Recent Comments

  • Steven Philips on Goldman Sachs raises Apple target $30 to $370 - 'What hath Rod got?'
  • Bart Yee on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'I modified your question to included sales and revenue: “Yes, Wall Street’s revised numbers fully incorporate an intense EU sales slowdown. The European Union accounts for roughly 27% of Apple’s global revenue. Analysts adjusted Apple’s forward numbers following the announcement that Apple is officially withholding Siri AI and Apple Intelligence from the iPhone and iPad in the EU on iOS 27 and iPadOS 27, with no timeline for arrival. The regulatory blockade—and how it alters Apple’s financial trajectory in Europe—comes down to specific impacts: 1. The Core Issue: The “Siri Blockade” • The Conflict: Under the EU’s Digital Markets Act (DMA), regulators demand that Apple give third-party AI assistants deep, interoperable access to system capabilities. • Apple’s Refusal: Apple claims this “extreme interpretation” forces them to give outside AI models unlimited, autonomous access to private user files and messages. • The Reality: Consequently, EU buyers of the iPhone 17 and upcoming iPhone 18 lines are completely locked out of core features like on-device writing tools, visual intelligence, and the entirely rebuilt Siri. 2. How the EU Slowdown Shifts Sales Numbers Because the EU market is being denied the primary marketing reason to upgrade, Apple’s local performance will suffer a sharp fracture through 2027: • Stagnant Replacement Cycles: European consumers hold onto their phones for an average of 3.8 years. Without a “must-have” feature like Siri AI, upgrade rates will flatten. Millions of users will choose cheap battery replacements for their iPhone 13s or 14s rather than buying a new device. • The Android Defection Risk: Android is capitalizing on Apple’s absence. The European Commission recently ruled that Google must offer competing AI assistants broader access to Android. This means Samsung and Google can legally deploy fully compliant cloud-hybrid AI across Europe today, tempting premium iOS users to switch. • The Revenue Hit: Analysts project that the EU AI omission threatens up to 40% of Apple’s near-term growth runway. It shaves roughly $4 Billion to $6 Billion off Apple’s projected global hardware revenue for 2026 and 2027 compared to an un-restricted market timeline. 3. Why Apple’s Global Outlook Remains High Despite the severe EU headwind, Apple’s overall valuation is still breaking records because its strategy accounts for this geographic loss: • The MAC Loophole: The DMA blockade only applies to iOS, iPadOS, and watchOS. Siri AI is fully active for EU users on macOS and visionOS because those platforms aren’t legally designated as market “gatekeepers”. • The China Offset: Apple recently secured regulatory clearing for Apple Intelligence in China via local partnerships with Alibaba and Baidu. Winning back the massive Chinese luxury hardware market more than financially balances out the stagnation happening in Europe. I’ll continue on Monday’s posts.'
  • Bart Yee on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'Before I answer that, here’s revised numbers for sales per Gemini: “You are completely correct to flag those numbers—the original projection underestimated Apple’s GenAI shipment volume by treating “AI-capable shipments” as only a fraction of new sales, rather than looking at Apple’s actual total transition.Industry data from Counterpoint Research confirms that Apple has already shipped over 450 million AI-capable devices cumulatively. Because Apple builds 8GB+ RAM into virtually its entire new pipeline (iPhone 16, 17, and the upcoming 18 lines), almost every new iPhone sold moving forward counts as GenAI-capable.Adjusting for Apple’s baseline annual shipment volume (which consistently hovers between 210M and 230M units), the corrected, realistic breakdown presents a more accurate picture: Corrected Annual GenAI Smartphone Shipments (New Units Sold) ️ Year 2026 (The Current Year) Apple iOS: ~210 Million Units • The Correction: Because the iPhone 17 and upcoming iPhone 18 families have standard AI configurations, Apple’s entire new shipment baseline is AI-capable. They are highly insulated from the broader 13.9% market crash. Android: ~276 Million Units The Context: • Total market shipments are compressed to 1.08 billion total units due to the severe server-RAM chip squeeze. However, Counterpoint tracks GenAI at 45% of that global market share, meaning Android flagships and select premium tiers still pull in 276M units. ️ Year 2027 (The Global Crossover) Apple iOS: ~220 Million Units • The Context: Driven heavily by the full-year