9to5Mac58%

Second report says Apple posted its strongest-ever Q2 for iPhone shipments - 9to5Mac 39%

By Marcus Mendes29%

7/13/2026, 3:56:21 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 15 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, Negativity Bias, and Pessimism Bias, with Confirmation Bias as the most egregious example at 19.2% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 539 faulty-reasoning hits from 401 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 44.6% and a BS Rank of 39% (13,386 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 61.20% of the article peer group.

Adding to an earlier report from Counterpoint Research that showed Apple posting its strongest-ever second quarter for iPhone shipments, Omdia has now published its own figures pointing to the same record performance. 
Here are the details. 
Omdia warns sharper declines are still ahead 
Earlier today, we covered a Counterpoint Research report that showed preliminary data for worldwide smartphone shipments for the second quarter of 2026. 
In its report, Counterpoint said Samsung led the market with a 24% shipment share, up from 20% a year earlier. 
Apple followed with 20%, up from 17%, while Xiaomi fell from 14% to 12%, OPPO from 12% to 11%, and vivo from 9% to 8%. 
Now, a preliminary report from Omdia (via MacMagazine) points to the same overall trend, although its estimates differ slightly. 
Omdia puts Samsung at 22%, up from 20% in Q2 2025, followed by Apple at 20%, up from 16%. 
Xiaomi declined from 15% to 11%, OPPO from 12% to 10%, and vivo from 9% to 8%. 
Here’s Omdia on Apple’s performance for the quarter: 
Apple delivered its best second-quarter performance ever, capturing a record-high 20% market share during what traditionally is its slowest quarter of the year. 
The iPhone 17 series delivered one of the strongest iPhone refresh and upgrade cycles in Apple’s history. 
Apple also benefited from stable pricing while most competitors were forced to raise their pricing. 
However, as Apple raised pricing across other products towards the end of 2Q, a key question remains to what extent iPhones might be impacted by similar hikes later this year. 
Unsurprisingly, Omdia said the ongoing memory crisis contributed to a 4% year-over-year decline in overall shipments, making Q2 2026 the market’s weakest quarter since Q2 2023. 
Omdia also warned that the sharpest shipment declines are still to come: 
We anticipate the sharpest volume declines to hit in the upcoming two quarters, where normal seasonal demand peaks  driven by new launches, holidays and shopping festivals  collide with constrained memory chip supply. 
To read Omdia’s full report, follow this link. 
Worth checking out on Amazon 
* Geoffrey Cain  ‘Steve Jobs in Exile’ 
* David Pogue  ’Apple: The First 50 Years’ 
* MacBook Neo 
* Logitech MX Master 4 
* AirPods Pro 3 
* AirTag (2nd Generation)  4 Pack 
* Apple Watch Series 11 
* Wireless CarPlay adapter 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.2%Marcus Mendes: 2.3%9to5Mac: 2.7%Confirmation Bias19.2%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.2%9to5Mac: 2.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 9.2%Marcus Mendes: 2.6%9to5Mac: 2.8%Availability Heuristic9.2%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.8%9to5Mac: 2.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Marcus Mendes: 5.2%9to5Mac: 5.3%Framing Effect7.5%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.7%9to5Mac: 3.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 10.2%Marcus Mendes: 1.1%9to5Mac: 1.9%Pessimism Bias10.2%This article: 11.2%Marcus Mendes: 3.3%9to5Mac: 4.6%Negativity Bias11.2%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.5%9to5Mac: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.7%Marcus Mendes: 3.7%9to5Mac: 3.5%Halo Effect5.7%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 8.7%Marcus Mendes: 1.8%9to5Mac: 1.8%Recency Bias8.7%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.7%Marcus Mendes: 3.0%9to5Mac: 3.6%Appeal to Authority7.7%This article: 7.5%Marcus Mendes: 1.0%9to5Mac: 1.4%False Dilemma7.5%This article: 10.2%Marcus Mendes: 0.7%9to5Mac: 0.6%Slippery Slope10.2%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.2%9to5Mac: 4.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 1.6%9to5Mac: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 10.2%Marcus Mendes: 1.8%9to5Mac: 1.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)10.2%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 2.2%9to5Mac: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.2%Marcus Mendes: 1.7%9to5Mac: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.2%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.3%9to5Mac: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.2%9to5Mac: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.7%Marcus Mendes: 2.6%9to5Mac: 2.4%Unattributed Quote1.7%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.4%9to5Mac: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 6.5%Marcus Mendes: 4.0%9to5Mac: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice6.5%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.5%9to5Mac: 2.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.1%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marcus Mendes: 0.0%9to5Mac: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.5%Marcus Mendes: 11.5%9to5Mac: 15.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.5%

401 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers38%attributed speech248writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageOmdia • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageCounterpoint Research • 20 words • 0.0% coverageCounterpoint Research • 25 words • 0.0% coverageOmdia • 19 words • 0.0% coverageOmdia • 19 words • 0.0% coverageOmdia • 17 words • 0.0% coverageOmdia • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageOmdia • 26 words • 100.0% coverageOmdia • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Omdia

67%flagged-word coverage
108 attributed words71% of attributed speech98% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Biased Writer Voice+24.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Omdia: 24.1%24.1%Attempt to Sell a Product -23.4 ptsWriter: 23.4%Omdia: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote+6.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Omdia: 6.5%6.5%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.