Just look how much Jobs invested back versus how much cash has piled up since he died.
Steve was interested in product improvement, not in real-estate, luxury, or extreme wealth as such.
He warned against greedyness, and almost anything the current leadership prioritizes. Pioneers shouldn’t be compared to milkers anyway
The data doesn't support your supposition.
Then please explain where those (unused) hundreds of billions cash and immense real-estate investments stem from, and what percentage of earnings were invested back over the Jobs’ vs. post-Jobs years. The problem is your micro-economic approach to macro-economic issues
Just look how much Jobs invested back versus how much cash has piled up since he died.
Steve was interested in product improvement, not in real-estate, luxury, or extreme wealth as such.
He warned against greedyness, and almost anything the current leadership prioritizes. Pioneers shouldn’t be compared to milkers anyway
The data doesn't support your supposition.
Then please explain where those hundreds of billions come from, and what percentage of earnings became invested back over the years. The problem is your micro-economic approach to macro-economic issues
We've discussed this ad infinitum over the last five years. Your problem is your own micro-economic approach, meaning Apple not directly appealing to you anymore as a customer in a shift in focus to a different product line, to a macro-economic issue. On a per-unit basis, Apple is making no more money as a percent of what it costs the company to make under Cook, than it did under Jobs. The difference is the stunningly higher user base that the company accumulated.
I understand where you're coming from, but you're conflating several different issues.
I just compared a Xs Max 512GB $1449 to a Note 9 512GB $1249, Apple’s premium is 16%. For that you get premium material (all glass, stainless steel), superior security, processor, screen among others. Noting that Samsung supply themselves with the display so it costs them less. Why doesn’t Samsung get some of this criticism?
Because Samsung is raising their prices piggybacking on Apple. It still cold comfort to people who don’t care that much for those premium materials at those prices. Some people are on tight budgets. It’s Apple’s prerogative to move upmarket, but not everyone wants BMWs and Mercedeses, even if they could afford them. Then, there’s the perception issue too. If people feel like they get ripped off, even if they’re not, you’ve got a problem. At the end of the day, this is grumbling while some people realize that going forward, if they want the latest Apple tech, they either have to borrow to buy it, or buy used or refurbished, and hold on longer to it. So Apple is just dropping the “affordable” from “affordable luxury”.
Apple still sells very capable phones like the iPhone 7 for quite "affordable" prices. They make more expensive devices because they know there are customers out there who will buy them. They are not gouging anyone.
The 5S can run decently their latest software. The Xr is what the 9 would be. And the X and Xs are what the 10 and 11 would have been in 2019 and 2020 if they kept the yearly new product line the same as usual. They introduced them in advance and price them accordingly based on the fact that producing them is likely not as "cheap" as producing a 7, and 8 (which is essentially a 7 production-wise) or now an Xr.
Services will boost their margins, sure - but all the services require investment and have fixed costs. Moving to renewable energy removes on the long run some of these costs - it is not just wanting to be "green". Green in this case means also being smart about costs in the future.
I cannot unfortunately say that my 2500€ iMac performed well in the 5 years I have had it (the internal 1TB HDD failed after a little more than 2 years, with no sign or error message to inform me it was failing), and we have a MacBook Pro 2014 that cannot keep the charge when in standby since 10.13 came out (and with a battery with only 250 full cycle charges).
But I have to say the iPhones have been defect free since the 6 (now owning a flawless 8+ (so far) and an 8).
What I would like to see is definitely more quality in software and iCloud speed (it is really really slow...).
The issue is not just that Apple is far richer than they’ve ever been, but the money Apple is making from overall doesn’t match the attitude the company would have you believe they have toward their customers, more than ever. If you really want leave the world better than you’ve found it, then treat the people who live in it with respect. Making this much money from people while continually rising prices should leave a bad taste in our mouths. A disgusting display of greed.
And as many staff writing for AI are shareholders of AAPL, I believe they should refrain from commenting on such matters, as it’s an obvious journalistic conflict of interest.
