Apple today announced financial results for its fiscal 2007 first quarter ended December 30, 2006. The Company posted record revenue of $7.1 billion and record net quarterly profit of $1.0 billion, or $1.14 per diluted share. These results compare to revenue of $5.7 billion and net quarterly profit of $565 million, or $.65 per diluted share, in the year-ago quarter. Gross margin was 31.2 percent, up from 27.2 percent in the year-ago quarter. International sales accounted for 42 percent of the quarter’s revenue.
Apple shipped 1,606,000 Macintosh computers and 21,066,000 iPods during the quarter, representing 28 percent growth in Macs and 50 percent growth in iPods over the year-ago quarter.
“We are incredibly pleased to report record quarterly revenue of over $7 billion and record earnings of $1 billion,” said Steve Jobs, Apple’s CEO, in the press release. “We’ve just kicked off what is going to be a very strong new product year for Apple by launching Apple TV and the revolutionary iPhone.”
“We generated over $1.75 billion in cash during the quarter to end with $11.9 billion,” said Peter Oppenheimer, Apple’s CFO, in the press release. “Looking ahead to the second fiscal quarter of 2007, we expect revenue of $4.8 to $4.9 billion and earnings per diluted share of $.54 to $.56.”
Apple will provide live streaming of its Q1 2007 financial results conference call utilizing QuickTime, Apple’s standards-based technology for live and on-demand audio and video streaming. The live webcast will begin at 2:00 p.m. PST on Wednesday, January 17, 2007 at http://www.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/earningsq107/ and will also be available for replay.
MacDailyNews Note: Ahead of the earnings release, Thomson First Call analysts had expected Apple to make 78 cents a share on sales of $6.42 billion for the first quarter.
MSFT is still real cheap, though.
In so many ways, except for total cost of ownership.
And just to conclude my point…
In CY2005, Apple sold 4.742 million CPUs at an average of $1348/unit. In CY2006, Apple sold 5.655 million CPUs at an average of $1425/unit.
To save you the effort, that’s a 19.25% unit growth in annual sales and – in a generally deflationary market – a 5.71% growth in average revenue/unit.
The naysayers are tools who don’t understand the market:
http://business.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,13129-2553529,00.html
Daaaamn… sorry I missed all the fun today, I started a new job so no blatant MDN usage. I have to say I’m pleased, though I’m a little sad about the iPod number. I really thought they could get closer to 30 million. But hey. there’s always next year. Apple is proving them wrong yet again, and the news is only going to get better. See you on the other side of $100!
-c
And for anyone who doubts my commitment to mindless trivia, Apple sold just over 2.6 iPods every second of the 91 days of the last quarter and sold a Macintosh every 4.9 seconds or so.
Apple should buy Adobe.
For me and anyone I advise, I say unless you’ve got a driving need for a faster machine, why not wait til Leopard comes installed on the machine. Let’s face it, no matter how cheap computers get, it’s still real dollars and cents to many folk and not just a “hey it’s holidy season and I should buy a new computer!!”
This goes even for those unfortunates stuck on MS systems.
“To save you the effort, that’s a 19.25% unit growth in annual sales and – in a generally deflationary market – a 5.71% growth in average revenue/unit.”
Where do you get the “Generally deflationay market” information from? IDG says the worldwide market grew 8.7% last year, and 7.4% for the fourth quarter.
So on that basis, Apple is about 10% ahead of the pack in growth year on year, that’s not surprising based on pent up demand for MacWinIntel systems. That quarter in 2005, everybody was sitting around waiting for the imminent MacWinTel release. But Apple’s PC business is flat for the last quarter where the market grew substantially. In simple terms if the market grows, and you stay where you are in terms of units shipped, you’re falling behind.
Also the iPod number shows a shift to lower cost units. Unit Sales are up 50%, but revenue is only up 28% year on year. If you do the math, that means the average price of those incremental ipod sales was about half the price of the average iPod sale last year.
That doesn’t take away from a great iPod sales number and handy increase in margin, but it does show a shift in the iPod product mix to the lower end.
