If what Apple is doing is considered low standards, I don’t know what this makes of the android OEMs, who lack even the most basic of ecosystems to call their own.
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 Reports 2Q 2019 Results: $11.56B Profit on $58B Revenue as Services Revenue Hits All-Time High
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
If what Apple is doing is considered low standards, I don’t know what this makes of the android OEMs, who lack even the most basic of ecosystems to call their own.
I like them switching their focus - these are the things other companies failed to do before it got too late. It's a relief as a Mac user - want them here for the long haul!
Cook reported that the Apple base of devices grew to 1.48 billion. The decrease in iPhone sales on a quarterly basis is likely being offset by iPhones lasting longer (those 6s iPhones that had their battery replaced are going to be around a long time).
Huawei sold a lot of phones, but nothing was murdered.
They don’t compete in that space, so they have exactly zero market share. Indeed, everyone can rightfully say they’re not a competitor in cloud compute lol.
They are cutting back on outside expenditures though, as they continue to build out their own data centers. Maybe they got fed up with outages, or perhaps it’s just too expensive and they can save money by bringing it in house.
Either way, their internal capabilities are apparently quite extensive, as they’ve reportedly slashed their AWS spending by more than $400 million/year. Their google spend is also down, supposedly due to some incompetence on Google’s part that disrupted iCloud services. Sometimes, if you want something done right...
Of course, if Apple perceives the market is too commoditized, they won’t enter as a service provider. Why get into a price war with Amazon/Google/Microsoft/et al; that wouldn’t make any sense at all. They could just continue to keep it in-house as a competitive advantage instead.
But if they can offer something unique that would give customers a compelling reason to choose an Apple offering over others’, there’s certainly no reason they couldn’t productize it. They could definitely bring millions of low-power CPU/GPU/NPU cores to the table; they’re already doing upwards of a billion or more of each of those every year, just with their current silicon.
They’ve stayed closed mouth on any future plans as of yet; given the recent debacle of AirPower, they may walk the walk before they ever talk the talk... who knows ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I believe Apple would want to bring it in house because they have a lot of cash, they want more control over everything, and they believe they have the infrastructure to support it long term which in turn makes it cheaper for them. I don’t see them ever being a 3rd party cloud computing service not because of pricing wars, but because they have historically done very poorly at competing against open platforms.
GCP/AWS/Azure already has years of open platform development done whereas Apple would be starting from near zero. Supporting internal cloud computing is simple vs external cloud computing.
[doublepost=1556798800][/doublepost]
If what Apple is doing is considered low standards, I don’t know what this makes of the android OEMs, who lack even the most basic of ecosystems to call their own.
You are happy with the current Mac ecosystem? The same one that people develop your beloved iPad / MacOS apps?
Since you don’t contribute to the Apple ecosystem (or any ecosystem) other than just being a user, I can see why you feel this way.
what are you talking about? Are you confused with calendar quarters and Apple's fiscal quarters.
Jan 2019- Mar 2019 is Calendar Q1
Jan 2019 - Mar 2019 is Apple's Fiscal Q2
You aren’t happy with the ecosystem. Calling his iPad “beloved” is really condescending, but hey this is internet. Aren’t we all users, except those who are also developers? As users, we use and buy apps and services. How does one “contribute” to an ecosystem?
More than happy that’s why I keep buying apple products, regardless of the increase in prices. And judging by the last earnings report, I am far from alone, much to the dismay of apple haters everywhere.
You can’t have an ecosystem without any users. That’s just weird logic. Users contribute by using the ecosystem and purchasing apps thereby supporting app developers and growing the ecosystem.
Why would an app developer support an ecosystem without any users.
My 5k imac is working well for me. I understand the MacBook Pro’s have keyboard issues, but I don’t own one, and haven’t had to use a MacBook in years (I think I have a 2012 MBA lying in a drawer somewhere).
My stance is and always has been that I view the current state of the mac as a necessary sacrifice in order for Apple to have grown their mobile and wearables segments to where they are today.
If we go back to the grand theory of Apple, then you will understand why the Mac is receiving the amount of attention it has from Apple. The Mac does not represent the future at Apple and if you want to go there, then the only real reason for it still sticking around is so developers can create apps for iOS devices.
And if you want to draw the line between creators and consumers (ie: people who develop apps vs people who use them), then I guess that yeah, maybe using a Mac does suck in this current day and age (for the reasons you stated and then some).
And while I can’t make the experience of using your Mac any less crappy, I will do my best to make it still worth your while financially so long as you all continue to support the iOS App Store ecosystem. For example, when Apollo and Launch Centre Pro were updated last year, I paid for full access right away (which roughly worked out to about 2.5 to 3 years worth of annual subscriptions), even though I ended up not really using LCP all that much (I do use Apollo to browse Reddit daily though).
I can still do that little bit much.
"Revenue growth is not the point" - I've heard it all from you now.
You've made hundreds of post here worshipping Tim when Apple reports on revenue growth.
So now all of a sudden when they are guiding for flat growth, it is no longer relevant? Interesting.
It's a point, it's not the point. Apple has a lot of growth and is in a transition period. It's a massive company. The buyback is extremely powerful."Revenue growth is not the point" - I've heard it all from you now.
You've made hundreds of post here worshipping Tim when Apple reports on revenue growth.
So now all of a sudden when they are guiding for flat growth, it is no longer relevant? Interesting.
The problem with you people is you're looking for one answer and you don't understand the business. I do. Why do you think the stock shot up after the report? Because people were worried about y/y top line growth?
