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.
Thread beginning with comment 548732
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: The strange math
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 16:57 UTC in reply to "The strange math"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 3

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

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 Parent Score: 2

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

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 Parent Score: 3