I’ve addressed this already. None of us are.
I have listened to the podcasts where one of you said you owned some AAPL but felt it didn't influence your writing (about 3 or 4 episodes ago) and DED goes to shareholder meetings, so he must be. That's two of you. Perhaps you you should ask each individual involved here to find out for yourself.
The issue is not just that Apple is far richer than they’ve ever been, but the money Apple is making from overall doesn’t match the attitude the company would have you believe they have toward their customers, more than ever. If you really want leave the world better than you’ve found it, then treat the people who live in it with respect. Making this much money from people while continually rising prices should leave a bad taste in our mouths. A disgusting display of greed.
And as many staff writing for AI are shareholders of AAPL, I believe they should refrain from commenting on such matters, as it’s an obvious journalistic conflict of interest.
I’ve addressed this already. None of us are.
I have listened to the podcasts where one of you said you owned some AAPL but felt it didn't influence your writing (about 3 or 4 episodes ago) and DED goes to shareholder meetings, so he must be. That's two of you. Perhaps you you should ask each individual involved here to find out for yourself.
Victor produces the podcast and writes reviews and doesn't contribute to financial reports. Dan has press access to shareholder meetings. The editorial crew of Roger, Mikey, William, Malcolm, and myself do not have Apple stock, or stock in suppliers. Is that granular enough for you?
Another small example is with the new iPad Pros. The USB-C charger is now 18W which is nice but the design isn’t the same as the 12W charger if replaced. That one had the really nice design where the prongs folded down is it was easier to travel with. This new charger doesn’t and is much bulkier. And the supplied cable is very short. If you use this iPad on a desk you’d probably need an extension cord to reach the wall outlet. Of course you don’t have to have the device plugged in while using it but still it feels a bit cheap considering how expensive these devices are. Those are the kind of things where people feel like they’re getting nickel and dimed to death.
Just upgraded from a 6 plus to an iPhone xSmax w 256 gig (ouch my butt does hurt a tiny bit -sorry censors don’t zap me) and i’m glad to say that even though my wallet is a lit lighter- XSmax has me floored! Seems to me it’s worth every penny (except it could have come with the 128 gig) - but i’ll find use for tha 256 gig as I prefer to have local memory over cloud memory, after leasing 50 gig for 99 cents month, it was a point of irritation, even if it’s cheap (why, it’s free on so many other places but guess they selll our photos n data hmm )...) Truly not a mizer or great with money but I usually buy smartlly (outgrew spending impulsiveness in my twenty’s mostly, so I don’t part with chunks of money easily (especially as I approach 60). But, whenever I do spend a bit more, it’s because I know it’s high quality item and that includes that it’s “built to last” (like the 1987 Grateful Dead Album if same title— though that song is about the _polar opposite_ of material goods). Paid “through nose” for (can’t remember what in the 70s (?lol), Sony’s in the early 80s, and Toyota’s in the late 80s through 90s & even still do now. Probably, since the millennium, the brand that stands out has been Apple ( especially as it wins for the ubiquitous omnipresent consumer of my greenbacks & credit cards (with Verizon earning my least love for good tech but poor customer service imho) Don’t think it’s been perfect w Apple, we have had “marital spats” (letest one my “free/$9.99” trial of Apple Music) and the “jiffy pop” battery SNAFU on a few Macbook Pros (2007-11?) that almost ended the “marriage” (as i often glanced on way out at the ballooning batteries in my garage’s years long toxic recycling pile.. But overall my family and I are all still Apple “enthusiasts” (strongest word I can use as it’s still a material thing not spiritual enlightenment hey?) . Being worth the price is why Apple (like Toyota & most recent ( “late to party” ) find- Subaru), are on my short list of go to brands over the years...you learn a few lessons about buying srufff that includes views of function n form- a stupid thing I iwas told by a fellow SW guy in 1987 was that “a car is to get you from point A to B” (I that kind of sums up the diff between the PC/Mac old camp tech war) and in similar vain that a computer wasn’t then, and less so now, is a means to simply write work papers, surf the web, get email, write spreadsheets IE just a device “to get work done”.. even though there were few Macs in high tech SW in mid 80s where i was i never bought the point A to B any more than I liked the PC view of computers.. Sp now, for better or worse computers and iPhones- effectively a laptop in our palms- have become a multimedia interface that can almost be an extension of ourselves).The ease of using software and hardware defines an experience and so it’s not only utilitarian function (love my Subaru) or appearancw as it’s secured on iPhone X’s “snob appeal” (even it it’s got a beautiful appearance) it’s the overall gestalt if you will that is REAL substance- form, fit, function do matter.. as we aren’t just robots we’re artistic creative beings). Apple might seem the priciest, at first glance, but it’s been great choice as we raised our two kids ( cell phones laptops iPads etc.from grades 6 to last year of college now). .Aplle sits alongside Sony, Levi’s, Toyota, n “most recent find Subaru, in my mind as brands that mean quality and value ( it’s not valuable unless it’s accessible, easy to use and built to last).
