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 548749
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: So
by Nelson on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:22 UTC in reply to "RE: So "
Nelson
Member since:
2005-11-29

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.


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

You've been clearly, for a while now, suggesting Samsung's dominance over Apple. Almost every Apple article you site related to sales includes Samsung (even without evidence that Samsung is even remotely related to the situation, that's YOUR own addition and interpretation).

You think that because you don't blurt out your position, but drag it along through these vague snide remarks over the course of a few articles, that people don't notice?

Seriously, you latch onto any negative Apple news and chomp at the bit to criticize them without even the slightest amount of due diligence.

The Judge is biased towards Apple, Apple isn't licensing FRAND, Apple planted a Jury Foreman, American Justice is corrupt, anything. You will say anything and slander absolutely anyone to make Apple look the bad guy.

And then every time someone replies to you, you raise your hands and say "Oh not me, I said nothing like that" and run from your own positions.

My point (since apparently you're hard at comprehension) is that EVERYTIME one of these red meat articles is posted on OSNews, there is the same discussion. Apple is inevitably doomed, Apple needs to make different device sizes, vendor lock in, patents, blah blah blah.

Reply Parent Score: -1

RE[3]: So
by MOS6510 on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:31 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 Parent Score: 6

RE[3]: So
by Thom_Holwerda on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:34 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: So
by Nelson on Mon 14th Jan 2013 18:38 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: So
by M.Onty on Mon 14th Jan 2013 21:05 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 Parent Score: 3