Print 36 comment(s) - last by ilt24.. on Jul 24 at 10:04 AM

Apple's numbers fall mostly in line with its own forecasts, analyst numbers

Another quarter is in the books, and Apple is once again rolling in cash. Apple generated revenue of $37.4 billion for fiscal Q3 and earnings of $1.28 per share. This translated into a record Q3 when it comes to profits, with the company raking in $7.7 billion. Analysts were expecting revenue of $37.99 billion and EPS of $1.23.
Apple issued guidance of $36 to $38 billion for the quarter, so these numbers are right in line with expectations.

Gross margins also ticked up compared to last year, rising from 36.9 percent to 39.4 percent. To go along with that info, Apple reported during its earnings call that the average selling price (ASP) for its Mac, iPod, iPhone, and iPad product lines were $1,255, $151, $561, and $444 respectively. The $444 figure for the iPad tells us that the iPad mini and iPad mini with Retina Display are accounting for the bulk of iPad sales.
“Our record June quarter revenue was fueled by strong sales of iPhone and Mac and the continued growth of revenue from the Apple ecosystem, driving our highest EPS growth rate in seven quarters,” said Apple CEO Tim Cook.

Apple CEO Tim Cook [Image Source: Fast Company]

“We are incredibly excited about the upcoming releases of iOS 8 and OS X Yosemite, as well as other new products and services that we can’t wait to introduce.”
During the quarter, Apple sold 13.3 million iPads, 35.2 million iPhones, and 4.4 million Macs. These compared to last year’s figures of 14.6 million, 31.2 million, and 3.8 million respectively.
iPad sales continue to be a sore point for Apple as we saw with the fiscal Q2 numbers. Apple has seen demand for its iPad weaken as newer, cheaper competition has entered the fray. In addition, the emergence of “phablet” devices have somewhat blunted the demand for tablet devices.
The iPhone numbers are up year-over-year, which is to be expected considering that Apple opened the floodgates to the Chinese market earlier this year. The iPhone numbers could have likely been even higher, but Apple fans are likely waiting for the larger screen iPhones (4.7” and 5.5”) to hit the market this fall.

Apple iPhone 6 render [Image Source: 9to5Mac]
Apple has already [internally] admitted that it has failed to deliver on bringing large-screen iPhones to its customers and it looks to right that wrong with the iPhone 6. So we’ll be looking forward to the fiscal Q4 numbers to see how iPhone sales stack up compared to last year.

Source: Apple

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

A tale of two bears
By tonyswash on 7/22/2014 8:14:02 PM , Rating: 0
Quite a few Frandoids have long touted the bear case for Apple. The case was often made that the phone market would be just like the PC market and that iOS and Android would play out like the Mac and the PC. As Apple entered the unnerving period after the death of Steve Jobs and Samsung soared it seemed to some as if those predictions were coming true.

Now it’s time for a crunching collision with reality.

There is a big phone maker in the valley of the bear but it’s not Apple, it’s Samsung.

How interesting. How did that happen?

RE: A tale of two bears
By w8gaming on 7/22/2014 11:19:49 PM , Rating: 2
Not sure what you mean, the market share of iOS is getting smaller compared to Android. This was what happened initially during PC vs Mac era. Apple went into a downward spiral later and started losing money. The mobile war had only begun for a few years it is way to early to celebrate Apple victory. You need to worry more about how Apple is going to spend the money to secure the future. The team up with IBM is a good start, but we yet to see anything tangible coming out of it.

RE: A tale of two bears
By tonyswash on 7/23/14, Rating: -1
RE: A tale of two bears
By Solandri on 7/23/2014 11:35:01 AM , Rating: 2
BTW that's actually not how it played out in the old PC market, Apple suffered from bozo management for a long time and as a result nearly went bust, that had nothing to do with market share.

Speaking as someone who actually owned an Apple II and was rooting for Apple during the original PC wars, that's not at all how things played out at all. The Apple II (and TRS-80, Commmodore 64, TI-99/4A, and Atari 400/800) were seen by most businesses as toys for geeks and kids to play with (a lot of games were involved), not real computers. Consequently they waited for IBM to come out with a business computer.

Which it did, with a vengeance. The original "killer app" for business PCs was the spreadsheet - Lotus 1-2-3. Despite the first spreadsheet being an Apple II app (Visicalc), the release of the IBM PC and Lotus 1-2-3 pretty much ended Visicalc, and the company was bought by Lotus a few years later.

Apple introduced Macintosh to compete. But instead of marketing it as a business tool, Apple touted its ease of use and simplicity. Consequently it picked up a big following among home users and tech-adverse businesses (artists and creative types). But it never really broke into the business market.

That's what relegated it to a 4% market share. The bad management didn't come until a decade later in the 1990s. To their credit, they stuck with Motorola processors through all this. I always felt they were much better CPUs than Intel's during the 1980s. But once the Pentium came out with a FPU integrated into all CPUs, Motorola was dust.

The minority Mac business, the one that 'lost' the PC wars, is now the healthiest PC OEM business on the planet

That's highly debatable. I can't even find numbers for Apple's PC market share because it's so small. Yes they're #3 in the U.S., but the U.S. is only about a quarter of the world's PC market, and Apple is lumped in the "others" category worldwide.

If you don't mean market share and instead some sort of profit per device figure, then by that definition I suspect gaming PCs like Alienware are "healthier" than Apple. It's just that their average profit numbers are dragged down because Dell (who owns Alienware) chooses to also make money off of lower-margin PCs. Which is why it doesn't really make sense to look at profit per device as a measure of health. Those lower-margin devices are still profitable. By selling the lower-margin devices, Dell is making more profit than if it sold only Alienware computers. Yet by your definition that means they're less healthy because selling the lower-margin devices lowers their average profit per device.

Also, the desktop Macs have been in decline for a decade. Their laptops are doing very well and have covered up this decline, but they're not really business machines. I help fix and buy computers for a lot of small businesses. I try to talk them into buying laptops because they're more flexible and can be used just like a desktop if you add a monitor, keyboard, and mouse; and if you add a SSD they're just as fast. But nearly all businesses still insist on a desktop for some inexplicable reason. (It's not for expansion as nearly none of them are ever upgraded beyond stock. The only tangible explanation I've been given is that they're harder and less attractive to steal.)

RE: A tale of two bears
By tonyswash on 7/23/14, Rating: 0
RE: A tale of two bears
By atechfan on 7/23/2014 9:03:47 PM , Rating: 2
You conveniently leave Microsoft's revenues and profits from the PC market out of the equation.

RE: A tale of two bears
By Cheesew1z69 on 7/23/2014 9:41:45 PM , Rating: 2
Does anyone honestly expect anything different from him at this point? I think it's a resounding no.

RE: A tale of two bears
By retrospooty on 7/23/2014 9:42:38 PM , Rating: 2
Tony doesn't do anything conveniently. It's a carefully calculated manipulation like most of his posts.

-just wyrmtongue things

RE: A tale of two bears
By glowingghoul on 7/23/2014 2:50:07 PM , Rating: 1
I love how Android fanbois equate a rising Android market share as the public making a judgment on the merits of the OS, instead of the fact that the cheapest, crappiest smartphones on the market run Android and sell in huge quantities.

There are lots of people who will automatically go for the zero dollar phone.

RE: A tale of two bears
By retrospooty on 7/23/2014 6:45:49 PM , Rating: 2
That is Android's strength not its weakness, it's flexible. It does run the cheapest crappiest phones. It also runs the best highest end most fully functional phones like G3, Xperia, HTC One, and everything in between. It also supports multiple resolutions and multiple chipsets and a wide variety of different hardware configurations to suit any needs. It also runs everything from tablets to smartwatched... It's also open, so you aren't stuck with whatever one OEM decides to give you. The low end is low, and it doesn't interest most people here, but the high end offers a far better experience, feature set and far better phones than IOS... That is why it's marketshare is large, flexibility.

"There's no chance that the iPhone is going to get any significant market share. No chance." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Latest Headlines
Inspiron Laptops & 2-in-1 PCs
September 25, 2016, 9:00 AM
The Samsung Galaxy S7
September 14, 2016, 6:00 AM
Apple Watch 2 – Coming September 7th
September 3, 2016, 6:30 AM
Apple says “See you on the 7th.”
September 1, 2016, 6:30 AM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki