Apple iPhone factories are up and running, but demand questioned

Apple iPhone assembler’s factories are largely up and running, but with the COVID-19 coronavirus pandemic progressing around the world, the question for the company and suppliers is how much demand is there for current models and the new slate of phones expected in the fall.

A transformative triple‑camera system that adds tons of capability without complexity. An unprecedented leap in battery life. And a mind‑blowing chip that doubles down on machine learning and pushes the boundaries of what a smartphone can do. This is the first iPhone powerful enough to be called Pro.
Apple’s iPhone 11 Pro Max


A senior official at one of Apple’s major contract assemblers said Apple’s orders for the quarter ending in March are likely to drop 18% compared with the previous year. The production ramp-up for new phones that work with next-generation 5G networks has been postponed, this person said, though it is still possible the 5G phones could launch as scheduled in the fall.

“No one is talking about manpower or material shortage (in China) anymore. Now everyone is looking at whether demand from U.S. and Europe could keep up,” said the person, who has direct knowledge of the matter. “The focus now is the demand from consumers in the U.S. and Europe.”

Earlier this month, the company closed retail stores around the world even as it began to reopen outlets in China. With much of Europe and the United States on lockdown and unemployment soaring globally, there is little clarity on when demand might return.

MacDailyNews Take: The situation is beyond fluish (typo, and it’s staying). Like the rest of us, Apple and suppliers will just have to play it by ear.


  1. First and foremost, I am praying for the pandemic over. The world is coming back to normal. Once, life gets better, people will buys iPhones. Businesses would thrive as ever more than before.

    1. It’s not going all that well in New York City. There are plenty of new virus infections and the death rate is rising rather quickly. Most of the news media says that it will be worse going forward for the next couple of weeks. Hospitals are over 100% capacity and the lines are getting longer.

      1. I’m in NY. There has already been over a 1,000 deaths from Corona in the USA. Hospitals are full, and not enough supplies. Everybody knows somebody who has been affected and hospitalized with Corona.

        But according to CDC Website:

        24,000 – 62,000 people already died from regular flu over the last 6 months, and from 400,000 – 730,000 flu hospitalizations over the last 6 months, yet I don’t know anybody who knows anybody who has been hospitalized with regular flu.

        With all the news reporters rushing to hospitals to report the large number of Corona cases, are they just walking past the thousands of regular flu cases and all those dead bodies, or are the CDC flu numbers fake? If the numbers are fake, why? If not, why not?

        Anybody know where all those tens of thousands of Flu deaths are going that we are being told about?

        I can’t reconcile the CDC website Flu numbers with what I am seeing. Any explanations? Serious question.

          1. The reason for the down-voting is because the original poster apparently seems to believe that people are dying from drinking Corona beer. Perhaps he would be taken more seriously if…never mind.

            As for the numbers the OP stated: yes, those numbers for deaths attributable to influenza are normal. But the numbers are misleading: it’s not about the sheer number of deaths, it’s about the mortality rate. The mortality rate for the yearly common influenza strains is 0.19%, but the mortality rate for COVID-19 is approximately 2.3%. So 2.3% divided by 0.19% is 12.1, meaning that COVID-19 is about 12 times deadlier. While COVID-19 does not cause mortality rates on the level of SARS2003 (another coronavirus, 10-15%) or Ebola (50-90%, depending upon how fast supportive care is provided), it’s still 12 TIMES DEADLIER THAN THE SEASONAL FLU.

  2. Apple can’t win. If not enough iPhones are produced, the analysts will say Apple can’t keep up with demand. If more iPhones are produced, the analysts are saying there won’t be enough demand. Honestly, the analysts are always talking a no-win situation for Apple. The thing is, all computer hardware companies should be in doubt about balancing supply with demand as it’s an unknown quantity. I would think it would be better for Apple to have the devices in inventory and wait to see what the actual demand will be. I feel certain demand will be lower than normal, but how much lower, I can only guess. I would guess around 25% lower globally. I would think every company is in the same boat as Apple. Do analysts think that less expensive products will sell in much higher quantity and that’s why they’re targeting Apple as having some especially low demand problems?

    1. Please stop with the myopic ponderings about APPL in the market. This is not just a relationship between how the analysts portray or what the “market” is concluding about Apple. Apple is having a hard time winning, because no one is really winning—there’s a whole lot of things upside down in the world, period.

      “Apple can’t win,” Is a statement that makes me wonder if you live in a box.

  3. There won’t be a problem, if you are in doors the internet, iPhone, iPad, and the Mac are currently getting a work out, like my car (wide open fwy) and my portfolio, if you want a new device you will get it even now, but still can’t wait for a return to normal work life. Apple and human race aren’t doomed, however I’m close to the age of doom….

  4. Replacing a working phone is a luxury. I don’t see that market coming back until several months after people are back to work. Most people are racking up bills on credit cards while out of work

    1. Polite Applause and Applesauce (but no Applesores) to Tim Cook who must manage Apple’s way out of this mess. Thank you for the Virus, Gina, thank you very forking much.

    2. Yes, at this time, the iPh is truly a luxury.

      Bloomberg posted an article noting a huge wave of consumer defaults have started (“A Global Consumer Default Wave Is Just Getting Started in China”). Their debt levels have grown significantly with the country’s decade of prosperity and the slowdown, b/c of the V, is to bring many to default. “The country’s consumer debt-to-income ratio surged to 92% at the end of 2018 from 30% a decade ago.”

      “These issues in China are a preview of what we should expect throughout the world,” said Martin Chorzempa, a research fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.”. Needless to say, the US is riding a later wave with the health impacts of the V, but it’s $$, as well.

      Spend 1k on a digital device at this time? For few; maybe/yes. For most; no.

  5. The worse area in Europe Italy 15,806 people alive (had Coronavirus) age 0-59 with 117 dead 99% survival rate (how long will Italians hide at home? Second worse country Age 0-59 Spain 17,351 people had it with 66 people dead 99.5% survival rate. Note these are people that came in and were treated. Also note the number of people dead doubles when you are aged 60-69. Your survival was even better in Holland aged 1-59, and the number of people dead 2-3 times higher after 60 years of age similar to Italy and Spain.

    1. Where the hell did you get the idea that Italy has 117 dead? Try almost 11,000 with 100,000 confirmed cases. Your Spanish numbers are equally bizarre. There are 6528 dead, not 66.

      MDN, the time has come to ban the trolls coming on here making crap up.

      1. Dumb ass look it up Spain, Italy, and Holland provide how many have it (treated) and the number of dead and their age very easy to look up it you go to Coronavirus coverage at Wikipedia some of the European Countries actually provide that information in a open free country. (The US doesn’t not yet, maybe on the CDC site).

        You are not very smart if you can’t actually look up the information provided (easy to find), or do you like most need it spoon fed to you by the bubble headed announcer at the top of the news.

        1. Ok, I concede the point that you were arguing that most of the fatalities are older. Obviously. Will you concede that those fatalities are still human beings?

          Are all the posters who have been minimizing the situation going to change their tone now that President Trump has conceded that up to 2.2 million Americans could have died without an intervention that requires another 30 days of isolation?

          1. They are all human beings, but I’m very happy that it appears, that those under 50 who don’t have a major medical condition will have chance to live a life even if they get the virus.

            Trump I give him nothing the CDC, FDA and EPA are necessary. They are three very big things we have over China from a quality of life standpoint aside from freedom? Hmm….

    2. The survival rate for those under 60 is higher, of course, but they spread the virus just as effectively as those who are older. Saying that this is a trivial problem because it mostly kills older folks is the moral equivalent of dismissing the Holocaust because it mostly killed Jews.

      There were 500 million Christians in Europe in 1940 and Hitler only killed 5 million of them, mostly with “prexisting conditions” like being disabled or gay. Good Germans were safe, so why should they be concerned?

      1. If you are under 1-59, sitting on hold is a waste of time if you have a 99.5% survival rate, however those over 60 may need to sit it out but not those under 60. That is why after the initial shock the human world will move on, the Coronavirus is here to stay, humans are finding new viruses remote in locations everyday (in the process of killing what’s left of the worlds rain forest).

        Currently in the world there several places now were humans are using ethnic cleansing to clean out their so-called indigenous peoples, most places are using the long slow burn method (it never ends).

  6. Italy, Spain, Holland, South Korea, Belgium. 43,734 infected aged 0-59, 197 died 0-59 survival rate was 99.549%, note these were the only countries that listed the ages of the people involved.

    None lost anyone under the aged of 29, except for Spain which lost 5, out of 8,889 people infected, the survival rate was .9994% for those who were under 29, which is very good news for parents.
    (the bubblehead news person probably didn’t mention (Dwell) on that.

    Source Wikipedia Coronavirus coverage (Sun morning 03-29-20)

    1. DEATH rates don’t tell the whole story.
      We should look at hospitalizations and utilizations of ICU beds.

      Reports show that younger people also get sick, some very sick, and they take up hospital space.

      In some places 50% of the hospitalizations are younger people.
      They might survive but they use up beds. And they occupy ventilators etc.

      In some hard hit countries they have to make the hard choice of prioritizing ventilators for younger patients under ‘who can best survive gets the equipment’ triage rules which means that older people who might have survived with ventilators etc died because the equipment went to younger patients.

      That’s one contributing reason why such high death rates among the older people in hard hit regions.

      I’ve not even talked about when beds and ICUs used up what happens to ‘normal’ flu patients, the cancer patients (chemotherapy already cancelled in some places) , accident injuries etc. who now have no space ? Look at the long lines queuing outside hospitals for ‘normal’ heath issues.

      You want when you have a broken leg and no space in ER because it’s filled with younger COVID 19 patients? (Some ER’s have already been partially converted to COVID 19 bed space)

      ALSO, some younger people who survived have PERMANENT DAMAGE to health like lungs.
      They are also not in the death rates you are quoting , but are they happy to have ‘survived’ with permanent health issues resulting ?

      1. In Spain in the age group 0-29 2507 total cases, 377 in hospital only 18 were in ICU, and no deaths.

        Also, in Spain age 0-59 17,351 total treated (75% at home), 4424 (25% in hospital), 363 (2% in ICU) and only 66 (.00380%) dead. Spain was the only country that was completely transparent with their outcomes. Wikipedia source.

        The only thing that counts is whether you live or die (If you get it) and those under 59 are not dying 99% are living.

        However smoking ,vaping, black lung or asbestosis/mining are bigger problems for your lungs and if you have/do any of those things you may have a problem with Coronavirus or the Flu.

        1. You note that 25% of below age 59 are in hospital in Spain. And you consider that is Ok for hospital usage rates? (I suspect in Spain hospitals are so overwhelmed that many younger people who are pretty sick avoid going to hospital)

          As for USA

          “The CDC found that people under the age of 55 accounted for 38% of known hospitalizations nationally from Feb. 12 through March 16.”

          1. Once again the Spanish are more transparent they report whose in the hospital their age and where they are (ICU), recovery, alive or dead, most countries are not bothering if you look at Wikipedia, but South Korea, Italy, Belgium, Holland, and Spain are reporting the most detail, with Spain leading the pack.

            The CDC?

            24% of those who are in the hospital being treated for the Coronavirus, are under 55 in Spain. In Holland 17.9% are under 55. Note the others countries didn’t show that info.

            Better care in single payer systems?

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.