Apple Reports All-Time Quarterly Revenue Records for iPhone, Mac, Wearables, and Services

[jchap]

What I don't understand is how Apple can have "over 1.8 billion active devices worldwide" according to Tim Cook, and still claim that Apple will eventually become "carbon neutral."

The effect of 1.8 billion devices on the environment is undoubtedly staggering. (We are obviously benefitting from it, at least in the short term.)

Maybe Tim means that Apple will give back to the environment as much as they take from it, eventually. The thing is, he could only make that claim in terms of the phases from product planning and development down to sales, the things within Apple's direct control, and possibly including all aspects of manufacturing (which is a huge global scope, when you think about it).

All of the carbon emissions that stem from the actual use of over 1.8 billion devices over the lifespan of each product sold would likely not be a part of his equation, I imagine.

I vividly remember when the audience went wild, at the time the revamped MacBook Air was announced during one of the last Apple live events before the pandemic. The thing that seemed to get huge applause was when they announced that the new MacBook Air (perhaps just the chassis, obviously) would be made of 100% recycled aluminum. It was that kind of enthusiasm towards "having our cake and eating it too" (in terms of owning a product that was also made in an apparently environmentally responsible way) that made me feel that here is a technology company that's actually doing something about the products they make.

What I didn't think of at that time was that no device made today (that I know of), even by Apple is made from 100% recycled materials, within a closed-loop system that produces net zero industrial waste and emissions. The more product you make and sell, the greater the environmental impact.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say now, but just coming back to that claim that Tim Cook made about eventually being "carbon neutral," and how difficult that really is going to be.

 

[Kabeyun]

I don’t think anybody envisioned Apple to be the company that it is today from what it was back then.

I did, lol. Bought AAPL in ‘98.

 

[44267547]

I did, lol. Bought AAPL in ‘98.

Then you clearly had the proper guidance of Apples potential and knew that you were way ‘ahead of the curve’ over most people. I’m not sure what your age is, but I certainly wasn’t old enough to invest in Apple or even understand the magnitude of what that company would’ve become today.

 

[RedGT]

You aren’t required to use Apple services or buy an iPhone. This isn’t the local electric company.

It’s like getting mad at Disney for only selling Disney content. Vertical integration is a completely legal and normal thing all companies try to do. None do it better than Apple.

Isn’t that why people like buying apple stuff….it’s all conveniently just there for you, no need to go looking if you’re that way inclined.

 

[Kabeyun]

Then you clearly had the proper guidance of Apples potential and knew that you were way ‘ahead of the curve’ over most people. I’m not sure what your age is, but I certainly wasn’t old enough to invest in Apple or even understand the magnitude of what that company would’ve become today.

Heh, I was being a little cheeky. I just knew Apple was better. Didn’t need to be a market sage to know that after the iMac hit. What Apple was doing and what NeXT had done was leagues ahead of the IBM/MS consumer world. Same for Tesla after their IPO. I’m no savvy investor but I know a better mousetrap when I see it.

 

[Jupeman]

I did, lol. Bought AAPL in ‘98.

I did, too, just not enough!

 

[TallManNY]

What I don't understand is how Apple can have "over 1.8 billion active devices worldwide" according to Tim Cook, and still claim that Apple will eventually become "carbon neutral."

The effect of 1.8 billion devices on the environment is undoubtedly staggering. (We are obviously benefitting from it, at least in the short term.)

Maybe Tim means that Apple will give back to the environment as much as they take from it, eventually. The thing is, he could only make that claim in terms of the phases from product planning and development down to sales, the things within Apple's direct control, and possibly including all aspects of manufacturing (which is a huge global scope, when you think about it).

All of the carbon emissions that stem from the actual use of over 1.8 billion devices over the lifespan of each product sold would likely not be a part of his equation, I imagine.

I vividly remember when the audience went wild, at the time the revamped MacBook Air was announced during one of the last Apple live events before the pandemic. The thing that seemed to get huge applause was when they announced that the new MacBook Air (perhaps just the chassis, obviously) would be made of 100% recycled aluminum. It was that kind of enthusiasm towards "having our cake and eating it too" (in terms of owning a product that was also made in an apparently environmentally responsible way) that made me feel that here is a technology company that's actually doing something about the products they make.

What I didn't think of at that time was that no device made today (that I know of), even by Apple is made from 100% recycled materials, within a closed-loop system that produces net zero industrial waste and emissions. The more product you make and sell, the greater the environmental impact.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say now, but just coming back to that claim that Tim Cook made about eventually being "carbon neutral," and how difficult that really is going to be.

These are all fair points, but I think you need to recognize scale. Yes, 1.8 billion devices is a lot. But try this experiment sometime this week. Take your trash for the week out to the curb. Look at the bags of garbage. One week. Then take your iPhone out of your pocket and look at that. Phone is good for about five years if not broken. Then look back at the bags of garbage in front of you. Try to picture how many iPhones would fit into those bags of garbage. Alternatively, think about what fives years worth of those bags of garbage would look like and imagine your iPhone next to that mound.

Apple does some nice stuff with recycling and green energy, but recycling has never been something that would have any impact on the world. The stuff Apple makes is just too small and lasts a long time. As for the electricity, Apple sources green energy and is requiring its manufacturers to source green energy. Yeah, there is nothing Apple can do about how we charge up our phones. But honestly, that amount of electricity is meaningless. Portable devices sip electricity. And almost all of those 1.8 billion devices are either iPhones or iPads. And even the Apple Laptops really don't use much electricity.

