Apple Cuts iPhone Part Orders Due to Low Demand

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

So the numbers are meaningless?
Either the numbers say that Apple originally ordered twice what seems to me to be a plausible sales estimate, in which case I don't believe them, or they say nothing at all, in which case what is the point of discussing them?

No, they are not meaningless. The numbers say that Apple initially ordered 19 million and then cut that by 5-8 million. You don't know if that is within normal quarterly sales figures because the NYTs report doesn't say what Apple's ordering pattern is. But -- and here's where the real story is -- some are interpreting that as an indication of lower demand for the iP5 than originally anticipated by Apple.

If it were presented as 'evidence' that Apple's sales for the quarter were doing to be double expectations, yes. I think there is zero chance that Apple's sales will be double their previous years quarter.

Again, as I have said all along, my issues with the story is not that Apple will only be selling ~30 million iPhones, it is that they would ever have expected to sell double that.

What if it were presented as "possibly" meaning double the expectations. Remember, these current stories of cuts are not saying this is definitive evidence of softening demand, they are saying that lower demand is likely a main cause. I said the hypothetical should be similar to these current stories.

As for the 65 million, you seem to be obsessing about it when it is not the center of the stories here. It may be an error but that doesn't mean other aspects of the story are incorrect. Just disregard the Nikkei-sourced story if you want and concentrate on the one that the NYTs put out. That is the more reliable story, IMO.

--Pat

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by PatNY

I can't disagree more. It all depends on who repeats it. If it's repeated solely by blogs, and commentators such as you and me on forums like this, sure, I'd say it's just gossip. But if it's picked up by virtually every mainstream reputable media outlet that exists -- all while the story goes unchallenged -- and gets independently "confirmed," then it has a great deal of credibility.

The mainstream media outlet didn't report on the story, they reported on WSJ's report of what Nikkei reported. Did you see any quotes from the Nikkei article?

Originally Posted by PatNY

As I said in my reply to murray a few posts earlier, perhaps "confirmed" is a better word. So, yes, this story has been independently confirmed by two major media outlets. The stories do not contradict each other -- or at least they are close enough in substance that they are consistent with each other, IMO. When the first story says "half" it is saying roughly 50%. Meanwhile the range for the cuts in the second story is up to 43%. Close enough, I think.

What exactly are you counting? There was the original story by Nikkei, there was the independent report by the analyst that contradicts original story on how the parts are ordered (monthly vs. quarterly). There is no direct quote from either Nikkei (on the 65 million halved) or Paul Semenza (on the 19 million down to 11-14 million).

If you would be interested in quotes:

"We started hearing indications of cutbacks before the new year," Paul Semenza, senior vice president, analyst services, at DisplaySearch, told CNET today.

That said, he doesn't exactly have a negative take on demand for the iPhone 5.

"It was a very quick ramp up. The Q4 [estimate] was originally about 61 million displays [for the iPhone 5]...that may be dialed back, but anything near that number is still huge," he said.

"That would support the theory that the ramp was too much to sustain."

This would mean that Paul Semenza denies the original story that the demand for iPhone 5 was low.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

The mainstream media outlet didn't report on the story, they reported on WSJ's report of what Nikkei reported. Did you see any quotes from the Nikkei article?

I'm not sure what you are saying here and how it tracks with my comment which was in response to one of yours. Since some are slicing and dicing words here, I want to be sure what you are taking issue with in my reply. Are you taking issue with my interpretation of the word "repeating" here?

Because the mainstream media outlets certainly did "repeat" ("picked up") the story.

Again, I don't want semantical nit-picking to be the issue here. So what exactly did you mean when you said "The fact that a story has been repeated doesn't mean anything other than: it is good gossip." (Emphasis mine.) That's what I was replying to.

What exactly are you counting? There was the original story by Nikkei, there was the independent report by the analyst that contradicts original story on how the parts are ordered (monthly vs. quarterly). There is no direct quote from either Nikkei (on the 65 million halved) or Paul Semenza (on the 19 million down to 11-14 million).

No, the NYT's report does not contradict the Nikkei report. Neither report specifies exactly how parts are ordered by Apple other than to say some orders were made in January (NYT's) and that on a quarterly basis -- which could have encompassed several different orders throughout the entire quarter -- orders were roughly halved (Nikkei). And, again, dismiss the 65 million number because its use in the original article was unclear. I am "counting" the figures from the NYT's article which are consistent with the Nikkei sourced reports.

And I'm not sure what you mean by "there is no direct from ..." Are you now saying because there was no direct quote from the sources that the information from the sources is not reliable? That's not how journalism works. It's never worked that way.

This would mean that Paul Semenza denies the original story that the demand for iPhone 5 was low.

Not really. Semenza himself says it's just a theory. Theory is not fact. Hard numbers are facts. (And, murray, don't go semantical nit-picking over the use of "facts" here.) From the material you quoted, it sounds like Semenza is saying he doesn't know what the reason is, and a correction from an initial high ramp up would be just one "theory."

--Pat

[PatNY]

Below is a hypothetical story from the NYT's. Question for murray, Sil_lis, and any other Apple disciple: If you came across this story, would you pooh-pooh and nitpick it to death as well?

Hypothetical story:

Apple does appear to be increasing orders for its latest iPhone from its manufacturing partners, as Nikkei of Japan and The Wall Street Journal reported earlier. Paul Semenza, an analyst at NPD DisplaySearch, a research firm that follows the display market, said that for January, Apple had expected to order 11 million displays for the iPhone 5 but increased the order to 19 to 22 million. Mr. Semenza said these numbers came from sources in the supply chain, the companies that make components for Apple products.

The increase in orders for screens could be related to fluctuating inventory, or because consumer demand for the iPhone 5 has been stronger than Apple had predicted, Mr. Semenza said. “Certainly, demand from Apple to the display makers seems to have increased pretty significantly,” he said.

--Pat

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Question for murray, Sil_lis, and any other Apple disciple

I'm not an Apple disciple.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

I'm not an Apple disciple.

OK, fine. Sorry to lump you in with the others.

So, would you dismiss the hypothetical story as well?

--Pat

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PatNY

OK, fine. Sorry to lump you in with the others.

So, would you dismiss the hypothetical story as well?

--Pat

I would always treat stories from unattributed sources with caution. Who are the "sources" that have claimed that Apple have reduced their screen orders? What supporting evidence is there to back up these claims?

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I would always treat stories from unattributed sources with caution. Who are the "sources" that have claimed that Apple have reduced their screen orders? What supporting evidence is there to back up these claims?

The sources in the original stories are at least identified as being in the supply chain. The use of anonymous sources is common in journalism and doesn't mean a story is unreliable.

I think a story like this that has been independently confirmed (by another report with sources) has a substantial amount of credibility. In a case like this, the best way to refute the claims is for Apple to come right out and say the stories are wrong.

So, Harry, regarding the hypothetical story, would you also treat that story regarding increased screen orders with caution? Would you tend to disbelieve it?

--Pat

[HarryT]

I clearly stated in my previous post, Pat, that I would always treat stories from unattributed sources with caution. Whether I believed it or not would depend on what evidence was provided to back up the claim. I see no hard evidence in either the original, or your hypothetical, story. There's no documentation to support the claim being made.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by HarryT

I clearly stated in my previous post, Pat, that I would always treat stories from unattributed sources with caution. Whether I believed it or not would depend on what evidence was provided to back up the claim. I see no hard evidence in either the original, or your hypothetical, story. There's no documentation to support the claim being made.

Treating a story with "caution" is fine. But the attacks on the reliability of these original stories have gone way beyond that.

As for hard evidence, what kind would suffice for a story of this nature? When you refer to "documentation" do you mean copies of Apple's original and amended orders?

