Apple to report second-quarter results April 23

[AppleInsider]

Apple said this week it will announce results from its second fiscal quarter of 2008 ended March on Wednesday, April 23rd.

The results will be made public following the close of the stock market, and Apple executives will field questions from analysts and members of media in a subsequent conference call at approximately 5:00 p.m. Eastern time.

Historically, Apple's second quarter has be its weakest of the year due to seasonal trends. The three-month period spanning January through March falls between the traditionally lucrative holiday shopping frenzy and the early back-to-school buying season.

On average, Wall Street analysts are expecting the Cupertino-based company to report per-share earnings of $1.05 on revenues of $6.92 billion, fueled by sales of approximately 10.8 million iPods, 1.95 million Macs, and 1.6 - 2.0 million iPhones.

During its fiscal first quarter conference call in January, Apple management guided conservatively towards per-share earnings of $0.94 on revenues of $6.8 billion.

In recent weeks, several analysts have increased their forecast for the March quarter beyond consensus and guidance figures, saying they expect the company to benefit from continued momentum in Mac sales and favorable commodity prices.

[ View this article at AppleInsider.com ]

[GT500Shlby]

I'm assuming they are at least meeting market predictions with respect to income growth.

A few things which may hurt them:
1.) The rumors of the 3G iPhone hurting current iPhone sales
2.) They have been cutting corners on some "budget" items when Mac is supposed to be the upper echelon of computing. For example the use of 6-bit TN TFT panels in the 20" iMac when the old iMac was 8-bit S-IPS.
3.) The "Newer & Slower" Macbooks and MBPs.

For the premium we pay for the Mac name, we should be getting 120Hz 10-bit LCD Panels. Oh well, Money is king and Profit is his Prophet.

[Spamboy]

More important than the Mac name....the Mac OS. But yeah, I agree with the cheaping out.

Originally Posted by GT500Shlby

For the premium we pay for the Mac name, we should be getting 120Hz 10-bit LCD Panels.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by GT500Shlby

The "Newer & Slower" Macbooks and MBPs.

The new MB/MBPs aren't slower than the previous generation at the same price point.

[jbravo556]

Apple will post gross revenue between $6.95 and $7.05 Billions.

They will beat consensus and they will guide nearly 30% growth year over year for their third quarter. MSNBC and other sucky financial news sources will report that "Apple warns of a slowdown". The next day, their stock will plummet a minimum of 10 points on the news. People will sell their stock and people associated with the news sources will buy stock rebounding the stock's losses within 5 days.

[GT500Shlby]

Originally Posted by solipsism

The new MB/MBPs aren't slower than the previous generation at the same price point.

From the benchmarks I saw, some are and some aren't. The biggest problem was the drop in cache on the lower end MBP's and the MB's. The higher end processors increased the cache from the previous iteration. With no real price change (with the exception of the remote debacle) its actually half-true and half-false. While the lower end processors suffered in some areas (and had some gains as well) the higher-ends saw some nice gains but nothing dramatic. Albeit the true power of the Penryns won't be noticed until the platform gets the upgrade. I have an older 17" MBP and then I bought the latest 17" MBP and with the exception that I got 4Gb of ram on the new one and my old one has only 2GB - they didn't get *that* much of a bump. It's basically what you do with it, which will dictate any increase or decrease in speed. However, overall it almost evens out. The main benefit s of the new MBP were the LED backlit 1920x1200 screen and the true multi-touch pad. The screen makes it worth it. It's really beautiful to watch 1080p videos on. I really like the new screen.

Originally Posted by Spamboy

More important than the Mac name....the Mac OS. But yeah, I agree with the cheaping out.

The OS is supposedly cheaper than the "Microsoft tax" on PC's. Not that I own a 20" iMac or anything. I have two Mac minis and two MBPs.

[Spamboy]

Originally Posted by GT500Shlby

The OS is supposedly cheaper than the "Microsoft tax" on PC's. Not that I own a 20" iMac or anything. I have two Mac minis and two MBPs.

Yeah, I wasn't really talking about a higher cost of the OS per unit....I meant that when you buy a Mac, you don't buy it for cooler case with comparable hardware, you buy it for the Mac OS, which is infinitely more usable.

