Apple Reports Quarterly Record Revenue of $124 Billion (macrumors.com) 54
Apple reported a record-breaking first quarter of 2025 with $124.3 billion in revenue and $36.3 billion in profit, or $2.40 per diluted share, driven by strong growth in its services business. That's "compared to revenue of $119.6 billion and net quarterly profit of $33.9 billion, or $2.18 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter," notes MacRumors. From the report: Apple set all-time records during the quarter for total revenue, earnings per share, and services revenue. Total revenue was up 4 percent year-over-year, while earnings per share rose by 10 percent. Services, Mac, and iPad revenue figures were all up significantly year-over-year, while iPhone and Wearables saw small declines. Gross margin for the quarter was 46.9 percent, compared to 45.9 percent in the year-ago quarter. Apple also declared a quarterly dividend payment of $0.25 per share, payable on February 13 to shareholders of record as of February 10. "Today Apple is reporting our best quarter ever, with revenue of $124.3 billion, up 4 percent from a year ago," said Tim Cook, Apple's CEO. "We were thrilled to bring customers our best-ever lineup of products and services during the holiday season. Through the power of Apple silicon, we're unlocking new possibilities for our users with Apple Intelligence, which makes apps and experiences even better and more personal. And we're excited that Apple Intelligence will be available in even more languages this April."
What If (Score:4, Insightful)
What if you took say, $20 billion of that and threw it directly at cancer research?
Does anyone think that we couldn't find a 'cure', or at the very least therapies that would make cancer just another treatable ailment?
Or take the money and use it to reduce homelessness or food insecurity, or is that too squishy-soft-lefty of me?
The insane amounts of money you read about are galling when you realize that just a fraction of it could do some real good in a direct way.
But nope, we gotta make the new iPhone 47b Ultra Mega Model.
Re:What If (Score:5, Funny)
Re: What If (Score:3)
Luigi agrees with this comment.
Re:What If (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
You enjoying all those highways and other public infrastructure?
Re: What If (Score:2)
Los Angeles resident, here. Combined with our gas tax those dollars should make some fantastic roads.
Ours are⦠not⦠fantastic.
Re: (Score:1)
Nice deflection but it was more of a thought experiment than a financial proposal.
In Australia 2021 - $137.3 million in taxes. (Score:2)
in 2021 - $137.3 million in taxes.
https://www.smh.com.au/politic... [smh.com.au]
They really need a min 15% tax, no deductions.
Re: (Score:2)
Did all of Apple's taxes get earmarked for cancer research?
No?
Then what was your point?
Curing Cancer (Score:2)
So the real question for curing cancer is, what isn't being done that could be done if there were more funding? And given that information, what are the projections of how much faster we would advance?
As it is now, if you read the fine print, much of the cancer charity money is going towards treatment, not finding a cure. And that's not to say it's not a legitimate need; it's just not "for the cure" despite what fundraising may imply.
Of course, we have cured a number of cancers. The problem is that it's
Re: (Score:3)
As it is now, if you read the fine print, much of the cancer charity money is going towards treatment, not finding a cure.
Yes, that's the "perverse incentive" in commercial healthcare- the money is in treatment, not in a cure.
If you cure the disease, you can't make money treating it. In a for-profit healthcare system there's no economic incentive to cure anything.
Still, even just an effective treatment for cancer would be worth it. And we all know that $20 billion ain't shit in the Defense Department budget, it's barely a rounding error.
Re: (Score:3)
This is bullshit someone made up. There's a shitload of money in cures for anyone who manages to find them. Most health agencies, insurance companies and sick people would happily pay 90% of the lifetime cost of treatment for a cure.
There is a lot more money in treatments than in *prevention* but that's because people are stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
It's pretty obvious you've never worked in for-profit healthcare.
Re: (Score:2)
True! I live in a civilized country.
Re: (Score:2)
True! I live in a civilized country.
Exactly, so I don't know why you're weighing when you don't know what you're talking about.
Re: Curing Cancer (Score:1)
"Most health agencies, insurance companies and sick people would happily pay 90% of the lifetime cost of treatment for a cure."
In countries with national health care, probably true.
Here in the USA where Apple is the profits of health insurance companies are capped at a percentage of payout by the ACA. That means both that they are motivated to make care more expensive, and that they don't want anything cured as part of that.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why that would matter. X% of recurring treatment costs is the same as X% of a one time cure.
Either way, "pharma has an incentive to not develop cures" is not the same as "our corrupt healthcare system we insist on keeping around has an incentive not to give us cures."
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see why that would matter. X% of recurring treatment costs is the same as X% of a one time cure.
If you successfully price them the same, yes. But then there can be laws which prevent that.
