Apple Becomes the First $1 Trillion US Company in History (reuters.com) 219
Apple became the first $1 trillion publicly listed U.S. company on Thursday, crowning a decade-long rise fueled by its ubiquitous iPhone that transformed it from a niche player in personal computers into a global powerhouse spanning entertainment and communications. Reuters: The tech company's stock jumped 2.8 percent, bringing its gain to about 9 percent since Tuesday when it reported June-quarter results above expectations and said it bought back $20 billion of its own shares. "Apple's $1 trillion cap is equal to about 5 percent of the total gross domestic product of the United States in 2018," David Kass, professor of finance at the University of Maryland, told The Washington Post. "That puts this company in perspective." The company's fortunes were turbocharged by the launch of personal gadgets such as the iPod in 2001 and the iPhone in 2007. Since then 18 different iPhones have been launched and more than 1.2 billion of the devices have been sold.
Brad Stone, writing for Bloomberg: As critics enjoy pointing out, the company under Cook has failed to come up with another iPhone-type hit. But that's like saying da Vinci never came up with another Mona Lisa-type painting. The release of the iPhone is up there with the founding of Standard Oil as one of the greatest business moves of all time. And while the iPhone has altered daily life so much that no one remembers life before it, Apple has also persuaded customers to embrace other inventions they never knew they wanted, such as connected watches that buzz and beep (to cure the distraction of the phone, Apple says) and wireless dongles that hang ridiculously from their ears.
Apple isn't alone on this mountaintop. Amazon.com, Alphabet, and Microsoft are likely at some point to pinwheel across the $1 trillion finish line, too, and they're almost as good as Apple at manufacturing customer desire. No one told Amazon they needed a speaker they could talk to, or Google a self-driving car, or Microsoft a ... OK, it's been a while since Microsoft has driven civilians wild with desire.
Brad Stone, writing for Bloomberg: As critics enjoy pointing out, the company under Cook has failed to come up with another iPhone-type hit. But that's like saying da Vinci never came up with another Mona Lisa-type painting. The release of the iPhone is up there with the founding of Standard Oil as one of the greatest business moves of all time. And while the iPhone has altered daily life so much that no one remembers life before it, Apple has also persuaded customers to embrace other inventions they never knew they wanted, such as connected watches that buzz and beep (to cure the distraction of the phone, Apple says) and wireless dongles that hang ridiculously from their ears.
Apple isn't alone on this mountaintop. Amazon.com, Alphabet, and Microsoft are likely at some point to pinwheel across the $1 trillion finish line, too, and they're almost as good as Apple at manufacturing customer desire. No one told Amazon they needed a speaker they could talk to, or Google a self-driving car, or Microsoft a ... OK, it's been a while since Microsoft has driven civilians wild with desire.
but.. (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
But... (Score:5, Funny)
...Everyone knows Apple is going out of business [macobserver.com] (71 predictions of Apple's demise)
Apple has definitively proven Slashdot wrong (Score:2, Informative)
It has now been definitively proven that Apple understands technology better than all the Apple-critics on Slashdot (and around the world). Steve Jobs was smarter than you. Deal with it.
Next up. Elon Musk is in the midst of destroying the Tesla haters on Slashdot.
Can we finally dispense with the notion that Slashdot is a pro-technology w
Re:Apple has definitively proven Slashdot wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
It has now been definitively proven that Apple understands technology better than all the Apple-critics on Slashdot (and around the world).
Actually, it proves that Apple understand stock market valuations and the processes that drive them better than anyone else.
Re:Apple has definitively proven Slashdot wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
I'd say that Apple understands marketing and consumers better, not technology. Slashdot is still very much a pro-technology website and is only on the losing side of the decline toward dumbed-down walled-garden computing in consumer electronics.
That's because you don't understand what tech is. (Score:2)
The Slashdot definition of technology is "a set of concepts which are mystifying to normal people but which I personally enjoy; thus forcing those normal people to pay attention to me and providing me with a measure of self-esteem".
Do you think engineers who design bridges sit around complaining that they had to "dumb down" their bridges so idiots could use th
Re: (Score:2)
The universal definition of technology is "a composition of existing concepts into something useful that makes peoples' lives easier or better".
The dictionary says "the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes, especially in industry.
"advances in computer technology"
It doesn't have to be to make lives easier or better. It can just be to make money, for example. Sometimes you make money through technology by making lives better. Sometimes you just do it through legislation, or marketing.
Re: (Score:2)
And where does commercial viability or popularity come into the definition of technology? Nowhere? Then in what ways does Apple "understand technology better?"
A company that builds a working launch loop also understands technology better than one that builds a playground swing, even if the playground swing is far more popular and the launch loop company goes bankrupt the day after they finish.
Reducing effort and cognitive burden is also not a vital function of technology. If effort and cognitive burden are
Re: (Score:2)
It has now been definitively proven that Apple understands monopoly better than all the Apple-critics on Slashdot
FTFW.
Apple: bringing arrogance to a hitherto unknown level the world has never seen before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It has now been definitively proven that Apple understands marketing better than all the Apple-critics on Slashdot (and around the world).
FTFY.
BEHOLD! The zenith of tech journalism: (Score:2)
No wireless. Less space than a nomad. Lame. [slashdot.org]
Congratulations, Apple! (Score:4, Funny)
Pretty amazing accomplishment!
Maybe this will quiet the anti-Cook faction.
Oh, nevermind; who am I kidding?
Re:Congratulations, Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, I have several Apple devices in my home ... I like Apple in general.
But, in the specific, under Cook Apple is mostly just rolling out slow improvements to things they already had, and taking the pointless decision to remove ports and the like. All the while letting other products stagnate.
I'm not sure anything they've done under Cook can be counted as 'innovation', just straight up evolution of a product.
I'm in awe of a trillion dollar company, because that is just such a crazy number, but I'd say they mostly got there on inertia since Jobbs died. Meanwhile, they're leaving their desktops and laptops to whither on the vine for the most part.
Re:Congratulations, Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)
It is impressive all the more because it is neither a government-guaranteed monopoly nor a pseudo monopoly -- they have a slice, large, but not even majority of a market they mostly created.
It is built by offering a great product with cachet, and free people choose to buy it over many others.
They deserve every penny of valuation.
Re: (Score:2)
It is impressive all the more because it is neither a government-guaranteed monopoly nor a pseudo monopoly -- they have a slice, large, but not even majority of a market they mostly created.
A market they mostly created? I think not. Luxury phones existed before Apple made a phone. I'm old enough to remember when the Motorola RAZR was considered to be a very expensive but stylish phone. And they sold a "Luxury" version of the RAZR as as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, and Moto took that create idea and did precisely what with it? Create a market? I think not.
Re: (Score:2)
Apple mostly created the personal (as opposed to business) smartphone market. Particularly if you define "smartphone" as something you can install apps on, rather than a phone that can get e-mail.
I would agree with you on that point (Score:3)
Yeah, yeah, I'm a hypocrite because my devices were made by the same abused labor. I get it. But Motorola was manufacturing phones profitably in the United States with the EPA making sure they did it clean and only stopped because it was cheaper to do it in China. At some point if us hypocrites don't speak up nothing will ever
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
At some point if us hypocrites don't speak up nothing will ever improve
Actually speaking up isn't likely to help much if at all. Only changing your behaviors will.
You'd have to stop giving them your money, and in reality a large number of people will have to stop giving them money, to actually prompt any change in what they are doing.
Just to be completely honest as well, I say "you" not to imply I don't buy the same abused Chinese labor built crap, because I do, I just don't have a problem with it or complain about it.
So that just means I'm not a hypocrite, but instead I'm a
Re: (Score:3)
it is neither a government-guaranteed monopoly nor a pseudo monopoly
Wrong. Apple is a monopoly according to US antitrust law, which defines a monopoly in terms of market control. Apple certainly controls both the iOS and MacOS markets, that is clear cut. It is immaterial whether a market is actually a subset of another market, such as the phone market, the PC market, or the consumer electronics market. What matters is whether it is a distinct market.
And sure, I'm going to get slimed by a bunch of zombie eyed Apple cultists for saying it, but grow up kids. This is easy to un
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
US antitrust law doesn't define a monopoly as being the only one to make your exact name branded product. It's about control of a specific product or business *type*.
I'm not a lawyer and I don't play one on Slashdot. But I doubt that your car analogy with stop this lawsuit [wired.com] which alleges that Apple abuses its monopoly control of its App store. You can rage about it if you like, but the law is the law. SCOTUS will decide.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not sure anything they've done under Cook can be counted as 'innovation', just straight up evolution of a product.
That's actually good, except people keep upgrading when their devices work fine. The reason to standard on iOS now is that it won't radically innovate. This is good for corporate adoption and for older consumers who hate re-learning UIs every few years.
Wild innovation got them to where they are with this product. They need a new hit, not to try to keep wringing excess profit out of a stable source of income for decades to come. Even Microsoft is starting to learn this a little bit with Office and Window
Improvement is ok (Score:2)
That's actually good, except people keep upgrading when their devices work fine.
The 1976 Chevy Impala I drove in high school "worked fine" but sometimes it's nice to get something that is better than what you had before.
They need a new hit, not to try to keep wringing excess profit out of a stable source of income for decades to come.
Do they really? Coca Cola has been selling the same formula for sugar water for a century and they're doing alright. And how many $100 billion ideas do you think Apple can realistically make happen? For Apple to grow just 5% next year will require generating more new business than Tesla's entire revenue in 2017. Realistically they don't actually need a hit product.
Re: (Score:2)
Removing the ports are like increasing the dimple at the bottom of the peanut butter jar.
Less product but you get the same container at the same price.
The curse of being large (Score:2)
But, in the specific, under Cook Apple is mostly just rolling out slow improvements to things they already had, and taking the pointless decision to remove ports and the like. All the while letting other products stagnate.
You mean just like pretty much every other gigantic company out there? How many $100+ billion ideas do you think are out there? And how easy do you think it is to capture them even if you recognize one? When Apple released the iPhone in 2007 they had revenue of about $24 billion. Last year it was about 10X that amount, most of that thanks to the iPhone. That sort of success is usually once in a lifetime and Apple's done it several times and somehow is expected to do it again which is probably unfair.
Pe
Re: (Score:2)
How many $100+ billion ideas do you think are out there?
Many.
And how easy do you think it is to capture them even if you recognize one?
Without a charismatic leader like Steve Jobs? It's going to be damned near impossible. Big companies don't like to make big changes.
Re: (Score:2)
under Cook Apple is mostly just rolling out slow improvements to things they already had, and taking the pointless decision to remove ports and the like.
Killing the headphone jack was far from pointless. It gave Apple a new revenue stream for an investment of exactly zero inventive genius. It extracts even more money from each of the otherwise stagnating pool of Apple addicts. Major point there.
To give the most recent counterexample: (Score:2)
You have your head very throughly in the sand if you think Face ID is "straight-up evolution".
This is an extremely compact, extremely low-power time-of-flight sensor integrated into a handheld communications device. The implementation is both very ambitious and technically accomplished, not to mention several years ahead of any other company, and it has opened and shoved a metaphorical foot into a door that will be thrown wide over the next few years: AR and VR telepresence, to a degree of ease accuracy t
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Congratulations, Apple! (Score:4, Insightful)
The anti-Cook faction exists because Tim Cook seems to be in the anti-Macs faction.
Re: (Score:3)
Exhibit 1: The iMac Pro. Jobs didn't do it. Cook did.
And it's largely-unrepairable garbage which they don't in fact even appear to have parts to repair. That's not pro.
Exhibit 2: 6-Core MacBook Pro with 32 GB of RAM. Again, Cook.
Also largely-unrepairable garbage, with a garbage keyboard. Also not pro.
Exhibit 3: Recent Mac TV Ads. Obviously, Tim hates the Mac.
A few ads do not a product make.
When Tim Cook made that comment a couple of years ago about the iPad Pro replacing the Personal Computer, he didn't clarify. In fact, an iPad Pro (or even a regular iPad) IS currently replacing MILLIONS of Personal Computers for those who just need an email, surfing and FaceBook machine.
Yeah... which means he's displacing Macintosh sales. You just supported the argument of the person to whom you replied.
Re: (Score:2)
Exhibit 1: The iMac Pro. Jobs didn't do it. Cook did.
And it's largely-unrepairable garbage which they don't in fact even appear to have parts to repair. That's not pro.
Exhibit 2: 6-Core MacBook Pro with 32 GB of RAM. Again, Cook.
Also largely-unrepairable garbage, with a garbage keyboard. Also not pro.
Exhibit 3: Recent Mac TV Ads. Obviously, Tim hates the Mac.
A few ads do not a product make.
When Tim Cook made that comment a couple of years ago about the iPad Pro replacing the Personal Computer, he didn't clarify. In fact, an iPad Pro (or even a regular iPad) IS currently replacing MILLIONS of Personal Computers for those who just need an email, surfing and FaceBook machine.
Yeah... which means he's displacing Macintosh sales. You just supported the argument of the person to whom you replied.
1. Prove to me that you can't get the iMac Pro repaired NOW.
2. VERY repairable non-garbage. Get with the times, man! Go on Amazon and find yourself a nice SMT rework station. They are REALLY cheap now; to the point that even HOBBYISTS should be able to afford one! As far as a horrible keyboard, that's a matter of opinion; as is your "non-Pro" (whatever THAT means!) allegation.
3. Who was talking about "making a product" with the Mac Ads? I was simply pointing out that that that Apple has a continuing financi
Re: (Score:3)
1. Prove to me that you can't get the iMac Pro repaired NOW.
LinusTechTips tried. Apple refused, citing parts unavailability. If that's not enough proof for you, then you should be asking why Apple lied about it.
VERY repairable non-garbage. Get with the times, man! Go on Amazon and find yourself a nice SMT rework station.
Snicker snort. As compared to anyone else's equipment, which can be repaired by parts swapping?
Who was talking about "making a product" with the Mac Ads? I was simply pointing out that that that Apple has a continuing financial COMMITMENT to the Mac.
That commitment is trivial. Apple has more money than Jesus, remember? Maybe they should spend some of that money on developing a product that pros want to buy.
The fact that iPads are now a more sensible/desirable product for "light" computer users is not really bad news for the Mac
Of course it is. You can buy a cheaper tablet from someone else that will suit the needs of the vast major
Re: (Score:2)
Searching for "imac pro repair" gives 14.1 million results and the first few have these titles:
Popular YouTuber Says Apple Won't Fix His iMac Pro Damaged While Disassembled [macrumors.com] (he's not saying they won't repair it for free, he's saying they won't repair it even if he's paying for the repair).
Is Apple's behavior ILLEGAL?? - iMac Pro Repair Pt. 2 [youtube.com]
Apple refuses to fix iMac Pro damaged in YouTube teardown [venturebeat.com]
Canadian YouTuber Denied iMac Pro Repair By Apple Over ‘Policy’ Issues [VIDEO] [iphoneincanada.ca]
The Apple Store Genius [youtube.com]
I liked MacRumors reporting of the news (Score:5, Interesting)
From the MacRumors article [macrumors.com] (emphasis mine):
Apple has officially become the world's only trillion dollar publicly traded company, in terms of market capitalization, which is simply the company's number of outstanding shares multiplied by its stock price. [...] As with most milestones of this nature, however, Apple reaching exactly a trillion dollar market cap doesn't have too much significance, beyond the vanity of it.
Pretty much sums it up.
Re: (Score:2)
From the MacRumors article [macrumors.com] (emphasis mine):
Apple has officially become the world's only trillion dollar publicly traded company, in terms of market capitalization, which is simply the company's number of outstanding shares multiplied by its stock price. [...] As with most milestones of this nature, however, Apple reaching exactly a trillion dollar market cap doesn't have too much significance, beyond the vanity of it.
Pretty much sums it up.
It certainly has a relative significance in the stock market; considering they are the first company of ANY kind in HISTORY to achieve that milestone.
Re: (Score:2)
Again, vanity.
It doesn't mean somebody can buy Apple for $1T. It doesn't mean that shareholders will get back their investment at this stock price, or that Apple is destined to come up with the next big thing. It also doesn't mean that Apple won't buy every company and rule the world. Fact is, we don't know anything except that they are a really big company, which we knew before.
Re: (Score:2)
It means that everybody who buys Apple stock thinks that the company is worth at least $1 trillion dollars. And the number of people who buy Apple stock is very, very large.
Re:I liked MacRumors reporting of the news (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
And adjusting for inflation, Star Wars made $1.7 trillion at the box office. Seem ungodly?
It does, likely because you're off by a few orders of magnitude. Inflation-adjusted, the original Star Wars made about $3 billion at the global box office [wikipedia.org] (or about $1.3B in the US box office [wikipedia.org]), and it's the highest grossing of the series when accounting for inflation. Even if you were referring to the franchise as a whole instead of the first film, prior to The Last Jedi the franchise had made a bit north of $22 billion at the global box office [moneynation.com] in inflation-adjusted dollars, so I have no idea where you got
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that it actually does carry any significance. The fact that inflation is a pretty steady thing made it an inevitability that someone would cross the mark eventually. If not Apple, then Amazon and Google look to be on track to do so in the near-ish future as well. Plus, technically speaking, Apple is NOT the first to cross that threshold. That honor goes to PetroChina, who crossed the trillion dollar mark way back in 2007, though admittedly only for a day. In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars,
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know that it actually does carry any significance. The fact that inflation is a pretty steady thing made it an inevitability that someone would cross the mark eventually. If not Apple, then Amazon and Google look to be on track to do so in the near-ish future as well. Plus, technically speaking, Apple is NOT the first to cross that threshold. That honor goes to PetroChina, who crossed the trillion dollar mark way back in 2007, though admittedly only for a day. In terms of inflation-adjusted dollars, Apple would need to gain yet another $145M in market cap before they would break PetroChina's record.
It's a big number, to be sure, but other than the vanity of it, I really don't see a point.
Then why did you feel compelled to read the article and comment on it?
Re: (Score:2)
I read the MacRumors article because—even though there was no point to it—it's still something I found to be interesting in my RSS feed, and I came here because I like the comments and commenters here (you included, and not just today). Why else? :)
Look, I like Apple. Between my wife and me, we've owned dozens of Apple products over the years, and I consider myself a recovering Apple fanboy (I stuck with them through the dark days of the mid-90s, which I now regard as fanboy-ism on my part). But
Re: (Score:2)
I read the MacRumors article because—even though there was no point to it—it's still something I found to be interesting in my RSS feed, and I came here because I like the comments and commenters here (you included, and not just today). Why else? :)
Look, I like Apple. Between my wife and me, we've owned dozens of Apple products over the years, and I consider myself a recovering Apple fanboy (I stuck with them through the dark days of the mid-90s, which I now regard as fanboy-ism on my part). But I also like to keep things in perspective. This is a neat achievement, but it doesn't mean much, other than that Apple's stock is doing well today. If tomorrow it's back below $1T, it won't mean much then either, despite what the Apple-hating contingent might try to make of the news then.
Sorry. I just get cranky when I read all the over-the-top Apple-Hating ACs; and I tend to take it out on relatively innocent posters...
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, no worries! From what I've seen, you and I actually end up on the same side of disagreements in most Apple-related news, and in the case of today's news, we're basically just disagreeing over our opinion of how important the news is, rather than anything of actual substance. Plus, I recognize that I am raining on the parade a bit, so I get why you'd respond as you did. You didn't come across as being rude or anything of the sort. You were simply disagreeing for perfectly good reasons, which is exactly
Re: (Score:2)
Apple is NOT the first to cross that threshold. That honor goes to PetroChina, who crossed the trillion dollar mark way back in 2007, though admittedly only for a day.
So PetroChina crossed the trillion dollar cap line twice, once on the way up and once on the way down. I'm looking forward to Apple doing the same.
Re:I liked MacRumors reporting of the news (Score:5, Interesting)
Agreed. And from the Slashdot synopsis:
"Apple's $1 trillion cap is equal to about 5 percent of the total gross domestic product of the United States in 2018," David Kass, professor of finance at the University of Maryland, told The Washington Post. "That puts this company in perspective."
No it doesn't. Market cap is perceived company value. GDP is revenue. They are completely different things. Basically, something happened in the market and everybody wants to say something important about it, but there isn't really anything to say.
"They are the most successful company in history (at this exact moment)." Tomorrow may be different.
Re: (Score:2)
Nailed it. The market cap is the market price per share times outstanding shares. Imagine a sell-off of all those shares, with everybody trying to cash out. The share price would plummet. It only holds when someone else tries to buy half the shares at once because they want to buy the business (someone trying to buy in, but people aren't rushing to cash out).
It's sitting. It's not only not assets, but it's meaningless. Meanwhile, the company is making and selling things--you know, production--which
Re: (Score:2)
"They are the most successful company in history (at this exact moment)." Tomorrow may be different.
Actually, they are not. They are in the top 10, but there were more than a few [visualcapitalist.com] worth more, and arguably Aramco and PetroChina are still worth more today.
Simplifying this distinction (Score:2)
That's a good point. There may be some readers who, for whatever reasons, aren't familiar with what exactly "market capitalization" and "gross domestic product" are.
Gross domestic product, or GDP, is basically the amount of stuff the country produces *in one year*. Apple sold about $22 billion of products in the America's last year. If they made all of those products in the US, that would contribute $22 billion to the US GDP. Most of what Apple sells is made elsewhere, though, so they account for only abo
Re: Simplifying this distinction (Score:2)
Apple is definitely not valued based on its current size. It is currently valued at about 20x net income, which is for companies who are valued primarily on future growth. To use your car example, mature car companies like Ford are valued at closer to 5x net income. If Apple was valued based on its current size it would be closer to $250 billion (still quite impressive).
True. Apple has fans (part of business model) (Score:2)
That's true. I mentioned that "investors, speculators, and fans" can push up the stock price, based on potential future growth (and other reasons).
Part of Steve Jobs great success is that he made people fans of Apple. He turned customers into fans. Fans do things that aren't necessarily mathematically sound, so they drive the stock price higher than logic would justify.
An additonal important reason that I didn't clearly state is that the "future growth" thing can end up compounded by fans and speculators. M
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
a trillion dollar market cap doesn't have too much significance
It does for the socialists who love their iPhones because Apple is "their company".
I mean, it should for those who have two brain-cells to rub together.
$957B? (Score:2)
Strange. I see it listed as having a market cap of $957B with a share price of 206.28 when I Google it. The number shifts slightly as the stock changes price, so it's not just old data. I wonder what Google is missing? Is there another $50B in another class of shares that isn't being taken into account?
Re: (Score:3)
The company revealed an adjusted outstanding share count of 4,829,926,000Wednesday alongside the company’s third-quarter results. That factors in hefty stock buybacks and nudged the trillion-dollar per share price to $207.05.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks! Stock buy-backs should have reduced the outstanding shares, while employee stock options would increase it. Anyway, it's good to see the explanation as to why Google had the wrong information.
Re: (Score:2)
AAPL shares were above $207 a few hours ago, hence the "first $1 trillion U.S. company" title.
$1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)
$1 trillion (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to get rich, you start a religion. [wikiquote.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Tax evasion is illegal. Tax avoidance is prudent.
Well, the EU did say that the tax deal Apple had with Ireland was illegal....
Re: (Score:2)
Along with McDonald's, Amazon, Anheuser-Busch, Starbucks, ...
The appeals have yet to be heard
Not to mention the hilarity of the EU forcing Ireland to collect taxes it doesn't want nor feel entitled to
If Ireland doesn't want the money they could always remit the unwanted taxes to the states where the company actually earned that taxed money.
as always (Score:2)
Paging Michael Dell (Score:5, Funny)
"What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Apple was in a pretty bad place in '97 to be honest. They had like 6 product lines with huge overlap. (LC, Performa, Centris, Quadra, and 2 laptop lines)
Their prices were way too high. (If you think Apple PCs are overpriced today you don't remember the late 90s! Today they're a fucking bargain!)
They had a lot of ventures that were wastes of money.
Anyone could make the assumption that apple was doomed.
