Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Apple Q2 Results

apple.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 125 posts

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#91

Post by bgdnyxbjx »

Analemma_ wrote: post #50
jedberg wrote: post #48

Based 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.

MSFT closed at exactly 1T to two decimal places today, and is up slightly in after-hours trading, but this would be the first time we’ve had two 1T companies at the same time.

After all these years, it’s still Apple and Microsoft at the top. Crazy.

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#92

Post by gigatexal »

They’re fine. But stock buybacks and dividends are a waste. I’d rather that money (I’m a shareholder with not enough shares to matter but oh well) be used to purchase companies like a Netflix (too late now of course) or a Disney (also too late) or making bigger purchases to control more of their supply chain like buying a Qualcomm or increase the R&D budget by double maybe. 75B in buybacks just juices the EPS numbers. It’s the exact same BS that IBM has been doing to keep wall street happy. And it seems very un-Apple. I’d rather Apple take a more cold stance toward shareholders like Steve did and just act like the company was constantly in the verge of failing and keep making bigger bets (having huge piles of cash helps with that and they still do it just I don’t care about a dividend! Find me the next thing better than an iPhone)

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#93

Post by dmix »

kylecazar wrote: post #90
brlewis wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We don't know how well their watches sell. The headphones+watches number is surely dominated by headphones.

I can only support your comment anecdotally (perhaps actual figures have been published somewhere), but the majority of my circle has purchased airpods. They're the only Apple product I love. I don't know any current watch wearers, although many purchased one when initially released.

Multiple people at work have an Apple Watch and I'm starting to see it more and more around the city. Definitely has some market penetration.

But also Apple is a premium products company so not everyone needs to have one, just a decent sized niche. At $400-500 they make a killing off each sale. Same with AirPods at $200 too... other similar bluetooth pod earphones sell for $40-60 on Amazon and they're pretty good products, so it can't be too expensive to produce.

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#94

Post by __blockcipher__ »

gigatexal wrote: post #92

They’re fine. But stock buybacks and dividends are a waste. I’d rather that money (I’m a shareholder with not enough shares to matter but oh well) be used to purchase companies like a Netflix (too late now of course) or a Disney (also too late) or making bigger purchases to control more of their supply chain like buying a Qualcomm or increase the R&D budget by double maybe. 75B in buybacks just juices the EPS numbers…

I disagree. Apple is a very capital efficient company and already spends a tremendous amount on R&D.

Just like the concept of the mythical man-month, the marginal utility of investing additional money in r&d goes down as r&d spend goes up. Or to put it a simpler way, Apple is running out of effective avenues to invest their money.

The correct move in that situation is to return the capital to shareholders, and stock buybacks are the most tax-efficient way to do so, with the added benefit that if the stock is undervalued (and Apple's certainly has been in the last few years relative to free cash flow), then the shareholders get an "extra" return on top of that.

Don't get me wrong, Apple should absolutely invest in R&D...which they do. They're not pinching pennies, except in situations like the keyboard fiasco, not including adapters etc - but that's a separate issue.

Absolutely the worst thing they could do is just go acquiring companies that don't actually fit with their business model. Remember that it takes human effort (meaning cognitive expenditure) to run a business, and getting side-tracked with non-critical businesses is absolutely antithetical to that. If/when Apple does find a company that has something unique for their situation, then they do acquire them.

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#95

Post by __blockcipher__ »

joobus wrote: post #18

> The Company posted quarterly revenue of $58 billion, a decline of 5 percent from the year-ago quarter, and quarterly earnings per diluted share of $2.46, down 10 percent. So they are shrinking, not growing.

But their EPS is still doing great to do well-executed share repurchases (stock buybacks).

They've been diversifying their revenue/profit stream with their services push for quite some time now, and continue to do so.

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#96

Post by __blockcipher__ »

Godel_unicode wrote: post #89
Despegar wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

AirPods have plenty of viable competitors. They also sound bad, and aren't water-resistant to speak of. Their main competitive advantage is they come in Apple white and are conspicuous enough that people see them. Add in that they were near the end of the release cycle and it's definitely weird how much they went up.

I think this is a totally naive viewpoint. Despite the memes, Airpods aren't just a mere status symbol (and as status symbols they are very poor ones, which I think is the whole joke about airpods => rich). What makes them incredible is their seamlessness. They do have occasional bluetooth fuckery but they felt like the first wireless earbuds that just worked^TM.

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#97

Post by gigatexal »

__blockcipher__ wrote: post #94
gigatexal wrote: post #92

They’re fine. But stock buybacks and dividends are a waste. I’d rather that money (I’m a shareholder with not enough shares to matter but oh well) be used to purchase companies like a Netflix (too late now of course) or a Disney (also too late) or making bigger purchases to control more of their supply chain like buying a Qualcomm or increase the R&D budget by double maybe. 75B in buybacks just juices the EPS numbers…

I disagree. Apple is a very capital efficient company and already spends a tremendous amount on R&D. Just like the concept of the mythical man-month, the marginal utility of investing additional money in r&d goes down as r&d spend goes up. Or to put it a simpler way, Apple is running out of effective avenues to invest their money. The correct move in that situation is to return the capital to shareholders, and stock…

I will concede the point on the tax efficency of stock buy backs. But where I find we are in disagreement is in the purchasing of companies. An apple with Netflix and Disney would make Apple TV+ a whole lot better out of the gate than otherwise. Netflix has proven it can do original content and Disney's back catalog (now that they've bought Fox) is too big to laugh at. Owning Qualcomm would be immediately accretive to EPS given how important they are to the industry and would ensure that any modem needing components would be easily sourced. And you're right about the keyboard fiasco, what the heck went wrong there?

In any case I am still very bullish overall on Apple and I can't wait for ARM based Macs.

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#98

Post by 1123581321 »

bcatanzaro wrote: post #28
mft_ wrote: post #20

Earlier 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…

If your face is not recognized, it will prompt you with a system modal to either “Try Face ID Again,” which does what you want, or “Cancel,” which lets the app decide what to do (most of mine go to a button you can tap to try Face ID again.)

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#99

Post by 1123581321 »

mft_ wrote: post #20
zaroth wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I much prefer FaceID. It seems faster not slower for me than TouchID was, I like that it enables a full frontal screen, and I love not having a home button. I also really like when my kids steal my phone and try to get it to unlock by holding it up to me and I can make funny faces at it so it won’t. But maybe that’s just me. And to anticipate the follow-on to that, if a true adversary is holding my phone and it hasn’…

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…

Have you tried either re-saving your face or saving a second face at the angle that gives you trouble?

Re: Apple Q2 Results

#100

Post by JimmyAustin »

Someone1234 wrote: post #17
minimaxir wrote: post #11

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.

Apple has been allowing their partners to aggressively price the "old" Apple Watch (Series 3), starting as low as under $200. This picked up a lot in 2019. This has effectively allowed them to enter a new lower segment of the market while the series 4 continues to chomp away at the higher end consumer. The "official" price of the Series 3 is $279. Or at least the price Apple pins its value at.

Series 3 and Series 4 watches are also the most visually distinct due to the S4's significantly larger screen. S0-S3 are all identical, aside from the red dot on the side of the LTE S3 and minor (1-2mm) changes in dimensions.
Post reply on HN