In Apple’s first 50 years it shipped 5.13 billion computers. This shipment total is higher than any other computer company in its first 50 years. There actually are no other PC makers that are 50 years old. But all these things were true also 40 years ago. So what are we celebrating now that we did not celebrate at Apple 40? The answer is Services, the consistency in growth in user base and the potential trajectory of growth to never-before imagine audiences. The biggest change is a change of horizons. →
Says Neal Stephenson who first coined the term “metaverse” This revelation came soon after Meta canceled the Metaverse. Let’s look into Neal Stephenson’s mea culpa:
When I was working at Magic Leap, and people asked me why I thought that [Metaverse] was a good idea, I would ask the rhetorical question: “do you really think that twenty years from now everyone is still going to be going around all day staring at little rectangles in their hands?” →
How everyone is wrong about AI. The newspaper was an unexpected development It was not a product that anyone asked for. Like many innovations, it wasn’t an invention. It was not patented or discovered in a laboratory. It emerged as a result of the convergence of three disparate technologies: continuous roll printing presses, the telegraph, and the railroad. This convergence occurred by the 1830s, facilitated by a business model aptly named “the penny press”. Stepping back, the printing press was initially developed in the 1450s, 40 years before Columbus’ voyage. It went through numerous evolutions. The big change was moving →
Running a data-center AI model on a MacBook → Apple's MacBook Pro, with its unique Apple silicon architecture, could revolutionize personal AI by enabling powerful AI models to run locally without relying on cloud data centers, potentially shifting the competitive landscape in Apple's favor despite current perceptions of lagging behind in AI advancements. →
“There’s So Much Left” in iPhone: Tim Cook → Apple's relentless focus on user-centric innovation, epitomized by the ever-ascendant iPhone, underscores its enduring dominance and untapped market potential. →
Amazon developing a new phone more than a decade after its first → Amazon's renewed attempt at a smartphone, "Transformer," aims to integrate AI and deepen Prime ecosystem ties, learning from past Fire failures by addressing trust, scale, and developer engagement challenges. →
Mac fastest growing PC brand in India in Q4 2025 → In 2025, India's PC market soared to a record 15.9 million units, with Mac sales impressively up 24% year over year, hinting at a bright future despite looming 2026 challenges. →
Apple TV is a categorization failure → Apple TV, launched in 2007, struggled for 19 years as a misunderstood, underappreciated gateway to content, overshadowed by Apple's product-centric reputation. →
Apple’s Custom Silicon Opens up Potential for a Cellular MacBook → "Apple's C1X modem not only matches Qualcomm's performance but also reshapes the economic landscape for always-connected MacBooks, hinting at a future where seamless cellular integration redefines portable computing." →
Survey shows record upgrade interest for iPhones → Morgan Stanley forecasts Apple as the sole major smartphone vendor to gain market share in 2026, driven by strong upgrade intent and advanced features, while Android struggles with rising costs and declining loyalty. →
MacBook Neo Market Impact: Analysts weigh in → Market analysts predict the MacBook Neo will disrupt the low-end PC market, especially in education, by leveraging Apple's higher margins and user-centric design, despite challenges from price-sensitive K-12 sectors dominated by Chromebooks. →
World’s most respected Apple Analyst. —Macfilos
Like what you read? Get more from Asymco One: full access to Asymco's research, analysis, and commentary.
It was not a product that anyone asked for. Like many innovations, it wasn't an invention. It was not patented or discovered in a laboratory. It emerged as a result of the convergence of three disparate technologies: continuous roll printing presses, the telegraph, and the railroad. This convergence occurred by the 1830s, facilitated by a business model aptly named “the penny press”.
Stepping back, the printing press was initially developed in the 1450s, 40 years before Columbus' voyage. It went through numerous evolutions. The big change was moving from batch (page-at-a-time) to continuous (rotary) processes. In the 1600s, Gutenberg type presses could operate at the rate of 240 impressions per hour. By 1818, The Koenig press could reach 2400 impressions per hour.
