minisu1980

All for free market solution, if you remove the regional monopolies. Additionally, the government would need to remove the almost unassailable advantage these companies would be enjoying straight out of the gate in a competitive truly free marketplace, however that would require some sort of government intervention which I am sure the free market crowd would complain about.

Net neutrality is needed because government assisted monopolies and provider consolidation has put the entire industry into the hands of a few who have shown over and over again they cannot be trusted to act in a manner that is compatible with the espoused values of our country.

Let me get the analyst narrative straight:

1) Sky is falling because iPhone X is not selling well, because it is a law of physics people will not spend more than $999 on a smartphone despite of the fact people regularly spend far more than this on things that are far more frivolous (wine, collectable cards, clothes, etc) The same thing was said about the original iPhone's price point.
2) Questionable supply chain rumors pass through a human centipede of analysts, each ingesting the output of the one before him, adding their own special flavor for the next one to devour. (These rumors are routinely wrong, Cook directly stated it is fools endeavor to try and draw conclusions from the supply chain, Cook stated iPhone X out sold other iPhone models last quarter ... with factual reported profits to suggest this was the case)
3) 2 days before the end of quarter results, their tune changes to "oh wait, we think Apple will meet their guidance". (It is known the majority of iPhone sales occur on the last day of the quarter /s)
4) Wait, wait we weren't wrong maybe just a bit off on the timing of our predictions ... yeah next quarter lets look for failure next quarter.

It amazing these people still have jobs. I find it funny they layout their doomed predictions, then lower their price target from $205 down to $203. If they actually believed any of their own "data" you would think they would put the target maybe below what it's currently trading, instead of still being $40 higher. I'm still confident reality, over a long enough time, will bring the price back inline hopefully before my calls expire in 2020.

cropr said:

ericthehalfbee said:

cropr said:

I've read the original GFK article

Some interesting points:

 - Nowhere in the article  iPhone or Apple is mentioned. 

 - Only for Europe and to lesser extend China the increase of the ASP is linked to a shift to premium priced models (which could be Apple, but also models of other vendors)

 - In Africa the increase of the ASP is linked to the evolution of feature phones to smartphones.  I doubt we can assume that there are a lot of iPhones involved here

 - In some countries the units sold go down while in to others the unit sold goes up.  For South America: Brazil  -4%, Chile -18%, Columbia +41%, Argentina +6%.  This means that the ASP for South America could change while the models mix in a country remains relatively constant

For me the conclusion of DED is  speculation, like the media who claim there is a weaker iPhone demand because some of the iPhone component suppliers publish weaker figures.

We'll have to wait for the Q1 and Q2 results to see whether the iPhone X is a commercial game changer or not.

Hardly speculation. When it comes to flagships, Apple and the iPhone own the market. There aren't enough flagships from Samsung and others to make this much of an impact in the ASP.

You really should read the article.  If GFK states that in Africa there is a major shift from feature phones to smartphones, we can expect the ASP going up from $20 to $80, while the market share of Apple doesn't move.

I thought they didn't mention Apple or iPhone in the article as per your first point in your post. In any case, I will be humbled when it turns out the African cellphone market is responsible the meaning full uptick in ASP. We should know definitively next Wednesday if Apple was the major contributor to the shift, or wait that determination can't be made until yet another quarter has past ... to be continued ad nauseam.

dkhaley said:

Your analysis and conclusions are sloppy. It's apparent that you are bullish on the iPhone X, but the data doesn't support your conclusion that people are willing to drop a grand on phones.

Basically, your argument is "people are paying 20% - 25% more for phones, so they'll want to buy an expensive phone like the iPhone X".

Here's how I'd look at it:

• Fact: The worldwide economy is growing and consumer confidence is high
• Fact: People are spending 20-25% more on phones
• Assumption: People like the features, form etc of the iPhone X
• Conclusion: The market for budget smartphones is weakening

Let's take a similar example using a different industry

• Fact: The worldwide economy is growing and consumer confidence is high
• Fact: Consumers are spending more at clothing retailers 
• Conclusion: Market share at low-end stores such as Wal-mart and Target will decline

In this scenario, people are spending more. I would expect to see the uplift mainly in mid-range department stores such as Macy's. While higher end stores may also see some uplift, it would be unwise to predict that Niemen-Marcus was about to see a surge in sales.

Demand for the iPhone X may indeed go up, but your article doesn't support that assertion.

Your are ignoring that most phones people can spend 20-25% more on are mostly those from Apple. Race to the bottom and numerically insignificant flagship failures of the competition does not lend to higher ASPs industry wide. ASP can not increase when customers spend less on phones. We already know Samsung's current flagship phone, the only one that could be meaningful in number, isn't selling.

cropr said:

I've read the original GFK article

Some interesting points:

 - Nowhere in the article  iPhone or Apple is mentioned. 

 - Only for Europe and to lesser extend China the increase of the ASP is linked to a shift to premium priced models (which could be Apple, but also models of other vendors)

 - In Africa the increase of the ASP is linked to the evolution of feature phones to smartphones.  I doubt we can assume that there are a lot of iPhones involved here

 - In some countries the units sold go down while in to others the unit sold goes up.  For South America: Brazil  -4%, Chile -18%, Columbia +41%, Argentina +6%.  This means that the ASP for South America could change while the models mix in a country remains relatively constant

For me the conclusion of DED is  speculation, like the media who claim there is a weaker iPhone demand because some of the iPhone component suppliers publish weaker figures.

We'll have to wait for the Q1 and Q2 results to see whether the iPhone X is a commercial game changer or not.

DED's conclusion doesn't need to be defended, as it is solidly based on the reasonable application of historical facts to a new data point, but I'll bite.

Apple and iPhone have no need to be mention because they are the market leader and it is universally understood they would be a significant component to the discussion at hand. Would it be necessary to mention Google outright in an article about industry wide search sales? A better question to ask would, why would they go out of their way to avoid mentioning Apple (hint to enable people such as yourself to spread FUDS).  Apples ASP is approaching triple that of the nearest competitor of any relevant size. This means even if a dark horse were to come out of nowhere, they simply wouldn't have the capacity to sell enough high ASP phones to generate a such a shift industry wide.

While their are regional differences in Europe and China, Apple still has owned the premium market for the last decade. Odds that this changed in a single YoY period is almost non existent.

Yes, African phone sales skewing the results. I'll raise you phone sales in the Antarctic!

Your last point, sure if you want to use those mental gymnastics.

The media's supply chain claims are much weaker than this conclusion as they are based on data that has proven historically to be inaccurate. I like how we can't assess if it's a game changer on the results of the upcoming quarter, this will be a convenient out when you once again move the goal post to deflect that you were wrong.