Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 15:14 UTC
Apple The Wall Street Journal: "Apple has cut its orders for components for the iPhone 5 due to weaker-than-expected demand, people familiar with the situation said Monday. Apple's orders for iPhone 5 screens for the January-March quarter, for example, have dropped to roughly half of what the company had previously planned to order, two of the people said. The Cupertino company has also cut orders for components other than screens, according to one of the people." The WSJ is usually very well informed about Apple matters (and Japanese business new Nikkei reports something similar), so it's a safe assumption that they're not making this up. What, exactly, this means, we don't know; perhaps a new model already? Seems strange they would switch to a different screen this quickly, though. Android (more specifically: Samsung) keeps on growing, so it's only inevitable that Apple would feel a sting there at some point. We'll know for sure on the 23rd, when Apple's latest quarterly results come rolling in.
Order by: Score:
The strange math
by MOS6510 on Mon 14th Jan 2013 16:13 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12
RE: The strange math
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 16:57 UTC in reply to "The strange math"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Nikkei mentions the 60+ million figure - the WSJ does not. Instead of treating it all as the same set of datapoints, it makes more sense to discard Nikkei's 60+ million figure than it does to attach the figure to the WSJ's (virtually always) reliable Apple information.

But hey, we'll see.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The strange math
by MOS6510 on Mon 14th Jan 2013 17:05 UTC in reply to "RE: The strange math"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

WSJ is reliable, because it's the media Apple, who don't disclose anything in advance, Apple uses to disclose announcements in advance. Either to create hype or take away the spotlight from competing products.

But I see no reason for Apple to leak this.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: The strange math
by jared_wilkes on Mon 14th Jan 2013 17:26 UTC in reply to "RE: The strange math"
jared_wilkes Member since:
2011-04-25

Apparently you didn't read the link: WSJ did state 65 million and then edited that data point out of the original article.

So when WSJ cites a "fact" that accords with another source and then edits it out, it's very much appropriate to question that data point.

Reply Score: 3

Apple, M. O.
by Beta on Mon 14th Jan 2013 16:34 UTC
Beta
Member since:
2005-07-06

I just thought this was something Apple always did, over‐order to ensure supplies and drive down per‐unit cost, and then reduce the order once they’ve got to a steady production of units ‐ their suppliers can’t exactly sell these components to anyone else with their exclusivity clause.

Or maybe that trip to China recently was in panic over lower sales? Or maybe that WSJ piece about cheaper iPhones was meant to persuade those Samsung buyers to hold on for news? Could all be PR to manipulate purchasing intent. Who knows.

Reply Score: 7

Comment by Radio
by Radio on Mon 14th Jan 2013 16:47 UTC
Radio
Member since:
2009-06-20

I think this is even more sinister : it may be some attempt at market manipulation (not from Apple, from some a-hole).

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by Radio
by Laurence on Mon 14th Jan 2013 17:12 UTC in reply to "Comment by Radio"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

I think this is even more sinister : it may be some attempt at market manipulation (not from Apple, from some a-hole).


To be completely honest, that just sounds like a highly speculative conspiracy theory.

Reply Score: 4

Prices and choice
by steve_s on Mon 14th Jan 2013 17:02 UTC
steve_s
Member since:
2006-01-16

Rumours are just that, so who knows what the truth really is.

The problem with the iPhone 5 as I see it is that it's so damned expensive.

An unlocked iPhone 5 in the UK at £529 costs you £130-140 more than a Samsung Galaxy S3, and £250 more than a Nexus 4. Those two devices are the high-end Android choices, the iPhone's big competition.

It you look at Apple's "low-end" option, an 8GB iPhone 4 is still £40 more than a 16GB Nexus 4. The iPhone 4 still carries what is effectively a high-end price for a 2.5 year old device. IMHO Apple are lucky that the Nexus 4 is rare as rocking-horse poop.

My girlfriend is currently looking to buy her first smartphone and doesn't want a contract. I'd steer her towards the iPhone on the basis that, IMHO, it's a better user experience but the simple reality is that the price is ruling it out of consideration. Given that the S3 is still fairly expensive, and the Nexus 4 is unavailable, she's seriously considering getting a dumb-phone.

