Apple Reports Record Results: $18.4B Profit on $75.9B in Revenue for Q1 2016 on 74.8M iPhones

Tim Cook doesn't have the vision or drive that Jobs had. Cook is just your average bottom-line CEO type. With Jobs, you could truly see that he was genuinely invested with making amazing products and services. However with Cook, his phony enthusiasm is not very convincing and I highly doubt he's as involved with Jony and his team as Jobs clearly was. Cook is a competent bean counter but that's not the type of person who should be running Apple.

I wouldn't say that.
As far as we know, he delegates a lot of day-to-day work.
Sure, Steve basically checked into Jony's lab probably once a day for half an hour or more - but due to the lower "walls" between the teams, I suspect the products still get a good review before they ship.
And he doesn't seem to be afraid to make decisions (just ask Scott F.). Just less knee-jerk reactions.
Steve Jobs had a lot of those and the people around him had to mitigate and contain a lot of them, if you read the Isaac's biography.

Were there any real, iPhone4-style blunders in the post-jobs world?
 
Just shows that Apple would be almost nothing without their iPhone line. iPad sales are down, no one is buying the watch (yet) and iPods are even more obsolete.

Yes and no. Macintosh, which was virtually the entire business until 2003 when iPod was introduced, has grown fourfold since 2006 in terms of units sold. This is remarkable given that the PC market has been flat for so long. Mac OS X's desktop market share is now nearly 10% of the desktop market. So Mac is a very successful business that has been growing for a decade. Only because Steve Jobs created wholly new businesses which have become nine times bigger than the Apple he took over can Mac look insignificant.
 
...

We'll know next quarter.

We already know. (We don't know that they grew channel inventory for the reason I referred to, it was below their target range entering the quarter so it makes sense that they would have grown it some regardless; but we now know that they did grow channel inventory significantly.)

Mr. Maestro finally gave us a number for iPhone channel inventory growth after avoiding giving one the first two times he touched on the subject. After he didn't give a number in his opening remarks, I kinda suspected the sell-through comparison was worse than the sell-in comparison.

Anyway, they grew channel inventory by 3.3 million. In the year ago quarter channel inventory had shrunk by .2 million. So on a sale-through basis iPhone sales declined by over 3 million.
 
To the Tim Cook has no vision crowd: you do realize Steve Jobs picked him to lead Apple after Steve was gone. Clearly he felt Cook was the right person for the job.

We already know. (We don't know that they grew channel inventory for the reason I referred to, it was below their target range entering the quarter so it makes sense that they would have grown it some regardless; but we now know that they did grow channel inventory significantly.)

Mr. Maestro finally gave us a number for iPhone channel inventory growth after avoiding giving one the first two times he touched on the subject. After he didn't give a number in his opening remarks, I kinda suspected the sell-through comparison was worse than the sell-in comparison.

Anyway, they grew channel inventory by 3.3 million. In the year ago quarter channel inventory had shrunk by .2 million. So on a sale-through basis iPhone sales declined by over 3 million.
But I thought the year ago quarter was supply constrained?
 
I wouldn't say that.
As far as we know, he delegates a lot of day-to-day work.
Sure, Steve basically checked into Jony's lab probably once a day for half an hour or more - but due to the lower "walls" between the teams, I suspect the products still get a good review before they ship.
And he doesn't seem to be afraid to make decisions (just ask Scott F.). Just less knee-jerk reactions.
Steve Jobs had a lot of those and the people around him had to mitigate and contain a lot of them, if you read the Isaac's biography.

Were there any real, iPhone4-style blunders in the post-jobs world?
Firing Scott Forstall was Cook's biggest mistake and it has negatively impacted the quality of Apple's software after he was let go.

Based on some of the recent products we've seen such as: iPad Pro/Apple Pencil, Apple Watch, iPhone 6 Plus and the Retina Macbook not too mention a bunch of the new accessories, Tim Cook comes across as a complete yes man in regards to giving new products his ultimate blessing.
 
To the Tim Cook has no vision crowd: you do realize Steve Jobs picked him to lead Apple after Steve was gone. Clearly he felt Cook was the right person for the job.


But I thought the year ago quarter was supply constrained?

It was, that's part of the point. Sell-through matched (even slightly exceeded) sell-in in the year ago quarter. So while this just passed quarter saw just as much sell-in (plus a little extra), it saw less sell-through. In other words, they weren't able to keep up with demand in the year ago quarter. But in this just passed quarter they were, at least by the end of it. They were able to deliver more iPhones into the channel than got sold out of it. They were able to get into the range of channel inventory that they like to keep (where they had been, entering the quarter, below it).
 
