Apple Cuts iPhone Part Orders Due to Low Demand

[Tacty]

Originally Posted by murraypaul

Where on earth did you get that number from?
They passed 250 million total iPhones ever sold around 2012Q3, after five years of sales, you expected them to do the same sales in 1 quarter?

not in one quarter, obviously, but in total lifetime of the iphone 5...it was based on predictions how every new model were selling multiple times compared to old ones and some other factors...

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...-analyst-says/

[wizwor]

I read this yesterday. Like all second level reports (reports based on information from Chinese manufacturers), the possibilities are endless...

1) Apple sales are way off
2) Apple has switched manufacturers
3) Apple has a new screen tech/spec

Only one of these is bad for Apple. The report smacked the stock price. That could be manipulation. All that we really know is that a company in Asia has told someone that Apple pulled a lot of orders.

On a kind of related media note, last week Sports Illustrated's cover featured a story by Peter King that explained why Green Bay would beat Denver in the Superbowl this year. Only one of the teams King picked is still playing this morning.

We really need to stop getting excited about headlines designed to get our attention. The media stopped informing a generation ago.

[rhadin]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

I was curious to see how MR members might feel about the post-Murdochian WSJ. . .

I used to be a subscriber to the WSJ when I could rely on it for nonbiased business news. I stopped after the first 6 months of Murdoch ownership. I think the quality went downhill and the objective reporting joined that downhill slide.

OTOH, I have friends who still subscribe and think it is still a great newspaper.

I guess it just depends on what you wnat out of the WSJ.

A business magazine/newspaper that greatly improved with a change of ownership is Businessweek. Many years ago it was a leading voice in business. McGraw-Hill ultimately drove it into the ground. Bloomberg, which bought it for $5 million, has returned BW to its former glory (I think). News and editorial/opinion are clearly separated in BW.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Thanks for your insight!

Originally Posted by rhadin

I used to be a subscriber to the WSJ when I could rely on it for non-biased business news. I stopped after the first 6 months of Murdoch ownership. I think the quality went downhill and the objective reporting joined that downhill slide.

OTOH, I have friends who still subscribe and think it is still a great newspaper.

I guess it just depends on what you want out of the WSJ.

A business magazine/newspaper that greatly improved with a change of ownership is Businessweek. Many years ago it was a leading voice in business. McGraw-Hill ultimately drove it into the ground. Bloomberg, which bought it for $5 million, has returned BW to its former glory (I think). News and editorial/opinion are clearly separated in BW.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I read this yesterday. Like all second level reports (reports based on information from Chinese manufacturers), the possibilities are endless...

1) Apple sales are way off
2) Apple has switched manufacturers
3) Apple has a new screen tech/spec

Only one of these is bad for Apple. The report smacked the stock price. That could be manipulation. All that we really know is that a company in Asia has told someone that Apple pulled a lot of orders.

On a kind of related media note, last week Sports Illustrated's cover featured a story by Peter King that explained why Green Bay would beat Denver in the Superbowl this year. Only one of the teams King picked is still playing this morning.

We really need to stop getting excited about headlines designed to get our attention. The media stopped informing a generation ago.

Definitely this... together with intelligent analysis of reports on the net (or in other media) because they become self-perpetuating... one rumour surfaces then gets picked up by another site which then becomes the source for somewhere else backed up by the first rumour as proof of reliability and round and round and...

[Prestidigitweeze]

. . . and where it stops, only your forehead knows.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by wizwor

I read this yesterday. Like all second level reports (reports based on information from Chinese manufacturers), the possibilities are endless...

1) Apple sales are way off
2) Apple has switched manufacturers
3) Apple has a new screen tech/spec

Only one of these is bad for Apple. The report smacked the stock price. That could be manipulation. All that we really know is that a company in Asia has told someone that Apple pulled a lot of orders.

First, these are Japanese manufacturers. Not Chinese.

Second, how many LCD suppliers could Apple have? AFAIK, the only other major manufacturer who has done screens for Apple recently is Samsung. And I doubt Apple is pushing extra orders over to Samsung!

And if Apple had a new screen tech/spec, then one of the 3 LCD companies mentioned could probably handle it. Especially if it were just a revised spec.

I tend to think the report is either true or false, and not that there is another explanation which mitigates the bad news.

--Pat

[HarryT]

According to a BBC News report this morning, Apple currently have about a 70% share, world-wide, of all the profit (not revenue, but profit) made in the entire Smartphone sector. If that's really true (and it's an astounding figure, if it is), rumours of their demise may be a little premature.

[fjtorres]

Originally Posted by HarryT

According to a BBC News report this morning, Apple currently have about a 70% share, world-wide, of all the profit (not revenue, but profit) made in the entire Smartphone sector. If that's really true (and it's an astounding figure, if it is), rumours of their demise may be a little premature.

The number is about right.
Remember, the previously dominant players (Nokia, RIM) have been bleeding red ink for a couple of years and the rising Android tide is predicated on "comparable to Apple but much cheaper".

When one vendor has 30% market share with higher prices and a 50% margin, and the competition has a 10-20% margin and lower prices, they need a lot of volume to make up the difference.

Also, Apple's been doing once-a-year refreshes while the competition does 3 and even four; that increases development and marketing costs.

So Apple spends less and brings in more net, despite selling less.
Nice trick, no?

[robertc88]

They report earnings next week. Tick, tick, tick.

[Fbone]

Originally Posted by robertc88

They report earnings next week. Tick, tick, tick.

Yes, and they usually surprise us with the calendar 4th quarter results.

[fjtorres]

After spreading the doom-n-gloom yesterday, today comes the reality check:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57...-analysts-say/

Sterne Agee analyst Shaw Wu today wrote in a research note to investors that Apple's reported cuts to component orders have nothing to do with weak demand. Instead, Wu said that while component orders are lower, they're due to "much improved yields meaning lower component builds and supplier shifts."

"As far as we can tell, iPhone 5 demand remains robust," Wu said.

Baird analyst William Power offered up a similar evaluation to investors today, saying that he was "actually raising our calendar fourth quarter iPhone forecast slightly," adding that "most demand indicators remain favorable."

Apparently what is going on is that Apple, like most companies, pre-orders more components than they expect to need to keep spares on hand in case of a surge in demand and to replace the components that fail QA before assembly. When they got less defectives, the on-hand supply ballooned so they cut back on orders to draw down the excess. So apparently, yes, demand has been somewhat less than the maximum they prepared for. That, however, is a bit different from saying the iPhone sales are less than expected. Or that sales are declining.

(At least that is today's story. Tomorrow? Stay tuned. )

All in all, I don't think we need to worry about Apple resorting to BOGO deals to move excess iPhones.

[HansTWN]

Well，another 3% down to $485 yesterday. I don't see why some people seem to take this so personal. Nobody said Apple is going broke, but apparently they cannot quite live up to the high flying expectations baked into the original sky high stock price. Especially sales in China were not as hoped for. Well, we all must come back to earth some day --- iphone sales will be going through a slow period during the next few months as others bring out new models. That is a natural consequence of Apple's slow product development cycle.

[Serpentine]

I cant wait for the hipster herds to start preordering to 'save Apple'. That said, they're out of (other peoples) ideas and if they stop being able to milk the phone, they'll be in for a rough ride on the stock price; But I'm fairly sure everyone with a clue has known that since the beginning.

[elcreative]

Originally Posted by Serpentine

I cant wait for the hipster herds to start preordering to 'save Apple'. That said, they're out of (other peoples) ideas and if they stop being able to milk the phone, they'll be in for a rough ride on the stock price; But I'm fairly sure everyone with a clue has known that since the beginning.

And Apple always get a caning for any rumour about themselves until the facts come out... and how rough does the stock price get when they've got billions in cash let alone any other values except, of course, for the usual "short-termists" and other investors who have done so much to improve the world's finances... no, wait , they're the reason the economies of the world are all tanked... no, that can't be right, it must be all Apple's fault as usual...