PS investors we need to get Apple to beat down all the fake news trolls that appears every new iphone cycle - it’s one thing to obsess over iphone sales and i agree w slowly removing numbers from quarterly reports but then you need to jill these fake news story’s like you did with the soy chip scandal “thad never happened”. Bloomberg of all places, a high tech company in own rite ought to be held accountable for shoddy research..
Another small example is with the new iPad Pros. The USB-C charger is now 18W which is nice but the design isn’t the same as the 12W charger if replaced. That one had the really nice design where the prongs folded down is it was easier to travel with. This new charger doesn’t and is much bulkier. And the supplied cable is very short. If you use this iPad on a desk you’d probably need an extension cord to reach the wall outlet. Of course you don’t have to have the device plugged in while using it but still it feels a bit cheap considering how expensive these devices are. Those are the kind of things where people feel like they’re getting nickel and dimed to death.
Apple are not trying to save money. Look the other way. ;-)
The issue is not just that Apple is far richer than they’ve ever been, but the money Apple is making from overall doesn’t match the attitude the company would have you believe they have toward their customers, more than ever. If you really want leave the world better than you’ve found it, then treat the people who live in it with respect. Making this much money from people while continually rising prices should leave a bad taste in our mouths. A disgusting display of greed.
And as many staff writing for AI are shareholders of AAPL, I believe they should refrain from commenting on such matters, as it’s an obvious journalistic conflict of interest.
I’ve addressed this already. None of us are.
I have listened to the podcasts where one of you said you owned some AAPL but felt it didn't influence your writing (about 3 or 4 episodes ago) and DED goes to shareholder meetings, so he must be. That's two of you. Perhaps you you should ask each individual involved here to find out for yourself.
Victor produces the podcast and writes reviews and doesn't contribute to financial reports. Dan has press access to shareholder meetings. The editorial crew of Roger, Mikey, William, Malcolm, and myself do not have Apple stock, or stock in suppliers. Is that granular enough for you?
We will editorialize as we see fit.
It would seem then that your first comment that none of you are stockholders in inaccurate.
The issue is not just that Apple is far richer than they’ve ever been, but the money Apple is making from overall doesn’t match the attitude the company would have you believe they have toward their customers, more than ever. If you really want leave the world better than you’ve found it, then treat the people who live in it with respect. Making this much money from people while continually rising prices should leave a bad taste in our mouths. A disgusting display of greed.
And as many staff writing for AI are shareholders of AAPL, I believe they should refrain from commenting on such matters, as it’s an obvious journalistic conflict of interest.
I’ve addressed this already. None of us are.
I have listened to the podcasts where one of you said you owned some AAPL but felt it didn't influence your writing (about 3 or 4 episodes ago) and DED goes to shareholder meetings, so he must be. That's two of you. Perhaps you you should ask each individual involved here to find out for yourself.
