Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Businesses Iphone Portables (Apple) The Almighty Buck United States Apple

Apple Becomes the First $1 Trillion US Company in History (reuters.com) 219

Posted by msmash from the too-many-zeroes dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Apple Becomes the First $1 Trillion US Company in History More

Apple Becomes the First $1 Trillion US Company in History

Comments Filter:

  • but.. (Score:3)

    by e432776 ( 4495975 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @11:58AM (#57056984)
    does NetCraft confirm it??

  • But... (Score:5, Funny)

    by sycodon ( 149926 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:06PM (#57057046)

    ...Everyone knows Apple is going out of business [macobserver.com] (71 predictions of Apple's demise)

    • We really could have declared a victor a long time ago in this age-old debate of "Apple vs. Slashdot"--but $1T is a nice round number so now's as good a time as ever:

      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)

        by neilo_1701D ( 2765337 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @01:26PM (#57057736)

        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.

      • 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.

        • The universal definition of technology is "a composition of existing concepts into something useful that makes peoples' lives easier or better".

          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

          • 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.

          • 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

      • 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.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • It has now been definitively proven that Apple understands marketing better than all the Apple-critics on Slashdot (and around the world).

        FTFY.

  • Congratulations, Apple! (Score:4, Funny)

    by TheFakeTimCook ( 4641057 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:06PM (#57057052)

    Pretty amazing accomplishment!

    Maybe this will quiet the anti-Cook faction.

    Oh, nevermind; who am I kidding?

    • Re:Congratulations, Apple! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:14PM (#57057116)

      Maybe this will quiet the anti-Cook faction.

      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)

        by Impy the Impiuos Imp ( 442658 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:29PM (#57057232) Journal

        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)

          by dj245 ( 732906 )

          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)

            by gtall ( 79522 )

            Yes, and Moto took that create idea and did precisely what with it? Create a market? I think not.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

            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.

        • if they hadn't built that $1 trillion dollar valuation on the backs of overworked and underpaid Chinese factory workers living and breathing in the pollution from said factories...

          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
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by dissy ( 172727 )

            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

        • 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

          • That's like saying Ford has a monopoly because they have a monopoly on the Ford Explorer. 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*. If iOS and MacOS had near complete market dominance, you know like Windows used to, that's a monopoly. Specifically, it's about whether consumers have an alternative, not to the specific brand name, but to the product type.

            • 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.

      • 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

        • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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

        • 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.

      • 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.

      • 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:Congratulations, Apple! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by DontBeAMoran ( 4843879 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:16PM (#57057138)

      The anti-Cook faction exists because Tim Cook seems to be in the anti-Macs faction.

  • I liked MacRumors reporting of the news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anubis IV ( 1279820 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:07PM (#57057064)

    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.

    • 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)

        by bondsbw ( 888959 )

        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)

          by ceoyoyo ( 59147 )

          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)

        by LynnwoodRooster ( 966895 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:37PM (#57057294) Journal
        BS. The Dutch East Indian Trading company was worth over $7 TRILLION [sovereignman.com] in today's dollars. In fact, several were - or are - worth more [visualcapitalist.com] than Apple. But you go ahead like the good fanboi we know you are!

      • 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,

        • 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?

          • 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 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...

              • 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

          • 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)

      by lazarus ( 2879 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:18PM (#57057150) Journal

      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.

      • 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

      • "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.

      • 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

        • 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).

          • 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)

      by bill_mcgonigle ( 4333 ) *

      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)

    by crow ( 16139 )

    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?

    • It appears it's due to misreporting/old information: https://9to5mac.com/2018/08/02... [9to5mac.com]

      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)

        by crow ( 16139 )

        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.

    • AAPL shares were above $207 a few hours ago, hence the "first $1 trillion U.S. company" title.

  • $1 billion? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nidi62 ( 1525137 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:15PM (#57057126)
    It's amazing what years of tax evasion can do for a company.
    • Obviously, the subject should have been $1 trillion, not billion.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Thud457 ( 234763 )
      As a great philosopher noted,

      If you want to get rich, you start a religion. [wikiquote.org]

  • As always: Fuck Apple

  • Paging Michael Dell (Score:5, Funny)

    by JoeyRox ( 2711699 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:17PM (#57057142)
    When Steve Jobs returned to Apple in 1997, Michael Dell famously trashed the company with a killer quote. When asked what he'd do with Apple if he were in Jobs' shoes, Dell said:

    "What would I do? I'd shut it down and give the money back to the shareholders."

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      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

      • 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.

    • 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)

    by foghelmut ( 2817869 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:19PM (#57057156)
    One could imagine

  • $1,000,000,000,000.00 (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    And they can't make new Mac Pro.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gtall ( 79522 )

      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)

    by xlsior ( 524145 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:32PM (#57057250) Homepage
    While impressive, there have been far more valuable companies in history - the Dutch east india company (VOC, the first publicly traded company in the world) had an inflation-adjusted market cap of over 7 trillion at its height.

  • Garbage. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Jahoda ( 2715225 ) on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:35PM (#57057276)
    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.

    Give. Me. A Fucking. Break. You. Hack.

    • 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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 02, 2018 @12:37PM (#57057296)

    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.

  • 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.

  • 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.

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close