Apple Plans Giant High-End iPhone, Lower-Priced Model
bloomberg.com
bloomberg.com
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...
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.
(And I never had an issue with the iPhone 7 plus not fitting on my front pocket with room to spare -- even less so one would presume with the much smaller X).
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.
- iPhone 7 - $650-850
- iPhone 7 Plus - $769-969
4Q2017:
- iPhone X - $1000-1150
- iPhone 8 - $650-850
- iPhone 8 Plus -$800 -950
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].
Not saying that iPhones are priced the same way as lattes, but that's a known pricing consideration.
The iPhone X was the most popular iPhone every week it was available according to Tim Cook. From the conference call transcript: https://seekingalpha.com/article/4142447-apples-aapl-ceo-tim...
"And so it was a stellar quarter for iPhone. The iPhone X was the most popular and that’s particularly noteworthy given that we didn’t start shipping until early November, and we’re constrained for a while. The team did a great job of getting into supply demand balance there in December. But since the launch of iPhone X, it has been the most popular iPhone every week, every week sales. And that is even through today, actually through January."
I agree it's unnecessary commentary, but based in fact without too much speculation.
[0] - http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-i...
[1] - https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/20/nikkei-slashes-apple/
> 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.)
If that is correct, expecting them to sell 45 to 50 million iPhone X’es this quarter, to me, seems a tad optimistic.
Similarly, https://www.statista.com/statistics/276306/global-apple-ipho... claims Apple sold 216 million iPhones in total in 2017, but https://www.androidauthority.com/apple-samsung-iphone-x-oled... claims
”Samsung shipped Apple 50 million OLED displays for the iPhone X in 2017. That number looks to quadruple to 180-200 million in 2018.”
Who is pulling numbers out of thin air, statista.com or Samsung?
These numbers don't necessarily contradict each other. Since the X is the first OLED iPhone, and the X wasn't realeased until November, those "50 million OLED displays in 2017" were only for enough production to cover 2 months of sales. Projecting 180-200mm units in 2018 isn't unreasonable, based on that initial demand.
It looks like from the parents CNET article that they may have trimmed that outlook since then, potentially based on a stronger tapering of demand than they expected. But the original number isn't quite in the realm of thin air and lived comfortably in the land of the mildly optimistic (if improbable).
If you assume the other three quarter each do 22% of sales, that 50 million already goes down to 34 million. Anything more, for me, would be a big surprise.
But chances are this is more to blame on reporters hunting for attention than on Samsung. Samsung may just have said they would sell fewer displays than the 50 million of last quarter.
[0] - http://www.patentlyapple.com/patently-apple/2018/02/apples-i...
> Other smartphone makers, who Samsung had hoped would incorporate OLED panels, have been slow to make the transition due to their expense and are sticking to liquid crystal displays. To make matters worse, Chinese OLED panel makers are expanding production capacity, heating up the price competition even more.
>Display Supply Chain Consultants of the U.S. estimates the utilization rate at Samsung's OLED panel factories is around 50-60% due to sluggish demand from smartphone makers... [OLED] Supply capacity is expected to grow worldwide. LG Display of South Korea is set to launch a new production line as early as this year, and China's BOE Technology Group and Tianma Microelectronics have launched new factories with the assistance of government subsidies. Overall production capacity is expected to double by 2020...The bar in global competition will likely rise further for Sharp and Japan Display, which are preparing to start mass-producing OLED panels in 2018 or 2019.
The PatentlyApple article just points out that Nikkei attached Apple to the headline for clicks, when the real OLED supply issue has little to do with them, and more to do with Samsungs own poor forecasting.
[0] - https://asia.nikkei.com/Business/Trends/OLED-panel-glut-loom...
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?
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.
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-produ...
https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-reportedly-slashes-iphone-x-...
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.
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.
How is it salacious? Doesn't that imply a sexual undertone to the spin?
Considering the iPhone was going to be a flop by those same analysts, I’d say selling 77.3 million of them is pretty good.
