Apple is first public company worth $1 trillion

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45050213

Apple has become the world's first public company to be worth $1 trillion on Thursday.

The iPhone maker's market capitalisation reached the figure in afternoon trading in New York as its shares rose above $207.

The stock has risen about 9% since Tuesday when it reported better than expected results for the three months to June.

Apple's stock has risen more than 50,000% since it first listed in 1980.

That compares with a (mere) 2,000% rise for the S&P 500 in the same period.
 
16239ea6faa92ea18cdbfbfb1ec9713d4b2ffa56da8df5307435d969d80aa070.jpg

www.forbes.com/sites/drewhansen/2018/08/01/triple-stock-buybacks-apple-workers-economy/

Companies have been taking out loans or dipping into their cash reserves in order to buy up their own stock, to the tune of millions or billions of dollars worth. This drives up the price of that stock, not only because there is less of it, but because its perceived value increases through it being bought and sold.

Similar to GDP, it gets its value not from any kind of objective valuation, but from its perceived value. If in your country you have a corporation making Whatsits and charging 1 dollar a pop for it, if you instead charge 2 dollars a pop, the GDP will see a proportional increase in production despite there being no material difference between these $1 and $2 Whatsits.

For corporations, stock purchases have a similar effect. Buying up stocks make those stocks more valuable, which makes the company more valuable. In effect, its a way for corporations to create the appearance of a thriving and expanding company despite it not necessarily being true. This has been a major driver of the economy since 2008 as the Federal Reserve has been pumping it month after month, year after year, with low or zero interest loans. These companies have been taking this money and inflating their success, whether or not they've actually been expanding, or producing more, or gaining more sales or profitability.

This used to be illegal until the Reagan administration for exactly that reason. It creates the illusion of growth without the uncomfortable necessity of actual growth. It distorts the actual appreciation of market value, discoupling it from a company's actual performance. This hasn't been so much of a problem until recently for myriad reasons, but in the last decade it's become a serious factor for the stock market. Despite there being little to no actual growth, and until very recently an actual decline in productivity and productive forces, the overall valuation of the stock market has risen pretty much unimpeded year after year.

In theory it does portend a harder crash at some point. The common thread of market failures from the 20th century until now is that market distortions have compounding effects, with production outstripping consumption. Because everything receives its value in relation or comparison to everything else, these disproportionate forces can spread throughout the economy, creating bubbles, bull markets, etc, based on nothing but the appearance of profitability.
 
Apple is for faggots, dumb cunts, thots and hipsters.

If you buy a macbook you are a literal retard. By the time the hardware comes out it's already dated and you're basically burning money.

Apple is the example of a company that has mastered marketing as pretty much all of its products are inferior to alternatives in price and technology but have established such a massive rep.
 
Ever since Jobs died, Apple has been going the way of where it was in the early to mid-1990s, where everything started to look like shit after dropping the "Snow White" aesthetic and releasing mediocre software only slightly better than Windows 9x stuff. When Jobs returned and released those ugly iMacs, even they looked good.
I'm not convinced there has ever been any real talent at Apple besides Jobs himself, and I think part of the reason is that for his entire career he absolutely had to be the big man on campus and overshadow every other contributor. I think he probably put extra effort into terrorizing any employee who risked looking more valuable than him and over the long term that became part and parcel of the company's hiring culture.
 
As shit as their labor practices are, Apple makes a great product. Their iPod range was always great, at least until they discontinued the iPod Classic, and my old ass iPhone still works and is still great. Nobody else was making a media player as great as the iPod back in the day (and IIRC, the iPod Classic has the highest capacity for any commercial media player), and the iPhone has generally been superior to its competitors (at least the older iPhones like what I own, since I'm a poorfag and don't buy a new iPhone every year).

Really, it makes sense.
 
Apple is for faggots, dumb cunts, thots and hipsters.

If you buy a macbook you are a literal exceptional individual. By the time the hardware comes out it's already dated and you're basically burning money.

