Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

YahonMaizosz

macrumors regular
Nov 28, 2007
233
101
Anybody else notice the pyramid and the "All-seeing Eye" at the apple logo?

Is this some illuminati conspiracy?
 

FirstNTenderbit

macrumors 6502
Jan 15, 2013
355
0
Atlanta
... Apple doesn't show us their toys until they've been perfected.

On another note entirely, I didn't realize I work for the ninth most valuable brand in the world.

Perfected? Not sure if serious.

IBM. Big Blue is still Big Blue. We tend to focus on consumer stuff, well, because we are. They're still a venerable company.
 

GeneralChang

macrumors 68000
Dec 2, 2013
1,676
1,513
Google at $1200 a share with a P/E of 33. Apple at $530 a share with a P/E of 13. I think those figures tell it all about which company is the most valuable and respected tech company on the planet.

YTD even Microsoft has outperformed Apple in share value by a huge amount. Apple's so-called value isn't worth anything on Wall Street. The company most likely to be doomed is still Apple, first and foremost. They can spin it any way they want but Google is considered a much more valuable company than Apple. Google is seen as going places in the future and Apple is seen as going nowhere. Having control over "the internet of things" is seen as having more value than "one new iPhone after another." Google is going up in value. Apple is going down in value. That's a fact.

Boy howdy. Good thing Apple isn’t focused on selling all of their devices to Wall Street. Otherwise this device based company would be in deep.
 

everything-i

macrumors 6502a
Jun 20, 2012
827
2
London, UK
Except this "accolade" is due to success of current products, all conceptually birthed in the Jobs era. "Haunted," which I personally think is premature and based on thin air, discusses its future. There is no logical connection between the two. Cook still has to prove himself as a successor to Jobs, not a clone of Scully, Spindler, or Amelio. I don't take too much import to this "award" as its a reflection of Apple's past success, not a predictor of its future.

While I agree broadly with what you say here I don't think cook is supposed to be the successor to Jobs in product development I think that wasn't what Jobs had in mind when he recommended him for the CEO job. The way I see it is Jobs gave his design team enough weight to get the products they wanted to build to market. After all some of their best sellers made no sense when they were introduced but got made because Jobs backed them and the board trusted Jobs. Now he has gone will there be enough force behind risky new ideas to get them to market. The answer to that question is the only thing haunting Apple at the moment. Jobs tried to structure the company so that it would still be able to be innovative without him. So the question is, can the management team as a whole still take these risks, if not then Apple will eventually end up another mediocre tech manufacturer if they can then we should still see Apple producing some decent, disruptive, industry changing products in the future.
 

Thunderhawks

Suspended
Feb 17, 2009
4,057
2,118
Cook still has to prove himself as a successor to Jobs, not a clone of Scully, Spindler, or Amelio. I don't take too much import to this "award" as its a reflection of Apple's past success, not a predictor of its future.

Cook has/is running the accompany well in the field he was active in before. I don't think he was initially hired to be an ideas man.

Since he is not a rah, rah style person (typical for financial people), marketing and showmanship isn't effortless for him.

We do not know whether he has been able to assemble a creative team with visionaries.

He is smart enough to realize that "visionaries: is not his field.

Also, when I see people who always insist on innovate without themselves doing
ANYTHING, I wonder if they have a brain.

If innovation was easy we'd all be doing it.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

belsokar

macrumors member
Jul 21, 2005
80
43
I didn't read the article...so maybe this was answered there...but how is Apple valued at $105B if they alone have much more cash in the bank? It seems if a company had $145B in cash, they should at a minimum be valued at that amount...and obviously more based on their brand...
 

InfoTime

macrumors 6502a
Jul 17, 2002
500
261
You know Apple and Google are the only reason AT&T and Verizon are on that list at all.

My guess is people would still be using cell phones even if Apple didn't exist.
It's true that people would still be using cell phones. But Apple blazed the trail for smart phones (aka data hungry pocket computers). If not for Apple a majority of users would still have flip phones and AT&T and Verizon would still exist but their relevance would be greatly diminished.
 

newagemac

macrumors 68020
Mar 31, 2010
2,091
23
Google at $1200 a share with a P/E of 33. Apple at $530 a share with a P/E of 13. I think those figures tell it all about which company is the most valuable and respected tech company on the planet.

YTD even Microsoft has outperformed Apple in share value by a huge amount. Apple's so-called value isn't worth anything on Wall Street. The company most likely to be doomed is still Apple, first and foremost. They can spin it any way they want but Google is considered a much more valuable company than Apple. Google is seen as going places in the future and Apple is seen as going nowhere. Having control over "the internet of things" is seen as having more value than "one new iPhone after another." Google is going up in value. Apple is going down in value. That's a fact.

You just showed you don't have a clue how share prices work. Wall Street clearly values Apple more than Google. The metric you are looking for is "market value" also know as market capitalization or market cap. Share price is determined by how many stocks you have issued which is completely under your control. For instance, I can have a higher stock price than Google by issuing just one share of stock at $1300. As long as my company is valued at least $1300 of course. Then I have a stock price higher than Google. Apple issues more shares than Google hence the stock price is lower but they could just issue less shares if they wanted to just make the stock price look higher. Likewise, Google could just do a stock split and make their stock price just $10 if they wanted to. (Neither moves would actually change the market value though.)

Therefore share price is only useful for comparing a particular company's value over time and even then it doesn't work when stocks are split and more shares are issued.

Market value is what you're looking for if you want to compare value between companies. And Apple's market value according to Wall Street is over 100 billion more than Google.

These charts might help you understand where Google is compared to Apple:
http://qz.com/137191/googles-record-valuation-is-still-130-billion-short-of-apples/

And some basics on share price vs market cap:
http://stocks.about.com/od/evaluatingstocks/a/stocksmarketcap.htm

Please do some research before you make yourself look silly on public forums.
 
Last edited:

LordVic

Cancelled
Sep 7, 2011
5,938
12,458
True....albeit crappier ones.

you have no evidence to support this claim. For all you know, we could have leapfrogged past where we were with some radical new technology we can't think of that changed the world into a entirety different situation.

speculation about "what if" is just that. You can speculate all you want. I can speculate all you want. But what actually happened, is what happened.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.