In '97 Jobs came back.. And did something pretty rare. Turned the company completely around where it went on
Re: (Score:2)
In '97 Jobs came back.. And did something pretty rare.
Don't forget the part that Bill Gates played. Announcing the $200 million bailout to huddled Apple employees as a Big Brother talking head on a 1984 style video screen. Classic.
Re: (Score:2)
Dell said: "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."
If somebody did that today it would be an act of pure genius.
Maybe they can afford to pay taxes now? (Score:5, Insightful)
$1,000,000,000,000.00 (Score:2, Insightful)
And they can't make new Mac Pro.
Re: (Score:2)
Yah, I'd like to see a new cheese grater Mac Pro. My suspicion is that they are delaying because Intel is screwing up their latest processor roadmap. And what computer company wouldn't want to punt out computers using x86 knowing Intel doesn't have their shit together just yet.
Of course.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Garbage. (Score:5, Insightful)
Give. Me. A Fucking. Break. You. Hack.
Re: (Score:2)
The release of the iPhone is up there with the founding of Standard Oil as one of the greatest business moves of all time.
Give. Me. A Fucking. Break. You. Hack.
Without the iPhone, Apple would probably be gone now, since they have ruined Macintoshes. With the iPhone in existence, they can actually sell some of those garbage Macintoshes to iFanboys who will buy anything with an Apple logo on it.
Speak For Yourself (Score:5, Funny)
And while the iPhone has altered daily life so much that no one remembers life before it
Just because you were still in diapers when the first iPhone launched, doesn't mean the rest of us don't remember a time before it.
Apple computers (Score:2)
What's funny is Apple still pretends to be a computer company. They are not and haven't been for a while. They're a consumer electronics company that also makes a few computers now and then. The near-total innattention paid to the Apple Mac line of computers is proof positive of this. Without the iPhone, iPad, and iTunes, Apple would have died long ago.
stupid customers are the best customers (Score:2)
Apple is filthy rich because stupid customers are the best customers.
Don't get me wrong, I am not making jokes about apple. They are cool and simply squeeze every moron for his last cent.
It is theirs customers I am making jokes about.
Re:A smallish boutique electronics seller (Score:4, Insightful)
That predominantly services the upper class is the most valuable company in history. There's something not right there. It's just not sustainable...
Perhaps what it "not right" is your initial premise.
Re: (Score:2)
MacOS is the one and only successful UNIX desktop. You'd think people on Slashdot would appreciate that,
We would, if more of us used them. But few of us actually do, because of all their shenanigans. As it turns out, a Linux desktop is still better for nerds than an Apple one.
Re: A smallish boutique electronics seller (Score:2)
If you think they are only selling to the upper class, perhaps it is an indication of how large the upper class has become. I should think you would not dismiss such as a bad thing.
So either your premise is wrong and Apple is more mass market than you wish to admit, or you are upset that the world as a whole is growing increasingly prosperous and more and more people can afford luxury
Re: (Score:2)
One U.S. dollar is still worth about 13K satoshis, so I guess it's not completely worthless yet.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not that. Everyone employs overseas labor to do that.
Apple is marketing to people with more money than brains, as they say in certain industries. You give them 20 cents on every dollar while the next company over sells an equivalent product but keeps 10 cents on every dollar. Why would you not buy the next company's product, which is a few hundred dollars cheaper?
Re: (Score:2)
I look at net operating profits. Gross margins are always huge: a Wendy's franchise makes 50% on a hamburger, but keeps 8% of all of its revenue before taxes (net operating profit). Gross margins look at the cost of your sandwich maker, the marginal cost of your gas and your grill, the cost of the burger bun and patties, and so forth; net operating profits necessarily also lose the cost of the cashier, of marketing, of general utilities, of paying workers labor time to wipe down tables and take out tras
Re: (Score:2)
Steve raised it from the dead.
And now zombie Apple is a money machine with its shambling army of zombie cultists. Dead Steve Jobs is smiling.
Re: (Score:2)
sense != since
also, do some research because that never happened. Only a few shares were sold at extreme prices and someone extrapolated that all shares had that same inflated value to arrive at the one trillion value.
Re: (Score:2)
Your thinking works in an ideal world.
But we live in a world where only Apple controls the OS of its phones. If you buy something Android, it's up to the company or even the carrier to update your OS.
And then there's the security problems because again we don't live in a perfect world and there's a lot of assholes out there that are out to just cripple your device and steal your personal information.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
[...] And that's very sad, that such a money-making personal computer happens to be so horrifically crippled and locked in.
Um, HOW is the Mac (you said "personal computer"; so I assume you mean Macs, not iPhones) either "horrifically crippled" or "locked in"?
"Locked in"? To WHAT?!? You can literally legally run more OSes (and even conveniently switch between them using the Mac's built-in Bootloader) on Macs than ANY other computer. You can purchase Applications from anywhere on the planet, and even write your own with Apple's FREE IDE (a Developer License only costs money if you want to submit Apps to the Apple App Store). So,
Re:This is so viscerally offensive (Score:5, Informative)
Trashcan mac is a nightmare to expand or service.
Apple doesn't have parts for the iMac pro
New Macbook pro has soldered storage, so it's a service nightmare again
Apple has no idea what "pro" means
Re: (Score:2)
Trashcan mac is a nightmare to expand or service.
Apple doesn't have parts for the iMac pro
New Macbook pro has soldered storage, so it's a service nightmare again
Apple has no idea what "pro" means
Mac Pro was an experiment. Didn't work out so well. Some of that was Apple's fault; some of it was Intel's fault; some of it was the industry's fault. Dead issue. Next Mac Pro will be "modular", according to Apple.
Apple didn't have parts YET when the dumbass blogger DELIBERATELY ruined his iMac Pro about a month after it debuted. It is pretty normal for service parts and documentation to not be available at the same time as a new product launch. Now, if that is STILL the case (which I doubt) that's another
Re: (Score:2)
Other laptop computers have soldered RAM and some even soldered SSD, too. It's an industry trend.
I can see it for cheap shit Chromebooks and the like, but for something called "pro"? It just brings to mind what they say about products called "pro".
Upgrading RAM and SSD is a god given right of the PC enthusiast, sorry. A high end laptop that can't do it is a steaming pile of shit.
Get over it.
That arrogance...
Re: (Score:2)
Apple didn't have parts YET when the dumbass blogger DELIBERATELY ruined his iMac Pro about a month after it debuted. It is pretty normal for service parts and documentation to not be available at the same time as a new product launch.
Not for a professional product. Those parts should be available before the product even hits the market. Anything else would be unprofessional.
Other laptop computers have soldered RAM and some even soldered SSD, too. It's an industry trend.
Yes, in cheap crap consumer electronics. Not in professional models, which sacrifice svelte profiles for durability and maintainability.
Apple doesn't have any idea what "Pro" means? That's about a damned laugh, and your OPINION, besides!
That's how they're behaving, and I'm going to judge them by their behavior, not their advertising or the yammering of their fanboys.
Re: (Score:2)
New Macbook pro has soldered storage, so it's a service nightmare again
Good grief.
Re: (Score:2)
iMac Pro: Released in December, 2017... Up to 18 core Xeon CPU
That's the best they could do? 32 core Epycs were already out.
Re: (Score:2)
A personal computer should serve its user and do whatever they want, not obey its manufacturer to work against that user. And you disagree with that statement? Fine, you disagree, but this is the type of disagreement where I have to say Fuck You. You're the problem and you should be ashamed. Your attitude is why people are considered to be just things. Yes, it's just a PC, but even so, it's anti-humanist and you're a dishonest person if you claim it doesn't matter.
What if you have more than enough "personal computers" to care for and to play with and just want something for carrying in your pocket that for a change somebody else cares for? What if you think that life is too short to hand-hold every bit and every line of code in your life?
Do you knit your own sweaters? All of them? If not, isn't this "anti-humanist and you're a dishonest person if you claim it doesn't matter"? Or what? Do you bake your own bread? Every day? Come on, tell me.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Not really, we just cannot stomach Winders UIs or Linux UIs. Many people cannot stomach OSX's UI and choose something else. Hardware rarely enters into most people's computing decisions...they have to be a Wannabe Geek like you to care.