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 Record Results for 1Q 2017: $17.9B Profit on $78.4B Revenue, 78.3M iPhones
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Where is the iWatch slice of pie???
Apple today announced financial results for the first fiscal quarter of 2017, which corresponds to the fourth calendar quarter of 2016. For the quarter, Apple posted revenue of $78.4 billion and net quarterly profit of $17.9 billion, or $3.36 per diluted share, compared to revenue of $75.9 billion and net quarterly profit of $18.4 billion, or $3.28 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Both revenue and earnings per share were company records in what is traditionally Apple's strongest quarter due to the launch of new iPhone models.
Gross margin for the quarter was 38.5 percent compared to 40.1 percent in the year-ago quarter, with international sales accounting for 64 percent of revenue. Apple also declared an upcoming dividend payment of $0.57 per share, payable on February 16 to shareholders of record as of February 13.
Apple sold a record 78.3 million iPhones during the quarter, up slightly from 74.8 million a year earlier, while Mac sales rose slightly to 5.4 million units from 5.3 million units in the year-ago quarter. iPad sales continued their recent declines, falling to 13.1 million from 16.1 million.Apple's guidance for the second quarter of fiscal 2017 includes expected revenue of $51.5-53.5 billion and gross margin between 38 and 39 percent. Revenue guidance is slightly below analyst expectations.
Apple will provide live streaming of its fiscal Q1 2017 financial results conference call at 2:00 PM Pacific, and MacRumors will update this story with coverage of the conference call highlights.
Conference Call and Q&A Highlights are available in reverse chronological order after the jump.
Click here to read rest of article...
Article Link: Apple Reports Record Results for 1Q 2017: $17.9B Profit on $78.4B Revenue, 78.3M iPhones
And they can't take a small percentage of that and make a decent workstation? Pathetic.
Solid earnings for Apple However like others have pointed out, Tim has stated the iPad is the future yet consumers don't feel that way. Bigger size iPhones and for many tasks a 'traditional' computer is better suited, means the need for an iPad is negated.
What are you expecting to get other than the product that you've paid for?
I think it's more to do with many don't see a need to upgrade ipads as they do enough for it to be not worth upgrading as they use them for the same things afterall.
some buy it every year for the sake of it as it's new but really i use my ipad pro for the same things i used my air 2 for
Which means what exactly? You don't like your iPhone 6 Plus? Considering there are two newer generations of iPhones ahead of the 6 Plus.
As other people have said before, 2% increase are more than accounted for with the spare week last year (which transforms into a 8% longer selling period).
So Mac sales are down...
theory:
If Apple is planning on a full TV still, they don't want customers to be confused with a display product, it makes sense to kill off the monitors. And who knows, maybe it'll bundle a router inside the TV since lots of people place their routers in the family room. Then they could introduce "Satellites" that extend the range of the TV-router so other TVs in the house will be able to connect to it. Having these "Satellites" and "Airport Extreme" products along with "Apple Cinema/Thunderbolt displays" and "Apple TV displays" could be very confusing to the consumer
I am surprised you would have to ask this.
It's in the 5% "other" category.
The new AirPods are also in the "other" category on that pie graph too - in case that was your next question.
[doublepost=1485931871][/doublepost]
Maybe he means that he is so satisfied with the iPhone 6 that he won't need to get another iPhone for a long time - he really loves it that much and it does what he needs it to do, so he doesn't want to upgrade yet. That's what I read into the original post on that.
I doubt that's what his post intended. Which is why I asked. The fact he stated "This may be my last iPhone." Also, the 6 Plus had a plethora of issues, hence why I stated there were two newer generations that rectified a lot of those issues in the 6s/7.
I don't know on what parallel universe do you live but on this one I do, the sterling is as sh** as it can possibly be. But yeah, when it gets to where it was (and if it ever does) I hope Apple does reverse the prices back to how they were, or even cheaper.
Some thoughts:
1) So for you, the iPad Pro doesn't really have any value beyond what the iPad Air 2 has. How many others are there like you who bought the iPad Pro only to realize that?
2) People also don't upgrade their Macs that often, but the Mac sales are pretty much flat while iPad sales have been shrinking for three years.
3) Even if the decline in iPad sales is explained by lots of people rushing to buy it 3-4 years ago and then not seeing the need to upgrade it, it seems clear though that the iPad is not attracting lots of new customers.
4) Even if iPad were to replace for many people a computer, it would be hard to build a solid business on a product whose sales have been shrinking for three years at a pretty steady rate, though this past quarter looks particularly troubling:
- weekly iPad unit sales were 13.1 million / 14 = 0.94 million vs. 16.1 million / 13 = 1.24 million, ~24% drop
- weekly iPad revenue was $5.5 billion / 14 = $0.39 billion vs. $7.1 billion / 13 = $0.55 billion, ~28% drop.
- iPad ASP was $5.5 billion / 13.1 million = $420 vs. $7.1 billion / 16.1 million = $441, ~10% drop
The bigger the iPhone part becomes the worse it is in the long run...
Of course Steve was one of a kind, I don't expect Tim or anyone else to be like him, but that sentence made sense for him, not for Tim.
One has to know where the puck goes first, and Tim has shown many times that while he can run the profit in the short term, he has no vision (or should I say little vision) of the future....according to Tim we should be all using iPads instead of our macs by now.
Of course Steve was one of a kind, I don't expect Tim or anyone else to be like him, but that sentence made sense for him, not for Tim.
Last edited:
How can one go without the other? If I din't like the user experience I wouldn't spend a penny on Apple's stuff.
I have an alternative theory:
1) Apple sees iCloud as replacement for local storage. Everything will be in the cloud and only the files in immediate use will be stored locally. This is how iPhones & iPads already operate. There is no need for local backups like Time Machine and related products like Time Capsule.
2) Apple wants to make computers that are as simple & non-technical as possible. That means built-in monitors and memory & storage that can't be changed later. Think laptops and iMacs (or iPhones & iPads) rather than Mac Mini & Mac Pro, neither of which has been changed for three years and possibly never will.
3) If someone wants to have an external device like a monitor or a local backup, there will be an option, though designed & made by a third party even if sold by Apple.
Especially given the alternatives
Windows? Are you kidding me? Windows 10 is just spyware with a posh name IMHO
Android? Sorry Google is pure evil these days
Linux? Well yes as I've been using it longer than I have Apple stuff. You can keep Ubuntu though. Debian or CentOS all the way for me.
After years of having to use Windows to earn a living, the relief of having not to fight MS on a daily basis is wonderful. When corporate decreed that everyone woul use W10, I said thanks for all the fish, I'm retiring.
Ironic, considering people are castigating Apple for evidently neglecting the Mac (the past) in favour of the iPad (the future).
Why is everybody ignoring the most important part? Apple's profit was less than previous year. Because they invested more in R&D and sales costs went up. They can make 200.000 billion in revenue, but if the profit's go down because of high costs of sales and they put more and more money in R&D without actually inventing something new...
And where is the evidence that the future is going that way? Not in the sales numbers...
https://marco.org/2017/01/31/the-wrong-future
That first graph should never be a line graph. The area under the graph doesn't represent anything.
It should be a sinusoidally connected point chart or a bar chart or a lollipop chart. So the area under shows an area that reflects profits.
It should be a sinusoidally connected point chart or a bar chart or a lollipop chart. So the area under shows an area that reflects profits.