 

[fathergll]

In 1997, Michael Dell said he'd shut down Apple and give the money back to the shareholders. Apple's Mac revenue, for just this one quarter, now exceeds Dell's entire revenue in 1997.

It was a junk stock at that time. If you invested $20,000 in Apple in 1993 it would have been worth under $5,000 in 1997. Now if you held that long enough well.....

 

[Abazigal]

What I don't understand is how Apple can have "over 1.8 billion active devices worldwide" according to Tim Cook, and still claim that Apple will eventually become "carbon neutral."

The effect of 1.8 billion devices on the environment is undoubtedly staggering. (We are obviously benefitting from it, at least in the short term.)

Maybe Tim means that Apple will give back to the environment as much as they take from it, eventually. The thing is, he could only make that claim in terms of the phases from product planning and development down to sales, the things within Apple's direct control, and possibly including all aspects of manufacturing (which is a huge global scope, when you think about it).

All of the carbon emissions that stem from the actual use of over 1.8 billion devices over the lifespan of each product sold would likely not be a part of his equation, I imagine.

I vividly remember when the audience went wild, at the time the revamped MacBook Air was announced during one of the last Apple live events before the pandemic. The thing that seemed to get huge applause was when they announced that the new MacBook Air (perhaps just the chassis, obviously) would be made of 100% recycled aluminum. It was that kind of enthusiasm towards "having our cake and eating it too" (in terms of owning a product that was also made in an apparently environmentally responsible way) that made me feel that here is a technology company that's actually doing something about the products they make.

What I didn't think of at that time was that no device made today (that I know of), even by Apple is made from 100% recycled materials, within a closed-loop system that produces net zero industrial waste and emissions. The more product you make and sell, the greater the environmental impact.

I'm not sure what I'm trying to say now, but just coming back to that claim that Tim Cook made about eventually being "carbon neutral," and how difficult that really is going to be.

Well, Apple devices are typically more power efficient than their android / windows alternatives (remember the other thread about how an Intel chip narrowly beats out the M1 pro chip while consuming like way more power?). So in the very least, 1.8 billion Apple devices should consume less electricity in totality than 1.8 billion android handsets and / or windows PCs.

Not to mention that iOS devices tend to get supported longer, which means they stay in use longer. While lasting longer, being more easily recycled, and repairable as well.

It’s not like there are magically going to be 1.8 billion fewer devices in use had Apple not existed.

 

[dyfsak2]

Now for a bit of reality:
iPads' market share in 2013 was 80%, now it is 34%
iPhones' market share in 2014 was 40%, now it is 15%
MacBooks' and iMacs' market share remain at 7-8% (even after M1 chip)
ChromeOS has a larger market share than MacOS (11% vs 8%), both are far behind Windows (80%)

 

[dyfsak2]

Well, Apple devices are typically more power efficient than their android / windows alternatives (remember the other thread about how an Intel chip narrowly beats out the M1 pro chip while consuming like way more power?). So in the very least, 1.8 billion Apple devices should consume less electricity in totality than 1.8 billion android handsets and / or windows PCs.

Not to mention that iOS devices tend to get supported longer, which means they stay in use longer. While lasting longer, being more easily recycled, and repairable as well.

It’s not like there are magically going to be 1.8 billion fewer devices in use had Apple not existed.

Now for some actual facts...Apple is losing market share with tablets (down from 80% to 34% in 8 years), smartphones (down from 40% to 15% in 7 years), and MacOS (8% which is behind ChromeOS' 11%). Further, both MacBooks and iMacs only have 7-8% market share. Thank God for US protectionism against China, and China's open market for Apple products.....

 

[dyfsak2]

.....

 

[Abazigal]

Now for some actual facts...Apple is losing market share with tablets (down from 80% to 34% in 8 years), smartphones (down from 40% to 15% in 7 years), and MacOS (8% which is behind ChromeOS' 11%). Further, both MacBooks and iMacs only have 7-8% market share. Thank God for US protectionism against China, and China's open market for Apple products.....

Market share isn’t really as relevant as usage share. For example, how much profit do those devices generate in their respective markets, how many transactions pass through these devices, the ecosystem support etc…

I wouldn’t lose sleep over it.

 

[jchap]

Apple does some nice stuff with recycling and green energy, but recycling has never been something that would have any impact on the world. The stuff Apple makes is just too small and lasts a long time. As for the electricity, Apple sources green energy and is requiring its manufacturers to source green energy. Yeah, there is nothing Apple can do about how we charge up our phones. But honestly, that amount of electricity is meaningless. Portable devices sip electricity. And almost all of those 1.8 billion devices are either iPhones or iPads. And even the Apple Laptops really don't use much electricity.

Interesting points. I was also thinking in terms of the energy it requires to actually manufacture and sell those devices. I'd agree that devices likely use less electricity now than their past counterparts.

 

[TallManNY]

Interesting points. I was also thinking in terms of the energy it requires to actually manufacture and sell those devices. I'd agree that devices likely use less electricity now than their past counterparts.

The portable devices use almost nothing in comparison to other uses of electricity. For example, charging a Tesla car once would be something like the equivalent of charging your iPhone 1,500 times (I SWAGed that number and it is almost certain wrong, but I think it is in the right basic order of magnitude). Your home refrigerator will pull use vastly more electricity in a month than all your portable devices in a year (also a SWAG, but I think I'm right). I'm sure the manufacturing and delivery of an iPhone uses more electricity than charging it daily over the course of a year. So Apple is focusing on making sure that all of its electricity use either comes from green energy or is offset by green energy put onto the grid (Apple achieved this several years ago, I believe). And is now making sure that its suppliers do the same.