Victor produces the podcast and writes reviews and doesn't contribute to financial reports. Dan has press access to shareholder meetings. The editorial crew of Roger, Mikey, William, Malcolm, and myself do not have Apple stock, or stock in suppliers. Is that granular enough for you?
We will editorialize as we see fit.
It would seem then that your first comment that none of you are stockholders in inaccurate.
It would seem that it still is, given that Victor isn't in our editorial department, and certainly doesn't have a byline on this piece. This conversation has concluded in this thread. If you wish to continue it in private message, feel free to do so.
Is this report talking about gross margins or profit margins? Do you have a comparison of average selling prices over time?
Meaningless to to this discussion. When Dodge started selling the 12-cylinder Viper it would have had a positive effect on ASPs. But it offered a lot more power and sportiness. Apples latest iPhones offer a lot more performance and capabilities versus previous generations. You’d expect ASPs to climb. Gross margins is where the comparison should lay, and this article does a good job pointing out how they have not significantly moved during Cook’s tenure.
The 2010 MBA had more performance and capabilities than the 2008 model but it was cheaper. Same with the $329 iPad compared to the original. Anyone who doesn’t see that Apple is offsetting slower/flat unit sales growth with price increases is blind. New flagship iPhones used to start at $649, now they’re $999. Now you can argue the XS is $350 better than 6 was, that’s obviously subjective but it’s still more expensive. Take the new Mac mini. Starts at $799. The previous entry point was $499. Again, one can argue that the new mini is way better and deserves the $300 price increase but the bottom line is you used to be able to get into the Mac ecosystem for $499 and now the cheapest entry point is $799. The previous entry point to iPhone was the $399 SE. Now the cheapest entry point is the $499 7. And the cheapest iPad used to be $259; now it’s $329. In the past you could get an Apple TV for $99; now it’s $179. It costs more to get into the Apple ecosystem that’s just a fact.
It’s not appropriate to cast the comparison the way you have. Like saying the entry level cancer cure in 1950 was les expensive than today’s entry level cancer cure. These are different things you are comparing. I use an extreme example to illustrate my point.
As for being blind, I could accuse those who aren’t willing to acknowledge that Apple could certainly juice units sales year after year by simply designing and developing iPhone models spanning lower price tiers, as other vendors have done. How popular would be a 6” OLED iPhone priced at $400? Pretty popular, but Apple would make no margins on such a model. So it’s not that Apple is reacting to slower/flat unit sales. It’s quite the opposite; Apple has deliberately decided to go farther up market in capabilities, performance, etc, and at significantly higher prices. Slower/flattening unit sales is a result of that strategy, not the reason for the strategy. You see, those who aren’t blind can see that it’s acually the opposite of your characterization.
Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?
Well, the $13,000 chairs for the new campus certainly haven't helped reduce costs.
Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?
Well, the $13,000 chairs for the new campus certainly haven't helped reduce costs.
It's not like they had folding chairs at 1 Infinite Loop...
Margins in the 40% range are very good for a company selling physical goods.
But they pale in comparison to the margins over at Google (average of 61% for the past 10 years) or Microsoft (average approaching 70% and a record high of 80%). Yet I don't see anyone giving them a hard time about how much money/profit they're raking in.
You beat me to it. I was going to comment that those who vilify Apple on it’s enormous pile of profits have the choice of buying a Windows setup on Microsoft hardware where the combined total of their purchases hands 70% margins to Microsoft. Where’s the beef?
So because someone else does it also makes it OK? $200 extra for 8 --> 16GB RAM in a MacBook? $850 price premium for 1TB worth of SSD storage in the new iPad Pro? $200 more for 128GB extra SSD in the new Macbook Air? There isn't any other way to describe it BUT robbery.
Also, not sure what you mean "combined total" but you don't buy Windows and then buy a piece of Microsoft hardware. Like macOS, Windows is included in the price.
My point is simple. The gross margins Apple achieves are not out of line. Not by a long shot. Pretty easy to grok, eh? Unless you are seeking simply to vilify Apple.
