Apple will no longer report iPhone, Mac and iPad unit sales

1235

Comments

  • Reply 81 of 117
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,227member
    ascii said:
    One thing Apple could do to maintain growth is pivot a little bit from consumer to business. It feels like the consumer is all computed out for the time being, but with the current business friendly policies coming from the Republicans, businesses might be expanding.

    And in the A12, Apple has a fast, low power CPU with an integrated neural processor which could be a great product for the server room. They also have an ally in IBM. And most server rooms use Linux which can compile to the A12 as easily as anything else.
    The thing I like about using A chips for a server room is it reduce power consumption considerably 
  • Reply 82 of 117
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,394moderator
    avon b7 said:
    We are basically 'post iPhone' now (in company-wide terms) and after three years of flat growth, unit numbers possibly don't look too good going forward (in growth terms). 

    Apple has never had the kind of high-end premiun competition (at least on the current scale) as it has now and is (and has been) trying to open new revenue streams.

    Services is growing, (TV) content creation will probably go live next year and the car project will follow. Plus all the other areas.

    However, flat unit sales are not nice and any dip in handset sales would just make things worse from a stock perspective because iPhone sales have been the most important indicator for years. Giving a running commentary on unit sales (each earnings  call) and reporting things staying the same - or possibly getting worse is something to be avoided. 

    While iPhone X may have been the 'most popular' model this year, and in spite of all the joy with Q1 numbers, the reality is that sales are still more or less flat, again. Little has changed.

    We know people are being asked to pay more for the newer phones and at some point they won't want to (or won't be able to) and that point might be close. This year's refresh was not really that spectacular. To the point that many considered the Apple Watch to be the real star of the 2018 refresh.

    In a 'post iPhone' Apple world, it shouldn't be surprising to see a decision like this. Just look at the guidance for the next quarter. There will be another Q1 blow out but the revenue mix will be far more spread out, and as the year passes, iPhone unit sales might show signs of fatigue.

    By not giving unit sales, Apple gets some breathing space until the next refresh, which will need to be stronger than this year, but won't carry same importance as in previous years because other areas will have been strengthened by then and the content library will probably be rolling out.

    iPhone sales could take off of course, but I think Apple really doesn't expect that to happen and they are prefering to err on the side of caution.

    Apple obviously (and understandably) wants to play the decision down and say unit sales are less relevant. In a post iPhone Apple world it is true, but those numbers are still very much relevant nonetheless.
    While some of what you say is certainly the case (yes, Apple is obviously diversifying revenue streams) your take on it seems to suggest you believe that iPhone sales are bound to flatten out and Apple is reacting to
    that by attempting to charge higher prices.  But Apple is a huge data mining operation.  The company certainly has all the sales and marketing data it needs to dial the iPhone unit sales number where they want it, growing unit sales 20% year over year if they so wish; it would simply be a matter of producing iPhone models targeting certain market demographics at appropriate prices.  Because there’s demand all up and down the market, even here in the Philippines where most can’t afford one but nevertheless aspire to get their hands on one.  If Apple truly wanted to play the unit sales game against all comers, do you really think they couldn’t succeed?  

    Apple is in a different game.  The company has looked at price elasticity and decided it can maintain current unit numbers, even modestly growing them, while netting significantly more in ASP, by continuing up market away from those who have been attempting to follow Apple into the premium space.  That’s why you’re seeing A-series performance numbers that are running away from the competition, Face ID coming to the iPad, and other unmatched technology advances.  Did you even read Above Avalon’s recent article (under his free Weekly Articles section) regarding the grey market for iPhones and what that means?  I guess not.  You spout a lot about Apple’s supposed competition, championing one vendor in particular, but you show a remarkable, perhaps deliberately obtuse, lack of insight into the smartphone business.  

    But hey, thanks for playing.  
    CarnageericthehalfbeeStrangeDayspalomine
  • Reply 83 of 117
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    avon b7 said:
    We are basically 'post iPhone' now (in company-wide terms) and after three years of flat growth, unit numbers possibly don't look too good going forward (in growth terms). 

    Apple has never had the kind of high-end premiun competition (at least on the current scale) as it has now and is (and has been) trying to open new revenue streams.

    Services is growing, (TV) content creation will probably go live next year and the car project will follow. Plus all the other areas.

    However, flat unit sales are not nice and any dip in handset sales would just make things worse from a stock perspective because iPhone sales have been the most important indicator for years. Giving a running commentary on unit sales (each earnings  call) and reporting things staying the same - or possibly getting worse is something to be avoided. 

    While iPhone X may have been the 'most popular' model this year, and in spite of all the joy with Q1 numbers, the reality is that sales are still more or less flat, again. Little has changed.

    We know people are being asked to pay more for the newer phones and at some point they won't want to (or won't be able to) and that point might be close. This year's refresh was not really that spectacular. To the point that many considered the Apple Watch to be the real star of the 2018 refresh.

    In a 'post iPhone' Apple world, it shouldn't be surprising to see a decision like this. Just look at the guidance for the next quarter. There will be another Q1 blow out but the revenue mix will be far more spread out, and as the year passes, iPhone unit sales might show signs of fatigue.

