One day after saying that he'd would be taking an open-ended medical leave of absence, Apple CEO Steve Jobs announced that in the recently completed first quarter of his company's fiscal year, net income exceeded $6bn for the first time. "We had a phenomenal holiday quarter with record Mac, iPhone and iPad sales,” Jobs said in a …
That's the way to do it!
"The iPad continued to work its revolutionary magic on Cupertino's bottom line, with 7.33 million sold in the quarter"
misses the point a bit. It hinges observation on a tablet-mobile-portable device when in another reality it really is Apple's unconstrained creativity and foresight that is driving the phenomena?
Is that you Steve?
You're off one day and you're not following doctor's order already. "Unconstrained creativity and foresight" was a dead giveaway.
That's nearly $130 profit per device.
Nice work if you can get it!
Money can't buy love, even if it can get you some 'spare parts'.
At first sight it seems a fair margin --- clearly not $130 for every iPod Shuffle, but $130 for every Mac Pro is far too little to be competitive.
But there's so many apple-device-less sales: applecare extended warranties (linked to a device, but clearly a separate service), applestores selling all kinds of trinkets (USB cables, docks, Epson printers, whatever), iTunes and appstore, boxed software, ...
So your rough per-device profit is a bit meaningless, all in all. Show me an overpriced device, seems the simplest approach.
[When the MacMini was disassembled and costs summed up, a cry of "overpriced! outrageously so!" followed --- but all competitors that tried made either a more expensive or an inferiorly specced product (and several cleverly did both at once), so not much more was heard from that. Same with the first iPods --- decent-brand competitors weren't any substantially cheaper... Only the chunky no-name flash players are cheaper per GB. And don't mention the Zune. Quality competitors do have to go for features, alternative design, and audio quality never price.]
'Phenomenal,' says Jobs. Shareholders: "What about our bit."
The shareholders would like to share in the winnings as Apple does not currently pay dividends on its common stock. Apple paid dividends from June 15, 1987 to December 15, 1995. Perhaps the shareholders ought to vote in a new board who understand the meaning of "return on investment" and 'dividend". Bernstein Research’s Toni Sacconaghi said that Apple could pay out a 4% dividend.
Apple shareholders don't even get a discount on products.
Many celebrities, top politicians, company executives, military officials and TV talking heads get 'samples' as do compliant review writers. Guess that fixes The Register who tend to give: 'Just the facts, Ma'am.'
Now that's a short-sighted comment
You're threatening to vote in a new board.... Who do you think is making Apple as successful as it is? Aren't they making your stock portfolio value rise beyond all expectations? From $190 to $340 in one year, you can buy a few iPods with that even if you only had one share, so there's your discount.
Would you prefer to get dividends with your new board but see the stock tank to pre-Jobs levels?
Are you a shareholder?
I ask because all the actual shareholders I hear from are too busy grinning about their massive capital gains to whine about dividends. Something about paying less taxes on capital gains.
Apple are still growing massively. As such, the share price is going up. Only companies that are stagnating (no growth or nothing to invest their profits in) need to pay a divvie on the basis that there's no other way to provide shareholder value.
And that's a fine way to invest if you want a bit of security and a predictable return. However, Apple shares are up around 50% in roughly a year. I'll take that over a small dividend any day.
Don't let your blind hatred of Apple get in the way of a decent investment. Imagine you'd invested $100 in MS in 2000 rather than Apple. Still happy with the divvie?
Frankly, you're a divvie.
"return on investment"
ORLY? 62% YoY increase in value of the shares /is/ a pretty decent "return on investment" ! Perhaps before spouting your ridiculously bitter rhetoric, YOU should learn what "return on investment" actually means. I'll give you a hand, it's got fuck all to do with dividends. Dividends are merely a cut of the profits. Any /sensible/ investor prefers to see the profits used to grow the company (funnily enough, the rate of growth Apple has seen since suspending dividend payments has increases significantly, as has their share index), thus increasing their potential "return on investment".
Ponzi, aka NASDAQ
You'd think that in the wake of the biggest asset bubble-pop in Western history, people would stop looking for Greater Fools, and start looking at shares as investments.
An investor is someone who puts money into a company, and receives a return for it. There's a different word for someone buying something at a high price on the hope that it will inflate further: a mark.
Apple should pay a dividend, but as many of the board are remunerated with stock options, they have a greater incentive to push the stock higher than to provide a return on investment. They're not alone in this -- the NASDAQ is full of these pyramid-scheme operators. It's just become accepted to pass the risk onto your shareholders, and keep the rewards for yourself...
Remember, in one evening of after-hours trading in 2000, Apple lost over 80% of its share value. Of course, "this time it's different". I'm sure.
The return, Kristian...
isn't a dividend. That isn't a 'return on investment'. A dividend is a profit share, which financially is an entirely different thing. It is what is wrong with capitalism in it's current form. Businesses are no longer customer focussed (the people that /actually/ provide the profits) and are share-holder driven (the people expect massive dividends for limited investment). Apple in this respect are one of the few companies that are getting it right financially at the moment. Why should Apple pay dividends? They are under no obligation too, the money goes back into the business, what is wrong with that exactly?
$6,004,012,762 or $6,003,989,726
Enquiring minds wanna know.
Most iPods are iOS now!
The press release said that iPod sales are down another few percent, but something interesting in the analyst call was that the iPod touch made up more than 50% of iPods sold in the quarter. That's pretty amazing considering how good the Nano is (and how cheap the Shuffle is).
So that's around 10m iPods touch to go with the 16.24m iPhones and 7.33m iPads, for a total of 33.5m iOS devices in the quarter (not counting AppleTV which I haven't seen figures for).
lemming feeding frenzy ensues
Drop trow and bend now if you love steve.
sell sell sell
before the ship sinks..
I think it has a lot more to do with ignorant consumers.... :P
bricks for the licks
buy one come all, if you've nothing to do we've lots to gain!
Sales on par with IBM?
With 26bn a quarter, it looks like Apple is now selling as much as IBM - and making a lot better profits on it. Someone remind me when that was last the case?
You're right, Apple does enjoy a huge amount of success due to ignorant consumers. These are people who know very little about what makes high end tech tick and don't want to know. They need gear that is simple to use, understand and 'just works'.
That's why they buy Apple and shun anything that appeals to the command line interface mob.
There are also a reasonable number of people who know a great deal about what makes high end tech tick, have grown out of their adolescent tinkering phase and just want something that does what it's supposed to do allowing them to focus on more important things.
The sheer number of narrow-minded, polar opinions expressed here never ceases to amaze me. Wouldn't you lot be better off posting your diatribes on The Inq?
The Inq doesn't have 'Paris' icons
Personally, I think they'd be better off doing these "IT jobs" they keep going on about, but I'm not paying their wages. I come here for my tea breaks, but 'Wraith404', above us, has sat here and posted... well, let's count them, one, two, three... four comments... one after another - each one more inane than the one before it! He seems to be one of these people who believes you can alter reality, by writing down the things you want to be true, and then hiding them in different places. Fortunately, it doesn't seem to be working - since, let's face it, it would be a pretty banal reality!
I think Apple's sales figures reflect the fact that - now that it has finally broken out of the straight jacket of desktop computing - IT is about to get a whole lot bigger and more diverse, than the ones who have been trying to hold things back and cling to their bottom lines, this last decade and more, could ever have foreseen. The figures only serve to show Apple's competitors the direction in which their own sales must go, if they are to remain relevant.