Microsoft Passes Apple to Become Most Valuable U.S. Company

[decafjava]

We need more competition than Apple vs Microsoft in the computer world. 2 companies control the tech world.

Errr what about Google? Facebook? Amazon?

 

[Defthand]

I just quoted the prices for a iPhones 2012 vs 2018. The prices of the highest tier phones in 2018 are more than 2012; the components are more expensive also. And top end s class is also more expensive than the cla.

Ah, I see what you were trying to illustrate. The lowest priced iPhone in 2018 is still cheaper than the lowest priced iPhone in 2012, correct? That's rationalizing when you consider that the cheapest iPhone in 2012 was also the second to most current model at the time. The lowest priced iPhone in 2018 is several generations old. Meanwhile, the price of the most current flagship model is hundreds more than the latest model of 2012. So, yes, Apple has hiked the cost of owning the latest model considerably, regardless of the reasons.

 

[MacBH928]

Errr what about Google? Facebook? Amazon?

none of them build an OS or computer hardware. Facebook is a socia network, Amazon is an online retailer/cloud service, and Google is a data collector and advertiser.

Microsoft + Apple build software and hardware and profit from selling the software and the hardware. I don't know any company, gov., or school that runs their computers on ChromeOS.

 

[mingravity]

I wish this thread was merged with apple being trillion dollar company. Had to face so much for saying apples stock was volatile and based on limited USP

 

[Defthand]

Oh I forgot Apples 10 million Macs were bigger than Microsoft's 90% market share. My bad...

That's a relative comparison. Smaller players can be viable nonetheless. I suppose you'd use the same reasoning with iPhones. Apple's global market share there is also unimpressive when considered as a percentage. Therefore, you'd shutter the company for only selling a couple of billion units?

 

[tromboneaholic]

Do you mean the Surface Go with LTE? Because that's a thing.

And no one is buying them.

 

[decafjava]

none of them build an OS or computer hardware. Facebook is a socia network, Amazon is an online retailer/cloud service, and Google is a data collector and advertiser.

Microsoft + Apple build software and hardware and profit from selling the software and the hardware. I don't know any company, gov., or school that runs their computers on ChromeOS.

Google is far more valuable than MS and they do make the most popular OS in the world, Android. Yes they distribute it freely (except a small fee for integrating Google services IIRC) but they are still a big player and have shaped the tech world as much as the other two.

 

[ftaok]

Ah, I see what you were trying to illustrate. The lowest priced iPhone in 2018 is still cheaper than the lowest priced iPhone in 2012, correct? That's rationalizing when you consider that the cheapest iPhone in 2012 was also the second to most current model at the time. The lowest priced iPhone in 2018 is several generations old. Meanwhile, the price of the most current flagship model is hundreds more than the latest model of 2012. So, yes, Apple has hiked the cost of owning the latest model considerably, regardless of the reasons.

On the other hand, Apple has also made (allowed?) the newer iPhones to last longer. Current generation iPhones can be expected to enjoy 7 iOS upgrades. iPhones from 2012 could only get 4 or 5 updates, and that 5th update would typically make them unusable.

If the usable life of an iPhone increases by 50%, the price can go up 33% and you'll still break even on the overall cost of ownership.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

So throw an ad-hom in, because your opinion piece can't really counter the facts of the MSRP in 2012 for the iphone 5. Macs are a totally different value proposition than iphones

I think a fallacy is to argue that there is no increase in pricing yet the average sales price has increased.

 

[sdwaltz]

This is one of the most condescending comments I've read in a long time.
Do you seriously think Gucci is a "premium brand" that produces "quality" products? A Honda Accord is 10 times the quality a f*** Gucci shirt is, which proves, you have NO sense for quality (or empathy) at all.

By the way, belonging to the (probably upper) middle-class doesn't mean you automatically have any class at all.

Not to mention Honda arguably makes a better car than Mercedes does.

 

[1050792]

That's a relative comparison. Smaller players can be viable nonetheless. I suppose you'd use the same reasoning with iPhones. Apple's global market share there is also unimpressive when considered as a percentage. Therefore, you'd shutter the company for only selling a couple of billion units?

Yes because we are talking about user base and that's what you brought up here, no excuses can be made when the numbers speak for themselves.

 

[LordVic]

For Anyone that wants to see the question asked and the full quote, it's:


Apple’s growth
Apple had a reputation as a company that absolutely broke the mold and set its own course. Looking back from where you are today with NeXT, do you think that, as Apple grew larger, it could have sustained that original approach? Or was it destined to become a big standard American company?

That’s a funny question. Apple did grow big and sustain that approach.
When I left Apple it was a two billion dollar company. We were Fortune 300 and something. We were 350. When the Mac was introduced we were a billion-dollar corporation; so Apple grew from nothing to two billion dollars while I was there. That’s a pretty high growth rate. It grew five times since I left basically on the back of the Macintosh.

I think what’s happened since I left in terms of growth rate has been trivial compared with what it was like when I was there. What ruined Apple wasn’t growth. What ruined Apple was values. John Sculley ruined Apple and he ruined it by bringing a set of values to the top of Apple which were corrupt and corrupted some of the top people who were there, drove out some of the ones who were not corruptible, and brought in more corrupt ones and paid themselves collectively tens of millions of dollars and cared more about their own glory and wealth than they did about what built Apple in the first place — which was making great computers for people to use.

They didn’t care about that anymore. They didn’t have a clue about how to do it and they didn’t take any time to find out because that’s not what they cared about. They cared about making a lot of money. So they had this wonderful thing that a lot of brilliant people made called the Macintosh and they got very greedy. And instead of following the original trajectory of the original vision — which was to make this thing an appliance, to get this out there to as many people as possible — they went for profits and they made outlandish profits for about four years. Apple was one of the most profitable companies in America for about four years.

What that cost them was the future. What they should have been doing was making reasonable profits and going for market share, which was what we always tried to do.
Macintosh would have had a 33% market share right now, maybe even higher, maybe it would have even been Microsoft, but we’ll never know. Now it’s got a single-digit market share and falling. There’s no way to ever get that moment in time back. The Macintosh will die in another few years and it’s really sad.
The problem is this: No one at Apple has a clue as to how to create the next Macintosh because no one running any part of Apple was there when the Macintosh was made — or any other product at Apple. They’ve just been living off that one thing now for over a decade and the last attempt was the Newton and you know what happened to that.

It’s kind of tragic, but as unemotionally as I can be, that’s what’s happening. Unless somebody pulls a rabbit out of a hat, companies tend to have long glide slopes because of the installed bases. But Apple is just gliding down this slope and they’re losing market share every year. Things start to spiral down once you get under a certain threshold. And when developers no longer write applications for your computer, that’s when it really starts to fall apart.

So many years later and it feels like this exact excerpt would apply today.

 

[Dinoone]

MS making big profits by selling AI to the Pentagon under the moniker "the-people-are-the-product".

 

[LordVic]

I am all for choice and people should use the products that bring them the most value (not bashing your choice at all), but I am not really sure on the innovation part. What do you feel that Microsoft and Samsung has done as of late that was truly innovative?

A lot of Microsoft's current innovation is outside of the consumer space and is aimed at enterprise and development platforms.

In this regard, Microsoft has a massive business that Apple doesn't have. While Apple is pretty much 100% consumer facing for it's revenues, Microsoft's bulk comes from elsewhere.

They have some remarkable R&D departments that tend to come up with some amazing new tech. They tend to drop the ball on releasing that tech, but they do work on it. For example, the whole craze about AR was essentially kick started by Microsoft's HoloLens project. Touch based computers were kicked off by Microsoft's work in multi-touch and software (the original surface, not the consumer product). Microsoft has a very VERY long history of developing, innovating and inventing technologies, even ones that aren't necessarily consumer profitable.

are their consumer focused tech that innovative? meh, some neat little features here and there. It's the back end solutions and integrations that really shine for Microsoft.

 

[I7guy]

New phones always have new technology in them. That's what makes them new.

Under-screen fingerprint readers are new technology and you can still get them on a phone about half the cost of the XR whose FaceID has been around for several generations.

Updated consumer products sometimes sell for a premium. In the case of the under-screen finger print readers, what’s the cost of them vs how much did the shelf components are already in the phone and what’s the support and longevity?
[doublepost=1543340785][/doublepost]

I think a fallacy is to argue that there is no increase in pricing yet the average sales price has increased.

So Apple is supposed to charge $849 for the iPhone regardless? Or is Apple allowed to adjust pricing based on component costs and economic conditions. Saying there’s s price increase is as fallacious as saying there’s no price increase, because what does a price increase even mean?

 

[iop]

Im glad MS is competing witth Apple, but that doesn’t change the fact that windows 10 is ugly and featureless. I really hope ms will come around and do something about that.

 

[I7guy]

Ah, I see what you were trying to illustrate. The lowest priced iPhone in 2018 is still cheaper than the lowest priced iPhone in 2012, correct? That's rationalizing when you consider that the cheapest iPhone in 2012 was also the second to most current model at the time. The lowest priced iPhone in 2018 is several generations old. Meanwhile, the price of the most current flagship model is hundreds more than the latest model of 2012. So, yes, Apple has hiked the cost of owning the latest model considerably, regardless of the reasons.

What does hiked the price even mean? If the price went up a dollar since 2012 did Apple “hike” the price. Or is Apple allowed to adjust the price based on the component costs?
[doublepost=1543341128][/doublepost]

You are not citing a fact. You are comparing two different price ranges. In 2012 the top of the line iPhone was offered from 649 to 849$, in 2018 the top of the line iPhones range from 999 to 1499. That is quite a price hike you prefer to ignore. Therefore revising history by adding a false point of reference.

In 2012 Apple was selling phones ranging price from $649 to $849. In 2018 Apple is selling phones ranging in price from $449 to $1500. The landscape has changed since 2012. And there are multiple ways of looking at the different pricing. Therefore no revisionism took place.

