I’m not sure iPhones sales are substandard. I’m/we are not sure what apples targets are./were. Sales of iPhone sales have taken off exponentially since the iPhone 6. Even the expensive iPhone X did well.
We will have to wait and see what happens.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Tells Suppliers to Cut iPhone XR and XS Production by 10% for Next Three Months
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
We will have to wait and see what happens.
Apple isn’t being as transparent with sales now since they’re disclosing less and less phone sales info. On top of that, Apple’s price points are too high. There are pieces of news tying suppliers cutting back on production and seeing their profits being below expectations. Apple’s sales are the envy of many OEMs, but it’s likely lower than their expectations.
You don't seem to realize the key importance of China/Far Eastern Region for their survival.
RoW is important, but not enough to sustain the global, immense cash addiction that Cook made them depend on.
So "record revenues" here are a false metric - if it won't sustain on a global scale
That cash addition started with jobs, Cook did a great job of increasing the pile. People have short memories.
[doublepost=1547214082][/doublepost]
Apple also wants to cut down on analysts reports that have a short term impact in the stock price, IMO. What other companies report unit sales? Apple should have stopped this long ago.
Selective memories forget that Jobs didn’t get to depend on single digit on YoY growth, mass provisioning until every corner of every street. At times that Apple was a runner-up, Jobs’ aim was to excel in product quality vs. quantity. Cash addiction to be stilled by milking existing formulae for money and saturated markets were far from his bed. Different times, different angles.
Key difference is that Jobs did disruptively challenge iPod with iPhone, while Cook can’t disrupt any iDevice (if hewould have had any significant substitute in the pipeline...) as it would immediately kill the company
Last edited:
Selective memories don’t really remember, do they?
Jobs aim and cooks aim are aligned. Cook made some smart and astute moves that jobs short-sightedly missed and apple hasn’t been taking in the growth ever since.
I'm only articulating my observations, not sure if you're being condescending with your comment but it appears you are. I know a lot of people with XS max, X, XS, 8, etc. just no XR's.
TC is not the guy. He is a marketing guy not an innovator. That they pay him to figure things out does not mean that he is capable of leading Apple. They had pay many CEO that almost bankrupt Apple. And asking to submit the resume is quite of a pathetic.... Numbers speak for themselves and Cooks greed has not been a good marketing tactic.
Neither his lack of innovation in the last 6-10 years.
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/01/11/apple-iphone-retailers-are-slashing-prices-across-china.html
If you seem to know so much, more than investors that have been dumping Apple stocks in billions, why don't you submit your resume to Apple...lol...
Didn’t we already go round the horn on this?
You do seem to know everything about Apple management and how to cure one down quarter. TC is the guy. If numbers speak than Cook is the guy. Jobs never cared about stock price and neither does cook. All of a sudden the stock price is the most important thing. And yes it is important but Apple did $84B last quarter and we will see what the dirtier brings.
Cook does care about apple however and maybe taking apple in a direction it should go in that if Jobs were ceo, apple could have utterly failed.
Samsung found out as well how difficult a market China can be.
It is not that stock price is important or not. It is the main outlook on Apple’s future, based on reception of the latest models, a fairly empty pipeline, iPhone innovation perceivedly only concentrated on a 3rd camera, and disappointing sales in the far east/india that gets rated. And Tim’s reaction (not publishing sales numbers, “medical the greatest contribution of mankind”) that doesn’t appear to be very sound or adequate in the near future to the financial world.
“The guy” then becomes “the turd”, despite Mr i7guy‘s verdict (weighed in at its full momentum...)
Last edited:
Most of this reminds me of the psychic who keeps predicting an earthquake in San Francisco. Repeated once a day for 100 years the psychic will be right. Many here have been predicting apples doom for 7 years. And finally a down quarter. How everybody must feel proud of themselves.
And let’s be honest, the rumor mill is just that at this point. nobody really knows 2019 except for Apple. And bravo for Apple not publishing numbers. Let the masses think what they want.
It seems that you are an accountant or something, that certainly does not understand and know anything about Apple's history. Or you are an Apple paid employee. You keep repeating the 84B, but the truth is that sales are declining are they are bringing down the prices (China, Japan). It seems that the overpriced tactics did not work that well for Cook.
If someone saved Apple from the verge of extinction and bankruptcy was Steve Jobs. Apple is where it is today because of his vision, not because of Tim Cook. Cook only carried on Jobs vision. Cook only cares about numbers, not about innovation.
If you can see in the last 10 years, except the iWatch and iPods there were not a single product that was truly innovative and disruptive. Apple used to lead and now is trailing. Look at the Homepod, came late to the market and way overpriced.