"pharma has an incentive to not develop cures" is not the same as "our corrupt healthcare system we insist on keeping around has an incentive not to give us cures."
wat
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's a terribly difficult concept to understand, but if you could be a little more clear about where you're getting stuck perhaps I can explain in more detail for you.
Re: What If (Score:1)
The first thing they would do with the funding is buy fancy new MacBooks at 4x the price and -4x the computing power. Next they need an iPhone so they could send blue bubble text.. if there is any money left over then can address the cancer thing but priorities damn!!
Re: Insane (Score:1)
"And I say that as someone who HAS cancer and HAS BEEN homeless (twice) and HAS GONE hungry."
So you have perspective but still made that shit take?
Re: (Score:2)
Cancer is just another treatable ailment. We got that way by throwing a few billion a year at it for the last several decades in direct funding, and many, many, many times that in indirect stuff like developing new tools.
But absolutely, more money would make things better. I assume you don't own a smartphone and donate heavily to cancer research?
Re: (Score:2)
I can't help it if you're not smart enough to 1) understand my post and 2) formulate a coherent answer.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, I guess that means that you bought a phone instead of contributing to cancer research.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I guess that means that you bought a phone instead of contributing to cancer research.
Ah, I guess that means that you have no idea what you're babbling about.
Re: (Score:1)
Research - what ever the topic - is not solved by money.
It is solved by bright ideas.
If money was an issue, we had faster than light travel, since roughly four hundred thousand years.
But, as far as I know, we do not have it.
As the problem for cancer and faster than light travel, is not money. It is KOWLEDGE HOW TO DO IT, or more precisely: the lack there off.
Does anyone think that we couldn't find a 'cure', or at the very least therapies that would make cancer just another treatable ailment?
We have that sin
Re: (Score:2)
You're too stupid to have a discussion with.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Insurance companies in USA made 88B in profits in 2023, so first target them for cancer 'cure'.
I'd be fine with that, but think of the healthcare executives who won't be able to afford a 3rd yacht!!
Re: (Score:2)
What if you took say, $20 billion of that and threw it directly at cancer research?
Does anyone think that we couldn't find a 'cure', or at the very least therapies that would make cancer just another treatable ailment?
I agree with your general sentiment. While Apple makes fantastic products which people clearly value, a 30% net profit is jawdropping. I understand the economics argument why this happens, from a global perspective it seems the latest AirPods can't possibly be worth it. Note, this says more about the consumers, not Apple.
That said, some quick googling says we (the USA) already spend close $60 billion on cancer research a year. No, an additional $20 billion would not lead to a cure in the short term. Certain
Re: (Score:2)
The way things seem to be headed, corporate grants and donations may be the only hope for future research in the US.
Bleak times we live in.
over $4.00 for every person (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Came here to say something similar. $124 billion works out to about $345 per human in the US. Dear Lord. So many can barely make ends meet. Time to eat the rich.
Re: (Score:2)
You do know the difference between revenue and profit, right? With $124.3 billion in revenue and $36.3 billion in profit, it means that $88 billion was spent on materials, labor, rent, research, taxes, shipping, lawsuits, fines, etc. From the profit, $3.85 billion was distributed back to the shareholders.
Still, $33 billion is about 30% profit from sales. Not bad but about average for the banking industry and a little above the 20% for the software industry. Most electronic manufacturers are happy with
Re: (Score:3)
Came here to say something similar. $124 billion works out to about $345 per human in the US. Dear Lord. So many can barely make ends meet. Time to eat the rich.
We should eat the rich because Apple sells an enormously popular set of products? Or we should eat the rich because some significant percentage of the population is spending $1000+ on iDevices while others are struggling to afford groceries?
I have a hard time blaming Apple for the former. I'm comfortable arguing that Apple established their market position by giving consumers what they want. They're not at the level of a hedge fund squeezing the juice out of financial markets with high-frequency trading
Re: (Score:2)
But the devices are often free!
The way the phones are actually paid for is evil - Stupidly high monthly bills from AT&T.
The phone and financing of the phone should not be linked in any way to a monthly connection/carrier fee.
Re: (Score:2)
Came here to say something similar. $124 billion works out to about $345 per human in the US. Dear Lord. So many can barely make ends meet. Time to eat the rich.
FWIW, I think only about a third of Apple's revenue is from the US, around $40 billion/quarter. I can't find more accurate numbers. The rest is international. Worldwide this is about $15/person/quarter.
That said, even $100/American this quarter is jaw dropping. I'm trying to figure out my family (of four) spend on Apple products. It's probably on the order of $1,000 a year, between iPhones, AirPods, and laptops, which puts us at about $60/quarter, and we're not a particularly Apple-heavy household.
What real
Re: over $4.00 for every person (Score:1)
"It's probably on the order of $1,000 a year, between iPhones, AirPods, and laptops, which puts us at about $60/quarter, and we're not a particularly Apple-heavy household."
Wait until you find out that there are many households with zero apple products. If you have multiples of all those things and think that's normal, that's the voice of privilege.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait until you find out that there are many households with zero apple products. If you have multiples of all those things and think that's normal, that's the voice of privilege.
Oh, I'm quite sure there are lots of $0 Apple households. There are lots of other families which are 100% Apple. I'm sort of in the middle.
And I freely admit we're a relatively affluent family.
Re: (Score:2)
Exxon: $7.6B net income (profit) on $83.4B revenue in 2024 Q4
Chevron: $3.25B net income in Q4.
Conoco: $2B net income on $13.6B revenue.
Collectively, those three also returned >$60B to shareholders as dividends and share buybacks in 2024.
Then there's Saudi Aramco, which all by itself is about the size of the entire U.S. oil industry.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't mind Apple making a veritable shit-ton of money. Successful companies should enjoy financial success, and people who take the risk of investing in them should be rewarded, and bravo. My major concern is planned obsolescence. You look at the latest iPhones and iMacs/Macbooks: With the latest A-series and M-series SoCs, there's nothing left that the consumer is desperate to have (AI can be had in the cloud). Instead of upgrading every 2-3 years, I'd like to see an 8-year cycle. That might sound excessive but if the products are well built, then I don't think so. I've had Android phones for 7.
Are you saying that planned obsolescence is a current problem with iDevices, or something you expect to see emerge as Apple realizes that their new features aren't enough to motivate consumers to buy the latest products?
I don't see it as a current problem. Apple releases OS updates for at least 7-8 years and I can say from firsthand experience that the hardware can keep up for that long if not abused. For an iPhone I'd expect at some point you'd want to spend $50-100 on a battery replacement sometime in
Re: (Score:1)
I don't mind Apple making a veritable shit-ton of money. Successful companies should enjoy financial success, and people who take the risk of investing in them should be rewarded, and bravo. My major concern is planned obsolescence. You look at the latest iPhones and iMacs/Macbooks: With the latest A-series and M-series SoCs, there's nothing left that the consumer is desperate to have (AI can be had in the cloud). Instead of upgrading every 2-3 years, I'd like to see an 8-year cycle. That might sound excessive but if the products are well built, then I don't think so. I've had Android phones for 7.
Are you saying that planned obsolescence is a current problem with iDevices, or something you expect to see emerge as Apple realizes that their new features aren't enough to motivate consumers to buy the latest products?
I don't see it as a current problem. Apple releases OS updates for at least 7-8 years and I can say from firsthand experience that the hardware can keep up for that long if not abused. For an iPhone I'd expect at some point you'd want to spend $50-100 on a battery replacement sometime in its life.
By the end of 8 years, in my experience, you'll be ready for your fourth battery. The only iPhone I've had where the battery wasn't toast about every two years was the first-generation iPhone.
But the other problem is that thanks to flash memory wear, your phone's usable life is going to be more like three or four years before performance starts to degrade pretty dramatically. By soldering on the storage, you can't replace it, which doesn't just mean you can't upgrade it. It also means you can't swap it o
Re:Planned Obsolescence - we need to talk about it (Score:5, Informative)
Instead of upgrading every 2-3 years, I'd like to see an 8-year cycle.
My Apple update cycle is about that. Maybe a bit less. I'm now planning on an M4 Mac Mini, and my last desktop machine was a 2017 iMac. The one before that was a 2011 iMac.
I bought a new iPhone last year. The previous one was a 2016 iPhone SE.
For normal use, you can totally run an 8-year cycle with the existing hardware.
Re: (Score:3)
Reading this on my iPhone 12 mini, purchased nearly 4 years ago - no plans to upgrade anytime soon. That replaced an iPhone 6 from, well, six years prior. Last year I finally replaced my 10-yr old MacBook Pro with a refurbed M2 Air. The old laptop was given a new battery and fresh thermal paste, and now my kid uses it for high school.
Buy backs (Score:2, Interesting)
What happens when Apple eventually buys back all it's own shares? The only reason this stock rises is due to 100's of billions in buy backs.
2012 26,470 million shares outstanding
2024 15,408 million shares outstanding
That is a massive drop. Considering that a huge chunk of Apple's shares are locked up with buy and hold firms, the float is artificially constrained.
If they keep up the pace of buy backs, in 10-15 years they really will take themselves private.
Re: (Score:3)
What happens when Apple eventually buys back all it's own shares?
They become a private company and the general public doesn't care about their share price anymore? They focus on long term sustainability of the business rather than next quarter's financial reports?
M4 chip is reportedly good... (Score:1)
...too bad Sequoia 15 is reportedly a buggy shitshow so far.
Apple needs to hire better programmers.