Yeah that one thing that due to it a few hundreds of thousands in the us and in the west have suicided, gone bankrupt, lost their whole savings, will die penniless and without medical care while the environment is treated with scarce regard and is polluted and raped for future generations to suffer and oh well most of the rest of the globe is alternatively dieing of either hunger, extreme poverty or other economic and/or physical wars. We sure got it pretty nice over here, those of us who are fortunate to, and at some point it would be also nice to hold some people accountable so a few billions of humans could have it just infinitisemely better as well.
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.
To Beat the Law of Large Numbers, Apple Must Expand Its Product Line
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yeah that one thing that due to it a few hundreds of thousands in the us and in the west have suicided, gone bankrupt, lost their whole savings, will die penniless and without medical care while the environment is treated with scarce regard and is polluted and raped for future generations to suffer and oh well most of the rest of the globe is alternatively dieing of either hunger, extreme poverty or other economic and/or physical wars. We sure got it pretty nice over here, those of us who are fortunate to, and at some point it would be also nice to hold some people accountable so a few billions of humans could have it just infinitisemely better as well.
I think the NYT article jumped the shark here:
So they are projecting what Apple market cap would be in 2022 to France and Brazil's 2011 GDP -- as if Brazil or France will not be growing their GDP between now and 2022. Apple's 2012 market cap is roughly equal to the U.S's GDP in 1960. But so what.
I kinda think this article is a "thank you" to Apple after it dissed the NYT on the Mountain Lion preview. But that's just me. These are two companies known to be vicious and petty, and NYT staff have some of the biggest chips on their shoulders in the biz.
But the main absurdity of the premise of the article is that Apple will continue growing at rocket clips, even a pared down 20%. No credible person has that illusion. Apple like all high growth companies will slow down to a more normal 8-10% rate. Look at Intel, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Cisco, or any high flyer of the 90's or 00's. It's the norm.
Whether Apple is at the plateau of its high growth phase soon or not is hard to say b/c we don't know what all-new product(s) Apple has planned. I suspect Apple still has a few more years of high growth left w/ the tablet market just now coming into it's own. We'll know Apple is done growing for sure when it starts issuing a dividend to keep the stock "interesting" to institutional holders.
So they are projecting what Apple market cap would be in 2022 to France and Brazil's 2011 GDP -- as if Brazil or France will not be growing their GDP between now and 2022. Apple's 2012 market cap is roughly equal to the U.S's GDP in 1960. But so what.
I kinda think this article is a "thank you" to Apple after it dissed the NYT on the Mountain Lion preview. But that's just me. These are two companies known to be vicious and petty, and NYT staff have some of the biggest chips on their shoulders in the biz.
But the main absurdity of the premise of the article is that Apple will continue growing at rocket clips, even a pared down 20%. No credible person has that illusion. Apple like all high growth companies will slow down to a more normal 8-10% rate. Look at Intel, Microsoft, Qualcomm, Cisco, or any high flyer of the 90's or 00's. It's the norm.
Whether Apple is at the plateau of its high growth phase soon or not is hard to say b/c we don't know what all-new product(s) Apple has planned. I suspect Apple still has a few more years of high growth left w/ the tablet market just now coming into it's own. We'll know Apple is done growing for sure when it starts issuing a dividend to keep the stock "interesting" to institutional holders.
To me, Apple need to use that money to push more content on the iTunes store. Really, I was liking the selections in iTunes store, but for the past year or so, some labels are no longer putting their catalog in iTunes, and some even took out their existing contents! 
My iTunes purchases have gone down considerably due to this lack of content. Stupid labels. Apple should just buy them and get it over with.
My iTunes purchases have gone down considerably due to this lack of content. Stupid labels. Apple should just buy them and get it over with.
I'd expect to see this kind of growth for at least another couple years due to the innovations coming along. Apple's phone spanks everyone else's, the iPad has no serious contenders, and it all feeds back into their apps/music/movies as well as encouraging purchases of Mac computers. Apple will be a consuming corporation.
People are afraid of change, so they hate to hear it, but Apple could cannibalize the Pro line with the arrival of ThunderBolt. If they continue Pros beyond any 2012 revision, it is pure vanity.
It would be a much more accessible as a high-powered mini: something with just the best processors in a box that allows connection to all the peripherals which make a MacPro as it currently is configured or possible. A larger section of the market would welcome a half-priced, mini'd Pro with all the extras ripped out and the form reduced. It could be 1/3rd the size of the current Pro, easily.
People are afraid of change, so they hate to hear it, but Apple could cannibalize the Pro line with the arrival of ThunderBolt. If they continue Pros beyond any 2012 revision, it is pure vanity.
It would be a much more accessible as a high-powered mini: something with just the best processors in a box that allows connection to all the peripherals which make a MacPro as it currently is configured or possible. A larger section of the market would welcome a half-priced, mini'd Pro with all the extras ripped out and the form reduced. It could be 1/3rd the size of the current Pro, easily.
Not sure I get the connection of the MPs days being numbered and TB's introduction. The MP is the last Mac to not have TB, yes, but, from what we know right now, that is because of Intel's road map, not Apple's planned phase out of the MP.
The MP, as we know it today, may cease to exist well before the end of the decade -- there will be at least one more major update this year. However, Apple will continue to make a "pro level", highly user configurable and upgradable box, be it a MP or under some other moniker and form factor. It's a small part of their business, but a highly profitable one that uses minimal internal Apple resources given the longer shelf life, compared to the consumer line.
Also having a pro line is similar to car companies having an extreme high end -- low selling cars that enhance a company's reputation. For example, how many Corvette ZR1s or BMW M class cars to you see on the road compared to Malibus or 328i's?
No they aren't. They are saying that it can't go on like this because it's an absurd thing if Apple's market cap is actually higher than the GDP of Brazil or France.
those of you that believe Apple is coming out with an integrated smart TV.. can you explain to me the reason behind such a product?
Do you think they will kill off the existing apple TV product and just sell a totally integrated one?
Or do you believe Apple will have 2 products?
I'm not trying to troll here, I'm honestly trying to figure out the advantages of having an integrated apple TV vs. a traditional TV with a stand alone apple TV device (like the current product, but perhaps integrated with Siri and some sort of live TV on demand/video on demand service).
Do you think they will kill off the existing apple TV product and just sell a totally integrated one?
Or do you believe Apple will have 2 products?
I'm not trying to troll here, I'm honestly trying to figure out the advantages of having an integrated apple TV vs. a traditional TV with a stand alone apple TV device (like the current product, but perhaps integrated with Siri and some sort of live TV on demand/video on demand service).
I'm waiting to see what Apple does on the TV front, I'm prepared to replace my current model if the price/size/features are right. I would LOVE to have a smaller/lighter iPad. 7-8 inches sounds about right for e-reading.
Because I say that people that espouse socialist views should learn economics? Is that some sort of a slur? Why is it that someone's not a douche for dumping on "Right Wing Capitalists?" Isn't that a double standard?
Or is socialist somehow a "bad" word?
In this thread : People who have no idea how statistics work.
( More precisely the author have no idea )
( More precisely the author have no idea )
Money is only one part of wealth. But also, for all intents and purposes, resources are infinite. A particular resource may become exhausted, but some other resource or source will take its place. Also, humankind's labor is a resource that (hopefully) will be available forever. For example: If I craft my gold bar into a statue that others appreciate, I have added value (or wealth) to the system.
Okay if you discover more gold, then the value of all the gold in your model drops, as there's more of it overall so it's worth less.
Making you more wealthy and the other 9 people slightly less wealthy.
The top 1% of Americans own 40% of the country's wealth,
how did that end up happening in your "more money for everyone" world
I hope you don't take this math-crime serious. I feel like the author wants the reader to become stupidified.
So gold is worth less today than it was 100 years ago? Value only drops if there is MORE gold than demand. And how did my finding gold reduce the value of the $10 that non-gold holding people had? Since labor is a resource like gold, that's like saying that every Foxconn worker on the iPhone line is reducing the world's wealth with every production step. But that is a priori false. They are adding to the world's wealth.
Well we have more stuff than they did so I can see why it looks like that way, but relatively we aren't any wealthier overall.
Also, I actually would rather be a hunter-gatherer, according to research their diet was better, they worked far less than us (hunted for about 2 hours a day), they weren't as stressed, their problems were real and tangible.
They had dogs and spent more time with their family and friends outdoors than anyone can admit to in 2012, they were small communities that could live of nature and not have to farm anything. They were happier people!
One thing I'm continually surprised at is that there hasn't been a large "trickle down" effect on CPU sales from the iPhone/iPad growth. Why aren't more people buying mac's after seeing how nice their iDevices are performing? I know allot of people that absolutely love their iDevice but are still chugging away on some plastic craptop running Windows XP. I just don't get it.
Why is the burden for charity on the corporation rather than the people who gave them the money in the first place? If i felt very strongly that my money would be better used to help the needy than by being used to purchase what is largely a luxury item, then it would be my responsibility to ensure it is used that way.
Gold gets its value directly from how rare it is, not by how heavy it is. so if you suddenly found a gold mine tomorrow that doubles the world's amount of gold. Then nothing changed, it's just less rare so all gold is worth half as much.
You now have 50% of the world's gold, and it's still worth what 50% of the world's gold was last week, there's just more.
using your theory we could just print more money to solve all the world's problems.
Well we have more stuff than they did so I can see why it looks like that way, but relatively we aren't any wealthier overall.
Also, I actually would rather be a hunter-gatherer, according to research their diet was better, they worked far less than us (hunted for about 2 hours a day), they weren't as stressed, their problems were real and tangible.
They had dogs and spent more time with their family and friends outdoors than anyone can admit to in 2012, they were small communities that could live of nature and not have to farm anything. They were happier people!
You seem confused. To "have more stuff" is to have more wealth...so therefore we are by definition wealthier overall. You may be conflating satisfaction with wealth or happiness with wealth, but we, as a species, are wealthier.
Also, the percentage of human at risk of starvation has decreased over time. Hunter gathers were one hunt away from starvation. Agrarian communities could begin to build stores. Today about 14% of the world population is at risk.
You can idealize the past all you want, but we as a species are much better off today...with all of our problems.
I just mean, if I as an individual suddenly had say 1% of the world's money I'd feel very uncomfortable just keeping it. The more money you have that you don't need then the bigger difference you can make so surely we should look to companies rather than governments when it comes to helping each other out.
No matter how easy a mac is to use, among the older generation, familiarity is a major asset of windows. Add to that the price point for most macs. To some extent, the iDevices have trickled down, but I also think a computer is perceived as a much bigger purchase which requires more thought.