The entire computer line up only updated the internal components. The iMac has still a 10 year old external design, The Mac Pro was a failure, The new Macbook pros/airs are a joke and overpriced so badly design that you cannot connect your own iPhone.
I wonder why zero people agree with your postings, while many others agree with mine. As I said before, Apple users are tired of Cooks lack of innovation and overpriced products.
But tanking sales are tanking sales. More switched away from iOS than the switchers from Android
Sales aren’t tanking. Can you tell me what the numbers are? Can you cite an authoritative source in the churn rates?
[doublepost=1547237967][/doublepost]
Nice job with the insults. I still may report the post...
Apple is way further away from tanking as your doom and gloom bashing would indicate. It isn’t perfect, but the reason sales and revenue numbers are important is that it shows people are buying the products. Frankly I hope what people wished on Apple doesn’t happen personally to any of the posters.
I think Nintendo, Microsoft, and Sony console sales are reported, right? I am not 100% sure about Nintendo and Sony as I don't think they're traded publicly on the NYSE?
It’s the whole market that is experiencing this. Not just Apple. People are holding onto phones longer and longer.
Apple should’ve expected this with $29 battery replacements, and iOS 12 speeding up older iPhones.
But because everyone, whether you like it or not, holds the standard to be what Apple does.
So to say Apple isn’t “innovating” is a little ridiculous. Apple is doing just fine.
[doublepost=1547269173][/doublepost]
Actually, according to one study. More android users switched to the iPhone XR.
[doublepost=1547269299][/doublepost]
Gotta love the all the Apple haters on this forum. They drool over articles like these. They really come out the woodwork.
Your earthquake metaphore, instead of diverting attention from the original discussion, offers some striking similarities:
- Indeed, by achieving prominence in terms of wealth and income, Apple now is present on every corner of every street, but also came to depend on remaining there, so it’s merely fighting itself. Your remark about Samsung doesn’t help or inspire them a fraction
- Its financial struggle is similar to being on the edge of an earthquake with an unknown effect and starting point. But it positioned itself in the danger zone, because of its near-monopoly, single product dependence and moloch size.
- This is in sharp contrast with hundreds of other companies with less spectacular growth but in more mature and stable markets, where they still can innovate, prosper, and grow without the imminent danger of collapse because of a single failing product. Look at the car industry and the number of models introduced there yearly. Comparative to their size, Apple should be shipping 10...20 new products yearly (instead of offering 4...6 year old bezel stuff at premium prices)
- Apple seems to have become the sleeping giant at the end of its growth and innovation cycles. They can’t grow anymore, hardly innovate. It can hardly attract attention whatever their great missions (cars, medicine) that remain unfulfilled promises while their core business has become financially problematic.
- Its supercapitalist, overpriced image doesn’t help either.
- It has to return to its core values - that Cook greatly betrayed - an earthquake scale shake-up seems necessary
They seem to challenge you up to great intellectual height
Last edited:
@Bacillus
I have always been intrigued by the “Apple needs to diversify” argument.
I studied business and economics in university, so I understand the rationale behind it and the importance of hedging your bets. However, the logic invariably seems to involve an investor having both good and bad bets, and you are basically using the money earned from good bets to offset the money lost from had ones.
Could one not argue that offering 8-12 different models of cars is contributing to the problem? You split your focus across so many different product lines, can’t really focus on marketing them all equally, and naturally some will get more attention (and therefore enjoy more success) than the rest.
So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
Conversely, Apple appears to be a more careful and selective about which markets it enters. By only embarking on endeavours Apple believes it stands a good chance of succeeding, and then sparing no expense at promoting and supporting them.
In this manner, Apple stands a much higher chance of actually succeeding in every market it enters, as compared to a company like google or amazon which has a ton of different projects, but also a fairly high failure rate.
As such, I would argue that Apple doesn’t need to diversify as much as the critics claim it should. Apple simply has to be very focused on what new markets they choose to break into.
I suppose we can agree to disagree about what those markets are; I maintain that wearables, transportation, health, AR and services continue to be solid bets for Apple.
I have always been intrigued by the “Apple needs to diversify” argument.
I studied business and economics in university, so I understand the rationale behind it and the importance of hedging your bets. However, the logic invariably seems to involve an investor having both good and bad bets, and you are basically using the money earned from good bets to offset the money lost from had ones.
Could one not argue that offering 8-12 different models of cars is contributing to the problem? You split your focus across so many different product lines, can’t really focus on marketing them all equally, and naturally some will get more attention (and therefore enjoy more success) than the rest.
So it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy of sorts.