[solipsism]

Originally Posted by GT500Shlby

From the benchmarks I saw, some are and some aren't. The biggest problem was the drop in cache on the lower end MBP's and the MB's. The higher end processors increased the cache from the previous iteration. With no real price change (with the exception of the remote debacle) its actually half-true and half-false. While the lower end processors suffered in some areas (and had some gains as well) the higher-ends saw some nice gains but nothing dramatic. Albeit the true power of the Penryns won't be noticed until the platform gets the upgrade. I have an older 17" MBP and then I bought the latest 17" MBP and with the exception that I got 4Gb of ram on the new one and my old one has only 2GB - they didn't get *that* much of a bump. It's basically what you do with it, which will dictate any increase or decrease in speed. However, overall it almost evens out. The main benefit s of the new MBP were the LED backlit 1920x1200 screen and the true multi-touch pad. The screen makes it worth it. It's really beautiful to watch 1080p videos on. I really like the new screen.

I see what you are getting at, and you are right if you look at exactly the same speed processors, the newer ones with 3MB L2 and the older ones with 4MB L2. But Intel didn't price them the chips to move laterally in speed and Apple didn't put them in their MBs that way.

The late 2007 MB release had 2.0 and 2.2GHz chips and the current MBs have 2.1 and 2.4GHz; and Intel priced these faster GHz chips exactly the same chip-over-chip. MacWorld's benchmarking show a noticeable speed increase, though I don't think the gap is as much as previous chip releases due to the lower L2 in some Penryn chips.

SPEEDMARK 5 RESULTS:
• Early 2008 Model — 2.4GHz Core 2 Duo — 196
• Late 2007 Model .— 2.2GHz Core 2 Duo — 179

• Early 2008 Model — 2.1GHz Core 2 Duo — 180
• Late 2007 Model .— 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo — 167
(source)

[walshbj]

Regarding sales slumping before 3G launch:

A lot of us - nerdy enough to read AppleInsider - forget that most people don't read it. They don't know there's a new iPhone coming out.

I've stood near the iPhones in the store and listened to prospective buyers. They're more interested in getting a pink iPhone than a 3G one.

That said, I have to say I'm shocked by the number of people who've reportedly hacked their phone. While it's not technically difficult there is an element of risk. Maybe the bulk of iPhone buyers ARE nerds?

[ouragan]

In recent weeks, several analysts have increased their forecast for the March quarter beyond consensus and guidance figures, saying they expect the company to benefit from continued momentum in Mac sales and favorable commodity prices.

I just bought a 4 GB SanDisk USB flash drive for $29. You can figure out the $profit$ Apple is making on its iPods and iPhones, not to mention the $profit$ it is already making on Mac computers.

[Walter Slocombe]

Time to open the hat business again, as the sky will be sure to fall.

[DavidW]

Originally Posted by ouragan

I just bought a 4 GB SanDisk USB flash drive for $29. You can figure out the $profit$ Apple is making on its iPods and iPhones, not to mention the $profit$ it is already making on Mac computers.

But how do you know how much profit, in any, SanDisk is making by selling you a 4GB flask drive at $29.00? They might be trying to get rid of excess inventory while they can still get $29.00 for them. Next month they might take a loss because they can only get $25.00 for them.

I don't believe Apple makes any more than the industrial standard of 20% to 40% profit margin on most of their iPods and iPhones. Apple greatest strength is that they don't often have to sell their products at a deep discount just to get rid of them. They can almost command the original price for their products through it's entire life cycle, before the next generation comes out. Others manufacturers usually have to deeply discount their products to clear the shelves for their next generation. Often months ahead of time.

Since Apple is not a build to order company, any rescent drop in the price of the componets used to build iPods and iPhones doesn't instantly translate to more profit now. All it means is that Apple may have been able to build it for less if they had built it today rather than three months ago. However, Apple buys many of the componets that are subject to rapid decrease in price in mass quanity and already get a deep discount for them up front. Which is why the competition has a hard time competing when Apple first introduce a new (or updated) iPod. It isn't until the price of the main componet (flash drive) drops significantly that they (the competition) are able to compete with an iPod. And it will just be about this time when Apple introduces the next generation and renders the competing products "dated" and it must now be further discounted.

I'll be surprise if the price of flash drives have dropped below what Apple paid for them. When you contract to buy tens of millions of them a year, for the next several years, you get a pretty descent discount up front. The double rammy to the competition is that Apple causes a shortage of the drives in the beginning and thus keeps the price of the drives high, for the competition, for a period of time. If we see a big price drop in 4GB drives, it may be a sign that Apple is through with them and they will be moving on to 8GB, 16GB and 32GB drives for their next generation products (Except the Shuffle. Which may end up with the 4GB drive).