Apple Reports 3Q 2025 Results: $23.4B Profit on $94B Revenue

[Chazak]

And yet the stock continues to be a surprisingly poor investment. Stock price relatively flat and quite low dividends. One has to wonder where all the cash is going, as investors are certainly not getting rich.

You have a very, very short term lens. Investors should have long term views. Traders have very short term views.

Apple has issues right now. They are seemingly working to resolve and adapt their strategic path forward. What is more important is future projections and prospects. Also, the quarter's results clearly indicate they are doing better than expected.

Have read their balance sheet? Their P/L or cash flow analysis? Have you analyzed the current environment and regulatory issues they face? Most of which, aside from poor performance in AI, are not of their making? Do you expect the stock will always go up from month-to-month or even year-to-year

 

[CATiNTHESTORE]

Lovely to see so many AI bot’s supporters)

 

[The Game 161]

And this is why Tim will only go when he decides to

 

[Chazak]

I know if I had $23B in profit in 3 months that I'd be damn sure I had the best of the best creative engineers with new visions. Apple has the profit but not the new visions. We, me and I suspect you, are mere peons just getting by saving up to by Apple's overpriced gadgets so I just don't have the motivation to come up with a vision. Nor should anyone like me.

I am very glad Apple is not run by people who such myopic thinking. I also doubt you have a financial/economic/strategic planning background that would help you understand more about how a very large company or industry is run and their processes. Learning how to read the financial statements would also help your education.

None of us have much of an idea what is going on in their R&D. I am sure most of us would be quite surprised at the things in the incubation stage. No matter how good your engineers and design people are it can take years to even figure out if an idea can yield a viable product let alone bring it to market, especially if it requires technology even invented yet let alone perfected enough to be in a consumer product.

 

[Rand@!!]

The M-series processors are the most innovative and revolutionary consumer-grade processors that have hit the market in the 30ish years I've been paying attention. I'd much rather have that kind of innovation than constant new half-baked gadgets.

You must be awfully new to the game and having not paid much attention elsewhere! The original Zen, Thunderbird, ClawHammer, SledgeHammer were all much more revolutionary than Mx chips. If anything it is just an evolution of Ax based mobile chips.

 

[ginkobiloba]

The M-series processors are the most innovative and revolutionary consumer-grade processors that have hit the market in the 30ish years I've been paying attention. I'd much rather have that kind of innovation than constant new half-baked gadgets.

It’s not as flashy, that’s why its impact is underestimated, but the M-processors are to me to most exciting thing Apple made since the iPhone/iPad.

 

[ginkobiloba]

One thing these results tell me is that there is still an area where Apple still has absolutely massive margins for growth : the good old Mac. Their share of the computer market is what, around 14% compared to Windows ? There’s huge space to expand. They need an even cheaper Macbook entry line for the masses, and solidify their high-end line-up for the pro market ( the Mac Studio was a great move )

 

[123123123]

You must be awfully new to the game and having not paid much attention elsewhere! The original Zen, Thunderbird, ClawHammer, SledgeHammer were all much more revolutionary than Mx chips. If anything it is just an evolution of Ax based mobile chips.

I remember when a 200 MHz Pentium was the gold standard and MMX extensions were new, so…you’re wrong there. The M-series processors have an amazing performance/efficiency balance. Getting the performance out of the M1 with the minuscule power and thermal limitations it required was an astounding achievement. Zen is nice, and Clawhammer was fast but a thermal nightmare, like most of AMD’s offerings in that period. The M-series chips gave us notebooks with 12+ hours of battery life and great performance in a 3-pound system without a fan, while simultaneously being able to scale up to excellent desktop performance. The architectures you mentioned were incremental improvements in comparison. Fast is nice, fast and cool/efficient is amazing.

 

[123123123]

Whether or not it is passed on in full or partial, it is a tax. The point is valid regardless. I should have said it is collected from the consumer at the time of retail sales. You are correct that it doesn’t meet a strict definition of a sales tax. Ultimately, the consumer pays.

Maybe not a de jure sales tax, but a de facto one.

 

[Rand@!!]

I remember when a 200 MHz Pentium was the gold standard and MMX extensions were new, so…you’re wrong there. The M-series processors have an amazing performance/efficiency balance. Getting the performance out of the M1 with the minuscule power and thermal limitations it required was an astounding achievement. Zen is nice, and Clawhammer was fast but a thermal nightmare, like most of AMD’s offerings in that period. The M-series chips gave us notebooks with 12+ hours of battery life and great performance in a 3-pound system without a fan, while simultaneously being able to scale up to excellent desktop performance. The architectures you mentioned were incremental improvements in comparison. Fast is nice, fast and cool/efficient is amazing.

