sacto joe

franklinjackcon said:

I completely agree with everything said in the article and yes, some of the reporting is so wrong it almost looks intentional. But perhaps the crux of the Ives message is correct, even if the details are totally wrong. iPhone revenue is down this year and wearables/home/accessories + services revenue growth is only just making up for it. If iPhone revenue continues declining but the other two growth categories start flattening off, can Apple keep growing? Or it's possible that iPhone sales only look slow this year because of the large jump last year. At the very least, it's a reasonable question, even if CNBC framed it completely wrong.

Nope. The message, as usual, is myopic, especially since Apple no longer publishes iPhone numbers, thus making the assumption that iPhone sales are permanently declining ridiculous on the face of it.

It doesn’t take much digging to find out that iPhone sales, along with smartphone sales generally, started peaking 4 years ago. A clue to the actual facts about the iPhone's prospects can be found in a more detailed analysis of the one piece of information Apple still supplies: revenue. Apple breaks out revenue for iPhone, iPad, Mac, Other, and Services. I've got a chart that looks at all these areas. Guess what: Yes, there was a big pullback in iPhone revenue in 2019. But that's CLEARLY an outlier, caused by the huge impact of the Trump Trade War on Apple sales in China (a negative $8 Billion in  fy '19 comparative revenue). Disregarding that blip, the trajectory of iPhone revenue is up, not flat, and certainly not down!

It is, however, flattening, which is to be expected as we hit peak smartphone.

BTW, Apple cleared $64 B over the last year. Here’s the last 4 fiscal years’ net income:

59.531 B – fy ‘18
48.351 B – fy ‘17
45.687 B – fy ‘16
53.394 B – fy ‘ 15

Just imagine what it would have made absent the Trump Trade War....

BY FAR the best DED article I have ever enjoyed, and that’s saying a lot!  Congrats, DED!

icodewell said:

tenthousandthings said:

I guess the idea is that you make that $6K initial investment, and you can expand from there -- add RAM, add storage, add graphics power. This is not unlike the old Mac Pro. You don't have to buy the Apple display.

Some of you have apparently lost perspective on how much actual "Pro" equipment costs these days. My brother is a news photographer -- his camera body alone costs over $30K, and he goes through them every few years. This is not a new thing -- quality primary equipment is expensive, no matter your field. The XDR display is an example -- equivalent displays are pricey -- that $43K comparison price wasn't a joke.

For me, I want the XDR display. It's something I can use. Apple is going to sell a lot of those.

From what I've read, no one (including me) is against the expensive pro machine. We understand that there are reasonably wealthy professionals that buy machines like this. We're disappointed that the majority of pros were left out with regard to this machine, especially when Apple used to have cheese grater options for us.

Oh, for Pete’s sake! I paid $4,000 in 1984 for an original Mac, on credit because I hardly had a pot to pee in.  Best investment I ever made, bar none. Don’t tell me this is a lot of money for this computer! I’m flat not buying it.

Edit: That included a dot matrix printer. Horrible machine! But that plus the two programs that ran on the Mac, MacWrite and MacPaint - man, the freedom! Disc-swapping and all.

My wife and I attended this meeting. As regards the “inclusiveness” proposition, the inclusiveness of conservatives has been strangely absent when they held all the US seats of power in their iron grip. Besides the group behind this (National Center for Public Policy Research) being capable of any despicable act to push their agenda (see https://m.sfgate.com/news/article/The-fear-merchants-3105103.php ), the specious arguments they came up with were simply laughable.