> Of course there are other factors addressed in the letter, but this issue was notable enough to be included.
OP is attempting to place causation on the battery problem for the earnings miss or the valuation loss.
That is not supported by the evidence, which clearly shows that the primary cause had nothing to do with the Western market at all.
It's fair criticism, OP is discussing 5% of the problem and presenting it as if it's 100%.
OP not implying causation, they're calling something interesting out.
> "It went something like this:"
> ....
>- Some people decide that they'll stick with their phone a bit ?longer than they otherwise would have, reducing iPhone sales.
>- Apple misses their earnings target, likely costing them more in value than it would have cost them to address the root issue in the first place.
It's an extremely clear post they made, IMO
There's is a causative link, which is why Apple included it in this report. How is it possible to miss that connection?
Now that we all can agree swish_bob is wrong, the problem remains that OP misrepresented the primacy of the factors stated in the report.
I don't get that in the least little bit from what he wrote. Nothing in his post even references the earnings drop.
“- Some people decide that they'll stick with their phone a bit longer...
- Apple misses their earnings target”
Direct quote.
No he didn't, stop making stuff up. Apple would not have bothered to mention the battery issue if it didn't have a material impact on their business.
> - Some people decide that they'll stick with their phone a bit longer than they otherwise would have, reducing iPhone sales.
> - Apple misses their earnings target, likely costing them more in value than it would have cost them to address the root issue in the first place.
There's an implicit "because of this" between the two bullet points.
Again, it's painting a problem that is 5% of the issue as if it's 100%.
China was the vast majority of this decline, as the earnings reports show.
I have no earthly idea why people are ignoring this fact so badly.
Not about this being the most significant factor. You've decided to infer that from the list - most of us didn't because he _explicitly_ says so in his last sentence. They also had influence over this particular issue, unlike the macroeconomics of China.
It absolutely is suggested, if not implicitly then by omission.
> They also had influence over this particular issue, unlike the macroeconomics of China.
Right, but the more it's discussed, the more it feels like people don't want to talk about the slowing economy in China.
No it doesn't, only that it was "notable enough".
The last line is a dodge because, obviously, China's economy is actually the main culprit stated in the report. But I guess some people are going to hear what they want to hear.
I have an iPhone 6s and my wife had a 6 and needed a new phone. We bought a new Xr but it was a small fortune, even though we're both working in IT and having good income. The phone is a brick and I saw lots of slicker Android phones costing half the price and providing a very similar if not better experience.
My next phone is very unlikely to be an iPhone.
Like what you're doing with these replies and your focus on something the OP didn't say?