From the financial statements, revenue from Wearables, Home, and Accessories was up 30% vs the last year. There wasn't a huge release this quarter (aside from the AirPods refresh which was at the edge of the March 30th cutoff), so I wonder why it went up so much.
I was shocked by how much the Airpods cost, and yet still ended up buying a pair. Have been absolutely delighted. I guess I wasn't alone!
Apple Q2 Results
81–90 of 125 posts
Re: Apple Q2 Results
#82Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is a full cylinder?
A metaphor from an internal-combustion engine; a cylinder is said to be firing when the fuel inside it is ignited. https://www.encyclopedia.com/humanities/dictionaries-thesaur...
Re: Apple Q2 Results
#83Based on the after hours results, it looks like this might push them just over a market cap of 1 trillion again, which if I'm not mistaken would make them the only company currently over $1T. Edit: Apparently MSFT closed at exactly $1T today, so tomorrow shall be interesting.
Microsoft is over $1T since a few days ago...
Re: Apple Q2 Results
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remove China from their numbers, and they are growing. China's economy is still cratering.
Removing China for a company that depends strongly on sales in China may not be a very sound analysis.
People who constantly expect Apple’s rate of growth to continue at historic levels or even increase likely believe that Apple depends on sales in China to achieve this, and they are probably right. But nowhere in Apple being Apple is it mandated that they must continue their existing rate of growth. Indeed, as this quarter shows, that is impossible.
Re: Apple Q2 Results
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
Remove China from their numbers, and they are growing. China's economy is still cratering.
> China's economy is still cratering. What's it going to take for China to not crater and how far out is that horizon?
They've been riding an unsustainable approach since the great recession mess tanked the global consumer. Simply put, they have to switch to a sustainable model for their economy. It's a painful process, made worse by the choices of delay that they've previously made.
It's also not uncommon. The US nearly got thrown into a depression by the stupidity of the Fed trying to avoid a recession after 9/11 and the stock market crash post dotcom bubble. You can try to dodge reality, usually though it'll just compound the painful price you pay later. In China's case, the potential price is best represented by what has happened to Japan through their previous attempts to dodge economic reality (via debt, keeping zombie corporations alive, etc).
China's organic rate of growth would be very low (for them, versus the recent past). Strip out the fake numbers, then reduce the stimulus efforts to mostly emergency circumstances, and you'd see something more typical like 2% to 3% GDP growth. That's obviously unacceptable to the government authorities.
The Chinese Government is trying to both delay and buffer that process, of dropping from the previously fast rates of growth to the rates you see in more developed nations. I think they fully understand it's inevitable. They want to minimize the social disharmony of it, for the purpose of retaining their power. The fear of revolution is always present. They're trading future stagnation for present buffering of the downside to dropping rapidly from high growth to slow growth (they'll worry about the consequences of that trade later). China faces the not enviable situation of ending up with a mature, slow growth economy, while still having hundreds of millions of people in near third world poverty. I think that's impossible for them to avoid given the scale of their population, the present phase that it's in in terms of transition, and typical rates of more normal organic economic expansion (whether domestically or in the global economy).
How do you explain to 500 million extremely poor people that the best days of growth are permanently over and they'll never get to become well-off like the lucky ~10% that were in the right places in eastern China 20-30 years ago and got to ride the easy boom? To maintain that fantasy (that everyone will get to participate, even though the party is already over), you need to project extremely high rates of growth. Traditional service economies with their far slower growth can never deliver on that.
Re: Apple Q2 Results
#86Share repurchasing of that magnitude doesn't seem like a good sign to me. I am interpreting that as meaning they could not find anything better to do with that money. If they were problem free and executing perfectly, maybe that would make sense. But that's hardly the case.
“That is a reduction of 21 percent in shares outstanding since 2013. What’s that mean? It means all other things being equal, the company’s earnings per share are 21 percent higher than they would have been had it not done the buybacks.“
[0] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/03/apple-has-been-a-buyback-mon...
Re: Apple Q2 Results
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
I find FaceID worse than TouchID, in a couple of ways: 1. It's very common both at work and at home that the iPhone is flat on a table and I want to quickly unlock it to check something. Previously, snaking a finger out was sufficient; now, I have to deliberately pick it up, look at it, and then swipe upwards. (It's also much more conspicuous in meetings.) 2. FaceID seems to struggle (i.e. fail to unlock, or delay th…
Another problem is that you don't get to control the start of a FaceID scan. Many apps that I use (mostly for banking) have some non-deterministic loading procedure that can take from 1-20 seconds. At some point, the load completes and the app initiates a FaceID scan. If you're not holding the phone at the right angle at that moment, the scan fails. Then it falls back to a passcode. It's a terrible user experience. T…
Re: Apple Q2 Results
#88Re: Apple Q2 Results
#89From the financial statements, revenue from Wearables, Home, and Accessories was up 30% vs the last year. There wasn't a huge release this quarter (aside from the AirPods refresh which was at the edge of the March 30th cutoff), so I wonder why it went up so much.
Watch and AirPods are early in the S curve of adoption and have clear product market fit and no viable competitors. It's clearly inflecting higher.
Add in that they were near the end of the release cycle and it's definitely weird how much they went up.
Re: Apple Q2 Results
#90Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think it's sales. So their watches sell almost like macs. No wonder they don't really care about computers. No growth potential for computers, but very few people bought watches, so much more potential to grow.
We don't know how well their watches sell. The headphones+watches number is surely dominated by headphones.