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 548926
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: Prices and choice
by Laurence on Tue 15th Jan 2013 22:34 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Prices and choice"
Member since:

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 Parent Score: 2

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


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 Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Prices and choice
by Laurence on Wed 16th Jan 2013 12:03 in reply to "RE[7]: Prices and choice"
Laurence Member since:

I have addressed both points!

No you haven't. You've mainly just focused on the probability of damage.

Your original argument was about how iPhones may appear more expensive than other phones, but prospective buys should take resale value into account. However that doesn't work because if you're buying into Apple's ecosystem then that resale money will only go towards your next iFad purchase which is equally over priced. That money isn't passed backwards; it cannot be offset against the current purchase.

However, if you're still adamant that it should be a consideration, then let's not forget that Android devices have a resale value as well. Granted not as much as the iPhones, but then Android handsets cost less to begin with. So even then Android handsets still work out cheaper. Here's the maths:
iPhone: £530 (new) - £150 (used) = £380
SIII: £400 (new) - £100 (used) = £300
(...and Nexus phones work out even cheaper still).
So your argument falls flat on every single point.

Plus it's a well documented fact that Apple put higher mark ups on their phones than any other OEM. So it stands to reason that their prices would be artificially higher. That's not a criticism at Apple though, that's just market forces working as they should.

So the real question you should be addressing isn't whether iPhones are actually comparable in price, but whether they're worth the additional cost. Many users would seem to agree. And those that do, well I'm pleased for them. Personally I don't - however I don't think the S3 is worth it's price either (I really don't like Samsung's build quality nor the modifications they do to Android).

Reply Parent Score: 2