Thursday, August 3rd 2017

Apple the First American Trillion-Dollar Company

Apple has become the first American company valued at over 1 trillion Dollars (that's $1,000 billion), a figure rivaled only by some state-owned Chinese banks that hold over a trillion Dollars in AUM (assets under management). Founded in 1976 in a garage with a few hundred Dollars in seed-capital, the trillion-Dollar Apple is now one of the world's leading tech companies dominating consumer electronics, computing, big-data, and content publishing, worldwide. Apple shares rose 2.09 percent Thursday, to close at $207.39, which raised the company's market value to $1.002 trillion. The first company worldwide to cross the trillion-Dollar mark was PetroChina, in 2007. The Chinese state-owned oil firm stayed above $1T for a brief period of time, before the 2008 Financial Crisis torched the world economy.
Source: Bloomberg
Add your own comment

29 Comments on Apple the First American Trillion-Dollar Company

#1
StrayKAT
lol... if only I had invested at their low point. I was a Apple fan in the 90s, and knew Steve Jobs' return would be a shot in the arm. I couldn't even convince anyone else I was right either.
Posted on Reply
#4
kieguru
mohammed2006 said:
Isnt saudi aramco is valued neer 2t
SA isn't an American company
Posted on Reply
#5
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
mohammed2006 said:
Isnt saudi aramco is valued neer 2t
That is what they valued themselves to. This Bloomberg analyst puts them at half that.
Posted on Reply
#6
TheGuruStud
You can make a lot of extra money selling the shittiest accessories on the planet. What's the mark up on cables/adapters/headphones? 2000%? Don't forget about dimwits wasting 30% of their money on apple when buying music. The stupid tax is hiiigh.
Posted on Reply
#7
TheDeeGee
How to achive this?

Sell $250 Phones for $1000.
Posted on Reply
#8
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
TheGuruStud said:
Don't forget about dimwits wasting 30% of their money on apple when buying music. The stupid tax is hiiigh.
You mean apple music? They actually have a better sound quality than Spotify. With the right setup the difference is pretty big even. Tidal is even better.
Posted on Reply
#9
TheGuruStud
Frick said:
You mean apple music? They actually have a better sound quality than Spotify. With the right setup the difference is pretty big even. Tidal is even better.
I mean fools buying mp3s. Streaming is for the birds.
Posted on Reply
#10
windwhirl
I bet Microsoft never thought this would happen when they invested $150 million in Apple in 1997.
Posted on Reply
#11
RejZoR
The magic of funneling profits through tax free or stupid low taxes countries. Also, all the idiots buying overpriced Apple stuff lol
Posted on Reply
#12
Vayra86
Frick said:
You mean apple music? They actually have a better sound quality than Spotify. With the right setup the difference is pretty big even. Tidal is even better.
Great comparison, on demand files versus streamed content... Its all lossy anyway, choice of evils if you're an audiophile and everyone who isn't probably can't hear the difference or doesn't care enough.

As for Apple.. it doesn't cease to amaze me how they've acquired their cult-like following and how they continue to extract money out of nothing more than branding and some cheap hardware. Quite an achievement, though I can't say I'm admiring it. If you compare IOS today to Android for example, it is so incredibly inferior on virtually everything, its stunning that people still fall for it. Apple lags behind the curve and thrives on it. Its so weird, I guess it requires a different kind of intelligence to 'like' that, mostly a non-tech savvy one.
Posted on Reply
#13
trparky
Vayra86 said:
If you compare IOS today to Android for example, it is so incredibly inferior on virtually everything
If you ask me... until the whole updating part is solved in the Android world in which you are guaranteed updates within a week of Google releasing them to world, iOS will be better in every way. Everyone else can deploy updates fast and efficiently including Microsoft, Linux, Google Chrome, Apple, Firefox, and just about every other company in the world but Android? It's a clusterf**k.

Yes, I know... customization is the reason why Android is like this but I beg to differ, if you ask me it's a sign that Android is a piss-poor design from a purely technical point of view. Think about it this way... you can do a whole lot of stuff to Windows including add context menu additions, Explorer file properties tabs, and hell... you can change the whole stinkin' user interface like what WindowBlinds does all without changing one stinkin' line of core Windows code. All you have to do is add some registry keys and maybe a DLL or two and boom, you're done. We can even go further and say that a developer can create a Windows shell extension for Windows 7 and have a reasonable expectation that it'll work on Windows 10 with little to no issues. Hell... you can do the same thing in both Firefox and Google Chrome with the use of extensions, you can change the whole behavior of both browsers with nothing more than an extension. Why in God's name didn't they think of this shit when they designed Android? Android wouldn't be the complete clusterf**k that it is today if they had thought about this shit years ago.

You can do the same thing on Linux itself, you can customize stuff and plug stuff in without changing a thing about the core code of the user interface be it Gnome, KDE, Cinnamon, Mate, Unity, or what have you. Oh but no... you can't do that on Android. *shakes head* Again... Why in God's name didn't they think of this shit when they designed Android?
Posted on Reply
#14
Vayra86
trparky said:
If you ask me... until the whole updating part is solved in the Android world in which you are guaranteed updates within a week of Google releasing them to world, iOS will be better in every way. Everyone else can deploy updates fast and efficiently including Microsoft, Linux, Google Chrome, Apple, Firefox, and just about every other company in the world but Android? It's a clusterf**k.

Yes, I know... customization is the reason why Android is like this but I beg to differ, if you ask me it's a sign that Android is a piss-poor design from a purely technical point of view. Think about it this way... you can do a whole lot of stuff to Windows including add context menu additions, Explorer file properties tabs, and hell... you can change the whole stinkin' user interface like what WindowBlinds does all without changing one stinkin' line of core Windows code. All you have to do is add some registry keys and maybe a DLL or two and boom, you're done. We can even go further and say that a developer can create a Windows shell extension for Windows 7 and have a reasonable expectation that it'll work on Windows 10 with little to no issues. Hell... you can do the same thing in both Firefox and Google Chrome with the use of extensions, you can change the whole behavior of both browsers with nothing more than an extension. Why in God's name didn't they think of this shit when they designed Android? Android wouldn't be the complete clusterf**k that it is today if they had thought about this shit years ago.

You can do the same thing on Linux itself, you can customize stuff and plug stuff in without changing a thing about the user interface be it Gnome, KDE, or what have you. Oh but no... you can't do that on Android. *shakes head*
Those updates are they really an issue now?

If your Android device gets hacked 9 out of 10 times its user error or something in the Store that wasn't vetted properly. And OS updates? I mean... Android would not have nearly 90% market share if people cared about updates. I still remember very well how LG got sued for its Optimus 2X. Didn't stop anyone buying another Android phone.

I mean yes, its nice to get them years down the line, but is it a killer feature? Can't say it is. And when MS puts out an update, the very same people who DO whine about Android update policies are the ones tweaking Windows to avoid what MS shoves their way. Ironic don't you think?

The reality is most users just want what they've grown accustomed to, and an update has the potential to destroy that preference. The only real reason for updates is security and if you look at the amount of actually useful Android hacks? Its a non-issue - or a so called geek problem only. We only care because we know. From an end user perspective, Android is just fine and has been for years.
Posted on Reply
#15
ssdpro
TheDeeGee said:
How to achive this?

Sell $250 Phones for $1000.
It's all this. Cheaply built products on young foreign labor marketed with elaborate schemes at high credit prices - it's all built into the contract and payed in installments. Android devices account for 77% of all mobile devices. Apple devices account for 19%. Even by mfg Samsung is 30% and Apple is obviously that same 19%. Yet so many people actually think Apple is the biggest and everything revolves around the iPhone because the margins are so high and their infowar or misinfowar marketing.

http://gs.statcounter.com/os-market-share/mobile/worldwide
http://gs.statcounter.com/vendor-market-share/mobile
https://www.statista.com/statistics/266136/global-market-share-held-by-smartphone-operating-systems/
https://netmarketshare.com/mobile-market-share
Posted on Reply
#16
trparky
Vayra86 said:
If your Android device gets hacked 9 out of 10 times
Have most Android devices been updated against that one WiFi WPA vulnerability yet? I believe that it's called KRACK. If not, I'd be very careful about what you transmit even over an encrypted WiFi link.

You make some good points there @Vayra86, my view of things comes from very much a geek point of view. I take security very seriously because I know of the threats out there. Yes, most people don't take security seriously until it's way too damn late. Even companies have this problem, one of the big ones was Equifax and that was a real doozy. US citizens still have to deal with the fallout from that happening. Oh sure... let's give them a year of free credit monitoring, that should quell the uprising.
Posted on Reply
#17
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
TheGuruStud said:
I mean fools buying mp3s. Streaming is for the birds.
Ah i see. Also I disagree with you.

Vayra86 said:
Great comparison, on demand files versus streamed content... Its all lossy anyway, choice of evils if you're an audiophile and everyone who isn't probably can't hear the difference or doesn't care enough.
Tidal uses FLAC actually. And I disagree that people don't hear the differences. Caring about it is a whole different thing, and they don't, and that is fine.

About Apple being so big... They make stuff people want, for good and bad. It's not like people are forced to buy iPhones, but they do.
Posted on Reply
#18
trparky
Frick said:
I disagree that people don't hear the differences. Caring about it is a whole different thing, and they don't, and that is fine.
You have to have decent music in the first place to really care about audio quality. Today's pop crap is just that... crap. I can't stand that stuff. It's mass produced garbage.
Posted on Reply
#19
ssdpro
Frick said:
About Apple being so big... They make stuff people want, for good and bad. It's not like people are forced to buy iPhones, but they do.
There is the same flaw. The value doesn't equate with size. Apple has the valuation of 1 trillion not because of size; Samsung maintains a higher product market share. Apple has a 19% market share and Samsung has 30%. Apple iOS devices have 19% against Android devices as a whole at 77%. People aren't choosing an Apple device 81% of the time. It is just that Apple sees higher margins thanks to separatation of design from manufacturing so the sleazy manufacturing practices don't attach to Apple too closely.
Posted on Reply
#20
Frick
Fishfaced Nincompoop
ssdpro said:
It is just that Apple sees higher margins thanks to separatation of design from manufacturing so the sleazy manufacturing practices don't attach to Apple too closely.
Other OEMs don't have their own manufacture either. But what really annoys me about Apple is how they get away with having their huge margins. A friend works at a ... TV shop, really but they sell all sorts of things. The shops cut on Samsung phones is roughly 20% (at least this was true a few years back). Their cut on Apple phones was roughly 5%. Why did they even sell Apple phones then? Because that is what people want. The iPhones sales have dropped though (or at least they're not growing), and Huawei has risen massively in the last few years, which is a good thing (unless you think Huawei is just chinese spyware).

trparky said:
You have to have decent music in the first place to really care about audio quality. Today's pop crap is just that... crap. I can't stand that stuff. It's mass produced garbage.
I put my post in spoilers because I'm gonna rant a bit (1000 words actually) about this.

[SPOILER="important stuff"]This is one of the most bizare opinions people have, and it's shockingly prevalent. I used to think so too, when I was 13 and exclusively listened to Metallica and Nirvana and before the Internet made it big. But now everyone says this, from young kids way into Pink Floyd to 50-somethings who only listens to jazz "because everything else sounds the same". Yes, there is a point to the statement seeing how pop (and lots of music really) today generally is simpler than music from yesteryear. But this is only true if you stay in the mainstream stream (lol?), but the things is you don't have to do that. People cry over how Justin Beiber is everywhere, and people comment on Youtube on how awful Artist X is ... but whay in the seven hecks are they listening to it in the first place? Now we have infinite freedom to listen to whatever we want to, but for some reason people who hates Justin Bieber are seemingly incapable of not having him in their faces. I think Justinello (if that is his nick name) is a good singer, based on a four minute video of him a friend showed me. He was really good, he has talent. And that is the extent of my experience with Justin Bieber, apart from some sightings in newspaper headlines. If people hate him so much they don't have to listen, or care, but for some reason they do. They share videos on Facebook explaning why he sucks, they share news items about how he has boned his mother or whatever and they are enjoying themselves so much, and they are filled with righeous fury over his successes. And it's all their own doing.

And this is true for all modern music people love to hate. The best moment to be a fan of good music is right now. In the olden days we had a few radio stations and you had some cassettes/8-tracks/CD's/vinyls/whatever and that was it. If you were big into metal you had to buy special magazines and order expensive stuff from far away lands, and if you happened to live out in the sticks (like I did) you had access to a local radio station mostly playing bad folk music. Bad accordion based folk music. There was like one TV show (we had three channels) with popular music, and sometimes when we visited big music we drooled in the disc shops, but we couldn't really afford to spend €15 on a CD. You get lots of potatoes for that kind of money. And then the Internet arrived, and suddenly I could listen to anything I wanted. And it's the same for everyone. Now we can listen to all the good stuff from ages past, and incidentally here's a Youtube video with two hours of classical chinese music. Did you have that when you were a lad? I don't think so. And here's an awesome album (the last album I ever bought btw, and I imported it from Australia) with zeuhl-punk. I couldn't get that in 1995, and definitely not in 1965 (also because I wasn't born then). What's zeuhl, you ask? Progressive rock invented in the 70's by a guy who made up his own language. "AHA!" someone says, "See, the 70's is where all the good stuff happened, man! IT'S ALL COMING TOGETHER!" And well yeah, sure, but the thing is I can still listen to that, and I can listen to Zoo. And James Brown. And Caro Emerald. And Dyers Eve by Metallica. And Robyn (because god help me, I really like her 2010 Body Talk). And even Kreyashawn. And Pink Floyd, and that thing John Paul John of Led Zeppelin fame did with Josh Homme, Dave Grohl and Alain Johannes. And this thing from 1935 (Now your nuts hang down like a damn bell sapper; And your dick stands up like a steeple;Your goddamn asshole stands open like a church door;And the crabs walks in like people) if I so choose (but I really don't because man).

I have that freedom now. I don't have to listen to whatever music some guy on TV with bad hair deems worthy of broadcasting. I don't have to listen to whatever the DJ at the local radio station thinks is groovy. I don't have to trudge through endless racks of best selling whathaveyous in a record shop to find something worth the money. Go to any youtube video with a classic rock song and pretty high up in the comments there will be comments along the lines of "they don't make music like this anymore", or "so much better than the radio crap", and "thank god it's not Justinello". And it's fine to dislike music. I'm not a huge fan of jazz, and I dislike the people claiming jazz is the superior music. And 80's synth symphonies are horrible. Celine Dion ... probably a good singer but man she can just hide somewhere (but she can't find a hiding place for her 15 foot neck). Disliking music is fine. It's subjective. Right. I've said this before, but you don't have to listen to any music you don't like. Don't like the music on the radio? Don't listen to the music on the radio then. And remember that no matter what music you're listening to people will dislike that music as well. Are your opinions worth more than others? Obviously yes, that's a stupid question. But still.

It is also a display of ignorance, often willfull. No matter what you're into there's a community for it. Saying that "all music sounds the same now" is actually true, provided you listen to a playlist with nothing but house. It's just not true. If you think all modern music sound the same, and suffer from it, you have clearly never been on the internet before. These two songs are from roughly the same period.

tl;dr - You can listen to anything you want. Don't limit yourself to just listen to what you thought was good fifteen years ago. Don't get upset about how crappy Justin B-BOYAH is, you don't have to listen to him. Unless you want to.

