They said, Apple. Software developers, sales, legal, and so on absolutely can work from home and any company who wants us to believe their environmental claims would promote it.
That is true but since we haven’t seen M2 macs that can compete with used M1 products it is hard to justify upgrading or even purchasing. Also no follow up to the Mac Pro at all.
It could be more like inflation is impacting Mac sales regardless.
But there are more than just instruction set transitions. The difference between the Pentium 4 and Core 2 or Bulldozer and Zen were stark.
Even the Ryzen 7000 series has AVX-512, DDR5, PCIe 5.0 etc. It's frequently twice as fast as the 3000 series from 3 years earlier. The M2 isn't that kind of thing.
This is a Mac discussion, and you're discussing non-Mac processors. When have Macs received a massive processor upgrade in 3 years that hasn't been an architecture transition?
If the m2 came with LPDDR6 or faster and card support or something similar I would agree with you. The only new advantage for m2 that I have seen is Wi-Fi 6E and bluetooth 5.2 20 percent more efficiency and speed and an option for the MacBook Pro 14.2 and 16.2 to have 96 of ram which isn’t worth it.
Many reviewers and even me looking at only a marginal improvement between the MacBook Air M1 vs M2 where you can get the MacBook Air M1 at a $200 discount at many places I would recommend the M1. The only real Mac I would recommend with an M2 is the Mac Mini. With the MacBook Pros 14.2 and 16.2 the only thing you can really get as a benefit is with 96GB of RAM which will allow you do to things like running LLMs locally or general productivity or professional video and movie editing and that's only really for the extreme high end.
The shift away from Intel also created something of a backlog in demand - not for corporate, "need what we can get today," purchases, but for home use there was low desire to upgrade pre-M1 chip and then a big flood.
I think the GP poster was referring to that, because (anecdotally but still) when I was selling an M1 Pro, Apple offered me $950 but I was able to sell it for $1500. I probably could've gotten more, but I wanted it out of the house.
Right, have a similar experience. Wanted to upgrade to one with a larger SSD as I'm always running out, but the trade-in price was ridiculous. Decided to keep what I have
Yes sure. I mean, many people hadn’t had an incentive to buy for several years and then a much improved machine came along, and many people bit. I certainly did, after years of hating my 2016 MacBook Pro.
I liked my 2013 air and the M1 air was the first thing to come along that seemed a fair bit better. Although I still miss the smaller size and weight of the 11" air. Still the M1 has twice the battery life.
I imagine their shareholders wouldn't be very happy about it. And not sure what the "edge of technology" part means. Do you think Apple will somehow do a better job than DARPA, Northop Grumman, Lockheed Martin, Raytheon, Blackwater/Academi etc. at killing people?
None of those companies attempt to operate any autonomous military bodies, they are purely suppliers or contractors. They are ineffective in the sense that they are simply following orders yes.
I would say not, but not because shareholders. More like they wold not be able to have the same talent pool available as now.
Most of software devs wouldn’t like to work on military tech. Not saying there are no smart people at Lockheed or Raytheon but I would argue there is less smart people willing to work for this types of companies.
Even if devs hate ads most would rather work on ad-tech than mil-tech.
Always impressed how simple their consolidated financials are! I have seen companies that make a few million with infinitely messier presentation of that data
It's more of occlusion than simplification. Apple has historically removed data from their public financials that don't support the narrative, the most notable example being unit sales.
This. Apple is the king of reporting their financials to draw attention to only the high performing categories - while refusing to share any useful data on their weak performing categories
This metric was historically misused (voluntarily?) by external analysts.
Apple was one of the few company releasing actual sales (they have a no stock model) while other relased shipments (unit are shipped but could be returned if not ultimately sold).
Since they stopped releasing this metric butchered analyses about market share comparing shipments vs sales almost totally stopped. It sad because units sold was a nice metric, but it was a smart move to fight bullshit.
I can't believe they're still selling so many of them. $220 billion yearly revenue is at least 220 million iPhones sold a year. Where are all these people buying new iPhones? I don't think they're really gaining market share in the US at least, so unless it's overseas market share growing people are just replacing their perfectly good phones from a few years ago for reasons I can't comprehend. I mean that's 3 out of every 100 people in the world buying an iPhone just in the last year.
Judging by iOS version market share [1] at least 95% of iOS devices were produced in the past 6 years (as the older ones don't support iOS 16). Given apple's 2 billion installed device base a 6-year replacement cycle yields 333 ("repeating, of course") million devices per year. Of course, some of those aren't iPhones, but also 6 years is probably longer than most people's replacement cycle.
> replacing their perfectly good phones from a few years ago
In many cases, they're not 'perfectly good'. Apple does backwards compatibility longer than most, but at some point, those old phones can't function as smart phones. Banking and health apps will require newer OS, and newer OS eventually means new device (for better or worse).
I just bought a 'new' iphone - used/refurb. Tru-depth camera broke. Replaced it ($170!). Whole phone broke a week after that anyway, out of warranty, and ... they offered to sell me a replacement for $399 (iphone 12 mini). I bought a refurb 13 mini from a 3rd party for $420, then got a $35 refund for minor cosmetic damage. That doesn't count in Apple's numbers, but I almost did. My 2.5 year old iphone mini wasn't "perfectly good" any more.
Also, for better or worse, people have multiple. Your employer may provide you with a work phone, and you'll have 2. It's not as prevalent as it used to be, but I still know a few folks who have a 'work' phone separate from personal.
It's still a lot of phones, no doubt. I don't plan to replace/upgrade mine for at least another 2 years, but my wife may need a new one should something happen to her iphone 11 in the next couple years.
> In many cases, they're not 'perfectly good'. Apple does backwards compatibility longer than most, but at some point, those old phones can't function as smart phones. Banking and health apps will require newer OS, and newer OS eventually means new device (for better or worse).
To add to this, each annual release of iOS does typically add a new feature or two that works only on the newest model(s). Sometimes, this is enough to generate an upgrade.
There's also a large amount of people that essentially "rent" their phone through a consistent upgrade pipeline via their carrier or Apple directly (basically never paying off the device directly).
I think you are on to something. Financial journalists should look in more detail.
I am in no way saying the results are not correct. But there are all kinds of smart ways to report revenue, like mandating your suppliers to stock your product and reporting those as sales.Same way car vendors report sales, when the cars in reality are still sitting at the dealers showrooms.
From my random data sample of 20 contacts, around 80% have Android phones and the other 20% with iPhones, nobody upgraded in the last two years...
1. It continues to be true that a new phone is noticeably faster and has a noticeably better camera than a 3-year-old phone (regardless of how gross the reasons are).
2. Phones break.
3. Phones are lost.
4. Phones are given away.
5. Some batteries in the batch lose capacity faster than they should.
6. New phones are given as gifts to people who might have gone longer before buying a new phone with their own money.
7. Features.
Even regardless of all that, three doesn't seem unreasonable if you have the money. I seem to be able to go about five years before the battery life and performance become too painful (though it's hard to get an average with data points that far apart), and my tolerance for those issues is probably higher than a normal person.
There are certainly reasons I can comprehend. I guess it's just hard to see how those reasons lead to 100-200 million people who already had an iPhone getting a new one. I'm sure if I added all the reasons up it would seem obvious but it really does feel mind boggling at first that they're still able to sell so many after all these years.
On the earnings call, Tim’s answer to a question noted that the iPhone active install base is over 1 billion (of the over 2 billion total active devices).
At a replacement rate of 200 million per year, that’s 5 years to turn over the iPhone active install base. Replacing a 5 year old phone sounds pretty reasonable.
Soap is the greatest product in human history. Nothing else even comes close, and many great inventions can be considered only possible due to it.
It has saved more lives than any other invention.
Thousands of times more (not an exaggeration) than the Polio vaccine and Penicillin combined -- and is largely credited for the making cities less deadly and allowing Babylon to exist (and have so many other advances for humanity)
I wonder if we swapped out "greatest" for "most successful", if that would/could be a true statement. Or, of course, what criteria we could even agree could substantiate the claim.
What’s wild (to me) is how much the iPad has gradually grown in its proportion of the pie, especially as the pie itself grew. I know some people use it as their primary device, but it’s always felt intuitively niche to me despite knowing that. But the sales paint a very different picture, with iPads barely trailing Macs.
>Probably doesn't make a huge difference to Apples bottom line, though.
Why not? I imagine people using macOS are likelier to use iPhones. And then AirPods. And then Apple Watches. And monthly recurring revenue like Apple One bundles or iCloud Drive.
Having an additional entry point other than iPhone and iPad into the ecosystem must be very beneficial, especially when it is as no brainer as an M1 MacBook Air for so many people's use case.
Yes, personally M1 MacBook Air (8 GB of RAM!) is just great except, minimally, for the limitation on the number of external monitors. Using also a more powerful MacBook Pro (64 GB) with multiple external monitors but subpar in battery duration and portability comfort beyond the specs mentioned in the official Apple page.
BTW, Today I experienced a "Your system has run out of application memory" [1] in the Pro with the same usage that I give to the Air. Have not time to investigate further.
What monopolistic practices? They aren't buying competitors like Lenovo and shutting them down. They're just building a good product that people want to buy.
I am surprised their sales didn't collapse in the EU given the massive price hike and not making their products cheaper when Euro rose again, like what Nvidia did.
What’s insane to me is that, I just looked up all their biggest competitors in each category
Netflix was 8.18B the same quarter.
Spotify was 3.17
Peloton was 0.8
Dropbox was 0.6
Edit: people pointed out the App Store might be included too. Which I see google play at something like 10B last quarter
That means Apple is doing the same in services as all their biggest competitors combined for stuff that comes under services.
I’m sure I’m leaving off stuff , like there are probably better services to pick in each, but still truly insane numbers.
Even crazier because outside of Apple TV+, I barely ever hear people using Apple services. TV+still doesn’t have the content quantity and range to compete with Netflix either.
Ah good point. Though even then, I looked up googles annual revenue for 2022 on the play store and it’s some 40B for the year (can’t find quarterly for some reason).
That’s still impressive for Apple given everything totalled from their top competitors is roughly equal to their own services.
I can't believe they're still selling so many iPhones. $220 billion yearly revenue is at least 220 million iPhones sold a year. Where are all these people buying new iPhones? I don't think they're really gaining market share in the US at least, so unless it's overseas market share growing people are just replacing their perfectly good phones from a few years ago for reasons I can't comprehend. I mean that's 3 out of every 100 people in the world buying an iPhone just in the last year.
125 comments
[ 18.0 ms ] story [ 3667 ms ] threadMass WFH created unprecedented demand for desktop computers. Now sales are returning closer to the norm.
It could be more like inflation is impacting Mac sales regardless.
It's not clear whether consumers do or even should distinguish between M1 and M2.
> Also no follow up to the Mac Pro at all.
Mac Pro sales have always been tiny portion of Mac sales and have very little effect on the big picture.
The point being if you bought the M1 during the pandemic, you now have little reason to upgrade despite it being a 2020 processor in 2023.
Only processor transitions such as PowerPC to Intel and Intel to Apple Silicon give a good reason to upgrade within a few years.
But there are more than just instruction set transitions. The difference between the Pentium 4 and Core 2 or Bulldozer and Zen were stark.
Even the Ryzen 7000 series has AVX-512, DDR5, PCIe 5.0 etc. It's frequently twice as fast as the 3000 series from 3 years earlier. The M2 isn't that kind of thing.
(Edit: buyout -> trade-in)
Upgrade cycles are more like 4-6+ years.
Now imagine if Apple wanted to use 1/3 of its net income to create a private military at the edge of technology.
I loved that thing.
Fear will keep the shareholders in line.
Most of software devs wouldn’t like to work on military tech. Not saying there are no smart people at Lockheed or Raytheon but I would argue there is less smart people willing to work for this types of companies.
Even if devs hate ads most would rather work on ad-tech than mil-tech.
For compensation I also believe that weapon manufacturers pay high salaries already as well.
So I might be wrong but from my point of view as software dev - Apple is not producing actual weapons to be the only difference.
Money is just money, having a ton of it doesn't mean you can actually use it for what you want.
Apple was one of the few company releasing actual sales (they have a no stock model) while other relased shipments (unit are shipped but could be returned if not ultimately sold).
Since they stopped releasing this metric butchered analyses about market share comparing shipments vs sales almost totally stopped. It sad because units sold was a nice metric, but it was a smart move to fight bullshit.
For all folks just as confused as me
I get it, this is an intellectual place, but Q2 2023 was confusing for me as a non finance bro
You can separate eras in human history by the the dramatic jumps in the amount of people that can be fed by a set amount of human labour.
[1] https://gs.statcounter.com/ios-version-market-share/all/unit...
In many cases, they're not 'perfectly good'. Apple does backwards compatibility longer than most, but at some point, those old phones can't function as smart phones. Banking and health apps will require newer OS, and newer OS eventually means new device (for better or worse).
I just bought a 'new' iphone - used/refurb. Tru-depth camera broke. Replaced it ($170!). Whole phone broke a week after that anyway, out of warranty, and ... they offered to sell me a replacement for $399 (iphone 12 mini). I bought a refurb 13 mini from a 3rd party for $420, then got a $35 refund for minor cosmetic damage. That doesn't count in Apple's numbers, but I almost did. My 2.5 year old iphone mini wasn't "perfectly good" any more.
Also, for better or worse, people have multiple. Your employer may provide you with a work phone, and you'll have 2. It's not as prevalent as it used to be, but I still know a few folks who have a 'work' phone separate from personal.
It's still a lot of phones, no doubt. I don't plan to replace/upgrade mine for at least another 2 years, but my wife may need a new one should something happen to her iphone 11 in the next couple years.
To add to this, each annual release of iOS does typically add a new feature or two that works only on the newest model(s). Sometimes, this is enough to generate an upgrade.
There's also a large amount of people that essentially "rent" their phone through a consistent upgrade pipeline via their carrier or Apple directly (basically never paying off the device directly).
I am in no way saying the results are not correct. But there are all kinds of smart ways to report revenue, like mandating your suppliers to stock your product and reporting those as sales.Same way car vendors report sales, when the cars in reality are still sitting at the dealers showrooms.
From my random data sample of 20 contacts, around 80% have Android phones and the other 20% with iPhones, nobody upgraded in the last two years...
"How long do iPhone users take to upgrade their device?" - https://www.phonearena.com/news/How-long-do-iPhone-users-tak....
1. It continues to be true that a new phone is noticeably faster and has a noticeably better camera than a 3-year-old phone (regardless of how gross the reasons are).
2. Phones break.
3. Phones are lost.
4. Phones are given away.
5. Some batteries in the batch lose capacity faster than they should.
6. New phones are given as gifts to people who might have gone longer before buying a new phone with their own money.
7. Features.
Even regardless of all that, three doesn't seem unreasonable if you have the money. I seem to be able to go about five years before the battery life and performance become too painful (though it's hard to get an average with data points that far apart), and my tolerance for those issues is probably higher than a normal person.
At a replacement rate of 200 million per year, that’s 5 years to turn over the iPhone active install base. Replacing a 5 year old phone sounds pretty reasonable.
Earnings call transcript: https://sixcolors.com/post/2023/05/this-is-tim-apples-q2-202...
“The iPhone base is well over a billion active devices.”
It has saved more lives than any other invention.
Thousands of times more (not an exaggeration) than the Polio vaccine and Penicillin combined -- and is largely credited for the making cities less deadly and allowing Babylon to exist (and have so many other advances for humanity)
Even today, the m1 macbook air feels like a pretty good buy, taking into account the discount you can get on them.
Probably doesn't make a huge difference to Apples bottom line, though.
54%
https://sixcolors.com/post/2023/05/apple-q2-2023-results-94-...
Why not? I imagine people using macOS are likelier to use iPhones. And then AirPods. And then Apple Watches. And monthly recurring revenue like Apple One bundles or iCloud Drive.
Having an additional entry point other than iPhone and iPad into the ecosystem must be very beneficial, especially when it is as no brainer as an M1 MacBook Air for so many people's use case.
BTW, Today I experienced a "Your system has run out of application memory" [1] in the Pro with the same usage that I give to the Air. Have not time to investigate further.
[1] https://discussions.apple.com/thread/253310137
https://twitter.com/netcapgirl/status/1654145812270657536
They’re honestly in a highly competitive industry, even considering their monopolistic practices. Their execution is really good.
Apple will be discussed in business classes for a long time after it inevitably is supplanted.
Netflix was 8.18B the same quarter. Spotify was 3.17 Peloton was 0.8 Dropbox was 0.6
Edit: people pointed out the App Store might be included too. Which I see google play at something like 10B last quarter
That means Apple is doing the same in services as all their biggest competitors combined for stuff that comes under services.
I’m sure I’m leaving off stuff , like there are probably better services to pick in each, but still truly insane numbers.
Even crazier because outside of Apple TV+, I barely ever hear people using Apple services. TV+still doesn’t have the content quantity and range to compete with Netflix either.
2) Everything else
That’s still impressive for Apple given everything totalled from their top competitors is roughly equal to their own services.
I believe Google's special deal with Apple to be the default search engine in Safari is a part of services revenue.