Slower-than-expected iPhone 7 sales prompt Apple to cut production by 10%, report claims

13»

Comments

  • Reply 41 of 53
    mj web said:
    When will Tim Cook ever do a solitary thing right? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Pity to watch Apple atrophy under Cook/Schiller inept mismanagement.
    Trolling is a lost art, surely.
    pscooter63netmagemagman1979williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 42 of 53
    mac_128 said:
    One of the things Apple has always excelled at has been the creation of demand; sometimes false demand by constricting its own supply chain.  

    When a product becomes out-of-stock, it creates a situation where the product is "perceived" as more valuable by the consumer.  

    When people in the press can't purchase it either, then the press will write about it in a more favorable light once the product is obtained as well.  This is something carefully balanced by Apple and a part of its branding, marketing, and supply chain strategy.  

    Look at it this way-
    People know when they go to a McDonald's they can get a McDonald's signature BigMac Burger but only Apple would deny its customers the ability to tender a sale.   No one in the press writes about how tasty their last BigMac burger was because they are ready for purchase.

    It takes a stroke of genius to deny Dieter Bohn his ability to be the first in the office to buy an Apple. 
    Whether true or not for Apple, when Hostess went bankrupt, you couldn't find a Twinkie or a Ding Dong anywhere within a couple of days of that announcement. Real world example.
    Example of what? Your example sounds like nearby consumers scooping up all the available inventory for fear of the future, and not like Hostess sitting on inventory in a warehouse while laughing maniacally. 
    williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 43 of 53
    calicali Posts: 3,494member
    One of the things Apple has always excelled at has been the creation of demand; sometimes false demand by constricting its own supply chain.  

    When a product becomes out-of-stock, it creates a situation where the product is "perceived" as more valuable by the consumer.  

    When people in the press can't purchase it either, then the press will write about it in a more favorable light once the product is obtained as well.  This is something carefully balanced by Apple and a part of its branding, marketing, and supply chain strategy.  

    Look at it this way-
    People know when they go to a McDonald's they can get a McDonald's signature BigMac Burger but only Apple would deny its customers the ability to tender a sale.   No one in the press writes about how tasty their last BigMac burger was because they are ready for purchase.

    It takes a stroke of genius to deny Dieter Bohn his ability to be the first in the office to buy an Apple. 
    This theory was made up by trolls who hated the fact a company was selling out.

    you say iPhones are selling because Apple isn't selling them? Which one is it and how do you explain the high numbers?

    Big Macs sell in the MILLIONS. I guess it's because McDonalds decides to limit orders.
    (there goes your analogy)
    magman1979williamlondonwatto_cobra
  • Reply 44 of 53
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    cali said:
    One of the things Apple has always excelled at has been the creation of demand; sometimes false demand by constricting its own supply chain.  
    Big Macs sell in the MILLIONS. I guess it's because McDonalds decides to limit orders.
    (there goes your analogy)
    I think his "analogy" was intended to point out that the easily obtainable is less fascinating.
    ('Less fascinating' doesn't mean it doesn't still sell - I rarely equate being fascinated with being hungry...
    and no one's ever asked me, while buying a new iPhone, if I wanted fries with that...)
  • Reply 45 of 53
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,957member
    boredumb said:
    cali said:
    One of the things Apple has always excelled at has been the creation of demand; sometimes false demand by constricting its own supply chain.  
    Big Macs sell in the MILLIONS. I guess it's because McDonalds decides to limit orders.
    (there goes your analogy)
    I think his "analogy" was intended to point out that the easily obtainable is less fascinating.
    ('Less fascinating' doesn't mean it doesn't still sell - I rarely equate being fascinated with being hungry...
    and no one's ever asked me, while buying a new iPhone, if I wanted fries with that...)
    I used to think Microsoft did this, but now I can see that the notion of deliberately losing sales just to claim your product is popular is so ridiculous that no company would do it. 
    watto_cobraboredumb
  • Reply 46 of 53
    I believe this report and believe Apple's quarters will continue to shrink in sales. Apple doesn't supply enough to handle demand in their retail stores, so the stores don't bring in shoppers for these new devices. This is a short and long term problem. Yes, online sales are cheaper and better for most sales, but the stores are for growth of their base and sale of other products. 
  • Reply 47 of 53
    That is why heresay not admissible in court. Not considered " trustworthy".
  • Reply 49 of 53
    boredumbboredumb Posts: 1,418member
    Rayz2016 said:
    boredumb said:
    cali said:
    One of the things Apple has always excelled at has been the creation of demand; sometimes false demand by constricting its own supply chain.  
    Big Macs sell in the MILLIONS. I guess it's because McDonalds decides to limit orders.
    (there goes your analogy)
    I think his "analogy" was intended to point out that the easily obtainable is less fascinating.
    ('Less fascinating' doesn't mean it doesn't still sell - I rarely equate being fascinated with being hungry...
    and no one's ever asked me, while buying a new iPhone, if I wanted fries with that...)
    I used to think Microsoft did this, but now I can see that the notion of deliberately losing sales just to claim your product is popular is so ridiculous that no company would do it. 
    Unless, perhaps, you were utterly sure of:
    a) recapturing those sales eventually anyway, and/or
    b) creating the sort of aura and buzz around your products generally that could only further your success.
    (btw, that template probably wouldn't work for most other companies, e.g. MS)
    gatorguy
  • Reply 50 of 53
    Meh, non-news.  Everyone is cutting production these days.

