Well, yeah, but when Steve Jobs came back, Apple was literally a hairs breath from going under permanently....
The reason they are wher they are now is down to Job’s saving the company and turning it round, not Cook, he’s just carried in with it.
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 is $100 Billion Away From Becoming World's Only Trillion Dollar Company
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, yeah, but when Steve Jobs came back, Apple was literally a hairs breath from going under permanently....
The reason they are wher they are now is down to Job’s saving the company and turning it round, not Cook, he’s just carried in with it.
If you actually read my list you’d have your answer. Market share is meaningless when your “market” is disposable $50 phones.
Sorry, but I got every single one right. iOS dominates the enterprise market over Android. Fact. iOS Apps are superior to Android. If you only use Facebook and other popular Apps you won’t notice the difference. Step outside into other areas and Android lags way behind. Look at Android Apps on tablets for an example. It’s almost 2018 and developers are still too lazy to optimize for tablets, letting Android do the scaling for them.
What do I mean by online shopping? For every 6$ purchased from an online store, $5 were from an iPhone or iPad. The other $1 from Android devices. Further proof that most Android users don’t actually USE their devices for anything. Don’t buy Apps, don’t spend money. They do nothing to help the ecosystem and encourage other companies to offer products/services.
If you were an online retailer, and getting 5X the revenue from iOS, then who are you going to prioritize? Which platform are you going to consider writing an App for? Which platform will have an optimized mobile experience specifically tailored to their phones/tablets? Which ones are more likely to get special offers? Here’s a hint: the ones who spend money, that’s who. In other words, iOS users.
Strongly disagree. As someone who has made a living in computers and I.T. since the early 1980's -- I have much admiration for the companies that started the whole personal computer revolution and managed to stay relevant today. At one time, Apple was considered an equal to *so* many others who stumbled and fell.... Atari, Coleco, Tandy/Radio-Shack, Texas Instruments, Commodore, Kaypro, Osbourne, Sinclair, etc.
Every business tries to avoid taxes as much as the law will let them. If you don't like THAT, you should try to fix the laws. And the Chinese worker issue? Again... really the fault of the Chinese government that doesn't extend practically any protections to its workers. If Apple didn't pay to have anything made there -- others would (and do). As many Chinese people as we allow to come to America's colleges and universities to graduate here and become eventual citizens, I'd say we do more than our part to help the folks over there who want to go the extra mile to get out of their situation.
Every business tries to avoid taxes as much as the law will let them. If you don't like THAT, you should try to fix the laws. And the Chinese worker issue? Again... really the fault of the Chinese government that doesn't extend practically any protections to its workers. If Apple didn't pay to have anything made there -- others would (and do). As many Chinese people as we allow to come to America's colleges and universities to graduate here and become eventual citizens, I'd say we do more than our part to help the folks over there who want to go the extra mile to get out of their situation.
They were on the hairy edge for sure but not quite as close to going under as is popularly thought. They still had pretty good cash reserves and were being courted with takeover offers (which fortunately the board turned down).
Steve's accomplishments were remarkable of course, but he could not have done it without the team he brought with him. Among them was Tim Cook. I don't ding Cook for not being Jobs. For better and for worse, Steve Jobs was unique.
Im rooting for them to break that barrier.
[doublepost=1510281855][/doublepost]
Probably the best comment on this thread. well done mate
[doublepost=1510281855][/doublepost]
Probably the best comment on this thread. well done mate
No they’ll keep a Touch ID version out which will be the 8s and 8s plus. It seems almost certain that Apple will have a Xs plus and a regular Xs model. No way Apple will drop the price consider people are paying $999 for the 64gb. The plus will be $100-200 more for each gb size. The old Apple would have dropped the price not the Tim Cook era.
You’re being a little over dramatic with the Tim Cook’s Apple thing, it’s been Tim Cook’s Apple for 6 years. Apple now has its lowest priced iPhone ever at $349. The 8/8 Plus is $699/799 at Cook’s Apple.
In three other markets—tablet (iPad at $329), smart watch (Series 1 at $249) and truly wireless earbuds (AirPods at $159)—Apple literally owns all 3 markets, with the best products at prices so low there’s almost no room for competitors to undercut them, even with a worse product.
Agree that there will be a 9/9 Plus with TouchID, even though KGI says FaceID for all 2018 models. Because they need new phones at the $699/$799 price points. Yes, this year’s X is $999. The OLED display is supply constrained and expensive. FaceID components are supply constrained and expensive. NAND is expensive right now. All these things combined require that high selling price if Apple is to maintain margins.
But they can’t get their typical new model volumes at $999. Yes, some can/will pay that but the demand curve is elastic. The 8/8 Plus will take 60+% of the 2017 model revenue this year (my estimate). To drive up volumes of a technology they want in people’s hands—the true depth camera—the price must come down.
At $899/$1049, or better yet $849/$999, a 2018 X/X Plus would shift their new model combined market share to maybe 60% compared to 40% for the 9/9 Plus. Then in 2019 they shift to all-OLED with FaceID at $749/$849.
Anyway, there’s my predictions. Also, refreshing the SE and $329 iPad with A10 but few other changes next year. And a new iPad mini in its current form factor with (hopefully) an A11 but probably A10. And iPad Pros with FaceID. Ok I’ll stop now
Last edited:
Not for nothing, but Saudi Aramco is currently valued at somewhere between $2 trillion and $10 trillion.
Why should Apple try to cure cancer? Medical research is nothing to do with Apple's business & quite frankly not their problem.
to be fair you have to consider the different phases Apple went through. No one imagined Jobs back, no one imagined how successful the ipod would be, no one ever thought Apple will make cellphones at $500 and kick Nokia, Blackberry, SonyEricsson, andm Motorola out of the market.
There was a time in the 90s where Apple asked Microsoft to build a web-browser for them... yes it was that bad.
If that were true, millions or billions of customers would add up to millions or billions of ZEROS. That would suggest that the old adage "every customer counts" might have a ring of truth.
[doublepost=1510328741][/doublepost]
Yes, and a 16 bit, 16 K RAM PDP-11 minicomputer in 1978 ran around $30000 , about $70000 or more by today's prices. Moore's Law has had the greatest influence on tech prices over time. Comparing current hardware pricing to that of decades ago is a faulty paradigm. Bargain is found by comparing prices of current hardware offerings.
Last edited:
They still have to almost double and they trade at 300 times earnings. Earnings have to catch up sometime.
JUST as a comparison, Apple would be about a $15 TRILLION company if they traded at the same earnings multiple as AMZN and AAPL stock would trade at roughly $2700/share.
All those people that said Apple was doomed, failing and and done for all those years.... hahaha
Where the F#@% are your comments now?!?!?!?! hahahaha
Where the F#@% are your comments now?!?!?!?! hahahaha
I realize it is just a comparison, but Apple isn't growing their top line anywhere as quickly as Amazon. Amazon is recapitalizing like crazy which is why their earnings aren't catching up. How long they can perform that trick nobody can say but the markets at least seem to believe it can keep going for some time or those multiples would be far lower.
I understand why it's happening. My point was that AMZN is ALREADY stretched while AAPL has delivered earnings and trades under 20 times earnings.
Well in that case the comparison isn't very apt. Apple's multiples would sky-high too if they had somewhere to put their earnings where they grew the top line as quickly as Amazon's is growing. If Amazon's revenue growth took a serious stumble the markets might cease to believe and the stock could fall quickly, but I don't see any sign of either happening. They are being super-agressive and so far haven't made any damaging moves.
I didn’t bring up AMZN...the other dude did. He inferred amazon can catch AAPL in market value and my point was they still have a long way to go and markets are already super optimistic on their prospects, as they should be.
How far they come! I remember working in Apple buildings in Cupertino in the 90s. But by then, Microsoft had taken over the buildings. And at One Infinity Loop they were renting space to Computer Literacy Bookstores. Plenty of space for bookstore customers in the half empty parking lot.
