7 ms·

> Despite months of breathless hype, the iPhone X hasn’t sold as well as expected since its debut last year. Apple sold 77.3 million iPhones in the final quarte

> Despite months of breathless hype, the iPhone X hasn’t sold as well as expected since its debut last year. Apple sold 77.3 million iPhones in the final quarter of 2017, below analysts’ projections of 80.2 million units. Some consumers were turned off by the iPhone X’s $1,000 price despite liking the design even as they wanted something more cutting-edge than the cheaper iPhone 8. With its next lineup, Apple is seeking to rekindle sales by offering a model for everyone. This seems like color commentary that isn't supported by their sources, or data. I'm not sure how they are supporting this statement. Apple's recent quarterly earnings [0] showed iPhone sales as (essentially) stable, year over year. ASP increased to $800 dollars (!) which would point to the iPhone X doing relatively well, despite not being available for the entire quarter. Even beyond that, there is no way for Apple to begin product development at a point after they saw the Q4 results. There is far to much lead-time required for them to be able to wait until now to do so. My guess is that 1) the rumors of these 2 new models are true, 2) Apple committed to this product roadmap a long time ago, and 3) Bloomberg is adding it's own spin to make the leaks more salacious. [0] - https://sixcolors.com/post/2018/02/apple-reports-its-holiday-2017-earnings-today/ https://sixcolors.com/post/2018/02/apple-reports-its-holiday...