“Apple should buy Adobe.”
Yay! Then I would work for Apple!
Numbers…
How interesting that you quote numbers with no idea what they really mean.
1) No sane analysis can ever be done by comparing sequential quarters. As an analogy, when analysing a racing lap around Laguna Seca, you don’t analyse someone’s time through the Corkscrew section and then compare it to their time down the main straight. It doesn’t make sense, any more than comparing a lap at Laguna Seca to a lap around the old Nurburgring.
All you can do by plotting sequential quarters is ascertain the short-term trend of the business, but meaningful analysis should be done by a) comparing like quarters and b) taking longer samples than 91 days. For instance, I can give you real trend figures for two or three year samples of you’d like.
2) The PC market in general is deflationary in the classic economics sense of the word: more PCs may be being sold, the overall dollar value of the PC market might equally be increasing. However, the average revenue/unit for the PC marketplace has been decreasing steadily since the start of the industry as a general trend, and has continued to deflate over the last three or four years specifically. Go check Toshiba’s price list today and compare the cost of the top-of-the-line Tecra or Portége in 2001 against today’s flagship model – I can buy 1.5 machines that are significantly more powerful today for the same price I paid for an anaemic single machine in 2001.
However, Apple’s business model appears to have protected them from the deflationary pressures of an over-supplied commodotised market with too many players: for the holiday quarter in 2001 (Q1, FY2002), Apple sold 846,000 CPUs for an average of $1266/unit; for the quarter just finished (Q1, FY2007), Apple sold over 1.6 million units at over $1500 per unit. If you can’t see how that bucks the trends of the market, I’m not sure how I can help you.
Of course, you are right about the iPod; but then you’re starting a different argument – or moving to a different racing circuit. However, if you analyse Apple’s classic strategic defence to deflation in the media player market, you’ll see that their response will be to increase the “perceived value” of the products and thus bring the market price back to what the company considers “optimal”.
The new iPod shuffle has undoubtedly found a more willing market than its predecessor and was obviously a major stocking-filler over the holiday period, but when Apple releases the 6G iPod (end of April?? 4th anniversary of the iTunes Store) and the 3G nano (later in the year) I’m willing to lay money on the fact that the average will slide back to the $185-$200 mark.
“1) No sane analysis can ever be done by comparing sequential quarters. As an analogy, when analysing a racing lap around Laguna Seca, you don’t analyse someone’s time through the Corkscrew section and then compare it to their time down the main straight. It doesn’t make sense, any more than comparing a lap at Laguna Seca to a lap around the old Nurburgring.”
Actually what you’re talking about does mean something. it’s like looking at the split times around a race circuit and seeing the that competition is going faster through a twisty section and you are going a lot faster down the straights, as a race team that tells you a lot about where you need to improve, or what the other team might be doing differently from you with car setup. Real race teams will use telemetry to analyze individual corners.
The analysis is relevant because you have a benchmark, how well other teams did on the same day through the same part of the track.
Here we have a situation where, to use the analogy, on average all other teams improved their times through that part of the track, and Apple did not.
Sure you can wait for another whole lap to see if that’s a trend, or if you want quicker information, look at the next split time to guess whether your car might have a problem. But unless you’re stupid, seeing that first data point of flat sales when everybody else goes up should start you down the line of watching carefully to see what happens next.
“) No sane analysis can ever be done by comparing sequential quarters. As an analogy, when analysing a racing lap around Laguna Seca, you don’t analyse someone’s time through the Corkscrew section and then compare it to their time down the main straight. It doesn’t make sense, any more than comparing a lap at Laguna Seca to a lap around the old Nurburgring.”
If anyone thinks that in any sales organization if sales are down one month, or flat in a growing market, that people sit around until the next YEAR to figure out why, you’re dreaming. Clearly Fanatic Realism as a philosophy is a lot different from Real World Realism. Forget QUARTERS, you’ll be analyzing why two WEEKS into the first bad MONTH.