    By not giving unit sales, Apple gets some breathing space until the next refresh, which will need to be stronger than this year, but won't carry same importance as in previous years because other areas will have been strengthened by then and the content library will probably be rolling out.

    iPhone sales could take off of course, but I think Apple really doesn't expect that to happen and they are prefering to err on the side of caution.

    Apple obviously (and understandably) wants to play the decision down and say unit sales are less relevant. In a post iPhone Apple world it is true, but those numbers are still very much relevant nonetheless.
    While some of what you say is certainly the case (yes, Apple is obviously diversifying revenue streams) your take on it seems to suggest you believe that iPhone sales are bound to flatten out and Apple is reacting to
    that by attempting to charge higher prices.  But Apple is a huge data mining operation.  The company certainly has all the sales and marketing data it needs to dial the iPhone unit sales number where they want it, growing unit sales 20% year over year if they so wish; it would simply be a matter of producing iPhone models targeting certain market demographics at appropriate prices.  Because there’s demand all up and down the market, even here in the Philippines where most can’t afford one but nevertheless aspire to get their hands on one.  If Apple truly wanted to play the unit sales game against all comers, do you really think they couldn’t succeed?  

    Apple is in a different game.  The company has looked at price elasticity and decided it can maintain current unit numbers, even modestly growing them, while netting significantly more in ASP, by continuing up market away from those who have been attempting to follow Apple into the premium space.  That’s why you’re seeing A-series performance numbers that are running away from the competition, Face ID coming to the iPad, and other unmatched technology advances.  Did you even read Above Avalon’s recent article (under his free Weekly Articles section) regarding the grey market for iPhones and what that means?  I guess not.  You spout a lot about Apple’s supposed competition, championing one vendor in particular, but you show a remarkable, perhaps deliberately obtuse, lack of insight into the smartphone business.  

    But hey, thanks for playing.  
    I think you are at odds with yourself.

    Apple has never seen competition on its high end turf like it has now. To the point that this year's innovation in the handset market didn't come from Apple. If you want bleeding edge technology (lots do) you wouldn't buy this year's iPhone. That has been the reality of 2018. And you know that Apple has been sheltered from a large chunk of that competition on its home turf, which just happens to be the world's second largest smartphone market.

    Oh. That 'one vendor'. People are asking why its latest phone hasn't appeared on the D0X Mark listing yet. Rumours claim the results would be too far ahead of the pack as to be detrimental to itself. As the iPhone X Max didn't top the current board leader - which is already six months old - and the current leader is made by that 'one vendor', it is rumoured that the Mate 20 Pro won't get a listing until something from the competition tops the P20 Pro. You will counter that the listing is worthless and mostly serves for marketing but marketing is one of the cogs that moves this industry.

    It's not that Apple can't play the 'unit sales game and succeed'. It can, but at what price (no pun intended)?

    It's been flat on unit sales for three years now - in spite of attempts to open up its spread (both on models and pricing). So that is flat sales in spite of those actions. Care to imagine how things would have looked if they hadn't taken that action?

    Given the situation, one of the possible options is to compete with itself and produce new phones (not old phones) for the mid tier and try to differentiate them enough to shore up premium sales. It hasn't chosen that option - yet.

    But 2019 is served and the iPhones - for all their marketing - haven't really turned heads and now won't do so until the end of 2019. That is a lot of quarters and Samsung  (S10) is going to hit hard as soon as the gates open on  the New Year. Huawei (P30 Pro) will follow soon after and right around Apple the time Apple has its 2019 refresh, both vendors will launch the latest Note and Mates. 

    So Apple has an expensive phone (made more expensive by sales tax and currency realities in certain regions) that doesn't really offer the bells and whistles that the price warrants.

    It looks like Apple doesn't plan for larger unit shipments and may in fact be preparing for some contraction.

    Apple has the ultimate card to know the state of its current market: Apple ID.

    It knows absolutely everything it needs to know about the state of play. Active accounts and if users are bringing in extra revenues, how many devices are linked to each account, which devices go off radar, the family sphere of users.

    I have speculated in the past that the so called 'super cycle' might have actually happened, but simply didn't register in terms of far higher unit sales. Apple always knew exactly what happened of course and will never make that data public.

    Given the possible state of play, this decision not to provide unit sales makes sense for the company. Analysts will continue to speculate, it's their job after all, and the stock will twitch on occasion but that is no different to today and has no bearing on anything.

    In a post iPhone Apple world, the focus will move to other areas, iPhone included of course, but with less weight. Just like the Mac today. Important but not the be all and end all.
    edited November 2018 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 84 of 117
    I'm just happy that Apple is doing so well, and that I see so many Apple products in use by people when I'm out and about, and I'm not even looking for them—Air Pods, for one—easily recognizable, and they're all over the place! And then there are Apple Watches just about everywhere I look—on both men and women!

    Unit numbers are actually irrelevant to me, because I can't realistically evaluate them—against themselves, or against any sort of competition. At best, they're misleading. There are too many factors affecting them, for one thing for me to know what, in fact, they indicate.

    Though some may miss all those nifty numbers on graphs, etc., a more reliable Apple metric is what all we see on a daily basis: Apple products in use, new Apple Stores opening, and existing ones being upgraded, and the quality of Apple services, such as Apple Music, iCloud, Siri, and Apple Care.
    edited November 2018
  • Reply 85 of 117
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member
    herbapou said:
    ascii said:
    One thing Apple could do to maintain growth is pivot a little bit from consumer to business. It feels like the consumer is all computed out for the time being, but with the current business friendly policies coming from the Republicans, businesses might be expanding.