1 example: More services revenue = more margin. A $1 of service revenue is worth $2 of hardware revenue in terms of profit. Apple is moving to services. Apple is growing the active installed base.
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2018/4/26/making-the-case-for-doubling-apples-share-buyback-pace
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2019/4/24/apples-400-billion-buyback-program
Neil Cybart makes the case for why share buybacks make sense at Apple. It might not sound as sexy as folding phones, but it does make sense from Apple’s perspective, because their business model is not contingent on having a lot of capital expenditures.
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2019/3/12/apples-declining-capex
It’s really an efficient way of returning excess cash back to the investors. Not to mention that fewer shares outstanding means that Apple pays out less in dividends in the future. It’s actually quite clever when you think about it.
And it ends with this.
![6e6ee42e894d53f03bb5e32bc20ed414.jpg]()
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2019/4/24/apples-400-billion-buyback-program
Neil Cybart makes the case for why share buybacks make sense at Apple. It might not sound as sexy as folding phones, but it does make sense from Apple’s perspective, because their business model is not contingent on having a lot of capital expenditures.
https://www.aboveavalon.com/notes/2019/3/12/apples-declining-capex
It’s really an efficient way of returning excess cash back to the investors. Not to mention that fewer shares outstanding means that Apple pays out less in dividends in the future. It’s actually quite clever when you think about it.
And it ends with this.
This is a funny quote. We should dig up the post(s) when Apple fell, how you said you were wrong. Apparently understanding the business entails you can be both right and wrong. That must mean everyone understands the business
Just for the record, stocks shoot up for all sorts of reasons even if it was negative news spun in a positive light.
[doublepost=1556843380][/doublepost]
Please also tell that to the software devs that use the Mac for creating software that is consumed as a service as well. You have a narrow perception of technology companies from the outside
I was wrong for that quarter in China only and didn’t sell my shares for the bigger picture. I have no problem admitting I’m wrong the when I am, but I didn’t sell my shares like many did only to watch the stock recover.
When I sell my shares, I’ll let you know. I bought more below $150 and more again at $170. I’ll be adding again under $200.
The bigger story can’t be stopped. China or iPhone or whatever story will be hot one or two quarters, but the overall picture hasn’t changed. That’s the point.
I have more money at stake than you’d probably believe, so I have to know what I’m talking about or I’m going to lose money. When the facts change, so will I.
The problem with you, is that you are not willing to look at issues objectively. Your argument isn't backed by facts.
Apple's own revenue guidance is indicating zero revenue growth YOY. Is it that hard to understand?
More "service revenue = more margin", really? So why is the gross margin guidance going down YOY?
Last year I've said that Apple's strategy isn't sustainable. You slammed me (and many others) for holding this view.
Just a couple of months later, Apple revised their guidance. And I am the one who doesn't understand the business?
It's ok, one baby step at a time.
[doublepost=1557108034][/doublepost]
According to that person;
When Apple share goes down = Because Apple share is one of the most manipulated share of all time.
When Apple share goes up = Tim you are doing a good job!
Last edited:
Tim Cook’s accomplishments are summed up in One number. $700B in shareholder value created. FACT. Say what you want, but he’s been an EXCELLENT CEO, if only for that reason.The problem with you, is that you are not willing to look at issues objectively. Your argument isn't backed by facts.
Apple's own revenue guidance is indicating zero revenue growth YOY. Is it that hard to understand?
More "service revenue = more margin", really? So why is the gross margin guidance going down YOY?
Last year I've said that Apple's strategy isn't sustainable. You slammed me (and many others) for holding this view.
Just a couple of months later, Apple revised their guidance. And I am the one who doesn't understand the business?
It's ok, one baby step at a time.
[doublepost=1557108034][/doublepost]
According to that person;
When Apple share goes down = Because Apple share is one of the most manipulated share of all time.
When Apple share goes up = Tim you are doing a good job!
Among many things normal people miss, the buyback is the biggest. That is the single most powerful reason the stock will work. The buyback. It’s massive. Warren Buffett understands this, so he owns 254M shares.
Let’s keep watching the stock. I already told you, revenue growth doesn’t have to be huge for the stock to work. You have to see the forest through the trees.
I am not caught up in y/y margins. I know the margin for services is 68% and hardware is 31%. So yeah, more services revenue is more profitable. The market understands this now, which is why the stock is up after the report. All kinds of stuff goes into margins at different quarters, but I know services are more profitable. That’s a long term thesis.
Apple is moving to services, active devices are growing, and there are several growth businesses in the company. The total revenue growth is iPhone driven, so you can’t only focus on that piece. It’s declining, sure. Everyone knows that, which is why the stock wasn’t hit. But you have to see the movement of the company to growth areas. No one is surprised iPhone is down. It’s on an incredibly tough compare due to the huge success of iPhone X.
Those customers aren’t switching and will buy another iPhone sooner or later.
Last edited:
I see a lot of opinion from what you've said. Where are your FACTS & DATA? (You say this to slam a lot of people in here, so does this sound familiar?)
Again, Apple's YOY guidance says 2 things;
1- YOY Revenue growth is (almost) nil.
2- YOY Gross Margin is heading down, not up.
These are FACTS - from Apple.
You're just ignoring my facts and restating your own, so we are done. I never disputed the 2 things you mentioned.
Your facts? Where?
The world would be a better place if people aren't bias and willing to consider facts from both side of the table.
Last edited: