It seems Tim Cook predicted this in the earnings call. I don't think he would have specifically mentioned it if there weren't some reason to expect channel supply checks would give an inaccurate number. They are probably diversifying suppliers. I think sales were decrease - as expected after AAPL's biggest quarter ever - but probably more in line with AAPL's own predictions.
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.
Supply Chain Indicators Point to Poor February for Apple
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You seem to hate anything Apple doesn't come up with.
Excuse me while I continue to watch Skyfall in full DTS-HD Audio on my PS3.
Hardly true if you saw my original list. Excuse me while I go resurface my BluRay discs that my kids have scratched. My point is obvious to anybody.... BluRay has never enjoyed the level of success that was achieved by DVDs -- not even close. How can something be transformative in an industry if it cannot even achieve the success of its predecessor? To tout it as a game-changing innovation on par with the other innovations I listed would be seriously flawed.
----------
Now there is an opinion that is not even close to fact. Nobody will look back and say that Android was the ground-breaking OS that changed the definition of smartphone. Nobody. It was an iteration on what Apple did... nothing more. At least Google Maps took the MapQuest concept to the next level. Android still cannot scroll smoothly with quad-core chips.
I specifically took things that transformed industries. There are iterative innovations and there are transformative innovations. Apple has been doing iterative innovations on iPhone for 6 years and on iPad for 3 years and this is what they get criticized for. Everybody keeps saying that they have not come up with the next "WOW" innovation. So I specifically set out to document the transformative innovation of the recent years.
I never said that wasn't true. My only point is that there is no factual basis for saying that Apple is not keeping up in the "innovation race" because we have not yet seen them make frozen vegetables obsolete.
I won't comment on your whole list, but I want to call out this piece:
Fully agree on the "innovation" from a device perspective on iPod. The only thing cool about it was the "iterative" click-wheel interface and the larger-capacity hard drive -- these were NOT game-changing. The game-changing innovation ACTUALLY came coupling the iPod with the iTunes store because that completely transformed how music was purchased (rather than being pirated or bought on CD). Some would argue the click-wheel was game-changing, but I would disagree. I think that iPod would have never dominated the way it did without the iTunes store. The click-wheel is awesome, but there are alternatives that are awesome too (like the alternative that we see on the iPod nano today).
except itunes itself didnt launch with the store. itunes went 2 some odd years pre store. itunes on original release was nothing more than a media manager to synch to your ipod. Other devices used this method as well.
The music store model online actually started as early as the late 90's by others.
Apple again, didn't invent these things in a bubble. They took the iterative innovations of others, revolutionized them by putting them together alongside a popular technological device and carried forward.
when we talk about iphones, ipods and pads, we tend to look at apple devices as a big picture. "the iphone was innovative and revolutionary". There's nothing wrong with doing that, and I will completely agree. But it's not necessarily because it's doing something that's completely brand new.
Apple's greatest success in the modern age has been it's ability to merge existing technological ideas into something that everyone would want to have.
Touchscreens existed prior to the i-devices. mp3 players existed before ipods, music stores existed before itunes, and so on and so forth. Each individual compenent was as innovative and revolutionary in it's own perspective. Without each, the "whole" or greater sum could not have existed.
it's how I look at the list that you downplayed earlier. Everysingle one of those innovations is the potential of being part of a greater whole. without any one of those, we may never have the next big "game changer".
Where would Apple have been without the MP3 standard, 1.8" harddrives? flash chips? and the idea of portable MP3 based music players that were done by others?
ignoring the bit pieces because they're not immediately part of the whole, ignores the foundations at what made the whole
The music store model online actually started as early as the late 90's by others.
Apple again, didn't invent these things in a bubble. They took the iterative innovations of others, revolutionized them by putting them together alongside a popular technological device and carried forward.
when we talk about iphones, ipods and pads, we tend to look at apple devices as a big picture. "the iphone was innovative and revolutionary". There's nothing wrong with doing that, and I will completely agree. But it's not necessarily because it's doing something that's completely brand new.
Apple's greatest success in the modern age has been it's ability to merge existing technological ideas into something that everyone would want to have.
Touchscreens existed prior to the i-devices. mp3 players existed before ipods, music stores existed before itunes, and so on and so forth. Each individual compenent was as innovative and revolutionary in it's own perspective. Without each, the "whole" or greater sum could not have existed.
it's how I look at the list that you downplayed earlier. Everysingle one of those innovations is the potential of being part of a greater whole. without any one of those, we may never have the next big "game changer".
Where would Apple have been without the MP3 standard, 1.8" harddrives? flash chips? and the idea of portable MP3 based music players that were done by others?
ignoring the bit pieces because they're not immediately part of the whole, ignores the foundations at what made the whole
I don't understand what distinction you are trying to make. All invention involves taking things that already exist and putting them together in a new way.
sorry, the distinction i mean tto make is that you can't say "LCDs aren't ground braking because they're not the IPOD!"
the poster i was reffering to seemed to have a distinction between levels of whats revolutionary or not based upon it's market perception. Downplaying and claiming something isn't important or as important as a larger "whole" item that changed a market.
hwat I'm trying to drive home is not (who stole from who blah blah blah we're tired of that), but that EVERY single iteration, revolution, or itteration, that ehances a product, item, or component is equally important as everytime something gets advanced and we have forward movement, we have the potential for more and more of these "whole" products. I was using ipod as an example, that without LCD tech, mp3 tech, harddrive, component, composite material crafting, and the related "minor" improvements that continuously happened, we would have no iPod's / iphones / i devices in which we believe are more important for the industry than the individual components.
No! The problem lies within the fact Apple does something it's innovative. Another company like Samsun does something and they are copycats.
I see your point, but I definitely see exceptions to it. Sometimes parts are interchangeable to the whole. For example, if it wasn't LCD, it could have been another display technology. If it wasn't firewire, it could have been USB.
Regardless, I'm not sure that you and BC2009 are talking about the same thing.
----------
That's not an actual problem. That's just a semantic argument that you like to have with some stereotype.
Regardless, I'm not sure that you and BC2009 are talking about the same thing.
They are disputing the same point, BC2009 strongly believes that the innovations that he mentioned are right and other important ones that we mentioned are not important compared to what his list. To say the iPod was an innovation is not quite right if we follow what BC2009 is saying, it was ''iterative'' hence not an innovation, same for the iPad. He just picks and chooses what he think it's right, there is nothing wrong to that but just admit that there is some bias there.
I am not saying the iPad was not an innovation, as much as I don't like using one, I still do find it to be an innovation but to say other techs like OLED and Bluray are not innovative is just wrong and biased.
Then what he did say, you keep on saying no with no explanation. You haven't changed at all, you're just arguying on semantics again.
I didn't make any argument. I don't agree with him. Feel free to read his post. Or he can speak for himself.
Agreed on all of your points.
But as an aside... what is it about Apple that they seems to have this ability to do these great things?
Like you said... there were MP3 players before the iPod... but Apple also had the idea to make an online music store? Any company could have done that, right?
Why was it Apple (the computer company at the time) who was able to negotiate with record labels? Up until then Apple had basically no online retail experience.
There's clearly something going on at Apple... no one gets that lucky.
If you want to play the game of first than I should remind you that Sony was the first company to have a MP3 player with an online music store, not Apple.
And if you meant just an online music store, credits go to Rimoteca.com (Site does not exist anymore)
Hey at the time, the ipod wasn't the first to have it. it wasn't the first to have a software companion to make loading music easier, it wasn't the first online music store. it wasn't really the first at any of that.
Somehow, combined with marketting, and the ability to actually make the ipod 'attractive' to everyday users, they convinced people it was no longer a nerdy thing to want to carry a mp3 player. before that, companies had tried, but it stayed in the realm of "nerdy" and "geeky". Apple broke that barrier and convinced the mom's and dad's, who would never have thought 2ndly aabout it, that they DID want this device.
the first generation of ipods were not the most feature rich. There were many MANY better players out there. But it was the combined package, the marketing and the "premium" feel. there was almost a stigma around it and it sold like hotcakes.
if anything, everything that came from that, including the iphone, was believe it or not, an extension of that image. Premium products that you would be proud to carry, and not be considered nerdy, geeky or different.
My bad.
I meant why did Apple make the music store that was able to stick around for almost a decade?
The comment I replied to was saying that Apple takes existing technology and popularizes it.
That's what happened with the iTunes Music Store too.
I was asking WHY Apple is so good at doing that. So to your point... why didn't Sony have the same sort of success in their MP3 Player/music market venture?
Sony's been in the music business a lot longer than Apple.
There is no innovation in iTunes, such models existed, the main difference being that Apple succesfully negociated with all record companies to offer songs for as low as .99$ with DRM (No DRM anymore today) that made the songs work only on the iPods that already had a significant user base. Amazing plan? Yes! Innovative? No.
Sony's failure was charging $3.50 per songs and being limited to it's own record songs.
----------
Yeah I remember those days when the iPod cost like $500-$600. People were excited to be able to put in 1500 songs. Personally didn't care at all because I hate having a lot of songs in my music player. I say the realy innovation surrounding the iPods would be the introduction of the iPod Touch. I believe it to be the first mp3 player capable of full HTML browsing and amazing screen (Back then) for media consumption. The alternative (from Creative) were big, bulky and screen was crap.
Apple may not have invented the idea of an online music store... but they implemented it well and it's still a success today.
I've been asking WHY Apple has gotten so good at figuring out the proper way to do things... while other companies flounder.
Is it just luck?
Everyone keeps saying "Apple doesn't do anything special... they just take an idea that someone else has done and improves on it..."
And the result is... it works!
If it was so easy... everybody would be doing it.
You certainly can't pay rent if you don't have it. And all that new office space Apple will have come 2015 -- it's useless unless Apple grows bigger than it is now.
Apple TV is included in that?
----------
To answer the question, Apple doesn't make a lot of products. Their execution Isn't unique. I mean look at the orginal Wii compared to the GCN. A company that can't compete found the blu ocean in a sea of red.
Sony Connect opened after the iTunes music store.
http://articles.latimes.com/2004/may/05/business/fi-connect5
so i've had this discussion about apple not keeping up the competition with several individuals. the problem is this, apple is great when it comes to creation, but horrible at revitilization. prime example is the iphone. when the first generation iphone came out, it literally changed the game. i would say there were no worthy remodels from the iphone until the 4S...barring design. honestly, it's all well and good they want a phone that can be used in one hand with a thumb, but when the competition is giving large display with unparalled graphics, amazing cameras, turn by turn directions, features for the gods...and all apple can say is "we updated the chassis by making it smaller" people (aside from loyal customers or label whores) don't think twice about running to the competition.
itunes is another reason people refuse to buy apple. the prices for their music is more expensive, they can't share music, devices can only be synced to one library at a time (problem most married people i talk to give), etc.
honestly, i love apple but i will be the first to admit it's their customer service that keeps me, not so much their product offerings. i mean, look at the new imac (which i have). while it is definitely a design feat, who REALLY cares there is a 5mm bezel or that a desktop is only 21 lbs. when they could have kept the same (or similar chassis and made some truly truly ground breaking changes...ie the desktop version of the 680 instead of the mobile version). i think apple is more concerned with style over substance, while android and the competion is the reverse.
yet another reason why apple could begin to falter. it's update cycles, people are starting to see that every year (often times less) there is an update to it's product ranges. the average person doesn't have several hundred or several thousand to drop on a new phone, laptop, or tablet every year. they want a product that will last and not become outdated within a few months of purchase. don't even get me started on how they practically give them away when a new model is introduced. they have started a terrible cycle of devauling their own products and encouraging customers not to buy often because an update is not too far off. shall i mention the ipad 3 and the ipad 4(or whatever it's called) and the rumors of the new ipad coming out this spring/summer? (sn: i bet apple would think twice if other countries began to sue them like brazil [i think]).
i love apple, i really do, but the competition should have never even been able to parlay in the same league as apple...if they had been on their game and not rested on their laurels with a few of it's high performing game, changing products.
not to mention the production constraints it has experienced lately (iphone, imac, ipad). people want their products and they want them now. that's business 101 providing the right product, at the right time, at the right price, and with the right availability. it's not considered making the item more exclusive when someone places an order online and someone else walks into the store (or worse a third party reseller) and gets the same product the other person ordered days, even weeks ahead of them. i understand demand will always be high for a new product, but stock distribution could have been handled better.
i just hope this company doesn't seal it's own fate.
itunes is another reason people refuse to buy apple. the prices for their music is more expensive, they can't share music, devices can only be synced to one library at a time (problem most married people i talk to give), etc.
honestly, i love apple but i will be the first to admit it's their customer service that keeps me, not so much their product offerings. i mean, look at the new imac (which i have). while it is definitely a design feat, who REALLY cares there is a 5mm bezel or that a desktop is only 21 lbs. when they could have kept the same (or similar chassis and made some truly truly ground breaking changes...ie the desktop version of the 680 instead of the mobile version). i think apple is more concerned with style over substance, while android and the competion is the reverse.
yet another reason why apple could begin to falter. it's update cycles, people are starting to see that every year (often times less) there is an update to it's product ranges. the average person doesn't have several hundred or several thousand to drop on a new phone, laptop, or tablet every year. they want a product that will last and not become outdated within a few months of purchase. don't even get me started on how they practically give them away when a new model is introduced. they have started a terrible cycle of devauling their own products and encouraging customers not to buy often because an update is not too far off. shall i mention the ipad 3 and the ipad 4(or whatever it's called) and the rumors of the new ipad coming out this spring/summer? (sn: i bet apple would think twice if other countries began to sue them like brazil [i think]).
i love apple, i really do, but the competition should have never even been able to parlay in the same league as apple...if they had been on their game and not rested on their laurels with a few of it's high performing game, changing products.
not to mention the production constraints it has experienced lately (iphone, imac, ipad). people want their products and they want them now. that's business 101 providing the right product, at the right time, at the right price, and with the right availability. it's not considered making the item more exclusive when someone places an order online and someone else walks into the store (or worse a third party reseller) and gets the same product the other person ordered days, even weeks ahead of them. i understand demand will always be high for a new product, but stock distribution could have been handled better.
i just hope this company doesn't seal it's own fate.