    Waiting on the monster iPhone 8.
  • Reply 51 of 53
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 23,399member
    One of the things Apple has always excelled at has been the creation of demand; sometimes false demand by constricting its own supply chain.  

    When a product becomes out-of-stock, it creates a situation where the product is "perceived" as more valuable by the consumer.  

    When people in the press can't purchase it either, then the press will write about it in a more favorable light once the product is obtained as well.  This is something carefully balanced by Apple and a part of its branding, marketing, and supply chain strategy.  
    Sorry but this argument is absolute rubbish. Apple is already the largest, most successful, most profitable widget maker in the world. It got this way by selling actual goods. It no longer needs any benefit that would come from your proposed artificial scarcity. No, they get their billions upon billions of profit in the bank by selling actual products to actual people. Not selling them just to "create buzz" flies counter to doing what real business people do -- make money. Profit is the air corporations breath.

    I mean, even if they wanted to do so, which manager would make the order to sit on inventory paying rent for nothing? A middle manager? No surely not, he'd be fired. So Tim Cook then? No because this would be against stockholder interest and again he'd be fired. So who?
    You've not EVER done any marketing, or even been employed in retail/wholesale at some time in your life? It not a business secret. . .

    https://sumome.com/stories/scarcity-types

    "...scarcity increases the value (or at least the desirability) of an item or experience that meet three basic criteria:

    • It’s useful
    • It’s transferable between people
    • It has the potential to be possessed

    In case you’re wondering, this means any marketable good and service fits the bill--and even marketing activities fall into this category.

    Commodity theory suggests that scarcity increases perceived value because possession of items in scarce supply make people feel distinctive, unique, and special.

    And no value means more for your business than the perceived value of your products."

    "... limited supply in a virtual shopping environment lead participants to believe scarce items were more popular. They believed supply was limited because demand for these items was higher than other items. Because of this belief, more shoppers chose the scarce item over the non-scarce item when told to select an item of their own.

    In this setting, the cause of scarcity didn’t matter, either. Items that were scarce as a result of increased demand or limited supply both had higher consumer preference over non-scarce items."

    The bottom line: The more scarce an item, the more people want it.


    So yes scarcity, real or imaginary, works as a proven marketing plan. To be clear I am not claiming Apple uses it, but a whole lot of companies do and quite effectively depending on the product. 

    I'm actually darn surprised to see so many members here seemingly unaware of it. 
    edited January 2017 avon b7
  • Reply 52 of 53
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 6,298member
    gatorguy said:
    One of the things Apple has always excelled at has been the creation of demand; sometimes false demand by constricting its own supply chain.  

    When a product becomes out-of-stock, it creates a situation where the product is "perceived" as more valuable by the consumer.  

    When people in the press can't purchase it either, then the press will write about it in a more favorable light once the product is obtained as well.  This is something carefully balanced by Apple and a part of its branding, marketing, and supply chain strategy.  
    Sorry but this argument is absolute rubbish. Apple is already the largest, most successful, most profitable widget maker in the world. It got this way by selling actual goods. It no longer needs any benefit that would come from your proposed artificial scarcity. No, they get their billions upon billions of profit in the bank by selling actual products to actual people. Not selling them just to "create buzz" flies counter to doing what real business people do -- make money. Profit is the air corporations breath.

    I mean, even if they wanted to do so, which manager would make the order to sit on inventory paying rent for nothing? A middle manager? No surely not, he'd be fired. So Tim Cook then? No because this would be against stockholder interest and again he'd be fired. So who?
    You've not EVER done any marketing, or even been employed in retail/wholesale at some time in your life? It not a business secret. . .

    https://sumome.com/stories/scarcity-types

    "...scarcity increases the value (or at least the desirability) of an item or experience that meet three basic criteria:

    • It’s useful
    • It’s transferable between people
    • It has the potential to be possessed

    In case you’re wondering, this means any marketable good and service fits the bill--and even marketing activities fall into this category.

    Commodity theory suggests that scarcity increases perceived value because possession of items in scarce supply make people feel distinctive, unique, and special.

    And no value means more for your business than the perceived value of your products."

    "... limited supply in a virtual shopping environment lead participants to believe scarce items were more popular. They believed supply was limited because demand for these items was higher than other items. Because of this belief, more shoppers chose the scarce item over the non-scarce item when told to select an item of their own.

    In this setting, the cause of scarcity didn’t matter, either. Items that were scarce as a result of increased demand or limited supply both had higher consumer preference over non-scarce items."

    The bottom line: The more scarce an item, the more people want it.


    So yes scarcity, real or imaginary, works as a proven marketing plan. To be clear I am not claiming Apple uses it, but a whole lot of companies do and quite effectively depending on the product. 

    I'm actually darn surprised to see so many members here seemingly unaware of it. 
    Yes. It's also the main reason large chains of clothes shops rotate stock so frequently. If you flood a store with one coat design it could sell very well but when people start seeing that particular coat everywhere in the same area, other prospective buyers will reject it because it will have lost its perceived value.

Sign In or Register to comment.