50% of Apple's Revenue Comes From the iPhone 292
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."
What I want to know (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What I want to know (Score:5, Informative)
Second paragraph:
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe you should read his question.
It wasn't whether App revenue was added but what portion of the 50% was app revenue.
12.3B was iPhone revenue.
Was 50% of that from apps (6.15B)? 25% (3.07B)? 75% (9.25B)?
Re:What I want to know (Score:4, Informative)
Apps are iTunes Store, which is a separate $1.4 billion (per quarter) business. Not part of the iPhone revenue.
Re: (Score:3)
The iTunes Store costs a billion dollars to run [asymco.com], and that was just last year. I think you underestimate how much of that money goes straight back to the content owners. For every piece of licensed music Apple keeps only pennies, and the store's most bandwidth-intensive operation, shipping iOS updates, receives no income.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
and yet we still hear that Apple "barely breaks even on the iTunes Store".
Have trouble with the difference between revenue and profits? What is it with people today? They can't seem to distinguish the simplest of concepts and just want to see themselves rant. Keep whining as if you have a zinger back to the original poster who clarified the lazy question about Gross Revenue. You reinforce the notion that most people speak before they think.
Re:What I want to know (Score:5, Funny)
Don't let anybody ever tell you you ask confusing, non-sequitir questions, Talderas. You just keep shining on, making sense of the world the way you see it, and maybe someday they'll let you use the scissors with the pointy ends.
Re: (Score:2)
He answered that, dimwit. 0%. App revenue is recognised under iTunes, not iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Carrier agreements just means paying for iPhones. They cost $640 on average, but the user pays $240 on average and the carrier pays the rest.
Re: (Score:2)
In the US this is true, at least as far as we know about Apple and AT&T [arstechnica.com], but Verizon/Apple have never disclosed their backend deal, and we don't know what happens anywhere else.
Re: (Score:2)
Carrier agreements just means paying for iPhones. They cost $640 on average, but the user pays $240 on average and the carrier pays the rest.
Actually, Carrier agreements means exclusivity deals, cross promotion payments, etc. Its not as simple as $640x18.4 million units. I'm not sure what exclusivity $ is out there now that its on two networks, or if Verizon is paying Apple to bring the iPhone to Verizon faster, etc. But if they are, that money is captured here.
Re: (Score:2)
Then you should RTFA
You're new here, aren't you?
But how do this compare with (Score:2, Interesting)
the banana phone?
Re:But how do this compare with (Score:5, Funny)
Radiation concerns have killed the banana phone sales.
Another factoid (Score:4, Interesting)
Apple is now the largest cellphone manufacturer on Earth by revenue [allthingsd.com].
Re: (Score:2)
They have been the largest by profits and by market cap for a long while.
Ballmer was right again (Score:3, Informative)
http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2007/04/ballmer-says-iphone-has-no-chance-to-gain-significant-market-share.ars
Re: (Score:2)
He was right based on the state of things at that time. That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.
Which is exactly the same argument being made today regarding iPhone's competitiveness versus Android. I'm not sure why people assume Apple will never compete on price like they did to win the iPod market. A pre-paid iPhone nano (hopefully not an iPhone Shuffle! :) ) is an inevitability someday.
Ballmer was wrong again (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
He was right based on the state of things at that time. That prediction was based on the ridiculously high price of the iPhone, before they lowered it a few hundred dollars.
All you stated was that he had a reason to think he was right, and that reason turned out to be wrong. How is that any different from being wrong, which he clearly was?
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd rather have 10% of a market with a 50% profit margin than 50% of a market with a 5% profit margin. And so, apparently, would Apple. Mind you, 90% of a market with 50% profit margin is even better... owaitiPad.
Steve Ballmer = Fail at math + fail at marketing + fail at research + fail at DEVELOPERS! YEAH!!!! + balding sales hack with armpit sweatstains. The sooner MSFT gets rid of him, the sooner they can try to actually participate in the mobile revolution.
This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:3)
I, too, have been conditioned to believe 7 impossible things before breakfast.
This is the problem with the stock market. Its fear driven. I *could* be afraid that Windows Phone or Android might make a big dent in iPhone market share. Or I can invest with confidence and wait for actual signs that this is actually taking place. Never mind the fact that 50% of Apple's profits come from products other than the iPhone...
Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (Score:4, Informative)
If you go by OS, then iOS is trouncing Android. Because by going by OS, you HAVE to include, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.
http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2011/04/19/a-look-at-ipad-users-apple-still-trouncing-android/?mod=e2tw [wsj.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Because by going by OS, you HAVE to include, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.
No, you don't. Just like you don't HAVE to include HP's printers that run Android, or the MP3 players that run Android, or the e-readers that run Android, or the Sony TVs that run Android.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, since the GP was the one that stated going by OS, I was refuting his premise.
Re: (Score:3)
It depends on what you're trying to prove. HP printers and Nooks don't allow you to install 3rd-party apps, unless you're a ricer and you modify them. I work for Sony, I don't know what those TVs run, but if it's Android (maybe you mean Google TV?) it isn't the kind of Android you can buy apps for. If you're a mobile developer the tot
Re: (Score:3)
Because by going by OS, you HAVE to include, iPod Touch, iPhone, iPad.
No, you don't. Just like you don't HAVE to include HP's printers that run Android, or the MP3 players that run Android, or the e-readers that run Android, or the Sony TVs that run Android.
No, it's not "just like" that at all. They are not running anything recognizable as Android, even if that's what they are running under the hood. Your argument would make more sense if someone was claiming that the AppleTV should be counted towards iOS. But no one has claimed that, because like your argument, it would be nonsensical.
Re: (Score:3)
Then don't go by OS. In which case you have to go by device. And there is no Droid or Thunderbolt or flavor-of-the-month-phone that is outselling the iPhone.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Why can't I go by OS and platform? Is there some rule that says that isn't allowed? I mean you want comparables you have to look at Smartphones by OS. I mean even Nielsen put their ratings for Smartphones like that. Why would anybody reasonably try to compare Smartphones to MP3 players?
When people compare Windows marketshare to Apple they don't break out Dell, HP, Lenovo, etc. and they don't try to group XBox in with Desktops.
Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Why would anybody reasonably try to compare Smartphones to MP3 players?
People who want to sell apps across an OS.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't I go by OS and platform? Is there some rule that says that isn't allowed?
Because it greatly dilutes your point if you blatantly cherrypick a dataset to debate. Basically nobody knows or cares who is winning by "OS and platform"....except perhaps fandroids who are desperate to devise any shred of evidence that yesterday's announcement isn't a huge win for Apple.
Re: (Score:3)
I think rather dismal sales of the Galaxy Tab, Dell Streak, HP Xoom, and Blackberry Playbook as compared to iPad sales indicate just how strongly Android smartphone sales were artifically raised by carrier choice.
In the US and many markets, if you wanted a smartphone on a carrier which didn't sell the iPhone, Android was the only real "iPhone-like" choice available due to the AT&T exclusive. As such, many people didn't buy Android because they wanted Android, but because they wanted a comparable smartph
Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's why your argument is disingenuous: When you're comparing platforms, the usual reason for doing so is to compare the robustness of the platforms in terms of where a developer/company should focus its efforts at producing apps. And iOS, as an app platform, is much larger than Android, because you can't simply disregard the fact that many (most?) apps work just fine without phone hardware, and can work either disconnected, or over wifi-only, on iPads and iPod touches. If you develop for iOS, you have access to millions of non-iPhone devices.
So, yes, the aggregate market share of all Android devices is a few % larger than the market share of the single line of phones that Apple produces. So what?
If your goal is to use that number to convince people that Android is a compelling platform to develop for (i.e., enhancing the value & appeal of the platform with third-party applications that will entice users to buy), then you cannot disregard the fact that iOS is much larger than "only iPhones," just as Android is much larger than "only Motorola Droids."
And it's interesting to note, with the arrival of legitimate Android competitors to the iPad, that people flogging Android seem eager to overlook the low market share of these devices while touting Android as a total winner for any shop looking to develop apps for a mobile platform.
Re: (Score:2)
even Nielsen put their ratings for Smartphones like that.
Neilsen and ever other market research company will arrange their categories according to what will sell most copies of their reports. Logic be damned. National telco networks are the largest buyers of these types of reports, so they're not interested in OS sales in MP3 players or non-cellular tablets.
App developers would be interested in having all iOS devices included. But the information isn't that significant that they spend the big $ these reports cost.
Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (Score:4, Insightful)
"They are going to write for both because they want to hit as many people as possible."
As an iOS developer, I'll tell you right now that I'm currently NOT writing for both. Several friends are, and wish they hadn't. Android platform sales suck, just as paid Linux application sales suck. 'Droid-boys don't buy, and as such it doesn't really matter how many eyeballs are on the platform. No sales == no sales.
That's why most of the Android apps are free and ad-based... at least then you have a chance at SOME money. Unfortunately, they don't tend to click on ads, either.
Google may need to follow in Apple's footsteps, and produce their own software like Pages, Numbers, Keynote, iMovie, and Garage Band. At least then SOMEONE will be writing quality apps for their platform.
Re: (Score:3)
Why can't I go by OS and platform?
Because it's contrived. "Hey, everybody, look at this one (and only one) combination of numbers! It makes Android look better than iOS, even though by any other measure, Android is doing worse than iOS."
When you buy a phone, there are five considerations: carrier, ongoing costs, upfront cost, hardware features, OS. Roughly in that order. Very few people go out of their way to buy Android phones. When AT&T was the sole carrier of the iPhone, hoards of people switched to AT&T for no reason than to buy
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there were only 2.9M MacBooks sold last quarter.
That was probably enough to make more, net, than ALL of the Windows laptops combined. In terms of hardware, yes Windows is a failure. See Dell, IBM, Compaq, NEC, etc, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no single model of Windows laptop that's outselling the MacBook. So I guess Windows is a dismal failure in the market, right?
Yes, but to get the statistic that all Windows PCs computers added together outnumber OSX PCs, it's not necessary to exclude Mac Minis and Apple TVs. That's the difference.
When you can say all android devices added together outnumber all iOS devices added together, then you'll get respect. Whilst you can only say that all Android devices added together outnumber all iOS devices if you exclude iPod Touch and iPad, then you are ridiculous.
See the difference?
Re: (Score:2)
Well I did say to exclude tablets but I guess I should have said MP3 players, too. Otherwise you are comparing Apple and Oranges. Is there even such a thing as a droid standalone mp3 player? What would be the point? Tablets obviously Droid is barely even mentionable.
Why are you referring to the iPod Touch as a "standalone mp3 player"? Is that what you call the Nintendo DS or PSP families of products? It's an app platform. One of the apps is an mp3 player. The iPhone, in fact, is just an iPod Touch that has hardware support for a "phone" app.
If you're trying to make money writing apps, there's no difference. And besides pissing rights, what other reason is there to break apart OS market share?
Re: (Score:3)
Then if you're talking smartphones (as opposed to OSs), then iPhone is the biggest selling smartphone in the world.
Now are you SURE that's the tack you really meant to take?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is why Apple is a dangerous company.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Shocking as it may be to hear an Apple Fanboi say this - good point RazzleFrog! Because, you see, you're right: Android IS trouncing iOS in smartphone marketshare. And Apple don't care!
They're making all the profit. They're selling every iOS device they can build. They're seeing Mac sales go up while PC sales go down because of iPad. They're watching RIM go insane and Nokia sell out to Microsoft. They're welcoming all the developers to iOS, who come there first because that's where the money is.
Hell, it's Apple that's driving Android sales. How many Android phones get sold in response to a customer query of "I want something like an iPhone only cheap" or "I want something like an iPhone but don't want to change networks."
Re: (Score:2)
They're seeing Mac sales go up while PC sales go down because of iPad.
I seriously doubt iPad sales are driving down PC sales. The iPad is a luxury tech gadget that does not replace the commodity function of the desktop PC.
Re: (Score:3)
Heres a local news story about the comparisons.... and the iPad won out by a huge margin. It was cheaper, better, "cooler" (by FAR), had more functionality via Apps... students would actually WANT to use it, to show their parents what they were
Profit can be competed away (Score:3)
They're making all the profit.
The risk to Apple from Android is that smartphones (and other devices) get commoditized [wikipedia.org] 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
Re: (Score:2)
Yes droid is just killing ios, oh wait apple is making billions per month on it.
Re: (Score:2)
Android might be, if indeed you exclude both iPad and iPod touch. But Droid isn't. Neither is any other model of smartphone. Neither is the sum total of smartphones sold by any other manufacturer. Only by adding together all manufacturers that include Android OS, and by excluding 2 of the iOS devices that iOS do sell, to you finally make a figure where Apple isn't winning.
By the same token, all the mountains in Scotland, when added together, exceed the height of Everest (when measured from base camp rather
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it's not even close. [wsj.com] iOS has almost 40 million users, while Android is just under 25 million.
For phones, it is 33% Android, 25% iOS, which isn't exactly "trouncing". If you use profitshare rather than marketshare as your metric (and surely this is the metric that matters to corporate giants like Apple, Samsung, and HTC), Android is in the basement and probably always will be, because it's a commodity OS. It's whole purpose is to remove the OS as a profit center.
Re: (Score:3)
It's not a zero-sum game. The mobile sector is a growth sector, so Android's growth doesn't have to come out of anyone else's bottom line. And even if it is coming out of someone else's bottom line, it's definitely not Apple's, since the whole point of this article is that Apple is crushing everyone else combined in the profitshare metric, and cannot make their devices fast enough.
But insofar as Android's growth is hurting someone else's bottom line, it's almost certainly Nokia's. They just capitulated and
Re: (Score:2)
The quality of iphone apps is much much higher because you have less hardware variations. People will recognise the higher quality apps and be happier to pay out for the phone
Maybe they should buy a phone company (Score:2)
I think they should buy bellsouth. And if you have an iPhone on a Apple carrier network, then you would be able to get features available in no other way. Maybe the phone could use a special protocol when talking with an Apple carrier. But I guess the cell towers are still privately owned right?
Re: (Score:2)
Probably should buy TMobile and ClearWire for the spectrum. It would be cheaper. But Apple will not do that for the same reason that Microsoft isn't building a phone. Apple does not want to tick off the carriers. Plus for Apple it gives someone else to blame. Do you really think Apple wants worry about things like not enough towers in Idaho or a saturated network in SF?
Naw better to rake in the money. Now Google should think about buying TMobile.
Re: (Score:3)
If approved T-Mobile will be owned by AT&T, too. It's already in the works.
Re: (Score:2)
I know I am hopping that it will not be approved. After all Sprint is crabbing about it big time. I think T-Mobile is also worried that it will not go through since they put such strong penalties on AT&T if the sale fails.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would Apple want to compete against the folks that are making them all this money? Apple's advantage is iTunes and their app platform, so any acquisition should feed people's ability to buy things on/for their devices.
They could buy Visa with cash on hand, and I think they'd get a lot more for their money.
Misleading Statistics (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It appears to be iPhones, all the way down.
Re: (Score:2)
Growth by what? If you measure computer market share, their growth in smartphones isn't influencing your data. If you measure growth by, say, revenue or market capitalization, they've grown by much more than a factor of 2 -- so they've had significant growth even if you remove their entire smartphone business.
Including the hyperbole, though, their growth isn't actually that fast. The iPhone's been out for a number of years and Apple's big growth boom has gone on longer than that. If everyone was going to be
Re:Misleading Statistics (Score:4, Informative)
On their Results call yesterday, they said that:
1) Mac sales continued to increase year-over-year;
2) Analysts have predicted a ~3% decrease in the PC market this year;
3) 50% of Macs sold were sold to first-time buyers;
What does this mean? In plain terms, they are slowly winning a larger portion of a slightly-shrinking pie, and 50% of their sales are going to people buying their first mac. As I recall, the story has been pretty similar for the last few years. The iPhone/iPad/iPod halo effect, I suppose.
Will everybody be using a Mac tomorrow, or next month? No, of course not. But there's very little reason to conclude that Macs are dead, or even feeling a little under the weather.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple loses a small percentage of their high-end, media industry users every year. In the USA, they've been replacing them, and more, with iMac buyers, won over by the iPhone. But this hasn't translated to international sales, or a significant change in their global market share, which has been hovering around 5% for over a decade (since the dust settled on the x86 Mac).
Or, to look at it another way, the iPad made nearly as much money as all Macs combined last year. A market they didn't even have in 2009. I
Re:Misleading Statistics (Score:4, Interesting)
"Apple loses a small percentage of their high-end, media industry users every year."
Depends on the market. Use of Final Cut among the video and movie folk is rising.
"...or a significant change in their global market share, which has been hovering around 5%..."
Consider the numbers for US marketshare (9.3%), or US home marketshare (18.6%), or US college student marketshare (25%), and watch the numbers change dramatically. World marketshare is increasing as well, but commodity PC purchasing in India and China is increasing at an even faster rate, thus maintaining the same percentage, seen as a percentage of the whole, is actually a fairly significant accomplishment.
Re: (Score:2)
Hence why I haven't sold my Apple stock (yet). It doesn't matter that I could cash out a 300% return. What matters is whether I think I can get more return by investing in Apple than by using the money to invest elsewhere. And, for everything I can see, keeping it in Apple will yield continued results.
Re: (Score:2)
Mac sales are increasing by very large numbers - 28% year on year growth of Macs in March, for example.
Of course, you can make huge gains without it saying anything about market share... except that the PC market is currently shrinking, in part due to iPad sales.
Good to be Apple, dontcha think? :-)
Doesn't surprise me... (Score:2)
My informal statistical sampling of sitting on a bench in a mall near Atlanta, GA, told me that at least 75% of the people that walked by me talking on/texting on a phone had an iPhone. Admittedly, that area is rather affluent, but we are talking about a ton of people I took notice of. I often make a game of doing this while people watching; not necessarily cellphones, but other traits. I just happened to notice that a lot of people, even though they were with a group, were all paying attention to their
No surprises, move along, nothing to see here (Score:2)
Not a shock.... they supposedly made almost as much on the iPad last year as the Macintosh PC. And the iPad wasn't even around the whole year.
The Mac has experienced a bit of the "iPhone coattails" boost in the USA recently, but not world-wide. It's been stuck at about 5% of the global PC market for years, and even after this boost, it's still usually listed as less than 6%. But the iOS devices have been growing like crazy.
And it's a very smart market to have that kind of chunk in. Apple's getting revenue f
Re:Wait... (Score:5, Funny)
Don't for get the apps (Score:4, Funny)
Incredibly 80% of their profits come just from apps for middle managers, hairdressers and telephone sanitizers.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
As opposed to the naturally occuring giant star goats?
Re:giant mutant star goats, so don't panic (Score:2)
Nah, it's a comic crossing Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.
Re: (Score:2)
There's an app for that... the World of Warcraft Remote Armory.
iOS: so usable, a Night Elf hunter can figure it out. *bounce bounce jiggle derp*
Re:Wait... (Score:4, Insightful)
1. Create iPhone
2. Wail on carriers so they don't ruin it
3. Profit!
4. Profit!!
5. Profit!!!
6. Profit!!!!
7. Profit!!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So will the chance to get a decent phone from anyone else who doesn't want to exert draconian control on my phone. 3 years ago the iPhone 3g was pretty much the only smartphone worth having in most of the world. Not so much anymore. Now it's a matter of how locked in people are to their itunes account and apps or if they're willing to abandon ship and re-buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Something I've learned in investing: overdogs win.
Why not buy oil, short treasuries and dollar?
Re: (Score:2)
I've been using the iPhone 4 since it came out, and I'm re-prioritizing along these lines.
With inflation being what it is (for everything except salaries and the dollar), I am switching to a dumbphone with a full keyboard for messaging. $30-40 off my monthly phone bill will be nice, flipping the phone for most of what I paid for it will be nicer.
Re: (Score:3)
Even if it doesn't, the iPad is going to face serious competition from the latest Android 3 tablets this summer.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, just look at the huge dent the Galaxy & Xoom tabs have made! It's INCONCEIVABLE that the iPad will continue selling well in the face of this competition!
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
>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."
Re: (Score:2)
Crude oil and the plunging US dollar will do away with expensive shiny toys.
Not while people still have access to cheap credit they won't.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is a public company. It is in their financial statements. [corporate-ir.net]
iPhone and related products and services (d) 12,298. Total net sales $24,667. Numbers are in millions
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, the tables are fairly readable, but they're a bit tedious to find.
Re: (Score:2)
Asking for this information is like asking what color, make and model my car is when it's parked right there in front of you!
(Does that help?)
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting stats, got a link to the cite?
Assuming your numbers are true, there's another big part of the story there, though, that's missing from your analysis. Most of the Android innovation comes not from the individual manufacturers but from Google. Google manages to finance its innovation in smartphones by leveraging its highly profitable search division, which isn't included in your analysis.
In fact, many would argue that the "innovation" that comes from Android handset manufacturers is in fact harmfu
Re: (Score:2)
Profits are important obviously but even if certain Android handset manufacturers perish there are others who will fill the void. Apple is all or nothing iPhone. If there is a misstep with iOS it's all they have. And considering the missteps Apple made in the 90s there is nothing saying it can't happen again - especially after Jobs leaves.
Re: (Score:2)
He certainly was... unfortunately the tech just wasn't ready to manage something like that. The original "Knowledge Navigator" concept video is pretty awesome.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
True, I misread the numbers. Apple "only" made 6 billion after taxes in Q2. I wonder where that profit went? From their call:
"Turning to cash. Our cash for short-term and long-term marketable securities totaled $65.8 billion at the end of the March quarter compared to $59.7 billion at the end of the December quarter, a sequential increase of $6.1 billion."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/264616-apple-management-discusses-q2-2011-results-earnings-call-transcript [seekingalpha.com]
In other words, the profits went into the bank