Kierkegaarden

I’m guessing that this is not playing out the way it is being reported.  This is a component that they could keep pretty close to their chest without the danger of leaks.

I don’t think they will be able to differentiate products within the line like their other devices.  The experience has to be at a certain standard, and I don’t know how they will be able to cut costs without sacrificing the experience.  Component costs would have to reduce drastically, so this would be years from now.  But even then, this will still be a product north of $2k.

Thanks for the thoughtful article, Daniel.  I personally believe that Vision Pro will be as revolutionary as the Mac was in 1984.  The “killer app”, as many claim doesn’t exist yet, isn’t an app — it is the environment.

chasm said:

Kierkegaarden said:

This doesn’t clarify anything — a third party research company (based in Hong Kong) is claiming yoy increases or decreases based on what exactly?  And discounting wasn’t discussed, which could have an impact on revenue.  The numbers don’t make sense because they’re not comparing the same things and they’re still just guessing in the end.

I'm sorry you were unable to understand the story. This is about a particular social event/holiday in China where smartphones are traditionally sold as gifts. In previous years, the retailers told analysts like Counterpoint Research that Apple was the dominant brand customers wanted.

This year, according to that same system, it appears that Chinese-made brands have swung back into fashion among buyers. Why that happened isn't explained or theorized, it's just a report of which brands were most in demand based on retailer reports. There are lots of possible theories about why this happened, but that's not really covered in the story -- just reports of higher demand this time around from Chinese-made iPhone knockoffs rather than actual iPhones.

Apple sold a billion dollars' worth of iPhones during the period before the big day. Xiaomi says they sold $3 billion, but that's cumulative across all their products. The point of this article is not to say "Apple is doomed (in China)," it's an observation of changing trends in consumer buying of smartphones there. That's literally it.

I understand what the report is saying, but it doesn’t make sense.  You obviously don’t understand my point.  They are comparing other brand sales across all of their product lines and Apple with just their iPhone — don’t you think that would favor the other brands?

And they state one brand showing a 66% increase and another at 28% — an increase from what?  And were discounts offered that contributed to these increases?

If the goal was to report on changing trends, they failed miserably — you can’t determine trends without more data points than what they’re presenting.

And how exactly does Counterpoint get sales data, and how can it be verified that it is correct?  Can’t you see how easily this can be manipulated to make a brand look good or bad?  

gatorguy said:

Kierkegaarden said:

So this wasn’t an “iPhone” sales decrease, but rather a decrease throughout all products?  Was this also true for the other companies listed, and what was the increase from?  For example, if 66% is an increase from $1000, the number doesn’t seem as exciting.  Also, what did these increases cost?  If they slashed prices by 50%, they need 2x or more extra volume to maintain profit levels.  Reports like this are garbage because they only focus on a small less important part of the story.

https://www.reuters.com/video/watch/idsIgG?now=true

This doesn’t clarify anything — a third party research company (based in Hong Kong) is claiming yoy increases or decreases based on what exactly?  And discounting wasn’t discussed, which could have an impact on revenue.  The numbers don’t make sense because they’re not comparing the same things and they’re still just guessing in the end.