Apple Cuts iPhone Part Orders Due to Low Demand

[jbjb]

Originally Posted by PatNY

But that's exactly what they've done in the past.

I disagree - I don't believe they have set an expectation that they will deny *all* incorrect rumours. (That doesn't prevent them from denying *some*).

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one

And, as I said, their silence will be read as admission that the rumor is true.

It's certainly true that their silence will be read that way by some.

/JB

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by jbjb

I disagree - I don't believe they have set an expectation that they will deny *all* incorrect rumours. (That doesn't prevent them from denying *some*).

We'll just have to agree to disagree on this one



It's certainly true that their silence will be read that way by some.

/JB

*all* incorrect rumors of significance (gaining traction/potential to impact stock)

Some = Wall St.


--Pat

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Thanks for the second chart. It's much better.

If their stock has been falling due to tangible, real things (ie, size of phone, maps app) then that is different than it falling due to misinformation. You don't need false information to contribute to a plunging stock price.

But how can you be sure that the recent fall is due to the rumors and not just a continuation of the previous trend?

Originally Posted by PatNY

Apple has not hesitated in the past to dispel rumors that could impact its stock price (see preceding post) so I'm not sure why they would hesitate now. One can only read their silence as an indication the rumors are more true than not.

Define "has not hesitated".

Take the iPhone mini for example. CNET had an article about it on December 10th, when the stock was going down, and it only took Apple a month to get around to dispelling the rumors.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

But how can you be sure that the recent fall is due to the rumors and not just a continuation of the previous trend?

Speaking from the perspective of a company, why would you NOT rush to remove any false information that could be dragging down your stock? Only by removing it can you be sure it's not negatively impacting the stock price.

Define "has not hesitated".

As soon as is reasonably possible.

Take the iPhone mini for example. CNET had an article about it on December 10th, when the stock was going down, and it only took Apple a month to get around to dispelling the rumors.

There is no factual assertion in that article regarding the Mini. It's pure speculation. As I previously said, I think only factual assertions of significance which can impact a stock price negatively need to be addressed (if false).

As an aside, I think an iPhone Mini has the potential to both hurt and help the stock. It is not an inherently negative idea. It would all depend how Apple implemented such a phone, and how one wants to view it within the broader context of the mobile market. I also never thought the rumor had legs. I think you'll see a phablet-size iPhone before you ever see a Mini one.

--Pat

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by PatNY

Speaking from the perspective of a company, why would you NOT rush to remove any false information that could be dragging down your stock? Only by removing it can you be sure it's not negatively impacting the stock price.

1. Because it's not information, it's a rumor. Rumors don't get removed.
2. What makes you say that it has a negative impact? Today the market closed at +20.17, and it's the first time that it has gone up over 20 points since October.

Originally Posted by PatNY

There is no factual assertion in that article regarding the Mini. It's pure speculation. As I previously said, I think only factual assertions of significance which can impact a stock price negatively need to be addressed (if false).

And you consider something that is preceded by "people familiar with the situation said" to be a factual assertion?

Originally Posted by PatNY

As an aside, I think an iPhone Mini has the potential to both hurt and help the stock. It is not an inherently negative idea. It would all depend how Apple implemented such a phone, and how one wants to view it within the broader context of the mobile market. I also never thought the rumor had legs. I think you'll see a phablet-size iPhone before you ever see a Mini one.

I don't think that it can work. Something smaller wouldn't work as a smartphone, so the only option would be lower specs. I've looked online and you can still buy iPhone 3G for example, so what would a Mini have? Lower specs than the 3G would get laughed at, not to mention the fact that any buyer would be better off getting a used higher specs model for the same money.

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

1. Because it's not information, it's a rumor. Rumors don't get removed.
2. What makes you say that it has a negative impact? Today the market closed at +20.17, and it's the first time that it has gone up over 20 points since October.

1) "Rumor" is probably a bad choice of words. Because what's out there IS information. It just needs to be further verified or dispelled, if false. And false information does get removed. In the example I gave of the false story of Jobs' heart attack, Apple stock had fallen initially. But once Apple came out and dispelled the rumor, thereby "removing it," the stock shot right back up.

2) Because ever since the story leaked out, the price has fallen. Today's uptick is for just one day. Let's see how the stock responds in the next few days.

And you consider something that is preceded by "people familiar with the situation said" to be a factual assertion?

The statements in all these stories most definitely were factual assertions. And none of the statements were preceded by "people familiar with the situation said."

There is a difference between someone saying "Apple cut orders by XYZ " and "Apple may have to cut orders next quarter."

Do you understand the difference?

I don't think that it can work. Something smaller wouldn't work as a smartphone, so the only option would be lower specs. I've looked online and you can still buy iPhone 3G for example, so what would a Mini have? Lower specs than the 3G would get laughed at, not to mention the fact that any buyer would be better off getting a used higher specs model for the same money.

I have my doubts as well but I wouldn't discount the appeal such a phone could have to the prepaid market. The iPhone 3G runs an old iOS. An iPhone Mini, while having lower hardware specs (such as going back to a 3.5" screen and a lesser camera), might be able to run iOS6 which would be an advantage. Maybe they sell it as an unlocked phone as well. But as I said, I think a phablet iPhone might be the next version we see.

--Pat

[HansTWN]

Originally Posted by PatNY

1)
I have my doubts as well but I wouldn't discount the appeal such a phone could have to the prepaid market. The iPhone 3G runs an old iOS. An iPhone Mini, while having lower hardware specs (such as going back to a 3.5" screen and a lesser camera), might be able to run iOS6 which would be an advantage. Maybe they sell it as an unlocked phone as well. But as I said, I think a phablet iPhone might be the next version we see.

