Apple grows revenue but misses Wall Street forecast

Could Apple be a victim of its own success? While the company’s latest quarterly results show double-digit growth in both revenue and profits, with iPhone and iPad sales both substantially higher than last year, Reuters reports that Wall Street is disappointed with the numbers. Analysts reportedly expected higher revenue and a greater number of iPhone shipments.

Here are the results for the quarter, which ended on June 30:

   Q3 FY’11 Q2 FY’12 Q3 FY’12
Revenue $28.6 billion $39.2 billion $35.0 billion
Net profit $7.3 billion $11.6 billion $8.8 billion
Gross margin 41.7% 47.4% 42.8%

And here are shipments figures for the company’s top products:

   Q3 FY’11 Q2 FY’12 Q3 FY’12
iPhones 20.35 million 35.1 million 26.0 million
iPads 9.25 million 11.8 million 17.0 million
Macs 3.95 million 4 million 4.0 million
iPods 7.54 million 7.7 million 6.8 million

Apple CFO Peter Oppenheimer predicted revenue of $34 billion for the quarter, but according to Reuters, analysts were expecting around $37.2 billion. Analysts also predicted iPhone shipments would fall in the 28-29-million range. Speaking on Apple’s results conference call yesterday, Apple CEO Tim Cook reportedly blamed the lower-than-expected numbers on "muted consumer purchases in Western European countries and the pullback in demand as consumers wait for a new iPhone model."

I guess Apple isn’t entirely immune to the general sluggishness of the PC market, either, since Mac sales only went up 2% year-over-year. Then again, those Gartner figures we looked at recently suggest Apple is faring better than most.

In any case, Apple shareholders have a reason to celebrate: the Mac maker has issued cash dividend of $2.65 per share. That dividend will be payable on August 16, the company says.

Looking forward to the current quarter, Apple expects revenue to hit $34 billion. That would represent a slight sequential dip, but it would be a sizable increase over the $28.3 billion Apple posted for the same quarter last year.

Comments closed
    • ronch
    • 7 years ago

    I hope this isn’t the post-jobs collapse starting. I am no Apple fan but I don’t want them going back to the dark days when Steve was kicked out and Apple fell into a dark age.

    • Chrispy_
    • 7 years ago

    Well, Apple’s obsession with filing lawsuits against the entire planet is extemely bad for their image.

    You have to be a complete luddite/technophobe to have missed the Apple vs everyone else squabbles that litter the news, and very few of the news articles paint a favourable picture of Apple.

    • eitje
    • 7 years ago

    It’s delicious to see Apple falling short of analyst predictions.

      • blastdoor
      • 7 years ago

      Savor the moment while you can.

      • ronch
      • 7 years ago

      It’s obvious you dislike Apple, but to feel happy seeing their ‘misfortune’ shows what kind of person you are unless Apple raped you.

    • moog
    • 7 years ago

    Celebrating 2 bucks! If it was anyone but Apple or Google, the blogger here would be objective. That dividend itself isn’t much to celebrate, maybe that’s < 2%, but Apple’s success and stock performance certainly is.

    Apple seems like the world’s richest tech company and they certainly have all the momentum (in general).

    • chuckula
    • 7 years ago

    He that liveth by the iPhone shalt perish by the iPhone.
    Unlesseth thou hast put forth thine INSANELY GREAT next-generation iPhone.
    — Book of Jobs 07:84

      • Deanjo
      • 7 years ago

      I don’t know about that, my 2500 shares that I bought in 2004 have me retiring before I’m 40. I lived by the iPhone and I’ll be retiring because of the iPhone.

        • chuckula
        • 7 years ago

        I’d start diversifying if I were you…

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          Maybe thats why I’m retiring and you’re not.

          • link626
          • 7 years ago

          2500 shares at $15 in 2004, became 5000 shares in 2005

          5000 shares is worth $2.8 million now.

          where the hell would you diversify to with such a return ?

          He got lucky. Back then, there was no way to tell that the ipod, then iphone, would cause appl to increase 3800%.

          But let’s just be happy for the guy who made some money on stocks.
          All these thumbdowns only show that some people are sour grapes.

        • NeelyCam
        • 7 years ago

        One million USD is not going to be enough to retire at 40.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          Who said that is my only investment? First of all, it was 2500 shares in 2004, then split, and that was just my initial purchase with additional purchases made through out the years.

          It has been far more profitable then any of my intel or MS shares and the AMD ones I can use for TP.

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Ah, so [i<]you're[/i<] the 1%!!

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Yup, investments were made while on minimum wage to boot. It all started off with an employee stock purchase program of Intertan Inc. back in the 90’s, flipping them to corel later on and the rest is history.

