For the price thing, from what I known, has something to do with the quality control. Usually Apple raises their bar higher than other companies.
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's New Hardware Chief Johny Srouji Awarded Nearly $10 Million in Stock
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Not sure where you're coming up with "a grand total of one Apple store in upstate NY". There's one in Syracuse, Rochester, Buffalo, and Albany. All four are considered upstate NY. The vast majority of upstate NY residents live within a reasonable drive of these stores.
If you think $5 mil puts you in yacht/plane money you are mistaken. Also if you think spending money is all you do when you get money you are also mistaken.
The iPod was released in 2001. I didn't see my first one in person until 2003, and that was within my Apple-heavy family. I didn't see a stranger with one until 2004. 2005 was the year when suddenly everyone had or wanted one.
Not sure what years you're referring to when you say "when I was in high school"... Can't find your age anywhere.
I've seen ~10 Apple Watches in the wild so far. I know a person with an Apple Watch. It's only been out for 8 months. So I'd say it's far more successful than the iPod was.
Hell, that's even more successful than the iPhone was. I knew a single person with the iPhone. I don't recall anyone having a 3G. I knew several with 3GSs. So having seen several of the first generation of Apple Watch suggests it's moving quicker than the iPhone did.
I know that $5M is not yacht/plane money. I was saying that I didn't know what having more than $5M was for - I know that once you hit the billions you start to have enough money for yachts and planes, but IDK what you do after you buy your nice house and car and before you get a yacht.
What else do you do with money? I know investing is something you do at some point... I figure I'd rather pay off my house (guaranteed to save tons of money) than to invest (might make some money. Might lose some money.)
True. Remember it vests over 4 years in 8 equal installments, so it is more like $2.5 million per year. After taxes (roughly 41-47% based on California's high rate of 13% net of the tax deduction) it's more like $1.3 million per year over 4 years. That's actually not that much. The first two installments would buy a small house in Silicon Valley. Ask an insurance company how much of an annuity you could buy with the remainder, but I'd guess it would be about $150,000 per year over 40 years. $150,000 won't be worth much in 2059.
I'm not a financial planner, but with 15-year loans at or below 3%, and 30-year loans at or below 4%, I'm guessing most would say to keep the loan and invest the money. Generally speaking over those horizons, stocks do much better than 3-4% pre-tax (mortgage interest is also usually tax deductible, so the pre-tax return is what is important when comparing an alternative use of the money).
The idea of a nest egg is to save for when you won't be working (i.e. retirement) so you can do things to keep active like traveling, volunteering, etc.
Last edited:
"If I were king of the forrrrrest...."
One thing I would not do is base my decisions solely on my personal likes and dislikes, personal convenience or inconvenience (having a nearby Apple Retail Store???). Arguably, in business, the only "win" or "fail" is financial results. It's not whether the Apple Watch is a perfect product, or that it hasn't sold as many units as I imagine it should, or whether I personally would own one - success is predicated on whether the product is profitable, whether it met or exceeded sales targets (did they make too many, or not enough?), whether customers are satisfied with their purchase (and so will buy more of the company's products), etc.
In an imperfect world, success or failure cannot be judged on the basis of imagined perfection. It doesn't exist, so what one imagines as perfection is besides the point. All one can do is strive. One could pick and choose all the great features of all the competing products, wrap them up in a package and imagine the greatest product in the world... but it doesn't exist. Each feature comes at a cost, and cost-is-no-object is not reasonable. In the end, utility, not perfection, is what matters. Is it good enough to do the job in a satisfying manner, or do users seek better elsewhere? Do benefits outweigh shortcomings?
One also has to question whether "winner takes all" ("best" product based on reviews, etc.) is ever reasonable. First Place doesn't necessarily make Second Place a failure, other than that it failed to take First Place.
Are Maps, Siri, and Apple Pay a success? How do you measure that? It's deeply integrated into the iOS and OS X environment (if a built-in app needs a map, it's going to be Maps). Users don't have a choice in that, which means that Maps has to be so bad/good as to alienate/enamor Apple customers (drive/pull them to/from the competition) in significant numbers, before it can be judged a success or failure in and of itself. While we have statistics on Maps' utilization (high rates of usage on iOS devices), since it's a "captive" product, that number tells us little about consumer preference. I don't think there's publicly-available hard data there that suggests the quality of Maps is either hurting or helping Apple (internet gripes are not exactly hard data). Apple's overall customer satisfaction numbers have not changed much one way or the other since Maps, Siri, or Apple Pay were introduced, but considering how high satisfaction numbers are to begin with, it's pretty hard to make a dent on the upside ("improved satisfaction by 10%" means less than a single percentage point move in the satisfaction ratings).
Maps, Siri, Apple Pay... these aren't even monetizable products. They're features intended to improve the overall appeal of other products. Apple undoubtedly has plenty of internal metrics on feature-by-feature utilization and customer satisfaction, but external numbers are harder to come by. If, as a major shareholder, I could get information to which the rest of the shareholding public is not privy... I and the company would be in violation of insider trading laws. In the absence of information... the phrase, "arbitrary and capricious" comes to mind.
So let's bring it back to financial results. Tim Cook has presided over historically great financial results. On numbers alone, there are few in history who match that performance. Hundreds of billions in profits? Hundreds of billions in excess cash? Increased dividends, huge share buy-backs "returning value to shareholders?"
Would you fire that person because you can imagine even better than historic results? Not likely. You might fire a person for malfeasance, or insubordination.
There may be tens of millions of people on this planet with the intelligence and skills to lead Apple, given the opportunities necessary to reach that particular place. I certainly won't say that Tim Cook is the one person who ought to be leading Apple. He has the job, and the company has been doing very, very well during his tenure. If I was that hypothetical, large shareholder, I'd be asking him, "What do you need in order to do an even better job?"
If I was Tim Cook I'll continue to rape your wallet with extra needless gimmicks. You are still buy it no matter what...and I'll continue to increase the price... Why? Because it's Apple.
I personally don't like Tim crooks direction but I have to respect his hustle in business ...
To me, if Tim doesn't bring out the refresh Mac Pro ...he will another customer. Don't care about other fancy pansy products
Though he is not. Oil is cheap. When it comes to servicing cars, the cost is not not the consumables but the labour.
https://www.teslamotors.com/en_GB/support/service-plans
And BMW
http://www.dicklovett.co.uk/bmw/servicing-repairs/service-inclusive/
Tesla is more expansive.
Quick look at us tesla servicing , yearly is $600.....
That's not maintaince free. You have not serviced your 20000 mile electric? Once ?
And this is exactly why you will never be Apple's CEO, or any company's CEO for that matter.
The Apple watch has been on the market for not even a full year. I'm sure the iPod was every as well 8 months after it was released.
In terms of Apple Pay, it's not only Apple's problem but an entire industry's problem.
The myth that Cortana is better than Siri needs to stop. Even Google now is not that better than Siri.
All in all if Google and M$ fails emphatically, they're hailed as innovators, if Apple is not making blockbusters, they fail. Double standards and to a very large extent, just an expression of hatred, exaggeration and trolling.
Success and failure judged on whether you know someone with an Apple Watch or have seen someone use Apple Pay?!
I've seen people use Apple Pay on an Apple Watch. Does that mean Apple isn't failing anymore?!
I also have two Apple Stores within 10 mile of where I live...
This company is on a roll!
Your second link is a general BMW link - notice the repeated mentions of oil. It clearly has nothing to do with their all electric cars.
The Tesla service thing is comparable to Apple Care. Pretty much everything is covered by the 8 year/unlimited mileage warranty. I'm not really sure what is covered by the service but not by the warranty.
Even if servicing is $600/year, seems dirt cheap to me for servicing. I spend over $2000 / year on gas, $200 on oil, and some on coolant. None of those are involved in a pure EV. Plus having them come to you instead of you going to them is pretty sweet.
Read the table in the BMW link. Consumables are included.
Both BMW and Tesla offer an AppleCare offering, BMW is cheaper.
Gas is not a service cost, that is a running cost.
My links prove a BMW costs less to maintain if you buy thier version of Apple care. Like apple care you need to buy them at the start.
If you do not have BMW Apple care, yeah it's expansive .
Feel free to state that running costs are cheaper for a tesla due to petroleum prices .
I would rather not work for directly a bunch of shareholders, but thank you.
Personally, I prefer family businesses instead, such as Wegmans. Wegmans treats their employees well, stays up to date on technology, and also treats their customers well.
When you shop for the shareholder's profits, they don't care about you, the customer--but just screwing you out of your money with nothing in return. When you shop for a family's business, you get great customer service and appreciation.
This is why people prefer to use a credit union over a bank-- a bank works for shareholders, and does everything possible to maximize profits. They'll rip you apart with ridiculous fees and the customer service will be mediocre at best (unless you're lucky). The credit union works for you, and not shareholders (who are actually the members of the credit union, so they work for the members).
I wish more companies would be non-for-profit or family owned.