    And in the A12, Apple has a fast, low power CPU with an integrated neural processor which could be a great product for the server room. They also have an ally in IBM. And most server rooms use Linux which can compile to the A12 as easily as anything else.
    The thing I like about using A chips for a server room is it reduce power consumption considerably 
    That's right, what could be more power efficient than something originally designed to run on batteries? Also, it has a hardware NPU and running neural nets for various purposes is a popular server room application these days.
  • Reply 86 of 117
    asciiascii Posts: 5,941member

    I'm just happy that Apple is doing so well, and that I see so many Apple products in use by people when I'm out and about, and I'm not even looking for them—Air Pods, for one—easily recognizable, and they're all over the place! And then there are Apple Watches just about everywhere I look—on both men and women!
    Yes, AirPods have been massively popular. I wonder if they could leverage that to spread Siri? 
  • Reply 87 of 117
    I’ve said for a while now that Apple’s ‘problem’ under Tim Cook’s leadership is narrative, telling the story. Go back to the event on Tuesday. A lot of people were hoping this event would clean up the Mac laptop line, especially at the low end. Instead all Apple did was introduce another laptop in the mix and the line is as confusing as ever. And there was no really story around the iPad Pro. It was basically here’s new hardware and oh here’s Adobe showing off Photoshop. But where was the overall story? Not just the what, but the why. I feel the same way about yesterday’s earnings call. Neither Tim nor Luca had a good explanation for why they would no longer be reporting unit sales. And they didn’t announce any other better reporting metric (like install base or ARPU) to replace it. So all it does is leave investors thinking growth is slowed and Apple can only grow revenue through price increases for so long. More doom and gloom. Hence why the stock is down 6% pre-market.
  • Reply 88 of 117
    brucemcbrucemc Posts: 1,541member
    ...
    The change arrives as sales of iPhone, Apple's most important revenue driver, stagnate. During the most recent quarter, for example, iPhone sales growth was flat year-over-year. Last quarter, sales were up by a single percent from the same time last year.
    ...
    I really don't care about GROWTH.  So what of growth is stagnant... you're telling me they sold just as manny phones this year as they did last year?... that sounds fantastic to me!  It wasn't even a "new" model year, "merely" an incremental improvement.  The market is near saturated, yet they continue to sell just a s many phones!

    If GROWTH is required to make a profit, then you have a bad business model.

    Apple sold just slightly more iPhones this past Q4 vs 2017.  So flat.  But the ASP went up significantly

    The news out this morning is that the global smartphone market is in recession, with sales down 8% globally.  Now flat sales with higher ASP should look pretty good.

    Apple is the undisputed leader (or really only market player) in tablets and wearables.  Wearables, when Apple comes out with the expected future Apple AR Glasses, will become a category (in time) to rival that of the smartphone.  And Apple will own this market...

    A good buying opportunity today I think.
  • Reply 89 of 117
    Doesn't bother me. Unit sales is just another number those fucking useless analysts use to try and manipulate Apple stock.
    You hit it right on the noggin!

    Prime example is the stock being tanked after-hours... They made more money than anyone else, WITHIN their target guidance from last quarter, but because it didn't meat the asinine "predictions" of Wall Scum, they are punishing Apple. Take this out of the equation and just give the financials, maybe this will improve things for the better!
    It’s only partly punishing Apple, in the sense the stock price is, for some employees, part of their incentive-based compensation.  But it helps Apple to have the stock temporarily knocked down on meaningless metrics, as it allows the company to buy back shares cheaper until the stock recovers.  
    I’m sure Berkshire Hathaway will take an interest.
    randy hill
  • Reply 90 of 117
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    We are basically 'post iPhone' now (in company-wide terms) and after three years of flat growth, unit numbers possibly don't look too good going forward (in growth terms). 

    Apple has never had the kind of high-end premiun competition (at least on the current scale) as it has now and is (and has been) trying to open new revenue streams.

    Services is growing, (TV) content creation will probably go live next year and the car project will follow. Plus all the other areas.

    However, flat unit sales are not nice and any dip in handset sales would just make things worse from a stock perspective because iPhone sales have been the most important indicator for years. Giving a running commentary on unit sales (each earnings  call) and reporting things staying the same - or possibly getting worse is something to be avoided. 

    While iPhone X may have been the 'most popular' model this year, and in spite of all the joy with Q1 numbers, the reality is that sales are still more or less flat, again. Little has changed.

    We know people are being asked to pay more for the newer phones and at some point they won't want to (or won't be able to) and that point might be close. This year's refresh was not really that spectacular. To the point that many considered the Apple Watch to be the real star of the 2018 refresh.

    In a 'post iPhone' Apple world, it shouldn't be surprising to see a decision like this. Just look at the guidance for the next quarter. There will be another Q1 blow out but the revenue mix will be far more spread out, and as the year passes, iPhone unit sales might show signs of fatigue.

    By not giving unit sales, Apple gets some breathing space until the next refresh, which will need to be stronger than this year, but won't carry same importance as in previous years because other areas will have been strengthened by then and the content library will probably be rolling out.

    iPhone sales could take off of course, but I think Apple really doesn't expect that to happen and they are prefering to err on the side of caution.