            No silver spoon, no blaming others for misfortune, just smart personal financial management. Unlike the other 99%.

            • Irascible
            • 7 years ago

            “No silver spoon, no blaming others for misfortune, just smart personal financial management and a little luck. Unlike the other 99%.”

            Fixed.

            I’m not arguing that you didn’t make smart choices. But what Apple’s stock has done is rare. More than 1% make good choices and don’t fare as well.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            No luck involved, the investments we made as an educated decision. Even without the fantastic returns on those investments I am far from struggling. It had more do to with not giving into impulse buying, saving for rainy days, and hard work. All the investments have empowered me to do is retire five years earlier.

            It’s called living within your means.

            Back in 1990 I was able to drive 60 miles a day to work in a vehicle that got 13 mpg while earning $5/hr and was still able to save money.

            • dpaus
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]No luck involved, the investments we made as an educated decision[/quote<] Hey, I'm happy for ya, and I'ma gonna let you finish, but how do you reconcile the statement above with [quote<]Some have done really well (corel during their linux release and apple), some have done absolutely nothing (intel and ms), and others will probably make for good conversation pieces in the future like AMD[/quote<]

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Sometimes you need a write off.

            • Irascible
            • 7 years ago

            Understand that I totally agree with your general philosophy. I started at $3.15 an hour as a kid and am doing much better than most now. As with you that’s due in part to having always lived well below my means. But when it comes to investment there’s always a *little* luck involved. All the research in the world can’t guarantee the outcome of a particular investment. You’re “absolutely no luck involved” attitude is just a wee bit too self-assured IMO. 🙂

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            I don’t believe in luck at all. Cause and effect that is it. To me this is not being “lucky” anymore then I am “lucky” not to have a 747 drop out of the sky and land on me.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            You can’t possibly know every single cause and all the permutations it will have in effects, thus you made an investment with limited knowledge, thus you were lucky it was a shrewd investment.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            No but I don’t have to know that and NHL team would more then likely beat a peewee team either to predict the pros would win.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            is it required for you to be obnoxiously nihilistic and arrogant when you make money? is it something you have to sign?

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            Cause and effect? You mean you knew that Apple would not only release the iPhone (and the app store), but that it would launch the cell phone market in the direction it’s going now? You knew that they were working on the iPad?

            In order to eliminate luck, you have to know all of these things, otherwise you are making a prediction or a bet, and luck is implied.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            [quote<]Cause and effect? You mean you knew that Apple would not only release the iPhone (and the app store), but that it would launch the cell phone market in the direction it's going now? You knew that they were working on the iPad?[/quote<] Pretty much after seeing the direction they were heading with the iMacs and iPods. Jobs mentioned several visions over the years as to what he was wanting to do. All it took was to look at how these things would be accomplished. Remember rumors of a phone and tablet from apple far preceded either of the devices releases. iTunes store was opened in 2003 and was gaining steam. It wasn't hard to see where they were heading. For example: [url<]http://macosx.com/forums/archive/t-29021.html[/url<] hell they even had the name of the product right in 2003.

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            That still does not confirm that you knew it would be successful. Even without evidence, once can assume that Coke and Pepsi are working on new sodas, but knowing [i<]of[/i<] a [possible] device and knowing [i<]exactly[/i<] what device is coming [b<]and its impact[/b<] are two different things. Yes, you probably made a more sound bet than people who invested in Ford and GM in 2004, but it was still a bet, and you had a little luck turn that into something much better. Good for you. I don't want that to be lost here, because it is pretty awesome for you to have invested so well.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            Basing ones decision on probablility is not luck. It is playing the odds. ” Luck” doesn’t exist. If I would have made no investment, it wouldn’t be ” bad luck” .

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            if you weren’t such a wiener you’d have more upvotes. that’s not luck either.

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            I would argue that it is. Winning, regardless of the odds, is good luck. Unless you have a better word to describe “getting the desired results from a probability problem,” I will continue to use the word “luck.”

            Also, look at this:

            [quote=”dictionary.com”<]2. good fortune; advantage or success, considered as the result of chance: He had no luck finding work. 3. a combination of circumstances, events, etc., operating by chance to bring good or ill to a person: She's had nothing but bad luck all year. [/quote<] Luck.

            • Deanjo
            • 7 years ago

            No it isn’t luck is a purely man made concept with no factual basis. People ridicule others for believing that there is a higher entity but yet insist there is such a thing as luck. Hypocrisy at it’s best. I never argued that there wasn’t a definition of “luck”. There very well is but it has absolutely nothing to do if it actually exists. Just as you can look in the very same dictionary and look up “unicorn”.

