Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

Apple Again Places #5 in Annual Fortune 500 Rankings

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
51,484
13,123



Fortune has released its annual Fortune 500 list of the top U.S. corporations based on gross revenue, which together accounted for $12.5 trillion in revenues, $945 billion in profits and $17 trillion in market value. Apple maintained the 5th spot in the rankings for the second consecutive year after steadily rising from 6th place in 2013, 17th place in 2012, 35th place in 2011 and 56th place in 2010.

"After a bumpy start to 2014, Apple's stock finished the year up 40%, adding nearly $200 billion to the company's market value. A product pipeline that's gotten Apple fanboys lining up all over again has certainly helped reenergize revenue growth: In addition to unveiling new categories like Apple Pay and Apple Watch, the company launched the iPhone 6, selling a record-breaking 10 million units in the first three days. As CEO Tim Cook recently told investors: "It's tough to find something in the numbers not to like." The normally low-profile Cook is breaking new ground in other ways too--in October, 2014 he came out as the first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company."
Fortune identified fast-growing iPhone and Mac sales and brand power as two of the company's key strengths, while citing declining iPad sales and high expectations from investors and consumers as weaknesses. The publication believes Apple's much-rumored streaming TV service presents an opportunity for the company, while Android and Chinese smartphone manufacturers remain threats.

Apple recorded operating revenue of $182.79 billion during the 2014 fiscal year, a 7% year-over-year increase. Walmart, Exxon Mobil, Chevron and Berkshire Hathaway topped the list with between $194.6 and $485.6 billion revenue, although it's worth noting that Apple finished ahead of all four of those companies with $39.5 billion in profit and recently posted two record-breaking quarters.

Article Link: Apple Again Places #5 in Annual Fortune 500 Rankings
 

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,534
25,271
Reading updates like this just makes my blood boil when I think about the 1.4GHz iMac/Mac Mini and the 2012 MacBook Pro still being sold. Just put some of your damn bank balance back into the company, Apple, and don't ship junk. :mad:
 
Comment

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,465
833
Reading updates like this just makes my blood boil when I think about the 1.4GHz iMac/Mac Mini and the 2012 MacBook Pro still being sold. Just put some of your damn bank balance back into the company, Apple, and don't ship junk. :mad:
Of course, as consumers, we have the option to not buy anything we feel is "junk", doesn't meet our needs or doesn't represent a good value to us, regardless of what any company chooses to produce.
 
Comment

William Gates

macrumors 6502
Oct 26, 2007
348
932
A product pipeline that's gotten Apple fanboys lining up all over again

A product pipeline that has Walmart fanboys lining up all over again

A product pipeline that's gotten Exxon fanboys lining up all over again

A product pipeline that's gotten Berkshire Hathaway fanboys lining up all over again

Do they not realize how ridiculous this sounds? 10% of the world are Apple fanboys now?

Also, "Office Equipment" LMAO
 
Comment

teslo

macrumors 6502a
Jun 9, 2014
929
599
Of course, as consumers, we have the option to not buy anything we feel is "junk", doesn't meet our needs or doesn't represent a good value to us, regardless of what any company chooses to produce.

and 'junk' allows people who don't obsess over specs on tech sites to enter the apple ecosystem gleefully, without issue, becoming loyal customers.

i wish i could make 'junk' like this.
 
Comment

AppStoreNerd

macrumors member
Apr 9, 2015
37
15
its good to know that most peoples money is going to Apple.
now dont expect Apple to give you an award for that. they just need your money
 
Comment

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,534
25,271
Of course, as consumers, we have the option to not buy anything we feel is "junk", doesn't meet our needs or doesn't represent a good value to us, regardless of what any company chooses to produce.

Unfortunately, as working in a reseller and doing aftersales support, consumers will happily spend £900 on an iMac without realising it performs worse than the equivalent model from 3 years ago. And that reflects extremely badly on the company when they realise they've wasted their money.

That's because Apple dish out the rhetoric about being the best, and putting the user-experience first, then cripple it with these sorts of machines that do nothing to inspire brand confidence. Even as 'low-cost' machines they still cost an absolute fortune.

If Apple don't want to make well-performing machines across their line, then maybe they shouldn't advertise themselves as being obsessed with quality and performance.
 
Comment

GGJstudios

macrumors Westmere
May 16, 2008
44,465
833
Unfortunately, as working in a reseller and doing aftersales support, consumers will happily spend £900 on an iMac without realising it performs worse than the equivalent model from 3 years ago. And that reflects extremely badly on the company when they realise they've wasted their money.

That's because Apple dish out the rhetoric about being the best, and putting the user-experience first, then cripple it with these sorts of machines that do nothing to inspire brand confidence. Even as 'low-cost' machines they still cost an absolute fortune.

If Apple don't want to make well-performing machines across their line, then maybe they shouldn't advertise themselves as being obsessed with quality and performance.
You're obviously dissatisfied with some Apple products. It's also obvious that the majority of buyers do not share your sentiments, or Apple wouldn't be as successful as they are. It's a fact that most computer users rarely, if ever, come close to taxing their computers to the limits of their capability, and many who buy new Macs have never owned one before, so they have nothing to compare it to. Also, many would prefer owning a Mac and running OS X over any other option, even if it means sacrificing on the upper end of performance or having to pay more.
 