As a closing argument, here is one of the best songs ever made. I seriously think that. I dance to it, and that is coming from someone who slept to ...And Justice For All when he grew up. It's ok if you disagree, you can listen to whatever you like. Whatever you like.

Man here's another one I can't stop dancing to.[/SPOILER]
Posted on Reply
#21
StrayKAT
Vayra86 said:
Great comparison, on demand files versus streamed content... Its all lossy anyway, choice of evils if you're an audiophile and everyone who isn't probably can't hear the difference or doesn't care enough.

As for Apple.. it doesn't cease to amaze me how they've acquired their cult-like following and how they continue to extract money out of nothing more than branding and some cheap hardware. Quite an achievement, though I can't say I'm admiring it. If you compare IOS today to Android for example, it is so incredibly inferior on virtually everything, its stunning that people still fall for it. Apple lags behind the curve and thrives on it. Its so weird, I guess it requires a different kind of intelligence to 'like' that, mostly a non-tech savvy one.
I still think their OS rocks.. and NextStep before it. It has nothing to do with branding.. just that they've managed to make the best desktop UNIX versions around. I doubt the "cult of Apple" hardly cares though.

trparky said:
You have to have decent music in the first place to really care about audio quality. Today's pop crap is just that... crap. I can't stand that stuff. It's mass produced garbage.
Even when it isn't crap, there are the "loudness wars" ruining quality too. Like with Remasters.
Posted on Reply
#22
eidairaman1
The Exiled Airman
Still wont buy anything of theirs.
Posted on Reply
#23
FordGT90Concept
"I go fast!1!11!1!"
windwhirl said:
I bet Microsoft never thought this would happen when they invested $150 million in Apple in 1997.
Apple was more concerned about all of the development costs of porting Office to Mac OS X that they wanted returns on. They were also concerned about the anti-trust vultures looming overhead. Between the two, $150 million in a competitor was a good investment.

ssdpro said:
There is the same flaw. The value doesn't equate with size. Apple has the valuation of 1 trillion not because of size; Samsung maintains a higher product market share. Apple has a 19% market share and Samsung has 30%. Apple iOS devices have 19% against Android devices as a whole at 77%. People aren't choosing an Apple device 81% of the time. It is just that Apple sees higher margins thanks to separatation of design from manufacturing so the sleazy manufacturing practices don't attach to Apple too closely.
The Value of Intellectual Property, Intangible Assets and Goodwill

The ability for a company to make money is no longer priority #1 for investors. Just look at Tesla: it has yet to turn a profit, the products they sell are totaled the moment the warranty is up, and yet it has a $60 billion market cap.

Looks like a speculative bubble on the surface, doesn't it? I have yet to see an article that says it is. If you want to buy out a company, you have to buy out the market cap. How much is Apple's patent portfolio worth? Wal-Mart makes a crapload more money on an annual basis than Apple does but Wal-Mart doesn't have hundreds of patents it actively protects.
Posted on Reply
#24
Lycanwolfen
Good artists copy, Great Artists Steal. 1 Trillion dollars worth of stolen products sold to people.
Posted on Reply
#25
StrayKAT
Lycanwolfen said:
Good artists copy, Great Artists Steal. 1 Trillion dollars worth of stolen products sold to people.
I assume you mean the oft-repeated statement that Jobs stole the Mac's GUI by Xerox? You should probably get your history from the people involved. He had made a deal with Xerox and offered company shares, if he was allowed to go to their labs. From there, he took their GUI and mouse idea and improved upon it (and they willingly let him do it.. why do you think he was allowed there in the first place? Just for fun?).

As for the rest of their foundational tech, it wasn't stolen. When Jobs left, he formed NeXTStep, which was way ahead of it's time in implementing desktop UNIX. And the parts borrowed were FREE. Like BSD UNIX and Mach research. Even the damn PS4 is based off of BSD.. but I hear no one talking about it being stolen technology. Even the BSD engineers would laugh at anyone saying that. The BSD license is the most flexible in existence on purpose. It's why Jobs and Sony used it to begin with.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment