“Hon Hai Precision Industry Co Ltd, the main manufacturer of Apple Inc products, posted a 19 percent decline in sales in the first quarter compared with a year earlier, hurt by disappointing demand for the iPhone,” Clare Jim reports for Reuters.
“‘A quarterly decline was expected, but not a yearly decline,’ said KGI Securities analyst Ming-chi Kuo. ‘This shows that Hon Hai’s revenue depends too much on Apple, and iPhone orders corrected more than expected,'” Jim reports.
Jim reports, “Hon Hai draws an estimated 60 to 70 percent of its revenue assembling Apple’s iPhones and iPads, and carrying out other work for the California-based company. Apple missed Wall Street’s revenue forecast for the December quarter. Disappointing holiday sales reinforced fears it is losing its dominance in smartphones.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: This is laughable. It’s almost like Claire Jim works for Samsung or something.
This isn’t the first time we’ve noted Reuters‘ bias against Apple. Why is Reuters lying about Apple? Something is rotten at Reuters.
Okay, let’s take these one by one:
• “Disappointing demand for the iPhone”
Besides promoting their own agendas, evidence be damned, Reuters seems to be really good at one thing: Finding an analyst who is bearish on Apple and using his lone opinion as a proxy for the entire world. However, just yesterday Canaccord Genuity upped its Q213 iPhone projection by 7.2% to 37 million units. In the year ago quarter, Apple sold 35.1 million iPhones, an increase of nearly 2 million units in the year-ago quarter. “Disappointing demand?” Really, Reuters?
• “This shows that Hon Hai’s revenue depends too much on Apple, and iPhone orders corrected more than expected.”
I know there’s been lots of rumors about order cuts and so forth, and so let me just take a moment to make a comment on this… I would suggest it’s good to question the accuracy of any kind of rumor about build plans, and also stress that even if a particular data point were factual, it would be impossible to accurately interpret the data point as to what it meant for our overall business, because the supply chain is very complex and we obviously have multiple sources for things, yields might vary, supplier performance can vary, the beginning inventory positions can vary, I mean, there’s just an inordinate long list of things that would make any single data point not a great proxy for what’s going on. – Apple CEO Tim Cook, January 23, 2013
• “Disappointing holiday sales reinforced fears [Apple] is losing its dominance in smartphones.”
In its 13-week fiscal 2013 first quarter ended December 29, 2012, Apple sold a record 47.8 million iPhones in the quarter, compared to the then-record 37 million in the year-ago quarter, and increase of 29% YOY. So, “disappointing.” As per “dominance,” please see the following articles:
Canalys: Apple dominates with 74% of worldwide mobile app revenue – April 8, 2013
Apple increases lead over Samsung, gains on Google’s Android in U.S. smartphone market share – April 4, 2013
Apple’s mobile Web dominance continues to grow; iOS outpaces Android in Web usage – April 3, 2013
With 78% share, Apple’s iOS tightening its grip on the enterprise and taking share from Android – March 8, 2013
Apple rules the skies with 84% in-flight share vs. Android’s 16% – March 7, 2013
Apple iPad continues domination with over 80% usage share in U.S. and Canada – March 7, 2013
comScore: Google’s Android, Samsung continue to lose U.S. share to Apple’s iOS, iPhone – March 6, 2013
Apple’s iOS continues to dominate the mobile enterprise – February 26, 2013
Apple iOS dominates mobile video viewing with 60% share vs. Android’s 32% – February 13, 2013
Apple dominates mobile phone makers with 72% profit share worldwide in Q412 – February 6, 2013
Android’s Web share down 13% since November; Apple’s iOS now over 60% – February 1, 2013
Android’s unit share growth has not hurt Apple’s profit share – February 26, 2013
Apple iOS dominates mobile video viewing with 60% share vs. Android’s 32% – February 13, 2013
Android’s Web share down 13% since November; Apple’s iOS now over 60% – February 1, 2013
So Claire Jim is from Korea?
They misspelt his last name. It’s not ‘Jim’ but ‘Kim’.
I went to Reuters and did a search for Claire Jim; no results. Must be a cub reporter.
A cub reporter? Maybe that is why his outlook is bearish?
But you don’t have to call me Johnson!
Reuters keeps pumping it out, should be called Robo Reuters.
Hmm, sounds like another company with a similar business model, pumping out s..t.
The Trust principles indeed. http://thomsonreuters.com/about/trust_principles/
Took a look.
Wow, I guess the employees of Reuters have never read that or even know it exists.
Trust principle #5 gives great latitude:
That no effort shall be spared to expand, develop and adapt the news and other services and products so as to maintain its leading position in the international news and information business.
I posted a short comment on Reuters, linking to this article on MDN. Currently my comment is “under moderation”. Any bets that my comment will not be posted there?
Well, surprise surprise. They DID post my comment (and the link works).
Bloomberg has passed this on now.
To contact the reporter on this story: Tim Culpan in Taipei at tculpan1@bloomberg.net.
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Tighe at mtighe4@bloomberg.net.
De centralize all media.
Centralized media has proven itself to be tottaly biased and incredible.
Apple brings the hammer down this summer errybody is skared
Claims of prejudiced journalists aside, all that really matters is will Apple meet or exceed its own numbers? Not Wall Street’s numbers but Apple’s own numbers. I don’t know if this guy is a knucklehead or not. His is certainly not the only article to reflect these thoughts about Apple’s Q2 earning. I hope you are correct about this MDN. If you are wrong I’m certain that I will see this reflected in an article by you in two weeks.
“…all that really matters is will Apple meet or exceed its own numbers?”
Matters to what? AAPL price? It didn’t matter the last two quarters.
Hmm. So what if Apple have shifted manufacture to other companies?
What it really says is that having a third party assemble your products gives you ultimate flexibility. You can easily change your orders without having to worry about what your workforce is going to do.
All this tells us is that Apple have placed fewer orders with one company. In respect of that company it shows that they were perhaps too reliant on Apple. It might suggest that Apple have reduced orders across the board, but you would only know that by checking their entire supply chain. At worst it is a warning signal that something has changed in Apple’s supply chain.
This has nothing to do with prejudice. Reuters has been paid off, plain and simple. There is a huge sum invested now in shorts against AAPL. Someone is protecting their investment by buying negative press. Follow the money.
Someone is benefitting from FUDing AAPL. What’s fun is figuring out who and how they’re pulling the strings at amoral journalism shite holes like Reuters.
Manipulation.
MDN,
I think you are taking this news in the wrong context…
Let me explain;
In Paragraph 1, where it says disappointing demand for iPhone, they mean: for their iPhone contract fabricated units.
In Paragraph 2, the statements support paragraph one… Apple is not ordering from Hon Hai.
They are analyzing using calculus. Sure – unit sales are increasing, however, this is occurring at decreasing rate!
In Paragraph 3, I totally agree with the point regarding Dominance. The iPhone 5 is significantly lighter than my older iPhone 3GS. Like when my GF & I get down & dirty during a session of BDSM, when she spanks me hard with her i5, it just don’t feel the same. It’s definitely not as “domineering”.
I’ve been pointing out for quite some time that Reuters publishes false articles and passes off opinion as though it were fact.
In 2004, Reuters were responsible starting those false reports about iPod minis being launched with a really low price and people may remember the stunned silence when SJ announced that the price was going to be $249. The fictitious price tag was reported as fact by Reuters and while others had speculated on that price, I never saw any prior example of a lower price being reported as a fact. Naturally as soon as Reuters published it, the false story was re-published worldwide as though it were true and expectations were raised accordingly.
It’s not just Apple, also in 2004 Reuters published the infamous ‘burning bunny’ story, claiming that a gardener at a cricket ground lit a bonfire, unaware that a rabbit had been asleep beneath the pile of rubbish. The story went on to claim that the rabbit, with it’s tail on fire, ran under a building, which started a fire and burnt it down. The bunny aspect of that story has since been shown to be fictitious.
Reuters used to be my Home Page for years, but no longer. I got tired of reading their biassed Apple reporting and flaky articles; and this is another example.
“biassed”
Does this mean that the right cheek does not know what the left one is doing?
“Does this mean that the right cheek does not know what the left one is doing?”
[bows in your general direction]
Well played, indeed!
Why is Reuters lying about Apple?
Another hit whore move, methinks. I refuse to add one to their count. After all, if they so blatantly lie about Apple, about whom else do they prevaricate? Reuters has no credibility with me.
Stay silent Apple–do no address any false information, ie. NY times in January, that approach seems to be working so far !
How does this person still have a job?