Are you insane or just trolling? AMZN and NFLX could be argued as bubbles. Apple’s profitability and multiple makes it incredibly cheap relative to the average company in the s&p 500. I suspect you’re just trolling because you are utterly clueless.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
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
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
While Apple will be posting record earnings, the real pain will be felt by the Apple long term loyalist who continue to endorse Apple products especially iPhones.
More people jump out of iOS ecosystem more expensive the cost of future iphones (with reduced sales, yet record profits). The burden of bank rolling Apple Profits will be left to its loyal committed user base.
It is possible Android folks across the aisle would love see this
More people jump out of iOS ecosystem more expensive the cost of future iphones (with reduced sales, yet record profits). The burden of bank rolling Apple Profits will be left to its loyal committed user base.
It is possible Android folks across the aisle would love see this
Incorrect and speculative analysis with zero factual evidence supporting the position.
The facts are Apple will sell the most iPhones ever this quarter and projected the most ever in 2018. People are willing to pay more for smartphones today and that includes iPhones and the nearly $1,000 Note and Pixel 2XL.
People don’t look at total cost. They look at monthly payments, just like cars. Keep dreaming and we will keep looking at th facts. Absolutely nothing you’ve said is playing out in reality.
Are they?
In 2016, I bought an iPad Pro, Apple Pencil, Apple Watch and Airpods because to me, they were innovative products which I have legitimate use for. And using them meaningfully every day I am.
Of course, to someone else who has an axe to grind with Apple, I am probably some sheep with too much money to burn, because they are totally incapable and unwilling to accept that just because a product is perceived to be of little value to them, doesn’t necessarily mean it’s equally worthless to everyone.
So when Apple reports record sales and profits, of course it *must* be because of the sheep buying their products. Because there are just hundreds of millions of people around the world just chomping at the bit to throw their hard-earned money at Apple, right?
I mean... what other explanation could there possibly be?
You only see the microcosm - that makes you the clueless one and the troll.
The spike is the Holiday quarter. (Apple's Q1)
Apple make more revenue during October-December than any of the other three quarters.
So the correct phrasing is "each year has a spike... and it's in the Holiday quarter"
Wait where are the facts that Apple will sell the most iPhones this quarter?
Making a statement and stating it's a fact does not make it a fact as far as I know.
I think you misunderstand what he's calling a bubble.
iPhone currently relies on 3% of the entire world population buying an iPhone every year (approx 240 million iPhones a year). If people on average keep their phone 2 years, 6% of the world needs to be regular iPhone purchasers. Considering half the world's population makes less in a year than the iPhone costs it is amazing that Apple is able to sell so many phones.
The bubble is that it simply not sustainable that people will continue to buy $1000 phones at that rate. You understand the reasons; tech plateau, rising prices, some other company doing to Apple what Apple did to Blackberry. You may not agree with them, but you know what they are so there's no point rehashing them now.
The point though is that iPhone is a consumer product, not a company and at 10 years old it's a fairly new product. The world is becoming saturated with iPhones that are "almost" as good as the latest and it's hard to justify spending $1000 on 2 years worth of changes.
It also had a 3.5" screen vs a 5.8" screen of the iPhone X. And 16 GB instead 64 GB of storage. And a battery capacity that was half of that of the iPhone X. The display (including its sensors), the battery, the cover glass, the metal frame, all got physically larger in a significant way, that all add costs.
Also going from three to two storage tiers (as happened between 2016 and 2017) while keeping the top tier the same, means the entry level tier had to go up somewhat as well. Note also that the cheapest iPhone in the 2010 lineup was $450, now the cheapest is $350. Apple has been expanding the price envelope in both directions (while keeping the average selling price fairly constant).
https://forums.macrumors.com/thread...o-cell-batteries.2103332/page-9#post-25758370
[doublepost=1517406014][/doublepost]
And for how many years have people predicted that Apple won't be able to keep charging the same (high) prices for iPhones? While at the same time, the average selling price of an iPhone has remained pretty flat.
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.
The relevance is that it's ironic that you said "I for one see no shame in this." and then right below "A clear conscience is the surest sign of a failing memory." That is all.
So basically from 2010 till now the earnings correlate inversely with quality of the software (as measured by stability and number of bugs). Interesting.
Except these are features the competitions already had a couple of years ago, while the iPhone 4 was introducing brand new technology that none of the competition had.
You can't put the entire world's population in the smartphone arena. 4B can't even get consistent electricity....so your 3% number is meaningless. It's meaningless anyway with 1.2B iPhones.
You both have no idea what you're talking about and obviously don't follow the company.
[doublepost=1517409722][/doublepost]
It will be fact tomorrow and no analyst thinks otherwise. You betting under 79M iPhones sold?
Nothing like a generalization along with some hyperbole to attempt to make a false point.
How are you sure it will be fact tomorrow? You do realize that an increase in price will result in an increase in revenue if they sold the same amount of phones as last year right?
So no it is not a fact that they sold more iPhone just because they may have a higher revenue in this qtr.
Where did analyst state how many iPhones they think got sold in the qtr?
Would I bet against them beating their qtr sales record? No. But I don't think they did.
The thing is, when you're talking about innovative in a new model, you look at what they model brought us, not every single model up to it.
Every single thing on your list except wireless charging was available on the 2016 models so the iPhone X doesn't get credit for them. Last year's model with a slightly faster CPU and Wireless charging hardly matches the innovating the iPhone 4 brought.
By your logic, every single product ever made is more innovative than every single product made before it.
By your logic, a 2017 Chevy Aveo is more innovative than the Model T ford. It has seat belts, air bags, onStar, fuel injectors, computerized sensors and actuators. A starter motor, power steering, air conditioning....etc. That's BS, you look at the innovation the new model brings, not everything that occurred between the models.
[doublepost=1517417561][/doublepost]
That is exactly my point. To sustain Apple's stock prices, a huge percentage of the industrialized world has to but a new iPhone every 2 years. With 1.2 Billion phones out there and the tech mature enough that there's not very much difference from model to model anymore, the current rate is simply not sustainable. So many people will not have a reason to keep buying a phone every 2 years. And that assumes nobody comes along to disrupt Apple like Apple did to Blackberry.
And making it worse is Timmy's focus on making the iPhone a fashion brand. It's brought higher profits now, but fashions are fickle. A small screwup from Apple that makes the iPhone less "cool" will hurt them much worse now.
Last edited:
High risk high stakes game being played with hefty price tags with the possible lower number of mobiles. Ex-Burberry exec(sorry, can't spell her name, like tongue twister) is precisely to address this area
Last edited:
Of course what goes up must come down, but maybe not in your timetable. Hopefully Apple hits a trillion valuation before it slides into oblivion.
Apple didn’t really disrupt blackberry as much as blackberry made many fateful decisions, because their management was short-sided.
obviously we don’t and can’t predict the mindset of a consumer. But that cool disruptive phone crafted by a startup could just as easy fade into oblivion.
Tim has not turned iphone into a fashion Company that’s a popular meme. He’s actually giving consumers more choice, which is why Apple has been in a roll recently(IMO).