    Apple obviously (and understandably) wants to play the decision down and say unit sales are less relevant. In a post iPhone Apple world it is true, but those numbers are still very much relevant nonetheless.
    While some of what you say is certainly the case (yes, Apple is obviously diversifying revenue streams) your take on it seems to suggest you believe that iPhone sales are bound to flatten out and Apple is reacting to
    that by attempting to charge higher prices.  But Apple is a huge data mining operation.  The company certainly has all the sales and marketing data it needs to dial the iPhone unit sales number where they want it, growing unit sales 20% year over year if they so wish; it would simply be a matter of producing iPhone models targeting certain market demographics at appropriate prices.  Because there’s demand all up and down the market, even here in the Philippines where most can’t afford one but nevertheless aspire to get their hands on one.  If Apple truly wanted to play the unit sales game against all comers, do you really think they couldn’t succeed?  

    Apple is in a different game.  The company has looked at price elasticity and decided it can maintain current unit numbers, even modestly growing them, while netting significantly more in ASP, by continuing up market away from those who have been attempting to follow Apple into the premium space.  That’s why you’re seeing A-series performance numbers that are running away from the competition, Face ID coming to the iPad, and other unmatched technology advances.  Did you even read Above Avalon’s recent article (under his free Weekly Articles section) regarding the grey market for iPhones and what that means?  I guess not.  You spout a lot about Apple’s supposed competition, championing one vendor in particular, but you show a remarkable, perhaps deliberately obtuse, lack of insight into the smartphone business.  

    But hey, thanks for playing.  
    I think you are at odds with yourself.

    Apple has never seen competition on its high end turf like it has now. To the point that this year's innovation in the handset market didn't come from Apple. If you want bleeding edge technology (lots do) you wouldn't buy this year's iPhone. That has been the reality of 2018. And you know that Apple has been sheltered from a large chunk of that competition on its home turf, which just happens to be the world's second largest smartphone market.

    Oh. That 'one vendor'. People are asking why its latest phone hasn't appeared on the D0X Mark listing yet. Rumours claim the results would be too far ahead of the pack as to be detrimental to itself. As the iPhone X Max didn't top the current board leader - which is already six months old - and the current leader is made by that 'one vendor', it is rumoured that the Mate 20 Pro won't get a listing until something from the competition tops the P20 Pro. You will counter that the listing is worthless and mostly serves for marketing but marketing is one of the cogs that moves this industry.

    It's not that Apple can't play the 'unit sales game and succeed'. It can, but at what price (no pun intended)?

    It's been flat on unit sales for three years now - in spite of attempts to open up its spread (both on models and pricing). So that is flat sales in spite of those actions. Care to imagine how things would have looked if they hadn't taken that action?

    Given the situation, one of the possible options is to compete with itself and produce new phones (not old phones) for the mid tier and try to differentiate them enough to shore up premium sales. It hasn't chosen that option - yet.

    But 2019 is served and the iPhones - for all their marketing - haven't really turned heads and now won't do so until the end of 2019. That is a lot of quarters and Samsung  (S10) is going to hit hard as soon as the gates open on  the New Year. Huawei (P30 Pro) will follow soon after and right around Apple the time Apple has its 2019 refresh, both vendors will launch the latest Note and Mates. 

    So Apple has an expensive phone (made more expensive by sales tax and currency realities in certain regions) that doesn't really offer the bells and whistles that the price warrants.

    It looks like Apple doesn't plan for larger unit shipments and may in fact be preparing for some contraction.

    Apple has the ultimate card to know the state of its current market: Apple ID.

    It knows absolutely everything it needs to know about the state of play. Active accounts and if users are bringing in extra revenues, how many devices are linked to each account, which devices go off radar, the family sphere of users.

    I have speculated in the past that the so called 'super cycle' might have actually happened, but simply didn't register in terms of far higher unit sales. Apple always knew exactly what happened of course and will never make that data public.

    Given the possible state of play, this decision not to provide unit sales makes sense for the company. Analysts will continue to speculate, it's their job after all, and the stock will twitch on occasion but that is no different to today and has no bearing on anything.

    In a post iPhone Apple world, the focus will move to other areas, iPhone included of course, but with less weight. Just like the Mac today. Important but not the be all and end all.

    More bullshit from the Huawei troll/shill.

    Newsflash: There have been countless "iPhone killers" over the last 7-8 years that were supposed to knock the iPhone off its perch at the high end. To date, not one of them has succeeded. The CLOSEST anyone got was the Galaxy S4 back in 2014, which managed to sell 10 million units in its first month. Since then it's all been downhill and nobody has ever come close since. What makes you think (besides being delusional) that Huawei is going to steal sales from Apple where everyone else has failed? Nobody cross shops the superior iPhone to the inferior Huawei flagships.

    So you come up with ridiculous theories (poor Huawei isn't allowed to sell in the US) to imply that if they playing field were equal that Huawei would magically outsell the iPhone. The reason Huawei won't outsell the iPhone is because they are inferior devices. Plain and simple.

    No bleeding edge technology from Apple? Only to someone who doesn't understand technology. Your precious Kirin 980 didn't turn out to be nearly as good as you predicted, so you had to try and redefine what makes a processor advanced (like thinking including a cellular modem in the chip somehow makes it better).
    randy hilltmayStrangeDaysradarthekatjony0
  • Reply 91 of 117
    Good move on Apple's part. 

    Unit volume was always meaningless for investors, and gets more so every year with service revenues and changing ASPs.  It was far more important to competitors so I always wondered why Apple gave them that information. With one fell swoop they get rid of a leak of competitive info, and eliminated a metric analysts obsessed over for all the wrong reasons.

    I am glad they still release Mac unit sales, cause it showed they killed it this quarter with an average ASP of $1,400, while Dell and HP are dropping close to $400. Macintosh owns the creative professional market more now than ever.
    radarthekat
  • Reply 92 of 117
    dysamoriadysamoria Posts: 3,429member
    ...
    The change arrives as sales of iPhone, Apple's most important revenue driver, stagnate. During the most recent quarter, for example, iPhone sales growth was flat year-over-year. Last quarter, sales were up by a single percent from the same time last year.
    ...
    I really don't care about GROWTH.  So what of growth is stagnant... you're telling me they sold just as manny phones this year as they did last year?... that sounds fantastic to me!  It wasn't even a "new" model year, "merely" an incremental improvement.  The market is near saturated, yet they continue to sell just a s many phones!

    If GROWTH is required to make a profit, then you have a bad business model.

    Agreed. Perpetual growth is unsustainable. Obsessing over it is one of the things making American capitalism into a pathology. 
    radarthekat
  • Reply 93 of 117
    YP101YP101 Posts: 132member
    Smart phone market is saturated. This is all analysts are talking about last couple of years.
    And At the beginning Apple always beat the analyst prediction of growth of iPhone sales.

    Now Apple shift price paradigm to higher so it tells the market as smartphone sales growth is ended.
    This is what the analysts hated.
    They know this past couple of years and Apple always bring the honey and honey pot is drying.

    Now Apple telling the market as growth as sale's margin as whole not each product's sale quantity.
    Anyway last week or so warren buffet and jamie dimon on cnbc as current US company is too much rely on 3 months earning report.
    They(over 100s top ceo) are talking to increase earning report as 6-12 month term instead.

    I guess they want less fluctuation of stock price due to they can't growth all the time.  



    edited November 2018
  • Reply 94 of 117
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,565member
    cpsro said:
    Unit sales figures may not matter to Apple, but it matters to third parties whose livelihood depends on Apple unit sales... and that should matter to Apple.
    (For my business, maybe I just focus on Linux going forward.)
    Please do.
  • Reply 95 of 117
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 11,565member
    jcc said:
    Haha, after a few years of people like me predicting Cook’s incompetence as a product “visionary”, it’s finally coming to fruition. Apple use to lead, and now they follow. They followed Samsung into the phablets and now they have no one else to copy. The real reason they no longer breakdown unit sales is because they’re trying to hide declining unit sales. They’re hoping that they can sell more and more expensive iPhones in order maintain their revenue growth. Good luck to that! There’s already signs that people aren’t willing to pay over $1k for a phone. That was the whole reason they went the phablets route as people reasoned that a bigger phone should mean higher price.
    Troll trope nonsense. Most CEOs are not product visionaries, and Cook is no exception. Remains an excellent executive. Claiming he is incompetent just outs you as an irrational hater. 

    The X was their best selling model, so clearly you don’t understand shit about their business. 
    tmayradarthekatjony0
  • Reply 96 of 117
    radarthekatradarthekat Posts: 3,394moderator
    I’ve said for a while now that Apple’s ‘problem’ under Tim Cook’s leadership is narrative, telling the story. Go back to the event on Tuesday. A lot of people were hoping this event would clean up the Mac laptop line, especially at the low end. Instead all Apple did was introduce another laptop in the mix and the line is as confusing as ever. And there was no really story around the iPad Pro. It was basically here’s new hardware and oh here’s Adobe showing off Photoshop. But where was the overall story? Not just the what, but the why. I feel the same way about yesterday’s earnings call. Neither Tim nor Luca had a good explanation for why they would no longer be reporting unit sales. And they didn’t announce any other better reporting metric (like install base or ARPU) to replace it. So all it does is leave investors thinking growth is slowed and Apple can only grow revenue through price increases for so long. More doom and gloom. Hence why the stock is down 6% pre-market.
    They didn’t introduce installed base as a metric because they’ve already been reporting on that for several quarters.  It’s not a formal metric, but Cook has been talking about it plenty as the story shifts to services, which is where the story is going.  And that’s a story that Cook has certainly been telling.  
    edited November 2018
  • Reply 97 of 117
    The stock is about $205 right now, which is an insane reaction to Apple’s reporting change. Could hit very close to $200... I’m placing a buy order just in case. The madness of this market. LOL.
  • Reply 98 of 117
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 2,532member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    We are basically 'post iPhone' now (in company-wide terms) and after three years of flat growth, unit numbers possibly don't look too good going forward (in growth terms). 

    Apple has never had the kind of high-end premiun competition (at least on the current scale) as it has now and is (and has been) trying to open new revenue streams.

    Services is growing, (TV) content creation will probably go live next year and the car project will follow. Plus all the other areas.