Who actually writes this rubbish? They missed out on 3 million phones, based on a number you made up? It was out of stock for weeks and is only now really available.
Meanwhile other companies like Uber lose "only" a billion dollars and the analysts are losing their minds.
Part of the blame here is on Apple, they run an unusually secretive operation, where other companies would give a lot more in the way of guidance to help keep expectations more realistic.
Apple has been historically accurate in nailing their projections, yet when analysts calculate the expected product mix, they either forget the mix and assume Apple is going to sell $80 billion in only iPhones, or they include the mix, which must mean they expect Apple to sell $120 billion worth of stuff.
Where is Apple gaining market share? As near as I can tell by available data [0], their market share has been pretty flat for the past decade. Apple's revenue share may be increasing as low and mid tier Android devices continue to improve and proliferate, though.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/216459/global-market-sha...
I haven't seen it in a while, so I suspect it was MacNN (RIP).
[0] - https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/02/best-worst-apple-analysts-q...
The biggest turnoffs of the new iPhones are the increased sizes. I know people like the bigger phones, but I can't be the only one who prefers the smaller size. In my case, it's because I run/cycle with my phone (I'm not getting the Apple Watch so don't even suggest it) and the bulk of the 6/7/8/X series is way too much for me.
...ok? I mean people would suggest it because it's the solution to your problem. It doesn't have to be the Apple Watch, but some sort of fitness band seems to be a much better solution than hoping against logic that phones will suddenly become tiny again.
Two bads don't make a good. If I don't want product X in the first place, then "just buy product X, and also spend a few hundred bucks extra on a 2nd product you otherwise don't want in order to try and duct tape over the things you don't like about product X" is a suggestion that comes across as tone deaf.
An extreme example would be "I carry my laptop with me because I need a clock, and I hate how bulky affordable laptops are because I carry it with me all the time."
Sure, I mean, your laptop functions as a clock. That doesn't make it anywhere close to the best device for the job. Is telling you to get a watch or a phone to tell time instead "duct taping over the things you don't like" about the laptop? No, it's suggesting that the real solution to your problem is to get the best device for the job.
Phones are similar. Do they work as fitness bands? Sure. But larger form factor phones bring tons of benefits, and their design shouldn't be constrained by the needs of those using them as fitness bands, just like the needs of laptop users shouldn't be constrained by those that use them as a clock.
I'm solution oriented, and waiting in vain for phones to suddenly become smaller again isn't a solution, it's basically just pouting.
This effectively exists in the form of the Apple Watch Series 3 LTE, although it's smaller than Zoolander's phone (which had to be flipped open to use).
I've had it for a few weeks and can still hardly believe I can make and receive phone calls on the thing.
The SE is the cheap phone now but there are a lot of people (I’m guessing like you) who really like the form factor and don’t want a 6/7/8 sized phone let alone an X or a Plus.
I hope they update the SE and keep the form factor (or have 2 factors).
It’s still a very speedy phone.
They increased storage a year ago, when I bought one, and a price decrease late last year, so the timeline seems reasonable.
I'll probably get an iPhone 8 and it will be my first iPhone.
What do you mean by this? Are you saying that Apple doesn't care about iPhone?
But all signs indicate that it's just not happening. The thing that pretty well convinced me that the SE will be the last small iPhone is the new control center. Cramming so many things in there that key touch targets are too small to quickly hit with a thumb on an SE-sized screen seemed like a pretty clear, if tacit, statement of intent.
Annoyance has been reserved for individual apps, and the change of Control Centre in iOS 11.
Battery life is fantastic as well. I paired mine up with a thin silicone case and Qi receiver for wireless charging.
GeekBench is like one or two dollar in the AppStore. If the score has a significant difference with other iPhone 6's probably you're having a battery problem.
Also factory resetting the phone can help. Try to figure out if there are any apps using a lot of battery in your battery overview. Some apps consume more in terms of background activity than others.
