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

Apple Again Tops U.S. Retail Chains in Sales at $6000 per Square Foot

I heard the recent figures on JCP psf revenues for pre ($134) and post ($269) retrofit. 11% have been retrofitted. 7m sf have been retrofitted since 8-1-12. Apple by comparison has a bit over 3m sf of retail in 11 years.

JCP market cap is $3.8B. Pocket change for Apple and includes a bunch of real estate.

Rocketman
 
Last edited:
lifeinhd said:
The Tysons store was the first Apple Store in the world. I think they just chose a spot, not really giving thought to size as they had no idea how it would turn out. Then Reston and Fair Oaks were built as "overflow" stores to handle extre traffic from Tysons.

Just my thoughts.
Click to expand...

Breaking Good said:
Seriously!? In the entire world?

I would have thought they would have opened their first store in California someplace. It seems strange they chose Washington D.C.
Click to expand...

Well, technically, they opened two Apple stores on the same day: May 19, 2001. Tysons Corner Center mall in Tysons Corner, Virginia and Glendale Galleria in Glendale, California. But with time zones, Tysons was open first.

http://www.cultofmac.com/95409/may-2001-the-first-apple-store-opens/
Look how young Steve Jobs looked in 2001.

I remember those black shelves and iMac registers near the entrance! They used to have registers!
 
Last edited:
Nice to see the Communists out in force today. Business = bad. Profit = bad. Success = bad. Power to the Proletariat State, comrades!

:rolleyes:
 
This is wonderful news!

Instead of purchasing for my wife an expensive ring or a bracelet from a "cheap" Tiffany store, I'll purchase a cheap iPod nano case from the more expensive Apple Store.
 
guzhogi said:
From what I've read, to increase profits. That's kinda the point of a business. But I agree, why does Apple need even more profit than it has now?
Click to expand...

Why do you want more money for what you do? You're doing fine now with what you're making.

----------
apolloa said:
And oohhh, oh look Apple sold more then Tiffany's!!!!!! Yeah, not really surprising..
Click to expand...

No, Apple sold more per square foot then Tiffany's. Big difference.

----------
apolloa said:
Well, still means nothing to me. A useless stats in my opinion.
Click to expand...

We need to allow for some uneducated people visiting this site I guess.

----------
iLog.Genius said:
Haha. Another year, another first year finish in terms of $/sq. ft. Apple will continue to enjoy jamming this factoid every meeting/orientation. They are very proud of this stat.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Every company's primary focus is to make everything it does more effective and efficient. This is the primary metric used to illustrate how well they are doing that. Congratulations Apple!
 
blublibla said:
And how does this make their last product innovative? Better? Worth the increasing price?

Yeah, one of those many many micro-news any corporation could do in other domains, that actually don't mean anything but Apple making money and obviously not investing it in R&D, quality or consumer prices anymore...but rather in ridiculous patent lawsuits.
Click to expand...

Apple invested over $1 Billion in R&D last year.

As far as pricing, most people are only concerned with TIC and not TOC. TIC =Total initial cost. TOC =Total cost of operation. After a 5 year period Apple products cost less to maintain and run that similar products from other manufacturers and generally have a much longer useful life span and a much higher resale value. Check used prices on eBay vs. PC's..
 
Last edited:
rmwebs said:
I have to agree. Very few people are actually buying whenever I've been in their - most go in there for the free wifi, to check emails and facebook...feel like slapping them sometimes.

Not sure why Apple still havent blocked access to social networks on their in-store wifi. I know they want to draw people in to use the machines, but surely they arent getting a sale anyway from someone who's only purpose in the shop is to post a status update.
Click to expand...

Basic strategy, every time you take something away at the retail level you reduce numbers. Numbers equal sales, you only have to look at everybody else on this list to know why Apple does it the way they do.

Good example, how many times have you seen a sign "restrooms for customers only", yet practically everybody I know, who uses a restroom at a retail store will buy something just to feel ok about using the facillities (basic human psychology). There are always exceptions, but the basic principle applies. Let the people in for the reason they want and they will spend money, be it today or tomorrow, they are experiencing the product, the staff, the location, you name it...
 
Zwhaler said:
Wow over 2x second place, Apple dominates at this.
Click to expand...

Other than Tiffany, how many of the other 9 have you even heard of?

Makes it kind of suspect if you ask me....


Rhymecrafter said:
Good example, how many times have you seen a sign "restrooms for customers only", yet practically everybody I know, who uses a restroom at a retail store will buy something just to feel ok about using the facillities (basic human psychology).
Click to expand...

Do Apple stores have restrooms? If they did, all that glass would make me a little embarrassed to relieve myself.
 
Last edited:
Avatar74 said:
That can be an indication that the market was overpricing the stock. The company's tangible per share book value is way below even the current market price... so the premium for future cash flows could be too steep (and given the last two quarters performance, I think it is a little steep...).
Click to expand...

Yet Amazon is allowed to meander along in fantasy land with its P/E of over three thousand. THe P/E ratio is the number one indicator of whether or not the market is overpricing the shares. The market hates Apple, for no good reason. Apple's P/E ratio even after the "bad" quarters is still lower than almost any blue chip other than petroleum stocks. It's lower than Coca Cola, Home Depot, Walmart, Microsoft, General Electric and IBM just to name a few.
 
SPUY767 said:
The market hates Apple, for no good reason.
Click to expand...

How about decades of arrogant behaviour for a reason?

Or how about pointless lawsuits against unrelated companies?

Or how about contempt for the UK courts?
________________

There are lots of reasons to hate Apple.
 
AidenShaw said:
How about decades of arrogant behaviour for a reason?

Or how about pointless lawsuits against unrelated companies?

Or how about contempt for the UK courts?
________________

There are lots of reasons to hate Apple.
Click to expand...

Off topic much? I don't care how arrogant a company is. Hubris should not deter sound investment.
 
AidenShaw said:
Other than Tiffany, how many of the other 9 have you even heard of?

Makes it kind of suspect if you ask me....
Click to expand...
You are saying that tongue in cheek, right, Aiden? That list is practically a who's who of the trendiest brands in the market today. Well, with the exception of Fairway Market, which I believe is a boutique supermarket.
 
AppleMacFinder said:
lololemon? what is it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Similar to lolwutpear:

n725075089_288918_2774.jpg
 
AppleMacFinder said:
lololemon? what is it? :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Lululemon was Started in Vancouver and has even spread to Australia.
It's target market is definitely not the same as those who post on the forum.

Very popular among young and middle aged women, and gay men.

Can see the logo on the butts of many ladies wearing yoga tights.
 
samcraig said:
Quite a few. Apple isn't even in the top 10

http://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2011/07/28/which-companies-in-the-sp-spend-the-most-in-rd/

Also - R&D spending doesn't equate to being innovative.

http://www.businessinsider.com/booz-and-cos-innovation-study-2011-10?op=1

To your argument - Apple is considered very innovative (as of 2011) despite its lower R&D spending
Click to expand...

Your absolutely right. Both IBM and Microsoft (worked at IBM and have some ongoing projects at MS research) have much less to show in the way of products for the amount of research dollars spent.

Of course, IBM has a tendency to generate cool new ideas, but do so much earlier than the public is ready for them and consequently shut the program down or shift for geopolitical reasons.

Microsoft, on the other hand has some of the neatest work going on in their labs, but due to the conservative nature of Ballmer and the rest of the corporation, most never see the light of day. "Surface" is one of the very few that has made it into a product.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back