Apple Reports 4Q 2024 Results: $14.7B Profit on $94.9B Revenue

[krakenrelease]

Except for me, I'm seriously considering a MacBook Air as my next laptop due to the increased RAM, the things I hear about the M chips being so GOOD and because I'm tired of Windows laptops claiming 13+ hours of battery life when in real life, the battery life is more like 5-6 hours.

The Qualcomm Snapdragon laptops are getting those battery life numbers. I'd still prefer a Mac though.

 

[Abazigal]

You're on the correct track, but the article has that Apple had to pay the EU a $10 billion fine. That makes Apple's profits really more like $25 billion. That's still only about 26% net margin overall.

And people still accuse Apple of price gouging.

 

[cflem]

Buy today's dip... wash... rinse... repeat.

 

[dredlew]

AS IF Wintel sales are also not falling?

Dudes, get a grip. Better yet, go price a new laptop from Lenovo or the other two big computer makers.

There are only four brands that now make up most of the small computer market: Lenovo, Dell, HP (fka Compaq), and Apple. They all have roughly equal share globally for laptops and desktops.

The desktop computer market is no longer a growth market. It has not been for many years now.

Apple has use of a computer line because the Mac is still the development environment for iOS and WatchOS (and eventually HomeOS, etc.)

The iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the Apple Watch were all supposed to be halo products to bring more people into the ecosystem. Well, they did indeed. Massive growth in all these categories. All from people that didn’t own Apple products before.

But if you can read the chart, maybe you can figure out which category didn’t grow. This isn’t just in the current market but going back decades. And yes, it’s the Mac that didn’t grow, despite tens of millions of new Apple customers. And I alluded to why that is.

 

[Abazigal]

The iPod, the iPhone, the iPad, the Apple Watch were all supposed to be halo products to bring more people into the ecosystem. Well, they did indeed. Massive growth in all these categories. All from people that didn’t own Apple products before.

But if you can read the chart, maybe you can figure out which category didn’t grow. This isn’t just in the current market but going back decades. And yes, it’s the Mac that didn’t grow, despite tens of millions of new Apple customers. And I alluded to why that is.

I don't think it's due to price as you alluded.

Rather, the challenge is in getting people to upgrade from machines that are still working great for the user. That and many people purchased a new Mac during the pandemic, meaning that a lot of sales was pulled forward. And these users would be good for the next few years.

It's not that Macs are now too expensive, but that they are too good, and simply don't need to be replaced every 2-3 years.

 

[dredlew]

I don't think it's due to price as you alluded.

Rather, the challenge is in getting people to upgrade from machines that are still working great for the user. That and many people purchased a new Mac during the pandemic, meaning that a lot of sales was pulled forward. And these users would be good for the next few years.

It's not that Macs are now too expensive, but that they are too good, and simply don't need to be replaced every 2-3 years.

I’m not sure why you guys keep glossing over the length of time in the chart. It has nothing to do with how long Macs last, the pandemic or any other specific period.

There were literally 100’s of millions of new users added to the Apple ecosystem over decades by way of these halo products but virtually none (in comparison) of these millions of new users have bought a Mac. If they did, you would see a clear growth pattern. There is none, the sales stay flat over time. Meaning, existing users keep buying them, not new users.

What I alluded to may not be the only reason but it certainly is a major factor why Macs are more expensive than the would need to be. For users coming from the Wintel camp, price is a deciding factor.

 

[Abazigal]

What I alluded to may not be the only reason but it certainly is a major factor why Macs are more expensive than the would need to be. For users coming from the Wintel camp, price is a deciding factor.

I don't deny that lowering the prices of Macs will likely lead to more sales.

I also think that Apple is happy where their prices currently are, and they are content selling fewer units at higher margins, if that is what leads to better profits for them.

 

[dredlew]

I don't deny that lowering the prices of Macs will likely lead to more sales.

I also think that Apple is happy where their prices currently are, and they are content selling fewer units at higher margins, if that is what leads to better profits for them.

Yes, that is exactly the problem. Apple has always done that, not just currently. And whether that's actually creating better profits for them is debatable. More sales would lead to more profits, arguably more than fleecing the current users on commodities.

I have no issues with Macs costing more, whether it is for the R&D, the build quality, more seamless hardware & software integration, etc. But I do have an issue with being ripped off on commodities that do not function differently, whether they are used in a Mac or not.

Note that a customer rarely buys a Mac in its standard configuration and expects that configuration to last them for the next 5-10 years. You always need to upgrade (in advance, especially with the M-architecture) if you want that investment to last. And that's where you're getting overcharged for upgrades of basic commodities like memory and storage. That's where my main gripe is.

 

[ghanwani]

Spot the outlier that has stopped growing.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1853842566216601955