That got it back to about the speed I'd expect it to be. I still suspect that I'll take it in for a battery swap before the end of the year - but it might be worth trying if it's the slowness is a hindrance for you.
Apple once told me I had a good battery even though my phone would randomly shut off and attaching to a charger was the only solution to get the phone to turn on. Thankfully I had AppleCare and pushed for them to replace the phone.
My iPhone 7 was had a crippled batter after one year - it performed like an iPhone 6..
Only thing I’ve noticed is that some websites clearly don’t really expect phones’ screens to be this small any more, though.
I'm still using my iPhone 5S on iOS 8, and I am very happy with its performance. I've never had any issues with sluggishness, lag, etc.
That's the ticket. The further the OS drifts the the original hardware, the more painful the experience.
One of the most annoying issues I have is with basic SMS from a non-iPhone user. The notification doesn't give me the sender's name, it just gives me their number, even though it's in my Contacts and I've just sent them an SMS. Not everyone I send messages to lives in an iMessage bubble or has WhatsApp or whatever. I've raised this as bug with Apple and they've flagged it as a duplicate. Many iOS updates later it somtimes it says [Maybe: <Person's Name>] as the notification. Why maybe? It never use to say that.
Apple (apparently) hears you: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-02-12/how-apple...
I also recommend this Steven Sinofsky tweetstorm: https://twitter.com/stevesi/status/963142502604779520?lang=e...
Edge-to-edge, I want a phone the size of a 6/7 screen. Smaller form factor without losing usable area is my dream iPhone, not something larger or even the X size.
A good Apple product that competed with, for example, the Moto G4, could change the game. I'd love a mostly disposable iPhone that was as good as a mid-range Android.
I’m not buying a phone without touchid.
If you consider China an emerging market, Apple is doing pretty good there (3rd or 4th largest market, they were number 4 in smartphone sales for Q42017). In fact, the iPhone X sells better there than anywhere else because of face factors for rich Chinese consumers. iPhones also sell well to India's middle class in spite of not being able to have a retail presence.
Emerging markets are hardly homogenous, they have plenty of consumers with money willing to buy something high end. By going low end, Apple could actually damage their cachet with those consumers.
There are some indications that it's not going well.
https://www.indiatoday.in/technology/news/story/apple-iphone...
And aside from this, for people who are truly concerned about security, Apple recommends not using either FaceID or TouchID anyway (as both can be compelled by court order in the US).
From "How Apple's New FaceID Works" at Gizmodo:
"Face ID starts with an image of your face, but builds on top of it with the TrueDepth’s dot projector, which will invisibly project over 30,000 dots onto your face each time you look at your phone, creating and building on its map of your features.
"'We use the image and the dot pattern to push through neural networks to create a mathematical model of your face,' Apple’s Phil Schiller explained."
- https://gizmodo.com/how-apples-new-face-id-works-1803813400
Your objection to my objection might be that FaceID doesn't store the images it takes, but uses them to construct a facial map that it stores instead.
But even if that were any better, that's not true, either.
From Apple's iOS Security Guide:
"Once it confirms the presence of an attentive face, the TrueDepth camera projects and reads over 30,000 infrared dots to form a depth map of the face, along with a 2D infrared image. This data is used to create a sequence of 2D images and depth maps, which are digitally signed and sent to the Secure Enclave."
- https://www.apple.com/business/docs/iOS_Security_Guide.pdf
The public nature of your face inherently makes access to your phone less secure than the private nature of your fingerprints or even a PIN. But it's not the security of the phone, or the photos or face map stored on it that trouble me.
It's the camera-based security paradigm I reject. It reduces resistance to a surveillance society, and increases the incentives for other businesses to use face-identifying software, which destroys privacy in the real world. I don't want people to get used to surrendering their privacy to access their data, and I won't buy a phone that sends a market signal telling the corporate world that I accept these kind of privacy-destroying technologies.
Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response.
However even if it was my guess is surveys would show the $1k starting price would be a WAY bigger factor than privacy.
Nah, the average apple buyer does not care about that at all.