I don't think Apple is robbing me: They offer well thought out products of (generally) of the highest performance and quality that (generally) make my life better*. I am willing to pay for that.
* Except for the Mac line. That needs work. And the prices do not match well with what it offers.
Consistent gross margins don't tell me anything about changes to the affordability of products. One doesn't need to be a financial analyst to figure out that the price of a 15" MacBook Pro is substantially higher, even after inflation, than it was five years ago. If the reason for that isn't growing margins, then obviously costs have also increased. Maybe Apple has a problem with cost control and/or spending decisions?
Or maybe the ratio of costs to selling prices have remained steady for cutting edge technologies. If it were milk or toasters we were talking about then I could understand your implication that input costs should not be increasing and perhaps even be going down. But Apple is doing the same thing today as it was doing 10, 15, 20 years ago; developing new products with increasing performance and capabilities. Seems that will always remain the same percentage of total costs.
Is this report talking about gross margins or profit margins? Do you have a comparison of average selling prices over time?
Meaningless to to this discussion. When Dodge started selling the 12-cylinder Viper it would have had a positive effect on ASPs. But it offered a lot more power and sportiness. Apples latest iPhones offer a lot more performance and capabilities versus previous generations. You’d expect ASPs to climb. Gross margins is where the comparison should lay, and this article does a good job pointing out how they have not significantly moved during Cook’s tenure.
The 2010 MBA had more performance and capabilities than the 2008 model but it was cheaper. Same with the $329 iPad compared to the original. Anyone who doesn’t see that Apple is offsetting slower/flat unit sales growth with price increases is blind. New flagship iPhones used to start at $649, now they’re $999. Now you can argue the XS is $350 better than 6 was, that’s obviously subjective but it’s still more expensive. Take the new Mac mini. Starts at $799. The previous entry point was $499. Again, one can argue that the new mini is way better and deserves the $300 price increase but the bottom line is you used to be able to get into the Mac ecosystem for $499 and now the cheapest entry point is $799. The previous entry point to iPhone was the $399 SE. Now the cheapest entry point is the $499 7. And the cheapest iPad used to be $259; now it’s $329. In the past you could get an Apple TV for $99; now it’s $179. It costs more to get into the Apple ecosystem that’s just a fact.
Exactly, increasing prices to offset lower demand is never a good strategy. It works in the short term, but there's only so far you can go (and Apple's already there) before it affects sales in the medium to long term. I think Cook saw the revenue growth go negative in 2016, and to correct it just applied the easy fix of raise prices. The number one problem I and everyone I speak to has with regards to Apple products is the price. Apple gear is just not good value for money anymore. And articles like this don't help matters in Apple's favour; if articles excusing Apple's pricing need to exist, there's a big enough proportion of people who are concerned over the pricing, meaning there's a problem with it. People don't mind paying a bit more for quality and customer service, but people don't want to be ripped off.
Like I said, it’s subjective whether someone thinks a product is priced fairly. But it absolutely is a fact that Apple products are getting more expensive.
It is, there have always been a minority of people who have complained about Apple’s pricing, but they just weren’t Apple’s target market or couldn’t see how Apple’s devices were in fact good value. Apple doesn’t make machines for the budget end of the market so there’ll always be complaints from those people. The minority complaining about price has ballooned in recent years, and now seems to be the majority. Maybe Apple’s just trying to go after the high end; the Ferrari of the market - which would explain the pricing. Only thing is the performance doesn’t equate to the high pricing.
I just compared a Xs Max 512GB $1449 to a Note 9 512GB $1249, Apple’s premium is 16%. For that you get premium material (all glass, stainless steel), superior security, processor, screen among others. Noting that Samsung supply themselves with the display so it costs them less. Why doesn’t Samsung get some of this criticism?
I don‘t know about the US, but in Germany Samsung sells the Note 9 with 512GB for 1249€ while Apples iPhone Xs Max 512GB can be had for 1649€. The prices outside the US are outrageous as Germany is not even really bad off. In other countries the differences to the US prices are even bigger. So your example just goes to show Apple is rightfully being criticized - at least outside the USA.
