Apple shipped an estimated 65.9 million iPhones during the first fiscal quarter of 2019 (aka the fourth calendar quarter of 2018) according to new data shared today by Strategy Analytics.
As of this quarter, Apple is no longer providing a breakdown of unit sales of the iPhone, iPad, and Mac, so we will not have concrete data on how well the iPhone is selling going forward.
/article-new/2018/09/iphonexsxsmax-800x663.jpg)
Apple in Q1 2018 sold 77.3 million iPhones, which would mean Apple sold 11.4 million fewer iPhones in Q1 2019 if Strategy Analytics' estimates are correct, marking a 15 percent decline in sales year-over-year.
Global iPhone shipments fell sharply, due to high retail pricing, unfavorable foreign exchange rates, intense competition from rivals like Huawei, battery replacement programs driving longer ownership cycles, diminished carrier subsidies in some developed markets, and flagging demand in some emerging markets.
Apple's Q1 2019 iPhone revenue was $52 billion, down from $61 billion in the year-ago quarter, also a 15 percent decline. The drop in iPhone revenue led to total revenue of $84.31 billion, down from $88.3 billion in Q1 2018.
Despite the decline in iPhone sales, which Apple CEO Tim Cook has attributed to weakness in China and fewer upgrades, Q1 2019 was Apple's second-best in terms of both revenue and profit, coming in behind only the first fiscal quarter of 2018.
Top Rated Comments
(View all)65.9 million phones sold in the holiday quarter. How will they ever recover?
15% down, and it’s the tip of the iceberg. BlackBerry RIM didn’t collapse their sales in a year. Nokia didn’t disappear overnight. Motorola didn’t vanish in a quarter or two.15% decline is nothing to laugh at or ignore. The massive PR failures under Cook is nothing to laugh at.
The more reason it is an embarrassing shameful fact that Apple is upping their prices and neglecting the Mac. 20 billions of profit in one quarter and Timmy telling you that he doesn’t care about numbers and that the customer comes first :rolleyes:
Of course Tim says the customer comes first, just like the cow comes first for every dairy farmer on the planet. Because Apple is milking their loyal customer base for everything they got. Next year the prices will be even higher to offset the even lower numbers sold.I want to believe :(
15% down, and it’s the tip of the iceberg. BlackBerry RIM didn’t collapse their sales in a year. Nokia didn’t disappear overnight. Motorola didn’t vanish in a quarter or two.
Apple is moving to a services company. Sure, iPhone revenue was down, but what about the 19% growth in non iPhone? iPad, Mac, Services, and wearables were up HUGE. So much that Apple reported $20B in net income, the same as last year. That means despite China absolutely falling off a cliff and a large decline in iPhone revenue, Apple was able to be JUST as profitable because of their strength in other businesses.15% decline is nothing to laugh at or ignore. The massive PR failures under Cook is nothing to laugh at.
That’s because Apple is becoming less reliant on iPhone sales.
The installed base went from 1.3 to 1.4B over that time, including 900M iPhones. This shows people aren’t leaving. They just aren’t upgrading as fast.
The problem RIMM and Nokia had was the iPhone. There is nothing that has changed the industry, so it’s not comparable. People are keeping their phones longer, not moving away from iPhone. Those companies didn’t have the ecosystem or $100B in non iPhone revenue like Apple does.
Are you predicting Apple will lose 90% of its value like Nokia and RIMM? What is the time frame? Shouldn’t you be shorting the stock? Be specific. Don’t just throw stuff out.
[doublepost=1548817392][/doublepost]
You must have selective memory because RIM dropped over 20% YOY from their peak, and it accelerated after that. Moreover, RIM’s decline was during an economic expansion. And even in its heyday, RIM never achieved the profitability of Apple.
And it dropped so much because the industry was being disrupted by the iPhone.What is disrupting the industry now? Pretty much market saturation, not a product Apple is missing the boat on and playing catch-up.
This is what these arm chair analysts miss in their false narratives. There is some weakness in China and iPhone in a quarter and all the sudden Apple is doomed. “Tip of the iceberg” talk and ignoring everything positive. It's comical.
[LIST=1]
* Decline in unit sale is irrelevant. (Despite iPhone sales account for majority of revenue)
* Apple is a 'service company' now. (Despite growth in service revenue is less than decline in iPhone sale)
* This report is fake. No one knows the answer, because Apple no longer publish unit sale.
15% down, and it’s the tip of the iceberg. BlackBerry RIM didn’t collapse their sales in a year. Nokia didn’t disappear overnight. Motorola didn’t vanish in a quarter or two.
The $84B Apple delivered is nothing to laugh at either. Citing BB and Nokia, two organizations that unlike Apple, didn’t change with the times is a false equivalency.15% decline is nothing to laugh at or ignore. The massive PR failures under Cook is nothing to laugh at.
Massive PR failures are not showing in the numbers, unless one considers $84B a dismal financial failure.
15% down, and it’s the tip of the iceberg. BlackBerry RIM didn’t collapse their sales in a year. Nokia didn’t disappear overnight. Motorola didn’t vanish in a quarter or two.
The problem with both BB/RIM and Nokia is that both companies were unable or unwilling to respond to significant changes in the market. Both double downed on their existing platforms and bled market share until it was too late to change course.15% decline is nothing to laugh at or ignore. The massive PR failures under Cook is nothing to laugh at.
Apple under Tim Cook, probably more-so than under Steve Jobs, is willing to experiment with different product options to change course. I think how Cook has handled the iPad line is a good example of this. A few years ago, critics claimed the iPad was doomed due declining sales and saturation of the tablet market. However, Cook’s managed to deliver products with high ASPs to stabilize revenue, while they market the cheaper option to go after mass market.