Five questions answered on Apple’s profit surge

It made $6.9bn.

iPhone maker Apple has reported higher profits in the third-quarter than was expected. We answer five questions on Apple’s latest sales surge.

 How much profit did Apple make in the last quarter?

It made $6.9bn (£4.5bn) in the three months to June. This pushed its shares up by 5 per cent in after-hours trading yesterday.

What’s responsible for this better-than-expected profit rise?

It’s iPhone smartphone. Apple sold 31.2m of the mobile device, a record for the June quarter, compared to 26m last year.

How do these latest figures compare to last year overall?

Compared to the same period last year, profit is actually down by 22 per cent. Its profit margins actually shrank to 36.98 per cent from 42.8 per cent.

However, this quarter its sales prices were actually lower at $581, compared with $608 a year ago.

The company’s revenue, which was also better than expected, rose only slightly above the same quarter last year to $35.3bn compared to $35bn a year ago.

What have the analysts said about Apple’s latest figures?

Shannon Cross of Cross Research, speaking to the BBC said:

"The iPhone number should provide some comfort to investors who were worried about smartphone demand.

"That's one of the reasons the stock is up. Expectations were not strong for this quarter."

While Adam Sarhan, chief executive of Sarhan Capital, told the BBC:

"This was a 'blah' quarter and the story hasn't changed.

"Until it delivers a new, innovative product that really adds to both top and bottom-line, I would expect the stock to continue treading water."

So, what is next for Apple?

It’s hard to say, except Apple's boss, Tim Cook, did tell the BBC the company – who’s last innovation was the iPad in 2010 – is planning on introducing some new products soon.

"We are later-focused and working hard on some amazing new products that we will introduce in the fall [autumn] and across 2014," he said.

Photograph: Getty Images

Heidi Vella is a features writer for Nridigital.com

BBC screengrab
Show Hide image

Owen Smith is naïve if he thinks misogynist abuse in Labour started with Jeremy Corbyn

“We didn’t have this sort of abuse before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.”

Owen Smith, the MP challenging Jeremy Corbyn in the Labour leadership contest, has told BBC News that the party’s nastier side is a result of its leader.

He said:

“I think Jeremy should take a little more responsibility for what’s going on in the Labour party. After all, we didn’t have this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism in the Labour party before Jeremy Corbyn became the leader.

“It’s now become something that is being talked about on television, on radio, and in newspapers. And Angela is right, it has been effectively licenced within the last nine months.

“We’re the Labour party. We’ve got to be about fairness, and tolerance, and equality. It’s in our DNA. So for us to be reduced to this infighting is awful. Now, I understand why people feel passionately about the future of our party – I feel passionately about that. I feel we’re in danger of splitting and being destroyed.

“But we can’t tolerate it. And it isn’t good enough for Jeremy simply to say he has threats too. Well, I’ve had death threats, I’ve had threats too, but I’m telling him, it’s got to be stamped out. We’ve got to have zero tolerance of this in the Labour party.”

While Smith’s conclusion is correct, his analysis is worryingly wrong.

Whether it is out of incompetence or an unwillingness to see the extent of the situation, Corbyn has done very little to stamp out abuse in his party, which has thus been allowed to escalate. It is fair enough of Smith to criticise him for his failure to stem the flow and punish the perpetrators.

It is also reasonable to condemn Corbyn's inability to stop allies like Chancellor John McDonnell and Unite leader Len McCluskey using violent language (“lynch mob”, “fucking useless”, etc) about their opponents, which feeds into the aggressive atmosphere. Though, as I’ve written before, Labour politicians on all sides have a duty to watch their words.

But it’s when we see how Smith came to the point of urging Corbyn to take more responsibility that we should worry. Smith confidently argues that there wasn’t “this sort of abuse and intolerance, misogyny, antisemitism” in the party before Corbyn was voted in. (I assume when he says “this sort”, he means online, death threats, letters, and abuse at protests. The sort that has been high-profile recently).

This is naïve. Anyone involved in Labour politics – or anything close to it – for longer than Corbyn’s leadership could tell Smith that misogyny and antisemitism have been around for a pretty long time. Perhaps because Smith isn’t the prime target, he hasn’t been paying close enough attention. Sexism wasn’t just invented nine months ago, and we shouldn’t let the belief set in that it did – then it simply becomes a useful tool for Corbyn’s detractors to bash him with, rather than a longstanding, structural problem to solve.

Smith's lament that “it’s now become something that is being talked about” is also jarring. Isnt it a good thing that such abuse is now being called out so publicly, and closely scrutinised by the media?

In my eyes, this is a bit like the argument that Corbyn has lost Labour’s heartlands. No, he hasn’t. They have been slowly slipping away for years – and we all noticed when Labour took a beating in the last general election (way before Corbyn had anything to do with the Labour leadership). As with the abuse, Corbyn hasn’t done much to address this, and his inaction has therefore exacerbated it. But if we tell ourselves that it started with him, then we’re grasping for a very, very simple solution (remove Corbyn = automatic win in the North, and immediate erasure of misogyny and antisemitism) to a problem we have catastrophically failed to analyse.

Anoosh Chakelian is deputy web editor at the New Statesman.