akvadrako 9y ago
There is a decent amount of evidence that Apple's sales from the iPhone X (specifically) are less than expected, including 2-for-1 deals and Samsung cutting production of OLEDs. At the same time the margins on the X are better than ever. I agree it's unnecessary commentary, but based in fact without too much speculation.
- IBM 9y ago
  BOGO deals always come out of the carrier's pocket. The iPhone is the best customer acquisition tool so it all works out for the carrier in the end. Apple is certainly not going to cut prices to enable that.
- oflannabhra 9y ago
  I haven't seen any iPhone X 2-for-1 deals, in the US at least. Samsung's OLED production glut can't be pinned solely on Apple [0]. Most of the "Apple slashes iPhone X production forecast" rumors seem to be... unreliable at best [1] [2]. [0] - http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-iphone-x-is-the-instant-scapegoat-for-samsungs-failure-to-win-oled-orders-from-chinese-vendors.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-i... [1] - https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/20/nikkei-slashes-apple/ https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/20/nikkei-slashes-apple/ [2] - https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/958421107245232128 https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/958421107245232128
  - tooltalk 9y ago
    Yeah, we hear this every 1Q's. Apple's sales peak during the release quarter and steadily declines over the next three quarters, until the new one comes out next year. I think this natural decline has been misinterpreted by reporters who really don't know any better and misreported as "declining demand."
    - leoc 9y ago
      Apparently https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-reduces-oled-panel-production-citing-poor-iphone-x-sales/ https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-reduces-oled-panel-product... (warning: autoplaying video with audio :( ): > Samsung Display, Samsung's panel-making division, is reducing OLED panel production at its South Chungcheong plant, according to the Nikkei Asian Review, thanks to lower than expected iPhone X sales. > The report states Samsung now plans to cover 20 million or fewer iPhone X devices for the quarter ending in March, a large decrease from the expected 45 to 50 million units. (I certainly can't confirm the reporting.)
      - oflannabhra 9y ago
        Nikkei doesn't even support their own headline. Samsung Display saw YoY decreases in OLED purchases by themselves, increased competition from Chinese and Taiwanese display suppliers, and essentially zero adoption of OLED by Chinese phone manufacturers[0] (also linked above). All those factors get fewer headlines than Apple doom and gloom, though. [0] - http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-iphone-x-is-the-instant-scapegoat-for-samsungs-failure-to-win-oled-orders-from-chinese-vendors.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-i...
- spike021 9y ago
  Are the 2-for-1 deals directly from Apple? As far as I know this is from retailers who already purchased the stock in bulk from Apple. Even if there's less interest causing deals like those, they're already technically "sold" from my understanding.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Are the 2-for-1 deals directly from Apple? As far as I know this is from retailers who already purchased the stock in bulk from Apple. Even if there's less interest causing deals like those, they're already technically "sold" from my understanding. If you are Apple doing forward planning, retailers being unable to move your stock because retail sales were slower than expected had to figure into your planning as weak sales even if it doesn't show up in your current financials that way, because you can't expect that retailers are going to forget when ordering the next model: if you don't want them to cut orders, you have to give them a reason to think that the disappointing nresults won't be repeated.
- philwelch 9y ago
  Apple finally having a supply chain that can keep up with demand != lower-than-expected demand.
- lostapathy 9y ago
  I always wondered if the price of the iPhone X wasn't set as high as it is as a way to segment the market and limit demand on that device, and perhaps they just miscalculated. Everybody was nervous about iPhone X part yields and overall supply ahead of the launch, after all. From all the tear downs I've seen, there's obviously plenty of profit in that phone to charge a lower price. But if the iPhone X was $150 cheaper, a lot of iPhone 8 buyers would have waited for an X, and the headlines would all be about iPhone X shortages, the iPhone 8 would be the phone not selling, and Apple would end up moving less units than they are now. So if that's the theory, perhaps Apple knew they were pricing the iPhone X a little higher than they should, but they had to do it that way to keep enough people buying their other phones for yields and production to catch up?
- seanmcdirmid 9y ago
  Who is offering iPhone X 2-for-1 deals?
  - oflannabhra 9y ago
    no one. I've only seen iPhone 8 BOGO deals, for new subscribers.
mattnewton 9y ago
Yup, seems very much like a wet-pavement-causes-rainstorm story. There is simply no way these phones weren’t in the pipeline for at least a year.
bspn 9y ago
