Roger Fingas
Despite Apple's revenue rising 13 percent year-over-year during the December quarter and setting a new record, about $88.3 billion, the company is guiding between $60 billion and $62 billion in revenue for the March quarter — below market forecasts.
Analysts had been expecting Apple to reach $65 billion. The company is additionally predicting a gross profit margin between 38 and 38.5 percent, and operating expenses between $7.6 billion and $7.7 billion.
The situation could spook investors, as the company also reported a year-over-year decline in iPhone units during the December quarter from 78.29 million to 77.316 million. In theory the company should have been riding high, having launched not one but three devices last fall: the iPhone 8, 8 Plus, and X.
In fact Apple recorded 13 weeks this year versus 14 in 2016, and the company saw iPhone revenues grow 13.2 percent to $61.576 billion, suggesting impact from higher base prices and/or people skewing towards more expensive models. In announcing Q1 results, Apple CEO Tim Cook noted that the $999-plus iPhone X outsold all other models every week after its November launch.
Some analysts have worried that the price of the iPhone X may be scaring away buyers. Earlier this week, Japan's Nikkei claimed that Apple is cutting production in half, though later reports have cast doubt on the idea.
Christine McKee
William Gallagher
Malcolm Owen
Andrew Orr
Sponsored Content
32 Comments
"The situation could spook investors, as the company also reported a year-over-year decline in iPhone units during the December quarter from 78.29 million to 77.316 million" ... I think it's important to remember that this year's quarter was 13 weeks compared to last year's quarter of 14 weeks. Won't change the minds of the doomsayers though.
Btw guidance of 60-62B would mean YOY revenue increase of 14-17% Wall Street’s 65B would be a 24% increase. I believe the last time Apple reported a YOY increase that high was the March 2015 quarter with 27%. What is Wall Street basing its 65B on?
13 weeks VS 14 weeks....
Hey, I think it would be worth rewriting the article since, you know, 13 weeks vs 14 weeks.