Conversely, Apple appears to be a more careful and selective about which markets it enters. By only embarking on endeavours Apple believes it stands a good chance of succeeding, and then sparing no expense at promoting and supporting them.
In this manner, Apple stands a much higher chance of actually succeeding in every market it enters, as compared to a company like google or amazon which has a ton of different projects, but also a fairly high failure rate.
As such, I would argue that Apple doesn’t need to diversify as much as the critics claim it should. Apple simply has to be very focused on what new markets they choose to break into.
I suppose we can agree to disagree about what those markets are; I maintain that wearables, transportation, health, AR and services continue to be solid bets for Apple.
- You may have some valid points, but apple disagrees with. Very few people in the world are capable of leading apple, including the arm-chair CEOs. Apple did what it did for a reason, you would have to ask the mgmt. as to the whys.
- Apple grew to such a huge financial size because people bought and the market reacted. People bought because apple gave(and still does) people what they want.
- Is apple sleeping? I guess that's a matter of which side of the fence you sit. Giant, yes, but it entered the Cook era that way.
- I got you car analogy. Ford is getting out of the passenger car business. A business growing by shedding product.
- Tim Cook hasn't betrayed apple, it's the same apple, bigger than it was, as in 2011. There are many people, who believe they are capable of running apple, because of a few youtube videos.
-The supercapitalst, overpriced image started in 2007 with the iphone 1 at $699. Apple Park was Jobs idea. So why in 2018 do you believe they have an image like that?
Great intellectual height, yes. Challenge, no.
During your business & econ studies, at some point, you will come across the optimal product portfolio for big businesses (as by McKinsey, Boston Consulting’s BCG matrix, and other variants).
The oldest products (not versions, but types) are being phased out (“Dying Dogs”), the best products (“Milking cows”) are their current lifeline, the most promising (“Rising Stars”) will be the next Milking cows. For the company to survive major product cycles in the longer term, this portfolio should be in balance, both in terms of time and (financial) volume.
You could fairly easily fit Apple’s categories in, but the problem is that their distribution is uneven.
iPhone/iPad are the Milking Cows, their success is unmatched but not unlimited, and in the changing (disruptive) landscape of tech that will need replacement (like iPod was challenged and eventually disrupted by iPhone) Here, they have huge problems in terms of time (shorter business cycles than innovation time) and money (getting new products to ramp-up and create enough profit)
The most promising hw products (AppleWatch, HomePod, Airpods) sell well, but they are no match for the iPhone, i.e. they offer not enough financial momentum to keep the ship on course. Their growth simply doesn’t match the iPhone’s volume growth and success.
Same for services: they grow but not enough for the current business volumes to be sustainable. And they very much depend on the existence of iDevices. So they grew to become more extensions of existing business than real “Rising Stars”
The problem with Apple is that diversification is going on, but at too many directions (Beats, Services, AppleCar, Medical) and not very effective, in that sense that they never had a smashing hit and remained also-rans in those categories. Example: Music. From their position that should have been far bigger than Spotify by now, but they struggle to keep up despite their huge competitive advantage and cross-subsidization (note what Iovine said about lack of profitability as he resigned)
You could say there are enough tracks for long-term innovation, but the mid-term strategy is lacking.
Newer iterations/updates have been lamented - losing loyal customers.
iPhone/iPad seem to loose their glory/attractiveness/competitiveness even for newcomers; enhancing lifecycles by introducing a “Pro” category may offer temporary but not structural help.
Same for raising prices across the board: it is very is short-term as the perceived “too expensive” will become a blockade for the whole brand. And it severly hurts new markets (India, China) being lost to the competition.
So the product pipeline is fairly empty to sustain a company of this mammoth size.
Now AR: it will be there, and it will be great, but Cook is very vague about its business model.
How will Apple benefit ? It should come up with an iGlasses or other breakthrough device that needs to sell by the 100-millions - otherwise it will be another iDevice-application/cathalisator to just milk that existing cow further instead of creating a Rising Star...
There is no end to this story.
You should benchmark a couple of major companies in the BCG matrix (https://www.smartinsights.com/marketing-planning/marketing-models/use-bcg-matrix/) to experience the differences yourself. It should offer you credits for your studies.
Last edited:
There's no question that I7Guy works for apple. The only question is if he's getting paid or not.
[doublepost=1547308932][/doublepost]
That makes sense. Like Apple Tv, and the Homepod right?
Yes stock options worth about $100M. And from the inside I can tell you the management has a plan and is sticking to the plan.
Then the answer is: more lost than being paid, besides being Warren Buffet’s little brother...
Last edited: