Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
So it was the best seller, bringing in record revenue, but all of sudden folks won't like it????
[doublepost=1517559605][/doublepost]


I was born and grew up in an Asian country where the average salary for most people is still less than USD 1,000. Having an iPhone is already a luxury for the majority and a price increase from iPhone 8 for a couple hundred dollars is A LOT for them. The only people that got excited and would buy an expensive phone would be the early adapters, therefore the sales were great in the first quarter they were available. Like I say it is just my two cents. I love my X and I would not buy anything else for a change.
 
You are correct it was a typo that started with my calculations. So the right numbers should be:

77M / 13 * 52 = 308M

That's about 100M more than Apple actually sells. Just shows that not all weeks in a quarter (or year to that matter) are equal and extrapolating 13 weeks quarter to a 14 weeks quarter is a meaningless exercise.
It's not meaningless when it's the same Q y/y. I know you feel like it's spin, but it's actually very relevant.
 
You miss my point.

It’s okay to complain about the $1000 price tag of the iPhone X. It’s another to claim that the iPhone X won’t sell just because of one’s own personal feelings on the matter.

I am all for constructive criticism. Thing is, I am just not seeing that here. Just look at the first several pages of any new thread, not forgetting the first few comments. Note how shallow and superficial and utterly devoid of any meaningful response there is. Do those look like constructive criticism to you?

I understand what you are saying, but for the most part I see a range of perspectives in most threads...The most polarized either imply or directly state Apple can do no wrong and the on the other side that Apple is doomed or has completely lost its way. But, I see a lot of middle ground, too, where people take issue with stuff like the notch or the move to USB-C exclusively on MBP, without suggesting others overwhelmingly feel the same way. I think we tend to focus on the responses that get our goat (for example, my reaction to your style that utilizes exaggeration "utterly devoid of any meaningful response") and mostly see or pay attention to those. Maybe it's just me.
 

Well said. It will be interesting to see if your theory is correct. I think among the reasons people were mistaken in their predictions of doom for the new phone is that only a tiny percentage of people buy the phone at full cost. The vast majority of consumers purchase their phones on a monthly plan so the addition of a few dollars more per month is simply shrugged at or not noticed at all.
 
I've no idea what this means.
[doublepost=1517582537][/doublepost]
What competition? Apple owns this market.

it was a typo of an apology:
"I must’ve missed her year he left and he year he died. Shoot!"
was supposed to say: I must've missed the year he (S. Jobs) left (Apple) and the year he died. Shoot.

thank you for correcting me.
 
Regarding the 13 week vs. 14 week situation. The Wall Street analysts want it both ways.

When Apple posts big numbers during a 14 week quarter, they are quick to mention that it was a 14 week quarter. But they are slow to mention a situation like this where they sold more iPhones per week than last year, but the difference in totals was due to the extra week last year.

They beat up Apple last year for needing the extra week, but they don't give credit for the lack of the extra week this year.

Might buy some more AAPL in a few days and watch it rise over the summer.
 
I think this is misunderstood.

As far as I know this was meant, that all profit that Apple will make from now on, it will be returned to the shareholders.

So the cash reserves wont rise anymore, but will stay the same, not going to 0.

In $135 billion they have enough cash for now for all M&A, R&D, etc. for the foreseeable future.
[doublepost=1517588921][/doublepost]ps: The problem is that Wall Street isn't used to seeing such growth and this numbers as Apple has, and the narrative Apple is doomed was born! Simply put, they are talking rubbish, when referring to Apple.

Pretty close:

"Tim Cook

And just for clarity, let me add one thing. What Luca is saying is not cash equals zero. He's saying there's an equal amount cash and debt, and that they balance to zero. Just for clarity."
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
AAPL stock waaaay down today; thanks for nothing, Tim.
Market overall is down 450 points.
[doublepost=1517598345][/doublepost]
Also, Apple has a reputation as the leading technology company in the world right now. I know very few people who are passionate about Apple's past world-changing developments that want them to turn into IBM and live off yearly incremental updates. Apple is expected to be the company that continues Steve Jobs' legacy of identifying the next untapped market and developing a revolutionary product that people didn't even realize they needed.
And if Steve Jobs were around right now what would that revolutionary product be?
 
Look it up, it's not trivial anymore. Hint: we can no longer sling around "$2XX Billion in the bank..." unless we opt to leave it out (too).



According to Marketwatch, it is now just under $104B.

Thus, net cash is now down to about $180B... still crazy impressive for any company to have so much cash but that debt just keeps piling up (cheap or not).
You also need to factor the $38 billion tax bill and the $15 billion EU tax/fine. However, Apple won’t need to issue any more debt. They only did it to avoid the repatriation tax at 35% under the old rules.
[doublepost=1517598728][/doublepost]
Market overall is down 450 points.
[doublepost=1517598345][/doublepost]
And if Steve Jobs were around right now what would that revolutionary product be?
The market is down because the employment numbers were too good. Good news is bad news again because now everyone thinks the Fed will raise interest rates.
 
And if Steve Jobs were around right now what would that revolutionary product be?

If I knew that I'd be the one at the top of the organization making $100M or more per year. As it is I'm just an average consumer waiting for someone at Apple or another tech company to find that next revolutionary device and take my money.
 
And that's why you are now a Wall Street analyst. You conveniently forgot two major things:
* iPhone sales dynamic around release date
* X-Mas shopping

I am not going to explain this to you. Instead I am going to show how ridiculous your argument is. We have 42 weeks in a year. So, according to your analysis in 2018 Apple will sell 77M / 13 * 42 = 249M. And yet they never sold that many nor are they going to sell this many this year. And this is why AAPL is down today.

You’re creating a straw man. Nobody said the holiday quarter isn’t an outlier. What’s being said is that when comparing quarters YoY, last year is problematic because it had one week more.

Also, pretty sure a 42-week year would be quite a short one.
[doublepost=1517602132][/doublepost]
You are correct it was a typo that started with my calculations. So the right numbers should be:

77M / 13 * 52 = 308M

That's about 100M more than Apple actually sells. Just shows that not all weeks in a quarter (or year to that matter) are equal and extrapolating 13 weeks quarter to a 14 weeks quarter is a meaningless exercise.

No, it doesn’t show that at all. The holiday quarters are different because of 1) the holidays, and 2) new product introductions. Just because you can’t extrapolate an entire year doesn’t mean you can’t extrapolate an additional week in December.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ftaok
Just a pity they would rather take everyone's last penny/cent, Cook ain't no Gates that's for sure.
You do realize that AAPL doesn't belong to Tim Cook? Gates isn't giving away MSFTs cash, he's donating his own personal fortune.

Do you know how much Cook donates? Probably not as much as Gates, but then again Bill had a lot more money
 
Now they don't even mention initial launch week/month numbers anymore as per 'policy' ... why not? Hmmm. That has to bother you somewhat.

Not really. Apple is the company everyone loves to hate so no matter what Apple information Apple releases, it will be spun in the centrifuge of public opinion until it is as negative as possible.

Apple could have announced that the iPhone X accounted for 82 of the 83 million iPhones sold in the quarter yesterday. This morning, a hundred publications, webpages and blogs would be running with a lead story stating how the iPhone X was a spectacular failure because not everyone who bought an iPhone bought an iPhone X.


I just don't understand why Mac sales stagnate so much. Why don't they go after it more aggressively ? The Mac is less than 10% AFAIK of the overall PC market. That means Apple still has almost a potential of 90% of market share to take over from the hands of Microsoft.

The majority of shipments for PC OEMs are laptops below $1000 and desktops below $500. Those are markets Apple doesn't address as the MacBook Air starts at $999 and the Mac Mini starts at $499. The MBA was for a time the most-popular Mac model overall, but that is now the MacBook Pro (likely the 13" non-Touchbar starting at $1299).

For Apple to compete in those lower market niches, they would have to cut quality and components. Plastic shells instead of metal. Slower i3 and i5 CPUs with less-powerful iGPUs. No Retina displays. HDDs instead of SSDs (or even smaller capacity SSDs).
 
You know who else wishes there were detailed numbers per model? Apple’s competition.

Hence there aren’t.
How do you know the competition doesn’t know and before you say how do you know, let’s not kid ourselves that spying doesn’t occur at Apple and elsewhere.
 
You’re creating a straw man. Nobody said the holiday quarter isn’t an outlier. What’s being said is that when comparing quarters YoY, last year is problematic because it had one week more.

Also, pretty sure a 42-week year would be quite a short one.
[doublepost=1517602132][/doublepost]

No, it doesn’t show that at all. The holiday quarters are different because of 1) the holidays, and 2) new product introductions. Just because you can’t extrapolate an entire year doesn’t mean you can’t extrapolate an additional week in December.

You either don't get it or (more likely) are just trying to spin. Apple Q1 (regular Q4) is a very special quarter. Apple is building up inventory for new models for a couple of months and then sells it in one day. Adding one week has no effect on this. Same goes for X-Mas. People are going to buy the gifts before X-Mas no matter how many weeks is there in Q1. Obviously adding one week helps but this is a regular week, so it's 210M / 52 = 4M phones i.e. extra 4M phones (optimistic, based on Apple's best year) not extra 6M and even this is probably unlikely as there probably is a shopping lull after X-Mass that lasts a few weeks so those weeks might come lighter than average.
 
Apple Q1 (regular Q4) is a very special quarter. Apple is building up inventory for new models for a couple of months and then sells it in one day.

True, but often (usually) there is a supply constraint for some period due to that demand. So not having one additional week to sell product with those constraints in place should logically have a negative impact on total sales over that period.


Obviously adding one week helps but this is a regular week, so it's 210M / 52 = 4M phones i.e. extra 4M phones (optimistic, based on Apple's best year) not extra 6M and even this is probably unlikely as there probably is a shopping lull after X-Mass that lasts a few weeks so those weeks might come lighter than average.

When you factor in Christmas gifts in the form of currency and retail Gift Cards, this might very well encourage spending on iPhones in the post-Christmas period.
 
True, but often (usually) there is a supply constraint for some period due to that demand. So not having one additional week to sell product with those constraints in place should logically have a negative impact on total sales over that period.




When you factor in Christmas gifts in the form of currency and retail Gift Cards, this might very well encourage spending on iPhones in the post-Christmas period.

The extra week actually comes at the beginning of the quarter as X-Mas is pinned to the year end. So this extra week is the slowest week in Apple calendar (just before the new model release)
 
And that's why you are now a Wall Street analyst. You conveniently forgot two major things:
* iPhone sales dynamic around release date
* X-Mas shopping

I am not going to explain this to you. Instead I am going to show how ridiculous your argument is. We have 42 weeks in a year. So, according to your analysis in 2018 Apple will sell 77M / 13 * 42 = 249M. And yet they never sold that many nor are they going to sell this many this year. And this is why AAPL is down today.

There are a lot of variables and so I was pointing out that the OP's statement about Apple selling 1M less iPhones is disingenuous. Especially considering the iPhone X launched late at $1000.
 
The majority of shipments for PC OEMs are laptops below $1000 and desktops below $500. Those are markets Apple doesn't address as the MacBook Air starts at $999 and the Mac Mini starts at $499. The MBA was for a time the most-popular Mac model overall, but that is now the MacBook Pro (likely the 13" non-Touchbar starting at $1299).

For Apple to compete in those lower market niches, they would have to cut quality and components. Plastic shells instead of metal. Slower i3 and i5 CPUs with less-powerful iGPUs. No Retina displays. HDDs instead of SSDs (or even smaller capacity SSDs).

Oddly enough if you look at the past history of MBA and the current MacBook you'd see some similarities:
MBA 2011 to 2017 still no retina display (in either 11" which no longer is made or the 13").
MacBook 2016 to current has a base Core M3 cpu.
Both have a less-powerful iGPUs.
 
Oddly enough if you look at the past history of MBA and the current MacBook you'd see some similarities:
MBA 2011 to 2017 still no retina display (in either 11" which no longer is made or the 13").
MacBook 2016 to current has a base Core M3 cpu.
Both have a less-powerful iGPUs.

Yes and I expect the goal is to eventually get the component costs low enough for the MacBook that it can replace the MacBook Air at the $999 price point. Though I hope they add a second USB-C port when they do so.
 
  • Like
Reactions: DeepIn2U
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.