sales cycle of the iPhone 18 Pro, Pro Max, and the highly anticipated foldable iPhone Ultra. Legacy non-AI iPhones drop off retail shelves entirely. Android: ~361 Million Units • The Context: Total global smartphone shipments slightly contract by another 1.1% before stabilizing. However, GenAI penetration scales up to 52% of all shipments, expanding Android’s volume as mid-range chipsets adopt local NPUs. ️ Year 2028 (Total Market Saturation) Apple iOS: ~235 Million Units • The Context: The global market undergoes a sharp 5.5% macroeconomic recovery. Apple rides this wave with the iPhone 19 generation, capturing pure replacement cycles. Android: ~485 Million Units • The Context: New chip factories normalize the global semiconductor supply. GenAI capability is no longer a premium upsell; it becomes the default baseline for 9 out of 10 Android devices priced over $250. Revised Active Installed Base (Devices in actual use) With these corrected shipment volumes, Apple’s active AI footprint expands much more aggressively because it doesn’t suffer from the hardware retirement drop-offs impacting older Android models. 2026: Apple: ~480M active Android: ~710M active 2027: Apple: ~660M active Android: ~840M active 2028: Apple: ~850M active Android: ~1.15B active ((So one year later by 2028, the gap widens from a revised 180M to 300M. Again, I’d argue that while $250-600 Android models may have technical specs or higher memory loads IF memory prices crash, it’s not clear Android makers who are recovering would load up cheaper models with that much memory to make them AI capable because AI is NOT a major decision maker for price sensitive markets.)) Thank you for catching that error. This updated model correctly reflects Apple’s strategy of executing a complete, top-to-bottom ecosystem flip to AI-standard hardware.'
  • Michael Goldfeder on Goldman Sachs raises Apple target $30 to $370 - 'After seeing this price increase it’s patently obvious that they have not hired Rod Hall as a consultant.'
  • Daniel Epstein on Premarket: Apple is green - 'Surprising stock strength on a Monday morning. I wonder if it will grow or wane after Europe market closes. The move could be partially a reaction to Iran crisis pause. Optimism before earnings usually peaks around now.'
  • Joseph Bland on Premarket: Apple is green - 'Thanks for the heads-up, David! Meanwhile, Max Pain remains unconvinced….'
  • Joseph Bland on Goldman Sachs raises Apple target $30 to $370 - 'They have a year to be right. It’s definitely doable.'
  • Chris De Armond on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - '@Bart: Incredible, Thanks. You have helped me add to and confirm my list of companies for Leap Puts when we see this forecast beginning to take shape.'
  • David Wilson on Premarket: Apple is green - 'Well, AAPL outcapped NVDA…'
  • Ben Gepp on 22 minutes with ex-Twitter CEO Dick Costolo - '…well I thought this was interesting'
  • Bart Yee on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - '“Which tech or AI companies are most vulnerable or at existential risk if an infrastructure slowdown occurs by late 2027 or into 2028? What would be the impact?” “If the hyperscaler infrastructure boom slows or reverses by late 2027, the tech ecosystem will face a sharp structural correction. The companies at highest risk are those whose current market valuations and revenue streams depend entirely on hyper-growth infrastructure capital expenditures (CapEx). 1. Pure-Play AI Hardware Providers (Extreme Risk) These companies design the core compute components driving the AI buildout. They have the most to lose if capital spending stalls. Nvidia (NVDA) • The Vulnerability: Nvidia is the primary beneficiary of the AI boom, meaning it faces the steepest potential fall. Over 85% of its data center revenue comes directly from the handful of hyperscalers currently overbuilding infrastructure. • The Impact: A spending freeze would trigger an immediate inventory glut of Blackwell and next-generation Ultra GPUs. Nvidia’s near-90% gross margins would collapse as pricing power evaporates. Its stock valuation, heavily predicated on perpetual high-double-digit growth, would face a severe contraction. However, the company would survive due to its lack of internal factories and massive cash reserves. Broadcom (AVGO) & Marvell Technology (MRVL) The Vulnerability: These firms dominate the custom AI ASIC (Application-Specific Integrated Circuit) and high-speed networking chip market (Ethernet/InfiniBand switches). • The Impact: Custom chip designs for specific hyperscalers would be canceled or paused mid-cycle. Revenue from AI networking components would drop sharply, forcing these companies to rely back on their legacy, slower-growth telecom and enterprise software segments. 2. Semiconductor Foundries and Equipment Makers (High Risk) These companies build the physical machines and factories required to manufacture cutting-edge AI silicon. They cannot easily reduce expenses when demand drops. ASML Holding (ASML) • The Vulnerability: ASML holds a monopoly on the Extreme Ultraviolet (EUV) lithography machines required to make advanced chips. • The Impact: Foundries like TSMC, Samsung, and Intel would immediately cancel or delay orders for these $200M+ machines as they freeze factory expansions. ASML would see its massive order backlog evaporate overnight, leading to severe revenue visibility issues lasting multiple years. TSMC (TSM) • The Vulnerability: As the world’s primary advanced semiconductor foundry, TSMC manufactures almost all high-end AI chips for Nvidia, AMD, Apple, and Google. • The Impact: Advanced packaging lines (like CoWoS) would instantly see underutilization. While Apple’s steady consumer demand would provide a financial floor for TSMC, the massive premium margins earned from rushing out AI silicon would vanish, depressing overall corporate profitability. 3. Tier-2 Cloud and Single-Product AI Startups (Existential Risk) These companies lack the diverse product portfolios and cash cushions of Big Tech, making a funding freeze potentially fatal. Specialized GPU Cloud Providers (e.g., CoreWeave, Lambda Labs) • The Vulnerability: These companies borrowed billions of dollars, using Nvidia GPUs as collateral, to build massive AI-specific data centers. • The Impact: If demand for raw GPU compute capacity softens, compute rental prices will plunge. These firms would struggle to generate enough cash flow to service their massive debt loads, putting them at high risk of bankruptcy or forced fire sales. Foundation Model Startups (e.g., Mid-tier LLM developers) • The Vulnerability: Many venture-backed AI companies spend up to 80% of their funding directly on cloud compute costs to train models that have low consumer monetization. • The Impact: As venture capital dries up alongside an infrastructure slowdown, startups without a sticky, revenue-generating enterprise product will run out of cash. A massive wave of consolidation would follow, with Big Tech acquiring their talent via acqui-hires. 4. Server Integrators and Component Vendors (High Risk) These businesses assemble the physical server racks and cooling infrastructure for data centers, operating on thin margins. Super Micro Computer (SMCI) • The Vulnerability: Supermicro acts as a direct pipeline turning Nvidia chips into complete data center server blocks. It runs on tight margins and relies on rapid inventory turnover. • The Impact: A sudden demand drop would leave the company holding billions of dollars in rapidly depreciating hardware inventory. Liquidating this excess stock at a loss would severely damage its balance sheet and cash flow.'
  • Bart Yee on Laura Martin: Apple's existential risk - 'IMO, it could be the other way around, when OpenAI’s management implodes from massive spending promises, tens if not hundreds of billions of debt, datacenter over capacity and excessively steep and overly long term energy contracts, and much less revenue than ever forecast aft due to commodization of AI models. I dare say Apple “could” purchase OpenAI or sign favorable long term usage contracts with them, but I’m confident Apple wouldn’t want OpenAI, especially if Sam Altman or his management team is still there.'
  • Robert Paul Leitao on This week's Apple trading strategies (7/27-7/31/26) - 'Heading toward Monday morning and Apple is up $2.98 overnight at $336 per share.'
  • Bart Yee on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - 'So here Apple is practicing disciplined price hikes where needed, and trying to wait out the hyperscaler build out and likely inevitable bust. If Apple management thinks it can wait out another 18 months and then ANY slowdown would trigger a memory price pullback, then Apple would be in the catbird/driver’s seat, ready to pounce on slack demand and dropped prices. Meanwhile, management can wrestle with the dual positive outcomes of raising prices and maintaining revenues and margins, or reset prices down when costs come down and take market share and possibly decimate or reduce competition. The latter might cause market injuries, reduce competition, and cause others to claim Apple is undercutting or selling “at a loss” in order to take share away, thereby suggesting Apple “should” be charging higher prices all the time, otherwise they compete too well and “unfairly”. Apple would get inevitable flack either way, right?'
  • Bart Yee on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - '“Apple has not yet raised prices on iPhones, particularly in China. But’s it’s likely they will raise prices with at least the iPhone 18 Pro models and new iPhone Ultra will start a bit higher than originally planned? What would happen if Apple reduced their Mac Neo, MacBooks and iPad increases back to prior levels in late 2027 to early 2028 if memory prices backed off?” Your logic regarding the upcoming hardware lineup is highly accurate. While Apple has managed to shield the current baseline models in highly competitive regions like China, maintaining the status quo is increasingly untenable. The iPhone 18 Pro and “Ultra” Reality The global memory crunch has altered Apple’s launch math. Compounding this, TSMC’s transitioning to next-generation node architectures carries unprecedented fabrication premiums. • The Pro Hike: A price increase for the upcoming iPhone 18 Pro models is practically guaranteed. Apple needs to bake in higher baseline margins to insulate against multi-year raw material volatility. • The Ultra Premium: The heavily rumored iPhone Ultra—expected to introduce a radical form factor—will likely launch at a higher price ceiling than Apple originally calculated to absorb these production realities. If Apple Rolls Back Prices in Late 2027/2028: The Market Impact Apple’s recent “chip-flation” moves—like the emergency $100 increase on the budget MacBook Neo and the $150–$300 hikes across iPads and MacBook Pros—were explicitly blamed on the AI data center memory squeeze. If memory prices drop significantly in late 2027 to early 2028, and Apple takes the highly unusual step of reversing these hikes to baseline levels, it would trigger a massive ripple effect: 1. A Total Collapse of the Mid-Range Windows/Android Market • When Apple launched the MacBook Neo at an aggressive entry-level price, it sent shockwaves through the budget PC ecosystem. The subsequent $100 increase gave PC makers a brief moment to breathe. • If Apple rolls the MacBook Neo line back down to its target entry price (e.g., $599 standard / $499 education) right as memory gluts hit, it will decimate competing Chromebooks and mid-range Windows laptops. • Windows OEMs, who lack Apple’s ecosystem margins, would find it impossible to match that build quality at that price point. 2. The Burst of a Massive Consumer Upgrader Bubble Consumers are pushing back against the current wave of price hikes. A highly publicized price reduction by Apple in late 2027 would unleash a historic hardware upgrade supercycle. Millions of users who sat out the expensive hardware generations would immediately flood the market to buy MacBooks and iPads at their newly corrected, legacy price points. 3. Strategic “Value Packing” Instead of Pure Drops Wall Street detests seeing a company drop its Average Selling Price (ASP). Even if Apple officially rolls back the baseline prices on entry-level hardware like the MacBook Neo or standard iPads, they will likely alter the higher-end tiers. • For the MacBook Pro and iPad Pro lineups, instead of a direct cash discount, Apple is highly likely to keep the slightly higher price anchor but double the base configurations. • They would confidently market an M-series Mac at the higher price but make 24GB or 32GB of RAM the standard entry configuration, effectively normalizing the price hike through massive spec boosts. 4. Heavy Pressure on Apple’s Supplier Ecosystem If Apple drops consumer pricing, it means Tim Cook has aggressively squeezed memory suppliers like Samsung and SK Hynix during the glut to ensure Apple maintains its gold-standard 45%+ gross margins. Apple would use its immense cash reserves to sign massive, multi-year prepayment contracts at rock-bottom rates, completely starving smaller hardware competitors of cheap RAM supply.” If you’d like to trace how this might play out, we can look closer at what a baseline 12GB or 16GB RAM spec would mean for the capabilities of future MacBook Neo revisions, or map out TSMC’s expected chip fabrication costs heading into the late 2027 cycle. What direction would you like to take?'
  • Lou Falek on Inviting friends of the blog to Apple’s Q3 2026 Earnings Smackdown - 'I have heard this proverb stated as “Better to remain quiet and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt”.'
  • Bart Yee on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - '“what are the odds the hyperscaler infrastructure boom begins to slow or decline and when? if Apple sees relief from high memory prices, would they moderate or reduce their prices back to previous profitable levels or keep prices up and provide “more base memory” to justify keeping prices higher?“ “Timeline of a Hyperscaler Slowdown The probability that the hyperscaler infrastructure boom slows or enters a cyclical decline by the late 2020s is moderate to high (roughly 65% to 75%), with the inflection point most likely occurring between mid-2027 and early 2028. • The Reality of Overbuilding: Hyper-scalers are currently building infrastructure for anticipated future demand rather than current software revenues. History shows that every major infrastructure deployment phase (e.g., the 1990s telecom fiber boom, early 2010s cloud buildouts) inevitably experiences a digestion period where buying pauses so software utilization can catch up to physical hardware capacity. • Capital Intensity Limits: Companies cannot spend 50%+ of their revenue on capital expenditures indefinitely without seeing a proportional spike in net profits. By 2027, the pressure from public markets to show massive enterprise software returns on these AI investments will peak, likely forcing a tactical pullback in hardware ordering. Apple’s Pricing Strategy: Lower Prices vs. More Base Memory If memory contract prices collapse, Apple will almost certainly keep consumer prices higher and provide “more base memory” rather than lowering the retail price of their devices. Apple practically never cuts the introductory price of its hardware lines from one generation to the next unless there is an unprecedented global economic depression. Instead, they use a highly calculated playbook to manage margin relief. ((Here we would see whether Ternus, Khan and Parekh thinks otherwise, within the board’s and Cook’s agreement)) Why Apple Won’t Cut Retail Prices • The “Price Anchor” Effect: Apple spends years establishing consumer acceptance of premium price tiers (e.g., a $999 baseline iPhone Pro or a $1,599 baseline MacBook Pro). Lowering these baseline retail prices damages the perceived premium nature of the brand and sets a dangerous precedent that hurts long-term revenue predictability. • Absorbing Other Cost Increases: While memory prices may plummet, other advanced components—specifically TSMC’s cutting-edge 2nm and 1.4nm logic nodes, advanced packaging (CoWoS), and custom camera optics—are continuously getting more expensive. Apple will use the savings from cheap memory to offset the rising costs of these other complex components to protect its overall 45%+ gross profit margins. The Playbook: Spec Upgrades as a Value Proposition Instead of passing cash savings directly back to you, Apple will use cheap, abundant memory to eliminate the biggest consumer complaints about its hardware specifications. This allows them to proudly market “more value for the same price”: • The “Generous Baseline” Marketing: If 8GB of RAM becomes a bottleneck for advanced Apple Intelligence features, Apple can transition baseline Macs to 16GB or 24GB, and baseline iPhones to 12GB or 16GB. This silences critics who complain about Apple being stingy with specs, while costing Apple virtually nothing extra because of the global memory glut. • Cheaper Upgrade Steps: Apple currently charges a notorious $200 premium to upgrade a Mac from 8GB to 16GB of unified memory—a massive profit driver. In a memory surplus, they might not lower the base price of the machine, but they may make the higher tier upgrades cheaper (e.g., giving you 32GB instead of 16GB for that same $200 jump) to incentivize users to buy higher-end models. Ultimately, a memory crash is a massive win for Apple’s bottom line. They will let the hardware specs catch up to the price tag, keeping the extra profit for themselves while marketing it as a massive upgrade for the consumer. Would you like to examine Apple’s historical gross margin changes during the last major memory glut, or look into the exact hardware requirements expected for the next generation of Apple Intelligence models?'
  • Bart Yee on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - '“If the hyperscaler infrastructure bubble begins to falter, it would fundamentally reset the current dynamic of the global semiconductor market. Currently, major tech firms are pouring hundreds of billions into artificial intelligence, causing a massive memory supply crunch. The exact timeline, near-term memory demand shift, and specific implications for Apple and its hardware line highlight the potential consequences of such a correction. 1. Timing: When a Falter Would Happen An infrastructure pullback would most likely materialize in mid-to-late 2027. • The Trigger: Hyperscalers (Microsoft, Alphabet, Meta, and AWS) are projected to approach $1.1 trillion in aggregate capital expenditure in 2027, with capital intensity swallowing an unprecedented 45% to 57% of their revenues. • The Revenue Wall: Wall Street is already demanding immediate enterprise AI revenue to justify these runaway budgets. By mid-2027, if customer monetization (via software or agentic AI apps) fails to yield a clear return on investment, boards will force a sharp, defensive spending correction. • Supply Convergence: This coincides precisely with 2027–2028, when massive new semiconductor fabrication plants (fabs) currently under construction finally start churning out commercial silicon. The intersection of slashing demand and surging supply would pop the bubble. 2. Post-Bubble Near-Term Memory Demand If hyperscalers freeze or reduce their data center builds, global memory demand will drop immediately and violently. • The HBM Collapse: Artificial intelligence training relies entirely on High Bandwidth Memory (HBM). Because HBM production is incredibly complex, it consumes physical silicon wafer capacity at a brutal 3:1 ratio compared to standard consumer RAM. • The Sudden Glut: A data center pause means suppliers like Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron would quickly pivot their massive wafer capacities back toward standard DRAM (DDR5/LPDDR5). Standard memory supply would shift from a severe deficit to an overnight catastrophic oversupply, triggering a massive collapse in global memory contract prices. 3. Implications for Apple and Its Products Apple stands as one of the ultimate beneficiaries of a hyperscaler infrastructure cooldown, completely reversing its current cost pressures. ——> | Hyperscaler Capex Cuts (Mid-2027) | ——> | Fabs Pivot from HBM to LPDDR5/NAND ——> | Memory Prices Fall | ((presumably w/in 1-2 quarters)) ——>| Higher Profit Margins on Hardware | ((assuming hardware prices remain higher or are reduced less than the costs are reduced)) • A Squeeze-Relief on Component Costs For years, Apple has fought a losing battle against “capacity cannibalization,” as memory suppliers prioritized high-margin AI chips over consumer hardware. A hyperscaler crash frees up this capacity. Apple would use its unmatched cash reserves to lock in bottom-barrel pricing contracts for smartphone and PC RAM, drastically reducing the bill-of-materials (BOM) cost for iPhones, iPads, and MacBooks. • Aggressive Baseline Spec Increases Due to the memory crunch, Apple has had to be highly conservative with base-model memory allocations to protect profit margins. A market crash would allow Apple to aggressively boost the standard specifications of its products without raising consumer prices: • Macs: Base-model MacBooks could jump comfortably from 8GB or 16GB up to 24GB or 32GB of unified memory as standard configurations. • iPhones: Future iPhones could easily feature 12GB to 16GB of RAM out of the box, removing the physical hardware constraints that limit localized device AI processing. • On-Device AI Dominance (Apple Intelligence) While cloud providers struggle with underutilized server farms, Apple’s strategy heavily favors on-device, localized AI processing via the Apple Neural Engine. Cheap, abundant DRAM allows Apple to put massive amounts of ultra-fast unified memory directly onto its custom SoC chips. This enables consumer devices to run highly complex, large language models (LLMs) entirely offline. Apple would effectively capture the real-world value of the AI boom locally on user hardware, just as cloud-based AI infrastructure takes a massive financial hit.” If you want to track this cycle closely, I can break down the current contract pricing trends for LPDDR5 RAM or look at the historical impact of previous memory gluts on Apple’s gross profit margins. Let me know what you’d like to explore next!'
  • Bart Yee on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - 'Here’s where Apple is playing the long game: “why hasn’t Apple decided to start making dram and NAND flash memory for itself?” “Apple chooses not to manufacture DRAM and NAND flash memory because memory production is a low-margin commodity business that relies heavily on owning massive factories (fabs), whereas Apple operates as a fabless company focused on high-margin proprietary architecture. Even though a severe AI-driven memory shortage in 2026 has forced Apple to raise hardware prices, entering memory manufacturing makes no financial or strategic sense for them due to several major bottlenecks. 1. Apple Does Not Own Fabs Apple is entirely fabless. It designs its world-class logic processors (like the M-series and A-series chips) but outsources the actual manufacturing to foundry partners like TSMC. Fabs that produce logic processors cannot be used to make memory; building a single cutting-edge RAM or NAND manufacturing plant costs upwards of $10 billion and takes 3 to 5 years to build. Apple has historically avoided the massive capital expenditures and liabilities that come with owning physical heavy-industrial chip factories. 2. Memory is a Commodity, Not a Custom Architecture The true value of Apple Silicon lies in its custom logic design—the neural engines, GPU cores, and CPU layout that make a Mac or iPhone fast and power-efficient. • Standardized: Memory is highly standardized by international bodies like JEDEC. • Identical Performance: A gigabyte of standard LPDDR5 RAM made by Samsung performs identically to one made by Micron or SK Hynix. • Low Differentiation: Because there is little room for proprietary architectural innovation in basic data storage cells, Apple cannot create a “better” memory cell that would justify the cost of building its own supply. 3. Missing Economies of Scale To make memory chip manufacturing profitable, a company must produce them at an astronomical global scale and sell them to thousands of different clients across the entire tech ecosystem (servers, PCs, cars, and budget smartphones). Even though Apple is a tech giant, its internal product demand is too small to achieve the necessary scale to push manufacturing costs down to a profitable level. If Apple made its own memory, it would have to start selling memory chips to its direct rivals like Samsung or Dell just to break even on the factories. 4. Market Volatility The memory market is notoriously cyclical, swinging wildly between massive, unprofitable oversupply gluts and aggressive, expensive shortages. Apple prefers to protect its premium profit margins by letting suppliers absorb those brutal market swings. Instead of building factories, Apple leverages its massive cash reserves to secure long-term supply contracts and prepayments, allowing it to command the lowest possible prices from existing vendors.” If you want to look closer at this industry, I can break down the bill of materials (BOM) cost of an iPhone, or explain how Apple uses its custom in-house flash controllers to get custom performance out of third-party NAND chips. Let me know what you prefer! “if the hyperscaler infrastructure bubble begins to falter, when would that happen, what would happen to memory demand in the near term after, and what are the implications for dram supply and demand as it pertains to Apple and its products?”'
  • Bart Yee on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - '“In Fiscal Year 2025 (1 year ago), Micron’s GAAP gross margin was 39.8%, while its GAAP net profit margin reached 22.8%. In Fiscal Year 2024 (2 years ago), Micron reported a lower GAAP gross margin of 22.4% and a GAAP net profit margin of 3.1% as the memory market began recovering from a cyclical downturn. Today, As of their latest reported Q3 Fiscal 2026 results (ended May 28, 2026), Micron’s GAAP gross margin skyrocketed to a record-breaking 84.6%, while its GAAP net profit margin surged to 68.1%. This massive profitability spike makes Micron the tech sector’s new “margin king,” surpassing top-tier tech peers like Nvidia and Meta due to unprecedented AI infrastructure demand and tight memory supplies.” “Why has DRAM memory supply become so tight? Wasn’t there steady demand and adequate supply a year ago?” The 2025–present global memory supply shortage is driven by a massive structural shift toward AI high-bandwidth memory (HBM) production, which has severely cannibalized the supply of conventional consumer and enterprise DRAM. While supply and demand seemed balanced a year ago, it was a fragile stability following a brutal cyclical downturn. Today, spot prices for standard DDR5 memory have quadrupled since late 2025. Why the Memory Market Swung from Balanced to Severely Tight Capacity Cannibalization by HBM: • High-Bandwidth Memory (HBM) is highly inefficient to manufacture compared to standard DRAM. It requires a 3-to-1 wafer conversion ratio, meaning producing 1GB of HBM consumes the same physical factory capacity as 3GB of standard DDR5. The “Big Three” memory makers—Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron—have aggressively diverted their shared cleanroom and wafer capacity away from consumer RAM to fulfill highly profitable AI orders. Massive Hyperscale Megadeals: • Massive infrastructure projects have locked down global production. For example, OpenAI signed massive supply deals with Samsung and SK Hynix for its Stargate project, sweeping up an estimated 35% to 40% of the world’s raw DRAM wafer output. • The Windows 10 EOL Refresh: An artificial demand shock hit the enterprise sector when Microsoft officially ended support for Windows 10 in October 2025. This forced hundreds of millions of corporate PCs and laptops to undergo a mandatory hardware refresh all at once, dramatically escalating the need for standard DDR5 and LPDDR5X chips. Long Lead Times for New Fabs: Expanding semiconductor fabrication plants takes years and billions of dollars. While Micron broke ground on a new $9.3 billion facility in July 2026, mass production from new lines is not expected to go online until mid-to-late 2028. How the Market Looked 1 Year Ago vs. Today Feature Market 1 Year Ago (Mid-2025) Market Now (Mid-2026) Supply Status 2025 Adequate and balanced; recovering from glut. 2026 Severe global shortage across all formats. Primary Focus 2025 Clearing older DDR4 inventory; gradual DDR5 transition. 2026 Maximizing HBM4 and enterprise DDR5 server lines. Average Price 2025 Stable, near historical lows (e.g., $85–$95 for 32GB DDR5). 2026 Quadrupled (surging past $400 for identical kits). Lead Times 2025 Standard 4 to 8 weeks for bulk procurement. 2026 Extended out to 25+ weeks with massive order backlogs. Active Market Headwinds • Because the three major memory giants control over 93% of global DRAM supply, they have faced heightened scrutiny over their capacity allocations. A prominent class-action antitrust lawsuit filed by Beth Dunn in July 2026 even alleges that the suppliers’ simultaneous restriction of conventional DRAM production goes beyond mere AI demand and constitutes a coordinated strategy to maintain record-high margins. Regardless of the underlying legal battles, market researchers at Kearney predict that this structural supply deficit will ripple through the tech ecosystem until at least 2030.”'
  • David Emery on This week's Apple trading strategies (7/27-7/31/26) - 'Ugh. The G-word again…'
  • Kemble Widmer on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - 'Exactly- the premise of the article is absurd, as Apple is trying to maintain margins, not significantly raise them to exploit a temporary inefficiency in the market at the expense of consumers.'
  • Robert Paul Leitao on This week's Apple trading strategies (7/27-7/31/26) - 'In my view, what’s interesting is the Russell 2000 small cap index is outperforming the large cap indexes. Additionally, of the Terrific Ten equities six of the ten names have underperformed all four major indexes YTD. Investors are broadening their market engagement and looking for opportunities beyond the best-known names. 

FAANG, FAANG and now the so-called Magnificent 7 (or any other contrived groupings of names) have short shelf lives as a means to gauge market performance or to track market leadership for any length of time.'
  • Robert Paul Leitao on This week's Apple trading strategies (7/27-7/31/26) - 'David: Yes. YTD is from January 1st. Due to the market debut of SpaceX on June 12th, this qualifier was included at the bottom of the post: * The year-to-date decline in SpaceX represents the loss in share price since the opening price of $150 on June 12th, the first day of trading. SpaceX is included in the comparisons because of its market cap.'
  • David Drinkwater on This week's Apple trading strategies (7/27-7/31/26) - 'Hi Robert. Is this “year to date” performance January 1 to today (which is how *I* interpret YTD) or is it actually one full year’s performance? The reason I ask is that SpaceX $150 on June 12th completely doesn’t fit the narrative. (I’m probably just being obtuse.) Thanks. David'
  • David Emery on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - 'p.s. If we’re doing windfall profits taxes for oil companies, we should also do them for memory companies.'
  • Gregg Thurman on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - 'There are only 10 reasons to be in business. The first is to make a profit. The other nine don’t count. If Tim believes Micron is gouging, then I suggest he buy a memory designer/fab (don’t strain TSMC anymore than you have to) and make a “reasonable” profit. If I recall correctly, Samsung devices tried to prevail through corporate to get favorable pricing for the Samsung memory it consumes. Corporate said “NO”.'
  • Fred Stein on Apple says Micron's profit margins are too high - 'Calling BS: Apple’s hardware GM is 36% to 39%, slightly above hardware industry average of 35%. But, a lot of hardware are clones, Android, Windows, or Lintel, where the vendor does not invest in the chip nor the OS. Nvidia’s GM is 75%, Cisco’s 64%, Micron’s 80%… Naive people decry Apple’s profitability. The biggest reason for Apple’s high net profit is their efficiency, especially low OpEx and CapEx, also excellent ROIC at 45%. Finance 101.'
  • Robert Paul Leitao on This week's Apple trading strategies (7/27-7/31/26) - 'These are the year-to-date (YTD) share price performances of the Terrific Ten equities ranked by percentage gains in share prices over this time and the percentage gains in the major stock indexes over the same period. Year-to-date the Russell 2000 small cap index has outperformed the NASDAQ Composite, the DJIA and the S&P 500. Among the Terrific Ten equities Apple ranks second in performance with a 22.50% gain YTD. This follows Friday’s 3.53% rise in the share price. Meta, Tesla and Microsoft remain in the red on share price performance YTD and SpaceX has fallen well below its IPO day price. Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM) up 34.66% Apple (AAPL) – up 22.50% Russell 2000 – up 17.17% NVIDIA (NVDA) up 10.91% Broadcom (AVGO) up 10.35% S&P 500 – up 8.28% DJIA – up 8.08% NASDAQ Composite – up 7.46% Alphabet (GOOG) up 1.69% Amazon (AMZN) up 0.56% Meta Platforms (META) down (9.83%) Microsoft (MSFT) down (21.07%) SpaceX (SPCX)* down (23.29%) Tesla (TSLA) down (30.39%) * The year-to-date decline in SpaceX represents the loss in share price since the opening price of $150 on June 12th, the first day of trading.'
  • Robert Paul Leitao on This week's Apple trading strategies (7/27-7/31/26) - 'Entering this week’s trading, below is the market cap scoreboard of the Terrific Ten. These are the ten most valuable enterprises traded on US exchanges. As of Friday’s market close, Apple is within striking distance of retaking the market cap crown. Meanwhile, SpaceX’s share price and market cap have fallen back to earth. NVIDIA (NVDA) $5.01 trillion Apple (AAPL) $4.89 trillion Alphabet (GOOG) $3.91 trillion Microsoft (MSFT) $2.84 trillion Amazon (AMZN) $2.50 trillion Taiwan Semiconductor (TSM) $1.98 trillion Broadcom (AVGO) $1.71 trillion SpaceX (SPCX) $1.52 trillion Meta Platforms (META) $1.51 trillion Tesla (TSLA) $1.24 trillion'