There's also a choice issue. With the iPhone there essentially is none. You've got the slightly taller iPhone 5, or the 4 and 4S which are nearly physically identical to each other. No big screen option. No small phone option.

I don't see Apple ever having as wide a range of devices as Samsung. That's not their style at all. I really wouldn't be surprised to see a "low-end" iPhone appearing soon, and a lower price-point for the next high-end iPhone.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Prices and choice
by MOS6510 on Mon 14th Jan 2013 17:10 UTC in reply to "Prices and choice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

They also retain more value, so you could take in account selling it in a few years.

An iPhone 3GS still goes for over €100.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Prices and choice
by Laurence on Mon 14th Jan 2013 17:16 UTC in reply to "RE: Prices and choice"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

They also retain more value, so you could take in account selling it in a few years.

An iPhone 3GS still goes for over €100.

That's quite a gamble though as it assumes that the phone isn't lost, stolen nor damaged (yeah you could have insurance on the device, but then you have the excess fee eating into your resale margins).

Plus that money would only end up going towards the next upgrade, so you're not actually knocking 100euro off the buying cost of this phone.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Prices and choice
by MOS6510 on Mon 14th Jan 2013 17:23 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Prices and choice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

According to my RSS reader stealing iPhones is a risky business. ;-)

It's a risk, but so is eating at McDonald's and crossing the streat.

I think it's better to get €120 for your old phone back than nothing. Personally I'd never pay that for a 3 year old mobile phone, but apparently a lot of people do, which also increases the market value.

Reply Score: 1

RE[4]: Prices and choice
by Laurence on Tue 15th Jan 2013 09:35 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Prices and choice"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

According to my RSS reader stealing iPhones is a risky business. ;-)

True, but thieves exist and do target things like phones. so my point stands

It's a risk, but so is eating at McDonald's and crossing the streat.

I wouldn't really class them as risks unless you're unduly stupid. At least not with odds even approaching the same degree as accidentally wiping the value from your phone.

What you're describing strikes me as the same misconception that some home buys have when house prices increase. They believe that they've earned money, but assuming hose price increases are relatively even (which nationally they generally are) when they come to sell, the money they've earned on their house will be lost on the next house which has also increased in price.

It's the same thing here, whatever resale price you earn from the iPhone will be absorbed in the next purchase of an iPhone. So you're not gaining anything at all (and that's assuming you can even resell it - which as I said - is a gamble).

And this is why I hate the resale excuse that some Apple fans cite when justifying the higher prices. And please bare in mind that I'm not condoning the higher prices (I don't really want to get into that debate to be honest). I just think that particular reasoning is deeply flawed.

Edited 2013-01-15 09:39 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: Prices and choice
by MOS6510 on Tue 15th Jan 2013 16:24 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Prices and choice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

It´s statistics I guess. The probability is low that your iPhone will get stolen or destroyed and the probability is high you can resell it for a nice amount.

Sure, if you get 150 for it you´d invest it in a new phone, but you did get 150.

Buy an iPhone for 700, sell it for 150, buy a new model for 800. 700 - 150 + 800 == 1350. If you didn´t sell it it would be 700 + 800 == 1500. You could also state that the first iPhone only cost you 550.

There is a strong market for used iPhones. Offer one and you get multiple offers in very little time.

Yes, it´s all a gamble, but statistically sound, just like a lot of things in life are gambles, but have a low probability of going wrong. Like eating at McDonald´s, driving a car and crossing the street on Friday the 13th.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Prices and choice
by Laurence on Tue 15th Jan 2013 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Prices and choice"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

You're still completely ignoring my point about how that credit is always passed forwards instead of backwards (the house market analogy). So you're not saving any money. You're just earning and then re-investing money into future purchases. (something you could equally do with other phones - sure you'd earn less for them, but the next phones would equally cost less).

