stevewhitemd

"Definers used the NTK Network to disseminate stories hyper-critical of Apple and its CEO Tim Cook." That helps to explain why, perhaps, I've been seeing a fair number of news stories critical of Apple in the tech press, newspapers, and general blogs over the last year. It may be no more than these outlets just using a press release from Definers without any further thought.

Just ordered an XS to replace a 6S Plus. The screen is virtually the same size. I don't need a 'Max', and I like what I see in the XS over the XR (not that the latter is bad, mind you). I suspect a fair number of people will be like me: a formerly Plus user going to the XS because we like that screen size. And if Apple has the proportions of orders wrong a bit, they'll adjust. It's not going to be hard. So Ming is pushing something that just doesn't matter a whole lot.

Mr. Dilger writes: However, after the initial holiday quarter, writers at those papers continued printing stories that suggested they'd done some research or observation into iPhone X sales and found problems with ongoing demand. They also created reports suggesting evidence that Apple was slashing production of iPhone X, creating waves they claimed to have observed among Apple's suppliers. But, those reports were false. And they were repeated anyway. They were not accidents or mistakes. They were false, and they appeared malicious, not mistaken.
...

That's about as elegant a complaint about "Fake News!!" as one can find without the usual political overlay. And it's being practiced not just by people in their pajamas but by the largest purveyors of 'news'. Something to remember when one is reading one's favorite news outlet about ANY topic.

For all the sniping and complaining, lost is one simple fact -- it's a market economy.

"Value" is something I define differently than (say) lewchenko. He might not see the value of an iPhone X or XS or XR, but I do. Which of us is right? We both are -- for ourselves. In a market economy, I'm free to spend a princely sum for something I value, and lewchenko is free to walk away from the same deal. We both think of ourselves as being the savvy one. We're both right.

I think this is Mr. Dilger's main point. In a market economy, Apple bet heavily that many people would see the value of the X -- what it was, what it could do, how long it would be current, and what the value was to THEM. They indeed bought and Apple has been handsomely rewarded. Lewchenko doesn't have to buy, and Apple doesn't miss the loss of a sale to him; it's sold a couple hundred million iPhones last year, the majority of which were the X. That's a couple hundred million people who could have bought a cheaper iPhone 8, or a much cheaper iPhone 7, or a really cheap SE, or a similarly priced Samsung, or some flavor of cheap, cheap, cheap Android phone, or a throw-away feature phone, or NO PHONE AT ALL. But they bought an X. Who was right? They all were -- for them.

Can Apple continue to do this? Beats me. But the success to date suggests that I won't be betting against them for a few years.

I do wonder how it is that Google shareholders didn't rise up in open revolt after the Moto fiasco. I don't care how big a company is or how much money they're making, throwing away $12 billion and then shrugging it off isn't a good look for corporate officers. Makes me as a shareholder what OTHER money they're in the process of throwing away.