What has that got to do with being revolutionary? AMD had the first IMC, dual core, MCM and then chiplets - you still think Mx was revolutionary?

 

[123123123]

What has that got to do with being revolutionary? AMD had the first IMC, dual core, MCM and then chiplets - you still think Mx was revolutionary?

Yes, because architectural changes are less important than the end result – fast, cool, energy-efficient processors that far exceeded anything Intel/AMD had in those domains.

As for your first question, it was in response to your silly “You must be awfully new to the game and having not paid much attention elsewhere”.

 

[neomorpheus]

After such a report, are we going to ask for cheaper Macs memory and storage upgrade prices or as typical from us, we will attack the customer that wants to have more reasonable prices?

 

[johannnn]

are we going to ask for cheaper Macs memory and storage upgrade prices or as typical from us

If anything things will be more expensive because of the Trump tax (tariffs)

 

[Rand@!!]

Yes, because architectural changes are less important than the end result – fast, cool, energy-efficient processors that far exceeded anything Intel/AMD had in those domains.

As for your first question, it was in response to your silly “You must be awfully new to the game and having not paid much attention elsewhere”.

That still doesn't answer anything about how the Mx chips - being on the leading edge nodes since forever, AMD being half to 2 nodes behind for their desktop/laptop parts, is suddenly the most revolutionary thing you've seen in 30 years? Also Zen wasn't about architechtecture - the biggest USP was chiplets!

 

[fathergll]

It blows my mind that only iPhones can make this level of revenue. It’s nuts.

It's the reason why Apple renamed from Apple Computer, Inc. to Apple Inc in 2007. Steve saw where the real money was at which was never the OSX computers since Windows owned that world but devices and services because the iPod had more revenue than their laptops 20 years ago. Their is always a ceiling growth with pro users, it's too niche and costly(support) of a userbase.

 

[lusty]

You have a very, very short term lens. Investors should have long term views. Traders have very short term views.

Apple has issues right now. They are seemingly working to resolve and adapt their strategic path forward. What is more important is future projections and prospects. Also, the quarter's results clearly indicate they are doing better than expected.

Have read their balance sheet? Their P/L or cash flow analysis? Have you analyzed the current environment and regulatory issues they face? Most of which, aside from poor performance in AI, are not of their making? Do you expect the stock will always go up from month-to-month or even year-to-year

I don’t have a short term view, I’ve been watching them underperform the market for years. I absolutely agree the company has a warchest, and is in itself stable and protected but that doesn’t help me get rich. Compare to Microsoft who used their own war chest to diversify and grow. The stock and the dividend has drastically outperformed Apple consistently for years.

 

[Abazigal]

It would also appear that the anti-steering injunction has had limited impact on App Store revenue (some people here were initially claiming that more people would abandon itunes billing and switch to third party payment options). It’s still early days though, and it likely won’t influence Apple’s decision to have it overturned (eventually). I will definitely be keeping an eye on any development in this area.

 

[AndreyOrekhov]

The M-series processors are the most innovative and revolutionary consumer-grade processors that have hit the market in the 30ish years I've been paying attention. I'd much rather have that kind of innovation than constant new half-baked gadgets.

M series processors relate only to Macs and iPads. There sales sit flat for 15 years, not growing. All growth was in iPhones and services. That have no relation to innovation in M chips. So, yes, big innovation, no doubt. But no affect from this innovation on sales.

 

[AAPLbuyback]

Tariffs are a sales tax on consumers. In the US case, as far as I know, it shouldn’t increase manufacturing cost directly, but people buying Apple products will eventually pay a Trump Tax.

I know you want to believe that’s true, but you shouldn’t get your tariff information from politically biased sources. It’s not that simple and every case is different.

Tariffs are not simply passed to consumers because companies don’t have infinite pricing power. If I put a 30% tariff on Toyota cars, Toyota cannot simply raise prices 30% or consumers will change their behavior. Companies don’t actually set prices, markets do.

Imagine I’m Toyota and I try to increase my price from $30,000 to $39,000 so my customer “pays the tariff.” What do you think actually happens in the market? Maybe I sell 90% fewer cars and people wait or buy alternative cars. What am I going to do to stay competitive?

They squeeze suppliers, margins, change factory production, bring production to US, innovate, and otherwise adapt to continue selling the car for the price the market decides. Consumers don’t care if there are tariffs because there is competition.

Apple did not increase prices and only reported an $800M impact from tariffs on over $41B in US sales (some are services, so let’s say $30B hardware). This is likely not the total cost of the tariff, so who paid the rest?

