XIAOMI(HK:01810) 财联社·2025-09-30 00:35Core Viewpoint - The Xiaomi 17 series is experiencing a disparity in sales performance between the Pro Max and standard versions, leading to concerns about overall sales figures and product structure imbalance [3][12][15]. Sales Performance - The Xiaomi 17 series achieved record sales within the first five minutes of its launch, setting new records for both volume and revenue in the domestic smartphone market [3][7]. - The Pro Max model accounted for over 50% of the sales within the Xiaomi 17 series, while the standard version's sales were significantly lower than expected, with only about 3,000 units sold compared to over 10,000 for the Pro models [8][12]. Market Demand and Supply - There is a strong demand for the Pro and Pro Max models, leading to stock shortages, while the standard version remains in surplus [7][8]. - Consumers are showing a preference for the Pro series due to its enhanced features and only a slight price difference compared to the standard version [8]. Analyst Insights - Analysts predict a potential 20% decrease in the overall shipment of the Xiaomi 17 series, with initial targets set at 10 million units, now expected to fall below 8 million due to underperformance of the standard model [12][15]. - The standard model's poor performance is attributed to stronger-than-expected sales of the iPhone 17 standard version in the Chinese market [12]. Company Response - Xiaomi's executives express confidence that the overall sales of the 17 series will surpass those of the previous 15 series, despite the current challenges [12][15]. - The company plans to introduce a new 1TB version of the standard model to address market demand, which may positively impact sales figures [12]. Public Perception and Controversy - The Xiaomi 17 series has faced criticism regarding its marketing strategies and product naming conventions, with some consumers questioning the brand's originality and confidence [12][14]. - The promotional materials for the Pro series have been criticized for perceived misleading claims, leading to further scrutiny of the brand's communication strategies [12][14].