple of them in the past and they lasted for a couple months before no longer working for one reason or another. I was done with them. I've had my Original Apple Watch now for over a year and it's been great. I miss the few times when I'm not wearing it. As they say, you don't know what you're missing until you try it.
IDC's key problem is their business model and agenda. Experienced channel execs know that in general, shipment numbers cannot be used to predict demand. The shipment market share is meaningless sometimes. For example before AppleWatch 2 launched, Apple would be very keen to draw down old inventory so that they don't have to cover price protection, if any.
Many companies lost hundreds of millions just because they had to compensate resellers for unsold inventory when they introduced new models. Apple would refrain from shipping more old watches before the new products *especially* when the old series was scheduled for a price cut. This is common sense. It is smart if the old inventory is close to zero in this case.
This is one of the many reasons why shipment numbers is a bad indicator for demand. Yet IDC abused the numbers for their agenda and flawed interpretation.
Oftentimes, these research companies also don't have sufficient reliable channel data. So their bias, or their paying clients will fund them, to color their interpretation of the landscape. Like IDC came out loud claiming windows smartphone will overtake iPhone by 2016. Wat ?
I obviously cannot speak for anybody else, but I still like my first gen Apple Watch, and continue to wear/use it everyday.
My ongoing gripe with Apple these days is that making regular, incremental updates seems beyond their capacity for far too much of their product line. Hopefully they'll get that sorted out.
This is something that has me scratching my head as well. I know that it takes engineering resources to do - nothing is free - but Apple seems to be leaving money on the table by not making incremental, yearly updates, primarily to the Mac line. Perhaps more than some small amount of lost sales, is the negative narrative it creates among some of its user base (call them "fans"). It is a con against the brand, which is very important to Apple.
How much effort would it take to have the Mac Mini updated with latest Intel CPU line, with perhaps a small storage bump? The iMac's went through a big update last year, so they are not that far out of date, but again, why not give them the CPU and maybe RAM type bump? And then there is the Mac Pro...rumours on the AirPort line, etc.
This is why I don't believe those (you know who you are...) that scream that Tim Cook is all about the money. If he was, then Apple would be more focused on incremental updates to make sales across the line as high as they could be.
I think Apple is perhaps getting too focused on being, well, "focused". Only update a product if there is something "significant" that justifies it: - new form factor & Touch Bar in MBP (and add in the new super fast storage, Touch ID, trackpad - new high resolution 4K and 5K iMacs - iPad Pro with pencil
...but otherwise they are not updating the "non iPhone lines" at all. I think they are doubling down (in their minds) on a product focused strategy, and say that if the update is only incremental, then the benefit is also that, so don't bother. Wait until it is something significant. It might be the most "efficient" use of resources, but it certainly has its risks
My hypothesis is that the constrained resource here is management attention. I'm guessing there might be a requirement that a particular person sign off on all new hardware products, and that this hypothetical person is focused on other priorities, like christmas trees, coffee table books, office building architecture, and designing fantasy automobiles.
(Nordstrom was busy with a holiday shopping event for cardholders who spent enough money during the year. I'd rather go to the dentist but my wife wouldn't miss it for the world. On the plus side - free wine. I skipped out for Shake Shack.)
Let's have more wine and less whine.
I was the driver. If I could've had more wine, there would have been less whine (and wine).
It's clear from IDC's comments on the Apple Watch that they hate Apple and will do anything they can to derail its products. They are in that business for a long time, and it's not hard to guess who's behind this (shhh, cough MS cough cough).
I obviously cannot speak for anybody else, but I still like my first gen Apple Watch, and continue to wear/use it everyday.
My ongoing gripe with Apple these days is that making regular, incremental updates seems beyond their capacity for far too much of their product line. Hopefully they'll get that sorted out.
This is something that has me scratching my head as well. I know that it takes engineering resources to do - nothing is free - but Apple seems to be leaving money on the table by not making incremental, yearly updates, primarily to the Mac line. Perhaps more than some small amount of lost sales, is the negative narrative it creates among some of its user base (call them "fans"). It is a con against the brand, which is very important to Apple.
How much effort would it take to have the Mac Mini updated with latest Intel CPU line, with perhaps a small storage bump? The iMac's went through a big update last year, so they are not that far out of date, but again, why not give them the CPU and maybe RAM type bump? And then there is the Mac Pro...rumours on the AirPort line, etc.
This is why I don't believe those (you know who you are...) that scream that Tim Cook is all about the money. If he was, then Apple would be more focused on incremental updates to make sales across the line as high as they could be.
I think Apple is perhaps getting too focused on being, well, "focused". Only update a product if there is something "significant" that justifies it: - new form factor & Touch Bar in MBP (and add in the new super fast storage, Touch ID, trackpad - new high resolution 4K and 5K iMacs - iPad Pro with pencil
...but otherwise they are not updating the "non iPhone lines" at all. I think they are doubling down (in their minds) on a product focused strategy, and say that if the update is only incremental, then the benefit is also that, so don't bother. Wait until it is something significant. It might be the most "efficient" use of resources, but it certainly has its risks
Releasing a killer product cannot happen with incremental updates in a highly competitive environment. Most of Apple's sales occur at the initial launch, Apple's sales seem to happen in bursts, each burst roughly corresponding to a product launch. Just imagine how long it will take for the competition to take over the new Macbook Pro with the Touch Bar: they cannot even get rid of the old SATA in their SSDs, TB3 is still a fantasy, Touch ID and Touch Bar even unimaginable... The competition would close the gap relatively faster at each incremental update.