 

[mrhick01]

One thing these results tell me is that there is still an area where Apple still has absolutely massive margins for growth : the good old Mac. Their share of the computer market is what, around 14% compared to Windows ? There’s huge space to expand. They need an even cheaper Macbook entry line for the masses, and solidify their high-end line-up for the pro market ( the Mac Studio was a great move )

In revenue, pure dollars and cents, Apple computers as 8.6% of their own revenue, and 14% in the market, represents billions of dollars.

They make more money selling Macs now than they ever have. Bar none.

There are a lot of forum opinions that really don't understand how much Apple makes as a multinational corporation.

 

[Bodhitree]

Considering that 5 billion USD of that per quarter is easy money from Google, I am not surprised they might be a little alarmed at the deal ending. 18.4 billion profit on 94 billion revenue is still healthy though.

 

[BuddyTronic]

Tariffs are a sales tax on consumers. In the US case, as far as I know, it shouldn’t increase manufacturing cost directly, but people buying Apple products will eventually pay a Trump Tax.

Well, here in Canada, we pay GST tax

Goods and services tax

If you’re a corporation like a small business kind of thing or a big one, you can document it and get it rebated somewhat

It’s a pretty neat way for the country to keep track of our GDP among other things

One of the things that I think the USA government recently noticed was that it’s kind of a hidden tariff from from the perspective of the USA

The GST is a disincentive for Canadian citizens to buy things generally speaking, and that would include a lot of of things that come from for example USA.

It’s almost like a tariff

So people can say there’s going to be a new tax perceived in the USA and they’re probably correct. I don’t know. But there have been a lot of hidden taxes and tariffs over the years.

I think the main thing that’s going on right now is a big shake up from globalism and getting back to some things that might even be viewed in the near future to be environmentally friendly For example the restoration of manufacturing in USA could be viewed as something that’s economically and environmentally good

Almost like someone’s trying to make things better again

 

[BuddyTronic]

And yet the stock continues to be a surprisingly poor investment. Stock price relatively flat and quite low dividends. One has to wonder where all the cash is going, as investors are certainly not getting rich.

It’s just a matter of time

I see a lot of my broke friends trying to chase the latest and greatest thing and they ask me what’s the latest crypto stock what’s the latest AI stock? What’s the latest copper electrical transformers stock etc. etc.

They keep chasing all these Mirage ideas and I hope they get lucky and score big

The Apple thing is all hindsight for me to tell you that I’ve been collecting Apple stock since 1993. It’s like wow that’s like a lifetime but yeah I’m 58 years old now and I’ve been holding Apple for many decades and it worked out pretty good for me somehow. lol.

I guess the one thing I agree with you about is the P/E ratio for Apple right now I mean it was like PE 30, which is not something that causes you to dump your entire life savings into it

But when it was PE 10, I was telling people yes you should dump your entire life savings into Apple stock

Are you diversified? I thought that was the stupidest thing ever and I still do. I don’t know what being diversified has ever helped anybody through the last mega crashes on the stock market. Diversification isn’t needed what’s needed is to buy something that is an obvious slam dunk.

I used to say Apple was the biggest company in the world and that’s not true right at the moment it’s like maybe top four

Anyways, if a person bought Apple stock and held it for some time, he could evaluate every couple of years to see if the story has changed or if they still keep on making record, profits and record revenues, kind of thing

If the story changes, yeah, go ahead and sell

The story on Apple hasn’t changed much, but of course my eyes are open

Meanwhile, it’s good. I think I think the company is good. It’s solid. It’s making so much revenue. It’s incredible. It’s hard to go broke when you have like $120 billion in the bank all the time.

 

[lusty]

Meanwhile, it’s good.

If it were good then either the stock growth or the dividends would be working for shareholders. When i compare to Microsoft, for instance, Apple have lagged badly on both for many years. Not only that but Apple itself is less diversified than Microsoft, so far more of a risk with your life savings. If all that wasn’t enough, Apple has more legal battles in more locales, meaning their warchest and their market could be taken from them/you. They’ve lost every battle in the EU and continue to do so, I’d be worried if I had more than a little invested.
I do buy every time Apple crashes hard, it usually bounces back and I often double my money, but consistent growth it certainly isn’t.

 

[123123123]

I know you want to believe that’s true, but you shouldn’t get your tariff information from politically biased sources. It’s not that simple and every case is different.

Tariffs are not simply passed to consumers because companies don’t have infinite pricing power. If I put a 30% tariff on Toyota cars, Toyota cannot simply raise prices 30% or consumers will change their behavior. Companies don’t actually set prices, markets do.

I studied economics, amongst other things – so your assumption is invalid. Tariffs are a government-imposed cost on producers, and all costs eventually affect consumers in some form. It’s a de facto sales tax. Your logic is flawed on the second point. If you raise costs on importers by 30%, domestic producers will also increase prices to increase profit, as their competition at the original price point has just diminished. There’s nothing political about the effect, it’s just economics 101.