The steam-powered rotary printing press, invented in 1843 in the United States by Richard M. Hoe, ultimately allowed millions of copies of a page in a single day. Mass production of printed works flourished after the transition to rolled paper, as continuous feed allowed the presses to run at a much faster pace. Hoe's original design operated at up to 2,000 revolutions per hour where each revolution deposited 4 page images, giving the press a throughput of 8,000 pages per hour. By 1891, The New York World and the Philadelphia Item were operating presses producing 90,000 4-page sheets per hour. -Wikipedia
By harnessing steam engine power, the marginal cost of printing approached zero and typesetting productivity was such that tens of these pages could be laid out in hours. The production problem was solved.
The telegraph gave rise to news services which could relay national or international news to local papers nearly instantly. Small towns did not need to employ correspondents to reside on assignment to report what was happening in any and all national capitals. New syndication business models represented by Reuters and the Associated Press would distribute to thousands of smaller papers and communicate the stories via the Victorian Internet. Local reporters could flesh-in the paper with the latest from the community. The content sourcing problem was solved.
Finally the railroad offered daily distribution from urban to rural populations. This meant the entirety of a country's population would have access to news and commentary and, “all that was fit to be printed” on a daily basis. The distribution problem was solved.
A Bundle and Institution
From the capital point of view, the greatest investment for a newspaper publisher was the printing plant. The bigger the plant, the bigger the circulation. And the bigger the circulation, the bigger the profit. Printing presses kept getting bigger and faster. An old newspaper man told me that a newspaper is nothing more than a mechanism for depreciating a printing plant.
In order to pay off this investment, publishers not only sold papers but also advertising. To appeal to more readers they added a variety of content types beside news. Sections emerged to cover sports, lifestyle, photographs, opinion, comics, serialized novels, financial information, entertainment/gossip (thus forming the Hollywood star system). This included style pages, advertising and serialized novels. Some of the greatest literature of the time by authors like Mark Twain and Charles Dickens was first published in newspapers. Weekend editions were an obvious product extension.
Thus an institution was born. The newspaper became the primary source of information for the world. It became highly influential and a political (and propaganda) instrument. It came to be the historical record. We still seek out old papers in archives to find out what happened day-to-day in history.
The bigger the bundle the better the business
What made it resilient was its continuous bundling of additional information types, catering to diverse audiences. There was something in a newspaper for everyone. For men and women, from youth to elderly and for rich and poor. Since the cost of adding pages to the paper was marginal, bundling ensured a growing audience. This audience attention could be monetized through newsstand sales, subscriptions and advertising.
Obviously nobody would read a newspaper cover-to-cover. There was far more information than could be consumed and also far more than was interesting to any one person. The style reader probably did not care much for sports. The Hollywood gossip reader did not probably check the finance pages. But most readers of newspapers bought the bundle because it offered optionality.
They did not need to read it all but they could if they wanted. Maybe a scandal in Wall Street would attract the gossip reader occasionally. Maybe a pennant race would attract the style reader. If something exciting happened, you could read all about it.
Consumers were happy with the bundle and the newspaper became a tentpole holding up the information a society needed to function. It swayed elections, influenced public opinion and investigated the bad and the ugly in society. By the turn of the century, more than 9000 newspapers were publishing daily or weekly in the US. A proliferation such that almost every one of the 3140 US counties had more than one.
Percent of communities in the US with published newspaper titles. Banks, Arthur (2004), “Cross‐National Time‐Series Data Archive,” via Diego A. Comin Bart Hobijn THE CHAT DATASET NBER Working Paper 15319
Unbundling the Newspaper
Then the internet arrived. Gradually, it became possible for every single piece of the bundle in a newspaper to be made available as a web page, free with some display ads. If you were interested in style, there were 1,000 style sites. If you were a sports fan, there would be 1,000 sports sites. News junkies could get the latest news faster online. Financial news was now real-time. No longer did you have to wait for the morning to find out what happened in the markets the day before.
As national and global news could be obtained on web sites, newspapers hoped to continue as sources of local information. That also gradually got peeled away by social media. The result was nothing short of catastrophic. Since 2004, the United States has lost one-fourth (2,100) of its newspapers. Weekday circulation declined 45%, from more than 122 million to 68 million. Consequently, half of the counties only have one newspaper, and two-thirds lack a daily newspaper. The loss of newspapers has resulted in the displacement of 36,000 journalists, including photographers, editors, comic strip artists, and copywriters.
The internet unbundled the newspaper but also the music album, the magazine, the TV channel and almost all forms of entertainment. Unbundling built new empires: iTunes/Apple Music, Netflix, Spotify, YouTube, Facebook.
This unbundling led to a new way of finding opportunities. You could actively look for bundles and once you found one you could ask when and how it would get unbundled. And vice versa. Jim Barksdale summarized it as: “i know of only two ways to make money: bundling and unbundling.”
So much so that if you found a huge bundle that somehow resisted unbundling you would have to investigate it for what's wrong with it. The classic example is the automobile. As a bundle of many types of trips and configurations into a simple but over serving business model clearly it was ripe for an unbundling. That is what ride sharing (with or without a human driver), and new modes represented by micromobility seek to do.
The AI Bundle
The iPhone is an enabler in this game, capable of either bundling or unbundling depending on the apps which are built for it. Wearables do some of the side quests but the phone is still the core of the personal network.
I would contend that AI is exhibiting a lot of bundling characteristics. We assume one model is good enough for all types of tasks even though there are pitfalls in privacy, security or complexity. Being a prompt mechanic feels like more of a DIY experience. But indications are out there that AI will be unbundled. According to The Information,
“Apple has complete access to the Gemini model in its own data center facilities. Apple can use that access to produce smaller models that power specific tasks or are small enough to run directly on Apple devices so they can run the tasks faster.”
This approach relies on a process called model distillation, where a larger AI model trains smaller versions that can run efficiently on-device. These smaller models reduce the need for cloud processing and improve speed, which fits Apple’s focus on privacy and performance.
“Since Apple has full access to Gemini, its student model can also learn to imitate the internal computations that Gemini uses to arrive at its answers.”
But it does not stop there. The implication of AI as a job destroyer is also challenged by bundling theory.
Jobs as Bundles
We have long been warned that AI would eliminate millions of jobs. One of many forecasts predicts that by 2030, approximately 10.4 million US jobs, 6% of the workforce, will be lost to AI. The underlying assumption behind these figures is simple: if AI can perform tasks that are currently performed by humans, the human workforce will be rendered obsolete.
A new paper by Luis Garicano, London School of Economics, Jin Li and Yanhui Wu, University of Hong Kong suggests it's not that simple.
The paper argues that jobs aren't tasks. They're bundles. For instance, radiologists don’t merely read scans; they interpret edge cases, collaborate with clinicians, and approve decisions that individuals make. Replacing the image-reading aspect doesn’t necessarily equate to replacing the Radiologist job.
Authors draw a line between “weak bundles” and “strong bundles” based on their ability to be split apart. Weak bundles can be easily separated, while strong bundles cannot be without losing their value. You can think of bundling strength as also the degree of modularity/integration. A weak bundle is more modular, a strong bundle is more integrated.
"In weak-bundle occupations, AI automates some tasks and narrows the boundary of the job… In strong-bundle occupations… AI improves performance inside the job, but does not remove the human from the bundle."
In jobs with weak bundles, AI doesn’t merely replace a task; it fundamentally reshapes the job. The human is left performing tasks that the AI cannot, often in a more specialized and limited capacity compared to the original role.
Once AI takes over a portion of the work, humans cease to divide their time. They dedicate themselves entirely to the remaining tasks, resulting in increased output per worker, i.e. higher productivity. Thus even weak bundles don't necessarily imply job reduction but increased output.
Artificial intelligence is transforming job roles, rather than eliminating them. While certain tasks may be reallocated and productivity could potentially increase, employment and working hours have remained relatively stable. In many instances, the bundle holds.
