"The results follow a disastrous posting from Q1 2023, where Apple reported $117.15 billion, which was the first year-on-year quarterly drop in revenue since 2019."
Really? Disastrous? Did the company go under? Did the stock fall 50%? C'mon.
We already knew why Apple didn’t have massive layoffs: they didn’t massively hire like Amazon and the rest.
Apple has better management than Amazon, Meta or Google, being stupid and hiring more people than you need that’s bad management.
I suppose they were taking Steve Jobs' advice and skated to where the puck was going to be with respect to sales volume and manpower requirements. Problem is, they thought the puck was going to be a lot farther than where it actually went.
It's easy to skate to where you think the puck will be. Accurately predicting where the puck will be though, that takes skill, discipline (don't get too excited), and a dash of genius. Discipline is probably where all these companies stumbled.
If the full the range of Mac computers were for sale to the public, Apple probably would’ve been up in Mac Computer sales, when compared to last year’s quarter at the same time.
What do you mean by the full range? 🤔
Full range a larger screen iMac 27 inches or higher. It’s been over a decade, some form of a tower desktop, computer, half size or full size, and where is the rack mountable Mac, is Apple going to wait for those three guys who used to work at Apple, who now work for Qualcomm to introduce a Arm server? All these things Apple will do in the future, it’s just a question of how long Tim Cook is willing to look at fewer Mac’s sold per quarter, and leave billions sitting on the table.
Good lord you have no idea what you’re taking about. The current Mac Pro does have a rack mountable option. Do yourself a favor, research before making a fool of yourself.
Apple releases products when they’re ready, not just because they can.
If the full the range of Mac computers were for sale to the public, Apple probably would’ve been up in Mac Computer sales, when compared to last year’s quarter at the same time.
The rest of the range only makes a fraction of the unit volume (<5%). Last year's revenue was due to the record M1 launch that near doubled their sales vs Intel.
This year is a contraction from that record high. M2 would never reach that level but it's still way above Intel Mac sales.
M3 and 15" Air will be able to go back up a bit, especially the 15" Air as it's the most popular form factor and will be at a higher price point.
Since Apple doesn’t break that out, how do you know? It’s a slap in the face to all those people over the years who bought 27 inch iMac’s to be told that a 24 inch iMac is what they should settle for. Not selling a larger range of computers with different form factors, and having a downturn in the total number of Macs sold go hand-in-hand, there will be no growth in Mac computer sales, selling mini’s, a tiny iMac and laptop computers only. Someone in hardware must be screaming at Tim Cook and Marketing to pull their heads out of dark places. Because there will be no increase in Mac sales without more form factors being offered to the public to buy.
ASP was also reported, which is always around $1200-1300 for Mac. This means that the vast majority (>50%) of units sold are lower-end models.
<20% desktops, more than 50% of those are 24" iMacs, some are Mac minis (<5%), some Mac Pros (<1%), the remainder 27" iMac are <5%.
Apple didn't tell you to buy a 24" iMac, they suggested you buy a Mac Studio + Mac Studio Display.
If someone typically bought the entry 27" iMac with an i5 ($1799 = $2099 inflation-adjusted), the equivalent would be an entry mini ($599) + Studio Display ($1599) = $2198 If someone typically bought the high-end 27" iMac with i9 ($2999 = $3499 inflation-adjusted), the equivalent would be a Mac Studio ($1999) + Studio Display ($1599) = $3598
Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world, they don't overlook highly profitable opportunities. The fact is, the high-end desktop market isn't one any more.
If the full the range of Mac computers were for sale to the public, Apple probably would’ve been up in Mac Computer sales, when compared to last year’s quarter at the same time.
What do you mean by the full range? 🤔
Full range a larger screen iMac 27 inches or higher. It’s been over a decade, some form of a tower desktop, computer, half size or full size, and where is the rack mountable Mac, is Apple going to wait for those three guys who used to work at Apple, who now work for Qualcomm to introduce a Arm server? All these things Apple will do in the future, it’s just a question of how long Tim Cook is willing to look at fewer Mac’s sold per quarter, and leave billions sitting on the table.
Good lord you have no idea what you’re taking about. The current Mac Pro does have a rack mountable option. Do yourself a favor, research before making a fool of yourself.
Apple releases products when they’re ready, not just because they can.
Apple Silicon, small compact and powerful, SOC’s chip, that can run in a much smaller enclosure and use less power, than the competition. What’s the point of it if you don’t use those characteristics to design something that fits in a much smaller area than the competition, by being obtuse, and thinking that rack mounting the entire Apple Mac pro computer, into a rack is the way to go is stupid, yes, people do it because they have to, no thanks to Apple, a slimline rack mountable Mac, if Apple ever gets into that area, would be a much better solution, and not that Frankenstein let’s mount put the whole computer in a rack, which cost a lot more to implement. Is Apple waiting for those three designers at Qualcomm, that used to work at Apple to eventually design, a solution probably.
If the full the range of Mac computers were for sale to the public, Apple probably would’ve been up in Mac Computer sales, when compared to last year’s quarter at the same time.
The rest of the range only makes a fraction of the unit volume (<5%). Last year's revenue was due to the record M1 launch that near doubled their sales vs Intel.
This year is a contraction from that record high. M2 would never reach that level but it's still way above Intel Mac sales.
M3 and 15" Air will be able to go back up a bit, especially the 15" Air as it's the most popular form factor and will be at a higher price point.
Since Apple doesn’t break that out, how do you know? It’s a slap in the face to all those people over the years who bought 27 inch iMac’s to be told that a 24 inch iMac is what they should settle for. Not selling a larger range of computers with different form factors, and having a downturn in the total number of Macs sold go hand-in-hand, there will be no growth in Mac computer sales, selling mini’s, a tiny iMac and laptop computers only. Someone in hardware must be screaming at Tim Cook and Marketing to pull their heads out of dark places. Because there will be no increase in Mac sales without more form factors being offered to the public to buy.
ASP was also reported, which is always around $1200-1300 for Mac. This means that the vast majority (>50%) of units sold are lower-end models.
<20% desktops, more than 50% of those are 24" iMacs, some are Mac minis (<5%), some Mac Pros (<1%), the remainder 27" iMac are <5%.
Apple didn't tell you to buy a 24" iMac, they suggested you buy a Mac Studio + Mac Studio Display.
If someone typically bought the entry 27" iMac with an i5 ($1799 = $2099 inflation-adjusted), the equivalent would be an entry mini ($599) + Studio Display ($1599) = $2198 If someone typically bought the high-end 27" iMac with i9 ($2999 = $3499 inflation-adjusted), the equivalent would be a Mac Studio ($1999) + Studio Display ($1599) = $3598
Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world, they don't overlook highly profitable opportunities. The fact is, the high-end desktop market isn't one any more.
In hardware they are overlooking, Apple appears to want to corral people into laptops, subscriptions and pay as you go plans, Apple Mac hardware sales are not going to increase by offering a small selection of products, and no one‘s going to switch to a 24 inch iMac coming over from the PC world, to a computer that at this point can’t play AAA games and has a tiny screen, so yes, indeed Apple is leaving billions of dollars on the table.
The reception to the cost of the Apple Studio Display plus a mini or the Studio mini was not taken well across the tech world and most of the tech Mac sites including Appleinsider, were up in arms about the cost of the Apple studio monitor, even though it is the only 5K monitor you could buy at the time other than the LG monitor, that combination is not as cost-effectiveas a large screen 27 inch iMac computer which is the sweet spot, and most long-term Apple buyers know it.
(Note: most people on most of the tech/Apple sites including Appleinsider were also up an arms about the cost of the Apple XDR monitor.)
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-studio Eye-popping prices, Particularly if you start adding memory and accessories to your purchase the cheaper Mac Studio, (nearly $5000) with the Studio Display the next step up is $7000, if you’re coming from PC land or if you want to move up from one of the the cheaper Mac’s. You are nearly three times more than what most people pay for an average desktop PC.
Apple has waited so long that most people probably won’t even be happy with just a 27 inch screen, the greater computer market is using multiple or larger screens than that, even though most are inferior (less than 4.5 K ) to what Apple generally puts out.
no one‘s going to switch to a 24 inch iMac coming over from the PC world, to a computer that at this point can’t play AAA games and has a tiny screen, so yes, indeed Apple is leaving billions of dollars on the table.
