Apple revises down capital expenditure projection 8% for fiscal 2015

Posted:
in AAPL Investors edited July 2015
Apple revealed in a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing Wednesday that it plans to spend $12 billion on capital expenditures for the 2015 fiscal year, $1 billion less than was initially projected last year.




In its 10-Q filing, Apple says capital spending for the first nine months of 2015 came out to $7.3 billion, leaving an extra $4.3 billion for the quarter ending in September. Apple defines capex as product tooling and manufacturing, data centers, corporate facilities and Apple Store facilities.

An Apple representative speaking to The Wall Street Journal said the revised forecast reflects more efficient spending on equipment and facilities, not on product pipeline changes. The publication noted Apple initially pegged spending at $12.4 billion in October 2014, with another $600 million going to building and renovating retail facilities.

Asymco's Horace Dediu plotted out a history of Apple's capex spending in a graph tweeted out today. He notes projected funding is "impressive" for a year expected to hold only "S" level iPhone upgrades, which usually amount to modest internal component updates.

Apple's capital spending budget for the rest of its fiscal year. Pretty impressive of an "S" year. pic.twitter.com/nsLKf8rlta

-- Horace Dediu (@asymco)


While Apple plans to cut capex for 2015, it surges forward in R&D spending, which floated above $2 billion for the first time in the third quarter, a year-over-year jump of 21 percent. The company posted another record quarter for the three-month period ending June, notching a 33 percent uptick in revenues to $49.6 billion.
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 24
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    Breaking : "Apple can't afford its capital expenditure programs."
    Doomed.
    /s
  • Reply 2 of 24
    solipsismysolipsismy Posts: 5,099member
    Asymco's Horace Dediu plotted out a history of Apple's capex spending in a graph tweeted out today. He notes projected funding is "impressive" for a year expected to hold only "S" level iPhone upgrades, which usually amount to modest internal component updates.

    The only consistency I've seen between S and non-S iPhone releases are the casing design staying mostly the same. The internals can have more advancements in an S-level release than a non-S-level release.
  • Reply 3 of 24
    foggyhillfoggyhill Posts: 4,767member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    The only consistency I've seen between S and non-S iPhone releases are the casing design staying mostly the same. The internals can have more advancements in an S-level release than a non-S-level release.

     

    Considering a lot investment for buildout for S years could be done in previous years, not even sure how this could correlate in any way?

  • Reply 4 of 24
    Quote:



    Originally Posted by SolipsismY View Post





    The only consistency I've seen between S and non-S iPhone releases are the casing design staying mostly the same. The internals can have more advancements in an S-level release than a non-S-level release.

     

    Exactly, which is why I held off and switched from being on the non S cycle to the S cycle. In my mind it is where you get the phone Apple were wanting to make with the new body but couldn't manage it technically at the time.

     

    The Non-S is where they roll out new manufacturing, the S is for rolling out new technology

  • Reply 5 of 24
    jungmarkjungmark Posts: 6,692member
    CapEx money cut. Apple future in doubt. /s
  • Reply 6 of 24
    robmrobm Posts: 1,068member
    I'll try again
    Breaking : Apple fails to meet CapEx targets
    /s

    Shorter, more punchy :D
  • Reply 7 of 24
    "Apple CapEx reduction points out to reduced iPhone, Watch manufacturing: twilight of the gods"
    /s
  • Reply 8 of 24
    singularitysingularity Posts: 1,329member
    Apple: Capex gotterdammerung
  • Reply 9 of 24
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

     

    Apple's capital spending budget for the rest of its fiscal year. Pretty impressive of an "S" year. pic.twitter.com/nsLKf8rlta


    -- Horace Dediu (@asymco)


    Yeah, he's right. 

     

    I mean, since Apple totally doesn't sell anything else than phones, and "data centers, corporate facilities and Apple Store facilities" obviously are things with totally negligible costs.

     

     

    ?Now, how the hell do I get myself a high-pay analyst job?

  • Reply 10 of 24
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by singularity View Post



    Apple: Capex gotterdammerung



    Götterdämmerung :)

  • Reply 11 of 24
    lightknightlightknight Posts: 2,312member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by RobM View Post



    I'll try again

    Breaking : Apple fails to meet CapEx targets

    /s



    Shorter, more punchy image



    "Apple reduces investments prior to sales collapse"

    "Apple Watch failure forces Apple to reduce spending"

     

    Wow, I NEED a job at the Evil Analyst HQ.

  • Reply 12 of 24
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Here's the Bloomberg headline that others have decided to re-publish.