--Pat

Yes --- an iphone mini on iOS6 would be able to run Apple maps!

Now seriously, they could very well make several sizes in the future --- 3.5" and up. But definitely not a cheap iPhone mini. They have cheap iphones now (the older versions) and they are some of the reasons iphone 5 isn't selling as well as Apple hoped for. Apparently a lot of people are still getting the 4GS.

[Sil_liS]

Originally Posted by PatNY

1) "Rumor" is probably a bad choice of words. Because what's out there IS information. It just needs to be further verified or dispelled, if false. And false information does get removed. In the example I gave of the false story of Jobs' heart attack, Apple stock had fallen initially. But once Apple came out and dispelled the rumor, thereby "removing it," the stock shot right back up.

You consider this to be Schrodinger's cat?

Originally Posted by PatNY

2) Because ever since the story leaked out, the price has fallen. Today's uptick is for just one day. Let's see how the stock responds in the next few days.

The price was falling before, we'll see about the stock.

Originally Posted by PatNY

The statements in all these stories most definitely were factual assertions. And none of the statements were preceded by "people familiar with the situation said."

There is a difference between someone saying "Apple cut orders by XYZ " and "Apple may have to cut orders next quarter."

Do you understand the difference?

The way I see the situation is more like: "people familiar with the situation said that Apple's current order is for X screens, but it used to be 2X", and X is unknown. How can Apple prove that the statement is wrong? Even if they show how many are on the current order, how can they prove that at some point in the past the order wasn't for twice the quantity?

Originally Posted by PatNY

I have my doubts as well but I wouldn't discount the appeal such a phone could have to the prepaid market. The iPhone 3G runs an old iOS. An iPhone Mini, while having lower hardware specs (such as going back to a 3.5" screen and a lesser camera), might be able to run iOS6 which would be an advantage. Maybe they sell it as an unlocked phone as well. But as I said, I think a phablet iPhone might be the next version we see.

If the iPhone 3G with the new iOS is a budget phone, then what is the iPhone 3G with the old iOS?

[forsooth]

rumores

of war
of gold
now of Apple

the bible said there would always be wars and rumores of wars

the same is for gold
the same is for Apple

good or bad but always rumores

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by Sil_liS

You consider this to be Schrodinger's cat?


The price was falling before, we'll see about the stock.

But it fell further after that news.

The way I see the situation is more like: "people familiar with the situation said that Apple's current order is for X screens, but it used to be 2X", and X is unknown. How can Apple prove that the statement is wrong? Even if they show how many are on the current order, how can they prove that at some point in the past the order wasn't for twice the quantity?

In this case X is known. All Apple need do is come out and say that the statement is wrong. They needn't prove it.

If the iPhone 3G with the new iOS is a budget phone, then what is the iPhone 3G with the old iOS?

The iPhone 3G cannot run the new iOS. That's the point I was making previously. And the words "budget" and "cheap" to describe the 3G and a hypothetical Mini line are yours. I would not use those words.

--Pat

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by HansTWN

Yes --- an iphone mini on iOS6 would be able to run Apple maps!

But seriously, there are apps that run on the new iOS that won't run on iOS 5 or below.

Now seriously, they could very well make several sizes in the future --- 3.5" and up. But definitely not a cheap iPhone mini. They have cheap iphones now (the older versions) and they are some of the reasons iphone 5 isn't selling as well as Apple hoped for. Apparently a lot of people are still getting the 4GS.

I would never call a "Mini" line "cheap." More like pared down. But not cheap. The "Mini" name is even bad IMO. If they were ever to put out a pared down phone, that's not a term that should be associated with it. But I get what you are saying about the 4GS.

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by wizwor

CEOs are hired by shareholders. The boards tie compensation to stock price because they want the CEO to share their priorities. The only way to avoid this is to patronize privately held companies.

Until two University of Rochester economists in the '70s (one liberal, one conservative) decided that doing the opposite would engender responsible management,* the way to avoid your scenario was not to make CEOs major shareholders of the companies for which they worked.

The purpose of the economists' idea was to prevent ridiculous abuses, cf. renting a Lear jet for a supposed business lunch in Honolulu. If you owned a stake in the business, they reasoned, you would be less likely to bill rash expenditures to it, and would probably take your obligations to it more seriously.

The result was to create a worse situation than the one they attempted to fix.

After they were made major shareholders, many CEOs chose to inflate stock prices by any bloody means necessary (see the short bleak career of "Chainsaw Al"). Many were willing to doom their own companies in the name of selling their own shares at a high profit.

----------------------
* See "The Greed Cycle: How the financial system encouraged corporations to go crazy," by John Cassidy, The New Yorker (Sep't 23, 2002).

[pdurrant]

Originally Posted by PatNY

It is fair to put shareholders through more days of potentially wild stock fluctuations if the information is in fact false?

--Pat

I don't think Apple are allowed to make statements about their quarterly reports at the moment.

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by forsooth

rumores

of war
of gold
now of Apple

the bible said there would always be wars and rumores of wars

the same is for gold
the same is for Apple

good or bad but always rumores

Nice poem, you should post it in "User Poetry"

[PatNY]

Originally Posted by pdurrant

I don't think Apple are allowed to make statements about their quarterly reports at the moment.

I wasn't referring to quarterly reports or earning statements. I was speaking strictly about squashing any misinformation of a significant nature that could adversely impact stock prices. I gave a series of examples previously in this thread where Apple has done it before -- ie, they squashed rumors of a Jobs' heart attack, rumors that Universal would be pulling their music from the iTunes store, and rumors about job layoffs at Apple.

The Quiet Period appears to apply only to a period before a public offering, not to anything else including earning statements ...

http://gizmodo.com/5976163/yes-apple...ny-explanation


--Pat