OS and Software > All Things Macintosh > Damn Man - iPhone is on a Roll!

Damn Man - iPhone is on a Roll!

Limited supplies too.

What is the statistical trend for each major (single digit) release and the S?

reply to itguy05

Re: Damn Man - iPhone is on a Roll!

reply to Mike

--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo

It's not old and BS. FC has admitted their production problems stem from the major PITA it is to assemble the phone not to mention labor unrest.

»blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/10/17/···hortage/

Irrelevant. The fact is if the could have made more, they would have sold more. Way more.

What you are claiming is artificial scarcity, and it isn't. This is natural scarcity due to lack of capacity. Simply put, the resources to meet demand do not currently exist. Huge difference.

The only benefit to artificial scarcity is to raise the price. The price is what is regardless of supply which is why there is a shortage. With artificial supply, the only benefit would be from a new equilibrium price, much higher than under normal conditions. You would thus have no shortage but the phones would be selling for $1500 each instead of $700.

Your claim of artificial scarcity has no basis in fact nor logic. Apple would be leaving tens to hundreds of millions on the table with artificial scarcity at the current price.

Publicity is meaningless if you are promoting a product you are restricting the supply of. Great, people want it, and can't buy it. That isn't smart marketing and no one at Apple is that stupid. Apple is the marketing benchmark.

There is zero intention of limiting supply. No conspiracy. No black helicopters.

It's not opinion, it's first semester economics. There are substitutes in this market as the gShills continuously point out. Delays in availability result in lost sales. Not everyone is willing to wait 3-4 weeks and the longer they wait the less likely they are to impulse buy and more likely to comparison shop both leading to lost sales.

If Apple could have had 10M units in the channel they would have done it. Foxconn simply couldn't do it with their production lines.

There is nothing to be gained from a shortage and everything to lose. The longer the delay the more lost sales as mentioned. The more lost sales the more lost sales from complementary items such as cables and apps.

They try to start early enough to get product into the channel and Foxconn simply couldn't do it. Foxconn gives their production estimates so Apple schedules their releases based on that. When Foxconn drops the ball Apple is stuck with shortages and a choice to delay foreign release of the product to keep channel inventory for the US. Beyond that, they simply have to wait for Foxconn to catch up.

No one is planning ahead of time..."let's limit supply to ensure a 3-4 week backlog for weeks on end while maintaining the same price". No one is that dumb.

So you know FC says when they'll be ready and apple follows? You don't think Apple tells them when to be ready? Which is it? I have no proof either way but I suspect the latter.

The gain to be had from this tactic is to create more demand. Apple does not have to worry about the crowd that will buy the product even if they have to wait weeks because they will wait regardless (eg, the folks you see saying I'll buy it before specs are out, etc). What they care about are those on the fence. And the latter won't go elsewhere as Apple is careful not to delay supply too long and many see the 'sold out' as "dang, it must be fanstastic so I'll wait and buy it."

You said it, Apple are master marketeers. I think the production issues at FC are real (BTW, the employing 14-year olds is disgusting if true) but that is only part of the picture in my opinion.

BTW, what is a gShill?
--
My Gallery
Formerly Nezmo

Of course Apple works out the schedule but when Foxconn has an unforeseen problem, S goes south.

There is no gain from artificial scarcity. All buyers won't wait regardless and competitors will respond accordingly with their substitutes (the next big thing is already here).

If Foxconn could have delivered 10M units first week, Apple would have been much happier. No one desires shortage except for Apple's competitors. Master marketers work day and night to ensure EVERY buyer can get the devices (place strategy). FYI, marketing isn't just advertising, it's the entire process of identifying and filling wants...fulfilling wants being the ultimate goal.

Think about it...what would have been better for Apple...5M unit sell out and 3-4 week backlogs, or 10M in first week sales and a 1 week ongoing backlog for 2 weeks followed by no backlog (supply matches demand). Obviously it is the latter.

What you are suggesting would work for "limited edition" items. Say Apple initially released a limited edition iPhone for $1500, 2 months before general availability. Artificial scarcity supports the high price, gouging those who MUST have it now. But there is no benefit from keeping the price low and just having shortages. There is no marketing benefit.

It's like Ray Ban. Ray Ban was available everywhere for $30 until Ray Ban was bought by Luxottica. They took Ray Ban off the market for about a year and reintroduced them with artificial scarcity and again Ray Bans are $100+. The benefit is from raising the price. It wouldn't make sense to have artificial scarcity while still charging $30 bucks. Even if the intent is to build exclusivity into the brand, the benefit isn't the exclusivity, it's the higher price that exclusivity can command. Yet Apple isn't making an attempt to reprice the iPhone based on this exclusivity. It's the same $200-$400 like everything else.

reply to skeechan