> ASP increased to $800 dollars (!) which would point to the iPhone X doing relatively well, despite not being available for the entire quarter. I'm not sure that is necessarily true. The iPhone 8 pricing ranges from $699 to $849, the 8 Plus from $799 to $949 and the X from $999 to $1149. A higher ASP doesn't necessarily indicate that the X has performed well, as it's possible the higher priced 8s have contributed to the overall increase.
- jrs95 9y ago
  Even if the X isn't selling, the fact that a $1000+ iPhone is available will make it seem more reasonable to purchase one that costs $800+ instead of just the base model. Regardless of whether or not X sales have met expectations, I think the X is probably the biggest factor in the ASP increase aside from bumping the cost of the base model from $649 to $699.
  - altern8tif 9y ago
    Agreed. Similar reason why Starbucks has a Venti size and no longer lists their Short size on the menu – so that it makes it more reasonable (from a consumer standpoint) to purchase the medium-range option (Grande), thus pushing up the average price point. Not saying that iPhones are priced the same way as lattes, but that's a known pricing consideration.
- oflannabhra 9y ago
  For 4Q16: - iPhone 7 - $650-850 - iPhone 7 Plus - $769-969 Yielded an ASP of $695 4Q2017: - iPhone X - $1000-1150 - iPhone 8 - $650-850 - iPhone 8 Plus -$800 -950 Yielded an ASP of $796 That is a year-over-year increase of 14.5%, with the only real change being the iPhone X. I agree that some movement of the ASP could be attributed to Apple only offering 2 storage sizes for the iPhone 8s, but really, the price ranges are very similar if the iPhone X is excluded. It could easily be argued that, because Apple also offered their cheapest iPhone ever in 2018, there would be more pressure for ASP to be decreasing [0]. [0] - http://www.asymco.com/2017/09/20/good-better-best/ http://www.asymco.com/2017/09/20/good-better-best/
jasonsync 9y ago
There's a paywall here, but WSJ reported this about a month ago (weaker iPhone X demand). Still somewhat speculative though ... Tim Cook did say iPhone X was selling well. Apple has cut orders for parts used in its iPhone X by 60 percent, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, citing people familiar with the iPhone supply chain. Another person familiar with Apple's production goals said the gadget giant slashed its output targets to 20 million iPhone X units in the first three months of the year, down from about 40 million, according to the report. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-curtail-iphone-x-production-in-the-face-of-weak-demand-1517312098 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-curtail-iphone-x-produ... https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-reportedly-slashes-iphone-x-production/# https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-reportedly-slashes-iphone-x-...
- jrnichols 9y ago
  " citing people familiar with the " This is the same line that the WSJ uses to troll for page clicks. They always claim to "cite people familiar with the project" or some other equally vague phrase. I don't trust the WSJ at all for Apple stuff anymore.
  - grzm 9y ago
    It's a pretty common phrase in journalism, regardless of the quality of WSJ Apple reporting.
  - jasonsync 9y ago
    Agreed. It's hard to see the facts through the click bait this day and age. Journalists used to vet their sources, and I'm sure (hope) most still do, depending on the gravity of the subject matter. This is a great example though. Here we have multiple "reputable" news outlets reporting softer than expected demand for the iPhone X. And the comments mostly calling "BS". Who to believe? Apple news itself has a history of vague sources (Appleinsider, MacRumours etc.) .. almost impossible to filter in either direction.
coldtea 9y ago
>This seems like color commentary that isn't supported by their sources, or data. It's BS reasoning, they compare BS "estimations" and say that Apple fell short, because the estimations said 80 million and Apple sold 77.3 million. In the meantime, everybody and their dog were also predicting it wont sell at all, too expensive, the notch is this or that, etc -- and it topped almost everywhere.
- m1sta_ 9y ago
  It is expensive but I could handle that if it were a great phone. Needs to be more portable.
  - mi100hael 9y ago
    What does that even mean? It's basically the same size as every other smartphone on the market and barely larger than a pack of gum. How much more portable can it get?
    - bllguo 9y ago
      it means he/she prefers a smaller size. Is it inconceivable that someone could think all smartphones on the market are too big? This is hardly as ridiculous as you imply
      - melq 9y ago
        It is inconceivable to me that they would be considered non-portable.
        pvdebbe 9y ago
        Warm-season clothing, a t-shirt and jeans. It means the phone has to fit comfortably in front/back pocket. If it doesn't, it could be labeled as nonportable.
        deleted 9y ago
steve_adams_86 9y ago
> Bloomberg is adding it's own spin to make the leaks more salacious. How is it salacious? Doesn't that imply a sexual undertone to the spin?
- oflannabhra 9y ago
  In regards to journalism, I've always heard the word "salacious" to essentially mean "enticing." Used, for example, to describe the "salacious headlines" of tabloids. I was unaware of the sexual connotation of the term. Please excuse my misuse of it.
  - steve_adams_86 9y ago
    No, I think you're probably right. Enticing seems well enough aligned. My dictionary doesn't agree but I believe it's used at least colloquially in the way you used it...

