Slashdot Mirror
Apple Will No Longer Reveal How Many iPhones, iPads, and Macs It Sells (theverge.com)
Yesterday, during the company's Q4 earnings call, Apple's chief financial officer Luca Maestri said the company will no longer report unit sales of its main hardware divisions, including iPhones, iPad, and Mac. "This is the same as protocols Apple already follows for its smaller devices, such as the Apple Watch, AirPods, and HomePod, which are bundled under the 'Other Products' category," The Verge reports. From the report: The announcement comes after iPhone unit sales percentage was unchanged year over year, despite a revenue bump of 29 percent. The decision to stop disclosing unit sales is because that figure is "not representative of underlying strength of our business," Maestri said. "A unit of sale is less relevant today than it was in our past," he says, adding that unit sales increase are still a clear part of Apple's goals. While unit sales may not accurately represent Apple's business performance, it's a figure that analysts and journalists have used to calculate a product's average selling price. For example, that number can provide insight into how well different iPhone models are selling, as newer iPhones like the XS, XS Max, and XR are priced higher than older models like the now-discontinued SE, 6S, and 6.
We are still making money in the short term by overcharging suckers, while losing market share, and also pushing iOS developers away from the Macs they required.
This is the problem with the short term thinking and incentive structures in western multi-nationals corporations, who only care about the next quarter or so. Which is typically done at the expense of long term business viability.
I guess that the point is that they were happy to report it when it made them look good and positively impacted the stock price. Now that their sales numbers are flattening out they are going to stop communicating this information to the shareholders and the rest of the market.
Seems a bit cuntish. But then we are talking about Apple, so...
A trillion dollar company, supported in vast majority by (essentially) a single product. Why wouldn't they try to obfuscate when basic facts start looking "iffy?"
Really, the whole iThing ecosystem came to be in 15 years, and it's a monoculture. It's a huge bet for it being sustainable. Heck, 15 years ago, GE was king of the hill and way more diversified, look where they are now.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
These are not the numbers you are looking for...
I'm wonder if this isn't a sign that sales are down?
e.g. Blizzard did the same thing with WoW when they peaked at 12 million subs and were hemorrhaging customers.
... it is.
There's a good reason to abandon bragging rights.
It little behooves the best of us to comment on the rest of us.
Really? It seems to be a major part of the yearly (or so) Apple product rollouts... all the people lined up around the block waiting for days for the newest iStatus product. Come to think of it... I haven't noticed those spots on the nightly news for a while. Maybe the lines aren't that impressive any more. Has it gotten harder to find enough suckers to stand in line to fork over a grand or more to get the latest shiny bauble that's only marginally shinier than the old one?
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Over the past 8 years the sales of iPhones has exploded, now they are slowing, so they are trying to hide/bury these numbers. It's that simple. They will try to grow revenue , not buy volume sale of phones, but through unit average cost and related services.
As an investor I want as much data and transparency as possible, this is worrisome as they are intentionally trying to obfuscate some key metrics.
Seriously, since Jobs got sick and even more so after he died, Apple has made mediocre hardware and OS X has become worse with
each revision.
This is all pretty discouraging. I know Microsoft sucks, and now Apple sucks too. I sure as hell don't intend to use anything Google has to offer because I trust Google about as much as I would trust a rattlesnake.
Is Linux the smart choice these days ? I am sincere when I ask this. I know next to nothing about Linux. I need a secure and reliable system which allows me to do some photo and video editing. I believe I am done with Apple laptops and their phones too. I just cannot pay for what I see is less value with each passing year. The last Apple laptop I had that I thought was genuinely a nice piece of gear was a 2013 Retina 15". I don't want what Apple is selling now even if they give it to me for free. The new Apple stuff is just insulting to people who know what good hardware and software is.
Smartphone sales have saturated in North America and Europe. Combine that with performance that far exceeds most user's needs so people are waiting longer to upgrade. Its nothing specific to Apple, all the manufacturers are seeing this. And we already saw this with computers, saturation, performance beyond need, upgrade timeframes lengthening, ...
Apple is not losing marketshare. Smartphones sales have hit a plateau for everyone. We have saturation in developed nations and devices who's performance far exceeds the needs of most users so upgrades are less frequent. Smartphones are repeating the saturation and performance conditions that we have already seen with personal computers.
OK, I'm going to explain to you why a company cares about a stock price after the first sale. Are you ready? You might want to sit down for this.
Because, in Apple's case, they've been buying back as much stock as they can with their windfall from the Trump tax giveaway. In fact, Apple is one of Apple's biggest shareholders. So if the stock goes up, they will be one of the biggest beneficiaries, after Berskshire Hathaway and Arthur Levinson, who is Apple's biggest shareholder and - ready for this - also the chairman of the board of Apple.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/0...
You are welcome on my lawn.
Perhaps that says something regarding the future of the company.
* https://www.businessinsider.co...
#DeleteChrome
As far as I know it is impossible for a corporation to own stock in itself and I am embarrassed on behalf of pope ratzo, even more so for anyone who would take anything he says seriously, ever again.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Companies care about their stock price because if it does not go up, major shareholders will get together and throw out the current management. Happens all the time. Another major reason is employee stock compensation, top employees head for the exits really fast if their options go underwater. There are other reasons but those are the big ones for tech companies.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
It does not matter whether a company retires its own shares or not. If not retired (struct from the register by shareholder resolution) then it is simply unissued stock, pure paper. It is common for companies to have unissued stock, this has no effect whatsoever on the share price or any other valuation measure.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Apple was first, and it locked in a lot of older folks who had more disposable cash. Meanwhile, my employer bought me a mobile, and it was never an iPhone, so by the time I needed to buy my own, Android was pretty equivalent and MUCH less expensive, so I went with Android. As a huge plus, Android phones can sideload.
On the other hand, I was a super Mac fanboy . . . until its products provided less value--less bang for the buck--than the competition. I'm typing this on the second work/gaming laptop that I've purchased since my last MacBook purchase. Sure, it's Windows, and sure, some things about Windows are annoying, but how much would a MacBook with a fast GPU, expandable RAM, fast SSD, and huge second HDD cost? Oh, wait, you can't buy one, but something ALMOST equivalent is twice as much. Double. 2X. The operating system is not so fantastic, the Foxconn production lines not so much better for Apple than the Foxconn production lines for other manufacturers, to justify this kind of premium.
People know value . . . eventually. Apple used to be rather innovative, and their products, while much more expensive than the competition, were priced according to their value. Now Tim Cook is just wringing out the profit machine. There is no vision at Apple. Cook's a logistics guy, a Wall Street darling, but he's not a leader; he's just in charge. There's a huge difference.
Make love, not reality television.
this probably means that their sales are falling and they want to protect their stock price. The last thing they want is all the executives loosing their bonuses!
I'll see your Constitution and raise you a Queen.
So in effect, executives have to plan months ahead what they will do that raises or lowers the stock value on the day of sale.
Pepsi would have a similar problem with the volume of their sale of sugar water to kids if they weren't diversified into other markets like Pizza Hut, etc.
Or if they believe in the company, they could just hold the stock long term and only sell it after they leave. Or if they suck at their job, hold onto it and sell after being fired. If they are truly awful, the stock price would probably go up.
Wouldn’t they want it to go down though so they can buy up even more? The profits are obscene enough that the dividend will tide investors over and anyone on the inside could get a big payday if Apple gets enough control to make an offer to go private.
With flat unit sale numbers, there is a limit to how much they can keep increasing prices to maintain revenue growth before sales starts to drop.
A common one I see often is the belief that a company buying its own shares increases the price of the remaining shares. No. Because the decrease in company value exactly balances the larger portion of the company represented by each share. The share price therefore remains the same.
As an exercise, assume that a company has only two shares issued, and its entire assets consist of $100 in the bank. Each share is obviously worth $50. Now the company buys back one of the shares, the company is now worth $50. And there is now one share outstanding, representing the entire value of the company. That is, $50. Hmm, magic, the share value did not change. And like magic, this principle holds no matter how many shares there are or what the company is worth. The technical term for this is "mathematics".
Of course it gets more complicated when you mix in some emotions, and a liberal sprinkling of stupidity.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
You reveal such numbers when they are great. When they are not, you just keep quiet. Par for the course.
The part your missing is that the largest tranches of stock are being held by APPLE EXECUTIVES.
And trust me, bucko, they're not retiring those shares.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You know why they call it Silly Valley.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
the largest tranches of stock are being held by APPLE EXECUTIVES.
You are deeply clueless about all matters financial, yet you blow hard on the internet.
0.1% of Apple is owned by insiders.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
They could make the price go down any time they want, just by releasing sales figures again.
You got that right. They could also make the price go down by never releasing sales figures. See how it works?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Yeah, yeah. The only problem is, the top five shareholders of Apple stock are all Apple executives.
https://www.investopedia.com/a...
And nothing about your link contradicts my point: That the biggest individual beneficiaries of Apple pumping their stock price are Apple execs. And not surprisingly, they're the ones making the decisions on the buybacks (which by the way, strengthen their voting positions and enrich them greatly).
So, this all goes back to my original comment, which was a response to someone who claimed that "Apple doesn't benefit when their stock price goes up", and I explained why that was not true.
You might want to figure out what we're talking about before you jump in and beclown yourself with something you know little about.
You are welcome on my lawn.
the top five shareholders of Apple stock are all Apple executives.
Individual shareholders. See 0.1%, above. Bucko.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
That's the general public. Do you talk that way in general life?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Apple is not losing marketshare.
Apple is losing marketshare.
You are mistaken, from your own citation: "Global smartphone shipments declined 2% annually ... Shipments for Apple were up 1% annually". That's a share increase. You are confusing market position with market share.
Right. Individuals who are making the decisions at Apple.
Gosh, you're just so close to understanding. Don't give up.
You are welcome on my lawn.
You said "the largest tranches of stock are being held by APPLE EXECUTIVES."
That is just wrong and stupid.
Fighting with a pig, I know I just get dirt on me.
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
They're allowed to withhold that info from shareholders? I know publicly traded companies have to release their tax information publicly, but... not sales figures?