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 Officially a Trillion Dollar Company as Shares Cross $207 Mark
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The iPhone 6 wouldn’t have here if not for Cook. Steve said to me he would have never released it because he was stuck on small form factors. The 1T is all cook, my friend.
5400 rpm are more quiet than 7200 rpm harddisks. Also combined in a Fusion Drive the speed of the harddisk becomes less of an issue.
The reason that Apple puts hard drives in their computers is to drive prices down and still maintain their profit margin. It is also there to make you pay for a Fusion Drive or an SSD.
Also the hard drives are only on the lowest end desktop computers, reserved for the cheapest of the Apple customers and the ones who do not to do much advanced stuff. Like users of the Mac Mini.
this will depend on the infrastructure that is being rolled out and is not entirely true.
For someone like an IBM, and other large scale infrastructure that does most of it's work via virtual desktop, like Citrix etc, the end user workstation and it's performance is irrelevant to the performance and overall functionality. This is where that TCO numbers come in. These employers who have done these tests also do not actively support the end user hardware (a figure that's often not included in this) but only support the VDI and remote application layer.
However, there are other factors involved. For companies that require a total lock down of all hardware. Or, the actual performance of the individual workstation is important, the numbers from IBM is irrelevant.
What good is "less IT headache" (and I'm saying this as IT who manages and runs a team of helpdesk and project work), if the employees aren't getting contracts because they can't match the time of their competition? Sure I may not have to support them as much, But then they're also not doing as much work and IT budget ends up shrinking because the revenues aren't keeping up.
your comments repetively sound like you don't actually understand the IT business, especially in corporate / enterprise world.
Steve Jobs cared about the iPad, not the Mac. He is the one who popularised the post-PC world where PCs and Macs would just be specialised tools for a small minority.
And he also said in one of his last interviews that the post-PC world would make a lot of people angry.
[doublepost=1533300875][/doublepost]
You don't know what you are talking about. IBM does not use VDI or Citrix to any large extent. Very few large US companies use Citrix.
PCs and Macs in IBM is pretty bare boned when it comes to preinstalled software. If you need more software you go to a virtual "software center" and download pre-approved software.
Also in large companies or in large projects, you do not use your personal computer for high-computing needs, you use servers or dedicated hardware. Lets say a process takes 14 days on a Mac and 10 days on a PC, one would rather just say, lets fire up 10 virtual servers with 80 CPUs for the weekend and get the job done in one day.
IBM Canada 100% uses VDI for all remote users.
and the "centralized v workstation" thing is not cut and dry "all use this, or all use that". I've seen numerous companies that have different use cases depending on what exactly they are doing, who is doing it, and the type of employees that the workplace uses. For example, many large scale engineering firms will be mostly made up of de-centralized contractor and subdivisions, that use their own localized workstations for "Reasons". trust me, some of the reasons are assanine, But sharing isn't the most reasonable thing.
In Addition, depending on the size of the company, a large centralized server farm may not have the financial benefit. Server infrastructure is extremely expensive when you start talking about performance per dollar. (think in the millions), where a few hundred high powered workstations are more affordable.
there's no cut and dry one solution fits all. I myself prefer the centralized model, but it's not always feasible or cost effective.
I'm in the process of converting my current employer to one of these VDI based centralized systems. it's a lot more work, and cost outright than just having upgraded every workstation (at least here power is not a requirement). Even with a low powere VDI solution, we have spent almost 1 Million Canadian. But for our workplace scenario, where our users are... well, usually the problem, the TCO is estimated to drop in the long term. But we have a unique requirement as we're a financial institution, that security and lock down is #1 over user happiness.
And honestly, Not to generalize... but.. Bank Tellers.. are some of the dumbest and most computer illiterate people I have ever worked with. we've put iPads in their hands and they've managed to still **** that up
Revenue only matters in a growing company. Apple isn't a growth company anymore. Once things have stabilized like they have at Apple, profits become more important. Dividends become more important. By both metrics, Apple is way overvalued.
Amazon is still a growing company.
Not sure what's up with Alphabet... Waymo has potential, but it seems like every year for the past decade they've managed to screw up somehow and take defeat from the jaws of victory.
[doublepost=1533302541][/doublepost]
GM didn't sell enough cars to cover their overhead... I'd say that kind of counts as selling them at a loss.
So you’re not basing it on anything other than your personal opinion of Apple’s current products. That’s not how the stock market works.
[doublepost=1533302803][/doublepost]
If this was the case it would have happened years ago going by comments seen here. There isn’t one new product Apple has announced that people here haven’t complained about.