akvadrako 9y ago

There is a decent amount of evidence that Apple's sales from the iPhone X (specifically) are less than expected, including 2-for-1 deals and Samsung cutting production of OLEDs. At the same time the margins on the X are better than ever. I agree it's unnecessary commentary, but based in fact without too much speculation.

IBM 9y ago
BOGO deals always come out of the carrier's pocket. The iPhone is the best customer acquisition tool so it all works out for the carrier in the end. Apple is certainly not going to cut prices to enable that.
oflannabhra 9y ago
I haven't seen any iPhone X 2-for-1 deals, in the US at least. Samsung's OLED production glut can't be pinned solely on Apple [0]. Most of the "Apple slashes iPhone X production forecast" rumors seem to be... unreliable at best [1] [2]. [0] - http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-iphone-x-is-the-instant-scapegoat-for-samsungs-failure-to-win-oled-orders-from-chinese-vendors.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-i... [1] - https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/20/nikkei-slashes-apple/ https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/20/nikkei-slashes-apple/ [2] - https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/958421107245232128 https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/958421107245232128
- tooltalk 9y ago
  Yeah, we hear this every 1Q's. Apple's sales peak during the release quarter and steadily declines over the next three quarters, until the new one comes out next year. I think this natural decline has been misinterpreted by reporters who really don't know any better and misreported as "declining demand."
  - leoc 9y ago
    Apparently https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-reduces-oled-panel-production-citing-poor-iphone-x-sales/ https://www.cnet.com/news/samsung-reduces-oled-panel-product... (warning: autoplaying video with audio :( ): > Samsung Display, Samsung's panel-making division, is reducing OLED panel production at its South Chungcheong plant, according to the Nikkei Asian Review, thanks to lower than expected iPhone X sales. > The report states Samsung now plans to cover 20 million or fewer iPhone X devices for the quarter ending in March, a large decrease from the expected 45 to 50 million units. (I certainly can't confirm the reporting.)
    - oflannabhra 9y ago
      Nikkei doesn't even support their own headline. Samsung Display saw YoY decreases in OLED purchases by themselves, increased competition from Chinese and Taiwanese display suppliers, and essentially zero adoption of OLED by Chinese phone manufacturers[0] (also linked above). All those factors get fewer headlines than Apple doom and gloom, though. [0] - http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-iphone-x-is-the-instant-scapegoat-for-samsungs-failure-to-win-oled-orders-from-chinese-vendors.html http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-i...
spike021 9y ago
Are the 2-for-1 deals directly from Apple? As far as I know this is from retailers who already purchased the stock in bulk from Apple. Even if there's less interest causing deals like those, they're already technically "sold" from my understanding.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Are the 2-for-1 deals directly from Apple? As far as I know this is from retailers who already purchased the stock in bulk from Apple. Even if there's less interest causing deals like those, they're already technically "sold" from my understanding. If you are Apple doing forward planning, retailers being unable to move your stock because retail sales were slower than expected had to figure into your planning as weak sales even if it doesn't show up in your current financials that way, because you can't expect that retailers are going to forget when ordering the next model: if you don't want them to cut orders, you have to give them a reason to think that the disappointing nresults won't be repeated.
philwelch 9y ago
Apple finally having a supply chain that can keep up with demand != lower-than-expected demand.
lostapathy 9y ago
I always wondered if the price of the iPhone X wasn't set as high as it is as a way to segment the market and limit demand on that device, and perhaps they just miscalculated. Everybody was nervous about iPhone X part yields and overall supply ahead of the launch, after all. From all the tear downs I've seen, there's obviously plenty of profit in that phone to charge a lower price. But if the iPhone X was $150 cheaper, a lot of iPhone 8 buyers would have waited for an X, and the headlines would all be about iPhone X shortages, the iPhone 8 would be the phone not selling, and Apple would end up moving less units than they are now. So if that's the theory, perhaps Apple knew they were pricing the iPhone X a little higher than they should, but they had to do it that way to keep enough people buying their other phones for yields and production to catch up?
seanmcdirmid 9y ago
Who is offering iPhone X 2-for-1 deals?
- oflannabhra 9y ago
  no one. I've only seen iPhone 8 BOGO deals, for new subscribers.

mattnewton 9y ago

Yup, seems very much like a wet-pavement-causes-rainstorm story. There is simply no way these phones weren’t in the pipeline for at least a year.

bspn 9y ago

> ASP increased to $800 dollars (!) which would point to the iPhone X doing relatively well, despite not being available for the entire quarter. I'm not sure that is necessarily true. The iPhone 8 pricing ranges from $699 to $849, the 8 Plus from $799 to $949 and the X from $999 to $1149. A higher ASP doesn't necessarily indicate that the X has performed well, as it's possible the higher priced 8s have contributed to the overall increase.