--Pat

[HarryT]

Originally Posted by PatNY

As for hard evidence, what kind would suffice for a story of this nature? When you refer to "documentation" do you mean copies of Apple's original and amended orders?

--Pat

Something like that would constitute the best form of proof, yes. Without something of that nature, this is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumour, and should, I think, be treated with extreme caution.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by HarryT

Something like that would constitute the best form of proof, yes. Without something of that nature, this is really nothing more than an unsubstantiated rumour, and should, I think, be treated with extreme caution.

Yes, it would be the best form of proof. But it is unreasonable to expect any evidence of that type would ever be attached to a news story of this nature. The supplier in Japan would be in serious hot water with Apple if it leaked sales documents like that. Very few people are privy to actual sales order documents. So it would be easy to assign blame if the actual documents were ever leaked. Many more are simply aware of the fact that one company has adjusted orders, so it would be harder to find the culprit if that information were leaked. Even an assembly line worker might be aware of specific cuts and increases because of large fluctuations in production activity directly impacting his or her work load.

Company documents such as sales orders simply do not get leaked with any regularity in news stories. They usually only appear in public in relation to stories about court proceedings or whistleblower cases or something of that nature.

--Pat

[Sil_liS]

Pat, I am not an Apple disciple, I don't own anything made by Apple, and I don't like their business practice.

But look at what the articles are saying:
NYT:

Paul Semenza, an analyst at NPD DisplaySearch, a research firm that follows the display market, said that for January, Apple had expected to order 19 million displays for the iPhone 5 but cut the order to 11 million to 14 million.

CNET:

Looking to the first quarter of 2013, DisplaySearch's original estimate of 57 million has now been reduced to a range of 33 million to 42 million

Did you notice how the numbers given by NYT are exactly a third of the numbers given by CNET, and they represent 1 month vs. a quarter (3 months)? The main difference is that according to CNET these numbers are estimates made by DisplaySearch, both the initial one and the current estimated range. Analysts analyze data and give estimates. It might even be illegal for them to get direct evidence on how many parts are being ordered because it might lead to insider trading acusations.


As for the 65 million, it is most likely the number of parts ordered for last quarter (since the previous analyst estimate was that Apple sold 61 million iPhone5s in Q4 2012, it seems reasonable).

[hidari]

Perhaps a dose of rigamortis would help this thread

QUOTE=Sil_liS;2388074]Pat, I am not an Apple disciple, I

don't own anything made by Apple, and I don't like their business practice.

But look at what the articles are saying:
NYT:


CNET:


Did you notice how the numbers given by NYT are exactly a third of the numbers given by CNET, and they represent 1 month vs. a quarter (3 months)? The main difference is that according to CNET these numbers are estimates made by DisplaySearch, both the initial one and the current estimated range. Analysts analyze data and give estimates. It might even be illegal for them to get direct evidence on how many parts are being ordered because it might lead to insider trading acusations.


As for the 65 million, it is most likely the number of parts ordered for last quarter (since the previous analyst estimate was that Apple sold 61 million iPhone5s in Q4 2012, it seems reasonable).[/QUOTE]

[murraypaul]

Originally Posted by PatNY

So, would you dismiss the hypothetical story as well?

Yes, as I had already said earlier in the thread.
A story is either believable or not.
Numbers are either reasonable or not.
My personal bet would be that there is at least a 25% chance that Apple's 2013Q2 figures are below their 2012Q2, which were exceptionally high.
35-45 million sounds like a reasonable range.
60-65 (the scaled up numbers in your hypothetical story) do not, too me, seem reasonable, for a non-release, non-holiday, quarter.
I'd put the chance of their 2013Q2 iPhone sales being over 60 million at less than 5%.
Maybe I'm too bearish on iPhone sales, and next week's figures will show something shocking, but that would be my reaction to that story.