You've also ignored my point that your examples of "gambles" aren't even remotely in the same range as having a phone lost / damaged. (I've had more takeaways and crossed more streets than I've owned phones. Yet I've never been hit buy a car nor got ill from a takeaway. Yet I have had phones both stolen and damaged.)

And finally, Friday the 13th has nothing to do chance. It's just dumb superstition.

So please, for the love of God, quit trying to justify this stupid argument. I know for a fact that you have more sense than this ;)

edit: please excuse the terrible English in the above post. It reads terribly, but I've reached that point in the evening where tiredness has destroyed any writing abilities I had (and I'm far from a talented writer to begin with hehe)

Edited 2013-01-15 22:38 UTC

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Prices and choice
by MOS6510 on Wed 16th Jan 2013 05:21 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Prices and choice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

???

I have addressed both points!

When selling your phone an iPhone yields more, simple. You can keep that money, buy a new iPhone, buy a used iPhone, buy another smart phone or buy a dumb phone. If you sell your house do you say, "Nah, keep the money, I'd just reinvest it in a new one anyway."?

It's just simple maths/economics and you shouldn't dismiss it on the slight chance your phone might get stolen or damaged. If this worries you so much it would make more sense to buy a dumb one.

If you're good at poker you'll know it's about money vs probability. You won't always win, but if you keep playing the probabilities in the long run on avarage you'd win.

Stolen or damaged: low probability
Ability to sell it for good money: very high

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: Prices and choice
by steve_s on Mon 14th Jan 2013 19:51 UTC in reply to "RE: Prices and choice"
steve_s Member since:
2006-01-16

There's no guarantee that the high resale prices of iPhones will continue.

In part it's a price that's been supported by pent-up demand for new iPhone models - purchases made by folks who cannot afford a new device. It's a price supported by fashion. It therefore seems likely that the resale prices for iPhones will go down over the next few years.

One should also note that €100 doesn't cover the price premium you're paying for the iPhone in the first place. It's nowhere near the £250 extra you're paying for an iPhone over a Nexus 4, and also still significantly less than the £130-140 over a Galaxy S3.

Besides, to resell your device and fetch a decent price it has to be pristine. We're talking about a glass phone here. The chances of the phone surviving intact decrease over time. A dropped phone can easily have it's screen shattered. A phone kept in a handbag can easily gather scratches from keys and other items.

Reply Score: 5

RE[3]: Prices and choice
by MOS6510 on Mon 14th Jan 2013 20:08 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Prices and choice"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

Those are all valid points, certainly.

But Apple is Apple and will always have loyal followers who will fork out money for anything with an Apple logo. Even obsolete stuff is easily sold.

iPhones are a bit expensive, certainly when comparing the hardware specifications with other phones. But there is more to the story, there is the iTunes music/books/video store, the apps, operating system upgrades, usability, wide range of accessories, etc...

I've heard the countless stories regarding Android, it's "openness" and customization. It sounds all cool and nice, until you get to use one and you're happy you never bought one. I gladly hand over the extra cash to get an iPhone.

Then again, if no heavy use to expected you might as well get a cheap Android.

To keep the resell price up: don't drop it and don't cary it in a bag without a case.

Reply Score: 1

So
by Nelson on Mon 14th Jan 2013 17:56 UTC
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

This is where the arm chair CEOs come out, tell everyone what Apple is doing wrong (and don't point to their own multibillion dollar business, amusingly)and everyone here has a laugh about Apple's inevitable (any day now, ..honestly.) demise.

Then Apple releases another blockbuster, record-breaking quarter, and some people here scratch their heads in disbelief.

Look, this is all comical, Apple does one thing unquestionably well, and that is sell phones. I highly doubt there is any looming crisis. Apple is basically printing money for the next few years. They're at the point where they can afford Microsoftian levels of complacency and still will maintain mindshare for years to come.

Reply Score: 1

RE: So
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:07 UTC in reply to "So "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

You really have an issue with the word "crisis", don't you?

Lower sales than Apple itself expected - if true - isn't a crisis, and no one here suggests that it is. You really should stop making up fake extremist claims just so you can easily refute them, it's annoying and highly disingenuous.

Reply Score: 4

v RE[2]: So
by Nelson on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE: So "
RE[3]: So
by MOS6510 on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:31 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So "
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

To be fair, this time Thom wasn't being nasty towards Apple. The story is on several sites, so it is news. Thom suggested we wait for Apple's financial figures. The Samsung/Android remark is pretty valid.

Reply Score: 6

RE[3]: So
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So "
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

Interesting. I just looked at the facts:

http://www.osnews.com/topics/14

And it's mostly positive news.

As usual, your premise is wrong. You are so convinced that I hold certain agendas that it clouds your judgement - your mind actively blocks out the boatload of positive or neutral Apple stories I post (selective perception) so that you can solve the state of cognitive dissonance you experience every time I lost a story that doesn't fit in your view.

It's entertaining, if not a bit annoying. Interestingly enough, you were proven entirely wrong in the Windows Phone thread because you failed to read correctly, and then you vanished - without apologies or admissions of 'I was wrong' - exactly what you erroneously accused me of doing.

Don't think you're clever just because you attribute things to people they didn't say. It doesn't maie you clever - it makes you obnoxious.

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: So
by Nelson on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:38 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: So "
Nelson Member since:
2005-11-29


It's entertaining, if not a bit annoying. Interestingly enough, you were proven entirely wrong in the Windows Phone thread because you failed to read correctly, and then you vanished - without apologies or admissions of 'I was wrong' - exactly what you erroneously accused me of doing.

Don't think you're clever just because you attribute things to people they didn't say. It doesn't maie you clever - it makes you obnoxious.


I get lost in the long sub-threads that spawn off in the comments, and honestly, stopped checking because it was going nowhere. I'm not actively keeping tabs on every reply to every comment I make.

However, if I was wrong, I'll be happy to say I was. I don't mind being wrong.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: So
by M.Onty on Mon 14th Jan 2013 21:05 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: So "
M.Onty Member since:
2009-10-23

"You really have an issue with the word "crisis", don't you?

Lower sales than Apple itself expected - if true - isn't a crisis, and no one here suggests that it is. You really should stop making up fake extremist claims just so you can easily refute them, it's annoying and highly disingenuous.


So, where exactly do you see this going? You can't exactly imply something then get upset when someone connects the dots for you.
"

He can when you insist on wildly exaggerating the implications. If a racing commentator mentions a horse stumbling a fence slightly it does not imply the horse is going to lose its lead, fall at the next, tumble its jockey, break its leg and find itself looking down the barrels of a vet's shotgun within five minutes. It implies it stumbled the fence slightly, and that that may or may not effect the race.

Reply Score: 3

RE: So
by Shkaba on Mon 14th Jan 2013 23:33 UTC in reply to "So "
Shkaba Member since:
2006-06-22

This is where the arm chair CEOs come out, tell everyone what Apple is doing wrong (and don't point to their own multibillion dollar business, amusingly)and everyone here has a laugh about Apple's inevitable (any day now, ..honestly.) demise.

Then Apple releases another blockbuster, record-breaking quarter, and some people here scratch their heads in disbelief.

Look, this is all comical, Apple does one thing unquestionably well, and that is sell phones. I highly doubt there is any looming crisis. Apple is basically printing money for the next few years. They're at the point where they can afford Microsoftian levels of complacency and still will maintain mindshare for years to come.


Funny ... they used to sell computers well, once upon a time and then "looming crisis" became a real crisis ;) Same thing will happen with smart phones, too.

Reply Score: 4

Sounds familiar?
by bowkota on Mon 14th Jan 2013 20:02 UTC
bowkota
Member since:
2011-10-12

Is it still 2011?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-57321362-17/slower-iphone-4s-dema...

Oh wait, we're not. It's become customary for these "supply chain reports" regarding Apple and its reduction of orders on iPhone parts.

When is someone going to come out with a conspiracy theory about people spreading inaccurate info in order to make money off of Apple's stock?

Reply Score: 2