They already had a 27" iMac that could dual boot to Windows for playing games, it didn't add billions to their revenue.
https://www.apple.com/shop/buy-mac/mac-studio Eye-popping prices, Particularly if you start adding memory and accessories to your purchase the cheaper Mac Studio, (nearly $5000) with the Studio Display the next step up is $7000, if you’re coming from PC land or if you want to move up from one of the the cheaper Mac’s. You are nearly three times more than what most people pay for an average desktop PC.
A new 27" iMac would be expensive too. It would start at $1999 with 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM, M2. Moving to M2 Max would cost $800, 2TB SSD would cost $600, 32GB RAM would be $400. M2 Max, 2TB, 32GB 27" iMac = $3799
M2 Max Mac Studio 32GB, 2TB = $2599, Studio Display = $1599. Total = $4198.
10% more expensive than an iMac and you can buy a cheaper 3rd party display.
If the full the range of Mac computers were for sale to the public, Apple probably would’ve been up in Mac Computer sales, when compared to last year’s quarter at the same time.
What do you mean by the full range? ߤ䦡mp;nbsp;
Full range a larger screen iMac 27 inches or higher. It’s been over a decade, some form of a tower desktop, computer, half size or full size, and where is the rack mountable Mac, is Apple going to wait for those three guys who used to work at Apple, who now work for Qualcomm to introduce a Arm server? All these things Apple will do in the future, it’s just a question of how long Tim Cook is willing to look at fewer Mac’s sold per quarter, and leave billions sitting on the table.
Good grief, more armchair CEO BS. What makes you think Apple intends to ever release a server? The 27" iMac was addressed with the mini/Studio and Studio Display. Mac Pro is coming, sometime. And criticizing Cook's leadership, really? Yes, the most profitable computer company in the world is "leaving billions on the table". LOL.
Comments
Thank you Apple. You perform and don't need to lay off.
Really? Disastrous? Did the company go under? Did the stock fall 50%? C'mon.
It's easy to skate to where you think the puck will be. Accurately predicting where the puck will be though, that takes skill, discipline (don't get too excited), and a dash of genius. Discipline is probably where all these companies stumbled.
ASP was also reported, which is always around $1200-1300 for Mac. This means that the vast majority (>50%) of units sold are lower-end models.
<20% desktops, more than 50% of those are 24" iMacs, some are Mac minis (<5%), some Mac Pros (<1%), the remainder 27" iMac are <5%.
Apple didn't tell you to buy a 24" iMac, they suggested you buy a Mac Studio + Mac Studio Display.
If someone typically bought the entry 27" iMac with an i5 ($1799 = $2099 inflation-adjusted), the equivalent would be an entry mini ($599) + Studio Display ($1599) = $2198
If someone typically bought the high-end 27" iMac with i9 ($2999 = $3499 inflation-adjusted), the equivalent would be a Mac Studio ($1999) + Studio Display ($1599) = $3598
Apple is one of the most successful companies in the world, they don't overlook highly profitable opportunities. The fact is, the high-end desktop market isn't one any more.
The reception to the cost of the Apple Studio Display plus a mini or the Studio mini was not taken well across the tech world and most of the tech Mac sites including Appleinsider, were up in arms about the cost of the Apple studio monitor, even though it is the only 5K monitor you could buy at the time other than the LG monitor, that combination is not as cost-effective as a large screen 27 inch iMac computer which is the sweet spot, and most long-term Apple buyers know it.
They already had a 27" iMac that could dual boot to Windows for playing games, it didn't add billions to their revenue.
A new 27" iMac would be expensive too. It would start at $1999 with 512GB SSD, 16GB RAM, M2.
Moving to M2 Max would cost $800, 2TB SSD would cost $600, 32GB RAM would be $400.
M2 Max, 2TB, 32GB 27" iMac = $3799
M2 Max Mac Studio 32GB, 2TB = $2599, Studio Display = $1599. Total = $4198.
10% more expensive than an iMac and you can buy a cheaper 3rd party display.
I spent years developing software primarily for a Windows platform and when W10 arrived I hauled up the white flag and am now 100% MS Free.