    However, flat unit sales are not nice and any dip in handset sales would just make things worse from a stock perspective because iPhone sales have been the most important indicator for years. Giving a running commentary on unit sales (each earnings  call) and reporting things staying the same - or possibly getting worse is something to be avoided. 

    While iPhone X may have been the 'most popular' model this year, and in spite of all the joy with Q1 numbers, the reality is that sales are still more or less flat, again. Little has changed.

    We know people are being asked to pay more for the newer phones and at some point they won't want to (or won't be able to) and that point might be close. This year's refresh was not really that spectacular. To the point that many considered the Apple Watch to be the real star of the 2018 refresh.

    In a 'post iPhone' Apple world, it shouldn't be surprising to see a decision like this. Just look at the guidance for the next quarter. There will be another Q1 blow out but the revenue mix will be far more spread out, and as the year passes, iPhone unit sales might show signs of fatigue.

    By not giving unit sales, Apple gets some breathing space until the next refresh, which will need to be stronger than this year, but won't carry same importance as in previous years because other areas will have been strengthened by then and the content library will probably be rolling out.

    iPhone sales could take off of course, but I think Apple really doesn't expect that to happen and they are prefering to err on the side of caution.

    Apple obviously (and understandably) wants to play the decision down and say unit sales are less relevant. In a post iPhone Apple world it is true, but those numbers are still very much relevant nonetheless.
    While some of what you say is certainly the case (yes, Apple is obviously diversifying revenue streams) your take on it seems to suggest you believe that iPhone sales are bound to flatten out and Apple is reacting to
    that by attempting to charge higher prices.  But Apple is a huge data mining operation.  The company certainly has all the sales and marketing data it needs to dial the iPhone unit sales number where they want it, growing unit sales 20% year over year if they so wish; it would simply be a matter of producing iPhone models targeting certain market demographics at appropriate prices.  Because there’s demand all up and down the market, even here in the Philippines where most can’t afford one but nevertheless aspire to get their hands on one.  If Apple truly wanted to play the unit sales game against all comers, do you really think they couldn’t succeed?  

    Apple is in a different game.  The company has looked at price elasticity and decided it can maintain current unit numbers, even modestly growing them, while netting significantly more in ASP, by continuing up market away from those who have been attempting to follow Apple into the premium space.  That’s why you’re seeing A-series performance numbers that are running away from the competition, Face ID coming to the iPad, and other unmatched technology advances.  Did you even read Above Avalon’s recent article (under his free Weekly Articles section) regarding the grey market for iPhones and what that means?  I guess not.  You spout a lot about Apple’s supposed competition, championing one vendor in particular, but you show a remarkable, perhaps deliberately obtuse, lack of insight into the smartphone business.  

    But hey, thanks for playing.  
    I think you are at odds with yourself.

    Apple has never seen competition on its high end turf like it has now. To the point that this year's innovation in the handset market didn't come from Apple. If you want bleeding edge technology (lots do) you wouldn't buy this year's iPhone. That has been the reality of 2018. And you know that Apple has been sheltered from a large chunk of that competition on its home turf, which just happens to be the world's second largest smartphone market.

    Oh. That 'one vendor'. People are asking why its latest phone hasn't appeared on the D0X Mark listing yet. Rumours claim the results would be too far ahead of the pack as to be detrimental to itself. As the iPhone X Max didn't top the current board leader - which is already six months old - and the current leader is made by that 'one vendor', it is rumoured that the Mate 20 Pro won't get a listing until something from the competition tops the P20 Pro. You will counter that the listing is worthless and mostly serves for marketing but marketing is one of the cogs that moves this industry.

    It's not that Apple can't play the 'unit sales game and succeed'. It can, but at what price (no pun intended)?

    It's been flat on unit sales for three years now - in spite of attempts to open up its spread (both on models and pricing). So that is flat sales in spite of those actions. Care to imagine how things would have looked if they hadn't taken that action?

    Given the situation, one of the possible options is to compete with itself and produce new phones (not old phones) for the mid tier and try to differentiate them enough to shore up premium sales. It hasn't chosen that option - yet.

    But 2019 is served and the iPhones - for all their marketing - haven't really turned heads and now won't do so until the end of 2019. That is a lot of quarters and Samsung  (S10) is going to hit hard as soon as the gates open on  the New Year. Huawei (P30 Pro) will follow soon after and right around Apple the time Apple has its 2019 refresh, both vendors will launch the latest Note and Mates. 

    So Apple has an expensive phone (made more expensive by sales tax and currency realities in certain regions) that doesn't really offer the bells and whistles that the price warrants.

    It looks like Apple doesn't plan for larger unit shipments and may in fact be preparing for some contraction.

    Apple has the ultimate card to know the state of its current market: Apple ID.

    It knows absolutely everything it needs to know about the state of play. Active accounts and if users are bringing in extra revenues, how many devices are linked to each account, which devices go off radar, the family sphere of users.

    I have speculated in the past that the so called 'super cycle' might have actually happened, but simply didn't register in terms of far higher unit sales. Apple always knew exactly what happened of course and will never make that data public.

    Given the possible state of play, this decision not to provide unit sales makes sense for the company. Analysts will continue to speculate, it's their job after all, and the stock will twitch on occasion but that is no different to today and has no bearing on anything.

