Hacker News Reader

>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.

It is expensive but I could handle that if it were a great phone. Needs to be more portable.

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?

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

It is inconceivable to me that they would be considered non-portable.

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.

Portability does not mean it fits in your pocket.

Who are this people who keep their phones in their back pockets?

(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).

> 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.

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.

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.

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/

iPhone 8 starts at $700 not $650

>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.

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."

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.

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.

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.

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-i...

[1] - https://www.ped30.com/2018/02/20/nikkei-slashes-apple/

[2] - https://twitter.com/rjonesy/status/958421107245232128

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."

Apparently 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.)

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-i...

First, I wouldn't take anything out of patentlyapple.com seriously. Second, what Chinese and Taiwanese display suppliers are you talking about? There is no "other" OLED manufacturer who pumps out displays in Samsung's quality or quantity.

From the original Nikkei report [0]:

> 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...

https://www.statista.com/statistics/263401/global-apple-ipho... claims Apple sold 50.76 million iPhones in the equivalent quarter a year ago.

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?

> 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).

Two months with pent-up demand (Apple announced the iPhone X on September 12, and ‘everybody’ knew a new phone was going to be announced at least two weeks before) in the quarter were Apple typically sells a third of its yearly number of phones.

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.

You can't confirm the reporting because it's ridiculous. Apple will likely only sell about 50-52M iPhones in q2 in total, so it'd take a very ignorant reporter to claim anyone expected nearly all of those to be iPhone Xs.

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.

> 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.

Apple finally having a supply chain that can keep up with demand != lower-than-expected demand.

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?

Who is offering iPhone X 2-for-1 deals?

no one. I've only seen iPhone 8 BOGO deals, for new subscribers.

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-produ...

https://www.cnet.com/news/apple-reportedly-slashes-iphone-x-...

" 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.

It's a pretty common phrase in journalism, regardless of the quality of WSJ Apple reporting.

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.

> 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?

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.

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...