I do not have IBM's breakout of costs but their life cycle figures include the initial cost of the device, setup, training, service calls, upgrades, repairs,
etc. IBM said among other things supporting the Macs takes less than half the number of people, they have far fewer service calls, user's are usually able to solve their own problems,
etc. In other words IBM is confirming that Macs
just work.
I can see what I said could be misleading. iPad revenues account for 9% of Apple's total revenue while "Mac net sales"
i.e. any revenue attributable to the sale of Mac computers, third party software and peripherals,
etc. account for 12% of Apple's total revenue. The revenue from iPad sales accounts for 9% of Apple's total revenue. Therefore the revenue from iPad sales is 25% less than the revenue from Mac net sales. To put it another way, Mac net sales contribute 25% more to Apple's total revenue than iPad sales. Even another way of looking at that would be from the iOS standpoint. IOS devices account for 69% of Apple's total revenue and "Mac net sales" only account for 12%. (I will have to dig deeply into Apple's quarterly report to confirm this, but I suspect the term "Mac net sales" is used because it includes
profit from third party Mac peripherals sold through the Apple Store, while revenues from the other areas either do not have that component or the component is small enough that it can be subsumed in the accounting records.)
As to
...but how does making macOS and iOS alike fit into that picture?
There are no revenues from products that are given away free. That is why these numbers are termed
REVENUE not PROFIT or GROSS PROFIT. MacOS (like it or not it is no longer OS X) and iOS are not revenue items they are COST items. While MacOS and iOS are an essential component of Mac computers, iPhones, and iPads they are no different from Mac, iPhone, and iPad hardware except Apple does not have to pay a third party to manufacture MacOS or iOS. Never forget that Apple is structured around hardware sales and is NOT a software vendor
per. se. What I see as uniquely Apple is their move into creating a totally integrated computing
system where MacOS and iOS devices are peripherals to the integrating media, iCloud. But that is an entirely different and ultimately far more complex subject.
Yes, Apple's total revenues are down, but computer manufacturers revenues are down across the board. The industry, including Microsoft, Lenovo, Dell, and most others are seeing lower revenues as well. I suspect a major factor in this decline is market saturation. There are no huge markets with unfilled demands for computers opening up, there are no new Gee Whiz hardware or software innovations creating new demand, there is no overwhelming reason for customers to go out and buy the "latest and fastest" new computers, sales are primarily replacements not new users.
Adobe, Microsoft, and others have recognized this market saturation by leasing rather than selling their software. Apple is now selling annual or biannual upgrade options for iPhones (which amounts to little more than an old fashioned lay a way plan and gives Apple the money one to two years in advance of the actual sale). I don't know what all is bundled in Apple's Services category, but I suspect iCloud space leasing is included in that category which is bringing in more revenue than "Mac net sales" and that is strictly a rental, not even a lease. All of this designed to provide a stable long term cash flow.