Slashdot Mirror
50% of Apple's Revenue Comes From the iPhone
BogenDorpher writes "A new report indicates that 50% of Apple's revenue comes from its iPhone product. Not 5%, not 20%, but 50%. In just three months from December 2010 to March 2011, Apple has raked in a total of 24.6 billion dollars. 50% of that came from the iPhone."
They also sell proprietary iPhone cables.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer." -Bene Gesserit Litany Against Fear
What I want to know is how much of that 50% is from hardware sales and what is from app store revenue.
Time to offend someone
the banana phone?
Apple is now the largest cellphone manufacturer on Earth by revenue.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2007/04/ballmer-says-iphone-has-no-chance-to-gain-significant-market-share.ars
1. Create iPhone
2. Wail on carriers so they don't ruin it
3. Profit!
4. Profit!!
5. Profit!!!
6. Profit!!!!
7. Profit!!!!!
I know it's kind of laughable right now, but imagine if Windows Phone or Android make a big dent into Apple's iPhone marketshare.
That's 50% of their revenue they are cutting into, at high percentages. Just food for thought folks...
The price is always right if someone else is paying.
Apple is a public company. It is in their financial statements.
iPhone and related products and services (d) 12,298. Total net sales $24,667. Numbers are in millions
I find this very interesting. In particular, I've had a number of people talk to me about how awesome Macs are, in particular discussing the adoption rate of OSX, etc. One of the things that continually gets pointed to is Apple's growth as evidence of this. While I don't pretend to have a strong grasp on the various numbers bandied about, if such a large percentage of Apple's revenue is solely from the iPhone, it really puts a damper on the idea that "based on Apple's growth, everyone will be using a Mac in just a few months" (hyperbole mine). Don't get me wrong, OSX market share may be increasing (possibly by large numbers), but my anecdotal examination of the world around me didn't seem to jive with what everyone was claiming.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
Incredibly 80% of their profits come just from apps for middle managers, hairdressers and telephone sanitizers.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I would disagree. At the rate they're going, they'll have as much cash on hand as their market cap within a few years assuming the stock price doesn't go up. Also, unless the tablet market withers to nothing, they'll continue to have room to grow. Their PC market share also continues to slowly rise, adding even more growth.
They will be solid for the next three years at the very least, even if Steve Jobs were to retire as CEO. Eventually they will reach a point where they need another massively successful product line in order to continue growing, but the smart phone and tablet markets are still incredibly young and it will be many years before they become saturated.
I see a fairly safe bet rather than a gamble. Android isn't hurting Apple's sales much if at all, as Apple is selling all that it can produce. If Android were to vanish from the market overnight, Apple's sales would not likely see a large increase. If there's cause for concern, it might be supply chain disruption due to the disaster in Japan, but with Apple's massive cash reserve, they can easily acquire the parts they need. In a certain sense, the tsunami is probably much worse for Apple's competitors than it is for Apple.
If approved T-Mobile will be owned by AT&T, too. It's already in the works.
Even if it doesn't, the iPad is going to face serious competition from the latest Android 3 tablets this summer.
GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
Funny, that's what everyone said about the first iPad.
"Any time now!"
"Soon!"
"Just around the corner"
"Ok, well *now* it'll get serious with Honeycomb..."
In the meantime, Apple released the iPad 2.
I've no doubt that there will be strong competitors to the iPad, but the supposed "cheaper, better, faster" Android tablet that was meant to appear months ago still hasn't arrived.
It only goes to show Ballmer has no vision. He's all bluster. You say: "He was right based on the state of things at that time." which is why MicroSoft is always behind the 8 ball. A successful company wants a CEO who can envision the future correctly, not one who predicts the future and fails every time. Apple predicted the future correctly (and is repeating its self with the iPad) based upon "...what was known at the time" of the prediction.
>I've no doubt that there will be strong competitors to the iPad, but the supposed "cheaper, better, faster" Android tablet that was meant to appear months ago still hasn't arrived.
These same "Wait till next year" noises have been coming from the Android camp since the iPad was first unveiled.
The Xoom might be the first credible iPad competitor looking at the device itself, but how many products ever come in ABOVE apple on price and succeed? The average consumer will consider Android when it's functionally equivalent and cheaper. People see the price tag on the Xoom and say "Well I could just get an iPad for that much."
They're making all the profit.
The risk to Apple from Android is that smartphones (and other devices) get commoditized thereby sucking significant profits out of their devices. Apple is a company build on selling differentiated hardware at higher prices - they cannot compete on low prices and when they tried in the past it nearly put them out of business. Android is a defensive play for Google since much internet use (and thus ad dollars) is moving to mobile devices and away from PCs. Android and iOs don't bring in money directly for either company - both exist to keep their main revenue streams viable (mostly hardware for Apple and mostly advertising for Google) and both are essentially given away. The big difference is that Google can (theoretically) make just as much money from a low priced smartphone as a high priced one whereas Apple cannot. Apple will likely have to move downmarket at some point to protect their high end sales in much the same way they did with their iPods. I doubt they can forever compete only at the high end of the market.
The bigger risk to Apple is simply that they drop the ball majorly with some future iPhone release. It's not a diverse revenue stream and if they can't keep the iPhone ahead of the pack and in demand, they could be in serious trouble very quickly. It's something of a high wire act - high risk and high reward.
Yeah, the information that Nike shoes cost $20 to make really hurt Nikes sales.
The information that Coca-Cola is just carbonated tap water with a bit of flavoured syrup has really hurt Coca-Cola's sales.
The information that bottled water is just water, and sometimes from the local tap water supply means that customers won't possibly pay even more than for Coke.
Oh wait, none of those is true.