...but otherwise they are not updating the "non iPhone lines" at all. I think they are doubling down (in their minds) on a product focused strategy, and say that if the update is only incremental, then the benefit is also that, so don't bother. Wait until it is something significant. It might be the most "efficient" use of resources, but it certainly has its risks
This does prove Cook is all about the money. Doing an update each year means tooling costs and buying less units of components (bulk discounts). If you update each year you will get lower margins if you are selling the units at the same price. I think that is a mistake by Cook. Cook should be willing to sacrifice some margins to make yearly updates.
IMO these should be updated every year:
iPhone, iPad Mini, iPad Air, iPad Pro, Apple Watch
These every 18 months to 24 months:
iMac, Macbook, Macbook Pro, MacMini, Mac Pro, Apple TV
The only excuse not to do so is the sacrifice of margins.
I don't think it proves they're all about the money. They're not going to have a sustainable business by increasing the margin on stale products. There's some sweet spot obviously but to take that argument to the logical conclusion, they'd be selling Apple II computers still. The margins would be incredible if they could sell any.
Sog, you want much more frequent updates I think. Every time they do update, a comparison is always made with the previous model. The new one is x% faster, etc. For the last few revisions, the improvements have been pretty modest, right? If updates were more frequent, the improvements would be that much more modest. What would be the response to an update that costs the same or more and isn't better in any respect? Or better but not in any noticeable way?
To my mind, the lack of change is the result of relative lack of change in that space. Newer CPUs etc are not that much better. Newer other things, also not that much better. This points to a failure on Apple's part too. Apple is the most profitable company in the world but they don't behave like it. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft or Google but I see more innovation, bold thinking, and risk taking from their direction. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't iTools come before Gmail? iTools was the free email account, web pages, and etc from Apple that came before .Mac and iCloud. Everything that the Google Suite is now, Apple should have done. They couldn't have done it because 1) not bold enough and 2) I honestly don't think they have the talent.
I'm just back from a month's holiday in Oz. Tried to buy an A-Watch Series 2 in Dubai on the way out - sold out. Tried to buy one in at the A-Store in Perth - almost sold out and did not have the model I wanted (steel, black with black Milanese Loop strap). Finally got what I wanted at the A-Store in Sydney, but they only had a few left. BTW, I'm loving it!
Cooks use of the word sell through indicates that they may well have had a bad quarter last quarter. Sell through is sales from channel
Doesn't sell-though mean actual sales to consumers? And yeah the quarter before the holiday quarter when new watches were barely available might have been a weak quarter. So what? We all know that certain Apple products are more seasonal in nature and will have bigger sales during the holidays.
Perhaps not having new iMacs, iPads and to a lesser degree Minis, for the holiday season has made him overly sensitive to this kind of news. It would be reasonable to think that that situation will have a negative impact on the quarter. There really isn't much point in commenting on this kind of news unless it really is hurting potential sales.
Comments
Me too. I've not worn another watch since I got it 8 months ago.
Why doesn't Apple release sales numbers? Because they've learned from the iPhone and the iPad. Best thing is not to set analysts' expectations which they don't really know what to do with.
Secondly, the reason that many suspect (and I think Cook alluded to at one time), was that they didn't want to give the competition a clue as to whether or not the category is successful. In the last few days, Motorola dropped out of the smartwear race, which means they won't be making a new version for the updated Android Gear. A number of Google's other partners are also wavering as to whether or not to press ahead with the smartwatches. Motorola says it doesn't see enough 'pull' in the market at the moment and that wearables don't have broad enough appeal for them at the moment. They could be right. It could also be that the they're not selling enough of their own devices because of the Apple Watch, and without sales figures from Apple they have no idea if the market will be large enough to support them too. Could be that the companies have seen how much money they've wasted trying to compete with Samsung and Apple and don't want to burn any more… not until they have more data on the size of the potential market. Apple thinks its big, but I don't believe Apple thinks its big enough to support more than a handful of companies.
... I'm one of them...
Actually, I just bought my original series in September after the series 1 & 2 were released. After OS3 was installed, the only major functional difference was that I need to carry my phone on a run to get GPS data. But, since I always carry my phone anyway, that was not a trade off for me. So, I got a new original series for half the cost of a new series 2. I'm happy!
Many companies lost hundreds of millions just because they had to compensate resellers for unsold inventory when they introduced new models. Apple would refrain from shipping more old watches before the new products *especially* when the old series was scheduled for a price cut. This is common sense. It is smart if the old inventory is close to zero in this case.
This is one of the many reasons why shipment numbers is a bad indicator for demand. Yet IDC abused the numbers for their agenda and flawed interpretation.
Oftentimes, these research companies also don't have sufficient reliable channel data. So their bias, or their paying clients will fund them, to color their interpretation of the landscape. Like IDC came out loud claiming windows smartphone will overtake iPhone by 2016. Wat ?
Sog, you want much more frequent updates I think. Every time they do update, a comparison is always made with the previous model. The new one is x% faster, etc. For the last few revisions, the improvements have been pretty modest, right? If updates were more frequent, the improvements would be that much more modest. What would be the response to an update that costs the same or more and isn't better in any respect? Or better but not in any noticeable way?
To my mind, the lack of change is the result of relative lack of change in that space. Newer CPUs etc are not that much better. Newer other things, also not that much better. This points to a failure on Apple's part too. Apple is the most profitable company in the world but they don't behave like it. I'm not a big fan of Microsoft or Google but I see more innovation, bold thinking, and risk taking from their direction. Correct me if I am wrong, but didn't iTools come before Gmail? iTools was the free email account, web pages, and etc from Apple that came before .Mac and iCloud. Everything that the Google Suite is now, Apple should have done. They couldn't have done it because 1) not bold enough and 2) I honestly don't think they have the talent.