I can't believe some of the butt Hurt on here, it's priceless. . There's some serious self esteem issues going on here. ...
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.
Google Surpasses Apple as World's Most Valuable Company
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
And yet these trials and error are what make technology advance. Touch panel existed before the iPhone, and yet itwas barely used. Same with fingerprint sensors.
But Apple didn't create these technologies, they just used them. If no one ever made them in the first place, you'd have no iphone or in a very different form.
Too many people don't undrestand this concept, that is affecting smartphone sales. This is why Apple's stock forecast is lower than that of google. Smartphones, especially a narrow market of $650+ smartphones have entered the maturity phase, and have possibly hit their peak. With Apple's business so dependant on iPhones, Investors believe that there's one one way to go, and thats down in sales as the market further matures, and possibly starts entering decline. They do not believe Apple is situated to move past the Smartphone.
Google is different as they are in a product category itself that does not have a product life cycle. Advertising is something that is always growing. As more people exist, and more money to be earned, Advertising should consistently go up. Google has also possitioned themselves well enough that they are not tied directly to any particular product to take advantage of this. It doesn't matter if you're on iOS, android, WinPho. If you use the web, they can collect their data to monetize. if you are a future looking investor, its a much more stable, and much more likely market to continue to grow.
Thats what this current news is reflecting.
Hopefully they can. In the meantime, Cook seems obliged to show Wall Street see that he's actively innovating.
Perhaps that's why we're seeing leaks about cars and VR.
It's certainly why suddenly we're seeing so many interviews with top execs, visits to Ive's design lab, etc.
People shouldn't confuse huge revenue, most of which is stashed offshore, with a stock's value.
There are thousands of companies which make much, much less than Apple, but they're not dying either, nor is their stock.
Jobs didn't have to adapt. That's what he had people like Tim Cook as COO for. Jobs could concentrate on what products he liked or didn't like.
Tim Cook does not have that same advantage
What's funny is that every analysis I see... including ones from big name magazines... starts with an assumption that Google makes 2/3 of its mobile revenue from iOS. And they always quote the same source: a 10 second video clip from 2011.
Back then a Google attorney was testifying before Congress, and somebody posted a clip of her saying that 2/3 of their mobile searches came from iOS devices. What apparently nobody else except me did, was to track down and listen to the rest of that recorded testimony. That's when she went on to comment that the number of searches didn't matter, because the majority of their mobile revenue came from ads in apps accessed by mobile devices, not from mobile searches.
+1
Then let us be glad the opinion of people in this forum matters nil.
People have always been stupid whether you tell them or not. When you bragged about how Google was not stupid enough to do what Apple is rumored to do, you yourself opened the discussion to the topic of stupidity.
I know my neural networks well enough and I'm not very impressed with them or any other AI topic. Research in artificial intelligence has always captured peoples imagination, but never lived up to the dreams. Meanwhile powerful handheld computers became real in the past eight years, because of what Apple started with the Newton and finished with the iPhone. ARM chip design and mobile OS design are boring beyond compare, but they solve problems and enhance peoples lives like nothing during my lifetime. Mobile is a story bigger than the Internet. Refugees use smartphones on their flight, neural networks not so much.
I feel confident to proclaim that real intelligence in artificial form does not exist and likely will never exist. Once you know how a chess computer works, it becomes way less impressive. It's all just deterministic programming. Same input, same output. AI software only mirrors the amount of intelligence the programmer put in it, it doesn't come up with a single original thought of it's own.
What else? My iPad has three million transistors and will be outdated by March 15.
You are infinitely far away from the intelligence of a three year old. Only in an environment, where everything is set and well defined AI can find a pre-programmed solution. This solution can be better than that of any human being. A chess computer can beat a grandmaster in a tournament, but when you ask the same program to play a game of solitaire, tetris or bomberman it does not compute. That is the opposite of intelligence.
That's just computing with massive amounts of data. Google does it every day. Intelligence is not about to find the best possible solution, intelligence is to find your way when there is no known path of how to come up with a solution to begin with. When I take your keys away, you will come though the door no matter what. Call your mom, grab an axe, climb through a window. You will find a way once you've identified the problem, because you have intelligence.
Yeah, we call them computers and they are not intelligent themselves. They are tools we humans use to execute our own ideas. Only a few dumb components to create a skateboard and what breathtakingly complex stunts a skateboarder can do with it.
Self-driving cars are easy once you've reduced the task to require no intelligence at all. Here's a list of self-driving subways. Should driving on streets require to find solutions to unforeseen problems, computers will never make it.
Jesus, Google needs to find a way to stop Samsung from forking Android and taking it into another direction, like Amazon did with Fire OS. Do you really think Google Now is the answer to the companies competitive problems?
Speech recognition even lags the intelligence to understand what I'm saying let alone what I mean. Human communication requires the context of a whole human life, history, community. Every single word carries dozens of ideas and concepts thought about since centuries. When I start to speak German, you won't understand a word and you are an intelligent human being. Siri times 100 is still stupid as ****. Any progress just shows how far away AI still is from accomplishing anything actually intelligent.
Last edited:
What are you talking, about, really?
The smartphone market grew 10% in units (IDC) in 2015, Apple grew more than 20%.
Google, on the other side, only grew 13%!
Google is not the one that's going to have the advertising business, Facebook is! But Wall Street is dumb.
Yeah? Tell that to the newspapers!
So smartphone growth is going to mature and decline, while mobile advertising is rising even as fewer people are buying smartphones?
So they are dependent on the web? Too bad because: „The Internet Will Disappear“ says Google Chairman Eric Schmidt. Everything will be so seamlessly integrated in your smartphone via private cloud services, that you won't even think of it as using the web. Certainly you won't need to open a browser anymore.
Last edited:
I would argue that in Apple's case, products have been historically linked to the CEO. Jobs drove products and vision. He wasn't perfect, but he had a laser focus on exactly what products were supposed to do, and didn't try to make them do more. The top down approach worked well for them. Without that, they're just sort of wandering. The only real new thing they've done is the watch, and that's sort of underwhelming. There's no need to fire Cook. He's a great second in command kind of guy, but he honestly doesn't seem like a tech wiz - more like a smart accountant that got lucky by gaining Jobs' trust.
An interesting read: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/googl...th-while-apple-and-amazon-fade-171635262.html
Is it possible fans like we have on this site really just miss Apple's quasi-subversive underdog days? When buying a Mac almost felt like an act of defiance?
The iPod began a profound shift in perception. People who didn't know what a Mac was could ease slowly into the customer base, often from the familiarity of their Windows-powered computers. Then the iPhone vaulted Apple into the World's Most Valuable Company seat.
Those previous Apple fans didn't care about market share and they sure didn't care about market cap. They loved Apple products. Period. Now, to be a fan apparently means you need Apple to sell the most smart phones and, if that's no longer possible, at least make the most money from those sales. And when AAPL became the most valuable company on earth, suddenly that was the point.
So who cares if Alphabet wears the crown for a minute? How does that make the same Wall Street that made AAPL stock the most valuable suddenly stupid?
I think I miss the classic fans. They supported products they loved, not a market-determined and necessarily changing share price.
The iPod began a profound shift in perception. People who didn't know what a Mac was could ease slowly into the customer base, often from the familiarity of their Windows-powered computers. Then the iPhone vaulted Apple into the World's Most Valuable Company seat.
Those previous Apple fans didn't care about market share and they sure didn't care about market cap. They loved Apple products. Period. Now, to be a fan apparently means you need Apple to sell the most smart phones and, if that's no longer possible, at least make the most money from those sales. And when AAPL became the most valuable company on earth, suddenly that was the point.
So who cares if Alphabet wears the crown for a minute? How does that make the same Wall Street that made AAPL stock the most valuable suddenly stupid?
I think I miss the classic fans. They supported products they loved, not a market-determined and necessarily changing share price.
Add some thickness back to the 21" iMac, stick in an actual graphics card and I'll buy one. As it is, I'm buying my son a Windows machine instead. Tired of Apple squeezing the margins.
Stella - it should encourage quicker product innovation but many of us are concerned that they no longer have the ability.
To consider:
Liguid Metal??
Streaming video content deals??
Apple TV hardware??
HomeKit??
HealthKit??
$120,000,000,000+ on wasted buybacks??
Beats purchase @ $3,000,000,000??
$2,000,000,000 cost over run on new campus??
Ample concern about Apple under Cook...
[doublepost=1454448148][/doublepost]
Too many people don't undrestand this concept, that is affecting smartphone sales. This is why Apple's stock forecast is lower than that of google. Smartphones, especially a narrow market of $650+ smartphones have entered the maturity phase, and have possibly hit their peak. With Apple's business so dependant on iPhones, Investors believe that there's one one way to go, and thats down in sales as the market further matures, and possibly starts entering decline. They do not believe Apple is situated to move past the Smartphone.
Google is different as they are in a product category itself that does not have a product life cycle. Advertising is something that is always growing. As more people exist, and more money to be earned, Advertising should consistently go up. Google has also possitioned themselves well enough that they are not tied directly to any particular product to take advantage of this. It doesn't matter if you're on iOS, android, WinPho. If you use the web, they can collect their data to monetize. if you are a future looking investor, its a much more stable, and much more likely market to continue to grow.
Thats what this current news is reflecting.
Kind of basic 101 theory - but also very accurate. And, for many of the participants on this forum, whose PRIMARY ACCOUNTABILITY is it to ensure Apple is well situated to move past the smartphone?
Oh, that would be the CEO Tim Cook - the Steve Ballmer of Apple and architect of Apple's lost decade in the making.
[doublepost=1454448334][/doublepost]
Well, if, as you say, Apple is wandering, who is accountable for correcting that? Oh, that would be the CEO.
Last edited:
I bet we will see a USB-C port replace the lightning port very soon. This will allow 4K video to import.
Perfection comes with iteration. The first version of flat UI couldn't be perfect, neither was the first version of aqua UI. Nonetheless there are tiny improvements with every iteration.
No, they were not. It used to be that you could fry an egg on a Powerbook,
now the new MacBook doesn't even have a fan.
Look at that, visible screws on the outside!
now the new MacBook doesn't even have a fan.
Look at that, visible screws on the outside!
But the distance between Apple and everybody else has increased and so more and more people are buying their over-priced stuff. Before the iPod I had forgotten Apple even existed. Only after the iPhone presentation I bought my first Mac. And I wouldn't want to miss natural scrolling, invisible scrollbars and what else came from iOS.
Last edited:
Except the flat UI hasn't really evolved at all since iOS 7. Jony Ive and team just lazily redesigned iOS (and didn't even bother finishing it) and just called it a day. Very little of iOS 8 and 9 actually improves upon the UI and the appearance, in some cases even worse than before (i.e.: music app). It already looks stale and boring, especially compared to the much more refined and much less flat look of OS X Yosemite/El Capitan.
I hope iOS gets another (but much better) redesign in the near future, it kinda needs it.
IMO, Scott Forstall would have made the iOS and OSX GUIs an awful. The UI of Lion was hideous.
Personally, I absolutely hate skeuomorphic UIs, and much prefer consistency between applications and widgets like we have now. A GUI widget looking like the real world object is often inefficient - i.e., takes up way too much real estate.
The interface of Snow Leopard, and now in Mavericks are after is much better, IMO. Much more consistency UI wise.
People don't need a Calendar looking like a real calendar. Skeuomorphic UIs were fairly popular in the 70s and early 80s because people were just starting to use computers and most were basically clueless. Today, in 2015, things are much different for most part.
I hope the trend of skeuomorphic UIs never return.
Personally, I absolutely hate skeuomorphic UIs, and much prefer consistency between applications and widgets like we have now. A GUI widget looking like the real world object is often inefficient - i.e., takes up way too much real estate.
The interface of Snow Leopard, and now in Mavericks are after is much better, IMO. Much more consistency UI wise.
People don't need a Calendar looking like a real calendar. Skeuomorphic UIs were fairly popular in the 70s and early 80s because people were just starting to use computers and most were basically clueless. Today, in 2015, things are much different for most part.
I hope the trend of skeuomorphic UIs never return.
Those who claim that subsidy disappearing won't hurt Apple iPhone sales are delusional, it WILL hit them. Yes, I know you pay for your phone over two years anyway with a contract, but two things come into play:
1. Sticker shock (somehow it's easier to swallow to see $199 (w Contact) vs $649)
2. Corporate Pay: Many people do only pay $199 for their phones, since their companies foot their bill (or a big part of it), or they at least get a generous corporate discount from one of the carriers. So if your phone bill drops from $80 to $50, your employer will be happy, but not you.
1. Sticker shock (somehow it's easier to swallow to see $199 (w Contact) vs $649)
2. Corporate Pay: Many people do only pay $199 for their phones, since their companies foot their bill (or a big part of it), or they at least get a generous corporate discount from one of the carriers. So if your phone bill drops from $80 to $50, your employer will be happy, but not you.
Do you like your desktop, your trash bin, your files and folders or do you want to replace them with more abstract metaphors like: heap, void, entity and group?
WHOA, you had me in your corner until I read every single bit of this anti-Apple nonsense. Firstly, Apple isn't stupid and apparently you give them zero credit for being smart. They don't rely on ONE product. That's why they have multiple projects and they continue to add to that. So in case one begins falter they will not be headed back into bankruptcy.
And do yourself a favor before you make yourself look ridiculous, get your facts straight before posting. Apple wasn't saved by Microsoft. Microsoft was involved in anti-trust suit with Apple and Microsoft was losing the case. Rather than drag it out longer and to a more costly payout to Apple they offered to settle with Apple. And please, don't be ignorant to the fact. It was only $150 million in stock. If Apple and Jobs didn't have the smarts to take that tiny amount of money and re-build the company properly there would be no Apple. Money doesn't solve the problem otherwise Microsoft wouldn't be struggling so much. Did you forget the failure of the Zune? And the Surface has not be a huge success. It takes more than money to save a company.
But please go on. You're entertaining along with some others here who are very transparent in hoping that Apple does falter so they can feel satisfied about being "right".
[doublepost=1454426544][/doublepost]
Given the fact that I graduated college studying in Electronics and our classes were involved in working on the IBM, MS Dos and the Apple Macintosh.....and every single bit of my studies and exams were done on 100% pen and paper...That should answer your somewhat arrogant question.
Nothing I wrote is 'Anti-Apple'. But you seem to have been triggered by the word 'Microsoft' and went on to criticize Microsoft products as though I am somehow defending their choices.
Apple, Microsoft, Google... They're just companies and I have no emotional connection to them. I'm not hoping they 'falter' so I can feel satisfied about being "right", I don't care either way. I literally have no emotional connection to them and it doesn't affect me either way. If any of them collapsed tomorrow, I would just find an alternative.
But you've just proved my point. No company is immune from errors, shareholder revolts, changing demographics, customer preferences, manufacturing problems, international trade laws, or competition. Eventually Apple, Google and Microsoft will be replaced with new companies in the same way that they replaced older companies and older technologies.
Easy one. Stock prices mostly reflect on potential growth/revenue, not current revenue. Think of it this way. If you bought Apple stock for $100, the only way for it to go up to $200 is if some new product that everyone wants is introduced. Revenue that is relatively stagnant doesn't raise the price of stocks.
Or, think of it this way. What would you value more today: Apple stock from the year 1990 (when they were making nearly nothing) or Apple stock right now (when they are making billions)?
False, stock prices reflect nothing but the expectations of stock holders on whether the stock price will go up or down. It's completely self-referential with minor input from corporate news. People believe the stock will climb because the stock was climbing. Or they will say, the stock will fall because it climbed so much. Stock analytics are reliable as the weather forecast. After the fact they will tell you exactly why it happened, but their predictions will always be off.
You guys alright? I'm asking both sides of the coin. Maybe it's a good time to rub one out or bang your significant other if you got one. Might help. Especially the dude talking about robots being sentient soon. You need a girl mate.
I am not interested in the article really. I am more interested in why Cook looks like an exotic bird and why Page hasn't fixed those teeth. A little more for the teeth. BEAVERS!
I missed one: Nadella looks like Skeletor. It's true. I also can't understand a word he is saying.
I am not interested in the article really. I am more interested in why Cook looks like an exotic bird and why Page hasn't fixed those teeth. A little more for the teeth. BEAVERS!
I missed one: Nadella looks like Skeletor. It's true. I also can't understand a word he is saying.
Last edited by a moderator:
This is total rubbish. Check out what happens to a stock's price when the company pre-announces it won't make analysts' consensus earnings and see if you still believe the price of the stock is independent of the economics....