            BTW, you gave the very word that should be used instead of luck…..probability.

            • Vasilyfav
            • 7 years ago

            You just don’t understand probability then. Your personal ignorance doesn’t change the definition or existence of luck.

            • OneArmedScissor
            • 7 years ago

            Great, now people who [i<]save[/i<] their money are the bad guys?

            • NeelyCam
            • 7 years ago

            Obviously. Did you miss the whole Occupy thingy?

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            I think occupy was about banks specifically not saving their money, you don’t generally need billions of dollars of bailout money when you’ve been responsible.

            • superjawes
            • 7 years ago

            Occupy was/is about two general things.

            1. The reckless (or perceived to be reckless) nature of Wall Street crashing the US/world economy.
            2. The use of money to leverage the legal system in their favor, allowing said recklessness.

            I don’t mean to get too R+P (I’m not even in that forum), but that’s why so many people have latched onto the movement in some way. #2 in particular, paired with the Citizens United ruling, will probably continue to be a player until that decicion is somehow reversed.

            • StuG
            • 7 years ago

            So your smart investment was investing in all sides of the industry? Intel/AMD and MS/Apple, that really shows an educated decision to me! No luck involved at all, NOOOOONE at all, nope, stock market has zero luck involved in it at all. Yep that sounds sane.

        • sweatshopking
        • 7 years ago

        Well, your obvious bias is clearly explained now.

          • Deanjo
          • 7 years ago

          The investment has no bearing on what I like about Apple on the hardware and software front. As I mentioned in the other fork, I have investments in other tech companies as well. Some have done really well (corel during their linux release and apple), some have done absolutely nothing (intel and ms), and others will probably make for good conversation pieces in the future like AMD.

            • TakinYourPoints
            • 7 years ago

            Haha, so many jealous neckbeard haters with the downvotes. You go!

    • mph_Ragnarok
    • 7 years ago

    “In any case, Apple shareholders have a reason to celebrate: the Mac maker has issued cash dividend of $2.65 per share. That dividend will be payable on August 16, the company says.”

    Uhh…. well this isn’t true… The money is owned by the shareholder whether it’s paid or not… So the value of (share + dividend) does not change.

    So no reason to celebrate.

    EDIT: what I mean is, you could either have a share worth $602.65 or a share that is worth $600 and $2.65 in cash. You wouldn’t need to pay tax on the $2.65 either if the company kept it instead of paying the dividend.

    Large dividends are usually not a great thing to see because it indicates that the company does not have any great ideas on which to use the cash… or it could just mean a company is incredibly successful and there is just more cash than could be used in any situation.

      • derFunkenstein
      • 7 years ago

      I think it’s the latter in this case. At some point spending that cash doesn’t make any sense until the economy grows faster than the population.

      • Scrotos
      • 7 years ago

      I dunno, Apple shareholders have apparently been clamoring for dividends for over a decade:

      [url<]http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/03/19/us-apple-idUSBRE82F03N20120319[/url<] And many many many other companies pay out dividends. I suppose there's value and useable value. As in, if I have 2500 shares at $600 a pop, that's $1,500,000. But what am I supposed to do with that? Go to Best Buy and say, "here's a share, I'd like to give it to you in exchange for a desktop PC and a LCD?" But that 2500 shares at $2.65 gets me $6,625 which, after taxes is like $100, but that's still something you can use RIGHT NOW without cashing in your investment. I guess the problem I have with your viewpoint is that to actually USE the asset you have, you have to basically destroy it to get the value out of it. Like the house you live in being worth $500,000 but you'd have to sell it to get that value into a useable state. Ok, great, you got the money to use now but you no longer have a place to live. Or use the example of a car as the asset you want as an analogy. My thoughts, at least.

        • Saribro
        • 7 years ago

        I believe the definitive example for this situation involves “cake”.

          • derFunkenstein
          • 7 years ago

          I’d like to both have it and eat it.

            • Scrotos
            • 7 years ago

            It’s a lie!

            • derFunkenstein
            • 7 years ago

            I thought, because the whole “cake is a lie” thing was so tired, that I’d pull out an old classic.

    • Jigar
    • 7 years ago

    This is just a short term effect, everyone is waiting for iphone 5. Once that is released, Apple will start beating wall Street forecast

      • sweatshopking
      • 7 years ago

      you think so? it sounds like samsung has outsold them 2 to 1 on the smartphone front. i think we’re going to see them leveling off. if they can’t make new markets (ipad) then i think they’ve got little room to grow (they’re already huge)

        • tanker27
        • 7 years ago

        Yes but when the droid aficionados really wake up and smell the coffee about fragmentation then it will really matter.

        Oh you want that cool new app? Well it only works/ install-able on the most recent droid build and oh by the way that shiny new Samsung you bought just 5 months ago, it wont run the latest build of Android. You need a newer phone than that.

        Android manufacturers are really gouging the public and laughing all the way to the bank because of this. And this is another reason why droid numbers are skewed.

        Here at work it seems we go through iterations of Android smartphones every three months whereas our iPhone users only turnover once a year.

        But hey its not my money so who cares right?

          • BobbinThreadbare
          • 7 years ago

          [quote<]Yes but when the droid aficionados really wake up and smell the coffee about fragmentation then it will really matter.[/quote<] No one cares that much outside of angry forum commentators. [quote<]Oh you want that cool new app? Well it only works/ install-able on the most recent droid build[/quote<] Hasn't happened yet and is unlikely to ever happen. It's not that hard to get droid apps to work on multiple APIs.

            • tanker27
            • 7 years ago

            Really? No one cares outside of angry forum commentators? (and who said I was angry? I could care less )

            Apparently someone isn’t reading much: [url<]http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-source/androids-biggest-worry-fragmentation/8022[/url<] [quote<] While Dan Morrill, Google's Open Source & Compatibility Program Manager, can say Android "Fragmentation is a bogeyman, a red herring, a story you tell to frighten junior developers," it's not. It's a real problem. Ask any independent software vendor (ISV) if they want to program for multiple versions of the same operating system and they'll tell you “Hell no!” Better still, do what Tech N' Marketing did and ask Peter Vesterbacka, one of Rovio's founders and an Angry Bird developer. Vesterbacka said, “Android is growing, but it’s also growing complexity at the same time. Device fragmentation not the issue, but rather the fragmentation of the ecosystem. So many different shops, so many different models. The carriers messing with the experience again. Open but not really open, a very Google-centric ecosystem.”[/quote<] But competition is always a good thing. Ninja edit: And it has happened. Apps like Netflix among others have already dropped support for some of the earlier versions of Android.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 7 years ago

            I didn’t say people didn’t complain about it. Still Angry Birds is available for every android device out there, so clearly it’s not a big problem.

        • Decelerate
        • 7 years ago

        Is it really 2:1 on smartphones only or all phones produced by Samsung? I find hard to conceive the idea that Samsung sold 70 million [b<]smartphones[/b<] in a single quarter.

          • Scrotos
          • 7 years ago

          Well, this is from the end of the year:

          [url<]http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-05/samsung-profit-beat-estimates-as-galaxy-phones-lure-consumers-from-apple.html[/url<] "Mobile-phone sales surpassed a record 300 million units last year as Galaxy smartphones helped win consumers amid competition with Apple Inc.’s iPhone." "Samsung overtook Apple in the third quarter to become the world’s largest smartphone seller after shipping 27.8 million units, market researcher Strategy Analytics said in October." But then there's US-specific stuff: [url<]http://arstechnica.com/apple/2012/07/even-with-slowing-sales-iphone-grabs-majority-of-us-smartphone-sales/[/url<] "Combined, the iPhone netted 58 percent of smartphone sales from the two largest US carriers, which share two-thirds of the US mobile market. Most of the remaining sales were shared among various Android device makers." I'm too lazy to look any further, but I suspect your dubiousness to be on target.

            • End User
            • 7 years ago

            sweatshopking is wrong again? Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            [url<]http://www.androidauthority.com/samsung-smartphone-sales-almost-double-the-iphone-sales-in-q2-2012-101468/[/url<] or, I have links.

            • Beelzebubba9
            • 7 years ago

            I’m curious to see the actual numbers, because 50 million seems awful high for a guess. Not impossibly high, but still very high. I’d also be curious to see revenue numbers too, since I’d wager the majority of the Android phones Samsung moves aren’t $600+ Galaxy SII/SIII’s, so I expect Samsung’s ASP to be much lower than Apple’s.

            • sweatshopking
            • 7 years ago

            I’m sure apple still has the lions share of the profits. I just love making end user sad. 😉

            • End User
            • 7 years ago

            Sad? I’m having too much fun with my Nexus 7 to be sad.

            • Clutch Pedal
            • 7 years ago

            Go Android!

            (Typed on my Nexus 7)

            • End User
            • 7 years ago

            The dawn of a new era. ssk speaking the truth. I salute you sir!

          • Peldor
          • 7 years ago

          Samsung is projected to have sold 50 million smartphones in the last quarter where Apple is now saying 26.0 million. So yes, possibly 2:1.

          It’s only an analyst projection for now though, but it would be a record for smartphone sales.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This