Re:Apple Reports Record First Quarter Results
by yig on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @10:10PM
(#13537866)
It was a 14 week quarter rather than the typical 13 week quarter. Multiply all the numbers by 13/14 and you'll see it was a year over year decline.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Apple Reports Record First Quarter Results
by retromario on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @09:41AM
(#13541017)
From CFO Maestri on the Q&A call with analysts:
"2:15 pm: We had the benefit of a 14th week, but this was offset by several factors including less channel fill than last year and a one-time $548 million patent judgment receipt last year."
Re:Apple Reports Record First Quarter Results
by toyg on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:43PM
(#13542932)
Channel fill is fairly irrelevant (whose fault is it that your distributors don't want more of your stuff "just in case"?) and the cash is also fairly irrelevant - what matters for momentum is the number of units shifted and that's lagging everywhere except iPhones (and, if you trust them, the Watch).
Re:Apple Reports Record First Quarter Results
by alanfalcon on Wednesday February 01, 2017 @12:56AM
(#13538626)
Except you're adding a weak week, not a week that's expected to compete on an even basis with a typical holiday-quarter week, so that math isn't exactly telling/accurate either.
Re:Apple Reports Record First Quarter Results
by qqrsmith on Tuesday January 31, 2017 @11:21PM
(#13538207)
Interesting. Thanks for pointing that out.
> For accounting purposes, a firm is allowed to define a "quarter" as either a span of 3 months or else a span of 13 weeks. A "year" is then four quarters. ... Consequently, a firm that defines its quarters in terms of weeks needs to hold a 14-week quarter every four or five years. [1]
[1] http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/02/06/_14_week_quar...