[HN Gopher] Apple reports third quarter results ___________________________________________________________________ Apple reports third quarter results Author : mfiguiere Score : 64 points Date : 2023-08-03 20:31 UTC (2 hours ago) (HTM) web link (www.apple.com) (TXT) w3m dump (www.apple.com) | yen223 wrote: | "We are happy to report that we had an all-time revenue record in | Services during the June quarter, driven by over 1 billion paid | subscriptions..." | | What counts as a subscription? Because 1 billion feels incredibly | high to me, like 1 out of 8 human beings has a paid Apple | subscription? | [deleted] | tpmoney wrote: | Or multiple people have more than one. Think news and fitness+, | or iCloud and Apple TV. If you don't use more than 3 of their | services subscribing to the bundle doesn't make much sense | ZekeSulastin wrote: | Haven't read the release, but I imagine they're referring to | each component (i.e. iCloud, Music) as a separate subscription | even if subbed to by the same user bundles notwithstanding. | soneca wrote: | I have their storage one and Apple TV+, does that count as 2? | MBCook wrote: | Apple has s lot of services. It's pretty easy to subscribe to a | number of them. | | I wonder if Apple One counts as one service due to being a | bundle or four(+) services for the parts. | eclarkso wrote: | Willing to bet a subscription is a service/person pair, not a | person. E.g., a person with iCloud and Apple TV+ is 2 | subscriptions, and wouldn't be surprised if the Apple One (or | whatever the bulk-subscribe thing is called) counts for all the | individual services even if you only use say 3 of the 5 (or | whatever the right counts are). | what_ever wrote: | I think that's pretty clear? They didn't say they have a | billion subscribers... | danbruc wrote: | Never owned any Apple product so I have no clue what those | subscriptions are, but could one person have several of them? | And business phone? | throwaway54_56 wrote: | Subscription is a pretty generic term and it means the same | with apple as it does everywhere else. | wlesieutre wrote: | The main subscription products are Music, TV, Arcade, | Fitness, News, and extra iCloud storage. | | Don't know how they count Apple One subscriptions for this, | it bundles all six of those into one package. | | I think AppleCare warranties are also sold as a subscription | now, so those might be counted too? | hahamaster wrote: | They've subscriptions, not human beings. Some people have five | subscriptions, some none. | crazygringo wrote: | > _There are more than 1.46 billion active iPhone users | worldwide as of 2023._ [1] | | Given that some people have more than one subscription (e.g. | iCloud + Apple TV+), it actually doesn't seem that crazy. | Especially when the cheapest subscription is only $0.99/mo for | 50 GB of storage, which a ton of people probably have since | it's incredibly easy to blow past the free 5 GB tier for your | iPhone backup. | | [1] https://www.demandsage.com/iphone-user-statistics/ | s0rce wrote: | The backup seems to always try to backup more stuff to hit | that limit forcing you to pay. | planb wrote: | That number still sounds crazy. They have to be counting | third party subscriptions (from which they earn 30%) too | here. | [deleted] | pertymcpert wrote: | If it includes 3rd party 1B would not be high enough. | [deleted] | yen223 wrote: | I know that iPhones are popular, but I didn't fully | appreciate how insanely popular they are until I'm seeing the | numbers laid out like this. | treesciencebot wrote: | Its incredible that "Services" brings as much revenue as Mac, | iPad and wearables/accessories combined. I wonder what are the | profit margins on services compared to traditional consumer | electronics from Apple's point of view (they obviously need to | sell both of them, since without hardware the software is not | that useful but still it might incentivize them to subsidize the | hardware like console makers in order to earn more from | subscriptions). | joegahona wrote: | "Services" includes Apple TV+, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Apple | News, and iCloud+. I wish Apple broke out the subscriber or | revenue numbers for each item in Services. | PlunderBunny wrote: | Does services also include the 'protection money' Apple gets | from Google to keep Google as the default search provider in | Safari? That's worth a few hundred million a year, isn't it? | lapcat wrote: | > That's worth a few hundred million a year, isn't it? | | More like $20 billion, perhaps up to 25% of all services | revenue. | https://www.fool.com/investing/2023/02/21/20-billion- | reasons... | stochtastic wrote: | It also includes the Apple One bundle. I wonder if the | bundles complicate that breakdown -- I certainly never use | Apple Music or Arcade, and almost never TV+. | | Anecdotally, I cannot figure out how to cancel One without | losing my iCloud photo library. As soon as I do figure that | out, I'll be iCloud only. | acer589 wrote: | Your iCloud Photo Library is just storage. So just sign up | for enough iCloud Storage to cover what you have now, and | you're good. | [deleted] | lapcat wrote: | Those may actually be the smaller part of services. | | Services also include the App Store, AppleCare, and the | Google deal to be the default search engine in Safari, which | is massive. | guiltygods wrote: | Apple TV+, Apple Music, Apple Arcade, Apple News, and | iCloud+ will outpace the Appstore as they gain traction. | They just have to ensure that they maintain quality. | gochi wrote: | There is no way that happens unless mobile game | monetization is so severely regulated that studios switch | gears entirely. Remember 70% of revenue of the App Store | comes from games. | tguedes wrote: | Services also includes the amount that Google pays Apple each | year to be the default search engine on iOS. It's estimated to | be $15+ billion a year https://www.makeuseof.com/why-google- | pays-apple-billions-of-... | | That's pure profit | gordon_freeman wrote: | I read somewhere a while ago (can't recall the source) that | services has way more profit margin than their hardware and | it's somewhere around 50%. | jrockway wrote: | I'm not really surprised. The profitability of services are why | everything ships with a service these days. Users obviously | prefer "pay once and use forever" for things like heated seats | on their car, but there is just too much money left on the | table to offer that as an option. Depressing, but that's market | forces for you. | | Apple definitely got me on services with E2E encryption. I am | happy to pay $0.99 a month to keep all my data in their cloud. | I suppose I would be even happier if it was included for the | life of my iPhone for free, though. | quickthrower2 wrote: | Keeping all your data on their cloud at least costs them | every month, and cannot be feasibly offered as a lifetime | purchase. A heated seat though? | solomatov wrote: | It's actually possible to do this. There's a thing which is | called perpetual bonds, i.e. bonds which pay a fixed sum ad | infinitum. Not surprisingly, they have a non infinite cost. | (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_bond) | | If you add a perpetual bonds with a coupon equal to the | service charge, and the service price doesn't increase, you | could create a perpetual "free" iCloud offering. However, I | think the main problem there aren't that many people who | are willing to pay for it. | twoodfin wrote: | Automotive leasing is basically "personal mobility-aaS" and | it's wildly popular. | | Decomposing that lease cost into a bunch of small feature | pieces is really about better price discrimination + fewer | "SKUs". | helf wrote: | [dead] | jzl wrote: | Why else do you think they're fighting tooth and nail to | preserve their 30% App Store cut? | lapcat wrote: | Products: Net sales $60,584M - Cost of sales $39,136M = Gross | margin $21,448M (35.4% of net sales) | | Services: Net sales $21,213M - Cost of sales $6,248M = Gross | margin $14,965M (70.5% of net sales) | | https://www.apple.com/newsroom/pdfs/fy2023-q3/FY23_Q3_Consol... | randerson wrote: | I take full advantage of my iPhone 14 Pro's 48MP camera raw and | 4K60 video formats. Which quickly pushed my iCloud into the 2TB | plan at $120/year. Which seems cheaper than AWS S3. In my | particular case, I'm nowhere close to using the full 2TB, which | is likely where the profit comes from on that particular | service. | HDThoreaun wrote: | taking 30% of other people's revenue is as close to free money | as you can get. | andy_ppp wrote: | It's unbelievable really, I thought protection rackets and | preventing shops from opening without payment would be | illegal. | lockhouse wrote: | Unpopular opinion, but it's not like these developers are | getting nothing from Apple out of this. | | Apple runs the modern digital mall. They provide the space, | the signage, the discovery, they even handle payment for you. | | Also, small indie developers are only being charged 15% until | they exceed $1 million. So the 30% you always hear about are | the big fish that can afford it anyway. | gnicholas wrote: | > _They provide the space, the signage, the discovery_ | | Signage and discovery are a joke. The App Store is littered | with garbage, and even when you search for an app by name, | you often get unrelated apps for pages and pages before the | real app. | | > _Also, small indie developers are only being charged 15% | until they exceed $1 million. So the 30% you always hear | about are the big fish that can afford it anyway._ | | This is a new development, which seems to have resulted | only because of the pressure from regulators. | lapcat wrote: | > This is a new development, which seems to have resulted | only because of the pressure from regulators. | | The 15% was actually part of the settlement of the | lawsuit Cameron, et al. v. Apple Inc. | gnicholas wrote: | Thanks for the clarification -- I thought it was due to | soft pressure, but you're right it was hard pressure as | you mention. | guiltygods wrote: | > Signage and discovery are a joke. The App Store is | littered with garbage, and even when you search for an | app by name, you often get unrelated apps for pages and | pages before the real app. | | That's what you get by making it is easy for anyone to | develop and release apps. It is a very low barrier of | entry. Almost anyone sitting at home can make an app and | release it. If they release garbage to game the system | and Apple blocks it, then there cries of draconian | policies. | | Imagine the garbage that you will have to wade through | when sideloading is forced upon them. | gochi wrote: | Somehow I have a hard time believing that the store being | littered with junk comes from first timer app developers. | what_ever wrote: | The web still works... | spywaregorilla wrote: | No, it's because Apple sells the signage so that when | people search for XYZ they instead get an ad for QQQ. The | number of apps on the market has nothing to do with this. | It's a monopolistic abuse. The only way to sell your apps | is on a controlled platform where people with marketing | dollars can put their name on top of yours when people | search for your exact title. | sneak wrote: | Normal credit card processing is 1-3%. They are literally | charging 10x market simply because they are the only game | in town (due to bundling). | | They aren't providing 10x in value over basic card | processing just by running the app store. | epistasis wrote: | Are they a credit card processor, or are they a store? | | What do you think the margin is at the mall? | ribosometronome wrote: | The only game town for what, though? Doing things on your | iPhone? | | Most of the things Apple takes a 30% cut for are things | that are very easy to do on other devices, it's just that | people specifically want to do them on the iPhone. The | most notable 30% case is with Fortnite but that's an | excellent example of portability. There isn't really | anything locking anyone to playing on iPhone except | wanting to play on iPhone. Purchased skins and the like | are all accessible regardless of where you purchase or | play as long as it was linked to your Epic account. | joejerryronnie wrote: | Apple also controls all methods of transportation to the | mall. | ketralnis wrote: | They also run the local government and ban any other malls | from existing. Nothing could be more rent-seeking. | Dig1t wrote: | In this metaphor, another mall would be another platform, | e.g. Android. | | Apple isn't stopping anyone else from creating a new | platform, though it does seem pretty difficult. | | See: Samsung, Huawei, BlackBerry, etc | slashdev wrote: | There are two malls, Apple and Android on different sides | of town. Both have a high level of foot traffic. There's | a wide river with only one rickety old bridge joining the | two halves of the town. People on the one side of the | town almost never go to the mall on the other side of | town. So both malls have a monopoly on their side of the | town, and you have no choice but to pick one or both | malls to setup your store and sell your wares. Both | charge incredibly high rents, but then what choice do you | have? | | There's just the two malls, and nobody has successfully | started another mall in a decade. | arcticbull wrote: | Is it possible that on Android, where other malls have | been permitted for a long time (and sideloading, too) - | that there really just isn't much demand for another | mall? Maybe they haven't been successful because nobody | really wants to deal with another mall. Maybe this will | be a complete no-op for Apple if they allow other app | stores, too. | | If they allowed other app stores, I wouldn't make the | move. I get a ton of value out of Apple's ecosystem, | including - maybe _especially_ - the ability to see what | subscriptions I have and cancel them with a single click | without even interacting with the app vendor. | | idk what they'd have to do to make me move over, but man, | it'd have to be demonstrably valuable - not just the same | thing but different 3 feet over that way. | | [edit] What if I told you Amazon had its own Android App | Store, and literally nobody cares. [1] | | [1] https://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html? | nodeId=... | what_ever wrote: | > Is it possible that on Android, where other malls have | been permitted for a long time (and sideloading, too) - | that there really just isn't much demand for another | mall? Maybe they haven't been successful because nobody | really wants to deal with another mall. Maybe this will | be a complete no-op for Apple if they allow other app | stores, too. | | Yes, that's exactly the reason Apple is not allowing | other malls. /s If it's so harmless for Apple, why not | just allow other malls? | | > If they allowed other app stores, I wouldn't make the | move. I get a ton of value out of Apple's ecosystem, | including - maybe especially - the ability to see what | subscriptions I have and cancel them with a single click | without even interacting with the app vendor. | | What makes you think other app stores can't do it? What | if apps are cheaper on other app stores because other app | stores don't charge 30% tax? | ketralnis wrote: | > idk what they'd have to do to make me move over, but | man, it'd have to be demonstrably valuable - not just the | same thing but different 3 feet over that way. | | - Since Apple is currently charging 30%, another app | store might charge only 10% and so you might be able to | get your spotify subscription for 20% less. | | - A provider of especially expensive software (say a CAD | or Mathematica) might be unwilling to cede so much of | their margin to anybody at all and may prefer to run | their own single-item "store", making them the only place | to get that particular item. | | - Same for especially inexpensive software. Open source | game ports that don't want to pay Apple's developer fees. | They may make so little margin that they aren't | profitable at all with Apple's tax. New software may | become sustainable to develop and distribute that isn't | currently. | | - Porn. Emulators. Software that doesn't conform to | Apple's capricious reviewers and gave up. The kinds of | things that _are_ available on the jailbroken appstores | currently. | | I'm glad you personally don't have a need for any of | these things but that's hardly evidence that the market | for it shouldn't be allowed to exist. | highwaylights wrote: | There's only another year to get out of it anyway. | | iOS will be allowing other stores in the EU before then, | and it's hard to see other places not passing similar | legislation when their citizens ask why it's allowed in | the EU but not there. | HDThoreaun wrote: | Hey I'm not saying apple isn't providing value here, just | that they're making unbelievable margins on the app store. | Just guessing here but would not be surprised if just the | app store ads cover all the app store expenses and then the | 30% is pure profit. | jbverschoor wrote: | Credit card fees are somewhere between 0.5% and 2.8% | | So when do we start complaining about Nintendo, Sony, | Microsoft, Spotify, etc. etc? | | They all take 30%+ margins on their platforms. | ketralnis wrote: | Since forever? It turns out that more than one thing can | be bad | what_ever wrote: | Whataboutism... You can't argue for one issue by saying | what about this other issue. | lockhouse wrote: | Game consoles are even worse because you usually have to | buy special developer kit hardware. As far as I'm aware | only Xbox lets you switch to developer mode on standard | hardware. | | Also Google takes the exact same cut on the Play Store | and yet Apple is still the one that usually gets singled | out. | bryanlarsen wrote: | The top player is always the one singled out. For | example, when people protest about excessive packaging | for fast food packaging they protest McDonald's, not | Burger King. | ribosometronome wrote: | Interestingly, that's not really what has happened here. | In the Epic vs Apple case, iOS represented only 7% of | Fortnite revenue while Playstation alone represented | nearly 47%. All the platforms pretty much have 30% | default markups, though. | | >Apple lawyers also took the dominance of consoles as a | chance to ask why Epic Games has not sued Sony for the | 30% fees it charges to Epic Games. (Sony is a major | investor in Epic Games, and it recently put $200 million | into the company.) Epic's lawyers' rebuttal was to point | out the major differences between phones and game | consoles, as well as the fact that Sony and Microsoft are | more willing to negotiate than Apple. At one point, | Sweeney said he would have taken a deal from Apple for | lower commissions, if it had been offered. Sweeney also | noted that most game consoles are sold at a loss and make | money back from sales. Unlike phones, consoles are mainly | used to play games. To Sweeney, this was a big reason why | Sony and Microsoft's fees are more palatable. | | Read more at: https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/ | article251156384.... | HDThoreaun wrote: | I've been complaining about high margin service business | for quiet a while now. The credit card business is | especially problematic, we need to limit fees like the EU | did asap. | jonplackett wrote: | While the AppStore was a meritocracy I think this could be | fair comment. | | Now that you can pay your way to the top with a shitty | spammy app and outcompete a good quality less well funded | app, because search and discover ability are absolutely | dire, I don't think it holds true. | | Being an indie developer used to be great. Now you just get | a bit shafted by the system. | summerlight wrote: | If the number was something around 5~10%, your opinion | would be more popular and I think Apple deserves that. But | 30%, not so much. | summerlight wrote: | Not only 30%. Apple actually launched lots of competing | services on their platform, which effectively means that it | has a significant advantage in their product pricing. | r0fl wrote: | I believe Services margins are ~70% | | By far the highest of their entire product mix | nyjah wrote: | I wish Apple would make a handheld gaming device and make it work | with steam similarly through the proton layer like Valve. I'm | sorta hoping by putting this into writing it might bring it into | existence. | crazygringo wrote: | You know, by this point is does seem like Apple could make an | M2 chip extra-heavy on the GPU, like they have their | Pro/Max/Ultra variants, package it in an Apple TV chassis, ship | it with a controller, and have an instant Xbox/PS competitor if | they could get gaming companies to target it as a platform for | AAA games. | | I wonder why they don't, but I'm not a gamer. Is there | something about GPU performance that still doesn't stack up? | Does the violence of many AAA games go against their Disney- | clean brand? Are there too many platform exclusives that would | hamstring the effort? Is it just not in Apple's DNA? Or is | console gaming just not profitable enough at the end of the | day? | wilsonnb3 wrote: | Not sure they'd be able to compete with the performance loss | from running Windows binaries via the Game Porting Toolkit | (their proton like tool) and the x86 to ARM translation. | | Apple has been able to make a killer game console or handheld | for a while but they just don't seem to care. | | All they really have to do is change the marketing around the | Apple TV, put a controller in the box, and start courting | developers to port their switch games... | TheRealSteel wrote: | I guess they'd encourage developers to officially port their | games to native Apple Silicon, but have emulation as a | backup. | andy_ppp wrote: | Will do healthcare and a car eventually right? | lvl102 wrote: | Apple hit a plateau. I don't think AR will be a meaningful driver | of growth for awhile. | | Perhaps they make a big move and buy Disney. | sircastor wrote: | People suggest this a lot, but I think it's not a good fit. | While some of Disney's profit centers would be a good match for | Apple (Film and Television), others (Theme parks and | merchandise) would be a lot of distraction. Disney's workforce | is almost twice the size of Apple, and Apple is very protective | of its work culture and how people function in the company. | | I think Apple much more prefers to operate as a partner to | Disney | jsight wrote: | I really thought that the current lineup of Macbooks would be a | big driver of growth for a while. Then again, the ones worth | upgrading to are really expensive and that is probably keeping | a lot of potential purchasers on older versions. | spaceman_2020 wrote: | Think they'll find growth in India, Indonesia and Vietnam | lvl102 wrote: | But that's more than offset by weakness in China. | HDThoreaun wrote: | eps up 5%, they're doing fine. I think it's much more likely | that they go all in on partnering with a sports league, | probably NBA, to be the sole carrier of their content. As far | as I can tell the most impressive demo for the vision pro is | currently live sporting events. I'm pretty sure apple tv's main | reason for existing is to create content for their headsets. | maverick2007 wrote: | There's actually talk that they might pick up the media deal | for the PAC 12 (if the conference exists in a week) so you | might be right on the money there | TheAlchemist wrote: | PER is >30. For a company that size, with interest rates at | ~5%, this is very high by historical standards. | | But then, we have Tesla and Nvidia which make them look like | a bargain. | KptMarchewa wrote: | > eps up 5% | | Only because they buyback. | HDThoreaun wrote: | I don't really see how that's an excuse that's supposed to | make me think the quarter wasn't successful. Such high | margins are almost always due to market failures. Buying | back enough shares that eps grows 5% a year is a good | outcome for apple. | comboy wrote: | Their version of LLM should be fun, they have their silicon, | they can make it local and integrate with the ecosystem. | lvl102 wrote: | Going by Siri, they are behind competition by a wide margin. | vvvvtt340 wrote: | I don't think Siri's quality is a good indication of | Apple's ability to come out with a successful LLM product | in the future. | | One thing I think about is how Alexa is apparently | considered a failure at Amazon | (https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2022/11/amazon-alexa-is-a- | co...). Alexa devices sell well but people only use them | for trivial use cases that are hard to monetize. | | I speculate that Apple doesn't see a need to invest in Siri | because the market has shown that digital assistants don't | synergize with "services" that well. | | Additionally, I don't think that Apple will need to | leverage the "Siri codebase" as a starting point for | releasing a compelling LLM codebase - maybe voice | recognition, but who knows. | | Apple has shown through other product launches that they | will take a "wait and see" approach and release something | when its ready. | what_ever wrote: | If that's the case, why do they keep releasing HomePods? | Dig1t wrote: | I agree, this will probably be more impactful than the Vision | Pro. Making all their products way more useful. You can | already run Llama on a Mac and it's pretty great. When Apple | release theirs it will probably be a very nice experience. | guidedlight wrote: | iPad isn't doing very well. I wonder how they can fix that. | ChrisArchitect wrote: | "Services"? Sounds about right. Apple is/has been a media company | for over a decade. The services that have come along like Cloud | etc are just periphery things that support the main thing. | arberx wrote: | Before this report, people were paying 32x earnings for Apple. | Which has grown roughly -1% in the last year. | throw03172019 wrote: | Waiting for someone to summarize the earnings, as always :) | lapcat wrote: | I think these charts are a good summary: | https://sixcolors.com/post/2023/08/charts-apple-q3-2023-resu... | pharmakom wrote: | Less revenue, more profit. looks like the services strategy is | working | [deleted] | jbverschoor wrote: | P/E should be higher to reflect that | queuebert wrote: | So, in the limit, revenue will approach zero and profit will | approach infinity? | Brendinooo wrote: | No, but it does make you wonder if some Ballmer-y future | CEO decides that the margins of Services are more important | than hardware sales, and chases some short-term gain from | opening up iOS to commodity hardware makers. | burnte wrote: | Yes. According to my math by the year 2044 they'll have | roughly $45/month in expenses (domain names), $400 trillion | in revenue, and $580 trillion in profit. | jsight wrote: | I'm not sure how you arrived at those numbers, but I'm | sure an LLM somewhere will agree with you soon. | burnte wrote: | :D | loeg wrote: | Not sure where you're going with this clearly silly | question but if Apple could persuade its costs to be | negative, yes, that would be good for shareholders. ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-08-03 23:01 UTC)