jrs95 9y ago
Even if the X isn't selling, the fact that a $1000+ iPhone is available will make it seem more reasonable to purchase one that costs $800+ instead of just the base model. Regardless of whether or not X sales have met expectations, I think the X is probably the biggest factor in the ASP increase aside from bumping the cost of the base model from $649 to $699.
- altern8tif 9y ago
  Agreed. Similar reason why Starbucks has a Venti size and no longer lists their Short size on the menu – so that it makes it more reasonable (from a consumer standpoint) to purchase the medium-range option (Grande), thus pushing up the average price point. Not saying that iPhones are priced the same way as lattes, but that's a known pricing consideration.
oflannabhra 9y ago
For 4Q16: - iPhone 7 - $650-850 - iPhone 7 Plus - $769-969 Yielded an ASP of $695 4Q2017: - iPhone X - $1000-1150 - iPhone 8 - $650-850 - iPhone 8 Plus -$800 -950 Yielded an ASP of $796 That is a year-over-year increase of 14.5%, with the only real change being the iPhone X. I agree that some movement of the ASP could be attributed to Apple only offering 2 storage sizes for the iPhone 8s, but really, the price ranges are very similar if the iPhone X is excluded. It could easily be argued that, because Apple also offered their cheapest iPhone ever in 2018, there would be more pressure for ASP to be decreasing [0]. [0] - http://www.asymco.com/2017/09/20/good-better-best/ http://www.asymco.com/2017/09/20/good-better-best/

jasonsync 9y ago

There's a paywall here, but WSJ reported this about a month ago (weaker iPhone X demand). Still somewhat speculative though ... Tim Cook did say iPhone X was selling well. Apple has cut orders for parts used in its iPhone X by 60 percent, The Wall Street Journal reported Tuesday, citing people familiar with the iPhone supply chain. Another person familiar with Apple's production goals said the gadget giant slashed its output targets to 20 million iPhone X units in the first three months of the year, down from about 40 million, according to the report. https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-curtail-iphone-x-production-in-the-face-of-weak-demand-1517312098 https://www.wsj.com/articles/apple-to-curtail-iphone-x-produ... https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-reportedly-slashes-iphone-x-production/# https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-reportedly-slashes-iphone-x-...

jrnichols 9y ago
" citing people familiar with the " This is the same line that the WSJ uses to troll for page clicks. They always claim to "cite people familiar with the project" or some other equally vague phrase. I don't trust the WSJ at all for Apple stuff anymore.
- grzm 9y ago
  It's a pretty common phrase in journalism, regardless of the quality of WSJ Apple reporting.
- jasonsync 9y ago
  Agreed. It's hard to see the facts through the click bait this day and age. Journalists used to vet their sources, and I'm sure (hope) most still do, depending on the gravity of the subject matter. This is a great example though. Here we have multiple "reputable" news outlets reporting softer than expected demand for the iPhone X. And the comments mostly calling "BS". Who to believe? Apple news itself has a history of vague sources (Appleinsider, MacRumours etc.) .. almost impossible to filter in either direction.

coldtea 9y ago

>This seems like color commentary that isn't supported by their sources, or data. It's BS reasoning, they compare BS "estimations" and say that Apple fell short, because the estimations said 80 million and Apple sold 77.3 million. In the meantime, everybody and their dog were also predicting it wont sell at all, too expensive, the notch is this or that, etc -- and it topped almost everywhere.

m1sta_ 9y ago
It is expensive but I could handle that if it were a great phone. Needs to be more portable.
- mi100hael 9y ago
  What does that even mean? It's basically the same size as every other smartphone on the market and barely larger than a pack of gum. How much more portable can it get?
  - bllguo 9y ago
    it means he/she prefers a smaller size. Is it inconceivable that someone could think all smartphones on the market are too big? This is hardly as ridiculous as you imply
    - melq 9y ago
      It is inconceivable to me that they would be considered non-portable.
      - pvdebbe 9y ago
        Warm-season clothing, a t-shirt and jeans. It means the phone has to fit comfortably in front/back pocket. If it doesn't, it could be labeled as nonportable.
        deleted 9y ago

steve_adams_86 9y ago

> Bloomberg is adding it's own spin to make the leaks more salacious. How is it salacious? Doesn't that imply a sexual undertone to the spin?

oflannabhra 9y ago
In regards to journalism, I've always heard the word "salacious" to essentially mean "enticing." Used, for example, to describe the "salacious headlines" of tabloids. I was unaware of the sexual connotation of the term. Please excuse my misuse of it.
- steve_adams_86 9y ago
  No, I think you're probably right. Enticing seems well enough aligned. My dictionary doesn't agree but I believe it's used at least colloquially in the way you used it...