Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Expected to Report Highest Revenue in Single Quarter in Company's History

Continuing the confusion over fiscal vs. calendar quarters.

Contrary to MR's earnings graphic, the quarter being reported this week is Fiscal Q1 2018.
 
It will be interesting to see how the price this years iPhone X’s especially if they do a iPhone X Plus, I’m guessing the new iPhone X will be the same price and the X Plus will be around £1,200.
 
Abazigal said:
Nobody is twisting the consumer’s arm and forcing them to buy Apple projects. I think it says a lot when Apple still sells a ton of products despite their higher prices. This shows that for these consumers, there is value in their products commensurate with the higher prices they pay for them.

You get what you pay for. I for one see no shame in this.
Click to expand...

Remind me...what's your sig again?
 
I hope that during the earnings call they will officially announce Apple Pay coming to Poland.
 
ocnitsa said:
Remind me...what's your sig again?
Click to expand...

To be honest, I have been using Tapatalk so much these days that I have forgotten.

Checking...

Ah yes. “A clear conscience is the surest sign of a failing memory.”

The irony.

I still don’t see the relevance here though.
 
vertsix said:
apple is just hoarding cash they should do something world changing with it

like idk finding a cure for cancer
Click to expand...

There's no recurring revenues in cures- just one huge payday, one time. I think that business lesson got learned with the Polio vaccine (1955). The pharma play is to back any cures down to one-a-day treatments... ideally payable by insurance so they are free or near-free to patients... and then keep those treatments running for the rest of the patient's days.

Sad but true. We need some kind of artificial incentive bigger than can be made on long-term treatment revenues to drive cures again.

Yes, one might see conspiracy theory all over the place here but think about how much power has been developed in the years since the polio "cure" in research tools. And how many international, fairly mainstream diseases like polio have been cured in all that time? With all the computing power, all the medial lab advances, all the knowledge of how we work, all the DNA knowledge gains, have we not been able to cure even ONE major in all that time? Why not?

And yes, that could still imply conspiracy theory- maybe it's just spectacularly difficult to actually cure anything in spite of the medical/technology/research/tools/pharma advancements. OR, there's just soooooo much money in one-a-day treatments. With all the profit in diseases & treatments, could someone even actually bring a bona-fide cure to market?
 
Last edited:
Act3 said:
still a possibility, the revenue goes up every year. This year they offered three "new" models.
Click to expand...

No, it's 100% not possible that it is a "failure" with the amount of revenue it will bring in. Either way, it contributed to record earnings (most likely). I am sure Apple wants the X to sell well, but they ultimately just want people to keep buying iPhone's. That's why they gave choices this year and it looks like it will pay off for them.
 
UL2RA said:
Double what, exactly? The X isn't double anything compared to any other comparable flagship, so this comment really needs to die. And inferior is entirely your opinion. Do I think it's a bit pricey? Of course. But these exaggerations aren't helping anything.
Click to expand...
Applauding more profits and price hikes are helping you mean?
 
HJM.NL said:
Applauding more profits and price hikes are helping you mean?
Click to expand...
I'm not a fan of the price hikes at all. Was just pointing out people's exaggerations. If the price stays the same this year, I'll probably be going back to Android again.
 
Chupa Chupa said:
But it didn’t start at $599. That was the subsidized price. The actual cost was hundreds more. Phones are not subsidized anymore so the price tag consumers see is more.
Click to expand...
No sir, you got it wrong. The subsidized price of the iPhone 4 was $199 and $299 for the 16GB and 32GB model respectively. $599 was the off-contract price for 16GB.
 
HJM.NL said:
Only fools pay double to have an inferior product with an :apple: on it :cool:
Click to expand...

In what way is the iPhone X inferior? I can help you with that it isn’t! It’s by far the best iPhone yet! Also if you don’t want to pay that amount of money that’s absolutely fine you don’t have to but don’t sit in judgment on those of us who have done so!
 
The stock has slumped a bit in the past week. I picked up some shares at $178, and then $170 (which I thought was a steal), but now it's down around $165. I'm moving some more money into my IRA so I can grab a few more shares while we're in doom and gloom mode. :p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave245
Freida said:
What technology? iPhone 4 back in the day was as relevant as iPhone X is now. Paying almost double is not justified in anyway.
Click to expand...

That's not for you to make a definitive statement telling someone what is not justified based off what somebody else find value in over your own opinion. The User will make the justification in what they find value in, your opinion on the matter is not a one-size-fits-all for everybody else's preferences.

Freida said:
Most people need decent storage and good camera on their iPhones and those are priced very similar now as in 2010 so what technology are you talking about? OLED? Please, that is minimal. Force touch? Gimmick. FaceID? Please, touchID was much better.
Click to expand...

Again, you're making more assertions based on your own disapproval on where the iPhone is today from where it was seven years ago. You're saying touch ID is better, others may disagree with you saying Face ID is better. It's All one subjective stance. But you can't force your narrative on someone else because you don't agree with the price point and what the iPhone offers today.

Also, you interjected OLED being minimal, I never mentioned the display at all. And then you go on to assert that 3D Touch is a "Gimmick". There Again, another assertion that you're saying something that you don't agree with what others might find useful. That doesn't mean that's not an advancement in technology, when in fact it is.

What about augmented reality? Is that something that's not considered an advancement and where it's going to eventually lead to beyond its infancy?

Freida said:
I would rather have iPhone 4 style technology and price in today's term than iPhone X with its technology & price..
Click to expand...

And this is exactly what I have been saying along in this discussion, you want to remain in the times where the iPhone 4 was and you don't like or approve of where the iPhone is today. But that doesn't mean that technology has not advanced because you don't agree with the price point, "Gimmicks", or form factor. You're choosing an iPhone preferences based on your opinion, not on fact.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dave245
apple_iBoy said:
The stock has slumped a bit in the past week. I picked up some shares at $178, and then $170 (which I thought was a steal), but now it's down around $165. I'm moving some more money into my IRA so I can grab a few more shares while we're in doom and gloom mode. :p
Click to expand...

That's definition of 'catching a falling knife'.
 
  • Like
Reactions: IJ Reilly
Freida said:
What technology? iPhone 4 back in the day was as relevant as iPhone X is now. Paying almost double is not justified in anyway.
Most people need decent storage and good camera on their iPhones and those are priced very similar now as in 2010 so what technology are you talking about? OLED? Please, that is minimal. Force touch? Gimmick. FaceID? Please, touchID was much better.

I would rather have iPhone 4 style technology and price in today's term than iPhone X with its technology & price.
Back in 2010 all you needed was £500 and you would buy the latest iPhone! Now, you can't buy anything with £500.
Click to expand...

That was then. Today, smartphone technology is maturing, and Apple has to invest ever-increasing amount of resources for very incremental improvements.

It’s no longer enough to just go from 12 mp to 21 mp in a camera and call it a day. Software is the key differentiator here and I imagine Apple must have spent a ton of manpower and money to develop the dual-camera system and implement it the way they did. To you, it may be just one of many new features in iOS. To them, it may well be the culmination of many years of R&D.

I suspect that’s why we don’t see more features like force touch appear in the competition. These features are dependent on controlling both hardware and software and having strong developer support and outside of Apple and maybe google, I don’t think anyone wields this much control over their ecosystem.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 44267547 and NOV
$88B total
Services up - this is the rising star in my opinion
Other up - steady gradual incline
Mac flat - macs have significantly increased/decreased in a long time. 5.3 Million give or take.
iPad down - it is what it is. Maybe that cheaper model boosted holiday sales. Maybe not.

I can be an analyst too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back