    [SIZE=4]Apple Cuts $1 Billion From Capital Spending Forecast After IPhone Sales Miss[/SIZE]

    What a shameful headline. The only reason this is even a story is because the WSJ decided to compare this quarter's 10Q to last quarter's 10Q and noticed the change in capex forecast. There is NOTHING in Apple's 10Q or in any statements from Apple that indicate this change has anything to do with iPhone sales. To correlate the two is just shoddy journalism. :rolleyes:
  • Reply 13 of 24
    anantksundaramanantksundaram Posts: 19,158member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Here's the Bloomberg headline that others have decided to re-publish.

    Apple Cuts $1 Billion From Capital Spending Forecast After IPhone Sales Miss

    What a shameful headline. The only reason this is even a story is because the WSJ decided to compare this quarter's 10Q to last quarter's 10Q and noticed the change in capex forecast. There is NOTHING in Apple's 10Q or in any statements from Apple that indicate this change has anything to do with iPhone sales. To correlate the two is just shoddy journalism. :rolleyes:

    Bloomberg's web division is in major trouble. It's editor, the former Verge guy (Topolsky?) has essentially been fired. I think they're desperate for clicks to try and stay relevant with their lord and master, Michael B.

    The writing and coverage has truly become pretty shoddy in the past few months.
  • Reply 14 of 24
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,122member
    Apple: Capex gotterdammerung

    "Apple Caught In CapEx Ragnarok"
  • Reply 15 of 24
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,122member
    Bloomberg's web division is in major trouble. It's editor, the former Verge guy (Topolsky?) has essentially been fired. I think they're desperate for clicks to try and stay relevant with their lord and master, Michael B.

    The writing and coverage has truly become pretty shoddy in the past few months.

    Interesting. Nilay Patel and Topolsky I believe were in a power struggle at The Verge and post-Topolsky I've read many of their editors have left. I recall several TV and podcast interviews featuring Patel where he was clearly drunk and combative.
  • Reply 16 of 24
    MacProMacPro Posts: 18,248member
    rogifan wrote: »
    Here's the Bloomberg headline that others have decided to re-publish.

    Apple Cuts $1 Billion From Capital Spending Forecast After IPhone Sales Miss

    What a shameful headline. The only reason this is even a story is because the WSJ decided to compare this quarter's 10Q to last quarter's 10Q and noticed the change in capex forecast. There is NOTHING in Apple's 10Q or in any statements from Apple that indicate this change has anything to do with iPhone sales. To correlate the two is just shoddy journalism. :rolleyes:

    Definition of journalism in the 21st Century. "The perfection of the non sequitur to fool the great unwashed".
  • Reply 17 of 24
    rogifanrogifan Posts: 10,669member
    Interesting. Nilay Patel and Topolsky I believe were in a power struggle at The Verge and post-Topolsky I've read many of their editors have left. I recall several TV and podcast interviews featuring Patel where he was clearly drunk and combative.

    The quality of The Verge has seriously gone down hill. They're like a bad combination of Buzzfeed, Gizmodo and Huffington Post. They turned off comments rather than addressing the elephant in the room - their reporting sucks and has become more and more click bait driven. They really jumped the shark with their Apple Watch review.
  • Reply 18 of 24
    SpamSandwichSpamSandwich Posts: 31,122member
    rogifan wrote: »
    The quality of The Verge has seriously gone down hill. They're like a bad combination of Buzzfeed, Gizmodo and Huffington Post. They turned off comments rather than addressing the elephant in the room - their reporting sucks and has become more and more click bait driven. They really jumped the shark with their Apple Watch review.

    Yes, simply turning off the comments (but not bothering to remove the "view comments" clickable area) is so indicative of their sloppiness.
  • Reply 19 of 24
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by digitalclips View Post



    Definition of journalism in the 21st Century. "The perfection of the non sequitur to fool the great unwashed".

    Good one!

     

    Reminds me of the famous Zappa quote about rock journalists -- you could quite aptly replace the word 'rock' with 'tech': "Most rock journalism is people who can't write, interviewing people who can't talk, for people who can't read."

  • Reply 20 of 24
    sphericspheric Posts: 1,755member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by cy_starkman View Post

     

     

    Exactly, which is why I held off and switched from being on the non S cycle to the S cycle. In my mind it is where you get the phone Apple were wanting to make with the new body but couldn't manage it technically at the time.

     

    The Non-S is where they roll out new manufacturing, the S is for rolling out new technology




    The obvious exception being the iPhone 4's retina display. 

     

    But I too have been a happy camper on the "s" cycle.

Sign In or Register to comment.