I'd say it's even more impressive. If it were easy making money by not creating anything, we'd all be rich.
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 Drops to #4 Spot in Annual Fortune 500 Rankings
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd say it's even more impressive. If it were easy making money by not creating anything, we'd all be rich.
Not only that, but these day's one can use a Windows PC to create iOS and Mac apps...!
Take a good look at those numbers in the first post......Apple would have to have quite a Mac buying frenzy to pass #3 on the list....they'd have to sell $13B (yes billions of dollars) per year more than they do now to pass #3.
I'd argue that Walmart, for all its ills, did really revolutionize the way retail depends on an electronically managed and highly flexible supply and inventory system to manage pricing/purchasing on a scale never seen before. They really are one of the most advanced companies in the world in that regard.
For years I said that Microsoft would remain on top as one as a "computer" was a glass screen, mouse and keyboard. I was right. Now a "computer" fits inside a phone. Apple will do well until phones are more of a commodity and people stop paying so much for them. It will happen. In 10 years people will think a $100 phone is expensive.
Apple needs to diversify its product line. This iPhone thing will not last forever.
I'd like see Apple innovate in the computer area again. The last impressive thing that did was put a good graphical interface on top of BSD Unix and call to "MacOS X". Oh wait, that was Next that did in the 1990's. Then Apple bought Next and got the OS. That was about 21 years ago
Apple needs to diversify its product line. This iPhone thing will not last forever.
I'd like see Apple innovate in the computer area again. The last impressive thing that did was put a good graphical interface on top of BSD Unix and call to "MacOS X". Oh wait, that was Next that did in the 1990's. Then Apple bought Next and got the OS. That was about 21 years ago
Or... maybe instead of you being unhappy with your laptop search being the culprit, the nearly 40% jump in gas prices affecting hundreds of millions of people in the past year has pushed Exxon's wallet up?
With Smartphone's, Tablet's, small laptops of various sizes, multiple desktop PCs, Watches, AppleTV, Homepod, AirPods, Beats, Music and now original programming, I'm unsure why you'd accuse them of not being diverse. What else would you suggest? Some would even say that their issue is that they're too diverse and need to contract and concentrate on what they're good at...
Thanks !The distance between #4 and #1 could be mostly made up by Apple just doubling their prices. And why would we care? What's important to us is Apple coming in first in such contests. Anyone actually having any price sensitivity could either be run off ("why are you here?") or put in their place by spinning payment plan numbers with ever-longer terms ("just $X more per month").
Double them prices! Double them prices!
Furthermore, if Apple would quadruple their prices, they could probably double the revenue of the current #1. That would not be just taking first place... but doubling the runner up. We could sooooo celebrate such a leap. How much better the world would be if 4X the money flowed to Apple! Our individual lives would be so much better if our favorite corporation was that much richer.
Quadruple them prices! Quadruple them prices!
In either case, since unit costs would remain about the same, all of that doubled or quadrupled revenue would be added profit too... significantly strengthening our old standby of "...but who makes the most profitable _________".
All(hopefully)
You made me realize the overpaid staff is actually underpaid and should be adequately rewarded in order to get the top spot again. Wicked PR wins...spend on it (and on glass phones) instead of innovating
Last edited:
Because the Fortune 500 is a traditional but pointless ranking that refuses to die a respectable death. It should go to the bottom of the ocean, along with the Dow Jones Industrial Index.
In the next few years their profits are going to go stratospheric. The oil supply glut with low prices meant all the oil companies cut their exploration spending. I work in the contractor sector and it's hit everyone hard. So no new oil has been found for a few years now and when the supply tightens, it's going to do it dramatically and the oil price is going to spike.
In the long term, though, I agree with you. Just not in the next few years.
Crazy how much money people spend at Walmart. Amazon should open some physical stores, directly across the street from Walmart's most popular locations; just for sh--s and giggles.
Because it is easier for lazy analysts to write stories about revenue rankings than digging in to determine the true health, profitability, and growth potential of a company.
Actually, ranking by profit is another chart. This one is a revenue chart. There are plenty of others.
Here you go:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...7-wall-st-most-profitable-companies/74501312/
Here’s a chart:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/269857/most-profitable-companies-worldwide/
Nothing more than bragging rights. Wall Street has metrics for everything to be able to push or trash any stock they choose. In this particular report as it applies to Apple a proper comparison would be to ask where Google, Samsung, Microsoft, and other tech companies are on the list. Amazon is #8.
Of course revenue is a meaningless metric unless you compare it to profit and that’s where Apple leads the pack.
[doublepost=1526919401][/doublepost]
No. Apple dropped because the price of oil suddenly skyrocketed and Exxon was pushed above Apple. Take off your horse blinders and think rationally.
And for all the AT&T haters here, where’s Verizon, Sprint, T-Mobile, etc.? See, you can use this metric to prove anything you want.
Why would they do that. People already use Walmart, Target, Best Buy, and the rest as a place to look at items that they'll eventually buy on Amazon. Building Amazon stores for non-perishables is just throwing money away.
Although, I could see them putting up a few "showrooms" in order to get some sort of tax break from wherever they end up putting their HQ at.
Probably a good sign that the CEO of #3 keeps buying more and more stock in #4
Huh? XOM produces oil and gas. That's one of the more difficult, expensive endeavors that one can pursue. From a floating platform, held to within a few feet (likely less) of centered over the bore, drilling through a pipe five miles long to the ocean floor, and another 1-3 miles below that to reach the oil, bring it to the surface, and then send it off for refining, all for about a 10% profit margin.
But they don't create anything? Wow.
There laptops are doing much better I don't believe anyone can question that. As for their reliability now? Not so much unfortunately...
Analysts actually do research all of the growth and profitability issues you mention. Fortune is not analyzing anything in creating this listing. It is a meaningless exercise that they've been doing annually for decades for the magazine. No significance should be assigned to at all.
If this list was just about big numbers then the ranking would be based off of market cap. Look at Amazon, only $3B in profits but does anyone think Amazon is going out of business anytime soon?
[doublepost=1526922782][/doublepost]
So that’s why Amazon is the second most valuable publicly traded company. Let me guess if Exxon or someone else leads the pack with profits then it won’t be the most important metric anymore.