Apple is the example of a company that has mastered marketing as pretty much all of its products are inferior to alternatives in price and technology but have established such a massive rep.
Yep. It's a 2000 dollar facebook machine for most people who buy it. Few people actually use it to its full capabilities. A PC at that same price range in parts will beat the shit out of an Apple product. People love comparing a 200 dollar PC to a 2000 dollar Apple computer. It's like comparing a Chevy Spark to a Mustang GT V8 5.0L. Of course the latter will smoke the shit out of the former.

As shit as their labor practices are, Apple makes a great product. Their iPod range was always great, at least until they discontinued the iPod Classic, and my old ass iPhone still works and is still great. Nobody else was making a media player as great as the iPod back in the day (and IIRC, the iPod Classic has the highest capacity for any commercial media player), and the iPhone has generally been superior to its competitors (at least the older iPhones like what I own, since I'm a poorfag and don't buy a new iPhone every year).

Really, it makes sense.
Here's a real fun fact. I was briefly working a security job at Apple and they had to use a Windows virtual box to run ALL of their programs. Programs like oh I don't know...cameras, security programs for locking/unlocking doors (they love to automate everything in a weird way that is actually not a good idea for physical security), checking alarms, etc.

You know you've fucked up when you have to use your competitor's software to run some pretty basic security programs.

My Note 3 has been dropped a ton of times. The screen has not even gotten a scratch on it. Try that with an iPhone. The damn thing cracks if you look at it wrong.

Samsung > Apple any day. Also the Surface > iPad any day all day.
 
People who compare $2000 macs to $200 pcs are retarded, moreover, they're deliberately avoiding the $200 that beat $2000 macs (look up "hackintosh" on youtube). Oh but what about the customer experience? Lol, apple hates your guts, hates your computer, they hire retarded hipsters who don't know how to service their products, and they have layers of EULA bullshit to insulate themselves from your attempts to get any kind of satisfaction. This poor dumbass got pot metal screws included in his VESA mount for a $5000 imac, then the "genius bar" proceded to "fix" the problems that created with what looks like a job done with a hammer and chisel.

 
16239ea6faa92ea18cdbfbfb1ec9713d4b2ffa56da8df5307435d969d80aa070.jpg

www.forbes.com/sites/drewhansen/2018/08/01/triple-stock-buybacks-apple-workers-economy/

Companies have been taking out loans or dipping into their cash reserves in order to buy up their own stock, to the tune of millions or billions of dollars worth. This drives up the price of that stock, not only because there is less of it, but because its perceived value increases through it being bought and sold.

Similar to GDP, it gets its value not from any kind of objective valuation, but from its perceived value. If in your country you have a corporation making Whatsits and charging 1 dollar a pop for it, if you instead charge 2 dollars a pop, the GDP will see a proportional increase in production despite there being no material difference between these $1 and $2 Whatsits.

For corporations, stock purchases have a similar effect. Buying up stocks make those stocks more valuable, which makes the company more valuable. In effect, its a way for corporations to create the appearance of a thriving and expanding company despite it not necessarily being true. This has been a major driver of the economy since 2008 as the Federal Reserve has been pumping it month after month, year after year, with low or zero interest loans. These companies have been taking this money and inflating their success, whether or not they've actually been expanding, or producing more, or gaining more sales or profitability.

This used to be illegal until the Reagan administration for exactly that reason. It creates the illusion of growth without the uncomfortable necessity of actual growth. It distorts the actual appreciation of market value, discoupling it from a company's actual performance. This hasn't been so much of a problem until recently for myriad reasons, but in the last decade it's become a serious factor for the stock market. Despite there being little to no actual growth, and until very recently an actual decline in productivity and productive forces, the overall valuation of the stock market has risen pretty much unimpeded year after year.

In theory it does portend a harder crash at some point. The common thread of market failures from the 20th century until now is that market distortions have compounding effects, with production outstripping consumption. Because everything receives its value in relation or comparison to everything else, these disproportionate forces can spread throughout the economy, creating bubbles, bull markets, etc, based on nothing but the appearance of profitability.

Apple has $285 billion in cash reserves. Stock buybacks are just returning some of that to investors.
I'm still bullish on them. Consumer confidence is at all-time highs and even with the jitters from Facebook's drop the market is still very positive.
(I say this as someone whose last Apple product was an iPod Touch)
 
I'm not convinced there has ever been any real talent at Apple besides Jobs himself, and I think part of the reason is that for his entire career he absolutely had to be the big man on campus and overshadow every other contributor. I think he probably put extra effort into terrorizing any employee who risked looking more valuable than him and over the long term that became part and parcel of the company's hiring culture.
Hey man, don't be dissin' on Steve Wozniak. He basically laid the foundation for Apple's success with building and designing the Apple II. And there's been some talent at Apple, but they're relative unknowns compared to Jobs.
 
That's another thing I've noticed about the cults behavior since this news broke out; they've lowballed Steve Wozniak's valuation to the company, as if the amount you invest in a company is relative to the size of your dick.
 
Última edición:
As shit as their labor practices are, Apple makes a great product. Their iPod range was always great, at least until they discontinued the iPod Classic, and my old ass iPhone still works and is still great. Nobody else was making a media player as great as the iPod back in the day (and IIRC, the iPod Classic has the highest capacity for any commercial media player), and the iPhone has generally been superior to its competitors (at least the older iPhones like what I own, since I'm a poorfag and don't buy a new iPhone every year).

Really, it makes sense.

Creative had a hard disk player out before iPod existed, and it was higher capacity IIRC. The original iphone was miles behind the Nokia N95 in terms of technology, the only thing it had was a capacitive touchscreen that was a relative rarity at the time. Every other iPhone has been last-gen when you compare them to what else is in the same price bracket.
 
Hey man, don't be dissin' on Steve Wozniak. He basically laid the foundation for Apple's success with building and designing the Apple II. And there's been some talent at Apple, but they're relative unknowns compared to Jobs.
Oh, I don't mean to belittle Woz, his autism may be so high grade that it got banned by the SALT II agreements but he definitely has more of a hand in getting Apple off the ground than anyone else. I think he may be part of why Jobs went on to hog the spotlight. As you say there are talented individuals there but Jobs always made sure it was his name the masses associated with the company, not any of theirs.
 
Apple shit is made for dumbasses and old people. You're not allowed to do much with the devices (compared to say, Windows), so it's 'harder' to 'break' them like you would break a Windows installation.

I work as a computer repair technician and I fucking hate dealing with apple shit. Mostly because Apple doesn't like it when third parties repair and maintain their products so they purposely make it difficult for people like me to open up a phone (They superglue a lot of iPhones shut on top of using screws, just as a 'fuck you', I'm sure).

However, I always recommend apple products to rich-looking old people who are incapable of handling Windows or Linux without breaking the installations. Apple products seem to be made with idiots in mind, and that's all the credit I can give them.
 
Apple shit is made for dumbasses and old people. You're not allowed to do much with the devices (compared to say, Windows), so it's 'harder' to 'break' them like you would break a Windows installation.

I work as a computer repair technician and I fucking hate dealing with apple shit. Mostly because Apple doesn't like it when third parties repair and maintain their products so they purposely make it difficult for people like me to open up a phone (They superglue a lot of iPhones shut on top of using screws, just as a 'fuck you', I'm sure).

However, I always recommend apple products to rich-looking old people who are incapable of handling Windows or Linux without breaking the installations. Apple products seem to be made with idiots in mind, and that's all the credit I can give them.
I'm a webdev and I fucking dread whenever customers ask me to make anything work in Safari, because of course Apple can't be fucked to maintain Safari on Windows so I gotta use their crap just to even test it and even then Safari's still an outdated piece of garbage that barely tries to keep up with current W3C standards and its developer tools are shit.

I also got a friend in gamedev who makes games for mobile, both Android and iOS. Publishing anything for iOS is shit and a huge pain in the ass.

Fuck Apple.
 
http://archive.is/JOeAh

A lot of buzzwords about not treating the customer like a product.

However; at a cursory glance at the install base, is it even possible for Apple NOT to treat the customer like a product? One trillion dollars is an ungodly milestone to sustain, even under the mundane guise of "it just works". Also; given the amount of praise iOS's security gets, there has to be a sustainable amount of user data mined to keep quotas in check. At the end of the day a corporation exists to make money, and go above conventional means of what is accepted or tolerated by "willing" participants.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo