Still... it took them decades to reach 1 tril. And now less than two years later they’re already hitting 1.5Not ‘quite yesterday’, It was actually August 2018 when they were claimed a $1 trillion company, so we’re venturing on two years.
Apple becomes world's first trillion-dollar company
Computing and mobile phone giant beats Amazon to landmark after its shares hit $207.05amp.theguardian.com
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 Becomes First U.S. Company to Hit $1.5 Trillion in Market Value
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
They say the first trillion is always the hardest.
If you look at the AAPL chart with log scale (the only scale that shows true growth) instead of linear scale, you will see that growth was actually much higher before Jobs died. Yes, there has been steady, impressive growth under Timmy, but not nearly as fast and impressive under Steve. Don't get me wrong, Timmy has definitely done a good job as far as the stock price is concerned, but not nearly as good as Steve, and most people don't realise this, because the linear scale hides the truth that the log scale reveals. Also, Steve did a much much much better job than Tim as far as product quality. There has yet to be a MBP since 2015 that isn't so flawed that I'm willing to buy it. Timmy simply isn't up to the standard required to make a MBP that "just works". RIP MBP.
That’s an unfair analysis since it’s well understood that once you hit a certain scale it’s harder to achieve the same percentage growth.
Warren Buffet has been steadily been moving to cash. That man is a stock market genius. He sees the writing on the wall, and acts. We are in bubble territory, and the fundamentals don't support it. It's probably a little way off the crash yet. Usually you'll read the news articles talking about a bubble for 6 months before the crash, but not always.
[automerge]1591836149[/automerge]
Steve jobs maintained that growth for many years, it wasn't something that he achieved early on and then it flattened out, if anything, it was the other way around, as the company grew from strength to strength on the basis of more and more brilliant additions to the product line up, and brilliant iterations of the same line up. Since Tim took over, the product line up has had many problems, and seems to be getting worse and worse. They are stupid, simple problems too, such as a failed keyboard that they stuck with for 4 ridiculous years. And now useless thermal performance that is super easy to fix, but they stubbornly persist with, with their head in the sand as if it isn't even a problem. And Catalina that is endlessly full of stupid bugs. It goes on. The decisions from the top are just big fat fails over and over again.
Last edited:
No, we understand the company and the rest of the market realizes the valuation was insanely low.
A $50B services business growing at double digits and 1.5B active users are exhibits 1 and 1A.
The reprice Is completely justified as it was valued only as a hardware company...
[automerge]1591839416[/automerge]
I am as big of a Buffett supporter as anyone, but he’s showing his age. He sold the airlines at the bottom, if indeed it was him and not Ted or Todd.
He also appears to have missed the bottom without buying anything of note. Would have loved to see him pick up a big stake in Disney at $80 or Boeing at $90. He has been sitting on the cash too long and missed countless, Buffett like plays. I am long Berkshire but I’m disappointed in the greatest investor of all time. His time might be up.
Different eras, different points in time in the natural evolution of a corporation. The bottom line is that the Apple Board, the only people Tim Cook really needs to answer to, love Tim Cook.
FY 2018 Bonus: "Tim Cook’s $12 Million Bonus for 2018 Is His Biggest Ever"
Apple Inc. Chief Executive Officer Tim Cook collected his biggest-ever annual bonus for fiscal 2018 after the iPhone maker posted record revenue and profit, and its market value eclipsed $1 trillion.
https://markets.businessinsider.com...ln-bonus-for-2018-his-biggest-ever-1027853459
August 29, 2019: Apple CEO Tim Cook has acquired more than $114.4 million worth of vested Apple stock since Saturday after the Cupertino tech giant met performance expectations, according to a document filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
https://www.bizjournals.com/sanjose...-takes-home-114-4-million-for-good-stock.html
I don't disagree that Steve created a juggernaut, but Cook is starting from a very different place. We're living in a world dominated by online services now, for example, which is something that Steve never really seemed to get right. For every keyboard and Catalina incident Cook has had, Steve had an antenna and MobileMe debacle.
The scale is just vastly different now-- for Cook to double Apple's revenue, they need to bring in the entire economic output of Finland. To maintain that growth year after year, they'd then have to add the entire economic output of Taiwan to the top line. Then Mexico. Then France.
That's why you can't just drop it on a log chart and compare at this point. They aren't a scrappy Cinderella story anymore-- they're a behemoth.
Growth was better when the company was smaller? You don’t say?
In terms of total dollars added, particularly since Cook took over, the story is nothing short of amazing.
I suspect that in times of economic uncertainly, Apple is one of the few companies being seen as a “safe” bet for people looking for a place to park the money they have withdrawn from riskier ventures.
We see more people purchasing iPads and Macs during the lockdown period for HBL and WFH purposes, and services continue to offer a steady revenue stream even as people hold on to their iPhones longer.
Apple is also offering trade-in and instalment plans for their products to make them more affordable to more consumers, which should in turn allow them to sell more devices.
Throw in a huge cash hoard and Apple isn’t going anywhere anytime soon. If there’s a company which would not only be able to weather this tumultuous period, but also come out stronger for it, my money would be on Apple.
I think comparing relative to the competition isn’t all that fair. For example, Apple created the modern smartphone industry, then many quickly copied. Without iPhone, I think we’d have a very very different level of consumer tech.
Ironic you say that , the reason why they have no cpu-fan heat pipe is because it is a calculated move to make MORE money which the bean counters and more importantly to Timmy the shareholders love.
Deliberately nerfing the airs performance was only done imo because the performance was too close for comfort to the pro 13 for apples bean counters. To prevent the risk of product cannibalization with more people purchasing
the 'cheaper' air instead of the more profitable pro 13 they deliberately sabotaged the cooling with the fan not being connected to the cpu causing it to throttle almost immediately and preforming far below the chips potential .
Artificially crippling the performance on apple products would've been unheard of when Steve Jobs was alive but product supply guy timmy is more interested in maximum revenue extraction from customers at all costs. Great for quarterly profits and the share price but if you are a customer you are being screwed..
I do not disagree, as I think the introduction of the iPhone had a huge influence over consumer electronic products.
But....
Why not? This has never stopped Apple from being able to differentiate their products from the competition before.
Copying electronics designs and features didn't start with the iPhone, and has been going on for a long time.
MS Windows has been chasing Apple's Mac OS design and feature for decades, I remember when Windows 95 was launched, many of the new features that were touted were features that Mac OS was already doing.
After the iMac, the market was flooded with all-in-ones that borrowed features from Apple's design(and their re-designs).
Many models of the Sony Vaio could almost be considered an MacBook clone.
After the iPod, every consumer electronic company tried to imitate it. Many had features that the iPod lacked, such as the Zune:
That was just a few examples, but even with all the copying going on, Apple was still able to clearly differentiate themselves and offer a premium product that was superior to what the competition offered.
Apple didn't have the marketshare, but there was a significant gap in quality relative to the competition that some people would pay the premium price to be able to experience it. As Apple's popularity increased, it appears that the quality gap, relative to the competition, has decreased.
It almost feels like no matter what Tim Cook does some of you will never give him praise. I mean he could single handedly cure covid and you’d still find a reason to be negative about him.
Apple 2021 analyst eps estimates of 16.75 will give Apple a 27-28 net cash multiple at a $500 stock price. Very reasonable for a consumer staple with the stickiest products ever created
Please explain for the people here that if you are not an investor or you are dissatisfied with a product line why they should be positive about this? 🤣
Those dissatisified with the product line have choices. And then there are those in the US who may be happy that a US based company got there first. No different than rooting for your hometown sports team.
Or maybe it’s just that industries have matured?
It’s like comparing the relative difference between US-made vs foreign aircraft in 1903 and now. I think it’s a little strange to say “well, US-made aircraft were much more advanced compared to the rest of the world then vs now” — right, because the thing had just been invented.
I also think many people, myself included, enjoy some revisionist history when it comes to Apple products. I owned several iPods, including the original. Was it a great device? Absolutely! Was it mind-blowingly better than a Zune or Arcos Jukebox? Not really. But they had enough small benefits that it stood out, just like iPhone or Apple Watch today.
Not to mention: it’s all relative. If your privacy and data security are no value to you, or you don’t care about industrial design, then sure — it may be that Apple doesn’t seem that much above the competition.
This is why people who claim Apple is Doomed will always be jokers.
Yet... while making all this money, Apple still continues to top the “customer satisfaction” charts.
Apple is doomed. /s
[automerge]1591904346[/automerge]
They may not be innovating now in phones and computers like they used to, and they do make a lot of mistakes and screw ups. We can say what we will about all that, but but when compared with the competition they still make the best products available for the money - at least according to the millions/billions of people choosing to buy them instead of other stuff they could buy for less.
Oh wait... they’re ALL brainwashed, right? /s
Last edited:
This is utterly idiotic. Why put a processor with X performance and X cost in, and then nerf it, when they could put a cheaper processor in and either sell more of them for less $ each or make more profit on each one?
99% of consumers aren’t looking at geekbench or these forums and have no idea what performance is other than what the sales guy and the specs tell them. If your argument were true they wouldn’t know anyway or if they did they’d only find out significantly after the purchase when it’s too late.
It seems differentiation isn’t so much of a priority.
If they really wanted to differentiate and fill out the range I believe three models, as in Steve’s time, should be the way to go.
1. Today’s 16” and next year’s 14” MBP’s minus the low end 2-port versions I think. If it’s “Pro”** it’s supposed to be high performance and it’s ok to be higher (relative to the rest of the range) cost.
Then...
2. I for one loved the 12” MB - it’s the perfect thing for my wife. Her needs aren’t great (so doesn’t need “Pro” performance) but the size is perfect for her. A scissor keyboard (so 2mm thicker!) version of that machine - and perhaps a 2-port 14” version of it as well - should be the MBA range. Key feature: size and noiseless at the cost of everything else. It’s ok to cost what the 12” MB did - the original MBA was more $ and less performance than that time’s MB - you paid for the tech that made it smaller, if that’s what you wanted.
Then...
3. One size, (14” probably) low cost option. Compromise performance and size as needed for a base $899 price. And as with Steve’s time, it’s called just “MacBook”.
Bring the A back to MBA. Emphasize the P in MBP. And for those who don’t need either - the more price conscious consumers, students, etc.: plain MB - no A and no P to pay extra for. That was Steve’s line-up and made the most sense to me. It’s sad that got lost with the 2015 MB. But they could bring it back.
But back to the response here. That they would deliberately nerf today’s Air at extra cost, as proposed above, is ludicrous. They did not do that. There’s some other explanation for that fan pipe issue.
**Note: Don’t start calling me out on “Pro” naming. The idea that “Pro” in Apple’s naming means “professional” is ridiculous and plain incorrect. “Pro” simply means a higher performance and correspondingly priced version of the non-“Pro” version of the same thing. Eg. The iPhone Pro is not some “professional” device separate to the “consumer” only iPhone.
Last edited:
In case, like me, you were curious which was the first non-US company to hit this mark, it was Saudi Aramco.
I dont understand this comment. Apple was not the first company to get to 1.5 trillion.
You meant those in the US (I should say Apple forums) may be happy that Apple got there first, right?