Based on some of the recent products we've seen such as: iPad Pro/Apple Pencil, Apple Watch, iPhone 6 Plus and the Retina Macbook not too mention a bunch of the new accessories, Tim Cook comes across as a complete yes man in regards to giving new products his ultimate blessing.

You really think Steve Jobs would have rejected the Retina MacBook? To the contrary, I think he'd have enthusiastically supported it. It looks like exactly what he had in mind when he unveiled the original MacBook Air. As for the iPad Pro and iPhone 6 Plus, it took some convincing, but Steve Jobs approved the iPad Mini.

Also, Scott Forstall's decision to hard-code in the iPhone's original resolution is a big part of the reason why it took them two years to respond to the Galaxy S3.
 
Firing Scott Forstall was Cook's biggest mistake and it has negatively impacted the quality of Apple's software after he was let go.

Based on some of the recent products we've seen such as: iPad Pro/Apple Pencil, Apple Watch, iPhone 6 Plus and the Retina Macbook not too mention a bunch of the new accessories, Tim Cook comes across as a complete yes man in regards to giving new products his ultimate blessing.
BS. Basically you're projecting on to Steve Jobs your feelings about certain products or decisions made.
 
More than any other American company, Apple holds $181.1 billion in offshore accounts, according to a Tuesday report released by Citizens for Tax Justice, an advocacy group.

Other major American tech firms—including Cisco, Google, Hewlett-Packard, and Oracle—are among the largest companies that are using legal but questionable tax tricks to keep money overseas and effectively pay little to no American federal corporate taxes.

Citizens for Tax Justice concluded: "Multinational corporations’ use of tax havens allows them to avoid an estimated $90 billion in federal income taxes each year."

One tax law professor told Ars that this untapped revenue source could stand to significantly benefit the United States.

"Losing $90 billion of potential tax revenues every year is a very big deal," Neil Buchanan, a professor at George Washington University, said by e-mail. "That money could be used to reverse recent cuts in Head Start, and/or assistance to state governments to fund education at all levels, or increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, and on and on. Politicians who respond to proposals to fund these programs by saying that ‘we can't afford it’ are simply saying, ‘I'd rather cut Apple's tax bill than educate our children.’"

As the organization wrote in its findings:

[Apple] would owe $59.2 billion in US taxes if these profits were not officially held offshore for tax purposes. This means that Apple has paid a miniscule 2.3 percent tax rate on its offshore profits. That confirms that Apple has been getting away with paying almost nothing in taxes on the huge amount of profits it has booked in Ireland.
 
Everytime you activate an iPhone, Apple would know the serial of the device and your phone number/carrier. If you login to any Apple service (iMessage, iCloud etc) they know about it. So Apple would have a very good handle on who's using which iPhone and they can analyse that.

Yes, they know exactly how many people are using iPhones. And how active they are. That is hugely confidential information. Everyone is guessing at those numbers. But when they say that 60% of their users are not using a 6 or a 6s and then suggest that that 60% is going to go out in the next few years and buy an iPhone, that ain't happening. Much of that 60% is never buying a new iPhone from Apple or a carrier. Those folks are buying used or getting hand downs. That is my point. I know lots of folks who are using 4 and 5's and who will buy a new iPhone eventually. But I also know folks using those phones who will not. They will continue to get hand downs from the person in their family who buys the new phone.
 
Apple revenue without iPhone = $24 billion
Microsoft revenue = $25 billion expected
Google revenue = $18 billion

So... They pretty much do.


Without iPhone, apple would not make 24 billion, their products and services are all integrated.

Without iPhone there is no App store, no watch and most likely no iPads. iPods would have also died with everyone else having smartphones. All Apple would have is their computer bussiness and even that would suffer as iPhone convinced a lot of people to switch from windows.

Without the iPod/iPhone, Apple would have made maybe 5 Billion at most IMO.
 
Last edited:
More than any other American company, Apple holds $181.1 billion in offshore accounts, according to a Tuesday report released by Citizens for Tax Justice, an advocacy group.

Other major American tech firms—including Cisco, Google, Hewlett-Packard, and Oracle—are among the largest companies that are using legal but questionable tax tricks to keep money overseas and effectively pay little to no American federal corporate taxes.

Citizens for Tax Justice concluded: "Multinational corporations’ use of tax havens allows them to avoid an estimated $90 billion in federal income taxes each year."

