ulric

radarthekat said:

dkhaley said:

What makes your journalistic credentials better than Ms. Kubota's? You also criticize Joanna Stern, who is a seasoned reporter. I would caution anyone against blindly dismissing their reporting.

This was not mentioned anywhere other than by DED here on AI.  This is analysis, as is the rest of this piece:

”Apple's September quarter posted revenues of $62.9 billion, up 19.6 percent YoY. If you combine this with Apple's revised guidance for the December quarter, Apple's second half of calendar year 2018 will have generated a total of $146.9 billion, compared to $140.9 billion last year, an overall increase of 4.25 percent. ”

And if you read the article you’ll see why this is significant.  Why is it that this straight-forward analysis was not presented by anyone else?  It cuts right to the heart of the matter and is not mere opinion.  It’s simple math that provides true insight.  

I know what you're saying but you're getting caught up in spin. Nobody compares two quarters against another two quarters, that's why you won't find the 4.25% number anywhere.  It's not a number anyone would use, not even Apple.   But anyway, that is not the WSJ story and not what people are freaking about. It's the second quarter in a row that Apple lowers guidance, Apple is usually conservative in estimates, and that guidance was made with the plan that the iPhone XR was going to be the drive for growth China, and the numbers show that it wasn't.  The current growth is just normal growth, and the growth is decelerating.  And the iPhone XR is more expensive so they don't need to sell as many to make the numbers.  That's why the article says the iPhone XR is failing.  It doesn't mean the revenue growth went to zero or negative.  Apple still growing revenue organically year over year is not a counter-argument to saying the XR isn't doing the job Apple was expecting it to do. 

levi said:

Not sure where you're located but I see multiple daily in and around the SF Bay Area and when visiting family in the Midwest. The high end retail locations no longer make sense, especially since Apple has pivoted away from the luxury/Apple Watch edition strategy. Data and Apple's own marketing suggest sport and aluminum models are what's selling. This move makes total sense. 

Oh I bet you do see manyhipsters everyday sporting apple products in the SF Bay Area.  90 minutes away from the Apple campus.  That's where most of the watches must be.

The apple watch is so ugly and colorful, it's easy to spot.  That causes a bias that leads one to think that everyone has them everywhere when they're still rather rare. I'm in Canada and I know about a dozen people that have one, but I work in tech. I know a couple of people with Huawei watches, I don't draw a conclusion of market penetratoin from that. Normal people have fitbits, at most, and are no sure why they have one.