Comments
The problem is your micro-economic approach to macro-economic issues
I understand where you're coming from, but you're conflating several different issues.
We will editorialize as we see fit.
Truly not a mizer or great with money but I usually buy smartlly (outgrew spending impulsiveness in my twenty’s mostly, so I don’t part with chunks of money easily (especially as I approach 60). But, whenever I do spend a bit more, it’s because I know it’s high quality item and that includes that it’s “built to last” (like the 1987 Grateful Dead Album if same title— though that song is about the _polar opposite_ of material goods).
Paid “through nose” for (can’t remember what in the 70s (?lol), Sony’s in the early 80s, and Toyota’s in the late 80s through 90s & even still do now. Probably, since the millennium, the brand that stands out has been Apple ( especially as it wins for the ubiquitous omnipresent consumer of my greenbacks & credit cards (with Verizon earning my least love for good tech but poor customer service imho) Don’t think it’s been perfect w Apple, we have had “marital spats” (letest one my “free/$9.99” trial of Apple Music) and the “jiffy pop”
battery SNAFU on a few Macbook Pros (2007-11?) that almost ended the “marriage” (as i often glanced on way out at the ballooning batteries in my garage’s years long toxic recycling pile.. But overall my family and I are all still Apple “enthusiasts” (strongest word I can use as it’s still a material thing not spiritual enlightenment hey?) .
Being worth the price is why Apple (like Toyota & most recent ( “late to party” ) find- Subaru), are on my short list of go to brands over the years...you learn a few lessons about buying srufff that includes views of function n form- a stupid thing I iwas told by a fellow SW guy in 1987 was that “a car is to get you from point A to B” (I that kind of sums up the diff between the PC/Mac old camp tech war) and in similar vain that a computer wasn’t then, and less so now, is a means to simply write work papers, surf the web, get email, write spreadsheets IE just a device “to get work done”.. even though there were few Macs in high tech SW in mid 80s where i was i never bought the point A to B any more than I liked the PC view of computers.. Sp now, for better or worse computers and iPhones- effectively a laptop in our palms- have become a multimedia interface that can almost be an extension of ourselves).The ease of using software and hardware defines an experience and so it’s not only utilitarian function (love my Subaru) or appearancw as it’s secured on iPhone X’s “snob appeal” (even it it’s got a beautiful appearance) it’s the overall gestalt if you will that is REAL substance- form, fit, function do matter.. as we aren’t just robots we’re artistic creative beings).
Apple might seem the priciest, at first glance, but it’s been great choice as we raised our two kids ( cell phones laptops iPads etc.from grades 6 to last year of college now). .Aplle sits alongside Sony, Levi’s, Toyota, n “most recent find Subaru, in my mind as brands that mean quality and value ( it’s not valuable unless it’s accessible, easy to use and built to last).
PS investors we need to get Apple to beat down all the fake news trolls that appears every new iphone cycle - it’s one thing to obsess over iphone sales and i agree w slowly removing numbers from quarterly reports but then you need to jill these fake news story’s like you did with the soy chip scandal “thad never happened”. Bloomberg of all places, a high tech company in own rite ought to be held accountable for shoddy research..
It would seem then that your first comment that none of you are stockholders in inaccurate.
As for being blind, I could accuse those who aren’t willing to acknowledge that Apple could certainly juice units sales year after year by simply designing and developing iPhone models spanning lower price tiers, as other vendors have done. How popular would be a 6” OLED iPhone priced at $400? Pretty popular, but Apple would make no margins on such a model. So it’s not that Apple is reacting to slower/flat unit sales. It’s quite the opposite; Apple has deliberately decided to go farther up market in capabilities, performance, etc, and at significantly higher prices. Slower/flattening unit sales is a result of that strategy, not the reason for the strategy. You see, those who aren’t blind can see that it’s acually the opposite of your characterization.
* Except for the Mac line. That needs work. And the prices do not match well with what it offers.