One tax law professor told Ars that this untapped revenue source could stand to significantly benefit the United States.

"Losing $90 billion of potential tax revenues every year is a very big deal," Neil Buchanan, a professor at George Washington University, said by e-mail. "That money could be used to reverse recent cuts in Head Start, and/or assistance to state governments to fund education at all levels, or increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, and on and on. Politicians who respond to proposals to fund these programs by saying that ‘we can't afford it’ are simply saying, ‘I'd rather cut Apple's tax bill than educate our children.’"

As the organization wrote in its findings:

[Apple] would owe $59.2 billion in US taxes if these profits were not officially held offshore for tax purposes. This means that Apple has paid a miniscule 2.3 percent tax rate on its offshore profits. That confirms that Apple has been getting away with paying almost nothing in taxes on the huge amount of profits it has booked in Ireland.
There's a book: "do as I say, not as I do". You ought to check it out.
 
More than any other American company, Apple holds $181.1 billion in offshore accounts, according to a Tuesday report released by Citizens for Tax Justice, an advocacy group.

Other major American tech firms—including Cisco, Google, Hewlett-Packard, and Oracle—are among the largest companies that are using legal but questionable tax tricks to keep money overseas and effectively pay little to no American federal corporate taxes.

Citizens for Tax Justice concluded: "Multinational corporations’ use of tax havens allows them to avoid an estimated $90 billion in federal income taxes each year."

One tax law professor told Ars that this untapped revenue source could stand to significantly benefit the United States.

"Losing $90 billion of potential tax revenues every year is a very big deal," Neil Buchanan, a professor at George Washington University, said by e-mail. "That money could be used to reverse recent cuts in Head Start, and/or assistance to state governments to fund education at all levels, or increase the Earned Income Tax Credit, and on and on. Politicians who respond to proposals to fund these programs by saying that ‘we can't afford it’ are simply saying, ‘I'd rather cut Apple's tax bill than educate our children.’"

As the organization wrote in its findings:

[Apple] would owe $59.2 billion in US taxes if these profits were not officially held offshore for tax purposes. This means that Apple has paid a miniscule 2.3 percent tax rate on its offshore profits. That confirms that Apple has been getting away with paying almost nothing in taxes on the huge amount of profits it has booked in Ireland.

You are right that American firms use tax rules to avoid U.S. taxes on overseas profits. However you skip over a basic issue. Should the U.S. tax transactions that are nearly entirely based on oversea's activities? When a company makes a product in China and then ships it directly to Japan and sells it for a profit, should that profit be taxed as if the profit were generated in the U.S.? Should this transaction be taxed the same as building the product in Wisconsin and selling it in North Carolina? Really no other or at least very few countries would take the view that they get to tax all transactions all over the world. The U.S. is somewhat of an exception in this matter, and certainly one of the (if not the only) significant exceptions. Most countries would not tax that revenue the same way they tax revenue generated entirely within their boarders. U.S. companies structure around this extra taxation and the U.S. government lets them. I believe the U.S. government allows this partly because many members of Congress are sophisticated enough to understand that this level of taxation is "off market" and doesn't make sense. But Congress can't sell a wholesale change of the U.S. tax code to the public partly because of people like you and the tax law professor you quote. If the U.S. adopted similar territorial based taxation, many (if not most) international companies would locate headquarters in the U.S. and would return vast profits back to the U.S. where the profits would be distributed to shareholders and then taxed at the shareholder level. This would be fine and on a global level more efficient. And probably not result in much loss of revenue to the U.S. government.

And bringing up funding for children's education is a straw man. The U.S. spends plenty of money on its children's education and we have plenty of money in our budget (national and on a State level) to spend more if we chose to.
 
Firing Scott Forstall was Cook's biggest mistake and it has negatively impacted the quality of Apple's software after he was let go.

Wasn't Forstall Jobs' guy? When all that went down I got a distinct Sculley/Jobs deja vu. Didn't Jobs kinda put Cook in charge because he was the "adult" who knew how to run things and Forstall was the young heir apparent who needed guidance to grow up and take over eventually?
 
Mac sales way down to only 5.3 million units. Apple is doomed! :eek: :p
Just shows that Apple would be almost nothing without their iPhone line.

Interesting. That means you think most Fortune 500 companies worldwide are less than almost nothing, since they produce less revenue than just the Mac product line alone, per annum.
 
To the Tim Cook has no vision crowd: you do realize Steve Jobs picked him to lead Apple after Steve was gone. Clearly he felt Cook was the right person for the job.


