I think the point is that analysts seem to have a very different view of what constitutes a hit with Apple products than they do with products from other companies (and, granted, that's partially Apple's fault. It became de rigueur, under Steve, to create a buzz, release the product in stores with free tee shirts, and generally make it an event). It's rather like expecting every movie from a particular film studio to be a blockbuster, with long lines, sold-out theaters, and huge box office numbers. Then claiming that a smaller, lower-budge movie, which didn't reach that lofty goal has failed. I mean, it's fine to have huge expectations for something new and highly anticipated, but for a different sized iPhone?
So, the question, to me, isn't whether the analysts are right/wrong about sales here. But whether they had realistic expectations in the first place. Even if Apple didn't create a huge supply (and why would they?), and, thus, didn't anticipate the demand, this little phone can still be considered a success given that it is just another iPhone. It's like some small, lower-budget sequel movie that's doing unexpectedly well at the box office. It's still a win even if it doesn't match up with the big blockbuster or isn't being shown in as many theaters.
If all analysts expect from Apple product launches are those long-line-event-hits, then their claims must needs be suspect. Because not every product launch from Apple is going to net that. Something can be a success if it's in demand and selling well--and didn't cost all that much to produce.