In a strongly bundled occupation, AI still improves task-performance, but the human retains both tasks and a larger revenue share. Whether the aggregate labor share rises or falls depends partly on the distribution of coordination costs between tasks within an occupations.
If most employment sits in strongly bundled jobs, the aggregate labor share is more resilient than the task-exposure models predict. The distribution of bundle strength across the occupational structure is therefore a first-order empirical question for understanding AI’s macroeconomic impact.
In other words, the doom/utopia AI outcome dichotomy is false. It depends on the potential for unbundling. If you're in an integrated (strong-bundle) job, blending judgment, context, and responsibility, AI is sustaining: it will make you faster and better paid. If you're in a modular (weak-bundle) job, it will shunt you into an integrated role, whereby productivity rises.
The degree of job displacement will depend on the degree of bundling in most jobs across the economy. It may turn out that integrated jobs will be added as the opportunities created by productivity will be market creating.
History is filled with examples of restructuring of ideas and the re-configuration of businesses due to technological change. AI is an example of both enabling and disabling of existing businesses and occupations. Very much the way the Internet turned out to be.
Displacement happens but innovation creates more opportunity and reallocation of effort to better (or at least more) outcomes. The newspaper and internet created markets and jobs. Will AI do the same? Modularity may hold the answer.
50 already? It seems only a blink of an eye since I wrote Apple at 40. Let's try copy & paste.
In Apple’s first 40 50 years it shipped 1,591,092,250 5,126,211,000 computers[1].
This shipment total is higher than any other computer company in its first 40 50 years. Actually there are no other PC makers that are 40 50 years old. One computer maker (IBM) is older but they only sold PCs for 24 years and what they still sell they don’t sell in high numbers.
That does not make Apple the top seller in a given year. Looking at only the Mac, Apple’s traditional form factor personal computer, Apple is fifth fourth in market share. If including the iPad, it was the top computer vendor in 2011 and, including the iPhone, it was first in 2009.
The following graph shows the top computer makers by units sold since 1975, a year before Apple was founded. (Click on the graph to see a higher resolution.)
Note that the graph is log scale and in multiples of 1000. Following the yellow Apple line we can see how it started with fewer than 1000 units shipped in its first year to today when it is shipping more than 1 million computers every day[2]. It's also quite remarkable to count how many other companies have come and gone in this top five list and imagine how many came and went in the "other" category.
Who remembers Atari, Commodore, Packard Bell, Compaq? Few said that they were doomed while they were in the running. Going back to Apple at 40,
After having a 40 50 year run and after selling more computers than all American and Japanese computer companies put together, how should we think about the next 40 50 years?
First, clearly Apple shifted from being a “computer company”. It has already changed its name to exclude the word “Computer.” That [came to mean that] it sells devices (which happen to also include computers.) We don't use computers to compute anyway. We use them to make decisions, keep track of things, speed things up and to communicate and to entertain.
After convincing the world that it's a not just a computer company, the next challenge has been to convince the world that it's also not just a product company. It did so by launching Services as a group (formerly known as iTunes Software and Services) and then separating the financial reporting so that Services can be measured with its own gross margin. Year after year management emphasized Services growth in its commentary. Services has grown into the second largest segment, 26% of total revenues ($112.8 billion out of 435.6 billion in calendar 2025.)
Services, if it stood alone, would be number 40 in the Fortune 500 list of largest companies by sales. It has been impossible to ignore it. Considering how much customers actually spend on Apps, Content and Services, the total is even bigger at $240 billion last year[3]. As a result, some, perhaps most, recognize Apple as a Products & Services company.
The App store alone attracts $169 billion in spending per year (2025) and that is now 5x what theatrical movie sales bring in world-wide.[4]
So if Apple is today at least a bundle of Products and Services then what will Apple be 50 years from now?
Again from Apple 40:
My simple proposal is to think of Apple as a customer creator. It creates and maintains customers. The more it creates, the more it prospers. The more customers it preserves the more it’s likely to persevere. This measure of performance for a company is not easy to obtain. It’s not a line item in any financial report.
The closest figure we have is that today Apple has one 2.5 billion active devices in use. It has around 1.1 billion users [5]. Using the devices as a proxy, we can say that this audience has more than doubled in the last decade.
So we know that at least Apple has created a large number of customers. Knowing total devices sold and number in use means that we can be sure that 63% of all the computers Apple sold are still in use. This means that most customers are recent customers. Are they going to come back?
If we then factor in the size and persistence of Apple’s audience (customer base) we might conclude that there are factors which will allow it to grow rather than shrink. My analysis based on public data shows that the customer base has been increasing steadily.
And here is a graph showing the size of device base and implications for subscriptions. services and comparisons with other consumer aggregators. Note the forward looking nature of a linear extrapolation of the historical data.
10 years ago, I continued:
Combining the history of customer creation and customer preservation with the value obtained from each customer implies that the next 40 years will be about creating another large tranche of customers whose willingness to spend on whatever Apple creates will be relatively unchanged.
We don’t know the limit. One billion was hard to imagine even one year ago. We might see two billion devices in short order. Perhaps not. Perhaps as we have a multitude of devices about us all day the number will become less meaningful. But if the number of middle class customers grows and as Apple keeps its products within their reach, there is no reason to think that there will be a reversal of the last 40 years in terms of customer acquisition.
This analysis contradicts the current perception of the company as reflected by its stock price. That price assumes the audience will wither ((With a P/E ratio of 11, without a change in revenue per user, the only justification would be the audience shrinking by more than 90% over the next 20 years.)) That is not insanity. It is what we could expect if Apple were unexceptional.
We did see 2 billion. We actually saw 2.5 billion. The assumption of a company in distress as reflected by the P/E ratio of 11 is gone. It's safe to say that Apple is exceptional.
But note that we are only 10 years into that 40 year forecast from a decade ago. Do we still feel confident that the company can last 30 more years given what we've seen so far? If one company could get through the next 30 I would say it is Apple. And if it is so then I think it will get through the next 50.
One more Thing
So, the plan is to make more of the same. It's more than enough.
Including Apple II, Mac, iPhone, iPad and iPod touch; excluding Apple Vision Pro, Apple TV and other iPods. Includes Q1 shipments estimated
2025 shipments were above 364.9 million excluding Apple Vision Pro, Apple TV, Apple Watch.
A Fortune 15 ranking. This would be the case if payments to developers were counted as sales but that is not the case for accounting reasons. As a result Services margins are an extraordinary 76%, on the order of a software only business like Microsoft Office.
As an aside, when I first started tracking this data it was early 2015. The App store had just overtaken US Box Office revenues and the outrage at my comparison and the skepticism that this sustainable was impressive. Much of the outrage was due to my choice of the headline "Bigger Than Hollywood". You can still read the 72 comments. App store billings are now nineteen times bigger than US Box office billings. I still stand by the idea that the App Store is Bigger than Hollywood. It is in fact bigger than many other forms of entertainment combined--more about this later
Stay tuned for a detailed exposition of this audience
In December, the company lost AI chief John Giannandrea, its top lawyer and a key design executive in a single week. Other recent headlines: “Apple faces unprecedented executive exodus”, “Apple rocked by executive departures, with chip chief at risk of leaving next.” “Apple home devices executive leaves for Finland’s Oura” “Lisa Jackson is set to retire late January 2026, while Kate Adams will retire in late 2026”. That’s just the names we hear about. They represent senior executives. But the harsh truth is that Apple lost tens of thousands of talented developers, marketers and mangers last year.
Almost 10 years ago I said “Managing the Mac product line must be one of the most challenging problems at Apple. That may not be obvious given the product’s success.” I pointed out that although the company grew the Mac into a redeemed and prosperous platform, “The big change in computing has not been a growing Mac vs. declining PC. It has been a huge surge in mobile device use vs. a decline in PC use overall.” It’s time to revisit this observation. First, a status update: The Mac is in its 42nd year...
How to read the history of the Mac and how to look at market share gains potential. Also: why the Mac has always been a cheaper alternative for buyers. →
Running a data-center AI model on a MacBook → The article discusses how Apple's MacBook Pro, with its unique Apple silicon architecture, could revolutionize personal AI by enabling powerful AI models to run locally without relying on cloud data centers, potentially shifting the competitive landscape in Apple's favor despite current perceptions of lagging behind in AI advancements. →
Lobster Boil → "OpenClaw, a revolutionary open-source AI agent by Peter Steinberger, transforms personal computing by autonomously managing tasks across platforms, sparking a Mac Mini craze and hinting at a future where AI agents are integral to daily life." →
‘No Near-Term Catalyst,’ KeyBanc on Apple Stock → Near-term catalysts may not sway long-term investors, but if Apple's valuation seems steep, critique the pricing, not its promising 14% revenue growth forecast. →
Harmful chemicals found in popular headphones → Apple's AirPods Pro 2 and JBL's Tune 720BT topped the safety charts, while budget brands like Temu raised red flags for hazardous chemical exposure. →
When does Apple split its stock? → Apple's stock split history shows a pattern of adjusting high share prices to maintain accessibility, with splits occurring around $100-$650 thresholds, potentially hinting at a $300 minimum for future splits. →
India's PC market reached a record high of 15.9 million units in 2025. Omdia analyzes this growth, forecasting a 9.8% decline for 2026 as rising component costs and supply pressures limit device affordability and availability.
NB: Mac sales grew 24% year over year, iPad sales by 40%. If the Q4 is representative for the year, Apple could be selling 1.2 million Macs in India each year. The Mac Neo could light this market on fire.
Apple’s recent performance supports Cook’s view, as iPhone revenue reached $85.2 billion last quarter, marking a new all-time high for the company. Cook described the demand as “simply staggering,” with strong sales across every region.
The iPhone is also approaching a major milestone, as it turns 20 next year, yet its popularity continues to rise instead of slowing down. Apple sees this as a sign that the device still holds strong value in a rapidly changing tech landscape.
Cook also spoke about Apple’s broader vision, saying the company’s strength comes from its people and focus on simplicity. He said Apple’s future products will continue to reflect that approach.
On artificial intelligence, Cook stressed the importance of keeping users at the center of development. He said, “If you’re always trying to enrich the life of someone else, then you keep them at the center.”
Apple is on pace to surpass $1 billion in artificial-intelligence revenue this year, a tidy sum that demonstrates the company’s AI advantage even as it struggles to deliver an AI strategy of its own.
That means they typically pay the App Store tax, roughly 30% of subscription fees in the first year and 15% a year thereafter, though rates vary by country. Generative AI apps paid Apple nearly $900 million in App Store fees in 2025, according to the analysis firm AppMagic.
Three-fourths of the revenue Apple rakes in from GenAI apps in its App Store comes from ChatGPT, according to AppMagic. Next, at about 5%, is xAI’s Grok. Apple’s revenue from GenAI apps rose from about $35 million in January 2025 to a high of $101 million in August. Sales have fallen from their peak, partly because ChatGPT downloads have declined, according to the data.
Almost 10 years ago I said "Managing the Mac product line must be one of the most challenging problems at Apple. That may not be obvious given the product’s success." I pointed out that although the company grew the Mac into a redeemed and prosperous platform, "The big change in computing has not been a growing Mac vs. declining PC. It has been a huge surge in mobile device use vs. a decline in PC use overall."
It's time to revisit this observation.
First, a status update:
The Mac is in its 32 42nd year of market presence. A longevity that is (still) unmatched by any other PC maker.
Apple reached a top five four position in the ranking of PC vendors. This was achieved far along in the evolution of the market.
With about $23 $33 billion in revenues per year, Apple places among the top four three PC vendors in terms of revenue.
With an estimated $5.5 $13.8 billion in operating margin Apple is the most profitable PC vendor, capturing over 60% of the available PC hardware profits.