 

[smoledman]

Ever since I've been around this website, I've seen this phenomenon of users flinging around Apple's profits or market cap. It's a case of 'my daddy is better than your daddy'. How pathetic!
[doublepost=1543341722][/doublepost]

And no one is buying them.

Cite.

 

[Applemaniac7]

It’s about as equivalent to buying a pizza at that gives you more toppings for your money. That cheese is at the bottom of the barrel, probably loaded with hormones. Used well water instead of distilled, and the meat is the cheapest cuts they could find. Not incredibly good for your health, probably give you a stomachache later. Apple uses the best ingredients and it’s actually healthier. Sure some people like and even prefer well-water NY style $1 slices, and so do I - but what’s actually better?

You don’t know what your getting into with a company like Huwei or htc, ridden with software and hardware backdoors make it a questionable choice for any business/government professional trying to protect data or cryptocurrencies.


Seen this with so many of the agencies I’ve worked with. They try to be clever and cut costs using android phones and tablets. Not only do they not last as long, but there is a host of issues that I’ve personally experienced at dozens of events with non functioning devices that don’t work, have issues, or just have spent too much time troubleshooting. Eventually they come to their senses and buy all Apple.

In the end, Apple products cost less in the long run...without the hassle. They are more secure, reliable, and last longer - and important value proposition for not only the consumer, but any businesss or government professional.

2013 called, it wants it hyperbole back!!

 

[9081094]

On the other hand, Apple has also made (allowed?) the newer iPhones to last longer. Current generation iPhones can be expected to enjoy 7 iOS upgrades. iPhones from 2012 could only get 4 or 5 updates, and that 5th update would typically make them unusable.

If the usable life of an iPhone increases by 50%, the price can go up 33% and you'll still break even on the overall cost of ownership.

Weird way of thinking... in 5 years the quality of the camera, battery, screen etc. will be crap compared what’s on the market as will the storage. I don’t argue that the A-chips aren’t good, but in 5 years I may assume the A-chip will be 5 times better, screens will be better, you’ll have more storage, faster lte, better batteries. Electronics don’t have a compelling lifespan. What’s introduced today will be outdated tomorrow. That’s why every electronic company update their products every year, except Apple (computers) and that’s their mistake.

 

[run1976]

What does hiked the price even mean? If the price went up a dollar since 2012 did Apple “hike” the price. Or is Apple allowed to adjust the price based on the component costs?
[doublepost=1543341128][/doublepost]
In 2012 Apple was selling phones ranging price from $649 to $849. In 2018 Apple is selling phones ranging in price from $449 to $1500. The landscape has changed since 2012. And there are multiple ways of looking at the different pricing. Therefore no revisionism took place.

That is untrue. The iPhone 4 and 4s were sold alongside the 5 in 2012 and the 4 was 200$ cheaper than the 5 so the two-year old phone was priced about the same as today, but the flagship was cheaper. The range of prices only expanded at the top, not the bottom as you suggest.

 

[I7guy]

That is untrue. The iPhone 4 and 4s were sold alongside the 5 in 2012 and the 4 was 200$ cheaper than the 5 so the two-year old phone was priced about the same as today, but the flagship was cheaper. The range of prices only expanded at the top, not the bottom as you suggest.

So in 2018 the high-end got even higher end and Apple has been following the strategy of selling multiple models every year. As I noted previously if Apple raises the price $1 is the raising the price?

 

[tromboneaholic]

Ever since I've been around this website, I've seen this phenomenon of users flinging around Apple's profits or market cap. It's a case of 'my daddy is better than your daddy'. How pathetic!
[doublepost=1543341722][/doublepost]

Cite.

Compare the past 12 months of iPad unit sales to all Surface devices during the same time period and get back to me.

 

[Nuno Lopes]

So Apple is supposed to charge $849 for the iPhone regardless? Or is Apple allowed to adjust pricing based on component costs and economic conditions. Saying there’s s price increase is as fallacious as saying there’s no price increase, because what does a price increase even mean?

I made no consideration about what Apple is supposed to do or what they are allowed to do.

I have said they are increasing the prices of their products for years now. I also think pricing customers out is an agressive move against their customer base that can have unpredictable effects.

 

[run1976]

So in 2018 the high-end got even higher end and Apple has been following the strategy of selling multiple models every year. As I noted previously if Apple raises the price $1 is the raising the price?

Why $1? The flagship is at least $350 more expansive than 2012.
[doublepost=1543343425][/doublepost]

So Apple is supposed to charge $849 for the iPhone regardless? Or is Apple allowed to adjust pricing based on component costs and economic conditions. Saying there’s s price increase is as fallacious as saying there’s no price increase, because what does a price increase even mean?

First and foremost it means that Apple increased the price more than competitors. If it is cost driven, they should try to figure out why they are producing so much more costly than others. If it is driven by internal margin targets they should consider if these targets can be secured in the long run with a shrinking less loyal customer base. I doubt it. And apparently a growing number of investors doubt it as well.