    In a post iPhone Apple world, the focus will move to other areas, iPhone included of course, but with less weight. Just like the Mac today. Important but not the be all and end all.
    "It's been flat on unit sales for three years now - in spite of attempts to open up its spread (both on models and pricing). So that is flat sales in spite of those actions. Care to imagine how things would have looked if they hadn't taken that action?"


    That isn't looking at the bigger picture.  iPhone YoY unit sales has witnessed flat growth but user base grew by over 20%.  That's approximately 100 million users.

    In a mature / saturated market, unit sales becomes irrelevant because you only grow YoY sales so much. This is where the size and strength of the total user base becomes a more important with respect to Apple’s ability to grow in other areas like services and accessories. This is not reflected in yearly unit sales. If Apple can maintain and / or grow the size of its overall user base in all of its product lines, its business will be very healthy.

    edited November 2018
  • Reply 99 of 117
    waltgwaltg Posts: 90member
    Bully for Apple! These so called analysts and reporters, market watchers and stock manipulators all feed off of unit numbers! Regardless the company is cash rich, beating numbers every quarter, and growing makes no difference, Apple is still the company/stock that Wall Street loves to hate!! Maybe this will help some of the rumor mongoring that upsets the market, but I’m sure these idiots will still find something to talk about to manipulate the stock, even though most of them have NO idea what they are talking about!!
  • Reply 100 of 117
    avon b7avon b7 Posts: 5,901member
    avon b7 said:
    avon b7 said:
    We are basically 'post iPhone' now (in company-wide terms) and after three years of flat growth, unit numbers possibly don't look too good going forward (in growth terms). 

    Apple has never had the kind of high-end premiun competition (at least on the current scale) as it has now and is (and has been) trying to open new revenue streams.

    Services is growing, (TV) content creation will probably go live next year and the car project will follow. Plus all the other areas.

    However, flat unit sales are not nice and any dip in handset sales would just make things worse from a stock perspective because iPhone sales have been the most important indicator for years. Giving a running commentary on unit sales (each earnings  call) and reporting things staying the same - or possibly getting worse is something to be avoided. 

    While iPhone X may have been the 'most popular' model this year, and in spite of all the joy with Q1 numbers, the reality is that sales are still more or less flat, again. Little has changed.

    We know people are being asked to pay more for the newer phones and at some point they won't want to (or won't be able to) and that point might be close. This year's refresh was not really that spectacular. To the point that many considered the Apple Watch to be the real star of the 2018 refresh.

    In a 'post iPhone' Apple world, it shouldn't be surprising to see a decision like this. Just look at the guidance for the next quarter. There will be another Q1 blow out but the revenue mix will be far more spread out, and as the year passes, iPhone unit sales might show signs of fatigue.

    By not giving unit sales, Apple gets some breathing space until the next refresh, which will need to be stronger than this year, but won't carry same importance as in previous years because other areas will have been strengthened by then and the content library will probably be rolling out.

    iPhone sales could take off of course, but I think Apple really doesn't expect that to happen and they are prefering to err on the side of caution.

    Apple obviously (and understandably) wants to play the decision down and say unit sales are less relevant. In a post iPhone Apple world it is true, but those numbers are still very much relevant nonetheless.
    While some of what you say is certainly the case (yes, Apple is obviously diversifying revenue streams) your take on it seems to suggest you believe that iPhone sales are bound to flatten out and Apple is reacting to
    that by attempting to charge higher prices.  But Apple is a huge data mining operation.  The company certainly has all the sales and marketing data it needs to dial the iPhone unit sales number where they want it, growing unit sales 20% year over year if they so wish; it would simply be a matter of producing iPhone models targeting certain market demographics at appropriate prices.  Because there’s demand all up and down the market, even here in the Philippines where most can’t afford one but nevertheless aspire to get their hands on one.  If Apple truly wanted to play the unit sales game against all comers, do you really think they couldn’t succeed?  

    Apple is in a different game.  The company has looked at price elasticity and decided it can maintain current unit numbers, even modestly growing them, while netting significantly more in ASP, by continuing up market away from those who have been attempting to follow Apple into the premium space.  That’s why you’re seeing A-series performance numbers that are running away from the competition, Face ID coming to the iPad, and other unmatched technology advances.  Did you even read Above Avalon’s recent article (under his free Weekly Articles section) regarding the grey market for iPhones and what that means?  I guess not.  You spout a lot about Apple’s supposed competition, championing one vendor in particular, but you show a remarkable, perhaps deliberately obtuse, lack of insight into the smartphone business.  

    But hey, thanks for playing.  
    I think you are at odds with yourself.

    Apple has never seen competition on its high end turf like it has now. To the point that this year's innovation in the handset market didn't come from Apple. If you want bleeding edge technology (lots do) you wouldn't buy this year's iPhone. That has been the reality of 2018. And you know that Apple has been sheltered from a large chunk of that competition on its home turf, which just happens to be the world's second largest smartphone market.

    Oh. That 'one vendor'. People are asking why its latest phone hasn't appeared on the D0X Mark listing yet. Rumours claim the results would be too far ahead of the pack as to be detrimental to itself. As the iPhone X Max didn't top the current board leader - which is already six months old - and the current leader is made by that 'one vendor', it is rumoured that the Mate 20 Pro won't get a listing until something from the competition tops the P20 Pro. You will counter that the listing is worthless and mostly serves for marketing but marketing is one of the cogs that moves this industry.