[doublepost=1533303770][/doublepost]
Steven Sinofsky (who used to lead Windows team at Microsoft) said it right on Twitter:
I remember once when CNBC’s Joe Kernan threw his iPhone on the table and said Apple was a gadget maker and what happens when someone else comes along and builds a better gadget. That defines Wall Street perfectly. In 2013 that someone else was Samsung, then it was Xiaomi, then Huawei. And in between Apple was doomed if it wasn’t right there with every fad/next big thing the ADA tech press was focused on. I remember a couple years ago when chatbots were all the rage, then it was smart speakers. And well before all of that Apple was doomed because it wasn’t selling a smaller tablet like the Kindle or Nexus 7. And then big phones came around and killed off tablets. Or the kook analyst that claimed if Apple didn’t come out with an “iWatch” in 60 days the company was over. Yet now the tech press seems to be completely bored with smart watches even though Apple Watch is a steady/growing multi billion dollar business. I have never seen a publicly traded company that people lose all rational thought over more than Apple. It boggles the mind.Steven Sinofsky (@stevesi)
8/3/18, 1:59 AM
@micahsb @asymco @RuFiOooooh Wall St wants to value Apple like a faddish consumer company not a platform ecosystem implying a need to manufacture hits. It overvalues established platform ecosystems based on their ability to extract profits from captive customers, while not having the pressure to innovate.
Apple is one of the few companies that made me more money through stocks than I invested in buying Macs, iPhones, iPads. 
Clearly you have a misconception about Steve. First off, the iPhone was 4 when Steve died and hardly a mature product. The iPad was 1. So you can’t make one iota of what Steve would have done in 2018. He even said in 2010 that computers will be like trucks and used much less than portable devices in the future , turned out he was totally right. So if you want to channel Steve do it on a basis of facts instead of misconceptions.
In regards to money.....Steve was heavily against buybacks and dividends publicaly, both of which Tim has implemented and a very nice thing to do for investors. Based on that who sounds more greedy?
How do you search for internet content? Excite? Lycos? Altavista?
Do you use iCloud? Because if you do, the services are hosted via Google Cloud Platform (GCP).
Do you have a Gmail account?
How do you look at maps on your desktop? Apple Maps?
What about street view for parking signs? Apple Maps?
What do 3rd world countries use for smart phones? Apple?
I have barely scratched the surface here, and it appears Google has a greater impact on connecting people to each other. So, yeah I agree with you 100%. Clearly, it's only an advertising company.
Isnt that like saying the companies that own the transatlantic fiber is more important than the content providers? Because without that fiber google couldn’t search its way out of a paper bag. And by the way I use bing.
Most people will buy Mac at almost any price, and keep buying no matter how much Apple neglects their product lines, or messes up their hardware. So why lower it?
I wish I could become this valuable if I blundered that much, and became this complacent resting on my laurels over the last 5-7 years. This is truly the "magic" of Apple.
[doublepost=1533315501][/doublepost]
Share prices are based on public perception of Apple's value. Apple is a master at propaganda. I personally judge Apple based on their actions, not their share prices.
The rest of us who know Apple well, and have been buying their products for many years have seen bad change: neglected product lines for YEARS, software and hardware blunders. The MBP keyboard issue is a HUGE one, and the fact that Apple tried to cover it up and make customers pay for their design flaw and have their staff lie about the issue? As enlightened as Apple claims to be, they wouldn't do anything until hit with multiple lawsuits forcing them to do the right thing for their customers. This is the new Tim Cook "corporate" Apple (money first) rather than Steve's (perfection first, then money will follow).
I personally feel Apple is coming around and and starting to correct their mistakes, but only after huge criticism and backlash from the community. Time will tell.
Last edited:
Of course - that's all sensationalism. It is undoubtable though, that someday, the iPhone's sales are going to come back down. Someone will find a way to make them last longer. Or a new disruption will come that makes phones irrelevant.
On that day, Apple will need a new product to replace it as their money maker. And I don't see it coming. Apple tried the Apple Watch, the Home Pod, the iPad, and the Apple TV. This is a long string of products that can't match the iPhone, even combined.
I'm not saying to short Apple or anything. I'm just saying you may want to reduce your exposure to Apple while they're at the peak. It's much more likely that Apple will drop to $500B than that they'll rise to $1.5T.
Deja vu all over again. The bolded as I recall is what was said about Apple when it was at 500B. And they beat the odds then and they will beat the odds again.
I'm not sure what your point is. My point was to describe that Google isn't just an advertising company.
People who need more than 128GB would pay to upgrade to 256GB or 512GB.
My system drive is a 128GB SSD, the rest of my data is on external HDDs.
[doublepost=1533328893][/doublepost]
macOS on a HDD is painfully slow, 10.9.5 and above really needs an SSD if only for the lower seek times.
And who needs "a lot" of storage in 2018? You can easily connect an external drive, you can use the built-in SDXC slot, you can use iCloud, etc.
But you can't speed up the slow HDD Apple puts in the Mac mini.
So, totally omniscient and omnipotent creator and ruler of everything, but if the almighty decided to buy Apple for some reason, they can't without first negotiating with Tim Cook for a discount.Less than Apple at this point.
There are lots of people who don't know enough about computers to change the config to what they need, like they don't know what SSD or HDD is and also can't tell whether 128GiB is enough storage. I agree macOS got really slow on HDDs with Mavericks, which is upsetting and IMO not an Apple-level consumer experience, but it's still usable.
Also, using an external hard drive is actually kinda advanced – I'm not sure if there are options in iTunes, iMovie, and Photos to change the library locations, but I always symlink them.