The product has retained an average selling price of over $1200 ($1400 last year) for at least a decade. At the same time the average pricing of Personal Computers has more than halved.
Volumes increased by about 20% over a decade.
The overall picture of the market is shown the following graphs. First, the overall quarterly shipments.
Note the Covid-era surge during 2020 and 2021 but overall decline from peak in 2012. Yearly shipments were 262 million in 2025 vs. 371 million in 2012. The install base of users is largely unchanged. Microsoft has cited "over 1 billion" to 1.4 billion monthly active devices, with figures varying between official statements. My estimate has been 1.2 billion PC users with an additional 250 million Mac users, more about this later.
The shipments data provided by Gartner over the last 17 years is shown below:
Notable are the declines in "other" vendors and the gains from Lenovo and Apple. Broadly speaking, "other" are assumed to be mostly consumer markets and that has either declined or been captured by Mac with consolidation around Lenovo. Lenovo, HP, Dell are likely to maintain enterprise accounts serving large customers and that has been a steady but low margin business for decades.
Mac has grown to fourth place but still a way to go to third place Dell. Apple may overtake "other" combined in a year or two.
The market share data shows how "other" has been squeezed between Lenovo and Apple while the other players have largely held steady. Acer and Asus somehow managed to survive.
So what does this mean for the future? What is Apple's strategy with the MacBook Neo. Or for that matter, for Studio and iMac and Mac Mini and MacBook Air and MacBook Pro?
The Neo was such a surprise for many given its incredible price/performance ratio and the overall quality and affordability (and distribution potential). I've read many reviews suggesting it will "disrupt" the market and that Windows PCs are just no longer competitive.
Will the MacBook Neo move the needle? Will it take share from the Windows world (or for that matter from the Chromebook and even iPad?)
One more thing: Apple's sales of about 24 million Macs for a base of 260 million users implies a life span for Macs of nearly 11 years. However, all the other PCs sold add up to 238 million for a user base of 1.2 billion. That means the life span for the non-Mac PC is only 5 years.
This is, of course, reflected in the price difference but with the MacBook Neo, the potential for a 10 year old life for a $500 laptop puts the Neo price at $50/yr or 14c/day. Based on data for 2025, the average selling price of a new Windows PC is estimated to be $600 to $900 for consumer models. At $700 for a life span of 5 years makes the PC cost $140/yr or 38c/day.
This means that the average PC is more than twice the cost of the MacBook Neo. Now that is a surprise.
Apple may not have a clear trigger to push the stock higher right now, according to top KeyBanc analyst Brandon Nispel. He reiterated a Sector Weight (Neutral) rating on the stock, saying recent spending data and current valuation leave limited room for near-term upside.
KeyBanc’s consumer spending tracker showed indexed spending down 9% month over month in February, worse than the three-year average decline of about 4%. On a yearly basis, spending rose 4%, slightly above January’s 3% growth. Nispel said the data from January and February remains mixed, making it difficult to draw firm conclusions about Apple’s demand this quarter.
KeyBanc also updated its forecasts after Apple’s recent product launches. The firm now expects Apple’s Fiscal 2026 revenue to reach about $466.5 billion. It also raised its Fiscal 2026 earnings estimate to $8.52 per share and Fiscal 2027 earnings to $9.11 per share. For the second quarter of 2026, KeyBanc estimates revenue of about $108.7 billion, which would represent roughly 14% year-over-year growth.
With Apple trading close to its historical valuation levels, Nispel said he does not see a “clear near-term catalyst” that could push the stock higher.
Turning to Wall Street, analysts have a Moderate Buy consensus rating on AAPL stock based on 15 Buys, nine Holds, and one Sell assigned in the past three months. Furthermore, the average AAPL price target of $305.18 per share implies 17% upside potential.
In a bold departure from its Big Tech peers, Apple sidestepped the $650 billion AI infrastructure spending frenzy. While Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and Meta funneled cash into data centers, bleeding cash flow and adding debt, Apple maintained a consistent $14 billion capital budget. This strategic choice reflects Apple’s belief that AI models are rapidly commoditizing, as evidenced by DeepSeek’s $6 million model rivaling $100 million counterparts. Instead of building proprietary models, Apple licensed Google’s Gemini, reserving the option to switch vendors as superior models emerge.
Apple’s genius lies in leveraging its ecosystem—2 billion devices transforming into a distributed AI powerhouse. Apple silicon on device enables local AI processing, bypassing the need for colossal server farms. This approach not only conserves capital but also amplifies customer loyalty, as Apple uniquely protects privacy. Ultimately, Apple bets on owning the customer experience, positioning itself to thrive regardless of infrastructure ownership. →
Apple's recent product launches, including the 17e and MacBook Neo, have sparked speculation about a strategic shift towards low-end markets. However, this view overlooks Apple's fundamental approach to market segmentation, which eschews simplistic price categorizations. Instead, Apple focuses on the "job-to-be-done," understanding that consumer purchases are driven by desired outcomes rather than affordability alone. This perspective reveals that performance and quality are crucial, transcending income levels. For instance, affluent individuals may opt for simpler devices, while budget-conscious consumers might invest in high-performance tools to meet specific needs, like content creation.
Historically, Apple has aimed to deliver superior experiences to a broad audience, refusing to compromise on quality with budget-friendly products like Chromebooks. While cost can limit access, as seen with the Vision Pro, Apple prioritizes profitability as a validation of its value proposition. The MacBook Neo exemplifies this ethos, leveraging efficient mobile chipsets to redefine laptop capabilities at a competitive price point. This innovation blurs the lines between mobile and traditional computing, underscoring Apple's commitment to crafting products tailored to diverse tasks. Ultimately, Apple's strategic depth, powered by Silicon advancements, positions it to serve an expansive global market by addressing a wide array of functional needs. →
Nota Bene
Rosenblatt Lifts Price Target on Apple by $1, Maintains Netural Rating → On March 5, Rosenblatt's Barton Crockett slightly raised Apple's price target to $268 while maintaining a Neutral stance, optimistic about Apple's budget product launches and steady high-end performance, despite trading at a modest premium compared to peers, as analysts foresee robust revenue growth for FY2026. →
How many employees does Apple have? What do they do? → Apple, despite its marketing reputation, is fundamentally an engineering powerhouse with nearly half its workforce dedicated to engineering roles, driving its substantial revenue growth and global employment expansion. →
First footage of X-Plane 12 on Vision Pro → X-Plane 12 on Apple Vision Pro leverages ARKit to seamlessly integrate physical controls into a mixed reality flight simulation streamed from a Mac, showcasing advanced professional-grade AR capabilities. →
iPhone production in India increases by 53% in 2025 → Apple's strategic shift to ramp up iPhone production in India by 53% last year, aiming not just to sidestep tariffs but to cultivate a vast new customer base, underscores a long-term vision mirroring its successful penetration of the Chinese market. →
On March 5, TheFly reported that Barton Crockett of Rosenblatt Securities increased the price target on Apple Inc. from $267 to $268, maintaining the Neutral rating on the iPhone maker.
Crockett remains positive on Apple following the company’s recent event, in which it launched its MacBook Neo, tapping into the lower end of the laptop market. Apart from that, a lower-end iPhone 17e also adds to the company’s lineup in the budget hardware category. The analyst also mentioned that Apple’s high-end products account for a modest percentage of build-to-order, which could lead to in-line performance with its March-quarter guidance.
On January 30, Reuters reported that, according to the LSEG, Apple expects Q2 FY2026 revenue to increase by 13% to 16%, compared with analysts’ 10% growth rate. Despite strong performance, Crockett highlighted that Apple trades at a meaningful premium.
A majority of 52 analysts out of 54 have rated AAPL a Buy, while only two analysts rate the stock as a Hold. The average price target of $302.5 highlights an upside of over 16%, while Rosenblatt’s price target implies a modest increase of almost 3% as of March 10.
