Oh yeah, nothing against Snow Leopard. You can't deny it runs silky smooth on older machines. That's why it's not an applicable argument referring to the baseline Macs running Yosemite IMHO.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Again Places #5 in Annual Fortune 500 Rankings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Oh yeah, nothing against Snow Leopard. You can't deny it runs silky smooth on older machines. That's why it's not an applicable argument referring to the baseline Macs running Yosemite IMHO.
A few observations: I'm a little surprised that Wal-Mart is first, I knew it was large, but not that large. Also, I would think you'd rate these companies on a profit basis or gross profit rating. Gross revenue can be misleading if you have a large amount of expenses. Still, with GAAP vs IFRS and other rules the "profit" reported may still be misleading.
Aww well.
Aww well.
Running a 2008 MBP 17" (sniff , 17" discontinued) which I upgraded with max memory and an SSD, plus took out the superdrive an put the other HD in there . OS X 10 runs like a champ on it.
And, in general it's just running great after all these years.
Just bought a 15" (sniff, no 17") 2014 MBP and it is noticeably faster, however limited in space and upgradability.
Apple had lots of clunkers and anemic machines in it's history, but it is the only thing I would buy, as it run OS X and Windoof. Probably on my 15th plus kind of Mac.
Every user does different things with a Mac , so to me a mini or an iMac would not be choices I would make, as I like to be able to take my MBP always with me.
I do at times crying when I overhear conversation at an Apple genius bar. Consumer are given too much credit in what they know. The spec hounds and first adopters of anything are not the main Apple users.
Once a consumer gets introduced to the simplicity of the Apple OS X, it's almost like breathing freedom.
Using a PC with MS xp or whatever is downright frustrating, coming from an Apple.
Just like you an me are not perfect, Apple or any company can't hit a home run with every product.
A very good point!
I would say that most people keep a desktop computer for 5-7 years before replacing it; THAT'S the machine it's being compared to... whatever they're replacing.
I doubt anyone coming from a 6 year old PC to a brand new Mac comes to the conclusion: "hmmm, it's REALLY fast and marvelous... but I heard that a few years ago they made one much thicker & consuming twice the amount of power, that was actually 5% faster... wouldn't my Facebook be even better on one of those?" Lol. ;0)
"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."
What does Tim's sexuality have to do with company profit? Why put that in there?
What does Tim's sexuality have to do with company profit? Why put that in there?
It's because they have 5 times more employees than the next closest fortune 500 company:
Yep, my dad's computer is way behind - probably Tiger. And yes, my MacBook is running Snow Leopard.
If you go to the source material on Fortune, you can look at the chart based on revenue, profit, assets, and market value. From what I've seen, Apple's profit isn't viewed as much of a positive in the market as it is in forums like MR. The market tends to want to see money being put to work. Apple's cash horde is viewed more like a glorified ginormous savings account. Companies like Amazon are viewed favorably because the perception is they plow profit back into the business to make it grow. That's a gross over simplification of the market, but I think you get the point.
All but one actually DO something, make something, produce something. The on
Exxon produces stuff
Chevron produces stuff
Apple designs and makes stuff
And then there's Berkshire Hathaway that produces nothing, sells nothing, designs nothing, makes nothing. All they do is extract money from other people's work to line their own pockets.
When the revolution comes...
Walmart sells stuff
.
Exxon produces stuff
Chevron produces stuff
Apple designs and makes stuff
And then there's Berkshire Hathaway that produces nothing, sells nothing, designs nothing, makes nothing. All they do is extract money from other people's work to line their own pockets.
When the revolution comes...
That's not really true. BH is a very activist fund. When they buy a company, they generally hire and install new management to run the company the way they think it should be run. Given how many companies they run, I'd say that produce and sell lots of stuff and provide a ton of services.
Quite.
'After a bumpy start to 2014, the normally low-profile Cook is breaking new ground in other ways too--in October, 2014 he ate a whole raw onion in three minutes, the first raw onion to be eaten by a CEO of a Fortune 500 company.'
That's not true at all about Berkshire. they own a bunch of companies that do many things. And they employ 300,000+ people. Sounds pretty significant to me.
Ah! So success is measured by how many indentured servants you employ! Good to know!