Comment

redscull

macrumors 6502a
Jul 1, 2010
785
739
Texas
If Apple don't want to make well-performing machines across their line, then maybe they shouldn't advertise themselves as being obsessed with quality and performance.
Exactly. Apple's message and brand are only applicable to some of its products. But consumers have to learn this the hard way if they aren't the type to research beforehand, and the result is that they're left thinking Apple computers are overpriced with a rather poor user experience. It's going to be awhile before this lack of quality control really impacts the company, and then it'll be too late to turn it around.
 
Comment

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,534
25,271
You're obviously dissatisfied with some Apple products. It's also obvious that the majority of buyers do not share your sentiments, or Apple wouldn't be as successful as they are. It's a fact that most computer users rarely, if ever, come close to taxing their computers to the limits of their capability, and many who buy new Macs have never owned one before, so they have nothing to compare it to. Also, many would prefer owning a Mac and running OS X over any other option, even if it means sacrificing on the upper end of performance or having to pay more.

I really appreciate your opinion GGJstudios, you really are making some good points and I definitely can see that I'm running the risk of seeming a little petulant. I hope this isn't the case -- I can only go on what I've seen. In my experience, the consumers who have purchased the 2012 MBP & 1.4GHz machines are thoroughly unsatisfied with their performance. So many complaints we've outright refused to sell them any more. They don't perform as a Mac should, especially when considering the price.

Some of the performance on Macs are sensational, and some of the tech/design is outstanding. I absolutely love some products. That's what really hurts, especially when coupled with their heavy rhetoric about how they make the absolute best products, and make the decisions for the consumers.

Updated Apple computers should not have worse specifications than their predecessors, in my opinion. And this isn't just some nitpicking spec-hunting, this causes genuine performance problems. We've seen the complaints and dealt with the fallout. Some of the computers run so, so poorly.

I know it's fair to say that consumers should do their research. But it's much harder to be that blunt to somebody on the phone, or face-to-face. Some consumers do feel genuinely hurt, if not simply financially, rather than for their love of Apple.
 
Comment

bbeagle

macrumors 68040
Oct 19, 2010
3,423
2,689
Buffalo, NY
In my experience, the consumers who have purchased the 2012 MBP & 1.4GHz machines are thoroughly unsatisfied with their performance. So many complaints we've outright refused to sell them any more. They don't perform as a Mac should, especially when considering the price.

My dad still uses his 2003 Powerbook G4 daily as his main computer, and I still use my 2006 White Macbook daily.
The laptops perform fine for us, and we're both very satisfied. So I don't think most users feel the way you feel.

(I use a 2015 Macbook Pro at work, so I know speed differences in things like Xcode. But I'm not doing Xcode at home - I'm surfing the web, emails, word processing, and the speed is very similar)
 
Comment

keysofanxiety

macrumors G3
Nov 23, 2011
9,534
25,271
My dad still uses his 2003 Powerbook G4 daily as his main computer, and I still use my 2006 White Macbook daily.
The laptops perform fine for us, and we're both very satisfied. So I don't think most users feel the way you feel.

(I use a 2015 Macbook Pro at work, so I know speed differences in things like Xcode. But I'm not doing Xcode at home - I'm surfing the web, emails, word processing, and the speed is very similar)

I imagine your 2006 MacBook is running Snow Leopard, as they don't run Lion very well, and won't run anything beyond that. Similarly I imagine the PowerBook would be on Tiger, as Leopard runs a little rough on the G4s.

With respect, we're talking about the latest computers on the latest OS. I have a Thinkpad that runs Windows 95 fine. I would not consider that as an argument for the longevity of the Pentium 1 CPU.
 
Comment

AlecZ

macrumors 65816
Sep 11, 2014
1,173
122
Berkeley, CA
I imagine your 2006 MacBook is running Snow Leopard, as they don't run Lion very well, and won't run anything beyond that. Similarly I imagine the PowerBook would be on Tiger, as Leopard runs a little rough on the G4s.

With respect, we're talking about the latest computers on the latest OS. I have a Thinkpad that runs Windows 95 fine. I would not consider that as an argument for the longevity of the Pentium 1 CPU.
Snow Leopard is still a modern and capable OS. It's just not a pig like Lion+. Actually, the MacBook1,1 doesn't even run Lion (officially) because it has a Core Duo, not Core 2 Duo... as if you'd want to run it in the first place.
 
Comment

michaelant

macrumors regular
Apr 8, 2006
202
162
I don't understand the focus on revenue in these kinds of rankings. As was pointed out in the article, Apple was #1 in profit. Shouldn't that be what the business community cares most about?
 
Comment

AlecZ

macrumors 65816
Sep 11, 2014
1,173
122
Berkeley, CA
I don't understand the focus on revenue in these kinds of rankings. As was pointed out in the article, Apple was #1 in profit. Shouldn't that be what the business community cares most about?
I would care the most about company value. Maybe these rankings are supposed to indicate which are the "largest" companies, not necessarily the most successful. If you're curious, the Fortune 500 site also lets you sort by profits or value.
 
Comment
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.