But I thought the year ago quarter was supply constrained?


I don't know. Like others have said, SJ also picked John Sculley. Jobs clearly thought Sculley was the right person at the time (bringing with him marketing savvy from PepsiCo).

In hindsight, I wish Forstall had staged a successful coup on Cook and got Cook ousted. This was rumored at the time, if I recall correctly. ... where would we be today?
 
I don't know. Like others have said, SJ also picked John Sculley. Jobs clearly thought Sculley was the right person at the time (bringing with him marketing savvy from PepsiCo).

In hindsight, I wish Forstall had staged a successful coup on Cook and got Cook ousted. This was rumored at the time, if I recall correctly. ... where would we be today?
Why? What was so great about Forstall? iOS stalled on his watch and Federighi has basically been playing catch-up ever since. Plus I'm not aware of any sort of grand vision he had for the company. if Forstall was the guy why did Jobs pick Cook instead?
 
At least Apple gives you the option of buying more storage. I really don't see what the issue is. If people want more than 16GB they can pay and if they don't want to they can buy another phone. It's quite simple.
Well, you have possibly just explained why the sales increase was not that impressive and why Apple warn about possible drop next quarter. People might JUST follow your advice, go and buy another phone. I'm one of those people. It's quite simple. Not that we can actually find that out for sure, without either a very extensive market research or without another Apple (we could call them Apple ][) offering a 32GB base model on Earth ][ and comparing the two's financial results.

(For the record, I am being half-sarcastic above, but only half.)
(Also "another phone" does not equate "Samsung".)
 
Well, you have possibly just explained why the sales increase was not that impressive and why Apple warn about possible drop next quarter. People might JUST follow your advice, go and buy another phone. I'm one of those people. It's quite simple. Not that we can actually find that out for sure, without either a very extensive market research or without another Apple (we could call them Apple ][) offering a 32GB base model on Earth ][ and comparing the two's financial results.

(For the record, I am being half-sarcastic above, but only half.)
(Also "another phone" does not equate "Samsung".)
The other OEM's are not doing well in sales. Most of them are bleeding money and many are fighting to stay in the business. So obviously Apple are doing something right and they are doing things very wrong.
 
Tim Cook doesn't have the vision or drive that Jobs had. Cook is just your average bottom-line CEO type. With Jobs, you could truly see that he was genuinely invested with making amazing products and services. However with Cook, his phony enthusiasm is not very convincing and I highly doubt he's as involved with Jony and his team as Jobs clearly was. Cook is a competent bean counter but that's not the type of person who should be running Apple.

Completely disagree. He’s doing a great job. Ultimately, people want Apple to keep reinventing the wheel every 2 years and it’s not possible to do that.

Could Apple do better? Yes, of course. But every tech company drip-feeds new ideas and technology into their products instead of going all-out with a massive revamp every 1-2 years.

I wish people would stop comparing Cook to Jobs. It’s ridiculous.
 
The other OEM's are not doing well in sales. Most of them are bleeding money and many are fighting to stay in the business. So obviously Apple are doing something right and they are doing things very wrong.
I'm just pointing out that if enough arrogance is put behind the statement "if you don't like Apple, go elsewhere", people will. If you want to know what happens next, look up MySpace, BlackBerry or AOL.
 
How can Apple be so slack and callous about a product line that is 10% (rounded up slightly) of their sales?

Yes--Macintosh computers.

They should be pressing the market with Macs, updating each and every Mac yearly (or whenever possible due to new processors). The monitor should have been redesigned (using the iMac shell) years ago. We aren't post-PC yet.
 
There is absolutely no explanation as to why Thunderbolt display is not 4/5K AND still costs $999.
Mac Pro should be updated at least every two years. Either it doesn't represent any significant sales, and then get rid of it, or it does, and then update it.
Macbook line is a mess now. Air is heavier than non-Air. Nothing is upgradeable.
I'll just gloss over Mini because it's not nice kicking a near-dead horse.

Also if they seriously want people to switch to Safari, it might be good idea to port it to Android and Windows. Just saying. For me Safari is a tool to download Chrome because Chrome syncs my bookmarks and passwords with EVERYTHING.
 
Someone should start a public petition to Apple to answer this question: How many billions Apple should make profits in a month, for you to stop using 5400rpm hard drives or have fusion drive mandatory in every mac with hdd?

I think they make enough profit to have Flash storage standard in all their computers, don't you? But that's the problem when you pander to the shareholders - consumers end up suffering.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Back
Top