    It's not that Apple can't play the 'unit sales game and succeed'. It can, but at what price (no pun intended)?

    It's been flat on unit sales for three years now - in spite of attempts to open up its spread (both on models and pricing). So that is flat sales in spite of those actions. Care to imagine how things would have looked if they hadn't taken that action?

    Given the situation, one of the possible options is to compete with itself and produce new phones (not old phones) for the mid tier and try to differentiate them enough to shore up premium sales. It hasn't chosen that option - yet.

    But 2019 is served and the iPhones - for all their marketing - haven't really turned heads and now won't do so until the end of 2019. That is a lot of quarters and Samsung  (S10) is going to hit hard as soon as the gates open on  the New Year. Huawei (P30 Pro) will follow soon after and right around Apple the time Apple has its 2019 refresh, both vendors will launch the latest Note and Mates. 

    So Apple has an expensive phone (made more expensive by sales tax and currency realities in certain regions) that doesn't really offer the bells and whistles that the price warrants.

    It looks like Apple doesn't plan for larger unit shipments and may in fact be preparing for some contraction.

    Apple has the ultimate card to know the state of its current market: Apple ID.

    It knows absolutely everything it needs to know about the state of play. Active accounts and if users are bringing in extra revenues, how many devices are linked to each account, which devices go off radar, the family sphere of users.

    I have speculated in the past that the so called 'super cycle' might have actually happened, but simply didn't register in terms of far higher unit sales. Apple always knew exactly what happened of course and will never make that data public.

    Given the possible state of play, this decision not to provide unit sales makes sense for the company. Analysts will continue to speculate, it's their job after all, and the stock will twitch on occasion but that is no different to today and has no bearing on anything.

    In a post iPhone Apple world, the focus will move to other areas, iPhone included of course, but with less weight. Just like the Mac today. Important but not the be all and end all.

    More bullshit from the Huawei troll/shill.

    Newsflash: There have been countless "iPhone killers" over the last 7-8 years that were supposed to knock the iPhone off its perch at the high end. To date, not one of them has succeeded. The CLOSEST anyone got was the Galaxy S4 back in 2014, which managed to sell 10 million units in its first month. Since then it's all been downhill and nobody has ever come close since. What makes you think (besides being delusional) that Huawei is going to steal sales from Apple where everyone else has failed? Nobody cross shops the superior iPhone to the inferior Huawei flagships.

    So you come up with ridiculous theories (poor Huawei isn't allowed to sell in the US) to imply that if they playing field were equal that Huawei would magically outsell the iPhone. The reason Huawei won't outsell the iPhone is because they are inferior devices. Plain and simple.

    No bleeding edge technology from Apple? Only to someone who doesn't understand technology. Your precious Kirin 980 didn't turn out to be nearly as good as you predicted, so you had to try and redefine what makes a processor advanced (like thinking including a cellular modem in the chip somehow makes it better).
    Here we go again!

    Just look at the numbers.

    Apple has been flat for over three years now.

    The premium bands have more players, carrying more weight than 7 or 8 years ago, and in that time, pretty much everything that users absolutely need on a phone has been, not only given to them but given to them in excess - and in far cheaper pricing! That makes selling premium handsets even harder today in a saturated developed market than 7 or 8 years ago.

    You can't bring yourself to admit it but Android premium handsets sell in the millions and are part of the reason Apple simply hasn't been able to shift more units. And Apple has 80% of the market to go after! And a decent slice of that market is very much premium.

    When you say 'iPhone Killer' what are you referring to? Technology or sales? For either aspect, the iPhone met its match long ago!

    Samsung sells more handsets than anyone and Huawei has topped Apple twice recently.

    I love it when you speak of 'inferior' devices when you clearly haven't seen something like a P20 Pro or Mate 20 Pro much less handled one. And you say I'm delusional! 

    Here's a newsflash for you. I've handled the new iPhones and they feel solid. I've also handled the latest Samsungs, Oppos, Huaweis, OnePlus etc and they all feel equally solid. Build quality is frankly amazing.

    But from there Apple trails off from competitors, starting with that 5W charger in the box! The Xr single camera, charging (both wired and wireless), exterior design, expansion, modem and a host of other features.

    Inferior they are not!

    To the point that Apple only compares its phones - with other iPhones!

    You may feel that iOS marks the difference for you but I use (the often disliked among Android users) EMUI and prefer it to iOS!

    The iPhone has a faster processor and a couple of plus points which really only stand out when compared to other iPhones.

    BTW, I have never EVER predicted anything for the Kirin 980 which is currently the best Android SoC on the market.

    The gigabit modem in the latest iPhone brings it up to par with last year's Mate 10!

    Even Huawei's sub brand Honor used comparisons with iPhone Xs Max just a few days ago to highlight some features.

    I don't know why you insist. 

    Apple not providing unit sales information makes sense for the company. Of course, it had to play down the reasons and that is understandable too, but as other areas of the company grow to offset any future slowdown in handset revenues, it will buy itself time to plan a push for lower tiered phones to get more people on board or push more services to Android devices. Who knows!

    Not giving unit sales will help to blur many aspects of their business and works in their favour by removing a nasty rod from the company's back.







Sign In or Register to comment.